HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:05:43 GMT
From: sullivan@warschawski.geom.umn.edu (John M. Sullivan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 510-613 vs 613-NNX
Organization: Geometry Center, Univ. of Minnesota
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 907, Message 7 of 11

A friend in area code 510 (East Bay, CA) reports an interesting new
problem.  He used to call Ottawa by dialing 1-613-XXX-XXXX, but
evidently there is a new exchange 510-613.  Now dialing gets
interrupted after 1-613-XXX-X with the usual inane message "we're
sorry, it is not necessary to dial a `1' when calling that number.
please ..."  An MCI operator was able to connect him to Canada.

I don't know what the history in CA of optional/required 1+ for
intra-NPA toll calls is.  I'm not sure if the 510-613 exchange is as
recent as the message (last few days), or if they merely changed some
software.  I suggested dialing 10xxx-1-613- ... as I assume that will
bypass the problem.


John Sullivan, sullivan@geom.umn.edu


[Moderator's Note: I don't think dialing 10-anything will cure the
problem simply because the local telco looks at all digits dialed
first, translates what it sees, *then* hands it off to either the
default one-plus carrier or the 10-of choice carrier. Now if he uses
the carrier's 800 gateway, and accesses their switch direct rather
than via the local telco CO, it probably would work provided the LD
carrier had the correct information. The reason telco looks first,
even with 10-anything is because if it is intra-LATA, the local telco
is not required to hand the call to anyone -- they can process it
in-house. The MCI operator could do it -- as could an AT&T operator --
simply because they do their own thing; they do not go through the
local telco. (Even though oddly enough, on an international call I
made today through AT&T when I dialed the operator she answered like
this: [listen!] '.... Illinois Bell, may I ... I mean, AT&T, may I
help you please? ...' ... yes, I thought it was strange also.) 

With your 510-613 versus 1-613, the local telco has an error in the
tables; they'll have to fix it; it is unlikely they will do so anytime
soon until someone from AT&T or Bellcore argues with them about it,
and in any event they will never do it just because you or your friend
report it. You might start by reporting this to the Chairman's office;
tell one of his reps about it; management complaints seem to attract
attention second only to commission complaints; in some telcos
customer complaints run a distant third to the first two categories.  PAT]
From: jeffj%jiji@ben.uknet.ac.uk (jeffj)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Most Advanced Caller-ID Box I've Seen Yet
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:02:12 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 900, Message 8 of 14

I am looking through the Hammacher Schlemmer catalogue (est. 1848).
(800) 543-3366 [they sold executive toys and top of the line
appliances way before the Sharper Image was in business].
 
The "call screening identifier" not only displays the Caller-ID number
but displays the matching name for 300 names, does call screening and
stores 50 calls.  $170.

 
Jeffrey Jonas    jeffj@panix.com
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:08:41 GMT
From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Tinkering?
Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail.  Playa del Rey, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 910, Message 9 of 11

In article <telecom12.903.1@eecs.nwu.edu> jeff@bradley.bradley.edu
(Jeff Hibbard) writes:

> CRAIG@harvarda.harvard.edu (Craig Evans) writes:

>> I am interested in a headset for the phone especially for long trips

> Here in Illinois, if a police officer sees you driving with a headset,
> you'll get a fairly serious ticket.  Perhaps you should check the laws
> in your state before proceeding.

Here in California, a headset is legal as long as it only covers one
ear.  I used to use one for my ham radio, and was stopped many times.
As soon as I showed the cop it was only on one ear, they let me go but
I have stopped using it because of the annoyance factor.


Rich Greenberg      Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com   310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: richg@hatch.socal.com       310-649-0238
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 11:10:52 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 914-243-9901
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 899, Message 10 of 11

914-243-9901 is one of those "readout" numbers where you get a list of
prefixes (via recorded message, so you don't bother a person when you
call it).  But here, I got a list of prefixes covering more than one
exchange area: 243,245,248,424,878,962.  243 is a relatively-new prefix;
the other prefixes are:

245, 962 Yorktown Heights
248 Lincolndale
424 Garrison
878 Patterson

(in other words, an area straddling the Westchester-Putnam county line
in New York state.)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:45:48 -0500
From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 909, Message 4 of 12

Kevin C. Castner (kevinc@ups.com) writes:

> My understanding is that it is illegal to scan the frequencies 
> used by the cellular carriers (or at least against FCC reqs), 
> as well as the frequencies used by cordless phones (49.7 MHz, 
> but don't quote me on that). The limiting factor is if any 
> portion of the call goes over a landline, then the entire call 
> is considered to be secured and immune from tapping, etc. without 
> a warrant. 

Under the ECPA, it is illegal to listen in on a cellular call.  It is
not illegal per se to scan the cellular frequencies, as long as you
don't happen to find any calls.  ;-)

Cellular calls are covered under the ECPA regardless of whether they
ever travel over a landline (eg, cellular to cellular calls are
covered).  The only exception is that _cordless_ phones are not
protected from eavesdropping between the handset and the base station.
It is still illegal to intercept a call from a cordless phone at any
point between the base station and the other end.

Hope this helps.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:57:52 GMT
From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"? - Message Incorrectly Attrributed
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 912, Message 15 of 15

Very odd.  I just saw this note and it had ME as the From: field, but
Dave Liebold's signature.  I did NOT send it.  Somehow, Pat, Dave
Liebold's Fidonet submission got my header on it!  Here's the one:

In article <telecom12.910.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, goldstein@carafe.dnet.
dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes ...
 
> mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com wrote:

>> No, I'm not making this up.  A Canadian company has just trademarked
>> "The Net" and its derivatives, such as The Net Mail, The Net EDI, The
>> Net EnvoyPost, The Net Database Gateway, and The Net Enhanced Fax.

 ... much stuff removed

>Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
>INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG

You figure it out.  I'm baffled.


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com 
k1io             or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.


[Moderator's Note: I apologize to Fred for any inconvenience this may
have caused. Sometimes ugly bugs show up in my software.   PAT]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 18:38:18 PST
From: John_David_Galt@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sprint Dis-Cards
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 909, Message 8 of 12

Quoth the Moderator:

> The possibility of fraud is not a sufficient reason to deny credit to
> someone.

Do you realize what you just said?  If the courts take your view, we
might as well legalize phreaking as they have in Holland -- we'll have
about as much chance against it.

Credit is not a right, whether the law says it is or not.  It's too
bad that a few thieves can create inconvenience for the many; but I'd
rather wait (or carry lots of coins) to make an international call
than have to pay big $$ because the telcos are losing millions to
rip-off artists.  TANSTAAFL.


John David Galt    Freedom of Lifestyle is an inalienable human right.


[Moderator's Note: I did not mean that you (or I, or anyone) applying
for credit should be automatically approved regardless of suspected
fraud in our application for credit. I did not mean that a merchant or
vendor must establish credit for customers when there is an unacceptable
risk of fraud which cannot be (easily) controlled by the credit grantor. 
I meant that once an open line of credit has been established -- that
is, you have the plastic in your possession for your use -- it becomes
the merchant or vendor's problem to administer the credit correctly.
I'd even be happy if AT&T would publish a list of prohibited origin
and destination points where their credit card is concerned. But you
can be sure they'll not put that in writing.  A supervisor at the AT&T
International Operating Center yesterday confirmed to me that in fact
there are certain CO's which are redlined from using credit cards on
international calls to the Middle East countries. When I asked her to
send me a list or explain why those places where not noted in the
International Communications book they publish for public use, she was
candid with me: "We were told never to send anything out in writing
about that policy ..."   PAT]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:33:44 GMT
From: brianp@portal.vpharm.com (Brian Perry)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CallerID on FX Lines?
Organization: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 907, Message 6 of 11

I am interested in finding out if Caller-ID works over Foreign
Exchange lines.  I am in an area at home which has an old 1AESS switch
which New England Tel has no plans to upgrade anytime soon.  Im
thinking of ordering an FX line out of an adjacent CO so that I can
get features such as CallerID, Distinctive Ringing, etc.  Does anyone
have any experiences with this?


Brian K. Perry, Systems Manager       Tel:   617-499-2469 (office)
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated          617-576-3111 (main #) 


[Moderator's Note: I have experience with FX lines, and I can tell you
it will cost you a bundle just to get the FX, let alone the various
features you want.  For the FX, there will be a monthly mileage
charge. In addition, FX is not tariffed for residence service ... only
for business. So if you have any advantages in your town with residence 
service not available to business (i.e. flat rate unmeasured local
service versus message units on business lines) be prepared to pay
whatever business customers in that ('foreign') exchange normally pay
plus the mileage fee. If you are still interested, ask telco about the
new features and if they will work on the FX. (I don't think so -- not
that they can't; but that it is unlikely they are tariffed for it.)  PAT]
Date: 12 DEC 92 01:40   
From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Users and SS7
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 899, Message 11 of 11

The December 7 issue of {Network World} reports that AT&T plans on
offering a service ("Intelligent Call Processing") that lets users
link their computers to AT&T's SS7 network.  The article was short on
technical details, but it seemed to me to be saying that when someone
picks up their phone and dials an (800) number carried by AT&T and
owned by a customer using ICP, the first AT&T switch to get the call
would hold it while sending an SS7 query to the customer's computer,
which would tell AT&T where to deliver the call.  This would be useful
to distribute calls to different agents at different centers.


Randy Gellens             randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com
A Series System Software             if mail bounces,  forward to:
Unisys Mission Viejo, CA                      rgellens@mcimail.com
Date: 12 Dec 92 17:12:36 GMT
From: Frank Vance <airgun!fvance@uunet.UU.NET>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Wanted: List of Active and Proposed Undersea Cables Worldwide
Organization: Western Geophysical, Div. of Western Atlas Int'l, Houston, TX
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 899, Message 4 of 11

 I am looking for a list of all the intercontenental undersea cables,
both active and proposed.  I would like to know such things as
capacity, ownership, and where the cable terminates.

 If no one has such a list, I will try to put one together.  I have
been looking through the telecom archives already, and have access to
a few data-comm trade journals, but would appreciate any further hints
for places to look.


Thanks,

Frank Vance  +1.713.963.2426	Western Geophysical
fvance@airgun.wg.waii.com	10001 Richmond Avenue
Fax: +1.713.963.2758		Houston, TX 77042   USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 07:05:43 GMT
From: spatula!ahm@s4mjs.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Pocket Auto-Dialer?
Organization: Meyer residence, Dunellen NJ
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 899, Message 9 of 11

Does anyone know where I can get a small memory dialer?  Something
about the size of Radio Shack's mini tonepad would be good, and I only
need a maximum of a dozen memories.

Reply by e-mail, and I'll summarize.


Thanks,

Andreas Meyer, N2FYE   ahm@spatula.rent.com
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:40:22 GMT
From: cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu (Christopher J. Ambler, Phish)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?
Organization: When Fashion Dictates, you're living in a Fashion State!
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 902, Message 4 of 8

I guess we're right in the middle here. We have two ISDN BRIs. All
calls outside of the CO are measured, but all calls inside are flat.
Luckily, since the CO is a campus PBX, all our data calls are to CO
data numbers that connect us into routers. But local voice calls are
all via flat rate POTS.

As a side note, though, long distance calls are about 10% *CHEAPER*
over our ISDN, but just because we get billed through campus and they
have bulk-rate long distance :-)


cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu   (805) 756-6634/ISDN
Date: 12 Dec 1992 05:59:05 GMT
From: boottrax@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Boot Trax)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Optical Line? What??
Organization: Basement Software Products
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 899, Message 8 of 11

  I am in need of a 14.4 modem and recently saw the ATT - Paradyne
14.4 modem.  One of the selling points for this device was the OLI
(Optical Line Interface).

  There was no pictorial or any definition of this OLI.  I don't have
time to play phone tag at ATT and have to get a modem quickly. Does
anyone know what this OLI is, if it's useful, and if it works.

 To my best guess it's just a fiber line interface for interoffice
traffic.

 Please mail me a response, since I don't frequent usenet news that
often.

 Thanks in advance.


boottrax@csd4.csd.uwm.edu   Basement Software Products
             'Keeping my opinions to myself'
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:18:00 GMT
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?
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 909, Message 5 of 12

In article <telecom12.902.3@eecs.nwu.edu> joel@wam.umd.edu (Joel M.
Hoffman) writes:

> Does it really cost the telco more for more usage?  I don't think so.
> The telco owns the lines, and electronic lines >don't< require more
> repair the more they are used.  So, in fact, fixed-rate seems the most
> equitable way to go.

No, the lines don't require repair every <x> hours of use.  However,
consider the fact that no telco (well, no telco that wants to stay out
of bankrupcy for long) has enough capacity to handle every line it
serves going off-hook at the same time, or every line it serves making
an interoffice call at the same time.  Typically the telco has enough
switch capacity to handle 10% of the available circuits being used at
once.

Now, in order to avoid giving customers an all-circuits-busy message
(or worse yet, making them wait five minutes for dialtone after going
offhook), the telco has to have enough capacity to handle peak usage.
So, people who use the phone during peak usage periods of time *are*
costing the phone company money -- they have to install more switch
capacity to handle the additional calls.  But people who make calls
during non-peak hours are actually not costing the telco a cent since,
as you said, electronic circuits require no use-based maintenance.

Digital networking providers realized this years ago.  PC Pursuit was
originally designed as a plan to allow Telenet (now SprintNet) to make
money with their normally-unused network bandwidth during non-peak
hours.  That's why PC Pursuit was so cheap, and why you could only use
it during non-peak times.


Marc Unangst, N8VRH   mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us
From: Christopher.Vance@adfa.oz.au (Christopher JS Vance)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998
Date: 13 Dec 92 05:01:52 GMT
Organization: Comp Science, University College, UNSW/ADFA, Canberra, Australia
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 904, Message 8 of 14

In article <telecom12.893.12@eecs.nwu.edu> goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob
Goudreau) writes:

> You mentioned that this conversion table covered "geographic services
> only," so am I correct in inferring that free-phone (008) numbers will
> not map into the new three zone?  Presumably.  some new 0X code will
> supersede 008; any idea what it will be?

Free call	008 XXX XXX will go to 180 XXX XXXX 
Expensive call	0055 XX XXX will go to 190 0XX XXXX

Should look familiar to anybody out there in the NANP ...

Most services currently beginning with 0 will go to something beginning 
with 1.

Sometime I might get around to putting the non-geographic stuff in a
file and posting it, too.


Christopher
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 16:52 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell and Equipment Vending
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 903, Message 14 of 15

Jeff@digtype.airage.com (Jeff Wasilko) writes:

> Hmm, he was probably doing it because the next release of the NT
> Norstar Meridian (DR5) will support line cards with integral modems
> (to capture CNID). I also hear that they will also be supporting
> direct termination of a T1 (not bad for a key system!).

BFD! I have a home-made switch that does all of that. You mean the
biggest of big boys are finally getting around to it???

> I doubt it. It's taken NT a while to get this far. Why would they
> custom design a new CNID spec just for one BOC?

And just what makes anyone think that the Seven Sisters operate alone
and independently? I got the shock of my life earlier this year when I
ordered telephone service in Chicago for my company. I was on the
phone with the IBT rep who asked if I had any other service in
Illinois Bell territory. I do not, but I jokingly offered the fact
that my company has had service with Pacific Bell forever in good
standing. She immediately came back with, "Is that on [name of the
street where my office is located in Santa Clara]?" "Uh huh." "Oh,
there will be no problem setting up this account. No deposit will be
necessary."

So it would appear that my Pac*Bell account information is a few
keystrokes away from an IBT rep's view. So "special features" written
for one RBOC would be good for all. And it appears that more than one
RHC is in bed with NT:

> Nope. That's why we didn't buy from SNET. Actually, if PacTel Meridian
> Systems is like NYNEX Meridian Systems, then it's actually a
> partnership between the BOC and Northern Telecom.

So how many BOCs do you suppose have a partnership with NT? And how
many did what PacTel did: buy up all the dealers of every other system
made and then put them all out of business. The PacTel/Meridian
salesman specifically asked if I was satisfied with support on my
current system. When I told him 'yes', he was legitimately troubled.
I will bet he thought there might be a vendor out there that the
mighty Pacific Telesis failed to buy out and shut down. Horrors!

Isn't it great to have captive ratepayer money with which to play
power games?


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
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:34:41 GMT
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Eight Digit French Phone Numbers (was Australian Changes)
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 907, Message 8 of 11

In article <telecom12.906.13@eecs.nwu.edu> cmylod@nl.oracle.com (Colum
Mylod) writes:

> In article <telecom12.904.10@eecs.nwu.edu>, lmadison@ie.oracle.com
> (Linc Madison) writes:

>> I'm sorry, folks, but this is the most incredibly BRAIN-DEAD scheme
>> I've ever heard of.

> in the tiniest, most remote town in the nation.  There are only a
> handful of cities in the world that have eight-digit numbers: Paris,
> Rome, Tokyo, Mataranka ...

Not only Paris but all of France: every city, town, village, hamlet,
farm, barn.

Actually, France has two eight-digit phone areas.  "Paris et
environs", and "Les Provinces".


Stewart M. Clamen		Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science	UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University	Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue		Fax:	     +1 412 681 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA