HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:34:24 GMT
From: kevinc@ups.com (Kevin C. Castner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones
Organization: UPS Research & Development
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 903, Message 6 of 15

Paul S. Sawyer (paul@unhtel.unh.edu) wrote:

> Eavesdropping on radio communications isn't easy to do, but it 
> can happen.

> [Moderator's Note: The only thing wrong with that story is the last
> paragraph: Cellular eavesdropping is quite easy to do and is does
> happen a lot.     PAT]

My understanding is that it is illegal to scan the frequencies used by
the cellular carriers (or at least against FCC reqs), as well as the
frequencies used by cordless phones (49.7 MHz, but don't quote me on
that).  The limiting factor is if any portion of the call goes over a
landline, then the entire call is considered to be secured and immune
from tapping, etc. without a warrant.

If this is the case, I don't understand how this evidence can be
introduced into court.

If I'm wrong, please let me know what the latest legal wranglings on
the issue are.


Kevin C. Castner     kevinc@ups.com
Unix Administrator   United Parcel Service


[Moderator's Note: Well as pointed out before, they are not stupid
people and would not attempt to introduce illegally obtained evidence
in court. They would simply use the illegal evidence to give them a
starting point for collecting evidence on their own. If I hear you
say over the phone 'so and so would be a good witness' then I won't
ever admit I heard you say it ... I'll simply go see so and so before
you have a chance to get there. Merest coincidence that I happened to
think of it also ... :)   PAT]
From: lmadison@ie.oracle.com (Linc Madison)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998
Date: 13 Dec 92 17:44:52 GMT
Organization: Oracle Europe
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 904, Message 10 of 14

I'm sorry, folks, but this is the most incredibly BRAIN-DEAD scheme
I've ever heard of.  The idea is to split Australia into four area
codes: Queensland (07), New South Wales/ACT (02), Victoria/Tasmania
(03), and W.A./S.A./N.T. (08), and then give everyone an eight-digit
number.

Are they going to institute local calling within each area code?  Not
likely!  Also, you'll have to dial eight digits to make a local call
in the tiniest, most remote town in the nation.  There are only a
handful of cities in the world that have eight-digit numbers: Paris,
Rome, Tokyo, Mataranka ...

Further, the alternatives are so OBVIOUS it's painful.  If Sydney or
Melbourne needs to split, you can divide them into 020/021 or 030/031.
Then, some years down the road, you can open up 02N and 03N codes if
they're needed.  Adelaide you can put into 081, allowing local numbers
to begin with a wider range of digits.  For Perth and Brisbane, it's a
little dicier, because you'd have to pick one of the initial digits of
current numbers and change to that as the last digit of the area code:
for example, 092 and 072.  You'd have to do something in two stages,
as the current plan proposes, to avoid confusion between the old (09)
23a-bcde and the new (092) 3ab-cdef, for example.  You could, for
example, pick the (09X) code with the fewest exchanges, and make all
the 09X into 09YX.  (Say, for illustration, that 096 has the fewest
numbers.  Move all 096 numbers into prefixes beginning with 2, 3, 4,
and 5.  Then change the area codes 091 -> 0961, 096 -> 0966, etc.)
Tasmania is easy -- it just comes in as a second phase of the
Melbourne split.  This plan doesn't account for overcrowding in 04X
05X 06X areas, but it's just a first hack.

It just seems to me that there could hardly be a more user-unfriendly
plan than the one currently proposed.  Having an extra digit into the
area codes seems vastly preferable to having universal eight-digit
local numbers.  Who designed the new plan -- AUSTEL or GTE??


Linc Madison  ==  LMadison@IE.Oracle.COM
(Note: this account will probably expire December 11, 1992.)
From: jmiller@wendy.bowlgreen.oh.us (Jim Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Having Problems With Dracon Butt Set
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:05:19 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 4 of 16

Hi,

   My Dracon TS-21 butt set won't dial anymore. I am writing to the
net to see if anyone else has had the same problem.  The set works OK
in all functions except the tone pad quit working.

   When the switch is set to pulse, the buttons do absolutely nothing
 -- no clicks, no audible noises on the line, nothing at all.

   On the tone setting, pressing a button seems to place a large load
on the line. If you are listening to dial tone, the volume of the dial
tone gets knocked down to the point that it is hard to hear. Once the
button is released, dial tone comes back to normal level. No DTMF
tones are generated at all.

   I have a theory regarding what might have happened. I was
troubleshooting an installation that had two POTS lines which had
become shorted together somewhere. I was clipping onto one line at the
demarc and dialing the other with the butt set. Since the lines were
shorted together, I could hear LOUD ringing voltage from the other
line getting into the line I was clipped onto. I am guessing that some
ring voltage got into the keypad while I was dialing, and fried the
keypad, although I would think that the butt set would be protected
internally from this with some type of clamping circuit.

   Maybe it just went bad, though. Anyhow, I need to find a repair
source for this unit.  If you know of a repair source for Harris-
Dracon products, would you let me know who/where/etc?

Thanks -- your help is very much appreciated.


Jim Miller   jmiller@wendy.bowlgreen.oh.us
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:41:08 GMT
From: wtho@ciba-geigy.ch (Tom Hofmann)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998
Organization: Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Basel, Switzerland
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 906, Message 14 of 16

In article <telecom12.904.10@eecs.nwu.edu> lmadison@ie.oracle.com
(Linc Madison) writes:

> Are they going to institute local calling within each area code?  Not
> likely!  Also, you'll have to dial eight digits to make a local call
> in the tiniest, most remote town in the nation.  There are only a
> handful of cities in the world that have eight-digit numbers: Paris,
> Rome, Tokyo, Mataranka ...

Every phone number in France (even in the smallest village) has eight
digits.


Tom
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 03:50:56 PST
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: GTE Mastercard
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 910, Message 6 of 11

The new GTE Mastercard was mentioned here the other day.  I think I
will start a new hobby ... collecting bank credit cards with no annual
fee issued by telephone companies.  So far I have AT&T VISA and
Ameritech Complete Mastercard.

Interested parties can get an application by calling 800-643-0997.  I
have not received mine yet, but my guess is that just like with AT&T
and Ameritech, one does not have to be a telephone customer to get
consumer credit from any of these companies.


Tad Cook   tad@ssc.com
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:57:34 GMT
From: mcrware!!troyf@uunet.UU.NET (Troy Frericks)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Pocket Auto-Dialer vs Pocket Schedule Keeper
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 906, Message 11 of 16

I have been WAITING for a pocket auto-dialer that has the capabilities
of something like the Sharp Wizard or the Casio Boss.  Rolodex has
also released some products, but nobody has combined the features of
auto-dial and organizer.

The Boss and Wizard both will keep a personal 'phone book', but they
will not generate DTMF tones.  Go to the trouble of entering the names
and numbers, and you still have to dial them yourself.

My question is: WHY? Does anybody know?  I've been watching for one
for about two years. I'm about ready to give in and buy an organizer,
but auto-dial would be nice for making a cell call (while driving).


Troy Frericks                      Internet: troyf@MICROWARE.COM
Microware Systems Corporation          UUCP: uunet!mcrware!troyf
1900 NW 114th St                      Phone: (515)224-1929
Des Moines, IA 50325-7077               Fax: (515)224-1352


[Moderator's Note: How would you use it with a cellular phone? Unlike
a conventional phone which provides an audio path (to something
somewhere willing to listen to the tones you send from whatever
source) immediatly when you go off hook, a cell phone does not open
the audio path -- does not listen to anything beeped or spoken to it
 -- until after the number has been dialed and the SEND key pushed.
Then it does its thing with the tower, the finally it opens the audio
circuit in the phone.  Cellular phone speed dialing makes better sense
in this case I would think.   PAT]
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 00:53:48 CST
From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: US Sprint's PC Pursuit
Reply-To: jack.winslade%drbbs@ivgate.omahug.org
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 910, Message 10 of 11

In a message dated 08-DEC-92, <mlksoft> writes:

> Having used PC Pursuit since 1986, I second PAT's comments.
> If you understand the limitations of packet networks, it works
> admirably for applications as diverse as interactive dialup,
> asynchronous DECnet, and UUCP.  At $30 for 30 hours of non-prime
> time, it is a good deal, especially if your usage isn't exclusively
> file transfers.

A few years ago, I tried using PCP for UUCP (g) transfers between here
(Omaha) and the LA area.  I NEVER got it to work right, despite
playing around with the various PCP parameters.  Typically it would
make it through the initial 'chat' phase and the init a/b/c handshake,
but when the actual session started it would kind of squirt back and
forth for a while and then error out and abort.  Closing the window
size seemed to increase the time before failure, but not eliminate it.
 
However, I must admit that it works quite well with Zmodem transfers.
On very large files it seems to predictably generate one error (buffer
barf ??) every 200k or so, but this recovers nicely.

 
Good day.  JSW
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1   DRBBS  (1:285/666.0)
Date: 20 Dec 92 13:36:11 GMT
From: mtndew!friedl@uunet.UU.NET
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Anybody Know of LARGE Modem Server Systems?
Organization: Steve's Personal machine / Tustin, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 912, Message 13 of 15

Howdy, telecomsters,

     I have a customer who may need to set up a huge number of modem
lines to service incoming calls to his UNIX system, and he wants to
find a system that already does this rather than roll his own.  While
we could probably do it ourselves for small numbers of lines (say, up
to 32), these may just not scale up very well to handling several
hundred modems and serial lines and phone lines.

     Shameless sales pitches from vendors who have experience with
will be very much accepted and appreciated.


     Thanks much,

Stephen J Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin, CA |     +1 714 544-6561
3b2-kind-of-guy  | I speak for me ONLY |   KA8CMY   | uunet!mtndew!friedl
From: puma <puma@halcyon.com>
Subject: RE: GATEWAY TELEPATH @ $1
Originator: bbs@halcyon.com
Organization: organized??  me??
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:51:07 GMT

> A tie-in sale is one in which the sale of a desirable product (in this
> case the TelePath) is conditioned on the sale of a less desirable
> and/or more expensive product (in this case a Gateway computer).

I believe they have a loophole...
From what I've heard about that modem, I think that neither
item is desirable...

-- puma, who still has 8 lives left  (maybe 7, after this...)
>
From: radel@bach.udel.edu (Todd Radel)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: V.32bis fpr SALE!!
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:34:46 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

Just to offer a different point of view:  I spoke to Mubashir Cheema this
summer about buying two SFM V.32bis modems for the hospital where I was
doing research (the A.I. duPont Institute Children's Hospital, FWIW).
He was happy to take a university purchase order.  

Supposedly he shipped the modems via UPS ground, but they took several
weeks to arrive.  It could simply be that the university delayed a while
in sending the checks after the P.O.; I'm not sure.

At any rate, we had no problems dealing with him.  I guess you could
therefore consider this one of the recommendations you were looking for.


-- 
Todd Radel                   | "Hello.  My name is Inigo Montoya.  You killed
Honors CISC undergrad        | my father.  Prepare to die."
University of Delaware       | "STOP SAYING THAT!" -- _The_Princess_Bride_
Call the Politically Incorrect BBS! (302) 837-8088 V.32bis/24hrs Fido 1:150/380
From: rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: most recent rom's on zoom v.32bis faxmodem
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:02:26 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

I recently posted a question about the most recent rom's for a ZOOM v.32bis
faxmodem and several people asked me to post my results.  Well, the most
recent rom verion is 1.2.  I also was having problems connecting to 2400
baud modems occationally but ZOOM claims to have fixed this in their more
recent modems.

--Ronald Van Iwaarden
From: edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Explanation of V.Fast wanted.
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:32:09 GMT
Organization: RAND

In article <s9qXVB3w165w@eastwind.mcds.com> chorn@eastwind.mcds.com writes:
>I'm just curious why it is going to take the CCITT so long to settle on
>something. Is it all politics? VESA did their local bus in a month or so,
>why will the CCITT take a couple years?

Because V.fast is a few orders of magnitude more complicated than the VESA
local bus.  It will undoubtedly be considerably more complicated than
V.32bis.

>I'm mainly concerned because already we have the Motorola Codex, and soon
>probably the AT&T Paradyne "V.fast" modems on the market. And by mid-1994
>everyone will probably be in the fray with a "V.fast" modem and they'll all
>use proprietary protocols. By then it may even be too late to formalize a
>standard, especially if one of the others hits a home run.

Don't forget that these same manufacturers are the ones who are developing
the V.fast standard.  Although going the proprietary route might seem
inviting for the short run, reaching a standard enlarges the overall
market--a likely win-win situation for all those involved.

The need for interoperability is a powerful force in the modem market.
Modems based on proprietary modulations only appeal to a part of the
overall market; if "everyone" has their own incompatible "V.fast" modem,
each will find themselves in a rather rigid market niche.  However, once a
standard is reached, nearly every modem user becomes a potential customer.

A good standard facilitates competition, rather than inhibiting it.  I'd
rather the V.fast people take the time to do it right, and not put forward
a half-baked standard which would ultimately hurt modem users and vendors
alike.

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org
From: john.navas@uttsbbs.uucp (John Navas)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: RE: GATEWAY TELEPATH @ $1
Date: 20 Dec 92 12:47:00 GMT
Reply-To: john.navas@uttsbbs.uucp (John Navas)
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591

rorem@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Doug Rorem) writes:

RE:  Unlawful tie-in sales practices

 > FYI.. Gateway isn't the only company that does this.  Drew Kaplan
 > (aka DAK industries) advertises CD-ROM bundles in his catalogs
 > separately but has fine print that says you can't buy them unless
 > you buy a CD-ROM reader as well.

There are in fact many companies that try to skirt the law, and some
of them step over the line.  However, from my reading of a DAK
catalog, it stops just short of the line by *only* selling the CD-ROM
bundles at the time of sale of a CD-ROM drive; i.e., unlike Gateway,
you can't get them at some future time.  Furthermore, all the CD's are
of course available separately (through other distributors).

Best regards,
John

p.s.  Personally, I rank DAK just one notch above the National
Enquirer.  ;-)
                                                                     
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Detect Phone Activities??
Organization: very little
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:07:36 GMT
Keywords: a

In article <wilsonl.724363408@sfu.ca> wilsonl@fraser.sfu.ca (Wilson Wang Shun Leung) writes:
>Is there any software that can detect or record phone activities (like what
>number has been dialed, when it is done and how long the call takes,etc)
>with no special hardware but a modem installed ?


No.  A modem would need to monitor the line while in the on-hook state
with tone dial and rotary dial decoders, which it does not have.


-- 
 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  206-527-4089  (home)     |   MCI Mail: 3288544   
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   3288544@mcimail.com 
              |  Internet: tad@ssc.com           or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad   
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: scottb@sun1x.actc.res.utc.com (Scottb)
Subject: Sportster 14.4/16.8
Organization: United Technologies Research Center
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:19:33 GMT

Hi,

I have a USR Sportster 14.4 modem with the 4.1 version rom.  By poking
certian memory locations, I can make it a 16.8 baud modem (or so I have
be told).  Problem - when I connect to a friends modem (same modem setup)
, the best cps that we se is 1600 cps.  I would think that with both
modems set to the 16.8 speed, we should see a higher through-put.
I dont recall the exact modem settings (its at home) but &k1 is set
&b1 is also set.  The buad speed is locked at 57.6 via the comm 
software.  Has anyone gotten a higher cps with this type of setup?
and if so, how?

Thanks in advance.

-- 
Disclaimer:  I didn't do it!  Nobody saw me do it!  You can't prove anything! 
             My opinions are my own.   They do not reflect anyone/thing else!
\/       preferred        \/
scottb%nw8550@utrcgw.utc.com            |           sdb@rcinet.utc.com
From: carlos@infoserv.com (Carlos Dominguez)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: new Boca ROMs
Keywords: BOCA, upgrade, ROM, free
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 00:37:52 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Dominguez UseNet, Brooklyn NY, USA

mwitt@ogicse.cse.ogi.edu (Mike Witt)

> Are these for the internal modem too, or just the external?

For both the internal and external... Both are identical..
---
  ___ ___  __   .   ___  __  //  Carlos Dominguez, MS-DOS Enthusiast !
 /   /__/ /_ ) /   /  / /_  // | carlos@infoserv.com  carlos@dorsai.com
(__ (  / /  \ (__ (__/ __/ ..  | carlos@phantom.com   FIDONET 1:278/706
                            
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: scottb@sun1x.actc.res.utc.com (Scottb)
Subject: Re: question: escape +++  -->  NO CARRIER
Organization: United Technologies Research Center
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:07:02 GMT

sosc1103@wc07.yorku.ca (Ming He) writes:
: When I use +++ to escape on line to command, I lost my carrier.  This
: command working well before.  So I must do something wrong on setting.
: Thus I need to know how to return to the factory setting (using 'AT'
: command?).
: 
: THANKS A LOT!
: 
: -- ming


On the Hayes modem (and most compatibles) issuing the command AT&F will
recall factory defaults.  To make the defaults permanent type either   
AT&W or on some modems AT&W0.  Hope this helps.
-- 
Disclaimer:  I didn't do it!  Nobody saw me do it!  You can't prove anything! 
             My opinions are my own.   They do not reflect anyone/thing else!
\/       preferred        \/
scottb%nw8550@utrcgw.utc.com            |           sdb@rcinet.utc.com
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Prodigy's "Eagle" modem
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:45:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>I just noticed that Prodigy is pushing a 9600 baud service, and is
>selling an "Eagle" v.32-capable modem to go with it for $200.  Does
>anyone know anything about this modem?  I read somewhere that the
>modem did v.32bis, v.42bis, and fax, but Prodigy (in keeping with
>its "aimed at the computer-clueless" philosophy) gave no useful
>information about the modem at all except that it would work with
>their 9600 baud v.32 service.

>If it really does have v.32bis/v.42bis/fax, then that's the lowest
>price yet -- low enough to convince me to spring for a new modem as
>soon as my boss tells me I have to bring back his Worldblazer.

You can get details from Wolfgang Henke (woflgang@netcom.com,
wolfgang@rahul.net) but I think the Prodigy version is the
v.32 Digicom Scout, not the v.32bis Digicom Scout Plus; I
could be mistaken.
 
The fax will be Class 1 since Digicom seems to have waited until
Class 2 specs were finalized before putting anything out.
I have recently acquired the Scout Plus, through Wolfgang, and so 
far the modem end has worked out of the box for connections to a 
range of 2400, v.32 and v.32bis modems without problems. I haven't 
tried out faxing yet, but that was of little importance to me anyway;
Wolfgang reported testing it with several faxes successfully -
again, check with him. He is selling them, but seems pretty
objective about their performance and how they compare.


-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-7986
From: f_cnnghamjk@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Supra's fax and e-mail address
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:41:49 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <OD.6badnetOA92-910-104p0_1C1B8112@piraya.bad.se>, Klaus_Ellegaard@kampsax.bbs.bad.se (Klaus Ellegaard) writes:
> I'd like to thank everyone answering my posting on Supra's fax and
> e-mail address.
> 
> This is a short summary of the replies I got - Supra owners: write
> it down for future use...
> 
> Supra's
> 

> 
> - e-mail: Supratech@Supra.uucp
>           Supratech%Supra.uucp@cs.orst.edu

This one worked for me: supratech@supra.com. (seven day lag)

Randomly, Kelly Cunningham
<deviate@lipschitz.sfasu.edu><f_cnnghamjk@ccsvax.sfasu.edu><jkellyc@tenet.edu>
 NeXTMail (favored) MIME (ok)     VMS Mail (tolerated)          MIME (ok)
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home."
               -- Ken Olson, President and visionary, Digital Equipment, 1977
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems