HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: 03 Sep 92 19:22:05 EDT
From: Terry Kennedy <TERRY@spcvxa.spc.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Proper Use of 66-Block Punchdown Tool
Organization: St. Peter's College, US
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 683, Message 3 of 10

In article <telecom12.669.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John
Higdon) writes:

> The tool is shipped with the CUTTING end inside the handle. You are
> apparently using the NON-CUTTING end. Loosen the big screw near the
> blade, pull the blade out, swing it around, push it back in, and
> tighten the screw. You will see that one side of the blade now has a
> sharp ridge that will trim the copper wire. It will be obvious which
> way to hold the tool (you do not want to cut the business end of the
> wire, but rather the excess).

  If the original poster was _really_ unfortunate, they have a
non-spring-loaded tool. Those need a really good _WHUMP!_ to cut the
wire. Of course, folks will ask what that ugly bruise on your palm is
from 8-)

  The best tool I've seen is the one from Harris/Dracon. It uses a
twist- and-lock blade holder, and you can switch between cut and
non-cut nearly instantly. It also has a pocket in the far end for
holding the blade when not in use -- keeps the edge from being dulled.


Terry Kennedy		Operations Manager, Academic Computing
terry@spcvxa.bitnet	St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
terry@spcvxa.spc.edu	+1 201 915 9381
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Calling 911 From a Cellular Phone
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:14:51 GMT
Organization: Pomona College
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 676, Message 6 of 8

I live in the LA area, and use Pac Tel for my cellular service.

Calls to 911 are free, and you're connected to a CHP dispatcher (I
assume that most calls for help in this area are from stranded
motorists). This dispatcher will connect you to other agencies as
needed.

Incidentally, the rep that programmed my phone said that even if the
service is disconnected, 911 calls still go through. I never had my
service disconnected so I don't know if he was right or not.


Javier Henderson	jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 23:44 PDT
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: San Francisco Area Exchange Names
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 668, Message 1 of 12

dmr@rugrat.Corp.Sun.COM (Daniel M. Rosenberg) writes:

> Does anyone happen to have a phone book sufficiently old enough to
> list the old-style exchange names in the South Bay?

I don't have a phone book that old, but memory still serves somewhat.

> The one I know in Palo Alto was for the main 32x exchange, known as
> "DAvenport," from an old sign. Davenport? What's that have to do with
> Palo Alto? Did the phone company just make that up?

Funny you mention that. As you head north on Hwy 1 from Santa Cruz you
come to a little town called "Davenport". It consists of a general
store and gas station. I would guess that it is just over the mountain
from Palo Alto (south and west). Of course, I have no idea what if any
connection there would be.

> And did the 424's, 85x's, 497's and so forth come from anywhere?

Possibly the 85x exchange has a name because it dates back into that
era, but the other exchanges are new and have no names. But for your
amusement here are some in your area:

76x = REgent (Sunnyvale)
96x = YOrkshire (Mountain View)
94x = WHitecliff (Los Altos)
36x = EMpire (Redwood City)
34x = DIamond (San Mateo)

In the San Jose area, for some unknown reason, different names were
given to prefixes that had the first two digits, even though they were
in the same town. Years ago Campbell had three prefixes: 377, 378, and
379. They were named ESsex, FRanklin, and DRexel. Two were in one CO
and the third in another. Los Gatos had two: 354 and 356. Both were
ELgato and were in separate offices and were served by the "Western
California Telephone Company" which was later acquired and hosed by
GTE.

San Jose had 29x which were all CYpress except 296 which was AXminster
and was served out of a Santa Clara office. 24x was CHerry except for
245 which was CHestnut and was actually a Sunnyvale prefix. 25x was
split down the middle with about half being ALpine and half being
CLayburn. ALpine was westside and Cupertino; CLayburn was eastside. My
prefix was named ANdrews, but 262 and 263 were AMhearst and were used
in Milpitas.

> Where could I find out?

I believe the San Jose public library has back issues of the telephone
directory. You will need to find a 1961 or earlier edition.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
From: drz@po.CWRU.Edu (David R. Zinkin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Foreign Calling Cards
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:41:01 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 661, Message 1 of 19

Does anyone know how to get a calling card from a telephone company in
another country?  A friend of mine would like to get a calling card
from Japan in the hope that using it would be cheaper than dialing
directly.

I know that AT&T offers "Country Direct" for non-US citizens who have
calling cards from home; can US citizens get these cards and use them
in the same way?

Please respond by mail as my time for reading this group is decreasing
rapidly.

Thanks,


David R. Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu)          
Rochester General Hospital Radiology Dept. 
SUNY Buffalo School of Medicine Class of '96
  (The sesquicentennial graduating class!)
From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: GTE Cordless/Cellular Service in Tampa FL
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:55:10 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 677, Message 3 of 11

I heard a report on the radio (WMAL in Washington DC) that GTE is
testing a new service in Tampa FL area.  This unnamed service would
permit you to use a cordless phone like a cellular phone.  Calls would
be cheaper and can be made in environments were cellular calls can't
get through (tunnels, basements etc).  The example cited was carrying
a cordless phone while shopping, at work etc.  It wasn't clear (a LOT
wasn't clear) whether you used your existing phone number, or
subscribed to another.

The presenter of this info was reporting on stock market activity and
not a techo-wiz.


                  Thomas K Hinders
         Martin Marietta Computing Standards
               4795 Meadow Wood Lane
                Chantilly, VA 22021
          703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5027 (f)
From: plains!person@uunet.UU.NET (Brett G Person)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Automated hate Calls in Minnesota
Date: 25 Aug 92 01:41:24 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 661, Message 3 of 19

I was watching the lcoal news last night and saw a strange news report
from Minneapolis.

   Apparently, people there I getting alls from a new kind of
telemarketer slime encourageing them to hate minorites, Jews,etc.  It
sounded like the phone calls were comming from an automated dialer
that plays a tape encouraging violence. The State Attourney General's
office says that this doesn't violate any laws.

Any comments? Have any of you gotten phome calls like this?


Brett Person   Guest Account  North Dakota State University
person@plains.nodak.edu || person@plains.bitnet
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:56:54 GMT
From: saitowit@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (SAITOWITZ L S)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Spread Spectrum
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Undergrads).
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 661, Message 16 of 19

Hi my name's Lesley. I'm looking for information on spread spectrum
techniques. Specifically what are the bandwidth versus capacity trade
offs?  What are the power/distance versus error rates say on open wire
or in fibre optics (preferably both)? Is anybody familiar with this
area? I'm doing a pie in the sky design, but would just like to gauge
how way off or near the mark I am. Please give references if available.


Thanks,

Lesley :)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:16:59 GMT
From: dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu (Dave Grabowski)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Question About PBX Phone
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 658, Message 4 of 6

  I recently obtained a telephone that was used on a private Centrex
system. It has a sticker on the back : "Caution: For use only on
business lines or risk of electrical short circuit" (or something like
that.) I popped it open, and it doesn't have a matching transformer or
usual huge (.1mf, 450+volt) cap used in most other telephone-line
devices. My question: Do I need to bother adding this hardware? I've
got it on a line now and it's been there for a few weeks and it works
fine.


Dave
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Automatic Call Router
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:10:37 GMT
Organization: Pomona College
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 676, Message 4 of 8

Radio Shack has a device that accepts one phone line, and can
automatically route voice calls to a phone and modem calls to a modem.

It works by using a feature offered in some areas, with which you get
a second 'phone number' for your line, that when dialed produces a
different ring.

RS sells its box for $119. My question to the net is, are there any
other similar devices elsewhere that can be purchased for a lesser
price?

Thank you.


Javier Henderson 	jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:05:06 GMT
From: kentrox!bud@uunet.UU.NET (Bud Couch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T and Sandia
Organization: ADC Kentrox, Portland OR
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 668, Message 12 of 12

In article <telecom12.665.13@eecs.nwu.edu> oakes@maize.rtsg.mot.com
(Ronald Oakes) writes:

> haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes:

>> I see by the news that after September, 1993 AT&T will no longer serve
>> as the management and operating contractor for the Dept. of Energy
>> Sandia National Laboratories.  Does anybody know what's happening?  Is

> I have to say that I hope that Sandia does not close.  My father has
> worked there for 30+ years as an engineer. Additionally, directly and

> I suspect that AT&T's decision to not renew the contract to operate
> Sandia is related to the large number of lay off's that have been
> occuring at the AT&T division around here, the automation of operator
> services, and the other steps that they seem to be taking to
> streamline operations.

I really doubt that AT&T's decision to drop the management of Sandia
is in any way related to the "automation of operator services".

Since your father worked there, I assume you know what they did, but
maybe a lot of netters aren't aware: the Department of Energy label is
a bit of a smokescreen. Sandia Labs was operated by (originally
Western Electric Government Operations) AT&T to do weapons work, i.e.
"The Bomb".

No, I think that AT&T simply saw that, with end of the Cold War, the
government teat labeled "defense" was drying up, and big bucks were no
longer guarenteed.

I thought that Lawrence-Livermore and Sandia had been combined under
some sort of common management awhile back, but I could be wrong on
that. Does anyone if this management change affects Lawrence-Livermore?


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox    If my employer only knew ... standard BS applies
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 18:34:38 GMT
From: telb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lowe)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Baudot Codes
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 679, Message 8 of 15

I need the five bit codes (mark/space) for the baudot protocol.  If
anyone has them, I would appreciate a copy.

Thanks.


Tom Lowe    AT&T Bell Labs
tlowe@attmail.com    or    tel@homxa.att.com
908-949-0428   Fax: 908-949-6825
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 06:08:29 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Disaster Reporting On Usenet
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 682, Message 3 of 10

Rick Broadhead <YSAR1111@YORKVM1.BITNET> writes:

> I am surprised that Usenet, as powerful a medium as it is, has not
> been more widely used to coordinate disaster relief activities.

That's why we have Amateur Radio.  Hurricane Andrew has made me
rethink the idea of getting a 2M FM handheld transceiver for
emergencies, along with the license to use it.  (That and buying some
of the 55 gallon barrels for water storage I saw at Home Depot the
other day, and maybe an emergency generator.)


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    (310) 568-3555
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      (310) 568-3574
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:28:59 GMT
From: wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu (Bill Mayhew)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 911 on Jerry Springer Show
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 665, Message 11 of 15

Here in Ohio, the Highway Patrol will accept calls from cellular
telephones at 800-525-5555.  Luckily I have not had to call the OHP,
but the instruction book I received from Cellular One recommends this
number for reporting emergencies.  The same book also mentions that
911 may be called to report emergencies.


Bill Mayhew      NEOUCOM Computer Services Department
Rootstown, OH  44272-9995  USA    phone: 216-325-2511
wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu   (140.220.1.1)
From: root@alf.cooper.edu (Admin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 110 vs 66
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:21:27 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 683, Message 5 of 10

In article <telecom12.670.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, davep@u.washington.edu
(David Ptasnik) says:

> They claim, however, that the 66's are a lot
> easier to punch, and that you can punch more wires onto the same post
> (for those occasions where several single line phones share a line)
> than you can with the 110's, and that the 66's give you a good
> connection more reliably.  110's also use different punch tools for
> most efficient use (I think you are supposed to be able to punch five
> wires at a time on a 110)(when it works right).  They also claimed
> that it was much easier to hook a test set up to 66 blocks for trouble
> testing (clip leads instead of a special connector).

> Overall the 110 review from this crew on that day was extremely
> negative.  I suspect that a negative reaction to a "new" thing was
> part of it.  Techs seem to be a pretty conservative lot.  Your mileage
> will vary.

I strongly disagree with your techs.  From a mechanical standpoint,
110 blocks are much easier to work with.  You don't need to "lace" the
pair through the terminals, as you do with 66.  You simply lay the
wire across the slots and push it down a little.  On 66 blocks, the
excess wire frequently does not fall away cleanly.  This is not a
problem on 110 blocks (although the wire sometimes comes flying back
into your face!)

If you're running high-speed data, 110 is much superior to 66.  The
primary reason is that 110 terminals are stacked end-to-end, while 66
terminals are face-to-face.  This means that the capactiance between
adjacent terminals is much higher on 66 blocks.  To high-frequency
signals (such as 10-BASE-T), that capacitance acts as a shunt,
introducing termendous attentuation (I've heard figures of 10-15dB per
66 termination).  110, on the other hand, introduces almost neglible
attentuation at 10-BASE-T frequencies.

As for reliablity, 110 connections are gas-tight and have a "quiet
front", meaning there are no exposed terminals.

The only drawbacks I can think of: You can't "run the count" (run a
tone pickup or test set down the terminals), because of the quiet
front.  You can't easily bridge over the terminals, and you can't use
110 as a bridging point, because there are only two terminals per wire
(one below for the feed, one above for the cross connect), unlike 66
which can have up to sixbridged terminals.  Finally, I find the wire
management accessories (rings, spools, runways, etc.) associated with
66 to be easier to work with than 110, although this is the price one
pays for higher density.

To get back to the original poster's question, I would definitely
recommend 110 (or at the very least NOT 66 !!) for a high-speed data
application.


Jeff Hakner  Assistant Director of Telecommunications
Cooper Union School of Engineering    NYC
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Our Moderator and Monopolies
Date: 23 Aug 92 07:15:10 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 657, Message 1 of 10

In article <telecom12.650.8@eecs.nwu.edu> mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us
(Nick Sayer) writes:

> Our Moderator Notes:

>> I've no complaints about it at all. I have NOTHING against
>> competition. But I have NOTHING against legal, lawfully maintained
>> monopolies either.

 [ RBOC comments deleted }

> Government has proved time, and time, and time, and time again that it
> cannot hope to be as clever at regulating RBOCs as the RBOCs are at
> evading regulation, bribing regulatory officials and ripping off the
> public. The answer is not government.  The answer is free markets.

> [Moderator's Note: By 'legal, lawfully maintained monopolies', I did
> NOT mean monopolies started by or protected by the government. I meant
> those monopolies which got that way through the hard work, effort and
> brains of the company founder, and which continue to remain a monopoly
> despite *completely obeying the law*. In other words, I supported AT&T
> intact before the breakup and Standard Oil before it was divested at
> the turn of the century. I do not support gangsters who maintain a
> 'monopoly' by force, threats and violence.  I agree, the free market
> should be the only consideration.  PAT]

   Some of those so-called 'lawfully maintained monopiles' that you so
admire got that way by fear, threat, intimidation, bribery and sundry
other tactics that run the gamut from unethical to unlawful. Kinda
depends what the laws are at the time and whose ethical standards are
being applied. Personally, I've always considered 'business ethics' to
be somewhat of an oxymoron. Hard work and effort (is there a
difference?)  is usually only part of the story and often a minor
part. Cleverness can be more important and cutthroatness doesn't hurt
sometimes. These types of advantages are even more important if we
harken back to the glorious days of yesteryear -- the age of the Robber
Barons -- when many of the monopolies (mostly now metamorphasized into
oligopies) that our Moderator so admires were an economic and ethical
scourge on society.

   Also, you are a little skewed in your thinking about what a free
market is. If the benefits of a free market flow from competition and
the market forces it applies to a company, then by definition, a
monopoly will not be best for society because a monopoly will not be
subject to such forces. Of course some concensions to property rights
must be made in the interests of innovation, hence patent monopolies,
but anti-trust laws exist because it has been demonstrated that some
business practices which also lead to monopolies do not have a
societal benefit and often have the opposite effect.


Jeff Sicherman
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 08:41:33 GMT
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE California Changes
Organization: Gordon Burditt
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 671, Message 2 of 9

> Probably no one. But then I doubt that you will notice any service
> level reduction. It could not get much worse. I have reported trouble
> in the Los Gatos CO on a Friday night, but of course it is Monday or
> Tuesday before GTE can fly someone up from southern California to fix
> it.

John Higdon, you need to stage a coup on a GTE central office.  Move
yourself and your office into one.  Change around a few street signs.
Re-paint the outside of the building.  Change the locks.  It will
probably be at least a month before they notice that they can't find
the CO, and at least another year before they admit it.  If you point
the street signs so they think that your current home is the CO, well,
they might be fooled indefinitely if you leave all your telecom gear
in place.

You do have to be careful, though.  You need to keep generating and
ignoring fake trouble tickets, because if you spend a few minutes a
day fixing stuff, there won't be enough real ones.  That few minutes a
day paying for free phone service will be worth it, and you'll be
providing service instead of feeding the Department of Excuses
(today's excuse: Lunar Flares!).


Gordon L. Burditt     sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:49:20 GMT
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: "Congestion in My Area"
Organization: Columbia University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 661, Message 17 of 19

I'm in the process of installing two more NY Tel lines into my place,
and am running into a little technical hitch that I'm not quite
grasping.

The lineman came out and punched the new lines into the RJ-21X that
feeds my system.  he then went down to the (antiquated wooden)
breakout box in the basement to get it onto a pair back to the CO.  No
dice.  He couldn't find one.  So they apparently had to move somee
stuff around, bring it over from another building, etc.  Anyway, today
at 5:00 I plugged into the RJ21X with a test set, and ... ah ha!  No
dialtone, but there was talk power.  My DTMF pad worked, I had
sidetone, but still no dialtone.  Progress, I thought.  Four days
late, but at least some progress.

Anyway, I called the "president's help line" (misnomer, since they've
never been too helpful), and after waiting on hold for several minutes
while the "executive representative" apparently called the CO or
whatever, I was told that there is "congestion" in my area and they
don't have enough pairs and I'd have to wait until their engineering
dept. figures out a way to bring the service in.

Now wait a sec, I thought.  What am I missing here?  I've got power on
the line.  If it isn't coming from the switch, then where the heck is
it coming from?

But more to the point, is there any means of, shall we say, getting
them to take to the matter a little more aggressively?


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.  gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu  
N2GPZ in ham radio circles    72355,1226 on CI$