HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 15:00:30 EST
From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T's COLOR Videophone With Motion
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 844, Message 6 of 12

On 8 Nov 92 16:37:00 GMT, 0005066432@mcimail.com (Wayne Geiser) was
quoted as saying:

> To put it into perspective, we think that SEVEN frames per second is
> terrible and we are trying to eventually get to THIRTY frames per
> second.  Thirty frames per second is the same as the number of
> animation stills they use in cartooning.  Supposedly, one cannot tell
> the difference between live video and thirty frames per second video.

That's because live video *is* 30 frames per second.  Standard
interlaced video (in the US) consists of 60 fields per second.  Each
field contains either all the odd numberd lines or all the even
numbered lines, hence a full frame is two fields, and you get 30 of
them per second.

Aren't you glad your video guys gave you such a complete background
lecture?  :^)

Also, the AT&T Video Phone 2500 was never meant to compete with video
conferencing systems, like CLIs.  (Is that also the market niche that
PictureTel is in?  I don't recall).  The 2500 is a consumer product,
aimed at a price that a consumer might actually afford.


Andy Sherman  Salomon Inc - Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ (201)
896-7018 - andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com 
"These opinions are mine, all *MINE*.  My employer can't have them."
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:17:05 PST
From: MARCUS@CPVA.SAIC.COM (Mark R. Jenkins 619.458.2794)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Wanted: Cordless Headset
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 856, Message 13 of 13

I would *really* like to find a cordless headset.  I have an old
Plantronics LiteSet(tm) which underwent 'destructive testing' by some
individuals apparently interesting in its operation.  Plantronics
apparently no longer sells the LiteSet.

I don't need fantastic range -- my office is only 10'x12'.  Does
anyone know of any source for a cordless headset?


Mark Jenkins <Marcus@CPVA.SAIC.Com>| My views do not necessarily match yours.
SAICnet Logical Network Manager    | My opinions are not necessarily SAIC's.
Science Applications               
International Corporation          San Diego, CA   USA  (619) 458-2794
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 10:29 GMT
From: Guy J. Sherr <0004322955@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: No Caller ID in Texas
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 843, Message 1 of 11

Restrictions on "Trap and Trace" come from a law which does not
guarantee privacy under the 9th Amendment, but rather a law relying
upon the 4th Amendment, which promises freedom from unreasonable
search and seizure.  (At least I hope it's the 4th one -- I am not a
lawyer.)

Anyway, maybe it is outdated.  On the other hand, Texas probably still
writes search warrants over phone tap orders.  This decision may
recognize that Texas law enforcement authorities would probably get
CNID equipment and then use it.  Can you imagine.
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:18:41 GMT
From: rmg50@ccc.amdahl.com (Richard M Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Broadcasting Towers
Reply-To: richg@hatch.socal.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 859, Message 3 of 7

> [Moderator's Note:

> telephone, radio and television listening habits, see the article
> "Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters" in a 1989 issue of this
> Digest. Maybe I should reprint it.  PAT]

Please do.


Rich Greenberg      Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
N6LRT               Play: richg@hatch.socal.com
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....


[Moderator's Note: I am greatly overloaded with messages, but maybe I
will soon.  PAT]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:57:35 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Broadcasting Towers
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 860, Message 3 of 9

> Hector Salgado-Galicia <hs1c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>> A friend of mine is doing research for a group of clients. They want
>> to keep communications towers away from their neighborhood. Could
>> someone comment on regulations at the City, State or Federal level
>> that could be employed to support their case?

I wish they *would* place a Cellular One tower near my neighborhood so
that I could decent cellular service near my home! :-)


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:29:39 GMT
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Third Party Billing
Organization: New Mexico Tech
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 856, Message 3 of 13

In article <telecom12.851.3@eecs.nwu.edu> rick@ricksys.lonestar.org
writes:

> Why don't people get Calling Cards?

> Why don't they understand that if they are here and nobody is home
> then how can anyone tell if they are charging it to their own phone,
> or their enemy, or something they pulled out of the air?

> The real question is why do the phone companies continue to allow
> third party billing?

> I guess it is because they can always stick someone with the bill.

	Plus with the proliferation of alternative operator services,
it has become very easy to abuse third party billing.  I've heard
stories of AOSes billing calls to drug abuse hotlines, police
stations, telephone company test numbers and just about anything else.
One time, a phriend of mine used an AOS to bill a call to a tone
sweep, and the operator said to "Hold on for a minute so we can verify
this ...", but it seems that she never did verify it since she let the
call go through (after waiting a minute).

	It's just really disgusting to see how COCOTS and AOSes not
only degrade service to honest people, but also allow dishonest people
to sock anybody with the expense of a call.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 21:41:03 PST
From: Don Jackson <dcj@Eng.Sun.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: "Porthole" For Routing Cables Through Walls?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 853, Message 12 of 13

This is one of those "not really telecom, but some folks on this
list will know the answer" questions:

I have converted the closet in my study to be my "machine room".  But
I need to feed a number of cables through the wall (esp monitor and
keyboard cables).  I am looking for some sort of porthole or flange
that I can mount in the sheetrock on the wall between my closet and
study to satisfy the following requirements:

1) Looks better than a gaping hole;
2) Provides some sonic insulation (rubber gaskets?).

Does anybody out there know of anything I can buy for this?
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992  02:35:03 EST
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Microsoft/Intel Team up on Video for PCs
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 12, Issue 842, Message 8 of 14

Article Summary
{Washington Post}, Nov 10, Page B4
"Microsoft, Intel to Team Up on Video Technology for PCs"
See Also: NBC and IBM to test Video on demand.

Microsoft and Intel are putting together a combined software and
hardware package to allow people to work with video, including editing
and retrieving video footage into documents, thus allowing a PC to
work in a manner similar to a video player.  Apple Computer already
has a product, but the market has stayed smalll because the technology
isn't always there and it's expensive.  50 companies will announce
products that work with theirs.

Bill Gates is expected to hold a press conference to announce the
software part at $200.  The hardware board to go in a PC is from Intel
and is around $1,000.  For obvious reasons, it's designed to use MS
Windows 3.1.  Demand remains uncertain, and the product will have to
fight it out.

Note: The article -- either because the writer thinks it's dead, or
because he's never heard of it -- fails to say anything about the
Video Toaster that has been out for the Amiga for two years and
already does this stuff.


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
These opinions are mine alone.
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Scam
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:26:43 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 12, Issue 849, Message 4 of 13

In article <telecom12.824.4@eecs.nwu.edu> MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.
tredydev.unisys.com writes:

> The {L.A. Times} reported that a "hacker" probably sold the serial and
> phone number combination for a freeway call box to a ring which used
> it to make 11,733 calls charged to the one phone.  

> "I don't think we can tell you what we did to fix it because we don't
> want it to happen again," a county sokesman said with a laugh.

The fix is pretty obvious, at least if they fixed it properly: They
did what should have been done in the first place -- flag the call box
numbers with a special class-of-service that can only call the Highway
Patrol numbers.  Then even if you spoof your phone to match a call
box's MIN and ESN, it won't do you any good.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 02:40:45 -0500
From: ronnie@media.mit.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Any Free Calling Cards Left?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 864, Message 13 of 15

Are there any calling cards left that don't charge an initial fee?  I
remember Telecom*USA had one for a while, but I also remember hearing
MCI took them over.

Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am living in a hotel for
the next few months.


Ron    (ronnie@media.mit.edu)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 11:07:35 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Call Boxes (was Telephone Lines Being Disconnected)
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 858, Message 4 of 13

Re PAT's note about cellular phones on Chicago-area highways: Some
highways (including the interstate highways in Delaware) have call
boxes, although I've seen it written up somewhere that you might not
end up right at a call box.  Maryland does not have this, and when my
previous car broke down there with what turned out to be a blown head
gasket, I had to wait on the shoulder for the state police who were on
routine patrol.


[Moderator's Note: The problem here is that it very unwise to get out
of your car and wait by the side of the expressway. For example, on
the Dan Ryan expressway, which runs next to several housing projects
on the south side of Chicago has roaming maruders on it quite often
who set upon stalled motorists, assaulting and robbing them, etc. Even
when your vehicle is moving, they fire at you with assault rifles and
the like from the buildings along the side of the expressway.  PAT]
Date: 15 Nov 92 07:26:42 EST
From: Craig R. Watkins <CRW@icf.hrb.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Takes Away My Call Manager
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 848, Message 2 of 10

In article <telecom12.822.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, CRW@icf.hrb.com (I) write:

> Call Manager is a (free) service of AT&T that allows you to touch tone
> in an account code (of the form 15xx where you make up xx) where you
> would normally dial a calling card number when you place a 0+ call.
> Your bill then gets itemized and totaled by account code.

In recent literature that I have received from AT&T it seems that the
account code can be from one to four digits long (after the 15).  I
think this has changed since I started using it.

I always hit a # after my account code to speed the call along.


Craig R. Watkins    crw@icf.hrb.com
HRB Systems, Inc.   +1 814 238-4311
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 17:11:00 GMT
From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Need Widget to Connect Two Faxes or Modems Together
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 866, Message 12 of 12

In article <telecom12.832.1@eecs.nwu.edu> 0003991080@mcimail.com
(Proctor & Associates) writes:

> Randolph J. Herber, rjh@yclept.chi.il.us writes:

>> A friend wants to connect two fax machines together via their telco
>> connections so that the machines could be used as copiers.  Also, she
>> wants to connect a fax modem equipped PC to a fax machine so that the
>> fax machine could be used both as a scanner and as a printer.

>> She would like a small and inexpensive piece of euipment with two
>> modular telephone jacks with just enough "smarts" to supply a dial
>> tone and appropriate ringing signals.

I have successfully connected two modems with ONLY a modular cable.
You have to force them to go on-line, but once the connection is
established it works fine.  For two phones or speakerphones to be used
as an intercom, I use a nine-volt battery in SERIES with two modular
jacks to provide the talk battery current -- this doesn't provide
ringing.  Line powered devices may require a few more batteries.

Depending on how "dumb" your fax/modems are and whether the software
really insists on dialing and waiting for ringing, you might get away
with one of these solutions.  I suspect that it depends on your
specific machines, but it would probably be worth trying before you go
out and plunk down a few hundred bucks.

Instead of the line simulators, which seem a bit pricey to me, I've
often wondered if it wouldn't be more cost-effective and versatile to
get a small PBX that supports single-line devices, such as the
Panasonic 308, which should cost about $300 to $500 from someone in
Telecom Gear magazine (write me for more info) and would allow up to
eight devices to interconnect or connect to real phone lines as
needed.

In fact, I sold a PBX myself for this very purpose (well, testing
modems, actually, but it was bought instead of a line simulator.)

Even an AT&T Partner 206 module is only about $400 new, retail and
will connect six devices and (if you choose) two phone lines.  These
have the modular jacks right on the side so you don't even have to
know how to do phone wiring to use them.  Depending on the size of
your office, it might double as a fax/modem "courier" and the office
phone system at the same time.
From: 0003991080@mcimail.com (Proctor & Associates)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Help Needed With DTMF Tones
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:02:00 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 854, Message 7 of 12

Alistair Grant <100032.525@CompuServe.COM> writes:
 
> Can you tell me what is going wrong? I have the tones last for 0.5 of
> a second and seperated by 0.1 of a second.
 
koos!kzdoos.hacktic.nl@kzdoos.hacktic.nl responds:
 
> Mark and Space times (On and Off) need to be of the same length
> (>=0.5 sec) to be recognized as valid.
 
For DTMF signalling, the tones do NOT have to be the same length as
the quiet time, and the time does NOT have to be greater than 1/2
second.  Most DTMF receivers will test down to an on-time or an
interdigit time of 40 ms or less, although most claim a time of 50 ms.
 
If the tones and quiet time had to be the same length in order to be
valid, can you IMAGINE the complexities of manually dialing a
touchtone phone?
 
 
Paul Cook                       206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates       MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.          fax: 206-885-3282
Redmond, WA  98052-5317  3991080@mcimail.com
From: Jeff@digtype.airage.com (Jeff Wasilko)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Need Information on Aggregator (One Stop Financial)
Date: 22 Nov 92 03:51:36 GMT
Reply-To: jeff@digtype.airage.com
Organization: Univ of Fnord; Roslyn's Cafe Div.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 863, Message 2 of 10

I got a call from a company called One Stop Financial. They claimed
that they could save us an additional 29% on our AT&T 800 service.

 From the good folks in the TELECOM Digest, I knew he was an
aggregator before he even started his sales pitch (thanks everyone!).

He faxed me some info, and they seem on the up and up. Here's what it
said:

	o 29% off from dollar one;
	o discounts appear as line items on AT&T bill;
	o No time/volume committments;
	o letter of agency allows me to continue to deal with AT&T
	  for service problems/changes;
	o They claim to be insured by ACI (American Credit Indemnity,
	   a D&B company) against "cases of insolvencies and slow
	   pay by AT&T/One Stop Financial telecommunications end-users"; 
	   (from ACI letter to One Stop Finanical that was faxed to me).
	o Payments still go directly to AT&T.

They take 30% of the savings as their fee, billed quarterly. They
claim to have Merril Lynch, ADP, Airborne, Cigna Insurance, Roadway
Package Systems, and The NY Mets (and lots others) among their Fortune
500 clients. They also offer a 31% discount on 1+ service (but we're
on with MCI now).

For example, on a $1,000 800 bill, the normal AT$T discount is $80.
Their additional discount is $210. They charge $63 for the month.

I realize AT&T has other discount plans. They are pushing me for a
15%-off term plan, with either 18 or 36 month committment. With
portability on its way, I'd rather not be tied to any carrier right
now.

Has anyone dealt with them (they're located in Little Falls, NJ). What
should I look at as we consider using an aggregator? I intend to check
references and with the BBB in NJ. I'm also going to check their
insurance policy out.


Thanks in advance,

Jeff
Jeff's Oasis at Home.       Jeff can also be reached at work at:
                                             jwasilko@airage.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 13:46:54 GMT
From: mcrware!!troyf@uunet.UU.NET (Troy Frericks)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Advice Sought
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 844, Message 8 of 12

In article <telecom12.836.3@eecs.nwu.edu> 1012breuckma@vmsf.csd.mu.edu
writes:

> In article <telecom12.824.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, Jerry Leichter <leichter@
> lrw.com> writes:

>> Question: She can't be the only one who wants to keep her beeper along
>> with her cellphone.  Does anyone make a combined beeper/cellphone?

> I understand there are cellphones now that will, if you desire, answer
> a call by themselves and accept a touchtone message that you can
> retrieve later.  You do, then, get charged for one minute of airtime.

For one, the high end AT&T hand-held cell phone (3710 I believe).
Cost is about $500.00.  Why not just answer the call though?  I don't
use the feature.


Troy Frericks                      Internet: troyf@MICROWARE.COM
Microware Systems Corporation          UUCP: uunet!mcrware!troyf
1900 NW 114th St                      Phone: (515)224-1929
Des Moines, IA 50325-7077               Fax: (515)224-1352
From: lederman@TANEY.USCGHQ.USCG.MIL (B. Z. Lederman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: FCC Wants Comments on Area Codes
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:50:56 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 868, Message 2 of 8

I don't think I've seen this discussed here, though it ought to be of
interest.

According to an article on page 29 of the November 9, 1992 issue of
{Network World}:

"The FCC has kicked off an inquiry into a massive overhaul of the way
in which telephone numbers are assigned in North America, a change
that may have a substantial impact on users."

It talks about the limitations of the "1 and 0" limit on area codes,
that switches have to be re-programmed, that there are few numbers
reserved for country-wide numbers and that the only such numbers now
(976, 555, 520) were originally for diagnostic use, and so on.

More important: there are 60 days for users, carriers, and other
interested parties to offer suggestions and comments.

So keep those cards and letters flowing in!


Bart Z. Lederman
System Resources Corp.
Burlington, MA (working on contract for the U.S. DOT, hence the mail address).


[Moderator's Note: Something seems strange here. The plan to begin
using area codes with assorted digits in the middle space has been
known about for years. Did the FCC just now find out about it?  Do the
activities of Bellcore fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC?  PAT]
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 23:12:21 EST
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@SCL.CWRU.Edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Ring...Ring...Ring...If You Wish to Make a Call
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 858, Message 12 of 13

Over the last decade or so, it seems that rather than getting dumped
into reorder, or SIT / voice intercept, you get what I titled this
article ...

Now this strikes me as a real pain and pointless. Why should I have to
wait for three ring cycles to go by before getting told that the
switch has lost my call? [Hey, *I* know I dialed it correctly ...]

About the only reason I can think of for this deliberate misdirection
is just that -- deliberate misdirection. Have the LEC's done this just
to foil COCOTs and Demon Dialers?


wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
pob 1433    20915-1433
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 16:15:57 GMT
From: jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: More Tower Jive
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 859, Message 5 of 7

Having just read John Higdon's response to the current EMI is causing
my tomato plants to glow thread, I came across the following item in
this morning's Bellcore Information Research Center report:

INTELLECT: THE DAILY INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN - PRODUCED BY BELLCORE'S IRC

BOONTON TWP. PURSUES EXPERT ADVICE ON TOWER Star Ledger:Newark-NJ 11/17/92 P 64

Last night, the Township Committee of Boonton, NJ, directed its
attorney to seek experts who can give testimony on whether a proposed
NYNEX communications tower will affect the health of the township's
residents.  NYNEX would pay the township $25,000 per year for 10 years
for the tower, which would be built on municipal land to relay mobile
telephone transmissions. NYNEX would also allow the township the use
of the tower for police communications. Some residents are fearful
that microwave transmissions could pose a health risk. A citizens'
group has requested that the Township Committee seek expert opinion on
the matter.

                     Copyright (C) 1992 Bellcore.
                         All Rights Reserved.


Jack (John) Adams		Bellcore NVC 2Z-220
(908) 758-5372 {Voice}		(908) 758-4389 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com	kahuna@attmail.com