HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wachtel@cerl.gatech.edu (Steve Wachtel)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Audiovox Cellular Phone MVX-500 (ie Minivox)
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:13:50 GMT
Organization: CERL/EE, Georgia Tech, Atlanta
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 18, Message 7 of 18

I just recently got a Minivox portable phone.  I found out after I had
paid for the phone that there are phone options that are not user
configurable.  These require the service provider (ie my authorized
agent of PacTel) to set these options.

One option which I consider important is the assignment of the
security code.  My agent told me that it was customary for them to set
my security code to the last digets of the telephone number.  Is this
right?  After much complaining I was able to get them to change the
security code.  But I want to learn the procedure so that I don't have
to rely on them.

Please, if anyone has the programmer's manual for this phone or some
information on how I might obtain one, or just the code sequences
necessary to do this and other phone options, please post a response
or send me email.

Thanks.


Stephen Wachtel                     stephen.wachtel@ee.gatech.edu
Georgia Institute of Technology     (404) 894-2507
400 Tenth St. NW, CRB 376           Atlanta, GA  30332-0540
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 14:47:43 -0600
From: mearle@cgull.ccsu.edu (Mark Earle)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telecom Archives Dial Up Update
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 13, Message 3 of 3

Patrick et all,

     My FidoNet dial up system has been repaired, and some upgrades
will be occuring in the next few weeks. I'm re-organizing files into
smaller logical groupings, etc.
 
     The system will NOT answer the line if it is unavailable (i.e.,
if I am working on it) so anyone should be able to try accessing
without a toll call, if it is temporarily down. Some BBS's use the
auto answer feature of the modem, and the modem will answer when the
computer is down. My software decodes the word "ring" from the modem,
and then issues the answer command. So when the softwaer is turned
off, no answer.

     I have some more storage available. While I don't think there is
enough to mirror all of the archives, certainly the more recent stuff
would fit; I'll report on that, assuming Pat has no problem with it
being available.

     Also to save connect time, the files will all be compressed with
pkzip. Those who might need non-compressed (other non msdos systems,
etc) may make arrangements with me to get the files non-compressed.
I've found the majority prefer compressed as this saves connect / toll
charges.
 
     Anyhow, the system is available at +1 512 855 7248, and uses a US
Robotics HST modem, which has MNP5 available. NON-HST callers with
modern modems (v32/42) should get reasonable transfer rates, although
the base connection will be 2400 baud.
 

      mearle@cgull.ccsu.edu    Mark Earle fidonet 1:160/50
 
     Note: Fidonet system operators or point operators may do
automated file requests. Ask for 'files' to get the current list.


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for your help in making the Telecom Archives
(or at least a subset of the archives) available via dialup phone for
our many readers without Internet FTP arrangements. Readers, if you
use this service to retrieve back issues of the Digest or other
telecom files, be certain to leave a note of thanks to Mark.   PAT]
From: gplan@cs.umb.edu (George Planansky)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Phoneline Simulator to Test Modems - How ?
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:32:17 GMT
Reply-To: george@tusk.med.harvard.edu
Organization: HMass, Boston MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 18, Message 13 of 18

To test modem/terminal-server settings I would like to connect connect
the modems directly via a phoneline simulator.

I gather that just a modular four-wire flat cable won't work, since
the modems, for one, want to see a carrier.

Is this something simple to coble together (or not simple and
expensive to buy)?

Please reply by email, thanks.


George    george@tusk.med.harvard.edu
From: sp@questor.org (Steve Pershing)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Want Info on Ringing Voltages/Cadences Around the World
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:08:01 GMT
Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: +1 604 681 0670
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 19, Message 2 of 10

I have sold a good few ZyXEL modems to various happy clients around
the world via our mail-server.

In one instance (and I suspect there are many more) the modems worked
fine, but would not answer when a call was incoming.  This particular
instance was in Japan.

After a call to ZyXEL's tech support, they had a hidden register which
had to be set, and voil`a, everything worked just fine.

Recently, I noticed a posting in comp.dcom.modems in which a Swedish
ZyXEL user seemed to be having similar problems.

Is there such a great diversity in ringing current and ringing
cadences, other than the ringing in country code 1 and country code
44?

If there is a FAQ describing this, please let me know about it and I
will get hold of it.  Thanks!


    Steve Pershing, SysAdmin  <sp@questor.org>    The QUESTOR Project
  FREE access to Environ, Sci, Med, & AIDS news, and more.  [also UUCP]
    on a ZyXEL-U1496S+  =>  v.42bis, v.32bis, v.33, up to 16,800bps.
                 -=-         -=-         -=-         -=-
   Fones: (+1 604)  Data: 681-0670  Telefax: 682-6160  Voice: 682-6659
From: capek@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Prepaid Card Phones vs. COCOTs
Date: 5 Jan 93 06:40:09 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 9, Message 7 of 15

Reading the discussion here recently about COCOTs and the cost to a
premises owner of a LEC coin phone, I wonder if these economics will
change when prepaid card access phones become common.  I would guess
that such phones (common in Europe for years, but only just starting
to be available in New York, and nowhere else in the US that I know
of) would make it possible for an LEC to provide a card phone which is
less subject to vandalism (due to the lack of a coin box) and requires
less service (again, no coin box to empty).  Does anyone have any
facts about this?


Peter Capek
Date: 3 Jan 93 21:46:32 GMT
From: toml@batfish.attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Alternate to AT&T Mail Delivery
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 9, Message 12 of 15

I've recently started getting telecom off the Internet via AT&T mail.
(currently my only access to the Internet). I just did a quick
calculation and each issue costs me in the range of $2.05!!! While
I've found the content to be very educational and worth far in excess
of the $2.05 per issue, I'm afraid that my e-mail budget is about to
go bust!

Does anyone know how I can get an Internet feed via dial-up? (with
something less than a $0.95 for the first 3000 characters and .05 per
1000 after that?)

I'll keep watching for a couple of more days! 

Thanks in advance,

Tom Lahey - toml!batfish@attmail.com  (for now!)
From: dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Updating Survey of E-Mail Services - Need Help
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:37:59 GMT
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 18, Message 3 of 18

A year and a half ago I did a survey of e-mail providers which one
might use for his personal e-mail. I noticed recently that this was
put in the telecom archives under the name "e-mail.systems.survey" and
is beginning to need an update. I will undertake to update this survey
but need some help. I tried to include those systems that had some
sort of inbound communications system (e.g. Telnet, PSN, 800 number,
etc) that would provide access from, at least, the continental US. A
word or two were included about Fidonet and DASnet.

The systems surveyed were:

MCImail, ATTmail, EasyLink, GEnie, Pinet, Telemail (Omnet), World,
Portal, Netcom, Compuserve, Fidonet and DASnet.

I will not have room to include every public-access site and BBS in
the country but would like to include pointers to where this
information can be found.

If you are interested and have experience as a user of these or other
systems which should be included, please review the report in the
archives and respond to me by email regarding updates, changes,
additions or corrections. Thank you.


Donald R. Newcomb      dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu    newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet
From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Interesting Statistic on Calls From Prisons
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:43:34 GMT
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 18, Message 1 of 18

I work on a small part of the AT&T Automated Alternate Billing System,
i.e., the speaker independent voice recognition call processing
product that is being trialed in Seattle, WA, Jacksonville, FL,
Phoenix, AZ and probalby a few other places by now.

One of the customers of AABS is an RBOC; they connected telephones in
prisons to the AABS.  In this situation, the caller can only make a
collect call, and the caller cannot reach an operator except if by
some fluke a network failure occurs.  One statistic which was
suprising is the number of abandoned calls, i.e., the caller hung up
on the system before their call was completed.  80% of all collect
calls were abandonded, and 97% of those were from a prison.  I'm
guessing the large number of abandonded calls from prisons is due to
prisoners trying to beat this system.

The motivation for this feature was to (a) eliminate the abuse
operators received from prisoners -- operators like this feature quite
a lot by the way, and (b) prisoners have been known to have their
friends get jobs as operators who can give them free calls.


Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: sullivan@geom.umn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:37:11 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 20, Message 3 of 17

I'm now confused.  I don't always read TELECOM Digest, so I may have
missed something, but I have seen previous posts about INTEGRETEL,
etc., and I always got the impression that people trying to bill you
for 1-800 calls would get your number from their ANI, and send you a
separate bill for whatever they wanted.  I hadn't heard of getting
actual phone charges from calling 1-800.  If I forward calls to some
other number _I_ pay the charges on the resulting call, not the person
who called my first number.  Why would any telephone company agree to
provide billing services to anyone like INTEGRETEL anyway?

The other thing that has always confused me is why alternative
long-distance companies (AOSs?) can charge things to an AT&T calling
card.  I realize that Ma and the Baby Bells have some sort of
agreement to allow charges to each others' calling cards.  And I
gather that this all has something to do with the fact that there is
some standard way to determine if a calling card number is valid.  But
again, why does AT&T agree to provide billing service for these
people?  I can't imagine if Sears suddenly decided to accept payments
by JCPenny credit cards that JCPenny would actually let them collect
on the bills.

Sorry if this is all old hat, but I haven't seen good answers to these
questions here or elsewhere ...


John Sullivan     sullivan@geom.umn.edu
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 09:44 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY
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 13, Issue 17, Message 5 of 9

tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> writes:

> So the PUC could order this be done in PB-land and also require that
> PB negotiate with the switch vendors to insure the capability is
> retained from this day forward.

Boy, are you giving the CPUC an order of magnitude credit more than it
deserves! You have to understand that the CPUC is absolutely brain
dead. I could give you a list of things that are wrong with CA
utilities as long as your arm that the CPUC shrugs off routinely.
Fortunately, the marketplace provides a modicum of inherent
regulation, even in monopolies.

In any event, I can guarantee you that the California
excuse-for-a-regulatory board has not a clue regarding the switch
features, technological ramifications, or in fact anything more
complex than dialing a call. Check that -- the commissioners have
secretaries place calls.

Example: Remember the matter that I brought up a couple of years ago
about the fact that all cellular prefixes in the Bay Area should carry
no toll and be available for $.20 from utility phones? I checked and
this is indeed the tariff. Six months of griping to Pac*Bell and the
PUC has never resolved the problem of inconsistent charging from PB
payphones. Our PUC at work.


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
From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Car (*not* Personal) Cell Phone Recommendations?
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:39:40 GMT
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 13, Issue 9, Message 8 of 15

There was a time when the only cell phones were hard-wired into a car.
My wife wants one of these for the car she's buying: she never wants
to take it away from the car, and she wants it to turn on whenever the
car is started.  She doesn't want to mount a hand-held or drop in a
transportable bag phone.

Any recommendations?


Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
     (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)
Date: 9 Jan 93 11:23:05 EST (Tue)
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY 
Organization: I.E.C.C.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 17, Message 4 of 9

[The question is whether Pac Bell will ship CLID data via SS7 links to
LD carriers for out of state delivery.]

I doubt it.  The biggest obstacle to long distance CLID delivery isn't
technical.  It's money.  The local telcos claim on the one hand that
the CLID data they can provide to LD carriers on their originating
calls is valuable and proprietary stuff and the LD carriers should pay
them for it.  On the other hand, the CLID data passed from an LD
carrier to a terminating telco is just part of the standard set of SS7
features and should be passed along for free.  I imagine the LD
carriers have a somewhat different view.

So this means that you're not likely to get CLID any time soon on
calls that aren't carried end-to-end by your local telco.  Within the
US, I haven't heard of any reports of CLID being delivered across a
LATA boundary.  (Note that LATA boundaries are largely unrelated to
area code boundaries.  In particular, 201 and 908 are the same LATA.)


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
From: arthur@ais.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hunt Groups
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:05:19 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 14, Message 6 of 14

Our company has hunt groups composed of lines that have different
prefixes.  For example, one group of ten lines has four different
prefixes.  It doesn't seem to matter.  Local service is from Southern
Bell in Chapel Hill, NC.  I believe we had a similar situation with
another group from GTE on Durham, NC local service.  (We have
experience with both carriers.  Both have given us quite good service
the last few years, including solving some interactions between the
two locals.)


Arthur Coston    Applied Information Systems   arthur@ais.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:55:48 -0500
From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: North Carolina Area Code 919 to Split Into 919 and 910
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 10, Message 1 of 11

David Esan, in the January V&H report, notes:

> Other NPAs that are candidates for a split include eastern North
> Carolina (714) [sic], Philadelphia (215), and 602 (Arizona).

Someone else recently posted an article describing 215's split into 215
and 610.  Well, we can now add 919 (which is what Dave *meant* to say
above when describing the crowded area code that covers all of eastern
and northern North Carolina; 704 covers just the southwestern portion of
the state) to the list of splitters.

Today's _News_&_Observer_ (Raleigh's daily) announces that a new area
code 910 will be created out of 919 later this year.  The new area will
encompass the northwestern and north-central areas of the state
(including the "Triad" area of Greensboro, Winston Salem and High Point),
and will cut a diagonal corridor through the middle of the state on its
way to the coast, where it will also pick up the entire southeastern
portion (including Wilmington and Fayetteville).  The 919 code will be
reduced to the central and northeastern parts of North Carolina,
starting at Sanford and stretching north and east to include the Resarch
Triangle (Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill) area all the way to the Outer
Banks and the eastern part of the Virginia border.

The "permissive dialing" phase (when 910 is first activated, but when
919 will still also work for 910 numbers) will begin November 14th of
this year.  The cutover will be complete on February 13, 1994, when 910
will be required for all numbers in the new area.

The newspaper article notes that "... it is expected that the 910 area
code will cause some confusion because it is so similar to 919".
(Incidentally, has any area code split ever used a new code so similar
to the old one?)  Of course, we TELECOM Digest readers know the reason
for this, and so does the article, which mentions that "... the 910 area
code was the only one available to North Carolina."

So that's it folks:  all the N10 area codes have now been exhausted,
given that the US government is apparently not going to relinquish its
secretive 710 code.  If there are any other splits within the NANP
before the NXX era begins next year, they'll have to burn one of the
N11 or N00 codes.


Bob Goudreau			Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com		62 Alexander Drive	
+1 919 248 6231			Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 17:52:15 CST
From: roy@cybrspc.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Looking For DID Information
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 16, Message 12 of 12

Gee, thanks, everybody ... just because I mention TELECOM Digest once
in a while, my friends now think I'm some sort of Telecom Guru! :-)

This little quest is inspired by John Higdon's recent DID discussion.
Can someone provide me a pointer to the DID signalling spec?
Hopefully, it's on an ftp site somewhere, although I didn't see any
mention in the Telecom Archives index PAT posted last week.  Or do I
need to go to Bellcore for this?  (If so, got a document number?)

Thanks in advance, folks!


Roy M. Silvernail |+|  roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu
From: BUDD@CSPGAS11.BITNET (Richard Budd)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Modem Won't Hang Up
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:16:03 GMT
Organization: CSAV UTIA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 18, Message 9 of 18

We are experiencing difficulty with our modem connecting with an IBM
Control Unit Model 7171.  There are 16 lines here at the Czech Academy
of Sciences Informatics Institute connected to an IBM 4361 host.
Because of the poor quality of phone lines in Eastern Europe, our
external connections through modems and the CU are frequently dropped,
but the modem remains on-hook and we have to manually power off and
reset.  This is especially a problem over the weekend when the system
is running without operators.  Do you know of any software that could
automatically take the modem off-hook when the connection is dropped?
We use Gandalf ACCESS Series 24A and Hyundai HMD 2404M external
modems.  All modems on the host side use MNP5 because it is the only
way to establish reliable connections for more than five minutes
given, again, the quality of the lines.  The Czech government is
working on improving phone quality, we may have digital fiber optic
lines in Prague by the end of 1993.


Richard Budd  | USA  klub@maristb.bitnet    | CR    budd@cspgas11.bitnet
              |      139 S. Hamilton St.    |       Kolackova 8
              |      Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 |       18200 Praha 8
From: 74007.303@CompuServe.COM (Rob Bailey, WM8S)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Part 68 - Just the FAQs
Date: 5 Jan 93 06:38:59 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 9, Message 3 of 15

This has got to be a FAQ, but I can't find it anywhere. I know I've
seen it asked before, but I've never seen an authoritative reply:

What certification is REQUIRED before a company can sell a device that
is intended to be attached to the public switched service network?
I.e., if I was going to build and sell a touch-tone interface or a
modem of some sort, would I have to get Part 68 type acceptance
certification? Could I just make the device according to part 68
requirements, of do I actually need to pay somebody to prove to the
FCC that the device meets those specifications? Do I need to register
the device with the FCC? Attach an REN to the device? Who performs
such certification (if it's required)? How much is it? How long does
it take?  Ad nauseum ... isn't there a book somewhere called "How to
get a device Part 68 approved" or something?

Finally, another question I've seen asked thousands of times: it's
completely unreasonable to expect me to pay the fortune the federal
government wants for a printed copy of Part 68; is it on-line
somewhere free?

Has anyone gone through this process that can shed some light? Toby?


Rob      74007.303@compuserve.com