HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:48:10 GMT
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell CLASS Features
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 593, Message 8 of 8

In article <telecom12.587.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, mtxinu!sybase!pokey!nealg@
ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Neal Goldsmith) writes:

> I ordered the three new features (Repeat Dialing, Select Call
> Forwarding, and Priority Ringing). The features only work within my
> LATA.

> I can understand them not working for numbers that are not on SS7
> equiped switches, but isn't the CLASS information passed on even
> through toll switches? If not will it ever be?

Yes, it is planned.  How soon?  That depends upon which toll carrier
you're talking about.  Some of them will probably start carrying SS7
before others do.

> Also it seems that repeat dialing works by attempting to retry the
> call every 45 seconds. I would think that this should work even
> through toll switches.

It doesn't work by repeat dialing at all.  It sends a message to the
destination CO, via the SS-7 network, requesting notification when the
called line becomes available.  If the destination is not SS-7
equipped, or if the destination number is part of a DID group, even if
the office is SS-7 equipped, then your request for 'repeat dial' is
rejected.


Dave Levenson	 Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc.	 UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA	 Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 16:25:25 EDT
From: Dennis G. Rears <drears@pica.army.mil>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: My 800 Number
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 576, Message 7 of 11

   Kenton A. Hoover wrote about his 800 number service from Pac Bell.
I thought I would write about the great deal that I have.

   I have a residential 800 number from Sprint.  It is a real 800
number; not one with a PIN.  I got free installation and a waiver of
all service fees for 1992.  After 1992 as long as I have $30.00 a
quarter in usage charges they will waive the monthly fee.  The charge
is 18 cents a minute payable in 6 second increments.  The number is
good in all 50 states, Mexico, and Canada.  As far as billing, I get a
list of all calls, the number called from, and the duration of the
call.

  I am able to change the number it terminates on with 24 hour notice.
Overall, I am quite satified with it.


			Dennis G. Rears
UUCP:  ...!uunet!cor5.pica.army.mil!drears
INTERNET: drears@pica.army.mil    USPS:  Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Phone(home): 201.927.8757	   Phone(work): 201.724.2683/(DSN) 880.2683
		Moderator:  comp.society.privacy
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:28:41 EDT
From: andys@flatline.sbi.com (Andy Sherman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Is Not 100% SS7 Needed For 1-800 and the Like?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 593, Message 2 of 8

On 27 Jul 92 22:48:02 GMT, shri@iucaa.ernet.in (H. Shrikumar) said:

> I was under the impression that 1-800 like services could not be
> implemented really well without the something like SS7. Are we reading
> in the above that there is not yet 100% SS7 interconnects in the US.

> IS it that 1-800, ANI and caller-ID are being done by someother
> means (I'd have to do some learning here then.) or is it that the LD
> carrier do use SS7, and only that some local links are not yet ?

As you suspected, your impression was wrong.  :^).  There are several
ways other than SS7 for sending ANI information from a local exchange
carrier (LEC) to an interexchange carrier (IXC).  There has to be.
SS7 is relatively new, yet IXC's have been billing for long distance
without it.  In order to return ANI to an 800 customer, then, the IXC
only needs the billing number it got from the LEC.

Caller ID, the residential service, *does* require SS7 as implemented.


Andy Sherman
Salomon Inc  -  Unix Systems Support  -  Rutherford, NJ
(201) 896-7018  -  andys@flatline.sbi.com or asherman@mhnj.sbi.com
"These opinions are mine, all *MINE*.  My employer can't have them."
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 02:19:54 GMT
From: lightw@cetra.trl.OZ.AU (Liron Lightwood)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad Question
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 578, Message 14 of 15

stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes:

> I've noticed that some phone manufacturers (seen mostly on cheaper
> models and COCOTS) now label the 1 key with "QZ".  However, many voice
> processing applications, such as Octel voicemail, tell you to "use 7
> for Q, and 9 for Z."  Considering that there are differing opinions as
> to where Q and Z should be mapped for those applications that need
> them, it seems unwise to label them at all on the keys.

Australian phones with letters as well as numbers have the 'Q' and 'Z'
on the '1' key.

Australia hasn't been a user of words in telephone numbers, but all
that will change under deregulation.

In rsponse, all new phones sold by Telecom Australia (the former
monopoly carrier) have keys labelled with letters as well as numbers.
Cheaper phones made by other manufactures have had letters for a long
time, probably because they used the same phones made for the US
market).

On the new Telecom phones, the '2'-'9' keys are labelled with the same
letters as US phones.  However, the '1' key is labelled with 'Q' and
'Z'.

Also, automatic teller machines (at least over here) which have keys
labelled with letters as well as numbers (for easier to remember
PIN's), also use the '1' key for 'Q' and 'Z'.  I believe this applies
in the USA as well.

If this is the case, the most obvious place to put the 'Q' and 'Z'
would be on the '1' button.


Liron Lightwood                     Internet : r.lightwood@trl.oz.au
Telecom Research Laboratories       Phone : +61 3 253 6535
770 Blackburn Road                  Snail : P.O. Box 249 Clayton 3168 Australia
Clayton  Vic. 3168 Australia        Disclaimer : My views are not my company's
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:31:31 NZS
From: David Norman <norman@corp.telecom.co.nz>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad Question
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 592, Message 8 of 15

In article <telecom12.582.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, Herman Silbiger writes:

> The holdout is AUSTRALIA.

Not so!  New Zealand has already adopted QZ on 1 for alpha-numeric
keypads.  A major reason for this approach was that this layout is an
ANSI (yes, that's AMERICAN National Standards Institution) standard
(ANSI X3.118-1984) for financial services, and it was felt that
alignment with banking practice was highly desirable to avoid
confusion by the public (check-out your local ATM - here QZ are on 1)

There are many other reasons for our "position" on this. We're
particularly interested in Z (as in NZ!) for incorporation into easily
remembered "numbers" for customers like Air New Zealand. As Herman has
pointed out, only the position of QZ remains to be decided within the
CCITT (Recommendation E.161). I believe it's almost inevitable that a
dual standard will evolve. We shall see.~

BTW, my Mitel Superset 7 on my desk here has QZ above the * (star)
key!!!!!!


Dave Norman
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:09:11 GMT
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad Question
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 592, Message 7 of 15

In article <telecom12.583.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> You mention 911 in the Moderator's Note, apparently in reference to
> Chicago.  When did it go away?  (Not to be confused with the
> 911-for-emergency-service; when did that come to Chicago?)

I seem to recall that in Chicago, one used to dial 0 for the local
operator, and 211 for the "long distance" operator.  I wondered about
this, when I visited the area.  In the East, we used 0 for any
operator.


Dave Levenson		Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc.		UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA		Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857


[Moderator's Note: We dialed 0 for local operator assistance, and 211
for Long Distance. Or you could dial 0 and ask for Long Distance; but
it was not the same operator. We also had 811 (originally) for what
was called 'Priority Long Distance' during the Second War. Afterward,
811 flagged the Long Distance operator that you were a hotel, university
or hospital operator (to name three) needing time and charges quoted
either by voice when the call was finished or sent to your teletype
machine (usually every thirty minutes all LD calls were reported back
to the PBX operator.) Smaller switchboards had to dial 811, wait for an
answer and say (something like) "UC Operator 13, Extension 2384, TC
please", then leave the line. Bigger boards had actual tie-lines on
the board direct to Long Distance. The PBX operator simply plugged in
and jiggled the ringing key a couple times. When LD came on, all the
PBX operator had to do was pass the extension number of the caller
then leave the line. When Time and Charges were quoted, the LD
operator would go through all the calls from that switchboard in about
a minute giving PBX extension, where called, the time the ticket
was stamped in and out on the little timeclock at each position, the
charges and an exchange of ticket serial or reference numbers.
("This.is.Kenwood.see-oh.with.charges.say.when ... " ["Go"]
"Extension.2345.East.Podunk.6089.up.at.2345.08.August.down.0012.next.day
09.August.charges.five.dollars.ninety.five.cents.I.am.08915.you.are?"
["I am 3276"] ..."Extension.5936.West.Podunk.3615.up.at.0001.09.August.
.down.0005.09.August.charges.two.dollars.ten.cents.I.am.62134.you.are?"
["I am 3277"] ... maybe a half dozen of these. In the CO itself,
clerks went around to each operator position every few minutes with a
little wire basket collecting hand-written LD charge slips written on
paper forms.    PAT]
Date: 20 Jul 92 20:15:49 MDT
From: Matt McConnell <MCCOMATT@ba2.isu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Anyone Heard of "Remote Cable"?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 578, Message 7 of 15

I would like to know if the readers of TELECOM Digest have ever heard
of something called "remote cable".

A friend of mine asked me that a few days ago after having returned
from Kalispell,MT.  He says that a psychiatrist there was telling him
about something called "remote cable" though he's not really sure.

Something to do with: communities that have no cable, are hard to
reach, small, the government is selling licenses like with cellular ...

After having interogating him more I guessed he might be talking about
DBS (direct broadcast satellite) he seemed to agree ... though he's
not really sure.

Anyone heard of this "remote cable"?


Matt McConnell  mccomatt@ba2.isu.edu
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 16:56:19 GMT
From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Going UP
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 576, Message 4 of 11

In article <telecom12.570.3@eecs.nwu.edu> analyst@netcom.com (David
Sternlight) writes:

> Finally, cross subsidization can be trivially handled by the state
> PUCs with proper rules and accounting procedures. There's evidence
> this works -- look at the very low cost of Long Distance calls
> compared to local calls in many cases, due to the removal of
> cross-subsidization by the regulatory process. Thus the opponents'
> biggest propaganda objection is just plain silly, and only the
> gullible will fall for it.

'scuse??  The fact that the regulatory process could *not* handle
cross-subsidization between regulated and unregulated lines of
business was one of the motivations behind the MFJ.  As to the "very
low cost of Long Distance calls compared to local calls due to the
removal of cross-subsidization",

A. cross-subsidization of local calls has not been removed; only the
name has changed (from internal Bell System bookkeeping to the
"subscriber line charge" and carrier access charges");

B. inasmuch as cross-subsidization has been relaxed, it is due to the
corporate separation of the IXCs from the LECs; and

C. where "the regulatory process" is trying to control
cross-subsidies, e.g.  costs for intra-LATA LD, the success has been,
at best, questionable.  Ask anyone in CA who reads c.d.t. about
PacBell's intra-LATA LD costs compared to any IXC's inter-LATA prices
for comparable - or longer - distances.

(disclaimer - not speaking for AT&T, of course, just an occasional
 loose cannon ...)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:13:48 GMT
From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Panel Still in Use?
Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 589, Message 10 of 15

Seeing Pat's comment about the LOngbeach-1 exchange made me wonder.
Are there any panel offices left in the US?  I know there is still
plenty of step-by-step, but it seems to me that panel was never that
popular, in spite of its imposing physical appearance and amusing
technical quirks.


[Moderator's Note: Any panel left? Step-by-step?  God help us ...
I would hope all that crap is long gone. I think back to the old days
and it was all very interesting ... but so was manual service, which
by the way was (under normal conditions) extremely fast and usually
very accurate. Connections were usually established in ten seconds or
less if the other end answered right away. And if the other end was
busy instead of a buzz-buzz the operator told you the line was busy. A
wait of ten seconds for an operator was rare.  I was talking to an
operator once who had a heart attack (or maybe a stroke) while she was
looking up a number for me.   :(  PAT]
From: rickie@trickie.uucp (Richard Nash)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Advice Needed: Dialback Management
Date: 29 Jul 92 07:49:39 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 591, Message 3 of 10

pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:

>> We know about dialback modems, but it seems they are not as secure as
>> we'd like. I'm sure something like I describe must exist, but we don't
>> know what it is called or where to get it. Please help.

> I don't have a virtual solution, but I do have a very flexible
> programmable hardware one.

> The reason that dialback modems are sometimes not secure is that a
> cracker can call into the modem and wait for the modem to hang up, and
> then remain on the line, playing dialtone back to the modem.  The
> modem "thinks" it is dialing on the network, but instead it reaches
> the bad guy's modem.

> This is possible because many central offices will keep the circuit up
> for up to about 22 seconds if the calling party remains off-hook after
> the called party goes on-hook.  This is a long enough window for the
> dialback modem to re-seize the line and start dialing.

To eliminate that type of hacking possibility, it is mandatory that
the dialback portion of the modem call is originated from a different
line.  Therefore, if you have 'n' number of phone lines to be used for
dialback, you require n+1 lines.  It is required that the host system
performs the dialback procedure in order to determine the correct line
to use.  It also has the added benefit in that system administration
of the modem pool can be centrally administered by the system
adminstration folks.

> When performing dialback, it can call different dialback numbers
> linked to different security codes.  To prevent the problem mentioned
> above, it can be programmed to wait for a CPC pulse on the line before
> initiating dialback, or it can perform the dialback on one of several
> separate ports.  Since the dialback can be done on a separate line,
> there is no way for a cracker to get through with the dialtone trick.

What is a CPC pulse? (Counter EMF from the line relay?)

Why waste money on widgets, when your operating system **should** have
this counter-hacking support integrated into it?


Richard Nash           Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:                  trickie!rickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Amatuer Radio Packet:  VE6BON @ VE6MC.AB.CAN.NA 
                       VE6BON.ampr.org [44.135.147.206]


[Moderator's Note: A much easier solution is to simply have three way
calling on the modem lines and on all outgoing calls have the dialing
string begin with a switchhook flash. That'll leave the phreaks out in
left field every time.   PAT]
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 7:58:49 PDT
From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AT&T Strikes Again
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 587, Message 4 of 11

Well, I called AT&T this morning (at 800-222-0300, press 2) to change
from Any Hour Saver to Reach Out America.  I want this for the month
of August, since I'll get discounted calling card calling on my
sabbatical trip.

I spoke to "Eleanor" who wouldn't identify herself further. 

Eleanor told me the terms of the plan:

* $10.70/month including 1 hour calling between 10 and 8, and all day
saturday, and till five on sunday.

* 25% discount on rates during the evening hours.

* 10% discount on rates during day hours.

I then asked her about the calling card surcharge.  Surprise, she told
me that the calling card surcharge was 100% absolutely waived for all
calls while you are on ROA.  I questioned this.  I posed examples in
the day and evening periods.  She was insistant.

Finally, not believing a word of it, and knowing I'd never get it in
writing, (:-) I had her go check.  Sure enough, during your 1 hour of
midnight calling, the surcharge is waived.  Other than that, it's just
discounted.

Boy, I wish I had conducted this negotiation by fax and had a written
record of it :-)

If anyone has any good suggestions for avoiding the calling card
surcharge, or LD services that will waive that surcharge, I'd
appreciate hearing from you.


Ed Greenberg 		| Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com
P. O. Box 28618		| Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95159	| Fax:  +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:09:36 GMT
From: bcarter@claven.idbsu.edu (Bruce Carter)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Ericsson MD110 PBX Intelligent Network
Organization: Boise State University - CBI Product Development
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 596, Message 5 of 13

Greetings all,

Well, installation and cutover of our new digital phone system
(Ericsson MD110 Intelligent Network) is essentially "complete".
Basically, that means that the equipment is in and Ericsson has
left ... *heh*.

Anyway, people are getting used to the little strangenesses, like no
touch tone tone feedback, and are enjoying the new features,
especially voice mail.  The one problem that seems to be universal is
that nobody can get the TAU 2620's (Terminal Adapter Units, these
essentially replaced desktop modems) to work reliably with the 9600bps
modem bank that was installed with the switch.  Sometimes they work ok
for dialing out, sometimes not, and there doesn't seem to be a way to
find out what is going on (ie. you can't listen in for carrier and so
on).  Also, we are having a heck of a time dialing in to TAU's that
have been assigned DID numbers for connection from outside the
university.

Does anyone out there have any experience with this.  PLEASE don't
tell me to have analog lines put in, the administration has pretty
much declared that is not an option.  Thanks for any help!


Bruce Carter, CBI Product Development            bcarter@claven.idbsu.edu
Simplot/Micron Instructional Technology Center   amccarte@idbsu (Bitnet)
Boise State University, Boise, ID  83725         (208)385-1851@phone
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:11:12 GMT
From: hhallika@zeus.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Amateur Radio and Our Moderator
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 595, Message 11 of 14

Seems like amateur radio operators (I'm one of them, but not real
active ... my radio broke) should be setting up high speed digital
radio links town to town, then hand over the links to the fidonet
people, combining two great talented groups of people.  The amateur
packet stuff is pretty neat, but it could be much more (another
internet?).


Harold
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:30:00 +0000 
From: "Henry (H.W.) Troup" <hwt@x400gate.bnr.ca>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: DMS-100 Peculiarity - HELP!!! 
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 594, Message 6 of 9

In article <telecom12.567.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, gavron@spades.aces.com
(Ehud Gavron 602-570-2000 x. 2546) writes:

> 1. If there is no call waiting call coming in and I flash the
> switchhook, I get a SECOND dialtone.  However, I am unable to dial any

This is so you can dial the cancel call waiting sequence. (*70, usually).

                                           
Henry Troup - HWT@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 09:38:38 EDT
From: hsilbiger@attmail.att.com (Herman R Silbiger)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Not Charging
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 583, Message 4 of 15

In article <telecom12.578.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, MCMANGPH@NUSVM.BITNET (Ang
Peng Hwa) writes:

> My AT&T cordless phone is not charging and I'd appreciate any input.
> It was on for 20 days while I was on vacation. I then had to unplug it
> for another 20 days. When I recharged it, the thing just lit up the
> Battery Low light.

> I figure it must be the NiCad remembering the charge. So I've
> discharged the thing twice (waited for the low light to go out). It's
> still on low after three days of charging.

> Should I just wait longer for the memory to disappear, or leave it on
> for the thing to charge?

NiCads are capable of a finite number of charge-discharge cycles.
Your NiCad may be due for replacement.  Go to your nearest AT&T Phone
Center and buy a new one.  Unless you have a very old model, the
batteries are user replaceable.


Herman Silbiger