HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tnixon@hayes.com (Toby Nixon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:32:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.322.5
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 322, Message 5 of 10

In article <telecom12.308.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da
Silva) writes:

> Wake up, folks, FAX is a massive botch. Work for better email services
> instead of screwing around with broken-as-designed technology.

I disagree.  Fax has been around a heck of a lot longer than email, so
there is a much larger installed base.  The main advantage of fax is
that "normal people" can use it with a very small investment in
training.  If I want to send a simple message via fax, I scribble it
out on a piece of paper, insert it in the fax machine, pick up the
phone, dial the call, then press "start".  That's it.  And installing
the fax machine was as simple as buying it, setting it on the table,
and plugging it into the power and phone jacks.

Email, on the other hand, is INCREDIBLY difficult.  I need a computer,
or at least a terminal, and a LAN or modem.  I need software.  I need
it all installed and working, which is far beyond the capabilities of
a "normal" person.  I need an "account" on an email system, usually by
pre-arrangement.  I need significant training in how to type (just
TYPING is very intimidating to a lot of people!), how to operate the
software, how to address messages (including a multitude of arcane and
ridiculous formats), etc.  I have to deal with relatively high costs
(international email might be cheaper than international fax, but it
is generally the opposite for domestic, especially if you're using a
commercial email service). If something goes wrong, I have to try to
decode cryptic failure messages that only a consultant could love.

Email may have many advantages over fax, but human factors aren't
among them.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   +1-404-840-9200  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     +1-404-447-0178  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     +1-404-446-6336  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                tnixon@hayes.com
From: cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Integretel Duplicate Billing
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:02:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.321.7
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 321, Message 7 of 16

Last September, I made a 0+ call from a COCOT at Lansdale, PA on the
215-362 prefix (to 215-839-1210, WCAU radio).  I got billed for a
1-minute call on my November phone bill (part of the bill sent out by
the local phone co.); charge, including all taxes, was $4.69 (yuk).
That was paid, but the same call has now appeared on my April phone
bill.  I called 800-736-7500, the number appearing on my bill, and no
account could be found for me when I called; I was told to mail copies
of those bills to Integretel (Inquiry Services), P.O. Box 611987, San
Jose, CA 95161-1987.


[Moderator's Note: Let us know about the integrity of Integratel when
you have resolved this with them.    PAT]
From: dem@nhmpw0.fnal.gov (David E. Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Need ISDN Phone With Extra Analog Port
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:37:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.302.6
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 302, Message 6 of 10

In article <telecom12.296.9@eecs.nwu.edu> jeff@markets.amix.com
writes:

> Here's the question: does anyone make an ISDN phone that has a digital
> port, and an analog port, in addition to the 'analog' handset on the
> phone.  I want the analog port to share the same channel as the
> digital port.

Several manufacturers (Hayes, etc.) make what are called terminal
adapters.  They allow you to make a circuit-switched data call over a
B-channel.  Most also have a built-in codec that converts a anolog
signal to the digital signal used by ISDN.  Be careful, some vendors
only have a port for an ISDN phone, not an analog one.

> What I want to do is always have the handset available for making and
> receiving calls.  Then I'd like be able to attach a modem to the other
> channel.  I want to use this modem for calling outside, non-ISDN,
> services.  Occasionally (when the modem isn't being used), I'd  like
> to be able to call other ISDN extensions using the digital port on the
> ISDN phone set.  (There's going to be a switch-box to switch the
> computer between the ISDN digital port and the modem port.)

If you have a large installation, you might consider setting up a
modem pool with a single ISDN number.  A user can call that number and
be connected to a modem that is in turn connected to a normal digital
line.  Then you don't have to duplicate modems and special hardware on
everyone's desk.


David E. Martin
National HEPnet Management                      Phone: +1 708 840-8275
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory           FAX: +1 708 840-2783
P.O. Box 500; MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510  USA    E-Mail: DEM@FNAL.FNAL.Gov
From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:55:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.308.1
Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 308, Message 1 of 11

In article <telecom12.300.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, 0003991080@mcimail.com
(Proctor & Associates) writes:

> The volume of this sort of fax traffic is getting to the point that we
> really need some brief "fax friendly" product data sheets that use
> bolder graphics with no background.

No, what we really need is to stop using such an inefficient means of
communicating.  It's pretty silly to take some piece of information
and transmit it as an image rather than as the information it
represents.  It increases the processing power needed on both ends,
and the transmission time.

What we need to do is send documents in a form closer to their
internal representation.  Something like compressed PostScript.  And
we need to send them in digital form wherever the communications
medium is digital, rather than as a digitized rendition of an analog
modulation of a digital form.

This message I'm writing now is 13336 bits.  I can send it that way,
or I can print it on paper, digitize the image, modulate that onto an
analog carrier, digitize that, and reverse the whole process at the
other end.  The efficient way, it's a few thousand bits.  The FAX way,
it's probably 3 million bits (one minute at 56 kbps).  That's an
efficiency of half a percent.  No wonder it cost you $50 to fax that
document to Mexico!
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:10:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.322.4
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 322, Message 4 of 10

In article <telecom12.314.5@eecs.nwu.edu> trebor@foretune.co.jp
(Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> What I want to see, and what I would pay reasonably serious bucks for,
> is a machine that is all of the following:

>	A Photocopier
>	A Scanner
>	A Fax Machine
>	A Postscript Printer (at least 600dpi)
>	A High Speed Modem

Me too. I've sent letters to all the major FAX and copier companies
and told them this. I REFUSE to buy a scanner and laser printer that I
can't use as a scanner and laser printer. Just stick a serial or
parallel port on that FAX and you've got a sale. It can't raise the
price more than $50.

> In the meantime, I will render unto email what is emailable, and unto
> fax what is not.

I've had to fax a total of two documents over the past several months.
One would have done better as email, but the person at the other end
didn't have a modem. I've received several documents as FAX, and twice
asked that docuents be sent physical mail instead because I knew that
the FAX wouldn't have good enough quality. I have a 24 pin printer
that I can use to render postscript with a higher resolution than any
FAX machine. When I need a scanner I'll buy a scanner.

Of course, all my computers except for one ancient Mac run operating
systems that let them reliably run stuff (like printing) in the
background no matter what applications I'm using. I'm sure that if I
was running DOS or Windows or System 7 I'd have to break down and buy
a standalone FAX.

In article <telecom12.314.6@eecs.nwu.edu> Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se
writes:

> I think this could be a service sold by a email-system. (To receive
> email and send it as a FAX to given telephone number.)

I believe both AT&T Mail and MCI Mail have services like this.

The problem is that neither AT&T Mail nor MCI Mail are as convenient
as just FAXing. We need a commercial email system for MS-DOS that's as
easy and convenient as UUCP Mail is on UNIX.


Peter da Silva
From: aoki@risk.stanford.edu (ikuro aoki)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Info Needed: Commercial Internet Access
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:33:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.321.9
Organization: /homes/aoki/.organization
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 321, Message 9 of 16

Dear Netter:

I am looking for US commercial companies which provide Internet access
service. I needs the direct access to Internet from a Japanese company
in Tokyo.  Connections will be made by international telephone
'dial-up'.

The company's name, E-mail address, phone number, access fees...  any
information will be welcome.

Please E-mail me, aoki@opus.stanford.edu.

Thanks.
From: chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Unix BBS List Wanted
Date: 6 Apr 92 04:34:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.305.3
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 305, Message 3 of 7

In article <telecom12.296.4@eecs.nwu.edu> gmeiers@edsi.plexus.COM
(Garrett Meiers) writes:

> Does anybody have a list of UNIX Bulletin Board numbers?

> [Moderator's Note: Whatever happened to the nixpub listings which used
> to appear in Usenet from time to time? Are they still being posted?  PAT]

Yes.  In comp.misc among other places.  It's also distributed via
mailing list; contact <nixpub-list-request@ls.com>.


Chip Rosenthal  512-482-8260
Unicom Systems Development
<chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM>
From: Michael.Rosen@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Michael Rosen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: I'm Having Fun With my School's Phone System
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:01:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.320.7
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 320, Message 7 of 7

Wow, I'm learning new things about our phone system every day ... well
not every day, but you get the idea.  I found out that from offices
and front desks of dorms, dialing *1 will force call waiting on an
on-campus phone whose line is busy.  Dialing #1 will redial the call
from any phone.  Unfortunately, #1 won't redial my access code as
well.  I've thought of a great way to get through to my radio
station's request line for contests, etc.  Since the #1 is faster than
my own phone, I would dial the 800 number first, then hang up on busy
and dial #1, then redial the #1...:)

BTW, does anyone know what type of system my school might be using?  I
tried calling telecommunications and asking but I didn't get a good
answer.  I've heard of one such type called Meridian.  I don't know if
this is it or not. Features include call waiting that must be answered
with a flash and then *4 (quite annoying, why not just a flash?),
dialing 9 for direct calls, 8 for 0+ calls, and Audix is available.


Mike

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:17:14 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 307, Message 3 of 10

> For the past six months, my UNIX system has been quietly compiling a
> list of the numbers associated with inbound calls to my business and
> my residence lines.  Each inbound call record consists of one line of
> text that gets appended to an ascii file.  During the peak inbound
> calling time, I can run a tail -f of the file, and watch the inbound
> calls scroll by.

Take the next step.  Write a command for "add last call to black list"
for each line.  Also have provisions for manual additions to the black
list.  Make sure that your black list can handle a reasonable quantity
of numbers (10,000 is probably too small).  Now, when a call from a
blacklisted number comes in, have a modem (with auto-answer set OFF,
so legit callers don't get an earful of modem) on that line pick up
the phone and hang up.  Sending out lots of touch-tones is optional,
but if you do, be sure that whatever you send won't bother someone or
cost you a bundle if the caller hangs up before you dial.  (Dialing
"############" seems pretty safe.  Do not use 1-800-555-1212).

If you don't have a modem, how long would it take to pay for a cheap
1200 modem (and maybe an extra serial port to go with it) with the
money you save from not paying for Call Block, but doing it yourself
with a much longer blacklist?  The data transmission part doesn't even
have to work.


Gordon L. Burditt     sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
From: davep@u.washington.edu (David Ptasnik)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Loop
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:51:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.308.7
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 308, Message 7 of 11


In <telecom12.301.4@eecs.nwu.edu> RANDY%MPA15AB@TRENGA.tredydev.
unisys.com writes:

> You'd think Aspen could be made to realize when it is talking to
> itself.

Errrmmm, it does.  At least, ours does.  There's a *bip* in the
notification message that I'm told is what the incoming port uses to
detect circular calling; supposedly it's DTMF A.

I wonder if this is a version problem, or if the forwarding is taking
long enough that the first *bip* disappears.  Do you get the
notification message all the way through, i.e. "... another call will
be attempted later" or does it cut off after the first "press 1 if
this is you ..."?


Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
From: cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: NXX Comes to South Jersey
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:41:18 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 315, Message 10 of 11

I did not find 609-300 in the March 1992 Elizabeth call guide.  How
recent is that Princeton (N.J.Bell?) phone book which you used?
From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Bundespost vrs. AT&T (was 900 Service in Germany)
Date: 6 Apr 92 02:30:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.298.7
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 298, Message 7 of 9

davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:
 
> Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will :-) ), but aren't
> privacy concerns a big part of the reason Germany has been reluctant 
> to modernize it's phone network?  In particular, one goal of Germany's
> phone system is that nowhere should there be records of who calls what
> number ...

> One property of Germany's admittedly antiquated phone network is that
> it provides this privacy.  The only thing kept track of is message
> units consumed, which are read from photographs of the mechanical
> message-unit counters in the central offices.

   Well, it's impossible to disprove this type of theory completely,
but I have grave doubts that it is the actual explanation.

   It is certainly true that many Germans are quite sensitive to
privacy issues, which leads (for example) for the Greens to campaign
against the census, on the grounds that people should be inherently
incountable.

   However, most Germans simply don't realize how bad their phone
service is.  I have Die Zeit and Der Spiegel for years, and the only
telecom issues discussed are the cost of international calls, and how
to bring East German telecoms "up to" the level of West Germany.

   The first problem with your theory is that virtually no one in
Germany is aware that the tradeoff has been made.  I somehow doubt
that Deutsche Telekom is run by closet Greens who have been silently
striving to maintain subscriber privacy by deliberately retaining
antiquated equipment.

   Is there anywhere what DT has stated in writing that a major goal
of the phone system is to have no record of call detail? Obviously,
they're installing new capacity in Eastern Germany without regard to
this issue (to the extent they ever realized it was an issue).

   Secondly, it must be possible to design a CO switch that is
designed to keep no records of exactly who is calling whom. For
example, the French telephone system does not record the last four
digits of any called number, so the bill reveals only the area and
exchange called.  I suspect that the Germans could do something
similar if they really wanted.
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Date: 1 Apr 92 07:39:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.298.1
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 298, Message 1 of 9

UK84@DKAUNI2.BITNET writes:

> Instead of dialing a special access code (like 1-900- ) in the USA you
> just call a foreign phone number.

> This scheme works but it has several serious disadvantages. First of
> all the voice quality is quite poor compared to domestic phone calls.

This is surprising since the general quality of international
connections has improved remarkably over the past couple of years.
Indeed when I call Holland or Japan the connections are far superior
to the domestic transcontinental calls of just a few years ago. Calls
to these service providers go over the same circuits as everything
else.

> So the customer has to pay high charges but the service provider
> does not get much of it. And this results that the quality of such
> services tend to be low.

The service provider does not get to keep much from a "900" call,
either. In fact it is possible that the payoff from these
international arrangements may be superior to 900 -- why else would
IPs do it? Also consider that dealing with carriers for 900 transport
is very risky.  Telesphere went under leaving its IPs holding the bag
for millions upon millions of dollars. There is much speculation that
Telesphere was merely a scam from day one to literally steal this
money from service providers and then fold the operation and hide the
money (Telesphere never had any assets; it leased everything).

AT&T, MCI, and Sprint are all very difficult to work with. The IP cuts
are low, no documentation is provided and the only protection against
fraud that an IP has with these carriers is to manage a database fed
by real-time ANI. (Telesphere never provided this.) So it may be that
getting a cut of international calls may not be such a bad deal after
all.

> After all the scheme works but it is just another sign that the German
> network operator Deutsche Bundespost TELEKOM is not able to keep up
> with the customer demands.

Oh, really? Just a few days ago, someone suggested that (specifically)
Deutsche Bundespost Telekom was vastly superior to the deteriorating,
post-divestiture wreckage that we call the US telephone system. Give
me a break!


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 723 1395
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
From: MCMANGPH@NUSVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Mexican Rating DB and Pricing Software
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:35:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.313.5
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 313, Message 5 of 10

> In the course of our work with Telefones de Mexico
 
If I may make bold to ask, pray what is the work you are doing with
TelMex? I am interested to know the outcome of the privatization of
the company. Eg, lower rates, better service, etc.
 
'Trust it's nothing confidential my enquiring mind is enquiring into.
Date: 07 APR 92 17:55   
From: <RANDY%MPA15AB@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Verifying Busy Requires AT&T Operator
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 303, Message 7 of 11

I had been getting a busy on a long-distance call for most of the day,
so I decided to have the busy verified, to see if I should keep
trying.  My 1+ carrier is Sprint, so I dial 0-0 and get a Sprint
operator.  I ask her if she can verify a busy for me, and she says "Of
course."  I give her the number, and she dials it and informs me that
yes, it is busy!

When I explained that "verify busy" means calling the LEC on an inward
line and having the line itself verified, she told me to "dial
1-0-2-8-8-0" to have this service done.  I said "You mean I have to
use AT&T?"  and she said "That's right, sir."  Almost like the
commercial!

(By the way, the line really was out of order.  AT&T confirmed it, and
my friend let me know a few days later that his AT&T answering machine
had run amok.)


Randy Gellens            randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself
From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Mystic Marketing Quits ANI Billing
Date: 12 Apr 92 03:59:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.311.11
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 311, Message 11 of 11

It seems that everyone's favorite $120 flat rate psychic line will no
longer charge against your phone bill.  A call to their "800" number
gets a recording telling you that the charge is $120 and can be
charged to your major credit card.  When you reach the billing menu,
you are prompted to enter "1" to bill to your major credit card.  You
used to be prompted to enter "1" for credit card or "2" to bill to
"the phone you are using"; pressing "2" anyway now reaches a recording
that "that feature is not available."


[Moderator's Note: What a loss!  :)   PAT]