HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:00:18 GMT
From: alpha@vpnet.chi.il.us (Randy Sales)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Encrypted Cordless Phones: How?
Organization: Vpnet - Free Usenet access
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 869, Message 5 of 8

I am interested if someone could tell me generally how they are
encrypting these cordless phones I have seen by Motorola and Phone
Mate.  The Phone Mate one says it helps with interference and cross
signaling. It seems like a good idea for also keeping the scanners
from listening in and if it is digital I could see how it could help
with noise.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:33:25 GMT
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Only One Phone Works ... Help!
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 870, Message 6 of 7

In article <telecom12.863.3@eecs.nwu.edu> awolf@cit.hmc.psu.edu (Andy
Wolf) writes:

> 1. Why doesn't the phone in bedroom three work?  Bad phone cord?  Is
> is because of the mess with the other line?  Could it be the
> (bulletproof) phone?

This sounds like tip and ring are reversed in the BR3 jack.  Most
newer phones have a rectifier circuit so they are polarity-immune, but
older phones can be polarity-sensitive.  DTMF tones not breaking
dialtone is a symptom of a polarity reversal.  To fix this, just take
the jack off the wall and reverse the connections of the red and green
wires.


Marc Unangst, N8VRH    mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us


[Moderator's Note: But he said he could hear the tones. In the old
style phones where polarity mattered, if tip and ring were reversed
the CO could not hear the tones, but then, neither could you.  PAT]
From: davep@cac.washington.edu (Dave Ptasnik)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Advice Needed on Telephone Security Systems
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:55:51 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 845, Message 4 of 7

Several people have asked me about the telco feature that notifies
alarm monitoring compaines that your line has been cut, so I called US
West to get a few more details:-

US West offers the service under the name Scan Alert.  Installation is
$60.00, monthly is $7.50.  Not all alarm companies are able to receive
the signalling, but many of the big boys can, including ADT and Sears.
The US West office that works with the alarm companies has the number
(206) 345-5089.  They may be able to help you find the "magic words"
to order the service from your local phone company.  I did confirm
that the service works on existing lines, and notifies the alarm
company if your phone line gets cut.

All of the above is nothing more than the personal opinion of: 


Dave Ptasnik          davep@u.washington.edu
Date: 15 Nov 92 01:46:09 GMT
From: dsjohns@uswnvg.com (Dwight Johns)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Free?
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 846, Message 13 of 13

Maybe the phone itself is free, but it might say "my first Sony" or
"Fisher Price" on the side of it, and I would be willing to bet that
you will have to sign up for at least one year of service with
whatever cellular carrier is sponsoring the promotion. Nothing is
really free ... except that one extra Life Saver in that little roll,
that really is free.


Dwight Snake Doward Johns   dsjohns@uswnvg.uswnvg.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 14:24:03 CST
From: todd@valinor.mythical.com (Todd Lawrence)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Airphones -- Phooey!
Organization: (What? Organized??) - Mythical Computer Systems
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 847, Message 6 of 17

Someone referring to the Airphone stated that they were using noise
cancelling mikes. Actually to the best of my knowledge none that I
have had the opportunity to use seemed to have any kind of active or
passive ("hole in the back") noise cancellation schemes however, as a
Pilot for USAir, I can give a few facts:

1) The typical noise level in a cabin class aircraft using bypass
turbofans (quiet engine, ie.. B757), or even turbojet (noisiest
version of commercial jet engine (ie b737-100 series) is quite low.
This would not require any noise cancellation at all.

2) The noisier commuter type aircraft, cabin class turboprop such as
emb-120 (Brasilia) are not equipped with airphone systems since for
the most part trips on such aircraft are of a short duration and
installing such a system would be "cost innefective".

For the most part, I have been happy enough to use these phones for
their intended purpose, to place a call that really can't wait until I
get onto the ground.


Todd Lawrence    todd@valinor.mythical.com    uunet!valinor!todd
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 22:17 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Broadcasting Towers
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 857, Message 1 of 11

Hector Salgado-Galicia <hs1c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> A friend of mine is doing research for a group of clients. They want
> to keep communications towers away from their neighborhood. Could
> someone comment on regulations at the City, State or Federal level
> that could be employed to support their case?

The trendy approach is to claim "potential health hazards" from the
EMR.  After working in the broadcast business for many years around
very high-powered transmitters, someone decided that it was
"dangerous" to be exposed to radio frequency energy. Based upon
inconclusive tests on animals and on some nifty sounding theories, the
Federal government adopted the ANSI standards regarding "safe" EMR
exposure.

Harm based on "evil, mysterious forces" is in vogue. Even if science
or reality is not on your side, it should be no trouble to convince
governmental authorities that placement of communications towers in
populated areas will produce a strain of mutants.

BTW, you realize that we are all going to die of cancer from using our
cellular phones, do you not?


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407


[Moderator's Note: I think if I were going to make objections to a
tower, the objections would be based on esthetic considerations and
also on the difficulty of receiving radio signals other than those of
the nearby tower due to the dense radiation it was emiting. As an
example, I am thinking of the towers for WBBM (780-AM) and WGN (720-AM) 
in one of the western suburbs of Chicago. As we drive down the street
within about a half-mile of either tower, the signal from each tower
completely overwhelms our car radio. No matter where we tune on the AM
dial, all we get is WBBM ... then a short distance later WGN overloads
the radio in the same way. People living in the area have to have
filters on their phone lines. 

In the northwest corner of Indiana, the residents of North Hammond get
WYCA-FM in their telephones, on their computer speakers and everything
else. The transmitter and antenna of WYCA-FM (Northern Indiana
Christian Broadcasters, Inc.) is only four blocks away, in a large
empty field in Burnham, Illinois. For more information on what living
near a radio station transmitter/tower can do to disrupt your normal
telephone, radio and television listening habits, see the article
"Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters" in a 1989 issue of this
Digest. Maybe I should reprint it.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 12:48:54 GMT
From: jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New SPARCstation LX Has Built-in ISDN From AT&T
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 847, Message 7 of 17

In article <telecom12.841.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, monty@proponent.com (Monty
Solomon) writes:

> SMCC INTRODUCES COLOR RISC WORKSTATION PRICED LESS THAN A PC

> Also Unveils Graphics System, Server Product Based On SPARC/Solaris

> 	SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Nov. 10, 1992 -- Sun Microsystems Computer
> Corporation (SMCC) today introduced the SPARCclassic(TM), a fully
 
I'm not sure about other readers / contributors, but I find
publishing a full new product / press release in c.d.t. less than
acceptable.  Patrick, please comment!


Jack (John) Adams		Bellcore NVC 2Z-220
(908) 758-5372 {Voice}		(908) 758-4389 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com	kahuna@attmail.com


[Moderator's Note: Well, I am ambivilent about it. You ought to see
some of the ones I toss out and don't publish. I've never seen too
much harm in it as long as it was clearly a new product announcement
rather than a 'news item' ... that is, the sender was clearly shown to
be an employee of the company making the announcement. Lord knows I
print enough stuff from AT&T on their new products, so it is probably
fair to do it for others.  If TELECOM Digest were like *some* telecom
magazines I could name, the product release would not be printed
unless the company bought a big advertising spread from me at the same
time, and then it would be printed -- but disguised as news!  :) My
rule of thumb on them is if they seem interesting to me, I assume
others might find it interesting also.   PAT]
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 06:32:59 GMT
From: mje@posix.co.za
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Advice Needed on Telephone Security Systems
Organization: Mark's Machine (Working for Olivetti Africa)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 845, Message 5 of 7

In <telecom12.838.5@eecs.nwu.edu> petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu
(William Petrisko) writes:

Here in South Africa there are no cellular services.  On my (old)
house alarm, I had a telephone dialer (with my paging and office
numbers) and a radio link.  There is a transmitter in the roof (loft).
Almost all alarms in this country are connected in this fasion.
Connections by phone are more the exception -- do you trust wires?
Most transmitters are single signal varieties.  There are alarm
'clearing houses' who receive the signal and then phone/relay the
signal to your prefered Reaction Unit (which is big buisness in RSA).
Some Reaction Units do have their own recievers.  You pay a small
installation charge and monthly rental.  The cost for alarm and armed
response was 95 rand a month, about US $35.

Newer transmitters monitor four circuits:

1) Alarm,
2) Forced alarm deactivation (man with gun at you head saying "Switch
it off"),
3) Low Power (Battery, not mains :-),
4) Fire detection.

>> d) How can I hide the phone connections at my house or make the
>> snipping a less than trivial process?

In my new house, I needed more lines.  In agreement with Telkom, I
laid an underground poly-pipe to the distribution poll.  All my cables
are now underground, but the old wires are in the air (unconnected at
both ends). I'm hoping that any criminal activity will cut the
obvious overhead wire.

> Honestly, a cheap answer to your problem would be a small board (the
> manufacturer name escapes me) that monitors the phone line voltage,
> and connect it to the alarm so it trips the siren. 

Are US phone lines _that_ reliable?  (Amusing thought of criminal
element taking out a major phone trunk -- just to see what happens ...)

> Another backup-battery in parallel (or just a bigger aH in it's
> place) might make you feel more secure too.

Most alarms are 12 volt; got an unused car battery?


Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Africa
UUCP: uunet!olsa99!mje (Mark J. Elkins)
mje@olive.co.za (Postmaster) Tel: +27 11 456 3125
Date: 22 Nov 1992 21:30:15 GMT
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Seven-Digit Repair Service Numbers
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 868, Message 4 of 8

Last week, I was in Washington, D.C. and called home to collect
messages from my answering machine. The machine seemed to have gone
off-hook, then suddenly I got a telco message that they were "unable
to complete your call as dialed". When I called again, my line was
busy, and stayed that way for at least 20 more minutes -- much longer
than could be ascribed to the answering machine finishing its cycle.

Normally, I would have assumed that my answering machine had died, but
in this case, the fact that I got a telco-generated message made me
think the switchgear was doing something wierd.

I wanted to call repair service for my CO but of course, I surely
couldn't dial 611 in Washington, D.C. and expect to get repair service
for a CO across the country. I in fact have a seven-digit number for
the repair service guys at my CO (I have needed it before when
reporting my home number from my office) -- but it was in my office in
L.A.

I called AT&T LD information for L.A. and asked for a seven-digit
number for repair service (giving them my home prefix). It turned out
that the number they gave me is for a PacBell center in San Diego, but
they took the information and must have cleared the line, because 30
minutes later I found my line worked AND a message had been left on my
machine by my local CO. In the message they gave me THEIR seven-digit
number, which needless to say, I've enshrined in my briefcase in case
this happens again.

Moral: All you children should get your seven-digit repair service
number from 611 NOW so that you can report your home phone when you're
away.  It would save a real hassle.
From: rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Does SS7 Support Early Busy Signal?
Date: 22 Nov 92 02:14:33 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 866, Message 7 of 12

Peter Capek writes:

> While trying to make a credit card call to a persistently busy number
> recently, after typing in the card number for the n-teenth time, I
> wondered if SS7 protocol would allow the calling exchange to "look
> ahead" at the called number and inquire if it is (at that instant)
> busy, before prompting me for the card number.  Of course, I might
> still get a busy if either the line became busy after I keyed in the
> credit card number, or if the response to the query didn't make it
> back to the originating exchange in time. The advantage (to me) would
> be not having to repeatedly pound in the billing.  The advantage
> (small) to the carrier would be not having to do the credit card
> verification, and perhaps getting the line on which I'm calling free a
> bit quicker.  If the call in question were third party bill, or
> collect, the savings could be a lot greater.

Unfortunately in a basic call setup message, 0+ wants to first secure
the billing method before determining the state of the called party
line.  Yes, it would be possible to determine the line state of the
called party first, but this would require actually connecting to the
called party first, playing out an announcement to advise them to wait
while the billing information was secured, and then either advising
them that the calling party will be with them or that the calling
party's credit check has failed.

  Correct me if I am wrong, but SS7 does not have a 'prober' style
message that asks the far end to return information of the busy/idle
status of a line.  In fact, it is telco optional as to whether or not
the treatment will actually be returned back to the originating end.


Richard Nash              Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:                     rickie%trickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Amatuer Radio Packet:     VE6BON @ VE6MC.AB.CAN.NA 
                          VE6BON.ampr.org [44.135.147.206]
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 09:30 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in Texas
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 843, Message 3 of 11

edsr!gwr@uunet.UU.NET (George Rapp) writes:

> The major point of contention was not the privacy issue, as it has
> been in other states, but the Texas state law that prohibits attaching
> "wiretap" or "trap and trace" devices to phone lines.

Actually, it probably IS the "privacy" issue, but the activists are
simply (successfully) using another law to further the cause. Another
state, Pennsylvania, has already beat Texas to the punch on this one
with a similar ruling.

> Telemarketers and ACLU privacy fanatics, rejoice -- you win.
> {grumble, grumble} (I'm not happy about this ... 8^)

On a personal note: I have a simple application that requires
Caller-ID. It is not available in California at this time. What do I
do? I order direct trunks from a long distance carrier, install 800
numbers that provide real-time ANI delivery, and proceed with my
application. The ANI delivery gives me, in effect, universal
non-blockable Caller-ID. Of course the expense is much higher than
Caller-ID would have been, but that just proves my point that denying
CPID to residential users merely keeps out of the average user's hands
what is available to any business with the money.

For some reason, it makes the "privacy" activists very happy to have
business customers the only entities than can have caller number
delivery. I have never been able to figure this out.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 13:23:05 GMT
From: jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Does SS7 Support Early Busy Signal?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 854, Message 12 of 12

In article <telecom12.842.12@eecs.nwu.edu>, capek@watson.ibm.com
writes:

> While trying to make a credit card call to a persistently busy number
> recently, after typing in the card number for the n-teenth time, I
> wondered if SS7 protocol would allow the calling exchange to "look
> ahead" at the called number and inquire if it is (at that instant)
> busy, before prompting me for the card number.  

The protocol will allow this.  Whether it ever comes to pass is
another matter.  Currently, line busy is returned from the distant
office for a variety of reasons.

> Of course, I might still get a busy if either the line became busy
> after I keyed in the credit card number, or if the response to the
> query didn't make it back to the originating exchange in time. The
> advantage (to me) would be not having to repeatedly pound in the
> billing.  The advantage (small) to the carrier would be not having to
> do the credit card verification, and perhaps getting the line on which
> I'm calling free a bit quicker.

This approach has merit, but would involve modification of OSPS or
TOPS or whosever operator services system you are using and a
corresponding change in the TRs which govern their functions.  Another
aspect of all of this is that "Carrier Connect Time", the period of
time between your LD company accessing the distant (originating works
pretty much the same way) LEC, is revenue for the LEC (The LD company
pays) regardless of whether the call ever completes!


Jack (John) Adams		| Bellcore NVC 2Z-220 (908) 758-5372
{Voice}				| (908) 758-4389 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com	| kahuna@attmail.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 18:18:55 EST
From: jordan@imsi.com (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Airfone -- Phooey
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 846, Message 6 of 13

Kenny Crudup <kenny@osf.osf.org> writes:

> "No RJ11 jack (for modem)" - the bandwith ain't good enough to
> let you use one, from the specs I've read here.

Actually, Peter Honeyman recently put an accoustic coupler onto one at
35,000 feet and got his modem to connect, albeit at 300 baud.  He got
PPP up and working, but was getting 60 second round trip times from
ICMP echo packets ... I guess they were spending all their time
getting corrected between the modems ... :-)


jordan
Date: 15 Nov 1992 09:58:42 GMT
From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Snooping and Privacy Issues
Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan CITI
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 844, Message 10 of 12

In article <telecom12.840.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, rick@ricksys.lonestar.org
(Richard McCombs KB5SNF) writes:

> I wonder if sales have increased since it will soon be illegal to sell
> receivers that still include cellular (such as the Icom R100), also I
> wonder if the new scanners will no longer be easily modifiable to
> receive cellular?

A local radio shop reports a large increase (about 10x) in the number
of scanner sales since the law was passed.  They didn't know whether
the law would prohibit scanners that don't receive cellular out of the
box but can be modified with a simple diode cut.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 18:45:57 CST
From: srcsip!tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Snooping and Privacy Issues
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 844, Message 12 of 12

rick@ricksys.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs KB5SNF) writes:

> monty@proponent.com (Monty Solomon) writes:

>> After discussing privacy laws, legalities, and realities, Flinn notes
>> that at Scanners Unlimited in San Carlos, CA, "about a quarter of the
>> customers are interested in telephone eavesdropping."

> I wonder if sales have increased since it will soon be illegal to sell
> receivers that still include cellular (such as the Icom R100), also I
> wonder if the new scanners will no longer be easily modifiable to
> receive cellular?

According to the debate raging in alt.privacy, it will be illegal to
import or manufacture equipment capable of receiving or easily
modified so that it can receive those frequencies used by cellular.


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