HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:12:09 GMT
From: mct@philabs.philips.com (Mark C. Tucker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Help on Settling an Argument About Leased T1 Lines
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff, New York
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 868, Message 6 of 8

A colleague and I were having an argument about leased T1 lines.
Perhaps some experts can settle this issue for us.

Let's say I lease a T1 link from the LEC. So I have 24 DS0 TDM slots
going to the the LEC's CO. My data has to go across two CO hops to our
downtown site where again we have 24 contiguous DS0 slots being
delivered from the terminating CO to our downtown building. Now, the
question is whether the contiguity of the original 24 DS0 TDM slots
will be maintained across the links between the originating and
terminating CO's.  In other words, will a dedicated T1 link (or a
fixed T3 slot) be allocated to me and my individual DS0 slots never
demultiplexed at the originating CO? Or will my 24 slots be chopped up
and carried over separate portions of the inter-office T3 links, only
to be reassembled at the terminating CO and delivered as one chunk of
24 DS0's again?

Do the answers change if I lease T1 circuits from an IXC and go
directly to their POP instead of going through the LEC's CO ?

Please help us resolve this issue.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
	

Mark Tucker			email:	mct@philabs.philips.com
Member of Research Staff	tel:    (914) 945-6564	
Philips Laboratories		fax:    (914) 945-6552
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 06:51:19 EST
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Broadcasting Towers
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 859, Message 2 of 7

John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes:

> Hector Salgado-Galicia <hs1c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>> A friend of mine is doing research for a group of clients. They want
>> to keep communications towers away from their neighborhood. 

> The trendy approach is to claim "potential health hazards" from the
> EMR.  After working in the broadcast business for many years around
> very high-powered transmitters, someone decided that it was
> "dangerous" to be exposed to radio frequency energy. Based upon
> inconclusive tests on animals and on some nifty sounding theories, the
> Federal government adopted the ANSI standards regarding "safe" EMR
> exposure.

> [Moderator's Note: I think if I were going to make objections to a
> tower, the objections would be based on esthetic considerations and
> also on the difficulty of receiving radio signals other than those of
> the nearby tower due to the dense radiation it was emiting. 

A similar problem occurred not long ago when the National Weather
Service wanted to put one of its new Doppler Radar systems in a
community about 15 miles from my house.  Naturally, there was a large
hue and cry about all of the associated EMR problems and the local
congresscritter (18 years seniority and bounced on Election Day just
like his checks) took up the call.

After a lot of wrangling and posturing, the new system is going to be
installed at Brookhaven National Lab, about 20 miles away which is
where it should have gone in the first place.

Some people just don't think.  These people live about 25 miles from
the defunct Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant and BNL has two working
reactors right now.  Some of the protestors even work at these two
places.

Sheesh!  What hypocrites.


Dave
From: Jeff@digtype.airage.com (Jeff Wasilko)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Fake Call-Waiting Product
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:48:34 GMT
Reply-To: jeff@digtype.airage.com
Organization: Univ of Fnord; Roslyn's Cafe Div.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 866, Message 11 of 12

Regards dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)'s article in the TELECOM
Digest:

> A Mr. David H. Schmidt has invented a product called "Gotta Go".  You
> can buy it for $14.95 and plug it into your telephone.  When you've
> got someone on the line who won't let you go, you push the button and
> it makes a click-beep that sounds like a Call Waiting signal.  You can
> then use that as an excuse to bring the unwanted conversation to an
> end.

I heard a demo on the radio this week (apparently the inventor is from
Connecticut).

The box simulates what the other party hears on a 1AESS or 1ESS --
just the clicks. From what I heard on the radio, it sounds just like
the real thing.


Jeff
Jeff's Oasis at Home.         Jeff can also be reached at work at:
                                               jwasilko@airage.com
Date: 15 NOV 92 04:00   
From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: MCI MAIL Announces "Full Support" of Internet Gateway
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 852, Message 4 of 14

A flier in this month's MCI MAIL bill announces "Full support of MCI
MAIL's gateway to the internet!" and notes that the connection was
"previously experimental."

I know when I've complained in the past about mail never arriving, MCI
MAIL told me the gateway was experimental.  I assume this announcement
means it is now supported.

Randy Gellens                randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com|
A Series System Software                 if mail bounces,  forward to|
Unisys Mission Viejo, CA                         rgellens@mcimail.com|
Opinions are personal;   facts are suspect;   I speak only for myself|


[Moderator's Note: I'll be happy if they can manage to deliver this
Digest on a timely basis to our fifty-plus subscribers on that network
without dumping the whole thing undelivered back to me. Hopefully part
of their 'full support' includes compliance with Internet standards
for delivery of mail.   :(   PAT]
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 23:53:16 -0800
From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Risks Of Cellular Speech
Reply-To: henry@ads.com
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 846, Message 11 of 13

Frank Vance <airgun!fvance@uunet.UU.NET> wrote:

> 1. First of all, why did the various cellular providers make promises
> of "safe and secure communications" when they knew anybody with a
> little money could buy a receiver to listen in?

Money.  It wouldn't sell if they couldn't say these things, and it was
easier to fib than to do anything about it.

> 2. Why, instead of fixing the technical deficiencies in their product
> do they go sniveling to Congress to make it illegal to listen (as if
> they are ever going to be able to enforce it)?

Money; it's cheaper to buy Congress than to retrofit every phone in
the field.

> 3. Why in the world did our government accept the snivelling and pass
> the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, instead of telling the
> cellular providers to go fix their own problems?  

They were just doing the job the cellular phone companies paid them to
do.

Am I being too pessimistic?


# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>


[Moderator's Note: Pessimistic? Not at all, Henry. The US Congress is
just as easily bribed as a judge in Chicago; only the rates are a
little higher since the 'territory covered' is greater.  PAT]
From: faunt@cisco.com (Doug Faunt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Advice Needed on Wide Area Networking
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:41:41 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 861, Message 6 of 9

It's cisco if you've been around a while, or Cisco if you believe the
marketing people.  You can send mail to cs@cisco.com, and your message
should be forwarded to the proper people.


73, doug
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 13:55:20 EST
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Caller ID in Area Code 516
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 865, Message 5 of 10

Caller ID was deployed in the 516, 718 and 914 Area Codes on Monday,
November 16, 1992.  I decided to take the list of exchanges that have
that capability and derive some sort of figures concerning the
breakdown of Area Code 516.

Total Exchanges: 483
Nassau County:   191
Western Suffolk: 114
Eastern Suffolk:  41
Caller ID Avail: 209
 
The balance of exchanges are special cased (Telco, Cell Services,
Time/Weather, etc.)

I noticed that exchanges bordering the Nassau-Suffolk Counties and the
Nassau-Queens Counties borders do not, in a majority of the cases,
have Caller ID.  This non-availability seems to be fairly solid going
about two Central Offices away from the borders.

Another interesting thing is that if a portion of an exchange is taken
by a major employer, CallerID is not available (516-282 and 516-341
are good examples).  My employer has 5,000 of the former and 100 of
the latter).


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093


[Moderator's Note: I don't think the key here is if the subscriber is
a 'major employer', but rather, the type of phone system the
subscriber has, and of course large firms tend to have large and
elaborate systems.  I think what you are experiencing is a large block
of numbers used for DID, centrex or other purposes where the software
is not presently compatible with what is needed to do Caller ID.  PAT]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:46:59 GMT
From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Advice Needed on Telephone Security Systems
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 861, Message 8 of 9

In article <telecom12.829.3@eecs.nwu.edu> khx@se44.wg2.waii.com
writes:

> c) Why were cable connections cut?

The four-conductor underground phone cable I've seen looks a LOT like
coax, especially underground coax.  Assuming that most thieves are
pretty stupid, it's easier to just cut all the cables just to make
sure.

One thought that came to me while reading this for a "cut phone wire
detector" is to simply add another piece of underground phone cable
from the demarc down into the ground a few feet.  This dummy cable
could then be connected directly to your alarm, either as an open loop
or closed loop (or, better yet since you have four conductors, one of
each) depending on how you terminate the stub in the dirt.  If this
gets cut, you KNOW someone is tampering with your phone cables.  I
suppose you could use any unused pairs in your actual phone cable as
open-loop detectors, but someday the phone company will use them or
short them or something and give you a false alarm.

Of course real cut-line-detectors measure the voltage across the line,
but those can be spoofed by carefully connecting a power supply of the
right voltage to the demarc prior to cutting the wire.  I would expect
that most monitoring/alarm companies can install one of these at your
request.  Of course, most theives would rather find an open door or
break a window than learn to pick locks, so a typical thief won't drag
a variable battery-operated supply and voltmeter to the side of your
house.

If this type of problem goes on a lot in your area it might be worth
setting up a "neighborhood watch" where everybody has a battery-backed
CB walkie-talkie tuned to the same channel (9?) and left on all the
time with the squelch turned up.  You could always rig up a tape
recorder and the push-to-talk button to your alarm to announce the
situation and your address.  This would work best if you have some
reliable retired or otherwise home all the time people in your
neighborhood.  Just gotta keep the kids from playing "practical"
jokes.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 01:24:35 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Stupid Phone Systems Blocking N[01]X Prefixes
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 843, Message 11 of 11

In article <telecom12.840.9@eecs.nwu.edu> Jim.Rees@umich.edu writes:

> You would think that cellular providers would be sensitive to the
> problem of dialing numbers with a 0 or 1 as the second digit, since
> many cellular prefixes are of this type.  But our latest cell phone
> number is in the 600 prefix, and we've found that we can't roam
> anywhere, even where our provider has a mutual roaming agreement with
> the remote provider.  The reason?  It seems that most cellular
> providers can't deal with the 600 prefix.

There may be another explanation.  Was the 600 prefix recently put
into service by your home cellular carrier?  The cellular carriers
that have roaming agreements regularly exchange data as to which
prefixes they have in their home areas.  The other carriers then
update their switches with this data.  What can happen with new
prefixes is that the prefix is turned on, and the other carriers don't
program their switches for the new prefix right away, either because
they didn't get the data in a timely manner from the home carrier, or
because they don't act on the new data quickly enough.

Either way, the symptom is that a subscriber who has service on a new
prefix in their home area is unable to use the phone for any calls,
incoming or outgoing, in another area.  Note that this problem is not
restricted to any particular prefix, but just to the prefix's
"newness."  I have a friend that used to be a cellular phone dealer,
and this happened serveral times to customers who bought a new phone
immediately before going on a trip, and were very disappointed that
the phone didn't work in certain roaming areas.  But, it could also be
a problem specific to x00 prefixes as well.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Dumb Question About LATA/Toll
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:34:00 GMT
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 854, Message 8 of 12

> Does anyone know the exact rule by which LATAs were drawn up?  PAT]

As near as I can recall, LATA's were determined using population
centers called SMAs.  An SMA was a S(not sure what the S stands for)
Metropolitan Area.  I think the goal was to have a limited number of
SMAs in any one LATA.  Additional considerations were the existing
geographic and political boundaries, existing telco service areas,
etc. The intent was to indeed make all inter-LATA calls served by an
inter-LATA carrier.  The practicality of that lead, however, to
numerous exceptions such as, NJ Hudson River communities and NYC,
Camden, NJ and Philadelphia, etc.  Those special exemptions allowed
for existing non-toll calling that was handled by the two local
exchange carriers to continue.  There are something like 160 LATA's.


Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.

Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com


[Moderator's Note: The /S/ is either 'Statistical' or 'Standard'.  PAT]
Date: 16 Nov 1992 12:44:20 GMT
From: martin.baines@uk.Sun.COM (Martin Baines)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: British Telecom Profits
Reply-To: martin.baines@uk.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 856, Message 1 of 13

In article 7@eecs.nwu.edu, monty@vnet.ibm.com writes:

> I recently noticed this on teletext (textual information sent with the
> TV picture -- I don't remember the technical name!):

Teletext is the correct technical name: CEEFAX is the brand name of
the BBC service ORACLE the brand name of the service on ITV and C4,
SKYTEXT for that on Sky TV etc.

> British Telecom (BT) recently announced pre-tax profits of 1.027bn
> pounds (sterling) for the six months up to 30 September, this being
> 36.2% down on last years figure of 1.61 bn.(NB 1 bn = 100,000,000).
> This (apparently) works out at about 65 pounds profit a second
> (compared to last years 102 pounds). BTs voluntary redundancy program
> has led to a loss of thousands of jobs from the company and a
> reduction in profits due to their payments.

N.B. 1 Billion = 1,000,000,000 in this context.

> With these sorts of figures, it is not surprising that BT is facing
> stiff competition from other providers (CATV). 

I agree that the competition is a "good thing", but why does everyone
think profits are such a bad thing? Profits represent how much
business has grown not how much money has gone into greedy
shareholders pockets. The dividend payed by BT is fairly modest
(around 5% per share in line with most UK blue chip companies), not to
mention the 33% Corporation Tax paid to the government on the proits
(thereby reducing all our tax bills). The rest will be put back into
the business for things like modernising the network and other
investment for the future. BT is the largest company in the UK, so
everything about it will be hugh.  This does not mean that its profits
are excessive.

> Perhaps due to this and/or excessive profits BT has charged all calls
> within the UK on Sunday afternoon/evening at local rates for two of
> the last Sundays.  Maybe they are listening to their customers?? I
> don't suppose so!

Or maybe they think that there can be a win-win situation: the
promotion increases calls so that they make more money than on a
normal Sunday; the customer gets to call cheaper as well. Not to
mention taking some market share back from Mercury: I certainly didn't
use Mercury to call my Mum yesterday :-)


Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager,
Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK
Phone: +44 223 420421                 Fax: +44 223 420257
JANET:     Martin.Baines@uk.co.sun    Other UK:  Martin.Baines@sun.co.uk
Internet:  Martin.Baines@UK.sun.com
X.400:     g=martin s=baines prmd=sunir admd=mci c=us
From: mpeters@pax.eunet.ch (MBX Michael Peters)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: E1 vs. T1 Signalling
Date: 15 Nov 92 05:39:48 GMT
Organization: EUnet Login/Mailbox Service
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 850, Message 2 of 13

I am looking for E1 signalling specifications. 

If someone knows of an FTP site that has this information (and perhaps
how it differs from T1) could they please mail me.

TIA (thanks in advance)


Michael Peters - FRANKLIN DATACOM
mpeters@pax.eunet.ch
Voice(in CH): 41 52 213 9347
FDI HQ: V: 1 805 373 8688
Fax: 1 805 373 7373
From: pml@cajun18.cacs.usl.edu (Patrick M. Landry)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Dimension 2000 Guru Wanted
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:47:58 GMT
Organization: The Center for Advanced Computer Studies
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 853, Message 10 of 13

If there is anyone out there who is very familiar with ATT's Dimension
2000 PBX and wouldn't mind answering a couple of questions I would
love to hear from you. Please e-mail me as I do not read this group.
Thanks!!


patrick    pml@cacs.usl.edu
From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Does SS7 Support Early Busy Signal?
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:27:29 GMT
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 866, Message 6 of 12

In article <telecom12.854.12@eecs.nwu.edu> jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.
com (adams,john) writes:

> Another aspect of all of this is that "Carrier Connect Time", the
> period of time between your LD company accessing the distant
> (originating works pretty much the same way) LEC, is revenue for the
> LEC (The LD company pays) regardless of whether the call ever
> completes!

Is this true of regular calls or only operator assisted?


Vance Shipley 
vances@xenitec.on.ca         vances@switchview.com         vances@ltg.uucp
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:31:29 GMT
From: rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: MCI Service Outage
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 858, Message 5 of 13

As I type, MCI long distance out of San Diego is sporadic.  Apparently
their cable up to LA has been damaged (no word on why), and their
backup cable can't handle the load.  No word on service resumption.
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:46:37 GMT
From: lenoil@catalogic.com (Robert Lenoil)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What Equipment is Required For Switched 56k?
Organization: Catalogic, Mountain View, California [Voice: 415-961-4649]
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 857, Message 3 of 11

> What other alternatives are available besides switched 56k service?

Are your connectivity needs bursty or relatively constant? If you only
need 56k at certain times of the day and *nothing* most of the time,
then you should investigate dialup IP routers. Models like the Telebit
NetBlazer offer inverse multiplexing, carrying traffic between two
LANs over several dialup lines for effective baud rates of 56k and
higher. The box makes connections transparently based on IP address,
so all you see is a brief delay when the initial call is made. This
solution will be exceptionally cost effective for your sites within
local phone call distance from each other.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 13:02:37 GMT
From: vixen!jadams@uunet.UU.NET (22475-adams)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: HELP Needed on JPEG Standard!
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 845, Message 6 of 7

In article <telecom12.834.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, dave@westmark.com (Dave
Levenson) writes:

> In article <telecom12.821.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us
> (John R. Levine) writes:

> compress video for transmission between sets.
> As an aside ... why in the world did they use that <2500> model number?  Is
> it possible that someone at AT&T didn't know it had been used once
> before, for a product that once had what might be called 'significant
> market penetration'?

Or could it be that some marketeers hope for a repeat performance with
the new "2500"?


Jack (John) Adams		Bellcore NVC 2Z-220
(908) 758-5372 {Voice}		(908) 758-4389 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com	kahuna@attmail.com