HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:25:50 GMT
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN? Really Flat Rate Calling Politics
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 903, Message 9 of 15

In article <telecom12.890.3@eecs.nwu.edu> wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.
edu (David Lesher) writes:

> If you're a new install, flat rate is not available, period.
> (I think this is the case in Michigan or was it Indiana, now. I invite
> correction on this point.)

You're pretty close.  Michigan Bell used to offer two classes of
residential service: Call Plan 50 and Flat Rate.  Call Plan 50 gave
you 50 calls per month for a fixed fee, and charged you $0.062/call
for additional calls.  Flat Rate was what its name implied -- a fixed
amount for as many calls as you could make in a month.  They made an
effort in January of 1992 to remove the latter class of service and
replace it with Call Plan 400, which is similar to Call Plan 50 but
allows 400 calls per month instead of 50.  They maintained that since
the average household makes less than 300 calls/month, almost no one
would be inconvenienced, and almost everyone would save money with the
new reduced charge.

Of course, the rates still don't jive with the telco's cost for the
call, because calls made during peak hours (9am-5pm, I would assume)
cost as much as calls made at 3:30am.  But people who make few phone
calls get to pay $1-$2 less for their phone, and people like me who
used to rack up 2000+ calls/month now pay much more.


Marc Unangst, N8VRH   mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us
From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: CPC Detection and Purpose
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:45:15 GMT
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 904, Message 13 of 14

In article <telecom12.882.2@eecs.nwu.edu> TONY@VM1.MCGILL.CA (Tony
Harminc) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: You are correct, and furthermore, you could not
> just put dialtone on hold ... there had to be an actual connection
> established. 

On my 1A2 connected to a GTD-5 CO, you can put dialtone on hold, but
when it changes from dialtone to the recording there is a loss of
current which then disables the hold.

Regarding the ringing being out of sync with the real line ringing, on
the line cards there are jumpers with optional external resistors to
program the time delay -- too short and it stops ringing/flashing
between "real rings", too long and it continues to ring/flash after
"real ringing" has stopped.  Do more modern key systems/PBXes have
better ring detection than this?  I thought most also had this
problem.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 17:41 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Larry King Knows of Disconnect
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 910, Message 8 of 11

tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood) writes:

> These same people say wait ten rings, which puts you in the two minute
> category, which they then argue as 'well you must have connected and
> talked to someone or something since the call WAS two minutes', or 'we
> don't bill for non-connected calls so your wrong'.

When GTE Mobilnet first went on the air years ago in San Francisco,
the software had an interesting quirk. While the cellular customer
would not be billed for BY/DA, the billing program automatically added
one minute to each and every call that did supervise. This was readily
spotted by customers who found it a little strange that there were
absolutely no "one minute" calls charged for in the entire billing
period.

GTE first claimed that this only happened to one minute calls but then
finally admitted the truth. And then it refunded a major amount of
money!


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
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 20:48 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Free Voicemail for the Homeless
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 912, Message 4 of 15

Pacific Bell has begun a program the makes voicemail boxes available
to the homeless. The hope, of course, is that having a way to be
reached when looking for employment and handling other affairs will
enable those who are temporarily without a permanent location to put
their lives back together.

Thirty boxes will be made available at the Salvation Army's Gateway
Center in San Francisco and a similar arrangement is being implemented
in southern California.


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
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:15:01 GMT
From: joel@wam.umd.edu (Joel M. Hoffman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 902, Message 3 of 8

In article <telecom12.890.2@eecs.nwu.edu> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us
writes:

> Unmeasured service is a mistake the telcos made years and years ago,

> And as much as I hate it for increasing my phone bill, usage-based
> billing is fairer to everyone.  Any sort of flat rate means that the
> low-usage customers wind up subsidizing the high-usage customers.  My

Does it really cost the telco more for more usage?  I don't think so.
The telco owns the lines, and electronic lines >don't< require more
repair the more they are used.  So, in fact, fixed-rate seems the most
equitable way to go.


Joel
From: dwalker@unixg.ubc.ca (David Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Compressed Videocon Switched 56
Date: 12 Dec 92 13:11:25 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 900, Message 6 of 14

I have just installed a Mitsubishi 8100 CODEC in the videoconference
room.  I am also looking for educators who are actively using
compressed video for training or other purposes, to link up visually.
Here in Canada I have been having a problem going overseas to
Australia and Great Britain compressed due to the telcos who are not
processing switched 56 outside of North America.  I have yet to get
Australia on the screen. The USA there does not seem to be a problem
overseas but here in the north it is another matter.


David    The Commonwealth of Learning
#1700-777 Dunsmuir Street, Box #10428,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada  V7Y 1K4
Tele: (604 ) 660-4675  Telex: 04507508 COMLEARN  Fax: (604) 660-7472
Videoconference Room (H.261 Compatible) (604) 666 9567/9569
From: andy@homebase.vistachrome.com (Andy Finkenstadt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Email to Genie
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:04:36 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 900, Message 14 of 14

Henry Mensch said in a letter:  [Moderator's Note: Excerpts above. PAT]

>> ....  In addition much of the mail that I answer in my duties on
>> GEnie (see .signature) thanks us for making this low-cost service
>> available for the one or two times they have to send mail per month.

> you've not been paying attention to the others who point out that the
> pricing is *way* out of proportion with other similar internet-based
> services.

No sir, I know GEnie has been paying attention and I have been paying
attention. I know that such considerations are being evaluated. GEnie
stated such the Monday before Thanksgiving in the usual place.

>> GEnie offers a much more liberal electronic mail policy than either of
>> CompuServe or Prodigy: $4.95 per month covers ALL the GEnie Mail you
>> can eat, plus access to 100 other of the Basic services.  

> compuserve has a similar monthly-fee-for-many-services-and-email
> scheme.

Not to sound like a walking (typing) GEnie ad ... but ...

GEnie offers access to about 100 other basic services including
unlimited GEnie mail.  CompuServe offers access to around 30 services
including previously-free services like the Practice forum, and the
electronic mail is limited to a budget of about $9/month.  Access
beyond the basic services (into what GEnie calls Value Services) is
also below the cost for CompuServe access around the clock at all
connect rates.


Andrew Finkenstadt, Vista-Chrome, Inc., Homes & Land Publishing Corporation
GEnie Unix RoundTable Manager, andy@vistachrome.com, andy@genie.geis.com.


[Moderator's Note: This exchange of correspondence closes the thread
on GEnie, Prodigy and Compuserve email, none of which is more than
barely within the charter of this group anyway.  Thanks.   PAT]
From: jongsma@swdev.si.com (Ken Jongsma)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: GTE PCS Trial Begins
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:05:11 GMT
Reply-To: jongsma@esseye.si.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 905, Message 2 of 5


 From the latest GTE Quarterly Shareholder Report:

"...GTE in August announced the nation's largest market trial of
wireless communications services.

Called Tele-Go Phone Service, the comprehensive consumer-market trial
offers two versions of personal communications services (PCS) to GTE
residental and small business telephone customers in Florida's Tampa
Bay area. The trial, which began in September and will conclude by
year end 1993, is a joint product of GTE Mobile Communications, GTE
Telephone Operations, GTE Laboratories, AT&T Network Systems, OKI
Telecom and Northern Telecom Inc.

[...]

The experimental GTE Tele-Go includes two versions of PCS.

The first, a fully mobile version, offers an improved-quality cordless
telephone service at home with the advantages of cellular-like
mobility away from home. Customers will have a set number of minutes
of usage for a fixed rate [Ha! Sounds like measured rate to me. -Ken]
when within their neighborhood "home area". Outside the "home area,"
these same customers can continue to use the service -- even when
traveling in a moving vehicle -- for a nominal "premimum area" charge.

The second version employs the same "home area" and "premimum area"
calling and billing options. However, the PCS handset cannot receive
inbound calls when it is outside the "home area." Those calls are
routed directly to a voicemail system and can be retrieved from either
home or preimum areas.

[...]

Customers must also be standing still or walking, as opposed to
traveling in a car, when placing calls, as the signal does not "hand
off" from one PCS antenna site to another.

These restrictions will help determine how "mobile" the residential
customers really want to be.

During the trial, customers will have the option of subscribing to
Tele-Go as a replacement of their residential service or as an
addition to it. [...]

<end of article>


Kenneth R Jongsma        jongsma@benzie.si.com
Smiths Industries     3115,1041@compuserve.com
Grand Rapids, Michigan         +1 616 241 7702
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:46:49 EST
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: I Want a Complete Audio System
Organization: Crynwr Software
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 907, Message 4 of 11

I want a complete audio system.  I don't think it exists yet.  I want
to be able to pick from the following components, possibly with
multiple instances of each device.

Audio generators:
  o Telco line card (with caller id)
  o Radio receiver
  o Cassette player
  o CD player
  o Disk file
  o Microphone (on headset)
  o DTMF generator
  o V.32vis modem
  o FAX modem

Audio receivers:
  o Telco line card
  o Stereo headset (comfortable enough to wear all day).
  o Cassette recorder
  o Speakers
  o Disk file
  o DTMF recognizer
  o V.32vis modem
  o FAX modem

Everything should be under computer control, including which inputs
are connected to which outputs (using a crosspoint switch).  This will
let me do the following things (NOT a comprehensive list):

  o Music on hold.
  o Record my phone conversation to a file.
  o Play back an audio clip to someone I'm talking to on the phone.
  o Answer the phone and cut off the radio.
  o Dial the phone from a database.

My ZyXEL modem does a lot of this, but there are some things it
doesn't do right.  For example, if I try to record a phone convo to
disk, the modem has to come on the line, and that introduces a loss in
the signal.

The telco headset is mono, telco (4Khz) quality and isn't infinitely
comfortable.

Everything should be digitized once, and carried in digital form in
the system.


russ <nelson@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
Crynwr Software           Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.              315-268-1925 Voice  |  LPF member - ask me about
Potsdam, NY 13676         315-268-9201 FAX    |  the harm software patents do.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:15:17 GMT
From: mcrware!!troyf@uunet.UU.NET (Troy Frericks)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Questions About Scanner Laws
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 909, Message 2 of 12

In article <telecom12.906.5@eecs.nwu.edu> PAT answers:

> In other words, if you had a Radio Shack PRO-34 scanner and you
> pulled diodes D-3 and D-4 from the circuit, you would be breaking the
> law. 

Pat,

I have seen this several times -- Did I just now get it?  PRO-"34" and
diodes D-"3" and D-"4".  Suppose this was coincidence?


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


[Moderator's Note: What an interesting coincidence! I really don't
know, but it is kind of fascinating.   PAT]
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:07:43 GMT
From: kevinc@ups.com (Kevin C. Castner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Questions About Scanner Laws
Organization: UPS Research & Development
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 910, Message 5 of 11

sohl,william h (whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com) wrote:

> In article <telecom12.906.5@eecs.nwu.edu> mmm@cup.portal.com writes:

>> Is it legal to use one?

> Only to the extent that it is illegal to listen to cellular frequencies.

>> It is illegal to listen to those frequencies, or in the event they
>> are tuned accidentally to acknowledge any transmission overheard.

> Another final note -- it is trivially simple to construct a broad band
> converter that would allow a non-cellular scanner to recive cellular.
> That being the case, the new scanner law is about as useless as ...

I really have to agree with the triviality of bypassing the law
completely.  The problem is being attacked from the wrong angle.
Instead of outlawing receivers in cellular frequencies (which could be
legally analogous to outlawing radar detectors, which has been
overturned in some states) the burden of security should be in the
hands of the cellular manufacturers and the service providers.

Would it really be that difficult to have an encryption algorithm
based on a key that the person stores in his handset?  Upon setting
the key, the cellular phone could communicate the key to the cell for
later use.  To capture the call, the eavesdropper would need to first
capture the key, and then unencrypt the message at some later time.
Even the government would be happy because they could still tap the
call (with a warrant) by getting the key from the service provider.

I'm not 100% sure how the cellular net works, but I would be
interested in hearing ideas, problems, etc. about this.


Kevin C. Castner     kevinc@ups.com
Unix Administrator   United Parcel Service
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:21:30 GMT
From: houston@eso.mc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communicat
Reply-To: houston@eso.mc.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 902, Message 8 of 8

Motorola got permission from the FCC to launch five experimental birds
back in August.  Don't know when they will actually be trying it --
they've had Irridium on paper for over two years.  Constellation
Communications was approved for two satellites, and Ellipsat was
approved for four birds.  Also Motorola has contracted with someone to
develop ground stations for Iridium -- can't remember who.

I think they are all talking low orbit satellites, but I don't know
what coverage.


"sam" houston
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:47:19 GMT
From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Organization: UMCC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 902, Message 7 of 8

In article <telecom12.898.4@eecs.nwu.edu> mccomatt@ba.isu.edu writes:

> Whatever happened to the Iridium satelite network?  I seem to recall a
> proposed operating date sometime in '93.  Is Motorola still working on
> this?  What is the progress, if any?  Anyone else doing this kind of
> thing?

   My understanding is that Motorola basically planned out the
details, and then required companies/investors interested in pooling
funds and talent to get with Motorola before a certain date.  This
date was reached without having the requisite amount of funds and
special talent reached.  I understand that Motorola has recently
propogated a new 'cut-off' date of sometime in February or March.  If
they don't get enough support, the project will be mothballed.
 

Tim Tyler            Internet: tim@ais.org  MCI Mail: 442-5735 
P.O. Box 443         C$erve: 72571,1005  DDN: Tyler@Dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Ypsilanti MI  48197  Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
From: mmm@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Questions About Scanner Laws
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:00:51 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 906, Message 5 of 16

Is it legal to own a scanner that can receive cellular phone
frequencies?  Is it legal to use one?  Is it legal to modify a scanner
to receive these frequencies?

And ditto, with regard to cordless phones and baby monitors.  Same
questions about scanning these things.


[Moderator's Note: If the scanner was made prior to the change in the
law, then it is not illegal to own it or use it. It is illegal to
listen to those frequencies, or in the event they are tuned accidentally 
to acknowledge any transmission overheard. It is now illegal to make a
scanner which receives those frequencies. It is illegal to modify a
scanner to recieve those frequencies. In other words, if you had a
Radio Shack PRO-34 scanner and you pulled diodes D-3 and D-4 from the
circuit, you would be breaking the law. I am reminded of the 'Radio
Hobbyists Guild' which some fool here in Chicago operated a decade ago
when Oak/Channel 44 was running scrambled pay television. He send out
detailed schematics and copious notes to anyone who sent money to his
post office box. These schematics and notes informed the reader exactly 
what NOT to do to avoid breaking any laws when building things which
'resembled' decoder boxes.  (What's that, Pfieffer? Who, me? Blush!). 
During the 1920's, the Annheuser-Busch Brewing Company sent out kits
for making your own near-beer ("be sure not to connect A to B or add
any of ingredient C; that would be violating Prohibition ...")   PAT]
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:34:18 GMT
From: David Lemson <lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: PCN Equipment Used by Ameritech in Chicago PCN Trial
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 899, Message 7 of 11

I know that Ameritech is using the Motorola flip-style phone/pager
units for their Chicago-area trial, but does anyone know what
equipment they are using for the base stations, including who
manufactures their transmitters/radios?


David Lemson                                                (217) 244-1205
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu                UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson 
NeXTMail accepted                                  BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps Andrew Greene will respond, since he is
using the system now as a beta tester.   PAT]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:41:13 GMT
From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"?
Organization: Yale University--Genetics
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 908, Message 9 of 18

In article <telecom12.905.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=
0205925@mhs.attmail.com wrote:

> No, I'm not making this up.  A Canadian company has just trademarked
> "The Net" and its derivatives, such as The Net Mail, The Net EDI, The
> Net EnvoyPost, The Net Database Gateway, and The Net Enhanced Fax.

Isn't there already a network called Texas
                                     Higher
                                     Education
                                     NETwork

or THE_NET in operation?


Matt Healy   matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu
From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular RJ-11 Jacks
Date: 13 Dec 92 16:48:17 GMT
Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan CITI
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 904, Message 6 of 14

In article <telecom12.893.13@eecs.nwu.edu>, dsjohns@uswnvg.com (Dwight
Johns) writes:

> Many of the newer cellular phones out there have (oh, what's a good
> politicaly correct term) less than fully functioning RJ-11 jack on
> them.

That's because the idea of putting a real RJ-11 on a cellphone is
patented, believe it or not.  Tellular holds the patent, and makes
some nice rj-11 adapters, and even some rack-mount stuff with ground
start lines for putting an entire pbx on cellular trunks.  That stuff
mostly sells to countries with less developed telephone infrastructure. 
I think they also license the technology to Spectrum Cellular.

> Now my only complaint is that I can't go over 1200 baud on a
> cellular connection and that I drop carrier whenever I handoff.

You need to get mnp10 (or pep) modems on both ends.  I've had some
luck with non-mnp10 modems, but they usually drop at handoffs.
Microcom makes a nice pocket mnp10 modem, although battery life isn't
very good.  Of the non-mnp10 modems, the Telebit Qblazer works pretty
well on cellular.  The best you can hope for with any of these is the
v.32bis 9600 fallback speed, and often you'll be at 7200 or worse.