HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eli@spdcc.com (Steve Elias)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Future of Fax?
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:07:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.302.9
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 302, Message 9 of 10

In article <telecom12.296.10@eecs.nwu.edu> shaw@pegasus.com (Sandy
Shaw) writes:

> He says that all his clients that send either long faxes frequently or
> many faxes, especially to international locations, end up switching to
> other forms of communication, network, e-mail, etc.

Perhaps they will just move towards computerfax, which will eliminate
the pain of sending those many/long faxes.

> I say that there are large numbers of firms that send large numbers of
> faxes all over the world and with more features and faxserver
> capabilities available, will continue to do so well into the future.

Agreed.

> Any opinions on this?  Any actual cases?  Is fax only the tool of
> smaller companies or departments, or is it destined to be (is it now)
> a prime-mover for some larger firms?

I can't point to specific examples. It is my opinion that it is
destined to remain a prime info-mover for large firms as well as small
ones.  You might like to talk to some folks at one of the fax server
hardware/software vendors.


eli    eli@spdcc.com ; fax->email 508 294 0101


[Moderator's Note: I've seen or heard of some very large fax
operations. One large air freight company has five or six fax machines
in a rotary hunt group for their *incoming* stuff. That is, if the
first machine is busy, telco hunts the second line and second machine,
etc. Machines four, five and six are swapped around with the first
three now and then to insure equal wear and tear. The faxes are part
of their mailroom operation, and a couple clerks handle incoming and
outgoing fax as their full time assignment.  PAT]
From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Future of Fax
Date: 12 Apr 92 13:52:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.314.3
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 314, Message 3 of 12

As I've said before in this Digest, I agree that X.400 addressing is
arcane.  The phone number is a much more reasonable model for
addressing.  Ironically, one of the reasons for the X.400 address is
that attempt to simplify messaging by combining directory lookup with
addressing.  Thus one can use subsets of the address as a way to reach
the recipient.  You only need know the surname or the user id (if they
are unique).

I see the domain address as being more like phone numbers, with the
ability to use a larger character set.  If nothing else, a domain
address is simpler to place on a business card.  As a side note, MCI
addresses look very much like phone numbers -- I'm sure that is not
totally coincidental.

On the topic of Fax itself, Fax is just another form of email.  In
X.400 it is a G3 body part.  I presume it will be a standard contents
type in MIME.  Thus you will see Fax machines disappear and replaced
by image handling as part of the evolution from fly paper to plain
paper to bits.  This will happen because it benefits one party without
imposing requirements on the other party.  Between consenting parties
email is available but not required.  It will happen more slowly than
it should (i.e., is economically compelling) because of inertia.
From: rocker@vnet.ibm.com (Joshua E. Muskovitz)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:27:58 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 7 of 7

It may well be that I erroneously reported that America Online has a
gateway to the Internet.  The last five notes I received each said
that they had never heard of one and could I give more details.  The
answer is, of course, no I can't.  I was simply passing on info I
received previously.  Would whoever sent me the relevent info, PLEASE
send it again?  Barring that, what would seem to be the most plausible
explanation would be that AppleLink has split into a corporate
version, still called AppleLink, and a commercial version, now called
America Online.  It would appear (from the info sent to me, but still
word of mouth) that AppleLink (the corporate half) DOES have a link to
the Internet, but that America Online does not.  Would someone on
those nets find out for sure one way or the other and let me know?


josh
From: hsilbiger@attmail.att.com (Herman R Silbiger)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Source Needed For DTMF Pads
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:53:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.300.9
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 300, Message 9 of 11

Could anyone point me to a source of standalone line powered DTMF
keypads.  Years ago these were often used as accessories to dial
phones when needed for end to end signaling.  I remember seeing gray
ones in slope top boxes made by WE.

Please reply to:  hsilbiger@attmail.com


Herman Silbiger
From: monty@proponent.com (Monty Solomon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular Conference Call From Plane?
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:26:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.311.7
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 7 of 11

In an 92 Apr 11 {Boston Globe} article about the NHL strike:

"Reportedly pressured by up to 100 of his rank-and-file members to get
back to the table, Goodenow flew here from Toronto late Thursday
night, conduction a conference call with his team delegates while
aboard the flight to LaGuardia Airport.  Shuttle diplomacy via
cellular phone."

Do you think they meant Airphone?
From: dgdhome!ddavis@uunet.UU.NET (Don Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:45:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.298.10
Organization: The Dayton Home for the Chronically Strange
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 298, Message 10 of 11

dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes:

> In article <telecom12.292.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, dgdhome!ddavis@uunet.UU.NET
> (Don Davis) writes:

>> It might be useful to hear the experiences of those net.people who
>> already have Caller-ID.  Has anyone learned anything especially
>> useful?  Or is it still too early to reach any conclusions?

> For the past six months, my UNIX system has been quietly compiling a
> list of the numbers associated with inbound calls to my business and
> my residence lines.  [...]
> A recent call from a telemarketer sounded too familiar. [...]
> I did a grep of the file, piped to wc, which told me that in the past
> six months, the same number had called here sixteen times!  I was able
> to give the caller the date and time of each attempt.
> My Call*Block list is already full, so I had to delete an entry to add
> the new one.  Useful? -- I don't know yet.

Ah! I'd call that useful.

We observe that:

1. the ability to search a six-month log of Caller*ID data is
   useful when confronting a telemarketer.

2. the Call*Block list can get full, making it necessary to unblock
   an old blocked number in order to block a new one.

This leads toward the conclusions that:

1. it is a Good Thing to keep a long-term caller log ... much longer
   than the last hundred or so numbers, as supported by the commercial
   Caller*ID boxes I've seen so far.

2. the size of the Call*Block list as provided by the Telco may be
   inadequate (assuming that Dave's usage pattern is reasonable).
   The ability to maintain this list in your own equipment, and to
   directly control the ringing of your telephones might also be a
   Good Thing, if it can be done practically.

Anyone else care to relate their experience where the Caller*ID and/or
related services have proven particularly useful or satisfying, or
where the limitations of the services have become evident?


Don

P.S. - Dave, three questions:

1. What equipment you are using to deliver the Caller*ID data to your
   UNIX system?

2. How many numbers can you keep in the Call*Block list?

3. Do you find the mechanism for reviewing/changing the Call*Block list
   to be tedious, irritating, or difficult to use?


Don Davis        | Internet:     Tel. 513-235-0096
5444 Mangold Dr. | dgdhome!ddavis@meaddata.com   
Dayton, OH 45424 | Disclaimer? I hardly know her!
From: pedregal%unreal@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Phone Line Surge Suppressors
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:00:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.300.6
Reply-To: pedregal@cs.umass.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 300, Message 6 of 11

As the things one hooks to the phone lines become fancier and more
expensive, the risk of having them blown by a power surge (or
lightning, or whatever) becomes more undesirable.  (I gave an AT&T
5500 cordless-speakerphone to my mother and it suffered such a fate; I
have to note AT&T replaced it as it was still within warranty!)

I have seen Radio Shack offers something ($12.95) that's line powered
and one puts between phone line and device.  Advice on these?  Other
sources?  Specs to look at? Any help is welcome.


Cris Pedregal Martin    -    pedregal@cs.umass.edu
Computer Science Dept.  -    UMass / Amherst, MA 01003
From: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy
Date: 10 Apr 92 07:44:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.308.9
Organization: Princeton Univ. Class of '94
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 308, Message 9 of 11

In article <telecom12.305.4@eecs.nwu.edu> pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard)
writes:

> pacdata!jimh@UCSD.EDU (Jim Harkins) writes:

>> [Autodialed 400 times in an hour for U2 tix, got "All circuits are busy"]

> Fewer people got through to the other numbers they were calling during
> that hour and a half.  This is a major reason this practice of dialing
> should not be allowed.

> What if an elderly person was not feeling well, and was calling
> relatives to report this, and was not able to get through and later
> that day died of a heart attack?

Isn't 911 on a different system (so to speak) and thus not necessarily
interfered with during such high-dialing-activity periods?

> [should be a random drawing instead]
> Getting tickets and such on a first come first served basis is just
> not appropriate when demand exceeds supply like that.

This part makes a good deal of sense.  The Orioles did this for their
first game at Camden Yards this year (presumably drawing on past
experience when we almost made the '89 playoffs, which were sold
through the normal channels.  Called up Ticket Center, put on hold for
ten minutes, get put through to a human, and then the phone decides to
hang up on me.  Repeat.  Finally got a successful call after going
home).


S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. Class of '94 -  Dept. of Computer Science
From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Interesting Book on Deregulation
Date: 15 Apr 92 06:10:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.321.5
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 321, Message 5 of 16

I just got a copy of "The Telecommunications Deregulation Sourcebook"
by Stuart N. Brotman, Artech House, ISBN 0-89006-205-6.  It's not new,
copyright date is 1987, but has lots of interesting material, such as
the Carterfone decsion and the entry of MCI into the business.  It is
divided into three sections: broadcasting, cable TV, and common
carriers.


haynes@cats.ucsc.edu    haynes@cats.bitnet
From: davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: High Quality PCs For Control Upgrade in Costa Rica Telco
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:31:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.311.1
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 1 of 11

[This posting originally appeared in the SWL-L mailing list and I am
forwarding it to the Telecom Digest.  As the sender of this message
apparently does not (yet) subscribe to the TELECOM Digest, all
responses should be E-mailed directly to him.  -- David B.]

 From: Harold Sanchez <HSANCHEZ@UCRVM2.BITNET>

We are trying to upgrade the electromechanical public telephone
exchanges in Costa Rica by substituting their control parts.

The control parts are being changed by PC's or compatibles + I/O
interfaces + programming. Comercial PC's and compatibles are used.

The substitutes work very well due to the simple tasks they have to
perform.  This gives us plenty of scope for improvements.

Prototype modules have being tried with real telephone traffic.

Now we need highly reliable parts for prototipes to be tried during
long periods. Where can we get these (PC motherboards, power supplies,
disk drives and controlers, I/O interface cards, modems, etc.)? Any
military grade PC's?

Thanks in advance for any help.


Harold Sanchez          hsanchez@ucrvm2
Unidad de Investigacion y Desarrollo
Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad
Costa Rica
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Date: 12 Apr 92 13:21:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.313.3
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 313, Message 3 of 10

Regarding the Moderator's use of *69 to call back people who ring and
hang up ...

Frankly, Pat, I think you're being a twit. What are you trying to
accomplish by this? What is your goal in rubbing people's nose in
their clumsiness and phone-shyness?


(Taronga Park BBS)  (+1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1)
(+1 713 568 1032 Trailblazer)  (Peter da Silva)
From: rocker@vnet.ibm.com (Joshua E. Muskovitz)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Connections to the Internet
Date: 1 Apr 92 14:43:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.297.7
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 297, Message 7 of 13

Which of the commercial networks are able/willing to pass mail to/from
the Internet?

I have the following incomplete list:

Will:  Fido, MCIMail, ATTMail, CompuServ, GENie (by June), and America Online.
Will Not:  Prodigy

What about the others?  Please E-Mail responses so as not to clog up
the digest, and I'll summarize.


josh
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 13:18:39 EDT
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <rocker@vnet.ibm.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Commercial Networks reachable from the Internet
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 306, Message 4 of 12

This is to follow up as I promised.

According to the responses I received,

These networks currently pass mail to/from the internet:

Fidonet, MCIMail, ATTMail, CompuServe, America Online, EnvoyMail
(Canada), Tymnet CompMail.

These networks will in the future pass mail to/from the internet:

AppleLink, GEnie.

These networks do not plan to pass mail:

Prodigy.

I do not know HOW to pass mail to/from these networks.  (see below)

If any of these are incorrect, please let me know at the address
below.  If you know of any other networks which are not listed, AND
you know what category they belong in, please let me know.  If you
know EXACTLY how to mail both TO and FROM any of these networks to the
internet, please send me a note explaining the process to someone who
is completely unfamiliar with that network.  Please include info on
what the address looks like to the local network, what and internet
address looks like to the local network, and what the local address
looks like to the internet.

Please send any of the above info to:  rocker@vnet.ibm.com

I'll compile a how-to file from all of the responses, and if Pat
allows, I'll have it added to the archives for all to see.


josh
From: RANDY%MPA15AB@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Voice Mail Loop
Date: 7 Apr 92 08:13:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.301.4
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 301, Message 4 of 13

My roommate and I both work for companies that have Aspen voice mail.
One of Aspen's features is 'call notification', which lets you have it
call you at any number (internal or external) if you have (normal or
urgent) messages (at any time or during specific time windows).  Any
way, during a period when my roommate didn't have an answering machine
of his own (we each have our own lines) he had his phone
call-forwarded to his work number.

He forgot that he had also set Aspen to call him at home if he had any
messages.

Naturally, as soon as someone called him and left a message with
Aspen, it started calling him at home, which rang through to another
Aspen port.  It then talked to itself, leaving another message,
consisting of part of its call notification spiel (which is *quite*
long-winded).  Not having any limits on his mailbox, he accumulated a
*lot* of these.

You'd think Aspen could be made to realize when it is talking to
itself.

Aspen #1                                   Aspen #2

Hi, this is <name>.  I'm not in right now  This is a voice mail system with
but if you leave your name and number,     a message for <name>.  If this
I'll call you back as soon as I can./At    person is available, please press
the tone, please record your message.      1.  If this person is not available.
When you have finished recording, you      please press 2.  If you are an
may hang up, or, press 1 for more          operator, and need to transfer this
options,  [Beep]                           call, please do so now.  [Pause]
                                           [Entire message repeats several
                                           times]


Randy Gellens            randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 20:12:28 -0400
From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Moscow Hunting "Illegal" Modems
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 303, Message 6 of 11

[thanks to Joe DeLassus of 1:100/355 for posting this to FidoNet's
ANEWS echo (activist/alternative news) -- NDA]

Via The N.Y. Transfer News Service 718-448-2358, 718-448-2683

  From glasnost Tue Mar 31 21:28:02 1992
  COMMERSANT Weekly, No. 13, March 23-30 1992, p.14

Follows the translation of the article by Kirill Maslentsin published
by the Moscow Weekly Commersant.

 -== start of text ==-

 Starting from April 1st, the Commercial Service of the Moscow City
Telephone Network (Proizvodstvennoe Ob'edinenie MGTS) will detect the
unregistered modems. The experts doubt that this action, objectively
necessary, is manageable to be carried out quickly, because the
Commercial Service of the MGTS finds itself yet in the organizational
stage.

 According to Alexander Shambazov, Deputy Director of the PO MGTS,
approximately 100.000 modems are currently in use in Moscow. Shambazov
was unable to say how many of them had been registered. Up-to-date,
every Telephone Service node in Moscow used to register the modems
separately (usually, at owner's request), and MGTS does not have the
consolidated information.

 The Commercial Service, created recently by the MGTS, will compile
the general database on modem owners. This department will detect the
"ilegal" modems whose owners do not pay for the use of these devices.

 In Mr. Shambazov's opinion, companies which run the phone
communications networks, or sell the information contained in their
databases, and the companies who manufacture and sell the modems, will
help to detect the "ilegal" modems. The MGTS will request these
companies to submit their user lists. It is not excluded that MGTS
will obtain the required information, because all the companies
implied are interested to come to terms with the Telco. Shambazov
informed that MGTS has the modem detection equipment.

 The experts consider that the "modem hunt," on its early stage, won't
be very efficient, because the MGTS Commercial Service is still being
organized, and its structure is weak. Nevertherless, one may expect
that the frightened users of the "ilegal devices" will "plead guilty"
massively.

 According to the information obtained, the offenders won't be fined.
They'll simply be urged to conclude a contract (if the modem is
certified). The usage fee will be 1296 R/year for the self-financed
companies, and 324 R/year for the organizations financed by the State
budget. But if a company uses a modem for commercial purposes (for
example, selling the information), will have to pay 50.000 rubles per
year. Nothing was said with regard to the modems owned by the
individuals.

Phone of the PO MGTS: (095) 299-28-85.
Translated by Anatoly Voronov GlasNet Moscow

 -== end of text ==-

Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto (1:250/438)

Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: ofsevit@nac.enet.dec.com (David..LKG1-3/L04)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: FAX on MisterRogers -- Start 'em young!
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:54:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.316.6
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 316, Message 6 of 9

MisterRogers (children's show on US public TV) this morning, and right
in the middle of a "Land of Make-Believe" skit they were showing how
you could use a FAX machine to accomplish a simple message exchange.
The machine was a toy, but they did get the idea across at the
pre-school level.  This is a pretty icky show, and one of the
characters oozed: "Oooh, I just love this machine."

	They didn't get into issues like junk FAX.  What'll they show
next -- eletronic mail?  CNID??


David Ofsevit