Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA21968; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 22:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 22:32:02 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710060232.WAA21968@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #274 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Oct 97 22:32:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 274 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Looking For Specialized Voicemail System; PLEASE Respond! (Chris Boone) Combining Analog Lines (Cameron Smith) Phone Stuff on TV (Leonard Erickson) Help Me Please! (Shane Devine) Bits Error After Lightning (Felix Leung) Toshiba Phone Help Needed (Scott Brader) Intro to Data Communications Wanted (Bruce W. Mohler) CDMA PCS in Canada (user@msn.com) Voice Mail Spam (J.D. Baldwin) What Least Expensive No-Surcharge Company/Plan? (Jack Decker) Re: Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice (Nils Andersson) Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Patrick Miller) Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Roger Fajman) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Looking For Specialized Voicemail System; PLEASE Respond! Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:41:07 -0500 Organization: The Walt Disney Company / ABC Radio Networks Engineering Reply-To: cboone@earthlink.net Have some questions that need answering fast! If you can help, PLEASE reply to my email above ASAP! (Remove the NOSPAM. from the address!) I am looking for a multiport (8-16) voicemail system with the following requirments: 1) MUST connect straight to CO trunks with Gnd or Loop start operation (must see CPC if loop start). 2) MUST have HIGH QUALITY audio ... NOT sound grainy like Active Voice and others do ... (ROLM Phonemail seems to have the best audio in this respect but it does not meet other requirements but I am using it as audio standard). 3) PREFERABLY have GUI/LAN interface so msgs can be edited and listened to via remote PC ... including uploading greetings/prompts to the system and downloading msgs from the system in WAV or similar form 4) MUST have CALL PROCESSING mailboxes (aka: MENU BOXES, etc) so the caller can choose a topic or subject with a single DTMF command, and then leave a msg at the end of the greeting ... NO extn answering here but could be used for that later ... but NOT main requirement. 5) MUST be able for system user to record ALL greetings, etc heard by caller (not the system prompts heard by system user but those such as "mailbox full" etc.) 6) MUST be able to disable help features (such as * or # keys) so once caller is into a CP Box, they are committed to leaving a msg and then the system will hang up, allowing other callers access. 7) SHOULD use NON proprietary equipment (ROLM ... eeerr Siemens ... charges $15,000 !!! for a HD.....cmon people, 4 GIG HDs dont cost that much!) I want something I can maintain or upgrade inexpensively. 8) HAVE 24 hr service available for this system ... I have a LOAD of calls that it will handle and cannot afford for it to be down. (NO!!! It does NOT answer extns, etc ... nor does it tie to a switch!) Have I left anything out?? Possibly ... but these are the main questions. NOW, I need an answer by Monday 10-6, 10am CT ... IF you are a dealer in such items and can deliver what I want above, I WILL BUY!!!! BUT NO BS !!! (If you are not a dealer, etc but do have a GOOD suggestion, please get with me asap!) I don't want crappy audio; I want CLEAN quality audio, not this grainy stuff I have been hearing on Active Voice, Amanda, etc. If yours cannot do what I want, DONT BOTHER CALLING ME AND WASTING my time (and yours!). If you CAN deliver the above, you OWE it to yourself to call me and let me listen to the system. I have a budgeting meeting at 10am CT Monday, so its on the line. I have some systems in consideration; none really meet what I want and searching the WEB has been frustrating, so here's your chance. My number is 972-448-3366 DID. Call it asap. Thanks for your input in advance. Chris IF you wish to reply via email, take OUT the NOSPAM. in the address! BUT reply asap. I will check my email here one last time @ 8am CT Monday. DONT DELAY!!!! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For all the ASAP demands made by Chris, I think he must be unaware of the mechanics of preparing a digest and getting messages out. His message arrived here Sunday afternoon and I put it in the first available issue. Still, I do not know how many people will see it in time. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 12:35:18 -0700 From: Cameron Smith Subject: Combining Analog Lines Organization: Cutting Edge Technology Services I live in a rural area where digital service is all but unavailable. We have, here on-island, an ISP who brings in a T-1 signal. In order to get that T-1 (or any fraction thereof) to my home, I would have to pay the telco a $1400 setup fee and over $1200 per month! Plus, of course, the connection fee to the ISP. The ISP, however, is willing to let me co-locate a machine on his premises. What I can do is set up a standard analog line from that machine to my home with a couple of 56K modems. So far so good. What I *want* to do, however, is set up *two* analog lines with 56k modems and combine or concentrate them somehow. Something like this: --> 56K modem <--> Analog Line / -T1--> ISP <--Ethernet--> My Comp. <--> device <--< @ ISP \ --> 56K modem <--> Analog Line Analog Line <--> 56K modem <-- \ >--> device <--> My Computer / @ home Analog Line <--> 56K modem <-- So what is the "device" that I need and what are some of the brand names? Any help or suggestions would be most welcome. Please (also) reply via e-mail. Cameron Smith Cutting Edge Technology Services ccsmith@pinc.com http://www.pinc.com/~ccsmith ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Phone Stuff on TV Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 22:24:55 PST Organization: Shadownet It's interesting how much stuff they get right (and wrong!) in TV shows. Especially which bits. Just tonight on Millenium, Frank Black has been getting mysterious calls. Phone rings, he answers, there's silence, he tries to get a response, they hang up. So we see some nerdly type messing with all sorts of wires ... to install a Caller-ID unit! Then just after Frank writes the check (for $85!), he gets a mystery call. And (naturally) the unit says "Anonymous Caller". Frank snatches back the check (nice touch!) The nerdly type then proceeds to sell Frank a gizmo that (supposedly) can override the blocking (yeah, right). And it works when they test it. Of course, it doesn't work with the mystery call. No mention is made of the *?? code that records the info at the phone company office. Nor is any mention made of trying to get the phone company to help. On several shows, I've seen them stating that you can only get a general area when trying to trace a cell phone (and some even have things relatively correct when using mobile tracking units to try to refine that position). And they have it being appropriately easy to get the number of the cell phone that is making the call. But every single one of the shows fails to note that a cell phone merely has to be *on* to be trackable. And they can't even use the excuse that the bad guy turned off the phone, because on many of them, they call him back! I really, *really* wish that at least *one* show would get it right. Either have them catch a bad guy because he didn't turn the phone off after making his call, or have them tracking him after the call and *then* have them frustrated at the last instant as he turns off the phone (or better yet, have them tracking a kidnapped "good guy" and have his battery run down just as they are about to pinpoint his location) That would not only be suspenseful, but it'd let them feel good about showing how smart they were. And unllike the current situation, they wouldn't *actually* be showing how *stupid* they are... :-) Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of all the things to crab and complain about! Next thing I know you are going to be sending a message here asking why it is newspaper reporters never can get their details right when writing about the internet or telephone networks. Then before long the complaints will start coming in about all the very ignorant FBI/local law enforcement officers who know as little about computers and the net as I know about brain surgery who assume every time they see someone online the person must be uploading or downloading a kiddie porn picture or having a chat with a twelve year old boy. Where would we get our laughs every day if it were not for the very ignorant television writers/producers, newspaper 'reporters' (in actual practice, frequently fiction writers) and Keystone Cops who control our reading/viewing habits and our lives? Television is not quite as bad this year as it was last year -- i.e. the year of the 'the net is mostly kiddie porn and devil worshippers' and even the print media has decided now and then to actually investigate what they print but there is still a long way to go. Most police officers are still ignorant as ignorant can be where the net is concerned, but if they are unwilling to learn then maybe some higher courts will slap the nonsense out of them. I wish I had seen the show you referred to; I am sure it would all have been a jolly-good laugh; and you don't see me laughing or inserting any smileys now do you ... PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:52:25 -0400 From: Devine Subject: Help Me Please! Organization: cyberzone.net I recently purchased a computer for use at school (Dell Dimensions H233, 64mb, 512Kcache, .....). With this computer I got a 56Kx2 US Robotics modem. I just signed up with a server in the area who offers 56Kx2 connections. So far, I have only been able to connect at speeds up to 28.8Kbps, usually only 24Kbps. The telecom person on campus told me that all phone lines are 56K capable so that's "not the problem". What I need to know is what the problem could be. I was reading another message posted here and that person mentioned that they get interference from a radio station. There is a large radio tower on top of my dorm building. Could this be the problem? Could it also be the way the telephone lines are wired in the building? If anyone knows of an existing problem, possible problem, or a possible solution, please email me at, shade39@cyberzone.net. Thanks! Shane ------------------------------ From: Felix Leung Subject: Bits Error After Lightning Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 18:07:03 -0500 Organization: University of Winnipeg Hi, I got the answer for the following question, but I am not sure how should I handle the 0.2 bits error, should I just leave the answer as 25.2 or I should use 26bits? If the speed of transmission on a line is 7200bps and that line is hit by lighting that causes an impluse distortion of 3.5 milliseconds, what is the max. number of bits that could be in error? The term bit rate representing the number of bits per second. 7200 bits per sec. * .0035 sec. = 25.2 bits could be in error. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, Felix ------------------------------ From: Scott Brader Subject: Toshiba Phone Help Needed Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 20:09:53 -0500 Organization: Redwood Interactive: A division of USAV Communications Group Reply-To: sbrader@usavgroup.com We've recently added two HSTU's to our Toshiba Strata XXe key phone system. (I know, we're in the dark ages!) The system does not recognize the two new cards. Is there a setup routine or dip switch change we have to do to get the system to recognize the new cards? Thanks for your help. Scott Brader Redwood Interactive A division of USAV Communications Group 5485 S. Westridge Drive PO Box 510620 New Berlin, Wisconsin 53151 Phone: 414.814.2000 Fax: 414.814.2006 ------------------------------ From: Bruce W. Mohler Subject: Intro to Data Communications Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 16:18:39 -0700 Organization: A News Reader at ATMNet Dear c.d.t, Are there any good books that provide an introduction to the realm of data communications or bookstores that specialize in books of this type? [I checked through this newsgroups and searched for a dcom FAQ before posting this.] Thanks, in advance. Bruce W. Mohler bmohler@fv.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You really should investigate the mail order book service operated by Harry Newton of {Teleconect Magazine}. His service is called Telecom Library and it is located in New York City. Harry is a regular reader of this Digest and he'll probably see your message. Maybe he will reply with particulars on how to obtain a catalog, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: user@msn.com Subject: CDMA PCS in Canada Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 16:41:13 -0700 Organization: Alternate Access Inc. Hello to all! Can some one tell me whether there is any differences in the PCS1900 standards used in Canada for CDMA compared to US? Do they use IS-95 (J-STD-008) without modification? Any CTC mandates that would make the Canadian CDMA operation/ products different than in US? I appreciate your input; thanks in advance. Shawn in California ------------------------------ From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) Subject: Voice Mail Spam Organization: Revealed on a need-to-know basis. Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:11:59 GMT We all get e-mail spam. I'm hardly alone there. I am, however, the only one I know who's received PAGER spam. A few months back, my text pager came alive with several ads purportedly for MEN'S HEALTH magazine. I called the 800-# to raise hell, and got an ad for some sort of sex chat instead. Grrrrrrr. Last night, this was exceeded by Ameritech, which my fellow midwesterners know is The Most Evil Corporation In The History Of The World. My phone service with Ameritech includes phone company hosted voice mail (so I can get messages during busy signals on what is primarily a data line). Last night, when checking my messages, there was a two-minute "bulletin" from Ameritech. I punched in the code to listen to it (I don't think there was a way around it) and was treated to an ad for some sort of "sweepstakes" Ameritech wanted me to enter by calling some 800-#. WHAT THE HELL?!? I plan to call Ameritech to complain, loudly, about this practice, but I thought I'd mention it here to see whether: a) Anyone else has experienced this; b) There is any way to stop this (that I should know about before calling)? From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _,_ Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to _|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 23:23:18 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: What Least Expensive No-Surcharge Company/Plan? I very rarely make toll calls on my main home line, and for years I have used MCI and their Friends & Family plan. My mother is on the same plan and use it to call her relatives out-of-state. I was therefore quite surprised (and more than a little disappointed) to read that although they now offer their much-touted 5 cent Sundays, they have apparently INCREASED their rates at all other times, including Saturdays (see Eli Mantel's page at http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/5395/pr970907.html for particulars -- that is where I found out about this increase). MCI has plans other than Friends and Family, but according to an MCI rep that I spoke to today, there are none available to me that do not have a monthly fee or minimum associated with them. I'm also aware that if you place a "casual" call through certain other carriers using a 10(1X)XXX code, a surcharge or monthly minimum applies. What I am wondering is, what is the least expensive way to place an occasional call (usually between one and three minutes in length) WITHOUT incurring any monthly minimums or surcharges? There's one interesting aspect of this. In Michigan, we have competition for intraLATA toll, and my line is NOT presubscribed to the local phone company (which in my case happens to be GTE) for intraLATA toll. Since virtually every toll call I have made from my home line in recent months has been within my home LATA, I *would* just use GTE for those calls, BUT it seems that there is no way to access them using a 10(1X)XXX code -- at least not any way that any of their reps seem to know about. If you call various GTE numbers and ask around enough, they will give you the code for whoever is handling GTE's interLATA toll (I forget which carrier is doing that, but basically GTE has an arrangement with one of the major carriers [not one of the "big 3", though] to handle their interLATA toll). But that is not the same access that one would get for intraLATA toll (for example, dialing the code they give plus "0" gets you the IXC's operator, not a GTE operator). If any GTE switch technicians happen to read this and know the *correct* code to use to place an intraLATA toll call using GTE's facilities (and NOT those of the IXC they contract with for interLATA toll), I'd appreciate it if you'd send me the code via e-mail. Alternately, I'd like to know about any carrier that has resonable per-minute rates and that will still allow you to place "casual" calls (via a 10(1X)XXX code) without imposing any surcharge or monthly minimum. If you reply, please be sure to edit out the "bogus" part of my return e-mail address (I get FAR too much "spam" as it is!). Thanks, Jack ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 04:46:54 -0400 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice In article , Telecom@Eureka.vip. best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) writes: > Of course, I think that the root of the problem is that there seems to > have been no coherent attempt at a public education campaign for 888. > Too many phone books still refer to 800 without mentioning 888. Nobody except us phone nuts actually READ a phone book. I agree about public education, and you are technically correct that 888 should be in the phone book, but that is the least important place to put it. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: pmiller@nyx.net (Patrick Miller) Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change Date: 4 Oct 1997 22:56:12 -0600 Organization: Nyx.net, free public access to the Internet One thing to note that was said in the previous message is that more leeway should be made for dialing numbers. 1. Always allow 10 digit dialing (why should a kid who only knows the 7 digit number not be able to call home when out of the area?) 2. Always allow *s0 to disable call waiting (I should be able to not have to worry about whether the line I am plugging my computer into has call waiting, after all if I want to be kicked off I can uncheck the disable CW box.) Those are the main two problems I have which will become moot once all areas require 10 digit dialing, or digital lines remove now what is connected to the line (and allow voice and data simultaneously.) Pat Miller--Communications Consult./ *HUG* C-ya Soon http://www.nyx.net/~pmiller /pmiller@nyx.net finger pmiller@nox.nyx.net | 816-968-968-5 (you-you5) full/expanded info on web/finger | ---------------------------------+Heartland TEC #145 ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:07:18 EDT Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change >> That's a rather odd position for Bell Atlantic to take, since we've >> had 10 digit dialing for local calls for some time now in the >> Washington, DC area, which is Bell Atlantic territory. > Well, Bell Atlantic inherited that system when they acquired C&P > Telephone. Changing it to whatever Bell Atlantic thinks is not > confusing would have been confusing =) You have your timing of events mixed up. C&P Telephone was one of the Bell Operating Companies that became part of the original Bell Atlantic when it was formed in 1984. At that time in the Washington, DC area we had 7 digit dialing for local calls (even across area codes) and 10 digit dialing for long distance calls. Later, 1+10 digits for long distance calls was introduced. After that, 10 digit dialing for local calls across area codes became mandatory. Most recently, 10 digit dialing for local calls within the same area code became mandatory in Maryland (but not in DC or Virginia). After all of that, the merger of Bell Atlantic and NYNEX was finalized, with the merged company being called Bell Atlantic. I believe that along with NYNEX came other ideas about what dialing plans are confusing. The particular area that the statement was referring to was NYNEX territory. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #274 ******************************