HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:11:01 GMT
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: Gordon Burditt
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 309, Message 5 of 8

> [Moderator's Note: The way I deal with silent hang-ups here is to
> simply use *69 to call them back, and when they answer, ask them what
> they wanted. Nine of every ten lie about it and claim they did not
> call, but auto-callback has yet to lead me astray.  These are calls
> from private residences by the way, not DID trunks or back lines on
> PBX systems.   PAT]

You are dialing a phone number.  Your finger slips and you misdial, or
you realize that you have misread the number.  You may not be sure
whether you have dialed a complete number.  What is the polite thing
to do next?

I claim that the correct action is to hang up as quickly as possible,
even in an area with rabid *69'ers.  The chances of avoiding ringing
altogether by hanging up soon enough are good enough that I feel it's
better to avoid bothering someone than wait for them to answer,
possibly waking them up, and apologize.

(This doesn't apply to those who wait for an answer, hear the wrong
voice, and hang up.  I'm still not decided whether I'd rather hear a
quick hang-up or some long-winded apology.)

If someone calls me and doesn't ask for someone by name, or asks for
the listed name on the phone, I generally lie about everything except
"Is this xxx-xxxx?" (If I don't answer or lie about that one, they're
going to call me again).  Usually they end up on indefinite hold
waiting for a nonexistent person or "the %s of the house".  Sometimes
I ask them "Do you commit telephone solicitation often?", which
usually causes them to hang up.

*69 may always get you the right residence, but it might not get you
someone useful to talk to.  ANI/Caller-ID-avoidance techniques such as
calling out on a modem line and Distinctive Ringing with a
ring-cadence switch will also defeat *69.  By the way, if 9 out of 10
people deny calling, how do you know *69 didn't screw up?


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: See earlier message this issue. Most who lie about
it are very unconvincing. I hear hesitation and surprise in their
voice. They have to think about their answer, which should be only a
simple 'yes' or 'no' to the question, 'did you just ring a telephone?'
I suggest to them in the future they take a second to apologize.  PAT]
From: covert@covert.ENET.dec.com (John R. Covert)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Roaming in Australia
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:57:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.319.4
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 319, Message 4 of 5

Recently the question "is there roaming in Australia" came up, and the
answer wasn't immediately available, so I spent some time
investigating this.

Visitors from New Zealand and Singapore may roam for AUS$3/day and
 .29/minute.

If you're from anywhere else, things are not so simple.

Telecom Mobilnet will first send you to the government agency Austel,
who will contact the manufacturer of your phone to obtain written
certification that your phone is identical to a model actually
approved for sale in Oz.  Austel specifically told me to forget about
Radio Shack and Panasonic phones.  You must also provide proof to
Austel that you have had the phone in service outside Australia for at
least four months (present copies of bills).

Austel will then allow your phone to be connected to the network.
Telecom Mobilnet seems to think that at this point you go to a dealer
to have the phone programmed.  Whether you then pay the roamer rates
or whether you have to sign up for regular service, and what you might
be charged for all of this, is not evident.

Austel basically suggested that short-term visitors from the States
rent a phone upon arrival.

Austel claims to be working on a roaming agreement with Hong Kong and
with Cantel in Canada, but doesn't have a clue about how to deal with
the large number of U.S. carriers.


john
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:04:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.300.11
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 300, Message 11 of 11

dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes:

> My Call*Block list is already full, so I had to delete an entry to add
> the new one.

We're a long way from having any CLASS features here in the Golden
State (thanks, activists) but I can already see that the Call*Block
feature has too few entries possible. Recently I set up a system for a
business that uses 800 numbers. The company was getting so many junk
and nonsense calls that the real customers were having a hard time
getting through.

The system works like this: DNIS (similar to DID) and ANI records are
extracted as soon as the call appears. The ANI is checked against a
list of known "junk" callers. If the number is not found, the call
rings an attendant (or goes to ACD if none is available). If the ANI
data matches an entry on the list, the caller hears a recording saying
that the call "cannot be completed at this time". Whenever a call
comes in that does not get intercepted by the list and it turns out to
be a new junk caller, the attendant hits a key and the number is added
to the database.

In three weeks of operation, would you venture a guess as to how many
entries there are on this list? There are over a thousand and the list
is still growing. Granted, this IS a business and its nature would
attract this type of call. However, it does seem that maybe ten
maximum entries might just be a bit low for real usefulness.

I suspect that if one would add up all the "phantom hangup callers"
and all the telemarketing people that I might block from my residence,
the number would be closer to 100 than 10.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 723 1395
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: 12 Apr 92 13:57:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.314.4
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 314, Message 4 of 12

In defense of Fax, faxes are severely compressed using coding that is
tuned to typewritten documents.  The most widely used email systems
lack the richness of representation and the simplicity available to
the Fax users.  I haven't tested the particular message that Jim Rees
sent, but I'd guess a 10k to 15K size for a corresponding fax.  This
depends on fonts used and other details.  While this is still an order
of magnitude above his ASCII size, we're talking about a second or
three at 56KB (7K Bytes/Second)
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Auto Dialers Back
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:46:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.313.8
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 313, Message 8 of 10

monty@proponent.com (Monty Solomon) writes:

> From the 92 Apr 13 issue of {The National Law Journal}:

> The Oregon Court of Appeals on April 1 struck down as violating free
> speech rights a state law prohibiting businesses from using
> computerized telephone dialers to market goods and services.  Because
> the law "regulates commercial speech differently from other subjects
> of speech, it is unconstitutional," the court said.  The law was
> passed by the 1989 Oregon Legislature because of mounting consumer
> complaints about the use of telemarketing computers.

My argument for trying to reverse this would be that auto-dialing
constitutes an action that occurs prior to speech, and is used to
force someone to listen.  This is equivalent to grabbing someone on
the street and turning them your way in order to get them to listen to
what you want to say.  IMHO, restriction and prohibition of
auto-dialers does NOT infringe on the free speech rights in the First
Amendment any more that restriction or prohibition of grabbing people
for the purpose of telling them something would be.

I think this thread line is heading towards misc.legal.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom.com


[Moderator's Note: Indeed, that is where it should be continued by
interested participants.   PAT]
From: forags@nature.berkeley.edu (Al Stangenberger)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Autodialer Recommendations Needed
Date: 13 Apr 92 05:45:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.317.6
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 317, Message 6 of 8

Our campus is addressing the problem of notification of key personnel
in case of emergencies.

Since the type (fire, flood, power outage, ...) and location of
emergencies varies, I was thinking of suggesting some sort of
auto-dialer connected to a database so that, for example, if power
failed in the northwest corner of campus the operator could trigger a
database query which would cause an autodialer to telephone key people
in the affected area and play a message asking them to call in for
further information.

My "ideal system" would also respond to DTMF responses from the called
parties so that the operator could tell whether the message had
reached a live person or an answering machine. ("If you are a live
person, press 1 now ...")

Does anybody know of potential vendors or have experience with such a
system?


Thanks.

Al Stangenberger                    Dept. of Forestry & Resource Mgt.
forags@violet.berkeley.edu          145 Mulford Hall - Univ. of Calif.
uucp:  ucbvax!ucbviolet!forags      Berkeley, CA  94720
BITNET: FORAGS AT UCBVIOLE          (510) 642-4424  FAX: (510) 643-543
From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Date: 8 Apr 92 06:14:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.302.7
Reply-To: rpw3@sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 302, Message 7 of 10

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

> The Primary Rate ... U.S. standard is 23B + D, in Europe
> 31B + D. Contrary to what was posted earlier, a Basic and Primary Rate
> device cannot interoperate directly, because of differing data rates.

But they *can*! Any single B channel on either can call a single B
channel on the other. That's what "2B", "23B", and "31B" *mean*! All B
channels are 64kb/s. (Of course a given *call* may only be able to
carry 56kb/s, but that's another story.)

Now perhaps you were thinking that the D channels couldn't interoperate, 
because on Primary Rate the D channel is 64kb/s and on Basic Rate it's
only 16kb/s. But all communications on the D channel is already packet
mode, so the rate adaption is built in.


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510	  rpw3@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.	  (415) 335-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.   Mountain View, CA  94039-7311
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:08:42 GMT
From: rls!randy@cis.ohio-state.edu (Randall L. Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal?
Organization: The Internet
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 309, Message 7 of 8

helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:

> Needless to say, I sleep better now. (The answering machine gets it
> all.  If it's the county coroner calling with bad news, it can wait
> until morning.  If someone's dead, putting it off 'till morning won't
> make 'em any deader!)
>
> [Moderator's Note: I get very few wrong numbers in the middle of the
> night, and the rare calls I receive between midnight and 8 AM are
> likely to be important. See the above message. When I do get one at 3
> AM (I can't remember the last time) I use *69 to call them back and
> ask them to be more careful in the future.   PAT]

Dear Mr. Moderator,

You've mentioned the *69 option twice in this newsgroup and finally
got my goat (whatever that means).

What the devil is *69?

Is it associated with CID implemented in *your* area or something *every*
phone subscriber should expect to be able to purchase?  I would *dearly*
love to be able to call cretins back to say, "You rang?".

An Ohioan w/o CID.


Cheers!

randy@rls.uucp  <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy  rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu


[Moderator's Note: The newer generation of custom calling features,
known as CLASS, includes auto callback of (*69) the last call you
received, and (*66) the last number you called. Both features will
continue trying to connect for up to 30 minutes. You may have them
available sometime. Ask your telco when CLASS will be available.  PAT]
From: grog@adagio.uucp (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Date: 2 Apr 92 16:08:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.298.3
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 298, Message 3 of 9

In article <telecom12.291.8@eecs.nwu.edu> aimla!ruby!rudholm@uunet.
UU.NET (Mark Rudholm) writes:

> Advertisements were run in Germany a couple of years ago for various
> informational services, some of which were aimed at children.  Many
> people unfamiliar with direct international dialing in Germany called
> them without realising that they were placing international calls.

I saw a similar thing in a German magazine just a few weeks ago. The
number was in Hong Kong. Somewhere in the small print it indicated the
cost of a call, but didn't mention where the call was going. I think
it was phone sex advice or some such.

> Oh, to whomever it was that said that Germany has a better telephone
> system than the U.S., you have a great sense of humor!  Most of
> Germany, even the major cities, are still served by mechanical
> switches. 

Things are, in fact, changing rather rapidly, though I agree with the
sentiment. Nowadays, if you want a new phone in a big town, you *must*
have ISDN (which, coincidentally, costs DM 74 per month base charge as
opposed to DM 40 for two normal analogue phones).

> Tone dialing is unavailable anywhere from Deutsche Telekom
> (the country's only telephone company) except recently in some VERY
> limited test-areas.  

Again, things are changing, though steam dial is still the name of the
game.

> Connecting any non-Telekom provided equipment to the network is
> forbidden, unless you pay for an expensive "protective-interface"
> (does that rhetoric sound familiar to you pre-carterfone Bell System
> customers?)

Not quite so. The equipment must be Telekom-approved (like equipment
connected to the US PSTN needs to be FCC approved). The difference is:

1. It's difficult to get approval (but not nearly as difficult as it
used to be). Thus the prices are high. From a Telekom pricelist: V.22
bis (2400 bps async) modem, DM 999 ($600), internal DM 1274 (don't ask
me why)). Rental charges DM 53.01/42.98 per month (don't ask me why
the internal is cheaper to rent than the external, I'm just reading
the list. But do note that the external costs $35 a month in rental).

2. Get caught, say, with an unapproved modem, and you can, at least in
theory, be sent to jail.

> The reason for all of this is simple, Deutsche Telekom has no
> competition.

Agreed. Fortunately, they don't require *me* to use ISDN, I just want
to (how else can you get 64 kb/s transmission for the price of a phone
call?). But since I don't live in a big city, I would have to pay not
DM 74 but DM 3320 per month for a basic rate ISDN connection. Ouch.


LEMIS         		
W-6324 Schellnhausen 2  Germany			
Tel: +49-6637-1488, fax -1489   Mail: grog%lemis@Germany.Eu.net
From: ct@dde.dk (Claus Tondering)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Date: 1 Apr 92 12:53:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.298.2
Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 298, Message 2 of 9

lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) writes:

> In article <telecom12.282.3@eecs.nwu.edu> UK84@DKAUNI2.BITNET
> writes:

>> 001- (access code for the US from Germany) -610-204-04xx (xx from 81 to 92)

> I was of the impression that the 610 area code was unassigned

Couldn't this be the whole point! By using an unassigned area code the
call can be intercepted in Germany and redirected to a German phone
which would then provide the pseudo-900 service at the cost of an
overseas call.

I know this is not what the original poster suggested, but could it
not be the case nonetheless?


Claus Tondering
Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark
E-mail: ct@dde.dk
From: lai@seas.gwu.edu (William Y. Lai)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Wanted: IEEE Journals
Date: 2 Apr 92 18:44:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.297.5
Organization: George Washington University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 297, Message 5 of 13

I am a graduate student in search of past and present issues of IEEE
magazines/ journals.  My research area is in communciations, so any
CommSoc magazines journals would be of particular interest.  Some
sample titles that I am interested in acquiring:

Spectrum
Communications Magazine
Transaction on Communications
etc.

Also I am interested in the May 91 (?) issue of Transaction on
Vehicular Tech., with topics mainly in cellular and PCN technology.
If you have any issues I described above, and would like to sell them,
drop me a line. Thanks.


Regards,

William   email: lai@seas.gwu.edu  George Washington Univ. Washington, D.C.
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 92 01:19:14 GMT
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
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 299, Message 2 of 9

Most all the replies to the question "how is ISDN carried?" treated
Basic Rate as the only, or at least the most important, kind of ISDN.
Actually, ISDN Primary is currently enjoying an explosive rate of
growth. Typically, it links a PBX to a 4ESS, DMS-250, etc., and it is
finding widespread acceptance in customer support and (ugh!)
telemarketing applications.

The Primary Rate physical connection is over a T1 link. You can
operate 56 kb data over a T1 Superframe link, using ZCS ("bit-jamming"
or zero-character suppression), or 64K clear-channel over an
unrestricted B8ZS/ESF line.  The U.S. standard is 23B + D, in Europe
31B + D. Contrary to what was posted earlier, a Basic and Primary Rate
device cannot interoperate directly, because of differing data rates.
But they can function as part of the same network when the differing
rates are adapted, each according to its own standard. All ISDN
interfaces are synchronous data links, using LAPD/HDLC.


  
 Robert Sheaffer - sheaffer@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com (at ROLM Systems)
         sheaffer@netcom.com             (at home)
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone?
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:44:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.305.5
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 305, Message 5 of 7

cmoore@BRL.MIL writes:

> I stayed at Edgewood, Maryland recently.  The hotel charged 30 cents
> for each local call from a room phone, and the nearby pay phones (C&P)
> charged 25 cents for a local call.

I just spent three nights in a Holiday Inn in Skokie, IL. On the table
is a card next to the phone that proclaims AT&T to be the carrier
chosen by the hotel for 0+ long distance calling. A sticker on the
phone warns that sixty cents is added to just about every kind of call
made from the telephone. Fair enough.

But upon making a calling card call (using a Pac*Bell card), the
kabong was accompanied by a spoken "HDN". After entering the card
number a voice said, "Thank you for using HDN". Ah ha! I pulled out my
AT&T CIID card and tried it again. Same as before except that after
entering the card number I got a long pause and then, "Thank you for
using AT&T".

The moral of this story would seem to be that one cannot believe what
one reads on signs in hotel rooms and that if one wants to REALLY use
AT&T, he should only use the CIID card.

Needless to say both AT&T and Holiday Inn are going to receive
letters.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 723 1395
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
From: nt@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Nicolas Tripon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Where the Term 'Bug' Came From
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:47:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.311.8
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 311, Message 8 of 11

> [Moderator's Note: Is that where the expression 'have you got a bug up
> your switchboard' (or something like that!) came from?  :) Seriously
> though, the term 'bug' as used in software programming does come from
> the late 1940's when the old vacuum tube style computers had large
> relays in them into which insects would crawl to hide; wind up getting
> squashed and cause the relays to malfunction.  PAT]

Some time ago, this subject was discussed on alt.folklore.computers;
it was thought that admiral Grace Hopper was the inventor of the term.
It seems that the computing community adopted it from radar engineers.


Regards,

Nicolas Tripon