|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 225 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Woodstock - telephone/telegraph issues?
Re: Woodstock - telephone/telegraph issues?
Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Re: Sending ringing current toward a CO on a dial tone trunk
Re: Sending ringing current toward a CO on a dial tone trunk - re DAA's
Re: Sending ringing current toward a CO on a dial tone trunk
Re: Sending ringing current toward a CO on a dial tone trunk
Re: "cramming" fraudulent phone charges, was: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: "cramming" fraudulent phone charges, was: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
suggestions for a decent DECT wireless system, but...
Re: suggestions for a decent DECT wireless system, but...
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Central Office noise levels
====== 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: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:07:52 GMT
From: Dale Farmer <dale@cybercom.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Woodstock--telephone/telegraph issues?
Message-ID: <cbAhm.2128$nh2.486@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Woodstock was held 40 years ago. Many newspaper articles about it.
> I'm curious about the telecommunications aspect.
>
> Before the days of cellphones, people would've depended on public
> phones to call home. Except whereever the event was actually held (I
> believe it was other than actually Woodstock), there were probably
> very few phones at all, maybe a rural community dial office.
>
> Also, in something like that, I suspect many kids ran out of money and
> needed to call home and get money wired to them via Western Union,
> which would require an agency near by.
>
> On some special events the telephone company would set up special
> phone lines for the event, phones for reporters, and pay phones for
> the public. Western Union would set up telegraph lines for the wire
> service reporters; and may have still been doing that in 1969.
>
> But Woodstock, as we know, exploded out of control, and maybe there
> wasn't planning for communications.
>
> Would anyone be familiar with what special facilities, if any, Bell
> and WU set up in advance or subsequent to serve the event?
>
My local radio station was using woodstock trivia for their call in
contest yesterday: telco set up banks of temporary pay phones as was
typical in that era. One of the items was "How long was the line to
get to the pay phones?": two hours.
--Dale
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:14:27 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Woodstock--telephone/telegraph issues?
Message-ID: <6645152a0908151114u1fdb7c8co781903681cd8cd7e@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Dale Farmer<dale@cybercom.net> wrote:
>
> My local radio station was using woodstock trivia for their call in
> contest yesterday: telco set up banks of temporary pay phones as was
> typical in that era. Â One of the items was "How long was the line to
> get to the pay phones?": two hours.
Here's a little trivia.
Who was performing at Woodstock the moment I was born? :-)
(Ravi Shankar)
Sorry, no telecom connection, just a trivia one.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
***** Moderator's Note *****
I always thought that Ravi Shankar looked sad while he was playing at
Woodstock.
Sorry, no telephone connection: I just couldn't resist.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 08:20:27 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Message-ID: <siegman-791B4B.08195715082009@news.stanford.edu>
In article
<5c7a9547-83c3-4757-a139-0fcca6185b1d@j21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > !!! FREE THE BSTJ !!!
> > Efforts to make all the *publicly supported* knowledge in these journals
> > available to the public who paid for it have thus far been unavailing.
>
> The Bell System Technical Journal was NOT a publicly supported
> document. It was "paid for" by a private corporation and subscribers
> to it, not the general public.
>
> However, it IS available for study in major libraries.
My words above are -
"to make the *publicly supported* knowledge in these
journals available to the public who paid for it"
The research and the resulting knowledge reported in BSTJ, along with
the preparation and editing of the resulting articles (plus, I would
guess, a substantial fraction of the publication costs), were paid for
by what was in essence, or for all intents and purposes, a very small
"tax" imposed on every individual in the US who had or used a
telephone - a tax collected by the Bell System and used to support
Bell Labs.
There is a substantial movement in the U.S. toward making all publicly
funded or tax-supported research results - specifically including
their subsequent publication in peer-reviewed journals - freely
available to the general public online, either instantly or after a
short embargo; and that is, I think, a reasonable goal.
This otherwise admirable policy is, however, hard on nonprofit
professional societies - in my case, the Optical Society of America -
who organize and provide the unpaid volunteer editorial and refereeing
efforts that make possible peer-reviewed scientific journals. For
many decades we supported these and other useful services we provide
to society from publication revenues, notably from paid subscriptions
by our members along with libraries and companies. We're now trying
to cope with substantially reduced revenues from subscriptions under
these free-access policies by publishing totally free online
peer-reviewed journals (no printed copies at all), with the authors
being asked to pay for the costs of reviewing the articles and getting
them on line.
In any case, the distinguished cadre of researchers who are now the
alumni of the Bell Labs deserve to have their contributions to BSTJ
also available on line - and I'd urge them to get organized and help
make it happen.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:55:23 -0700
From: Mike Wilcox <mjwilcox12@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Message-ID: <C6AC60BB.1B341%mjwilcox12@gmail.com>
On 8/15/09 9:52 AM, in article
siegman-791B4B.08195715082009@news.stanford.edu, "AES"
<siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <5c7a9547-83c3-4757-a139-0fcca6185b1d@j21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>> !!! FREE THE BSTJ !!!
>>> Efforts to make all the *publicly supported* knowledge in these journals
>>> available to the public who paid for it have thus far been unavailing.
>>
>> The Bell System Technical Journal was NOT a publicly supported
>> document. It was "paid for" by a private corporation and subscribers
>> to it, not the general public.
>>
>> However, it IS available for study in major libraries.
>
> My words above are -
>
> "to make the *publicly supported* knowledge in these
> journals available to the public who paid for it"
>
> The research and the resulting knowledge reported in BSTJ, along with
> the preparation and editing of the resulting articles (plus, I would
> guess, a substantial fraction of the publication costs), were paid for
> by what was in essence, or for all intents and purposes, a very small
> "tax" imposed on every individual in the US who had or used a
> telephone - a tax collected by the Bell System and used to support
> Bell Labs.
>
[SNIP]
Customers of any private enterprise always pay for the research that
produced the product they are consuming. I did not, and do not now, pay a
tax for Bell System Research. If I do not wish to pay for Bell System
research I simply no longer consume their services and products.
A look at any P&L sheet will clearly show R&D as an expense by the company
and it also feeds the company's intellectual property asset. So the Bell
System or other company should just give those assets away for free?
Mike Wilcox
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:15:18 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Message-ID: <siegman-85D8A1.14144815082009@news.stanford.edu>
In article <C6AC60BB.1B341%mjwilcox12@gmail.com>,
Mike Wilcox <mjwilcox12@gmail.com> wrote:
> Customers of any private enterprise always pay for the research that
> produced the product they are consuming.
No, they certainly don't.
At least, the customers certainly don't pay for it in the price they pay
for the product, nor does the company in any direct way pay for it, if
-- as is very often the case -- a large part of the basic and even much
of the applied research that led to, or made possible, the product was
performed by faculty and students working on government-funded grants at
a university; published as rapidly as possible in an open scientific
journal; and acquired from there, for free, by the company.
Or if it was done at Bell Labs and published in BSTJ.
> A look at any P&L sheet will clearly show R&D as an expense by the company
> and it also feeds the company's intellectual property asset. So the Bell
> System or other company should just give those assets away for free?
Giving this kind of knowledge away for free was exactly what the Bell
System did when it published all this basic and very often quite applied
knowledge in BSTJ.
And as regards intellectual property, Bell Labs did require all BSTJ
authors to clear their publications (in BSTJ or any other journal)
through the BTL patent office before they were submitted for
publication; and Bell did take out patents -- or at least submit
applications -- on some of the things that were published.
But, as is the case for so many patent applications filed by any
company, the great majority of these applications were submitted
primarily for defensive purposes, to ensure that no one else who
subsequently came up with the same idea or result could patent it and
try to block the Bell System from using it.
Bell Labs did take out patents, and did license some of them, typically
at very modest rates, or in cross-licensing arrangements for patents
from other companies. But patents were a minor part of the output or
the objectives at Bell Labs. And, a nontrivial concern was that Bell
Labs researchers had to be allowed to publish very freely, because
otherwise the kind of superb people who were sought as Bell Labs
researchers would never have come there.
[I suspect this will be my last post on this thread.]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Message-ID: <5cefb16d-59c4-44fc-9e3c-1d7c858ac1cd@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 15, 12:52 pm, AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> The research and the resulting knowledge reported in BSTJ, along with
> the preparation and editing of the resulting articles (plus, I would
> guess, a substantial fraction of the publication costs), were paid for
> by what was in essence, or for all intents and purposes, a very small
> "tax" imposed on every individual in the US who had or used a
> telephone - a tax collected by the Bell System and used to support
> Bell Labs.
Wrong. Absolutely wrong. (We've heard this argument before).
Governments collect taxes, not private corporations.
Telephone subscribers paid for _telephone service_ provided by a
private company, as regulated by state and federal regulators. They
paid NO "tax". You paid for that research and you received the
benefits of that research in better service and lower rates; you have
no claim on anything else and certainly not on the assets.
Indeed, by your argument any citizen could claim the right to be
seated for free at a White House state dinner; after all, your taxes
paid for it.
> There is a substantial movement in the U.S. toward making all publicly
> funded or tax-supported research results - specifically including
> their subsequent publication in peer-reviewed journals - freely
> available to the general public online, either instantly or after a
> short embargo; and that is, I think, a reasonable goal.
That is a future movement, not relevant to the issue at hand. It
would be a violation of the US Constitution go to backward.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:27:09 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sending ringing current toward a CO on a dial tone trunk
Message-ID: <Ec2dnUdfQrtwchvXnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <raKdnTjL9bgq2hnXnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>In article <20090812163118.GA688@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
>Telecom digest moderator
><telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom.csail.mit.edu>
>wrote:
>>This is an unusual question, so please bear with me.
>>
>>Once of the readers has asked for help interfacing a "Local
>>Battery/Local Magneto" PBX with the PSTN, and I'm trying to think
>>"outside the cubicle", and come up with a solution that doesn't
>>require spending a lot of money.
>
>
>Depends what you consider 'a lot' <grin>
>
>Interfacing a common-battery system to a local one _is_ going to take
>a fair amount of 'glue' hardware.
Egad! I was wrong.
Thinking a bit more about the problem, I realize that it is _much_
simpler than I originally thought, or what the OP proposed.
It is simply -not- reasonable to do a 'direct' connection between the
PSTN and the magneto board in question.
*HOWEVER* one -can-, relatively trivially, provide interconnect
*_functionality_ between the two systems, as follows:
Take a regular PSTN tail-loop, with a standard CPE set. Add a
'ham-radio type' manual phone-patch to the line. Connect the
audio in/out from -that- to a line on the switchboard. (this may
need amps/attenuation, but is simple, inexpensive, audio
components)
Since the PBX _operator_ is always involved in call handling,
_they_ provide all the necessary glue 'logic' using the
carbon-based computing system between their ears.
For an outgoing call to the PSTN, the switchboard customer
'rings' the operator, and gives the desired number. The operator
picks up the telco set, and makes the call. When the called
party answers, they (a) switch the phone patch on, and (b) plug
the 'calling' extension into the extension that connects to the
phone patch.
For an incoming call _from_ the PSTN, the operator answers the
PSTN set, determines who the call is for, then, on the PBX,
'rings' the appropriate extension, and when somebody answers,
cross-plugs to the phone patch extension and switches the phone
patch on.
For bonus points, one adds a detector on the line that -- only
when the phone patch is switched _on_ -- listens for any of: dial
tone, a crybaby, or the loud screech the PSTN C.O. uses to alert
to an off-hook phone. (when detected, it alerts the operator --
that the call can be disconnected.)
Doesn't need the Asterisk, etc. at all.
***** Moderator's Note *****
There are a couple of kinks in this approach.
1. Ham radio phone patches are intended to a connect separate receiver
and transmitter units to a phone line, so they contain hybrids and
a balancing network, which wouldn't work for connecting two-wire
circuits together.
2. I don't recall any energy absorption circuitry in the phone patches
I've owned: I may be having a senior moment, but assuming not, a
phone patch could be damaged by ringing voltage, and there's _way_
too much of that floating around in a "ringdown" system.
However, I like your idea of using off-the-shelf components. Ma Bell
used to offer a "Direct Access Arrangement", which came attached to a
500/2500 set and was activated by pulling up one of the switch-hook
posts. It was a two-wire interface, and contained circuitry to protect
the network, and IIRC, it had a 210 jack that might connect directly
to a switchboard cord.
Anyone remember what it was called or the USOC code(s). Any available
used?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:54:15 -0600
From: Reed <reedh@rmi.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sending ringing current toward a CO on a dial tone trunk --re DAA's
Message-ID: <JLmdnTOPXawDjxrXnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
> Anyone remember what it was called or the USOC code(s). Any available
> used?
>
some USOC info here, page 4
http://cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/fl/a115.pdf
lots of technical detail here
http://www.3amsystems.com/wireline/daa.htm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:16:10 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sending ringing current toward a CO on a dial tone trunk
Message-ID: <hP-dnY63gvW3oh7XnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Aug 12, 12:40 pm, Telecom digest moderator
> <telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-t...@and-this-
> too.telecom.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Now, you're probably wondering why anyone would use such a setup, but
>> AFAIK this is a real place, and the equipment is really there and in
>> use every day. The reader I'm trying to help says the owners feel
>> strongly that the "crank" phones add a distinctive charm to the cabins
>> and create an "old timey" atmosphere which is good for business, so
>> they are determined to keep the existing equipment.
>
> [Moderator snip]
>
> I would suggest containing the Business Office Professional-Services
> representative at the phoneco serving the hotel.
I've already traded emails with the Verizon Media Relations staff
concerning the attitudes and rudeness of the representatives at the
business office, and I'll run a story on the results in a couple of
days. For now, suffice to say that the company's attitude could be best
summarized as "Go Away Little Man, You Bother Me".
>> 3. ... what "work around" is available that would allow the 555
>> PBX to interface with the PSTN despite it's lack of DC
>> supervision and the need to use ring-down signalling?
>
> [Moderator snip]
>
> But I would question the need for the hotel operator to require
> magneto signaling to the C.O. Switchboards did handle both types of
> signaling and acted as an interface between the two systems. I don't
> think there's a reason that the switchboard couldn't have standard PBX
> trunk circuit and magneto circuits for the extensions, though the
> cord circuits may need modification.
That sounds like a possibly workable idea. Have you any suggestions on
how/where to _find_ such a piece of equipment?
Bill Horne
Speaking strictly for myself
***** Moderator's Note *****
Robert Bonomi served as "Guest Moderator" for this post.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:36:50 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sending ringing current toward a CO on a dial tone trunk
Message-ID: <h67695$lp0$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Bill Horne wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Aug 12, 12:40 pm, Telecom digest moderator
>> <telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-t...@and-this-
>> too.telecom.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, you're probably wondering why anyone would use such a setup, but
>>> AFAIK this is a real place, and the equipment is really there and in
>>> use every day. The reader I'm trying to help says the owners feel
>>> strongly that the "crank" phones add a distinctive charm to the cabins
>>> and create an "old timey" atmosphere which is good for business, so
>>> they are determined to keep the existing equipment.
>>
>> [Moderator snip]
>>
>> I would suggest containing the Business Office Professional-Services
>> representative at the phoneco serving the hotel.
>
> I've already traded emails with the Verizon Media Relations staff
> concerning the attitudes and rudeness of the representatives at the
> business office, and I'll run a story on the results in a couple of
> days. For now, suffice to say that the company's attitude could be best
> summarized as "Go Away Little Man, You Bother Me".
You are still dealing with Hell Atlantic. Dealing in other areas you can
come up better.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, inc, A Rot in Hell. Co.
***** Moderator's Note *****
We always called it "Bell Titanic", since it was listing slightly to
starboard, down at the head, and the management was always rearranging
the deck chairs.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:03:55 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: "cramming" fraudulent phone charges, was: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <p38e85pme9hdehete5ktot3tvvtr3lpoc5@4ax.com>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>I sometimes feel that Ma Bell's co-operative billing agreements are
>revenge for all the years she put up with we ungrateful wretches
>scamming her in ways both subtle and gross. ;-)
>
>My grandfather had a code book filled with hundreds of names, and he'd
>call his office at least once per day to find out if his pressence was
>required. If <name #99> wasn't available for a person-to-person call,
>he knew that nothing was going on. If his secretary said that <name
>#99> wasn't available, but <name #15> was, he knew that he had to
>rearrange his schedule to go see <name #15>.
>
>My grandfather was a state representative, and chair of the committee
>that oversaw New England Telephone & Telegraph, so I suppose he had a
>wider lattitude than many others, but such scams were common in the
>days when a "long distance" call could cost an average worker a day's
>pay.
When my siblings and I were growing up in suburban Boston in the
1950's, we had measured phone service because my parents too cheap
(er, thrifty?) to pay for unlimited service.
All of our friends had unlimited service. We were instructed to
arrange with each friend that if we wanted to call them, we would let
call them and hang up after two rings. That was a signal to call us
back.
My brother and I got weekend jobs at a local supermarket a mile from
our home. When we got ready to come home on a Friday or saturday
night, we would drop a nickle into the pay phone, dial, let it ring
twice, hang up and get our nickle back. That was a signal to our
parents to come and drive us home.
Hopefully, the statute of limitations has run out on these actions.
:-)
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's funny how people are sometimes: the rates came down, users
stopped trying to game the system, and the ILECs are making more money
than ever.
Does anyone have data on the rate/usage curve(s) that shows the "knee"
point in the price curve? In other words, how much did the prices have
to fall in order to stimulate the demand to the point where the lower
prices resulted in higher profits?
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: "cramming" fraudulent phone charges, was: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <bdf9d307-14c4-42e2-b2fb-a3146f829389@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 15, 6:17 pm, Richard <r...@richbonnie.com> wrote:
> When my siblings and I were growing up in suburban Boston in the
> 1950's, we had measured phone service because my parents too cheap
> (er, thrifty?) to pay for unlimited service.
In today's dollars, the cost differential was about $15-$25 per
month. For a family of modest means, that extra $15 each month adds
up; certainly $25 adds up.
In the 1950s, plenty of people had two or even four party service,
again due to the cost savings. My parents had message rate / two
party service back then; later on they switched to private line
unlimited. They were able to do this because phone rates were stable
while salaries were increasing.
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> Does anyone have data on the rate/usage curve(s) that shows the "knee"
> point in the price curve? In other words, how much did the prices have
> to fall in order to stimulate the demand to the point where the lower
> prices resulted in higher profits?
It's a tricky question because for an analysis to be accurate, all
prices must be adjusted for inflation. Many phone rates essentially
went down due to inflation even if the dollar amount remained
constant.
In the case of long distance rates, after WW II each rate decrease
generated higher demand. The Bell System developed higher capacity
inter-city trunks (coax, microwave, carrier) which created economies
of scale. The cost per individual call dropped.
I came across a Western Union ad from the mid 1950s claiming the
telegram was cheaper than the typical long distance call; with a chart
of costs. Around 1960 or so long distance rates dropped while
telegraph rates went up and a phone call became cheaper than a
telegram.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:45:04 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: suggestions for a decent DECT wireless system, but...
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0908151738050.10850@panix5.panix.com>
... but ... with one key requirement.
Most of today's cordless DECT phones seem to be decent
enough in regards to current low expectations of voice
quality, but they all seem to share one major deficiency.
I've been using an acceptable Uniden multi handset system
(actually two of them in the same home) but I've gotten
really, really, pissed at the miserable proprietary
battery packs.
Any suggestions for a decent system using standard AA or AAA
cells so I can swap in relatively cheap new NiMHs when needed?
Oh, and a decent lifetime when charged would be nice, too.
I can go for most of a work week with my Omnipoint GSM
phone between charges; surely someone has a cordless that
matches it.
Thanks
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
***** Moderator's Note *****
I have a Panasonic cordless setup; the battery life is excellent. It's
no longer made, but you can check out their current models.
BTW, don't forget that 2.5GHz phones share the same band as 802.11B
and 802.11G wireless routers, and they will interfere with each
other. I bought the 5.8GHz model to avoid the problem.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:39:50 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: suggestions for a decent DECT wireless system, but...
Message-ID: <bHHhm.103020$8B7.63407@newsfe20.iad>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I have a Panasonic cordless setup; the battery life is excellent. It's
> no longer made, but you can check out their current models.
>
> BTW, don't forget that 2.5GHz phones share the same band as 802.11B
> and 802.11G wireless routers, and they will interfere with each
> other. I bought the 5.8GHz model to avoid the problem.
>
> Bill Horne
I just replaced my battery-depleted Sony cordless phones
(non-replacable batteries) with two Panasonics from Amazon.com.
These new phones use rechargeable AAA MiMH batteries (customer
replacable). 60 duplex channels in frequency range of 1.92 to 1.93
GHz. (new one for me)
Built-in answering machine, which I will never use. Handset speaker
phone.
Model KX-TG1031.
Best I've ever had.
The only gripe I have is turning the ringer on and off requires a
couple of confusing menu selections.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:58:21 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <jcbe85ptdfv55hcvma0691v1vekdbc55dv@4ax.com>
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 20:46:10 -0400 (EDT), Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 8/7/2009 2:13:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
>thad@thadlabs.com writes:
>
>> But the finger is pointing at GSM as the culprit. Though I realize
>> the GSM interference isn't a life-threatening situation (hmmm, what
>> about being in a hospital?), I thought consumer appliances are not
>> supposed to be causing such interference.
>
>I was in the hospital a few months ago and using my AT&T phone. So
>were many of my visitors. Others I have no idea what carrier/system
>they were using but I know some of them were ATM. Nurses and others
>called and answered calls all over the place.
A couple of years ago, the hospital even let me use a cell phone in
intensive care, recovering from a heart bypass operation, with lots of
wires running from my chest to monitors. Nobody was concerned about
interference. And as far as I know, there was none; at least no
nurses came running into my room because of alarms going off due to
cell phone use.
OT, ... Alarms did go off whenever I drifted off to sleep. The
heart-rate monitor had a trip point at 50 beats/minute, and my heart
rate drops to the mid-forties when I sleep (i.e., I hibernate). They
changed the trip point to 40, and I got some good sleep.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:46:08 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A8772F0.1020800@thadlabs.com>
On 8/15/2009 3:23 PM, Richard wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 20:46:10 -0400 (EDT), Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 8/7/2009 2:13:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
>> thad@thadlabs.com writes:
>>
>>> But the finger is pointing at GSM as the culprit. Though I realize
>>> the GSM interference isn't a life-threatening situation (hmmm, what
>>> about being in a hospital?), I thought consumer appliances are not
>>> supposed to be causing such interference.
>> I was in the hospital a few months ago and using my AT&T phone. So
>> were many of my visitors. Others I have no idea what carrier/system
>> they were using but I know some of them were ATM. Nurses and others
>> called and answered calls all over the place.
>
> A couple of years ago, the hospital even let me use a cell phone in
> intensive care, recovering from a heart bypass operation, with lots of
> wires running from my chest to monitors. Nobody was concerned about
> interference. And as far as I know, there was none; at least no
> nurses came running into my room because of alarms going off due to
> cell phone use.
I would expect medical equipment, especially that used in a hospital, to
be better shielded than the general run of consumer electronics. A Google
search found this:
<http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/4166/1/1/
suggesting defibrillators are at risk and more research/study needs to be
performed. The fact even pro audio studios are affected by GSM cell phones
and that the problem has been known since (at least) 1994 per the "post from
the past" retrieved from comp.dcom.telecom's archives last week suggests one
should exercise caution. It's been nearly 60 years since I've been in any
hospital for anything other than a broken toe so I don't have any "feel" for
the susceptibility of hospital electronics to GSM interference and I'd hate to
be the one whose phone disables someone's pacemaker.
> OT, ... Alarms did go off whenever I drifted off to sleep. The
> heart-rate monitor had a trip point at 50 beats/minute, and my heart
> rate drops to the mid-forties when I sleep (i.e., I hibernate). They
> changed the trip point to 40, and I got some good sleep.
40 is low. I have a pulse oximeter which I bought as a check on the automatic
blood pressure thingie I occasionally use and I've never been below 60 or so.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:22:56 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Message-ID: <ccd.5e07e86d.37b8ab60@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/15/2009 5:19:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
siegman@stanford.edu writes:
> Bell did take out patents -- or at least submit applications -- on
> some of the things that were published.
Companies cannot take out patents. Ther inventor takes out the
patent and then assigns it to the compny. As I recall, either the
BSTJ or the Bell Labs Record in each issue published a list of patents
applied for and those granted, with the names of the inventors.
I think this was done uniformly on all inventions that were patentable.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:57:43 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Message-ID: <4A8775A7.4010701@thadlabs.com>
On 8/15/2009 5:46 PM, Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/15/2009 5:19:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
> siegman@stanford.edu writes:
>
>> Bell did take out patents -- or at least submit applications -- on
>> some of the things that were published.
>
> Companies cannot take out patents. Ther inventor takes out the
> patent and then assigns it to the compny. As I recall, either the
> BSTJ or the Bell Labs Record in each issue published a list of patents
> applied for and those granted, with the names of the inventors.
>
> I think this was done uniformly on all inventions that were patentable.
Companies, even US government agencies, can file a patent application on behalf
of the inventor and have it assigned to itself (which is very common).
That was done, for example, by the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) on behalf of
Donald Wilkes, inventor of the Rolamite bearing at Sandia Labs. You can read
that in the Scientific American short-article/-blurb from 1967 here:
<http://thadlabs.com/Rolamite/sciam_article.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:45:53 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Message-ID: <3pve85hha58dk33jkpd49ggcmgigpofabn@4ax.com>
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:46:35 -0400 (EDT), Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 8/15/2009 5:19:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
>siegman@stanford.edu writes:
>
>> Bell did take out patents -- or at least submit applications -- on
>> some of the things that were published.
>
> Companies cannot take out patents. Ther inventor takes out the
> patent and then assigns it to the compny. As I recall, either the
> BSTJ or the Bell Labs Record in each issue published a list of
> patents applied for and those granted, with the names of the
> inventors.
>
> I think this was done uniformly on all inventions that were
> patentable.
That's right. Patents are issued to individuals, not companies, and
then assigned to companies. When I started to work at Bell labs in
1959, one of the many forms I filled out was a document assigning any
patents I developed to AT&T. For this I was paid the princely sum of
one dollar. Of course, the dollar was worth a lot more back then. :-)
As I recall, the agreement also required me to offer to AT&T any
patent I developed in my spare time at home. If they didn't want it,
I could keep it myself.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:47:01 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Central Office noise levels
Message-ID: <BuCdnTdrztOI-BrXnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
I've been asked for help by a veteran who worked in military central
offices for many years. He's looking for hard data on the noise levels
found in military central offices, and I told him I'd spread the word.
His name is Frank Julian, and he has applied for compensation for
hearing loss, so I'm sure he'd appreciate help from other veterans who
have suffered hearing loss from CO environments.
Here's his info:
Frank Julian
frank.julian01 "at" gmail.com
518-948-8330
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
------------------------------
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: 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 (20 messages)
******************************
|
or 