HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlp@drutx.ATT.COM (Bob Prehn)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T System 75: Need Terminal Emulation
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:12:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Denver
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 591, Message 10 of 10

In article <telecom12.586.11@eecs.nwu.edu>, LORAX@wvnvm.wvnet.edu
(David Neal) writes:

> I've recently been crowned Telephone Administrator by my employer so
> that makes me responsible for a System 75 with about 200 stations and
> Audix voice mail.  These things are naturally in a separate building
> from the one what contains my office so I need to run a remote
> terminal.  The terminals supported are the 513, 4410, and 4425.  I
> have the AT&T 513 emulation program but it doesn't like the MCGA
> graphics on my Model 30.  It works fine on PCs with any other type of
> graphics though.  Can anyone help me find a terminal emulator that
> supports one of the three types I need.  Commercial, shareware, or
> free -- it's OK with me.

AT&T Terranova has terminal emulators that do AT&T 4410, 605 and DEC
vt52, 100,220 emulations.  Versions are available for DOS, Windows,
and networks.  They also have a PBX report generator.  These emulators
do file transfer, script processing (with learn feature), print
spooling, central software administration, remote commands, telephone
directory and more.

Call 1-800-462-8146 or FAX 908-580-6355

Tom Reingold (attmail!treingold) provided me with this info last year.
You may be able to get other information from him via email.


Robert Prehn   AT&T Bell Labs  Room 1F50 
11900 North Pecos  Denver, Co  80234   drutx!rlp   (303) 538-4554
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 08:46:04 EDT
From: jean@hrcce.att.com (Nancy J Airey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell CLASS Features
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 593, Message 6 of 8

In article <telecom12.592.2@eecs.nwu.edu> deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
(david.g.lewis) writes:

> Repeat call, or whatever name the LEC has given it, doesn't retry the
> call; it requests the terminating switch to monitor the status of the
> called line, and when the line transitions from "busy" to "idle", the
> terminating switch sends a SS7 message to the originating switch.  The
> originating switch then rings the calling phone (if idle), and when
> you pick up, re-originates the call.  This requires end-to-end SS7
> also.

Actually, (at least according to our experiments here in our ISDN lab)
the called party's phone doesn't ring until you pick up on a "stutter
ring" generated at your phone.  Something that makes sense if you want
to be sure that the caller is still around to "make" the call.


att!hrcce!jean
From: welch@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Sean N. Welch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What Will ISDN Get Me?
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:29:02 GMT
Organization: Experimental Computing Facility, U.C. Berkeley
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 582, Message 12 of 13

In article <telecom12.578.10@eecs.nwu.edu> doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug
Sewell) writes:

> First, I expect the answer is 'nothing', but I'll toss the question
> out anyway.

> Will ISDN do anything for me in this environment ?  

There are cards available now for PC's that support ISDN, such that
you could have the campus network extended to your home.  You would
need a line, a line on campus, and two such cards.  There are also
stand alone terminal adapters that look very much like high speed
modems in the conventional dial-in paradigm.  Additionally, there are
boxes available that take ISDN basic rate in one side and give you
ethernet out the other.  You can get up to 128Kbps from a PC card
(using both B channels on a Basic Rate Interface).  Terminal adapters
generally go to 38.4Kbps through a serial interface.  The ISDN <->
ethernet boxes I've seen go 128Kbps.

>What would have tochange before it will (assuming that first, I'll
have to go beyond MSDOS).

You can run the above equipment under DOS.  Since I don't know
anything about PC's, I can't really say what this buys you.  (I'm sure
you can use it for something -- I just have no experience with DOS at
all.)  For a Unix box at home, you can have a real network connection
over ethernet (as far as the machine is concerned), or you can run
SLIP or PPP at a more reasonable speed.


Sean N. Welch          welch@xcf.Berkeley.EDU
Experimental Computing Facility  University of California, Berkeley
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 05:15:17 GMT
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: How to Build a Line-in-Use Indicator
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 580, Message 4 of 11

In article <92202.125551GNR100@psuvm.psu.edu> GNR100@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>      I'd like to build a devive tha detects if the phone is in use (ie. if
> someone is using the same line on a different phone) without causing any
> disturbance, and lights an indicator whenever it is.  All I want to know
> from the device is yes or no, and I want it to cause an indicator to light
> up whenever the phone line is in use, without having to turn it on, press a
> button or the like.

This is a frequent request.  Circuits to do it have been published
several times in the "Circuit Circus" column of {Popular Electronics}.

Also <drum roll> <fanfare> a reliable but simple phone-line-in-use
indicator designed by me will appear as a full-length article in an
upcoming issue of {Popular Electronics}.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu  |  ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.


[Moderator's Note: See if the magazine will give you permission to
share it with us also; we can always use a good article about this.  PAT]
From: acf5!khan@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Hasnain Khan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New Subscriber Solicitations - MCI
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:21:30 GMT
Reply-To: khan@spunky.cs.nyu.edu
Organization: New York University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 591, Message 7 of 10

Well I called MCI, Sprint, and AT&T to get comparative rates for LD
calls.  I wanted them to find out what they would charge on my parents
line to various numbers. (I use MCI, I called for them to hopefully
shave their bills).

I didn't in anyway indicate that I wanted to switch, and explicitly
said "No".

Lo, Behold, they switched my parents, and billed with my name
(mispelled of course).


Hasnain Khan    khan@cs.nyu.edu
From: Kim.Fosbe@ivgate.omahug.org (Kim Fosbe)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Voice Disguising Telephone?
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:07:18 GMT
Reply-To: kim.fosbe%drbbs@ivgate.omahug.org
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 587, Message 1 of 11

For those who don't know me, I'm a junk-mail junkie. I'm on about
every mailing list you've heard of and then some. I just got one of
those gift catalogs from Hanover House, Hanover, PA and I saw this.
I've never heard of this, but I thought I would ask here since I'm
sure some of you guys have heard of this.
 
I'll copy right out of the catalog:
 
VOICE-DISGUISING TELEPHONE!

Enjoy new-found privacy and added security because it lets you screen
who to talk to - answer phone in a different voice at the touch of a
button and say you're not there. Lets children, single women living
alone answer phone in adult voice. Plugs into standard jack; no
batteries or wiring.  FCC registered; comes with instructions.
G516161 - Multi-Voice Phone was $19.99; SALE $16.88
 
Now for a couple questions. Is this as good as it sounds or is this
just one big gyp? For $16.88 it's almost worth the risk to find out.
Has anybody ever used these? How come these aren't on sale everywhere
if they're so good? Can these really make my voice sound deep and
gruff, and not like me trying to disguise it? Or does it sound like
the TV interviews where they disguise the voice and it sounds like
calling from Mars. Full of questions, aren't I?
 
I've been getting a bit paranoid about the phone lately since I've
been getting these calls where they hang up a couple seconds after I
say "hello". I'm not too worried, cause it's still listed in my
ex-roomate's name with no address, but still it's spooky when it
happens.
 
I'm tempted just to order it just to see if it works. I mean at worst
I can use it for a spare phone for the bathroom.


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1
DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (just say 'NOE') 402-896-3537  (1:285/666.0)


[Moderator's Note: Those phones *are* on sale in various catalogs. So
far as I can tell it is strictly a mail order item. The price you
quoted is about the same everywhere else I have seen it. We covered
this here in the Digest a few months ago; it works, but you get what
you pay for.  PAT]
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 17:16:31 -0700
From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Phone Records Are Public
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 577, Message 8 of 13

Whether you like or not, transactional records about phone usage can
be disseminated to any private party according to the ECPA.  According
to FCC rules IXCs *must* share transactional data with other IXCs.

And at least one user of an 800 number is upset that a certain IXC is
selling lists of people who call this 800 number to competitors.

Thus, PAT mistakenly misrepresents that calling CounseLink can be
confidential when he states: (I presume he is just repeating the
marketing blurb he saw).

> The service, known as CounseLink, is intended for people too shy or
> busy to go to an office, lie down and talk about themselves. To assure
> confidentiality, fees will appear on your telephone bill under the
> name Telelink Companies, Inc. of Des Plaines, IL.

The fact that any individual calls CounseLink is not confidential in
any way, shape or form.  Some degree of doubt might be cast if
Telelink has many different services all using the same number.

Also, in regards to the comments about 1-800-ATF-GUNS and ANI, and
then PATs comment that other organizations "all use 800 numbers also,
with ANI, I'm sure."  (BTW, I know of at least one organization that
does not get ANI.)

It is irrelevant whether or not the organization gets ANI, because the
telco can sell the information to whomever it wants.  Thus, even if
organization goes to great length to make sure they don't know the
number a person is calling from, other organizations can purchase this
information.  (I don't know how widespread the practice is, but it is
not illegal).

If you need confidentiality, do not call from home, do not use a
telephone credit card, etc.


David


[Moderator's Note: I think telcos only have to share information on
calls where *billing information* is required ... not for any other
purpose.   PAT]
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 9:25:52 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad Question
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 583, Message 9 of 15

You mention 911 in the Moderator's Note, apparently in reference to
Chicago.  When did it go away?  (Not to be confused with the
911-for-emergency-service; when did that come to Chicago?)


[Moderator's Note: All the special three digit N11 codes used for
connection of dial subscribers to the (still) manual exchanges went
away once the conversion was finished. After 1951 I don't think we had
any until about 1955 when a couple places in northern Indiana which
were in the Chicago local calling area were converted to dial; then
people on the far south side of Chicago who had been dial for a few
years were told to use 911 to reach the manual exchange in Whiting,
Indiana for a few months. (Previously everyone dialed the operator to
ask for a Whiting number; we kept doing that, but the southern end of
the city and a couple suburbs out there suddenly were told use 911,
and use 711 for East Chicago, IN (which cut to dial about a month
before Whiting, and about a year after Hammond. All three of those
towns are in the local calling area for Chicago-Mitchell and Chicago-  
Pullman.)  From about 1942 - 1946 we had 811 for 'priority long
distance calling'. If you were of sufficient military rank you used
that as a way to get the operator to take a circuit from someone
else and give it to you if needed. From 1946 to about 1980, the use of
811 was for 'hotel time and charges' type long distance calls.  We got
911 (as in police) about 1975-76, a few exchanges at a time, with the
unconverted continuing to dial POlice-5-1313 until their conversion
was made. By 1977 everyone here had 911 except one lousy exchange
which was still an old panel office. I remember the first year of the
almost complete conversion: The phone book devoted a couple pages to
big, garish cartoons and bold face digits '911' to advertise it, with
only a tiny mention near the bottom of the page: "Subscribers on the
LOngbeach-1 exchange should dial the operator and tell her about the
emergency." Good old 312-561 cut over maybe six months later.   PAT]
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 14:37:00 GMT
From: vixen!jadams@uunet.UU.NET (26070-adams)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Is Not 100% SS7 Needed For 1-800 and the Like?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 593, Message 1 of 8

In article <telecom12.589.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, shri@iucaa.ernet.in (H.
Shrikumar) writes:

> In article <telecom12.576.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John
> Higdon) writes:

> >> Regarding SS7 links, he said GTE was working on them between their own
> >> switches.  Links to PacBell would come, but he didn't know when.

> Please correct me, if I am wrong ... no scratch that, reading the
> above, it *does* seem that I *am* wrong ...

> I was under the impression that 1-800 like services could not be
> implemented really well without the something like SS7. 
> IS it that 1-800, ANI and caller-ID are being done by someother
> means (I'd have to do some learning here then.) or is it that the LD
> carrier do use SS7, and only that some local links are not yet ?

While full SS7 deployment will enhance the performance of 800 and
similar intelligent network services, it is not a requirement.  MF
trunking and FGD interfaces work fairly well.  As far as who (read
this as IXCs and LECs) is fully deployed and who isn't, the score card
changes almost daily.  My information (A little less than real time
accuracy) is that most of the dominant IXCs are fully SS7, while the
LECs run all the way from hardly any SS7 to well over 90% of their
signalling on SS7.  The internetworking of IXCs and LECs SS7
signalling is one of the current major tasks before the industry in
the US.  The FCCs 86-10 docket plays a major role in expediting SS7
deployment.  Can (obvious proprietary issues here) anyone share
current SS7 deployment stats?


Jack (John) Adams	    Bellcore RRC 4B-259
(908) 699-3447 {Voice}	    (908) 336-2871 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com   kahuna@attmail.com
From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE and CLASS/ISDN
Date: 29 Jul 92 04:32:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 591, Message 9 of 10

In article <telecom12.584.6@eecs.nwu.edu> bakerj@gtephx.UUCP (Jon
Baker) writes:

> The statement 'GTE was working on them between their own switches' is
> entirely accurate.  Their deployment is somewhere between 0% and 100%,
> and it is increasing.

Just to throw a little more gasoline on the fire... quoting from "The
Race to Deploy SS7", by Karen Archer Perry, in the July 20, 1992 issue
of {Telephony}:

"GTE has used its national presence to establish a nationwide SS7
network.  Currently, 26% of its access lines are equipped with SS7.
That number will increase to 41% by the end of 1993 and to 65% by the
end of 1995."
From: quonw@software.mitel.com (Wynn Quon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Recommendations Wanted For SS7 Test Equipment
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:31:18 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 581, Message 5 of 12


    I'm looking for SS7 test equipment to test out a new SSP that
we're developing.  Anyone have any recommendations on easy-to-use,
powerful test platforms that can simulate STP, SSP and perhaps SCP
nodes?  (It should be able to handle national variants of SS7).  What
features have you found most helpful in any SS7 test equipment that
you've used?  Any comments (favorable or unfavorable) about the
Tekelec MGTS?

    I'll summarize the e-mail responses for everyone's information.


Wynn Quon   Mitel Corp.  Kanata, Ontario
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 19:36:29 GMT
From: dag@ossi.com (Darren Griffiths)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cracker Running Rampant!
Organization: Open Systems Solutions Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 576, Message 8 of 11

rg@msel.unh.edu (Roger Gonzalez) writes:

> Sounds like this system needs a complete wipe to me.  There are too
> many dark corners in Unix and SunOS in which to hide back doors.
> Trying to chase down each separate hole will take (literally) forever,
> as he will open them as quickly as you close them.  And that's probably
> what he wants.  All the suid programs are him arming himself for a
> piecewise war.  Pull the network, reinstall the OS, change every
> password, recompile every source-distributed binary.

You're correct of-course, this is a hassle, particularly if the site
in question has incompetent system administrators, which sounds like
it's the case.  There is one other thing that must be done as well,
and that's call the police.  The 'cracker' has identified himself in
the sample mail, so finding his real name should not be a problem.  If
he is out of state then call the FBI, past experience has shown me
that with a little bit of hassle they will do something, and if he is
in Australia call the CIA, they have also become involved in previous
cases if you bug them enough.

I know that it's a real pain and it should not be necessary, but
unfortunately it is.  Every user of the Internet has a responsibility
to report these kind of abuses so that adolescent twits like this one
will think twice before they touch anything more powerful than a
pocket calculator.  They do not perform any service whatsoever, in
fact they waste a lot of valuable computer resources and lot of
administrators time.


Darren Alex Griffiths         dag@nasty.ossi.com
Open Systems Solutions, Inc   (510) 652-6200 x139
Fujitsu                       Fax: (510) 652-5532
6121 Hollis Street            Emeryville, CA 94608-2092
From: scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Beating Hotel Calling-Card Surcharges
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:00:13 GMT
Organization: Ians' Playhouse
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 582, Message 8 of 13

In article <telecom12.577.3@eecs.nwu.edu> stank@cbnewsl.att.com writes:

> To beat this charge, I simply placed my long distance calls through
> 800-CALL-ATT (and one of the hotel bills did show five long distance
> calls of cost $0.00).  I'll see in a month if these were billed as
> "normal" calling card calls and if my Reach Out America discounts are
> handled properly.

I hate to say this but I have called 800 numbers from hotels and been
charged for local calls. From $.25 to $.75 a call.


Scott Scheingold sysadmin   Voice   1-215-546-9959
UUCP 	...!{widener|dsinc}!jabber!phlpa!scott  or scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us
Compuserve 76057.607@compuserve.com
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad Question
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:37:09 GMT
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 583, Message 10 of 15

brendan@otc.otca.oz.au writes:

> Of all the letter permutations I have seen, the last one (IMHO) is the
> best.  It eliminates any possible confusion between 0 and O, and 1 and
> I, and the rest of the letters neatly fit.  Its shortcomings include
> the effective wiping out of vanity words beginning with O or I, and
> the letter frequency spread is not that good (9 would get used little,
> but 7 would get used often).

> Can anyone suggest a loyout that has a roughly even letter-frequency
> spread and minimises potential 0/O, 1/I, 2/Z confusion?

Well, you have another problem. Letter frequencies vary by *language*.
I don't have my references handy, but from my reading in cryptology, i
can tell you that the variations are quite marked. So *which* language
do you optimize for?

Oh yes, if you are dealing with written "numbers" you have at least
one other possible confusion. Europeans put a horizontal bar on the
"7" so that it doesn't get confused with a "1" (which they draw as a
vertical stroke with a *quite* pronounced angled stroke attached to
the top:

         *
       * *
      *  *
         *
         *
         *

as you can see this is easily confused with a 7 by Americans ...)


Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/56	 Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 16:21:25 EDT
From: stank@cbnewsl.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Beating Hotel Calling-Card Surcharges
Organization: Summit NJ
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 577, Message 3 of 13

I just returned from vacation, and in two of the hotels I stayed,
there was no charge for 800 numbers but it cost 25 or 50 cents for
placing a calling card call.

To beat this charge, I simply placed my long distance calls through
800-CALL-ATT (and one of the hotel bills did show five long distance
calls of cost $0.00).  I'll see in a month if these were billed as
"normal" calling card calls and if my Reach Out America discounts are
handled properly.


Stan Krieger                     All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
AT&T UNIX System Laboratories    if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ    smk@usl.com