HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 15:11:49 EST
From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: BC Tel Pay Numbers
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 847, Message 10 of 17

On 8 Nov 92 17:30:54 GMT, Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(Leonard Erickson) said:

> The problem in Vancouver is that BC Tel has recently started up
> pay-per-call numbers, but they do not yet have identifiable prefixes.
> Therefore, ankies have been calling various BBSes that have
> call-back-verify, and leaving these pay-per-call numbers.  The sysop
> who talked to me had lost Erickson> about $50 in the last month, and
> this has only just started.

To which our Esteemed Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Well, that's the price he is going to pay for not
> wanting to personally verify his users. I know a couple BBS sysops who
> take the trouble to at least call each user once.  Having users who
> know that you know who they are helps keep boards in nice condition. PAT]


Pat,

It must be wonderful to be so perfect and smug and sanctimonious.  You
moan and groan about the upsurge in crime, and about the downsurge in
people taking responsibility for their own actions.  Yet you
consistantly excuse criminals who prey upon an unsuspecting public
with tricks such as this and the beeper scam.

It's one thing to expect people to know about what a 900 number is.
But when the pager scam happened in New York, public awareness of the
nature of 540-xxxx numbers was very low, unless you read the seamier
ads in the back pages of the {Village Voice}.  And Leonard has stated
that BC Telecom has *NOT* made their pay-per-call numbers clearly
identifiable.  So how is somebody to know *before* they call that the
call will cost them money?

Using ruses to get people to call your pay-per-call line based on
their ignorance is fraud, pure and simple.  The a**holes who do it
deserve the full force of the bunko laws.  Your attitude that the only
people with the technical sophistication of a contributor to this
forum have a right to any consumer protection is insufferable and
unsupportable in any but the most dog-eat-dog lassaiz-faire world.


Andy Sherman   Salomon Inc  -  Unix Systems Support  -  Rutherford, NJ
(201) 896-7018  -  andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com
"These opinions are mine, all *MINE*.  My employer can't have them."
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:12:07 -0500
From: Joe.Bergstein@f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bergstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Armored Phone
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 847, Message 4 of 17

amb@cs.columbia.edu (andrew m. boardman) writes:

> I need a wall-mountable telephone for indoors use that's fairly theft-
> and vandalism-proof.  Who sells this kind of stuff?

Try  CEECO
     1580 N.W. 65th Avnue
     Plantation, Florida 33313
     305.587.5430   305.587.5440

Saw this firm's booth at a trade show last year.  They specialize in
producing steel clad phones for use where vandalism is highly likely.
I believe their main market is for phones is *prisons*.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:37:00 +0000 
From: Doug (D.W.J.) Zolmer <dwjz@bnr.ca>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Broadcasting Towers 
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 860, Message 4 of 9

This is a little off-topic for telecom, but the stories about people
complaining about broadcast towers reminds me of a similar situation
in the city of Kanata, a small suburban city west of Ottawa (Canada's
capital city).

Some high tension power lines were proposed about 100 metres from the
backyards of a new subdivision.  For two years people whined and
complained.  After the environmental study showed there would be no
problems, the power lines were installed.

Almost immediately, complaints about health problems and other
mysterious goings-on (such as television interference, and appliances
turning on and off by themselves) started appearing.  The interesting
things is that these complaints preceded the time (by about four
months) when current was actually flowing through those power lines.

Sheesh!

 
Doug W.J. Zolmer  Disclaimer: My opinions only, not BNR's
7N61 - Service Control Point - Number Services Design
Voice +1 613 763 8217 or ESN 393 8217
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:47:16 GMT
From: wdh@netcom.com (Bill Hofmann)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Dumb Question About LATA/Toll
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 852, Message 8 of 14

It truly is a dumb question, probably a definitional one.  Are all
intra-LATA calls non-toll, and all inter-LATA calls toll, by
definition?

Following on to that, can anyone suggest some good basic documents
about the structure of telecom in the US, so I don't ask these
questions again?  Also, various people have posted LATA information.
Is information about what prefixes of a given NPA are in a given LATA
(if there's > one LATA per an NPA) available, and if so, from whom?
What's a good first phone number to call with questions like this?


Inquiring minds need to know.

Bill Hofmann (wdh@netcom.com)


[Moderator's Note: LATAs are the geographic territories each telco is
allowed to serve. It could sort of be compared to their 'franchise'
territory. Usually you'll see one telco per LATA, but not always.
LATAs can be and frequently do cover a wide geographic area. In such
cases, there will probably be toll calls between various intra-LATA
points. On the other hand, two communities which sit on opposite sides
of some boundary line (such as a river, or a state line dividing an
urban area in two parts) may well have a different LATA (and possibly
a different telco) on each side of the boundary -- yet calls between
the two sides will be treated as 'local calls' by mutual agreement
between the telcos if there happen to be two of them. I guess it would
be safe to say that with the exception of places right along the edge
of a LATA, inter-LATA calls would in most cases be a toll call; not
because of the different LATAs, but because of the mileage involved. 
Does anyone know the exact rule by which LATAs were drawn up?  PAT]
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:48:12 GMT
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Personal 800 Numbers
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 847, Message 16 of 17

In <telecom12.846.8@eecs.nwu.edu> dhclose@cco.caltech.edu (David H.
Close) writes:

> Just FYI, "Call Home America" offers unpublished 800 service (real
> number, no password after connect) for $3.75/month plus usage between
> 16c and 25c/ minute.  Full ANI billing, charged to your credit card.
> Portable in that you can change the destination number anywhere in the
> US.

It should be noted that the destination number must be changed by
calling customer service, and it is promised to take up to ten days
(although a recent change precipitated by moving took less than seven
days).  It isn't something that can be done "on-line" at a moment's
notice like AT&T's 700 service.

Rates are a bit higher if the call originates and terminates in Texas.

> IMHO, a terrific deal, cheaper than collect or calling cards
> (especially if an AOS gets involved), can't be abused like the Call-Me
> card.  Great for college students.

There are only two dangers: giving the number to someone that likes to
talk on your nickel, and wrong numbers.  However, CHA gives credit for
wrong numbers, if your 800 number is not published.


Paul Barnett             Internet: barnett@convex.com
Convex Computer Corp.      Office: 214-497-4846
Richardson, TX        Mobile/Home: 214-236-8438
Date: 19 Nov 92 07:02:25 EST
From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: GE Quick*Net Gateway?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 862, Message 4 of 8

Would anyone know of Internet or Compu$erve gateways to GE Quick*Net?
 
And while I have your attention ;), would you also know of gateways
into Sprint's public x.400 system (perhaps it may be the remains of
the old Telemail system?).  I have a few friends with mail accounts on
both of those systems (which talk to each other) and was wondering if
they accept mail from the rest of the world (yet).  Thanks.

 
Alan Boritz	72446.461@compuserve.com


[Moderator's Note: In the latter case, 'address@sprint.com' will get
you where you want to go.   PAT]
From: jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Headsets etc.
Date: 21 Nov 92 12:53:48 GMT
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 866, Message 1 of 12

In article <telecom12.860.6@eecs.nwu.edu> Cliff Sharp <clifto@indep1.
chi.il.us> writes:

> If anyone knows where I could get another Nady Systems headset, I'd
> enjoy knowing, since this one is years old and may not last too many
> more decades ...

That goes for me too.  Perhaps someone can help us all out on locating
this.  Domo Arigato!


Jack (John) Adams		Bellcore NVC 2Z-220
(908) 758-5372 {Voice}		(908) 758-4389 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com	kahuna@attmail.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 15:34:44 GMT
From: monty@vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: British Telecom Profits
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 852, Message 7 of 14

Hello,

I recently noticed this on teletext (textual information sent with the
TV picture -- I don't remember the technical name!):

British Telecom (BT) recently announced pre-tax profits of 1.027bn
pounds (sterling) for the six months up to 30 September, this being
36.2% down on last years figure of 1.61 bn.(NB 1 bn = 100,000,000).
This (apparently) works out at about 65 pounds profit a second
(compared to last years 102 pounds). BTs voluntary redundancy program
has led to a loss of thousands of jobs from the company and a
reduction in profits due to their payments.

With these sorts of figures, it is not surprising that BT is facing
stiff competition from other providers (CATV). Perhaps due to this
and/or excessive profits BT has charge all calls within the UK on
Sunday afternoon/evening at local rates for two of the last Sundays.
Maybe they are listening to their customers?? I don't suppose so!


Cheers.
Date: 15 NOV 92 07:36:31 EST
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in Texas
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 843, Message 2 of 11

In article <telecom12.841.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, edsr!gwr@uunet.UU.NET
(George Rapp) writes:

> Just heard on the radio that Caller-ID has been officially denied to
> Texas residential subscribers.  It was just a snippet, so no details
> were provided, but the issue was recently presented to the Texas PUC
> (Public Utilities Commission), and I assume they made this decision.

> The major point of contention was not the privacy issue, as it has
> been in other states, but the Texas state law that prohibits attaching
> "wiretap" or "trap and trace" devices to phone lines.  (From what I
> understand, a "trap and trace" device is defined as one that is
> capable of recording the phone number from which a caller is calling.
> I have no idea why this type of device was ever outlawed.  Looks like
> we have a law that needs changing.)

This is nothing new, it has been an ongoing issue for several years.

In Austin, there is an organization called the Central Texas SysOps
Association which is a group of BBS SysOps and Users. We have been
active in a variety of telephone company related issues at the local,
state and national level.

Anyway, about two years ago we had a meeting in which the guest
speaker was from the state Attorney Generals office to discuss the
issues surrounding this law.

The AG's office is on both sides of the issue. On the one side, this
IS state law and must be enforced. On the other side, the AG's office
realizes the benefit of being able to know beforehand (or during the
call), where the person is calling from (in fact, they would like the
capability for their own offices for situations where they need it for
official reasons).

However, it seems that in Texas, the "right to privacy" seems to be on
the person invading YOUR privacy, ie: the person who calls YOU is
entitled to privacy rather than YOU being entitled to privacy from
unwanted calls.

So it goes ...


Regards,

Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed
SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is
Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 11:04:06 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Advice Sought
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 844, Message 7 of 12

In article <telecom12.836.3@eecs.nwu.edu> 1012breuckma@vmsf.csd.mu.edu
writes:

> I understand there are cellphones now that will, if you desire, answer
> a call by themselves and accept a touchtone message that you can
> retrieve later.  You do, then, get charged for one minute of airtime.

The OKI 900 does this (also private labelled by AT&T).  If you enable
this mode, it will answer with the standard "beep-beep-beep" that
callers would associate with a display pager.  If you combine this
mode with turning off the ringing volume, this is a handy feature to
use when you're in a meeting, expecting a call, and don't want to be
disturbed.  I find that no-answer transfer to voicemail works better
for me, though.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
From: tpang@sfu.ca (Tsui Ting Debbie Pang)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Apartment Callbox Ties in With Telco Line Annoyance?
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:15:14 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 858, Message 1 of 13

I live in an apartment complex which uses a callbox at the front door
and it rings thru on my phone line (primary line). But there are some
times when it has problems:

1. When I am using modem, disable call-waiting won't work if someone
rings my call box, since I can't disable their stupid tie-in to the
PBX.  Luckily it doesn't happen much in my case.

2. When I am on a phone call, and someone rings my call box, I could
'flash' to the call box, and open the gate/door, but can't flash back.
The other side was hung up when I flash to the call box!

Is there any way for the apartment management to improve the hardware
of the PBX to make it nicer?

Call-waiting is called call-alert in B.C., which took me a while to
get used to, having used to the term call-waiting when living in
California.  Also they charge CDN$0.75 extra per month for cancel-
call-waiting!

Before I have the V.32bis/V.42bis modem, my dial-in to the site I am
using now has lots of line noise, now it doesn't but sometimes I got
hung up after a few hours.

My friend in San Diego was on his modem and has his call-waiting
cancelled, but got broken thru from my long distance call, which never
happened to him before. Later I had the same experience from a long
distance call.  For him, I had to dial many times before I got the
break-thru.

Any answers? Thanks to any answers to the above.


David Tse


[Moderator's Note: In your questions above, (1) put your modem on your
second line, if you have one. Suspend call waiting is not supposed to
override front door intercom service. (2) The control unit for the
front door must be out of order, because flashing is supposed to work
the same way as with 'regular' call-waiting; it is supposed to put the
central office on hold while you respond to the door. Is the common
equipment on the premises of the apartment complex or is it in the
telco central office? (Both versions are in use.) Regards suspend
call-waiting being overridden by a long distance call, this is a
mystery to me. I'd think when the LD call is handed over to your local
CO for delivery, it would be treated like any other call and passed
through on call-waiting or bounced back to the sender if the line was
busy.  PAT]
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Dialing Changes in New England Tel Land
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:18:28 GMT
Organization: I.E.C.C.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 856, Message 6 of 13

> NETel is replacing [1+NNX-XXXX] with NNX-XXXX, which IMHO is a
> mistake, since there are some rather expensive calls that can be made
> within NPAs here, and the telecom-illiterate will have no easy way of
> knowing whether the NXX-XXXX they're about to dial is around the
> corner or 100 miles away.

One can always look it up in the phone book, since all NET phone books
have complete prefix listings for the local NPA.  Agreed, some
intra-NPA calls can be expensive, particularly in Vermont. (From
Burlington it's cheaper to call Los Angeles or Montreal than to call
Brattleboro.)  But I can say from experience in New Jersey that people
live without 1+ for toll perfectly well, and there is a definite
convenience factor in not having to remember what needs 1+ and what
doesn't.

I might also point out that due to the screwy local rates around here,
from here in Cambridge on weekends it's cheaper for me to call
Nantucket which is a 1+ toll call than it is to call Lexington which
is allegedly local.  But on my other phone line, calls to Lexington
are free because I have "metro" service.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
Date: 22 Nov 92 05:22:51 GMT
From: rizvi@paul.rutgers.edu (HGR)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular NPA-NXX List?
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 865, Message 6 of 10

Are there fixed sets of npa-nxx from which cellular numbers are
allocated (disjoint from non-cellular npa-nxx)? If so, is such a list
available thru some source (electronic/paper)?

Any help appreciated


Raghib


[Moderator's Note: The cellular companies get their number assignments
from the local telco. Whatever they are, they are. Is there a complete
list of the prefixes used in cellular service available by area code?  PAT]
From: lydic@ka8lvz.uucp (lydic)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Help Needed With DTMF Tones
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:15:45 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 854, Message 4 of 12

In article <telecom12.822.11@eecs.nwu.edu> Alistair Grant <100032.525@
CompuServe.COM> writes:

> I have a program that creates the average of these tones for the
> corresponding number but when I put it to the phone nothing happens.
> Can you tell me what is going wrong? I have the tones last for 0.5 of
> a second and seperated by 0.1 of a second. If you can shed any light
> on the subject that would be cool.

I think the averaging situation has been adaquately covered by the
rest of the net.  The standard durations for MF and I believe also for
DTMF are .070 on and .070 off (yes - 70 milliseconds).


John W. Lydic Jr    lydic@ka8lvz.cmhnet.org
From: peter@tahiti.umhc.umn.edu (Peter Eisch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Panasonic Info Request
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:16:40 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 850, Message 7 of 13

Got my first cell-phone yesterday.  It is a used Panasonic.  No books
came with it or other information.  Does anyone have a phone number to
any siginificant Panasonic office?


peter@tahiti.umhc.umn.edu
From: jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Dumb Question About LATA/Toll
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:45:45 GMT
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 854, Message 9 of 12

> Does anyone know the exact rule by which LATAs were drawn up?  PAT]

The Lata Design Requirements according to the Modified Final Judgment,
Section IV, 9.1-4 (A sure cure for insominia):

Any area may encompass one or more contiguous local exchanges serving
common social, economic, and other purposes - even where such
configuration transcends municpal or other local-government
boundaries.

Every point served by a BOC within a state will be included within an
exchange area.

Any area that includes part or all of one Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSAs are geographic areas defined by Uncle Sam for
gathering and reporting various federal statistics), or a Standard
Consolidated Statistical Area (SCSA) in the case of densely populated
states, needs Court approval to include a substantial part of any
other SMSA or SCSA.

Except with Court approval, no exchange area located in one state may
include any point located within another state.

This last point has received a number of "limited corridor"
exceptions.


Jack (John) Adams		Bellcore NVC 2Z-220
(908) 758-5372 {Voice}		(908) 758-4389 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com	kahuna@attmail.com
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 21:21:45 CST
From: mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New Area Code Blitzes Cell Phone User
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 869, Message 6 of 8

No, I'm saying, despite it being permissive, the SA cellular providers
made a deadline, and told everyone to get their phones re-programmed.
 
Then, aparently, the GTE mobilnet switches in Houston were not updated
in a timely manner -- we later found out the ESN of my of my friends
phone was declared "bad" because it no longer matched the data base
entry.
 
Regular land line type non-cmt phone companies are, thankfully, doing
better than GTE Mobilenet.
 

mwe
mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]
FidoNet at       Opus 1:160/50.0     
Bitnet           adblu001@ccsu.vm1   
Internet  73117.351@compuserve.com
Date: 23 Nov 92 00:40:00 GMT
From: ian.evans@bville.gts.org (Ian Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Unitel LD Seervice and Data
Reply-To: ian.evans@bville.gts.org (Ian Evans)
Organization: Baudeville BBS - Toronto, Canada 416-283-0114 2200+ conferences
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 868, Message 3 of 8

Anybody here from Canada using Unitel's long distance service?

How are they in handling data calls?  I'm thinking of getting the
'black box' service, as the thought of adding all those access codes
to the dial string gives me the willies.


CompuServe ID: 73117,545 UUCP: bville!ian.evans| Ian Evans - Sysop
INTERNET:ian.evans@bville.gts.org              | Baudeville BBS - Toronto
OTHERS: ian.evans@canrem.com                   | 416-283-0114 (v32bis/HST)
* DeLuxe2 1.26b #5896 * Baudeville BBS - The Economical Email Emporium