HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 09:00:43 EST
From: GHADSAL@AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 918, Message 8 of 9

  GREAT QUESTIONS !!!
  ===================

I am eager to hear the views of those here!

Guy's Opinion: I see wireless taking a sizable share of the entire
"telecom" industry by the year 2000.  Landlines are out; they're
expensive, difficult to maintain, and carry less than wireless
(promises) in relative terms.

But don't fret for MaMa (RBOC's and AT&T) she'll be OK.  The RBOC's
(pronounced Reebocks like the shoes becuase there value is in image
only -- aside from a *huge* asset base) are old but getting younger by
the week.  Most have plans or have taken action to split up into high
specialize operating units thus bein g allowed to take advantage of
the market and the laws (remeber MFJ prohibits them from doing a lot
still).  PacTel is a most recent example.

I see the teleom industry in a growth stage that will not stop until
the year 2100 or Judge Green tosses another *stupid* ruling out
preventing the natural course of the market.  Wireless is *definitely
the market to be in for the next decade or two ... but watch out for
*new* ideas and ways of "communication".

These are my $.02, what are yours?


Guy Hadsall   Grad. Student in I.S.   The American Univ. - Wash DC


[Moderator's Note: Well, if the growth stops in the year 2100 I won't
be too concerned personally ... and since the world is scheduled to
come to an end in July, 2126 (as per news reports about the comet
scheduled to possibly hit Earth and knock us out of orbit sometime
that month), I guess a quarter-century of little no growth in the
telecom industry won't be a problem. :) But I do seriously wonder
sometimes what the future holds. After all, who in 1800 could have
imagined voice traveling over a piece of wire and being heard in the
next room, let alone thousands of miles away? In 1900, who could have
imagined the state of the art switches we have now? In 1980, who would
have imagined the explosive growth of email, computer networks and
cellular phones we have now?  Now perhaps you, the reader, can tell us
what telecom will be like in 2010 (to make it easy) or 2100 if you
would really like a challenge.  If I get enough replies, I will run
them in a issue or two of the Digest to start the new year.  PAT]
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 03:40:23 -0800
From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 916, Message 4 of 11

There was a piece in Monday's paper saying a federal judge in Oregon
has temporarily suspended enforcement of a new law banning recorded
telephone sales pitches.  Katherine Moser, manager of a small business
in Keizer OR complains that the law discriminates against small
businesses by prohibiting inexpensive recorded telephone soliciting
machines, but continues to allow live sales pitches that big companies
can afford.

"In an affidavit, she said no other form of advertising brought her as
much business as the recorded sales pitch that reached customers
through an auto-dialer she purchased for $1,795."

First, lets hope the judge recognizes this as a tragedy-of-the-commons
situation. [reference to Garret Hardin's highly influential essay "The
Tragedy of the Commons" in which he shows how an act which is
insignificant when performed by one person becomes devastating to the
community when everybody does it] Second, the fact that people
actually respond to her sales pitch is, well, sickening.  Maybe
instead of crusading for a national list of people who don't want to
receive telephone solicitations, we should crusade for a list of those
who do want them, and permit only the people on that list to be
called.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 15:05:22 GMT
From: mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Mike S.)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones)
Organization: BITS, St. Louis, MO
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 919, Message 13 of 14

syd@dsi.com (Syd Weinstein) writes:

> Quick, tell me where ... I've yet to find cordless headsets that
> aren't RF.  The Plantronics and 'Hello Direct' ones are RF. (900MHz)

> [Moderator's Note: Well Syd, I *thought* I saw one in the "Hello Direct"
> catalog (a great thing to read by the way, call them at 1-800-HI-HELLO).
> But if you say they were RF at 900 megs, then I must have been in
> error. What about what's-his-name -- that other catalog guy, Drew Kaplan
> or the other one, Sharper Image?  I'm sure I saw one somewhere. :(  PAT]

I believe the model listed in the "Hello Direct" catalog is one-way
infrared.  In other words, the headset is transmit-only; the remote
party is heard through a speaker on the base.

Collisions are a big problem with two-way infrared communication.  It
would probably be necessary to digitize the signal to sort everything
out.  If I am not mistaken, even the IR LANs only transmit in one
direction at a time, switching at a rapid rate.


Mike     mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:39:21 GMT
From: usenet_interface@almaden.ibm.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Computer Directed Call Forwarding
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 1, Message 4 of 13

I'd like to set up a system that forwards a call to a particular party
based on a code number that's entered by the caller.  In other words,
I want to have the caller call a particular number, say the main
number for a business after hours and enter a four digit code.  the
system would then look up that code and forward the call based on
that.  This would allow us to have people call for emergencies without
releasing the home phone numbers of the employees.

Any ideas how this might be easily implemented?


Opinions are strictly my own,
Allan D. Griefer,       IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, CA
VNET/BITNET: GRIEFER at ALMADEN                Fax: (408)927-4004
Internet: griefer@almaden.ibm.com               mcimail: 398-8024
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:25:26 GMT
From: dross@cambizola.cs.wisc.edu (Dan Ross)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: TDD: Possible on Mac With Mike?
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 928, Message 9 of 13

Does anyone know/have experience with implementing TDD on a Apple
Macintosh with a microphone?  (This means the sound generating
hardware (speaker) and input hardware (microphone, a-to-d/whatever)
are already there.)  It seems like one could use just software to
decode the incoming signals (or to generate outgoing signals).  The
physical connection to the phone line might be a problem, but since
it's a carrierless protocol, one could just take a phone off the hook
and dial manually, then line up the speaker and microphone with the
handset.

There IS computer software to decode RTTY and FAX transmissions on
shortwave -- is there anything special about TDD that would make this
impossible?  It seems perfect (for Mac users, at least) since regular
modems can't do TDD and TDD modems are relatively expensive.

I wouldn't know how to program the frequency recognition part -- does
anyone know of any good books or references on this?

Also, is there a standard reference for TDD protocols?  (I've heard
there's no standard-standard, like V.22 etc., but does just a "most
common usage" description exist?)


Dan Ross   dross@cs.wisc.edu
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:09:12 GMT
From: steveo@world.std.com (Steven W Orr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Need to Run a Promptus ISDN Card Under SCO Unix: Driver Needed
Organization: SysLang, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 917, Message 5 of 17

Subject sez it all. If anyone can give me a pointer to how to do this
we would be mucho grateful. Please email me or call 617-221-0444x314.

If anyone is in the same boat as us, also let me know and we might be
able to collaborate.


Steven W. Orr      steveo@world.std.com     uunet!world!steveo
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 15:40:31 -0500
From: fred@page6.pinetree.org (Fred Ennis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Email to Genie
Organization: Page 6, Ottawa, Ontario +1 613-729-9451
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 5, Message 3 of 9

> it -- with a cover note saying, "Mike, I thought this was some very
> interesting stuff and hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did ..." 

That reminds me of a rather clever practical joke played by Stuart
MacLeod, columnist at Thompson News Services in Ottawa. The victim was
Geoff Scott, M.P.

Members of the press gallery had been sent a book that was the story
of the Portugese immigrating to Canada.  The book was part English,
part Portugese.  There was no index, which forms the basis for the
gag.

Stuart sent the book to Geoff, along with a note supposedly from the
author saying "I hope I quoted you correctly each time." This, of
course, forced Geoff to read the entire book.

Nothing to do with Telecom, but a great practial joke.

All the best for the holidays.


Fred Ennis, fred@page6.pinetree.org


[Moderator's Note: Fred's message is like the late-arriving Christmas
card. He sent it December 15; it got here Saturday afternoon!  Happy
holidays to you too, Fre ... what there is left of them. How I will
hate my office more than ever when I have to go in Monday morning!  PAT]
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 14:22:56 GMT
From: doug@CC.YSU.EDU (Doug Sewell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 3, Message 5 of 12

say,halim s (ssay@prefect.cc.bellcore.com) wrote:

> Does anyone know or could you tell me a reference for this "standard"?
> I am sure some address generator software would have this algorithm.

Here's the algorithm (about two months ago I translated it into a 4GL
language for our DBMS.  There was also an article in a recent PC
magazine including source code).  Your post was pretty well
on-the-money.

Here's the algorithm (with a disclaimer that I'm working from memory
after having glanced briefly at the code last week, and double-checked
it against the bar-codes of some bills I have to mail):

(1) Coding can be five digits (rare), nine digits (most common) and 
    more to include house codes/street address numbers (this is not 
    very common yet).

(2) You have a tall start bar, N+1 sets of five bars (the +1 is a check
    digit) and a tall stop bar.  The tall bars are ones, and the short
    bars are zeros.  The code is self-clocking (that's scanner termin-
    ology).

(3) There will always be two tall bars and three short bars.  The bars
    are numbered 7, 4, 2, 1, and 0 and are summed together (with the

    means that 0-9 are:

    0 - 11000
    1 - 00011
    2 - 00101
    3 - 00110
    4 - 01001
    5 - 01010
    6 - 01100
    7 - 10001
    8 - 10010
    9 - 10100

(4) The check digit is 10 - mod(sum of digits,10).  So for 32232-5121
    the check-digit is 9 (3+2+2+3+2+5+1+2+1 = 21, 10 - mod(21,10) - 9.
    For 43218-2210 it's 7, for 50360-0001, it's 5.


Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
doug@cc.ysu.edu	   doug@ysub.bitnet	<internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug
From: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Date: 3 Jan 93 23:02:33 GMT
Reply-To: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox)
Organization: Ancient Illuminated Sears of Bavaria
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 7, Message 10 of 13

johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes:

> I think you will find that historically with telco calling cards there
> hasn't been a distinction made between a "non-secret" part, the first
> ten digits, and a "secret" part, the last four.

On my AT&T card, the entire number (including PIN) is stamped on the
card in raised digits.


Ben Cox     thoth@uiuc.edu
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:00:39 GMT
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What Are the Prefix "Codes" For Tone Dialing?
Organization: Gordon Burditt
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 4, Message 11 of 12

> *65 turn on delivery of caller id (if you are subscribed)
> *85 turn off delivery of caller id (why would anyone want to do this?)

Because some phone companies charge for Caller-ID on a per-number-
delivered basis?


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: IBT used to do that, but starting a few months ago
they no longer charge for delivery over a certain number. One monthly
fee pays for it all.  Another oddity IMHO here is that call screening
can be turned on with *60 and turned off with *80. This is despite the
fact that while within the *60 menu of things to do, one can both add
and remove numbers from the repertoire. If you can add or delete
whatever you want there, why bother to have a command to turn it off?
Perhaps it is because IBT is not marketing Call Screening as a
permanent way to get rid of troublesome callers, but merely as a way
to avoid certain people at certain times of day; although I cannot
imagine be willing to chat with certain numbers on my list regardless
of the time of day or occassion. Ditto the feature where you can list
certain callers to get the red carpet with special ringing on your
end; that too can be turned off, although if your boss is an important
person to hear from at 3 PM, why wouldn't he be important at 3 AM?  PAT]
Date: 3 Jan 93 00:34:25 CST
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 5, Message 8 of 9

In article <telecom12.928.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us
(gordon hlavenka) writes:

> I've been working on a credit card / phone project, and discovered
> something that is probably known to many but was news to me: My PIN is
> _on_ my calling card!  Recorded on Track 2, offset 23 characters after
> the SS.  In the clear.

If you are working on a credit card/phone project a good introduction
is "Credit Card Validation and Security" by David Jordan (MCI
Corporate Systems Integrity Organization), Telecommunication Journal,
Vol.59 (April 1992).

Mr. Jordan wrote:

   "In the United States, several administrations utilize 14-digit
card numbers, with the last four digits referred to as the customer
PIN.  For customer convenience the PIN is printed on these cards.  The
fraud deterrent capability associated with the use of the PIN in these
implementations is negated."


Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Date: 25 Dec 1992 19:53:58 GMT
From: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 919, Message 1 of 14

roy@cybrspc.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) writes:

> A friend has one of these, bought on the sysop deal.  He says it does
> everything but make coffee and take out the trash. :-)
> Anyone know if it does CNID?  If so, what's the magic invocation?

I don't think the PPI modem does CLID, but this new ZyXEL U-1496E+ I
have does do CLID, as well as FAX and mediocre voice to boot. Don't
forget its selectable Identa*Ring cadence detection which allows it to
recognize any combination of four ringing patterns.

They even have special firmware for those nasty GTD-5 and NT DMS100
switches which have apparently not followed standard specs when
implementing CLID timing parameters.

The voice is suitable for not much more than the cheapy "press 1 for
fax, 2 for data modem, 3 to leave a voice message" setup that seems so
popular these days.

I don't sell ZyXELs, but thought I'd throw in my $0.02 to aid in the
discussion of such fancy modems.

You're gone ...


bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 16:44 PST
From: rmg50@ico.isc.com (Richard M Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: End Run Around CA Law
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 917, Message 7 of 17

Here in sunny CA, a cellular dealer may not require service activation
as a condition of the purchase of the cell phone.

The dealer MAY offer it, and if so the user MAY accept it but it can't
be required.  Well, the other day I was in an electronics shop buying
myself a present when I overheard another salesman saying to the
customer that this phone was already set up with XXXXX carrier, just
fill in the handy application/credit form we and will fax it to XXXXX
and you will be all set.  I asked how can you sell it that way?
Bundling is illegal in CA.  He looked worried, asked if I was a
lawyer.  I said no, and then he said they sell the phones both ways.
Minor detail is that if you want it without a NAM already in it, that
was a special order and would take six to eight weeks to get it in.
Sure sounds like bundling to me.


Rich Greenberg      Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com  310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: richg@hatch.socal.com      310-649-0238
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:18:18 -0500
From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Changes to AT&T International Help Line?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 1, Message 8 of 13

AT&T operated an international calling assistance line at 1 800
874.4000 for some time. Now, it seems that AT&T has changed the
number, or at least cut out access from Canada. I don't know whether
the line is still active in the U.S. or not.  I believe there was a
regular telephone number which could be called collect from other
countries as well ... anyone have that information handy?  


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 
INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG


[Moderator's Note: Yes, 800-874-4000 is working from the USA. AT&T
says people not in the USA should call collect to a 412 number.   PAT]
Date: 25 Dec 92 19:08:11 GMT
From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Rates in South Bend
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 919, Message 8 of 14

TELECOM Moderator noted:

> With only two, there might as well be only one ... it is very
> easy for each of them to keep track of what the other one is
> doing and work with each other under certain unspoken gentlemen's 
> agreements."

It is easy, although it would be illegal.  But I don't think that's
what we're seeing.  The cellular providers are spending their energies
in expanding the market -- signing up people who don't yet have
cellular service.  You don't see ads asking people to switch; you see
ads suggesting that first cell phone purchase.

There's enough growth to be gained in this way that they don't need to
compete aggressively.  Once a market is saturated, I think we'll see
actual competition between the providers.


Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
     (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 22:21:44 IST
From: Shlomo Kalish <T76@TAUNIVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Information Wanted on Spread Spectrum Regs in Europe
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 922, Message 9 of 10

I am looking for information on the regulations covering the use of
Spread Spectrum wireless technology in Western Europe.  Does anywone
knows of possible published sources on the topic, or experts on the
subject?  Help will be appreciated.

 
Shlomo kalish    Acknowledge-To: <T76@TAUNIVM>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:14:23 GMT
From: hcb@world.std.com (Howard C Berkowitz)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Status of Old Bell System Books
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 1, Message 6 of 13

I'm trying to track down the current sources for several references,
the copies of which I have available being pre-Bell-breakup.  I know
some have gone somewhere in AT&T, some in Bellcore, etc.  Others
(e.g., the BSTJ) may have changed name.

Can anyone give me pointers to current titles, ordering sources, and
ideally price for:

       Transmission Systems for Communications
       Engineering & Operations in the Bell System
       Notes on the Network
       Direct Dialing Notes

Thanks.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 12:02:10 CST
From: Terry Begley <tbegley@parrot.creighton.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller-ID and Forwarding
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 922, Message 6 of 10

< What happens when you call a phone that has been forwarded to another
< phone?  Does the ringing phone display the original calling number, or
> the number from which the call has been forwarded from?

> [Moderator's Note: The number of the ORIGINAL caller is displayed; and
> the number of the FORWARDING caller is charged for the cost if any.  PAT]

In my experience, the number of the forwarding call is displayed.  I
have my cellular phone set up to ring my home number if I do not
answer in four rings.  My home CID unit displays the "out of area"
message that cellular (and out of area) callers show.


Prof. Terrence M. Begley   ||    Voice       :  (402) 280-2619
Creighton University       ||    CU Fax      :  (402) 280-2172
College of Business Admin  ||    Home Fax    :  (402) 556-5215
Omaha, NE  68178-0130      ||    Dittos! BBS :  (402) 556-4944
tbegley@creighton.edu 


{Moderator's Note: I think the catch here is the cellular carrier does
not deal with the caller-id when a call arrives at the cell switch. I
do not think it is 'true' call forwarding as the telco does it.
Instead of the CO switch dealing with it internally and sending it
along, the call is delivered to the cell company and they forward it.
For instance, if you called me and my personal call diverter answered
the line and patched you out to some other number, your call would be
passed right along to the new outside destination, and the end
recipient would get my number rather than yours because strictly
speaking, I was placing the call to him and handing him your call
rather than the CO merely diverting it. I think the cell carrier gets
the incoming call and deals with it rather than the CO which feeds the
cell carrier. That is the difference, and the cell carrier has no ID
to give the CO for the outgoing call.  Try it between two 'regular'
lines with call forwarding and caller-id, then see whose number is
shown.  PAT]