HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:27:27 GMT
From: mikes@techbook.com (Mike Scheuerman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: NSCA Terminal Emulator for LANS
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 911, Message 6 of 9

We are in the process of installing a large LAN supported by a Unix
server running portable Netware and we need to be able to connect to
the host in normal terminal mode thru the LAN.  I understand that NSCA
has a pretty good terminal emulator that is in the public domain and
therefor inexpensive :-).  Does anyone know 1) if my information is
correct and 2) if so how one goes about getting a copy of the
emulator.

The workstations are PCs and the network is TCP/IP based.

Thanks in advance for your help.


Mike Scheuerman

mikes@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400, N81)
PhoneNet: 503/227-0600
From: rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:48:17 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 904, Message 4 of 14

I had heard from some who are fairly well connected in the
telecommunications industry that Iridium was still on, but that they
had decided to go from many (relatively) simple satellites to fewer
more complex satellites.  The number I heard bandied about was in the
60's ... given that none of the elements in that range have any cool
names, however, Iridium would remain the name.

Of course, I'm sure things are probably changing pretty fast, and
anything heard more than a month or two ago is probably out of date.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 20:19:27 GMT
From: lamb@xtcn.com (Richard Lamb)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Nintendo Gameboy Link Protocol
Organization: XtcN Ltd
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 899, Message 3 of 11

Anyone know what it is or how I could find out?  I'd like to connect
two gameboy's remotely over some kindaof modem bridge thingie.


Thanks,

XtcN Ltd, lamb@xtcn.com, Tel:508-655-2960, FAX:508-655-4559, Telex:6504829720
11 Roxbury Ave.,Natick MA 01760,4425 Butterworth Pl.N.W.,Washington D.C. 20016
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:45:30 GMT
From: Dan Ganek <ganek@apollo.hp.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 902, Message 2 of 8

In article <telecom12.894.1@eecs.nwu.edu> goldstein@carafe.dnet.
dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> A common myth perpetrated by the phone companies, always looking for
> more monopoly revenue.  But only a monopoly would even attempt to
> change its price structure to something customers don't want that is
> NOT cost-based!  Cost-based pricing works for everyone.  Monopoly
> fictions don't.  And usage-based local rates are a FICTION!

> I've seen the studies.  In most places, the PEAK cost to the telephone
> company is well under a penny a minute.  Yet measured rates are almost
> always much higher.  They're just a means to make money.

Uh, have you checked with NYNEX about measured service from Littleton,
MA?  From Groton MA it's $.001/minute with, I think, a $.10 set-up charge.


dan ganek
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 12:16 PST
From: jpp@StarConn.com (John Pettitt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sprint Dis-Cards
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 909, Message 7 of 12

Pat Writes [lots of stuff about credit law deleted]

> their system, and they'll have to fix it in a lawful manner. Why not
> consider using 'voice prints'? I think Sprint has such a thing they
> were testing, and 'voice prints' are almost foolproof, no?    PAT]

No.  The basic problem of how to identify users of remote systems is
one that lots of folks are trying to solve.  The current state of the
art as related to me by somebody who is consulting for VISA is still
not good enought to use Voice, Retina, Finger Prints etc on a
commercial basis.  The problem is that the `insult rate' (the number
of times you reject a valid customer) is too high (around 1 in 100 for
most of the technologies listed).  I'm told that the banks consider 1
in 100,000 acceptable for ATM use.

So if you want to make a fortune; find a way of identifying legitimate
users of remote system the works and patent it!  1/2 :-)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:05:19 GMT
From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 909, Message 6 of 12

In article <telecom12.902.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, Dan Ganek <ganek@apollo.hp.
com> writes ...

(in response to my comment on measured rates)

> Uh, have you checked with NYNEX about measured service from Littleton,
> MA?  From Groton MA it's $.001/minute with, I think, a $.10 set-up charge.

Actually, NET's current rate is $.016 (not .001) per minute, with a one
cent call setup charge.  That's for residence; business has a higher
call setup charge (7.something).  This applies to intra-CO data today
and inter-CO local data in May when the billing software catches up.

Interestingly enough, Littleton used to be all flat-rate unless you
really wanted measured.  Until a couple of years ago, exchanges with a
local calling area (1MU) of under 120,000 main lines could get 1FB
(flat rate business).  That's now grandfathered; new business accounts
are all 1MB (measured).


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com 
k1io             or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
From: david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998
Date: 13 Dec 92 00:55:50 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 904, Message 9 of 14

goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes:

> You mentioned that this conversion table covered "geographic services
> only," so am I correct in inferring that free-phone (008) numbers will
> not map into the new three zone?  Presumably.  some new 0X code will
> supersede 008; any idea what it will be?

It won't be a 0x code but a 180 xxx xxxx number. Here are a few other
interesting non-geographic numbers:

Range	Type of service	Number structure O/S access	Now	Reason
041	Mobile Digital	041 xxx xxxx	 yes		none	new
04x	reserved for future mobile services
05	reserved for future expansion of national numbering to 11 digits
113	Calling number display
1131	calling number display off (block)
			1131+number	no		none	CND override
1132	calling number display off (allow)
			1132+number	no		none	CND override

Note that we do not yet have CND and that these codes may be replaced
by *31 and *32.

127	customer testing services
1271	"		1271x*		no		118[34]
14	service provider access & preselection codes
140	reserved for expansion
14[1-9]			14[1-9]x+number	no		none	new

 
David Wilson				+61 42 213802 voice, +61 42 213262 fax
Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong	david@cs.uow.edu.au
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:21:03 GMT
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Possibly Off the Subject, But ..
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 903, Message 11 of 15

JW> == Jack Winslade <Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org>

ER> Ed Ravin- elr@trintex.uucp    elr%trintex@uunet.uu.net

JW> I've just become aware that addresses in the form of ...
JW> whoever%somesite@uunet.uu.net will no longer work when the message
JW> is sent via SMTP to the site uunet.uu.net.

If your mailer uses MX records, it will automatically send mail
destined for "uunet.uu.net" to either relay1 or relay2.uu.net.

If your mailer does not use MX records, it is broken.

(This should probably move to comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains or
comp.mail.misc or alt.flame.broken-mailers or something :)


Christopher K. Davis     <ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14  
System Administrator, EFF  +1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]
From: mearle@falcon.ccsu.edu (Mark Earle)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: South TX CMT Rate Update
Date: 20 Dec 92 14:40:21 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 911, Message 8 of 9

Possibly as a Christmas promition, Cellular One / McCaw agents are
offering a new rate plan:

	$40/month Includes detail billing, 100 minutes of *local* air
time, and 30 minutes of "free" long distance. Minutes above 100 are
billed at 21 cents/min peak and offpeak. The 30 mins LD also
decrements your 100 minutes air time.

	Roam minutes w/"cooperative" systems are .50/min plus daily
fee. They list many Texas cities with 0.00 as the daily fee, most
cities outside of Texas are from $1.50 - $3.00/day.
 
	Currently, Southwestern Bell offers two similiar (and better,
IMHO) packages. [They've had these in place all year, BTW]
 
	$60/month 200 local air minutes peak and/or off peak.
Additional minutes .22 peak or offpeak. Includes call forwarding,
waiting, 3 way, detail billing. $2/month additional for "Mr. Rescue"
gas/jump starts in the local area. Roam minutes typically .50/minute,
no daily fee in TX cities.

 	$40/month unlimited off peak minutes, .41 peak minutes. .50
Roam I believe the features are $5/month for all of the above, or may
be added seperately.
 
	Both vendors offer voice mail at $5-10 month, depending on how
many msgs may be stored and length of messgae.
 
	Me: Usually satisfied two year customer of SWBMS. I've had a
Uniden President (first year) and this year a Motorola 8000H hand held
phone. I get much better use of the system with the hand held. With a
combination of voice mail, and call forwarding to a nearby "land"
phone, my peak useage is usually less than $5/month. Yet I'm either
"in touch" or folks can leave a message. Having the portable phone, if
I leave it on, gives a "call in absence" indicator, so I know to check
my vm. So I no longer need or carry the pager, saving $ to somewhat
offset the higher CMT bill. Also, when forwarding calls to a "land"
phone, the cmt rings one time and then the land phone rings. This lets
me identify calls for me when at other folks offices.  Quite handy.


mearle@falcon.ccsu.edu
From: jones@sunspot.sunspot.noao.edu (Wayne Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Lightning Protection For PBX
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:08:39 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 906, Message 6 of 16

I am looking for easily installed lightning protection for a PBX.
Preferably something that incorporates a gas discharge device, series
impedance and avalanche device that will plug onto 66 block terminals
for a single pair.  The package should be small enough to be
end-stackable to allow as many lines on the block to be protected as
required.  Anyone know if such a beast exists and where I might look?
I've seen the ones that have gas discharge devices only but feel that
the firing time is just too long to give adequate protection.


Wayne Jones   505-434-7043   email: jones@sunspot.noao.edu
National Solar Observatory  P.O. Box 62  Sunspot, NM  88349
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 07:29:18 PST
From: dougv@vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Relationship Between This Address and Comp.dcom.telecom
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 912, Message 12 of 15

I'm confused - and hopefully you (whoever this is) can help.

What is the relationshiip between this "mailing list" or "digest" and
the comp.dcom.telecom Usenet newsgroup.  I thought they were two
separate things.  Is this really the "posting" mechanism for
comp.dcom.telecom?

Any clarification would be appreciated.


D. Douglas Valkenaar       ROLM PhoneMail         (dougv@vnet.ibm.com)
(408) 492-6119                                    FAX - (408) 492-6132


[Moderator's Note: I aleady wrote Mr. Valkenaar with more detailed
information. TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom are one and the same
thing. The messages are published in each at the same time. The only
difference is that the messages appear one at a time in the Usenet
group while several shorter messages are clustered together into a
single larger message when they are send to the mailing list. One
reason for the latter is the large number of readers who cannot get
the newsgroups for whatever reason, such as the folks on networks
other than the Internet.   PAT]
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 13:13:05 GMT
From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Questions About Scanner Laws
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 910, Message 4 of 11

OOPS ... I misread one question I answered the other day and the
answer should be the exact opposite ... see below:

> In article <telecom12.906.5@eecs.nwu.edu> mmm@cup.portal.com writes:

>> Is it legal to modify a scanner to receive these (cellular) frequencies?

I answered as follows:

> No, nor will it be in the future.  The new law places all the
> burden of making a modify-proof scanner on the manufacturers.

I should have said: It is not illegal to modify any scanner (or any
radio receiver for that matter) to receive cellular.  The new
"anti-cellular receive capable scanner law" only makes it illegal to
"manufactuur" such equipment as of one year from the passage of the
new law.  From what I read, there's nothing in any existing laws nor
in the new law that prohibits an individual from modifying any type of
electronic radio receiving equipment once they own it.

Sorry I gave the wrong answer yesterday.

If you missed my prior post, the balance is included here as a
follow-up explanation as to what the new cellular scanner
manufacturing ban law actually says:

Actually, the new law goes as follows: Within six months of the laws
enactment the FCC must come up with new design requirements for
scanners, etc that will eliminate the ability of scanners to (1)
recieve cellular frequencies and (2) be easily modified to receive
cellular frequencies.  Until that happens, the manufacturers don't
have any specific requirements to follow/design to.  

The next phase of the law takes place one year after enactment
nominally around November, 1993).  At that time it then becomes
against the law for a manufacturer to in the USA to manufacture a
scanner with cellular frequency receive ability (i.e. the scanner must
meet the new FCC type acceptance requirements) and it will also be
illegal to import any scanner (reciever) capabale of receiving
cellular frequencies.

So, from the above it can be seen that (1) the sale of scanners is not
in any way impacted by the new law for almost one year AND (2), even
after one year, it will not be illegal for stores to continue selling
any "old stock," nor will it be illegal to own a scanner that was
made/manufactured or inmported before the final phase of the law takes
affect.

Bottom line ... there is probably over a million cellular receive
capable scanners that are in the hands of the public already and/or
can be modified to receive cellular.  The new law does NOTHING to
impact the ownership of those units.  Just don't get caught listening
to cellular.


Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.

Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@cc.bellcore.com
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:00:00 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Good But Cheap Used Telephones
Organization: Echo Beach
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 907, Message 9 of 11

If you want to buy an additional telephone that will survive being
dropped a few times but which shouldn't cost too much, visit the less
reputable consumer electronics stores in your community, and you may
find some used phones that telephone companies have sold to a
liquidator.

I just bought a used Automatic Electric touch-tone desk telephone on
Yonge Street in Toronto for $8.99 (Canadian) plus tax. Automatic
Electric was the equipment manufacturing unit of GTE Corporation,
which still operates regular and cellular telephone companies, but no
longer manufactures telephones.

It looks rather odd -- a bit like the deliberately ugly troll dolls
that are selling well in toy stores this year -- because Automatic
Electric chose not to copy the exterior design of Western Electric's
model 2500 desk set.  For a long time, Northern Telecom (formerly
Northern Electric) manufactured model 500 and model 2500 phones
apparently identical to those from Western Electric, and so did ITT.
But for whatever reason, GTE chose a different design, with the
handset rest a bit closer to the front of the phone, and a slight
ridge on top of the handset.

A used Northern Telecom touchtone phone with several speed dialling
buttons was being sold for $16.99. Again, I suspect that a telephone
company was liquidating its inventory of these.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: richg@localhost.socal.com (Rich Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:17:30 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 904, Message 1 of 14

Are there so many MCI Mail addressees that sending each of them an
individual copy would be impractical?  If not, and your software can
be adjusted to do this, the initial headache of setting it up would
eliminate future headaches. Just dump the bounces.


Rich Greenberg      Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com   310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: richg@hatch.socal.com       310-649-0238


[Moderator's Note: Your proposal would cause a lot of extra work for
everyone in the middle ... it *would* work, but one of the reasons for
the standards as they are written now is to avoid such extra handling
of mail and the requisite bandwidth. I have several dozen subscribers
on the mailing list at mcimail.com.  I won't do it as you suggest.  PAT]
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:31:12 GMT
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 900 Scam Update -- Credit Collection Center of Miami
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 906, Message 10 of 16

Previously I reported on what seemed to be a phony billing scam
operated by Credit Collection Center of Miami, Florida.  They're
sending out collection notices for 900 number calls that were
supposedly referred back to the service provider by the local telco,
coupled with a threat that they will damage the receiver's credit
rating if not paid.

        The US Postal Inspection Service Office for the Southern
Region is actively investigating this scam.  They've been receiving
many complaints.  Even people with 900 blocking are being hit, I was
told.  The person answering the phone at the Inspection Service office
(901-722-7700) knew all about this outfit as soon as I mentioned the
name.  Media people might want to follow up on this.
       
        If you've received a "collection notice" from this outfit, it
should be reported to:

	US Postal Service
	Regional Chief Inspector
	1407 Union Avenue
	10th Floor
	Memphis, TN 38161-0008
	attn: Fraud


John Nagle
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 15:28:27 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: A Telecom Dial Up Site Being Planned
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 911, Message 3 of 9

I've got a plan ... I started working on it a few days ago in ernest
and now feel I may have bitten off more than I can chew ...

I have come into possession of a Packard Bell 286 and a copy of Waffle
1.65.  I would like to put up a dialup site for the Digest and the
archives. I started working on getting the Waffle configured.

I am in over my head ... 

I want this configuration:

People can call in and get the current Digest, many of the back issues
and the various files currently in the archives. I will run one local
board for telecom stuff, and have files access for anyone who wants it.
I want a UUCP connection which will call me to deliver each copy of
the Digest (and other files) and will pick up mail for the outside world.

People should be able to put messages here also for use in the Digest.

As I said, some of the UUCP stuff and gettiong the board configured are
really out of my league.  Anyone want to help?  If you know Waffle
really well and how to set it up as above (and how to get it listed in
the maps, etc as required with the proper configurations) then I would
really love to hear from you soon.

If this gets up and running, there will be a phone number anyone can
call (Chicago number) to download archives and digest files, post
messages for the group, or participate in the local telecom discussion
group.  I'll ask for donations to pay the cost of the whole thing
which I estimate will be around $300 per month to pay for the phone
line(s), the UUCP connection, etc.  It will be whatever people want to
send to help out. Nothing for myself in it, but I'd like to not be out
of pocket in running it. Perhaps a couple of organizations would be
willing to sponsor or fund the dialup in exchange for notice being
given on the system?  

Please contact me if you really know what to do about this. Thanks.


Patrick Townson