HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:10:05 GMT
From: tholome@bangalore.esf.de (Eric Tholome)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 700 Numbers From Overseas
Organization: ESF Headquarters, Berlin, FRG
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 848, Message 4 of 10

In article <telecom12.835.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, our Moderator notes:

> [...] A business in the USA which desires to have reverse-charge
> calls to it from an international point can quite easily ask AT&T to
> arrange it for them with the telecom administration in the desired
> country.

Well, I saw an ad a couple of weeks ago from an American company in a
French magazine. This ad was indeed customized for France: it was in
French, and said that one could get more information by calling them
for free. How, you ask? They were listing an 800 number to be called
from within the USA, and were also saying that someone calling from
France should call collect another listed number.

Of course, you could always say that maybe this company didn't want to
go through the trouble of arranging a real reverse-charge number from
France.

But this company was ... AT&T!

Well, if AT&T itself doesn't do it, who's going to do it?

Pat, are you really sure this is all that simple?


Eric Tholome  ESF Headquarters        Internet: tholome@esf.de
              Hohenzollerndamm 152    UUCP:     tholome@esf.uucp
              D-1000 Berlin 33        Ph.:      +49 30 82 09 03 25
                          Germany     Fax:      +49 30 82 09 03 19


[Moderator's Note: Sure it is.  All the (country) Direct lines in the
USA to foreign countries have 800 (USA style) numbers. Ring the 800
number here and connect with an operator at British Telecom in order
to call someplace in the UK on your BT calling card as an example.
There are a couple of 800-xxx prefixes specifically tariffed to handle
international traffic (so people in the USA can call 800-style to
places in other countries). Ditto the other way around. There is an
0800 number in the UK which rings CBS News in New York. I think the
USA Direct service which AT&T operates in other countries in at least
a few cases relies on 0800 (or whatever) style numbers in the distant
place to connect with the AT&T operator in this country. Just because
AT&T doesn't use the service in the particular application you
mentioned does not mean it is not available. Nor do I know specifically
what the arrangement for this is with France.   PAT]
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:06:51 GMT
From: bharrell@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Ben Harrell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Northern Telecom Email Addresses
Reply-To: cmebh01@nt.com (Ben Harrell)
Organization: Computers and Technologies Theme Program-NCSU-NC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 849, Message 12 of 13

hsm@sei.cmu.edu (Scott Matthews) writes:

> Does anybody have any internet hosts (email addresses) for Northern
> Telecom?

Sorry I misunderstood the question in my previous response.

All email addresses at Northern Telecom have the following form:

    NT_internal_email_account_id@nt.com

for direct Internet to Internet email.  You can also send email to
internal NT email accounts via IBM Mail or IBM Mail's X.400 gateway.

In both cases however, the NT employee has to be registered with the
appropriate NT MIS gateway administrator to use the external mail
connections.  If they are the best way to get their address is to ask
them to send you a message at your Internet address.

If they don't know how to get registered to use the external email
gateways, ask them to send me an internal email message and I will
forward the information.  My internal email address is my name:

     Ben Harrell

Hope this helps more than my first message...  :-)


Ben Harrell   cmebh01@nt.com ...........<business>
bharrell@catt.ncsu.edu ...<pleasure>
Date: 22 Nov 1992 06:00:26 -0600
From: scm3775@tamsun.tamu.edu (Sean Malloy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: No Caller ID in Texas
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 870, Message 3 of 7

Well, the Nov 17, 1992 {Houston Chronicle} has an editorial supporting
the recent PUC decision to not allow Caller ID in Texas.  I won't
include it here (I didn't call to get permission) but I will quote a
paragraph or two ... grammar is theirs, spelling is mine.

"It is true that Caller ID would offer a measure of convenience to
those residential customers receiving unwanted telephone calls.  But
that would come at the price of changing long-held public notions of
rights of privacy.  The identifier's potential to put callers in
life-threatening situations has led to opposition from groups such as
the Texas Council on Family Violence.  Law enforcement agencies have
also opposed Caller ID on the grounds that it would make those who
want to remain anonymous - who do not wish to be identified through
their telephone numbers - less willing to cooperate with authorities
in crime-solving efforts.  These concerns override any "service"
[Quotes theirs] Caller ID may offer customers."

They also continue to say that the choice is one of privacy v.
gimmickry and that the PUC has "wisely chosen to uphold Texans'
privacy rights."

The editorial doesn't mention that the PUC is composed of three
members.  One declared it illegal, another said it's legal, and a
third said that it's legal, but only for some businesses under current
law.

I called my local GTE office, and also talked to a SW Bell
representative who said that tracking a number can currently be done
by means of a "Call Trace" service, which costs $10 (US) per trace.
The (somewhat more informed) SW Bell rep also said that the results of
the trace can only be turned over to their "Security Department" and
not to the customer.  GTE did not say this, but my understanding is
that this is because of state law, and not a Telco policy.

Why am I not surprised that a newspaper that uses telemarketers to
drum-up subscriptions is opposed to the adoption of Caller ID?

Anyone wanting to send a letter to the {Chronicle} should send a fax
to {Viewpoints} at (713) 220-6575.  Include Name, full address and phone
number.

 
Sean C. Malloy  -  Texas A&M University  -  scm@tamu.edu


[Moderator's Note: Enough already!  No more Caller-ID pros and cons.
This will never be resolved.  PAT]
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 9:14:00 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New Area Code Blitzes Cell Phone User
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 856, Message 9 of 13

What do you mean, "cut over" to 210?  The archive file history.of.
area.splits has only the PERMISSIVE dialing in effect now, meaning San
Antonio could still be reached in 512.  You're saying that 210
couldn't be reached from some other place in Texas?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:04:53 -0700
From: skeeter@skatter.USask.ca
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telephone Headsets and Cordless Headsets
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 856, Message 12 of 13

In article <telecom12.842.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, bier@acuson.com (Jeff Bier)
writes:

> I'm seeking recommendations on telephone headsets.  I have in mind the
> kind that replaces the handset on a typical telephone.  I'm also
> curious to know if anyone makes a cordless telephone headset.

Radio Shack sold a cordless headset phone, with FM radio! :) for about
$400 last year or the year before.

I use a DUoFONE 119 headset at work and it's great.  I bought it for
about $50.  It has volume control and I installed a mute switch.


skeeter@skatter.usask.ca
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:30:18 CST
From: todd@valinor.mythical.com (Todd Lawrence)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: A New DMS-100 in Town
Organization: (What? Organized??) - Mythical Computer Systems
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 857, Message 2 of 11

bo836@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard D. Mccombs) writes:

> We have a new DMS-100 in town, is there anything in particular I
> should know?

DMS-100 is A Northern Telecom switch, the notes I have specify that it
is a ISDN compatible "LOCAL" switch that has the capacity to serve
1500-100,000 customers, it can also handle an average of 350,000 calls
per hour. (FYI) - DMS-200 is a tandem (TOLL) switch that has the
capacity to function as a local switch as well and can serve
400-60,000 trunks.  "PROTEL" is the switch programming language (if
you wish to impress your local CO tech!). I had the opportunity to
have DMS when I was in connectictt, and had no complaints with it
whatsoever.


Todd Lawrence
LOD! Communications     internet : todd@valinor.mythical.com
IMF Acquisition Group   uucp     : uunet!valinor!todd
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 02:19:23 CST
From: Rob Knauerhase <knauer@cs.uiuc.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: More Pay Phone Restrictions
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 842, Message 2 of 14

FYI (everyone), from a news brief:

       (CLEVELAND)--Ohio Bell and the City of Cleveland are initiating
two new methods to limit the use of public telephones for illegal
purposes, such as drug dealing. Ohio Bell will begin working with the
city to identify public phones that are being used for illegal
purposes. The new methods eventually will be available statewide to
other communities served by Ohio Bell.

       One of the two methods: Restricted Call Access makes it
impossible to use coins to complete a call during late evening and
early morning hours. Calls can be completed during these hours only by
the use of calling cards or other billing arrangements. Customers will
continue to have access to information operators, 9-1-1 emergency
services, and 800 numbers from the public telephones.

I guess since this is a "brief" they decided not to mention the other
method; this sounds pretty much the same as was in Chicago (mentioned
in past Digests).

I wonder if "other billing arrangements" includes the right to
third-party billing at $.25 rather than the usual operator-assisted
rate.


Rob Knauerhase           University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
knauer@cs.uiuc.edu       Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group


[Moderator's Note: I think you will find there will be no
accomodations at all made by telco where billing arrangements are
concerned, and that the normal surcharges will apply on calls from the
restricted payphones. Someone raised this point with Illinois Bell,
saying IBT would profit from the surcharges made necessary to callers
from the restricted phones. IBT took umbrage at that and said there
was little to be gained by them; that they were making the restrictions 
available only because of community demand for same, and that they
(telco) were not happy with the arrangement. IBT took a neutral stance
on the matter of payphone 'mis-use' (i.e. calls to/from drug dealers)
here and finally capitulated to the politicans, etc.  PAT]
From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Fake Call-Waiting Product
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:45:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 866, Message 10 of 12

In article <telecom12.858.2@eecs.nwu.edu> dave@westmark.com (Dave
Levenson) writes:

> It may well work with the general public.  The telecom-literate, of
> course, will realize that the beep is only heard by the party who is
> receiving the call-waiting, not by the far-end.  (Yes, with the 1ESS
> and 1AESS both parties get a click, but only the party receiving the
> call-waiting gets the beep.  With the 5ESS, the party who is not
> receiving a call hears only silence while the other party gets a
> beep.)  It should be easy enough to differentiate between a real
> call-waiting interruption and a fake created by the party who is tired
> of talking to us, and is embarrassed to say so.

I heard this demonstrated by the inventor on Marketplace (American
Public Radio) last night.  I couldn't tell the difference between it
and traditional click-clunk call waiting.  You don't heard a beep,
just a click-clunk.

You'd have to be really literate and know what kind of switch is on
the other end in order to get wise to this.


Edward W. Greenberg  | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com
1600 Stokes St. #24  | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95126  | Fax:  +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)
From: fybush@unixland.natick.ma.us (Scott Fybush)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Dialing Changes in New England Tel Land
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:51:38 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 852, Message 1 of 14

New England Tel is getting ready for the introduction of NNX-style
NPAs in a few years.  This morning's papers announce that the end of
1-NNX-XXXX dialing for long distance within area code is imminent.
NETel is replacing it with NNX-XXXX, which IMHO is a mistake, since
there are some rather expensive calls that can be made within NPAs
here, and the telecom-illiterate will have no easy way of knowing
whether the NXX-XXXX they're about to dial is around the corner or 100
miles away.  I would have preferred 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX, but I'll have to
live with what they've chosen (and for me in 617 there are only about
a dozen NXX's that will change anyway).

The announced phase-in dates are:

February 1993:  Westfield, Russell, and Monson MA (413-562, 568, 572; 
                 413-862; and 413-267).

by December 1993: all of 413, 401, 603, and 802.

by 1994: all of 207, 508, and 617.

Accompanying this change in 508 will be a revision of dialing
procedures for local calls which cross state lines.  Consumers now
dial just seven digits; henceforth they'll dial 1-603 or 1-401, as the
case may be.  Presently calls dialed with 1-603 or 1-401 are carried
by an IXC and billed at toll rates; presumably NET will intercept
those calls in the switch and carry them themselves.  Anyone really
wanting to pay toll rates will presumably be able to dial 10XXX first.

No word on whether calls in the other direction will have to use
1-508, or whether seven digits will continue to be used.

BTW, all the local media did a good job reporting the story
accurately, noting the way the change will make 640 new NPAs
available, and even mentioning that New England Tel will be able to
add new NXX-style exchanges (although it obviously was not phrased
that way).  If anyone heard the version of the story that aired on WBZ
radio Friday morning 11/13, I'd welcome comments ... I wrote it and
tried to make it both telecom-accurate and accessible to the
non-telecom listener.  I hope it worked :-)


Scott Fybush -- fybush@unixland.natick.ma.us
These are not the opinions of WBZ radio or Group W.
From: 0003991080@mcimail.com (Proctor & Associates)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Nicad "Memory Effect" (was Cordless Phone Newbie Question)
Date: 21 Nov 92 11:29:39 GMT
ganization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nws u
X-Adminstrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nws.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Voume 12, Issue 853, Message 7 of 1

In a recent TELECOM Digest, betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
wr 
> 4) Is this thing supposed to be left in the base or can I bring it
> outside and wait for it to ring? Does it have to stand up in the base?
 
wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer) responds:
 
> No need to keep it in the base, except for charging.  However, it is
> best NOT to keep charging and recharging. Better to use the batteries
> until the battery-low light comes on.  Continued short charges can
> cause the battery to aquire a short-memory, and begin to lose it's
> ability to stay charged for a full term.
 
Actually, the "memory effect" myth about nicad batteries has been
pretty well debunked.
 
Turns out that a memory effect can only be demonstrated under very
carefully controlled lab conditio`discharged hundreds of times to exactly the same discharge point.
Otherwise 
The most damage done to nicad cells by the mattempt to fully discharge the cells to avoid the mythical effect, and
then drive it into reverse polarity, damaging the cells.
 
Soin the past year in QST (a ham radio magazine, publisheAmerican Radio Relay League) about this, and a few years back there
was an item in QST Technical Correspondence from Gould explaining that memory effect in nicads does not exist.The myth is quite popular though.  I have seen ads for fancy
microprocessor controlled nicad charges that carefully do a deep
discharge before each charge.
 
 
Paul Cook                        206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates        MCI Mail 399-1080Redmond#! rnews 105
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 9:28:01 EST
From: Dennis G. Rears <drears@pica.army.mil>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in Texas
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 855, Message 4 of 8

Jerry Blackerby writes:

> Maybe if people in Texas would find out the phone numbers of the PUC
> (Public Utility Commission) members and everyone start calling each of
> them at "odd hours", they might decide there could be a reason to have
> Caller-ID.

   This is great.  The PUC does or does not something thet Jerry
likes, and he suggests harassing all the members by phone.  Depending
on the extent of the harassment it is illegal.

  If that happens I suggest the telephone company traces those calls
and cut off service to the harassers.  If you can't use a phone
responsibly, it should be taken away.

  Caller ID will not prevent harassment from determined individuals;
it might stop the casual person but that's it.


dennis
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 13:12:21 EST
From: kab@hotstone.att.com (Kenneth A Becker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T's COLOR Videophone With Motion
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 844, Message 2 of 12

Well, the local AT&T phone store brought their wares to sell and vend
to the inhabitants of the building I work in (Yeah, it's an AT&T
location).  They also brought one of those color videophones.  While
it wasn't hooked up to a telephone line, you could hit the "self-view"
switch.  After some 1-2 second dalay, a color picture did appear with
very recognizeable faces and such like on it.  

I tried holding a memo up to it, but it wan't able to reproduce the
text, at least not for the short time I tried it.  It is definitly not
full motion; the picture is jerky (five to ten times a second
refresh?).  You can tell, however, if the person on the other end is
smiling, frowning, or making faces at you very well.  The screen is
about 4.5" square or thereabouts.  As I understand it, there's some
really hot digital signal processing and compression/decompression
schemes implemented in these phones.  Your mileage may vary.


Ken Becker    kab@hotstone.att.com
Opinions expressed here are mine, all mine!
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:28:46 GMT
From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: They Love to Tell the Story
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 853, Message 13 of 13

> [Moderator's Note: Oh dear me! This story has been around *so long* --
> it has appeared in this Digest at least a half-dozen times over the
> past ten years. ...]

And, I think, including on every occasion the assertion that there is
such a place spelled "Winnepeg" and that it is in Ontario.  At least
this shows that people are generally repeating it the way they got it
rather than adding new distortions!


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com


[Moderator's Note: Yep, "Winnepeg, Ontario" always goes with it! :)  PAT]
From: weaver@sfc.sony.com (Eric Weaver)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telecom Quotations
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:54:24 GMT
Organization: SONY Advanced Video Technology Center San Jose, CA USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 861, Message 4 of 9

> "Mr. Watson , come here, I want you"
> --- Alexander Graham Bell (first telephone message)
> (obviously didn't have a good sense of occasion ... or a scriptwriter))

I believe the occasion was that Bell had just spilled battery acid in
his lap, and the message sounds fairly appropriate under the circs.


Eric Weaver  Sony AVTC  677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35  SJ CA 95134  408 944-4904
& Chief Engineer, KFJC 89.7 Foothill College, Los Altos Hills CA 94022
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:19:49 GMT
From: wstef@hubcap.clemson.edu (W. Gregg Stefancik)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Caller ID Devices For RS-232 Wanted
Organization: Clemson University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 865, Message 4 of 10

We just got Caller ID here in SC.  I understand that there are a
variety of devices which can deal with Caller ID available.  I am very
interested in a device which would turn the Caller ID info into
something my computer could use (RS-232 data).  So I would be
interested in a list of sources for various Caller ID devices.  Please
respond via e-mail.  I will compile my responses and post.
	

W. Gregg Stefancik    wstef@hubcap.clemson.edu
From: lenoil@catalogic.com (Robert Lenoil)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: San Jose Mercury Again
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:44:47 GMT
Organization: Catalogic, Mountain View, California [Voice: 415-961-4649]
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 854, Message 1 of 12

> So how about it, Bay Area folks? If you are tired of the {San Jose
> Mercury} constantly calling you at the dinner hour, why not "call the
> cops"? For those of you who think this is a bit drastic, remember that
> I have already done the following:

[laundry list omitted]

> Any other ideas?

Yes. Hang up when they call and go on with your life. I can't imagine
this being worth all the trouble. Are you on a special hit list with
the Merc?  I've been at the same (listed) number for six years and can
count the calls from them on two hands.

> [Moderator's Note: Because you acted so strongly against this
> originally, I have to wonder if the latest call(s)? were deliberate or
> made in error by a new person or were due to an error in the software.
> They surely could not be so willful as to deliberatly start the calls
> again. Why not make some copies of your earlier correspondence and
> send them by registered mail or courier to the telemarketing firm and
> ask them what happened ... did something go wrong in their system,
> etc, as you can't belive they are *willfully* violating your request.  PAT]

Although I don't agree with John that this is worth expending the
energy that he obviously is, PAT's point is not really relevant. Of
course the newspaper didn't *willfully* call John - they have nothing
to gain from that but a migraine headache. The point is that if a firm
has been repeatedly warned, then they are at fault for not
implementing the proper systems to avoid calling numbers where they
are not wanted. If a judge had issued a restraining order barring the
Merc from calling John, you can bet that they would have been found in
contempt for calling him even if it was the result of an "error by a
new person or ... in the software." Pleading employee ignorance or
equipment failure does not release a company from liability for its
actions.


Robert Lenoil