HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 09:35:03 -0700
From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE Addresses On Outgoing Email
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 775, Message 7 of 12

This note is to Steven@alchemy.uucp writing about why GTE employees
don't need their own accounts.

Steven,

You DO need an account for yourself.  Everyone who posts to the net
should have his own account.  Two reasons:

1.  Accountability.  If everyone can log into the same account, and if
one person abuses it, all will be under suspicion, and will be tarred
with the same brush.  Most of us who are security aware would not ever
want to be associated with a password that others know.

2.  Courtesy and politeness. When a message pops up, I first look at
the return address line to see who it's from.  When I see that silly
reply address, I know nothing more.  In a sense, your company is
saying, we'll do it our way even though the whole rest of the net does
it another way.  We don't care.

If John Higdon wants to name his machine after a cow, that's his
privelege, but if he wants to post messages with non-standard headers,
that's not.

"MOO!" --John Higdon


Ed Greenberg 		| Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com
1600 Stokes St. #24	| Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95126	| Fax:  +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) 


[Moderator's Note: Well you know who else is fond of doing things
their own way? The various commercial services which deign to permit
their users to read and write to/from Internet. They all must think
they are doing *us* the favor by interconnecting ... for the longest
time, mcimail.com was incapable of (or unwilling to) handle incoming
mail from Internet according to standards.  If an envelope had dozens
of names (as the one from this Digest does) and they were unable to
deliver to one name on the envelope ... well, they would just dump the
whole load undelivered. Maybe they changed it now; I've not had any
trouble with delivering the Digest there in several weeks. If it is
now fixed, I publicly thank them.  PAT]
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:39:07 GMT
From: dem@nhmpw2.fnal.gov (David E. Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Call For Presentations - Low-Cost Remote LAN Access via ISDN BOF
Reply-To: dem@fnal.fnal.gov
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,  Batavia, IL,  USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 769, Message 3 of 9

Interop Birds-of-a-Feather Announcement

Low-Cost Remote LAN Access via ISDN
Wednesday, October 28, 1992, 7:30-9:30 PM
Room 121, Moscone Convention Center, San Francisco
Open to All

Computer users are increasingly dependent upon LAN network services
such as X Windows, electronic mail, remote printing, and remote file
access.  Unfortunately, the current model of remote computing from a
home or auxiliary office is still that of logging in as dumb terminal,
despite powerful PC's and X-terminals being highly available outside
the local environment.  Basic Rate ISDN promises to extend traditional
LAN services outside normal geographical boundaries by making
high-bandwidth connectivity widely available upon demand.  This BOF
will be a lively discussion, led by those currently using ISDN, of
topics such as ISDN terminal equipment, obtaining ISDN service,
software to support IP and DECnet via ISDN, and performance of
applications.  Come ready to discuss such neat technological tricks as
turning your home PC into a highly networked workstation.

Discussion Topics:
 
- Deployment of ISDN
- Bridging Ethernet across ISDN
- Bridging Appletalk across ISDN
- Dynamic Bandwidth Management using ISDN
- PPP over ISDN
- Security
- Performance of X-Windows over ISDN
- SNMP Management of ISDN links 
- Bridging vs. PPP over ISDN
- Routing vs. Bridging
- Call-back schemes with ISDN
- How to Order ISDN
- Terminal Equipment
- US and International ISDN Connectivity
- Commercial Internet Access via ISDN
- Performance of Applications over ISDN
- PRI Hubbing of ISDN Access Lines

I am looking for people to make a short (5-15 min) presentation to
spark discussion on any of the above or related topics.  A formal
presentation is not required, the intent is to share experiences or
desired/implemented features.  A viewgraph projector and flip-chart
will be available.

Please contact me via phone, fax, or e-mail if you would like to give a
presentation or bring up a topic for discussion.  Even if you do not
have anything specific to say, however, I encourage you to attend and
be part of the discussion.  Neophytes are welcome.


David E. Martin
National HEPnet Management                     Phone: +1 708 840-8275
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory          FAX: +1 708 840-8463
P.O. Box 500, MS 368; Batavia, IL 60510  USA   E-Mail: DEM@FNAL.FNAL.Gov
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992  20:37:18 EDT
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones With Scramblers Attached
Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.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 768, Message 5 of 12

In a message from: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) on Tue, 6 Oct 1992
16:41:33 GMT:

> I was watching a re-run of [expletive deleted].  The outfit
> which was attempting to buy out the agency gave their "inside
> man" a cellular phone with a built-in scrambler, since they
> were concerned that the office phones might be monitored.

> Do scrambled cell phones really exist ...

Yes.  I remember reading about it because there was a man who wrote an
on-line article somewhere about the abysmal stupidity of the law which
makes listening to a non-encrypted radio transmission a federal
criminal offense, and he offered to demonstrate the scrambling
capability on HIS cellular phone if someone wanted to call and hear
what it sounded like.  He was in the San Francisco Area, I believe.
He pointed out that encryption is not very expensive if you want to
protect your conversation, it's that the cellular providers and phone
makers don't want to pay the cost of upgrading their switches and
equipment to offer it for the few that want it.  (My guess is he sells
cellular phone scramblers!)

Somewhere I remember reading in a book about a means to build for
landline wire telephones, a *cheap* effective scrambler by using a
common radio signal to combine the signal against, which would be
usable against anything short of NSA class equipment, and probably
sufficient for most ordinary calls.  The only problems were that both
parties had to have the scrambler device activated, and that the same
radio signal had to be available at both ends, which meant you either
needed a national broadcast or had to be local to each other.

Now you know why so many people who want private phone calls listen to
Larry King's radio show or WSM.  :)


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
This is my (uninformed) opinion and nobody else is (stupid enough
to be) responsible for it.
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992  21:40:21 EDT
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: FCC Moves on Wireless Phone Service
Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.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 770, Message 3 of 11

FCC Moves On Wireless Phone Service
{Washington Post}, October 9, 1992, pg. F1)

Three firms granted 'Pioneer Preference'

By Paul Farhi, Washington Post Staff Writer

   A partnership affiliated with the Washington Post Co., and two
other companies received a major boost from federal regulators
yesterday in its effort to win licenses to offer a new wireless
telephone service.

   The Federal Communications Commission tentatively granted American
Personal Communications "pioneer preference," meaning APC may receive
preferential treatment when the government begins awarding licenses.

   APC, which is 70 percent owned by The Post Co., is one of dozens of
companies conducting tests of personal communications services, a new
mobile telecommunications technology that employs small radio
transmitters to send and receive calls from tiny wireless phones.  APC
has been operating an experimental system in the Washington-Baltimore
area for the past year.

   Proponents of the technology believe it has vast potential.  Only a
limited number of companies will be licensed to offer service in each
market because PCS systems use scarce frequency space.

   But the value of the future PCS licenses won't be clear until the
FCC gives final approval to the new technology and resolves key
questions about the size of the markets and the number of competitors
in each market, communications attorneys said.  Final action by the
FCC is expected in the first half of next year, but the timetable
could be thrown off by legal or regulatory challenges from
unsuccessful competitors for the licenses.

   In addition to APC, the FCC granted tentative pioneer preference to
Cox Enterprises and Omnipoint Communications yesterday, and turn down
requests for similar status from 53 other applicants.

   The agency said the three companies deserved licensing preference
because each had developed special services and equipment using their
PCS trials.  Specifically, APC has developed a technology that permits
a PCS provider to share part of the spectrum with another user.
Atlanta-based Cox demonstrated that PCS micro-cells can be linked with
a cable TV system -- potentially enabling cable TV operators to offer
phone service.  And Omnipoint, created equipment now broadly used in
PCS sets.

   The awarding of pioneer preferences to companies testing other
communications technologies has proven to be a controversial practice
because of the difficulty in determining which of numerous applicants
are deserving.  Post Co. officials said the practice could be
challenged in court.

   Indeed, FCC commissioners Andrew C. Barrett and Ervin S. Duggan
expressed reservations about the commission's decision, in view of the
number of competing applicants.
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing Availability on #1ESS
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:37:00 GMT
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 767, Message 16 of 17

Jack Decker <Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com> writes:

> A Michigan Bell official (at their executive offices) tells me
> that it is not possible to offer Multi-Ring service on a 1ESS switch;

That is true. A 1ESS has insufficient program-store to provide even
distinctive ringing on internal/external calls on a Centrex group. It
is also incapable of providing "Cancel Call Waiting" and of course,
any CLASS features.

> that you have to be on a digital ESS for such service to be available.

This is NOT true. A 1AESS (analog) can provide all of these things,
including CLASS features. However, it is extremely unlikely that a
1AESS would be used to upgrade a 1ESS.

> Or is it a capability that could be added easily and inexpensively,
> and they are just choosing not to do it?

The feature ("multi-ring") cannot be added to a 1ESS, period.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
From: cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: College Phone System
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:14:11 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 775, Message 5 of 12

Local calls in the DC area, other than the extended-area-local from
Va. suburbs to Prince William County, are untimed, although I recall
reading that some service plans levy a charge per local call beyond
the initail allotment of calls.  I do NOT recall 844 and 936 being any
different from other local DC-area calls.
From: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Fiber to the Home
Date: 10 Oct 92 14:25:45 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 772, Message 9 of 11

In TELECOM Digest V12#763 deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis)
writes:

> Using your 5000 phone lines per (I'm guessing you mean) fiber pair, at
> 64kb/s for a phone line, you're talking sending 160Mb/s to each house.
> Let's use 155Mb/s, since that's an STS-3 SONET/SDH rate.  Anyone know
> what an STS-3 FOT is going for these days?  I don't have any
> up-to-date information (and if I did, I probably wouldn't be allowed
> to post it), but I'd guess that $30k/link (both ends) is correct
> within an order of magnitude.  Even if using ring architectures and
> ADMs can drop your costs by a factor of two (unlikely to impossible),
> you're talking $15k electronics costs per house.

> Even if the cost of overlaying the fiber itself goes to zero, you've
> just incurred a $15k per subscriber incremental cost.  At a 50,000
> line CO, that's an investment of $750 million dollars.  For capacity
> which will, basically, sit there until people figure out how to use
> it.

On the other hand, how *cheap* could a 64kb/s interface be? That's all
it'd take to supply a "regular" phone line. And in the quantities
involved, I'd expect the cost to drop *fast*. For the sake of
argument, call it $50. (I've seen RS-232 to fiber adapters in that
range).

At this price, the PUC could likely be talked around. And if you need
extra capacity, instead of running more lines, you replace the
interface box at the user premises. I'm not sure whether the CO end of
the fiber would be better served by a box capable of handling a range
of line capcities, or by a dedicated box. Either way, at some point,
in the course of upgrading, it'll be necessary to "move" the fiber to
a different box. While this is not as simple as splicing copper, I
doubt that it'd be *that* expensive.

The hard part is dealing with the fiber between the user and the
exchange. In urban areas, boosters can be avoided. In the suburbs we
have a problem. Because I can't see an amplifier that will uniformly
handle all the different signals that could be present on a fiber
given my scheme above. But I don't really know enough about fiber to
know if my feeling is correct on this point.


uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!51!Leonard.Erickson
Internet: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
From: wb8foz@SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: GTE Addresses On Outgoing Email
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:33:13 GMT
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 765, Message 12 of 12

> [Moderator's Note: This message was sent by Curt Lammers but for some
> reason was sent under the account of Jim J. Murphy. I wish the people
> at gte.sprint.com would quit using the accounts of Gloria Valle (and
> now Jim Murphy!) to send messages here and would use their own
> accounts instead or at least include a return address in their mail so
> I could adjust the headers manually. 

Clearly, their news host is ill-configured, and can't handle such
CLASSical features as individual accounts.

Maybe they can get help from a guy I met who seems to know all about
those computer things -- I've got his name here somewhere {flip, flip,
flip..} Ah-Ha, here it is -- John Higdon ...   :-}


wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
From: mmt@redbrick.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Highway Call Boxes
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:20:25 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 767, Message 11 of 17

> Along the highway, out in the country in California anyway, there are
> emergency telephone call boxes, with phones which connect you directly
> to the Highway Patrol or some such agency.  The boxes have no apparent
> wire connections to the rest of the world.  They have mounted on them
> what may be a small (eight inch?) photocell, and a small whip antenna.

Some have a whip, some have the tradional cellular antenna with the
helix in the center.

> Are these indeed radio phones powered off a battery which is charged
> by the photocell?

They sure are.  I have no idea what sort of capacity the batteries
have, but I imagine it need not be huge, since the phones don't really
get heavy use

> What radio frequency and kind of transmission do they use?

The ones that look like they'd be cellular phones -- are.  The ones
with the whips, I believe are trunked 450 MHz.  (This latter one I'm
not absolutely sure of ... I just remember being told this at one
point or another.  If someone more authoriative info, I'd like to hear
it, too.)


Maxime Taksar              KC6ZPS           mmt@RedBrick.COM
Date:  8 Oct 92 17:46 -0600
From: Jim Thornton <thornton@cs.ubc.ca>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What it Costs to Have the President Over
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 768, Message 11 of 12

I recently read a book which included a story about special telecom
preparations for a presidential visit to New York.  In "Emergency!",
Saundra Shohen recounts experiences as administrator of the Emergency
Department at St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital, New York.

One of these experiences began with a visit by two secret Service
Agents who informed her that the president was coming to the city to
visit the theatre and that a phone would be installed in her E.R. and
directly connected to the White House.  She was told that no staff
member was to touch the phone, even if it rang.  Later in the day, the
new phone began to ring and continued to ring until the staff could
not stand it.  A nurse finally answered the phone, only to be screamed
at: "We TOLD you not to touch THE PHONE!". [emphasis in original].

The chapter concludes with some description of other preparations made
for the president's medical care.  There are two additional points of
telecom interest.  First, the author claims that the setup connecting
the White House to the host city's Emergency Department varies with
the administration in office.  Finally, the author states that
arrangements are made for the phone even when the president is merely
flying over the city.


Jim Thornton,  thornton@cs.ubc.ca    University of British Columbia
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992  21:59:54 EDT
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Another List of Cellular Phone Prices
Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.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 773, Message 9 of 15

Three cellular phone offers appear in Luskin's {Washington Post} ad,
October 9:

Quad Nam, Antenna and Cigarete Lighter included, Transportable Hands
Free, $49.00 (Why does a cellular phone include a cigarette lighter? :))

GE Hand-Held Cellular phone, $169.00

Neither of these mention any tie-in requirements.

Motorola "tote" Cellular Phone, "Transportable from car-to-car,
Antenna & Cigarette Lighter, Full 3 watts, No Installation Required,
Certain Cellular Telephone Company Restriction may apply."  $0.01
(That is correct, one cent.)


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
These (uninformed) opinions are mine alone (because nobody else
is stupid enough to have them).


[Moderator's Note: I think that was a typographical error and meant to
say 'cigarette lighter adapter plug', ie. you can charge or operate
the phone from the car battery. Even though those two you mentioned
did not include a cellular company contract in them, are you certain
that somewhere in small print it was not otherwise mentioned in the
ad?   PAT]
From: eli@cisco.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: LD Transmission Quality Comparison
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:01:10 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 784, Message 1 of 10

andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) wrote:

> First off, AT&T has had *some* optical fiber in the network for some
> time.  But the particular medium of digital transmission should matter
> not one whit for how to do echo cancellation.  The propagation delays
> are the same for all terrestrial links.

This cannot be correct.  Propagation delay depends on media type.  The
signal propagation speed in fiber is slower than that in coax cable,
for example.  It must be different for pure copper wire, also.

> Besides all that, every now and then somebody posts a throughput test
> for the big three carriers, and AT&T almost always wins.  

I recall Sprint winning a number of these sorts of tests.  Lately, in
terms of audio quality, the big three are all neck and neck, to my
ear.


eli
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 07:51:12 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Switch Back to AT&T?  NOT!
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 770, Message 5 of 11

I was talking to a friend who relayed a most humourus story to me.  He
received a call that was so noisy and scratchy, that all he could
understand was "I can't hear anything, I'll call you right back."

The phone rang again, and again the connection was very noisy.  Again,
"I'll try again to get a better connection."

The third time, the connection was better, but not fantastic.  But he
could understand the lady on the other end.  According to my friend,
he nearly collapsed in laughter when the lady identified herself
finally: she was a telemarketer working for AT&T and wanted to know if
they could get him to come back (from his current Sprint 1+).  She
realized her point was fruitless and finally said, "I don't suppose
you have this (noise) problem with your current carrier?"

"No."

"Oh."

End of conversation.


tom
internet  : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu  or  thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home)
          : lapp@cdhub1.dnet.dupont.com (work)
OSI       : C=US/A=MCI/S=LAPP/D=ID=4398613
uucp      : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Location  : Newark, DE, USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:05:06 GMT
From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: T-1 For Datacom
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 778, Message 8 of 9

In article <telecom12.763.3@eecs.nwu.edu> rfranken@cs.umr.edu writes:

> For a fast serial line, framing bits are never needed (the computers
> take care of figuring out where a byte starts).  If nothing inbetween
> the sender and receiver cares about framing, and you had a CSU that
> would support it, then you could use the full 1.544 (most repeaters
> don't care about framing, but, for example, a DACS probably would).

This is something I've long wondered about.  If I have a Cisco (for
example) router connected to another router somewhere with a T-1
circuit is it one serial stream at 1.54Mbs or is it broken into 24
channels?  I would guess that if they supported the 24-Channel
arrangement they would also have an option to have one stream.  I
guess the question is then; does datacom commonly use T-1 in a 24
channel arrangement?


Vance Shipley    vances@xenitec.on.ca   
vances@ltg.uucp   ..uunet.ca!xenitec!vances