The Telecom Digest for October 13, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 275 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 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, 11 Oct 2010 21:38:02 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <4CB3CA0A.6060104@annsgarden.com>
In defense of the modular jacks and plugs...
AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> And if you yank hard enough, this tab is perfectly designed to
> bend and back and snap off, rendering the whole cord useless.
Later in the thread, Jeff or Lisa noted:
> ... One big change was that the Bell System would no longer
> own and be responsible for the cord and plug--it would be the
> customer's problem.
And that includes customer-owned portable wall-mounted phones. Such
phones were attached to a telco-provided backplate fitted with a modular
jack and two mounting studs to provide physical support for the phone.
The backplate was permanently installed on the premises. The whole
interface was identified by USOCs RJ11W (single line), RJ14W (two lines)
or RJ18W (single line with make-busy feature).
In order for this arrangement to work, it was necessary to design a
plug-and-jack interface that would make the proper electrical connection
when the phone was installed, but would disconnect without damage when
the phone was removed.
Wall-mounted modular jacks also had to accept wired phones so the jack
had to be equipped to accept the "little plastic locking tab" that AES
mentioned.
And, of course, the whole concept--plug, jack, and cord--had to be
designed so that plugs could be attached by non-telco personnel
(including the general public) with inexpensive tools.
It's easy to criticize the whole modular concept, but if you consider
the requirements I've noted above, you begin to understand why the
industry and the FCC chose it.
Modular interfaces were defined in Part 68 of the 1997 (and earlier)
editions of the FCC Rules and Regulations. A PDF of the 1997 edition is
posted at http://tinyurl.com/OldPart68. USOC configurations are defined
in Section 68.502, beginning on page 394 (PDF page 134).
Neal McLain
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:50:08 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <siegman-E0CD25.09500812102010@BMEDCFSC-SRV02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article <4CB3CA0A.6060104@annsgarden.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>
> It's easy to criticize the whole modular concept, but if you consider
> the requirements I've noted above, you begin to understand why the
> industry and the FCC chose it.
>
Interesting to read this add'l information.
However, I wasn't criticizing the modular concept per se. I was
criticizing the design of the "lever" on the modular connector, which in
many (most?) cases was angled outward pointing back along the cord --
a perfect "fishhook" to catch on anything it came close to.
Surely some other "snap-in" design or level design would have possible.
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:50:19 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Uptick in do-not-call violations
Message-ID: <op.vkf415uiitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:01:16 -0400, Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu>
wrote:
> ... three violations of do-not-call. ... from our old and continuing
> enemy, "Credit Card Services" ...
> ... from a roofing company that identified itself as here in town, but they
> aren't in the local phone book. So they are either new or fly-by-night ...
> ... from an outfit in Branson MO wanting me to take ...
Here it's an outfit sending AC 918 and CID "TCIM", whose emissaries say,
"Hi, this is [FirstName] calling from Bank of America to ... ."
When I interrupt to say, "That's funny, you need to tell your supervisor
that Caller ID reports you as TCIM," they answer, "That's right, and we're
calling on behalf of Bank of America to ... ."
When I suggest that, as I'm not interested in whatever they're offering,
they put me on their own internal Do-Not-Call list, they answer, "The
Do Not Call Registry doesn't apply here because you're already a Bank of
America customer."
My response: "That would mean I have a customer relationship with Bank of
America -- but not with you, who are merely a third party marketing partner.
And anyway, what I'm asking is that you add this number to your own,
in-house, Do-Not-Call list."
And that they nominally agree to do. We'll see :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
***** Moderator's Note *****
The easiest way to avoid the problem is to avoid being on their list
in the first place. I always lie when banks or other businesses ask
for my phone number: I think that since they're never going to call me
for anything important (_that_ kind of service is gone forever), they
deserve to have their time wasted.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:27:03 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <l7SdnXO8muvqNSnRnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <df18e7e4-e7c0-4441-be0d-5775ba9b6e32@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Oct 11, 12:04 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
>wrote:
>
>> As part of a major remodeling
>> we did in 1964, we ended up with a "sort-of" hard-wired phone. an early
>> 'panel phone' (dial variety, not touch-tone), built into the wall of the
>> kitchen.
>
>Forgot about panel phones. Apparently they weren't a very popular
>option;
I KNOW they were uncommon. <grin> When we put it in, it was the only
such unit in the entire state, and, I believe, all of NW Bell territory.
In either commercial or residential service. The second installation in
the state was nearly 10 years later -- a budget business-class hotel put
in a bunch of them as the 'house phone' in all the public areas. Made sense
for that use -- didn't have to have any furniture near it, just a piece of
the wall; no cord to get tangled, etc. Not sure what they used in the
rooms themselves,
> I think far more people went for Trimline or Princess sets.
I'm sure lots more people went for trimline/princess sets.
The panel phone was one of a handful of 'specialty' telephone sets that Bell
offered -- ones where you shelled out a bunch of money to 'buy' the phone
(actually just the housing), and then paid a recurring monthly for 'renting'
the actual phone mechanism innards. What, a decade later, was marketed as
the (greatly expanded) 'design-line'.
If I'm remembering right (some 45 years later) the 'purchase' price for that
phone was something like $120. Including the installation. Which was a
significant chunk of money in 1964 dollars.
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:40:29 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Generic Question About ANI
Message-ID: <WaWdnYKqAPMANinRnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <77-dnaKpF55mWC_RnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>For you network gurus: Should the transmission of ANI by my originating
> Class 5 switch be limited to inwats numbers, 900 numbers, and E911
>trunks?
No.
Originating switch "doesn't know" if/when the call will leave the network
of the originating C.O.
Multiple reasons.
- IF it does leave that originating network, money changes
hands with the destination network. For cost-accounting, and
'audit' thereof, purposes both telcos need a unique identifier of both
endpoints of the call.
- 'Caller' info is required to be available at the destination switch, to
meet various law-enforcement needs, per statute.
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:01:34 -0400
From: April Coffman <april.remove-this@and-this-too.americanclec.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What is a "female-specific mobile handset"?
Message-ID: <4CB4946E.8070704@AmericanCLEC.com>
I hope just coloring a phone pink is not the answer, I am a woman who
hates the color pink. I would think making phones smaller so that they
fit better in a woman's hand would be nice, for me some Blackberrys feel
very cumbersome because they are so wide. The other issue I have is
finding headsets that fit my tiny little ears properly (the Jabra 125
fits well though).
-April Coffman
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 (6 messages)
|
| |
or 