HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:57:47 GMT
From: syd@dsi.com (Syd Weinstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on CDMA
Reply-To: syd@dsi.com
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 623, Message 2 of 11

murthy@solomon.technet.sg (K.R.S.Murthy) writes:

> Can anybody explain to me briefly in layman's words how CDMA
> technology works?

Here is a very simple explaination of CDMA (Carrier Detect Multiple
Access):

Before sending, listen to the line, if there is no carrier, then send.

This is sort of like how we hold a group discussion on the phone ...
if no one else is talking, then you feel free to talk, only this is
for data.

It is used on any 'multi-drop' kind of line instead of polling.  The
carrier can be anything, from the RF carrier in a radio based
application to the dc bias on an ethernet cable.

NOTE: ethernet adds another feature to it, CDMA/CA
(CA = collision avoidance)

There is always the ability for two transmitters to decide at the same
time, its free, jump on the line.  This causes a collision.  In pure
CDMA, the collision just wipes out the data, and a timeout retry will
pick it back up.

Ethernet, uses CA, where each station first transmits a pre-amble
before the data.  They also listen to see if the pre-amble got stepped
on.  If it does, they back off and avoid the collision.  Then the data
makes it out, or everyone backs off, and a 'retry timer' is used.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 2.4 Release: Oct 1,1992
syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd      Voice: (215) 947-9900, FAX: (215) 938-0235
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 22:34:23 -0700
From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: GTE Thinks I live in 213
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 636, Message 8 of 9

Yesterday I received some mail from GTE, no doubt at ratepayer's (that
is, my) expense.  They want me to convert my XXX card to a GTE card,
where XXX should be immediately obvious to all loyal telecom readers.
(GTE is just a little behind the Baby Bells in implenting the change).

While the information is full of what might be called misinformation,
the best part is that the marketing blurb says only GTE can offer me a
calling card with my home telephone number, but the printed
information has my phone number in the 213 area code.  Astute readers
of this forum have no doubt noticed that the 213 area code split nine
months ago and my new area code is 310.  I can think of an
explanation, but it still looks funny seeing my phone number with the
213 area code.

I will not be getting a GTE calling card for several reasons, among
them that many of their "advantages" are actually disadvantages.  For
example, I'd rather not have my "home phone number plus PIN" as my
calling card number.  I also don't like "automatic acceptance" by
every known slime long distance company -- you know, the ones that
charge $8.00 for a $1.00 call.  GTE's claim that "there's no cheaper
way to make your call without dialing direct!" is also false.  First,
I could get connected to a gouging AOS.  Second, a consumer could get
some kind of discount by using a long distance company credit card.
(I won't mention any of the specific plans by name so I won't have to
hear from any attornies about TMs and SMs :-().

The PUC should be regulating this kind of nonsense.

And, of course, they try to invade the customer's privacy by including
a "Customer Servie Questionaire."


David
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 02:07:11 PDT
From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Have I Been Slammed or Haven't I?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 636, Message 4 of 9

I've got a cellphone with service from Cellular/One-Chicago.  I've had
MCI long distance on the phone for well over a year.  I've gotten
bills from MCI for my long distance during this time.  Today I got one
from AT&T for $0.00.

I called Cellular/One.  They tell me I have MCI.  I called MCI.  They
tell me I have MCI.  I called AT&T and *they* tell me they were told
to switch me over to AT&T by Cellular/One on 6/26/92 -- and that
*only* Cell/One can switch me over ...

Of course the drones on the phone at Cell One don't know anything and
will never let you talk to *anyone* who does.  Talk about useless!
So, I'm pretty much convinced that I'm still with MCI, (I checked with
700-555-4141 to make sure) but I am rather disturbed at the fact that
this whole thing happened.


reb
From: johnson@tigger.jvnc.net (Steven L. Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How to Trigger a Pager From a Modem
Date: 22 Aug 92 20:00:27 GMT
Organization: JvNCnet
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 652, Message 5 of 13

Hans Ridder <ridder@zso.dec.com> writes:

> In article <telecom12.643.8@eecs.nwu.edu> spencer@phoenix.princeton.
> edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

>> FYI, two people have mailed me to say that the ATDT <beeper number>
>> ,,, <number you want to show up> does work.  So there's no need to
>> rush out and get a BellSouth beeper or whatever it was :-)

> I'd like to point out that in my experience this type of "open loop"
> paging is probably not something you want to "bet your business" on,
> as it is not very reliable.

There are ways of making it more reliable, such as using the "wait for
quiet answer" option available on some modems.  Checking call progress
status for no-dialtone, busy, no-answer and retrying also helps.  I'm
lucky that my pager is on the same CO as my computer and the answer
times are very consistent.

No pager is reliable.  The radio portion can be much less reliable
than the telco portion of the link.  In order to close the loop, the
system needs to retry the page until the intended receipient
acknowledges the initial condition that caused the page.  And if it is
a bet your business emergency, you'll want an escalation procedure
that doesn't depend on one person and one beeper.

> I'd suggest using one of the dial-up paging protocols which actually
> get an acknowledgement from the paging system, thus "closing the
> loop."

This doesn't close the loop as the paging system isn't the intended
receipient.  It can make one portion of the loop more reliable.

Does anyone have a feel for the percentage of paging systems that can
handle IXO protocol messages for digital beepers and will allow their
customers access?  I believe that my service only allows this for
their alphanumeric beepers.


Steve    steve@johnson.jvnc.net
Date: 15 Aug 92 11:24:49 EDT
From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Local Call Determination
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 632, Message 2 of 13

dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) writes:

>> Additionally, can someone explain to me what distinguishes local calls
>> from toll calls?  Are all calls within a LATA local?

> In NYTel land (area code 516 - Long Island) local calls are CO based.
> If the number being called is in an adjacent CO or the local one
> (where your number is based), then the call is free depending on the
> type of billing plan (Flat Rate or Message Rate).  This can lead to
> some very wierd situations.

I just noticed a wierd one over here.  I was going to make a "local"
call to my apartment in Mahwah, NJ, from a LEC payphone in Ramapo, NY,
the next town north by two or three miles.  NY Tel's typically abusive
cash price was over $2.50 for the first three minutes.  It's literally
cheaper to call California than it is to call to the next town from
Ramapo, NY.  So much for adjacent COs supposedly being cheaper ...


Alan Boritz    72446.461@compuserve.com
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:07:20 -0500
From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Deterioration of POTS
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 650, Message 3 of 10

Our esteemed Moderator writes about antitrust suits by the federal
governnment against IBM and AT&T:

> [Moderator's Note: Yes, you may point out that it was a consent
> decree, as in I hold a gun to your head and you consent to be robbed
> after I have offered you that choice versus being killed. Then later I
> say I did nothing wrong: after all, you agreed robbery was best under
> the circumstances. You'll note IBM refused to settle at all and their
> case was dropped. I think AT&T should have continued stonewalling in
> the same way as IBM, flooding the court with semi-trailer vans full of
> paper to read each day as part of the discovery, etc.     [...]

> Obviously AT&T felt it was prudent to take the best they thought
> they could get and walk away.

   Is that "obvious" at all?  If IBM could 'Just Say No,' then why
couldn't AT&T?  Remember, this was the Reagan antitrust division,
which had already rejected the legal theory on which the AT&T suit was
based; it is hard to imagine them as zealots forcing AT&T to dismember
itself.

   Also, your explanation founders on the issue of why AT&T would
choose to "cure" a problem concerning BOC equipment purchases from
WeCo by offering to dismember itself.  The government was seeking some
way of getting the BOC's to have an arm's-length relationship with
WeCo, and this did not require splitting the BOC's from AT&T.

   To me, the "obvious" explanation is that no one was remotely
thinking of divestiture until AT&T itself sugested it for its own
reasons.  You can argue about whether this was a smart move on AT&T's
part, but I can't see how divestiture could have happened in this case
except at AT&T's initiative.
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:24:22 EDT
From: terry@spcvxb.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr.)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What Number am I Calling From?
Organization: St. Peter's College, US
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 624, Message 2 of 12

In article <telecom12.614.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, ricochet@spatula.rent.com
(Rick O'Shea) writes:

> Is there a way to get the number of the phone you're calling from?
> For example, the payphone in my laundromat isn't marked and the store
> owner says he doesn't know what it is. There's times when it would be
> more convenient to have somebody call me back, but if I don't know the
> number, how can they?

  Well, the rent.com system is in New Jersey, so 958 might work for
you.  I believe there is a Bellcore recommendation that 958 be used
for this purpose, so it may work elsewhere.

  Note that many public and semi-public phones are set up to not
accept incoming calls. The "blue meanie" (Charge-a-call) phones found
at airports are almost always set up like this.

  Caller ID should work as well ...


Terry Kennedy		Operations Manager, Academic Computing
terry@spcvxa.bitnet	St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
terry@spcvxa.spc.edu	+1 201 915 9381


[Moderator's Note: Yeah, but the Charge-A-Call phones as often as not
return some bogus circuit number for billing purposes, so they may not
give good information to Caller-ID either.   PAT]
From: dfx@nuchat.sccsi.com (dFx International Digest)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: *69 and Call Waiting
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:25:40 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 627, Message 4 of 16

*69 would ring back the person who was attempting to call you, not the
person you were talking with.


dfx@nuchat.sccsi.com
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 01:53:20 GMT
From: bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Are Online Phone Books Available?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 654, Message 4 of 10

Compuserve has two files, one (PhonFile" for residential users and one
(Dun's Yellow Pages) lists business phones. Not cheap.  Phonfile will
run about 50 cents a name, DYP nearly $2.00 (but it also gives a bit
of business information, if I remember).


Stewart Rowe usr2210a@tso.uc.edu  srowe@igc.org
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:44:45 GMT
From: lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Laurence Chiu)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Phone in Bathroom
Organization: GCS Limited, Wellington, New Zealand
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 640, Message 3 of 8

This may be a silly question but anyway ...

  A couple of years ago I had a phone installed in my bathroom. For
some reason I kept on getting calls when in the bathroom rather than
leave the machine on I wanted to pick them up.  The phone I put in was
a ATT trimline type phone but made in the East somewhere.

  Well two years of steam from showers etc. and I think the phone has
suffered. Callers tell me the sound is muffled now (I don't think it
has a carbon mic) and leaving it out to dry for a couple of days has
not fixed the problem.

  Does anyone have any idea what could be the problem. What kind of
phone should I be looking at? Should I enclose it in some steamproof
covering?

Thanks,


Laurence Chiu    lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 09:34:34 EDT
From: "bxbmts::bxbmts::mrgate::bxb::msbcs::am_msbcs::king"@msbcs.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: My Email Address
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 645, Message 12 of 17

From:	NAME: BRYAN P. KING / VSS-SPE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
	TEL: DTN: 293-5677
	ADDR: BXB1-1/J11 (BOXBORO) <KING@AM_MSBCS@MSBCS@BXB>

Pat,

I'm using DEC MAILworks as my mail user agent.  This used to be known
by other names such as ALL-IN-1 Mail and X.400 mail but the confusion
it caused with another well known Digital product called ALL-IN-1 IOS
prompted a name change.

If people send me mail via king@msbcs.enet.dec.com it will still get
to me as I have forwarding set on VAXmail.


Thanks for the notification and for posting my article.


Bryan
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 01:54:05 -0500
From: dmiller@elli.une.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Looking For a Good Deal
Reply-To: dmiller@elli.une.edu.au
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 639, Message 11 of 14

I saw an article in the June 22nd issue of {Communicationsweek
International} which discussed "alternative calling services".  For
example, the AT&T "WorldConnect" service was cited as giving the
ability for an overseas caller to connect to a third country.  Does
anyone have any information on this, or an address/phone number?

On a related note, I've noted the discussions in the Digest mentioning
800 numbers which map to a customer's normal service.  Does anyone
know if anyone offers a service whereby calls to an American 800
number can be "transferred" to an Australian number, but with the
calls billed at the (lower) American rates?


Best regards,

David M Miller          Internet:    dmiller@elli.une.edu.au
PO Box 695              CompuServe:  100032,341
Hornsby NSW 2077        GEnie:       D.MILLER3@GENIE
Australia


[Moderator's Note: You could have one of several providers of 800
service forward 800 calls to a regular phone line then have that line
on call forwarding to the Australian number at direct dial rates.  PAT]
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 10:44:44 -0500
From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AT&T EasyReach Problems in Rochester, NY
Reply-To: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 629, Message 4 of 6

Douglas Scott Reuben writes:

> that this was not true, I was told that the "real" reason why
> EasyReach calls couldn't be placed from SOME exchanges in Rochester
> Tel's area is that they aren't running the proper software on their
> ATT 5ESS machines.

> I am generally quite happy with AT&T EasyReach ... it is an
> exceptional service.  Yet not being able to be reached from the second
> largest city in New York state (at least in certain exchanges) is
> troubling. AT&T should act quickly to remedy this shortfall.

> BTW, two of the exchanges in question were 716-461 (Field St. CO) and
> 716-263 (Stone St. CO). AT&T says there are many more :(

Field Street (my CO in fact) and Stone Street are two of the largest
exchanges in the entire city.  Stone Street blankets the central
business district and Field covers the southeastern "cultural"
district and the wealthy suburb of Brighton, which is where I am
stationed.

It seems incomprehensible that two of the largest exchanges in two
vital telecommunications areas of the city would be so handicapped.

If the problem persists, you can call Rochester Telephone's Unresolved
Telephone Related Problems Bureau between 8-4:30 ET at +1 716 777 1040
and let them do the research.

By the way, Buffalo is still the second largest city (outside of Metro
NYC), although we are quickly catching up to them.  :-)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 11:53:33 PDT
From: David Sangurima <sangu@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telephone Company Tone Service Charges
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 639, Message 14 of 14

Howdy,

I'm curious about the touch-tone monthly service charges that telcos
apply to most of their users.  Is it necessary to request the tone
service or is this some abuse on the part of the telcos?

Thanks in advance for any feedback.


David Sangurima    New York   Internet: sangu@igc.org
From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Deterioration of POTS
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:44:00 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 650, Message 5 of 10

One of the big threats in the 70's was that IBM would be split up just
like ATT.  It has taken a while, but IBM is now doing it voluntarily
in order to stay competitive.  Was ATT simply more farsighted?
Date: 22 Aug 92 15:15:56 GMT
From: a_rubin%dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Monitoring Dialtone for Voicemail Indicator
Reply-To: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 653, Message 1 of 11

In <telecom12.646.10@eecs.nwu.edu> waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew
Waugh) writes:

> Note that having a message waiting light or stutter dial-tone is an
> either-or option; you can't have both. The people who administer your
> PBX will have to switch each line from stutter dial-tone to message
> waiting light as you equip the phones.

Our system here at Beckman Instruments is a ROLMphone (R) with ROLM
PhoneMail (R), and I have both a flashing light and a stutter
dial-tone if I have new messages.  (They did program the wrong light,
though; it's the one next to the "CONF" button.)

I have no connection with Rolm other than a (usually) satisfied user.


Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:16:54 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pounding on an Octothorp
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 645, Message 6 of 17

> [Moderator's Note: We covered this in excruciating detail in a special
> edition of the TELECOM Digest back in 1989. "Octothorpe" (with an \e\
> on the end) seems to be the designated name.  In another message in
> this issue, a reader asks if pounding off at the end of certain
> dialing sequences is a normal, acceptable thing to do.  PAT]

Since pounding off is not necessary for domestic calls, you may not
want to do it, as you might wear it out.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com


[Moderator's Note: Alright now, cute innuendos are my department, not
yours!  :)   PAT]
From: chatel_m@annecy.enet.dec.com (Marc Chatel)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: *69 and Call Waiting
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:09:22 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 627, Message 3 of 16

In article <telecom12.620.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Michael Rosen) writes:

> Do *69 and Call Waiting mix?  For example, say I'm on the phone and
> receive another call on call waiting.  I either ignore the call
> because maybe the call I'm on is important or the other caller hangs
> up before I can switch over.  Will *69 ring back the person calling on
> my call waiting or the person I'm talking to now (assuming they called
> me, of course).

   To be honest, that depends on the kind of telephone switch your
telephone is on AND on the kind of facilities (CCS 7 or not?) the
call-waiting call came in. The Bellcore TR that describes the
call-processing feature you use when you dial *69 specifies that you
should ring back the person calling on your call waiting call, if
possible (i.e. if the call came in on a "smart" facility (CCS7/ISUP)
so that your switch knows the phone number to call back).  The feature
is known as "Automatic Recall", "Automatic Callback", or "Call
Return", depending on which organization you talk to.

   As far as I know, if your phone is on a Northern Telecom DMS-100
switch, this interaction will work. I know that because I coded about
half of the software for this feature in 1988 (I worked at
Bell-Northern Research at the time). The person who designed the Call
Waiting/Automatic Recall interaction was a good friend of mine (her
name is Heather Sinnott). But I do not know where in the world she is
now, or where the other designers are.

   I am still amazed at the power of Usenet today. Do you know ANY
other way in which you would have a fighting chance to FIND somebody
who knows about this topic?


Sincerely,

Marc Chatel,
Global Village Time-traveler, currently on contract with
Digital Equipment Corporation  Annecy, France
E-mail:   chatel_m@annecy.enet.dec.com
Phone:    (33) 50.09.42.56   FAX:      (33) 50.64.01.39