30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

The Telecom Digest for August 17, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 233 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer)(Wes Leatherock)
Re: Looks like the "LightSquare" deal is hitting some potholes(Fred Goldstein)
Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer)(HAncock4)
Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer)(Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer)(HAncock4)
Re: ANCIENT telephone transmission(mattrix)

====== 30 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======

Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime.  - Geoffrey Welsh

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest. 



Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 06:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock 
To: telecomdigestmoderator@telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer) 
Message-ID: <1316181295.50485.YahooMailClassic@web111702.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

--- On Thu, 9/15/11, Thor Lancelot Simon  wrote:

> HAncock4~ 
> wrote:
> >On Sep 13, 7:46~am, Neal McLain 
> wrote:
> >

> >As an aside, in some cases NYC had _8_ digit phone
> numbers, such as
> >HOllis 5-10254.~ A manual exchange could have
> 10,500 numbers.~~~Also,


> What happened to these numbers when long distance direct dialing was
> implemented? Were they really all renumbered?

>> was dialed, too. Literature on the panel exchange in NYC
>> confirms the registers could hold and pass 8 digits. I don't
>> know if that applied in other big cities.

> "The" panel exchange?

> I don't disbelieve this but I would certainly like to see some
> references.


I remember reading about this many years ago, probably in Bell Labs
Record at the time.  The devices at the manual end offices were called
Panel Call Indicators (PCI).  Somewhere I remember one of the
illustraions was of the ir use in New Orleans, in addition to NYC, of
course.

I have no information on 8-digit numbers or party line suffixes,
except to note that party line suffixes were very common in manual
offices of all sizes, including magneto exchanges.

Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com




Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:08:31 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein 
To: telecomdigestmoderator@telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Looks like the "LightSquare" deal is hitting some potholes 
Message-ID: <20110916190830.27B8D57C9@mailout.easydns.com>

On
>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:03:32 -0400, danny burstein  wrote,
>
>Background: "LightSquared" has been pushing for using so-called
>"spare" radio frequency space for data and other wireless projects.
>
>Current licensees are, for the most part, against it, partly
>because of the added competition (natch), but also because
>it looks like there are some pretty serious interference isssues.

Boy, that Right Wing Echo Machine has been making up some weird 
stuff.  Let's recap.  (And I did read the lengthy report to the FCC 
that was filed last month as part of the proceeding.)

LightSquared has nothing to do with "spare" frequenies, like the 
White Spaces on the TV band.  It's all about satellite frequencies to 
which they hold the licenses.

Lightsquared, formerly SkyTerra, is the licensee of L-band mobile 
satellite frequencies in the 1.5 GHz range.  Around 2003, the FCC 
authorized Ancillary Terrestrial Component operation, which means 
that they can put earth-based base stations on satellite frequencies, 
not just use satellites.  Originally this was meant to fill in 
coverage shadows, as in cities where buildings blocked the view of 
the birds.  But later, the FCC allowed ATC to be used on a more 
primary basis, with handsets that did not also have satellite 
coverage. That's the controversy.

Lightsquared's satellite frequencies are just below those used by 
civilian GPS.  When their only transmitters were in the sky, this was 
no problem.  But ATC means that there are high-powered transmitters 
on the ground, so if you're near one, you get a strong signal.  Bear 
in mind that ATC has been authorized for years... GPS receiver 
manufacturers, however, noted that there were no ATCs in use, so they 
saved a little money (ahem) by not making their wares resistant to 
nearby-frequency signals.  Not that it's impossible; it just costs a 
little.  As GPS got more common, it often followed the declining 
price-quality curve characteristic of Chinese mass production.

So now there are a bazillion GPS receivers that were built without 
the ability to withstand ATC on nearby frequencies.  And LightSquared 
wants to build a new network.  Some on the FCC like this because it 
provides just a bit more competition, as the mobile business 
otherwise consolidates, and doesn't involve more auctions (which 
would almost always go to the big two incumbents, since it's worth 
more to ATT and VZ to keep out competition than it is for a new 
operator to compete, the public be damnedd).  Sprint likes this 
because they could use partners.

But of course the GPS industry and its customers don't want to lose 
service.  Hence the repeated studies.  Now let's get a bit more 
technical.  LightSquared has two 10 MHz bands to work with, one just 
below GPS and one about 30 MHz below that.  Their study (with lots of 
test documentation) shows that the lower band does not cause 
interference to almost any consumer GPS, but the upper band does.  So 
they offered to revise their plan and to only use the lower band for 
at least a few years, giving ample warning to the industry before 
turning on the upper band.  In this week's revision, they've further 
offered to lower their signal strength by 6 dB for an interim period.

There is one more angle here, the high-precision augmented GPS.  This 
uses a second signal from commercial satellites, and is used for 
stuff like farm tractors and mining.  (Military is 
separate.  Aviation doesn't use this augmentation.)  LightSquared and 
Inmarsat are the satellite providers. This uses their lower 10 MHz 
band.  LightSquared has offered to pay every user of this signal to 
modify their receivers (a few hundred thousand of them) to use a 
different frequency.  I don't recall if Inmarsat receivers are 
impacted too but LightSquared has offered to cover that cost too.

So if LightSquared goes ahead there is a small risk that in the short 
term, some really grody GPS receivers will get interference in a few 
locations.  If they get to use the upper band, then a lot more 
receivers will get interference, but the hope (a bit unrealistic, 
perhaps) is that they will mostly be replaced by then, and the GPS 
vendors will be on notice.  But the vendors would rather shave a 
nickel off of their front end costs.

And to the Banana Republican politicians, who only care about making 
Obama look bad regardless of the facts, it's just another talking point.

  --
  Fred Goldstein    k1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting              http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 
To: telecomdigestmoderator@telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer) 
Message-ID: <8fe68be8-b2cf-4d9a-9528-4089c8be51fd@l4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>

On Sep 16, 12:18 am, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

> >As an aside, in some cases NYC had _8_ digit phone numbers, such as
> >HOllis 5-10254. A manual exchange could have 10,500 numbers.
>
> What happened to these numbers when long distance direct dialing was
> implemented? Were they really all renumbered?

DDD required that all subscribers have a uniform ten digit number--
three digit area code and seven digit local number.  In 1950 a great
many subscribers in smaller towns and cities had phone numers with
three, four, five, or six digits, and all had to be converted to seven
digits.  This was a major undertaking that took years to complete.

Those subscribers with an eight digit number, be it 2L-6N or a party
line suffix, also had to get new numbers.

>> ...was dialed, too. Literature on the panel exchange in NYC
>> confirms the registers could hold and pass 8 digits. I don't know
>> if that applied in other big cities.  >" The" panel exchange?  I
>> don't disbelieve this but I would certainly like to see some
>> references.

The Bell Labs history volume 1 (op cit) mentions that manual exchanges
had the capacity for 10,500 digits.  Also, they show the interface
panel for the inward B operator having eight digit capacity, either
the leading 1 or a party-line suffix.

Around 1930, New York Telephone prepared a booklet from a lecture
describing the panel exchange in use in NYC, and this also notes the
eight digits.  Unfortunately, I don't have a title nor know how it can
be found on-line.

I've heard that NYC phone books circa 1950 had listings showing eight
digits.  Some day I hope to visit a NYC library and look up such a
book (they do have them); I'm particularly curious to see the dialing
instructions.

There were classified ads in the NYT of that era showed an eight digit
number.




Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 23:15:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
To: telecomdigestmoderator@telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer) 
Message-ID: 

In article <8fe68be8-b2cf-4d9a-9528-4089c8be51fd@l4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
HAncock4   wrote:
>On Sep 16, 12:18 am, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>
>> >As an aside, in some cases NYC had _8_ digit phone numbers, such as
>> >HOllis 5-10254. A manual exchange could have 10,500 numbers.
>>
>> What happened to these numbers when long distance direct dialing was
>> implemented? Were they really all renumbered?
>
>DDD required that all subscribers have a uniform ten digit number--
>three digit area code and seven digit local number.  In 1950 a great
>many subscribers in smaller towns and cities had phone numers with
>three, four, five, or six digits, and all had to be converted to seven
>digits.  This was a major undertaking that took years to complete.

Not such a major undertaking.  In roughly 1980 I lived in a rural area
of New York State that still had 4 digit dialing.  Extension to a
_longer_ number can be done automatically -- it is fully deterministic,
you are just adding predetermined digits.

My number was 687-XXXX for external purposes, but for in-town callers,
simply XXXX would do.  The "687", obviously, was just added onto the
front when numbers went to 7 digits -- and there were towns near us
with switches still configured to allow 3-digit dialing, which had had
four digits prefixed to the front, too.

However, there is no such mapping from longer numbers (8 digits) onto
shorter numbers (7 digits).  Since New York City got only one area
code in the original direct-dial plan, if there were really 8 digit
numbers in circulation, some subscribers' numbers would have had to
be completely changed, not just extended.  This is what I am a little
skeptical about.

-- 
Thor Lancelot Simon	                               tls@panix.com
  "All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
   at once."	-Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract




Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 
To: telecomdigestmoderator@telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer) 
Message-ID: 

On Sep 16, 10:24~am, HAncock4 
wrote:

> DDD required that all subscribers have a uniform ten digit number--
> three digit area code and seven digit local number. ~In 1950 a great
> many subscribers in smaller towns and cities had phone numers with
> three, four, five, or six digits, and all had to be converted to seven
> digits. ~This was a major undertaking that took years to complete.

P.S.  Many times the "conversion" was accomplished at the same time a
town was converted from manual to dial, which was a major effort in
those years.  Subscribers had to get used to a new phone number and
billing routing records had to be all changed, but there was no
equipment modification.

However, towns that were already dial had to be converted to be 7D.

In step-by-step offices this often meant adding a "digit absorbing"
selector.  Say a town had five digit numbers, 5-xxxx and 6-xxxx and
the town was to become 345-xxxx and 346-xxxx.  The switch would simply
absorb the initial 3 and 4.  This meant that people within the town
would continue dialing five digits as they did before, only outsiders
needed all seven.  In many small towns in isolated areas five digit
dialing continued well into the 1970s.  It ended when more exchanges
were added as population grew.

I don't have any statistics, but I suspect DDD was not offered very
widely in the 1950s because the company was too busy expanding toll
line capacity and converting local exchanges to dial.  I _think_  the
Bell System was about 50% dial at the end of WW II, not sure of the
percentage in 1960.  Anyway, the first step in providing DDD was to
providing operator direct dialing, which sped up call handling.  That
meant adding toll trunk signalling systems for ringing and supervision
which was an effort in itself.  (That signalling protocol would be
compromised later on by the "blue boxes".)

Even in the 1980s with DDD and TSP widespread, from time to time
operators still 'built up' toll calls by calling intermediate toll
centers and establishing the connection the old fashioned way.
Likewise, they also wrote charge tickets instead of AMA.

Other local exchange items that were necessary to provide DDD were
increasing the sender length in #1 crossbar and panel exchanges to
hold 10 digits, providing an 'exit' link in step by step exchanges,
and providing AMA (automatic message accounting) with automated or
operator calling number identification (ANI or ONI).  AMA was
installed either in the local exchange or at a tandem or toll
switching office.

Would anyone care to comment on how all this stuff is handled by
modern exchanges today?  Can a long distance company operator still
"build up" a call manually?  Are there still long distance company
network managers watching their system for overloads and problems?  Is
there still a big AT&T network control center in Bedminster?  Thanks.

[public replies, please]




Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: mattrix 
To: telecomdigestmoderator@telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ANCIENT telephone transmission 
Message-ID: 

So much for my "Historian",

On Sep 16, 10:58~am, Jim Haynes  wrote:
> "George O. Squier...was the inventor...in 1910, of telephone
> carrier multiplexing...

Thankyou Jim.

by 1914 development of a commercial system
> was underway."
>
> "By fall 1914 an experimental vacuum-tube-based carrier-multiplexed
> telephone system carrying two simultaneous signals over a single circuit
> had been set up in the laboratory of R. A. Heising."

Suggesting that the original didn't use active components.

>> - Without amplifiers, how do you handle attenuation?
Turns out that the problem was phase distortion, more than attenuation.
(I need to study transmission lines :)

I'm still not sure how signalling worked. The US seems to have sent
tones in the voiceband that could be recovered as signals? But I'm not
sure if they did the same in Australia.

In fact, after automatic exchanges were introduced (especially in the
Step-by-Step system used in Australia), when did it become possible
for the subscriber to make inter-exchange calls (say from one side of
a city to the other) without operator intervention? How did the
signalling work in that situation?





TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information:Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe:telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe:telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom 
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information: http://telecom-digest.org


Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list. 

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom Digest (6 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues