HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 20:30:42 GMT
From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: V.25bis, or: Are CCITT and PTTs Totally Bonkers?
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 690, Message 10 of 10

In article <telecom12.680.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael
C. Berch) writes about Forbidden Numbers and redial limits.

FWIW, the problem isn't V.25bis, and isn't even part of V.25bis, but
is in the modem in order to get approval for use in those countries.
V.25bis is a rather neat method of doing inband dialing on sync (and
async, via a different option set) lines.  If the modem is clever
enough to autorepeat the call, then it has to meet national
regulations, V.25bis or not.

I suspect that the "forever" rules are based on an expectation that
once the two minutes are up, it is possible that you've forgotten why
you're dialing and thus are expected to request the call again.  I
strongly suspect that being on the Forbidden list doesn't eternally
prevent re-requesting the call.  If it does, then just make sure that
you cancel the request after only _three_ retries!

Some national regs are weird.  V.25bis is catching on; don't blame
it for those regulatory problems.


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com 
k1io             or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:33:57 GMT
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Automated Hate Calls in Minnesota
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 693, Message 6 of 9

andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:

> TELECOM Moderator notes:

>> What would you rather have, a phone call like that or the Jehovah
>> Witnesses coming to your door at 9 AM on Saturday morning like they do
>> mine?

> I'll take the visit.  Then I know who it is, and they react so nicely
> if I open the door unclothed.  :-)

> JWs are supposed to keep files on area households.  Tell them firmly
> that you have your own faith, are definitely not interested in theirs,
> and ask that they please never visit you again, and (if the system
> works) they'll leave you alone.  (However, they'll deny that any such
> file exists.)

This explains the why a friend's "solution" worked. He merely invited
some friends over and had what appeared to be a full fledged Black
Mass going on in the background when answered the door (in a cowled
robe).

I've never been bothered by them at home, and on the bus mall
downtown, they are the *only* religious types that will just nod and
walk on when given a polite "No, thank you." response to the offer of
their literature.


Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)


[Moderator's Note: Not only that, hotels all over the USA bid for the
JW annual convention. They are the one group which leaves the meeting
hall cleaner than they found it when they got there. A janitor at the
Hilton here said he couldn't believe how *little* cleanup there was to
do after the JW convention a few years ago.   PAT]
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 10:25:44 BST
From: shaun@octelc.octel.com 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Octel Purchases Tigon From Ameritech
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 704, Message 3 of 11

Excerpts from an announcement to all employees, released 11 Sept 1992
 -- my comments in square brackets:

"Octel has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Tigon Corporation
of Dallas, Texas from Ameritech.  This acquisition is subject to
regulatory approval and is expected to close in mid-October.  Tigon is
the leading independent provider of voice processing services [by
number of mailboxes] in the United States.  The company was founded in
1983, was purchased by Ameritech in 1988, and now has over 200
employees and a network of systems covering selected major markets in
the US, with co-marketing partnerships in Canada, the UK, Australia,
Taiwan and Japan.

It is important to note that we are not purchasing Tigon to compete
with our distributors and VIS customers in their service provider
business.  Less than 20% of Tigon's business is in the traditional
telephone answering service bureau area, and less than 5% of Tigon's
customers are Centrex-based.  In the future, these segments are more
likely to be served by RBOCs, distributors and Compass [a small
company also purchased very recently] products.

Like Compass, Tigon will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Octel
and will operate as a separate unit ..."

There is also a press release which I can submit to the Digest if
anyone is interested.


Shaun  shaun@octel.com
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:51:15 GMT
From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Working Assets Long Distance
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 701, Message 3 of 10

In article <telecom12.698.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, Rob Woiccak <REWOICC@ERENJ.
BITNET> writes:

> I received a mailing from Working Assets the other day advertising
> their services. 

Working Assets Long Distance underwrites some programming on our local
NPR affiliate, WBUR.  This "non-commercial" has got to be the silliest
attempt at using 800 numbers, though.  They ask you to call them at:

1-800-CITIZEN-WITH-AN-X  !

Never mind that there's no Z on the dial, and that's 14 digits instead
of seven.  It's just silly.  (And after a few weeks, it dawned on me
what their real 800 number might be, but it wasn't immediately
obvious, and I'm not going to dial it.  On principle.)


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com 
k1io             or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 08:34:05 GMT
From: elizabec@sfu.ca (Elizabeth Fong Wah Chan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What Number am I Calling From?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 692, Message 4 of 8

In Vancouver, B.C., Canada, we can pick up the phone and press 211;
the phone number belongs to the phone that you are using will be echo
back.  Try this, it may work for you at your part of the world.
Date: 12 Sep 92 15:46:36 GMT
From: dwford@uswnvg.com (Don Ford)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: USWest - Helloooo, is Anyone in There?
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 702, Message 7 of 9

The service being offered in Minneapolis is "Community Link
Service"(R).  This is a MiniTel look alike, well somewhat anyway and
is certainly more than just "online directory assistance", although it
may start out that way. I don't know anything about pricing, but I do
know that this service has been very popular where it has been
offered. It seems to be tailored for the computer non-literate. The
subsidiary that markets it is "Information Provider/CLM Associates."
CLM Associates is a joint venture with France Telecom. Their main
number is (303) 896-9336 if anyone wants truly accurate info. :)


Don Ford   U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc      (206) 450-8585
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: When Did France go to Eight Digit Numbers
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:06:31 GMT
Organization: I.E.C.C.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 707, Message 3 of 7

> Fred Gaechter at Bellcore has said he sees a similar future for the
> NANP: dialling ten digits for ALL calls irrespective of whether
> they're local, toll, or outwith your NPA. Do other Digest readers
> think this would be acceptable?

I expect we'll end up with two choices for dialing: NXX-XXXX for
numbers within the same NPA, and 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX for numbers anywhere
in the NANP.  Here in New Jersey this is already the rule -- I can
dial local calls with 1-609 and they complete normally.  There has
never been any "dial 1 for toll" here.  They went directly from never
requiring a 1 for any call to having it indicate that an area code
follows.  New Jersey still avoids duplicating prefixes near NPA
boundaries, so all local calls can still be dialed with seven digits,
even when they're into a neighboring NPA (except, for some reason,
from pay phones.)  Along with the fact that 609 is two LATAs, this
means that from a phone in Princeton or in Barnegat, a seven digit
call can be local intra-LATA, local inter-LATA, toll intra-LATA, or
toll inter-LATA.

Particularly with the increasing number of cellular phones and the
advent of "overlay" area codes like 917 in New York, it's practically
mandatory to allow people to dial the area code, since often it'll be
difficult to tell the NPA of the calling phone.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:16:19 GMT
From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Loading Auth Codes Into CO Switch
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 706, Message 8 of 13

In article <telecom12.687.4@eecs.nwu.edu> mmgall@hubcap.clemson.edu
(Morris Galloway Jr.) writes:

> We have 700 to 1000 authorization codes to turn down each spring, then
> new codes to be turned up in the fall when students arrive.

> Since these codes are in an on-campus computer, I do _not_ want to
> print them out and have our local telco key them back in.  Nor do I
> want to key them in to the telco's system myself.

I think you should tell telco that you DO want to key them in
yourself.  When they have given you access use a scripting language to
send them up.

Or hire me and I'll do it :).


Vance Shipley   vances@xenitec.on.ca   
vances@ltg.uucp   ..uunet.ca!xenitec!vances
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 21:18:07 EDT
From: David Leibold <DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: CIS Perestroika: ATS-2 System Opened to Public Access
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 712, Message 10 of 14

A Reuters article by Fiona Fleck reports that the ATS-2 telephone
network, a parallel system to the domestic network in the former
Soviet Union, is now available to anyone who wants to pay for it.
While the existing domestic Russian network can be quite bothersome to
work with, the ATS-2 guarantees connections within 10 seconds, whether
inside or outside the CIS.  The network is run by the Federal Agency
of Government Communications and Information (FAPSI), and was
originally a secret Communist party network set up by Stalin in 1931.

Radio links, underground cables, satellites are all used in the
network, which provides for high survivability ie. one link goes down,
it is easily replaced with another route. 300 experts work on the
parallel system.

Cost of a regular ATS-2 line is billed at CAD$450 (equiv) per year; a
broadband circuit throughout CIS and eastern European states costs
CAD$4500 per year.

There is a directory assistance feature on ATS-2 which even gives out
Boris Yeltsin's phone numbers at the Kremlin, the parliament, and his
home.


dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 17:33:34 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular 911 Equivalent in Chicago
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 695, Message 7 of 14

999 is in use in some areas in the U.S. as a local prefix.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:30:42 GMT
From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: V.25bis, or: Are CCITT and PTTs Totally Bonkers?
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 684, Message 3 of 11

In article <telecom12.680.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael
C. Berch) writes:

[complaints about Forbidden Number List]

FWIW, the problem isn't V.25bis, and isn't even part of V.25bis, but
is in the modem in order to get approval for use in those countries.
V.25bis is a rather neat method of doing inband dialing on sync (and
async, via a different option set) lines.  If the modem is clever
enough to autorepeat the call, then it has to meet national
regulations, V.25bis or not.

I suspect that the "forever" rules are based on an expectation that
once the two minutes are up, it is possible that you've forgotten why
you're dialing and thus are expected to request the call again.  I
strongly suspect that being on the Forbidden list doesn't eternally
prevent re-requesting the call.  If it does, then just make sure that
you cancel the request after only _three_ retries!

Some national regs are weird.  V.25bis is catching on; don't blame it
for those regulatory problems.


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com 
k1io             or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:01:45 GMT
From: A.G.Minter@bnr.co.uk (Andrew G. Minter)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Why Do Several Answering Machines Hang Up Early?
Organization: BNR Europe Limited, Harlow, GB
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 696, Message 6 of 12

In article <telecom12.689.11@eecs.nwu.edu> millar@rapnet.sanders.
lockheed.com (Jeffrey R. Millar x7047) writes:

> I have two answering machines which hang up on callers. The problem
> apparently began in May ... but we didn't notice it because it
> manifested itself as intermittent loss of the latter part of messages.

I had *exactly* the same problem with once of these fancy new
Audioline answering machines (forget the number) here in the UK. On
some days the machine recorded for longer than others. Interestingly,
I discovered that if I disconnected the answering machine and let the
line ring for a really long time (1-2 minutes) and reconnected the
machine it worked perfectly for several hours. British Telecom visited
three times (we got a young engineer who proudly told me he had just
joined the company and finished the training course). Eventually they
gave up, insisting that the machine must be faulty.  However, thanks
to a helpful retailer, we tried several identical machines with same
result.

After a couple of weeks of messing around (and losing messages) I gave
up and spent some more money on a really nice Panasonic. I get the
impression that Panasonic address a global market and assume that
their machines will be connected to antique phone systems with really
lousy lines. At any rate, our machine seems to be bomb proof!


Andrew G. Minter            | Email: A.G.Minter@bnr.co.uk
Principal Research Engineer | Phone: +44 279 403165 
BNR Europe Limited          | Fax:   +44 279 451866 
London Road, Harlow         | ESN:   742-3165       
Essex  CM17 9NA             | Telex: 81151 BNR HW G
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 13:01:06 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "911" as an Area Code?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 698, Message 12 of 12

Most of the 516 area (Long Island, NY) and part of 914 (Westchester
County, NY) currently don't require the leading 1 in front of an area
code, nor does at least the San Jose part of area 408 in California.
I guess this would change later in preparation for NNX area codes.
Date: 13 Sep 92 20:23:00 PST
From: Jacobson, Andy <ajacobson@mail.nuc.ucla.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New Phone Number Intercept
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 706, Message 10 of 13

I believe ye olde Bell System did have a specific message for
numbers-to-be.  It went something like (This was before the tri-tone
era):

The number you have reached, NNX-XXXX, has not yet been connected.
Please try your call again later.

IBT used to have that recording on between order and due dates.  Now
that was service.


A. Jacobson     <ajacobson@vs9.nuc.ucla.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 23:45:36 CDT
From: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Here We Go Again :-(
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 709, Message 1 of 12

Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) writes:

> Here's the good part.  There's a $.15 per minute charge to use the
> service.  IMAO, I can't see why anyone would pay a per-minute charge
> to look up info on a system when they can simply flip through the good
> (??) old-fashioned tree-wasting, bicep-building, landfill-clogging
> yellow pages, now available in two competing editions.

Oh, it gets better ... I got to talk to a USWest droid at the State
Fair a couple of weeks ago:

The software is a Minitel emulation, but it's proprietary.  You can't
use a generic Minitel package to access it.  The software is $15 to
$25.  They rarely give it away free.

Your calling card is your Account ID, and all charges are billed to
it.

I count 29 offerings in the user guide.  The prices range from free
(for pay-your-bills-online) to $0.62/min for "over 500
business-oriented French services".  There are several Minitel
services available, as though everyone in Minneapolis needs to look up
phone numbers for Nice.

Oh, and here's a nice one ...

Service ID: EXP
Information services for the hearing-impaired.
$0.15/min.

"Express provides fast, powerful and economical communications.  Chat,
E-mail, conferencing and bulletin boards."

Not bad for ... $9/hour?  Bwa-ha-ha-ha!  Even CompuServe is a better
deal than that!  And you're not stuck with that rotten Minitel
interface.

> I sure wish Ma Bell would cure herself of this case of anal-cranial
> inversion and realize that it would be MORE PROFITABLE in the long run
> to offer the service to consumers for free and save the
> money/trees/effort it takes to print and distribute directories.

I told the droid that they should give the software away if they
expect it to catch on.  I got the most amazingly vacant stare.

> For some reason, I can't imagine people are gonna beat down the doors
> of US West in anxious attempts to use this service.

Let's just say I didn't take up the offer of an introductory software
package for $14.95.


Roy M. Silvernail |+|  roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:11:40 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Providers Charge Air-Time Forwarding to Land Line
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 691, Message 6 of 13

In article <telecom12.677.5@eecs.nwu.edu> infmx!johng@uunet.UU.NET
(John Galloway) writes:

> I was very disappointed to find that both Cellular-One and GTE charge
> normal air time rates for calls that are made to your cellular number,
> when you have your number forwarded to a land line.  This seems like a
> real rip off since in this case the only resources being used are the
> land line connected switches, which likely have plenty of bandwidth,
> there is no cellular communication occuring (that I can see anyway, am
> I mistaken?).

Cellular One of Seattle does not do this.  When I lived in California
and asked for an explanation for this practice, I was told that
forwarded calls actually go "over the air," thus the charge.  I guess
they use a different type of switch in Seattle.  :-)

> I had planned to get a cellular, then only give out that number.  When
> I get to an office or am at home, I just forward the cellular to the
> number where I am -- simple.  I only give folks one number and it
> either goes to where I am, or to my home phone with an answering
> machine.  But, as I now realize, this would be very expensive.  

That's exactly what I do now, and it works great!  The only problems
I've run into is that on a few occasions, my cellular number has been
out of service due to switch upgrades, software upgrades, etc.
Cellular One of Seattle is pretty good about doing this sort of thing
in the middle of the night on weekends, but they don't realize that
many of us actually use the telephone during those hours and consider
100% uptime a reasonable expectation.  "Real" telephone companies
manage to upgrade their switch software without causing loss of
service -- at least I've never been deprived of service from a
landline carrier for this reason.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com