Shareware Overload Trio 2/Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO/dir26/hicn728.zip/TC14-277.ZIP/TC14-277.TXT

Text File | 1994-07-03 | 26KB | 653 lines

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Jun 94 15:11:30 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 277

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection (Dave Ptasnik)
    Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection (Howard Wharton)
    Re: Interactive "Voice Mail" System For PC? (John R. Haggis)
    Re: Answering Machine Recommendations Wanted (John R. Haggis)
    Re: Largest Calling Areas (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Largest Calling Areas (Carl Moore)
    Re: AT&T to be Held Accountable? (Anthony Campbell)
    Re: Calling Card Suggestion (Sam Spens Clason)
    Re: Calling Card Suggestion (Nathan N. Duehr)
    Re: Calling Card Suggestion (Harbir Singh Kohli)
    Re: Replacement Wanted For Bogen Friday (Bob Rankin)
    Re: Bibliography of Telecom Periodicals Wanted (Bob Schwartz)
    Re: What Do I Get When Dialing 311? (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Help: Bad Phone Lines in San Jose (Bob Schwartz)
    Re: U.S. Postal Service and the Information Highway (Steven Grevemeyer)
    Re: How to Get White pages Data From GTE? (Carl A. Wright)
    Re: Best Way to Get Many (~50) Phone Lines? (Les Reeves)

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 GEnie.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

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

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

Additionally, 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.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Ptasnik)
Subject: Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection
Date: 7 Jun 1994 15:43:29 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


[e-mail] (B.Jsig. Guillot) writes:

> Speaking of "stutter dial tone", I called SW Bell the other day to get
> information on their voice mail service (Call Notes), and the rep guy
> said "When you lift up the handset, you will hear a SPECIAL noise that
> indicates a message is waiting."

> I then asked him, you mean "stutter dialtone?"

> He replied "Exactly!  But it's politically incorrect for us to use
> that term now, or we could get fired."

The politically correct term appears to be "interrupted dialtone".  At
least that is what the local hearing impaired support group has told
our telecommunications department.


Dave Ptasnik  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Howard Wharton)
Subject: Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 21:25:00 GMT


> Speaking of "stutter dial tone", I called SW Bell the other day to get
> information on their voice mail service (Call Notes), and the rep guy
> said "When you lift up the handset, you will hear a SPECIAL noise that
> indicates a message is waiting."

> I then asked him, you mean "stutter dialtone?"

> He replied "Exactly!  But it's politically incorrect for us to use
> that term now, or we could get fired."

New York Telephone (opps-NYNEX) calls the "stutter" dialtone an
"interrupted" dialtone for its voice mail service which they call
Residence Call Answering.


Howard S. Wharton   Fire Safety Technician
Office of Environmental Health and Safety
State University of New York at Buffalo

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Haggis)
Subject: Re: Interactive "Voice Mail" System For PC?
Organization: Millennium Research
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 11:37:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David H. Close) writes:

> Paul A. Lee </DD.ID=JES2CAOF.UEDCM09/@SMX.sprint.com> writes:

>> A typical voice port board will cost from US$500 to US$1500.

> You can also buy an ZyXEL modem with built-in codec and DTMF decoder.
> With it you get, no charge but no support, source code for a PC-voice
> mailbox system. Try [e-mail] or [e-mail].

$500-$1500?  I didn't read the original post, but I've seen several
modest packages for < $100 at local computer stores (ZyXEL modems are
> $250 and software has no support).

If you just want voice mailboxes on a single line without a lot of
customization, and can dedicate a machine, any of these packages would
work.  They all seem to have ponderous TSR's that render the PC
useless for anything else, so beware.  (Tho' they claim to be
"windoze", or run in the "background" ...)

1.  National Semi "Tyin"
2.  Complete PC "Complete Communicator?"
3.  Boca Research has one also but it may be a buyout deal
    to/from Complete PC.
4.  Computer Peripherals, Inc: "Viva Message Center" modem.

None of them come anywhere near the quality of the ZyXEL, but they have
productized software that has mailboxes, forwarding, paging, etc.

Good luck.


JohnR  ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Haggis)
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Recommendations Wanted
Organization: Millennium Research
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 11:44:23 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John O'Shaughnessy
<[e-mail]> writes:

> Our four year old AT&T answering machine seems to have spun it's last
> capstan into the dirt.  I assume that a machine that was purchased for
> $70.00 would cost more than $50.00 to have repaired, so I'm in the
> market for a new answering machine.

> The features I'm looking for include:

> * Time & Date stamp
> * Remote access
> * VOX activated/unlimited incoming call length
> * High Quality

> What machines would TELECOM Digest readers recommend?  Which machines/
> brands should be avoided?

All my friends seem to like the new ATT fully digital gizmo.  I like
the idea, but I won't personally buy any product or service from a
company who's logo is the "DeathStar".

All digital would be a good thing to look for in general.  Anything
with moving parts, or anything from a company that sells washing
machines should be avoided.  No matter how lonely they are.

On the serious side, Sony has a cool all-digital model that has
variable-speed playback without changing the pitch of the voice ...
This seems really neat to me.

Above all, go to a place that has a no-questions-asked return policy
and don't be afraid to try 'em out.

I use a computerized system with some dastardly custom mods (and I'm
getting a Panasonic switch in my house ... five incoming lines and
growing) so I don't have a whole lot to offer in my personal experience.


Good luck.

JohnR  ([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:07:03 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Largest Calling Areas


Carl Moore writes:

> When you were referring to the Canadian Northwest Territories, you
> made use of area code 413.  That is in western Massachusetts; I
> think you meant 403, which also serves Alberta.

Right you are.  'Twas a slip of the fingers or brain.  NPA 413 is like
the remote western and northern areas in having a very small
population, but on the geographical size scale, it's at the opposite
end of the spectrum.


Bob Goudreau   Data General Corporation
[e-mail]  62 Alexander Drive
[phone]   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 1:10:42 EDT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Largest Calling Areas


[e-mail] refers to New York City (212).

212 used to cover all of NYC until 1984.  718 was formed then, to
include Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, and later, because of
continuing upward pressure on 212, the Bronx.  Also, 917 was set up as
cellular/pager overlay.

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

Subject: Re: AT&T to be Held Accountable?
From: [e-mail] (Anthony Campbell)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 94 14:23:53
Organization: Cryogenic Software - Portland, OR


[e-mail] (Ken Kopin) writes:

> I just witnessed a commercial from AT&T which implies that we will all
> soon have Personal AI assistants! Cute little Doggies, even! (I guess
> they didn't think a gopher would interest most 'regular people')

> Don't believe it?? YOU WILL. And the Company that will bring it to
> you? AT&T

> Can AT&T actually get away with this kind of misleading advertising?

Is this really any different from being shown prototypes of flat
screen TVs for the last couple decades or longer?

Did this keep you from buying a TV now?  :)

Or how about 'concept cars' shown at auto shows?  Did this cause you
to put off buying a vehicle that were really for sale at the show?

> Now granted, they never laid out any kind of time table for this stuff,
> but I think it's safe to imply from "YOU WILL" that they intend to get
> ALL THIS STUFF to market within one lifetime.

I hope so.  I think ...


[e-mail]    R.I.P. C=/Amiga 1985-1994

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

From: [e-mail] (Sam Spens Clason)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion
Date: 7 Jun 1994 13:47:37 GMT
Organization: The Royal Institute of Technology


In <[e-mail]> Bob Maccione <[e-mail]>
writes:

> With all of the calling card fraud going on out there I'm curious as
> to why the card companies don't issue cards that can't be used for
> international calls.  It should be easy enough and if the user really
> needs to have access to international numbers they can add a level of
> country restrictions.  So since all I call is the US I wouldn't have
> to worry about someone abusing my card (at least from the international
> level of abuse).

How big a part of all calling card frauds could be avoided if the PIN
wasn't actually printed on the card?!

Apart from AT&T and MCI I also have a swedish calling card, not very
good for calling in the US but it works the same way and hasn't got
the PIN printed all over it.

The calling card business is rather new here in Sweden (two years),
but still, we haven't had any frauds worth mentioning.  I think it's
because of better security.

So, stop printing the PIN on calling cards, that would not make them
as easely used if stolen or just glimpsed at.


Sam Spens Clason, <A HREF="http://www.nada.kth.se/~d92-sam/">Web</A>

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

From: [e-mail] (Nathan N. Duehr)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 10:09:48 GMT


Bob Maccione ([e-mail]) wrote:

> With all of the calling card fraud going on out there I'm curious as
> to why the card companies don't issue cards that can't be used for
> international calls.  It should be easy enough and if the user really
> needs to have access to international numbers they can add a level of
> country restrictions.  So since all I call is the US I wouldn't have
> to worry about someone abusing my card (at least from the international
> level of abuse).

(snip huge reply from Pat about AT&T and Sprint's illegal blocking of
card calls from "poor" or ethnic areas... :) )

I work for a teleconferencing company that contracts out to a
medium-sized long-dist and value-added services provider to do their
conference calls on our equipment using their lines.  One of our
funnier experiences with them is that we use THEIR customer's calling
card numbers to place these calls, therefore billing their customer
for the long-distance incurred automatically and we invoice the l-d
company we contract to for the actual bridge time.  (I don't know what
they charge their customers for the actual conference service...?)

Anyway, one of their customers called on the reservations line one day
to set up a call.  We checked the list of countries that this l-d
provider's lines would access, and Puerto Rico was included.  We
booked the call in our reservations system, and proceeded to tell the
customer that his call would take place momentarily and the operator
would call him back shortly.  (Normal procedure.)

Our operator starts dialing these people (including the customer who
ordered the call) and gets intercepted by an operator from the l-d
company when she dials Puerto Rico.  Now realize that the customer has
no idea that we are a middle man doing the conferencing, and that
according to all of their literature and the lists we had, Puerto Rico
was a valid call.  Our operator tries to explain that she is a
conference operator working for basically the same company and that
this call needs to be put through in order for the entire conference
to begin.  The operator at the l-d provider tells our operator that
the party that wishes the call to Puerto Rico MUST dial the line
directly in order to have the call and that they are "cracking down"
on unauthorized calling card use.

You'd think that they would know who we are by now, and what services
they offer, but nooooo!  :)

So finally after letting the l-d operator talk privately with the
chairperson of the conference call about his billing address, mother's
maiden name, etc etc ... she finally put the call through.  All the
while, this customer was paying for l-d time to all the other participants
who were listening to music hold.  Sad.

He never did find out that we were a middle man, though, and that's
the way our contract is set up ... they aren't to know that we do
this.  I'm glad we don't treat *our* customers this poorly, but we
couldn't tell him to switch to us, now could we?  :)

Just a medium-sized anecdote for this thread.


Regards,

Nate Duehr   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Harbir Singh Kohli)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion
Date: 7 Jun 1994 23:44:01 +0200
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway


Nice piece of information posted by Patrick ...

In Norway the calling card comes with a four-digit code which makes it
a lot safer to use for both the customer and the telephone company.
Though it does produce a hell of lot of digits to dial.  I feel safe
carrying it instead of my ATT, MCI and Sprint cards.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jun 94 10:08:08 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Bob Rankin)
Subject: Re: Replacement Wanted For Bogen Friday


In TELECOM Digest V14 No. 268 (item 6) Robert La Ferla <Robert_La_Ferla@
hot.com> writes:

> Anyone know of a better product (and $300-500) than the Bogen two-line
> Friday voicemail system?  I am having quite a few problems with it.

A good PC-based solution would be one of Talking Technologies multi-line
products.  Call 800-info for the toll-free number, get all the tech inform-
ation you need, then contact Central Computer Products (see ads in
Computer Shopper or get the 800 number) for a good price.  :-)


Bob Rankin ([e-mail])

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

Subject: Bibliography of Telecom Periodicals Wanted
From: [e-mail] (Bob Schwartz)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 94 11:07:28 PDT
Organization: Bill Correctors, Inc., Marin County, California


[e-mail] (Bruce Roberts) writes:

> Hello all.  I'm currently subscribing to {Telephony Magazine} and find
> it fascinating but primarily marketing/business oriented.  I'm looking
> for a periodical that is more technical in nature and covers the same
> PSTN, Information Infrastructure, ISDN, Sonet, ATM sort of stuff.
> This is not my line of work so but rather something I find interesting
> (and something that will affect all of us soon) so it will be an
> educational experience.  Suggestions and subscribing information would
> be greatly appreciated.

Your local public library may well have "The Reader's Guide to
Periodicals Published in the USA" or the international Guide. It has
listings for well over 50,000 magazines and does have a heading for
Telecommunications.


Bob Schwartz                                       [e-mail]
Bill Correctors, Inc.   [phone]   Marin County, California

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jun 94 12:57:30 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: What Do I Get When Dialing 311?


In TELECOM Digest V14 #274 [e-mail]

> When I dial 311 (I live on LI.N.Y -NYNEX-) I get connected to a
> TELETYPE sounding device. Does anyone know what this is? In the past
> 311 would announce the telephone number you were calling from, like
> 958 does.

I posted an article about this not too long ago in TELECOM Digest.
311 is used by NYNEX in its service area for hearing impaired people
to be able contact emergency services in a similar manner as normally
hearing people do by dialing 911.

The sound is a TTY device, the same one as heard when dialing a
hearing impaired person.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] (preferred)
                            [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  1+[phone]
                                          FAX   1+[phone]

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

Subject: Re: Help: Bad Phone Lines in San Jose
From: [e-mail] (Bob Schwartz)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 94 11:07:13 PDT
Organization: Bill Correctors, Inc., Marin County, California


> Above all, keep calling and going over peoples' heads.  The people at
> Pac Bell, while regular, nice people on the outside, become flaming
> assholes when at work under the strain of a job they have no concept
> or understanding of.

Maybe there is another element ... management. It was Upton Sinclair
that said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when
his salary depends on his not understanding it."


Regards,

Bob Schwartz                                       [e-mail]
Bill Correctors, Inc.   [phone]   Marin County, California

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Grevemeyer)
Subject: Re: U.S. Postal Service and the Information Highway
Date: 8 Jun 1994 08:39:46 -0400
Organization: Vetronics Technology Center,US Army TACOM,Warren, Michigan USA


What you see in the post office is indicative of the entire government
workforce.  An acquaintance of mine put a name to this phenonmenom:
"The Non-Profit Mentality".  This is the attitude of people who work
for organizations that are not accountable for their actions,
outcomes, or policies.  Government work is characterized by "doing
your time" for promotions and the like. Job satisfaction is low due to
the leveling of the personell.  Everyone is equal, no differentiation
is allowed.  Much like the current liberal mentality being espoused by
the Clinton Administration over items like health care, etc.
Attempting to actually accomplish anything is like shoving manure up a
pipe -- you'll go pretty good for a while but eventually it will all
end up on you. 8-)

Other entities with this mentality are: city government, education,
welfare, etc.

With the removal of accountability comes the removal of responsibility.
With the removal of compensation (financial or otherwise) comes the removal
of initative.

The organization stagnates --- the Post Office has just stagnated
for longer than most anywhere else.


Steven E. Grevemeyer   Phone: [phone] FAX: -5008
Software Enginnering Division (AMSTA-OS)
US Army Tank-Automotive RD&E Center
Vetronics Technology Center Email: [e-mail]
Warren, MI 48397-5000

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How to Get White pages Data From GTE?
Date: 8 Jun 1994 13:56:19 GMT
Organization: Lynn-Arthur Associates, Ann Arbor, MI
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frank Dziuba)
writes:

> I would like to get the White Pages listings for my area from GTE in a
> computer-readable format. I know that there are cd-roms of the US
> phone books available, but they have heavy copyrights on them and I
> want to put a searchable phone book on my BBS. I called GTE who said
> they don't sell that data, but how did ProPhone get it? I heard that
> they scanned the phonebooks and OCR'ed them.  Is that legal? Aren't
> they breaking some kind of copyright law? What is the copyright on the
> phone book information anyway? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Frank,

   The federal court decided a couple years ago that white pages data
was only copyrightable in its specific compilation form. Contact a
lawyer to get the exact details, but in general it means that you
can't xerox the phone books and then sell them, but you can type in
the information and then produce your own document and sell it. See
lawyers for more details.

I understood from a sales promotion from Pro_phone that they have the
white pages typed in at some location in China. Thus they should also
be able to include GTE data. I'm waiting for my own copy of Pro-phone
so I can see about GTE in the database.


Carl A. Wright       Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.   [phone]
[e-mail]      Operations Support Systems     [phone] (fax)
2350 Green Road      Suite 160                      Ann Arbor, MI, 48105 USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Les Reeves)
Subject: Re: Best Way to Get Many (~50) Phone Lines?
Date: 8 Jun 1994 07:09:19 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access  [phone]  [login: guest]


Dick St.Peters ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Hi.  I'm new to telecom things and need help.  (Lots of it ...)

> I'm becoming an Internet provider -- dialup PPP/SLIP, so I need a lot
> of phone lines.  NYNEX says it wants a ten-year contract (with a bond)
> before it will install a lot of pairs to my house.

That's amazing!  Ask for a copy of the part of the tariff that applies
to deposits and residences.  Southern Bell put 50 pairs into my
residence in 1987 with a three-year ESSX contract.

Have you considered asking them about Centrex?  In some places it is a
more economic way to get a bunch of lines.  They may be easier to deal
with too since it has contracts and a slightly higher one-time charge.

> They will gladly sell me several T1s, but even though I'm less than a
> mile from my CO, this is more than twice the cost per line ... without
> even including costs of the equipment to demux the T1s.  Further, they
> tell me that all 24 lines on a T1 must be used for voice lines ... I
> can't use any of them as 56k DDS local loops ... no tariff, they say.
> (I forgot to ask about 3002 leased voice lines.)

A T1 mux (aka channel bank) bought on the secondary market may be the
best way to go.  If you are willing to shop, learn a little channel
bank terminology, and do part of the installation work, you can save
yourself a lot of money.

An excellent magazine for the secondary market is {Telecom Gear};
[phone].  It's free to qualified subscribers.

There is a good book on T-1 available from Telecom Library,
[phone] or 800 LIBRARY.  The book is called "The Guide to T-1
Networking".

> NYNEX would be happier about stringing lots of pairs to a real office,
> but I'd have to rent the office, so the costs actually work out sort
> of similar unless the demux equipment is really expensive.  How expensive
> is it?  What is it?

> NYNEX says I need a PBX.  Do I really need one if I only want to tie
> each line to a modem and/or terminal server?

It's none of their business what you are connecting each line to.  All
they should be asking is whether you want the demark on RJ11 or a 66
block.  They *are* allowed to ask the FCC registration number of your
telephone equipment.

> Finally, what am I not asking that I should be?

Ask them why they are being such weasels.


Les     [e-mail]       Atlanta,GA      404.874.7806

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #277
******************************