HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 15:42:22 -0400
From: shri%legato@cs.umass.edu (H. Shrikumar)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How do You Pronounce "#"
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 706, Message 13 of 13

In article <telecom12.698.9@eecs.nwu.edu> is written:

>>> The # sign?  The POUND sign!  <grin>>

> quite popular.  It is called the "pound sign" because it has been used
> for centuries as a symbol for pounds avoirdupois (as opposed to pounds
> sterling).  You can probably find it marking the weight of many large
> shipping boxes.

   My DEC keyboard has the symbols # and the Pound Sterling on the
shift-3 key. That, and also I have heard so too, that in the UK they
use the same ASCII code space as the # for the pound-sterling is
probably a reason why its called the pound sign.

   Sometiome back, (was it?) IEEE spectrum has a box on this
controversy, and concluded that "hash" is the best alternative, since
it needs least literacy, and is easiest to guess if you did not know
already, not only among the keys of the impoversished Keypad, but also
a QWERTY (or AZERTY :-) keyborad.

Amen!


shrikumar (shri@legaot.cs.umass.edu)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 11:13:06 CST
From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: A/A1 Answer Supervision
Reply-To: jack.winslade%drbbs@ivgate.omahug.org
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 702, Message 5 of 9

In a message dated 07-SEP-92, <tmetro> writes:

> leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

>> dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu (Dave Grabowski) writes:

>>> I recently obtained a telephone that was used on a private Centrex
>>> system. It has a sticker on the back : "Caution: For use only on
>>> business lines or risk of electrical short circuit"...

>> It's probably set up to do A/A1 answer supervision. That means that
>> when you take it off hook, it *shorts* the second pair of wires
>> together.

> What is the purpose of shorting the second pair of wires? It sounds
> redundant to the information you can get by monitoring the loop
> current.  Could you explain the purpose of A/A1 answer supervision?
 
I'm sitting here looking at an AT&T 2500 series desk set with a
similar admonition to use only on 'business' systems.  I just
unplugged the modular connector on the back of the set and noticed
that it only has TWO contacts, thus precluding any A-lead control.
 
I suspect it's primarily to discourage the growing of legs. ;-)
 
Speaking of these new 'lightweight' sets, when we got them a few years
ago, nobody seemed to like them.  First of all, they are very light
and can easily be pulled from a desk by the tension on the handset
cord.  Some of our people added weight using various items.  Another
thing was the chirper-style ringer.  In the lab area with the old
bells, there was a good sense of directionality to the bells, but with
the chirpers it seems like they all sound the same, and it's difficult
to tell whose line is ringing.  Some of us acquired some of the old
brass-gong bells and reinstalled them (with the appropriate capacitor,
of course) in the new sets.  A couple of people have gotten a bit
creative in customizing the ringer sound so that they can identify
their own line.  One guy bought an add-on chirper that makes the MOST
OBNOXIOUS sound I have ever heard.  Another has a bell with no gong
that makes kind of a woodpecker sound.

 
Good day.        JSW
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1an  (1:285/666.0)
From: simon1@bass.bu.edu (Simon Streltsov)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Fax-> Email, Fax-> Fax Services Anywhere?
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:53:09 GMT
Reply-To: simon1@bass.bu.edu (Simon Streltsov)
Organization: Boston University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 700, Message 4 of 11

I'm looking for a service; someone who can receive my fax and route it
to me by e-mail as a TIFF file or after running a character
recognition program.

I saw sometime ago someone on panix(?) was offering it, but I was
unable to find a reference.

Please, e-mail, I'll summarize.


Simon Streltsov,    Boston University    simon1@bass.bu.edu
From: hhallika@zeus.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: USA to Ten Digits
Date: 14 Sep 92 05:36:56 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 714, Message 1 of 12


	As I've suggested before, I think the system should allow for
any number of digits terminated by a # key or a time out.  If I want
to call my second line here, I could call 1 805 541 0201 # (using the
current country code), or I could just dial 1 #, which would assume
all the leading digits are the same as the originating numbers.  This
would get rid of all this access code stuff where we try to use
leading digits to tell how many digits follow.


Harold
From: rjhawkin@mothra.syr.edu (The Virtual Kid)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How do You Pronounce "#"
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:33:34 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 684, Message 8 of 11

In article <telecom12.653.5@eecs.nwu.edu> disk!tony@uunet.UU.NET
(tony) writes:

> The # sign?  The POUND sign!  <grin>

> At least according to my bank -- they say, "Enter the amount and
> then press the POUND sign."  Well, I know they aren't referring to the
> asterisk ... so IT must be the POUND sign.

Oh, I always thought the "#" sign was an abbrivation of the word
 -number- after all, some address books say "phone #:". 


Send all flames to rjhawkin@FUBAR.SYR.EDU
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:26:11 GMT
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 19th Century Phone Numbers
Organization: Columbia University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 713, Message 14 of 16

I recently looked at some issues of the {Columbia Daily Spectator}
(our campus paper) from the 1890's.  I noticed that some of the ads
for local businesses had phone numbers such as 178 Morningside.

Was it common in the 19th century manual exchanges to put the exchange
name at the end?  When I looked at issues from about 1920 or
thereabouts, the numbers were in the form of Morningside XXXX.

Does anyone know the history of phone numbers in New York?  Obviously
at some point an extra digit had to get in there.  Anyone know when
this happened?


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.   gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles     72355,1226 on CI$
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:34:33 GMT
From: telb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lowe)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular Accessories Suppliers
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 713, Message 3 of 16

I need to purchase accessories for my Panasonic EBH30 handheld phone.

Can anyone suggest any discount accessory supply houses for cellular
accessories?


Thanks!

Tom Lowe    tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM   attmail!tlowe     201-949-0428
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A
Crawfords Corner Road,  Holmdel, NJ  07733
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:56:10 GMT
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Why Hide the Test Numbers?
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 712, Message 4 of 14

I realize that the pseudo-numbers for ANI read-back, test tones, etc.
vary from CO to CO.  But why do the telcos try so hard to hide
information about them from the ratepayers?  It's impossible to get
the magic numbers from the telco just by asking, operators refuse to
read back the number you're calling from and deny the existence of
such magic numbers; you practically have to beg the telco installer to
tell you the magic number for ANI readback.  What's the point of all
this?  Is there a legitimate reason to hide all this?  Are the telcos
afraid of people using them to troubleshoot problems by themselves?
Seems that it would be easier for all involved if they would just
print the numbers for each exchange at the beginning of the telephone
directory ...


Marc Unangst     mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us


[Moderator's Note: Ringback, readback and test tones are not tariffed
offerings from telco. Those are intended only for authorized employees
to use. I don't think they are so much afraid of you diagnosing your
own problems as they are of you tying up resources their own employees
need to use.   PAT]
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:53:44 GMT
From: GeraldR@sunfish.ratsys.com (Gerald Ruderman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T 'Buying' Back Customers
Organization: Rational Systems, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 694, Message 8 of 13

In article <telecom12.679.5@eecs.nwu.edu> leavens@mizar.usc.edu
(Justin Leavens) writes:

> 'You may already have won').  Strangely enough, this was a real check
> for $40 made out to me, marked 'Endorsement indicates your acceptance'

I got one for only $20 earlier in the summer. Since I did not switch,
you are the beneficiary of them increasing the amount. No if you
hadn't switched the next check would have been for $80 and then if ...


Gerald Ruderman     geraldr@ratsys.com
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 16:14:16 +0200
From: hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Baby Bells and States
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 691, Message 10 of 13

In <telecom12.683.8@eecs.nwu.edu> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P.
Broadfield) writes:

> Judge Greene:  "Okay, how many little companies?"
> AT&T attorney: "Ummm, how about, ahhhhh... ... one?"

Actually, it went more like:

Judge Greene:	"Okay, imagine you're representing Snow White.
		 How may dwarves will your client need?"

> Hee hee.


Hans Mulder	hansm@cs.kun.nl
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 01:56:58 GMT
From: lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Laurence Chiu)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Phone Number in "Sneakers"
Organization: GCS Limited, Wellington, New Zealand
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 709, Message 7 of 12

In article <telecom12.703.1@eecs.nwu.edu> bei@dogface.austin.tx.us
(Bob Izenberg) writes:

> Alas, there was no seductive gun-toting NSA agent to be yanked
> away from the dinner table.  The film industry's normal flawless
> attention to telecom detail :-) failed it here: (415) 273-4196 is now
> in area code (510).  I don't know what would have been said (at least
> on the side of the call in our town!) had someone answered, but the
> matter is academic.  The number has not been assigned in that area
> code.  At least, as far as we know. Would we have been rattled if
> the phone rang right back when we hung up?  Maybe just a little.

I haven't seen the movie yet but I am surprised. In almost all movies
I've seen (or TV shows for that matter) where a phone number is
identified, it's invariably 555-nnnn. This I presume is an invalid
number always except perhaps for n=1212 so to avoid telephone phreaks
calling the number to see who's there and annoying some poor soul who
just happens to possess that number.


Laurence Chiu    lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:15:37 GMT
From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: USA to Ten Digits
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 704, Message 7 of 11

> Fred Gaechter at Bellcore has said he sees a similar future
> for the NANP: dialling ten digits for ALL calls irrespective of
> whether they're local, toll, or outwith your NPA. Do other
> Digest readers think this would be acceptable?"

Absolutely not.  But I didn't think switching from five to seven
digits for intra-exchange calls was acceptable either ...


Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
  (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)


[Moderator's Note: The options would seem to be seven digits for local
(probably the majority of the) calls one makes and eleven digits for
all others or ten digits for everything since if an area code is
always required then the leading digit '1' could be dropped. I
personally prefer the current arrangement even if I do have to dial
1-708 for many of my local calls.  PAT]
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 20:28:13 -0500
From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Eavesdropping on the British Royal Family
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 694, Message 5 of 13

   In a previous posting, I had remarked that it did not appear to be
illegal to eavesdrop on cellular or cordless calls in the United
Kingdom.  An article in the September 2nd {International Express} (an
affiliate of the London {Daily Express}) appears to indicate
otherwise.

   The article quotes a spokesman from the British Home Office that a
prosecution under the 1985 Interception of Communications Act may lie
against a ham radio operator who eavesdropped on and recorded a
wireless telephone conversation reportedly between the Princess of
Wales and an admirer.

   "A Home Office spokesman said: 'Under the 1985 Act a conviction at
crown court could mean two years imprisonment plus unlimited fines.

   "'The criteria for bringing a charge are met when a person
intentionally intercepts a communication message in the course of its
transmission.

   "'The only time it is legal to intercept a call is if one of the
parties involved agrees.  To my knowledge, there is no time limit for
bringing a prosecution under the Act.'"

   The conversation was reportedly recorded by Cyril Reenan, a retired
bank manager, who has a large radio installation in his L 200,000 home
in Oxford.
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: U.S. Cable Television Re-Regulation
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:40:28 GMT
Organization: U.S Dept. of Transportation
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 714, Message 12 of 12

Uh oh ...

Looks like the government that was chartered to secure individual
rights is once again going to violate them by initiating the use of
force ...

If you don't like cable rates, *DON'T BUY CABLE*.

Admittedly, the proposal contains some sections that open up
competition and prevent _others_ from initiating the use of "force"
(in this case fraud/deception).  This bill is a grey area.  Like any
grey area, it is _by definition_ made up of black and white.  The
black must be weeded out so that we can accept only the white.

In other areas, cable rates may very well be held down, but the costs
of regulation will raise government spending by at least as much, so
we'll pay for it anyway in the form of addition government extortion.

My emphasized statement stands.  If you don't like ...! 


JTT
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:53:40 GMT
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Calling 911 From a Cellular Phone
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 695, Message 6 of 14

I've written the user interface for our new cellular phones, and can
confirm that 911 is definitely an exception case.  For instance, if
the phone is locked, it sits there waiting for the four-digit lock
code to unlock the phone.  However, if the person enters 911 and then
hits send, I have to bail out of the lock state, actually do an
origination with 911, then go back to lock state when the call is
over.

Regardless of call restrictions on the phone, 911 works -- we try to
originate if we can.

The rest of it is up to the carrier -- they can indeed flag an ESN as
bad in several different ways, the most common being someone trying to
make a call with a mismatched MIN and ESN, probably fraud.  There are
even two centralized massive databases (one run by EDS) which
coordinates these records between different phone companies, so that
an ESN/MIN pair marked as bad in one service area gets marked bad the
others.

I do not know whether all carriers allow 911 even from a phone marked
as bad.  I would suspect so, because of liability issues, and it's not
likely that someone calling 911 is trying to engage in phone fraud.


[Moderator's Note: I don't see how there could be any liability issues
in a total denial of service to a delinquent or non-existent account.
When landline telcos cut your service, the phone goes dead. Period.
Some may leave dial tone there but refuse to process anything. Telco
is not required to connect calls between a delinquent (or non-existent) 
subscriber and anything. Emergencies are unfortunate occurances, but
that is why telephone service is so valuable to the average person.
But if telco cannot force payment (or subscription) any other way
except by denial of service, then that's what they have to do. Ditto
for cellular customers.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 3:55:28 EDT
From: Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telecommunications Directory From Gale Research Inc.
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 711, Message 7 of 8

If you would like your telecommunications-related company,
association, government agency or periodical to be listed free of
charge in the {Telecommunications Directory}, contact:

 Mr. John Krol, Editor,
 {Telecommunications Directory},
 Gale Research Inc.,
 835 Penobscot Building,
 Detroit, Michigan 48226-4094, U.S.A.
 telephone 800-347-4253  or (313) 961-2242,
 fax (313) 961-6815
and ask him to send you (or someone else in your organization) a
questionnaire for the directory.

The previous edition was published in 1991. Your local public or
university library may have a copy.

Here is the questionnaire that you can fill in and return to the above
address (not to me), together with any literature that you think the
editors might find helpful:

 Organization name:__
 Address:__
 Specific system or service:__
 Name of head of system or service:__
 Person's job title:___
 Phone number:___
 Year founded:____
 Staff (indicate number in each category:
 __ Total (__ management; __ technical;  __ sales & marketing; 
 __ clerical; __ other)
 Related Organizations and Their Specific Affiliation:__
 General Description:__
 Geographic Areas Served: __
 Rate Structure: (if unable to supply specific charges, please provide a
 general rate structure)__
 Publications/Documentation:___
 Clientele/Availability: (Please list primary types of clients, any
 limitations or restrictions)___
 Key Features Summary:___
 Contact Person: ___
 Name and title of person completing questionnaire:___
 Telephone number:___
 Toll-free telephone number:___
 Fax: ____
 Telex: ____
 Electronic mail address (include system name(s) and your code or address)___
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 09:38:18 GMT
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: San Francisco Area Exchange Names
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 685, Message 6 of 10

In Detroit, we live in an area where the exchange name used to be
TUXedo (881,882,883,884,885,886). However, the official name of the CO
is DTRT Niagra (DTRTMINICGO -- still a 1ESS). I used to think that the
CO name was the name of a street on which the CO was located (or a
street near the CO), but there isn't a TUXEDO in that area.

Most of our Edison substations are named for the street that they are
either on or close to.


[Moderator's Note: But here in Chicago we had a 'true TUXedo' as in
889. The CO's here were variously named for the street they were
located on or the neighborhood; sometimes an historical person or
event (i.e. HAymarket [riots]; [Mayor Carter] HARrison.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 16:58 PDT
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Bell Science Series on Video
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 688, Message 12 of 13

Those of you who are over forty will remember a series of television
programs sponsored by The Bell System. A product of the fifties, these
were excellent films featuring Dr. Frank Baxter as host explaining
such things as meteorology, time, biology, and physiology. Highly
produced, these programs utilized puppets, animation, and well-written
scripts to inform and entertain young and old alike. Unfortuately,
even I did not own a VCR before 1974.

Browsing at my local video store this afternoon, I discovered that the
series is out on home video. I was able to purchase on CAV laserdisc
the following titles:

Strange Case of the Cosmic Rays (produced, written, directed by Frank
Capra);

The Unchained Goddess (produced by Jack Warner)

The Alphabet Conspiracy (produced by Jack Warner)

Thread of Life (produced by Jack Warner)

Gateway to the Mind (produced by Jack Warner)

Hemo the Magnificent (produced by Frank Capra)

About Time (produced by Jack Warner)

Others may be available but out of stock at this time. Needless to
say, I will be scanning the shelf for other titles. The downside here
is that the source appears to be ordinary 16mm film (optical sound).
This is disappointing to a videophile who has been spoiled with Gone
With The Wind restorations, etc., but finally being able to put one's
hands on these classics is at least something.

And BTW, the quality of the presentation is as good as I remembered it
to be.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Latest Cuba -- US Telephone Situation
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:50:28 GMT
Organization: I.E.C.C.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 706, Message 2 of 13

> Enter Hurricane Andrew on the scene.  Andrew toppled AT&T's microwave
> tower at Goulds, FL, between Miami and Florida City, shutting down
> microwave connectivity to both the Florida City tropo station and the
> Florida Keys, ...

Florida City, which is next to Homestead, was right in the path of the
hurricane.  I'd be astonished if the tropo station itself weren't
badly damaged.

I saw a wire-service article in the papers last week about the
rerouting calls to Cuba via Europe, but it didn't say anything about
the shenanigans that gave Cuba a direct link to Italy.


Regards,

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