Pat, the Editor

For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 20 Jun 2005 00:30:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 279

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson
 
    Power Strips for Home Networks (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: DSL Speed (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: ISP Hunting (Julian Thomas)
    Re: ISP Hunting (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: XO Communications (Steven Lichter)
    Re: XO Communications (Tony P.)
    Re: 700-555-4141 Does Not Work (John McHarry)
    Re: 700-555-4141 Does Not Work (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: Pod Slurping Dangerous to Your Company (Tony P.)
    Re: Monitor/Recorder for Residential Power Line Outages? (J McHarry)
    Re: '80' Country Code (Joseph)
    Re: Is it Possible to Buy a Cell Phone With no Plan? (John McHarry)
    Re: Is it Possible to Buy a Cell Phone With no Plan? (Joseph)
    Re: Is it Possible to Buy a Cell Phone With no Plan? (NOTvalid@Xmas)
    Re: Bell Divestiture (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Bell Divestiture (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Bell Divestiture (Tony P.)

Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet.  All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote.  By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.

               ===========================

Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent.  Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime.   Geoffrey Welsh

               ===========================

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.  

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

Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 17:49:42 PDT
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Power Strips for Home Networks
Reply-To: fatkinson@mishmash.com


I suspect that some of you are experiencing this or have already
solved it.  So, maybe one of you can tell me where I can find
something to solve this problem.

I've accumulated so many devices on my home network (and some devices
that are not network related as well) that power strips are an issue.
Most of these devices have the big 'calculator charger' type of power
supply that plugs directly into the AC outlet.

I've been looking for some type of power strip that has eight or more
outlets that are spaced far enough apart that you can plug all of
these things into them without overlapping each other.

Searching the Internet, I've not found anything like this.  The best
is one of those long power strips that you usually install on the wall
as a permanent part of the house electrical system.  I think there
might be something much better.  Or maybe someone has a better
suggestion.

Any ideas?  


Fred 


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What I have done is use the 'normal'
size power strips, and daisy-chained three of them together. That is,
the final outlet on one of them is used to feed the next strip, etc.
Lisa's mother came in one day to do her housecleaning work and 
screamed at me saying "you are going to burn the whole house down
like that!" That would not surprise me.   PAT]

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: DSL Speed
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:09:19 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.278.13@telecom-digest.org>,
Choreboy  <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:

> Robert Bonomi wrote:

>> In article <telecom24.276.9@telecom-digest.org>,
>> Choreboy  <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:

>>> A relative has a farm. His phone service comes in on 700 yards of
>>> ordinary telephone cable buried along his driveway.  Last week he got
>>> Bellsouth DSL.  It comes in on the same conductors as before, but I've
>>> seen speeds fifty times faster than dialup.

>>> I thought 56K was the fastest speed possible with conventional
>>> telephone cable.  How can DSL be so much faster with the same old
>>> cable?

>> You thought 'wrongly'.   <grin>

>> "56k" is the theoretical maximum speed you can get across a (mostly
>> analog) POTS service circuit.  The limit is not in the wiring, per se,
>> but in the _equipment_ (the 'switch' in the telco 'central office')
>> that that signal has to pass through.  "Voice" calls, including data
>> modem, and fax, over POTS PSTN, leave your house as analog signals. at
>> the telco, the first thing that happens is that they are converted to
>> a _digital_ data-stream.  this conversion is done at a rate of 8000
>> samples/second., with 8-bits of data 'precision' for each sample.
>> This means that there is 64,000 bits/second of digital data flowing
>> through the switch for a voice line.  You cannot send more data than
>> that via _analog_ origin signalling, And, to achieve that 64,000
>> bit/second, your signalling must exactly match (and be synchronized
>> with) the intervals used by the analog-to-digital conversion gear in
>> the C.O.  If there is _precisely_one_ analog/digital conversion in the
>> path, then, with some fancy games on the 'digital' end, you can come
>> 'close' to that 64,000 bit/sec limit, _without_ requiring the exact
>> synchronization.

> If 56K is the theoretical limit usually given, does this mean only
> seven bits are useful to the customer?  It seems as if modems
> negotiate speeds in increments of 4% or so.  I wonder why that is.

The answers to *that* are long, involved, and _very_ technical.

A vastly over-simplified explanation is that an A/D conversion has a
theoretical best accuracy of +/- 1/2 bit.  meaning that there is an
inherent error range of a full one-bit worth

>> The _wire_, itself, is capable of passing a much broader range of
>> signals.  *If* the signal doesn't have to go through the 'voice'
>> switching equipment, you are not restricted by the limits of _that_
>> equipment.

> On dialup, the farm couldn't negotiate modem speeds quite as fast as I
> could in town.  I assumed the limitation was in the wire.

It is, and it isn't.  

How far can you yell, and be heard?  How far can you talk on a radio,
and be heard?

The technology used makes a big difference.  <grin>

> That's why I was amazed to see that DSL seems to use the wire in the
> same way as dialup.  Was I wrong to think the reason dialup data
> rates were slower at the farm was that the wire to the CO is longer?

"Sort-of".  It wasn't the actual _length_ of the wire.  If you build
the wire differently, you will get different effects over the same
length of wire.

One of the things that goes on, when you run a _pair_ of wires for any
distance is that there is a capacitance between the two wires. this is
proportional to the length of the run, inversely proportional to the
distance between the wires, the thickness of the insulation, and a
number of other factors.  Capacitance between the signal-carrying
leads has the effect of 'blurring' the signal. which puts a limit on
how fast you can "effectively" change signal levels, to pass
information from one end to the other.

The _methodology_ used to accomplish the signalling determines where,
and to what extent, that 'blurring' degrades the transmission.

DSL _does_ suffer degradation with distance, just as analog POTS
modems do.  If you have 15-18,000 feet of wire between you and the
C.O., you will get much slower maximum rates than if you are less than
a thousand feet from the C.O.

DSL uses a differnt _kind_ of signalling -- which calls for
differently designed transmitters and receivers -- to get the higher
data rate on the bare wires.

>> This is how DSL works, it bypasses the _voice_ switching gear.  It
>> uses just the 'bare wire' between the telco C.O. and the customer
>> premises.  The special eqipment in the C.O. puts a *different*kind*
>> of signal on the wires, that the "DSL modem" at the customer
>> premises understands, and the 'modem' at the customer location does
>> 'something similar', to communicate back to that special equimpent
>> at the Telco offices.

>> Voila! the limitations/restrictions of the telco voice_ switching
>> equipment are bypassed, and thus 'not relevant' to this
>> communication.

> What's the downside for the telco?  With the right pricing, I think
> they could tap a huge market for increased bandwidth.

Connected to _what_?  "Multi-megabit bandwidth" to the C.O. is
-useless-, unless there is "something interesting" to connect to.

Who needs the capability for a dozen or two (or more) simultaneous
voice telephone calls from their house?  For anything other than
voice, you have to have that 'something else' available for access at
the point that that high-capacity circuit from the customer premises
terminates.

Getting _to_ the C.O. from the customer premises is the 'cheap' part.
Whether it is POTS, or DSL, or whatever.  Amortizing the equipment
over, say, 5 years, you're talking about circa $3-5 dollars/month.
The 'wire' cost, amortized over the useful life (50 years+) of the
wire pair, is of the same order, maybe a bit lower.

All the rest of the money goes towards "what to do with it, _after_ it
arrives at the C.O."  For voice, to calls to a number in a different
C.O, you have to have inter-connects to get the call _to_ that C.O.
If there isn't a direct trunk circuit, you have to go through another
layer of switches (called "tandems") -- at least one, possibly several
 -- to get to the destination 'local' switch.  7 figure price-tags, per
unit.

Same thing connecting to the 'internet' -- you generally have to 'pay
somebody' to pass your traffic on to the rest of the world, Costs for
that depend on "how much" traffic you have.  More traffic, more
cost. and bigger, more expensive equipment.

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

From: Julian Thomas <jt@jt-mj.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:16:57 -0400
Subject: Re: ISP Hunting


In <20050619061216.5CE9F1501A@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, on 06/19/05 
at 02:12 AM, was written:

> I'm going to be just outside of Chicago (Skokie, if you must know) for an
> unknown period of time and looking to find out what the cheapest way to
> get internet access would be.

Check out bamnet.net
 

Julian Thomas:   jt@jt-mj.net    http://jt-mj.net
In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State!
Warpstock 2005: Hershey, Pa. October 6-9, 2005 - http://www.warpstock.org
 -- --
Headline: Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery.

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

Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 17:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: ISP Hunting
Reply-To: fatkinson@mishmash.com


> Don't you want news-server access?  That's the most common
> deal-breaker for me.

It shouldn't be a concern.  

If the price is cheap enough for an ISP you've chosen and they don't
provide a news server, also get a news account at Newsguy 
http://www.newsguy.com .  They have a special plan that they offer
one year of news server access for forty dollars.  I used them once
when a ten dollar a month ISP I was then using dropped their news
server without telling anyone.

The service was very good.  And they add new news groups pretty
quickly when you request them.  I'm not using them now because my
cablemodem provider provides me with news server access.  But I'd
resort to them in an instant if my provider didn't offer it as part of
the package.

Regards, 

Fred 

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

From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc.  (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: Re: XO Communications
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:39:26 GMT


I'm retired from GTE, almost 10 years now so I have been away from it,
but to me it there should have been a backup or B side running,
besides it was out 7 1/2 hours.  It was the company I work for that
lost all of their calls coming into Riverside from San Bernardino and
a few out of state calls, yet our incoming 800 number worked fine, it
had been an AT&T number until we switched companies, so maybe that was
still running through them and was not affected by the outage.

I think we should go back to Step by Step, much better.

Al Gillis wrote:

> Well Steven, an outage involving three DS-3s would likely be related
> to an OC-3 failure (an OC-3 at ~155 megabits/second will carry three
> DS-3s or just over 2,000 voice channels).  I'd guess one of two
> failure types caused your emotional trauma: Traditional "back hoe
> fade" or an OC-3 to DS-3 mux went on "time out" for a while.

> For example, at my work we've got several kinds of access -- one
> flavor has a small mux (a Fujitsu FLM-150) arranged on a SONET ring to
> a companion mux in a nearby CO.  That's great, except that both sides
> of the SONET ride in the same fiber sheath -- so if it gets dug up
> (the aforementioned syndrome of "back hoe fade") down she goes!  Also,
> of course, if some of the common stuff in either mux (on either end of
> the SONET circuit) fails down she goes!

> And who knows?  Maybe this mux in San Bernardino wasn't even
> configured for SONET -- Maybe it was just single ended!

> Like many things in life now-a-days, communications is more fragile
> than we might expect or like!


The only good spammer is a dead one!!  Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2005  I Kill Spammers, Inc.  A Rot in Hell Co.

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: XO Communications
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:36:36 -0400


In article <telecom24.278.15@telecom-digest.org>, alg@aracnet.com 
says:

> Well Steven, an outage involving three DS-3s would likely be related
> to an OC-3 failure (an OC-3 at ~155 megabits/second will carry three
> DS-3s or just over 2,000 voice channels).  I'd guess one of two
> failure types caused your emotional trauma: Traditional "back hoe
> fade" or an OC-3 to DS-3 mux went on "time out" for a while.

A backhoe undoubtedly being operated by Backhoe Bob. Apparently at a
recent gathering of IT folks involved with the Help America Vote Act
this was a common refrain.

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

From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 700-555-4141 Does Not Work
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 23:21:31 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:41:39 -0400, Ted Klugman wrote:

> Recently, my long distance carrier (TTI National, somehow a subsidary
> of MCI) informed me that they're going to start charging a "monthly
> fee" of $1.99. So I decided it was time to switch.

> My new carrier's website instructs new users to call 700-555-4141 to
> verify when the LD carrier has been changed. I hadn't dialed the
> number in quite a while, so for kicks, I dialed it.

> "We're sorry, your call can not be completed as dialed." This didn't
> happen the last time I tried it (more than a year ago)

> (Yes, I tried it with a "1" in front of the number)

> So, any thoughts on  how I can check who my LD carrier is?

That test number was part of the Modified Final Judgment, I
believe. If your local carrier is a BOC, tell them to fix it. I ran
into this years ago with Bell Atlantic Wireless, and had to write them
a letter. They told me to call some guy who fixed it.

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

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: 700-555-4141 Does Not Work
Reply-To: fatkinson@mishmash.com
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 03:24:23 GMT


On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:41:39 -0400, Ted Klugman
<tedklugman@yahoo.no.spam.com.lga.highwinds-media.com> wrote:

> Recently, my long distance carrier (TTI National, somehow a subsidary
> of MCI) informed me that they're going to start charging a "monthly
> fee" of $1.99. So I decided it was time to switch.

> My new carrier's website instructs new users to call 700-555-4141 to
> verify when the LD carrier has been changed. I hadn't dialed the
> number in quite a while, so for kicks, I dialed it.

> "We're sorry, your call can not be completed as dialed." This didn't
> happen the last time I tried it (more than a year ago)

> (Yes, I tried it with a "1" in front of the number)

> So, any thoughts on  how I can check who my LD carrier is?

> TIA

Do you have 900, 700, and 976 blocking on your phone?  If you do, that
explains it completely.

Try dialing '00' and see what happens.  


Fred 

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Pod Slurping Dangerous to Your Company
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:22:33 -0400


In article <telecom24.278.12@telecom-digest.org>, dcstar@myrealbox.com 
says:

> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:41:11 -0500, Lisa Minter wrote:

>> The thief could even access PCs that require a log-in  username/password
>> by using a boot CD, a specially-crafted CD that sidesteps log-in
>> authentication, said Usher.

> Only on the assumption that data is actually on the hard drive, most
> major organisations that I know of prohibit storage of any data on a
> local hard drive and have it all on more secure network storage.

> If they leave data on a local hard drive, and don't lock out booting
> from a CD or Floppy (and having the BIOS password protected), then
> more fool them.

BIOS passwords are only as good as that little CR-2032 lithium
battery.  Remove or short the battery and kiss passwords goodbye.

>> Gartner's 2004 advice would block pod slurping, added Usher, if
>> enterprises adopted the research firm's recommendations to lock down
>> desktops by disabling USB functionality or Windows' Universal Plug and
>> Play.

> And stopping booting another OS to bypass that disabling, otherwise it
> could be a waste of time.

As I showed above, you could remove/short the battery and then boot up 
Knoppix and copy files to CD-R, USB memory key, etc. 

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

From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Monitor/Recorder for Residential Power Line Outages?
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 23:35:37 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:41:55 -0700, AES wrote:

> Any have pointers to a gadget that will monitor and log power outages
> or glitches on 110V or 220V residential electrical service?

> Looking for a home or retail level gadget that will work either
> connected to a dedicated computer, or preferably free-standing with
> periodic read-out to a computer, logging time and duration of both
> longer outages and short glitches (anything long enough to cause
> digital clocks and appliance displays to reset).

Your best bet is likely to be a UPS. Some of them use their PC link to
write a log of when power went out and returned. Mine sends a message to
the system terminal (Linux), but that could probably be redirected to a
log file. Actually, I think it keeps logs normally, but I have never
bothered with them. 

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: '80' Country Code
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:45:27 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:11:42 -0000, bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

> In article <telecom24.277.1@telecom-digest.org>, Geoff
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>> I was looking at my call logs and have an international call from
>> Spain and another country.  The number for the other country starts
>> with '803' but there is no country with an '80' and '803' dialing
>> code.  Any ideas where the call came from?

> Best guess:  somewhere around Helsinki, Finland.

That is a pretty wild guess considering that country codes beginning
with an 8 are usually in the far east.

Finland's country code is 358!

If it's not a country it may be a certain service.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or maybe it was _area code_ 803,
which I think is somewhere in the Carolinas?   PAT]

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

From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Is it Possible to Buy a Cell Phone With no Plan?
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 23:12:49 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:22:37 -0700, FrankBooth wrote:

> I'm trying to buy a cell phone WITHOUT A PLAN. I am sending it to a
> relative in another country where they will activate it.

> So far I have not found a local shopping establishment that sells
> them.

> Can anyone recommend somewhere online where a cell WITHOUT A PLAN can
> be purchased? Is it even possible?

Last I knew, which was several years ago, the cellular carriers
controlled the distribution of the phones, so you couldn't do
that. You might be able to find some way of adding one to an existing
plan with pooled minutes so you could use the minutes but give away
the phone.

The other problem is that most countries use GSM, which uses
frequencies that differ from the "GSM" used by some carriers in the
US. I think the US protocol is also somewhat bastardized. Be sure you
get a phone that is intended to roam in the country you intend to send
it to.

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Is it Possible to Buy a Cell Phone With no Plan?
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:53:32 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On 19 Jun 2005 14:22:37 -0700, FrankBooth <acg_acg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to buy a cell phone WITHOUT A PLAN. I am sending it to a
> relative in another country where they will activate it.

> So far I have not found a local shopping establishment that sells
> them.

> Can anyone recommend somewhere online where a cell WITHOUT A PLAN can
> be purchased? Is it even possible?

> Thanks in advance!

For post paid service the only one that I know of in the US is
Cingular.  You will not be eligible for any promotional rates.  You
will also of course pay the standard activation fee (around $35 IIRC.)

You will also likely need to pass a US credit check or if that's not
possible they may ask for a substantial deposit on the account.

If that's not possible you may be relegated to using prepaid service.

There's also a newer service called Consumer Cellular
http://www.consumercellular.com which will give you monthly service on
the old AT&T TDMA network.  You can get a free phone to join.  My only
comment on them is their rates don't appear to be anywhere as good as
most of the majors such as cingular, T-Mobile, Sprint PCS, etc., but
if you just want service without a contract that's an option.  I don't
know what their requirements are regarding whether you need to have a
credit check with them. 
           
------------------------------

From: NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info
Subject: Re: Is it Possible to Buy a Cell Phone With no Plan?
Date: 19 Jun 2005 17:17:25 -0700


Radio Shack used to do that for sure in California but it cost like an
extra $200.00.

Look on Cargsllist for local people selling a used one real cheap

Also Ebay.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Bell Divestiture
Date: 19 Jun 2005 19:38:27 -0700


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was talking about Robert Bonomi's
> claims that Bell System did just what the law required of them, and
> not much else, unless it worked to their advantage.  PAT]

Well, isn't that how all businesses work?  Geez, they're not a charity
or a non-profit.

Mr. B.'s writing seemed very indignant when he said the Trimline and
Princess phones were only used to make extra profit.  Again, isn't
that what businesses do?  If the customers didn't like the premium
sets, they wouldn't have rented them.  Yet they did.  Obviously it was
a win-win -- the customers got something they wanted (and were willing
to pay for), and the company made money.  What is so wrong with that?

Anyway, as far as the claim they merely followed the law, I believe
they spent quite a bit of money designing both the 300 and 500
telephone sets.  The 500 G handset -- still in use today fifty years
later -- was carefully researched to be as comfortable and fit as many
people as possible.  As a monopoly, the phone company did NOT have to
go to that much trouble.  Further, they had a renown industrial
designer, Henry Dreyfus, design the set itself.  This effort was not
cheap, and certainly not required by law or service.

As to the claims of not being able to support BBS's demands for new
lines, I believe that occured well after Divesture, so it was not a
Bell System problem (assuming it was as widespread as claimed).

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Bell Divestiture
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:43:25 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.277.14@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Robert Bonomi wrote:


>> I _guarantee_ that AT&T and the Bells were not 'voluntarily' reducing the
>> prices just because of a decrease in costs.

>> There were precisely *two* possible reasons for a price reduction:

>>   1) pressure from competition.
>>   2) enough 'pent up demand' that the price reduction brought in 'more
>>      than enough additional volume' to make up for the reduction in
>>      profitability.

> Neither of those make sense.  There was not significant competition
> before divesture except from other modes (ie writing a letter,
> telegram).

No competition for telephones, answering machines, fax machines,
PBX's, modems?  No competition for long-distance telephone calls?

Do you know when divestiture occurred?  Do you know how many years
*earlier* MCI was founded?  Do you have any idea when the company now
known as Sprint was founded?

Do you have any idea how many local telephone lines the company now
known as Sprint was serving, in, say, 1976?  Would you believe three
and a half million lines?

Do you know when MFS started laying its own 'bypass' fiber?

Do you know when Merrill-Lynch laid the first bypass fiber loop in the
U.S?

> If you say the Bell System had no interest in the customer,

I did not say that.  They were *very* interested in the customer -- as
a milkable source of revenue.

> then it would not have lowered rates to meet that "pent up
> demand", rather just put in more lines and made all the more money.

'Pent up demand" describes a _price-sensitive_ phenomenon.

i.e., where the price is the primary barrier to additional sales.

People want the product, but they _will_not_ buy more of it, at that
high price.  Drop the price, and people do buy more.

If lowering the profit margin on a product by 25% only brings in 10%
more business, you are better off with the smaller volume of sales.

If lowering the profit margin on a product by 10% brings in 25% more
business, you are 'money ahead' to do so.

The latter scenario *precisely* describes the situations in which the
Bell System lowered prices.  They lowered their _profit_margin_ by
*less* than the factor of increased sales, and thus pulled in more
money from the customers.

>>> I maintain it was mostly technology -- cheaper
>>> terminal equipment and >carrier media followed by higher call
>>> volume and greater economies of >scale -- that caused and still
>>> cause long distance rates to fall.

>>  The _rate_ of deployment, however, was driven by the competition
>> _doing_it_ FIRST.

> Again that fails to explain the continual rate reductions before
> divesture.

Not to those who know the actual history.  And that competition *was*
there in the profit-making areas, a decade or more before divestiture.

The Bell System's primary _profit_ sources were: (1) value-added
business telephone services / equipment, (2) long-distance-derived
revenues.  Residential service was usually priced at break-even, or
maybe a little below that.  It was a 'necessary evil', to make the
bread-and-butter business services a 'salable' item.

BOTH of those profit sources were under significant competitive
pressures, long (as in "well more than a decade") before divestiture.

>> Can you name a single railroad that had a developed long-haul telecom
>> network that _voluntarily_ converted to AT&T service?  The one that I
>> am aware of where that happened did it _because_ the railroad was
>> *sold*, but the prior owner _kept_ the telecom operation *(including
>> R-O-W on all that railroad's trackage) rather than including it in the
>> sale.

> The Pennsylvania Railroad/Penn Central network was privately owned,
> maintained, and operated, then turned over to AT&T.

Not, exactly a ringing endorsement for the approach -- Penn Central's
management made so many "smart" decisions that the company went
bankrupt and closed its doors.

>> Home computers didn't *exist* until the mid 1970s.  The Altair 8800
>> plans ran in PE's Jan 1975 issue. The APPLE-II didn't exist until
>> late 1977.

> But businesses and schools were heavy users of time sharing by the mid
> 1960s -- using dial-up Teletypes.

Revisionist history at work. Computer "time sharing" did not exist
_at_all_ before mid-1964.  By September of that year, DTSS could
handle an amazing =seven= terminals.  By 1968, capacity was up to
several dozen simultaneous-use terminals.

IBM didn't have an interactive time-sharing system offering until late 1967.

As of 1970 it is doubtful that there were 10,000 simultaneous dial-up
'modem' calls active at any given time, across the entire United
States. But the landscape _was_ changing rapidly.

>> The first BBS went online in Feb 1978.  Within two years, the operator
>> of that system had crossed swords with the local telco
>> _at_least_three_times_, where they refused to install the additional
>> residential lines he wanted.  Claiming he "had" to be running a
>> business.  Public-utility commission complaints ensued, and the telco
>> did, in each case, end up installing the additional lines.

>> Other large-scale "hobby BBSs" across the country reported similar
>> problems.

> That is a tariff issue.  Rates for a business and residential line are
> based on expected use.  A non-profit is still considered a business.
> Seems to me a high volume BBS should've been classified as a business
> line due to high volume of use.

_WHAT_ business??  In Randy's case it *was* just a hobby.  No income,
no membership 'fees', no nothing.  All the expenses came out of his
personal pocket.

>> The mid-90's debacle _was_ Internet driven.

> That was after divesture and the Bell System no longer existed at
> that point.

Well, it was the "Baby Bells" that couldn't handle the demand.  didn't
have enough physical ports on switches, hadn't properly projected the
growth, and didn't have phone numbers to assign.  Same management,
same planning process.

>> Even prior to divestiture, the 'road signs' were there for anyone to
>> read.  "Measurements" for quality of U.S. service were flat-lining,
>> and in some cases, actually declining.

>> Space was not an issue, generally.  Possibly in a few central-city
>> facilities in a few of the largest cities.

> Space IS a MAJOR issue.  Real estate is expensive in growing areas,
> whether city or suburb.  ESS takes up a far smaller footprint than the
> equivalent No 5 crossbar location.

Where the telco had an existing facility, there was no net savings
realized by the fact that the replacement box had a smaller footprint
than the box it replaced.  Bell System bought/built facilities with
planned-for 75-100 year life-spans, _including_ projected growth.

>> "Speed" is not related to call-handling capacity.

> Yes, it is.

Speed of call set-up is irrelevant to the number of
_connected_and_running_ calls that can be handled

> I believe you yourself said it was the to the advantage of
> common control equipment to get in and out of the call as quickly as
> possible.  A faster common control can handle more calls.

Yes there is an advantage.  It has nothing to do with the number of
connected calls that can be passing through the switch at any given
time.

The advantage is that you can set-up/tear-down more calls, with _less_
equipment.  As long as you have 'enough' equipment to set-up/tear-down
more calls than the system can handle, in _less_ total time than the
average duration of a call, the speed of the equipment does not
constitute a limiting factor in capacity of the equipment.  if the
equipment is 'slow', then you merely have to have more elements, to
achieve the required overall capacity. When the 'performance limit' is
elsewhere -- e.g. as in the number of communications-paths through the
matrix -- speeding up the 'common control' equipment has *zero* effect
on the number of simultaneous calls that can be handled.

>> The Bell system, like any regulated monopoly was _guaranteed_ a
>> certain minimum rate-of-return on investments.

> Regulated monopolies were NOT _guaranteed_ a minimum rate of return.

You know not that of which you speak.

You can find percentage figures spelled out in the franchise
documents, granting the monopolies.

> If they were Western Union would not have gone broke nor would the
> railroads.

Western Union and most of the railroads were 'regulated common
carriers'.  Not regulated monopolies.

> In some locations of the Bell System and even today, regulators
> mandate below-cost services for social reasons or deny rate
> increases.  

> Very, *very* rarely was 'how' that money was spent
> questioned.  

>> *NO*, <that> is _not_ true.  

>> As Pat pointed out, Ma Bell was under constant scrutiny by the news
>> media and government and advocates.  Shareholder gadflies made a point
>> of disrupting stockholders' meetings every year.  Activists filed
>> constant lawsuits against the system.

Primarily a 1970's and later phenomenon.  You can generally count on
your thumbs the number of rate increase requests that were _not_
granted in their entirety, between the end of WW 1, and, say, 1965.

>> Can you name a feature/capability introduced by the Bell System after
>> 1970 that was not present in third-party-provided, customer-owned, PBX
>> equipment first?  The only one I can think of is the "picturephone".

> I guess to really answer that claim one would have to list the latest
> PBX offerings of the Bell System of 1970, their cost, and the
> competition's offerings.

That does _not_ answer the question posed, Carterphone opened the door
WIDE for third-party suppliers.  Allow a couple of years for their
first-generation gear to hit the market, and then start looking at
_who_ introduces the new capabilities *first*.  Aside from
"picturephone", I can't think of _one_ where Bell/AT&T/WEco was first.


> How many third party PBXs were available in 1970?

A fair number.  Rolm was the 800lb gorilla of the bunch.

> Getting back to your claim the Bell System did nothing it didn't have
> to,

I did not say that.  I said that what they did was for *their*
advantage first, and if the customer benefited, well, that was an
unimportant incidental.

> let's not forget the Princess, Trimeline, Panel, Home Interphone,
> and Bell Chime units.

Princes and Trimline were 'marketing gimmicks' first and foremost.
The market for 'additional' extension phones was stagnant, if not
moribund.  Princess and Trimline were "kickers" that marketing could
sell up.

'Panel' was an interesting unit -- the house I grew up in had the
first, and for more than 10 years, the _only_, residential
installation of one of those phones in the entire state.  The concept
was better than the implementation; maintenance was an ongoing issue.
Panel's "marketing gimmick" selling point was "Look, Ma no cord!" when
the phone was hung up.  As well as not sticking out into the room as
far as a regular 'surface mount' wall phone.  Bell had the customer's
interest _so_much_ at heart that the customer had to _buy_ the
enclosure for that phone (at significantly over $100 in 1964 dollars)
*and* 'rent' (at the usual price) all the regular phone innards that
were inside it).

Home Interphone, and Bell Chime also fell into the category of
'marketing gimmick' _first_, An un-needed high-markup item that
'sales' could artificially create a demand for, and then fill.
Primarily a revenue booster.

>> 3-way calling, conference calling, call waiting, speed-dial, call
>> 'camping', etc.  Standard features on PBXs years before there was
>> Centrex availability.  And even longer before they were offered on
>> plain-jane POTS service.

> All available on Bell PBXs of the 1960s.

"All", eh?  Including the part of that list that you so carefully cut
off?

You are claiming that these features were available on Bell-provided
PBX gear on customer premises, before they were available on
Bell-provided PBX gear in the central office.


>> 'Native touch-tone' was far less expensive for the telco than
>> native pulse dialing.

> Not in SxS, which required extra equipment.  See Eng & Sci book.

Hint: the SxS _was_not_capable_ of *native* touch-tone operation, a
front end translation from touch-tone to pulse was required.

>> To "sell" more extensions, they _had_ to have something that was
>> 'acceptable' decor-wise to the decision-maker in the household.

> Most families we knew did not bother paying extra for "premium"
> telephone *sets*, BUT *did* pay +extra+ for _extensions_ in various
> _rooms_ and particular <floors> of a house.  Having three (3) phones--
> 'basement', 1st fl, 2nd fl, was very _common_ to -save- steps.

The 'tolerance point' varied by household.  _Average_ number of
extensions per household, in households with more than one phone,
climbed appreciably after introduction of Princess/Trimline, after
having been comparatively stagnant for several years ... As in
"something close to 80% of the total number of Princess/Trimline
phones manufactured".

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Before Charlie Brown became Chairman of
>> AT&T, he was President and CEO of Illinois Bell. At that time, he
>> lived about two blocks from me in Rogers Park, a north side
>> neighborhood in Chicago. In chatting with him at his home one day, he
>> said to me basically what Robert Bonomi claims above.

> I'm not sure which claims you're referring to.

> I'm not claiming the Bell System was perfect, however, my own
> experience as a customer in large organizations was that the service
> was generally excellent and the company responsive, and that rates
> were on a decline before divesture.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was talking about Robert Bonomi's
> claims that Bell System did just what the law required of them, and
> not much else, unless it worked to their advantage.  PAT]

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Bell Divestiture 
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:34:44 -0400


In article <telecom24.278.11@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest
Editor noted in response: 

> Chicago is where the BBS concept got started. Randy Seuss and Ward
> Christianson started the very first one. (In yesterday's Digest,
> Robert Bonomi mentioned how Randy had such hassles with Illinois Bell
> getting the lines he needed). Bell and Howell computers _were_ Apple
> ][+ machines except for the lable on the front of them, and many of
> them, such as mine, had not only a 300 baud modem card on a slot
> inside, but an 'expanded memory' card as well, to go in another slot
> inside, and a 'clock card' plus a couple of floppy disk driver
> cards. I would guess that by 1980 there were a dozen or more BBS's
> operating, all in Chicago or nearby suburbs, and almost none anywhere
> else in the world. 

> The Library had their BBS (BELmont 5-3200) based on Bill Blue's
> *People's Message System* as did a guy in Downers Grove, IL. Rogers
> Park ABBS (973-ABBS [2227]) used some other kind of software for
> Apple as I did with my original BBS called 'First Choice'
> (SHEldrake-3-0001). But I soon decided to work with a different BBS
> 'skeleton' to make 'Lake Shore Modem Magazine' on my other phone
> line SHEldrake-3-0002 instead, and Lake Shore Modem Magazine went on
> line in July, 1981. Tim had his Tandy Model 4 operating "Think BBS"
> (based on the old IBM slogan) and Randy Suess kept plugging along
> with his CBBS, until he eventually decided to go 'multi-user' with
> his Chinet system, which was when all the trouble with the telephone
> company got started, in 1984 I think. Ward and Randy were not only
> first with the BBS concept, I think they were first with the
> multi-user concept also (regards home or residential service). There
> was a guy in Oak Park, Illinois using his Tandy Model-4 to run a
> FIDO multi-user node around that same time, but I never did much
> care for the FIDO people; they all seemed so prissy and
> authoritarian, IMO. I did maintain a user group out of his node for
> six months or so, but the FIDO bosses decided to ex-communicate his
> entire system, so that was good enough for me: I had been off and on
> using Usenet (via Portal) for a couple years at that point and
> decided to give up on FIDO and use Usenet exclusively instead, and I
> did that mostly with my Zenith Z-19 terminal and modem. From Randy
> Suess one day I got a bunch of other very good working terminals and
> modems as well; that was around 1983. I finally shut down my BBS
> (Lakeshore Modem Magazine) on December 31, 1985 for good.  PAT]

Interesting about the TRS-80 Model 4 multi node. If I'm not mistaken 
that was running SIDOS. 

Here is the story behind SIDOS:

In 1982 a friend of mine convinced me to spend hard earned money on a
modem so I could connect the the NYBBLINK BBS here in Providence. A
month after I'd gotten the modem NYBBLINK went down for good.

So my friend Don Lambert decided to re-wire his Model III so that it
had multiple RS-232 ports, and ISAM file system, as well as all sorts
of communications enhancements to TRSDOS, enough so that it was a
different O/S once he got through with it. After a few months of the
two of us brainstorming and testing the crap out of the system Syslink
was born.

SIDOS was then run on two other BBS's in RI that spawned a major
communications player. PowerNet and PowerCor both ran SIDOS. The
operator of PowerCor then procured through some nefarious means a DEC
MicroVax II and formed Intelecom Data Systems, or IDS.

The assets of IDS were rolled up and became Conversent Communications. 

All because I didn't want to be stuck with a modem and nothing to
connect to locally.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Very, very interesting. There are a lot 
of good stories, mostly untold, from the early years of BBS'ing and
networking. I'll bet an entire newsgroup could be started and maintained
with just such accounts. But was SIDOS running on Model 4 as it came
out of the factory?  My friend with the Think BBS and the guy in Oak
Park who ran a FIDO node brought their boxes home from Radio Shack, 
and plugged them in and started their sites within a day or two; no
adaptation needed that I recall them saying.  PAT]

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


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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums.  It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        Post Office Box 50
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 620-402-0134
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 530-309-7234
                        Fax 3: 208-692-5145         
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe:  telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information:        http://telecom-digest.org

Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
  (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from                  *
*   Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate  *
*   800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting.         *
*   http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com                    *
*   Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing      *
*   views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc.                             *
*************************************************************************

ICB Toll Free News.  Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.

One click a day feeds a person a meal.  Go to http://www.thehungersite.com

Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

              ************************

DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD!  REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM   SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !

              ************************

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

              ************************

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

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list. 

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

End of TELECOM Digest V24 #279
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues