HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:24:25 GMT
From: bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu (David E. Bernholdt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What it Costs to Have the President Over
Organization: Quantum Theory Project, University of Florida
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 768, Message 12 of 12

We just had a visit from a presidential _candidate_ and his entourage.
They had a rally on campus, right in front of my office in fact.
People (mostly campaign roadies, I think) worked through the night to
set up platforms (for the candidates, speakers, TV cameras, etc.),
barricades, and such.  I did _not_, notice any unusual telecom goings
on, though -- that suprised me little.  Sure he's not the president
yet, but it sounds like most of the telecom gear discussed in this
thread was for the media rather than the president.  There were, of
course, a fleet of satellite uplink trucks growing all over the lawn
by the morning of the event, but that's about it.

Security is similar, though.  Lead story in our campus newspaper the
following day included a description of Clinton and Gore jogging
through town and campus the night before the rally and of restroom
stop just after the rally which played up the clearing of the path.
Even Tipper Gore rates a cleared, searched, guarded restroom.  Hard to
reconcile this with the idea that they were just standing in front of
20,000 people without any precautions other than the eyeballs of the
Secret Service.

During the rally, they wouldn't let anyone on the roof of my building,
which would have been a good vantage point, but they didn't stop
people from going to the windows.


David Bernholdt		bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu
Quantum Theory Project	bernhold@ufpine.bitnet
University of Florida   Gainesville, FL  32611	 904/392 6365


[Moderator's Note: In August, 1968 at the infamous Democratic National
Convention here (yes folks, I was there on Michigan Avenue the night
of the riot in front of the Hilton Hotel; another story for another
time but I saw it all from a few feet away), President Lyndon Johnson
used a bathroom at the Merchandise Mart during a visit with the
relative of the Kennedy family who was general manager of the Mart at
that time. Afterward someone part of his entourage identified the
precise stall in which LBJ had been seated. Soon thereafter, grafitti
appeared on the wall of that stall saying that 'LBJ took a sh-- here,
August ??, 1968'. That message remained on the wall, with numerous
addendums and postscripts both witty and crude for several years. At
one point, the toilet seat itself disappeared; apparently stolen by
someone who unscrewed the hinges and carried it away, eager for some
bit of history that would be worth money later on.   PAT]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 18:47 PDT
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AT&T vs A Cable Company
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 779, Message 2 of 7

In the last month, I have had two problems with "wire companies". One
was with my cable company (TCI Cablevision of San Jose); the other
with AT&T. The difference in response between the two companies is
remarkable.

My complaint with cable was the disruption of service in the wee hours
to do "maintenance". You will recall that I mentioned this practice in
a recent post, which I faxed to TCI. TCI's response was a full-page
letter from the general manager fully explaining the situation,
including measures taken to prevent recurrance, and apologizing for
the annoyance that it caused. As a "peace offering", I was informed
that there would be a credit on my next statement representing one
free month of the DMX service including box rental.

The AT&T matter involved charges for hundreds of dollars worth of
calls never made. It took many calls, including three-way conferences
with Pac*Bell, to get AT&T to agree to issue a credit. Throughout the
whole affair, I was treated as some sort of deadbeat who was trying to
avoid paying my bill. One rep barked, "The calls WERE made from your
residence, whether you were aware of them or not. There is no mistake
with direct-dialed calls." I would not mind seeing that person fired.
I sent a letter to a number of the executives of AT&T including Bob
Allen. AT&T's response? Absolutely none. Obviously my business is of
no concern to anyone at AT&T. In fact, I was informed by someone in
the company that my complaints and observations were indeed brushed
off.  AT&T may have good products and services, but it has a lot to
learn about customer relations.

The next time you consider cable companies to be slime and telephone
companies to have class, please remember these two notable exceptions.


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
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:58:30 GMT
From: neezam@seas.gwu.edu (Neezam Mohd Bohari)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: ADPCM Speech Encoder/Decoder IC
Organization: George Washington University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 772, Message 3 of 11

I am looking for an ADPCM Speech Encoder/Decoder I.C in small quantity
(two or three pieces). This IC is basically compresses the toll
quality voice signal (like in telephone line) and decompresses later
on. The input signal is serial digital PCM data stream from Compander
I.C and it generates the compressed bytes in parallel, so you can feed
it to PC bus etc, and vice versa.

So far, I had came across with NEC Electronics product ic # uPD7730
(old version and its production is discontinued).

   #  uPD77C30 new version, but currently not available, even
      for sampling (as far US regions is concerns). The best I can
      do is to place an order and wait the next 16 weeks,
      which is something I can't stand for.

 If any of you out there know where-how I can get this I.C. please
inform me as soon as possible, or had some extras or spare regardless
the old version or new one I AM WILLING to buy from you (please
consider a gift anyway).

Those folks who know any cross-product for this IC PLEASE help me.


e-mail neezam@seas.gwu.edu   phone : (202) 296-9577
Thanks in advance.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 10:00:29 CDT
From: varney@ihlpk.att.com (Alan L Varney)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Seeking Information on SS7 Packets 
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 781, Message 11 of 12

In article <telecom12.772.6@eecs.nwu.edu> raum@isoa3.ba.ttu.edu (Raum
Pattikonda) writes:

> I am not very familier with SS7 protocols. I would like to know if the
> SS7 packets contain the calling card number information for the calls
> made using the calling card. Can someone also please sugest a good
> book on SS7.

   Standard SS7 "packets" (this is telephony, so they are called
"messages") do not currently contain CC#.  However, T1S1.3 is well
along in the process of standardizing the encoding and transport of
this information, and delivery via ISDN.  I'm not aware of any
standards for determining the need for or method of collection, etc.
that would result in such transport/delivery; that's probably viewed
as an Operator Systems issue, so far.

   I won't recommend any books specifically, but most of the very
recent ones on "ISDN" have a good section on SS7.  The local Barnes &
Noble usually has a few in the Computer Communications section, and
can order others.  Note that these are tutorial-level and are not a
replacement for the real ISDN standards, available in the Q.7xx CCITT
"Blue" book or as series of T1 standards from ANSI.  Bellcore clients
(the "RBOCs" generally) also use a collection of requirements that are
more "services" oriented; briefly, the main ones for voice calls are
TR-NPL-000246 (basic SS7), TR-TSY-000317 (intra-LATA voice via SS7)
and TR-TSY-000394 (inter-LATA voice via SS7).


Al Varney - MY opinion, of course.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 12:46:42 GMT
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Old Telephone Wiring at Network Interface
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 783, Message 5 of 10

In article <telecom12.772.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, arnold@Synopsys.COM (Arnold
Leon) writes:

> I just had a second line installed at our house.  Since a second
> line has never been installed here before PacBell installed a new
> network interface box for the second line.  The house is 39 years old.
> I had decided to do my own inside wiring.  My plan was to simply tie
> in the second line to the existing wiring on the second pair (yellow
> and black). When I opened the old network interface I had trouble
> finding the yellow/black pair.  I eventually found the yellow wires
> connected to a screw connector.  There is also a wire running from
> this connector to the new network interface.

In the 'deep dark distant past', the Bell Standard for Domestic Inside
Wiring, was three wires (Red, Green and Yellow). The Yellow was a
ground, which was usually used for party line ringing (Tip to ground,
or Ring to ground).

You won't find a black wire in the cable at all.

> Any general comments?  Any recommended reading for someone doing
> inside phone wiring?

I ran into this same thing when I bought my last house (built in the
early 50s). The only existing wiring was all three wire. I had to
re-wire the whole place. I'd recommend you replace all the 'three
wire' with quad or multi-pair if you want to distribute both lines
throughout the house.


John Rice        K9IJ   "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
                        MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
                        Not my Employer's....
rice@ttd.teradyne.com
From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Highway Call Boxes
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:05:30 GMT
Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail.  Playa del Rey, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 767, Message 8 of 17

They are cellphones.

                
Rich Greenberg - N6LRT - 310-649-0238 - richg@hatch.socal.com
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 15:17:06 -0400
From: smith@parrot.maya.com (Don Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Private PBX Installation
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 10 of 11

Looking at a Panasonic KXT-1232 Key system that uses the KXT-7000
series phones. We would like to know any advantage/disadvantages of
the system.  Any recommendations on other Key systems would be
welcome.


Send E-mail to smith@maya.com


Thanks,
Don Smith
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Highway Call Boxes
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:30:55 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 767, Message 7 of 17

The antenna appears to be the same size as a cellular phone antenna.
I believe they are just solar-powered cellular phones which are
hard-coded at the switch to be a 'you-can-only-call-this-special-
number' cellular (you can buy that as a specific cellular service
feature -- it's used for outside personnel to be able to only call
their office. I'm sure PAT knows the exact name of the feature.)

A solar charger would be more than enough to keep a cellular battery
up.
 

[Moderator's Note: Many/most cellular phones can be programmed to
only allow calling to one or more of the 'speed dial numbers' and to
ignore things entered from the pad itself. I think 'call restriction'
is the name of the feature.   PAT]
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:45:38 GMT
From: Eli.Mantel@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Eli Mantel)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: College Phone System
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 768, Message 1 of 12

In article <telecom12.765.9@eecs.nwu.edu> JD2859A@AMERICAN.EDU (Jeff
Dubin) writes:

> ...there are a few disadvantages: Can't call time or weather services.
> Apparently, the university blocks them, but no one seems to know why.

> [Moderator's Note: ...  maybe they have time and temp blocked
> because it is a premium service or they otherwise consider it a waste
> of money.]

Being as this is the Washington, DC metropolitan area, I think that
time and temperature are offered as non-premium services (844-2525 for
time, 936-1212 for temperature, if things haven't changed in the last
couple of decades).  

I find it unlikely that they would have the temerity to judge the
value of calls, so I offer an alternative explanation for the call
blocking: Stupid PBX administrators!  Yes, incompetence in the phone
service is not limited to employees of the telephone company.  There
is a tendency on the part of PBX administrators to block anything they
aren't familiar with.  Perhaps they have a directive to block
"information service" exchanges, where the intent is to avoid premium
charges. The underlying problem is that the people who are hired
haven't spent half their lives playing with phones; heck, most of them
probably don't even know about this newsgroup.  Naturally, this flame
doesn't apply to any PBX administrators who read this newsgroup.

Now to possibly answer Jeff's question: First, you can try and find
the boob who misprogrammed the PBX, offer him a case of beer, or do
whatever else is necessary to convince him to reprogram the PBX.

Second, you can use the information service number offered (usually)
in the front of the Yellow Pages (I believe this service is offered in
Washington, DC), or you can use the {Washington Post's} information
service number.  I don't know for a fact that these offer time and
weather services, but usually these free information services do.


Eli Mantel (eli.mantel@bbs.oit.unc.edu)

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80


[Moderator's Note: Even if those services in DC do not carry premium
charges ala 976, don't they still cost a message 'unit' or some small
amount of money per call?  Maybe the administrators there feel even at
that low rate it is a waste of resources.  :)   PAT]
From: clements@BBN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: College Phone System
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:58:45 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 775, Message 4 of 12

In the discussion of blocking access to time/temperature numbers from
a college's PBX, our esteemed Moderator suggests:

> [Moderator's Note: Even if those services in DC do not carry premium
> charges ala 976, don't they still cost a message 'unit' or some small
> amount of money per call?  Maybe the administrators there feel even at
> that low rate it is a waste of resources.  :)   PAT]

No smiley about it.  Let me relate some ancient history.

Back in about 1961 I was a wee tad at MIT.  Every time the weather was
bad a very large fraction of the outside lines were kept busy by
people calling the weather number (617-936-1212).  And all those calls
cost message units.  And since most of the trunks were two-way, people
got busy signals when calling the MIT switchboard (617-UNIversity-6900). 
This was long before direct inward dialing.

The chief architect of the phone system, the late Carlton E. Tucker,
Professor of EE, decided this had to be fixed.  He talked with the
telco folks and negotiated a price for a permanent trunk from the
telco weather recording to MIT.  He then whipped up a design that
would play that audio onto a block of internal MIT extensions
(x5211-521n).

Now you could get the weather without tying up outside lines and
without running up message units.  A side benefit was that you could
get the weather without having a "dial-9" class of service on your
phone extension.  So we at the radio station (then WTBS, now WMBR)
saved some message units on our separate outside line, too.

All this of course required custom hardware work and some arm-twisting
at the state DPU, because the MIT phone system was all owned by Telco
and all the services had to be tariffed.  But this was no big deal
because Prof. Tucker was doing this sort of thing all the time.  He
held a number of patents on relay and Strowger phone gizmos and the
phone company and DPU loved him (at least part of the time).

At that time, the MIT PBX was a huge Strowger system with a
many-position cord board much like the one PAT describes from his
past.  I was never formally employed to run the MIT one but I did get
on good enough terms with one of the night operators to try out some
of the interestingly-labeled jacks once in a while.


Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com


[Moderator's Note: When I was an operator at the University of Chicago
from 1958 through about 1962, they had (WEather-4) and (CAThedral 8000) 
 -- the latter for the time of day -- blocked from all extensions. It
was a Strowger system also, and there were three groups of cordboards,
one group for the main campus (MIDway 0800) with about nine operator
positions, one group for the hospitals (MUseum 4-6100) with eight or
nine positions and one group for the Computation Center (NORmal 4700)
with two or three positions.  PAT]
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Michigan Bell: Business vs Residential Rates
Date: 15 Oct 92 09:02:37 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 785, Message 1 of 9

> "Home based workers who use their phone lines for business more than
>  50% of the time need a business line."

> At first glance, this seems to be a pretty reasonable compromise on
> class of service billing. How one determines 50% may be open to
> discussion, but it beats the attitudes of some companies that want to
> bill business rates if you so much as publicise your phone number.

The way I read it, they could STILL want you to get a business line if
you publicize your phone number.  I think this is aimed at people who
work at home (or do a lot of overtime work at home) and spend most of
the day logged in to the company computer or have lots of telephone
conferences with other workers.

It just might manage to snag some lonely wife who calls her husband at
work a lot and has a home business but never makes any phone calls
related to that business.  It might also snag some guy who takes a lot
of work home with him, receives a USENET feed from UUNET (but he
originates the calls) on his personal machine, calls in sick once
every month or two, and makes few other calls.

If they REALLY wanted to get picky, this could cover some poor guy who
receives more telephone solicitation calls than he makes or receives
personal calls.  They might even be trying to define "a business call
is a call which terminates at either end at a business line", which is
one way they COULD measure it without listening to the calls.  That
could cause cascade reclassifications -- if my line has to become
business, then people who call me a lot are at risk of being
reclassified also.  Eventually, there are no residential lines.


Gordon L. Burditt   sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:03:01 GMT
From: cmb@ico.isc.com (Chris M. Beery)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Caller-ID Boxes (Home Use) Information Request
Organization: INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS CORPORATION - BOULDER
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 765, Message 3 of 12

I am interested in finding out some info on Caller_ID boxes as the
feature is soon to be offered in the Denver, CO area.

My primary question is: Does any manufacturer make one that prints the
data on a spool of paper rather than use an LCD display? (A combination 
would also be fine).

Alternatively, I'd like to know what type of stores carry these
devices (of any style).

Thanks for the info in advance.


Chris   cmb@ico.isc.com	  INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation   A Kodak Company
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: GTE <> Pac*Bell SS7 Update
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:56:00 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 778, Message 2 of 9

After talking to spokespeople at Pac*Bell and GTE today, I can give a
report on the progress of SS7 connectivity (and CLASS feature
compatibility) in California.

As has been pointed out, there is currently no SS7 connectivity
between Pac*Bell and GTE. In northern California (Bay Area), this is
insignificant since the bulk of the telephone service is provided by
Pac*Bell. However Los Gatos is in my local calling area so I was
curious about how long it would be before features, such as my Select
Call Forwarding, would work with Los Gatos phone numbers.  In southern
California, this lack of SS7 connectivity really impacts the value of
Pac*Bell's CLASS features since GTE serves major areas of the greater
Los Angeles area (including parts of Los Angeles itself).

Here is the scoop (from Thousand Oaks spokespersons): GTE is currently
in the final testing phase of SS7 within its own service area.
Depending on the final outcome of those tests (which should conclude
within several weeks), negotiations should finalize with Pac*Bell
paving the way for SS7 connectivity between the two companies. This
could happen by mid-1993, just in time for Pac*Bell's proposed
offering of Caller-ID (finally!).

So it appears that GTE will possibly have SS7 connectivity with
Pac*Bell within the year. In the meantime, it is interesting to note
that a nearby outpost of little Contel already has SS7 connectivity
with Pac*Bell. And indeed, my CLASS features work perfectly with
Gilroy numbers.


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
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 14:00:21 GMT
From: vixen!jadams@uunet.UU.NET (22475-adams)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Seeking Information on SS7 Packets
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 781, Message 12 of 12

In article <telecom12.772.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, raum@isoa3.ba.ttu.edu (Raum
Pattikonda) writes:

> I am not very familier with SS7 protocols. I would like to know if the
> SS7 packets contain the calling card number information for the calls
> made using the calling card. Can someone also please sugest a good
> book on SS7.

For Alternate Billing Service (ABS) or Line Information Data Base
(LIDB) queries, yes, the calling card number is included in the
Transaction Capabilities Part (TCAP) of the SS7 message.  Different
applications CLASS(R), 800, LIDB, and AIN construct their message
components differently according to published BELLCORE Technical
Requirements documents.

In terms of recommending *A* good book, I am clueless.  Perhaps, if
enough interest exists, I (all co-authors are welcome to contribute)
might want to undertake the effort.  If there exists one or more good
texts on the subject, I'd rather not.


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