The Telecom Digest for December 20, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 343 : "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: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:20:27 -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: <FbudnZE_A4J29pDQnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Wes Leatherock wrote:
> --- On Fri, 12/17/10, jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org> 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.
>
>
>
> How about Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth,
> Tulsa, Wichita, Little Rock.
>
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wleathus@yahoo.com
> wesrock@aol.com
>
>
As I stated about Los Angeles several messages back. ;-)
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:29:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Detecting cell phone dead spots via post office
Message-ID: <a6a76783-1b29-4e14-9f3e-e1095f1467ec@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
A guest editorial in the NYT suggests adding sensors to post office
trucks to detect, among other things, cell phone dead spots.
Interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/18/opinion/18ravnitzky.html?ref=todayspaper
***** Moderator's Note *****
While we're at it, lets add water & power meter reading, Google Earth
photos, and cameras to search for missing children.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:09:51 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Detecting cell phone dead spots via post office
Message-ID: <op.vnyxuppditl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:29:35 -0500, first Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>,
and then the Moderator, wrote:
> A guest editorial in the NYT suggests adding sensors to post office
> trucks to detect, among other things, cell phone dead spots.
> ...
> While we're at it, lets add water & power meter reading, Google Earth
> photos, and cameras to search for missing children.
Or do what Chicago city busses used to do: add snow plows to their
front bumpers to help clear snowbound streets.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 07:32:13 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: iPhone snitch network launched
Message-ID: <0cqdndY90LjjuJPQnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com>
John Mayson wrote:
> I think my neighbor is reporting me to DHS, so I'd better go now.
>
No so sure he did, but I did.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Well, I reported _you_! The circle is complete!
"Everyone in this world is queer, except for me and thee,
and sometimes I wonder about thee."
Robert Owen.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:45:52 -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: <46dbc049-cecf-4d8a-ac4d-ae237eedcc2b@g25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 17, 2:38 pm, jsw <j...@ivgate.omahug.org> wrote:
> 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. ;-)
The Bell Labs history says that by 1900 manual switchboards were
highly developed and from the subscriber's point of view, easy to
use. In contrast, the Strowger switch at that time wasn't as
developed, such as requiring subscribers to ring manually. It was
also expensive since it was a large capital outlay. Manual offices
didn't need operators--saving wages--during off peak hours. Only very
tiny offices were seen as candidates for dial since there wasn't
enough traffic to justify even a single operator. (However, for many
years Bell had such light duty operators in private homes, see the
Mountain Bell history for a description.)
The Bell Labs history says Bell made many improvements in the Strowger
switch for Bell Service.
Note that by the time dial was perfected it took about 50 years to
convert all Bell System lines to dial (Santa Catalina Island. being
the last). That's a long time. Conversion to dial was a major
undertaking. Some manual exchanges were converted directly to ESS.
> 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.
Step by step handled the majority of dial lines of the Bell System.
Plenty of mid sized cities had it. SxS lines peaked in 1974.
> 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. ;-)
I wonder if its developers used tools like Boolean algebra to work out
the logic.
> 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.
I believe also in Newark, NJ. This made sense, as it gave Bell
engineers experience before the big rollout in NYC.
* * * *
>In Lawrence, the office codes began with 68 (681, 682, etc.) 5-digit
>dialing existed for a long time. Some long time residents were so
>used to the 5-digits that they would give their number as
>"68 (pause) 23456" instead of "682 (pause) 3456".
Five digit dialing lasted for a long time in small towns. Yes,
residents did refer to their numbers in the above fashion. Also,
stationery listed a business phone as (311) 55 5-2368, with a space in
the exchange.
A resident of a such a small town told me the phone company told
people to use 7 digits and stopped referring to 5 digits. But 5
digits continued to work until the exchange was cutover to ESS. (He
hoped to get a switch unit after the cutover but the old gear was kept
quite secure. I would think its value would only be scrap by that
point in time.)
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 04:07:16 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--Eight Digit US telephone numbers?
Message-ID: <mN2dna8JZvDJRJDQnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <201012171938.oBHJc9MB057500@ivgate.omahug.org>,
jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org> 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.
>
I was never in an actual C.O. in Des Moines, but in the mid 60's, I did
belong to an Explorer Scout troop that met at the Bell training facility
downtown.
There was a small practice switch where we met -- the switching elements
did -not- resemble any of the pictures I find on-line of a Strowger SxS relay,
was definitely -not- crossbar, and I'm not having any luck finding a decent
picture of either a 'rotary' or 'panel' switching element, to validate my
recollections against. Recollection is a gizmo that processed a two-digit
chunk of a number -- a disk element that rose on a rod for the first digit,
and rotated for the second one. guessing (=very= roughly, at a 45-year
remove) at a circa 1-1/2" dia, and a vertical travel of 6-8".
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 04:54:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--Eight Digit US telephone numbers?
Message-ID: <e935f4c5-1b85-48f4-b337-1cb9c36400fc@p8g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 18, 7:57 pm, Wes Leatherock <wleat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 12/17/10, jsw <j...@ivgate.omahug.org> 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.
>
> How about Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth,
> Tulsa, Wichita, Little Rock.
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wleat...@yahoo.com
> wesr...@aol.com
Or Carbondale IL, Ann Arbor MI, or Centerville IA?
http://tinyurl.com/yv6wyy
Neal McLain
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:46:43 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Phone-Wielding Shoppers Strike Fear Into Retailers
Message-ID: <pan.2010.12.19.03.46.42.541726@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:27:19 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote:
> TECHNOLOGY
>
> Phone-Wielding Shoppers Strike Fear Into Retailers
>
> By MIGUEL BUSTILLO And ANN ZIMMERMAN
> DECEMBER 15, 2010
.........
> Until recently, retailers could reasonably assume that if they just lured
> shoppers to stores with enticing specials, the customers could be coaxed
> into buying more profitable stuff, too.
>
> Now, marketers must contend with shoppers who can use their smartphones
> inside stores to check whether the specials are really so special, and if
> the rest of the merchandise is reasonably priced.
>
> ...
And we now await retailers to start lobbying law makers to be allowed to
use mobile jamming devices in-store to protect their sales.....
--
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: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 02:55:22 -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: <0PSdnUVuydLnVZDQnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <rMOdnTatRMftKZTQnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>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?
The simple explanation -- coding/transcription error of a -numeric- identifier.
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 03:02:37 -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: <0PSdnURuydKwV5DQnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4D096DE6.4010907@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>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://au.alibaba.com/products/telephone-scrambler.html
>
>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.
Beg to differ. At least on GSM the audio is -not- transmitted as
standard digital sampling of an audio stream. there's a bunch of
comprression and encryption employed. the encryption doesn't
'mean much', because there's enough information sent over-the-air
to allow someone with sufficiently sophisticated monitoring gear to
decrypt.
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:47:25 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Question about an old scrambler phone
Message-ID: <MPG.2777f31d3e148ef7989d08@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <k7hlg6hj59naodk4p6shkou2k5haa4u6rr@4ax.com>, ron@see.below
says...
>
> 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
Yeah, there isn't one out there that hasn't been cracked. Even DECT
isn't so secure anymore.
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:46:34 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Question about an old scrambler phone
Message-ID: <MPG.2777f2e45653686a989d07@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <20101216005532.GB7645@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
ernest.donlin.remove-this@and-this-too.gmail.com says...
>
> 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.
You can text, right? If so just use one time pads to encrypt/decrypt.
Problem solved.
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 09:51:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: iPhone snitch network launched
Message-ID: <iekkie$dld$1@news.albasani.net>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>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.
State troopers chase the guy, how, exactly? If the first report, ignored,
was accurate, he's miles away. How can the state trooper possibly get
to the location based on the third or fourth citing unless they were
traveling to that location already by coincidence?
Law enforcement by happenstance.
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:18:27 -0600
From: gordonb.qdaly@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Question about an old scrambler phone
Message-ID: <tuSdnZjSRc_OrZPQnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>>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.
How difficult would it be to get real quality end-to-end encryption
on a cell phone (possibly with no hardware changes)? Does anyone
offer this? It seems like it would be a popular app, although most
people wouldn't be able to tell if it was really working. Are there
any legal problems (suppose, for the moment, the call is USA to
USA), other than perhaps the phone needs to be "jailbroken" to make
this work?
Establish a cell-to-cell call (in the clear, at least as far as the
CO is concerned). Both parties agree to go to secure mode, fire
up their app (need compatible apps, obviously), and press a button
to start encrypted mode. They have a pre-shared key to use already
stored in the app for each correspondent, probably along with phone
numbers for that person that have the software available.
The apps on both ends sync up, then start encrypting the (digital)
voice channel, perhaps with AES-256 or something stronger. TLA
agencies get annoyed that their CO-based wiretaps are seeing encrypted
data.
I think modern cell phones have the CPU horsepower to do the
encryption in real time, possibly with degraded voice quality.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The problem is that the TLA's you alluded to won't allow any of the
changes to the cellular systems which would be needed to make it
work. Unless you can construct a device that will produce encrypted
speech AND TRANSMIT IT AS AUDIO, you'll need to have access to the
"data" side of the phone, and the ability to relay the data from the
cell tower to the other encryption node at the distant end of the
call. I think it's too big a change with too little demand.
Of course, "3G" and "4G" data capabilities will make some kind of
encryption possible, but you'd have to set it up with external
computers at each end.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:36:59 -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: <201012191736.oBJHaxC4070514@ivgate.omahug.org>
Wes Leatherock wrote:
> I thought panel offices used revertive pulsing, i.e. after the full
> number was dialed the distance office started pulsing back to the
> originating office until the originating office said "stop" and went
> on to the next digit similarly.
It's always been my understanding, and I'm fairly certain of this,
that on the panel offices which were common in the late 60s and
early 70s, the dialing and outpulsing could be overlapping, in
that once the office code was dialed, the register-sender of the
originating panel office seized a trunk to the terminating office
and as digits were dialed, the call progressed accordingly.
The revertive pulsing corresponded to the four digits in that
each four-digit line number had a definite sequence of revertive
pulsing, but it was not four actions, not one per digit, it was
five.
A true panel office was very noisy in that the sounds of the
office could be heard during and immediately after dialing. I
really think that a lot of people who are otherwise very CO
savvy are forgetting this. Panel offices were also notoriously
noisy during the connection. Contacts were often microphonic.
One sound was kind of a cross between a 'clang' and the sounds
of chains rattling.
You could clearly hear the progress of the call when you were
dialing from a true panel office. Not as much from a #1 or #5
crossbar. Most users simply dialed away, but those who were
interested in such things would often pause and listen closely
when dialing.
Many phone 'enthusiasts' were quite familiar with the sounds of
the quirky panel offices, and knew the following operations quite
well:
1. When the thousands digit was dialed, there would be one burst
of revertive pulsing which could usually be heard. It was heard
as a brief 'scratch', and was that one-in-five selection of the
brush on the incoming frame.
2. When the hundreds digit was dialed, there would be TWO bursts
of revertive pulsing, the first being that one-in-four group
selection as the incoming frame selector advanced, and the second
as a one-in-five selection of the brush on the final frame. This
would sound like a 'clack-clack-clack-scratch' when calling from
a panel office to a panel office, and more like a 'scratch-scratch'
when calling from a panel to a crossbar office.
3. The last two digits, of course, selected the one-in-100 position
of the final frame selector. IIRC, the second 'scratch' in this
sequence was a bit slower when calling a panel office than when
calling a crossbar office.
>The first No. 1 crossbar offices were arranged to simulate
>panel offices in their signalling, leading to the apparent
>absurity of two No. 1 crossbar offices each simulating panel's
>revertive pulsing. The first No. 1 crossbar was intended for
>use in an all-panel environment
IIRC, the register-sender (or what it's properly called on a #1
crossbar) did record all digits before seizing the trunk to the
distant CO, but I'm not 100% sure of this. There may very well
have been some overlap, as I remember that when the 1E offices
started coming out around 1970, a call from a #1 crossbar office
to a crossbar/panel office went through very quickly, where a
similar call from a 1E office had a delay of about a second after
all digits were dialed.
> How about Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth,
> Tulsa, Wichita, Little Rock.
I don't know about any of these except Los Angeles, and it's
been my understanding that quite a bit of the El-Lay area was
indie using AE step, and Ma Bell simply went along. ;-) I do
know that there was quite a bit of #5 crossbar in Orange
County in the early 1970s, as well as some 1E making inroads
into the area as well. I vaguely recall much of Santa Ana
being step as well.
Our own Pat has eluded to the Wabash office in Chicago being
step, but I kind of question this, since I know a lot of
Chicago was panel and #1 crossbar from the 30s through the
70s.
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 (15 messages)
|
| |
or 