HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 12:54 PST
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: NT Caller ID Unit
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 923, Message 9 of 9

On Dec 25 at 21:55, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> What do PA and CA have in common? I'll let John H. respond to that.   

Not a whole lot. There are no laws in CA proscribing CNID; in fact
even the current PUC regulations do not prohibit the offering of that
feature. PA has a law; CA has an attitude.

California is an example of special interests gone berzerk. Unless a
person is a member of some definable special interest group or
classification, he has no rights. In this case, we have the group
inappropriately labeled "privacy advocates" who has had its way.

The average telephone user such as myself (who is not a member of any
special interest group) has no say. Except for letters of annoyance
that went off to my assemblyperson and my state senator (both of whom
I believe are against Caller-ID anyway), there is not much left to do
but make whatever limited adjustments are possible within the crippled
scope of operation allowed within this state. Or move; but I am not so
inclined.

I am actually considering a screening system using one of my business'
800 numbers. Let us see the "anony-freaks" get around that!


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


[Moderator's Note: They'll call you from cellular phones. Here in
Chicago, the cell phones do report a number for ANI, but it will
always be some idiot number which is meaningless and one-way outbound
calling only. For example, my cell phone reports (to my 800 ANI print
out each month) a number which is NOT the cell phone number, which
when dialed says the number dialed xxx-xxxx is not in service for
incoming calls, and when checked with Name and Address Service (a
public IBT offering at 312-796-9600) returns as its entry, "Eye Bee
Tee Company" at an address on 87th Street in a western suburb; there
is a CO at that address; and a concentrator to the cell carrier.  It
is always the same number on a consistent basis. Caller-ID on the
other hand reports the cellular as 'Out of Area' and when I try call
screening against the number at the IBT Co, the screening attempt
fails for lack of supervision; unsupervised numbers can *never* be
forwarded to, screened against or Caller-ID'ed here. In other words,
telco can *always* get through when they want to call you!  :)  PAT]
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:35:54 GMT
From: de@moscom.com (David Esan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: A Good Telephone Company
Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 928, Message 3 of 13

I recently prepared to move, and was quite worried about all the
problems that could occur with my telephone: crossed lines, exorbitant
fees, phones shut off early, or turned on late, etc, etc, etc.

I want to report a very good experience.  I am served (the appropriate
verb) by Rochester Telephone, one of the largest independents in the
country.  Due to a whole slew of legal problems I was not able to tell
them of the move until two days before it happened.  I was able to
keep my number.

On the morning of the move my old line was dead by 7:30 am.  My new
line was activated.  There were no spurious messages, no interference
(well some, but that was poorly installed receptacles, which I
promptly fixed).  The bill just arrived.  Not a $45 charge for
punching in some numbers in a computer, but $3.84 for line switching.
Not a bad price considering overhead to the small work they had to do.

Just mark me up a happy Rochester Telephone customer.


David Esan      de@moscom.com
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 21:04:07 GMT
From: luckey@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Jon Luckey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 918, Message 2 of 9

castaldi@heroes.glassboro.edu writes:

> Boy, I hate those telephones that are picked to Telesphere, 0-plus and
> the like.

> Now that they found ways to block 10-ATT-0, AT&T has an 800 access
> That puts you into a call processing system. "Press 1 to place an AT&T
> call" seems nice, doesn't it? Well guess what -- those rotten payphone
> operators will not allow the dialpad to work after a call is placed!
> A friend of mine was sooooo mad (read severely p----- off) he hooked a
> chain around the bumper of his four wheel drive pickup and drug the
> whole phone, stand, and concrete pad down the highway. What will they
> think of next!

Actually, some of those payphones are doing those odd things less than
for trying to make you use 'their' long distance company, then for
trying to avoid fraud.

A recent article in "2600" details vulnerabilities in COCOTs (Customer
Owned Coin Operated Telephones), which are supposed to allow a third
party to resell service on a regular subscriber loop as pay phone
service.  They do this by giving a fake dial tone, and then redialing
the target number after the correct toll has been inserted.

Well, if one isn't careful, such as letting people dial anything that
begins with 10-ATT-0, then people can dial 10-ATT-011xxxxx and get
INTERNATIONAL calls for 'free' on these phone.  And if one waits after
a call for the other party for dial tone to return, its possible to
make another call, local, interstate, international, 900, without
paying.  This is one reason keypads get disabled after a call is
initiated.  I suspect they are vulnerable to those 800 numbers that
use the ANI information to call you back collect.

Well, after reading about these scams, I'm a bit more sympathetic for
the 'tricks' these payphones seem to play than I was when I first read
of things like 1-ATT-0 blocks.  But not entirely, as if they had made
it flexible enough when they designed these phones they could block
things like 10-ATT-011 while letting legitimate 10-ATT-0 calls go
through.  Its only software!  :)

Disclaimer:  10-ATT-0 is used an example, of course the same arguments
apply for the 10-Codes for other carriers.


[Moderator's Note: Well, genuine Bell payphones don't seem to have
those problems, and they are routed through a variety of carriers
where credit card and collect billing is concerned, although they all
default to AT&T for coin calls. Maybe the COCOTS could start using a
little better software.  I am not sympathetic.   PAT]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 19:06:23 EST
From: jdelancy@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer? 
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 926, Message 6 of 10

Ron Bean <nicmad!madnix!zaphod%astroatc.UUCP@cs.wisc.edu> wrote: 

> Are those really the ONLY pocket dialers still on the market?

> They don't look very well constructed to me. And in any case, I'd
> have much more faith in them if the label said "Sharp" or "Casio", or
> ANYTHING other than "Radio Shack".

Well say what you will about "Rip Off" Shack pocket dialers, but I've
had one of theirs, with sixty memories, for over seven years.  It aint
failed yet nor has the "cheap" construction been a problem. Like a
well known watch advertisement "It takes a licking and keeps on
aticking" ...

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Subject: Telemate speed problems
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:30:11 GMT

Having just heard about Telemate (v3.10), I tried it, and found that I
liked the features much better than telix, procomm, or any others I've
seen, BUUUUT -- It has one major problem, which, to me, renders it useless.

It is much too slow at updating the screen (also gets timeouts with zmodem).
Telix, for example, has no problem keeping up.  Telemate couldn't paint faster
than 2kchar/sec to the screen, which makes v.32 and v.32bis less than
fully useful.  (This is on a 386, 25mhz, fast vga video, 16550 uart,
at either 38.4 or 57.6kbaud -- and it works fine for telix -- so I'm
fairly sure the system is not the bottleneck.)  It was both visually
slower, observably slower from the fact that the screen keeps painting
looong after the receive light goes off (but not so with telix), and
it benchmarks at about 2kchar/sec.  Zmodem works fine with telix, gets
timeouts with telemate...

So my question is:  Has anyone else noticed this?  Does anyone care? :-)
Has anyone found a way around it?

I contacted the support people at their compuserve address, and they replied
they felt the features outweighed the speed problem.  (To me, that's a
pretty poor attitude, but...)

So my final question is:  Does anyone else want to see telemate fix this?

I can see it as a big win over telix/procomm/et al., but not if it can't
keep up with modern modems.
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: HELP! problems with 2-line phones
Date: 27 Dec 92 23:56:14 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.

 In article <1992Dec22.003824.2898@combdyn.com> lawrence@combdyn.com (Lawrence Chen) writes:
>not dropped when the other line rings.  I have tried each phone
>individually and they all seem to cause line noise on the other line
>(line2) when line1 rings.  These phones are essential and I was
>wondering if there was some way to suppress this overlapping effect.

The already suggested switches or the Proctor or Melco automatic modules
will solve any problems with the same line being picked up elsewhere,
and may solve your crosstalk problem between lines if they isolate
most of the offending wiring in the building from the line the modem is on.

Your real problem is probably that you have lots of QUAD (red,green,yellow,
black) wire that is NOT 2 seperate twisted pairs. If you replace it with
REAL twisted pair wiring (and while you are at it run 4 pair - it doesn't cost
that much more), you will find that the crosstalk disappears. You can have all 
the phone lines you want in the same cable, but they better be on individual
twisted pairs. Use telephone wire, NOT something that happes to be 'twisted'.

If you plan to also run ethernet (10Base-T) over it, I would run them in a
seperate sheath. Once you are pulling one 4 pair cable, hauling a second
in at the same time is easy. Many run 10Base-T in the same cable with their 
phones and have no problems.
From: Vijay_Anand@transarc.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Ftp site for ZyXEL firmware
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:39:50 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA19140; Mon, 28 Dec 92 06:44:44 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA11410; Mon, 28 Dec 92 06:44:42 -0800
X-Received: by transarc.com (5.54/3.15) id <AA00818> for comp.dcom.modems.usenet@decwrl.dec.com; Mon, 28 Dec 92 09:44:37 EST
X-Received: via switchmail; Mon, 28 Dec 1992 09:44:36 -0500 (EST)
X-Received: from slick via qmail
          ID </afs/transarc.com/service/mailqs/q2/QF.MfDl:lD0BwwqI0Rmkr>;
          Mon, 28 Dec 1992 09:44:02 -0500 (GMT)
X-Received: from slick via qmail
          ID </afs/transarc.com/usr/vijay/.Outgoing/QF.QfDl6rD0BwwqEzRGYH>;
          Mon, 28 Dec 1992 09:39:51 -0500 (GMT)
X-Received: from Messages.7.14.N.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.slick.sun4.40
          via MS.5.6.slick.sun4_40;
          Mon, 28 Dec 1992 09:39:50 -0500 (GMT)
X-To: comp.dcom.modems.usenet
X-In-Reply-To: <mckeeveb.725275855@sfu.ca>
X-References: <1992Dec24.161722.18376@bernina.ethz.ch> <mckeeveb.725222966@sfu.ca>,
	<mckeeveb.725275855@sfu.ca>

> Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.modems: 25-Dec-92 Re: Ftp site for
ZyXEL firm..
> Gumby - The u. user@mona (3441)
> shape.mps.ohio-state.edu		Look in pub/netfax-zyxel
> 				Contains netfax patches for ZyXELs


Where can I get the latest version of netfax?

Vijay
vijay+@transarc.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: berger@gauss (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: INTEL SATISFATION/400
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:27:22 GMT

john.navas@uttsbbs.uucp (John Navas)  writes:
>I evaluated the 400 and rejected it for several reasons.  First, I
>found a number of hardware and software bugs.  Second, I was
>disappointed with Intel support.  Third, I discovered that Intel had
>no intention of supplying firmware downloaders for non-DOS operating
>systems like OS/2, Windows NT or UNIX, which essentially makes the 400
>a DOS-only data modem (as well as fax modem), unless you buy third
>party software (which is available at least for OS/2).  Fourth, I was
>disappointed in the quality, compatibility and performance of Intel
>software.  (Had I kept the 400 I would have used high-quality
>third-party fax software.)  Overall I found that the 400 was an
*----
I found the supplied Intel FAX software to be first rate.  It was far
better than the commercial DOS packages I looked at, and a big step
above the software bundled with most FAX modems.

I've been very pleased with Intel support regarding my 400/E modem.
I can reach them by phone, fax, or BBS, and download software and
firmware upgrades for free.

The decision to only support a DOS loader for the Intel 400 internal
modem was unfortunate, but underscores the notion that Intel is still
a hardware company.  If you have to pay extra for it anyway (and why
should everybody pay the cost of your specialized software?), I don't
see how it matters if it comes from Intel or a third party, as long as
its available.  Virtually all bundled FAX software is actually supplied
by third parties, and not the modem hardware manufacturer.
--
	Mike Berger
	Internet    berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)
Subject: Digicom v.32 9600e question
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News & Mail
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:35:29 GMT
Followup-To: poster

I've just come into possession of a Digicom V.32 modem, the 9600e.  It
appears to work, but when it says v.32 it means v.32 *only*.  (i.e.,
9600 bps and 4800 fallback -- not 300,1200, or 2400).

Does anyone know if there's an upgrade or trade in offer available
for this, or is it destined for the "once cool, now not so useful" pile?

Bill

(I set the followup to "poster" because this doesn't seem too interesting
to the net at large)
-- 
SEANEWS  []  Seattle News + Mail  []  Public Access  []  +1 206 747 NEWS
E-mail for PGP key.   MD5 (no sigs) is: 8e253e95133365a292261c7d0da58bcb
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: jlacour@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Lacour)
Subject: USR Technical Support - Email info herein
Followup-To: poster 
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:51:02 GMT

USRobotics does not presently support its products via email (except on the
BBS +1 708 982 5092).

If you require technical support or customer service, you may reach USR at
1 800 982 5151 (+1 708 982 5151) or +1 708 933 5552 FAX.  You should have
your serial number handy and a description of the problem and/or question.

If you would like, you can email a request for a call back by sending
your name, telephone number, fax number, product name, product serial number
to support@usr.com.  Note that support will NOT be provided via email, only
requests for callbacks may be sent here.  If your email does not include the
necessary information, it will be returned with a standard reply.

Please do not bother <any other id>@usr.com and please do not send frivolous
messages as mail sent to support is bounced to me on my LAN mail account. 
Being a long time netperson, I appreciate the convience and utility of the
net, but I can't manage 100s of messages about sales or how to change your
Sportster to support sync with AT commands (you cant!).

If you don't have a USR product or don't know where to call, call
1 800 DIAL USR (342 5877) or +1 708 982 5010.


Regards.
--
John A. LaCour III, Technical Support                      +1 708 982 5151
USRobotics, Inc.                                       FAX +1 708 933 5552
8100 N. McCormick Blvd.                           
Skokie, IL  60076                              jlacour@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

USR Email:      jlacour_+a_robopost_+ljohn_lacour+r%usrobotics@mcimail.com


Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: larry@gator.use.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: ZyXEL connecting to other mode
Organization: Gator Communications - Feeds-R-Us 219-289-3745 
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 14:02:06 GMT

Mick_Schmidt@hb.maus.de (Mick Schmidt) writes:

>Hmm, I might be wrong, but as far as I know the T-1000 is only capable of
>V.22bis (2400) and PEP, but not V.32 (9600).

You are correct.  The PEP in the 1000 only goes up to 9600, not 19200.

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.use.com
keeper of the Gator                                   uucp: uunet!gator!larry
From: matttrem@willard.UUCP (Matthew Trembley)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Telix problems with Zoom modem
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 11:27:37 EST
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814

I don't know if anyone here is good with Telix nor if this is the correct 
place to post this message but...
        I've been having trouble configuring my Zoom modem( Fax 
capabilities of 9600, data modem 2400, compression and 
error-correction).I recently got the latest config file for modems out of 
the Telix that just came out.  I have tried EVERY kind of modem in Zoom 
and none of them worked with my modem( not even the one that was supposed 
to).  I even tried EVERY other type of modem in the WHOLE file( Hayes, 
Boca, etc.).
What should I do?

                                                        Sincerely,
                                                        Confused

-- 
matttrem@willard.UUCP (Matthew Trembley)
gatech!vdbsan!willard!matttrem
emory!uumind!willard!matttrem
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: V32bis over _very_ noisy lines (HE
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 13:06:00 GMT

In article <54100002@ax.apc.org> saff@ax.apc.org writes:
>One of my users is having problem to connect to our T3000 with V32bis.
>She is in the Amazon, and the phone lines are *very* noisy. They are using
>a zoom v32bis (sp?) modem. The modems scream in agony for a few moments,
>and them die. I don't have the manuals for the Zoom modem, and they are
>not techinically skilled in the other side. Does anybody knows what
>problem it can be ? I appreciate any help!

PEP works a lot better over noisy lines than v32 or v32bis.
Your friend should either back off to 2400 baud or get the PEP
(Worldblazer) upgrade for her T3000.

Note: usual disclaimers apply, i.e., this is not an official Telebit
posting.  
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: mckeeveb@monashee.sfu.ca (Gumby - The unknown user)
Subject: Re: Ftp site for ZyXEL firmware
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:49:26 GMT

rudi@igc.ethz.ch (Rudi van Drunen) writes:

>Ok. The question is : does anyone know a FTP siter where I can find
>the images for the ROM update for the ZyXEL modems, together with the
>release notes ?? I suppose it must be somewhere ... Please mail me.

Try ftp.csie.nctu.edu.tw

They mirror the ROM images from the ZyXEL BBS in Tawain.

There is at least one more out there, but I don't have the address.

-- 
    Rob McKeever  VE7ICJ  rmckeeve@sfu.ca  mckeeveb@sfu.ca  604-291-0457
"Do you know what standards are?  They're career paths for people who don't
 want to work!" - John Parkinson, Ernst & Young at the BCDMA Conference '92
       -*-          Standard Disclaimers should be adequate        -*-
From: revell@rodan.UU.NET (James R Revell Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: need new version of Kermit
Date: 3 Jan 1993 01:02:07 -0500
Organization: UUNET Technologies Inc, Falls Church, VA
Reply-To: revell@uunet.uu.net (James R Revell Jr)
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
Keywords: ftp

In article <Dec.31.18.10.15.1992.17518@blaze.rutgers.edu> vbarr@blaze.rutgers.edu (Valerie Barr) writes:
} I would like to download a recent version of Kermit
...
} Does anyone know which ftp site has kermit?

I recently put the new version on ftp.uu.net with the additional c-kermit
kits for the more popular systems.  All of the individual kermit files the
mail tapes are now there too, though many are compressed.

It's in under /networking/terms/kermit.  See /index/networking/ls-lR.Z for
a listing of all the kermit files.  All of this is available via regular
and and anonymous uucp, anonymous ftp, and anonymous kermit or x/y/zmodem
(the last bit is new.  Just use the login "anonymous" on our 900 line).
-- 
James Revell	Network Services Mgr   <revell@uunet.uu.net>   /8^{~
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Subject: AT&T Paradyne thoughts?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:07:48 GMT

In looking for a set of modems for our machine (a public access internet
site), I found what looks like the current best deal -- AT&T Paradyne
"dataport" v.32bis for $206 each ($222 w/fax) [sysop price, of course;
says good until end of January].

Does anyone have any thoughts on these?  I've heard nothing but praise
so far...

Anyone have these?  Are they fantastic?  Junk?
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
From: craig.ford@yob.sccsi.com (Craig Ford) 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Bandwidth of HST and V.32bis
Date: 29 Dec 92 07:30:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: craig.ford@yob.sccsi.com (Craig Ford) 

FROM: craig.ford@yob.sccsi.com (Craig Ford)


yenchee@csie.nctu.edu.tw (Yeng-Chee Su) querried:

 YS> Does anyone know the bandwidth of HST and V.32bis?  As I know, the
 YS> V.32bis is 600Hz - 3KHz but what's the HST?  I'm finding why the HST is
 YS> doing better than V.32bis in most situation(worse line).  Is the
 YS> bandwidth narrow than  V.32bis?  If not, why?  


V.32bis utilizes dual 1800hz transmitter carrier frequencies, and relies
heavily on echo cancellation for channel seperation. 14.4K HST utilizes
and 1800/375hz carriers and does not rely as heavily on echo cancellation.
The bandwidth utilized is the same 600-3khz.

---
Craig Ford                                   |"red is grey, and yellow's
Futures Past Systems                         |white, but we decide which
Usenet: Craig.Ford@yob.sccsi.com (Craig Ford)|is right, and which is an
Fido:   1:106/2001                           |illusion."
CIS:    74276,2374                           |     The Moody Blues

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
                                                                              
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems