32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for December 27, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 254 : "text" Format
====== 32 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 03:11:14 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Can the FCC Handle Phone Service over the Internet?
Message-ID: <MPG.2d25aeaee555422d989f1c@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <52B9A708.6080107@ionary.com>, invalid@see.sig.telecom-
digest.org says...
> Crossbars and panel only existed in certain areas. Both were "Bell"
> inventions, to some extent NIH reactions to their non-ownership of
> Strowger's patents. Panel and Strowger couldn't directly
> interconnect (no common signaling protocol). Strowgers remained in
> service here and there until around the turn of this century, after
> the last crossbar and panel were long gone.
Actually Panel and Crossbar could communicate with SxS exchanges. It
was a horribly complex thing but the Bell System did it because they
had such a sunk cost in the SxS.
The determining factor of who got Panel was the total volume of
telephones. For example I know here in Providence, RI we had Panel
that was upgraded by #1 ESS.
And I know Pawtucket, RI was served by a #5 Crossbar until upgrade to
a Nortel DMS-100.
***** Moderator's Note *****
IIRC, Crossbar to Panel used Revertive Pulse senders in the Crossbar
office, and Panel to Crossbar was MF. SxS <> Panel was always via a
tandem.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 10:38:22 -0800 (PST)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Can the FCC Handle Phone Service over the Internet?
Message-ID: <44abc12d-e5d6-47f9-8f58-c56a62e0daac@googlegroups.com>
On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:11:14 AM UTC-5, T wrote:
> Actually Panel and Crossbar could communicate with SxS exchanges. It
> was a horribly complex thing but the Bell System did it because they
> had such a sunk cost in the SxS.
Step by Step remained very popular in smaller offices due to the high expense
of common control of crossbar and ESS. It also had the advantage of being
rugged and requiring less skill to maintain than crossbar or panel. As
mentioned, it wasn't until the 1970s that electronic components became
cost-competitive with electro-mechanical components.
>From the Bell Switching History, various sections talk about the cost
comparison:
"No. 2 Crossbar System:
As a result of the successful introduction of crossbar switching to
these large city applications, three less successful developments
were started, applying some of the techniques to smaller offices. In
1938, development was started on a modified version of No. 1
crossbar, known as the No. 2 crossbar system. This
system was developed to serve offices with a high percentage of
intraoffice calling, such as would occur in a single-office city, or in a
city with but a few offices. In those days the high community of
interest and rate structure in suburban offices also tended toward
high intraoffice calling. Development of this system, using many
frames developed for No. 1 crossbar, proceeded to the point where
a laboratory model was constructed by 1940. The system was
designed so that on intraoffice calls, only one sender and one
marker--the originating marker-was used. The call was routed
directly from a district link frame to a line link frame on which the
called line was located. One group of markers served all types of
calls. Price studies made as the design proceeded indicated that,
while the system was lower in first cost than No. 1 crossbar for this
type of traffic, it did not compete with a senderized version of the
step-by-step then being considered;
therefore, the No. 2 crossbar system was abandoned."
"Early Crossbar COOs and PBXs"
In 1935, development was also started on a crossbar community
dial office (CDO). It was known as the No. 380 crossbar community
dial office and had a capacity of 400 lines. One installation
of 80 lines was placed in service in Jonesville, New York in
1940. The system was not standardized since its design did not
include sufficient safeguards against double connections that might
occur due to crossed-wire troubles. This office gave a good account
of itself but was removed from service in 1946 when an addition was
necessary.
A similarly designed PBX with only a single marker,
known as the 745A, was placed in service in the Sun Oil Company,
Philadelphia, and as a result of the poor performance it too was
removed from service and never standardized (see Chapter 13, section
2.1). Another plan for CDOs was known as the "43" system.
This identification came from a dash number associated
with a planning case. The system was frequently used as a
basis for comparison in price studies because it made very efficient
use of crosspoints. It never competed favorably with step-by-step
CDO equipment, so development was not undertaken."
"No. 2 ESS"
Although successful, the No. 2 ESS was not economical below
several thousand lines in comparison with step-by-step community·
dial offices, even though the No. 2 ESS offered much more capability.
The No. 2 ESS processor, to meet its development schedules,
had to forego monolithic integrated circuit logic and the PBT
memory. Furthermore, the No.2 ESS network could expand
beyond 10,000 lines to 20,000, but the call-handling capacity of the
No. 2 ESS processor limited the practical size in almost all offices to
10,000 lines or fewer."
"The step-by-step system provided automatic service
for more Bell System lines than any other switching system when it
reached its peak of 24,440,000 lines in 1973. (Later the same year
the No.5 crossbar system exceeded this number.)"
It wasn't until the mid 1970s that they got the cost of small ESS units low
enough so as to be cost-competitive with small step-by-step offices.
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:01:22 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Thanks Verizon for the very late 4.3 update
Message-ID: <l9hnd5$v1p$1@dont-email.me>
By Dan Kusnetzky for Virtually Speaking
December 23, 2013 -- 13:49 GMT (05:49 PST)
Summary: Unlike the tightly controlled iPhone market, Android is a bit
like the wild west. Google release updates but they only trickle out
to customers.
Over the weekend, Verizon Wireless gave the owners of Samsung Galaxy
Note 2 handsets a gift -- quite late, but welcome nonetheless.
Android 4.3 was finally shipped over the air to customers making
Verizon the last of the major U.S. wireless suppliers to provide this
update to its customers.
Customers of Verizon Wireless have been anxiously waiting for the
security and feature updates that were included in newer versions of
Android. Customers at an Android 4.1.2 level watched as Google's
Android 4.2 was released in November, 2012 and Android 4.3 was
released in July, 2013. Google announced Android 4.4 in October 2013.
http://www.zdnet.com/thanks-verizon-for-the-very-late-4-3-update-7000024609/
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Oh the price of gold is rising out of sight,
And the dollar is in sorry shape tonight.
What the dollar used to get us, now won't get a head of lettuce,
No, the economic forecast isn't bright.
- Tom Paxton
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:35:48 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Centurylink service restored
Message-ID: <l9hpdo$ash$1@dont-email.me>
Kristin Buehner
December 23, 2013
MASON CITY | Service was restored by noon Monday to customers of
CenturyLink in the Mason City area, a company spokeswoman said.
Nancy DeVinay-McNeley said service was disrupted Saturday for customers
receiving Internet and landline phone service through CenturyLink.
http://globegazette.com/news/local/centurylink-service-restored/article_09540e2e-fa9f-5ac0-9ea4-a9b52a299853.html
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
In 1955, German philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote his address,
"Gelassenheit," prophesizing that the resultant indifference created by
the technology revolution (i.e., the calculated way of thinking) had
resulted in throwing away our ability to reflect, something we are
particularly called to do as the year nears its end.
- Kathleen M. Jacobs
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 10:20:51 -0800 (PST)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Can the FCC Handle Phone Service over the Internet?
Message-ID: <451b6bd3-a5b6-4f9c-9812-aaa1e7041b95@googlegroups.com>
On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 10:23:52 AM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> Mr. Lazarus appears to understand VoIP about as well as a good farrier
> understands electronic fuel injection. Perhaps he's shilling for the
> Bells, who want to maintain confusion in order to get out of their
> regulatory obligations.
What regulatory obligations do the 'baby bells' still have? In our area,
Verizon announced only residential POTS service was regulated. All business
services and all premium residential services are not regulated.
POTS is becomming obsolete. Lots of users have dumped their traditional
landline complete in favor of only using their cell phone. Many others get
their telecom services from their cable TV provider, having nothing at all to
do with the baby bell company. The modern baby bell services, such as DSL and
FIOS are unregulated.
So, while there are some 'regulated services' still in place, it seems to me
that the majority, perhaps vast majority, of service provided is unregulated.
> Crossbars and panel only existed in certain areas. Both were "Bell"
> inventions, to some extent NIH reactions to their non-ownership of
> Strowger's patents. Panel and Strowger couldn't directly interconnect
> (no common signaling protocol). Strowgers remained in service in
> service here and there until around the turn of this century, after the
> last crossbar and panel were long gone.
By the time exchanges grew enough, Strowger's patents were long expired.
In the 1910-1920s, most of Bell's customers were in cities. At that time, the
combination of capital and operating costs made manual service more
cost-efficient in cities. Adding switchboard positions and girls to handle
high loads was relatively cheap as compared to adding dial equipment--the dial
equipment was there 24/7, while the girls were only needed during the peak
periods.
With traffic rapidly growing in the 1920s and labor becomming scarce, Bell
recognized the need for automation. But step-by-step was inadequate for heavy
city service due to its 10x10 matrix. Big city service had more exchanges and
more trunks than could fit. The panel system allowed a much wider selection;
which included the flexibility of translation to a non-decimal scheme.
In the meantime, smaller areas were automated with step-by-step, which
eventually reached about 49% of Bell customers.
"Eventually (by 1958) more than 3,830,000 lines of
panel equipment had been produced and placed in service. The last
new office was installed in New York City (HYacinth-9) in 1950.
Although the panel system was designed to function for 30 years,
many systems served well over longer periods." (Bell Switching History)
A "Panel Sender Tandem" was established that could outpulse dial codes. The
first was placed in service in NYC in 1931.
A major interface goal of panel was an automated interface to manual exchanges
so that callers would not need to know whether their called party was served
by a manual or dial exchange. For dial users calling a manual exchange, the
desired number lit up on a screen in front of the operator (later by sound).
For manual users calling a dial exchange, the operator punched in the number.
Note that some panel exchanges accepted eight digit local dialing. A common
use was the party line suffix, which was dialed as the 8th digit. In a few
cases, a manual exchange had more than 10,000 numbers (up to 10,500), and a
prefix digit was required, eg HOllis 5-10245.
While panel existed only in and near larger cities, crossbar was in many
places. The early No. 1 crossbar was a large city system. However, the
postwar No. 5 crossbar was intended for growing suburbs.
Due to the high cost of common control, which needs to be spread out over many
lines, step-by-step remained supreme in the smallest offices.
"By the end of 1976 close to 27 million lines in the Bell System were served
by No. 5 crossbar. Extensions to existing systems were still being
installed, and a peak of 28.5 million customer lines was reached in
October 1978." (Bell Switching History).
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:12:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: BBC: 0845 and 0870 government departments warned
Message-ID: <1388121163.63260.YahooMailNeo@web121404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Government departments have been ordered to stop using higher-rate
phone lines as the contact for key services. cabinet Office guidance
states it is "inappropriate" to pay high charges for such services -
"particularly for vulnerable and low-income groups".
A recent National Audit Office report found the numbers, often
starting 0845 or 0870, cost callers GBP56m in 2012. Departments will
have to explain themselves to Cabinet ministers if they fail to follow
the rules: Whitehall higher-rate numbers have included those for
victim support, benefit and tax enquiries
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25523465
***** Moderator's Note *****
In the U.S., these calls would be made to "976" or "900" numbers,
i.e., premium-rate calls where callers are charged an extra fee and
some of the money is passed along to the recipient.
Bill Horne
Moderator
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.
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) 2013 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