29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for March 25, 2011
====== 29 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 the recipients of the
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, 23 Mar 2011 21:19:09 -0700 From: Steven <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Regarding that proposed ATT takeover of TM Message-ID: <email@example.com> On 3/23/11 6:29 PM, Steven wrote: > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > We've gotten lost in the technology here. The point I was trying to > make is that Sprint's PCS phones aren't compatible with the "CDMA" > phones used by Verizon, i.e., that even if that both use CDMA, they > are not inter-operable. > In other words, I don't think that the issue of AT&T/T-Mobile having > one island of users, stranded by their GSM technology, and > Verizon/Sprint having another, is as significant as some of the > readers have opined. While it's true that if Verizon Mobile merges > with Sprint, and if AT&T merges with T-Mobile, users wouldn't be able > to just plug in a SIM card and switch from one to the other, that > isn't the important factor in my way of thinking. > Handsets are disposable, and cost (generally) less than three month's > worth of cellular billing fees, so the most important thing to me is > that the merged companies would be much more likely to raise rates and > (as someone else pointed out) to sell "their" customers as digital > cattle in each company's data corral. > > Bill Horne > Moderator I believe they are just registered to use the network you subscribe to. I get up to the foothills north of Sacramento and I believe I'm roaming on Verizon and I have Sprint, so they must have Roaming agreements. GSM phone have all of the data as to where your service is located on the chip. My knowledge is in the switch with some tower work changing out batterues. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2011 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:37:24 -0400 From: "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Regarding that proposed ATT takeover of TM Message-ID: <4A6BEFE7B3D24DF5A84D96A9ED3E8777@meng.lab.emc.com> > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > We've gotten lost in the technology here. The point I was trying to > make is that Sprint's PCS phones aren't compatible with the "CDMA" > phones used by Verizon, i.e., that even if that both use CDMA, they > are not inter-operable. They sure as heck are! Otherwise, Sprint customers could not roam on Verizon, and vice versa. Yet they do. (And likewise with US Cellular and other CDMA/EVDO carriers.) Q.E.D. A Verizon CDMA phone is just as much of a "PCS" device as a Sprint CDMA phone is. It's true that Sprint (with WiMax) and Verizon (LTE) are going in different directions with their 4G technologies. But at least they CAN technically interoperate all the way up through the 3G level (EVDO), though in practice each company seems to limit the other's data-roaming customers to 1xRTT. AT&T and T-Mobile use such different frequencies for 3G (HSPA) that data-roaming between them generally has to drop all the way down to the 2G technology level of EDGE/GPRS. Perhaps your confusion has its genesis in Sprint's ill-starred acquisition of Nextel several years ago. Nextel phones use an entirely different technology called iDEN, which is now a dead-end. Sprint-Nextel stores have a selection of CDMA phones on one side and a (generally smaller) selection of iDEN devices on the other side. No word yet on when the iDEN network will be phased out. Bob Goudreau Cary, NC
Date: 24 Mar 2011 04:54:48 -0000 From: John Levine <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Regarding that proposed ATT takeover of TM Message-ID: <email@example.com> >We've gotten lost in the technology here. The point I was trying to >make is that Sprint's PCS phones aren't compatible with the "CDMA" >phones used by Verizon, i.e., that even if that both use CDMA, they >are not inter-operable. Yes and no. You can't sign up for Sprint service and use a VZ handset, but they could enable roaming between networks to fill in the gaps. R's, John
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:30:52 +0000 (UTC) From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Garrett Wollman) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Regarding that proposed ATT takeover of TM Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> In article <email@example.com>, the moderator wrote: >We've gotten lost in the technology here. The point I was trying to >make is that Sprint's PCS phones aren't compatible with the "CDMA" >phones used by Verizon, i.e., that even if that both use CDMA, they >are not inter-operable. Not so, at least at the hardware level. Since there's no such thing as a SIM card for CDMA, phones are delivered by the manufacturer locked to the carrier that is selling them, but Verizon's, at least, all have multi-band radios and all it would take is a PRL update for VZW phones to use the Sprint network. (But Sprint probably doesn't own spectrum in any place that would be advantageous for VZW to acquire, which would explain why no merger has been proposed between those two companies.) I would not be surprised if Sprint's phones were also multi-band, as that would make it cheaper for the manufacturer. I don't know what US Cellular's and metroPCS's spectrum footprints look like (and thus how much they're reselling from Sprint or Verizon), but those companies' phones are even more likely to support both cellular and PCS bands. And of course everyone in the US is deploying the same 4G technology, LTE, which is a GSM standard and will require some sort of SIM (although possibly not customer-replaceable). Each carrier will be doing it on a different chunk of spectrum. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft firstname.lastname@example.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:36:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Joseph Singer <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Regarding that proposed ATT takeover of TM Message-ID: <email@example.com> Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:29:59 -0700 CDT/Telecom Digest moderator Bill Horne wrote: > We've gotten lost in the technology here. The point I was trying to > make is that Sprint's PCS phones aren't compatible with the "CDMA" > phones used by Verizon, i.e., that even if that both use CDMA, they > are not inter-operable. First of all let's get a little technical stuff out of the way. In the US mobile operators use for voice for their 2G networks either the GSM standard or the CDMA standard. They operate on either the "cellular" frequency band which formerly people said was on 800 Mhz but which is closer to 850 Mhz. The other band used for 2G mobile is PCS at 1900 Mhz. Both CDMA and GSM operate at these frequencies. Verizon Wireless uses both 850 and 1900 Mhz frequencies depending on what they are allowed to use wherever they are. Verizon does not use cellular in some markets and only uses PCS. Sprint started with PCS which is why the company before merging with Nextel was known as Sprint PCS. When they acquired Nextel and its 800 Mhz SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) service the company simply used the name Sprint. From what I recall reading Sprint was asked to vacate the SMR service at 800 Mhz because of interference with emergency service radio. Technically Verizon and Sprint's service is compatible since they both use a form of 2G CDMA. The incompatibility likely is in adopting 4G service since Verizon Wireless is going for LTE and I believe Sprint is going with Wimax.
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:53:57 +0000 From: Richard Powderhill <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: What to do with a switchboard Message-ID: <DUB102-ds14BE0D36D828575E4F1E2C86B60@phx.gbl> You might find interested party(ies) in Great Britain, try Telecommunications Heritage Group, tel #44(0)20 8099 1699, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org . Richard Powdehill, Birmingham, England
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:58:21 -0600 From: email@example.com (Fred Atkinson) To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject:Annoyance Calls Message-ID: <email@example.com> Well, After FAXing Texas Governor Rick Perry's office last night, I got a phone call from the Texas PUC this morning. The caller's name was Amanda. She suggested I use the DNC list or the Colorado, correction South Carolina, correction New Mexico Attorney General's office (I can download the wave file of the message from my provider's Web site to prove it). When I called her back and explained to them that it was not telemarketing but calls that were not giving any live or recorded telemarketing message and just hanging up, then they told me to contact the New Mexico Attorney General as they would not investigate this for me if I didn't live in Texas. I told her I would be contacting Governor Perry's office by FAX again. Nevertheless, I called the New Mexico Attorney General. At first, she thought I meant telemarketing calls but listened and heard me when I explained about the calls with no live or voice message. She asked for the specific numbers but I am at work and the numbers are on my PC at home. I got her name (Melba) and FAX number and told her I would FAX the information to her when I got home tonight. At least she isn't blowing me off like the Texas PUC is. But she said she'd likely just be handing it off to the Texas Attorney General's Office. I'm going to write Rick Perry another letter tonight and tell him about this. Regards, Fred
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:24:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: What to do with a switchboard Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Mar 23, 10:51 pm, Lisa or Jeff <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > --551--cords arranged in two rows, front and back, with two rows of > little levers plus lights; manual service-- station jacks had lights > > -- 552--cords arranged in two rows, front and back, with two rows of > little levers plus lights; dial service-station jacks did not have > lights and there was an attendant strip. > > --555-- cords arranged in one row, a row of knobs, and a row of push > buttons plus lights; manual service-- station jacks had lights > > --556-- cords arranged in one row, a row of knobs, and a row of push > buttons plus lights--dial service--station jacks did not have lights > and there was an attendant strip > > --608 beige instead of black background, push buttons. Some amplification of the above: A PBX ("private branch exchange") serving a subscriber's organization may be classified as _internally_ dial or manual. That is, within the organization, dial service meant extensions could dial each other and optionally outside calls without going through the PBX switchboard attendant. Manual service meant extensions were always served by the PBX attendant at the switchboard. (This was completely independent of whether the central office serving the PBX was dial or manual. Indeed, there were many dial PBX's served by a manual C.O.) PBX switchboards serving manual systems had a lamp above each extension jack to signal the extension needed service. Switchboards serving dial systems did not have such a lamp. If an extension wanted the attendant, they would dial 0 and the call would come up on a special jack strip "attendant and intercept". Switchboards serving dial systems also were equipped with a "click test" to check for a busy line. The operator touched the tip of the plug against the rim of the jack. If she heard a loud click she knew the extension was busy. This was also used on large multiple switchboards. Manual PBXs were cheaper to rent since there was no dial equipment. However, the subscriber's attendant may have had to handle more calls. Also, extenstion-to-extension calls required an attendant be on duty to handle them. Depending on the nature of a subscriber's business this may not have been a problem. For instance, in a small motel/hotel, an extension seeking service would go through the front desk where the switchboard usually was, and the front desk clerk would be handling most requests anyway. Also in a small motel/hotel there were usually very little room-to-room calls. Around 1970 Bell Labs developed a new manual console PBX to replace the 555. Presumably it was inexpensive. However, by then dial PBXs and more sophisticated key systems were desired by subscribers so I don't think many were made. Manual PBX systems today are extremely rare if they exist at all. But some PBXs still have a few manual (dial blank) extensions in the facility, such as a house phone in a building lobby, a customer service phone in a waiting area, etc. Naturally the system should be set up so that a human answers calls from such phones and is equipped to provide the necessary service. The 555/556 design came out just after WW II (the war delayed their introduction). Certain levers were replaced by push buttons, and internally the board used modular plug-in units. However, the older style remained in service for many years. From a functional point of view, I don't think they offered anything the older models offered. There was also a 600 line of cord boards intended for larger installations but functionally they were similar to the 551/552. There were special boards for certain applications. The 608 came out in the late 1950s and was the last Bell System cord PBX switchboard. It had a more modern appearance and automated certain functions (for example, ringing started automatically when the plug was inserted into a jack, rather than the attendant manually pushing the ringing key.) Almost always ringing power was supplied by a power supply. But if commercial power failed, the attendant could ring extensions by turning the ringing crank (rather tiring after a short use.) In the late 1950s the Bell System came out with a new line of cordless switchboards that appeared similar to a Call Director. These were generally used with newer dial systems and could have new features, such as "camp on". They had the advantage of not needing the attendant to take down the cords after a call was completed which improved accuracy and productivity. Years ago the organization's PBX attendant was seen as a greeter to callers and customers. The Bell System provided attendant training and literature that constantly stressed the importance of high quality PBX service. Many of the customer service functions performed by PBX attendants in the past are now automated. There are far fewer attendants who can page someone for an urgent call or provide other specialized assistance. If the desired party doesn't answer or their line is busy the call gets dumped to voice mail and that's it. Today, it's not uncommon to be placed in a queue just to reach an attendant, too bad if the caller is on long distance, a cell phone during peak hours, or making a quick call during their coffee break from work.
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|
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) 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.