HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 07:12:34 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Misc.Disaster.* Newsgroups
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 682, Message 7 of 10

Rick Broadhead writes:

> I am surprised that Usenet, a powerful and international medium of
> communication, has not been more widely used to assist in the dissemination
> of information during crisis situations and calamities.  For example, I am
> sure there would be great support for newsgroups such as misc.disaster.
> reports and/or misc.disaster.coordination, which could be used:

> (a) by anxious friends and relatives to find out about friends
>     and family in disaster areas
> (b) to disseminate information on relief efforts
> (c) to provide addresses of those agencies accepting donations
> (d) to report on the situation in affected areas

misc.disaster.* group(s) would be of limited utility as a mechanism
for response to a great disaster.  The reason is that the underlying
hardware needed to make USENET work, specifically, the telephone
system, would likely be out of commission, possibly for an extended
period of time.  Luckily for the people in Florida left in the wake of
Hurricane Andrew, the telephone system still works, somewhat.  In
Mogadishu (sp?), no phone service even exists.  You can't call into or
out of the country unless you have a satellite phone or other
radio-based communication.

In the recent riots here, and during several minor earthquakes over
the last several years, I can assure you that the phone systems became
swamped.  USENET hubs that rely on the "physical transport layer" of
the public switched analog telephone network would be unusable in
times of emergency.  This would shut down many sites instantly and
greatly limit the utility of those that remained online -- probably
large commercial or academic sites with leased lines and a very good
reason for having continuous power plugged into a computer room in
case of a disaster, or were just lucky that they didn't lose power.
Again calling up the example of Florida, the power grid probably won't
get rebuilt for another six months.

Of course, it wouldn't necessarily mean that USENET wouldn't be useful
outside the area of the disaster.  It would just mean that it would be
limited to second-hand information relayed by other means -- like
amateur radio -- or publishing "send money to:" information.  I see
misc.disaster.* groups as an ancilliary means of information disbursal
at best, at least until direct satellite telephony becomes cheap and
readily available.


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    (310) 568-3555
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      (310) 568-3574
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com
From: wah@zach.fit.edu ( Bill Huttig)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 800 Portability
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:48:34 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 661, Message 6 of 19

I was just wondering about the 800 portability area ... will this mean
that all 800 exchanges will be come portable at once? or will they be
phased in?

Will every possible exchange become avaiable? 

Will the residential user be able to switch carriers just as easily as
a large company?

Who will control the number space and be reponsiable for routing
problems?

I assume that the customer could have different carriers at different
times of day and location along with multi termination points ... (I
would hate to have to write that database).


Bill
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:43:25 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Monitoring of Broadcasts
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 666, Message 2 of 13

In article <telecom12.661.12@eecs.nwu.edu> voorhis@aecom.yu.edu
(Adrienne Voorhis) writes:

> Could someone please explain how the federal government can allow
> you to legally monitor such broadcasts but can stop you from
> disclosing what was heard?  I'm not a First Amendment lawyer, but it
> would seem to me that if you lawfully became aware of information,
> that the government could not muzzle you from discussing what you have
> legitimately obtained.

I'm not a First Amendment lawyer either (or any other kind of lawyer
for that matter), but I do know that there is a common misconception
that the various amendments prevent any restrictions whatsoever on
certain activities.  There are many cases where "lawfully obtained"
information cannot be legally discussed:

- The tried and true "fire in a theater" example.
- Trade secrets that you legally obtain in the course of employment. 


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 18:29:16 CST
From: Mike.Riddle@ivgate.omahug.org (Mike Riddle)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CLID Format Compatibilty Question
Reply-To: mike.riddle%inns@ivgate.omahug.org
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 662, Message 10 of 14

An interesting question came up today, one which I couldn't answer but
am sure that someone in this group can.  The Phone Company is
currently marketing two versions of CLID in the Omaha area:
 
     1.  Number- only.
     2.  Number and name.

Someone who wants to purchase the service is served by a DMS-100.
According to TPC, the DMS-100 currently can only support the
number-only CLID format.  The potential purchaser wants to know, and
no one local seems able to answer definitively:

     1.  How long before the generics for DMS-100 will support
         number and name?
     2.  How interoperable are the number-only and name-and-number
         display boxes?

The intent is to buy a name-and-number box, use it for number only
service, and upgrade when the software is available for the DMS-100.
The other side of this question, will a number-only box work at all on
the name-and-number service, appears to be "no," but no one other than
a TPC Marketing Droid seems to be quite certain about this.

Can anyone help?  Thanks.


          <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org        |  Nebraska Inns of Court
bc335@cleveland.freenet.edu        |  +1 402 593 1192 (Data/Fax)
Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet          |  V.32/V.42bis   /   G3 Fax

Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.3
inns.omahug.org            +1 402 593 1192           (1:285/27.0)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 14:27:29 GMT
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How Can I Splice Telephone Wires Without an Overkill?
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 683, Message 10 of 10

kentrox!bud@uunet.UU.NET (Bud Couch) writes:

> In article <telecom12.662.4@eecs.nwu.edu> smp@cathedral.cerc.wvu.
> wvnet.edu (Shailesh M. Potnis) writes:

>> Is there a terminal or connector which splices two ends of a
>> telephone cableto make a longer one?  Essentially what I would emagine
>> would be similar to the two male connectors fused together.

> Well, there is always the old WECO 710 splicing connector, but it
> requires a rather elaborate tool to use, since it uses an
> insulation-displacement mechanism. I think that the tool runs about
> $300, and I don't think that AT&T will sell the connectors in
> quantites of less than 25.

If you stick (or already have) a couple of RJ11 ends on your cables,
Radio Shack sells a coupler to put them together.


JTT
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:40:06 GMT
From: jkarab@NeXT.COM (John Karabaic)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 911 on Jerry Springer Show
Reply-To: jkarab@NeXT.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 665, Message 9 of 15

Jeff Garber writes:

> On The Jerry Springer Show (Aug 19, 11 A.M., KCAL Channel 9, Los
> Angeles) the topic was 911.  Apparently, someone in the Cincinnati
> area called 911 from a cellular phone because he believed a man was
> having a heart attack on the side of the road. The 911 operator told
> him that they cannot accept calls from cellular phones! They actually
> played the recording from the call on the show, so I heard it with my
> own ears. 

Rest easy, that dispatcher was disciplined.  She (I think it was a
she) misinterpreted the policy.  Since 911's Caller-ID doesn't work
with cellular phones, despatchers had been instructed to ask specific
questions of cellular callers.  This despatcher either misinterpreted
the training, was under stress and made a mistake, or was a bozo.

I use my cellular phone with 911 all the time to report motorists in
need of assistance, accidents, and the like.  I state where I am,
where the person who needs assistance is, and am usually cheerfully
thanked.  If asked, I provide my name and my cellular number.  For
non-emergencies, some despatchers will hook you up with the state
police or county sheriff.

Since I have the (dubious) privilege of having a phone, I figure it's
my duty to use it this way.


John S. Karabaic, Systems Engineer, jkarab@NeXT.com, 513 792 5904
NeXT Computer, Inc.; 4434 Carver Woods Dr.;  Cincinnati, OH 45242
cellular: 513 532 0224; fax: 513 792 5913; territory: OH, IN & KY


[Moderator's Note: I try to use my handheld in the same way. I pass by
accident scenes and situations where police intervention is required
almost every day ... and I call it in.   PAT]
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:53:06 GMT
From: rkh@ucs.att.com (Bob Halloran)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Polite Thief
Organization: AT&T Universal Card Services, Jacksonville FL
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 665, Message 6 of 15

In article <telecom12.661.14@eecs.nwu.edu> Jerry Leichter <leichter@
lrw.com> writes:

[Moderator's Note: See earlier message this issue for the text.  PAT]

Off the sticker they sent to stick on my card, it's 1-800-742-6260.  I
recall they'll want to know where the phone was, when you tried to
make the call, and the AOS.


Bob Halloran   AT&T Universal Card   Jacksonville FL    rkh@ucs.att.com

Any similarity between opinions stated here and AT&T's corporate
opinion are purely coincidental.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 13:37:10 PDT
From: aimla!ruby!rudholm@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Rudholm)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Weird Intercept
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 672, Message 3 of 12

In TELECOM Digest V12, I668, Message 5 cmoore@BRL.MIL writes:

> All I can find is that 663 is a Los Angeles prefix and thus would
> still be in 213, not in 310.

663 is in 213 but much of the city of L.A. is not in 213 (parts are in
818 and 310).  But prefixes that are _labelled_ as "Los Angeles" by
TPC are all in 213*.  Some prefixes that are within the city but are
labelled something else are for example 310-444 (West L.A.) and
818-778 (Van Nuys).

*There are a couple of exceptions such as some cellphone prefixes and
the choke exchange (520) which is dialable from 818, 310, or 213.


Mark D. Rudholm    rudholm@aimla.com    Philips Interactive Media
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:22:05 GMT
From: julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Proper Use of 66-Block Punchdown Tool
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 669, Message 8 of 9

In article <telecom12.667.4@eecs.nwu.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
(Gabe M Wiener) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 667, Message 4 of 6

> How does one properly punch a wire down into a 66-block so that the
> end gets trimmed?

> My usual practice is to stick the end into the front of the tines and
> then just click it down with the punchdown tool, however, this never
> seems to trim the end as (I was told) it is supposed to.

> I've seen some installers click *twice* on each terminal.  Is that one
> to get it it down and one to cut?

> Also, is there a significance to the colors on the tool?  Mine is
> black on one side and yellow on the other, though a friend of mine has
> one that's blue on one side and yellow on the other.  Does any one
> color indicate which side has the blade?  (Neither side on mine seems
> to trim the cable.)

	Your description is not clear. So lets make some assumptions.
You are using a springloaded punchdown tool. The tool has a bit on the
end of it that is reversable. You usually reverse these by loosening a
screw or a collet. One end of the bit is for punching and cutting, the
other end is for punching only -- used when looping wire across several
blocks. The cutting end has a knife blade on one side.

	If that blade is blunt or you are using the end without the
blade. The wire will not get cut. Get a new bit, they cost about
$10.00, worth it every time.

> I've seen some installers click *twice* on each terminal.  Is that one
> to get it it down and one to cut?

	A good tool with a sharp bit will punch and cut with one
simple stroke. If it takes two, sharpen the blade or replace it.

> Also, is there a significance to the colors on the tool?  Mine is
> black on one side and yellow on the other, though a friend of mine has
> one that's blue on one side and yellow on the other.  Does any one
> color indicate which side has the blade?  (Neither side on mine seems
> to trim the cable.)

	The colours are an indication of the manufacturer. If you
can't see the blade, you don't have one. Take out the bit and reverse
it, or buy a new bit. Some punchdown tools have a legend "Blade" on
the handle to help orient the user.

	If this is not clear, stop a telco installer - the guys and
girls with the macho tool belts. Ask how to use and adjust a puncdown
tool. Easier to use than a revolver -- much more fun. Both look good
on your hip.


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
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 09:31:42 CDT
From: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Unadvertised SW Bell Offering
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 679, Message 14 of 15

SW Bell has been advertising Call Notes (SM) as a new service.  This
is your typical Teleco based answering machine clone with little if
any product discrimination.

However, the ad leads you to believe SW Bell must have forward on
busy/no answer to provide this service.  Call the local order office
and ask.  Sure enough they do but to quote her: "We can sell it if you
ask for it but we can't offer it to you."  If anyone's interested,
$0.75/mo for each service, $1/mo if you subscribe to both.


Charles Mattair			      (preferred) mattair%synercom@hounix.org
Fast, Cheap, Good.  Choose Two. (anon)		   (or)	mattair@synercom.UUCP
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.


[Moderator's Note: IBT offers forward on busy/no answer and likewise
they do not market it to residential users but will sell it if you ask
for it. The only problem is that it is not user programmable: it is
turned on at all times to one selected number which must be another
number in the same CO.  So they say.    PAT]
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 08:29:08 EDT
From: Peter M. Weiss <PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Disaster Reporting On Usenet
Organization: Penn State University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 682, Message 2 of 10

In article <telecom12.675.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, YSAR1111@YORKVM1.BITNET
says:

> I am surprised that Usenet, as powerful a medium as it is, has not
> been more widely used to coordinate disaster relief activities.  (...)

On the news that we carry here:

    alt.hurricane.andrew

There were 13 articles posted.


Pete - pmw1@psuvm.psu.edu
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 07:38:30 EDT
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T and Sandia
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 665, Message 15 of 15

What is happening is that the contracts between the DOE sites and AT&T
are up for renewal and apparently Sandia is going with another company
for their long distance carrier.

My employer, Brookhaven National Laboratory, is negotiating a contract
right now and I don't know who the players are at the present time.

It should be noted that these contracts are of approximate ten-year
duration which would put the beginning of the AT&T-Sandia one in 1982,
the same as BNLs.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory    Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:42:58 GMT
From: Hans Ridder <ridder@zso.dec.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Modem Noise on Line
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 672, Message 11 of 12

You will probably hear from many folks that this type of wire ("quad")
allows crosstalk between your phone lines because it doesn't have
twisted pairs.  I had quad in my last home, and used the BK/YL pair
for my modem line, without *any* crosstalk.  Actually, I did have a
crosstalk problem but I was able to completely eliminate it.  Mine was
caused by four-wire modular (flat) line cords, not by the quad.

> What can I do to eliminate this? Is there a special kind of wire I can
> use inside the house?

Assuming you have modular jacks and that you have both lines appearing
at every jack in the house, here's what I did: First unplug all your
phones *at the wall*.  Then plug your modem and one phone into your
two-line splitter plugged directly into the wall jack.  Then make a
test call.  (Make a connection with your modem, and then pick up your
voice line and then break dial tone by dialing a "1" or something.)
In this configuration, my problem was cured.

At this point, you'll want to re-install your other phones.  You'll
either need to use a splitter at each jack, re-wire the jacks to only
have the one desired phone line, or use two-wire modular cords.  The
thing you are trying to avoid is having both lines running together
over the same flat cord.

If the above test doesn't cure your problem, then you'll want to rig
up a temporary connection directly at the network interface (or
"protectors") *making sure* you have the inside wiring disconnected.
If you still get crosstalk, then you need to call telco.  If so, then
the problem is definitly your wires (or *something* inside your
house.)

> Is there something I can do on my end or do I have to have the phone
> company come out and string a second physical wire in support of the
> second line?

You shouldn't need to have a separate run for your second line, but it
might come down to that if you can't get your wire to behave.  The
trick is figuring out if the wire is the problem.  If you are handy
with a screw driver, wire cutters, etc.  You should be able to do all
these things yourself.


Hans-Gabriel Ridder	  Digital DECwest Engineering
ridder@rust.zso.dec.com	  Bellevue, Washington, USA
{pacbell,pyramid,uunet}!rust.zso.dec.com!ridder
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 12:20:33 CDT
From: pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: FCC Docket 92-136 Available via Anonymous FTP
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 679, Message 4 of 15

Just a short note to let everyone know that a copy of FCC PR Docket
92-136 (Ammendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Rules to Relax
Restrictions on the Scope of Permissible Communications in the Amateur
Service) is available via anonymous FTP from ftp.cs.buffalo.edu in
file /pub/ham-radio/pr_docket_92-136.

As any reader of rec.radio.amateur.policy knows, the subject of
permissible communications in Amateur Radio is a matter of some
dispute.  Historically, amateurs had great latitude on content, the
FCC only being concerned with the pecuniary interest of the operator
himself, rather than that of incidental 3rd parties who may benefit
from that communication.  In 1972, however, in response to an inquiry
(isn't it always some poor sucker asking a leading question of the
Commission that causes them to do really undesirable things?) the FCC
decided to take a much more restrictive view of business
communications, making illegal any communications that could POSSIBLY
benefit third parties.  The docket attempts to restore the rules to
their pre-1972 state.

This has put a serious crimp on many types of public-service
communications (the Idiatrod dog race in Alaska is a prime example) as
well as up-and-coming amateur packet networks (remember the Desert
Storm message of 1990?).

Some of the interesting questions raised by the docket (and subsequent
discussion on rec.radio.amateur.policy) include:

1.  Are amateur operators responsible enough to insure that the service
isn't exploited by commercial interests?

2.  Would simplified rules concerned only with operator compensation be
a help or a hindrance?  Would this open the door to commercial
exploitation?

3.  Is the Amateur Radio Service an experimental service, a
communications service, or both?  Where do we draw the line between
the two?

4.  Is the transmission of "incidental music" (such as when making a
telephone call via radio patch and you get hold music, or some
occasional background music during FCC-authorized retransmissions of
"NASA Select" shuttle audio/video) something that should be permitted,
with restrictions, or prohibited?

5.  What consitutes "regular use" of amateur radio for communications
and when should such communications be relegated to alternative
services such as cellular phone?

6.  Should transmissions by a compensated control operator, when such
transmissions are for the purpose of classroom instruction at an
education institution, be permitted?  (Currently the only exception is
for the transmission of bulletins and Morse Code practice, with
certain scheduling and frequency-use requirements).

Interested parties should submit comments to the FCC by October 1, 1992
and reply comments by December 1, 1992.


Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU  pschleck@unomaha.edu