TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Dec 93 14:25:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 822 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Combinet Users Mailing List (David E. Martin) Need Help With Ancient Western Electric 1A2 KSU (William L. Roberts) Information Wanted on Leewah Datacom Securities (Curtis Kundred) Is There a Good Cordless Headset Phone? (Lawrence D. Sher) Two Cellphones With Same Number - a Service? (Michael V. Murphy) Two Cellphones With Same Number? - Not Permitted (John Landwehr) Cordless Phone Questions (Patricia A. Dunkin) ZEnith, ENterprise, Fred & Ethyl (David A. Kaye) Satellite Link Questions (Gerry Palmer) FAX Modem Needed For Disabled Worker (Charlie L. Eyster) Re: AC 520 for Arizona in March 1995 (Carl Moore) Re: Only Two "Operating" IXCs in DC (Mark Roberts) Re: No ISDN Despite Big Talk (Bob Olson) Re: No ISDN Despite Big Talk (Barry Lustig) Re: What Happened to "811" Numbers? (Paul Robinson) Re: 5ESS CentraNet Question (Russell Sharpe) Re: Wiring a New Home - Suggestions? (George Zmijewski) 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. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu. The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates and redistribution/cross-posting of articles herein to news groups such as those distributed via 'Usenet' is prohibited unless permission is ob- tained in writing. This does not apply to *authorized* redistribution lists and sites who have agreed to distribute the Digest. All cross- postings or other redistributions must include the full Digest intact and unedited. 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. You can reach us by snail mail at Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or Fax at 1-708-329-0572. ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 10:45:41 CST From: David E. Martin Subject: Combinet Users Mailing List Combinet Users Mailing List I have established a mailing list for discussions among users and potential users of Combinet bridges. The list is open to anyone. To subscribe send e-mail to combinet-request@nic.hep.net with the single line: SUBSCRIBE You will then be sent an acknowledgement and a list of instruction. To submit a message to the list send to combinet@nic.hep.net. It will be reflected to all subscribers. The list is not moderated. I expect the list volume to be fairly low. Some topics for discussion: - use of NI-1 with Combinet bridges - Combinet bridge security - Interesting applications of remote bridging with Combinet - Connection set-up times with Combinet bridges - Anything else you want to disucss Please contact me with questions or comments. David E. Martin HEP Network Resource Center Phone: +1 708 840-8275 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory FAX: +1 708 840-8463 P.O. Box 500, MS 368; Batavia, IL 60510 USA E-Mail: dem@hep.net ------------------------------ From: OldBear@world.std.com (William L Roberts) Subject: Need Help With Ancient Western Electric 1A2 KSU Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 15:09:09 GMT I have an old mechanical relay 1A2 KSU installed at my home and a slightly newer version which uses modular cards which I have salvaged from an old building. Can anyone point me to tech data concerning configuring one or the other for such items a common ring, hold circuit, etc. It would also be helpful to have some information on the six-button keysets which go with this system, particularly the differences in their internal configuation with and without the added speakerphone. Also, any thoughts on how a modem can be set up to provide A-A1 support for this sytem, possibly with some exclusion feature so unsuspecting family members cannot inadvertently pick up the line in use? ------------------------------ From: CAK@CRASH.CTS.COM (Curtis Kundred) Subject: Information Wanted on Leewah Datacom Securities Date: 16 Dec 93 02:09:59 PST Does anyone have information on a company Leewah Datacom Securities? I am looking for anyone who might have worked with or for the company and any information you might have on their products. Please reply by E-Mail to cak@crash.cts.com. Curt ------------------------------ From: sher@bbn.com (Lawrence D. Sher) Subject: Is There a Good Cordless Headset Phone? Date: 16 Dec 1993 14:45:53 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) I know of only two cordless telephones that are headsets. Both have a belt pack for batteries, electronics, and buttons. One is sold by Hello Direct and has (at least) the fatal flaw that you cannot answer calls using it alone. The other is new from Radio Shack; it has no local ringer, a very poor range (easing the problem of no local ringer), and cuts off the connection in the presence of noise. Are there any high-quality cordless headset phones? Internet email: sher@bbn.com Larry Sher US Mail: BBN, MS 6/5B, 10 Moulton St., Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 873 3426 FAX: (617) 873 3776 ------------------------------ From: mvm@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (michael.v.murphy) Subject: Two Cellphones With Same Number - a Service? Organization: AT&T Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 23:37:17 GMT I am looking for a way to have two different cellular phones use the same number. Does any company offer this service? I would be willing to pay more if only for the simplicity of having a number to give out/remember. Thanks, mike m [Moderator's Note: There are companies which say they will reprogram your phones to do this, but note they are not service providers, just hardware modification people. In the next message John Landwehr will discuss this further. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John_Landwehr@NeXT.COM (John Landwehr) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 17:35:00 -0600 Subject: Two Cellphones With Same Number? - Not Permitted Ameritech and Cellular One in Chicago claim that you cannot have two cellular phones with the same phone number. (This would be a nice feature if you have a car phone, and a handheld! But they claim the FCC doesn't approve. Translated -> they make more money this way). Their suggestion is call forwarding and no-answer-transfer. So what's the TELECOM Digest way around this? Couldn't you reprogram your second phone based on registration info stored on your first phone? Isn't this what those crooks are illegally doing by pulling up next to you in a van full of electronic goodies to steal your registration information as it goes over the air? (And as a side note, did anyone get a copy of the Motorola Technical Training Manual yet?) 'Inquiring minds want to know...' John Landwehr [Moderator's Note: You can reprogram your cellular phone to anything you like; that does not mean it will work when you try to transmit with it. The catch is, the tower matches the ESN (electronic serial number) of the phone -- over which you have NO control unless you are really knowledgeable about working on the innards of the phone -- with the 'phone number' of record for the instrument being used. If they do not match, then service is denied. There are exceptions which have been discussed here in the past. If you can change the ESN, and there are people who know how to do it as a hardware mod for example, then you are all set. You swap the ESN *and* the phone number, making the two always match with cell company records and you are all set. The trouble is, this defeats the fraud controls established by the carrier and you have no one to blame but yourself if later on you get stuck with a bunch of calls halfway around the world on your cellular bill. I think it is too bad the cellular carriers insist on one or nothing where the ESN is concerned. It seems like they could change that field in their records to allow for two or three ESNs to all be valid per 'number'; that would offer a compromise between security and user convenience. Having two or three eligible ESNs for users who wanted that many would still for all intents and purposes provide the same level of security as exists now. The cell companies might want to have users who request this sign off on something agreeing to accept liability for some amount of fraud should it occur in order to protect themselves. Naturally only the original ESN would be valid for calls unless a second or third ESN was specifically entered in the records, and I would probably hold the line at three; no one needs more than that if that many. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 10:33 EST From: pad@groucho.att.com (Patricia A Dunkin +1 201 386 6230) Subject: Cordless Phone Questions 1) On phones with several channels, is autoselect or do-it-yourself preferable for the average user? Autoselect sounds like a good idea, but does it work as advertised, or are most people better off having direct control over which channel is in use? 2) My sister's family has been noticing an increase in the amount of crosstalk they get. The last straw was overhearing a conversation that sounded as clear as a normal telephone connection. When she called U.S. West, they said cordless phones (not her corded phone, but other people's cordless phones) were probably causing the trouble. This was not much help to her. Is there anything she can do, or can get U.S. West to do? Thanks, Pat Dunkin (pad@groucho.att.com) [Moderator's Note: Cordless phones are becoming so common and widely accepted that those ten channels allocated for their use around 46.6 mhz are pretty busy in some areas. Perhaps the cordless phone manufacturers and the FCC never figured that a day would come when more than ten people living in the same apartment complex would all have cordless phones and want to use them at the same time. It used to be assumed that even if the cordless phone had only one channel (out of the ten channels allocated), as long as the phones were sold randomly around the country it was unlikely any two users living next to each other would wind up with a phone on the same frequency as their neighbor. Of course that's not the case any longer. With cordless phones in many households and baby monitors or children's walkie-talkies in the rest, the 46/49 territory is starting to get crowded. Add in a few Radio Shack remote-controlled toy cars and airplanes for your listening pleasure (many are in the 27 megs area squeezed between the CB channels but others are up there in 46/49 with the phones) and you can get a real zoo. Telco understandably takes the position that once they deliver the dial tone to you in good working condition to your 'demarc', the rest of the problem is yours. You don't mention if your sister's crosstalk problem is on her wired phone or her cordless phone. If on the latter, she's stuck. Tell her to buy one of the new 900 mhz phones from Radio Shack. If the crosstalk is on her wired phone *and she has her cordless phone plugged in, even if not using it* it still might be her problem rather than telco. For instance, I have around here somewhere an *old* cordless phone from the days when they were in the 27 megs/11 meter area. Some guy living a couple miles away has a CB radio he runs like a house afire, running illegal power all the time. His signal splashes so much it makes the relays in the base of the cordless chatter regardless of if it is being used or not. When he keys up his radio, the cordless base gets confused and goes off hook, busying out my phone line, and his modulations come right on down through the base and into the phone line. Two miles away ... that's how strong that signal is from his CB. Tell sister to unplug (from the power line and the phone line) any cordless phone she has. If the trouble is gone, good for her. She can go get a new improved bang-up 900 mhz cordless and have some peace in her life again. If the trouble does *not* go away at that point, *then* call telco to complain about crosstalk. She should tell them it was 'tested at the demarc' (not quite, but for all intents and purposes that's where she tested it) and the trouble persists. Then it becomes telco's problem; not before what with the nutty and overzealous CB operators in the world and babies who squall all day long into their monitors, etc. For further reading on the way in which radio signals interfere with each other and household electronic appliances, etc see the article in TELECOM Digest from a few years ago "Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters" which discussed the citizens of Hammond, Indiana and their battle with the very strong, improperly modulated signals of WYCA Christian Broadcasters, a local FM station which was irradiating them day after day. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dk@crl.com (David A. Kaye) Subject: ZEnith, ENterprise, Fred & Ethyl Date: 16 Dec 1993 00:50:13 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [login: guest] David Cornutt (cornutt@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov) wrote: > vice versa. I think Zenith was largely the independent telcos where > Enterprise was mostly for the Bell System. [....] > Fred & Ethyl Enterprises Birmingham > Ask the Operator For..... WX-9999 Here in the SF Bay Area the universal California Highway Patrol (state police) number was ZEnith 1-2000, though this state is 90% Bell. There were also numerous ENterprise numbers. In addition, for mobile phones there were XY numbers in the format above (Ask operator for XY 1-9000). Of course, there was a time when there really was a "Z" on the phone dial where the zero is. [Moderator's Note: I wish someone from the old Bell System who was around the company in those days would write and explain precisely the difference between Zenith and Enterprise. Was it just the telco's choice which one to use, or was there some technical reason in the accounting/revenue office that one was used some places and the other in the rest of the country, or? Come to think of it, besides seeing Zenith as the automatic reverse charge prefix used a lot by GTE, I think I saw a few sheriffs whose jurisdiction included people who were a toll call to reach him on Zenith. What was the real story? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gerry Palmer Subject: Satellite Link Questions Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 15:16:17 -0500 Organization: ION Publishing Systems Can anyone help answer these questions? 1) Is the time delay on a bidirectional satellite link to great to allow LAN traffic (WAN traffic, that is!)? 2) For unidirectional satellite links, is a low-speed flow control line always necessary in the other direction? 3) Is there anyone out there that sells a canned satellite solution so that I can drop a file on a shared directory and have it appear at the other end (unidirectional link preferable). Thanks very much, Gerry Palmer Phone: 301-718-8857 ION Publishing Systems, Inc. Fax: 301-718-6586 4915 St. Elmo Ave. #500 Bethesda, MD 20814 ------------------------------ From: cleyste@kn.pacbell.com (Charlie L Eyster) Subject: FAX Modem Wanted For Disabled Worker Date: 16 Dec 93 18:05:35 GMT Organization: Pacific * Bell Knowledge Network I am looking for a fax modem with easy to use software for a physically disadvantaged employee. Does anyone know, or have experience with a product that is easy to use. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 05:56:14 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: AC 520 for Arizona in March 1995 Notice that one of the ideas (accurate or not) which has floated around concerning the NANP is that Mexico could become reachable with area codes of form 52x where x is not 0; the current history file refers to "not necessarily 0" and I will have to delete the word "necessarily". I see no Mexican city codes listed which start with 0. As you know, Arizona borders Mexico. There was also the idea that the first NNX area codes would be of form NN0, which fits 520 (but does not fit 334, which was announced for Alabama). Would some people get confused and try to "correct" 520 to 502? (502 is in western Kentucky, including Louisville.) ------------------------------ From: transvox@tyrell.net (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: Only Two "Operating" IXCs in DC Organization: Tyrell Corp. Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 04:58:01 GMT Paul Robinson (TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM) wrote: > I was asked: >> I am sure there is some technicality in the word "operating" that >> I am not educated about. > This comment is correct and I used the wrong term. Rather than use > the term "operating" I should have said either "domiciled" or > "headquartered". > As far as I know, only two long distance companies have their > headquarters in Washington, DC. Mid Atlantic Telecom and MCI. Sprint > is in Shawnee Mission, KS if I remember, and AT&T is in Basking Ridge, > NJ. Number 4, which is Wiltel, if I'm not mistaken, is domiciled in > Tulsa, Oklahoma, I think. Anyone care to name who number five is? Can't name number five, but can clarify Sprint's location. It is in Westwood, Kansas, just across the Missouri border from Kansas City, MO. Sprint actually is domiciled in office buildings all throughout the area, including some in KCMO and some in Overland Park, KS. Westwood actually is a small bedroom community. The only other major business there that I'm aware of are radio stations KMBZ and KLTH (ex-KMBR-FM). BTW, there is no such thing as "Shawnee Mission, KS" -- that is a fiction of the U.S. Postal Service's imagination (and the name of the largest school district in Johnson County, KS). Mark Roberts -- Kansas City, MO -- in an orbit of mine own.... E-Mail: transvox@tyrell.net, mark808@delphi.com V-Mail: coming sometime?! [Moderator's Note: While the names of the 'big three' are never disputed where long distance is concerned (AT&T, MCI and Sprint in that order) who comes in fourth and fifth is subject to a lot of bickering among all the players. Wiltel is one candidate, but LCI (the carrier for the Orange Card) is another for fourth place. I guess it depends on how you cook the books each time Dun and Bradstreet comes looking around. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: olson@mcs.anl.gov (Bob Olson) Subject: Re: No ISDN Despite Big Talk Organization: Math and Computer Science, Argonne National Laboratory Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 14:52:25 GMT In article , Comroe-CDCS37 Rich wrote: > However, when I recently moved residences (just three months > ago), I was surprised when Illinois Bell Telephone refused to offer > ISDN to my new house. When I asked how come, they told me that it was > only tariffed for business, and consequently not available for a > residence. That's very odd. In an ad glossy I recently received from Ameritech they hype ISDN as a solution for home offices. Perhaps you should ask again. bob ------------------------------ From: barry@ictv.com (Barry Lustig) Subject: Re: No ISDN Despite Big Talk Organization: ICTV, Inc., Santa Clara, CA (408) 562-9200 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 09:13:02 GMT In article , Robert L. McMillin wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 1993 02:45:41 GMT, westes@netcom.com (Will Estes) said: >> I think you are missing the big picture here. Within one year, people >> are going to be able to buy unlimited 10 Megabit per second connections >> to the net via existing cable TV cable, with a V.FAST or similar channel >> going upstream. This is going to cost $99/month or less for unlimited >> network use. > And who will be willing to pay $99/month for that? I certainly > wouldn't. Talk to me when you have it down to $20/month or less. I for one, would be more than happy to get Internet access for $99/month. You have to remember that, currently, Internet access (I don't mean just an account on an Internet attached machine) can cost as much as $800/month for a 56Kb pipe, depending upon you location. $99/month is cheap by comparison. barry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 00:48:50 EST Reply-To: 0005066432@MCIMAIL.COM Subject: Re: What Happened to "811" Numbers? From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA > Another reason to do away with 811 numbers is the similarity to > 911. While I have not personally experienced it, it is my > understanding that some switches are programmed with heuristic > rules so that numbers "sufficiently close" to 911 will be > intercepted to 911. Not in my area. Here's some tests I tried. (Note when I say 'supervise' I mean the small 'click' the phone company sends back to tell you it has accepted the dialed number.) Well, unlike some people's comments, dialing '91' and then sitting and waiting doesn't cause anything to happen. Dialing '211' plus most any combination of 4 digits returns busy; I tried things like the last 4 digits of my number, and that's also busy. '311' for some reason, goes to directory assistance. '411' is, of course, directory assistance. Dialing '511' or '711' *instantly* begins to ring. At midnight Friday I tried five rings; Nobody answers - no recording, nothing. C&P Telephone has returned to '611' as the number for repair service. Dialing '811' takes about five seconds to supervise, and about twelve seconds it goes to a loud 'baw-baw-baw' tone, not the same as reorder. I just tried it a moment ago. Dialing '911' takes about four seconds to supervise, and then it begins to ring. I instantly hung up as soon as I heard a ring, which from the last '1' to the ring was about five seconds. Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ------------------------------ From: sharpe_r@ix.wcc.govt.nz (Russell Sharpe) Subject: Re: 5ESS CentraNet Question Date: 16 Dec 1993 10:41:54 GMT Organization: Wellington City Council, Public Access Reply-To: sharpe_r@ix.wcc.govt.nz In article , Bonnie J Johnson writes: > Presently we can have Call Waiting on No Answer Diversion but NOT on > Busy Diversion. It's called a *Service Feature Conflict*, Call Waiting, and Diversion on Busy both use the same _System Register_ to direct the switch processor to the correct subroutine program. It has the same effect as instructing a processor to do two things simultaneoulsy with the same register ... you will probably get a system error, or a corruption. In my eleven years in the business, I have not yet heard of any switch, (PABX or CO switch) capable of this somewhat impossible task. In New Zealand, our NEC NEAX61E's will, if you have a Voice Mailbox, Call Waiting, and No Answer diversion, a waiting call will divert to the mailbox after the predetermined duration. If you can preset the time before diversion to between zero and thirty seconds, if you are maiking an important (or modem call), you can set your diversion time to zero, thus effectively Diversion on Busy. If your 5ESS (which I know very little about) has these services, this may be an answer. Regards, Russell Sharpe UseNet: sharpe_r@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz FidoNet: 3:771/370 & 3:771/160 Voice: +64 4 5639099 snailmail: 171 Holborn Drive Stokes Valley 6008 New Zealand ------------------------------ From: mzmijews@mgzcs.demon.co.uk (George Zmijewski) Subject: Re: Wiring a New Home - Suggestions? Organization: MGZ Computer Services Reply-To: mzmijews@mgzcs.demon.co.uk Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 11:27:03 In article bobt@zeus.net.com writes: > I am having a new home built and would like to install the wiring now > that I might need for future technologies. What would you recommend? > Cable, fiber, copper, etc. Any suggestions welcome. I wired my house about four years ago. Nothe that this was done in UK and some things differ ie. one phone = four wires; two for speech, one for ring shunt, one for earth recall (for PABX); for power we have 240 volts in the socket so our 30Amps = 65Amps @110 volts. The idea was to put enough wire for next five to seven years. POWER: Each room has separate circuit for sockets (30 A - British Standard) Each room downstairs has separate light circuit (10 A) 3 Bedrooms upstairs have one light circuit (10 A) Landing/Stairs have separate light circuit (5 A) Bathroom has separate light circuit (5 A) Kithchen + Utility room 2 30 A circuits - one above the worktop for all the thing you plug in for making food, and second, below the worktop for oven , fridge, freezer Utility room only separate circuit for dishwasher and washing machine (30 A) Basement (where all wires come to) separate circuit for light, and separate circuit for sockets In the basement I have installed two sets for power fail fluorescent lights (I got them second hand from some shop fitter) they have NiCd batteries and keep one or two fluorescent tubes on for about 75 minutes; they switch on automatically on power failure. I found this the most useful feature in my house; you can take the fuse box to pieces, put it back again and all with normal light, also when RCB trips the lights I can get to the fuse box without breaking my legs over the junk in the basement. Bathroom light, kitchen "above worktop" circuits are on separate RCB the most likely to trip, also lower rated RCBs are more sensitive. Light circuits are on separate RCB from socket circuits -- I don't want lights going off when there's a fault in my HiFi. Kitchen "below worktop circuit" is not protected by RCB -- I don't want my freezer to be without power when I'm out and RCB falsely trips. I use basement circuit for "Computers only" -- it goes through UPS (latest addition). I have single core 10 A rated cable connected to each light switch and terminating near the fuse box - this allows me to connect room lights to timmer switch overrriding the wall switch (an anti burglar device) OTHER CABLING: Cables running to two opposite corners of each room: Two four pair phone cables, two shielded eight core serial cables, one ethernet, one TV coax, there is ethernet cable linking two oposite sockets in each room so that I can make loop from the basement, round the room and back to the basement. Eight core alarm type cable is terminating in all those places where infrared movement detectors get a good view of the protected space; also I have magnetic switches embeded in widows and doors (in addition to alarm use it is handy indicator that all windows are closed.) After four years I have found the most redundant is shielded serial cable (seemed to be good idea at the time second hand terminals were cheap and ethernet cards were expensive) I use it now to connect my DOS PC upstairs to PBX programming socket in I want to reconfigure it, also I have terminal connected to the call logging socket of the PBX -- (it shows me where my money goes :) ) Nowdays ethernet serves all computer related connections. A lot of phone wiring is very useful -- I have on average two phones in every room so when phone rings it is never further that an arm's length (just my lazy nature). I have underestimated my need for external telephone lines. I had six pair cable running to the connection box where telco can terminate their wires I have replaced that with 20 pair now. (If I get over 20 pair I will get ground cable feed to the basement.) I wanted to use some of the spare phone wiring to connect speakers around the house for background music -- now I can have music relayed via the speaker in my phones (reasonable quality) with the ability to switch it on/of and volume control at each point. (The switch I have now for voice extensions is Northen Telecom NortStar Compact; modems and fax are routed via another switch.) Total length of cable use I estimated at about 1.5 miles into standard English Terrace house (three up two down kitchen, utility, bathroom). Extra cost estimated at about 2000 USD Wall space in the basement used for connection matrixes 4 ft by 9 ft ! George Zmijewski [Moderator's Note: Wow! You are *wired*, no doubt about it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #822 ****************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253