Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/telecom-recent/[e-mail] _Thu Jan 4 04:14:28 1996.msg

Internet Message Format | 1996-01-21 | 34KB

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id EAA09449; Thu, 4 Jan 1996 04:14:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 04:14:28 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #6

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 4 Jan 96 04:15:00 EST    Volume 16 : Issue 6

Inside This Issue:                        Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Northern Ontario Telephones (was Re: Canadian Telco Websites) (R. Dawson)
    Send Your Want to Buy Request (Joseph Stephens)
    Re: Compuserve Censors USENET in Europe (Ross E. Mitchell)
    Say NO! to Telecom Regulation (was Re: Say NO to Metered ISDN) (Brad Aisa)
    Re: KSU Needed ([e-mail])
    Re: CID Not Passed Via 1-800-CALL-ATT (Arnette P. Schultz)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Joel B. Levin)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Mark J. Cuccia)
    900 Mhz ... What's The Real Distance? (John Tassi)
    Re: SMDR Data Available? (D. Ptasnik)
    Re: SMDR Data Available? (John N. Dreystadt)
    Re: Price Reduced on Oslin Book "Story of Telecommunications" (D Breneman)
    DID Modems Wanted (Raymon A. Bobbitt)
    Last Laugh! Suspected Wrong Domain Name For "Heaven" (Paul Robinson)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Scott Robert Dawson)
Subject: Northern Ontario Telephones (was Re: New Canadian Telco Websites)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 06:20:21 GMT
Organization: InterLog Internet Services
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Mark J Cuccia <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'm still waiting to see when Ontario Northland Communications gets a
> webpage. It is a member of CITA, but not of OTA. When I was looking at
> Northern Telephones webpages, it was stated that toll services in
> northeastern Ontario were provided by the *provincially* owned Ontario
> Northland Transportation Commission. NT's service area `seems' as if it
> had toll switching/transmission services of its own- it has a number of
> exchanges and Central Office codes in central northeastern Ontario.
> Ontario Northland Communications has only a handful of local exchanges &
> NXX codes just north of and just south of NT's exchange operating
> territory. In some old CITA publications I have, it is stated that Ontario
> Northland Communications has some Class-4 (and even a Class-3)
> toll/tandem switches. I would guess that Ontario Northland Communications
> is part of the provincially owned Ontario Northland Transportation
> Commission. Maybe Nigel Allen or Dave Leibold could shed some more light
> on this.

This puts something I noticed a while ago in a new (not necessarily
less murky) light:

On my old (1986-87) official government road map of Ontario, the
farthest northern settlements on the Hudson Bay seacoast, and in the
interior, are marked with a telephone symbol. The key at the side of
the map says,

           REMOTE NORTHERN LONG DISTANCE
                 TELEPHONE NETWORK
         RESEAU TELEPHONIQUE INTERURBAIN DANS
            LES REGIONS ELOIGNEES DU NORD

      <symbol>   Telephone Access Point
                 Pointe d'access au telephone

On my new map, (1994-95), which I got at the tourist info booth
downtown last week, the same settlements are shown without the
telephone symbol. They still have their symbols for police, airstrip,
medical, etc.

These are _all_ of the settlements unconnected by road to the south,
although one, Moosonee, on Hudson Bay, is at the end of the Ontario
Northland Railway (the famous Polar Bear excursion train). Moosonee is
the only settlement on any railway to have a symbol. None of the other
settlements with rail-only access have a symbol.

These settlements are not just in the northeast either; they go all
the way across the North. The waeternmost is Poplar Hill, 300 km north
of Fort Frances ON/Internatonal Falls MN- in area code 807 and well
west of Thunder Bay. The easternmost is Moosonee itself, north from
Smooth Rock Falls and Timmins, in area code 705.

I wonder what's changed? Maybe they got satellite phones?  Are these
the 'ringdown' points that Mark mentioned earlier on?


                             |         Genetics is fun, but
Scott Robert Dawson          |    _my_ family is defined by love...
                             |
[e-mail]     http://www.interlog.com/~srdawson/scothmpg.htm


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am reminded of calls to a remote town
in northern Ontario called Hearst, population five thousand and
something back in the 1970's. It was listed as 'other place' in the
Bell System Rate and Route tables. Our long distance operator would
dial 705+181. Doing so, lo and behold, who would answer but an
operator in Sudbury, Ontario. Our operator would then ask to be
connected to Hearst, and upon reaching that place would then ask for
the local number. You could almost feel the hundreds of miles speeding
past as Sudbury plugged in the connection on her board. A very slight
hum in the background and a sort of 'chunk chunk' sound as she
rang the Hearst exchange, a few hundred miles to the northwest up
Highway 11. Presently the operator there would answer by saying
'Hearst!' in a loud voice, and the long distance operator in Sudbury
would say 'there is a call for you from Chicago ... go ahead Chicago'.
Our long distance operator would ask for the desired two or three
digit number, with the operator in Herst no doubt impressed that
a call was coming from so far away.

Very late one evening, about midnight, a call was placed to Hearst.
Sudbury comes on the line, and our operator here asks as usual for
Hearst. "Oh," says Sudbury, "is this an emergency call?". No, we
said, it was not an emergency. Sudbury's response was, "well if it
is not an emergency, I can't call her now. After 10 pm we are not
supposed to call her until we give her a wake up call at 6 in the
morning. The switchboard is in her home. She is on 24 hour duty with
sleeping privileges. If its an emergency I will ring up there, and
she or someone in the family will come and answer the board but it
might take a minute or two to raise them." We said thanks, but don't
wake the operator; it is not essential and the call can be placed
tomorrow ... I found out the next day that it was an 'understanding'
among the people of Hearst that telephone service operated between
8 am and 10 pm. If it was during the overnight hours, the operator
was asleep but would respond under the assumption there was an
emergency needing the doctor, the fire brigade or whatever.  Lots of
small rural areas in the USA had phone service with the same kind of
'understanding' among the townspeople in the early years of this
century. No routine calling while the (sole) operator was trying to
rest. If a call came in on the switchboard at midnight, the operator
would awake from her sleep knowing there was trouble in the village.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joseph Stephens)
Subject: Send Your Want To Buy Request
Date: 3 Jan 1996 14:48:48 GMT
Organization: Houston SuperNet (houston.net)


Search Equipment Exchange based in Houston, TX is an infomation
service which lists used and unused Telecommunication Equipment such
as: PBX, phones, cards, complete systems, maintenance materials and
hard to find items.

We will list want to buys from end users and dealers on our system for
free.

If you want to list a want to buy call 1-800-252-5969 ext 27 and talk to
Michael Jacobs.

Also we are compiling an interconnect directory.  If you are an
interconect and would like to be listed, please call Michael Jacobs
for an input form.

If you have any questions regarding Search Equipment Exchange, please call
or E-mail [e-mail].

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

From: [e-mail] (Ross E Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Compuserve Censors USENET in Europe
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 03:09:52 GMT


PAT, you are free to ascribe any meaning you want to any word you want.
You have decided that the only proper use of the word "censorship" is to
describe that which is imposed by the government.  That's fine with me.
It's just that that's not the way it is defined in the English language,
at least as far as the dictionary is concerned.  The dictionary, as you
well know, is where we record our agreements about the meanings of words.

If you make your point by saying "government imposed censorship is..." I
have no problem.  But, if I use censorship in the broader sense, a sense
that includes but does not limit itself to government censorship, please
allow that my use, supported by the dictionary, is not improper,
regardless of your belief of what the meaning OUGHT to be.

Oh, and I hope you won't "censor" this final comment before returning to
the topics of the group that you administer so well.


Ross Mitchell


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I love it. Go ahead, use it in the
'broader sense', deuces wild, anything goes, come up with an answer
that works. I used to know another guy who did this. Whenever a
social problem came to his attention, or someone of whom he had
high expectations did not live up to his expectations (I seemed to
be his favorite victim) his retort would always be that 'freedom
*as I know it and define it* in the USA is dead.' Naturally using
his definitions, anything could be accounted for. To him, 'freedom'
was the ability and willingness to do the right thing in the right
place at the right time; everything else was 'license'. Therefore
he could kill freedom whenever he felt like it. I used to tear my
hair out trying to talk to him.  Just remember: in this Digest,
words mean what I say they mean.  <grin>   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brad Aisa)
Subject: Say NO! to Telecom Regulation (was Re: Say NO! to Metered ISDN)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 96 06:07:23 GMT
Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Oakville, Ontario, CANADA


Francois D. Menard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The day Bell Canada starts to bill ISDN as a metered service, it will
> be the beginning of the end.  SAY NO TO ANYTHING THAT IS METERED.  It
> is on this philosophy (of dedicated / not metered ) that we've built
> on the Internet, damn it!

> I pay many K$ a month for the right to say "Bell, Shut up !"  If I
> want to do IPhone, I can do IPhone, if I want to pay for a T1 just for
> the fun of toying with a packet sniffer, that's my OWN problem.

If I use 10K of bandwidth a day to get my email, why should I pay the
same price as someone who is pumping 28M per hour over a B channel to
the Internet?

It makes far more sense to meter utilities, because this is both fair,
and provides a reasonable check on demand. Imagine if gas or
electricity weren't metered -- people would waste it like crazy, and
everyone's rates would skyrocket.

But I want _the market_ to decide this question, NOT the arbitrary
dictates of a state mandated monopoly, nor the result of a cabinet
order, nor the result of a CRTC order.

The thing everyone should be objecting to is the vast regulatory
bureacracy which stiffles telecom innovation and competition in
Canada.

Companies in free markets are very sensitive to their customers' needs
and preferences. Even when there is only one provider in a certain
area, there is the ever looming threat of competition. With today's
technology, it should be possible to get bits into and out of the home
in any of several different ways.

The real answer is abolishing the CRTC and scrapping all telecom
regulation. Then, the market can decide the ways in which people want
their service.


Brad Aisa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[e-mail]   web archive: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/

"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge."   -- Ayn Rand


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Considering the ideas presented in your
message, I am not surprised your .signature includes an Ayn Rand
quote; or should I say that the other way around: having seen an Ayn
Rand quote in your .signature, I am not surprised at the sort of
messages you send out to the net. Although sort of strange, she was a
pretty nice lady. I have a personally autographed hard cover copy of
{Atlas Shrugged}. The book was published while I was in high school
(1957) and she was on a tour promoting her (then) new book. She spoke
at an assembly program at our high school. I was the pet of the
teacher who invited her, so afterward I got to go to dinner with Ms.
Rand and Arthur when he drove her to the airport to go on to the next
place in her tour. She signed my copy and his also.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: KSU Needed
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 06:52:52 GMT
Organization: University of Florida


On Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:17:06 -0500, you wrote:

> I have a Panasonic KSU and I like it a lot. One of my clients needs a
> KSU for his new office and I'm suggesting a Panasonic ...

> So: I'm looking for people who sell them, either new or USED (at a good
> price).

> He needs ~6 CO lines, ~12-16 inside extensions, nothing larger than
> that and 1-4 feature phones depending on price.

The Panasonic is an EXCELLENT recommendation!  Completely user
programmable, and completely hybrid (can use system phones, or
standard single-line telephones... like that pink princess phone in
your daughter's bedroom :) )

I now sell ONLY the panasonic line.  I can sell NEW, or keep my eyes
open for a decent priced USED system.  Your friend can call me at:

    Phone:    [phone]
    Fax:    [phone]

Michael

P.S.   Sorry, but I can't respond via E-mail.  I currently only have
access to the news groups via a direct access account.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 12:50:31 -0600
Subject: Re: CID Not Passed Via 1-800-CALL-ATT


[e-mail] (Kevin R. Ray) wrote:

> I have used AT&T to make local calls to some people that I didn't want
> to know who was calling in the past couple of days. I didn't want to
> show up as "ANONYMOUS" (*67), so AT&T was my choice. :-)

> Using 1-800-CALL-ATT does *NOT* pass along the CID info.
> Using 0-NUMBER also does *NOT* pass along the CID info (which I would
>                think would be an Ameritech problem.)
> Almost a month later and they still don't have it right...

Not an issue of "getting it right".  The FCC ruling does not force
carriers of any type (LEC, IXC, Cellular) to implement SS7 in order to
support the tranport of CID information (i.e. Calling Party Number --
CPN). It only applies to carriers that use SS7 for call setup already.
Operator Service Systems (OSS) are not SS7 capable, so calls that use
OSS will not pass CID information.

This is true of any calls that route to an OSS (known as OSPS or TOPS
by many).  The problem is that standards have not been finalized to
support OSS SS7.  Special signaling is required for operator handled
calls, for example for coin collection, and ANSI (T1S1) has not yet
finalized the OSS SS7 signaling. So, I am aware of no OSS that
supports incoming SS7 -- this is not unique to AT&T.

Hence, any call that goes to an operator system (live or robot) will
most likely fail to pass CID information, as it is taking a non-SS7
route.  Both the cases you sight are routed to OSS for handling
(usually via credit card, but other options are available).

Also, John L. Wilkerson Jr,  [e-mail], wrote:

> My brother in Texas called recently. His number came over with the
> name "Texas Call" showing up on the name display.  AT&T seems to be
> working okay, as well as I can tell.

Again, direct dialed calls (e.g. 1+number) placed over AT&T, and most
large carriers (IXCs), will follow all SS7 routing and are capable of
passing SS7 CPN information used by CID.  All that is passed by the
IXC is the CPN (number) and associated "presentation status".  The
trick of adding "Texas Call" is, as far as I know, done by the local
switch that is providing the CID service.


Arnette Schultz     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 03 Jan 1996 15:59:37 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Dave Levenson) writes:

> If calling an 800 number can result in charges to the calling party,
> then it is no longer safe to allow the public to call 800 numbers.
> How useful is an 800 number if it can only be called from residence
> lines?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you will find however that most
> of these funny numbers actually are non-dialable from pay phones.
> Whenever I find an 800 number of the kind we have been discussing, ...
> But time and again, genuine Bell payphones *never* complete those
> calls, even if it is an 800 number, because the information provider
> has access to a database of phone numbers listed as being in coin
> service.

Actually, as John Higdon has made clear on other occasions, an IP who
receives realtime ANI also gets a class of service indicator.  Any BOC
pay phone or any _properly configured_ COCOT line, and presumably PBX
or Centrex dial-out trunks show a certain class of service which the
IP can refuse service for.  With that information available, relying
on a database is as unnecessary as it is cumbersome.

/J

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

From: Mark J. Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 03 Jan 1996 22:02:24 GMT
Organization: Tulane University


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, the adult/sex IP's out there *claim*
> they give ample notification of their charges. They *claim* that if you
> remain on the line you do so of your volition and with full knowledge
> of the cost of the call, and your consent for billing. Much of this could
> be resolved if the IPs would tape record the first fifteen or twenty
> seconds of each phone call, during which time they would make a statement
> similar to this:

> "For billing purposes only, the first few seconds of this call is
> being tape recorded. ... now or speak the word 'yes' ... if any part
> of the above is not true then please disconnect now at no charge."

Pat, knowing the sleaziness of these adult/sex IP's with their
900-like PAY-PAY-PAY-per-call hiding behind 800 with ANI, I'd suspect
that even with this method of recording the consent, they would
fraudulently `insert' into the recording a DTMF `9' tone (for `Y'
meaning `yes'). They've lied before, and they'll lie and cheat again,
no matter what safeguards are used.

When I use 950 and 1-800 (and soon 1-888) numbers to toll-free/coin-free
access the carrier of my choice to make a card-sent-paid toll call, I
understand that the 950 or 800 number is free, but to continue via my
carrier I must DTMF (or say) my card/account/authorization code. If I
were to misdial a particular 950 number, I am not supposed to be
charged on the line I am calling from, since I didn't DTMF any valid
account. I suppose that the carrier has the number of the line (or
trunk) I am placing the 950 or 800 call from since (depending on the
carrier) I see that originating number on my card-account bill for
calls which were completed.

The local telco can bill me for these calls if my account is set up
that way, but I am billed for the toll call via the calling-card, and
not for the 800 or 950 access, altho' there *is* that nasty calling
card surcharge. If anyone visiting me uses my phone line for 800 & 950
access to place a toll call billed to *their* account, then *they* are
billed for the call on their account and *not* me. But *I* am not
billed anything for this call, even tho' the IXC has *my* telephone
number (via ANI) as the originating telephone number.

A few years ago, I remember seeing some print-ads for pay-per-call
adult/porn services using 800 number, but it stated in tiny print at
the bottom something like "2.00 for each half-minute...V/MC/AE". I
called one of these 800 numbers from a nearby Telco payphone, and was
connected to a recording of a sultry female voice stating that I could
have an `exciting' time, by entering my Visa, MasterCard, or American
Express card number into a touchtone phone. While I don't like the
PAY-PAY-PAY-per-call services (900, 976, etc), at least this method
required you to enter a commercial credit card number. They may have
even had ANI to determine the originating number, but they billed via
the credit card, and not to the originating telephone number via the
LEC. Maybe all forms of pay-pay-pay services via 800 numbers should be
required to be this way- not just a `press Y if you accept'. If they
would want *telco* or a long-distance company to bill for the call,
then they could be set up for telco/IXC to do a calling-card
verification, just like telco does for its own toll services via 800
numbers.


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: [e-mail] |4710 Wright Road| ([phone])
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954([phone])|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917([phone])|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail

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

From: [e-mail] (John Tassi)
Subject: 900 Mhz ... What's the Real Distance?
Date: 03 Jan 1996 19:10:44 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services


Hello,

What is the real distance of 900 Mnz phones?  What are the limitations
with buildings (walls - dry wall or wood or Metal studs), etc.

I would like to use a 900 Mhz cordless outdoors at a range of 500 ->
1500 feet.

What other options are there?  (besides celular phones).


Thanks.

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

From: [e-mail] (D. Ptasnik)
Subject: Re: SMDR Data Available?
Date: 03 Jan 1996 19:43:57 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


[e-mail] (Jose Cordones) writes:

> As for the delivery time of the SMDR data, it is quite braindead, so
> the information is dumped to you some time after the call is
> completed.  Like I had suspected in my first posting, it seems I will
> have to hack an interface compatible with a System phone.  Why, you
> ask?  SMDR is really lousy for the parts where I would like to:

> 1. authenticate caller at beginning of transaction.
> 2. have more or less real time limits on the phone usage for each user,
> and to boot, most users will be remote.

This also creates a real problem for small police stations.  In order
to be compatible with E911, the phone system needs to notify the e911
records center at the moment the call is answered.  This notification
sends the address and phone number to the police station display.
Very expensive dedicated systems are available for large police
centers that DO put out SMDR at the beginning and end of a call, and
this is captured electronically to initiate the data transmission.
Much older systems (1A2) have "A-lead control", an electromechanical
event that happens when a phone goes off hook.  This can also be
captured by e911 systems to trigger the sending of name and address
from the central storage site to the local display at the police
station.

A few police stations have tried some hokey set ups that attach to the
handset cord of the telephone being used by the dispatcher.  I know of
one in particular that was trying to use a yucky and stupid AT&T
Merlin phone system for their whole building, and naturally wanted the
police dispatchers to use the same sets as everyone else.  Here is the
idea: When the set goes off hook, the signal is sent that requests the
address info.  Unfortunately this is so unreliable (not sure why),
that each set is also given a little button that manually signalls if
the off hook indicator fails.  Seems to happen more than 10% of the
time.  Pretty frustrating for the cops answering the calls.


Dave Ptasnik     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John N. Dreystadt)
Subject: Re: SMDR Data Available?
Date: 03 Jan 1996 15:00:22 GMT
Organization: Software Services


In article <[e-mail]>, cordones@spacelab.
net says:

> As for TAPI, TSPI, etc.  I had read Intel's homepages and it was of no
> help.  I now have checked Microsoft's TAPI page and they actually
> bother to provide info.  From the Intel disinformation part, my
> fingers itched to tell you "but I want the computer to control many
> lines, not one ..." but I just found a paper (ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/
> developr/TAPI/CLTSRV.ZIP) that claims "dispells the belief that TAPI
> can't do third party call control and gives a suggestion on how to
> impliment both the client and the server TAPI components."  The format
> seems to be "Power Point Text[?]" and I can't read it, though :-/
> Are there other any advanced books out on TAPI, even if from Microsoft
> or Intel?  A friend tells me that Apple has a Telephony API, too, but
> I don't know any more, at this time.  I'll be hunting.  Any comments?

Look around on the Microsoft area for the PowerPoint Viewer
(ppv.exe?). Or talk to your friends and neighbors. This is a freely
distributed piece of software that lets you look at PowerPoint
presentations. Since I may have to do some TAPI stuff in the future, I
would be interested in a followup from you on resources you find.


John Dreystadt

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

From: [e-mail] (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Price Reduced on Oslin Book "Story of Telecommunications"
Date: 03 Jan 1996 20:24:53 GMT
Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(James H.  Haynes) writes:

> I got a flyer the other day from Mercer University Press, the
> publisher of "The Story of Telecommunications" by George Oslin.  The
> price has been reduced from $35 to $28.  Maybe this means they are
> trying to get rid of the remaining stock.  I recommend the book highly
> even though it is a mess.

I'm interested in knowing in what way it's a mess.  Of course, the
narrative ends at about 1980, but it didn't seem to be particularly
disorganized, which is how I would interpret your comment.  Just
curious.


David Breneman     Unix System Administrator
IS - Operations    AT&T Wireless Services

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

From: [e-mail] (Raymon A. Bobbitt)
Subject: DID Modems Wanted
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 23:33:31 GMT
Organization: RAMLink Internet Access Service


Does anyone know of a modem that will answer a DID trunk siezure,
collect the digits, report the digits to the serial port and then
negotiate the connection??

I am doing this with a PBX now and want to reduce the cost of service.

Thanks in advance for any information.


Raymon A. Bobbitt   One Call Systems
Po Box 1091   Ashland, KY  41105-1091
V/F 606-329-9919   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 10:26:34 EST
From: One True Church of God <[e-mail]>
Organization: One True Church of God, Incorporated, AMN-SC
Subject: Last Laugh! Suspected Wrong Domain Name For "Heaven"


On Thu, 16 Nov 95 16:35:53 EST, [e-mail] submitted a
humorous article from an unknown source, containing:

Subject: Last Laugh! Usenet and the Path to Salvation

> When he was done, she began to stammer, but Saint Peter stopped
> her,  saying "I'm sorry.  There's nothing I can do.  To register
> a complaint,  you'll have to send mail to:

>     [e-mail]

> We have a group of cherubim who manage such requests.  But don't
> send  it to:

>     [e-mail]

> Because that sends it to the whole list!

Dear Pat:

A domain name ending in .com represents a "commercial" site and I suspect
that's incorrect in the context used.

A company calling itself "heaven", or even a nightclub or some other such
operation, if it had a domain name on the internet, would use such a
domain name.  But I doubt that if there was a real site such as the
purported one in the fictional example, it would use such a domain name.

Seriously I doubt {THAT} "Heaven" (the one allegedly upstairs) is a
commercial site.  International, probably.  Or perhaps an organization.
At our place, we use the following test address for mail that is supposed
to bounce, or where we send flame-bait:

       [e-mail]

Thus I suspect if a "heaven" were existing on the 'net, it would be at an
address like "heaven.int".  In fact, we wanted to apply for such a thing,
but the Internic wants a street address for the owner of a domain name.

Pity.


Sincerely,

His Excellency,
The Right Honorable
Paul Robinson
Divinely Appointed Most High Demigod
One True Church of God, Incorporated
A Maryland Non-Stock Corporation
Incorporated July 14, 1995


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... And as we sat there waiting for our
dinner that winter night in 1957, a fifteen year old smart aleck, his
teacher who was always expecting too much of him and Ms. Rand, we
showed her the rather lengthy review of her new book which had by
coincidence appeared the day before in {The Christian Science Monitor}.
She sat there for a few minutes silently reading the Monitor's review,
occassionally sipping her cocktail and puffing on her cigarette
through that long cigarette holder which was her trademark. Arthur
also had a drink and cigarette in hand. I was not permitted by law to
drink of course, but I smoked cigarettes and did so there at the table
with them since smoking a cigarette showed that I was just as sophis-
ticated as they. Throughout dinner I would look up occassionally and
see her staring at me intently. After dinner, sitting there with
coffee she spoke directly to me saying, "Such a smart young man!
Too smart to believe in Gott! Why do you believe in Gott?" I guess
I was sort of flustered; I did not have an answer, nor was Arthur
any help. He held the newspaper up in front of his face pretending to
read it so he could hide behind it and smirk without her seeing it.

Dominus benedictus.  Until tomorrow!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V16 #6
****************************