Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

The Telecom Digest for June 17, 2010 Volume 29 : Issue 163 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Western Electric 43A dialer... (Al Gillis) Microsoft explains mystery Firefox extension, "fixes" update (Monty Solomon) AT&T-iPad security breach may be worse than first thought (Monty Solomon) 45 Years Ago-- Succasunna NJ 1ESS, also 305/904 FL NPA Split (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: 45 Years Ago-- Succasunna NJ 1ESS, also 305/904 FL NPA Split (Lisa or Jeff) Re: 45 Years Ago-- Succasunna NJ 1ESS (markjcuccia) FTC: say goodbye to "Stacey at Account Holder Services" (danny burstein) Re: DSL and filters for old phones--question (Jim Nugent) Re: DSL and filters for old phones--question (Lisa or Jeff) The Bell System and a liberal arts education (Lisa or Jeff) ====== 28 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: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:47:33 -0700 From: "Al Gillis" <al.1020@hotmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Western Electric 43A dialer... Message-ID: <4c181113$0$86445$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Does anyone have technical info (the appropriate BSP) for a 43A dialer? (it's dated "2-77") This gizmo is mounted in a 7" apparatus case, has 14 slide switches (for setting the telephone number to be dialed) and a motor driven gear that rotates switch contacts across a circuit board wired to the slide switches. On another circuit board there are two 6 position terminal boards and some relays along with resistors, capacitors, diodes and those sorts of things. This circuit board is stenciled "90D217, Series 4". I can e-mail you a photo if that would help identify it. Inquiring minds want to know!!! Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:44:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Microsoft explains mystery Firefox extension, "fixes" update Message-ID: <p06240804c83de9ea73c0@[10.0.1.3]> Microsoft explains mystery Firefox extension, "fixes" update By Emil Protalinski Ars Technica Microsoft has fixed the distribution scope of a toolbar update that, without the user's knowledge, installed an add-on in Internet Explorer and an extension in Firefox called Search Helper Extension. Microsoft told us that the new update is actually the same as the old one; the only difference is the distribution settings. In other words, the update will no longer be distributed to toolbars that it shouldn't be added to. End users won't see the tweak, Microsoft told Ars, and also offered an explanation on what the mystery add-on actually does. ... http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/06/microsoft-explains-mystery-firefox-extension-fixes-update-1.ars Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:44:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: AT&T-iPad security breach may be worse than first thought Message-ID: <p06240805c83dea4e8b4b@[10.0.1.3]> AT&T-iPad security breach may be worse than first thought By Peter Bright Ars Technica Researchers looking into the security of GSM phone networks are suggesting that the recent breach, which saw tens of thousands of e-mail addresses and ICC-IDs inadvertently disclosed by AT&T, could have far more significant implications than a bit of extra spam: attackers can use the information to learn the names and phone numbers of the leaked users, and can even track their position. The problem is that ICC-IDs-unique serial numbers that identify each SIM card-can often be converted into IMSIs. While the ICC-ID is nonsecret-it's often found printed on the boxes of cellphone/SIM bundles-the IMSI is somewhat secret. In theory, knowing an ICC-ID shouldn't be enough to determine an IMSI. The phone companies do need to know which IMSI corresponds to which ICC-ID, but this should be done by looking up the values in a big database. In practice, however, many phone companies simply calculate the IMSI from the ICC-ID. This calculation is often very simple indeed, being little more complex than "combine this hard-coded value with the last nine digits of the ICC-ID." So while the leakage of AT&T's customers' ICC-IDs should be harmless, in practice, it could reveal a secret ID. ... http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/06/atts-ipad-security-breach-could-be-worse-than-initially-thought.ars Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:04:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: 45 Years Ago-- Succasunna NJ 1ESS, also 305/904 FL NPA Split Message-ID: <387971.20672.qm@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 2010 is the 45th anniversary of the first #1ESS being cut into full PSTN service in Succasunna NJ, and is also the 45th anniversary of the 305/904 area code split for northern and north-central Florida. Also, 2010 follows the exact same "days-of-the-week" mapping that 1965 did! At 12:01am EDT (right after Midnight) on Sunday 30-May-1965, the new Succasunna NJ #1ESS, the very first one in the Public Switched Telephone Network, was cut-into service, SUCCNJSUCG0. The 45th anniversary of this very first #1ESS was JUST OVER two weeks ago! Succasunna was also the very first time when the general public could now have such new (optional extra-cost) "Custom Calling" services as Call Waiting, 3-Way Calling, Call Forwarding, Speed-Calling. The first two services could be activated with a switch-hook flash, while the use and/or activation of Call Forwarding and Speed-Calling might have required special codes, some of which could use the '*' (star) and '#' (pound) DTMF buttons. Of course, the "star" (*) could be replaced by rotary dial customers and 10-button touchtone customers (and even used by 12-button touchtone customers as well) with '11'. The "pound" (#) would "trail" a one or two digit code, to indicate to the central office that the customer was finished dialing the number, or maybe that "part" of the number, and to "cut-through" to the desired number, or to the next stage of setting up a feature. Rotary customers, 10-button touchtone customers, and even 12-button touchtone customers could simply WAIT the three-to-five seconds of post-dial-delay for the central office to "time-out" and cut through to either the desired number or to the next stage of the feature set-up. "Trailing 'pounds'" (#) could also be used on 011+/01+ IDDD calls which had variable length numbers, and also on 0- (minus) calls direct to an Operator as '0#' since the central office would be doing a post-dial-delay wait (until time-out) if the customer simply dialed '0', since the call "could" be a 0+ ten-digit (or seven-digit HNPA) Operator/Special billing call, or a 011+/01+ IDDD call, or in post-divestiture years, a '00' call to the IXC/LD operator, while '0' by itself is now the "local" operator. In 1974, the only 201-NNX c.o.code on SUCCNJSUCG0 was 201-584. The next 201-NNX code, 201-927, was added to SUCCNJSUCG0 at some point AFTER October 1975 and BEFORE February 1978. 201-584 was most likely the code for the cutover on 30-May-1965 since a (partial) list of circa 1960 2L-5N EXchange NAmes in New Jersey posted to Townson's Telecom Digest/Archives in September 1996 shows "JUstice 4" (584) as being Succasunna NJ. But did the SUCCNJSUCG0 1ESS replace a SXS office (or even #5XB) back on Sunday 30-May-1965? Succasunna NJ is much further west/inside northern New Jersey well away from the Panel/#1XB (and later #5XB) "revertive pulsing" region of northeastern New Jersey along the Hudson River across from New York City. When Englewood NJ first had originating customer DDD access to just over a dozen major metro areas as of November 1951, although it wasn't actually "known" as DDD yet, the list of 2L-5N areas in northeastern New Jersey that Englewood already had direct dial (message unit and toll) access to did NOT include Succasunna NJ. Of course, I don't even know if Succasunna NJ was yet a "dial" office in 1951... Some further details on later developments re Succasunna follow below. Also in 1965, 45 years ago this year, the northern, north-central, and northeastern areas of Florida which were still part of the 305 area code were split off into the new 904 area code. 305 was retained (at that time) by central Florida and the east coast of Florida from the Cape Canaveral/Kennedy area southward, all the way to "The Keys". This split took effect as a FLASH CUT, at 2:01am EDT on Sunday 11-July-1965. There was NO formal/official permissive dialing period. Such permissive dial periods with area code changes/splits didn't even happen until the 714/619 split which was permissive on November 1982 (mandatory in February 1983). Even the Virginia 703/804 split of Sunday 24-June-1973 was also a FLASH CUT with NO formal/official permissive dial period! (DESPITE what others' webpages attempt to indicate, which also frequently have the WRONG implementation dates as well!). Of course, even though there was no "formal/official" permissive dial period, which in later decades could last anywhere from one month to a year-and-a-half, it is POSSIBLE that both 904 and temporary continued use of 305 "might" inadvertently work for several hours after the official cut-date/time of 2:01am EDT Sunday 11-July-1965, since AT&T-LL, Southern Bell, etc. had to first open up all valid/new 904-NNX codes in the network, and then after that was completed (and tested), all old "matching" 305-NNX codes which previously referenced locations now officially in 904, had to be "removed" or "turned off" with vacant or intercept type recordings if someone still dialed the old 305 NPA for placing calls to this now-904 part of Florida, those same 305-NNX codes to ultimately be re-assigned to locations in that part of Florida which retained the 305 NPA code (at that time). Such an "inadvertent" permissive dial period "could" have taken effect, for who knows... 3-hours? 6-hours? 8-hours? 12-hours? following 2:01am Eastern that Sunday morning, 11-July-1965. I was only four years old at the time, and while I was fascinated by the telephone even at that age, I wouldn't have been doing any test-dialing to find out back then!!!! With the July 1965 Florida 305/904 area code split, the state now had three area codes, the third area code being 813 for the west (Gulf) coast of southern Florida, all GTE (now VeriZon, still being retained by VeriZon) for the Tampa Bay area, and CenturyLink/Embarq/Sprint/United for the Fort Meyers area. 813 was carved out of 305 back in the early 1950s, although it wouldn't be until the early 1960s when calls could be DIALED by customers elsewhere in the US/Canada to this 813 southwest "independent" region of Florida. The OLD name for VZ/GTE Tampa was Peninsular Telephone Company which General Telephone purchased circa 1968, and the OLD name for the CenturyLink-once-United Fort Meyers area was Inter-County Telephone Company which United purchased probably in the mid-1960s. In Spring 1988, Florida's fourth area code, the 407 area code split from 305, for the Orlando and NASA regions (Orange County, Seminole County, Osceola County, Brevard County, part of Volusia County, and a very small part of Lake County) and also for points north of Broward County -- i.e., Palm Beach County, Martin County, St.Lucie County, Indian River County. 305 (at the time) was retained by Broward County, Dade County (Miami/etc), and the "Keys" part of Monroe County. Starting in 1995 and continuing through 2002, all four area codes in Florida (as of 1988) have had several splits and/or overlays, the 904 area code included -- 352 for north-central Florida (Gainesville) in 1995, 850 for the panhandle (Tallahassee to Pensacola) in 1997, and 386 for both the Daytona area and points to the west of the Jacksonville area/north of the Gainesville area in 2001. The 904 area code was retained by the Jacksonville area itself in northeast Florida. Some later developments regarding Succasunna NJ: The second 201-NNX office code, 201-927, was added to the original 201-584 (JUstice 4-) at SUCCNJSUCG0 at some point AFTER October 1975, but BEFORE February 1978. SUCCNJSUCG0 (still a 1ESS, never upgraded to a 1AESS by NJ-Bell/Bell Atlantic, WECO/Labs) was replaced by a new 5ESS, SUCCNJSUDS5, on Saturday 28-September-1991. It still had the same two c.o.codes, 201-584 and 201-927. 201-252 was added to SUCCNJSUDS5 on Saturday 30-January-1993. Succasunna NJ fell on the 973 side of the 201/973 area code split of 1997. Permissive dialing of the new 973 area code began on Sunday 01-June-1997. Mandatory use of the new 973 area code, meaning that the use of the 201 area code for Succasunna and other parts of north-central and north-western (and even some northeastern NJ was no longer allowed) took effect on Saturday 06-December-1997 -- i.e., 201-252, 201-584, and 201-927, were replaced respectively by 973-252, 973-584, 973-927. A new 973-NNX code, the fourth, 973-598, was added to SUCCNJSUDS5 on Wednesday 30-September-1998. In December 2001, the 973 area code was overlaid with the new 862 area code. At the same time, 201 was overlaid with 551, and 732 (which split from 908 back in 1997) was overlaid with 858. (908 had split from 201 back in 1990/91). There are several other 973-NXX codes associated with the Succasunna NJ ratecenter, as well as some new 862-NXX codes, and even some (default) VeriZon-Wireless 201-NXX office codes which might probably have been legacy Bell-Atlantic/(NYNEX) Mobile office codes pre-dating the 201/973 area code split of 1997 which were "grandfathered" in the 201 NPA instead of changing to 973-NXX codes back then, also all associated with the Succasunna NJ ratecenter. But the VeriZon/Bell-Atlantic/NJ-Bell SUCCNJSUDS5 5ESS, which replaced the 30-May-1965 SUCCNJSUCG0 1ESS (THE VERY FIRST) in 1991, has only four "default" c.o.codes associated with it, all four also being associated with the Succasunna NJ ratecenter, originally part of the 201 area code, but splitting/changing to the new 973 area code during 1997: 973-252 (since 30-January-1993, initially as 201-252) 973-584 (the ORIGINAL code as 201 "JUstice 4", predates the 1965 1ESS) 973-598 (since 30-September-1998) 973-927 (since the mid-1970s, initially as 201-927, originally on the 1ESS) Mark J. Cuccia markjcuccia at yahoo dot com Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA pre-Katrina Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:41:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: 45 Years Ago-- Succasunna NJ 1ESS, also 305/904 FL NPA Split Message-ID: <1b6ac9f3-70e5-44a8-8e46-edbce4877d81@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> On Jun 16, 12:04 pm, "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > But did the SUCCNJSUCG0 1ESS replace a SXS office (or even #5XB) back on > Sunday 30-May-1965? According to the NYT of 5/28/65 reporting on the new service, "the office will serve 4,500 customers in six communities, but only 200 will have access to the three new services provided by the new electronic system". The three services mentioned in the article were speed calling, three- way calling, and call forwarding. Nothing was said about call waiting or other ESS services. > . . . The first two services could be activated with a switch-hook > flash, while the use and/or activation of Call Forwarding and > Speed-Calling might have required special codes, some of which could > use the '*' (star) and '#' (pound) DTMF buttons. . . > . . . Trailing 'pounds'" (#) could also be used on 011+/01+ IDDD > calls which had variable length numbers . . . At the time of this particular cutover, Touch Tone service was extremely new and very rare, and I doubt was available before the cutover in this town (they did get it, see below). Also, I don't think International Direct Distance Dialing was available; that would come circa 1970 to a few places. There is a Popular Science article extract on Amazon describing the cutover. One of the townfolk did get a new 12 button Touch Tone phone and used the * key instead of 11 for the Speed Calling. http://books.google.com/books?id=WiYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=Succasunna+ ESS&source=bl&ots=5qPYmErYJL&sig=91uVEGbYGPYDhnCRD5m0TotvzjM&hl=en&ei=eCYZTKm 9DoWKlwfataDKCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDMQ6AEwCA#v=onep age&q=Succasunna%20ESS&f=false With Touch Tone virtually universal today and many people having phones with automatic dialers, I wonder how many public ESS subscribers make use of Speed Calling today. I would guess today it is a rarely used option for public use, though perhaps more so for internal PBX users. I also wonder how many people use Call Forwarding today, especially in these days of cheap cell phones. The article pointed out a problem-- forgetting to turn off Call Forwarding when you've returned home. Today, some ESS featurse are available a la carte, others require a monthly subscription. I like the a la carte offerings such as Return Call (1169) and 3-way calling (flash+number), despite the 75c per use charge. P.S. Verizon is spelled without a capital 'z'. The logo has it, but all text references on their website are lower case z. Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:26:40 -0700 (PDT) From: markjcuccia@yahoo.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: 45 Years Ago-- Succasunna NJ 1ESS Message-ID: <a8d2e2a5-0f91-4336-826f-89f63e854b8c@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Lisa Hancock <hancock at bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia at yahoo.com> wrote: >> But did the SUCCNJSUCG0 1ESS replace a SXS office (or even #5XB) >> back on Sunday 30-May-1965? > According to the NYT of 5/28/65 reporting on the new service, "the office > will serve 4,500 customers in six communities, but only 200 will have access > to the three new services provided by the new electronic system". > > The three services mentioned in the article were speed calling, three-way > calling, and call forwarding. Nothing was said about call waiting or other > ESS services. The Popular Science article you reference below mentions that the 1ESS does have Call Waiting, but mentioned the overall "service", not The not the actual marketed "name" of Call Waiting. That article also referred to a "return call" service (similar to today's *69), in that you could "camp-on" to a busy line you'd been trying to call, and when that line became free, you could be notified and connect back to the 'now freed up' line. I don't know if those early 1ESS offices actually had such, or if it was a possibility being considered. Note too that many early 1ESS offices had "pre-arranged" Call Forwarding or Speed Calling. The customer was not able to set-up their speed call list, the telephone company would set-up their list from pre-arrangements from the customer. And the customer could only "turn-on" or "turn-off" Call Forwarding, also to a pre-set number pre-arranged by the customer with the telephone company when setting up the service in advance. There is a Bell Labs Record issue from June 1965 which seems to be completely devoted to the 1ESS. Also in the mid/late 1960s, the Bell Labs Record had an article about how Bell Labs was trying to "kludge" some limited custom calling features for #5XB, but due to the high costs, this was abandoned early on. Also, the *X(X) = 11X(X) codes or N(X)(#) codes to activate or use the various custom calling features have never been 100% standardized over the years (even as far back as the 1960s), or even from place-to-place. There has been a desire to have standardized codes, and such has been "mostly" realized, but still not fully standardized. Even if the same numerics are used, some places would have *XX/11XX, while other places might require NX(#) for the very same function! >> ... The first two services could be activated with a switch-hook flash, >> while the use and/or activation of Call Forwarding and Speed-Calling might >> have required special codes, some of which could use the '*' (star) and '#' >> (pound) DTMF buttons ... >> ... trailing 'pounds'" (#) could also be used on 011+/01+ IDDD calls which >> had variable length numbers ... > At the time of this particular cutover, Touch Tone service was extremely new > and very rare, and I doubt was available before the cutover in this town > (they did get it, see below). Also, I don't think International Direct > Distance Dialing was available; that would come circa 1970 to a few places. The first actual (experimental) and even "regular" uses of IDDD was actually from #5XB offices, in June 1966 in Philadelphia (for one or two days though), and then in 1967 for several months in mid-town Manhattan. And then circa 1970, lower Manhattan #5XB offices had IDDD capability. Yet when IDDD was being regularly implemented throughout the 1970s, it was mostly offered "only" at ESS offices, although customers served by SXS offices which "homed" on an "ESS-based" TSPS Operator Platform could also do their own IDDD. Yet throughout most of the 1970s and well into the 1980s, #5XB offices were NOT usually retrofitted for IDDD, despite the fact that IDDD was first introduced experimentally from #5XB in 1966 (Philadelphia for one or two days), and for several months in 1967 (Midtown Manhattan), and then rolled out as a regular service from lower Manhattan circa 1970! In the mid-to-late 1980s and into the (early) 1990s, SOME remaining #5XB offices were "kludged" for IDDD and Equal Access, however these were soon to be replaced with new digital offices anyhow! > There is a Popular Science article extract on Amazon ... Don't you mean "Google Books"? > ... describing the cutover. One of the townfolk did get a new 12 button > Touch Tone phone and used the * key instead of 11 for the Speed Calling. (Google Books URL snipped in this reply due to long length that word- wraps) > With Touch Tone virtually universal today and many people having phones with > automatic dialers, I wonder how many public ESS subscribers make use of Speed > Calling today. I would guess today it is a rarely used option for public > use, though perhaps more so for internal PBX users. > > I also wonder how many people use Call Forwarding today, especially in these > days of cheap cell phones. The article pointed out a problem-- forgetting to > turn off Call Forwarding when you've returned home. Speed Calling or "Abbreviated Dialing" was mentioned in the 1965 stories as being a very popular feature! However, as time progressed, Call Waiting actually became the most popular feature during the 1970s/80s! Call Forwarding was also quite popular and probably still is, with people probably forwarding their landline to their wireless, or vice-versa especially when charging up the battery. And three-way had been quite popular at times. But since most new phones have memory-dial buttons or large directory storages, telco c.o. switch- based speed calling is probably very little used now-a-days! > Today, some ESS features are available a la carte, others require a monthly > subscription. I like the a la carte offerings such as Return Call (1169) and > 3-way calling (flash + number), despite the 75c per use charge. Some telcos offer an "all you can use" package, for a fixed monthly price. You can have all or "most/many" custom calling or "CLASS" features on your line, and add/drop them as desired, all without incurring any additional one- time charges, nor increases in monthly charges. > P.S. Verizon is spelled without a capital 'z'. The logo has it, but all > text references on their website are lower case z. I'm well aware of this, but I like the way VeriZon looks when typed out, with the 'Z' cap'd. Similarly, when I refer to the current name of ILEC side of what was once known as SBC (including Ameritech, SNET, Pacific & Nevada Bell), BellSouth, as well as cingular-wireless, I prefer to type out the letters 'at&t' in lower-case, since I like the way it looks. When I refer to the Long Lines side which still uses the name it has used since before divestiture, I type it all cap'd as AT&T-LL. So, since I like the way VeriZon looks with the cap'd 'Z', and the ILEC at&t looks in lower case, I will continue to type it out that way. mjc Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:15:41 -0400 From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: FTC: say goodbye to "Stacey at Account Holder Services" Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1006162006480.9158@panix5.panix.com> [FTC press release] The Federal Trade Commission's work to stop deceptive pre-recorded "robocalls" took another step forward today as a federal court halted a major telemarketing operation that made millions of illegal phone calls pitching worthless extended auto warranties and credit card interest rate-reduction programs. At the request of the FTC, a federal court judge in Chicago has entered an order stopping the operation's calls, temporarily freezing its assets, and appointing a receiver to take control of the operation." ----- rest: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/asiapacific.shtm - nothing in the press release about the banks and credit card companies agreeing to prompt refunds for any of the ripped off money. oh, and: "The FTC reminds consumers that if they get a robocall they did not authorize, they can file a complaint by going to: www.donotcall.gov or by calling 1-888-382-1222" - however, the web page will NOT accept a complaint if you don't have a CNID number to fill in to the FTC box. Which happens, of course, if you either don't pay for CNID, don't have a display, or if they've been blocking it. (And yes, I've written Real USPS Letters to the FTC as well as to my US Senators pointing out this little problem. No reply. No surprise). _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:35:53 -0500 From: "Jim Nugent" <njim2k-etsnews@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: DSL and filters for old phones--question Message-ID: <hvbcav$2nb$1@news.eternal-september.org> "Lisa or Jeff" <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:c4874bfa-d421-4c3e-a991-0fd17c971291@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > Just a historical note--party lines remained reasonably common long > after the Princess phone was introduced. Likewise with the Trimline > phone, which also had a dial light. Indeed, back in the 1950s where > were sets with tiny dial lights on them that needed power. I've had Timline phones in the past that required a transformer for the dial light. Sometime in the 80's we bought a Trimline phone that did NOT require a transformer. It's in our bedroom, the dial lights up, but it does not use the yellow and black wires. I guess it's a newer design that just leeches power from the phone line itself (tip and ring)....? -- Jim ***** Moderator's Note ***** The newer models have light-emitting-diodes (LED's) in the handset, in series with the line. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:13:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: DSL and filters for old phones--question Message-ID: <b55c54ae-c8ca-4a36-8dfd-2dcdd0e12469@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> On Jun 16, 10:35 am, "Jim Nugent" <njim2k-etsn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I've had Timline phones in the past that required a transformer for the dial > light. Sometime in the 80's we bought a Trimline phone that did NOT require > a transformer. It's in our bedroom, the dial lights up, but it does not use > the yellow and black wires. I guess it's a newer design that just leeches > power from the phone line itself (tip and ring)....? >  -- > Jim > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > The newer models have light-emitting-diodes (LED's) in the handset, in > series with the line. When the Bell System was totally responsible for maintenance, they sought a way to eliminate the transformer and lightbulb since that represented extra work by the installer. Sending out a repairman just to replace a burned-out lamp was seen as very wasteful. Some years ago Bell Labs Record had an article on LEDs and how they could save money for the Bell System per the above. Using LEDs instead of an incandescent dial lamp in Princess and Trimline phones was one welcome solution. LEDs were also utilized in keysets and switchboards. I think they stuck with lightbulbs in the traditional six-button keysets and even ComKey systems, but newer systems (Horizon, Merlin?) used LEDs. The old Bell System constantly researched ways to reduce the maintenance cost of station equipment. Indeed, even without Divesture, they probably would've sold off station equipment to the subscribers since the maintenance and installation cost in labor was growing. A big problem for the Bell System in the late 1960s and onward was 'churning'--Americans were moving much more than they used and the Bell System was installing and removing phones much more often than the past. (This also wracked havoc on distributing frames which became overloaded from new jumpers). Note that even before Divesture the Bell System was trying to get customers to do more on their own, such as with modular jacks and Phone Center Stores, and campaigns to have subscribers disconnect their phones themselves when they moved. Today of course telephone sets are basically disposable. When they break, toss it and buy a new one. Even wireless handsets. Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:19:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: The Bell System and a liberal arts education Message-ID: <dc85a36c-7d75-460c-bf36-f52e093b3a43@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> The NYT published today an article how in 1952 the Bell System sent its executives back to college to get a liberal arts education. The reason was, "A well-trained man knows how to answer questions, they reasoned; an educated man knows what questions are worth asking." Bell realized it had many highly trained engineers in its management, but many did not have a humanities background in their training or experience, and it was felt it was desirable. The article goes on to wonder if such a program would be useful today. For full article please see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/opinion/16davis.html?src=me&ref=homepage 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. 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: 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 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 (10 messages)