HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 17:10:45 EDT
From: jjs@ihlpf.att.com (James J Sowa)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 711 Reaches E911 Center
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 713, Message 7 of 16

We just had a strange experience at home that I thought is worth
mentioning.

My four year old tried call me at work and dial the 713-xxxx number
then said "Oops I dialed wrong".  After she hung up the phone rang. My
wife answered and was informed that it was our local police department
and that they had a 911 call and a hangup.  They asked if everything
was OK, and asked why we called.  My wife said no one called, then the
dispatcher asked if we had small children and that she should talk to
them about not calling in non-emergencies.

My wife was talking to my daughter about it and they both heard sirens
so my daughter got really scared that she would be hauled off to jail.
When I got home I heard the whole story. I believe that my daughter is
smart enough to know a seven from a nine so I started wondering about
how the misdial could have happened.  I asked my daughter why she
thought she misdialed.  She said she dialed two ones.

I began to wonder and then I tried dialing 711 ... well it started to
connect and then it was answered by the 911 center.  I informed them
that I had dialed 711 and the dispatcher informed me that Illinois
Bell has turned up 711 to test the 911 routing since we have/are going
from basic 911 to enhanced 911.

Well, I still don't think my daughter believes me the call was not her
fault.


Jim Sowa    att!cbnewsc!jjjs   (708) 713-1312


[Moderator's Note: I just now dialed 711. It started ringing
immediatly and after a few rings an intercept came on and said the
area code of the number dialed had been changed to 708 ... please hang
up, dial 1-708 and the number again. ???  PAT]
From: rupa@f-454.fidonet.org (Rupa Schomaker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: New Phone Number Intercept
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:19:00 GMT
Reply-To: rupa@f-454.fidonet.org
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 689, Message 2 of 19

I'm in the process of getting another line, and the conversation here
about different and unusual intercepts made me think.  What would
happen if I dialed my new number before SWBT put it in?

The intercept goes:

We're sorry, <insert number here>, is a working number.  Please try
your call again later.

So, if it is a working number, why don't I get to use it until Thursday?  :)


UUCP -> rupa@f-454.fidonet.org     FidoNet ->  1:106/1024



[Moderator's Note: Here it says, "the number you have dialed <number>
may not yet be connected. Please try your call again later." Or
sometimes an intercept will say <number> "is being tested for trouble.
Please try again later." Usually the only instance of an intercept
which says <number> "is a working number, please hang up and dial
again" is when you misdial and reach some place where the equipment
cannot detirmine what number you dialed so a live operator has to come
on and ask what you (think) you dialed; then bubble it in so the
equipment can respond. If the equipment had known what you dialed, it
would have responded <number actually dialed> "is not a working
number" rather than <number you told the operator you thought you
dialed> "is in service please try again."  Logic dictates that if
<number> is in service, you would have been connected to it.

Speaking of live operator intercepts, are there still any of those
situations where the operator responds but cannot hear the caller
because the LD carrier does not open the mouthpiece until the call has
supervised, which it will never do with an operator?  To get around
that, the Bell telcos had to use an intercept recording which the
operator started manually when she realized she could not hear the
caller: "Under some circumstances, callers using alternate long
distance carriers may not be able to speak with local telephone
company operators. Please ask your long distance carrier for
assistance."  Are all the OCC's opening the talk path now?   PAT]
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 15:52:12 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Recorded Message About no Answer
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 713, Message 10 of 16

I just now called 9-1-800-xxx-xxxx, and eventually got the recorded
message that my (called) party is not answering and (sorry) the call
is now being disconnected.  I have seen previous notice of this (such
as call-ins to Larry King show).  Although I was in Maryland, I got
"215 4T" at the end of the message; is that a function of the carrier
and/or the place I am calling?
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 15:26:12 CDT
From: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Unadvertised SW Bell Offering
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 694, Message 10 of 13

> [Moderator's Note: IBT offers forward on busy/no answer and likewise
> they do not market it to residential users but will sell it if you ask
> for it. The only problem is that it is not user programmable: it is
> turned on at all times to one selected number which must be another
> number in the same CO.  So they say.    PAT]

I called SWB back on the user-programmability of forward on busy/no
answer.  They are selling it in the same way you describe.  The
service rep did indicate they would be willing to change the
forwarding on customer request but I would suspect this to fall in the
"between 8 and 5 tomorrow" category.  This feature is definitely
intended for Call Notes (SM).


Charles Mattair			      (preferred) mattair%synercom@hounix.org
Fast, Cheap, Good.  Choose Two. (anon)		   (or)	mattair@synercom.UUCP
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:11:47 GMT
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: V.25bis, or: Are CCITT and PTTs Totally Bonkers?
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 696, Message 12 of 12

nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

> Busy numbers shouldn't be added to the Forbidden Numbers list,
> and numbers that answer and present modem tones won't be.  Only
> numbers that answer, but don't present modem tones, should end up on
> the Forbidden Numbers list.  This makes sense; if a number is
> answering but not attached to a modem, there probably isn't a modem
> there and the calling end should stop calling and annoying somebody.

> If the receiving system is down, that's OK.  Either the modem
> doesn't answer the phone, or it answers the phone and brings up a data
> connection, even if no data can be transmitted.  The only real problem
> comes with some old systems where, when the system went down, a voice
> message was switched on.  But that's rare today.

Actually, there's another problem. Take USR modem. Put X5 in the
Initialize string. Now call a Telebit that puts the PEP tomes first.

Result? The USR reports a result code of VOICE almost immediately and
hangs up!

This was true of a USR dual standard bought a couple of years ago. I
don't know if it is still true.

So even if a modem answer, it has to answer in a way that the
*calling* modem recognizes.

Then you get into situations like the one I saw mentioned recently.
Supposedly, US modems think that Australian ring signals are busy
signals!  (Anyone know the truth about this?)


Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 20:02:59 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <TONY@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Question About PBX Phone
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 705, Message 2 of 11

William.Degnan@mdf.FidoNet.Org (William Degnan) wrote:

> On <Aug 30 00:44> UUCP (Tony Harminc <TONY@VM1.MCGILL.CA>) writes to
> All:

>> The worst case is, as was mentioned recently, if a Princess phone with
>> lighted dial was installed at one time, and the dial light transformer
>> is still connected to the second pair.  Then you may have a fire.  You
>> could easily disconnect and tape the red/black leads inside the phone
>> to be safe.

> But red/black? Wouldn't yellow/black achieve the same purpose but
> allow the set to be used?
 
You forgot the smilie.  Here - I'll put it in for you :-)
 
Just in case anyone misses it: yellow/black are of course the wire
colours for line two (or the unfortunate AC supply for the dial
light).  I plead finger check.

 
Tony H.
Date: 13 Sep 1992 00:38:40 GMT
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Shedding the Past
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 703, Message 12 of 12

This appeared in a posting at MIT:

> [0679] pshuang@ATHENA.MIT.EDU  Amusing_Thoughts  09/07/92 14:48 (20 lines)
> Subject: Finally, shedding the past ...
> Newsgroups: misc.consumers
> From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
> Subject: News from the "Press 1 now" front
> News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
> Nntp-Posting-Host: amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov
> Organization: Dept. of Independence
> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:13:00 GMT

An item appeared in the "Metropolitan Diary" column of the {NY Times} a
couple of weeks ago reporting that when you call Casio's hot line at

  800-762-1241

  the recorded voice says (and I confirmed it),

     "...if you are calling from a touch tone phone, press "1"
     now. If you are calling from a rotary-dial telephone,
     please call back on a touch-tone telephone."

And then a little later ...

[0684] eichin@CYGNUS.COM  Amusing_Thoughts  09/08/92 14:36 (4 lines)

Subject: Re: Finally, shedding the past...

Well, now it gives you a 201 number to call (9am-5pm EST, even though
we're in EDT now :-) if you're on a rotary dial phone. (They've
probably gotten *so* many calls since that hit the NYT -- my *mother*
heard of it :-)


haynes@cats.ucsc.edu    haynes@cats.bitnet
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 01:31 EDT
From: catfood@wariat.org (Mark W. Schumann)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T 'Buying' Back Customers
Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Publi Access UNI* Site
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 709, Message 9 of 12

joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:

> leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) writes:

>> I received a mailing
>> from AT&T, and I was immediately annoyed by this check-looking thing I
>> saw inside (it looked like one of those things that are usually marked
>> 'You may already have won').  Strangely enough, this was a real check
>> for $40 made out to me, marked 'Endorsement indicates your acceptance'
>> or something like that. Anyway, I guess the deal is that if you cash
>> the check, you agree to switch over to AT&T. I'll take $40 over my MCI
>> totebags and Sprint AM/FM radios anyday ...

> Are you sure this is a bona-fide _check_, and not a voucher?  AT&T was
> offering a number of switch-back programs, but so far the only ones
> I've heard about involved them "paying" in _future_ long distance
> service discounts; not actual cash.

Yep, it's a real check.  I'm trying to figure out how to cash the
check without triggering the switch-back.  Crossing out the fine
print?  Nah ...


Mark W. Schumann/3111 Mapledale Avenue/Cleveland, Ohio 44109-2447 USA
Preferred: mark@whizbang.wariat.org | Alternative: catfood@wariat.org
From: James.VanHouten@f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (James VanHouten)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Dialogic Corporation VCS Demo lines
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:16:09 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 712, Message 1 of 14

The following numbers are Dialogic Corporation demo numbers for their
Voice Recognition Technology Demonstrations.

I have tried all three and they are impressive.  I recommend the last
number on this list (Continuous-Word Recognition Demonstration).

Here they are:

+1.214.404.9405  Alphabet Recognition Demonstration

+1.214.490.1210  Connected Recognition of Digits in English
                 and Spanish

+1.214.490.0767  Continuous-Word Recognition Demonstration

Give them a try.


James Van Houten, Vice President    | Voice:   +1.301.248.3300 CIS  72067,316
Metropolitan Security Services, Inc | Fax:     +1.301.967.7220 WN   55:4004/0
P.O. Box 502                        | Data:    +1.301.967.7220 FIDO 1:109/544
Temple Hills, MD   20757-0502       | Internet: James.VanHouten@f544.n109.z1.
USA                                 |           fidonet.org
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 14:02:20 PDT
From: sbixby%portal@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Motorola "Advisor" Pager Question
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 688, Message 4 of 13

Hi, folks,

I have a question, and this is the closest place I can find to post
it ...

I am deaf, and have a Motorola "Advisor" pager, which is an
alphanumeric pager -- ie, you call a service number and leave a text
message to be sent to the pager.  In my case, the service number is a
TDD, so deaf folks (or those with a TDD anyway) can send me messages.

Anyway ...

The pager has three contacts on the bottom -- do any of you readers
have any clue how I can find out what these contacts are for?  I'm
guessing they're for programming the thing, but ... I'm hoping they
can be used to sense when the pager goes off, in order to build a
device to flash a strobe light and wake me up at night.

Are there any Motorola (ex-)employees out there that might know how to
get this info for me?  Or anyone else that knows something about this
pager?

I would REALLY APPRECIATE this information, because my company is
pressuring me to find something so that I may be paged at night.

Email is preferred.


Thanks in advance!

  -swb-  (Steve Bixby - sbixby@cup.portal.com)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 00:23:53 GMT
From: David E A Wilson <david@cs.uow.edu.au>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: US Phone System in 1971 (as Portrayed by Hollywood)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 704, Message 5 of 11

Last night I saw a repeat of the first ever Columbo telemovie, dated
1971.  It's plot revolved around the use of the phone system (to give
himself an alibi, the murderer tricked the victim into phoning his
wife and telling her he was working late at the office [at which point
he was killed]). The murderer and victim were actually in San Diago in
the murderer's cabin. The telecom questions it raised in my mind were:

1) Did a station to station call differ in any way from an operator
assisted call?

2) The murderer had to stop the victim from using the operator to make
the call to Los Angeles, instead telling him to direct dial it
using the 213 area code. Was direct dial that new and unusual back in
1971?

3) Would any record of a direct-dial call be kept so that the police
could check the source of the victim's final call (knowing only the
destination) or could they have got it later on when they suspected
the murderer (and thus had a good idea of the source)?


David Wilson				(042) 21 3802 voice, (042) 21 3262 fax
Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong	david@cs.uow.edu.au
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:19:33 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Labor Day, 1992
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 687, Message 1 of 9

Once again, the end of summer ... and the holiday which has become a
chance for one last fling in the sun but which was originally intended
to celebrate the contributions of working men and women to our
society.

And this year it seems the picture is more gloomy than ever: a high
rate of unemployment in the United States; an economy that is very
sluggish; thousands of newly unemployed people in south Florida whose
places of employment simply up and vanished in Hurricane Andrew two
weeks ago. Yes, many of these folks are finding work in the newly
booming construction industry in what the {Chicago Sun Times} today
referred to as the 'newly formed third-world country of Dade ...'
thousands of working men and women who had everything they've worked
for all their lives taken away in a minute by a violent and angry
Mother Nature ...

It used to be a job with AT&T meant job security for life ... but no
more. How long will it be until the Mother Company has totally
automated *everything* and only the Chairman and a handful of close
associates are left?  Don't say it can't happen ... they said that
about a total conversion to automatic calling back in the 1930-40 era.
Of course back in the 1930's they also said no one would ever unionize
AT&T.  They said it couldn't be done; and the workers of that era who
signed union pledge cards and set about organizing Bell were laughed
at and mocked by supervisors and co-workers alike.

When I started my working career, manual 'cordboard' style
switchboards were in evidence everywhere; we had no terminals for data
entry and very few places had computers of any sort. Hundreds of
clerks sat around all day doing very tedious jobs adding columns of
figures and making entries in ledger books ... there were no handheld
calculators, no home computers, no answering machines, no portable or
cellular phones .. and of course, there was just One System ... one
way of doing things where telecom was concerned.

Well, happy holiday, everyone!  Take a minute and pause to reflect on
the contributions of American workers to our society today.


Patrick Townson
From: williamsk@gtephx.UUCP (Kevin W. Williams)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on GTD-5 Centrex
Date: 12 Sep 92 15:32:09 GMT
Organization: gte
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 701, Message 10 of 10

In article <telecom12.694.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, Joseph.Bergstein@p501.
f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joseph Bergstein) writes:

> Would like to know if anyone has any information on a GTD-5 Centrex
> Central office switch?  Believe manufactured by G.T.E.?  In particular
> need information on processing S.M.D.R. data from such a switch.  If
> anyone has information or knows where to obtain it, please respond.

Luckily, the manufacturer is on the Internet. Unfortunately, for
historical reasons (the great Higdon/Williams/Baker Flame War of
1992), I would rather not take up discussion of the GTD-5 on the
telecom bulletin board, and the reply address has been mangled by the
Digest. Send me email with an address, and I'll reply privately.


Kevin Wayne Williams   UUCP : ...!ames!ncar!noao!enuucp!gtephx!williamsk
From: drawson@Tymnet.COM (Dick Rawson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: G.ross!
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:35:51 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 684, Message 11 of 11

CCITT Recommendations have identifiers like X.25, Q.931, and so on,
but new recommendations usually don't have official identifiers
assigned until late in their development.  Until then, the Study
Groups may assign a temporary label that has some letters in place of
the unknown digits; usually they know that it will be an X, Q, G, etc.
series Recommendation.

I just came across Contribution 183 to Study Group XV, dated February
1992, giving a revised draft of something that Working Party-5/XV must
have been developing:

  Recommendation G.ross "Characteristics of Regenerative Optical
  Fibre Submarine Cable Systems." 


Dick
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Automatic Fax/Modem Switches
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:06:30 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 710, Message 9 of 11

In article <telecom12.703.4@eecs.nwu.edu> plains!midkemia!cooper@
uunet.UU.NET writes:

> Is this even possible?  I've tried two switches sofar, the one Radio
> Shack sells and one made by a company called ACCO.  The one by ACCO
> works (part of the time, every other call seems to get in) Does anyone
> else have any other recommendations of other types/makes of switches?

Have you considered not using a switch at all?  Set your answering
machine to answer on four rings, permanently.  Get your
modem-answering program to set ATS0=0 and use ATA to pick up the line
from the RING report; tell all your modem callers to ring once or
twice, hang up, and call again.  Write software to ignore the first
set of rings, and pick up on a second set within a short interval.

Real callers will go straight through to the answering machine.

Modem callers who are aware of your system will get your modem on the
second call.

Modem callers who aren't aware of your system will probably redial
anyway and get your modem on the second attempt.


Graham
From: louie@ni.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: V.32/V.32bis Modems With Direct T-1 Carrier Connection
Date: 5 Sep 92 05:00:58 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 684, Message 4 of 11

We're considering bringing in a bunch of phone lines to be used for a
modem pool in on T-1 circuite, rather than individual analog circuits.
The idea is to eliminate as much analog junk between the modems and
CO, as well as making management of the lines a bit easier to deal
with.

The usual approach to this sort of thing is to plug your T-1 line into
a D4 channel bank, giving you 24 two-wire voice circuits.  Now, it
certainly seems a shame to take all these perfectly good digitized
audio samples, turn them into an analog signal, only to be digitized
again by an A/D converted hooked to the DSP in a V.32bis modem.

I'm looking for vendors that build V.32/V.32bis modem banks that can
be directly connected to the T-1 circuit bearing the 24 voice
channels.  Does anyone have experience with such a thing?


Louis Mamakos   University of Maryland