|
|
The Telecom Digest for June 11, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 157 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y? (Steven)
Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y? (tlvp)
Landlines and Generation Y (Gray, Charles)
Re: Landlines and Generation Y (Steven)
Re: Landlines and Generation Y (Sam Spade)
Re: Landlines and Generation Y (David Clayton)
Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y? (Marc Haber)
Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y? (Steven)
Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y? (Dave Garland)
Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y? (John Mayson)
Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y? (T)
Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y? (T)
====== 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: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:09:17 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y?
Message-ID: <hupl10$uq9$1@news.eternal-september.org>
John Mayson wrote:
> I don't know how digest-worthy this is, but I think it's relevant.
> Like so many Americans I've had to take a part-time job in retail
> because I can't find another job in manufacturing where I worked for
> nearly 20 years. I sell technology products at a well-known national
> chain. A lot of people come in to look at landline telephones. I
> have noticed customers fall into two camps. Older people who think
> the phones are far too complicated. And younger people who simply
> don't understand how landline phones work.
>
> A customer came in needing a phone. I had to let her win the argument
> that she could only use an AT&T branded phone because she had AT&T
> service. Obviously a Panasonic, Uniden, or RCA wouldn't be compatible
> with her AT&T service. Another customer was very suspicious when I
> told him the same thing that the modular jack was universal. But he
> did buy a non-AT&T phone.
>
> About a week ago a customer returned phones I had sold him that
> morning. He was quite irate. He bought a cordless unit that included
> four handsets. He was furious that he could be on one handset and
> someone else in his house could pick up another handset and hear his
> conversation. I explained to him they were merely extensions of his
> home phone number. He thought he was buying a family plan of cordless
> phones each with its own number. But by his reaction you'd have
> thought I was the crazy one. How could a single phone number work on
> multiple phones?
>
> It seems to me cellular phones and service are the new normal and
> landline phones are now considered strange and weird. Knowing this
> I'm not as thrown off by customer questions.
>
> John
>
Sounds like a neighbor of mine, he can't figure out why his home phone
does not ring when a cell call comes in while he is at home and his cell
phone is charging. I have told him several times unless his forwards
his cell to his home phone it will not.
--
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: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 23:37:44 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUBpErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y?
Message-ID: <hupmm4$5co$1@news.eternal-september.org>
John Mayson wrote:
> I don't know how digest-worthy this is, but I think it's relevant.
> Like so many Americans I've had to take a part-time job in retail
> because I can't find another job in manufacturing where I worked for
> nearly 20 years. I sell technology products at a well-known national
> chain. A lot of people come in to look at landline telephones. I
> have noticed customers fall into two camps. Older people who think
> the phones are far too complicated. And younger people who simply
> don't understand how landline phones work.
>
> A customer came in needing a phone. I had to let her win the argument
> that she could only use an AT&T branded phone because she had AT&T
> service. Obviously a Panasonic, Uniden, or RCA wouldn't be compatible
> with her AT&T service. Another customer was very suspicious when I
> told him the same thing that the modular jack was universal. But he
> did buy a non-AT&T phone.
>
> About a week ago a customer returned phones I had sold him that
> morning. He was quite irate. He bought a cordless unit that included
> four handsets. He was furious that he could be on one handset and
> someone else in his house could pick up another handset and hear his
> conversation. I explained to him they were merely extensions of his
> home phone number. He thought he was buying a family plan of cordless
> phones each with its own number. But by his reaction you'd have
> thought I was the crazy one. How could a single phone number work on
> multiple phones?
>
> It seems to me cellular phones and service are the new normal and
> landline phones are now considered strange and weird. Knowing this
> I'm not as thrown off by customer questions.
>
> John
Cellphone habituees -- and even iPod habituees -- are well aware that
one can plug multiple headsets into a cellphone or an iPod so that two
or more folks can listen to the same mp3 tune.
The analogy with multiple handsets on one cordless phone should be
easy for such a customer to grasp ... or am I underestimating current
levels of cluelessness?
Cheers, -- tlvp
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:06:07 -0500
From: "Gray, Charles" <charles.gray@okstate.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Landlines and Generation Y
Message-ID: <18AC66D00A844644BF202001BCE0FE2607C7669A5D@STWEXE3.ad.okstate.edu>
Re: A comment in an earlier post that "Another customer was very suspicious
when I told him the same thing that the modular jack was universal".
Modular jacks have been "universal" only since the FCC ruled against
"protective connecting arrangements" in 1976. AT&T/Bell then
developed the modular jack (RJ-11, RJ-45 etc.) as we currently know
them. They were standardized under FCC Rules Part 68, and a few of
them have been standardized internationally. My house was built in
1974 and it has the old-style 4-prong plugs - about the size of a golf
ball. I suspect that there are still hundreds of thousands of homes
that either have no telephone jack at all (telephone hard-wired to a
wall connector or "C block") or have the 4-prong plugs like
mine. Where 4-prong plugs were used a separate outboard ringer was
hard-wired to the phone line so a ring could be heard even if all of
the phone sets were unplugged.
I bought 4-prong to modular adapter plugs at first (which they still
sell), but now I've re-wired everything with RJ-11s.
In a related note, my house did not have an "network interface box"
until about five years ago. The phone line came in through a
carbon-block protector. The telco guy insisted that I "must" have
one and didn't believe me until I took him around to the back and
showed him the phone line with no NIB.
Regards.
Charles G. Gray
Senior Lecturer, Telecommunications
Oklahoma State University - Tulsa
(918) 594-8433
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:25:33 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Landlines and Generation Y
Message-ID: <huramt$9fk$2@news.eternal-september.org>
Gray, Charles wrote:
> Re: A comment in an earlier post that "Another customer was very suspicious
> when I told him the same thing that the modular jack was universal".
>
> Modular jacks have been "universal" only since the FCC ruled against
> "protective connecting arrangements" in 1976. AT&T/Bell then
> developed the modular jack (RJ-11, RJ-45 etc.) as we currently know
> them. They were standardized under FCC Rules Part 68, and a few of
> them have been standardized internationally. My house was built in
> 1974 and it has the old-style 4-prong plugs - about the size of a golf
> ball. I suspect that there are still hundreds of thousands of homes
> that either have no telephone jack at all (telephone hard-wired to a
> wall connector or "C block") or have the 4-prong plugs like
> mine. Where 4-prong plugs were used a separate outboard ringer was
> hard-wired to the phone line so a ring could be heard even if all of
> the phone sets were unplugged.
>
> I bought 4-prong to modular adapter plugs at first (which they still
> sell), but now I've re-wired everything with RJ-11s.
>
> In a related note, my house did not have an "network interface box"
> until about five years ago. The phone line came in through a
> carbon-block protector. The telco guy insisted that I "must" have
> one and didn't believe me until I took him around to the back and
I seem to remember that when the modular jacks first came out GTE used a
different one.
As to the block coming into the house, until I had DSL installed I had
the old box and the carbons were not strapped out. When they replaced
it I kept the old one for my collection. I have it hooked up with my old
Step switch train and Candle Stick phone.
--
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: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:38:57 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Landlines and Generation Y
Message-ID: <jumdnfsAHuwP6ozRnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Gray, Charles wrote:
>
> In a related note, my house did not have an "network interface box"
> until about five years ago. The phone line came in through a
> carbon-block protector. The telco guy insisted that I "must" have
> one and didn't believe me until I took him around to the back and
> showed him the phone line with no NIB.
I think the official term is "NID" for network interface device. I
suspect whole lot of old construction still do not have NIDs; rather
the carbon-block protector you mention.
"NID" covers the waterfront, so to speak, such as the demarcs in condos
and commercial buildings.
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:13:31 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Landlines and Generation Y
Message-ID: <pan.2010.06.10.23.13.28.405839@myrealbox.com>
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:06:07 -0500, Gray, Charles wrote:
> Re: A comment in an earlier post that "Another customer was very
> suspicious when I told him the same thing that the modular jack was
> universal".
>
> Modular jacks have been "universal" only since the FCC ruled against
> "protective connecting arrangements" in 1976. AT&T/Bell then developed
> the modular jack (RJ-11, RJ-45 etc.) as we currently know them. They were
> standardized under FCC Rules Part 68, and a few of them have been
> standardized internationally. My house was built in 1974 and it has the
> old-style 4-prong plugs - about the size of a golf ball. I suspect that
> there are still hundreds of thousands of homes that either have no
> telephone jack at all (telephone hard-wired to a wall connector or "C
> block") or have the 4-prong plugs like mine. Where 4-prong plugs were used
> a separate outboard ringer was hard-wired to the phone line so a ring
> could be heard even if all of the phone sets were unplugged.
..........
In Australia there was a "standard" phone plug/socket set (610) that was
only used in this country (with a minor variation for non-standard
services - 611) and it was only in the mid 1980's that the RJ connectors
appeared in imported equipment.
This was in a time when the Australian telco environment was changing from
highly regulated to a more flexible (and common sense) way of doing things.
Initially they were almost always used with adaptors to convert anything
with a RJ connector to the local standard, and it was only when the
new-fangled digital PBX systems hit the market if was impractical to keep
using the old stuff when the world was obviously moving in a different
direction.
Once dial-up modems became more than just curious (and expensive)
commercial/industrial devices and hit the mainstream around the late
1980's, then the RJ connectors became familiar to more and more people in
the telco world (and also when CAT-5 arrived to rescue data people from
co-ax ethernet - whoopee!) and now they are common place here - but not
yet "universal".
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:27:19 +0200
From: Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1002@zugschl.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y?
Message-ID: <huq44o$qhe$1@news1.tnib.de>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>About a week ago a customer returned phones I had sold him that
>morning. He was quite irate. He bought a cordless unit that included
>four handsets. He was furious that he could be on one handset and
>someone else in his house could pick up another handset and hear his
>conversation.
Is that really the case for US cordless phones? In Europe, landline
cordless phones simply say "busy" when another handset on the same
base/line is in use.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:20:41 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y?
Message-ID: <hurads$9fk$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Marc Haber wrote:
> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>> About a week ago a customer returned phones I had sold him that
>> morning. He was quite irate. He bought a cordless unit that included
>> four handsets. He was furious that he could be on one handset and
>> someone else in his house could pick up another handset and hear his
>> conversation.
>
> Is that really the case for US cordless phones? In Europe, landline
> cordless phones simply say "busy" when another handset on the same
> base/line is in use.
My 2 line Motorola Digital Cordless Phone will beep if you try to access
a line when another phone or the base is in use, it also says line in
use. I believe only the 5.8 GHz and newer will do this plus you need to
Register it with the base.
--
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: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:53:33 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y?
Message-ID: <5Yedna1Yho6lzYzRnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@posted.visi>
Marc Haber wrote:
> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>> About a week ago a customer returned phones I had sold him that
>> morning. He was quite irate. He bought a cordless unit that included
>> four handsets. He was furious that he could be on one handset and
>> someone else in his house could pick up another handset and hear his
>> conversation.
>
> Is that really the case for US cordless phones? In Europe, landline
> cordless phones simply say "busy" when another handset on the same
> base/line is in use.
The (US) Vtechs that I have show "EXTENSION IN USE" or "LINE IN USE"
if another handset (or wired phone) is offhook, but do allow you to
connect to the call anyhow. So they don't protect you from
eavesdropping. It's probably a design decision, as there may well be
circumstances where you want to patch in another user, and this way
it has the same characteristics as wired extensions.
Dave
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:23:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y?
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1006101816380.477@john-maysons-macbook.local>
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, tlvp wrote:
> Cellphone habituees -- and even iPod habituees -- are well aware that
> one can plug multiple headsets into a cellphone or an iPod so that two
> or more folks can listen to the same mp3 tune.
>
> The analogy with multiple handsets on one cordless phone should be
> easy for such a customer to grasp ... or am I underestimating current
> levels of cluelessness?
You are underestimating.
I have always worked with and been friends with geeks. It's been an
eye-opener just how clueless so many people are about even the simplest
technology. Just yesterday I had a woman ask if the anti-virus software
she was holding would format her DVD. She explained to me she had a
large DVD without much space and needed to format it. And she was quite
certain the anti-virus software would do it because it was free (after
mail-in rebate). No amount of logic or reasoning with her changed her
mind.
I could keep people here entertained for weeks with stories about how some
people are befuddled by even non-technical items such as picture frames,
but that would be too far off topic. But would be funny.
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Marc Haber wrote:
> Is that really the case for US cordless phones? In Europe, landline
> cordless phones simply say "busy" when another handset on the same
> base/line is in use.
Apparently this one worked like that. I don't have a landline so I don't
know. I don't remember which brand he bought.
His anger didn't seem to match what had happened. I questioned to myself
if his wife heard him talking to his girlfriend or something along those
lines. I thought he was going to punch me.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:08:44 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y?
Message-ID: <MPG.267b3a893d7c29e7989ce8@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <huq44o$qhe$1@news1.tnib.de>, mh+usenetspam1002@zugschl.us
says...
>
> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> >About a week ago a customer returned phones I had sold him that
> >morning. He was quite irate. He bought a cordless unit that included
> >four handsets. He was furious that he could be on one handset and
> >someone else in his house could pick up another handset and hear his
> >conversation.
>
> Is that really the case for US cordless phones? In Europe, landline
> cordless phones simply say "busy" when another handset on the same
> base/line is in use.
>
> Greetings
> Marc
My DECT phones simply put up a "Line In Use".
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:07:53 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do landlines have a future with Generation Y?
Message-ID: <MPG.267b3a517c5c3f67989ce7@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <AANLkTinRSTE7fo9zTYeJvZz2ndaGCUHIYW-
Z6CsrQLZZ@mail.gmail.com>, john@mayson.us says...
>
> I don't know how digest-worthy this is, but I think it's relevant.
> Like so many Americans I've had to take a part-time job in retail
> because I can't find another job in manufacturing where I worked for
> nearly 20 years. I sell technology products at a well-known national
> chain. A lot of people come in to look at landline telephones. I
> have noticed customers fall into two camps. Older people who think
> the phones are far too complicated. And younger people who simply
> don't understand how landline phones work.
>
> A customer came in needing a phone. I had to let her win the argument
> that she could only use an AT&T branded phone because she had AT&T
> service. Obviously a Panasonic, Uniden, or RCA wouldn't be compatible
> with her AT&T service. Another customer was very suspicious when I
> told him the same thing that the modular jack was universal. But he
> did buy a non-AT&T phone.
>
> About a week ago a customer returned phones I had sold him that
> morning. He was quite irate. He bought a cordless unit that included
> four handsets. He was furious that he could be on one handset and
> someone else in his house could pick up another handset and hear his
> conversation. I explained to him they were merely extensions of his
> home phone number. He thought he was buying a family plan of cordless
> phones each with its own number. But by his reaction you'd have
> thought I was the crazy one. How could a single phone number work on
> multiple phones?
>
> It seems to me cellular phones and service are the new normal and
> landline phones are now considered strange and weird. Knowing this
> I'm not as thrown off by customer questions.
>
> John
A lot of what you're seeing is just people who didn't keep up with the
changing field of telecom.
I still sort of have a land-line if you consider VoIP to be such. But it
is because I understand the difference between want and need regarding
cell phones.
Now that I'll be working full time again I'll probably get a new cell
phone. But that's the extent. Last time I had one with a 1,000 minute
plan and I'd used maybe 20 minutes month. I'm much more interested in a
reasonably priced wireless DATA plan. That would be worth its weight in
gold to me. And I might just get my wish soon enough in my metro area,
seems Clear is setting up as a I type.
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 (12 messages)
|
or 