HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Need ISDN Phone With Extra Analog Port
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:25:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.302.5
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 302, Message 5 of 10

In article <telecom12.296.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, markets@netcom.com
(American Infomation Exchange) writes:

> Here's the question: does anyone make an ISDN phone that has a
> digital port, and an analog port, in addition to the 'analog' handset
> on the phone.  I want the analog port to share the same channel as the
> digital port.  If this isn't available, then is there a device that
> takes an ISDN channel and turns it into a plain analog line?
> Apparently, it is quite easy to split the two channels up.  This
> device would be like an ISDN phone without the smarts.

I am not aware of an ISDN telephone set with an analog port on it --
many have data ports, but I don't think any are designed to allow
second phones to plug in.

However, there are a number of Terminal Adapters (ISDN equivalent of a
modem) that have analog ports.  Two examples that I'm aware of (no
endorsements implied!) are the TA120 from UDS Motorola and the Gandalf
Lanlink 5510.  The TA120 takes a V.35 or RS-232 line and maps it into
the 64 kbps data format of ISDN, and also provides a conventional
analog port to drive your telephones with.  The 5510 has an Ethernet
jack and a phone line; you use them in pairs (well, two can dial into
one, I think) to perform remote Ethernet bridging, while the remote
ends can also provide service to analog phones.

ISDN phones are not suitable for residences; ISDN doesn't allow
"bridging" more than one digital phone at a time onto one call.
(Multiple devices may contend for calls, but not share once answered.)
Thus a typical residential user is more likely to want to keep analog
phones!  But of course modems are only for compatibility with the
low-speed analog world.


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com 
                 or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 09:22:17 PDT
From: John R. Covert  08-Apr-1992 1036 <covert@covert.ENET.dec.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Calling the Falkland Islands and Cuba
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 303, Message 8 of 11

> Well, actually, it costs $2.99/minute to call the Falkland Islands
> and it's anyone's guess what a call to Cuba costs if you can get
> through, but they're peculiar cases since they're not dialable from
> the U.S.

The Falkland Islands have been dialable for a while -- country code
500.

AT&T rates are 3.46/2.69 8a-6p, 2.59/2.15 6p-12m, and 2.08/1.75 12m-8a.

Rates to Cuba used to be pretty cheap -- cheaper for the operator
placed calls to Cuba itself than for the direct dialed calls to
Guantanamo Bay.

But there seems to have been a rate increase to reflect the actual
cost of the operator handled calls.  For example, from the Boston area
calls to Havana cost: 5a-6p 4.93/1.60, 6p-5a 3.47/1.08.

Guantanamo Bay direct dialled rates are the same from anywhere in the
U.S.: 4p-10p 1.58/1.06, 7a-4p 1.18/.80, 10p-7a .95/.64


john
From: DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU (Douglas Scott Reuben)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Ericsson in Albany Connected to NY?
Date: 12 Apr 92 07:34:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.310.3
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 310, Message 3 of 12

In case any Cell One/NY (or other McCaw/Ericsson system customers) are
going to the Albany area, Cell One/Albany now seems to be connected,
via the North American Cellular Network (NACN?) to the NY system.

Well, sort of ...

You can't get calls there, UNLESS you are on another call already.
That is, if your phone is just sitting there, powered ON, and someone
attempts to call you, they will get a BUSY signal.

However, if you are engaged in a conversation, and you receive a call,
you will get a Call-Waiting tone, and you will be able to answer the
call and converse.

Call-Forwarding works fine, as does three-way calling.

Cell One/Albany has supposedly been connected to some other Ericssons(?)
for a while now ... they seem to be making the connection to NY and
potentially other systems as well.

As an aside: If you are driving up US-7 north from Bennington, VT, the
Albany systems (A and B) come in quite well for a while. Cell One/VT
also has added a new tower in Manchester, VT, so you can get rather
good to excellent coverage for most of US-7, from the Mass border all
the way up to Canada. (There still are a few gaps).

Compare this with US-7 in Western Mass and CT, where there is very
limited service. And US-7 in CT goes through Litchfield county, a
rather well-off retreat for many NYC "notables". You would think that
people would be rushing to service US-7 in Litchfield rather than a
much longer (and less populated) strip of US-7 in Vermont.

Finally, if you are in the area, and are a NY customer, you CAN NOT
get calls on the Metro Mobile systems of Pittsfield/Williamstown or
Franklin County.  The (413) 448-1000 port in Pittsfield goes to Rhode
Island (!), and the other ports (413-531/Holyoke MA, 203-930/Hartford,
and 203-856/Norwalk CT) BLOCK Cell One/NY numbers.

You used to be able to get calls automatically there, but due to the
Bell Atlantic takeover on Metro Mobile, they can't seem to do that
now.  So basically there is no way to get calls there.
(Call-Forwarding works fine, though.)

I'll call Metro tomorrow to "inquire" about this...After they take 30
minutes to realize that they do indeed have a system in Pittsfield and
another in Franklin County, Mass, maybe they can provide some
answers ... (Other than: "Is your phone on? Is it set on 'A' or 'B'?"
 .... Ahhhhhh! )

And Metro Mobile actually wants to join the NACN ... well, you think
there are problems now, wait till THEY hook up! ;)

Anyhow, if anyone from Cell One/Albany goes to NYC, I'd like to know
how your phone is working down there.


Doug  dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu  //  dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet
From: wollman@trantor.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: CCITT Standards on Internet
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:17:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.314.10
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 314, Message 10 of 12

In article <telecom12.310.12@eecs.nwu.edu> PAT writes:

> [Moderator's Note: And I have heard the sponsor of these files decided
> to take them down and not have them available on line any longer. Is
> there any updated news on this?    PAT]

CCITT co-sponsored a feasibility demonstration (hah, hah) for on-line
standards with some company whose name I forgot.  Then CCITT decided
that it had seen enough of the demonstration, and terminated the
project.  I have heard nothing about it since, but I would expect any
announcements of service resumption to appear in comp.archives and the
IETF mailing list.

(Of course, the Internet community has had on-line standards since
1970, and has amply demonstrated the feasibility of this approach, but
remember that CCITT's primary goal of late has seemed to be more the
enrichment of European PTTs rather than making technically superior,
publically accessible standards.)


Garrett A. Wollman - wollman@uvm.edu - uvm-gen!wollman
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 06:40:19 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@proponent.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Auto Dialers Back
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 303, Message 2 of 11

 From the 92 Apr 13 issue of {The National Law Journal}:

The Oregon Court of Appeals on April 1 struck down as violating free
speech rights a state law prohibiting businesses from using
computerized telephone dialers to market goods and services.  Because
the law "regulates commercial speech differently from other subjects
of speech, it is unconstitutional," the court said.  The law was
passed by the 1989 Oregon Legislature because of mounting consumer
complaints about the use of telemarketing computers.
From: pacdata!jimh@uunet.UU.NET (Jim Harkins)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:04:17 GMT
Organization: Pacific Data Products
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 315, Message 6 of 11

In article <telecom12.305.4@eecs.nwu.edu> pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard)
writes:

>> <using a computer to speed dial trying to get U2 tickets.>

> Fewer people got through to the other numbers they were calling during
> that hour and a half.  This is a major reason this practice of dialing
> should not be allowed.

How are you going to prevent it?  I have a computer, I have a modem.
If I didn't have ProComm I could easily write a C program to speed
dial and put it on a BBS.  Didn't they try to pass a law that
bumblebees can't fly?

> What if an elderly person was not feeling well, and was calling
> relatives to report this, and was not able to get through and later
> that day died of a heart attack?

I thought that was the whole point of setting up a separate exchange.
Had that ticket-selling method affected my normal phone usage when I
wasn't trying to get tickets then I'd scream bloody murder.  As it is
then only the one exchange should have been flooded.  It doesn't seem
reasonable for police/fire/ambulances to share an exchange with radio
stations/ticket sales/etc.

> Actually I believe that places like ticket sellers should operate
> things on an entirely different system.
> Getting tickets and such on a first come first served basis is just
> not appropriate when demand exceeds supply like that.

Agreed.  I'm not a U2 phan, and didn't know what I'd do with the
tickets.  I just knew they'd be valuable.  Sitting by my phone reading
the paper is one thing, but I'd never have gone down to the box office
to buy them.  I have to wonder how much U2 contributed to the problem
with their artificial shortages.  Of course, the real solution is to
outlaw ticket scalping but that has nothing to do with telecom.


Jim Harkins             [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim
Pacific Data Products   pacdata!jim@uunet.UU.NET
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal?
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:41:47 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 304, Message 8 of 16

In article <telecom12.292.13@eecs.nwu.edu> whknight@sdf.LoneStar.ORG
(Heruld Fiskenmoskort) writes:

> Though many of you may have found that article humorous, I would like
> to raise the question of the legality of "scanning" numbers (not
> codes, awww!). Though there are supposedly laws against wardialing,
> what is unlawful about it?  I feel that if you are NOT allowed to scan

> [Moderator's Note: Life isn't fair, that's for sure.  I mean, what
> right do people have to go to bed at 3 AM like myself and make the
> assumption their phone won't ring for a few hours? :)  You and your
> war dialing program are hereby directed to abort!  :)   PAT]

Mr. Moderator, you must be a very trusting soul to leave your phone
ringer operative when you go to sleep. I cannot count the number of
times that I was awakened and mind-jangled by late night wrong
numbers, before I finally got smart and started putting my electronic
ringer on a BSR X-10 module and sending it into a black hole as my
last act before retiring for the night.  I have it scheduled to go
back on every morning at 6:00 am.

Needless to say, I sleep better now. (The answering machine gets it
all.  If it's the county coroner calling with bad news, it can wait
until morning.  If someone's dead, putting it off 'till morning won't
make 'em any deader!)


[Moderator's Note: I get very few wrong numbers in the middle of the
night, and the rare calls I receive between midnight and 8 AM are
likely to be important. See the above message. When I do get one at 3
AM (I can't remember the last time) I use *69 to call them back and
ask them to be more careful in the future.   PAT]
From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Date: 7 Apr 92 08:46:04 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: WorldWide Software
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 304, Message 6 of 16

I think most of the hang-ups that I get are idiots who are sure that
if they don't hear person X's voice on the line that they must have
the wrong number (it is impossible that someone is visiting person X
and picked up the phone).  For extra points, some of them dial the
number again and repeat the process.  And so on until I switch the
answering machine to pick up after two rings.  Real bozos figure they
have now reached a new number and keep trying a bit longer.


warren@nysernet.org
From: HAMER524@Ruby.VCU.EDU (Robert M. Hamer)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Call Detail Recorder
Date: 5 Apr 92 21:53:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.297.11
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 297, Message 11 of 13

Various persons have discussed in the past their call detail
recorders, which are devices placed between the phone and the line and
which record or print all digits dialed on the phone.

I'd like to have one to reconcile my bills with what was really
dialed.  I've checked Rat Shack and they say that while they carried
such a thing several years ago, they don't now, and I called Hello
Direct, and they claim they don't carry such a thing.  Does anyone
know where I can buy one?
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:34:56 GMT
From: ganek@apollo.hp.com (Dan Ganek)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 307, Message 9 of 10

>> I stayed at Edgewood, Maryland recently.  The hotel charged 30 cents
>> for each local call from a room phone, and the nearby pay phones (C&P)
>> charged 25 cents for a local call.

> I just spent three nights in a Holiday Inn in Skokie, IL. On the table
> is a card next to the phone that proclaims AT&T to be the carrier
> chosen by the hotel for 0+ long distance calling. A sticker on the
> phone warns that sixty cents is added to just about every kind of call
> made from the telephone. Fair enough.

We stayed at the Holiday Inn in Kenosha and they had the same little
card that said they used AT&T. The fine print, however, said the calls
would be made at OPERATOR ASSISTED RATES!


dan ganek    ganek@apollo.hp.com
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 17:06:04 -0400
From: rsw@robocop.NYU.EDU (Richard Wallace)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Brown Supports Free Speech on Networks
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 303, Message 9 of 11

Me: Hey Jerry, does the First Amendment apply to computer networks?

Jerry Brown: What?

RW: Does the First Amendment apply to computer networks?

JB: Yes.  Yes it does.
From: cmoore@BRL.MIL
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone?
Date: 6 Apr 92 05:01:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.297.9
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 297, Message 9 of 13

I stayed at Edgewood, Maryland recently.  The hotel charged 30 cents
for each local call from a room phone, and the nearby pay phones (C&P)
charged 25 cents for a local call.  But there are different calling
areas to consider.  The pay phone is on 676 prefix and the hotel room
is on 679, and in changing from 676 to 679, you drop at least Havre de
Grace 939 and Churchville 734 from your local calling area and gain
Baltimore and its more distant suburbs.  So a call to, say, Baltimore
city is cheaper from the room phone than from the pay phone.

(This is in 410 area; 301 still useable.)
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:42:16 GMT
From: spear@druco.ATT.COM (Spearman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Loop
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 306, Message 9 of 12

In article <telecom12.301.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, RANDY%MPA15AB@TRENGA.
tredydev.unisys.com says:

> Naturally, as soon as someone called him and left a message with
> Aspen, it started calling him at home, which rang through to another
> Aspen port.  It then talked to itself...
> You'd think Aspen could be made to realize when it is talking to
> itself.

This is certainly possible.  The voice mail system that I work always
recognizes when it has reached another system of its own type and will
drop the call immediately.  I have no idea if Aspen can do this or may
have been misfunctioning or not be administered correctly, but it is
certainly not a hard problem.


Steve Spearman  spear@druco.att.com
From: dgdhome!ddavis@uunet.UU.NET (Don Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:45:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.300.10
Organization: The Dayton Home for the Chronically Strange
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 300, Message 10 of 11

dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes:

> In article <telecom12.292.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, dgdhome!ddavis@uunet.UU.NET
> (Don Davis) writes:

>> It might be useful to hear the experiences of those net.people who
>> already have Caller-ID.  Has anyone learned anything especially
>> useful?  Or is it still too early to reach any conclusions?

> For the past six months, my UNIX system has been quietly compiling a
> list of the numbers associated with inbound calls to my business and
> my residence lines.  [...]
> A recent call from a telemarketer sounded too familiar. [...]
> I did a grep of the file, piped to wc, which told me that in the past
> six months, the same number had called here sixteen times!  I was able
> to give the caller the date and time of each attempt.
> My Call*Block list is already full, so I had to delete an entry to add
> the new one.  Useful? -- I don't know yet.

Ah! I'd call that useful.

We observe that:

1. the ability to search a six-month log of Caller*ID data is
   useful when confronting a telemarketer.

2. the Call*Block list can get full, making it necessary to unblock
   an old blocked number in order to block a new one.

This leads toward the conclusions that:

1. it is a Good Thing to keep a long-term caller log ... much longer
   than the last hundred or so numbers, as supported by the commercial
   Caller*ID boxes I've seen so far.

2. the size of the Call*Block list as provided by the Telco may be
   inadequate (assuming that Dave's usage pattern is reasonable).
   The ability to maintain this list in your own equipment, and to
   directly control the ringing of your telephones might also be a
   Good Thing, if it can be done practically.

Anyone else care to relate their experience where the Caller*ID and/or
related services have proven particularly useful or satisfying, or
where the limitations of the services have become evident?


Don

P.S. - Dave, three questions:

1. What equipment you are using to deliver the Caller*ID data to your
   UNIX system?

2. How many numbers can you keep in the Call*Block list?

3. Do you find the mechanism for reviewing/changing the Call*Block list
   to be tedious, irritating, or difficult to use?


Don Davis        | Internet:     Tel. 513-235-0096
5444 Mangold Dr. | dgdhome!ddavis@meaddata.com   
Dayton, OH 45424 | Disclaimer? I hardly know her!
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 92 04:59:31 GMT
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 299, Message 5 of 9

Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:

> (I do *not* think there should be a charge for obtaining new numbers;
> after all, the telephone company could easily publish a new directory
> more frequently that once a year, but they choose not to).

Perhaps they could publish a monthly supplement and ship it to us with
our bills.

Maybe they might even say "Reach out and touch one of our new
customers; welcome them to <insert telco name here>".  :-)

How about a telco BBS for directory assistance?  It would still cost
per number obtained, but surely less.  Is this too easily abused?
What if it had a built in delay factor, and/or only worked at a slow
baud rate, and/or max two successful and eight failing lookups per
call.

> I think the difference is like the difference between swimming in a
> local swimming pool and swimming in Lake Michigan.  In a local pool,
> you have limited capacity and high operating costs, so you might
> impose a per-user charge to both limit use and recover your costs.
> Whereas in Lake Michigan no one really incurs a cost if one person, or
> ten thousand people go swimming.  That's almost the way it is with a
> modern CO switch ... it would take a VERY unusual event (like a sale
> on U2 tickets!) :-) to make the switch reach capacity, and you simply
> cannot relate the operating expenses to the number of calls made in
> any meaningful way.

The general trend has resulted in an increased average calling usage,
but perhaps that trend comes from only SOME of the customers (such as
modem users calling a BBS).  Costs go up, partly because everything is
more expensive (this much should be expected to approximate inflation)
and there is more service demand.  By why should someone who has no
increase in usage from the 1960's to the 1990's be expect to pay more
than the basic inflationary increases?

I'd LIKE to see flat rates stay, but I just can't justify it.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom.com