HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jellinek@adoc.xerox.com (Herb Jellinek)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: US Statement on Lifting Telecom Ban on Vietnam
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:12:27 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 318, Message 7 of 7

[Forwarded from the SEAsia-L bitnet list <seasia-l@msu.edu>]

 Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:37:00 -0700
 From:	"Vietnam Publications" <0004741206@mcimail.com>
 Subject:      US statement on lifting telecom ban on Vietnam


Released by the Indochina Project

                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

           Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman

For Immediate Release                              April 13, 1992

            STATEMENT BY MARGARET TUTWILER/SPOKESMAN

            VIETNAM -- LIFTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS BAN

   The U.S. will grant an exception to the U.S. economic embargo with
Vietnam to allow U.S. telecommunications links with Vietnam to be
established. Payments to Vietnam will go into blocked accounts pending
full lifting of the embargo. This action will facilitate humanitarian
contact between the American/Vietnamese community and their family
members still in Vietnam.

   Our decision to lift the telecommunications ban is in response to
positive steps by Vietnam on POW/MIA issues, as well as Vietnam's
continued support of the Cambodia peace settlement. Our step
demonstrates U.S. intent to fulfill our commitments as Vietnam
fulfills its commitments. It is in keeping with the established U.S.
policy for a step-by-step process of normalization of relations with
Vietnam.

   We expect the Vietnamese to respond with continued and intensified
efforts to achieve the fullest possible accounting for all our missing
Americans. Over the coming weeks and months, we will consider
additional confidence-building steps as Vietnam fully implements the
agreements reached between Foreign Minister Cam and Assistant
Secretary Solomon in Hanoi on March 5, 1992.
From: shiela@goliath.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Outrageous Telephone Rate For Local Calls
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:43:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.310.5
Organization: Makalu Mountain Hermitage, Mt Makalu, Nepal
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 310, Message 5 of 12

Hello netters,

What is a reasonable rate for local phone calls?  Stanford charges $11
plus one time $35 installation charges, for unlimited calls ... Pacific
bell charges about $8 for the same services.

Some Stanford students are suing the University communications
services, which has a monopoly on telephone service to the University
and all the dorms.

But get this: a friend in Illinois, in area 618-236-xxxx is having to
pay: $55 installation charge + $16 per month PLUS A PER CALL CHARGE of
0.045 ... is this reasonable?  How could Illinois Bell charge so much
more than Pacific Bell?

I would like to hear from someone who has had to get a phone conection
in the above mentioned area.

Thanks all. 


shiela "mad at phone company" 


[Moderator's Note: Saying that the university telecom department has a
'monopoly on the phone service at the university' is like saying that
you have a monopoly on the phone service at your home. The university
is not a telco; they are a customer of the telco and the telecom
office is the administrator of the service. Comparing rates between
them and Pac Bell is difficult in a small forum like this since there
are many variables to take into consideration regards service, local
area of calls, etc. Before comment on the Illinois customer can be
meaningful, it would help to know exactly *what* makes up the service
the person is getting for $16. I have IBT residence service and my
bill for 'service' (not including usage) runs close to $100 per month
for two lines and numerous features.   PAT]
From: wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: MCI and Cellular One/Boston
Date: 1 Apr 92 20:02:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.298.9
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 298, Message 9 of 9

Monty Solomon <monty@proponent.com> wrote:

> They are offering a new service called Maintenance Plus with the following
> benefits for $5/month:
>    ...
>    Use of a loaner phone (same number) if repair will take > 1hr;
>    ...      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                   NOTE

Hmmm. A loaner phone with the same number. This means two cellular
phones with the same number, at least on a temporary basis. Doesn't
this conflict with all the previous traffic on how it was impossible
or would create unresolveable conflicts?

Or are these people updating the cellular database during the period
the loaner is in force to change the pointer from phone number to
serial number to that of the loaner, and then changing it back again
after the loaner is returned? If so, that proves this database update
is so trivial that no cellular company has any business charging
anything for doing this when a new phone is "installed" ... :-)


Will
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 07:53:53 -0400
From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 306, Message 6 of 12

In <telecom12.297.10@eecs.nwu.edu> bs496@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John S
Wylie) writes:

> Can anyone tell me when the following area codes go into use and
> where?

> 210, 610, 710, 810, 910, 909, 917
                                ^^^
New York City in late 1992 or 1993 and for cellular/pager use only.
In addition, 718 will absorb the Bronx which is currently in 212 which
will be for Manhattan only.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:20:09 EST
From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Sprint vs. Unions
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 306, Message 1 of 12

> The Institute for Global Communciations has joined the Sprint
> Concerned Customer Association because we have learned that you are
> unwilling to allow your employees to attempt to organize a union.

> We believe that the quality and reliability of our data
> communications service depends on highly trained and dedicated
> employees who function in a working environment of fairness and
> respect.

> Specifically we urge the company to remain neutral in any organi-
> zational campaign and not encourage workers to oppose unionization.

What a bunch of mindless clapp-trap.  Joining a union does not make
someone a highly trained and dedicated employee.  In fact there have
been cases where the opposite is true.

Publishing mis-information does not do your cause much good.  There is
no way Sprint could be "unwilling to allow employees to organize"!
There are strict National Labor Relations Laws which guarantee workers
the right to organize.

However, the employer has every right to make their opinion known
about unionization.  If the company "remained neutral" they would be
doing a dis-service to their stockholders and to their employees.
Hearing both sides of a debate produces a more qualified voter.

The writer of this article seems to not trust the workers at Sprint to
hear both sides of the issue and then make their own decision.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390     UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu 


[Moderator's Note: As long as the employer limits itself to sponsoring
debates on the topic, all is well. But I have yet to see an employer
which wanted a union presence, and if it takes a very activist role in
attempting to defeat a union presence, then it may very well be guilty
under United States law of committing an unfair labor practice. In
this country, labor law says the employer must be *very careful* about
its attempts to keep a union out. Employees who complain that their
rights of speech and affiliation with a labor organization have been
'chilled' or imposed upon by a heavy handed employer will find the
courts sympathetic. Even a 'debate' works to the employer's
disadvantage at times since employees may be afraid to voice their
opinions of the union when their supervisor or manager is present and
will later complain of discrimination because of their views. So as
often as not, the employer takes no official position.    PAT]
From: MJK2660@RITVM.BITNET (Mike Koziol)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Privacy Question
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:01:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.301.8
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 301, Message 8 of 13

I'll try to make this brief: A campus Safety department at a
university.  All calls to a single dispatcher are tape recorded with
out the "beep" every 15 seconds (our interprtation is that it is not
needed in NY state).  Incoming calls range from the mundane to "lower
level" felonies. On occasion our dispatchers have been known to make
personal phone calls while using these lines and "on the clock". The
shift supervisors have a desire to start monitoring incoming calls via
a speaker they want installed on their desk. Their office is
accessible to some employees not allowed to have access to
confidential information. 

Also the office is within "ear shot" of interview rooms where victims,
suspects and visitors are placed. The dispatchers know that what they
say on the phone is taped but feel that this is much different than
active, one on one call monitoring.  It's also realized that a
personal phone call may be heard from the tape in the rare event there
is an investigation.
 
Question: Any legal, liability or ethical issues involved? I've heard
of some controversy about telephone operators being listened in on by
supervision but don't recall the outcome. Seems to me there is a
confidentiality issue.
 
Any help would be appreciated, e-mail gladly accepted if you don't
wish to post to the Digest.   Thanks.     Mike


[Moderator's Note: I imagine Dennis will pick this up and continue the
thread in Telecom Privacy (telecom-priv@pica.army.mil); but to give a
brief answer here, the general rule is that since personal calls have
no automatic right to be placed on an employer's telephones, and since
the purpose of the telephones in question is to respond quickly and
effeciently to emergency police matters -- and part of the effeciecy
in the response is as a result of training by supervisors who listen
on the lines -- the dispatchers have no valid complaint if
unauthorized calls are overheard in the process of monitoring
authorized calls. 

I think a court would rule that it is unreasonable for the dispatchers
to complain of privacy violations when in fact such (personal) calls
tie up resources needed to respond to the public's welfare and in
effect make the perceived 'privacy rights' of employees placing
personal calls at their employer's expense more important than the
obligation of the Department to maintain control of its telephones and
respond effeciently to requests for police service.  If the employees
involved force this issue, an appropriate response from the Department
might be that employees must begin making personal calls during their
free time from pay telephones on the premises.  PAT]
From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New AT&T Videophones
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:21:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.308.11
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 308, Message 11 of 11

In Digest #303, Ole J. Jacobsen <ole@Csli.Stanford.EDU> writes:

> By now I'm sure you've all heard about the new AT&T picturephone, soon to
> appear in all the AT&T phone stores and to retail at $1500 or so.

> What I don't understand is why the model number is 2500. Are they
> really not aware that the standard Western Electric Touch Tone phone
> which has been around for 20 years (Pat?) has ALWAYS been called "a
> 2500 set" by everyone in the industry?

I suspect the people who christened the new product not only know
about the original 2500 set, but chose the name for just that reason.
They probably want to create the impression that the video 2500 is to
videophones what the 2500 set is to single-line handsets: basic,
reliable, standard, and all that good stuff.  The downside is some
confusion over the 2500 designation. How often will someone ask for "a
2500 set" and get the wrong one?

All of this is my speculation only; I have NO official AT&T information
on the subject.


Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
+1 404 496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 21:54:29 CST
From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Heath-Zenith Stores to Close
Reply-To: jsw@drbbs.omahug.org
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 303, Message 1 of 11

According to Joseph 'Scoop' Blough, stringer for the {Omaha News}, all
retail outlets of Veritechnology Inc., DBA Heath-Zenith Computers,
will be closed effective immediately.  All employees will be laid off
except for certain management personnel who will assist with the
decommissioning of the stores.
 
Maintenance functions have been taken over by a third-party firm, and
H/Z will apparently retain some sales agants in some cities formerly
served by the Heath-Zenith stores.
 
The future of the mail-order division of Heath is uncertain at this
time.  It is speculated that the mail-order division will be closing
shortly as well.
 
This happens two years after Zenith Data Systems, parent company to
both Heathkit and Veritechnology, was sold by Zenith to Groupe Bull, a
large, European computer conglomerate.  One of Bull's first acts was
to alienate the hobbyist community which was or prime importance in
the success and growth of Heathkit and Zenith Data Systems.
 
In recent months, Groupe Bull has experienced a serious cash-flow
problem.  {Infoworld} recently reported that IBM (with cash-flow
problems of its own) infused millions into Bull in a bailout attempt.
IBM gained a significant amount of Bull stock as a result.
 
Fortunately for hobbyists, accessories, repair parts, and service for
Heath-Zenith machines from the earliest to the latest are available
from several sources.
 

Good day.       JSW


[Moderator's Note: This is very sad news. I'll miss those folks.  PAT]
From: mmgall@hubcap.clemson.edu (Morris Galloway Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Phone Line Surge Suppressors
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:44:14 GMT
Organization: Clemson University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 304, Message 9 of 16

pedregal%unreal@cs.umass.edu writes:

> As the things one hooks to the phone lines become fancier and more
> expensive, the risk of having them blown by a power surge (or
> lightning, or whatever) becomes more undesirable. 

Both PanaMax and TrippLite offer combination A/C line and telco line
surge suppressors which retail for less than $50 and include a
guarantee (insurance, really) that they will replace not only the
suppressor, but the equipment connected to it if it gets zapped.

I'd definitely get one or the other for a modem hooked to a computer.


Morris Galloway, Presbyterian College
From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: New AT&T Small Business Plans
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:14:22 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 318, Message 2 of 7

Taken from an AT&T announcement:

 AT&T today added four new long-distance options for small business
customers to what is already the widest array of calling service
choices and discounts available.  Called AT&T Partners in Business
Program, the new services bring to 30 the AT&T long-distance offerings
that can be tailored for small businesses.  "We are showing small
businesses, those who are currently our customers and those who are
about to be, that AT&T is determined to provide the best value in the
marketplace," said Joseph Nacchio, president of AT&T's Business
Communications Services unit.  "We believe each business customer
wants a communications solution designed for their individual needs,"
Nacchio said.  "We don't believe one size fits all."

The new long-distance options, available for customers spending as
little as $25 monthly, are: -- Partners in Business Area Code Option,
which gives customers who sign an 18- month contract a 20% discount
each month on all long-distance calls to the domestic area code they
dial most frequently. -- Partners in Business PRO(R) WATS Partners
Option combines existing PRO WATS discounts with an additional
discount of 20% on all calls to a list of telephone numbers selected
by the customer.  That list can contain as few as one or as many as 20
domestic telephone numbers and one international country.  For
international calling customers receive a 10% discount off standard
period rates on all calls to the country of their choice, including
Canada or Mexico. Partners in Business PRO WATS Term Option gives PRO
WATS customers an additional 5% discount in exchange for signing an
18-month contract.  Customers receive discounts on all direct-dialed
interstate and international calls across all rate periods.  Partners
in Business CustomNet Option, designed for multi-location customers,
offers a 10% discount on all calls to the area code the customer dials
most frequently, as well as volume discounts of 10% on usage above
$200 monthly and a 12% discount on all usage of more than $2,000
monthly.


Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE:  (908) 582-5928
READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com  or att!ulysses!andys
What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!
From: Gunnar.Bostrom@sundsvall.trab.se (Gunnar Bostr|m)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CCITT Standards on Internet
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:14:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.310.12
Organization: Telia Research Sundsvall AB
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 310, Message 12 of 12

I have heard that the CCITT standards should be available for
anonymous FTP. Can someone provide the Internet-address please.
Thanks.


Gunnar Bostrom                        
Telia Research AB		E-mail: Gunnar.Bostrom@sundsvall.trab.se
Box 883                         Tel: +46 60 161457
S-851 24 Sundsvall, Sweden      Fax: +46 60 122944


[Moderator's Note: And I have heard the sponsor of these files decided
to take them down and not have them available on line any longer. Is
there any updated news on this?    PAT]
From: mmt@latour.Berkeley.EDU (Maxime Taksar)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Questions About Call Waiting
Date: 6 Apr 92 02:42:30 GMT
Reply-To: mmt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Maxime Taksar)
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 304, Message 15 of 16

In article <telecom12.296.14@eecs.nwu.edu>, pdh@netcom.com (Phil
Howard) writes:

> How does call waiting behave if:
> 1.  the called party is ringing from another caller calling them?

You would hear a busy signal.

> 2.  the called party is calling someone else and they are getting and
>    that call is ringing?

You would hear a busy signal.

> 3.  the called party is calling YOU at the same time?

You would hear a busy signal.

> 4.  same as #3 and you also have call waiting?

Same as #3.  (You would both hear a busy signal).

> 5.  the called party has forward-on-busy to YOU and you have call waiting?

Same as above.

This is how is works on a 1E, anyway.  I arrived at all these answers
long ago by experimenting.  The conclusion I arrived at, from my
experimenting, is that call waiting will go into effect if and only if
all of the following is true:

 - the subscriber has has completed a call (I assume this
   would be that the call has supervised).
 - call waiting has not been cancelled via *70
 - the subscriber does not already have someone 'on [call
   waiting] hold' or ringing through (with the subscriber
   hearing the CW tone).

For all other cases, the switch behaves as if call waiting didn't
exist.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points.


Maxime Taksar   KC6ZPS   mmt@Berkeley.EDU
From: davep@u.washington.edu (David Ptasnik)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Loop
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:51:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.308.6
Reply-To: David Ptasnik <davep@u.washington.edu>
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 308, Message 6 of 11

RANDY%MPA15AB@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com wrote:


> My roommate and I both work for companies that have Aspen voice mail.
> One of Aspen's features is 'call notification', which lets you have it
> call you at any number (internal or external) if you have (normal or
> urgent) messages (at any time or during specific time windows). 
> He forgot that he had also set Aspen to call him at home if he had any
> messages.  Naturally, as soon as someone called him and left a message with
> Aspen, it started calling him at home, which rang through to another
> Aspen port.  It then talked to itself, leaving another message,
> consisting of part of its call notification spiel (which is *quite*
> long-winded).  Not having any limits on his mailbox, he accumulated a
> *lot* of these.

> You'd think Aspen could be made to realize when it is talking to
> itself.

I think Aspen can be set up to recognize itself.  We have two Aspen
systems at the University of Washington (one for campus and one for
the med center).  I am fairly certain that an aspen will not leave a
notification message on itself, and I have never gotten a complaint
from either a hospital user or a campus user that what you described
had happened.  Unfortunately the Aspen administrator is not available
to ask at this time.  Still, I seem to remember hearing that it is an
option that can be set.  As we have two aspens, perhaps we are more
likely to be concerned about the occurence than most single system
users.  If your Aspen administrators want to make this change and are
having difficulty, I will try to research it more.


Dave	davep@u.washington.edu
From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA (David Leibold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Anyone Have Bellcore's Doc For New Area Codes?
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:24:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.310.11
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 310, Message 11 of 12

Some time ago, Bellcore released a document outlining plans for the
new area code structure to take effect in 1995. This sounded like a
Technical Advisory or something similar, with a comment period ending
at the end of April.

Does anyone have a copy of this document, or could indicate where one
might be found? I heard rumours that this proposal could be freely
copied around for discussion purposes, but I could be wrong on that.

I would have picked this up direct from Bellcore, but without access
to 800 521-CORE from here, and with their POTS line soaking
international callers for time spent listening to music on hold,
perhaps someone on the Digest might be able to help. Thanx.


dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca

[P.S. Perhaps someone at Bellcore should set up an e-mail account for
such inquiries and/or orders ... since they're linked to the nets
already.]