TELECOM Digest     Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:10:00 EST    Volume 26 : Issue 51

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    TiVo and Amazon.com Announce New Service Enabling Amazon Unbox (M Solomon)
    Text Messaging Mac OS X Dashboard Widget (Monty Solomon)
    Impact of DST Changes on BlackBerry Device Users (Monty Solomon)
    Personal VoIP Network: Suggestions Requested (akarui.tomodachi@gmail.com)
    CommunicationsDirect News Daily Update (communicationsdirect_daily)
    Analysts: Bet on Europe's Small Telecoms (USTelecom dailyLead)
    Re: Party Line Dialing, was Re: Telephone Area Codes, Prefixes (L Hancock)
    Re: Party Line Dialing, was Re: Telephone Area Codes; Prefixes (C Navarro)
    Re: Party Line Dialing, was Re: Telephone Area Codes; Prefixes (Rob Bonomi)
    Re: Party Line Dialing, was Re: Telephone Area Codes; Prefixes (M Simpson)

====== 25 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; other stuff of interest, and why not
support Net Freedom Now http://www.freepress.net/netfreedom . 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:01:15 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: TiVo and Amazon.com Announce New Service Enabling Amazon Unbox


ALVISO, Calif. & SEATTLE, Feb 07, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) --

TiVo Inc. (NASDAQ:TIVO), the creator of and a leader in television
services for digital video recorders (DVRs), and Amazon.com
(NASDAQ:AMZN) today announced "Amazon Unbox on TiVo," a
soon-to-be-launched service feature that will provide TiVo subscribers
with the ability to rent and purchase movies and television shows from
leading studios and networks including CBS, Fox Entertainment Group,
Lionsgate, Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios Home Entertainment
and Warner Bros. Entertainment. Amazon Unbox on TiVo is currently in
beta testing among a select group of TiVo subscribers and will be
available soon to more than 1.5 million broadband-ready TiVo boxes.

The Amazon Unbox video download service, which launched in September
2006, offers thousands of movies, television shows and other videos
for download to PCs and any Windows Media Video-compatible portable
device. Now, in addition to PCs and portable devices, movies and
television shows will be available to download directly to a
customer's TiVo box for playback on their television set. This is the
first service that uniquely allows for downloadable broadband video to
be integrated with programming recorded from TV so the consumer can
easily navigate all viewing options.

     - http://www.quote.com/home/news/story.asp?story=63825554

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:21:57 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Text Messaging Mac OS X Dashboard Widget


TxtDrop Free Text Messaging Mac OS X Dashboard Widget

TxtDrop now has a Dashboard widget available for Mac OS X users! With
our new widget you can send completely free text messages right from
your desktop and receive replies to your messages directly via email.

http://www.txtdrop.com/widget.php

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:05:57 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Impact of DST Changes on BlackBerry Device Users


Impact of North American Daylight Saving Time changes in 2007 on 
BlackBerry device users.

http://www.blackberry.com/select/dst2007/

------------------------------

From: akarui.tomodachi@gmail.com
Subject: Personal VoIP Network: Suggestions Requested
Date: 19 Feb 2007 09:18:39 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Hi:

I am thinking of creating a "dedicated personal VoIP network" to
connect my parent's home phone (in India) with mine in Canada. I have
a very little knowledge about the VoIP technology, but after a brief
research, my undersatnding about the architechture of the VoIP is as
below:

Phone(POTS)+---+PC+---+Gateway+---------+(Internet)+---------+Gateway
+---+PC+---+Phone(POTS)
| 
|
| 
|
|
Line+-----------------
+
+------------------+Line

<========== in Canada ======>
<========= in India =========>


To install the system, I may need following components in both
locations:

1) Each PC (Windows XP) at both locations should have:
    a) Network card connected to internet services;
    b) Gatekeeper and Call Processing software been installed and running;
    c) Phone line from wall is connected to the RJ11 port (line);
    d) Phone is connected to the RJ11 port (phone);
2) Each Gateway (either PCI card or modem like box) connected to the
PC at one side and other to the internet (either through modem or home
network router).

Now, I have questions and need your suggestions:

1) What Gatekeeper and Call Processing software should I use ? (I
prefer open source and free).
2) Where can I buy a good "Gateway" (PCI card or modem like box) ?
3) Do I need any management software installed in the PC (for
configuration) ?

------------------------------

Subject: CommunicationsDirect News Daily Update 
From: communicationsdirect_daily <communicationsdirect_daily@communications.com
)Reply-To: communicationsdirect_daily-owner@communicationsdirectnews.com
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:47:15 EST


********************************
PricewaterhouseCoopers Presents
The CommunicationsDirect Daily Update
For February 19, 2007
********************************

This week's poll: What is most important to you when choosing a mobile
communications service provider? Visit our web site to vote.

Bell Canada to Offer Mobile Movies
http://communicationsdirectnews.com/do.php/150/22775?11228

     Canada's largest mobile operator will begin streaming
     full-length  movies to mobile phones, with content initially being
     provided by Sony  and Disney. The service, called Mobile
     Movies, will cost $5.13 per movie, not including the Web-browsing
     subscription fees, and will offer pause, fast-forward and rewind ...

Oldies Phones: The Next New Frontier
http://communicationsdirectnews.com/do.php/150/22767?11228

     "I've fallen and I can't get up," has been replaced
     by "I want to use  a cellphone, and I want it to be simple,"
     as the new mantra of senior citizens who aren't showing up on
     handset manufacturers' radar. At this week's 3GSM Congress  
     in Barcelona, Emporia Telecom, a small Austrian company, is ...

Palm's in Play
http://communicationsdirectnews.com/do.php/120/22764?11228

     PDA pioneer Palm Inc.  appears to be in play again, with sources
     saying the likely buyers could be Nokia Corp. or Motorola Inc..
     Palm shares rose 6 percent in trading yesterday, as the
     rumor-mongering gathered momentum among the Wall Street set.
     Several sources note that such rumors have made the rounds before,
     but this time ...

Your feedback on our e-letter is always welcome. Send email to:
CommunicationsDirect Editor <telecom_direct_editor@us.pwc.com>

Copyright (C) 2007 PricewaterhouseCoopers.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:19:01 CST
From: USTelecom dailyLead <ustelecom@dailylead.com>
Subject: Analysts: Bet on Europe's Small Telecoms


USTelecom dailyLead
February 19, 2007
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/gipwfDtusXmnzHCibuddUrRo


TODAY'S HEADLINES


NEWS OF THE DAY
* Analysts: Bet on Europe's small telecoms
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Alcatel-Lucent plans SMB push in U.S.
* Motorola mobile chief departs for Dell
* Verizon records case moves to California
* CBS fights Web sites seeking streaming video
* MTV endures through reinvention
* FCC green lights MediaFLO in Orlando
HOT TOPICS
* Embarq announces new wired/wireless calling plan
* Broadband reaches into rural areas
* Fixed, mobile worlds converge
* AT&T open to more acquisitions
* EarthLink lands Houston Wi-Fi network deal
TECHNOLOGY TRENDS
* Broadband penetration to surpass 50% in U.S.
* Review: New tech speeds home networks
* Convergence progresses, hurdles still exist
* Telecoms eye India
* Video sites still looking for copyright-protection solution

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/gipwfDtusXmnzHCibuddUrRo

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Party Line Dialing, was Re: Telephone Area Codes and Prefixes
Date: 19 Feb 2007 18:43:03 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Wesrock@aol.com wrote:

> I also lived in a dial exchange that had terminal-per-line step
> equipment. This meant there was one terminal for each line -- a party
> line had an additional digit.  The number for my busines was 234.
> Individual (one-party) lines had three-digit numbers.  Party lines had
> four digit numbers, such as 4551.  The last digit (usually a 1 or a 2)
> told the connector which ringing current to apply.

On some SxS offices which a 4 digit number, the third digit would be
the party code.  So I could be 5718 and my neighbor 5728, the 1 and 2
indicating the party code.

> This was long before DDD or the national numbering plan. Terminal-per-
> line had a number of drawbacks, such as the fact that if intercept
> service needed to be provided, both parties' numbers had to be
> intercepted and the caller asked which number they were called ... also
> regrouping party lines required changing one or both customers numbers.

This was one of the challenges they faced in implenting DDD.
Obviously some offices took longer than others to convert.  Well into
the 1970s the telephone directories for small towns had complex
directions of dial codes depending on where you were and where you
were calling.  Sometimes you had to wait for a second dial tone or
special tone.  Adding tandem switching (switches that connect between
central office) was a challenge too.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Am I correct in thinking that all
> party-line subscribers were geographically close to each other (such
> as a few doors away, or across the alley?) Were they nearly or always
> on the same cable out of the central office?  Or were there party line
> subscribers across town from each other?  PAT]

I would presume (and have heard) that party line users were located
close to each, since the whole idea was to share the same physical
line to the C.O.  How it was handled in cities, where in the old days
many people had party service, I don't know.

Indeed, one of the postwar challenges of the Bell System was the
demand for private line service instead of party service as people got
more money and could afford it.  Originally party service had a big
discount but as time went on it wasn't as significant.  The paperwork
to track cabling and lines must have been enormous.

However, in some 1950s Bell System publications, they said one of the
limiting factors in giving more private lines (demand exceed supply)
was that central offices didn't have the capacity.  Party service was
a way to keep down calling volume until they could expand.  In many
cases that meant a new building which of course was expensive and time
consuming.  (I know of city Bell Telephone buildings where it is
obviously some upper stories were added.)

I do wonder if any outside auditors checked to see if the Bell System
was indeed adding capacity as demand required in the 1950s.  Could
Bell have bought gear from Automatic Electric?  Hired more installers?
I will note that in the 1950s the military was expanding and Bell had
military contracts for both basic phone systems and advanced radar and
other systems.  Other companies at the time did so as well, and this
was respected by the public.  Companies in that era ran ads (similar
to that of WW II) "Defense needs come first -- please be patient". (It
wasn't until the later 1960s that some would question Bell System
defense projects.)

------------------------------

From: Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org>
Subject: Re: Party Line Dialing, was Re: Telephone Area Codes and Prefixes
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:14:05 -0500


On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:10:51 EST, Wesrock@aol.com wrote:

> Not all places had provision for more than two types of ringing.
> Others had four, as you suggest.  Many non-Bell companies used
> harmonic ringing which, at least in theory, could provide for eight or
> 10 distinct parties with single ringing.  Some were more reliable than
> others.

In our Northwest Ohio independent environment, you had 5 frequencies.
We had both decimonic and harmonic ring plans in our various central
offices.  In practice, we had 2,4 and 8 party lines.

> Wes Leatherock
> wesrock@aol.com
> wleathus@yahoo.com

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Am I correct in thinking that all
> party-line subscribers were geographically close to each other (such
> as a few doors away, or across the alley?) Were they nearly or always
> on the same cable out of the central office?  Or were there party line
> subscribers across town from each other?  PAT]

Originally, in TPL offices, the parties were on the same cable.  In
TPS, you used bridge lifters to add unrelated areas to party lines.
Usually we did that to coerce :-) people to upgrade.  That and the
fact it was about 80 cents difference between 4 party and 2 party
service and maybe a couple of bucks to go to 4 party from 8 party.  I
think nearly all 8 party service was eliminated by 1975 or so.

Carl Navarro

------------------------------

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Party Line Dialing, was Re: Telephone Area Codes and Prefixes
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:43:09 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom26.50.5@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest Editor
noted in response to <Wesrock@aol.com>:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Am I correct in thinking that all
> party-line subscribers were geographically close to each other (such
> as a few doors away, or across the alley?) Were they nearly or always
> on the same cable out of the central office?  Or were there party line
> subscribers across town from each other?  PAT]

Originally, party lines were intended to conserve wire-pairs.

As such the parties were served off the same trunk cable.  Usually the
same wire-pair all the way to the customer premises.  It would have
been possible, albeit unlikely, for the parties to be on separate
'feeder' cables to a concentration point, and shared a single wire
pair only from the concentration point back to the C.O.

They didn't have to be in 'immediate' proximity to each other, they
could be anywhere a 'multiple' tap on that cable pair existed.

In the 'late days' of part-line use, when the only users were those
who were grandfathered in on a 'discontinued' tariff, it was _not_
uncommon to find the 'parties' in wildly different physical locations,
with each on their own dedicated pair, all the way from the C.O. to
the C.P.

------------------------------

From: Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net>
Subject: Re: Party Line Dialing, was Re: Telephone Area Codes and Prefixes
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:27:17 -0500


In article <telecom26.50.5@telecom-digest.org>

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Am I correct in thinking that all
> party-line subscribers were geographically close to each other (such
> as a few doors away, or across the alley?) Were they nearly or always
> on the same cable out of the central office?  Or were there party line
> subscribers across town from each other?  PAT]

See John Levine's story about "party line attack ladies", Jun 20 1989,
in Telecom Digest Vol 9 Issue 207.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not a bad idea, I suppose. Although I
do not like repeating myself, now and again it is a good idea to
re-run earlier items for the benefit of people who may have missed the
item the first time around, which I guess would include many of you
who were not here to read this item from 18 years ago.  PAT]

  Date:     Thu, 22 Jun 89 0:58:57 CDT
  From:     TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
  To:       telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
  Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #207
  Message-ID:  <8906220058.aa11603@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>

  TELECOM Digest     Thu, 22 Jun 89 00:45:22 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 207

  Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Party Line Attack Ladies (John R. Levine)
    Overseas Collect Calls (Jeff Minnig)
    Automatic Conversation Recording Device (Gary L. Crum)
    British Telecom's `Le Beep' Service (Peter T.)
    Re: Long Distance Carrier Sound Comparisons (John Higdon)
    Re: Is Touchtone Still a Protected Trademark? (Dr. T. Andrews)
    Re: Pacific Bell plans access to computers (Robert Cohen)
    What Is 10288? - Question from new reader (Don Peaslee)
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  Date: Tue, 20 Jun 89 20:13:34 EDT
  From: "John R. Levine" <ima!johnl@harvard.harvard.edu>
  Subject: Party Line Attack Ladies
  Reply-To: "John R. Levine" <ima!ima.isc.com!johnl@harvard.harvard.edu>
  Organization: Segue Software, Inc.

While talking to my cousin who runs an independent telco in rural Vermont, he
introduced me to Party Line Attack Ladies, an aspect of telephone practice not
heretofore described here.

In Vermont, the cheapest service you can order is four-party, and many of my
cousin's customers do order it. Traditionally, a four-party line consisted of
a single loop of wire running to a neighborhood with four houses in that
neighborhood wired in parallel. Nowadays, though, the outside plant wiring is
in most cases private line, i.e. each customer has a separate physical loop
back to the exchange. To make up the party lines, he ties four loops together
at the CO. This has a variety of advantages for him -- nearly all of his
four-party customers do in fact have four parties on the line so they're not
getting better service than they're paying for, and it's much easier to
diagnose line problems, change peoples' service, and rearrange the four-line
groupings as needed.

It also means that his costs for four-party and private line service are the
same even though the rates for private lines are higher (four-party probably
costs him slightly more since an operator has to ask for the caller's number
for toll calls.) He'd naturally rather have people order and pay for private
lines. So he takes advantage of Attack Ladies, local ladies who make extensive
use of their party line phones and have strong opinions about people who want
them to get off the line to make their own calls. One per line is all that's
required. When a customer decides to go private, the modern exchange equipment
allows my cousin to put another client on to the same line with the Attack
Lady without needing to rewire or change phone numbers.

He assures me that this is standard practice in the independent phone
business. I don't doubt it. He'd prefer that the state get rid of four-party
service and implement some sort of low-use minimum cost private line service
instead.

John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869
{ bbn | spdcc | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something
Massachusetts has 64 licensed drivers who are over 100 years old.  -The Globe

  ------------------------------


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So there you have an interesting report
 from 18 years ago in this digest. John Levine has been around for
many, many years on this digest mailing list. PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V26 #51
*****************************