HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 15:13:44 GMT
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Providers Charge Air-Time Forwarding to Land Line
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 690, Message 5 of 10

In <telecom12.677.5@eecs.nwu.edu> infmx!johng@uunet.UU.NET (John
Galloway) writes:

> I was very disappointed to find that both Cellular-One and GTE charge
> normal air time rates for calls that are made to your cellular number,

> I had planned to get a cellular, then only give out that number.  When
> I get to an office or am at home, I just forward the cellular to the
> number where I am -- simple.  I only give folks one number and it
> either goes to where I am, or to my home phone with an answering

This is exactly how I work.  My cellular number is the one I use for
my business and it is on call-forwarding most of the time.

I also have the message center service on the cellular for those times
it's not call forwarded and I cannot answer the phone.  This service
costs about $5.00/month plus air time if I call for messages on the
cellular.  There's no charge if I call in for my messages from a land
line.

US-West cellular in the Seattle area doesn't charge for the land-line
forwarding.  US-West doesn't charge for calls to busy signals either.
I had an account with Bell Atlantic for a while and it really annoyed
me that they would charge me $0.10 for busy calls.


Bill

INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591


[Moderator's Note: Not only does Ameritech Mobile not charge for calls
forwarded to a land line number, they gave us free service all day on
Labor Day!  A full page ad in the papers on Sunday said everyone with
Ameritech cellular service was invited to use their cell phones as
much as desired at no charge today, long distance and local telephone
company surcharges not included.  That was a nice gift from them!  PAT]
From: jacksch@insom.eastern.com (Eric Jacksch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Dialback Management
Date: 5 Sep 92 05:20:07 GMT
Organization: Insomniacs' Guild, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 684, Message 5 of 11

Bob.Ackley@ivgate.omahug.org (Bob Ackley) writes:

> To eliminate that type of hacking possibility, it is mandatory that
> the dialback portion of the modem call is originated from a different
> line. 

A company that I do custom software work for has yet another solution,
which is now in use at a government site which found callback units
both expensive and unreliable. Caller-ID information from Bell is
compared to a database and only pre-authorized callers even get to the
modem.  In addition, the phone numbers from which unauthozied calls
originate are logged.


Eric Jacksch, jacksch@insom.eastern.com
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 12:14:44 GMT
From: mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Fax-> Email, Fax-> Fax Services Anywhere?
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 707, Message 4 of 7

In article <telecom12.700.4@eecs.nwu.edu> simon1@bass.bu.edu (Simon
Streltsov) writes:

> I'm looking for a service; someone who can receive my fax and route it
> to me by e-mail as a TIFF file or after running a character
> recognition program.

I'm not sure what they'd charge, but a fax/modem for my NeXT is under
$500 (PeeCee stuff is actually a tad cheaper) and the software does
just this -- provides a TIFF.  It also makes for an inexpensive
scanner (only 150 dpi, tho).


Mark Wuest       *MY* opinions, not AT&T's!!
mark.wuest@att.com   mdw@cheshire.att.com (NeXT Mail)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:22:54 GMT
From: barth@wam.umd.edu (Kevin J. Barth)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Baudot Codes
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 691, Message 12 of 13

There are actually several Baudot codes.  The more-or-less standard
one (dubbed the "U.S. Military version" in the ITT Handbook) is
commonly used by amateur radio operators and can be found in the
Amateur Radio Handbook published by ARRL, among many other sources.
There is also a European standard, a weather standard, and probably a
couple of others I've forgotten about.  They all differ primarily in
the shifted characters, i.e., the punctuation.  Alphanumerics are the
same.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 17:32:24 PDT
From: sjl@glenbrook.com (Scott Loftesness)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: New Book: Federal Telecommunications Law
Reply-To: sjl@glenbrook.com
Organization: Glenbrook Systems, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 686, Message 3 of 6

I am pleased to recommend an excellent new book the subject of the US
telecommunications law.  The book, titled "Federal Telecommunications
Law" (ISBN 0-316-48676-0 published by Little, Brown & Company), was
written by Michael K. Kellogg, John Thorne, and Peter W. Huber.
Kellogg is a partner at Mayer, Brown & Platt; Thorne is Assistant
General Counsel, Bell Atlantic; and Huber is Senior Fellow, Manhattan
Institute, and Of Counsel, Mayer, Brown & Platt.  Huber is also known
for authoring "The Geodesic Network" for the Justice Department a few
years back.

Chapters:

1. An Industry in Transition
2. The Powers of the FCC
3. Antitrust
4. Restructuring the Bell System
5. Equal Access Under the Divestiture Decree
6. The Line of Business Restrictions
7. Interpreting, Enforcing, and Modifying the Divestiture Decree
8. The GTE Decree
9. Pricing
10. Telecommunications Equipment
11. Enhanced Services
12. Long-Distance Service
13. Mobile Telephony
14. Telephony and Cable Television
15. International Issues
16. Privacy

Appendices include the text of the AT&T and GTE Consent Decrees.

I ordered the text in response to a direct solicitation from Little,
Brown and have not seen the text yet in any bookstores locally (San
Francisco Bay Area).

The book is extremely well written and a real delight to read.  It
helps clarify the nuances of US federal telecommunications law.
Highly recommended for readers interested in understanding more about
the current -- and projected -- state of telecommunications regulation
in the US.


Scott Loftesness (sjl@glenbrook.com)
Redwood City, California                           
Others: 3801143@mcimail.com, 76703.407@compuserve.com
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 00:05:51 EDT
From: David Leibold <DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Advance Notice of Report On Telecommunications - 8 Sept.
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 689, Message 18 of 19

The national newspaper in Canada, {The Globe And Mail} is expected to
have another of its Report on Telecommunications tomorrow, Tuesday,
8th Sept.  More stuff on long distance competition, what Unitel might
be up to, etc. should be expected.


dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca
From: adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Phone Number in "Sneakers"
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:40:04 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 709, Message 6 of 12

The movie is also flawed in its otherwise highly entertaining press
kit.  Unlike all other movies, which have old-fashioned paper press
kits, this one only has one on a computer diskette.  The graphics are
very nice and colorful and fun and all that.  But in a section about
hacker history, that big AT&T long-distance collapse a couple years
back was blamed on information stolen by the Legion of Doom from
BellSouth's 911 system (rather, than, say, software problems at
Bedminister, NJ)!  Fortunately, movie critics don't tend to care about
such stuff, so I doubt you'll see that "factoid" in print anywhere.


Adam Gaffin    Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass.
adamg@world.std.com  Voice: (508) 626-3968. 
Fred the Middlesex News Computer: (508) 872-8461.
From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: USA to Ten Digits
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:11:08 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 714, Message 5 of 12

In article <telecom12.709.4@eecs.nwu.edu> varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L
Varney) writes:

> When my home-town exchange went non-SXS last year, they lost the
> ability to use four-digit local dialing -- even though the switch
> could have supported the town as a Centrex group with four digits.
> But things change ...

When your hometown was SxS, I'll bet you had to dial 1 before the
prefix of any out of town exchange that was in your area code.

Now that you have more modern telephone service, you should be able to
dial anything in your area code without a 1, and anything outside your
area code with a 1. This is the way things are supposed to work in
order to allow N[10]X prefixes and NXX area codes in the future.

If the telco was to maintain four digit dialing in town, they'd
logically require you to dial 1 to make a call outside the "centrex."
Maybe even a 9 :-)


Ed Greenberg 		| Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com
P. O. Box 28618		| Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95159	| Fax:  +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:03:26 GMT
From: David E. Sheafer <nin15b0b@merrimack.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Providers Charge Air-Time Forwarding to Land Line
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 690, Message 6 of 10

In article <telecom12.677.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, infmx!johng@uunet.UU.NET
(John Galloway) writes:

> I was very disappointed to find that both Cellular-One and GTE charge
> normal air time rates for calls that are made to your cellular number,
> (Call your cellular carrier and complain TODAY! :-)

> [Moderator's Note: *Which* Cellular One? *Which* GTE?  Cellular One in
> Chicago does not charge for forwarding calls to landline numbers, nor
> does Ameritech, the 'B' carrier here.  And regards forwarding of
> calls, Illinois Bell now allows us to *remotely* change our forwarding
> at no additional cost. I will comment more on this in the next issue.  PAT]

   Both, Nynex Mobile Communications New England and Cellular One
Boston charge regular airtime rates for fowarding calls to landline
numbers.
  
   I've never understood why Nynex charges as they are the local phone
company, yet I can understand why Cell One charges as they have to pay
for using the Nynex (New England Telephone) network.


David E. Sheafer
internet:  nin15b0b@merrimack.edu   or  uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Cleveland Freenet:    ap345
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 00:23:15 GMT
From: mmgall@hubcap.clemson.edu (Morris Galloway Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Loading Auth Codes Into CO Switch
Organization: Clemson University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 687, Message 4 of 9

Hello,

We have 700 to 1000 authorization codes to turn down each spring, then
new codes to be turned up in the fall when students arrive.

Since these codes are in an on-campus computer, I do _not_ want to
print them out and have our local telco key them back in.  Nor do I
want to key them in to the telco's system myself.

I want to put them on a tape or diskette and have them loaded by
Southern Bell.  The CO switch in question is a NT DMS-100.

Is anybody doing something like this?


Morris Galloway Jr.             mmgall@presby.edu        +1-803-833-8217
Dean, Administrative Services   Presbyterian College  Clinton, SC  29325
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:35:24 GMT
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: First ESS Was Not in Morris
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 696, Message 11 of 12

> TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu> writes:

> [Moderator's Note: IBT has always been considered a very progressive
> and advanced company. After all, ESS started here, in Morris, IL back
> in the 1960's ... and we had it routine use in various exchanges as
> early as 1974 downtown. We had lots of centrex in use in the 1960's.
> The company has always been involved in the community with numerous
> charitable donations and services.  PAT]

Morris, IL was the test site for an early electronic switching system
that used gas-filled triodes as its switching fabric.  The system was
found to be unreliable, and it was never deployed elsewhere.

The first of the AT&T switches to be called ESS (which actually used
magnetic reed-relays, but were software-controlled) was installed in
1965 in Succasunna, New Jersey.


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: Sun, 6 Sep 92 4:58:19 EDT
From: Tom Metro <tmetro@ds5000.dac.northeastern.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: A/A1 Answer Supervision
Organization: Venture Logic, Newton, MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 688, Message 10 of 13

leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

> dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu (Dave Grabowski) writes:

>> I recently obtained a telephone that was used on a private Centrex
>> system. It has a sticker on the back : "Caution: For use only on
>> business lines or risk of electrical short circuit"...

> It's probably set up to do A/A1 answer supervision. That means that
> when you take it off hook, it *shorts* the second pair of wires
> together.
 
What is the purpose of shorting the second pair of wires? It sounds
redundant to the information you can get by monitoring the loop
current.  Could you explain the purpose of A/A1 answer supervision?
 

Tom     tmetro@ds5000.dac.northeastern.edu
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE Community Involvment
Date: 13 Sep 92 07:30:00 GMT
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 12, Issue 708, Message 1 of 11

steven@alchemy.uucp writes:

> Well Mr. Higdon you failed to check your facts on that one.

I beg your pardon. What facts are you talking about? GTE does not even
have a business presence in this community. How in the hell is it
supposed to do community involvement? It is a mystery company that
hides out at the end of an 800 number.

> For years GTE has supplied its people to work with the LA Raiders on
> its Food Day game. Each year well over 500 GTE people are at the GTE
> sponsered GTE West Golf Classic which is used to support a shelter for
> battered wives.

Not around here it doesn't. Oh, I forgot. Northern California does not
count, even though there are a number of communities here that are
"served" by GTE.

> It sponsers Public TV programs and many other local community events
> in its service areas. If you were to contact your area public affairs
> office they could tell you more.

What do you call a "service area"? Do Morgan Hill, Los Gatos, and
Novato not qualify as "service areas"? You cannot even pay your bill
in person in those towns at a GTE office because there are none.

> We were also involved with over 1000 volunteers in the 1984 Olympics
> in LA. We were at the Super Bowl in Pasadena and will be there again
> for public service. 'GTE People' is not very well known.

And what will happen when GTE up and moves its puny presence, such as
it is, out of southern California? Where are these volunteers going to
come from? Florida? North Carolina? Texas? That IS dedication. It is
also ridiculous.

> Maybe we should blow our horns more often, but we are more
> interested in just doing our community service and not caring if
> anyone really knows about it since we do and that is all that really
> counts.

What a cheap shot. Pac*Bell does not "blow its horn". I am aware of
its involvment because I, myself, am involved in community service and
I happen to bump elbows with Pac*Bell people. I have yet to bump any
elbows with GTE people. The last time I even saw anyone who worked for
GTE is when I made a service appointment a week in advance.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: It so happens that GTE has been a benefactor of the
Lyric Opera here in Chicago in the past; in the Illinois communities
where they operate they have been involved with school educational
programs; and Automatic Electric did a number of community-oriented
things in the northwest suburban area here.   PAT]
From: root@sanger.chem.nd.edu (Doctor Math)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Emperor's New Figleaf
Date: 14 Sep 92 05:10:00 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 708, Message 5 of 11

In article <telecom12.688.1@eecs.nwu.edu> ANTENNA@CSEARN.BITNET
(Robert Horvitz) writes:

> Adrienne Voorhis recently asked readers of the TELECOM Digest:

>> Could someone please explain how the federal government can allow
>> you to legally monitor [mobile radio] broadcasts but can stop you
>> from disclosing what was heard?

> The Communications Act of 1934 allows you to receive any radio signal
> that comes to you.  But when you aren't "authorized" to receive it,
> you cannot tell others what you heard or exploit the content for
> "gain" (courts usually interpret "gain" as "financial gain").

Entirely hypothetical:

Suppose I'm hearing something really interesting on my (illegally)
modified scanner. The cellphone is in a parked car, so I can remain
"locked in" on the frequency that has been assigned it for this cell.

1. Someone else is in the room with me. Do I tell them not to listen?

2. I call my friend who lives around the corner (within range of the
   transmissions) and tell him to listen to XXX MHz.

3. Noticing that the conversation is between my friend's boss and the CEO
   of the company,  I call my friend and tell him to listen to XXX MHz.

In each of these scenarios, I did not actually disclose the nature of
the communications. In two and three, I inform someone else that the
communications are in progress and tell them where they might listen
to them. In three, there is some possibility of "gain" (my friend can
perhaps advance his career with some "inside information"; logically
this translates into a raise, so the "gain" could be considered
financial).

Did I break the law?
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:07:41 EDT
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Vermont Payphones
Organization: I.E.C.C.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 707, Message 6 of 7

> 1) I didn't see a single COCOT.  Are they illegal in the state?
 
> 2) A very high proportion of NETel payphones had rotary dials.  Tone
> service was clearly available to residence and business customers,
> but I didn't see a single payphone with keypad in Stowe or surrounds.

Stowe had a four-digit SxS until a few years ago, so there wouldn't
have been much point in putting in tone phones.  In places where
they've had modern exchanges longer, e.g. Burlington or Woodstock,
most of the pay phones are touch.  The old Stowe exchange wasn't equal
access, either, making it harder to install COCOTs.  I've seen COCOTs
in Vermont, albeit not as many as in more urban states.

> 3) The NETel payphones seem to have several different default LD
> carriers.  I would have thought the LEC would sign up with a single
> carrier for all its phones.  Sometimes the default was AT&T for both
> 1+ and 0+ calls; in other cases it was AT&T for 1+ and (say) USSprint
> for 0+.

Every telco pay phone in the US sends 1+ calls to AT&T, because
they're the only ones set up to handle inter-LATA coin paid calls.  It
is my understanding that the 0+ carrier is chosen by the owner of the
premises where the phone is placed, or the town for phones on the
sidewalk.

> So who was right?  Should my Bell card number work with Sprint?
> Do US LEC cards work with Sprint? 

It should have worked, and US LEC cards do work for Sprint calls.  But
the US and Canadian data bases seem to be separate with a gateway
(e.g., when I used my NET card in Nova Scotia a live operator cut in
and said to wait a minute for the validation) and I can easily believe
that Sprint has trouble going through the gateway.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:45:43 GMT
From: cos!bob1@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telephone Pioneers Accepting New Members 
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 703, Message 3 of 12

This is an enquiry that I received following my post on Pioneer auto
tags. A young man contacted me regarding the chance for people in
telecom related companies for joining the Telephone Pioneers. It
sounded reasonable that since the divestiture that membership should
be opened up somewhat.

I am a life member through 33 years service with Bell Canada, but am
not active here in the U.S. In any case, I wrote to the President of
the Pioneers and posed that young man's question.

The answer is that the Pioneers are open to any company whose telecom
business is "at least 50% of their revenues are derived from two-way
switched telecommunications service."  The company must be prepared to
provide some financial support, manpower support, floor space,
computer support, etc.

In 1988 they changed the Pioneer constitution to allow employees
actively involved in Pioneering to be considered for regular
membership. He did not state which employees, but I guess this means
employees of companies supporting the Pioneer movement. Oh yes, the
service requirement was reduced from 21 to 15 years in 1989.

The COO of TPA is:
    William M. Germain, Jr.
    P.O.Box 13888
    Denver, CO 80201-3888


Bob Blackshaw [bob1@cos.com]