HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 22:35:34 GMT
From: mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Annoying C&P Send-A-Call Service
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 914, Message 3 of 14

We have a service on the payphones around here (DC area) that will
record a message and attempt to deliver if a dialed number is busy for
an additional .25 cents.  Twice when I've tried to call a friend on
one of these phones, the called person has picked up and then a few
seconds later Send-A-Call kicks in and cuts me off.  It has happened
where once the person had call waiting and another time, after I got
the operator to connect my call after it happened again, there was an
audible click during the outgoing message of an announcement I was
calling.  Both of these may have somehow confused the Send-A-Call into
thinking the dialed number had actually been busy.


Michael Rosen		
Tau Epsilon Phi - George Washington University
mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu
Michael.Rosen@bbs.oit.unc.edu or @lambada.oit.unc.edu
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 14:02:56 PST
From: Anthony E. Siegman <siegman@sierra.stanford.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works
Organization: Stanford University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 2, Message 6 of 12

   Concerning this issue, let me post the following suggestion once
again, because it seems to be a good, workable, practical, effective
proposal: Enact legislation requiring that all telemarketing calls
come with Caller-ID from a uniquely designated area code prefix, like
600, 700, whatever.  No freedom of speech issues are involved; the
technical/economic burden on the telemarketer is very modest and
affordable; no central data banks are required; and individuals can
block or not as they choose, at very low cost, with no effect on the
rest of their telephone usage.  It's just like marking special
advertising inserts in magazines as "Advertising" on each page, so you
know what you're getting.
Date: 31 Dec 92 14:40:20 EST
From: Ben Black <76672.2564@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: About a Second Line in My Home
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 927, Message 7 of 14

I've ordered a second line in my home for computer use. There is
standard four wire cable in the wall (red/green/yellow/black.)

Can I use the unused pair (yellow/black) for the second line, saving
me the trouble of running a new pair all the way to the network
interface?


Thanks,

Ben Black             +1 615 391 0681 home   MciMail 541-3160
2734 Penn Meade Drive +1 615 871 5947 fax    CI$ 76672,2564
Nashville, TN 37214  USA       Internet Ben_Black@mcimail.com


[Moderator's Note: Yes you can, provided it is connected all the way
back to the interface, and provided all the connection boxes in your
home are wired in the standard way. If you are using single line
phones in your home, at the connection boxes where you want the second
phone to be, disconnect the red/green spade lugs from the screws in
the box, tighten the screws back up, then put the red/green spade
lugs where you see the yellow/black ones (removing them in the
process). Now your single line phone, which traditionally expects the
red/green pair to be fed to it will be getting yellow/black up to that
point and via the cross-over you just made, what it expects into the
phone itself.  *Be certain* nothing else is connected to the yellow/
black anywhere, such as a transformer for Princess phone, any other
gadgetry for a previously used intercom, etc.   PAT]
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:25:11 GMT
From: schan@andy.bgsu.edu (Steve)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Help on Eudora
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 913, Message 4 of 10

Hey! Guys. I am using Eudora at BGSU through the University backbond,
but I want to use the software in the modem also.  My friend just
download a Toolbox image file from Apple com. site for me.  What I
suppose to do is to install all the scripts into the system and the
software should works.  But, it doesn't!

There is one file named "installCTB11".  This should be the program
which I can double click and then everything will be done for me like
magic.  But it doesn't work that well.  So if somebody out there knows
how to get the Eudora works in the modem.  

Please reply my message at schan@andy.bgsu.edu.  I will very much
appreciate your help.  So, plea....se!
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:22:27 GMT
From: mhk@cactus.org (M. H. Khan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Loaned Phones/Courtesy Phones (Was AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#)
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 924, Message 3 of 11

In article <telecom12.921.4@eecs.nwu.edu> Bob_Frankston@frankston.com
writes: 

> COCOTs have.  People who rent out their homes or condos have similar
> issues with loaning their phones to others.

> Given these issues and the problems with the current phone network,
> are there any protocols, perhaps in ISDN, that can be used to flag a
> line as being a "loaned" phone that accepts no billing. 

Things you can currently do:

1) Ask for a toll restriction. In one place I had to pay a one time
   charge. In another there was a monthly charge. (Not altogether
   sure about which was which but I think the monthly charger was
   Illinois Bell, the other one Southwestern Bell.  Other differences
   were being able to reach Operator.

2) Anyone can (without charge) ask for a password to be associated
   with the account for any changes or information to be given out.
   Both the aforementioned companies honored that request.

   If you do decide to have this done on a new line mention it
   early so it appears on the first "screen" when they pull up your
   record.  In the one case where they failed to ask me the password
   as the first thing (but discovered the requirement after a
   minute or so) that was the reason mentioned, and  "correction"
   implemented.

Of course a toll restricted phone is of somewhat limited utility but a
lot better than having driving to a payphone for even local calls.
Incoming long-distance calls are of course not restricted.  And if you
happen to have a calling card you can even get direct dial rates (from
AT&T at least) if you tell the LD operator (800 numbers can be
dialled) that you are at a toll-restricted phone.

With regard to your suggestion, yes there need to be better provisions
made for this.  This need, of one owner but changing users, should be
better provided for.  Also, the current practice of charging as if an
entirely new line was being put in, when only the billing information
is changing is not justified.
Date: 21 Dec 1992 02:07:21 GMT
From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE and Subscriber Carrier
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 913, Message 2 of 10

That is old. We have long since done away with that type of carrier. I
would guess that within a year or so it should be gone there. You
might try and find out. It is a good system and will withstand just
about anything including age.
Date: 2 Jan 93 10:42:11 EST
From: Craig R. Watkins <CRW@icf.hrb.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: PRO-34 Wanted
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 4, Message 12 of 12

In article <telecom12.928.13@eecs.nwu.edu>, wah@zach.fit.edu ( Bill
Huttig) writes:

> I can't find any Radio Shack PRO-34 Scanners left around here ... if
> any one can find one for me I would be gald to pay the $39 + shipping
> + misc to receive one.

Yesterday I was in Radio Shack for some parts (just let those Radio
Shack bashers tell me where else I can get parts on New Year's Day
during halftime in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania!) and I asked
about the PRO-34.  It was really $39 -- I saw it on the computer
screen.  However, the guys behind the counter said it was discontinued
about a year ago and anything at a price like that gets snapped up by
employees.  They claimed that regional folks even get together
every-so-often to swap discontinued items between stores (and often
they are for employee purchase).  They wished me good luck finding one
(well, actually, I already have one), so I will wish the same to you.


[Moderator's Note: Well I must say it is the finest scanner radio I
have ever owned, and I've had several over the years, beginning with
the old crystal units twenty or so years ago; and before that I had a
tunable VHF receiver which I bought from Radio Shack's predecessor
company Allied Radio, circa 1960-65. Allied's HQ was right here in
Chicago at Western and Washington Aves. What a grand store that was,
and located right across the street from Olson Electronics just in
case you needed to stop in there also on the way home.  One complaint
I have about Radio Shack is how often the staff changes in the store
three blocks from my house. All new people there twice around since I
bought my CT-301 phone, and three times around since I bought the
PRO-34. I've purchased video cameras there also.  Thousands of dollars
spent in that one store alone; the current bunch of employees has no
idea who I am; the people there three years ago used to drop everything 
to wait on me. I have my PRO-34 earphone jack wired out to a larger
communications style speaker pulled from an old speaker-phone. It
really sounds great that way. I still use my old Regency H-604 crystal
scanner from years ago sometimes also.  PAT]
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992  15:38:37 EST
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Notice to AT&T USADirect Customers
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 920, Message 9 of 11

 From Page A2, {Washington Post}, December 24, 1992:

PUBLIC NOTICE TO AT&T INTERNATIONAL USADirect (R) CUSTOMERS

AT&T announced plans to adjust initial and additional minute charges
on AT&T USADirect (R) Service calls from some countries.  On December
22, 1992, AT&T filed a tariff with the Federal Communications
Commission to increase certain rates on AT&T USADirect Service calls
to the US Mainland and Hawaii from the following countries listed
below to become effective January 5, 1993.  On December 22, AT&T also
filed a rate restructure on AT&T USADirect Service calls originating
in Mexico and terminating in the U.S. Mainland and Hawaii, to become
effective February 5, 1993.  

These rate changes will have the effect of raising the average
USADirect call by 6% from the following countries/areas listed below.
The service charges for Calling Card, Collect Station and
Person-to-Person calls would remain the same.  The rate changes the
initial and/or the additional minute from the following
countries/areas: 

Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, People's Republic of China,
Columbia, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Gibraltar,
Hungary, Paraguay, Phillipines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay,
Venezuela, and Zambia.

The rate restructure for Mexico consolidates the Mexico schedule from
64 to 3 rate bands and changes USADirect from a 3 minute to a 1 minute
minimum.  These rate changes represent both increases and decreases to
the customer.

If you have any questions, or would like more information concerning
the adjusted rates for any of the above countries, please call toll
free, 1 800 331-1140, ask for ext. 118, or if out of the U.S. call
collect via USADirect Service (412) 533-7458 and ask for ext. 118.


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
These opinions are AT&T's alone.
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 08:39:21 EST
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Telephony of the Future
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 1, Message 11 of 13

Re: PAT's request for what we think telephony will be future will be
like in 2000 or maybe even 2100.  I'd like to post my $.02.

I think that we will see a much larger proliferation of the cell phone
industry; e-mail directly via satellites as opposed to wire and
satellites today; the physical size of the hardware in each switch
will shrink.

Who really can imagine what our children and grandchildren will
witness?  I can't but I'd sure like to be around to see what happens.

As I said, just my $0.02.

 
Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093


[Moderator's Note: I imagine all kinds of things we consider
impossible now will be reality.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 03:02:28 GMT
From: tbenham@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Tom Benham)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 3, Message 7 of 12

bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) writes:

> I don't sell ZyXELs, but thought I'd throw in my $0.02 to aid in the
> discussion of such fancy modems.

On the topic of modems.  DO any of these modems also support
synchronous transmission for HDLC?  I was looking at Motorola's line
and they apparently have two different lines: one 'Sync-UP' and the
other 'FasTalk'.  It is not clear to me why there should be two lines
of modems.  Currently I've got a V.32b+Fax+++ async modem, but it does
NOT support synchronous xmit which I need for SDLC connections.
Guidance appreciated.


Tom
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 14:23:53 GMT
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE and Subscriber Carrier
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 914, Message 13 of 14

In article <telecom12.911.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.
fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes:

> I recently moved from Michigan's glorious Upper Peninsula to the more
> densely populated lower part of the state.  Unfortunately, the
> property I purchased was in the middle of GTE territory.  I had
> thought that the service just might be acceptable because my serving
> exchange (Whitehall, Michigan) seems to be operating off of a modern
> digital electronic switch, though I have no idea what type (anyone?).

Whitehall is a BIG GTD-5. Has alot of integrated digital remotes and
alot of old analog Subscriber Carrier attached.

> I can tell you that there are no noticible clicks as the call
> progresses, and when you call a number the phone actually rings before
> the caller hears ringback tone, if that helps any.

Stuff deleted

> I recall at one time reading some discussion here of a piece of
> equipment designed for "long loops".  I don't recall what it was,
> though, nor whether it would be applicable in this situation.  If such
> a device would be helpful, I wonder what my chances would be of
> convincing GTE to hang one on my line (assuming they've ever even
> heard of such a device, which is doubtful in and of itself).

What you're thinking of is a "loop extender". Basicly what it does is
to 'extend' the loop by boosting the loop battery voltage from @-48v
to either @130v or 260v (for 'really' long loops). Unfortunately, it's
not compatible with Subscriber carrier. Also, on a seven or eight mile
loop, while usable with a loop extender (but stretching it), the
receive audio level would still be pretty low.


John Rice        K9IJ     |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
                          |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
                          |   Not my Employer's....
rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 06:59:35 GMT
From: robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za (Michael Robinson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Help Needed With References
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Novell Users).
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 917, Message 8 of 17

Hello everyone,

I need help getting the complete details of the following books.
Please could you send me any information you have.

1) JK Holmes -  Aquisition + Tracking -  Publisher?, Year?, ISBN?

2) Simon, Komara, Scholtz, Levitt - Spread Spectrum Communications, 
Three volumes -  Publisher?, ISBN?, Year?

3) Wozencraft + Jacobs -  Principles of Communications Engineering, ISBN?


Merry Christmas,

Michael


[Moderator's Note: Merry Christmas to you too, Michael, but have you
considered that old standby, "Books in Print", a book which lists all
the above details and more?   PAT]
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 13:25:30 -0800
From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: X.25 Switch Vendor Info Please
Reply-To: rpw3@sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 919, Message 6 of 14

jchen@ctt.bellcore.com writes:

> A foreign company would like to purchase a few small X.25 switches
> from an US company. I am collecting information for them.

Be aware that X.25 packet switches fall under the COCOM export
controls.  You will need an export license, and can't ship at all to
some countries.  As Phil Karn said at the time:

> In case anyone is interested in seeing the complete text of the new
> export control regs, they appeared in the Federal Register on August
> 29, 1991.

> Pay particular attention to page 42871. This is where "datagram" and
> "dynamic adaptive routing" technologies are mentioned. Read it and
> weep (or laugh, as the case may be.)

"Dynamic adaptive routing" is considered a strategic dual-use item,
because it can make it harder for our military to knock out the other
guy's C-cubed.


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510		rpw3@sgi.com		(415)390-1673
Silicon Graphics, Inc.,  2011 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View, CA  94043
From: dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: EasyLink and Internet?
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:18:02 GMT
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 928, Message 12 of 13

I have long understood that sending email between EasyLink and
Internet was out of the question. Recently, however, an associate sent
me an EasyLink x.400 envelope wrapped up in slashes "/" and referenced
to "@attmail.com". When I tried to send to that address, I got a
bounced mail message to the effect that the ADMD "western_union" was
not available.

Can anyone tell me there has been a change of policy at EasyLink re.
Internet mail? Can we send to EasyLink? If so, what is the proper
set-up for the address envelope? Can they send to us? What does the
address look like?


Thank you.

Donald R. Newcomb  dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu  newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 00:08:28 CST
From: roy@cybrspc.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem
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 914, Message 9 of 14

A friend has one of these, bought on the sysop deal.  He says it does
everything but make coffee and take out the trash. :-)

Anyone know if it does CNID?  If so, what's the magic invocation?


Roy M. Silvernail |+|  roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu
From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Sprint 800 Residential
Date: 1 Jan 93 02:20:30 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 927, Message 6 of 14

About a month ago, a Sprint rep called and asked if I wanted to try
Sprint's Residential 800 service (I currently have Sprint as my PIC).
They offered to waive the installation charge as well as the monthly
service charge for the first six months. I travel frequently and
thought it might be interesting to see how well it works.

After one month, I have mixed feelings about it. On the positive side:

 - It's a "real" 800 number, with no PIN required. Sprint
   translates it to my home phone.
 - The rate is reasonable, .25 per minute, 24 hours a day,
   with no per call setup charge, from anywhere in the US.
 - My USAA group discount applies.
 - The calling number shows up on the bill (ANI).

On the negative side:

 - It's billed separately from my other Sprint services. I called
   to ask if it could be combined, but apparently it's being handled
   by a different billing center and they can't combine at this time.

 - Of the five calls on my first statement, two were mine, made locally
   to "try out" the number. One was originated by Sprint, apparently
   as a test. (I called the number back and was connected to a
   customer service rep who was very confused. Apparently using her
   "direct" number doesn't setup up her computer screen.) Two were
   plain "wrong numbers."

I'm confused about the monthly service charge. I thought the rep said
it was $5 a month, but my first bill shows $1 (with a corresponding
credit.)

I'll give it the full six months, but I'm concerned about the number
of wrong numbers. It could be more trouble than it's worth.


Ken Jongsma                                          
Smiths Industries            jongsma@benzie.si.com
Grand Rapids, Michigan   73115.1041@compuserve.com
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 01:25:01 CST
From: todd@valinor.mythical.com (Todd Lawrence)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
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 3 of 12

> The Amateur Radio Emergency Service and National Traffic System hold
> health and welfare inquiries until the disaster scene is ready to
> accept them, placing a much higher priority on real emergency traffic.

> I recall hearing a few years ago that AT&T long distance circuits were
> setup to limit incoming calls, when necessary, so outgoing calls
> always would have circuits available.

I have an old (four or five years old) AT&T trunk service/reference
guide that has a passage to the effect that upon reaching 60-70% trunk
group saturation, 4ESS will return a reorder to all but callers with a
priority class of service code. I do not know if this practice is
still in effect but I would suspect that something very similar is for
exactly the reasons mentioned in the preceding thread.


Todd Lawrence
LOD! Communications          internet : todd@valinor.mythical.com
IMF Data Acquisition Group   uucp     : uunet!valinir!todd