29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for April 06, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 88 : "text" Format
====== 29 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 Bill Horne 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: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 19:52:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones?
Message-ID: <ind7im$rr$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <1s5kp6dasu6noln1cecjtnterhj0hj5mql@4ax.com> Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Besides, providing premises power requires copper; fiber doesn't
>transmit that level of power very well, so a separate copper plant
>would have to be maintained. That would make FiOS an additional
>infrastructure, not a replacement infrastructure.
I've got to wonder a bit about that, at least from
a pure, technical, side.
Back in the 1980s I remember articles in Science News
about the (for then) super high efficiency solar cells
coming out of Bell Labs research. (Yes, children, once
upon a time there was this company, in New Jersey!, that
did lots of ground breaking research).
It wouldn't work for a commercial complex with multiple
phone systems in place (which have generally required
local utility power anyway [a]), but I wouldn't be surprised
if, given a few nudges in teh right direction, we'd have
phones and related equipment that could, indeed, be
powered by the laser/fiber light stream.
And... we'd also have seen quite a bit of improvement
in small sized, high density, storage cells - that would
"charge up" from the laser between calls.
And the consumer premises equipment ("CPE") would
be far more energy efficient than what's now in
common use.
[a] typically there'd be a couple of phone sets which
had "power failure pass through", getting direct dial
tone from the CO.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 17:00:13 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones?
Message-ID: <siegman-4A6399.17001304042011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article <1s5kp6dasu6noln1cecjtnterhj0hj5mql@4ax.com>,
Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Besides, providing premises power requires copper; fiber doesn't
> transmit that level of power very well, so a separate copper plant
> would have to be maintained.
I believe undersea fiber optic cables actually carry something like
several kW of power over kilo-mile distances via copper that's embedded
in the fiber optic cable, in order to power the EDFAs (Erbium Doped
Fiber Amplifiers) that are spliced into the cable every 50 km or so.
So, the fiber cables for FTTH could certainly contain a copper pair or
two to deliver low-power AC or DC all the way to the premises end.
Wouldn't significantly increase the size or flexibility of the cable,
I'd guess. Would add noticeably to the cost of the cable, however,
along with the cost of spllcing or connectorizing the cables -- and
somebody would have to be responsible for supplying the power.
I'd bet that if one were installing the communication infrastructure in
some large green-fields development, it might make overall economic
sense to run a single cable containing a PON fiber plus a few pairs of
copper to every premises, using the fiber for all forms of large-scale
communications and data, and the copper to supply backup or emergency
power for crucial parts of the whole infrastructure, plus a few
low-data-rate communications applications such as various monitoring and
alarm systems and maybe meter reading.
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones?
Message-ID: <baa1cd7a-d7a3-44dc-9c9b-10f1094584a9@e9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 4, 3:24 pm, Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spam...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> Not having to change the batteries was the major reason to go to
> central office battery in the early days. Saved a bundle on
> maintenance costs, even more than the invention of the switch hook
> saved (not turning off the phone was a major cause of battery
> rundown...). The change was maintenance cost driven, not at all due
> to customer convenience during power outages. Sending a craftsperson
> out to change the batteries was expensive then and prohibitively
> expensive today.
Another disadvantage of local battery was the lack of supervisory
signals on the switchboard. Subscribers were supposed to ring off
when done but most forgot.
There was an army technical manual, "Fundamentals of Telephony" that
had an excellent explanation of the differences between local battery
(hand cranked) and common battery (switchhook signal) telephone sets
and switchboards.
If memory serves, common battery required a more complex switchboard
than local battery. A local battery indicator was a tiny shutter drop
released by the subscriber's magneto. No lamp, no relays, so a
simpler switchboard. Also, I believe local battery permitted longer
loops than common battery, and probably the wire didn't have to be in
as good condition. Lastly, when I was a kid experimenting with No. 6
dry cells they lasted forever, so I don't think service visits to
change the battery were required very often.
I don't know when local battery ceased to be a _significant_ type of
commercial telephone service. Anyone know? I do know some railroads
and street railways used it for internal communications well into the
1970s. They had modern-looking telephone sets--it looked like a 500
set except with a handcrank where the dial would go and the handset
had a push-to-talk button.
I don't think FIOS would work with local battery phones <g>.
(Interesting on how we've gone full circle with a local battery).
However, an enthusiastic salesperson just might tell you it would to
make a sale, just as one told me DSL would work fine on a party line.
Not long ago someone posted an ad from a company in India that made
local battery telephone equipment. Unfortunately, it didn't have
pricing or a US dealer. But there's a lot of old local battery phones
available.
***** Moderator's Note *****
There are usually military-surplus "field" phones on Epay. My brother
has a TA-312 model, for which he was able to obtain, believe it or
not, an official government-issue touch tone pad, which fits over the
top of the phone and has a plastic barrier to remind users not to
crank the magneto. Go figure.
Interestingly, when I just did a search for "field phone" there, the
search produced listings for "Spirit of Saint Louis" "field phones"
that look like children's toys but are claimed to be actual
telephones: maybe something from the steampunk crowd, but
YMMV. They're definitely not local-battery sets.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:52:07 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones?
Message-ID: <20110405145207.GA27851@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:38:16PM -0700, Moderator wrote:
> There are usually military-surplus "field" phones on Epay. My brother
> has a TA-312 model, for which he was able to obtain, believe it or
> not, an official government-issue touch tone pad, which fits over the
> top of the phone and has a plastic barrier to remind users not to
> crank the magneto. Go figure.
I had done a seach for "field phone" on Ebay, and I was about to
redirect my browser to another page when I noticed an ebay listing for
a ta-263/pt field phone. The listing says it comes with two linesman's
whistles, and has a picture of them.
Somebody, please make my day: tell me the frequencies of those
whistles. Ghod, please, let one of them be 2600. I'll laugh for a
whole day.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 00:27:37 -0400
From: Bob K <SPAMpot@rochester.rr.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: How long does it take to port a phone number?
Message-ID: <4D9A9A39.5070304@rochester.rr.com>
I recently switched from the telephone company I had been using for a
very long time (since before dial!) to the local cable company. Part of
this changeover was the porting of my telephone number to the new provider.
The release of the telephone number to the cable company took longer
than I thought it should. To be specific, it was exactly 3 weeks.
The telephone company said it always takes at least 7 to 10 days to port
a number, but mine was longer since I had a freeze on the porting of the
number. I was given a number to call to release that freeze when I
placed the order for the new service, did that, and received a
confirmation number. So, that should have lifted the freeze right then
and there.
I've tried to get an answer from the from the phone company on why so
long, and they insist that length of time is necessary. I finally
mentioned to them the FCC mandate they port a number within 1 business
day, and their response to that was I should contact my congressman and
have that changed!
It is interesting the reason the FCC reduced that time to 1 business day
was because carriers were using delaying tactics to discourage people
changing carriers. I wouldn't think my telephone company would do
anything like that, but then I could probably go on with other problems
I have had with the change.
Any thoughts?
....Bob
***** Moderator's Note *****
Bob, I think you should write your congressman! Tell him or her that
the ILEC has been hiring untutored, arrogant, irresponsible
salesdroids who think that not being caught in a lie is the same thing
as telling the truth.
Oh, and by the way, it took that long to port your number because they
had to re-hire a retired CO guy as a consultant in order to figure out
why your coils has SSP markings on them. ;-)
Bill Horne
Moderator
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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne.
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
Copyright (C) 2009 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 (5 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues