telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (11/10/84)
From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>
TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Nov 84 17:26:11 EST Volume 4 : Issue 116
Today's Topics:
LA BBS Case
Re: Anchor Signalman Mark XII Modem
RE: LA BBS case
Smart PBX vs. workstations
Signalman Mark XII modem
Signalman XII
Anchor MKXII Modems
Tarriffs.....where to find...
that writing on the wall...
Re: Signalman Mark XII
Digital service to residences
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu 8 Nov 84 21:20:19-PST
From: Chris <Pace@USC-ECLC.ARPA>
Subject: LA BBS Case
To: Telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA
I dont have much information about the case, but I would take
exception to Lauren's view. BBS operators may or may not have the
capability to police everything. I realize that this is not quite
the same thing, but at ECL, we have bboards that run upto 6000 disk
pages. Completely impossible to reasonably police. You would almost
have to show that there was complete negligence or knowledge of the
illicit use to fairly prosecute.
The newspaper analogy falls down in that people cannot post
their own messages to a classified ad. If the BBS operator is
not immune, then a complete change in the environment - ie elimination
of free posting - would necessarily be in order. Is this desireable?
Maybe, maybe not - I am really not sure.
Chris.
-------
------------------------------
Date: 8 Nov 1984 23:18-PST
Subject: Re: Anchor Signalman Mark XII Modem
From: JOHN@SRI-CSL
To: Lavitsky@RU-GREEN
Cc: Telecom@BBNCCA
This is in response to your request for info on 'personal' experiences
with the Mark XII modem. I recently did a performance evaluation of this
modem for my employer. Data error rate was comparable to other intelligent
modems (low frequency of occurance over good quality local lines, both
1200 and 300 baud). Didn't try to send a break (no need) but don't recall
seeing anything in the instructions stating there is a problem with this.
No problem with RF emissions noted (nearby FM radio). The Anchor lacks a
monitor speaker, a useful feature, and doesn't have a switch to force the
RS-232C Carrier Detect lead TRUE. (With CD low, many terminals won't
display the characters sent by the modem. Thus, you will have to dial
"blind".) RS-232C connection is a ribbon cable with IDC DB-25P connector
that hangs out the rear of the unit (which results in a manufacturer's
savings of about $5.00 over a DB-25S connector mounted on the rear of the
unit). However, this forces the owner to deal with a fixed (short ??) cable
length.
In summary, the Signalman Mark XII is a good value but users should be
prepared to live with its shortcomings.
John McLean
Telenova Incorporated
------------------------------
Date: Fri 9 Nov 84 02:06:45-CST
From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: RE: LA BBS case
To: telecom@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
Lauren, I agree that there are coincidences, to raise suspicions, but that
should not allow us to overlook the fact that they are not PROOF and, there-
fore, inadmissable.
I thought long and hard about it, and if PROOF is found for who did it,
I have no objections against some wrists getting slapped. But no more,
really, as the deed is no more than a childish prank, and what society
needs is "to reform" rather than "vengeance", and a criminal record is
not the proper way to reform anyone.
Now, is it possible that a message stays on a BBS undetected by the SYSOPS?
Initial reaction is, no, why does anyone set-up a BBS, if not out of need
and fascination with lots of messages floating by. Really? I only have
to think about the temptation I feel to make my machines do some good for
someone while I sleep, and I can easily imagine creating some groups which
I would never look at. So why didn't one of the steadier customers who
ran into the message bring it to the attention of the SYSOPS? You and I
would have done so quickly, I'm certain, if for no other reason than to
protect the SYSOP, so could it be that someone did and could speak up?
I'd talk to the regulars of the BBS if I was the City Attorney. But even
IF the SYSOP knew, I still don't see why he should be guilty of anything
for not having erased it. Stupidity, maybe, but criminal? certainly not
in my value-system (which is not identical with the current legal system,
I hurry to point out - but then all is in flux)
Now, the more I think about it, the more I become convinced that if I ever
set up a BBS, it's "as is", I provide the playground, you all are responsible
for what you do there. So, I would not want to be bothered by anyone, and
might even ignore mail-messages, if they'd really pile up. Well, I guess,
I'm not really BBS-SYSOP material, and wouldn't stick my neck out to become a
legal test-case.
And an analogy. I enter and leave my house through the garage, and take a left
turn, religiously. If someone would post an offending messages or someone's
credit card number on my front door, or (please, don't) on the right side
of my house, it would go undetected for weeks. So, am I negligent, suspiceous
of having it put up myself because it's my neighbors, with whom I have an
argument over his noisy dogs? (not in reality) Unless I'm caught doing it
no court will condemn me (I hope).
Moral: current events have hopefully put all SYSOPs on warning that even
if the court battle can be won, a little supervision can prevent
a lot of prolonged troubles. And if you ever encounter any
questionable messages on any BBS, don't hesitate to notify the
SYSOP in no uncertain terms what you think. You might even
indicate, that nasty developments might force you to testify in
some court of law to the fact that the SYSOP had been made aware
of the message on his system. But remember, "uncertain terms"
does not mean "nasty" or "accusing" - friendliness is what we
good guys in the white hats are most famous for.
-------
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 9 Nov 1984 05:52:39-PST
From: goldstein%donjon.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Fred R. Goldstein)
To: telecom@bbncca.ARPA
Subject: Smart PBX vs. workstations
The whole question of "Smart PBX controlled by a LAN" or "PBX-based
workstation" is drenched in marketing hype but woefully short of
realistic substance. The inherent concept of a PBX is that of a circuit
switch, voice-oriented, which must transfer audio (digitized PCM, most
often) in real time, since a transmission delay in the ms. range would
be noticeable as signal degradation (echo). That's been a major reason
why "packet voice" has been a flop for all but the hairiest long-distance
applications where a little echo is expected.
"Workstation" is still a pretty nebulous term. To me, it refers to sort of
a "super-PC", which uses a LAN to access data stored on a database or file
server and communicate with others. LANs are bursty, fast and usually run
in packet-mode; PBXs have smooth, medium-speed (<= 64kbps) data flow
and require seconds to set up calls, unlike LANs which send virtual
circuits (or datagrams -- I'm not falling into that rathole) in
milliseconds.
Given those constraints, which basically mean that a PBX is a second-rate
workstation server, some vendors do have products planned in that space.
Rolm just announced "Cedar", a hybrid IBM PC-clone and telephone in one
box, for use (only) with its CBX, and they also have a telephone board
called "juniper" which plugs into the IBM PC and lets it act like a
fancy telephone, as well as be a terminal using the CBX as a data circuit
switch. InteCom's LANmark is a high-speed packet switch that acts like a
LAN and is packaged inside its IBX PBX, and they are supposed to be doing
joint workstations with Wang. And there will be more...
But what do you gain? Too many folks are talking about "new PBXs" that may
have great data features but aren't reliable or mature for voice. The
two functions are really quite different and so without doing an appli-
cations analysis, it's probably a good idea to avoid cosolidated voice and
data, the same way you'd avoid consolidated toaster-dishwashers (which
GE could, of course, make just as easily.)
------------------------------
Date: 9 Nov 1984 07:22 MST (Fri)
From: Keith Petersen <W8SDZ@SIMTEL20>
To: Eric <LAVITSKY@RU-GREEN>
Cc: Telecom@MIT-MC, Info-Micro@BRL, Info-Cpm@AMSAA
Subject: Signalman Mark XII modem
If you do get the Signalman Mark XII, here's a tidbit from CIS that
may help avoid a potential problem.
--Keith
Sb: #Anchor MK XII Modem
10-Mar-84 00:22:26
KUGRAM Vol 2, No 1, Pg 26, top left corner says:
"The reason some people may have had problems using Anchor Modems is
that their phones had a serial number ending in DMG (i.e., 2500DMG).
This means that these phones are grounded. There is a black wire
inside the phone just after the telco wire enters the case. Cutting
this wire will disable the ground and allow the modem to function."
Wonder if this might have something to do with some of the strange
problems A FEW people have with a modem that seems to work for most
others with the same equipment.
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 8 November 1984 23:43-MST
From: bang!crash!bblue@Nosc
To: bang!lavitsky@Ru-Green
Subject: Signalman XII
The Signalman Mark XII stock, does not send break. However, Anchor
Automation does have a rom available on request that corrects the
problem. I don't know why they don't just switch over to the new
rom...
The modem loses in a couple of other respects though - signficant
depending on your uses. It has no hardware default switches, thus you
cannot set a power-up condition - it must always be initialized by
software control. The led signal indication is quite limited. For
example, send and receive data are the same led!
Those things aside, it is a reasonable performer for the price. Just
don't expect too much from it.
--Bill Blue
bang!crash!bblue@nosc
{ihnp4, sdcsvax!bang}!crash!bblue
------------------------------
Date: 9 Nov 84 09:49:46 EST
From: Alexander B. Latzko <LATZKO@RU-BLUE.ARPA>
Subject: Anchor MKXII Modems
To: lavitsky@RU-BLUE.ARPA
Eric,
I have been using seven (7) Anchor Mark XIIs at remote 1 and remote 28
(Rutgers University Newark for those in the great etheric mists) since
July and have had time to develop some opinions.
1> The modems I have support break. I did get a special prom from Anchor but
was told the production line was going to be modified as of August 1984 to
include break.
2> They do not support the full Hayes command set but they do support enough to
be dialed by Xtalk VXI .
3> I could not check for RFI but sitting directly next to a TV and a Z-29
doesn't cause any screen glitches.
4> Reliability is ok but sometimes they become a little flakey in autoanswer
mode when they have been on for a month or two non stop.
alex
<latkzo@ru-blue>
-------
------------------------------
Date: 7 Nov 84 13:15 EDT
From: "David H M Spector" <SPECTOR@NYU-CMCL1.ARPA>
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA
Subject: Tarriffs.....where to find...
Does anyone know where I can order the tarriff stuff? And, also how much
it costs??
Thanks
Dave Spector
-------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 84 23:19:10 EST
From: Jon_Tara%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
To: telecom%BBNCCA@MIT-Multics.ARPA
re: Anchor Signalman XII Modem
The Mark XII does not send breaks in 212 mode, although it
does in 103 mode. You can send the modem back to Anchor along
with $30, and they will upgrade it (a ROM for newer ones, a
whole new PC board for older ones) so that it will.
Another flaw that people should be aware of is that it
does NOT observe RTS (it isn't even connected!) This causes
problems with programs that expect the modem to drop the phone
line when RTS is dropped. I have a fix that takes one transistor,
one resistor, and one cut trace. (Send a message for a copy of
the pretty picture of how to do this.)
I'm not in a position to make any quality measurements,
but I've been running one on a BBS (and also for calling out
to BBSs) and I've had no more noticible problems than with
any other 1200 bps modems I've used (Hayes and Vadic). In fact,
it seems to cope with weak signals better than most. (I've
had none of the flashing carrier lights I've had with Vadics...).
I bought mine locally for $250, so I'm not complaining about
the flaws. (Cermetek is advertising a "Hayes compatible"
1200 bps internal IBM PC modem for about $150 on a special
"buy direct" deal.)
------------------------------
Date: 9 Nov 84 05:35:15 EST
From: *Hobbit* <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: that writing on the wall...
To: telecom@RUTGERS.ARPA
The 800+ number you found at Rutgers is the number of a large
radio-paging system in the area. The code 0480 selects a specific
pager, probably riding around on someone's belt.
Wow! I wonder how many people I woke up?
We eventually figured that something like this was the case, and
ceased messing with it, in case we were beeping people out of
dreamland or dropping trouble cards all over creation. If you know
any victims, please pass a sincere ''sorry guys!'' on from me...
I can't help being a *little* disappointed that it wasn't a nifty
cable/pair identifier service, via which we could find the physical
location of any of our dialup lines!
_H*
-------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 84 10:28 PST
From: pencin.dlos@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: Signalman Mark XII
To: Eric <LAVITSKY@RU-GREEN.ARPA>
Eric;
I will not make any pro or con recommendations but by the time you have
read this I think you will understand my position.
1) The Mark XII does not recognize the TR signal from the host machine,
and as such it becomes quite difficult to get it's attention to cause a
hang-up or reset software switches.
2) It is inconsistant in the return of result codes caused by phone
related activity. (i.e. some numeric result codes return the numeric
with a "CR" and some do not. This makes writing auto answer routines
very difficult.)
3) If the modem is software programmed in 300 baud and the incomming
call is connected a 1200 baud (as in an RBBS) the modem will not respond
to the software interupt signal (+++) from the host at 1200 baud, an
thus it is practically impossible to disconnect after the call until the
calling party hangs- up.
As an auto dial out-going modem I have no complaints, as a front-end for
an RBBS it is useless. The lack of a speaker is also a major draw-back
for dealing with ring-back systems.
You may now make your on decision concerning this unit.
Russ Pencin
Sysop- Dallas Connection.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 30 Oct 84 18:18:25-EST
From: Gene Hastings <Gene.Hastings@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Subject: Digital service to residences
To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA
CMU is currently planning some experiments with the local
operating company to try a data under voice scheme that would become a
tariffed service if it proved practical. The experiments (to begin in
about a month) would use apparatus at the subscriber and CO ends of
a subscriber pair to carry normal voice service and a 9600 bps serial
line. There is a "spine" at the CO, something (if not exactly) like
the PRONET token ring, which would route the lines to their destination(s).
At the moment, existing tariffs preclude the local operating
company from reformatting or encoding the data; the user must accept
the bits out in the same format they went in.
It is plausible that the system might eventually be able to support
data rates to 56 kbps, which holds out the promise of having your
favorite PC on a LONG extension of a campus network.
The target price that CMU is asking for (based on line charges
and amortization of modem costs) is $50/mo. The Bell people seem to
think that they can manage this, but they have by no means guaranteed it.
Look for new rumors in January.
Gene Hastings
-------
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
******************************