HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 13:06:40 MST
From: Bing Liao <liao@cisco.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cisco's Participation
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 863, Message 7 of 10

> It is indeed Cisco these days. Cisco is the flagship of the industry,
> enjoying the kind of name recognition that IBM used to have in
> corporate computing. They are also enormously profitable, and have
> adopted IBM attitudes. They don't participate in comparative
> evaluations by magazines, and they don't participate in industry
> interoperability test labs any more. I don't like that attitude.

This is absolutely not true. We participated in Bradner Performance
Tests, and Datacom Lab Tests just very recently. Results are published
elsewhere. We did not participate in INTEROP Fall. '92 this year
because we had done similar tests before at INTEROP.

We will never adopt the IBM attitude if it means we are alienating our
customer base.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 11:26:21 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cordless Phone Users Gain Some Privacy Rights
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 862, Message 8 of 8

Cordless telephone users, whose conversations have been easy prey for
electronic eavesdroppers, finally won a degree of privacy in a federal
appeals-court ruling.

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a criminal case, said that
when such phone users reasonably expect their conversations to be
private, the government can't listen in.  But the court said the
Fourth Amendment privacy right must be evaluated case by case,
depending on such factors as whether the phone user had sought privacy
by purchasing devices intended to foil eavesdroppers or by using
phones known to be more difficult to tap.

The ruling is apparently the first in which a federal court has
allowed cordless-phone users any privacy rights.  Previously, other
appeals courts have said the phones are so easy to eavesdrop on --
with an AM/FM radio or even with another cordless phone -- that any
expectation of privacy was ridiculous.

The Eight U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the late 1980s that
eavesdropping was allowed, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to
review the decision.

The New Orleans court noted that the previous opinions are all several
years old, and that the technology has since advanced in the $1.39
billion cordless-phone market.  Some phones on store shelves now, for
instance, come with scrambling devices made to combat high-tech
eavesdroppers.  Other phones work within shorter ranges, so their
frequencies can't be as easily intercepted as they were in the past.
More than 18 million cordless phones are expected to be sold this
year ...

"The reasonableness of expectations of privacy for a cordless phone
conversation will depend, in large part, upon the specific telephone
at issue," the court said.  It declined to spell out the technological
features it considered most relevant.

[The actual drug conviction, based on information recorded by a
neighbor, was upheld since no evidence about the phone had been
introduced.]

Privacy-rights lawyers applauded the broader ruling, which they said
is a step toward preventing eavesdropping by private citizens as well
as police.  The lawyers noted that cellular-phone conversations
already are protected [though technically they are as easy to
intercept.] ...

[N]ow that cordless phones are more secure, they should be treated the
same as cellular phones, Ms. [Janlori] Goldman [of the ACLU] said.
"People who use these different kinds of phones do not make these
kinds of distinctions," she said.  "One circuit is willing to
recognize that this might be an absurd distinction." ...

[For those interested, the case citation is U.S. vs. David Lee Smith,
Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, New Orleans, 91-5077.

Can we expect future Willie Horton's who beat the rap to get hired by
the maker of their phone to tout it as "private -- and a court agreed?"]


Jerry
From: newsdesk@dims.demon.co.uk (Darren Ingram Media Services)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Compuserve/MCI Mail
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:27:38 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 849, Message 10 of 13

In message <199211100814.AA17428@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> is written:

> CompuServe also has a major problem in my opinion.  They don't support
> multiple line email addresses.  This is crucial to get to many

I have the same problem with Netcom's system, as it continually send
back copies of the Satnews biweekly Satellite Newsletter Digest to the
listserv (listserv@orbital.demon.co.uk, subscribe satnews your_name ).


Darren
DIMS (newsdesk mailbox)(newsdesk@dims.demon.co.uk)
184 Brookside Avenue, Whoberley, Coventry CV5 8AD UK
Tel:+44 203 717 417/Fax:+44 203 717 418/Tlx 94026650
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:20:29 GMT
From: kah005@acad.drake.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection on Telephone Lines
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 867, Message 2 of 6

In article <telecom12.850.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, rgt@beta.lanl.gov (Richard
Thomsen) writes:

> I live in the mountains, where lightning and my location are
> synonymous.  I have lost telephone equipment several times.  Once,
> about three feet of my telephone cord exploded, separating the wires
> in the modular cable, and removing the copper in one wire.  (It arced
> to my X-10 controller, which did not do so well with the arc.  There
> was a black spot inside where the circuit board said "F1" should be  :-)).

> Does anyone know where I can get some *good* gas discharge tubes or
> any other suggestions for protecting my telephone wiring?  I live in
> Contel (now GTE) area, so I am not sure how much good it would do to
> call them.  Other people in my area have come home to find pieces of
> telephone all over their living room, so this is not an isolated
> situation up here.

Well, this may be an expensive option, but may get GTE's attention:

GTE will be more than happy to RENT you telephone equipment and
provide an inside wire maintainance agreement.  That way, nothing is
your problem.  Every month, you will bring your melted phones in for
exchange, and the maintainance agreement should cover jacks and such.

Just a thought ...


Kris Harris - P.O. Box 2410 - Des Moines, Iowa  50311-0410 - +1 515 254-2117
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:58:35 EST
From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Broadcasting Towers
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 860, Message 5 of 9

hs1c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hector Salgado-Galicia) writes:

> A friend of mine is doing research for a group of clients. They want
> to keep communications towers away from their neighborhood. Could
> someone comment on regulations at the City, State or Federal level
> that could be employed to support their case?

Very few, as long as it's structurally sound.  It's foolish to go on a
"witch hunt" just because you don't like who's moving into the
neighborhood.  Communications towers are good for the local economy,
since they bring in additional public-sector revenue and provide an
additional business opportunity that wouldn't necessarily exist
without it.  Unless if someone's planning on pushing megawatts (no
joke) of VHF or higher frequency RF power, there's not likely to be
even a slight possibility of hazardous RFR exposure, as far as modern
science can suggest. The "harmful non-ionizing radiation" story is an
old sick joke used by immature idiots and ignorant fools to promote a
hidden agenda.


Alan Boritz	72446.461@compuserve.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 09:52:00 GMT
From: v120q4jf@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Rob B.)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: MCI vs Sprint For Residential Service
Organization: University at Buffalo
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 842, Message 14 of 14

Hi there. 

I was wondering which you feel is better for residential long distance
service. We don't make many calls each month, so I don't care about
MCI's and Sprint's calling plans.  I just want to know which has
better promotions. MCI's friends and family list is a pain because
they only give the discount of 20% to phone numbers which have MCI as
the primary carrier.  MCI also has some thing where they give you ten
minutes off the longest call to someone in the calling circle. It's
called Free Speech.  I thought that I saw something that said Sprint
had an automatic discount on your longest call of the month no matter
what the phone number is. Does anyone know about any more promotions?
I think I should change to Sprint so I get the ten minutes off my
longest call regardless of the receipient.


v120q4jf@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu   v120q4jf@ubvms.bitnet
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992  21:57:15 EST
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Internet Conversion Document
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 852, Message 10 of 14

I have sent to the Telecom Archives a combined document describing the
correlation between Internet domain names, Telex Answerback codes,
Country telex numbers, and international telephone numbers.

This document is titled "internet.txt".  I have submitted it also to
the Internet RFC Editor, Jon Postel, for inclusion as an Internet RFC,
and as such, it should be published there in about one month.

Here's a sample from the first few lines:


                                Telephone        TELEX
                                 Country   COUNTRY  ANSWER   Internet
   Name of Area/Country/Item      Code     CODE      BACK    Domain

 Abu Dhabi (UAE)                    ----    949       EM      AE
 Academic Internet clients          ----    ---       ---     EDU
 Adeli Land                         ----    ---       ---     ---
 Adv. Res. Proj. Agc. - US DOD      ----    ---       ---     ARPA
 Afganistan                           93    930       AF      ---
 Ajman (UAE)                         971    949,958   EM      AE
 Alaska (USA)                       1907    ---       UA      AK.US



Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
These opinions are mine alone.


[Moderator's Note: This is now available in the Telecom Archives and
is accessible using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu, then 'cd telecom-archives'.
My thanks to Paul Robinson for sending it along.  Other new files
in the archives are revised Zone 7 and Zone 8 IDDD city codes and a
file on MCI Mail interconnections throughout the world. Thanks to all
who have donated files in recent days.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 01:36:15 EST
From: mertwig!xyzzy@uunet.UU.NET (Daniel Drucker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T's COLOR Videophone With Motion
Organization: Odd Parity Hacker's Group
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 844, Message 5 of 12

> To put it into perspective, we think that SEVEN frames per second is
> terrible and we are trying to eventually get to THIRTY frames per
> second.  Thirty frames per second is the same as the number of
> animation stills they use in cartooning.  Supposedly, one cannot tell
> the difference between live video and thirty frames per second video.

All video is 30fps.


Daniel Max P. Drucker
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 21:37:19 EST
From: Jeff@digtype.airage.com (Jeff Wasilko)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Advice Needed on Wide Area Networking
Reply-To: jeff@digtype.airage.com
Organization: Univ of Fnord; Roslyn's Cafe Div.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 858, Message 9 of 13

We need to connect our two offices (which are about five miles apart)
together. We run a mix of TCP/IP and Appletalk. The remote site will
have three or four NCD Xterminals, a couple of printers (hung off the
NCDs) and five or six Macs. The Macs will be doing light work over the
remote connection (printing, opening and saving small docs to the
fileserver, email, etc). We could eventually end up with six or so
Xterminals and ten Macs.

A 56kb line is the same installation cost as a T1, and the monthly
difference is only $250/mo ($250/mo for a 56kb line, $500/mo for a
T1). What kind of demands does X place on the network? Will a 56kb
line be sufficent, or should we jump to the T1? Our X users are using
them as terminal replacements, and they're also running WordPerfect
and Lotus on our Sun.

I'm also looking for suggestions for routers. I'm familiar (by
reputation only) with cisco (or is it Cisco this week?). What else
should I consider?  Is bridging worth considering, too? What should I
look for in a good CDU/DSU? Are the all the same, or are there large
differences from manufacturer to manufacture?


Thanks in advance,

Jeff
Jeff's Oasis at Home.   Jeff can also be reached at work at:
                                         jwasilko@airage.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:34:28 GMT
From: mcrware!!troyf@uunet.UU.NET (Troy Frericks)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Phones on the Same Number
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 843, Message 6 of 11

In article <telecom12.840.13@eecs.nwu.edu> Alan Boritz <72446.461@
CompuServe.COM> writes:

> tg@chmsr.gatech.edu (T. Govindaraj) writes:

>> Having two phones on the same number is attractive to me since my wife
>> and I can use the same phone, since we use it primarily for occasional
>> calls...Is anybody using this option?

>> [Moderator's Note: Uh, not to disappoint you, but have you cleared
>> this with the cellular company?  Most do NOT allow two or more phones
>> to share the same number because the ESN is different in each phone
>> and ESN validation is what cellular billing integrity is all about.

> Change "most" to ALL.  There should be NO US cellular carriers that
> will permit more than one ESN to operate on any particular phone
> number.  Failure to validate the ESN is a serious violation of FCC
> rules (EIA standards incorporated into the CFR).

Pat,

I know it's not right (legal), but I have to throw it out anyway.
What about changing the ESN on the second phone to match that of the
first one that already has service.  I beleave this is how some people
with some older Panasonic phones are stealing service -- intercept the
ESN as it is broadcast, then burn a PROM, and insert it into their
phone.

Note you would NOT be able to call each other, or both receive calls.
You may not even both be able to place calls at the same time when on
the same cell (or same area).  Probably could get around that by
having one phone on service B, other roam on service A.  Food for
thought.  Disclaimer: Info for educational enrichment only, not to be
implemented.


Troy Frericks                      Internet: troyf@MICROWARE.COM
Microware Systems Corporation          UUCP: uunet!mcrware!troyf
1900 NW 114th St                      Phone: (515)224-1929
Des Moines, IA 50325-7077               Fax: (515)224-1352
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 00:06:44 -0500
From: Joe.Bergstein@f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bergstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Phones on the Same Number
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 843, Message 9 of 11

In msg. on 11/9, T. Govindaraj writes:

> Having two phones on the same number is attractive to me since
> my wife and I can use the same phone, since we use it primarily for
> occasional calls. In fact, I got it so she can use it to call for help if
> her car breaks down or if she needs directions for some place.

What happens if you're using your phone, and your wife needs to call
911 because of an emergency (accident, fire, personal attack)? Doesn't
sound like such a great idea, just to save a few bucks, if someone's
safety is at stake.
From: hs1c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hector Salgado-Galicia)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Broadcasting Towers
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:43:31 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 853, Message 9 of 13

A friend of mine is doing research for a group of clients. They want
to keep communications towers away from their neighborhood. Could
someone comment on regulations at the City, State or Federal level
that could be employed to support their case?


H. Salgado    hs1c@andrew.cmu.edu
From: rocker@vnet.ibm.com (Joshua E. Muskovitz)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: At NYNEX, CNID is Coming Before E911
Date: 15 Nov 92 15:06:18 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 850, Message 3 of 13

I just got off the phone with by customer rep at NYNEX, to make sure
that I get per-line blocking on my residential number here in
Kingston, NY.  (Kingston gets CNID on Monday.)

To their credit, the rep understood everything I said, but pointed out
that in this area, at least, we do not have enhanced 911 and so I must
dial *67 911 in order for them to be able to find me.  She claimed
that the delay in setting up E911 ("we've been working on it for three
years") is from the post office -- they have to convert all the Rural
Route addresses and such to street addresses before an E911 system can
be installed.

Personally, I don't believe it.  Why not simply install it now for the
more urban addresses, and update it for those addresses when they are
converted?

Oh well.  At least she offered to send me stickers for my phones.


josh.


[Moderator's Note: If she told you 'you must dial *67-911 in order for
them to find you' then I would question how much she understood about
what she was saying. *67 usually toggles the status of CLID delivery,
but in any event it *never* affects the 911 display (if there is one;
some older 911's don't have it.)  PAT]
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 18:10:22 EST
From: Tony Pelliccio <PJJ125@URIACC.URI.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Help Needed With DTMF Tones
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 847, Message 1 of 17

As far as how fast you have to send them, it depends on where you are.
Here I can dial fairly reliably at a 35ms tone rate, Ie. the actual
tone lasts 35ms, the spacing is probably the same. Not really sure. In
some areas 40ms is the lowest, in others, especially xbar systems,
70ms.
 

Tony    PJJ125@URIACC.URI.EDU
Date: 15 Nov 1992 01:31:52 GMT
From: dhclose@cco.caltech.edu (David H. Close)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Risks of Cellular Speech
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 846, Message 10 of 13

FZC@CU.NIH.GOV writes:

> Also, you might ask the same question about why the members of
> Congress involved with Mr. Keating of American Savings didn't tell him
> to fix the problems with his S&L ...

Keating was associated with Lincoln Savings which is defunct.
American Savings, my employer, is healthy and so profitable that the
Fed is trying to renegotiate its contracts.  Just thought you ought to
know.


Dave Close, dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu, BS'66 Ec



[Moderator's Note: Tell your employer to watch their backside very
closely, and check out the number the feds did on Talman Federal
Savings in Chicago. Uncle Sugar talked (then healthy) Talman into
taking over all sorts of horribly managed, deeply in debt S&L's over
the years, and promised to allow 'goodwill credit' on the books of
Talman if they got in trouble as a result of trying to save so many
sinking ships. Talman bought Uncle's line of crapola; there are now a
dozen S&L's merged into the LaSalle-Talman-Home Federal group; the
whole thing is drenched in red ink, and Uncle Sugar, like any good
used car salesman has forgotten (or denies making) all those promises.
Tell your employers they have been warned to watch out and accept no
worthless promises from Uncle.   PAT]
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:09:57 GMT
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Dial Tone on CATV
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 855, Message 2 of 8

In article <telecom12.852.5@eecs.nwu.edu> MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.
tredydev.unisys.com writes:

> for local dial tone, I started wondering: how can a cable company
> offer dial tone, when their cable runs out from their office, with
> houses strung off it (instead of LEC wires, which form individual
> local loops with houses)?  How can they keep everyone's calls
> separate?  I guess they could put everyone on a different frequency,

Assuming that they use some sort of digital transmission on the coax
(which is not altogether unreasonable), it would not be difficult at
all to separate calls.  I would be more concerned about the fact that
anyone else on the same coax segment would be able to tap in and
listen to your calls, unless they use some sort of encryption.


Marc Unangst, N8VRH     mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us
From: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telecom Quotations
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:49:00 GMT
Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 861, Message 2 of 9

>>  "Hello, Neil and Buzz. I'm talking to you by telephone from the Oval Room
>>  at the White House, and this certainly has to be the most historic
>>  telephone call ever made."

And probably the most expensive.  There was a rumour that he called
collect!


Richard Cox

Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF
Voice: +44 222 747111      Fax: +44 222 711111      VoiceMail: +44 399 870101
E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk     Not diallable on 511 in mainland USA