HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 01:32 EDT
From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Radios in Die Hard
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 691, Message 8 of 13

> not quite. Start with the idea that airplanes are somehow "stuck" at
> the outer marker when the radio goes down, continue through the idea
> that a pilot of a commercial passenger airplane would try to land
> without visual on the runway lights, and end with the idea that you
> can tap into and simulate an airport control tower by attaching
> alligator clips (or equivalent) to the cables and then hacking through
> them with an ax.

Being somewhat familiar with FAA telecommunications, I think you only
scratched the surface.  For one thing control lines for runway lights
would never leave the airport, although packet radio links are
sometimes used.  There also exist several redundant layers of ground
to air communications.  Primary communications would most likely be
from a RCAG (Remote Communications Air to Ground) site or the
equilivent.  If this link fails, there are BUEC (Backup Emergency
Communications) sites that utilize diverse links.  If the RCAG is on a
telco leased line, then an effort would be made to place the BUEC on a
microwave link.  If both of these sites fail there is backup
equipment in the tower building.  If all this fails most towers are
equipped with portable units in the tower cab.

If for some reason all of this fails, the nearest center could vector
traffic away from the airport with their RAGS or BUEC's.  The tower
would be connected to the center with either leased lines or microwave
links.  If these fail, VHF and HF radio nets are in place across the
country linking major airports with the centers and FAA offices.  Hams
would drool over the computer controlled radios, high gain Log
Periodic antennas and PK-232 TNCs, often located in screen rooms for
EMP protection.

The part about planes landing without any visual contact is valid, as
long as the plane and airport have the right equipment.  If there is
enough RVR (Runway Visual Range) the pilot can land blind.  I beleve
this is called either a Cat. III or Cat. I landing, I forget which,
I'm not a pilot.  The towers at some airports are equipped with surface
radar for observing planes on the surface of the airport when they are
not visable from the tower cab.


Disclaimer: The above is my opinion only.
Pat Turner   KB4GRZ   turner@dixie.com
From: reilly@staff.dccs.upenn.edu (G. Brendan Reilly)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Ending Automated Calls
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:23:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 689, Message 4 of 19

It seems that if you wanted to end automated calls you would simply
have to get the exchange of the cellular phone in Washington DC and
start bombarding them with automated calls.  I'm sure that when the
congressional staffers and such have to put up with this crap they'll
decide "something must be done in the public interest."
From: jrice@atss.calstatela.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Live AT&T Opertaors From Pay Phones
Date: 6 Sep 92 23:54:11 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 686, Message 5 of 6

It appears that when direct dialing any LD call from a Pac*Bell pay
phone one now gets a live AT&T operator on the line who announces the
charges and (occasionally) asks if you wish to actually use coins.  As
of only a couple of weeks ago, an automated system was used to recite
the charges.

Does anyone have any information on why this switch has been made?  It
seems to me that it is a waste of resources by AT&T, especially when
they are cutting back their workforce.


Joe Rice     jrice@calstatela.edu
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992  18:54:37 EDT
From: Message Center <FZC@CU.NIH.GOV>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Tel Plus Wins Award
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 713, Message 11 of 16

{Corporate News} Washington Technology Magazine,
September 10, 1992 Pg. 31

Tel Plus of Fairfax, Va. has won a contract from the General Services
Administration to provide telephone equipment to federal agencies.
The one-year contract is worth $1.25 according to GSA estimates.


[Moderator's Note: This surely must be a typographical error. Even the
phones at Radio Shack are worth a dollar, twenty-five cents.   PAT]
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: V.25bis, or: Are CCITT and PTTs Totally Bonkers?
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:12:28 GMT
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 693, Message 3 of 9

Toby Nixon <tnixon@hayes.com> writes:

> In article <telecom12.680.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, mcb@presto.ig.com
> (Michael C. Berch) writes: 

>> OK, I can see that a PTT might want to have some reasonable
>> regulations that restrict automatic redialing by modems and similar
>> devices, to prevent older switch equipment from being overloaded.  But
>>  ... a Forbidden Numbers list?  With numbers that stay on it FOREVER??
>> Have these people totally taken leave of their senses?  If I dial up
>> my local BBS in Zurich, and the system is down, and the modem doesn't
>> answer four times, I am Forbidden from ever trying it again?

      If it works reasonably, this is a useful feature.  If you call a
number, and it is busy, some countries require that you not call it
again for a period of time.  South American countries with
underconfigured COs (notably Brazil) have required this for years.  So
that's the mandatory delay.

      Busy numbers shouldn't be added to the Forbidden Numbers list,
and numbers that answer and present modem tones won't be.  Only
numbers that answer, but don't present modem tones, should end up on
the Forbidden Numbers list.  This makes sense; if a number is
answering but not attached to a modem, there probably isn't a modem
there and the calling end should stop calling and annoying somebody.

      If the receiving system is down, that's OK.  Either the modem
doesn't answer the phone, or it answers the phone and brings up a data
connection, even if no data can be transmitted.  The only real problem
comes with some old systems where, when the system went down, a voice
message was switched on.  But that's rare today.


John Nagle
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:29:15 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <sichermn@csulb.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How do YOU Use "Break" Signals?
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 710, Message 4 of 11

In article <telecom12.704.4@eecs.nwu.edu> Toby Nixon <tnixon@hayes.
com> writes:

> I am researching the current applications for the "break" (continuous
> spacing) condition in start/stop (async) communications.
> Specifically, I am trying to determine the importance of supporting
> break (and preserving the length of the break) in various protocols
> that carry async data across different environments.

  Uh oh, looks like they're getting ready to patent another
pre-existing in-band signalling technique.

1/2 :-)


Jeff Sicherman
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 01:13:28 -0400
From: shri%legato@cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar{shri@ncst.in})
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: OK What Exactly Does IRC Stand For?
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 703, Message 9 of 12

In article <telecom12.691.2@eecs.nwu.edu> is written:

> TRT = Tropical Radio Telegraph, one of the oldest International Record
> Carriers (i.e. telex companies).

   Question: Is an IRC "equivalent" to a telex company ?

   I've come to know and understand the term "Internationaal Record
Carrier" by rote, to be almost synonymous with "long distance" carrier
you could make peer-peer networking arrangements with.

   Whats the formal definition?


shrikumar (shri@legato.cs.umass.edu)
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:09:37 GMT
From: plains!cooper@uunet.UU.NET (Jeff Cooper)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Automatic Fax/Modem Switches
Reply-To: plains!midkemia!cooper@uunet.UU.NET
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 703, Message 4 of 12

I'm looking to buy one of those fax/modem switches that can be used on
a single phone line to switch the incomming call to the apporiate
device.  The setup I'm trying to get it working on is this:

I have an answering machine and a modem on a single line, I would like
to be able to take incoming modem calls without giving up the use of
the answering machine (i.e. if it's a voice call it should end up
ringing the phone and eventually on the answering machine, but if it's
a data call it should go to the modem), but the modem must be able to
make outgoing calls at any time (for my UUCP feed).

Is this even possible?  I've tried two switches sofar, the one Radio
Shack sells and one made by a company called ACCO.  The one by ACCO
works (part of the time, every other call seems to get in) Does anyone
else have any other recommendations of other types/makes of switches?

Thanks for any help!

Jeff Cooper    cooper@plains.nodak.edu
NeXTMail: cooper%midkemia@plains.nodak.edu   (701) 298-0893
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:30:00 GMT
From: ian.evans@bville.gts.org (Ian Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Information Wanted on Call-Forwarding in 416
Reply-To: ian.evans@bville.gts.org (Ian Evans)
Organization: Baudeville BBS - Toronto, Canada 416-283-0114 2000+ conferences
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 712, Message 5 of 14

I'm looking for some call-forwarding services in Toronto that will
extend my calling area so that people in nearby cities can call my
service without LD fees.  Any suggestions?  Rates?


CompuServe ID: 73117,545 UUCP: bville!ian.evans| Message created while
INTERNET:ian.evans@bville.gts.org              | basking in the joy of
OTHERS: ian.evans@canrem.com                   | living in Scarborough


[Moderator's Note: In general, unless all points along the way are
untimed local calls -- and then, not if the calls are counted and
charged for -- linking two or more local lines together with call
forwarding for the purpose of defeating tolls will not save money for
anyone. Rarely does a toll call cost more per minute than two or more
local links connected together. You'd be better off using local area
800 service if such is available.  PAT]
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 18:20:48 EDT
From: python@cs.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: New Mailing List For Telecom Engineers
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 703, Message 11 of 12

I have just created telecom-engineers, a list devoted to just the
engineering point of view of telecommunications. If you want to be
added, send mail to telecom-engineers-request@cs.rutgers.edu. If you
want to send material, send it to telecom-engineers@cs.rutgers.edu.
If something fails, send mail to me.

The list is a digest, and sends out automatically when there is enough
data in the inbox. I won't be doing much screening unless there is a
problem. The idea is that if you want to discuss between developers of
hardware and software, you can do it ideally on this list.  Discussion
of how the phone works, differences between carriers of a technical
nature, and also, differences between switches (pbx, etc) and
differences in dialing instructions overseas and nationally can be
discussed here. Political and social implications should be discussed
on the regular telecom list moderated by Patrick Townson of Chicago.

In any event, I hope that the new list will offload the telecom list
and that should mean different and more effective traffic there.  Feel
free to post things to both lists, but try to keep the technical
material down on telecom.


jsol     (python@cs.rutgers.edu)


[Moderator's Note: Long time readers know that Jon Solomon was the
founder of TELECOM Digest back in 1981, and after a hiatus is active
once again on the net. As Jon points out, his list should be reserved
for the more technical stuff, although it is still welcome here also.  PAT]
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 01:37:08 -0500
From: Joseph.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joseph Bergstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Information Wanted on GTD-5 Centrex
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 694, Message 3 of 13

Would like to know if anyone has any information on a GTD-5 Centrex
Central office switch?  Believe manufactured by G.T.E.?  In particular
need information on processing S.M.D.R. data from such a switch.  If
anyone has information or knows where to obtain it, please respond.
Thank you.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 10:32:06 EDT
From: David Leibold <DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Bell Canada Applies to Charge Most Directory Assistance Calls
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 712, Message 8 of 14

CFRB radio and {The Toronto Star} report Bell Canada's application to
the CRTC to charge for most directory assistance calls, including long
distance information (ie. 555.1212 calls), plus local 411 calls
chargeable even for new number listings or changed numbers. There are
a few exemptions to charges which include calls from payphones,
non-published numbers, listings not found, emergency numbers and some
others. A 25 call allowance is proposed for the handicapped, the
illiterate, those over 65. Per call charge would be 50 cents, which
would be a reduction from the current 60 cent rate for calls to find
numbers in the phone book.

Bell Canada claims "losses" of CAD$80 million, and states the ability
to find the number on Bell's directory assistance, then place the call
on a competing reseller or carrier, as justification to charge the
extra rates for directory assistance. A statement from the Consumers
Association of Canada rep David Simpson declared "Ma Bell is on the
warpath" linking the proposed tariffs to an anti-competitive attitude.

I don't have the official text of the application from the CRTC yet,
but file numbers, etc should be available. Perhaps those Digest
readers in the U.S. familiar with the charging for 555.1212 calls
might want to list the arguments used for and against charges to long
distance information calls, and perhaps shed some light on whether 411
calls for new or changed numbers should be chargeable.


dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca    dleibold1@attmail.com
From: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Book on S.W.Asian Telecom Systems, any experts on Kuwait,Iraq,Jordan, and BanglaDesh who can contribute chapters on these coutries?
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:42:36 GMT
Organization: Columbia University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 704, Message 10 of 11

Major part of a book on Telecommunications in South & South West Asia is
complete but some countries' systems are missing.  

We are looking for any people with experience or knowledge of systems,
current state of the art, policy etc in Bangladesh, Iraq [pre-war or
post-war, possibly both] Kuwait [ditto], and Jordan [ditto].

Please email if you think you can contribute a chapter on one of these
countries.


Regards,

Imran Anwar
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 03:40:48 GMT
From: hhallika@zeus.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Real Legislation, or Hoaxes?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 693, Message 9 of 9

In article <telecom12.689.9@eecs.nwu.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Michael A. Covington) writes:

> I've been told that the following two pieces of legislation are before
> the Senate, but cannot identify them from Congressional Record and
> similar references.  Can anybody fill me in?

> (1) A ban on private consulting in electronics, "S. 1706," recently
> mentioned by a letter writer in Robert Pease's column in Electronic
> Design.  (There is a S. 1706, but it deals with import duties on
> certain industrial chemicals.)

	As I recall, the legislation in question (which I think may
have gone through several years ago) has to do with the IRS
determining whether a worker is a contractor or an employee.
Companies often use "job shops" as technical temp agencies to hire
engineers for fixed term projects.  These may last several years.
Under these circumstances, the worker is an employee of the job shop,
which is a contractor to the "end customer".  Many engineers would
like to work something similar, being contractors instead of
employeess while not having part of "their pay" going to the job shop.

         Actually, this seems pretty reasonable to me, though I have
not studied it thoroughly.  One is a consultant and contractor if one
provides that service to several customers, maintains an office where
a substantial portion of that work is done, set the hours and
conditions and provides the tools.  If someone goes to work 9 to 5
every day at someone elses premises, and that someone else provides
the tools, it sure looks like employment to me!

	There are, of course, several other questions to consider in
offering "consulting engineering" services.  One major issue is state
licensing.
	

Harold Hallikainen              ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.     hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu
141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4      phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590  telex 4932775 HFI UI
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:38:51 GMT
From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Summary: Tapeless Answering Machines
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 692, Message 7 of 8

In article <telecom12.676.1@eecs.nwu.edu> andrew@jester.pa.dec.com
writes:

> Panasonic KX-T8000

Here are some further comments after owning one for a few weeks.

> maybe has remote selective deletion of messages

Yes, it does. You can delete the current message or all messages using
the *4 or *5 key combinations. There is a minor timing problem though;
on long hang-up calls (i.e. when the caller hangs up just after the
beep; too late to be dumped by the CPC detector) it is impossible to
hit *4 fast enough to selectively delete that message remotely.  All
message delete will remove it remotely, and the selective delete
button on the console will get it locally.
        
The skip/forward buttons also work remotely: you can go back and forth
between stored messages with a keypress.

Complaints: voice quality is actually better over the phone than
through the speaker. Digital voice is okay, better than the SONY, but
still lacking in treble. Nobody has complained or, for that matter,
even noticed that I changed machines.

Some features on cheaper Panasonic analog machines ( e.g. dual
outgoing messages, priority message) are not present on this model.

Remote delete does not =say= "DELETED", it just plays a staccato of
beeps at you. Since it uses voice for everything else, I consider this
a design flaw.

Also has rapid playback (no Mickey Mouse) on either local or remote
playback of messages. Can be toggled remotely too.

The above minor niggles notwithstanding, this is rapidly becoming my
all-time favorite answering machine.


Mike Schuster
NY Pub. Access UNIX/Internet: schuster@panix.com | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM
The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com   | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER
From: ocl@cc.ic.ac.uk (Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: The Role of Usenet in Case of Disaster
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:46:06 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 690, Message 1 of 10

Someone (sorry - I inadvertently deleted the message) suggested that
Usenet would be used to a further extent in cases of disasters such as
the one in Florida, with hurricane andrew.

Well, we do receive here a group called alt.hurricane.andrew , and the
feed is indeed pretty long (it has to go through five or six sites
before reaching me here in London, and that's from UUNET only!).  I
would be surprised if this group wasn't available in U.S.A.!


Cheers,

Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, Digital Comms. Section, Elec. Eng. Department
 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London SW7 2BT, UK
      Internet/Bitnet: <ocl@cc.ic.ac.uk> - Janet: <ocl@uk.ac.ic.cc>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92  23:15:17 EDT
From: Paul Robinson <FZC@CU.NIH.GOV>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Why Non-Authorized Cellular 911 Works.  Maybe.
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 703, Message 5 of 12

In all the discussions over Cellular Phones being connected on calls
to 911 even if the phone is not authorized for service with that
carrier, I think I know why.

Every telephone in every state (every one that gets a bill, that is!
:) ) is being assessed a surcharge ranging from 2c to 25c a month for
911 or Enhanced 911.  This money is collected as a tax on all
telephone lines.  This tax goes to the state or the local emergency
service area for the purpose of providing 911 service for an area,
depending on how the laws are set up in that state.  (And I wouln't be
surprised if the amounts spent on 911 service and equipment, and the
amounts collected, especially in some cash-starved states, do not
match, and we can guess which of the two amounts are smaller.)

My guess is that since the tax is (1) used to pay for the 911
equipment and (2) to pay for the incoming trunks and ANI service, that
most likely whoever carries a cellular 911 call gets the airtime fee
from the emergency service center.  Which is probably why they even
let non-authorized callers make calls on 911 because it's acting as a
'caller pays all charges number' and 911 is probably also paying for
the airtime too.

Anyone know anything different?  It's the only thing that makes any
sense for a service provider to allow a cellular phone to make *any*
call without them being a paying subscriber; I figure *someone* has to
be paying for the service, and it's probably the 911 system.  (Which,
to encourage calls to 911, is what it should be.)


Paul Robinson