daemon@ur-laser.UUCP.UUCP (04/15/87)
Path: ur-laser!rochester!ciaraldi From: ciaraldi@rochester.ARPA (Mike Ciaraldi) Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc,comp.dcom.telecom Subject: IBM System 36 Telecom Info Wanted Message-ID: <26989@rochester.ARPA> Date: 14 Apr 87 17:42:55 GMT Reply-To: ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi) Distribution: world Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY Lines: 19 Is there any way to set up an IBM System 36 so it can call other systems? In particular, I know someone with a 36, who wants to communicate by modem to a VAX/VMS system. I heard that the 36 has only synchronous communication, no asynch. What I would really like would be something that lets him emulate a VT100 with his 36 terminals. Failing that, is there an easy way to connect an IBM PC or compatible to a 36? Thenit could be used to capture data from the VAX and upload it to the 36. Thanks, Mike Ciaraldi ARPA: ciaraldi@cs.rochester.edu uucp: seismo!rochester!ciaraldi
uucp@cci632.UUCP.UUCP (04/15/87)
Path: cci632!ritcv!rochester!ciaraldi From: ciaraldi@rochester.ARPA (Mike Ciaraldi) Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc,comp.dcom.telecom Subject: IBM System 36 Telecom Info Wanted Message-ID: <26989@rochester.ARPA> Date: 14 Apr 87 17:42:55 GMT Reply-To: ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi) Distribution: world Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY Lines: 19 Is there any way to set up an IBM System 36 so it can call other systems? In particular, I know someone with a 36, who wants to communicate by modem to a VAX/VMS system. I heard that the 36 has only synchronous communication, no asynch. What I would really like would be something that lets him emulate a VT100 with his 36 terminals. Failing that, is there an easy way to connect an IBM PC or compatible to a 36? Thenit could be used to capture data from the VAX and upload it to the 36. Thanks, Mike Ciaraldi ARPA: ciaraldi@cs.rochester.edu uucp: seismo!rochester!ciaraldi
tli@sargas.usc.EDU.UUCP (04/16/87)
Path: sargas.usc.edu!tli
From: tli@sargas.usc.edu (Tony Li)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Remote lines
Message-ID: <1616@sargas.usc.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 87 21:10:34 GMT
References: <8704150627.AA25812@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: tli@sargas.usc.edu.UUCP (Tony Li)
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Lines: 32
To: earle@jplpub1.jpl.nasa.gov
In article <8704150627.AA25812@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> JSOL@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU writes:
I live in the 213 Area code in L.A. I recently moved, and want to get two
lines for my new abode, one of which I will use exclusively for a modem
line. When I talked to Pacific Bell I was told I could (for a nice high
fee, of course) get a `Data Access Line' which would (presumably) run from
the local switching office to my home; a higher grade line would
replace the
normal voice grade phone line. I was told that this was recommended for
anyone doing data transmissions of 2400 baud or higher. I almost bit; but
then I thought, what about the rest of the way? I would be calling JPL in
Pasadena 99% of the time, which is in Area code 818, prefix 354. Since I'm
not a TELECOM expert, I just surmised that the calls I would make would go
from my home, over my `good' data line, to the local switching office; then
to whatever the local switching office for Pasadena is, and then over a
(presumably) standard voice grade line to my other modem.
My question for you experts is (a) is this something like the real
path that
the call will take (3 hops; home <=> switching office <->
s.office#2 <-> work)
At least. And possible more. It's not clear that there is an
interoffice trunk between downtown LA and Pasadena.
and (b) if this is so, then is there any point in getting a higher
grade line
No, not at all. Besides, the quality of the interoffice trunk here is
questionable at best. I call this same path in reverse all of the time...
for one's home, when one has no control over the line quality for the other
2/3 of the connection ?!?uucp@cci632.UUCP (remote copy) (04/20/87)
Path: cci632!ritcv!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!deej From: deej@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (David Lewis) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: standards activities Message-ID: <1110@ius2.cs.cmu.edu> Date: 19 Apr 87 23:56:20 GMT References: <8704172112.AA02262@jade.berkeley.edu> Distribution: world Organization: CMU Electrical Engineering Etc. Lines: 63 > In past times, MA bell was a focal point for a lot of telephone activity, but >even then there were other companies. Now it's the known mess. How in the >past, and how now, does anyone coordinate? Such matters as protocols, >assignment of area codes, plans for new service offerings, etc. Are there >agencies such as ANSI involved? Do they all meet with some sort of >trust-busting exemption? Are we worse off after the bustup in terms of >coordinated development? Do companies copy each other to some extent to >coordinate service offerings? > > An example of an issue would be this: "call-waiting" has been out long >enough >now for "the public" to begin to have some understanding of what it is an >what those funny beeps mean etc. This was an advantage of a new concep >disseminating itself into the populace over time. (But, answering machines are >also now widely understood even though they required no particular standards >activity.) > >I wonder about the developments such as passing the caller's number, call >screening, etc. It would seem advantageous to have some aspects of the form of >this service comprehensible to "the populace", and more specifically for >instrument makers to know what to look for on the line no matter where the >call originated. I'm sure there are Bellcore people out there rushing to answer this, but... Much of this is done by Bell Communications Research (Bellcore), which is an offshoot of Bell Labs (now completely independent of AT&T) owned by the Regional Bell Operating Companies. Bellcore does a lot of standards setting and new services planning. I know a little about it; I'm starting in their Network Services Planning Center in June... <=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=> Arpa: deej@ius2.cs.cmu.edu Usenet: {ihnp4|ucbvax|cmucspt}!cmu-cs-ius2!deej Bell System: (412) 681-6380 USMail: 5170 Beeler St., #1 Pittsburgh, PA 15217-1002 Carrier Pigeon: The big red brick house with the plate-glass windows out front. The opinions contained herein must be mine. No one else will claim them. "If you're not part of the solution, you must be part of the problem." -- <=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=>=<=> Arpa: deej@ius2.cs.cmu.edu Usenet: {ihnp4|ucbvax|cmucspt}!cmu-cs-ius2!deej Bell System: (412) 681-6380 USMail: 5170 Beeler St., #1 Pittsburgh, PA 15217-1002 Carrier Pigeon: The big red brick house with the plate-glass windows out front. The opinions contained herein must be mine. No one else will claim them. "If you're not part of the solution, you must be part of the problem."
jvz@cci632.UUCP (John V. Zambito) (04/20/87)
Path: cci632!jvz From: jvz@cci632.UUCP (John V. Zambito) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Telephone Ring Detection Message-ID: <1132@cci632.UUCP> Date: 20 Apr 87 14:18:34 GMT References: <8704150611.AA25473@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: jvz@ccird1.UUCP (John V. Zambito) Distribution: world Organization: CCI, Communications Systems Division, Rochester, NY Lines: 10 In article <8704150611.AA25473@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> JEL@PSUVM (Jon Loos 814/238-6649) writes: >detect the ring signal on a telephone line? What I want to do is build a >simple box that would plug into my equalizer input or output lines, and also >the phone lines. When the phone rings, it would can the stereo, so that I The part you want is the TI TCM1520A. I got one as a somple from the local TI rep. I hooked it up through a FET to drive a relay. The relay can be used to switch a light or cut out the speakers or turn on a loud horn, etc...... It only loads the line while the phone rings, and only about a milliamp. The app. note in the TI telecomm products data book is very helpful.
nobody@COLUMBIA.EDU (Unprivileged User) (04/24/87)
Path: columbia!amsterdam!dupuy From: dupuy@amsterdam.columbia.edu (Alexander Dupuy) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Call Forwarding Questions.. Summary: Call Forwarding when nobody answers Message-ID: <4559@columbia.UUCP> Date: 24 Apr 87 09:08:34 GMT References: <870421111229.000018E9.AAPS.MA@UMass> Sender: nobody@columbia.UUCP Reply-To: dupuy@amsterdam.columbia.edu (Alexander Dupuy) Followup-To: comp.dcom.telecom Distribution: world Organization: Columbia University Computer Science Dept. Lines: 18 I have call forwarding on my phone line, which I primarily use for a modem. It's better than call waiting, which in some exchanges can't be overridden, since I can just forward calls to the other line while I'm using this one. But I can't forward calls to work, since (with N.Y. Tel) the other party has to answer your call-forwarding call for it to take effect. Is there some real reason for this "feature"? This feature would also seem to prevent setting up a busy forwarding loop as jsol suggested (I have not tried it, though). [You should be able to do the forwarding command TWICE to get it to work without the person answering the call. I.e. 72#5551212<hangup><dialtone> 72#5551212<beep><beep><dialtone>..... --jsol] I can get around it to some extent by having my calls at work forwarded to a secretary, but I would think letting the number ring a few (say 7) times ought to work as well. @alex --- arpanet: dupuy@columbia.edu uucp: ...!seismo!columbia!dupuy
news@DECWRL.DEC.COM (News) (04/29/87)
Path: decwrl!labrea!glacier!jbn
From: jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Use of modular jacks and accessories for RS-232 signals
Keywords: RS-232, modular jacks, data communications
Message-ID: <17031@glacier.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 28 Apr 87 20:09:18 GMT
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 10
It is becoming common to use 4 and 6 conductor modular telephone
jacks in non-telephone applications. MOD-TAP and Nevada Western sell
modular jack to DB-25 adapters, along with various other accessories,
intended for use in connecting up terminals to computers.
Is there a standard, de-factor or otherwise, for the pinout on this
sort of thing? Are MOD-TAP and Nevada Western adapters compatible?
John Naglesteves@tektools.tek.COM (steve shellans) (04/30/87)
Path: tektools!steves
From: steves@tektools.TEK.COM (steve shellans)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: obsolete central office switches
Keywords: obsolete central office switch
Message-ID: <2405@tektools.TEK.COM>
Date: 30 Apr 87 20:39:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 25
In my home I have a touchtone phone. When I press a number, such as
7, for example, I hear 7 clicks coming back at me. Even though
I can dial a complete number, including area code in a couple of
seconds, the wait after that while I listen to the entire 'readback'
is very annoying. (The number I dial most often is 790-0000, which
is the local number for Allnet -- it seems to take forever.)
From phones at work there is none of this, and all (outside) calls
go through very quickly. Whenever I travel on business and need
to make calls, I always find electronic switching.
My question is this -- how unusual (in the U.S.) is the kind of
switching that I have from my home phone. If this is something
pretty rare, I would like to contact my phone company (GTE) and
the state utilities regulator to bring some pressure to bear to
update the equipment into the modern world.
Also, does anyone know when the heyday of this kind of equipment was?
Thanks much,
Steve Shellans
Tektronix, Beaverton OR
{decvax, wyvax, ihnp4, ucbvax} !tektronix!tektools!s 0p)gidaemon@DECWRL.DEC.COM (The devil himself) (05/01/87)
Path: decwrl!delni.dec.com!goldstein
From: goldstein@delni.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Intra-LATA toll gougine; Area Codes
Message-ID: <9595@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: 30 Apr 87 22:53:31 GMT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 31
Re: last issue's flame about how high intra-LATA rates are in Virginia
vs. AT&T;
That's entirely a state matter and has nothing to do with competition,
period. Intra-LATA INTRASTATE calls are priced per rates set by
the state govt. These rates vary hugely state to state; NJ's, for
example, are maybe half most other states'. This isn't the phone
company gouging because of their monopoly, it's the state regulator's
way of subsidizing cheap local residential service. Toll calls are
viewed as a luxury, local lines as a necessity, so the former pay for
the latter.
The FCC has taken steps to reduce this subsidy within their domain,
INTERSTATE calls, by using "access charges" (really a local service
charge) to make up for money formerly paid via toll cross-subsidization.
Some states have also moved closer to cost-based pricing. New England
Telephone lowered its toll rates too, to face perceived (not very real)
threats of competition, but the Mass. DPU happens to believe in
cost-based (honest) rates. Most states don't; keeping "basic" rates
low is (perceived as) better politics.
If you had competition, the competitors would still be obligated to
pay outrageous charges to the local company to contribute their share
of the subsidy. That still occurs with the MCIs of the world. A lot
of what they collect goes right back to pay for local service.
Re: Area code 413. Someone pointed out, I think in this digest last
year, that 413 (a handful of phones in the unpopulated boondocks of
Western Mass.) was one of the first area codes cut into service, during
the trial phase of DDD. Thus it got a "good" code and a small geographic
area, since they helped the test. History bites back...
fred (whose office will soon be in NPA 508, but home is still 617)uucp@ut-sally.UUCP (Unix-to-Unix Copy) (05/03/87)
Path: ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!nrcvax!ihm From: ihm@nrcvax.UUCP (Ian H. Merritt) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 2600 "fraud" detection Message-ID: <894@nrcvax.UUCP> Date: 1 May 87 16:03:01 GMT References: <12298260996.77.AWALKER@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Reply-To: ihm@minnie.UUCP (Ian Merritt) Distribution: world Organization: The Frobboz Magic Dungeon Co., Inc. Lines: 66 >Isn't this a bit redundant in these CCIS-ridden days? > >Also, it seems rather improper for an office to assume that any occurrence of >2600 on a subscriber loop indicates possible fraud. First of all, if someone >wanted to defraud he'd just hike down to the nearest pay phone. Second, there >are a lot of OCC switches that respond to 2600, so the phone co has another >think coming if they believe I'm committing toll fraud every time I clobber >one of them upon completion of a call. Fooey. > I think you may be drawing incorrect conclusions from your observations. Are you a known paranoid? (:->) Your initiial comment about CCIS is more realistic. In this day of CCIS, with the local telcos no longer concerned with interstate fraud anyway, particularly with respect to the non AT&T carriers using equipment that's doesn't fully interface with the network, I would be hard-pressed to believe that any of the local telcos still have any such equipment. It sounds as if your observations can be explained as follows: >The user-end symptoms of 2600 detection seem to be as follows: Beeeep. Switch 2600Hz >disconnects your call, or whatever its fancy. Disconnect is due to the effect of 2600 on the cheap long distance carriers equipment; not some fancy fraud detection. > [...] Some switches drop the >connection to the office completely, forcing the call to throw back to the >office and return dial tone within a few seconds. New ESS software disconnects faster. Some of the newer CO <-> Cheap LD carrier trunk interfaces provide more signalling information to detect drop faster. > [...] At any rate, in the >background one can hear a small "grack" sort of click -- I would assume that >this indicates the bridging-in of the more sophisticated "fraud detection" >equipment that would listen for and report various other tones. Probably bogus assumption. If you were the called party and your line is #1/1A ESS, the click you describe as "grack" sounds like the normal called party disconnect sound; If you were the calling party you might hear something similar when the mechanical junctors in the several older switches involved in the connection drop in rapid succession. On other switches complex sequences of clicks are common for similar reasons, particularly #5 crossbar. I would have to actually listen to it to identify exactly what it was. > [...] This is >un-bridged again after about 20 seconds if nothing else happens. I could >determine this because in some offices the bridging equipment is flakey and >introduces extra line hum while it's connected. In some offices (#5 Crossbar), when you are dropped from a connection you spend some time on a holding circuit that happes to provide you with substantial induction noise, for your listening pleasure. Generally this condition does not connect any detectors to the line other than the usual ROH (Receiver On Hook) detect. It usually lasts about 10 to 20 seconds. Try dialing out from that same office. Listen closely after breaking dialtone and see if you don't hear this noise. You can easily tell if it's crossbar if shortly (.2 to .9 second) after dialing your last digit of a valid sequence, you hear a loud clunk after which there is no more induction noise. Cheerz... --i
uucp@ut-sally.UUCP (Unix-to-Unix Copy) (05/03/87)
Path: ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!nrcvax!ihm From: ihm@nrcvax.UUCP (Ian H. Merritt) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Pac*Bell /ATT Calling Cards Message-ID: <895@nrcvax.UUCP> Date: 1 May 87 16:15:06 GMT Organization: Network Research Corp. Lines: 33 References: <8704240355.AA01860@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <883@xanth.UUCP> Reply-To: ihm@minnie.UUCP (Ian Merritt) Distribution: world Organization: The Frobboz Magic Telephone Co., Inc. > >In article <8704240355.AA01860@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> S.D-REUBEN%KLA.WESLYN@WESLEYAN.BITNET (Doug Reuben) writes: >>[...] I think this is just another good example of what a mess >>the Bell System Divestiture was and is...Hopefully, some day, some one in >>charge with these people will realize this and put the Bell System back >>together again...Wishful thinking, I know, but its better than getting upset >>with this idiocy...:-) !!! > Didn't see the original posting, so this may sound silly out of context, but your comment sounds more like a case of humpty dumpty. In truth, the only problems with the divestature in terms of how it effects us are that things are of course more complex now, and we are now at the mercy of "Short Term Bottom Line Business America", doing things becuase thare cheap and fast; not necessarily because they are technically good. So, we have a bunch of really poorly designed LD networks competing for our business. Call completions that take 1.5 to 2 seconds over AT&T are taking 12 to 20 seconds on some of the competition, and with the singular exception of US Sprint, now mostly fiber, virtually all calls made over other than AT&T result in poor to horrible connections. To a significant extent it is a case of you get what you pay for. Now AT&T has to cut corners and their equipment is beginning to show signs of deterioration. Terriffic. This too will pass, but I wonder if the eventual overall gains will have been worth the interim (10 years or so) pain. --i
uucp@ut-sally.UUCP (Unix-to-Unix Copy) (05/10/87)
Path: ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!nrcvax!ihm From: ihm@nrcvax.UUCP (Ian H. Merritt) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Divestiture Summary: Humpty Dumpty is dead! Keywords: Breakup, Humpty Dumpty, Bell system, Divestiture, Terrorist Message-ID: <908@nrcvax.UUCP> Date: 8 May 87 17:30:14 GMT References: <8705050405.AA27325@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: ihm@minnie.UUCP (Ian Merritt) Distribution: world Organization: The Frobboz Magic Telephone Co., Inc. Lines: 145 In reply to: <12299601869.15.S.D-REUBEN@KLA.WESLYN>: > Although the divestiture has allowed long distance rates to drop >precipitously, which is a bonus of the breakup, everything else is not. Yes, but remember that the rates were falling, albeit not as fast, before the breakup commenced, so even here, the extent of the benefit isn't entirely clear. > > I see little or no difference between the rates of the alternate long >distance carriers and those of AT&T. Moreover, the quality of the alternates is >simply horrendous, and with the implementation more and more fiber optic routes >on AT&T (especially new ones like: >New York- San Mateo County (415) and most of 418, Connecticut to San Francisco >County (415), New York/CT to Texas (214), New York/CT to Atlanta (404), >and NY/CT to South Carolina, Virginia, Chicago, Detroit as well as the "older >links, like NY/CT - Mass), I am VERY willing to pay the penny per minute more >on some calls so that I can use AT&T's fiber optics (believe me, once you talk >via fiber you won't want to go back to anything else!) Never mind the specific routes. The point that AT&T is now (if I may coin a term) 'glazing' their network is significant in itself. If they are making even a modest effort to maintain their previous standards of excellence in engineering and planning, the will do a far more professional job of it. I hope they are doing better with their network plant than they were able to do with subscriber termination equipment (phones). At least until recently, maybe still, they have been advertising their telephones as if they were as well built as 15-20 years ago, when in reality they are the same cheesy garbage you can pick up in designer pink & purple at your local supermarket. > > The point here is not to compare various types of LD trunks, but to say >that competition really hasn't brought the great degree of choices that it >was supposed to. The alternate LD co's have a few fiber optic trunks, and do a >few things well, but they are more or less the same (although some are >definitely on the LOW end!), and aren't much of a real choice. In other words, >their rates are marginally lower than AT&T's, but not to a significant extent, >and the quality of service they provide (even US Sprint, which doesn't seem to >use as much fiber as they promise in their TV ads) is at times drastically >lower than AT&T's, so much so that for the "average consumer", there is really >not much of a choice being offered. Well, I wouldn't blast Sprint quite the the extent you have. I do find that when I get an all fiber connection, the quality is ok. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and the other carriers' quality is dismal. Worse, call completion via the alternate carriers will not soon improve. Even as they install CCIS-like interoffice communication internally, they are still subject to the delay of the local CO sending both the destination and the calling number via MF signalling over the trunk, for every call, and they still dial out on a subscriber-like line at the terminating end, necessitating their DTMFing the 7, 8, 10, or 11 digit destination number only to have it partially repeated in MF tones between the local CO at their destination tandem and the actual terminating office. AT&T only has the originating CO send the destination, and it contracts with the local TELCOs for AMA service. Once at the local 4E, the call traverses the AT&T network in under 1 second, and takes only a minimum time to MF out the few digits needed to complete the call from the 4E in the destination city to the terminating CO. Overall completion time from last digit dialed is usually about 2 seconds, vs. about 7 to 20 for the other guys. In a recent TV spot, AT&T makes the claim that their calls complete twice as fast. It's much better than that. I suspect they said twice because no matter what the other carriers do, until they interface with the local CO's as AT&T does, they will not get better than about 4 to 7 seconds, thus AT&T can use the ad for some time. Incidentally, the kid in the ad, I think by the name of Roger, I recently recognized as being played by my cousin. > > Previously, if you wanted cheap long distance you would use someone like >MCI, who didn't have such great connections, but who was significantly cheaper >than AT&T (as AT&T was regulated then). >Now, MCI is just like Sprint who is just like Allnet (etc....), all of which >are slightly below AT&T in price and very far below in transmission quality >and optional services. Thus, before you had a choice, and you gave up quality >but saved a lot of money. Now, you can give op quality, but fail to realize any >significant savings. So what good did all this do? Once again you have grouped sprint with the rest. In terms of the design of their network plant, they are no better than the others, but their attitude toward quality is massively better and they are starting to pull away in terms of overall service. Still, they are as yet no match for AT&T in overall network performance. What good did all this do? It made the general public more aware of their telephone as part of a business and not something to be taken for granted. It confused (and still confuses) the majority of the telephone using public. And it has served to increase our overall long distance capacity. BIG DEAL. I share your view that we shouldn't have pushed Humpty over the wall; I was against it from the beginning. Now that we're stuck with it, we must accept that the King's horses and Men aren't even interested in collecting the pieces much less reassembling poor Humpty. Let's stop lamenting our fate and see what we can build out of the wreckage. > > Moreover, the divestiture is generally more expensive for the consumer. >If you don't make a lot of long distance calls, you are probably paying more >for service now then you did when it was still the Bell System. Sure, now you >call call coast-to-coast for $7 per hour, but if you don't make many long >distance calls, you are paying more in terms of "access fees" for a service >you are not really using. Obviously, this reflects a more accurate appraisal >of what the the costs for local vs. long distance service are. Yet the costs >of this more "accurate appraisal" make it difficult to see if such a method for >measuring phone service is worth it. FCC terrorism is the only explanation for this. Look at their recent activities under Mr. Fowler. I believe he has, as his name implies, fowled the organization. > > Moreover, why break up the Bell System if all that was required was a >more sensitive pricing system? And if this means that I have to dial 0 for >a local operator and 00 for a LD operator, or if it means that to fix a trunk >my local co. has to argue with AT&T about it for 4 weeks, or if it means that >my local Crossbar is now takes 5 seconds to complete a call after I finish >dialing (Touch Tone) when it used to go through right away, and if it means >that I have deal with two companies (my BOC and AT&T) who don't like each other >anymore, and if it means that my local BOC has to spend money to DUPLICATE >Calling Card and operator equipment that is already in place under AT&T (which >I will ultimately pay for)...and....(whew!), then when it comes right down to >it, was divestiture worth it? No. But it's done (sigh). In 10 years, the dust will have settled and we'll be back on track. ISDN standards may be the hidden order in what is now a terrible mess. > > As far as I can see, the cost of divestiture is far greater, both in >economic terms and, more importantly to me as a customer, in terms of SERVICE >(remember that word?? :-;), than whatever small gains it has achieved. It is >for that reason that I said I would >like to have to Bell System put back together again.... As would I, but even if we could, it could never be the same. > > -(thanks to those who struggled through this long post....!) > > -Doug >
yuan@uhccux.UUCP (05/11/87)
Path: uhccux!yuan
From: yuan@uhccux.UUCP (Yuan Chang)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Syquest Cartridge Harddisk
Message-ID: <482@uhccux.UUCP>
Date: 11 May 87 12:38:50 GMT
Reply-To: yuan@uhccux.UUCP (Yuan Chang)
Distribution: usa
Organization: U. of Hawaii, Manoa (Honolulu)
Lines: 11
I have a Syquest 5M removable cartidge drive which is more than 5
years old. It konked out quite a while ago, and I've been unable to find
the address to Syquest. Anybody know if Syquest is still in business?
If so, will they repair this anciet box? Also, if you could, the address
of SyQuest. Thanks in advance...
--
UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,ucbvax,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!nosc!uhccux!yuan
ARPA: uhccux!yuan@nosc.MIL INTERNET: yuan@UHCC.HAWAII.EDU
AT&T: (808) 395-1732 "I'm an Amigoid, she's an Amigoid, they're Amigoids,
- Yuan Chang - Wouldn't _y_o_u like to be an Amigoid too?"**RJE**@mtgzz.UUCP.UUCP (05/11/87)
Path: mtgzz!mtuxo!mtsbb!lav From: lav@mtsbb.UUCP (L.A.VALLONE) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Service fee for Toll-Free Calls? Message-ID: <1615@mtsbb.UUCP> Date: 11 May 87 15:59:26 GMT References: <WANCHO.12300111964.BABYL@SIMTEL20.ARPA> Distribution: world Organization: AT&T-Information Systems, Middletown, NJ Lines: 18 > Last week I stayed at the Days Inn in Alexandria, VA while on TDY. I > was suprised to find that, plainly marked on the phone cradle, they > charged 30 cents for 800 numbers as well as for local calls. Can they > charge a "service fee" for toll-free calls? > > --Frank > > [The Sheraton Boston charges 60c for every 3 minutes on local calls, > 950 calls, calls to the operator (except toll calls), calls to 911, > and calls to 800 numbers. Apparently they can get away with it. --JSol] Does anyone know if 800 calls can be "charged" to an AT&T credit card, thus eliminating the service charge? -- Lee Vallone AT&T Information Systems Merlin {... ihnp4, mtuxo}!mtsbb!lav
hes@ecsvax.UUCP.UUCP (05/11/87)
Path: ecsvax!hes From: hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Phone system basics Message-ID: <3134@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: 11 May 87 19:03:21 GMT References: <2882@yale-celed.yale.UUCP> Organization: NC State Univ. Lines: 26 Summary: "Understanding Telephone Electronics" - an inexpensive reference. In article <2882@yale-celed.yale.UUCP>, sweedler@yale.UUCP (Jonathan Sweedler) writes: > > Is there a good tutorial that explains the basics of the phone system. > ... A very nice simple reference is a a book, Understanding Telephone Electronics, "Developed and Published by Texas Instruments Learning Center". It is written as a tutorial, with quizzes at the end of each chapter. Chapter titles are: 1 The Telephone System 2 The Conventional Telephone Set 3 Electronic Speech Circuits 4 Electronic Dialing and Ringing Circuits 5 A Microcomputer in the Telephone 6 Digital Transmission Techniques 7 Electronics in the Central Office 8 Network Transmission 9 Modems - Telephone Service for Computers 10 Wireless Telephones It is easy to read, and inexpensive. I bought a copy at Radio Shack for $3.49 a few years ago, and I believe they still carry it. My copy is Copyright 1983, and I don't know if there is a more recent edition, but even the 1983 edition is reasonably current and the basics haven't changed. --henry schaffer n c state univ
sjk@onecom.UUCP (Scott J. Kamin) (05/13/87)
> Last week I stayed at the Days Inn in Alexandria, VA while on TDY. I > was suprised to find that, plainly marked on the phone cradle, they > charged 30 cents for 800 numbers as well as for local calls. Can they > charge a "service fee" for toll-free calls? > > --Frank > > [The Sheraton Boston charges 60c for every 3 minutes on local calls, > 950 calls, calls to the operator (except toll calls), calls to 911, > and calls to 800 numbers. Apparently they can get away with it. --JSol] >> Does anyone know if 800 calls can be "charged" to an AT&T credit >> card, thus eliminating the service charge? The charge is levied by the hotel as an attempt to recover the costs involved with supplying a sufficient number of trunks to service all the guests. It is not dependent on where the call goes or how it is paid for. An attempt to charge 800 calls will be met with the (true) statement that 800 calls are TOLL free. That is, the phone company does not charge the owner of the phone for the call. Most hotels these days have gone away from the AT&T provided billing (remember the old teletypes that hotels had in their offices to receive their billing info). These days with smart PBX's and add-on call-costing systems, most hotels route all direct-dial calls through their own networks or non-AT&T circuits and charge whatever the traffic will bear to their customers. This includes the charges for non-toll calls. All you can do is complain, threaten to stay elsewhere, or use the pay phone in the lobby. -- Scott J. Kamin {stcvax, isis, ihnp4}!onecom!sjk TelWatch Inc. (formerly OneCom, Inc.) 2905 Wilderness Place (303) 440-4756 (switchboard) Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 938-6726 (direct)
watson@im4u.UUCP (William J. Watson) (05/13/87)
Path: im4u!watson
From: watson@im4u.UUCP (William J. Watson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Private PBX numbering, was Re: where has everyone gone and other stuff
Summary: Exists today on many PBXs
Keywords: PBX phone numbers
Message-ID: <1827@im4u.UUCP>
Date: 13 May 87 17:34:29 GMT
References: <8705121546.AA13873@ssc-vax>
Reply-To: watson@im4u.UUCP (William J. Watson)
Distribution: us
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 32
In many PBX systems, only some extensions have numbers directly accessible from
the public phone network. Sometimes this is done to create "internal use only"
extensions, and sometimes due to the expense of buying a block of numbers from
the local phone company. Usually, numbers are sold in blocks of 1000, but in
some congested ares (Downtown Houston, for example) they are sold in blocks
of 100.
In either case, some PBX systems have the option of a direct number for
"internal" access from outside. In ROLM CBXs, this is called Direct Inward
System Access (DISA). When you dial the DISA number from somewhere in the
outside world, you get a tone of some sort, at which point you can either simply
dial the number of the extension you want, or dial a special autorization code
that allows you to do anything you could from your office. This can be useful
for making business long distance calls from home.
This setup would clearly only work for people with tone dial phones. I think
that the possibility of rotary dial phones is ignored.
In any case, the numbers for all of the internal extensions are not used up
and, in some cases, a sophisticated network of internal extensions of internal
use only numbers can be set up, possibly spanning several sites.
William J. Watson
Member Technical Staff
ROLM, an IBM (cough, gag) company
All opinions expressed herein are my own. My employer may not even know of them
--
William J. Watson
UUCP: {gatech, harvard, ihnp4, pyramid, seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!watson
ARPA Internet & CSNET: watson@im4u.UTEXAS.EDUuucp@ut-sally.UUCP.UUCP (05/16/87)
Path: ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!nrcvax!ihm From: ihm@nrcvax.UUCP (Ian H. Merritt) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: TCS 1001 chip: Who makes it? Summary: Who makes it? Keywords: TCS1001 IC Message-ID: <910@nrcvax.UUCP> Date: 12 May 87 21:08:46 GMT Reply-To: ihm@nrcvax.UUCP (Ian Merritt) Organization: The Frobboz Magic Integrated Circuit Finders, Inc. Lines: 12 I am posting this on behalf of a friend without net access. Said friend asked if I had ever heard of the aforementioned TCS 1001 chip. It is apparently a keypad scanner used in alarm systems. Has anybody out there heard of this chip, and if so know who makes it and where they are located? Thank you in advance. <>IHM<> Ps: Please respond by mail; no sense cluttering the news with this one.
uucp@ut-sally.UUCP.UUCP (05/16/87)
Path: ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!nrcvax!ihm From: ihm@nrcvax.UUCP (Ian H. Merritt) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: where has everyone gone and other stuff Message-ID: <914@nrcvax.UUCP> Date: 14 May 87 19:13:54 GMT References: <8705121546.AA13873@ssc-vax> Reply-To: ihm@minnie.UUCP (Ian Merritt) Distribution: world Organization: The Frobboz Magic Telecommunications Equipment Co., Inc. Lines: 85 > > >*** line eater biscuit *** A rubber biscuit? > >There has been some talk in this group lately about the need for >adding more digits to the public phone numbers because we will soon >run out of unused numbers. So, I was thinking about how the phone >system is handled here at the big 'B' and came up with some >questions and comments: > >Background; Most all the phones in the company are on pbx or > centrex, with more going to pbx everyday. > . . . >So, one of my questions is, " How many other companies have there >phone networks setup in a similar way? If the answer is 'lots', then >it would seem that there's a good case to make these 'semi-private' >networks truely private and in the process, free up a lot of numbers >in the public network. The answer is 'Lots'. > >So how would people on the public network call people on a private >network? Well, one way that comes to mind is to run the private >network like many small and medium companies run there phone systems; >( many small firms with a pbx, a single number on the public network >is called that gets an operator at the company and then tells the >operator to whom they wish to speak.) >This could work the same way a large company as follows: >There would be a few access numbers (seven digit) allocated in the >public network to get onto the private network. From there, a >special dial tone or recorded message could instruct the caller to >enter additional digits that would then ring through to the person >they with to talk to. The big hole I see in this sort of thing is >that it would work great for me calling on my tone phone connected >to an ECO. However, there may be serious problems if someone were to >call from say New York state where the COE might be some old >cross-bar type thing and the instrument a rotory dial type. Such systems are already in use. If you are interested in seeing one, call 818-701-3000. What is called an 'automated attendent system' is in use there at Valley Cable TV. I think they are running a ROLM system. The solution to the problem you mentioned is that the system connects an operator if it doesn't hear any digits with some time after completing its message. You can Touch-tone over any part of the message if you already know the answer and don't want to wait for the rest. Rotary customers are going away anyway; pretty soon the [dis]service will likely no longer be offered. The only problem with this vs. centrex or DID (Direct Inward Dialing) is that answer supervision is returned on initial connect, before you ring your target party. With the latter two systems, you don't pay unless somebody answers the target extension. > >And even if such a system could be set in place, would the savings >in numbers on the public network be enough? Or would all the >available numbers still be used up soon anyway? This would delay the issue by a substantial amount of time. It would be (is) worthwhile, and it is underway. I don't think, however, that it will ever be a total replacement for Centrex and DID, and as such it will not have quite as profound an effect on the availability of numbers. There is quite a bit of number-space left in an as-yet untapped, but planned scheme of using area-codes of the NNX form, i.e. no longer restricting them to N0X/N1X format as they have traditionally been. This was planned even before they started using N0X/N1X for local prefixes, first in LA, then NY and Chicago. > >Some of you in the know might comment further on this... And so I have... Cheerz-- --i
jim@applix.m2c.ORG.UUCP (05/16/87)
Path: applix!jim From: jim@applix.UUCP (Jim Morton) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 10777+ billing Message-ID: <509@applix.UUCP> Date: 16 May 87 16:14:36 GMT References: <870513114041.003@Phobos.Caltech.Edu> <2789@panda.UUCP> Organization: APPLiX Inc., Westboro MA Lines: 22 Summary: other 10nnn numbers In article <2789@panda.UUCP>, rob.UUCP@panda.UUCP (Robert S. Wood) writes: > Where does one find out what numbers work? I tried 10222 1 xxx xxx xxxx and > it went thru. How does MCI know my address to send a bill? Will it be on > my NETCO bill added on after the ATT section (ATT is my dial-1 carrier)? The ones I've seen are: (in New England, anyways) 10288 ATT (288=ATT) 10777 USprint (777=SPR) 10222 MCI 10333 USprint 10444 ALLNET 10488 ITT (488=ITT) If you call 10nnn17005551212 you will generally get a recording welcoming you to that company's 1+ dialing service. Anybody seen any other 10+ numbers? -- -- Jim Morton, APPLiX Inc., Westboro, MA UUCP: ...seismo!harvard!halleys!applix!jim
uucp@tmsoft.UUCP (05/17/87)
Path: tmsoft!utgpu!lharris From: lharris@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Leonard Harris) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom,sci.electronics Subject: Codecs etc... Keywords: codec, TI signal processor, HELP! Message-ID: <1987May16.164633.23513@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> Date: 16 May 87 20:46:33 GMT Organization: University of Toronto Computing Services Lines: 9 Checksum: 32576 Hi. I need some help in finding a codec for a certain application. Does anyone have info/preferences/prejudices on the codecs made by Motorola and the signal processor by TI. The application is for phone-line quality voice with compression to approx. 1K bytes of data per second of digitized voice. Any help would be much appreciated Thanks /leonard
unrvax@stride.stride.COM.UUCP (05/22/87)
Path: stride!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!nrcvax!ihm From: ihm@nrcvax.UUCP (Ian H. Merritt) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V6 #51 Message-ID: <920@nrcvax.UUCP> Date: 18 May 87 18:19:48 GMT References: <8705142333.AA23356@media-lab.MIT.EDU> <8705150113.AA25364@media-lab.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: ihm@minnie.UUCP (Ian Merritt) Distribution: world Organization: The Frobboz Magic Telephone Co., Inc. Lines: 44 > > Date: Wed, 13 May 87 10:40 EDT > From: "Steven H. Gutfreund" <GUTFREUND%cs.umass.edu@RELAY.CS.NET> > Subject: Phone card scam > > Does anyone have some reasonable technical suggetions about what > could be done (I realize that a lot of ideas are shot down by the > Long Distance Carries because of marketing and simplicity reasons) > > - Steven Gutfreund > >Sure. Hundred digit credit card numbers. Ok, twenty digits ought to be >enough. Especially with the spiffy AT&T phones that automatically >punch in your AT&T credit card number for you, there really isn't any >reason (beyond convience for people at manual phones) not to use big >numbers. > >At each central office, keep a list of every authorized credit card >number. (How hard would that be? Figure 100,000,000 valid credit card >numbers, 20 digits (10 bytes) each. With only BCD compression, this is >only 1GB of storage, which could easily be distributed on a weekly >basis. (Or looked up directly via some sort of packet switched >network.) You could veryify a number in less than a second.) Actually, that's exactly how the verification is done now. The AT&T CCIS (Common Channel Interoffice Signalling) network is employed for the inqueries to regional database sites (I don't recall thje AT&T term for them), and TSPS that handles the Calling Card service for them actually does the inquery for each attempt to use the card. The only thing you have suggested that would change the system is the additional digits. The problems are that it would be a bitch to memorize all that and difficult at best to type it all in error free. Remember there are often times you don't have your card with you to 'conveniently' insert into a handy-dandy slot phone, and such phones are not always available. I for one never carry my card; I just key it in from memory. I think it would be better extend the current scheme to a 7 digit PIN # (instead of the current 4). This would allow several new features I won't attempt to list here, it would improve security, and as mosty people have developed the ability to remember telephone numbers, the pin, being just another 7 digit number, would be easy to remember (without a card). Cheerz-- --i
root@sgi.sgi.COM.UUCP (05/26/87)
Path: sgi!wdl1!kck From: kck@wdl1.UUCP (Karl C. Kelley) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Extended phone services in California Message-ID: <3590001@wdl1.UUCP> Date: 26 May 87 07:43:00 GMT References: <8705221624.AA07193@blia.BLI> Lines: 11 few weeks ago I got a note from my telephone co (pacbell) informing that they are going to install some kind of new equipment and telling me that if I use things like a modem (which i'm using now) or an answering machine, (which i have come to depend on a great deal), that I should contact the place where I bought the equipment and THEY would be able to tell me if any adjustment is needed when this new telco equipment comes online. This irritates me because I have little hope of going to the electronics dept at Emporium and getting a rational response to my query. It strikes me that I might have better luck asking the question here, since some of you appear to follow these things, and in particular this entry looks like it could be related. Anybody out there know if these two things are related, or what the phone co has in mind?
clark@ssc-vax.UUCP (06/04/87)
Path: ssc-vax!clark From: clark@ssc-vax.UUCP (Roger Clark Swann) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Party line question Keywords: pulse dialing, mechanical, electronic Message-ID: <1273@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: 3 Jun 87 23:18:39 GMT Distribution: na Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA Lines: 27 **** jam for line eater **** I recently had a question for a friend that could not figure out: problem: electronic phone won't dial when connected to party line. My friend has a beach house with phone service being a party line. I don't remember if he said how many connections there are to the line, but he said that he DOES NOT get any rings other that his own. He normally has an WECO 500 style insturment on the line with no problems dialing or receiving calls. However, when he tried to hookup an 'electronic' (keypad with chip that generates dial pulses) phone the line, he could only dial about three digits before getting a re-order recording. He said that he could hear the 'clicks' as the pulses were being generated and they sounded OK. Someone can call in and the phone will ring and voice circuits are OK. (This same phone instrument works fine at his in town residence) The only thing I could think of was that the 'electronic phone was not pulsing at the correct speed. But then he told me that he tried hooking his modem to the line and making it pulse dial. The result was the same re-order recording. So, this makes me think that there is some strange configuration on this phone line or something??? Anyone have an idea as to what is going on here? Roger Swann uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark [Any number of reasons could cause this problem. FCC regulations don't even *allow* you to plug in a modular instrument to a party line. --JSol]
news@ho95e.UUCP (06/12/87)
Path: ho95e!homxb!houxm!hou2d!avr From: avr@hou2d.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Intra-lata credit calls Summary: ...are billed by Baby Bells Message-ID: <1430@hou2d.UUCP> Date: 12 Jun 87 18:19:59 GMT References: <8706112109.AA03207@jade.berkeley.edu> Distribution: world Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel Lines: 8 In article <8706112109.AA03207@jade.berkeley.edu>, SPGDCM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU writes: > The discontinuance of promotion of ATT long-distance credit cards by Regional > companies still leaves unresolved how anyone is supposed to handle intra-lata > long-distance calls. People still make them and need to charge them. I frequently charge intra-lata calls (Northern NJ lata) on my AT&T Card. They are billed by NJ Bell. Adam Reed (hou2d!avr)
dvorak@im4u.UUCP (06/16/87)
Path: im4u!dvorak
From: dvorak@im4u.UUCP (Daniel L. Dvorak)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: AI research in network management
Keywords: artificial intelligence, expert systems, network management
Message-ID: <1909@im4u.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jun 87 18:35:12 GMT
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 21
This is a brainstorming exercise, folks --- all ideas are welcome.
I'm trying to select a PhD research topic in artificial intelligence
that is applicable to network management (of data or voice networks)
or, more liberally, the management of distributed computing environments.
Network management, roughly, is concerned with the operation, administration
and maintenance of communication networks, whether it be the campus network
here at The University of Texas at Austin or the nationwide telephone network.
The term encompasses issues such as congestion control, fault diagnosis,
capacity planning, security, availability, etc.
My questions for you are:
-- What are the important unsolved (or poorly solved) problems here
that might yield to AI? Please be specific.
-- What AI research issues should be tested in this domain?
-- Are there any papers that you would recommend to me?
--
-----
Dan Dvorak UUCP: {harvard,ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!dvorak
(512) 472-6671 ARPA: dvorak@im4u.utexas.eduuucp%ames.arpa@ll1.UUCP (06/17/87)
Path: ll1!nesac2!jec From: jec@nesac2.UUCP (John Carter ATLN SADM) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Horror Stories Message-ID: <1250@nesac2.UUCP> Date: 16 Jun 87 17:03:04 GMT Article-I.D.: nesac2.1250 Posted: Tue Jun 16 13:03:04 1987 References: <12309401739.23.MYERSTON@KL.SRI.Com| Distribution: world Organization: NESAC Lisle, Illinois Lines: 33 | |What is wrong with a hotel allowing access to only one carrier? | |Or with a hotel not even HAVING any phone service? (The latter | |may be a good selling feature!) If a hotel customer doesn't like | |what the hotel provides, he can always find another hotel. | | ...Keith | | ||Because only having one carrier may be a violation of federal | ||regulation. Specifically, anti-trust laws and the like. | | I agree with Keith. This is the same "the world owes me a living" | mentality that demands the highest of quality from a faceless "Ma | Bell" while resisting any increases in cost. It is best exemplified | by the socialist fools at Consumer Reports. If the hotel can choose | who will provide mattresses, room TVs, etc why not telephone service? | If they abuse the customers they will lose business. Makes sense to | me! | +HECTOR+ | ------- But it's the only room available within 10 miles of the meeting, using their carrier means the call is on your hotel bill, your company provides you with a credit card for a different carrier, and your company won't pay for calls made on another carrier and charged to your hotel bill. And there's no place to put the T1100+ if you try to use the pay phone for E-mail. -- John Carter AT&T Communications - Atlanta RWC USnail: 3001 Cobb Parkway, Atlanta GA 30339 E-mail: ...ihnp4!cuea2!ltuxa!ll1!nesac2!jec Voice: 404+951-4642 (The above views are my very own. How dare you question them? :-)
patth@dasys1.UUCP (06/17/87)
Path: dasys1!patth
From: patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,cat.mag,comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: COMPUDUNIT
Keywords: mystery story writing project
Message-ID: <553@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jun 87 14:39:02 GMT
Organization: The Big Electric Cat
Lines: 16
Re: MYSTERY WRITING ANYONE?
If anyone is interested in participating in a mystery story
writing project via telecommunications, they should contact me
Michael Blyth at 718-816-5742. The project titled COMPUDUNIT
will consist of using an existing writing curriculum to
write your own WHODUNIT MYSTERY! Funding for this program is
provided by Learning Link. Participants will try writing
a collective Whodunit using the same COMPUDUNIT curriculum
guide. Writing starts in Sept. 1987. Don't miss it, call
today.
--
Patt Haring {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!patth
New York, NY, USA {philabs}!tg/rwhite@nu3b2.UUCP (06/24/87)
Path: nu3b2!rwhite From: rwhite@nu3b2.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Intra-lata credit calls Summary: It's who pays that counts. Message-ID: <765@nu3b2.UUCP> Date: 24 Jun 87 01:00:19 GMT References: <8706112109.AA03207@jade.berkeley.edu> <35867a62.b8ab@apollo.uucp> Organization: National University, San Diego Lines: 21 Its like the roaming agreement on a celular telephone. when you make a calling card call, the call is billed through the "normal" route. Company "A" bills AT&T for the call and AT&T normally reaches you through your local operating company [which is why the firs ten numbers on your card are most probably your phone number.] The sematnics of a billing depend on the operating company in question. I think you will find that all the call detail listed is AT&T long-lines provided, at least on that one page, and that the fact that this bill is forwarded through is listed someware insignificant [like on the back of the summary page or something] This whole thing is noraml, AT&T always does it that way. Robert. Disclaimer: My mind is so fragmented by random excursions into a wilderness of abstractions and incipient ideas that the practical purposes of the moment are often submerged in my consciousness and I don't know what I'm doing. [my employers certainly have no idea]
rwhite@nu3b2.UUCP (06/25/87)
Path: nu3b2!rwhite From: rwhite@nu3b2.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Incoming Phone Calls Summary: busy signal,sort of. Message-ID: <775@nu3b2.UUCP> Date: 25 Jun 87 07:25:29 GMT References: <MDC-WBD-BO4Z2@OFFICE-1> Organization: National University, San Diego Lines: 39 In article <MDC-WBD-BO4Z2@OFFICE-1>, WBD.MDC@OFFICE-1.ARPA (William Daul / McDonnell-Douglas / APD-ASD) writes: > This may end up sounding like a really dumb question but... > > If all the lines in a neighborhood are being utilized and someone tries to call > into that area to a phone that is NOT being used what (if anything) will > happen? Will they get a busy signal? It is not a dumb question, but there is something I don't think you understand. EVERY phone number is on it's own DEDICATED pair running all the way to the Central Office Switch servicing that area [often but not always the entire prefix {first 3 of the standard 7 digits} the only common execption to this is those who have purchased a "foregn exchange" <say a Blatimore number in Washington> If every circut comming into a CO [Central Office] is busy, and you are calling from another CO, or your CO's swithch is not capable of compleeting enough connections to support your outgoing call <weither it's destined for a house down the street or in europe> you will recieve the "fast" busy signal <or french siren on some switches>. This is the "Circut Overload/Insufficient Access Rights" signal and is heard mostly on mother's day /snicker ;-). Any other busy signal or condition is either a mundane destination busy [Or system all f**ked up signal] All the lines in a CO can be busy, all the connections in a CO switch can be busy, but the only way all "the lines going into a neighborhood" can be busy is if every number has at least one instrument "off-hook" If it often takes several minutes for the tone generator to give you dial-tone, call your Opperating Company and tell them to buy a bigger switch!!! Robert. Disclaimer: My mind is so fragmented by random excursions into a wilderness of abstractions and incipient ideas that the practical purposes of the moment are often submerged in my consciousness and I don't know what I'm doing. [my employers certainly have no idea]
skipt@asr2.UUCP (06/29/87)
Path: asr2!skipt From: skipt@asr2.UUCP (Skip Tourville) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom Summary: it this really true? Message-ID: <109@asr2.UUCP> Date: 29 Jun 87 13:28:39 GMT References: <8706250758.AA04222@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> Organization: AT&T Conversant Systems, Columbus, OH Lines: 15 >From a recent article: > ....... EVERY phone number is on it's own DEDICATED pair running > all the way to the Central Office Switch servicing that area [often Is this really true? (For residential service I mean) In areas where there is a large concentration of directory numbers it might be useful to run a digital trunk to a remote switching unit. If the number of digital channels is less that the number of directory numbers, some blocking would occur under heavy load. I think I have heard of such arrangements. Skip
wheels%mks@math.waterloo.EDU (Gerry Wheeler) (07/14/87)
Path: mks!wheels
From: wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: distributed key system info wanted
Keywords: distributed key system
Message-ID: <281@mks.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jul 87 18:57:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.
Lines: 58
We are going to have our operations distributed between two buildings, a
short distance apart (but not adjacent -- the intervening public roads
prevent running wires between buildings). We would like to find a
telephone system which will span the two buildings transparently. For
example, people using the intercom shouldn't have to know whether the
destination is in the same building or not, and people in either
building should be able to answer incoming calls (especially when the
system is set for night service).
We currently have an electronic key system with features such as hands
free intercom, paging, and busy lamps on all stations, and we would like
something similar. We expect a maximum size of 16 to 20 stations total,
and maybe 5 CO lines.
So far, we have seen three solutions. One is to run all the CO lines
into building A, which would have a (electronic) key system. Then,
using several single line interfaces, station outputs would run from
system A to building B, likely via leased lines. The phones in building
B would be standard desk phones. They would be able to access the
system's features by dialling special codes, but they wouldn't have
features like hands-free intercom, busy lamps, etc. The second solution
is to put another (electronic) key system in building B, which would see
the station lines from system A as CO lines. Unfortunately, this does
not give the desired transparency. For example, the two intercom
systems remain completely independent. The third solution we have seen
is to use electronic systems which are designed to be tied together.
The IBM-Rolm Redwood system is one of these. The two systems operate as
equals, rather than master/slave. However, even then there are failings
in the transparency of operation. For example, the intercoms are not
integrated, and calling an extension on the other system still involves
going through local dial tone, getting remote dial tone, and dialling
the remote extension.
It would seem technically feasible to have two electronic systems which
pass data and voice back and forth over leased lines, such that they
share a common view of the world. By continually updating each other as
to the status of their stations and lines, all stations' indicators
would reflect the status of the whole distributed system. In addition,
when calling a remote station, the originating system could send data to
the remote system indicating which tie line is being used for voice, and
to which extension it should be routed. In such a system stations
connected to either system would have equal access to all other
stations, and features like busy lamps would operate correctly for all
stations and lines. (As a bonus, if this system could also provide a
few 9600 bps serial lines between the buildings, we would really be
set!)
If someone could point us in the direction of a system to integrate the
two buildings, for a reasonable cost, we would be most appreciative. Of
course, responses on unreasonable systems will be read with interest
too. We'll summarize whatever information we get.
--
"Network XXIII. Where two's company, and three's an audience." -- Max Headroom
Gerry Wheeler {seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!watmath!mks!wheels
Mortice Kern Systems Inc.klg@dukeac.UUCP (05/09/88)
Path: dukeac!klg From: klg@dukeac.UUCP (Kim Greer) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: (.. naming exchanges ..) Message-ID: <884@dukeac.UUCP> Date: 9 May 88 10:46:35 GMT References: <8804291646.AA06018@uunet.UU.NET> <2655@umd5.umd.edu> <9248@cci632.UUCP> Reply-To: klg@dukeac.UUCP (Kim Greer) Organization: Academic Computing, Duke University, Durham, NC Lines: 15 Keywords: DA In article <9248@cci632.UUCP+ rochester!cci632!ccird1!jvz@rutgers.edu (John V. Zambito) writes: +In article <2655@umd5.umd.edu+ dzoey@UMD5.UMD.EDU (Joe Herman) writes: ++As long as we're strolling down memory lane, does anyone have a ++collection of mnemonics/name that went with exchanges? ++My folks still say "Juniper 8" for the 588 exchange. + Ours was "Edison", until I was abut 10 yrs old. Then we moved & got a 537 exchange. Never did figure out what that one would be called. I also vaguely remember a "Franklin" exchange. -- Kim L. Greer Duke University Medical Center try: Div. Nuclear Medicine POB 3949 dukeac!klg@escgate Durham, NC 27710 919-681-2711x223 ...!mcnc!ecsgate!dukeac!klg
uucp@amethyst.ma.arizona.EDU ("Unix-to-Unix Copy") (05/11/88)
Path: amethyst!rsm
From: rsm@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu (Robert Maier)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: US Sprint and COCOTs
Message-ID: <636@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu>
Date: 10 May 88 13:16:09 GMT
Sender: uucp@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu
Distribution: world
Organization: Math. Dept., Univ. of Arizona at Tucson
Lines: 62
Recently, to my extreme displeasure, I encountered my first COCOT. It
was mounted on the outside wall of a convenience store just off the
Interstate north of Phoenix.
I tried to use it to place a US Sprint FON-Card (i.e., credit card)
call, but found that impossible. It turned its touch-tone pad off
after I placed the initial call to US Sprint's 800 number!
So I decided to place my call through a US Sprint operator. I dialed
1-800-877-8000 again, and after a few seconds got one. But in order
to place my call, she wanted to know the number of the phone I was
calling from. That was impossible, because this wretched COCOT had no
number on it.
She told me she couldn't place my call without it, so I spoke to her
supervisor. And to her supervisor's supervisor. Finally they managed
to get Sprint Customer Service to trace my call. But all Customer
Service could supply was my phone's exchange. They had no way of
getting the final four digits of its phone number.
This posed a problem, because (as I learned through overhearing the
various conversations) US Sprint's billing software requires the
operator to punch in all seven digits of the originating phone's
number when placing operator-assisted calls. Finally the Customer
Service type invented a random four-digit string for them to punch in.
This nonsense occupied over 20 minutes of my time. (In order not to
seem petty, I won't mention that I was standing outside, in shorts, in
a freezing wind...) But it provides food for thought. It suggests
that
0) COCOTs are anathema. (We already knew that.)
1) US Sprint's billing software is buggy. (We knew that too...)
2) The reason why US Sprint's monthly bills do not list the
originating phone numbers of FON-Card calls is that they don't have
them. (All the bills specify is the originating city, i.e., the
exchange.)
3) In the case of operator-assisted calls, US Sprint operators normally
are wholly dependent on the customer for the originating phone
number. It's not clear whether they can even check whether
the customer is giving the correct area code.
Fellow US Sprint users are urged to complain about these points.
The near-impossibility of placing US Sprint calls from modern COCOTs,
their inability to resolve phone numbers completely, and the lack of
security implicit in (3) altogether make US Sprint look less and less
like a bargain...
======================================================================
Robert S. Maier | Internet: rsm@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu
Dept. of Math. | UUCP: ..{allegra,cmcl2,hao!noao}!arizona!amethyst!rsm
Univ. of Arizona | Bitnet: maier@arizrvax
Tucson, AZ 85721 | Phone: +1 602 621 6893 / +1 602 621 2617
--
Robert S. Maier | Internet: rsm@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu
Dept. of Math. | UUCP: ..{allegra,cmcl2,hao!noao}!arizona!amethyst!rsm
Univ. of Arizona | Bitnet: maier@arizrvax
Tucson, AZ 85721 | Phone: +1 602 621 6893 / +1 602 621 2617paul@csnz.UUCP (05/16/88)
Path: csnz!paul From: paul@csnz.nz (Paul Gillingwater) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.dcom.telecom,comp.std.internat,nz.general Subject: CCITT V22bis Summary: What does bis stand for? and CCITT vs Bell Keywords: bis,V22,CCITT,Bell Message-ID: <26@csnz.nz> Date: 16 May 88 10:27:45 GMT Reply-To: paul@csnz.UUCP (Paul Gillingwater) Distribution: world Organization: Computer Sciences of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ Lines: 35 Just from idle curiosity: what does the 'bis' stand for in CCITT V22 bis (2400 FDX)? Can someone breifly explain to the many comms novices who read this a bit more about CCITT standards, and why they are not compatible with Bell standards. In NZ the local PTT (Telecom NZ) REQUIRE any Bell/CCITT standard modems to have their Bell modes disabled (firmware change) before they will allow them to be connected to the network. I understand this is ostensibly because some of the Bell tones used are similar to exchange control frequencies, and crosstalk could interfere with other users of the exchange (e.g. by disconnecting them). The implications of this are that any LEGAL modem in NZ _cannot_ dial direct to the US for data access, but must go via NZ Telecom Pacnet gateway for protocol/standard conversion (hints of forestalling competitive networks?? :-), and this will only work for datasources that are actually connected to a recognised network with existing gateway. Does anyone from a CCITT-using domain have experience with this? Do we have to risk using ILLEGAL (i.e. Bell standard) modems to get access to sources in the US? What do PTTs in other countries do about this? Do they allow both standards to be used? Can someone on the US mainland summarise briefly what commercial networks are available with CCITT gateways accessible from NZ? (including X25). Also, how can I contact US bulletin boards without a Bell standard modem? Thanx, -- Paul Gillingwater, Senior Consultant Call my private BBS - Magic Tower, Computer Sciences of New Zealand Ltd NZ +64 4 753561 V21/V23 8N1 24hrs P.O.Box 929, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND Soon: V22/V22bis/Bell 103/Bell 212A Vox: +64 4 846194, Fax: +64 4 843924 "Scott me up, Beamie!"-Lounge Suit Larry
eravin@dasys1.UUCP (Ed Ravin) (05/18/88)
Path: dasys1!eravin From: eravin@dasys1.UUCP (Ed Ravin) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 2600? Summary: their address, both real and virtual Message-ID: <4498@dasys1.UUCP> Date: 18 May 88 15:24:03 GMT References: <wWXqGVy00Vs7A2vG1K@andrew.cmu.edu> Organization: Ministry of Information Retrieval, DZ-103 Lines: 14 2600 magazine is published quarterly. They can be contacted either at the address below or via electronic mail at 2600@dasys1.UUCP Address: 2600 PO Box 752 Middle Island, NY 11953-0752 U.S.A. -- Ed Ravin (at the Big | cucard!dasys1!eravin | "Put some fun between your Electric Cat Public UNIX) | eravin@dasys1.UUCP | legs-- ride a bicycle!" --------------------------+----------------------+----------------------------- Reader bears responsibility for all opinions expressed in this article.
ehr@UNCECS.EDU (Ernest H. Robl) (05/20/88)
In article <8805152348.AA10963@dsiramd.dsir.govt.nz>, paul@csnz.UUCP writes: [ ... text deleted ... ] > Just from idle curiosity: what does the 'bis' stand for in > CCITT V22 bis (2400 FDX)? Can someone breifly explain to > the many comms novices who read this a bit more about CCITT > standards, and why they are not compatible with Bell standards. [ ... more text deleted ... ] "Bis" means the second item with the same number. It appears from time to time in the numbering of serial publications. For standards, it presumably means a revised version of the standard which has been associated with the previously stated numbering. "Bis" comes from the Latin -- "bi" = 2 -- as in binary. Hope this helps. -- Ernest -- My opinions are my own and probably not IBM-compatible.--ehr Ernest H. Robl (ehr@ecsvax) (919) 684-6269 w; (919) 286-3845 h Systems Specialist (Tandem System Manager), Library Systems, 027 Perkins Library, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706 U.S.A.
rja@edison.ge.COM (rja) (05/20/88)
Path: edison!rja From: rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: TOLLS/LOCAL CALLS Message-ID: <1529@edison.GE.COM> Date: 20 May 88 11:18:25 GMT References: <399@cf-cm.UUCP> <334@mipseast.mips.COM> Organization: GE-Fanuc North America Lines: 25 In article <334@mipseast.mips.COM>, rogerk@mipseast.UUCP (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes: > > In article <399@cf-cm.UUCP> our moderator writes: > >[I think Chicago is the only area which has mandatory > >measured service, but it is fairly reasonable. --jsol] > > New York City has message-unit billing for all local calls, and monthly > service charges contain an allowance of message units. > -- > Roger B.A. Klorese MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. > {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!rogerk 25 Burlington Mall Rd, Suite 300 > rogerk@mips.COM Burlington, MA 01803 In Virginia, no customer (business or residence) can be forced to go with measured service. Flat rates are the rule. In the Northern Virginia area around the District of Columbia (the capital of the USA), local flat rate service includes ALL of the district (area code 202). From the Maryland side of DC, I believe they can also call ALL of DC as a local call. I believe that the very largest cities in the US often have a smaller local area ( but still several thousands of lines ) and measured service (message units) for the rest of the Metro area. I cannot see measured service being forced on those of us in Virginia, as the Commonweath's Corporation Commission feels strongly about flat rate service.
walters@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Tim Walters) (08/05/88)
Subject: American phones in Europe Keywords: europe Message-ID: <686@io.UUCP> Date: 3 Aug 88 14:40:22 GMT Organization: Interleaf Inc, Cambridge, MA Lines: 9 I may be moving to Germany in the fall, and have been trying to figure out what I can take with me. Can anyone tell me if U.S. telephones and modems can be adapted to work in Germany? Any information would be appreciated. -- ...!mit-eddie!ileaf!walters Tim Walters, Interleaf ...!sun!sunne!ileaf!walters Ten Canal Park, Cambridge, MA 02141
DMG4449%RITVAX.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU (09/26/88)
I was wondering if someone could offer me some advice. I am a college student who lives in a dormitory. Here, every room has a phone, but every phone is hooked into a PBX. Therefore, we are not directly billed for our calls and we can't choose a long distance service (or even make long distance calls) without a Calling Card, FON Card, etc. I have been using a calling card, but I've found that the 80 cent surcharge (and I believe additional per minute charges for the first 3 minutes) have been most un-reasonable. I want to be able to use a long distance service that 1] won't force me to change my equal access default carrier at home (thus resulting in a $10+ surcharge from Rochester Telephone) 2] won't force me to make a minimum number of calls (like spend $10/month.) 3] will provide decent service, a good savings over the Calling Card (preferably no surcharge). I primarily make long distance calls to Connecticut, Texas, and California. Oh, by the way, I'm calling from Rochester, NY. I hear sprint is probably the best bet, but I have a feeling they wont give me a FON card unless I switch my home line over. Any suggestions. If you know of anything, please include a telephone number of where to call to apply. Thanks in advance, Daniel Greenberg DMG4449@RITVAX [BITNET]
raw@alobar.ATT.COM (Ruth Watson) (10/01/88)
In article <telecom-v08i0147m01@vector.UUCP> DMG4449%RITVAX.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU writes: >I want to be able to use a long distance service that 1] won't force me >to change my equal access default carrier at home (thus resulting in a >$10+ surcharge from Rochester Telephone) 2] won't force me to make a >minimum number of calls (like spend $10/month.) 3] will provide decent >service, a good savings over the Calling Card (preferably no surcharge). >include a telephone number of where to call to apply. I may be regarded as biased on the subject, but if you would like to compare calling cards as the one described above AT&T has a card called(I think) the Non Subscriber Card. My husband has such a card seperate from our home phone calling card. The card comes to you free and has no monthly charge. The number to call to inquire about this would be 1-800-CALL-ATT. I don't know what your phone bills run, but I think this card is limited to $100 per month usage fee. It may be able to be extended if needed to be. Call the rep. The 800 number is also free. I'm not sure how the rates compare so no flames please. Good luck, Ruth
anon@nowhere.uucp (01/14/89)
From: editor@chinet.chi.il.us (Alex Zell) To: teleco@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Time marches on... Date: 13 Jan 89 16:17:58 GMT In article <telecom-v09i0007m07@vector.UUCP> jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) writes: >X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 7, message 7 > > > The John Crerar Library at IIT in Chicago had, and probably still has, >a number of classic pamphlets and books on early telephony. The John Crerar library is no longer at IIT. It has been a part of the University of Chicago library system for several years. The library is open to the public. There are, of course, restrictions on withdrawals. -- Alex Zell editor@chinet editor@igloo Pictou Island, NS