HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (Dan Hoey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: The Term `Bug' Originated With Edison
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:19:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.311.9
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 311, Message 9 of 11

In Telecom Digest v12n303 PAT notes:

> [...Seriously though, the term 'bug' as used in software programming
> does come from the late 1940's when the old vacuum tube style
> computers had large relays in them into which insects would crawl to
> hide; wind up getting squashed and cause the relays to malfunction. PAT]

The term `bug' for a malfunction of electronic equipment dates back
to the 19th century: Thomas Edison used the term with respect to
telegraphy.

PAT seems to have gotten a garbled version of the story in which a
technician at the Mark I project taped a relay-raddled moth into a log
book; he punningly labeled it the ``first actual bug found.''  Admiral
Grace Hopper, who also worked on the Mark I, liked to tell the story
accurately, but less-careful reporters have distorted it into a story
of the origin of the term, even crediting her with the coinage.

I understand she specifically denied that rumor in a recorded
interview, which was rebroadcast on NPR shortly after her death.  If
anyone can provide more specific information about the interview or
the rebroadcast, please email it to me.


Dan Hoey    Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
From: Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (Dan Hoey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Etymology of `Bug' and Bugs of Etymology
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:39:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.316.8
Reply-To: Dan Hoey <Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil>
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 316, Message 8 of 9

In TELECOM Digest v12n311 I wrote:

> The term `bug' for a malfunction of electronic equipment dates back
> to the 19th century: Thomas Edison used the term with respect to
> telegraphy.

Which led our esteemed moderator to change the subject of my message
from ``The term `Bug' '' to ``The term `Bug' originated with Edison''.
But the latter statement is not what I meant.  I don't know that the
usage originated with Edison.  For all I know, the usage of `bug' to
mean a flaw in design or construction may have preceded the 19th
century.  On the other hand, I don't know that Edison *didn't* invent
the usage, either.  I only mentioned Edison because his use of the
term contradicts the etymology involving 20th century insects.

I appreciate PAT's attempt to tweak up the subject, but I don't want
to start another bogus bug story.  Let us instead take this as an
example of how easily a minor misunderstanding can turn into a
misleading assertion.  Now can we get back to bugging the phones?


Dan Hoey <Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil>


[Moderator's Note: Actually, your message arrived here with only the
single word 'Bug' on the subject line ... not as you suggest, "The
Term 'Bug'" ... and since one word subjects are not very descriptive
and the gist of your message seemed to be that Edison was the first
person using the term to the best of your knowledge, I thought that my
line described the topic better than just 'Bug'.  PAT]
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 07:02:15 CDT
From: rick@ricksys.LoneStar.org (Richard McCombs)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: An Anecdote From the Cord-Board Days
Organization: The Red Headed League; Lawton, OK
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 303, Message 11 of 11

I just heard a story from someone who was a telephone operator during
the 1950's.

It seems that some kind of insect, possibly a silverfish was attracted
to the wiring. [Maybe it was the cotton they used for insulation?]
The operators used to try to shock the insects by touching the plug to
the insect and ringing to cord.  One lady unitentionally rang
someone's phone when she was trying to kill am insect, and when the
man at the other end answered the phone she said, "I'm sorry Sir, I
was trying to kill a bug [that was] in your hole."


Internet: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org,      bo836@cleveland.freenet.edu
UUCP: ...!rwsys!ricksys!rick,   {backbones}!ricksys.lonestar.org!rick
BITNET: bo836%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm  Fidonet: Richard McCombs @ 1:385/6


[Moderator's Note: Is that where the expression 'have you got a bug up
your switchboard' (or something like that!) came from?  :) Seriously
though, the term 'bug' as used in software programming does come from
the late 1940's when the old vacuum tube style computers had large
relays in them into which insects would crawl to hide; wind up getting
squashed and cause the relays to malfunction.  PAT]
From: polk@aludra.usc.edu (Corinna Polk)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: GTE Offers Personal Secretary
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:53:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.320.6
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 320, Message 6 of 7

GTE has begun offering their 'Personal Secretary' service in the Los
Angeles area (and maybe elsewhere, but I don't know). It offers basic
voice-mail service like PacBell's Message Center, but it also offers
personal alarm service, which acts kinda like a 976-WAKE service, and
you can set it to call you each day at a certain time. Also, it offers
a 'Personal Reminders' feature which allows you to record a reminder
for yourself like "Call mom, it's her birthday") and program it to
call you on a certain day and time to play the message back. The
service is being offered at $5.95/month and right now there is no
service charge for startup (normally $15). Mine is supposed to be
connected tomorrow, although I haven't received any of the promised
documentation.

Hopefully it will fare better than The Message Center did in it's
inital offering.
From: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: 12 Apr 92 11:54:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.314.6
Reply-To: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 314, Message 6 of 12

In article <telecom12.308.2@eecs.nwu.edu> peter@taronga.com (Peter da
Silva) writes:

> Wake up, folks, FAX is a massive botch. Work for better email services
> instead of screwing around with broken-as-designed technology.

I think this could be a service sold by a email-system. (To receive
email and send it as a FAX to given telephone number.)  Could
telemarketers be a bigger problem compared with today, if this service
exist and is made available (mostly a US-internal problem?) ?

Standard disclaimer: "Only my personal opinion, of course."
From: monty@proponent.com (Monty Solomon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Mass. Lottery-by-Phone Illegal?
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:36:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.311.6
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 311, Message 6 of 11


 From the 92 Apr 11 {Boston Globe}:

A state Senate investigative committee, charging that Treasurer Joseph
D. Malone's administration violated numerous state and federal laws
and regulations when it launched a new operation to sell lottery
tickets by telephone, yesterday called for the service to be shut down
immediately.

Noting that Lottery-by-Phone uses a 900 number to take bets, Norton
[Sen. Thomas C.  Norton] also critized Malone for letting the Lottery
operation become linked with the "900-number service industry, an
industry widely associated with adult telephone sex lines and
boiler-room sweepstakes operations."

The Lottery's contract with National Interactive Systems to operate
Lottery-by-Phone was signed in October 1990, when Crane [Bob Crane,
former state treasurer] was still in office.  But New England
Telephone formally objected to helping collect bets through its
customers' bills.  In November 1991, after approval by the state
Public Utilities Commission, Lottery-by-Phone began taking bets.

Through Lottery-by-Phone, bettors can call a 900-exchange (sic) number
and place a bet in one of the Lottery's games.  The cost of any bet,
plus a service fee, is added to a bettor's phone bill.

Malone said Lottery-by-Phone was begun on a one-year trial basis.  As
for the idea of shutting down the service immediately, Malone
suggested it would make more sense to wait until the contract expires
in November and then not extend it.

On Monday, the Senate will take up two bills aimed at curbing
Lottery-by-Phone.


Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405   
monty%roscom@think.com
From: wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Another Missouri Discount Plan
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:15:48 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 318, Message 5 of 7

Another mass mailing "to Southwestern Bell customers" has been
received in the St. Louis, MO area, this one from VarTec Telecom of
Dallas, offering discount calling intrastate and interstate, similar
to the one from Show-Me Long Distance that we discussed on the list a
month or so ago. The access code for these folks is 10811. (This is
yet another code not in the latest "10xxx" list in the Telecom
Archives.  Could someone who has access to the complete code database
please generate a current list for Pat to put into the Archives?)

I called VarTec at 800-583-8811 (for what it's worth, "583" is in the
npa.800 matrix as "Teleco") to get quotes for an intrastate Missouri
call to compare with Show-Me's rates. Again, I used the St.Louis City
 -- Warrenton (314-351 to 314-456) example my wife calls each week.
VarTec's rates are practically identical to Show-Me's:

			First Minute		Add'l Minutes Each
Day			$	.35			.20

Evening				.28			.16

Night/Weekend			.23			.14

The day and evening rates are about a cent less per minute than
Show-Me, while the night/weekend rate is just about the same.

VarTec's gimmick is that the 11th call costs only 1 cent. But there
are restrictions. That 1-cent call must be under 10 minutes in length.
Their software keeps track of your calls and, after 10 calls have been
logged, it flags your account for a 1-cent call. If the next call is
over ten minutes, that counts as the next call in the 10-call cycle,
and you can accumulate potential 1-cent calls over a period of months,
if all your calls are longer than 10 minutes. Since my wife usually
talks for at least half an hour on these weekly calls she makes, this
would be our situation. When you eventually make a less-than-10-minute
call, that is billed at 1 cent. This logging can mix interstate and
intrastate calls. Billing is a page enclosed with the SW Bell bill.

VarTec claims that their rates for interstate calls "are guaranteed to
be lower at all times than the lowest comparable 1+ rate for either US
Sprint, MCA, or AT&T." Show-Me's literature states their interstate
rates are 10% lower than 1+ AT&T, but VarTec doesn't give a specific
percentage -- claiming lower rates than MCI or Sprint, too, though,
would probably put their rates just about the same level, I would
think ...

We'll give them a try. My wife has used Show-Me for at least two long
calls so far, and was quite pleased with the line quality. We'll try
VarTec this coming weekend and see if there is any noticeable
difference. (Actually, I am guessing that these people are resellers,
and the same lines are in use no matter if we use SW Bell, Show-Me, or
VarTec; if I'm wrong in that, I'd like to be corrected and see
details.)


Regards, 

Will   wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil
From: tnixon@hayes.com (Toby Nixon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Chicago River Flood Impact
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:39:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.316.5
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 316, Message 5 of 9

Pat, I hope you have the time to report for all of your loyal readers
on the impact of today's flood in downtown Chicago.  Any central
offices flooded?  Any news on the impact on telephone service?


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   +1-404-840-9200  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     +1-404-447-0178  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     +1-404-446-6336  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                tnixon@hayes.com


[Moderator's Note: Please see the special mailing I did early Monday
evening on this subject. The phones were by and large unaffected, at
least at telco level, although subscribers with wires in the basements
of buildings got knocked out. My friends at CRIS Radio got knocked off
the air; they are under several feet of water in the studios and it
appears we will be off the air until further notice. Most of the
Pedway (the underground shops between Michigan Avenue on the east and
the State of Illinois Center on the west) is completely submerged
under several feet of water. Marshall Field's has suffered a loss of
about 500 thousand dollars in merchandise from their basement level
shops, and I don't think things will return to normal for some time.
Fortunatly, the Chicago Public Library was a bit south of the flood
area and suffered only minor damage to their basement stacks; but
unfortunatly the Art Institute of Chicago suffered major damage to
their collection on the lower level of the museum.   PAT]
From: nigel.allen@canrem.com (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Phoning Vietnam From the USA
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:00:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.321.10
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 321, Message 10 of 16

Press release from U.S. Senator Charles Robb

 Sen. Robb Praises End of Vietnamese Telephone Ban
 Contact: Peggy Wilhide of the Office of Sen. Charles Robb,
          202-224-8025

   WASHINGTON, April 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Sen. Charles S. Robb
(D-Va.) praised the Bush administration's decision to lift a ban
prohibiting U.S. citizens from telephoning Vietnam directly, giving
more than 20,000 Virginia Vietnamese-Americans telephone access to
their families and friends overseas.

   Robb introduced a Senate bill to provide for direct
telecommunication between Vietnam and the United States, and has
worked to convince the administration to lift the ban.

   "United States citizens have direct telephone access to Iraq, Cuba,
Libya, Syria, South Africa and Iran, yet they can't call Vietnam
unless they pay exorbitant black-market rates," said Robb.  "Lifting
the telephone ban should have been one of the first steps we took as
we began the process of normalizing relations with Vietnam."

   Some 700,000 Vietnamese Americans will be affected by the
administration's decision.

   Previously, the administration had proposed waiting until Phase II
of the Vietnamese normalization roadmap to lift the ban.  Phase II was
not set to begin until U.N. Peacekeepers are well established in
Cambodia.  No other part of Phase II has been implemented.

 /press release distributed by U.S. Newswire  202-347-2770/

(end of forwarded press release)

Does anybody have more information about this? I understand that
people who wanted to phone Vietnam from the U.S. used to have their
calls routed through Canada or some other third country.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 9:01:43 PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <ole@Csli.Stanford.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: New AT&T Videophone
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 303, Message 10 of 11

By now I'm sure you've all heard about the new AT&T picturephone, soon
to appear in all the AT&T phone stores and to retail at $1500 or so.

What I don't understand is why the model number is 2500. Are they
really not aware that the standard Western Electric Touch Tone phone
which has been around for 20 years (Pat?) has ALWAYS been called "a
2500 set" by everyone in the industry?


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report
Interop Company, 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040,
Phone: (415) 962-2515  FAX: (415) 949-1779  Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu


[Moderator's Note: At least that long. And if they know, they probably
don't care. No one else seems to these days.  PAT]
From: wisniews@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffery L Wisniewski)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Tie TCX-128 Phone Switch
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:09:17 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 312, Message 4 of 7

I was wondering if anyone out there has (or has any experience with)
an old Tie TCX-128 phone switch.  I am particularly interested in the
SMDR capabilities, DISA line abilities, and if it is possible to add
single line station cards to the switch.
 
I am trying to integrate a voice mail system with the old switch.  The
company has no tech or even user manuals with the switch.  I am also
curious as to if the system can support BLF (busy lamp fields) to
indicate mail waiting and if so what the commands to do it are.
 
If anyone has any ideas, or a tech manual for sale :), it would be
much appreciated!  Thanks in advance.
  

Jeffery L. Wisniewski                              jeffwis+@osu.edu
Disclaimer:  "My ideas are my own.  They do not reflect the ideas or
              opinions of my educator, employer, or the little green
              man sitting next to me."
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:43:06 GMT
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 307, Message 2 of 10

john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:

> The system works like this: DNIS (similar to DID) and ANI records are
> extracted as soon as the call appears. The ANI is checked against a
> list of known "junk" callers. If the number is not found, the call
> rings an attendant (or goes to ACD if none is available). If the ANI
> data matches an entry on the list, the caller hears a recording saying
> that the call "cannot be completed at this time". Whenever a call
> comes in that does not get intercepted by the list and it turns out to
> be a new junk caller, the attendant hits a key and the number is added
> to the database.

[Stuff Deleted]

After some amount of time (one year) you should probably purge the
numbers from your data base. If the junk caller moves the number will
be given to someone else who may be a real customer, but will not be
able to call you.


Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.   uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
From: wrs@mcshh.hanse.de (Wolfgang R. Schulz)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: German Country Code Only 49 Now
Date: 17 Apr 92 10:48:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.321.6
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 321, Message 6 of 16

As of today, the country code 37 of the former "German Democratic
Republic" has vanished. 49 is the only existing one in all of Germany
after April 15th 1992. Many area codes in the eastern parts had to be
changed, but for callers from the west they are all domestic
destinations now. Even Berlin is just (0)30 for everybody, no longer
(00)37-2.

The only remaining curiosity is, that those making out-of-town calls
WITHIN the eastern part of Germany, still have to use the old domestic
area codes for some time. So quite a number of locations in East
Germany have two different city codes for the time being.


Wolfgang R. Schulz, Theodor-Koerner-Weg 5, 2000 Hamburg 61, Germany
Phone: +49 40 5521878***Fax: +49 40 5513219***MCI Mail: 241-2526
Internet:wrs@mcshh.hanse.de**Bang:..unido!mcshh!wrs**wrs@mcshh.UUCP
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Satellite Communications to Africa?
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:03:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.311.3
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 311, Message 3 of 11

We are exploring various methods to send data to field reserchers in
Africa and I've been wondering if there is a field portable satellite
receiver system which can be used to connect our site in Indiana with
a site running on a generator in Cameroon?

(If this is just plain impossible, tell me gently, I only know I have
a need for this kind of system, I don't know if it can be done.)
Suggested consulting sources would be appreciated.  We would also be
interested in more ambitious sites in the urban areas in Central
Africa, and eventually in equatorial areas elsewhere.

Serious responses will be given futher information.

Thanks for allowing me the bandwidth,


Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)  JEWELL@PURCCMACE   jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu
From: bryan@marlin.nosc.mil (Dale Bryan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Software v.27ter Scrambler
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:40:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.310.10
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 310, Message 10 of 12

Does anyone have a software scrambler for the CCITT V.27ter standard.
I am looking for the algorithmic implementation or a good reference
which describes how to implement it.  I have tried the CCITT Standards
Handbook, but it is not explicit enough.


dale bryan
email:bryan@marlin.nosc.mil
From: crtb@helix.nih.gov (Chuck Bacon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:29:22 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 304, Message 3 of 16

Hey, a new question!  I've been reading this list for months to see if
somebody else would ask this obvious question:

If I get a Personal 800 number for my residential phone, I understand
that I have access to ANI, not just CID.

Now would somebody please explain to me why that assumption is wrong?


	Chuck Bacon - crtb@helix.nih.gov ( alas, not my 3b1 )-:
		ABHOR SECRECY	-   PROTECT PRIVACY


[Moderator's Note: Your assumption is not wrong. You will get ANI with
your monthly phone bill, at least from many carriers. Real time ANI is
a bit more expensive, however.  So what do you want, to have telephone
sales people call on your 800 number so you can pay for being annoyed
as well?   :)   PAT]