HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:09:14
From: eb@lucid.com (Eric Benson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cordless Phone Recommendations Wanted
Reply-To: eb@lucid.com
Organization: Lucid, Inc., Menlo Park, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 689, Message 8 of 19

I'm looking for recommendations on cordless phones.  Basically,
everyone I know who owns a cordless phone hates it.  The sound quality
is terrible.  Is this just something one lives with?  I've noticed a
few recent models in the stores claiming to work in the 900 Mhz band.
Are these really better than the 49 Mhz models?  They are a lot more
expensive, like $300-400 instead of $70-150.  Spending that much isn't
out of the question, but I'm wary of new technology.  They claim to
have greater range, but I'm not so concerned with range, I'm more
concerned with the irritating, constant buzz on the line.  Also, I'd
like to have one that's comfortable to hold, and most cordless phones
are very bulky.  A few of them have the "flip-out" shirt-pocket
cellular style.  This is more convenient for transportation, but how
is it in actual use?  Has anyone tried connecting a hands-free headset
to a cordless phone?
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 10:10 EDT
From: jbutz@homxa.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New Mailing List For Telecom Engineers
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 14 of 14

python@cs.rutgers.edu writes:

> I have just created telecom-engineers, a list devoted to just the
	                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
					      (trouble brewing)

> engineering point of view of telecommunications. If you want to be
> added, send mail to telecom-engineers-request@cs.rutgers.edu. If you
> want to send material, send it to telecom-engineers@cs.rutgers.edu.
> If something fails, send mail to me.

I've only been reading this list for about eight months now, but this
sounds like it could be the divestiture of TELECOM Digest!

Competition in the area of telecommunications discussion?  

I can see it now.  Telecom Engineers starting a teleslime and slamming
campaign?  TELECOM Digest replying with a $40 check to bring us back?
Multimillion dollar advertising budgets, Regional Operating Digests,
Enhanced and Regulated Digests, new products and services, the
possibilites are endless.

Say ... haven't we seen this story played out somewhere before?


John Butz   jbutz@homxa.att.com   ER700 System Engineering   AT&T-BL

P.S.:   Pat, will you have Candis Bergen or Dan Quayle as your spokesperson?


[Moderator's Note: Cute. Actually, it would help to know a little of
the history around here. Jon Solomon began TELECOM Digest in 1981 and
at that time it was primarily a technical forum. I took over in 1988
when he was involved with other things for a few years. The Digest
gradually became a forum for a much wider audience of people
interested in voice telephony. We have split twice already: the first
split was to start the Computer Undergound Digest for the (original)
purpose of discussing hackers and phreaks. We then split again with
articles discussing telecom privacy issues going to their own list
moderated by Dennis Rears. Now Jon Solomon is offering to take just
the technical stuff for the readers here who only are interested in
the technical and engineering aspects. Those messages can still go
here also -- in other words, stuff should be submitted as always --
but many people will read Jon's new digest who do not want the extra
social issues items we have here. He'll be accepting only the
technical stuff. I'll continue to accept everything, including news
from the privacy and hacker/phreaker arenas for general discussion.  PAT]
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:54:49 GMT
From: bjpst5+@pitt.edu (Bryan J Petty)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How do You Pronounce "#"
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 710, Message 7 of 11

I learned in a C programming class that the correct name for the 
'#' sysmbol is "octothorpe'.


Bryan
Date: 13 Sep 92 08:40:50 GMT
From: tdarcos@attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AT&T Mail's Phone Number
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 711, Message 6 of 8

In TELECOM Digest 12-678, TELECOM Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: You know who else is still giving out a wrong 800
> number? ATT Mail ... 800-555-1212 still cannot come up with a number
> for them most of the time; when they do, it is some totally irrelevant
> (to the public) office.  And the AT&T corporate HQ switchboard acts
> like they never heard of ATT Mail either ... pitiful.    PAT]

When I wanted to try AT&T Mail to see how it compares with MCI Mail, I
just called 1-800-222-0400 and asked {them} for the number.

The following comes from the signup package for AT&T Mail:

The two phone numbers for AT&T Mail are:

To call for inquiries and questions:  1-800-MAIL-872
To call up to pick up messages:       1-800-MAIL-123
(You can also use 950-1ATT from many locations).


Paul Robinson
TDARCOS@ATTMAIL.COM  (or)  TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 13:57:33 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@proponent.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Providers Charge Air-Time Forwarding to Land Line
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 690, Message 7 of 10

> [Moderator's Note: *Which* Cellular One? *Which* GTE?  Cellular One in
> Chicago does not charge for forwarding calls to landline numbers, nor
> does Ameritech, the 'B' carrier here.  And regards forwarding of
> calls, Illinois Bell now allows us to *remotely* change our forwarding
> at no additional cost. I will comment more on this in the next issue.  PAT]

Cellular One/Boston charges airtime for calls forwarded to land lines
or answered by Message Plus.

They don't charge any monthly fees for call waiting, call forwarding
(including no-answer transfer), three-way calling, or Message Plus.

The forwarding can be canceled or changed only from the cellular phone.

It is not possible to have call forwarding and Message Plus enabled
simultaneously since they both use the forwarding mechanism.


Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
monty%roscom@think.com
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:57:40 GMT
From: rgdelav@pbhye.pacbell.com (Butch DeLaVega)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: SONET Rings
Reply-To: rgdelav@pacbell.com (Butch DeLaVega)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 700, Message 8 of 11

Hi, I'm new to this newsgroup and have two questions:

1) Could somebody explain uni-directional and bi-directional SONET
rings?

2)  What is the relationship between SONET and ATM?

Thanks in advance ...


Butch DelaVega
From: quinn@ender.tamu.edu (quinn)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: education.tele.com
Date: 14 Sep 92 03:11:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 714, Message 10 of 12

In article <1992Sep10.212414.27723@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@
bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:

> You may want to talk to the electrical engineering department at a nearby
> university to get a better idea about undergraduate coursework in
> telecommunications.

Here at Texas A&M University, there is a specialized field of the
Engineering Technology degree plan which is directed toward
telecommunications.  As I am not involved in this degree plan, I do
not have other information on it, but try 800 directory for Texas
A&M ... call up and find out who to talk to.


Dave
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 17:14 PDT
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: The Bell Science Series on Video (Upd
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 689, Message 10 of 19

For video enthusiasts, it appears that only the Capra-produced
episodes are transfered from 16mm film. The Warner-produced programs
are from 35mm film. The difference is, of course, remarkable.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92  04:19:37 EDT
From: Paul Robinson<FZC@CU.NIH.GOV>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject:  Cellular/Government NPAs in Wash.  DC (Paul Robinson)
Reply-To: TDarcos@MCIMAIL.COM
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 6 of 11

According to the C&P Telephone White Pages (and some investigating),
the following exchanges in the Washington, DC LATA are of interest:

-Maryland- (all numbers are "Cellular System"):

Silver Spring:  301-502, 301-509, 301-518, 301-520, 301-580,
                301-807, 301-980
Bethesda:       301-919

The following are government centrex operated by GSA:
Federal WITS:   301-504

-District of Columbia-
                         202-288, 202-316, 202-374, 202-494,
("Cellular System")      202-679, 202-714, 202-716, 202-812,
                         202-957

The exchange             202-665
is listed as "Mobile Telephone Special charges apply."

Federal WITS:            202-205, 202-208, 202-219, 202-260,
                         202-401, 202-501, 202-619, 202-690,
                         202-708, 202-720

White House uses:        202-456
but some private numbers also have this exchange

House/Senate:            202-224

-Virginia-

Alexandria/Arlington:    703-407, 703-408, 703-517, 703-609,
("Cellular System")      703-795, 703-819, 703-850

Department of Defense:   703-692, 703-693, 703-695, 703-696,
                         703-697


Paul Robinson
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 18:13:58 GMT
From: hhallika@zeus.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: V.25bis, or: Are CCITT and PTTs Totally Bonkers?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 690, Message 9 of 10

	A previous post listed the redial limitations in various
countries, including a "forbidden number list" where numbers of calls
that were failed several times were stored.  The modem would then
refuse to dial the forbidden numbers.

	I had heard of this regulation before (I think in the
documentation to Xtalk mk 4).  I am reminded of one of our customers
who put a wrong phone number in one of broadcast transmitter control
systems.  Instead of dialing the network control point, it called some
invalid number every couple minutes all night long.  They got a call
from AT&T in the morning wanting to know what was going on.

	I imagine this regulation (for the US) is in part 68.  My copy
of part 68 seems to be deep in some pile of paper here ...


Harold Hallikainen              ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.     hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu
141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4      phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590  telex 4932775 HFI UI
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:36:00 GMT
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Real Legislation, or Hoaxes?
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 689, Message 9 of 19

I've been told that the following two pieces of legislation are before
the Senate, but cannot identify them from Congressional Record and
similar references.  Can anybody fill me in?

(1) A ban on radio receivers that can tune cellular phone frequencies.
(Listening is already illegal but the receivers themselves aren't.)

(1) A ban on private consulting in electronics, "S. 1706," recently
mentioned by a letter writer in Robert Pease's column in Electronic
Design.  (There is a S. 1706, but it deals with import duties on
certain industrial chemicals.)


Michael Covington - Artificial Intelligence Programs - U of Georgia - USA 
Unless otherwise noted, these are private opinions, not official statements.


[Moderator's Note: What is this 'ban on private consulting in electronics'? 
Please tell more. When does private become public or legal?   PAT]
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 10:11 PDT
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Weird Intercept
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 692, Message 3 of 8

MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com writes:

> In this case, GTE has an airtight alibi: the intercept only occurs
> when I try it from my office (in PacBell land) as a normal, 1+ call.
> If I place it over our long-distance network, or via a major LD
> carrier, it goes through fine.

Ah, a PBX. Are you quite positive that there are no GTE FX circuits
available as routes to the ARS? And of course, you cannot be sure
exactly what a PBX may be appending or prepending to what you dial (as
set up by the system administrator).

I realize that problems are not GTE's fault 100% of the time, but I
would like to make absolutely sure. After all, GTE blames most of its
own screwups on Pac*Bell. Figure that one out.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 15:06 GMT
From: Richard Cox <mandarin@cix.clink.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 911 Emergency Service Instead of 999    
Reply-To: mandarin@cix.clink.co.uk
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 4 of 14

John Perkins writes:

>>  It's been possible to dial 999 from almost any telephone in the UK to get
>>  emergency help since at least the 1940's (when I was a kid).  I've often
>>  thought it would have been nice if this had been adopted as a world-wide
>>  standard and it puzzles me why AT&T chose to use 911 when they must have
>>  been aware of the UK system.

Well, you'll get an embryonic World standard when Europe adopt a new
code, 112, to replace the UK's 999 and all the other country
variations in Europe.

Will Bellcore follow suit?  I doubt it.  112 is one of the easiest
codes to MISdial ... a very bad choice made for what may be political
reasons.


Richard Cox

Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF
Voice: +44 222 747111      Fax: +44 222 711111      VoiceMail: +44 399 870101
E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:32:56 EDT
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: TRT (was Call Home Country Codes from UK and France)
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 687, Message 9 of 9

> [calling from the UK]
> USA (quad)	0800 89 0456 	Phone USA (TRT)

> [Submitter's query: Who is TRT?  Used to be the name of AT&T Mail's
> Telex Service.]

TRT was, as I recall, Tropical Radio Telegraph, which started as the
radio department of United Fruit and evolved into one of the IRCs
(international telex carriers) with routes mostly between the U.S. and
Latin America.

The telex business is no longer a great one to be in, as customers
switch to fax as fast as they can, so it makes sense that TRT would be
switching to long distance telephone.  I've never seen any mention of
them as a long distance carrier within the U.S., so they may be
international only.  They're not in the 1990 10XXX list in the telecom
archives, either, so they have gotten into telephony within the past
year.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Frequencies
Date: 14 Sep 92 04:33:00 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 708, Message 10 of 11

Pat, our Moderator, notes:

> One 'problem' (smirk!) reported by people who illegally monitor cellular
> conversations via their scanner is that one never gets to hear the *entire*
> conversation from start to finish. The scanner will be cycling -- searching
> for something -- and lock in on a conversation in progress. As one listener
> put it, " ... about the time the conversation started to get juicy -- really
> interesting to listen to -- the vehicle moved out of range and the tower
> dropped the call, giving it to another tower somewhere. I tried stepping
> quickly around the band manually, but never could find it. "

Pat, I don't imagine this would be too big a problem if one were to
live in an area with frequent traffic congestion, say near a
California highway or resort town.  In such a case, it would be far
more likely for the vehicle to stay put, while the occupant carries on
a nice long chat.


Randy Gellens            randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com 
>>>>>>> If mail bounces, forward to rgellens@mcimail.com <<<<<<<<
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself


[Moderator's Note: Well the same situation exists here in Chicago
during the past few years; traffic during the day and early evening
moves at a snail's pace on the main roads and highways ... but some
people tend to stay on the cell phone a long time, I guess, especially
if someone else is footing the bill for them, i.e. local politicians
with cell phones here who charge it off to government paid expense
accounts.   PAT]
From: unkaphaed!bguillot@uunet.UU.NET (B.J. Guillot)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Frequencies
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:11:27 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 708, Message 11 of 11

> Ahhh -- too bad! It is illegal to listen to cellular calls, period. It
> is also quite easy to do the mods required on most scanners with 800
> megs capability to bring those frequencies in. Some Radio Shack
> dealers sell the PRO-34 scanner (my model) with a straight look on
> their face then on your way out the door hand you a crudely photocopied
> sheet of paper with pictures of the circuit board telling you to pull
> diode D-3 and D-4 to recover the full band ... but only to be done
> when the scanner is being exported outside the USA, of course ... of
> course!  PAT]
 
Ah, ... but what might have to be done, if say, I wanted to take my
PRO-37 scanner from Radio Shack out of the country to pick up that
band uninterrupted?
 
I looked in the new 93 and the older 92 catalog and couldn't find any 
reference to PRO-34.


bguillot@unkaphaed.UUCP (B.J. Guillot)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 in Houston, Texas
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis


[Moderator's Note: I dunno about the PRO-37. I've not seen it in
operation or looked at the innards. You might *carefully* pull D-4 and
see what happens. Be prepared to reinsert it if necessary. Did I
mention that on the PRO-34 at least, pulling those two diodes also
causes you to *lose* 30-50 megs, but who cares about that territory
anyway. In return, in addition to full 800 coverage, the scanner
acquires a new range from 68 to 88 megs, apparently a territory used
in Europe. Around Chicago, there is very little in 30-50. Almost
everyone in the metro area has migrated to VHF, UHF and T-Band. 

One very interesting thing about the 68-70 megs area is that you can
sometimes get your neighbor's cordless phones and baby monitors there
by using a technique in scanning called the 'magic number': take the
intermediate frequency of the unit (the 'IF'), double it precisely and
add that value to the desired frequency, then tune to the new number.
For example using approximate numbers, if a cordless phone is on 49.1
megs and your scanner's IF is 10 megs, you add (10*2 = 20) to 49.1 and
tune the scanner to 69.1 (assuming the mods were done, etc). You won't
hear as well as actually at 49.1, but you will hear stuff if you have
anyone close by using a cordless phone on that frequency. And some of
the Regency direct entry scanners are a gas: due to a programming
error in the ROM, if you enter the decimal point *first*, you can get
them to scan in all sorts of otherwise inaccessible areas. 

Does anyone remember the old *tunable* (tuning knob and hairline
guage) VHF receivers?  I built one from a Heathkit about 35 years
ago and listened to all the exciting stuff on VHF in those days.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 12:46:08 GMT
From: smazu@ameris.ameritech.com (Steven P. Mazurek)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: How do You Pronounce "#"
Organization: Ameritech, Hoffman Estates, IL
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 706, Message 12 of 13

In article <telecom12.684.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, rjhawkin@mothra.syr.edu
(The Virtual Kid) writes:

> In article <telecom12.653.5@eecs.nwu.edu> disk!tony@uunet.UU.NET
> (tony) writes:

> Oh, I always thought the "#" sign was an abbrivation of the word
>  -number- after all, some address books say "phone #:". 

In at least on document I've seen it referred to as an "octothorpe",
but I've never found a dictionary with this word.


Steven P. Mazurek             | Email : {...,uunet,bcr,ohumc}!ameris!smazu
Ameritech Services            |         smazu@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com
Hoffman Estates, IL USA 60196 | Phone : (708) 248-5075


[Moderator's Note: An octothorpe is the term you see used here in the
Digest frequently.   PAT]