HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: 5 Sep 1992 10:24:49 -0500
From: quinn@ender.tamu.edu (Dave Quinn)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Finding Exchange Names
Organization: Texas A&M University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 685, Message 5 of 10

Exchange names?  As in wire centers?  CLLI codes?  I have not heard
of the term "exchange name" before.  I have been somewhat lucky, in
that each telco I have resided under, they provide wire center
listings in the frontal portion of my business pages.


Dave


[Moderator's Note: Well, the phrase 'exchange name' seems to be used
interchangeably to mean a few things, all of which relate to the
identification of the wire center. Many of the old exchange names in
Chicago from the days when we had names rather than numbers were also
(and are still) the wire center names also. For example, the old
exchange of ROGers Park (now 312-764) was/is in the central office
which is known as Chicago-Rogers Park but then and now it included not
only 764, but AMBassador (262), SHEldrake (743), HOLlycourt (465),
BRIargate (274) and several other recent number-only additions.
Likewise Chicago-Edgewater includes EDGewater (334) but also UPTown
(878), RAVenswood (728) -- sometimes known as PATrick from back in
1967 when my phone number was 728-7425 for a brief time -- LOngbeach,
SUnnyside and others. Chicago-Lakeview included LAKeview (525) as well
as GRAceland (472), BITtersweet (348), DIVersey (248), EAStgate (327),
and others. Everyone here is also served by what the tariffs refer to
as the "Chicago Exchange".  So take your pick!   PAT]
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 10:46:32 KDT
From: chk@ssp.etri.re.kr (Chang Hyeoungkyu)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: T1 interface for PC/Workstation (Looking for Product)
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 4 of 13

Dear netters,

I want product information that can interface T1 line with PC or Unix
Workstation. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Why do I need this ?  I want to connect "Computer" to "Switch".  The
computer would do voice synthesis, voice recognition, and optionally
image processing.  Yes, it is IP!


Name:	Chang Hyeoungkyu
Phone:	+82-42-860-5337
Fax:	+82-42-860-6832
E-mail:	chk@ssp.etri.re.kr or chk@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr
Mail:	Chang Hyeoungkyu
	Switching Services Section, TDX Division
	ETRI, Daeduk Science Town, P.O. Box 8
	Daejeon, 305-350, Republic of Korea
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:43:29 GMT
From: bellutta@ohsu.EDU (Paolo Bellutta)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: A Bad Time to Fall Asleep
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 685, Message 10 of 10

In article <telecom12.674.2@eecs.nwu.edu> schuh@mdd.comm.mot.com
(Michael Schuh) writes:

> Feyman mentions in one of his books, using the denisty of phone lines
> to find the way back to town.

In 1988 I was driving through NorthWest Territories (Canada) and my
"town detector" was the radio on the car in continuous search mode in
*AM*.  When the radio locked to a station I knew a town was 20-30
miles ahead.


Paolo Bellutta ---------- bellutta@ohsu.edu
B.I.C.C - Oregon Health Sciences University
3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd. - Portland, OR
tel: (503) 494 4804 --- fax: (503) 494 4551


[Moderator's Note: Ah yes, what a beautiful place on this planet! I
was very fortunate to ride with a friend the full distance between
Fort Nelson, BC and Seattle, WA down a *long* stretch of very deserted
highway in 1968. Signs said the next place to stop for food, car
service or to make wee-wee was fifty miles away. Talk about desolation! 
We'd ride for an hour at a time without seeing another car on the
road. We were going to start from Fort Nelson at 9 PM that night and
were strongly discouraged from doing so; we waited until 6 AM the next
morning when at least *someone* would eventually see us if we got into
trouble with the car, etc. I'd love to return there someday.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:58:30 GMT
From: rmintz@ecst.csuchico.edu (Rich Mintz)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How do You Pronounce "#"
Organization: California State University, Chico
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 709, Message 11 of 12

Based on my experience living in the U.S., in the great majority of
cases "#" is pronounced here in one of two ways, depending on the
context.
 
(1) "number", when it's an obvious substitution for that word, and (2)
"pound", when identifying the matching symbol on a standard DTMF
keypad or when used with computers.
 
Without exception, all voice mail systems I've ever encountered refer
to it as "the pound key", but most follow with "located in the bottom
right corner of your touch-tone keypad" to avoid possible confusion
because of its not-so-standardized name.
 
I lived for a year in Spain, and I remember one guy looking my laptop
computer's keyboard over and saying he had never seen the "#" before,
and asking me what it was (it's shift-3 on most U.S. keyboards, I
believe).  They don't have touch-tone-dialing there, so he wouldn't
have seen it from a telephone keypad, and he had nil computer
experience so wouldn't have recognized it from that kind of exposure
either. [Spanish phones do have keypads for dialing, but each button
just produces the appropriate number of pulses on the line to simulate
rotary dialing.]
 
I guess what you call it depends on where you are. 8-)
                                                      

Rich -> rmintz@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 22:36:25 EDT
From: jmiller@wendy.bowlgreen.oh.us (Jim Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Need Info on NEC "Electra 616" KSU
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 700, Message 10 of 11

Hello,

   I am doing some consulting work for a local company that has an
"Electra 616" key system manufactured by NEC. This system has the
capability for six trunks with eight (I believe) extensions.

   This KSU was installed by a business that is long gone from the
building, therefore there is no documentation of any type to be found.
I need to find out why one of the extensions is not allowed to dial
out, but is allowed to take inward calls and to use the intercom.

   Is anyone familiar with this system? If so, could you point me to a
source of documentation and/or a supplier of extension sets for it?  I
believe I saw a system identical to this a while ago at a flea market
with a GTE logo on it; maybe other companies repackage the 616 and
sell it as their own.

Any help you could provide would be much appreciated.


Jim Miller	jmiller@wendy.bowlgreen.oh.us
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 00:27:38 GMT
From: olwejo!bob@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Kupiec)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telephone Line "Wink"
Reply-To: olwejo!bob@uunet.UU.NET
Organization: Olwejo - Private UNIX System 
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 687, Message 7 of 9

What is the cause of telephone line "wink"?  I might guess that it is
TPC's way of monitoring the lines?  I happen to notice it on a
telephone that has "in use" LEDs on it.  One line does it consistently
(almost on a regular schedule, although I have never timed it) and the
second does it once in a while.  This happens while no-one is using
the telephone.  It's kind of disturbing to see the LED flash without
using the phone.  I'm always thinking someone's outside with alligator
clips making calls! ;-)

Another time that the line "winks" is upon hangup.  One line will not
wink when hanging up and one line will.  Can anyone offer an
explanation (or guess at one)?


Bob Kupiec - Amateur Radio: N3MML   UUCP: olwejo!bob@cs.widener.edu
Internet: kupiec@hp800.lasalle.edu  !: uunet!widener!olwejo!bob
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:57:00 GMT
From: ramrod!chrisc@lmt.mn.org (Chris Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How do You Pronounce "#"
Organization: LaserMaster Technologies, Minneapolis, MN  USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 698, Message 8 of 12

In article <telecom12.684.8@eecs.nwu.edu> rjhawkin@mothra.syr.edu (The
Virtual Kid) writes:

> Oh, I always thought the "#" sign was an abbrivation of the word
> -number- after all, some address books say "phone #:". 

I believe that he only truly international pronunciation of the '#'
character is the sharp sign - as in music.  It seems that that is how
Sun Microsystems describe it.  I'm not saying that they are linguistic
experts, mind you!

Certainly in REAL English (as opposed to American English) it is NOT a
symbol for the word pound.

You are correct, however, in stating that it is commonly used to
denominate the word number.


Chris Cox  W0/G4JEC          chrisc@ramrod.lmt.mn.org
LaserMaster Technologies     Tel: (612) 944-6069
7156 Shady Oak Road          Fax: (612) 944-5544
Eden Prairie, MN  55344

    ----- For mail of a more social nature, please use ----- 
chrisc@moron.vware.mn.org  -or- chrisc@biggus.g4jec.tcman.ampr.org
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 08:56:54 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New Phone Number Intercept
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 705, Message 9 of 11

In article <telecom12.696.5@eecs.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.
com> writes:

> It was AT&T that (exclusively?) participated in this practice, and it
> began some years ago. It was put in place to prevent the practice of
> "black boxing" and also to protect itself from itself. It seems that
> many of the AT&T PBXes sold and installed by none other than AT&T had
> misprogrammed DID circuits that never supervised. Any call made to
> such lines was a "free" call.

> To my knowledge, the OCCs never bothered with this practice. And I
> believe AT&T is still doing it.

This has been my experience as well.  The case where this really hurt
was in cellular roamer ports.  It used to be that many of them would
not return answer supervision unless the call was actually answered by
the desired cellular subscriber.  This way, if you called the roam
port as a toll call (or from another cellular), you wouldn't get
billed for unanswered calls.  The cellular carriers had to make the
roamer ports supervise immediately when AT&T made this change in order
to allow AT&T long distance customers to use the roamer ports.

Although it is certainly not high on AT&T's priority list, it would be
nice if they would return to the old way for cellular prefixes.  I
would think that they could be reasonably assured that a cellular
carrier is not going to engage in any large-scale phraud scheme, and
they would know that regular DIDs won't be on the cellular prefixes.
Then the "proper" operation of the roamer ports could be restored.

As an aside, cellular subscribers who roam into areas where they must
bill long distance to calling cards might want to use a Sprint FONcard
for these calls.  The Sprint 800 access number won't return
supervision unless the call completes, so you aren't billed the
outrageous roam airtime for unanswered long distance calls.  If you
just 0+ the call, chances are it will default to AT&T, which returns
supervision at the "bong."


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Voice Message Service
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:44:00 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 693, Message 2 of 9

Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com> writes:

> The first time I saw an example of this service, it was at an
> SNET-owned and operated pay phone outside of Hartford, Connecticut
> about two years ago.

> Unless someone can find an older COCOT implementation, I'm afraid the
> points for "innovation" go to the operating companies here.

There have been COCOTs doing this in some areas for well over two
years. Of course, they are only able to do this on long distance calls
since the COCOT operator has absolutely no local access other than
dial tone. The LEC has interim access and can manipulate the call,
local or not.

>> Of course it does this with free money and its superior network
>> access.

> then why should I, as a consumer, care?  Neither "choice" nor the
> financial health of entrepreneurs in the telecom business is of
> importance to me; product quality and price are what I care about.

And if you have no choice, how do you know that either the quality or
the price is as good as it COULD be?

This is an exceedingly short view of the industry. The engine that
drives innovation is the expectation of ultimate rewards. The
financial health of entrepreneurs in the telecom business should
bloody well be of concern to you because if they die, you can kiss
innovation goodbye and you will have whatever the LECs in their
infinite wisdom decide to provide to you. Period.

You do not think that the LECs will raise the price on that which it
has a monopoly (after putting the original entrepreneur out of
business)? I direct your attention to a very substantial rate
restructuring that will shortly be approved by the CPUC. It calls for
rate reductions on virtually every service for which the LECs have
competitors and hefty rate increases on everything for which there is
no competition (yet), such as small business and residential dial tone
service.

It irriates me greatly to hear people say that it matters not who
tramples over whom as long as they get a good product cheap (in the
short run). With that philosophy, may I suggest that you start doing
business with the mob; it provides some great deals on certain items?
It manages to stay in business and put others out of business using
tactics not much different than the LECs (captive customers, etc.).

The LEC says, "Let us do all of this shell-game marketing and we will
provide you with wonderous services cheap." It looks like you fell for
it.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 21:29:14 GMT
From: john@bunsen.rosemount.com (John Perkins)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular 911 Equivalent in Chicago
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 691, Message 7 of 13

In article <telecom12.677.1@eecs.nwu.edu> nickless@antares.mcs.anl.gov
writes:

> I've called *999 several times on the highways around Chicago to
> report drunk drivers and stranded motorists...

It's been possible to dial 999 from almost any telephone in the UK to
get emergency help since at least the 1940's (when I was a kid).  I've
often thought it would have been nice if this had been adopted as a
world-wide standard and it puzzles me why AT&T chose to use 911 when
they must have been aware of the UK system.

Conversely the US Zip code scheme, which was established first,
appears to be a lot more straightforward than the crackpot British
system.  It almost seems that there's a nationalistic desire to be
different that has spoiled the chance for a lot of useful world
standards.


John Perkins
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 4:54:57 EDT
From: Tom Metro <tmetro@ds5000.dac.northeastern.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Information Wanted on CPC Pulses
Organization: Venture Logic, Newton, MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 689, Message 13 of 19

What does a CPC pulse "look" like? What type of circuitry is typically
used to detect it? What are the timing specifications for when it
should occur with respect to the call termination? And what simple
test can I perform to see if my phone service provides CPC pulses?
 

Thanks,

Tom    tmetro@ds5000.dac.northeastern.edu
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:12:40 GMT
From: tell@cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: A/A1 Answer Supervision
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 695, Message 10 of 14

In article <telecom12.688.10@eecs.nwu.edu> tmetro@ds5000.dac.
northeastern.edu (Tom Metro) writes:

> What is the purpose of shorting the second pair of wires? It sounds
> redundant to the information you can get by monitoring the loop
> current.  Could you explain the purpose of A/A1 answer supervision?

Since I don't see an answer yet, I will ... one more time, shorting
the second pair is used to let a single-line phone (or other device)
work properly on a 1A2 type key system.  ("A" and "A1" come from the
signal-naming conventions in that system.)  Key systems do monitor
loop current, but here are some reasons why one couldn't do this only.

Breaking A/A1 before loop current puts the line on hold. You want to
be able to keep the line open without there being loop current
present, like when the CPC pulse comes in, or when you push the little
button on some key sets to break the loop to flash or get a new CO
dial tone.

Remember, the original key system was a simple, robust, relay-based
system (that used a lot of multipair cable!).  I'm not sure when it
was first introduced; I'd guess the 40s or 50s.  Anyone?


Steve Tell       tell@cs.unc.edu H: 919 968 1792  | #5L Estes Park apts
UNC Chapel Hill Computer Science W: 919 962 1845  | Carrboro NC 27510


[Moderator's Note: Multi-line phones were first in use in New York
City in the middle 1920's. Does anyone remember the old three line
phones with six buttons? There was a hold button for each line. I
think they were manufactured by Automatic Electric in the 1940-50
period. GTE used them for multi-line business customers back then.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 09:10:37 GMT
From: markmc@sierra.com (Mark McWiggins)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Working Assets Long Distance
Organization: Sierra Geophysics Inc.,  Kirkland, Wa
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 688, Message 7 of 13

A friend is considering Working Assets for long distance. Do you have
any experience with this service? Would you do it again?

Thanks in advance for any guidance.


Mark McWiggins           +1 206 822 5200x377 days      Box 31356
markmc@sierra.com        +1 206 632 1905 24 hrs.       Seattle WA 98103-1356
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:01:01 GMT
From: rbook@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert Aaron Book)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ringing Decoder
Organization: Rice University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 705, Message 3 of 11

In article <telecom12.692.8@eecs.nwu.edu> hhallika@zeus.calpoly.edu
(Harold Hallikainen) writes:

> In article <telecom12.679.7@eecs.nwu.edu> Alan TC Penn <tc@cdc.hp.com>
> writes:

>> I am going for a distinctive-ringing decoder or demultiplexer. The
>> function of this device is to route the incoming phone message
>> directly to either an answering machine or a modem.

> Seems that the telecom device companies (modem manufacturers,
> fax machine manufacturers, phone manufacturers, etc.) ought to put the
> distinctive ringing decoder inside their machines.  It should "be just
> software".  Are there standards for distinctive ringing (standard
> cadence, etc.).  I guess we could handle some of it in software by
> watching the RI line on modems.

There is a $20 shareware program called WhatLine which purports to do
precisely this.  It has some limitations, but it may work.  I
dopwnloaded it a few days ago, but I have not yet tried it, so I can't
promise anything.  Your mileage may vary.

The program is available by anonymous ftp to wuarchive.wustl.edu, in
the directory mirrors/msdos/modem, Filename: whatl275.zip.  If you do
not have access to ftp, there are ways to access ftp by e-mail.  At
the request of the Moderator (only), I will post the uuencoded zip
file to this newsgroup.

If the software doesn't work for you, there is something called a
"LYNX line switch."  It is available in two-number and four-number
versions.  You plug the phone line in on one end, and two (four) phone
cords into the other.  Route one cord to your answering machine and
the other to your modem/fax/whatever.  It costs US$89, but may be
available cheaper in stores.  There is an address in the software
documentation telling you where to get it if you cannot find it
locally.  The address is:

                     Advance Systems
                     215 W Amosland Rd.
                     Norwood, PA  19074-1502

The two-number version is $89 and the four-line version is $149 US.


Robert Book    rbook@rice.edu


[Moderator's Note: It would be better if you simply sent it out to
people asking for it rather than posting it here.   PAT]
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 06:41:55 GMT
From: fcw@telecom.ti.com (Fred Wedemeier)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Mobile Phone Use in Australia
Reply-To: fcw@telecom.ti.com
Organization: TI Telecom Systems, Dallas
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 685, Message 2 of 10

In article 2@eecs.nwu.edu, david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson)
writes:

> At June 30 this year Australia had 441,256 mobile phones in operation,
> up 51% over the previous year. It is not just yuppies either, many
> blue- collar workers are finding it an essential tool of their trade.

Interesting statistics... Can you give us some typical fees, e.g.
monthly service, roaming fees, per-minute cost?

In Dallas, Texas:

Typical monthly: $32 - 39 depending on the contract
        roaming  $3/day
        connect  $.30/min during the day
                 $.10 - .20 evenings/weekends with some contracts
                 free evenings/weekends with two or three year 
                 service contract up to $.99/minute when roaming

Thanks.


Fred Wedemeier    pho: 214-997-3213     fax: 214-997-3639
                  timsg: fcw            inet: fcw@pioneer.telecom.ti.com