HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 01:35:48 GMT
From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Democratic Convention (Including Telecom)
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 576, Message 2 of 11

TELECOM Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: The big news today of course is that Ross Perot has
> pulled out of the campaign, and things are looking brighter for the
> Democrats than anytime in the past twelve years. This may be their
> year for victory, for only the fourth time in forty years (Kennedy,
> Johnson, Carter, (??) Clinton (??).  PAT]

Ah, statistics.  Four times in 40 years sounds awful, but fact is, it
would be four out of ten or 40%, which isn't a statistically
significant deviation from 50/50.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.    trebor@foretune.co.jp


[Moderator's Note: The catch is we've gone a full 40 years (11/52
through 11/92) with only *three* Democratic presidents. That really
makes it three out of ten. If Clinton gets elected, the statistics
will then be four out of eleven. But if you go back 64 years starting
with 11/28, it evens out with Roosevelt and Truman getting five in a
row.     Dem = 1932,1936,1940,1944,1948,1960,1964,1976 = 8
         Rep = 1928,1952,1956,1968,1972,1980,1984,1988 = 8
The Republicans stayed out longer (20 years) than the Democrats. Now
they're getting even for the 13-year reign of King Roosevelt II! :) PAT]
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:19:10 GMT
From: jvz@pt.com (John Zambito)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Advice Needed: Dialback Management
Organization: Performance Technologies, Incorporated
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 595, Message 8 of 14

In article blah, blah, blah Paul Cook writes:

> ...  To prevent the problem mentioned above (where the line is not
> released), it can be programmed to wait for a CPC pulse on the line

Could you elaborate on this CPC pulse?


John Zambito, Performance Technologies Incorporated	jvz@pt.com
315 Science Parkway, Rochester, New York 14620    uupsi!ptsys1!jvz
From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Northern Switches and 9+1011
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:28:40 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 589, Message 6 of 15

Linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu questions why his office PBX requires that
he dial 9 + 1011 + instead of 9 + 011 + for international calls.  Our
office REQUESTS this, so I asked our telecom lady about it.

This is a common problem with Northern Telecom switches.  Least cost
routing is done from left to right.  Consider these three
combinations:

1.	9 + 0  + <area code and number>
2.	9 + 011 + <int'l number>
3.	9 + 1 + <area code&number>
4.	9 + 1 + 011 + <int'l number>

The problem is that the local lines are presubscribed to one LD
company, and there is a dedicated trunk to another.  Since domestic
operator assisted calls (example 1) must be given to the local telco,
9 + 0 must go to the local telco.  Int'l calls are best handled (for
quality) on the dedicated LD circuit, but the PBX doesn't have the
capability in software to parse far enough into the number to make the
distinction between sent-paid international and operator assisted
domestic.  The workaround is to have the subscriber dial 9 + 1 + 011
for sent-paid international.  Apparently it's a common enough
workaround that Northern pushes people to do it.

That's the answer I came up with.


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: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:54:27 -0400
From: goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com (k1io, FN42jk)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: FCC Modem Tax Rumor on Compu$erve
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 580, Message 9 of 11

Well, Pat et al, I did see that latest incarnation of The Network
Chain Letter That Won't Die.  This is, like the flu, yet another
strain of the virus.

Offhand I think it is somebody's reaction to the FCC's ONA (Open
Network Architecture) rules, which have applied a _federal_ tariff for
ONA services, but with each telco making up its own rules and rates
for the FCC to approve.  The ONA rates are set at levels close to what
carriers pay (and that's what the "modem tax" was; making Enhanced
Service Providers pay carrier rates rather than user rates).  So CI$
et al won't be able to use ONA.

But the FCC has said that making ONA _available_ (even at ridiculous
rates) is a prerequisite for the carriers' offering their own
competitive (controvesial!) services.  So the FCC has taken this
fig-leaf of unreasonable ONA offerings and allowed it to enable the
carriers to do something _other_ than be carriers.  That's enough for
CI$ and any other right-thinking American to get upset.

But it's not a modem tax.  It has nothing to do with modems.  And it
has nothing to do with taxes.  It's a tariff dispute, and it's likely
to be settled in Congress.  (BTW, in the latest "WeldBulgermander" map
of Mass. Congressional districts, my town got moved from Kennedy (the
younger) to Markey (Mr. Telecom).  Now I'm a "constituent.")


fred
From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell CLASS Features
Date: 29 Jul 92 07:50:29 GMT
Reply-To: henry@ads.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 592, Message 3 of 15

mtxinu!sybase!pokey!nealg@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Neal Goldsmith) wrote:

> I ordered the three new features (Repeat Dialing, Select Call
> Forwarding, and Priority Ringing). The features only work within my
> LATA.

> I can understand them not working for numbers that are not on SS7
> equipped switches, but isn't the CLASS information passed on even
> through toll switches? If not will it ever be?

I just found this out, too. It almost seems pointless ... why bother
when it only works with numbers in your neighborhood?


 # henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 911 Run-Around
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:13:51 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 582, Message 10 of 13

> The problem with my PD (Suffolk County, NY) is that if I wanted to
> make a non-emergency call but yet talk to a policeman/woman, I would
> be told to call 911 in about 90% of the instances.

Where I used to be, they wanted you to call 911 for nearly everything
for two reasons:

	1.  Some people's idea of what constitutes an emergency is
more than others.  Better the trained dispatches at 911 identify the
call than to lose valuable time while someone worked through the
switchboard at the local precinct house or had the phone ring off
the hook at the volunteer fire statoin.

	2.  All there fancy ANI/ALI/"who do we relay this call to"
stuff only works if you dial into 911.  If you call in on the regular
phone, they have to get your address and go ahead and type it into the
computer anyway so they know who to send out (even in a non-emergency).

Of course, each juristiction runs it's own 911 and some are more
coordinated than others.  I still feeel a little odd calling 911 to
report stuff in the road and look up the non-emergecy number (in the
Gumn't pages of the phone book, it isn't on the inside cover like the
emergency numbers).


Ron
From: ridder@zso.dec.com (Hans Ridder)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Ground Wire on Network Interface?
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:37:08 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 591, Message 8 of 10

In article <telecom12.583.13@eecs.nwu.edu> drawson@sagehen.Tymnet.COM
(Dick Rawson) writes:

>> In the US, all "communications" type wires entering a building are
>> required by "code" (NEC) to have lightning protection, and that
>> requires a ground.

>> Also, code requires that all these grounds, and your electrical
>> service ground, *must* be electrically bonded together.  

> A quibble, but the NEC is a model code, not a law, and has effect only
> when a local jurisdiction adopts it by law.  A jurisdiction frequently
> adopts most of a model code, but with some local changes.  There are
> multiple competing codes for fire, building, life safety, and so on;
> they generally differ somewhat.

You're right that the NEC is just a model, as are most "national"
codes (such as the Uniform Building Code.)

It isn't likely that a local polititions would have the knowledge or
time to research and develop better electrical/safety code, unlike a
code which specified say, the number of outlets required per room, or
attic ventilation requirements, etc.


Hans-Gabriel Ridder	  Digital DECwest Engineering
ridder@rust.zso.dec.com	  Bellevue, Washington, USA
{pacbell,pyramid,uunet}!rust.zso.dec.com!ridder
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 14:14:00 -0400
From: TELECOM Moderator (telecom@eecs.nwu.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CIS Modem Fee Story
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 580, Message 5 of 11

The article below was in the Telecom Forum on Compuserve, and provides
a bit more background about the snit CIS is in right now, urging their
users to contact the FCC, etc. I received copies of this from several
readers as well as seeing it there myself.

PAT

 #: 18660 S2/Regulatory Affairs
     20-Jul-92  21:55:22
 Sb: #More Modem Fee Backgnd
 Fm: Scott Loftesness 76703,407
 To: All

The reason for the renewed concern about the possible return of the
modem fee is a recent public speech given by FCC Commissioner Andrew
Barrett to the Interactive Services Association.  Communications Daily
reported in its June 30th edition that Barrett, in a keynote address
to the conference, suggested "I think it will come back again.  It
ought to come back again."

Barrett was apparently recommending that reconsideration of the issue
involving Enhanced Service Provider fees should be brought back as
part of a comprehensive review of Part 69 access rules.  Barrett
declined to comment on how he would vote on the issue -- just saying
that the issue was worthy of additional examination.
 

Scott
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 07:45:38 GMT
From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Wires of Mystery
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 597, Message 4 of 10

In article <telecom12.595.7@eecs.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.
com> writes:

> This lashup hack job sat around for nearly the past ten years. Within
> the last year, GTE decided to bury a permanent cable. Did it dig a
> nice neat little trench at the side of the narrow road? Of course not.
> It tore up a trench right down the middle of the road, buried the
> cable, and then did a wretchedly poor job of filling it in. Since I
> have to drive this road regularly, it is a constant reminder of GTE's
> wonderful way of tending to business.

It is possible that trenching in the middle of rural gravel roads is a
standard practice.  I've seen it done in other places where the old
Bell System engineers did the design (in the 1950's).
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 16:16:20 GMT
From: rwerger@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Laurentiv Rauchwerger)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Not Charging
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 590, Message 3 of 6

I want to buy a good cordless phone and I need some reccomandations
Is autoscanning an important feature? Are the extra $40 worth an ATT5500
vs a Panasonic KXT 3910?  Why is the new KXT9000 so expensive ($400)
and is worth it ?


Thanks,

Lawrence Rauchwerger   CSRD - Univ. of Illinois
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:53:00 EDT
From: Arlen (A.) Michaels <AMICHAEL@BNR.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: How Use Answering Machine in Argentina?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 589, Message 11 of 15

Can anyone advise if it's practical to use a North American answering
machine in Argentina?  What differences (power, signalling, connec-
tors, etc?)  would cause problems?  


Thanks, 

Arlen
From: jellinek@adoc.xerox.com (Herb Jellinek)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: California PUC Prders $57.6m PacBell Refund
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:44:38 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 581, Message 9 of 12

According to UPI, today the California Public Utilities Commission
ordered Pacific Bell to refund approximately $57.6 million to
consumers, and to reduce rates by a further $19 million.  The PUC
found that PacBell had used ratepayer money to fund competitive
services like its Message Center voicemail system, when shareholders'
monies should have been used instead.

The average residential refund will be approximately $0.20/month for 1
year, combined with a rate reduction of about $0.07/month.  [Don't
spend it all in one place!]
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 20:51:15 GMT
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Questions About the Motorola Bravo Pager
Reply-To: marshal.perlman@lambada.oit.unc.edu
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 578, Message 11 of 15

I have three questions about the Mororola Bravo [the 'cheap/workfore']
Pager:


 ... One ...

How long does that battery (one AA) last?

 ... Two ...

What is the range of these things? [non satellite]

 ... Three ...

They don't do anything if they are off right? (i.e. you have it
off..and some one beeps you ... then you turn it on later ... it will
still be 'blank'), right?


Thanks,

Please respond to: marshal.perlman@bbs.oit.unc.edu
(as nyx's mail is still screwed up)
==============================  *  Marshal Perlman  
=-> mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu <-=  *  Huntington Beach, California
==============================  *  (Surf City, U.S.A
From: acg@hermes.dlogics.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: An Open Letter to PAT and John Higdon
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:14:26 GMT
Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.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 589, Message 7 of 15

As regular readers of the TELECOM Digest, we, the undersigned, have
followed for some time now the lengthy pronouncements of two
contributors in particular who seem to have many years of experience
in, and knowledge of, the telecommunications business.  These
contributors are:

1) You, PAT, our Esteemed Moderator, and

2) John Higdon, of Green Hills and Cows fame.

We were wondering if the two of you would take a few minutes from
your busy schedules of doing whatever it is you do, and tell us
all about whatever it is you do. Please add whatever biographical
details of interest you feel like throwing in to let us know how
you got where you are today, as most people would say that their
earlier jobs were infinitely more interesting than what they're
doing right now!


Thanks,

Andrew C. Green
Dave Mausner
Kevin A. Mitchell

Datalogics, Inc.       (312) COMputer 4444
441 W. Huron
Chicago, IL  60610     FAX: (312) COMputer 4473


[Moderator's Note: Interesting idea. John, will you go first?   PAT]
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:33:14 EDT
From: terry@spcvxb.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell CLASS Features
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 12, Issue 597, Message 2 of 10

In article <telecom12.593.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, dave@westmark.com (Dave
Levenson) writes:

> It doesn't work by repeat dialing at all.  It sends a message to the
> destination CO, via the SS-7 network, requesting notification when the
> called line becomes available.  If the destination is not SS-7
> equipped, or if the destination number is part of a DID group, even if
> the office is SS-7 equipped, then your request for 'repeat dial' is
> rejected.

And it has some problems, at least from my point of view. Here in NJ
Bell land, you can presubscribe this feature or pay $.75 per usage.
Well, my cable TV was out and I needed to call them for a status
update. Their repair number (201-915) was busy, so I used this feature
from my home phone (201- 451). Both of these prefixes are on the same
switch, a 1AESS (primary ex- change 201-332). When I got the ringback
and picked up the phone, I got a "per-chunk" (louder than the call
waiting one) followed by "We are sorry.  Your call cannot be completed
because the number became busy again". I'd think that it would seize
the destination number while attempting to notify me.

  I'm also interested in seeing if I got billed the per-use fee for
this non-feature 8-).


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


[Moderator's Note: For an interesting experiment, I tried dialing my
own number (it was busy), then setting it up on auto redial.  I got
the recording saying the line is busy but the network will continue
trying to connect. I hung up and waited. In a few seconds I got the
special ring, and when I went off hook after a few seconds I heard an
announcement that '... the number you are trying to call was free, but
it has become busy again ...' !  :) Of course this went on for up
to 30 minutes which is how long our switch is configured to do it.  PAT]
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 20:18:58 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <sichermn@beach.csulb.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE and CLASS/ISDN
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 584, Message 7 of 9

In article <telecom12.576.1@eecs.nwu.edu> John Higdon
<john@zygot.ati.com> writes:

> MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com writes:

>> The rep said CLID hadn't yet been approved by the PUC!  When I pointed
>> out that the PUC had approved it weeks ago, and mentioned the
>> front-page articles in the {L.A. Times} and other papers, she said
>> they were flat wrong.

> This is typical GTE. I have found that one cannot expect to get
> anything resembling a straight answer on any matter (from your current
> bill on up to "proposed services") on the first call to the business
> office. All light and knowledge from GTE (if you can call it that)
> must come from Thousand Oaks. It is amusing to note that if you do
> happen to call GTE about a billing question, you are told that someone
> will call you back "within five working days". The people in the
> front-line business office are ALWAYS wrong and with an attitude.

  Trust me, I'm currently living and working in Thousand Oaks (and
calling my account via a state-wide network via a local port) and
there is no knowledge and very little light around here. What there
is, definitely is not coming from the GTE HQ which I pass every day -
twice.


Jeff Sicherman
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 16:09:48 GMT
From: djb@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (David Brightbill)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Wires of Mystery
Organization: Florida State University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 597, Message 5 of 10

In article <telecom12.595.7@eecs.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.
com> writes:

> David Brightbill <djb@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> writes:

>> Every time I drive from my home in the swamps of North Florida to
    ........stuff deleted.......
>> side most of it.  The line in question starts in Florida where the
>> power line ends.  It is two bare copper lines hanging on glass
>> insulators.  

> I don't know about your wires, but you might be amused at a typical
> practice of GTE. A number of years ago, the cable that follows a road
> to one of my mountain top sites was damaged. It failed during some
> major flooding and earth movement about a decade ago. GTE's
> "temporary" repair was to literally string some fifty-pair IW along
> the roadway and lay it in the bushes. No temporary poles, no
> protection of any kind, not even the use of outdoor service cable.

> Isn't there a GTE in Florida?

Yup ... GTE has parts of florida.  This part is owned by Centel/
Sprintel.  Since the line goes across a state line and from Centel's
territory into whoever has that part of Georgia (Southern Bell, I
think), I doubt if it is any sort of a normal line.  Perhaps some sort
of an FX line but I think that those kind of things would run over
regular lines and go through central offices.  I like Pat's suggestion
about them perhaps being a disguised ELF antenna.  There is a large
federal communications facility about six or so miles away from the
end of the line in Georgia.  I suspect though that it's some sort of
private circuit between a plantation office and one of their outposts.
From: nigel.allen@canrem.com (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 9-1-1 in Chicago
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:00:00 GMT
Organization: Echo Beach
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 589, Message 14 of 15


 From a discussion in the RelayNet PHONES conference.

 Thomas Mahnke wrote:

TM> Like all the tollways, various "wheel taxes" imposed by local
TM> communities, and .14 cent an hour electricity, I'd say $1.25 is
TM> about right in the Chicago area for 911 service.

TM> $0.25 to provide the service, and $1.00 to "grease the right palms".

  Max Moen replied:

     How could you think that about beautiful Crook (whoops, I mean)
Cook County, Illinois?  The cost is so high, because Chicago has it's
own hybrid 911 system meaning those communities will have to pool
their money and their 911 system, it won't be patched into ours.

     It's also a fact that Chicago doesn't use the "Metro Area"
formula that's popular everywhere else, so most of the suburbs hate
our guts anyway.

TM> They'll probably even charge message units to call 911.  <smirk>

     Good thinking Tom, I'll bring that up at the next meeting <G>.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044