The Telecom Digest for December 18, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 341 : "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: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 02:22:43 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: iPhone snitch network launched
Message-ID: <p06240813c930bfe6e21e@[192.168.180.133]>
iPhone snitch network launched
Jason Douglass
Infowars.com
December 13, 2010
A new iPhone App with the misleading name 'PatriotApp' attempts to
draw on the power of the patriot movement, turning smartphone users
into a gigantic snitch network.
You might think an app with such a patriotic name might have useful
functions like a pocket constitution or quotes from our forefathers.
But contrary to the services one might expect, this app allows users
to report any 'suspicious' behavior directly linking them with top
government agencies.
Much like the new DHS program 'If you see something, say something'
this app is meant to turn average citizens into a network of spies
feeding information back to the federal government.
...
http://www.infowars.com/iphone-snitch-network-launched/
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:57:30 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: iPhone snitch network launched
Message-ID: <AANLkTinm2JH7z7K4FFVYa4dDMm+NOTQ56cPWYo9=KZ2k@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
> iPhone snitch network launched
>
> Jason Douglass
> Infowars.com
> December 13, 2010
Alex Jones is a fixture here in Austin. I do read his website,
infowars.com, probably for the same reason I slow down when driving
past bad car crashes. I saw this article a few days ago. The app is
real. But I really have to wonder if anyone is actually listening on
the other end. I say this because of what a state trooper friend of
mine once told me. His state has special star numbers people can dial
from their cell phones to report drunk driving, graffiti, etc. It's
really an anti-road rage device more than anything. If a motorist
thinks his concern is being addressed he's less likely to engage in
bad behavior on the road. If the state chased down every report they
received that would be all they did all day and most of them are false
anyway. The only time they might take it seriously is if they receive
several consistent reports and the situation being reported is serious
enough.
But I suppose inforwars.com supporters would also tell me it's all
part of conditioning. This app might not be doing anything, but
people are being trained to report their neighbors to the authorities.
I think my neighbor is reporting me to DHS, so I'd better go now.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 08:22:14 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: iPhone snitch network launched
Message-ID: <pan.2010.12.17.21.22.11.560202@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:57:30 -0600, John Mayson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>>
>> iPhone snitch network launched
>>
>> Jason Douglass
>> Infowars.com
>> December 13, 2010
........
> But I suppose inforwars.com supporters would also tell me it's all part of
> conditioning. This app might not be doing anything, but people are being
> trained to report their neighbors to the authorities.
Isn't this just a novel use of the technology to build a list of
"patriots" that can be called (and obviously relied) upon to keep the rest
of the peasants under control once the balloon goes up?
Earn enough "Snitch points" and when WW3 arrives the government could
appoint you to a position of authority to oversee the remaining rabble
amongst the rubble......
Start snitching now! - positions are limited!!, competition will be fierce!!!
--
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, 17 Dec 2010 09:46:18 -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: <201012171546.oBHFkIfr048495@ivgate.omahug.org>
>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.
It acted as soon as it had enough information to act. This was very
innovative for the technology of the day.
IIRC, the action on the dialed digits was somewhat overlapping on
panel. It was definitely not direct control by any means. If you
would dial slowly when calling one panel office from another, you
could often make out the sounds of the progress through the switch
train. The cadence of the sounds was quite different when calling
a #1 or #5 crossbar from a panel office than it was when calling
another panel office, and this made it somewhat easy to tell which
offices were panel and which were crossbar.
Of course if a tandem office was involved, things got interesting.
But anyway ... lots of this is from memory so some of the details
may be a bit off ...
Nothing really happened until the three digits of the office code
were dialed, then the register-sender called upon the translator
or decoder to get the orders on where to set the district (and
office frame, if used) frame to get to the terminating CO. You
could usually hear some scratches and clunks as this happened.
The rest of the process was well known by 'enthusiasts' as the
revertive pulsing was 'hard coded' to the particular directory
numbers. The register-sender in the originating office always
'knew' exactly where to set the incoming and final frames for a
particular 4-digit number. To hear this you would pause after
dialing the office code.
When you dialed the fourth digit, the first digit of the line
number in the distant CO, you would hear a 'scratch' of revertive
pulsing as the brush of the incoming frame was selected. Then
when you dialed the fifth digit, you would get more of a
'clack-clack-scratch' as the incoming frame advanced and the
final frame brush was selected. The last two digits gave you
that 'scratch-scratch-CLUNK' as the final frame advanced and
connected. IIRC this was two separate operations, the second
at a lower speed.
#include <one-ring-then-busy-on-a-busy-line-on-panel.h> ;-)
>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.)
Party lines were all but gone in the city when I became interested
in such things, but I do remember references to manual exchanges
using lettered suffixes instead of assigning party line subs their
own directory number. This would mean that a full manual office
could very well handle well over 10,500 subscribers and that yes,
there could be numbers of the pattern FNOrd 2368j and and even
FNOrd 10015j and such. Now could those numbers be dialed by the
early dial subscribers? I have no clue! ;-) 'Maybe' is my best
guess. ;-)
PCI was very powerful, and could handle arbitrary digits and such
as long as the equipment was able to handle it. When dialing
from a panel office to crossbar, it was very easy to confuse the
sound of revertive pulsing (the cadence of which was far more
consistent in crossbar offices) with that of PCI.
Revertive pulsing could handle that 1 of 10000 selection, and in
cases of panel offices, could not do such things as deliver an
office code. (Yes, purists, I do know what 'high-5 is'.) ;-)
PCI was what was typically used when routing calls from a panel
office via a tandem office. The XBT crossbar tandem (think of a
#1 crossbar on steroids) typically received calls using PCI and
then sent them to the terminating CO via revertive pulsing.
There was also a panel tandem, and I'm sure it worked more or
less the same way, but these were all gone by the time I got
interested in these things.
ObTrivia: The only practical way of subscriber dialing between
panel and step offices was to go via a tandem which spoke all
of PCI, dial pulsing, and revertive pulsing.
>What puzzles me is that FLanders was apparently dialable
>using call indicators, but Willow Grove was not dialable ...
My guess here is that your Willow Grove office used some kind of
manual equipment (AE?) which did not support PCI or else was
planned for conversion and never intended to be dialable. I
would, however, think that it would be cost-effective in any
case of medium to long-term continuation of manual service to
convert to PCI, since the labor saving would be significant.
>The neighborhood served by the HOllis exchange had
>postwar growth, perhaps they had to squeeze in eight digit
It's been my impression that such offices as Floral Park and
Bayside (coincidental pun, located right by Bell Blvd.) ;-)
were postwar expansions intended to handle just this. I would
put money on the fact that some of the territory now served
by the Floral Park office (physically outside of the city but
serving a number of 212 numbers in my day) were originally
handled out of the Hollis office.
>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.
My hunch here is that they wanted to use up existing inventory
of panel gear. Remember that the #1 crossbar was essentially a
drop-in work-alike of a panel office using newer technology.
>Also they said new pieces of panel were added for many
>years.
I do know that many panel offices were built out to the full
10,000 lines using panel technology instead of being upgraded
to crossbar.
I also vaguely remember a case in lower Manhattan (Broad St
CO, maybe?) where a to-be-upgraded panel switch was left in
service and the 1E intended replacement was put in service
to increase capacity.
***** Moderator's Note *****
PCI is "Panel Call Indicator", the system that lit the indicating
lights on the "B" operator's board.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:16:40 -0800
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--Eight Digit US telephone numbers?
Message-ID: <356ng6llt824b9j4jimup2hgkmsp1tp11m@4ax.com>
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:17:18 -0800 (PST), Lisa or Jeff
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>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.
When I joined Bell Labs in 1959, I had a series of classes about
introduction to the Bell System. In one of them, the instructor said
that Bell Labs invented the panel switch because they wanted the
flexibility of an X-Y switch like crossbar, but did not want to pay
royalties to the inventor of crossbar. He said that panel was clunky
and more prone to breakdown, but it beat paying royalties. I don't
know who was the invetor of crossbar.
Dick
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:38:09 -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: <201012171938.oBHJc9MB057500@ivgate.omahug.org>
>When I joined Bell Labs in 1959, I had a series of classes about
>introduction to the Bell System. In one of them, the instructor said
>that Bell Labs invented the panel switch because they wanted the
>flexibility of an X-Y switch like crossbar, but did not want to pay
>royalties to the inventor of crossbar.
The story I heard and believed was that Ma Bell did not embrace
STEP technology because they did not want to pay royalties to
Strowger and company. Add to that the fact that direct-control
step does not scale well, of course. I never heard that story
about crossbar. Of course I never had the opportunity to attend
an orientation session at Bell Labs. ;-)
I guess they did eventually employ SxS for many smaller communities
in their service areas, and even some mid-size cities as well,
with Des Moines being an example.
>I don't know who was the invetor of crossbar.
I always assumed it was Bell Labs !! ;-) At least in the context
of telephone switching that is.
>He said that panel was clunky and more prone to breakdown
I don't think anybody is gonna argue with you over that. ;-)
You must admit, however, that for its time (the 19-teens) it
was very innovative and high-tech, even though it's been said
that the design was inspired by Rube Goldberg. ;-)
The story (legend) that was circulated among 'hobbyists' in
long-ago decades was that the panel switch was originally an
automated B board and was designed as an electromechanical
representation of a 'panel' of jacks with the selector rods and
brushes representing the operator's arm and plug. The revertive
pulsing was representative of the A operator telling the B
operator where to plug in the cable. ;-) 'Keep going, keep
going, no, higher .. keep going .. STOP!'
IIRC there were a few of these B board panel installations in
the 19-teens, long before the first full-scale panel roll-outs
in Omaha and Paterson.
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:45:04 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--Eight Digit US telephone numbers?
Message-ID: <6N6dnewu9PFtepbQnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@giganews.com>
jsw wrote:
>
> I guess they did eventually employ SxS for many smaller communities
> in their service areas, and even some mid-size cities as well,
> with Des Moines being an example.
>
The Bell area of Los Angeles was all SxS in until after the war.
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:45:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Question about an old scrambler phone
Message-ID: <ieh07p$ns3$2@reader1.panix.com>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> writes:
>.........
>> ***** 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!
Yes/no/sorta. As I recall, there are three encryption
schemes, the weakest is the voice & the strongest is the call
authentication/billing scheme. [Gee, guess where the carrier's
interest REALLY is..]
BUT, given that Big Brother has access to the switch/MTSO, it does
not make much difference. Look up the IEEE Spectrum article on the
Greek wiretapoping scandal.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
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 (8 messages)
|
| |
or 