HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:02:35 -0600 (CST)
From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Other Bitnet Servers
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 908, Message 17 of 18

John Higdon (john@ati.com) writes about PAT's complaint:

> I have certainly had no trouble for years addressing mail to
> user@system.bitnet. Perhaps you might want to check your local
> system's mailer and transport agent and find out why only you seem to
> have this difficulty.

Well this gets close to a religious discussion and our Moderator has
already warned us that e-mail is not a central topic to this Digest,
so I will only briefly comment that the problem is that .bitnet is NOT
a registered, correct domain.  Thus there is no obligation for any
Internet mailer to know what to do with it.  The fact that most major
sites accept it and do the right thing is more a reflection of folk
being nice than that they are playing by the rules.  The official,
correct address of someone on Bitnet (from an arbitrary Internet site)
is:

user%system.bitnet@<gateway> ...

where <gateway> is a system which groks .bitnet addresses and will do
the right thing.


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
	 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
     phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet  (314) 362-3617 [362-2694(FAX)]


[Moderator' Note: And if all else fails, dump your traffic on the
folks at cuny - vee-emm. :)      PAT]
From: newsdesk@dims.demon.co.uk (Darren Ingram)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Date: 13 Dec 92 22:52:58 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 904, Message 5 of 14

Matt McConnell wrote:

> Whatever happened to the Iridium satelite network?  I seem to recall a
> proposed operating date sometime in '93.  Is Motorola still working on
> this?  What is the progress, if any?  Anyone else doing this kind of
> thing?

Various modifications have been made to the Iridum project during thr
fourth quarter of 1992, with each satellite containing 48 beams onto
the surface of the earth, an increase of 11 beams over the original
design.  With the additional beamwidth, 66 satellites will be used
instead of 77.


DIMS (newsdesk mailbox)(newsdesk@dims.demon.co.uk)   - Views expressed do
184 Brookside Avenue, Whoberley, Coventry CV5 8AD UK - not automatically 
Tel:+44 203 717 417/Fax:+44 203 717 418/Tlx 94026650 - represent those of
*News, features, PR, consultancy & network services* - DIMS or its clients
From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"?
Date: 19 Dec 92 04:34:06 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 910, Message 2 of 11


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.

Envoy 100, TradeRoute and iNet 2000 (with the "i" in front) have been
Bell Canada/Telecom Canada/Stentor trademarks for a while. I got some
promotional info on "The Net" which doesn't seem to indicate that "The
Net" is an actual trademarks.

One strange thing, though ... I recall that AT&T Easylink runs a
service that was called "Enhanced Fax", or something very close to
that name, and sells that service in Canada in competition with "The
Net". AT&T Mail as a whole competes with Bell's/Stentor's Envoy and
iNet.

> They're taking over that name to be a proprietary trademark.  It looks
> to me like a flagrant attempt to highjack the goodwill the Internet,
> et al, have built up over the years and to fool the telecom-illiterati
> into thinking that if they buy "The Net Mail" that they're connecting
> to what we all think of as The Net.

Of course, Bell/Stentor has never experienced *real* interconnection.
An actual Internet link from Envoy, let alone this "Net" might be
considered one of these centuries. The Bell/Stentor service promotion
mentions that an x.400 linkage available to a "substantial 65 PRMDs
(Private Domains) and a plan is in place for an ambitious expansion of
our global messaging interconnectivity.". Meanwhile, AT&T Mail already
has Internet *and* x.400; AT&T Mail customers can even reach Envoy
addresses via the x.400 as well as Internet addresses (which represent
more than a "substantial 65" whatevers). Even Fidonet has developed
linkages into the Internet (this posting being a case in point).

The Internet ... if you're not in it, you're out of it.

"The Net" is generally a repackaging of the electronic mail services
as done by Mediatel (the Bell Canada division responsible for data
services like Envoy, ALEX, iNet, etc). In Canada, the number given for
more information about these services is 1 800 465.2892


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:02:54 -0500
From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Canadian Cellular Privacy Crackdown
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 5 of 11

There will be stricter regulations regarding radio scanners and
cellular phone calls in Canada. According to reports such as a brief
story tonight on CBC Prime Time News, there will not be a ban on
listening in on cellular calls as is the case with the U.S. ECPA
legislation. However, there are reported to be penalties in the works
for divulging or otherwise making use of intercepted cellular calls.
Cellular phone companies will also be required to provide audio
scrambling equipment to customers who request such facilities.

One forgotten aspect of all the cellular monitoring controversy is
that a "secrecy of communications" clause has been in the Canadian
Communications Act for years. This clause prohibits the acting on or
the divulging of any intercepted communications. Such things as
broadcast or amateur radio transmissions are exempt from the secrecy
of communications provisions, though. What would seem to be in the
works, though, is stricter enforcement of this; a news media outlet,
for instance, may not be able to report on intercepted cellular calls
(and in fact this may be technically illegal in any event, owing to
the aforementioned "secrecy of communications").


Dave Leibold  -  via FidoNet node 1:250/98 
INTERNET:  Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 09:17:03 EST
From: rkc@maestro.bellcore.com (Ramakrishna Chamarthy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 908, Message 4 of 18

The name "Iridium" for Motoroola's Project for a System of 77
Satellites was based on the fact that "77" is the Atomic Number for
"Iridium".

Now, that the number of satellites in this project is (likely to be)
changed from 77 to 66, is there going to be a "change" in the name of
the project?  :-) :-)

Just curious.


Ramakrishna	E-mail: rkc@maestro.bellcore.com
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 15:46:26 -0600
From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Offhook Chirp
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 903, Message 13 of 15

In article <telecom12.897.7@eecs.nwu.edu> Lance_Neustaeter@tvbbs.
wimsey.bc.ca (Lance Neustaeter) writes:

> I've recently purchased a very cheap phone (the kind that sound
> like a cricket when they ring).  There's only one thing which annoys
> me about it: Whenever an extension goes off hook, this phone gives off
> a little chirp.

> there are three wires connected to the piezo (?) speaker.  How can I
> stop the annoying off hook chirp?

A little review of how phones ring is in order.  A working analog telephone
line has a steady DC voltage around 48 volts.  The sounder in a telephone
doesn't receive any voltage because there is a capacitor in series with it.
Capacitors block DC and appear to conduct AC.  When you'are in the shower
and the local telemarketing machine calls you, an AC signal is superimposed
or mixed with the DC voltage.  The 20-HZ AC signal passes through the
blocking capacitor and rings the bell or shocks the cricket, as the case may
be.

The plot thickens.  Capacitors hold a charge like a small battery.
When connected in series with a sounder and a DC source, the sounder
will get a little blast of current as the capacitor charges.  When the
line is quiet, the capacitor is fully charged and no current flows.
If the phone rings, the 20-HZ signal alternately charges and
discharges the capacitor, causing current to flow through the sounder.
When the line is quiet and somebody picks up an extention, the 48-volt
DC signal abruptly drops to about 10 volts.  The capacitor has more
voltage than the line, so it discharges through the sounder, causing
another little flow of current until it equalizes again.

Well-designed telephone sounders have enough mechanical or electrical
inertia to ignore these little hits.  The chirp happens because the
sounder in question "thinks" it is seeing the start of a ring.  There
really isn't a heck of a lot that can be done about this except to
disconnect the sounder or put the little telephone somewhere where the
chirps are not a problem.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:43:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Ptasnik  <davep@cac.washington.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Help! Custom Ring + Call Fwd = Trouble
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 10 of 12

petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (William Petrisko) wrote:

> I recently ordered three custom ringing (distinctive ring) numbers for
> one of my lines into my home.  On this line I have a busy/no-answer
> call forward and standard call-forwarding (*72, any number I want.)

> The problem boils down to this: USWEST tells me that my call
> forwarding options are an all-or-nothing thing with the custom
> ringing.  (Either ALL custom-ring numbers follow call-forwarding or
> NONE do.)

> [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell told me it could not be done when I
> ordered the same service. Either all follow the main line or none
> do.  PAT]

On the US West 5ESS provided centrex at the University of Washington
we have been given the following options.  Custom ringing numbers
always follow Call Forward Busy and Call Forward Don't Answer to the
destination numbers established by the primary number.  ANI
information provided at the destination number reflects the number
dialed, not just the primary number.

With Call Forwarding Variable we have an option.  If the primary
number is equipped with a feature called MCFI, then the custom ringing
numbers will follow the variable forwarding.  If the primary number is
not equipped with MCFI then the custom ringing numbers will ignore the
Call Forwarding Variable, and cause the phone to ring even when the
primary number is forwarded.  We are not able to order different
functions for different custom ringing numbers assigned to the same
primary number.  All feature control is done thru the primary number.
That may well be a limitation of the software.  Certainly it seems
that the different telcos are being consistent with this aspect of
their custom ringing offerings.


All of the above is nothing more than the personal opinion of - 

Dave Ptasnik          davep@u.washington.edu
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 14:55:42 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <stevef@wrq.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Inter-NPA Local Dialing
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 908, Message 12 of 18

Yes, I'm already taking that into account.  My question centered
around what is necessary once the call gets into the PSTN.  I think
I'm coming to the realization that I will have to have just about
every aspect configurable in order to deal with all of the strange
situations out there.


Thanks, 

Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:38:46 GMT
From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Ethernetted Office Phone Systems?
Organization: Yale University--Genetics
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 910, Message 11 of 11

In article <telecom12.904.14@eecs.nwu.edu>, goldstein@carafe.dnet.
dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) wrote: 

> In article <telecom12.887.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, gtoal@cursci.co.uk (Graham
> Toal) writes ...

>> However, we were wondering ... has anyone ever built actual
>> *telephones* for use in a building with local ethernet that used
>> tcp/ip?  If not, there's a tremendous market there: You can program
>> your phone with your extension, and take it with you when you move
>> office without reprogramming the exchange (a trivial point but one
>> that would be useful in *our* office where we're always bloody moving
>> :-( ) but more importantly you only need to run one ether trunk round
>> the whole building to cover all possible present and future phone
>> *and* network needs.

> It's not practical.  Ethernet has too much latency plus variable
> bandwidth.  Ethernet telephone's a classical hack of computer
> scientists with no telephony background who think the whole world's IP
> and wonder why anybody does anything else.

In communications theory terms, we are talking about different ways of
allocating the available bandwidth among users.  Ethernet is a
"baseband" system: while transmitting, a node uses *all* the channel's
available bandwidth for a short period of time.  Everyone else must
*wait* until that node is done transmitting.

Alternatively, one could, in principle, use the same coaxial cable to
carry a number of voice channels, each of which uses a different RF
carrier frequency -- a "broadband" system.  Now each node gets to use
a portion of the bandwidth for a long time.

Ultimately, bandwidth is bandwidth -- it can be sliced-up in different
ways, but the total cannot exceed channel capacity.

Ethernet, like other baseband systems, is optimized for computer data
communications: short bursts at very high data rates, with long pauses
in between.  These are not "realtime" systems -- the delay before a
packet gets through depends on what other traffic is present.

Broadband systems are optimized for real-time delivery of continous,
low-bandwidth, signals.  So long as there is no interference between
channels (and a properly-designed system should have very little
crosstalk), the amount of traffic on other channels will not affect
your channel.

Telephone companies devote a considerable amount of engineering
expertise to making a single high-capacity digital channel appear to
be a number of analog voice channels.  This requires very fancy
systems for arranging the packets so that nobody has to wait very long
for their next packet ...


Matt Healy   matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:15:00 GMT
From: mark@coombs.anu.edu.au (Mark)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998
Organization: Australian National University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 906, Message 15 of 16

goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes:

> In article <telecom12.888.1@eecs.nwu.edu> Christopher.Vance@adfa.oz.au
> writes:

>> New area code:  Supercedes [sic] old area codes: And localnumbers become:
>> 03		  00X				   6XXX XXXX

> 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?

It was earlier posted here that 008 numbers would become 180 and 0055
would become 190, similar to the USA's 1-800 and 1-900 system. This
was to free up the 00 series for international access uses.


Mark    mark@coombs.anu.edu.au
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:30:25 MST
From: petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (William Petrisko)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Help! Custom Ring + Call Fwd = Trouble
Reply-To: petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu
Organization: University of Arizona, College of Engineering and Mines, Tucson
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 907, Message 10 of 11

I recently ordered three custom ringing (distinctive ring) numbers for
one of my lines into my home.  On this line I have a busy/no-answer
call forward and standard call-forwarding (*72, any number I want.)

The problem boils down to this: USWEST tells me that my call
forwarding options are an all-or-nothing thing with the custom
ringing.  (Either ALL custom-ring numbers follow call-forwarding or
NONE do.)

My plan was to have the following:
	Main number:	 Follow CF 
	1st Custom Ring: Follow CF 800 number ring-in. (Thx Pat for the idea.)
	2nd Custom Ring: Always ring-thru (modem)
	3rd Custom Ring: Always ring-thru (personal/fax)

The main number (and the first custom-ring) are for a business I run out
of my home and must be forwarded to my VM/ans-svc on busy/no-answer ...

I am on a 1A ESS switch ... is what USWEST tells me true?  Or is there
a way to program one custom-ring number to follow call-forwarding and
the other two not to?

Ideas?


bill petrisko                    petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu
   aka n7lwo   ...!uunet!4gen!warlok!gargle!omnisec!thumper!bill


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell told me it could not be done when I
ordered the same service. Either all follow the main line or none do.  PAT]
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: X.400 Name Parsing
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:55:09 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 5 of 14

The X.400 specification has several name fields, including surname"
and given name.  Note that this is =not= last and first name, as
anybody who's been following the latest dust-up in RISKS can explain.
The idea is supposed to be that (for small organizations) surname is
sufficient qualifier to find one person, which is why surname is on
the mandatory fields list.
 
In some Latin American countries, the order of the names is usually
written <given name> <surname> <mother's maiden name>, so if the name
is Juan Rodriguez Pastor, then Rodrigues is definitely what goes in
the surname field.  So what goes in the given name field?  And if you
have to reconstruct full name from surname and given name, how do you
do it?  (There is an initials field, but it is optional and may be
insufficient, anyway.)
 

J. Brad Hicks   Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com
X.400:    c=US admd=ATTMAIL prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad
I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above
does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies.
From: crum@fcom.cc.utah.edu (Gary Crum)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cordless Phones
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:17:42 GMT
Organization: University of Utah
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 906, Message 9 of 16

I'm interested in cordless phones.  Any product recommendations?  I'm
not talking about cellular portable phones -- rather the kind that
comes with a base unit that plugs into a phone jack.

It seems like cordless phones will soon be digital, just as phone
answering machines are making the transition to digital recording
storage.  While on an America West airline flight, I saw a catalog of
gadgets, and in it was a cordless phone for $200 that was described to
use digital communications technology to reduce interference noise.
Unfortunately I don't even remember the manufacturer's name.  Does
anyone know of cordless phones that use digital sound signals over
their radio links?

Does anyone know of places that sell Bell South cordless phones,
besides Sears?  Sears has the Bell South 698 cordless phone, with
intercom, and it looks like a good feature set.  Sears also has the
Bell South 698BK, which does not have an intercom feature but which
comes in a nice looking black styling.  Sears does not sell a model
that has the features of the 698 but in black.  Does Bell South make
such a phone?  If so, that's probably the one I'll get as a Christmas
gift.


Thanks,

Gary
From: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Email to Genie
Date: 12 Dec 92 17:10:00 GMT
Organization: Contributor Account at ddsw1, Chicago, Illinois  60657
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 900, Message 11 of 14

PAT replied to Gary Sanders's <telecom12.889.8@eecs.nwu.edu>:

> [Moderator's Note: Compuserve also charges for mail on their network,
> but they do give an allotment for the month as part of the service
> fee. Since they have no way to collect mail charges from other
> networks, they bill their own users 'collect'. But each user has an
> option to accept or not accept collect mail from the internet. If the
> user does not wish to accept it collect, then it is returned to the
> sender. If the user does agree to accept collect charges on mail from
> the internet, then much of it is covered by the monthly allowance so
> they don't see any extra charges. I should imagine GEnie and Prodigy
> would work on the same basis.   PAT]

It's not exactly that way on CompuServe either.  To the best of my
knowledge, a CompuServe customer does not have the option of rejecting
all Internet mail.

However, CompuServe charges only for reading (displaying, capturing)
Internet mail, not for receiving it.  If a customer deletes mail that
came across the Internet without reading it or lets it expire unread,
there is no charge against (nor beyond) his or her email allowance for
that month.

Thus a customer can look at the senders, sizes, and subjects of wait-
ing mail and decide whether to read it (and pay for it if it came
through the Internet gateway) or not.

Contrarily, I believe that GEnie does charge for all inbound Internet
mail delivered, whether it is listed (their word for "read") or not.
For the record, the GEnie address that used to be in my .signature has
been invalid for nearly two years.  A GEnie customer does have the
option of dropping gateway service.


David W. Tamkin   Box 59297   Northtown Station, Illinois  60659-0297
dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com    CompuServe: 73720,1570    MCI Mail: 426-1818