HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 17:02:46 CST
From: srcsip!tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Phones on the Same Number
Reply-To: srcsip!tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com
Organization: TCS Consulting Services
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 848, Message 10 of 10

mcrware!!troyf@uunet.UU.NET (Troy Frericks) writes:

>> Change "most" to ALL.  There should be NO US cellular carriers that
>> will permit more than one ESN to operate on any particular phone
>> number.  Failure to validate the ESN is a serious violation of FCC
>> rules (EIA standards incorporated into the CFR).

> I know it's not right (legal), but I have to throw it out anyway.
> What about changing the ESN on the second phone to match that of the
> first one that already has service.  I beleave this is how some people
> with some older Panasonic phones are stealing service -- intercept the
> ESN as it is broadcast, then burn a PROM, and insert it into their
> phone.

> Note you would NOT be able to call each other, or both receive calls.
> You may not even both be able to place calls at the same time when on
> the same cell (or same area).  Probably could get around that by
> having one phone on service B, other roam on service A.  Food for
> thought.  Disclaimer: Info for educational enrichment only, not to be
> implemented.

Some places are offering such services with a software update in their
switch that allows this type (two phones/one number).  The only
drawback is these are used only locally in the local switches at this
time(or at least the time I learned about it), and that when roaming,
there was a 'MAIN' phone and a secondary phone.  The main phone is the
only phone authorized for roaming privileges.  Everything is
registered, everything is legal.  The main phone ESN is reported to
remote carriers when roaming.

I don't know what switches are supporting this, but from what I
understand it is a software update to several switches.


Greg
TCS Consulting Services   P.O. Box 600008   St. Paul, MN  55106-0008
 ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta                ..!src.honeywell.com!tcscs!zeta
zeta%tcscs@idss.nwa.com                      tcscs!zeta@idss.nwa.com
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 18:01:29 EST
From: upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection on Telephone Lines
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 867, Message 4 of 6

rgt@beta.lanl.gov (Richard Thomsen) writes:

> years ago, so they do not seem to have done much good.  Last weekend,
> I wired the telephone ground line outside to the electrical ground
> outside (the copper rod driven into the ground just under the
> electricity meter), and I hope that this will help some.

I suspect that the phone company may take a very dim view of anybody
fiddling with the ground lines on their protectors. I wouldn't be
surprised if any damage happened to their equipment they might hold
you liable. From what I understand the wire only belongs to you after
it comes off the protector. If you aren't happy with the phone
company's ground it might be a better idea to call them and see if
they'll change it. Does anybody know more about this?

(If your mail bounces use the address below.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 11:27 EDT
From: Robert M. Hamer <HAMER@zodiac.rutgers.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: High-Quality Voice Over POTS
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 863, Message 9 of 10

A local public radio station stated recently that due to a lack of
funds, they were changing their methodology with respect to interviews
in which the interviewee was out of town.  Their previous practice was
to have the interviewee go to a local station and interview that
person via satallite.  They said the replacement methodology would be
simple telephone, and that listeners would notice a decline in voice
quality of the interviewee.

Shouldn't it be possible to digitize and compress the voice with the
proper equipment, and uncompress and reconstruct it at the station,
producing quality comparable to satallite?  Is it that POTS still has
too little bandwidth to handle digitized and compressed voice?  Is it
that the long distance companies already digitize and multiplex the
signal they pass so much that it can't handle signal that is already
digitized and compressed?  Is it just the practical consideration of
getting the equipment to the site of the interviewee in time (although
any of the express companies ought to be able to get it there
overnight)?  We use various compression schemes with modems via long
distance companies, don't we?

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: root@kilowatt.uucp (Kilowatt admin)
Subject: Re: PEP over SLIP?
Reply-To: root@kilowatt.UUCP (Kilowatt admin)
Organization: Kilowatt Computing of Deer Park, NY
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:57:12 GMT

>The latencies of interactive SLIP traffic over a pair of PEP modems
>running large packets are kind of painful.  As long as the offered load
>is not above the modems throughput, that latency will be about 7
>seconds (3500 byte buffers in the modems) plus any host queue
>time--call it around 10 seconds.
	I've found something that helps turnaround times with PEP... use the
command AT~D1S500=12   That makes the modem negotiate "mid-size" packets that
can be sent down the low side of the line without turn-around. I think
"mid-size" packets are something like 43 bytes  long.
	When using PEP (Turbo-PEP) with a WorldBlazer, I can knock ping
times down from 1100ms (> 1 sec!) to 500 or 600. Using this method I get (with
compressed files) >2K/sec with FTP (WorldBlazers use 26Kbps modulation - with
23Kbps realized).
	This command also helps a lot on interactive sessions using PEP.

	Too bad Telebit won't tell what all those registers are that appear
in the AT&V when I do a AT~D1 command. They've flat out refused to tell me.
That's supposed to protect me from myself...
	Anyone else ever talk to Telebit and was told to try out a command that
starts with the "AT~D1" ??? Post them unpublished registers!!!


-- 
Kilowatt Computing (516) 253-2805			Arthur A. Krewat
51 Winnecomac Ave.			uunet!yale.edu!admiral!kilowatt!krewat
Deer Park, NY 11729					(516) 586-4743
	WARNING! THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE IS UNDER PROTECTION OF A SMILEY :-)
From: gartrell@usc.edu (Fred Gartrell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: 14400 modems and 16550 UARTS (Problem with higher trfr speeds)
Date: 15 Nov 92 10:31:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: aludra.1e715fINN739
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

I just purchased a secondary I/O card that has the 16550 UART installed
on it.  I have been using a 16450 UART for several months now and wanted
to speed up my file transfers.

After several COM/IRQ adjustments, I called into the Net, and quickly
tried out the proposed increase in transfer speeds...NOT.

I am having problems getting the 16550 to transfer at a speed greater than
923 CPS, the max speed I received with the 16450.  Must I try different
protocols, change modem settings, become a communications expert, throw
the new I/O card away.

I am running a Prac. Periph 14400FXSA and a generic new I/O card.  The 
UART on the card says 16550AFN, the most current UART to my knowledge.

I would appreciate some help on this matter, Email your responses, PLEASE.
I have very little time to search out any responses in the newsgroup.

Thanks in advance.

gartrell@usc.edu
From: 1012breuckma@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Compatability problem?  (Hayes V-Series & Intel Satisfaxtiob 400e)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 05:22:56 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 1012breuckma@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsf.csd.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov19.140953.3693@frog.CRDS.COM>, miket@frog.CRDS.COM (Michael C Tiernan) writes:
>lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>> [...] They have one of the Hayes V-Series modems.
>> [...] So, I went and bought an Intel SatisFaxtion 400e v32.bis 14.4.
>> [...] but whenever we connect with the client the connection drops to
>> 2400 baud immediately.  I called intel, and they blame Hayes,
>> saying that the V-Series modems aren't using the v32 standard.  
>> [...]
>
>I'd belive Hayes isn't doing it right.  I've not had this same problem
>with mine but have you tried using the "%E2" command as explained in the
>manual addendum?  This may help you connect right.  The other thing you
>might wanna try is to talk to the 14.4 at 9600.  Sounds silly right?
>Well, this may (it's worked for me) cause both modems to latch at 9600
>and ignore higher possibilities.
>
The Hayes V-Series modems are older modems, still available, that used
a HALF-DUPLEX version of V.32 that they called 'ping-pong'.  It is NOT
compatible with the standard V.32 or V.32bis modems.  Hayes NEW modems,
the Optima 96 and 144 and Ultra 96 and 144 are true V.32,V.32bis,V.32,
V.32bis modems.  The Ultra, besides including the V.32/V.32bis also
is compatible with the V-Series modems and other split-baud, synch,
and X.25 modems.  The Optima is more a standard V.32/V.32bis modem
at a lower cost without all the added goodies.
From: geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: ZyXEL: Fall Forward?  Yes or No?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 23:40:47 EST
Organization: Izot's Swamp

rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:

> I had someone tell me that the ZyXEL modems (the 1496E specifically)
> did not support fall-forward if the line conditions improved.
> 
> I have datasheet the implies that the modem has both fall-back and
> fall-forward.  Is this a relatively new addition or was this person
> misinformed?  (I am assuming the data sheet is correct.)

   *All* V.32bis modems must support fallback and fallforward requests.  
However, they are not obliged to honour them (i.e., they may refuse and insist 
on keeping the current speed), and they're certainly not obliged to *initiate* 
such a request.

   However, it would be a shame to have these wonderful capabilities in the 
spec but not in a modem's implementation.

  Geoffrey Welsh, 7 Strath Humber Court, Islington, Ontario, M9A 4C8 Canada
geoff@zswamp.uucp, [xenitec.on.ca|m2xenix.psg.com]!zswamp!geoff (416)258-8467
       You're still young if your wallet is exhausted before you are.
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Motorola Codex 326x should be reference for all others
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:48:26 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

Rick <bates_r*Corp_C@msm.cdx.mpt.com> writes:
>     I am surprised that I haven't seen a posting here that compares any
>modem with the Motorola Codex 326x modems. Sure, my company makes them,
>but I don't work in sales and I do use them myself. Hell, 24Kbps
>synchronous is hard to beat on a dial line.

We pretty much hashed it all out when they came out.  I agree, we've
got a couple at work, and they're great.  But unless something new
comes up you probably won't see much discussion of it.
-- 
Your weight is perfect for your height - which varies.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Why not Supra?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:51:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <9782@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> nick+@pitt.edu (Nick C De Mello) writes:
>
>People:
>
>  Simple question, I have a Mac SE/30 and I want to buy a v32.bis
>modem.  I'm thinking of the Supra Fax v32.bis, it looked good in
>the MacUser & MacWorld reviews, it's cheap, and there's a lot of
>'em out there.  But now I'm hearing a lot of people who aren't 
>happy with them.
>  My question: is there any specific complaints about them I should
>know of?  Should I not buy it, and why?  Also, if not the Supra
>what would you recommend instead?

Ok, here's the deal as I see it.

I have two Supras.

They work >OK<.  Not great, but ok.

I have discovered that the following is true for them:

1)	You cannot trust the default settings.  You will have to play
	with them to get acceptable performance.  Once you find a set that
	works for you, however, you will be ok.

2)	YOU MUST RESET THE MODEM WITH "ATZ" between calls.  DO IT.  This is
	particularly important for BBS dial-in use.  If you don't, it will
	eventually go schitzoid and start doing strange things -- like not
	answering calls properly.  This is true EVEN if you use DTR hard 
	reset mode!  Whatever state it is keeping, though, appears to be
	cleared with an "ATZ".  Don't ask me why.  I don't know.  It just IS.

The new ROMs are a definite improvement, but make (2) above even MORE
important.  The mean time to schitzoid behavior decreases with the new
firmware if you don't do this.

Now for Unix systems this is a particular problem, as there isn't a good way
(other than TROLL, which I publish) to handle this for dial-in modems.
Yuck. 

For dial-OUT use, as in calling BBS systems and the like, you should be
fine.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: garion@selway.umt.edu (Jason Curnow)
Subject: Re: Experience with Digicomm? (Not Digicom)
Keywords: digicom, v.32bis, scout
Organization: University of Montana
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:50:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.231043.23577@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> shim@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Sam Shim) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.235844.27115@selway.umt.edu> garion@selway.umt.edu (Jason Curnow) writes:
>>I'm in the market for a v.32bis modem, and saw that they had one
>>at Software Etc. today, and wanted to know if anyone has used them
>>at all..  The brand name is Digicom and model is Scout Plus.  It's a 
>>full v.32bis modem w/ send and receive fax for $199.  Sounds like a pretty
>>good deal to me unless it has a lot of problems like the Telepath.
>
>It's a Digicomm (2 m's) modem, not a Digicom (1 m) modem.  I believe Digicom
>makes high quality modems/telecommunications equipment, while Digicomm is
>a cheap copy of that name.
>
>-Sam-

*ahem*
I thought I was fairly clear..  I was looking for information on
_DigicoM_ modems, which is what this is.  On the Software Etc. box
(which is over the normal Digicom box) it has been misspelled as
"Digicomm Systems".  If you look at the side of the box or at any of the
technical specs, you would see that it is truly a product by Digicom.
I've never heard of DigicomM, and the Scout+ model is made by Digicom
exclusively, so far as I know.  Methinks a lawsuit would arise if 
A company called "Digicomm" decided to name a model "Scout+", trying
to duplicate the real Digicom.  

In any case, the modem was too good of a deal to pass up, so I bought 
it and have absolutely no trouble with anything.  Worked straight out
of the box and connected at 14,400 EC with every v.32bis modem I've 
dialed.  A definite thumb's up, especially at $199.

- Jason

-- 
- Jason Curnow                       University of Montana
  garion@selway.umt.edu              CIS Consulting
  con_jpc@lewis.umt.edu              (406) 243-2975, LA 40

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: Why is Supra able to sell?
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:01:13 GMT

vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:

>> As time and time progresses, the number of HST's out there
>> will be declining, so this will change with time.   If you
>> want to talk with DOS & Fidonet; HST's are needed -- however
>> for UNIX machines, PEP.


>The association between PEP and UNIX is changing.

>I see more and more UUCP links on one reasonably well connected
>machine, sgi.com, that prefer v.32 or v.32bis.

You have a point.  Anyone who is serious about UUCP has a 
v.32/v.32bis modem these days, where as a couple of years
ago, PEP was the only option.  

Who's modems does sgi.com use these days?

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: roberto@arrocha.charlotte.nc.us (Roberto Arrocha)
Subject: Worldblazer + Fax
Keywords: Telebit Worldblazer Fax
Reply-To: roberto@arrocha.charlotte.nc.us
Organization: Roberto E. Arrocha
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:09:16 GMT

I understand that Telebit is about to release a new version of their  
Worldblazer modem that includes fax send/receive capability.

Can anyone suggest a reasonable (read cheap) source for Telebit modems?
Please respond to me directly.

Thanks.

---
Roberto
NeXTmail: roberto@arrocha.charlotte.nc.us
-- 
Roberto
NeXTmail: roberto@arrocha.charlotte.nc.us
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: aarond@xibm.StorTek.com (Aaron Dailey)
Subject: Re: UART 16550 chip compatibles?
Organization: StorageTek
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:43:54 GMT

In article <HqaBuB1w164w@fourfold.ocunix.on.ca> dixon@fourfold.ocunix.on.ca (dixon kenner) writes:


   rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

   > Sure you don't have a 16550 instead of a 16550A?

   What is the difference between the 16550 and 16550A?



   --
   dixon kenner, dixon@fourfold.ocunix.on.ca
   FourFold Symmetry, Breckenridge, Quebec, Canada 

The 16550 had a hardware problem, whereby it 'would sometimes tranfer
an extra character when the CPU reads the RX FIFO' (from the National
UART Databook).  This was fixed in the 16550AF revision.


--
Aaron Dailey Internet: Aaron_Dailey@stortek.com
StorageTek Corporation   Voice: (303) 673-4989, FAX: (303) 673-2570
Mail:  MS0242, 2270 South 88th Street, Louisville, C0 80028

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: ramzi@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Ramzi Al-Majid)
Subject: How can I disallow low speed incoming modems ???
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:14:31 GMT


hi there

how can i have the Supra v.32bis disconnect any incoming low speed modems
(anything less than 9600) when in answer mode ?

thanks

-- 
Computer Science Department	arpanet : ramzi@cs.colorado.edu
Univ. of Colorado - Boulder	bitnet  : ramzi@boulder.bitnet
Campus Box # 430		csnet   : ramzi@boulder.csnet
Boulder, Co 80309-430		uucp    : {ncar|nbires}!boulder!ramzi
From: elrond@freeside.com (SysAdmin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Opinions about ZOOM 14.4K FAX modem?
Keywords: FAX,MODEM,ZOOM
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 05:25:40 -0600
Organization: Rivendell BBS / Hou, TX. / +1 713 941 2236

[Lots 'o stuff bt various people deleted]


The latest isue of PC Magazine (Vol.11 No.21 Dec 8,92) reviews 13 different
FAX/Modems.
	Based partly on their revies, and partly on comments from this 
group, I have decided to purchase the ZOOM V.32bis FAX/Modem.  The only 
modem that beats it in (list) price is the Supra, and you all know how 
well that one has gone over here.  As far as mail order goes, the ZOOM can
be obtained for the same price as the Supra ($249 external) and performs
better than some higher priced modems (Pratical 14.4, and even the Hayes
Optime 14.4 in some tests)  I operate on a Micro-Channel machine 
(proprietary bus structure for those of you lucy enough not to know what
that means) so I had to either settle for an external modem or go to
the high-dollar MCA bus modems.  The ZOOM seems to me to be the performance
versus price bargain of the bunch.  If anyone out there knows better, 
please feel welcome to correct me, and if you know of a better price for
an external 14.4 FAX/Modem *please* let me know.

(Sorry for all the "()", I write in C!)  <G>

-- 
+-------------------------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| God is Real...          | elrond@freeside.com | Pull up a dick and have |
| Unless declared integer |  Stephen L. Palmer  | a seat.         (Chong) |
+-------------------------+---------------------+-------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: stevens@scubed.com (Jeff Stevens)
Subject: Procomm/USR modem problems on 486
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:21:50 GMT

	I recently purchased a new 486 machine and transferred
the 3 year old 2400 baud U.S. Robotics Sportster modem from my
old 286 machine.  Unfortunately, the modem no longer works properly
with Procomm.  When I type ATDT..., the modem dials, however when
I use the dialing directory it mixes gibberish characters with the
phone number and fails to dial.  If I put in a long (>75msec)
character string time delay, then the dialing directory works.
However, I can't find any way to make file transfers work.

	Is there anyone who has experienced this problem or 
knows what the problem is?  Is it possible that Procomm is too 
fast for the modem on the new machine?  The modem seems to work 
OK with Mirror and a couple of other communications programs.  It
is now configured for COM2, while it was on COM1 on the 286.
There is now a mouse on COM1.  I have checked to make sure all
the dip switches and jumper cables are set properly.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Stevens	stevens@sirius.scubed.com, stevens@seismo.css.gov
From: bert.tyler@satalink.com (Bert Tyler) 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: US TO UK CONNECTION
Date: 17 Nov 92 10:44:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Datamax/Satalink Connection * Ivyland, PA (215) 443-9434
Reply-To: bert.tyler@satalink.com (Bert Tyler) 

DS>Does anyone have any experience in hooking up modems between
DS>the U.S. and the U.K.?  We're using USR dual standards.  USR's on
DS>both ends will not work at all.  A USR on our end and a U.K. brand
DS>called Miricom on their end produces sporadic results.

My wife's firm is a subsidiary of an English firm, and regularly
transfers files of up to 1MB back and forth between Oxford (UK)
and Philadelphia (USA).  My wife uses a USR V.32bis modem, and the
Oxford folks use a Miracom V.32 modem on the other end (Miracom
wasn't selling a V.32bis modem yet when this was all set up).

Miracom modems are really USRs under a local (to the UK) brand
name.  Something to do with getting approved by the local modem
police, as I understand it <grin>.

They have no problems with the modems at all.  Maybe Oxford and
Philadelphia just happen to have good phone lines and connecting
trunks.

                   Bert Tyler   (bert.tyler@satalink.com)
---
 . DeLuxe./386 1.25 #343sa . Your mileage may vary.  Your car may not run.