HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Question About PBX Phone
Date: 30 Aug 92 03:53:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.673.2
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 673, Message 2 of 13

In article <telecom12.658.4@eecs.nwu.edu> dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu (Dave
Grabowski) writes:

> I recently obtained a telephone that was used on a private Centrex
> system. It has a sticker on the back : "Caution: For use only on
> business lines or risk of electrical short circuit" (or something like
> that.) I popped it open, and it doesn't have a matching transformer or
> usual huge (.1mf, 450+volt) cap used in most other telephone-line
> devices. My question: Do I need to bother adding this hardware? I've
> got it on a line now and it's been there for a few weeks and it works
> fine.

Maybe it's the kind of phone that has a pair of contacts (for turning
on a light, or something) across yellow and black.  This would short-
circuit a second line if you had one.  Hayes modems have the option of
working this way.


+ Michael Covington - Artificial Intelligence Programs - U of Georgia - USA 
+ Unless otherwise noted, these are private opinions, not official statements.
From: david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular Mobile Phone Use in Australia
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:42:37 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 677, Message 2 of 11

At June 30 this year Australia had 441,256 mobile phones in operation,
up 51% over the previous year. It is not just yuppies either, many
blue- collar workers are finding it an essential tool of their trade.

The breakdown by capital city is:

Sydney		131,116		Melbourne	102,906
Brisbane	 52,887		Perth		 28,214
Adelaide	 22,117		Hobart		  3,431

Australia has had cellular mobile phones for the past five years and
now has 25.1 mobile phones per 1000 people, more than either the US,
UK or Scandinavia after five years. Scandinavia has had mobile phones
for ten years and now has 58 mobile phones per 1000 people (after five
years it had only half Australia's current figure).

The mobile network covers 350,000 square kilometres making it the largest
geographic coverage in the world.


David Wilson			   (042) 21 3802 voice, (042) 21 3262 fax
Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong   david@cs.uow.edu.au
From: infmx!johng@uunet.UU.NET (John Galloway)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular Providers Charge Air-Time Forwarding to Land Line
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:56:01 GMT
Organization: Galloway Research
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 677, Message 5 of 11

I was very disappointed to find that both Cellular-One and GTE charge
normal air time rates for calls that are made to your cellular number,
when you have your number forwarded to a land line.  This seems like a
real rip off since in this case the only resources being used are the
land line connected switches, which likely have plenty of bandwidth,
there is no cellular communication occuring (that I can see anyway, am
I mistaken?).

I had planned to get a cellular, then only give out that number.  When
I get to an office or am at home, I just forward the cellular to the
number where I am -- simple.  I only give folks one number and it
either goes to where I am, or to my home phone with an answering
machine.  But, as I now realize, this would be very expensive.  You
can only control forwarding from the phone being forwarded, so
executing this plan with (for example) my home phone as the base
doesn't work, since I can not un-forward or re-forwad it remotely.
RATS!!

(Call your cellular carrier and complain TODAY! :-)


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


[Moderator's Note: *Which* Cellular One? *Which* GTE?  Cellular One in
Chicago does not charge for forwarding calls to landline numbers, nor
does Ameritech, the 'B' carrier here.  And regards forwarding of
calls, Illinois Bell now allows us to *remotely* change our forwarding
at no additional cost. I will comment more on this in the next issue.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 00:14 PDT
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: PacBell Message Center Woes
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 670, Message 4 of 12

stieglit@orion.oac.uci.edu (Jeff Stieglitz) writes:

> Just what is the problem with Pacific Bell's Message Center?

I have a number of associates who have (for whatever reasons)
Pac*Bell's Message Center. On the basis of their experiences I have
opted to pass on the service for myself.

The Message Center has been and still is plagued with difficulties of
every description. I remember some inside scuttlebutt about the firm
who was awarded the contract. Officials of the company supplying the
VM equipment felt that they had it made in the shade when Pac*Bell
selected their wares for The Message Center, but a number of Pac*Bell
types shuddered in disbelief. The vendor selection was apparently
based upon considerations other than performance and quality.

IMHO, Pac*Bell is going for the "GTE Service Award" with this one. The
Message Center regularly loses messages, does not answer the phone
when it is supposed to, and has, according to my associates, done a
number of other very quirky things. It is a breeze to hack, so your
messages are not very secure; the amount of recording time you can
store is severely limited; it is unreliable in recording; it is
unreliable in retrieval; and it is more expensive than an answering
machine in the long run.

My advice would be to by a machine. Pac*Bell seems to be completely
unable to do anything about it -- probably because the system is
fatally flawed to begin with.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: Oddly enough, Ameritech's system operates quite
well using equipment from a company in Texas called Tygon, which
coincidentally happens to be an Ameritech subsidiary. Everyone has
their own taste of course, but technically our telephone 'voicemail'
is a decent product.  I have it at home.  PAT]
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 11:50:06 CDT
From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Deterioration of POTS (vs. Monopolies)
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 656, Message 8 of 10

In article <telecom12.650.1@eecs.nwu.edu> lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren
Weinstein) writes:

> The point of my original message was that the fragmentation of phone
> service has caused problems for non-techie users, who have not been,
> are are unlikely to become, the beneficiaries of most of the
> competitively driven advances in telecommunications technology.  Lots
> of fascinating alternatives and services will be opening up for
> business users, but nobody really wants to spend a lot on the
> residential POTS market (since it is mostly all regulated
> services) -- and things are getting tougher for exactly that segment.
> And contrary to some opinions we've seen, I do feel that it is
> important for the technologists (that's us!) to watch out for "Aunt
> Martha" and her needs as well.

   Most of the arguments about the break-up center over the differing
needs of business and residential service.  The needs of large
businesses center over price and day-to-day quality.  Residential
users are usually willing to pay more if they can just ignore the damn
thing -- just make it work.  Thus the hand-holding attitude of the
old Bell System; they over-stocked the limited selection of things to
be able to respond quickly to unanticipated demand, and over-hired for
the same reasons.  But if the goal is universal service, I can't think
of any alternative that would have reach the same level of SERVICE.

   In today's environment, the businesses benefit (and "large" home
users), but one can't easily say "just make it work" to anyone, even
for a higher price.


Al Varney - just MY opinion


[Moderator's Note: I have a deteriorated pot I bought many years ago
in which to cook carrots and peas. Today when I looked at it, it had
gotten a crack in the bottom so I threw it out. Maybe I should send it
to Judge Greene and ask for a new pot if he can't make this one work
right again. I'll demand that he rule the deterioration of pots has to
stop immediatly even if Tru-Value Hardware has to be divested in the
process.   PAT]
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 09:52:55 -0400
From: walt@unhsst.unh.edu (Walter R. Trachim)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Proper Use of 66-Block Punchdown Tool
Organization: UNH Network Services, Durham, NH
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 669, Message 6 of 9

> How does one properly punch a wire down into a 66-block so that the
> end gets trimmed?

> My usual practice is to stick the end into the front of the tines and
> then just click it down with the punchdown tool, however, this never
> seems to trim the end as (I was told) it is supposed to.

> I've seen some installers click *twice* on each terminal.  Is that one
> to get it it down and one to cut?

In my experience, it depends on a number of things: 1.) the quality of
the cross-connect you're using, 2.) whether or not the block is new,
e.g., how many times connections have been made on the positions
you're working with on the 66 block and whether or not there are
indents under the pins, and 3.)  the sharpness of the blade. As far as
punching more than once on a wire, that depends on how well the wire
was punched after the first hit. Sometimes it will go down on one try.
But more often than not having to whack on it more than once is the
rule rather than the exception.

> Also, is there a significance to the colors on the tool?  Mine is
> black on one side and yellow on the other, though a friend of mine has
> one that's blue on one side and yellow on the other.  Does any one
> color indicate which side has the blade?  (Neither side on mine seems
> to trim the cable.)

If you look on the yellow side of your tool, you should see the word
"CUT" in bold letters at the blade end. If you install you 66 blade
with the uneven side out, the lip of the blade should be on the yellow
side for cutting. Same goes if you're using a 110/88 blade; it has a
hook on one side, and that's used for cutting the end off of the
x-connect.


                         Walter R. Trachim 
 University of New Hampshire - Office of Telecom and Network Services
            Telecommunications Center, Durham, NH 03824
                       walt_trachim@unh.edu
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 15:03 EDT
From: jbutz@homxa.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Baby Bells and States
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 665, Message 4 of 15

dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) writes:

> I'm curious about who made the decision as to which Baby-Bell would be
> assigned to serve what states (excluding the non-RBOCs of course).  It
> seems that some cover only a few states while others like USWest cover
> many.  Would this be based on the population at the time?

Well according to my "Engineering and Operations in the Bell System"
text (a book still handed out to new AT&T employees), the current RBOC
territory boundaries seem to follow the same boundaries that formed
the old Western Electric Regions.  Also, I think the same boundaries
constituted the various regions of the old AT&T Long Lines.

LATA determination went by "area/regions of interest" or some other
buzz term.  I suppose this was by population, though I cannot say for
sure.


J Butz   jbutz@homxa.att.com   AT&T - BL   ER700 Systems Engineering
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 12:41:57 GMT
From: dancer!whs70@uunet.UU.NET (22501-sohl)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Baby Bells and States
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 665, Message 1 of 15

In article <telecom12.659.6@eecs.nwu.edu> dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave
Niebuhr) writes:

> I'm curious about who made the decision as to which Baby-Bell would be
> assigned to serve what states (excluding the non-RBOCs of course).  It
> seems that some cover only a few states while others like USWest cover
> many.  Would this be based on the population at the time?

As memory serves me, the decision involved AT&T, the 23 telcos (NY
TEL, Pacific Bell, etc) and the court.  The goal was to have seven
regional companies of approximately equal financial size.


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!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 13:51:52 GMT
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Deterioration of POTS
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 656, Message 7 of 10

mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest) writes:

> I think another side effect of the break-up is the shift away from
> pure research at Bellcore.  They're laying off more people as I type.
> Bell Labs is rumored to be headed toward a market-driven approach to
> development (but *that* rumor's been flying around for awhile now ...).
> Who know what the end result will be?

That "rumor" was essentially *confirmed* in an article in {Scientific
American} a few months back ...


Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 11:41:58 GMT
From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Digital Answering Machine II
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 656, Message 3 of 10

In article <telecom12.654.8@eecs.nwu.edu> vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance
Shipley) writes:

> In article <telecom12.637.4@eecs.nwu.edu> schuster@panix.com (Michael
> Schuster) writes:

>> Now I see the AT&T 1339 being advertised and guess what new features
>> it has ...

> Does it support CLASS?  I have an AT&T 1337 that I bought a year ago.
> I'm quite happy with it but now I would like a machine that uses CLID
> information to stamp the calls.  Any one now of one?  I'm hoping the
> new AT&T machine does.

Apparently is is identical to the 1337 except for time-day stamp. Even
has the same limited 8-minute recording time. The Panasonic KX-T8000
seems the way to go although it, too, does not support special line
services.


Mike Schuster
NY Pub. Access UNIX/Internet: schuster@panix.com | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM
The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com   | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER
From: jlf@otter.hpl.hp.com (Jean-Louis Fuccellaro)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: GSM Adaptative Time Alignment
Date: 25 Aug 92 12:30:05 GMT
Reply-To: Jean-Louis Fuccellaro <jlf@otter.hpl.hp.com>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 661, Message 5 of 19

According to what I understood :

GSM uses adaptative time alignent to determine the transmit timing
advance required at the MS to receive bursts in their correct
timeslots.Timing advance can have 64 levels.

If two users (MS) have the same carrier (they have one timeslot from
the same frame) are in the same place, the timeslots will arrive at
the same time in the BS. Does the BS change the carrier of one of them
or do I miss something?

Thanks for answer.


Jean-Louis Fuccellaro

Post :  HP Labs        E-mail: jlf@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Filton Road  phone : (44) / (0) 272 228 122 
Stoke Gifford    Bristol BS12 6QZ   U.K.
From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Information on X.38 X.39 and X.5 Standards
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:05:11 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 663, Message 5 of 8

I am seeking information on several "new" (maybe ?) CCITT standards:

X.38, X.39 and X.5

Can anyone provide a brief description of these standards.

Thanks in advance.

                 Thomas K Hinders
        Martin Marietta Computing Standards
              4795 Meadow Wood Lane
               Chantilly, VA 22021
          703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5027 (f)
From: nickless@antares.mcs.anl.gov
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Cellular 911 Equivalent in Chicago
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:44:21 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 677, Message 1 of 11

I've called *999 several times on the highways around Chicago to
report drunk drivers and stranded motorists.  Somewhere in the back of
my mind I think it's only for the highway system.  I called *999 from
Indiana on my way to Michigan once, and they said they'd pass it on to
the Indiana authorities.


Bill Nickless  System Support Group  <nickless@mcs.anl.gov>  +1 708 252 7390
From: TONY@VM1.MCGILL.CA (Tony Harminc)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Question About PBX Phone
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:44:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.673.1
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 673, Message 1 of 13

dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu (Dave Grabowski) wrote:

> I recently obtained a telephone that was used on a private Centrex
> system. It has a sticker on the back : "Caution: For use only on
> business lines or risk of electrical short circuit" (or something like
> that.) I popped it open, and it doesn't have a matching transformer or
> usual huge (.1mf, 450+volt) cap used in most other telephone-line
> devices. My question: Do I need to bother adding this hardware? I've
> got it on a line now and it's been there for a few weeks and it works
> fine.
 
Probably this just means that the phone is wired for A-lead control,
i.e. the second pair in the modular cord is connected to an additional
set of normally open contacts on the hook switch.  This is used on old
(1A2 etc.) key systems, but if plugged into a jack with a second line
on it will short that line when the phone is picked up.
 
The worst case is, as was mentioned recently, if a Princess phone with
lighted dial was installed at one time, and the dial light transformer
is still connected to the second pair.  Then you may have a fire.  You
could easily disconnect and tape the red/black leads inside the phone
to be safe.


Tony H.
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 16:00:29 PDT
From: konstan@elmer-fudd.cs.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Wiring Advice Sought
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 677, Message 9 of 11

I'm moving to a house where we'll be having two phone lines (is this
bottom 10% for Telecom readers?).  Since we are renting, and neither
want to pay for nor have to undo wiring changes, I'd like to do the
minimum possible to use my single line phones properly.

Three cases:

1.  I do have one room where I want to use both lines.  I already
    have an adapter that puts out line one, line two, and BOTH.  That
    seems to be sufficient there.

2.  For rooms where I want only line-one, should I just use a normal
    RJ-11 cable (four wires through) or should I make one that only 
    passes through the middle wires?  One of the phones has a 
    lighted dial, but I don't think it expects power from the 
    extra wires (AT&T Trimline).

3.  For rooms where I want only line-two, is the easiest solution to
    just make a cable that's wired one -> two, four -> three without 
    wiring two and three through?  I have the crimpers and plenty of
    cable to make whatever will work best.  The phones are old 2500 
    sets, an AT&T 5500, the trimline, and a "decorative" phone.

Also, are there any useful standards for marking these special cables
(something that other people might recognize)?


Thanks,

Joe Konstan   konstan@cs.berkeley.edu
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 16:10:25 GMT
From: kaufman@xenon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 911 on Jerry Springer Show
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 682, Message 9 of 10

In article <telecom12.673.5@eecs.nwu.edu> heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron
Heiby) writes:

> We have been told, through the town newsletter, that we
> should use 911 *any* time we want fire/police/ambulance dispatch.  So,
> the way I read it, if I have a fender-bender and need a police officer
> to come by to see what happened, from a non-cellular Buffalo Grove
> phone, I'm to dial "911", rather than the police non-emergency number.
> I think it's wierd, but who am I to argue?  

> [Moderator's Note: Who are you to argue? You are a citizen with an
> above average knowledge of the telecommunications network. Don't fall
> into that all too common trap of criticizing some bureaucrat only to
> be attacked in return, 'how would you know anything about this?'. That
> is BS! Continue arguing that 911 is *only* for dire emergencies when
> immediate police intervention is required.  PAT]

911 is for whatever the local agency says its for.  In many areas of
the country there is plenty of excess bandwidth for the 911 operators,
and few if any "daytime" numbers appearing on the board.  Besides, the
average citizen is not always in a position to distinguish grades of
emergency between life-threatening and non.  A "smoke check" or "smell
of gas" can easily turn into a structure fire.  A "fender bender with
one victim with a sore neck" can turn into a full code response.  Even
us volunteer firemen sometimes get it wrong when we are on scene.


Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.stanford.edu)


[Moderator's Note: You are incorrect in saying '911 is for whatever
the local agency says it is for ...'  In Illinois at least, the state
legislature passed the '911 Enabling Act' many years ago which
directed local municipalities to install 911 as promptly as possible
in cooperation with the local telco using available technology. The
Act went on to define the purpose of 911 as a method of communicating
EMERGENCY circumstances to the appropriate EMERGENCY RESPONSE agency
or agencies within the community. A stolen car or a home which was
burglarized several hours previous to being discovered are not what I
would term emergencies.  PAT]