Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 47 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Re: Teen sends 14,528 text messages in one month Re: Teen sends 14,528 text messages in one month Re: Teen sends 14,528 text messages in one month Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? ====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== 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, and other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:25:31 -0600 From: "Kenneth P. Stox" <stox@sbcglobal.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <wBVll.16322$YU2.5394@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> Bill Horne wrote: > Jim Haynes wrote: > > >> Around Teletype Corp. there was a famous story of a truck parts supplier >> whose computer system did not incorporate any reasonableness checking >> on quantities. (As many systems today still lack.) A single bit >> error turned an order for 7 dipsticks into one for 1007 dipsticks. > > Sorry, that doesn't (excuse the pun) compute. A single bit error would > alter the total by a power of two: I'd believe that 7 turned into 1031, > but not 1007. Sounds like a company legend. Actually, shouldn't it be 1039? Even that is unlikely unless the bit flip was internal to the computer. If it was flipped coming from a terminal, one would expect that a single character would be corrupted. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I assumed that the a single bit error would be the result of digital data being transferred over a channel that had no error checking, so the closest power-of-two would be 1024, and 1024+7=1031. If the story was about a text error, it would only make sense if the field was transmitted with zero fill, i.e., as "0007", and if the bit flip turned the first zero into a one. As I said, these "salesman's stories" morph to fit the company that's using them, so they're best understood after having a couple of drinks. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 2009 14:32:42 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Cc: redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <20090215143242.28202.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >> Around Teletype Corp. there was a famous story of a truck parts supplier >> whose computer system did not incorporate any reasonableness checking >> on quantities. (As many systems today still lack.) A single bit >> error turned an order for 7 dipsticks into one for 1007 dipsticks. > >Sorry, that doesn't (excuse the pun) compute. A single bit error would >alter the total by a power of two: I'd believe that 7 turned into 1031, >but not 1007. Sounds like a company legend. How soon they forget the IBM 705, 7080, et al. A one bit error could most definitely turn 0007 into 1007. R's, John >> Form feed and tabulation very early showed up as customer requirements, >> so the Model 15 (circa 1930) had those features. > >I didn't know that Baudot/Murray code had a form-feed character. How was >it done? Probaby replaced the pound symbol or something else little used in the US. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I never worked with IBM 705 or 7080 equipment. What made it possible for a one-bit error to have that effect? Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 2009 22:48:34 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Cc: redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <20090215224834.60289.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >>Sorry, that doesn't (excuse the pun) compute. A single bit error would >>alter the total by a power of two: I'd believe that 7 turned into 1031, >>but not 1007. Sounds like a company legend. > >How soon they forget the IBM 705, 7080, et al. A one bit error could >most definitely turn 0007 into 1007. >I never worked with IBM 705 or 7080 equipment. What made it possible >for a one-bit error to have that effect? Decimal arithmetic, of course. R's, John ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 2009 14:36:53 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Cc: redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org Subject: Re: Teen sends 14,528 text messages in one month Message-ID: <20090215143653.29348.qmail@simone.iecc.com> In article <gn84dp$gn3$1@gal.iecc.com> you write: >I know that with our basic Verizon plan, with text msgs at $0.20 US each, >it's not going to happen! Better upgrade to the Select plan with unlimited texts, then get that thumb in shape. R's, John ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:15:46 -0500 From: "MC" <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Teen sends 14,528 text messages in one month Message-ID: <23Yll.4338$qa.2405@bignews4.bellsouth.net> "Joseph Singer" <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:299777.77318.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com... > > Many factors determine how much people use text messaging. Among > the factors are the age groups involved, how much voice calling > costs as well as what's "right" for the situation. Many times the > sending of a text message to someone who's tied up with something is > a better fit for that person than actually making them stop what > they are doing to have a telephone conversation with you at the > moment. True, but 14,528 messages per month is an average of one every 3 minutes day and night! Or one every 2 waking minutes if the person is asleep 1/3 of the time. Someone needs to get a life! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:52:51 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Teen sends 14,528 text messages in one month Message-ID: <74497b2f-3a5e-4187-b8f1-bea58da8758f@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> On Feb 15, 8:38 pm, "MC" <for.address.l...@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote: > True, but 14,528 messages per month is an average of one every 3 > minutes day and night!  Or one every 2 waking minutes if the person is > asleep 1/3 of the time.  Someone needs to get a life! Or the original story is exaggered, which is what I suspect. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:57:24 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <e9fa653f-1829-44c0-9a49-48d3f41bc674@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> On Feb 14, 11:17 pm, Jim Haynes <hay...@giganews.com> wrote: > Telex, using 50 baud and Baudot code was long-established in Europe > at the time.  One of W.U.'s goals was to tie into the European system, > something that TWX did not attempt.  W.U. was somewhat hobbled since > the government had required that company to divest the international > cable business.  Thus to connect with Europe W.U. had to turn to RCA > or WU International or other companies for connectivity. IMHO, based on Oslin's book, WU was treated unfairly when they (1) had to acquire the money-losing Postal Telegraph and (2) divest the international cable business. WU, even in the 1940s, was not a big and powerful company with unlimited resources, yet the govt acted as if it was. > W.U. either wanted TWX or wanted TWX to go away.  It was forever an > article of faith with W.U. people that AT&T had violated an agreement > to stay out of the telegraph business when it introduced TWX.  And > W.U. argued that TWX was cream-skimming business away from their public > telegram business.  AT&T countered that what they had agreed to was to > stay out of the public telegram business, and that TWX was in fact a > different service altogether since it provided a real-time two-way > conversation.  W.U. used all kinds of lame arguments to try to get the > government to declare there should be one national voice communication > system and a separate record communication system, as if the wires cared > what kind of signals they carried. Again, IMHO, WU was right and AT&T was wrong in this aspect. AT&T was a rapidly growing company, WU was not. I can't help but suspect if WU attempted significant private line voice communications on its own network (which it had every right to do and did to a very limited extent) AT&T would scream in protest. Unfortunately, WU wasn't interested in voice and much of its network couldn't handle it anyway. AT&T did throw WU a few bones by billing telegrams directly to phone accounts and later giving deep discounts on leased lines, at least until MCI made a stink about unfair treatment. I suspect AT&T was willing to tolerate a small WU to avoid anti-trust issues (not that it helped), the way IBM tolerated Remington Rand and predecessors in the punched card business, even helping them out on occassion, again to avoid anti-trust issues (not that it helped). > Form feed and tabulation very early showed up as customer requirements, > so the Model 15 (circa 1930) had those features. Thanks for the correction. > You'd think so, yet one thing that stood in the way of getting ASCII > approved was that IBM wanted a code that was easier to translate to > card code.  That's why we got EBCDIC. Well, for the first 35 years or so, that card code dependency was very important in programming, so it made sense to do so. To this day sometimes in rough mainframe programming the "overpunch" of the sign in a numeric character causes a letter to be displayed instead of the last digit. > I agree, that would be very interesting, and I wish somebody would do it. > All you learn from the business press is that W.U. had more debts than > they had income.  I wonder if they were shocked by having to replace the > AUTODIN computer with new models rather quickly, because of the rapid > evolution of computer technology. I am speculating here, but I suspect WU's engineers and management may have been more conservative and not ready for the rapid changes in electronics that occurred in the 1960s. As such, I suspect they were shocked at the need to replace AUTODIN and not prepared to deal with it. But in fairness to WU, many 'tech" companies found it hard to keep up and [not] make mistakes. Take IBM and the coming of computers. There's a myth that IBM's Thomas J. Watson Sr was against computers, but that's not true. He sponsored electronics research even before his son joined the company and then turned it over to his son, Tom Jr. The problem at IBM was that even the son didn't see computers coming, and most of IBM's engineers were mechanical oriented, not electronics oriented. The son had to spin the company around in the 1950s several times, one to focus on electronics, and again to switch from tubes to transistors. Also, IBM developed advanced transistor manufacturing techniques which were very valuable, but didn't think to patent them, and other companies got the benefit. I do want to point [out] that, unlike today, electronics were extremely expensive in the 1950s and 1960s, and just because electronics were fast did not mean a relay was replaced with a circuit card. I can well understand WU's reluctance to spend big $$ to replace their relatively new relay systems with electronics. However, given the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I suggest they made a mistake in that an electronic faster network would've been more attractive to data communications. As mentioned, what I don't understand is the apparent disconnect between what WU said in print and what they actually did. Their tech journal talked about computers and high speed sophisticated stuff, but my impression is the implementation of such stuff was relatively rare. I get the impression it took them a very long time to set up microwave channels. As an aside, all companies that have been around for a long time will have to drastically re-invent themselves as times change. Some companies manage to do so and thrive, others can't and whither away. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:51:17 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <2f58c7c7-574b-4d96-8215-c5f0db06c423@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> On Feb 14, 11:22 pm, Bill Horne <b...@horneQRM.net> wrote: > You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think they were looking > that far ahead: integrated circuits weren't invented yet in 1963, and > Teletype probably assumed that electromechanical terminals would remain > viable indefinitely. I'll have to go to the university library to look up old periodicals (Business Week and Datamation) to see what was said, if anything, when the TTY 33 was announced. Unfortunately, much of that stuff is not indexed. I tried searching the NYT but couldn't find any reference. (I did find that in both 1949 and 1964 WU wanted to buy TWX but was rebuffed.) As to integrated circuits, I don't think their existence is relevant, particularly in peripherals. IBM used its older and cheaper 1950s plain transistor cards in its System/360 peripherals, using its modern hybrids only for the high speed CPU. > Yes, UPI and AP used Model 15's until they were made obsolete, first by > dot-matrix printers and then by "online" CRT-based computers which > allowed news editors to paste copy directly onto TelePrompTer or > Compu=Prompt inputs, and to feed the news directly into "Pagination" > newspaper preparation systems. My feeling is that if message transmission was the sole goal, the models 15 and 28, both excellent machines still in production, would've served very well. Dials could and were attached to them for TWX/Telex service. What advantage to the message-sending customer was there to go ASCII? In those days ASCII's extra bits meant extra hardware and line capacity to transmit. And as you said, ASCII took longer. > I'm not familiar with WU's history, so I'll ask other readers to chime > in on that question. I know that WU did offer dedicated data circuits in > the 70's and into the 80's, but the advent of FedEx and email killed its > telegram business, and high-speed fax machines were the death knell of > the TELEX network. The general public telegram business was killed off by cheap long distance voice rates, and WU knew in 1960 there was no future in it. By 1978 the telegram was virtually dead, and that was before FedEx and email. WU public operators dealt with sending money, which remains the new company's business today. After WW II AT&T regularly lowered its long distance rates but at the same time Western Union was raising its telegram rates. Before circa 1958 people sent telegrams because it was cheaper--almost half the price in some cases-- even easier than long distance. We take for granted easy long distance, but in 1958 for many subscribers it was not so easy and expensive for everyone. AT&T pushed long distance as a useful business tool, but WU did not push the basic telegram. Delivering telegrams was very expensive. The real WU question is what happened to those data circuits of the 1970s you mention. Why didn't WU expand that business, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s? (By the 1980s it was too late.) > Since many PC's now come equipped with all the common functionality on > one motherboard, many users are unconcerned with expansion slots. I > think they were always valued more for theoretical expansion than > practical need, but I digress. Back in the early 1960s hardware was so expensive that modularity and add-ons were critical to hold cost down. Computers were sold with memory in tiny increments. I can't imagine having a Teletype without a keyboard or tape reader/punch, but they were options. Heck, in the old days lights on 6 button telephone keysets were an extra cost option, and wink-hold were a still further additional cost. Customers often wanted to enter technology on the low side, and wanted the ability to expand if and when the need arose. They did not want to redo their entire operation upon expansion. > IBM chose not to go ASCII: those in the mainframe world still wrestle > with EBCDIC, yet IBM is a mostly-profitable business to this day. > Western Union's choice not to embrace ASCII had, IMNSHO, nothing to do > with its demise: the company failed to adapt to the marketplace's demand > for more sophisticated tools, and WU could have provided them without > abandoning Baudot in legacy uses such as TELEX. Keep in mind that TWX > machines, which (at least for the "100 speed" side) were already > equipped for ASCII, never played any significant role in computer data > processing. Baudot is just a way of getting something done, and WU chose > not to do it, i.e., the company refused to face the threat to its > TELEX/TWX networks in time to reform itself for the new age. Interesting comment, how TWX didn't get involved with computers. > > Again, I'm not an expert, but it would seem that WU's proportionate > > role in business communciations in 1960 was far smaller in 1970. > Well, in the end we're saying the same thing with different analogies: > Western Union could have, but chose not to, adapt to the revolution in > business practice brought about by the invention of cheap general > purpose computers. It's easy to see, in retrospect, that the PC was only > a gateway - but it was the mother of all apertures, through which poured > an incredible, pent-up demand for connectivity, for entertainment, and > for the capability to reach others who share an individual's interests. My feeling is that when the PC came out as a serious business tool, circa 1980, it was too late for WU. WU's fate was due to decisions made in the 1960s, which is why I focus on ASCII and the 33/35. As an aside, I see the PC "mother of aperture" differently when it comes to communications. Early PCs were $1,000, and a modem wasn't include and was extra. In the early days, aside from hobbyists and some business users, most people used PCs for spreadsheets, word processing, and databases (and games for home users). If all someone wanted to do was communications, a good terminal could've been sold for say $300 instead of the $1,000 for a full featured PC. The PC did help the communication revolution you speak, but only _indirectly_. People _already had_ PCs, so adding a modem and a web browser was no big deal. In my opinion, the real driver of the communication revolution was the huge decline in the price of central data servers (computers) and communication lines. Cheap servers made it possible for people to afford to offer useful information on-line, and, to do so in a very user-friendly format. Cheap communications made it possible to provide full scale interconnections between servers and the users, and again, to do it in a user-friendly format. In other words, even if the PC was available for say only $100, there wouldn't be much to connect to if servers and communication lines were as expensive as they were in 1980. The parts of a computer--CPU, internal memory, and disk memory--all declined steeply in price, so the storage and access cost (in terms of cents per character) got cheaper. The ability for someone at home to communicate to computers or other people was forseen and published in the early 1960s; they just had to wait for the price of technology to come down to make it worthwhile for the masses (and the software to be a little easier for lay people.) We could just as easily be having this conversation using Teletypes as a terminal to the central computer. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition 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. The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: mailto:telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom 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://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 The Telecom digest (8 messages) ******************************