HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 13:57:54 CST
From: Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Looking For Small-Handset Cordless Phone
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 916, Message 6 of 11

I was speaking with my elderly aunt and uncle the other day, and they
mentioned how they had difficulty getting to the phone before it
stopped ringing. Of course, the usual answer to that these days is to
have a cordless phone you keep near you, perhaps clipped to a walker
or in a basket hung from it.  When I mentioned that, my aunt said that
the problem she had with any cordless phone she's tried is that the
handset is too bulky for her arthritic hands -- she cannot grasp it.
She can hold a regular-telephone handset with the thinner mid-portion.

So I told her I'd see what I could find in the way of a cordless phone
in which the handset is made more like a regular phone, with a thinner
mid-section between mouthpiece and ear-portion. (I would suppose the
dialling buttons would have to be at one end, maybe around the
periphery of the microphone or on a flip-out panel of some kind.)
Nothing like this appears in Hello Direct or any other catalog I have
checked. Does anyone on the list know if such a device exists?

If it doesn't, here's a marketing opportunity for the entrepeneurs on
the list -- a product for which there is demand but no supply ...

If there are such devices and I get e-mail about them that doesn't
also appear on Telecom, I'll post a summary. (I'll be away until New
Years -- Happy Holidays to the group and the Esteemed Moderator!)


Regards, Will

wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil


[Moderator's Note: And happy holidays to you too, Will, and the rest
of our readers.   PAT]
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 17:04:52 GMT
From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Faxing From the Netherlands
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 919, Message 2 of 14

In article <telecom12.912.3@eecs.nwu.edu> PINE_RIDGE@ORVB.SAIC.COM
writes:

> Apologies in advance, if these are considered FAQ or dumb questions:

> With suitable power supply and telephone connector adaptors, can you
> use a U.S. fax machine in the Netherlands?

Oddly enough, your biggest problem isn't likely to be with power or
the phone line, but with paper size.  In the Netherlands and
throughout Europe the standard is A4 paper (a little taller and a
little narrower than legal size) and you are not permitted to hook up
a standard 8.5 by 11 machine to the PSTN there.  There is no mechanism
for enforcement other than the fact that 8.5 by 11 paper is all but
unobtainable in stores.  Do you want to cart several reams of paper
with you over the Atlantic?

> Does anybody know anything about Dutch PTT international rates (to the
> U.S.)?  What minimum increment of time do they bill you for when you
> make an international call?

Several PTTs in Europe offer store-and-forward services for
international facsimile transmissions at rates much better than what
you'd obtain on a dialup basis.  I know for a fact that PTT Telecom
Netherlands offers such a service.  Rates vary, inquire locally for
details.


Brent Capps   bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff)  
bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff)
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 00:42:31 EST
From: JOHN SCHMIDT <schmidt@auvax1.adelphi.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Another Payphone Mystery?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 1, Message 5 of 13

I recently visited my Alma Mater, WPI in Worcester, Mass. (A/C 508).
When I got there, I wanted to call my mother in Ahmerst Mass.
(413-253****).

There was a payphone, clearly identified as a New England Telephone
phone, near where I parked.  The long distance carrier was clearly
marked as AT&T.  I dropped a quarter in and dialed the number (1+) The
response was a beep something like a touchtone followed by "Deposit
two dollars please."  Thinking this a bit steep, and not hearing the
AT&T "boing", I hung up and dialed 1-0-288-413-etc.  Same result.

Being thoroughly annoyed at this point, I went into a nearby dorm,
where I found another identically marked payphone, with a NET credit
card phone next to it.  I tried the payphone first, same result both
ways. I then used my AT&T Master Card in the credit card phone, got
the familiar "boing", etc, and placed my call. (The bill on my card,
which arrived last week, was 85 cents.)

What gives with the payphones?  Shouldn't I have gotten AT&T?  (I'm
pretty sure that Worcester and Amherst are in different LATA's.  In
any event, isn't $2.00 a pretty steep rate for a direct dial pay call
of about 35 miles?  I thought charged calls were generally more
expensive than cash payphone calls, but then I rarely make long
distance(?) payphone calls these days.

Any answers welcome.


John H. Schmidt, P.E.         |Internet: schmidt@auvax1.adelphi.edu
Technical Director, WBAU      |Phone--Days     (212)456-4218
Adelphi University            |       Evenings (516)877-6400
Garden City, New York 11530   |Fax-------------(212)456-2424
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 02:14:08 GMT
From: Terry.Parks@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Terry Parks)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Caller ID Unit With Computer (RS232) Query
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 917, Message 3 of 17

I'd like information on the availability of Caller ID units which I
can hook to my computer. Thanks.


The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
  North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
     Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
        internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 14:18:48 GMT
From: phaedrus@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (James Hartman, Sysop)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 921, Message 2 of 10

john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:

> Naturally, there is no trouble calling anyone on Sprint or MCI since
> these companies do not engage in this silly ritual of network choking.
> A lot of good it does to have calling plans with AT&T on holidays; you
> cannot use them!

After which, our Moderator said (in part):

> [...]  Statistics published by AT&T show in fact the opposite of
> what you say: network traffic is very high on many 'family' holidays.

Indeed, my sister lives in Germany, and throughout Christmas morning
(the only time we could really call and expect to get someone who's
awake), we kept getting a message telling us that the circuits are
busy in the country we were calling.  I asked my folks what long
distance they had, and they said it was AT&T.  I pulled out my Sprint
card and tried connecting via the 1-800 number on Sprint; same result.
This leads me to wonder how much of the resources AT&T and Sprint
share, and perhaps someone in Germany needs to install more incoming
lines to the country.


phaedrus@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (James Hartman, Sysop)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 09:35:30 -0500
From: Doctor Math <root@sangerchem.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: The Pro-34
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 913, Message 10 of 10

I stopped by a Rat Shack last night to see if I could get myself a
Pro-34 scanner for Yule.  As others probably already know, it's been
discontinued for a little over a year. The original retail price was
around $350; they apparently stopped producing them and then started
dropping the price until they were all gone. IF anyone can find ANY
left in stock, the current retail price is $34.95 (!)

Oh, well. Guess I didn't need it that bad :)

Though I'm sure it's been discussed already, does anyone have pointers
to the laws about cellular interception and the new equipment ban?
It's probably online; I just don't remember. The Season does that, you
know :) :)


[Moderator's Note: $34.95 !!!!  Yeah, and the CT-301 cell phones went
way down in price also. I paid many hundreds of dollars for mine, and
I paid about $300 for the scanner. Does anyone remember the little
Sinclair computers (with the crummy membrane keyboard) back in the
early 1980's which started out at some high price and eventually wound
up being sold off the shelf at K-Mart for $9.95 (yes, nine dollars and
ninety five cents)?  Or how CB radios in the early/middle 1970's were
priced at $200-300 for a 'cheap' one and nearly a thousand dollars for
a nicer model?  They were about $19.95 when CB went to forty channels
a few years later. Telephone answering machines using accoustic
coupling techniques (because direct connection was still illegal) sold
for nearly a thousand dollars in the middle/late 1960's, and cordless
phones in those days 25 years ago were about the same price.  When I
was employed by the Amoco and Diners Club credit card processing
office in the middle sixties we got a few terminals ... CRT's they
were called ... about five thousand dollars each for the four or five
we got; 95 percent of the work was still done via 80-column punch
cards in those days. But $34.95 for the Pro-34? That is something!  PAT]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 16:23:13 -0500
From: Doctor Math <root@sanger.chem.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular Rates in South Bend
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 914, Message 8 of 14

Two phone calls have just verified my suspicions. Here in South Bend,
there are two cellular carriers: Cellular One and Centel Cellular.
Their rates are almost identical; both charge for airtime on call
forwarding. Centel bills in six-second increments.

Activation	$25
Detail Billing	$1/month (Cell One)
		$2/month (Centel)

base		'free' minutes		extra minutes
$24.95		30			$0.60
$59.95		90			$0.30
$99.95 *	240			$0.20

* - Centel is $99.00; Cell One is $99.95.

The obvious question is WHY? No peak/off-peak rates are available,
coverage is basically the same ... I am somehow under the mistaken
impression that the purpose of the 'duopoly' is to foster some form of
competition in either features, price or levels of service. None of
this seems to be happening here. Am I missing something?


[Moderator's Note: Ah, you seem to be a man Unclear on the Concept.
With only two, there might as well be only one ... it is very easy for
each of them to keep track of what the other one is doing and work
with each other under certain unspoken gentlemen's agreements. The
same sort of thing happens with Ameritech and Cellular One - Chicago.
They are like two peas in a pod; they act like they are competing but
neither one does anything to really shake up the other, so they are
able to continue in their activities virtually unabated. Now let a
third or fourth one enter the scene ... then you would see some real
reform in the business as they all tried cutting each other's throats
at the same time. Cell rates would be five or ten dollars a month for
flat rate service and they would give the phones away free with no
contract required or anything else.   PAT]
Date: 2 Jan 93 20:30:00 GMT
From: ray.normandeau@factory.com (Ray Normandeau)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sprint 800 Residential
Reply-To: ray.normandeau@factory.com (Ray Normandeau)
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-8298v.32bis
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 5, Message 6 of 9

> I'll give it the full six months, but I'm concerned about the number
> of wrong numbers. It could be more trouble than it's worth.

I know of a business that had AT&T 800 service and discontinued it due
to too many wrong numbers.  They were getting billed for calls to the
number after business hourts when no one ws in the office and there
was no modem fax TAD or human to pick up the phone.

This is a company with the President and ONE worker.
Date: 21 Dec 92 02:57:22 GMT
From: backon@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Help: Satellite Earth Station Costs
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 913, Message 7 of 10

A company here is setting up their own satellite ground station for
IBS service from COMSAT (either 4.5 meter in C-band or 3.5 meter at
Ku-band). This would be an: A, B, C, or E-3 standard earth station.
The other possibility was that they utilize COMSAT's Datanet service
and thus use a smaller antenna.

Are these antennas "maintenance proof"?  Would they need full-time
personnel to man the ground station?  How much would it cost to
actually operate one of these ground stations?

Since the price for setting up a 4.5 meter ground station is around
$70,000, they need to carefully control for *hidden* costs. Feedback
from operators of large satellite ground stations would be gratefully
appreciated.

Thanks in advance,


Josh   backon@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 17:55:06 GMT
From: hcb@world.std.com (Howard C Berkowitz)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Anybody Know of LARGE Modem Server Systems?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 923, Message 8 of 9

In article <telecom12.912.13@eecs.nwu.edu> mtndew!friedl@uunet.UU.NET
writes:

> I have a customer who may need to set up a huge number of modem
> lines to service incoming calls to his UNIX system, and he wants to
> find a system that already does this rather than roll his own.  While
> we could probably do it ourselves for small numbers of lines (say, up
> to 32), these may just not scale up very well to handling several
> hundred modems and serial lines and phone lines.

I would look seriously at getting one or more of commercially
available X.25 PAD devices (Codex, Dynapac, Hughes, etc.), and connect
it to a software PAD i the UNIX box.  If a software PAD were not
available for some reason, there could be a "reverse PAD" to serve the
switch.  If the user wants concentration functions, then the number of
ports on the PADs would be greater than the number of active ports on
the software or hardware PAD serving the host.

   Many commercial PADs can also be switches Depending o the user
requirement, a private X.25 network might make sense.  This would
allow servers (i.e., PADs) to be geographically distributed when that
made economical or operational sense.


Howard
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:52:50 CST
From: tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 800 Numbers and Live ANI Advice Sought
Reply-To: zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com
Organization: TCS Consulting Services
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 928, Message 8 of 13

There was a bit about 800 numbers and live ANI and certain equipment
that could be used to read it.

Now my boss wants it, and I dont have any idea where to go or what to
ask.

If anyone is willing to help me out I'd really appreciate it.  Who
offers the services like this, and what does it cost?  Who do I call
and what do I ask for to get it?

Sorry for the waste of bandwidth, but I hope someone can help me out.


Thanks,

Greg
TCS Consulting Services   P.O. Box 600008   St. Paul, MN  55106-0008  
 ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta                 ..!src.honeywell.com!tcscs!zeta 


[Moderator's Note: All the big carriers offering 800 service are in a
position to send it to you in real time ... for a price. It is not
nearly as inexpensive as the delayed reporting you get with the bill
each month, but if your business depends on fast retrieval of customer
records and responding to same, then getting ANI in real time is the
way to go. Ask any business consultant at the Big Three (AT&T, Sprint
or MCI) who sells 800 service for details.   PAT]
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993  05:05:45 EST
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
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 13, Issue 6, Message 1 of 10

In TELECOM Digest 12-928, cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (gordon hlavenka)
writes:

> I've been working on a credit card / phone project, and
> discovered something that is probably known to many but was
> news to me: My PIN is _on_ my calling card!  Recorded on
> Track 2, offset 23 characters after the SS.  In the clear.

[Stuff Deleted]

> I suppose it could be argued that validating PINs on-line
> is a difficult task, but on the other hand my ATM card works
> in London and if the PIN is recorded on this card it's
> encrypted ...

It's not.  The interesting thing is that banks operate almost
identically the way Internet does for handling TELNET or FTP or E-Mail
requests.  One computer calls up another computer through several
intervening computer systems over the backbone.

In the case of Internet, the backbone is supplied by NSF in the U.S.
and by the local PTTs in foreign countries.

If you look at your card, it will identify the 'backbone' supplier; a
name like 'CIRRUS' (owned by Master Card) or 'PLUS' (owned by Visa).
These are the two major international ATM networks.  This backbone
establishes a connection between the bank you are at and the one you
have an account with.  This bank sends across the card number your
card has and sends across the PIN that you type in, along with a
statement of what you want it to do (send money, send your balance,
etc.)  The receiving computer gets this information and then decides
what to do with it just as if you were at one of its own machines.
Then it will either send back some information (account balance) or an
approval (give him the $300) or a denial (sorry, he doesn't have
enough) or in worse case, a rejection (refuse his request and eat the
card).

In short, the local bank simply sends the information you gave it (in
encrypted form) back to the issuing bank; the local bank simply
follows instructions.


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
These opinions are mine alone
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 01:24 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.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 921, Message 1 of 10

On Dec 25 at 18:24, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> Statistics published by AT&T show in fact the opposite of what you
> say: network traffic is very high on many 'family' holidays. Why has
> AT&T spend many millions of dollars in upgrading their network if they
> plan to shut it down on holidays?

Then AT&T has a lot more work ahead of it. Just out of curiosity I
made some test calls. Out of twenty-two attempted calls to Victorville
from San Jose on AT&T, exactly one went through between 1 PM and 2 PM
Christmas Day. Out of the same number of attempts on Sprint, all
twenty-two went through without delay with exactly the same results
were noted on MCI.

How soon we forget. Hours after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, I
tried at some length to get though to my home from southern
California.  All circuits were busy. Then I tried Sprint. The call
went right through. Discussions right here on the Digest pointed to
the policy of AT&T of purposely restricting incoming access to a
disaster area. I, for one, was very grateful for the fact that AT&T's
policies are not always imitated by the competitors.


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


[Moderator's Note: Do you think it could be the reason you got through
on Sprint is because not that many people (relative to the facilities
available) were using Sprint?  AT&T is still the national favorite by
a wide margin. Could it be the facilities available to the one are
disproportionate to the actual traffic requirements?  I still don't
think they 'shut things down' ... an earthquake or other emergency is
different than a family holiday.   PAT]
Date: 27 Dec 1992 11:27:33 GMT
From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in California
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 921, Message 8 of 10

It is my understanding that the legislature is going to attempt to
pass a bill that would override the PUC ruling, but then those are the
same people that could not pass a budget. Maybe the companies should
take the PUC to court or do like Texas did a while back, cut the
funding so they could not do anything.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 21:03 EST
From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#
Reply-To: turner@dixie.com
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 926, Message 8 of 10

Recently, on the way back home for Christmas, I dropped by to see a
friend who retired from the outside plant construction business.
Outside the store he bought was a brand new COCOT.  (As COCOTs are
typically made to look like RBOC or GTE payphones, they stand out like
a sore thumb in Contel land.)  I asked Jim about it and he showed me
the contract.  The basic terms were a five year contract in exchange
for 10-35% of the coin box.  No mention was made of AOSs except for a
statement saying that LD service would be handled by a carrier of the
COCOT owners choice "such as AT&T, MCI, or Sprint".  I went outside to
look at the phone.

The label said Sprint was the IXC, but a 1" square label on the
fiberglass enclosure said an AOS (ITI I believe) was the IXC.  Dialing
O+ connnected to the AOS rather than Sprint. FGD access was allowed.
Jim was a little ticked that they neglected to mention that they also
made money from the non-coin LD without sharing it, or even mentionimg
it in the contract.  As the COCOT replaced a phone Contel removed due
to insufficent use, he really didn't lose anything.  Another
interesting thing was that no protection was given to the quad wire
that connected the COCOT to the NID on poorly lit back of the store.
I wonder why they don't at least use ground start lines instead of
loop start POTS lines.

Two days later I found out I have to select a COCOT for a resturant
after Bell removed their pay phone.  Without the payphone, customers
tie up the resturant's line that is otherwise needed for credit card
verification.  The company I hope to get uses Telecom USA as the IXC,
as well as offering $.25/min LD.  (A good deal, IMHO)


Pat Turner KB4GRZ   turner@dixie.com


[Moderator's Note: Why did Bell remove the payphone? If due to not
enough use, there is a way around it: ask Bell to return the phone as
a semi-public coin phone. *You pay them* for having it there, and they
get to keep all the money, giving you none of the commissions, but
this is preferable to a COCOT if only because of the customer complaints 
caused by the private payphones. I'd think the goodwill was worth a
few dollars per month.   PAT]