TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Oct 92 01:42:35 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 782 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Question About Caller ID Information Display (Darren Alex Griffiths) Re: Questions About Token Ring Bridge (Pat Turner) Re: Question For Michigan Residents (Arthur Rubin) Re: Question About ROLM PBX Telephones (Joseph Bergstein) Re: Touch Tone Question (Tom Kovar) Re: Touch Tone Question (Richard Cox) Re: Answering Machine CPC? (Bill Pfeiffer) Re: Answering Machine CPC? (Arthur Rubin) Re: Help Needed With Modem Problem (Bob Ackley) Re: PC-Based Voicemail Systems (Michael Rosen) Re: FCC Acts on Satelite Radio Plan (Frederick G.M. Roeber) Re: "...is the Highest Law of the Land..." (Steve Forrette) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Question About Caller ID Information Display Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 12:27:54 PDT From: dag@ossi.com art@aficom.ocunix.on.ca (Art Hunter) writes: > The Caller-ID message is 1200 bps and resides between rings > one and two. There are two other ways that the specification says it > can come. One is when the handset is on-hook and is NOT ringing and > the other is when the handset is off-hook and not ringing. The latter > is designed so that you can obtain the identification of the calling > party (like call waiting) while you are talking to someone else. > To date, I am only aware of the message between rings one and > two as being implemented by the telcos. It is just a matter of time > for the other two applications to be implemented. Is there a provision to send the infomration to a voice mail service? I have PacBell's Message Center service on my phone and if the PUC and PacBell ever get their respective acts together I would like to have a voice recording of the calling party's phone number before messages are received. Cheers, Darren Alex Griffiths dag@nasty.ossi.com Open Systems Solutions Inc. (510) 652-6200 x139 Fujitsu Ltd. Fax: (510) 652-5532 6121 Hollis Street Emeryville, CA 94608-2092 ------------------------------ From: turner@Dixie.COM Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 16:02 EDT From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP Reply-To: turner@Dixie.COM Subject: Re: Questions About Token Ring Bridge > We have two token ring network running at two different buildings. We > try to use fiber optic cable to bridge them together. The problem is > the cable come out of the LAM on both side is T1 type. Is there a > device that converts it into fiber optic? Several companies make what you need. AT&T makes the FT1 which will support B8ZS and AMI. It's avaiable in both single and multimode models. ADC also makes a similar product also called FT1 (I think). Fibermux makes a model called the Fiber [in?] Loop Convertor. Pat Turner KB4GRZ turner@dixie.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Question For Michigan Residents From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) Date: 14 Oct 92 15:36:47 GMT Reply-To: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) In damon@sunburn.stanford.edu (Damon A. Koronakos) writes: > A friend of mine in Kalamazoo recently got an IBM-compatible machine. > I would like to be able to exchange electronic mail with him if > possible. > Does anyone have any suggestions about how I might establish net > access for him? Is there something like netcom.com in the Bay Area in > the Kalamazoo area (a cheap service which provides net access)? I > don't know if Prodigy/Compuserve-type services provide email access to > the net, how much extra (if any) this costs, etc. > Any suggestions much appreciated!! This seems to be an FA(sked)Q here, but not FA(nswered). I the best answer is to check the NIXPUB (comp.bbs.misc or alt.bbs), NETPUB and/or PDIAL (alt.internet.access.wanted,alt.bbs.lists, news.answers) lists for info. CompuServe, MCI Mail, (but not Prodigy) provide network E-mail. See the Inter-Network Mail Guild posted occasionally on comp.mail.misc. I don't recall exactly Compuserve's or MCI Mail's prices, but MCI Mail charges 75 cents for sending an E-mail message of 500-5000 characters (according to my last bill), and has a free 800 number. There is also an annual mailbox fee ($25?) and a graphics registration fee for generation of paper mail ($25 per signature or letterhead). I believe MCI Mail is the least expensive of the services I subscribe to for E-mail only access. Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea 216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important. ------------------------------ From: Joseph.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joseph Bergstein) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:26:14 -0500 Subject: Re: Question About ROLM PBX Telephones In a message from Martin McCormick, he states: > The Rolm PBX'S are made by Seimens, as far as I know. ROLM PBX'x have been made by the Rolm Company since they were founded. As I recall, ROLM actually started out manufacturing MILSPEC Nova (Data General) computers in the early '70s. I recall seeing them as the console computer on early Amdahl 470 mainframes. Rolm PBXs up to and including the current 9751 are still made by ROLM. Since the ROLM - Siemens merger, and subsequent acquisition, the two firms indicate that they are merging their technology platforms, but so far Siemens does not make ROLM PBX's, per se (other than now owning the ROLM company). ------------------------------ From: tom@bim.itc.univie.ac.at (Tom Kovar) Subject: Re: Touch Tone Question Organization: Inst.of Theor.Chemistry,Univ.of Vienna,Austria Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:11:20 GMT TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Does your system continue pulsing even after the > connection has been established? You might try hitting the * or # > keys first, then the answering machine commands. Some systems will > quit pulsing and just pass along the tones if they get the * or # > first as a signal to not pulse but just pass along what is heard. > Other than that, you may have to get one of the handheld touchtone > pads which you hold up to the receiver and press ... and that is > assuming your system won't start pulsing when it hears those tones > also. Incidentally, in the regular course of dialing, what does the * > and # produce? Sometimes they act like repeat dial, etc. PAT] Hitting */# does not change anything (either on the phone, or on the handheld pad) - both simply send their beep, and the gate continues pulsing. That's apparently the problem -- the gate seems not to have noticed that the connection has been established, and pulses on and on. I have fould a very silly solution in the meantime -- I switch (mechanically :-) ) the phone into the pulsing mode and dial; in this case, the gate accepts me as a pulser, and doesn't switch into the converting mode. After the connection is established, I switch into the touch tone mode, and the beeps are passed through. But this solution is not very smart. Anyhow, thanks, Tom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:10 GMT From: Richard Cox Subject: Re: Touch Tone Question Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk Tom asked about suppressing tone-to-pulse-conversion. We do it where necessary by using the PABX hold facility, and then picking the call back up from hold. At that stage the "register" that detects the MF digits will have been dropped, and your MF should go out unimpeded. *Should*, I said! Richard Cox Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF Voice: +44 222 747111 Fax: +44 222 711111 VoiceMail: +44 399 870101 E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Bill.Pfeiffer@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer) Subject: Re: Answering Machine CPC? Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:40:30 -0500 (CDT) In a recent TELECOM digest, hes@ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes: > What does "CPC" mean? What does it detect (battery reversal?) Why > would an answering machine allow this to be switched off? Is "CPC" a > common answering machine capability/feature? > [Moderator's Note: CPC means 'called (calling?) party control'. It > is switchable on/off is because if a line is also equipped with > call waiting, then the voltage drop from a call waiting signal would > also trick the answering machine in to disconnecting. ... > take your pick: fast disconnect when the voltage change is detected, > IE no dial tone and 'please hang up now' messages (etc). You can't have > it both ways and the switch lets you the user decide. PAT] Actually, you can have it both ways, sort of. Many machines have a three position switch labeled (something like) CPC-off-A-B. The idea is that there are really two cpc pulses, of differing duration, one long and one short. The shorter one is sent out immediately upon the disconnection of the calling party, the other (longer duration) is sent out just before the new dialtone (or intercept 'please hangup now' message) comes on the line. The call waiting CPC is closer to the initial, shorter pulse. So with your CPC in the 'B' position, it supposedly will ignore the shorter, immediate pulse, and wait for the longer one. Result? A bit of line noise after the hangup, but no dialtones or hang up messages, and the machine will not dump on call waiting tones.. I understand that with newer digital call waiting, (the quiet kind that does not have the traditional 'cachunk' on the other end) there is no CPC pulse. William Pfeiffer Moderator - rec.radio.broadcasting - Internet Radio Journal To subscribe, send a request to rrb@airwaves.chi.il.us ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Answering Machine CPC? From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) Date: 14 Oct 92 16:10:08 GMT Reply-To: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) On my home phone answering machine, if the machine is active, additional callers get a busy signal even though we have call waiting. I don't know exactly why. BTW, as stated in one of my answering machine manuals, CPC doesn't work well in some exchanges where the line voltage is not properly regulated. They suggest you turn it off if people complain that the answering machine is hanging up on them. Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea 216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important. [Moderator's Note: It is interesting you mention that callers get a busy signal while the answering machine is taking a call. Usually subscribers with call waiting will only return busy signal to callers (instead of ringing tone and them receiving a call-waiting tone) when the called subscriber is off hook (or otherwise connected to the network but not off hook such as being signalled) and not supervised. For example in the short period when you go off hook to dial a number but before you have been 'supervised' by the central office then an incoming call will receive a busy signal. Likewise this occurs if someone is ringing your phone when a second party also calls you. And it won't even function like a 'real' busy signal at that; forward on busy (for example to voicemail) will not work, nor will call waiting, although hunting will. I have to wonder if somehow your answering machine is tricking the network into thinking there has not been an answer, in the style of the old (were they called?) 'black boxes'? That would indeed be a curious bit of workmanship. Incidentally, I have noticed in some Chicago CO's that if you are connected with a phone number that does not usually supervise (such as the number for the remote access call forwarding service) that incoming calls to you during that time will get a busy signal in the same way. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 01:51:26 CST From: Bob.Ackley@ivgate.omahug.org (Bob Ackley) Subject: Re: Help Needed With Modem Problem Reply-To: bob.ackley@ivgate.omahug.org In a message of <30 Sep 92 18:08:23>, Sky Striker (11:30102/2) writes: > Is anyone out there using a Macintosh and a MultiTech MultiModemV32 > (9600 baud)? I'm trying to figure out what I should have the dip > switches and the settings at. I have the book on the modem but for > some reason I just can't get it setup right. I will connect fine > except when it connects and says "Connect 9600 LAPM" then it will run > fine for awhile then it will aways with out warning drop carrier on > me. Any help any one could give on figuring out what I'm doing wrong > would be greatly appreciated. Thanks ... If it connects at all it's set up properly, all we're doing now is tweaking. You are probably getting a noise burst on (either side of) the line long enough to cause the modem (at one end or the other) to think it's lost the carrier, so it hangs up. There should be a DIP switch or a command to tell the modem to wait a bit longer after losing carrier before it hangs up. msged 1.99S ZTC Bob's Soapbox, Plattsmouth Ne (1:285/1.7) ------------------------------ From: mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Re: PC-Based Voicemail Systems Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 03:33:45 GMT I'm looking into possibly getting a voice mail system myself. I've been told that the Complete Communicator is the best (at least in the area of fax/modem & voice mail I guess). They have their CC Gold that I was looking at, but it's only a 9600 baud modem and I'd like to jump up to 14.4K. Does anybody know of a fax/modem voice mail card that incorporates 14.4K modem speed as well? I've heard of ZyXEL -- supposedly they have a new upgrade that has voice mail added to their fax/modem. Can anyone attest to the quality of this brand of fax/modems? Thanks, Michael Rosen Tau Epsilon Phi - George Washington University mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu Michael.Rosen@bbs.oit.unc.edu or @lambada.oit.unc.edu ------------------------------ From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch Subject: Re: FCC Acts on Satelite Radio Plan Reply-To: roeber@cern.ch Organization: CERN -- European Organization for Nuclear Research Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:11:59 GMT In article , FZC@CU.NIH.GOV writes: > Federal regulators yesterday moved to clear the way for a new > generation of radio entertainment services in which satelites would > beam compact-disc quality directly to cars and homes. > Skeptics say the radio business is firmly grounded in local > information such as traffic reports, news and advertising. Moreover, > the huge costs of launching satellites and creating a national > marketing organization might make the ventures collapse under their > own weight. [...] This is a much more popular idea in Europe, where the popular radio stations tend to be national (e.g. BBC), and languages vary over short distances. I don't think it will work in the states; as the article mentioned, European-style direct-broadcast satellite TV has been approved for a decade, and it still hasn't taken off. Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research e-mail: roeber@cern.ch or roeber@caltech.edu | work: +41 22 767 31 80 r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44 ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: "...is the Highest Law of the Land..." Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:30:44 GMT > [Moderator's Note: That is a very interesting finding ... where the > state constitution is a bit hard to change, public utility commissions > are bought and sold all the time. :( PAT] The state constitution may be hard to change in many states, but not in California. One of the ways is a simple majority of the voters on a ballot initiative. Some constitution! Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #782 ******************************