HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:03:30 GMT
From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Deterioration of POTS
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 649, Message 3 of 8

>> [Moderator's Note: Let's face it, Lauren: Between Judge Harold Greene
>> who disgraced his robe and courtroom to wreck the public telephone
>> network in the USA; the ripoff companies who moved in to feed on the

> [Moderator's Note: Yes, you may point out that it was a consent
> decree, as in I hold a gun to your head and you consent to be robbed
> after I have offered you that choice versus being killed. Then later I
> say I did nothing wrong: after all, you agreed robbery was best under
> the circumstances. 

But the case didn't even begin with Judge Greene!  The 1956 Final
Judgement was in Newark, and was moved to Greene's court after the
consent decree was originally drafted.  Greene's job was to take it,
leave it, or modify it.  He did the latter.

As Marvin Sirbu pointed out, nobody sued AT&T for divestiture of the
operating companies, but of Western Electric.  It was axiomatic that
local service lost money and long distance made money; AT&T management
may have concluded that they'd do best by keeping the latter.  Of
course the cast-off Bells realized that they could make money with
their monopolies too!  AT&T management wanted in to the computer biz,
and lost their starchy white shirts!

I thank the judge for saving us from a much worse deal.  The original
agreement was about "interexchange" traffic, which literally would
have given AT&T Comms inter-neighborhood calls (at least in Boston,
which is divided into several separate exchanges).  The LATA is an
improvement.  Of course, Lauren and Pat seem to like having the Judge
as a whipping boy.  I guess they so worship Ye Olde Bell System that
they don't recognize the overpaid mucky-mucks who cooked up divestiture 
as a way to rid themselves of a low-profit capital-intensive line of
business.


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com 
k1io             or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 12:05:14 PDT
From: mickeyf@vnet.ibm.com (Mickey Ferguson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Monitoring Dialtone for Voicemail Indicator
Organization: Rolm
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 654, Message 7 of 10

In TELECOM Digest V12 No. 646 (item 10) Matthew Waugh writes:

> Sounds like your company balked at paying $25 for replacing your
> phones with new phones with message waiting lights. What you need to
> do is retro-fit your phones with lights. You can do this in many ways,
> places like Graybar will supply just the LED, or a new faceplate with
> the LED installed, or gadgets with modular jacks that will plug into
> your phone line. All these will respond to the 90 to 130VDC that the
> PBX will put on your line when you have a message waiting.

First, it probably isn't just as simple a matter as installing the new
phone, and then expecting the technicians to update the phone
configuration to know that you now have the message waiting light.  It
probably requires a different line card.  Remember that the PBX has to
supply additional current to power the light.  Of course, I can't
speak for any specific PBX.

> Note that having a message waiting light or stutter dial-tone is an
> either-or option; you can't have both. The people who administer your
> PBX will have to switch each line from stutter dial-tone to message
> waiting light as you equip the phones.

Again, I won't speak for a particular PBX, but at least with Rolm,
having the message waiting light and broken dialtone is not an
either-or option; we always give the broken dial tone, whether the
phone has a message waiting lamp or not.  You should check with your
particular vendor.


Mickey Ferguson -- Rolm -- FergusoM at scrvm2 -- mickeyf@vnet.ibm.com
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: ABCD as a Phreaking Tool
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:34:12 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 652, Message 8 of 13

In article <telecom12.643.6@eecs.nwu.edu> rop@hacktic.nl (Rop
Gonggrijp) writes:

> Guess this does show what 'capable minds' set up the technology that
> we are supposed to trust. Yet in the eyes of US law enforcement, we
> would have been the criminals for experimenting with this (using
> 555-XXXX numbers), and AT&T the poor victim.

When you "experimented," you _did_ impose false charges on somebody,
didn't you?  Why _aren't_ you the "criminals" then?


Michael Covington - Artificial Intelligence Programs - U of Georgia - USA 
Unless otherwise noted, these are private opinions, not official statements.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 00:38:06 PDT
From: aimla!ruby!rudholm@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Rudholm)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 710 and ABCD?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 627, Message 12 of 16

Since one of the telephones in my house has ABCD, I've been able to
use them to pound on everything in sight.  My dial tone comes from a
1AESS (213-930).  ABCD tones do not break the dialtone but they do
reset the timer that kills your dialtone after 20 seconds of not
dialing anything, so if you want to hold a dialing circuit
indefinately, you could send "A" every 15 seconds.  Other than that,
they seem to have no affect at all on the CO.  I can insert ABCD tones
between a valid dialing sequence with no effect.

Inside my CLASS features, they don't seem to do anything except
restart the instructions that the system is currently reciting.  I
couldn't get them to do anything interesting (like getting it to
recite a "PRIVATE" entry in my lists").  ABCD did break dialtone on
the GTECA DMS100 I was on when I lived in Venice Beach (310-452) but I
couldn't get anything except "call cannot be completed as dialed"
messages.  As far as voice mail systems go, I couldn't get mine to
accept ABCD as part of the password.  Usually ABCD tones would just
restart whatever I was doing.  I've tried them on Octel's ASPEN (via
L.A.  Cellular's and PAC*TEL Cellular's voice mail systems).


Mark D. Rudholm   rudholm@aimla.com    Philips Interactive Media
Date: 15 Aug 92 03:01:27 GMT
From: julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Ring Suppression
Reply-To: julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 631, Message 5 of 13

In article <telecom12.620.10@eecs.nwu.edu> jacksch@insom.eastern.com
(Eric Jacksch) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 620, Message 10 of 12

> Does anyone know a simple way to stop the ring signal from getting to
> the telephone without interfering with normal use?  Can it be done
> with a few diodes?

	Yes, it can be done with a few diodes. There is a device on
the market that does just this. It is a diode bridge in line with the
libe cord. There is an in-line switch to bypass it. This is how it
works.  The voice/dial part of the phone is DC. The ringer is AC. The
diode bridge converts the AC ringing signal to DC and so the ringer
ignores it. To make this diode bridge use 1N4001 or BY127 1000V 1A
diodes.  Anything smaller will eventually fail.

	Of course if you want to build a "ringer silencer", you may as
well open the phone and put a simple SPST switch across the line to
the ringer. On a 2500/500 set, put the switch between the ringer wire
and terminal A or K. With an electronic ringer, put the switch in line
with the 1.0 uF capacitor that acts as a DC blocker for the ringing
circuit.

	Both systems will not interfere with normal operation of the
phone. They just kill the ringer. In fact they produce an REN of 0.

        Radio Shack has these devices.  It is called predictably
"Ringer Silencer" and the part number is 43-127. It will cost about
$8.00.It is a good plan when looking for a phone gadget to check out
the local Rat Shack first. They have most of what the hobbyest would
need.


Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495
From: erik@pdnfido.fidonet.org (erik)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pounding on an Octathorp
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:41:31 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 652, Message 10 of 13

In article <telecom12.640.7@eecs.nwu.edu> mc/G=James/S=Arconati/
OU=0105390@mhs.attmail.com writes:

> In Telecomm Digest V12 #632, Spencer talks about the pronounciation of
> the # symbol used on DTMF pads.

> When I worked for Mother, some 'official' publications said that it
> was called an "octothorp."

> Seems to me that "pound sign" is readily understood by most North
> Americans.

> [Moderator's Note: We covered this in excruciating detail in a special
> edition of the TELECOM Digest back in 1989. "Octothorpe" (with an \e\
> on the end) seems to be the designated name.  In another message in
> this issue, a reader asks if pounding off at the end of certain
> dialing sequences is a normal, acceptable thing to do.  PAT]

Just because I am on vacation, my mind wanders ... I suppose it would
be OK to "pound off" at the end of a dialing sequence only if they
were dialing one of those 1-900 numbers you see on late night TV.


Just my mind ... <g>

/* Erik */


[Moderator's Harrump: Trying to keep a straight face; trying to keep
from smirking.  PAT]
Date: 15 Aug 1992 11:32:06 -0500
From: danodom@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dan Odom)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What Number am I Calling From?
Organization: Kansas State University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 631, Message 8 of 13

Well, everytime you call the operator or directory information the
number that you are calling from lights up on their console.
Unfortunately, in many states a search warrant is required before they
can tell you that number.

You could also try calling directory information from another phone
and asking what the number for the laundromat is.

Good Luck!


Dan Odom   danodom@matt.ksu.ksu.edu


[Moderator's Note: Why bother calling from another phone? Call from
that one. Of course you may get the number for a business phone the
attendant uses instead, unless they get incoming calls on the line you
are inquiring about.   PAT]
From: keithf@pacifier.rain.com (Keith Furrow)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 710 and ABCD?
Date: 22 Aug 92 05:29:36 GMT
Organization: Pacifier BBS
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 652, Message 7 of 13

In article <telecom12.643.5@eecs.nwu.edu> fff@microplex.com (Fred
Fierling) writes:

> In article <telecom12.628.6@eecs.nwu.edu> fff@microplex.com (Fred
> Fierling) writes:

>> In article <telecom12.627.10@eecs.nwu.edu> James.VanHouten@f544.
>> n109.z1.fidonet.org (James VanHouten) writes:

>>> Radio Shack supposedly has one.  Model # 43-139.
>>                         ^^^^^^^ Wrong!!

> Abject apologies; it appears I am responsible for some of the noise
> that netters complain about.  Model 43-139 does NOT have the ABCD
> keys.  A respondent to my original posting and I had a misunderstanding.

Well from what I heard and read (In old phreak newsletters) you can
modify them to generate the extra tones.  The chip can do all 4x4
rows, but normally the keypad doesn't come with ABCD (Why?).
 

Keith
Date: 16 Aug 92 00:46:00 PST
From: Jacobson, Andy <ajacobson@mail.nuc.ucla.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Slamming Still Going on in GTE Land
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 636, Message 3 of 9

I honestly thought that spate of lawsuits would have cleared this
up, but its still alive and well ...

On Aug 3 a friend of mine moved into a house where some other friends
were moving out. Instead of the usual changeovers, the lease was
simply sublet, and the phone service was kept with the same number but
under the new name. This is a procedure called "supercedure" or some
similar neologism by GTE. 

The old service had Sprint, the new service was specified to be AT&T.
A week after the service was turned over, a letter was recieved from
GTE confirming the order, explaining the charges, and noting that AT&T
was the selected long distance carrier.  I happened to be there on
Monday the 10th, and decided to make a call using my calling card.  I
dialed 0 + AC + number, and I get "welcome to MCI" An hour and 20
minutes on hold, and four -- that's right FOUR! -- GTE reps later, I
am told that it will all be straightened out in an hour and a half.  

I got excuses like "the old service must not have been changed over
yet", and "I'm sorry sir, but we only handle billing problems in this
office" (I had dialed the right number, but had been handed off to the
wrong department by the first twit I talked to). I even got, I'm sorry
sir, I'm in the Torrance office and I can't pull up your records here,
just the bill" One rep, after asking for the address and my reply that
it was Los Angeles said "Sir, you should probably call Pac Bell, GTE
doesn't serve Los Angeles." (This as I'm reading from the piece of GTE
paperwork with the address on it.)

Oh when ... oh when ... oh when will it end???!!!  (They did finally
get it to AT&T later that day.)


A. Jacobson <ajacobson@vs9.nuc.ucla.edu>


[Moderator's Note: It won't end; it will only get worse. Watch and see
if in a few years, dissatisfied with the number of customers they can
legitimatly convert to their service (I use 'legitimatly' in a loose
way, allowing a lot of questionable marketing tactics and slamming to
go unchallenged) -- the OCC's will go to court again to challenge AT&T
and ask the court to have subscribers arbitrarily assigned to carriers
without any choice (by the subscriber) in the matter.  But in the case
you wrote about, it was not slamming so much as stupidity.    PAT]
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:00:41 GMT
From: louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on CDMA
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 646, Message 7 of 10

In article <telecom12.623.2@eecs.nwu.edu> syd@dsi.com writes:

> Here is a very simple explaination of CDMA (Carrier Detect Multiple
> Access):

Wrong.  CDMA is commonly used as an acronym for Code Division Multiple
Access.  You are thinking about CSMA (Carrier Sense Multiple Access),
as in CSMA/CD used on Ethernet.


Louis Mamakos
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:57:01 GMT
From: pacdata!jimh@uunet.UU.NET (Jim Harkins)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: No Fun Anymore!
Organization: Pacific Data Products
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 629, Message 2 of 6

<Cliff Stohl wrote and I lost the attribution line>:

>> there were a few hundred nodes on the network, we mostly knew each other.
>> There were fewer flames and nastygrams.

I don't think so.  There were fewer in number but I doubt the
percentage has gone up or down.  A lot of those early nodes were
universities and students had access even then.  Remember net.flame?
Remember back in the early 80's when everybody looked forward to
school vacations and dreaded September?  Seems like it's the newbies
who flame the most, I suspect it's because they either don't know
better or they get P.O'd and leave.  People like Jack Schmidling will
always be with us but they'll always be a small minority.

In article <telecom12.605.1@eecs.nwu.edu> Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond
<ocl@cc.imperial.ac.uk> writes:

> But wait a second, chaps, am I detecting much "nostalgius malignius"
> here?

Yep.  Like a lot of nostalgia people just remember the good.

> You must understand that you were pioneering USENET/email/packet
> transfer of data in the seventies. Indeed, what we are doing today,
> this global conferencing system via Usenet, is still not available to
> *everyone* around the planet. In that respect, we are still in the
> pioneering stage.

More and more people are both learning about Usenet and getting on it.
Al Gore certainly knows what it is (What's Tipper gonna do, form the
Parents Usenet Resource Center?).  My computer illiterate brother in
law got a Mac and a modem for Christmas; last month I got an email
message from him.  He was shocked when I replied, I don't think he
understood what jim@pacdata.com really was.  If my unionized brother
in law can do it so can anyone :-)

Face it folks, these *are* the good old days.  Not just Usenet either.
In 20 years you'll watch 3-D TV and say how much better 2D was in the
old days.  You'll eat a plastifood steak and say it's not as juicy as
those in the old days.  You'll get on your automated highway and
reminisce about when you could actually turn the wheel and hit the
gas.  And you'll remember when you could say 'damn' on Usenet without
getting a ticket from the Gore Police.

And you know what?  I'll bet there'll be a subspace TV network
connecting select universities and research centers.  People there
will be pioneering holographic spread spectrum packet sending.
They'll say how wonderful it is to talk to complete strangers via a
video-tube without interference from the average Joe, who only wants
to flame anyway.  And they'll talk about the good ol' days when you
actually had to use an archaic mouse to open the network window.


Jim Harkins            [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim
Pacific Data Products  jim@pacdata.com
Date: 13 AUG 92 21:27   
From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 710 and ABCD?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 627, Message 8 of 16

I've used my modem to dial ABCD strings (when I was bored) and my
GTD-5 accepts them as valid 'digits' [but I haven't reached any DNs
with them ;-)]


Randy Gellens            randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com
>>>>>>> If mail bounces, forward to rgellens@mcimail.com <<<<<<<<
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 10:43 PDT
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Those Wacky Baby Bells
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 623, Message 7 of 11

tjoa@cory.berkeley.edu (Richard Tjoa) writes:

> Isn't "The Message Center" from Pacific Bell great?  They introduced
> it a year ago and told everyone to get rid of their answering machines
> for their (essentially) voice mail-type system.  You could delete
> single messages, etc ...  (And for the low price of, what, $5/mo?)

And, at no extra charge, The Message Center will periodically delete a
week's worth of messages AUTOMATICALLY before you even have to listen
to them. Now that is truly a time-saver!

I want you to know that in me, you are dealing with the consummate
telco-service-gadget freak. Throughout my life, I have ordered every
single service available from the phone company if for no other reason
than to see how it worked. Every service Pac*Bell now offers is
available in my area. The Message Center? I will pass on that one.

My PC-based voicemail system has been operating without the slightest
problem for five years now. It has not lost a single message. I can
use it to screen calls, page me, and do a number of other useful
functions.  There is no monthly charge (and it has long since paid for
itself).

Fortunately, my principles and practicality converge on this matter. I
am antagonistic toward The Message Center in principle since it is the
flagship example of a telco using ratepayer dollars to subsidize a
competitive service to the detriment of the other players and
ultimately the public. From a technical standpoint, The Message Center
is inferior to one's own answering machine.

Is it not nice when it is EASY to take the high road? :-)


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:05:04 GMT
From: vixen!jadams@uunet.UU.NET (26070-adams)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Deterioration of POTS
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 650, Message 6 of 10

In article <telecom12.649.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, dwford@uswnvg.com (Don
Ford) writes:

> Pat Fargo 6266 (ebupaf@ebu.ericsson.se) wrote:

>> Bellcore was supposedly set up to be somewhat of a controlling body,
>> but from my last experiences with it, nobody listened to it.

> Bellcore was specifically NOT supposed to be a controlling body.  That
> is what the anti-trust suit was all about.  They are a resource
> jointly owned by the seven RBOCs and Cincinnati Bell. Their charter
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Not true! Nor is SNET, nor any other than the original seven.

> establishment only allows the | enforcement of standards in areas
> that affect the interworking of the local phone companies,
> interexchange carriers AND for national defense purposes.
                                          ^^^^^^^ 
Not quite ..."emergency preparedness" (earthquakes, hurricanes, as
well as defense matters)


Jack (John) Adams	     Bellcore RRC 4B-259
(908) 699-3447 {Voice}	     (908) 336-2871 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com    kahuna@attmail.com
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:32:18 GMT
From: markf@techbook.com (Mark Ferris)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: T1 Card For ISA Bus
Reply-To: markf@techbook.com (92)
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 638, Message 10 of 12

Does anybody know of a T1 card I can plug into an ISA bus slot on a
386 PC to allow me to access the full 1.544 mbps data bandwidth? I
need this under SCO UNIX.

Thanks for any information.


Mark Ferris   markf@techbook.COM     Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Date: 16 Aug 92 10:52:00 -0700
From: KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Summer Telecom Internships in the Bay Area?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 634, Message 8 of 12


My brother is a first year telecom graduate student at Golden Gate
University, which is located in the San Fancisco Bay Area. He is
interested in any sort of internship to get some experience outside of
the classroom.  If you have any leads of companies in the Bay Area
that are hiring for these sort of positions, please drop me a line.
Thanks.


Neil Kruse  or  KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com
1600 Villa Street #224    Mountain View, CA. 94041