HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:11:46 GMT
From: schuldy@progress.COM (Mark Schuldenfrei)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate Holiday Rates
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 831, Message 4 of 13

Paul Robinson quoted the following article from his local paper,
(and, it was in the {Boston Globe}, as well)

> NOTICE TO AT&T LONG DISTANCE CUSTOMERS

> On November 2, 1992, AT&T filed tariff revisions with the Federal
> Communications Commission to reduce the number of Special Rate
> Occasions (occasions when special lower rates apply to Evening and
> Night/Weekend Dial Station calls) from ten (10) Evenings and nine (9)
> Night/Weekends to zero (0), and to reduce the number of Floating
> Holidays (those holidays over and above the regular ten (10) federal
> holidays) from four (4) to zero (0).

> These changes are scheduled to become effective on November 16, 1992,
> and will apply to both general and commercial long distance schedules.

I called AT&T Customer service (+1 800 CALL ATT).  I was told that
AT&T had run a number of "specials" in the last year, where they
offered Reach Out America rates to all customers who used AT&T on
certain dates.  In order to do this, they filed a tariff.  In order to
stop doing this promotion, they must file a tariff.

I made the comparison to a supermarket having to file a tariff to run
a special on beef, and another to stop running the special.  The
representative on the phone felt that was remarkably apt.

She said that, at this time, they had no intention of changing the
overall tariff structure for AT&T customers.  As always, I am not a
spokesman for anybody's company, and reserve the right to be either
wrong, or lied to ...  but it made sense to me.


Mark Schuldenfrei (schuldy@progress.com)
[I'm just showin' you my opinions: this ain't a gift]
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 18:18:27 CST
From: todd@valinor.mythical.com (Todd Lawrence)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telephone Phreaks
Organization: (What? Organized??) - Mythical Computer Systems
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 831, Message 8 of 13

mertwig!xyzzy@uunet.UU.NET (Daniel Drucker) writes:

> Does anyone know if a person's physical cable pair can be discovered by
> a hacker illicitly logged into COSMOS or MIZAR?


Daniel, 

 It is entirely possible for a "Hacker" to find your actual cable
pair, pole#, horiz/vertical termination points on the frame ... etc ...
illegally using COSMOS or LMOS.


Todd Lawrence    LOD Communications
Internet:  todd@valinor.mythical.com     uucp:  uunet!valinor!todd
From: tnixon@hayes.com (Toby Nixon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Bandwidth on Demand Specification Wanted
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:20:41 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 836, Message 2 of 13

In article <telecom12.821.10@eecs.nwu.edu>, jime@countach.telcom.
tek.com (Jim Edwards) writes:

> Does anybody know where I can get a copy of the Bandwidth On Demand
> (BOND) specification?  Thanks.

The document is now known as "Aggregation of Multiple Independent 56
kbit/s or 64kbit/s Channels into a Synchronized Wideband Connection".
Work is being done in Technical Subcommittee TR-41.4 of the
Telecommunications Industry Association, under project number PN-3014.
The project editor is:

	Richard T. Beckman
	Bellcore  Room NVC 2X-280
	331 Newman Springs Road
	Red Bank  NJ  07701
	rbeck@prefect.cc.bellcore.com

The document is currently intended for review only among members of
the committee, but if you contact Mr. Beckman he might send you a
copy, particularly if you promise to give it a thorough technical
review and return comments to him.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      Voice   +1-404-840-9200  Telex 401243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  Fax     +1-404-447-0178  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     BBS     +1-404-446-6336  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 Internet                tnixon@hayes.com
Date: 06 NOV 92 01:58   
From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular Scam
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 824, Message 4 of 9

The {L.A. Times} reported that a "hacker" probably sold the serial and
phone number combination for a freeway call box to a ring which used
it to make 11,733 calls charged to the one phone.  The calls totalled
25,875 minuted and cost about $1600.  Officials from L.A. Cellular,
which provides the airtime, and GTE Cellular, which maintains the
phones, investigated.

(The rate was so low because the county gets a special rate on airtime
for call boxes.)

The article has some interesting quotes.  "That's not legally
allowable, and it's not an easy thing to do," said Dana McClure, who
analyzes phone calls for the county.  "Most people don't know how to
do it, but there are some."

The article states that 'Everyone involved with the call box system is
confident that the problem has been solved, but officials are mum as
to how they have blocked potential cellular banditry.'

"I don't think we can tell you what we did to fix it because we don't
want it to happen again," a county sokesman said with a laugh.


Randy Gellens                randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com
A Series System Software                 if mail bounces,  forward to
Unisys Mission Viejo, CA                         rgellens@mcimail.com
Opinions are personal;   facts are suspect;   I speak only for myself
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 09:09:24 EST
From: lmcjnwh@noah.ericsson.se (John Walsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: UK: Hull, Local 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 824, Message 7 of 9

Hi,

I remember a couple of years ago while I was staying near Hull being
told that BT (British Telecom) does not have a monopoly over ALL of
the UK.  Apparently the area around Hull has (since the advent of
telephony) had it's own local telco, and the locals pride themselves
on having a much better service than the rest of the country.  Local
calls incur a fixed charge as far as I remember...

Sorry, no hard facts!


John Walsh    <standard disclaimer>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 14:42:19 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Splits This Month
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 834, Message 10 of 11

The archive file history.of.area.splits is designed to help in cases
such as this.  It does not deal with 610 and 710, which don't seem to
be available as geographic area codes, and we notice that N00 and N11
are not used as such either, although 200 thru 600 are available as a
last resort.  Of the other N0X/N1X codes, only 910 has not been
announced or actually put into use yet. January 1, 1995 is the latest
deadline (the original one was July 1, 1995) for switches to be ready
for NXX-form area codes.
From: 72446.461@CompuServe.COM (Alan Boritz)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Private Lines, Bandwidth
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:47:50 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 835, Message 5 of 11

schmidt@auvax1.adelphi.edu (JOHN SCHMIDT) writes:

> Telco tariffs and technical standards have specific limits on signal
> levels and baud rates, to prevent crosstalk into other services.

> "Program" circuits are limited to +8 dbm, as measured on a "VU" meter
> (+18dbm peak), although I have run much hotter levels in unamplified
> loops without "detection" (read 'complaint').

> in the late '60s, we connected a program circuit here to the 70volt 20
> watt output of a PA amplifier, and had a 12" speaker with only a line

AT&T, NY Tel, and just about every other telco in the US use *0 dBm*
as their nominal level transmission standard, NOT +8.

That's a hell of an example to set for a public radio station at an
educational institution: know your standards ... and ignore them.


Alan Boritz	72446.461@compuserve.com
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:45:21 GMT
From: tclark@med.unc.edu (Thomas B. Clark III)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Advice Needed on Telephone Security Systems
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 836, Message 13 of 13

Concerning the possibility of robbery or burglary after cutting the
phone lines ...

I removed the cable from the telephone company's nid and dug up the
last several feet of it.  I drilled through the foundation of the
house (underground) and terminated the cable in my crawl space.  I
then ran one line directly to my alarm dialer and an "emergency
phone."  The cable then goes back out the foundation and up to the
interface device.

If anyone cuts my cable, I can still make a call and so can my alarm
system.

I know this is of questionable propriety, but my safety comes before
telephone company regulations.  I have been a bit nervous the two
times a telephone repair person has been by, but so far they haven't
caught on.
From: shri%legato@cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Who Are the Major Players in CT2 Phones and Equipment?
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:48:04 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 825, Message 3 of 11

Hello world, 

    Who are the major players in CT2 equipments and in CT2 phones?  I
believe CT2 was either born in UK or was at least first implemented/
pilot tested there. So are some UK manufactures the big names?

European Manufacturers?
Americans? Japanese? and even any Taiwanese/Korean (probably not yet)?

Are the major Cellular manufacturers also into CT2? What's their
policy/strategy on CT2?

How is the Illinois/Ameritech CT2 trials ... how are they going? How
is response? Whose equipment do they use? What about user's phones?

Is CT2 faring well on the other side of the big pond?

If I assert that the only CT2 trials in the world have been in London
and Illinois will someone here contradict me ? :-) Japan seems to be a
potential user, perhaps more than US cities, given geographical size
and population densities. Any CT2 in Japan?

Any other part of the world?

Also, whose standard is CT2? What is CCITTs position on it (or is it
them all along ?)

Inquiring minds want to know,

I will also be grateful for any pointers to magazine/journal/trade rag
reports on these questions. If there is interest, I could summarise
them for the telecom archives.


shrikumar (shri@legato.cs.umass.edu, shri@iucaa.ernet.in)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:54:50 GMT
From: Rob McKaughan <rob@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Copper -> Fiber DS1 Cutover Systems 
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711 
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 838, Message 4 of 5

I am working on a student engineering project and would like some
information.

We are trying to design a device which cuts from a copper based DS1
(T1) system to a fiber based sytem.  (We are making the cut over on
the copper side of the fiber optic terminal).  We want to be able to
make this cutover with the system live, and do it transparently.  We
do not want to have to shut down the circuit to add and remove the
cutover device.

So far, we see that our problems are: 1) cutting over in less than the
50ms that protection switches cut over in; 2) keeping everything
terminated properly while adding and removing the box.

So, I've got some questions.  If you have any information on this
subject, I'd very much appreciate hearing about it.

1> Does anyone know of a system out there that already does this or
something very similar to it?

2> Does anyone know any good ways of cutting a DS1 line and
immediately terminating it?  I'm sure cut-and-terminate devices exist
out there.  What are some brands?

3>  Anyone know of any brands of DS1 line testers (for live circuits)?


Thanks!

Rob McKaughan                      Internet: rob@jarthur.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College                UUCP:     ..!uunet!jarthur!rob
Computer Science System Staff
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:49:11 GMT
From: julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Today's LECs Would Prefer Metering (was ISDN and Stuff)
Reply-To: julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 826, Message 6 of 14

In article <telecom12.821.2@eecs.nwu.edu> mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
writes:

> In the UK all calls are metered by time, local or not: with the
> exception of one city (Kingston upon Hull -- Hull for short) where
> local calls are untimed.

> [Moderator's Note: Why is Hull the exception?   PAT]

	Hull has and has allways had a private phone company.
Subscribers in Hull never had the displeasure of being treated with
contempt by the General Post Office and then being badgered by British
Telecom.

	Hull subscribers usually get good service and good equipment.
By the way, Hull had itemised billing before British Telecom offered
it. Yes, free enterprise telcos do work and have survived in some
corners of Europe.

	Of course, governments have recently "discovered"
privatisation and customers in Europe are beginning to enjoy the kind
of service that the U.S. had in the sixties.


Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com  N6ARE@WA6FWI.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:39:05 GMT
From: tg@chmsr.gatech.edu (T. Govindaraj)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Two Cellular Phones on the Same Number
Reply-To: tg@chmsr.gatech.edu (T. Govindaraj)
Organization: Center for Human-Machine Systems Research - Georgia Tech
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 830, Message 7 of 9

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.

Is anybody using this option? Only one telephone can be used at the
same time. I understand that if a call is in progress and the second
phone attempts to make a call, the first call will continue as usual
and the other second won't be able to make a connection.  (This is OK
with me.) As for receiving calls, apparently it depends (I don't quite
know on what!).

The agent from whom we bought our original phone (and established the
connection) said that she would sell me a phone for approximately $200
more than the price she would charge if I establish a new connection.
Any ideas where I could buy a phone at a better price?  The C2+
installer suggested a place called Recellular with an 800 number. He
suggested the Motorola Flip Phone, Classic, or Ultra Classic. (We now
have a Panasonic EB3500. A lighter, but not too expensive will be
nice.)

Any comments, ideas, suggestions concerning the two-phone-one-number
option, places to buy a phone, etc. will be appreciated. Thank you.


T. Govindaraj	+1 404 894 3873	   tg@chmsr.gatech.edu,NeXTmail welcome.
Member, League for Programming Freedom	(write lpf@uunet.uu.net)
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
765 Ferst Drive, ISyE-0205, Atlanta, GA 30332-0205.


[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. An
analogy would be two landline customers sharing the same wire pair and
expecting telco to figure out who to bill for which calls. Most
cellular systems will only validate one ESN per line. Even using it
the way you describe it, you could never call *each other* on the
other's cell phone. Why not just get two numbers; that is what
everyone else does. There are inexpensive calling packages for casual
users like your wife and yourself, and there can be a single master
bill generated each month covering both lines.   PAT]
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:32:13 GMT
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: HELP Needed on JPEG Standard!
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 834, Message 9 of 11

In article <telecom12.821.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us
(John R. Levine) writes:

> JPEG has very little to do with telecom.  It's a scheme for
> compressing digitized photographs.  There is an informal group that
 ...

While John is correct, JPEG does turn up in some interesting
telecom-related contexts.  According to some of my informally-received
information, the AT&T model 2500 video phone uses JPEG in real time to
compress video for transmission between sets.

As an aside ... why in the world did they use that model number?  Is
it possible that someone at AT&T didn't know it had been used once
before, for a product that once had what might be called 'significant
market penetration'?


Dave Levenson		Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc.		UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA		Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 20:22:25 CST
From: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs KB5SNF)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular Snooping and Privacy Issues
Reply-To: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org
Organization: The Red Headed League; Lawton, Ok
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 840, Message 3 of 16

monty@proponent.com (Monty Solomon) writes:

> After discussing privacy laws, legalities, and realities, Flinn notes
> that at Scanners Unlimited in San Carlos, CA, "about a quarter of the
> customers are interested in telephone eavesdropping."

I wonder if sales have increased since it will soon be illegal to sell
receivers that still include cellular (such as the Icom R100), also I
wonder if the new scanners will no longer be easily modifiable to
receive cellular?


Internet: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org,      bo836@cleveland.freenet.edu
UUCP: ...!rwsys!ricksys!rick,   {backbones}!ricksys.lonestar.org!rick
BITNET: bo836%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm  Fidonet: Richard McCombs @ 1:385/6
From: shri%legato@cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: ATT to Play Big on the Airwaves
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:48:04 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 825, Message 4 of 11


  Just heard on NPR this morning ...

  ATT bought a 30% state in McCaw, the Cellular King, for $3.8 bn.
ATT aims big in being a major player in Nationwide Cellular and phone
services.

 The morning edition said this brings ATT in direct competition with
the RBOCs, many of which have themselves entered Cellular market and
are competitors of McCaw. (Given that the RBOCs now bill for Sprint
and MCI, so are we seeing a gradual breakup of the close symbiosis
between Ma and baby bells ? -- shri).

 There were indications of new services on a nationwide cellular
network ... with buzz words like palmtop, one number anywhere, even on
the road etc. thrown in. McCaw himself chimed in to say that this
opens up possibilities of one number referring to a person anywhere --
in his home in CA or driving down the road in NYC. (not direct quote).

 A mention was made that now ATT had bought NCR last year, and with
McCaw's cellular and the Bell Labs research, the above aims are in
hand. (Although buying NCR is not the same as buying HP when it comes
to palmtops ... are we going to have pocket Towers and 88K unix
machines ?? :-) :-)

I think I should go and grab a nice mnemonic 700 number from ATT :-)


shrikumar (shri@legato.cs.umass.edu, shri@iucaa.ernet.in)
Date: 11 Nov 1992 18:11:19 GMT
From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Stupid Phone Systems Blocking N[01]X Prefixes
Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan CITI
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 840, Message 9 of 16

You would think that cellular providers would be sensitive to the
problem of dialing numbers with a 0 or 1 as the second digit, since
many cellular prefixes are of this type.  But our latest cell phone
number is in the 600 prefix, and we've found that we can't roam
anywhere, even where our provider has a mutual roaming agreement with
the remote provider.  The reason?  It seems that most cellular
providers can't deal with the 600 prefix.

I really like Pat's solution to this problem (make the party with the
problem call you at your "problem" prefix) but don't think I can
implement it in this situation.


[Moderator's Note: When you say they 'cannot deal with the 600 prefix'
do you mean other carriers refuse to accept it as a valid phone number
for purposes of billing roamers, or do you mean they refuse/cannot
accept it for the purpose of incoming calls passed along through the
local xxx-ROAM number?  I'd say the best recourse here is to simply
refuse to pay any roaming charges under the circumstances. That is, if
you get assessed a charge for roaming when you turn your phone on in
their territory yet they won't accept outgoing and/or imcoming calls,
then when roaming charges show up on your cellular bill just deduct
them and add a note saying 'roaming service unavailable in (place),
obviously the bill is in error.'  Let the cell carriers squabble among
themselves over accepting (or not) the chargeback.  PAT]
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Airfone -- Phooey
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:45:33 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 836, Message 4 of 13

In article <telecom12.820.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, henry@ads.com (Henry
Mensch) writes:

[ regarding Airphone service ]

> Is anyone happy with these things?  I've never gotten one to work to
> my satisfaction ...

I have received numerous Airphone calls from a business associate who
was inflight between the West and East Coasts.  The background noise
level is high enough to be objectionable, but the voice is
recognizable.  I'm sure they're using a noise-cancelling microphone on
those handsets, but I'm also sure I've heard better ones.


Dave Levenson		Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc.		UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA		Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857