HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johng@informix.com (John Galloway)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn,ba.internet
Subject: Re: Does ISDN use std phone numbers?  and what about forwarding?
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:56:27 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Sep29.140047.9178@cbfsb.cb.att.com> deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.094600.28073@informix.com> johng@informix.com (John Galloway) writes:
>>[lines deleted about forwarding a ISDN call to another ISDN number via
 a POTS line with call forwarding]]
>
>>The final target of the call would
>>of course have to be within whatever area was being served by ISDN for
>>a 2B+D 128Kbps call, but you could make a 1B 56Kbps voice call 
>
>There is no such thing as a "1B 56Kbps voice call".  A call can be voice,
>3.1kHz audio, 64k RDI (Restricted Digital Information), or 64k UDI
>(Unrestricted Digital Information).  64k UDI may, in addition, be
>rate-adapted to 56kb/s, allowing interworking with non-ISDN switched 56kb/s
>digital services.  But a voice call is not 56kb/s, and a 56kb/s call is not
>voice.
I suppose what I must have ment was a 64Kbps UDI call rate-adapted to 56Kbps.
I.E. Digiboard claims that you can call any ISDN number from any other ISDN
WITHOUT inter-ISDN (ss7) switching, as long as 1) all COs involved are
digitally interconnected, and 2) you are happy with just a 56Kbps (in band
signalling) call.  Which sounds like the above rate-adatoption stuff.
	-jrg

-- 
internet    jrg@galloway.sj.ca.us  John R. Galloway, Jr  795 Beaver Creek Way
applelink   D3413                  CEO...receptionist    San Jose, CA   95133
                                   Galloway Research     (408) 259-2490
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Passive bus??? was: Re: isdn equipment
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:17:32 GMT

In article <1acpoeINNg8g@agate.berkeley.edu> cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost) writes:
>I'm pretty surprised by this myself.  My reaction is who wants to pay an
>extra $100-200 for an external device or two (the NT NT1 is two large
>pieces wasting space on my floor).

Gosh, the AT&T NT1 is a little white box about the size of a Hayes
Smartmodem.  (One of those is probably a TM, but I don't know which.  Sorry,
Toby.)

Personally, I'd rather have a little NT2, but I guess that's because I'm a
PRI guy...

David G Lewis                              AT&T Bell Laboratories
david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej     Switching & ISDN Implementation
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.isdn:621 ba.internet:312
From: varney@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Al Varney)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn,ba.internet
Subject: Re: Does ISDN use std phone numbers?  and what about forwarding?
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:42:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL

In article <1992Sep30.133956.14368@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> varney@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Al Varney) writes:

>   Bellcore's TR-NWT-000972 {Call Forwarding Subfeatures: Switching
>System Requirements Using SS7} states that received codings of the
>User Service Information parameter (the SS7 re-named version of
>Bearer Capability) that are inappropriate for a non-ISDN calling
>party should not be forwarded.                           ^^^^^^^

   Of course I meant "called" party -- I really have to learn to
READ what I write!!

>Al Varney
From: pvc00@cd.amdahl.com (Peter Chow)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: ATT ISDN 7500A-L2 DSU (User Guide or docs?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:23:54 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <93HZ02qK24ML01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, pvc00@cd.amdahl.com
(Peter Chow) writes:

>    Could anyone tell me where I can locate a user guide and/or
> documentation for an ATT ISDN 7500A-L2 DSU ?  I recently bought
> a used unit, and would like to know how to set this thing up.
> I would like to know if this is esentially a TA (terminal
> adapter) in which I can connect to an asynchronous device such
> as a PC.  This unit has a DB25 connector on it - it seems to
> handle two ports, so I assume its used with Basic Rate (2B+D).
> Also, do I need to get a NT1 box?

  I think I answered my own question.  I called the ATT Small
Business Products Division @ 1-800-247-7000 and asked for the
Documentation Department.  I was able to order the user manual
for $15.

-- 
+------------------------+---------------------------+
| Peter Chow             |  Amdahl Corporation       |
| pvc00@cd.amdahl.com    |  1250 East Arques Avenue  |
| Phone : (408)737-5562  |  P.O. Box 3470 M/S 270    |
|   FAX : (408)746-7000  |  Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3470 | 
+------------------------+---------------------------+
From: sklower@diva.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Sklower)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: isdn equipment
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:58:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: /etc/organizaton

In article <1992Sep26.051427.27717@cbnewse.cb.att.com> mea@cbnewse.cb.att.com (mark.e.anderson) writes:
}>In article <mg0n37k.makyen@netcom.com> makyen@netcom.com (makyen) writes:
}>without the customer purchasing additional equipment
}>they have lost the ability to use the phone when the local power is
}>not available.

}I don't understand why someone would be forced to pay for a POTS
}line and an ISDN line.

Well, out here in San Francisco (and surrounding areas) we have
to worry about earthquakes and fires and summoning emergency services
via telephone in the event of disasters.  During such events, the
usual sources of electrical power may be disrupted.  It is possible
that the PUC would allow Pacbell to accept a cellular phone as
backup instead of a POTS line, but then my understanding is that
the PUC has not actually agreed to the residential ISDN tariff yet.
From: etxorst@eos.ericsson.se (Torsten Lif)
Subject: Re: Passive bus??? was: Re: isdn equipment
Reply-To: etxorst@eos.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:37:59 GMT

In article 1aip34INNou6@agate.berkeley.edu, cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.131814.16363@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes:
>|> 
>|> ...            On a multipoint interface (BRI with passive bus), the SETUP
>|> is offered simultaneously to all devices on the interface.  Each device can
>|> then examine the SETUP and reply with either a RELease COMplete w/cause =
>|> "incompatible destination" or with a CALL PROCeeding message indicating
>|> acceptance.  So for instance, when a 64k UDI call with a HLC of Group 4 Fax,
>|> the voice set and PC card respond with a RELease COMplete, and the Group 4
>|> Fax machine responds with a CALL PROCeeding.
>
>How widely is HLC passed end-to-end?  Do all the different switch
>manufacturers pass it compatibly?  And how solid are the specs for the
>various types of devices that can be named in the SETUP?

From the CO's point of view it boils down to two cases: Either it's one
of the "telephony" class calls in which case it's OK for the CO to
route it via analog trunks (first D/A-convert it, of course) or to
non-ISDN destinations. And in case of inter-continental calls the data
may be converted u-law <-> A-law. OR it's one of the "data" class calls
in which case no conversion should ever be performed and full data
integrity is guaranteed (barring line noise).

HLC should always be passed end-to-end if the call is truly ISDN. If
you live in a region that uses crippled B-channels (like USA :-) you
may only have access to 56 kb/s per B-channel but this should be
resolved automagically for you. If my equipment must absolutely use 64
kb/s and yours is limited to 56 kb/s, the call will never be set up.
Either the CO or your equipment will reject it. On the other hand, if
my equipment is even the least bit flexible, it can offer the
connection, suggesting that 64 kb/s be used "open to negotiation" and
yours can reply that "I'll take it, but only at 56 kb/s".

>I'm guess I'm beginning to give a hoot about the passive bus after all.

You should - it's one of the main strengths of ISDN. After all - if you
only want point-to-point high-speed data you can get away cheaper with
analog stuff off-the-shelf today.

>    Thanks,
>	Cliff

---
 Torsten Lif
 Ericsson Telecom AB, EO/ETX/TX/AD
 S-126 25  STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN
 Phone: +46 8 719 4881

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: mea@cbnewse.cb.att.com (mark.e.anderson)
Subject: Re: isdn equipment
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 05:14:27 GMT

In article  sklower@diva.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Sklower) writes:
>In article <mg0n37k.makyen@netcom.com> makyen@netcom.com (makyen) writes:

>}The other point to be made here is that without the customer purchasing
>}additional equipment they have lost the ability to use the phone when
>}the local power is not available.  This, unfortunately, is a function
>}that will probably not be noticed until needed.
 
>A Reliable Rumor has it that Pacific Bell submitted a tariff request
>to the California Public Utilities commission requesting residential
>ISDN service (1B+D) for $17/month.  It is also rumored that the CPUC
>is leaning towards approving it, but requiring that anybody who obtains
>this service MUST also have at least one POTS line for the very
>reason you mention.  So, at least the CPUC noticed!

This kind of dillutes a major advantage of ISDN - pair gain.  
Europe recognized this powering problem and thus, requires
the exchange to provide power to the NT1 which can provide
enough power to a CPE for telephone use.

I don't understand why someone would be forced to pay for a POTS
line and an ISDN line.  If I had ISDN at home, I'd use a cellular
as a backup instead. 

Mark Anderson
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: cstorry@gandalf.ca (Chuck Storry)
Subject: Re: isdn equipment - $100 NT1 including PS ??
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:54:36 GMT

In <1992Sep30.124758.9937@xtcn.com> lamb@xtcn.com (Richard Lamb) writes:

>I have done some research on the cost of the NT1U200 here in Boston and
>found out that ATT's cost in making this product is $300 !!
>Thier price for it is $595 !! Big accounts like Harvard gets a little 
>break but it still isnt $189 by any means.
>Can we buy some from you ?
>		
>					Rick Lamb
Well I think you have what is essentially the true story. Apparently AT&T
was running some sort of sales campaign with their resellers wherby if
they sold AT&T CPE they could sell NT1s at this rediculously low price.
The good news is that these guys still have some and they would be happy
to sell them to anyone who's interrested at the low low price of $200.

Contact Kevin at Resource Communications 708-416-3336.

I have , by the way, no professional relationship with this company. They do 
however sell Gandalf (my employer) TAs.


P.S. I'm curious; do you really want a good deal on NT1s or are you looking
for additional justification for incorporating the U interface into that
remote LAN access bridge you spoke about earlier. (which would of course
compete with ours ... which currently does not have an integral NT1) ?
>-- 
>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
-- 
Chuck Storry, Principal Designer      CAnet: cstorry@gandalf.ca
Gandalf Data Ltd.                     Voice: (613) 723-6500
130 Colonnade Rd So, Nepean, Ontario  Fax: (613) 226-1717
Canada  K2E 7M4
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: lenny@iti.gov.sg (Lenny Lim Kiong Peng)
Subject: Re: Need ISDN board for PC/AT 
Organization: Information Technology Institute, National Computer Board, Singapore.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:51:42 GMT

The packet driver for the Artel card is not a SLIP driver. It emulates an
ethernet driver and framing is either raw HDLC or circuit switched X.25.


Kiong Peng
From: lamb@xtcn.com (Richard Lamb)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: ISDN EQUIPMENT "Terminal Type A-E"
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:08:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: xtcn.1992Oct01.190838.15154
Organization: XtcN Ltd

What does this mean in refrence to ISDN telephone equipment.
What is "Terminal Type A" (Voice ?)
"Terminal Type E" (Data ?) What does it matter ? Its all in the
SETUP packet anyway, isnt it ?
Telephone companies seem to want this info on equipment.

					Thank You
					Rick Lamb
-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: petri@digiw.fi (Petri Alhola)
Subject: Re: Need ISDN board for PC/AT 
Reply-To: petri@digiw.fi (Petri Alhola)
Organization: Digiware , Helsinki Finland
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 12:16:43 GMT

In article <717212763snx@crynwr.com> nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:
>In article <2886@news.cerf.net> wegrzyn@nic.cerf.net writes:
>
>   Does anyone know of any boards that support the Basic Rate Interface for
>   PC/ATs?
>
>The following three vendors have ISA ISDN boards with packet drivers...
>
>Artel Technology: +65-779-0313 FAX -0793
>Diehl Elektronik GmbH: +49 (0) 7033-4724 FAX -4727
>CSI: Paul Heller <heller@csisdn.com>


Do you know, what kind framing these packet drivers will use ?
sync ppp, raw hdlc framing ?, or slip ( slow !! ).

Petri@digiw.fi
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Need ISDN board for PC/AT 
Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:37:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.121643.2725@digiw.fi>, petri@digiw.fi (Petri Alhola) writes:

  sync ppp, raw hdlc framing ?, or slip ( slow !! ).

Slip has many drawbacks, but one thing it has in its favor is speed.  With
only one byte of per-packet overhead it's the leanest of the bunch (unless
your packet contains lots of slip frame-ends or escapes).
From: ken@sdd.hp.com (Ken Stone)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: isdn equipment
Date: 26 Sep 1992 06:52:24 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdlz.sdd.hp.com

>A Reliable Rumor has it that Pacific Bell submitted a tariff request
>to the California Public Utilities commission requesting residential
>ISDN service (1B+D) for $17/month.  It is also rumored that the CPUC
>is leaning towards approving it, but requiring that anybody who obtains
>this service MUST also have at least one POTS line for the very
>reason you mention.  So, at least the CPUC noticed!

The way I heard it from a PAcBell "ISDN Specialist" at the TCA show was
$13 to $15 for full 2B+D non-measured for local calls.

  -- Ken

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: jtruitt@dw3f.ess.harris.com (Jim Truitt)
Subject: LOOKING FOR:Security for ISDN (references/documents/contacts/...)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:26:04 GMT
Reply-To: jtruitt@dw3f.ess.harris.com (Jim Truitt)
Organization: Harris GISD
Keywords: ISDN, security

Hi

	I just started on a project that is evaluating security for ISDN. I
have been trying to locate
material on the Internet dealing with this topic. Any pointers to sites
where references/documents
can be picked up would be helpful and appreciated.

Thanks
Jim Truitt

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| NAME	:JAMES O. TRUITT (JIM)		| HARRIS CORPORATION	| INFORMATION |
| PHONE	:1-407-984-5791			| P. O. BOX 98000	|   SYSTEMS   |
| FAX	:1-407-984-6323			| MELBOURNE, FL 32902	|  DIVISION   |
| EMAIL	:HARRIS.JTRUITT@IC1D.HARRIS.COM	|			|             |	
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: clancy@csrc.ncsl.nist.gov (Kim Clancy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: help
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:50:59 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology

I just inherited the security management of an ISDN switch and a G-2 System
85 switch.  I don't even know what the difference between these 2 switches
are other than one is digital and one is ISDN.  Can anyone point me to some
material I can read to help me with my new duties?  I would *GREATLY*
appreciate any help.
From: cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Passive bus??? was: Re: isdn equipment
Date: 1 Oct 1992 20:51:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

Thanks, that's a real nice follow-up.

In article <1992Oct1.171057.5575@gandalf.ca>, cstorry@gandalf.ca (Chuck Storry) writes:
 
|> The real cost may be closer to $500 today, hence there may be some cost
|> savings to integral U interface.

We pay PacTel Meridian $210 for NT1 and power supply.  Your mileage may
vary.  We're an Educational Institution and a big Centrex customer and I
don't know how much all that has to do with the price.  I think $210 is
high (for the customer), but the next-closest quote we got was over $400.

|> I'm not a voice expert but I gather that all current voice features are 
|> available on ISDN (although some may be accessed in a proprietary manner)
|> in addition some new ones which may be interresting to certain users. The
|> one that comes to mind is the ability to get calling line id for an incoming
|> call while a call is in progress, instead of the call waiting beep, 

I hadn't thought of this.  It's quite obviously useful in some future
scenario (where callerID is available, out-of-band signalling is
end-to-end all the time).

|> The uses I have for passive bus are not to interconnect devices on the
|> BRI together but in fact to allow multiple single devices simultaneous
|> attachment to the BRI. In case you weren't aware, your fax machine, phone,

Actually, I was aware of this but to do it we need not just the above
stuff from the future scenario, we also the end-to-end signalling with
agreed upon standards for addressing all these different devices (no?).
Or is a multiple phone number hack the only way to solve this reliably?

|> Another interresting consideration for those who still want a U interface
|> on their CPE; should this interface simply be a U termination or should it
|> really look like an NT1 and not only terminate the U interface but also
|> present the S interface to other devices for "parallel" attachment ?

Yes.  ;-)

|> Who builds this NT1 function in ? the phone, the data ta, the fax ...

Well, Teleos has that option for their PC card.  I think others do also,
but don't remember off the top of my head.

My main concern is cost in the home.  I want to be able to provide 
Telecommuting services to literally hundreds of very cost-conscious
individuals.  $210 is a lot to this crowd. Almost none of this market
is going to be running around buying ISDN phones and fax machines, etc,
particularly when they have to keep their POTS anyway because of PUCC
regulations.  ISDN continues to be a big chicken-and-egg problem, and
both cost and availability need to improve dramatically.

  Thanks again,
	    Cliff Frost
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Passive bus??? was: Re: isdn equipment
Date: 3 Oct 1992 00:21:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct2.131814.16363@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes:
|> 
|> ...            On a multipoint interface (BRI with passive bus), the SETUP
|> is offered simultaneously to all devices on the interface.  Each device can
|> then examine the SETUP and reply with either a RELease COMplete w/cause =
|> "incompatible destination" or with a CALL PROCeeding message indicating
|> acceptance.  So for instance, when a 64k UDI call with a HLC of Group 4 Fax,
|> the voice set and PC card respond with a RELease COMplete, and the Group 4
|> Fax machine responds with a CALL PROCeeding.

How widely is HLC passed end-to-end?  Do all the different switch
manufacturers pass it compatibly?  And how solid are the specs for the
various types of devices that can be named in the SETUP?

I'm guess I'm beginning to give a hoot about the passive bus after all.

    Thanks,
	Cliff
From: cstorry@gandalf.ca (Chuck Storry)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: isdn equipment - $100 NT1 including PS ??
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:50:20 GMT
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd.

In <1992Sep25.114803.23902@xtcn.com> lamb@xtcn.com (Richard Lamb) writes:

>$100 NT1 including PS ?? Wonderful ! Let me know where I can get such a 
>beast ! I am getting quotes around $205 and this wont wash with users trying
>to replace thier modem with a ISDN TA. $100 is more like it.

>					Rick

It seems I was mis-informed. The $400 price I mentioned was for an AT&T
AMI NT1 and the $100 2B1Q NT1 doesn't exist. 
We have been buying the AT&T NT1U200 (including ps) for $189.
Hope this clears it up.
>-- 
-- 
Chuck Storry, Principal Designer      CAnet: cstorry@gandalf.ca
Gandalf Data Ltd.                     Voice: (613) 723-6500
130 Colonnade Rd So, Nepean, Ontario  Fax: (613) 226-1717
Canada  K2E 7M4
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.servers
Subject: FAQ request
From: csc45101_08@dhvx20.csudh.edu
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:24:48 PST
Organization: CSU, DOMINGUEZ HILLS

     Is there a FAQ for this group?
     If so how can I get it?

Thank you !

/Ed
      

Xref: sparky comp.dcom.servers:95 comp.sys.sun.hardware:4750
From: rsj@wa4mei (Randy Jarrett)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.servers,comp.sys.sun.hardware
Subject: Re: Terminal servers and modem control?
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:04:33 GMT
Organization: Amateur Radio Gateway WA4MEI, Chamblee, GA

In <1992Sep28.170204.1428@xylogics.com> carlson@steam.Xylogics.COM (James Carlson) writes:

>Randy Jarrett (rsj@wa4mei) writes:
>[...]
>>  Their support has been exemplary in all instances but one.
>>They still havn't gotten their rtelnet program to consistantly work
>>properly. 

>These rtelnet problems are being addressed, and have been solved for a
>significant variety of hosts.  For more information, please send a
>message to annex-support@xylogics.com or call for technical support.

>--
>James Carlson <carlson@xylogics.com>            Tel:  +1 617 272 8140
>Annex Software Support / Xylogics, Inc.               +1 800 225 3317
>53 Third Avenue / Burlington MA  01803-4491     Fax:  +1 617 272 3159

Most interesting, I received a call today from Xylogics tech support
today.  I have had an open (unresolved) complaint with their about the
rtelnet program for several months.  This was one of the main features
that lead to our decision in purchasing the Annex servers over other
brands when we were first looking 2 years ago.  At this time our main
production system was an NCR 800 (glad that bomb is gone) and we were
assured that the rtelnet would work on our system.  As of the time that
we got rid of it last year it still didn't work.  At that time we moved
to an HP 9000/827 and were told that rtelnet worked on it with no problems
at all.  As of this writing and with several upgrades to their software
it still doesn't work.  This causes me to have to put my outbound modems
directly on the systems.

BUT!!!

This is really my only complaint about Xylogics.  My other problems have
been fixed quickly and professionally.

AND!!

I still recommend the ANNEX III servers to others and feel that they
are still the best in their segment of the market. We have 4 of them
now which is quite a bit for a small company of about 130 employees.


I do have a question though..  when using rtelnet to a modem on the server
how can cu or uucico know that the modem is busy when using the modems
for inbound calls also????  I have seen this happen several times where a
modem was busy with an incoming call and cu or uucico try to make an out
bound call and just sit there until it times out and try again on the same
port.  How can this be handled??


Randy

-- 
Randy Jarrett  WA4MEI 
UUCP  ...!{emory,gatech}!wa4mei!rsj   | MAIL: 54 Patterson Rd.
PHONE +1 404 822 4073		      | Lawrenceville, GA 30244