32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for December 27, 2013
====== 32 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of that address. 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: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 03:11:14 -0500 From: T <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Can the FCC Handle Phone Service over the Internet? Message-ID: <MPG.firstname.lastname@example.org> In article <52B9A708.email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org- digest.org says... > Crossbars and panel only existed in certain areas. Both were "Bell" > inventions, to some extent NIH reactions to their non-ownership of > Strowger's patents. Panel and Strowger couldn't directly > interconnect (no common signaling protocol). Strowgers remained in > service here and there until around the turn of this century, after > the last crossbar and panel were long gone. Actually Panel and Crossbar could communicate with SxS exchanges. It was a horribly complex thing but the Bell System did it because they had such a sunk cost in the SxS. The determining factor of who got Panel was the total volume of telephones. For example I know here in Providence, RI we had Panel that was upgraded by #1 ESS. And I know Pawtucket, RI was served by a #5 Crossbar until upgrade to a Nortel DMS-100. ***** Moderator's Note ***** IIRC, Crossbar to Panel used Revertive Pulse senders in the Crossbar office, and Panel to Crossbar was MF. SxS <> Panel was always via a tandem. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 10:38:22 -0800 (PST) From: HAncock4 <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Can the FCC Handle Phone Service over the Internet? Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:11:14 AM UTC-5, T wrote: > Actually Panel and Crossbar could communicate with SxS exchanges. It > was a horribly complex thing but the Bell System did it because they > had such a sunk cost in the SxS. Step by Step remained very popular in smaller offices due to the high expense of common control of crossbar and ESS. It also had the advantage of being rugged and requiring less skill to maintain than crossbar or panel. As mentioned, it wasn't until the 1970s that electronic components became cost-competitive with electro-mechanical components. >From the Bell Switching History, various sections talk about the cost comparison: "No. 2 Crossbar System: As a result of the successful introduction of crossbar switching to these large city applications, three less successful developments were started, applying some of the techniques to smaller offices. In 1938, development was started on a modified version of No. 1 crossbar, known as the No. 2 crossbar system. This system was developed to serve offices with a high percentage of intraoffice calling, such as would occur in a single-office city, or in a city with but a few offices. In those days the high community of interest and rate structure in suburban offices also tended toward high intraoffice calling. Development of this system, using many frames developed for No. 1 crossbar, proceeded to the point where a laboratory model was constructed by 1940. The system was designed so that on intraoffice calls, only one sender and one marker--the originating marker-was used. The call was routed directly from a district link frame to a line link frame on which the called line was located. One group of markers served all types of calls. Price studies made as the design proceeded indicated that, while the system was lower in first cost than No. 1 crossbar for this type of traffic, it did not compete with a senderized version of the step-by-step then being considered; therefore, the No. 2 crossbar system was abandoned." "Early Crossbar COOs and PBXs" In 1935, development was also started on a crossbar community dial office (CDO). It was known as the No. 380 crossbar community dial office and had a capacity of 400 lines. One installation of 80 lines was placed in service in Jonesville, New York in 1940. The system was not standardized since its design did not include sufficient safeguards against double connections that might occur due to crossed-wire troubles. This office gave a good account of itself but was removed from service in 1946 when an addition was necessary. A similarly designed PBX with only a single marker, known as the 745A, was placed in service in the Sun Oil Company, Philadelphia, and as a result of the poor performance it too was removed from service and never standardized (see Chapter 13, section 2.1). Another plan for CDOs was known as the "43" system. This identification came from a dash number associated with a planning case. The system was frequently used as a basis for comparison in price studies because it made very efficient use of crosspoints. It never competed favorably with step-by-step CDO equipment, so development was not undertaken." "No. 2 ESS" Although successful, the No. 2 ESS was not economical below several thousand lines in comparison with step-by-step community· dial offices, even though the No. 2 ESS offered much more capability. The No. 2 ESS processor, to meet its development schedules, had to forego monolithic integrated circuit logic and the PBT memory. Furthermore, the No.2 ESS network could expand beyond 10,000 lines to 20,000, but the call-handling capacity of the No. 2 ESS processor limited the practical size in almost all offices to 10,000 lines or fewer." "The step-by-step system provided automatic service for more Bell System lines than any other switching system when it reached its peak of 24,440,000 lines in 1973. (Later the same year the No.5 crossbar system exceeded this number.)" It wasn't until the mid 1970s that they got the cost of small ESS units low enough so as to be cost-competitive with small step-by-step offices.
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:01:22 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Thanks Verizon for the very late 4.3 update Message-ID: <email@example.com> By Dan Kusnetzky for Virtually Speaking December 23, 2013 -- 13:49 GMT (05:49 PST) Summary: Unlike the tightly controlled iPhone market, Android is a bit like the wild west. Google release updates but they only trickle out to customers. Over the weekend, Verizon Wireless gave the owners of Samsung Galaxy Note 2 handsets a gift -- quite late, but welcome nonetheless. Android 4.3 was finally shipped over the air to customers making Verizon the last of the major U.S. wireless suppliers to provide this update to its customers. Customers of Verizon Wireless have been anxiously waiting for the security and feature updates that were included in newer versions of Android. Customers at an Android 4.1.2 level watched as Google's Android 4.2 was released in November, 2012 and Android 4.3 was released in July, 2013. Google announced Android 4.4 in October 2013. http://www.zdnet.com/thanks-verizon-for-the-very-late-4-3-update-7000024609/ -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly) Oh the price of gold is rising out of sight, And the dollar is in sorry shape tonight. What the dollar used to get us, now won't get a head of lettuce, No, the economic forecast isn't bright. - Tom Paxton
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:35:48 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Centurylink service restored Message-ID: <email@example.com> Kristin Buehner December 23, 2013 MASON CITY | Service was restored by noon Monday to customers of CenturyLink in the Mason City area, a company spokeswoman said. Nancy DeVinay-McNeley said service was disrupted Saturday for customers receiving Internet and landline phone service through CenturyLink. http://globegazette.com/news/local/centurylink-service-restored/article_09540e2e-fa9f-5ac0-9ea4-a9b52a299853.html -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly) In 1955, German philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote his address, "Gelassenheit," prophesizing that the resultant indifference created by the technology revolution (i.e., the calculated way of thinking) had resulted in throwing away our ability to reflect, something we are particularly called to do as the year nears its end. - Kathleen M. Jacobs
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 10:20:51 -0800 (PST) From: HAncock4 <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Can the FCC Handle Phone Service over the Internet? Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 10:23:52 AM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein wrote: > Mr. Lazarus appears to understand VoIP about as well as a good farrier > understands electronic fuel injection. Perhaps he's shilling for the > Bells, who want to maintain confusion in order to get out of their > regulatory obligations. What regulatory obligations do the 'baby bells' still have? In our area, Verizon announced only residential POTS service was regulated. All business services and all premium residential services are not regulated. POTS is becomming obsolete. Lots of users have dumped their traditional landline complete in favor of only using their cell phone. Many others get their telecom services from their cable TV provider, having nothing at all to do with the baby bell company. The modern baby bell services, such as DSL and FIOS are unregulated. So, while there are some 'regulated services' still in place, it seems to me that the majority, perhaps vast majority, of service provided is unregulated. > Crossbars and panel only existed in certain areas. Both were "Bell" > inventions, to some extent NIH reactions to their non-ownership of > Strowger's patents. Panel and Strowger couldn't directly interconnect > (no common signaling protocol). Strowgers remained in service in > service here and there until around the turn of this century, after the > last crossbar and panel were long gone. By the time exchanges grew enough, Strowger's patents were long expired. In the 1910-1920s, most of Bell's customers were in cities. At that time, the combination of capital and operating costs made manual service more cost-efficient in cities. Adding switchboard positions and girls to handle high loads was relatively cheap as compared to adding dial equipment--the dial equipment was there 24/7, while the girls were only needed during the peak periods. With traffic rapidly growing in the 1920s and labor becomming scarce, Bell recognized the need for automation. But step-by-step was inadequate for heavy city service due to its 10x10 matrix. Big city service had more exchanges and more trunks than could fit. The panel system allowed a much wider selection; which included the flexibility of translation to a non-decimal scheme. In the meantime, smaller areas were automated with step-by-step, which eventually reached about 49% of Bell customers. "Eventually (by 1958) more than 3,830,000 lines of panel equipment had been produced and placed in service. The last new office was installed in New York City (HYacinth-9) in 1950. Although the panel system was designed to function for 30 years, many systems served well over longer periods." (Bell Switching History) A "Panel Sender Tandem" was established that could outpulse dial codes. The first was placed in service in NYC in 1931. A major interface goal of panel was an automated interface to manual exchanges so that callers would not need to know whether their called party was served by a manual or dial exchange. For dial users calling a manual exchange, the desired number lit up on a screen in front of the operator (later by sound). For manual users calling a dial exchange, the operator punched in the number. Note that some panel exchanges accepted eight digit local dialing. A common use was the party line suffix, which was dialed as the 8th digit. In a few cases, a manual exchange had more than 10,000 numbers (up to 10,500), and a prefix digit was required, eg HOllis 5-10245. While panel existed only in and near larger cities, crossbar was in many places. The early No. 1 crossbar was a large city system. However, the postwar No. 5 crossbar was intended for growing suburbs. Due to the high cost of common control, which needs to be spread out over many lines, step-by-step remained supreme in the smallest offices. "By the end of 1976 close to 27 million lines in the Bell System were served by No. 5 crossbar. Extensions to existing systems were still being installed, and a peak of 28.5 million customer lines was reached in October 1978." (Bell Switching History).
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:12:43 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Singer <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: BBC: 0845 and 0870 government departments warned Message-ID: <1388121163.63260.YahooMailNeo@web121404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Government departments have been ordered to stop using higher-rate phone lines as the contact for key services. cabinet Office guidance states it is "inappropriate" to pay high charges for such services - "particularly for vulnerable and low-income groups". A recent National Audit Office report found the numbers, often starting 0845 or 0870, cost callers GBP56m in 2012. Departments will have to explain themselves to Cabinet ministers if they fail to follow the rules: Whitehall higher-rate numbers have included those for victim support, benefit and tax enquiries http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25523465 ***** Moderator's Note ***** In the U.S., these calls would be made to "976" or "900" numbers, i.e., premium-rate calls where callers are charged an extra fee and some of the money is passed along to the recipient. Bill Horne Moderator
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.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
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) 2013 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.