|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 40 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data
Re: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages
Re: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages
Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain
Re: Lucent MLX phone behavior
Re: Great Movie Telephone Sounds
Re: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages
Re: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages
FIOS battery life?
====== 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: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:11:10 -0500
From: ed <bernies@netaxs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data
Message-ID: <20100208001110.15402g1frud7mu4g@webmail.uslec.net>
If anyone wants to hear how easy it is for law-enforcement to snoop on
your physical location (with the friendly help of your mobile
carrier--which will gladly sell your privacy for a bag of your tax
dollars and as little documentation as a scribbled post-it note
request), then call Sprint PCS' law-enforcement surveillance
autoattendant at (800)877-7330, Option 4 for "GPS ping requests".
Telecom Digest list members in the Philadelphia area may want to visit
the Federal Courthouse at 6th & Market Streets this Thursday morning
(2/11/10) to see and hear U.S. government spooks argue why they
shouldn't have to show probable cause to electronically track your
movements and spend your tax dollars doing it. ACLU, EFF, and CDT
lawyers will be there arguing for your electronic privacy rights.
A good public showing might convey to the Judges that "We the People"
don't want our government performing unwarranted electronic
surveillance on us. Plus it's a good opportunity to meet and thank
lawyers from public-advocacy groups who are working hard to protect
your electronic privacy rights.
(Please forgive my 'activist' posting, but I figured Telecom Digest
list members might understand and care more about this issue than the
general public, and are in a better position to educate others about
it.)
-bernieS
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202442083077
3rd Circuit to Mull Privacy of Cell Phone Data
Case offers rare glimpse into the mechanics of federal criminal
investigations where nearly all documents are filed ex parte and stay
under seal until indictments are handed up
Shannon P. Duffy
The Legal Intelligencer
February 08, 2010
In a case that could prove to be one of the most important privacy
rights battles of the modern era, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals will hear argument this week on the proper legal standard to
apply when prosecutors demand cell phone location data.
The data, which are recorded about once every seven seconds whenever a
cell phone is turned on, effectively track the whereabouts and the
comings and goings of every cell phone user.
Justice Department lawyers argue that, by statute, they need only show
"reasonable grounds" to believe that such records are "relevant and
material to an ongoing criminal investigation."
But a federal magistrate judge in Pittsburgh strongly disagreed in
February 2008, issuing a 52-page opinion that said the prosecutors
must meet the "probable cause" standard.
"This court believes that citizens continue to hold a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the information the government seeks
regarding their physical movements/locations -- even now that such
information is routinely produced by their cell phones -- and that,
therefore, the government's investigatory search of such information
continues to be protected by the Fourth Amendment's warrant
requirement," U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan wrote.
Now, in an appeal of Lenihan's ruling, the 3rd Circuit will become the
first federal appellate court to tackle the question as Justice
Department lawyers square off against a coalition of privacy and civil
liberties lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center
for Democracy & Technology and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The appeal is scheduled to be heard on Thursday by 3rd Circuit Judges
Dolores K. Sloviter and Jane R. Roth and visiting 9th Circuit Senior
Judge A. Wallace Tashima.
Justice Department attorney Mark Eckenwiler will argue for the federal
government and will be opposed by Kevin Bankston of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation and law professor Susan Freiwald of the University
of San Francisco School of Law.
[snip]
Under a lower standard, Lenihan said, the data would be "particularly
vulnerable to abuse" because of the ex parte nature of the proceedings
and the "undetectable nature" of the cell phone service provider's
compliance with such an order.
[...]
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:51:23 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages
Message-ID: <4B6FB46B.3060600@thadlabs.com>
On 2/7/2010 9:51 AM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Feb 6, 9:46 pm, sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
>> I think today it would be rare to find anybody I know listed because
>> nearly everyone I know uses cell phones and I don't know of anyone who
>> is paying to be listed. Or do AT&T cell phone customers get automatic
>> white pages listings?
>
> We just got a new edition of the White Pages delievered and it's quite
> thick, so obviously a great many residences still have a listing.
Right. See http://thadlabs.com/PIX/at+t_phone_book.jpg [top cover]
That phonebook was left on my door step in a plastic bag even though I
haven't had landline service since 2002 (though I do have stock in the
company) -- I'm not listed. And having AT&T Mobility as a cell carrier
does not qualify one for a listing in the White Pages (which is fine
with me).
> I only know one person who dumped their landline for a cellphone.
Now you know two, the second being me. I abandoned all 4 landlines
in 2002 because the effective cost was $2.50/minute given how much
I actually used a phone. Phone spamming REALLY was the last straw.
> I regularly use the White Pages hardcopy to get the phone number of
> people or businesses.
Likewise. Just this past week I had to find a new barber since the
shop I've patronized in town went belly up since my last visit.
And there was a $3 coupon off the 'cut in the phone book ad! :-)
> As previously mentioned, I've found on-line listings notoriously
> unreliable. On-line Yellow Pages need better filtering--when I seek a
> pizza joint I don't want places 100 miles away, which is what I get
> now.
On-line listings are often so wrong it's unbelievable; of the businesses
whose phone numbers I've looked up online the past several years I'd
say fewer than 25% were correct. Even companies with websites don't
always have the correct number on their sites (often missing the AC)
with sometimes an incorrect or obsolete number.
With the way area codes appear here in Silicon Valley, it's important
for a company to list a complete number. After my SIM card went
belly-up last year, reconstructing the "address book" was no fun from
public and online sources.
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:45:16 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages
Message-ID: <hkpf2s$f8f$1@news.eternal-september.org>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Feb 6, 9:46 pm, sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
>> I think today it would be rare to find anybody I know listed because
>> nearly everyone I know uses cell phones and I don't know of anyone who
>> is paying to be listed. Or do AT&T cell phone customers get automatic
>> white pages listings?
>
> We just got a new edition of the White Pages delievered and it's quite
> thick, so obviously a great many residences still have a listing.
>
> I only know one person who dumped their landline for a cellphone.
>
> I regularly use the White Pages hardcopy to get the phone number of
> people or businesses.
>
> As previously mentioned, I've found on-line listings notoriously
> unreliable. On-line Yellow Pages need better filtering--when I seek a
> pizza joint I don't want places 100 miles away, which is what I get
> now.
>
The AT&T local digital addition is very good, it is a digital version of
the local pages and it set up just like the printed version.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:14:34 -0800 (PST)
From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain
Message-ID: <811437.93064.qm@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
I recently posted the following information to several other telecom
related Yahoo Groups and "Listserves", but I hadn't included Telecom
Digest (comp.dcom.telecom). Many participants in Telecom Digest are
also on one or another of these Yahoo Groups and/or the listserves,
but there are still some TD participants or visitors who are not, and
they might still have an interest in this.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
WECO/Lucent/Alcatel 1AESS switches still exist in the US. There are
around 60 such 1As remaining, basically all within at&t/SBC/Ameritech,
sbc's at&t/BellSouth, and at&t/SBC/Southwestern-Bell territory. From
what I can tell, there are NO more 1As in at&t/SBC/Pacific*Telesis
(Pacific*Bell in CA nor Nevada*Bell), nor Qwest/US-West territory, nor
Cincinnati Bell territory, nor at&t/SBC/SNET (Connecticut).
VeriZon/Bell-Atlantic/NYNEX does not seem to have any 1As remaining
(nor does long-time VZ/BA/NYNEX/NET&T-now-FairPoint in ME/NH/VT), but
VeriZon/Bell-Atlantic in C&P seems to have one in Baltimore MD, and
two in Virginia (Richmond, Norfolk). It doesn't seem like
VeriZon/BA/Bell-of-PA nor NJ-Bell have any more 1As still in service.
There were VERY FEW (no more than about four or five) Northern
Electric NE-1ESS switches manufactured/installed in the mid/late
1960s-era for Bell Canada in Toronto ON and Montreal PQ. These were
replaced LONG ago. These were manufactured/installed back when
Northern Electric and Bell Canada still had a VERY CLOSE working
relationship and licensing arrangement with Western Electric/AT&T/Bell
Labs of the US. Back then, virtually everything developed by the "US"
Bell System was also made available under license (although there
might be some modifications) to Bell Canada and Northern
Electric. That licensing arrangement for new developments ended around
1975/76, some twenty years following the 1956 Consent Decree that the
Bell System entered into with the US DOJ. It SEEMS that it was the
US federal government more than the Canadians who back then wanted
AT&T to withdraw from Canada! Prior licensing arrangements w/r/t
Western Electric and Northern Electric, now known as Northern Telecom
in the post-1975 period (Nortel) would be honored, but there would no
longer be any almost automatic licensing of US Bell and Western
innovations directly to Bell Canada as such.
Some other non-digital SPC (Stored Program Control) switches include
the Northern Telecom SP(x) series, but I think that all of these in
the US and Canada have since been replaced with digital switches. And
the (AGCS) GTE-AE (x)EAX switches in the US and Canada (except for the
5EAX which is really the digital GTD-5) all seem to have been replaced
with digital offices of one kind or another. There are still quite a
number of 5EAX/GTD-5 switches still in service, but these are digital
offices, not "analog" non-digital yet still SPC offices...
In the early 1970s, since Bell Canada and Northern Electric knew that
the day was fast approaching for the separation between Bell/Northern
of Canada and the "US" Bell System, especially as AT&T was selling off
more and more of its holdings of Bell Canada and NECo, Bell Canada and
NECO created "Bell Northern Research", sort of like a Bell Labs for
Canada, their "own" Canadian R&D unit. It was BNR that developed the
SP(x) series of stored program switches heavily used in Canada (and by
many non-Bell telcos in the US and elsewhere in the North American
network), as well as the early truly digital switches, the DMS series,
also heavily used in Canada, by independent telcos in the US (and
elsewhere), and even by Bell telcos in the US both prior to
divestiture but also more-so after 1984 divestiture.
I also seem to think that there are no longer any more WECo 2(x)ESS or
3ESS analog-non-digital-yet-still-SPC offices still in service. The
4ESS and 5ESS are digital switches though -- the 4ESS is mainly for
toll and tandem functions, and these are slowly being replaced with
more recent model digital (tandem/toll) switches in the AT&T Long
Lines network and some BOC/ILEC networks which inherited them
post-divestiture. The 5ESS digital is quite versatile, handling local,
tandem, toll, operator (OSPS) services, or combinations thereof. And
Lucent/Alcatel keeps coming out with new features and models. But the
old 1AESS (which enhanced/replaced the 1ESS of the
mid-1960s/early-1970s era) is still around, although there aren't many
left. However, "back in the days", the 1/1AESS was in ALL Bell
territories, even SNET in Connecticut and in Cincinnati Bell
territory, both as replacements for SXS, Panel, Crossbar, and as brand
new wirecenters or "expansions" of existing central offices, but to
think that it's now down to around 60 such offices still in service,
and only in a few of the old Bell telco territories!
But of at&t/SBC/Ameritech (Michigan-Bell and Illinois-Bell, but
nothing left in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin), sbc's at&t/BellSouth (both
Southern Bell and South Central Bell), and at&t/SBC/SW-Bell (in the
St.Louis MO area and scattered about Texas), there are still several,
although these are SLOWLY being replaced by digital switches and
packet switches.
In October and November 2009, at&t's technical notices website (I
don't visit this each and every day... that's why I haven't posted
this until now) had notices about the elimination of a Dearborn MI and
a Livonia MI 1AESS.
On Thursday 22-October-2009, at&t (ILEC) issued ATT20091022L.1 which
can be downloaded from:
http://www.att.com/public_affairs/regulatory_documents/ATT20091022L.1_Web.doc
Sometime during 4Q/2010 (exact date not shown), LIVNMIMNCG0 Livonia MI
"Main" 1AESS is to be replaced with a new Nortel Packet Remote switch,
LIVNMIMNRP0. The Packet Remote will be hosted by WAYNMIMN20T/DS1 Wayne
MI "Main" Nortel DMS-200 tandem, which doesn't appear to have any
c.o.codes. (Wayne MI DS0 does have local c.o.codes though).
LIVNMIMNCG0 Livonia MI "Main" 1AESS has SS7 Point Code 250-050-051.
LIVNMIMNRP0 Livonia MI Nortel Remote Packet Switch will use the same
SS7 Point Code 250-050-045 as its Wayne MI Nortel-DMS-200 host/tandem
WAYNMIMN20T/DS1.
The "default" c.o.codes involved in the switch replacement are:
313-937 for the Detroit-Zone-05 MI ratecenter;
734-261,421,422,425,427,458,513,522,524 for the Livonia MI ratecenter.
On Monday 02-November-2009, at&t (ILEC) issued ATT20091102L.1 which can
be downloaded from:
http://www.att.com/public_affairs/regulatory_documents/ATT20091102L.1_Web.doc
Sometime during 3Q/2010 (exact date not shown), DRBRMIDBCG0 Dearborn MI
"Main" 1AESS is to be eliminated, its 313-NXX c.o.codes, lines, customers
all migrated over to the co-located DRBRMIDBDS0 WECO/Lucent/Alcatel 5ESS.
SS7 Point Codes involved:
DRBRMIDBCG0 1AESS: 250-050-048
DRBRMIDBDS0 5ESS: 250-050-043
The "default" c.o.codes on the 1AESS include:
313-277,561,562,563,565,724, all on the Detroit-Zone-06 MI ratecenter.
The "default" c.o.codes on the 5ESS include:
313-274,278,359,730,791,792, all on the Detroit-Zone-06 MI ratecenter.
NOTE that in BOTH switch replacements, I mention "default" c.o.codes.
Remember that with portability, there might be customers with OTHER
c.o.codes who ported-in to the old 1As being replaced, or there might
be customers who have these indicated c.o.codes who have now
ported-out of the old 1As and are now already on some digital or
packet switch.
Additionally, I have compiled the following listing from NUMEROUS
different sources, of what seems to be all of the other (some 59)
1AESS offices remaining in the US as of early 2010 -- the three in
VZ/C&P, and the several in at&t/MI-Bell, at&t/IL-Bell,
at&t/Southern-Bell, at&t/South-Central-Bell,
at&t/Southwestern-Bell. The list below does NOT include the two
at&t/MI-Bell 1As mentioned above that are scheduled to be replaced
sometime later during 2010 (Livonia MI, Dearborn MI).
I hope I don't have any typos here. I tried to get ALL of the (BOC)
NPA-NXX c.o.codes on these 1As. I did NOT include "paging" prefixes of
other paging providers. There might still "appear" to be a BOC 1AESS
in service in some resources, but the NPA-NXX c.o.codes associated are
NOT those of the BOC, however, and those are not included here, as
their inclusion in some resources is probably an anomaly.
I have included the c.o.switch "building names" as well. If a building
name is NOT shown, then it is assumed to be known as "Main". Some
building-ID-codes in the 7th/8th positions of the CLLI are 'MA' or
'MN' and these seem to always be known as "Main". 'MT' could mean
"Main/Toll" by some BOCs. Some BOCs use a two-alpha abbreviation
reflecting the ratecenter or locality name again for the "building"
code, such as Oak Park 'OP' in Illinois listed below, so I consider
that to be "Oak Park IL -- Main", and don't give any ADDITIONAL
reference to "Oak Park" nor "Main" for the building name.
VeriZon/Bell-Atlantic/C&P:
- - - - - - - - - -
BLTMMDEDCG0 Baltimore MD
"Edmondson Avenue"
410-233,362,566,624,945,947
RCMDVAHLCG0 Richmond VA
"Hull Street"
804-230,231,232,233,291,319
NRFLVAGSCG0 Norfolk-Zone-02 VA
"Granby Street"
757-480,531,583,587,588
at&t/SBC/Ameritech/Michigan-Bell:
- - - - - - - - - -
BRHMMIMNCG0 Birmingham MI
248-258,433,540,642,644,645,646,647,901,988
PNTCMIWSCG0 Pontiac MI
"West"
248-681,682,683,706.738
WYNDMIMNCG0 Wyandotte MI
734-246,281,282,283,284,285,324
LNNGMISOCG0 Lansing MI
"South"
517-272,393,394,882,887
GDRPMIBL770 Grand Rapids MI
"BEll"
(the co-located GDRPMIBLDS1 Nortel-DMS-100 has some 616-23x codes, which
were known as 'BEll-x' in the 2L-5N days)
616-770
at&t/SBC/Ameritech/Illinois-Bell:
- - - - - - - - - -
CHCGILAUCG0 Chicago IL
"AUStin"
773-261,287,378,379,473,626,854,921
OKPKILOPCG1 Oak Park IL
708-209,366,383,386,445,488,524,660,763,771,848
at&t/BellSouth/Southern-Bell:
- - - - - - - - - -
ATLNGAAD69F Atlanta GA
"Adamsville"
404-472,505,691,696,699
ATLNGACD28F Atlanta GA
"Columbia Drive"
404-282,284,286,289,534
ATLNGAGR24F Atlanta GA
"Gresham"
404-212,241,243,244,328,381
ATLNGAHR79E Atlanta GA
"Hollywood Road"
404-792,794,799
ATLNGAWE75F Atlanta GA
"West End"
404-752,753,755,756,758
CRTNGAMA83C Carrollton GA
770-214,830,832,834,836,838
678-796
FRBNGAEB96A Fairburn GA
Atlanta-South ratecenter
"East Broad"
770-306,774,892,964,969
LGRNGAMA88C LaGrange GA
706-242,812,837,845,882,883,884,885 LaGrange GA ratecenter
334-982 Oakland (Chambers) AL ratecenter
SVNHGADE35C Savannah GA
"Derenne Avenue"
912-303,351,352,353,354,355,356,691,692
WYCRGAMA28C/02T Waycross GA
912-283,284,285,287,338
AGSTGAFL79C Augusta GA
"Fleming"
706-560,771,772,790,792,793,796,798
WRRBGAMA92C Warner-Robins GA
478-322,328,329,542,918,922,923,929,975
JCBHFLMA24E Jacksonville Beach FL
904-241,242,246,247,249,270
JCVLFLRV38E Jacksonville FL
"Riverside"
904-381,384,387,388,389,981
FTLDFLSU74E Fort Lauderdale FL
"Sunrise"
954-572,578,741,742,746,747,748,749
HLWDFLHA45E Hollywood FL
"Hallandale"
954-454,455,456,457,458,516
MIAMFLBA85E Miami FL
"Bayside"
305-250,285,854,856,857,858,859,860
786-314
MIAMFLME32E Miami FL
"Metro"
305-324,325,326,545,547,548,549,550,560,585
WPBHFLRB84E West Palm Beach FL
"Riviera Beach"
561-494,840,841,842,844,845,848,863,881,882
at&t/BellSouth/South-Central-Bell:
- - - - - - - - - -
NSVLTNINCG0 Nashville TN
"Inglewood"
615-226,227,228,258,262,650
BRHMALEN78E Birmingham AL
"Ensley"
205-206,780,781,783,785,786,787,788
BRHMALEW95E Birmingham AL
"Eastwood"
205-951,956,957
BRHMALTA84E Birmingham AL
"Tarrant"
205-808,841,849
BSMRALMA42E Bessemer AL
205-424,425,426,428,481
SHPTLAHDCG0 Shreveport LA
"Highland"
318-219,861,862,864,865,866,868,869
SHPTLAQBCG0 Shreveport LA
"Queensboro"
318-526,621,631,632,635,636,638
LFYTLAMACG1/04T Lafayette LA
337-231,232,233,234,235,236,237,261,264,265,266,267,268,269,262,572,920
LFYTLAVMCG0 Lafayette LA
"Vermillion"
337-216,273,294,295,406,981,983,984,988,989,991,993
at&t/SBC/Southwestern-Bell:
- - - - - - - - - -
STLSMO04CG0 St.Louis MO
"FOrest"
314-361,367,454,758,823,826,829,848,855,879
STLSMO05CG0 St.Louis MO
"JEfferson"
314-286,289,321,371,531,533,534,535,652,658
STLSMO08CG0 St.Louis MO
"PRospect"
314-268,577,664,762,771,772,773,776,865
STLSMO23CG0 Ladue MO ratecenter
"Overland"
314-253,423,426,427,428,429,538,733,890
STLSMO24CG0 Ladue MO ratecenter
"Riverview"
314-388,867,868,869
STLSMO40CG0 Ladue MO ratecenter
"Florissant"
314-830,831,837,838,839,921,972
STLSMO43CG0 Ladue MO ratecenter
"Hazelwood"
314-551,731,895
ELPSTXNECG0 El Paso TX
"Northeast"
915-744,745,751,755,757,759
ODSSTXLICG0 Odessa TX
"Lincoln"
432-331,332,333,334,335,337 Odessa TX ratecenter
432-580,532 Odessa 'EACS' TX ratecenter
DLLSTXGPCG0 Dallas TX
"Grand Prairie" TX ratecenter
972-237,262,264,266,282,504,642 Grand Prairie TX ratecenter
972-260,263,269,558,901 Grand Prairie 'EMS' TX ratecenter
DLLSTXHACG0 Dallas TX
"HAmilton"
214-421,426,428,565,928
DLLSTXWHCG0 Dallas TX
"WHitehall"
214-779,941,942,943,944,946,947,948
FTWOTXATCG0 Ft.Worth TX
"ATlas" TX (ratecenter and 2L-5N name)
817-284,580,590,595 Atlas TX ratecenter
817-589 Atlas 'EMS' TX ratecenter
817-280,282,285 Euless TX ratecenter
817-268 Euless 'EMS' TX ratecenter
FTWOTXGLCG0 Ft.Worth TX
"GLendale" TX (ratecenter and 2L-5N name)
817-446,451,457,492,496 Glendale TX ratecenter
817-429,654,930 Glendale 'EMS' TX ratecenter
FTWOTXJECG0 Ft.Worth TX
"JEfferson"
817-413,531,534,535,536
FTWOTXWACG0 Ft.Worth TX
"WAlnut"
817-207,920,921,922,923,924,926,927
HSTNTXADCG0 Houston (Suburban) TX
"Aldine"
281-219,442,449,590,985,986,987
HSTNTXGLCG0 Houston TX
"GLendale"
713-330,450,451,453,455,637
HSTNTXIDCG0 Houston TX
"IDlewood"
713-413,433,434 Houston TX ratecenter
713-340,436 Houston Suburban TX ratecenter
HSTNTXWLCG0 Houston (Suburban) TX
"West Ellington"
281-464,481,484,921,929
BUMTTXTECG0 Beaumont TX
"TErminal"
409-212,654,757,784,785,813,827,832,833,835,838,839,841,868,880
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mark J. Cuccia
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:21:08 -0600
From: Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Lucent MLX phone behavior
Message-ID: <4B708044.2010402@cybertheque.org>
TouchToneTommy wrote:
<snip>
> The MLX phone will not work on the ATL port that you find on the
> Merlin Plus - It will only work on an MLX port on a Merlin Legend or
> Merlin Magix
Thanks you for your reply; I realize that the MLX phone won't work on
a Merlin Plus, but I wondered if the LCD would display anything or any
of the LEDs would lite with just 48VDC applied to the phone (independent
of any connection to a controller).
Michael
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:42:42 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Great Movie Telephone Sounds
Message-ID: <0742529d-c3c3-45c9-b8f1-ccbd3d067dbd@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 6, 9:21 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> I couldn't find the 1925-1975 volume in my place. I was able to order
> an "excellent condition" used copy on Amazon for $20.
That's a good price. I had to [pay] $50 for mine.
> As time marches on the 1925-1975 era has more appeal than the first
> volume.
It is an excellent historical reference and valuable in understanding
how today's network and technology evolved to be what it is. I think
you'll enjoy the book quite a bit.
On the subject of telecom history, I'm reading General Omar Bradley's
"A Soldier's Story" about his role in WW II*. He mentions an
'experimental' program to install VHF radios in officers' jeeps and
airplanes so air cover could keep in touch with ground cover. For
many years almost all official vehicles had radios in them and we take
that ability for granted. But in WW II it was still new technology.
While radios were extensively used in the war, they were not
commonplace and other older methods of signalling were used. Bradley
relates tanks using colored smoke bombs to signal planes and pilots
not knowing the code. I'm not sure how good airplane radios were
during the war, but there were several tragic cases of Allied planes
bombing Allied troops through miscommunication. The "fog of war" was
a huge problem then. Major advances were not undertaken out of fear
two opposing Allied units would shoot each other; even though it meant
that the Germans could escape.
Bradley also mentions how the rapid movement of Allied troops across
France after the breakout overran the Allied telephone lines, leaving
the forward front not connected to rear HQ. (The rapid advance also
overran fuel supply lines, and that forced things to a halt.)
Apparently the military telephone system worked pretty well as Bradley
often refers to phoning other HQ for reports. I've heard the Allied
military European telephone system was actually pretty sophisticated;
more than merely a bunch of crank field phones strung together.
Anyone know more?
Both the RCA and Bell Labs history tout their wartime radio
contributions, but I think radio capability and reliability were
rather limited. Even if built to rugged standards, I would think a
tube radio would break over the rough way jeeps were driven. I
suppose they had ways to solder in other components securely but I
suspect connections would break as well. Anyone know more about the
limitations of WW II era radio communications? I suspect certain
things were possible and even doable, but took a lot of work to make
happen and not practical on a routine basis.
I wonder how many improvements were applied to telephone and radio
equipment utilized during the Korean War.
* Bradley explains the 'how' and 'why' behind the major tactical and
strategic decisions he made in both the Med. and European campaigns;
and how the cost (human lives and scarce materiel) of an objective
was weighed against the benefits.
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:22:13 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages
Message-ID: <hkqkd5$8i4$4@news.eternal-september.org>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> As previously mentioned, I've found on-line listings notoriously
> unreliable. On-line Yellow Pages need better filtering--when I seek
> a pizza joint I don't want places 100 miles away, which is what I
> get now.
Until it is discontinued later this month, Yahoo has been offering a
superb distance-based yellow pages service: http://yp.yahoo.com but
unfortunately they're replacing it with a Yelp-like recommendation
service, which is really no service to *me*.
On yp.yahoo.com you set your city (a cookie remembers it) and enter
the kind of or name of business and after a few paid listings will
show a list of matches starting with the ones closest to you.
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:49:00 EST
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages
Message-ID: <53dc.289e16fe.38a17e5c@aol.com>
In a message dated 2/7/2010 10:15:20 PM Central Standard Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> As previously mentioned, I've found on-line listings notoriously
> unreliable. On-line Yellow Pages need better filtering--when I seek a
> pizza joint I don't want places 100 miles away, which is what I get
> now.
When I belonged to the Route 66 list, there were questions about whether
the Vega Motel in Vega, Texas, was still in business. I looked in the
on-line Yellow Pages and no matter what filters I selected, it still displayed
motels and hotels in Amarillo and a couple of other places, along with
various 800 number listings for various hotel chains and travel agents.
After wading throurh all of them, no Vega Motel.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 19:14:23 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FIOS battery life?
Message-ID: <550d8d5c-5ef3-488f-9bb5-65ea88b7a44c@19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
FIOS requires house power to run. The setup includes a battery in
case of a power failure, but I've heard* the battery lasts only three
hours. When the power failure exceeds that the subscriber is out of
luck.
* Friend in suburban Washington who has FIOS and lost phone service
after three hours due to the storm power failures which lasted far
longer.
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 (9 messages)
|
or 
