Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 50 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: I sense a $100 surcharge Re: Cable Modems No longer about TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Correction Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? WU Telex terminal options TeleTrap from TelTech Systems Re: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems ====== 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: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:14:20 -0500 From: Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: I sense a $100 surcharge Message-ID: <mn5op4d2afnr3d10v4pdrsv3c4do32qan6@4ax.com> I think they plan on a little extra revenue here. Wonder who's behind this? Local 8 IBEW contractors will probably be "exempt". Carl Article published February 18, 2009 Toledo plan to require permit for home low-voltage work upsets many By IGNAZIO MESSINA BLADE STAFF WRITER Toledo property owners who want to run low-voltage wiring through their homes will have to pay $40 for a city permit and then have a city inspector approve the work after the do-it-yourself job is complete, under a proposed law being reviewed today by city council. "Low voltage has changed very dramatically over the last 20 years," said Todd Michaelsen, the Ohio-Michigan chapter manager for the National Electrical Contractors Association who is chairman of the city’s electrical board of control. "Low voltage used to be your doorbell and your garage door opener, but today it has become a very large part of the wiring of property," Mr. Michaelsen said. "There are an awful lot of these systems put in and they are put in very poorly." Several council members said they have fielded a high number of complaints from constituents about the proposed law, which was presented to them last week by the Finkbeiner administration. The city’s electrical board of control drafted the proposed change to the city code, which Toledo City Council’s Community and Neighborhood Development committee will review today during a 1 p.m. hearing. Chris Zervos, commissioner for the city’s Division of Building Inspections, said the intent of the change is to ensure safety. "The fact of the matter is that in the course of construction, all the various disciplines are involved and inspected, and because this is an unregulated discipline, it goes in after all the inspections are made and is not inspected," Mr. Zervos said. "Too often, especially since we have a lot of mom-and-pop operations out there … they don’t know how to properly install things through firewalls. … They can do a lot of damage and in the process compromise the fire safety of a building." Low-voltage electrical installations refer to those electrical systems carrying less than 50 volts of current — commonly used in telecommunications and data systems, fire security, and energy management. The proposed ordinance would regulate the installation and inspection. While homeowners could perform the work themselves after obtaining the $40 permit, a contractor hired to do a job would have to be licensed, Mr. Zervos, a former builder, said. Low-voltage work performed by either a homeowner or a contractor would have to be inspected afterward. The scope of work would include grounding systems, cable materials and cable installations, cable trays and ladder racks inside communications service entrance rooms, spaces and closets, unsecured and unprotected cable penetrations in firewalls. It would cover the installation of commercial burglar alarms, residential fire alarms, public address systems, security systems, nurse’s call systems, lighting control systems, and comfort heating and cooling controls. Specifically excluded in the proposed law are cablevision systems, commercial fire alarm systems, residential doorbells, residential low-voltage landscape lighting, residential garage door openers, residential thermostats, and wiring on the utility side of the demarcation point. "People would still be able to do a homeowner permit," Mr. Michaelsen said. "It would be the same as regular electrical, when you have an inspector. You have the right to do your own work but you don’t have the right to burn down your neighbor." Mark Sobczak, council president, said he wanted to learn at today’s committee hearing before forming an opinion. "I am getting a lot of negative feedback from constituents," he said. Councilman George Sarantou said he asked Mr. Zervos last week if there had been any fires in Toledo because of faulty wiring. "The answer was no, that there had been none," Mr. Sarantou said. "I am concerned that [proposed law] could become very unfriendly to businesses. Sounds like to me, this would become another layer of bureaucracy to hoist on the backs of small business." Councilman Wilma Brown said she didn’t know where the proposed ordinance originated. She had received phone calls from people opposed to it. One was from an electrician who said he would lose work and couldn’t afford to take out a permit every time he did a job. Councilman Mike Collins said he was sure the ordinance originated with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. "That is the only place it could come from." Councilman Mike Craig said he didn’t know where the proposed ordinance came from, but he was opposed to it. "We’d be the first municipality in Ohio to have this," Mr. Craig said. "I don’t see the need for this. This would include all phone installers. It’s hard enough to negotiate the permit process in Toledo as it is. I’ve done a lot of handy work. My dad was a carpenter. I don’t see the need for this." State Fire Marshall Mike Bell, a former Toledo fire chief who is expected to run for Toledo mayor this year, did not return phone calls about the proposed legislation. Staff writer Carl Ryan contributed to this report. Contact Ignazio Messina at:imessina@theblade.comor 419-724-6171. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:02:09 -0600 From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cable Modems Message-ID: <499C22F1.5030602@annsgarden.com> I wrote: > In most cases, the slow-response problem is caused by > congestion upstream of the cable TV headend. Maybe > there's not enough capacity in the connection between the > headend and the internet (usually a T1 or a T3), or maybe > it's farther upstream. Before Robert B. jumps on me, I guess I better elaborate on that statement. Slow response can indeed be attributed to congestion within the cable network itself. Furthermore, it can be caused by ingress/egress; e.g., "signal leakage." If there's a break in the physical shield (wind-induced crack; hungry squirrel; drunk driver; errant backhoe; vandalism; whatever), ambient RF from the outside world can enter the cable and interfere with cable signals. Such interference can severely degrade digital signals. Pinpointing the source of a slow-response problem lies in an analysis of the physical locations of the complaints. If all complaints come from one node, then that node, or one of the cables or fibers connected to it, is clearly the problem. If a node is simply overloaded (too many subscribers hooked up), the node can be split into two or more smaller nodes (equipment sales guys call this "scalability"). But if complaints originate across the entire cable network, then the problem can usually be attributed to the headend equipment, or whatever's upstream. Unless it's an extremely small cable system, with only one node, this is a useful tool for isolating slow-response problems. Computer problems can cause response problems too. A computer owner who switches from a dialup connection to a cable modem (or DSL) expects faster response. But a sluggish computer connected to dialup is still a sluggish computer when connected to a high-speed connection. Neal McLain ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:26:16 -0600 From: Jim Haynes <haynes@giganews.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: No longer about TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <slrngpokmk.40v.haynes@localhost.localdomain> On 2009-02-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > I can't help but wonder if AT&T would've given WU as hard a time as > they gave [MCI]. I'm sure they would have, and WU was already very dependent on AT&T for local loops for Telex and Desk-Fax. > Also, I strongly suspect Bell's local terminal connections for WU were > not voice grade, but lower grade narrow bandwidth lines suitable only > for low speed teletype (per Stone's book). That makes it less of a > threat. I doubt that. Bell ran wires all over town to provide telephone service, and would use the same wires for W.U. loops. Now they might have artificially reduced the bandwidth; but then for Desk-Fax you just about need full voice bandwidth. (Used to be you could rent private lines for burglar alarm service very cheaply. Some hobbyists around Chicago discovered that and used burglar alarm lines to set up a private voice and TTY communication system. When Bell found out what was going on they shunted 2uF capacitors across all the burglar alarm lines, making them useless for voice transmission but still good enough for burglar alarms.) > -- jhhaynes at earthlink dot net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:28:54 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Correction Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <fc9335e7-79a3-43d2-a0f9-f649d90a6cee@v42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> On Feb 11, 12:51 am, Michael Grigoni <michael.grig...@cybertheque.org> wrote: > > #### Teletype (tty) I reread the WUTR article and found that: WU would be using ASCII for its new AUTODIN system for the US Dept of Defense and Advanced Record System for the General Records Administration. Teletype Corporation expected half machines to be ASCII in a few years. ASCII was developed as a compromise code between messaging and data processing needs. WU right then anticpated considerably more computer use. I recommend readers interested in this subject check out the history. Those who are technically minded can judge where WU stood at that period of time compared to industry in general and the Bell System. Some of the questions we've been asking in the recent discussion are answered. The articles begin at: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/18-2/p050.htm (this is followed by an article on the private line voice system) For WU data processing see: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/18-4/p133.htm WU put in a private leased-line dial (actually push button) voice telephone system for the Phila-Balt-Wash stock exchange. The article describes technical details. See: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/18-3/p114.htm [click next to go to the next page. While there check out other articles in that issue.] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:05:59 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: WU Telex terminal options Message-ID: <6ea80cd0-4f9e-46d0-9310-f19a45c717a6@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> The linked article from the July 1966 Western Union Tech Review describes options for adding user-provided equipment to Telex machines. This is relation to the recent thread on WU. See: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/20-3/p108.htm Computer access via Telex machine is described in: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/20-3/p120.htm future thoughts: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/20-4/p172.htm Telex to TWX access, including conference calls, and on-line information service access: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/20-3/p130.htm Note that computer access requires typing in very precise strings of characters, with various positions representing different things. This is cumbersome and error prone, but was typical of on-line computer systems in 1966. There are additional articles on Telex in this particular issue, simply use the [next] or [previous] to sequentially go through the issue. Interesting stuff about central office switchgear and the international Telex network, though rather technical. US users could dial Europe directly. Once again, those who have a technical knowledge may wish to comment on WU's prowness as of the time the article was published. [public replies, please] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:43:26 -0800 (PST) From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems Message-ID: <a3774664-873a-4b35-b32f-cc51538962fc@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com> A friend emailed me the following article URL: <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29235628/> Summary: > TelTech Systems ... is excited to introduce "TrapCall," the first > cell phone service that unblocks blocked calls, and so much more. > [...] When a blocked or restricted call shows up on a users cell > phone, the user just presses the button on the phone that would > normally send the call to voicemail. The call then loops through > TrapCall's systems where it's unmasked, then sent back to the user's > phone, with the caller's number displayed as the Caller ID! Is that even possible or feasible? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:40:46 -0500 (EST) From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems Message-ID: <200902190040.TAA16678@ss10.danlan.com> thad@thadlabs.com (Thad Floryan) wrote: |A friend emailed me the following article URL: | |<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29235628/> | |Summary: | |> TelTech Systems ... is excited to introduce "TrapCall," the first |> cell phone service that unblocks blocked calls, and so much more. |> [...] When a blocked or restricted call shows up on a users cell |> phone, the user just presses the button on the phone that would |> normally send the call to voicemail. The call then loops through |> TrapCall's systems where it's unmasked, then sent back to the user's |> phone, with the caller's number displayed as the Caller ID! | |Is that even possible or feasible? They probably simply substitute the ANI for the CallerID. There used to be some carriers that would do this for you but I think they had regulatory issues. I suppose it's possible that when the CallerID is present but the presentation blocking feature is set they just unset it. That would really be asking for trouble I think... Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com ------------------------------ 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 (7 messages) ******************************