HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: LD Transmission Quality Comparison
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:08:00 GMT
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 784, Message 3 of 10

On Oct 15 at 15:40, Andy Sherman writes:

> Since I and most of the people who call me use the same carrier I have
> no basis for comparison.  Probably they all sound similar unless you
> have a very good ear.  But Higdon's modems, apparently have very good
> ears, since they know the difference.

There is one variable that must be tossed in here. The Bay Area is
atypical of other areas of the country. All of the LD carriers
(including AT&T) treat this region as some sort of backwater outpost.
We were the last to "hear the pin drop" as it were. All are still
using some sort of antiquated signaling between POPs and LEC tandems.
Example: in the LA area it takes about a half-second for an AT&T call
to go through to almost anywhere. Here it takes 8 to 10 seconds.

Sprint has regular outages (from my telephone anyway) and offers no
explanation. Only recently did AT&T have digital connections between
here and other parts of the state. And you could grow old waiting for
an MCI call to complete.

The point is that the best of the big three is definitely not offered
here. Perhaps the reason AT&T comes out ahead is that its low grade
crap is better than MCI's or Sprint's low grade crap.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
From: 0003991080@mcimail.com (Proctor & Associates)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Phone Network Simulator
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:16:00 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 785, Message 4 of 9

andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:
 
> I want to test a modem's network interface without connecting to a
> live telephone network.  I've heard that there are devices with
> several RJ-11 jacks that simulate network interfaces, but I don't know
> where to look for them.  Can you give me pointers to such devices?
 
Sorry to blow our own horn again, but my employer now makes THREE
different telephone demonstrators that realistically simulate
telephone lines per Bellcore specs for North American signalling.
 
The 49250 Phone Demo II simulates two lines, and handles tone dialing
only.  It has real dial tone, ringback tone, and ringing, and you just
go off hook on one jack, dial any seven-digit phone number (or #) and
it rings the other line.  The price is $259.95, FOB Redmond, WA.
 
The next one is the 49200 Telephone Demonstrator.  It sells for
$475.00, has four lines (each with its own two-digit phone number),
handles both pulse and tone dialing, and is the one used in displays
at many AT&T phone stores.
 
Our new one is the 49300 Centrex Demo.  It sells for $685.00,
simulates four lines, has Caller ID (with number only) and can be
programmed for any seven or ten digit phone numbers, and to simulate
standard Centrex features in either a 5ESS or DMS environment.  It can
be programmed with a telephone, but due to the large number of
programmable options, menu driven programming software (including
serial cable) is available for $49.00.
 
Contact Proctor & Associates at any of the addresses (internet, USPS,
fax, etc) below for more information.
 
 
Paul Cook                        206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates        MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.           fax: 206-885-3282
Redmond, WA  98052-5317   3991080@mcimail.com
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992  21:42:05 EDT
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: "Movie On Demand" Service Tested 
Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.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 772, Message 7 of 11

(Washington Post Business Digest, October 9, 1992, Page F2)

Three communications giants launched a $10 million, 18-month test
south of Denver that may determine the future of home movie viewing.
Spokesmen for AT&T, Tele-Communications and US West said to determine
what people will watch and how often, 300 Littleton, Colo., residences
are being hooked up to one of two services: a "movie-on-demand"
service called Take One, or an enhanced pay-per-view service called
Hits at Home.
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 19:18:33 EDT
From: David Leibold <DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Bell Canada to Use GTE Billing Software
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 770, Message 4 of 11

Some news from {The Toronto Star} features an announcement by Bell
Canada that it will be using billing software from GTE in a strategic
alliance.  The intent is to provide a more flexible billing package
for Bell customers.  The GTE software was chosen to provide custom
bills for businesses, and has the capability to bill on pay-per-use
basis, such as for local calls.  Bell Canada has no plans for local
measured service, and would have to slug that one out with the
regulator (CRTC) and certain public opposition.

The business community seemed cautiously optimistic about this
announcement.  It seems to be a wait and see attitude from what the
article described.  There are also mixed feelings expressed by one
communications consultant regretting the fact that the software
couldn't be Canadian-developed, while conceding that an "off-the-shelf" 
package like GTE's would be cheaper than an in-house job by Bell.


dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca
From: hwc@louis.pei.com (Hon Wah Chin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Highway Call Boxes
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:46:23 GMT
Reply-To: hwc@pei.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 774, Message 8 of 14

I used one last Monday on 101 in Menlo Park.  It automatically called
CHP.  I described my location and they read back the ID number painted
on a sign next to the phone, so I don't know whether they had the ID
transmitted or from my location description.  The most interesting
thing is that the hanger for the handset (with noise canceling mike)
did not appear to move for off-hook indication.  I wasn't in a mood to
investigate further but hypothesized some kind of magnetic sensor to
activate an internal switch.
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 01:55:44 -0500
From: Joseph.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joseph Bergstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Confused About T1 Bandwidths
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 767, Message 1 of 17

Matt Szela mentions:

> T1 lines can come in two speeds:

> 1. 1,344 Kbps i.e. 24 channels @ 56 Kbps each;  OR
> 2. 1,536 Kbps i.e. 24 channels @ 64 Kbps each.

And then asks:

> Now, what do I need to do in order to get the higher 1,536
> speed: Is this the function of the terminating CSUs, the phone company
> circuit  or both? The difference is 192 Kbps which is quite a lot and we
> would like to take advantage of this extra bandwith if possible.

You must order the T-1 circuit as B8ZS (also known sometimes as clear
channel).  On older circuits every eighth bit was set to one to ensure
for timing.  This reduced each 64KB channel to 56KB.

You must order your T-1 with B8ZS (which I believe stands for bit
eight zero suppression) and be sure that your CSU's and other related
CPE supports this also.  The IXC's offered this some time ago, but
many local telcos took awhile to offer this as well.  It should be
pretty much universally available, at least from the RBOCs.

> Do I need to tell the phone company when I order the circuit
> that I  want the 1,536 Kbps line?

Yes.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 15:09:37 PDT
From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "...is the Highest Law of the Land..."
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 783, Message 9 of 10

> "where the state constitution is a bit hard to change, public
> utility commissions are bought and sold all the time."

Just as scary, and on a wider scale: the US Constitution provides that
all treaties have equal standing with the Constitution:

	"This constitution, and the laws of the United States which
	shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or
	which shall be made, under the authority of the United States
	shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
	state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or
	laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

This is why some people get so excited about seemingly obscure
treaties.  The President signs it, the Senate ratifies it, and
suddenly it overrides any federal or state law with which it
conflicts.


Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:00:02 GMT
From: bill@phoenix.az.stratus.com (Bill Everts)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller ID Approved In Arizona
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 776, Message 8 of 14

This is probably a typical question, but if you don't want me to know
who you are, why the &*^# are you dialing my phone number?

everts   bill@az.stratus.com
Expressing my own opinion.


[Moderator Getting Nervous Again: Will readers who wish to express an
opinion of their own to Bill Everts expression of his opinion will
please do do in email or via comp.privacy.  It is my opinion we don't
need any more of it here.   Thanks.   PAT]
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:15:47 GMT
From: arnold@Synopsys.COM (Arnold de Leon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Old Telephone Wiring at Network Interface
Organization: Synopsys, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 772, Message 8 of 11

I just had a second line installed at our house.  Since a second line
has never been installed here before PacBell installed a new network
interface box for the second line.  The house is 39 years old.

I had decided to do my own inside wiring.  My plan was to simply tie
in the second line to the existing wiring on the second pair (yellow
and black).

When I opened the old network interface I had trouble finding the
yellow/black pair.  I eventually found the yellow wires connected to a
screw connector.  There is also a wire running from this connector to
the new network interface.

The wire does *not* go to any of the connectors used for phones.  Is
it some sort of ground?  Was it used for powering Princess phones?

On the old cables I could not find the black wire.  Was it standard
practice to clip it?  Every jack inside that I've opened has it.  I
haven't checked in the crawl space yet for a junction.

I did find one cable at the old network interface that had all four
wires (It appears that there are three runs to feed the jacks into the
house).  It appears to have been a more recent addition.  It had the
yellow/black wires simply unconnected.  I was able to use that to
bring the second line into the house.

Can I simply take the yellow wire from the other cables and use them
for the second line?  I am assuming that I can find the black in the
sheath.

Should/can I ask PacBell to move both my lines to the new network
interface box?  It's so much easier to work with.  The old boxes were
obviously from the days when MaBell owned everything.

Any general comments?  Any recommended reading for someone doing
inside phone wiring?


Arnold de Leon  arnold@synopsys.com
NCS		Synopsys Inc.
(415) 694-4183	700 E. Middlefield Road
		Mtn. View, CA 94043-4033
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 12:26:11 PDT
From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Phone Network Simulator
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.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 773, Message 3 of 15

I want to test a modem's network interface without connecting to a
live telephone network.  I've heard that there are devices with
several RJ-11 jacks that simulate network interfaces, but I don't know
where to look for them.  Can you give me pointers to such devices?


Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:21 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: "First Cities": Where? When?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 766, Message 1 of 16

Does anyone have any information about where the "First Cities"
consortium (the 13 high tech companies organizing under MCC to
investigate video dial tone) will be located?  Will it be in Austin,
at MCC?  Is it still on the drawing board, or has it begun to form?
Any specific information will be appreciated.  Respond to the Digest
or to my e-mail box.


Thanks,

Sandy Kyrish  320-9613@mcimail.com
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Another List of Cellular Phone Prices
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:55:26 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 785, Message 8 of 9

In <telecom12.773.9@eecs.nwu.edu> FZC@CU.NIH.GOV writes:

> Three cellular phone offers appear in Luskin's {Washington Post} ad,
> October 9:

> Motorola "tote" Cellular Phone, "Transportable from car-to-car,
> Antenna & Cigarette Lighter, Full 3 watts, No Installation Required,
> Certain Cellular Telephone Company Restriction may apply."  $0.01
> (That is correct, one cent.)

> [Moderator's Note: I think that was a typographical error and meant to
> say 'cigarette lighter adapter plug', ie. you can charge or operate
> the phone from the car battery. Even though those two you mentioned
> did not include a cellular company contract in them, are you certain
> that somewhere in small print it was not otherwise mentioned in the
> ad?   PAT]

As the Moderator says, I'm sure these include a contract, but the
question is: "what is the minimum dollar value of the contract, i.e.
if you bought one, and never used it, what would you pay by the end of
the no-cancel period?"  Or, at least, that's the key question for
those of us in Kalifornia, where the PUC has decided we're not smart
enough to understand such arrangements, and must therefore pay $300 or
so for that same bag phone.  (And higher cell rates, too, but that's a
function of everyone and their nine-year-old having a cellphone.)


Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Date: 6 Oct 1992 22:18:05 GMT
From: speth@cats.ucsc.edu (James Gustave)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Source For Installation Equipment Wanted
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 766, Message 16 of 16

Does anyone know of a source for telephone installation equipment?
I'm not talking about radio-shack crimpers and plugs, but rather the
fun stuff that the telco people have.  Like linesperson's handsets, or
the things-they-hook-to-the-lines-that-go-BEEP.  Someone must know
what I'm talking about.

Either a source in the Bay Area or something mail-order would be
great.  Thanks.


Jim Speth     speth@cats.ucsc.edu
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:41:00 GMT
From: norman.nithman@aquila.com (Norman Nithman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers Restricted by NYTel
Reply-To: norman.nithman@aquila.com (Norman Nithman)
Organization: Aquila BBS - Aurora, IL - 820-8344
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 776, Message 11 of 14

I have had problems with private pay phones blocking 800 info
(800-555-1212).  Seems like they programmed them to charge $0.65 for
any call to 555-1212, no matter what the prefix.


Norm
                                                                      

[Moderator's Note: How about $3.65 per *minute* for calls to 800 or
the zero operator from the COCOT in the laudromat near me ...  PAT]
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:58:24 GMT
From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Why No Sprint Service Here Since Thursday?
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 781, Message 10 of 12

In article <telecom12.779.1@eecs.nwu.edu> waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com
(Matthew Waugh) writes:

> I haven't seen anything on this, and I'd expected people to be jumping
> all over it.

> Sometime on Thursday evening 10/8/92 the SPRINT switching centre in
> Fairfax, South Carolina, went down completly. Various "rumors" abound,
> most of which involve the switch being under 18 feet of water. We're
> located in North Carolina, and all our SPRINT switched service is
> routed via that switch. Certainly on Friday people in the area with
> SPRINT 800 service were not getting any calls sent their way.

> It's 16:00 EDT on 10/13/92, still no service. We have dial-tone on the
> trunk, and get an all circuits are busy if we try and make a call.

Funny, I haven't seen that Sprint commercial lately.  You know, the
one where Candice Bergen says "Sprint didn't go down and leave a
kazillion people stranded ..."   ;-)


David G Lewis                              AT&T Bell Laboratories
david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej     Switching & ISDN Implementation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:40:07 EDT
From: gwl@eng.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Data Services to the Home
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 779, Message 4 of 7

Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Leonard Erickson) writes:

> On the other hand, how *cheap* could a 64kb/s interface be? That's all
> it'd take to supply a "regular" phone line. And in the quantities
> involved, I'd expect the cost to drop *fast*. For the sake of
> argument, call it $50. (I've seen RS-232 to fiber adapters in that
> range).

Math Associates make ethernet on multimode fiber trancievers for about
$200.  That's 10 Megsbits/sec.  Of course, the distance is limited to
less than 1km.

This is the rub.  Bandwidth is always distance limited.  It's easy
(and therefore cheap) to get a bazillion bits/second if the distance
is across the room; across the world is a different story.

Of course, TPC has no idea whatsoever of what the public needs or
wants in data services be it on fiber or copper.  All they're are
interested in is getting a monopoly on the service, no matter how bad
it is.

Witness ISDN.  You, I, and everyone else that has ever paid a phone
bill has helped foot the huge cost of development for ISDN. All to get
64KB/S.  These days you can get about the same data rate with off the
shelf modems on regular phone lines.  Can you say BILL OF GOODS?

Fortunately the public is not as naieve as it once was.  It's clear
that TPC does can not provide what it has always claimed to provide:
security, reliability and speed.  People will go elsewhere to get the
services that they need, if they can.

Unfortunatly it is our legal system that will ultimately decide who
gets what slice of the pie.  As long as the lawyers get the biggest
slice they don't give two s*#$s and a holler for the public's demand
for service.  I say network revolution NOW.  Just say no to the phone
company.  Get an amateur radio licence and some packet switching
hardware and just say NO to MA BELL!

So what do we need?  True competition at the door?  You bet, the time
is now.  A "fiber company" could provide TV, Phone, and high speed
data all on the same wire, but this "fiber company" would face both
TPC and TCC (the cable comany) as competitors.  Unless all their cable
is sealed in concrete vaults I suspect many "accidental" cuts to their
system.  TPC and TCC would also fight them at the legel level,
claiming all kinds of unfair advantage.

But the public will ultimately demand these services, just as it
demanded cheap TV's, Cheap autos, subsidized roads and gas, etc etc.

A luxery once tasted becomes a neccesity.  TPC is counting on the
public's unsaitiable desire for luxeries, and their ability to con
them into thinking it's the only one who can provide them.


Gerry Lawrence    University of Florida -- Engineering Computer Services
From: JD2859A@AMERICAN.EDU (Jeff Dubin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: College Phone System
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:19:36 GMT
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 775, Message 2 of 12

A) Thanks for all of your responses!

B) No, I didn't try 0-911.  Actually, to call 411, you have to enter
the access code to your account.  It costs something like $.65!

C) Apparently, someone passed a hard copy of that message to the
director of telecommunications here at AU, who in turn called me to
answer my questions.  Turns out that having however many students live
on campus dialing wx or time would just cost too much.

Very nice guy, but when I asked him if call-waiting could be
temporarily disabled (for modeming ...) he said that call-waiting was
an all or nothing system.  They control it at the switch. When I
informed him that there was this temporary call-wait turn off feature
on other (non-campus) phones (at least in Boston area -- does C&P
offer this?  To turn off call-wait temporarily in Boston just dial *70
then you get a second dial tone) -- he seemed amazed and said that he
did not know of such a feature.

I don't love this system -- people calling in often get busy signals
because of full trunks here.  In fact, I hate it.  A normal phone
system would be much preferred over this, but this is obviously
impossible with the number of people here.

Oh yeah ... when I dial 0 + number I get the signal to enter my code.
Haven't gone through with it and put my code in though.  Can imagine a
charge 3x higher than usual if I did.

Thanks again, all!


Jeff Dubin    jdubin@world.std.com    jd2859a@american.edu