The Telecom Digest for October 15, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 277 : "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: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:53:30 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <i95kaa$4q6$1@news.eternal-september.org>
On 10/13/10 10:02 AM, Richard wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:59:11 -0700 (PDT), Lisa or Jeff
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> Anyway, as divesture approached Bell sold its phones to subscribers
>> for a very low price--and allowed subscribers to exchange an old set
>> for a new one before making the purchase at the used price. So, it
>> wasn't a bad deal. Further, one was buying a real Western Electric
>> built-to-withstand-a-nuclear-attack phone which would last in service
>> far longer than any replacements offered by other companies down the
>> road.
>
> I worked for AT&T at the time of divestiture. Employees were given at
> no cost up to 2 Western Electric phones currently in their homes. I
> received stickers to put on the bottoms of my phones to denote that
> they were now my property. I don't know if the offer included all
> employees, or just management and engineers (I was one of the latter).
>
> Dick
>
GTE did the same for its employees as deregulation cut in.
--
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, 13 Oct 2010 21:01:04 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Why cell phones may be more dangerous than we think
Message-ID: <4CB68080.6060908@thadlabs.com>
This article is from the San Jose Mercury News (SJMN) at URL
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_16282117; the SJMN is the
"Newspaper of Silicon Valley".
Given the importance of this article and the fact the SJMN's
archive URLs are ephemeral, I've copy'n'pasted the article in its
entirety below with the author's permission. Bill Horne (moderator)
and I have copies of the permission. Copyright and author contact
information are at the end of this posting.
Article follows:
O'Brien: Why cell phones may be more dangerous than we think
By Chris O'Brien
Mercury News Columnist
Posted: 10/09/2010 12:10:00 PM PDT
Updated: 10/10/2010 08:52:26 AM PDT
After many years of increasingly erratic behavior, Alan Marks, of
Lafayette, suddenly experienced a severe seizure in the middle of
the night. His wife, Ellie, called 911 and Marks was rushed to
the hospital, where tests revealed a golf-ball-size brain tumor
that apparently was the cause of his personality changes.
The Markses had no doubt about what caused the tumor: It was
located exactly where he had been pressing a cell phone to his
head for almost two decades.
In the two years since that diagnosis, the Markses have joined an
international debate over the potential health risks surrounding
the low levels of radiation emitted by cell phones. The couple
have testified before the U.S. Congress, been interviewed on
national television, and they were instrumental in persuading San
Francisco to adopt a controversial ordinance that requires mobile
phone retailers to display information about the radiation levels
of each model.
"I wanted to share my story because I don't want others to suffer
like we have," Ellie Marks said.
But how can they be sure the cell phone is to blame? I've had a
growing interest in this subject in recent months for personal
and professional reasons. But what I've found is that nobody
knows for sure whether cell phones are a health hazard. And that
has surprised me and made me nervous.
Several players at the heart of this debate converged on San
Francisco last week. CTIA-The Wireless Association had its annual
trade show, which it promised would be the last in the city
because of the new disclosure law. Marks organized several
protests outside the event. And noted epidemiologist Devra Davis,
a visiting professor at Harvard University, arrived for several
speaking engagements about her recently published book, "Disconnect:
The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to
Hide It, and How To Protect Your Family."
"When I first heard that there could be problems with cell
phones, I didn't believe it," Davis said. "I wrote the book
because I was stunned to find out I was wrong to assume that
these things had to be safe."
For many years it was believed the low levels of radiation
generated by cell phones and towers had no effect on human
biology. Now a small but growing number of scientists and health
activists are challenging those findings.
Davis' book cites studies that point to possible links between
cell phones and brain tumors and lower sperm counts. Much of this
evidence has been attacked from other scientific corners as "junk
science" from a lunatic fringe. Having read the book and listened
to arguments on both sides, I found myself wondering how the
average consumer, who doesn't have the science background to sort
through the details of studies, is supposed to come to an
informed conclusion.
My interest in this topic began earlier this year when the owner
of a building across the street from our kids' school in North
Oakland signed a contract with Verizon Wireless to install a
handful of cell phone towers on his roof. The prospect of these
radiation-emitting devices so close to the school alarmed a
number of parents at the school, including my wife, who organized
an effort to stop them.
It turns out the 1996 Telecommunications Act contains a provision
that bars local governments from considering health effects when
deciding whether to grant permits for cell towers. They can only
consider aesthetic issues -- that is, whether the towers are too
ugly for the neighborhood.
Such a restriction seemed heavy-handed and got me wondering: Why
was anyone trying to eliminate debates over health effects?
Surely if there was a possible health issue with cell phones or
towers, someone would have told us, right?
In fact, they have told us. Every cell phone comes with a
standard disclosure about the effects of radiation. Like most
people, I had never read the safety and product booklet that came
with my BlackBerry Curve 8310. But when I did this summer, I
found a section where it talks about the amount of radiation the
phone emits and then warns me to do the following:
"Keep the device at least 0.98 inches (25 mm) away from your body
when the BlackBerry device is turned on and connected to a
wireless network."
If cell phones are safe, why do I need to hold it away from my body?
"Cell phones are small microwave radios," Davis said. "And you
don't want to hold a small microwave radio next to your head."
I asked John Walls, a CTIA spokesman, why phones include this
warning when there is no government or industrywide mandate to do
so.
"It's been the legal opinions of the various companies that they
should supply that warning," he said.
Hardly reassuring. But what's really interesting is that the cell
phone industry doesn't actually claim cell phones are safe. It
claims that other people do. It points to third-party research by
other groups such as the Federal Communications Commission,
scientific standards bodies and organizations such as the World
Health Organization.
"We don't have concerns because that is what science has told us
about our products," Walls said. "If anyone knows any different
they should let the agencies and public health organizations
know. We are not scientists and we defer to their work. The
overwhelming consensus is that there is no evidence that people
should have cause for concern."
But that's not entirely true. In May, the World Health
Organization released a 10-year study dubbed "Interphone" that
examined the possibility of a link between brain tumors and cell
phones. According to Joachim Schüz, of the International Agency
for Research on Cancer, the principal scientist on the Interphone
study, the results were inconclusive. But the study noted:
"There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma (brain
tumors) for those who reported the highest 10 percent of cumulative
hours of cell phone use."
"The results are really not as clear as we hoped when we started
the study," Schüz said. "Further monitoring of the long-term use
of mobile phones is certainly necessary."
The FCC also delivers mixed signals on the subject. An FCC
representative pointed me to the portion of the agency's website
that addresses the issue:
"No scientific evidence establishes a causal link between
wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Those
evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree
that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is
a better basis for RF (radio frequency) safety standards than is
currently used."
Given the lack of clarity, what are we to do?
The FCC lists some precautions, though it wants to be clear that
it "does not endorse the need for these practices" because
there's no danger. Got it? But just in case, use a speakerphone
or headset, increase the distance between the wireless device and
your body, and consider texting rather than talking (unless you're
driving!).
When I talked to Ellie Marks last week, she was on her cell phone
getting ready to lead her first protest march to the CTIA
convention. She said her husband has been doing well in recent
months, but they expect the tumor to come back at some point. I
noted that she hadn't ditched her own wireless phone in the wake
of all she had learned.
"I don't believe in abandoning this technology," Marks said. "I
want the industry to make the equipment safer and be honest about
the risks."
=================================================================
Contact Chris O'Brien at 415-298-0207 or cobrien@mercurynews.com.
Copyright © 2010 - San Jose Mercury News
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:58:27 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FCC to propose "bill shock" regulations
Message-ID: <4CB69C03.3070504@thadlabs.com>
Interesting article at URL:
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/124003-fcc-to-propose-bill-shock-regulations
Click on the URL (above) to see the "Reader Comments".
FCC to propose 'bill shock' regulations
By Sara Jerome - 10/13/10 08:04 AM ET
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to launch
a proceeding at its Thursday meeting that could force wireless
providers to change their billing practices.
The agency wants to prevent consumers from unknowingly racking up
oversized bills on their phones when they go over their minutes,
a situation the agency calls "bill shock." The agency released a
survey earlier this year that showed one in six American
consumers had been surprised by a cell phone bill.
The FCC's proposed rules would require carriers to send text or
voice alerts before and when minutes are used up. Notifications
would also have to accompany out-of-country charges, and carriers
would be required to clearly disclose any tools they offer to
simplify billing.
In a provision that is perhaps the most frightful to the mobile
industry, the FCC plan asks for comment on whether all carriers
should be required to offer the option of capping usage so that
phone service shuts off when a certain limit is reached. The
customer would set the limit, as the FCC sees it.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) offered legislation on "bill shock" last
month that proposes such a policy. He has written the FCC to
support its separate effort.
Below is a Q-and-A with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski about the
agency's bill-shock plans. The remarks are condensed.
Q. The FCC cites some very sad stories about bill shock [such as
the story of Kerfye Pierre, a 27-year-old Federal Emergency
Management Agency employee in Hyattsville, Md., who received a
$30,000 bill for texting and e-mailing in Haiti after the
earthquake]. How representative do you think these stories are of
the experiences American wireless customers have with their
carriers?
A. Our survey showed that 30 million Americans -- one in six
Americans -- have experienced "bill shock." According to our
complaint data, [many] had additional charges of over $100.
There's no question it's widespread.
Q. On the heels of the recently revealed investigation of
Verizon's unwarranted overcharges, do you think we can expect
to see more FCC investigations into wireless billing practices?
A. I can't talk about ongoing investigations.
Q. Is there still a role for Congress on this if the FCC passes
bill-shock regulations?
A. Our job is to be a resource to Congress. ... [We have an]
ongoing dialogue with members of Congress, and there is
widespread interest in this issue because of the magnitude of the
volume of consumer complaints.
Q. How much of a fight are you expecting from carriers?
A. We're focused on doing the right thing for consumers. ...
[We're] honestly not focused on that.
Q. What is your sense of whether you have the support of the
Republican commissioners?
A. You'd have to ask them.
Q. The FCC recommendations appear to [ask questions about a
possible proposal, without calling for] providers to shut
services to consumers who reach their limit, as Udall's bill
does. Why aren't the FCC regulations as strong as the
legislation?
A. We're going to ask for comment on a variety of things. We want
to really empower consumers to make choices. ... I can't talk
specifically about what's in the item.
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--unlisted number charge
Message-ID: <9a85494c-7178-4129-9210-aca4bf63df44@l14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 13, 10:18 am, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> >Did the prototype installation at Englewood have AMA? I got the
> >impression AMA came out later.
>
> I recall ONI in that part of New Jersey. You'd dial the call, an
> operator would come on the line and ask for your number, then the
> call would go through.
ONI is separate from AMA--the Bell Labs history book describes other
attempts at automating long distance charging. ONI is a way to get
the caller's number, the other is ANI. It took years to complete ANI
throughout the Bell System, I believe even the #4 ESS for toll
switching provided for ONI. (I recall in the mid-1970s making toll
calls via ONI). The Labs' history describes different techniques for
obtaining the caller's number in different switches. It wasn't that
easy to do and there were speed/cost tradeoffs.
> My relatives who run a rural telco in Vermont said that in the ONI
> era they were constantly having to move calls from one account to
> another due to kids who lied to the ONI operator.
Originally in panel the toll operator's switchboard had verify test-
tips. The operator would tap her cord against a numbered jack and a
signal would confirm if that was indeed the subscriber's line. How
widespread that feature was utilized or how long it was used I don't
know. Of course it required a field of 10,000 test-tips for the whole
exchange, which meant toll operators were restricted to a particular
exchange only, which wasn't very efficient.
The front of old telephone directories contained three admonishments:
1) Giving a false number for billing purposes was a crime;
2) Failure to give up a party line in case of an emergency was a
crime;
3) Recording a call required a beep tone every 15 seconds.
(Of course today the white pages telephone directory is essentially
gone. The front today of Yellow Pages would have some featured
divorce or personal injury lawyer in blood red bold type "WE WILL GET
MONEY FOR YOU". This is supposed to be progress.)
The headline news about toll fraud was 'blue boxes' and the like, but
I don't recall much said about the simpler ONI fraud mentioned above.
I'm surprised it went on places like Vermont--I would guess it would
be more of a problem in big cities.
Perhaps the Bell System 'picked and chose' calls to verify, such as
coast-to-coast or overseas calls which were more expensive than calls
to the next town. Maybe they randomly selected calls to check.
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:01:47 -0600
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <53ocb6p6phg41i0dj4cj4n745jpmhdbbsf@4ax.com>
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:38:02 -0500, Neal McLain
>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
Well, it kind of bugs me when the FCC requires you to install
jacks that are not best suited to your purpose.
When I was working for SkyTel, I proposed the implementation
of a Homaco distribution frame in the new office we were about to
open. I knew that Telco was going to require RJ21s, which are totally
unsuitable for a distribution frame.
When we met with our sales rep from the phone company, I told
them I wanted them to mount the RJ21s in a closet near the frame. We'd
put Amphenol connectors to them. run the cable to the frame, and punch
down the wires.
Telco objected. They wanted to drop our cable pairs on our
frame. I told them that the only way we would allow that is if they
guaranteed that they would use split sixty-six blocks instead of
RJ21s.
They agreed.
Some weeks later, Telco showed up unannounced and went to the
distribution frame. Guess what they did? You're right. They dropped
RJ21s on the frame.
I showed up at the new office several days later and found
them. I went straight to our director of engineering and we initiated
a conference call with our Telco sales rep. I asked her to explain
why they had put the RJ21s on our frame (eighteen of them, by the way)
against our agreement. She was speechless for a moment.
She looked over the paperwork and said that it clearly
instructed them not to use RJ21s but the sixty-six blocks instead. She
arranged for the installers and his supervisor to meet me the next
morning. I had to cancel a dental appointment to meet them.
When I explained the problem, the supervisor told me that no
one had given him any such instruction. I got the standard, 'The FCC
requires it'. I told them that I didn't care what the FCC required
when it came to our distribution frame. And I further pointed out
that since we were a telecommunications carrier that that rule didn't
apply to us, anyway. That rule was for COAM equipment, not equipment
owned by a carrier.
The supervisor removed the Amphenol connectors and the wires
from the blocks and converted them into sixty-six blocks. It was nice
looking and neat so I said OK.
It worked out quite well. When finished, we had a very nice
distribution frame that expedited our work. I got a nice writeup in
the letter the board of directors sent commending our systems cutover.
They also paid me a two hundred dollar bonus. Normally,
anyone other than sales got only a Christmas bonus and nothing else.
That was very unusual for them to do that.
Personally, I would like to kick the guy that came up with the
requirement for those things to be on distribution frames.
Regards,
Fred
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm surprised that you'd want "66" blocks on a DF: Ma Bell never used
them for that AFAIK, at least not inside CO's. Why would you prefer
them to punch or solder blocks?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:34:04 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <pv7db6pfdi0a20g0e6n127phca49ctrs9b@4ax.com>
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:31:02 -0700 (PDT), Lisa or Jeff
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>The Bell System itself suffered from "rats nests" wiring, particularly
>in cities where there were constant service changes.
While not exactly a rat's nest, ...
While working for Bell Labs in the 1960's, several times I had
occasion to visit a major Long Lines microwave and L3 coax junction
station in Colesville, NJ where NJ, NY and PA meet. The station had
lots of microwave equipment, and lots of frequency-multiplexing
equipment (group, supergroup, mastergroup, etc.). One day, I arrived
to see workmen on tall ladders pulling coaxial cable from the overhead
racks. There was cable strewn all over the floor. Asking what was
happening, I was told that they were "mining" for coax: In normal
operation. circuits were continually being rerouted. The regular
station personnel simply disconnected the old cable, left in the rack,
and ran new cable to make the new connections. Every once in a while,
the cable rack overflowed. So the hired a crew to come in and remove
(i.e, mine) the no-longer-used cable.
Dick
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Uptick in do-not-call violations
Message-ID: <2b26b82e-9921-48c8-a1d8-afd3d45a5a3f@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 13, 1:41 pm, Richard <r...@richbonnie.com> wrote:
> This is very inconsiderate of you. The fake number you enter
> corresponds to some innocent party who now gets these annoying calls
> through no fault of his own.
I too use a null phone number.
> I always give my home and mobile phone numbers when opening a checking
> or a credit card account, so that they can call me in case of trouble,
> like suspicious charges. I have gotten several calls from Citi Card's
> suspicious-charge division asking if I had made a particular charge or
> charges. Most of the time, it was me. But once it wasn't, and they
> cancelled the account and gave me another number and card.
I haven't had the same kind of service from my bank.
At work, I returned to my desk to find a phone message that my bank
called. I was upset since I feared a bad check or other problem with
my account had occured. It was after they closed so I had to wait
until the next day.
When I called back the next day I was told a certain individual needed
to speak to me but he was out.
Finally I got a hold of that individual. It turned out he was a
salesman trying to push me into stocks. I was furious and told him
never to call again (a request he disregarded); and I also complained
furiously to the branch manager. She said "oh, our customers
appreciate learning about new opportunities".
Later on the bank was suspicious about a large check I wrote. They
did not call me but bounced the check, which got the vendor mad at
me. There was nothing wrong with the check--they said "it looked
funny". Had they bothered to look a little closer they would've seen
a similar check a prior time for the same amount.
So, giving your phone number to a bank is not necessarily a good idea.
One might ask why I deal with such a bank. Unfortunately, thanks to
the numerous mega mergers of banks, choices are very limited.
I will give them credit for one thing: when you call their 800
service number, you are allowed to press 0, skip the voice mail jail,
and talk to a human promptly. Many organizations force you to go
through the prompts ad naseum made it very hard to get a human.
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No dial tone, no service, no respect -- not even for Alexander Graham Bell descendant
Message-ID: <ce2844bf-1658-4c6b-a0a5-15150c78f1f7@p26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 12, 7:59 pm, Joseph Singer <joeofseat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You know the feeling. Like wandering through a maze. Reduced to
> communicating with robotic voices reciting touch-tone menus of choices
> that hardly correspond to your particular dilemma. ``Press 3 if your
> phone is inoperable.''
Would anyone know how Verizon (baby Bell) customer service for
landlines has been lately? I've heard complaints of people with bad
POTS and unable to get it repaired and great difficulty in reaching
anyone at Verizon.
I find this troubling. I hope they're not trying to 'motivate' people
to switch from POTS to FIOS or wireless; because some of those people
might switch to cable phone service and another wireless carrier.
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:08:24 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <520b2.696614e3.39e71758@aol.com>
In a message dated 10/13/2010 7:02:07 AM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Anyway, as divesture approached Bell sold its phones to subscribers
> for a very low price--and allowed subscribers to exchange an old set
> for a new one before making the purchase at the used price. So, it
> wasn't a bad deal. Further, one was buying a real Western Electric
> built-to-withstand-a-nuclear-attack phone which would last in
> service far longer than any replacements offered by other companies
> down the road.
As I recall the phones became the property of the Bell operating companies
which may have done what you said. AT&T was much disturbed by this
because they wanted the revenue from the phone set sale.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Happy anniversary cellphone!
Message-ID: <92210.68993.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
First commerical cellphone service launched October 13, 1983 by
Ameritech in Chicago. (Was it Ameritech or had it already changed from
being Illinois Bell?)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Happy anniversary cellphone!
Message-ID: <923b180b-2b99-44bd-8257-584688db7d75@a19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 13, 12:38 pm, Joseph Singer <joeofseat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> First commerical cellphone service launched October 13, 1983 by
> Ameritech in Chicago. (Was it Ameritech or had it already changed from
> being Illinois Bell?)
Would anyone know how much it cost for the equipment, installation,
and service back then, and how did the prices compare to traditional
mobile phone service?
I think "brick" and "bag" cell phones were out fairly early, but I
believe most initial cellular phone installations were in-car units,
just like the older mobile units. I remember a Bell Atlantic store
had a garage as part of it for car installations.
It didn't take long for the prices to drop to very reasonable levels.
My first cell phone account gave me a Motorola flipset for free for
$20/month for low offpeak usage. For me it was a good deal, though
peak use was 75c/minute and roaming was $1.00/minute. I got for
urgent use and it worked fine for that.
I recall watching a rerun of an old '90210' episode* and the character
was driving his car while talking on the phone. The handset was
corded and connected to the dashboard. It was strange seeing that
given what we have today.
(*OT Aside: I meant someone who grew up in zip 90210 and went to the
high school. She said they never appreciated the way the TV show
portrayed them. The show was actually physically filmed at Torrance
HS, which is used by many TV shows as a backdrop.)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:19:27 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Happy anniversary cellphone!
Message-ID: <a6ieb65oust134b44cqhevn71b28c848ao@4ax.com>
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:38:32 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Singer
<joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>First commerical cellphone service launched October 13, 1983 by
>Ameritech in Chicago. (Was it Ameritech or had it already changed from
>being Illinois Bell?)
In 1983, Chicago was still Illinois Bell. The official date of
Divestiture was January 1, 1984.
Ref: http://www.corp.att.com/history/history3.html
Quoting from this link:
>Divestiture took place on January 1, 1984, and the Bell System
>was dead. In its place was a new AT&T and seven regional Bell
>operating companies (collectively, the RBOCs.)
Dick
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--unlisted number charge
Message-ID: <4f83c9bf-4823-4f83-9963-d0d11a780978@c16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
> I discovered that New York Telephone introduced it in its service area
> way back in 1959, and it was 50c a month. An article in the NYT said
> after the fee went in many people went back to having a listed number.
P.S. I forgot to mention that the same 1960 article reported that NY
would start having 2L codes without a word meaning, that is, codes
like "TT" or "TF". Also, the subsequent directories would say only PE
instead of PEnnsylvania. Anyone know more about NYC going to ANC?
(Comedian Allan King wrote in his 1962 book his criticism of ANC. He
didn't like getting an area code 516 and needing to use it.)
However, I believe exchange names hung on in the NYC area until about
1978. Philadelphia was the last to convert to ANC, doing so in 1980.
To this day a few businesses and government agencies still list their
phone number the old way. Until very recently a major paving company
had "DE 3-nnnn" listing on all their trucks.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Some companies use AAn-nnnn phone listings because they feel it
conveys an impression that they've been in business for a long time.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:37:19 -0400
From: Randall <rvh40.remove-this@and-this-too.insightbb.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: IVR Hell
Message-ID: <B9DD9AB6-2288-46A3-B232-88099557D7AF@insightbb.com>
> From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
> To: redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org.
> Subject: No dial tone, no service, no respect -- not even for
> Alexander Graham Bell descendant
> Message-ID: <567696.48681.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
>
>
> Her telephone died weeks ago. Since then, Helene Pancoast has been
> engaged in a farcical struggle familiar to any no-account customer up
> against an errant provider of cable, gas, electricity or telephone
> service.
>
> You know the feeling. Like wandering through a maze. Reduced to
> communicating with robotic voices reciting touch-tone menus of choices
> that hardly correspond to your particular dilemma. ``Press 3 if your
> phone is inoperable.''
IVRs have two purposes. One is to assist callers with easy
solutions to common problems to avoid having to pay Rajiv^H^H^H^H^H
"Roger" to talk with them, and the other is to adversively condition
callers so they'll be more reluctant to call for help the next time.
Call centers are run on statistics, and one "good" statistic is the
percent of callers who hang up before speaking with a CSR, minus the
percent of callers who hung up once and called back in a short period.
In my experience the companies providing the worst "IVR Hell"
experience are those with monopolies either de jure or de facto.
If Wal*Mart makes it too much trouble to buy groceries from them,
there's a Meijer next door who'll be happy to have my trade. If I
have an issue with my electrical bill, I can't really give my
business to their competitor.
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:21:22 +0100
From: Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: IVR Hell
Message-ID: <8vleb6td37gk478ug0hcei3u6p80156lla@4ax.com>
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:37:19 -0400, Randall
<rvh40.remove-this@and-this-too.insightbb.com> wrote:
[Moderator snip]
>In my experience the companies providing the worst "IVR Hell"
>experience are those with monopolies either de jure or de facto.
>
>If Wal*Mart makes it too much trouble to buy groceries from them,
>there's a Meijer next door who'll be happy to have my trade. If I
>have an issue with my electrical bill, I can't really give my
>business to their competitor.
The UK has a deregulated electricity (and gas) market. You can do
exactly that.
The companies all have to deal with the specific regional common
carrier that still own the distribution network though.
--
Regards
stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:42:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: IVR Hell
Message-ID: <Xns9E11A9FA7D931Senex@188.40.43.230>
Randall <rvh40.remove-this@and-this-too.insightbb.com> wrote in
news:B9DD9AB6-2288-46A3-B232-88099557D7AF@insightbb.com:
> IVRs have two purposes. One is to assist callers with easy
> solutions to common problems to avoid having to pay
> Rajiv^H^H^H^H^H "Roger" to talk with them, and the other is to
> adversively condition callers so they'll be more reluctant to
> call for help the next time.
>
> Call centers are run on statistics, and one "good" statistic is
> the percent of callers who hang up before speaking with a CSR,
> minus the percent of callers who hung up once and called back in
> a short period.
>
> In my experience the companies providing the worst "IVR Hell"
> experience are those with monopolies either de jure or de facto.
>
> If Wal*Mart makes it too much trouble to buy groceries from them,
> there's a Meijer next door who'll be happy to have my trade. If I
> have an issue with my electrical bill, I can't really give my
> business to their competitor.
And one service that has developed this to a fine art is satellite
radio, XM and Sirius, now a monopoly. It's easy to add a service,
but nearly impossible to stop or change a service and/or billing.
Fortunately, satellite radio is not a necessity of life.
--
Paul
***** Moderator's Note *****
XM and Sirius have combined? What did they do with the spare
satellites?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:46:51 -0400
From: Randall <rvh40.remove-this@and-this-too.insightbb.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Giving out your phone number
Message-ID: <73BAD020-B2DC-4106-807B-F293190BABAA@insightbb.com>
On Oct 14, 2010, at 3:20 AM, Telecom Digest Moderator wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Give me a little credit: this is, after all, a telecom forum.
>
> I give out the busy-test number at a Boston-area CO.
(502)555-1212 works, too.
***** Moderator's Note *****
502-555-1212 is an "automated directory assistance" number.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:15:51 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Verizon Wireless Offers iPad at Stores Nationwide on October 28
Message-ID: <p06240816c8dd072e27c9@[192.168.180.230]>
Verizon Wireless Offers iPad at Stores Nationwide on October 28
BASKING RIDGE, New Jersey and CUPERTINO, California-October 14,
2010-Verizon Wireless and Apple today announced that iPad will be
available at over 2,000 Verizon Wireless Stores nationwide beginning
Thursday, October 28. Verizon Wireless will offer three bundles, all
featuring an iPad Wi-Fi model and a Verizon MiFi 2200 Intelligent
Mobile Hotspot, for a suggested retail price of $629.99 for iPad
Wi-Fi 16GB + MiFi, $729.99 for iPad Wi-Fi 32GB + MiFi and $829.99 for
iPad Wi-Fi 64GB + MiFi. Verizon Wireless is offering a monthly access
plan to iPad customers of up to 1GB of data for just $20 a month. In
addition, Verizon Wireless will also offer all three iPad Wi-Fi
models on a stand-alone basis.
...
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/14ipadverizon.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
For $629.99, I'd rather hire a High-School Track athlete to run my
messages around. I'm sorry, but this leaves me with jet lag: there
isn't a phone in the world worth that kind of dough.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:15:51 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Apple's iPad Coming to AT&T Stores on October 28
Message-ID: <p06240815c8dd06ec184d@[192.168.180.230]>
Apple's iPad Coming to AT&T Stores on October 28
DALLAS and CUPERTINO, California-October 14, 2010-AT&T* and Apple
today announced that all three iPad Wi-Fi + 3G models will be
available at more than 2,200 AT&T Stores starting Thursday, October
28. AT&T will offer customers 3G pre-paid data plans for iPad,
complete with Apple's easy on-device activation and management. All
iPad data plans are available without a term contract and include
unlimited access to AT&T's 23,000+ domestic Wi-Fi Hot Spots.
...
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/14ipadatt.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
This is the new model, with the Five Finger Feature[tm] that takes
money from your wallet without you having to do anything!
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:02:21 -0500
From: GlowingBlueMist <GlowingBlueMist@truely.invalid.dotsrc.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No dial tone, no service, no respect -- not even for Alexander Graham Bell descendant
Message-ID: <4cb76fdc$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
On 10/12/2010 6:59 PM, Joseph Singer wrote:
>
> Her telephone died weeks ago. Since then, Helene Pancoast has been
> engaged in a farcical struggle familiar to any no-account customer up
> against an errant provider of cable, gas, electricity or telephone
> service.
>
> You know the feeling. Like wandering through a maze. Reduced to
> communicating with robotic voices reciting touch-tone menus of choices
> that hardly correspond to your particular dilemma. ``Press 3 if your
> phone is inoperable.''
>
> Finally comes the live voice of a service rep with a tenuous grip on
> English, who shunts you to another line that kicks you back to the
> original recording. ``Press 9 if you would like to be transferred to
> the suicide hot-line.''
>
> Helene Pancoast speaks for all of us, as she bemoans the ``general
> malaise and disconnection of the service industries of people serving
> people.''
>
> ``General disregard, for the problems of others and of service to
> customers and community, has become the norm,'' she complains.
>
> WHAT'S IN A NAME
>
> Except it's not just you or me who can't convince AT&T to fix the
> phone.
>
> ``My grandmother Marian Bell Fairchild always told us that we should
> never `use the connection' of the Bell Name to get special
> attention,'' Pancoast says.
>
> A few days ago, in the midst of trying (and failing) to convince a
> telephone repairman to reconnect her to civilization, she violated
> grandmother's edict. ``I did mention as well that, as the last
> remaining Bell descendant living in Miami, I felt their service was
> beyond terrible.''
>
> The very great granddaughter of Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the
> telephone, father of the Bell communications conglomerate known lately
> as AT&T, can only rage against the machine.
>
> http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/11/1868716/no-dial-tone-no-service-no-respect.html
>
> or http://goo.gl/co0O
>
>
It reminds me of the time my father was renovating a two story house and
had problems with the power company. The power feed came from the power
pole using overhead wires to a steel conduit on the outside wall that
went from the ground floor all the way up to the roof line of the building
Dad had removed the second story of the building and had requested the
power company disconnect service, including all wires to the building
until he scheduled a reconnection.
The power company's records claimed this had already been done a short
while ago. Repeated telephone calls failed to get them to send anyone
out to visually inspect or resolve the issue. They even went so far as
to send my father a letter telling him the same thing which included a
fictitious date when the removal had been accomplished. A visual
inspection by my father and myself showed the wires still attached and
there was still voltage at the meter base on the house.
After receiving the letter notifying him that the service to the
building had already been disconnected at the telephone pole my father
took a large sledge hammer and knocked the electrical conduit and meter
off the side of the house. The wires came down onto the street and
shorted together causing the power companies transformer to explode and
burn. In the end the power pole caught on fire as well.
The fire department and police were not amused by the entire incident
and initially gave my father a hard time. The power company tried to
have the police arrest my father for maliciousness mischief or some such
charge. Everyone backed off once dad showed them the letter from the
power company indicating the wires had been previously removed all the
way to the pole by power company's own technicians two weeks earlier.
The power pole had to be replaced before a new transformer could be
mounted and power restored to the neighbors houses, all at no cost to my
father.
Later when my father called to have the power restored to the house four
truck loads of people arrived on site. All but two were just standing
around watching while two technicians actually did the work...
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <6de3286d-09f1-414d-80bc-fe185544e44a@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 13, 1:02 pm, Richard <r...@richbonnie.com> wrote:
> I worked for AT&T at the time of divestiture. Employees were given
> at no cost up to 2 Western Electric phones currently in their
> homes. I received stickers to put on the bottoms of my phones to
> denote that they were now my property. I don't know if the offer
> included all employees, or just management and engineers (I was one
> of the latter).
Thanks for the historical insight.
The old Bell System gave its employees discounts on phone service*.
I don't know if the baby Bells or LD carriers do so. It's all
different with employees in the wireless division under very different
employment policies.
As to Western Electric, there's a big historical irony. Activists for
years sought to force AT&T to divest itself of Western Electric,
claiming Western's prices were artificially too high, but AT&T always
resisted this, including at the final settlement of Divesture. Yet it
turned out Western Electric, as it evolved into Lucent, didn't do that
well. At Divesture, AT&T probably could've dumped Western Electric
and kept the operating companies as an alternative position and been
better off. I don't think too many people expected equipment costs
and long distance costs to drop as radically as they did thanks to new
technology.
* Today that would probably be seen as a scandal. Employees of
transit agencies (bus, train, and subway operators, etc) always got a
free pass as part of their job. Today such passes are under attack as
"unfair". Of course, not mentioned is that employees need their pass
often to do their basic jobs, and setting up a system to distinguish
between personal and official use would cost more than saved..
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 (21 messages)
|
| |
or 