Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1981-86.volumes.1-5/vol5.iss001-076

Internet Message Format | 1990-01-27 | 623KB

From [e-mail] Fri Jan 26 00:24:54 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA24655; Fri, 26 Jan 90 00:22:37 EST
Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Received: from WINNIE.FIT.EDU by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22422;
          25 Jan 90 9:49 CST
Received: from zach.fit.edu by winnie.fit.edu (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C)
    id AA01757; Thu, 25 Jan 90 10:31:51 EST
Received: by zach.fit.edu (5.58/HARRIS-4.0)
    id AA06444; Thu, 25 Jan 90 10:32:14 EST
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 10:32:14 EST
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Resent-Date:  Thu, 25 Jan 90 23:23:25 CST
Resent-From: [e-mail]
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Status: RO

 2-Jul-85 17:52:26-EDT,6961;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Tue 2 Jul 85 17:52:21-EDT
Date: 2 Jul 85 17:17-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #1
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                            Tuesday, July 2, 1985 5:17PM
Volume 5, Issue 1

Today's Topics:

               (Truly) Integrated Telephone/Clock Radio
                        5000km Cordless Phone!
             Re:  equal access confusion TELECOM V4 #206
                       Equal access miscellanea
     Standard representation for international telephone numbers

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 85 08:15:07 PDT (Monday)
Subject: (Truly) Integrated Telephone/Clock Radio
From: [e-mail]


Friends,

I am looking for an integrated clock radio/telephone.  Most combination
clock radio/telephones on the market are NOT integrated.  They consist
of a telephone which sits in a cradle on top of the clock radio.  The
only integration is that when you lift the telephone, the radio is
muted.

My integration requirements include AT LEAST the ability to set the
alarm time via a keypad, which I expect would be the same keypad used to
dial the phone.

If you have seen such a unit, please advise.

Thanx, Victor Schwartz

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 1 Jul 85 16:58:39 EDT
From:     Joe Pistritto <[e-mail]>
Subject:  5000km Cordless Phone!

      While on a recent trip overseas, I passed thru Heathrow Airport
in London, and picked up a copy of an inflight magazine for a middle
eastern airline (I think it was Saudia, but I'm not sure).   Anyway, there
was an ad for the 'electronic briefcase', with a comparitively normal
briefcase pictured, along with a number of electronic accessories, like
a bug finder, calculator,  and a '5000Km range cordless phone', that
allegedly could be used as a car phone as well.  What is this?  The
picture looked something like a regular cordless, but how do they get
away with claiming a 5000km range?

                                                 -JCP

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 1985 15:56-EST
From: ihnp4!mcb@Berkeley (Mark C Baker @ AT&T Network Systems)
Subject: Re:  equal access confusion TELECOM V4 #206

What I suspect is Rick (my equal access carrier is limbo)
Kovalcik's problem is that the Central Office software
wants to route your calls via Sprint's trunks.  However,
if your office is a recent convert to equal access, Sprint
might not have any/enough trunk curcuits connected to
your Central Office yet, hence the fast busy tone.

When my home phone's office (312-983) cutover to equal
access last May, I tried making calls on various carriers.
Sprint (10777+) always returned fast busy.  Calls made
last week over Sprint seemed to want to complete.  I
would guess that Sprint's trunk curcuits were put into
service after the software.

-- Mark (my equal access carrier is AT&T) Baker
   ihnp4!ihlpm!mcb

------------------------------

Date: 02-Jul-1985 1522
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: Equal access miscellanea

Calls to your primary carrier (via 1+) are processed exactly the same as
if you had dialed the 10xxx code for that carrier -- the quality should be
the same whether you select a carrier as your primary carrier or dial 10xxx.

This is not the same as saying that the quality of carrier "x" will be the
same as the quality of carrier "y".

Each carrier has to run traffic studies to determine how many trunks to
install in each end-office (just as AT&T has always done -- this is equal
access in action).  Right now, here in Nashua, I just dialed 10777 and am
listening to a CO generated recording: "We're sorry, all long distance
carrier circuits are busy now; will you please try your call again later."
Sprint obviously is running less than P01 service here, since I can get
that recording with only a few attempts at this time of day.

Someone said he would like to be able to get "none-of-the-above" -- you
sort of can; it's called "no-pick" -- and seems to be the status that
someone else who can currently only call 800 numbers is in right now.

However, if someone dials 10xxx and puts a call through, the charges will
still show up on your bill if the carrier chosen either has a billing
agreement with your local operating company or does their own billing.

/john

------------------------------

Date: 02-Jul-1985 1551
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: Standard representation for international telephone numbers

There is an international standard, intended to be used on letterhead and on
business cards:

It is:

Tel:  National  Basingstoke (0256) 56101     (an extension, if any, is mentioned
      ----------------------------------    after the number.)
      International        [phone]

It's obviously too verbose for telephone directories, but what do you expect
from the CCITT?

What is important is that in the International Number, the number is prefixed
with the plus sign, which indicates that the caller should first dial the
national code used to prefix international calls.  Then there are NO OTHER
punctuation marks other than spaces, because certain bits of punctuation
have national meaning.

The format of the National number is determined nationally.  In the U.K. it's
important to give the name of the exchange, so that callers can first check
their local codes list before using the area code.  (Yes, in the U.K. you don't
necessarily dial "0256" to call Basingstoke from points nearby, you might dial
"96" or some other code.)

In other countries the name of the exchange is usually not specified.  Those
exchanges with letters still remaining in the U.S. (they're almost all gone)
would be listed as follows:

Tel:  National  (311) KLondike 5-2368
      -------------------------------
      International   [phone]

DEC uses an internal private format for telephone numbers, e.g. [44]-(256)-56101
which places the country code in square brackets and the city or area code
(without local dialing prefixes) in parentheses.  This is only slightly more
informative than the CCITT standard, above, in that it makes it clear what part
is the country code, what part the city or area code, and what part is the local
number.  But if you're inside the country in question, you have to know what to
dial in front of the city/area code -- and since most countries (except France)
always show the "0" or whatever in the national number, our internal format is
confusing to those not initiated into the mysteries of telephony.

/john

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 5-Jul-85 00:06:09-EDT,8185;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Fri 5 Jul 85 00:06:05-EDT
Date: 4 Jul 85 23:39-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #2
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Thursday, July 4, 1985 11:39PM
Volume 5, Issue 2

Today's Topics:

                         new archive created
                         Tricks of the trade.
                 Update on telephone harrassment case

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue 2 Jul 85 19:23:27-EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: new archive created

PS:<TELECOM>VOLUME-4.TXT is this past year's TELECOM digests. They
join the archive as of the previous issue (which is volume 5, Issue 1).

TELECOM.RECENT will continue to be maintained at MIT-XX until
further notice.

SRI-CSL is in the process of updating its Tenex system to a
FOONLY F4 running TOPS-20. That host is on address [128.18.0.254],
but according to the NIC table, connecting to SRI-CSL will yeild
the tenex system, so be sure to use the address and not the name.
This will continue to be valid until further notice.

Enjoy,
--JSol

------------------------------

Subject: Tricks of the trade.
Date: 03 Jul 85 06:15:52 EDT (Wed)
From: Henry N. Holtzman <[e-mail]>


Try this one on for size:

The other day I dialed 0 from a New England Telephone centrex phone with
least cost routing. I asked "What is the area code for Smithtown, LI?"  The
reply was 10288516.  What a hack!

-Hank

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Jul 85 21:12:01 MDT
From: donn@utah-cs (Donn Seeley)
Subject: Update on telephone harrassment case

I want to thank all the people who sent mail to me in response to my
original posting on the subject.  I tried to give personal replies to
each message, but in the end the volume was simply overwhelming, so I
hope you'll accept this note as a heartfelt 'thank you'.

My friend's telephone harrassment has stopped, but his problems are not
yet over.  Pacific Bell still maintains that he placed all of the calls
on his bill and wants him to pay up immediately.  He has paid for
everything except the last several months of charges for '976-Service'
calls.  Pacific Bell's '976-Service' lets a company furnish a recording
which is played when a number in the 976 'exchange' is dialed; in
addition to the usual toll charges on a call to one of these numbers, a
separate per-call additional charge is made, part of which goes to the
company.  This per-call charge varies from $0.50 for calls to
dial-a-soap or horoscopes to $2.00 for dial-a-porn.  My friend is
refusing to pay for some $300 in charges for calls to 976 numbers,
involving some hundreds of calls over a period of several months.  (The
total amount of bogus charges for 976 calls appears to be around $425,
counting 976 calls which were paid for before my friend recognized the
nature of the problem.)

My friend would like to get advice on how to to put together a petition
to the PUC, so that he can at least prevent Pacific Bell from taking
action until the dispute over phreaking has been settled.  Pacific Bell
claims that they are prepared to destroy my friend's credit rating
(curiously, the same threat was made by the harrassing phone callers),
and has said that they will cut off his phone service soon, so my
friend wants to move quickly.  My friend would also like information on
how best to persuade the PUC to examine his case and resolve the issue
over the charges completely.  (If you think another arena would be more
appropriate, we're open to suggestions.) If you have experience in this
area, we'd sure like to hear from you.

My friend and I feel that the case will be more persuasive if we can
document previous cases of phreaking, particularly cases which affected
Pacific Bell.  If you have any leads on articles or papers which
discuss phreaking, we'd sure appreciate it if you could send us
pointers to them, and if you have any personal experiences with
problems of this kind, we'd be interested in hearing about that too.

My friend has seen a copy of the original article I posted, and I've
received some feedback on it from him.  There are a few minor
inaccuracies or omissions in the article which I can correct.  My
friend says that his son didn't get onto a phreak bboard; the abuse is
probably coming from acquaintances of the son at his high school (which
is in a high-tech area and has many students whose parents work in the
electronics industry).  The police were indeed called in to handle the
abusive phone calls, and a policeman was actually on the line when a
couple of these calls came in.  The calls stopped immediately after
this, however...  My friend believes he understands how his
long-distance access code was stolen -- he thinks that someone may have
knocked at the front door and asked to use the phone, and this person
dug through the papers around the phone and uncovered the access code.
(Needless to say, my friend no longer keeps his access code written
down in an insecure place...) Not all of the unfamiliar numbers which
appeared on my friend's bills were 976 numbers, at least at first.
(All or virtually all of the unfamiliar numbers since the time the
abusive calls stopped have been these 976 numbers, however.) For
example, my friend was charged for 25 calls to the west coast consulate
of the USSR over three months, as well as one long distance call to the
military attache at the Russian embassy in Washington, DC.  (Don't ask
me what business the phreaks had with the Russians...) Many of the
numbers that were called are apparently unlisted; some of them may
actually be numbers internal to Pacific Bell facilities, although my
friend can't be sure because Pacific Bell won't discuss them.  (Pacific
Bell also refused to disclose the identities of the companies that ran
the 976 numbers my friend was charged for, until a recent PUC decision
forced them to do so.) My friend has found that a number of the abusive
calls he received were billed to his own long distance access code.
When he investigated some of the unfamiliar numbers on his long
distance bill he found some people who had also received abusive
calls.  (The harrassers used other methods to get at my friend; for
example they would call companies and misrepresent themselves as my
friend, ordering services which my friend didn't want or need, and on
at least one occasion they made a collect obscene phone call by giving
the operator the name of someone known to the family...) The total bill
for all the calls combined never reached a thousand dollars, but it
certainly was several hundred dollars; part of that bill was forgiven
by the long distance service (unfortunately Pacific Bell has not been
so magnanimous).  If I remember any more mistakes my friend found, I'll
mention them in the next message...

My friend was very glad to see the pile of messages from the net which
I sent him, and I hope that I'll have more to give him soon...  Many of
the messages simply expressed support; a number of them made practical
suggestions about how to fight phreaks and communicate with the phone
company, and my friend is looking into a number of the avenues that
were proposed.  A couple responses seemed rather negative -- I was
surprised to see that some people felt that my friend deserved the
treatment he got, either because he was naive about the potential for
telephone abuse and hence was 'asking for it', or because the son had
somehow betrayed the phreaks and required punishment for being
dishonest.  I'm not sympathetic to these attitudes and by the number of
positive responses, neither are the bulk of news readers...

Thanks again for the help,

Donn Seeley    University of Utah CS Dept    [e-mail]
40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W    [phone]    decvax!utah-cs!donn

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 8-Jul-85 01:16:13-EDT,7277;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Mon 8 Jul 85 01:16:05-EDT
Date: 8 Jul 85 00:48-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #3
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                            Monday, July 8, 1985 12:48AM
Volume 5, Issue 3

Today's Topics:

              Re:  Update on telephone harrassment case
                           The accelerator
                 Pointers to Microcom Modem & Vendor
                     Experience with Equal Access
                              Questions

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 5 Jul 85 10:11:17 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Update on telephone harrassment case

Be cautious about letting people in to use the phone!  Other sources
suggest that you offer to make the call yourself.

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 21 June 1985  17:22-MDT
From: decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!pertec!peregrine![e-mail]
Subject:   The accelerator

For those of you that have dial up asynchrous modems, there is a
relatively unknown product available.  It is called an accelerator.
It does three very useful things.

1. It huffman encodes all transmissions to increase transmission speed.

2. It does error checking and correction.

3. It does speed conversion.

It costs about $1000 dollars (you need one at each end).  And is made
by a company named Telebyte.  We have two of them and love them.  It
makes remote demos possible.  Not only can you go through pbx's, if
someone picks up the phone you don't get junk on the screen (if they
hang it up quick enough so that the modems don't drop carrier, you
will notice this only as a slowing down of transmission.  By the way
I don't sell them but if I looked it up I might be able to find the
name of our local (Southern California) distributor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Wexler(trwrb!pertec!peregrine!mike) | Send all flames to:
15530 Rockfield, Building C              |    trwrb!pertec!peregrine!nobody
Irvine, Ca 92718                         | They will then be given the
[phone]                            | consideration they are due.

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 24 June 1985  20:02-MDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject:   Pointers to Microcom Modem & Vendor

> There's been some discussion here about the 300/1200/2400 baud
> modem offered by Microcom (Microcomm?) that implements the MNP
> (Microcom[m] Networking Protocol) inside the modems' firmware.
> I cannot seem to be able to get any pointers to the company nor
> to the modem model number. Can anyone help? Thanks!

The same modem is being OEMed by CODEX as their SX/2400 model. EXACT
same product (as far as I can tell).

Charlie Lindahl
Texas Instruments (CRL/CSL)

ARPA:  lindahl%Waltz%TI-CSL@CSNet-Relay
UUCP:  {convex!smu, texsun, ut-sally, rice} ! waltz ! lindahl

------------------------------

Date: Sun 7 Jul 85 16:54:12-CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Experience with Equal Access


    Before Equal Access reached Austin, I had accounts with MCI &
    SATELCO (a local San Antonio-based company) for long distance
    service.  MCI called me up and asked me if I would designate
    MCI as my primary carrier.  I said yes since MCI was going to
    give me 1 hour free of night rate interstate calling just for
    signing up.  SATELCO sent me notices in the mail asking me to
    sign and return to them a note saying that I want to designate
    SATELCO as my primary carrier.  I never did sign the one for
    SATELCO.  After Equal Access reached Austin, I found one month
    too late that SATELCO had been made my primary carrier even
    though I designated MCI.  I called up Southwestern Bell Telephone
    and they told me that MCI did submit a request to put me on
    their system, but they also received one from SATELCO.  What did
    happen was that I had given one month's long distance calling
    to SATELCO, when the business should have gone to MCI.  I told
    the Southwestern Bell agent to change my primary carrier from
    SATELCO to MCI.  She responded by telling me that I would have
    to pay the $5 for the change.  I had gotten the impression that
    ALL changes during the first 6 months of Equal Access in an area
    were free.  Even the MCI representatives told me that.  I have
    been SCREWED:  Hooked to SATELCO when I wanted MCI, Gave business
    to SATELCO when it should have gone to MCI (along with the 1 free
    hour), and now Southwestern Bell is going to charge me five bucks
    to get MCI!  Has the FCC been informed of these practices?

------------------------------

Date: Sun 7 Jul 85 21:05:21-EDT
From: RONNIE@MIT-EECS
Subject: Questions




I have a couple of questions.  Excuse me if this has already been discussed
as I have not been following.

1.  When I am on a phone with three-way calling and the third party was called
    through an ATT calling card, it seems to be impossible to hang up on this
    person before the person hangs up on me.  If I call using the special tone
    and I try to hang up, I hear two clicks, and it just stays there.  This
    is very annoying especially when I have called information.  The operator
    connects me with the computer, which voices me the number, and I can't
    hang up!  I am forced to wait while another directory assistance operator
    comes on the line, who says, ``MAY I HELP YOU?'', to which I usually
    respond, ``YES, PLEASE HANG UP THE PHONE.''  When I call from a rotory
    or just decide to talk to the operator, giving him/her the calling card,
    when I press the switch-hook, it ``flashes'' and the operator asks me if
    ``I AM THROUGH.''  Of course I respond with a yes, but if the other person
    hasn't hung up, it still doesn't disconnect me!  Is there some way around
    this about which I don't know????!!!!  I am in Syracuse, New York, but have
    noticed this problem also in Miami, Florida.

2.  I have a friend who is living in Washington (Seattle Area) for the summer.
    He also has all of the custom calling features (except call-waiting).  We
    have noticed a couple of differences from what we are used to.  Firstly,
    when call-forwarding is established,  if you pick up the phone, it will tell
    you by giving three beep-tones.  Secondly, the voice of the computer that
    accepts your calling card is different, and it says something different.
    If you press # after the other party hangs up, for example, it will
    say, ``You may dial another CALL now.'' instead of NUMBER.  Also the
    emphisis seems to be on the word ANOTHER, as opposed to DIAL & CALL.
    These modifications seem to be useful...are they documented anywhere, and
    will they become a standard, and is there anything else we haven't
    discovered.


                Thanks for your time,
                    #Ron


                [e-mail]
                [e-mail]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
10-Jul-85 18:30:21-EDT,4476;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Wed 10 Jul 85 18:30:14-EDT
Date: 10 Jul 85 17:55-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #4
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Wednesday, July 10, 1985 5:55PM
Volume 5, Issue 4

Today's Topics:

                      Vadic Maxwell 2400V modem
                       SONG about 718/212 (?!?)
                      Coin Telephone Info Wanted
                           auto-dialer info
                            XMODEM and MNP

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 85 12:37:51 edt
From: David M. Siegel <dms@mit-hermes>
Subject: Vadic Maxwell 2400V modem

I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with this product?
For example, did any unexpected problems come up with its use.

Thanks,
-Dave

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 9 Jul 85 7:48:53 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  SONG about 718/212 (?!?)

This morning, on WNEW in New York, I heard Robert Warren (?) doing a short
song ( a lament ) about 718 area code.  It also mentions the passing of 212
from that part of NYC.  (In Bklyn. or Queens, there is also a 212 Cafe.)

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 9 Jul 85 15:53:27 EDT
From:     Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Coin Telephone Info Wanted

The following arose from a discussion on USENET's net.consumers newsgroup:

Quote from far back in the discussion:
>> >-->> Does anyone out there know where I can purchase a coin phone?
>> >-->> A few years ago I remember some firm selling retired pay phones
>> >-->> for about $60, but I can't locate them now.

If those of you wanting a coin phone want one that will actually
*work* like a real coin phone -- that is, collect coins before it
allows you to dial, screen for long distance, etc., and then you expect
to collect the coins from the box yourself, I am afraid you will be
disappointed.

I believe that all the used "reconditioned" coin phones you find for
sale in mail-order catalogs, etc., have been rewired so that they are
really just ordinary phones in a coin-phone box. (I also believe that the
coin box lock has been changed from the real telco lock, if it even
locks anymore, so you can't use your key on telco phones out in the "real
world".)

I recall reading, not too many months ago, in a magazine for
electronics-products dealers (I get several, so I am unsure which it
was), that it is possible in some BOC areas to buy your own coin phone,
but you then have to contract with the BOC for the software/operator
support required, pay some ridiculous monthly fee, and then *share* the
income you collect (or they collect -- not sure there) from that phone.

It can pay for small store owners, whose coin phones are the
neighborhood's telephones in poorer areas where many people don't have
their own phones. It wouldn't pay for you to have one in your shared
apartment, if that is what you have in mind.

If anyone on the net has definitive info about this, and also about the
restrictions and modification the telcos impose on sold older coin
phones, please post the info. I think I'll mail a copy of this to the
Telecom Digest, too, to solicit info there.

Regards,
Will Martin

USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin     or   ARPA/MILNET: [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: crash![e-mail]
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 85 16:00:51 PDT
Subject: auto-dialer info

Greetings..

    I am in need of some information as to the availability of SYNCHRONOUS
auto dialing devices.

            Thanks,

-- Scott O'Connell

    {ihnp4, cbosgd, sdcsvax, noscvax}!crash!scotto
     crash!scotto@ucsd  - or -  crash!scotto@nosc

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 85 01:15:30 EDT
From: Minh N. Hoang <[e-mail]>
Subject: XMODEM and MNP

This is a question to those who have and are using modems with MNP.

Has anyone used XMODEM while MNP is in effect? Is this possible or
do you have to turn off MNP?

I got a Microcom manual for info and from what I gleaned it seems
like I have to switch to Kermit or some protocol which do not use
all 8-bit values.

Thanks.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
12-Jul-85 00:20:44-EDT,5001;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Fri 12 Jul 85 00:20:39-EDT
Date: 11 Jul 85 23:41-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #5
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Thursday, July 11, 1985 11:41PM
Volume 5, Issue 5

Today's Topics:

                         Alternate Payphones
                        Re: wanted= coin phone
                       Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #4

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 85 19:08:00 EDT
From: "Gold::SHADOW" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternate Payphones

With the FCC's easing of payphone specs, many companies have come out with
third party non-Bell type pphones.  These do not need the support of the
Telephone Company in order to process calls, thus the BOC doesnt get any of
your revenues.  These are intended for bars and such where the payphone is
placed on a normal standard phone line.Thpayphone can make calls anywhere
but wont allow the mouthpiece to be turned on unle the customer puts money
in.  Many models have restrictions to prevent calls to 976 numbers and others
that dont require the person to speak.

One company that advertises these types of payphones is

Gladwin Inc. of Oakwood Georgia at [phone].

Many other companies have their own products as well.

A side note, here in New Jersey the state telephone regulatory body has ruled
that these phones can only be placed where alternate normal BOC phones do not
exist at New Jersey Bell's request.

Look into this as a alternate means of having a pay phone of your own without
letting the BOC taking your profits.  These types of phones dont neeecialc
pho lines of any type, any standard phone line will do.  They are installable
in most states, check with the state gulatory body before you run off and ge
get one.

Any e know any more details about these phones or tse multi-carrier ones
you see at airports and the like?  I have actualleen a few of these non-BOC
phones in various restaurants and the like here in New Jersey.

Shadow@RU-AIM

------------------------------

From: dual!qantel!stv@Berkeley
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 85 00:26:34 pdt
Subject: Re: wanted= coin phone

Here is the text of a magazine ad.  I know nothing more about the
products than this.

TONK-A-PHONE - OWN YOUR OWN PAY PHONE

For local calls only.  Toll restrictor prevents customers
from making long distance phone calls and operator assisted
calls.  25 cents per call...accepts quarters only.  Simple
to install--just hang pay phone on wall using mounting
holes and plug cord into phone jack.  Full one year
warranty.  93% of all pay phone calls placed are local
calls.  Fantastic return on investment.  100% stainless
steel cabinet.  Dealers/distributors inquiries invited.
American made.  Manufactured by Tonk-A-Phone, Inc., PO Box
388, Spring Park, MN 55384 [phone]
========================================================
Good news!!! June 15, FCC approved registering
privately-owned long-distance pay telephones!!!
Now FCC Registered #D9WHK13748-CX-T
* For local and long distance calls
* Free emergency "911" capability
* Timed local calls
* Timed long-distance calls
* Touch tone
* Adjustable time on calls
* Works on standard business lines
* Capable with MCI, Sprint, etc.
* LED indicator lights displaying remaining time
* Free "800" call capability
* Time per coin accumulation
* Stainless steel construction
* Full one year warranty
[ address and phone number are the same ]
--

Steve Vance
{dual,hplabs,intelca,nsc,proper}!qantel!stv
dual!qantel!stv@berkeley
Qantel Corporation, Hayward, CA

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 85 20:54:39 edt
From: MFCF Hardware Lab <ihnp4!watmath!hardware@Berkeley>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #4




In regards to Payphones in your house, I have one.  Although Ma Bell doesn't
know about it. (I bought it from a suplus house), It accepts coins before it
will let you dial out.  However this is not as fancy as the phones on the
street, since it doesn't return your coin, you can't dial anything without
a quarter, and long distance calls can be made for 25cents also. In order to
get the full features, one needs a dedicated micro on the line, which I don't
have the resources for.  However, it is possible to convert the phones from
regular ones into pysdo-pay phones with a little electronic knowledge.
The secret is: Ring and Tip must have the correct polarity before any outgoing
call can be made.  A simple electronic switch is all that is needed.  If you
need any more information, please send me some mail.

                                 Andrew Rahme
                              hardware@watmath

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
16-Jul-85 18:25:50-EDT,5319;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Tue 16 Jul 85 18:25:46-EDT
Date: 16 Jul 85 17:25-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #6
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Tuesday, July 16, 1985 5:25PM
Volume 5, Issue 6

Today's Topics:

                Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #4 (vadic 2400)
             Equal Access foulup -- it's all in the plan

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 85 23:33:46 pdt
From: sdcsvax!jww@Berkeley (Joel West @ CACI) (ttyd0)
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #4 (vadic 2400)

>    Date: Tue, 9 Jul 85 12:37:51 edt
>    From: David M. Siegel <dms@mit-hermes>
>    Subject: Vadic Maxwell 2400V modem
>
>    I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with this product?
>    For example, did any unexpected problems come up with its use.
>
>    Thanks,
>    -Dave

We currently have 4 "Maxwell Modem 2400V" by Racal-Vadic.  One is used
in auto-answer for a UNIX mini, 2 are connected to DEC terminals, and
the last is being used by my Mac this very minute! :-)

They have worked reliably and reasonably for 3 months now.  I vastly
prefer 2400 to 1200 baud.  (I know, dial-up 1 mb/sec is "real soon
now" but any improvement is welcome)  My only gripe is that so
few people have 2400's yet and so I can only call two computers
at 2400.  Most of the time I use it at 1200.

I've not hooked it up to an ACU.  It dials on the Hayes/Apple
protocol with MacTerminal just fine, and, as far as I can tell,
is "compatible" (my USR and 2400V disagree on whether "+++" means
attention or disconnect, however).  I normally use the Vadic
dialing sequence by hand, because it's shorter.  The 2400V seems
to do a reasonable job detecting busy signals.

Talking with astrovax!wls, it seems the 2400V is not strictly
dialcode compatible with the Hayes 2400, but both are supersets
of the Hayes 1200.

In conclusion, I would have no reservations about recommending the
modem to anyone who needs 2400 today. (In southern california,
try DJC, they seem to be the cheapest).

    Joel West
    CACI, Inc. - Federal (c/o Gould CSD)
    {ucbvax!sdcsvax,ihnp4!bonnie}!gould9!joel
    gould9![e-mail]    (also joel@NOSC)

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 16 Jul 1985 11:14:23-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Equal Access foulup -- it's all in the plan

I just had a very interesting conversation with a supervisor at New
England Telephone's "response center", which is the number you call
(800/555-5000) in order to select your Primary Carrier for Equal Access.
As readers probably know, the FCC ruled in May that the BOCs can no
longer default customers to AT&T Communications.  If a user doesn't
select a long distance carrier, they become a prize in a lottery in
which tickets are allocated to long distance carriers in proportion
to the number of claimed voluntary customers.  If a customer doesn't
actively presubscribe to one LD carrier, they get one "at random".

In order to make this work, the FCC, if I recall, said that the BOCs
have to send out ballots to all customers, allowing them to choose
a customer.  If they don't reply, they get a letter telling them whom
they've been randomly assigned to, and they have time to change back
before it takes effect.  The NET rep says that this process will begin
with Equal Access conversions beginning in October.  If cutover is
before then (my exchange is set for July 27), then there's no ballot.

Under the pre-5/31 rule, customers all defaulted to AT&T.  If you
wanted AT&T, you did nothing.  If you wanted the Joe & Andy Long Distance
Telephone and Dishwasher Company, you sent them a card, or PHONED your
selection to NETelco.

What's screwing up now is that those exchanges cut over between now and
October get neither rule.  They don't get ballots, and they don't default
to AT&T.  They will _temporarily_ default to AT&T, but they will be
allocated _without balloting_ six months after conversion.  Customers
who defaulted to AT&T _before 5/31 rules_ get ballots, though, with a
new presubscription choice term.

Think of the potential this system has!  An unscrupulous reseller (never
heard of one, eh?) can PHONE IN as many spurious presubscription choices
for customers cutting over this summer, and they will take effect without
any written authorization from the customer!  If a customer signs up for
more than one LD carrier, the last one received takes precedence.  So
a carrier can (just before deadline) take a phone book and phone in
presub orders for hundreds of "desired" customers.  Most people, of course,
are NOT going to send a letter of authorization to AT&T (or other selected
carrier) or wait on hold forever to give telco their choice!  Most people
think this whole business is a crock and don't want to participate.

The FCC should really clarify this mess.  Either you default to AT&T,
or you get a ballot.  I wonder how many customers will have spurious
preselections made for them, too!  What a mess.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
19-Jul-85 18:39:58-EDT,4032;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Fri 19 Jul 85 18:39:55-EDT
Date: 19 Jul 85 18:12-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #7
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                            Friday, July 19, 1985 6:12PM
Volume 5, Issue 7

Today's Topics:

                       New V.32 (9600bps) modem
                          Leased Data Lines
              private pay phones and auctioning spectrum

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 1985 02:38:47 PDT
Subject: New V.32 (9600bps) modem
From: Eliot Moore <[e-mail]>

Monday's Communications Week has an ad from British Telecom for what
appears to be the first 9600bps V.32-compliant modem to market.
Anyone in the position to review this beast please let me know your
findings.  The ad mentions "remarkably competitive price" but fails
to enlighten us with the probable $3K figure.

Reference:
Model DM4962X Modem
Mike Buckley
Room 2023
23 Howland Street
London W1P 6HQ
Telephone [phone]
Telex 24369 MOPS G

Regards,
Elmo

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 85 10:27:12 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Leased Data Lines

I am trying to get a data line between Tech Square and Harvard Square, a
distance of about 2 miles, except that the two ends are on different
offices.  We would like to run 9600 baud or 19.2 if possible.  Looking at
different modems, it seems that most of them call for either 3002 service
or 43401.  The phone company has given me a quote on 3002 service, which
is a dedicated line with voice bandwidth and no DC continuity.  This service
requires ~ $1500 modems to get 4800 or 9600 baud, but will work over an
entire metropolitan area.  The local phone company has not heard of 43401
lines, although I have the AT&T document describing it, "Private Line
Metallic Service".  This would allow us to use cheap line drivers and run
much faster, except that I can't seem to convince anyone at New England
Bell of what I want.  It is basically just a pair of copper wires with no
amplifiers or multiplexing.  What they are recommending is LADS (Local Area
Data Service), which I can't seem to find any technical information about.

Does anyone have any experience with this sort of data connection, and have
any recommendations as to what kind of service to get from the phone company,
or what modems to get?  Thanx,
                    -Mark

------------------------------

Date:           Thu, 18 Jul 85 08:27:51 PDT
From:           "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
Subject:        private pay phones and auctioning spectrum

The July, 1985 issue of the North American edition of
"Telecommunications" carries an advertisement for pay phones by

    Autelca
    Autelca AG, Worbstrasse 201
    CH-3073 Guemligen-Berne
    SWITZERLAND
    Telephone:  + 41/31/52 07 45 ; Telex:  32123

They advertise 4 models:

    Coin:  "The coin payphone for rough and tough daily use"

    Card:  "The card payphone"

    Duet:  "The combined coin and card payphone"

    Mini:  "The coin-payphone for semi-supervised areas"

It appears that these instruments could be used either by operating
companies or subscribers who are providing private payphone service.

The same issue carries a "special report" stating, inter alia, that
the FCC has requested permission from Congress "[t]o award certain
communications licenses using an auctioning process to replace
lotteries. ...  The call for an auction licensing process was triggered
by the Commission's continuing frustration with the traditional
comparative hearing licensing method -- a process that has long been
subject to charges that it is unwieldy, time-consuming, and only
marginally beneficial to anybody but lawyers."

ted

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
21-Jul-85 21:01:33-EDT,3727;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Sun 21 Jul 85 21:01:28-EDT
Date: 21 Jul 85 20:42-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #8
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                            Sunday, July 21, 1985 8:42PM
Volume 5, Issue 8

Today's Topics:

                A Long Distance Company Goes Bankrupt!
                    Equal Access and Voice Quality
                          Metallic circuits
                       higher rates for modems?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri 19 Jul 85 17:35:24-CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: A Long Distance Company Goes Bankrupt!


Remembering that a local long distance company tried to 'burn' me by having
them be my '1+' carrier when I specifically asked for MCI, I would like the
net to learn that that company filed for protection from its creditors under
the famous Chapter 11.  This news I got from the Southwestern Bell Tele-News
[phone] which can only be received from within Texas.  Other states/
phone companies may also have this.  Just hearing (from the Tele-News) that
SATELCO (which I believe originally stood for San Antonio Teleco) has gone
under should make those who didn't and those who did believe in Equal Access
feel good.  For those who were against Equal Access, think how the customers
who have SATELCO feel; probably looking to for stability (like AT&T or the
new IBM/MCI combo, and maybe very remotely GTE/SPRINT).  For those who were
for Equal Access, think how the market place help to determine the better
phone companies; if they were good, then people should have flocked to it
and it should have been making money.  Anyone have news on how the other
long distance companies are faring?  Who's next to be axed!?!?

------------------------------

Date: Fri 19 Jul 85 17:44:40-CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Equal Access and Voice Quality


Has anyone noticed a significant difference between the past (before Equal
Access) and the present (Equal Access) in terms of quality of reception
for the long distance companies?  Has anyone used any of them for any
significant amount of data transmission?

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 23:16:13 PDT
From: vortex!lauren@rand-unix (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Metallic circuits

Metallic leased circuits are becoming increasingly difficult to
obtain in many areas, and will eventually be essentially impossible
to obtain outside a local CO in metro areas.  In fact, given the
increasing use of digital subscriber line circuits, it will eventually
be difficult to get metallic circuits even WITHIN a single CO.  When
purchasing modems for medium to long term use, it's a bad idea to
rely on the possibility of metallic circuit availability.

--Lauren

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Jul 85 12:02:08 pdt
From: Doug Claar <hpda!hptabu![e-mail]>
Subject: higher rates for modems?

Can/does the phone company (Pacific Bell, if it matters) charge more
for a phone line that is occasionally used with a modem? If so, on
what basis? Someone here says they can and do, which worries me, since
I told a Bell representative that I didn't want call waiting because it
would mess up my computer connection. Did I blow it?

Doug Claar
HP Information Technology Group
UUCP: { ihnp4 | mcvax!decvax }!hplabs!hpda!dclaar -or- ucbvax!hpda!dclaar
ARPA: hpda![e-mail]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
24-Jul-85 19:37:33-EDT,5973;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Wed 24 Jul 85 19:37:26-EDT
Date: 24 Jul 85 19:04-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #9
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Wednesday, July 24, 1985 7:04PM
Volume 5, Issue 9

Today's Topics:

                data line from Tech Sq. to Harvard Sq.
                  High-speed f/o at last-years rates
           Re:  private pay phones and auctioning spectrum
                             CCITT Modems
                        43401 and LADS service
                      Telco service obligations

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 85 17:48:59 pdt
From: amdcad!amd!phil@Berkeley (Phil Ngai)
Subject: data line from Tech Sq. to Harvard Sq.

Here in California the local RBOC will not give you metallic circuits
that cross Central Office boundaries. That means you can't get a 43401,
only a 3002 type circuit. Believe me, I've tried. I'm afraid you'll have
to buy real modems instead of cheap reliable line drivers.

The higher speed alternatives include DDS, T1, microwave, and infra-red,
but they are all much more expensive.
 This is only my opinion and an unofficial one at that.

 Phil Ngai [phone]
 UUCP: {decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad![e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1985  07:35 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: High-speed f/o at last-years rates

This is a flame about unplanned obsolescence.

My little co. has finally shipped a pair of 560Mbps 1:1 protected fiber-optic
terminals to a rather large phone company, after slipping commitments all the
way from last July.  They interface at DS-3 and run E2A.

We ran into the usual management, production and engineering problems; we
promised too much, much too soon, to too many people.  We have made enemies
at PACBell...

Our only competition during this period has been NEC, with their absolutely
beautiful/reliable 405Mbps terminal that takes four times the volume for
the same protection level.

However, four companies have announced the release of 565Mbps terminals
in the fourth quarter of 1985.  I must assume that they have developed
the darn things with considerably less fanfare than my own co. provided.

So much for our planned monopoly of the long-lines business...

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 22 Jul 85 14:45:40 EDT
From:     Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  private pay phones and auctioning spectrum

I was shopping the other day and Teleconcepts has a cheapo pay phone for
home use which insists you stick a quarter in it before you can dial.
Sort of cute for home use.

=Ron

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 85 22:39 GMT
From: perscom8 @ KOREA-EMH
Subject: CCITT Modems



Has anyone had any dealings with CCITT Modems?  This is not a brand name but
rather a type setup in the modem. I understand that most of the US is using
Bell 212A compatible and that Europe and the orient are set up to use CCITT.
Looking for answers to the following:

1.  Is the difference between CCITT and Bell 212A compatible merely a question
of how modulation is handled or is there more to it?

2.  Can anyone give some recommendations on brand and model numbers of some
CCITT Modems? Am looking for 300/1200/2400 BAUD rates.

Thanks

CW2 Rich Ellison
Chief, Automation Management Office
HQ 8th PERSCOM(P)
APO SF 96301-0089
(KOREA)



------------------------------

Date: Monday, 22 Jul 1985 06:15:04-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: 43401 and LADS service

Several years ago, I ordered 43401-compliant service between a site
on the Harvard Square CO and one served by Back Bay (about 3 miles).
It took New England Telephone 18 weeks to deliver it, but eventually
they did.  Perhaps they're having trouble with the terminology, since
the two terms are not equivalent:

Technical Publication 43401 describes rules for metallic connections
to private line circuits.  It is not a "service".

Type 3002 is the name of the "service" whose English name is Private
line Data Service.  It's named in the tariff, so they know what it is.
3002 lines have voiceband characteristics with optional equalization
and no telephone signalling.  They normally don't pass DC either.

Type 3002 is part of Series 3000 (voiceband data), while Series 1000
is "telegraph grade" and Series 2000 is "voice".

LADS is a marketing name for 43401-compliant service that, at least
when introduced, was bundled with Codex short-haul modems.  Whatever
they call the circuit used by LADS is probably what you want.  The
problem is that LADS is tariffed for intra-office use, or at least
intra-exchange use.  In the latter case, you're fine, since  both
locations are within the Cambridge exchange.  But if the tariff
(which I don't have handy) is for intra-office use only, you've gotta
convince them to do it anyway.  They'll say that it won't work, and
they might be right, but with LOTS of tweaking, I got Gandalf modems
to go 4800 bps over about 6 miles of copper.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 85 01:15:00 EDT
From: "Gold::SHADOW" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telco service obligations

With all these stories about Bruce Sprintsteen, I was wondering if the
local BOC has any legal/moral obligations to provide some level of
service.

Any system, especially a complicated electronic one, that can handle
a 50% above normal load semi-well is rare.

But then again, what about emergency calls and the like?

Anyone know about this?

David
[e-mail]
Sh* 26

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
28-Jul-85 20:05:59-EDT,4727;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Sun 28 Jul 85 20:05:56-EDT
Date: 25 Jul 85 17:01-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #10
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Thursday, July 25, 1985 5:01PM
Volume 5, Issue 10

Today's Topics:

                             CCITT modems
                        level of telco service
                        re: leased data lines
                            10kb/s modem?
         Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #9 - Telco Service Obligations

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 18:23:41 PDT
From: vortex!lauren@rand-unix (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: CCITT modems

The CCITT standard for 1200/300 bps operations is known popularly
as V22.  It is VERY, VERY close to 212A standards.  The differences
revolve around call setup and initial handshake issues, which can
cause some problems.  Some people have modified their V22 modems
to be fully compatible with 212's, but it's unclear how the local
telecommunications authorities overseas would take to such actions if they
were aware of them.

--Lauren

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 18:17:40 PDT
From: vortex!lauren@rand-unix (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: level of telco service

Most telco tariffs regarding level of service are written in terms
of the percentage of blocked calls permitted during "busy hour"
on "normal" circuits.

There are special terms and formulas for this sort of stuff, but
I won't go into them here.  No system can handle heavy local mass
calling concentrations except through blocking.  If the calls
are hitting conventional prefixes, random people trying to make
random calls get blocked--causing much anxiety.

If a "high-volume" prefix is being used, blocking is done in a
systematic manner and avoids blockage of callers to/from other
areas.  An example of a high-volume prefix in Los Angeles is
(213) 520, which is heavily used for radio station promotions
and call-ins.  On the national level (plus Canada) AT&T's
area code (900) DIAL-IT network is a similar "controlled blockage"
system.

--Lauren

------------------------------

From: crash!scotto@SDCSVAX
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 85 12:38:53 PDT
Subject: re: leased data lines

Mark,

   Regarding your problem with trying to run a data circuit 2 miles,
the metallic circuits are hard to find in California, mainly because
the phone company is phasing out copper wire for fiber optics.  They
also will not say whether or not service will be permanent.

   Again, in California, DDS (Digital Data Service) would be the way
to go.  The prices are more than competitive to analog, and the
equipment is much better.  You can get a CSU/DSU (channel service
unit, data service unit) for $695.00 and it will run at 2400, 4800
9600 & 56kb switch selectable.  You pay the telco for the speed you
wish to run, and they supply the clock.  The one drawback, is the
installation cost, about $800 per site.  The mileage fee would be
next to nothing.  I would gestimate you will have a monthy fee of
under $100 with the investment of $3000.

  Let me know if you would like some more information, and I will
get with you.


-- Scott O'Connell

    crash!scotto@ucsd  - or - crash!scotto@nosc
        {ihnp4, cbosgd, sdcsvax, noscvax}!crash!scotto

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1985  03:03 MDT
From: "Frank J. Wancho" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10kb/s modem?

There was a featured article in last week's InfoWorld about the
FastLink Modem.  Anybody actually used a pair and can tell me if it
can transparently handle 8-bit binary data?

--Frank

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 85 08:34 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #9 - Telco Service Obligations

Around 1970, New Jersey Bell evidently had a scheme to give priority
dial tone to certain customers during network overloads.  A side mounted
push button on a telephone applied what sounded like a ground to one
side of the line.  I tried this out at a bank (unfortunately not during
an overload), and would guess that lines had to be specially set up for
this.  I believe that the CO was a #5 X-Bar.

On a ground related note, ringback systems in some offices will give 4
short rings instead of 1 normal ring if there is excessive ground
leakage to either side of the line.

Ray DuFlon
[e-mail]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************

-------
28-Jul-85 21:02:17-EDT,17453;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Sun 28 Jul 85 21:02:08-EDT
Date: 28 Jul 85 19:42-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #11
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                            Sunday, July 28, 1985 7:42PM
Volume 5, Issue 11

Today's Topics:

                data line from Tech Sq. to Harvard Sq.
                        pay (coin) telephones
            2400 baud auto-dial/auto-answer modem for $399
            CCITT V.22bis / Bell 212A modems compatibility
                      LD carriers for 1200 baud
                             leased lines
       News from Pacific Bell - You can now cancel Call Waiting
                             Fast Modems
                         New 9600 baud modem
                        Paul Baran, modem hero
                Need surge protectors for phone lines

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 85 17:48:59 pdt
From: amdcad!amd!phil@Berkeley (Phil Ngai)
Subject: data line from Tech Sq. to Harvard Sq.

Here in California the local RBOC will not give you metallic circuits
that cross Central Office boundaries. That means you can't get a 43401,
only a 3002 type circuit. Believe me, I've tried. I'm afraid you'll have
to buy real modems instead of cheap reliable line drivers.

The higher speed alternatives include DDS, T1, microwave, and infra-red,
but they are all much more expensive.
 This is only my opinion and an unofficial one at that.

 Phil Ngai [phone]
 UUCP: {decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad![e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 12 July 1985  08:18-MDT
From: Henry Schaffer <decvax!mcnc!ecsvax![e-mail]>
Subject:   pay (coin) telephones

There was an inquiry recently about manufacturers of coin (pay)
phones, and since I just received the July issue of TELECONNECT A
Monthly Telecommunications Magazine, which primarily covers the
telephone interconnect market (phones, pbx's, accessories), and which
has a Buyers' Guide - I can give a list of manufacturers and
suppliers:

These are all working systems, for people who want to (and are allowed
to) install their own pay phones.  They don't necessarily look very
much like the conventional 120B coin telephone traditionally
manufactured by Western Electric (now AT&T Tech) or GTE Automatic
Electric.  (# means I saw a display ad.)
-----
Capital Tel Systems  Fairfield NJ 07006   800-524-0671
Cointel Comm.  # Calabasas CA 91302  818-716-5889
Communic. Mgmt. Assoc.  Latham NY 12110 518-785-3559
Digitech Comm  Huntsville, AL 35801  205-533-5941
Gladwin Inc. # Oakwood, GA  30566 404-536-6023
Hegge Services Redding, CA 96003 916-243-8341
Ma Best Tel. Prods   N. Hollywood, CA 91607 818-760-8500
Microdevices  Richardson TX 75081 214-644-8835
Northern Telecom  Nashville, TN 37205 615-256-5900
Precision Comm Serv  Tampa, FL 33609 813-870-0362
R-TEC Systems  Bedford, TX  76021  817-267-3141
Rand of Phoenix  Phoenix, AZ 85009 800-262-7263
Telephone Ext Corp  Pearl River NY
Tonk-A-Phone #  Spring Park MN 55384  612-471-0126
U S Telecomm # St Petersburg FL 33702 813-527-1107 (sells Gladwin)
Valcom  Roanoke, VA 24013 703-982-3900
W Q Watson & Assoc Gainesville FL 30503 404-522-9246
-----
(Usual disclaimer)  --henry schaffer

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 12 July 1985  18:08-MDT
From: [e-mail] (Rick Adams)
Subject:   2400 baud auto-dial/auto-answer modem for $399

I have spent the last 2 weeks evaluating a US Robitics Courier 2400
modem.  I have beat on it pretty severly and can't find anything wrong
with it.  We are buying several. I like it well enough that I will
probably buy myself one for home use.

The modem was used for uucp traffic on seismo for 2 weeks. It was used
for both dialins and dialing out. The ONLY problem I could find with
it is that if you try and call another site at 2400 baud and it can
only sync up at 1200, the modem prints "CONNECTED 1200" and then
resets the baudrate to the host to 1200 baud. I added 5 lines of code
to the dialer in uucp and have had no problems since. I consider this
to be minor.

Anyway, on to details. The GSA cost is $399 quantity 1. If you are not
on the GSA scale (i.e. if you don't buy as a US government agency),
you can still get it at this price by mentioning you heard about this
price from The Center for Seismic Studies (i.e. where I work). The
list price on this model is $895 and the regular non-GSA price is $479
(other dealers may charge more).

The modem operates at 300/1200/2400 baud (Bell 103/Bell212A/CCITT
V22.bis) in both originate and answer mode. It will fall back to 1200
from 2400, but not from 1200 to 300 in orignate mode and correctly
autobaud in answer mode. A nice (and undocumented feature) is that the
modem will detect what baudrate the computer is sending at and use
that as the dialout speed. This means you can just list the same modem
in your L-devices file 3 times with different speeds and not change
anything else.  [it's simpler than it sounds if you are confused]

In orignate mode, it will detect (with a serate message for each)
ringing, busy, dialtone, and voice (and hang up on a voice).

It uses a superset of the HAYES SMARTMODEM command set. I used the
unmodified Hayes driver for a while before changing it to also handle
the USR extensions. It also claims to be able to be used with
CrossTalk, SmartCom and PC-Talk communications software, but I was
unable to test this. (I presume it will work, as it looks like a
hayes)

It does pulse or tone dialing and if tone dialing doesn't get rid of
the dialtone, it will try pulse dialing.

The warranty is 2 years from US Robotics. The dealer will also handle
warranty repairs (by sending you a working one and sending yours off
to the factory.)

The 1200 baud performance was much, much better than our Racal-Vadic
MACS dialers. We were able to connect to sites with the USR modem that
we could not get to with the Vadic modem. There was very little noise
at 2400 baud and virtually none at 1200. I successfully connected at
2400 baud to ATT, Concord Data Systems, Vadic and USR 2400 baud
modems, so there is no interoperability problem. This also worked at
2400 baud on our ITT WATS lines which are much, much noiser than ATT
WATS (then again, they are also much cheaper, you get what you pay
for). I expected it to have problems with the noisy ITT lines, but it
worked perfectly. I wasn't able to give it the acid test of trying to
use Sprint, but then nothing works on Sprint reliably...

Physically, it's 6" x 10" x 1". It's a very nice, low profile modem.

The dealer is the major east cost distributer for US Robotics and has
many units in stock. We received ours within days of placing the
order.

The $399 price is ONLY available from the following dealer.  Any other
dealer will probably charge you more.

The dealer is:
    Advanced Data Products, Inc.
    18974 Bonanza Way (B-3)
    Gaithersburg, MD 20879
    [phone]
The salesmans name is:
    Don Parnell

You can probably pay for the cost of the modem in the savings in a few
months phone charges.

It sounds too good to be true, but I've got a couple in the computer
room proving they are real.

---rick

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 85 02:29:12 EDT
From: Minh N. Hoang <[e-mail]>
Subject: CCITT V.22bis / Bell 212A modems compatibility

CCITT (Consultative Committee [on] International Telephone & Telegraph) is
another standard-producing organization which specifies modem types, among
other things.

Starting in the middle speed at 1200 bps, the modulation schemes for
the V.22bis fallback mode (V.22) and the 212A are identical.  The
crucial difference is the answer back tone which is 2100 Hz for
V.22bis and 2225 Hz for 212A.  In some foreign phone system, the 2225
Hz tone causes line disconnect instead of (well... more like along with)
disabling echo suppressor.  Thus with a 212A, you can call a V.22bis
(or V.22) while the reverse won't always work.

Going to 2400 bps, there's no Bell equivalence.  The modems which
comply with V.22bis spec. send 2100 Hz answer back tone and they'll
work over international circuits.  However, make sure the modem says
V.22bis type because CCITT does specify another 2400 bps full-duplex
type as V.26ter.  They are incompatible (of course): V.22bis uses
frequency-division multiplexing to separate the transmit and receive
bands; V.26ter uses echo-cancellation to recover the receive signal
(like the V.32, yet another CCITT spec. modem which works at 9600 bps
or 4800 bps full-duplex).

Going down to 300 bps, the modulation is Bell 103 type and that isn't
compatible with any CCITT modem at all.  This is strictly an American
addition to make V.22bis fully compatible with Bell 212A types.

Other considerations, since your address mentions Korea, are: the
electric company interface (plug type, voltage, frequency), the phone
company interface (modular jack for US & Canada, terminal block for
European PTTs, terminal block with ring input for Japan NTT, more?).
Also built-in features such as auto-dialer (most come with Hayes 1200
type), error protection (MNP) etc...

For companies: try skimming through Byte, Data Communications etc...
All the well-known companies (should) have a version of this
V.22bis/212A/103 compatible modem.  Attempted non-exhaustive list:
Concord Data System, Codex, Microcom, Hayes, Racal-Vadic, UDS, DEC,
Paradyne, Novation, US Robotics, Team, Penril, Micom, AT&T...

As though life has been too simple... Cheers.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 85 18:36:28 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: LD carriers for 1200 baud

I'm sure that this has been asked before, but:  Could someone please send me
a list of which long distance companies are adequate for 1200 baud communica-
tion and which ones I should avoid at all costs?  Thanks!

Stuart Freedman
{genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!stuart
{cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!stuart
or mit-eddie!futura!stuart

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 25 July 1985  16:21-MDT
From: "Robert C. Lagasse" <[e-mail]>
Subject:   leased lines

       Does anyone have any idea how much a telephone company
"leased-line" costs?  Is it so much per mile?  ( A leased line is a
pair of wires from one point such as a business or residance to
another site such as a repeater site or another building).  These are
usually used with buglar alarm systems and commercial broadcast radio
"remotes" and I believe consist of nothing more than a pair of wires
from one site, to the phone company central office , then to the other
site with no switching or electronic intervention in between.  ( Does
anybody have any ideas how many junctions the installer of such a line
has to make?  I figure a minimun of three. One at the pole at one end,
one that he must call into a central ofiice to have someone make
between two big fat trunk cables, and then another at the pole at the
other end).  I believe you can put a battery of, say, 10V at one site
and measure the battery voltage at the other, minus the voltage drop
due to connections and distance.  By the way, does anyone know?: a)
the maximum allowed voltage on a leased line b) how many volts/mile is
usually lost, and c) maximum allowable current (do they fuse it
somewhere?).
   I called the phone company and got the royal run-around.  I tried
to explain what I wanted but was told of auto-ring circuits like the
taxi phones use (how much do they charge for those/month).  As soon as
I mentioned that it would be for ham-radio remote control and also
possibly burglar alarm monitoring, I was referred to the
"mobile-phone" group which deal with mobile phone companies (probably
that cellular garbage) and they told me their lines cost $24.50/month
and then an additional fee for each minute of "air-time".  I then
tried calling back the original office and re-explained that it would
be like a burglar alarm line, was then asked if it was for voice, I
was puzzled and said no, and was then told that burglar alarm lines
run ONLY to the police station and could not go between
residences.(when she asked me if it would be used for voice, it made
me wonder if they sell different kinds of lines , like, voice-quality,
and not voice-quality?? What good is a non-voice quality line
anyway????)
   I then tried to explain that all I wanted was a pair of wires from
point A to point B but then she asked, " what kind of jack do you
need, an RJ-11C?" As you can see, I could not get past the
non-technical salespeople.  What is the OFFICIAL name for this kind of
line?  If there are any phone company gurus out there, H E L P!

Thank you for any and all answers.

Bob Lagasse N 1 A L G

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 85 22:53:34 pdt
From: unisoft!pertec!bytebug@Berkeley
Subject: News from Pacific Bell - You can now cancel Call Waiting

The little flyer in this month's phone bill tells of a new custom calling
feature that allows you to cancel Call Waiting on a call-by-call basis.
Simply dial 70 (or 1170 on dial phones) followed by the telephone number
you want to call, and for the duration of THAT CALL OR DATA TRANSMISSION,
Call Waiting will be canceled.  When you hang up, Call Waiting will auto-
matically be reactivated.

Pacific Bell is making the feature available at no extra cost to Call
Waiting customers.
    roger long
    pertec computer corp
    {ucbvax!unisoft | scgvaxd | trwrb | felix}!pertec!bytebug

[This feature has been in Boston for about 3 months. I just got
custom calling re-added to my lines after a short haitus, and
they sent me notification of it almost immediately. What they
did not tell you was that now call waiting is disable whenever
you are using three-way calling. Does anyone know if this is a bug
or a feature? My telco insists that it is a feature, and in
fact insist that you have never been able to get a call waiting
signal if you have a three-way call in progress. --JSol]

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 22 July 1985  22:13-MDT
From: Senior Gnome <sdcc3!sdcc12![e-mail]>
Subject:   Fast Modems

The fast modems are coming!  (From the July 22 Issue of INFOWORLD)

Fastlink, a $2000 modem, transmits at ten thousand bits per second.
It is marketed by Telebit of Cupertino, CA, and DCA of Alpharetta, GA.
It supposedly is quite error free even on bad lines.  It is available
now.

Concord Data systems of Waltham, MA, is planning to announce a 9600
bits per second modem by the end of the year in the same price range.
More modem to you!

Bernd  UUCP: universe!milkyway!solarsys!earth!ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc12!wa371
       ARPA: sdcsvax!sdcc12!wa371@nosc

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 23 July 1985  19:20-MDT
From: Mark Horton <ihnp4!cbosgd![e-mail]>
Subject:   New 9600 baud modem

There is an international standard for 9600 baud, full duplex, async,
dialup modems.  It's CCITT V.32.  However, I don't know of any
products that implement it yet.

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 25 July 1985  18:55-MDT
From: "James A. Woods" <lll-crg!dual!ames![e-mail]>
Subject:   Paul Baran, modem hero

that amazing telebit/dca 10kbit modem sure seemed like a minor miracle
(infoworld, 7/22), so i called telebit for the technical dope.

if the literature is to be believed, bad lines don't really faze the
thing.  i'm sure a few usenet sites with $2300 would jump for it.  is
it time to ring the death knell for CCITT modems, which, because of
noise and gross fallback strategies, never reach their max throughput?

hmm ... "packetized ensemble coding...inventor lists airport metal
detector, invention of packet switching in 1964, and co-founding of
equatorial communications (your friendly neighborhood spread spectrum
service) among his credits".  no slouch here.

dca stock (telebit is private, but marketer dca is public) has risen
to around $30 of late, from about $22 a few weeks back.

oh, the dope --

    - 512 carrier freqs. each modulated with either 6-bit or 4-bit QAM,
      or 2-bit QPSK, depending on SNR.

    - adaptive duplexing, to take advantage of the one-way burst
      nature of most traffic.

    - fallback in decrements of < 100 bps.
      (successive rate halving of the v22 standard is the real killer
       on dialups.)

    - bell 103, 212a, and hayes command language compatibility

    - call (800) telebit

ames!jaw

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 25 July 1985  18:12-MDT
From: Brantley Coile <decvax!harpo!whuxlm!akgua!ganehd![e-mail]>
Subject:   Need surge protectors for phone lines

We have had several modems (hayes 1200) get blasted by the phone
system at three sites.  All of these sites are operated by GTE, by the
way.  Is there a surge protector for phone lines?

        Brantley Coile CCP
        ..!akgua!ganehd!bwc
        Northeast Health District, Athens, Ga

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
30-Jul-85 20:36:43-EDT,10151;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Tue 30 Jul 85 20:36:37-EDT
Date: 30 Jul 85 19:57-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #12
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Tuesday, July 30, 1985 7:57PM
Volume 5, Issue 12

Today's Topics:

                      Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #11
                        Private lines again...
                           2400 bps modems
                      call waiting & 3-way calls
     Re: News from Pacific Bell - You can now cancel Call Waiting
            Call wainting while 3-way calling in progress
               re: TELECOM Digest V5 #11 - Leased Lines
                            Short Haul DDS

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 29 Jul 85 1:18:04 EDT
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #11

re: request for info on phone surge protectors...

------------------------
#1:   ? 26-Apr-85 14:11  [e-mail]  Re: PHONE Surge Suppressor
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from LOGICON.ARPA by Xerox.ARPA ; 26 APR 85 14:11:19 PST
Date: 25 Apr 85 21:38 PST
From: mike <[e-mail]>
To: kyle.wbst
Subject: Re: PHONE Surge Suppressors
In-Reply-To: Message from "[e-mail]" on 04/25/85 at 08:11

Thanks for your information about phone surge suppressors.  The catalog
address where I found this item was:
         Global Computer Supplies
        45 S. Service Road
        Dept 52
        Plainview, NY  11807   (800)8-GLOBAL  -----(yeah, I really hate it when
they SPELL out
                                a name but don't have a phone here next
                                to me to decode it *sigh*)

The items in question are:

        Surge Sponge (RS232 connector type protection)
                Stock Number C4592
                Cost = $49.00/ea
         Tele-Guard (for the phone line)
                Stock Number C4593
                Cost = $19.00

Additional thoughts for my case is the fact that I live here in San Diego.
Nearly all the lines here are barried underground for phone and electric
service.  Also, there really are NOT too many electrical storms out this
way.  I have been living here for about three years and have yet to see
a serious electrical storm.  It is generally just a piddling type of rain
storm.  No really serious winds around this way either.

Thanks again.  Hope this information helps you out.

Mike Parker
ARPA:  mike@logicon

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 29 Jul 1985 06:38:40-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Private lines again...


I'd like to thank the myriad contributors to Telecom who have corrected
my geography.  I used to think that Harvard Square and Tech Square were
in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  (Heck, I was just there yesterday!)  Now,
I'll remember to bring my passport, since I've learned they're in
California.  Either that, or Pac Bell has taken over the exchange from
NET.  Too bad for the fellow who wanted a 43401 line; New England Tel
seems much more cooperative than Pac Bell in that regard, and they've
got LOTS of raw copper plant between the two Cambridge COs.  But I
stand outvoted:  PacBell won't do it, especially in Cambridge.

Re. "how much does a private line cost" (from N1ALX) --
Let me paraphrase.  "How much does one of those ham radio thingies cost?
My phone bill is very big.  I called up Radio Shack and they didn't give
me a clear answer.  Besides, when I asked if a radio they had could send
pictures as well as voice, they said something about morse code, whatever
that is.  I've seen some walkie-talkie type radios; can they talk to
Australia?  How about Russia?  Do they speak English?"

There are LOTS of different types of private (leased) lines available,
depending upon distance, application, etc., etc.  Alarm lines are very
different from voice or data lines, etc., and the rates are both complex
and rapidly changing.  No, they don't string wires on poles anymore
(especially in California! hi) except for the last link.  Please send
more details or consult your local telecom department -- that's how we
make our living.

Fred (k1io)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 04:30:09 PDT
From: vortex!lauren@rand-unix (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: 2400 bps modems

I posted a longer version of this elsewhere.  I have gotten a number
of reports of incompatibilities with the US Robotics 2400 modem.
A major modem expert tells me that he personally would NOT buy a 2400
modem at this time unless it cost $100 or less!  "Too much incompatibility
and confusion just now" was his quote.  "Don't get one yet unless
you only intend to talk to sites that run the identical modem at the
identical speed.  The situation is changing, but not quite yet..." he said.

Just passing this along.

--Lauren--

P.S.  Watch out for those so-called 9600 bps modems.  By the time
      you get past error-correction, you may have a true throughput
      a LOT lower than 9600.  Also, most of these units are really
      half-duplex, with "simulated" full-duplex--which means that
      in many applications your effective throughput is even
      lower than you might expect from the error correction alone.

--LW--

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 85 12:44:41 EDT
From: Devon S. McCullough <[e-mail]>
Subject:  call waiting & 3-way calls

When I lived in DC I had ALL the features, and call waiting worked
fine during a 3-way call.  I would often leave the other two people to
amuse each other while I got rid of the incoming call.  My explanations
didn't stop my nontechnical friends from calling me a phone phreak.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 85 10:41:32 PDT
From:   David Alpern  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: News from Pacific Bell - You can now cancel Call Waiting

JSol:  When I had both features in Brookline 6 years ago, I was able
to "cancel call-waiting" by dialing something like weather, making the
real call on 3-way, but never connecting the two parts of the call.  So
I'd have to agree it's always worked that way.

Interesting note on billing between the operating companies:  on a recent
trip I made two in-LATA calls with a calling card, which is ambiguously
AT&T and Pacific Bell (I have the same number from each).  One, in
Illinois, came back in the AT&T section of the bill, and one in North
Carolina came back in the Pacific Bell section.  Both came with state
taxes.  It seems that some of the companies trade bills directly, and
some prefer to trade with AT&T.

- Dave

------------------------------

Date: Mon 29 Jul 85 12:03:14-PDT
From: Ole Jorgen Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call wainting while 3-way calling in progress


I can definately confirm that call waiting works while a three
way call is in progress. I once talked to a person in London
and one in Barbados at the same time and someone called me
locally to ask what I was doing for lunch. It worked just fine,
the two people could hear each other while I was answering the
other call. My CO is a #1A ESS (PLACA02).

Ole

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 85 14:22:18 PDT (Monday)
Subject: re: TELECOM Digest V5 #11 - Leased Lines
From: [e-mail]

Bob, What is the exact application for your ~leased line~?

re:  "...I believe consist of nothing more than a pair of wires
         from one site, to the phone company central office,
     then to the other site with no switching or electronic
     intervention in between...."

The key here is: "no switching or electronic intervention in between"

You can't usually get a metallic pair outside of the serving area of
the first Telco Central office.  So, if you need DC continuity past
this boundary, you may as well forget it.

If on the other hand you will be sending tones in the range of ~300 to 3000hz,
then you could order 3002 facilities, which are voice grade lines suitable for
data transmission.  Cost is based upon tariff mileage which may be longer or
shorter than "as the crow flies" mileage.  There are also "local loop" and
"termination" charges involved, plus a one time installation fee.

There are also 1000 series facilities that are "...unconditioned channels
capable of transmitting direct current mark-space or binary signals at rates
up to 150 bauds.  These channels are not suitable for the transmission of
alternating current tones; they are furnished for half-duplex or duplex
operation on a two-point or multi-point basis." [FCC Tariff 260, ISM TTGD-2]
These may or may not have DC continuity outside of the first telco office.

There are many variables involved - Call me if you want to talk about it.

John Cottriel
213-615-2095

------------------------------

Date: Mon 29 Jul 85 08:47:02-PDT
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Short Haul DDS


>   Again, in California, DDS (Digital Data Service) would be the way
>to go.  The prices are more than competitive to analog, and the
>equipment is much better.  You can get a CSU/DSU (channel service
>unit, data service unit) for $695.00 and it will run at 2400, 4800
>9600 & 56kb switch selectable.  You pay the telco for the speed you
>wish to run, and they supply the clock.  The one drawback, is the
>installation cost, about $800 per site.  The mileage fee would be
>next to nothing.  I would gestimate you will have a monthy fee of
>under $100 with the investment of $3000.

Per the Cal PUC tariff no 156-T, monthly recurring charges for a 2
mile 56kbps DDS between two points served by the same office are:
1. $40 "channel connection",  2. $215 "per channel" plus $ 3.90
"per mile"; for a non-trivial total of about $260/month

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 1-Aug-85 18:02:17-EDT,5149;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Thu 1 Aug 85 18:02:13-EDT
Date: 1 Aug 85 17:20-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #13
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Thursday, August 1, 1985 5:20PM
Volume 5, Issue 13

Today's Topics:

                    EA hits the New Brunswick area
             Cancel Call Waiting - Pacific Bell misprint
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #12

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 85 04:26:11 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: EA hits the New Brunswick area

Well, it looks like NJBell has quietly turned on Equal Access in the 201-932
exchange [at least the Piscataway side thereof], because I can dial 10nnn for
a few valid nnn's other than 288, and calls complete.  They even have the
crummy audio so characteristic of non-AT&T carriers.  Now, my question is,
if they haven't announced it officially yet, how is billing arranged?  Will
the carrier just log any call I make through them and pass the packet back
to NJBell who in turn bills me, or would they try and bill me directly?  How
would they get the necessary info to accomplish direct billing?

I think it's time someone who knows the whole big picture flamed at great
length about equal access, how the nitty gritties are handled, and how
it really works internally.  *No* one seems to want to tell me anything on
the commercial end of things.

_H*

------------------------------

Date: 31-Jul-85 21:46 PDT
From: Steve Kleiser  <SGK.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: Cancel Call Waiting - Pacific Bell misprint

As mentioned in a previous TELECOM, Pacific Bell, in their newsletter
"Openline" announced Cancel Call Waiting, which allows you to make the next
call (like a data call!) without fear of the call waiting signal.

It is suggested that not all areas have it yet, but for those that do, you dial
70 plus the telephone number (or 1170 on rotary phones). Well, I tried dialing
70, and nothing happened (dead air). I tried 70# and got a recording. WELL, I
then tried 1170 (I have touchtone service) AND IT WORKED!

I since have learned that the "newsletter" made a boo boo. You have to dial
*70, then you get a new dial tone and can proceed with your call!

I also noticed that ALL custom calling features will work with a star in front
- and then don't need the pound sign (or timeout) after! For example, to set
call forwarding, the instructions say 72# + the number. Well, *72 plus works
just as well! Live and learn!

-steve-

------------------------------

From: vax135!petsd!moncol!john@Berkeley
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 85 11:52:25 edt
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #12

]From: [e-mail]
]Date: 29 Jul 85 1:18:04 EDT
]Subject: Re: PHONE Surge Suppressors
]
]Thanks for your information about phone surge suppressors.  The catalog
]address where I found this item was:
]         Global Computer Supplies
]        45 S. Service Road
]        Dept 52
]        Plainview, NY  11807
]
]The items in question are:
]
]        Surge Sponge (RS232 connector type protection)
]                Stock Number C4592
]                Cost = $49.00/ea
]         Tele-Guard (for the phone line)
]                Stock Number C4593
]                Cost = $19.00


Avoid the Surge Sponges like the plague!!!!

We had quite a number of the Surge Sponges in use here about a year ago.
They were at both ends of lines running between buildings.

After one early summer thunderstorm, about the only thing that didn't look
damaged were the Surge Sponges. Our terminals and communication boards were
another matter altogether.

We did not get ours from Global, but directly from the manufacturer-
Telebyte technology. Their ad said that the sponges "protect from surges,
such as from lightning". After our lightning strike we called them and they
said that the product was never designed to protect against that! When one
of our Vice-Presidents showed them their own add with the above statement,
they reluctantly agreed to exchange the sponges for an eqivalent value's
worth of another product of theirs called a Lightning Sponge. The jury is
still out on the effectiveness of these.

For those who are interested, we opened up a Surge Sponge and a Lightning
Sponge to see what makes them tick. The surge Sponge is nothing more than a
PC board passing all 25 lines with a MOV going between 6 key lines and
ground. The Lightning Sponge is a bit more complex: it only passes 4 lines
(T+, T-, T+, R-) which are protected by larger MOV's, a gas discharge tube,
and some sort of coil.


Name:        John Ruschmeyer
US Mail:    Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764
Phone:        [phone] x366
UUCP:        ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john    ...!princeton!moncol!john
                           ...!pesnta!moncol!john
ARPA:        vax135!petsd!moncol!john@BERKELEY

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 5-Aug-85 17:28:32-EDT,4412;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Mon 5 Aug 85 17:28:26-EDT
Date: 5 Aug 85 16:55-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #14
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Monday, August 5, 1985 4:55PM
Volume 5, Issue 14

Today's Topics:

                Questions on Cellular phone service..
                          Re: telecom v5 #11
                            Telebit Corp.
                Cancel Call Waiting on Incoming Call?
                              two things

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: <bang!root@Nosc>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 85 09:18:18 pdt
Subject: Questions on Cellular phone service..


There seems to be quite a bit of confusion on how the San Diego Cellular
phone system is likely to operate.  (When it finally becomes operational, that
is. - So far its been delayed for over 9 months for one reason or another)

My understanding on phone rates for celluar calls is that a user is charged
for airtime no matter who originates a phone call.  If I am calling FROM
a cellular phone, then I  pay air charges (of .40 per minute) as soon as
I dial a number, whether or not it completes.  If I call TO a cellular phone
then the callee is charged airtime whether or not he answers (or is even there).

There is no grace time.

I am also led to believe that dealers selling phones are far more interested
in selling Phone Numbers than actual instruments.  They receive a commission
on each call you make for 10 years. I guess this means that equipment prices
are likely to drop rapidly or that deals can be made easily.

This is all theory,  there is not a working system here, but I am curious.  If
the cost of the phones drops to a reasonable level (like under $400) it might
be worthwhile using it despite the usage charges.  If you have any experience
with a working cellular system, I'd be interested to know how well it works
and what it ends up really costing to use.


Bret Marquis

(ihnp4,sdcsvax)!bang!bam
bang!bam@NOSC

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 5 Aug 85 7:54:00 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: telecom v5 #11

One of the payphone businesses listed was W.Q. Watson & Assoc.,
Gainesville, GA (you had FL) 30503, tel. [phone].
404-522 is Atlanta; perhaps this is 532.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 85 14:09:05 edt
From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Grant)
Subject: Telebit Corp.

Has anyone been able to get any info out of Telebit Corporation?
I've been calling their 800 tel-ebit number about 5 times a day
since last week.  It answers with 'Thankyou for calling telebit
corporation, for faster service, please dial 1 for customer service,
2 for sales and other enquires.  Please dial now."  I've tried
dialing 1, 2, and nothing at all.  It rings and rings, and I never
get an answer.  Does anyone have any info on these '10K baud'
modems they claim to sell?
-MGrant

------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 5 Aug 85 11:57 MST
From:  [e-mail] (Jim)
Subject:  Cancel Call Waiting on Incoming Call?

Recent transactions here indicate that Pacific Bell has made available a
Cancel Call Waiting feature that is invoked prior to placing an outgoing
call. Is there any way to activate the feature after having received an
incoming call?

------------------------------

Date: Mon 5 Aug 85 16:54:35-EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: two things

I discovered that my call waiting works if you complete BOTH calls
on the 3-way call. I.e. it's not good enough just to connect
the two lines together, both have to ANSWER before call waiting
works again (I guess I agree that the other caller shouldn't have
to listen to ringing or some disconnect message just because I got
a call wait and cannot disconnect it).

Also, if Pacific Bell is doing what NET is doing with cancelable
call-waiting, you need 3-way calling to turn call waiting off
after a call has been set up. This is the first time I have heard
of one custom calling feature depending on another.

Cheers,
--Jsol

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 9-Aug-85 17:19:01-EDT,7761;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Fri 9 Aug 85 17:18:55-EDT
Date: 9 Aug 85 16:49-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #15
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Friday, August 9, 1985 4:49PM
Volume 5, Issue 15

Today's Topics:

                     800 numbers; 10xxx prefixes
                           Re: CCITT modems
                            Telebit Corp.
                Touchtone => pulse phone gadget needed
                   Where can I get a Picturephone?
                 Re: Where can I get a Picturephone?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon 5 Aug 85 23:16:46-EDT
From: S.PAE@MIT-EECS
Subject: 800 numbers; 10xxx prefixes

Is MCI providing 800 service now?  How do the local calling offices know
which carrier to switch an 800 call to?  Is AT&T listing MCI 800 numbers?
By what mechanism does AT&T bill MCI for this?

Does someone have a comprehensive list of 10xxx numbers? I've heard of
a small long-distance company in Philadelphia. Would their 10xxx number
be re-used in other parts of the country, or do they exclusively own
their 10xxx number? The latter would seemingly imply a limit of 1000
long-distance carriers. Are there combinatorial reasons why we would never
have more than 1000 carriers, or is this just an arbitrary limit?

Using [phone] to determine your default long-distance carrier seems
to be a big win. However, I've seen little publicity for the number. Is
this the case all over the country, or is NET just biting the bag here?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 85 23:24:24 pdt
From: decwrl!sun!calma!helge@Berkeley (Helge Skrivervik)
Subject: Re: CCITT modems

I have no detailed technical knowledge about the differences between
212A and CCITT signaling standards, but quite a bit of experience in
using both types:
- the 300 baud standards are totally incompatible
- a 212A modem in originalt mode can talk to a CCITT modem in answer
    mode
- the opposite is NOT true

some modems commonly available can be switched to CCITT mode, a good
example is the Hayes 1200B card modem. I have not tried this in europe
though. Ventel has a new 2400 baud modem in the works that have both modes,
I have a couple on order and will check them out as soon as they arrive.

Dialing from the US to europe usually works excellent since the
connection is (almost) alway via sattelite. Dialing the other way
is (almost) always impossible because a noisy cable route is usually selected.
Dialing from the US to Austrailia aslo usually works fine, but I have
no information as to what standards they are using down under...

--helge

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 85 22:24:13 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Michael Grant)
Subject: Telebit Corp.

I finally got a hold of them.  They claimed that their 800 number wasn't
working properly until yesterday.  They are sending me info and pricing.

Over the phone I found out:

1) there are 2 versions of their fastlink modem:
  a) a plug-in card for the IBM-PC which comes with X-Talk Fast for $1995.
  b) a standalone Hayes compatable serial version for $2395.
     (X-Talk Fast for an extra $150)
2) They do infact run over an unconditioned normal everyday phone line
3) Speeds upto, and possible even greater than (but not by much)
   10,000 baud!
4) They use adaptive duplexing.  This means that the bandwidth is shared
   between the sides of the line.  i.e. there can be instances when
   the baud going from your terminal to the host is 200, and 9600 comming
   back.

I have a feeling that soon, a modem will come along that will do real
full duplex at well over 50K baud over a phone line.  Is there anyway
to find the upward limit of these things?  I have been told many times
that 9600 baud was imposible over a phone line, and that it had been
PROVED imposible.  How do you prove stuff like this, there are sooo
many different ways to encodeand compact things!
-Mike

------------------------------

Date: Thu 8 Aug 85 15:33:25-EDT
From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Touchtone => pulse phone gadget needed

I'm looking for a box (something like a Demon Dialer*) that will convert
TouchTones* to pulses, so that my Tone phones will work on a Rotary exchange.
Bonus points will be awarded if the box provides speed-dialing and other
nifty capabilities.

For those without knowledge of demon dialers, here's what the system would
look like.
      | +--- Rotary Phone
(telco)   | |  +-----------+
----------|-+--+ Magic Box +-- Touch-Tone phone(s)
      |    +-----------+
       (wall)

I need this box because in Pittsburgh (unlike Boston), if you don't pay extra
for Tone service, you don't get it. (ESS does NOT default to tone here.)  On
the other hand, trunk hunting is free if you have two lines of any kind, and
you can have measured and unmeasured service in the same residence.

* Who cares if Demon Dialer and Touch Tone are the respective trademarks
  of Zoom Telephonics and AT&T, is your phone service the better for it?

                    - Ralph Hyre

------------------------------

From: Jim Rees <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where can I get a Picturephone?
Date: 5 Aug 85 18:54:24 GMT

Any idea where I can find a working or restoreable pair of Western Electric
Picturephones?  I'm looking for the real thing, not a work-alike.  They are
all phone company property, I know, but regular phones have leaked out, so
why not picturephones?

All suggestions, including pointers to a more suitable newsgroup (I posted
here because hams are so resourceful) are welcome.

n7ahz

------------------------------

From: Larry Lippman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where can I get a Picturephone?
Date: 7 Aug 85 13:29:38 GMT

> Any idea where I can find a working or restoreable pair of Western Electric
> Picturephones?  I'm looking for the real thing, not a work-alike.  They are
> all phone company property, I know, but regular phones have leaked out, so
> why not picturephones?

    I too would love to tinker with some Picturephones (tm), but alas,
I think they are AT&T's best kept secret - perhaps to hide what was a rather
bad marketing blunder.  I understand that there are *large* quantities of
unused Picturephones along with anciliary apparatus like Picturephone line
repeaters, special KTU equipment, etc. which are still squirreled away by
AT&T Technologies and the [former] Bell System operating companies.
    Since the Picturephone was introduced ~1965, the electronic technology
used in the apparatus is quite outdated by today's standards; the Bell System
never sold enough systems to justify any newer design.  If my data is correct,
the Picturephone apparatus used *all* discrete components!  As far as I have
been able to observe, the Picturephone "Tele-conferencing Service" which is
still offered by some of the [former] Bell System operating companies uses no
apparatus in common with the original Picturephone station concept.
    I would be interested in obtaining some Picturephones to play with
if someone knows of a legitimate source.

    Larry Lippman
    Recognition Research Corp.
    Clarence, New York
    UUCP    {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
                        {rice,shell}!baylor!/
                              syr!buf!/
    VOICE    716/741-9185
    TELEX    {via WUI} 69-71461 answerback: ELGECOMCLR

    "Have you hugged your cat today?"

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
12-Aug-85 18:52:21-EDT,4711;000000000001

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 85 19:37:48 cdt
From: hplabs!csu-cs!isucs1!shaver@Berkeley (Dave Shaver)
Subject: Some information, and request for more, on Telstar.



Sometime ago there was BRIEF mention of the "Telstar" telephone control
system.  Basicly I would like additional info on this product.  Is anyone
else selling them besides Jameco Electronics?  [In Belmont, CA]  Did the
project get scrapped, and then did Jameco picked up the stock?  Is this really a
good machine, and what can I expect out of it?  Is $99.95 a good price
for the unit?  [Cheaper anywhere else?]  Below is a copy of the information
that is present on the cover of Jameco's Spring 1985 flyer.  [#127]  I
have no contact with Jameco, or Western Electric Company which is claimed
to manufacture the device as per Jameco.  Any info outside of what's below,
or the answers to the my questions can be mailed to me.  I will summarize,
and post if interest warrants it.  [If not, I will mail copies of the
summation to those requesting it.]  My use for the Telstar system is for
home/personal use.  I would like an answering machine function of sorts.
I don't have any info outside of what's below.


  /---=[
 // Dave Shaver
<<  UUCP: {okstate|umn-cs|csu-cs}!isucs1!shaver    CSNET: shaver@iowa-state
 \\ [Iowa State University - Ames, IA]    These are my comments, no one else's.
  \---=[

[=--=]

This info included for the benefit of those interested, and that have not seen
Jameco's Flyer.  I have added comments in square brackets [like this] for
some of my additional questions.

[From the cover of Jameco's Spring Flyer {#127}]

Telstar (tm)
The call control system for you business or personal needs.
Your programmable, 24 hour a day telephone control system is here!

o Stores 30 calls for you.  Its friendly voice tells caller to leave their
  number, which is stored in Telstar's memory.  When you check in for
  messages, its voice reports the numbers that called, and time of call.

[Does this means that the machine answers the line with a pre-canned message,
 and accepts Touch-Tone digits, then saves them for later retrieval?]

o Easy to program.  Voice prompts provide step by step programming
  instructions.

o Remote access.  Call your Telstar call control system from any Touch-Tone
  phone anywhere to receive messages and to use other features.

[These "messages" I would guess are the numbers gathered above from remote
 callers.  Does this unit have any form of a "standard" answering machine,
 or some comparable system?  {standard: Answer the line with a taped message,
 then start another tape and record the remote callers message.}]

o Voice synthesis.  Talks to you and callers via friendly, life-like voice
  synthesis.  It's clear, easy to understand.

[I have heard other "life-like voice synthesis" that's "clear and easy to
 understand."  Is this a "good" synthesis?  Understandable over long distance
 lines?]

o Call Screening.  Identify calls you want to receive.  System will announce
  only those calls you want to receive, and record all others.

[Can this option be turned on and off?  How many identifying numbers are
 allowed?]

o Call forward announcement.  Lets you tell your callers where you can be
  reached.  You can change the announcement as often as needed, even remotely.

[Is this option switchable with just the standard "record" option that excepts
 remote users numbers?  {or however that works}]

o Last number dialed.  Conveniently remembers last number dialed, especially
  helpful when they are busy or unanswered.

o Security controlled access.  Through the use of a special code you prevent
  unauthorized access to the system.

[What's the length of this "security" code, and how is it used?  Do you call
 up the Telstar system, and when it asks for your number, enther the code?]

o 50 name directory for convenient dialing.  You can store 50 numbers and
  reach them easily by just dialing their names on your touch-Tone telephone
  keypad.

o Built-in calendar.  Automatically logs the time and date of incoming calls.
  Tells you the time and date via voice synthesis.

o 2 button emergency calling.  Telstar provides fast, reliable two-button
  dialing of medical, police, and fire numbers.

o Many other features.  There are additional conveniences that come with
  having Telstar, such as Intercom, Hold, Long Distance Restriction, and more.

[Any comments on any of these features?]

o Brand new in factory cartons.

[Please note: TELECOM is not to be used as an advertising medium. Any
blatantly commercial messages will not be posted to this list. --JSol]

13-Aug-85 18:07:40-EDT,3956;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Tue 13 Aug 85 18:07:37-EDT
Date: 13 Aug 85 17:25-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #17
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Tuesday, August 13, 1985 5:25PM
Volume 5, Issue 17

Today's Topics:

                    900 (Dial-It) and equal access
                          Re: [phone]
         Re: upper limit of bit rate over a voice grade line

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 16:59:13 PDT
From: vortex![e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: 900 (Dial-It) and equal access

Another case where the provider selects the carrier is with 900
area code (Dial-It) services, used for polling and information
services (Sports info, Dial-A-Space Shuttle, etc.)  The Dial-It
network is exceptionally unique and I would expect it to be quite
a while before any similar services are offered by non-AT&T
entities.  Also, pressure will be very high for local telcos to
automatically route 900 calls to AT&T (if they're not already,
anybody know for sure?)  The reason for this is the mass publicity
that surrounds 900 numbers--they tend to be announced on national
television broadcasts (for example) and nobody is going to
try explain dialing access codes if you're not an AT&T default
subscriber on such programs.  So, the alternate carriers and local
telcos will get swamped with irate calls from subscribers who
won't be able to get their 900 calls through during the programs
unless automatic routing is done.  Given the number of people
who dial such calls, the pressure will be intense for such automatic
routing.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 85 18:31:34 MDT
From: thomas%utah-gr@utah-cs (Spencer W. Thomas)
Subject: Re: [phone]

When I signed up for my (equal access) LD carrier, I got a note from
them that I should dial [phone] to verify that I was connected to
them (after a couple of weeks, to give the good old BOC time to process
the paperwork).  I was supposed to get the "cannot complete call as
dialed" recording if I wasn't connected yet.  Well, curious fellow that
I am, I called immediately, and got a recording "thank you for selecting
AT&T" (which was not the company I had selected).  Anyway, at least some
of the carriers are publicizing this number to their customers.

=Spencer

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 85 02:47 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: upper limit of bit rate over a voice grade line

The discussion I've seen here so far regarding the upper limit of
signaling rate over a voice grade phone line has all been restricted to
an analysis of analog phone channels.  Actually, I think a large and
growing proportion of long-distance lines are themselves digital, at 56
kbps.  (The actual, instantaneous rate is 64 kbps, but one bit in every
eight is lost to channel overhead.)

Not by coincidence, this 56 kbps is the same 56 kbps at which "the phone
company" has threatened us with digital phone lines.  Technically all
that's missing is the local digital connections, from the long-distance
digital lines to the end user.

Obviously any channel which includes such a digital link has a very
hard, absolute upper limit of 56 kbps.  Practically speaking, it's very
hard to even approach 56 kbps over such a channel, because any other
noise or distortion in the channel, such as in the analog links, just
subtracts away from the total available bandwidth.  And that especially
includes the noise and distortion introduced by the "voice"-to-digital
demodulator and digital-to-"voice" modulator in the channel itself.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
14-Aug-85 20:07:19-EDT,5502;000000000001
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Aug 85 20:07:16-EDT
Date: 14 Aug 85 19:28-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #18
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Wednesday, August 14, 1985 7:28PM
Volume 5, Issue 18
Date:           Tue, 13 Aug 85 17:11:25 PDT
From:           "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>
Subject:        Details of call-forwarding

My local operating company (General Telephone) is finally offering call
forwarding.  As I understand it, even though calls are being forwarded,
I can still place outgoing calls.  Suppose I am placing an outgoing
call from a line which has call forwarding in effect.  If a friend
calls my number, will he receive a busy signal or will his call be
forwarded?  Or will something else happen?  (I'm assuming that the
number I'm forwarding to is not busy and that circuits are not busy,
etc.).

Is it possible that details of call-forwarding, such as the above, vary
from operating company to operating company, or is there an industry
standard for call-forwarding and other special services?

dgc

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 85 20:30:34 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <[e-mail]>
Subject: 976 numbers

  Here in the Washington D.C. area, there are now local phone numbers which
cost extra to dial.  They all begin with 976.  For instance there is one
that will give you stock quotes.  It's a sort of reverse 800 service.
  Does anyone know more about these?  How much does the company get from
each call?  Do any other cities have anything like this?
                                ...Keith

------------------------------

Return-Path: <dual!mordor!seismo!munnari!basser.oz![e-mail]>
Received: from UCB-VAX.BERKELEY.EDU by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Tue 13 Aug 85 21:13:47-EDT
Received: by UCB-VAX.BERKELEY.EDU (5.5/1.2)
    id AA22760; Tue, 13 Aug 85 18:11:24 PDT
From: dual!mordor!seismo!munnari!basser.oz![e-mail]
Received: by dual.UUCP id AA07127; Tue, 13 Aug 85 08:08:52 pdt
Received: by s1-c.ARPA id AA08151; Mon, 12 Aug 85 11:07:47 pdt
    id AA08151; Mon, 12 Aug 85 11:07:47 pdt
Received: from munnari.UUCP by seismo.CSS.GOV with UUCP; Sun, 11 Aug 85 08:41:56 EDT
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 85 20:55:58 EST
Received: from basser (via basser) by munnari with SunIII (4.44)
    id AA20310; Sun, 11 Aug 85 21:03:39 EST
To: munnari!telecom
Subject: Re: CCITT modems

In article <[e-mail]>
    decwrl!sun!calma!helge@Berkeley (Helge Skrivervik) writes:

> Dialing from the US to Austrailia aslo usually works fine, but I have
> no information as to what standards they are using down under...

We use CCITT (European) standards.  I agree with Helge's statements
about 212A/V.22 compatibility.

John Mackin, Basser Department of Computer Science,
         University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
UUCP: ...!seismo!munnari!basser.oz!john
ARPA: munnari!basser.oz![e-mail]

14-Aug-85 18:36:25-EDT,766;000000000001
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from csnet-relay by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Aug 85 18:36:22-EDT
Received: from umass-cs by csnet-relay.csnet id b000620; 14 Aug 85 18:17 EDT
Date:     Wed, 14 Aug 85 10:27 EST
From:     "Steven H. Gutfreund" <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject:  19.2K baud modem

An intesting ad in this week's Electronics:    12-Aug

Adcomm 96/48        19.2Kbaud Modem

Full duplex, Asynchronous, full error checking, $1,995.

Carterfone Communications Corp.        [phone]        Dallas, TX.

(I advise you to check this one out yourselves -- I have no connection with,
 them, and I am not endorsing the product nor the company).

13-Aug-85 22:17:13-EDT,1477;000000000001
Return-Path: <sun!l5![e-mail]>
Received: from UCB-VAX.BERKELEY.EDU by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Tue 13 Aug 85 22:17:05-EDT
Received: by UCB-VAX.BERKELEY.EDU (5.5/1.2)
    id AA24397; Tue, 13 Aug 85 19:14:49 PDT
Received: from snail.sun.uucp by sun.uucp (3.0DEV4/SMI-2.0)
    id AA23569; Tue, 13 Aug 85 14:48:30 PDT
Received: from l5.sun.uucp by snail.sun.uucp (3.0DEV4/SMI-3.0DEV4)
    id AA08686; Tue, 13 Aug 85 14:49:01 PDT
Return-Path: <gnu@l5>
Received: by l5.sun.uucp (3.0DEV2/SMI-3.0DEV1)
    id AA17768; Tue, 13 Aug 85 14:49:28 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 85 14:49:28 PDT
From: sun!l5![e-mail] (John Gilmore)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Baud rate limit on voice grade lines

I believe the loophole in using the Shannon formula is that it assumes
the 3+kHz bandwidth that is guaranteed throughout the phone network.
The way local phone companies are offerring higher speed digital
access is by using the higher bandwidth available *in the local loop*.
The digital data is not passed thru the entire network as [possibly
digitally encoded] voice-grade analog signals, but is recognized as
digital data at the CO and transmitted digitally.

I believe this is also how the "data under voice" systems work -- the
data is going in a portion of the local loop's bandwidth that the
normal phones filter out and refuse to use.

This is speculation; any authoritative comments?

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
15-Aug-85 17:27:18-EDT,8739;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Thu 15 Aug 85 17:27:13-EDT
Date: 15 Aug 85 16:48-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #19
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Thursday, August 15, 1985 4:48PM
Volume 5, Issue 19

Today's Topics:

                       976 and data under voice
                  Sprint service in the Boston area
                      50K baud over phone lines
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #16

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 20:00:43 PDT
From: vortex![e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: 976 and data under voice

976 numbers exist in many parts of the country.  They've been here
in L.A. for quite sometime, and numbers exist for all sorts of insanely
useless and a few semi-useful things.  But really, "dial-a-scary-story"
for $0.95 plus toll?  Jackson hotline?  Three different groups running
astrology lines?

The program providers receive a certain cut from each call on a
sliding scale.  The services require a good deal of money to get
started, since there is a minimum number of lines that must be
supported (20?  Something like that...) and they must be placed
close to the 976 serving CO or massive FX charges would result.

At least here in Californai, these numbers have become the target
of very angry parents and various pending legislation.  The problem
is that there are lots of TV ads for these numbers, but they often
didn't mention who RAN the line (and until recently, telco wouldn't
tell you) and they still often only mention the charges in fine print
at the bottom of the screen.  Kids have been calling these numbers
like crazy (there's even a "tell-me-a-story" line) and in many cases
have run up ENORMOUS bills.  In one case where there was a contest
line, where each call cost something like $1, some kid ran up
$1000's in charges over a couple of days.  The parents feel that
the advertising is very misleading, tries to entice kids, and that
telco should be responsible for blocking these numbers upon request.

At the current time, I believe that PUC action has blocked anyone from
being disconnected for non-payment of 976 charges.

Did I mention that the charges for these services can run from something
like $0.20 to $3.00 or maybe even more?  Plus toll charges.  And the
maximum normal call length is only 3 minutes.  The most common charge seems
to be something like $0.55, but many are much more expensive.

All in all, they seem to be pretty much a waste.

----

As for data-under-voice... yes, these services operate through the
time-honored "carrier" system, the same procedure used to add additional
phone lines to a location when additional pairs can't be found.  Either
analog or digital techniques (via subcarriers) are used to provide
additional bandwidth, though a DC continuity loop is of course a requirement
for either.

You can pump a lot of data through many local loops that way, but it also
appears that service offerings using such facilities will be quite
expensive.  Remember that the way things are going, local loops and
local services will be by far the most expensive part of your telephone
service.  You'll be able to make long distance calls cheaply enough
(whether or not you'll HEAR the party on the other end is a different
matter) but local services are going to go sky high.

And we all know why.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 15-Aug-1985 0205
From: [e-mail]  (Dave C., 289-6803, APO-1/C8)
Subject: Sprint service in the Boston area


I recently received a blurb from GTE Sprint saying that 950-0777 service
would start working in my exchange (617-664 and 617-689) on 17-August.
On 14-August it did not yet work, but on 15-August it was operational.

The disadvantage is that I now have to enter my "travel code" along with
my authorization code.

There is no charge for calls to 950, but from some telephones it will be
necessary to dial 1-950-0777, according to the blurb.

Dave C.

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 15 Aug 85 10:04:32 EDT
From:     Earl Weaver (VLD/ASB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  50K baud over phone lines

> I have a feeling that soon, a modem will come along that will do real
> full duplex at well over 50K baud over a phone line.  Is there anyway
> to find the upward limit of these things?  I have been told many times
> that 9600 baud was imposible over a phone line, and that it had been
> PROVED imposible.  How do you prove stuff like this, there are sooo
> many different ways to encodeand compact things!
> -Mike

I assure you that 50K baud over a voice-grade phone line is impossible.
So is 9600 baud.  However 9600 bps (BITS PER SECOND) is another matter!
A nominal 3K-bandwidth phone line is good for about 3K baud.  However,
there are clever people who have squeezed out more than 3K bps (to wit:
9600 bps & above) over a 3K baud channel.  The confusion arises with
the use of the word "baud."  Those who have "proved" that 9600 baud
is impossible over phone lines are using a different definition of the
term "baud" than those who say it's possible.  It used to be that "baud"
meant a communication rate, and "bits per second" meant a data rate.
Terminals were hooked directly to computers and operated at some
data rate such at 1200 bps.  Unfortunately, (from a semantic point of
view) some terminal vendors, when they put the capability to operate
at different data rates into their terminals, identified the rates as
300 baud, 1200 baud, etc.  So the word stuck.  Nowadays, most people
equate baud and bits per second (which purists regard as incorrect).
If the purists would switch their definition, or if the novices knew
(presumably from context) the difference between bits and baud, the
confusion would end. (i think...)

------------------------------

From: dual!qantel!stv@Berkeley
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 85 15:14:28 pdt
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #16

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
>it to everyone. Apparently issue 14 never made it to USENET either.

It didn't get to here.  Go ahead and re-post it to usenet.

Also, here are two questions you could post for me.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Intra-LATA calls on Sprint

I know that both the Bell companies and the ALDS companies say, and are
required to say, that you have to use your local Bell system to make
calls from one place to another in the same "Service Area".  However, I
have used both Sprint and SBS to make such calls, with no problems.  Do
they route them thru Omaha or something, to get around the regulation?
I haven't noticed how they're billed--perhaps they're charging me more.
The reason that I ask is that I make calls from work which are
long-distance but in the same "service area", and I don't want them
carged to my work.  I could use my Bell "Calling Card" if it turns out
that it is still cheaper than intra-LATA Sprint, even with the $.40
Calling Card service charge.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Cellular phone info wanted

Okay, so I'm interested in getting a cellular phone.  Do I have to buy
the hardware and the service together?  The cellular services around
here are still charging $1000-$2500 for a cellular phone, depending if
it has 10-number memory and a battery or not, but I have heard rumors
that you can get a cellular phone of some kind at a discount for under
$500.  Does anyone know where?  Is it a good idea for me to try to do
this?

After I have my own unit, can I call any of the 800 numbers I hear on
the radio who advertize cellular service, and have them hook me up?  Or
do some charge more than others, and I should shop around?  I have heard
that it costs $40/mo plus "air time".  Is this a typical rate?  Does the
"air time" jazz mean that I am charged something when people call me, too?

I haven't seen any articles in Consumer Reports on which cellular phones
are best--has anyone seen a comparative report anywhere?  Specific
recommendations are welcome.

How long before I can get one the size of Captain Kirk's (plus car
cigarette lighter cord)?
--

Steve Vance
{dual,hplabs,intelca,nsc,proper}!qantel!stv
dual!qantel!stv@berkeley
Qantel Corporation, Hayward, CA

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
16-Aug-85 18:52:10-EDT,11987;000000000001

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 85 19:37:48 cdt
From: hplabs!csu-cs!isucs1!shaver@Berkeley (Dave Shaver)
Subject: Some information, and request for more, on Telstar.



Sometime ago there was BRIEF mention of the "Telstar" telephone control
system.  Basicly I would like additional info on this product.  Is anyone
else selling them besides Jameco Electronics?  [In Belmont, CA]  Did the
project get scrapped, and then did Jameco picked up the stock?  Is this really a
good machine, and what can I expect out of it?  Is $99.95 a good price
for the unit?  [Cheaper anywhere else?]  Below is a copy of the information
that is present on the cover of Jameco's Spring 1985 flyer.  [#127]  I
have no contact with Jameco, or Western Electric Company which is claimed
to manufacture the device as per Jameco.  Any info outside of what's below,
or the answers to the my questions can be mailed to me.  I will summarize,
and post if interest warrants it.  [If not, I will mail copies of the
summation to those requesting it.]  My use for the Telstar system is for
home/personal use.  I would like an answering machine function of sorts.
I don't have any info outside of what's below.


  /---=[
 // Dave Shaver
<<  UUCP: {okstate|umn-cs|csu-cs}!isucs1!shaver    CSNET: shaver@iowa-state
 \\ [Iowa State University - Ames, IA]    These are my comments, no one else's.
  \---=[

[=--=]

This info included for the benefit of those interested, and that have not seen
Jameco's Flyer.  I have added comments in square brackets [like this] for
some of my additional questions.

[From the cover of Jameco's Spring Flyer {#127}]

Telstar (tm)
The call control system for you business or personal needs.
Your programmable, 24 hour a day telephone control system is here!

o Stores 30 calls for you.  Its friendly voice tells caller to leave their
  number, which is stored in Telstar's memory.  When you check in for
  messages, its voice reports the numbers that called, and time of call.

[Does this means that the machine answers the line with a pre-canned message,
 and accepts Touch-Tone digits, then saves them for later retrieval?]

o Easy to program.  Voice prompts provide step by step programming
  instructions.

o Remote access.  Call your Telstar call control system from any Touch-Tone
  phone anywhere to receive messages and to use other features.

[These "messages" I would guess are the numbers gathered above from remote
 callers.  Does this unit have any form of a "standard" answering machine,
 or some comparable system?  {standard: Answer the line with a taped message,
 then start another tape and record the remote callers message.}]

o Voice synthesis.  Talks to you and callers via friendly, life-like voice
  synthesis.  It's clear, easy to understand.

[I have heard other "life-like voice synthesis" that's "clear and easy to
 understand."  Is this a "good" synthesis?  Understandable over long distance
 lines?]

o Call Screening.  Identify calls you want to receive.  System will announce
  only those calls you want to receive, and record all others.

[Can this option be turned on and off?  How many identifying numbers are
 allowed?]

o Call forward announcement.  Lets you tell your callers where you can be
  reached.  You can change the announcement as often as needed, even remotely.

[Is this option switchable with just the standard "record" option that excepts
 remote users numbers?  {or however that works}]

o Last number dialed.  Conveniently remembers last number dialed, especially
  helpful when they are busy or unanswered.

o Security controlled access.  Through the use of a special code you prevent
  unauthorized access to the system.

[What's the length of this "security" code, and how is it used?  Do you call
 up the Telstar system, and when it asks for your number, enther the code?]

o 50 name directory for convenient dialing.  You can store 50 numbers and
  reach them easily by just dialing their names on your touch-Tone telephone
  keypad.

o Built-in calendar.  Automatically logs the time and date of incoming calls.
  Tells you the time and date via voice synthesis.

o 2 button emergency calling.  Telstar provides fast, reliable two-button
  dialing of medical, police, and fire numbers.

o Many other features.  There are additional conveniences that come with
  having Telstar, such as Intercom, Hold, Long Distance Restriction, and more.

[Any comments on any of these features?]

o Brand new in factory cartons.

[Please note: TELECOM is not to be used as an advertising medium. Any
blatantly commercial messages will not be posted to this list. --JSol]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 85 20:20:54 edt
From: cbosgd.ATT![e-mail] (Mark Horton)
Subject: Telstar call control system

The Telstar is not an AT&T product.  It almost was, but it flunked
the market tests at the last minute and was discontinued.  AT&T had
already manufactured lots of them, so they offered them to their
employees at a deep discount.  (They were originally to list for
around $200.)  I bought two - one to use and one for parts in case
the first one broke.  (It hasn't, I just took the second one out
of the box tonight - see below.)  So please understand that this is
not a commercial type message - the ones being offered to the public
are through liquidators and once the supply is gone, that's it.
Neither I nor AT&T care whether you buy one or not.  My box and
literature say "American Bell" on them.

The Telstar is a really neat gadget if you like gadgets.  It does
lots of different things, some well, some not so well.  The major
function is as an answering machine, but it's really not very good
at that.  It has no tape anywhere, everything is stored digitally
in RAM.  When someone calls you and leaves a message, all it stores
is the date and time of the call and it has them touch tone a phone
number in.  This works well if you recognize the number, but there
are times when a number just isn't enough.  If it's a residence, you
need to ask for a particular person.  Same for a business.  Someone
left a message on my Telstar the other day, and I called them back.
(The Telstar will dial the call for you, which is nice.)  It turned
out to be "Happy Valley Chicken Farms".  I explained to the person
answering the phone who I was and that someone at that number had
left a message for me to call that number, and I gave the time of
the call.  He had no idea who would have called.  Might even have
been a prank.  But it's embarrassing to return such calls if you
don't recognize the number.  The number of rings before it answers
can be set from 1 to 15.  When there are new messages, you are told
by a stuttered dial tone when you pick up the phone to place an
outgoing call.  (If you go for a few days without placing an outgoing
call, you won't find out about the message.)

The Telstar is a box the size of a Kleenix box.  It plugs into your
phone line *in series*, preferrably at the demarcation point between
the telco line and your private wiring.  All phones downstream from
it can use the features.  It has a speech synthesizer (it uses the TI
chip, as I understand it, the quality is quite good.)  It can use either
an RJ11C jack (the dual-jack Radio Shack wall outlets are handy) or an RJ31X.
There is a membrane keyboard with 30 keys, one for each letter plus some
duplicate functions (A-J doubles as 1-0, S-Z double as fire, police, medical,
home, id code, time, date, and name/dir.)  You can configure it from the
keyboard directly, and also talk to it from any touch tone phone in your
house, or from a remote phone.  It has a battery backup and a clock,
so power failures aren't a problem.  (When power shuts off, the relays
short the line back to the pre-telstar state.)

Another thing Telstar has is a name directory.  It holds up to 30 numbers,
you punch in the name in alpha and the number.  This is mainly useful to
avoid hunting for your address book; the dialing sequence is about as long
as dialing the number, so it's not useful for speed dialing.  You can call
home from a remote phone to ask it for a phone number.  You can key in the
name from a touch tone phone - it beeps as soon as you've keyed in enough
letters to uniquely identify the name from the set it knows.  One win of
the name directory is that if someone in the directory calls and leaves
a message, when it plays back it tells you the name of who called (it
spells it out, no attempt to pronounce it) instead of giving the number.

Telstar has a few other nifty features of lesser importance.  One is that
you program in three numbers for police, fire, and medical, and in 2
keystrokes you can dial them.  In an emergency, they are fast to dial.

You can put a call on hold (possibly to change phones) by hitting H #,
but only if the other caller called you.  (Not sure why the restriction.)

You can turn on "long distance restriction" which forbids long distance
numbers from being dialed.  (There is a system "password" which you have
to enter to change this.)

You can use the phone as an intercom by dialing, say, * I 4 # (think of #
as carriage return) and hanging up; the phone will ring in burst of 4
quick rings (or whatever number you dial) until it is answered remotely,
then you pick up.  You can encode different numbers, e.g. 2 means "dinner
time", 1 means "pick up an incoming call".

You can check messages, and have it repeat or call any number.  It also
remembers old messages (there are about 20 messages still on my Telstar,
going back to when I hooked it up last Christmas.)

You can put a "call forward announcement" which is like call forwarding
but the caller has to dial the new number himself.

You can turn on "call screening", where the telstar intercepts incoming
calls before your phone rings at all.  (You have to give a time at which
call screening turns off, so you can't leave it on by accident.)  It has
the user key in their phone number.  If it's in the name directory (and
optionally if you assign "special status" to one or more names, only for
special names) it will ring your phone, otherwise it just takes a message.
If you pick up for an outgoing call, it tells you it's on before you dial.

There is a "last number dialed" command to repeat it, but since you have
to type *LND# (listen to number) C, it doesn't save many keystokes, and
it only remembers one number.  (In general, you can type at any point
without waiting for messages to finish.)

Anyway, this is a nifty gizmo for people who like to play with gizmos.
Since I gathered people on this list would like to play with one, and
since I have a line that isn't doing anything for a couple weeks, I dug
out the spare Telstar and hooked it up.  Feel free to call, but I reserve
the right to turn it off if it starts to be a problem.  I will only leave
it connected for a week or two anyway.  The universal reaction I've gotten
from regular people who left a message on it is "Wow!  That's a really
neat answering machine you've got!"

The number is 614-868-4276.  You can do the usual "leaving a message"
thing (I won't call you back) if you like.  Or hit * to get into remote
mode.  The ID code is set to "1234".  It will prompt you for most things,
but a list of commands and general hints is useful.

It doesn't understand dial pulse, just DTMF.  In general, * gets its
attention for a command, "beep beep" is a prompt for you to type in
a command, and # is CR.  Possible commands include "ND#" (name directory),
"CM#" (check messages), "CT" (check time), "CFA#" (to check or change
the call forward announcement),

I've put three names into the name directory: "me", "myself", and
"information", so you can see how it deals with the ambiguity.  They
aren't very interesting.

    Mark

20-Aug-85 19:15:39-EDT,25784;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Tue 20 Aug 85 19:15:24-EDT
Date: 19 Aug 85 23:24-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #21
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Monday, August 19, 1985 11:24PM
Volume 5, Issue 21

Today's Topics:

                             976 charges
                       Re:  Cellular "air time"
                          Hayes 2400 modems
                    Re: Cellular phone info wanted
                                 DOVE

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 19:13:39 PDT
From: vortex![e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: 976 charges

I believe that the "applicable toll charges" are to the 976 serving
office, which tends to be in a central city location.  True enough,
at this time only 976 callers inside the same area code (with the
possible exception of pseudo-split codes like 213/818 in the same
city) are charged the service fee for the call.  I believe this will
be changing, however, when a distributed database for such services
charging is set up.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 17 Aug 85 19:10:44 EDT
From:     "Richard P. Wilkes" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Cellular "air time"

I live in Baltimore and have had a cellular phone in my car for several months
now.  I love it, and it has certainly changed the way I use my travel time
and has helped me stay in touch far better.  The service does have a cost, tho.

In this area (Balmer/Washington) we have a choice of two services.  One, offered
by Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems has a ~$100 per month service that includes
an hour of prime time and an hour of off-peak.  After this time, you pay $0.44
per min prime and $.24 off peak.

This seems comparable to the offering of Cellular One, the other service.
Cell One offers an NEC phone under a rental program (no obligation except for
first month) for $95/mo that includes 100 minutes of air time--prime or
off peak.  After that it's $.40/$.24.

The difference is how they change for usage.  Bell charges as soon as the
call is placed, in one min increments, regardless of whether the call goes
through.  60 no answers is one hour of air time.  This adds up right quickly.

Cell one does not charge until the party answers.  So, I can call my answering
machine which answers on 1 ring if there are messages and 4 rings otherwise
and not get charged unless I have messages.  Ditto for busy numbers.

My typical bill runs $130 for roughly 3.5 hours of air time per month.
The typical call lasts less than 3 mins.  It would cost me far more with Bell.

Bell also has a $49.95 "special" which includes a rental phone of lower quality
that their prime service and 100 mins of off peak time.  HOWEVER, peak time
is charged at $.75/min.  This is a great option for folks that just want the
phone as a status symbol (altho I recommend buying the antenna alone as a
cheaper alternative).  But, a few unanswered daytime calls will make up
the difference quickly.

Cell one also has an extremely useful service for me called No Answer Transfer.
If I am not in the car or decide not to answer, my call can be transferred to
a number I choose.  I set up this number by dialing *72 followed by the number.
Cost is $5 per month I believe and their is no charge for setting up the
individual transfers.  I do this when I visit client sites so I can be reached
in an emergency without an electronic leash (beeper).

Also, this area is considered one calling region.  I can place calls from
my phone to/from Washington and Annapolis for the same rate.  Transfers, too.

I do recommend than anyone looking into a phone do some heavy research.
There's much competition in this area, and you can often do some bargaining.
I'd be happy to answer any specific questions.  -r

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 1 August 1985  06:11-MDT
From: "Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR)" <ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!cbnap![e-mail]>
Subject:   Hayes 2400 modems

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (H.SHARP) writes:
>I have been trying out a Hayes 2400 modem working with a
>Teletype 5420 terminal.
>I have noticed that the Hayes modem does not raise Data Set Ready
>until it gets answer tone from the remote modem.  The Teletype
>terminal will not receive data from the modem unless Data Set Ready
>is raised.
> ......

    Try shorting pins 5 to 6 or pins 5 to 8 on the 5420,
    The 5420 will work (as you have noted) , but not
    full function.

>Another problem I have noticed is using the Hayes to call into
>our computer.  The computer is using AT&T modems.  About three
>out of four times I call in, after I get the "Connect 1200"
>message (no 2400 bps modems on the other end) I get a line of
>garbage on the screen.  The computer times out and disconnects the
>call.  Anyone else notice this problem?

    What speed is your terminal running? I have a USR2400
    modem. If I have my terminal set to 2400baud and I connect
    to a 1200 baud modem, I get the "Connect 1200" message
    at 2400 baud but then the modem switches to 1200 baud
    and the terminal must be switched manualy to 1200 in
    order to converse with the computer..

                tnx
                Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR)
                ihnp4!cbnap!gws
                AT&T Bell Labs (Columbus,Oh)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 1985 21:29-PDT
Subject: Re: Cellular phone info wanted
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <[e-mail]>


In reply to the questions Steve Vance asks:

Q. Do I have to buy the hardware and the service together?

A. No, but it is the simplest way to "one stop shop" for a phone if
you buy the phone, have it installed and initiate the service at one
place.  That way, if problems occur, you don't have any finger pointing.

Q. The cellular services around here are still charging $1000-$2500
for a cellular phone, depending if it has 10-number memory and a
battery or not, but I have heard rumors that you can get a cellular
phone of some kind at a discount for under $500.  Does anyone know
where?  Is it a good idea for me to try to do this?

A. One place here in The Bay Area is selling the E. F. Johnson (aka
Western Union dial in base) unit for $688 + $140 for installation.
That's pretty cheap.  Most are charging around $225-$250 to install
phones (especially in foreign cars) and around $1500 to $2500 for the
phones.  I think the best place to buy a phone is through one of the
two carriers providing the service in your area.  Carriers usually buy
many more phones than an independent dealer could and are able to offer them
at better prices.  Again, if there are problems, you are not dealing with
a "cellular reseller" but direct with the carrier.  Some carriers also
offer attractive lease/purchase plans.  Some allow you to get on
very cheaply, for something like $200 down and $100/mo you get a phone
installed in your car, service on the carrier, some minutes of "free" air-time
each month, maintenance and insurance on your equipment and after 3 years you
own the phone.  Others are making it as cheap as $50/mo which includes the
phone installed in your car, service, rental of equipment and free air-time.
Shop around with your carriers and see what `packages' they might offer.

Q. After I have my own unit, can I call any of the 800 numbers I hear on
the radio who advertise cellular service, and have them hook me up?  Or
do some charge more than others, and I should shop around?

A. In any given area there are two types of carriers; I would recommend
calling them both and comparing monthly rate packages, manner of charging
air-time (see below), coverage, service and roaming agreements with other
carriers (handy if you plan to travel with your phone).  In each market there
is the `ability' for two carriers to exist.  One potential provider will
be known as a WIRELINE.  The WIRELINE designation specifically refers to a
local utility currently providing landline telephone service in the market
area that is licensed to offer cellular service.  Here in The Bay Area,
GTE and Pacific Bell were the two existing wireline/landline telephone
companies.  GTE (thru a series of negotiations) took a majority stake in
the bay area in trade for Pac*Bell taking a majority stake in the Los Angeles
system.  Hence, our provider of cellular service on the WIRELINE block is
GTE.  The other potential provider of cellular service in a market area
is designated as the NON-WIRELINE carrier.  Unlike wireline applicants,
the NON-WIRELINE applicant doesn't necessarily have to have a local presence
in the market area where they are filing for a cellular license.  In many
markets, NON-WIRELINE applicants have been established radio common carriers,
a consortium of communications (or other) industry firms, or virtually any
applicant that does not fit into the wireline category.  NON-WIRELINE  systems
are usually designed, engineered, owned and operated locally; WIRELINE systems
are usually designed, engineered, owned and operated by remote control.  The
GTE system for the Bay Area, for example is controlled from Houston, TX.

Q. I have heard that it costs $40/mo plus "air time".  Is this a
typical rate?  Does the "air time" jazz mean that I am charged
something when people call me, too?

A. The typical air-time rates in most markets started out around the
$30-$50 per month charge "for service", plus $.30-$.50 cents per minute
for peak-time use and $.20-$.35 for non-peak use.  Peak use in "most"
markets has been 7am-7pm weekdays; non-peak being 7pm-7am weekdays,
all weekend long and holidays.  However, BEWARE of the various `methods'
of charging for air-time, there are three of them:  Method 1-- Air-time
is applied from the time the called person answers the phone and is only
applied to calls that actually `complete'.  This is like we're all used to
with long distance calls via AT&T.  Method 2-- has the air-time "clock"
start at the time you are allocated a voice channel, but are only charged
on `completed' calls, as above.  With this method, you are paying, when the
call completes, for the time it takes the telephone company to switch the
call and for the person on the other end to answer it.  Method 3-- starts
the air-time clock at the time you are allocated a voice channel AND bills
you for it regardless of call completion!  Many of the Bell Cellular
Companies are using this @i<evil> (please excuse the comment) method of
charging for air-time.  Hence, with this method, you get billed for calls
which don't answer, return busy, or perhaps reach a disconnected number or
out of service number!  As you can see, there are many different ways of
charging for air-time -- be sure to read the small print and ask your local
carrier which method they are using.  With respect to incoming calls, you're
charged air-time, the only difference being between the methods above.  With
method--1 your charged from the time you take the phone off-hook to answer
the call.  With method--2 you're charged from the time you're allocated the
voice channel and ringing starts, but not for calls you don't answer (after
ringing times out).  With method--3 you pay for air-time REGARDLESS of
whether you answer the call or not IF your phone is on an acknowledges the
incoming call and is allocated a voice-channel (ringing is sent over the
voice channel as a command to your mobile unit).  The only way to avoid
paying air-time for unanswered calls with method 3 is to turn your off!
As a side note: an interesting development with respect to shifting the
burden for incoming call air-time charges is currently afoot at two carriers
in conjunction with their local landline telephone company will bill air-time
to the person calling the mobile instead of the mobile customer (as has been
traditionally done all these years).  A couple of other things with respect
to cellular calls:  Some carriers bill in 6-second increments; some 30 and
others the standard full minute.  One of the neat things all cellular carriers
i'm aware of are providing is that of "coverage area local dialing".  Meaning,
calls which originate anywhere within the approximate coverage area of the
system can terminate to any point and not incur a toll charge.  Example being
if you're a Bay Area customer on the GTE Mobilnet system, and even tho your
home NPA-NXX of your mobile number is Palo Alto based, you can call numbers
in San Francisco, San Jose, etc. and they are not charged as toll calls as they
would be if you were calling from a landline phone.  In some areas of the
country (Los Angeles being one of them) it's cheaper say to hop in your
car and make a cellular call than it would be to pay intra-lata landline rates!

Q. I haven't seen any articles in Consumer Reports on which cellular phones
are best--has anyone seen a comparative report anywhere?  Specific
recommendations are welcome.

A. Personal Communications Magazine has featured various types of phones
from time to time, but as far as I know Consumer Reports or any other type
of "non-biased" magazine hasn't done a study yet.  In buying your phone, one
of the most important questions to ask i think is: is the company in it
for the long haul?  Can i expect to get service if my unit breaks down?
What if my unit breaks down when I'm out of town?

Q. How long before I can get one the size of Captain Kirk's (plus car
cigarette lighter cord)?

A. As of this writing, only Motorola and GE have true portables out.  They
cost around $3K each and have adapters which provide them with
external antenuation and power from the car.  I think you will see the
cellular portable market develop much like the portable computer
market: they will get smaller, more featureful and cost less as time
goes on.  The portable I paid $4K just over a year ago now sells for
around $3K, and in some areas I have seen them selling for as cheap
as $2495.  As an aside, i think the portable is the only
way to go: people don't want to talk to cars (homes or offices) they
want to talk to PEOPLE.  Many cellular systems were not designed to
support portable users although portable will work, you may have trouble
using them in buildings until the carrier adds more cell sites and sector-
izes its gain receive antennas.


I hope I have adequately answered your questions; I would be happy to
answer any additional questions you or the readership may have concerning
cellular radio (which is just in its infancy).

Geoff Goodfellow

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 19 August 1985  13:34-MDT
From: Skeet Steffey TWS-S <[e-mail]>
Subject:   DOVE

I did the following analysis of the current DOVE offerings a couple
of years ago, and the overall picture hasn't changed much since then.
We currently have a large number of buildings served by DOVE which
communicates with the Computer Center(s) via high speed modems and
in several cases, via T-1 (1.544 megabits) over twisted pairs. We
are VERY well satisified with this technology, and we thank our lucky
stars for its availability.

***************************************************************

Background

The  proliferation of Computer remote terminals and other devices
in support of Workplace Automation has  taxed  existing  in-house
cabling   to  the  point  that  adequate  and  satisfactory  data
communication  support  cannot  be  provided.   In-house  conduit
systems are inadequate to accomodate additional cables.

External   conduits/raceways  can  be  installed;  however,  this
solution is not cost affective.

The USACC  White  Sands  solution  to  this  problem  is  to  use
"Voice-plus-data"  (frequency  Division  Multiplexing) technology
for "in-house" data communications.

The highlights of the technology are as follows:

  Simultaneous data/voice transmission over a single cable pair

  Data transmission totally transparent to normal telephone usage

  Eliminates additional cabling requirement for data transmission

  Voice operation unaffected during power failure

  Eliminates line driver requirement

  Meets FCC, Part 68


General Descriptions

Voice  -  plus  - data technology provides a cost effective, high
performance Data/Voice Multiplexing system.  Voice - plus -  data
technology is designed to reduce intrafacility data communication
costs  by sharing the existing telephone lines for both voice and
data transmission.

The Voice - plus - data technology consistes of a  Terminal  Unit
and a Central Unit.  The Terminal Unit combines voice and data at
the  telephone end and transmits it to the Central Unit were they
are demultiplexed again.  The voice/data  mulitplexing  operation
has  been  designed  to  be  totally  transparent  to  the normal
telephone usage.  The quality of voice and the audible tones used
by the voice system remains unaffected after the installation  of
Voice - plus - data hardware.


Operation

To understand the operation of Voice - plus - data technology, we
need to examine the frequency bands between the telephone and the
PABX  or  the central end of the voice distribution system.  With
the introduction of a Terminal Unit and a  Central  Unit  between
the  two ends of a telephone cable pair, the information exchange
takes  place  on  three  separate  frequency  bands.   The  voice
transmission is maintained on the normal 0-4 kHz band.  Typically
68-76  kHz  band  carries  up  to 19,200 bps of async data to the
Central Unit and a 160-76 kHz band carries up to  19,200  bps  of
async data to the Terminal Unit.

Thus, by utilizing Frequency Division scheme, a full-duplex async
data  link is established between the Terminal and Central Units,
without affecting the normal voice communication.

Office Shuffling Made Easy

Moving a terminal from one office to another (without the Voice -
plus - data technology) can be a tedious task.  In many cases  it
may require installation of a brand new cable.  With Voice - plus
-  data  technology,  the office shuffle can be handled by moving
the terminal unit to the new office and  utilizing  the  existing
phone line.

Eliminate Line Driver

The  Voice  -  plus  -  data technology can drive over 6000 feet,
eliminating the need for line drivers.  In this case the  smaller
additional  system  cost  for  the Voice - plus - data technology
makes it an even more attractive local communication device.

Reduced Campus Communications Costs

In a campus-like setting with several small  buildings,  Voice  -
plus  -  data  technology  can  be  used to bring data lines to a
central  point  in  each  building.   The  campus  can  then   be
interconnected  by  multiplexed high speed data links between the
buildings, at a reduced overall system cost.

Optimize Data and Voice Communications Cost

The  voice  PABXs are optimized for voice communication while the
data PABXs are designed to switch  data  most  efficiently.   The
only argument for integrating the voice and data communication is
the  ability  to share existing wiring in a building.  An optimum
solution to both voice and data communication can be achieved  by
sharing  the  wiring  through Voice - plus - data technology, but
maintaining separate switching systems for voice and data.

                            ANALYSIS OVERVIEW

MICOM  embarked  on the Voice - plus data technology project as a
local distribution adjunct to MICOM's Micro600  at  a  time  when
TELTONE was the only manufacturer with a similiar product.  Since
that time, SIESCOR and COHERENT have developed like products.

All  three  of  these  companies  have  a  strong  background  in
telecommunications  products  but  are  not  as  strong  in  data
communications.  These products are the adaptation of "pair gain"
voice subscriber carrier systems or telegraph carrier systems.

GANDALF  has  recently announced a Pacxnet local networking using
several other manufacturers' equipment in conjunction with  their
PACX   switchers.    One  of  these  other  products  is  SIESCOR
IDVC-9600, which GANDALF has called Line Miser.

                                TELTONE

TELTONE manufacturers two forms of their Data Carrier System, the
DCS-2A with integral T1 multiplexor and the DCS-2A basic  system.
The  differences between the DCS-2A and DCS-2B are in the central
card file.  The station unit is the same for both systems.


Features:

   Terminal:  Single Station
              Loopback Switch

    Central:  Dual Channel Card 8-channel EIA with Integral Power
              Supply 32-channel EIA 32-channel Multiplexed Output

  Composite:  Voice band:  0-4000 Hz Transmitted Data:  36-40 kHz
              Received Data:  72-80 kHz

 Weaknesses:  High Distortion No Central Loopback Testing No Data
              Indicators  23-inch  Rack-Mount  More  noise-prone,
              likely to have data errors when telephone rings

  Strengths:  Low Price Greater Range

   Comments:  TELTONE has been selling since early 1981.

                                   SIESCOR

SIESCOR,  a  sub-division  of  RAYTHEON that is located in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, makes  an  Integrated  Data/Voice  Carrier  (IDVC-9600)
Systems.    They  also  make  a  digital  Voice/Data  System  for
alternate voice and  synchronous  or  asynchronous  data,  called
Panda   II.    Other  product  include  2-  and  8-channel  Voice
Subscriber Carrier Frequency Division Multiplexing System.

Features:

   Terminal:  Single Station

    Central:  Single Channel Card 24 channels per shelf

  Composite:   Voice  band:  ?  Transmit Data:  36-48 kHz Receive
              Data:  96-84 kHz

 Weaknesses:  No Central Loopback No  Data  Indicators  Telephone
              Industry Packaging

  Strengths:  Greater Range

   Comments:  Has entered an agreement with GANDALF.

                                   COHERENT

COHERENT  Communications  Systems  Corp. is a five to ten million
dollar  company  based  in  Hauppauge,  New   York.    They   are
manufacturers   of   low/medium  speed  modems,  frequency  shift
multiplexing systems, telephone signalling equipment as  well  as
data  communications  equipment.   None of their modems have been
registered.  In 1981 they introduced a voice, a 2400 bps and a 75
bps multiplexer -- SPMT-9 (possibly derived  from  the  telegraph
system)  which offered voiczue, plus up to 8 TTY channel at 50-75
bps.  They are currently offering a Linemate  96  plus  which  is
also labeled SPMT-10.

Features:

  Terminal:  Single  Station
             Optional  Synchronuous
             Operation TD, RD, CD and PWR Indicators

   Central:  Unknown

 Composite:  Voice band:  0-3000 Hz Channels probably <50 kHz

Weaknesses:  High Price

 Strengths:  Add on Synchronous Capability

  Comments:  Very preliminary information.  Will update  as  more
             becomes available.

   Pricing:  Approximately $400 per circuit end.

                                   GANDALF

GANDALF Technologies Inc of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada is a provider
of a wide range of data communications equipment.  They announced
on  September  30,  1982,  two  Data-Over-Voice Products.  One of
these is Line Miser which is manufactured by  SEISCOR.   This  is
probably  a  repackaging  of  the  SEISCOR IDVC-9600.  The second
product is probably SEISCOR's Panda II since GANDALF manufactures
the Integrated Services Unit and Computer Data Unit of  Panda  II
according  to  Datapro newsletter of December 1981.  As packaging
and pricing information becomes  available  a  complete  analysis
will be included.

                                    MICOM

The MICOM Instalink has two basic components, a Terminal Unit for
the  telephne  and  a  Central  Unit  for the PABX or the central
wiring termination end.

The  Terminal  Unit  is  packaged in a small enclosure, that fits
under the telephone.  The terminal and the  telephone,  are  both
plugged  into  the  Terminal  Unit via standard RS-232-C and RJ11
connectors.  A second RJ11 connector is used to  connect  to  the
telephone  wiring,  which  is  used  to  transmit  data and voice
signals.  The Terminal Unit is equipped with a loopback button to
allow diagnostic loops and a connect  button  to  provide  manual
toggling of controls. The Central Unit consists of two modules, a
chassis  to  house  the  power  supply and a set of logic modules
designed to provide various multiplexing functions.

Features:

  Terminal:  Single Station
             Loopback Switch
             Connect/Control

   Central:  8,16,24,32,48 Channel

 Composite:  Voice Band 0-4000Hz
             Transmit Data 68-76 kHz
             Receive Data 160-168 khz

Weaknesses:  Presently Limited to 2000 ft.
             (will  be  18000  ft soon)

  Strength:  Low Cost
             High Reliability
             Easy Installation
             Data Rates to 19.2 kbps

**************************************************************

I will be happy to answer any questions (if I can), and anybody
is welcome to come and see and get "hands-on" experience. Will
also be willing to train installers!

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
20-Aug-85 21:48:10-EDT,9630;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at 20-Aug-85 18:27:08
Date: 20 Aug 85 18:27-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #22
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Tuesday, August 20, 1985 6:27PM
Volume 5, Issue 22

Today's Topics:

               New "Flat-Rate" Service from GTE Telenet
                              PC Pursuit
                     Re: V5 #20 Cellular Airtime

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 19 Aug 85 23:27 EDT
From:  [e-mail]

Subject:  48V, 16V

I just bought some Panasonic 809 two-line phones with hold buttons.
I've already had a Teletender two line switch with hold.  The Panasonic
phones have indicator lights to show line in use and hold condition.

For Line-2, this worked well.  Line-1, however, was always lit as if in
use and hold did not work.  The Teletender hold one line 1 also started
failing about two or three months ago.

I checked the line voltage and found that line-2 had the appropriate 48V
but line-1 was down to 16V (actually 15.4, but who's counting).  I
checked this at the protection block (the one with the grounding wire)
with no equipment attached.

I called repair (on Sunday) to check it out.  After talking my way past
the first person, the supervisor agreed to send someone out that day.
(I'm impressed at actually getting that much service).  He eventually
came and we determined that the problem is that back in May when I had a
third line installed, they'd put the first two lines on an AML (I don't
know what the intials stand for) which is a multiplexor.  My line-2 was
the primary and line-1 the secondary.  The result is the 48/16 voltage
situation.

Today (Monday) the agreed to remove the AML and find additional pairs.
Luckily two pairs were freed up by the leased line I removed.

I also reached engineering at Panasonic.  They said that they'd gotten
this complaint before but didn't have a fix yet from the factory.

Hopefully, flagging this will help people who've run into similar
situations.

I'm interested in any details on both the technical and tariff issues.
In particular, can you require Telco to deliver 48 volts?

PS:  I'm pleasantly surprised by NET's (Nynex) responsiveness on this
matter.  I'm on the 617-969 exchange, a DMS-100 switch, for those
interested.

------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 19 Aug 85 23:31 EDT
From:  [e-mail]

Subject:  Re:  Cancel Call Waiting - Pacific Bell misprint

I noticed the letter about *72 and *73 instead of 72# and 73#.  That
worked on my switch also, BUT, *70 doesn't work whereas 70# does seem
to.  It is a DMS-100.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 1985 01:45:22 PDT
Subject: New "Flat-Rate" Service from GTE Telenet
From: Eliot Moore <[e-mail]>

Communications Week - Monday, August 19, 1985, page 23:

GTE Telenet Fields Discount Telecom Service For Home PCs
By James Doherty

    Reston, VA - GTE Telenet Inc., a unit fo GTE Corp., has unveiled a
service enabling residential personal computer owners to use the
company's nationwide packet-switching network at a greatly reduced
price during the evenings and on weekends.

    The service, called PC Pursuit, costs a flat rate of $25 per month
and can save users up to 75 percent on long-distance telephone bills
for bulletin board messaging, program sharing, downloading of computer
software, or talking with friends via computer, the company said.

    J. David Hann, GTE Telenet president, said the service "will
dramatically change the way PCs are used in the American household."
He said the service will give users "virtually unlimited access to
information contained in hundreds of free databases."

    The service will be available in 12 major metropolitan areas, and
"assuming it takes off as we think it will, we will expand it," said
a GTE Telenet spokeswoman.

    She said the service will allow users access to free, private home
databases.  "There's a terrific culture out there based on sharing
information databases that are fun and useful, and they haven't been
available for any price," she said.

    GTE Telenet said users of PCs equipped with modems and
asynchronous communications software can use PC Pursuit via a local
call to the Telenet public packet-switched data network.

    Pre-registered PC Pursuit users will call an access number and
then be prompted to enter their home phone number, the number they
wish to reach, and then hang up.  If the user's number is authorized,
the subscriber is called back and automatically connected to the
destination number, which can be a distant database or other PC user.

    Stephen Durham, vice president of product planning and
applications at Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Cermetek Microelectronics
Inc., said the service will certianly free people from worrying about
phone costs--the key word is flat, in flat rate.  What's interesting
is you might see a lot more personal telephone mail, that's been
mostly used by business till now.  And we they would buy modems.  It
is statistically significant that 70 percent of PC owners don't have
modems, so that says there's a relatively large unserved market."

Utilizing Excess Capacity

   The GTE Telenet spokeswoman said users now pay at least $10 an hour
for long-distance phone calls, "and they're doing it at night to save
money and because that's when they have time to do this as a hobby
because they work in the day.  We have provided a business network
used heavily in the day, but at night gets really quiet, so we'll use
this excess capacity."

    Robert B. Morris III, analyst at Montgomery Securities, San
Francisco, confimred that "it is clear Telenet is looking for ways to
increase use of its network."

    The GTE Telenet spokeswoman said her company talked to
recreational PC users "and found the average person spends about nine
hours a month on the modem."  "At $10 an hour, that's a pretty hefty
phone bill.  So we found we'll hit just about all of them by providing
a service at $25 a month," she said.

--End of article--

GTE Telenet obviously thinks they'll make money at this, and I hope
they do!  This offering (even with Telenet's sluggishness) could
be a real boon to all late-night users!

There are some questions unanswered - what 12 metro areas? 2400bps
service? What does the OUTGOING calling area look like? Does the
destination number have to be registered?? Answers to these and
many many more when I subscribe, today!

Hope this doesn't go the way of the "Heartline."

Cheers,
Elmo

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 11:38:24 PDT
From: vortex![e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: PC Pursuit

I had a long talk with GTE Telenet today regarding this offering.
There are some possibly significant limitations.  They are willing
to call out at 1200 bps, but there is a strong implication that they
are only willing to make LOCAL CALLS from their center.  For example,
in L.A., this may mean that they would be unwilling to call (for
either originating or completing calls) West Los Angeles since their
center is downtown (and a ZUM call away).  There was some haziness
on this point (e.g. ZUM restriction?  Toll restriction?) but this
will clearly be an important issue to watch given the limited local
calling areas in many metro areas.  There is also some question as
to available Telenet dialout capacity in these metro areas--circuit
congestion may be a significant problem.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 20 Aug 85 13:54:34 EDT
From:     Robert Jesse <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: V5 #20 Cellular Airtime

The definition of cellular "air time" is a business decision left
to each individual carrier.

One extreme (which some carriers actually implement) is to run the
airtime counter anytime the subscriber is allocated a voice channel.
This includes a mobile subscriber listening to ringback, busy, reorder,
announcements, etc. (independent of answer supervision) *and* the time
a cellular phone is ringing to signal an incoming call.

The rationale here is that the company is in business to sell spectrum,
and they have every right (they do!) to charge for spectrum delivered,
whether or not a call is completed.   The hardest part to swallow is
paying for the time your phone is ringing (since you didn't initiate the
act) but the carriers' position is if you don't want to pay, then turn
your phone off.

The other extreme (e.g. my carrier, Cellular One Balto/Washington) is to
bill for airtime only on completed calls, and then starting the timer only
upon detecting answer supervision.

This is perhaps a bit generous -- lots of valuable spectrum delivered is
unbillable -- yet the carrier reasons that this policy engenders a perception
of fairness in the customer and thus encourages use and actually increases
profits.

Speaking from personal experience, the effect should not be underestimated.
I am *much* more likely to pick up my portable and attempt a call when using
a system with this policy than when roaming in a less favorable area.

There are lots of variations between the extremes.  Check with your potential
carriers *before* subscribing to their service!   Let 'em know if you don't
like what you find out!

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
22-Aug-85 18:45:55-EDT,4153;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Thu 22 Aug 85 18:45:52-EDT
Date: 22 Aug 85 18:15-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #24
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Thursday, August 22, 1985 6:15PM
Volume 5, Issue 24

Today's Topics:

                              PC Pursuit
            News on the telephone front
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Aug 85 08:47:45 edt
From: Ken Mandelberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: PC Pursuit

GTE/TELENET is offering a new service called "PC Pursuit". It allows
unlimited 1200 baud modem calls between 12 major cities for a flat fee
of $25/month. The calls can on|y be made after 6PM or on weekends.

Currently the cities supported are: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas,
Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San
Francisco, and Washington DC.

Only the originator of the call has to be signed up with GTE, the
destination can be any answering modem in the 12 supported cities.  The
$25/month buys the right to originate the calls from one fixed number.
GTE imposes this as follows: You call a local number, identify yourself
and make the destination request. GTE drops the line, calls the
destination, and when successful calls you back at your registered
number. They guarantee to call you back withing 30 seconds of carrier
at the destination.

GTE is marketing this to PC users who want to access out of town
databases. However, it strikes me that this service could cut
UUCP/mail/netnews and other phone based networking costs way down. The
service appears to be transparent to the destination, but clearly the
connection software would have to be hacked to accomodate GTE's call
origination scheme.

GTE will provide information about the service at 800-368-4215.

I have no connection with GTE, and the above exhausts my knowledge
of the service. I don't know, for example, if the data path provided
is really a full 8 bit path, or if there are timing issues that
would interfere with some protocols. I would guess they run their
own error correction for the long haul part of the circuit, and
the subscriber would only have to worry about errors on the local
circuits at the endpoints.


Ken Mandelberg
Emory University
Dept of Math and CS
Atlanta, Ga 30322

{akgua,sb1,gatech,decvax}!emory!km   USENET
km@emory                      CSNET
km.emory@csnet-relay          ARPANET

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 22 August 1985  09:23-EDT
From: [e-mail] (Todd Cooper)

NEWS FLASH!

AT&T announced in an expected decision that would be eliminating
24,000 positions.  This would be mostly sales and clerical people.
It is not clear whether their staff in the computer division of
Information Systems would be affected.

In a non-related annoucement, New England Telephone (yet another NET)
would be changing the area code for Eastern Massechussets outside of
the Metropolitan Boston area.  This change will take affect in 1989 and
the new area code is not known at this time.  NET said that this year alone
they were opening 50 new Exchange numbers (3-digit) since 1982, and
"it expects to open up 26 in 1985 alone.  With 640 office codes
[exchanges] in use now, the 617 area code has only 100 more prefixes
available, [Peter] Cronin [NET spokesman] said"

"Since 1982, phone companies have had to create new area codes in New York
(718), the Houston area (409), Los Angeles (805), and San Diego (619)
to meet increased demand for phone numbers.

"133 of the 152 area codes for the US, Canada, and connected parts of Mexico
are currently in use - up from 86 when the phone company created the codes
in 1947 to make long-distance calling for efficient, according Robert
Brillhart of Bell Comunications Research in Livingston, N.J."

Todd Cooper

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
25-Aug-85 22:34:10-EDT,3431;000000000001
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Sun 25 Aug 85 22:34:07-EDT
Date: 23 Aug 85 18:55-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #25
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Friday, August 23, 1985 6:55PM
Volume 5, Issue 25
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 85 20:17:31 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telenet service

  I don't know about this new service, but when I had occasion to use
Telenet three years ago, I soon gave up in disgust.
  Not only did it not pass eight bit characters, it did not pass most
control characters or any escape sequences.  Also, CR and LF were handled
in a strange way.  And it paused between each line for longer than it
took to send each line (this was at 1200 baud).
  Does anyone know if they have cleaned up their act?
                                ...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 85 20:20:18 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area codes

  What do they plan to do when they run out of area codes?
  And who exactly is 'they'?  Who makes decisions about area codes
since the breakup?
                                ...Keith

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by MIT-XX via Chaosnet; 23 Aug 85 02:19-EDT
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 85 02:19:25 EDT
From: Stephen C. Hill <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Cellular "air time"
To: [e-mail]
cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
In-reply-to: Msg of Sat 17 Aug 85 19:10:44 EDT from Richard P. Wilkes <wilkes at hopkins-eecs-bravo.ARPA>
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].622216.850823.STEVEH>

Good analysis, Rick.  Does bring up an interesting thought, tho.  Usually,
there are trade-offs between vendors in a single market.  Are there NAY pluses
for Ma, except for the name?

Also, that is an interesting answering machine.  What is it?
23-Aug-85 16:44:15-EDT,914;000000000001
Return-Path: <nomad![e-mail]>
Received: from seismo.CSS.GOV by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Fri 23 Aug 85 16:44:12-EDT
Return-Path: <nomad![e-mail]>
Received: from nomad.UUCP by seismo.CSS.GOV with UUCP; Fri, 23 Aug 85 16:44:50 EDT
Received: by cbosgd.ATT.UUCP (4.12/0.98.UUCP-CS.beta.4-27-85)
    id AA16852; Fri, 23 Aug 85 14:53:22 edt
Date: 23 Aug 85 14:36:30 EDT (Fri)
From: nomad![e-mail] (Guy Riddle)
Subject: Wow!
Message-Id: <8508231836.AA18023@py/lot/nomad.DK>
Received: by py/lot/nomad.DK; 8508231836
Telephone: [phone]
To: vortex![e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]

This PC Pursuit stuff sounds great!  I can hardly wait to see
what happens when people figure out how to use it to send all their
netnews (and mail) traffic for $25/month.

        === Guy Riddle == AT&T Bell Laboratories, New Jersey ===
                [e-mail]
                    ihnp4!ggr
23-Aug-85 18:53:37-EDT,433;000000000001
Mail-From: JSOL created at 23-Aug-85 18:53:36
Date: Fri 23 Aug 85 18:53:36-EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: issue 23
To: [e-mail]

Apparently Issue 23 got lost. If anyone received a copy would
they please forward it back to me so we can maintain an archive?

Anyone posting a message to TELECOM which they haven't seen yet,
may assume that it was in issue 23, and resend it.

--JSol
-------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
25-Aug-85 22:43:13-EDT,9435;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Sun 25 Aug 85 22:43:08-EDT
Date: 25 Aug 85 22:18-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #26
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Sunday, August 25, 1985 10:18PM
Volume 5, Issue 26

Today's Topics:

                US Robotics Courier 2400 modem update
                              PC Pursuit
          GTE Telenet PC Pursuit - additional info available
                              PC Pursuit
                              PC Pursuit

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1985  22:58 MDT
From: Keith Petersen <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Robotics Courier 2400 modem update

I received this on my RCPM today:

Msg#: 88     Date: 08/13/85 10:44 AM
From: TOM TCIMPIDIS
  To: ALL
  Re: ROBOTICS 2400 UPDATE

        For those of you using the U.S. Robotics 2400 baud modem
(I have two on my system), you should call U.S. Robotics (800 dial
usr) and request the ROM update. The new version is 242 (you can use
the ATI command to check yours) and fixes many problems and incorporates
a number of additions suggested by users. The update is free (try that
with Hayes).  For the record; my experiences with U.S. Robotics have
been excellent.  They are responsive and seem to care about their
product and its users.  I highly recommend their Courier 2400 mod
(and the half=price sysop offer is still in effect).
     -Tom Tcimpidis (The MOG-UR's EMS  818-366-1238)

P.S.  The MOG-UR is now multi-user with two lines in rotary.

****************************************************************************

Notes aded by Paul Foote - 08/17/85

     Thanks to Tim T. for letting us know about the Courier ROM upgrade.
I too own two Couriers and am delighted with their performance.  By using
the ATI0 command in terminal mode, I found out one had ROM vers. 240,
while the other was vers. 241.  So I called USR Technical Service (their
direct phone number is 312-982-5151, in case you have problems with the
800 number), and they said they would send two vers. 242 plug-in ROMs by
UPS two day air.  They also gave me simple instructions for installing
the new ROMS, and requested that I send them back the old ROMs after
I verified the new ones worked.  I was most impressed with their friendly
and professional helpfulness.  By the way, the USR rep. said they
believe all of the Courier 2400's distributed in their SYSOP offer have
the vers. 242 ROM, but you may want to check anyway.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 85 12:41:46 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Ken Mandelberg)
Subject: PC Pursuit

[This message may be a duplicate. With the recent problems and
issue 23 not making it out, I suspect that if I repeat this article
there is at least a chance that nobody has seen it. --JSol]

GTE/TELENET is offering a new service called "PC Pursuit". It allows
unlimited 1200 baud modem calls between 12 major cities for a flat fee
of $25/month. The calls can on|y be made after 6PM or on weekends.

Currently the cities supported are: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas,
Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San
Francisco, and Washington DC.

Only the originator of the call has to be signed up with GTE, the
destination can be any answering modem in the 12 supported cities.  The
$25/month buys the right to originate the calls from one fixed number.
GTE imposes this as follows: You call a local number, identify yourself
and make the destination request. GTE drops the line, calls the
destination, and when successful calls you back at your registered
number. They guarantee to call you back withing 30 seconds of carrier
at the destination.

GTE is marketing this to PC users who want to access out of town
databases. However, it strikes me that this service could cut
UUCP/mail/netnews and other phone based networking costs way down. The
service appears to be transparent to the destination, but clearly the
connection software would have to be hacked to accomodate GTE's call
origination scheme.

GTE will provide information about the service at 800-368-4215.

I have no connection with GTE, and the above exhausts my knowledge
of the service. I don't know, for example, if the data path provided
is really a full 8 bit path, or if there are timing issues that
would interfere with some protocols. I would guess they run their
own error correction for the long haul part of the circuit, and
the subscriber would only have to worry about errors on the local
circuits at the endpoints.

--
Ken Mandelberg
Emory University
Dept of Math and CS
Atlanta, Ga 30322

{akgua,sb1,gatech,decvax}!emory!km   USENET
km@emory                      CSNET
km.emory@csnet-relay          ARPANET

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1985  12:35 MDT
From: Keith Petersen <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE Telenet PC Pursuit - additional info available

GTE Telenet has an 800 number to call for more information on "PC
Pursuit".  It turned out to be a modem connected to a "FIDO" bbs
system.  I downloaded all the info files and made a transcript of the
terminal session.  It's available from SIMTEL20 as:

Filename            Type     Bytes     CRC

Directory MICRO:<CPM.GENDOC>
PCPURSUT.LBR.1            BINARY     13184  FC34H

If you are unable to access Simtel-20 because of network restrictions
this file is available for downloading (using the XMODEM protocol) on
my RCPM Royal Oak (MI) which may be accessed at 300 baud using the
103a modem mode or 1200 baud using either the 212a or Vadic 3400
modes.  The telephone number is [phone].  The file is on the D:
drive.

Additional notes: There is a one-time sign-up fee of $25 for "PC
Pursuit".  Also, it's unlikely that you'll be able to access bbs
systems in the distant city if they are "message-unit" calls for the
Telenet dial-out node.  Unfortunately this IS the case here in the
Detroit area where my RCPM is located.  PC Pursuit users will probably
not be able to access it since it's a "near-zone" message unit call
from the Telenet node.

The GTE Telenet FIDO number is [phone].

--Keith Petersen
Arpa:  [e-mail]
uucp:  ...!{decvax,unc,hao,cbosgd,seismo,aplvax,uci}!brl-bmd!w8sdz
uucp:  ...!{ihnp4!cbosgd,cmcl2!esquire}!brl-bmd!w8sdz

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 1985 00:20:34 PDT
Subject: PC Pursuit
From: Eliot Moore <[e-mail]>

I've been using PC Pursuit for a few days now, and have mixed feelings.

The price is right, but-

The call-setup time is aggravating; approximately 25 seconds are consumed
in the initial dialing & dialogue, plus 20 waiting for the call-back,
and about 30 more waiting for "Connection complete" (hopefully) or
"Requested number busy"... if you intend on calling a popular system,
good luck!!

PC Pursuit also has no exact method to deal with disconnected numbers;
the only way for you to confirm a system is to dial it yourself.

Throughput is rather good, at least compared to what I've seen on the
Arpanet for the last few years.

The out-dial modems do not have vadic compatibility.  2400bps operation
promised in October; no word whether it will be MNP or X.PC compatible.

Have fun!
Elmo

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 85 22:29:11 GMT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: PC Pursuit

There are some significant limitations to this service that people
should be aware of (I talked to one of the system designers)...

1) Calls are limited to one hour.
2) While they haven't implemented the restrictions yet, they are
   likely to limit both the originating and terminating ends of the
   calls to phone numbers that are a LOCAL CALL from their dialout nodes.
   This might mean, for example, that a person in West L.A. couldn't
   use the service since they are not local to the dialout node
   (which is in downtown L.A.).  The problem is that the service
   must dial out at both ends, and they are apparently unwilling to
   eat the ZUM/toll charges indefinitely.  When and how restrictions
   would be implemented (and on what basis) is still unclear, but they
   told me that something would definitely happen in the area of
   restrictions.
3) The service is really designed for individuals, not for
   commercial use.  They aren't trying to screen out the companies at
   this time and will let them sign up, but it isn't clear what will
   happen if commercial users start clogging things up.
4) Capacity is limited.  In L.A., for example, there can only be
   a maximum of 24 users on the service at any given time.
   They can obviously expand this within some limits, but not
   indefinitely.
5) It isn't clear how good the response is going to be for many
   applications.  TELENET is always very bursty and subject to
   pretty slow throughput much of the time (as any TELENET user
   will tell you).

It's certainly an interesting service, but seems mostly oriented toward
what they originally said -- people sitting there typing at remote BBS's.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
26-Aug-85 21:40:52-EDT,4906;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Mon 26 Aug 85 21:40:48-EDT
Date: 26 Aug 85 21:04-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #27
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Monday, August 26, 1985 9:04PM
Volume 5, Issue 27

Today's Topics:

                        PC Pursuit Performance
                    Re: new area codes since 1982
                             a cheap EMS
                       PC Pursuit contact info
                         Re: Telenet service

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 25-Aug-85 21:26:09 PDT
From: vortex![e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: PC Pursuit Performance

Reports are starting to come in regarding throughput.  Indications
are that it's not too bad for an individual typing, but appears
to start suffering badly for more "continuous" operations (like
uploading and downloading files).  This is to be expected given
previously observed problems with TELENET.  The bursty nature
of the connections seems to vary from place to place and time to
time as well.  Presumably as traffic increases this problem
will become more pronounced.  There are also reports of all circuits
being busy in some major metro areas ALREADY.  My guess is that the
hard-core BBS people will manage to tie the service up pretty
completely--which presumably is what TELENET intended.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 26 Aug 85 7:50:24 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: new area codes since 1982

New area code since 1982 in Los Angeles area was not 805, it was 818.

------------------------------

Date: 26 August 85 15:51 EDT
From: RMXJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@Berkeley
Subject: a cheap EMS

The Director of the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing here at the
National Science Foundation (Dr. J.W.D. Connolly) asked me to ask the
list the following question:

He would like to be able to communicate from Greece to America (here in DC)
via just about any means.  He has in mind a cheap Earth Station (something
that would cost under $500 to build or buy).  He cannot use the phone system
because there is a 5 year backlog in requests to the phone company for
installing lines  - so this rules out connecting to the existing UUCP
site in Greece.  Besides which, the phone system is saturated and it is
very difficult to make outgoing calls to anyone anywhere.
The baud rate of the system would make no difference, just so long as it
works.

He has in mind tying into SATNET somehow or another satellite.

Does anyone have any ideas or thoughts on how to accomplish this?
Would a satellite dish do it?  I suppose Ham Radio is possible -
although I would tend to think that it would be a last resort.

Gligor Tashkovich

GLIGOR @ UCBARPA  (ARPA.BERKELEY.EDU)  (ARPAnet alias)
RMXJ @ CORNELLA (BITnet)

------------------------------

Date: 26 August 85 16:29 EDT
From: RMXJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@Berkeley
Subject: PC Pursuit contact info

I just received the press kit that describes in detail the PC
PRSUIT package.  For information contact:

Claudia Houston at [phone]
After 6pm, call: [phone]

The 703 area code is in Reston, Virginia (for the curious).

Gligor Tashkovich
Office of Advanced Scientific Computing
National Science Foundation

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 26 Aug 85 15:55:07 CDT
From: Paul Milazzo <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Telenet service

All of the Telenet "deficiencies" Mr. Lynch mentioned (transmission of
control- and meta- characters, CR/LF handling, forwarding interval) are
controlled by settable parameters.  Most of these can be altered by
setting standard X.3 parameters, while others (such as 8-bit data path)
require changing Telenet-specific parameters.

It should be the responsibility of the host at the other end of the
connection to set all these parameters to values suitable for the OS
and application.  If you don't like the settings, though, you are free
to change them at any time (unless the host has specifically disabled
"escape to command mode"!).  It sounds like your host software did a
poor job of picking default values for certain parameters.

I don't know what Telenet will do with PC-Pursuit, though.  I presume
they will allow you to set all the parameters since protocols such as
Kermit may not function correctly with the default settings.

                Paul G. Milazzo
                Dept. of Computer Science
                Rice University, Houston, TX

ARPA:    [e-mail]
UUCP:    {cbosgd,convex,cornell,hp-pcd,shell,sun,ut-sally,waltz}!rice!milazzo

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
28-Aug-85 20:11:57-EDT,4351;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Wed 28 Aug 85 20:11:49-EDT
Date: 28 Aug 85 19:38-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #28
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Wednesday, August 28, 1985 7:38PM
Volume 5, Issue 28

Today's Topics:

                             a cheap EMS
                               NAC-MATE
            TELECOM Digest V5 #26: GTE Telenet PC Pursuit
                  Loss of fredom in communications!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1985  21:48 EDT
From: "David D. Story" <FTD%MIT-OZ @ MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: a cheap EMS


    He might try the Greek National Academy of Technology
    (I don't have the phone number offhand) and see what
    facilities they might have.

                    FTD

------------------------------

Date: Tue 27 Aug 85 18:46:25-MDT
From: Jim Forrest <[e-mail]>
Subject: NAC-MATE

An office of TELNET uses an IBM-PC and a NAC-MATE MODEM, with a program
called NACMATE.EXE (or NACMATE.COM) to dial various nodes to check such
things as number of calls (and much much more). They were very interested
in using an IBM clone, but were unable to get the clone to run the NACMATE
MODEM properly. It appeared to dial, as the LED flickered, but never made
it to the phone. The clone had been 100% compatible on hundreds of programs
tried on it, even those that usually present problems on clones. Only three
wires actually are needed from the serial connector to the NACMATE MODEM
with the PC, but every attempt to cable the clone properly failed.

Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of this system? The
clone tried more than any other was a Kaypro 16 2 (MSDOS with 2 floppies).

Appreciate any info, so I can pass it along.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1985  21:31 MDT
From: Keith Petersen <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #26: GTE Telenet PC Pursuit

The PC-Pursuit files were originally stored in squeezed binary in an
archive format known as a LBR file in order to conserve space.  I have
received so many requests from readers who cannot extract the files
and unsqueeze them that I have now created a special directory just
for those files and they are now all ascii.

Filename            Type     Bytes     CRC

SIMTEL20 directory MICRO:<CPM.PCPURSUIT>
ACCESS.DOC.1            ASCII      1122  2CF3H
BBSLIST.DOC.1            ASCII      3877  EB23H
EQUIP.DOC.1            ASCII      2527  1A4BH
FIDO.SESSION.1            ASCII      7199  34C2H
HOURS.DOC.1            ASCII       614  6EBDH
HOW-TO.DOC.1            ASCII      2712  F47FH
NEW-USER.DOC.1            ASCII      1302  95E6H

--Keith

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 85 04:40:31 EDT
From: Paul R. Grupp <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Loss of fredom in communications!

I thought this would be of interest to all...
-----forwarded message starts here-----
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 85 20:52:54 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL at MIT-MC.ARPA>
To:   Security at RUTGERS.ARPA
Re:   Watching TV

  I don't know if anyone noticed, but a few weeks ago the Supreme Court
threw away a right that Americans have had since day one.
  It has always been the case that everyone had the right to receive any
signal being transmitted on any frequency using any kind of receiver.  You
didn't always have the right to do whatever you wanted with these signals,
such as tell anyone about them, but you could always listen to them (or
watch them) alone in the privacy of your home.
  But now the court has ruled that people are breaking the law if they
watch sattelite TV that is intended to be charged for, even if it not
scrambled.
  Comments?
                                ...Keith
-----end of forwarded message-----
I was struck with horror and disbelief after reading this message.  The
implications of this ruling set the way for making it a crime to monitor
radio signals unless the sender gives express permission to do so.  I
suppose this could lead to making it a crime to even own certain receiving
equipment!  I've seen this in other countries but NEVER thought it would
happin here in FREE AMERICA!

-Paul

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
30-Aug-85 20:05:58-EDT,8631;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Fri 30 Aug 85 20:05:53-EDT
Date: 30 Aug 85 19:33-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #29
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Friday, August 30, 1985 7:33PM
Volume 5, Issue 29

Today's Topics:

               Re:  Loss of freedom in communications!
                 Satellite viewing "freedoms" (long)
                        hooking up volksmodem
                        digest vs. direct mail

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 28 Aug 85 9:22:32 CDT
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI  <wmartin@almsa-2>
Subject:  Re:  Loss of freedom in communications!

As a sidenote to this discussion, I recall running across a copy of a
House bill in the government-documents-repository section of my
university library (this was back in the early 60s) which was a
resolution or proposed legislation that explicitly stated that "No
regulation or law shall be interpreted to in any way restrict the
right of any individual to receive any or all signals transmitted via
the electromagnetic spectrum" (or words to that effect). However,
sadly, I believe that this, one of the few worthwhile pieces of
legislation I have ever read, was never passed. Too bad. If it had
been, this nonsense would have never arisen.

Will

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 10:14:01 PDT
From: vortex![e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Satellite viewing "freedoms" (long)

I think there's rather a lot of misconception floating around regarding
this issue.  Part of my work is in the satellite communications area
so I track these issues pretty closely.

There have been a number of different legal events and laws regarding
this area, and I'm not going to try specify them, but rather just
explain the backround and outcome as I understand them.

---

First of all, the oft-quoted old Communications Act doesn't really
say you can listen/watch to whatever you want.  It essentially says you can
receive "broadcast" signals so long as you don't divulge the contents nor
receive "benefit" from them.  Interpretations of this law have
long held that intercepting point-to-point telephone microwave
transmissions can be construed as wiretapping, by the way.  I'm
simplifying to some extent regarding the Act, but you get the idea.

Now, "benefit" can be defined in different ways.  On one end, you
might say you benefit only if you sell the signals/info you received
and make money.  On the other hand, it might be said that you benefit
simply from enjoying the signals!

In practice, the current legal view has been shifting from a strict
interpretation more like the former view towards a different concept.
More and more, "benefit" is being viewed as being able to receive
something for free that other people have to pay a fee to receive.

There are numerous complexities and exceptions.  For example, if
you scramble your signal, the current view is that you're not
really "broadcasting" but really trying to do a multipoint feed
to particular people.  If you intended the signal for general
reception, you wouldn't scramble.  Laws now generally protect
scrambled transmissions as being essentially "non-broadcast"
entities.  A recent California appeals case convicted someone
of viewing unscrambled microwave MDS--but this case seems a bit
cloudy and runs contrary to the general pattern--it may yet
be overturned (MDS cases are often tricky, but I won't
go into the details of this case here).

Now, back to satellites.  The people who transmit the popular
cable services say they are not broadcasting to the public--that they
are providing a service for their cable system affiliates only.
This view was somewhat difficult to support given that the public
ended up watching these signals in great numbers on cable systems.
The situation was complicated by the fact that many people did
not have access to cable and had no alternative to receiving the signals
directly if they wanted to see them.  This wouldn't have caused
much trouble if the services had, by and large, been willing to
deal with individuals.  But most of them flatly refused to deal
with other than cable entities, claiming the administrative hassles
of dealing lots of individuals was too great.  Of course, many
people indeed bought dishes simply to avoid paying for cable,
even when cable was available.

For a number of reasons, this restriction was eventually rejected by
Congress.  The decision was made (as I understand it) that most unscrambled
satellite transmissions were indeed fair game to receive, but that
the public viewing these indeed DID receive benefit from receiving them,
since their counterparts who subscribed to cable had to pay.

The end result was the concept that you could watch pretty much
whatever unscrambled transmissions you wanted, but if the signals
were offered for sale to the general public at a fair and equitable
price then you must pay for them.  In other words, if a satellite
service WERE WILLING to deal with you as an individual, and charged
you an equitable fee in comparison to cable subscribers, you need
to pay the fee since you are receiving benefit from the transmissions.
If the service were unscrambled and refused to deal with you, then
you were free to receive the service.

In practice, there are other issues involved also, and this is just
my own interpretation of events--take it for whatever value you will,
but I think I'm pretty close to the bottom-line facts.  Right now
there is some hangling between some satellite services and congressmen
who supported the bills in questions over the matter of pricing.  There
are some claims that the fees being charged to individuals are much
higher than the fees charged per subscriber to cable systems... but
the services claim that this is equitable given the administrative
overhead of billing and record keeping for individuals.  This issue has yet
to be fully resolved.  Issues of scrambled vs. non-scrambled
transmissions are also still somewhat hazy in areas.

Finally, I might add that I doubt very much that there would be a public
outcry to repeal such restrictions.  If anything, most people would probably
support tighter restrictions.  Most people don't have their own
dishes, and pay for cable services.  I suspect that most of these
people (rightly or wrongly) detest the people who they perceive as
getting for "free" what *they* have to pay for.  In fact, if you
brought it to a vote, I'll bet that the population would happily
vote in many other restrictions on spectrum listening--such as
law enforcement transmissions, portable telephones, etc.  The mood
of the country is generally conservative on these issues, so I suggest
that you think carefully before trying to get the public at large involved
in such telecommunications matters.

Please note that I'm not expressing an opinion one way or another
about these particular issues, just passing along my understanding
of the situation.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 85 04:34 GMT
From: meaders @ KOREA-EMH
Subject: hooking up volksmodem

i am having some trouble hooking up my volksmodem to my
7710 equiped apple ii.  it seems that the pin interconnects
are the same for the 7710 serial card and the volksmodem.

can anyone give me a hand?

note:  for those of you wondering why i'm using a 300 baud
modem, the telephone lines to the ddn node at taegu from
here in seoul barely support 300baud much less 1200.

m2
.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 30 Aug 85 19:24:16-EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: digest vs. direct mail

If there is enough interest, I am going to be making available a direct
mail option for telecom subscribers. I will continue to maintain
TELECOM as a digest for those who wish it.

If you are interested in the direct mail option, please send mail
to telecom-request. I want to see how much demand there is for it.

Note: USENET sites reading the digest as newsgroup fa.telecom
will be automatically included in this, so if you are already
reading it there, you need not send mail to me.

Cheers,
--JSol

p.s. I remember sending this before, but perhaps it didn't make
it to print.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 1-Sep-85 01:13:34-EDT,4905;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Sun 1 Sep 85 01:13:31-EDT
Date: 1 Sep 85 00:50-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #30
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Sunday, September 1, 1985 12:50AM
Volume 5, Issue 30

Today's Topics:

                   Weird Radal/Vadic Modem Problem
                 Satellite viewing "freedoms" (long)
                            Re: PC Pursuit

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: jeff@isi-vaxa (Jeffery A. Cavallaro)
Date: 30 Aug 1985 1718-PDT (Friday)
Subject: Weird Radal/Vadic Modem Problem

I am having a weird problem with my Radal/Vadic 300/1200 baud modem at home.
I am dialing a Leamah secure dialing interface, entering a 10 digit code,
and letting it call me back.  Here is what happens:

1.  RI goes active.
2.  I pick up the phone, listen for the buzz, and put the modem into data
    mode.
3.  I hang up the phone and hit a few <CR>s.  The TX light is active.
4.  The modem toggles back and forth between 300 and 1200 baud, attempting
    to talk to the host.

PROBLEM:  The carrier and receive lights are never active.  This same modem
          works just fine when tested by our hardware group.

POSSIBLE COMPLICATION:  I do not have pushbutton service.  Thus, I have
                        to have the operators call and enter my code so the
            LEAMAH will call me back.  Might this have something
            to do with the problem???

Any insight is welcome.  Thanx in advance...
                        Jeff

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 85 13:42:21 edt
From: David M. Siegel <dms@mit-hermes>
Subject: Satellite viewing "freedoms" (long)

Some comments on Lauren's recent message...

A point to point transmission, such as microwave telephone signals,
can, and should, be thought of as a wire. To intercept such a signal
would normally require placing a device within the signal path. This,
I agree, can be thought of as a wire tap.

However, intercepting a signal on a radio in your bedroom (or in your
backyard), I feel, falls within a different category. Any law that
prevented a person from doing this would be totally unenforcable. For
example, police radio transmissions are easiliy monitored by the
public on a variety of commercial products. An attempt to outlaw such
devices would create a situation where the criminals could still
obtain such devices, and the general public would have a noticible
loss of freedom. A scramled signal is a much better way to protect
information. With this approach, it is much more likely to prevent the
transmissions from falling into the ears of the wrong parties. This
approach can be taken without changing any laws, and without reducing
a freedom that  people in the United States expect.

If the public were given a choice in this matter, and were informed
that scrambled signals would be more effective at keeping information
out of reach from the wrong parties, I doubt there would be much
support for some law banning a person from tuning a radio to a
particular frequency.

The same is true for commercial signal broadcasts. If a company
broadcasts a signal that people can passively pick up without great
effort and cost, how can you enforce a law stopping people from
receiving the transmission? Are you going to outlaw certain electronic
curcuits? Will police officers be stationed at every home watching the
frequency someone tunes into their receiver?  And how can they expect
people to pay for it? If the cost of buying the transmission is
cheaper than the cost of picking it up for free, or the effort is too
great, (for example, scrambling the signal and changing the encyption
key frequently) people will buy the service. Use economics instead of
violations of the principles of freedom we expect.

-Dave

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 85 21:11:35 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: PC Pursuit

I used PC pursuit over the weekend to tranfer data with uucp to ihnp4,
hao and gatech. I saw no data errors (or packet retransmissions
either. the line was quite clean) and the throughput was as good as
normal direct dial.

It's 1200/300 only, you can't get 2400 baud throughput. Then again,
it's a fixed cost no matter how long you are on the line.

The only real pain with pc-pursuit is that they will ONLY bill you
with a Visa or Mastercard. No checks, no purchase orders.

I expect to save about $6000 per year with pc pursuit (presuming
nothing changes fromt the current status)

If I could only get to northern New Jersey or Columbus, I save even
more.

---rick

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 2-Sep-85 19:18:49-EDT,9009;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Mon 2 Sep 85 19:18:44-EDT
Date: 2 Sep 85 18:52-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #31
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Monday, September 2, 1985 6:52PM
Volume 5, Issue 31

Today's Topics:

                 X.PC protocol description available
                  PC Pursuit (with opinion section)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1985  09:57 MDT
From: Keith Petersen <[e-mail]>
Subject: X.PC protocol description available

Now available via anonymous FTP from SIMTEL20:

    Filename        Type     Bytes     CRC

Directory MICRO:<CPM.MODEM>
    X-PC.DOC.1        ASCII    127850  34DFH
    X-PC.DQC.2        BINARY     77056  CA2CH <-same, squeezed

[Keith: which MAY be the same as TYMNET offers as:]

Now available from your local Tymnet sales representative:

X.PC PROTOCOL SPECIFICATIONS                    NPD-269     $3.00

This specification is published by McDonnell Douglas as a proposal to
designers and implementors of personal computer communications
software and packet network systems.

It defines the formats and procedures at X.PC's packet and data line
layers for Data Terminal Equipment (DTE) and Data Communications
Equipment (DCE).  Both switched virtual call and permanent virtualy
call modes of operation are defined.

This specification covers DTE and DCE operation when a packet switched
network is accessed through a circuit switched or dedicated
connection.  It also includes the additional packet layer procedures
necessary for two DTEs to communicate directly (i.e., without an
intervening packet switched network) over dedicated or circuit
switched connection.

[Keith: this is the much-talked-about "error-free terminal protocol"
now supported by TYMNET.  It is an interesting alternative to
MICROCOM's "MNP" protocol which you must buy a new modem to get (and
which requires the "other end" to also have this type modem).  If we
could get BBN to support the X.PC protocol in the TAC software, we
could have error-free sessions in spite of occasional noise on the
phone lines.]

--Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1-Sep-85 17:03:54 PDT
From: vortex![e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: PC Pursuit (with opinion section)

This is a repeat posting to some lists by popular demand.  Apparently
there were some delivery problems with the original.  Please excuse
if this is a duplicate for you...

-----

From: Lauren
Subject: Re: PC Pursuit (plus opinions)

Some tests someone ran locally with PC Pursuit failed
dismally.  Terrible throughput at anything faster than 300 bps.  There
still seems to be extreme variability from place to place.

Also, I was told (off the record) that the implementation of non-local-
calling blocking would take place "as soon as they could get accurate
prefix info for their tables" to block out most prefixes.  They also
mentioned that they might be asking for certification that the
service is not being used by commercial firms but only by
individuals, since they don't want commercial traffic people tying
things up.  The thing they DON'T want is people tying up the dialers
with call after call.  Another possibility mentioned was a "cap"
on the amount of time the service could be used in any one 24 hour period,
so "everyone would be able to get some time."  A one or two hour limit
was mentioned.  Anyway, all of this was off the record.  Take with
as many grains of salt as you wish.

----

Opinion section starts here:

If you analyze this service, it's pretty clear what's going on.
GTE is attempting to maximize use of facilities already in place
that tend to sit idle outside the business day.  Those facilities
are not massive (24 dialers for all of Los Angeles, for example).
It seems unclear how they can EXPAND beyond the current levels based
on the $25 flat rate fee, since local telephone lines and dialers
are going to be one of the most expensive recurring costs in the
operation.  It's also pretty obvious why they are concerned about
making non-local calls.  Take a call from L.A. Central (where TELENET
has their node) to Santa Monica.  This is a very modest ZUM call (there
are MUCH more expensive calls possible within the tiny 213 area code).
Even so, that call (evening rate, night is a little cheaper) is 10 cents
for the first minute and $.05 for each additional.  So a one hour
call (either on the originating or terminating end of the call) is
going to cost them something like $3.00/hour.  Figure that (until
blocking is in place) many calls are of this sort, and you might
find that $6.00/hour (considering both ends) will be the minimum cost
of such calls (ignoring equipment and other costs at this point).
If you make FIVE one-hour calls of this sort during evening hours
during the month, you've already cost them more than the price
of the service!  It takes a few more hours (or slightly more
expensive non-local calls) to reach that level at late night-rate, but
you can still reach the "no-profit" point for them damn fast.

Hell, businesses in most areas pay about $.60/hour even for LOCAL
calls--never mind the toll and ZUM charges!  All of this cuts
into GTE's profit margin on such a service.  Even if GTE opens
the service up to other metro areas, the fundamental economics
don't change.

So, what will occur?  Let's ignore service quality issues (throughput,
dialer congestion, insufficient ports, etc.) for the moment.  The
sheer economics of the phone charges will either force the blockage
of many non-local calls (which will make the service much less
generally usable) or force restructuring of the service.  Either
prices will change, or service limitations will be set in place,
or... something else will have to give.  A couple of hundred
BBS fanatics in each of the 12 metro areas could totally tie up
the service in nothing flat.  Once again, I'm only considering port
and dialer congestion, not the overall impact on TELENET throughput
of all these people.

One can't help but suspect that GTE is already very aware of the
changes that will have to occur.  One might suspect that what they're
trying to do is get people signed up now--and then announce whatever
changes (in pricing, type of service, etc.) that they want down
the line.  I guess there's nothing terribly wrong with doing that--but
I think people are being a little naive is they think that such
a service can continue in its currently announced form and at
currently announced prices indefinitely!  I fully expect to see
changes--or else the congestion and other factors will simply
make the service unusable except for BBS crazies who don't
have to worry about having anything important going wrong if they
can't get through much of the time...

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Sep 85 19:10:38 edt
From: <ihnp4!watmath!looking!brad@Berkeley>

To: watmath!ucbvax![e-mail]
Subject: Listening in to signals
Newsgroups: fa.telecom
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References:
Cc:
Bcc:

While I agree with many that you can't and shouldnt make laws
banning receivers, I am often amazed at the attitude that a consequence
of this is that it's OK to steal HBO.

One shouldn't make a law banning the ownership of baseball bats, but
that doesn't make it morally right to club somebody with one.

How often have I heard, "they're beaming that signal through my house, I
have a right to watch it."   Where is the justification for this?

With sensative microphones, you can listen to your neighbour's conversations
because their voices are broadcast through the air.  To do this would
be wrong, however.   You can listen to people talking on cordless phones,
but it's certainly not something people should do.  Is there no courtesy
in the world?

The fact that something is broadcast rather than point to point has
nothing to do with it.  These signals are private communications between
the broadcasters and their customers.  They have repeatedly requested that
you respect that privacy and not watch.  Yet people buy special equipment
and go to great lengths to do exactly that.  If you set up a telescope to
look in your neighbour's window you would be a peeping tom.  If you looked
into a corporations boardroom where they didn't draw the drapes, you would
be an industrial spy.

If I "broadcast" something in a way that you have to go to special lengths
to listen to it, and I ask you not to do so, then I don't think you can
say what you're doing is right.
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 4-Sep-85 22:27:40-EDT,9694;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Wed 4 Sep 85 22:27:31-EDT
Date: 4 Sep 85 21:52-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #32
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                     Wednesday, September 4, 1985 9:52PM
Volume 5, Issue 32

Today's Topics:

                   Re; Satellite viewing "freedoms"
                           conference calls
                            seminar poster
                            X.PC protocol
               Re:  X.PC protocol description available

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Sep 85 09:23:23 PDT (Tuesday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re; Satellite viewing "freedoms"

I agree with the views stated in your message, except I think that
you're soft on the issue of microwave telephone signals.  I think that
the entire electromagnetic spectrum belongs to the people, just like the
air we breathe.  The people of this country entrusts the Government/FCC
to regulate the use of this public resource, and in no way should the
Govt. take away the freedom of the people to benefit from the public
resource.  Can you imagine that the Govt. tells you where you're allowed
to breathe air and where you're not allowed?

If someone wants to use this public resource -- the electromagnetic
spectrum, then anyone else should have the right to receive the signal
and do whatever they want with it, basically that's the price you pay
for the privilege of using a public resource.  If you're not willing to
let the public use your signal, then try to use a private channel such
as a fiberoptic link.


Leonard.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 85 12:58:00 edt
From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: conference calls

Given that I have two phone lines, how can I hook things up so that I can
make a conference call?  I only need this capability rarely; it doesn't
pay to get three-way calling or a special phone -- the second line is almost
always talking to a modem or two.

        --Steve Bellovin
        ulysses![e-mail]
        smb.ulysses.btl@csnet-relay

------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 21 Aug 85 09:53 EDT
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  seminar poster

              Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                      Communications Forum

            Satellite Television, Signal Encryption,
            and the Future of Broadband Distribution
                       September 19, 1985
                   Technology Session -- 2:00 [slightly smaller than preceding line]
                 Allen Ecker, Scientific Atlanta
                Jerrold Heller, M/A Com Linkabit
                     Policy Session -- 4:00 [same as 2:00 line]
               John Sie, Tele-Communications, Inc.
     Roy Neel, Legislative Director for Senator Albert Gore Taylor
Howard, Chaparral Communications/SPACE/Stanford University

     Until recently, direct satellite broadcasting (DBS) was commonly
envisioned as small packages of encrypted programming services delivered
via high-powered Ku-band satellites.  However, "C-Band Direct," widely
known as "satellite television," has emerged as the established form of
DBS:  over a million homes with large dish antennas that receive upwards
of 50 C-Band signals intended for distribution by cable television
operators.  Since these viewers generally pay nothing for programming,
they and the hardware industry they support have been criticized much as
broadcasters criticized the early cable industry.  Satellite television
antennas are now appearing inside cable franchise areas, prompting
increasing demands for signal scrambling that would force satellite
television viewers to pay for programming.
     Encryption -- especially the millions of decoders required -- will
be very costly.  Who will pay for it?  Who will retail the programming
to homes?  At what price?  Will basic services be available unbundled?
Can antitrust and standards problems be avoided?  The choice of
scrambling technology will affect other technological innovations, such
as enhanced NTSC and digital television.  And, over the long run, the
development of satellite television and the response of the cable
industry will profoundly affect the economics, design, and
implementation of switched broadband networks.



                       The Wireless Office
                       September 26, 1985
                       Michael Marcus, FCC
                    Payne Freret, Consultant
                     Kaveh Pahlavan, Infinet

     Wireless office communication using radio, infrared, and optical
frequencies offers interesting advantages over conventional office
communication.  Although it has been studied for some time, few
commercial products have appeared.  However, recent FCC filings have
requested allocation of radio frequencies for office communication, and
the FCC has decided to allow the use of spread spectrum modulation.
     This seminar will examine the technologies that have been proposed,
why many have not been successful, the impact of recent

FCC decisions, and the economics of wireless systems.


                   What's the Matter with 3-D?
                        October 10, 1985
                  Stephen Benton, MIT/Polaroid
           Rene Paul Barilleaux, Museum of Holography
                        William Paul, MIT

     The most notable success of 3-D has been as a kind of fairground
attraction, but new technologies have extended the range of
applications.  This seminar will consider the limited success of 3-D by
looking at traditional 3-D photography, holography, and computer graphic
holography.  Past, present, and future uses will be explored, ranging
from entertainment to to non-imaging uses of holography.


      The Political Impact of the New Communications Media
                        October 17, 1985
              Jeffrey Abramson, Brandeis University
              Christopher Arterton, Yale University
                 Gary Orren, Harvard University

     The role of electronic media in American politics has been widely
discussed and analyzed for more than three decades.  However, most
studies have examined the effects of broadcast television, and little
attention has been paid to newer media, such as cable television.  The
participants in this seminar will present findings from their
forthcoming book on the effects of new media technologies on citizen
participation, electoral outcomes, and effective governance.


                   A New Research Organization
          for a Disintegrated Telecommunications System
                        October 24, 1985
         Alan G. Chynoweth, Bell Communications Research

     The breakup of the Bell System led, among many other things, to the
formation of a major new research and development organization to serve
the seven regional companies.  Bell Communications Research ('Bellcore')
is learning how to serve and interact with the restructured
telecommunications industry and to interface with the world of relevant
science and technology.  This talk will describe this new type of R/D
organization which focuses on service in the Information Age rather than
on manufacturing in the Industrial Age.  The focus will be on research
activities, with an account of many of the problems and challenges, both
organizational and technical, that have been addressed in establishing
this new role within the evolving telecommunications scene.


                         Bartos Theater

        The Wiesner Center for Arts and Media Technology
                  (Building E-15, 20 Ames St.)
              Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                    Cambridge, Massachusetts
                   Thursday, 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.
                       (excepted as noted)

       For further information please call [phone]. [small
                                 type centered across the bottom]

------------------------------

Date: Wed 4 Sep 85 15:56:59-MDT
From: The alleged mind of Walt <[e-mail]>
Subject: X.PC protocol

The X.PC protocol seems to combine the X.25 packet level with certain
features of DDCMP, ie. the technique of providing one CRC for the header,
containing the length of the data, and another CRC for the data.

The packet sequence numbering scheme of X.PC differs from that of X.25
in that only the data packet of X.25 has a sequence number, whereas all
packet types of X.PC have a sequence number (which contains zero in the
restart request/indication, reset request/indication, RR, RNR and REJ
packets).  It is not at all clear to me what use can be made of the sequence
number in a call request/incoming call, call accepted/connected, restart
confirmation or reset confirmation packet, since the sequence number should
always be zero by any interpretation I can think of.  Furthermore, the
technique of putting a sequence number on the interrupt packet may cause
it to be blocked by flow control, which would prevent it from accomplishing
its intended purpose.

Regards  -- Walt

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Sep 85 11:37:34 pdt
From: sun!l5!sunny@Berkeley (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
Subject: Re:  X.PC protocol description available

Please correct my mailing address to ...{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!l5!sunny

                Sunny, KA6PPP

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 5-Sep-85 22:44:11-EDT,6749;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Thu 5 Sep 85 22:44:06-EDT
Date: 5 Sep 85 22:13-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #33
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                     Thursday, September 5, 1985 10:13PM
Volume 5, Issue 33

Today's Topics:

                        re:  Call Conferencing
                         Re: Conference Calls
                         French phone changes
                           conference calls
              Sprint service to Botswana and Bangladesh

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed 4 Sep 85 21:30:03-PDT
From: John McLean <[e-mail]>
Subject: re:  Call Conferencing


The problem with conferencing is that doing it properly is nontrivial.
You've got to perform the function of tieing 3 lines (the 2 phone lines and
your phone set), each having a characteristic impedance of 600 ohms.  And
it is desirable to achieve balanced coupling of signals (so line 1 can hear
line 2 at the same level as he / she hears you).  If one of the lines
"sees" something radically different than 600 ohms, then the party on that
line may hear an annoying echo of their voice (technical term for this is
low return loss).

If you're on a very tight budget for this, you may want to try using two
standard 2500 type phones and AC coupling the tip and ring signals (using
blocking capacitors).  But this is really not a good approach since it will
mess up the characteristic impedance each line sees.

One thing you may consider is purchasing the AT&T Model 400, 2-line Adjunct
box.  It does conferencing as well as line selection and call hold.  And it
does the conferencing without messing-up the impedance seen by line 1 or 2.
But the box is fairly expensive ($89.00 at my local phone center store).
However, you may be able to pick up one on sale somewhere (several of us
stumbled upon a close-out of the boxes at a local store for $20.00).

I suggest you avoid the cheap conferencing boxes (available for about
$35.00).  These boxes do only slightly better than you could do yourself
by capacitevly coupling your two lines using blocking capacitors.

------------------------------

Date:  4-Sep-85 22:01 PDT
From: Steve Kleiser / McDonnell Douglas ISG / ASD  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Conference Calls

Although not an advertised feature, the Radio Shack 2 line controller with hold
(43-239), which has one button per line, will allow both buttons to be down
simultaneously, thus giving you an inexpensive conference calling technique
(place a call, put it on hold, push the other button, place another call, then
hold that button while pushing the 1st one down). I can't figure why they don't
advertise the feature. Maybe something un-cool about it.

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 4 Sep 85 15:40:01 EDT
From:     Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  French phone changes

Note to moderator -- don't format this -- it will get extremely garbled.

Ran across the following on USENET; thought Telecom readers might be
interested:

>From: [e-mail] (Yves Devillers)
Newsgroups: net.general
Subject: new phone numbering in France on 25/9/85, 2200 GMT.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Aug 85 19:46:11 GMT
Organization: INRIA, Rocquencourt. France

On September 25th of 1985 at 2200 GMT a new telephone numbering scheme will be
in effect in France: 8 digits phone numbers will be (in France) used instead
of 6 or 7.
>From outside France the net effect will be the following, depending on
whether you call someone in Paris area or outside Paris area:

1) Paris area:
    Paris area phone numbers had a one digit area code (beginning with 1 3
    or 6) and a seven digit local number.
    They will have a one digit zone area (whose value will be 1) and
    an 8 digit local number composed of the old area code and the old
    phone number.
    BUT, BEWARE, old area code 1 (Paris and close suburbs)    will become
    4 (cf "cnam" in exemple    below, where (1) 271-24-14 becomes
    (1) 42-71-24-14 ).
    Exemple:
        SITE        BEFORE 25/9/85        AFTER 25/9/85
        cnam-Paris    [phone]    [phone]
        inria-LeChesnay    +33 (3)    954-90-20    [phone]
        J. Dupont-Melun    +33 (6)    010-19-27    [phone]

    From GB, old number    0103312712414    becomes    01033142712414
    From NL, old number    093312712414    becomes    0933142712414
    From DK, old number    0093360101927    becomes    00933160101927
    From USA, old number    0113339549020    becomes    01133139549020

2) Outside Paris area:
    Outside-Paris-area phone numbers had a two digit zone area
    (beginning with [2-9]) and a 6 digits local number.
    They will have an 8 digit number composed of old zone area and
    old phone number, without any zone area. As such no changes will be
    visible from outside France.
    Exemple:
        SITE        BEFORE 25/9/85        AFTER 25/9/85
        geocub-Bordeaux    [phone]    [phone]
        imag-Grenoble    [phone]    [phone]

    From GB, old number    0103356368143    becomes    UNCHANGED
    From USA, old number    0113376514630    becomes    UNCHANGED


NOTE:    +33 is an abreviation for "dial international prefix acces then 33"
    33 is the international code for France, international prefix acces
    is country dependant ( 010 for GB, 09 for NL, 009 for DK,
    011 for USA, 19 for F, ...  )

ATTENTION:
    Other new rules apply when you phone FROM INSIDE FRANCE, they are
    posted inside most French phone cabine and, as such,  will not
    be posted in usenet.
--
Y. Devillers
...decvax!mcvax!inria!devill

------------------------------

Date:  5 Sep 1985 02:26:06 PDT
Subject: conference calls
From: Eliot Moore <[e-mail]>

Two-line conferencing may be fine for you, but the db loss as compared
to CO-based "3-way calling" may cause your conferencees much grief.

Modern digital conferencing boxes can compensate for said loss, but
I've yet to hear they're cost-competitive with the telco offering.

elmo

------------------------------

Date: 05-Sep-1985 1207
From: [e-mail]  (John R. Covert)
Subject: Sprint service to Botswana and Bangladesh


Sprint is now providing service to Botswana (267) and Bangladesh (880).

The problem is that AT&T doesn't serve these countries, so the translations
for them are not in any No 1 ESSs -- EVEN those with equal access.

It should be dialable for Sprint equal access customers or anyone who dials
10777+011+cc...  but of course it isn't.

/john

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 8-Sep-85 13:18:37-EDT,6840;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Sun 8 Sep 85 13:18:33-EDT
Date: 8 Sep 85 12:49-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #34
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Sunday, September 8, 1985 12:49PM
Volume 5, Issue 34

Today's Topics:

                  Phone Systems for SMALL Businesses
                 X.PC protocol description available

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri 6 Sep 85 12:20:23-EDT
From: Paul R. Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Systems for SMALL Businesses

My wife works for a small stained-glass studio that wants to
improve their telephone service.  She has been asked to look
into the possibilities and has ask me to help.  I have a couple
questions for all you telephonic wizards.

First the questions, then the data:

1) What features should they be looking for and how should they
   evaluate competitive systems?

2) Why is there such a WIDE range in costs for what seem to be
   equivalent systems?

The studio consists of two locations in a single building.  The
locations are separated by about 100 feet and share a common
basement, so stringing wires is straightforward.

What they want is two lines and four phones.  They want to be
able to answer and call out on either line from any phone.  The
need to be able to transfer calls from one phone to another, and
being able to signal between phones (while a call is on hold)
would be useful, but not mandatory (they can continue to use
their current intercom for that).

Now, Radio Shack sells this 2-line controller phone with hold
buttons for about $70.  So Radio Shack cost is about 4 * $70 =
$280, plus some cost for stringing wires.  Lets call it $300.

I called AT&T Small Business Connection and got a quote from
them for a system to handle the studio.  Their quote (with
installation included) for a Merlin system: $2499!  What
accounts for the > 800% difference?  I realise that the Merlin
hardware may be better built and more reliable and may include a
few extra features (intercom?), but 8 is a big multiplier.

What am I missing?  Should I be following some other leads?

Thanks all for any help.

---Paul Johnson

------------------------------

From: <hplabs!pesnta!peora!jer@Berkeley>
Date: Friday,  6 Sep 1985 08:41-EDT

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #32
In-reply-to: USENET article <[e-mail]>

> I think that the entire electromagnetic spectrum belongs to the people,
> just like the air we breathe.

This argument, like many based on "rights", doesn't make much sense.
According to this line of reasoning, the government should not prohibit me
from listening in on your personal conversations, because they are
transmitted via sound waves, which are vibrations of "the air we breathe,"
which you have argued is free to everyone.

Any restrictions on communication should involve the nature of the inform-
ation being transferred, not the medium by which that is done.

This whole debate is very strange, though.  Back when I was young, and an
electronics hobbyist, I can remember a very similar argument over whether
or not it should be illegal to build "SCA Adapters"; SCA was a sort of pun,
you see, standing both for Subsidiary Carrier Authorization, and Secrecy of
Communications Act.  In those days, it was rumored, there was a Secrecy of
Communications Act which limited listening to transmissions that weren't on
the allocated commercial or amateur frequencies.  And in those days, the
Subsidiary Carrier transmissions had just begun to be used widely, and a
lot of people had built home-made devices to listen in on them, and someone
wanted to outlaw it because other people had to pay to receive the
transmissions, and it "wasn't fair".  Sound familiar?

Judging from recent comments in here, though, it must have all been fiction,
or else it has been recently repealed.  Does anybody remember the old
arguments for and against the "SCA Adapters"?  Was the related Secrecy
of Communications Act just fiction?
--
Shyy-Anzr:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP:       ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail:    MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
        2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 5 September 1985  15:37-MDT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc![e-mail]
Subject:   X.PC protocol description available

just saw in Computerworld's "On Communications" that Hayes has adopted
X.PC over MNP...

the outfit i work for runs (in effect) a timesharing service with
users all over the country (plus a few overseas, too), who get a
variety of phone service quality problems.  we experimented a little
with Microcom modems as a cure for line noise.  however, we've got a
substantial investment in modems already (30+ dialins, i think, plus
100's of users' equipment).  i wanted to have a look at the MNP
protocol to consider implementing it in software on our host(s) and
possibly on PC's at the user end.  Microcom's insistence on cash up
front before even a peek damped that idea.

then Tymnet came along... after 1 phone call* i got a PC disk with an
X.PC driver and an application (source) using it, plus a package of
protocol docs and stuff.  a 2nd phone call elicited 2 more disks with
the sources for the driver.

i haven't decided yet if X.PC is the answer to our problems, but i
know i like dealing with the Tymnet people a lot more than Microcom.

    wayne ({decvax,ucbvax}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!)hamilton

* sorry, i don't have the phone number handy.  also, i hear that
they've had so much response that they will probably have to change
their distribution methods.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 85 18:13:16 pdt
From: psivax!woof (Hal Schloss)

Pacesetter Systems has recently discovered a need to communicate with another
computer located in Europe. (No we are not going to be running UUCP between
them :-) .) We would like to operate at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud for perhaps
an hour a day. On the other hand it might be for as little as five minutes a
day. I am soliciting suggestions as to alternatives to calling via AT&T
(or any other normal long-distance service.) So if you have ANY ideas about
what to do please send me E-mail at one of the addresses below.
        Hal Schloss
        (from the Software Lounge at) Pacesetter Systems Inc.
 {sdcrdcf|ttdica|quad1|scgvaxd|nrcvax|bellcore|logico|rdlvax|ihnp4}!psivax!woof
 ARPA: ttidca!psivax![e-mail]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
10-Sep-85 18:00:04-EDT,2718;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Tue 10 Sep 85 18:00:02-EDT
Date: 10 Sep 85 17:13-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #35
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                      Tuesday, September 10, 1985 5:13PM
Volume 5, Issue 35

Today's Topics:

                            Merlin system
                       error in French tel. no.
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #21

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun,  8 Sep 85 14:39:11 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Merlin system

    Date: Fri 6 Sep 85 12:20:23-EDT
    From: Paul R. Johnson <[e-mail]>

    ... Radio Shack cost is about ... $300.  ... AT&T ... Merlin
    system: $2499!  What accounts for the > 800% difference?

  Probably their high advertising budget.  They seem to have radio
ads for the Merlin system every ten minutes around the clock.
  The ads consist of a potential customer talking with the rather shady
representative of a brand x phone system.  The customer asks "But what
if I need to add <random feature> (for instance more phones, more lines,
call waiting, call forwarding, etc) and the salesman says "Dat's easy.
You trow de whole system out, you call me, I come back, give you a whole
new system".  After several iterations of that, the customer calls AT&T
and his conversation fades out into the AT&T "right choice" theme music.

                                ...Keith

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 9 Sep 85 7:49:33 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  error in French tel. no.

In the examples given for old <--> new French phone #'s,
there was an error in one of the digits for outside-Paris-area
phone #.

------------------------------

Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #21

We are using the Teltone DCS-2B system and are very happy
with it. The Law Society occupies Osgoode Hall, a 150-year-old
building set on several floors and half-floors, and wiring is
extremely difficult. We installed an 8-line Teltone system
several months ago and are in the process of putting in a
second 8-line system. As to the stated "Weaknesses" (bad line
quality, more likelihood of errors when the phone rings), we
haven't noticed any at our site. All our Teltone lines run
at 9600 baud to a Perkin-Elmer 3220 running UNIX v7.

Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
{  ihnp4!utzoo  pesnta  utcs  hcr  decvax!utcsri  }  !lsuc!dave

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
15-Sep-85 14:51:06-EDT,5990;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Sun 15 Sep 85 14:50:57-EDT
Date: 15 Sep 85 14:27-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #36
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Sunday, September 15, 1985 2:27PM
Volume 5, Issue 36

Today's Topics:

                            Merlin system
                             700 numbers
                           2400 baud modems
                    [jfw%mit-ccc: Telco question]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 12 Sep 85 23:32 EDT
From:  [e-mail]

Subject:  Pocket size cellular phone

I saw a brief mention of this two days ago in USA Today.  It is British
but that is all I remember about it.  The contrast is with the Motorola
8000 cellular which is small, but nowhere near pocket size.

Does anyone know about this British unit?

------------------------------

From: ihnp4!a.reed@Berkeley
Date:       13 Sep 1985  11:07 EDT
Subject:    Merlin system

    From: Paul R. Johnson <[e-mail]>
    ... Radio Shack cost is about ... $300.  ... AT&T ... Merlin
    system: $2499!  What accounts for the > 800% difference?

    From: Keith F. Lynch <[e-mail]>
    Probably their high advertising budget.
    They seem to have radio ads for the Merlin system
    every ten minutes around the clock.

I happen to work for AT&T, but the following opinion is solely my own.
Comparing traditional multiline telephones with a programmable
communication system such as Merlin is rather like comparing a
traditional typewriter with a computer-based word-processing system.
The nominal functions are the same, but the higher-tech systems
permit a significantly higher level of productivity. For example, the
Merlin may be programmed to chime calls with a different melody
for each incoming line, so that one does not waste time attending to
calls intended for another worker. If you try to start a call while
all outside lines are busy, Merlin will chime you back when a line
becomes available, eliminating the time and distraction of having to
check periodically for the availability of a line. Etc etc etc etc:
my Merlin came with an 8-page list of 71 such capabilities and how to
program them in from my phone.

How much is additional productivity worth? A $3000 system will more
than pay for itself in 4 years if it saves the business $1000 per year.
Assuming 5 employees and 200 working days per year, that's $1 per
employee per day. Loaded cost being 2 to 3 times cash salary, this
corresponds to about 30 seconds per day for a professional employee, or
90 seconds per day for a clerical. Whether a system can can improve
productivity to that extent can only be calculated from within the
business.
        Adam V. Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)

------------------------------

From: ima!johnl@bbncca
Date: Sun Sep 15 00:30:00 1985
Subject: 700 numbers

I gather that area code 700 has been given to the various long distance
carriers for services specific to them.  Here is a short list of 700
numbers I know about.  Anybody know of others?

   -- All carriers
1-700-555-4141    Plays a recording identifying the carrier.  Handy if
    you think you`ve presubscribed and want to find out if your
    local telco has set you up.  Also handy for finding out who
    some random 10XXX prefix connects you to.

  -- SBS
1-700-369-1000  Connects you to DowPhone, a telephone stock quote and
    news service.  Separate subscription required, but the charges
    go on your SBS bill.

  -- AT&T
0-700-456-1000  Alliance Teleconferencing, which is touted in glossy
    color ads as the best conference call system in the universe,
    available in most areas.  Here in Boston, it gets a recording
    stating that Alliance service is not yet available in this area,
    call an 800 number to get the conference operator, at higher cost.
    I gather that the 700 number hooks you to a computer which lets you
    set up your own conference calls.  No idea why you have to dial 0
    first, but you do.  Sounds preferable to 3-way calling if you only
    make occasional conference calls.

John Levine, ima!johnl or [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 12 Sep 85 10:42:37 EDT
Subject: 2400 baud modems

We have been given the task to recommend a 2400 baud modem for a particular
project.  The project will eventually purchase (within a year) over 2,000
2400 baud modems to be used on an IBM PC compatible (i.e. an internal modem
would be preferable).  We will control the modems used on both sides of the
connection.  Chances are that whatever we recommend for this project will
become the defacto standard for our division and influence all purchases of
2400 baud modems.  I would appreciate general comments on 2400 baud modems
and specific comments on the following items:

     o    What brands/models modems should we definitely consider.
     o    What brands/models modems should we definitely NOT consider.
     o    Is there any laboratory test data available on any of the 2400
          baud modems.


/Dave

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1985  12:20 EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: [jfw%mit-ccc: Telco question]

Date: Sunday, 15 September 1985  11:17-EDT
From: jfw%mit-ccc at bu-cs
To:   jsol at mit-xx.ARPA
cc:   jfw at mit-ccc
Re:   Telco question

Is it still illegal for automatic advertising dialers not to hang up if you
hang up your phone?  I just got one, and assuming that the DPU hasn't caved
in to the demands of advertising, I'd like to annoy NET with a complaint.
Who at NET would be the right ones to complain to?

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
19-Sep-85 20:18:54-EDT,10288;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at 19-Sep-85 20:13:18
Date: 19 Sep 85 20:13-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #38
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                     Thursday, September 19, 1985 8:13PM
Volume 5, Issue 38

Today's Topics:

           Individual messages vs. digests - administrivia
                      What does "metallic" mean?
                        PC Pursuit (opinions)
                       700 numbers and charging
                         Further 700 numbers
                  8-pages of features; ROLM pbx poop

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 19 Sep 85 20:11:44-EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Individual messages vs. digests - administrivia

The mechanism for allowing users to receive individual messages
for TELECOM is now in place. If you are receiving this message separately,
then you are subscribing to the individual service. If you receive this
in the Digest, you are receiving Digest service.

Currently only the digests will be archived. I may at some later
time come up with a method of retrieving individual messages from
the archives (about the same time as we have automated -REQUEST service
for additions, deletions, and name changes -- Someone should submit
an RFC on this). If you have any ideas about this, send them to
[e-mail].

We anticipate no problems in getting TELECOM out to you folks, and have
taken steps to improve error recovery (I now save the input for about
a month in case something happens and I need to regenerate a digest),
so if you do notice sporadic service, please send mail to TELECOM-REQUEST
explaining the difficulty.

Enjoy,
--JSol

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 16 Sep 85 12:08:12 PDT
From:           "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
Subject:        What does "metallic" mean?

Section 68.302 (d), of the FCC rules and regulations concerning
connection of terminal equipment to the telephone network an,d entitled
"Metallic voltage surge" requires that the equipment be subject to
"Two 800-volt peak surges of a metallic voltage (one of each polarity)
having a 10 microsecond rise time to crest and a 560-microsecond minimum
decay time to half crest applied between (1) tip and ring of a two wire
connection ..."

Other sections of these FCC rules refer to "voice band metallic signal
power" and "metallic surges".


Does anyone know what "metallic" means in this context?

ted

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 13 September 1985  21:20-MDT
From: Rex Ballard <rochester!ritcv!ccivax![e-mail]>
Subject:   PC Pursuit (opinions)

> Opinion section starts here:
>
> If you analyze this service, it's pretty clear what's going on.
> GTE is attempting to maximize use of facilities already in place
> that tend to sit idle outside the business day.  Those facilities
> are not massive (24 dialers for all of Los Angeles, for example).
> It seems unclear how they can EXPAND beyond the current levels based
> on the $25 flat rate fee, since local telephone lines and dialers
> are going to be one of the most expensive recurring costs in the
> operation.
> If you make FIVE one-hour calls of this sort during evening hours
> during the month, you've already cost them more than the price
> of the service!  It takes a few more hours (or slightly more
> expensive non-local calls) to reach that level at late night-rate, but
> you can still reach the "no-profit" point for them damn fast.

Not necessarily.

One of the major problems facing the telco's in general and the long
distance companies in particular is the problem of people using SPRINT
to call a long distance bulliten board.  The modems are converting 300
baud signals into binary signals between the two computers.  The lines
being used are analog lines being digitized at the rate of about
50KB/sec.  In other words, a line capable of handling over 100 calls
is being tied up for up to an hour.

The solution is simple, have 'modem callers' call telenet to call that
long distance board, and have computers at each end of the digital
line converting back down two 300 baud.  Even at 10 cents an hour,
they come out ahead (your throughput problem may have been a result of
load averaging).

The problem is, if telenet must bill the consumer for this service,
the cost of billing a 1 hour/week user is more than the cost of
servicing the line.  (Sending a bill with a 25 cent postage stamp to
collect a 50 cent bill).  A way has to be found to get the user to use
the system enough to make the product pay for collection costs and
still appear to be a 'bargain' over calling point to point on SPRINT.

Local telepone companies are considering similar tactics to reduce the
traffic on the local exchanges.  Some are selling 56Kb lines to the
PBX busineses already (Illinois).  Others are selling 9600 KB lines to
the home (Pacific Tel).

The main point is that competition will be stiff because the market
has only started to appear.  Currently less than 1% of all current
computer owners use a modem for more than an hour a week, if costs can
go down and services can improve, you may eventually see the time when
you can use your telephone like a disk drive.

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 17 Sep 85 9:33:10 CDT
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@Almsa-2>
Subject:  700 numbers and charging

Re the 700 numbers: are all calls to these numbers free to the
caller? That is, are they more like "800"s than "900"s?

On a more general charging topic: when you have message-unit service,
are there any costs charged back to the caller when you call 800 or
other toll-free numbers? (Like maybe the basic costs of making the call,
but no time charges?)

Will

ARPA/MILNET: [e-mail]     USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 85 15:12:59 edt
From: [e-mail] (David Flory)
Subject: Further 700 numbers


In the last Telecom Digest the number for Alliance Teleconferencing was
mentioned.  Dialing 0-700-456-1000 will get you the closest Alliance site
available from where called from, but if the majority of your conferees
are from a distant city you may instead want to use the Alliance conference
bridge closer to them (to save on long distance charges.

I forget offhand (I have it around here somewhere) but calling Alliance
at their 800 number will find out what these dialups are.  They range from
0-700-456-1001 to -1004 at locations Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, and
White Plains NY (but not neccessarily in that order)  There are also
these same conference facilites (actually a different bridging machine
but same site) reachable at 0-700-456-200X, with the same location
selection for the last digit.  Audio/graphic capability exists at
0-700-456-3001 and -3002 (both in Chicago) although Alliance claims
that the -200X series does audio/graphics.

Another interesting number to check out is 0-700-456-150X and -250X. This
is extremely interesting as the recording answers as the service belonging
to "Bell" which if I recall correctly isnt allowed to offer conferencing
facilites (as per the breakup)  This only seems to work in Northern NJ (201)
though.  Does any one at any of the Bell Labs sites in Northern NJ know
what these numbers are for?

Also, does any one know of any other audio bridging or conferencing facilites
out there?  Whatever became of Quorum?

David Flory
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Sep 85 02:03:14 PDT
From: l5![e-mail] (John Gilmore)
Subject: 8-pages of features; ROLM pbx poop

At Sun I worked with a brand new fancy ROLM phone system.  It had a
whole 60-page manual of features as well as a card that sits under the
plastic in the phone, next to the buttons.  I was the only person I
knew there who knew how to do a conference call.  Most people had
serious trouble transferring a call to someone else.  This was after
9 months of use!

I haven't yet seen a phone system "full of features" that wasn't harder
to use than a simple old fashioned phone system.  It reminds me of a
strange talk at Portland Usenix; an AT&T phone wizard (Brian Redman?)
got up and talked about how neat his home phone system was and how many
things you could do with it.  It didn't come with online help either,
and by the end of the talk I'd had far too many ##7*, #*65*#2, and
7*#88s to remember what good they were.  If any.

PS:  There's a serious bug in this ROLM pbx, which was their latest and
greatest as of about 9 months ago (3000?).  When you dial a busy
extension, it gives you a busy signal AND gives the extension a
beep-tone superimposed on the call in progress.  The usual effect is
that the caller hangs up, hearing busy, while the person on the line
flashes, trying to accept an incoming call.  The result is usually
confusion if not killing the conversation in progress.  I reported this
to our trouble desk, which reported it to ROLM, but it never got
fixed.

PPS:  Sun has a 3-pbx system that covers 5 buildings, interconnected
via fiber optic and microwave links.  It was the most complex
installation of this pbx at the time, and may still be.  We were led to
believe that it would all act like one big system.  They lied.  For
example, you can't forward your phone to a phone connected to another
physical PBX.

PPPS:  Their forwarding also leaves something to be desired.  You can
forward all-the-time or forward on busy-or-no-answer but you can't
forward "busy" separately from "no answer".  This means if you have an
office and spend a lot of time in a lab, you can't leave your phone
forwarded.  If you're in the lab, it's fine, but if you're in your
office making a call, it dumps incoming calls on the lab.  The ROLM
people I talked to didn't seem to see how this was a problem or why
other phone systems would do it differently.

I think IBM got a bum deal...

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
23-Sep-85 20:13:45-EDT,5031;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at 23-Sep-85 20:05:52
Date: 23 Sep 85 20:05-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #39
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Monday, September 23, 1985 8:05PM
Volume 5, Issue 39

Today's Topics:

                          Equipment for sale
                            administrivia
                          Iowa prefix change
                        X.3 PAD delay question
                        Phone damage in Mexico

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Sep 85 14:49:55 edt
From: Special Projects Group <[e-mail]>
Subject: Equipment for sale


The following equipment was salvaged (?) from an office renovation. Legally.
If anyone has any interest in the equipment, make an offer and it's
probably yours.

    2 Micom concentrator modems
    2 Micom data concentrators
    2 line terminators

There are no documents with the equipment and everything is 'as is'. It
was working perfectly before it was removed and was removed with care,
so things should still tick along.


David C. Kovar  -- Special Projects Group

        USNET:      {linus|decvax|cornell|astrovax}!dartvax!networks
        ARPA:    networks%dartmouth@csnet-relay
        CSNET:    networks@dartmouth

        US Mail:    Kiewit Computation Center
            Dartmouth College
            Hanover NH
            03755

        Phone:    [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Fri 20 Sep 85 18:46:21-EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: administrivia

In the process of getting the new processing to work, I skipped
issue 37.

Sorry, guys.

-JSol

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 23 Sep 85 9:42:47 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Iowa prefix change

There was an apparent change of prefix (and area code) at Richland, Iowa,
done somewhere between 1975 and 1982.  The change is from 515-668 to
319-456.  (319-668 is Williamsburg.)
I don't know why the change was made.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 1985 11:58-EDT
Subject: X.3 PAD delay question
From: [e-mail]

I'm not sure this is the proper forum for this question, but here
goes...

I have been looking around at off-the-shelf PADs lately, and have
come across a consistency that confuses me.

X.3 Parameter 4, Idle Timer Delay (the length of time a packet
will wait for another character to enter), has a range of values
0 - 255.  Multiplied by .05, this represents, in seconds, how
long a packet will wait for another character before forwarding.
The timer is disabled for value 0. Supposedly, the smallest
interval available would be 0.05 secs, (parameter value 1).
However, the PADs I've looked at to date can only support a
minimum value of 4 (200 ms).

Is this a limitation of the network?  Of the PAD?  Is there a
good reason for this that I am overlooking?

We have to perform host-echo over one of the three major PSN's --
Telenet, Tymnet, or Uninet, so I need to reduce the PAD overhead
as much as possible.

William

------------------------------

Date: Mon 23 Sep 85 12:07:42-CDT
From: Clive Dawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone damage in Mexico

This is a plea to any ATT folks on this list or others who may know
how to obtain the necessary info.

As most of you probably know, long distance service to Mexico is currently
down due to damage from last Thursday's earthquake.  I am currently
involved in a volunteer effort to relay emergency traffic to and from
Mexico via ham radio.  (Some of you may have heard my uncle, Frank Meckel,
who is one of the few English-speaking hams down there, give reports on CBS
News and NPR's All Things Considered as well as many local news
broadcasts.)  It has been very frustrating to see how relatively little
attention the news media are giving to the problem of the phone outage.

Many of our contingency plans depend on knowing how long the outage
will last.  Can anybody get any specific info on:

    a) The exact cause of damage (e.g. satellite transmission
       equipment and/or microwave and/or switching equipment)

    b) Is Telefonos de Mexico getting any help from ATT, and if
       so of what sort?  (Or is "pride" getting in the way,
           as it has on other types of assistance?)

    c) Are there any rerouting attempts taking place?  Several
       cities in the interior of Mexico apparently have had
       service to the capital restored, so theoretically a path
       exists.

    d) Does anybody have a reliable estimated up-time?

    e) Is there an ATT source that can be contacted directly for
       updates on the situation?

Please mail any responses directly to me at CLIVE@MCC, or phone
[phone] (home) or [phone] (work).

Many thanks,

Clive

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
26-Sep-85 18:01:50-EDT,6674;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Thu 26 Sep 85 18:01:43-EDT
Date: 26 Sep 85 17:13-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #40
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                     Thursday, September 26, 1985 5:13PM
Volume 5, Issue 40

Today's Topics:

                          equal access bugs
       Social Impacts of Computing: Graduate Study at UC-Irvine

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 85 01:17:40 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: equal access bugs

By now many of us have experienced how a newly cut over equal access area
tends to "forget" to make special allowances for public phones.  While this
is fun in itself, my question is: By what mechanism does the long distance
carrier determine that the calling number is a public phone, so it can
arrange for different billing?  Does the LOC pass a special packet to it
saying "this is a pay phone, do whatever you have to do"?  Does the carrier
keep its own table of public phones for each area?  How is it that the bug
is present with some carriers and not others?  Why does it exist at all?
It seems to me that the sensible way to do things would be for the local
company to tell the carrier that simply billing the call to the originating
number will lose.

A related question:  Why is it that some areas insist that you dial
10nnn 1+??  Here in Jersey, if you dial 10nnn and the number you want, you
get a recording that you must "first dial a 1".  I thought that 1+ was
implicit in 10nnn+.  Down in DC, where I was last weekend, 10nnn+number
works just fine in some areas, but others want the redundant 1.

And a comment:  For some carriers, 10nnn# will simply connect you to the
carrier switch, as if you dialed the 950 number.  Sprint does this, some
of the others might.  It's not universal, though, and the *LOC* handles
such a call, giving you a local recording if you can't do it.  Weird!!

Now, if only they gave you better *audio*.

_H*

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 1985 0911-PDT
From: Rob-Kling <Kling%UCI-20B@UCI-ICSA>
Subject: Social Impacts of Computing: Graduate Study at UC-Irvine

                                CORPS

                               -------

                        Graduate Education in

            Computing, Organizations, Policy, and Society

               at the University of California, Irvine


     This graduate concentration at the University of California,
Irvine provides an opportunity for scholars and students to
investigate the social dimensions of computerization in a setting
which supports reflective and sustained inquiry.

     The primary educational opportunities are PhD concentrations in
the Department of Information and Computer Science (ICS) and MS and
PhD concentrations in the Graduate School of Management (GSM).
Students in each concentration can specialize in studying the social
dimensions of computing.

     The faculty at Irvine have been active in this area, with many
interdisciplinary projects, since the early 1970's.  The faculty and
students in the CORPS have approached them with methods drawn from the
social sciences.

     The CORPS concentration focuses upon four related areas of
inquiry:

 1.  Examining the social consequences of different kinds of
     computerization on social life in organizations and in the larger
     society.

 2.  Examining the social dimensions of the work and organizational
     worlds in which computer technologies are developed, marketed,
     disseminated, deployed, and sustained.

 3.  Evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for managing the
     deployment and use of computer-based technologies.

 4.  Evaluating and proposing public policies which facilitate the
     development and use of computing in pro-social ways.


     Studies of these questions have focussed on complex information
systems, computer-based modelling, decision-support systems, the
myriad forms of office automation, electronic funds transfer systems,
expert systems, instructional computing, personal computers, automated
command and control systems, and computing at home.  The questions
vary from study to study.  They have included questions about the
effectiveness of these technologies, effective ways to manage them,
the social choices that they open or close off, the kind of social and
cultural life that develops around them, their political consequences,
and their social carrying costs.

     CORPS studies at Irvine have a distinctive orientation -

(i) in focussing on both public and private sectors,

(ii) in examining computerization in public life as well as within
      organizations,

(iii) by examining advanced and common computer-based technologies "in
      vivo" in ordinary settings, and

(iv) by employing analytical methods drawn from the social sciences.



         Organizational Arrangements and Admissions for CORPS


     The CORPS concentration is a special track within the normal
graduate degree programs of ICS and GSM.  Admission requirements for
this concentration are the same as for students who apply for a PhD in
ICS or an MS or PhD in GSM.  Students with varying backgrounds are
encouraged to apply for the PhD programs if they show strong research
promise.

     The seven primary faculty in the CORPS concentration hold
appointments in the Department of Information and Computer Science and
the Graduate School of Management.  Additional faculty in the School
of Social Sciences, and the program on Social Ecology, have
collaborated in research or have taught key courses for CORPS
students.  Our research is administered through an interdisciplinary
research institute at UCI which is part of the Graduate Division, the
Public Policy Research Organization.

Students who wish additional information about the CORPS concentration
should write to:

          Professor Rob Kling (Kling@uci-icsa)
          Department of Information and Computer Science
          University of California, Irvine
          Irvine, Ca. 92717
          714-856-5955 or 856-7548

                                or to:

          Professor Kenneth Kraemer (Kraemer@uci-icsa)
          Graduate School of Management
          University of California, Irvine
          Irvine, Ca. 92717
          714-856-5246

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 1-Oct-85 22:50:05-EDT,4152;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Tue 1 Oct 85 22:49:56-EDT
Date: 22 Aug 85 18:15-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #24
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Thursday, August 22, 1985 6:15PM
Volume 5, Issue 24

Today's Topics:

                              PC Pursuit
            News on the telephone front
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Aug 85 08:47:45 edt
From: Ken Mandelberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: PC Pursuit

GTE/TELENET is offering a new service called "PC Pursuit". It allows
unlimited 1200 baud modem calls between 12 major cities for a flat fee
of $25/month. The calls can on|y be made after 6PM or on weekends.

Currently the cities supported are: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas,
Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San
Francisco, and Washington DC.

Only the originator of the call has to be signed up with GTE, the
destination can be any answering modem in the 12 supported cities.  The
$25/month buys the right to originate the calls from one fixed number.
GTE imposes this as follows: You call a local number, identify yourself
and make the destination request. GTE drops the line, calls the
destination, and when successful calls you back at your registered
number. They guarantee to call you back withing 30 seconds of carrier
at the destination.

GTE is marketing this to PC users who want to access out of town
databases. However, it strikes me that this service could cut
UUCP/mail/netnews and other phone based networking costs way down. The
service appears to be transparent to the destination, but clearly the
connection software would have to be hacked to accomodate GTE's call
origination scheme.

GTE will provide information about the service at 800-368-4215.

I have no connection with GTE, and the above exhausts my knowledge
of the service. I don't know, for example, if the data path provided
is really a full 8 bit path, or if there are timing issues that
would interfere with some protocols. I would guess they run their
own error correction for the long haul part of the circuit, and
the subscriber would only have to worry about errors on the local
circuits at the endpoints.


Ken Mandelberg
Emory University
Dept of Math and CS
Atlanta, Ga 30322

{akgua,sb1,gatech,decvax}!emory!km   USENET
km@emory                      CSNET
km.emory@csnet-relay          ARPANET

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 22 August 1985  09:23-EDT
From: [e-mail] (Todd Cooper)

NEWS FLASH!

AT&T announced in an expected decision that would be eliminating
24,000 positions.  This would be mostly sales and clerical people.
It is not clear whether their staff in the computer division of
Information Systems would be affected.

In a non-related annoucement, New England Telephone (yet another NET)
would be changing the area code for Eastern Massechussets outside of
the Metropolitan Boston area.  This change will take affect in 1989 and
the new area code is not known at this time.  NET said that this year alone
they were opening 50 new Exchange numbers (3-digit) since 1982, and
"it expects to open up 26 in 1985 alone.  With 640 office codes
[exchanges] in use now, the 617 area code has only 100 more prefixes
available, [Peter] Cronin [NET spokesman] said"

"Since 1982, phone companies have had to create new area codes in New York
(718), the Houston area (409), Los Angeles (805), and San Diego (619)
to meet increased demand for phone numbers.

"133 of the 152 area codes for the US, Canada, and connected parts of Mexico
are currently in use - up from 86 when the phone company created the codes
in 1947 to make long-distance calling for efficient, according Robert
Brillhart of Bell Comunications Research in Livingston, N.J."

Todd Cooper

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 1-Oct-85 22:58:09-EDT,4076;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at 22-Aug-85 18:15:58
Date: 22 Aug 85 18:15-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #24
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Thursday, August 22, 1985 6:15PM
Volume 5, Issue 24

Today's Topics:

                              PC Pursuit
            News on the telephone front
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Aug 85 08:47:45 edt
From: Ken Mandelberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: PC Pursuit

GTE/TELENET is offering a new service called "PC Pursuit". It allows
unlimited 1200 baud modem calls between 12 major cities for a flat fee
of $25/month. The calls can on|y be made after 6PM or on weekends.

Currently the cities supported are: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas,
Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San
Francisco, and Washington DC.

Only the originator of the call has to be signed up with GTE, the
destination can be any answering modem in the 12 supported cities.  The
$25/month buys the right to originate the calls from one fixed number.
GTE imposes this as follows: You call a local number, identify yourself
and make the destination request. GTE drops the line, calls the
destination, and when successful calls you back at your registered
number. They guarantee to call you back withing 30 seconds of carrier
at the destination.

GTE is marketing this to PC users who want to access out of town
databases. However, it strikes me that this service could cut
UUCP/mail/netnews and other phone based networking costs way down. The
service appears to be transparent to the destination, but clearly the
connection software would have to be hacked to accomodate GTE's call
origination scheme.

GTE will provide information about the service at 800-368-4215.

I have no connection with GTE, and the above exhausts my knowledge
of the service. I don't know, for example, if the data path provided
is really a full 8 bit path, or if there are timing issues that
would interfere with some protocols. I would guess they run their
own error correction for the long haul part of the circuit, and
the subscriber would only have to worry about errors on the local
circuits at the endpoints.


Ken Mandelberg
Emory University
Dept of Math and CS
Atlanta, Ga 30322

{akgua,sb1,gatech,decvax}!emory!km   USENET
km@emory                      CSNET
km.emory@csnet-relay          ARPANET

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 22 August 1985  09:23-EDT
From: [e-mail] (Todd Cooper)

NEWS FLASH!

AT&T announced in an expected decision that would be eliminating
24,000 positions.  This would be mostly sales and clerical people.
It is not clear whether their staff in the computer division of
Information Systems would be affected.

In a non-related annoucement, New England Telephone (yet another NET)
would be changing the area code for Eastern Massechussets outside of
the Metropolitan Boston area.  This change will take affect in 1989 and
the new area code is not known at this time.  NET said that this year alone
they were opening 50 new Exchange numbers (3-digit) since 1982, and
"it expects to open up 26 in 1985 alone.  With 640 office codes
[exchanges] in use now, the 617 area code has only 100 more prefixes
available, [Peter] Cronin [NET spokesman] said"

"Since 1982, phone companies have had to create new area codes in New York
(718), the Houston area (409), Los Angeles (805), and San Diego (619)
to meet increased demand for phone numbers.

"133 of the 152 area codes for the US, Canada, and connected parts of Mexico
are currently in use - up from 86 when the phone company created the codes
in 1947 to make long-distance calling for efficient, according Robert
Brillhart of Bell Comunications Research in Livingston, N.J."

Todd Cooper

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 1-Oct-85 22:58:18-EDT,9345;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at  1-Oct-85 22:51:37
Date: 1 Oct 85 22:51-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #41
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Tuesday, October 1, 1985 10:51PM
Volume 5, Issue 41

Today's Topics:

    Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #40 (why you have to dial 10xxx + 1 + )
                     Okay, buckaroos, here it is
                       Voice Mail info request
                          Rolm, Sprint, etc.
                      Using Sprint within a LATA

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ima!johnl@bbncca
Date: Thu Sep 26 22:32:00 1985
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #40 (why you have to dial 10xxx + 1 + )

The thing to realize is that 10xxx is merely a routing prefix that you dial
before the number of interest.  My default carrier is not AT&T, so if I wanted
to make a collect call, I'd dial 10288 + 0 + number.  Similarly for
international calls, I dial 10XXX + 011 or 10XXX + 01.  This would not work as
well if the 1+ were implicit.

You might ask "why not assume a 1+ after the 10xxx if the next digit is not a
1 or 0?"  It appears that's because they're planning ahead for once.  I gather
that the plan is that eventually you'll dial 1 first iff you are dialing
outside your area code, as is currently the case in New York and Los Angeles.
Since there are some area codes that span more than one LATA, such as 609 in
southern New Jersey, you will eventually need the 1+ after the 10xxx to make
it clear whether you're dialing an inter-LATA call in your own area code or
outside it.

Speaking of such things, I gather that Bellcore is looking forward to the time
when all of the unassigned N0N and N1N area codes are used up.  Then what?
Will they assign area codes like 710 (currently used for Telex II, which you
can't dial from a phone anyway) or 411 (used many places for local directory
assistance) or will they go straight to area codes that have other digits in
the middle?

John Levine, [e-mail] or ima!johnl

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 85 19:18:56 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: Okay, buckaroos, here it is

Here, taken from a flyer sent out by the Teleconsumer Hotline people, is an
expanded carrier list.  They are pretty good people; it's a splinter group
of something called the Telecommunications Research and Action center, located
in Washington DC.  Call them at 800 332 1124 to get a similar list for your
own local area.  There will be a lot of overlap, so you may find this helpful.
[Equal access codes are prefixed with 10, of course..]

EA    Company            Cust. svc    [serving area,
code    name            number         defaults to "most"]
---------------------------------------------------------------
tba    Garden State Telemktg.    201 539 6900    [Northern Jersey]
007    Telemarketing        202 783 7213    [DC, Philly, parts of VA]
054    Eastern Telephone    [phone]    [Philly]
066    Lexitel            800 631 4835
211    RCI            800 458 7000    [phy pbg +]
220    WU            ???        [to be announced]
221    Telesaver        201 488 4417, 202 982 1169 [eastern cities]
222    MCI            800 624 6240
235    Inteleplex        609 348 0050    [Southern NJ]
288    AT&T            800 222 0300
333    US Telecom        800 531 1985
444    Allnet            800 982 8888
488    ITT            800 526 3000
777    GTE Sprint        800 521 4949
850    Tollkall        800 646 1676    [Northern NJ]
855    Network plus        703 352 1171    [DC metro area]
888    SBS Skyline        800 368 6900,235 2001 [no auto EA, need acct]

Many of these allow what's called "casual callers", which is simply a person
who picks a given carrier for a given call, without actually having an
account with them.  The carrier codes may vary, but the larger ones seem to
have the same number everywhere [how did they arrange this, I wonder??].

_H*

------------------------------

Date: Sunday, 29 Sep 1985 16:32:57-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Martin Minow, DECtalk Engineering ML3-1/U47 223-9922)
Subject: Voice Mail info request

I'm trying to write a paper tracing the history of "voice mail"
systems and vaguely recall some work done in the '70's on ARPAnet
(ARPA Speech Project?) but can't seem to track down any references
(except for a few semi-annual reports from Lincoln Labs complaining
about memory errors on the TX-2.)

Any pointers to the literature would be appreciated.  Please mail
to me and I'll summarize for TELECOM if there's any interest.

Thanks.

Martin Minow
ARPA: [e-mail]
UUCP: decvax!minow

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1985 10:25:04-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Rolm, Sprint, etc.


A few replies to subject in recent issues:

PC Pursuit does not "save" GTE money vs. people who run data on Sprint.
If you run a 300 bps modem on Sprint, you pay the full "voice" rate,
even though you're using up a 64 kbps channel on digitized sections of
the backbone (which is probably analog anyway, in most areas).  It's
more "efficient" of bits to use Telenet, but GTE charges you for the
voice call on Sprint and they don't care if YOU are being wasteful,
since they're going to make their money anyway.  PC Pursuit is more
efficient of the transmission, but it requires more switching hardware
(packet switches).

Telenet is not very efficient for "host echo" applications, though many
or most people use it that way.  It eats a full packet for every echo,
so if the timer is set below 200 ms., then every character typed will
create a full packet header.  The charges are computed in packets, so
you're usage rate will skyrocket, versus using a slower response time.
Tymnet charges by the character, since it uses "shared" packets (their
internal protocol is less like ARPA's).  That's probably why your Telenet
PADs won't go below a setting of 200 ms. -- it flunks the manufacturer's
"sanity test", and probably overloads its processing capacity.

Re: Rolm; It's amazing how many people complain about the Rolm to this
day.  Rolm's response is to have fancy featurephones with extra buttons
for features, and guess what -- they cost you!  Rolm's features are
designed to give the station user the maximum in flexibility, which they
trade off for a minimum of friendliness.  Sorta like comparing Un*x to
a Macintosh -- a Un*x guru can do more with it, but "the rest of us"
do more with the Mac.

Rolm's call forwarding consists of two features.  Call Forward All Calls
("Station forwarding") is set from the phone; Call Forward Busy/Don't
Answer ("System forwarding") is set from the system administrator's
terminal and has one destination extension.  The destination must be
internal.  (This restriction does not apply on the high-end 9000/VLCBX.)
It does, however, have four "flags":  Busy Internal, Busy External, No
Answer Internal, No Answer External.  You pick a combination.

Re: Mexico; What I've heard is that the building housing the
international gateway switch for Mexico City collapsed.  It took out the
switches, frames, etc.  Restoration of service will presumably be done
by splicing in mobile switching units.  It'll take years to rebuild
the building; this makes the 1972 New York fire look trivial.

------------------------------

From: dual!qantel![e-mail]
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 85 20:52:27 pdt
Subject: Using Sprint within a LATA

Okay, I got my Sprint bill, so I can report on the difference between
using Pacific Bell and an Alternate Long Distance Service to call from
one point in my Pacific Bell Service Area to another.

It says in many places (like the front pages of my phone book and on the
back of my Pacific Bell phone bill) that calls within the boundaries of
these Service Areas can only be placed thru Pacific Bell.  This is part
of the divestiture agreement that broke up AT&T.  However, I have never
had any trouble using Sprint or SBS to make such calls--they aren't
blocked or anything.  Nobody answered my previous posting asking why this
is so.  I hypothesized that Sprint might route such calls thru some
Location X--outside my service area--to get around the regulation, but I
really have no idea.

My reason for wanting to use Sprint is that I sometimes want to make
personal toll calls from where I work, and don't want them charged to my
company.  I could use my Pacific Bell Calling Card, or Sprint.  Here is
how these compare for the 5 Sprint calls I made last month:

     call              PacBell    PacBell with
     type  mins    Sprint    direct dial   40c CC fee
      DE    26    4.98       5.51        5.91
      DN     1     .21        .15         .55
      DD     2     .68        .65        1.05
      DD     1     .43        .36         .76
      DD     8    2.17       2.39        2.79

This is not a systematic study.  These were calls I just happened to be
making.  I called the Operator to get the comperable Pacific Bell rates.
When using my Calling Card, there would be a 40-cent service charge.

Conclusion:  I will continue to use Sprint under these circumstances.  I
continue to think that 40c per call is a bit steep for using my Calling
Card on those calls where I enter it myself, with no operator involved.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 2-Oct-85 19:15:43-EDT,6006;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Wed 2 Oct 85 19:15:37-EDT
Date: 2 Oct 85 18:35-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #42
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Wednesday, October 2, 1985 6:35PM
Volume 5, Issue 42

Today's Topics:

                   When the area codes run out....
                               1+ usage
                       phone-from-car; 215-453
                             10XXX + 1 +

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 21:36:43 PDT
From: vortex![e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: When the area codes run out....

When the N0/1X area codes run out, we will indeed see NNX (prefix)
codes assigned as area codes.  In fact, the ordering list for
picking NNX codes for such use has been around for MANY years, just
waiting for the day it might have to be used....

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2 Oct 85  0:07:45 EDT
From: Doug Hirsch <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1+ usage

>   From: ima!johnl@bbncca
>   Date: Thu Sep 26 22:32:00 1985
>   Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #40 (why you have to dial 10xxx + 1 + )
>
>   You might ask "why not assume a 1+ after the 10xxx if the
>   next digit is not a 1 or 0?" It appears that's because
>   they're planning ahead for once.  I gather that the plan is
>   that eventually you'll dial 1 first iff you are dialing
>   outside your area code, as is currently the case in New York
>   and Los Angeles.  Since there are some area codes that span
>   more than one LATA, such as 609 in southern New Jersey, you
>   will eventually need the 1+ after the 10xxx to make it clear
>   whether you're dialing an inter-LATA call in your own area
>   code or outside it.

John,

Along the lines of New York and Los Angeles usage, the use of 1
as a switch flagging the following three digits as area code
provides a couple of handy by-products, which I think you imply
in your next paragraph: area codes can then be almost any three
digits, since they would always be flagged with the 1.  Exchanges
can include numbers now reserved for use as area codes.  For
example, in dialing from 212, one would use 1+ to differentiate
between 617/617-nnnn and 212/617-617n.

I'm afraid I don't understand your comment on inter-LATA calls
within an area code.  Within 609, what's the difference between
1+nnn-nnnn and nnn-nnnn?  Why should I ever have to dial 1+
within my own area code?  Aren't LATAs just an artifact of tariff
and jurisdiction?  If the number I'm trying to reach is
unambiguous, then why should I worry whether I am crossing a LATA
boundary or not?  Is there some technical need for me to point
out to a machine (that knows LATA boundaries better than I do)
when I think I'm crossing a LATA boundary?

Similarly, why is it that New England Telephone can now parse my
dialing sufficiently to play me a tape when I need to dial a 1,
but not infer into my dialing the 1 they insist I need?

Doug Hirsch <dhirsch@bbn-unix> or <decvax!bbncca!dhirsch>,
1617/497-2608 or 617/497-2608 or 1497-2608 or 497-2608,
asking the question, "Who's in charge, man or machine?"

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 30 Sep 85 11:54:25 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  phone-from-car; 215-453

Along U.S. 22 in northeastern New Jersey (between I-287 and Newark
Int'l Airport) are several outdoor public phones where the overhead
sign says "Phone from car" instead of just plain "Phone".

I have learned of 215-453 prefix at Perkasie, Pa. (north of Phila.
and beyond "suburban Phila.").  This is significant because it
duplicates a prefix at Newark, Del. (302 area); the only previous
such duplication involved the oldest Newark, Del. prefix duplicated
at Lansdale (also north of Phila. beyond "Phila. suburbs"): 368,
which had been ENdicott 8 at Newark, Del.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 1985 7:34-EST
From: ihnp4![e-mail] (Mark C Baker @ AT&T Network Systems)
Subject: 10XXX + 1 +

> A related question:  Why is it that some areas insist that you dial
> 10nnn 1+??  Here in Jersey, if you dial 10nnn and the number you want, you
> get a recording that you must "first dial a 1".  I thought that 1+ was
> implicit in 10nnn+.  Down in DC, where I was last weekend, 10nnn+number
> works just fine in some areas, but others want the redundant 1.

In some areas (areas referring to area codes) all calls outside the area
code require 1+ 10 digits.  All calls within the area code require 7
digits only.  In other areas, all local calls are 7 digits, all TOLL
calls (inter- or intra-lata) are 1+ 7 or 10 digits.  In the latter case
the central office knows if you are going to dial 7 or 10 digits based
on the second digit.  Area codes have a 0 or 1 as their second digit.
Office codes have 2-9 as their second digit.  So much for the past...

In the last two years areas have run out of office codes, e.g. 312,
Chicago.  In these areas, 3 digit numbers formerly reserved as area codes
are being used as office codes.  The central office still needs to know
whether or not you are going to dial 7 or 10 digits.  The alternative
is that the CO has to wait 4-5 seconds after you dial the 7th digits
just in case you were going to dial 10 digits.  This would upset many
people.  The way the CO predetermines if you are going to dial 7 or
10 digits is by the existance of the 1+ prefix.  This has to apply
to 10XXX calls also, since they can be 7 or 10 digits.  And that is why
some areas require 10XXX + 1+ and some do not.

-- Mark

P.S.  MY work phone number is 312-510-xxxx.  510 used to be reserved
for future a area code.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 7-Oct-85 19:27:37-EDT,18392;000000000001
Mail-From: JSOL created at  7-Oct-85 19:17:03
Date: 7 Oct 85 19:17-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #43
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Monday, October 7, 1985 7:17PM
Volume 5, Issue 43

Today's Topics:

                   When the area codes run out....
                      1+ dialing and area codes
         Southern-California Source of Inside-Wiring Supplies
                      Addition to Merlin feature
                        TELECOM Digest V5 #41
         Description and Review of USR Courier 2400 bps modem
                            Speaker phone

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed,  2 Oct 85 20:40:30 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <[e-mail]>
Subject: When the area codes run out....

    Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 21:36:43 PDT
    From: vortex![e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)

    When the N0/1X area codes run out, we will indeed see NNX (prefix)
    codes assigned as area codes.  In fact, the ordering list for
    picking NNX codes for such use has been around for MANY years, just
    waiting for the day it might have to be used....

  Who is in charge of deciding these things?  Surely not AT&T anymore.

                                ...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Thursday,  3 Oct 1985 07:17:04-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: 1+ dialing and area codes


New England Telephone in NPA617 uses 1+ according to the "old" rule,
where it means "any toll call".  Thus, to call my office from Boston,
you might dial 1-858-3204.  This is a relic but it serves two useful
purposes in today's network.  First, many step by step offices don't
have the smarts to route calls on prefix beyond the local area, so
dialing 1 puts the call into a toll trunk right away.  There are lots
of steppers left in the area, outside Metro Boston (whose new area code
won't have any steppers in it.)

Second, NET did not use "code protection" for exchanges that are local
across area code boundaries.  Thus, Salem, NH is 603-893 and a local
7-digit call from Lawrence, MA.  Waltham, MA is 617-893 and a toll call.
If you dial 1893 from Lawrence, you get Waltham; if you dial 893, you
get Salem.

The "blue book" rule would have you dial 1603893 to get Salem, even though
it's local, and 893 to get Waltham, even though it's toll.  Some day they
may convert, but it will no doubt result in many misrouted calls for a
while.  (There are several other prefices in similar situations.)

------------------------------

From: Bert White <nomdenet@tp4>
Subject: Southern-California Source of Inside-Wiring Supplies
Date: 03 Oct 85 15:19:08 PDT (Thu)


   Are there Southern-California sources of supplies for do-it-yourself
inside wiring other than Los-Angeles Telephone Company on Westwood Boulevard?
Specifically, I want RJ-11 modular jacks (the square type with the jack
on the front, not the side, and preferably with a standoff on the back),
SIX-conductor station wire, and punch blocks.

   Please reply directly to me; I'll summarize and post if warranted.


Thanks in advance,
A. R. White
The Rand Corporation
[phone], x7190

ARPA:  tp4!nomdenet @ Rand-UNIX
UUCP:  {cbosg,decvax,fortune,harpo,trw-unix,ucla-cs}!randvax!tp4!nomdenet

------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 85 23:19 EDT
From: (Richard Kenner) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Addition to Merlin feature

Correction to my last message about Merlin undocumented feature:

You CAN make use of a COVER on a 5-button phone.  Suppose you want to set
#10 to cover intercom 14 with delayed ring.  Go into program and enter
    #10*414#10#10

The second two #10's set the "button" first to ring, then to delayed ring.
When the covered phone rings, after a delay, your phone will ring.  The
red light will select NO line (so you can see that it is a cover -- of course,
if you have more than one, you can't tell).  When you pick up the phone, you
get the covered line.

------------------------------

Date: Fri,  4 Oct 85 18:36:23 EDT
From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #41

Sprint carries intra-LATA calls because they don't have equipment to
check source and destination of call and block intra-LATA calling.  The
State PUC has told them they are "not authorized" to carry intra-LATA
calls, but has not ordered them to install blocking equipment which
would be expensive.  They have simply told them they may not advertise
the fact that their equipment can be used for intra-LATA calling.

Pacific Bell of course, can advertise that they ARE the only
"authorized" intra-LATA carrier.

Marvin Sirbu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 85 05:03:34 GMT
From: "Ian D. Allen" <ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!watmath![e-mail]>
Subject: Description and Review of USR Courier 2400 bps modem

Product description, evaluation, and bug report:

US Robotics Modem Courier 2400  (FCC CJE794)  Ser. #30-05816  ROM set #242

Bell 103/113 Bell 212-A CCITT V.22bis compatible (300/1200/2400 bps)
Approved by DOC Communications Canada 550 1169 A
Ringer Equivalence: 0.4   Canadian Modem Load Number 36B
Warranty: Two years.

Description:
- plastic case; help summary printed on the bottom; connections via rear
- on-line help screens for everything (AT$ ATS$ ATD$)
- all current modem settings displayable in an on-line table
- internal speaker; slide volume-control on right side of unit
- records duration of call, or use timer as real-time clock
- detailed call progress result codes (e.g. BUSY, RINGING, VOICE)
- automatically repeat-dial a busy line up to 10 times
- ability to dial alphabetic phone numbers, e.g. 1-800-DIAL USR
- outgoing baud rate set automatically according to terminal baud rate
- automatic switch from 2400 to 1200 if called modem is 1200
- optional adaptive DTMF (Touch Tone) dialling - optionally uses DTMF
  if line can handle it, otherwise uses pulse
- two RJ11C jacks; one for wall and one for phone
- can dial-out with Answer instead of Originate tones
- can toggle switch hook, e.g. to transfer a call
- can wait for second dial tone
- can wait for "answer" - silence after a ring
- optional fast dial-tone detect
- Morse Code capability - 1270Hz tone 62ms dot 186ms dash

Result Codes:
  OK
  CONNECT
  CONNECT 1200
  CONNECT 2400
  RING
  RINGING
  BUSY
  VOICE
  ERROR
  NO CARRIER
  NO ANSWER
  NO DIAL TONE

'AT' Command set:
    $    HELP Command Reference Screen (this list)
    S$    HELP S-register Reference Screen
    D$    HELP Dial Reference Screen

    A     Force answer mode
    A/    Repeat last command
    AT    Prefix
    Cn    n=0 Transmitter OFF (modem becomes receive-only)
        n=1 Transmitter ON (normal operation)
    Ds    Dial telephone number
        s=0..9#* @WTPR,;"!
    En    n=0 No echo of commands
        n=1 Echo commands to screen
    Fn    n=0 Half Duplex-local echo
        n=1 Full Duplex-no local echo
    Hn    n=0 Hang up
        n=1 Go off-hook
    In    n=0 Show product code
        n=1 Do checksum
        n=2 RAM test
        n=3 Call duration/Clock
            I3=s Set Clock
                 s=Hours:Min:Sec
        n=4 Show current modem settings
    Kn    n=0 Call Duration mode
        n=1 Real Time Clock mode
    Mn    n=0 Speaker OFF
        n=1 Speaker ON until Carrier
        n=2 Speaker always ON
        n=3 Speaker OFF during Dial
    O    Return on-line after command
    Qn    n=0 Show result codes
        n=1 Suppress result codes
    Sr=n    Set register "r" to "n"
    Sr?        Query register "r" (see also I4)
    Vn    n=0 Numeric result codes
        n=1 Verbal result codes
    Xn    n=0 Standard result codes set (Hayes X0)
        n=1 Extended (1200) result code set (Hayes X1)
        n=2..6 Advanced result code sets
    Z    Software reset and reading of DIP switches
    >    Repeat command until cancelled; repeat Dial at most 10 times

S-Register Functions (can be set to 1..255):
    S0    Number of rings before answering
    S1    Counts number of rings
    S2    Set Escape-Code character
    S3    Set Carriage-Return character
    S4    Set Line-Feed character
    S5    Set Backspace character
    S6    Set Dial Tone wait time (seconds)
    S7    Set Carrier wait time (seconds)
    S8    Set Comma and Repeat pause time (seconds)
    S9    Set Carrier Detect recognition time (1/10 seconds)
    S10    Set Carrier Loss/Hang-up time (1/10 seconds)
    S11    Set Touch-Tone spacing (milliseconds)
    S12    Set Escape-Code guard time (1/50 seconds)
    S14    Smartcom 2.0 kludge to pretend modem is 1200 bps
    S16    0 = Data Mode
        1 = Analog Loopback
        2 = Dial Test
        4 = Test Pattern
        4 = Analog Loopback and Test Pattern

Dip Switches:
- DTR (pin 20) normal / DTR always on
- Verbal result codes / Numeric result codes
- Suppress result codes / Display result codes
- Echo off-line commands / Don't echo off-line commands
- Auto-answer on Ring / Suppress auto-answer
- Normal Carrier-Detect (pin 8) / Carrier-Detect always ON
- Single phone connection RJ11 / Multiple phone connection RJ12/RJ13
- Disable AT command set / Enable AT command set
- Disconnect with +++ / Can go back on-line after +++
- Reserved
- Pins 2 and 3 standard / Reverse pins 2 and 3

LED front-panel:
- High Speed (2400 bps communication)
- Auto Answer; Answer mode
- Carrier Detect
- Off Hook
- Receive Data
- Send Data
- Terminal Ready (DTR from terminal or with DTR over-ride ON)
- Modem Ready; Power
- Analog Loopback (self-test mode)

Initial Performance:

No errors during 10 hours at 2400 bps from home (1 crow mile from UofW)
into some 2400 bps modem (make unknown) attached to Sytek network at
UofW.  No errors when using the Courier to dial out from MATH into the
Sytek at 2400bps and then logging back into MATH again. Many errors on
MATH end during two of several 1200 bps calls into WATMATH ttyd0
(Gandalf/Cermetek SAM 212A modem).  The errors were always BREAK
followed by a "{".  Unlike the Hayes 1200 modem I normally use, taking
an extension phone off the hook at 1200bps made the MATH errors much
worse rather than better.  (The Hayes 1200 is virtually error-free with
the phone off the hook at 1200bps.)  Calling in to MATH and ROSE modems
(Gandalf/Cermetek SAM 212A modems) produced lots and lots of noise when
I tried calling out and back in using the Courier at 1200bps.  Using
the Courier to call in to WATCGL, WATDAISY, and WATMUM (Vadic 3451
modems) showed no noise.  As I said, at 2400bps, calling out from MATH
into the unknown 2400 bps modem using the Courier showed no noise at
all.

UUCP

Our byte rate to ihnp4 in Chigago is usually about 70-90 bytes/sec at
1200 bps; using the 2400 bps Courier changed that up to about 145
bytes/sec. Looking at the amount of illumination of the send/receive
data LEDs, I get the feeling that the limiting factor is still the load
on ihnp4, not the speed or quality of the line or modem.  ihnp4 would
not respond for long periods of time; this would often cause our end to
time out.  I babysat the modem and kept calling back whenever this
happened. ihnp4 has an ARK 2400 bps modem inbound, and uses a Concord
outbound.

In town here, we do a maximum of 110 bytes/sec at 1200 bps; using the
Courier upped that to about 215 bytes/sec.  If they ever start charging
for local calls, the higher speed will be useful.

Calling utzoo in Toronto, our 1200 bps byte rate is about 109
bytes/sec.  I tried to use the Courier into their 2400 bps modems (they
have a Racal-Vadic 2400PA), but the noise on the line usually prevented
the login from succeeding.  In the rare cases where it did succeed, the
error rate was so high that the byte rate was only 24 bytes/sec, with
so many timeouts that the overall rate was less than half that.  1200
bps on the same line, a UofW FX Toronto line, worked just fine.  I
tried avoiding the FX line and just dialling long distance and got
about the same error rate, so I don't think it's the FX line that's
awful.  (After all, we call ihnp4 at 1200 and 2400 bps using the same
set-up with much better results.)

I put the Courier onto its own dedicated phone line, getting it off the
UofW SL-1 extension altogether, and called utzoo again.  Byte rate went
up to 150 bytes/sec, provided I could get logged in.  Still lots of
noise on the line.

I called linus (Boston), who have Concord Data 2400 bps modems, and
noticed no noise on the line during the brief call there.  I sent them
/etc/termcap (74355 bytes) and got a byte rate of 210 bytes/sec. (Very
Nice!)  I called utai (Toronto) briefly, and noticed no noise there
either.  (No uucp account, so I couldn't send anything.)

To sum up: it seems the University's SL-1 switch might be damaging
communications a bit.  Regardless of that, the Courier just doesn't
like talking to the Vadic at utzoo at 2400 bps no matter what line I
use.  The Courier calls all four other 2400 bps modems I know of okay.
henry@utzoo says their 2400 bps calls to linus average over 200
bytes/sec both ways; we seem to do the same to linus, but can't talk to
utzoo.  Just shows that things that can talk to the same thing can't
necessarily talk to each other!

Observed Quirks with this modem:

If you are connected to something at 2400bps, you use +++ to get back
to the command mode, you display and *interrupt* a HELP menu, then go
back on line, you get lots of repeating junk on your screen.  You have
to use +++ to go off-line again, display a HELP menu *without
interruption*, then go back on line.  If you try the same thing at
1200bps, you get *no* junk if you interrupt the HELP menu and go back
on line, and you get the repeating junk if you let it finish and go
back on line!  At 1200 bps, I had the modem hang three times when this
junk started appearing.  When the junk is printing, the Receive Data
light is flashing madly and pulling out the phone cord gives an
immediate NO CARRIER.  When the modem hung, the RD light went out, the
SD light would flash when characters were typed, but nothing appeared
on the screen and +++ and AT had no effect.  Pulling out the phone cord
did not affect the hung modem; it just did not respond to anything and
I had to power down every time.  Looks like you'd better not need any
on-line help screens in the middle of a session.

We took the modem to a country exchange, long distance to UofW, and saw
the same sort of junk appear when we tried calling the unknown 2400 bps
modem at UofW.  The 2400 would answer, signal 2400 bps, and the Courier
would respond with CONNECT 1200 (!?) and then lots of incessant junk.
We usually had to power off the modem to get it back.  The incessant
junk looked the same as the junk that kept spewing out in the above-
mentioned help-menu bug.  It's almost as if the answering modem were
sending a 2400 bps carrier that the Courier was mis-interpreting at
1200 bps, resulting in a continuous stream of junk. Actually using the
Courier to call out at 1200 bps on the same country line worked just
fine.

Nothing I tried could get the modem to recognize my VOICE in the
extended result code set.  I set parameter X6 and phoned from my home
line to my data line and answered the phone myself - the Courier said
RINGING and then eventually NO CARRIER, no matter what I said into the
phone. A friend tried the same thing and yelled a few times into the
phone, and it recognized his voice as VOICE.

I picked up my extension phone, dialed a '5' to get rid of the dial
tone, and then told the Courier to dial a number on the same line.  If
I said nothing, it would correctly detect NO DIAL TONE.  If I talked
while it came off-hook, it would usually mistake my voice for a dial
tone, dial the number into my voice, and then say either BUSY or
RINGING followed eventually by NO CARRIER.

Register S10 (timer for loss of carrier) claims to be scaled in tenth-
seconds, but setting it to 254 and unplugging the telephone cable
causes carrier loss after only a second or two, not 25 seconds. Setting
S10 to 255 and unplugging the cable hangs the modem.  It gets stuck
off-hook with the CD light on, and refuses to respond to anything
except power-off, even with the cable plugged in again.

The manual says you can type the command set in upper or lower case.
What it doesn't say is that both letters of the AT prefix must be the
*same* case -- "AT" and "at" work; "aT" and "At" do not.

"A/" repeats the last command, and the last command is cleared the
instant the letters AT appear, so if you intended to repeat the last
command but type AT followed by backspace followed by /, it's too late.
Backspace only deletes command chars, not the prefix itself. This is a
"feature" of Hayes modems, too.

The "guard band" register (S12) behaves a bit non-intuitively when set
to small values.  Not only does the guard band decrease, but the length
of time in which you have to type all three "+"s goes down too!  At
small settings, you have to use the repeat key to get it fast enough.
At the smallest settings, I think you're required to type the "+"s
faster than the baud rate will allow...

Summary:

I could have put up with the help-menu problem if I hadn't also tripped
over similar junk when using the modem in the country.  Looks like the
modem's state transition diagram has a loophole.  UofW needs a modem
that can talk 2400 bps to utzoo in Toronto, ideally using the cheap FX
line through the UofW SL-1 exchange, and this one can't do that very
well.  (In fact the ratio of line costs, FX versus using DDD on a
private line, is almost exactly the ratio of byte rates, meaning we
save no money going to 2400 bps on the DDD line instead of using 1200
bps on the FX line.)

-IAN

------------------------------

Date: Sun 6 Oct 85 02:41:22-EDT
From: "Adam Peller" <OAF.G.PELLER@MIT-OZ>
Subject: Speaker phone

I'm interested in building a speaker phone. Possibly from the four
wires going to the handset of an average phone. Is this possible? If
so, which wires are which, and would it be possible to hook these
wires up directly to INPUT/OUTPUT jacks on a stereo?

thanx,

Adam Peller
(ADAMP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC)

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
10-Oct-85 00:07:35-EDT,17256;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Thu 10 Oct 85 00:07:22-EDT
Date: 9 Oct 85 19:10-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #44
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Wednesday, October 9, 1985 7:10PM
Volume 5, Issue 44

Today's Topics:

                              intra-lata
           Any states requiring 1+ dialing for toll calls?
                Telephone conversations at 35,000 feet
                    Re: 1+ dialing and area codes
       Re: Southern-California Source of Inside-Wiring Supplies
                    Re:  1+ dialing and area codes
                     Additional feature in Merlin

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 85 20:35:52 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: intra-lata

I think the idea is that eventually under equal access, the LOC will do
the destination parsing and tell you that you don't need to invoke a carrier
for an intra-LATA call.  [They do this now, but you can get around this by
using 950- or local dialups to the switch.]  Some carriers *do* place a
shortest-distance limit on calls, or at least they used to.  I think MCI
still does, but I haven't checked in a while.

Interesting hack:  If you dial 10nnn# where nnn is a carrier code, in a
lot of cases you'll get to that carrier's switch, like you used 950 or
a local dialin.  Then, the above still applies.

I think it's *hilarious* what MCI tells you if you want an operator:
10222 + 0 + number yields "For operator assistance, please hang up and dial
10288 plus the area code and number you are calling".  They don't yet do
the go-to-switch-parse-authorization-code-complete-call thing...

_H*

------------------------------

Date: Mon 7 Oct 85 21:10:50-EDT
From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Any states requiring 1+ dialing for toll calls?

I was wondering if any state PUC's required the LOC's to provide
a service which required a "1" before dialing a call which the caller
would be charged for.  (For example, requiring 1-976-nnnn for those
'dial-a-horoscope' calls).  Bell of PA does not even provide this
crude form of 'notification' to calls outside the Metropolitan area,
which is not what I have experienced in Cincinnati or Boston.

I have 'unlimited' local service, but I am charged for calls that
are within the Metropolitan area but outside of the subset of 'local'
exchanges in the Metropolitan area.  Unfortunately, I am not required
to dial a 1 before making calls outside of this limited list of exchanges.
I usually find out that I've made some of these type of calls when I
get my bill.  I call the LOC, and they tell me that what I 'really'
want is 'Unlimited Metropolitan Area Service', which is ~$44/month,
compared with ~13/month for 'Unlimited local service', and ~4/month
for straight measured rate service.

The really maddening thing is that even if I pay $44/month, there
are still a good percentage (say 10%) of toll calls which I can make
which don't require a '1' before dialing.

(setq flame-mode 1)
It looks like I'm going to have to use a computer to keep track of
all of toll exchanges - this is unreasonable.  The phone company
has a computer, why don't they use it!
(setq flame-mode 0)

                    - Ralph

------------------------------

Date: Monday,  7 Oct 1985 18:20:49-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (I'll bring the chips)
Subject: Telephone conversations at 35,000 feet


Recently I had a chance to use the new telephone systems that are being
installed in commercial airline's passenger planes.  I thought I'd make a brief
report to this forum, in case someone is interested.

The equipment I used was manufactured by Airfone, Inc., 2809 Butterfield Road,
Oak Brook, IL 60521.  The phone is cordless and is mounted in a special holder.
On this particular plane, there were two phones; one in the front of the cabin,
one at the rear.

The holder contains a slot in which a credit card can be inserted.  Credit
cards which are accepted:  Master Card, American Express, VISA, and Diners
Club.  A door slides down over the credit card, and locks.  Then the message
"Please wait" is displayed on the holder's one-line message window.  (The
display similar to the vending machines which display how much money you've
deposited in them.)

At this point the equipment attempts to make contact with a ground station, and
verify the credit card you've inserted.  If the connection is not made within
30 seconds, the message "System timeout" appears, and the credit card door
unlocks, sliding open to reveal your credit card.

After connection is established, a go-ahead message is displayed, and the
handset lock is released, allowing you to remove the handset and take it to
your seat, if you wish.

You then press the "DIAL TONE" button on the handset.  A computerized voice
says "Thank you for using Airfone.  Please wait for dial tone."  A few seconds
later, the tone sounds.  You dial your number (slowly, according to the
instructions), and your call is placed.

After your call is complete, press the "HANG UP" button on the handset to
terminate the call.  You can then make another, or return the handset to the
holder, which will unlock your credit card.

The cost of a call is $7.50 for the first 3 minutes, and $1.50 for each
additional minute.  The rates are the same, regardless of where you call.  Only
calls in the continental United States and Canada are permitted.

Sound quality was surprisingly good.  I was amazed at how well I could hear, and
at how well others could hear me.  The connection was no worse than any I've had
while on the ground.

It was fun to talk to someone in a plane; I did it for the novelty, more than
anything else; I predict most of its use will be for things like calling the
office for messages, or calling friends to let them know your ETA.

                    JENelson

Mon 7-Oct-1985 21:44 EDT

------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 8 Oct 85 00:11 EDT
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  Re: 1+ dialing and area codes

Note that there is a lot of equipment being sold that assumes that "1-"
can be used to indicate toll calls.  One extreme are what appear to be
toy pay phones that take quarters and only allow local calls.  In fact
some of these are actually used in small stores and restaurants.  Well,
at least I've seen one.

On a related topic, I am still awaiting the ability to use "1-617"
within 617.

------------------------------

From: vax135!petsd!peora![e-mail]
Date: Wednesday,  9 Oct 1985 08:00-EDT

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1+ usage
In-reply-to: USENET article <[e-mail]>

> Similarly, why is it that New England Telephone can now parse my
> dialing sufficiently to play me a tape when I need to dial a 1,
> but not infer into my dialing the 1 they insist I need?

Maybe so that dialing 1 first will denote a toll call?  I know that there
are locations where you don't have to dial 1 to make a toll call, but
personally I think it is a good idea... I'd rather have to explicitly
indicate my wish to pay extra for a call, rather than call some number I
think is local, and find later I have to pay for it (I recall a recent
incident with a UUCP site, in fact, where this was a problem: they thought
because there wasn't a 1 in front of the number that it was a local call,
and started using that connection, only to get a big bill at the end of
the month. (This was in NJ)).
--
Shyy-Anzr:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: Ofc:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
     Home:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer
  US Mail:  MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
        2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

------------------------------

From: vax135!petsd!peora![e-mail]
Date: Wednesday,  9 Oct 1985 08:10-EDT

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Description and Review of USR Courier 2400 bps modem
In-reply-to: USENET article <[e-mail]>

> No errors when using the Courier to dial out from MATH into the Sytek at
> 2400bps and then logging back into MATH again.  Many errors on MATH end
> during two of several 1200 bps calls into WATMATH ttyd0 (Gandalf/Cermetek
> SAM 212A modem).

I've seen a lot of reviews of this modem telling about 2400 baud performance,
but little about 1200 baud performance.  I am curious what people's exper-
ience is with it at 1200 baud, because I have been having some problems with
one: a site I call regularly recently switched to one of these USR 2400
baud modems; I call it with my old USR Password 1200 baud modem.  When he
switched to the new modem, I began getting an extremely high error rate
at 1200 baud, so high that it's almost impossible to use.  300 baud works
OK.  The errors consist of spurious characters of all types, not just
the usual braces and i's.

Now, this particular connection has one anomaly: the site I am calling is
in an area served by a small independent telephone company, whereas I am
in a Southern Bell area.  Thus there tends to be problems in interfacing
between the two anyway; but with his old 1200 baud modem, this led only
to very occasional spurious characters.  Now they occur in batches of 4 or
5 every 2-3 seconds.

My question is, do the 2400 baud USR modems have less tolerance for bad
(low amplitude) connections at 1200 baud than do ordinary 1200 baud modems?
My experience suggests that they might, at least when working in conjunction
with USR's Password modem.
--
Shyy-Anzr:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: Ofc:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
     Home:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer
  US Mail:  MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
        2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

------------------------------

From: vax135!petsd!peora![e-mail]
Date: Wednesday,  9 Oct 1985 08:20-EDT

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Speaker phone
In-reply-to: USENET article <12148874602.36.OAF.G.PELLER@MIT-OZ>

> If so, which wires are which, and would it be possible to hook these wires
> up directly to INPUT/OUTPUT jacks on a stereo?

No... don't connect them to a stereo... they have a fairly high DC potential
across them, which would be a problem if your stereo inputs are directly
coupled; and the "ring" signal, as well as transients when you pick up and
hang up the phone, are up to 300V P-P, which would damage your stereo.

I have seen some projects in various build-it-yourself books at bookstores;
in fact, I think I remember recently seeing one called "telephone projects
you can build".  Check in a bookstore, or in the book section of an
electronics store; they should have some projects you can use.

Alternately, you could build a stand-alone speaker phone using parts from
radio shack... one of their IC audio amplifiers, a small speaker, and
components to couple to the phone line (their 1200 ohm to 8 ohm transformer
is commonly used to do this)... but I'd recommend following a circuit in
a published book, to be safe, since telephone equipment employs a wide
range of voltages across the lines (oh... to answer your original question...
the red and green wires are the ones with the signal on them... the black
and yellow are usually used for powering lights in the phone, or for other
special purpose applications) which your circuit would have to be able
to deal with.
--
Shyy-Anzr:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: Ofc:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
     Home:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer
  US Mail:  MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
        2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 10:35:30 pdt
From: dual![e-mail] (Paul Wilcox-Baker)
Subject: Re: Southern-California Source of Inside-Wiring Supplies

>
>    Are there Southern-California sources of supplies for do-it-yourself
> inside wiring other than Los-Angeles Telephone Company on Westwood Boulevard?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> A. R. White

Try Graybar Electric, who are a large distributor of professional
telecommunication and electronic equipment.  Southern CA addresses are

Long Beach    [213] 432 2911
LA        [213] 265-7000
Irvine        [714] 546-8480
Hawthorne    [213] 973-6006
Anaheim        [714] 772-9010
San Diego    [714] 233-6101

This should give you something to go on.  This is being posted because
the stupid Mailer almost never works.

Paul Wilcox-Baker.

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 9 Oct 85 15:21:27 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  1+ dialing and area codes

But does 1603893 from Lawrence, MA get Salem, NH now?

Local service from Newark, Del. picks up 2 prefixes in 215 area in Pa.
(255 Kemblesville and 274 Landenberg).  1+ one of these Pa. prefixes
gets error recording (i.e. no 255 or 274 in Del., area 302).  274 was/is
"protected" anyway because it's local to Wilmington (where 302-478 in
Talleyville area did not require 1+ as a of a few years ago).
1215 + one of these Pa. prefixes should go thru, but probably has to go
thru more equipment.  0+ calls do require the area code.
FROM those 2 Pa. prefixes: 368 and 453 are Newark, Del.; 1368 is Lansdale,
Pa.; 1453 is Perkasie, Pa. (recent!). (The oldest Newark prefix is 302-
368, as I noted in this Digest very recently.)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 85 18:27 EDT
From: (Richard Kenner) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Additional feature in Merlin

Today we discovered an undocumented feature in the AT&T Merlin system which
makes a large difference in the usability of the system so I thought I'd pass
it on.

First an introduction to Merlin.  We have the 3070 Merlin system.  This means
that up to 30 lines and 70 instruments are supported.  Three types of
instruments are supported: 5, 10, and 34-button instruments (actually, there
are two types of 34-button instruments, but let's ignore this).  The idea is
that each button can either be used for a line or be programmed for a feature
(touchtone enable, privacy, "do not disturb", intercom and external autodial,
etc.).  However, 2 buttons are reserved for intercom ("intercom voice" and
"intercom ring") and in a pooled system (any system where ALL the lines don't
appear on ALL the phones) two more buttons are reserved for the pool lines even
if you don't have any lines in the pool (pool lines are roughly like outgoing
trunks).  Since in most uses, each instrument will also have one line assigned,
5-button phones have no programmable buttons.

This isn't all that bad because Merlin supports defining #01 through #22 as
outside autodial numbers.  So you can do your speed-dialing without using a
button (though you have to push 3 keys instead of 1).  However, there are
certain features you can't get without a button.  These include touchtone
enable (we have an ANCIENT PBX which uses pulse but the outgoing trunks support
tone), privacy, "do not disturb", and call coverage.

All of the above is (reasonably clearly) documented.  Now for what isn't.  It
turns out that #01 - #22 correspond to 22 of the added buttons between 10- and
34-button phones.  Reprogramming a button changes the #<code> and vice versa.
As mentioned in the manual, if a button is programmed to outside autodial, you
can change just the number and not the function by just going to program mode,
pushing the button, and entering the new outside number without having to use
the *<whatever> to set outside autodial.  Also, the default state of most
unprogrammed buttons is outside autodial.  This is the way the #<code> works.
You are really changing the outside autodial number of the (possibly phantom)
button.

In fact, you can program a #<code> to be ANYTHING, not just outside autodial.
For example, after putting the phone into program mode, you can enter     #20*76
After doing this, you can use #20 as touchtone enable.  As far as we can tell,
all programming is valid for these "buttons".  It isn't always too useful to
program them to something where a button with a light is really needed, like
call coverage.  However, it does have some use.  Suppose you program #10 to
cover intercom 14 (#10*414).  Since there is no button you won't see when 14 is
ringing or hear a ring.  However, in many cases, such as ours, we can hear that
a phone is ringing and just aren't sure which. You can go to intercom-ring and
enter *714 to try to pick it up.  In the example above, you can also use #10
without having to go to intercom-ring. Not exactly a huge savings, but it can
be a convenience to have some of these programmed.

If anyone knows of any other undocumented features of Merlin (maybe including
call forwarding?????), I'd like to hear about them.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************

-------
10-Oct-85 18:12:16-EDT,6231;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at 10-Oct-85 18:05:05
Date: 10 Oct 85 18:05-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #45
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Thursday, October 10, 1985 6:05PM
Volume 5, Issue 45

Today's Topics:

                                  ..
       MCI's recording on 10222+0+ telling you to dial 10288+0+
                     number identification number
         Re:  Any states requiring 1+ dialing for toll calls?
                           Airfone quality
                        1+ dialing, toll calls
                         Phila. LATA boundary

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed 9 Oct 85 22:39:58-EDT
From: "Adam Peller" <OAF.G.PELLER@MIT-OZ>
Subject: ..

Thanks for your help, just one thing...

I was wondering about the 3-4 wires running from the phone itself to the headset. I have a fully modular phone, and I could hook on to these wires... I assume that the signals are already processed by the time it gets to the headset, and I could somehow connect them to speakers & mics.

-- Adam Peller --

------------------------------

Date: 10-Oct-1985 0057
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: MCI's recording on 10222+0+ telling you to dial 10288+0+


>I think it's *hilarious* what MCI tells you if you want an operator:
>10222 + 0 + number yields "For operator assistance, please hang up and dial
>10288 plus the area code and number you are calling".  They don't yet do
>the go-to-switch-parse-authorization-code-complete-call thing...

This recording is there PRIMARILY for the people who have chosen MCI as
their primary carrier and are trying to make a collect, AT&T calling card,
or person to person call.  This person would have just dialed 0+, but would
have been switched to MCI because MCI is the primary carrier for the line.

MCI doesn't really seem to want to use the equal access trunks for anything
but equal access customers; they want the rest of their customers on the
other lines.

/john

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 07:13:39 edt
From: Brian Harvey <[e-mail]>
Subject: number identification number

The other week when the Telco person was out to install my MIT Centrex
line he dialed 200 225-1111 to get back a voice identification of my
number.  (There were two lines and he wanted to know which was which.)
What's with "200"?  Is this a universal new system for calling up CO
machinery?  Or is it MIT-specific or Cambridge-specific?  The last time
I was paying attention to such things, it used to be xxx-99xx.

I'm not a subscriber to the newsgroup so please reply directly.  Thanks
in advance...

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 10 Oct 85 7:57:40 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Any states requiring 1+ dialing for toll calls?

(I tried to reply to Ralph Hyre but could not get address acceptable
to electronic mail system.)
I see "cmu" in your system header, and assume that you are in Pittsburgh
or vicinity.  So there are some points there which still don't require
1+ on toll calls?  (I recall noticing lack of 1+ on pay phone when I
stopped at bus station in downtown Pittsburgh 2 years ago.)

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 10 Oct 85 7:40:39 EDT
From:     Robert Jesse <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Airfone quality

The few times I've used Airfone (not more recently than maybe four
months ago) I've been disappointed in its quality -- very poor S/N,
much like what we've come to expect from the worst long distance
connections.   Handset volume inadequate to compete with cabin noise
compounded the problem.

The technology is amusing, though, and would be useful if it were
better implemented.   My first Airfone call was to the cellular
jeep-phone of a friend en route to meet me at the airport....

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 10 Oct 1985 06:26:30-PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 1+ dialing, toll calls


Wouldn't it be nice if the phone company made you dial a prefix before
making any toll calls?  Maybe it would, but that's NOT what 1+ is
supposed to do.  It routes calls to a toll office, for further handling,
in areas that don't use the newer "blue book" rules.  In the latter
case, though, 1+ means "the next three digits are the area code".
This will come in VERY handy when they assign area code 260 (the
first one on the blue book list).  Until then, the 1+ won't be quite
as necessary in areas that don't have "interchangeable" prefices,
like 212-206-xxxx.

New Jersey never had 1+ at all until recently; now it's used on
area code calls.  You can dial from Piscataway to Park Ridge without
dialing 1+, though it's clear across the LATA.  This is exactly as
it should be.  The fact that some cheapo toll restriction hardware
and some PBXs make the invalid assumption that 1+ means "toll" is
no reason to expect the network to do the same.

And if you dial 1603893 from Lawrence, MA, you DON'T get Salem NH;
you get a recording.  Salem is "893", and the area code just confuses
matters.  New England Tel obviously doesn't go by the book here!
There are a few other places where NET's routing is confusing; for
example, there are several suburban (South) prefices near Boston that
are toll points from Lexington, but don't require 1+.  They are actually
routed via the local tandem the same as local calls, but the tariff
sez NET can charge a toll, and by golly, they will!
    Fred

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 10 Oct 85 13:44:57 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Phila. LATA boundary

The Wilmington (Del.) directory has a sketch of the Philadelphia LATA,
which includes all of Delaware and ALMOST all of the 215 area, Pa.
(I say ALMOST because I made a call from the Terre Hill exchange,
215-445, to Wilmington, Del. and it went on my phone bill as an INTER
LATA call.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
13-Oct-85 15:30:35-PDT,3102;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Sun 13 Oct 85 15:30:13-PDT
Date: 13 Oct 85 17:28-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #47
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Sunday, October 13, 1985 5:28PM
Volume 5, Issue 47

Today's Topics:

                      Re: 1+ dialing, toll calls
                          mexico earthquake
                 USR Courier 2400 bps modem for $389

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 85 15:15:18 pdt
From: dual![e-mail] (Paul Wilcox-Baker)
Subject: Re: 1+ dialing, toll calls

>
> Wouldn't it be nice if the phone company made you dial a prefix before
> making any toll calls?

No it wouldn't.  It would lead to the idiotic situation where you dial a
number a get a message telling you to redial it with a one in front.  Most
calls to numbers in one's own area code are not terribly expensive.  I can't
believe many people even care if a call is a toll call or local.  Perhaps
it could be an option on a per line basis along with a no 976 calls option.

Paul Wilcox-Baker.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 85 08:35 GMT
From: mkdt-ir @ KOREA-EMH
Subject: mexico earthquake


several weeks ago, someone asked for detailed info on damage to
telephone equipment in mexico city.  for your info, communications
week, 30 sep 85, pp 22-24 has a good article on the impact of the
earthquake on communications.

maj george rezac
seoul, korea

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1985  08:44 MDT
From: Keith Petersen <[e-mail]>
Subject: USR Courier 2400 bps modem for $389

Anyone interested in purchasing a US Robotics Courier 2400 bps modem
will want to check out the deal offered by Microcomputer Concepts.
Their price is $389 plus shipping.

Microcomputer Concepts
5291 Clark Circle
Westminster, CA  92683
Phone: [phone] (voice)
       714-896-0775 (modem RBBS 300-1200-2400 bps)

Contact: Gary Johnson

Disclaimer: I have no connection with Microcomputer Concepts except as
a satisfied customer (I bought a Courier 2400 two weeks ago.  It
arrived within a week of placing my phone COD order which was shipped
via regular UPS).

--Keith Petersen
Arpa:  [e-mail]
uucp:  ...!seismo!SIMTEL20.ARPA!W8SDZ
uucp:  ...!{decvax,unc,hao,cbosgd,seismo,aplvax,uci}!brl-bmd!w8sdz
uucp:  ...!{ihnp4!cbosgd,cmcl2!esquire}!brl-bmd!w8sdz

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 85 20:47:28 edt
From: Don Saklad <dws@mit-eddie>


Shouldn't CNA service be offered to all customers and tariffed?

Also, how does one go about accessing a database of tel numbers--have telephone
companies something available to all?

It's then a lot easier to look up numbers, addresses and names as anyone
can in business criss cross directories.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
13-Oct-85 15:35:24-PDT,8551;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Sun 13 Oct 85 15:34:45-PDT
Date: 11 Oct 85 19:05-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #46
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Friday, October 11, 1985 7:05PM
Volume 5, Issue 46

Today's Topics:

                       Administrivia - Archives
                       MIT Communications Forum

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1985  12:16 EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia - Archives

The TELECOM archives are back online! SRI-CSL's new address is
192.12.33.2, and they support the ANONYMOUS ftp convention (although
they request that TELECOM file transfers be done during off hours
(i.e. 6pm to 9am Weekdays and anytime on weekends, Pacific time)), use
any password.

The archives are sorted into individual volumes:

VOLUME-1.TXT
VOLUME-2.TXT
VOLUME-2A.TXT (continuation of Volume-2)
VOLUME-3.TXT
and
VOLUME-4.TXT
live in the <TELECOM> directory, as always.

<TELECOM>TELECOM.RECENT is the most recent volume of Digests, volume 5.

PS:<JSOL.TELECOM>TELECOM.RECENT on MIT-XX.ARPA has been DELETED
(although its contents are safely stored in <TELECOM>TELECOM.RECENT on
SRI-CSL).

If you are unable to FTP and still want access to the TELECOM archives,
please send mail to [e-mail].

Enjoy,
--JSol

------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 11 Oct 85 13:49 EDT
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  MIT Communications Forum

              Massachusetts Institute of Technology

                      Communications Forum





             Making Electronic Mail More Intelligent

                        October 31, 1985

                       Thomas Malone, MIT

          Kenneth Mayers, Digital Equipment Corporation



     Electronic messaging has become a familiar feature of the

office environment and a key element in office automation

strategy for many organizations.  As these systems spread, many

issues must be dealt with, such as accomodating evolving user

requirements, responding to rapid expansion, controlling junk

mail, and incorporating alternative technologies.  One of the

central challenges is how to enhance messaging features so that

users are not swamped by information overload.

     This forum will present the experience of Digital Equipment

Corporation, one of the pioneering users of electronic mail, and

will describe some recent innovative research at MIT which uses

artificial intelligence technology to improve the user's ability

to sort incoming messages by relevance and urgency and to route

outgoing communications to the most appropriate people within the

organizations.





            Electronic Media and the First Amendment

                        November 7, 1985



     While the First Amendment to the Constitution has been

interpreted to grant print publishers nearly unabridged freedom

of expression, electronic broadcast media have been regulated on

the grounds of "spectrum scarcity." Regulation of cable

television has been justified on a number of premises:  use of

public streets; "natural monopoly" characteristics; and its close

relationship to broadcasting.

     Recently, a number of important court decisions have

indicated that cable operators should be treated more like print

publishers than broadcasters for First Amendment purposes.  One

of these decisions struck down the "must carry" rule, which

required cable systems to carry all broadcast stations within a

certain radius.  This seminar will consider the impact of these

decisions on both the cable and broadcast industries and, in

particular, whether rapidly expanding channel capacity and new

delivery technologies undermine traditional justifications for

limiting First Amendment rights of the electronic media.





                  The Impact of the Divestiture

                        November 14, 1985

Lisa Rosenblum, New York Public Service Commission, Consumer Division

     Paul Levy, Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities

             Gayle Ruedi, AT&T Customer Services/MIT



     There has been more choice but also more confusion in the

telecommunications industry since the breakup of the 107 year-old

Bell System last year.  Both residential and business users are

faced with complex tradeoffs among products, services, and

prices -- in a market which is in constant technological flux.

State regulatory agencies have found their established practices

challenged by the changes climate and have had to reassess what

their role should be.  The divestiture has had a particularly

profound effect on AT&T, which has had to shed its monopoly

mindset and establish an image as a "new," competitive company,

while reassuring customers that it continues to offer state-of-

the-art technology and service.





                     Software Dissemination:

              First Sale and Shrink-Wrap Licensing

                        November 21, 1985

     David Waterman, Annenberg School of Communication, USC

              Robert Bigelow, Bigelow and Saltzberg

                  Robert McEwen, Boston College



     Home video technology seemed to promise motion picture

studios a new revenue stream from selling movies in the form of a

product that consumers would purchase and collect.  In practice,

the studios found themselves whipsawed by the "first sale"

doctrine:  If they marketed videocassettes as a product, copies

could be rented by retailers without paying royalties.

Alternatively, they could pursue a "rental only" strategy --

leasing copies to distributors and retailers, who could then only

rent to consumers, returning royalties for each rental.  The

middlemen resisted "rental only" plans and outright sale

prevailed.  The studios, in turn, asked Congress to modify the

law for audio-visual works.  They failed, but the law was amended

for sound recordings, which aborted the development of record

rental services.

     Although a bill to modify the first sale doctrine for

computer software was introduced in the Senate, software

producers have generally sought to characterize retail

transactions as licensing agreements.  But instead of having

dealers rent the software, the industry has relied on "shrink-

wrap licenses", which purport to create a lease upon the opening

of the package.

     Are shrink-wrap licenses enforceable?  Can they

effectively transform sales into leases and goods into services?

When should the first sale doctrine apply?  This seminar will

survey the law and then look at the economic and policy issues.





                   High-Definition Television

                        December 5, 1985

      Robert Hopkins, National Association of Broadcasters

                        Kerns Powers, RCA

                Edward Horowitz, Home Box Office



     The broadcast television system that has served America for

the past thirty years is undergoing revision at all levels.  New

technologies have been developed that equal or exceed the quality

of theatrical film, and the level of effort in research labs and

industry has raised the issue of a new standard that will allow

high quality world-wide program interchange.  One system,

designed by NHK in Japan, will have been proposed as a production

standard at the October meeting of the CCIR, and the CCIR

recommendations will be known by the date of this seminar.  The

speakers invited will discuss this standard and various other

approaches to high quality television.





                           4:00 - 6:00

               Bartos Theater for the Moving Image

                      The Wiesner Building

             (Center for Arts and Media Technology)

                   (Building E15 Lower Level)

                         20 Ames Street

              Massachusetts Institute of Technology

                    Cambridge, Massachusetts





           For further information call 617-253-3144.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************

-------
15-Oct-85 00:06:03-PDT,21401;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Tue 15 Oct 85 00:04:52-PDT
Date: 15 Oct 85 00:22-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #48
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Tuesday, October 15, 1985 12:22AM
Volume 5, Issue 48

Today's Topics:

                         Modem Survey Results
              Customer-owned Pay Telephone Service in NC
                                tones
                     Half-duplex European modems
                    "You must first dial a 1 ..."
                  info on racal vadic va212lc modem

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 85 16:49:04 GMT
From: "David C. Bennett" <decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp![e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Survey Results

I resently posted an inquiry about "inexpensive" modems, because we
wanted to purchase several.  These are the responses I received from
the inquiry.  I want to thank all the folks who responded.  It helped
us a great deal in making our selection.

Thanks,

    David C. Bennett
    SCI Systems, Inc.
    {decvax, akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dcb

=========================================================================
From: <decvax!hplabs!hpfcla!hpcnof!barrett>

I would strongly reccomend NOT getting a USR PASSWORD.  I have found
them to be so flakey that they are not real useful.  I would also
consider getting 2400 bps modems instead unless you are never planning
to use long-distance lines.  Many systems on the net are switching to
2400 bps so connectivity may not be a problem.  2400 bps modems are
available for as low as $400 if you look around.  In particular, I own
a USR Courier 2400 and it seems to work just fine.  The Hayes is a
nice one as well, but it usually costs about $650.

I would expect 1200 bps modems to get dirt cheap within the next year
or so as a result of one-chip modems and competition from the 2400's
and inventory of the 1200's.

Dave Barrett
Hewlett-Packard
Colorado Networks Operation
hplabs!hpcnof!barrett
--------

From: <decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!gwsd!man!jack>

Personal experiance with the anchor automation modems has been that
they are unreliable, extermely slow to connect ( often the modem at
the other end will timeout ) and cannot differentiate between a busy
signal and a no answer condition.  To be honost, after trying *many*
1200 baud modems for bulletin board and E-mail applications, the only
inexpensive (?) modem i can recommend is the Hayes.  This is one area
in which you seem to get exactly what you pay for.

                    James Carius
                    The Pacific Century Group
                    sdchem!man!jack
--------

From: mcnc!ulysses!t12tst!chip (Chip Rosenthal)

I've got a pair of USR 2400 modems, I'm pretty happy with.  I've been
using them for a lot of talking with another site about 120 miles
away.  They have worked very well when the other site uses USR 2400's.
However, when the other place had Hayes 2400 I couldn't get a 2400
baud connection.  I suspect the Hayes, but I don't have one in-house
to play with.

Complaints:

1)  the DIP switches are underneath.  Real pain when you have six modems
    stacked up in the bowels of a VAX like I do.  You can't see or set
    switches without pulling the whole fricking thing apart.

2)  the volume control is a slide control with a press-on knob.  i've
    knocked it off before.

3)  i can't figure out any reasonable way of dealing with a lot of them
    due to their packaging and those %*^$@$# power supply transformers
    all modem manufacturers seem to use.  about all i can see is that
    you stack them, dangle cords all over the place, and hope that you've
    got enought AC outlets for the transformers.

4)  One of our two modems arrived DOA.  Repair went OK.  Took about two
    weeks, which I suppose is reasonable, but I would have been much happier
    if the distributor appologized profusely and gave me a brand new one
    immediately.

In spite of all these things, I would have no qualms buying them
again.  This might suprise you, but the problem which irks me the most
is #3.  If I could find a good way of storing these turkeys it would
keep #1 and #2 from being intolerable.  I'm willing to chalk #4 up as
bad luck and catagorize it as reasonable response.

What is good about them is that they seem pretty noise tolerant, they
seem to establish connection and baud rate reliably.  It has two
commands I really like.  The ATX6 tells me what is going on with the
modem.  BUSY, RINGING, etc.  The answer I like best is VOICE.  That's
always good for a moment's panic.  (Especially when I'm doing my
dialing at 1:30am.)  Also it has a command to display the current
settings, which is obviously useful.  (It impressed me, but then again
I'm used to working with Hayes 1200's).

Is there a reason why you aren't considering Hayes 2400, besides cost?
Do you know something I don't?  (PS.  I wouldn't mind being forwarded
a copy any interesting messages you might receive.)
--

Chip Rosenthal, Intel/Santa Clara, [phone]
{intelca,idi,qubix,cbosgd}!t4test!chip
--------

From: <hplabs!tektronix!reed!omss>

We have been using the US Robotics 212A modem on a 24 hr a day basis
for over a year now with NO failures. We had 4 US Robotics PASSWORDs
that could not take the constant usage and gave up from 4 to 12 months
into their life.

I have not had any experience with the other three brands you
mentioned.

The only other brand that I have used is the Hayes Smartmodem which is
also holding up extremely well.

Hope that this helps a little,
                   Bill Edmark
                   (bse@omssw2)
--------

From: decvax!ukma!ukecc!edward

I HIGHLY recommend the Prometheus ProModem 1200.
---
Edward C. Bennett

UUCP: ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!edward

--------

From: <decvax!vax135!petsd!petfe!evan>

Well, we use 1200 baud modems.  We were less than satisfied with
Password modems, but it depends on the application.  We tried to use
them as both auto-dial and auto-answer modems, on a terminal server
network.  failed.  We use Hayes Smartmodems for this application and
use the Passwords as auto-answer only. We are happy with them in this
application.

Hayes are worth the extra money, we feel.

Good luck...
--Evan Marcus

{ucbvax|decvax}!vax135!petsd!petfe!evan
                         ...!pedsgd!pedsga!evan
--------

From: <hplabs!tektronix!upvax!mar>

I've never used any of the other modems you asked about but we've been
using US Robotics Passwords for over a year now, and they're
wonderful.  We have them answering on the VAX as well as at home for
faculty.

Mark Faust
--------

From: <ihnp4!islenet!richard>

I used the (boat) Anchor when it first came out, had all kinds of
problems with noise.  And it's number buffer is too small to make some
long distance calls, especially using alternate long distance
services.

A friend who also bought a boat Anchor, and had worse noise problems
than I did, has since purchased a Rixon which he just raves about.  I
forgot the model number.

Hope that helps some.


Richard Foulk        ...{dual,vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!richard
Honolulu, Hawaii    or ...!islenet!bigtuna!richard
--------

From: seismo!gumby!astroatc!vid (Dave Greunke)

We have been using 35 US Robotics Password modems here over the past
1.5 years with very good sucess. I have not used any of the other
modems mentioned in your article so I cannot offer any comparisons but
our experiences with the Password modems have all been positive.

        Dave Greunke
        Astronautics Technology Center
        Madison WI
        608-221-9001
        ...!uwvax!astroatc!vid
--------

From: seismo!topaz!pyramid!csg (Carl S. Gutekunst)

We have a number of employees who have the US Robotics at home and
swear by it.  Our site (pyramid) also has six of the UDS modems used
for dial in. I am not familiar with the other two.

For casual and home use, the US Robotics is a good choice; you should
also consider Ventel's Hayes compatible if you can get it at the right
price. Also Cermetec makes a number of nice cheap modems, although
their cheap ones are not Hayes compatible and their "Hayes Compatible"
doesn't work well with autodialing software. The UDS units seem to do
OK for us, although I thought they were expensive relative to their
quality and ease of use.

For any production/critical application, I'd recommend you blow the
wad and go with a Hayes. We have a bunch of them, and they are
consistently more dependable and provide more reliable communication
than any others we have used.

Carl S. Gutekunst, Software R&D, Pyramid Technology
P.O. Box 7295, Mountain View, CA 94039   415/965-7200
UUCP: {allegra,decwrl,nsc,shasta,sun,topaz!pyrnj}!pyramid!csg
ARPA: pyramid![e-mail]

--------

From: "Dr. Jack Carlyle" <seismo!LOCUS.UCLA.EDU!jwc>

I have used both the UDS 212LP (a manual unit, requiring a telephone
to dial, but having the advantage of being telco-line powered so no ac
wall plug is needed) and the Prometheus Promodem (autodial, and with a
wall transformer for power).  Both have performed well, under mostly
local phonecall conditions, from my home to our UCLA departmental
network of machines running Locus (distributed unix).  They have been
used with a Wyse 50 terminal, an Apple //e running Softerm 2 with
vt100 emulation, and a GT101.  The only instances of garbage
characters on the screen (occasionally), etc., seem to be attributable
to the inevitable telco line disturbances, and not especially to
idiosyncracies of these modems in particular.  If a plain-vanilla
modem is required, the UDS seems to be fine.  If autodial, Hayes
compatibility, etc., are desirable, the Prometheus is fine; its
command set is a superset of Hayes -- for instance, ATDnumber will
autodial the number using tone or pulse (without the need to specify,
as in ATDT), since the modem interrogates the line first to determine
if tone dialing is supported.  Basically, both modems have performed
transparently in no-hassle fashion and likewise offered no
configuration difficulties for initial installation.  I expect that
the same could be said of several others on the market, now that 1200
baud has become commonplace and 212A-type modems almost a mass
consumer item.  (Radio Shack has one now too.)  Some of my colleagues
have used the Password with no hassles, likewise the Popcom.  I have
also used the Apple 1200 baud model with no problems; this is reputed
to be manufactured by U. S. Robotics (so may be similar to the
Password).  These three autodial modems don't have sets of LEDs to
indicate status (the Prometheus does); a minor point, which might be
of significance in troubleshooting or analyzing the progress of
problem calls.  Some people have mentioned that the cable included
(possibly attached to?) the Password is too short, but again this is a
minor point, since cables and DB25s usually have to be obtained or
jury-rigged for most setups anyway.  So far as long-term reliability
is concerned, I can only report that I have been using the UDS for two
years and the Prometheus for more than one year, with no service
required yet on either one.  Prices have dropped dramatically, of
course; the Prometheus is less than $300 for quantity-one retail at
discounters, and manual types like the UDS 212LP are less; quantity
purchases should be negotiable downward, of course.  I have not done
too much with calling long-distance (e.g., remote BBs, etc.) using
these modems; primarily my use has been for local dialups, but the
connections have gone through more than one telco central office.

--------

From: decvax!sunybcs!loverso (John Robert LoVerso)

We have had for about 2 or more years now a bunch (>3) of Anchor
Automation Signalman Mark XIIs, being used for uucp and the like.
They emulate Hayes Smartmodems (300/1200) and do fairly well.  I've
never had line degradation that was the fault of the modem.  The only
problems I can list with them are that (1) they need some pauses
inbetween commands - the vanilla hayes dialer needed some `sleeps'
added before it would work, and (2) they wont drop carrier even when
you drop DTR.  This is bad if you are using them to dial in - the
caller must drop carrier.  This has not really annoyed us too much.
Nowadays they go for <$270 which is about half a hayes 300/1200.

    John
--------

From: <ihnp4!ihlpm!levine>

I currently use ,at work, a Rixon R212A Intelligent Modem and have had
no probelms what so ever with it. I would highly recommend it. It
allows you to program certain commands such that you can dial up a
computer and the modem will type in all the needed information to get
you logged in. I am not exactly sure of the price as I didn't pay for
it, so I don't know if it is a good buy for the money. For reliability
I highly recommend it.

--------

From: ihnp4!t!levy

Comments on VOLKSMODEM 12 (which I am currently using from home):

Usually pretty good about being error free on phone lines which have
little or no audible noise.  Susceptible to garbage characters from
interference like nearby fluorescent light being turned on.  Sometimes
goes into zombie mode at 1200 baud when being hung up on (no "NO
CARRIER", just carrier light goes out and you have to power-cycle to
continue--this seems to depend on the system being called, Unix will
not do this while VMS will).  Supposedly 5 year extended warranty.
Need special "volks-cable" (extra, about 10 bucks or so) to inter-
face with terminal; no RS232 connector.  The advertised "5 registers"
are not for phone number storage (except the last-command buffer,
which if the last command was dial such and such number, then would
store the number).  Other 4 registers are for things like echo on/off
state and status message format.  Supposed to be Hayes compatible,
which it seems to be except for that default echo state is on, not
off.

 -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
|         an engihacker @        |  ployer, my pets, my plants, my boss, or the
| at&t computer systems division |  s.a. of any computer upon which I may hack.
|        skokie, illinois        |
 --------------------------------
From: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
or: ..!ihnp4!iheds!ttbcad!levy
--------

From: decvax!ittatc!long (H. Morrow Long [Systems Center])

Why use inexpensize 1200 baud modems when you can now get inexpensize
2400(/1200/300) baud modems ($399) from US Robotics?

                    Morrow
--------

From: <seismo!philabs!ttidca!ttidcb!moss>

I have a Rixon R212a modem (not necessarily the one you mentioned).  I
would recommend it for use with a dumb terminal (i.e. VT100) since it
is very user friendly.

I do not recommend it for use with a computer since it can not take
commands (as opposed to data) at 1200 baud. It's Hayes compatibility
mode is a pain to use. It sometimes forgets its internal state. It
sometimes locks up and requires a power off/on to reset. And, finally,
I can't seem to keep it from doing an auto answer.

--------

From: <ihnp4!ihu1e!jee>

I have both a RIXON modem at work & a US PASSWORD mode at home.  I
prefer the PASSWORD overall because it is much more reliable.  The
RIXON although having more functionality has less reliable hardware.
It behaves very badly when there is a power drop or surge. It is very
sensitive to the slightest transient on the power line, which requires
it to be unplugged & plugged into the wall to get it back to a sane
state.  In some extreme states I have to short out pins 9 & 10 to get
it to properly initialize itself.  How often does such things happen?
Sometimes once a day, but usually not more often than once every
couple of weeks. Incidently I have used other modems at work in the
past without such problems as exhibited by the RIXON.

===========================================================================
===========================================================================
--
                David C. Bennett
                SCI Systems, Inc.
                {decvax, akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dcb

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 85 02:30:50 GMT
From: Henry Schaffer <decvax!mcnc!ecsvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Customer-owned Pay Telephone Service in NC

A bill was ratified by the North Carolina General Assembly on July 10,
1985 which amends Chapter 62 of the Public Utilities Law.  The General
Assembly authorized the Commission to adopt procedures for the
issuance of special certificates to persons offering telephone service
to the public by means of coin, coinless, or key-operated telephone
instruments.

In response to the action of the General Assembly, the Commission has
concluded that a general investigation should be held to consider
procedures for the issuance of special certificates and to determine
the appropriate terms, conditions and rates for customer-owned pay
telephone service and the terms, conditions, rates and charges for
interconnection to the local exchange network.

Quoted for a Notice of Hearing Docket no. P-100 Sub 84 before the NC
Utilities Commission (scheduled for Oct. 22, 1985 at 10 am.)

--henry schaffer  ncsu

------------------------------

From: vax135!petsd!peora![e-mail]
Date: Monday, 14 Oct 1985 08:46-EDT

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1+ dialing, toll calls
In-reply-to: USENET article <[e-mail]>

> The fact that some cheapo toll restriction hardware and some PBXs make the
> invalid assumption that 1+ means "toll" is no reason to expect the network
> to do the same.

However, the fact that customers unfamiliar with the "blue book" or other
such rules expect it to work that way is indeed sufficient reason to expect
the network to do the same.  In general it appears that "surprise toll
calls" are very unpopular, and in such cases the regulatory agencies seem
to have a high probability of stepping in and demanding that it work the
way the public has come to expect it to work.
--
Shyy-Anzr:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: Ofc:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
     Home:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer
  US Mail:  MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
        2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 14 Oct 85 08:29:11 PDT
From: Gary Kremen <[e-mail]>
Subject:        tones

Hello, I was wondering if any of you people out there in Netland had any
information about the tones that you sometimes get when you dial a wrong
number. For example, if you dial a number that is not in service or one
that is disconnected you get a series of three? tones and a synthetic
voice telling you what you have done wrong.

I was wondering:
1) Are these tones different for different types of messages?

2) Is there a code behind the tone sequence? If there is, what is the
code or where can if find a listing for it?

3) What is the official purpose of the tones? Can the be recognized by a
Touch Tone (tm) decoder?

Thanks in advance.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 85 10:48 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Half-duplex European modems

We've gotten a pair of Micom-Borer "Blackbox Datamodems", and are having
trouble getting them working on our phone lines.

We have one set up to auto-answer, and it does, but it goes on-hook on
the first character it receives from the other side. Is there some
difference between the European system and our phone system (Pacific
Telephone) that keeps them from working?

Any advice would be gratefully accepted.

Also, does anyone build a telephone line emulator that we could use to
eliminate the need for two of Ma Bell's lines?

Thanks,
Ian Halsema
Xerox Corp.

------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 14 Oct 85 13:39 MST
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  "You must first dial a 1 ..."

> Wouldn't it be nice if the phone company made you dial a prefix before
> making any toll calls?

That's the way it is here in Phoenix for inter-zone toll calls around the
metropolitan area - 1+ is mandatory. I'd hate to think how much my phone
bill would be if my teens, upon their return from summer camp, were not
made aware of which new friends lived a toll call away, especially when
some of those calls are measured in hours rather than in minutes. The
"you must first dial a 1" recording provides the needed awareness.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 85 02:10 GMT
From: meaders @ KOREA-EMH
Subject: info on racal vadic va212lc modem

r-v's va212lc owner's manual leaves much to be desired.  there is
no mention of the pinout arrangement of the rs-232 i/o.  i have been able
to determine that the following pins are used (or at least connected):
2,3,5,6,,7,8,9,10,20,22.  can anyone tell me which does what & to whom?
tks.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
18-Oct-85 10:05:13-PDT,3155;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Fri 18 Oct 85 10:01:49-PDT
Date: 16 Oct 85 22:05-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #50
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                     Wednesday, October 16, 1985 10:05PM
Volume 5, Issue 50

Today's Topics:

                              Re: tones
                      Special Information Tones
                            Modem buffers
                           Wiring question

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ihnp4!ihtnt![e-mail]
Date: 15 Oct 85 12:01:18 CDT (Tue)
Subject: Re: tones

Many of the tones at the beginning of recorded announcements were originally
put there for a product that the FCC did not let the Bell System
put into service - namely Voice Storage System.  It had an answering
capability, similar to answering machines, plus the more interesting
voice mail capability that allowed you to send a voice message at
a particular time.  It recognized the tones generated in announcements,
so that it would not deliver a message to an announcement.  The tones
are MF (Multi-Frequency, the type of signal that blue boxes used).
MF signals were designed for ease of generation and detection, as
Touchtone was designed for ease of listening.

John Haller

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 10:37:06 PDT
From: vortex![e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Special Information Tones

The set of three tones you hear on many recordings these days are
called "Special Information Tones."  They vary for different sorts
of situations (e.g. unassigned number, all circuits busy, etc.)
They use a variety of rather oddball tone frequencies that were
detailed in an issue of BSTJ some years back.

These tones can be used by automated line/trunk testing equipment to
determine the termination status of calls.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 16 Oct 85 20:37:40 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modem buffers

Hee hee!!  The modems that can't handle a string like 1077713014972027
[to call long distance via sprint...] are going to have to fix that real
soon now ... *provided* the other carriers can give good enough audio to
make modem connections possible!  Last time I was away from Rutgers trying
to dial home, I couldn't get anything to work 'cept good ole Grandma AT&T.

_H*

------------------------------

Subject: Wiring question
Date: 16 Oct 85 20:52:17 EDT (Wed)
From: [e-mail]

I have just purchased an antique phone that has no
circuitry other than wires leading to the microphone
and earpiece. Can anyone suggest some minimal wiring
that will smooth out the signal a bit? It is very
peaky. I know that there is some kind of variable
resistor in most phones that performs rudimentary
compression on the signal. Can anyone help out?
                -cliff

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
18-Oct-85 10:34:19-PDT,4350;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Fri 18 Oct 85 10:32:10-PDT
Date: 15 Oct 85 16:34-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #49
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Tuesday, October 15, 1985 4:34PM
Volume 5, Issue 49

Today's Topics:

             Daa Daa Daa... The number you have dialed...
                     areacode 260 a long way off
                  Re: "You must first dial a 1 ..."
                  us robotics courier 2400bps modem

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 85 01:18:59 edt
From: Michael A. Grant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Daa Daa Daa... The number you have dialed...

I once asked my bussiness office about those tones when I first started
hearing them.  I was told that there was quite a few different 3 tone
sequences, all going from low to high.  Something which hears those tones
is suposed to be able to distinguish what kind of error you got making
your call.  I've yet to see any modem de-cypher them though.  And what
I can't figure out is why there so &^%$#@! loud.
-MGrant

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 85 08:38:19 edt
From: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison![e-mail] (tom allebrandi)


Another interesting phone number: 1-700-555-4141. This one will tell you
which long distance service 1- gets you.

...............
tom allebrandi 2, general electric automation controls operation
UUCP: ...decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!ta2
box 8106, charlottesville, va, 22906
[phone]
...............

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 15 Oct 85 10:52:07 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  areacode 260 a long way off

Unused area codes I can think of now: 708,719,908,909,917.
(706 can be used for some Mexican points?)
This excludes N10 and N11 codes.  Also, I have seen 260 mentioned
in "blue book" (via this Digest, as I am not sure what "blue book"
is, let alone seen it) as NNX area code when that becomes necessary.
Presently, 1260xxxx within Maryland (and beyond Severna Park calling
area) is a call to the 260 exchange there (could be Annapolis at
Severna Park rate), so area 260 would require changes in dialing if
the system is to remain free of timeout for direct-dial calls.

------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 15 Oct 85 01:40 EDT
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  Re: "You must first dial a 1 ..."

Isn't the right answer having billing information available online.
There should simply be a protocol for my home phone system to ask the CO
what the charge for a given call will be (i.e., the rate) and what the
actual call costs.  One can then restrict a given instrument in a house
and limit its total spending or the rate or a combination.  Of course
there are issues of invasion of privacy but that is already true with
listings of toll calls.

The technology is here to design a protocol and start propogating the
implementation internationally.  Silly things like using 1+ to indicate
a toll call are pretty meaningless since that doesn't solve problems
with measured service or the multitude of other complexities.

In fact, there are many many services possible if we simply assume that
my home pbx is as smart as the telco CO.  In fact, it will soon be much
smarter since it can apply all of its limited intelligence to just my
phone usage and act on my behalf.

There is no fantasy here except maybe believing it possible for telco's
to actual be willing to consider a protocoled interface to the premises
system.  Last I heard, they woudn't even provide DTMF for DID (i.e,
Direct Inward Dialing used slow pulses to specify the extension number).

Anyone out there want to start a new phone network?

------------------------------

Date: 15 Oct 85 13:36 GMT
From: meaders @ KOREA-EMH
Subject: us robotics courier 2400bps modem

ref: telecom digest vol 5, issue 47, keith peterson.
anybody pass on good/bad words on this usr modem?  notice a lot of
info on the usr password, but not much on the courier.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
18-Oct-85 10:34:53-PDT,5989;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Fri 18 Oct 85 10:33:01-PDT
Date: 17 Oct 85 17:19-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #51
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Thursday, October 17, 1985 5:19PM
Volume 5, Issue 51

Today's Topics:

                  Re: "You must first dial a 1 ..."
                      Special Information Tones
                  Local CO's, billing, DTMF for DID
                     Future network dialing plans

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 85 22:35:56 EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>

I have a Tone Hold circuit (press * and it holds when you hang up
until someone picks up on the line). I need two more of them.
If anyone can furnish me with an address and/or phone number of
a place that carries them, please do.

Thanks,
--JSol

------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 17 Oct 85 00:24 EDT
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  Re: "You must first dial a 1 ..."

Isn't the right answer having billing information available online.
There should simply be a protocol for my home phone system to ask the CO
what the charge for a given call will be (i.e., the rate) and what the
actual call costs.  One can then restrict a given instrument in a house
and limit its total spending or the rate or a combination.  Of course
there are issues of invasion of privacy but that is already true with
listings of toll calls.

The technology is here to design a protocol and start propogating the
implementation internationally.  Silly things like using 1+ to indicate
a toll call are pretty meaningless since that doesn't solve problems
with measured service or the multitude of other complexities.

In fact, there are many many services possible if we simply assume that
my home pbx is as smart as the telco CO.  In fact, it will soon be much
smarter since it can apply all of its limited intelligence to just my
phone usage and act on my behalf.

There is no fantasy here except maybe believing it possible for telco's
to actual be willing to consider a protocoled interface to the premises
system.  Last I heard, they woudn't even provide DTMF for DID (i.e,
Direct Inward Dialing used slow pulses to specify the extension number).

Anyone out there want to start a new phone network?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 00:42:19 PDT
From: vortex![e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Special Information Tones

I hate to contradict someone at an AT&T site, but the SIT's are
NOT MF (blue box) tones.  They are a bunch of odd frequencies
that are unrelated to both MF and DTMF (touch tone).  I remember
noticing that they were a set of really "strange" frequencies
when I read the original BSTJ article regarding them.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 85 11:22:15 EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>

I just heard that South Central Bell is the first LOC to offer
"Usage sensitive 3-way calling". Their charge is $1.00/use for
residence and $2.00/use for business...


Awaiting home PBX service...

--JSol

------------------------------

Date: 17-Oct-1985 1126
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: Local CO's, billing, DTMF for DID


Since the Local C.O. doesn't have anything to do with billing in the
new broken up network, your suggestion would have to be implemented
by the LD carriers.  If I had a choice of carriers that provided such
a service vs. those that didn't, that would be another factor in the
decision of which carrier to choose, along with reliability and price.

DTMF DID is available from many central offices.  It does require
extra hardware, so it won't get installed unless it is a clear win
for the Telco.

/john

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 17 Oct 1985 10:18:32-PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Future network dialing plans


The "blue book" (Notes on the Network, AT&T 1980) lists 260 as the
first "interchangeable" area code, and 480 is second.  NET has used
480 in Marlboro, Mass. for years, so they're not worried.  The
rule is very simple, really -- area codes all begin with a 1 and
intra-area calls don't.  Toll or no toll.  Go to Brooklyn and try
it out (or LA).

The CO doesn't really know what calls cost.  All they do is record
the dialed number; a computer in the Revenue Accounting Office does
the real work.  It's not quite so simple as it sounds; while 99.9%
of calls are easy to bill, there are very tricky rules surrounding
calls to Mexico, toll stations, intrastate rates, etc., which keep
programmers busy.  In Europe, where pulse metering is the rule, it's
simple to know the rate if you just count the pulses as they come in.
But you don't get detailed billing; you just "trust" the PTT to bill
you correctly.

There _IS_ a "new" telephone network coming, if that's how you view
ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network).  ISDN will offer digital
connectivity using out-of-band packet signalling (i.e., CCIS-like).
While there are still a number of details to be resolved before the
world standardizes it (this time, they don't want to have to merge
separate networks built before standardization), the working definitions
do provide for useful features like true answer supervision, caller
choice of service when the call is made (i.e., digitized voice, data,
whatever) and calling number ID.  Expect early ISDN deployment late
this decade, with pilots (not using the still-undefined standards)
underway soon.

I'm sure TELECOM DIGEST will have plenty on ISDN in the future...

Fred (@ISDN Program Office, DEC Tewksbury)

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
18-Oct-85 16:02:05-PDT,8000;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Fri 18 Oct 85 16:01:31-PDT
Date: 18 Oct 85 17:43-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #52
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Friday, October 18, 1985 5:43PM
Volume 5, Issue 52

Today's Topics:

                      Mexico "NPA's" on V&H tape
                             "Blue Books"
                Re:  Local CO's, billing, DTMF for DID
        The Local Operating Company as a Long Distance Carrier
                        Dear Mr. Phone company
                              Re: Tones

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 17 Oct 85 16:15:34 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Mexico "NPA's" on V&H tape

I have continued reading area codes, prefixes, and place names
from a 1982 edition of V&H tape, and have now reached the end
of area 519.  Next are Mexican points with 6-digit NPA-NXX
combination starting with "52", the country code appearing in
your international-dialing page(s).  Such use of 52x is not an
area code in the usual sense of the word.  How many digits do these
Mexican numbers have after the "NPA-NXX" combination on the tape?

(Area code 706 is used for some points in northwestern Mexico,
such as Tijuana.)

------------------------------

Date: Thu 17 Oct 85 19:06-EDT
From: Ted Quester <DPH.QUASAR@MIT-OZ>
Subject: "Blue Books"

Can these be bought? Seems like they have alot of good technical info.
Ted Quester

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 17 Oct 85 18:22:43 EDT
From:     Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Local CO's, billing, DTMF for DID

Actually the local C.O. never have anything to do with the the billing,
however the LOCAL OPERATING COMPANY does as opposed to the LONG DISTANCE
carriers as you suggest.  There are such things as INTRA-LATA TOLL CALLS.

-Ron

------------------------------

Date: 18-Oct-1985 0814
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: The Local Operating Company as a Long Distance Carrier


In my message where I stated that providing on-line rate inquiry was not a
feature for the local C.O., but for the Long Distance Company, I included
the local operating company as one of many long distance carriers.

With the broken up network, most of us are faced with getting our LD service
from more than one carrier.

Depending on the state, intra-LATA calls may be provided by the local company
or other carriers.  The only restriction on the intra/inter-LATA situation
placed by Judge Green was that Baby Bells could not carry inter-LATA traffic.
If a state PUC decides to permit other carriers to operate within a LATA,
that's perfectly legal.  Colorado is an example where there is intra-LATA
competition.

/john

------------------------------

Date: Thu 17 Oct 85 22:57:15-EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dear Mr. Phone company


Dear sir,

    I am writing in reference to my hunting service. Hunting is
defined to be a service whereby calls to a busy number are routed to
a different number. Alot of businesses have hunting. Some residences
have hunting. I would like to be one of those residences which has
hunting.

    I called your business office and scheduled a date for my
two lines (+hunting) to be installed. You thoughtfully gave me
the numbers of those lines, and happily committed to installing them
on a date. Unfortunately, for me, that date had to be postponed
because of a hurricane. Oh well, I guess I can understand acts of god.

    Finally the day came when the installation was to happen. I
took a day off of work to make sure the installers could access my
basement, and so I could tell them where I wanted the network interface.
All proceeded well (incidentally, I also had cable TV installed on the
same day to save time). Finally the installation completed. I decided
to check my hunting service. Unfortunately for me, the hunting service
didn't work. I asked the installer about it. He checked his order, sure
enough, the two lines were supposed to hunt. He called his foreman,
and said that the hunting would be turned on shortly after the installer
left.

    A day later, hunting *still* didn't work. I phoned your repair
service, explaining it. They apologized profusely and committed to
reparing it "by 6pm tomorrow". I thanked them and was temporarily happy
that someone was looking into it.

    Two days later I called repair service again, and they took yet
another order, committed to "6pm tomorrow" again, and hung up. Two more
days passed. Still no hunting. I decided to try the business office again.
I wanted to speak with the representative who wrote the order. I was
immediately diverted to someone who had no knowledge of the order. I spoke
with them briefly. They explained that since their order showed that
the lines were installed and the installation had been completed, that
my problem was with "our repair department". They offered to give me
the number (silly them, they don't realize they are talking to someone
who still remembers the phone numbers of himself and all of his relatives
when he was 7 years old). I told them it wasn't necessary.

    I called back repair service over and over again for three
weeks. Each time I got the usual committment "6pm tomorrow", until
finally, one of them actually decided to help. She called the foreman
and was told that the install order did not appear to have hunting on it.
She said that she was sure I was supposed to have it, and would see to
the correction personally. I was amused.

    That brings us to tonight. After speaking to three supervisors
and who knows how many repair clerks, I finally get told by a supervisor
that according to the foreman I was not scheduled for hunting service.
Further, she explained that I should use the "correct" terminology (i.e.
it wasn't on the T order, whatever that means). I said I would call the
business office.

    One of the other supervisors I spoke with said she found the
hunting service on the line record for my numbers, so since it was there,
some paperwork had obviously been crossed. She indicated that I didn't need
to call the business office, and also gave me the number of the "Executive
Complaint" department at New England Telephone. This time I got names.
The forman's name, the names of the two supervisors at repair that
I spoke with and the name of the representative who originally wrote
the order in the Business Office.

    Armed with this information, I am faced with the decision
of trying to get repair service to fix my line "by 6pm tomorrow",
or calling Executive Complaint and quite possibly being forgotten
there too.

    Who knows, someday I might even *get* my hunting service...

            Having fun,
                --JSol

------------------------------

Date: 15 Oct 1985 19:48-PDT
Subject: Re: Tones
From: [e-mail]

  In reply to Kremen@Aerospace's questions about the three tones
heard on the beginning of intercept recordings;




1) Are these tones different for different types of messages?

2) Is there a code behind the tone sequence? If there is, what is the
code or where can if find a listing for it?

3) What is the official purpose of the tones? Can the be recognized by a
Touch Tone (tm) ?



  1>  No, the three tones you hear are the same for all recorded
announcement messages.

  2>  No and no.

  3>  The official purpose of the tones is to allow the Service Evaluation
System's ( a system that measures network performance ) call classification
terminal to interpret the sound into a "call intercepted" message.



ssr

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
20-Oct-85 21:36:56-PDT,8745;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Sun 20 Oct 85 21:36:26-PDT
Date: 20 Oct 85 23:33-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #53
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Sunday, October 20, 1985 11:33PM
Volume 5, Issue 53

Today's Topics:

                 S.I.T.s (Special Information Tones)
                             cheap modems
                             call hunting
          Racal-Vadic VA4224 (2400 bps) modems (info wanted)
                     Daa daa daa - the number...
                        Dear Mr. Phone company
                        Active line indicator

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18-Oct-1985 2220
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: S.I.T.s (Special Information Tones)


The first two tones can vary, but the last tone is always the same.
This provides a binary encoding indicating four different meanings.

    Tone 1        Tone 2        Tone 3
  Low:     913.8 Hz    1370.6 Hz
  High:    985.2 Hz    1428.5 Hz    1776.7 Hz

Low tone is always 274 ms, High is 380 ms

Category: Reorder    Low  High
      Vacant Code    High Low
      No Circuits    High High
      Intercept    Low  Low

/john

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 15 October 1985  11:59-MDT
From: Mark Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject:   cheap modems

>Does  anyone  have any  information  on the  'cheap'  1200  baud  modems
>advertised  in BYTE or the  company  that sells them?  The ad is on page
>473 of the  Sept.  BYTE (and is also in the Oct.  issue).  It shows as a
>103/212 modem and claims Hayes  Compatability (the Sept issue says Hayes
>Compatable  and the Oct issue  says 99% Hayes  Compatable).  The  prices
>they show are $179  assembled,  $140 kit  (assembled PC board - 5 minute
>assembly  time), and $120 kit  (solder  it  yourself).  The  company  is
>Concord Technology out of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

>It seems like a good deal, but my mother  always had a saying about good
>deals.

THIS DEAL IS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE!!!!

I have delt with the company directly.  Over two months ago I was in
Vancover BC and decided to check out the company.  The manager (I
think) said that if I paid now, I would have a modem sent to me within
10 to 14 days.  I paid cash (I know what a sucker).  Well, two weeks
later, no modem.  I called them up, and I was told they would be in by
Friday and I would get it in one more week.  A week and a half went
by, I called them up again and got the same story.  This went on for
another three weeks.  After five weeks waiting and calling, I called
again.  I told the manager (I think) that he should send out a notice
after 30 days telling customers of the delay.  I asked him if I would
ever get my modem or if this would go on and on.  He got very angry at
this and said (and I quote) "WE DON'T NEED CUSTOMERS LIKE YOU".  I'm
not sure what he meant, but I think he meant, 'customers that expect
satisfaction and product for the money they (we) have spent'.  I have
since called twice asking for my money back, all I can get from them
is, and I quote "OH I THOUGHT SOMEONE SENT IT LAST WEEK.  I WILL SEND
IT TODAY".  You know the old saying "THE CHECK IS IN THE MAIL".

In my opinion, this would be a very poor company -->   CONCORD TECHNOLOGY LTD.
in which to spend your hard earned money!!!            47 W. Broadway
                               Vancover BC Canada

By the way, they have been advertising that 300/1200 baud modem for 3
months in Byte, and as a week ago have not shipped modems.

The comments that I have made are of my own and do not reflect that of
my employer.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 85 11:47:04 edt
From: David M. Siegel <dms@mit-hermes>
Subject: call hunting

Funny that you had problems getting call hunting going... I just want
through the same experience myself. I asked for another phone line to
be installed, with hunting going from my original number to the new
number. New England Telephone put in the new line fast enough, but
no call hunting. They told me it would turn on by 6pm the next day.
After a week of telephone calls to the business office, they finally
figured out that I'm on a crossbar switch, not an ESS, and that the
new number can only be 500 digits apart from the old number for
hunting to work. I had told them from the start that I wanted hunting
between the two lines, so I wonder why they didn't give me a number
that would work? Anyway, they changed the new number to something
closer to the original number, and told me hunting would be on by 6pm
the next day. Still no luck. After that, the business office told me
that it was no longer their problem, and I should call the repair
center. Well, to make a long story short, I called the repair center
twice a day for 2 weeks before they turned that damn hunting on. The
repair center blamed the delays on: hurrican Gloria, the Bell system
breakup, the business office, the Sept college telephone service
request crunch...

Oh well, at least I have hunting now.

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 15 October 1985  14:20-MDT
From: "William P. Malloy" <decvax!ittatc!ittral![e-mail]>
Subject:   Racal-Vadic VA4224 (2400 bps) modems (info wanted)

Does anyone out there have Racal Vadic VA 4224 modems installed and
running?  We currently have 3 3481's modems (actually 6, but only 3
phone lines).  Our major USENET connection `ittatc' in CT has USR
Robotics 2400's.  However we'd like to stick to our rack mounts, thus
the 4224's.  Those of you with a bunch of normal modems stacked on top
of each other, can probably appreciate why we wish to stick with our
modem rack.  (easier to use, especially for debugging) It turned out
extremely useful while getting 4.2 to talk to our modems.  The
distributed Racal-Vadic code for 4.2 just plain doesn't work.

The 4224's are rack-mounted fitting in the Racal-Vadic modem rack
along with our VA3481 (triple VA 3400, 212, 103) modems and VA831
auto-dailer.  I would particularly like to know if someone knows if
the infamous "Rockwell chip set" problem has been fixed.  I'd also
like to know how easy they are to install if someone else has already
done it.  In particular the 4224 comes WITH an auto-dailer built-in.
Can we just ignore it and use the VA831?  If not, does anyone know how
to auto-dial them?  I.e. are they compatible with anything?

I'll send a summary of replies (if any) to anyone who's interested.
Also if we actually get to buy these modems, I'll let you know how the
installation goes.

=William P. Malloy

p.s. Interesting point.  These suckers talk (2400/1200/300) but the
protocols supported are (V.22/212/103).  Note: Vadic 3400 protocol is
not supported!

-- Address: William P. Malloy, ITT Telecom, B & CC Engineering Group,
Raleigh NC
         {ihnp4!mcnc, burl, ncsu, decvax!ittvax}!ittral!malloy

------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 20 Oct 85 2:04:04 EDT
From:     Joe Pistritto <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Daa daa daa - the number...

    The three tone burst at the beginning of phone intercept
announcements appears to be international, by the way.  I recently dialed
a wrong number in Basel Switzerland (from the US), and got the three tone
burst associated with 'the number you have dialed is not in service, please
check the number and dial again', except that the announcement was in
German (!).  I recognized the tones however, and realized what had
happened.  I have only heard one set of tones however, does anyone know
what the different sequences mean?

                            -JCP-

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 85 07:30:45 EDT
From: "Stephen C. Hill" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Dear Mr. Phone company

It will be interesting to see if you get billed for this 'service'.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 18 Oct 85 23:57:46-PDT
From: Ole Jorgen Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Active line indicator


I'd like to build a simple circuit that will turn on an LED
when a phone line is active. The circuit should be powered
by the telco line, withstand ringing voltage and preferably
be small enough so as to be mounted behind the RJ11 modular
faceplate. The idea is to be able to see that a phone line
is in use without picking up another instrument to listen
(and cause havoc to a modem/computer). Any smart hardware
hackers out there?

<OLE>
<370>

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
22-Oct-85 16:21:16-PDT,16227;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Tue 22 Oct 85 16:20:06-PDT
Date: 22 Oct 85 17:34-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #54
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Tuesday, October 22, 1985 5:34PM
Volume 5, Issue 54

Today's Topics:

                      Re: Dear Mr. Phone Company
            "You must have a long distance..." and others
                       Voicemail info follow-up
                         Vadic 3400 protocol
                        May 1985 DC call-guide
                        active-line indicator

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 85 09:04:32 EDT
From: Louis Steinberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dear Mr. Phone Company

Have you tried sending a letter to your state Public Utilities
Commission (or whatever it is called in your state)?  With a copy,
of course to your phone company.  I was getting a royal runaround from
my power company for months, and finally sent a letter to the PUC with
a copy to the utility.  I got a letter from the utility almost
by return mail, "thanking" me for my letter (!) and things got straightened
out within days.

[I threatened to do so because after they connected my hunting service
finally, they forgot to connect the line to my pair so calls going
to me were falling on the floor. They fixed that in 2 hours, but
only because I had gotten the name of the supervisor I had spoken to
and threatened to call the PUC and the phone companies Executive
Complaint office (which I think is more effective in this case),
if it wasn't fixed in reasonable time (i.e. not 4 days like they
told me I would have to wait). --JSol]

------------------------------

Date: Mon 21 Oct 85 11:53:04-PDT
From: Evan Kirshenbaum <[e-mail]>
Subject: "You must have a long distance..." and others

Out of curiousity, if you don't have a default long distance carrier
(a story in itself), why does it take two rings to aprise you of this
fact (i.e., before you get that obnoxious message)?  This even happens
if you dial a number which is busy (like the one you're calling from).

Evan Kirshenbaum
ARPA: evan@SU-CSLI
UUCP: {ucbvax|decvax}!decwrl!glacier!evan

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 21 Oct 1985 13:56:28-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Martin Minow, DECtalk Engineering ML3-1/U47 223-9922)
Subject: Voicemail info follow-up

<<moderator: please don't reformat the following>>

Notes on early voice processing systems.


                               Disclaimer

        Patent 4,371,752, filed Nov.  26, 1979, issued Feb.   1,
        1983,  (the  VMX  patent)  claims  to  cover  voice-mail
        systems.  The reader should not assume that  information
        in this note disputes those claims.

There are two main early research efforts in the voice-processing field:
the Arpa real-time voice project and the IBM Voice Filing System.  There
are also a number of smaller efforts.



1  THE ARPA REAL-TIME VOICE PROJECT

The ARPAnet is a digital packet-switched network that connects a number
of computers doing government (Defense Department) sponsored work.

In a report "Evolution of the ARPAnet", published in 1981 by E.  J.
Feinler of SRI, The network voice protocol is described as follows:

    "The Network Voice Protocol (NVP) was implemented in 1973 and has
    been in use since then for realtime voice communication over the
    ARPANET [Cohen, D.  Specifications for the Network Voice Protocol
    (NVP), RFC 741, NIC 42444, Nov.  22, 1977, pp 43-88 IN:  ARPANET
    Protocol Handbook, NIC 7104, Network Information Center, SRI
    International, Menlo Park CA, rev.  Jan 1978.].  The protocol was
    developed by a group headed by the University of Southern
    California, Informatin Sciences Institute (ISI), as part of ARPA's
    Network Secure Communications (NSC) project.  The goal of this
    project was to demonstrate a digital, high-quality, low-bandwidth,
    secure voice handling capability across the ARPANET.  The protocol
    has been used successfully for experiments between ISI, BBN, SRI,
    MIT'S Lincoln Laboratory (MIT-LL), Culler-Harrison, Incl, and the
    Speech Communications Research Lab, Inc."

Packetized voice was first tranmitted in 1974 with point-to-point
connections, and in 1975 with conference connections.  A prototype voice
message system was implemented at ISI in 1978.  This was integrated into
the user's work environment, rather than "just" a computer-based
answering machine.  I do not know whether the ISI voice message system
was integrated into the public telephone network.

The ARPA voice project is discussed in two papers:

    Cohen, D., "A voice message system," in R.  P.  Uhlig (ed.),
    Computer Message Systems, pp.  17-27, North-Holland, 1981.

    Gold, Bernard (invited paper), "Digital Speech Networks", Proc.
    IEEE Vol.  65, No.  12, Dec.  1977.




2  THE IBM VOICE FILING SYSTEM

(These notes are from a collegue's trip-report, dated Sep.  12, 1978).

At COMPCON 78 (September, 1978), Steve Boise, Manager of the Voice
Filing System project at IBM, Yorktown Heights, gave a presentation.
There are six people on the project.  it was started five years ago
(i.e.  in 1973).  Three of them are psychologists, three computer types.
They considered this the first step toward an integrated office
information system.  The project is aimed toward providing direct
support to office principals (i.e., not secretaries or other support
people).  (Note:  the COMPCON proceedings do not appear to have an
abstract or paper on the IBM system.)

Boise's project is an audio correspondence system.  "Correspondence"
refers to non-interactive communications, those not requiring people to
get together at the same time.

IBM has had a system in use, at an experimental level, for 2 1/2 years
(i.e., since 1976).  it uses a System 7 for real-time control, and a
370/168 as a time-shared host.  The main purpose of the 168 is for mass
storage.  They use 2 hours of CPU time per month.  There is 1 Mbyte of
"on line" storage, and 800 Mbytes in "MSS" (archival storage?).  Users
access the system by dialing in from any touch-tone phone.

Boise gave a demo of the actual system.  All control for the system is
by touch-tone.  Audio input is used only for message content.  The user
can originate messages, transmit them (using touch-tone keys to specify
addresses), listen to his own mail, and several other functions.

The system automatically eliminates any long pauses from messages.  This
has had the unanticipated benifit of practically eliminating "mike
fright".  Users don't have to worry about pausing when deciding what to
say.  The system also uses some other tricks to speed up playback
without altering voice quality.  Typically, 50 wpm recording becomes 150
wpm on playback.  Another unintended result is that recordings sound
much more as if the person knows what he is talking about.

You can record a message, and specify it to be delivered at some future
time.  The computer will call up the addressee and tell him about the
message.  It can try several different numbers, and will call back later
if no answer.  If you go away, you can leave a forwarding number.

Users can file mail if they desire.  Retrieval can be by originator,
dates, and classification -- all under touch-tone control.  Messages are
automatically erased from the mailbox after two weeks, if they have been
read at least once.  Users like this feature as it frees them from
having to worry about disposing of old mail.

File protection concepts are built in.  Every message has an owner.
Several levels of access are possible:  read-only, read and forward,
read, append, and forward.

There are also several "classifications":  unclassified, personal, and
confidential.

You can check if someone has read the mail you sent him.  Other status
information is also available, such as whether he has logged in today,
etc.  You can also record a message to be read to anyone who asks about
you.  So, for example, if you are out of town for a week, you can leave
a message saying so.

The system provides extensive editing facilities which are mostly unused
as the users think they are too complex.

The system is heavily instrumented.  The implementors know which
features are used, and how much.  They know every command that has been
given on the system (but not message content).

The real issue is building a good "principal interface".  You must make
the entry cost to the principal very low.  The system uses lots of
(audio) prompting an dmultiple-choice responses.

To start using the system, there are only seven touch-tone commands to
learn.  Commands use the touch-tone letters as mnemonics, e.g., *R means
"record".  There is a "help" facility.  The " " key, followed by any
other key tells what that key will do.

References for the IBM system include the following:

    Gould, J.  D., and Boies, S.  J.  "Speech filing -- an office system
    for Principals." IBM Systems Journal, Vol 23, No.  1, 1984.  pp.
    65-81.  (Also IBM Res.  REp.  RC-9769, Dec.  1982).

    Gould, J.  D., and Boies, S.  J.  "Human factors challenges in
    creating a principal support office system -- The Speech Filing
    System Approach." ACM Trans.  on Office Info.  Systems, Vol.  1, No.
    4, October 1983, pp.  273-298.

The following were referenced by the above papers.  I haven't seen them
at this time.

    Boies, S.  J.  "A computer based audio communication system," AIIIE
    Conference on Automating Business Communications, (January 23-25,
    1978), pp.  369-372.  (Paper can be obtained from Management
    Education Corporation (MEC), Box 3727, Santa Monica, CA 90403.)

    Zeheb, D.  and Boies, S.  J.  "Speech filing migration system," in
    H.  Inose (Editor), Proceedings of the International Conference of
    Computer Communication (September 1978), pp.  571-574.

    IBM Audio Distribution System Subscriber's Guide, SC34-0400-1, IBM
    Corporation, 4111 Northside Parkway N.W., Box 2150, Atlanta, GA
    30056; also available from IBM branch offices.




3  OTHER WORK (NOT NECESSARILY VOICE-MAIL)

A number of companies produced systems for audio-response applications
where a customer could retreive information stored on a computer by
using a Touch-tone (tm) telephone.  Survey articles were published in
Datamation (1969) and by Datapro (September 1976).  These systems used
prerecorded human speech to produce messages with limited content.  The
misdial message "the number you have dialed, 555-1212, is not in
service..." is produced by a similar system.

Delphi Communications (part of Exxon information systems) was founded to
do voice messaging.

Computalker Consultants (Santa Monica, CA) developed hardware for speech
synthesis (connected to microcomputers using the S100 bus architecture).
The Computalker CT1) could not be directly connected to the public
telephone network.

    Rice, D.  L.  "Friends, humans, and countryrobots:  lend me your
    ears", Byte, Number 12, August 1976.

    Rice, D.  L.  "Speech Synthesis by a set of rules (or can a set of
    rules speak English?)", Proceedings of the First West Coast Computer
    Faire, San Francisco, 1977.

    Rice, D.  L.  "Hardware and software for speech synthesis", Dr.
    Dobbs Journal, April 1976.

Votrax (Troy Michigan) developed hardware for phonemic synthesis that
could be connected to any computer that supported Ascii text (RS232
asychronous port) and could connect to a Bell 407 -- and hence to the
public telephone system.

Systems using the Votrax and Bell 407 were developed at Bell Labs by M.
D.  McIlroy to do unrestricted text-to-speech conversion.  This allowed
directory-assistance applicications to be implemented on a Unix (version
6) system.  The software was available under license from Bell
Laboratories in 1978 (or earlier).  By connecting the text-to-speech
software to to standard Unix utilities using the "pipe" mechanism, voice
mail and computer-generated broadcast messages ("Time for lunch!") could
be easily implemented.

Using the same hardware, Lauren Weinstein implemented a "Touch-tone
Unix" interface at UCLA.

Using this hardware, and suggestions from Lauren Weinstein, I
implemented a Touch-tone RSTS/E system at the Dec Research and
Development group.  It was shown publicly at Canada Decus, February
26-29, 1980.


Posted:    Mon 21-Oct-1985 16:53 Maynard Time.  Martin Minow MLO3-3/U8, DTN 223-9922
To:    RHEA::DECWRL::"[e-mail]",RHEA::DECWRL::"[e-mail]"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 85 21:19:21 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vadic 3400 protocol

    Date: Tuesday, 15 October 1985  14:20-MDT
    From: "William P. Malloy" <decvax!ittatc!ittral![e-mail]>

    Does anyone out there have Racal Vadic VA 4224 modems installed ...

    p.s. Interesting point.  These suckers talk (2400/1200/300) but the
    protocols supported are (V.22/212/103).  Note: Vadic 3400 protocol is
    not supported!

  A few years ago, Vadic 3400 and Bell 212 were equally popular.  For a
while it looked like Vadic 3400 was pulling ahead.  But now, it seems to
be one with the dinosaurs.
  This is unfortunate, since Vadic 3400 was a better protocol.  Does anyone
know why Bell 212 came out ahead?  Restrictive licensing by Vadic, perhaps?

                                ...Keith

------------------------------

DATE:    MON, 21 OCT 85  21:51:48 EDT
FROM:       <[e-mail]>

Active Line Detector Analysis

An active line dectector should not be to hard for someone to design.
The phone line has a potential of about 5 volts when off the hook. Its
on hook voltage is considerably higher.  All that need be designed is
a simple circut that detects the low voltage.  When the device sees
this lower voltage is draws a very small amount of current for the LED.
I am unfortunatly unable to take it beyond this stage.  I would
however be interested in the plans if someone can handle the next step.

                                           W. Gregg Stefancik
                                          Clemson University

BITNET: [e-mail]
ARPA  : [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 22 Oct 85 9:46:24 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  May 1985 DC call-guide

List in May 1985 DC call-guide of Washington DC & suburban exchanges
has some noise:
950, 954 Alexandria/Arlington, Va.--but 954 is also listed in DC (and
is in DC on my 1982 tape), and wasn't 950 reserved for this "equal-
access" thing?
693--Dept. of Defense, Va.--but I checked with the operator (and my
1982 tape) and it's Washington.  It's one of those exchanges in the
Pentagon, which IS physically in Va., but must use areacode 202.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 85 13:52:07 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: active-line indicator

Line ------------------------------------------------> to devices

                100 ohms
           +--/\/\/\/\/\/--+
           |               |
Line ------+------|<|------+-------------------------> to devices
           |               |
           +------|>|------+
                  LED

The thing in the middle is a regular diode pointing the other way.  If you
want to get fancy, you can use a green LED pointing one way and a red one
pointing the other [in place of the regular one], which will indicate line
polarity.  The 100 ohm resistor passes some of the line current and protects
the LEDs.  This will give you an almost indiscernible current drop at the
phone end...

_H*

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
24-Oct-85 15:18:18-PDT,18423;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Thu 24 Oct 85 15:17:26-PDT
Date: 24 Oct 85 16:26-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #55
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Thursday, October 24, 1985 4:26PM
Volume 5, Issue 55

Today's Topics:

                               More 1+
                     Rochester telephone service
                   Why the Vadic 3400 protocol died
                        Racal-Vadic 4224 info
                           DATA ACCESS LINE
                      RE: ACTIVE-LINE INDICATOR
                        High-speed modem query
                       Electronic Surveillance.
                 what is an AML and how does it work?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 20:24:00 EDT
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: More 1+

What with all this discussion about 1+, I couldn't resist telling
about this:

I work in the 914 (Westchester, New York) area.  Our PBX has automatic
route selection, and one of its possibilities is an FX line to 617.
One of my colleagues tried to call 617-460-xxxx and was told that he
had to dial a 1 when calling "beyond the local area".  I assume he was
supposed to dial 9-617-1-460-xxxx.

We were able to make the call by asking the operator for assistance.
I was later able also make the call by busying out the (single) FX
line from another phone, and thereby forcing a long distance call.

Whose fault is this?  Is our PBX expected to know when to insert a "1"
(and when not to, since the message clearly says I must include it
when it is required, and omit it when it is forbidden) at the
beginning of the number it dials?  It seems to be smart enough to know
not to dial the 617 when it has chosen that FX line.

Peter Capek
IBM Research -- Yorktown Heights, NY

------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 22 Oct 85 20:07 EDT
From:  Tom Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Rochester telephone service

I have been traveling a lot to Rochester, NY lately, and the most
aggravating part of it (or even, the only aggravating part) is the
terrible service provided by Rochester Telephone.  They have yet to
automate credit card service; it takes 5-6-7 attempts to get a
long-distance line; random information tones (sort of like busy signals)
are the result of a call in over half the attempts for a local
(intra-city) call.

How can the folks in Rochester take it?  Whenever I complain about the
service, people will counter with the ONE time they got a circuit busy
message in Boston.

Is the New York State PUC powerless?

------------------------------

From: ima!johnl@bbncca
Date: Tue Oct 22 22:26:00 1985
Subject: Why the Vadic 3400 protocol died

There were several reasons.  The most important is that Bell cheaply
licensed their protocol to everybody in sight, while Vadic had only one
licensee, Anderson-Jacobson (as far as I could ever tell.)

There are also technical reasons.  It used to be important that you could
accoustically couple 3400 protocol and you can't couple 212 protocol.  Since
the advent of modular phone plugs, buy your own phone, and inexpensive
modems that can pick up the phone and place calls by themselves, it's
practically not an issue any more except for people who call in from their
hotel rooms.  Also, the 212 protocol was designed for easier LSI
implementation, which is why the frequencies are an octave apart.
Evidently, a 212 implementation, even before the Rockwell chip set, was
simpler and cheaper than a 3400.

Finally, I also gather that the 3400 protocol is not as much better than
the 212 protocol as people used to think.  That impression was gained from
triple modems which had lousy 212 performance.  Good 212 modems are about as
good as 3400 ones.

John Levine, ima!johnl, Levine@YALE

------------------------------

From: crash![e-mail]
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 11:44:24 PDT
Subject: Racal-Vadic 4224 info

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 09:01:56 PDT
To:  ihnp4!mcnc!ittral!malloy
Subject: Racal-Vadic 4224 info
Cc:  sdcsvax!telecom@mit-xx

    I have 5 of the Racal-Vadic 4224 modems in my office.  I did
unfortunately get some of the first so there was the normal new
product troubleshooting.  I am basically only using one of them
for dial-out right now.  I have used them for auto-answer and put
them through a pretty lengthy test.  They do speed search, and seem
very clean at 1200.  2400 has more line hits, but I heard through
my vendor that they will be using the MNP protocal in the later
versions.

   I only problem that I was aware of with the "Rockwell chip set"
was the power consumption and availability.  Racal includes in the
documentation that if you don't have the 1681 chassis (the one with
the huge power supply) that you can only have 8 4224's per rack, even
though it is a 16 slot rack.  I have a 1680 chassis with redundant
power supplys, three 2440 (201C) two 1244 (202) and 5 4224's.  I have
not had any problems due to power yet. (knock on wood)

   Another thing I should mention is that Racal's has a regional service
center.  The people there are *very* helpfull and if you have any
questions they are more than willing to help.  They will also help you
if you are trying to install your modem in a strange application.  I
have talked with, and can recommend Richard Perez for 4224 support and
questions.  The number is 800/22V-ADIC or 800/228-2342.  If you need
a manual I have a couple extras.  Lemme know.


---Scott O'Connell        crash!scotto@ucsd  - or -  crash!scotto@nosc
                {ihnp4, cbosgd, sdcsvax, noscvax}!crash!scotto

Data Systems of San Diego

------------------------------

From: crash![e-mail]
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 11:47:53 PDT
Subject: DATA ACCESS LINE

Pacific Bell has a new service, thought I would relay it to Telecom.

                DATA ACCESS LINE

DATA ACCESS LINE:

Provides a needed customer service, a "cleaner line", for faster,
more reliable communication over the switched network.


PRODUCT DESCRIPTION/TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION

Data Access Line is an analog local loop which is provisioned and
maintained to higher quality standards appropriate for data.

If necessary, electronic circuitry is added to the line which
improves frequency response and compensates for delay and loss.
Tests are performed to insure the assigned cable pair meets
tight limits for impulse and background noise.  If available, an
ESS number will be assigned, to help prevent noise caused by
electomechanical switches.  With an appropriate modem, a customer
could reasonably expect to attain 4800bps on most calls within
the Service Area.


PRICE:

The rates for establishing Data Access Line are -


    MONTHLY RATE            SERVICE CHARGE

    $22.25 per line            $175.00 per line

The FCC End User Common Line charges apply as well.

PRODUCT CONSIDERATIONS:

Customers may continue to transmit data over standard access
lines.  However, we will no longer upgrade these lines when
customers experience data problems.  A customer's modem will
determine what type of jack is required (rj45s, rj11 etc.).
A data jack does not improve line quality.

Data Access Line is available on a measured basis only, where
measuring capability exists.

------------------------------

Date:    WED, 23 OCT 85  10:09:39 EDT
From:       <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: ACTIVE-LINE INDICATOR

The device described by the Hobbit will work fine but it will only
display the status of the instruments connected after the device.
Therefore, if one wanted to show the staus of all the instruments
connected to a particular line it would have to be wired in before
the distribution box.  Unfortunately it can not be wired in at any
point and provide the status for all branches of the phone line.

                                       W. Gregg Stefancik
                                       Clemson University
                                       (803)-656-7896
BITNET: [e-mail]
ARPA  : [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 85 19:21:55 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: High-speed modem query

We are currently evaluating high-speed (i.e., > 1200 baud) modems to
link our remote terminal users to our Vax.

There seem to be plenty of options in the 2400 baud arena, but now
we're getting greedy and are looking at some of the 9600 baud modems
which are beginning to become available. Does anyone have any
experience with 9600 baud modems (preferrably asynchronous)?  The only
companies I've seen advertise so far are:

 Electronic Vaults (Reston, VA): upta 96 (asynchronous)
 Universal Data Systems (Huntsville, AL): UDS 9600 A/B (synchronous)

(We just obtained a UDS modem for evaluation (using their EC-100
synchronous -> asynchronous converter) and had no trouble getting it
to work here in the office.  We haven't tried it over long distance
lines yet.)

It appears that there are some proposed standards for these modems
(CCITT V.29 & V.32).  I've seen some proposed CCITT standards (V.29 &
V.32) mentioned in the literature for these modems. Does anyone know
just what these standards standardize?

Paul Attermeier
Sandia National Labs
Div 5324
Albuquerque, NM
UUCP: ...{ucbvax | ihnp4!lanl | gatech}!unmvax!sandia!pjatter
ARPANET: rowe@sandia-cad

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 1985 11:17-PDT
Subject: Electronic Surveillance.
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <[e-mail]>


Americans' Privacy Exposed by New Technology, Congress Told

By LEE BYRD - Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) - The explosion in communications technology has so
outpaced privacy laws that Americans have little or no protection
against a plethora of new ways for government or private adversaries
to pry into their lives, a congressional agency reported today.
    The non-partisan Office of Technology Assessment found that 35 out
of 142 domestic federal agencies use or plan to use various
electronic surveillance methods, including modern devices not
governed by a landmark 1968 law that circumscribed the use of
wiretaps and bugs - concealed microphones.
    The agency said 36 agencies, not counting those in foreign
intelligence, already use a total of 85 computerized record systems
for investigative or intelligence purposes, and maintain 288 million
files on 114 million people. The report raised the ''technically
feasible'' specter of these being linked into a single data base
network that could track untold numbers of citizens without due
cause.
    The report, requested by House and Senate committees, noted that
many new and uncontrolled methods of surveillance are made possible
by the very technologies of which more and more Americans are
availing themselves - electronic mail, computer conferencing,
cellular and cordless telephones, beepers and electronic pagers.
Intercepting such devices is easy, and ''the law has not kept pace,''
the agency said.
    But other devices, such as miniature television cameras and pen
registers - which monitor the numbers called on a given telephone
line - have enabled new ways to spy on people even if their own
communications habits are more old-fashioned, the agency noted.
    Rep. Robert W. Kastenmeier, D-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary
subcommittee on courts and civil liberties, said the study ''shows
how the law in this area has broken down; it is up to Congress to fix
it. If we fail to act, the personal and business communications of
Americans will not have the privacy protection they deserve.''
    Sen. Charles McC. Mathias, R-Md., said the report ''documents how
new and more intrusive forms of snooping have followed in the wake of
the exciting advances in communications technology,'' and agreed
Congress must ''bring federal privacy laws up to date.'
    Rep. Don Edwards, D-Calif., chairman of the House Judiciary
subcommittee on civil and constitutional rights, said, ''While the
attorney general of the United States is claiming that the civil
liberties granted by the Constitution should be limited to the
'original intentions' of the framers, the technological possibilities
for government surveillance have exploded. The framers knew nothing
of closed-circuit television, wiretapping and computer data banks.''
    The report noted that the Fourth Amendment, which protects ''the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,'' was written
''at a time when people conducted their affairs in a simple direct,
and personalized fashion.''
    Neither, said the report, has Title III of the Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, which was designed to protect the privacy
of wire and oral communications, kept pace.
    ''At the time Congress passed this act,'' the report said,
''electronic surveillance was limited primarily to simple telephone
taps and concealed microphones. Since then, the basic communications
infrastructure in the United States has been in rapid technological
change.''
    The congressional agency said it could not estimate the extent of
electronic surveillance in the private sector, saying only ''it is
probable that many forms ... go undetected, and if detected, go
unreported.''
    But in its survey of the federal bureaucracy, OTA found 35 agencies,
mostly in the Justice, Treasury and Defense departments, used or
planned to use:
    -Closed circuit television, 29 agencies.
    -Night vision systems, 22.
    -Miniature transmitters, 21.
    -Electronic beepers and sensors, 15.
    -Telephone taps, recorders, and pen registers, 14.
    -Computer usage monitoring, 6.
    -Electronic mail monitoring, 6.
    -Cellular radio interception, 5.
    -Satellite interception, 4.
    As for the 85 computerized record systems that could be used for
surveillance purposes, none of the operators provided statistics
requested by the OTA on record completeness and accuracy.
    Under the 1968 law, wiretaps and bugs are prohibited without a court
order based on the affirmation of a high-ranking prosecutor that a
crime has occurred, that the target of the surveillance is involved,
and that other means of investigation would be ineffective.
    According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, federal
and state judges approved 801 out of 802 requests last year for
electronic surveillance, primarily wiretaps and hidden microphones,
at an average cost of $45,000.
    The agency said that while there is some promise in emerging
techniques for low-cost data encryption or other means to protect
communication systems from eavesdropping, ''there is no immediate
technological answer ... against electronic surveillance.''
    Foreign intelligence cases are governed by a separate law, so the
CIA, National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency were
not included in the survey.

------------------------------

Subject: what is an AML and how does it work?
Date: 24 Oct 85 15:25:00 EDT (Thu)
From: Richard Kane <[e-mail]>



I moved into a new apartment last month and had quite a bad experience
getting phone service.  Several weeks before I actually moved, I ordered my
new phone service with New England Telephone and was told that there would
be no problem in setting up my new service on time.  Since I was only
moving across the street from where I had been living, I wanted to keep my
existing phone number, but I also wanted to have a second line installed
with a new number for my home terminal (I didn't tell NET that that was
what it was for).

To make a very long story a bit shorter, when the installer came down on
the day that I moved, he discovered that they couldn't give me any phone
service at all since there were no more "facilities" (spare trunks)
available in my neighborhood.  (My apartment was wired up, but there were
no spare lines in the basement coming in from the street). After 2 weeks of
calling (from work) and badgering them almost every day, NET decided to
provide service to me by way of an AML.  An AML is apparently some sort of
multiplexor which is able to provide service for 2 (or more) phone numbers
over a single pair of wires.  The AML takes one number as input and gives
another number as output.  (There is apparently another AML or similar
device at the central office end of the circuit).  The configuration is
depicted below.


line in (main number)             |---|
__________________________________|AML|______________ second
            |             |---|               phone
            |                                 number
         |------|
         |filter|
         |------|
            |
            |
            |
                 main phone
                   number


Since I wanted two lines (numbers) coming into my apartment, and since it
was not convenient to run another set of wires up to my apartment from the
basement, the phone company came down and installed two AMLs in the
building.

One AML was installed in the basement.  This AML was used to provide
service to two residents of my building who had previously had dedicated
lines of their own.  These residents were not informed of this change, but
it all should have been transparent to them anyway.  This thus freed up a
dedicated pair of wires to connect to the wire going up to my apartment.

The second AML was installed in my apartment.  This AML now provides me
with the two lines which I had originally requested and everything works
fine.

One more interesting thing to report about this whole affair is its effect
on my telephone answering machine.  For some reason unknown to both me and
the phone company, my answering machine will not answer calls when it is
hooked up to the line which is output from the AML, but works fine on the
primary incoming line.  Anyone have any ideas?

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************

-------
25-Oct-85 16:36:56-PDT,8790;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Fri 25 Oct 85 16:36:22-PDT
Date: 25 Oct 85 18:12-EDT
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #56
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Friday, October 25, 1985 6:12PM
Volume 5, Issue 56

Today's Topics:

                     Rochester telephone service
                        Active line indicator
               Re: what is an AML and how does it work?
                            mobile phones
                          Data Access Lines
                   Automatic route selection and 1+
                             Re:  More 1+
                   Re: Rochester telephone service

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 85  19:01 EDT (Thu)
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
Subject: Rochester telephone service


    From: Tom Martin <TJMartin at MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>

    I have been traveling a lot to Rochester, NY lately, and the most
    aggravating part of it (or even, the only aggravating part) is the
    terrible service provided by Rochester Telephone.

I make fairly frequent calls from northern N.J. (201) to Hamilton, N.Y.
(315)824-XXXX, and vice versa.  I very often get the tones and the "All lines
are busy, try again" msg.  Is Hamilton in the Rochester LATA?

One thing *I think* I've noticed.  It seems that if I punch in the
numbers slowly and very evenly (about 2 or 3/sec.) the success ratio
tends to be much higher.

Would that be a crossbar trying to deal with the output from a DTMF
decoder or something of the like?

_B

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 24 Oct 85 21:29 EDT
From:           Jeffrey C Honig  <$[e-mail]>
Subject:      Active line indicator

I just received my latest DAK (800-325-0800) catalog which lists an
active line indicator for $9.50 + $2 Postage and Handling.  It is not
line powered, it requires a 9V battery.  The descripton implies that it
will indicate off-hook anywhere on the phone line.

Jeffrey C Honig
Clarkson University - Potsdam, NY

------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 24 Oct 85 23:23 EDT
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  Re: what is an AML and how does it work?

As I've noted in a previous note, the AML has a serious side effect of
reducing the voltage on the second line to 16 volts thereby causing
equipment that depends on voltage to fail.  In particular hold buttons
that attempt to detect another phone off hook by detecting the voltage
change.

I had my AML removed and replaced by separate pairs.

------------------------------

From: crash![e-mail]
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 85 15:57:55 PDT
Subject: mobile phones

I had my first chance to use a mobile phone today and I must say I was
impressed.

I had never been close to one, but they seem so easy to use and the
reception was great.  I did notice one thing that I didn't understand
that seems annoying if nothing else.  While we were listening, (on a
speakerphone) it seemed that the persons voice would always be clear,
but would vary in volume.  I am sure we never left the "cell" we started
the call with because we were never more than 4 miles from the only
transmitter in the area.  Any ideas?

Also, I understand each area has it's own database.  The person I was
with is based out of Los Angeles, and had to "log on" in San Diego. He
was greeted with "Welcome to the San Diego cellular network". I tried
to call the Los Angeles number and was greeted with "I'm sorry, the
mobile number you have dialed is unavailable or in another area".  It
all seemed to work without a flaw.  Does anyone know if the prices for
air time will ever come down?

---Scott O'Connell        crash!scotto@ucsd  - or -  crash!scotto@nosc
                {ihnp4, cbosgd, sdcsvax, noscvax}!crash!scotto

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1985  22:49:43
Subject: Data Access Lines


    From: crash![e-mail]
    Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 11:47:53 PDT
    Subject: DATA ACCESS LINE

    Pacific Bell has a new service, thought I would relay it to Telecom.

                    DATA ACCESS LINE

    DATA ACCESS LINE:

    Provides a needed customer service, a "cleaner line", for faster,
    more reliable communication over the switched network.

    .....

    Data Access Line is available on a measured basis only, where
    measuring capability exists.

"Measured basis only".  Now we see the real motivation...

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 25 Oct 1985 06:50:29-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein dtn247-3204)
Subject: Automatic route selection and 1+


When your PBX has Automatic Route Selectiona  and an FX line, and
the user gets a recording "you must dial a 1", then there's one
conclusion:  whoever programmed the ARS did it wrong.  In a few cases
(some NEC PBXs, for instance), the ARS program is so brain-damaged
that it can't properly handle an FX line.  In the more general case,
the person doing the programming (installer or telecom person on site)
didn't get it right.

Any toll call in 617 requires a 1+, but you NEVER dial "617-1-xxx".
The one goes before the area code, if you have one.  In the case
Peter Capek described (dialing Stratus Computer in Marlboro, Mass.),
the PBX didn't recognize the relatively new 617-460 prefix, so it
sent the call on the FX line which clearly wan not local to Marlboro!
Since the FX just hits a local CO like any other line, it needed the 1.

Generally, it's not economical to use FX for calls to nonlocal areas,
so the call mayhave belonged on WATS.  But one of the weirdnesses of
divestiture was the reclassification of FX as "Feature Group A",
the "ENFIA" service used by MCI and their ilk for Unequal Access.
In exchange for a high rate for local calls, tolls are waived within
the LATA.  The telcos are trying to get around this (they asked for
it in the first place, but didn't think too far ahead), so it may
not last.  In either case, the CO still needs the 1+ even if it isn't
billing full toll charges.

Hence the general case mentioned in the previous paragraph is on
hiatus.

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 25 Oct 85 13:01:25 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  More 1+

9-617-1-460-xxxx?  Are you sure you didn't get the 1 and the area code
reversed?

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 85 14:01:52 edt
From: Dave Forsey <[e-mail]>

Newsgroups: mod.telecom
Subject: Re: High-speed modem query
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dave Forsey)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>We are currently evaluating high-speed (i.e., > 1200 baud) modems to
>link our remote terminal users to our Vax.
>

Though probably not appropriate for your particular application there
does exist a modem, based on packet switching, that provides error free
transmission over normal phone lines at up to 21K (yes 21,000 bps).

Transmission speed varies with the quality of connection, the makers claim
that over the worst line they've found they still get 5000 bps, error free.

Of course you need one of these modems on both ends to get this throughput
(although there is a standard 300/1200 modem in each) and you pay for it
($1995 US for an IBM PC card and $2395 US for a stand-alone).

The company that markets this is Telebit in Cupertino Calif, and
Digital Communications Associates (Alpharetta, Ga.).

Dave Forsey
Computer Graphics Laboratory
University of Waterloo, Waterloo Ont. Canada.
{allegra,ihnp4}watmath!watcgl!drforsey

------------------------------

Date: Fri 25 Oct 85 18:07:11-EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rochester telephone service

Bob,

    Dialing your dial slowly has nothing to do with how fast
the incoming trunks at Hamilton, NY. receives their tones. I would
say that if you are experiencing that symptom, that your local
switch is where the difficulty lies...

I have crossbar in Somerville, MA. now (I just moved in), while
I'm on a nostalgia kick (Oh boy! Mechanical Switching!!!), after
having been an ESS freak for 15 years or so, I also notice that
you have to dial carefully or it will get confused.

Fortunately, I don't speed-dial like I speed-type.

Cheers,
--JSol

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
27-Oct-85 18:24:10-PST,7889;000000000001
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Sun 27 Oct 85 18:23:36-PST
Date: 27 Oct 85 20:30-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #57
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Sunday, October 27, 1985 8:30PM
Volume 5, Issue 57

Today's Topics:

                     Rochester telephone service
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #56
             Why the Vadic 3400 protocol is still alive !
                      Re: High-speed modem query
                Re: Modems with Builtin \"Protocol\"s
                          Data Access Lines
                         dialing 617 460 ....
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #54

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 85  19:53 EDT (Fri)
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
Subject: Rochester telephone service


    From: Jon Solomon <JSOL at MIT-XX.ARPA>

        Dialing your dial slowly has nothing to do with how fast
    the incoming trunks at Hamilton, NY. receives their tones. I would
    say that if you are experiencing that symptom, that your local
    switch is where the difficulty lies...

I guess I was assuming the tones for 315 connected me to a line
(virtual or actual) which carried the rest of the tones to the
Hamilton CO where the 824-XXXX did what ever necessary to connect to
the called instrument.

I suppose that is a pretty dumb assumption.  Just how does it work (if
you can explain in terms for the very simpleminded)?  Does my CO
actually do route-planning to the one particular phone being called?

_B

------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 25 Oct 85 19:59 EDT
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #56

I'm still trying to get off the digest edition of this mailing list.

Any advice would be appreciated.  Thanks.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1985  01:05 EDT
From: "David D. Story" <FTD%MIT-OZ @ MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Why the Vadic 3400 protocol is still alive !


212a being better is a lot of sh&t. Bell originally wouldn't sell
their modems and in the lease package they billed the user on data
phone rates. Bell also wouldn't give out their filter specs, sell
them, or anything else which in turn created the pocket for Vadic. If
you have noisy lines (and remember that this is recent history before
all the line conditioning and that's where Bell put the data phones)
the 3400 protocol is much better (cleaner). The 103 is coupled.  And I
don't think Vadic or Hayes Anderson (only around for 2? years for
their licens) ever had an acoustic coupler running 3400. The HA
uses their coupler for 103 only I believe. What remains to be seen is
if Vadic comes out with harmonic 2400 modems that are cleaner that
what is possibly already there. Maybe 4800 - 9600 !

Bell works on a feedback filter while Vadic works onharmonics.
The Bell filter had to let some noise in their frequency range pass
while the Vadic doesn't won't and never will. Preferable tkeep
the creepy micro people of thmainfthere shouldn't exist
a 103 or a 212a answer option strap so then stupid managers couldn't
set up that way !

Cut those straps !

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 85 12:16:30 GMT
From: Bob Halloran <vax135!petsd!pedsgd![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: High-speed modem query

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>We are currently evaluating high-speed (i.e., > 1200 baud) modems
>to link our remote terminal users to our Vax.
>
>There seem to be plenty of options in the 2400 baud arena, but now
>we're getting greedy and are looking at some of the 9600 baud
>modems which are beginning to become available. Does anyone have
>any experience with 9600 baud modems (preferrably asynchronous)?
>The only companies I've seen advertise so far are:
>
> Electronic Vaults (Reston, VA): upta 96 (asynchronous)
> Universal Data Systems (Huntsville, AL): UDS 9600 A/B (synchronous)

Another option which just arrived is the Telebit modem, being marketed
by Digital Communications Associates (PC Irma coax interface board et
al).  This is a proprietary asynch scheme for 9600 b/s which
purportedly can adapt to changing line conditions on the fly in
increments of <100 b/s.  They do this by subdividing the bandwidth
into numerous subchannels to spread out the information.  I seem to
recall price for the stand-alone unit to be about $2400.  I mention
this since, as they are currently selling for the volume PC
marketplace, they are likely to become a de facto standard.  I believe
the information number is 1(800) TELEBIT.

                        Bob Halloran
                        Sr MTS, Perkin-Elmer DSG
=============================================================================
UUCP: {decvax, ucbvax, most Action Central}!vax135\
                    {topaz, pesnta, princeton}!petsd!pedsgd!bobh
USPS: 106 Apple St M/S 305, Tinton Falls NJ 07724
DDD: [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 85 00:04:27 PDT
From: ihnp4!ho95e![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Modems with Builtin \"Protocol\"s

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I looked (briefly) into the new 2400 baud modems for use with my Xenix
>system.  The dealers all push versions with a built-in protocol called
>MNP.  This protocol handles retries of bad characters, BUT (e.g., beware)
>it is not really suitable for use on communications where the underlying
>software already has a protocol.
>
>With uucp, the MNP flow control will be incompatible, and thus one will
>have to disable MNP.
>
>With Kermit, MNP is likely to play havoc .... flow control ....
>... Emacs with ... control-s or control-q,

I'm glad someone else asked!  Has anyone been able to find out if either the
IRMA Fastlink board (which uses some bizarre packetization scheme) or
Racal-Vadic's new 9600 baud modem can handle uucp.  How about "layers"
(the protocol for the TTY 5620 "Blit")?
            Thanks
--
## Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 85 14:18:43 pdt
From: [e-mail] (Mike Newton)
Subject: Data Access Lines


Another fine point in the Pacific Bell flyer regarding their new data
service was a section saying they would no longer respond to complaints
from non-Data-Access-Line customers regarding data transmission quality.

-mike

------------------------------

Date:  Sun, 27 Oct 85 12:48 EST
From:  "Richard Kovalcik, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject:  dialing 617 460 ....

Well, at least you could do it by busying out the FX line.  I have some
friends who work for companines in Boston that absolutely can't call me
at 617-460-2206 because their STUPID office PBX doesn't understand the
460 exchange and consequently blocks all calls to it.  Fortunately after
several weeks most companines can get this straightened out.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 85 23:58:58 PDT
From: ihnp4!homxb![e-mail]
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #54

Re: Call guide to Washington DC.

Some interesting facts about (202) 693-xxxx

The 693 exchange for the Defense Department in Virginia,
i.e. the Pentagon, which is in the 202 area code,
is actually a 1A ESS located in the Pentagon.  While it is totally
dedicated to one customers and located on customer premises,
it is still considered a network switch, and is owned by C&P.
It is a Centrex dedicated to one customer and used
as a PBX. Its is one of the largest 1A's around.

Herman Silbiger ihnp4!homxb!hrs

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
30-Oct-85 18:24:31-PST,6633;000000000001
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Wed 30 Oct 85 18:24:16-PST
Date: 30 Oct 85 20:04-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #58
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                      Wednesday, October 30, 1985 8:04PM
Volume 5, Issue 58

Today's Topics:

          Re:  Why the Vadic 3400 protocol is still alive !
                              Tone burst
                     Rochester telephone service
                  Active line indicators (a summary)
                                modems

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 27 Oct 85 22:46:52 EST
From:     Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Why the Vadic 3400 protocol is still alive !

Sorry, but VADIC did make 3400 model accoustic couplers and they do
work at 1200.   We've got a whole pile of them around here.  The only
problem is all the new fangled phones don't have round receivers that
can fit into the little rubber holes on the coupler

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 28 Oct 85 09:35:12 PST
From:           Erik Mueller <[e-mail]>
Subject:        Tone burst

Newsgroups: mod.telecom
Subject: Re: Daa daa daa - the number...
Summary:
Expires:
References: <8510210346.AA26008@UCB-VAX>
Sender:
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Erik Mueller)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Dept.
Keywords:

In article <8510210346.AA26008@UCB-VAX> [e-mail] (Joe Pistritto) writes:
>
>    The three tone burst at the beginning of phone intercept
>announcements appears to be international, by the way.  I recently dialed
>a wrong number in Basel Switzerland (from the US), and got the three tone
>burst associated with 'the number you have dialed is not in service, please
>check the number and dial again', except that the announcement was in
>German (!).  I recognized the tones however, and realized what had
>happened.  I have only heard one set of tones however, does anyone know
>what the different sequences mean?
>
>                            -JCP-

If those are the same tones that I have heard in France (an arpeggiated
major seven chord: 1 5 7, as I recall), we now have those same tones in
certain Los Angeles ESSs as the standard local incorrect-code recording
(not intercept). Speaking of intercept, I noticed that in California, they
don't bother with AIS, CIB, or ONI intercept; they just give you a
wrong number recording that is the same no matter what number you
dial. Does anyone know why that is the policy here? Too many numbers
to bother with it? Too many transient college students? Or is it only
GTE that does this?

                            -Erik

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1985  18:36 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rochester telephone service

Well, basically it is a 3-fold process:

1) your local exchange gobbles up as much of the number as can be
processed locally: In Step exchanges this is usually a "1", Crossbar
and Electronic exchanges usually gobble the whole number and do their
own translation/verification of the prefix (at least for calls within
the area code), then it is passed to (2).

2) The local exchange sends the call to a toll switch. Step in this
case passes the call as soon as the "1" is dialed. An interface to
the toll switch gobbles the rest of the number up and passes it to
the toll center using MF tones. The toll center dials a call to
the area code chosen, using both LOC and Common Carrier lines
(i.e. AT&T, Sprint, MCI, etc), connecting it to (3).

3) The local switch in Rochester then finally gets the call and
dials the local number. When the call is answered, supervision
gets back to the originating CO to begin billing.

"Route Planning" happens usually at the Common Carrier level.
At this point, at least, there is no mechanism to do route-planning
at the local switch (plans were made at one point to implement that
on a local switch, but I think divestiture put a monkeywrench in
the plans).

Therefore using this model, it is safe to say that your tones don't
do much in the process of completing the call. Special tones (not
dialable from a touch tone phone -- security in obscurity!) are
used to complete calls (except for step by step which dial pulses
into the exchange).

Hope that helps.
--JSol

------------------------------

Date: Tue 29 Oct 85 21:00:01-PST
From: Ole Jorgen Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Active line indicators (a summary)


Thanks to all who responded to my query, most of the designs I received
would work, but careful evaluation and lenghty discussions with several
electronics wizards led me to the following conclusion:

    What is needed is a self-powered line monitoring device which
    plugs in like any phone and does not steal power from the
    telco line, such devices can apparently be purchased (from DAK
    and others) for about $10.

Some observations:

    Putting things in series with the telco line is not very nice
because you need to get in at the house entry point which could be out
of the way and the increased resistance in the line would cause some
audio attenuation.

    None of the circuits described do a very good job of protecting
the LED from ringing voltage (which is about 90V). The current during
ringing can be large enough to zap an LED since it has low internal
resistance and even clever zener diode designs may not provide adequate
protection.

    Finally, I should say that no circuit was actually built, the
analysis was done mostly on paper. The self powered "line monitor" just
seems a much more elegant design, even if no telco power is stolen, oh
well....

<OLE>
<370>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 85 13:23:18 EST
From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject: modems

The CCITT has adopted a standard for 9600 baud full duplex modems
running over dial-up lines (V.32) which uses Trellis encoding (send
redundant bids and do forward error correction).  The design is based on
research done by AT&T.  Virtually all the modem vndors are working on
V.32 compatible products.  The only one I know to have hit the market
already is from British Telecom.

I would think it highly unlikely that any modem not compatilbe with V.32
will become a de facto standard.

Marvin Sirbu

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
31-Oct-85 17:12:27-PST,4795;000000000001
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Thu 31 Oct 85 17:12:12-PST
Date: 31 Oct 85 18:52-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #59
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Thursday, October 31, 1985 6:52PM
Volume 5, Issue 59

Today's Topics:

                 Alliance Conferencing & Sprint svcs
                          prompt tone, etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hplabs!pesnta!pesnta!peora![e-mail]
Date: 31 Oct 85 08:45:47 EST (Thu)

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: tones
In-reply-to: USENET article <8510152232.AA06872@UCB-VAX>

> as Touchtone was designed for ease of listening.

I don't understand what you mean here, exactly... you mean the touchtone
sounds are supposed to be pleasant?  I always thought the ones that came
with the messages were more pleasant than the touchtone ones, which sound
discordant to me.
--
Shyy-Anzr:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: Ofc:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
     Home:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer
  US Mail:  MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
        2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

------------------------------

Date:     29 Oct 85 22:00:47-EST (Tue)
From: [e-mail]
Subject:  Alliance Conferencing & Sprint svcs

I called up ATT Alliance Conferencing and found out some information.

There are four ``bridges.''  They are in White Plains, NY, Dallas, TX,
Chicago, IL, and Los Angeles, CA.  When you dial the 0-700 number, you
are immiediately billed for a call to the nearest bridge.  It will answer
and identify the bridge you are calling.  You may then form a conference
of as many people ass you want and it is billed as follows:

You are charged 25 cents per person/PER MINUTE (!) including yourself.
You are charged the standard rate for each call to each person FROM
THE BRIDGE.
The charge for the call to the bridge continues.
Curiously, this charge is billed at the cheapest rate (as though you dialed
after 11pm)

I commented to the person that this was quite expensive, especially since I
could call my AT&T operator and have her do it for the cost of a person to
person call.  She just replied with:
``We understand that is cheaper but the quality is better this way. ''

Also, if you want to bypass the ``find-nearest-bridge'' algorythm and select
the bridge yourself (which makes things cheaper when most of your calls are
nearer to a different bridge) you can call 456-1001,1002,1003,1004 to
select them individually.

Now for my question:

In the newsletter that came with my Sprint bill, was the following:

   In the near future it [digital technology] will enable us to offer
   you a lot of new services, at greatly reduced costs.  For instance
   you'll be able to get things like call-conferencing, call-forwarding,
   and call-messaging.  With call-messaging you can be anywhere in the
   world served by Sprint and simply by pushing a few buttons, you can
   call up your phone and get your messages--without using an answering
   machine.  Your messages will be stored in a computer that is linked
   to the Sprint network.

Has anyone heard anything about this?  What exactly does call forwarding
mean in this case, and how can anyone but your local phone company provide
that for you (unless only the calls coming in through Sprint will be
forwarded??)


Thanks for your time,
#Ron   ([e-mail])  ([e-mail])
       ([e-mail])

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 31 Oct 85 15:05:37 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  prompt tone, etc.

In my recent credit-card calls, I have noticed that the prompt
tone is shorter and softer than it used to be.

I have seen comments about 617-460 not being reachable from some
long-distance point.  I recall trying to place 0+ call within Md.
to 850 prefix and finally had to ask the operator to call it.
(850 was new and not yet recognized by the system although I was
dialing a working number?)

I hear from a lecture on flirting that some people have had bad
experiences which harm later flirting; one such experience is
receiving a wrong phone number when the couple has to break off
a conversation.  I wonder in what ways would the phone # be
wrong?

10 dialed from my residence phone (302-731) used to get the local
operator without waiting for timeout, but equal access apparently
put an end to that.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 5-Nov-85 15:51:54-PST,11302;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Tue 5 Nov 85 15:51:23-PST
Date: 5 Nov 85 17:06-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #60
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Tuesday, November 5, 1985 5:06PM
Volume 5, Issue 60

Today's Topics:

                             call pickup
                           9600 baud modems
               Telecom Digest V5 #55, Data Access Lines
                Most amazing feature of my local CO...
                             X.PC vs MNP
                         Burroughs DC problem
                    Wireless phone & line problems
                         VADIC 3400 technique

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: vax135!petsd!moncol![e-mail]
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 85 23:23:34 est
Subject: call pickup

Our college just installed an AT&T system/85 pbx.  One of the most
useful features I have found is 'call pickup'.  A pickup group is
created for a number of different single line telephones in the same
office.  If one telephone in the group rings, it can be answered on
any other by picking up the receiver and pressing the '#' and then the
4 button.  I think this feature would be very useful in my house,
where I have several single line telephones (on different lines).
Since my area has electronic switching (they offer call waiting, etc),
it seems they should be able to offer this service.  Any idea why they
don't?

Ben Broder
..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben  (uucp)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 85 08:48:22 est
From: [e-mail] (Don Saklad)

Shouldn't CNA service be offered to all customers and tariffed?

Also, how does one go about accessing a database of tel numbers--have telephone
companies databases which are available to all?

It's then a lot easier to look up numbers, addresses and names as anyone
can in criss cross business directories.

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 4 Nov 85 8:15:20 EST
From:     Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Subject:  9600 baud modems

Our project has just decided to go and replace our 1200 baud modems
with 2400 baud ones.  My question is: is that the wrong speed?  It seems
like 9600 baud modems are really rushing to market in a hurry (certainly
by comparison with how 2400 followed 1200), but aside from seeing the
price settle in at just under $1K, I know essentially nothing about them.

Do they work?  Are they a good bet?  Any info any of you might be able
to supply would be appreciated.

Much thanks
   /Bernie
    ARPA: cosell@bbn-prophet
    USENET: bbncc5!bpc

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 85 10:36 EST
From: CFMucken @ DDN2.ARPA
Subject: Telecom Digest V5 #55, Data Access Lines



    It is very pleasing to see that PAC Bell is doing their best to keep
cost  down and quality up.  It used to be that if you had a bad line you
called up the TELCO and complained (persistently for  6-9  months),  and
someone  checked  the line, found out you were correct, and returned the
line to specification (after an additional 3-4 months).   Now  PAC  Bell
will  do  this  for  $175  plus  $22.25 a month to keep it that way (fat
chance) plus some cash for Uncle Sugar.  It's good  to  see  divestiture
has reduced costs so much!

    [While  on  the  subject  of cost, who is making all the money
    from  the  extra  revenues  collected  on  the  various  phone
    companies  behalf?   It  surely  cannot  be  the  poor TELCOs,
    regional or long distance, because they keep upping the rates,
    must be all the lawyers.]

                                Carl F. Muckenhirn
-------

-------------END OF FORWARDED MESSAGE(S)-------------

------------------------------

From: talcott!topaz!petsd!peora!jer@bbncca
Date: Fri Nov  1 20:09:57 1985
Subject: Most amazing feature of my local CO...
Date: 01 Nov 85 19:51:06 EST (Fri)

I have just had a fairly amazing telephone experience.  At least, it
seems that way to me.

Presently I am in the process of moving from one apartment in my apartment
complex to another.  A few days ago, I called up the local Southern Bell
office to ask them to switch my phone service, keeping the same number,
from my old apartment to my new one.  But, not thinking, I asked them
to connect at the new one today, and disconnect the old one tomorrow.

Well, this evening I was sitting eating dinner when I suddenly thought,
"Wait a minute!  How could they do that?"  So I checked it out.
Sure enough, when you dial my number, the phone rings in both apartments!

Now, if this was done in software, it seems to be a fairly amazing feature
to me... amazing that anyone would have thought to implement that.  I
had always believed that for apartments, they just left all the wiring in
the local loop intact, and just told the ESS system to enable or disable
a particular line.

But if that's the case right now, then whenever my phone rings, it's having
to send the ring signal down two separate local loops that it would normally
treat as separate, besides watching for the off-hook condition, etc.
I haven't tested yet to see if the two apartments behave entirely as if
the phones were physically connected to the same loop, i.e., if I can
pick up one phone, talk into it, and hear myself on the other (since I'd
have to be in two places at once and all that, as the song says).

Of course, it could be some human person went and connected the two
together with a physical wire... I guess if so, maybe I will discover some
big charge for this special service on my next bill... but if it was
done in software, it is a fairly impressive feature to me... (but then,
I'm still trying to figure out how the switches actually work!).

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 85 15:43:34 est
From: Ken Mandelberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: X.PC vs MNP


In some sense X.PC and MNP must compete. They both do error correction
for data sent by modems over phone lines. MNP is offered by several
modem manufacturers, and can be used with dumb terminals (and dumb
computers if you use an MNP modem on the computer end).

It is my impression that no modem manufacturer offers X.PC implemented
in the modem. It is intended to run with a PC that will implement the
protocol.

Is that correct?

Ken Mandelberg
Emory University
Dept of Math and CS
Atlanta, Ga 30322

{akgua,sb1,gatech,decvax}!emory!km   USENET
km@emory                      CSNET
km.emory@csnet-relay          ARPANET

------------------------------

From: crash![e-mail]
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 85 13:10:23 PST
Subject: Burroughs DC problem

Greetings..

I am having some problems on my mainframe system that I can't seem
to get solved.  I am hoping someone has had a similar problem. (and found
a fix).

I am using a Burroughs B1985 system with 15 DC lines in 2 MLC's
(multi line controls) all running synchronous or TDI.  The problems
seem to be on the 4800 bps sync lines only.  It seems that Burroughs
has a hardware jumper for "4800 and below -or- 4800 and above" speeds
even though the line adapter is EXTERNALLY clocked.  My problem is
that at the end of a block of data, AFTER the BCC and where the first
PAD (FF) character should be is an extra character.  Most of the time
it is a "~" (FE) or a "|" (FC), causing a parity error. Actually it is
only dropping one or two bits from being a PAD, but the parity error
is there.

Naturally Burroughs has been no help, they say "If the terminal doesn't
see it, it's okay".  Monitoring the line for trouble is almost impossible
at 9600 because I can't catch the error unless I am watching the monitor
continuously.

Any ideas ?


Scott O'Connell
Data Systems of San Diego

{ihnp4, cbosgd, sdcsvax, noscvax}!crash!scotto
crash!scotto@ucsd  -- or --  crash!scotto@nosc

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 4 Nov 85 15:45 EST
From:     "Steven H. Schwartz * [phone]" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Wireless phone & line problems

I recently borrowed a friend's AVX wireless phone.  As soon as I plugged it in,
the phone began randomly toggling the TelCo line because of neighborhood
interference.  It remained about two weeks before the clicking of the relay (!)
drove me to yank the plug.

During that time, a normal non-ATT phone on the line picked up an apparently
permanent buzz in the earpiece & had to be discarded.  Could the wireless'
base unit have broken the other phone?

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 85 22:52:14 est
From: Henry Schaffer <ecsvax![e-mail]>
Subject: VADIC 3400 technique


 [e-mail] ("David D. Story") posted:

... If
you have noisy lines (and remember that this is recent history before
all the line conditioning and that's where Bell put the data phones)
the 3400 protocol is much better (cleaner).

Bell works on a feedback filter while Vadic works onharmonics.
The Bell filter had to let some noise in their frequency range pass
while the Vadic doesn't won't and never will.
-------------

Could some explain this further?  I didn't think it was possible to
filter out *all* noise from a signal.  I know that some
methods of noise eilimination work better than others (does "works
on harmonics" mean some kind of phase locked loop?) but I would be
very surprised if any (analog) method could get rid of all noise.
--henry schaffer  n c state univ

------------------------------

From: hplabs!pesnta!pesnta!peora![e-mail]
Date: 31 Oct 85 08:58:43 EST (Thu)

Newsgroups: fa.telecom
Subject: Re: "You must first dial a 1 ..."
References: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] (The Moderator)

> In fact, there are many many services possible if we simply assume that
> my home pbx is as smart as the telco CO.

One problem, though, would be the cost to the consumer.  Already we have
the situation in which low-income people must subscribe to the new "Lifeline"
metered service in order to be able to reasonably meet the costs of the
telephone, or subscribe to a "party line".

Many of the people who the 1+ convention would help are exactly those who
would not be able to afford an expensive telephone set for their home;
i.e., those whose understanding of toll calls are limited to "if you have
to dial a 1, you have to pay for it, and if it's farther away, you have to
pay more."

Of course you could argue "such a set would be very low-cost," but consider
that we are already paying $.25 per-use for features that exist simply
as software in the ESS systems, already.
--
Shyy-Anzr:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: Ofc:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
     Home:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer
  US Mail:  MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
        2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 6-Nov-85 18:16:34-PST,5432;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Wed 6 Nov 85 18:16:13-PST
Date: 6 Nov 85 20:06-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #61
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                      Wednesday, November 6, 1985 8:06PM
Volume 5, Issue 61

Today's Topics:

                             Call Pickup
                        Multi-Line Variety Pak
                             CO features
                         NYTel packet switch

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue 5 Nov 85 16:47:03-PST
From: Ole Jorgen Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Pickup


What you want is called the Premiere system. Available here in
Calfornia from Pacific Bell. What you get (the price is actually
very reasonable and if you have two lines with the standard set
of custom calling features you would probably pay less if you
converted it to Premiere).  Premiere is available in two sizes
2-6 lines and 7-20 lines. You get:

Standard:
    - Call pickup        *8
    - Call transfer        H+#<number>
    - Call hold        H+*9
    - 3-way calling        H+<number>H
    - Intercom        #n

Optional:
    - Call waiting        *9
    - Call forwarding    *72<number>
    - Speed calling        *nn
    - Busy call forwarding
    - Distinctive ringing    Intercom and outside calls ring differently

H means depress hookswitch, +means listen for special dial tone, * and #
are what you think they are. They also offer the ability for your Premiere
stations to access your WATS lines and the ability for incoming WATS calls
to be transferred to your Premiere stations. (I guess the latter would
only be applicable to business customers, unless of course you'd like your
very own 800 number: 1-800-CALL-BEN).

<OLE>
<370>

------------------------------

Date: 06-Nov-1985 0723
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: Multi-Line Variety Pak


A service called "Multi-Line Variety Pak" has been implemented by
Western Electric for No 1A ESS -- though it is not available in all
operating companies.

What happens is that your multiple single lines are grouped into a
small CENTREX, which allows you to use call pickup and to tranfer
calls from one line to another.  The rest of the features work pretty
much the same as without Multi-Line Variety Pak, except that a side
effect of being able to transfer an incoming call to another line in
your CENTREX is that you can transfer it anywhere.

/john

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday,  6 Nov 1985 06:26:14-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein dtn247-3204)
Subject: CO features


V5I60 mentioned the Call Pickup group feature, which just about all
PBXs have had for a few years, and asked about putting it on a CO.
As it happens, most COs also have the feature, and offer it to Centrex
customers.  The reason you can't have it among several different
residential lines is because the feature is designed to work within
a single "customer group", which corresponds to a Centrex system.
Residential lines are not grouped; if they were, they'd all be on
one bill, and would have adjoining directory numbers.  Residential
Centrex does exist but it's quite an uncommon luxury.  Pickup between
customers is not done -- imagine the security risk if it got misprogrammed
a bit!  (At least on the DMS-100 CO, the encoding for the group is
bizarre and much to easy to screw up.  I don't know about the 1AESS or
othwer WECo COs.)

When you move between houses served by the same CO, they can move your
phone either in hardware or in software.  While it seems intuitively
obvious to a digest reader that the work will be done in software,
the hardware technique is really quite easy:  The wires all converge
at a single main frame inthe CO, so the technician just has to run
a jumper to tie the line to both residences at the same time.  Then,
when the old one is disconnected, he removes the old jumper.  It takes
less time, in some cases, than doing it in software.  (Who ever said
telephone companies were up to date?)

It is possible to use software to activate both lines on the same number,
on some COs, but it's not real easy.  On the DMS-100, it's called a
Multiple Apprearance Directory Number, and its acronym MADN is very
descriptive.  A jumper wire is much easier!

------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 1985 09:41-EST
Subject: NYTel packet switch
From: [e-mail]

I noticed an announcement that NYTel filed a proposal with the
FCC for a public packet-switching service, to be called Infopath.
I wonder if the X.25 world of telecomm isn't going to take much
the same shape as the voice-switched network, i.e.  local service
provided by BOC's, handed over to LD carriers to get outside the
territory.  Do Tymnet, Telenet, et al become the equivalents of
MCI, Sprint, and others when protocol conversion for the local
telcos becomes a reality?  (Anticipating?  Me?)

I realize other BOC's have made stabs at getting protocol
conversion approval.  It seems that they are finding the proper
shape for a proposal to the FCC, and once they latch on to the
magic formula, they're off and running.  Then what?

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 7-Nov-85 16:22:46-PST,4440;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Thu 7 Nov 85 16:22:31-PST
Date: 7 Nov 85 18:28-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #62
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Thursday, November 7, 1985 6:28PM
Volume 5, Issue 62

Today's Topics:

                   More on Residential Call Pick-up
                      Re: Local Telco X.25 PDNs
             digital readout of the caller's phone number
                              Re: Tones

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 07-Nov-1985 0023
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: More on Residential Call Pick-up


As I mentioned, "Multi-Line Variety Pak" or "Premiere" or whatever
it's called in your favorite state is not tariffed everywhere, which
explains Fred Goldstein not knowing about it.

As tariffed in Atlanta, separate customers CAN agree to belong to the
same group, even though they receive separate bills, and can do call
pickup even though it may not be very useful if the premises are far
enough apart that you can't hear the bell ringing.  Two of my friends
in Atlanta who used to live in adjacent apartments kept MLVP after
one of them moved about a mile away.

Another friend, in Minneapolis, ordered two lines with the service and
then had one line removed -- and then, in effect, had a one-line CENTREX.
The advantage was the call transfer and call hold features, not available
on normal POTS lines.

/john

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 85 08:44:38 PST (Thursday)
Subject: Re: Local Telco X.25 PDNs
From: [e-mail]


Regarding the message about local Telcos starting up their own X.25 PDNs
(Public Data Networks). The comment was that long haul X.25 might be
done by other companys, same as long haul voice is done by the carriers,
not the telcos.

Well, I sure hope not. Give me an end-to-end PDN any day. The interface
within the voice system between local and longhaul carriers is a whole
lot better that the equivalent in X.25 land (X.75).

In my experiences with X.75 (A US PDN to Japan via X.75 and a US PDN to
England via X.75) it hasn't yet worked right.

And the PDN isn't real helpful about fixing the problems in their X.75
gateway either. It works okay for simple X.25 calls with pkt size = 128,
window of 2; but anything better than that tends to fail.

The 1984 version of the X.25 and X.75 specs will help, but many PDNs
aren't yet implementing version 1980!

Larry Kluger

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 14:18 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: digital readout of the caller's phone number

In a book called "Curiosa", by Felton, Bruce and Mark Fowler, published
1984, the following device was described:

"Best Protection Against Obscene Phone Calls: Telident, Inc. has
developed a device that makes it a snap to trace calls. It consists of a
box attached to the receiving telephone and provides a digital readout
of the caller's phone number and area code."

Does anyone know of Telident?  Where they might be located, or their
phone number?  Anyone have an idea how such a box might work?

Thanks very much,

// Tom

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 6 November 1985 2232-PST (Wednesday)
Subject: Re: Tones

Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jimmy the Kid)
Organization: U.C. San Diego Beer & Pizza Society

In article <[e-mail]> writes:

>>In-reply-to: USENET article <8510152232.AA06872@UCB-VAX>
>>
>> ...as Touchtone was designed for ease of listening.
>
> I don't understand what you mean here, exactly... you mean the touchtone
> sounds are supposed to be pleasant?  I always thought the ones that came
> with the messages were more pleasant than the touchtone ones, which sound
> discordant to me.
> --

Would you rather listen to regular old generic MF Tones?  The DTMF
tones are at least harmonically "close" to each other...

                      - Jim Hayes
                      sdcsvax!sdcc13!33500911
--
"Alvin!?!  We're getting that 'panic: Nuclear war imminant' from 4.2 BSD
on VAX#4.  Is that 12 year-old logged in again?"

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
10-Nov-85 10:41:37-PST,11603;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Sun 10 Nov 85 10:41:14-PST
Date: 10 Nov 85 12:51-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #64
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Sunday, November 10, 1985 12:51PM
Volume 5, Issue 64

Today's Topics:

                Request for information on Technology
                              Re: (none)
               Re: what is an AML and how does it work?
                   Re: Rochester telephone service

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  8-Nov-85 10:26 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Request for information on Technology

I am looking for information on when technology transition from the research
and development stage and transfered to off-the-shelf stage.  In concerned, I
am looking for when R&D started on the following fields and when they enter
into the production market.  I understand that there is a lot of grey area
around these dates, but I am looking for journals, news items, and/or history
articles which summarize the following technologies;

   A.  Telephone Switch

   B.  Satellite Communication

   C.  The modern day computer

   D.  Fiber-Optic

   E.  Store and Forward digital switches

   F.  Higher Lever Computer languish

   G.  Local Area Networks

Any information you can provide is appreciated.

Sampson sends.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 85 12:24:35 PST
From: ihnp4!kitty![e-mail]
Subject: Re: (none)

> An active line dectector should not be to hard for someone to design.
> The phone line has a potential of about 5 volts when off the hook. Its
> on hook voltage is considerably higher.  All that need be designed is
> a simple circut that detects the low voltage.  When the device sees
> this lower voltage is draws a very small amount of current for the LED.
> I am unfortunatly unable to take it beyond this stage.  I would
> however be interested in the plans if someone can handle the next step.

    It would be far better to have a line status indicator which was
powered from a small alkaline or mercury battery, and which used the battery
power to drive the LED.  If you used a CMOS voltage detector IC, like the
Intersil P/N ICL7665, the quiescent battery current would be well under
5 microamperes.  This IC will drive an LED directly (with a suitable current
limiting resistor).  Only a handful of components are needed for the circuit,
but the circuit is too complex to reproduce over the Net.  If you get a copy
of the Intersil data sheet, the circuit should be self-explanatory (assuming
you have some basic electronic experience).  You should use a full-wave bridge
rectifier across the telephone line to make the circuit polarity-independent;
in addition use at least a 50 kilohm resistor in series with the telephone
line (i.e., AC) side of the bridge, and clamp the DC output side with a 4.7
volt zener diode to prevent ringing current damage.  You will have to then
interpose a voltage divider between this zener diode and the input circuit
to the ICL7665.
    In general, you should assume that a telephone line has a nominal
48 to 52 volt on-hook voltage, and that ringing is a nominal 105 V RMS 20 Hz
superimposed on 48 volt DC.  The nominal DC resistance of a 500-type telephone
set is 300 ohms, which means that if you are close to the central office, you
could see ALMOST 20 volts DC in an off-hook condition; do NOT assume a nominal
5 volt DC off-hook condition!  So, to be safe, you should set your on-hook/
off-hook threshhold voltage at 20 volts.
    If you are located some distance from the CO, your line could have
what are called loop extenders on it, which means you could see an on-hook
voltage of as high as 96 volts DC (72 is more common, though).  Also, if
your line is served through line concentrator equipment or through subscriber
line carrier, then anything is possible.  These latter two possibilities are
not very common, but they do exist, and you should be aware of the likelihood
in the event that some circuit you build really weirds out.
    In general, you should not draw more than 2 milliamperes of BRIDGING
current from a telephone line, nor place any BRIDGING resistance of LESS than
20,000 ohms.  If you fail to abide by this condition, you run the risk of
premature ring tripping, and having automatic line test apparatus in the CO
think you have cable trouble.  Ideally, you should never bridge LESS than
100 kilohms across the telephone line, which limits your bridging current to
0.5 milliampere.
    The above paragraph is why you should really use a low-power active
voltage sensing circuit such as the Intersil part.
    We won't talk about FCC Part 68 certification...

===  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York        ===
===  UUCP    {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry  ===
===  VOICE   716/741-9185         {rice,shell}!baylor!/             ===
===  FAX     [phone] {AT&T 3510D}                 ihnp4!/               ===
===                                       ===
===                   "Have you hugged your cat today?"                   ===

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 85 13:53:31 PST
From: ihnp4!kitty![e-mail]
Subject: Re: what is an AML and how does it work?

> I moved into a new apartment last month and had quite a bad experience
> getting phone service.  ...
> After 2 weeks of
> calling (from work) and badgering them almost every day, NET decided to
> provide service to me by way of an AML.  An AML is apparently some sort of
> multiplexor which is able to provide service for 2 (or more) phone numbers
> over a single pair of wires.  The AML takes one number as input and gives
> another number as output.  (There is apparently another AML or similar
> device at the central office end of the circuit).  ...
> One more interesting thing to report about this whole affair is its effect
> on my telephone answering machine.  For some reason unknown to both me and
> the phone company, my answering machine will not answer calls when it is
> hooked up to the line which is output from the AML, but works fine on the
> primary incoming line.  Anyone have any ideas?

    Oh yucch, AML.  AML (Added Main Line carrier) is indeed what you
mentioned - a method of multiplexing a second telephone circuit over an
existing physical cable pair.  Most AML apparatus is manufactured by
Superior-Continental; I don't believe WECO ever made any AML per se.  The
system works by frequency division multiplex, with the CO generally sending
at 76 kHz, and the station sending at 28 kHz.  Modulation is typically AM
double sideband.
    The yucchy part about AML is what your station apparatus sees.  Unlike
a conventional CO line which presents 48 volts DC in an on-hook condition, AML
provides typically 6 to 10 volts DC.  Since there is essentially negligible loop
resistance between the AML and the station, the off-hook telephone excitation
CURRENT is sufficient for operating most devices.  HOWEVER, certain electronic
telephone sets and anciliary devices which look at T/R loop voltage for line
status purposes will NOT work because the low open circuit voltage makes the
device think the circuit is permanently off-hook.
    Another bad part is ringing.  Many AML devices - as a result of making
the subscriber unit as simple as possible - do NOT provide superimposed
ringing; i.e., instead of 20 Hz ringing being over T+R, the ringing runs between
the R lead and an auxiliary Y lead.  There is no way around this situation if
that is the way your AML is designed.  Newer telephone answering machines and
modems no longer provide a separate ringing detector lead which could be
connected to the Y lead; as a result, many newer telephone answering machines
and modems will NOT detect ringing when connected to AML.  Period.
    Yet another bad part is that while the PHYSICAL telephone line
associated with the AML is OFF-HOOK, your AML is being powered solely by an
internal rechargeable battery.  If the physical line - which need not be your
own line - is in use for excessive periods of time, your battery will not be
sufficiently charged, thereby causing assorted troubles for the AML circuit.
There are auxiliary AC-powered chargers which the telephone company can
install to solve this latter problem, but usually it takes a lot of complaints
to the telephone company in order for them to do this.
    I don't know if there is anything you can do to force the telephone
company to provide you with a physical pair service instead of AML; it all
depends upon what their tariffs say, or what class of service you are paying
for.
    Fortunately, the use AML devices like the above is on the decline.
While there are still subscriber line multiplex (i.e., `pair gain') devices
being used, the trend is to locate them in outside enclosures for groups of
subscriber lines; these newer devices are also much better designed, use
digital techniques, and do not have the pitfalls of the AML devices above.

===  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York        ===
===  UUCP    {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry  ===
===  VOICE   716/741-9185         {rice,shell}!baylor!/             ===
===  FAX     [phone] {AT&T 3510D}                 ihnp4!/               ===
===                                       ===
===                   "Have you hugged your cat today?"                   ===

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 85 13:55:47 PST
From: ihnp4!kitty![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Rochester telephone service

> I make fairly frequent calls from northern N.J. (201) to Hamilton, N.Y.
> (315)824-XXXX, and vice versa.  I very often get the tones and the "All lines
> are busy, try again" msg.  Is Hamilton in the Rochester LATA?
>
> One thing *I think* I've noticed.  It seems that if I punch in the
> numbers slowly and very evenly (about 2 or 3/sec.) the success ratio
> tends to be much higher.
>
> Would that be a crossbar trying to deal with the output from a DTMF
> decoder or something of the like?

    Dialing speed (rotary (DP) or DTMF, no matter which) has absolutely NO
effect on call completion success, the only exception being if your dialed
digits are too slow or too fast for detection (i.e., < 6 || > 15 pps DP or
> 10 digits/sec DTMF).  If you are in a crossbar office, you are effectively
"offline" when dialing; your dialed digits are being decoded and stored in an
`originating register' (OR).  Only when the OR detects the completion of a
dialing sequence (or abort of same through a timeout) is the call routed to
the `marker' for route section and transmission through the DDD network.
    Also, the method of station dialing - DP or DTMF - has absolutely NO
bearing on the signalling (i.e., digit transmission) to the destination
office.

===  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York        ===
===  UUCP    {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry  ===
===  VOICE   716/741-9185         {rice,shell}!baylor!/             ===
===  FAX     [phone] {AT&T 3510D}                 ihnp4!/               ===
===                                       ===
===                   "Have you hugged your cat today?"                   ===

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
13-Nov-85 22:14:22-PST,8022;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Wed 13 Nov 85 22:13:40-PST
Date: 13 Nov 85 23:52-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #65
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                    Wednesday, November 13, 1985 11:52PM
Volume 5, Issue 65

Today's Topics:

                    [Kahin: Communications Forum]
[[e-mail]: Frwd: Request for information on Technology]
  Article on Cellular Toll Fraud (aka Cellular Sieve/Swiss Cheese).
Re: Article on Cellular Toll Fraud (aka Cellular Sieve/Swiss Cheese).
                      Re:  TELECOM Digest V5 #64

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 85 23:10:24 EST
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  [Kahin: Communications Forum]

MSG:  *MSG   4702
Date: 11/11/85 19:46:57 R
From: Kahin at MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Re:   Communications Forum

Received: from MIT-MULTICS.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA 11 Nov 85 19:46:52 EST
Date:  Mon, 11 Nov 85 19:38 EST
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  Communications Forum
To:  *[e-mail]
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

              Massachusetts Institute of Technology

                      Communications Forum

                        Thursday 4-6 p.m.



                  The Impact of the Divestiture

                        November 14, 1985

Lisa Rosenblum, New York Public Service Commission, Consumer Division

     Paul Levy, Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities

             Gayle Ruedi, AT&T Customer Services/MIT



     There has been more choice but also more confusion in the

telecommunications industry since the breakup of the 107 year-old

Bell System last year.  Both residential and business users are

faced with complex tradeoffs among products, services, and

prices -- in a market which is in constant technological flux.

State regulatory agencies have found their established practices

challenged by the changes climate and have had to reassess what

their role should be.  The divestiture has had a particularly

profound effect on AT&T, which has had to shed its monopoly

mindset and establish an image as a "new," competitive company,

while reassuring customers that it continues to offer state-of-

the-art technology and service.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 12 Nov 85 11:43:24-EST
From: J. J. Tyrone Sealy <[e-mail]>
Subject: [[e-mail]: Frwd: Request for information on Technology]

care to help..I heard that ye are the ONE...
                ---------------

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from AFCC-3.ARPA by MIT-XX.ARPA with TCP; Fri 8 Nov 85 13:35:36-EST
Date:  8-Nov-85 10:26 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Frwd: Request for information on Technology
To: sra@mit-xx
Cc: ty@mit-xx
Message-ID: <AFCC-SIMCS-808GV@AFCC-3>
Sender: Capt Sampson, HQ AFCC/SIMCS  <[e-mail]>

From: SIMCS.AFCC
Subject: Request for information on Technology
To: telecom@mit-xx
Cc: poli-sci@rutgers
Identifier: AFCC-SIMCS-808FL
Length: 0 page(s)[estimate]
Sender: KBS.AFCC; Capt Sampson, HQ AFCC/SIMCS (Sent from AFCC-3)
Posted:  7-Nov-85 13:04-CST
Received:  7-Nov-85 13:04-CST

I am looking for information on when technology transition from the research
and development stage and transfered to off-the-shelf stage.  In concerned, I
am looking for when R&D started on the following fields and when they enter
into the production market.  I understand that there is a lot of grey area
around these dates, but I am looking for journals, news items, and/or history
articles which summarize the following technologies;

   A.  Telephone Switch

   B.  Satellite Communication

   C.  The modern day computer

   D.  Fiber-Optic

   E.  Store and Forward digital switches

   F.  Higher Lever Computer languish

   G.  Local Area Networks

Any information you can provide is appreciated.

Sampson sends.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Nov 1985 15:17-PST
Subject: Article on Cellular Toll Fraud (aka Cellular Sieve/Swiss Cheese).
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <[e-mail]>


The aforesaid article, published in the November 1985 issue of _Personal_
_Communications_Technology_, by Geoffrey S. Goodfellow, Robert N. Jesse,
and Andrew H. Lamothe, Jr., is availble for on-list distribution by special
arrangement with the publisher.

You may FTP it from SRI-CSL, Internet host 192.12.33.2, via the ANONYMOUS
login convention, from <Geoff>Article.Cellular-Sieve.

If you are unable to FTP and wish a copy via netmail, i will be happy to
furnish one upon request.

g

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 13 Nov 1985 10:10-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Article on Cellular Toll Fraud (aka Cellular Sieve/Swiss Cheese).

Your article on the Cellular telephone service was good.  I had a lot
of trouble with the FTP, though.  Others experiencing difficulty might
try it with all caps, and a "1" after the name, leaving
<GEOFF>ARTICLE.CELLULAR-SEIVE.1
as the name of the remote file.

This worked ok for me.

                Peter Baldwin, WA1SNH
                (ptb@mitre-bedford)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1985  20:56:47 CZT
From:  $[e-mail]  (Robert J. Olivier)

  Could someone please tell me what tones a pay phone makes just before it
asks you for the money. Please reply direct.

  Thanks in advance,
  Robert Olivier $[e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1985  08:01:09
Subject: Re:  TELECOM Digest V5 #64


    Date: Sat, 9 Nov 85 13:55:47 PST
    From: ihnp4!kitty![e-mail]
    Subject: Re: Rochester telephone service

        Dialing speed (rotary (DP) or DTMF, no matter which) has absolutely NO
    effect on call completion success, the only exception being if your dialed
    digits are too slow or too fast for detection (i.e., < 6 || > 15 pps DP or
    > 10 digits/sec DTMF).  If you are in a crossbar office, you are effectively
    "offline" when dialing; your dialed digits are being decoded and stored in an
    `originating register' (OR).  Only when the OR detects the completion of a
    dialing sequence (or abort of same through a timeout) is the call routed to
    the `marker' for route section and transmission through the DDD network.

Umm -- that's not always the case.  When I lived in Durham, for example
(1972-1977), it most certainly was important.  (Durham is served by GTE.)  You
could hear the DTMF->pulse conversion going on as you dialed -- go too fast
and you'd confuse the switch.  This may, of course, have been an antiquted
switch; they didn't install automatic number identification equipment until
about 1974 or 1975, and then only under orders from the Utilities Commission.
Chapel Hill was even worse until Southern Bell bought the phone company from
the University (1978) and replaced the old step exchange with an ESS (1981).
One learned to listen to the click pattern as one dialed (rotary only, of course);
the wrong pattern of clicks meant you wouldn't get through.  (Have you ever tried
to exlain to a repair service clerk that you wanted to report a problem with
a bouncing relay on some trunk group, which you currently had seized, rather
than with some particular number?)  Once I was using an autodialer to call
the local Comp Center, on 933-9911.  The switch gave up after the first 3 or
4 digits and gave me a new dial tone in time for the fifth digit.  So I ended
up dialing 911...

        --Steve Bellovin
        AT&T Bell Laboratories

Anything I say here is my own opinions, not company policy, etc.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
17-Nov-85 12:57:03-PST,14386;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Sun 17 Nov 85 12:56:23-PST
Date: 17 Nov 85 14:51-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #66
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Sunday, November 17, 1985 2:51PM
Volume 5, Issue 66

Today's Topics:

                     FX type service info request
                        CTS modem info needed
            Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem
              FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem
                 Help: Internal Telephone accounting
                        Telephone Ring Control
                      [Kahin: Nov. 21st seminar]
                   Re: FX type service info request

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 10:54:49 cst
From: [e-mail] (R. Blake Farenthold)
Subject: FX type service info request

I am in the process of moving from Austin to San Antonio and was looking
into keeping an austin telephone number for both my personal use
calling out and the users of my BBS.  Basicaly ~I want an Austin line
in San Antonio, 2 differerent LATAs both served by Southwestern Bell

SW Bell refered me to a long distance carrier, so I called ATT who
said theyd call me back with rates and didn't, MCI (who quoted me
$270 per month) and a handfull of others who were just WATS resellers
and didnt even know what FX service was.

I was about to go with MCI when they mentioned "By the way Southwestern
bell tacks a 4 cent a minute charge on the service!

I was appauled, figuring if i put my bbs on the line it would cost
ocer $1000 a month!.

Are there any other options on getting a local phone number in a different
city? I Don't mind diling extra digits etc. (perhaps sublese space on
someones broadband link or somthing).

Suggestions are welcome.... Also any carriers other than mci & bell
that might offer what im looking for?


Blake Farenthold      |    CIS: 70070,521   |  UUCP: {ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}
P.O. Box 3027         | Source: TCX023      |        !utastro!blake
Austin, TX 78764-3027 | Delphi: blake       |  Intr: [e-mail]
BBS: 512-442-1116     |    MCI: BFARENTHOLD |   ESL: 62806548

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 85 02:30:14 GMT
From: Matt Verner <ihnp4!inuxc!inuxh![e-mail]>
Subject: CTS modem info needed

I have recently been given a CTS 212AH modem but no documentation.  I
have tried all switch combinations to no avail... I cant seem to
'wake' the thing up.  Does this modem follow Hayes command format?

Anyone with access to a users manual who could mail the proper dip
switch settings and the command list to get the modem to dial a number
would have my eternal gratitude, but not my first born son.
                thanks in advance,

                Matt
                UUCP:  ...ihnp4!inuxc!verner

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 85 08:49:45 GMT
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!watmath![e-mail]
Subject: Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem

The recent InfoWorld review of the 10,000 bps FASTLINK modems said
that a modem would transmit a single character after a full-second
delay.  If you're thinking of using one of these things for
interactive typing, and you're depending on remote echo of characters
(as in using a full-screen editor on UNIX), you'll have to wait *two*
seconds for each singly-typed character to echo.

Their conjecture was that the modems assemble packets, and if not
enough characters fill the packet, the modem will only send the
current partial packet after a time-out.  With two modems between you
and the remote computer, this produces a sizeable delay.  The company
has "no plans" to fix this.

Sigh.  I was so hoping these modems wouldn't have such a tragic flaw.
--
        -IAN!  (Ian! D. Allen)      University of Waterloo

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 14 November 1985  09:14-MST
From: Bob Halloran <decvax!vax135!petsd!pedsgd![e-mail]>
Subject:   FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Schaffer) writes:
>  I got the glossy 4 page brochure from Digital Communications Associates,
>Inc. (the IRMA people) about their FASTLINK (tm) 10,000 bps modem.  It
>also has 300 and 1200 compatibility, but I thought people might be
>interested in some of the "fast" features.

    PC Week reviewed this beastie this week (12 November).  Excerpts
and comments follow.

>
>  "Data transmission at 10,000 bps or faster."  N1
>  "Asynchronous dial-up connection."
>  "Automatic error detection and correction."  N2
>
>N1- inside it says "Poor quality lines may result in lower transmisssion
>     speeds."

    'In our tests, we achieved error-free transmission at speeds
of more than 7000 bps on long-distance lines (between two small towns
outside of Atlanta and Boston), and 8500 bps over local lines.
    Considering that the average throughput with a 1200 bps modem
is something like 800 bps...' -- PC Week, 12 Nov 85

>...  Also, while this modem is full duplex, it adaptively varies
>how much of the transmission capacity is allocated to each direction.  (So
>I imagine that the "10,000 bps or faster" speed is reached with nearly all
>the data going in one direction.)

    While most connections are in principle full-duplex, in practice
the back-and-forth nature of most sessions, and the frequent occurance
of a short entry from a user causing a large response from the host, lends
itself to such a scheme.

>.....   No mention is made of performance in
>a character echo environment.  All this fancy stuff is done by "multi-
>processor power, capable of handling over 7" MIPS.

    'Neither DCA or Telebit, their partners, view it as a replacement
for the ubiquitous Hayes-compatible 1200 or 2400 bps modem in the Source/
Dow Jones/MCI world.  Fastlink and its near twin, the Telebit Trailblazer,
are intended primarily as high-speed file-transfer devices for moving files
to computer systems across the office or across the company.' -- PC Week.

    The smarts of this thing are apparently a 68000 and the newest TI
signal processing chip set. (Any specifics, you analog types?)

>  The company is at 1000 Alderman Dr., Alpharetta, GA  30201  [phone]
>and the list price of the stand-alone version is $2395.  (The PC card version
>is $400 less.)
>
>--henry schaffer  n c state univ


                    Bob Halloran
                    Sr MTS, CONCURRENT Computer Corp
                    (Formerly Perkin-Elmer DSG)
=============================================================================
UUCP: {decvax, ucbvax, most Action Central}!vax135\
                    {pesnta, topaz, princeton}!petsd!pedsgd!bobh
USPS: 106 Apple St M/S 305, Tinton Falls NJ 07724    DDD: [phone]
Disclaimer: I doubt that my employer wants anything to do with my opinions.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 85 22:52:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Help: Internal Telephone accounting

I have a problem with telephone accounting.  This should not be an
uncommon problem, but I have been unable to discover anyone who offers
an acceptable solution.  The problem is described in detail below,
please send mail if you have any information, experience, or advice on
this issue.

Thanks in advance,
Charles Ball
Intermetrics, Inc.        {belcore,ima,ihnp4}!inmet!cball
733 Concord Ave.        [e-mail]
[phone]


The problem:
    We have dial-out modems attached to a port selector.  These
modems are accessed by computer as well as by terminals.  Access to
these modems is neither restricted nor monitored.  We also have several
800 numbers that are used for remote dial-in.  This setup is necessary
for our business(Intermetrics is a software house), but the monthly
telephone charges are substantial and need to be allocated directly
to the projects that incur them.

The solution:
    We plan to install a system that verifies a user, allows that
user to specify a group(charge account), asks for a telephone number,
makes the call, and monitors the call length.  In addition, dial-ins
should be called back on the less expensive, dial-out lines.
Relevant information should be logged and easily accessible for
later processing.  We have access to a database that identifies
connection charges based on the area code and three digit prefix of
the two telephone numbers.  It will be a simple matter to toss this data
in with the rest of our computer accounting data.

The hitch:
    No one seems to make this system.  If anyone has knowledge to
the contrary, please let me know.  I would prefer to buy a system than roll
my own.
    Some port selector companies output the number called on a
statistics port, but none I've talked to allow for specification of a
charge account, or per user password mechanisms.
    PBX companies assume that the originating extension is significant.
This is reasonable in an office environment, but our extensions are
really modems on a port selector.  Some PBX's provide charge account
specifications, but none would provide a password mechanism.  This
would(perhaps) be tolerable if the PBX is reasonably priced.  However,
the most connections this system needs to handle would be thirty and
most PBX's I've found with these features are cost effective
at 300+ extensions.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 85 21:27:40 GMT
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!galbp![e-mail]
Subject: Telephone Ring Control

I am looking for information or pointers to information on telephone ring
control.  What I want is as follows:

    A device that can be plugged into a standard modular phone jack
        that is capable of disabling the ringing of all telephones while
        still getting a ring indication itself.  However, it also needs
        to have the ability to ring the other phones if the call is not
        for itself.

This may or may not be possible, I don't really know.
Mail me any ideas or sources of ideas.
Thanks,

John Kish
Lanier/Harris
Computer R&D
..!{gatech,akgua}!galbp!jwk

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Nov 85 20:11:34 EST
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  [Kahin: Nov. 21st seminar]

MSG:  *MSG   4728
Date: 11/16/85 10:41:21 R
From: Kahin at MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Re:   Nov. 21st seminar

Received: from MIT-MULTICS.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA 16 Nov 85 10:40:39 EST
Posted-Date:  11 Nov 85 19:36 EST
Date:  Mon, 11 Nov 85 19:34 EST
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  Nov. 21st seminar
To:  [e-mail], [e-mail]
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  16 Nov 85 10:32 EST
Resent-From:  [e-mail]
Resent-To:  *[e-mail]
Resent-Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

              Massachusetts Institute of Technology

                      Communications Forum

                        Thursday 4-6 p.m.





                     Software Dissemination:

              First Sale and Shrink-Wrap Licensing

                        November 21, 1985

     David Waterman, Annenberg School of Communication, USC

              Robert Bigelow, Bigelow and Saltzberg

                  Robert McEwen, Boston College



     Home video technology seemed to promise motion picture

studios a new revenue stream from selling movies in the form of a

product that consumers would purchase and collect.  In practice,

the studios found themselves whipsawed by the "first sale"

doctrine:  If they marketed videocassettes as a product, copies

could be rented by retailers without paying royalties.

Alternatively, they could pursue a "rental only" strategy --

leasing copies to distributors and retailers, who could then only

rent to consumers, returning royalties for each rental.  The

middlemen resisted "rental only" plans and outright sale

prevailed.  The studios, in turn, asked Congress to modify the

law for audio-visual works.  They failed, but the law was amended

for sound recordings, which aborted the development of record

rental services.

     Although a bill to modify the first sale doctrine for

computer software was introduced in the Senate, software

producers have generally sought to characterize retail

transactions as licensing agreements.  But instead of having

dealers rent the software, the industry has relied on "shrink-

wrap licenses", which purport to create a lease upon the opening

of the package.

     Are shrink-wrap licenses enforceable?  Can they

effectively transform sales into leases and goods into services?

When should the first sale doctrine apply?  This seminar will

survey the law and then look at the economic and policy issues.

------------------------------

Date: Sun 17 Nov 85 14:38:28-EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FX type service info request

HMM, well, WATS service is an option, if you don't mind paying
for each call made to your residence (BBS, or whatever). There are
several sorts of WATS services, such as SPRINT has a service which
will allow Austin customers to call their SPRINT access number and
key in a special code and it will auto-collect dial you at SPRINT
rates (which are cheaper than AT&T). Check with the other carriers
as well for this sort of service.

If the Local Operating Company tacks on a 4cent/minute charge, it is
usually for *outgoing* *calls* *only*, so if you are using this
line for incoming service, you can probably avoid the charges.
Alot of companies are doing this (Pac tel was probably the pioneer
in this).

Chances are, FX services and the like are really expensive.
If you are going to pay for the FX charges, you might consider
alternatives which are pay-per-use (another option is remote call
forwarding, check with SW Bell on this). For a BBS, FX service still
seems like the right idea, since you will probably get more calls
than the FX costs flat rate per month.

Enjoy,
--JSol

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
15-Dec-85 22:55:27-PST,10560;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Sun 15 Dec 85 22:55:02-PST
Date: 16 Dec 85 00:51-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #68
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Monday, December 16, 1985 12:51AM
Volume 5, Issue 68

Today's Topics:

                             Administrivia
            re: digital readout of the caller's phone number
                       Re: Ringing RS-232 dilemma
             Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem
                        Anyone have this modem?
                    Computer Friends' MERCURY MODEM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 85 00:31:30 est
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Rosenstein)
Subject: Administrivia

Since JSol has not made it back to Boston yet, I have agreed to moderate
telecom for him in his absence.  Continue sending articles for the list
to [e-mail], and requests to be added/deleted to
[e-mail], and I will attempt to deal with them as I
learn to use the digestification software.
                    -Mark

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 85 13:02 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: re: digital readout of the caller's phone number

Re: my request on the whereabouts of Telident:

"Best Protection Against Obscene Phone Calls: Telident, Inc. has
developed a device that makes it a snap to trace calls. It consists of a
box attached to the receiving telephone and provides a digital readout
of the caller's phone number and area code."

I have received several replies, but no one seems to know who or where
Telident is.

Some responses:

"Such a box will require the local telephone company's switcher to
collect and transmit the caller's number to it. For inter-exchange calls
the calling number must be transmitted between exchanges and for "long
distance" calls your long distance carrier must also carry the calling
number across its network. Other  than some local trials using AT&T's
1AESS switch and CCIS6 inter-exchange signalling you won't have this
service available until the BOCs, LECs and OCCs
get their ISDN capabilities deployed. Don't purchase the box yet."

"I doubt that such a device could be built.  The New York Times of Nov 9
(Patent section) describes a device just patented that requires mods to
the phone exchange.  It transmits the caller's number between the first
and second rings.  But until these things are installed, I don't think
there is any way to find the caller's number from the receiver's end."

"It takes more than just a box on the phone!  When ISDN comes into
being, that info will be available to subscribers.  You might even be
able to do it w/ CCS, but unless the CO is programmed to send you that
info, you are out of luck.  Calls entering from a far office would
require reprogramming of that office as well.  It will take a
coordinated effort of many COs to get this one to work. Nice feature,
but I don't think anyone could have it --- yet."

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 85 09:10:54 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Brian Kantor)
Subject: Re: Ringing RS-232 dilemma

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Art Zemon) writes:
>
>For various reasons I have a RS-232 line which is sometimes
>connected to another computer and sometimes left just hanging.
>When it is connected all is fine.  When it is disconnected, the
>line "rings" and my VAX is inundated with ~1000 characters per
>second input.  Poor Felix (the VAX) tries to echo all those
>characters and the poor human users complain about a certain
>lack of responsiveness.
>Is there some device which can be placed in the line to prevent
>the ringing but will not interfere with normal operation?  We
>tried placing 10K resistors between pins 2 and 7 and between 3
>and 7 but this didn't help.

I suspect that you have a problem which shows as the floating input to
the CD (carrier detect, pin 8) input bouonces and triggers init to
start a getty on the line.  Your RD (receive data, pin 3) line is
probably bouncing too.  Depending upon the type of serial port, you
may also have problems with RI (ring indicate, pin 22).  Much Un*x
software ignores RI.

It is not completely in keeping with the specification for the RS232
line, but you can usually solve this by connecting 4.7K or 10K
resistors from a source of negative voltage (there is one about -12 or
-15v supplied to the serial port driver) and each of the affected
pins.  Sometimes you can find the voltage you need on pin 10 of the
DB25, other times you'll have to grab it from a supply rail or one of
the power pins of the RS232 line transmitter chip.  Since the resistor
needs to connect to one of the pins on the receiver chip which is
usually close by anyway, its easiest to add it to the bottom of the
circuit board right there, assuming there's enough mechanical
clearance.  I usually stuff it right on the bottom of the board
underneath the chips.  Look for 1488 and 1489 chips; they are pretty
common.

This will keep the receive line marking, which is the proper condition
for an idle line, and will keep carrier detect false.  The resistance
value has to be low enough to be a stiff enough voltage to keep the
line in the proper sense despite surrounding noise, yet is has to be a
high enough resistance to not affect the desired signals when the line
is connected to a device.  10K has worked well for me in the past.
Your mileage may vary.

SUN-2 workstations often also need this fix for the two ports on the
CPU board.  Same symptoms.  Same cure.

Generic Disclaimer: Be Careful.  If smoke comes out of it, you screwed
up and I'm not responsible.  If you don't solder well and/or don't
feel at ease with electronics, get someone who does to do it for you.

    Brian Kantor    UCSD Office of Academic Computing
            Network Services Group  [phone]
            UCSD B-028, La Jolla, CA 92093

    decvax\     [e-mail]
    akgua  >---  sdcsvax  --- brian
    ucbvax/        Kantor@Nosc

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 85 19:20:21 GMT
From: Bob Halloran <ihnp4!vax135!petsd!pedsgd![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Schaffer) writes:
>
>  I got the glossy 4 page brochure from Digital Communications Associates,
>Inc. (the IRMA people) about their FASTLINK (tm) 10,000 bps modem.  It
>also has 300 and 1200 compatibility, but I thought people might be
>interested in some of the "fast" features.
>
>  "Data transmission at 10,000 bps or faster."  N1
>  "Asynchronous dial-up connection."
>  "Automatic error detection and correction."  N2
>
>N1- inside it says "Poor quality lines may result in lower transmisssion
>     speeds."

Latest Mini-Micro Systems (Nov 85) has an item on it.  Article has
test being performed with 'Telebit Trailblazer' (Telebit being the
actual developer, DCA is a marketeer licensing it as Fastlink).  Test
had PC-card version in a Compaq in Washington DC talking to a
stand-alone version at Telebit's office in California.

"Telephone circuits were established through three long-distance
carriers, AT&T, GTE Sprint, and Western Union.  The TrailBlazer modem
in Washington transmitted files through each carrier, respectively, at
14,819, 11,023 and 9198 bps." -- Stephen J. Shaw, Mini-Micro Systems,
Nov 85, p.45

As stated in previous follow-up, they don't intend it for use as an
interactive modem, but chiefly for bulk-transfer applications.  Seems
to me some of the high-volume net sites ought to look into these
beasties.

                    Bob Halloran
                    Sr MTS, CONCURRENT Computer Corp
                    (Formerly Perkin-Elmer DSG)
=============================================================================
UUCP: {decvax, ucbvax, most Action Central}!vax135\
                    {pesnta, topaz, princeton}!petsd!pedsgd!bobh
USPS: 106 Apple St M/S 305, Tinton Falls NJ 07724    DDD: [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 15 November 1985  09:17-MST
From: Douglas Flanagan <ihnp4!vax135!cornell!lasspvax![e-mail]>
Subject:   Anyone have this modem?

I have been asked to get a 1200 baud smart modem for as little money
as possible.  Here is one that I found that sounds like a good deal,
but is it?

Modem: 1200 Baud Smart Duck
Price: $169 + $6 P&H
Available from: DAK Industries Inc.
            Winter 1986 catalog, page 9
Made by: ADC, division of BSR
     (Maybe I'm dumb, but what is ADC? -or BSR even, although the letters
           sound familiar.)
Description: 1200 baud modem, Hayes compatible, with
         "more screen displays and a help menu",
         and "day, date and time, an extra phone jack and
         auto tone/pulse switching". Also has an auto-redial
         feature.

Does anyone have this modem, and if so, how do you like it? Is it
reliable? Does it differ from a Hayes Smartmodem 1200 in any way?
Since we already have a Hayes, life would be easiest if the new one
was Hayes compatible. If the above modem is no good, do you have any
other suggestions?

Please respond by mail. I will post a summary if there is worth while info.

Thank you.
            -Douglas Flanagan
             Center for Applied Math
             Cornell U., Ithaca, N.Y.

          [e-mail]   (ARPANET)
                  [e-mail] (BITNET)
           {decvax,ihnp4,cmcl2,vax135}!cornell!amvax!flanagan (USENET)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 85 15:44:53 GMT
From: harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!wanginst!vaxine!encore!necis![e-mail]
Subject: Computer Friends' MERCURY MODEM

Does anyone have any input regarding the Mercury Modem marketed by
Computer Friends of Porland Oregon.  I am in the market for a modem
for my APC III and am on a relatively tight budget.  They claim their
Mercury Modem is 100% Hayes compatible ( @ $265 )however, that isn't
really important to me.  What is important is reliability and ability
to use said modem with uucp.

Anybody had any experience with Computer Friends, I find their name
dubious @ best!  They just seem to be another company out there trying
to make a buck.

Please mail and if there is enuff stuff to repost, I will.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
16-Dec-85 22:04:56-PST,11743;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Mon 16 Dec 85 22:04:27-PST
Date: 16 Dec 85 23:25-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #69
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Monday, December 16, 1985 11:25PM
Volume 5, Issue 69

Today's Topics:

             Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem
             Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem
                       [Kahin: Nov. 21st seminar]
             Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem
             Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem
             Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem
                         DAK's 1200 Baud Modem
                 telephone service equipment monitoring
                            Cordless Phones
                         Query, re: SDI and ESS

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 85 04:12:58 GMT
From: Romain Kang <caip!topaz!pyrnj![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem

> As stated in previous follow-up, they don't intend it for use as an
> interactive modem, but chiefly for bulk-transfer applications.  Seems
> to me some of the high-volume net sites ought to look into these beasties.

uucp "g" protocol wouldn't work too well, since the packets are 64
bytes apiece.  I remember a few horror stories about the uucp in 2.9
bsd: there is a one second-per-packet sleep in the 2.9 uucp code that
everyone comments out.  The packet timeout on Fastlink would have a
similar effect.  Just think of telling your boss that your $2000
modems are putting out 22 bytes per second...

However, pyramid!csg has pointed out that one could use a different
protocol; also, 'g' is supposed to support 4096-byte packets, though
I've never heard of anyone actually using packets larger than 64
bytes.

Then again, maybe this is our big chance to break away from uucp
altogether...
--

Romain Kang, Pyramid Technology Corporation

US Mail:    900 Route 9, Woodbridge, NJ  07095
Ma Bell:    [phone]
UUCPnet:    {allegra,cmcl2,pyramid,topaz}!pyrnj!romain

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 85 09:22:51 GMT
From: Chris Torek <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem

If I understand correctly, FASTLINK has error correction built in;
if that is so, one would not want to use the `g' protocol.  I think
either the `f' protocol (for X.25) or a new `h'ardwired protocol
would be in order.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept ([phone])
UUCP:    seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:    chris@umcp-cs        ARPA:    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 85 05:04:36 EST
From: "Stephen C. Hill" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  [Kahin: Nov. 21st seminar]

This is another interesting sounding seminar, and that is the problem.  For
those of us several hundred (or even thousands of) miles away, it is extemely
frustrating to hear of the seminars and not be able to be there.  The upshot
of this message is that it would be REAL NICE if we could get the substance of
these seminars, rather than just the teasers.  Are these communications
seminars reported, or recorded?  Is there anyone that would be willing to at
least gist the contents?

Am I the only one on TELECOM that feels this way?

"Responsible opposing views are welcomed."

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 85 18:42:50 GMT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem

It isn't really a "flaw."  It's part of the basic design.  The modems
are HALF-DUPLEX 9600 bps modems (in effect).  They have some buffering
on both ends, but it takes a substantial period of time (something like
a second) to do a turnaround.

I have one of those modems here that I'm experimenting with--more
details when I have more to report.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 85 18:25:05 GMT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem

I (and a couple of other sites with these modems on loan) are planning
to conduct some experiments.  It is very clear that conventional file
transfer programs will not function properly "as-is" with a half
duplex modem that "simulates" full duplex in this manner.  There are
also some issues regarding transparency.  To operate at high speeds,
the modem requires ^S^Q flow control to operate in a particular manner
to/from the hosts, or to have full RTS/CTS functions built into the
drivers.  As has been reported previously, the modem is basically
unusable for most interactive applications.  True throughput over
typical dialup lines has also yet to be determined.  Large block sizes
on suboptimal circuits could potentially result in massive amounts of
time being spent on retries--this is one of the reasons that
"smallish" block sizes are usually preferable on dialup circuits, but
this modem won't function very well with smallish blocks.

One problem that has been reported is that the modems may crash on
power glitches and require manually power cycling to recover.  Also,
right now the modem does not do automatic speed hunting for command
input, though that is promised in a future firmware release.

More details later.  Experiments are really only getting
under way.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 85 18:43:17 GMT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FASTLINK (tm) "10,000 bps or faster" modem

Unfortunately, the fact that the modems have error correction built in
does not mean you don't need end to end error correction.  Loss of
data, particularly on busy Unix systems, is very common at even
moderate speeds on serial input lines.  So the fact that the data got
between the modems intact does NOT mean that the data got from the
modem to the computer, or from the computer to the modem without loss
(particularly if the modems are busy doing retries and are unable to
accept new data at full speed).  Early indications are that these
sorts of flow problems are so common that per packet error checking is
still the most efficient way to go, with the issue of packet size
being a yet to be determined variable.  Overall flow control issues
are also still not fully worked out.  Right now, we're planning to
work with standard file transfer programs and test different flow
control techniques and block sizes to see how the modems perform in
real life.  However, we've all agreed that per block error checking
should be maintained over dialup lines, just as it is at lower speeds.

These modems may have some uses, but they are definitely not the
ultimate.  Their lack of true full duplex capability is a very
significant factor.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 23 November 1985  21:37-MST
From: Kevin Crowston <[e-mail]>
Subject:   DAK's 1200 Baud Modem

I recently purchased a 1200 baud standalone modem from DAK for $175,
which makes it the cheapest modem I could find.  I ordered it over the
phone, charging it, and it arrived about 16 days later by UPS.  (I
still haven't gotten the VISA bill.)

The modem is actually made by ADC and looks pretty much like any other
1200 baud modem: it has an RS232 plug, two modular phone jacks and a
power switch on the back and a bunch of lights on the front.  It's
Hayes compatible (actually, it supports a superset: for example, it
can tell if the phone was busy, and if it was, will redial every 30
seconds, can talk to the phone at 300 baud and the terminal at 1200,
has a built-in clock, etc.) and works fine with, for example,
MacTerminal (in fact, I'm using it now).  I don't know how else you
can measure the performance of a modem; if it works, it works.

The documentation is very complete, and includes, for example,
chapters explaining data communication, the role of a modem, what the
lines in an RS232 connector do, etc.  I had no trouble setting the
thing up; in fact, it worked straight out of the box.  (Therefore, I
don't know how DAK is about repairs or returns, although they do have
a 30 day return policy.)

The only discrepency I've noticed so far is minor: the modem has help
screens so you can be reminded of the commands if you don't have the
manual.  On this modem, however, only one of the help screens ever
appears.  I don't consider this a big problem, but it might account
for the low price.

I summary, if you're in the market for a 1200 baud modem, look at the
one DAK offers (they call it a 1200 Baud Smart Duck and it's order
number 4334).

DAK's address:

    DAK Industries Incorporated
    8200 Remmet Ave.
    Canoga Park, CA   91304

Order Line:

    1-800-325-0800

--
Kevin Crowston                UUCP: {seismo,ut-sally}!harvard!kevin
MIT Sloan School of Management        ARPA: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 25 Nov 85 9:08:01 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  telephone service equipment monitoring

1982-83 Plainfield-Somerville (NJ) directory has flagged the phone #'s
which use telephone service observing equipment.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 85 12:46:00 PST
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Phones
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

A friend sent me a Danish newspaper clipping about cordless phones
entering the market there legally for the first time.

They are using 40 channels in the 900 MHz band, and base and handset
search for a free channel to use when activated; thus avoiding the
access conflicts and the inventory management problems of having
phones with different crystals around.

The devices in question are manufactured by NEC.

Does anyone know if such devices are coming here ?

            / Lars Poulsen
              Advanced Computer Communications
             <Lars @ ACC.ARPA>

------------------------------

Date: Tue 26 Nov 85 18:04:00-EST
From: "Sidney Markowitz" <SIDNEY@MIT-OZ>
Subject: Query, re: SDI and ESS

The following question came up in a local discussion group about SDI
(Star Wars). I assume that the "phone system" being cited is ESS. Can
anyone offer some informed information about the size and nature of
the software involved in ESS, and its history of development,
reliability, etc.?

        I went to the SDI forum at 10-250 over the weekend
        and picked up a red pamphlet as well as a leaflet
        from some pro SDI student group.  The pamphlet was
        produced by the Marshall Fund.  Both these contain
        the same statement, roughly saying that the Phone
        System contains 10 million lines of code with 4000
        interconnections (or some such number) between each
        module. Then a claim that this is more complex than
        SDI would be.  Does anyone know what these people
        were talking about.

    They quote 50 million lines for the phone system vs. 10 million
    for SDI; they go on to say "Also, the number of
    interconnections between `nodes', i.e., nerve centers, in the
    AT&T program is 14,000, whereas the number of interconnections
    in the SDI program is estimated to be about 4500."  I am also
    mystified by the reference.  Can someone who knows telephony
    shed light on this?

Thanks,
Sidney Markowitz <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
16-Dec-85 22:05:44-PST,13385;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Mon 16 Dec 85 22:05:13-PST
Date: 16 Dec 85 23:52-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #70
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Monday, December 16, 1985 11:52PM
Volume 5, Issue 70

Today's Topics:

            Re: digital readout of the caller's phone number
                       Re:  TELECOM Digest V5 #64
                      VADIC 3400 versus Bell 212A
          Re: Need Help with Racal-Vadic Maxwell 1200V modems
        RIXON R212A Intelligent modems - what am I doing wrong?
                            2400 baud modems
                   Periodic noise on 1200 baud lines

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 85 19:47:22 PST
From: ihnp4!kitty![e-mail]
Subject: Re: digital readout of the caller's phone number

> In a book called "Curiosa", by Felton, Bruce and Mark Fowler, published
> 1984, the following device was described:
>
> "Best Protection Against Obscene Phone Calls: Telident, Inc. has
> developed a device that makes it a snap to trace calls. It consists of a
> box attached to the receiving telephone and provides a digital readout
> of the caller's phone number and area code."
>
> Does anyone know of Telident?  Where they might be located, or their
> phone number?  Anyone have an idea how such a box might work?

    Ha!  This type of device has been claimed by various companies for
a number of years - generally for the purpose of inducing technically-naive
potential investors in putting their money in such a business venture.
    The simple fact is this: There is not and never has been any type of
telephone central office installed in North America which sends any information
in any form (encoded or otherwise) to a CALLED subscriber which contains the
identity of the CALLING telephone.  Period.
    Not only that, but even in the most sophisticated ESS central offices
if the call originated in ANY OTHER CO, the destination CO has NO information
anywhere in its processor as to the identity of the calling party other than on
what interoffice trunk the call came in on.
    There is no possible motivation for an operating telephone company to
install apparatus in its CO to make calling party identification available to
subscribers - even if the information were available.  The ONLY exception to
the above is for Public Emergency Reporting Telephone Service (i.e., 911)
which is made available only to police and fire departments.  Such service
provides calling party identifcation because the `911' dialed number is
really a specially equipped CO trunk (similar to that for toll calls), rather
than a subscriber line number.
    While there is a far out technical feasibility for sending calling
party identity data back to the called subscriber, for all intents and purposes
it is neither practicable or desireable.
    In cases where a subscriber reports nuisance calls to police or telco
security personnel, an ESS office can be programmed to put the called number
on `call trace' which records the calling identifcation (actual number if
within the same CO, or incoming trunk ID if any other CO) on magnetic media
which ONLY the telco has access to.  It is much more difficult to trace the
call if it originates in some other CO than the subscriber, since the calling
number (actually part of it) has to be put up on `call trace' in any suspect
originating offices.  The situation is much more complex in electromechanical
offices - in some cases requiring a switchman to be present to "trace" a call
while in progress.
    In any event, it is not the policy of telco security personnel to
merely give a listing of all calling party identities to a nuisance call
complainant, since security personnel do not want call trace capabilities
abused for ulterior purposes.  So, no telco wants to use any "call tracing
telephones" - even if they DID exist.
    Getting back to your specific questions about Telident, they were
first reported in the January 1974 (that's right - 11 years ago) issue of
"Popular Mechanics" in a small article on page 111.  They claimed an address
of 304 South Broadawy, Los Angeles, CA 90012.  I do not believe the company
ever manufactured anything.
    It is sort of interesting that in February 1977 here in Clarence, NY we
had a local `self-educated' (ahem...) engineer by the name of Frank A. Kennedy
(with a past record of failed businesses) claim to have developed a similar
device.  He had a nice little picture article ("Buffalo Evening News", 2/8/77
page 29) showing himself, a telephone with a built-in LED display connected to
a piece of `associated apparatus'.  The `associated apparatus' was in fact a
piece of medical electronic monitoring apparatus which one of his defunct
companies manufactured!  Mr. Kennbedy's apparent motive was that of a scam for
investors...
    I have also heard an amusing rumor (which is amazingly persistent) that
telephone companies are going to offer a "Calling Party Identification Service"
for use by BBS operators!  That'll be the day...

===  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York        ===
===  UUCP    {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry  ===
===  VOICE   716/741-9185         {rice,shell}!baylor!/             ===
===  FAX     [phone] {AT&T 3510D}                 ihnp4!/               ===
===                                       ===
===                   "Have you hugged your cat today?"                   ===

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 85 22:41:14 est
From: Glenn Jordan <ecsvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  TELECOM Digest V5 #64

> Umm -- that's not always the case.  When I lived in Durham, for example
> (1972-1977), it most certainly was important.  (Durham is served by GTE.)  You
> could hear the DTMF->pulse conversion going on as you dialed -- go too fast
> and you'd confuse the switch.  This may, of course, have been an antiquted
> switch; they didn't install automatic number identification equipment until
> about 1974 or 1975, and then only under orders from the Utilities Commission.

  Well, I live in Durham now and I enjoy very much counting the clicks
while waiting for the conversion to catch up with my tone dialing.
If you listen carefully, you can still tell if you dialed the number
correctly by how many clicks you hear.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 1985 01:09:05-EST (Thursday)
From:   "Victor S. Miller"  <[e-mail]>
Subject: VADIC 3400 versus Bell 212A

I recently reposted some of the discussion about 3400 versus 212A
on a local bulletin board, and got the following information which
may be of interest:
----- MODEM FORUM appended at 21:33:07 on 85/11/27 GMT (by LWEST at AUSVM1) ----
Subject: Filtering of Modem Noise

Reference: Question from Henry Schaffer of NCSU via VICTOR

Henry, you are correct that no analog technique can filter all noise
from a signal, if the noise is non-deterministic and within the
frequency band of the signal.  Neither can any digital technique.

The comments about "feedback filter" versus "harmonic technique"
relate to methods of demodulation of a signal.  For DPSK or QAM
signals, as well as for the other common modulation techniques, any of
several demodulation techniques can be used.

I suspect (but do not know) that the RV3400 used a "coherent
detector", which is a form of phase locked loop, for demodulation.  I
do know that most (maybe all) of the DPSK demodulators prior to the
IBM entries did not.  They use an inferior technique known as
"differential detection".  It is simpler.

This is one reason that RV3400 works better than most 212 types.
However, the new IBM modem uses (I think) both coherent detection and
a relatively new process called "adaptive equalization" which should
make it better than the older RV3400.

Another reason RV works better than most 212's is the nature of QAM
versus DPSK.  There are many forms of both, but, in general, DPSK
techniques spread the signal over a broader bandwidth than does QAM.
In simplistic analysis, this should be better.  However, on phone
lines, the bandwidth is extremely limited, and two bands are utilized
simultaneously - one in each direction.

The upper portion of the upper frequency band (sent by the answerer to
the caller) is often severly altered by the phone line.  Distortion
results, and more errors occur.  The QAM techniques in general "crowd"
more energy into a smaller band, which makes the transmitted symbol
for one state look a lot like the symbol for another, so one might
expect more errors.  However, the bandwidth is smaller, and the
receiver filter can be designed to reject all noise outside this
smaller band.  The upper portion of the upper band does not extend as
far up into the "bad" frequency portion of most phone lines, so the
signal is less distorted (has less envelope delay and frequency
distortion) than DPSK.

Incidentally, we also ran across the frequency tolerance problems
mentioned above: the problem can certainly originate in the
transmissions from a bad modulator.

Lynn West

------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 85 17:50:32 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Need Help with Racal-Vadic Maxwell 1200V modems

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (hal) writes:
>Recently we installed 2 Racal-Vadic Maxwell 1200V modems, ...
>                                  ... Since using these modems, we can only
>receive incoming calls, the system is unable to dial out from any resepct.

I installed the Maxwell 1200V on 2.9BSD. While the adds state 3451
compatability, there are some differences.  The biggest is that all
the responses end with \n\r rather than \r\n.  This breaks all the
send/expect sequences.  You can copy the 3451 driver, and change the
send/expect sequences, or possibly just mung up L.sys (ONLY if you
have no other way...).

---> FLAME ON <---

When will these manufracturers get it through thick heads that not
every user of these products is a hacker hitting keys on a PC ?????
The Maxwell is only similar to, and certainly not compatable with, a
3451.  Any body want to take legal action for false advertising???

---> FLAME off <---

These ideas are probably not even mine, much less my employer's.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 85 17:02:11 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Caldwell)
Subject: RIXON R212A Intelligent modems - what am I doing wrong?

    We have several RIXON R212A modems in house and used by employees
at home (as well as our call-out modem, etc.).  RIXON modems operates
in its own "menu mode" as well as emulating HAYES mode.  I am
wondering if anyone out there has had problems with them forgetting
their stored phone numbers/settings and not easily waking up in
response to carriage returns.

    Every modem that we have obtained either directly or indirectly
from RIXON has had some kind of problem of this nature.  Other people
I have talked to who have these modems have *not* had these problems.

    Any help will be much appreciated.

I am not associated with RIXON, HAYES or anyone else for that matter.

Christopher M. Caldwell
decvax!ittatc!sii!dmcnh!hermes!chris
13B Bobby's Lane, Milford, NH 03055, [phone]

------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 85 08:49:12 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 2400 baud modems

We are  considering the  purchase of  2400 baud  auto-dial modems for
several local sites.  We are presently evaluating the  Hayes 2400 and
the US Robotics Courier.  The latter  is especially  attractive as it
has been advertised in Byte for $389.  If you have evaluated these or
other 2400 baud modems, we would like to hear your opinions.   If you
suggest another brand, please mention what command set is used by the
autodialer.   Our uucico  only knows  about Hayes  and Ventel command
sets.  Please e-mail your response to the following address.
--
Live: Phil Harbison, DataVision
Mail: 3409 Grassfort Dr., Huntsville, AL 35805
Uucp: {ihnp4,clyde,sdcsvax}!akgua!madhat!alvitar
Bell: 205-881-4317

------------------------------

Date: Thu 28 Nov 85 18:07:24-CST
From: Clive Dawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Periodic noise on 1200 baud lines

Dialup users of the various systems in our company have complained about
noisy telephone lines for quite a while, and it's generally accepted that
the quality of the trunks in this area is poor.   Recently, however,
we've had complaints from one particular user who says that he gets a
burst of noise consisting of a DEL followed by a {, PRECISELY every 30
seconds.  Does anybody know possible causes for this?  I remember an
item in Telecom sometime back about periodic glitches on synchronous
high speed lines, but I suspect this is unrelated.  Does the CO poll
phone lines to check for things like "off-hook" conditions, etc., which
might account for this?

Thanks,

Clive

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
20-Dec-85 10:48:16-PST,9638;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Fri 20 Dec 85 10:47:44-PST
Date: 20 Dec 85 10:01-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #71
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Friday, December 20, 1985 10:01AM
Volume 5, Issue 71

Today's Topics:

                         Long Distance Billing
                        AT&T gift certificate ad
                          Divestiture ~= chaos
                        Remote Modem Disconnects
       Re: Telephone Ring Control [telecom V5 #66] (Ring eaters)
                  Unexpected load on telephone trunks
                            SPRINTing ahead
               2400 baud modem opinions wanted (MNP too)
                                105A box

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 28 Nov 85 21:57:04 EST
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Long Distance Billing

I moved in to a new apartment in July and discovered I had equal access.
I started experimenting with 10+ dialing and found that there were
six LD companies with 4 of them allowing me to make calls through them
without an account.  When I got my bill, calls from one of the services
did not appear on it.  This went on for a while and last week my
bill had charges from calls made in July and August.  My question:
is there some sort of tarriff or something that says I have to
be billed within a certain amount of time?

            #Ron
            ronnie%sutcase.bitnet (@wiscvm.arpa)
                        [e-mail]
                        [e-mail]
                        [e-mail] (@csnet-relay.arpa)

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 29 Nov 85 16:03:08 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  AT&T gift certificate ad

I found leaflets for gift certificates (re: AT&T calls) when I visited
a bank just now.  The gift certificates would be redeemable with any
local phone company.

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 2 Dec 85 14:22 EST
From:     "Steven H. Gutfreund" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Divestiture ~= chaos

It does not seem that there is any longer exists a clear mental model as
to what divestiture was supposed to be. In Sunday's NYT I read that
AVCO industries was recently sucessful in fighting off a suit from
GTE. GTE holds the local operating company liscence for Plano Texas,
where AVCO is located. AVCO decided to bypass GTE by contracting with
Southwestern Bell for its local phone service. As I said AVCO won. So
much for local monopolies. Besides the fact that today's NYT has
an article about how the regionals are banding together to pressure
the FCC to allow them to enter any unregulated industry they wish.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 3 Dec 85 08:42:17-EST
From: "Bob Soron" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Remote Modem Disconnects


I'm having problems with my system -- an Apple ][+, Apple super
serial card, and Racal Vadic 3451 modem.  The problem is that
whenever I am on-line using my phone line, and my roommate
picks up his phone -- on a different phone line -- I lose
carrier.  To the best of my knowledge, the two lines are not
interconnected; when my line was installed in May, the installer
asked if I wanted a two-line jack and I said no, but I don't
know for sure that he did or didn't do anything.  If anyone can
think of any possible solutions, I'd GREATLY appreciate it.  I
don't receive telecom, and I'm way behind in reading it on the
bboard here; please respond directly.
...Bob

------------------------------

Date: Tue 3 Dec 85 12:13:05-EST
From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Ring Control [telecom V5 #66] (Ring eaters)

I also need a widget that will 'eat' the first two rings while
on the ring signal.  I'd like to set up my computer as an answering/call
screening machine, but I want to protect myself in case of my machine
crashes (otherwise I won't ever hear the phone ring..)  I suspect something
like the following will do the trick. ('V' = ground)
                                                           +---+
      +----------------------------------------------------+ R +------+
      |       +---------+                                  | e |      |
-+----+--Tip--| Ring    |    +-------------------+         | l |      +--Tip
Computer      | Detector+----+ Div by 2 Counter  +++++++++++ a |---+  (Phones)
-+----+-Ring--| Chip    |    + w/ 20 sec timeout +         | y |   V  +--Ring
      |       +---+-----+    +--------------+----+         +---+      |
      |           V                         V                         |
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+

Anyone see any problems?

                    - Ralph

------------------------------

Date: Tue 3 Dec 85 14:07:40-PST
From: Ted Shapin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unexpected load on telephone trunks


    In the previous posting, which I forgot to include here, a complaint
was raised about BYTEnet Listings, BYTE magazine's BBS system, indicating
that the person was unable to get through.  Only too true! BYTEnet Listings
was responsible for shutting down the long-distance access to the ENTIRE
state of New Hampshire some months ago, due to the enormous number of calls
they received.
    To get the Public Domain HOPE or PROLOG, you should first try your local
BBS systems, or the BBS run by Computer Languages magazine...

           Mike Farren
           uucp: {dual, hplabs}!well!farren
           Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, [phone]
           USnail: 390 Alcatraz Ave., Oakland, CA 94618

------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 85  21:36 EST (Tue)
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
Subject: SPRINTing ahead


Well, I just received a nice promotional package from SPRINT.  It's
addressed to me by name, and includes my telephone number.  It
describes typical savings from my telephone to interesting places.
It has two nicely-printed inserts, a four-color flier, and a letter
which says

    New York  Telephone will be sending you a letter @i(asking
    you to choose your long distance telephone service.)+

    * * *

     + By order of the Federal Communications Commission,
       New York Telephone must randomly assign a long
       distance company to any customer who does not make
       a choice.

I hope not.  My LOC is New Jersey Bell (Atlantic Bell), not New York
Telephone (NYNEX).

_B

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 85 22:50:55 GMT
From: Art Zemon <trwrb!felix!fritz![e-mail]>
Subject: 2400 baud modem opinions wanted (MNP too)

Like 98.76% of the other system administrators in the world today, I
am considering 2400 baud modems.  If you have opinions or comments
please post them to this newsgroup or mail them directly to me.

A couple of specific areas in which I would like information:

1)  When buying 1200 baud modems I have always purchased
    top-of-the-line equipment.  My experience has always been
    that the more expensive modems are more immune to line
    noise.  In particular, I found U. S. Robitics modems to be
    distinctly inferior to Hayes and Racal-Vadic.  Is the same
    true of 2400 baud modems?

2)  If you answer "No" to the last question, what makes you
    believe that this is so?

3)  How does MNP work?  Is a full eight bit, 256 valued data
    path available when using MNP?

4)  If you have purchased 2400 baud modems, how much did you pay
    for them (roughly)?

5)  I have liturature on the following brands: Racal-Vadic,
    Penril, Telenetics, and Team.  Do you have any comments on
    these brands?

Thanks a lot for your time,
--
    -- Art Zemon
       FileNet Corp.
       ...! {decvax, ihnp4, ucbvax} !trwrb!felix!zemon

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 85 10:12:16 est
From: ulysses![e-mail] (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: 105A box

My sister asked me to do some phone wiring in her newly-purchased house;
in attempting to trace the existing wiring, I found that the phone lines
entered the house at a box labelled Western Electric 105A.  There were two
cables coming in; I did not have a chance to see how many conductors were
present in each.  Several of the jacks around the house are old-style 4-prong
jacks, with an attached separate bell.  I didn't have a chance to see how
many conductors ran to each jack.  There are also two modular jacks around
with no funny boxes attached.  Suggestions on how to proceed with the wiring?
I suspect that the 105A is for hold buttons and possibly an intercom; since
my sister will have only 1 line, the former function is rather useless to
her.  The auxiliary bells do not ring when the main line rings; I did not
have a chance to determine if the jacks were live, but there are dead junction
boxes lying around.  To complicate matters a bit, there's an alarm system with
a connection to the 105A; I don't know if the alarm will cut off the extensions
when it dials.  (Pulse-dialing alarms should, or a burglar can block the phone
call by taking any phone off-hook.)

        --Steve Bellovin
        {ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!ulysses!smb
        smb.ulysses.btl@csnet-relay

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
20-Dec-85 16:22:57-PST,14454;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Fri 20 Dec 85 16:22:13-PST
Date: 20 Dec 85 17:33-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #72
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Friday, December 20, 1985 5:33PM
Volume 5, Issue 72

Today's Topics:

                   Q: TURBODOWNLOADER - for real ???
                            Three Questions
                            It's Been Real.
                       Equip Inventory Pgm Wanted
                    Problems with 2780/3780 emulator
                            Digit Confusion
                             Telebit modem
                       Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #68
                           RJ-25C and RJ-25W
           RE: kitty!larry's "... no possible motivation ..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 12 Dec 85 03:20:59-CST
From: Werner Uhrig  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Q: TURBODOWNLOADER - for real ???

[ from MacBriefs, Vol. 1 #1, Oct/Nov 85 ]

TURBODOWNLOADER Desk Accessory from Mainstay, $39.95 [ why not $40 ??!! ],
allows users to download at double speed (2400 Baud) even though you don't have
the hardware for it.  (This piece of software should catch on like wildfire,
since it pays for itself in nothing flat)  Error checks in all 3 ways possible
to insure accurate reception.  Mainstay also introducing a revolutionary BBS
system in winter.

    Above, cited word for word, seems to be saying that the speed can
    be doubled with a software tool *AT ONE END of the connection ONLY*,
    which makes no sense to me.  Now with compression software at both
    ends, something can be achieved, but I'd still not believe a
    categoric claim of *DOUBLING* the speed, without qualification
    on the type of data being transmitted (how about binaries!!)

    Anyone care to take this hot potato and run with it ??

PS: Mainstay, 28611B Canwood St., Agoura Hills CA 91301
    voice: [phone]    modem:[phone]

PSPS: no use trying to call them at this hour, maybe tomorrow I will.  Werner

------------------------------

Subject: Three Questions
Date: 12 Dec 85 09:11:35 PST (Thu)
From: kremen@aero

My first question relates to a problem I am having with my telephone.  I
am able to make local and long-distance calls fine. When I call, I can
hear the touch tones in the receiver. But as soon as my call is
connected, any touch tones I press are muted. I just hear a "click."
This makes it impossible to use my electronic banking or any other
services that use the tones as commands. For example, I am unable to
send voice mail to people at work.

So I called GTE repair. Of course the office personnel had no idea what
I was talking about. They said if what I told them was true, I would be
unable to make any local or long distance call. But after talking to a
supervisor's supervisor, I was finally able to get a repair-person to
come out in person.

So the repairperson came out. He was unable to find anything wrong. He
thought - as I did - that it was a central office problem. But what
stumped both of use was that his test set phone generated tones after
calls were connected. So he called a phone guru friend. After some
misunderstanding this guru said my phone had the wrong polarization.

Now my phone worked both back in Illinois and at another GTE site. He
explained, although I already knew this, that the other sites were
electronically switch and my new site was still step switched. He said
when a call was connected in most cases, the polarity of the line
reverses. According to this guru, my phone is an ATT Touch Tone and is
unable to switch polarities on step central offices. He indicated two
choices: buy a polarity suppressor (what is this?) at around $70.00 or
get a new phone.

My first question is can I make a polarity suppressor myself? What about
a double-throw double-pole switch that I flip after I get connected. It
would be hooked up to the red and green wires on the phone. Would this
work? Or should I buy a new phone? And if I buy a new phone, what should
I look for to be sure it can handle polarity correctly?

My second question concerns my last posting which was several months
ago. I asked about the S.I.T. (Special Information Tones) that are heard
when we either call a number that is not in service or our call cannot
go through. I never did receive the definite answer what was the purpose
of the tones, but someone sent a frequency listing of the tones to me.
Alas, I lost the name of who sent the list to me. So I was wondering if
you know anything about this to send me a copy of where they obtained
the frequency list (I have the frequencies themselves). I think the
reference was some AT&T Bell Labs Technical Journal article.

My third question is where I can get one of the phones (test sets) that
phone company repair people have? I am sure these can be bought, but
where? I think it would be a cool replacement to my phone with the "bad"
polarity." I would like a place in Southern California but any sources
will be extremely welcome.

If you can answer any of these questions, I would be in your debt. Send you replies to:

ARPA: kremen@aerospace
UUCP: {sdcrdcf, randvax, trwrb} ! aero ! kremen
BITNET: [e-mail]
Others: throught correct gateway to ARPA or UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 12 Dec 1985 19:58-PST
Subject: It's Been Real.
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <[e-mail]>


It is with a good bit of reluctance that I announce my departure from
the ivory walls of SRI on the West Coast in late January.  I will be
taking a position in the private sector at the Cellular Radio Corp in
the Washington D.C. area.  In my new position, I hope to be able to
influence the ubiquitous and ever burgeoning untethered communication
industry's realization of the paramount importance of security, privacy
and integrity considerations in technology development.

I plan to remain active on the ARPANET through a part-time relationship
with SRI Washington D.C.

I am very proud to have been associated with the considerable cadre of
wonderful people on The Network who brought about the packet switching
and Internet (r)evolution.

g

------------------------------

Date: Fri 13 Dec 85 16:35:47-PST
From: Ted Shapin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Equip Inventory Pgm Wanted

"Green Sheets" previously provided by MA BELL are history.  We are keeping
our own inventory info now on approx 5000 lines manually on books called CODS.
We keep line/port location, cable pair, call pick-up group, location, bldg,
dept, activity history, equipment & cost, key system or ECTS assignment, etc.

We would like to find an inventory program, preferably for an IBM-PC that would
let us keep the inventory and reconcile our equipment with our telephone bills.

Is anyone doing this type of thing? Are commercial packages available?  The few
we have seen are wrapped around elaborate purchase order, tele call detail or
directory schemes requiring more input than we care to manage.


Bob Villarreal

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 85 11:03:00 EST
From: <floyd@ari-hq1>
Subject: Problems with 2780/3780 emulator
Reply-To: <floyd@ari-hq1>


Can anyone give me advise or "a cause" -or- has seen this problem before?

THE PROBLEM:

We having been trying to communicate with an IBM system using the 2780/3780
Emulation Package (Digitial)from our 780 running VMS 3.7

ERROR LOG:

%BSCPTP-I-INITREQ, initialization request received
STATE OF LINE AS OF  1-NOV-1985 15:55:47_XJA0:    SHARED
/QUEUE=RJE$NIH    IDLE, HALF_DUPLEX, 3780
TRANSMIT STATE:
NOTRANSPARENCY, COMPRESSION, CARDIMAGE, TRANSLATION
RECORDSIZE=80
PRINT RECEIVE STATE:    FORMS=FORTRAN,
COMPRESSION, TRANSLATION

%BSCPTP-F-LOKBIDERR, fatal error looking for bid
-BSCPTP-F-DISCON, disconnect (DLE, EOT) received
%BSCPTP-F-LOKBIDERR, fatal error looking for bid
-BSCPTP-F-NODSR, no DSR - line not connected
-SYSTEM-F-ABORT, abort

SOME THINGS WE'VE TRIED: (no success)

o Changing all cables  o Changing DUP11  o Re_installing images
o Conducting test with DEC's Vax using LOOP_BACK testing procedures
o Changing our modems (Bell 208b's)
o Break_out boxes, data scopes......  the kitchen sink

RESULTS:
We can tranfer data to and receive dataa from DEC's VAX, but are unable to make
a connection to the IBM system.  The IBM connection has worked in the
past and the only change made to our configuration was, the modem
being moved to a differ location, requiring longer cabling.  The IBM
System Personnel can't see our attempt to connect to there Bell 208b.
Yet, other IBM users connect fine to that same bank of modems.
The IBM guys are sure it's a problem on our end, DEC's Field Service
is sure it's a problem the the IBM system, I am sure it's a headache.

Thanks in advance,
Jim Floyd

------------------------------

Date: Thu 5 Dec 85 10:23:56-PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digit Confusion


    The San Francisco Bay  Area NPA's (415/408) do  not yet require  the
use of 1+ for dialing Long Distance numbers.  The dialing pattern is NPA
NXX XXXX for calls outside the NPA and NXX XXXX for calls within.

    Several new Voice Mail/Automatic Attendant systems such as OPCOM and
Centrigram which  allow the  user to  dial additional  digits to  access
internal extensions without Attendant  Assistance have recently come  on
the market. Typically an experienced user would dial NXX XXXX AAA  where
AAA represent the additional extension or control digits.

    The problem  is that  many call  accounting/SMDR systems  base  call
costing on wheter the call is seven  or ten digits and wether the  first
three digits dialed "look  like" an NPA.   We recently experienced  this
problem with a local call to NXX 887.  The user dialed 887 XXXX AAA, the
call completed as dialed,  SMDR recorded ten digits,  looked up NPA  887
and found a valid match!.

    Inquiries to BellCore Traffic Routing revealed that 887 is listed as
a valid NPA "For Internal Use".

    It appears that need  for 1+ dialing  in AC (415)  and (408) may  be
closer than we suspected.


HECTOR O MYERSTON
Supv Telecom Analysis
SRI International

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16-Dec-85 12:29:16 PST
From: vortex![e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Telebit modem

This is really a half-duplex modem that has a medium amount of buffering
to try "simulate" full-duplex.  It REQUIRES very rigorous flow control
both in and out of both sites.  The problem is that its effective
throughput may drop suddenly, which can result in the sending site
flooding it with data, or it may feed data into the receiving
site so quickly that data will be lost (a very common problem).
It cannot really be used for most interactive applications, nor can it be used
effectively with most existing file transfer software without
significant modifications to that software.  The issue is that just
because the modems transfer the data without error between the modems,
doesn't mean that the data is correct from CPU to CPU, given the complexities
of flow control involved.

I'm still waiting to see some true FULL-DUPLEX modems that avoid these
sorts of problems.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 16 Dec 85 16:08:20 PST
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #68

Regarding: Tracer Box

    No, that type of device can NOT be built by normal users of the
phone system. It requires work at the local TelCo itself. I heard that
one of the Companies (one of Ma Bells pieces) is offering that service
on their lines, but with a fee for each call traced. Also, they are
offering a box that will display the # of who is calling you as the
phone is ringing.  (Again at a "small" charge.)

    Too bad, it could have been useful!

--Arun Baheti
  NBaheti.es@Xerox

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 16 Dec 85 20:16:02 PST
From:           "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>
Subject:        RJ-25C and RJ-25W

This specification doesn't appear in my recently purchased copy of
Section 68 of the FCC regulations.  Does anyone know what it is?

dgc

------------------------------

Date: Tue 17 Dec 85 06:50:38-CST
From: Werner Uhrig  <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: kitty!larry's "... no possible motivation ..."

RE:

From: ihnp4!kitty![e-mail]
Subject: Re: digital readout of the caller's phone number

    There is no possible motivation for an operating telephone company to
install apparatus in its CO to make calling party identification available to
subscribers - even if the information were available.

    --------------------

"Money makes the world go 'round, the world go 'round, ....."

Chorus: "Money-money-money-money ...."

[ Larry, I did appreciate your posting, but couldn't deny myself this quip.]

PS:  I, for one, WANT ALL CALLS to be identifiable and pray for the technology
    to become available.  I'd even go so far as to make identification
    a precondition before even answering the phone.  Others can US-mail
    me.  I think the public (through PUCs) should start demanding MORE
    service for the SAME money (rather than what we are getting: LESS
    for MORE) given the sinking cost of communications.  I do think that
    local phone and cable service should be "nationalized" or
    "communalized", paid for through mortgages like many construction
    related expenses.  The actual running and servicing of the services
    the community wants to make available should be subcontracted,
    and many services (like LD-calls) can be obtained from competing
    vendors.  WHY, you ask?  because that's the only way to get the
    benefit of the capability of the new technology without getting
    taken to the cleaners by cable and phone companies. Ok, ok, it's
    neither easy nor always possible to make "public services" available
    as cheap as from "competitive privat sources". But in this case ....

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
20-Dec-85 20:19:29-PST,12818;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Fri 20 Dec 85 20:18:25-PST
Date: 20 Dec 85 21:28-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #73
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Friday, December 20, 1985 9:28PM
Volume 5, Issue 73

Today's Topics:

                      Re:  Anyone have this modem?
           Different sensitivity to noise by different modems
                       U.S. Robotics Courier 2400
                            Smartmodem 2400

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 85 06:52 EST
From: David Potter - McDonnell Douglas/AUGMENT Div.  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Anyone have this modem?

EXT-Dave-Platt-LADC-8738T 6-Dec-85 DAK modem

   From: {Dave Platt <[e-mail]>}DDN
   To: DAP.TYM
   Posted:  6-Dec-85 17:40-EST  Received:  6-Dec-85 20:13-EST
   Random-Quote: A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms. GEORGE WALD

   I saw the modem in the DAK catalog, and ordered it about a month ago.
   Un(?)fortunately, DAK gorfed up my Visa-card number when verifying it, got a
   "no authorization", and sent me a letter asking for a check or money order
   if I still wanted the modem.  By then, I had heard the following, and
   decided not to get it after all:

   After ordering it, I mentioned having done so on a BBS I peruse frequently.
   Another BBS'er responded with a comment, saying that the ADC modem looks
   very much as if it's a private-label packaging of a modem made by a company
   here in California (I don't recall the company name, save that it starts
   with "L";  Levco, maybe???).  He mentioned that this modem, and a whole
   bunch of others had recently been reviewed in one of the PC magazines;  it
   received a very high bang-for-the-buck rating, but a fairly low
   absolute-level-of-quality rating.  Apparently its ability to "hang onto" a
   low-quality signal is not very good (poor noise filtration, a simplistic
   decoding algorithm, or some such). It will apparently perform well when used
   to make local calls over high-quality phone lines, but tends to fall apart
   when used to make long-distance calls (especially, I'd guess, over some of
   the "alternate" long-distance carriers whose bandwidth / noise / echo
   suppression is not as good as AT&T & the better alternate carriers).  DAK's
   owner mentioned in the ad that he noticed no difference between the ADC and
   the Hayes 1200 he'd been using... but if he was connecting mostly with
   database systems in the LA area (or with the local CompuServe or Tymnet
   access numbers) then his experience might not be a good indication of how it
   would perform in a more difficult environment.

   Please note - all of the above is third-hand news & rumor.  I'd suggest that
   anyone seriously interested in the ADC modem dig through some back issues of
   the popular PC magazines (PC World, perhaps??) and see if you can find the
   article that compared the modems.  Also, you might just go ahead and order
   the ADC modem from DAK, and see how it works in your application;  DAK
   offers a 30-day no-questions-asked guarantee on everything they sell, and my
   experience with their various guarantees has been that they do keep their
   word.

   For now, I'm going to stick with my venerable Racal-Vadic VS212P modem. Its
   major shortcoming is that it's not Hayes-compatible (I understand that their
   new 300/1200/2400 "Maxwell" modem supports both Hayes and their own command
   sets).  It has been very reliable in the 2+ years that I've owned it, and
   its noise immunity is very good;  I do occasional cross-country XMODEM
   transfers with very few problems.

   'nuff said.

EXT-erickson-87766 8-Dec-85 Re: ADC Modem from DAK

   From: {Gary Scott Gershwin <[e-mail]>}DDN
   To: DAP.TYM
   Cc: [e-mail]
   In-reply-to: Your message of 5 Dec 85 15:45 EST.
   Posted:  8-Dec-85 12:23-EST  Received:  8-Dec-85 13:04-EST

   The ADC modem from DAK seems to be o.k. (I'm using it right now in fact)

   The only quirk I've seen in it is that once in awhile it will send a "{" to
   the screen but not to the system.  However, I am going to change some of the
   hard- wiring in my terminal so that I can use the editors at UCI.  That
   might solve the problem.

   Also, I noticed that the problem only happens when the line is interupted
   (it happened when someone picked up the receiver on one of the other phones
   in the house.)  Other than that, It seems to be working just fine.

   Plus, it's got the auto-dial that can be used with such long distance
   companies as Sprint or MCI.  It will dial one or several digits, wait for a
   second dial tone, then continue with the rest of the digits.  It also
   redials if the line is busy, which can be handy for a student such as
   myself.

   All in all, it seems like a great deal for a 1200 baud modem.

   If you get one and find any peculiarities, please let me know.  I'll do the
   same if you wish.

   GG

   <[e-mail]>

EXT-Dave-Platt-LADC-879M1 9-Dec-85 More on modems

   From: {Dave Platt <[e-mail]>}DDN
   To: DAP.TYM
   References-to: DAK modem
   Posted:  9-Dec-85 14:30-EST  Received:  9-Dec-85 15:16-EST
   Random-Quote: If it keeps up, man will atrophy all his limbs but the
    push-button finger. FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT

   Here are a couple of tidbits that I've picked up while perusing several
   Macintosh-oriented bulleting-board systems across the country:

   -  The Hayes 2400-baud Smartmodem is widely disliked.  Its command set is
   *not* fully "Hayes-compatible";  the differences are sufficiently large that
   many of the popular bulletin-board-host programs (Fido, RBBS, maybe others?)
   have difficulty working with the modem.  Also, it's alleged to be not very
   reliable at 2400 baud, and to be less than fully compatible with non-Hayes
   2400-baud modems (filters mistuned, or something like that, maybe?).

   -  The Courier 2400 has been getting rave reviews.  This is due, in part, to
   the fact that Courier will sell one for a very low price ($350 or so) to
   anyone who will use it to support a bulletin-board system, as long as the
   sysop puts a message in the BBS signon dialog stating that the modem is
   courtesy of U.S. Robotics.  It's also said to be rock-stable, with extremely
   good noise immunity and high reliability. It's also more compatible with the
   older (300- and 1200-baud) modems than the Hayes 2400 is!

   -  I spoke with the sysop of the Socrates bulletin board (sent him copies of
   about 13 disks of public-domain Mac software, in fact).  He is of the
   opinion that 2400-baud modems will probably be a fairly short-lived
   phenomenon in the marketplace.  Newer protocols that will permit reliable
   operation at speeds of up to 9600 baud (or higher) over voice-grade lines
   will probably render 2400-baud modems obsolete before too long.  As I
   understand it, these modems transmit bits in parallel by using a fairly
   large number of subcarriers, each of which transmits data at a relatively
   low rate (6-20 baud).  These modems operate in a very fast "burst switching"
   mode;  the phone line is actually used in a half-duplex fashion, but the
   modems switch back and forth fast enough (many times/second) that they
   appear to be full-duplex to the devices & people using them.  They also
   regularly check the state of the phone line, testing to see which
   subcarriers can be used, and will automatically "roll back" to lower total
   baud rates if the quality of the phone connection decreases (they "roll
   back" smoothly, rather than in large steps, as the number of usable
   subcarriers decreases).  The major limitation with these modems is that
   there is no standard protocol... just a number of incompatible proprietary
   ones.  We'll probably have to wait a few years before a suitably efficient &
   accepted standard develops.

EXT-kevin-879RM 9-Dec-85 ADC modem from DAK

   From: {[e-mail] (Kevin Crowston)}DDN
   To: DAP.TYM, [e-mail]
   Posted:  9-Dec-85 16:29-EST  Received:  9-Dec-85 16:33-EST

   I bought one of the ADC modems from DAK.  I ordered by phone, paying by
   credit card, and the modem arrived within 3 weeks. So far, I have no
   complaints.  It seems to be exactly what it claims, a Hayes compatible
   modem.  It actually implements a superset of the Hayes commands, including
   such things as a built-in clock/calendar and automatic redialling on a busy
   signal.  (It has a switch to turn these extensions off.) I've used the modem
   with MacTerminal on a Mac and it works fine.  The documentation is very
   complete and readable and the modem worked "out of the box", with no setup.
   Overall, I would recommend it; it seems to be the cheapest modem on the
   market (or at least close).

   Kevin Crowston

   MIT Sloan School of Management

   [e-mail]

   [e-mail]

   (P.S.  I sent a slightly longer review to net.micro; perhaps, if you have
   access to that article, you might want to substitute it.)

------------------------------

Date: Tue 17 Dec 85 06:59:59-CST
From: Werner Uhrig  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Different sensitivity to noise by different modems

A while ago, I switched from a US Robotics to a Hayes 1200 Baud modem, and
noticed that the Hayes "saw" a lot more noise than the USR.  Now, I do not
think that the lines have changed in quality, rather that there is some
difference in the modems, either by design or calibration.

Can anyone "educate" me/us in that regard, please?  Also, if anyone has any
concrete suggestions on if and how I might tweak that Hayes Smartmodem of the
stand-alone garden variety, to become more "tolerant", it would make my year!

Thanks,        ---Werner

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 17 Dec 85 13:25 EST
From:           Jeffrey C Honig  <$[e-mail]>
Subject:      U.S. Robotics Courier 2400

I am currently evaluating a USR Courier 2400 modem that may be sold at
the college bookstore.  I have found that the Courier 2400 will not
at 2400 Baud with any of our 8 Racal-Vadic 4400 Quad
(V.22/3400/1200/300) modems.  Whenever it tries to connect at 2400 Baud
it falls back to 1200.

I have successfully called a Racal-Vadic 2400PA and use the Racal-Vadic
2400PA several times a day to communicate with our RV 4400s.

U.S. Robotics claims that Racal-Vadic needs a firmware upgrade in some
of their host end modems to work with the Courier 2400.  Racal-Vadic
checked my firmware level and says it is current.

Anyone have any similar problems or any ideas?

Jeffrey C Honig
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY  13676

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 85 19:01:55 pst
From: [e-mail] (Mike Newton)
Subject: Smartmodem 2400


Hi --
    Our CS dept. bought several Maxwell Smartmodems 2400.  This is
both a brief summary of our impressions with them and a request for help.

    In general, everyone that has used them likes 2400 MUCH better than
1200.  In some ways the difference between 2400 and 9600 on a Vax running
Unix is very small, but 1200 and 9600 is very large.  On the other hand, we
have had several problems with the modems.  The documentation is a little
poor -- especially with regards to setting them up with terminals and with
trouble shooting.  [Also, more documentation on the jumpers would be nice].

    Our biggest complaint is the tendency of the modem to suddenly
decide the connection no longer exists.  That happens rather frequently
(once an hour or so) on good days.  On bad (rainy or windy) days it can
happen less than every 15 minutes.  If any one out there knows of a fix/
workaround/??? we would VERY MUCH (!!!!) appreciate hearing about it.

    There is also a tendency to transmit long series of "D"D"D"D"D...
every now and then.  This may me tied to the hang up problem.

    At 1200 baud they seem to work as well as our old Vadics.

Thanks,

- mike

Caltech 256-80            {newton,fig,root}@cit-vax.ARPA (or cit-vlsi)
Pasadena CA   91125        ucbvax!cithep!cit-vax!{newton,root}
818 356 6771 (noon-midnight)    ????? hamlet!cit-vax!newton.BITNET

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
22-Dec-85 15:50:01-PST,14438;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Sun 22 Dec 85 15:49:16-PST
Date: 22 Dec 85 16:56-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #74
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Sunday, December 22, 1985 4:56PM
Volume 5, Issue 74

Today's Topics:

    STEVEH@MIT-MC: ... request for more info on seminar contents ...
                        Called number ID service
                      placing a phone line on hold
                        A Little Knowledge ....
                   CPI - Computer-PBX-Interconnect ?
                 telephone service equipment monitoring
                       Re: call forwarding chains
                 Advice re: building a phone ringer box
                      trivia and transposed digits
                       Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #69
                     Problems with Racal Vadic 3451

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue 17 Dec 85 07:08:30-CST
From: Werner Uhrig  <[e-mail]>
Subject: STEVEH@MIT-MC: ... request for more info on seminar contents ...

RE:  Am I the only one on TELECOM that feels this way?

no, Steve, you are not.  However nice it would be if someone would report on
those things, it's likely not realistic to expect people to have time for
this - but your request for info on where one could obtain this info in
print shows, that you have the right approach to the problem.  Of course,
I suspect that often abstracts or papers could be made available online,
but folks simply are not "conditioned" to do so on their own.  so, your
request, definitely had merit, and reflects what, I'm sure, many of have
felt as a "craving" when reading those announcements.

    Cheers,        ---Werner

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1985 06:28:02-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Called number ID service


I hate to disappoint all of you in telecomland who are so sure that
"called number identification service" is impossible or at least
unavailable, but it's been in trial for some time low.  Called Number
ID is one of the elements to Local Area Signalling Services (LASS),
which is one of Bellcore's secret weapons to save Centrex, among other
things.  It's implemented on the 1AESS, and probably soon on 5ESS, if
not other COs.

A subscriber must, of course, pay for the service -- geegaws like the
Telident box are bunko.  CNID service works by having a data link from
the CO to the customer site.  Phone numbers from distant exchanges
_within_the_same_LATA_ are also included.  No beam-me-up-Scotty
technology there, either.  The data is sent around using CCIS (Common
Channel Interoffice Signalling -- a specialized packet network for
telephone signalling).  It doesn't cross LATA boundaries yet, but
the world's telephone companies are developing a new CCIS called
Signalling System #7 whose design is optimized for inter-carrier use.
(I've got the CCITT Red Book spec here; it's quite a complex set
of protocols.)   Part of the CCIS/SS7 message is Calling Number ID.

Even if the originating CO is a stepper, today's technology provides
CNID capabilities.  Most small COs send toll traffic using CAMA
(Centralized Automatic Call Accounting), in which the calling number
is sent in-band to the toll office for billing.  With LASS, the
toll office sends this along.

Calling Number ID is one of the services which is standarized in ISDN,
which in turn relies on SS7 for interoffice signalling.  Obscene phone
callers should stay away from the Florida LATA where the trials are
going on, and with widespread ISDN trials by 1987, who knows?

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 17 Dec 1985 08:11:01-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Lester Waters  PCSG)
Subject: placing a phone line on hold



    I have a multiline phone with my Bell 212 modem. There is only
one 2-wire input to the phone for line 1.  After fooling with the
phone for a while, I managed to hook up line 2, so now I can select
either line 1 or line 2.  Unfortunately, this phone is a little different
since it hooks into the Bell 212. The phone does not ring when a call
comes in on line 2 (but I can answer it if I hear the other phone on that
line ring). Also, the red HOLD button does not work for either line.
Does anyone know how I might:

    (a) Get the red HOLD button to work properly (if anyone out
        there has a real familiarity with multiline Bell phones)

            - or -

    (b) build an external circuit which I can use to place one
        line on 'hold' and direct the other line into the phone.
        (Radio Shack sells something like this for $50 -- what's
        inside it?)


            Lester Waters
            Waters%VIKING.DEC@DECWRL   (ARPA)
            ...!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-viking!waters (UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: Tue 17 Dec 85 08:19:14-PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Little Knowledge ....

    In his otherwise very erudite treatise on incoming call ID Larry
Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp makes this categorical statements:

"    Not only that, but even in the most sophisticated ESS central offices
if the call originated in ANY OTHER CO, the destination CO has NO information
anywhere in its processor as to the identity of the calling party other than on
what interoffice trunk the call came in on.
    There is no possible motivation for an operating telephone company to
install apparatus in its CO to make calling party identification available to
subscribers - even if the information were available. "

    I suggest the research by Recognition Research into the following might
be of some value!:

         1.  ISDN
         2.  CCITT Signalling Scheme # 7
         3.  The Field Trial of CCITT#7 in Orlando FL

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 85 09:14:00 PST
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: CPI - Computer-PBX-Interconnect ?
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

It looks like we will be hooking up terminals in new ways
as digital PBXs sneak into our utility closets. DEC has
already brought out a board to interface to the CPI port
on the switches from Northern Telecom, thus bringing 24
terminals in one a double twisted pair, and others are not
far behind, so I thought TELECOM should start discussing
these things.

If I understand this correctly (and who is to say I do),
the CPI interface, and its competing sister, DMI (Digital
Multiplex Interface) are really digital trunk lines, running
at T1 rate, and the PBX thinks that the computer is just
another PBX. The terminal must be RS-423, and it plugs in
to the system just like a (digital) telephone instrument
would, but where the telephone would deliver a steady flow
of 8-bit A/D samples, the terminal delivers an asynchronous
serial bit stream (which a UART can turn into 8-bit ASCII
characters). A 64 Kbit bit stream will carry up to 32 Kbit of
asynch traffic, so effective rate is 19.2Kbit (38.4 being too
fast for the channel).

Here are the things I don't understand:

1. It's been said that DMI is ISDN-compatible (23B+D) while
   CPI is not. Indeed, if CPI uses all 24 slots for Bearers,
   where is the signaling information ?

2. How does the terminal tell which CPU trunk it wants to get to ?
   Does this have to be preprogrammed into the switch ?
   (When I go off-hook, connect me to trunk group XX ?)

3. Do the interface cards (such as DECs CPI-32) allow the
   computer to dial out ?

4. Are there provisions for routing calls that come in on external
   modem lines into the CPU/PBX trunk ?

I'd be thankful for any information you can provide.
Given the turn-around time for the digest (is it weekly these days ?)
we will probably get a lot of duplication unless you-all mail
to me and then I summarise for the digest.

            / Lars Poulsen
              Advanced Computer Communications
             <Lars @ ACC.ARPA>

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 17 Dec 85 16:54:56 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  telephone service equipment monitoring

In digest 69, there is a note from me with subject header
"telephone service equipment monitoring" and with body using
the phrase "telephone service observing equipment".
Because I have heard of confusion over what these terms mean
(and have not had occasion to look them up closely), I am
sending along the following from Oct. 1979 Northeastern Maryland
call guide (sorry I can't get at that New Jersey directory right now):

Service Observing and Supervisory Monitoring at C&P

"C&P systematically measures the quality of service given to customers
when they call operators, repair services, and business offices.  This
system includes monitoring by trained personnel of small random samples
of calls between customers and our employees.  The purpose of this sys-
tem is to ensure that our customers receive prompt, courteous, and ac-
curate attention to their requests from our employees.  We also use service
observing to check the operation of our equipment in processing your tele-
phone calls."

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 1985 19:10:06 PST
Subject: Re: call forwarding chains
From: Eliot Moore <[e-mail]>


    Date: Mon, 18 Nov 85 20:48:10 est
    From: Michael A. Grant <[e-mail]>

    Instead of an FX line, have you considered forwarding chains?  i.e. renting
    a few phone lines in overlapping lata and forwarding them down a chain to
    the destination.

Could be very feasible.  I understand Texas' calling areas are
{naturally} BIG, so it might be only a couple hops.

    ...

    The telephone companies offer this without physical lines, but they
    generally only do it when the forwarded number incurs a toll charge (i.e.
    not to extend your incoming local calling area). --JSol]

Untrue Jon!  Pacific Bell and General Telephone are quite willing to
sell RCF's to extend your inward calling area, local or not, or to
jump across area-code boundaries, and promote the same.  The climate
has changed over the last few years.  I find the administration of
non-telco RCF's can be troublesome, and the mere $6.00 installation
charge appealing.  The usage charges (I do about 2500 minutes/month)
are reasonable when compared to base FX.  GTE will "get ya" by
disallowing evening & night discount periods.

Regards,
Elmo

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 17 Dec 85 21:02 EST
From:     Bruce <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Advice re: building a phone ringer box

I would appreciate any suggestions on how to build a box that can plug into
two phone lines and ring if there is a call on either one of them.  I would
like the "ringer equivalence" of the box to be as low as possible, but still
be able to produce a fairly loud (but adjustable) ring.  I also would like
to make the rings distinctive.  I may simply need two circuits for this last
requirement, but I don't even know how to build one without getting the phone
company upset.  Any suggestions?

        --- Bruce Leban
            [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 18 Dec 85 12:13:32 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  trivia and transposed digits

Trivia:
366 prefix in Newark (Delaware, 302 area; and Ohio, 614 area)
658 prefix in Wilmington (Delaware, 302 area; Massachusetts, 617 area)

I can think of 2 cases where transposing a digit lands you in a
ADJOINING exchange.  These may have had letter prefixes at one
time.  How many wrong numbers result from these?  (I've received
wrong-number calls along these lines, but not intended for adjoining
exchange.)
668 Parkville and 686 Essex (301 area, in Baltimore, Md. suburbs)
327 Export and 372 Monroeville (412 area, in Pittsburgh, Pa. suburbs)

------------------------------

Date: Wed 18 Dec 85 13:21:57-EST
From: Robert Lenoil <LENOIL@MIT-EECS>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #69

    Date: Fri, 22 Nov 85 05:04:36 EST
    From: "Stephen C. Hill" <[e-mail]>
    Subject:  [Kahin: Nov. 21st seminar]

    This is another interesting sounding seminar, and that is the problem.  For
    those of us several hundred (or even thousands of) miles away, it is extemely
    frustrating to hear of the seminars and not be able to be there.  The upshot
    of this message is that it would be REAL NICE if we could get the substance of
    these seminars, rather than just the teasers.  Are these communications
    seminars reported, or recorded?  Is there anyone that would be willing to at
    least gist the contents?

    Am I the only one on TELECOM that feels this way?

    "Responsible opposing views are welcomed."

    Steve
    -----

The MIT Communications Forum seminars do use teleconferencing to link with
Bell Northern Research.  Perhaps others can get it on it too.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 19 Dec 85 00:06:20-EST
From: "Bob Soron" <Mly.G.Pogo@MIT-OZ>
Subject: Problems with Racal Vadic 3451


After having used an el cheapo 300-baud modem with my Apple ][+,
I recently traded up to a used Vadic 3451 modem, with the Apple
Super Serial card.

The problem is that whenever my roommate picks up his phone --
it's a completely separate line -- the Vadic disconnects.  When
he dials his phone, the Vadic starts making the clicking noise
it makes when it dials.  I have no trouble going on-line if he's
already on the phone, but when he hangs up, the Vadic disconnects.

He's using a Western Electric phone (a Mickey Mouse, for what it's
worth).  The previous owner never had any trouble with it, and he
is as trustworthy as a person can be.  My guess is shielding, but
I'm a complete layperson on these matters.  If anyone can give me
a solve or even a more definitive guess, I'd surely appreciate it.

I'm not on the list, and read the bboarded digest irregularly;
please respond to me directly.  Thanks in advance.

...Bob (mly.g.pogo % mit-oz @ mit-mc)

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************

-------
22-Dec-85 18:33:39-PST,6889;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Sun 22 Dec 85 18:33:02-PST
Date: 18 Dec 85 23:31-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #67
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                      Wednesday, December 18, 1985 11:31PM
Volume 5, Issue 67

Today's Topics:

                           telecom digest #67
                      Re:  Telephone Ring Control
                         call forwarding chains
                   950 access weirdness from 617-649
                                vacation

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed 18 Dec 85 23:04-EST
From: "Mark A. Rosenstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: telecom digest #67

This digest apparently never made it out to most of the list in November
when it was first sent, so here it is again...
                    -Mark (temporary moderator)

------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 17 Nov 85 16:21:28 EST
From:     Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Telephone Ring Control

The only way I could think of a phone plugged in to an regular jack
disabling all the other phones from ringing would probably not be
looked on too favorably by TPC.  You just clamp down on voltages
over 50 Volts.  It would sync a bit of current.  I doubt they'd
go for it.

-Ron

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 85 13:13:13 PST
From: [e-mail] (Anthony Albert)

Newsgroups: mod.telecom
Subject: Forwarding calls from local to local area
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Anthony Albert)
Followup-To:
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Keywords:

I want to be able to call Berkeley from San Francisco for long
periods of time (modem calls) for as little cost as possible.
Unfortunately, it is just farther than my local calling area.
However, there is an intermediate region for which both cities
are local calls. I came up with the idea that I could somehow
get a line in the intermediate region and use call forwarding
to Berkeley from it. This should give me local calls from SF
through this line to Berkeley.

Of course, I don't really want a physical line. I wonder if there is
some way I could convince the phone company to let me make the calls for
the equivalent cost without their having to actually give me the line.
Or, is it possible to get a line which doesn't have a physical address.
Any speculations or suggestions are welcome.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 85 13:13:23 PST
From: [e-mail] (Anthony Albert)

Newsgroups: mod.telecom
Subject: Call forwarding
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Anthony Albert)
Followup-To:
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Keywords:

Is there a device available which would act as an answering
machine, except instead of recording messages, it would forward
the call to a predetermined number? I would like also for the
predetermined number to be settable over the telephone line
by some sort of beeper or touch-tone code.

Does this exist or would it be possible to make one?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 85 20:48:10 est
From: Michael A. Grant <[e-mail]>
Subject: call forwarding chains

Instead of an FX line, have you considered forwarding chains?  i.e. renting
a few phone lines in overlapping lata and forwarding them down a chain to
the destination.

    JSOL@MIT-XX
    Um yeah, forwarding chains are a neat idea, but realistially
    speaking, after 3 or more they start to lose in terms of voice
    quality.
    -------

[This is the third message in a row on such a topic. Call forwarding chains
require that you have friends in the appropriate exchanges. I had one in
LA inward to my number from certain areas which I got alot of calls from
(My number was in PacTel and the forwarder was in GTE and most of my
calls came from a PacTel area outside my local calling area). They are not
as versatile as FX lines (because you can't use them both ways), but if
someone has a data line in an ESS exchange, you might be able to convince
them to let you use their incoming number in exchange for sharing the costs
of the line and installing and paying for the call forwarding service.
The telephone companies offer this without physical lines, but they
generally only do it when the forwarded number incurs a toll charge (i.e.
not to extend your incoming local calling area). --JSol]

------------------------------

Date: 18-Nov-1985 2255
From: [e-mail]  (Dave C., 289-1997, APO-1/C8)
Subject: 950 access weirdness from 617-649


    Tonight I tried to dial 950-0777 (GTE Sprint) from a no-coin-required-
for-free-calls pay telephone in Tyngsboro, Mass. (617-649).  I got the
recorded announcement, "This call requires an advance payment.  Please hang up
and deposit the required amount before redialing this number," or words to
that effect.

    But 950- numbers are supposed to be free.  So, I hung up, lifted the
handset, waited for the dial tone, and deposited ten cents and again dialed
950-0777.  The dime was returned immediately, and I thought that the call
would go through.  Wrong.  I got exactly the same recorded announcement.

    So I dialed "0" and told the operator what had happened.  She asked me
where the 950 exchange was and I told her it was supposed to be a free call
from anywhere.  She asked me to wait, and in about ten seconds she came back
onto the line and said she would connect me.

    When the Sprint dial tone came on the line, I tried to key in my
authorization code, but the polarity on the line was reversed, so I flashed
for the operator with the switch-hook.  The operator asked me if that tone on
the line was normal, and I said that it was, but I needed to be able to use
the touch tone pad to enter data.  She said all she had to do was to get off
the line before I attempted to key in numbers, and she connected me again,
and got off the line, and I was able to make my call.

Dave C.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 19 Nov 85 10:40:24-EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: vacation

I have a family emergency and will be putting TELECOM on hold until
I get back. I should only be gone for two weeks. In that time, there
probably won't be alot of mail traffic, and I will send out a bunch of
digests in succession if there is.

Submissions to [e-mail], Requests to [e-mail],
Sympathy cards to me.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************

-------

-------
22-Dec-85 20:17:27-PST,9999;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Sun 22 Dec 85 20:16:59-PST
Date: 22 Dec 85 22:09-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #75
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Sunday, December 22, 1985 10:09PM
Volume 5, Issue 75

Today's Topics:

                      Re: MultiModem 224's and MNP
                   MNP Proposed as Industry Standard
                 Re: MNP Proposed as Industry Standard
                 Re: MNP Proposed as Industry Standard
                 Re: MNP Proposed as Industry Standard

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 85 03:17:00 GMT
From: Bob Berger <ihnp4!datacube![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MultiModem 224's and MNP

We've been using MultiTech  MultiModem 224's.   They've  been fine as
far as I can tell.  I do get line noise problems periodically.  I can
usually call the computer back and get a clean line.

I am very curious about these error correction schemes.  We are about
to go out in a big way  and upgrade  all our  modems to  MNP (The new
MultiTech's support MNP).  But I read a rumor on the net  that MNP is
NOT transparent, that you can not use it with uucp  or with terminals
that use XON / XOFF protocols!  If this is true, I don't  know if MNP
is worth anything.

We are paying $525 for the multitech's  with MNP,  about $465 without
MNP.

The other protocal that seems to be talked about is X.PC supported by
Microsoft and I think Hayes.  I  would love  to hear  some reports by
people  who  have  had  experience  with  these  protocols  in a unix
environment.

            Bob Berger

Datacube Inc. 4 Dearborn Rd. Peabody, Ma 01960     617-535-6644

ihnp4!datacube!berger
decvax!cca!mirror!datacube!berger
{mit-eddie,cyb0vax}!mirror!datacube!berger

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 85 15:44:57 GMT
From: Joel West <ihnp4!gould9![e-mail]>
Subject: MNP Proposed as Industry Standard

Quoting from Computer Systems News, 12/16/85 [(c) 1985 someone or
another]:

    MARINA DEL RAY--Modem maker Microcom Inc. last week proposed
    [to CCITT] its MNP (Microcom Networking Protocol) error-protection
    scheme as an industry standard for error detection and
    correction.
    ...[The company] announced that MNP classes 1, 2, and 3
    will be put in the public domain and said the company will
    make them available for $100, including full documentation.
       Microcom also said current licensses of MNP classes 1,2,
    and 3 will receive licenses to the new classes of 4,5 and 6
    free of charge.  New licensees of MNP will pay about $2500
    for the new classes.
      [Mumble jumble marketing b.s. "pretty much a de facto standard"]
      [Corporate mucky-muck] said that submitting classes 1 through
    3 for consideration as a standard would make classes 4, 5 and
    6 a standard also "since they are compatible with the other
    classes of MNP."
      [He] said the only major opposition to the accpetance of MNP
    might come from supporters of Tymnet Inc.'s X.PC protocol.

Questions and comments:
    1.    It still seems as though Microcom is trying to make money on the
    standard itself, instead of benefiting more indirectly from
    the standard's success (e.g., Tymnet and X.PC)
    2.    $100 is pretty high for "public domain".  If the manuals are
    less than 500 pages (remember the "Inside Macintosh"
    controversy), they're probably making a good profit margin
    on this "public domain" product.
    3.    What are the chances that this act of selfless generosity
    will be accepted?
    4.    Why would any company pay $2,500 for 4-6, when they can get
    1-3 free?
    5.    Even if it is free, is there any reason why I would want
    MNP?
--
    Joel West         [phone]
    CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA  92037
    {cbosgd,ihnp4,pyramid,sdcsvax,ucla-cs}!gould9!joel
    gould9![e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 18 Dec 85 14:30:35 GMT
From: "Barry A. Burke" <harvard!adelie![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MNP Proposed as Industry Standard

Regarding Microcom's recent MNP announcements, Joel West asks:
>Questions and comments:
>    1.    It still seems as though Microcom is trying to make money on the
>    standard itself, instead of benefiting more indirectly from
>    the standard's success (e.g., Tymnet and X.PC)

Without as massive an end-user delivery vehicle as Tymnet, Microcom is
trying to make money the only way they can.  The hope is that the easy
availability of MNP will cause the MAJORITY of Modem manufacturers to
License MNP, while Tymet's X.PC is targetted more at Software (eg.
terminal emulator/file transfer) developers.

>    2.    $100 is pretty high for "public domain".  If the manuals are
>    less than 500 pages (remember the "Inside Macintosh"
>    controversy), they're probably making a good profit margin
>    on this "public domain" product.

And what's wrong with making a profit?  And try licensing SNA (*ANY*
level) for $100.

>    3.    What are the chances that this act of selfless generosity
>    will be accepted?

Tremendous.  Already there's not a single major modem manufacturer
(except Hayes) that doesn't have  MNP available on at least one modem
(er, excuse me- AT&T may not have delivered a modem with MNP either).

>    4.    Why would any company pay $2,500 for 4-6, when they can get
>    1-3 free?

Because 4-6 are BETTER.  A recent article in Computer Systems News
mentioned that levels 4+ have automatic variable-length packet framing
(levels 1-3 are fixed at 64 chars).  Also, starting at level 5 (I
think), data compression is included- Microcom has announced a 4800 baud
modem which is really 2400 baud with data compression.  Level 6 is for
9600 baud (+?), Microcom has announced intent to provide modems in this
sphere, too.  The important factor of all this is that higher throughput
is available using MNP 4+ using existing modem technology and standards
(the DCA FastLink is NOT "standard" technology- it's extremely
proprietary).

>    5.    Even if it is free, is there any reason why I would want
>    MNP?

Probably not unless you manufacture modems.  It's not clear whether
anything can be gained (or if it's even possible) by running MNP in
software in say, your PC's terminal emulator.  BUT, if you DO
manufacture modems, already it appears to be in your best interest to
invest in and implement MNP, since a growing percentage of the 2400+
baud modems are using it.  And if (as I suspect) MNP works BETTER for
interactive use than does the FastLink stuff at higher speeds- look out,
EVERYBODY will have MNP.

[Disclaimer:  I have no interest or relationship with Microcom, etc.]
[          I provide no warrent, expressed or otherwise, that the]
[          above information is correct.                  ]
--
LIVE:    Barry A. Burke, [phone] x26
USPS:    Adelie Corporation, 288 Walnut St., Newtonville, MA  02160
UUCP:    ..!{harvard | decvax!linus!axiom}!adelie!barry
ARPA:    adelie![e-mail], [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 85 23:10:27 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Ralph Hyre)
Subject: Re: MNP Proposed as Industry Standard

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Faunt) writes:
>>
>>  It's not clear whether
>> anything can be gained (or if it's even possible) by running MNP in
>> software in say, your PC's terminal emulator.  BUT, if you DO
>
>Is this true?  If so, why?  Is there something simple here that I don't
>see?

Well, there's and end-to-end argument in computer systems design* which
claims that it's often useful to put error correction in the application
itself rather than depend on error correction at lower levels, since the
low-level correction doesn't know all the ways in which the higher-level
applications can lose or corrupt data.  MNP might get the bits back and
forth between the modems ok, but then you have to make sure that the
modem <-> computer (memory) <-> filesystem connection is reliable.
(Generally it is, so most people will be happy with MNP and X.PC if
they're not to paranoid)

This would argue for putting MNP closer to the application itself.
In general, it's best to just to do error correction in just one place
unless the underliying communications channels are flaky enough to
require it (some LD phone lines are certainly an example of this.)

* recommended reading, it's in an ACM Transacions on (Computer Systems?)
journal that came out recently, written by two of the following people:
{Jerry Saltzer, Dave Clark, Dave Reed}

The careful file transfer discussion is very relevant.

                    - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: [e-mail] (cmu-cs-c.arpa)    Usenet: [e-mail]
Fido: Ralph Hyre at Net 129, Node 0 (Pitt-Bull) Phone: [phone]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 85 02:06:37 GMT
From: "Phil R. Karn" <ihnp4!bellcore!petrus![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MNP Proposed as Industry Standard

Personal opinion:

Whenever possible, and unless your lines are VERY noisy, you should ignore
this "reliable link level protocol" garbage and run TCP/IP with
serial-line-IP (SLIP) across your simple dialup modems.  If your TCPs are
properly tuned and implement the Nagle congestion control algorithm, Telnet
works very nicely.  Plus you get transparent Internet access with full
end-to-end error checking (something a link protocol can't do) to boot.

If you have a PC, you can use the MIT package. Maybe some day an enlightened
vendor will come out with a cheap, single-port TCP/IP/SLIP "PAD" that works
instead of reinventing yet another ad-hoc, "proprietary" link level
protocol.

Phil

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
23-Dec-85 13:30:57-PST,10329;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by SRI-CSL.ARPA with TCP; Mon 23 Dec 85 13:30:21-PST
Date: 23 Dec 85 14:25-EST
From: Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V5 #76
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Monday, December 23, 1985 2:25PM
Volume 5, Issue 76

Today's Topics:

                  BSR X-10 Telephone Controller review
                    telco lawsuits (Plano TX, etc.)
               Access to MCI and to Sprint from Las Vegas
                              rj-25c jack
                         UPTA 9600 baud modems
                          Re: Three Questions
                       Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #67
                           Polarity reversal
                        Called number ID service

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 85 12:48:15 EST
From: Bob Clements <[e-mail]>
Subject: BSR X-10 Telephone Controller review

Quick Review of BSR X-10 Telephone Controller

This is sort of TELECOM info, and I haven't seen it posted
before, so here is a review of the BSR X-10 Telephone Controller
box.  Maybe it will convince you that you do or don't want to
rush out and buy one of these things. I had been thinking about
it for a long time, and when the price dropped to $39 in the
current DAK catalog, I ordered one.

I assume everyone (or everyone who might be interested) knows
about the BSR X10 home controller series, so I won't go into the
basics.

The Telephone Controller comes in a case about like the timer
module, but with no display.  It has buttons for units 1 thru 8,
and for ON, OFF, ALL OFF, and ALL LIGHTS ON. The buttons are
bigger and more comfortable than on any of the other controllers.

It plugs into your standard Modular phone outlet and into a
117 VAC wall plug.

It has a portable unit, like many phone answering machines have.
The portable has the above-listed set of command buttons. You
couple the remote to the phone mouthpiece acoustically.  It makes
raucous BLATTTs, not touch tones. You can't just use a touch tone
phone to send the commands, you need the BLATTTer.

When you call your phone line, the box waits 42 seconds [yes, it
says 42] and answers on the next ring. There is no way to bypass
or adjust the delay. You can set it to answer after 42 seconds even if
the ringing has stopped. This is for use on a line with an answering
machine. The machine answers first, and if you hang on long enough
you can talk to the controller.

When it answers, it gives 3 beeps.  Then you enter a password. The
password is from 0 thru 3 digits long, digits 1 thru 8. You set it
on three little rotary switches on the controller box.  After that
you enter the usual sort of BSR commands like <4> <ON>.  It triple-
beeps at you after each command. [But not after, for example,
the <OFF> of a <4> <ON> <OFF> sequence, even though the <OFF> has
done its thing just like in the other controllers.]

So.  It seems to do about what you would expect. Bad points are
the long un-adjustable delay and the inability to command by touchtone.
Other than that, it seems fine.

/Rcc
[e-mail]
{ihnp4|decvax|linus}!bbncca!clements
[Everything above is probably the trademark of somebody. And I am
completely irresponsible.]

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 20 Dec 1985 13:21:51-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388)
Subject: telco lawsuits (Plano TX, etc.)


Re V5I71, there was an article in _telecommunications_ lately which
discussed several lawsuits between telcos and customers who got service
from other areas.  GTE in Plano TX sued Avco for getting service from
Southern Bell, and of course lost. This has nothing to do with monopoly.
GTE's suit was specious because Avco got service from Southern Bell
_within_ Southern Bell's serving area.  They used radio (FCC jurisdiction)
to connect a building in Plano with the Southern Bell site.  Thus, as
far as the FCC was concerned, Avco got its service legit from Southern
Bell and ran a legit radio.  The fact that the radio's other end was
in GTE territory meant nothing, since they weren't even requesting any
telephone service in that location.

There were other cases before that.  In one case, a church campus with
facilities on both sides of the NC/SC border got service from Southern
Bell in SC, and had PBX stations in NC.  The mom and pop telco sued,
but lost, since the law specifies that franchises apply to point of
interconnection, not wherever the customer happens to run h is own
facilities to, behind a PBX.

The building I'm sitting in has trunks in one town and extensions
in another.  It's quite common (remote line units).  Telcos sometimes
complain about it, but they're well beyond their rights.  Legally,
there's a single point where any telco service is provided (the demarc),
and what the customer does behind that is none of the telco's business,
provided they meet registration rules for the demarc.

------------------------------

Date: 20-Dec-1985 1403
From: [e-mail]  (Dave C., 289-1997, APO-1/C8)
Subject: Access to MCI and to Sprint from Las Vegas

During my recent vacation in Las Vegas, Nevada, I noticed that some pay
telephones (run by Centel) are set up to allow MCI to be accessed by
depositing ten cents and dialing 22# and GTE Sprint by depositing ten cents
and dialing 77#.

Dave C.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Dec 85 12:49:53 est
From: ulysses![e-mail] (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: rj-25c jack

An RJ-25C is a three-line modular jack, wired as follows:

    1   2   3   4   5   6
    T3  T2  R1  T1  R2  R3

RJ-25W is probably a wall-mount version of the same thing.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 85 14:56:06 EST
From: Michael A. Grant <[e-mail]>
Subject: UPTA 9600 baud modems

Does anyone know anything about these modems?  They claim 9600 baud
over regular phone lines.  Anyone know how these things are over
long distances?  How about over alternate carriers, other than AT&T?
-Mike Grant
p.s. they go for $895

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 85 07:56:55 pst
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!RDCF.SDC.UUCP![e-mail] (Darrel VanBuer)
Subject: Re: Three Questions

In article <[e-mail]> kremen@aerospace writes:
>My first question relates to a problem I am having with my telephone.  I
>am able to make local and long-distance calls fine. When I call, I can
>hear the touch tones in the receiver. But as soon as my call is
>connected, any touch tones I press are muted. I just hear a "click."
>...when a call was connected in most cases, the polarity of the line
>reverses. According to this guru, my phone is an ATT Touch Tone and is
>unable to switch polarities on step central offices. He indicated two
>choices: buy a polarity suppressor at around $70.00 or get a new phone.
>My first question is can I make a polarity suppressor myself?
>ARPA: kremen@aerospace

The transistor (or IC) circuitry in every phone needs DC of the right
polarity to function.  Older ATT phones "ensure" the right polarity by
having a single diode in series with the electronics and wiring the
telephone office and your telephone jack to a consistent polarity.  Most
other telephones use a rectifier bridge to make them polarity independent.
When ATT originally did this, they probably saved $3 per phone ($1 per
diode), but now diodes are a nickel each.  It's certainly possible to modify
the network, but it's too hard to perscribe details.  The general idea is:
Old:
  |-------------|
--| tone circuit|--->|---
 +|-------------|-
New:
--|---------------|------
  |AC  Bridge   AC|
  |   +     -     |
  |---------------|
      |     |
     +|    -|
  |--------------|
  | tone circuit |
  |--------------|

There are a couple of possible locations for the bridge: the easiest to find
may actually be between the hook switch and the entire non-bell circuitry
rather than isolated to tone circuit.
--
Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2525 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
[phone] x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,orstcs,sdcsvax,ucla-cs,akgua}
                                                            !sdcrdcf!darrelj
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date:  Sun, 22 Dec 85 23:54 EST
From:  "Richard Kovalcik, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: TELECOM Digest V5 #67

Well, 950 may supposed to work from all over and be free, but it isn't.
I suspect it only works in places that have equal access or at least
ESSs.  I know it works in metropolitan Boston, but it does not work in
say Wellesley, but it does work in Sharon.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 85 06:37:30 EST
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: Polarity reversal

*No* central office should reverse your polarity upon call completion
anymore.  This sometimes happens on operator-assisted calls, but your polarity
should remain exactly the same on a direct-dial call.  Bitch *loudly* at
your GTE technical people.  Furthermore, a polarity "guard" is nothing more
than a bridge rectifier which can be had at your local Shaft for 99 cents.
There is nothing wrong with your phone...

_H*

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1985  03:50 EST
From: "David D. Story" <FTD%MIT-OZ @ MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Called number ID service


What a pile of crap. Forwarding ID's will stand up in court
about the same as collecting evidence on illegal wiretaps.

Does't mean that the tappers can't pull a trap to jail function
either ! Nor your friendly Arpa people that like to verify
(with sheepskin airbags) the authenticity of such garbage.

So go read it again and communications law. I suggest that
you try the 25 volumes of FCC code then try the rest of
constitutional law governing federal and state regulations.

EVIL

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************