HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: 20 Dec 1992 23:41:56 +1000
From: Arthur@cswamp.apana.org.au (Arthur Marsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Need Help For MNP Protocols
Reply-To: Arthur@cswamp.apana.org.au
Organization: Camelot Swamp bulletin board, Hawthorndene Sth Australia
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 912, Message 2 of 15

On Tue 08 Dec at 20:52 turkmen@csvaxe.csuohio.edu wrote: 

> Is there anybody who knows where I can get the algorithms of
> MNP 4 and 5 protocols? Is there a book concerning those? 
> Thanks in advance for your replies.

Contact Microcom. I don't have the company details handy, but do have
the details for Greg Pearson, Senior Vice President, Technology
Management:

        Microcom Inc
        12955 Jolette Avenue
        Granada Hills CA 91344
        USA. 

Tel +1-818-336-1052, 
Fax +1-818-831-6760, 
Voice mail +1-617-551-1667.


Origin: Camelot Swamp MJCNA, Hawthorndene, Sth Australia  (8:7000/8)
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:57:34 GMT
From: howard@sarah.cohtech.co.uk (Howard Wilkinson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Modem Connections, UUCP, and BT Exchanges
Organization: Coherent Technology Limited
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 912, Message 9 of 15

Hi,
	This is a real shot in the dark, but you may have come across
something like our problem elsewhere. We have recently started to have
problems with connections to sites supporting high speed
error-correcting modems, Uknet included. These sites are variously
running PEP, V.32 or V.32bis modems.  They are based in Staines
(sonyuk), Reading (wessex), Farnborough (pyrltd), and Canterbury
(uknet). The modems at our end are:

	o	Telebit T2500 Trailblazer, running PEP and V.32
		at 19200 baud fixed DTE-DCE speed.
	o	Telebit T3500 WorldBlazer, running TurboPEP, V.32 and V.32bis
		at 19200 baud fixed DTE-DCE speed.
	o	Miracom HST DUal Standard modem used in V.32 mode
		at 19200 baud fixed DTE-DCE speed.

We are using BSD-4.3 UUCP as supplied by Sony with their NeWOS.

The modems at the other end are:

	o	Dowty Trailblazer running PEP (pyrltd, sonyuk, uknet?)
	o	Telebit T2500 Trailblazer running PEP (wessex)
	o	? at uknet running V.32bis.

We are seeing the following symptoms.

	We can establish a high quality error correcting connection to
any of the sites. Furthermore both sonyuk and wessex call us and
establish such connections to our T2500. We can start transfers and
support transfers of large numbers of small files or one or two large
files. When small files are being sent we can keep the line open for
long periods of time. However with large files we get a almost
consistent problem of loss of connection at the end of the first or
second file. The connection "freezes" that is the modems still think
they are talking to each other (we can hear tones going into the
network and what sounds like the exact tones coming back) but no data
flows. After 32 timeouts the line drops. If we recall we can restart
the conversation without problem but the same thing will occur again
within a minute of connecting. Very occasionally we get a "good"
connection, usually to pyramid, and the link will stay up for 20 to 30
minutes. The direction of data transfer does not matter, and we have
tried routing our calls through bith BT and Mercury.

	BT have been round and checked the lines and the local
exchange on our side and can find nothing wrong. I have a theory that
it may be that the exchange thinks the connection has gone away
because the machine at one end has gone quiet for a long period, but
this would have to be in the trunk network. I know that something has
changed in the last month or so to cause this but am at my wits end to
know what. DO you know of anything similar elsewhere. I have tried
TeleBit but they are baffled as well.

	It extremely annoying, as the link to uknet, pyrmid, sonyuk
etc has been robust for over two years and now we are getting
effective speeds of less than 1200 baud out of these fancy modems.


Howard
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 00:15:19 GMT
From: tds@hoserve.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Reply-To: tds@hoserve.att.com (Tony DeSimone)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 908, Message 2 of 18

I had followed up on a similar thread some months back, but don't
remember seeing it in the Digest ... in case the mMderator thinks I'm
kidding, I'm not making this up!

On Thu, 17 Sep 1992 06:30:15 GMT, delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben
Delisle) said:

> IRIDIUM

> Here are the Iridium specs.  Note that the constellation has been
> redesigned for larger satellite and cell size, reducing the number of
> satellites from 77 to 66:

Which, according the the ninth edition (1922) of the CRC handbook,
makes it not iridium (atomic number 77, from the Latin, "iris" or
rainbow) but dysprosium (atomic number 66, from the Greek for "hard
to speak with").
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:15:24 GMT
From: castaldi@heroes.glassboro.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AOS PAYPHONES @#$%%%$#
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey, Glassboro, NJ 08028
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 912, Message 7 of 15

Boy, I hate those telephones that are picked to Telesphere, 0-plus and
the like.

Now that they found ways to block 10-ATT-0, AT&T has an 800 access
That puts you into a call processing system. "Press 1 to place an AT&T
call" seems nice, doesn't it? Well guess what -- those rotten payphone
operators will not allow the dialpad to work after a call is placed!
A friend of mine was sooooo mad (read severely p----- off) he hooked a
chain around the bumper of his four wheel drive pickup and drug the
whole phone, stand, and concrete pad down the highway. What will they
think of next!
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 08:12:40 CST
From: tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Larry King Knows of Disconnect
Reply-To: zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com
Organization: TCS Consulting Services
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 903, Message 5 of 15

Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL> writes:

> So has this now definitely changed, and has this change been
> implemented nationwide? Do ALL alternative LD carriers now have
> "answer supervision"?  Or are some of them, or in some areas, still
> billing based on call timing?

> [Moderator's Note: Don't Sprint and MCI both have call supervision now
> along with equal access?

MCI in Mpls/St Paul, MN at least still tries to bill for ringing and
no answers, evidenced by a lot of one minute calls (and two minute) on
a phone bill.  If you call them on it (the attorney's general office
in MN is wanting proof of this from customers :) ), you'll get credit.
These same people say wait ten rings, which puts you in the two minute
category, which they then argue as 'well you must have connected and
talked to someone or something since the call WAS two minutes', or 'we
don't bill for non-connected calls so your wrong'.


TCS Consulting Services   P.O. Box 600008   St. Paul, MN  55106-0008 
 ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta                 ..!src.honeywell.com!tcscs!zeta
Date: 20 Dec 92 10:06:08
From: fzimmerm@csd630a.erim.org (Fred Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Internet to Senegal
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 912, Message 11 of 15

My company is in the planning stages of a project in Senegal.  We
would like to enable our customers in Senegal to have Internet access.
Any thoughts, suggestions, experience?
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:34:06 GMT
From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 910, Message 1 of 11

In fact, not only is "The Net" a bit broad as a trademark and thus may
not stand on those grounds, but it has been (almost) used before,
albeit not as a trademark.  A ham radio club in Germany, NordLink,
produces a program called "TheNet" which, inserted into a common piece
of ham gear called a TNC, turns the TNC (a Z80-based protocol
converter) into a sort of primitive router.

OF course NordLink is not in it for money, and has put TheNet in the
public domain (or copyleft or freeware or something).  And thus they
have no interest in trademarking it.  But they were there first.  The
latest version of TheNet, X1G, is said to do IP.


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com 
k1io             or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 08:57:09 -0800
From: malcolm@apple.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: TCP/IP and Airphones
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 899, Message 6 of 11

I received this article by a pretty obscure path and thought the
Telecom readers might be amused.  I asked Peter Honeyman for
permission to send this to the TELECOM Digest and he approved.  Enjoy.


Malcolm

 From: peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>
 Subject: Airfone Slip Experiences

This message is being composed with mh/comp running in an x11r5/xterm
on an IBM PS-2 model l40-sx running mach 2.6, on Northwest flight 181,
which departed Detroit at 9:30 and is due in San Jose at 14:45. It
will be delivered with smtp as soon as I get a chance, probably when I
reach Tahoe City. [I was able to send it from the San Jose airport.]

I brought up slip over GTE Airfone with a Konex Koupler model 203
acoustic coupler and a Telebit Qblazer running at 300 baud.

The acoustic coupler is a good match for the airfone -- I was able to
make a very snug coupling. I buried the mated pair under pillows.

The Microport 4232 modem was uncooperative, and started complaining
about a low battery before I was able to establish a connection.

With the Qblazer, I was unable to connect to the remote Worldblazer at
high baud rates, but I did get a 300 baud connection going, whereupon
I brought up slip. Here are some representative ping times:


  hone:; ping doom
  PING doom.citi.umich.edu (141.211.128.207): 56 data bytes
  64 bytes from 141.211.128.207: icmp_seq=0. time=46139. ms
  64 bytes from 141.211.128.207: icmp_seq=1. time=50240. ms
  64 bytes from 141.211.128.207: icmp_seq=2. time=52320. ms
  64 bytes from 141.211.128.207: icmp_seq=3. time=55670. ms
  64 bytes from 141.211.128.207: icmp_seq=4. time=57120. ms
  64 bytes from 141.211.128.207: icmp_seq=5. time=59330. ms
  64 bytes from 141.211.128.207: icmp_seq=6. time=63930. ms
  64 bytes from 141.211.128.207: icmp_seq=8. time=63820. ms
  ^C
  ----doom.citi.umich.edu PING Statistics----
  75 packets transmitted, 8 packets received, 89% packet loss
  round-trip (ms)  min/avg/max = 46139/56071/63930

You get the picture -- 90% packet loss and 60 second round trip times.
I'm guessing that the packets spent all that time in the v.42 layer,
although I did not see the error correction light flashing.

I tried to get smtp and telnet sessions going, but they timed out.

In summary, it was something of an accomplishment to get slip running
and packets bouncing from 30,000 feet, but a limited success at best.

I found 117v (the flight exhausted my batteries) and an RJ-11 jack in
the San Jose airport, where I have a lengthy layover.

Peter
From: COM104@UKCC.uky.edu (Bonnie J. Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Call Detail Records
Date: 12 Dec 92 13:59:45 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 900, Message 2 of 14

I have yet to see this subject on the Digest but admit I have only
been a reader for a year.  How long do your schools keep CDR tapes?
Does anyone know what the law is and whether the law varies from state
to state?  Does it vary depending on whether or not the schools own
their own switch or whether the switch is owned by the local operating
company?  Any thoughts you can send my way will be compiled and I'll
post the findings to the group.


ty, bj
Date: 19 Dec 1992 09:59:23 GMT
From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE Mastercard
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 910, Message 7 of 11

I believe the bank that Ford owns is First Nationwide. I did't know
that Ford issed a card, I thought it was just GM and now General
Electric, as well as AT&T.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 03:59 GMT
From: Tansin A. Darcos & Company <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Local Dialins / Direct 800 Numbers
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 907, Message 2 of 11

Could someone tell me how someone obtains a recipient connection to
local dial up ports around the U.S. with specified service, such as
some companies operate, i.e. for allowing lower cost connections than
someone dialing direct via AT&T or MCI or Sprint at $0.12-0.20 a
minute?

I think Compuserve runs something like this at a rate around 30c/hour
(for Compuserve clients), and they do provide connections for other
companies, because TRT runs its Telex service for PCs via Compuserve's
dialup network.

A rate such as this (or even somewhat higher) is fine (I don't know
how much they charge for someone to connect to the service and rates,
and I wonder if there are other options available from other
companies).  Telenet can be scratched right off as their ridiculous
rates of 25c/minute are more than it would cost to put a national
1-800 line in.

In the alternative, I have heard some companies - usually telephone
companies -- can set up an 800 number to call into them, i.e. usually
for use in setting up an outdial line for long distance service.  As I
understand this, the rate they are paying is around $0.05-0.08 per
minute.  (Local dial port where the caller specifies the service he
wants to connect to is probably less expensive than this.)

Can someone who knows anything about this explain how one does this?
Is it because they (1) have a connection into _every single_ LATA in
the U.S. and thus run the connection over their own wires; or (2) they
lease lines from and pay for a connection from someone else who does
(1).

What I am thinking about is a lower-cost way of setting up a dial-in
service for people using modems (or conceivably, fax machines).  As
such it will be doing almost _continuous_ data transfer.  This
probably makes PCPursuit not acceptable since it has problems with
this type of activity, and PCP doesn't handle fax (but then again,
local dialup companies probably don't handle fax, either).

The primary use is for people to _call in_ for doing data transfers.
Essentially this is something akin to what Mci Mail is doing. (If they
didn't charge such a high rate per K to send messages, I could
probably do the whole thing through them.) I.e. someone calls a number
and sends or receives whatever messages / data they are after.

Any information about how this works and what has to be done would be
of interest, i.e. how many lines one has to subscribe to, or is it
done on a block-booking basis, i.e. minimum of 500 hours a month or
some number. I want to get an idea of the costs involved in doing
this.


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:17:23 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 904, Message 3 of 14

I have to believe that the reason this isn't getting attention is that
it is related to delivering mail for which nobody has paid.

The only way to get MCI to do something about this is for those of you
getting TELECOM Digest via MCI Mail to write, threatening to pull your
accounts.


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) 


[Moderator's Note: I've already received copies of correspondence sent
to MCI Help from readers there. Thanks for sending them along.  PAT]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:25:01 GMT
From: jeremy@cs.swarthmore.edu (Jeremy Brest)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Other Bitnet Servers
Organization: Swarthmore College
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 908, Message 15 of 18

john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:

> I have certainly had no trouble for years addressing mail to
> user@system.bitnet. Perhaps you might want to check your local
> system's mailer and transport agent and find out why only you seem to
> have this difficulty.

If for whatever reason your host doesn't cope with user@system.binet,
try user%system.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu.


[Moderator's Note: Ah yes, what a fine net-neighborly act! Let's dump
our traffic on the City University of New York. If they want to run an
open Bitnet gate, that's fine; but more than one institution has fixed
things so the local Bitnet gate is limited to their own users; local
traffic only, they do not run an email expressway through campus.  PAT]
Date: 13 Dec 1992 19:29:57 GMT
From: lee.a.green.md@um.cc.umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Organization: University of Michigan
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 902, Message 6 of 8

In article <telecom12.898.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, Matt McConnell <MCCOMATT@
ba.isu.edu> wrote:

> Whatever happened to the Iridium satelite network?  I seem to recall
> a proposed operating date sometime in '93.  Is Motorola still
> working on this?  What is the progress, if any?  Anyone else doing
> this kind of thing?  Was it configured to operate over the
> Atlantic and Pacific oceans, Antartica, the North Pole?  If I
> remember they decided to reduce the  number of birds but, still keep
> coverage in the same way that a cellular network operates.  

Yesterday's (12/9/92) {Wall Street Journal} says Iridium is still on.
It is a LEO (low earth orbit) satellite system.  Each satellite pass
only lasts about 10 minutes, and a satellite's polar orbit takes it
over the entire Earth in the course of a day.  The orbits are
"sun-synchronous" meaning that each satellite will tend to pass over
you at about the same time each day.  There are 77 satellites in the
constellation, and they hand the user off one to the next like
cellular phone cells.  The difference is that they're moving, not just
the user.  Because the sats are low-orbit, they're easy to reach with
minimal power.  (Ham radio operators regularly work the Microsats, the
ham LEO birds, with 10 watts.)


Lee Green MD MPH          lee.a.green.md@um.cc.umich.edu
Family Practice           GEnie DR.GREEN
University of Michigan    CI$ 75366.1326
                          KF8MO @ KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NOAM
From: jsweet@irvine.com (Jerry Sweet)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:16:48 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 904, Message 2 of 14

I had the same problem with MCI Mail a year or two ago when I was
maintaining a bunch of OSI-related lists.  Also had a similar problem
with ATTMail addresses.  Ever attempt to contact someone in charge of
ATTMail?  Forget it.  NRI, which runs the Internet-MCI Mail gateway,
at least responded when I asked them a question about the problem.

So I solved my particular problem by writing a script that uses two
separate mailing lists: "naughty" addresses and "nice" addresses.  The
"naughty" addresses get e-mail sent to each address individually.
It's a definite added burden on the mailhost, but them's the breaks.
The "nice" addresses get bundled mail, as usual.

I'd be happy to send the script to you if you wish.  It's written in
perl, and is designed to do deal with a list setup significantly
different from yours, but it can at least provide an example.


[Moderator's Note: See my reply above. I am not going to inconvenience
my hosts here further by requiring them to handle the mail in this
way. The simplest answer is to simply cut off the commercial sites
which can't conform.  Delivery of Internet Digests to commercial
services is a very grey area anyway where the rules are concerned. I
do it as a convenience for people who prefer to receive the Digest at
those services; I do not do it so MCI/ATT can make money handling my
(otherwise) non-profit trafic.   PAT]
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Pacific Telesis Breaks UP
Date: 12 Dec 92 11:11:00 GMT
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 900, Message 7 of 14

Moments ago, the board of directors voted to split the regulated
Pac*Bell from the other divisions of Pacific Telesis, in effect making
two separate companies. Reason: to relieve the unregulated side of the
restriction that apply to the utility.

My question: What will they do without all of that "free"
ratepayer-base money?

The split is subject to regulatory approval.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 14:27:15 PST
From: schuh@mdd.comm.mot.com (Michael Schuh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>?"
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 908, Message 6 of 18

In the Nutshell Book, _Programming perl_ (page 274), the authors make
the following comment while describing "fixin - Fixes interpeter lines
on incoming scripts":

    Scripts that are published on The Net* often begin with a #! ...

At the bottom of the page, the footnote reads:

    *If anyone ever trademarks this term, we're all in trouble.


Mike Schuh * Motorola Mobile Data * Seattle 
schuh@mdd.comm.mot.com * +1 206 487 5884