|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 184 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Deathmatch rematch: BlackBerry versus iPhone 3.0
Deathmatch: Palm Pre versus iPhone
Re: Rating cell phone calls
Re: Rating cell phone calls
Re: Rating cell phone calls
Re: Rating cell phone calls
Re: Rating cell phone calls
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Apple WWDC 2009 Keynote Address
cellular phone tracking
Twitter Comes to the Rescue
Growing Presence in the Courtroom: Cellphone Data as Witness
Re: Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up"
====== 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, 5 Jul 2009 18:39:26 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Deathmatch rematch: BlackBerry versus iPhone 3.0
Message-ID: <p06240800c676dab0ec88@[10.0.1.14]>
Deathmatch rematch: BlackBerry versus iPhone 3.0
Does the newest iPhone OS eliminate the few advantages the BlackBerry
Bold had in our original deathmatch comparison?
By Galen Gruman
InfoWorld
JULY 03, 2009
The new iPhone 3.0 OS is now old news, but does its enhancements
overcome any advantages that the BlackBerry has over the iPhone? In
May, I pitted the BlackBerry Bold in a head-to-head competition
against the iPhone 3G, which handily beat RIM's business standard in
most areas. After all, the iPhone 3.0 OS enhances the e-mail,
calendar, and search functions that many BlackBerry users focus
on and that IT loves about the BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES).
So, here I revisit the original iPhone-versus-BlackBerry deathmatch,
updating it based on the iPhone 3.0 OS's changes. That original
comparison said it was time to bury the BlackBerry; the iPhone OS 3.0
simply piles more dirt onto the grave.
...
http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/deathmatch-rematch-blackberry-versus-iphone-30-843
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 08:01:33 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Deathmatch: Palm Pre versus iPhone
Message-ID: <p0624082bc67796abf496@[10.0.1.14]>
Deathmatch: Palm Pre versus iPhone
In our last comparison, the iPhone buried the BlackBerry. Can the new
Palm Pre unseat the mobile champ?
By Galen Gruman, Brandon Brown | InfoWorld
JULY 06, 2009
here's been one promised iPhone killer after another -- the Google
Android-based G1, the RIM BlackBerry Storm, the yet-to-ship,
years-delayed Windows Mobile 7 -- but none has given it worthwhile
competition to date. Now Palm has its Pre, a device that looks to be
a serious contender for the best next-gen mobile device crown.
Not only does the Pre offer a modern, Web-oriented OS -- suitably
named WebOS -- but its design leadership comes from Apple, including
key players from the original iPod team. So there's reason to believe
that the Pre mixes the technical smarts and elegant usability that
make the iPhone a tough device to beat.
If the battle between the BlackBerry Bold and the iPhone 3G was in
essence a replay of PC versus Mac, the battle between the Pre and the
iPhone 3G is more like a battle between Windows 7 and Mac OS X. The
matchup, on paper, is close. So we set out to dig deeper. Galen has
spent a lot of time with the iPhone as part of InfoWorld's previous
mobile deathmatch between the iPhone and BlackBerry, while Brandon
bought a Pre as soon as it came out and has quickly made it a key
part of his everyday life.
...
http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/deathmatch-palm-pre-versus-iphone-691
Mobile deathmatch: Palm Pre vs. iPhone, side by side
Which mobile device can do the most for you? See what each can do --
or not -- in this comparison
By Galen Gruman | InfoWorld
July 06, 2009
http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/mobile-deathmatch-palm-pre-vs-iphone-side-side-717
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:43:51 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <4A512CA7.5060701@thadlabs.com>
On 7/5/2009 12:12 PM, Bob Goudreau wrote:
> [...]
> One class of wireless customers
> was VERY cognizant of how calls to their number would be rated: small local
> businesses whose primary (or only) advertised phone access was their cell
> number. Consider the one-man plumbing shop, lawn care service, etc.
> They might never be "in the office", so their cell number is the one they
> will list in Yellow Pages ads, mailbox flyers, etc. They are certainly
> going to want a number from a rate center that doesn't incur toll charges
> to their prospective customers!
Precisely; I was one such cellphone customer, and when we lost what I believe
was termed "permissive dialing" in the San Francisco Bay Area late 1990s, I
had to contact Cellular One (perhaps it was Cingular by then) to move me to a
rate center that was NOT a toll-call for my clients and friends as I wrote
here last week.
One competitive advantage I offered all my clients was 24/7 availability, and
the only reasonable way I could provide that was with a cellphone.
I don't recall the rationale behind the loss of "permissive dialing", but that
loss was a burden to my clients until I was moved to a local rate center which
I mistakingly termed a "billing location" until Wes provided the correct term,
rate center.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 16:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <12f0c8d6-029f-40dc-9212-0103ac4803c4@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 5, 4:48 pm, Steven Lichter <diespamm...@ikillspammers.com>
wrote:
> I'm not sure how it is now; I have Sprint and
> its switch is in Corona and the number is local to most of the area. I
> know for a while after a lot of screaming AirTouch worked out some kind
> of plan with Pacific Bell and GTE to make it local.
Many local telephone carriers have expanded the boundaries for what
constitutes a local call, and lowered the toll charges or message
units for calls that are charged. Further, the message unit cost has
remained the same for decades. (Obviously individual locality
situations vary).
Years ago companies had payphones available for employees and guests,
and only employees with a genuine business need, closely monitored,
could make outside calls. Today many businesses offer houses phones
for guests to make free calls, and don't care about employees. This
is because the cost of local calls, even a brief toll call, has become
so cheap.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 16:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <212d04f5-b123-4637-9502-f623c010caea@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 5, 9:39 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> For the fifth time, the subscriber wasn't expected to know his rate
> center.
Back in the day before cheap toll service most subscribers most
certainly did know what rate center they were in, what constituted a
short-haul toll or message unit call. and how to keep such costs under
control. Affluent residential subscribers would get metro packages or
a second FX line to a nearby place with a different calling area.
(See other posts in this thread). Business would often get second
lines in a similar fashion.
> Cell phone companies did not assign subscribers to rate centers
> based on where the subscriber was expected to travel nor where he
> was billed.
Yes they did. For instance, Mrs. X did not want a toll or message
unit charge to call her husband on his cell phone. (see other posts
in this thread).
Back in the day a person's telephone exchange was a very personal
item. Just going to ANC raised a ruckus. Until fairly recently
people were very sensitive as to the exchange they were assigned.
Now it doesn't matter since calling is so cheap and many people metro
area plans.
> In a market, one rate center was very much the same as another, each
> subject to exactly the same local calling area, each subject to
> roaming at the same locations in the days before national plans were
> common.
No, they were not. In a big city, exchanges were grouped into zones
(indeed, they still are), but what zone one was in determined one's
message unit charges. In suburban areas, if you put someone too far
away it's a short haul toll call.
>> Under the system that existed at the time, it all made sense.
>
> Rate centers weren't used to market services to potential
> subscribers. Subscribers were generally unaware. Rate centers
> weren't used to rate long distance calls. Rate centers led to
> unreasonable consumption of scarce numbering resources.
Rate centers were not used for marketing, true. But subscribers were
aware, per above. Rate centers determined the cost of toll calls,
particularly short haul toll calls.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 23:07:09 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <h2u02s$db3$1@news.albasani.net>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Jul 5, 9:39 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Cell phone companies did not assign subscribers to rate centers
>>based on where the subscriber was expected to travel nor where he
>>was billed.
>Yes they did. For instance, Mrs. X did not want a toll or message
>unit charge to call her husband on his cell phone. (see other posts
>in this thread).
See my actual comment that a provider would honor a subscriber's request,
but without any such request, the subscriber would be assigned to a rate
center in the metropolitan area randomly.
hancock, I do wish you'd follow up to my actual comments.
>>In a market, one rate center was very much the same as another, each
>>subject to exactly the same local calling area, each subject to
>>roaming at the same locations in the days before national plans were
>>common.
>No, they were not. In a big city, exchanges were grouped into zones
>(indeed, they still are), but what zone one was in determined one's
>message unit charges. In suburban areas, if you put someone too far
>away it's a short haul toll call.
In your zeal to take my remarks out of context, you might have gleaned
that I was referring to rate centers the cell phone subscriber's number
was assigned to, as I used "roaming" and "national plans" in that sentence.
>>>Under the system that existed at the time, it all made sense.
>>Rate centers weren't used to market services to potential
>>subscribers. Subscribers were generally unaware. Rate centers
>>weren't used to rate long distance calls. Rate centers led to
>>unreasonable consumption of scarce numbering resources.
>Rate centers were not used for marketing, true.
Is the dawn breaking yet?
>But subscribers were aware, per above.
Only the ones who asked. If the subscriber didn't ask for a specific rate
center, he didn't understand the concept or didn't think about the cost
of distance-rated local calls from their potential callers.
>Rate centers determined the cost of toll calls, particularly short haul
>toll calls.
If a metropolitan area had multiple rate centers, each individual rate
center wasn't used to rate a long-distance call for distance. It's a
pointless exercise to rate separately the distance of a long distance
call to one rate center versus a neighboring rate center as both calls
would rate in the same distance band, as long distance was typically
tariffed. Instead, multiple rate centers were grouped into a cluster
(I cannot recall the correct name) that used a common point from which
long distance calls were distance rated.
With cell phone service, more often than not the entire metropolitan
area was in a single such cluster.
Rate centers weren't used to rate long-distance calls for distance.
It's utterly pointless to continue to claim that cell phone providers
needed to offer phone numbers in multiple rate centers in the same
metropolitan area for the purpose of rating long distance calls for
distance, when long distance calls from a subscriber's cell phone would
have been rated from a single point in the metropolitan area anyway,
no matter which rate center his cell phone number was assigned to.
I've explained this several times. Would you be so kind as to acknowledge
that each individual rate center in metropolitan areas wasn't used for
the distance rating of long distance calls to or from cell phones so
this discussion may be dropped?
Gah.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 04:34:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <h2rus4$c7q$13@news.albasani.net>
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>For the fifth time, the subscriber wasn't expected to know his rate center.
>In places like Chicago with large local calling areas, I agree that
>you don't care which of umpteen rate centers that are all local to
>each other you were assigned to.
When pre-paid Call Paks in the Chicago area first went away, intraLATA
calling beyond 15 miles of your land line's rate center was rated for
distance. But you had to know to ask for a number in a specific rate
center if you were trying to avoid land line charges from likely callers,
such as your kids calling from the pay phone at elementary school.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:19:06 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <1246835946.5751.17.camel@localhost>
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 04:04:09PM +1000, David Clayton wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:18:35 -0400, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> > Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote:
> ......
>> The laws or the fines appear not to make a difference: several years ago
>> a driver was using his phone and hit a van, killing all in that van. He
>> was tried for manslaughter and was convicted.
>
> In the campaigns against drunk driving, it was often noted that 30% to 40%
> of the must serious collisions involved drunken driving. We have a great
> deal to fear from all the sober people on the road who don't give a damn
> about the other guy.
There are actually people who read/hear the throw-away comments that
"only" 30% of drivers involved in serious crashes are drunk, and
actually come to the conclusion that the remaining 70% of drivers are
more dangerous than the drunks
Even pointing out that the 0.1% of drivers on the road who are drunk that
are involved in 30% of these crashes makes them a significantly serious
threat to everyone still doesn't convince them. These people use their
"reasoning" that the non-drunk drivers are more dangerous to excuse being
drunk and driving.
I imagine that other people will also believe that since there are more
crashes not involving phone use then it is "safe" to use phones while
driving.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 04:36:33 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h2rv0g$c7q$14@news.albasani.net>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>I had my first amps telephone installed in a car in 1984. It was
>>>mounted to a large transceiver which, in turn was mounted to the floor
>>>to my right on the front seat floor. In order to place or receive a
>>>call I had to take my right hand and press two clamps on [each] side
>>>of the handset, then lift it and use it like a wireline phone.
>>>Holding it and dialing out was a hoot.
>>How could you possibly do that safely whilst driving?
>>I remember car phones, but I recall that they could be dialed while
>>mounted, with the dial at the back of the corded handset. Hehehe. I
>>almost wrote "on hook", which doesn't apply to cellular of course.
>My point. It was far less safe than my hands free unit of today, which
>is dialed via a phone directory displayed on the car's navigation system.
I'm sorry, but I cannot concede the point. You're suggesting that, while
less safe, it wasn't dangerous. Given your description, I cannot agree.
You never should have attempted to dial while driving. Other people on
the road simply lucked out that you never hit them.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 06:50:04 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <hin4m.21811$Qk7.19412@newsfe22.iad>
AES wrote:
> In article <Ust3m.18934$Xl4.6356@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> MC <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote:
>
>
>>Gary wrote:
>>
>>>The challenges are that most people are not trained in how to use
>>>radio communication while operating a vehicle. Further, your
>>>radio communications when flying are on very specific topics
>>>related to the safe operation of the aircraft and are between you
>>>and others who are also well trained in the proper use of radios
>>>in flight.
>
> Plus which, situations requiring active and near-instantaneous response
> by the vehicle operator (child runs into street, or guy in front of you
> slams on brakes) are a h-ll of a lot more common and frequent on the
> road than in the sky.
I guess my eyes, mind, hands, and feet work differently than the folks
you are concerned about. I see those as specious arguments against
hands-free units.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 19:35:53 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Message-ID: <d0c.56694e0b.378292d9@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/5/2009 9:32:59 AM Central Daylight Time,
Telecom Digest Moderator wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 12:02:58AM -0400, tlvp wrote:
>> > ***** Moderator's Note *****
>> >
>> > We don't publish images in messages (sorry), but I'll be glad to put
>> > it on the TD website for a day or two.
>>
>> Bill, thank you: I've emailed you a jpeg photo of the unit,
>> likewise with Subject: line "Conjectural WEco KTS wallset photo".
> The image is at
> http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/archives/back.issues/recent.single.issues/WEco.KTS.wallset.40pc.jpg .
It's a 10-button key set, nothing exotic at all. For customers needing
more than 4 buttons and less than the smallest 20-button Call Director.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:37:09 -0400
From: Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Message-ID: <vck255lapdsm5sdltcj5nqc8qgg8turhce@4ax.com>
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 09:29:46 -0400 (EDT), tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
>I'm hoping someone here can help me identify the following item.
>
>Amongst the assorted telecom bric-a-brac I've amassed over the years
>there's a DTMF deskset, looking for all the world like a broad-hipped
>2500 set, with ten station- or line-select buttons across the top, the
>left-most one of these in clear red plastic, others just in clear, and
>the line cord is a fifty-conductor jobbie terminating in what I'd be
>tempted to call an old 50-pin Centronics-like connector.
>
>Comes with a handset, and a bolted-on handset cradle on the LH side.
>Rubber-stamped on the underside: 845 13 (BA) 42 M 3 76 . No actual
>documentation available.
>
O.K. I got here late, but the numbering is consistent with ITT,
unless...13 is that lvoely shade of moss green, BA is straight line
ringer, 42 is ....can't remember but has to do with key type and the M
has some meaning, probably dial....I can look it up in my ITT book if
it's important. 3/76 is obvious.
>Full set of questions I have about this:
>
>What is it? (type of device, model, function) Advice how to use it on
>basic 2-conductor, single-line POTS service Accessory equipment needed
>to put it into service (KSU? other?) Anything else I ought to be
>asking, if only I were well-enough informed?
The 25pair amphenol is probably cabled out the same as any 10-button
set and linked here.
http://www.microtelcommunications.com/tva/1a2_sets.pdf
The voice pair is on pair 1&26 of the AMP, the A&A1, which will short
when you hit tie line key and pick up the handset control the key
card, and the 3rd pair is for LG and Lamp which operates from 10
volts.
You'll probably not get that far, but the voice pair for each key is
always offset 3, the A leads start alternating as 2,9 3,8 4-7 and 5,6
The lamp leads stay in position as pair 3,6,9,12,15,18,21 24, and 23
:-) That leaves the 17th pair (buzzer) and the 20th (bell).
easy, Peasy.
Carl
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 16:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Message-ID: <7b18b8ec-8aad-458d-934d-ad73a9344983@p29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 4, 9:29 am, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlL...@att.net> wrote:
> I'm hoping someone here can help me identify the following item.
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/archives/back.issues/recent.single.issues/WEco.KTS.wallset.40pc.jpg
The hookswitch on the left is definitely an oddball add-on. That
cradle was often used for simple intercom phone systems made by
independent companies (eg Bogen). Why it replaced the standard side-
hookswitch of a keyset I have no idea.
Toward the end of the Bell System era, WE developed various new lines
of keysets that looked something like this. Many had more lines than
the traditional six button. They had bigger square buttons with the
line label as part of the button and lamp, no separate strip. They
came in both rotary and Touch Tone, desk and wall version. The wall
versions had the hookswitch on top.
Some were part of systems, such as the ComKey system which had various
special features and was an advanced key system. ComKey came in three
specific sizes, the big one had three separate intercom paths and PA
system as part of each set with the tone ringer*.
Others, AFAIK, were just jumbo keysets able to handle more lines.
These were the last of the incandescent line lamps and thick cords
style sets. They later went to LEDs, internal chips, tone ringers*,
and thin cords, like Horizon and Merlin key system. Sorry, I can't
get used to calling something a "voice terminal".
* The Bell System for years was trying to dump mechanical ringers for
electronic tone ringers to avoid shooting the high voltage ringing
current through ESS circuits, but it wasn't until the 1970s that they
could come up with a suitable workable substitute. Tone ringer sets
were tried in Morris.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:40:19 -0400
From: Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Message-ID: <vcl255l8tr90qnerhk04sqbil347eb82kk@4ax.com>
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 09:29:46 -0400 (EDT), tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
Whoops, forgot to mention that one of my buddies (Jeff "Mooseman"
Moss) on Facebook just nabbed a Lunchbox/Shoebox KSU that he'll
probably let go for cheap. It would be something fun to play with.
cn
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:17:12 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Message-ID: <op.uwmuey00o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:22:55 -0400, David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
>>The image is at http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/archives/back.issues/recent.single.issues/WEco.KTS.wallset.40pc.jpg .
>
> If I recall correctly; it was a non-WECO keyset. I think AE made them.
> I can't recall the name, but the distinguishing aspect was unlike 2565
> series sets, it used fewer conductors.
>
> A 2565 plug was wired:
>
> {Pin #
> 1-26}
>
> T-R
> A-A1 Line one
> L-LG
>
> {4-29}
> T-R
> A-A1 Line two
> L-LG
>
> etc. which limited you to 5 lines per 50-pair jack, once you included the
> special pairs needed for various things such as speakerphones.
>
> So sets with more keys [such as the SecDef's and POTUS Call Directors ..] needed
> multiple cables..
>
> The pictured set was wired:
>
> T-R Line one
> A-L
>
> T-R Line two
> A-L
>
> with common grounds for A and lamps. This saved on cabling, at the cost of
> the lamps getting dimmer as more were on.
Thank you, David. Can I now learn, please:
(1) where the supply voltage for the Lamps came from?
(2) which of the "line" pairs were dedicated to CO lines,
and which for on-premises "extension phones"?
(3) what ancillary peripheral equipment was needed to route a
given inbound call to a given on-premises extension phone?
TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Message-ID: <23c1715e-702c-43e1-b07e-babe463e3ba3@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 6, 6:44 pm, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlL...@att.net> wrote:
Speaking in general terms for key systems:
> (1) where the supply voltage for the Lamps came from?
The key system unit had a power supply. It took 120VAC and converted
it to lamp current, intercom current, and ringing current.
> (2) which of the "line" pairs were dedicated to CO lines,
> and which for on-premises "extension phones"?
Key systems generally did not have "extensions", all phones had some
CO line access. In many installations line access varied by station.
In others, every set accessed all lines.
There was of course the red hold button. Other buttons could be
assigned to lines (either CO or from a PBX), intercom lines (dial or
push button), and other signalling arrangements. Some advanced key
systems had special features, for example, the ComKey system had a
'privacy' button which prevented other extensions from listening in.
> (3) what ancillary peripheral equipment was needed to route a
> given inbound call to a given on-premises extension phone?
In key systems call generally were not 'routed'. What usually
happened was that someone answered the phone, pressed the hold button,
dialed the desired station on the intercom*, and announced the call.
The recipient would punch the line button and take the call. The
receptionist could've easily yelled across the room or used a
loudspeaker, "Mr. Smith, call on line 3".
Some intercoms were not dial, rather, there was a separate series of
push buttons which manually sounded the buzzer. These buttons could
be added to the side of the phone or [might have] been unused line
buttons.
Note that sophisticated key systems of today mirror PBX functions.
Note that certain phones that look like giant keyset Call Directors
were actually PBX consoles. They usually had a separate green square
next to a line button.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I once connected a 660 comm panel to a key system, and I wired all the
"LG" leads together - "LG" meant "Lamp Ground", right? It didn't work,
and the local installer they called in to fix it told me "LG" means
"Lamp _Gain_", and that the "L" leads were all common, with the LG
wired to each KSU's lamp lead.
Was this a practice peculiar to N.E.T.&T, or was that the standard?
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 20:59:40 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Apple WWDC 2009 Keynote Address
Message-ID: <p06240816c676fb5f95ba@[10.0.1.14]>
Apple WWDC 2009 Keynote Address
Watch Philip Schiller, Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product
Marketing, unveil the new iPhone 3GS, the new MacBook Pro family, and
Mac OS X Snow Leopard. See the video-on-demand event right here,
exclusively in QuickTime and MPEG-4.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/keynote
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc08/
http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/0906paowdnv/event/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 21:33:15 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: cellular phone tracking
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0907052132530.5094@panix5.panix.com>
It's a good thing Skynet didn't know it could
locate John and Sarah Connor with ease....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/nyregion/06cellphone.html
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 23:47:20 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Twitter Comes to the Rescue
Message-ID: <p06240827c67724101f3e@[10.0.1.14]>
Practical Travel
Twitter Comes to the Rescue
By MICHELLE HIGGINS
The New York Times
July 5, 2009
IF you're not protesting an election or promoting a product, Twitter,
the microblogging site that has been getting so much attention these
days, can be easy to dismiss.
It's been described as an ego-stroker for those who want to broadcast
the minutiae of their lives in 140 characters or less. It's a virtual
popularity contest to see who can rack up the most followers. And
it's yet another way to procrastinate on the Web.
But after signing up for my own Twitter account earlier this year
(www.twitter.com/michellehiggins) - and being guilty of all of the
above - I can now attest to at least one practical use for travelers:
complaining.
As hotels, airlines and other travel companies line up on Twitter to
promote their brands, customers who voice their grievances in the
form of tweets are getting surprisingly fast responses for everything
from bad airplane seats to poor room service.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/travel/05prac.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 00:03:41 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Growing Presence in the Courtroom: Cellphone Data as Witness
Message-ID: <p0624082ac677276ee919@[10.0.1.14]>
Growing Presence in the Courtroom: Cellphone Data as Witness
By ANNE BARNARD
The New York Times
July 6, 2009
Mikhail Mallayev, who was convicted in March of murdering an
orthodontist whose wife wanted him killed during a bitter custody
battle, stayed off his cellphone the morning of the shooting in
Queens. But afterward, he chatted away, unaware that his phone was
acting like a tracking device and would disprove his alibi - that he
was not in New York the day of the killing.
Darryl Littlejohn, a nightclub bouncer, made call after call on his
cellphone as he drove from his home in Queens to a desolate Brooklyn
street to dump the body of Imette St. Guillen, the graduate student
he was convicted this month of murdering.
The pivotal role that cellphone records played in these two prominent
New York murder trials this year highlights the surge in law
enforcement's use of increasingly sophisticated cellular tracking
techniques to keep tabs on suspects before they are arrested and
build criminal cases against them by mapping their past movements.
But cellphone tracking is raising concerns about civil liberties in a
debate that pits public safety against privacy rights. Existing laws
do not provide clear or uniform guidelines: Federal wiretap laws,
outpaced by technological advances, do not explicitly cover the use
of cellphone data to pinpoint a person's location, and local court
rulings vary widely across the country.
In one case that unsettled cellphone companies, a sheriff in Alabama
told a carrier he needed to track a cellphone in an emergency
involving a child - she turned out to be his teenage daughter, who
was late returning from a date.
For more than a decade, investigators have been able to match an
antenna tower with a cellphone signal to track a phone's location to
within a radius of about 200 yards in urban areas and up to 20 miles
in rural areas. Now many more cellphones are equipped with
global-positioning technology that makes it possible to pinpoint a
user's position with much greater precision, down to a few dozen
yards.
To determine where a suspect's phone was in the past - as in the
Mallayev and Littlejohn cases - investigators use company records
that show a phone's approximate location at the beginning and end of
a call.
To track suspects in real time, law enforcement officials must ask a
phone company to "ping," or send a signal to, a phone; for the effort
to succeed, the phone must be turned on, though it does not have to
be in use. The police can then use a vehicle with signal-tracking
equipment to narrow down the location.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/nyregion/06cellphone.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 04:29:09 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up"
Message-ID: <h2ruil$c7q$12@news.albasani.net>
tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
>Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>>I don't understand that statement. CATV *is* cable TV. Back when the
>>industry started, CATV stood for "community antenna television" because
>>that's all it did: act like a big antenna for broadcast stations. But
>>after CATV systems started carrying non-broadcast satellite-delivered
>>programming, the term "cable TV" replaced "CATV". I still use "CATV"
>>and "cable TV" interchangeably.
>Funny, I always thought CATV stood for "Community Access TeleVision."
CATV systems literally erected antennas in the best location to receive
a signal, then sold the signal to subscribers who lacked line of sight
to the transmission tower.
------------------------------
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: 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) 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 (21 messages)
******************************
|
or 
