HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gvolk@nyx.cs.du.edu (Greg Volk)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: MCI Voicelink
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:55:33 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 47, Message 9 of 11

Is anyone here familar with a program titled MCI Voicelink? I do not
know much about it, other than the fact that it runs under UNIX. I've
heard descriptions ranging from "a long distance billing system" to "a
voicemail program." The name makes it soudn like a voicemail program,
but I'm still not sure.
From: ivan@ne.ncsu.edu (Ivan Maldonado)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: How Can I Reach AT&T EasyLink?
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:00:39 GMT
Reply-To: ivan@nepjt.ne.ncsu.edu (Ivan Maldonado)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Raleigh
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 44, Message 11 of 15

Anyone know how to reach folks hooked up to "AT&T Easylink", whatever
that is?  I'm trying to reach the username "idea" hooked up
to/through/under that network/gateway/thing.

Many thanks for any assistance provided.


Guillermo Ivan Maldonado        Internet: ivan@nepjt.ne.ncsu.edu
Dept. of Nuclear Engineering          ivan@flyer.ncsc.org 
North Carolina State University  NCSU Box # 7909   Raleigh. NC 27695-7909 


[Moderator's Note: Easylink was the Western Union email system until
it got bought out by AT&T. Now it is a branch of ATT Mail. We touched
on this a couple weeks ago, but I forget the syntax. Was it something
like 'user@esl.attmail.com' or 'user@easylink.att.com'?   PAT
From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA (David Leibold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: FAQ List Update Now Ready
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:40:46 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 44, Message 5 of 15

As intended, the FAQ List for TELECOM Digest has been updated and
upgraded. Some corrections and new data have been incorporated, thanks
to Digest reader mail and other sources of information.


dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca     dleibold1@attmail.com


[Moderator's Note: In fact, the FAQ was mailed to everyone on the
Digest mailing list Sunday night, and distributed to Usenet via the
comp.dcom.telecom group at the same time. It was also incorporated
into the welcome/information letter sent out to all new mailing list
subscribers, replacing the version they had been getting. If you did
NOT get a copy one way or the other by Monday morning, then you should
arrange to pull it with anonymous ftp from the Telecom Archives at the
archives site, lcs.mit.edu if you want a copy. (It will be available
there once I do some filing and house-cleaning work in the Archives,
probably early Tuesday. My thanks to everyone who participated in
creating the revised version.  PAT]
From: jeremy@cs.swarthmore.edu (Jeremy Brest)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Question on Automatic Dialing Equipment and Laws
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:05:20 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 38, Message 5 of 11

Does anyone know about any successful applications of the Federal
statute restrincting the use of automatic telephone dialing systems?
Any reasons to think that successful application would be difficult?
The statute is 47 USC 227, for those interested.  I can't find any
appellate level decisions citing it.

Please reply by e-mail.


Thanks,

Jeremy Brest / 824 San Francisco Court / Stanford, CA  94305 / 415-322-1728
Date: 20 Jan 93 20:11:57 GMT
From: rpatel@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Rachana D Patel)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Question Concerning 'Smart' House
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 36, Message 5 of 8

I am working on a term paper for a mangement of technology class at
the Wharton school of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.

I was wondering whether anyone knows about the work Bell Atlantic is
pursuing on the cellular technology in a 'smart' house. I have heard
that there are plans to provide each individual with a phone line
which will be provided over cellular lines. ALso, there are plans for
integrating other functions such as heating,airconditioning, phone
biils, and banking all over cellular lines.

Is there anyone who knows more about this? I would like to know where
I could find more information on this. Please let me know about any
information that could help me.


Thanks, 

Rachana D. Patel                     University of Pennsylvania 
rpatel@eniac.seas.upenn.edu	     Telecommunication Systems &
Management and Technology Program    trategic Management
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:38:54 GMT
From: hpa@merle.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 313 Split Not Being Well Publicized 
Reply-To: hpa@nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin)
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 42, Message 13 of 14

In article <telecom13.26.12@eecs.nwu.edu> of comp.dcom.telecom,
Jim.Rees@umich.edu writes:

> By the way, you can get more information at 1-800-831-8989 (I don't
> know if this is diallable outside of 313/810).  Permissive dialing
> starts December 1993, and ends (with mandatory use of 810) August 10,
> 1994.

That's a long permissive dialing period.  Here in Illinois we had
only three months permissive dialing on the 312/708 area split, which
wasn't even announced as much in advance as this one was.

Considering the length of the permissive dialling period, I would
guess they plan to put it in the 1994 phone book when permissive
dialling just has taken effect, and there is still good time for
people to learn.


hpa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 14:38:16 EST
From: mike@camphq.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Bray)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular Roaming Handbook
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 46, Message 11 of 12

There was a post a short while ago about a cellular roaming guide.

The one I have is called (the) _Official_Cellular_Roaming_Handbook_
and is published by:
                      Cellular Directions, Inc.
                      PO Box 66843
                      St. Petersburg Beach FL  33736
                          
I bought the new (at the time) 10th edition for $14.95 (plus $2 for
mailing), but the order card in the front of the book suggests that
there will be an 11th edition for Winter '93.

Their phone number is (813) 345-6150 and their FAX is (813) 347-2981
and they take VISA, MC, etc, etc.

As stated in the other posting, this book details every cellular
system in the country with SID, coverage maps, roaming costs, customer
service numbers, roamer access numbers, and a big section in the back
about reciprocal roaming agreements.  It also contains information for
Mexico, the Caribbean Islands, Australia, and New Zealand.

Some of the coverage maps are 3+ years old, but in general this book
is a must for anyone that roams!


Mike Bray     mike@camphq.FIDONET.ORG   (or)   ...!apple!camphq!mike
From: tjrob@ihlpl.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: US Losing Lead in Telecom - USC Report
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:10:57 GMT
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 37, Message 5 of 15


 From article <telecom13.32.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, by jimmy@denwa.info.com
(Jim Gottlieb):

> MCMANGPH@NUSVM.BITNET (Ang Peng Hwa) writes:

>> The study added: "During this remarkable period of rapid technological
>> progress and obsolescence, asset lives for public network equipment of
>> local exchange companies have actually increased in the US. Nations
>> like Japan, the United Kingdom, Singapore and others write off and
>> replace equipment twice as fast as most US carriers."

> I suspect it is much easier to upgrade existing facilities when your
> country is much smaller than the vast United States.  What does
> Singapore have to do to upgrade to digital?  Cut a few cables and run
> a few fiber strands?

No, you missed the point. It is federal tax policy which is
dramatically different between the U.S.A. and many other countries.
This is *NOT* a technological question/problem, it is a political one.
U.S. carriers cannot "cut a few cables and run a few fiber strands"
because U.S. tax policy makes it prohibitively expensive to do so.
Telephone equipment has a *VERY LONG* lifetime in the U.S. tax codes
(I believe it is 20 years, used to be 30(!)).  This was based upon the
rate of technological change in the telephone industry during the '30s
through the '50s, and is hopelessly out of date in the '90s.

[side observation: virtually all U.S. telephone companies are smaller
than Japan; most are probably smaller than Singapore (measured by #
lines). Size has nothing to do with it.]

So what does this mean? It means that U.S. telephone companies can
only depreciate their investments in equipment over that long period
of time. It is *VERY* difficult for them to justify the replacement of
equipment which has not yet been fully depreciated. That means that
moderately old equipment (five to ten years old) cannot, in practice,
be replaced, EVEN IF THE NEW EQUIPMENT WOULD REALLY SAVE THEM MONEY
(not to mention providing new capabilities and services).

New equipment, however, can be as modern and as efficient as possible.
That is where the action is in the telecom industry.


Tom Roberts  att!ihlpl!tjrob  TJROB@IHLPL.ATT.COM  AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:49:25 GMT
From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Alteration of Ring Cadence
Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail.  Playa del Rey, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 40, Message 11 of 13

In article <telecom13.33.3@eecs.nwu.edu> mattair@sun44.synercom.
hounix.org (Charles Mattair) writes:

> We've got three lines coming into our residence:

> SWB does not offer alternate cadences on a primary number or I would
> do that.  The order clerk suggested getting a second number with
> Distinctive Ring (sm) on one of the lines and not using the primary
> number for that line.

That's kind of expensive, so of course its the one SWB would suggest.

If the phones have the old mechanical ringers with metal bells (Like
the ones in the 2500 type phones), You can do a bit of creative
surgery on the bells with a hacksaw.  Saw a slice from the rim halfway
to the center on each cup shaped bell and re-install.  The bell will
now sound quite different.

For electronic ringers, I can't help.


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....


[Moderator's Note: A hacksaw is a bit of an overkill. All you need to
do is adjust the clapper inside by bending it just a tiny bit, or
turning the bell parts slightly to create a sort of dull ring on the
one phone, and a more shrill ring on the other.  PAT]
Date: 23 Jan 93 17:28:40 GMT
From: wardc@eng.auburn.edu (Christopher Ward)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Iridium Information Wanted
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 38, Message 9 of 11

I have been gathering some technical data about Motorola's Iridium
system, and I am having some problems correlating some of the
available data:

 From the {IEEE Spectrum} issues of February 1992 (pages 20-33):

Iridium uses the L-band (1610-1626.5 MHz) for bidirectional
communication between the LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellites and the
portable phone units.

Communication between satellites (crosslinks) and between a satellite
and the Earth-based gateway stations (uplink/downlink) occurs in the
Ka band:

	Crosslink:	22.5-23.5 GHz
	Uplink:		18.8-20.2 GHz
	Downlink:	27.5-30.0 GHz

These gateways support 1300 user channels in the baseline design at
4800 kbps.  Basically the aggregate data rate requirements of the
up/down links are in the order of 1300 x 4800 = 6.24 Mbps.

So what I see (maybe I am missing something) is an approximate
bandwidth of 1 GHz in the up/down links allocated to support data
rates that "seem" to be well below the actual capabilities of those
connections.

Does anybody see an obvious explanation to this?
	(6.24 Mbps <======> 1 Ghz bandwidth) ?

Is the Ka band being currently utilized for other satellite communications? 
	(i.e. Geosynchronous satellites) ?


Thanks,

SdlC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 21:01 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What is Tariff 12 (or is it 11)?
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 41, Message 12 of 12

lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) writes:

> It is fair to allow sweetheart deals? I guess it depends on your
> political attitudes. Personally, I think we all would be better off,
> if the system had a mild bias in favor of "the little guy". Thus, I
> think it is reasonable to place more restrictions on the dominant
> carrier. I also think the obligation to publish the sweetheart deal
> and offer the same terms to any customer in similar circumstances is
> reasonable.

This is all very egalitarian and populist-oriented and seems just and
reasonable until one finds himself in the position of a major user.
Then when he is about to spend mega-dollars with a carrier, finds that
"cutting a deal" is not so easy. Any customer who represents a
significant portion of a provider's business deserves recognition for
that business.

Giving "the little guy" a better deal than a major player is something
reserved for activist PUCs who seem to feel that people who use more
can obviously afford it so they should be charged more per unit. It
has no place in the real marketplace which was supposedly created by
divestiture. In a free market, those who buy in quantity are those who
wield the power and can expect accomodations.

Is the telecommunications industry operating in a market environment,
or is it to be manipulated and regulated to death by idiots as
exemplified by the FCC and the CPUC? IMHO, AT&T has long since passed
from "dominant carrier" status and should play under the same rules as
MCI and Sprint. These carriers have had bloody long enough to get
their act together. Sure, AT&T had a century headstart, but in today's
technology ten years is an eternity. If MCI and Sprint cannot make it
without hamstringing AT&T in restrictive tariffs, then maybe we have
too many long distance companies.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
From: PJJ125@URIACC.URI.EDU (Tony Pelliccio)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Do Telcos Record the Numbers of Local Calls?
Date: 24 Jan 93 05:12:03 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 41, Message 2 of 12

YES THEY DO! ESS Systems, even the old XBAR systems were able to do
it.  It's amazing the things the phone company does that they don't
tell you about.  I remember there was a Bell pamphlet on the AMA's
(Automatic Message Account) that was supposed to go out to all
customers but Bell decided that it would be too heavy for people to
handle. I mean, after all, knowing that EVERY number you dial is being
recorded isn't very comforting. I wonder, with the advent of SS7, do
they still use tapes? I mean, with all that connectivity you'd think
the info would be sent to a central storage facility. We'll have to
wait and see I suppose. But the phone company WILL provide you with a
detailed list of all numbers dialed, if you ask for it.
 

Tony
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:10:00 GMT
From: jfk@ais.org (Jim Knight)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Credit Card Bug
Organization: UMCC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 40, Message 9 of 13

robichau@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Paul Robichaux) writes:

> While traveling last week, I had a chance to try my first Public Phone
> 2000 (PP2k). Unfortunately, the phones at present have two serious
> problems which render them unusable, at least for me.

I've used the Public Phone 2000's in several areas of the country on
multiple occasions.  The terminals seem to work fine at 2400 bps with
a decent but not great vt100 emulation.  I was able to use vi and elm,
etc with it.

The only thing I don't like about them, is even though I use my AT&t
Calling card which normally gets billed with my home phone for regular
calls, these calls get billed separately, and I get a bill directly
from AT&T for them.

Other than that, I've had very good experience with the phones ...


Jim    M-Net -- America's First Public Access Unix System
       (313) 996-4644  -or-  telnet m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us
       jfk@ais.org              jfk@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 11:04:53 -0500 
From: Marcus D Leech <mleech@bnr.ca>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Differences Between ANI and Caller-ID 
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 42, Message 11 of 14

In article <telecom13.35.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, tdarcos@access.digex.com
writes:

> [discussion of difference between ANI and Caller-ID, and how they
> relate (or not) to ISDN].

Just to add to the confusion, there's also an emerging ANSI standard
called SCAI, or Switch-Computer Applications Interface.  SCAI gives
you what Caller-ID gives you plus A WHOLE LOT MORE.  The only
implementation that I'm aware of is on NTs large switches, and
marketted as "CompuCall".

The delivery vehicle for this service is typically X.25.

Anybody know of any other implementations of SCAI?


Marcus Leech, 4Y11     Bell-Northern Research  |opinions expressed
mleech@bnr.ca          P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C   |are my own, and not
ml@ve3mdl.ampr.org     Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs
From: cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "Secret" Phone Codes
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:13:22 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 48, Message 4 of 13

> In one of those discussions, about a year ago, a number was posted
> that purported to work nationally: 10732-1-404-988-9664.  10732 is a

I just tried it from a pay phone in area 410 (using 10732-0 and
10288-0).  Both of them got the AT&T thank-you message followed by no
answer.
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:57:46 GMT
From: whlst2+@pitt.edu (Wen-hu Liang)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Request For Information -- Telecom in Australia
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 47, Message 11 of 11

Hi there,

This is Vincent Wen-Hu Liang looking for some help regarding my
research on the development of telecommunication in Australia,
including the history, industry structure, status of infrastructure,
services and other general information.  Is it possible to get any
year-book published by government department or telecommunication
incorporation?  How?  My report will due by April.  As a matter of
fact, there isn't much time left.  I hope someone can provide me any
information of my research topic or contact point, like address, fax
or e-mail.  Appreciate your attention and, of course, response.


Vincent
Graduate student of Telecommunication, U. of Pittsburgh, USA
E-mail : whlst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu   Fax : (412) 682-5341
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 17:14:09 EST
From: Robert J. Reschly Jr. <reschly@BRL.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: ISDN Modems/Boards?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 41, Message 10 of 12

   I am at home and the literature is at work, but there is an outfit
called DigiBoard which builds Ethernet bridge (I think that is right
 -- the bandwidth differential would certainly make bridging much more
effective) boxes that connect over a 1B or 2B voice or data link.  I
think they also do some compression over the ISDN, but cannot recall
for sure.  These boxes also run ~$2K per end.

   I can post more details from the literature if there is an
interest.  I'm not affiliated with DigiBoard; just saw them at InterOP
last fall and grabbed some literature.


Later,

Bob 
IP: reschly@BRL.MIL   UUCP: ...!{{cmcl2,nlm-mcs,husc6}!adm,smoke}!reschly
U.S. Army Research Lab. / Advanced Computational & Information Sciences Dir. /
Networked Computer Systems Team / Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD  21005-5067 /
ATTN: AMSRL-CI-AC (Reschly) //   (410) 278-6808   FAX:-5075   DSN:298-
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 17:06:02 EST
From: mertwig!daniel@uunet.UU.NET (Daniel Drucker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: MF Signaling Test Gear
Reply-To: Daniel Drucker <uunet!daniel%mertwig@uunet.UU.NET>
Organization: Abnormalities of Reality
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 40, Message 5 of 13

rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP writes:

> Bob Turner writes:

>> Does anyone know of test gear available to test CPE that uses MF (NOT
>> DTMF) signalling? It can be for two or four wire circuits.  I know
>> such a device exists, I just don't know who manufactures it.

> Several transmission test sets will generate MF.  The Ameritec AM-48
> ($3k) and AM-44 ($2k) both do.  At least one of Ameritec's

Why pay thousands when you can purchase something like a portable
Commodore 64 or some other old computer with a sound chip and make the
tones on that?

I have a [cr|h]acker's program for the C-64 that does everything from
MF to ST/KP to TASI.


Daniel Drucker        N2SXX     daniel%mertwig@uunet.uu.net
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:44:26 GMT
From: glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Alteration of Ring Cadence
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 40, Message 10 of 13

mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair) writes:

> Due to our house's layout and phone locations, you can hear any ringer
> throughout most of the house.  The problem is exactly that -- which
> line is ringing.

> SWB does not offer alternate cadences on a primary number or I would
> do that.  The order clerk suggested getting a second number with
> Distinctive Ring (sm) on one of the lines and not using the primary
> number for that line.

It doesn't sound like you need different ring cadences.  Just use
phones with different sounds.


Glen Ecklund     glen@cs.wisc.edu   (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 Dept. Sec'y
Department of Computer Sciences        1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355
University of Wisconsin, Madison       Madison, Wis. 53706  U.S.A.