HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 20:49:48 GMT
From: tedh@cylink.COM (Ted Hadley)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Broadcasting Towers
Organization: Cylink Corp.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 859, Message 4 of 7

Hector Salgado-Galicia <hs1c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> A friend of mine is doing research for a group of clients. They want
> to keep communications towers away from their neighborhood. Could
> someone comment on regulations at the City, State or Federal level
> that could be employed to support their case?

In Sunnyvale, CA, my neighbors and I successfully got CellularOne to
not place a tower by involving the entire neighborhood. I read the
technical specs filed with the city, which were full of errors
indicating the one who filed was inept. I used the facts against them.
We had a geologist from the USGS (my neighbor) report on seismic
issues and safety due to collapse, and one other neighbor got a friend
who was a real-estate broker to comment on property value impact with
specific examples from other cities. We also had a petition signed by
150 residents opposing the tower. We then showed up in force at the
preliminary City Planner's hearing. CellularOne was _Blown Away_ by
the action, research, and the facts we presented. The city immediately
rejected the plans. It takes planning & effort, but it worked for us.


Ted A. Hadley tedh@cylink.COM 
Tertullian Cylink Corporation, 310 N. Mary Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086
USA 408-735-5847 All opinions expressed are my own, and probably not
liked by my employer.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 10:52:03 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Advice Needed on Telephone Security Systems
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 845, Message 3 of 7

In article <telecom12.834.1@eecs.nwu.edu> davep@cac.washington.edu
(Dave Ptasnik) writes:

> The phone company provides the means in our area to deal with this
> threat.  You have the option of having the phone company put a ping on
> your line every few minutes.  You can actually hear the tone if you
> have a test set monitoring the line.  

When I was learning about the radio alarm systems I spoke of in a
recent post, I had the opportunity to speak to the chief engineer in
charge of it for a major alarm company.  Since I was aware that
Pacific Bell had trialed the service you describe above and was
touting it to customers, I asked why the alarm company didn't use this
new service, as it seemed a lot cheaper than installing a network of
their own base stations and leased lines from them to HQ.  At the
time, I think Pacific Bell was charging $1.50 a month or so for this
service.

The engineer was quite familiar with the Pacific Bell service, and in
fact sat on the comittee of alarm company folks that Pacific Bell had
commissioned to work on integration issues.  He said that the alarm
companies had all concluded that they would not use this service, and
would rather invest in their own wireless technologies.  He said that
on more than one occasion in the past, Pacific Bell had gotten them
down the path of some new service for alarm monitoring, only to screw
the alarm companies once they had gotten far enough to make changing
impratical.  He was absolutely convinced that if the alarm companies
went with this new service, and didn't install their own wireless
infrastructure, that as soon as there was enough of an installed base,
Pacific Bell would skyrocket the rates, as they had done in the past
for other special alarm circuits.  This opinion was apparently shared
by all of the alarm companies, as I know of none that ever used this
service outside of the trials.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com, I do not speak for my employer 


[Moderator's Note: Speaking of radio alarms, I saw something curious
the other day at the local Western Union affiliated currency exchange
here. On a shelf in the cashier's cage was a small unit with an
antenna on it which looked a lot like a little portable battery
operated radio, but it also had a thing inside which looked like a
casette tape --  a 'Walkman'-like thing. The odd part was the label on
the front: the phrase "Western Union" and that company's logo. At
first I thought it was an alarm of some sort, but I don't see how it
could have any long-range transmission ability. Maybe it was a
receiver of some sort. Any ideas?  PAT]
From: splee@pd.org (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Info Wanted on SNET Rate and Service Change
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:03:29 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 864, Message 8 of 15

I am interested in the recent rate and service change that SNET in
Connecticut has just submitted to the CPUC.  Apparently, it is
supposed to equalize the rate businesses pay for service, compared to
residential service (from 3:1 to 2:1).  It also changes the basic
local calling areas for most towns.

I am more interested in the change in local calling area. SNET is
proposing an Extended Calling Area (for about double the current
cost). I'd like to know if the proposed basic rate keeps the current
calling area, at a slightly raised cost, or whether the new rate cuts
down on the current local calling area. Also, I'm interested in how
wide an Extended Calling Area SNET is proposing for most towns.


Thanks,

Seng-Poh Lee    <splee@pd.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 06:32:24 GMT
From: caadams@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Kenny Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Private Lines, Bandwidth
Organization: University of Prince Edward Island
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 846, Message 3 of 13

In article <telecom12.835.5@eecs.nwu.edu> Alan Boritz <72446.461@
CompuServe.COM> writes:

> schmidt@auvax1.adelphi.edu (JOHN SCHMIDT) writes: 

>> Telco tariffs and technical standards have specific limits on signal 
>> levels and baud rates, to prevent crosstalk into other services. 

>> "Program" circuits are limited to +8 dbm, as measured on a"VU" meter 
>> (+18dbm peak), although I have run much hotter levels in unamplified 
>> loops without "detection" (read 'complaint'). 

> AT&T, NYTel, and just about every other telco in the US use *0 dBm* 
> as their nominal level transmission standard, NOT +8. 

> That's a hell of an example to set for a public radio station at an 
> educational institution: know your standards ... and ignore them. 

In Canada the contracts that we (CBC) have with the various telephone
companies for program circuits specify 0vu = +8dBm with program peaks
to +18 dBm.  the signal travels over twisted pairs at this level. it
is processed before going into their mux at the co.  the contracts
have clauses in them restricting the length of +18 dBm tone we may
feed on the circuit. in fact we are supposed to ask the carrier for
permission to do headroom testing on analogue multiplexed circuits, as
the high audio levels could exceed the maximum loading for the mux
resulting in the loss of all of the calls on the channel.  this is not
a problem with digital transmissions or with audio subcarriers on top
of our video circuits. we have several hundred program audio circuits
with the various telcos.

I work for CBC as an electronics maintenance technician in both radio
and TV. These are my ramblings and not those of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corp.


kenny adams                charlottetown prince edward island canada
caadams@atlas.cs.upei.ca   standard disclaimers apply....
From: dem@nhmpw2.fnal.gov (David E. Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Severe Combinet Problem
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:24:25 GMT
Reply-To: dem@fnal.fnal.gov
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,  Batavia, IL,  USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 851, Message 6 of 6

!!!!!!WARNING TO THOSE USING COMBINET ISDN-ETHERNET BRIDGES!!!!!!
 
There is a severe problem with Combinet's ISDN bridges.  In the event
that the internal table of 1500 ethernet addresses gets filled up, the
bridge echoes local LAN traffic back onto the LAN.  This can cause
massive problems in a large network.  In fact, the Fermilab network
experienced almost total outage until the problem was traced to the
Combinet bridge.

If your network has more than 1500 ethernet devices, you are
susceptible to this problem. A quick fix is to set the aging time to a
small value (like 60 sec).  Combinet is working on a fix.


David E. Martin
National HEPnet Management                     Phone: +1 708 840-8275
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory          FAX: +1 708 840-8463
P.O. Box 500, MS 368; Batavia, IL 60510  USA   E-Mail: dem@hep.net
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 15:41:28 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: New Version of History.of.area.splits
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 860, Message 8 of 9

Just installed in the Telecom Archives today, with the following
changes:

In list of areas which have N0X/N1X prefixes, I have shifted
212/917/718 and 512/210 to present tense.  I already had a note about
813 having N0X/N1X prefixes, so I added that the instructions also
apply to 305,407,904.  For the 416/905 full cutover, I previously had
Jan. 1994 with no exact date available and I now have 10 Jan. 1994.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:37:57 GMT
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Fake Call-Waiting Product
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 858, Message 2 of 13

A Mr. David H. Schmidt has invented a product called "Gotta Go".  You
can buy it for $14.95 and plug it into your telephone.  When you've
got someone on the line who won't let you go, you push the button and
it makes a click-beep that sounds like a Call Waiting signal.  You can
then use that as an excuse to bring the unwanted conversation to an
end.

That's what it says in this morning's {New York Times}!

It may well work with the general public.  The telecom-literate, of
course, will realize that the beep is only heard by the party who is
receiving the call-waiting, not by the far-end.  (Yes, with the 1ESS
and 1AESS both parties get a click, but only the party receiving the
call-waiting gets the beep.  With the 5ESS, the party who is not
receiving a call hears only silence while the other party gets a
beep.)  It should be easy enough to differentiate between a real
call-waiting interruption and a fake created by the party who is tired
of talking to us, and is embarrassed to say so.


Dave Levenson		Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc.		UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA		Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857
Date: 16 Nov 1992 14:30 CST
From: st1r8@elroy.uh.edu (Guillot, Burt J.)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Wanted: Information on Personal 800 Numbers
Organization: University of Houston
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 857, Message 11 of 11

I'd like to know what companies offer personal 1-800 numbers, the
rates, etc.  Does someone already have a list with this data?


[Moderator's Note: Readers, please reply direct to this.  PAT]
From: rgt@beta.lanl.gov (Richard Thomsen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Lightning Protection on Telephone Lines
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:58:58 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 850, Message 4 of 13

I live in the mountains, where lightning and my location are
synonymous.  I have lost telephone equipment several times.  Once,
about three feet of my telephone cord exploded, separating the wires
in the modular cable, and removing the copper in one wire.  (It arced
to my X-10 controller, which did not do so well with the arc.  There
was a black spot inside where the circuit board said "F1" should be  :-)).

A second time, I woke up in the middle of the night to see sparks
comming out of the base of my cordless telephone.  I unplugged the
telephone line, but the thing never worked again.

Last summer, I got a modem line protector along with a surge protector
for my computer.  When I went to use the telephone in it, it did not
work.  Checking inside, I found that the wires in the modular jack are
melted, when it apparently arced to the metal frame.  The telephone
cord from the wall jack to the protector no longer works, and is
burned on both ends.

Needless to say, I cannot leave modems, answering machines, cordless
telephones, or any other sensitive electronic equipment connected to
the lines.  But I have not lost anything on the regular electrical
system, only when it interfaced to the telephone lines.

It seems to be arcing between the telephone lines and the electrical
system.  The telephones themselves are not hurt, unless they are
plugged into the house wiring or touching something that is plugged
in.

I got some gas discharge tubes from Radio Shack and put them on the
telephone line outside (both sides to ground), but that was a few
years ago, so they do not seem to have done much good.  Last weekend,
I wired the telephone ground line outside to the electrical ground
outside (the copper rod driven into the ground just under the
electricity meter), and I hope that this will help some.

Does anyone know where I can get some *good* gas discharge tubes or
any other suggestions for protecting my telephone wiring?  I live in
Contel (now GTE) area, so I am not sure how much good it would do to
call them.  Other people in my area have come home to find pieces of
telephone all over their living room, so this is not an isolated
situation up here.

I have been thinking of mounting a box outside next to the telephone
line, wiring the line to a terminal strip.  I would then mount sharp,
pointed wires making an air gap to the contacts, hoping that the
lightning would arc over that, if the gas discharge tubes could not
handle it.  I would also put MOVs on it.

Also, how do you test gas discharge tubes and/or MOVs to see if they
are still good?

Any suggestions?


Richard Thomsen   rgt@lanl.gov
From: dem@nhmpw2.fnal.gov (David E. Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AT&T ISDN Buffoonery
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:41:07 GMT
Reply-To: dem@fnal.fnal.gov
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,  Batavia, IL,  USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 851, Message 2 of 6

I have had ISDN into my home since April.  I use it to tie into the
Fermilab network from my home PC.  When I first had the service
installed, I thought I might need to my some out-of-LATA ISDN data
calls.  Therefor, I called AT&T and asked what the rates would be.
Unfortunately, no one at AT&T could give me a rate schedule, and
supplying area codes and exchanges produced widely varying prices.
Finally, I gave up and prefixed a circuit-switched data call with
10288 and decided to wait for the bill.  The calls never showed up on
my Illinois Bell bill and I forgot about it.

Today in the mail I received a bill directly from AT&T for the three
calls that I made using 10288 in April (Nothing like timely billing!).
The interesting part of the bill:

NO	Date	Time	To Place	Area-Number  *  Min   AMOUNT
1.	Apr 22	1110AM	Batavia  IL	708-840-xxxx D	10.3    4.22
2.	Apr 22	1211PM	Batavia  IL	708-840-xxxx D	  .5	 .30
3.	Apr 23	 635AM	Batavia  IL	708-840-xxxx N	  .5	 .25

I called the customer service number listed on the bill (800-544-6514)
and asked for an explanation.  The woman I spoke with said they had no
access to billing information, but if I faxed my bill to her (she has
an 800 number for her fax) she would explain the bill.  I asked if I
could just get a rate chart, and she said the only one she had was put
out in February and was out of date.  She said that call cost was
based on time and distance (in air miles).  I asked to speak to her
supervisor.

I got Phil Huntley, who said I needed to fax him my bill before he
could help at all.  When pressed, he said that all calls in IL are
charge at $0.20 for the first half-minute and $0.004 for each
additional six seconds, regardless of distance or time.  When I said
this didn't agree with my bill or the woman I first spoke with, he
demanded that I fax him the bill and he would call me right back.  I
faxed him the bill and half an hour later yet another woman called me
back and said they are investigating and will call me next week.

Anyone know how to beat a Switched 56/64 rate chart out of AT&T?


David E. Martin
National HEPnet Management                      Phone: +1 708 840-8275
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory           FAX: +1 708 840-8463
P.O. Box 500, MS 368; Batavia, IL 60510  USA    E-Mail: dem@hep.net
From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telecom Quotations
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:06:50 GMT
Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail.  Playa del Rey, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 861, Message 3 of 9

> We don't care.  We don't have to.  We're the Phone Company.

This should be attributed to the late Lilly Tomlin.


Rich Greenberg      Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
N6LRT               Play: richg@hatch.socal.com
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....
From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Ohio Bell to Cripple Pay Phones in Cleveland
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:30:41 GMT
Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan CITI
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 850, Message 8 of 13

According to a UPI story, Ohio Bell has announced plans to cripple
some pay phones in Cleveland.  They have already started converting
pay phones from tone dial to rotary, and restricting them to outgoing
calls only.  Now they will also be disallowing coin calls (credit card
and collect will still be allowed) at certain hours of the day, and
disabling the tone pad after dialing on those phones that still have
tone dials. They claim that this will limit the use of pay phones for
illegal purposes.


[Moderator's Note: Rob K. also wrote about this in the Digest over the
weekend in issue 842.  I hope you are not blaming Ohio Bell for this
situation. I doubt sincerely that telco is doing anything other than
reacting to community pressure in the 'war on drugs'. IBT did this
about a year ago only after the local politicians, neighborhood block
clubs, etc pushed them on it. IBT is neutral on the use of their pay
phones as long as the call gets paid for; I suspect OBT is also.  PAT]
From: clifto@indep1.uucp (Cliff Sharp)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Very Weird Telephone Problem
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:03:04 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 857, Message 5 of 11

In article <telecom12.848.5@eecs.nwu.edu> phaedrus@unkaphaed.
gbdata.com (James Hartman, Sysop) writes:

> According to recent FCC blurbs, it is illegal for a radio station to
> broadcast your voice unless you've either been asked and said OK, or
> if you call as part of an obvious phone-in portion of a program.

   Seems that way around here.  There's a program I like to listen to
when I get up early, "Murphy in the morning", that does all kinds of
whacky things to/with/for/by people, and whenever they contact someone
by phone you never hear the voice of the callee until they've been
asked if they can be put on the air.  (Most say it's okay.)  The fun
happens after they agree ...

> Follow-ups to rec.radio.broadcasting.

   Sorry, not only didn't I know that newsgroup existed (though I'm
going to get it as soon as I can), I have no access to it so thought
I'd answer here.  Not to get a discussion started, but then that's why
this is a moderated group.  (I can be reached as clifto@indep1.chi.il.us 
for netmail followup.)


Cliff Sharp   clifto@indep1.chi.il.us   OR  clifto@indep1.uucp  WA9PDM
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 13:23:22 GMT
From: bharrell@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Ben Harrell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: RBOC Exit From CPE Market?
Reply-To: cmebh01@nt.com (Ben Harrell)
Organization: Computers and Technologies Theme Program-NCSU-NC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 847, Message 8 of 17

Joe.Bergstein@f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bergstein) writes:

> Has anyone heard either rumors or specific information regarding Bell
> Atlantic selling their CPE business back to Northern Telecom? (from
> which they bought a big chunk not too long ago)?

> Is this a trend?  Are other RBOC's getting out of the CPE business?

It's my understanding that this is true.  I also understand that NT is
considering purchasing some of the other CPE businesses or
partnerships it sold or created in the '80s.  Mystery to me why ...


Ben Harrell    cmebh01@nt.com ...........<business>
bharrell@catt.ncsu.edu ...<pleasure>
From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Lack of Dial Tone When Programming PC Fax
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:03:17 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 858, Message 8 of 13

I a trying to program a PC-Fax board to dial using my calling card.
The problem I encounter is that the LD carrier uses voice/bong prompts
that aren't "recoginzed" by the fax modem.  I use Hayes ",,,'s" to
delay the srting, but the response of the LD is so variable that often
the Fax/modem is too early or late.
     
We have the same complaint from our travelling types. They say that
trying to use the laptops to connect to corp computer resources while
on the road is difficult. We haven't had much success with pre-
programming the laptop modems either.
     
Do the LDs offer some sort of "data" or modem-compatable connection
service?  Would it be possible to have the carriers issue a "short"
burst of dialtone between entries, so one could program a FAX/modem
with a "w" command?
     
Has anyone else figured out a way around the lack of dialtone?
     
Thanks in advance.
    
    
       Thomas K Hinders
Martin Marietta Computing Standards
     4795 Meadow Wood Lane
      Chantilly, VA 22021
703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5027 (f)