HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:51:40 GMT
From: atoscano@attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Alternate to AT&T Mail Delivery
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 14, Message 14 of 14

In TELECOM Digest V13, #9, Tom Lahey <toml@batfish.attmail.com> asks
about alternatives to AT&T Mail, believing he will pay an average
$2.05/issue to receive the Digest via AT&T Mail.

In actuality, there is *no* usage charge to *receive* messages on AT&T
Mail -- *unless* they are sent "COD." ("COD" messages must originate
within AT&T Mail. If the recipient doesn't wish to pay for the message
(s)he may DELETE it without reading it, in which case the sender is
billed for its cost. An on-line mailbox may also be flagged to reject
"COD" messages at the time they are submitted by the sender. Messages
from the Internet, such as the Digest, may *not* be sent "COD.")

Aside from any applicable recurring monthly and annual charges, AT&T
Mail's only *usage* charges are for *sending* messages, receiving
"COD" messages, and accessing "shared folders." This can be confirmed
by calling the AT&T Mail billing office in Atlanta: 800 MAIL672
(option 2).

BTW, AT&T Mail now expects to finally implement its previously
announced, but as yet unimplemented, Minimum Usage Billing requirement
of $25/month/invoice, sometime next year (1994). That is when they
expect to convert to a new billing system. Before anyone panics,
remember that several mailboxes may be billed together in a single
invoice.  


A Alan Toscano 
Internet: atoscano@attmail.com or atoscano@taronga.com 
P O Box 741982  AT&T Mail: !atoscano AT&T Enhanced FAX: !0200607 
Houston, TX     CIS: 73300,217   AT&T TELEX: 406232556 UI
772741982 USA Work: +1 713 216 6616 Work-FAX: +1 713 216 2193
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993  22:32:27 EST
From: Paul Robinson <FZC@CU.NIH.GOV>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ...
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 20, Message 16 of 17

kstox@admips2.berkely.edu writes in TELECOM Digest 13 #14 about how
someone programmed the IBM 1130 to generate tones on an AM radio.

I've got one better than that.  I was in the computer center at Orange
Coast College in Costa Mesa, Ca., when someone got the *line printer*
to play the five tones from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"!

I was there, I heard it.  Slick; it used exactly ONE piece of paper to
do this.  Do not ask me how.

Try *that*, Hewlett Packard!


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
From: Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hunt Groups
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:19:12 GMT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 21, Message 9 of 13

rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) wrote:

> Is it possible for two numbers serviced by the same physical CO to be
> placed on a hunt group even though they has different exchange
> prefixes?

Sure is! but depends on local CO equipment. Or there are tricks you
can play.

Most CO switches cover several exchange codes. Telco may bitch and
scream, but often will hunt between exchanges on their own just to
make their life easier or to get out of some messup they caused. You
may also get number in a hunt group that are 'theoreticals' that have
NO exchange mere customers can dial (can YOU dial 017-9325? I thought
not!).

If you can't get them to do it or it is IMPOSSIBLE (may be on
different CO switches, not just exchanges), then, if you have NO
message unit implications and NO problems paying for a phone line that
only is a number, get call forwarding on the isolated single one and
set it to forward and GROUND both Tip and Ring to PERMANENTLY busy it.
If they bitch, tell repair you are having some equipment problems and
you DID busy it, but if they could DO IT FOR YOU while you get your
equipment straightened out, and that you will CALL THEM when you need
it restored, they probably will leave it that way for ten years.

All calls to that number will then forward to the other numbers were
you can have several lines.

If you can get few line centrex service, you may be able to get line
in use forwarding - more a secretarial feature than hunting.

> [Moderator's Note: I've never heard of a hunt group including lines on
> different prefixes, even if they were in the same CO.  Anyone?   PAT]

Many times. No problem.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 11:51:05 EST
From: pedregal%unreal@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Visual "Bell" For a POTS Line
Reply-To: pedregal@cs.umass.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 19, Message 8 of 10

Greetings.  I have a couple of applications for a device that flashes
a light (maybe even a strobe) when a plain phone line rings.  Such a
thing must exist, but I can't find sources. Please email to me and
I'll summarize.  Thanks!


Cristobal Pedregal Martin     pedregal@cs.umass.edu 
Computer Science Department   UMass / Amherst, MA 01003


[Moderator's Note: The easiest way to do this is get a neon test thing
from Radio Shack (or anywhere else ...). Just wire it parallel to the
phone line. It does not draw enough current to take the phone off hook
but will flash in sync with the ringing of the phone. I have an
appliation here where there are several lines going into a computer
which is used for voicemail. No one wants to sit and listen to those
bells on the incoming phone lines ring all the time, yet it is very
important to know if for some reason the computer is not answering the
line ... with no bell it would never be noticed if something had gone
wrong. So, I have several 'beehive lamps' (the little plastic things
with a dome on top and a neon bulb mounted within) mounted on the wall
with double-sided tape. Wires run to each from the associated phone
line. They flash on for a couple seconds each time a call comes in on
that line. The only line with an actual bell on it is the final line
in the hunt group -- when it rings, it serves notice that the computer
has a full house, at least for the time being. I also have a little
counter installed on that line which increments by one each time that
line rings ... by viewing the register, one can see how often a full
house occurred since the last time the register was reset.   PAT]
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:20:49 GMT
From: glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis?
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 8, Message 9 of 11

It seems that I've seen discussion on the following topic in the
TELECOM Digest before, but I can't remember the answer or find
anything relevant in the archive index.

My parents live in Mississippi and get their local phone service from
South Central Bell.  According to my parents, the bells in their
phones make a 'ping' every evening around 10:15PM.  They say that the
ping almost always occurs around the same time, but that on certain
nights it may not occur until close to midnight.  They've called South
Central Bell about this, and they were told that the ping was NOT
occuring due to anything that the phone company was doing.

By calling my parents number, I have not been able to find a way to
duplicate the ping myself -- I always end up creating at least one
full ring.

What is the likely cause of this ping?  Is it possible that some
individual is doing it as an annoyance, or is it more likely a problem
from within the phone system?

Thank you.


Glenn Leavell  University of Georgia  glenn@creator.ucns.uga.edu  706-542-5110
University Computing and Networking Services, Athens, GA 30602-1911
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:12:39 GMT
From: rudi@netcom.com (Rudolf Usselmann)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular Phones: CLI, VOICE & SHORT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 12, Message 10 of 13

I have a Motorola MicroTAC Lite pocket phone.  It has three features
which I still don't quite understend: CLI, VOICE & SHORT CLI - seems
to be something like Caller ID, it will store the phone number of the
last caller.

VOICE - Some sort of mailbox support? 
SHORT - Some sort of mailbox for short messages? 
 
None of these feature are supported yet (at least according to the
company I have my service with).
 
Does anybody have more info on these features? When will they beocme
available?  I'm in the SF Bay Area. The two major cellular providers
are Cellular One and GTE Mobilnet. BTW: Which is "better" GTE or C1?

Thanks a bunch ! 
 

rudi  rudi@netcom.com  
Phone: (415) 321-8692 x236 work;  (510) 745-7834 home
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 0:32:59 EST
From: lunatix!chelf@ms.uky.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Out of Town Businesses on Local Numbers?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 10, Message 5 of 11

The other day, I saw the number for a business located in a nearby
town (which is not normally in the local calling area), however, the
prefix was a local one.  I tried calling the number, but could not get
through.  I tried the operator and she connected me, and after asking
why the 'number' was in my town, and the 'business' was in another,
she only said, 'It's in the computer, but it is connected to a
different town.'
 
Any ideas as to what's happening here?


[Moderator's Note: Businesses (actually, anyone, but it is mostly
businesses) can have a 'foreign exchange' line -- commonly known as an
FX. When they use that phone, or receive calls on it, it is as though
they were in the place where the phone exchange is located. There are
various reasons one might do this. One reason is the company makes a
large volume of calls to that town, and the cost of the FX line plus
local calling charges, if any, are less than the cost of the same
number of calls dialed as long distance. Other times an FX line is
intended to give a company a 'presence' in the town where it is
located. They wish to make a convenient way for their customers in
that town to reach them, and find the call volume is sufficient to
warrant a dedicated FX line rather than hundreds (or thousands) of
calls on 800 lines. Whether or not an FX line makes better sense than
(for example) a IN-WATS line is an applications problem. With the cost
of long distance and/or 800 calls being less than ever before, FX 
lines are not nearly as common as they used to be.  PAT]
From: MCMANGPH@NUSVM.BITNET (Ang Peng Hwa)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: US Losing Lead in Telecom - USC Report
Date: 12 Jan 93 05:47:47 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 19, Message 3 of 10

This report is from UPI:
 
Los Angeles -- America's traditional lead in telecommunications is
eroding very rapidly as other nations promote new technologies,
according to a study released Wednesday.
 
"The potential of new information communication technologies and
services is widely appreciated around the world and many nations are
making aggressive steps to promote their deployment," said the
University of Southern California study.
 
The study, produced by the USC's Center for Telecommunications
Management and covering 24 nations, found that the US lagged in a
number of key technologies compared with other nations, such as
converting analog networks to more efficient digital networks and
investment.
 
It said digitalization of the US network stood at just over 50 percent
at the end of 1991, which ranks ninth of 18 reporting countries, while
US investment in public network infrastructure was 12th among the 18
countries. It also said other nations were retiring used equipment
much faster than the US.
 
"While a number of other nations have dramatically increased their
capital investment in infrastructure, US investment is flat or
declining," it said. "Furthermore, depreciation trends in the US show
a shocking pattern."
 
The study added: "During this remarkable period of rapid technological
progress and obsolescence, asset lives for public network equipment of
local exchange companies have actually increased in the US. Nations
like Japan, the United Kingdom, Singapore and others write off and
replace equipment twice as fast as most US carriers."
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 14:08:00 PST
From: Anthony E. Siegman <siegman@sierra.stanford.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: Stanford University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 20, Message 13 of 17

> [Moderator's Note: I think the banks here which give money on trust
> when the network is down do have something called a 'negative listing'
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of cards which should not be honored in that way. Here in the Chicago

   I believe another more generic term for this kind of list, made
available in any form, is "derog list" (with obvious interpretation).
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hunt Groups
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:15:55 GMT
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 13, Issue 21, Message 10 of 13

In article <telecom13.14.4@eecs.nwu.edu> TERRY@spcvxa.spc.edu (Terry
Kennedy) writes:

> However, the various call forward functions will work across
> prefixes, or across switches if desired. So the subscriber could order
> call forward on busy (or on busy/no answer) and then set whatever form
> of hunt group up that he wanted. This could be done either with
> customer-selected for- warding (the kind usually explained in the
> phone book, where the customer sets the forwarding, or with fixed
> forwarding, where it is set up in the switch and the customer can't
> change it).

One problem with using call-forward-on-busy as a creative way to
create hunt groups of more than two lines is that many telcos restrict
it to handle no more than one forwarded call at a time.  This
restriction may also be placed on Remote Call Forwarding numbers and
regular (immediate) call forwarding.  

With US West in Washington State, RCF costs around $18 per month plus
message units, and can handle only one call at a time.  You can
purchase additional "circuits" for $18 per month each.  But, if you
can find somewhere to terminate a loop, you can get an unmeasured
business line for around $32 per month, add call forwarding for around
$4.  Then, for $36, you get up to 20 concurrent calls forwarded with
no message units.  The 20 call maximum was what call forwarding was
configured for on my switch - the person at the business office had to
check this out when I asked, and I got the impression that different
switches had it set to different values.  Pacific Bell on the other
hand, sets all of their switches to the same value: they only allow
one concurrent call for regular call forwarding.

Also, if you want to have a busy or no-answer forwarding go to a
number that's on a different switch, it is technically a different
feature: "busy call forwarding extended."  It was not widely available
until a couple of years ago.  Since this feature is a necessary part
of the telco's own voicemail offering, it is now magically available
most everywhere now.  But some switches may not yet support it, so
busy-forwarding may be restricted to the local switch.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
From: sp@questor.org (Steve Pershing)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular Modems (was Cellular RJ-11 Jacks)
Date: 5 Jan 93 07:17:40 GMT
Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: +1 604 681 0670
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 9, Message 1 of 15

In article <telecom12.893.13@eecs.nwu.edu>, dsjohns@uswnvg.com (Dwight
Johns) writes:

> Many of the newer cellular phones out there have (oh, what's a good
> politicaly correct term) less than fully functioning RJ-11 jack on
> Now my only complaint is that I can't go over 1200 baud on a
> cellular connection and that I drop carrier whenever I handoff.

ZyXEL's modems are capable of working on a cellular connexion.  They
have a proprietary "cellular mode" which handles cell hand-offs
easily.

If you are looking for data on these modems, we have most of their
spec sheets scanned in as 300x300dpi TIFF images, which are
ZOO-compressed.

If you send a message to:     mail-server@questor.org
with the first lines in the
body of text being:           help
                              dir
                              files

you should get enough info back to get you started.  (We also have
data sheets on Telebits, and a neat little PC-based EPROM programmer.)

Best regards from snowy Vancouver, B.C.   (yes!  ...SNOWY!)


    Steve Pershing, SysAdmin  <sp@questor.org>    The QUESTOR Project
  FREE access to Environ, Sci, Med, & AIDS news, and more.  [also UUCP]
        on a ZyXEL-1496S v.42bis, v.32bis, v.33, up to 16,800bps.
                 -=-         -=-         -=-         -=-
   Fones: (+1 604)  Data: 681-0670  Telefax: 682-6160  Voice: 682-6659
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:28:32 GMT
From: brian@ganglion.Canada.Sun.COM (Brian Onn - OpCom Staff)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto
Organization: Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 20, Message 11 of 17

On Wed, 06 Jan 93 00:56:39 EST, Tony Harminc <TONY@VM1.MCGILL.CA> said:

> This past November, a company I consult for had three
> unauthorized calls to (416) 976-9467 made on one of its lines.

[...]

> Bell Canada has agreed to remove the charges, but will not tell
> us the name of the owner of this number.  

In Toronto, you can call the Bell Canada Customer Listing Bureau at
(416) 446-3090, between 1100 and 1400 EST, and if you give them the
phone number, the operator will tell you who the number is registered
to.  The rules for 976 numbers may be different, however.  The process
works for most "normal" numbers.  Give it a try.


Brian Onn.                  Internet : Brian.Onn@Canada.Sun.Com
Operation Commitment,	        Uucp : uunet!sun!suncan!brian
Product Support Specialist.    Voice : (416) 477-6745.


[Moderator's Note: I just now tried it for 312-976-WAKE, our local
wake-up service (if their bill doesn't cause you to jump out of bed, I
don't know what would).  IBT-CNA (312-796-9600) would only say it is a
"Public Announcement Service"; no record as to owner, etc.   PAT]
From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Do-It-Yourself Caller ID
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:25:11 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 10, Message 11 of 11


 From the Dec 1992 {Telecommunications} magazine in the Technology Watch
   Page 14:

Do-It-Yourself Caller ID

"Caller ID hits the computer marketplace.  While the Telcos roll out
Caller ID systems and regulators wrestle with privacy issues, the
consumer marketplace is offering its own form of call screening.  One
such product is offered through KES Communications Inc., which has
released Friends Only, a device that picks up calls before the
telephone rings.  With it, users can dodge unwanted calls via a
three-digit security access code."

"When a caller initially gets through, an operator-like voice says:

'Thank you for calling; please enter your access code.'  Callers who
do not enter the code within ten seconds are disconnected.  The device
is FCC compliant, but users may encounter some procedural difficulties
prior to using the product. KES notes that changes in telco
facilities, equipment, or operation of the product.  In addition, the
local exchange carrier must be notified prior to connection in order
to comply with state tariffs; and in some states, PUCs must approve
use prior to connection.  The device uses RJ-11C connectors which plug
into telephone and wall receptacles.  It is compatable with special
features such as call waiting, call forwarding, and three-way calling.
The price is $99.95."

No address or phone number was supplied. Wonder if you need a access
code to get them to answer the phone?


                       Thomas K Hinder
              Martin Marietta Computing Standards
                    4795 Meadow Wood Lane
                     Chantilly, VA 22021
              703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5218 (f)


[Moderator's Note: This is just the old 'Priv-Code' device. It first
came out in the middle 1970's and was manufactured then by the
International Mobile Machines Corp. of Bala Cynwyd, PA. It sits on the
line and grabs all incoming calls. Unless the person enters the proper
code, your phone never rings. Certain codes are allocated to send
calls direct to an answering machine you attach to the line. I had one
about fifteen years ago; they are fun, but can be a nuisance for
people trying to legitimatly reach you who do not have a code number.
I think someone wrote me once to say IMM no longer was making the
thing; someone else is doing it now.   PAT]