|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 185 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
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: cellular phone tracking
Re: cellular phone tracking
Re: Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up"
Re: OneSuite (was Re: AT&T to discontinue CallVantage voip service)
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
[WSJ] Telecoms Face Antitrust Threat
Re: Twitter Comes to the Rescue
Re: Faxes and other obsolete technology
Re: Rating cell phone calls
Re: Rating cell phone calls
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
====== 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: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:00:27 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <a-2dnfbdNtuGDc_XnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <jA24m.4418$3o6.1632@newsfe24.iad>,
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> *sigh* The 3+3+4 number format 'logic' is embedded *VERY* deeply into the
>> architecture of the software of the aforementioned 'stored program controlled'
>> C.O. switches in the U.S. Data structures (e.g. routing tables) are sized
>> based on the 'assumption' of that format; code 'assumes' _fixed_length_
>> break-out of the sections of the full number; etc., etc., ad nauseum.
>>
>> [Moderator snip]
>>
>> The 3+3+4 number format _is_, for practical purposes, "hard wired" into the
>> control program software. [Moderator snip]
>>
>> There's also more than 'just' the C.O. switch that has to be considered.
>> Courtesy of 'local number portability', there is a database look-up ("dip")
>> that has to be done for effectively every call, to find out 'where' that
>> must be sent for delivery. That database, for performance reasons, requires
>> a fixed-length 'key' (the phone number) field. Increasing the size of the
>> key is a relatively minor task, but it requires a 'flag day' cut-over, *AND*
>> assurance that the protocol for querying the database can handle the extra
>> digit(s) properly.
>>
>> Also, significant parts of the _hardware_ design are also predicated on
>> certain economies based on the specific _scale_ of the elements in th 3+3+4
>> design. This constrains 'where and how' you can stick extra digits into the
>> dial-string.
>
>This sounds like Nortel (DMS-100) and AT&T/Lucent (5ESS) locked
>themselves out of the international market.
>
Yup. Switches *optimized* for the NANP market are -not- directly usable
elsewhere. Other -- significantly more expensive -- versions of the hardware
*and* software are optimized differently, and _are_ usable/sold internationally.
OTOH, the 'international' market _doesn't_ have all the LNP 'silliness' to
deal with, and _that_ portion of the code can be eliminated on 'international'
builds.
Equipment with the 3+3+4 assumption 'built in' can be built _significantly_
less expensively than the more generalized model. "Hard-coded" decision
trees (those of known and *fixed* size) can be much faster than those which
have to handle a varying number of branches. On that particular task, the
CPU requirements for a fully generalized version can be an order of magnitude
higher than a hard-coded one. This doesn't hold for _everything_ in the system,
of course, but you do end up needing a substantially faster CPU -- and often
more space for the 'stored program control' as well -- which drives the cost
up.
For some strange reason, C.O. switch -buyers- in the U.S. strongly prefer the
3+3+4 optimized models, at least when _their_ check-book is involved. *grin*
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:18:16 GMT
From: "wdag" <wgeary@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <c4O4m.2800$9l4.2227@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote in message
news:a-2dnfbdNtuGDc_XnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications...
> Yup. Switches *optimized* for the NANP market are -not- directly
> usable elsewhere. Other -- significantly more expensive -- versions
> of the hardware *and* software are optimized differently, and _are_
> usable/sold internationally.
> OTOH, the 'international' market _doesn't_ have all the LNP
> 'silliness' to deal with, and _that_ portion of the code can be
> eliminated on 'international' builds.
> Equipment with the 3+3+4 assumption 'built in' can be built
> _significantly_ less expensively than the more generalized model.
> "Hard-coded" decision trees (those of known and *fixed* size) can be
> much faster than those which have to handle a varying number of
> branches. On that particular task, the CPU requirements for a fully
> generalized version can be an order of magnitude higher than a
> hard-coded one. This doesn't hold for _everything_ in the system, of
> course, but you do end up needing a substantially faster CPU -- and
> often more space for the 'stored program control' as well -- which
> drives the cost up.
> For some strange reason, C.O. switch -buyers- in the U.S. strongly
> prefer the 3+3+4 optimized models, at least when _their_ check-book
> is involved. *grin* >
Somehow, I suspect different standards for outside-the-USA telephone
hardware (codecs and line characteristics), line behavior (ringing,
supervision) and "proprietary considerations" (i.e. tariff and other
barriers to protect local equipment vendors) has a much stronger
effect on relative costs of CO equipment...
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jul 2009 23:43:03 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <20090707234303.19919.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>OTOH, the 'international' market _doesn't_ have all the LNP
>'silliness' to deal with, and _that_ portion of the code can be
>eliminated on 'international' builds.
Are you sure? In most European countries you can port mobile numbers
among carriers, and in the UK I'm pretty sure you can port landlines
between BT and the cable companies.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:05:13 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <h2u3fs$hgk$1@news.eternal-september.org>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> 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.
I remember right after de-regulation we were told not to make Toll or
LD calles for personal use from company phones; before that are CO and
other company phones were not billed; but after the change we had to
split what that called above and below the line. By then I had a cell
phone and any calls to home were made from that.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <49cf111d-b7eb-4da2-99d8-42366b920a74@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 7, 10:50 am, Steven Lichter <diespamm...@ikillspammers.com>
wrote:
> I remember right after de-regulation we were told not to make Toll or
> LD calles for personal use from company phones; before that are CO and
> other company phones were not billed; but after the change we had to
> split what that called above and below the line. By then I had a cell
> phone and any calls to home were made from that.
I presume you were a telco employee?
I know employees who were upset after divesture in that they lost big
employee discounts. The discounts continued for local service, but LD
ceased.
The history of Mountain Bell describes the arbitrary split off of
tightly integrated central office equipment between local and long
distance. Many central offices had direct trunks to distant places if
there was demand, and of course handled short haul toll service. But
with divesture and LATA's, divisions had to be made that bore no
relation to technology in place.
At one time, railroad employees and their families had free passes for
unreserved coach travel on most railroads (railroads honored each
others passes). But as private lines became Amtrak or public commuter
authorities the privileges were lost.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:24:14 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <h30edv$des$1@news.eternal-september.org>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 7, 10:50 am, Steven Lichter <diespamm...@ikillspammers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I remember right after de-regulation we were told not to make Toll or
>> LD calles for personal use from company phones; before that are CO and
>> other company phones were not billed; but after the change we had to
>> split what that called above and below the line. By then I had a cell
>> phone and any calls to home were made from that.
>
> I presume you were a telco employee?
>
> I know employees who were upset after divesture in that they lost big
> employee discounts. The discounts continued for local service, but LD
> ceased.
[Moderator snip]
Yes, I worked for GTE in Network Construction for 30 years before
retiring. We always got a 50% discount on the basic charges; it also
depended if you were within the company service area, you had to have
a listed phone number, this was a bit of a problem with me since I was
also a Reserve Sheriff, so mine was just the last name and no address.
Later on, when I was out of area, I lost all of it because I had
bundled services, yet in-service employees could get it. After I
retired I took them to task as it was an union agreed program and won
back payments. I am also taxed on it yet in service employees are not:
I get paid 4 times a year on my retirement payment. It does not add
up to much, but it is better then nothing. They do offer a good deal
if I had Verizon Wireless, but I'm very happy with Sprint, [and] my
cost for 3 phones is nothing since it is part of a deal I made with
them when I leased out a section of my mountain property to them.
Verizon shares the tower and also pays me. It pays for the cost of my
mortgage so I'm very happy for at least the next 6 years.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:50:14 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <1qSdner0OvZbBs_XnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <20090705202144.2730.qmail@simone.iecc.com>,
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.
Chicago _doesn't_ have "large" local calling areas. the local calling area
for a Chicago land-line is one where the destination _C.O._ is 8 miles or
less from the origin _C.0._
Within that 8-mile radius, residential calls are 1 billing unit, regardless
of time, out to 15 miles, they're still a 'local' call, but you _are_ billed
for time, beyond 15 miles, it is an "Intra-LATA" _toll_ call, until you cross.
the LATA boundary, then you're looking at "Inter-LATA" toll.
You can actually have _three_ phone companies for your phone (residential or
business) -- the LEC (ILEC or CLEC), the "intra-LATA toll carrier", and the
"Inter-LATA toll carrier". If you don't expressly designate an intra-LATA
carrier of choice, the LEC gets to handle those calls. Fail to specify an
inter-LATA carrier when establishing service with the LEC, and you get a
'random pick' by the LEC. And usually get charged 'rape rates' by that toll
carrier because you didn't set up an account directly with them.
In the Chicago market, cell phones are subject to the _same_ distance-related
charge scheme, but the distance is taken from the point where the call _enters_
the PSTN. Cell carriers generally have enough POP that they can back-haul an
outgoing call on _their_ network to a point where the PSTN ingress _is_ within
"Band A" 8 mi., C.O.-to-C.O., of the destination -- a cost that is 'cheap
enough' they can eat it on the monthly minutes fee.
Land-lines calling _to_ a cell-phone are a different story. Making sure the
C.O. access point for your cell phone _is_ within the 8 mi. C.O.-C.O. of the
people who will be calling you *is* a significant concern -- at least *if*
you care about costs to people who call you. :)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 04:10:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <h3167v$let$1@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>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.
>Chicago _doesn't_ have "large" local calling areas. the local calling area
>for a Chicago land-line is one where the destination _C.O._ is 8 miles or
>less from the origin _C.0._
>Within that 8-mile radius, residential calls are 1 billing unit, regardless
>of time, out to 15 miles, they're still a 'local' call, but you _are_ billed
>for time, beyond 15 miles, it is an "Intra-LATA" _toll_ call, until you cross.
>the LATA boundary, then you're looking at "Inter-LATA" toll.
Let me embellish this, for the plan you describe was implemented
pre-divestiture, so there was no concept of LATA in tariff.
There were significant changes in local call plans in 1982.
Before that, the plans were a hodgepodge and certain sections of the
metropolitan area had different choices than other sections. Most areas had
choices among measured service with units, a pre-paid local calling area
with either units for calls to the rest of the metropolitan area (time
and distance rated) or a larger pre-paid local calling area with calls
beyond rated at in-state long distance rates, higher than message unit
rates.
For callers who needed even larger prepaid local calling areas, they
could subscribe to service in any of three areas: all rate centers in
a 25 mile arc of the Loop, all within a 40 mile arc, and the limit of
Illinois Bell territory (approximately a 50 mile arc around downtown
Chicago) although it included pockets of foreign territory of Centel Des
Plaines-Park Ridge-O'Hare-Newcastle and GTE Wonder Lake. But distance
rated local calls within 50 miles but beyond 25 miles or 40 miles were
billed on in state long distance rates.
In some cases, arcs of territory were available to subscribers in
outlying parts of the metropolitan area. For instance, Waukegan had its
own choices of plans for prepaid calling within a 15 mile arc and 25
mile arc of downtown Waukegan.
Beyond the 50 mile arc, every call was in-state long distance. All
interstate calls were interstate long distance with a handful of
exceptions for certain south suburbs near the state line calling into
northwest Indiana and Antioch calling into North Antioch, Wisconsin (a
small unincorporated area wired to the Antioch switch).
When LATAs were imposed two years later, the LATA included the territory
in the 50 mile arc. But the LATA had the unfortunate effect
of including North Antioch and northwest Indiana into the LATA without
any interstate intra-LATA rates comparable to in-state intra-LATA rates
for local calling. Even if a caller pre-subscribed for inter-LATA
calling, that carrier didn't complete interstate intra-LATA calls unless
the caller knew to use the carrier access code. Generally, the
uncompetitve long distance charges for interstate inter-LATA were higher
than competitive interstate calls to either coast.
>You can actually have _three_ phone companies for your phone (residential or
>business) -- the LEC (ILEC or CLEC), the "intra-LATA toll carrier", and the
>"Inter-LATA toll carrier".
>In the Chicago market, cell phones are subject to the _same_
>distance-related charge scheme, but the distance is taken from the point
>where the call _enters_ the PSTN. Cell carriers generally have enough
>POP that they can back-haul an outgoing call on _their_ network to a
>point where the PSTN ingress _is_ within "Band A" 8 mi., C.O.-to-C.O.,
>of the destination -- a cost that is 'cheap enough' they can eat it on
>the monthly minutes fee.
I have no idea how inter-carrier compensation worked let alone charges
to terminate calls. Cell phone subscribers didn't see those charges, for
their plans defined a very large local calling area with calls rated for
time, never distance.
The concept of competition for pre-subscribed intra-LATA toll carriers
on Illinois Bell land lines is from, what, mid '90's? At that point,
we had another change in local calling rates.
Between 1982 and the mid '90's, calls from each rate center were subject
to one of three distance rating bands. A was 8 miles. Calls from
residential numbers were untimed, but timed from business. B was 8 to 15
miles, timed. C was over 15 miles. There were also time of day charges.
Peak was calls during the middle of the business day, shoulder peak at
the beginning and end of the business day and right around lunch time,
and off peak (nights and weekends).
Calls were still rated in units for a couple of years, perhaps for
transition terminology since so many of the old rate plans had unit
charges, but this didn't make sense as new fractional unit charges for
time of day were introduced and it made rate calculation too
complicated. By 1985 or 1986, there were no more references to units.
After the mid '90's, the three calling bands were eliminated. A and B
were merged into an untimed calling area for residential, or in some
plans, a pre-paid calling area. Former Band C was now competitive, so
subject to presubscription and whatever your carrier's in state long
distance rates were. But this still left the problem of North Antioch
and northwest Indiana if your presubscribed intraLATA toll provider was
SBC/Illinois Bell.
>Land-lines calling _to_ a cell-phone are a different story. Making sure the
>C.O. access point for your cell phone _is_ within the 8 mi. C.O.-C.O. of the
>people who will be calling you *is* a significant concern -- at least *if*
>you care about costs to people who call you. :)
I don't know if this is a correct statement. Cell phone providers had to
declare rate centers to be assigned prefixes for 10,000-block pools of
line numbers, but I've never read that interfacing with the LEC at each
rate center was a pre-requisite for declaring a rate center. Wouldn't one
point of interface per rate center be a needless amount of equipment to
maintain for traffic needs?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 02:03:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: cellular phone tracking
Message-ID: <h2uad0$r12$1@news.albasani.net>
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>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
I think we'd be better off educating the public that there's no
reasonable expectation of privacy when using a cell phone and certainly
not devices equipped with GPS, than we would be passing legislation that
falsely suggests privacy in limited circumstances, given what the
technology is capable of.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 20:23:47 -0700
From: "Al Gillis" <al.1020@hotmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: cellular phone tracking
Message-ID: <4a52bfbd$0$86439$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>
"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news: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
>
A few winters ago a young family became lost in the Coast Range of
southern Oregon while driving to their home in San Francisco.
Numerous public service agencies responded trying to find them using
their usual search techniques. At the same time, a clever cellular
engineer was able to identify approximately where they were based on
the slowly dying cell phone's responses to cell site "pings" and his
knowledge of cell site locations. Unfortunately, when the engineer
supplied what information he had to the search authorities they sort
of looked the other way and said something like "Yeah, yeah kid.
We're busy here - don't get in the way". Later he interested a
helicopter pilot with the location information he had and the pilot
rescued some of the family soon enough. Unfortunately, by that time,
the husband/father had set out on foot to retrace their track on the
mountain road, lost his way and perished. I'm hoping search and
rescue organizations are now more sophisticated about how they use
information that comes to them.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:07:43 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up"
Message-ID: <4A52CA0F.8080504@annsgarden.com>
Adam H. Kerman ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> This statement wouldn't apply to CATV situations.
I 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.
Kerman continued:
> If I understand correctly, cable [television] and CATV are regulated
> differently,...
The terms "CATV", "Cable TV", and "Cable Television" are synonymous
(although "CATV" has largely fallen into disuse). From the regulatory
standpoint, it makes no difference what you call it.
> ... that systems that exist to retransmit broadcast stations to
> locations within the 35 mile radius of the broadcast tower that
> defines the market...
Under FCC signal-carriage rules in effect before the 1992 Cable Act, the
"specified zone" (the FCC's proxy for "market") of a full-power
commercial television broadcast station was defined as a 35-mile radius
around the "reference point" of the station's city of license (not the
location of broadcast tower). Rules then in effect contained a list of
the geographic coordinates of the reference points for most cities.
The 1992 Act redefined "market" as the Nielsen DMA [1].
> ...but for reasons of geography cannot receive the signal continue
> to be treated like monopolies and subject to rate setting by tariff.
The 1992 cable act created a complicated rate-regulation structure for
the cable TV/CATV industry. This act applies to all cable TV/CATV
systems in the United States without regard to their location with
respect to any broadcast tower.
The act set up a procedure under which LFAs [2] could regulate cable TV
rates, subject to FCC overview. It contained formulas for calculating
the maximum permissible rate for the basic tier [3]. The act also
specified:
- A cable TV system may adjust its rates for changes in external costs
that occurred during the previous calendar quarter as soon as the
information needed to compute the appropriate adjustment is available.
External costs are defined as "programming costs, retransmission consent
fees, taxes on the provision of cable television service, franchise
fees, and the costs of meeting franchise requirements." In other words,
if the retransmission-consent fee for a broadcast station goes up by X
dollars, the basic subscription fee goes up by X dollars plus the sales
tax on X dollars.
- Cable systems "subject to effective competition" are exempt from rate
regulation. Effective competition was defined as 15% market penetration
by competing video providers. Many cable TV systems in suburban and
rural areas today fall under this exemption due to competition from Dish
Network and DirecTV.
> I don't know how things are regulated in areas outside television
> markets based on radii around broadcast towers.
Television markets are not based on radii around broadcast towers, but
that's irrelevant anyway. All cable TV systems, no matter where
located, are subject to the rate-regulation provisions of the 1992 Act.
Even if they're exempt from rate-regulation under the 15% exemption,
they're still subject to the act.
tlvp mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
> Funny, I always thought CATV stood for "Community Access
> TeleVision." Anyway, that's what our local Community Access
> stations seem to think.
>
> > Footnotes: ... [likewise snipped] ...
> >
> > Neal McLain
>
> Straighten me out, please, if I've got that wrong :-) .
Once upon a time, CATV stood for Community Antenna Television. But
since that term has fallen into disuse, I guess there's nothing to
prevent anybody from using it to mean something else.
Public Access outfits often adopt three- or four-letter mnemonics to
identify themselves, so I'm not surprised that one of them would select
CATV.
Footnotes:
[1] Actually, the 1992 Cable Act specified the Arbitron ADI (Area of
Dominant Influence) as the definition of a commercial television
broadcast station's market. But about the same time that the act went
into effect, Arbitron withdrew from the television ratings business, so
the FCC informally let it be known that the Neilsen DMA could be used
instead. But the FCC couldn't change the actual law -- only Congress
could do that -- so the DMA was adopted by default.
[2] Local Franchising Authority (LFA) - a governmental agency or
quasi-governmental organization that administers a cable television
franchise. An LFA is usually a municipal government, but it may be a
county government or a group of two or more local governments operating
under an interlocal agreement.
[3] Basic Service Tier - The FCC defines the basic service tier as
follows: The basic service tier shall, at a minimum, include all signals
of domestic television broadcast stations provided to any subscriber
(except a signal secondarily transmitted by satellite carrier beyond the
local service area of such station, regardless of how such signal is
ultimately received by the cable system), any public, educational, and
governmental programming required by the franchise to be carried on the
basic tier, and any additional video programming signals a service added
to the basic tier by the cable operator. 47 CFR 76.901(a).
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title47/47-4.0.1.1.4.14.3.1.html
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 01:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Zee <zzaldy@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: OneSuite (was Re: AT&T to discontinue CallVantage voip service)
Message-ID: <cdd11fd8-6c06-42cb-a895-6a18b53fdc99@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 4, 7:08 am, Joseph Singer <joeofseat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:38:13 -0700 (PDT) <zza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You may want to check outOnesuite.com pay as you go VoIP service.
> > It's $2.95 monthly for the service that includes free incoming calls
> > and a phone number. If you want to use your previous number then
> > porting is free. Outgoing rate is 2.5 cents to a US number and 1.9
> > cents to Canadian numbers.
>
> Something I've never understood is pricing forOneSuite. I note that
> making calls to US numbers is 2.5 cents/minute, 1.9 cents/minute to
> Canada and 2.4 cents/minute to call Israel.
>
> Why would it be cheaper to make a call to Canada or to Israel than it
> would be to make a domestic US call?
I think it depends on the local carrier. I noticed European countries
are somewhat the cheapest countries to call outside of US and Canada.
This is the same thing with other long distance service providers so
the pricing isn't really limited to Onesuite. Oh yes China is cheap
too and some Asian countries like Singapore.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 02:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Zee <zzaldy@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <e834bf4d-011d-46f3-8064-e87348e7e58a@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 4, 10:42 am, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, MC wrote:
>
> I hear the comparison to pilots and police a lot. An airplane is a
> lot different from a car in that it can move (or rather it's supposed
> to move) in all three axes. There are two people flying it. There's
> a lot more spacing. Pilots are far more trained than drivers.
>
> With police, yes, they are better trained than the average person
> behind the wheel. But police do die in car crashes. They are not
> immune.
>
> > I see lots of people who can't even *walk* safely while on the cell phone
> > (they step in front of buses or bump into people). My daughter saw a
> > college girl get trapped by an automatic door, and instead of stepping
out
> > of the trap or pushing on the door, all she did was squeal into her phone
> > that the door was closing on her!
>
> I was [at] work and someone called me. When I finished the call I looked
> up and said, "Where the &@!! am I?!?" My feet went on auto pilot and
> I ended up behind a bunch of environmental chambers. It's amazing I
> didn't trip on the cables. And I too have people walk into me while
> on a cell phone and they're totally oblivious.
>
> I personally think that rather than a bunch of barely enforceable
> nit-picky laws we need better training. We need stricter penalties.
> And we need to stop treating crashes as random accidents and hold
> people accountable for their actions behind the wheel.
>
> John
>
> --
> John Mayson <j...@mayson.us>
> Austin, Texas, USA
Happened to my co worker too...she found herself in my cubicle then
after hanging up asked me why she was there :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:19:43 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h3003i$m5g$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Zee wrote:
> On Jul 4, 10:42 am, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, MC wrote:
>>
>> I hear the comparison to pilots and police a lot. An airplane is a
>> lot different from a car in that it can move (or rather it's supposed
>> to move) in all three axes. There are two people flying it. There's
>> a lot more spacing. Pilots are far more trained than drivers.
>>
>> With police, yes, they are better trained than the average person
>> behind the wheel. But police do die in car crashes. They are not
>> immune.
>>
>>> I see lots of people who can't even *walk* safely while on the cell phone
>>> (they step in front of buses or bump into people). My daughter saw a
>>> college girl get trapped by an automatic door, and instead of stepping
> out
>>> of the trap or pushing on the door, all she did was squeal into her phone
>>> that the door was closing on her!
>> I was [at] work and someone called me. When I finished the call I looked
>> up and said, "Where the &@!! am I?!?" My feet went on auto pilot and
>> I ended up behind a bunch of environmental chambers. It's amazing I
>> didn't trip on the cables. And I too have people walk into me while
>> on a cell phone and they're totally oblivious.
>>
>> I personally think that rather than a bunch of barely enforceable
>> nit-picky laws we need better training. We need stricter penalties.
>> And we need to stop treating crashes as random accidents and hold
>> people accountable for their actions behind the wheel.
>>
>> John
>>
>> --
>> John Mayson <j...@mayson.us>
>> Austin, Texas, USA
>
> Happened to my co worker too...she found herself in my cubicle then
> after hanging up asked me why she was there :)
>
This kind of thing happens even when you are just driving. I was on my
way to a work site in Phoenix along Interstate 10 from Riverside; the
last thing I really remembered was crossing the border from California
and then seeing signs I was coming into Phoenix, that means I was
driving some 200 miles, after that I kept the radio on and the window
opened a bit.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, inc, A Rot in Hell. Co.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:46:19 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: [WSJ] Telecoms Face Antitrust Threat
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0907070945520.895@panix5.panix.com>
WSJ]
The Department of Justice has begun looking into whether
large U.S. telecommunications companies such as AT&T Inc.
and Verizon Communications Inc. are abusing the market
power they have amassed in recent years, according to
people familiar with the matter.
The review, while in its early stages, is an indication
of the Obama administration's aggressive stance on antitrust
enforcement. The Justice Department's antitrust chief,
Christine Varney, has said she wants to reassert the
government's role in policing monopolistic and anticompetitive
practices by powerful companies.
-------
rest:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124689740762401297.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 02:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Zee <zzaldy@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Twitter Comes to the Rescue
Message-ID: <746f7d82-d429-4cae-aa74-551d95ada0f8@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 7, 6:45 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> 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
Yeah it work both ways. Companies can use it for advertising while us
consumers can use it for complaining :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 02:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Zee <zzaldy@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Faxes and other obsolete technology
Message-ID: <698d7bc3-9c59-4b87-ad20-58fc7f6e47a8@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 10, 11:39 am, Randall <rv...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:38:08 -0700
> >From: Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com>
> >To: redac...@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
> >Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
> >Message-ID: <Cd3Xl.21039$IP7.4...@newsfe23.iad>
>
> >I disconnected my fax line recently. It is an obsolete technology.
>
> Of course it is obsolete. So is newsprint - but the New York TImes
> still buys an awful lot of it.
>
> We probably get 50-100 pages of faxes a day, for seven lawyers.
>
> --
> The war on privilege will never end. Its next great campaign will be
> against the privileges of the underprivileged. H. L. Mencken
Same thing with voicemails...but somewhat people still send voicemails
a lot.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <dedcae89-589b-44c5-baf0-72288351960e@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 6, 7:20 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> 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.
I do not agree that that was done.
> >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.
Most people _did_ know about those things back then and kept them in
mind.
Back then phone bills were simple and things like message units or
short haul toll calls stood out. Most people were sensitive to them.
TV shows and newspaper cartoons often poked fun at the huge phone
bills teenagers ran up.
> >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.
Sorry, that is not correct. For short haul billing, whether by
message units or cheap toll rates (a few cents per minute), it went
down to the exchange level. For example, say you were north of a big
city. If you called a neighborhood on the north side you would be
charged less than if you called the south side.
In _recent_ years such charges have been reduced.
For long haul long distance, they did clump exchanges into zones, a
system still in use today.
See Mr. Bonomi's post about Chicago.
> With cell phone service, more often than not the entire metropolitan
> area was in a single such cluster.
For the cell phone user making outgoing calls yes, but for those
calling cell phones, no. Trust me, I paid quite a bit for calls to
cell phones I thought would not be toll but were. (I even had to pay
for unanswered calls, that is, after a few rings a recording came on
to say the party wasn't available; that was counted as a "completed
call".)
> 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.
Sorry, but that's the way it was. Again, see Mr. B's post.
As mentioned, when Mr. X got a cell phone, he wanted Mrs. X to be able
to call him free, so the assignment of his cellphone exchange was
significant. He did _not_ want across town to run up message units or
short haul toll charges.
> 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?
I'm sorry but I don't agree. I know what message unit and short haul
toll charges we had to pay back in those days and how exchange
dependent they were.
But I will agree that the discussion is moot since many landline
phones and most cellphones are not as distance sensitive as they were
back then.
> Gah.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 02:01:02 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <h30uku$dbj$1@news.albasani.net>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Jul 6, 7:20 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>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.
>Sorry, that is not correct. For short haul billing, whether by
>message units or cheap toll rates (a few cents per minute), it went
>down to the exchange level.
Wow. I say "long distance", and you keep ignoring what I write,
insisting on changing the conversation back to distance-rated local
calls. I haven't commented on distance-rated local calls. I keep
mentioning this but you keep ignoring it.
>For long haul long distance, they did clump exchanges into zones, a
>system still in use today.
Isn't that what I wrote?
I've avoided using the term "exchange" whose meaning has become
ambiguous over time. Rate center has a clear meaning in tariff.
>>With cell phone service, more often than not the entire metropolitan
>>area was in a single such cluster.
>For the cell phone user making outgoing calls yes, but for those
>calling cell phones, no.
For the 2,723rd time, that applies only to land line callers making
distance-rated local calls, but not to land line callers making long
distance calls to that cell phone number.
>Trust me, I paid quite a bit for calls to cell phones I thought would
>not be toll but were. (I even had to pay for unanswered calls, that is,
>after a few rings a recording came on to say the party wasn't available;
>that was counted as a "completed call".)
Unfortunately, cell phone providers didn't feel obliged to implement
concepts of supervision to play nicely with the much larger foreign
network.
>As mentioned, when Mr. X got a cell phone, he wanted Mrs. X to be able
>to call him free, so the assignment of his cellphone exchange was
>significant. He did _not_ want across town to run up message units or
>short haul toll charges.
That's an example of a subscriber who requested assignment.
>>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?
>I'm sorry but I don't agree.
Of course you don't agree because you refuse to read what I write as I
write it and instead assume I've written something different. No matter
how many times I tell you that you failed to correctly interpret what I
wrote, you continue with your same misinterpretation.
It's always a mistake on my part to assume that you'll ever read what
I've written as I wrote it.
>But I will agree that the discussion is moot since many landline
>phones and most cellphones are not as distance sensitive as they were
>back then.
Of course you'll agree with something I never wrote to begin with.
What you actually mean is that you agree with yourself.
***** Moderator's Note *****
OK, ladies and gentlemen, fun's fun, but play nice, ok?
IIRC, each exchange was assigned a V&H coordinate, which was used to
rate LD calls. Is that still the case?
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:19:12 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <op.uwp5yaamo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:18:35 -0400, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote:
>>AES wrote:
>>>Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Why not just use a hands-free unit which is legal in California.
>
>>>I want to call a person -- my spouse, say -- who may be on the freeway,
>>>may be at a stop.
>
>>>If they're at a stop, I'd like them to answer the phone.
>
>>>But if they're on the freeway, I'd like them to get an audible beep, and
>>>maybe a kind of audio tweet, saying that I've called -- but I DON't want
>>>them trying to answer the phone or take the call, even hands free.
>
>>I have been using radios of one kind or another since I was in High
>>School, starting with Ham radio. I don't care if you are using hands
>>or not: your attention is split, [and it's] even worse with a Cell
>>Phone. I never use mine, even hands free, on the highway or city
>>streets, [where] it is even worse. I see people using their phone,
>>both holding the phone and hands free, and to me it does not seem to
>>make a difference: they look like they are in another world - many are
>>moving their hands and arms and screaming into the phone. In stores it
>>is even worse: I got knocked down by a woman using hers in a
>>supermarket.
>
>>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.
LOL! Love it! How to lie with statistics, 101. Thank you! :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
***** Moderator's Note *****
May I recommend "A Mathemetician Looks at the Newspaper"?
Bill
P.S. Half the people in America are below average!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:41:21 -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.uwp6y7vao63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:16:16 -0400, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> 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.
No key system unit (KSU ?) accompanied the telset I have. As a single
stand-alone desk set on one line (using just conductors 1 & 26), is a
KSU even needed? Would a basic Bell System 6V AC (or 12V AC)
wall-wort transformer suffice for the lamp 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.
In my single-line household, I guess questions (2) were just academic.
> 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".
Ah-hah! Thanks for making that question bite the dust :-) .
Thanks very much, hancock4! And cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
***** Moderator's Note *****
You may use a multi-line set as a regular phone instrument by simply
wiring the tip and ring to the line(s) in question. However, the hold
function, lights, and intercom all depend on separate KTU equipment.
It is, of course, possible to use a wall wart to power the lights, but
you'll have to rewire the a leads so that they are in series with the
lamp, because otherwise the lights will just be on all the time.
And, nobody has said anything about my quesiton on "LG" leads. I am
_eagerly_ awaiting the answer!
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:49:46 -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.uwp7c8nwo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:43:30 -0400, Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org> wrote:
> 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
Thanks, Carl, for this clear pin-out 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
Yeah, "easy, Peasy" -- once you've got the pinout diagram :-) .
Thanks again, very much. And cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:58:01 -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.uwp7qzj1o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:36:40 -0400, <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
> 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
Thanks, Wes. And cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
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 (23 messages)
******************************
|
or 
