The Telecom Digest for December 17, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 340 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 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: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:39:50 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Question about an old scrambler phone
Message-ID: <4D096DE6.4010907@thadlabs.com>
On 12/15/2010 4:55 PM, Ernest Donlin wrote:
> [...]
> Now to get back on the track: is there a phone I can buy that has a
> built in scrambler? I really don't care if it's an "inverter" type or
> if it's the same kind that the President uses: I just want to be able
> to talk to my wife without worrying about who's snooping. I haven't
> got the President's budget, mind you, but we're not out to hide any
> nuclear secrets from the reds, either.
I don't have time to investigate any of these, but simply Googling
"telephone scrambler builtin" (without the quotes) finds some 30,400+
hits. Picking one at random on the first page of hits:
http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/phonescrambler-voiceencryption.html (dead link changed - Moderator)
and there's a lot of interesting products. Seems most such devices
are external and not explicitly builtin to phones. Couldn't find the
pricing for many of the products, but a portable telephone voice
scrambler is listed at US$299. All the products seem to be only for
landlines.
Browsing another site of "spy stuff" http://www.force-ten.com/
was most interesting but I didn't see any phone scramblers there.
Their UV LED flashlights really got my attention, though. :-)
But, I wonder: am I misremembering the fact that cellphone transmissions
are already scrambled for security?
***** Moderator's Note *****
Cell phones aren't "scrambled": they just use transmission methods
that ordinary receivers can't pick up. CDMA is a form of
spread-spectrum, TDMA is "Slotted Aloha", etc.
It's Security Through Obscurity, but anyone with a cellular
maintenance terminal can listen in to any call within range.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:08:50 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Question about an old scrambler phone
Message-ID: <pan.2010.12.16.21.08.49.583922@myrealbox.com>
.........
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Cell phones aren't "scrambled": they just use transmission methods that
> ordinary receivers can't pick up. CDMA is a form of spread-spectrum, TDMA
> is "Slotted Aloha", etc.
>
> It's Security Through Obscurity, but anyone with a cellular maintenance
> terminal can listen in to any call within range.
>
Whoa.... all GSM air traffic is highly encrypted - you cannot get much
more "scrambled" than that!
--
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: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:08:29 -0500
From: Ron <ron@see.below>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Question about an old scrambler phone
Message-ID: <k7hlg6hj59naodk4p6shkou2k5haa4u6rr@4ax.com>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Whoa.... all GSM air traffic is highly encrypted - you cannot get much
>more "scrambled" than that!
You call it "highly encrypted". I call it "probably better than
no encryption at all".
GSM has been cracked a while back. Your security under GSM is
usually that nobody cares to hear your calls. If they do care, it's
certainly doable. Sample cite (from 2009!):
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/gsm_cracked_falls_german_engineer
--
Ron
(user telnom.for.plume
in domain antichef.com)
Date: 16 Dec 2010 03:11:03 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Australian phone book content not protected by copyright
Message-ID: <20101216031103.4490.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Consistent with MGK's remarks above, the Copyright Office insisted, in
>conjunction with our last two copyright applications, that the Index
>portion of our books were simply not copyright-able, being not
>original text but mere alphabetized data.
There is a US Supereme Court case known as Feist which specifically said
that the facts in a white pages directory are not eligible for copyright.
R's,
John
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:33:25 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Question about an old scrambler phone
Message-ID: <H6Odne0N6Ybo55TQnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <20101216005532.GB7645@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
Ernest Donlin <ernest.donlin.remove-this@and-this-too.gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 02:43:39PM -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Ernest Donlin <ernest.donlin.remove-this@and-this-too.gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Now, I'm curious: is that kind of scrambling still possible? It seems
>> >like it would be a neat way to keep the kids from picking up the phone
>> >when I want to gab with the wife. I'm not going to build one, but I
>> >wonder if there's anything I can buy online?
>>
>> It's possible, but it would be more effective just for you and the wife
>> to learn French or even pig latin.
>
>I've been around the block a few times, and I'm not likely to learn
>another language at my age. My wife isn't going to do that, either. I
>need a way to scramble our calls, so let's just stick to that.
>
>> The Germans very quickly learned to decrypt voice inversion systems during
>> the war, by ear. They called it "Krenkelcan" encryption because the English
>> word "Telephone" sounds like "Krenkelcan" when inverted.
>
>Well, rootie-toot-toot for them! I don't think that's going to hold
>water in this day and age - kids today can't even spell "translate",
>and the only special language the younger generation seems to know is
>foul language.
>
>Now to get back on the track: is there a phone I can buy that has a
>built in scrambler?
Sharper image might havee something.
Also check with Mike Sandman.
A quick google search on 'telephone scrambler' suggests that such are
available. The low end looks to be circa $500/pair, just for the black
box. Complete phones, about $1,800/pair.
Ramsey Electronics has a box in kit form, at about $50 each end.
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:58:41 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Australian phone book content not protected by copyright
Message-ID: <Eo2dnSVShMf8HZTQnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <daWdnQ3Uo6W7bpXQnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@ntd.net>,
Michael G. Koerner <mgk920@dataex.com> wrote:
>On 2010.12.15 00:16:37, David Clayton wrote:
>>
>http://www.theage.com.au/business/telstra-loses-directory-copyright-appeal-20101215-18xgd.html
>>
>> Telstra loses directory copyright appeal Lucy Battersby
>> December 15, 2010 - 11:21AM
>>
>> Telstra has lost an appeal to keep telephone directories published by its
>> subsidiary Sensis copyrighted.
>>
[[.. sneck ..]]
>
>I recall a similar court ruling here in the USA from a couple of decades ago
>that cited the reason "lacks requisite originality" in denying a phone book
>copyright protection appeal.
The U.S. case is "Feist v. Rural Tel." 499 US 340. It applied to the
content of white-pages directory listings.
Sup. Ct. heard it in 1991, the case had been in the courts for years before
that.
>Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that the general theory in the USA is
>that the facts in a database cannot by copyright protected, only the manner
>and format of their presentation can be. For example, the layout of the
>streets and highways in your area is not copyright protectable, but a map that
>you draw to describe them is. Same thing with the listings in a phone book.
Under U.S. copyright law, 'facts of nature' are not copyrightable. For a
thing to be copyrightable, it must embody a degree of 'creative effort'.
That 'creativity' is what is protected.
Since 'facts' are -not- created, they fail the creativity requirement. <grin>
Thus, "facts" are not copyrightable.
*mechanical* orderings -- e.g. 'alphabetical', do not involve creative effort,
and are, thus, not copyrightable.
A "selective' compilation of facts, may qualify for a compilation copyright,
where the necessary 'creativity' is in the selection of which facts to
include, and which to exclude.
The layout of individual "yellow pages" display ads is clearly copyrightable
content. Ditto for the overall layout of the display ads on the pages. (this
being the arrangement of the 'blocks' of various shapes/sizes, w/o regard to
the content thereof.) the individual, minimal, "line-item listings", are
"iffy" at best. The set of categories uses, although -not- individual category
names, would show the requisite 'creativity' for copyright protection.
"Who is listed in what category" probably also fails the 'creativity' test,
the producer of the book is not 'selecting' who is included. Anyone/everyone
who pays the requisite fee is 'automatically' included. And the advertiser,
not the publisher, is the party who 'selects' which category/categories
they wish to be included in. Hence the publisher is not exercising any
protectable creativity in that regard.
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:00:36 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Australian phone book content not protected by copyright
Message-ID: <Eo2dnSRShMdJHZTQnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <op.vnrrh1zaitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:56:06 -0500, Michael G. Koerner <mgk920@dataex.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that the general theory in the
>> USA is that the facts in a database cannot by copyright protected,
>> only the manner and format of their presentation can be. For
>> example, the layout of the streets and highways in your area is not
>> copyright protectable, but a map that you draw to describe them is.
>> Same thing with the listings in a phone book.
>
>Consistent with MGK's remarks above, the Copyright Office insisted, in
>conjunction with our last two copyright applications, that the Index
>portion of our books were simply not copyright-able, being not
>original text but mere alphabetized data.
That is very arguable. There is significant 'creative effort' -- the
'protectable' quality -- in the selection of what to index and what
not to.
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:40:48 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Australian phone book content not protected by copyright
Message-ID: <rMOdnTatRMftKZTQnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <iebfm3$1t7$5@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Michael G. Koerner <mgk920@dataex.com> wrote:
>
>>>http://www.theage.com.au/business/telstra-loses-directory-copyright-appeal-20101215-18xgd.html
>
>>>Telstra loses directory copyright appeal Lucy Battersby
>>>December 15, 2010 - 11:21AM
>
>>>Telstra has lost an appeal to keep telephone directories published by its
>>>subsidiary Sensis copyrighted. . . .
>
>>>In February, Justice Michelle Gordon decided the Yellow Pages and White
>>>Pages directories were not protected by copyright laws because they were
>>>not an "independent intellectual effort" and the work of computers rather
>>>than authors. . . .
>
>>I recall a similar court ruling here in the USA from a couple of decades ago
>>that cited the reason "lacks requisite originality" in denying a phone book
>>copyright protection appeal.
>
>This court decision is unlike the US decision. I've never heard of a court
>ruling that classification of listings as in yellow pages isn't a
>copyrightable activity.
The particular collection of classifications offered is a 'creative work',
to which copyright would apply.
The telco cannot claim copyright on "which classification(s)" a given listing
appears in, because it is not their 'creative effort' that is involved. The
category (or categories, if the customer wants to pay extra for the additional
listings) is chosen by the customer, not the telco. An ad sales rep may make
suggestions, but the final determination is made by the customer.
At most, telco can --arguably-- claim a 'compilation copyright' on the yellow
pages, as a whole. For display ads, copyright on the ad content belongs to
the telco customer. the minimal 'line item listings' are not copyrightable
in and of themselves, they are mere 'facts', without the required 'creative
effort'.
One cannot argue that the telco exercises 'creative effort' in selecting
who is listed in the yellow pages -- anybody who pays for a listing is
listed. That's mechanical, not creative.
***** Moderator's Note *****
So, if the customer chooses the category, how did a Funeral Director
wind up listed under "Frozen Meat"? Or, was that an urban legend?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:23:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Australian phone book content not protected by copyright
Message-ID: <iedvvp$pe3$2@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Michael G. Koerner <mgk920@dataex.com> wrote:
>>>>http://www.theage.com.au/business/telstra-loses-directory-copyright-appeal-20101215-18xgd.html
>>>>Telstra loses directory copyright appeal Lucy Battersby
>>>>December 15, 2010 - 11:21AM
>>>>Telstra has lost an appeal to keep telephone directories published by its
>>>>subsidiary Sensis copyrighted. . . .
>>>>In February, Justice Michelle Gordon decided the Yellow Pages and White
>>>>Pages directories were not protected by copyright laws because they were
>>>>not an "independent intellectual effort" and the work of computers rather
>>>>than authors. . . .
>>>I recall a similar court ruling here in the USA from a couple of decades ago
>>>that cited the reason "lacks requisite originality" in denying a phone book
>>>copyright protection appeal.
>>This court decision is unlike the US decision. I've never heard of a court
>>ruling that classification of listings as in yellow pages isn't a
>>copyrightable activity.
>The particular collection of classifications offered is a 'creative work',
>to which copyright would apply.
>The telco cannot claim copyright on "which classification(s)" a given listing
>appears in, because it is not their 'creative effort' that is involved. The
>category (or categories, if the customer wants to pay extra for the additional
>listings) is chosen by the customer, not the telco. An ad sales rep may make
>suggestions, but the final determination is made by the customer. . . .
A lot of business telephone subscribers are unaware that they may request
their own yellow pages classification, so classification is performed for
any business telephone subscriber who doesn't request it. That sounds like
copyrightable editing to me.
In any event, the advertising directory publisher has to decide what
classified headings to offer. Typically the telephone subscriber who
self selects would do so from appropriate headings, unless he makes a
successful argument that no existing heading adequately describes
his business, although in that case, one questions if any of that business's
prospective customers would use the yellow pages to find him.
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:29:04 -0600 (CST)
From: jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Australian phone book content not protected by copyright
Message-ID: <201012161429.oBGET493082612@ivgate.omahug.org>
I think I told this tale once before to this group, but ...
Back years ago, decades ago, actually, my dad was one of the
principals of a small publishing company which, among other
things, produced 'alternative' phone directories for various
small communities. Think of three states which begin with 'I'
and have a lot of mom-n-pop indie ILECs. ;-)
For a number of years, this was very lucrative. They undersold
TPC for display ads and absolutely deluged the towns with books
in the days that TPC was limiting the number of directories
they distributed.
Back then the law said that TPC, at least here in the States,
had a valid copyright on the Phone Book<tm> including the
residential listings, and it was well known that TPC used
'ringers' or copyright traps to enforce this.
They admittedly used the official Phone Book as the source of
their residential listings.
So how did they deal with the ringers ?? I'm glad you asked. ;-)
They would hire a couple of little old ladies who 'knew everyone'
who could quite easily pick out the ringers. They were very
prolific at identifying names that simply did not exist in the
community. Instead of hunting down things such as listings at
vacant lots, streets that did not exist, and residential numbers
at TPC's address, they simply knew who resided in said town and
which listings were fictitious.
IIRC, they were never caught by TPC for using their listing.
In once case I remember, the incumbent mom-n-pop TPC actually
hired them to do their official Phone Book. This was long
before the term 'outsourcing' was in vogue. ;-)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:51:48 -0600 (CST)
From: jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--Eight Digit US telephone numbers?
Message-ID: <201012161551.oBGFpmDo085220@ivgate.omahug.org>
>Several ads in the NYT in 1947 had HOllis 5-10nnn numbers (HOllis 5-
>was in Queens, NY).
I know that there's anecdotal evidence that suggests that some
panel offices did indeed have over 10,000 lines. However (comma) ...
Wow {dusting off very rusty memory cells}, I actually knew this
CO back in the years when I was more of a phone 'enthusiast'. ;-)
I'm trying to think back, and IIRC this (465) was panel in the
early 70s, which would imply that it was converted from manual
to dial (panel) prior to WWII. My impression of the age of the
building was that it was definitely pre-war. LOL, I could even
drive you to where it was at the time. ;-) It could have been
a #5 crossbar, making it possible that it was still manual in
1947. I do know that Chicago had some manual service into the
mid 1950s, as did Omaha, home of Ma Bell's first full-scale
panel deployment.
See my final conclusion below ...
I was far more familiar with the Floral Park office, not too
far east of the Hollis office, which was at the time a #5
crossbar, to which I've referred here in the Digest on occasion.
This was unique in that it served both 212 and 516 prefixes at
the time. But back to the subject ...
>So, would anyone know if eight digits were actually dialable in New
>York City or in other places, as the literature suggests? If so, how
>long did it last?
(Now I'm REALLY dusting off the memory cells, remembering the
architecture of panel ...) While it could be argued that simply
adding a 21st. final frame to a panel office would expand the
capacity to 10,500 lines, I'm having a difficult time figuring
out how it could be shoehorned into the set-up of the incoming
frame, and addressed by the revertive pulsing, which was very
much hard-coded into the selection of one in 10,000 lines.
There were two revertive-pulse operations associated with the
incoming frame, which selected the final frame. The first was
a one-in-five selection which selected the brush to be used
or 'tripped', and the second was a one-in-four group selection
which selected one out of 20 final frames for a full office.
IIRC that second one-in-four was via a commutator which had
rather distant spacing. If you listened to the cadence of
the pulses coming back from a distant panel office, the very
first was rapid, and the second was quite a bit slower. A
vacant connection to the final frame in question was then
selected within that group.
In order to add a 21st. final frame, that group selection would
need to be a one-in-five, which implies that a fifth group
would need to be added to all banks of the incoming frame with
a modified commutator and quite a bit of wastage in the process.
I think maybe what happened is more along this line, which is
purely speculation on my part since I wasn't even aware of any
8 digit local numbers until long after I knew how a panel
office worked.
My guess is that new 'machine switched' offices were installed
with 10,000 lines and converted manual offices were truncated
or renumbered to 10,000 lines. However, I think that some of
the legacy 8 digit numbers may have been dialable via the
Panel Call Indicator on the B board of the legacy manual office.
I don't remember many of the details of PCI, but I do know that
it was quite versitile and used for things other than just an
indication to a B operator. I'm sure it would be possible for
a register-sender in an early panel office to be provisioned to
accept an eighth digit, with timeout in ambiguity cases, using
simple relay logic.
>I presume as preparations for DDD came along the
>eight digit subscribers got new numbers.
My guess is that when manual offices were converted to that
newfangled machine switching, the numbers above 9999 were
retired.
Your citation of 1947 listings of 8 digit numbers does imply
that they were dialable, since there was a LOT of panel in
service in those days and the post-war deployment of the #1
crossbar was replacing the remaining manual offices. I
doubt very seriously that a dial subscriber had to go out of
procedure and dial 0 Operator to be connected to those few
8 digit numbers. ;-)
My final conclusion is that HO5 (465 or legacy HOLlis) was
most likely still manual in 1947, soon to be converted to
crossbar, and that during the phase-in of dial, but prior to
DDD, yes, some 8 digit local numbers were indeed dialable.
Anyone care to refute (refudiate?) this ?? ;-)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:17:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--Eight Digit US telephone numbers?
Message-ID: <dd265a31-0ca6-4c80-99b0-c1d3f8c75768@y3g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 16, 10:51 am, jsw <j...@ivgate.omahug.org> wrote:
> I'm trying to think back, and IIRC this (465) was panel in the
> early 70s, which would imply that it was converted from manual
> to dial (panel) prior to WWII. My impression of the age of the
> building was that it was definitely pre-war. LOL, I could even
> drive you to where it was at the time. ;-) It could have been
> a #5 crossbar, making it possible that it was still manual in
> 1947. I do know that Chicago had some manual service into the
> mid 1950s, as did Omaha, home of Ma Bell's first full-scale
> panel deployment.
I understand that two large suburban exchanges in the Phila Metro area
didn't go dial until circa 1962 (FLanders in Upper Darby and Willow
Grove). What puzzles me is that FLanders was apparently dialable
using call indicators, but Willow Grove was not dialable and required
an operator to connect the call. A 1959 Phila White Pages did not
have any dialing instructions, to my surprise.
Converting a manual to dial office was extremely expensive and time
consuming. It took a number of years just to convert Manhattan, and
then longer for the outer boroughs. Further, some outer boroughs
weren't even developed until the postwar era.
The postwar era saw tremendous growth in the demand for phone
service. The Korean war and Cold War diverted telephone equipment. I
saw a postwar photo of a suburban Phila exchange (Ambler, PA) where
additional switchboard positions were clearly shoe-horned in a
building--one position was squeezed at an angle in a corner as part of
the multiple. The neighborhood served by the HOllis exchange had
postwar growth, perhaps they had to squeeze in eight digit numbers as
a temporary expedient.
I've heard the New York Public Library has old phone books going back
years. If they have one for Queens it may explain this.
The Bell Labs history notes that a new panel exchange was installed in
the NYC area around 1950. This is surprising. Presumably they wanted
compatibility with other equipment rather than using a No. 1
crossbar. Also they said new pieces of panel were added for many
years.
> I was far more familiar with the Floral Park office, not too
> far east of the Hollis office, which was at the time a #5
> crossbar, to which I've referred here in the Digest on occasion.
> This was unique in that it served both 212 and 516 prefixes at
> the time. But back to the subject ...
In Phila, there were two city offices that served the nearby adjacent
suburbs (ESsex in Cheltenham was served out a lower NE Phila office,
and MElrose in Melrose Park was served out of the WAVerly office).
What was curious is that calls to and from those suburban exchanges
were billed at the suburban message unit rate even though they came
out of a city office. That is, someone in downtown Phila calling the
lower NE would be charged as a city call, but calling Cheltenham meant
message units. I think those arrangements continue to this day,
though they call it "Measured Service" and they've reduced the charges
from the past.
> My guess is that new 'machine switched' offices were installed
> with 10,000 lines and converted manual offices were truncated
> or renumbered to 10,000 lines. However, I think that some of
> the legacy 8 digit numbers may have been dialable via the
> Panel Call Indicator on the B board of the legacy manual office.
I'm starting to wonder if the HOllis-5 office was manual. Did panel
switchgear store the entire phone number before acting on it, or did
it translate the exchange and then route the rest of the dial pulses
to the desired exchange? I understand your point of the frames, but
perhaps only the incoming storage register had to be larger.
> I don't remember many of the details of PCI, but I do know that
> it was quite versitile and used for things other than just an
> indication to a B operator. I'm sure it would be possible for
> a register-sender in an early panel office to be provisioned to
> accept an eighth digit, with timeout in ambiguity cases, using
> simple relay logic.
The B operator's display is shown in many articles about panel (though
I don't know where there's one on the web). The display actually has
capacity for nine digits: the leading 0/1 for eight digit numbers,
the four numbers, and a party line suffix letter. (I suppose these
could've been dialed, too.)
That the display has this capacity is what makes me believe eight
digits were dialable.
> >I presume as preparations for DDD came along the
> >eight digit subscribers got new numbers.
>
> My guess is that when manual offices were converted to that
> newfangled machine switching, the numbers above 9999 were
> retired.
Agreed. In the postwar era, while many subscribers had little change
to their numbers, others did. Sometimes it would get tricky--I've
seen special announcements printed for a community detailing the new
phone numbers.
>
> Your citation of 1947 listings of 8 digit numbers does imply
> that they were dialable, since there was a LOT of panel in
> service in those days and the post-war deployment of the #1
> crossbar was replacing the remaining manual offices. I
> doubt very seriously that a dial subscriber had to go out of
> procedure and dial 0 Operator to be connected to those few
> 8 digit numbers. ;-)
>
> My final conclusion is that HO5 (465 or legacy HOLlis) was
> most likely still manual in 1947, soon to be converted to
> crossbar, and that during the phase-in of dial, but prior to
> DDD, yes, some 8 digit local numbers were indeed dialable.
>
> Anyone care to refute (refudiate?) this ?? ;-)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom Digest (12 messages)
|
| |
or 