Received: from buita.bu.edu by buit1.bu.edu (3.2/4.7) id AA07208; Thu, 28 May 87 20:32:26 EDT Return-Path: Received: by buita.bu.edu (1.1/4.7) id AA14607; Thu, 28 May 87 20:32:28 EDT Message-Id: <8705290032.AA14607@buita.bu.edu> Date: Thu, 28 May 87 20:31:40 EDT From: The Moderator (JSol) Reply-To: TELECOM@BUIT1.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V7 #7 To: TELECOM@BUIT1.BU.EDU Status: O TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 May 87 20:31:40 EDT Volume 7 : Issue 7 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Status of TELECOM bandwidth of LADS (metallic?) circuit Celluar phones at the Indy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 May 87 04:35:29 CDT From: academ!uucpmgr@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (UUCP Adminstration) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 87 15:57:52 EDT From: jsol@buit1.bu.edu To: telecom@buit1.bu.edu Subject: Administrivia - Status of TELECOM As we continue to experience pain and anguish over the conversion from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU to BUIT1.BU.EDU, I note three problems, one of which has been solved. 1) The digestifier was generating bad digests. Specifically message #2 included the text of message #1; #3 contained both #1 and #2, etc. etc. This made the digest very large and without much content. This problem has been solved. 2) USENET continues to mail duplicate messages. I am manually looking at each set of submissions before sending out a digest, and I generally catch most of the duplicates; but occasionally a digest goes out with a message from a previous digest. This can't really be helped without a major programming effort; something I do not have the time to do. This problem is really a usenet-wide problem, and I believe the usenet administrators are working on a fix, so bear with them (and me). 3) BUIT1.BU.EDU is having problems connecting to some of the digest recipients. BBN.COM and YUMA.ARPA are examples of hosts I cannot send mail to. This may be an exasperation of #1 above, since very large digests might time out, I am not sure. This may be fixed when our ARPANET connection goes in, but in the mean time, I will try forwarding Telecom digests that I can't mail to directly, through a forwarding host (probably XX.LCS.MIT.EDU). Well, now you know what the state of TELECOM is. I pledge that I will do what I can to insure the best possible digest, both in quality, and in speed of delivery. ------------------------------ To: telecom@buit1.bu.edu Cc: dyer@harvard.harvard.edu Subject: bandwidth of LADS (metallic?) circuit Date: Thu, 28 May 87 01:04:14 -0400 From: Steve Dyer I've been running for several months with a LADS circuit between my house and the university, running at 9600 baud with a pair of Gandalf LDS 309A short-haul modems. I'm quite happy with this setup, but I am wondering how much of the available bandwidth I am using. If the leased line is truly just a length of copper which runs from both endpoints into the central office, and the total length of the wire is probably no more than a mile, wouldn't there be a chance that the capacity of the line was greater than 9600 or 19.2kb? Actually the distance between my house and the other end is about 2 blocks, but I assume these lines always must pass through the central office. Note that this isn't a "voice grade" line, but something NETel calls "LADS" which presumably means "Local Area Data Service" or some such. I think that this is the same as a metallic line, although it's hopeless to talk to anyone at the phone company who knows enough about what they're providing. Are there are bandwidth restrictions imposed on this type of line by the telco in addition to those imposed by the length? How would you recommend measuring the effective capacity of the line? Is there any chance of exploiting the residual bandwidth (if there is any at all) using something other than the LDS309As (or would the expense of such equipment argue that a DDS line would be cheaper!) As you can tell, I'm dreaming of a poor-man's 56kb+ line and am trying to gauge how much of a pipe dream it is. --- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.harvard.edu dyer@spdcc.COM aka {ihnp4,harvard,linus,ima,bbn,halleys}!spdcc!dyer ------------------------------ From: adams%littlei%reed%tektronix.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET To: tektronix!comp-dcom-telecom%reed.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET Date: Tue May 26 14:45:36 1987 To: Path: littlei!adams From: adams@littlei.UUCP (Robert Adams) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Celluar phones at the Indy Message-ID: <122@littlei.UUCP> Date: 26 May 87 21:45:32 GMT Reply-To: adams@littlei.UUCP (Robert Adams) Distribution: world Organization: Intel Corp., ISO Systems Development, Hillsboro, OR Lines: 12 While watching the Indianapolis 500 on TV this Sunday, I saw them do a feature on one of the car crews that were using a celluar phone to talk to the driver on the track. You see, most crews use some sort of CB or shortwave set to talk between the pit and the driver and the TV announcers are always talking about what they overheard on the radios. This one car had a celluar phone and the crew would phone the driver to discuss things. This seemed really strange to me until I realized that the use of the phone meant that no one could legally listen in on their conversations. Everyday someone discovers a new way to use that law. -- Robert Adams ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest *********************