29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

The Telecom Digest for August 20, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 209 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service(John Mayson)
Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service(Adam H. Kerman)
Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service(John Mayson)
Re: Extensions to pay phones?(HAncock4)
Re: Avoid socializing by pretending to use your phone? You're not alone(David Clayton)
Re: Extensions to pay phones?(Scott Norwood)
Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service(Adam H. Kerman)
Re: Shame On You!(John Mayson)
Bell Logo History(David Chessler)

====== 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 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: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:14:45 -0500 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service Message-ID: <CALtjCnJ5Lun4R=c_r3PXx+7v7ioxHC=JCSzhSGBktg9uyMdJOg@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Hancock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote: > In reading various public comments in the news, I can't help but > suspect many people do not understand the issue. People seem to > think it's a "free speech" issue, but I don't see it that way---one > does not use their cell phone to demonstrate. To me, the issue is > (1) does a property owner have the right to suspend cell phone > service within his property over communications gear he owns, and > (2) steps a government action may take in the face of a civil > disturbance. Yes, the most misunderstood and misquoted amendment out there. I can ban the word "froglegs" from my house and tell you if you say it I'm kicking you out. I have not trampled on your precious First Amendment rights. You're free to say that word outside of my house and the GOVERNMENT will make no attempt to silence you. But it's my right as a property owner not to have that word said in my house. I'm not pro-protestor. In fact I have made no attempt to keep up with what they're protesting. I don't like it that BART has punished the majority for what a vocal minority have done. Most people who rely on that mobile network have never protested anything in their life, they're just trying to go about their day. On a more idealist level though, how can we as a nation criticize Egypt or Libya for shutting off wireless access when we do the same thing? True, it's BART, but to the outside world it's the government in America. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA ***** Moderator's Note ***** Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. BTW, I think the Second Amendment is, by far, the least well understood and most often misquoted. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:37:06 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service Message-ID: <j2lvv2$79d$3@news.albasani.net> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote: >On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Hancock4 wrote: >>In reading various public comments in the news, I can't help but >>suspect many people do not understand the issue. People seem to >>think it's a "free speech" issue, but I don't see it that way---one >>does not use their cell phone to demonstrate. To me, the issue is >>(1) does a property owner have the right to suspend cell phone >>service within his property over communications gear he owns, and >>(2) steps a government action may take in the face of a civil >>disturbance. >Yes, the most misunderstood and misquoted amendment out there. I can >ban the word "froglegs" from my house and tell you if you say it I'm >kicking you out. I have not trampled on your precious First Amendment >rights. You're free to say that word outside of my house and the >GOVERNMENT will make no attempt to silence you. But it's my right as >a property owner not to have that word said in my house. >I'm not pro-protestor. In fact I have made no attempt to keep up with >what they're protesting. I don't like it that BART has punished the >majority for what a vocal minority have done. Most people who rely on >that mobile network have never protested anything in their life, >they're just trying to go about their day. Communication was shut off due to perception of the possibility of harm to BART, likely with more concern for public relations than the possibility of damage to property. Communication wasn't shut off because actual property damage was occuring. So, no, they weren't trying to punish a minority by inconveniencing every cell phone user. They were scared based on incidents in London and other cities. This is prior restraint. >On a more idealist level though, how can we as a nation criticize >Egypt or Libya for shutting off wireless access when we do the same >thing? True, it's BART, but to the outside world it's the government >in America. BART is the government, a correctly held perception inside the United States too.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:50:04 -0500 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service Message-ID: <CALtjCn+_RzxUU+4kuMO2yThoJSW9h+0S3bJfCpSwJvaUd9vM_Q@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>On a more idealist level though, how can we as a nation criticize >>Egypt or Libya for shutting off wireless access when we do the same >>thing? True, it's BART, but to the outside world it's the governmen t >>in America. > > BART is the government, a correctly held perception inside the > United States too. The US has many layers of government, something some other countries do not have. It's not hypocritical for the US Sec. of State to denounce a regime for disabling cell phone service while BART does the same because they're two completely distinct entities. But to an outsider who perhaps lives in a country where the national goverment runs everything from collecting from parking meters to running the military it might seem highly hyprocritical. And it's perceptions that can drive a lot of anger against the US. -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 07:47:21 -0700 (PDT) From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones? Message-ID: <03fe3705-6aa1-4575-aade-66de5ccf3055@c8g2000prn.googlegroups.com> On Aug 18, 11:56am, snorw...@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood) wrote: > I have seen this sort of setup in an older movie theatre. To the > best of my knowledge, it is still in place (it was as of a few > years ago). [snip] > I don't know to what extent this conforms to the relevant tarrifs > (I am sure that his arrangement has been in place for decades), > but I do know that the owner would consider a second phone line to > be an "unnecessary expense." Verizon once sent me a price list of their various services, much of which were legacy. It appears that most legacy services are still available if one is willing to pay for them. Sometimes switching to modern technology might be cheaper. (Some exceptions--in my state party lines are no longer available, and I believe they discontinued 20 ma and 60 ma lines that served old style Teletypes). Regarding the theatre and its phone booth, I can't think of any reason why the phoneco would not continue to provide that service. However, I suspect the pay phone doesn't get much use and the theatre owner must pay for it to make up the shortfall. It might be cheaper for them to terminate the pay phone and just have a regular line for the box office. Regarding the issue of message rate service to businesses, I checked the Bell Labs history 1925-1975. It appears message rate was used in large cities while smaller cities had flat rate. On the technology of recording charges, I was confused. On the one hand automatic counting- registers for developed very early for manual service and adopted for switches when dial came out. (In a few large cities that had message unit service (eg New York), the registers would increment for initial charge and timing; in 1950 this was expanded to dialed suburban calls.) But their other descriptions of message charging required complex equipment, such as for ANI.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:22:27 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Avoid socializing by pretending to use your phone? You're not alone Message-ID: <pan.2011.08.19.08.22.21.6090@yahoo.com.au> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:42:34 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote: > Avoid socializing by pretending to use your phone? You're not alone By > Casey Johnston > > If you pretend to use your cell phone to avoid talking to others, > congratulations-you are part of the rudest 13 percent of the American > public. ............. No, the best way to not use your cellphone is on a train or other public space when some-other annoying idiot is carrying on with an inane mono-versation (one-sided conversation) and obviously embarrassing or annoying everyone else. Then you get your phone and pretend to answer a call with something like the following (spoken VERY loudly): "Look I can't talk right now as I don't want to be one of those annoying idiots that inconsiderately use their phones on the train/bus/whatever, I'll call you back later" and then pretend to hang up. Do it in the right place and you'll get smiles from everyone else and a dirty look from the annoying fool on the phone that might finally get the hint. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:26:36 +0000 (UTC) From: snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones? Message-ID: <j2lrqs$7r0$1@reader1.panix.com> In article <pan.2011.08.18.17.49.41.525858@example.invalid>, John F. Morse <john@invalid.telecom-digest.net> wrote: > >What is a WECo 1C2 payphone? It's the current standard single-slot touch-tone type that you would typically see in a phone booth or enclosure. A 1C1 is the rotary version, and a 2C[12] is the panel-mount version. I have not seen a rotary model in service since the early 1990s. >I am familiar with the single-slot 1A2, but that was back in the 1980s. Is >the 1C2 an upgrade? Do you have a link to a picture? Here is a picture (this one is missing the locks): http://www.payphone.com/images/D/personalpayphone1.jpg Most of the current ones now have a volume adjustment button in the upper-left corner where the "STOP" placard is located in the picture. The newer ones have an electronic (as opposed to mechanical) coin return mechanism and may have more electronics inside. >I suspect you didn't really mean to imply the movie theater also had a >second 1C2 in the box office. Actually, I did. They have two of them, both on the same circuit, one in the lobby and one in the boxoffice. I have never seen this before or since. The building dates from the 1920s, but the phones are obviously from the 1970s/1980s or later. This is in Verizon territory in Rhode Island.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:28:19 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service Message-ID: <j2lvej$79d$2@news.albasani.net> Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote: >Gordon Burditt <gordonb.15ah1@burditt.org> wrote: >>>According to one article: >>>"The agency did not jam cell signals, which is illegal, but shut off >>>the system - which Johnson said is allowable under an agreement with >>>several major phone service providers that pay rent to BART." >>I still wonder if deliberately shutting down 911 service (cellular >>or otherwise) for any reason that isn't itself an emergency ... might >>make them liable in a wrongful death suit should failing to reach 911 >>make a significant difference in the outcome. >Short answer: almost certainly _not_. They have no 'duty' to provide >such service; they cannot be held liable for not providing it. Of course they had a duty. BART claimed it shut down communications due to emergency. If they were truly fearful of violence, then they were anticipating that it was likely injuries would occur. The action they took would have aggravated the injuries if delay in receiving treatment was the result. >Note: it is well-established case-law that emergency services providers >(police, fire, etc.) do not have a duty to respond to any particular >incident, even if notified of the event. I suspect that this would also >apply with regard to the 911 'outage' that the OP described. In this case, BART itself is not the rescue agency. It's still the San Francisco fire department as notified by the San Francisco police department, assuming they run the 911 call center. I don't see why the case law you are thinking of would apply. Here's another legal quandry BART has placed itself in. By claiming not to be a common carrier because it doesn't accept all communication traffic but only specific communication traffic, BART may have accepted liability for any use of communication systems when the system itself was used to plan a crime or to set up a situation in which harm was caused to another. You think BART won't be a party to personal injury lawsuits? I do. They've just made it more difficult to defend themselves for their contribution to the situation by allowing communication to take place. Common carrier is an all-encompassing shield from a great deal of liability. This was action against their own interest.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:35:42 -0500 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Shame On You! Message-ID: <CALtjCn+3ch3db85fooehBJzpVxLMriC4zjy=P+uL-ToiWK2CEQ@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote: > > The same thing happens in the Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, Okla.)  I > think there is a common reason here--it costs money to go out and make > their own local photo, while the wire services send them photos as a > part of their services, or they can get a photo with a couple of > clicks. > > > Wes Leatherock > wleathus@yahoo.com > wesrock@aol.com > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I don't believe it. Previous editions of The Inquirer had extensive > pictures of Philadelphians on picket lines, and I've never met a > photographer who didn't take four times more shots than he > needed. They could have taken another of those out of the archives if > they were short of images, but I think what really happened was that > Verizon's ad agency called up and demanded that the editor get in > line. I, of course, have no idea what happened in the newsroom of The Inquirer, so I can only guess. Bill, by "previous editions", do you mean last week or last decade? If you mean last week then I suppose we could follow the money: Verizon buys a lot of ad space in Philly newspapers, someone calls encouraging use of a photo, etc. It could happen. If you mean last decade then I think Wes' observation holds true. Newsrooms are cut to the bone. It's easier to use a wire photo or a stock photo in place of sending an actual photographer out. I'm something of an airplane geek and it just floors me to read an article about an American Airlines 767 and see a picture of an old (obviously) Eastern Airlines 727 as if it has anything to do with the article. Someone in the newsroom probably did a search for "airplane" and picked the first thing that came up and called it a day. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA ***** Moderator's Note ***** I meant "in the past few days". I did a Google image search for '"Striking workers" Philadelphia Verizon', and I received dozens of images showing workers striking against Verizon on picket lines in Philadelphia, and many, if not most, were from the Inquirer! The Philadelphia Inquirer did its reader a disservice: if a picture is worth a thousand words, I'd like to send an image of Google headquarters to the owners, with a caption stating "THIS is why you're so desperate that you would compromise nearly two-hundred years of reader trust, and you brought it on yourselves". Bill Horne Moderator
From: David Chessler <chessler@usa.NOSPAM.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Bell Logo History Bell System Memorial- Bell Logo History http://www.porticus.org/bell/bell_logos.html
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 (9 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues