HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 14:36:15 PST
From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: IBT Raises Pay Phone Rates to 30c "Temporarily"
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 858, Message 7 of 13

I just heard on the radio that Illinois Bell plans to raise pay phone
rates by 5c to 30c until they raise 30 million dollars. I forget what
they "need" the money for, I think it was to pay for something they
did that they shouldn't have.  After they raise the money they "plan"
to lower the rate back to 25c.


reb
-- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com  or  reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:828 South May Street  Chicago,  IL 60607  312-733-3090
w:reb Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500


[Moderator's Note: It was NOT to 'pay for something they did they
shouldn't have ...'; it is to compensate for the dizzy ruling from a
judge here saying that taxes have to be collected on pay phone calls.
Since pay phones cannot accept pennies and there is a tax on local
phone calls courtesy of our city council, IBT had been spreading the
pay phone portion of the tax -- being unable to collect a penny or two
from each pay phone user -- among all subscribers. All of us pay City
of Chicago tax on our phone bills; it was perhaps ten or fifteen cents
per month more than it would have been had pay phone users been paying
the tax also. IBT had to refund several year's worth of pro-rated taxes
collected from subscribers (I got, I think, fifteen cents per month
refund covering several years of service) as a credit on the phone
bill back in September. At the same time, pay phone calls were raised
five cents so the tax could be collected.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992  02:32:05 EST
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: MCI Goes Into PCS 
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 842, Message 1 of 14

Article Summary:

"MCI Enters Wireless Phone Race" {Washington Post}, Nov 18, Page B1

MCI asked the Federal Communications Commission to license "a
consortium of companies" to build and operate a nationwide network?
The companies would probably be companies that are already involved in
wire: other telcos, cable companies and those already involved in the
technology, as well as entrepreneurs.

It's suspected the pressure built up on MCI because AT&T is spending
$3.8b to buy McCaw Cellular.  Both AT&T and McCaw have been
independently working on wireless data and telephone service and will
probably pool their efforts.  Obviously, MCI makes the usual claim
that they were working on this beforehand.  Another mention that
Sprint is merging with Centel.  So far there are some 200 applicants
for experimental PCS tests.  It rementions that three companies got
"pioneer preference" as stated earlier.

Questions involve who gets to operate, how they will be licensed, and
what is the way the country is to be divided. In the consortium, MCI
would be minority partner, providng billing and bill collection,
technical standards, marketing and network plans, as well as the means
used to locate the destination telephone.  MCI apparently will provide
the brains and the partners the capital, technical capability and
local presence; one alleged advantage is "It would enable participants
otherwise too small to survive in a national or even regional PCS
market to play a significant role in PCS nonetheless," MCI told the
FCC (i.e where without MCI's capabilities they couldn't.)  Dozens of
companies filed comments.  "At state are billions of dollars of
investment" on a network that could be in operation by 1994.

MCI wants the FCC to award three national licenses to consortia after
the hearings are held to pick who wins, with the idea that a consortia
will need a "national manager."  Three guesses as to which company it
thinks will get that position (Hint, it's a telephone company with
three letters in its name).  Wayne Schelle, President of American
Personal Communications, the PCS company owned by the Post, is not
pleased with that idea. "They are too big and unwieldy. We think they
are anti-competitive.  This is not like awarding a national license in
Costa Rica.  We're talking about three million square miles."
Questions about the part local telcos will have has lead comments such
as Bell Atlantic Corp which wants to have two licenses available to
allow the local telephone companies to have at this new system as
well.


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
"If I or anyone else on this account are caught giving opinions,
the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of my actions..."
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:51:42 GMT
From: cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (gordon hlavenka)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Airfone -- Phooey
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 856, Message 8 of 13

> ... but I find the process of setting up a call to be a bit
> counterintuitive at best.

Excuse me?  You remove the handset from the holder, look for the green
LED to come _on_, telling you a line is available.  Then you run your
credit card through the reader.  Then you wait for the dial tone.
Finally, you dial the area code and phone number.  A bit long, but not
confusing.

The only two flaws of the Airfone system are that it's completely
analog, and that all signalling is in-band.  (That's the "beeps and
boops.")


Gordon S. Hlavenka    cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us
Date: 21 Nov 92 20:47:36 CST
From: haydedr@wkuvx1.bitnet (Ross Hayden)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Ringing My Own Phone
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 865, Message 9 of 10

I'm new to this newsgroup, and know very little about telephony techno
stuff.  I do hope to learn more here, though.

My question is this: Is there a way to find out a number I can dial
that will make my phone ring (other than calling a friend and asking
for a callback)?

In the city I used to live in, you could dial 959-XXXX, where XXXX is
your phone number suffix, do a little dance on the switchhook by
hanging up three or four times quickly, and, viola, the phone would
ring after the final hangup.

I've since moved to another city, and the operators here don't seem to
know what I'm talking about, and 959-XXXX doesn't work.


Thanks in advance for any help!

Ross Hayden   haydedr@wkuvx1.bitnet


[Moderator's Note: This changes from one town to the next, and
sometimes the same telco may change it every two or three months.
There is no standard. Perhaps someone familiar with Bowling Green will
write you with details.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 23:12:17 -0800
From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Personal 800 Numbers
Reply-To: henry@ads.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 846, Message 9 of 13

Tansin A. Darcos & Company <0005066432@mcimail.com> wrote:

> AT&T will offer a regular 800 number, for $15 a month plus usage which
> is, if I'm not mistaken, a flat 31c/Minute.  This ties into an
> ordinary phone number.  There is a charge of $30 to install it.

Is this really the personal 800 tariff?  I'm using Pac*Bell's personal
800 service and I'm only paying $5/month and $0.25/minute (billed in
six-second intervals). The service is actually provided by Sprint;
they bill the Sprint $15/month fee on the bill I get for usage, and a
credit appears simultaneously.  I pay the $5/month to Pac*Bell. This
gives you a real 800 number, and not one of those bogus "call this 800
number and then dial this extra code" crapola.

I get the listing of callers (with phone number, city, date, time and
length of call) in my personal 800 Sprint bill.

My only gripe is that my number is either very close to someone else's
number, or was recycled too soon, because I get bills with calls that
weren't authorized (I know this because I've not given out the number
to anyone ... I use it myself for one specific purpose). The total
cost of these calls has been less than $0.15 over the past few months,
so this isn't a big deal for me ... but it might be for someone else.


# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
#     for information on the league for programming freedom, 
#                     write to lpf@uunet.uu.net
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 05:56:20 GMT
From: mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Fax Back From DTMF - Summary
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 856, Message 7 of 13

Intel has such a "Fax-Back" service available by calling
1-800-525-3019.  I believe you can have up to five documents faxed to
you concerning Intel's products.


Michael Rosen	Tau Epsilon Phi - George Washington University
mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu   
Michael.Rosen@bbs.oit.unc.edu or @lambada.oit.unc.edu
Date: 15 Nov 1992 12:48:05 -0600
From: scm3775@tamsun.tamu.edu (Sean Malloy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: No Caller ID in Texas
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 843, Message 5 of 11

According to the Nov 11 {Houston Chronicle}, the PUC in Austin ruled
that Caller ID (for residential customers) violates state wiretapping
laws.  Certain businesses would be allowed to use the service if they
can prove that they need the service to "protect their property or if
it's necessary for their operations".  Southwestern Bell hasn't
decided if it will offer the service to commercial customers or not.

The law that prevents the adoption of the service predates the
development of Caller ID (The No. 5 ESS?) and prevents anyone outside
law enforcement and some businesses from using trap-and-trace devices.
Legislation has already been drafted that would amend the law to allow
the use of Caller ID.

Several groups, including the ACLU (Texas) and the Texas Council on
Family Violence are happy with the PUC's ruling and want to see it
left alone.

Southwestern Bell had proposed to offer per-call blocking as well,
requiring the customer to dial a *XX code to not transmit the
information on a call-by-call basis.  The State Office of Public
Utility Counsel (sic) and several consumer groups wanted SW Bell to
offer per-line blocking, which would allow a customer to automatically
prevent the transmission of the number unless they first dialed a *XX
code to allow it.

One of the commissioners who voted against Caller ID stated that "One
of the basic problems with the proposal is that people who pick up
their phones to make calls wouldn't necessarily know they were also
sending out the number of their phone and the name of the person who
pays the bill.  I believe we must have further legislative guidance
before we can proceed."

Thirty-six other states now have Caller-ID.

 
Sean C. Malloy  -  Texas A&M University  -  scm@tamu.edu
From: PJJ125@URIACC.URI.EDU (Tony Pelliccio)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Worst Phone Lines in the US - Ha!
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:14:59 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 5 of 13

I lived in North Providence, RI for a bit and was assigned a
Pawtucket, RI telephone number since New England Telephone likes to do
things like that, break a small town up (only about 4.5 miles long)
into three different exchanges that can call each other and a certain
amount of RI for the basic rate, but then each has it's own little
special calling areas.
 
In any case, the next street over began the next exchange so I got
jacked with a Pawtucket number and the absolute WORST telephone
service one could ask for. Seems I was at the end of the loop and
couldn't even get my modem to connect at 300 baud to a system that was
only about two miles away in Providence.
 
I went through three months of sheer hell until I finally due to a
rising toll bill, got a foreign exchange. Now the interesting part is
that the line from my phone to the Pawtucket CO was the same, but boy
did it work better. Yup ... you guessed it, they put all sorts of
range extenders, amps, conditioners etc on the line when you're paying
for FX service.
 
Also ... NET has this strange way of completing orders here ... they
sometimes send TWO techs on different days to fix the same thing. :)
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: PP 2000 -- Phooey
Date: 15 Nov 92 14:35:12 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 849, Message 6 of 13

In article <telecom12.821.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us
(John R. Levine) writes:

>> On the other hand, I am impressed with the new AT&T Public Phone 2000.

> I'm not.  I was at JFK airport last week and having a few minutes to
> kill, I tried to call my computer at home and check my mail using a
> PP2000.  After tediously working through their "user friendly" menu,
> I set it to 2400 bps, called in, modems shook hands, then nothing, no
> characters, no nothing.  Didn't work at 1200 bps, either.  Nobody else
> has any trouble calling in here.  What gives?

Perhaps the PP2000 you found was, like many other phones at JFK, out
of order?  I have spent quite a few hours waiting around between
flights at EWR, ORD, HOU, and DFW lately, and have never had a problem
logging into the Westmark UNIX system from any of them.  I've even
posted an article to this Digest from one such terminal, in which I
described the device.

I only wish it could talk at 9600, and that I could find the ~ on
its keyboard!


Dave Levenson		Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc.		UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA		Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: San Jose Mercury Again
Date: 16 Nov 92 10:40:00 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 854, Message 3 of 12

On Nov 15 at 23:44, Robert Lenoil writes:

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

I have sixteen phone lines in my home. I realize that you may not see
any need for me to have those lines, and probably feel that if I am
going to be so silly as to have that many numbers that I probably
deserve whatever I get. However, as a person who can count the calls
from the Merc on two hands, how do you feel entitled to judge the
actions of someone who has endured literally hundreds of these calls
 -- sometimes ten in one evening.

And on more than one occasion, I have done as you suggested and been
called right back and had the person issue verbal abuse. And on one of
THOSE occasions, the person was not satisfied with that and called
back repeatedly, hanging up each time I answered.

You should realize that whether your number is listed, unlisted, or
whether you have had the number for two days or two decades, or even
if you already take the paper, none of this influences whether you are
called. The numbers come from a psuedo-random number generator.
Supposedly they run a "reject list" but I had submitted my numbers not
thirty days previously.

On Nov 16 at 13:33, John R. Levine writes:

> Given their previous behavior, I'd expect that the only way to make them
> upgrade their equipment and procedures would be to put the principals of
> the company in jail until they do so.

It is a "square one" situation. The Mercury has changed telemarketing
contractors. The new firm, Metro News, apparently did not inherit any
of the reject lists from the previous nuisance company. There were
profuse apologies and assurances that this would not happen again.

When I threatened them with the cops, several people called back over
the course of two days. There were promises and assurances to beat the
band. This time I took it easy and only gave out the numbers that
actually ring telephones in my house rather than giving the company
every single phone number that appears here. I figure that if these
people want to hear various flavors of modems screech at them, they
are welcome to it. And who knows? Maybe one of the telesaleslime can
sell a subscription to one of the ignorant animals that populate my
"party line".


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
From: ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Dial Tone on CATV
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:11:18 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 855, Message 1 of 8

Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.telecom: 15-Nov-92 Dial Tone on CATV by
RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.un 

> With all the talk about cable companies wanting to compete with LECs
> for local dial tone, I started wondering: how can a cable company
> offer dial tone, when their cable runs out from their office, with
> houses strung off it (instead of LEC wires, which form individual
> local loops with houses)?  How can they keep everyone's calls
> separate?  I guess they could put everyone on a different frequency,
> but that would probably use up all of the cable, and then some.  Don't
> they want to leave room for TV?

Modern cable TV systems run fiber optic links out from the head end to
an optical network interface (ONI) serving a neighborhood of 500 -
2000 homes.  A community of 50,000 homes only requires 25 such fiber
runs, so the added cost per household is cheap.

Based on typical residential calling patterns, even 2000 homes would
require no more than 400 voice channels at the peak hour.  To provide
dialtone, one can use frequency agile RF modems at each household
which can select any one of 400 channels.  Even allowing a generous 30
KHz in each direction for carrying a voice channel, 400 channels would
occupy only 12 MHz or two TV channels worth of capacity for each
direction.  If the ONI serves only 500 households you can dedicate the
frequencies and use cheaper RF modems.

Some schemes assume Time Division Multiplexing: instead of 400 RF
channels, a smaller number of carrier frequencies each handle multiple
voice channels using TDM.

At the optical network interface the voice circuits are connected to a
channel bank and backhauled digitally over an extra pair of fibers to
the headend.  From the headend they may be further multiplexed to
higher digital rates and either delivered to a carrier for switching
(e.g an IEC) or switched by the telco with its own switch.


Marvin Sirbu    Carnegie Mellon University
From: rsingh@goliath.Stanford.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Phone Harrassment
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:31:12 GMT
Organization: Makalu Mountain Hermitage, Mt Makalu, Nepal
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 864, Message 2 of 15

A friend of mine (well, my friend's roomie) is getting life
threatening phone calls, but the police won't do anything until actual
harm is done ... they are keeping a log of each call.  This is in
State of Missouri.

The callers DON'T know the dorm or room number or phone number.  The
operator has been asked to NOT TO give the phone number/address to any
callers.

HOWEVER, this university has a peculiar system that a student can call
the operator and ask to be connected to "John Doe" and if John Doe is
a student, the operator WILL put the call through.  Thus, even though
the number is not to be given out, the abuser is able to connect.

So far, the abuser is trying to get the friend and my friend's
roommate to DIVULGE address/number, but my friend and my friend's
roommate have been very careful.

My feeling is that something is fishy about an operator connecting to
people based on a name only, but what do you all think?  Especially,
I'd like to hear from anyone from Missouri that knows about the local
telephone company policies.


Rajesh Kumar Singh   E-mail: rsingh@goliath.stanford.edu


[Moderator's Note: You are not dealing with 'local telco policies' in
this case; you are dealing with how the university chooses to operate
its telephone switchboard. Actually, most people would be pleased with
the idea of getting calls through to them where the caller only knows
the name but not the correct number. I can understand your friend's
anxiety over the calls, but has he considered asking the university
switchboard to NOT put the calls through?  What happens when he just
hangs up immediatly on hearing the first word from the harasser? The
fun goes away fast when no one is there to listen and be abused. You
say 'they' are keeping a log of each call. Who is 'they'; your friend,
the police, the university operator? Has the university switchboard
supervisor been tipped off that this problem exists and asked to try
and derail the caller?  PAT]
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:05:32 GMT
From: tretech@well.sf.ca.us (Tretech Solutions Inc)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Help With Locating DSP Expertise
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 852, Message 6 of 14

I have a client in need of some expertise in Digital Signal
Processing.  They are developing algorithms for modem chips.  They
have specific needs for folks with V.FAST, V.32, or V.17 standards
experience.  There is an excellent career opportunity available with
our client for the right person.  Does anyone have any suggestions
where I can find this expertise?  

Please E-mail response to: TRETECH@WELL.SF.CA.US.


Thanks in advance,

Frank
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 10:56:27 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Michigan Bell Charges for Phone Number
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 848, Message 1 of 10

>> In the monthly Michigan Bell billing insert, there is a large article
>> that gushes about how Michigan Bell will allow you to pick a
>> "personalized" telephone number. The cost is only $38!! They conclude
>> by stating that your customer service rep will be more than willing to
>> help you.

> It is expected that this will be a monthly charge once a "requested" number
> has been assigned.

Pacific Bell started doing this a couple of years ago, charging both a
setup fee and a per-month fee.  Recently, they did away with this
policy.  Any customers which were paying monthly fees don't have to
pay any more.  I recently got an -xx00 assingment without any one-time
or monthly fee without any particular hassle.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com