For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:08:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 125
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Back From Bankruptcy, Telecom is in For a Fight (Monty Solomon)
Phishing by Phone - VoIP Raises Security Concerns (Jack Decker)
Tracking Down a Harassing Caller Number? (AES)
Former WorldCom Executives Settle for $55.25 Mln (Telecom dailyLead)
Dialpad.com Dpphone 211 (nselewa@gmail.com)
Re: Cell Phone ATT (David B. Horvath, CCP)
Re: Cell Phone ATT (John Levine)
Re: Cell Phone ATT (Joseph)
Re: Cell Phone ATT (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Cell Phone ATT (Scott)
Re: Cell Phone ATT (Isaiah Beard)
Re: Cell Phone "Caller ID" Needed (LB@notmine.com)
Re: VoIP and Bell DSL: Is it Ready For Prime Time? (John Levine)
Re: VoIP and Bell DSL: Is it Ready For Prime Time? (Robert Bonomi)
Re: VoIP and Bell DSL: Is it Ready For Prime Time? (Philip R. Mann)
Re: VOIP and Bell DSL: Is it Ready For Prime Time? (Lisa Hancock)
What Happened to FM Channels 1-199 (Bob Goudreau)
Re: What Happened to Channel 1 (Alan Burkitt Gray)
Re: What Happened to Channel 1 (Paul Coxwell)
Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Joe Morris)
Re: Feds: Criminals Luuuuv Those Open 802.11 Networks (Tim@Backhome.org)
Re: Attacked by a Dog Which Was Playing (Ben Schilling)
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:51:00 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Back From Bankruptcy, Telecom is in For a Fight
PETER D. AQUINO - CHIEF EXECUTIVE, RCN CORP. | ON THE HOT SEAT
March 20, 2005
Peter D. Aquino took over in late December as chief executive of
telecommunications upstart RCN Corp., which provides cable television,
Internet, and phone service in parts of the Boston region and six
other US metropolitan areas. RCN had just emerged from a $2 billion,
eight-month bankruptcy reorganization, and within days giant Verizon
Communications Inc. -- taking dead aim at RCN and Comcast Corp. --
unveiled plans to build a powerful new fiber-optic network that can
deliver cable TV in the Boston area. Aquino, 43, a former Bell
Atlantic executive and broadband entrepreneur in Venezuela, spoke with
Globe reporter Peter J. Howe.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/03/20/back_from_bankruptcy_telecom_is_in_for_a_fight/
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@workbench.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:40:24 -0500
Subject: Phishing by Phone -- VoIP Raises Security Concerns
Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5627631.html
Reuters
Published on ZDNet News: March 20, 2005, 6:11 PM PT
Internet phone services have drawn millions of users looking for
rock-bottom rates. Now they're also attracting identity thieves
looking to turn stolen credit cards into cash.
Some Internet phone services let scam artists make it appear that
they're calling from another phone number -- a useful trick that enables
them to drain credit accounts and pose as banks or other trusted
authorities, online fraud experts say.
"It's like you've handed people an entire phone network," said Lance
James, who as chief technology officer of Secure Science sees such
scams on a daily basis. [.....] Debt collectors and private
investigators use Camophone.com's 5-cents-per-call service to trick
people into answering the phone, according to messages posted on a
discussion board.
Traveling salesmen say the service comes in handy when they want
clients to return calls to the main office, rather than their motel
room.
Full story at:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5627631.html
How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html
If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/
------------------------------
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
Subject: Tracking Down a Harassing Caller Number?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:57:42 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Are there any official procedures or unofficial ways of tracking down
the source of repeated harassing calls coming from a set of apparently
related numbers in a distant area code?
[Calls may or may not be legally harassing but are certainly unwanted.
Callbacks to the Caller ID numbers get a "Your call can not be
completed" message followed by a code number. It's most probably some
kind of commercial call, rather than a personal harassment.]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:42:16 EST
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Former WorldCom Executives Settle Lawsuits for $55.25 Million
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
March 21, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20207&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Former WorldCom executives settle lawsuits for $55.25 million
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* PHS phones for the masses
* Identity thieves take advantage of VoIP's security holes
* Nortel reports earnings
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* Learn about the "Wireless Triple Play": USTA Small Company Summit, Apr 6 and 7
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Company trials 10 Gigabit Ethernet chip
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* FCC poised to rule on "naked" DSL
* Brand X appeal could alter broadband landscape
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20207&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: nselewa@gmail.com <nselewa@gmail.com>
Subject: dialpad.com dpphone 211
Date: 21 Mar 2005 10:14:26 -0800
You get what you pay for. If your lucky enough not to get a busy
signal, you can actually make a U.S. call.
But wait; if you forget to dial 1 for U.S. coutry code and you dial a
10 digit number that belongs to an international country, it's going
through. Ex. 847 xxx-xxxx goes to Vietnam.
It conveniently masks the 011 for you. No thanks. And there's no way
to set the dpphone 211 to require the 011. This is from their tech
support.
I've had Dialpad for almost a month. Way to many problems. Dropping
them ASAP.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:56:08 -0500
From: David B. Horvath, CCP <dhorvath@withheld on request>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone ATT
PAT: Please remove my email address, too much SPAM.
Technically, the AT&T Wireless and Cingular companies merged, so your
contract with AT&T Wireless still survives. Just because the final
company happens to have a different name doesn't change anything.
In addition, I bet if you read the contract closely, it allows AT&T
Wireless to assign the contract to someone else (i.e., they could
"sell" you).
- David
On 19 Mar 2005 19:03:34 -0800, absmith3@hotmail.com wrote:
> I have an ATT contract dated in Oct- 2004- before Cingular bought ATT.
> Now Cingular is saying that I owe it $170 for cancellation fee if I
> transfer service to Verizon.
> My contract was with ATT and I never signed anything with
> Cingular. So, looks like the ATT contract is shakey at best. Does
> anybody have any experience similar to mine and didn't pay for
> cancellation fees?
> Thanks,
> Abby
------------------------------
Date: 21 Mar 2005 01:23:13 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone ATT
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> I have an ATT contract dated in Oct- 2004- before Cingular bought ATT.
> Now Cingular is saying that I owe it $170 for cancellation fee if I
> transfer service to Verizon.
> My contract was with ATT and I never signed anything with
> Cingular. So, looks like the ATT contract is shakey at best. Does
> anybody have any experience similar to mine and didn't pay for
> cancellation fees?
AT&T Wireless merged with Cingular and the combined company calls
itself Cingular. Merely changing the name of the company doesn't void
the contracts, any more than all your contracts would be voided if you
got married and changed your name.
------------------------------
From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone ATT
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:24:41 -0800
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com
On 19 Mar 2005 19:03:34 -0800, absmith3@hotmail.com wrote:
> I have an ATT contract dated in Oct- 2004- before Cingular bought ATT.
> Now Cingular is saying that I owe it $170 for cancellation fee if I
> tranfer service to Verizon.
If you had a one year contract your contract would be fulfilled in
October 2005.
> My contract was with ATT and I never signed anything with
> Cingular. So, looks like the ATT contract is shakey at best. Does
> anybody have any experience similar to mine and didn't pay for
> cancellation fees?
When Cingular assumed AT&T Wireless' assets they also assumed all of
its agreements which would include any contract you had with AT&T
Wireless. If you had a year's contract with AT&T Wireless your
contract did not end when Cingular purchased AT&T Wireless. I'm
pretty sure that if you had failed to meet the terms of your contract
with AT&T Wireless they would have charged you an early termination
fee. Bottom line is that you are responsible for your contract til
the end of your contract term. There is no get out of jail free pass
by your being absorbed by Cingular.
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone ATT
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 04:02:39 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.123.2@telecom-digest.org>,
<absmith3@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have an ATT contract dated in Oct- 2004- before Cingular bought ATT.
> Now Cingular is saying that I owe it $170 for cancellation fee if I
> tranfer service to Verizon.
> My contract was with ATT and I never signed anything with
> Cingular. So, looks like the ATT contract is shakey at best.
*READ* the contract. Dollars to donuts, it expressly says that they
_can_ "assign" it, without affecting _your_ liabilities. If the
contract is silent on the issue, then by long-standing principle,
either party can assign their interest to 'somebody else'. The only
time that is disallowed is if the contract explicitly states that (a)
no assignment is allowed, or (b) that assignment is allowed *only*
with the consent of the opposite party in the contract.
Thus, _unless_ the contract specifically states that they cannot
assign it without your consent, you =are= liable for the termination
fee in the contract you signed.
A question -- putting the shoe on the other foot -- what would your
attitude have been if Cingular had just turned off your phone, without
any notice or warning, on the day their purchase became effective?
I'll _bet_ that you would have been screaming "breach of contract",
threatening lawsuits, etc., etc.
Well, contract commitments work _both_ ways. If they're compelled to
provide you service under that contract, you are required to pay the
early termination fee, if you cancel before the full term.
------------------------------
From: Scott <witheld@giganews.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone ATT
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:04:01 -0500
Cingular is successor-in-interest to ATTWS, and as such, your contract
is automatically assigned to Cingular. Contract law states that
unless the contract specifically does not allow assignment, it is
assignable.
<absmith3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:telecom24.123.2@telecom-digest.org:
> I have an ATT contract dated in Oct- 2004- before Cingular bought ATT.
> Now Cingular is saying that I owe it $170 for cancellation fee if I
> transfer service to Verizon.
> My contract was with ATT and I never signed anything with
> Cingular. So, looks like the ATT contract is shakey at best. Does
> anybody have any experience similar to mine and didn't pay for
> cancellation fees?
> Thanks,
> Abby
------------------------------
From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone ATT
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:03:58 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
absmith3@hotmail.com wrote:
> I have an ATT contract dated in Oct- 2004- before Cingular bought ATT.
> Now Cingular is saying that I owe it $170 for cancellation fee if I
> transfer service to Verizon.
> My contract was with ATT and I never signed anything with
> Cingular. So, looks like the ATT contract is shakey at best.
No, it's quite solid actually, as long as Cingular has honored the
terms of the contract and have not made any changes that you never
agreed to.
If they have, then you have a case. But if only the name at the top
of the bill has changed, then you're still in for the length of the
contract.
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
------------------------------
From: LB@notmine.com
Subject: Re: Cell Phone "Caller ID" Needed
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:16:20 -0500
Organization: Optimum Online
Ray Burns wrote:
> Dear Patrick Townson,
> Pat,
> I am writing software that communicates from one network-connected
> computer to another controlled by a cell phone (XHTML-M). The user
> logs in with just a password. Passwords are not guaranteed to be
> unique, so I need some sort of phone serial number or other similar
> number to append to the password to make it unique. Do you know of
> such a phone id number/string that I could access via HTTP/HTTPS?
> Thanks,
> Ray Burns Nantasket Software, Inc
> 617.964.4084(w) ray@igsw.com
> 617.966-7439(c) 970 Commonwealth Avenue, Newton Center MA 02459
> 617.965-5081(f)
If such a thing is possible, and with all due respect to the OP I would
suggest two two things:
1. Be damn sure you know who this person is.
2 Do NOT post in a newsgroup!
LB
------------------------------
Date: 21 Mar 2005 01:20:37 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: VoIP and Bell DSL: Is it Ready For Prime Time?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> Does anyone have any news about this? There was talk that Bell might
> only offer naked DSL to users who bought the (not yet released?) Bell
> VoIP service.
> Also, Vonage told me that I can't keep my local Bell number. Anyone
> know if the new Bell VoIP service will let me keep my local Bell
> number?
Since you're in Canada, I don't think you have landline portability at
all. Bell will probably let you keep your number since you'd just be
moving it from a POTS line to VoIP on the same pair of wires, so it'd
end up being switched in the same switch.
Having just managed to cancel my Vonage "service" this evening after
trying for more than a month, I'd stay away from them. Now I'm using
Primus Lingo which seems OK.
Regards,
John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: VoIP and Bell DSL: Is it Ready For Prime Time?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 03:44:40 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.123.3@telecom-digest.org>,
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:
> Regards naked DSL, for most parts of the Bell System it is unlikely as
> they do business now. SBC, for example has stated they would not do it
> and they don't do it except where courts have ordered them to do
> so. You would be better off looking at high speed cable internet or
> satellite internet if it is possible in your community, as it is here.
> PAT]
Note: The playing field on this *is* changing. Generally for the better.
While it's true that in a lot of territory the ILEC won't sell you DSL
unless you have phone service from them as well, It _is_ possible to
get 'naked DSL' from competing providers. It costs a little bit more,
typically $10/month, but _is_ available in large parts of the country.
Verizon has announced plans to offer naked directly to customers, but
the release date has slipped.
Qwest, as of this month is offering it in their entire service area,
at a premium of $5 over their shared-line pricing.
In a significant part of at least the former Ameritech part of SBC,
naked DSL has been available through the likes of COVAD, and MCI, for
_years_ even though you could _not_ get it through Ameritech/SBC.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What do you mean when you say 'the
playing field is changing, generally for the better?' Is it 'better'
that people will now in many areas (but not SBC of course!) be able
to grovel and beg to get DSL without a phone line and have service
reps get ignorant and give them a hard time and maybe not even know
how to write the order? Is it 'better' that telco will try all its
usual sleazy tricks with this new fertile area for them (naked DSL)?
What makes that 'better'? When I got a letter last week from SBC
telling me I could have the whole works for just =$2.95= per month for
one year _if I would please just come back to them_ and get away from
Prairie Stream, I knew they were up to their old tricks once again.
Why is naked DSL direct from telco 'better' than to give cablecos a
crack at it, and their friends in the ILEC side of the business? PAT]
------------------------------
From: Philip R. Mann <prmlaw@NOSPAMnyc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: VoIP and Bell DSL: Is it Ready For Prime Time?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:47:38 EST
Reply-To: Philip R. Mann <prmlaw@NOSPAMnyc.rr.com>
On 19 Mar 2005 17:10:58 -0800, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in
response to Thumper:
> Regards naked DSL, for most parts of the Bell System it is unlikely as
> they do business now. SBC, for example has stated they would not do it
> and they don't do it except where courts have ordered them to do
> so.
And if they ever offer naked DSL (whether by Court order or
otherwise), expect two tiered pricing similar to what Time-Warner
Cable (at least in NYC) does for high speed online access: $X for
cable customers with a certain minimum level of service and $[X+15]
for non-cable (and basic cable) customers.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I personally say telco has had their
chance at DSL (or rather, high speed internet) and they have blown it.
I suggest just letting the cable companies handle it henceforth if
they wish to provide it, and the various third party vendors. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: VoIP and Bell DSL: Is it Ready For Prime Time?
Date: 21 Mar 2005 13:29:43 -0800
Editor wrote:
> Granted, I live in a very small town, population 8800, one phone
> exchange for the entire town, the police dispatcher responds for the
> sheriff also, and the city offices and they receive 'two or three
> 911 calls per day'.
But what happens if you're in a county of 880,000 where there are a
lot more 911 calls per day and they don't know everyone?
I don't know about the rest of the country, but in our region
telephone exchanges, municipal boundaries, and post office names are
totally separate. Some fire/rescue/police units are merged between
municipalities, others are separate.
In our county, if the local town is busy, help is dispatched from the
next town that is available. The problem is that a distant town may
not be familiar with new streets in ever expanding suburban
developments and cul-de-sacs.
> You also raised an 'issue' with power. If you use a battery backup
> unit you get around any problems with power. I have heard people ask,
> but what about the DSL/cable line; their power could go out also.
Yes,
> but there is a chance power could be out at the phone exchange also.
> I guess nothing is perfect.
When we have a commercial power failure, our cable TV system goes out
as well. It takes longer for that to be restored than commercial
power. They tell us the fibre optic cable has many sensitive
amplifiers and needs more care than the prior analog coax.
As to landline phone reliability, in my many years at this
location, commercial power went out a lot, but never phone
service. I only remember when unavailable dial tone, which
was during an unexpected extremely severe storm that drove up
phone usage.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Lisa, what do you do in a case
like Brooklyn, New York where by the dispatcher's own admission,
"we do not answer this phone after 10 PM"? I guess VOIP would never
work there, would it? I would have been sort of ashamed to admit to
a member of the public that a police department (especially in New
York City!) closes down its phone line at 10 PM, but I guess being
brazen is what makes some public 'servants' good at their job. If a
small town can arrange its police department to serve the public
efficiently, without a lot of sass-back to the public they are expected
to serve, then why can't your so-called county of 880,000? I think it
is about time our public servants get told "either learn to do the job
right and do it right -- or we will get people who can". Maybe you, or
one of the other Bell System apologists in our readership can tell me
why it is that VOIP carriers are expected to be the ones to have to
do the twisting and turning and maneuvering to get their ways in line
to make it easier for the public servants? Why do the public servants
simply refuse to accept the fact that as times change, *their procedures*
have to change as well? What the hell did any of those people do
back in the 1960's when our nation was crossbar with no immediate ID
on calls? You want a job as a police dispatcher? Then you, by-God,
either get an encyclopedic knowledge of streets and intersections and
addresses in your town or don't get in the way of the people who do;
if your worker's "union" insists you have to have a job you are
probably not qualified for anyway, is that the public or VOIP carriers
at fault? PAT]
------------------------------
From: BobGoudreau@withheld at request>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:39:24 -0500
Subject: What Happened to FM Channels 1-199?
[Please remove my email address from both this message and the Table of
Contents. Thanks.]
Garrett Wollman wrote:
> Channel 200 is 87.9; 201 is 88.1, and so on up to 300 which is 107.9
Now that we've covered the history of VHF Channel 1, can anyone
explain why the official FM channel numbers are in the range 200-300
instead of 1-101?
Bob Goudreau
Cary, NC
------------------------------
From: Alan Burkitt-Gray <ABurkitt@EUROMONEYPLC.COM>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:39:58 -0000
Paul Coxwell paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> In Britain, the original FM broadcast band ran only from 88 to
> 100MHz. The band above 100MHz was used for two-way radio, a fact
> soon discovered by even the casual listener when imported radios
> covering right up to 108MHz started to appear in the country.
Even better, it was used by the police. I remember around 1969
listening to a car chase through the territory of various police
forces in northern England, where I then lived -- picking up
transmissions from different forces on different channels. The police
had to move off -- I think it was done in two stages -- before
broadcasters could take over the band. Earlier on, many FM radios
designed by UK manufacturers such as Roberts wouldn't go higher than
100 MHz.
Alan Burkitt-Gray, Editor, Global Telecoms Business
<http://www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com/>
http://www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com
email <mailto:aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com> aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com;
Global Telecoms Business Top 5 Daily: email me to get on the distribution
list for this free newsletter.
------------------------------
From: Paul Coxwell <paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:34:43 -0000
> But by the 1950s, TV set manufacturers were installing "turret tuners"
> to simplify VHF tuning. A single knob rotated a cylindrical mechanism
> fitted with twelve little hand-wired circuit boards, one for each
> channel. Each circuit board had a bunch of capacitors, some
> hand-wound coils, and a row of metal contacts that mated with metal
> springs. As each circuit board was brought into position by the
> rotating mechanism, the springs mated with the contacts on the board,
> placing that board in the circuit.
> After the introduction of UHF, turret tuners were manufactured with 13
> circuit boards, one for each VHF channel one that switched to a
> separate UHF tuner. The UHF tuner was tuned in one continuous-tuning
> dial.
As you linked to a picture of typical British VHF and UHF tuners,
allow me to add a few more comments from this side of the pond.
In early times, many British sets had no outside channel selection,
just a fine tuning adjustment. As we had only one TV service then,
this wasn't much of a problem, unless somebody moved to a different
area, in which case he would need to have the set retuned. Only
channels 1 through 5 -- our low VHF band I -- were in use.
By 1955 Independent Television arrived and the turret tuner had became
standard. All ITV transmissions were on high VHF band III, channels 6
through 12, later 13. External converter units were also sold to
frequency convert band III signals down to band I for those using
older sets.
There were also some sets in the later 1950s and 1960s which included
an FM radio option (FM radio itself being a relatively new
introduction, having started in Britain in 1955). There were only
three BBC networks in those days, and some sets added three extra
turret positions to tune the "band II" FM broadcast range (a separate
cam and switch arrangement on the turret mechanism was generally
employed to blank the screen during radio reception). These positions
were sometimes labeled H, L, and T on the selector for the names of
the BBC services (Home, Light, and Third).
The plan for UHF was ready by the early 1960s, so sets incorporating a
UHF tuner started to appear. The complication was that existing VHF
transmissions were still 405-line (system A) but the new UHF
transmitters were to be 625-line (system I). The dual-standard sets
had a *monster* changeover switch which had to not only switch from
VHF to UHF but also reroute signals to different I.F. stages, switch
the horizontal scan from 10.125 to 15.625kHz, change from AM to FM
sound, invert video polarity, and so on. The switch was often a
custom-made unit for the set which ran the full length of the chassis
so that each pole was close to the required section of the circuitry.
Two switching approaches were used: One left the VHF turret positions
as normal and used a completely separate rotary or push-button/rocker
control to operate the changeover switch.
The other put a "U" position on the turret tuner to select UHF, with a
cam and link rod on the mechanism to operate the changeover. The VHF
tuner was then used as an "high I.F." for UHF reception. There were
even some designs which used an auxiliary contact on the "U" position
to apply power to a solenoid to operate the switch, presumably on the
basis that a wire between tuner and main board was easier to maintain
than a mechanical link which would need to be removed, reconnected,
and adjusted if anything was taken out for servicing.
The UHF tuners came in two flavors: One was the continuously variable
type as described, the other being a mechanical preset arrangement.
The UHF band-plan was designed to allow an eventual four networks
(BBC1, BBC2, ITV, plus a yet-to-be-determined fourth station), so many
of these UHF tuners had four buttons.
These mechanical UHF tuners operated with permeability tuning (i.e. the
slugs were moved in and out of the coils), with each button being turnable
to set the preset to any channel across the UHF bands (bands IV and V,
channels 21 through 69). This is similar to the arrangement which was
employed on the mechanical presets of car radios at the time.
For several years, people needed both VHF and UHF in order to receive
the full range of programs. The second BBC service, BBC2 went on air
on 625/UHF in 1964. BBC1 and ITV started their 625/UHF broadcasts
around 1968/69, but it would be several more years before UHF coverage
was extended to most of the country. The fourth button on mechanical
UHF tuners (sometimes marked "*" or "ITV2" in anticipation of a second
independent network) was often used by those living on the boundaries
of service areas to select an ITV broadcast from an adjacent region
(BBC was networked most of the time, while in those days the ITV
regions were far more autonomous and often had alternate programming).
Gradually, UHF covered most areas, and in the 1970s we started to see
single-standard sets once again, only this time they were 625-line and
came with only a UHF tuner. Small portables of the era tended to come
with a continuously variable UHF tuner, while by the end of the 1970s
varicap tuning and 6 or more preset positions was becoming the norm
for larger sets.
Just to finish the story, that planned-for fourth network finally went
on-air in 1982, and the 405/VHF transmitters -- still radiating just
BBC1 and ITV in monochrome only -- were eventually closed down in
1985.
- Paul.
-------------------------------
From: Joe Morris <jcmorris@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:57:19 UTC
Organization: The MITRE Organization
Michael D. Sullivan <userid@camsul.example.invalid> writes:
> Television, on tho other hand, started out in two discontiguous VHF
> bands, with somewhat variable spacing between channels and a need for
> precise tuning, and tuning in on a single band by twiddling an analog
> variable tuning capacitor to the right frequency would have been
> difficult. This tuning method was used on some early TVs; I don't know
> whether they were tuned by numeric frequency or by channel number, but
> it would not have been very convenient.
I'm not sure when the manufacturing of TV sets with a single analog
tuner was finally discontinued in the US, but I recall my family
having a very early duMont (?) receiver (maybe 5" diameter circular
screen?) with an analog tuning knob which drove the tuning capacitor
through a reducing gear. This would have been in the early 1950s when
WDSU-TV [*] went on the air in New Orleans. And no, I can't recall
the brand we got to replace this receiver, but my (non-parity-checked)
memory says that it had a "revolutionary" drum tuner with detents and
tuning settings for each of the channels.
[*] I get a number of questions at the office when my wallpaper changer
pops up with the original WDSU-TV test pattern. It makes me feel old when
I turn out to be the only person there who remembers when test patterns
were routinely incorporated into the station ID slides ...
Joe Morris
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I seem to recall when I was about five
years old my parents had a television set with a tiny little screen
which was maybe two or three inches round. And it had a _huge_
magnifying glass attached to the front of it. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Feds: Criminals Luuuuv Those Open 802.11 Networks
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:23:36 -0800
Organization: Cox Communications
It is so easy to secure WiFi, at least against most intruders. I can
receive four other home WiFi signals in my condo. Like mine, all the
others are secured. So, I guess me and my neighbors are smarter than
some of these dummies. ;-)
Danny Burstein wrote:
> "... Of those suspects, half regularly used the open Wi-Fi connections
> of unsuspecting neighbors. Four suspects, in Canada, California and
> Florida, were logged in to neighbors' Wi-fi networks at the moment law
> enforcement agents, having tracked them by other means, entered their
> homes and arrested them, Secret Service agents involved in the case
> said. ...
> " 'We had this whole network set up to identify these (suspects) but
> the one thing we had to take into consideration was Wi-fi', (former
> Secret Service agent) Mr. Gilhooly said. 'If I get to an Internet
> address and I send a subpoena to the Internet provider and it gets me
> a name and physical address, how do I know that that person isn't
> actually bouncing in from next door?'
> (rest at: )
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/technology/19wifi.html>
> _____________________________________________________
> Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
> dannyb@panix.com
> [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
From: Ben Schilling <Ben.Schilling@oci.state.wi.us>
Subject: Re: Attacked by a Dog Which was Playing
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:01:39 -0600
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> We have some feral cats in the neighborhood I want to adopt and have
> tried over the years to lure them with food and kindness. They always
> kept their distance (although they would eagerly take the food if I
> stayed far away). I described their behavior to my vet and he said
> they were feral and that they could not be domesticated. One has been
> around for seven years, which isn't bad for feral.
You might see if your area has a "Friends of Ferals" or similar
organization. They catch, spay, neuter, vaccinate, and release feral cats.
This keeps the population down and prevents them from spreading diseases to
pets.
Ben Schilling
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V24 #125
******************************
| |