HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 09:07:25 CST
From: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: More Idiocy From GTE
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 924, Message 8 of 11

12/26, trying to call (713) 370 from (713) 337 (roughly, far far south
Houston to far northwest Houston, GTE to SWB).

I don't know if it's long distance so I first try 7D.  SID tones (at
what feels like 110db), "The number you requested cannot be completed
as dialed, please consult ..." message.  I'm sure I dialed the number
correctly so try it again (this time holding phone far from ear) --
same screech followed by same message.

Call operator -- verify the call is LD and GTE is just issuing the
wrong message.

As I'm at a friends house, I decide to put the call on calling card.
102880+10D.  <boing> GTE.  Huh ...?  I know this is intralata but I
told them to use AT&T.  They can't override my choice of carrier can
they?  Try it again except as 102880 + 7D (713 has gone 1/0 + 10D on
all LD calls but who knows what GTE is doing).  <boing> GTE.

Call the operator to see whats going on -- it should work, you must be
misdialing, etc.

Finally, in disgust, 1028800.  <boing> AT&T.  Placed the call and
nobody answered :-(

Just for the record, SWB and GTE are staging major lobbying efforts
for the upcoming session of the Texas Legislature.  The desired goal
is the effective deregulation of telcos in Texas.


Charles Mattair		 	mattair@synercom.hounix.org
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 18:38:05 GMT
From: mvickers@orca.fhcrc.org (Mark Vickers)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Wiring Reference Book Wanted
Organization: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 916, Message 9 of 11

Can anyone please recommend a good book/document that describes wiring
for phone (US), 10 base-t, Token-ring ... etc, etc. Something from
NEMA, IEEE, CCITT, I don't really care where it's from as long as it's
detailed and accurate.


mvickers@cclink.fhcrc.org
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:16:27 -0700
From: rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: New Call Feature (was Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works)
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 928, Message 10 of 13

burgoyne@access.digex.com (J. Robert Burgoyne) writes;

 ... much stuff deleted ... but this comment I take particular
exception to:

> If you don't like outbound automated calls, do something about it. As
> my Dad says, there is no law which says that you must pick up your
> phone when it rings.

So if no one answers the phone when it rings, why bother with a phone?
Certianly when *you* call someone, you expect that the called party
will answer the call if available?  Sorry, but telemarketeers are a
virus that require radical steps to rid ourselves of them.

My proposal is that all telemarketeers are required by law to identify
their intent to the called party's CO which would determine if the
called party wishes to receive solicitation.  If not, the call is
automatically rejected and a fitting 'slime off' recording is played
out to the marketeer.  Any telemarketeer not identifying correctly
could be easily identified with the Call Trace feature that would dump
the incoming call memory of the called party to the telco's
surveillance equipment and would be used for prosecution of the
telemarketeer.  The usual penalties of fines and terms of imprisonment
would be suitable to address persistant offenders.  Of course, various
classifications of telemarketeers may be necessary.

     i- charity (Salvation Army)
    ii- community league (Brownie cookies)
   iii- business promotions (Joes Pizza and Bar giving free pizza)
    iv- resort property sales (Banff Springs Condos)
    iv- outright scams (you have won one million dollars, give us your 
        bank account number so that we cann deposit it)
    etc...

The classification granted to a marketeer (other than scams) could
require at least two years of hearings for each submission and a very
short term of license (sp?).  Bonafide charities would receive
government assistance getting the approval.

Just as there are databases for calling cards, 800 numbers and the
like, a mandatory national database could be assembled that would
reflect the wishes of individual POTS lines.  The telemarketeers would
be required to subscribe to this service and pay fees to perpetuate
this database service.

> A free market capitalist to the core, I am,

And I will run the database capitalizing on the telemarketeers.:) :) :)

Seriously, what do fellow telecom readers think?  Is the proposal at
all workable?  Would it create more headaches rather than solve the
problem?  As it is much simpler for industry to first provide a
solution, rather than be legislated into forcibly producing one, is
anyone out there in a position to talk to the equipment vendors to
provide this feature as an enhancement to the Call Management
Features? Hello AT&T, BNR and GTE?


Richard Nash  Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:      rickie%trickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 09:32:16 GMT
From: anto@dutetvd.tudelft.nl (Anto Daryanto)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Internet/UUCP Dial-up Line in Singapore?
Organization: Delft University of Technology
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 1, Message 9 of 13

Hi, I am now living in Holland but in five weeks I am going back to
Indonesia. Here I frequently use Internet access from university for
my study, and I know I'll miss it.

Does anybody know whether a dial-up line available in Singapore so
that I still can use the access to internet? (We don't have an
internet access yet in Indonesia). If it exist how can I contact them?

Thanks in advance and Happy New Year ...


Anto Daryanto

Delft University of Technology,	 Faculty of Electrical Engineering,  
Telecommunication- and Traffic-Control Systems Group	
E-Mail: a.daryanto@dutetvd.et.tudelft.nl
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 01:33 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions
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 920, Message 5 of 11

On Dec 25 at 19:49, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Well I *assumed* people who called and got the
> routing device you have on the line were in fact being charged from
> when that thing picked up ... are you saying the charging only begins
> when either (a) a live person answers or (b) the system starts taking
> a message or (c) the caller elects to page you?   PAT]

No, what I am saying is that now that there is no hope of CNID in
California, ALL of my lines, including my private lines, will be
processed by my answering machine. There will be no way to reach me
directly because there will be no way for a direct-in caller to be
identified. I will be modifying my call screener to request (via DTMF)
the area code and number of the caller. Based upon that information,
the screener will act accordingly. Naturally the caller can "lie", but
for now that is all I have. BTW, no number, no further progress on the
call.

My apologies to all who will be charged needlessly for long distance
calls, but the activists have given me no other alternative.


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


[Moderator's Note: Well good golly, how did you manage to make do all
these years before Caller-ID was invented?  How did you manage to deal
with all the strangers on your phone lines in the past? Whatever you
did, just keep on doing it.   PAT]
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:56:34 EST
From: Rob Bailey <74007.303@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Hand-Held Signal Generator Ideas?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 927, Message 4 of 14

If you were going to build a hand-held audio signal generator for
radio and telecommunications use, what would you teach it to do?  I'm
going to build just such a box, and I'd like ideas for what it ought
to know how to do. I may be convinced to build more than one, so give
it your best shot.

I plan on building a small, hand-held, two-voice, microprocessor
controlled signal generator, and I've got a few ideas already:

Telecommunications related noise: dial-tone, CO ring-back, PABX
ring-back, busy, trunk-reorder, PABX error alarm, DTMF, and MF.

Radio related sounds: Tone PL, Digital PL, two-tone sequential paging,
5/6 paging, morse code, arbitrary sweep, and a few arbitrary
(programmable) continuous or pulsed tones.

Any ideas? 


Rob Bailey (74007.303@compuserve.com or 304.925.2721)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 17:52:04 -0500
From: Joe.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bergstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Help With G-E Answering Machine Wanted
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 922, Message 4 of 10

 George S. Thurman asks for help in locating a product manual:

 > A friend recently purchased a used answering machine at a garage
 > sale. It came with no instructions, and he has been unable to figure
 > out how to retrieve messages with the touch-tone remote control.

 > It is a General Electric machine with the model number RSVP 2-0910c.

Why not just try calling the GE Answerline which GE runs 24 hours per
day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.  They can answer questions on
any GE product.  The number is 800.626.2000
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993  04:54:32 EST
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Additional Phone Charges
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 13, Issue 7, Message 4 of 13

In Telecom Digest 12-928, Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com> says:

> One of my favorites, non-listed phone number (note: NOT
> non-published; non-listed IS available from DA, they just have
> to leave it off the yearly list they send to the printers) goes
> from $1.00/month to $2.00/month.  I'd love to see the salaries
> for the people who must go through and pull the non-listed
> numbers out by hand; nothing else can justify that kind of
> charge.  (Before you say, well, non-listed numbers generate
> more DA calls: DA calls go from 24 to 40 cents, plus they go
> from first 5/3 free for residence/business to 3/0 free.)

I may have mentioned this before, but the simplest way to get the
equivalent of an unlisted number is to ask for the phone to be listed
{without address} under your roommate's name of Zyagur Xeanamux.  When
someone calls asking for him, you know that it's a telemarketer.
What, you mean you don't have a roommate by that name?  Exactly ...


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
These opinions are mine alone.
Date: 25 Dec 92 12:11:30 -0600
From: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Relationship Between This Address and Comp.dcom.telecom
Organization: Fermilab Grossforschungenseinrichtungen
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 917, Message 15 of 17

In article <telecom12.912.12@eecs.nwu.edu>, dougv@vnet.ibm.com writes:

> I'm confused - and hopefully you (whoever this is) can help.

> What is the relationshiip between this "mailing list" or "digest" and
> the comp.dcom.telecom Usenet newsgroup.  

> [Moderator's Note: I aleady wrote Mr. Valkenaar with more detailed
> information. TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom are one and the same
> thing. 

Hmm, but does it Do The Right Thing when I FOLLOWUP a Usenet message?
In the past I've always e-mailed to the Internet address to submit a
posting to the Digest.


Bill Higgins                            Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV 
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory   Bitnet:   HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET


[Moderator's Note: When you 'followup', it should do the right thing
and send *but a single copy* of the message here. At some sites using
older software however, this does not happen and the message is posted
to the group, eventually causes dozens, hundreds or even thousands of
copies of the message to show up here, where my duplicate-ID filter
attempts to send all the copies to dev/null, not always with success.
Direct email postings are preferred.   PAT]
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 00:33:01 PDT
From: Jay.Ashworth@f8649.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jay Ashworth)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Intra-lata LD and COCOTs
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/8649
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 922, Message 8 of 10

GTE Florida recently converted my service area from 0 + 7 for
intra-lata LD calls to 0 + 10.  Now, it took the local COCOTs about a
month to catch on, and allow 0 + 813 + 7 calls at all, but their
fixing that leaves me with another problem.

Well, maybe it's not a problem, but I _am_ curious ...

Since these phones automagically route LD calls to the phone owner's
preferred AOS/IXC, (which I'm told is no longer illegal), _all_ calls
go there.  Even calls that would normally go through the LEC.

Is there an equal access code that routes calls through whatever LEC
owns the line?  Or specific ones for each LEC -- although I suspect that
would be impossible to administer.

If not, how long do you think it will be before the LEC's start
screaming for such a code ... when they discover their revenue
sliding?

And would anybody else use such a code, anyway?  (Note: Most LEC card
calls are flat rate, most IXC intra-lata card calls very probably are
not.)


Cheers,

jra   Ashworth & Associates * jra%acorn@tct.com * jra@mechanic.fidonet.org
Internet: Jay.Ashworth@f8649.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!tct!mechanic!8649!Jay.Ashworth
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between USENET & FIdonet.
      For information write to chief@mechanic.fidonet.org
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 16:18 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions
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 918, Message 6 of 9

On Dec 25 at 15:43, TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I am confused. Is this message from Randy
> superceeded by the two messages from Greenberg and Higdon in this
> issue based on the 12/23 news reports? Is the 'limited rehearing' they
> mentioned what resulted in the 12/23 news stories?  PAT]

The decision mentioned by both Rich and myself is the final, latest
word from Pac*Bell after the PUC did not meaningfully reduce its
stifling restrictions. This decision comes a full month after the PUC
said that it MIGHT reduce restrictions.

BTW, what this means is that forevermore, callers will have to be
screened by my machine. Everyone that calls will be assured that he
WILL be charged for the call, whether I am home or not.

Good going, CPUC!


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


[Moderator's Note: Well I *assumed* people who called and got the
routing device you have on the line were in fact being charged from
when that thing picked up ... are you saying the charging only begins
when either (a) a live person answers or (b) the system starts taking
a message or (c) the caller elects to page you?   PAT]
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 16:46:52 EST
From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: More Idiocy From GTE
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 3, Message 11 of 12

On 28 Dec 92 15:07:25 GMT, mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles
Mattair) said:

> As I'm at a friends house, I decide to put the call on calling card.
> 102880+10D.  <boing> GTE.  Huh ...?  I know this is intralata but I
> told them to use AT&T.  They can't override my choice of carrier can
> they?  Try it again except as 102880 + 7D (713 has gone 1/0 + 10D on
> all LD calls but who knows what GTE is doing).  <boing> GTE.

Local exchange carriers look at the whole number before passing it off
to an IXC, precisely because of what you tried to do.  AT&T is very
likely not tariffed to carry that call, so the switch knows better
than you do, and routes it via the LEC.  However, AT&T issued CIID
card should still be good for a GTE carried call.  AT&T has reciprocal
card verification and billing agreements with virtually every LEC in
the country so that your AT&T card is AOS-proof and OCC-proof but not
LEC-proof.  (That is a feature, not a bug).


Andy Sherman    Salomon Inc  -  Unix Systems Support  -  Rutherford, NJ
(201) 896-7018  -  andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com
"These opinions are mine, all *MINE*.  My employer can't have them."
Date: 28 Dec 92 04:07:51 GMT
From: briang@Sun.COM (Brian Gordon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital
Organization: Sun
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 923, Message 7 of 9

In article <telecom12.919.9@eecs.nwu.edu> louie@sayshell.umd.edu
(Louis A. Mamakos) writes:

> In article <telecom12.913.6@eecs.nwu.edu> jack@myamiga.mixcom.com
> writes:

>> Skeptical residents warmed to the system after officials met with them
>> to explain benefits: No more lines broken by ice or high winds; no
>> threat of calls being monitored; greater clarity.

> So, let's see: the phone calls are transmitted over radio now, so that
> eliminates that threat of them being monitored?  And since they are
> not cellular telephone calls, it may even be legal to monitor them
> under the ECPA.

I suspect that the first reference to "no threat of calls being
monitored" was a reference to party line evesdropping, which is
presumed to be a rather common form of entertainment in rural areas.


Brian G. Gordon	briang@Sun.COM    		briang@netcom.COM  
B.GORDON2 on GENie	70243,3012 on CompuServe   BGordon on AOL
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:43:54 -0500
From: wah@zach.fit.edu ( Bill Huttig)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: PRO-34 Wanted
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 928, Message 13 of 13

I can't find any Radio Shack PRO-34 Scanners left around here ... if
any one can find one for me I would be gald to pay the $39 + shipping
+ misc to receive one.


Bill Huttig


[Moderator's Note: I paid $300-something for mine over two years ago.
I get sick every time I hear the $39 price for the few remaining
models. I'll bet you'd like to buy mine!  The hell you say!  :)  I
love it.    

With this message, we end Volume 12 of the Digest. We had 928 issues.
At this time, there will follow some special issues, mainly for the
benefit of our Usenet comp.dcom.telecom readers including an up to
date index of the Telecom Archives, a copy of the Telecom FAQ file,
and a special issue devoted exclusively to recent replies in the
latest spate of Caller-ID pro/con messages. I expect most of you will
junk that one unread .. :)  I would too if I did not work here.

When I return, we'll start the new year with Volume 13. An index to
the authors and subjects in Volume 12 will be available in the next
day or so.  Until then, its been fun!  Have a Happy New Year!

That's all folks!    PAT]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 09:20:37 EST
From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones)
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 914, Message 11 of 14

In article <telecom12.912.10@eecs.nwu.edu> shri%unreal@cs.umass.edu
writes:

> Are there any cordless phone anywhere in the world (not likely in
> US) that use InfraRed instead of RF?

FYI, AT&T tested such a cordless phone several years ago, about six
years I think, and gave up on it because RF had better reception/
transmission and was more economical.  At least that's what I was told
second hand ...


Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 04:52:22 -0600
From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ...
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 4, Message 7 of 12

The talk about static on AM radios being useful is only the tip of the
iceberg.  Let's suppose you are blind and you have given your PC
something monumental to do such as sort a large amount of data or
search for a key word in a huge document.  Two things can happen which
can drive someone to strong drink.  The software may print a running
status message, telling you that all is well each time it does
something right.  Who wants to be told 5,000 times that everything is
OK?  Some program setups may do their work silently, but one wonders
if the machine is sleeping or working.  If it takes 30 minutes, for
instance to search a huge document for a key word, one doesn't expect
to hear anything for a while.  If something terrible happens like a
crash, the effect sounds the same until 45 minutes, 50 minutes, etc
have gone by and you realize that the whole time has been a waste.

	Hear's the fix.  Take a portable AM or FM radio and place it
near the computer.  Tune around until you find a whine or buzz that
suits your ears.  It should be possible to find a signal which varies
when the computer is doing something and stays relatively monotonous
when it is hung up or idling.

	One doesn't have to have golden ears to be able to tell when
it sounds like things have gone sour.  This trick has also proved
useful when doing long file transfers as it is possible to hear
disturbances in the noise from the machine when data are coming in.
By using a little common reasoning, one can even get some idea of
whether or not there might be a problem with the data stream by
listening to the cadence of packets and noting whether they seem to be
steady and not halting or ragged.  Try it, sometime.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group