|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 245 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
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?
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: 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
====== 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: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:10:28 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
Message-ID: <pan.2009.09.04.03.10.26.610317@myrealbox.com>
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:05:22 -0400, Jim Haynes wrote:
> On 2009-09-03, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
>>
> So history repeats itself...back in the early days of computer time
> sharing the phone companies complained because the holding times on data
> calls were so much longer than was typical for voice calls. This required
> additional trunks and switches in the central offices to maintain service
> quality.
Yep, commercial data - and about 10 years ago Dial-up Internet connections
- really bent the old Erlang calculations way out of shape.
Who still recalls the "Internet Gridlock" hysteria about 10-15 years ago
and how the whole voice network was going to collapse because of long
modem calls......
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:06:12 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
Message-ID: <d18.4f746215.37d30574@aol.com>
In a message dated 9/4/2009 1:49:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
dcstar@myrealbox.com writes:
> Yep, commercial data - and about 10 years ago Dial-up Internet
> connections really bent the old Erlang calculations way out of
> shape.
In Oklahoma SWBT had a plan for intrastate unlimited calling for a set
fee. They asked the Corporation Commission (the regulatory body in
Oklahoma) to change the plan to specifically prohibit it from including
data usage by people who were "abusing it."
While I was retired by then, I was puzzled by their definition of it
as "abuse." There wer some quite respectable bloggers, I'd guess
you'd call them now, who, when it was first announced, immediately
recognized it as a vehicle to let users outside of the local calling
area be able to log on directly.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:23:05 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <MPG.250b2511f1ad6bb6989b6e@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <6645152a0908302149qf73baeas14951f0122b7b47a@mail.gmail.com>,
john@mayson.us says...
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, ed<bernies@netaxs.com> wrote:
> >
> > A young friend (born years after the divestiture) who works for the
> > govt systems division of Alcatel-Lucent in NJ says it was the fault of
> > the U.S. gov't for breaking up the Bell System. ?Others say AT&T
> > really *wanted* to be broken up and divested of its expensive-to-maintain
> > LEC's, and allowed a free hand to compete in the more profitable
> > data services arena.
>
> I worked at AT&T from 1987-1990 while in college. Virtually everyone
> I worked with was strongly anti-divestiture some even claiming the
> decree would soon be rescinded and Ma Bell would rise again. I never
> voiced my opinion for a whole host of reasons, but I thought they were
> all delusional. I saw the phone monopoly as some relic you would've
> found in the Soviet Union.
>
> I just read a piece that was anti-Ted Kennedy. But the attack came
> from the left claiming Kennedy was the champion of deregulating the
> trucking, airline, and telephone business. It went on to detail how
> workers in those industries have it far worse today than they did in
> 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
> guessed that 20 years later I'd get my dial tone from my cable TV
> company and 5 years after that I'd have no land-line because I carried
> in my pocket a phone about the size of a dozen playing cards stacked
> together.
>
> I know that having a monopoly aided getting phone service to every
> remote corner of the country. The world benefited from the
> innovations out of Bell Labs. I know divestiture was painful. But in
> the long run I believe we did the right thing.
>
> John
I'm curious on why local services are so expensive for the companies? I
know the long distance revenues did subsidize the local loop pre-
divestiture but nowadays there are so many added fees that you have to
wonder if there isn't one great big lie being told.
And long distance, the bottom dropped out of that as technologies
advanced. By the time AT&T started rolling out it's electronic toll
switches the cost to provide the service was dropping precipitously.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <57602219-70b1-4414-a216-226b35f1e7c9@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 4, 2:49 pm, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
> I'm curious on why local services are so expensive for the companies? I
> know the long distance revenues did subsidize the local loop pre-
> divestiture but nowadays there are so many added fees that you have to
> wonder if there isn't one great big lie being told.
One reason is equipment utilization. The local loop plant must have a
dedicated path to each house even if it is not used that much. Today,
lines can be concentrated, but concentrators costs money at each end,
and savings isn't as much as a toll line. In contrast, long distance
lines get much more usage so the cost is amortized.
Further, every house represents an account that must be serviced
whether the account is bare bones or a high priced user. Quite a few
accounts are low priced.
Local services are generally still under regulation. That means
deadbeats are protected and the company must suffer with vandalism,
lousy areas, etc. Dealing with regulatory agencies is expensive and a
nuisance.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:03:03 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
Message-ID: <4AA08367.8040003@thadlabs.com>
On 9/3/2009 7:05 PM, Jim Haynes wrote:
> On 2009-09-03, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>> Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
>>
> So history repeats itself...back in the early days of computer time
> sharing the phone companies complained because the holding times on data
> calls were so much longer than was typical for voice calls. This
> required additional trunks and switches in the central offices to
> maintain service quality.
Which just reminded me of "something odd" that occurred back in the 1960s
and early 1970s here in Silicon Valley. Many of us at Tymshare would do
what is now known as telecommute. Turns out one programmer lived in Los
Gatos and we couldn't figure out why he'd lose the data connection every
2 hours like clockwork. He ended up setting a timer to 1 hour 55 minutes,
log off, reset the timer, then call back and log in, ad infinitum.
Long story short, Los Gatos was served by GTE (the rest of Silicon Valley
was Pac Bell) and GTE thought a 2-hour call was an indication of equipment
failure, so they'd drop the call at the CO.
I don't recall exactly how that problem was resolved because many of us
would be off hook and on-line for 8-12 (or more) hours a day developing
software.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:59:08 -0500
From: Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
Message-ID: <slrnha2scg.6l0.jhaynes@localhost.localdomain>
On 2009-09-04, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
> Long story short, Los Gatos was served by GTE (the rest of Silicon Valley
> was Pac Bell) and GTE thought a 2-hour call was an indication of equipment
> failure, so they'd drop the call at the CO.
>
One time I was out in the wilds of Iowa, and there was something printed
in the phone book (small independent company) to the effect that calls
were limited in duration and would be automatically disconnected after
so many minutes.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:19:33 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
Message-ID: <h7rsom$eu1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 9/3/2009 7:05 PM, Jim Haynes wrote:
>> On 2009-09-03, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>>> Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
>>>
>> So history repeats itself...back in the early days of computer time
>> sharing the phone companies complained because the holding times on data
>> calls were so much longer than was typical for voice calls. This
>> required additional trunks and switches in the central offices to
>> maintain service quality.
>
> Which just reminded me of "something odd" that occurred back in the 1960s
> and early 1970s here in Silicon Valley. Many of us at Tymshare would do
> what is now known as telecommute. Turns out one programmer lived in Los
> Gatos and we couldn't figure out why he'd lose the data connection every
> 2 hours like clockwork. He ended up setting a timer to 1 hour 55 minutes,
> log off, reset the timer, then call back and log in, ad infinitum.
>
> Long story short, Los Gatos was served by GTE (the rest of Silicon Valley
> was Pac Bell) and GTE thought a 2-hour call was an indication of equipment
> failure, so they'd drop the call at the CO.
>
> I don't recall exactly how that problem was resolved because many of us
> would be off hook and on-line for 8-12 (or more) hours a day developing
> software.
>
I can't see a timed drop call at 2 hours because it thought there was
a problem. Most GTE switches were 53 or 53A at that time. There were
also a few 72's. I have worked on them and have never seen that.
Some switches had electronic front ends, but that could only happen if
they dropped, maybe it was something in the PacBell trunk.
--
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: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:28:31 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
Message-ID: <4AA1948F.2040409@thadlabs.com>
On 9/4/2009 2:36 PM, Steven wrote:
> Thad Floryan wrote:
>> [...]
>> Long story short, Los Gatos was served by GTE (the rest of Silicon
>> Valley was Pac Bell) and GTE thought a 2-hour call was an
>> indication of equipment failure, so they'd drop the call at the CO.
>>
>> I don't recall exactly how that problem was resolved because many
>> of us would be off hook and on-line for 8-12 (or more) hours a day
>> developing software.
>
> I can't see a timed drop call at 2 hours because it thought there
> was a problem. Most GTE switches were 53 or 53A at that time.
> There were also a few 72's. I have worked on them and have never
> seen that. Some switches had electronic front ends, but that could
> only happen if they dropped, maybe it was something in the PacBell
> trunk.
That's possible. The 2-hour drop was a fact (I saw it occur after being
invited there to see what might be the problem) and it could have been
PacBell "doing a number" (no pun :-) on calls from the GTE service area.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:39:27 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <MPG.250b28ebc481cef6989b6f@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <pan.2009.09.02.23.40.55.442636@myrealbox.com>,
dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
>
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:46:07 -0400, hancock4 wrote:
> ........
> > It wasn't "artificial protection", but rather "artificial limitation" that
> > restricted AT&T's business.
>
> Probably right, but it is amazing that when a company reaches a point
> that is essentially a "Comfort zone" where the money rolls in with
> little extra effort required, that [everyone involved] seems to want
> to reside in it and protect that zone from any internal as well as
> external threat.
>
> It just doesn't seem to be in Telecoms/IT where this occurs, it seems to
> be in any area where a company has sufficient market share so [it] then
> decides to actually control the market for the purposes of maximising
> profit over whatever innovative behaviour got them to that position in the
> first place.
>
> It just seems inevitable that incumbent technologies that already make big
> money will suppress emerging technologies if they can, and if both of
> these happen to be in a single entity it makes the job of the newer
> technology even harder.
That's the weird part though. Bell was constantly innovating to drive
costs down. That was the basis of electronic switching, of more reliable
electronics in the subscriber sets, etc.
Towards the end the phones themselves were marvels of engineering. And
the switches, built for a minimum 30 year service life.
Now it's all throw-away and we pay for it.
I still recall my phone bill in 1982 was $12 a month for unlimited
calling. Toll wasn't that expensive by then either.
If Bell had simply let go of Western Electric they could have kept the
whole kit and kaboodle going.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <32091ba9-36fa-4104-8546-98a102277fd2@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 3, 10:03 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> A _minimum_ figure, of several percentage points was 'cast in stone'.
> If a utility spent $100million, that it didn't have to, in providing
> regulated services, it was entitled to raise rates enough to cover that
> $100 million _and_ (at least!) the guaranteed profit rate on that
investment.
Yes, rate of return on plant investment was taken into account, but it
was not guaranteed. Utilities were audited and reviewed and
investments were not always approved as 'rateable' in full.
Look up old news reports on Bell System and electric rate changes.
Unlike now where rates are fluid, back then rates only changed after
regulatory action. Regularly the companies would ask for one thing,
but would get less. It was extremely complex.
As mentioned, before divesture certain rates were set higher than
others for an intentional cross subsidy. This was a factor also taken
into acocunt, and also debated between the regulators and the
companies (not just phone, but other utilities as well).
> >I'm not sure it is accurate to say regulated companies were
> >"guaranteed a profit delivering service".
>
> Regulated monopoly utilities _were_ guaranteed a profit. It was very
> explicit in PSC regulations.
Did you see my comment on Western Union? If Western Union was
guaranteed a profit--and plenty of people were transferring money--why
did it go broke? Why did Postal Telegragh go out of business, and
forced upon Western Union? Oslin's book suggests regulators did not
treat WU very well.
If the Keystone Telephone Company was guaranteed a profit, why did it
go out of business?
> >Railroads were regulated too, though by a different commission.
>
> Railroads were _not_ monopolity utilities, either. Thus the comparison
> fails any relevancy test.
Railroads WERE seen by regulators as "monopoly utilities". They were
given a charter and territory and set rates. (Regulators didn't care
if another railroad wasn't too far away, and particularly ignored the
competitive effect of highways and airways.)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:35:49 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <w9-dnWjbfq-I8TzXnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <32091ba9-36fa-4104-8546-98a102277fd2@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Sep 3, 10:03 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>> A _minimum_ figure, of several percentage points was 'cast in stone'.
>> If a utility spent $100million, that it didn't have to, in providing
>> regulated services, it was entitled to raise rates enough to cover that
>> $100 million _and_ (at least!) the guaranteed profit rate on that
>investment.
>
>Look up old news reports on Bell System and electric rate changes.
>Unlike now where rates are fluid, back then rates only changed after
>regulatory action. Regularly the companies would ask for one thing,
>but would get less. It was extremely complex.
And 'what they got' was _virtually_always_ more than the statutorily
guaranteed rate.
I know of only one case (I _don't claim comprehensive knowledge, but it was
the first time in history in _this_ locale) where new rates gave Bell the
statutory minimum ROI -- actually the state was _really_ pissed at Bell, and
thought the 'appropriate' figure was even lower, but had to obey the law and
give them their _guaranteed_ ROI. Bell took the State to court over the matter.
Won. And got more.
>Did you see my comment on Western Union? If Western Union was
>guaranteed a profit--and plenty of people were transferring money--why
>did it go broke? Why did Postal Telegragh go out of business, and
>forced upon Western Union? Oslin's book suggests regulators did not
>treat WU very well.
What makes you think that Western Union was a "regulated _monopoly_ utility"?
They were simply a "regulated common carrier", and in no different a position
than a long-distance trucking company.
>> >Railroads were regulated too, though by a different commission.
>>
>> Railroads were _not_ monopolity utilities, either. Thus the comparison
>> fails any relevancy test.
>
>Railroads WERE seen by regulators as "monopoly utilities". They were
>given a charter and territory and set rates.
Riiiight. Pick a year -- *any* year in the 100 years prior to the Staggers
act -- which Railroad had the 'monopoly' on service to Chicago, or New York
City? Or even "service _between_ Chicago and NYC"?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:05:37 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <R89om.20778$nQ6.11984@newsfe07.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Aug 30, 11:01 pm, ed <bern...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
>
>>A young friend (born years after the divestiture) who works for the
>>govt systems division of Alcatel-Lucent in NJ says it was the fault of
>>the U.S. gov't for breaking up the Bell System. Others say AT&T
>>really *wanted* to be broken up and divested of its expensive-to-maintain
>>LEC's, and allowed a free hand to compete in the more profitable
>>data services arena.
>>
>>Opinions, anyone?
>
>
>
> As to "wanting" to be broken up, I don't agree. AT&T's first choice
> was to continue mostly as is (with some changes per below). Given a
> breakup was unavoidable, they sought the best deal possible under the
> new order of things.
My recollection is that the chairman of AT&T at the time (Charlie
Brown?) really did persue the breakup after it was apparent things
weren't going his way.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:41:28 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <MPG.250b295f5302238e989b70@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <slrnh9qih9.4he.jhaynes@localhost.localdomain>,
jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu says...
>
> 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
For those unfamiliar (As I was until I googled it)
http://www.radiomilitari.com/bc745.html
The radio itself is tiny. It's the power supply that's humungous.
***** Moderator's Note *****
And the antenna is about six feet high - too big to use in a car!
Bill "Are my jokes getting too obtuse?" Horne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 21:17:47 -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: <22bfb36a-ddbb-445b-883c-40cbe3dfc772@r5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 3, 10:02 pm, Jim Haynes <jhay...@cavern.uark.edu> wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> When I worked at Back Bay Toll in Boston, we had a 35ASR which was
> used for company reporting. It was compatible with TWX machines - I
> know this because I once sent a TWX to a real TWX machine by plugging
> into the TWX circuit of a WU customer, and it worked fine.
>
> However, the machine was also compatible with the common modems used
> for Bulletin Boards, and I know _that_ because I used it to log into
> Ward Christensen's CBBS. It was, of course, hard-wired for local echo,
> so every character that I typed printed twice, but it _did_ work.
On this discussion we also have to include the specific time frame
because equipment changed noticeably over time. Over pioneer pieces
of equipment gain new functions over time*.
I'm speculating here: Bill, you mentioned going into a "TWX circuit
of a WU customer" and also using your teletype for BBS access. This
sounds like it was toward the late 1970s. Was this after WU acquired
TWX? Perhaps TWX had changed by that point. Or, perhaps by that
point the modems were a later generation and more flexible, esp on the
35 which was the heavy duty model. Or perhaps your machine at the
toll center was more sophisticated than a customer's machine.
When did Hayes come out with the AT command set? Who invented modems
that could automatically dial and do other functions once done by
hand? (Like when we set the speaker volume, we turned a knob on it.)
***** Moderator's Note *****
This was about 1973 or 74: WU had taken over TWX, but N.E.T. was still
maintaining the TWX (WADS) office at Franklin Street in Boston (a #5
Xbar), so it was "just after" they sold the TWX network.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:50:58 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <jP-dnRt7-JIv4DzXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <22bfb36a-ddbb-445b-883c-40cbe3dfc772@r5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>When did Hayes come out with the AT command set?
Late 70s.
> Who invented modems that could automatically dial ....
The 'Bell 801 automatic calling unit' handled that, _external_ to the
modem itself.
Existed more than a decade before Hayes.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:26:06 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: new search engine and GSM interference info
Message-ID: <j291a5h7i49rg8jhcuqjhobg9jo8g1booh@4ax.com>
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 21:48:17 -0400 (EDT), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> And I guess control mechanisms for gas stoves and ovens aren't
> subject to FCC regulation.
If they contain digital circuits, and then the FCC does regulate
emissions _from_ the stove or oven. But they don't concern themselves
with interference _to_ them.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:49:40 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Message-ID: <MPG.250b2b4be5a13104989b71@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <tqur95ltn7eoi0aoeht5rf769mpi13go1a@4ax.com>,
bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com says...
>
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:58:50 -0400 (EDT), Tom Horne
> <hornetd@verizon.net> wrote:
> >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]
> >
> > 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 [Moderator snip]
>
> The 800-pound gorilla in the room that nobody will address is...
>
> Some people are able to safely multi-task - like drive and hold a
> telephone, radio or personal conversation at the same time - and some
> people are not, plain and simple. You know the type, 'can't walk and
> chew gum at the same time'. But it's not a joke.
>
> Since the Legislature and the State DMV can't test for multitasking
> competence and give a special 'radio endorsement' on your license,
> they just want an outright ban on cellphones - leaving other radio
> devices unregulated.
>
> You've been in the car as a passenger with these people or seen them
> in the next lane over weaving side to side into the other lanes - they
> simply can't talk to you without turning their head and looking at
> you. They can't insist that a caller call them back in 20 minutes
> when they reach their destination, they insist on holding a complex
> business discussion right this moment, while doing 70 MPH in heavy
> trafic.
>
> And they can't just talk with their mouth, they have to gesture and
> point and wave their hands to make their points... (If they could
> boot up a Powerpoint presentation in the car and use a laser pointer,
> they would.)
>
> My usual reaction after seeing this (and the near-miss accidents
> they didn't even notice as they are busy staring at me...) is "Pull
> over, I'll drive - I want to arrive in one piece."
>
> I've even seen policemen and firefighters who are trained to safely
> use the radio and drive at the same time spend a /little/ too much
> time concentrating on the radio and not enough on their driving. Every
> single one will deny it even if you catch them red handed drifting
> across the double yellow line, but it happens.
>
> And having one-officer patrol cars and one Paramedic driving the
> ambulance by themselves (the other in back with the patient) does not
> help. Task Overload is a real problem, when it gets crazy there are
> simply too many things that all have to be done at the same time, and
> if the task you end up skipping or botching involves your driving....
>
> The whole idea of having a partner in the patrol car is that the
> Driver Drives the car, period, and the Partner handles the radio,
> siren and light controls, the hot-sheet and the computer terminal. If
> they get in a pursuit, that's a full time job all by itself.
>
> For decades the U.S. School Systems showed such quasi-educational
> over the top scare tactic film fare in High School Drivers Education
> courses as "Red Asphalt" (Five volumes by the CHP - 1964, '78, '89,
> '98, 2006), "Mechanized Death", "Blood on the Highway" and "Reefer
> Madness" - they only recently stopped. Gee, worked great, didn't it?
>
> (The kids just sat there and snickered. Except around here, all the
> Hollywood Movie-town Kids in Southern California dissected the films
> for the 'botched-SO-bad-it's-funny' special effects, MST3K style.)
>
> --<< Bruce >>--
Just to keep this telephone related, I recall a Ray Bradbury piece where
he did a short story on a telephone switch becoming self aware. I wish
he'd developed it a bit more, but Thomas J. Ryan's "The Adolescence of
P-1" carried it a bit further.
In the profile video they mentioned that Bradbury didn't drive. He said
that over 45,000 people a year were killed in car crashes (And this was
the early 1960's!).
I'm of the opinion that some people just shouldn't be allowed drivers
licenses. Here in both Providence and Cranston we've had pedestrians hit
by drivers. I'll lay dollars to donuts the drivers weren't paying
attention.
This is why I'm an advocated of ITS Phase 3. That's where the cars drive
themselves. Humans are the last variable in motor vehicle safety. Remove
that variable and let the machine do the driving.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Sort of "Flying by wire", as related to telecom.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:54:13 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Message-ID: <jP-dnRp7-JLo4zzXnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4p2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <MPG.250b2b4be5a13104989b71@news.eternal-september.org>,
T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>In the profile video they mentioned that Bradbury didn't drive. He said
>that over 45,000 people a year were killed in car crashes (And this was
>the early 1960's!).
Should I mention the mathemetican that _always_ took a bomb on board any
airplane he flew ?
When challenged, he asked, mildly:
"How many times have you heard of there being _two_ bombs on a plane?"
***** Moderator's Note *****
Ray Bradbury is 89. I think he was on to something.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:37:33 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Message-ID: <MPG.250b52aa3a90a311989b73@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <MPG.250b2b4be5a13104989b71@news.eternal-september.org>,
kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net says...
>
> In article <tqur95ltn7eoi0aoeht5rf769mpi13go1a@4ax.com>,
> bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com says...
> >
> > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:58:50 -0400 (EDT), Tom Horne
> > <hornetd@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >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]
> > >
> > > 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 [Moderator snip]
> >
> > The 800-pound gorilla in the room that nobody will address is...
> >
> > Some people are able to safely multi-task - like drive and hold a
> > telephone, radio or personal conversation at the same time - and some
> > people are not, plain and simple. You know the type, 'can't walk and
> > chew gum at the same time'. But it's not a joke.
> >
> > Since the Legislature and the State DMV can't test for multitasking
> > competence and give a special 'radio endorsement' on your license,
> > they just want an outright ban on cellphones - leaving other radio
> > devices unregulated.
> >
> > You've been in the car as a passenger with these people or seen them
> > in the next lane over weaving side to side into the other lanes - they
> > simply can't talk to you without turning their head and looking at
> > you. They can't insist that a caller call them back in 20 minutes
> > when they reach their destination, they insist on holding a complex
> > business discussion right this moment, while doing 70 MPH in heavy
> > trafic.
> >
> > And they can't just talk with their mouth, they have to gesture and
> > point and wave their hands to make their points... (If they could
> > boot up a Powerpoint presentation in the car and use a laser pointer,
> > they would.)
> >
> > My usual reaction after seeing this (and the near-miss accidents
> > they didn't even notice as they are busy staring at me...) is "Pull
> > over, I'll drive - I want to arrive in one piece."
> >
> > I've even seen policemen and firefighters who are trained to safely
> > use the radio and drive at the same time spend a /little/ too much
> > time concentrating on the radio and not enough on their driving. Every
> > single one will deny it even if you catch them red handed drifting
> > across the double yellow line, but it happens.
> >
> > And having one-officer patrol cars and one Paramedic driving the
> > ambulance by themselves (the other in back with the patient) does not
> > help. Task Overload is a real problem, when it gets crazy there are
> > simply too many things that all have to be done at the same time, and
> > if the task you end up skipping or botching involves your driving....
> >
> > The whole idea of having a partner in the patrol car is that the
> > Driver Drives the car, period, and the Partner handles the radio,
> > siren and light controls, the hot-sheet and the computer terminal. If
> > they get in a pursuit, that's a full time job all by itself.
> >
> > For decades the U.S. School Systems showed such quasi-educational
> > over the top scare tactic film fare in High School Drivers Education
> > courses as "Red Asphalt" (Five volumes by the CHP - 1964, '78, '89,
> > '98, 2006), "Mechanized Death", "Blood on the Highway" and "Reefer
> > Madness" - they only recently stopped. Gee, worked great, didn't it?
> >
> > (The kids just sat there and snickered. Except around here, all the
> > Hollywood Movie-town Kids in Southern California dissected the films
> > for the 'botched-SO-bad-it's-funny' special effects, MST3K style.)
> >
> > --<< Bruce >>--
>
> Just to keep this telephone related, I recall a Ray Bradbury piece where
> he did a short story on a telephone switch becoming self aware. I wish
> he'd developed it a bit more, but Thomas J. Ryan's "The Adolescence of
> P-1" carried it a bit further.
>
> In the profile video they mentioned that Bradbury didn't drive. He said
> that over 45,000 people a year were killed in car crashes (And this was
> the early 1960's!).
>
> I'm of the opinion that some people just shouldn't be allowed drivers
> licenses. Here in both Providence and Cranston we've had pedestrians hit
> by drivers. I'll lay dollars to donuts the drivers weren't paying
> attention.
>
> This is why I'm an advocated of ITS Phase 3. That's where the cars drive
> themselves. Humans are the last variable in motor vehicle safety. Remove
> that variable and let the machine do the driving.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Sort of "Flying by wire", as related to telecom.
Except no wires. The systems that are being built by Stanford and the
like are completely autonomous. And the size of the computing hardware
required is coming down with every iteration.
You're already seeing some ITS style features creeping into cars today,
notably the Toyota Prius. It has lane follow and parking assist features
based on the technologies for ITS.
------------------------------
Date: 4 Sep 2009 15:41:12 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <h7rqgo$hmr$1@panix2.panix.com>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>In article <b2a9b91e-53ae-46fc-b411-dc6f2d0315cb@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>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.
>
>That's a _neat_ trick, regardless of the capability of the terminal device,
>when the modem supplied were "originate only" devices.. Two modems, both
>in 'originate' mode, simply cannot talk to each other.
Bell 103 has seperate originate and answer tones. TDD does not. TDD
is not Bell 103, not even a little bit like Bell 103. TDD isn't even
really FSK... it's ASK with a keeper tone.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:55:43 -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: <slrnha2s63.6l0.jhaynes@localhost.localdomain>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I'm puzzled by your post: I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am
> confused. I infer that the modems were wired for different tone pairs
> when used on TWX vs. DataPhone, and I have not experienced that in my
> usage.
>
Well, now, maybe they never made use of those features - we need someone
with a BSP for 103 modems from back in the 1960s. I just remember around
Teletype Corp. they were talking about WADS and WADS-prime before those
services failed to gain FCC approval. I was under the impression that
they had deliberately made TWX and DataPhone incompatible, but maybe
that was only talked about and was not done.
I forget, too, how it was that 4-row TWX and 3-row TWX machines were
prevented from calling each other directly, but I guess that was something
about the area codes.
------------------------------
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 (21 messages)
******************************
|
or 