HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: 26 Jul 92 00:17:44 GMT
From: mje@mje99.UUCP (Mark J Elkins)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telkom's Problems With 087 Service (
Reply-To: mje@mje99.UUCP (Mark J Elkins)
Organization: Mark's Machine (Working for Olivetti Africa)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 586, Message 1 of 11

This appeared in {The Pretoria News} Thursday July 23, 1992:

The '087' service is like the 900 service in the USA -- mainly sleezy
numbers for lonely people ...

One of beleagured Telkom's main problems appears to be a lack of the
high technology needed to support the controversial 087 service,.
Consumers, faced with ever increasing phone bills, continue to demand
detailed billing in order to establish exact charges on their bills.
The discontinuation of a subscriber's telephone service due to
non-payment of the 087 charges is also a bone of contention.

There is legislation in the US preventing telephone companies from
disconnecting a customer's basic telephone service for failure to pay
087 service charges.  However, South African consumers are not so
lucky.  Telkom, at this stage, lacks the ability to separate 087 calls
and other telephone charges.

This means if a consumer disputes charges on a telephone bill, he does
not have the option of paying only for normal telephone calls without
losing his telephone line.

Neither do comsumers have the right to dispute charges for 087 calls
and to have these charges removed from the telephone bill.  Telkom
also pays 087 service providers before collecting from the consumers,
so Telkom carries all bad debt arising if consumers fail to pay high
telehone bills.

Testimony in a Senate Committee hearing in the US last year again
indicated there was almost universal support for the requirement that
consumers have the right to block 087 services (in the USA = 900).
This service is provided free of charge at least once on request.
South Africans will soon be able to block 087 calls on their service
 -- but at a price.  It will cost people on an electro-mechanical
exchange R20 (about $8) to block the service.  A Telkom spokesman said
the older electro-mechanical exchanges were not capable of recording
details of calls made.  Furthermore, the computer network needed for
detailed billing was not available.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 09:36:40 EDT
From: David Leibold <DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Unitel Presses on With Some Alternative Long Distance
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 586, Message 4 of 11

While Unitel is shut out of the main long distance market in Canada
pending the current appeal, and while Unitel has held off on $2.5
billion (CAD) of investment and 4700 new jobs, there are plans to
launch something of an alternate long distance service for consumers
in the fall. The appeal did not block off all avenues of competition
and access, so it appears that the service to be provided in the fall
will be something of an FG-A type service (ie. dial a local or 800
access number, get Unitel tone, dial the Unitel account number then
the destination phone number) and Unitel promises a 15% discount over
Bell Canada/Stentor service. The service is expected to be provided in
all provinces for which long distance competition was permitted
(according to CRTC Telecom Decision 92-12, the landmark decision made
last month).

Meanwhile, 13th October 1992 is a tentative date when the appeal court
(Federal Court of Appeal) will hear the arguments of Bell Canada, BC
Tel, and other telcos against the details of the competitive access.
Unitel warned that it may not remain in the public long distance
market if the appeal results in unfavourable conditions for Unitel,
though a further appeal through the Supreme Court of Canada is
possible (the loser of this fall's appeal could take the next step in
the appeal process).

Sources: {Globe and Mail}, {The Toronto Star}


dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers: Which Provider is Best?
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:42:00 GMT
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 591, Message 6 of 10

trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> In particular, there are several mnemonic numbers we'd prefer to get;
> does anyone have a list of the number spaces each provider has?

This will all become moot soon. In what is called the "shared
database", routing to proper carriers will be based upon the entire
seven-digit 800 number. In other words, all carriers will be able to
offer all prefixes.

This should have been on line already, but as usual certain unnamed
particpants have been dragging feet. However, it really is "just
around the corner", so I would suggest making your carrier selection
on the basis of merits and then get the phone number of your dreams
when the shared database takes effect. I have clients who are
"suffering" along with a temporary number until they can get the one
they want.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 21:58:11 GMT
From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How to Use U.S. Modem in England?
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 595, Message 5 of 14

For one-time and emergency situations, I have always had good luck
doing this: Make a modular cord with alligator clips on the red and
green wires and plug it into the modem.  Unscrew the microphone from
the telephone and clip onto the contacts for the microphone.

Caveats:  

  - Phone must have a carbon microphone.  Most that unscrew are.
    Most fancy new phones with lots of buttons aren't.

  - Modem probably cannot be line powered, although I have used
    cheap line-powered speakerphones like this on our old digital  
    key system at work.

  - The modem cannot answer or pickup/hangup the phone, so this is
    somewhat manual involving taking the handset off/on the cradle.

  - If the phone system accepts only pulse dialing, you'll have to
    dial via the phone.  Even though most modems can pulse dial when
    connected directly to the line, they can't with this arrangement.
    Tone dialling should work if the equipment on the other end is
    compatible.

This works well with payphones, hotel/motel phones, etc.  Is it legal?
Don't know.  In many European countries it's apparently illegal to
connect anything to a phone line, even via a jack.  I disclaim all
responsibility for everything.  This probably won't hurt anything even
if it doesn't work, but don't blame me!
From: EAW7100@ACFcluster.NYU.EDU (JOSHUA HOSSEINOFF)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: FCC Email Address
Date: 19 Jul 92 17:49:16 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 577, Message 11 of 13

Here it is, send all complains, questions, and assorted flames to:

Name:         Federal Communications Commission
Organization: FEDERALCOMMCOMM
City:         Washington
State:        DC
Country:      US
E-Mail:       442-6718@mcimail.com
Source:       mcimail
Ident:        442-6718
Last Updated: unknown
 
Just send it to 442-6718@mcimail.com


Joshua Hosseinoff      eaw7100@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 13:32:46 -0800
From: Allan Griefer <griefer@almaden.ibm.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Phone Call Limiting Device
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 586, Message 3 of 11

Does anyone know of a device to limit phone calls to a certain time
limit?  I'd like to find something that would limit all inbound and
outbound calls to 15 minutes.

(Obviously, I have multiple teenagers in the house.;-) )


Opinions are strictly my own,
Allan D. Griefer,       IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, CA
VNET/BITNET: GRIEFER at ALMADEN                Fax: (408)927-4004
Internet: griefer@almaden.ibm.com               mcimail: 398-8024
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 00:47:53 EDT
From: Roy Smith <roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Country Code 37 Now Discontinued (Use 49)
Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 592, Message 9 of 15

In article <telecom12.586.7@eecs.nwu.edu> is written:

> By the way, when would the country code 37 be available again (e.g.
> for the new countries in Eastern Europe)? Is there a waiting period
> before 'reuse' of a country code?

I can see it now ...

"The country you have dialed is no longer in service.  Please check
the evening news to see if it still exists and try again."


roy@wombat.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA


[Moderator's Note: A friend of mine visited in Cuba in 1955 and while
there tried to call back to the USA. The international circuit rang
many times (Miami overseas operators must have been very busy) and
finally the Cuban operator said "Sorry, the United States is not
answering right now."  :)  !!    PAT]
From: nickless@antares.mcs.anl.gov (Bill Nickless)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: House Wiring Question
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:21:12 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 583, Message 14 of 15

If you can't wire your new house with 10BaseT Ethernet, you'll be
gratified to know that the new FDDI-over-copper stuff *is* FCC Class B
compilant.  So it's illegal to run 10Mbits over copper, but legal to
run 100Mbits over copper in a residential area.

Of course, if you're going to do 100Mbit speeds anyway, why not just
pull fiber?  :)


Bill Nickless
From: disk!tony@uunet.UU.NET (tony)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: FCC Modem Tax Rumor on Compu$erve
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:11:33 GMT
Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 591, Message 4 of 10

stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes:

> If you read the original CompuServe message carefully, you see that
> all they are really saying is something that has been mentioned in
> TELECOM Digest several times in the past: that the data carriers will
> not be imposed on by the "access fees" that voice carriers must pay
> (the "modem tax") as long as they continue to use current access
> methods and facilities.  If they want to upgrade their type of
> connection into the LEC network, then they must pay the higher rate.
> Whether this is fair or not, it's not really news.  It seems that
> CompuServe wants to use the newer services, but not pay the higher
> rates that would result, and is stirring up the "modem tax" issue to
> put public pressure to change this.

	I see, said the blind man.  I also think I smell a rat.
Crafty li'l weasels at CI$, aren't they.  My recent post indicates too
well that I fell for their little trick.  It sure got my blood
boiling.  I pay $27 per month for a no-frills voice line; 3/4 of my
phone use is BBS'ing.  Just because I choose to send modem signals
rather than voice shouldn't justify penalizing me for my choice.

	What you have said though indicates they aren't interested in
"soaking" me.  Thanks!  I'll sleep better tonight.

yarvin@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) writes:

> I don't know whether or not a modem tax is planned by the telcos'
> highest decision making level.  I do know that one current research
> project at Bellcore is a circuit to automatically distinguish modem
> sounds from voice sounds.  It uses neural networks, and is apparently
> quite reliable.

	`Sounds like the _next_ project should be ... how to make modem
sounds _sound like_ voice sounds, eh?  <grin>


Tony Safina -=- disk!tony@uunet.UU.NET

P.S.  Of course Bell probably wouldn't undertake this one.  ;)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 12:02:57 EDT
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: What is DSO?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 586, Message 10 of 11

I know that DMS (tm), the ESS(tm) series and AXE(tm) acronyms are for
types of swithces in the COs, but I've come across the term DSO used
when I've dialed NNX-9901 to determine the location of a particular
exchange or group of them.

Today, NYTel had a notification in {Newsday} that the company was
offering Enterprise DSO which carries both analog and digital signals
over fiber but no explanation was given as to what DSO was/is/does.

Is it the hardware or software parts of the switch or a protocol of
some kind?  I'm stumped and hope someone can answer, preferably direct
to either address below.


Thanks in advance,


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 01:18 PDT
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Wires of Mystery
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 595, Message 7 of 14

David Brightbill <djb@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> writes:

> Every time I drive from my home in the swamps of North Florida to
> Georgia, I wonder about a wire that runs for a few miles along the
> road.  This is a little used back road which was reportedly once
> popular with the moonshine crowd.  The road is so isolated that there
> aren't even power lines or indications of burried cables running along
> side most of it.  The line in question starts in Florida where the
> power line ends.  It is two bare copper lines hanging on glass
> insulators.  

I don't know about your wires, but you might be amused at a typical
practice of GTE. A number of years ago, the cable that follows a road
to one of my mountain top sites was damaged. It failed during some
major flooding and earth movement about a decade ago. GTE's
"temporary" repair was to literally string some fifty-pair IW along
the roadway and lay it in the bushes. No temporary poles, no
protection of any kind, not even the use of outdoor service cable.

This lashup hack job sat around for nearly the past ten years. Within
the last year, GTE decided to bury a permanent cable. Did it dig a
nice neat little trench at the side of the narrow road? Of course not.
It tore up a trench right down the middle of the road, buried the
cable, and then did a wretchedly poor job of filling it in. Since I
have to drive this road regularly, it is a constant reminder of GTE's
wonderful way of tending to business.

Isn't there a GTE in Florida?


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:55:43 GMT
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: A Very Strange Experience When Calling LD
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 595, Message 10 of 14

unkaphaed!rkroll@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Kroll) writes:

>> About, I'd say, 2^3 to 2^5 conversations going on at once!  (Yes, I
>> think in binary, so I'm sorry.)  It was wild. 

> The same thing happened to me when calling the 609-897 prefix in
> Arizona.  The modem wasn't connecting, so I picked up the phone. Oddly
> enough, it sounded like a huge party line! 

There have been a few times recently when both my roommate and I (we
each have our own phone line -- 505 884 xxxx and 505 881 xxxx) would
pick up to make a call and get a lot of confused-sounding people
("Hello?" "What's going on?" "Who is this?") instead of dialtone.
After a couple of hangups and pickups, we'd get dialtone again.
Sounds like some Stupid Switch Tricks going on down at US West.


Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:13:45 GMT
From: scol@scottsdale.az.stratus.com (Scott Colbath)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Looking For List of Area Codes
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 587, Message 8 of 11

Where can I get the latest and greatest list of area codes? I thought
I remembered a thread on this a while back where someone was compiling
a new list.


Scott Colbath     Stratus Computer
Phoenix, Az.  (602)852-3106
Internet:scott_colbath@az.stratus.com


[Moderator's Note: There is such a list in the Telecom Archives. Now
and again I update it as time permits; I have a bunch of files waiting
to be put in the archives as soon as I get a couple hours to spare.
The archives is accessible using anonymous ftp:  lcs.mit.edu    PAT]
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 13:55:14 GMT
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: What Will ISDN Get Me?
Organization: Youngstown State University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 578, Message 10 of 15

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

My home computer has a V.32 modem, to connect to another one at the
university.  I rarely call anything else, other than one or two 2400
baud BBSs.  In addition the computer has a nearly-unused fax-modem
(2400-baud+fax).  I'm running MSDOS, not Unix.

Most of the time I use the modem for terminal emulation, although I
have both SLIP and UUCP hookups defined for it that I use
occasionally.

Will ISDN do anything for me in this environment ?  What would have to
change before it will (assuming that first, I'll have to go beyond
MSDOS).


Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
doug@cc.ysu.edu	   doug@ysub.bitnet	<internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:34:21 GMT
From: geek@media.mit.edu (Chris Schmandt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Questions About Fax Tones vs. Voice
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 596, Message 9 of 13

In a nutshell: I'm looking for a fax machine that can receive faxes in
the middle of the night without ringing my phone and waking me up.

For enlightenment: I see faxes advertise that talk about "voice vs.
fax" calls, and a lot of provision (jacks?) for answering machines.
How do these things work?  I presume the incoming fax is detected,
after answering, by the funny beep <pause> beep tones from the
orginating fax machine.  But to then listen for a while and pass the
call on to a conventional answering machine, you'd have to re-generate
the ring voltage.  Is this how these things (and the "voice/fax/modem"
switches) work?

If so, it would seem that if I disable the phone ring built into the
fax machine and plugged my normal telephone into the answering machine
jack I'd have exactly what I wanted.  Or, do I misunderstand the whole
thing?


chris
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:37:23 GMT
From: bet@cyclone.sbi.com (Bennett E. Todd)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Personal Identification (was The Depths of Sliminess)
Organization: Salomon Brothers, Inc
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 594, Message 2 of 9

There's another solution: a call screening box. I bought one for $59;
it plugs between the wall and my phone. I get to set a 4-digit code.
When someone calls in, the phone doesn't ring; instead, this box picks
up and prompts for an additional security code. If the additional code
is entered, the box warbles. If not, it hangs up --- with no audible
indication on my end that anything has happened.

The only thing I can think of that would make it nicer, would be if
instead of having the box warble, it actually generated real ring
voltage on its output jack. It isn't line-powered, after all. Then you
could put other telephony appliances downstream of the screening box.
Still, I like it just as it is.


Bennett     bet@sbi.com
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:54:43 GMT
From: edwards@world.std.com (Jonathan Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: House Voice/Data Wiring Question
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 576, Message 10 of 11

In article <telecom12.573.6@eecs.nwu.edu> andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
writes:

> STOP.  10BASE-T is not suitable for residential use, because it emits
> a boatload of EMI.  (10BASE-T systems don't meet FCC class B.)  If you
> operate a 10BASE-T network, there's a good chance your TV will be
> useless, and your neighbors' sets might also be impacted.  FCC rules
> say that it's your responsibility to limit EMI, so you could find
> yourself forbidden to operate this network.

Gak! I am about to wire my new house under the assumption that
10BASE-T was the easiest and most flexible approach (just add some
extra twisted pairs into each room). Can anyone comment on alternative
approaches?  Use shielded twisted pair?  Add a thinwire loop (more
complex install)?  Add coax homeruns to the patch panel (in addition
to the video cables)?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:51:44 GMT
From: bakerj@gtephx.UUCP (Jon Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: CLASS/ISDN
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 595, Message 6 of 14

In article <telecom12.588.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, aimla!ruby!rudholm@uunet.
UU.NET (Mark Rudholm) writes:

> Mr. Higdon lives in California, as do I.  The last time I checked, the
> GTE company that is a pathetic excuse for a LEC in California was
> called "GTE California," not "GTE West."

There was a re-organization several years ago of the GTE telephone
companies.  The regional GTE telcos were consolidated into four
entities -- GTE South, GTE West, GTE North, and GTE Central.  GTE West
includes the old GTECA, HawTel, Contel, and some northwestern
operations.

> When I was "served" by GTE CA, I was on a DMS100.  I know that this 
> is a very good switch because I've been on one that was in use by
> Pacific Bell and it worked beautifully.

Yes, from all I've heard and seen, Northern Telecom produces a fine
product.  And not just their DMS; they're PBX's have gotten good
reviews (and personal testimonial) as well.  GTE seems to be buying an
increasing number of the DMS100's.

> I'm also convinced that the product made by Mr. Baker's company (the
> GTD5) is an excellent one as well,

Thanks!

> I just don't think GTE CA sets them up properly.

We're just a phone call away, if they need any help ... 


J.Baker    enuucp!gtephx!bakerj
I am not an official representative of AG Communication Systems.