TELECOM Digest Tue, 31 May 94 07:46:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 260 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Help Needed: Fax/Answering Machine/Phone (Kathy Vincent) x.25 and Internet (Min Hu) Help: Bad Phone Lines in San Jose (Terry Greenlee) Re: Need Distinctive Ring Line Splitter (puma@netcom.com) Re: Hexadecimal Uuencode? (Glen C. Hoag) Re: Hexadecimal Uuencode? (Rob Levandowski) Re: Hexadecimal Uuencode? (John Gardiner Myers) Re: Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy Wanted (John Lundgren) Re: Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy Wanted (Evan Gamblin) Re: FCC Seeks Further Comments on 0+ Call Routing (safer@delphi.com) Re: Annoying COCOT Problem (Stu Jeffery) Re: Annoying COCOT Problem (safer@delphi.com) Re: DTMF Decoding Help Needed (John Lundgren) Re: Can a Unix Box Work as an Internet Router? (John R Levine) Re: Using Call Forwarding to Avoid Tolls (Shag Aristotelis) Re: Sprint "Combined Billing" Error (Mark E Daniel) Re: Equal Access is Not Available Here (David Devereaux-Weber) Re: Rude Not to Leave Answering Machine Messages? (Ole Hellevik) 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: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * 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: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** 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: vincentk@ac.wfunet.wfu.edu (Kathy Vincent) Subject: Help Needed: Fax/Answering Machine/Phone Date: 31 May 1994 03:23:49 GMT Organization: Wake Forest University A friend of mine is having problems on her business telephone line with a combination FAX machine, answering machine, and two-line cordless telephone. Description of the setup: She has two telephone lines -- two separate jacks, one for the business line and one for the personal line. (Both are voice lines.) The business line has three pieces of equipment on it, connected in the following order: WALL ----> FAX -------> Answering ----> Cordless Machine Machine Telephone The answering machine has to come after the FAX machine on the line so that if the answering machine picks up and a FAX tone is coming in, the FAX machine will hear the tone and pick up the line. The personal line is also connected to the same cordless telephone -- from the wall directly to the telephone (a two-line phone). The equipment is: FAX machine: Sharp GQ-60 (5 yrs old) Answering machine: Sony digital TAM-1000 (3 mos old) Telephone: Panasonic 2-line phone system KX-T3980H (1 mo old) (cordless) Description of the problem: Anytime the line is open for 120 seconds, the FAX machine cuts in. Even if my friend is talking on the phone, even if she is just calling in remotely to pick up messages from her answering machine. The only way to stop the FAX machine from cutting in is to turn it off -- which defeats the purpose of having the machine. Also, my friend spends a lot of time out of the office as part of her work, so she's not there to turn off the machine -- and, furthermore, needs the whole collection of equipment to be working precisely BECAUSE she's not there. Request for help/suggestions/anythingelseuseful: 1. Does anyone have any ideas how my friend might be able to get all that equipment to work together -- and keep the FAX machine from interrupting after any and every 120 seconds of open line? Any useful tricks to try? Might there be some piece of not-too-expensive (<$100) equipment that could solve the problem? 2. Can anyone recommend integrated equipment -- a 3-in-one combination in which all THREE elements are quality? She says she's found some combinations, but the answering machine is usually junk. She would prefer a digital answering machine (i.e., no tapes). Can anyone recommend anything that might do the job -- especially anything <=$500? Thanks for any help, via follow-up or email. If anyone else is interested, I'll summarize any email responses on the net. Kathy Vincent vincentk@ac.wfunet.wfu.edu ------------------------------ Subject: x.25 and Internet From: Min Hu Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 02:24:32 -0400 I am wondering if there is any free gateway between X.25 network and Internet. Specifically speaking, a friend of mine has account in the X.25 network -- DATAPAC, a X.25 network in Canada. I have an account on an Internet machine. I want to transfer some files to him, but do not know if there is a gateway between DATAPAC and the Internet so that he can log into my system. Thanks, MIN ------------------------------ From: terry@hh.sbay.org (Terry Greenlee) Subject: Help: Bad Phone Lines in San Jose Date: 30 May 94 20:44:36 GMT Organization: Hip-Hop BBS I am having trouble with my phone lines at home and I was wondering if anyone else had this same thing happen to them? My existing two lines in my home work fine at 14.4. The phone company brought in more lines to add a third line. The third line will only connect at 7200 bd at best and usually 4800 bd. I tested them at the box beside the house to make sure it was not my inside wires. The phone company tested it from the main office and found no problem. Monday a Bell tech will come out to test. I have this same problem in Modesto on a fax line also. Does anyone at Pacific Bell know how to fix these problems? Can you point my in the right direction? Thank you for any help. Terry terry@hh.sbay.org ------------------------------ From: puma@netcom.com (puma) Subject: Re: Need Distinctive Ring Line Splitter Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 01:07:21 GMT In article , Al Cohan <0004526627@mcimail. com> wrote: > I purchased a device from Lynx Automation, Inc. in Washington State > and the device is purported to sense the incoming ring cadence an > forward the call to either a phone system or fax. This unit is > available in two and four line versions corresponding to the four > distinct industry standard cadences available. > We now come to find out that the company says "Oh, it sometimes > doesn't work with 1A2 and some PBX's. It seems to work okay with the > newer electronic key systems". Well I am steamed! MY client is not > about to upgrade to a new system nor pay the $100 installation charge > for a residential line plus about $26.00 per month for low fax usage. I would think, provided that your PBX or 1A2 has individually numbered trunk lines coming in (as opposed to a DID scheme where telco passes the number dialed to you on common trunk lines) that you could install a distinctive ring type switch on the line BEFORE the PBX/1A2. In other words, the incoming line would go to the switch, and the normal single ring output would go to the PBX/1A2, the double ring output would go directly to the FAX. The problem I still see is with hunt groups. The fax line would have to be a separate line not part of a hunt group, otherwise you could not tell which trunk the calls would come in on. I wouldn't think you could get distinctive ring in that situation anyway. puma@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Glen C. Hoag Subject: Re: Hexadecimal Uuencode? Date: Mon, 30 May 94 10:46:07 CDT Organization: Lamir Software Corp. Reply-To: glenhoag@banana-9000.nuance.com In article , alavarre@ids.net writes: > We're having a problem properly recieving attachments from a remote > site. The administrator claims the remote site has a "binary to > hexadecimal" encoder, implying that hex is being transmitted. The > remote site is using CC:Mail. The users we're working with haven't > got a clue ... > Sounds like hogwash to me, I've never heard of such, and all my docs > on three different sets of uuxxcode only talk about binary to ASCII > and back. > But before I jump down their throat I thought I'd ask somebody that > *really* knows what's happening ... Is it possible that the site in question is Mac-based and using BinHex? BinHex is a standard encoding for Macintosh files over "foreign" systems. I'm not familiar with the encoding choices that cc:Mail offers, but many Mac <-> SMTP/UUCP gateways support BinHex and UUencoded AppleSingle (which is yet another can of worms). The actual standard for BinHex is available at the usual Macintosh archives, such as sumex-aim.stanford.edu and mac.archive.umich.edu. There are BinHex decoders for other platforms, as well. ------------------------------ From: rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Rob Levandowski) Subject: Re: Hexadecimal Uuencode? Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York Date: Mon, 30 May 94 17:46:52 GMT In alavarre@ids.net writes: > We're having a problem properly recieving attachments from a remote > site. The administrator claims the remote site has a "binary to > hexadecimal" encoder, implying that hex is being transmitted. The > remote site is using CC:Mail. The users we're working with haven't > got a clue ... Could it be "BinHex", the Macintosh file converter? Mac files are usually run through this program for UNIX emailing; the Mac file structure is difficult to convert to a binary format that other computers can deal with. BinHex, and its workalikes, convert the Mac file to an ASCII representation (which, I believe, is in hexadecimal code). Such files are normally suffixed ".hqx". Rob Levandowski macwhiz@cif.rochester.edu Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester ------------------------------ From: John Gardiner Myers Subject: Re: Hexadecimal Uuencode? Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 16:48:39 -0400 Organization: Systems Group 97, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Well, it would help to see a sample of the message to determine what format it might be in. One possibility might be that it is in MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) format, a relatively new but increasingly popular standard for encoding non-text things in messages. The base64 encoding of MIME, which is usually used for the encoding of binary objects, looks something like: WW91IGhhdmUgdG9vIG11Y2ggdGltZSBvbiB5b3VyIGhhbmRzLCB0byByZWFkIHRoaXMuICAg There is also an encoding called quoted-printable, which looks like normal text with a bunch of = signs in it, especially at the ends of lines. Assuming you don't have any existing MIME-aware software, the easiest way to be able to decode MIME is to get mpack/munpack, via anonymous FTP to ftp.andrew.cmu.edu, in directory pub/mpack. Versions are available for Unix, MS-DOS, Macintosh, and the Amiga. The software can also decode uuencoded messages. If munpack does not produce any results on a particular MIME message, it might help to try again using the "-t" switch (or on the Macintosh, by checking the "Extract Text Parts" box under Preferences). John G. Myers Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU LoseNet: ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up ------------------------------ From: jlundgre@ohlone.kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren) Subject: Re: Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy Wanted Date: 31 May 94 00:49:44 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network Steve Chafe (itstevec@rocky.ucdavis.edu) wrote: > Does anyone know what the average speed (in characters per minute, or > whatever is appropriate) of a professional telegrapher would have been > when wire telegraphy was the main mode of electronic communication? > I'm trying to do a comparison of data communication speed then and > now, so I'd love to hear any thoughts that people can offer. The biography of Thos. A. Edison had some stuff about how fast Edison was at the key. But he was at least twice as fast as an average telegrapher, maybe more. My guess would be about twenty words per minute. BTW You could ask the hams on rec.radio.amateur.misc for an answer. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 20:23:03 -0400 From: egamblin@ott.hookup.net (Evan Gamblin) Subject: Re Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy Wanted > Does anyone know what the average speed (in characters per minute, > or whatever is appropriate) of a professional telegrapher would have > been when wire telegraphy was the main mode of electronic > communication? "A top operator could bang out 40-50 words a minute; 25-35 words was competent". This was the situation in the mid-1850s, according to A Voice From Afar (The History of Telecommunications in Canada), ISBN 0-07-082867-9. Were these five-letter words, as in typing? Evan Gamblin The Halifax Group 903-275 Sparks St Ottawa, Ont K1R 7X9 Canada ------------------------------ From: safer@delphi.com Subject: Re: FCC Seeks Further Comments on 0+ Call Routing Date: Mon, 30 May 94 18:12:20 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Gordon Burditt writes: >> Currently, 0+ calls are sent to the operator services provider >> (OSP) to which the premises owner or payphone provider presubscribes. >> Under BPP, calls would be routed automatically to the OSP preferred by >> the party being billed for the call. For example, a calling card call >> would be routed to the cardholder's preferred OSP. A collect call >> would be routed to the called party's preferred OSP. A call billed to >> a third party would be routed to the OSP to which that third party had >> presubscribed. That just great, lay off thousands from OSP companies. Destroy an entire inudstry, just because a couple of people can't figure out 10xxx? Plus we the consumer will have to come up with millions to fund Bill Party Preference. Then as consumers were going to have to subsidize it too. If you want my opion it's just simplier to dial 1-800-COLLECT or 1-800-CALL-ATT. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 05:30:47 -0800 From: stu@shell.portal.com (Stu Jeffery) Subject: Re Annoying COCOT Problem In TELECOM Digest V14 #257, Darren Griffitsh writes: > Basically, if I call my voice mail system to check for messages the > phone frequently cuts out the keypad, disabling DTMF tones ... Why don't you try a pocket dialer from Radio Shack, etc. Stu Jeffery Internet: stu@shell.portal.com 1072 Seena Ave. voice: 415-966-8199 Los Altos, CA. 94024 fax: 415-966-8199 ------------------------------ From: safer@delphi.com Subject: Re: Annoying COCOT Problem Date: Tue, 31 May 94 07:02:16 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Darren Alex Griffiths writes: > Basically, if I call my voice mail system to check for messages the > phone frequently cuts out the keypad, disabling DTMF tones, before I'm > finished with the call. I've given up using my calling card since the > extra digits allow me to only check two or three messages; without the > calling card I can get through a few more messages but using the pause > or rewind functions are not advised. Misdialing of the password essenti- > ally makes the call useless since I have to redial it and by that time > I wasted most of my precious digits. As a owner of 2000 COCOTS I like to say in defense that we lock out our keypads after connection for protection against fraud because the LEC splashes back dial tone sometimes after a disconnect. NEPTUNEZ@MCIMAIL.COM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why don't *you* resolve that problem by registering with telco to get a coin line then? With telco's assistance and using call supervision, you could eliminate most of the fraud problems you encounter while not making it so rough on your honest customers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sgiblab!news.kn.PacBell.COM!jlundgre@uucp-gw-2.pa.dec.com (John Lundgren) Subject: Re: DTMF Decoding Help Needed Date: 30 May 94 16:05:02 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network DANIEL FINKLER (dfinkler@world.std.com) wrote: > west_c212@orion.crc.monroecc.edu writes: >> I am writing a program that needs to decode telephone touch tone >> signals. The problem is that I am having trouble finding a DTMF >> decoder. If anyone know where I can get ahold of one I would >> appreciate it. > You can use USRobotics courier modems' touch tone recognition feature. > They can recognize DTMF tones, including A,B,C,D. Also, ZyXEL modems can recognize DTMF. There is a ZyXEL FAQ at nctuccca.edu.tw. Under /pc/zyxel/ directory. There are other sites also. John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs Rancho Santiago Community College District 17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 VOI (714) JOHN GAB \ FAX (714) JOHN FRY jlundgre@kn.pacbell.com \ jlundgr@eis.calstate.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 May 94 12:37 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Can a Unix Box Work as an Internet Router? Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass. > If so, what's the *cheapest* router available? Can a Unix box > connect to a digital comm line (56k)? The answer to the first question is an old 286, which costs about $300, running PCROUTE, which is free. You need to add in an Ethernet card, about $60, and the DDS interface. The leased line FAQ just posted includes, a reference for a DDS interface with packet driver software that will let it work under PCROUTE. It's true, PCROUTE has been around for a while. But fortunately IP routing (other than at the highest performance backbone sites) hasn't changed for years, so it works just fine. I use a pair of 286es with Wavelan wireless Ethernet cards to hook to the Internet and it works great. Hard to beat the price. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag Aristotelis) Subject: Re: Using Call Forwarding to Avoid Tolls Date: 31 May 94 00:42:52 GMT Organization: Screaming in Digital, the Queensryche Digest I can offer some practical experience and information concerning the legality of this practice. Two years ago, I put in a forwarding line at a relative's house to avoid tolls on calls to the 'net. At the time, I talked quite a bit to multiple people at the RBOC, and established that it was legal (if, perhaps, not very ethical) since I was paying for all the services involved. Since that time, I have paid $15/month for the line with forwarding, and have as a result had unlimited access to the 'net. The dialin I use has 48 modems on it, in a hunt group, so I also let other net-users from my county (a fairly rural area) dial in through that number and through the data line here, which now also has forwarding on it, pointing to the original forwarding line. This effectively provides free dialins to the state universities for users in two dozen townships. The maximum distance possible from a user through the two forwards to the university dialup is currently approximately 35 to 40 miles. I have developed diagrams covering the entire RBOC territory in this state, and at least one other similar (one-hop) system is in place in the next area code. In the coming months, there's a possibility that an internet access provider will be established in my county, using forwarding lines (set up by guess who) to connect to a higher-level service provider near the city. Shag Screaming in Digital: queensryche-request@pilot.njin.net GEOS Binary Moderator: comp-binaries-geos@pilot.njin.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30May 1994 16:53:04 EST From: mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E Daniel) Subject: Re: Sprint "Combined Billing" Error In article is written: > pheel@panix.com (Mike Pollock) writes: >> Sprint recently changed me over from direct billing to "combined >> billing" on my NYNEX local telephone bill. Simple, right? Wrong. > One solution is simply to not pay the NYNEX bill, call Sprint, and The thing I really dislike about combined billing is that it takes so damn long to be billed for a call. If I make an Ameritech Calling Card today I will be billed for it on my June 1, 94 bill. But if I make a 1+ or a FONCARD call with Sprint (my default carrier) I won't be billed until 7/1. I suppose I ought to call Sprint and say I want a seperate bill as it *used* to be. Either that or switch back. AT&T doesn't suffer from this slowness. Mark E Daniel (Loving SysOp of The Legend BBS) Inet: mark@legend.akron.oh.us medaniel@delphi.com (Direct INet) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 May 94 14:47:45 CDT From: David Devereaux-Weber Reply-To: David Devereaux-Weber Subject: Re: Equal Access is Not Available Here Jeff.Shaver@f615.n14.z1.fidonet.org asked about equal access. Jeff, you don't say where this is. Equal Access depends on "generic" software in the telephone central office switch. If their switch doesn't support it, they can't do it untill they put in a new CO switch. Switches costs continue to rise. The increase of technical complexity and cost is making it increasingly difficult for small independents. Public Service Commissions regulate telephone service within their state, and the Federal Communications Commission regulates telephone companies at the federal level. If you want to get the phone company's attention, send them a letter asking them to let you know when they intend to implement equal access. Let them know that if you don't get a response, your next letter will be copied to the PSC and the FCC. David Devereaux-Weber, P.E. weberdd@macc.wisc.edu (Internet) The University of Wisconsin - Madison (608)262-3584 (voice) Division of Information Technology (608)262-4679 (FAX) Network Engineering ------------------------------ From: oleh@eskimo.com (Ole Hellevik) Subject: Re: Rude Not to Leave Answering Machine Messages? Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 21:26:02 GMT J.Harrison@bra0112.wins.icl.co.uk wrote: [ stuff about answering machines deleted ] > Incidentally while I'm at the keyboard ... it's taken me a while to > realise that US analogue cellular systems providers require you, the > the phone owner and payer of the airtime bill, actually to pay for > incoming calls. How the heck have they managed to convince people to > go for that?!? By making the other cost of calling to and from a cellular phone the same as a land line phone, i.e.: no charge (except airtime) if you're in the same city. I don't know how it works in the UK, but I know that in Norway, there is always a toll charge equivalent to the most expensive LD call no matter how close (or far away) the cellphone is. Ole C. Hellevik linqdev!oleh@ole.cdac.com oleh@eskimo.com 74151.1136@compuserve.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #260 ******************************