HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 19:16 EST
From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection on Telephone Lines
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 867, Message 3 of 6

> It seems to be arcing between the telephone lines and the electrical
> system.  The telephones themselves are not hurt, unless they are
> plugged into the house wiring or touching something that is plugged
> in.

This is indicative of common mode surges, which is usually the case
with lightning induced surges.  The surge is between Tip and Ring and
ground

I would get some good AT&T or Reliance five-pin surge protectors such
as the AT&T 3C1SC.  They can either be mounted in a Small Pair Count
Protector, or soldered to the individual wires.  Connections to the
Small Pair Count Protector are made with 110 blocks, but the grey
"push like hell" caps are included, which will do the job if you don't
own a punchdown tool (doesn't everybody :-)) six and 25 pair models
are available and they can be had empty, or already populated with
protectors.

Protectors such as they AT&T model mentioned above should fail with
tip and ring shorted to ground.  Additional protection can be had by
ataching them to your demarc with 26 or 28 ga wire to act as a fuse.
You could also use a spark gap on the CO side of the protector, or use
a common mode choke if you desire.

Make sure the protectors are well grounded and avoid sharp turns in
the lead.  Bond all your grounds (CATV, telco, the protector and the
lead from your power pannel, which should bond your neutral and power
groung together.  You may want to consider using multiple rods well
bonded together.


Pat Turner KB4GRZ   turner@dixie.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 21:51:46 EDT
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@SCL.CWRU.Edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Measure Twice, Cut Once ...
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 852, Message 14 of 14

ClariNet/UPI reports that AT&T's cable from Japan to Point Arena,
California came up six miles short.

Oops ...

	Hey boss...
	Suppose we yank hard and pull up the slack?


wb8foz@scl.cwru.edu
Date: 15 Nov 92 15:08:33 GMT
From: jrichert@krefcom.GUN.de (Jan Richert)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telephone Phreaks
Organization: Krefcom UUCP Server, Krefeld, FRG
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 847, Message 12 of 17

cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu (Christopher J. Ambler, Phish) writes:

> Also, would someone tell me what the STD-III Information Center is?
> (Dial 950-1288 anywhere in the USA, 2400,8N1.)

> (SIT TONES) The long distance company indication for this call is
> incorrect. Please try your call again or call your long distance
> company for assistance.

That's what I get: "Your international call cannot be completed as
dialed. Please check the number and dial again or call your AT&T
operator for assistance."


Greets,

Jan Richert (NIC-ID: JR482)   | Internet:   jrichert@krefcom.GUN.de
Krefeld, FRG                  | BTX:        02151399843-0001
Voice & FAX: +49 2151 313124  | IRC-Nick:   jrichert
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 01:55:37 GMT
From: jgb@mcm.com (Jeff Bennington)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Help Wanted Setting Up Paging
Reply-To: jgb@mcm.com (Jeff Bennington)
Organization: Mellon Capital Management Corp., San Francisco
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 842, Message 4 of 14

A consultant friend of mine has an application where he wants to set
up a private paging network which will span the continental US.

Please reply to this email box.

Thanks!


Jeff Bennington    jgb@mcm.com  
Mellon Capital Management Corp, San Francisco CA
From: nigel.allen@canrem.com (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: International Dialing
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:00:00 GMT
Organization: Echo Beach
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 863, Message 4 of 10

The following information from Stentor Canadian Network Management,
the consortium of major Canadian telephone companies, was distributed
through the Canadian Department of Communications' Terminal Attachment
Program Advisory Committee as TAPAC bulletin 92-13.

Advance Notice of Change in the Maximum Length of International
Telephone Numbers:

Beginning midnight December 31, 1996, CCITT Recommendation E.164 will
be implemented.  This recommendation allows the expansion of
international telephone numbers from 12 to 15 digits.  Although the
North American Numbering Plan will not change, some foreign
administrations may assign numbers up to 15 digits long to
subscribers. Therefore, terminal equipment originating calls to these
subscribers must be able to handle the additional digits.

For more information on this change, please contact:
 Marion Norman
 Stentor Canadian Network Management
 410 Laurier Ave. West, 8th Floor
 P.O. Box 2410, Station D
 Ottawa, Ontario    Canada  K1P 6H5
 telephone (613) 560-3420    fax (613) 560-3226


Note from NDA: I think the "international telephone number" in this
context includes the country code but excludes the access prefix, such
as 011 in Canada and the United States.

Readers in the United States should presumably contact the North
American Numbering Plan Administration at Bellcore rather than
Stentor.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 05:51 GMT
From: Daniel K. Cheng <0004654269@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CompuServe and Hutchison Provide Access From Hong Kong
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 865, Message 2 of 10

Just released by CompuServe: Hutchison Information Services will start
providing local CompuServe access from Hong Kong starting from
December 1st. Network surcharge under this access option will be
US$15/hr (vs. INFONET's US$50/hr previously).


  ***************** Welcome to CompuServe Hong Kong ***************
       a Service from Hutchison Information Services, Ltd.

We are pleased to introduce "CompuServe Hong Kong" to our members in
Hong Kong. Beginning December 1st, on behalf of CompuServe
Incorporated, Hutchison Information Services will provide you with
many new benefits to your current membership.

CONVENIENT ACCESS VIA THE COMPUSERVE NETWORK

After December 1st, you will be able to access the CompuServe
Information Service through CompuServe's local node in Hong Kong.
This node will support access up to and including 9600 bps.

To logon to CompuServe Hong Kong via this CompuServe node using
CompuServe Information Manager (CIM), just modify the phone number
field to 304-1332, and select the "CompuServe" network option.  To
access the service using another communication software package, type
GO LOGON to obtain logon information.

COST EFFECTIVE RATES

All your CompuServe Hong Kong charges will be translated into H.K.
dollars by Hutchison at a rate of 7.8.  The total communication
surcharges for the CompuServe Hong Kong Service using the CompuServe
access number listed above will be $15.00 (US) per hour.  This is in
addition to the standard connect rates of $12.50 (US) per hour,
monthly fees for any billing option you may choose, and premium
surcharges.  Also, your monthly International Handling Fee of $10.00
(US) will be replaced by a $80.00 (HK) monthly handling fee beginning
with your December billing.

For a complete explanation of these rates, contact CompuServe Hong
Kong Customer Service, or type GO RATES once online.

LOCAL CUSTOMER SERVICE & SALES

CompuServe Hong Kong offers friendly and convenient customer support
and sales.  Your current membership and billing information will be
transferred to them.  You can call them Monday through Friday (9 am to
6 pm) and Saturday (9 am to 12 pm) or send them a Feedback message (GO
FEEDBACK once online) for assistance.  Please contact CompuServe Hong
Kong after December 1st for all your support needs.  They will also
have membership materials available for sale at the Sales telephone
number listed below.

           Customer Support      867-0102
           Sales & Inquiry       867-0118
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 15:14:37 GMT
From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Snooping and Privacy Issues
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 844, Message 11 of 12

In article <telecom12.840.3@eecs.nwu.edu> rick@ricksys.lonestar.org
writes:

> monty@proponent.com (Monty Solomon) writes:

>> After discussing privacy laws, legalities, and realities, Flinn notes
>> that at Scanners Unlimited in San Carlos, CA, "about a quarter of the
>> customers are interested in telephone eavesdropping."

> I wonder if sales have increased since it will soon be illegal to sell
> receivers that still include cellular (such as the Icom R100), also I
> wonder if the new scanners will no longer be easily modifiable to
> receive cellular?

The new law includes language which states that new scanners must NOT
be easily midifiable to receive cellular.  So, the law at least
dictates that thought, ut it remains to be determined what the FCC
will consider the threshold of "easily modified" to be.

More importantly, the ability for someone to construct a broadband
frequency converter is and always will be relatively easy and that,
will still provide those with a desire to listen to cellular, an
alternative means to enable their scanner to recieve cellular without
any internal modification.  For those that might not know what a
broadband converter is, it is a simple device that takes a range of
frequencies and shifts them by a finite frequency shift to another
range.  For example, you could build a broadband converter that takes
all the frequencies from 700-1000mhz and shifts them to 500-800mhz.
By doing that, the cellular frequencies in the 800mhz range come out
at 600mhz and can then be idividually derived by any scanner that
includes a receive capability that goes up to the 600mhz range.

This very subject was initially mentioned by the editor of "Monitoring
Times" magazine when the new cellular scanner ban law was sent to the
white house.  The reality is that there is simply nothing that can be
done to ensure that no one is listening to any cellular call that is
not encrypted.

It is for this very reason that I have emphasised to my family and
friends that they should always treat any cellular (or cordless) phone
conversation as if it were being broadcast to the public at large and,
therefore, they should not divulge anything (e.g. credit card numbers,
etc.) when using those type phone calls.


Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.

Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: todd@valinor.mythical.com (Todd Lawrence)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Looking For Three-Slot Coin Phone
Date: 22 Nov 92 05:07:08 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 866, Message 9 of 12

jsimpson@darmok.uoregon.edu (John Simpson) writes:

> I've always enjoyed the sound of the coin bells inside the old
> three-slot payphones.  I would like to own one for myself to use
> inside my residence.

> Of course I would want a coinbox key!  I have two big questions,
> first, is it kosher to have a coin phone on a private residential
> line? Second, where can I buy one of these beasts?

John,

Installing a coin-phone on a residential line should pose no legal
problems whatsoever, however it will have to be used as a
"residential" type phone, you will not unfortunately be able to use it
as a coin station from your residence for two reasons (you may already
be familiar with this but anyway ...) 1) a coin station is defined as
such to the local switch software and you can not have coin/resident-
ial on the same line. (you could bypass this problem by installing a
second line though). 2) the software that is responsible for tallying
the coin insertion (ACTS it's called), would no longer recognize the
bell tones as coin deposits. However I know of several folks who have
these things in their homes and they do make great phones. I believe
they got them at antique stores, I'll ask them and see if I can find
any more information for you and anyone else interested in em.


Todd Lawrence
LOD! Communications     internet : todd@valinor.mythical.com
IMF Acquisition Group   uucp     : uunet!valinor!todd
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:18:04 GMT
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T's COLOR Videophone With Motion
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 855, Message 7 of 8

In article <telecom12.844.3@eecs.nwu.edu> Jim.Rees@umich.edu writes:

> In article <telecom12.833.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, Tansin A. Darcos & Company
> <0005066432@mcimail.com> writes:

>> To put it into perspective, we think that SEVEN frames per second is
>> terrible and we are trying to eventually get to THIRTY frames per
>> second.  Thirty frames per second is the same as the number of
>> animation stills they use in cartooning.  Supposedly, one cannot tell
>> the difference between live video and thirty frames per second video.

> In the US, broadcast video is 30 fps.  Elsewhere it's 25 fps.  Cartoon
> animation is never done at 30 fps, even by Disney.  8 or 12 is
> typical.  Motion pictures usually run at 24 fps.

Frame rates are important for interactive video (like videophones).

Below 12-15 fps you can see visible "flicker" or "jump" in the image.
This is perceptable at 20fps if you're real sensitive to it.  I have
>serious< problems with image flicker; more than an hour or so of it
and my eyes complain profusely.

Now, at REAL slow frame rates (5fps and below) its just annoying to me
and doesn't give me headaches and the like.  Its the median amounts
that are troublesome for me.

Most motion pictures are 24fps, as above.  Broadcast video is 1/2 the
line rate normally (30fps interlaced in the US, 25fps where power is
50Hz).

However, if you run a high-res short-persistence display at 30fps you
WILL see flicker in the image.  The sharper the picture the worse the
problem.  This is why newer monitors for computer systems tend to run
72Hz non-interlaced displays (no flicker AND no "beat" or even
multiple with the 60Hz beat of office lighting).


Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 00:14:53 GMT
From: furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Phones on the Same Number
Organization: Motorola
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 843, Message 8 of 11

In article <telecom12.830.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, tg@chmsr.gatech.edu (T.
Govindaraj) wrote:

> installer suggested a place called Recellular with an 800 number. He
> suggested the Motorola Flip Phone, Classic, or Ultra Classic. (We now
> have a Panasonic EB3500. A lighter, but not too expensive will be
> nice.)

Motorola makes a package that is called the Extended System.  It
basically copies your Mico-Tac's phone number, when mounted in a
pocket, into your permanently mounted car telephone.  When in the car,
you get all the features of your car phone ... hands free, high power
RF PA, car speaker, external car antenna, etc. When removed the
number remains the same.  One phone number, one bill.  As an option,
you can get two numbers so you can call the other when the Micro-Tac
is not installed.  When you get one number, the car phone is
essentially dead when the Micro-Tac is removed.

> [Moderator's Note: Uh, not to disappoint you, but have you cleared
> this with the cellular company?  Most do NOT allow two or more phones
> to share the same number because the ESN is different in each phone
> and ESN validation is what cellular billing integrity is all about. An
> analogy would be two landline customers sharing the same wire pair and
> expecting telco to figure out who to bill for which calls. Most
> cellular systems will only validate one ESN per line. Even using it
> the way you describe it, you could never call *each other* on the
> other's cell phone. Why not just get two numbers; that is what
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now there's an option.

> everyone else does. 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
There are inexpensive calling packages for casual only becuase they
didn't know of availability.


Bob Furtaw - W8IL   CFI-A/G/I/MEI, CGI-A/I
All disclaimers ever written by anybody apply. :-)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 20:23:46 EST
From: Tony Harminc <TONY@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Request: Large Format FAX
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 847, Message 13 of 17

AUGUST@JPLLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV (Richard B. August) wrote:

> We have the need for a large format FAX capability.  By "large format"
> we mean C/D size drawings (C=18x24, D= 24x36).  Any assistance is
> greatly appreciated.
 
I just saw a Xerox ad yesterday for exactly such a beast.  It looks
huge -- more like a floor standing whiteprinter or similar.  I don't
remember the model number, but the ad said something about G3
compatibility.
 
Ask your local Xerox office.


Tony Harminc
Date: 15 Nov 1992 00:05:06 GMT
From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Stupid Phone Systems Blocking N[01]X Prefixes
Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan CITI
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 843, Message 10 of 11

In article <telecom12.840.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu
(Jim Rees) writes:

> You would think that cellular providers would be sensitive to the
> problem of dialing numbers with a 0 or 1 as the second digit, since
> many cellular prefixes are of this type.  But our latest cell phone
> number is in the 600 prefix, and we've found that we can't roam
> anywhere, even where our provider has a mutual roaming agreement with
> the remote provider.

> [Moderator's Note: When you say they 'cannot deal with the 600 prefix'
> do you mean other carriers refuse to accept it as a valid phone number
> for purposes of billing roamers, or do you mean they refuse/cannot
> accept it for the purpose of incoming calls passed along through the
> local xxx-ROAM number?

The former.  We haven't tried to get incoming calls while roaming.

> I'd say the best recourse here is to simply refuse to pay any
> roaming charges under the circumstances.

We would do that, but no charges show up on our bill.  We are simply
unable to make any outgoing calls while roaming, short of contacting
every cell service provider in the US, I can't think of any good
solution.  Looks like we will have to ask our local provider for a
different number in a more "normal" prefix.
From: TIMOTHY.K.HONG@gte.sprint.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Large Format FAX
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:15:51 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 849, Message 3 of 13

I just received some information on the Xerox 7124SH Digital Facsimile
System.  The 7124SH is a scanner/copier/facscimile all rolled into one
device.  Here is a very brief list of features:

o Scan documents for fax and non-fax applications.  Documents can be 
  stored, printed, faxed or viewed on the screen (requires PC).
o View scanned images or fax received images.
o Single or multiple copies of documents up to 24"x36".  100% or 200% 
  enlargements of original.
o Multiple methods of sending faxes: menu, DOS prompt or local mode from 
  the Xerox 7124S.
o Electronic Outgoing Job Control.  Single or batch fax to one or more 
  locations (immediately or delayed).
o Incoming faxes can be:
  - printed on Xerox 7124S (single or multiple)
  - stored electronically
  - viewed then printed
  - saved
  - re-faxed to another destination
o Fax A, B, C or D sizes from Xerox 7124S to a Xerox 7124S.
o Fax A, B, C or D sizes from Xerox 7124S to a Standard G3.  B, C & D 
  drawings are divided into multiple faxes.
o Receive A or B size faxes from Standard G3 (partially supported).  Up 
  to 4 A size per phone call.
o Other:
  Compatibility - CCITT Group 3 facsimile
  Max size input - 24"x36"
  Image buffer - 4MB
  Transmission Speed - 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400 bps, with auto fallback.
  Output - Thermal line print (23.76"x35.3")
  Resolution - Fine: 203x196 ppi
               Standard: 203x98 ppi
               16 levels of gray scale
  Media - Direct thermal roll paper (24"x300')

Sorry, I don't have any prices.  You should probably contact Xerox for
more information.  I personally like the idea of being able to fax a D
size drawing to a standard G3 machine.  Hope this was of some help.


Timothy Hong  (Timothy.K.Hong@GTE.Sprint.Com)
GTE Hawaiian Tel - Beyond The Call
Usual Disclaimer! Nothing I submit has anything to do with my employer.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 14:31:26 -0800
From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Regulating Cellular
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 857, Message 7 of 11

I don't believe anyone else has posted anything on this topic, so I'll
take a stab at it.  A couple weeks ago, the {LAT} reported that the CA
PUC is considering regulating cellular rates because cellular remains
too expensive.  Representatives of the cellular industry said that
cellular is priced at market, not cost.  They also maintained that
lower rates would increase demand and result in higher prices.

The article noted, as I recall, that hardware prices have fallen 90%,
but air time has not really changed at all over the last eight years
or so.

Could it be the real intent is to increase the number of cullular
carriers beyond two?  Of course, the PUC cannot do that directly.


david