HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:44:58 GMT
From: Hans Ridder <ridder@zso.dec.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: RS-422-A: Which Way is Up, Polarity Wise?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 654, Message 1 of 10

[Moderator's Note: He asked for mail, but it bounced.  PAT]

In article <telecom12.641.3@eecs.nwu.edu> jpc@avdms8.lambda.msfc.
nasa.gov (J. Porter Clark) writes:

> Over here in the space hardware world we're trying to resolve a
> documentation conflict about the polarity of the RS-422-A signals.

> If I send a "1" (a *real* "1"), which lead, A or B, is positive with
> respect to the other?

 From EIA-422-A 1978:

"The signalling sense of the voltages appearing across the interconnection
cable are defined as follows:

     a.	The A terminal of the generator shall be negative with respect
	to the B terminal for a binary 1 (MARK or OFF) state.

     b.	The A terminal of the generator shall be positive with respect
	to the B terminal for a binary 0 (SPACE or ON) state.

Note that MARK/SPACE refer to *data* circuits, and OFF/ON refer to
*control* circuits, and that "binary 1" is *OFF* for a control
circuit.

> I know this has been a controversial topic in the past, with one
> vendor doing one thing and another the opposite, but what is the
> current thinking?

I've never heard of any controversy.  It's pretty clear in the
standard.  Don't they let you NASA guys have this stuff?



Hans-Gabriel Ridder		Digital DECwest Engineering
ridder@rust.zso.dec.com		Bellevue, Washington, USA
{pacbell,pyramid,uunet}!rust.zso.dec.com!ridder
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:01:30 EDT
From: Peter M. Weiss <PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Local Call Determination
Organization: Penn State University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 623, Message 6 of 11

> Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com writes:

> In Telecom 12.599, booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian)
> writes:

>> Additionally, can someone explain to me what distinguishes local calls
>> from toll calls?  Are all calls within a LATA local?  Does physical
>> proximity have anything to do with determining whether a call is local
>> (i.e. is it always the case that calling a couple of blocks away will
>> be a local call)?  Assuming physical proximity had something to do
>> with it, I've always fancied setting up a dial-up system which chained
>> together a bunch of local calls, but for which the end-to-end call
>> would have been toll.

> It is mostly distance based.  Each prefix has a set of prefixes which
> are local from it (out here, one prefix away is local, further away is
> toll).

It is my understanding that here in central PA (USA), that a call from
the 814-383 (Zion) exchange to 814-238 (State College) is a local
call, but vice versa is TOLL (intra-LATA).

Go figure.


Pete Weiss - pmw1@psuvm.psu.edu
From: drz@po.CWRU.Edu (David R. Zinkin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T SDN; New Calling Cards
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:28:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 652, Message 6 of 13

Question: what does SDN stand for anyway?  And what makes it different
from standard long distance service?


David R. Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) 
Rochester General Hospital Radiology Dept. 
SUNY Buffalo School of Medicine Class of '96 
  (The sesquicentennial graduating class!)
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:08:32 GMT
From: daf1@gte.com (David Fay)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Downside of Automation
Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated, Waltham MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 640, Message 2 of 8

I thought the readers of this newsgroup would be amused at the
following item I found in the Police News column of the Bolton (MA)
Common. It illustrates an unanticipated disadvantage of automating
collect calls.  I would guess that in the old days the whole affair
could have been quickly straightened out by an operator.

"A series of 25 or more collect calls to [a] Lancaster Road residence
was reported to police Sunday night, August 2. The caller, who was
calling a wrong number, talked over the computerized message that
announces a collect call and accused the resident of having the
caller's girlfriend with him, Police Chief Warren Wilson told the
Common. The resident had advised New England Telephone. He later told
police that the calls continued into the night."



David Fay	daf1@gte.com
GTE Laboratories  40 Sylvan Rd.   Waltham, MA 02254
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:40:43 GMT
From: guest%@rutgers.edu (GUEST Account)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What Number Am I Calling From?
Organization: Information Technology, University of Louisville
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 645, Message 13 of 17

In article <telecom12.624.1@eecs.nwu.edu> wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill
Pfeiffer) writes:

> In a recent TELECOM digest, ricochet@spatula.rent.com (Rick O'Shea)
> writes:

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

> We used to have to call collect to a pre-arranged person who would
> refuse charges and request the number so the fictitious party could
> allegedly call back.

> Now-adays, why not just call someone with caller ID and get the number
> that way?

> Keep in mind that not all pay phones are set up to receive incoming
> calls.  I would test it before waiting for that 'important' call-back.
> As far as I know, there is no other way to get a number of the pay
> phone.

How about looking up the ANAC codes list in TELECOM Digest, Volume 11,
Issue 408.  It was published May 30, 1991, but if you can't look back
that far, I can mail it to you if you want.


dembry@nyx.cs.du.edu      Darren Embry
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 01:32 PDT
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell and CNID
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 630, Message 2 of 5

God only knows who actually wrote for Concerned Something or Other for
Social Whatever:

> "Unless PacBell is willing to live within the very reasonable bounds
> set by the PUC decision, the concerns of Californians will be far
> better served if CNID is simply not offered at all," said Johnson.

Is it not wonderful that a group of self-appointed dieties has decreed
that I would be better off if CNID is not offered at all? What a load
of arrogant elitism! The fact of the matter is that the PUC decision
goes way beyond the restrictions found in other states offering CNID
and no one to this date has proven to mine or anyone else's
satisfaction that such restrictions are necessary or even helpful.

> "Subscriber privacy is more important that Pacific Bell's profits."

Ah, yes. When the logic is vacant, resort to slogans. I am sorry, but
having the calling number displayed at my residence does not invade my
privacy. Having my number displayed elsewhere does infringe somewhat
on my anonymity, but then I do not make as many anonymous phone calls
as most, apparently.

Of course, the real reason this organization is against CNID in any
real form is that it gives to the little guy similar capability that
business already has. Apparently the Computer/Social people only want
big businesses to be able to know who is calling via 800/ANI and do
not want small businesses and private people to have this power.

IMHO, we can do without do-gooders such as these who would like to
deprive the public of service and technology because of some unknown
agenda.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:03:04 GMT
From: cos!bob1@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Response to CRTC Announcement
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 653, Message 3 of 11

I didn't copy John's post simply to save bandwidth, but I would like
to make a couple of points.

John referred to the cost of local service as having remained below
the inflation rate. The last stats I saw claimed a 300% rise in local
rates since divestiture, God, I didn't realize that inflation had been
that bad :-/.

He also mentioned the two billion figure and laughed it away. What was
forgotten was that the CRTC mandated that Bell Canada pay 70% of the
interconnection costs and the new carriers pay only 30%, and in
addition that their contribution to local rate subsidies would be
about half of what Bell now pays. This is rather like having someone
come into town and saying that he wants to start a business just like
you have and expecting you to build his store. Frankly, the
percentages should be the other way around.

As to a more responsive repair service, I would not doubt it. In
Canada (at least when I was there), a repair visit was a flat $25.
Hell, the TV, Appliance, etc. repair people charged that much just to
get to your house. Now that you own all your wiring, I imagine they
can charge similar amounts here (I wouldn't know since I never call
them -- after 33 years in the business, I figure I know as much as the
guy in the C&P truck :-) ).

No, the CRTC really screwed this one up, but then Keith Spicer always
was a strange one.


Bob
Date: 12 Aug 1992 07:08:42 GMT
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (James H. Haynes)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Service Providers
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 624, Message 7 of 12

It may be that some cellular operations in remote areas are supported
by nontraditional uses of cellular (as if cellular had been around
long enough for traditions to be established).  For instance,
California is installing a lot of roadside emergency telephones.  My
guess is that these are cellular, solar powered, programmed to dial
only a certain number.  I know on our large campus there has been
discussion of using cellular for emergency phones in places where it
would cost a lot to run wire.


haynes@cats.ucsc.edu     haynes@cats.bitnet
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 20:19:41 EDT
From: jholmes@mcb.com (jim holmes)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: How to Trigger a Pager From a Modem
Organization: Message Center
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 626, Message 11 of 15

pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu (Paul Falstad) writes:

> Hi!  My boss has a Bell South Mobilecom pager.  Apparently, there's a
> way to trigger it from a modem.  We called the 1-800 modem number, and
 [ ... ]
> know how to do this?  Apparently, this can be done from the PC program
> Sidekick.  It might be possible to leave an alphanumeric message as
> well.

Alpha Pager input cards (SIC cards) in paging terminals use IXO
protocal.  A standard comm program will NOT work. I'm sure Mobilcom
can point you to at least one program to let you do this. If not send
me an e-mail and I will.


jim holmes is jholmes@mcb.com or {whatever!}uunet!mcb!jholmes
Message Center of Hartford, CT.  

The above comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of MCB or
Message Center.
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1992 20:14:38 CDT
From: acg@hermes.dlogics.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: L O U D  Indoor Ringer Wanted
Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.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 625, Message 4 of 4

MPA15C!ARTHUR@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com (Arthur L. Shapiro) writes:

> I'm trying to locate a supplemental ringer that will enable an
> elderly, increasingly hard-of-hearing relative to be aware that the
> phone is ringing.  The lower tones of an electromechanical bell would
> probably be a lot better than the frequencies typically produced by
> electronic devices.  It would be an asset if the unit did not require
> external power, and if it didn't deplete my wallet too severely.

To directly answer your question: Radio Shack makes an outdoor ringer,
an electro-mechanical bell that appears (from my catalog listing) to
be line-powered. See catalog No. 43-174, price was $29.95; it may have
gone up, but also might be on sale. It's not terribly ugly if you want
to install it indoors. Similar ringers are often found at home
remodeling supply stores (e.g. Builder's Square, Handy Andy, HomeBase,
etc.).

HOWEVER, a loud ringer that your relative can hear may simultaneously
scare the daylights out of any visitors in the area. I suggest you
leave the standard ringers in place, and consider "Fone-Flashers"
instead.  These are also made by Radio Shack, and flash lights or
strobes instead when the phone rings. The standard Fone-Flasher
(43-177; $14.95) has an AC outlet into which you plug a lamp or
similar device up to 300W. The Fone-Flasher 2 has a built-in strobe
and ringer (43-178; $29.95). There is also a Mini Fone-Flasher
(43-179; $8.95), which is line-powered and flashes an amber light. All
prices are as of 1989, unfortunately; must get a new catalog sometime. :-)

Disclaimer: I have no connection with Radio Shack.


Andrew C. Green
Datalogics, Inc.      Internet: acg@dlogics.com
441 W. Huron          UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg
Chicago, IL  60610    FAX: (312) 266-4473
From: rop@hacktic.nl (Rop Gonggrijp)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: ABCD as a Phreaking Tool
Date: 19 Aug 92 06:46:03 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 643, Message 6 of 13

R. Schnell <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media!ronnie.mit.edu@uunet.uu.net>
writes:

> I remember that phreaks used to use ABCD to hack directory assistance.
> Without getting into the specifics, you could use certain combinations
> during a call to DA, and you would be put in a trunk from which you
> could actually answer information calls.

Your message implies past tense. If this is not possible anymore, I
would like to know more about what was going on.

I'll tell you another nice thing one could do with ABCD up until about
a month ago:

If you called AT&T USA Direct from here (Holland) and got their
computer, you gave it the number you wanted to call. After the bong
you gave it a calling card. Any number in the format NPA-XXX-XXXX-ABCD
worked, even if you used numbers in the 555-XXXX range. In other
words, ABCD worked as a PIN on any card, even if the card did not
exist.

Needless to say we COULD have used this to give a lot of people very
high phone bills, we did not. Within a few months after our
discovering it, the hole disappeared as part of a routine upgrade. We
believe AT&T never knew what 'hit' them. There is no guessing how many
other people have discovered this, maybe years before we did.

Guess this does show what 'capable minds' set up the technology that
we are supposed to trust. Yet in the eyes of US law enforcement, we
would have been the criminals for experimenting with this (using
555-XXXX numbers), and AT&T the poor victim.


[Moderator's Note: That is correct. AT&T would be the victim and you
would be the criminal. The reason we can trust the technology is
because the minds which set it up are still infinitely more capable
than 99 percent of the public. All things are relative.   PAT]
Date: 16 Aug 92 02:46:10 GMT
From: mmiller1@attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: ADA Elevator Telephone Requirements
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 635, Message 7 of 7

I have a question reguarding the recent American Disabilities Act.  In
reguards to telephones installed in elevators, my questions are:

1.  Is it mandatory for telephones to be installed in elevators?
2.  In all the elevators or just designated elevators?
3.  What regulation stiplulates this?
4.  Where can I obtain the "code" for this?
5.  Is this an old requirment or a new one based on the ADA?


Thanks,

Mike
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 06:37:22 EDT
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telephone Company Tone Service Charges
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 647, Message 1 of 11

In TELECOM Digest V12 #639 David Sangurima <sangu@igc.apc.org> writes:

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

In NYTel land, touchtone is a separate charge of $1.50(U.S) per line
per month.  I seem to remember reading in some filing not too long ago
that it was going to be reduced at some time in the future (pre-1993).

Personally, I feel that it is an abuse and should be thrown out by the
Utility Service Commission (oops, I mean Public Service Commission).


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: No Information For 900 Numbers
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:44:29 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 652, Message 4 of 13

In article <telecom12.641.11@eecs.nwu.edu> cantor@star.enet.dec.com
(Dave Cantor) writes:

> I tried to get 900 directory assistance tonight from Nashua, NH
> (603-888).  I got the following intercept:
 
> "Due to a change in network architecture, the 900 information number
> has been disconnected.  This is no further information available
> at this time."

I just tried 900 555 1212, and I got an AT&T live operator intercept.
It apparently dropped into her panel as if I had dialed "00," as she
did not answer as an intercept operator.  She did, however, have the
record that I dialed *1* 900 555 1212.  She didn't know why a 1+ call
would drop into her position.


Steven S. Brack            sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive        STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, OH  43613-1605     brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu 
+1 419 GR4 1010   MY OWN  OPINIONS   sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 20:03:25 GMT
From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Looking for Intercom/Baby Monitor
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 646, Message 8 of 10

In article <telecom12.613.12@eecs.nwu.edu> johnk@secondsource.COM
(John Kennedy) writes:

> If one were looking for a baby/nursery monitor, is it a fair
> assumption to use the same criteria as when looking for a cordless
> phone?  Am I right in assuming that they would use the same
> frequencies, similar designs, etc.?

I own pieces to about three different brands of baby monitors.  They
are all quite similar and all have an A/B channel switch.  The
channels seem quite compatible between different brands, and with the
neighbor's units as well, unfortunately.

The frequencies aren't compatible with my older wireless Radio Shack
intercoms, which also have an A/B channel switch.

Fortunately, they are FM so the noise is lower than AM and you can't
hear the neighbors if your transmitter is nearer and turned on.  Some
have batteries in the transmitter as well as AC, which I've used on
occasion when travelling to allow me to leave the sleeping baby in the
car with the monitor (for VERY brief periods) while I used the rest
stop facilities.

My biggest gripe is that the last one I bought had the same plug but
different polarity AC adapter, and immediately blew up when I plugged
in an adapter of different polarity but correct voltage.  I tend to
leave an AC adapter in each room and carry the monitor to the room, so
it is a MAJOR problem to have two receivers with different polarity
plugs.  I ended up adding a polarity guard diode and reversing the
wiring in the offending unit to match the majority of my AC adapters
and hide the other adapters far away.

Of course, if you don't try to mix and match, you don't have to worry
about these issues.
From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: *69 and Call Waiting
Date: 14 Aug 92 05:46:10 GMT
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 627, Message 1 of 16

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

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

   According to Bellcore's "CLASS(SM) Feature: Automatic Recall"
document, TR-TSY-000227, Issue 1, Sept. 1988, Appendix E, Section E.3,
"Update Requirements":

   The subscriber's incoming memory slot should be updated for each
   incoming call that does not receive busy, call forwarding, or
   Selective Call Rejection treatment. ... The incoming memory
   slot should always be updated for all incoming calls that are
   call waited, whether or not the incoming call is answered by
   the called party."
                            --------

   In general, if you can answer a call, the memory slot will be
updated.  Of course, whether the "call waited" caller has a number to
put in the slot is a function of SS7 connectivity, etc.  Calls from MF
trunks, "multi-party" lines and Operators will update the slot with an
"out-of-area/DN-unavailable" indication.

   Whether a particular vendor or TELCO elects to follow the TR is
another issue.


Al Varney - just MY opinion.
Date: 18 Aug 1992 23:19:47 GMT
From: dmr@rugrat.Corp.Sun.COM (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Fiber-Optic Cable Demo
Reply-To: dmr@rugrat.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 643, Message 10 of 13

In article 3@eecs.nwu.edu, rah@btr.com (Richard A Hyde rah@btr.com)
writes:
 
> Suppose, on a dark night, (hypothetically, mind you), I dug up a major
> fiber trunk and sliced it in half.  What would I see?  Could I use it
> like a flashlight?  Would the cut end sparkle (assuming that the
> computer continued to send data)?  Would there just be a dim glow?

At least from my experience ... one end would be dark (that's the end
that goes to the receiver) and the other end would show a reasonably
bright red light (if that's the kind of laser used in the sending
equipment).  It's not quite enough to use as a flashlight.