From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 30 18:12:52 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i8UMCpt28482; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:12:52 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200409302212.i8UMCpt28482@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #458 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:12:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 458 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Lowers Price on Internet Calling Service (Lisa Minter) 8x8 Announces Availability of Virtual and Toll Free Numbers (VOIP News) AT&T Lowers Price of its Residential VoIP Service (Decker - VOIP News) Wrong Address for 911 Caller a Tragic Ordeal (Jack Decker - VOIP News) Net Firms: Don't Tax Internet Calling (Jack Decker - VOIP News) Horribly Inefficent Fixed Line Phone (Sam) Taxing the Tax (Ron Giteck) Re: What is the Name of #? How did # Get its Name? (Lisa Hancock) Re: What is the Name of #? How did # Get its Name? (Nick Landsberg) Re: Touch Tone Decoders, Cell Phone Detectors, Jammers (R Normandeau) Re: Cheap Prepaid Online Phone Cards For Sale (Ray Normandeau) Re: Lucent DSL MAX 20 Packet Loss (Walt Howard) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Minter Subject: AT&T Lowers Price on Internet Calling Service Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:00:00 EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - AT&T Corp on Thursday on Thursday said it was lowering the price on its CallVantage Internetcalling service by $5 per month, matching the price from several other suppliers. AT&T, which made Internet calling services a priority after announcing its retreat from traditional residential telephone services in July, said the price cut to $29.99 per month was meant to spur demand in advance of the holiday season. Current subscribers will also get the price cut. More than a dozen companies currently offer voice over Internet Protocol, or VOIP, services to U.S. residential customers. Most offer unlimited calling for $30 per month or less, with some as low as $19.95, although their fees do not include the broadband Internet connection that VOIP requires. Comparable plans for traditional service from the dominant U.S. telephone carriers typically cost $60 to $70 per month. While industry experts estimate the current residential VOIP market has less than 1 million subscribers, they expect sharp growth starting in 2005 as large cable companies roll out their VOIP services. The Yankee Group forecasts VOIP services will have 17.5 million residential users by 2008. The growing number of entrants into the VOIP market has some analysts predicting a price war for VOIP services. AT&T had already lowered the price of CallVantage once, and said it will offer the first month free to some new subscribers. Other providers offer free months or limited calling plans for as little as $10 per month. *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance Reuters News and Yahoo News. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:32:11 -0400 Subject: 8x8 Announces Availability of Virtual and Toll Free Numbers Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-30-2004/0002261941&EDATE= SANTA CLARA, Calif., Sept. 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- 8x8, Inc. (Nasdaq: EGHT) the Packet8 broadband voice over internet protocol (VoIP) and videophone communications service provider, today announced the availability of several new optional features for its Virtual Office internet-based PBX service for small to medium sized businesses. Effective immediately, Packet8 Virtual Office users can now choose various new services including Virtual Phone Numbers, Toll Free Numbers, and Switchboard Operator Console. Virtual Phone Numbers allow Virtual Office subscribers to provide local inbound telephone numbers from areas outside of their main number or extension DIDs. Subscribers can select Virtual Numbers from all United States area codes Packet8 supports for a small monthly fee of $4.95 per number and a one-time activation fee of $9.95. Adding Virtual Numbers offers benefits such as enabling an enterprise to show a local presence in a geographic area without physically residing there and facilitating a cost-savings local calling capability for an organization's customers or colleagues. The second new Virtual Office service is Toll Free Numbers, an inexpensive way for Virtual Office subscribers to offer clients the ability to contact them at no charge regardless of their location inside the United States or the company's location worldwide. Packet8's Toll Free Service Plan involves a flat monthly fee of $4.95 including 100 minutes of inbound toll-free calls and an industry low of 3.9 cents a minute thereafter for inbound calls. A one time $9.95 activation fee per number applies. Finally, Virtual Office users can now expand the functionality of their system with Switchboard, Virtual Office's Operator Software Console Application, available for $19.95 per month with a $9.95 activation fee. Switchboard improves the efficiency of an operator's call management by providing a receptionist with a graphical overview of the users on the virtual office service and a simple way to manage an organization's telecommunication activity. Switchboard works on a PC in conjunction with the Internet and the Virtual Office telephones. Additionally, Switchboard enables operators to have: -- Direct status view of extension's status: DND, On-line, idle -- Click to call, click to transfer call control -- Direct transfer to extension and voice mail -- Supervised transfers The Packet8 Virtual Office service costs just $39.95 per extension, per month. For initial set-up costs, subscribers pay only $99 for the equipment (special business telephone and broadband adapter), $14.95 for shipping and $39.95 for activation. Full press release at: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-30-2004/0002261941&EDATE= How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:05:09 -0400 Subject: AT&T Lowers Price of its Residential VoIP Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Comment: I wonder if this means that anyone who orders today (September 30) would still get the introductory price of $19.99 for the first six months, but after that would only have to pay the new rate of $29.99/month (rather than the $34.99 still shown on their web site). Personally I think there are better deals out there than AT&T, for example several VoIP companies offer their "unlimited" service at about $20 or $25 per month. The company I think will be hurt most by this is Vonage, because they presently charge $29.99 per month (plus a $1.50 "regulatory recovery fee" per phone number, making the "real" price $31.49 per month) for their equivalent level of service, so either they will have to lower their price to stay competitive, or risk losing potential customers to AT&T. http://www.att.com/news/item/0,1847,13258,00.html News Release FOR RELEASE THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 AT&T Lowers Price of its Residential VoIP Service BEDMINSTER, N.J. -- As part of its continuing efforts to spur growth in emerging technologies, AT&T today announced it is lowering the price of AT&T CallVantageSM Service, its popular residential broadband phone service, from $34.99 to $29.99 per month beginning October 1. In addition, under some offers AT&T will provide the first month of service free to new subscribers who sign up before January 31, 2005. The new $29.99 pricing will be effective for all existing subscribers beginning October 1 and includes unlimited local and long distance calling in the U.S. and to Canada. This offer replaces the well-received introductory promotional offer in the market for the past six months. "Having completed the initial market build-out to support AT&T CallVantage Service, we're now concentrating on expanding our distribution channels through retail and online sales," said Cathy Martine, AT&T senior vice president for Internet Telephony. "Pricing the service for the holiday shopping season fits our expansion strategy and makes AT&T CallVantage Service even more affordable, which is great news for consumers as we give them more of what they want for less. "In fact, we believe that once those consumers evaluate VoIP and compare it to their existing telephone service, they will recognize AT&T CallVantage Service provides more features and savings making it a compelling offer." AT&T CallVantage Service is available to any U.S. consumer and provides a local footprint to 62 percent of the households in America due to its broad penetration in more than 170 markets coast-to-coast. Upon signing up, all that's required to use AT&T CallVantage is a telephone adapter provided by AT&T or its valued retailers, and a broadband connection, which lets consumers talk over high-speed Internet connections instead of traditional circuit-switched phone networks. AT&T CallVantage Service is different than traditional phone services because, through the use of IP-based networks, it can offer customers typical features such as call waiting, three-way calling, and call forwarding, and far more advanced ones as well. Indeed, consumers will get unprecedented convenience, cost savings and control with innovative features including: * "Call Logs," to track incoming and outgoing; "Do Not Disturb," * to receive calls only when wanted; "Locate Me," which rings up * to five phones, all at once, or sequentially; "Voicemail with * eFeatures," to listen to messages from any phone or PC and * forward them to anyone on the Web; "Simple Reach(SM) Number, * which enables AT&T CallVantage Service customers to add up to * nine telephone numbers with area codes anywhere in the country * where AT&T offers residential VoIP service; and "Personal * Conferencing," to set up meetings with up to nine additional * callers. AT&T also recently began shipping a "Home Wiring Do-It-Yourself Guide" with each self-install kit that provides customers step-by-step instructions for connecting the service to multiple home phones to replicate the traditional home calling environment and make the most efficient use of their existing telephone equipment. For those homeowners who prefer that a trained technician perform the work, AT&T has a fee-based inside wiring service to reconfigure existing lines and telephone jacks, install additional jacks if required, and provide limited assistance with service set-up. Continuing its market momentum, AT&T has expanded its distribution channel by adding leading retailers Amazon.com, Best Buy and Circuit City to its sales team. To learn more about AT&T CallVantage Service, consumers can visit http://www.CallVantage.com, call 1-866-816-3815, extension 70339, or visit one of these retailers. Full press release at: http://www.att.com/news/item/0,1847,13258,00.html ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:17:00 -0400 Subject: Wrong Address For 911 Caller a Tragic Ordeal Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2435843,00.html By John Ingold Denver Post Staff Writer When her infant son started having trouble breathing, a worried Krista Staats rushed to the phone and called 911. A dispatch center in Castle Rock, nearly 40 miles from her Adams County house, took the call, thinking she was calling from a business in Parker. As Staats bounced from dispatch center to dispatch center, trying to find the right people to help her, her baby boy's condition grew worse, and Staats grew more frantic. Finally, 5-month-old Christopher Vasquez stopped breathing, and Staats let out a piercing, terror-filled scream. He died moments later, shortly after an ambulance was dispatched -- a little over four minutes after Staats made her call. Now, Staats has sued her telephone company, Comcast, and two other companies, claiming that because they put the wrong address for her phone number into the 911 system, her son died that day in the spring of 2003. "Because Comcast had my address wrong in the system, I had to watch my son die," she said Wednesday at a news conference. Staats may not be alone in having the 911 problem. Full story at: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2435843,00.html Additional commentary at BroadbandReports.com: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/54996 ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:11:00 -0400 Subject: Net Firms: Don't Tax Internet Calling Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://news.com.com/Net+firms+Dont+tax+VoIP/2100-7352_3-5389880.html By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com The largest U.S. Internet phone companies are asking the Internal Revenue Service not to slam them with a "temporary" tax created more than 100 years ago to pay for the Spanish-American War. In a six-page letter to the IRS sent late Wednesday, the companies stressed that fledgling voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services should not be subject to the excise tax that President William McKinley signed into law in 1898. "VoIP is having a profound and beneficial impact on the United States and the world in a way unimaginable in 1898," the letter said, urging the IRS to "refrain from any attempt to extend the excise tax to VoIP services." The letter was sent by the VON Coalition, which represents AT&T, Covad, Intel, Level3, MCI, Microsoft, Pulver.com, Skype and Texas Instruments. Full story at: http://news.com.com/Net+firms+Dont+tax+VoIP/2100-7352_3-5389880.html ------------------------------ From: ymailus@yahoo.com (Sam) Subject: Horribly Inefficent Fixed Line Phone Date: 30 Sep 2004 12:10:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hello all, My caller ID phone LCD blanks out when the phone recieves a call, i.e. right when I need it most to determine if i want to take the call or not. Off hook the LCD text is sharp. Through pulling out the phone jack I determined that the LCD & LED are powered from the 4 AAA batteries whilst the ringer and speaker is powered by the phone line. Elsewhere on this group I read that on hook the phone can only take limited power from the line to operate itself, whilst off hook it can take a lot more power. Any ideas what I can do? Turning off the ringer made no difference. I tried putting a switch in line with the batteries so I can enable them only when I go to read the caller ID number but the phone's "brain" needs to have been booted with the help of the batteries prior to the initiation of the call. Any suggestions appreciated (even if to implement them I need to spend more than the phone is worth). Sam [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Have you tried testing or replacing the batteries? Even sometimes batteries claimed to be 'fresh' will not be any good. Try with an entirely new set of four AAA batteries, then allow the phone's "brain" to settle down, and intialize itself, and see what results. I'll bet if you were to test those four AAA batteries in the phone now, you'd find one (or more) of them either dead or very weak. That's happened with me: I got a pack of a dozen AAA batteries from Radio Shack and later on found one of them (supposedly a new, fresh battery) to be totally dead. It did not have the obvious signs of 'leaking' (acid on the side of it), nor was it past the expiration date. It was just dead is all. Since I do not make a habit of testing supposedly 'new' batteries before putting them in the device, I found it out only when the four batteries needed device struggled for a short time to keep up, then went dead. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ron.giteck@state.mn.us (Ron Giteck) Subject: Taxing the Tax Date: 30 Sep 2004 11:07:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Can anyone provide more information on the following thread? I am particularly interested in the Illinois Bell case referred to. Where can I find it? From: Tom Saylor (tom.saylor@spam.free) Subject: Questionable Universal Service Fund Practices This is the only article in this thread View: Original Format Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Date: 2003-07-19 10:17:13 PST RCN is charging the Universal Service Fund (USF) fee not only on state-to-state long distance, but also on the Federal Subscriber Line Charge, the Local Number Portability Charge, and port charges. This amounts to 'taxing the tax'. I have never seen this done before, even by Verizon. USF itself has always been questionable to me do to the fact that it is not clear how much the USF fee goes to the FCC and how much the phone company keeps it for itself, under the guise of another federal charge. But RCN is taking this to another level here by also applying the USF tax to other mandated charges, and local charges at that, not long distance. It was my understanding that USF was to be applied to long distance fees only. In our area, RCN is a CLEC that resells Verizon telephone lines. It also is a competitive cable provider, offering cable TV and high speed Internet via its own cable plant. Unlike former AT&T Cable/Comcast, its telephone service is not via the cable lines, but via reselled Verizon lines. Is taxing the tax for USF permissible? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's (July, 2003) Note: This was happening for > many, many years in Chicago. The old Illinois Bell was putting > 'service charges' on taxes and a state tax on the federal tax. When > they finally got called on the carpet for it and lost it in a court > battle, Illinois Bell wound up having to refund to each customer > something like *two cents* per line for *each month of service* > going back several years. The way they effectively resolved it was > by giving most customers of any long standing credit for a month of > telephone service. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (new, present time) Whether or not 'taxing the tax' is permissible depends on who you ask (which lawyer), and whether it is known as a 'tax' or a 'service charge', and how the court chooses to define it. On account of the very miniscule amounts of money involved and the length of time to calculate each damage (if indeed it is found to be unlawful) it is only resolved satisfactorily as a class action lawsuit, i.e. a million or more subscribers times a large number of occurances times some miniscule fraction of a dollar each time, etc. Telco/cableco has attornies they pay for to deal with those things full time. You do not stand a chance in hell of getting any customer service rep (who are the only people at telco/cableco whose job it is to talk to you) to understand what you want or making any changes in policy. You need to find an attorney who specializes in (a) tax laws and (b) communication laws, and advance that person a huge sum of money to take your side on the issue and *possibly* get some changes made. In the Illinois Bell case, telco lost after four or five months in court, but the reason they lost was due to some obscure provision in Illinois law. Administering the class action settlement took another year or so. A similar case involved McDonald's Restaurants in the Chicago area. Chicago (and each of a hundred different suburbs) has its own rate of 'sales tax' as it pertains to food. The several hundred McDonald's establishments in the 'metro Chicago area' -- despite their individual ownership (McDonald's owns *nothing*, you understand, each place is a separate corporation) -- go through an area-wide facility which is in existence to program and maintain the various cash registers in each restaurant. Cash registers programmed for 'Chicago sales tax' are supposed to be used only in Chicago, and cash registers programmed for 'Evanston sales tax' are only supposed to be used in Evanston, or those suburbs which use the same sales tax formula. That's because the clerks, with their educational level are supposed to be able to touch a button with a picture of a Big Mac and announce the total amount of money demanded from the customer. No thinking involved. That's why a McDonald's hamburger in Chicago costs 75 cents, but in Evanston costs 69 cents, because the politicians in Chicago are pirates when it comes to getting taxes, but I digress. So a cash register in one McD goes out of order; the manager calls the local maintainence office and gets a replacement register. The maintainence truck comes around, hauls away the broken down register and installs a refurbished one in its place. But the refurbished one came from Chicago, so when the clerk rings up a hamburger, all he knows is he wants his 75 cents, and with his level of education he does not intend to listen to you arguing about how the same hamburger he sold you yesterday only cost you 69 cents. That's not his problem, despite the fact that you may be a tax lawyer and know the rules backwards and forwards. "All I can tell you is what it says here on the register when I push the buttons with the pictures and numbers for the special meals, etc." So when indeed, a lawyer in the north suburbs tracked down the owners of the '4950 West Dempster Street Corporation' d/b/a 'McDonalds' and sued them over this incorrect tax formula, it wasn't just for the six cents he overpaid on his hamburger, it was a class action suit (the only way to go, actually) with *everyone* who had ever eaten in any McD *anytime* in the Chicago area in the past year named as part of the class. After *his* lawyer (all smart attornies are also represented by counsel) got all the money, everyone else in the class got a free small soft drink who clipped a coupon out of the Chicago Tribune and handed it to the cashier, *before they placed their order*. The people who collected Tribunes out of the garbage cans around town got three or four free small soft drinks, in full and complete settlement against McD. And that is how class action suits go against telco and cableco. If teleco/cableco loses the suit or otherwise gets bored and decides to give up, then the lawyers who started and maintained the class action collect all the money and you get a coupon for a free month of HBO or Showtime or maybe a few long distance calls, **if you were willing to work at it and pursue it from the beginning and find an attorney willing to work along withn you on it.** PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: What is the Name of #? How did # Get its Name? Date: 30 Sep 2004 09:56:56 -0700 Wesrock@aol.com wrote: > The teletypewriter was in existence for several decades before > computers, and its punched-tape technology was also well established. > It was an ideal input-output device before punched cards and CRT > displays took over. Punched cards as tabulating machine input date from 1890, 15 yrs before the Teletype were invented. Printing tabulating machines date from the 1930s (before that results were read off of dials). From the beginning, computers had two operating styles: one was "on-line" where a person communicated back and forth directly with the computer while it was running. The other was "batch" in which information was 'batched' together and fed in, processed, and the person waited for the output to be printed out in its entirety. Because computers, especially the early ones, were so enormously expensive, on-line access was rarely used since the computer was not doing anything while waiting for the person to enter data. One exception was an early (1939?) Bell Labs relay computer. Many early computers did have limited on-line access, but it was for limited control use only. The ENIAC used IBM punched cards for its I/O. For on-line work, Teletypes, either the actual brand or other electric typewriters, were used. Paper tape had the advtg of preparing data off-line then reading it in at higher speeds. For batch work, punched cards and tabulating machine printers were best suited since they could run at relatively higher speed. IIRC, the Teletypes of the 1950s operated at 7 characters per second. The early IBM tab machines used for I/O back then read at 100 cards or printed lines a minute, 80 columns per card (parallel mode). The parallel mode of card reading and printing gave the tab machines far more speed and throughput. Also, the keypunch machine of the 1950s (the IBM 026) had some programmable features to speed keying productivity and verification to improve accuracy. (A TTY would have to constantly shift between LTRS and FIGS while the 026 would do that automatically). (IBM tab machines of the later 1950s read/printed at 150 lines per minute.) In the early 1960s, "time-sharing" and multi-tasking was developed so that a computer could serve several people at the same time. At that point Teletypes as computer terminals became more common. But until time sharing was developed, Teletypes were not an efficient input- output mechanism for computers. A notable pioneer system was SABRE, the reservation system for American Airlines that used electric typewriters. While conceived in the 1950s, I don't think it entered real service until the early 1960s. A notable early "on-line" system was an IBM/Miltary aircraft tracking system that combined radar and console inputs. It should be noted that this system was extremely expensive and not practical for civilian applications of its time (1950s). In the 1960s, many new mfrs of mini computers chose Teletypes (the brand) as their input/output terminal and designed their systems to work in on-line mode. Around that time Teletype introduced a new line of machines that ran faster at 10 cps and also had a much bigger character set (ASCII instead of Baudot). The mini-computer mfrs used ASCII. Notable mfrs included General Electric (Dartmouth's pioneer BASIC system), Hewlett- Packard, Digital PDP, Data General, and others. While users of these machines tended to really love them, they were limited in their ability to handle high volumes of data. At some point, batch processing on a traditional mainframe was more efficient. The IBM System/360, introduced in the 1960s, was originally oriented toward extremely high volume and fast batch processing, although its original architecture provided for on-line processing, too. IBM on-line applications tended to use IBM's own machines which were modified Selectrics. Early IBM computers and tab machines support Teletypes, but through batch mode. Data sent over a phone or telegraph line would be punched out on paper tape, then read by a translating machine that would punch out cards. In reverse, cards would be copied to paper tape and then transmitted. ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: SPAMhukolautTRAP@SPAMattTRAP.net Subject: Re: What is the Name of #? How did # Get its Name? Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:07:07 GMT Lisa Hancock wrote: > bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote >> Sorry, there is use that predates the personal computer -- with a >> modem on a dial-up to a mainframe time-sharing service. 'Terminal' is >> the correct word. > Correct, they were called terminals, a word that included Teletypes > that were used in the early days. >> The point being that the cards were _designed_ to accommodate that >> printing, One of the early IBM 'interpreters' (an O49 or was that a >> sorter?) could only print 40 columns in a pass; had to change the >> program on the plugboard to get the other 40 columns. And change >> where the printing fell on the card, so it didn't write over the first >> 40 characters. :) > I'm not certain, but back in 1928 when the modern punch card was > invented by IBM, I don't think there was any kind of printing > mechanism for cards. Remember, initially the cards were numeric only > and the upper field (the "zone") was used only for control characters. > I suspect the uppermost space was just a margin to give a punched > card strength or a place for handwritten notes. > In the 1930s IBM developed a more sophisticated line of tab machines. > Included was an printing alpha key punch. > The 1948 line of interpreters were NOT intended to print one character > per column -- the width of the printed character was slightly wider > than a column. Only 60 characters would fit on the top and 20 would > have to go on the next line. In practice, the interpreters were > programmed by the plug panel to print selected fields in certain > places, and could do so all over the card. They could also print a > big number sideways on the side edge so the card could be filed > vertically. > Also, most IBM lines of keypunches included printing and non printing > models, and the non-printers were cheaper. > BTW, one advtg of the punched card system was that it was easy and > cheap to have "on-line" file access. They'd just punch out and > interpret and sort a deck of cards containing key data. Clerks would > receive phone requests and pull up the cards in a tube file. Changes > would be processed through the tab system. > It should be noted that until the 1980s, the above was cheaper and > faster than developing a "modern" CICS solution on a real computer. >>> So did IBM, later, around the S/34 or S/36 IIRC, not too long before >>> punch cards passed out of mainstream usage altogether. > IBM's System/32,34,36 did not use cards at all. The mini cards were > used on the IBM System/3. > As an aside, the language used on IBM's System/3x through the present > day AS/400 is RPG, which dates back to 1960 and the IBM 1401. The > language was intended to mimic the wiring of a tab machine control > panel so tab operators could make the transition to programming. >> The 3270 was a 'smart' terminal -- necessitated by IBM's "block mode" >> architecture -- and used 16 bits per displayed character. 1 byte for >> the character itself, and one byte for the 'attributes', things like >> 'bright', 'blank', 'input', 'protected', etc. IIRC, the "attribute byte" only had to get transmitted when the attribute properties changed or when you wanted to jump to a different portion of the screen. The sequence, as I recall was : SBA (Set Buffer Address) ROW, COL, ABYTE, data bytes The ABYTE subset which I recall is displayed/non-displayed, returned/non-returned, alpha, numeric (not mutually exlusive, 2 bits), protected/unprotected, "bright" (or highlighted). Now that's only 6 bits ... what am I missing? You could also get very creative with these fields. At least one implementation that I am aware of used "protected, non-displayed, returned" fields to "hide" data from the user but make it easier on the server machine. For example, a transaction which retrieved a Telephone Co. customer's record would retrieve all the data at once, but use the 3270 as a kind of storage device, hiding the data which didn't need to appear on "page 1" as "protected, non-displayed, returned" so that when the clerk asked for "page 2" all that had to be done on the far end was echo back the data in a different format without taking the hit of a database access. (There was no scroll capability on the 3270's that I recall, so this was a "neat trick" to flip between "pages".) > It's funny how today we call 3270-type terminals (still in very wide > use) "dumb terminals" when in fact they were not. A Teletype was more > "dumb" since it basically transmitted or received upon a keystroke, > while the 3270 network had buffers, could erase and insert characters, > and as mentioned had different appearances. [There were advanced > Teletypes that could do some fancy stuff. Some 3270 functions were > handled by the controller unit that was required and supported a group > of terminals.] Actually, as I recall, the controller was necessary. The 3270's didn't transmit anything until the operator hit the "send" key, and this would be buffered in the "cluster controller." The controller, in turn, would be polled at roughly 2 second intervals by the far end, at which time it would send the data. A controller was theoretically limited to 32 terminals, but we found that 16 was a practical limit for our applications. I never encountered an installation where there was an isolated 3270 without a cluster controller, although I presume this was theoretically possible. > The Bell System had a heck of a lot of private lines serving business > data communications. > A big difference was that IBM liked synchornous transmission while > many other computers, including common PC transmissions used > asynchronous transmission. I don't know which is superior. I don't know either, but from the perspective of private lines (which you mentioned above), the "cluster controller" saved on private-line costs. PL's were expensive, and having only one to handle 16 clerks, rather than 16 PL's or 16 dial-ups, was seen as a cost savings by many customers. Even though the cluster controllers communicated with the host at either 4.8 or 9.6 Kbps, the probability of all 16 clerks hitting send during the same 2-second interval was pretty small. (Interaction with the customer was on the order of 2 minutes). One 9.6 PL made a lot more business sense than 16 300 baud PL's or dial-ups. (At least in those days.) > We had 3rd party imitation IBM 3270 units but IMHO they weren't as > good as real IBM units. However, they were a lot cheaper. I don't > see any "dumb terminals" anymore, it seems almost everyone now has a > PC with an emulation program/card imitating a 3270 terminal. In the > early days of PCs, I refused to use a PC with a CGA screen as a 3270 > terminal since it was so fuzzy compared to a real terminal. > (Actually, I shied away from CGA PCs altogether.) > Over time, the cost of 3270-type units and controllers dropped quite a > bit in price while modem speed increased. Obligatory rant: Ain't it amazing how much *useful* data can be transitted over a 9.6 line when you don't have all those graphics and animations to deal with? "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: FrazNor@gmail.com (rNormandeau) Subject: Re: Touch Tone Decoders, Cell Phone Detectors, Jammers, etc. Date: 30 Sep 2004 10:35:52 -0700 info@infopro.tv (007) wrote in message news:: > Portable Touch-Tone Decorder. Decodes And Displays Telephone Number > From Tape Recorded Calls. The new hand-held 16 digit touch-tone > Decorder with built-in microphone, decodes touch-tones from any > on-air source, scanner or cassette tape. The resulting tape from your > Telephone Recording System has many touch-tones that sometimes need > to be identified. With the Portable Decorder, simply play the tape > ... and the numbers will immediately appear on the LCD. > What makes this decoder unique is the built-in microphone. Any "on- > the-air" tone will be immediately decoded and displayed on the LCD. No > connections are necessary! Should you need to decode via patch cord, > an input is provided. Powered by a 9-volt battery. (not > included). Dimensions: 6" x 2 1/4" x 1". We accept paypal, Money Gram > and United States postal money orders. Free shipping in USA. Contact > me by email if you want a free price quote. Techtoyz had these in a beeper case for $99.00 ------------------------------ From: FrazNor@gmail.com (rNormandeau) Subject: Re: Cheap Prepaid Online Phone Cards For Sale Date: 30 Sep 2004 10:43:34 -0700 IDPCphonecards@hotmail.com (IDPCphonecards) wrote in message news:: > We have Cheap Prepaid Phone cards for sale > $4.6 for $5 phone cards: > www.idpcphonecards.com Long distance at MAXIMUM 2.9 Cents Per Minute for intra-USA calls. USA-Canada for 3.5CPM. If you don't use the 800# access, rate is even cheaper; E.G.:USA-Canada 1.9CPM! OneSuite is now available for calls FROM Canada. See https://www.onesuite.com/ See their rates for all other destinations from USA or Canada. Use toll free 800 number to call from payphones [with payphone surcharge]. It is basically a prepaid phone card but you can do away with the PIN for calls from home. Program it as a speed dial, you don't even have to remember their access number. No monthly fee or minimum. There is a surchage for calls from payphones. You can create additional PIN #s for other people and track those calls separately as a "sub-account". If you use the promotion code "034720367" we both get some free minutes. We have it programmed into our cell phones for international calls. ------------------------------ From: whoward@piv27.cns.ualberta.ca (Walt Howard) Subject: Re: Lucent DSL MAX 20 Packet Loss Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:40:04 UTC Organization: University of Alberta In article , Daniel Eyholzer wrote: > We have three Lucent DSL MAX 20 connected to a Cisco switch. There are > also some other network devices and a linux box connected to the same > switch. If I am pinging to or from one of the three Lucent devices I > have packet loss. Pinging from and to the other devices connected to > the switch works without any packet loss. .... > Could it be a wrong setting on the device configuration? Or what else > could cause this problem? Are you sure that both the switch and the DSL box agree on the duplex-ness of the connection between them? Having one believe the connection is full-duplex and the other believe that it is half-duplex can cause the symptom you report. ------------------------------ 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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 ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 V23 #458 ******************************