HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: edwards@world.std.com (Jonathan Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cordless Key Systems?
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:53:33 GMT
Organization: IntraNet, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 18, Message 2 of 18

I am thinking of putting a "key" phone system into my home. The main
reason for this is to gain paging capability.  But I also want to be
able to use cordless phones.  I presume that if this is possible at
all I would lose the paging function at the cordless phones.  Is there
any solution to this, or should I just install a separate intercom?
Thanks


Jonathan Edwards	edwards@intranet.com
IntraNet, Inc		617-527-7020
From: zrh@uts.amdahl.com (Zealand R. Hatch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:28:57 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 21, Message 4 of 13

I'm not sure what this has to do with telecom but having recently
investigated this I'll share what I know.

There is a group of publications available from the Post Office.

Publication 25: Designing Business Letter Mail (Aug 1992)

  This publication replaced the previous Pub. 25 "A Guide to Business Mail
  Preparation".  The major sections from the index are.

  1.0  Introduction
  2.0  Basics of OCR and Barcode reading
  3.0  Physical Characteristics of Automation Compatible Letter Mail
       ("Machinability") 
  4.0  Addressing for Automation
  5.0  Postnet Barcode
  6.0  Facing Identification Mark (FIM) Patterns
  7.0  Preparing Reply Mail for Postal Automation

  It's well writen and has all of the information you need to "produce" a 
  barcode and put it where it needs to go on the envelope.

Publication 28:  Postal Addressing Standards

  The major sections from the index are.

  I    Introduction
    A  Background
    B  Overview
  II   Postal Addressing Standards
    A  General
    B  Last Line of the Address
    C  Delivery Address Line
    D  Rural Route Addresses
    E  Highway Contract Route Addresses
    F  General Delivery
    G  Postmaster Addresses
    H  Post Office Box Addresses
    I  Puerto Rico Addresses

  This publication is "a comprehensive guide to all styles of addressing".
  Not required reading if what you're interested in is barcodes.

Publication 67:  Automation Plan For Business Mailers

  This publication outlines the Post Office's plans for business mail.
  Interesting as a general overview.


Your local Postmaster should be able to obtain these publications for
you without cost.

As to the question of how does this help with the hand written
address, the SORTING of letters is being converted to barcodes and a
letter is sorted a bunch of times before it is put in your mail box.
So the plan is when a letter initially comes into the post office it's
first checked for a barcode. If it is there the letter goes off to the
sorters. If not, the address is checked to see if the City, State and
ZIP Code are machine readable. If they are the barcode is applied to
the envelope and its off to the sorters. If not the letter is queued
for manual reading. Again the barcode would be applied and then its
time for the sorter.  Not all post offices have all of the equipment
needed for all of these steps yet.  And it will be 1995 before all
letter mail will be automated.


I hope this helps; Happy Mailing,

Zealand Hatch    - 408 746-8720 -   {where_ever}!amdahl!zrh
Amdahl Corporation  -or-  zrh@amdahl.amdahl.com
From: brianp@portal.vpharm.com (Brian Perry)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hunt Groups
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:14:14 GMT
Organization: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 14, Message 7 of 14

I have a setup similar to this on both a 1AESS and a 5ESS switch here
in the Boston area.  In both cases there are multiple exchanges in the
hunt groups.  The only criteria is that all the exchanges in the group
must terminate on the same switch.


Brian K. Perry, Systems Manager         Tel:   617-499-2414 (office)
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated            617-576-3111 (main #)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:10:33 GMT
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Hunt Groups
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 10, Message 7 of 11

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?

I don't want to have either of my numbers changed since one is my old
number everyone knows, and the other is a xxx-xx00 number (had to pull
some strings to get it).  When I ordered service and made various
inquiries, I run into folks who don't know what terms like "POTS line"
and "demarc" mean, and offered me services excluded by tariff (the
sales rep initially told me they could offer me a metered line, though
this is prohibited if you have an unmetered line in the same house).

[ After answering his questions about the various telco terms, he
asked if there was anything else he should know about the fone system,
saying that they had obviously not trained enough.  I told him he
should learn all about area code 710, and to keep asking until he
finds someone who can explain what it is for. (Wish I could be there
for that :) :) ) ].


rob boudrie     rboudrie@chpc.org


[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]
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:16:15 GMT
From: mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 800 Number Troubles
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Palo Alto, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 10, Message 2 of 11

Here's something a little strange, to me anyway.  I've been trying all
morning to call Equifax and find out how to get a copy of my credit
information.  I got through once to their robo-phone system, and after
about five minutes of menu navigation it just dropped me in the middle
of a recorded message.  Fine.  I tried to call back, however, and got
the message "Due to technical difficulties, we cannot complete your
call.  Please try again later."  Hmm.  I repeatedly dialed and got the
same result.

The AT&T operators told me that the number is an MCI number, and they
directed me to MCI 800 service (888-1800).  There, I was told that the
number was indeed working, but that the customer (Equifax) had set up
the account such that only 45% of the calls originating rom my area
code (415) would succeed.  The rest get the "technical difficulties"
message.  Two separate MCI people told me this same thing.

Well gee, I'm a little miffed at this setup; why don't I just get a
busy signal?  MCI would save themselves a lot of time if they'd do
that instead of the clearly bogus message; if I got a busy signal, I
would interpret that to mean that my call couldn't get through because
the capacity had been exhausted.  Alternatively, the message could
tell me exactly what's going on: "We're sorry, but you lose; we only
accept 45% of the calls from area code 415, and you're in the unlucky
55%."


   Mike +   Software +   Digital Equipment +   Western Software +      mcnally@
McNally +    Laborer +         Corporation +         Laboratory +   wsl.dec.com
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:29:55 GMT
From: mark@coombs.anu.edu.au (Mark)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services
Organization: Australian National University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 17, Message 9 of 9

Hi,

I was chewing the fat and heard about an idea I thought was cute.

Telecom Australia is working on a radio phone system that has a lot of
potential IMHO. The idea is you have slim compact handsets that are
basically a smart radio with a short range. Spread over the CBD at
first and then the suburbs are base stations that each phone user can
log into with the same handset.

When the user is at work they can log into their office station and
their calls are charged to their work or when they go home they are
charged to their home number. You have the ability of having a single
handset you can use at work and home, without having to reprogram it.
The idea of the short ranges of the base stations is to enable a high
density per area. The system doesn't allow one to roam from zone to
zone as such and keep the call going, you have to sit still or at
least stay in radio range. If you want to roam, get a hands free car
phone or a more sophisticated (and expensive) mobile phone.

One bonus for business is your facility phone can be transported
around the building with only a power lead needed wherever you set up
shop again. No reprogramming or rewiring needed. A business can have
their own station to save on call costs.

It was mentioned the possibility of the use of smart cards to automate
the logging onto the zone station. It would also authenticate the
caller if used with PIN numbers etc. Encryption is expected to be
encompassed in the system for added security.

What I like is you can remove your smartcard or switch off the unit
and then can't be tracked. If you want to recieve calls then you log
into a zone to let it know you're willing to be contacted. There will be
packages offered with these phones and pagers so you can save the
phone battery until someone pages you.

One problem is the listening in capability that is always there. At
work or home your on a radio link, most likely plain voice. It makes
taps easier, even with the different frequency assigned to you for
each call.

This system brings closer the concept of Personal Communication
Numbers (PCNs) so you can one day be contacted anywhere in the world,
just by anyone dialling your permanent number. The only problems I can
see immediately are those involved with the amount of frequencies, RFI
and the ease of monitoring.

Sounds like a nice system.


Mark     mark@coombs.anu.edu.au
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:32:39 GMT
From: sgd@tfm.com (Stephen Diercouff)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hunt Groups
Organization: tfm Associates, Ltd.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 21, Message 11 of 13

stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes:

> In article <telecom13.10.7@eecs.nwu.edu> rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob
> Boudrie) writes:

>> 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?

> I had a similar setup recently, but strictly speaking, it was
> busy-transfer rather than hunting.  It was on a 5ESS switch.  The fact
> that I wanted the busy-transfer was known at the time I placed the
> order for the two lines, and the computer happened to select numbers
> on two different prefixes.  I would imagine that on a modern SPC
> switch, the prefix difference would not matter.

I have three numbers, with three different prefixes, in a rotary hunt
group. The latter two were assigned at the time I ordered the hunt
group. If it makes any difference, the switch is a 5ESS, and the
territory is USWest.


Stephen Diercouff, tfm Associates, Ltd., Bellingham WA  voice: +1 206 733 5721
Internet:  sgd@tfm.com                                    fax: +1 206 738 0630
UUCP    :  uunet!nwnexus!tfm!sgd
Snail   :  P.O. Box 5084/Bellingham WA 98227-5084
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:09:31 GMT
From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY 
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 17, Message 1 of 9

In article <telecom13.8.11@eecs.nwu.edu> tim gorman <71336.1270@Compu
Serve.COM> writes:

> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes:

>> Bob Yazz <yazz@oolong.la.locus.com> writes:

>>>  The PUC will order that numbers not be delivered, period.  

>> But the PUC cannot order this, just as it cannot prevent any carrier
>> from passing realtime ANI to end users. 

> Actually the PUC could order this and make it stand. 

Actually, to my knowledge (the Mother of all Disclaimers), the PUC
could *not* order this, nor make it stand.  The FCC could, but state
PUCs have no jurisdiction over interstate telecommunications, and the
FCC tends to take a dim view of state PUCs attempting to claim
jurisdiction over interstate matters.  The FCC, as far as I know, is
considering this issue even as we speak.

>> In SS7, the calling number is ALWAYS transmitted as part of the
>> data packet, although there is a bit that identifies it as a "blocked"
>> number if such is the case.

> The Network Interconnect package needed to allow SS7 interconection
> between the LEC and the IXC's makes provision for the calling number
> to be deleted from any IAM message sent to the IXC. This is true in
> every central office switch type I am aware of. This includes NTI,
> AT&T, and Ericsson.

I believe Bellcore TRs specify that this must be provisionable on a
per-IXC basis in each CO, FYI.
 
> SWBT policy is that this feature is invoked in all central offices
> with SS7 interconnection to IXC's until calling number delivery is
> tariffed and sold in that CO and all subscribers have been fully
> informed (through bill inserts, etc.) of the impacts they will see.

> So the PUC could order this be done in PB-land and also require that
> PB negotiate with the switch vendors to insure the capability is
> retained from this day forward.

It's technically feasible, but outside their jurisdiction for
interstate calls.
 
> *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*

Ditto.


David G Lewis                              AT&T Bell Laboratories
david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej     Switching & ISDN Implementation
From: TERRY@spcvxa.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hunt Groups
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:50:29 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 14, Message 4 of 14

In article <telecom13.10.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, Telecom Moderator writes:

> [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]

  It's certainly possible, but I don't know if the current releases of
the switch software will do it.

  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).

  Note that your local telco may not know how to sell you these
services, so you may have to be persistent. One tack that supposedly
works is that they sell fixed call forwarding as part of "Answer
Call". Also, if your phone service is measured, you may be able to
have fixed forwarding at no per-message charge.


Terry Kennedy		Operations Manager, Academic Computing
terry@spcvxa.bitnet	St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
terry@spcvxa.spc.edu	+1 201 915 9381
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:52:42 GMT
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hunt Groups
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 21, Message 12 of 13

In article <telecom13.10.7@eecs.nwu.edu> by rboudrie@chpc.org, Pat
adds:

> [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]

In Brooklyn, NY, I have a customer with a 12-line hunt-group (which is
used by callers to access a voice-response banking system).  Most of
the lines in this hunt group are 718-388-xxxx numbers, but three of
them are in another prefix.  When New York Telephone was installing
them, I asked the installer if there was a mistake in the line
numbering, and if he would verify that hunting worked correctly
throughout the 12-line group.  He verified the directory number of
each of the lines, and he and I worked together to verify that hunting
worked as ordered.

The serving central office is a Northern Telecom DMS-100 which was cut
into service less than three years ago.  The two prefixes are served
by the same switch.


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
[The Man in the Mooney]
From: beyonet!olwejo!bob@cs.widener.edu (Bob Kupiec)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AC 215/610 Split
Date: 5 Jan 93 04:35:13 GMT
Reply-To: olwejo!bob@uunet.UU.NET
Organization: Olwejo - Private UNIX System
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 9, Message 6 of 15

I just heard on the news today that Bell of Pennsylvania will announce
an Area Code split in AC 215.  Supposedly, in 1994 there will be a
split to AC 610 that will separate Philadelphia with its suburbs.
Most of Philadelphia will continue with 215 while the suburbs will
pick up 610.

I knew this would happen soon.  Seems like it's here right now!


Bob Kupiec, N3MML    Internet: kupiec@hp800.lasalle.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:05:40 GMT
From: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ...
Reply-To: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox)
Organization: Ancient Illuminated Sears of Bavaria
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 20, Message 15 of 17

kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup) writes:

> winding pulses to compensate for the increased requirements. This
> period of additional supply registers in the cores of the transformers
> as a slight "bleep", and a bunch of them together produce the "music"
> you hear. I used to troubleshoot Sun-2's aurally as well.

If you don't configure the device driver for the /dev/audio device on
a SPARCstation 10, you can hear interesting music on SpeakerBox,
too ... :-)


Ben Cox   thoth@uiuc.edu
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:04:07 GMT
From: tcubed@ddsw1.mcs.com (James Hanlon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 17, Message 8 of 9

jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john) writes:

> I suspect that outside sociological, economic, and political pressures
> will do more to answer the posed question than mere technology alone.

After much experience, both painful and rewarding, I have to agree.

> other "softer" sciences.  At least from my perspective, the softer
> sciences are indeed *MUCH* harder to master than those we use daily.

And are applicable far more often than we'd care to admit. Just what
is the ratio? I have my own judgments -- any other opinions?

> Will the current industry infrastructure (Don't you just love the way
> we can beat this politicisms to death :-) ) remain viable by 2010?

US, yes; the LECs and the Inter-LATA carriers make money with zero
incremental thought on their parts. Such an easy life will be
perpetuated by all sorts of rationalizations -- after all, there's
still a Western Union!  The international picture will reflect a more
entrepreneurial orientation, as formerly nationalized administrations
get, first, privatized, then, overlaid with only nominally national
wide-band high-connectivity networks. I base my reasoning on the fact
that non-US administrations have fewer intrinsic constraints upon them
 -- they largely limit themselves. It only takes one executive of
vision to get the ball rolling, once freed from bureaucratic concerns,
and enjoying the support of the Prime Minister/President/King.

Network architecture is no longer mysterious these days, and
comm/compute hardware is notoriously commoditized. There are numerous
non-US telco administrations with the know-how to pull off e.g. a
wide-band wireless point-to-point variable bandwidth overlay network
for large geographic areas, that considers the PSTN a relatively small
component.

I am disposed to wireless because, in the foregoing scenario, it
permits the subversion of any existing wired network without directly
confronting any entrenched (sorry) bureaucracy. Wireless for the first
hop is a viable strategy as long as reasonably cheap broadband rf
modems are available, and spread-spectrum technology can make the
above-10 GHz area sharable. I am assuming that this will happen.

> venture.  Profit is not a dirty word!  I am convinced that rate of
> return regulation will die a natural death before the year 2000.
> While price cap regulation seems to be in vogue with our lawyer
> friends(?), I'm almost positive that zero regulation (price/cost only)
> will be in effect by 2010.

I predict that individuals in 2010 will have the option to contract
with global bandwidth/connectivity providers for any sort of frame
transfer, with various guarantees of delivery, ordering, delay, and
BER. And AT&T, and FCC, will have very little to say about it.


Jim Hanlon     tcubed@ddsw1.mcs.com
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:42:11 GMT
From: schimmel@gandalf.ca (Fred Schimmel)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis?
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 15, Message 8 of 10

It used to be that there was something called a line integrity test
(LIT) that occured in the interval just before the ring cycle began.
The circuit was re-arranged to test the line between the CO and the
phone. This is one reason why Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) needs
to identify its Ringer Equivalence Number (REN) because the test had
differing results depending on the number of ringers on the line.
Perhaps you added or removed some phones, modems, answering machines,
etc. Perhaps your local CO routinely at 10:15PM does a maintenance
check of all its lines, and this is when the ping occurs. Try calling
and asking for a test supervisor to see if they do something like
this.  Or count your equipment total REN and inform the phone company.
It could just be a misprogrammed test, or an indicator that the line
is faulty.

Perhaps someone else remembers more about LIT. I believe this was a #5
crossbar feature.


Fred Schimmel    Gandalf Data Ltd.  schimmel@gandalf.ca
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:04:22 GMT
From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis?
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 15, Message 5 of 10

In article <telecom13.8.9@eecs.nwu.edu> glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu
(Glenn F. Leavell) writes:

> According to my parents, the bells in their phones make a 'ping'
every evening around 10:15PM.

SSB is pulling your leg.  Your CO switch is running automatically
scheduled self-diagnostics.  They start every evening at the same
time, but they're really testing the line cards and not the lines, so
only one line per card gets 'pinged', typically the first one.  I used
to have a line in Dallas that would ping every evening at 8:15 PM.


Brent Capps | bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) 
bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff)