HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@toto.info.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Panasonic KX-Txxxx Mailing List
Date: 11 Jan 93 03:06:56 GMT
Organization: Sun, Surf 'n Sushi, San Diego, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 18, Message 5 of 18

Due to the popularity of the Panasonic KX-Txxx series of key systems,
there's a new mailing list starting up to discuss features, bugs and
other work-arounds for this wonderful family of electronic key
systems.

To subscribe, mail to:  kxt-request@info.com

To post an article, mail to:  kxt@info.com.


Bill Cerny  <bill@toto.info.com>  10288-0-700-FON-BILL
From: villalj@xanth.cs.orst.edu (John Villalovos)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Database of Area Codes, NPA-s and Zipcodes Wanted
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:13:58 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 21, Message 6 of 13

I was wondering if anyone could point me in a current or fairly
current list of Area Codes, NPA's and Zipcodes.  I wanted to be able
to set up an application where people could tell me their Zipcode and
I could figure out their Area code and possibly some of the NPA's for
the Zipcode.  I once had a program like this but I don't anymore.  It
was put out by AT&T and the data was somewhat out of date.


Thanks,

John Villalovos   Certified Netware Engineer
villalj@xanth.cs.orst.edu   (503) 753-7883


[Moderator's Note: I'll tell you who keeps a great data base on this:
our reader Carl Moore has lots of files on this. I'm sure when he sees
this he will contact you directly.   PAT]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:51:10 GMT
From: zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu (Randy [Java Man] Zagar)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 16550 UART Request
Reply-To: zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu
Organization: Marine Studies, University of Delaware
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 12, Message 5 of 13

Okay folks ... if you'll e-mail me the names of vendors that sell
computers with the 16550 UART on the motherboard, I'll summarize and
re-post to the net.


Thanks,

Randy Zagar   Internet: zagar@Chester.CMS.UDel.Edu  Bell-net: 302/831-1139
Date: Mon,  4 Jan 93 16:23:18 CST
From: varney@ihlpl.att.com (Alan L Varney)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 1A ESS Master Scanner Correction
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 9, Message 14 of 15

In response to an article from bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler), I
wrote:

> If you are MOST curious (i.e., willing to spend money), you
> should know that almost all the hardware (and some software, tools,
> testing details, etc.) associated with 1/1A ESS(tm) switches is
> described at a high level in two special issues of the Bell Labs
> Technical Journal (BSTJ), one on the 1 ESS switch, and a later one that
> describes the 1A Processor (used in both 1A ESS and 4ESS(tm) switches).

> "No. 1 Electronic Switching System", BSTJ, Vol. 43 No. 5,
>        September 1964, Parts 1 & 2.
> "The 1A Processor", BSTJ, Vol. 43 No. 5, February 1977.

   Terry Kennedy has (rightly) questioned the Volume numbers ... the
second reference should be:

    "The 1A Processor", BSTJ, Vol. 56 No. 2, February 1977.


Al Varney -- just MY mistake
From: paul@unhtel.unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Use a Phone, Go to Jail
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:02:32 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 19, Message 6 of 10

Recently here (Strafford County, NH) a man was sentenced to four
months in jail for telephone harrasment for making two "hang up"
calls.

With this type of precedent, couldn't we give telemarketers at least
30 days (first offense...) and 800- number billing converters 5-10
years?  :-) :-)


Paul S. Sawyer    - University of New Hampshire CIS - paul@unhtel.unh.edu
Telecommunications and Network Services             - VOX: +1 603 862 3262
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                   - FAX: +1 603 862 2030
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:17:39 GMT
From: cek@sdc.boeing.com (Conrad Kimball)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Colorado Gets Caller ID
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle, WA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 19, Message 10 of 10

In article <telecom13.8.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, rlucas@bvsd.Co.EDU (Richard
Lucas) writes:

> The best gauge of consumer opinion is how they vote with their
> dollars, not with their words.  If Colorado's first-day results can be
> generalized to other areas, then John Higdon is quite correct that the
> PUC decision in California gives the voices of a few more weight than
> the desires of the majority.

Sometimes that is quite proper.  Tyranny of the majority, and all
that.  And that's assuming "the majority" is _fully_ informed of the
issues, which I doubt is the case in this particular situation.


Conrad Kimball       | Client Server Tech Services, Boeing Computer Services
cek@sdc.boeing.com   | P.O. Box 24346, MS 7A-35
(206) 865-6410       | Seattle, WA  98124-0346
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 22:04:20 EST
From: David Leibold <DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: FAQ Update on The Way
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 12, Message 6 of 13

Some corrections and comments have arrived with respect to the FAQ
which was re-posted to start the year off. Since the FAQ hasn't been
touched in a year, I am about to get an update out of the way. This is
the last chance to send in any corrections or other ideas for the
version 4 FAQ which is expected to be available by the end of January.

so ... send those cards and letters to:

dleibold1@attmail.com or ... dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca
Date: 06 Jan 93 10:04:04 EST
From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Colorado Gets Caller ID
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 10, Message 10 of 11

In TELECOM Digest V13, #8 I read the following concerning Caller ID
penetration.
 
Colorado (Richard Lucas):    Heavy Demand at initial offering.
Nevada   (Centel)       :    10% penetration
IBT      (Moderator)    :    Very popular service long term
New Jersey (NJ Bell)    :    4.6% penetration (no blocking available)
 
Colorada has PUC mandated restrictions about blocking availability
and, as I remember, so does IBT. I am unsure about Nevada -- does
anyone know if blocking availablity is mandated there?
 
I realize that initial demand in Colorado doesn't necessarily
translate into similar long term demand, but for the sake of argument,
assume it does.  Let's also assume that Nevada has mandated blocking
availability.
 
That would mean that Caller ID penetration is higher in those areas
with mandated blocking than in the area that doesn't have any blocking
at all available. By more than double in the case of Nevada!
 
Perhaps PacBell is making a marketing mistake by not offering caller
id even though mandated blocking restrictions would apply? Perhaps
their total revenues would be higher than if no blocking at all was
available?

 
Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:20:19 GMT
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 20, Message 6 of 17

I think that the public, or at least, the readers of this Digest, can
help correct this problem ... for every non-toll-free 800 number you
can find, share it with as many friends as you can.  Then, whenever
you have some time to kill and you're near a public telephone, place
lots of calls to these numbers.  When the telco or other public
telephone provider starts getting these bills, they'll probably use
their clout with regulatory agencies to suppress such use of the 800
service access code.

Any thoughts on this?


Dave Levenson		Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc.		UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA		Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857


[Moderator's Note: And you also are invited to read my comments on
this in an earlier message in this issue. It just won't work any
longer; the astrologers and Tarot practitioners don't want any more BS
 from the deadbeats of the world (like all good TELECOM Digest
Moderators) ... Mystic Marketing says cut it out, now!  To be sure you
do, they've got the number of the payphones at the local 7/11 or bus
station, or wherever you are when you get the urge.  :)  By all means
though, keep trying; let's be sure they get their data base as complete 
as possible.  :)  PAT]
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:11:13 GMT
From: eleckc@nuscc.nus.sg (Chua Kee Chaing (Dr))
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Asia-Pacific Engineering Journal - Call For Papers
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 10, Message 4 of 11

ASIA-PACIFIC ENGINEERING JOURNAL PART A - ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

December 1993 Issue on Communications Engineering

CALL FOR PAPERS

The Asia-Pacific Engineering Journal (APEJ) provides within the
rapidly changing Asia-Pacific region a unique source of information on
current international research activities and trends in technology. It
aims to keep its readers fully briefed with major papers, reports and
reviews on state-of-the-art technologies and products. The journal is
published in separate parts that cover the disciplines of Electrical,
Mechanical, Civil, Chemical and Industrial Engineering. Part A is
devoted to Electrical Engineering, and covers the four main areas of
Communications Engineering, Computer Engineering, Control and
Automation, and Microelectronics.

The December 1993 issue of Part A of the APEJ is devoted to
Communications Engineering. The issue will be a special issue
concentrating on the field of High-Speed Networking, and original
contributions in all aspects of this field of research are now
solicited. In particular, relevant topics of interest include, but are
not limited to, the following:

* Broadband ISDN and ATM networks
* Gigabit/s networking
* Lightwave networks
* High-speed transport protocols
* Management of high-speed networks
* Flow and congestion control in high-speed networks

Prospective authors are requested to submit four (4) copies of their
manuscripts, written in English, and including a 100-word abstract, to
the following by 1 April 1993.

	Dr. Kee C. Chua
	Department of Electrical Engineering
	National University of Singapore
	10 Kent Ridge Crescent
	Singapore 0511
	Fax.: +65 777 3117
	Email.: eleckc@nuscc.nus.sg
From: kaufman@xenon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hunt Groups
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:56:30 GMT
Reply-To: kaufman@cs.stanford.edu
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 14, Message 2 of 14

rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:

> Is it possible for two numbers serviced by the same physical CO to be
> placed on a hunt group even though they has different exchange
> prefixes?

> I don't want to have either of my numbers changed since one is my old
> number everyone knows, and the other is a xxx-xx00 number (had to pull
> some strings to get it).  When I ordered service and made various
> inquiries, I run into folks who don't know what terms like "POTS line"
> and "demarc" mean, and offered me services excluded by tariff (the
> sales rep initially told me they could offer me a metered line, though
> this is prohibited if you have an unmetered line in the same house).

You can get the effect you want by ordering Remote Call Forwarding
from the old number to the new.  The old number becomes a bookkeeping
entry in the old central office that just forwards calls to your new
number.  I use it because there are lots of folks who just know my old
number (clients I haven't seen in a few years).  Not cheap ($15/mo +
message unit charges for the forwarded calls - PacBell), but if you
need it, you need it.


Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU)
From: dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: PC Software For ATTmail
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:50:15 GMT
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 18, Message 4 of 18

I would like to know the experiences of anyone using an inexpensive
non-ATT software package for the PC to interface to ATTmail. ATTmail
imposes a stiff fee for "online composition" of messages but this can
be avoided by composing messages off-line and up-loading via various
mail transfer packages. Most of the PC packages marketed by AT&T are
more expensive than I feel is necessary.

I understand that a UUCP protocol can be used. How do addresses such
as TELEX and X.400 work in various packages? How are they formatted.
I would appreciate specific experiences and recommendations.  Thank
you.


Donald R. Newcomb   dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu  newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:13:34 GMT
From: pacific!mkh%jato@jato-news.jpl.nasa.gov (michael hamilton)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: UUCP Through Multiple Carriers
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 10, Message 6 of 11

I am currently taking a newsfeed through a university (which shall
remain nameless, but Thank God John Robinson is back) in Los Angeles.
To do this, I must go through my local carrier GTE, and through the
carrier that services the university area, Pac-Bell.  Further, the
University has an Instanet Data PABX port selector that I have to
navigate through, before I finally reach the system I want.  To do
this, I'm using a Telebit T2500, and going through what I believe is a
Micom modem on the university side.

    My question: is all this routing through various switches causing
my horrible throughput?  I should be getting on the order of 1200 cps,
and I get more like 400, if and when I don't time out waiting for the
other end.  I have tried every combination of register settings,
disabling V.42, MNP, etc., but nothing improves this performance.  I
know it's not the modem, because talking to another T2500 (in the same
GTE area) I got >4X what I'm getting now.

    Thanks for any thoughts on this.  Responses through e-mail are
preferred, but if you post here I'll eventually see it.


michael hamilton   mkh@pacific.jpl.nasa.gov / oceanography from space
From: MCMANGPH@NUSVM.BITNET (Ang Peng Hwa)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Residential vs Business LD (was All Circuits Are Busy...)
Date: 5 Jan 93 09:22:48 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 9, Message 13 of 15

Dave Ptasnik wrote:

> With a higher percentage of business usage,  most OCCs have very
> litte traffic on their switches at nights, on weekends, and
> holidays. The trunks that are busily full during the day sit idle.
 
> We used periodically to get directives from our switch manager
> to  sell more residential accounts, and try to busy up the lines
> at night a little more.
 
I am trying to develop a theory around the facts provided above to
argue that there are limits to competition in the long-distance
market. (Ok, I know I'm treading on sacred grounds here.)
 
One of my arguments is that for true long-distance competition --
along the line of the USA model -- vs phony LD competition as in UK,
there must be a diversity of users: both residential and business.
 
As Dave noted, the residential users typically call in the evenings,
when trunks are idle.
 
While Dave notes the difficulty of finding residential users with more
than $50 in LD charges, I am finding difficulty obtaining the relevant
data to prove the point.
 
I'm still developing the idea so inputs sans flames are welcome.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 14:26:18 CST
From: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs KB5SNF)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
Organization: The Red Headed League; Lawton, Ok
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 15, Message 2 of 10

In comp.dcom.telecom, rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (and other in similar
words) writes:

> Or, take a lesser used route (MCI or Sprint).  For the future, the

Well I distinctly remember having trouble calling from Lawton, OK to
Fort Worth, TX using MCI, so they get saturated to.


Internet: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org
If I bounce (the maps have errors that I have no control over) then use
bo836@cleveland.freenet.edu   BITNET: bo836%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm
Date: 04 Jan 93 10:32:07 EST
From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY 
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 8, Message 11 of 11

John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes:
 
> Bob Yazz <yazz@oolong.la.locus.com> writes:
 
>> You don't seriously believe such a state of affairs will stand, do you
>> John?  The PUC will order that numbers not be delivered, period.  I
>> can even see the potential for lawsuits against Pac Bell over this.
 
> But the PUC cannot order this, just as it cannot prevent any carrier
> from passing realtime ANI to end users. In SS7, the calling number is
> ALWAYS transmitted as part of the data packet, although there is a bit
> that identifies it as a "blocked" number if such is the case.
 
Actually the PUC could order this and make it stand. The Network
Interconnect package needed to allow SS7 interconection between the
LEC and the IXC's makes provision for the calling number to be deleted
from any IAM message sent to the IXC. This is true in every central
office switch type I am aware of. This includes NTI, AT&T, and
Ericsson.
 
SWBT policy is that this feature is invoked in all central offices
with SS7 interconnection to IXC's until calling number delivery is
tariffed and sold in that CO and all subscribers have been fully
informed (through bill inserts, etc.) of the impacts they will see.
 
So the PUC could order this be done in PB-land and also require that
PB negotiate with the switch vendors to insure the capability is
retained from this day forward.

 
Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*
From: Lyle_Seaman@transarc.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Bell Atlantic Cellular Charges
Date: 10 Jan 93 01:57:04 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 16, Message 2 of 12

Someone recently posted some cellular charges for the Austin area, so
here's Bell Atlantic's rates.  There are some discounts if you have
lots of phones.

Bell Atlantic Cellular Price Plans 10/92, one phone:

Activation fee: $50.

                $ /min                free minutes
     $/month  peak/offpeak             peak/offpeak

  2:  28        0.40/0.40               0/  0*
 12:  27        0.37/0.37               0/  0* **
204:  18        0.65/0.15               0/200
214:  70        0.36/0.36              90/ 30**
212: 100        0.35/0.35             150/ 60**
211: 140        0.35/0.35             240/120**

*251-500 min usage => 4% discount, 501-750=>6%, 751+=>8%.  Discounts
apply only to home system minutes.

** these are "annual plans" which are "subject to substantial early
termination fee"

No charge for busy or unanswered calls.  Peak hours 0700-1900 Mon-Fri
except New Year's Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day.  Off-Peak hours all other times.
Airtime charges on a mobile originated call begin when connection to
the cellular system is established.  Cellular Radio service is capable
of being intercepted without the knowledge or permission of the user
by third parties possessing certain types of devices or equipment.
Each partial minutes of airtime is billed as a full minute.  Monthly
allowance does not apply to roaming.  Airtime and toll charges apply
to Bell Atlantic IQ Services (forwarding, call waiting, 3way calling,
no-answer/busy transfer).

Mobile Messenger: $6/month, free with plans 211 or 212
From: mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:59:38 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 21, Message 5 of 13

FZC@CU.NIH.GOV writes:

> In TELECOM Digest 12-928, ssay@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (say,halim s)
> asks:

>> I would like to find out the encoding for the ZIP code bars on USPS
>> mail envelopes.

> Ask the post office for the circular on bar code.  It's a small
> pamphlet of about 5 pages, and it explains how all of the codes work,
> as there are two codes; one for ZIP code and one for ZIP+4 code.
> There is no charge for the pamphlet.  If your local Post Office
> doesn't have it, try a main office in a large city.

I have that booklet.  The title is "A Guide to Business Mail
Preparation," Publication 25.  Here is the address for comments or
suggestions and I believe this is where I ordered it from:

Marketing Dept
Regular Mail Services Div
U S Postal Service HQ
475 L Enfant Plz SW Rm 5541
Washington DC 20260-6336

They describe the specs for the Postnet bar code and the FIM patterns.
As for the algorithm, I'll have to find my {2600} issue with the article
(where I found the address for the publication originally).  There's
52 bars in a ZIP + 4 Postnet bar code, with two long bars on either
end.  I can't remember the exact methodology for the bars in the
middle at the moment, I'll repost when I find the {2600} issue with the
article.

Also, I have a program I ftp'd at one time called envlj.  Scan for it
via archie, etc.  It will print both FIM patterns and Postnet bar
codes when you supply a complete ZIP + 4 and only a Postnet bar code
when using a five-digit ZIP.


Michael Rosen	Tau Epsilon Phi - George Washington University	
mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu	Michael.Rosen@bbs.oit.unc.edu or @lambada.oit.unc.edu
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 06:38:25 MST
From: Dave Dunwoodie 6042 <ddunwood@dsc.blm.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: TSR Comm. S/W
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 12, Message 9 of 13

I need a TSR that will write to the CRT anything received from the
modem.  My modem has caller ID, but I'm not in the mood to leave the
PC in terminal mode on the off chance that the phone might ring!
Ideas?