Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 48 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Renewing cellphone contract--what to get? Dial-up still popular ====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:43:05 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <db6a85d2-8ab1-4f59-ac0c-424016a4b320@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> On Feb 15, 10:58 am, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > How soon they forget the IBM 705, 7080, et al.  A one bit error could > most definitely turn 0007 into 1007. On the very earliest computers it was standard procedure to run a job through twice and compare the answers to detect for such errors. But I believe fairly early on they inclued internal parity checks for memory moves and arithemetic to check for that sort of thing. The first computers so equipped would simply stop and light a red light. Later computers would have internal retry capability and better circuitry. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:37:01 -0600 From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <jbednXc0yu1OcQXUnZ2dnUVZ_gmWnZ2d@posted.visi> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Interesting comment, how TWX didn't get involved with computers. At a PPOE it did. We had a dedicated box (made by Datatronix, SN00010 or something like that, with all the bugs it implies) that was attached to the TWX line and interfaced with a Displaywriter (with the comm package). It had enough memory so that it could receive and store TWX, for access the next morning when the WP gear was fired up. I would have sworn we purchased TWX service from RCA rather than WU, but maybe I misremember that (this would have been around 1975). Perhaps RCA was later and involved some sort of gateway accessible via dialup. Telex/TWX was really the only halfway reliable way to communicate with offices in the third world. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:11:56 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <IqOdnc5ouosxngTUnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Feb 14, 11:22 pm, Bill Horne <b...@horneQRM.net> wrote: >> IBM chose not to go ASCII: those in the mainframe world still wrestle >> with EBCDIC, yet IBM is a mostly-profitable business to this day. >> Western Union's choice not to embrace ASCII had, IMNSHO, nothing to do >> with its demise: the company failed to adapt to the marketplace's demand >> for more sophisticated tools, and WU could have provided them without >> abandoning Baudot in legacy uses such as TELEX. Keep in mind that TWX >> machines, which (at least for the "100 speed" side) were already >> equipped for ASCII, never played any significant role in computer data >> processing. Baudot is just a way of getting something done, and WU chose >> not to do it, i.e., the company refused to face the threat to its >> TELEX/TWX networks in time to reform itself for the new age. > > Interesting comment, how TWX didn't get involved with computers. I mention it because it goes to the heart of the the question: WU's policy vis-a-vis ASCII wasn't a factor. What put WU out of contention in the data market was its unwillingness to allow anything but TWX or TELEX machines to attach to its switches. As I mentioned in a previous post, I had an Anderson-Jacobson 841, which used EBCD code at 137.5 baud, but Tymnet allowed me to connect it to other nodes without trouble, doing code and speed conversion transparently. The only problem Tymnet couldn't solve was the need to constantly feed paper into the Selectric, since it had a friction-feed platen that wouldn't pull from a roll. In any case, TWX machines were always half-duplex, and the bulletin boards that started the computer-to-computer ball rolling were all running full-duplex. I know, because I used to take the TWX machine (a Model 35, BTW) at Back Bay in Boston, and connect to Ward Christensen's bbs in Chicago: I think his was the only one that could work with a half-duplex machine. Ward was so amazed when I finally got a 300 baud modem and my own computer, he broke into my login session with the words "Hey, speedy!". [snip] > The PC did help the communication revolution you speak, but only > _indirectly_. People _already had_ PCs, so adding a modem and a web > browser was no big deal. > > In my opinion, the real driver of the communication revolution was the > huge decline in the price of central data servers (computers) and > communication lines. Cheap servers made it possible for people to > afford to offer useful information on-line, and, to do so in a very > user-friendly format. Cheap communications made it possible to > provide full scale interconnections between servers and the users, and > again, to do it in a user-friendly format. > > In other words, even if the PC was available for say only $100, there > wouldn't be much to connect to if servers and communication lines were > as expensive as they were in 1980. The parts of a computer--CPU, > internal memory, and disk memory--all declined steeply in price, so > the storage and access cost (in terms of cents per character) got > cheaper. > > The ability for someone at home to communicate to computers or other > people was forseen and published in the early 1960s; they just had to > wait for the price of technology to come down to make it worthwhile > for the masses (and the software to be a little easier for lay > people.) We could just as easily be having this conversation using > Teletypes as a terminal to the central computer. > You're right: it was the combination of everything that made everything else possible. People bought computers, and in the process acquired CRT's and all the circuitry needed to drive modems and supervise online data transfers. The bbs was the talisman that launched the Internet age: many of them grew into ISPs and Internet portals as we know them today. I had accounts at The Well, The World (and even traded emails with he-who-greps), and Northeastern University's Lynx system, which lasted until just a few years ago after a thirty-year plus lifespan. I only used FidoNet a couple of times, when my cousin was using it to get emails back to me from his Army base overseas, but FidoNet might be the "special sauce" that let people realize inter-computer message networks _were_ viable. Of course, FidoNet was self-defeating, since as soon as it created the "critical mass" of customers willing to pay for bandwidth, the Internet was used to serve the demand and FidoNet wasn't needed anymore. It's been fun walking down memory lane. I think I'll leave Western Union and its demise to the historians. Bill -- Bill Horne Temporary Moderator Telecom Digest ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:27:05 -0500 From: Steve Stone <spfleck@citlink.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <AQdml.2944$Si4.2555@newsfe22.iad> > As an aside, I see the PC "mother of aperture" differently when it > comes to communications. Early PCs were $1,000, and a modem wasn't > include and was extra................... The first IBM PC I purchased in early 1980s was over $3,000. Two 360k floppy drives, 32k of memory, and an EGA color display. Top of the line. Steve N2UBP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:42:52 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <b_2dndVf-8xhhQTUnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@speakeasy.net> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Feb 14, 11:17 pm, Jim Haynes <hay...@giganews.com> wrote: [snip] >> You'd think so, yet one thing that stood in the way of getting ASCII >> approved was that IBM wanted a code that was easier to translate to >> card code. That's why we got EBCDIC. > > Well, for the first 35 years or so, that card code dependency was very > important in programming, so it made sense to do so. To this day > sometimes in rough mainframe programming the "overpunch" of the sign > in a numeric character causes a letter to be displayed instead of the > last digit. In defense of programmers, I will testify to the tough choices sometimes forced on them by legacy applications and by printed forms that never have enough space. For the benefit of the non-BLUEBLOODS in the audience, a quick explanation: due to reasons known only to the ghods-of-Amronk, it is possible to print a numeric field with three kinds of sign. The first, of course, is the ordinary "+" or "-", e.g., -900.00 for an amount of negative Nine Hundred. The second is to "overpunch" one of the digits, so that its value combines both a digit and a sign, e.g., "900.0A" might mean +900.00, but the precious printing position taken up by the sign has been saved, so that values above 999.99 can now be printed. The third method is to overpunch one of the digits so that it shows non-standard values _only_ if the sign is negative, e.g., "900.0a" would signify a negative sign, but a positive value would show as "900.00". Again, since the position taken by the sign has been freed, values less than -999.99 can be shown. (These are only examples: I don't remember the actual overpunch digit inidcators). Overpunching is, to be sure, a compromise: it typically happens when the totals shown on reports grow too large for the existing forms, and programmers are told to add more digits to a printed output than they have available space for. Given a choice between using an unsigned field which can only take positive values, or overpunching a sign in the least-significant-digit, experienced programmers will overpunch a negative sign. After all, most totals don't come out with negative values, but those few times that they do, the users will toss it off as a printing error, and (more importantly), the programmer won't get one of the dreaded 3 AM abend calls we all grew to know and hate. Bill -- Bill Horne Temporary Moderator Telecom Digest ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:55:52 -0600 From: Jim Haynes <haynes@giganews.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <slrngpjro2.8oh.haynes@localhost.localdomain> On 2009-02-16, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > IMHO, based on Oslin's book, WU was treated unfairly when they (1) had > to acquire the money-losing Postal Telegraph and (2) divest the > international cable business. WU, even in the 1940s, was not a big > and powerful company with unlimited resources, yet the govt acted as > if it was. It seems to have been government policy to keep WU with exactly one foot in the grave at all times. Oslin also argues government favoritism toward ITT. > > Again, IMHO, WU was right and AT&T was wrong in this aspect. AT&T was > a rapidly growing company, WU was not. I can't help but suspect if WU > attempted significant private line voice communications on its own > network (which it had every right to do and did to a very limited > extent) AT&T would scream in protest. Unfortunately, WU wasn't > interested in voice and much of its network couldn't handle it anyway. Or didn't dare to rock the boat. W.U. could have handled voice over its microwave network, could have done essentially what MCI did. But MCI had to go through a bruising court fight to get Bell to connect to their customers. > > AT&T did throw WU a few bones by billing telegrams directly to phone > accounts and later giving deep discounts on leased lines, at least As Oslin poiints out, charging telegrams to telephone bills was something that originated back when AT&T had acquired a controlling interest in W.U. We can only speculate what would have happened if AT&T had not been forced to divest its W.U. stock shortly afterward. We might have had an integrated and rational voice and record communications business in this country. > -- jhhaynes at earthlink dot net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:00:31 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Renewing cellphone contract--what to get? Message-ID: <18a8bc03-8f71-47e6-9147-8c1e64dc7245@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> My cellphone contract will expire soon. I'm happy with the telephone set, plan, etc. and don't want to change anything. It is a cheap plan. Can I ask the carrier for any 'giveaways" to keep me as a customer? What are some things carriers typically give customers to get them to renew? As mentioned, I don't want a new handset. But I'd like a new battery for the phone, a case, or a car charger. (The phone battery lasts about 90 minutes talk time between charges, which seems low to me.) Under my previous cellphone plan, when it expiried it went month-to- month, same terms, but I could cancel at any time. I wonder if the current plan will automatically formally renew and become a new contract for another full term. Thanks. [public replies please] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:12:21 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Dial-up still popular Message-ID: <e525bb5e-1173-40b0-9dfc-aa90c829ebb6@t13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> Lightning speed Internet is the wave of the future. But in a recession, good old dial-up service might get a longer look. Now Internet providers that have seen their dial-up customer base whittled over the past decade see an opportunity to stay in the game by offering the budget-conscious a cheaper option. For full article please see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29223833/ In some cases dial-up could be more expensive than say DSL. A separate phone line for the computer may cost more than a DSL line. Many areas do not have broadband access at all and dial-up is the only option. Dial-up works fine for text-based websites. such as Usenet, or websites that are light on pictures and fancy stuff. But more sophisticated websites, that are slow to load on broadband access, are too bloated to use with dial-up. Unfortunately web designers seem intent on using the latest Java/Flash techniques and bells and whistles, which add deadweight, but not content. For some reason, TV channel websites are very badly bloated and hard to use. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: mailto: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 Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest Copyright (C) 2008 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) ******************************