HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Alltel Open House
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:35:00 GMT
Reply-To: turner@dixie.com
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 778, Message 4 of 9

For you people on the left coast: I received an invitation from Alltel
Supply in LA to attend a vendor products showcase involving over 50
vendors.  Most major telecom vendors, save AT&T, are listed.  It's
Thursday, Oct 22, 1992 3 pm to 7 pm with a BBQ dinner at 5 pm.

   Alltel LA Counter Sales Center
   2525 Workman Mill Rd.  Whittier, CA.

What's funny is that it was mailed to me in Alabama from the Alltel
office in Norcross, GA (outside Atlanta).  I guess Alltel confuses the
original LA (Lower Alabama) with it's better known counterpart on the
west coast :-).


Pat Turner KB4GRZ   turner@dixie.com
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:13:02 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE Addresses On Outgoing Email 
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 775, Message 8 of 12

In article <telecom12.768.4@eecs.nwu.edu> JIM.J.MURPHY@gte.sprint.com
writes:

> Let me explain that Curt and I report to the same building for
> work.  Curt is a Switching Systems Technician and works on the GTD5
> CO.  I am a Facility Maintainer and work outside on deregulated
> customer equipment as well as regulated network cable, etc. In this
> small town we can work together when the need arises, such as helping
> to run some jumpers or testing a cable pair with the CO.

I hope that when you call Curt to help run jumpers or do other CO
work, that it's for your regulated network cable responsibilities, and
not your deregulated customer equipment tasks.  This type of situation
shows why it is not really possible for a watchful PUC to ensure that
the deregulated side of a telco cannot really be operated at "arm's
length" such that it has no advantage over competitors.  There will
always be cases where informal arrangements like this can be used to
the advantage of the unregulated side, and the only way to prevent it
is to not allow regulated telcos to operate in competitive
nonregulated markets.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com, I do not speak for my employer.
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:10:21 MDT
From: Matt <MCCOMATT@ba.isu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular Antennae Extenders
Organization: Idaho State University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 768, Message 9 of 12

For those of you with Hello Direct catalogs turn to page 49.

I noticed in the Hello Direct catalog these antenna extenders for
handheld and portable cellular phones.

One is a Y-Star antenna that connects to a car window via suction cups
and then screws in place of the regular antenna.  I can understand
this.

The other two are cordless antennas.  "The patented passive repeater
design restores the cellular signal inside the car, providing a full
3dB bidirectional gain for your handheld cellular phone."  One clips
onto the window and this makes it portable.  The other uses adhesive
pads which mounts it on the window.

My client tends to use his time on Friday mornings to attend board
meetings via conference calls using his Motorola Ultra Clasic.  He's
on the governing board of 24 hospitals so he does this every week.  He
likes to drive out to his cabin at the same time.  So he enters the
fringe areas.

The cellular system he is on is rural.  Don't know if that helps.  So
the cell covers about 20-30 miles.  He also drives a urban tank aka
Suburban.  He already uses the battery eliminator so doesn't want
another cord attached to the phone.

Do these cordless antennas really work?   How so?


Matt McConnell   mccomatt@ba.isu.edu   <---  Stuff that can't wait.
               mcconnellm@csc.isu.edu  <---  Stuff that CAN wait.

Idaho State University  Telecommunications/Computers/Medical
Consultant to Sterling Medical Group, Doctors Plaza, Covington Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 12:54:09 GMT
From: vixen!jadams@uunet.UU.NET (22475-adams)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Unhappy With the AT&T Attitude
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 783, Message 2 of 10

In article <telecom12.761.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John
Higdon) writes:

> As mentioned previously, I do substantial business with AT&T each
> month. Considering the size of my bills, the idea that I would attempt
> to weasel out of even $100 is absurd. The supervisor today was put on
> notice that considering the wretched treatment that I received and the
> lack of effort AT&T put forth in resolving the problem, my search for
> a carrier that would offer even remotely similar rates/service has
> been intensified.

I empathize with John on this.  However, from personal experience, I
know that almost *ALL* of the big three seem to have this attitude to
one degree or another.  Ironically, I find AT&T to be the best ;^} of
the lot from a customer respect perspective.


Jack (John) Adams	   Bellcore NVC 2Z-220
(908) 758-5372 {Voice}	   (908) 758-4389 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com  kahuna@attmail.com
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:47:52 GMT
From: cinpmx!cdid!rhyre%cubs@attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: N-1-1 Codes for Relay Services
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 781, Message 8 of 12

> Dialing 5-1-1 or 7-1-1 from anywhere in the country to access a
> state's relay service will be easy to remember, quicker, and will

Wouldn't this be a case where a 950-XXXX number is warranted?
(950-TRS1 or 950-TDD1).  One could even imagine the XXXX mapping the
the LD carriers which seem to provide these relay services in many
states.

This would seem to be easier to implement for most LECs, and it would
also consume less of the remaining number space. An added benefit is
that 950 numbers typically incur no message unit charges or other toll
charges.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 08:53 EDT
From: fmsys!macy@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Interception in Private Talk
Organization: The Matrix
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 774, Message 14 of 14

In article <telecom12.762.15@eecs.nwu.edu> jrd5@po.cwru.edu writes:

> In article <telecom12.760.3@eecs.nwu.edu> louie@sayshell.umd.edu
> (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:

>> Why assert that conversations cannot easily be followed between cells?

> Indeed, "someone" makes a suitcase for just this purpose. 

There is a company in CA that makes a modified Panasonic handheld
cellular phone that does this and much more.  Although its intended
use is for law enforcement, its been used by a couple of cellular
providers for diagnostic use.

With a good enough antenna, this unit will track calls between cells.
You can key in a phone number, ESN, channel number and lock on to a
call, or you can scan calls and lock onto one as well.

There was a provision for an external tape recorder, and provision for
a DAT interface that would also record the data stream as well as
audio was in development.

Price of the unit was around $3500.  It worked very well.  I saw it
demonstrated in the Washington D.C. area, and was thoroghly impressed.
I almost bought one.

I was also surprised at the content of some of the calls we picked up.
Cellular encryption is available in D.C. from the carriers, and you'd
think it would be used more that it apparently is.  Some people never
learn.


Regards,

Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Highway Call Boxes
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:27:08 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 774, Message 7 of 14

In article <telecom12.767.4@eecs.nwu.edu> morris@grian.cps.altadena.
ca.us (Mike Morris) writes:

> Paul_Gloger.ES_XFC@xerox.com writes:

>> Along the highway, out in the country in California anyway, there are
>> emergency telephone call boxes, with phones which connect you directly
>> to the Highway Patrol or some such agency.  

> They are self-contained cellular phones.  Supposedly they have
> tamper and tilt-over switches, but I doubt it -- there's been one laid
> flat in Eagle Rock (near Pasadena) now for almost two weeks.  The
> solar panel disappeared on day four.

They do indeed have tamper alarms.  There was a case a few months back
of someone on I-580 in the Altamont Pass area taking them down to
steal.  When the CHP dispatcher saw the tamper alarms going off in
succession for a few of the boxes, they got an officer out there
pronto, who found a pickup truck with various call box parts in the
bed.  The driver was apparently stealing them for the metal recycling
value rather than the cellular equipment.  Either way, he got a free
ride to the Greybar Hotel (appropriate for a phone thief, no?  :-))

Here's another tidbit on the California cellular call boxes: I have a
friend who is a civil engineer with CalTrans.  He was lamenting that
the wonderful California legislature passed a law saying that
whereever these boxes are installed, they must be at intervals no
further than two miles apart.  This makes it not cost effective to
install in very rural areas, where a box even every four or five miles
would be a lot better than no boxes.  But, as is the case in many
instances the CA legislature knows what's best for the residents of
the Golden State.


Steve Forrette,  stevef@wrq.com
From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennae Extenders
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:36:00 GMT
Reply-To: turner@dixie.com
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 785, Message 2 of 9

Matt McConnell writes:

> Do these cordless antennas really work?   How so?

The principal is sound, basicly one antenna pulls in a lot of the
signal due to it's large "effective area" (gain) and transmits through
the other antenna outside the car.  To get the 3 dB increase that was
claimed, the passive repeater would have to radiate a field just as
strong at that that was passed through the windows.

I have used this technique before with a Diamond X-500 (11.7 dB at
UHF) installed upside down inside a steel building linked to a 11
element beam on the roof (13.2 dB gain) with a foot of 1/2" hardline
(for low maintainance).  It worked like a charm to enable the
receptionist in another building to be able to talk with employees
inside this one particular building which was partialy underground and
had no openings facing the main office.

Having said this, I would urge you to read the letters to the editor
in the June 1992 issue of {Mobile Radio Technology}.  Scott Wilson, a
RF engineer and manager of Cellular Technical Support for Murata,
tested several passive repeaters with a screen box inside a screen
room using a spec-an.  He found "barely measurable" emmisions from the
passive repeater with the screen box door shut.  Mr. Wilson does say
that many people report improved results with the repeater and that
this is the true bottom line.

I personaly would prefer a mag mount antenna.  While I am distrustful
of "Currents of Death" arguments, I don't mind spending 30 dollars and
time to change antennas to get a 10 dB or so increase in max. ERP and
get the transmitter away from my eyes and brain.

A side note on cellular power levels: Since I have a slug for my Bird
Wattmeter in the cellular band, I decided to leave it in line to watch
power levels as I change locations.  At one point I was just uphill of
a cellular site in TN and my phone was transmitting with three watts.
As someone (Greg Youngblood?) mentioned aparentally some RSA's do not
back off on power levels.

Who was I calling?  MCI, to report a 4W leased line had 78 dBrnco of
noise.  They tried to find the problem, but I couldn't even hear their
feeble attempts to loop the line.  I offered to do a tip tip - ring
ring hard loopback and their tech got all kinds of crazy results.  As
the day warmed up the problem "was fixed".  MCI's response was that
the tech wasn't working the DAC right, and that they couldn't find any
problems now.  At one point I measured +1.5 dBm with a 3 KHz flat
filter. MCI wasn't interested as they only spec C msg noise :-) The
problem, of course, was the LEC's OSP not MCI, but they are the ones
we have to deal with.  I'll just have to wait until next time it
happens and try my luck with the LEC, as I have since gotten the
number for the serving CO toll test board.


Pat Turner KB4GRZ   turner@dixie.com
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992  21:26:51 EDT
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: "It's a New NPA in Georgia..."
Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 773, Message 6 of 15

(With apologies to Ray Charles...)

"It's a new area code in Georgia,
 Looks Like a new area code in Georgia,
 Feels like I'm dialing all over the world..."

According to a map I have received, all of Georgia which is currently
in area code 404 will move to area code 706 except for the following:

Entirely in 404: Cobb, Gwinnett, De Kalb, Clayton, Henry,
                 Rockdale, Fulton, and Douglas Counties.

Split between 404 and 706 are the following:
                 Spaulding, Carroll, Cowita, Fayette, Walton,
                 Barrow, Forsyth, and Cherokee Counties

Area code 912 does not change.


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
These (uninformed) opinons are my own, and no one else is (stupid
enough to be) responsible for them.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:57:36 GMT
From: Eli.Mantel@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Eli Mantel)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: More LATA Nuttiness (Eppes Fork, VA and Raleigh, NC LATAs)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 783, Message 6 of 10

In article <telecom12.771.2@eecs.nwu.edu> de@moscom.com (David Esan)
writes:

> 930 is EPPES FORK, VA.  Anyone know anything about it?

Every North Carolina phone book published by Carolina Telephone (part
of United Telephone) contains a map showing all the LATAs in North
Carolina, and then lists the exchanges within each of the LATAs served
by United Telephone.

These three LATAs are **Eppes Fork**, Fayetteville, and Rocky Mount.
While Fayetteville and Rocky Mount each have several columns of
exchanges listed, the Eppes Fork LATA is listed as follows:

		Eppes Fork LATA
		Henderson
                (Eppes Fork)   252

That's Henderson, NC, by the way.  The area code directory in the same
phone book lists Henderson as being in area code 919, while presumably
there are parts of the Eppes Fork LATA in the 804 area code, yet on
the same telephone exchange.

Another curiosity I noticed, in looking at the LATA map, is that the
Raleigh, NC LATA is discontiguous.  It includes Raleigh and Goldsboro,
but these two cities are totally separated from each other by parts of
the Rocky Mount and Fayetteville LATAs.


Eli Mantel (eli.mantel@bbs.oit.unc.edu)

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 12:28:44 EDT
From: John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Time For a Distinctive Ringing FAQ
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 766, Message 5 of 16

I see that at least twice a week people ask where they can get a ring
leader, a box to be used with distinctive ringing, counts the rings on
an incoming call and connects one of two or three devices.  I hereby
volunteer to collect a list of suppliers of ring leader boxes and
compile a FAQ file for the Telecom Archives.

My box is an ITS Autoline Plus (which works well.)  I've heard of
others from Lynx Automation, the HAL and Hello Direct catalogs, and
now Black Box.  (The price for the Black Box was only $99, surprising
since most of their other stuff costs twice what anyone else charges.)

Send me your ring leader experience and I'll neaten it up into a FAQ
along with some other miscellaneous distinctive ringing lore.  Oh yes,
it'd be useful to have the newspeak names used by all the RBOCs.  Here
are the ones I know:

Nynex:		RingMaster
Bell Atlantic:	IdentaRing

(Add (R), (TM), (SM), etc., to taste.)  There must be at least five more
such names.  Send them along, too.


Regards,

John Levine    johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl


[Moderator's Note: Everyone send your information on this to John.
John, when it gets compiled send it to 'telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu'
with a note and I will put it in the archives.  Thanks for helping.  PAT]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:20:36 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: More LATA Nuttiness
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 783, Message 7 of 10

You mentioned "EPPES FORK, VA".  I saw (in the Buggs Island telephone
directory, which serves South Hill, Va.) that Epps Fork (notice the
minor spelling difference) is served by Carolina Telephone on the 252
prefix, and I cannot yet determine if it is actually in Virginia (804
area) or North Carolina (919 area).
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:39:37 PDT
From: Paul_Gloger.ES_XFC@xerox.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Highway Call Boxes
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 766, Message 4 of 16

Along the highway, out in the country in California anyway, there are
emergency telephone call boxes, with phones which connect you directly
to the Highway Patrol or some such agency.  The boxes have no apparent
wire connections to the rest of the world.  They have mounted on them
what may be a small (eight inch?) photocell, and a small whip antenna.

Are these indeed radio phones powered off a battery which is charged
by the photocell?  What radio frequency and kind of transmission do
they use?


Thanks,

Paul Gloger <PGloger.esxfc@xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:20:08 GMT
From: rlucas@bvsd.co.edu (Richard Lucas)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: And NOW, For a Limited Time Only, Caller-ID in Denver)
Organization: Boulder Valley School District
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 776, Message 5 of 14

In article <telecom12.765.5@eecs.nwu.edu> shing@spot.Colorado.EDU
(SHING PUI-SHUM BENSON) writes:

> You may not know, but Denver's Public Utilities Commision (PUC --
> often known as PUCK for no other reason than a neat name) did NOT want
> US West to install Caller ID in the Denver metro area due to too many
> people who insisted that it was an invasion of privacy, an annoyance,
> and just another option to make people pay more on their bills.
> Denver's PUC was really serious about not letting this go through, but
> it seems they and US West have come to an agree- ment.  From what I
> hear, USW will install CID temporarily, and offer free CID blocking to
> those who ask for it before it's up and running.

     My understanding of the matter doesn't match this description. 

     The US WEST offering was a bot different than most in that the
device displayed not only the number but a listing as well. As a
result there were some pretty drastic privacy concerns voiced by a
number of people.  After the hearings the Colorado PUC approved Caller
ID, but only with a mandatory per-line blocking (rather than the
per-call only blocking). US WEST was willing to offer per-call
blocking, but didn't want the per-line option to be available -- they
'rejected' the PUC decision and said they were going to withdraw the
filing. PUC response was that they legally couldn't withdraw it after
the decision had been reached (or some such reasoning), and the final
decision resulted from negotioations to break the deadlock that
resulted from the opposing opinions.

     My wife still works for US WEST (I used to), and watching the
dispute in the local papers and company bulletins was the most fun I'd
had since pointing out to the PUC several years ago that a local rate
case to set up calling zones in Denver lacked rate reciprocity
(calling from point B to A cost more than calling from point A to
point B) -- and that the PUC's home exchange was the one that would be
on the wrong end of the discrepancy more than any other exchange in
the area. I was amazed that a case lacking reciprocity was even filed.
Knowing that had happened made me less amazed than I should have been
that US WEST tried to pull the Caller ID filing when they did.

     I'm pretty sure I have the Caller ID details right, and I welcome
any corrections if I don't.


Rick Lucas (rlucas@bvsd.co.edu)     Debate Coach, Fairview HS, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992  19:16:37 EDT
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Today's Price on Cellular Phones
Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 774, Message 13 of 14

In an ad in the Friday 10-9-92 {Washington Post}, Circuit City is
selling a GE Transpak 5000 bag, rate $57.97, with Phone Company (Bell
Atlantic) contract of 90 days.


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
I alone am (stupid enough to be) responsible for these opinions.
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:00:00 UT
From: JIM.J.MURPHY@gte.sprint.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE Addresses On Outgoing Email 
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 783, Message 8 of 10

Steve Forrette's comments about working regulated and de-regulated
jobs together puzzle me.
 
In Iowa we are not split into a regulated and a deregulated work
force.  I'm not sure why not, but it's fine with me.  It means more
job security by having more work to do, and provides a nice variety of
work experience.
 
There have been days when I have been dispatched to plow a drop wire
(a regulated job) and sent next to work on a PBX system at our small
local hospital (a de-regulated job).  Other times I might have a
service order for a new install.  The customer has asked for a jack
and wire to be placed in his new house.  I first work on the regulated
cable to terminate the pair at the customer's house.  Then I enter the
house and work on a de-regulated inside wire and jack.  I charge my
time accordingly.
 
There's no advantage in our work environment here simply because we do
both regulated and de-regulated jobs.  The important point I wanted to
make is that different work groups can work together.  In this day of
"It's not my problem", attitude, it's nice to be able to work together.
 

Jim Murphy    AA0JG
Internet - JIM.J.MURPHY@gte.sprint.com
Telemail - J.J.Murphy    America Online - Big Daddy8