|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 242 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Court Throws Out FCC's Cable Subscriber Cap
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Verizon Newsgroup Service to be discontinued 30-SEP-2009
Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: 15 years jail time for texting while driving in Utah
Re: 15 years jail time for texting while driving in Utah
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: new search engine and GSM interference info
Re: Internet turns 40
Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
====== 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: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 06:01:50 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Message-ID: <iN2nm.571$tl3.140@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> I wish there was a way to force all the [motorists] who use cell
> phones and/or text while driving to view this [Public Service
> Announcement]:
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ttNgZDZruI> [4 minutes 12 seconds]
>
> Yes, it's brutal, and so are vehicular collisions and deaths caused
> by distracted drivers.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Although the results may differ in the U.K. or in other countries,
> ISTR that in the U.S., experience has shown that horrifying video
> images don't have the intended result. I'll defer to other readers to
> confirm or deny.
>
> In any case, please remember that the video was not a documentary of
> actual events: it is a work of fiction, and was professionally
> produced as a Public Service Announcement. It was intended to frighten
> young drivers with the hope of reducing traffic accidents, and it
> should be viewed in that light.
>
> Bill Horne
>
Yes it is a PSA and a work of fiction.
My problem is that I have now run several very real Personal Injury
Collisions as a Firefighter / Rescuer, where we can hear a cell phone
still sounding message alerts in the wreckage, or where we hear the
party at the other end of the call begging the victim to answer them
while we work rather hard to disassemble a vehicle from around the
phone's owner.
I don't have any brilliant ideas about how to put a stop to the
carnage, but we are now seeing more cell phone accidents than we do
drunks: the drinking and drugged driving has not gone down, but the
wrecks are way up (Our fire work load has gone sharply down and we
were wondering if the management types would start closing stations,
[but] until this cell phone thing is brought under control that is no
longer likely).
With the advent of cost effective home fire sprinklers I thought that
the cost of public safety efforts were going to be trending down: now,
I don't see how it can [happen] anytime soon. Our county is halfway
through the construction of our brand new, ten million dollar, fire
and rescue station.
--
Tom Horne
"Above all our proudest endeavor is to preserve the lives of our fellow
creatures the work of almighty God himself." Edward Croker, Chief
Engineer Commanding, Fire department City of New York. Circa 1910
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:55:39 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Message-ID: <4A9D985B.1090002@thadlabs.com>
On 9/1/2009 7:58 AM, Tom Horne wrote:
>
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
> I don't have any brilliant ideas about how to put a stop to the
> carnage, but we are now seeing more cell phone accidents than we do
> drunks: the drinking and drugged driving has not gone down, but the
> wrecks are way up (Our fire work load has gone sharply down and we
> were wondering if the management types would start closing stations,
> [but] until this cell phone thing is brought under control that is no
> longer likely).
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
The above is the message that HAS to get out and be made public.
Are other fire/rescue units across the country(ies) seeing the same?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:48:29 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Message-ID: <6645152a0909011848g37981a75lebc06c9fc81a1cfb@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Thad Floryan<thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
> Are other fire/rescue units across the country(ies) seeing the same?
I personally am not involved in public safety. I have two friends who
are. One is a paramedic here locally. The other is a highway
patrolman in another state.
The paramedic once commented to me that people seem to be getting
dumber every year. You'll get a college student, 18 or 19 years-old
who drank too much and decide to take his grandmother's Parkinson's
drug just because.
I once expressed to my cop buddy I thought cell phone laws really
weren't needed. He said it's bordering on epidemic and something very
seriously need to be done.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:15:20 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <4A9CCA08.6010708@thadlabs.com>
On 8/31/2009 11:06 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:42:27PM -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> [...]
>> I'm confused about this. By 1968 and probably earlier (1965?)
>> computer time sharing services were available through dial up
>> terminals on the PSTN. Anyone who had a terminal (usually a Teletype
>> 33 or 35 rented from Bell, admittedly not cheap) could _also_ call any
>> another person with a teletype at regular PSTN rates, which for a
>> residential local call was often free and untimed. So here, too,
>> aside from price, the deaf community get service. (Back in school
>> sometimes we called other schools and conversed via the Teletypes,
>> Early from of teen texting.)
>
> Well, aside from price, I'd be visiting the Mare Imbrium on my next
> vacation.
>
> Computer time-sharing services might have been available (I'll defer
> to other readers on the timeline for that: I worked as a Teletype
> repairman for an educational time sharing system in 1976, although
> Ward Christensen didn't start CBBS until 1978), but even if they were,
> their price limited them to business users, and they weren't available
> for free to anyone but students, and only during school hours.
> [...]
I can fill in some details about the timesharing services. They began
appearing late 1966. I couldn't get enough time on the EDL's IBM 1130
so I started calling around for "trial" accounts with Tymshare, ITT,
some PDP-10 company (Call-A-Computer ?), and a few others. TTY ASR33s
were the terminals used by all of them and 110 baud acoustic modems were
used over the PSTN. I attempted to "sneak" in as much EDL work as I could
on the trial accounts and no one seemed to mind since I also provided a
lot of feedback to the companies, so it was kind of a win-win for all.
But Bill's correct about the cost. The EDL ended up contracting with
Tymshare for "overflow" computing work and there was one month the bill
exceeded $10,000 -- this was 1967 or early 1968 -- and no one thought that
amount was out of line since the work had to be done and the US Govt
was basically footing the bill.
By that time I saw the value of timesharing vs. batch processing and
when Tymshare made an offer, I couldn't refuse. I ended up doing their
EE and other engineering programs, eventually compilers, editors and
database systems, police information system (POINT), and participated
in the development of the first commercial RDMBS (MIDAS or Magnum,
depending on the computer platform) before joining another computer
startup [company] in 1972.
Heh, I found my old Tymshare business cards. The Palo Alto location was
1968, the Cupertino was 1969 when everything moved to larger facilities:
<http://thadlabs.com/FILES/Thad_Tymshare_BC.pdf>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <6f6a16cc-ca84-487b-9b64-6564831c8f7e@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 1, 10:59 am, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> But Bill's correct about the cost. The EDL ended up contracting with
> Tymshare for "overflow" computing work and there was one month the bill
> exceeded $10,000 -- this was 1967 or early 1968 -- and no one thought that
> amount was out of line since the work had to be done and the US Govt
> was basically footing the bill.
I worked for a company which used a timesharing computer. We were
under strict orders to prepare everything offline on paper tape first,
run it, then do all debugging offline, so as to minimize the connect
time charges. We had a 300 baud terminal, acoustical coupler.
Printing was much quieter than a Teletype, but the paper tape punch at
300 baud was horribly noisy.
There was a rich kid at school who rented his own Teletype for a few
months.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:41:09 +0000 (UTC)
From: Horn <horn+NOSPAN@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Court Throws Out FCC's Cable Subscriber Cap
Message-ID: <h7ito5$o64$1@reader1.panix.com>
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> My guess is that the FCC will start all over and come up with some
> other percentage. Once again, the cable industry will sue and the DC
> Circuit will vacate. I suppose the FCC will just give up at some
> point unless Congress clarifies its intention.
May I (not so) humbly suggest that the FCC set the cap to 100%.
--
Remove +STRING to reply by email
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:15:42 GMT
From: "Gary" <fake-email-address@bogus.hotmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <289nm.614$tl3.26@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:5053ced1-c6bb-40ed-b3e7-deb9b5003ef4@f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
> In 1984 who would've guessed that
> computer power costing about $30,000 in today's dollars would be
> available for $250 today? Who would've guessed that 512 MB of random
> access storage would cost all of $5.00, that several gigabytes would
> fit on a postage stamp?
Gordon Moore, Thomas Watson, Bill Hewlett, Dave Packard, Steve Jobs, and
Steve Wozniak; just to name a few.
Those involved in the technology know what is coming. The trick is figuring
out how to take advantage of the coming advancements and produce winning
products with the technology.
Apple was talking about a hand held computing device back in the 80's. The
Newton was their first attempt. Now we have the iPhone. There are plenty
of other examples of ideas that were envisioned decades ago that are just
now reaching consumers. It was the visionaries of years ago that planted
the seeds to take advantage of the technology of the future (today).
Technology will keep getting better. Those who know this are working today
to take advantage of tomorrow's advances. They will be the new Apple's,
IBM's, and HP's.
-Gary
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:26:19 -0500
From: Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <slrnh9qip5.4he.jhaynes@localhost.localdomain>
On 2009-09-01, Gary <fake-email-address@bogus.hotmail.com> wrote:
><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
> news:5053ced1-c6bb-40ed-b3e7-deb9b5003ef4@f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> In 1984 who would've guessed that computer power costing about
>> $30,000 in today's dollars would be available for $250 today? Who
>> would've guessed that 512 MB of random access storage would cost
>> all of $5.00, that several gigabytes would fit on a postage stamp?
>
> Gordon Moore, Thomas Watson, Bill Hewlett, Dave Packard, Steve Jobs, and
> Steve Wozniak; just to name a few.
And to relate this to the Bell System, I remember a traveling lecturer
from Bell Labs in the late 1950s (anybody else remember when Bell sent
out those road shows, some to the general public, some to schools and
colleges?). He assured us that in the future there would be a telephone
you would wear on your wrist, and that you would have a single telephone
number that was yours for life, wherever you went.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <49cedd32-aeb3-499b-b764-2a554c69c259@z17g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 1, 7:50 pm, Jim Haynes <jhay...@cavern.uark.edu> wrote:
> And to relate this to the Bell System, I remember a traveling lecturer
> from Bell Labs in the late 1950s (anybody else remember when Bell sent
> out those road shows, some to the general public, some to schools and
> colleges?). He assured us that in the future there would be a telephone
> you would wear on your wrist, and that you would have a single telephone
> number that was yours for life, wherever you went.
The old Bell System had a _huge_ number of lecturers and road shows
for all sorts of purposes. They sent special equipment and teachers
to schools to teach kids how to work the telephone. They had
technical lectures. They had public demonstrations and museum
exhibits. For businesses, they sent out people to train PBX
attendants and provide other support services. They had all sorts of
literature on good telephone manners, most of which is still very
relevant today*.
Some of the business analysts they had now work directly for the large
customers they once served.
A look at old Bell System literature shows much of it dealt with
service quality, not just the technical this-button-does-that. The
Bell System pushed hard for PBX attendants to give the best service
possible. Sadly today no one is providing that training and service
quality has gone way down.
* Admittedly, we no longer need to prepare of list of toll calls we'll
be making in rapid sequence to give to the long distance operator in
advance.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:29:38 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <bf3.601b2eec.37cf0862@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/31/2009 10:44:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Certainly govt regulation is not perfect (it killed the railroads and
> Western Union). But eliminating it altogether is not the only option;
> it could be modified to be more flexible and meet modern needs, too.
Thr railroads are healthier than ever, although regulation came close to
killing them.
Western Union's reason for existence passed it by, but it could
possibly [have] adjusted to stay alive. It was once in the telephone
long distance telephone business, too, with its own 1011+ acceass
code.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <10f7ce08-1414-4a62-a088-44961dbdd16e@upsg2000gro.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 1, 7:48 pm, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
> Thr railroads are healthier than ever, although regulation came close to
> killing them.
Yes, much of the nation's railroads were destroyed by excessive and
bad regulation. Shippers and passengers had to suffer with bad
service as a result. Then the govt had to spend a great deal of money
to save critical services.
The problem, which is a lesson for us, is that the regulation policies
were far behind the times. The regulation policy was built around the
assumption that the railroads were powerful monopolies that needed
tight control.
> Western Union's reason for existence passed it by, but it could
> possibly [have] adjusted to stay alive. It was once in the telephone
> long distance telephone business, too, with its own 1011+ acceass
> code.
I believe we discussed this a while back. WU recognized way back in
the 1950s that the traditional telegram was obsolete. It tried hard
to position itself for data communications but things didn't work out
for them. WU should've been a big part of the Internet revolution 40
years ago but it wasn't, despite having defense contracts for data
comm.
In the 1960s WU tried offering private line voice services, but I
don't think that took off.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:52:05 GMT
From: "wdag" <wgeary@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Verizon Newsgroup Service to be discontinued 30-SEP-2009
Message-ID: <FV7nm.607$Jd7.419@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Another one bites (the dust):
http://www.verizon.net/promo/email_promos/tpe/newsgroup_discontinued/index.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
Can't say I blame them. Many parts of Usenet have become electronic
swamps that mothers tell tales about to frighten young children, and
the content-to-bandwidth ratio just doesn't justify the time to even
read the subject lines.
That's the problem with common lands: someone always overgrazes them.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:42:13 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Message-ID: <7YCdnScDNskV3QDXnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@posted.visi>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Aug 30, 10:09 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>
> (A)
>>> And, no doubt, if you had a beef with the bill, you could invite the
>>> company owner out into the parking lot to settle it.
>
> (B)
>> Don't be silly. We'd negotiate over a beer at the bar around the
>> corner.
>
> In some places, a small utility or municpality will handle disputes by
> (a) or (b) above. It's not a good practice as it usually leads to
As you know, neither suggestion was entirely serious. The point was,
with a small company you have some chance of actually talking to
someone who can do something, instead of another drone who mindlessly
recites "I'm sorry, ma'm, that's not our policy."
> As to paying in person, today some large utilities no longer have
> branch offices to accept payment or even designated payment agents as
> they once did. At one time many years ago only wealthy people had
> checking accounts; others had to pay their utility bills in person at
> the company or through a local store which charged a fee. Some bought
> money orders (which are still available from the post office). Today
> most people have checking accounts. I'm not sure how low income
> people pay their bills, maybe the check cashing places in poor
> neighborhoods act as agents for a fee.
That, or purchasing money orders (sold in supermarkets, check cashing
places, etc.). So, add on the cost of the fees and postage, are we
better served or more poorly served than the day when you could go in
and plunk your money down?
> A few years ago the modern Western Union wanted to get into that kind
> of financial service business using its network of money transfer
> agents as a base. I don't know how far they went with it, but
> apparently money transfer is a service often used by people who
> limited means or immigrants.
Money transfers are very attractive when funds are going to the less
developed world, where the recipients probably do not have bank
account either. WU (no idea whether it's the same company or just
someone who bought the name) is still a big player in that.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:22:07 -0500
From: Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <slrnh9qih9.4he.jhaynes@localhost.localdomain>
On 2009-08-31, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> the 1970's. I think that charge is debatable. On the consumer side I
> simply can not imagine cell phones, broadband Internet, VOIP, or even
> the added features on land-line service existing as we know them today
> if we still had a regulated telephone monopoly. In 1984 who'd have
But I can imagine cell phones as big as a brick that would _never_ suffer
from dropouts or poor voice quality that is the norm today.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I think we should bring back the BC-745A. It eliminates the problem of
distracted drivers. ;-)
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 06:16:02 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 15 years jail time for texting while driving in Utah
Message-ID: <C_2nm.572$tl3.327@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> Now we're seeing some reasonable laws -- Utah is characterizing
> texting-while-driving the same as DUI.
>
> Long full story here:
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/technology/29distracted.html>
>
> Hopefully both New York's and Utah's new laws will spread like
> wildfire to other states and countries.
Just try to get the legislators to give up their cell phones while
they are driving, though, and you will get nowhere. No, it is not
as dangerous as texting - but you are, by current figures, more likely
to have an injury-causing collision while on the phone then you are
if you are drunk. And no, hands free devices are not the
answer. Holding the phone isn't what makes you a bad driver: it's
dividing your attention away from the driving task that does it.
--
Tom Horne
No we aren't no thin blue heroes but we aren't no blackguards to.
We're just working men and women most remarkable like you.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:54:11 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 15 years jail time for texting while driving in Utah
Message-ID: <6645152a0909011854n4ca9cf6ch80743d752afdb65a@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Tom Horne<hornetd@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Just try to get the legislators to give up their cell phones while
> they are driving, though, and you will get nowhere.
I won't name him, but a casual Google search should turn up his name.
I personally know our former state representative. I was driving
beside him along Parmer Lane in Austin. One, he was speeding. I
caught him at the red lights. Two, he was texting on his iPhone. I
say texting because he was hitting the screen too much for it just to
be email or web browsing. Which brings up to another point. Is
checking email and browsing still legal in California? The law just
cites cell phone use and texting if I'm not mistaken.
He was arrested last year for DWI, breaking a law he co-authored. He
refused the breathalyzer so he was arrested and lost his license for
180 days. At his trial it was his word against the trooper's and
since there was no hard evidence he was drunk the charges were
dropped. Nice.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:21:38 -0500
From: Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <slrnh9qm0s.4jl.jhaynes@localhost.localdomain>
I was pleased to know all three of the men mentioned in the article,
though I knew Bob Weitbrecht a lot better than the other two.
Bob got him ham radio license W6NRM as a youngster. He was profoundly
deaf, but was able to hear or feel vibrations just enough to copy
Morse code with headphones. For many years that was his main social
outlet. I like to compare it with that famous cartoon captioned,
"On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog", thinking "In ham radio
(Morse code) nobody knows you're deaf."
Amateur radioteletype came into being circa 1950, principally in and
around New York City, using a lot of obsolete Model 12 machines that
had been surplused by the police department there. At the time there
was a lot of commercial and military radioteletype on the air; but
amateurs were handicapped by FCC regulations and by the difficulty of
obtaining machines. Bob, on the West Coast, and then at Yerkes
Observatory in Wisconsin, was an early adopter and promoter of RTTY as
it is called. Much of his professional life was connected with
instrumentation for astronomy; hence the Yerkes job. He was a major
technical contributor to RTTY, and also traveled a lot to visit with
other RTTY enthusiasts or to help hams get on the air with RTTY. So
much of his social life revolved around other hams and communication
via RTTY.
After he left Yerkes and returned to California he continued his RTTY
activity. He also had a telephone put in; one of his friends had an
amateur station remotely located from his home that could be controlled
and operated over a telephone line. All this was strictly disallowed
by the telephone company "no foreign attachments" rule at the time;
but the guy who did it was an expert (a former Bell Labs man, in fact)
so there was no way the telephone company would know of this activity.
Bob also started using the telephone to communicate with ham friends
in the local area, using Morse code and TTY signaling.
Bob became acquainted with Jim Marsters around 1960. This opened up
a world of new ideas to Bob. Jim was a deaf person who lived life
to the fullest: a Porsche driver and an airplane pilot, among other
things. Bob hoped to get his new friend into amateur radio so they
could converse by RTTY across the distance between Redwood City and
Pasadena. At that time an amateur license required proficiency in
Morse code, and that turned out to be one thing that was beyond what
Jim could achieve with his degree of deafness. So Bob proposed that
they communicate over the telephone, in spite of the cost of long-distance
calls at that time period.
Radioteletype uses frequency-shift keying, in which one frequency is
transmitted for mark and a slightly different frequency is transmitted
for space. This is practically necessary to get good signal quality.
In his land line work Bob had experimented with single-tone space-only
transmission. The advantage of this is that the spacing tone is present
only during transmission of a character, so that no send-receive switch
is necessary. The much more complicated Bell System modems used
two pairs of frequency shifted tones to achieve full duplex operation.
This also made a send-receive switch unnecessary, but required that
the modem distinguish between the calling and called party.
The single-tone space-only modem worked fine around the local area.
When Bob and Jim tried it on a long-distance call the transmission
was troubled by echoes. (digress to standard telephony lecture on
the causes of echoes on long circuits and the need for echo suppressors.
I don't know for sure, but my guess is that the Redwood City to Pasadena
connection was too short to require the telephone company to put in
echo suppressors, but not short enough that the echoes were not
troublesome to the TTY signals)
Eventually Bob hit on the idea of transmitting a tone during mark intervals
that would essentially drown out the echoes. By having this tone come on
as soon as a key was pressed on the machine, and having it go away soon
after the end of a character, he preserved the feature of not requiring a
send-receive switch. Bob received a patent on this kind of modem,
number 3,507,997 issued in 1970.
Another part of the system was the use of old Baudot Teletype machines,
as the radio amateurs were using. Someone mentioned the problem of
maintaining that complicated machinery. This was something the amateurs
were already coping with. There were simplified instruction books and
articles, including one produced by the deaf community, on Teletype
repair. Also there were lots of hams or friends of hams who had learned
Teletype maintenance with the telephone company or Western Union or in
the military and were willing to help out. So maintenance of the machines
was not a big problem for the deaf any more than it was for the hams.
The use of Baudot was part of the reason the Bell System and the government
resisted helping the deaf people. Official policy was to speed the
adoption of ASCII and the phase-out of Baudot.
As Bob became busier with his work for the deaf he became somewhat less
visible in amateur radio, although he continued to operate and to develop
equipment. Many younger hams seem to think that amateur RTTY practically
began with Irv Hoff, who wrote a series of articles on RTTY and was
generally looked on as an authority during his lifetime; they are nearly
oblivious to all the extensive work that was done before Irv started
publishing.
There is a whole book devoted to these matters. "A Phone of Our Own : the
Deaf Insurrection Against Ma Bell" by Harry Lang, published by Gallaudet
University Press.
None of the above is meant to diminish the contributions of Jim Marsters
and Andy Saks (and countless others who were inspired by their work).
As Teletyping took hold among the deaf there were interesting activities
all over the country. Before the advent of home computer BBS systems
there was something, in St. Louis as I recall, that allowed TTY users
to dial in and receive the news, which was being stored in punched paper
tape.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <e53f09e2-1c48-4bc1-991e-104a76caefb6@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 1, 2:06 am, Bill Horne <b...@horneQRM.net> wrote:
> Computer time-sharing services might have been available (I'll defer
> to other readers on the timeline for that: I worked as a Teletype
> repairman for an educational time sharing system in 1976, although
> Ward Christensen didn't start CBBS until 1978), but even if they were,
> their price limited them to business users, and they weren't available
> for free to anyone but students, and only during school hours.
We were using computer timesharing services, via PSTN dial up, back in
1968, which were an outgrowth of the Dartmouth GE system, which began
a few years earlier. When the commerical services began I don't know
but by 1968 they were out there. By 1970 a number of competing time
sharing services were available. HP had its 2000A time sharing system
which was popular (offered by small companies) and pretty good. Our
school system had its own (which was not so good, but connect time was
free). The systems were available nearly 24/7 except for maintenance
times.
Bill Gates got his start on such systems, and he would work all night
in the computer center.
> You seem to be saying that these were viable alternatives for every
> deaf and hearing-impaired person who had a large trust fund sufficient
> to deploy Model 33's at every location they might want to communicate
> with. That's not a reflection of the deaf & hearing/speech-impaired
> community.
No, I understand price was the issue. The people in the other
newsgroup said there was NO such service available at ANY price until
Dr. Marsters came along. I wanted the be clear about the distinction
between "not available at all" and "not affordable by everyday
people".
> Presumably, all modems in common use were full or half-duplex devices,
> but the only half-duplex models I'm aware of (The Bell 202 series)
> were made for synchronous transmission of data between controllers on
> IBM or compatible SNA networks, and they weren't available to the
> general public.
The modems on our teletypes had a tiny switch for half or full
duplex. Certain computers wanted half, certain wanted full. If you
used full on a half duplex connection, depressing a key would transmit
the character but nothing would be printed.
> Actually, they were a lot more reliable than the new models that
> replaced them: the Model 32 Teletype was only rated for 1500 shaft
> hours before major overhaul. OTOH, the Model 15 RO was the standard
> terminal for news reports in both the AP and UPI networks well into
> the 70's.
Yes, the Teletype models 32 and 33 were intended for light duty
service. But we used them extensively and they held up very well. On
this site's archives there is an article in the WUTJ about their
mechanical designs.
> I sometimes use the same sort of machine, but the accoustic cups are
> designed for the round earpiece and microphone found on "500" sets, so
> they don't work as well with trimline or similarly shaped phones. I
> prefer a direct connect model.
Good point. The newer "K" handsets, which are more angular, probably
don't fit well either. Many handsets today have all sorts of odd
shapes.
I understand it now.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <b2a9b91e-53ae-46fc-b411-dc6f2d0315cb@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 31, 11:25 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
wrote:
> Yes, a "service" existed. It was *NOT* 'practical' for the deaf
> community to use it. The reason? The usual one, money.
I guess you missed this paragraph in the original post:
"What I think Dr. Marsters' developed was a _low-cost_ system for deaf
people to use instead of renting a Bell System modem, teleprinter, or
a Western Union Telex connection. Since AT&T's and WU's services were
intended for busineses, the prices weren't cheap. "
> *snicker* Got any idea how much that _cost_, relative to a standard
> 'voice grade' phone line? And, of course the Teletypes/modems that
> AT&T provided for time-share service dial-up, did "originate" mode
> _only_. You could _not_ directly connect two such machines over the
> 'voice' network'. That meant a deaf person _could_not_ call another
> deaf person directly with such a device. The two people had to
> 'co-ordinate' their calls, so that they both called 'some other
> place', that had 'answer' modems, and could shuffle the bits back
> and forth between them.
Not correct. The Teletypes AT&T provided for time-sharing access via
PSTN were ASR, automatic send receive. You [could] call another
teletype, and if [it was] unattended, it would automatically answer,
and you could leave a typed out message. If it was attended you could
have a conversation.
A deaf person defniitely COULD call other people directly with such
devices, either to leave a message or have a conversation. There was
the rental on the teletype ($100/month), but the phone call was
regular residential rates.
I believe Telex also offered the option of leaving messages or having
a conversation. But Telex charged by connect time (not much), and
most users 'batched' their messages via paper tape to minimize connect
time.
Further, you could own your own non-ASR Teletype and modem and call
other Teletypes, but they'd require someone to be there.
We used to do this years ago. Early form of teen texting.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:25:06 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <d04.5f696c96.37cf1562@aol.com>
In a message dated 9/1/2009 7:08:48 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Not correct. The Teletypes AT&T provided for time-sharing access
> via PSTN were ASR, automatic send receive. You [could] call another
> teletype, and if [it was] unattended, it would automatically answer,
> and you could leave a typed out message. If it was attended you
> could have a conversation.
Automaticv Send and Receive meant it had a tape punch and distributor.
Auto answer was a different function.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <c17a75c8-6768-4aca-9aa1-45d49b5a96aa@z16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 1, 8:29 pm, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
> Automaticv Send and Receive meant it had a tape punch and distributor.
> Auto answer was a different function.
Yes, sorry about the mix up.
The 33 Teletype could have automatic equipment built in, located in
the right hand panel. This had a dial, speaker, and several control
buttons. These Teletypes responded instantly to CNTL-D, EOT, and
disconnected and shut off. These machines were rented by the phoneco
at $100/month (teletype, and modem and control).
The dial or keypad on these machines were all number. In the 1960s
some places were still 2L-5N, and numbers had to be converted to ANC.
For some unknown reason, our 1968 machine was equiped with Touch Tone,
which was rare at that time.
Other Teletypes had nothing, and connections had to be handled
manually. (You would dial up, and upon hearing the high pitch sound
you would place the phone in the coupler or lift a lever.) I believe
these machines were cheaper; the above models seemed to be more common
at first, but then supplanted by the manual models. These could be
owned or rented from 3rd party dealers. I have no idea of their cost,
but presumably much cheaper than Bell. One was supposed to use either
a DAA or acoustical coupler, but some people used a screwdriver and
made their own direct connections.
As an aside, if your PC still has a dial up modem, you likely could
use it just like an old Teletype. On Windows, you probably have a
utility program called Hyper Terminal as part of Accessories/
Communications. On DOS, there were shareware programs (one was
Telix). You can dial someone and type to talk, without going through
any ISP or computer. Of course, it's easier to use Instant Messaging
or email.
I have no idea of the monthly access charge for TWX or Telex. Connect
times for Telex were I believe pretty cheap, like 5c a minute, but
they also charged by character. I would guess toll charges were
cheaper because teletype messages used very low bandwidth and
piggyback on voice grade lines using the low end frequency. I'm
pretty sure an overseas Telex message was definitely cheaper than an
overseas voice call back in the 1960s-1970s, and probably a
transcontinental voice, too.
There were one or two pioneer computerized information services
accessed by Telex; I think a law reference service. The request line
was extremely terse and tightly coded and the responses terse as
well. Examples of corporate teletype information exchanges shown in
literature are coded and extremely terse, too. Back then computers,
terminals, and lines cost more than people. An operator could spend
quite a bit of time coding an inquiry, with only moment actually
keying and transmitting it; then time decoding the response.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:35:32 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: new search engine and GSM interference info
Message-ID: <qomdnU5wSfiKxgDXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@posted.visi>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> Over the past 5 to 6 weeks in several threads, we've discussed and
> argued the interference issues attributed to GSM cell phones.
But here's one more data point. Doesn't affect my point of view that
it's the responsibility of goods manufacturers to ensure that their
products are not affected by interference in our increasingly noisy RF
environment, but...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/nyregion/23about.html
> Hello, Oven? It's Phone. Now Let's Get Cooking!
> By JIM DWYER
>
> First the superintendent and the handyman checked the oven from top
> to bottom. Then they tested the electrical outlet that supplied
> ignition power for the oven. Everything worked. Finally, they gave
> their verdict to the tenant, Andrei Melnikov.
>
> It was simply not possible, they said, that his oven, a Magic Chef
> made by Maytag, had turned itself on full blast, as Mr. Melnikov
> maintained.
>
> "Maybe you imagined it," the handyman said.
[Moderator snip]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: "geoar75@gmail.com" <geoar75@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Internet turns 40
Message-ID: <e6419aaa-982f-41af-9258-f978ea7125bd@y20g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 31, 5:31 am, Steven <diespamm...@killspammers.com> wrote:
> Aug 30, 3:00 PM (ET)
>
> By ANICK JESDANUN
>
> NEW YORK (AP) - Goofy videos weren't on the minds of Len Kleinrock and
> his team at UCLA when they began tests 40 years ago on what would
> become the Internet. Neither was social networking, for that matter,
> nor were most of the other easy-to-use applications that have drawn
> more than a billion people online.
>
> Instead the researchers sought to create an open network for freely
> exchanging information, an openness that ultimately spurred the
> innovation that would later spawn the likes of YouTube, Facebook and
> the World Wide Web.
>
> There's still plenty of room for innovation today, yet the openness
> fostering it may be eroding. While the Internet is more widely
> available and faster than ever, artificial barriers threaten to
> constrict its growth.
>
> http://apnews.myway.com//article/20090830/D9ADCOL00.html
>
> --
> 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.
Hi,
I thought the network that became today's internet was made for
military purposes. Isn't it true?
--
NetPros forum
http://netpros.freeforums.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:03:03 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Message-ID: <c5c.59647dbf.37cf1037@aol.com>
In a message dated 9/1/2009 10:48:43 AM Central Daylight Time,
dave.garland@wizinfo.com writes:
> Money transfers are very attractive when funds are going to the less
> developed world, where the recipients probably do not have bank
> account either. WU (no idea whether it's the same company or just
> someone who bought the name) is still a big player in that.
Also useful, especially before ATM cards [were useable] eveywhere, to
send money to a traveler who had run out of money or had an emergency.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
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) 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 (24 messages)
******************************
|
or 