29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for May 28, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 135 : "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: 26 May 2011 21:48:31 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No. 10A Remote Switching System--experience/historical track record?
Message-ID: <20110526214831.38695.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Now, nearly 30 years later, would anyone know of the actual service
>experience of the 10A or similar functional units? It seems like a
>good idea, and given the huge drop in the cost of electronics since
>that time, probably more such systems have been deployed.
That's how pretty much all small phone switches work now, CDOs are
remotes to a switch in a nearby town. The remote can complete calls
between lines on that remote, but everything else requires the main
switch. Since it's all software driven, there's often no physical
difference between a switch and a remote. Relatives who run a rural
telco in Vermont told me that they reconfigured their exchanges from
being separate switches to one switch and a bunch of remotes, no
hardware changes, no differences that subscribers could see, but the
software cost was a lot lower.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 12:17:57 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No. 10A Remote Switching System--experience/historical track record?
Message-ID: <NPOdnbiCcPl7ZULQnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
John Levine wrote:
>>Now, nearly 30 years later, would anyone know of the actual service
>>experience of the 10A or similar functional units? It seems like a
>>good idea, and given the huge drop in the cost of electronics since
>>that time, probably more such systems have been deployed.
>
>
> That's how pretty much all small phone switches work now, CDOs are
> remotes to a switch in a nearby town. The remote can complete calls
> between lines on that remote, but everything else requires the main
> switch. Since it's all software driven, there's often no physical
> difference between a switch and a remote. Relatives who run a rural
> telco in Vermont told me that they reconfigured their exchanges from
> being separate switches to one switch and a bunch of remotes, no
> hardware changes, no differences that subscribers could see, but the
> software cost was a lot lower.
>
> R's,
> John
>
I thought a remote had to have fiber optics to the host. Seems like
that would have cost a lot of money for the rural telco.
When Pacific Bell deployed 5ESS and DMS-100 switches as far as I can
determine, they always used a 5ESS where it was to host one or more
remotes. I guess their engineers liked the 5E remote.
I recall reading about the 5E remote in a BSTJ. If the link to the host
went down those connected to the remote could still call each other and
the telco pay stations provided free local calls.
I also recall that the 5E remote was a dedicated module, different than
anything used in a 5ESS. I also found it interesting that all calling
features were routed to the host; i.e., all the calling feature software
was at the host.
I've often wondered what safeguards are provided for E911. Anyone know?
I don't know what the distance limit was/is for the remote. The old
TOPS system was limited to about 50 miles; but then again, that was
before F.O.
***** Moderator's Note *****
There was a 50 mile limit on T-Carrier way back when, although some
systems exceeded it and still worked well: I saw one T-Carrier system
working over a ~70 mile span. I assume that the "50 miles" limit you
mention was due to T-Carrier.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: 27 May 2011 23:26:01 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No. 10A Remote Switching System--experience/historical track record?
Message-ID: <20110527232601.71884.qmail@joyce.lan>
>> difference between a switch and a remote. Relatives who run a rural
>> telco in Vermont told me that they reconfigured their exchanges from
>> being separate switches to one switch and a bunch of remotes, no
>> hardware changes, no differences that subscribers could see, but the
>> software cost was a lot lower.
>I thought a remote had to have fiber optics to the host. Seems like
>that would have cost a lot of money for the rural telco.
They noticed quite a while ago that fiber costs approximately nothing
and laying it is what's expensive, so they'd been dropping a few
fibers in whenever they trenched anything. Hence they already had
fiber among all the COs. I think they were already using it for DSL
backhaul.
>I don't know what the distance limit was/is for the remote. The old
>TOPS system was limited to about 50 miles; but then again, that was
>before F.O.
I think I've read about 100 and more in places in the west that are
really rural.
R's,
John
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 19:54:17 -0400
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Early Voice Mail ("voice storage") systems
Message-ID: <frptt61sbmsueo9auovmvcnmso599lbscj@4ax.com>
On Thu, 26 May 2011 11:11:04 -0700 (PDT), Lisa or Jeff
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>The May 1982 issue of BSTJ has a seires of articles on voice storage.
>This technology led to voice mail services.
>
>As usual, Bell Labs extensively researched the architecture, physical
>design, software, office engineering, maintenance, and reliability,
>with articles describing in detail the findings.
>
>The preface says the FCC ordered Bell to cease work on this system as
>it violated regulatory policy--it was considered a premium add-on in
>violation of "Computer II". So even though in 1982 Bell's competitors
>were providing both transmission services and customer equipment, Bell
>was forbidden to offer its own premium services.
>
>How much of this research carried forward to voice mail systems I
>don't know. But I can't but suspect that subsequent private
>developers benefited from Bell's original research and trials.
>
>
>table of contents may be found at:
>http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol61-1982/bstj-vol61-issue05.html
Typical of the times. In fact, Western Electric was forbidden by the
FCC to manufacture the radio equipment for the first cellular service
trial in Chicago. The results created a real political storm as a
Japanese firm submitted the lowest bid for mobile equipment.
ET
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 (4 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues