HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 01:28:46 GMT
From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Analogue Problems With Digital Switches
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 653, Message 6 of 11

> Anyway, I performed a quick test, which proved that there is no CPC
> through the analog line ports of the Northern PBX switch....
> ...  We looked in to converting the affected lines to E&M trunks,
> with E&M to loop start converters (Northern says that the analog
> trunks, as opposed to lines, do have CPC.), but at $500 or more per
> line for the converters.  Why not loop start trunks, instead of lines?
> No ring voltage!  oh well.  In the end, Corporate has had to install a
> bunch of CO lines to the affected lines.  Meanwhile, they have
> promises from Northern for a fix "soon".

Well it is true that the SL-1 (or M-1 if you prefer :)) does not
provide CPC on the 500 lines Northern have tried to help out in the
short term with a software fix.  A new class of service provides for
the return of dial tone after the calling/called party has
disconnected.  This may be less than what we really want but I take it
that the existing line cards would not support a line reversal type
CPC signal.  Since CO lines do not always provide CPC many
manufacturers of CPE equipment such as answering machines and voice
mail recognize that the return of dialtone signifies a disconnect and
these will work well with the new SL-1 feature.


In article <telecom12.619.5@eecs.nwu.edu> rickie@trickie.uucp (Richard
Nash) rants:

> DONT HOLD YOUR BREATH!!! You will turn red, then blue, then black
> doing so:) :) :) 

> Soon means sometime this or next year, or perhaps after somebody real
> important has leaned on them real hard threatening all sorts of
> litigation! :) :) They don't give a damn about accounts less than a
> couple million clams! :) :) :) :)

NT as well as any company makes mistakes.  Most like this one are done
because no one put it in the design spec, the engineer doesn't know
what we'll do with it when he's through :).  That's for people like
us.


Disclaimer:   I don't work for NT and I speak solely for myself.

Vance Shipley  vances@xenitec.on.ca   vances@ltg.uucp
  ...uunet.ca!xenitec!vances
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 11:02 PDT
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: CPSR and Class: Rebuttal to Forrette, Harrell and Higdon
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 652, Message 1 of 13

gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) writes:

> Suppose that were many local loop providers instead of just one.  In
> that marketplace, I would go with the one who promises not to use SS7,
> and not to implement CNID.  Since I don't have choice, I favor a
> regulatory requirement.

I believe this sums up your entire rebuttal. I do not wish to put
words in your mouth, but what you seem to say is that you, personally,
do not like this particular telecommunications advancement (SS7 and
CLASS).  Therefore, you do not want any part of it. Since it is
integrated into the network, you are forced to deal with it.
Therefore, you would like to see the technology banned so that no one
could use it. To justify this position, you feel the need to convince
others of the universal harm that will come from this technology.
After all, if you are telling everyone to do without, you have to give
them good reason to agree with you.

You may be interested to know that your argument was once applied to
the basic telephone. By the way, you will need to turn the clock back
further than SS7, since SS6 also has calling number delivery
capability.

Endless commentary describing alternatives to CLASS features does not
provide effective argument against the technology. One can make
similar arguments against almost any product of the twentieth century.
For instance, we all have to breath the air that is polluted by
automobiles. Horse-drawn carts will take you where you need to go. Why
not go back? Or how about the fact that on an ocean liner you can
party, eat, sleep, and do all kinds of fun things. There is no need
for aircraft. Airplanes crash. Let us ban them.

IMHO, your arguments against modern telephone technology are a
textbook example of the usual public resistance to anything that is
new or poorly understood. I would think that someone who participates
in computer forums would operate at a slightly higher plane. I have an
alternative suggestion to your point of view: perhaps you should
disconnect your telephone and be simply personally inconvenienced
rather than attempt to deprive the rest of society of developments
that you have deemed harmful and unnecessary.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
From: dag@ossi.com (Darren Alex Griffiths)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: My Email Address
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:29:39 GMT
Organization: Open Systems Solutions Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 648, Message 1 of 10

> [Moderator's Note: I hope responses to Mr. King get through okay. The
> address on his email is one of the strangest I have ever seen.   PAT]

What you're seeing in the address is the wonders of poor man's routing
when combined with the equally daunting features of DECnet Phase IV.
Presumably Mr. King is connected to the system am_msbcs, in order to
get to that system you have to go through all of the others starting
from the left most bxbmts.  In reality it probably isn't that bad.  I
have worked looked at DECs internal network a couple of times and it
is fairly well designed, at least as well as DECnet will allow.  The
chances are some crucial router was down and DECnet managed to figure
out a route around it, one of the few things DECnet does well.


Cheers,

Darren Alex Griffiths         dag@nasty.ossi.com
Open Systems Solutions Inc.   (510) 652-6200 x139
Fujitsu Ltd.                  Fax: (510) 652-5532
6121 Hollis Street            Emeryville, CA 94608-2092
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 11:56:01 EDT
From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 710 and ABCD?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 628, Message 7 of 11

> Here's a thought (brought about by the recent thread on the ABCD
> tones being used with AUTOVON):

> What happen if I gave those to the CO here? Would they even break the dial
> tone, and if they did, how would the CO react to them?  I've heard of
> cases where people used those tones as part of passwords on voicemail
> systems, etc.  Any answers?  PAT]

I have a phone with ABCD on it.  Here at 508-653-xxxx ABCD does not
break dial tone.  We have a very old ESS at our CO.

If you have any other specific tests you would like me to try, let me
know.
 

Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390     UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu
From: coleman@twinsun.com (Mike Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Solicitation Slime
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:06:06 GMT
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 642, Message 9 of 10

[John Higdon receives bad treatment my a tele-sales-slime crank, and
says telemarketing needs to be outlawed.]

To paraphrase a similar adage regarding the difference between
liberals and conservatives, I think the difference between those who
think telemarketers are wonderful and those who think telemarketing
should be outlawed is that the former have not had a horrible
telesleaze experience.  *Yet*.


Mike
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 06:39:40 GMT
From: knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Good *Sounding* Answering Machines
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 624, Message 6 of 12

In <telecom12.616.4@eecs.nwu.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M
Wiener) writes:

> Most answering machines made today sound like unqualified pieces of
> junk, particularly to the caller listening to the OGM.  The condenser
> mics in most machines sound tinny, and pick up motor noise.

If the problem you're experiencing is solely (or primarily) the
quality of the microphone, consider making the recording in a better
quality recorder.  If your machine uses normal cassettes, use your
stereo system or ghetto blaster; if you have smaller tapes, buy or
borrow a Radio Shack mini-recorder.

When we purchased our first "celebrity impersonator" answering machine
tape, we didn't like the quality after playing it into the recorder,
so we just dubbed it onto the OGM tape and voila` -- much better
sound.


Rob Knauerhase           
knauer@knauer.intel.com  Intel Multimedia Software Technology Group (summer)
knauer@cs.uiuc.edu       UIUC, Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 16:22:45 PDT
From: mickeyf@vnet.ibm.com (Mickey Ferguson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Old Dogs Learn Faster!
Organization: Rolm
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 633, Message 1 of 10

In TELECOM Digest V12 No. 615 (item 16) BOB VOGEL <RXV9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu> writes:

 ... much stuff omitted ...

> How do we enrich our brain?  By reading TELECOM Digest, of course.
> And the 80+ year olds probably get more out of it than anyone younger
> can.

> [Moderator's Note: Blush ... thanks for your kind comments.  PAT]

Pat, depending on how one interprets the above, it could be a slam
instead.  The info in the Digest is only useful to the 80+ since
anyone younger would already know it.  :) Think about it ... but not
too hard - don't want to tax the ol' noggin!  :) :) :)


Mickey Ferguson -- Rolm -- FergusoM at scrvm2 -- mickeyf@vnet.ibm.com
From: vixen!jadams@uunet.UU.NET (26070-adams)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Overblown Centrex
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:22:05 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 629, Message 5 of 6

In article <telecom12.621.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John
Higdon) writes:

> Pac*Bell is cranking up with its borderline fraudulent Centrex
> commercials once again.  ...{Bandwidth conservation measures at work!}

> But Pac*Bell's efforts to push the offering as the
> answer to ALL communications requirements is not playing fair or even
> honestly.

The summary line says it all!  Just be thankful the marketing critters
aren't lawyers!  How's that for a scarey thought?


Jack (John) Adams	   Bellcore RRC 4B-259
(908) 699-3447 {Voice}	   (908) 336-2871 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com  kahuna@attmail.com
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 19:41:11 GMT
From: jmoore@pixel.kodak.com (James H. Moore 726-0322)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: What Are People Using For "Telnet"
Organization: Eastman Kodak
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 639, Message 4 of 14

This is a naive question. I was told that to do terminal emulation and
connect over a tcp/ip network, that I should get NCSA Telnet, and the
Clarkson packet drivers.  I got the latest and greatest from NCSA and
went to Clarkson to get the "packet drivers", and found a "This Stuff
is Outdated" file in Clarkson's telnet directory.  I went back to our
overworked networking person to ask why NCSA has two different
versions of Telnet for the PC and Mac (2.3, and 2.5), and he suggested
using the Clarkson packet drivers only on the PC version of Telnet
(version 2.3).

Someone else is looking into the Mac version.

Well, here I am with limited access to either a PC or a Mac, needing
Telnet for others who do have PCs and Macs to use to reach us.  What
configurations are in use around the net?

Any advice/pointers are welcome.  Are the versions of NCSA Telnet for
PCs and Macs different in extension just because PCs and Macs are so
different?

If you want to be able to open an interactive session on to a Unix
server, and have a mechanism for transferring files back and you have
the following scenarios: using
 
tcp/ip (ethernet)	from DOS
			from Mac
			from MSWindows

novell (ethernet or token-ring)
			from DOS
			from MSWindows

Appletalk		from Mac

serial line (by modem)	from DOS
			from Mac
			from MSWindows

What would you do?  What is freely redistributable or public domain?
We want anyone within our company to be able to access us easily, and
with least cost.

Thanks in advance for your insights!!


James H. Moore, The Software Warehouse, Eastman Kodak Co. 726-0322
jmoore@pixel.kodak.com, PROFS: EKSMTP(JMOORE)  VMS: UX047A::JMOORE
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 17:37:15 CDT
From: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 710 and ABCD?
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 643, Message 4 of 13

ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:

> I wonder what 1-710-555-ABCD would do ... (probably nothing, right)?

> [Moderator's Note: An interesting question to me is what would happen
> if those tones were sounded to a regular CO. For example what would
> happen if I gave those to the CO here? Would they even break the dial
> tone, and if they did, how would the CO react to them?

I just tried it here in Minneapolis.  ATDTAABBCCDD did not break the
dialtone.  ATDT588AABC went nowhere, presumably because the ABCD tones
are completely ignored.


Due to failure of my mail connection, please use the following emergency
addresses to reply:
roy%cybrspc@tfsquad.mn.org   cybrspc!roy@tfsquad.mn.org   roy@tfsquad.mn.org
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:33:33 GMT
From: drawson@sagehen.Tymnet.COM (Dick Rawson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Good *Sounding* Answering Machines
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 632, Message 10 of 13

> Most answering machines made today sound like unqualified pieces of
> junk, particularly to the caller listening to the OGM.  The condenser
> mics in most machines sound tinny, and pick up motor noise.

First try an easy fix -- talk close to the microphone.  Get it close,
but to one side of your mouth to reduce sounds of breathing into the
mic element.  The automatic level control in the recording path
usually reduces audio gain so as not to overload the recording - this
cuts down the background noise, room echos, and motor noise.  Talking
closely also reduces the tinny sound.  Whether it's enough of an
improvement is a question you have to decide.  I've found I like the
result.


Dick
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:20:08 GMT
From: jpc@avdms8.lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (J. Porter Clark)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: RS-422-A: Which Way is Up, Polarity Wise?
Organization: NASA/MSFC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 641, Message 3 of 13

Over here in the space hardware world we're trying to resolve a
documentation conflict about the polarity of the RS-422-A signals.

If I send a "1" (a *real* "1"), which lead, A or B, is positive with
respect to the other?

I know this has been a controversial topic in the past, with one
vendor doing one thing and another the opposite, but what is the
current thinking?

Send mail, I'll summarize.


J. Porter Clark    jpc@avdms8.msfc.nasa.gov or jpc@gaia.msfc.nasa.gov
NASA/MSFC Communications Systems Branch
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 09:51:36 EDT
From: bxbmts::bxbmts::mrgate::bxb::msbcs::am_msbcs::king@msbcs.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Peculiar Event During Phone Call
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 641, Message 9 of 13

I recently called a friend when a strange thing happened during the
call.

The call was placed from within the Eastern Massachusetts LATA
(508/617).  The destination of the call was to Norwood, MA where I
believe the switch is a DMS-100.

During the conversation his line went silent a couple of times. It was
as though I was on the 'waiting' end of call waiting.  The line has
call waiting but no calls came in during our conversation.  At one
point the line went silent for about ten seconds and then I heard the
ringing sound.  He did something, hit the the on-hook switch I assume,
and we started talking again.  Apparently their line has recently been
having alot of problems just like this.

I'm curious what would cause this and what the problem is?


Thanks,

Bryan King     Digital Equipment Corporation


[Moderator's Note: I hope responses to Mr. King get through okay. The
address on his email is one of the strangest I have ever seen.   PAT]
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 07:33 CDT
From: mcb@ihlpf.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Call Return vs. Call Forward
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 653, Message 9 of 11

Sorry to be a bearer or bad news (or good news depending on your
viewpoint), but Call Return, aka Automatic Callback or Automatic
Recall, attempts will not complete if the called line has Call
Forwarding Variable active or Call Forwarding Busy Line and is busy.

BellCore TR-TSY-000215, section 3.8 "Interactions" states that:

"An AC request should be denied (i.e., the short term denial
announcement [reorder]) if the called line has Call Forwarding
Variable active or SCF [Selective Call Forwarding] in effect for calls
from the AC customer."

"AC attempts should be allowed to lines with Call Forwarding Busy
Line, but call setup should only be attempted when the base station
is idle."

The TCAP message that is returned contains a indication that the DN is
call forwarded in addition to the busy/idle status of the line.


Mark Baker     - just my opinion    ... AT&T Network Systems
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:45:42 PST
From: MARCUS@CPVA.SAIC.COM (Mark R. Jenkins)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 2500 Picturephone in the News
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 645, Message 17 of 17

In article <telecom12.638.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, jeffj@krf.com (Jeff Jonas)
writes:

> In the "home" section of the Thursday August 13 {New York Times},
> there's an article by N.R. Kleinfield about his two week long test of
> the AT&T Videophone 2500.

[... text removed...]

> I wonder how long before 900 numbers offer video services?

Some of them already do.  West Coast Swingers, a California personals
magazine, has a 900 number with video phones.  Other than knowing that
they have them, I have no other knowledge of how much it costs, how
well they work, etc ...


Mark Jenkins <Marcus@CPVA.SAIC.Com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 06:47:12 EDT
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Getting Ohio Bell to Fix my Line Noise
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 647, Message 2 of 11

In a recent TELECOM Digest issue (V12 #643, I believe) Jeff Sicherman
<sichermn@csulb.edu> writes:

> In article <telecom12.635.4@eecs.nwu.edu> sbrack@jupiter.cse.
> UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:

>> I've had Ohio Bell out here twice to get rid of the line noise
>> problem I'm having.  The noise comes in short bursts, and almost
>> always appears as the same set of characters.

>>	A sample:  "}i{_~r}i}i}i{_}i

[ Description of problem deleted ]

> PAT, this appeared some time ago, in a previous Digest. Seems possibly
> applicable; you might want to reprint it:

[ Description of what is happening is deleted ]

I had that problem not too long ago and it was corrected at the CO end
the day after I reported it to them.  Luckily, I had a person working
on the problem who understood right off the bat what I was talking
about.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 18:59:06 CDT
From: wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What Number Am I Calling From?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 624, Message 1 of 12

In a recent TELECOM digest, ricochet@spatula.rent.com (Rick O'Shea)
writes:

> Is there a way to get the number of the phone you're calling from?
> For example, the payphone in my laundromat isn't marked and the store
> owner says he doesn't know what it is. There's times when it would be
> more convenient to have somebody call me back, but if I don't know the
> number, how can they?

We used to have to call collect to a pre-arranged person who would
refuse charges and request the number so the fictitious party could
allegedly call back.

Now-adays, why not just call someone with caller ID and get the number
that way?

Keep in mind that not all pay phones are set up to receive incoming
calls.  I would test it before waiting for that 'important' call-back.
As far as I know, there is no other way to get a number of the pay
phone.


William Pfeiffer
Moderator - rec.radio.broadcasting - Internet Radio Journal

> Rick

P.S.  Rick O'Shea, great radio name :->
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:01:02 CDT
From: wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Good *Sounding* Answering Machines
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 626, Message 6 of 15

In a recent TELECOM Digest, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M
Wiener) asks:

> Most answering machines made today sound like unqualified pieces of
> junk, particularly to the caller listening to the OGM.  The condenser
> mics in most machines sound tinny, and pick up motor noise.

> What answering machines made today actually sound _good_ and deliver
> good quality OGM's?  

Most of the Panasonics, especially the models from the mid 80's, have
very pleasing sound on the OGM's.  With the newer models using
'standard' (as opposed to 'loop') cassettes, one can improve this
quality by recording the OGM on a standard cassette recorder with a
good quality microphone, then leaving a second or two of silence to
trigger the tone and the switch-over to record mode.

I use a cheap Panasonic 1458 (about $60.00) and it does a great job.


William Pfeiffer
Moderator - rec.radio.broadcasting - Internet Radio Journal