HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Vermont Payphones
Date: 13 Sep 92 20:21:24 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 708, Message 7 of 11

On 11 Sep 92 00:30:10 GMT, TONY@VM1.MCGILL.CA (Tony Harminc) said:

> I spent a few very pleasant days of vacation in Vermont, and noticed a
> couple of curious things making calls from payphones:
> 3) The NETel payphones seem to have several different default LD
> carriers.  I would have thought the LEC would sign up with a single
> carrier for all its phones.  Sometimes the default was AT&T for both
> 1+ and 0+ calls; in other cases it was AT&T for 1+ and (say) USSprint
> for 0+.

As I recall, payphone equal access was part of the orderly process of
dismantling the Bell System.  The LECs were required to spread the 0+
business for the LEC-owned payphones around among the carriers,
approximately in proportion to their share of PICs at the time of the
conversion.  Thus, even in as small a state as Vermont (no slur
intended) the LEC could not cut a package deal with a single 0+
carrier.

1+ is a different animal entirely.  As you noticed, only one carrier,
AT&T, had the 1+ business.  That's because only one carrier, AT&T,
offers the service of collecting coins in payment for an interexchange
call.  I assume there's not enough profit in it for the other
carriers.

In the past, I've made that statement in this forum and been severely
flamed by a couple folks from the anti-AT&T crowd.  Their argument was
that the rules are stacked in AT&T's favor, making it impossible for
anybody else to enter the coin-paid market.  My counter argument is
simple: the OCC's, especially MCI, have never been reluctant to go to
court for the right to offer a service providing huge profits.  If
there was oodles of money to be made in coin calls (as opposed to bits
of money and a tradition of full service to uphold), you can bet that
big bad Ma would be having her drawers sued off over coin calls.

On a related note, anybody know whatever happened to the attempt by
some carriers to get the FCC to ban AT&T's CIID calling cards?


Andy Sherman  Salomon Inc  -  Unix Systems Support  -  Rutherford, NJ
(201) 896-7018  -  andys@flatline.sbi.com or asherman@mhnj.sbi.com
"These opinions are mine, all *MINE*.  My employer can't have them."
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 17:24:14 EDT
From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: MCI Telemarketing
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 704, Message 11 of 11

I had two calls from MCI this morning and and the person on the other
end wanted wanted me to switch to them via their Friends and Family
plan.

First of all, I hung up on the first person and then thinking about it
contacted my Telco (NYTel) to put a lock on my numbers (2) due to
fears about slamming.

The second call came in and after a few questions, determined that the
call was due to my number being on a list of numbers to call to get
switching of LD carriers.

I questioned that by asking how my number appeared on their list and
was told that there was a computer printout in front of her and that
was what she was using; no names/phone numbers givven to indicate that
I might be interested.

What is going to be interesting is if I receive the same call in the
future using my dedicated line that has a phone attaced to the modem
but is not advertised.

It seems that MCI is no better than a telemarketer.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093


[Moderator's Note; You *were* talking to a telemarketer for MCI, not
the company itself.   PAT]
Date: 8 Sep 1992 11:49:53 -0700
From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Clever Phone Fraud by 900 Line
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 697, Message 7 of 13

In article <telecom12.679.11@eecs.nwu.edu> PGloger.es_xfc@xerox.com
writes:

[a story about how some probably now ex-employees of AT&T tried to use
a 900 number to rip off AT&T]

> (No, none of us think rip-offs are good.  Yes, all of us expect 'most
> large company phones to be blocked against outgoing 900 calls.)

Blocking 900 numbers outright is a tough proposition for some people
like me, since more and more computer vendors are adopting 900 numbers
for customer support past warranty periods. My phone is blocked for
900 numbers but we have at least one vendor who doesn't want to
support me unless I call their 900 number (product out of warranty).
I'm doing battle with that right now, no one can understand why any
employee would need to call a 900 number.


Justin Leavens    Microcomputer Specialist  University of Southern California
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 09:45:33 EDT
From: Alec Isaacson <AI4CPHYW@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: New "Call Completion" from Cinci Bell
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 696, Message 9 of 12

I was listening to the radio last night and I heard a commercial from
Cincinnati Bell offering a service called "Call Completion".  The
commercial went on to say that if you call 555-1212 (rather than 411)
for directory assistance you can hit a touch tone 1 after the number
is looked up and be connected to that number.  (Then it went on to
rave about how you will never need to fumble for pen and paper again :)
The verbal "fine print" said this service cost $0.35 a pop, fee waived
for busy numbers, not available in certain areas or on rotary phones.
 

Alec D. Isaacson
AI4CPHYW @ miamiu.acs.muohio.edu
isaacson @ rogue.acs.muohio.edu (NeXt Mail)
Miami University, Oxford, OH
From: indaleci@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Laurel Indalecio)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Kauai Communications Out
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:33:37 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 714, Message 6 of 12

This little tid-bit about the communications situation on Kauai
following Hurricane Iniki's devastation was in the Sunday paper here
in Honolulu:

Hawaiian Telephone Co. emergenmcy crews hope to have basic
communications restored between Kauai and the rest of the world today.

     Two mountaintop telephone microwave relay towers on Kauai were
physically intact but were "twisted and skewed" out of alignment by
the raging winds, said Hawtel president Warren Haruki.

     While crews worked to repair the towers, major damage was
discovered in another crucial link in the chain: A microwave dish on
the roof of the phone company's central office in Lihue had been hit
by flying debris and is inoperable.

     "We've been in touch with Kauai Electric and together we are
estimating that 89 percent of the utility poles on this island are
lying on the ground," Norman Ahu, island manager for the telephone
company said.

     He estimated that it would take "at least a week, probably closer
to two weeks" before local telephone service is restored to the bulk
of the individual homes on Kauai.

     Hawtel spokesman Mark Doyle said the company was trying to fly a
portable microwave dish to Kauai last night.

     A barge with emergency equipment, including two mobile
coin-operated phone banks and two cellular phone "gopacs," was loaded
and ready to leave Pier 24 yesterday afternoon, Haruki said.

     Once the microwave system is back in operation, Kauai residents
can make free inter-island calls through Sept. 20, said Haruki.

     The phone company plans to have undersea fiberoptic calbes
linking the phone systems of all islands in place by the middle of
next year.  The cable system is not susceptible to wind damage.

     Norman Ahu, island manager for the telephone company, estimated
that about 11,000 of the 30,000 telephones on Kauai had partial
service.

- A portion of the front page article of the Sunday edition of the
  {Honolulu Star Bulletin & Advertiser}

(typed by) indaleci@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu


[Moderator's Note: So who told us the telco there was GTE-owned? Is
HawTel part of GTE?  PAT]
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 11:39:12 CDT
From: Andrew C. Green <acg@hermes.dlogics.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cell Phones in the Air
Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 701, Message 4 of 10

Anthony Clifton (aescherm@iastate.edu) writes:

> The reason that you can't use a cell phone on an airplane is so you
> can't call for a rescue team to save you from the food.  =-)

> Although, it WOULD be fun to order from Dominos while in the air.

I did! I've been holding off on posting this until I got the bill, in
order to see what sort of detail is included.

I was returning to Chicago on American Airlines on a gorgeous August
late afternoon. I noticed as we passed over the city that our approach
would take us over the northwest suburbs. I had been staring at the
AirFone in the seatback in front of me for the whole trip, and
finally, fortified by a beer, I popped out the phone with my AmEx card
and dialed our local Domino's. Call quality was very good, sounding
pretty much like a standard land-line. As the conversation proceeded,
I could see heads turning in my direction. When they asked my address,
I said, "Do you hear a plane overhead?" :-) Scattered laughter heard
on board.

At that point I wimped out and directed them to our house, where my
wife took the delivery. Oh, well, it was good for a laugh.

The AmEx bill arrived yesterday. The billing party was GTE AirFone in
Oak Brook, IL; the only detail in the charge was the called number and
"FROM AMERICAN ... FOR INQUIRY 800", which looks like some sort of
truncated toll-free customer service number. Including a $2 "setup"
charge, the total was "003 MINS $08.24". Extra sauce was free.


Andrew C. Green
Datalogics, Inc.      Internet: acg@dlogics.com
441 W. Huron          UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg
Chicago, IL  60610    FAX: (312) 266-4473
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 06:24 EDT
From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Disasters and Computer Communications
Reply-To: turner@dixie.com
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 698, Message 5 of 12

> I need some information regarding methods of emergency data
> communications.  Imagine a disaster team in a crisis area, with a
> laptop computer and no electricity or phones. What is readily
> available (hardware-wise) to facilitate this? Any suggestions are
> appreciated; I'm guessing some type of sattelite system.

I can think of a couple of things;

1) VSATs (Very Small Aperture Terminals) use a .5 to 1 m dish
   with a 3w PA, and will do voice, ISDN, DS0 and DS1 as well
   as downlink video.  CA Dept of Forestry uses them in 
   emergencies.

2) Imarsat: Small earth stations similar to VSAT, except use
   lower frequencies.  World wide coverage.  Very popular with
   news organizations and disaster relief groups.  Will do digital
   and analog transmission.

3) Cell phones and modems.  Many carriers use microwave links
   to the MTSO, and have backup power.

4) Packet Radio on VHF, UHF, and HF freq's.  AX.25 is the most
   available protocal.  Standard land mobile radios can be used.
   See my earlier note about the FAA's use of PK-232 TNC's for
   their emergency nets.

5) If your the telco, just haul in a portable C band microwave
   link and aim it at existing antennas.  This is used by Bellsouth
   in a "DMS-100 on wheels". Three frequencies and two polarizations
   are available for several thousand VF circuits.

6) For real bandwidth call Alascom :-).

7) Point to point microwave links are available, but two towers or
   high buildings would be required. 


Pat Turner KB4GRZ   turner@dixie.com
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 21:55:07 GMT
From: millar@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com (Jeffrey R. Millar x7047)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Why Do Several Answering Machines Hang Up Early?
Organization: Sanders Associates
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 689, Message 11 of 19

I have two answering machines which hang up on callers. The problem
apparently began in May ... but we didn't notice it because it
manifested itself as intermittent loss of the latter part of messages.

We recently got a second line for business, so ... performing a few
tests resulted in the following information.

	- counting in a loud (very) voice kept the machine on
	- talking in a normal voice resulted in a hang up in just
	  a few seconds.

I have two machines that do this, now.  One was bought just to replace
the machine I thought was broken.

It seems like the line audio level might be low ... resulting is the
VOX failing to hold the line.  However there is no audible difference
between "before the problem" and "after the problem" in levels on the
other telephones in the house.

I tried disconnecting other phones, modems, surge protectors, etc ...
it made no difference.

Could someone in telco-land either suggest something to try on my own
or maybe suggest what to tell the repair people about my problem.  (I
am afraid to get charged just for them to test the line and tell me it
must be my fault or my equipment ... which I don't think it is.)


Thanks in advance, 

jeff millar millar@mervax.sanders.lockheed.com
Jeffrey R. Millar   Lockheed Sanders, Inc    603-885-7047
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:47:23 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on CPC Pulses
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 697, Message 10 of 13

In article <telecom12.689.13@eecs.nwu.edu> tmetro@ds5000.dac.
northeastern.edu (Tom Metro) writes:

> What does a CPC pulse "look" like? What type of circuitry is typically
> used to detect it? What are the timing specifications for when it
> should occur with respect to the call termination? And what simple
> test can I perform to see if my phone service provides CPC pulses?

A CPC pulse is just a momentary interruption of line current.  Thus,
the line goes "dead" for a period of time.  I think common durations
are in the 500-1000 msec range.

Here's a question of my own: Are there any modems that detect the CPC
signal?  A common problem with our Hayes Ultra 9600's that we have for
dialup are that if the 9600 bps negotiation fails for some reason such
that "NO CARRIER" is returned instead of a fallback to 2400, the modem
at the host end is apparently still trying to negotiate, and remains
offhook for another 30-45 seconds.  This means that if you immediately
retry the connection, you get a busy signal.  It would be nice to have
the modem immediately reset when it sees the CPC indicating that the
caller has gone away.  I've never seen this in any modem (not that
I've looked very hard), and wonder why it is not a standard feature.
It would seem to me that detecting loss of loop current would not be
an expensive feature to engineer.  And if a line doesn't give CPC,
then the modem would act as it does now anyway.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
From: dquist@ben3b01.attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: New AT&T Fax Mailbox
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:13:21 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 700, Message 2 of 11

I thought this may be of some interest to TELECOM Digest readers.


Dave

NEW AT&T CALLING CARD FEATURE

*****PRESS RELEASE*****

FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1992

BASKING RIDEGE, NJ -- AT&T today announced AT&T Fax Mailbox, a new
service that will allow travelers to receive faxes whenever and
wherever they travel.

With AT&T Fax Mailbox any AT&T cardholder can establish a mailbox
number to which faxes can be sent at any time and stored up to eight
days.  Like voicemail, the mailbox is personalized with the owner's
name, assuring senders that they've reached the right party.  In
addition, senders can leave a 45-second voice memo along with each
fax.

Mailbox owners can access thier messages via an 800 number from any
touchtone phone or fax machine by inputting their AT&T Calling Card
number or AT&T Universal Card calling card number.

There is no monthly subscribtion fee for maintaining a mailbox,
enabling customers to pay for this service as they use it.  The cost
to receive a domestic fax is $.70 per page; each voice memo is $.35;
and all charges are billed to the AT&T card.

"Sending and receiving faxes while on the road have become almost as
common as calling the office, and now AT&T makes it almost as easy,"
said Lila Goldstein, AT&T Market Manager, Fax Mailbox. "When business
travelers give their AT&T Fax Mailbox number to their clients or
employees, they can selectively retrieve their faxes at their
convenience and in a confidential manner.  They pick the time and the
place, and time zone differences no longer matter.  In addition,
people sending business travelers faxes no longer have to be concerned
with detailed itineraries to ensure that materials get to the right
place at the right time."

AT&T Fax Mailbox customers are able to scan messages and determine
when a fax was sent and the number of pages.  They can retrieve the
fax immediately, send it to a fax machine in another location, save it
for a later time or delete it.  In addition, most customers with
pagers can be "beeped" at no charge, when faxes come through to their
mailbox.

International travelers also can take advantage of AT&T Fax Mailbox by
using AT&T's USADirect (R) Service.  If a customer is accessing the
mailbox from a non-U.S. location, he or she pays USADirect charges,
the fax charge of $.70 per page printed or directed to another fax
located in the U.S. and $.35 for each voice note.  If an international
user directs the fax to another international location, the charges
will include USADirect costs as well as international fax charges,
which range form &.70 to $3.70 per page.

Customers will receive a separate bill from AT&T for Fax Mailbox
charges.  People interested in signing up for this service can call
1-800-446-2452.
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:19:56 GMT
From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Providers Charge Air-Time Forwarding to Land Line
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 697, Message 9 of 13

Bill Campbell writes about US West cellular service in Seattle:

> "This service [voice mail] costs about $5.00/month plus air
> time if I call for messages on the cellular.  There's no charge
> if I call in for my messages from a land line."

What fun.  GTE Mobilnet, the wireline carrier down the road in
Portland Oregon, does just the opposite: I can retrieve my messages
for free from my cell phone, but it costs money to retrieve them from
a land line.

They charge airtime for calls forwarded to a landline, but at about
1/3 the usual rate.

They don't charge for "uncompleted calls."  It turns out that they
don't do this via call supervision -- they just charge for any use of
airtime that lasts a minute or more.  If you let that call ring for
more than a minute, you pay.


Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
 (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)
From: kam@hermes.dlogics.com (Kevin Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Kauai Communications Out
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:49:50 GMT
Reply-To: kam@hermes.dlogics.com
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 714, Message 7 of 12

john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:

> Second, key components of Hawaii's hurricane tracking system were
> never repaired or replaced after failing some time ago. In other
> words, the storm was somewhat of a surprise.

'Scuse me, but I knew from the Weather Channel that the storm was
approaching Hawaii, where landfall was expected, and where there were
warnings. How could it have been a surprise in this day of weather
satellites? Do they get the Weather Channel in Hawaii?

I knew all about it, and I live in _Chicago_. In fact, a family friend
was on his honeymoon in Honolulu (some honeymoon, huh?), and we'd
heard news of what was going on by phone.


Kevin A. Mitchell      (312) 266-4485
Datalogics, Inc        Internet: kam@hermes.dlogics.com
441 W. Huron           UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam
Chicago, IL  60610     FAX: (312) 266-4473
From: shri%legato@cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: VOICE and BUSY Detection (Was V.25bis, or: Are CCITT)
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:40:58 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 710, Message 11 of 11

In article <telecom12.704.9@eecs.nwu.edu> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.
n109.z1.fidonet.org writes:

>> Actually, there's another problem. Take USR modem. Put X5 in the
>> Initialize string. Now call a Telebit that puts the PEP tomes first.
>> Result? The USR reports a result code of VOICE almost immediately and
>> hangs up!

> That sounds like a problem more with putting PEP tones first than
> with the USR, which has a pretty average VOICE recognition.  I just


  Of course, so we know what modems to switch to when the telcos start
using their wonderful neural networks :-) (Instead of using their
neurons ? :-0 ;)


shrikumar (shri@legato.cs.umass.edu)
Date: 6 Sep 92 16:28:00 GMT
From: robertson@ewir-wr.wr.aflc.af.mil (Joel Robertson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Caller ID Box Interface
Organization: Robins AFB - LNEW
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 688, Message 5 of 13

I bought a Caller ID box this weekend that has a serial RS-232
interface. It's a BellSouth Products Calling Line Identifer (CLI)
Model 20 which is actually made by MHE Systems (MHE20).

There are three modular connectors on the unit. Two are RJ11 line in
and line out. The other is a smaller connector (the same one used by
handset cords) for data. The instruction manual gave precious little
info on the data port other than it's RS-232 1200 BPS 8N1. I called
BellSouth customer service who were no help.

The instruction manual cautions that mis-wiring may damage the unit.
Therefore, the RS-232 circuitry may not be very robust and I hesitate
to "swap wires till it works". If I have to, I'll open it up and trace
wires.

Does anyone have the hardware interface info (pinouts) for this unit?

Does anyone have the address/phone number for MHE Systems?

What are the part numbers for the Motorola and Sierra Semiconductor
Caller ID chips?

Where can I find the definition (physical/electrical) of the various
RJ??  modular connectors?


Thanks in advance.

Joel Robertson  |   Internet: robertson@ewir-wr.wr.aflc.af.mil