HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MCMANGPH@NUSVM.BITNET (Ang Peng Hwa)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: New VideoPhone (Half Price)
Date: 12 Dec 92 18:41:40 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 900, Message 1 of 14

I just returned from an exhibition of telecom equipment for the
end-users here in Singapore. And the equipment arm of Singapore
Telecom is marketing a videophone that they say will be marketed in
the USA for US$750, half the price of the current AT&T videophone.
 
It is produced by GEC-Marconi, of English origin. The salesdroid in
clipped English said it had full-motion video-defined at ten frames
per second.
 
The LCD screen is small; all you see can fit within your name card.
But it is better than AT&T's in that it has a picture-within-a-picture
so you can see how you would appear and position yourself. Image
quality, I feel, was worse than AT&T's but I couldn't do a
side-by-side comparison.
 
They said the videophone, called Visual 2000, is universally
compatible, meaning that it can hook up to any normal phone jack. But
you have to get one at the other end.
 
There are the ususal features expected of such a phone: secrecy (where
you can stop the other party hearing or seeing you temporarily) and
privacy (where you stop the other party seeing you).
 
Other features: contrast control, gain control, white balance -- all
for the video.
 
The retailers have a special offer: the first 100 buyers who buy a
pair will get a special price and they will ship one of the units free
by courier anywhere in the world. I wonder if they will do that when
they market in the USA.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 23:06:40 EST
From: David Leibold <DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Santa Claus Conquers the Fax Machine
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 907, Message 11 of 11

A Reuters report notes that a new fax line to Santa Claus was swamped
with thousands of calls for gift wishes. The line was set up in North
Pole, Alaska (formerly Moose Crossing), the self-declared home of
Santa Claus for many years.

The fax number is +1 907 488.4646 (that is, 488.HOHO).

Perhaps Floyd Davidson is still on the Digest; wonder how Alascom is
taking all of this?


dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca


[Moderator's Note: This is a good time to mention a charity effort I
strongly support each year: The Chicago Main Post Office receives
literally thousands of letters each year addressed to Santa Claus;
they are typically from the children of impoverished families living
in ghetto areas of our city. Chances are likely the post office in
your community also receives these. The Chicago PO will give the
letters in any quantity desired to anyone who agrees to at least try
and fill the requests on an anonymous basis.  They are sorted by the
size of the family and number of children. Some of the kids write
Santa to tell him they have been good all year and hope he will
remember them.  Others ask Santa 'not to worry about them, but be sure
little brother or little sister gets something ...'  I think everyone
knows what I am leading up to ... ask at your post office for Santa
Claus letters in whatever quantity you can deal with; I take a few
every year, and perhaps you will feel led to do so also.  Thanks.  PAT
Date: 13 Dec 1992 12:55:00 -0500
From: syd@dsi.com (Syd Weinstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Possibly Off the Subject, But ..
Reply-To: syd@DSI.COM
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, PA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 903, Message 10 of 15

Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) writes:

> In a message dated 30-NOV-92, Ed Ravin writes:

>> Ed Ravin- elr@trintex.uucp    elr%trintex@uunet.uu.net
>>                                           ^^^^^

> I've just become aware that addresses in the form of ...
> whoever%somesite@uunet.uu.net will no longer work when the message is
> sent via SMTP to the site uunet.uu.net.  Apparently the name uunet is
> still valid as a UUCP site, but the address relay1.uu.net should be
> substituted (whoever%somesite@relay1.uu.net) when using uu.net as the
> Internet domain address.

The problem is that your site doesn't process MX records then.
uunet.uu.net works fine via smtp mail, its just MX'd to relay1.uu.net
AND relay2.uu.net.  Instead of changing the addresses, you just need
to use a MX capable version of the SMTP software.

Using nslookup:

uunet.uu.net	preference = 10, mail exchanger = relay1.UU.NET
uunet.uu.net	preference = 10, mail exchanger = relay2.UU.NET

I wouldn't depend on uunet staying with the names relay1 and 2, they
suggest uunet.uu.net, and let the MX records take care of it from
there.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.4PL13
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 3.0 Release: ??? ?,1994
syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd      Voice: (215) 947-9900, FAX: (215) 938-0235
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 12:04:04 -0800
From: Barry Lustig <barry@ictv.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Tinkering?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 903, Message 2 of 15

CRAIG@harvarda.harvard.edu (Craig Evans) wrote:

> I own a Nokia 101 cellular hand-held phone.  As of now their is no car
> adapter for this model (that I know of).  I want to muck about with it
> a bit.

Henry Mensch replied:  

[Moderator's Note: Henry sent what follows as a message to the Digest;
it is consolidated here since Barry included it in his reply.  PAT]

> I just got one of these myself.  I think those are for the desktop
> charger.

  I just called Nokia down in Clearwater, FL (813-536-5553).  They
said that there is no possibility of adding a car adapter kit to the
Model 101.  The six contacts on the bottom of the phone are for the
desktop charger and for the cigarette lighter charger.


Barry Lustig    ICTV
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 13:10:06 PST
From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Consumer Reports on Cellphones
Reply-To: richg@hatch.socal.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 911, Message 9 of 9

Pat, The latest (1/93) issue of {Consumer Reports} has an article
which should be of interest to the readers of the TELECOM Digest,
especially those who are often asked how does a cellphone work and
whats the best one to get.

They give a brief (suitable for an intelligent layman) description of
the way a cellphone works, the cost factors involved, a privacy
warning, a rundown of features and a brief look-ahead on digital
cellphone service to come.

There is discussion of roaming and the various types of service plans
(monthly fee vs "free" airtime included).  They do warn that no matter
what you pay for the phone, it will be trivial compared to monthly and
airtime fees.

One of their conclusions was that while almost any cellphone is fine
in good signal areas, there are some that stand out when the signal is
marginal.

The top rated phone in their list is the Audiovox MVX-500.

Reccomended reading.  The only nit I might pick with it is that
the sketch showing a car, two towers, the cellular switch, the local
CO etc pictures parabolic dishes on the towers.  :-)


Rich Greenberg      Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com   310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: richg@hatch.socal.com       310-649-0238
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....
From: turkstra@smaug.cs.hope.edu (Screwtape)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Line Trouble: What's a "Slick" Line?
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:31:00 GMT
Organization: Hope College Dept of CS
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 906, Message 8 of 16

After many tribulations and modem settings, me and USR have decided
(with the help of ATI6) that the phone lines (2) running to my BBS are
crummy.  Called the MI bell guy, and he came and offered no help.  He
did, however say that my lines run on a "slick" system of some sort.
Couldn't get him to stick around and explain it, but I got the
impression that it was some kind of MUX jobber or something ... can
anyone shed any light on this?  Any why it won't let callers connect
at HST, but fine with V.32bis?


Chris Turkstra   Turkstra@cs.hope.edu


[Moderator's Note: Your impression is somewhat correct, and the term
is SLC, which comes out pronounced 'slick'. I'm sure a few readers
will reply to you direct with all the details.    PAT]
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:29:37 GMT
From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Ethernetted Office Phone Systems?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 904, Message 14 of 14

In article <telecom12.887.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, gtoal@cursci.co.uk (Graham
Toal) writes ...

> However, we were wondering ... has anyone ever built actual
> *telephones* for use in a building with local ethernet that used
> tcp/ip?  If not, there's a tremendous market there: You can program
> your phone with your extension, and take it with you when you move
> office without reprogramming the exchange (a trivial point but one
> that would be useful in *our* office where we're always bloody moving
> :-( ) but more importantly you only need to run one ether trunk round
> the whole building to cover all possible present and future phone
> *and* network needs.

It's not practical.  Ethernet has too much latency plus variable
bandwidth.  Ethernet telephone's a classical hack of computer
scientists with no telephony background who think the whole world's IP
and wonder why anybody does anything else.

Besides, if you want the _convenience_ of "automatic" moves, then you
can use a PBX with that feature.  The Northern Telecom SL-1 has an
automatic move and change feature: You dial a code, move your phone to
a different jack, dial another code with the same key number, and your
extension has moved!

But it's rarely implemented.  There's too much room for abuse for most
telecom administrators to want it -- normal moves only require a few
keystrokes anyway (no wiring).  Besides, if you used Ethernet for
phones, imagine how easy it would to be to tap the lines!  Anybody can
stick Ethernet into promiscuous mode ... not MY phone!


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com 
k1io             or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
From: jongsma@swdev.si.com (Ken Jongsma)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: GTE Mastercard
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:52:17 GMT
Reply-To: jongsma@esseye.si.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 905, Message 3 of 5


 From the latest GTE Shareholder Quarterly Report:

"GTE has introduced the GTE Mastercard to consumers within its
telephone operating areas.

Offering the best features of a GTE Calling Card and a Mastercard, the
new GTE Mastercard is being issued by Associates National Bank
(Delaware) [Isn't that the bank Ford owns/is using for it's card?
-Ken] GTE Card Services, a unit of GTE Corp., is responsible for card
marketing. GTE Telephone Operations is responsible for all
telephone-charge functions of the card.

[...]

The initial offering of the GTE Mastercard began in late September
with mailings to consumers in 29 states where GTE provides telephone
service. A card offering in 11 additional states where GTE provides
phone service, including California, will be made in 1993. Consumers
in non GTE telephone operating areas and international areas are not
being solicited.

GTE Mastercard features include no annual fee, an introductory
variable APR equal to the prime rate and a credit limit of up to
$7500. The introductory interest rate is in effect until April 30,
1993. After this date, the rate will be prime plus 10.4%.

Also, as a part of its agreement with GTE, Associates National Bank
will provide cardholders with 10% cash-back, up to $50 per year, on
phone charges generated using the calling card feature.

[...]

<End of Article>


Kenneth R Jongsma         jongsma@benzie.si.com
Smiths Industries     73115.1041@compuserve.com
Grand Rapids, Michigan          +1 616 241 7702
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 8:28:40 EST
From: PINE_RIDGE@ORVB.SAIC.COM
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Faxing From the Netherlands
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 912, Message 3 of 15

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?

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?

If this is considered too boring for the net, feel free to e-mail
directly to me.  Any help would be appreciated.


Brad Dolan  pine_ridge@orvb.saic.com 71431.2564@compuserve.com
            102880-700-NUCLEAR  N4VHH
From: gstovall@bnr.ca (G.T.)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: LD Blocking From Pay Phones
Date: 14 Dec 92 06:59:00 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 906, Message 2 of 16

Recently, my wife had to make a couple of urgent phone calls while out
taking her mother to the hospital.  The phone booth she ended up at
was owned by ZERO-PLUS DIALING services, with LD service provided by
Cherokee Communications.

My wife tried everything she knew to get to one of the big-three
carriers (ATT, MCI, SPRINT), including using access codes and dialing
1-800 numbers.  She tried calling the operator to ask for connection
to another LD service, but they kept putting her on hold whenever she
would ask.  Finally, in desperation, she used the booth as the owners
wished.

The result?  Two phone calls, each for $4.52.  I checked, and this is
NINE times the rate for the big-three.  After calling and complaining
to the company (and invoking the name of PUC and FCC), the operator
gave me a credit of $8.06, which was certainly a step in the right
direction.  However, she said that it is NOT illegal to block access
to alternate carriers from private pay phones.  I thought it was.

The question is, "Who is correct?"  Should I tell ATT, SPRINT, and the
FCC about this incident?


Gregory T. Stovall        gstovall@bnr.ca
Bell-Northern Research    ESN   444-7009
Richardson, Texas, USA   (214) 684-7009


[Moderator's Note: I think they can block the autodialed 10xxx
version, but their operator has to extend your call to AT&T on
request. But of course their operators can be busy and you might have
to wait on hold awhile ... :) as long as your wife was not denied the
connection (constructively denied by virtue of never getting the
operator's attention does not count!) then there probably is nothing
illegal. They have to put your through one way or the other. The
trouble with 10xxx is the same a lot of the PBX operators complain
about: fraud, incorrect, and non- billing is abundant if the switch
(or I suppose, the private payphone's innards) cannot cope with it.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 09:10:08 CST
From: peterson@ZGNews.LoneStar.Org (Bob Peterson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?
Organization: The Zeitgeist BBS, Plano, TX  214 596 3720
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 902, Message 5 of 8

shri%unreal@cs.umass.edu writes:

> [ Would anyone here know approx the number of minutes per month a
> business phone is busy for voice, fax, data, and long-distance and
> corresponding numbers for light, heavy home users and BBSs ? ]

  I operate a two line BBS in Plano, a northern suburb of Dallas
served by GTE.  The public line stays off-hook about 18 hours/day
serving callers.  In addition, that line handles calls for Usenet
feeds for another 1.7 hours per day, bringing the total busy time to
nearly 20 hours/day.  The subscriber line stays busy "only" about 12
hours/day.  A "day" is actually 23 hours, since the system goes down
from 3 to 4 a.m.  for maintenance.


Bob Peterson              Waffle BBS: peterson@ZGNews.LoneStar.Org
P.O. Box 865132           Internet: peterson@csc.ti.com  TelCo: 214 995-6080
Plano, Tx USA 75086-5132  BBS: 214 596-3720 @ speeds to 14400 (HST & V.32bis)
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Most Advanced Caller-ID Box I've Seen Yet
Date: 12 Dec 92 13:46:55 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 900, Message 9 of 14

In TELECOM Digest V12 #892 jxm@engin.umich.edu (John Murray) writes:

> In article <telecom12.886.1@eecs.nwu.ed> jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET
> (jeffj) writes:

>> I need a Caller-ID box that will not just display the incoming call
>> identification, but will also differentiate between calls which have
>> been purposely blocked and those from locations which do not have the
>> facility available. Also, it should automatically dial the code for
>> blocking my number on outgoing calls, everytime I unhook the phone.

Actually, this can be a two-pronged attack.  My AT&T 85 CallerID box
displays the status of each call: Display the number, show out-of-area
for those exchanges that don't have CallerID, Private for blocked
calls.  I bought this from AT&T for about $80 US.

As for per line blocking, call the telco and have them set that up for
you.  Both versions (per line and per call) are free in NYTel land.

It also has a provision built in that will display who the number is
assigned to; I don't have any idea how this feature would work if the
calling number is unlisted.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:52:45 GMT
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Larry King Knows of Disconnect
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 903, Message 4 of 15

In article <telecom12.891.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, Will Martin <wmartin@STL-
06SIMA.ARMY.MIL> writes:

> And as a separate question: was AT&T monitoring the calls to Larry
> King numbers specifically, and cutting off the everlasting-ring calls
> ONLY to those numbers, or did they install software that detected
> everlasting-ring calls to any and all numbers, and cut off all such
> calls? What time limit did they pick to let the calls ring?

AT&T disconnects calls that remain unanswered for several minutes,
regardless of the number being called.  They do not single out Larry
King.  Their network disconnects these calls whether the called party
is busy, ringing, or (as we discovered as the result of a software
error) talking but still on-hook.  In the latter case, they also
provide only a one-way audio path (from the called to the calling
party) until the called party returns off-hook supervision.


Dave Levenson		Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc.		UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA		Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:04:41 GMT
From: julian@xenon.sr.com (Julian Macassey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer?
Organization: Xenon Systems News n Mail, Hollywood
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 906, Message 12 of 16

In article <telecom12.899.9@eecs.nwu.edu> spatula!ahm@s4mjs.att.com
writes:

> Does anyone know where I can get a small memory dialer?  Something
> about the size of Radio Shack's mini tonepad would be good, and I only
> need a maximum of a dozen memories.

	You mean something like the Radio Shack "Budget Dialer" Part
Number 43-139? Well how about the Radio Shack "Memory Dialer" part
number 43-141?

	To quote from the Rat Shack Catalog: "This pocket dialer has a
33-number memory to let you access low-rate long distance and special
services. Requires three "AAA" batereries."

	Looks like it should do what you need. Also it is an ideal
Chrissie present for your mate -- programm your phone number in and
you won't have to listen to "I wooda called, but I fergot yer numba."


Julian Macassey at xenon. julian@xenon.sr.com Voice: (213) 653-4495
Paper Mail: 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue, Hollywood, California 90046-7142
From: mts@wam.umd.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Wanted: Executone Equity II Manual
Date: 15 Dec 92 05:44:05 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 906, Message 7 of 16

My father has asked me to post this for him. He is looking for a copy
of the installation manual for the Executone Equity II sytem.  The
manufacturer will sell him a users manual, but he needs the
installation manual before he can sell the system.  If anyone has a
copy, or knows where he can get one, please reply via email, as I
don't read this group too often.


Thanks,

Dave


[Moderator's Note: Have you tried writing Executone?   PAT]
From: rudi@netcom.com (Rudolf Usselmann)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: GTE or Cellular One?
Date: 12 Dec 92 11:33:49 GMT
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 12, Issue 900, Message 4 of 14

Which one to choose? I got my phone two months ago and got it
activated with Cellular One. However I keep on seeing the promos from
GTE:

 - $ 100.- off ($20.- in April, $30.- Aug. $50.- Oct. )
 - $ 39.95 / month + free detailed billing (1y contract)

So the pricing of GTE is 15% lower than Cellular One, how about the
quality of service?  Any comments?

I'm located in the SF bay area.
 
Thanks in advance! And Merry Christmas!

 
rudi
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:21:56 GMT
From: woolsey@mri.com (Jeff Woolsey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Organization: Microtec Research Inc., Santa Clara, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 908, Message 5 of 18

In article <telecom12.904.5@eecs.nwu.edu> newsdesk@dims.demon.co.uk
(Darren Ingram) writes:

> Various modifications have been made to the Iridum project during thr
> fourth quarter of 1992, with each satellite containing 48 beams onto
> the surface of the earth, an increase of 11 beams over the original
> design.  With the additional beamwidth, 66 satellites will be used
> instead of 77.

Then they'll have to call it the Dysprosium Global Satelite Mobile
Communications Network.


Jeff Woolsey			800 950 5554	woolsey@mri.COM
Microtec Research, Inc.	     +1 408 980 1300	woolsey@netcom.COM
Nothing like a three-address mailer....		woolsey@folderol.UUCP