HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 93 03:31:59 GMT
From: martin@bdsgate.com (Martin Harriss)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 10XXX UnBlocking
Reply-To: bdsgate!martin@uunet.UU.NET (Martin Harriss)
Organization: Beechwood Data Systems
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 48, Message 12 of 13

In article <telecom13.35.6@eecs.nwu.edu> Barton F. Bruce <Barton.
Bruce@camb.com> writes:

> AT&T has been offering substantial $ rebates for expenses incurred by
> hotels and such while unblocking their PBXes to handle 10XXX traffic.

 [stuff deleted]
> AT&T said the NET&T order code and pricing are: RBVXC, $11/line
> install, $0.00/mo!!, but cautioned me that it was on MY head to
> determine if whatever NET&T is offering is what my customers need.

> The usual NET&T sales response is that no one has heard of it, but
> since AT&T had provided the info that it was only a few days old, the
> NET&T sales types are off checking on it at least.

I don't think it's RBVXC, I think it's RTVXC.  RTVXC is the Universal
Service Order Code (USOC) that NYNEX uses (or at least that New York
Tel uses) to describe one particular blocking option.  From memory,
RTVXC blocks 1-900, 976, 1-700, 540, 550, and possibly others that I
don't remember.

But maybe you're talking about something different, in connection with
10XXX, and there really is an RBVXC? Seems like quite a coincedence,
though.


Martin Harriss     uunet!bdsgate!martin
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 07:59:16 GMT
From: texsun.Central!nps002!jcarden@sun.UUCP (Jack Carden)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Wanted: Small (4-12 Line) PBX/Phone System
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 42, Message 12 of 14

In article <telecom13.29.3@eecs.nwu.edu> is written:

> I'm looking for an inexpensive phone system for a small business.  I
> don't have any experience with vendors in this area.  I'm looking for
> recommendations, vendors phone numbers, etc. Here are some of the
> features we're looking for:

> - we currently have two outside lines and six extensions. We would
> like the system to be expandable to about four outside lines and twelve
> extensions.

> - automated attendant; an incoming is call reaches an automated
> attendant, and the caller is routed to a particular extension based on
> a menu selection.

> - uses standard touch-tone phones for extensions.

> - any extension can be connected to any outside line.

> We don't need:

> - voicemail; we would be satisfied with attaching answering
> machines to individual extensions.

> - extension to extension connections (the office isn't that big
> :-)).  if going off hook on an extension immediately connects you to
> an available outside line (or gives a dial-tone otherwise) that's
> fine.

> The most important constraint is cost.  PC based solutions are fine --
> we have a spare 386 PC we can use.

I would recommend the Panasonic key-systems for cost and simplicity.
They can use standard telephones or fancy custom models.  They will
support several lines (comes in two sizes at least) for a few hundred
dollars!

They will not (to my knowledge) provide automated attendant, but there
are plenty of options there.  Check out BigMouth and other product
offerings if you want to hook up your PC and customize the software to
answer your phone.  My opinion -- I hate those things!

These are my personal opinions.  I have no affiliation with Panasonic.
We used their product for a telecom-related product demonstration system.
I am not am employee of nor do I speak for DSC Communications.


Regards,

Jack Carden   Internet: jcarden@dsccc.com
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Integratel Forcing Charges Through
Date: 24 Jan 93 07:00:41 GMT
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 42, Message 2 of 14

> Our room was recently billed for $90 worth of collect calls from
> Integratel despite the fact that Lehigh University supposedly traps
> collect calls to student rooms.  ...

TELECOM Moderator noted:

> But let's face it; you, or someone with access to the phone in your
> room did agree to accept collect charges, ...

Given the thick layer of slime with which Integratel seems to be
coated, it's not at all clear to me why anyone should accept their
claim that someone actually accepted any collect calls.  Given the
exorbitant amount, I'd suspect that either someone called an 800
number for which Integratel handles 900-style collect billing and they
billed back with or without the consent of the caller, or it might
just be completely bogus.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl


[Moderator's Note: Well, there has to be *some basis* for putting the
charges through. There can be errors in billing, misunderstandings,
etc, but the charges cannot be made up from thin air. Someone had to
say something or the operator had to think they did. It would be total
fraud if no one consented to anything.  The telcos dislike the extra
work Integretel causes their customer service reps, and most claim
they only deal with Integretel because of divestiture requirements. If
fraud were proveable, they'd drop Integretel in a minute, with the
judge's blessings. Integretel needs the LEC's to bill for them; they
are too smart to cross the narrow, thin line they walk between legal
activity and fraud. 

An Integretel executive did tell me the company was 'probably' going
to begin recording the consent to collect charges in order to combat
the reverse fraud which is quite prevalent in the phone-sex industry.
It seems a lot of people do make use of 900/976 phone-sex services
knowing the rates and routines very well yet later try to deadbeat out
of the charges by playing the role of the Injured and Defrauded
Consumer Who Knows His Rights. Integretel thinks that tape recording
the five or ten second authorization request by the operator and the
subscriber's response should put an end to some of this.  ("This is
the Integretel operator, I have a collect call for XXX at this number
from YYY, will you accept the charges at $?? per minute?"  -- subscriber
says yes or no and the operator cuts out of the connection.)  Although
the clients of Integretel are mostly sleaze and you may say there
should be a plague on all of them, I suspect a lot more customers
defraud them than the other way around, from a legal perspective.  PAT]
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 22:56:27 GMT
From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein [k1io; FN42jk])
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Strange International "Chat Line" Service -- How's it Work?
Reply-To: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein [k1io; FN42jk])
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 36, Message 8 of 8

> When this topic came up here awhile back, some readers suggested the
> call was not getting to Guyana if only because of the miserable
> condition of the phone service there and the likely inability of the
> Guyana telecom administration to deal with it. 

I saw an article in one of the trades (TE&M or Telephony) lately about
Guyana's telephone service.  A couple of years ago, it was purchased
by the owner of Virgin Islands Tel.  They've invested real money and
are building pretty much a new network (since the old one was pretty
worthless).  It's already more than twice the size it used to be.

Since these are an entrepreneurial sort, I suspect that they are
quietly marketing their country code for such applications.


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com 
k1io             or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:06:06 GMT
From: osterber@husc8.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Wiring For Multi-Lines on One Jack
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 38, Message 6 of 11

Here at Harvard, "they" a few years ago (I'm a freshman) wired each
dorm room with new telephone jacks. Each wall plate has a "voice jack"
and a "Data jack", with the data one reserved for future use in a
campus network that's in the works. Anyway, the voice jack is a
standard modular jack, except that it has eight leads on it. They're
each setup for only one line (on a CENTREX system), and I can plug in
my one line phone with a regular two-lead modular cord. I want them to
install another line, and I'm making progess. It seems there's no
reason that this jack can't handle four lines on eight leads, correct?
Can someone give me a quick outline as to how the standard modular
jack is wired. I suspect that each line starts with the middle two
leads, and branches outward with line four using the two outside
leads.  Can someone give me a hint? 


Thanks.

Rick
From: GENEB@VM.CC.LATECH.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: communication infor
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 21:55:04 CST
Organization: Louisiana Tech University
NNTP-Posting-Host: vm.cc.latech.edu

does anyone have information related to sprintnet or tymenet or other means
 
of connecting to national services such as compuserve or prodigy.  we don't
 
have local access numbers here -  thanks
 
 
please leave e-mail      geneb@latech
 
 
thanks
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 15:33:27 EST
From: <U4400@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Help needed about comm 3&4 usage

In article <93021.40067.LJ01066@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>,
LJ01066@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM says:
>
>I recently bought the complete pc communicator fax/voice/modem card for
>my system.  This board is up and running. no problems.  My problem now
>is that I need a 9600 bps modem and my current one is only 2400 bps. I
>want to know if it is possible to install a second modem board in my
>system. Considerations:  I have to use comm 1 or 2 for my current modem,
>no choice. If I install a second one on the other port what happens to
>my mouse which I want to use also. I would only be running one modem
>port at a time but how do you switch between the two and still keep the
>mouse. My thought is to put the mouse on comm 3 or 4 and the modem on
>comm 1 in this case. Can this be done (Two modems at once).  If so how
>and where should comm ports be assigned i.e. mouse=comm1 or mouse=comm3.
>
The problem in using COM3 or COM4 is that they use they same hardware
interrupt (IRQ) as COMS 1 & 2.  SO, if you don't want to run into major
problems, buy an internal 9600 baud modem that allows you to set the
modem to COM3 and an alternate interrupt (the most common alternate is
IRQ5).  That way , COM1 will use IRQ4, COM2 will use IRQ3, and COM3 will
use IRQ5 (this is provided you don't have an LPT2 printer port, which
would use IRQ5).
If you have questions about IRQs (I do modem software problem solving
for a paycheck), just ask.
- Eric
u4400@wvnvm.wvnet.edu     OR
meyer@alishaw.ucsb.edu    OR
u4400@wvnvm.bitnet
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye)
Subject: Supra's a dog, need replacement
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:36:32 GMT

I've looked and am surprised that there's no FAQ about this.

What are the merits of the various 14.4K v.32bis FAX modems?

Specifically, I currently have a SupraFAXModem and am having trouble 
connecting to another SupraFAXModem.  The Supra Tech support person 
on the Supra BBS says it's a phone company problem (since I CAN 
connect to the Supra BBS without problems).

Anyway, I don't believe him and am looking for a replacement.  The 
ones I've seen hyped the most here are the Zyxtel (sp?), the USR 
Sportster, and the Telebit.  This is going to be used on a Macintosh. 
 The reports of Zyxtel not offering Mac software support for the 
voice feature is discouraging.  Other than that, what are the 
relative merits/problems of these (or another decent brand).  

I don't want to spend a fortune (under $500), but do want a reliable 
modem that is decently (and truthfully) supported.  Is this an 
achievable goal?

Thanks for any input.


Michael
From: mbeck@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Mark Becker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Phone cutoff on modems with two jacks?
Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems
Date: 24 Jan 1993 05:36:16 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rice-chex.ai.mit.edu
Summary: Looking for modems with phone cutoff when shifting to data.
Keywords: modem relays


Greetings *

I have a couple of old 1200 baud modems with two jacks.  One jack is
labelled 'Line', the other, 'Phone'.  When correctly wired up, these
modems cut off the telephone when going off-hook.

Now I've started seeing 2400 baud modems that don't cut off the
telephone when going off-hook; they parallel their connections onto
the telephone line.  This means that if someone wants to shift from
voice to data, someone gets an earful of noise.  Also, the modem will
pick up whatever noise occurs in the room via the 'live' microphone.

Problem: I'm thinking of purchasing a faster modem.  However, when I
ask about line/phone jacks, all I get are confused looks from sales
critters.

Two questions for the group:

	Does your v32.bis/v42.bis modem have two jacks?

	If so, does the modem cut off the telephone socket OR does the
	modem just parallel on the line?


Thanks in Advance -

Mark
+-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Mark Becker					| .signature under	|
| Internet: mbeck@ai.mit.edu			|	construction	|
+-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
From: root@connect.com (Niles Mills)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Problems connecting to a Telebit
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 09:57:44 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Connect Software, USA

Ditto.  Can only get a V.32 connection, not V.32bis, when connecting
a Viva 14.4/FAX to a Telebit T3000.  Have tried every combination known
to man (only a slight exaggeration). <g>

Would be interested in hearing from someone who's successfully V.32bis'd
a T3000.

Regards,

Niles Mills

--
Connect Software   | Voice   919/240-0132 | Internet  root@Connect.COM
3213 Old Gate Road | FAX     919/240-0091 | UUCP      uunet!connect!root
Morehead City, NC  | v.32bis 919/240-0192 | MCI Mail  220-5814
28557-3167 USA     | BBS     919/240-0392 |
From: stevedav@netcom.com (Steve Davidson)
Subject: FASTEST MODEM FOR SLIP LINK OVER "NORMAL" PHONE LINES
Keywords: slip modem phone
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:08:46 GMT

 want opinions on the fastest modem protocol for SLIP connections
when using "normal" dial-up phones lines.  Assume a moderate
amount of line noise.

What are your opinions of the fastest modem protocol for interactive
use during a zmodem transfer?

And during a simple 'tip' or 'cu' data transfer?

How about large uucp transfers?

I hope your answers will focus on modem protocols as apposed to
modem manufacturers or particular transfer programs.

ISDN is (unfortunitely) not available where these modems are
being installed.

Steve Davidson   Email: steved@cfcl.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: tnixon@microsoft.com (Toby Nixon)
Subject: Re: v26bis (honestly)
Date: 23 Jan 93 04:13:18 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation, Redmond WA, USA

In article <JRiJXB14w165w@zswamp.UUCP> geoff@zswamp.UUCP wrote:
> naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org (Christian Weisgerber) writes:
> > In <A22413@F.maus.de>, Sevo Stille writes:
> > I *think* it is character-based contrary to the nowadays more popular
> > bit synchronous protocols like SDLC/HDLC. There should be some people
> > reading this group who know more about Bisync or still work with it.
> > Anybody willing to share some information?
>    Actually, I believe that the BInary SYNChronous protocol was the basis for 
> SDLC. 

Nope.  Sevo was right. BiSync is a character-oriented synchronous protocol. The
international standard equivalent is ISO "Basic Mode" (ISO 1177, I think). The
original protocol wasn't transparent -- certain specific characters were used
for protocol control and weren't permitted to appear in data.  The protocol was
subsequently extended with the now-well-known "DLE" transparency scheme so that
the data could contain any character patterns.

The bit synchronous protocols were developed later. HDLC is a "catalog" of
protocol elements, rather than a protocol itself; many other protocols are
based on HDLC, such as LAPB, LAPD, LAPM, LLC, etc. SDLC, on the other hand,
is a link-layer protocol itself; it shares the same bit-level framing as
HDLC protocols (i.e., the ISO 3309 frame structure), but the frame contents
in SDLC are different (address fields, control fields, etc.).

At one time, I did quite a bit of work writing terminal emulator firmware
for IBM mainframes based on BiSync protocol (3271/3277). I also worked on
HASP RJE protocols.  What do you need to know?

	-- Toby
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:20127 alt.security:5402
From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,alt.security
Subject: Re: Caller ID products?
Date: 27 Jan 1993 19:45:33 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

johnt@ee.ubc.ca (John Jay G. Tanlimco) writes:

>If you call someone, don't they have a right to know who you are?  If you 
>insist on having privacy, use a public pay phone.


Why do they have that right? Why in the world do most countries have
strict laws, and the telephone companies strict rules ablut tracing
calls? The party certainly has the right to refuse to speak to you if
you don't identify yourself, but more than that is an invasion of my
privacy. I do not want to hand out my telephone number to any random
person I phone. 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: eng10081@nusunix1.nus.sg (PAN SOON KEONG)
Subject: Re: AT&T DataPort 14.4
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:13:41 GMT



Thanks a lot for your comments about the AT&T modems.   It's very kind
of you.

I've heard that the AT&T modem cannot connect to the Supra modem.   They
can't do the 'handshake' at all .   I wonder if it's true.   I also
didn't hear much about the fax features on the AT&T modems.   Is it
good?

Do you have any comments about that?   Thanks in advance for your
comments.
From: wcp@lpds.sublink.org (Walter C. Pelissero)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: mgetty posting on alt.sources
Keywords: mgetty source posting
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:32:54 GMT
Organization: Sweet home under white clouds
Phone: + 39 2 8464117 - 8435411 (work)	8267089 (home)
Postal-Address: Via G. de Ruggiero 87, 20142 Milano - Italia

Since I had a number of requests to justify a posting, mgetty has
been posted on alt.sources.

From the README file:

> Mgetty is a getty replacement, programmable via Tcl scripts, for lines
> hooked to a DCE. Tcl is a language written by John Ousterhout, that
> within mgetty let you do what you want with ttys and modems without
> writing complex C code, at least for the trivial actions.
> 
> Mgetty is modular for two reasons: it is built around Tcl, which is
> itself a modular script language (you can add, delete, and rewrite
> commands in terms of C functions); it needs some external program to
> perform some advanced action (like fax receiving, voice playing and
> recording).

I hope you like it, and if it's so, please send me any bug report, fix
or suggestion.
-- 
P4 32 8 @A ^@@A ^@@Ax^@@A ^@DA"^@D]%xJe&H1\236\331\306
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Modems And Phone Lines
Organization: Boo! 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:33:12 GMT


Is there any easy way to figure out if a problem with disconnects is
caused by a) the modem b) the phone line c) bursts of line noise from
somewhere inbetween me and where I'm calling?  I'm using an Intel 400,
and about 40% of my 14.4 calls are ended by disconnects. (Few problems
at 2400).  I turned off error correction, and that did make it clear
that my disconnects were accompanied usually by a half screen of line
noise (Is sensitivity to line noise just a matter of how the modem
reacts to line noise, or can it also be a matter of how much noise on
the line translates into would-be screen garbage (not seen usually
because of error correction)?)  But I'm at a loss as how to proceed now,
so if anybody has any ideas I'd appreciate some advice.

Thanks,

Greg
From: andresb@anubis.kbfi.ee (Andres Bauman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Info about fast modems needed.
Date: 27 Jan 1993 10:59:55 GMT
Organization: Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Estonia
NNTP-Posting-Host: anubis.kbfi.ee
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Hello

I need information about modems that could do at least
64kbps over 4-wire (or more?) leased line, probably 
with V35 interfaces.

Or other information of fast modems that could be used to
run SLIP/PPP over leased lines.



-----------------------------------------------------------
Andres Bauman                   | Internet: andresb@kbfi.ee 
Institute of Chemical Physics   |    phone: 7(0142)454031
and Biophysics                  |      fax: 7(0142)440640
Ravala pst. 10                  |
EE0001, Tallinn, Estonia        |
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,alt.security
From: archer@frmug.fr.mugnet.org (Vincent Archer)
Subject: Re: Caller ID products?
Organization: Alcatel Alsthom Compagnie Internationale du Telephone - Nozay
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:34:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.172626.11028@bernina.ethz.ch> waldvoge@nessie.cs.id.ethz.ch (Marcel Waldvogel) writes:
>That's ok for most of us. But, dialling back on the same line as the
>call came in isn't secure (at least not on analog lines, I don't know
>about ISDN).

In article <1993Jan20.221642.6070@sfu.ca> howesb@fraser.sfu.ca (Charles Howes) adds:
>Even if you have a second line, if the cracker knows the second number and
>how long it will take for the modem to 'think' before dialing, the cracker
>can then call the second line just as the modem picks it up.

Not so. When you've got a second line, you can make the setup secure by
having an outdial-only line. Most telecom companies will provide
limited-acess subscription, with restrictions. One can always get a line
that cannot be used for incoming calls, but only for calling.

In that kind of setup, your cracker CANNOT call the second line. This line
has a number, but it's only for internal use, and dialing that number result
in a nice recorded message telling you that you that this number is
not-in-use/cannot-access.

That's the next best step to having private virtual phone networks.

Of course, if your cracker can tap the line, then your protection is
defeated. Then, you need encryption on the line, with all afferent costs,
and (probably) also a lot of administrative authorisations.
--
	Vincent Archer			Email: archer@frmug.fr.mugnet.org
Reality is for those who cannot face Science-Fiction.