HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 13:06 GMT
From: Richard Cox <mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#
Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 921, Message 5 of 10

johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) wrote, on 26/12/92:

> I do agree that COCOT manufacturers should be required to understand all
> valid digit patterns if they attempt to decode them at all.

By definition at the manufacturing stage they can, if they so wish,
include all current valid digit patterns in PROM. But that's a short
term situation since telecomms, like most aspects of technology, is a
developing environment.

How long will those digit patterns stay valid? How can you be sure
that they will be updated if BELLcore change the rules (as they are
about to do)? Here in the UK back in 1990, London had an area code
split. Code 1 split into (71) and (81) -- all calls remained at local
measured rate. Lots of our COCOTs were programmed to accept (1) as
local and with about 50 preset exceptions, charge the maximum inland
landline tariff for all other codes.  Instantly all COCOTs started
charging maximum fee on calls that crossed the split line which meant
that calls of a few hundred metres were charged as if they were
routing a few hundred miles (even though the telcos still charged the
COCOT owner at their "local" rates).  Did the COCOT owners rush to
have the phones reprogrammed?

No, sir, they did not!

There is a need for all COCOTs to have their tariff tables updatable
remotely (as some already can) and to ensure that the updating process
is mandatory at the time of a change in the dialing plan.  Well, one
can but dream.

Happy New Year from Wales to all TELECOM Digest readers .....


Richard D G Cox

Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF
Voice: +44 222 747111      Fax: +44 222 711111      VoiceMail: +44 399 870101
E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk     Not diallable on 511 in mainland USA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 06:24 GMT
From: Jim Gorak <0003735974@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Easylink and Internet?
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 4 of 12

dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) writes:
 
> I have long understood that sending email between EasyLink and
> Internet was out of the question. ....(part deleted)
 
> Can anyone tell me there has been a change of policy at EasyLink re.
> Internet mail? Can we send to EasyLink? If so, what is the proper
> set-up for the address envelope? Can they send to us? What does the
> address look like?
 
There are a couple of ways to address e-mail from the Internet to an
AT&T Easylink subscriber. I have been using the "Easy" way. I'm not
sure that this official but, so far, it has worked every time for me.
 
You need to find out the Easylink subscriber's Easylink number (ELN),
i.e. 62925933, which is my Easylink number. the Internet address is:
 
            62925933@eln.attmail.com
 
An Easylink subscriber can send to an Internet address bu using the
following format: (i.e. for dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu)
 
IPM                                                                            
PRIMARY                                                                        
COUNTRY US                                                                     
ADMD ATTMAIL                                                                   
ORG UUCP                                                                       
DDA ID-internet(b)dnewcomb(a)whale.st.usm.edu
END+                                                                           
(message text...)                                                              
   "      "
   "      "
   "      "
(message text...)                                                              
MMMM


Hope this works for you.


Regards, Jim Gorak

X.400  S=Gorak;DDA:ID=3735974;A=MCI;C=US | Internet   3735974@mcimail.com
MCI    Jim Gorak / 373-5974              | CompuServe >MCIMAIL:373-5974
Telex  6503735974  "6503735974MCI UW"    | Tele-Home  +1 414 541 2007
Post   3231 S. Landl Lane  #108          | Tele-Work  +1 414 792 5580
       Milwaukee, WI 53227-4474  USA     | Tele-FAX   +1 414 792 5598
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 11:23:22 MST
From: Russ Wilton, Systems Manager <wilton@hg.uleth.ca>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telecom Journals Wanted
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 10 of 17

Hi:

  I have recently been given responsibility for our campus telephone
exchange, a Northern Telecom Meridian system.  Although I am familiar
with computers and networking, having managed a VAXcluster for several
years, telephones are new to me.  So, I am looking for trade journals
to subscribe to, to bring myself up to speed with both the technical
and managerial side of running a 1200 line campus telephone system.

  I would gratly appreciate any suggestions you may have, on journals
you have found particularly useful.  Please include the publisher's
address if you can.  Thanks.


Russ Wilton   Telecom Manager
Univ of Lethbridge  
Lethbridge, Alberta, CANADA
WILTON@HG.ULETH.CA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:02:27 GMT
From: kb7uv@panix.com (Andy Funk)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
Organization: Panix, NYC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 924, Message 9 of 11

> [Moderator's Note: Do you think it could be the reason you got through
> on Sprint is because not that many people (relative to the facilities
> available) were using Sprint?  AT&T is still the national favorite by
> a wide margin. Could it be the facilities available to the one are
> disproportionate to the actual traffic requirements?  I still don't
> think they 'shut things down' ... an earthquake or other emergency is
> different than a family holiday.   PAT]

It's likely, IMHO, that SPRINT, MCI, et. al. have more "headroom" than
AT&T, especially when dealing with the residential service.  While I
don't have any statistics, I suspect the ratio of AT&T to alternative
LD carriers is higher for individuals than businesses.  So, AT&T will
likely be affected more by holiday calls than the other carriers.

As far as limiting calls *into* a disaster area --- This is an
excellent practice if there is a chance the network will become
saturated.  Communications *from* a disaster scene should take
precedence over communications into the area.  Most calls into an
affected area are health and welfare inquiries ("Gee, Aunt Carol, is
everyone OK?) while calls originating from the scene may well be
requests for needed assistance ("National Guard?  Can you direct the
choppers with the food and medical supplies to the football field of
the high school?").

The Amateur Radio Emergency Service and National Traffic System hold
health and welfare inquiries until the disaster scene is ready to
accept them, placing a much higher priority on real emergency traffic.

I recall hearing a few years ago that AT&T long distance circuits were
setup to limit incoming calls, when necessary, so outgoing calls
always would have circuits available.


Andrew Funk, KB7UV        Internet: kb7uv@panix.com
ENG Editor/Microwave      Packet: kb7uv@kb7uv.#nli.ny.usa
WCBS-TV Channel 2 News    BBS: 718-956-7133
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 10:30:02 CST
From: Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Looking For Small-Handset Cordless Phone
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 4, Message 8 of 12

Thanks to all who responded to my query!

Several people suggested answering machines, but I fear these elderly
people are anti-answering-machine. (My wife is like that -- she never
will leave a message on anybody else's answering machine, either,
except my voicemail at work, even though three of our closest friends
have answering machines. When she calls them and they do not pick up,
I have to take the phone from her and leave the message ... :-) I agree
that it is a viable solution, but I don't think its worth trying to
force them to change their attitudes at this late date.

I did receive valuable pointers to a couple specific models from
Panasonic and Motorola which I will follow-up on. The suggestion to
modify an ordinary cordless with a handle my aunt can hold sounds good
 -- that might be the most cost-effective route.

Thanks again, and Happy New Year to Telecom'ers worldwide!


Regards, Will
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 13:07:49 EST
From: Thomas Lapp <thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 7, Message 3 of 13

> Almost that is ... the xxx-7347 number (and the other discontinued
> numbers in the original hunt group) still have the 'being tested for
> trouble' intercept on the line. Obviously, someone did not close out
> the order.  But I could care less about those numbers; they were
> merely being disconnected with no referral on them anyway.

I know it is 'preaching to the choir' to tell Pat this, but others in
situations like this may also want to watch the billing that comes
over the next billing period or so to make sure that Billing gets
their part right as well.  Disconnected lines have been known to
continue getting billed well after disconnect date ...


thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home)   lapp@cdhub1.dnet.dupont.com (work)


[Moderator's Note: Oh, absolutely. You can bet I'll review the next
bill very closely before forwarding it on to the person who pays it
every month.  PAT]
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 16:33:02 CST
From: bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 2, Message 10 of 12

In article <telecom12.926.1@eecs.nwu.edu> stevef@wrq.com (Steve
Forrette) writes:

> The Moderator noted:

>> discovered that in the two or three seconds the phone was off hook
>> (with dial tone) before the autodialer started doing its thing, his
>> pocket tone dialer could cut that dial tone and let him call anywhere
>> on the store's nickle.  Provided he got his digits dialed before the
>> autodialer cut in, telco accepted his digits and ignored those from
>> the device. 

> There are auto-dialers available that prevent this.  I tried this
> trick with the elevator phone in our building.  When you take the
> phone off-hook, you hear dialtone, then hear it dial the answering
> service for the elevator company.  As soon as the dialer hears a
> touchtone generated from the headset, it hangs up the line.  Boy, they
> won't let anybody have any phun these days!

Wouldn't it be easiest to rig a circuit that disconnects the handset
circuitry until the phone had completed the predetermined dial
sequence?  I suppose, to be safe, it would also need to recognize the
dial-tone so that it would cut the handset out if someone left the
phone off the hook after disconnect.


bruce@zuhause.mn.org
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 13:11:32 PDT
From: sjl@glenbrook.com (Scott Loftesness)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Bellcore PCS -- Request for Industry Input
Reply-To: sjl@glenbrook.com
Organization: Glenbrook Systems, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 923, Message 2 of 9

[from Bellcore's Digest of Technical Information, Dec. 1992]

Request for Industry Input
Personal Communications Applications

Bellcore is currently understaking the investigation of new network
access services to meet the communications needs of people on the
move.  The goals are to identify networking requirements and access
network interfaces to achieve complete location and access
transparency for applications using all media and to understand the
impact on exchange and exchange access networks.  This research takes
the broad view of providing network access to personal, secure,
location-independent, multimedia communications through both wireline
and wireless facilities using a wide range of customer terminals,
including pocket phones, notebook computers and portable workstations.
The areas of research include:

Systems and software architectures and access network interfaces for
personalization and portability of services,

The access network requirements generated by applications for new user
interfaces and portable terminasl, including stylus-based notebook and
palmtop computers,

Interfaces and requirements for access to network-based data,
signaling, and connection and resource management associated with
personal, multimedia applications which include image, data, voice and

Opportunities for local exchange networks to enable portable, secure,
wireless transaction-oriented data services to support emerging
non-voice applications such as messaging, point-of-sale transactions,
database queries and file transfers.

Bellcore is seeking industry participation in these investigations
through the establishment of research collaborations to trial
prototypes of new access network elements and interfaces used in
conjunction with emerging wireless networks and end user technologies
and their applications.

If your company is a potential manufacturer of products in the
personal communications applications area, a potential information
service provider, a potential wireless service provider or a private
or public laboratory with a research program in telecommunications and
wishes to participate in these activities, we invite you to submit a
brief, non-proprietary description of your proposed product or service
and the potential applications.  Members of the industry who are
interested in participating should respond by January 15, 1993.

Please forward all information, comments and questions to:

Richard S. Wolff, Director
Personal Communications Applications Research
Bellcore
445 South Street, Room MRE 2M293
Morristown, NJ 07960-6438
Phone: (201) 829-4537  Fax: (201) 829-5888
E-mail: rsw@thumper.bellcore.com

                        -------------------

Scott Loftesness   Redwood City, California                            
Others: 3801143@mcimail.com, 76703.407@compuserve.com
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993  07:06:10 GMT
From: jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem
Organization: Silvar-Lisco
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 3, Message 8 of 12

The PPI modem doesn't currently do Caller-ID. I'm using one right now.
It could probably offer it with a firmware change, but it doesn't.


Jim Budler            jimb@silvlis.com
Silvar-Lisco          72415.01200@compuserve.com
703 E. Evelyn Ave.    jimb47@netcom.com
Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086  +1.408.991.6115
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 14:07:05 GMT
From: jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Bell System Pension Class Action Suit Settled
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 927, Message 10 of 14

Thanks to my friend and colleague, Rob Ziemba, for bringing the
following to my attention which may be of interest to the c.d.t.
community.

In the December 14th issue of {Telephony Magazine}, an article reports
that the class action suit brought against AT&T and the Regional
Holding Companies has been settled in favor of the employees.  Quoting
a specific section of the article:

"... Attorneys in the class action suit announced last week that they
have reached an out-of-court settlement with AT&T and the Bell
regional holding companies.  Under terms of the settlement, employees
who moved from one former Bell System company to another after January
1, 1985 - usually leaving AT&T to work for the RHCs - and were
improperly denied portability rights to their pension will receive
cash awards to cover the lost benefits ..."

More details are supplied in the article.


Jack (John) Adams	   Bellcore NVC 2Z-220
(908) 758-5372 {Voice}	   (908) 758-4389 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com  kahuna@attmail.com
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 13:03:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Ron Bean <nicmad!madnix!zaphod%astroatc.UUCP@cs.wisc.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 919, Message 10 of 14

julian@xenon.sr.com (Julian Macassey) writes:
 
> In article <telecom12.899.9@eecs.nwu.edu> spatula!ahm@s4mjs.att.com
> writes:

>> Does anyone know where I can get a small memory dialer?  Something
>> about the size of Radio Shack's mini tonepad would be good, and I only
>> need a maximum of a dozen memories.

> You mean something like the Radio Shack "Budget Dialer" Part
> Number 43-139? Well how about the Radio Shack "Memory Dialer" part
> number 43-141?
  
   Are those really the ONLY pocket dialers still on the market?
 
   They don't look very well constructed to me. And in any case, I'd
have much more faith in them if the label said "Sharp" or "Casio", or
ANYTHING other than "Radio Shack".
 

zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean)   uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 01:58:16 -0500
From: Joe.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bergstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: New AnswerCall Features
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 6, Message 10 of 10

I thought TELECOM Digest readers might be interested in some new
features announced by C&P Telephone for their Answer Call CO based
voicemail service.  As an Answer Call customer, I received an
announcement that there will be a price increase in February from
$5.00/month to $6.50/month.  The letter included news of the following
new features:

Optional Busy Greeting: You can have two separate personal greetings
 -- one to let callers know when you're on the phone, the other to
indicate when you're not available to answer.  The Optional Busy
Greeting will be a standard AnswerCall feature with no additional
charge.

Reminder Service: You can program Answer Call to call your home number
and play a pre-recorded reminder message at a set time that you
choose.  This option will be introduced on a free trial basis, after
which time a small usage charge of $0.15 per activation will apply.

Special Delivery Service: Answer call will call you if you're away
from home when an urgent message arrives in your AnswerCall mailbox.
This service will be free for a limited time after which a $0.35 per
activation charge will apply.

[Note that the announcement does not clarify what an "urgent" message
is, and whether callers will have an option to flag a message as
"urgent"].

Although not mentioned in the letter, the price list includes a Pager
Notification option at a cost of $3.00 per month for up to 65 activa-
tions plus $0.20 per activation over 65.

[Note, too that these prices are for residential users only.  I
believe that these services are available for business users at
slightly higher prices].


[Moderator's Note: Answer Call appears to have some additional
features not being offered by IBT in their voicemail service, such as
the Pager Notification, and reminder service.  It sounds nice.  PAT]
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 10:51:43 EST
From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 924, Message 11 of 11

In article <telecom12.921.2@eecs.nwu.edu> phaedrus@unkaphaed.
gbdata.com (James Hartman, Sysop) writes:

> Indeed, my sister lives in Germany, and throughout Christmas morning
> (the only time we could really call and expect to get someone who's
> awake), we kept getting a message telling us that the circuits are
> busy in the country we were calling.  I asked my folks what long
> distance they had, and they said it was AT&T.  I pulled out my Sprint
> card and tried connecting via the 1-800 number on Sprint; same result.
> This leads me to wonder how much of the resources AT&T and Sprint
> share, and perhaps someone in Germany needs to install more incoming
> lines to the country.

Whenever my parents [in Ohio] call their relatives in their home town
in Italy during the holidays they get an "All circuits busy" very
frequently.  If they call other relatives elsewhere in Italy, they get
through almost always.  I believe this happens because there are a lot
of people near where my parents live who call relatives in that same
town.  So, it seems to be more than just more incoming lines to a
given country.


Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:39:05 GMT
From: ridder@zowie.zso.dec.com (Hans)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 924, Message 10 of 11

In article <telecom12.917.1@eecs.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> I would have thought that by now AT&T would have stopped its annoying
> practice of drastically reducing its capacity on holidays.

[Stuff deleted]

> This is the real reason you get the "All Circuits Busy" recording, not
> because there is an inordinate amount of traffic.

> Naturally, there is no trouble calling anyone on Sprint or MCI since
> these companies do not engage in this silly ritual of network choking.

Er, I had just as much trouble getting through on Sprint and MCI as I
did on AT&T (same recording.)  I guess we could blame it on GTE ...  ;-)


Hans-Gabriel Ridder <ridder@rust.zso.dec.com>
DECwest Engineering, Bellevue, Washington, USA
Any opinions expressed are not those of my employer, honest.