HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 10:32:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Ptasnik <davep@cac.washington.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
Reply-To: Dave Ptasnik <davep@cac.washington.edu>
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 2, Message 4 of 12

On 25 Dec 92 21:26:00 GMT, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) said:

> I would have thought that by now AT&T would have stopped its annoying
> practice of drastically reducing its capacity on holidays. A number of
> AT&T employees have told me that for reasons that are not very clear,
> the company has traditionally blocked off a major amount of the
> system's capacity on various holidays such as Christmas and Mother's
> Day. This is the real reason you get the "All Circuits Busy"
> recording, not because there is an inordinate amount of traffic.
 
> Naturally, there is no trouble calling anyone on Sprint or MCI since
> these companies do not engage in this silly ritual of network choking.

To which andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) replied:

> They also don't have anywhere near the market share, which means their
> networks aren't presented with anywhere near the load.  I *have* heard
> that the OCCs have more headroom, since they have all those trunk
> routes in place but lower market share ...

> Maybe one of my ex-colleagues will address this issue?

 From a previous life as an OCC vendor, I'm not at all surprised that
MCI and Sprint provide better service on holidays.  They have a higher
percentage of business customers than AT&T.  Business have higher long
distance bills, and therefore more incentive to search out low rates.
Most residential users (probably no one who reads this list) have very
little long distance usage, so rates are not a significant factor in
their LD choices.  They are more interested in reliablilty and ease of
use.  AT&T at least provides the perception that they are the best for
these.

With a higher percentage of business usage, most OCC's have very
little traffic on their switches at nights, on weekends, and holidays.
The trunks that are busily full during the day sit idle.

We used to periodically get directives from our switch manager to sell
more residential accounts, and try to busy up the lines at night a
little more.  We were paying fixed monthly charges on the lines, as
well as usage charges.  More evening traffic let us better afford the
fixed monthlies, as well as helping our rate taper charges (don't mean
to be obscure with that term, if you don't know what rate taper on
WATS lines was all about, you didn't miss much).  Unfortunately
finding residential users with long distance bills in excess of, say,
$50.00/month was really tough and time consuming.  Mangement actually
started paying us bonuses for res customers.

I think I'm glad again that I'm not doing that any more.


All of the above is nothing more than the personal opinion of - 
Dave Ptasnik          davep@u.washington.edu
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 2:56 est
From: paul@migs.shecora.sai.com (Paul Migliorelli)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Caller ID Box With RS232
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 917, Message 4 of 17

I was wondering if any of you know of the availability of Caller ID
boxes with RS232 ports on them.  My plan is to connect such a box to a
speech synthesizer and have it act as a printer dump for the data.
Having a PC with speech output already, I'm sure I could probably use
some sort of modem with the caller id feature built in as well.

However, I'd really like to go the box route, and have something
self-contained.  I've had several consulting clients who are blind ask
me about the possibility of rigging up such a device, and I'd also
like to do this for myself.  I was surprised that the Hello Direct
folks didn't have any available with ports, and neither did the two
distributors that New York Tel mentioned.  I also think a talking
Caller ID box would be a great item for someone like Radio Shack to
market.  Any names and models would be appreciated.  Thanks as always
for all of your quick and efficient responses.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 16:20 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Caller-ID Substitute
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 924, Message 6 of 11

I have an interesting workaround to the lack of Caller-ID. It is
called DID. Here is how it works:

You have installed one or more DID trunks and buy 100 or 200 or
whatever necessary amount of telephone numbers from Pac*Bell. Then you
obtain a switch capable of DID with the additional ability to display
the called-number (the number the caller actually dialed to reach
you).  Now, when you give out phone numbers, you give a different one
to each and every person that calls you on any kind of a regular
basis. You also have a listed number that is always answered by a
machine for those people you might like to hear from but are not yet
privy to a "special number".

So now when pulling out of the garage and the phone rings, you see on
the display the number you gave to "Long-Winded Fred" and you just
keep backing out. It would be just like CNID, only you look for the
number you gave the caller rather than the caller's own number.

I may call my rep tomorrow and order DID. See? Getting around the lack
of CNID is easy; at least for people with sufficient means.


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: Sat, 02 Jan 93 01:52:40 GMT
From: Andrew M. Dunn <amdunn@mongrel.UUCP>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 2, Message 11 of 12

In article <telecom12.926.1@eecs.nwu.edu> stevef@wrq.com (Steve
Forrette) writes:

> trick with the elevator phone in our building.  When you take the
> phone off-hook, you hear dialtone, then hear it dial the answering
> service for the elevator company.  As soon as the dialer hears a
> touchtone generated from the headset, it hangs up the line.  Boy, they
> won't let anybody have any phun these days!

Seems to me there'd be a _much_ easier way to do this.  Simply add a
set of contacts on the autodialer which close after the sequence is
dialed (most autodialers work that way anyhow, with some sort of 'end'
circuit).

Use this to close the outbound voice path.  That way, nothing from the
mic gets sent until _after_ the number's dialed.

Solves the problem quite neatly.


Andy Dunn   <amdunn@mongrel.UUCP> or <dunn5177@mach1.WLU.CA>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:51:17 GMT
From: babshier@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bryan J Abshier)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer?
Organization: The Ohio State University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 926, Message 7 of 10

In article <telecom12.919.10@eecs.nwu.edu> Ron Bean <nicmad!madnix!
zaphod%astro atc.UUCP@cs.wisc.edu> writes:

> julian@xenon.sr.com (Julian Macassey) writes:

>> You mean something like the Radio Shack "Budget Dialer" Part
>> Number 43-139? Well how about the Radio Shack "Memory Dialer" part
>> number 43-141?

> Are those really the ONLY pocket dialers still on the market?

> They don't look very well constructed to me. And in any case, I'd
> have much more faith in them if the label said "Sharp" or "Casio", or
> ANYTHING other than "Radio Shack".

     I have been using a Radio Shack "Pocket Tone Dialer" p# 43-138
for about six years.  In all this time it has suffered a marginal
amount of physical abuse, being dropped, sat on, etc ... and it is
still going strong on the original batteries!  Over that time I've
gone through two "Sharp" calculators.  Just because Radio Shack sells
it dosen't automatically mean it's worthless, even though it usually
is :-)


Bryan J. Abshier  --  Abshier@osu.edu  --  bg739@cleveland.freenet.edu
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 13:26 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
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 917, Message 1 of 17

I would have thought that by now AT&T would have stopped its annoying
practice of drastically reducing its capacity on holidays. A number of
AT&T employees have told me that for reasons that are not very clear,
the company has traditionally blocked off a major amount of the
system's capacity on various holidays such as Christmas and Mother's
Day. This is the real reason you get the "All Circuits Busy"
recording, not because there is an inordinate amount of traffic.

Naturally, there is no trouble calling anyone on Sprint or MCI since
these companies do not engage in this silly ritual of network choking.
A lot of good it does to have calling plans with AT&T on holidays; you
cannot use them!


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


[Moderator's Query: Who told you they do this? Other than 'a number of
AT&T employees', that is ... what possible reason could there be for
shutting down large parts of the operation on the very times when the
demand is greatest?  Statistics published by AT&T show in fact the
opposite of what you say: network traffic is very high on many 'family'
holidays. Why has AT&T spend many millions of dollars in upgrading
their network if they plan to shut it down on holidays?  This just
does not wash, JH.    PAT]
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 10:57:00 -0800
From: mmt@RedBrick.COM (Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: CallerID on FX Lines?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 913, Message 8 of 10

In article <telecom12.907.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, PAT writes:

> [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. 

Not so in California.  Here we *do* have a residential FX tariff
(unless it's been removed since I last looked at it a couple years
ago.  John?).  I remember it being only slightly less outrageous in
price than the business equivalent.


Maxime Taksar   KC6ZPS    mmt@RedBrick.COM
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 12:32:59 EST
From: bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Looking For Information About Phone Service in Quebec
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 923, Message 4 of 9

My wife will be moving to Sherbrooke, Quebec shortly for a job.  I'd
like to find someone familiar with the area some simple questions
about basic telephone service there so we know what to expect.

Please reply by email as I doubt it will interest too many other
readers of this list.  Thanks very much.


David Bernholdt		bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu
Quantum Theory Project	bernhold@ufpine.bitnet
University of Florida   Gainesville, FL  32611	
904/392 6365
Date: 25 Dec 1992 13:55:47 -0500
From: syd@dsi.com (Syd Weinstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones)
Reply-To: syd@DSI.COM
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, PA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 918, Message 4 of 9

TELECOM Moderater noted in a response to me:

> [Moderator's Note: Well Syd, I *thought* I saw one in the "Hello Direct"
> catalog (a great thing to read by the way, call them at 1-800-HI-HELLO).
> But if you say they were RF at 900 megs, then I must have been in
> error. What about what's-his-name -- that other catalog guy, Drew Kaplan
> or the other one, Sharper Image?  I'm sure I saw one somewhere. :(  PAT]

The Hello Direct one is 900MHz. The stuff I saw from DAK last time
they had one was a Plantronics 49MHz one (not even the newer 900MHz).
AT&T no longer has theirs and Plantronics has abandoned the PhoneBEAM
line of products they used to have (I have a 'non functional' Phone
Beam IR speaker phone here from that era)

I never had problems with the IR Recption, and it worked great, but
was a battery hog.  RF has the usual problems in a large computer
environment, plus the security risks.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.4PL17
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 3.0 Release: ??? ?,1994
syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd      Voice: (215) 947-9900, FAX: (215) 938-0235
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:32:12 GMT
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AT&T Mail Munges SMTP to X.400 Translation?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 924, Message 4 of 11

Here's an update on our ugly little problem with our X.400/Internet
gateway here at MasterCard.  To refresh your memory, we bought
Soft-Switch's group of products (Soft-Switch X.400, Soft-Switch
Central, Soft-Switch MHS, etc.) to connect all of our e-mail systems
together and to connect the whole assembly to AT&T Mail via X.400.
(I'm sending this message from QuickMail.)
 
After months of whining on our part, Soft-Switch finally put the
appropriate expert on the job, and this morning he started asking
specific questions about what was in our logs and what showed up in
the "names directory," and now he's got a few of us convinced that the
problem lies in the way AT&T Mail does SMTP to X.400 translation.
 
When I send a message out, Soft-Switch X.400 sends my X.400 address as
c=us, admd=attmail, prmd=MasterCard, ou1=0205295, sn=Hicks, gn=Brad.
(Which is correct.)  When AT&T Mail translates this to SMTP, they send
it as follows: mc/gn=Brad/sn=Hicks/ou1=0205295@mhs.attmail.com.  Note
carefully that "mc" instead of "prmd=MasterCard"; that seems to be
where the problem comes in.
 
When a ListServ turns that around, AT&T retranslates it back into
c=us, admd=attmail, ou1=0205295, sn=hicks, gn=brad, dda=id!internet
(b)mhs(b)mc. Notice that not only is the DDA field filled in (the
problem we'd noticed, which it turns out Soft-Switch can handle) but
the PRMD field is missing!
 
In other words, AT&T translates X.400 addresses to a non-standard form
that even they don't or can't parse correctly on the way back in.
 
At the very least, the problem does not lie entirely with Soft-Switch,
and since I probably gave that impression in the past, I would like to
apologize and clarify things.
 
*sigh* When we call AT&T Mail tech support, we get people who haven't
the foggiest idea of what SMTP or X.400 mean, let alone the niceties
of addressing or the concept of ListServ.  I know that there are X.400
and SMTP wizards who work there, but we don't know the magic words to
get the people who answer the phones to let us talk to one.  Can any
of the AT&T people who read this help us out?
 
 
J. Brad Hicks     Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com
X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:31:13 -0600 (CST)
From: net@gagme.chi.il.us
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 912, Message 14 of 15

In a recent TELECOM DIGEST our esteemed Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: We have a lot of coke dealers in Chicago, you know.

> I wonder how the Coca Cola Company feels about the way the word 'coke'
> has been confiscated by the users/dealers of same ... not the
> beverage, I mean the stuff you stick up your nose.  :(    PAT]

They shouldn't mind, after all their beverage once contained cocaine,
hence the name, COCA-COLA.  Remember 'Things go better with coke'?


W.A.


[Moderator's Note: Thanks to the 104 of you who wrote to me with
essentially the same message. Yes it is true; a century ago, when
drugs such as cocaine were NOT illegal in the USA, the Coca-Cola
Company was the largest importer of (then legal) cocaine in the
country. The 'Coca' referred to the leaf which is used to make the
stuff people stick up their noses. After cocaine became illegal, the
Coca-Cola people were still permitted to legally import it for their
beverage for awhile; they've not used it now for many decades in their
product, substituting other stimulants instead.    PAT]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:14:25 GMT
From: matrix@sol.acs.unt.edu (Goodman Byron)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: HoHo Con '92 Gets a Bad Review
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 913, Message 9 of 10

HoHo Con '92 sucked.  I just wanted to say don't waste your time next
year.  Biohazard IDs are lame and for the most part the stories you
heard, you could not tell if the people telling them were true.


[Moderator's Note: Would anyone else who attended HoHo Con '92 care
to review the events for us?   PAT]
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 07:45:19 GMT
From: tomw@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Tom Worthington)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Regional HQ & Telecomms Hubs report available
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 915, Message 4 of 5

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS HUBS:
AUSTRALIA AND THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 

A report by John Langdale for the Service Industries Research Program.  

The Hon Stephen Martin MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
Foreign Affairs and Trade, launched this report on 23 November 1992.
He called for more positive steps to attract Regional Headquarters to
Australia and suggested that a 'one-stop shop' approach may be the
best option. Hubs and headquarters bring quality jobs and
opportunities for Australian firms to meet the needs of the
transnational headquarters.

In his report, Langdale suggests that Australia's greatest asset in
attracting headquarters and hubs is the high level of skills and
experience available in our service industries. In particular,
Australia has strong technical skills in telecommunications and other
information technology industries. We also have specialist expertise
in business services such as advertising, international business law,
media and consulting. Many of these skills are in short supply at an
international level and Australian wage rates for skilled personnel
are comparatively low. We should publicise our rich resource of
skills.

However, Australia is at a disadvantage in being geographically
peripheral to the region. We should not attempt to compete with
Singapore, but focus on the strengths which can give us a competitive
advantage.

This report is one of a series produced by the Service Industries
Research Program which is jointly sponsored by the Australian
Coalition of Service Industries (ACSI) and the Department of Industry,
Technology and Commerce (DITAC). Further information can be obtained
from Chris Paterson, DITAC (06) 276 1932 or Judith King, ACSI (03) 663
2996.


Posted on behalf of DITAC by: Tom Worthington, Chairman, THE CANBERRA
BRANCH OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMPUTER SOCIETY INCORPORATED


An electronic copy of the report is available by e-mail. Send a request
to: tomw@adfa.oz.au.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 06:12:43 GMT
From: gst@chinet.chi.il.us (George S. Thurman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Help With G-E Answering Machine Wanted
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 917, Message 11 of 17

A friend recently purchased a used answering machine at a garage sale.
It came with no instructions, and he has been unable to figure out how
to retrieve messages with the touch-tone remote control.

It is a General Electric machine with the model number RSVP 2-0910c.

Any help would be appreciated.

                 George S. Thurman
   gst@chinet.chi.il.us    Voicemail: 312-509-6308
      US Snail: POB 1538, Chicago, IL 60690-1538
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:24:57 GMT
From: dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: More Idiocy From GTE
Organization: Panix, NYC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 6, Message 6 of 10

In <telecom13.3.11@eecs.nwu.edu> andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman)
writes:

> On 28 Dec 92 15:07:25 GMT, mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles
> Mattair) said:

>> As I'm at a friends house, I decide to put the call on calling card.
>> 102880+10D.  <boing> GTE.  Huh ...?  I know this is intralata but I
>> told them to use AT&T.  They can't override my choice of carrier can
>> they?  Try it again except as 102880 + 7D (713 has gone 1/0 + 10D on
>> all LD calls but who knows what GTE is doing).  <boing> GTE.

> Local exchange carriers look at the whole number before passing it off
> to an IXC, precisely because of what you tried to do.  AT&T is very
> likely not tariffed to carry that call, so the switch knows better
> than you do, and routes it via the LEC.  However, AT&T issued CIID
> card should still be good for a GTE carried call.  AT&T has reciprocal
> card verification and billing agreements with virtually every LEC in
> the country so that your AT&T card is AOS-proof and OCC-proof but not
> LEC-proof.  (That is a feature, not a bug).

There actually is a way around this that usually works.  AT&T does, in
fact, have a 1-800 dial up number which they implemented after a bit
of a fight with the FCC (which is a -very looong- story for another
day).

If you dial "1-800-CALL-ATT" you can access an ATT "Boing" or even an
ATT -human- operator!

(Similar schemes also work for most of the other carriers as well.
you can -usually- make LOCAL LATA calls when you hook into the systems
in this manner.  This is quite helpful if you're calling from a coin
phone, and your carrier is nice enough not to charge a surcharge ...)


dannyb@panix.com