|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 112 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Does anyone remember this payphone trick?
Re: Does anyone remember this payphone trick?
Re: Does anyone remember this payphone trick?
Re: AT&T "Family Maps" cellphone location tracking
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
====== 27 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, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Apr 2009 11:39:03 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <20090423113903.1696.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>Perhaps the cell phones installed in cars had a more powerful signal
>and antenna; ...
AMPS phones could transmit up to 3 watts, while digital handhelds are
limited to 0.75 W, one of the reasons they're so much smaller than the
old brick and bag phones.
I used to have a cottage in rural Vermont where until we got a
landline phone, the way to make a phone call was to drive up onto a
hill where we could get a signal from a tower 25 miles away with the
3W AMPS phone. You can still get car kits with amplifiers to boost
your GSM or CDMA signal, and Motorola still makes a car phone, the
M930, that you permanently install in a vehicle and install an
external antenna, which transmits at up to 2W.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:20:00 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <pan.2009.04.23.23.19.59.76181@myrealbox.com>
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:09:24 -0400, John Levine wrote:
>>Perhaps the cell phones installed in cars had a more powerful signal and
>>antenna; ...
>
> AMPS phones could transmit up to 3 watts, while digital handhelds are
> limited to 0.75 W, one of the reasons they're so much smaller than the old
> brick and bag phones.
>
> I used to have a cottage in rural Vermont where until we got a landline
> phone, the way to make a phone call was to drive up onto a hill where we
> could get a signal from a tower 25 miles away with the 3W AMPS phone. You
> can still get car kits with amplifiers to boost your GSM or CDMA signal,
> and Motorola still makes a car phone, the M930, that you permanently
> install in a vehicle and install an external antenna, which transmits at
> up to 2W.
>
Is there any point in having a digital phone transmitting at any great
power *if* the corresponding base station also doesn't respond in kind?
My understanding is that digital phones only transmit with just enough
power to ensure reliable reception at the base station they are attached
to, and I would imagine that the base station would do something similar
on the return signal - with all of this being constantly monitored and
adjusted as the path conditions change (this is on the assumption that
base stations don't want to be flooding their surrounds with maximum RF
output when they don't need to - such things seem to be unpopular with
people who live near these things....)
I can understand using a higher gain antenna which would improve both
paths, but if the phone put out a higher signal then the base station may
decide to "back off" on the assumption that the signal it was receiving
indicated a far closer location of the phone and therefore it can reduce
its power accordingly.
--
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: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:05:47 -0400
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <siegman-112D8F.08051723042009@news.stanford.edu>
Not what was asked in this thread, but I have a file note in my computer
that says that dialing (650) 959-9833 in 650-land will give a
synthesized voice response of the phone number you're calling from.
(Not in 650-land at the minute, so can't test if it still works.)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <43032e2f-3e41-46b6-931e-a4c3b594e6fb@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 21, 9:53 pm, "Phluge" <phlu...@yafarthoo.com> wrote:
> I have searched everywhere but I can't seem to get an answer one way or the
> other. There used to be ways you could test your landline telephone's
> ringer. Any suggestions?
There used to be special codes to generate this. In my area, however,
both codes were appropriated for other purposes and no longer work.
If there are new codes I don't know what they are.
Assuming you don't have a cell phone, hopefully you could call a
friend and ask them to call you back. Unfortunately, that gets
tedious if you need to tinker with adjustments (like the ringer
volume) and need multiple calls.
Since the phone co expects us to do our own internal repairs, I think
they should publicize all of their test lines, not keep them a guarded
secret.
***** Moderator's Note *****
You bring up an interesting question: _why_ would Ma Bell want to keep
such numbers secret?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:27:29 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <CN%Hl.15179$%54.1215@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Apr 21, 9:53 pm, "Phluge" <phlu...@yafarthoo.com> wrote:
>> I have searched everywhere but I can't seem to get an answer one way or the
>> other. There used to be ways you could test your landline telephone's
>> ringer. Any suggestions?
>
> There used to be special codes to generate this. In my area, however,
> both codes were appropriated for other purposes and no longer work.
> If there are new codes I don't know what they are.
>
> Assuming you don't have a cell phone, hopefully you could call a
> friend and ask them to call you back. Unfortunately, that gets
> tedious if you need to tinker with adjustments (like the ringer
> volume) and need multiple calls.
>
> Since the phone co expects us to do our own internal repairs, I think
> they should publicize all of their test lines, not keep them a guarded
> secret.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> You bring up an interesting question: _why_ would Ma Bell want to keep
> such numbers secret?
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
The same reason that they kept other test numbers from the public: it
ties test equipmnt up.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Message-ID: <54372.94586.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:21:29 -0700 (PDT) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
<<Perhaps my hearing isn't the best, but I am not comfortable using my
cellphone or talking to someone using their cellphone. I often find
myself saying "what?" "say again?" during the conversation. It seems
that if the other person isn't speaking directly into the mouthpiece
(say they're doing something else and not holding their phone
correctly), the transmission becomes "coarse", even if I turn up the
cellphone volume.>>
It often depends on factors such as the clarity of your own phone,
what type of phone the party you're connected with is using as well as
many other factors such as network load and how much "good" signal
you're getting. It also depends on whether you're using CDMA or GSM
since they handle capacity issues differently. CDMA for example tends
to be able to hold on to calls better, but call quality will degrade
the more people there using the service.
<<Do cell phones vary in quality of transmission or reception? (I
don't think so.)>>
Oh, absolutely. Some brands tend to do better in fringe areas getting
signal than others. Nokia for example is well known for being able to
get a signal where others cannot. Certain models of phones have been
found to have inferior RF (radio frequency) characteristics. Back a
few years ago Ericsson (before they were Sony-Ericsson) had a model
T68A. Fringe reception on this phone was really bad. Since that time
the reputation of Sony-Ericsson phones has been very good. Some
Samsung models are not known for great RF reception either. So yes,
which phone you use can make a big difference in your "user
experience" as far as usability on various levels such as comfort in
use and performance.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:03:51 -0500
From: "Phluge" <phluge1@yafarthoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Does anyone remember this payphone trick?
Message-ID: <Di%Hl.81564$GU6.28292@newsfe09.iad>
I appreciate the response to my earlier question -- this looks like a great
newsgroup.
Whenever I meet a telecommunications techie I ask them about this old
trick --I have yet to find anyone else who ever used it:
Somewhere around 1953 when I was a teen, you could get all the free payphone
calling you wanted from a phonebooth by using a booby-pin. The mouth and
earpieces of the always-black plastic (bakelite?) handset were a filled-in
circle of perforations-- you spread the bobby-pin, poked one end into a
center hole in the mouthpiece, the other end into one of the perimeter
mouthpiece holes, then touched the other end of bobby-pin to exposed metal
on the phone body. It would usually produce a small spark, and then you got
the dial-tone, made your call. All of the booths near the teen hangouts had
bobby-pins lined up ready to go.
I always wondered why AT&T allowed that to work, and why(?) the
coin-collector or service man wasn't wise to this openly used rip-off but
did not even take the bobby-pins away.
I would love to hear from someone who used to service these and get some
feedback on that crazy phenomenon.
Thanks, pflu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:36:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Does anyone remember this payphone trick?
Message-ID: <gsq5e1$b2a$2@reader1.panix.com>
In <Di%Hl.81564$GU6.28292@newsfe09.iad> "Phluge" <phluge1@yafarthoo.com> writes:
>I appreciate the response to my earlier question -- this looks like a great
>newsgroup.
>Whenever I meet a telecommunications techie I ask them about this old
>trick --I have yet to find anyone else who ever used it:
>Somewhere around 1953 when I was a teen, you could get all the free payphone
>calling you wanted from a phonebooth by using a booby-pin.
[snip]
The most common pay phones, until the 1970s, were "ground start". What
this meant was that the phone was de-energized, so to speak, and
there was no dial tone in it, until...
... until the "hot" wire in the phone cable was shorted to ground.
This signalled the central office to activate the wires and
send a dial tone across.
The official way this occurred was when the pay phone detected
a coin falling through it and toggled an electrical switch.
There were, as many people soon discovered, other ways to
initiate that ground connection... Or so I've heard.
In the 1970s, as "dial tone first" systems were implemented
(primarily to enable calls to 911 without pre-paying) various
tweaks were added. And of course, as privately owned payphones
came into common use, and as more and more "intelligence"
and processing was placed in the phone, the world moved on.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:56:06 -0400
From: Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Does anyone remember this payphone trick?
Message-ID: <klo1v41ans2me68cmgd39bqdp1m5fd281i@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:24:00 -0400 (EDT), "Phluge"
<phluge1@yafarthoo.com> wrote:
>I appreciate the response to my earlier question -- this looks like a great
>newsgroup.
>
>Whenever I meet a telecommunications techie I ask them about this old
>trick --I have yet to find anyone else who ever used it:
>
>Somewhere around 1953 when I was a teen, you could get all the free payphone
>calling you wanted from a phonebooth by using a booby-pin. The mouth and
>earpieces of the always-black plastic (bakelite?) handset were a filled-in
>circle of perforations-- you spread the bobby-pin, poked one end into a
>center hole in the mouthpiece, the other end into one of the perimeter
>mouthpiece holes, then touched the other end of bobby-pin to exposed metal
>on the phone body. It would usually produce a small spark, and then you got
>the dial-tone, made your call. All of the booths near the teen hangouts had
>bobby-pins lined up ready to go.
>
>I always wondered why AT&T allowed that to work, and why(?) the
>coin-collector or service man wasn't wise to this openly used rip-off but
>did not even take the bobby-pins away.
Geeze, we just used to unscrew the receiver and ground it. Bell
system payphones were ground start, so grounding the receiver put a
ground on your side of the set and drew dial tone. Problem was the
operator could tell if the coins didn't refund, so she got an idea
that you didn't use a coin in the first place. Then they started
using armored cords and epoxy on the handset parts.
BTW it was MUCH later when I played with payphones. Of course in my
small town, we had postpay, so you could shout through the receiver
PICK ME UP AT XXX and it worked just as weill.
Carl
------------------------------
Date: 23 Apr 2009 11:27:24 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T "Family Maps" cellphone location tracking
Message-ID: <gsq1cs$gjo$1@panix2.panix.com>
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>As discussed separately, today there's an issue of "sexting" where
>kids send risque pictures of themselves to each other. In several
>locales prosecutors are bringing charges of felony illicit pron
>distribution or possession against kids involved to "teach them this
>is wrong". Some parents are for these aggressive measures. But most
>people are shocked with the idea of charging a 14 y/o with the same
>crime as an adult pervert. "Sexting" is a stupid thing for kids to
>do, but it's only a small minority involved. It's a fad that will
>probably die out. The real solution is for parents and schools to do
>a better job of teaching kids the dangers involved.
When I was a kid we used Polaroids for that. But you tell kids about
having to put the coating on after pulling the negative off... and
they don't believe you....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:03:49 -0400
From: Curtis R Anderson <gleepy@gleepy.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <49F101E5.5010209@gleepy.net>
John Mayson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Phluge <phluge1@yafarthoo.com> wrote:
>> I have searched everywhere but I can't seem to get an answer one way or the
>> other. There used to be ways you could test your landline telephone's
>> ringer. Any suggestions?
>
> Growing up in GTE Florida territory it was possible to dial your own
> number, hang up, and have it ring. It's how my mom called us to
> dinner.
We did that in Windstream fka Alltel fka Mid-Continent System fka
Jamestown (NY) Telephone territory out in the village of Randolph
(716-358-XXXX). It was a holdover from how the (I think) Proctor
front-end register/sender processed a call on your party line. They left
in the same recording when cutting over to their all-digital switch in
April 1978. The same recording survived at least into 2001 or so.
The recording we heard was, in a man's voice, "You have called a party
on your own line. Please hang up and allow time for the called party to
answer. Thank you."
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", still
Email not munged, SpamAssassin [tm] in effect.
http://www.gleepy.net/ mailto:gleepy@intelligencia.com
mailto:gleepy@gleepy.net (and others) Yahoo!: gleepythehen
------------------------------
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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
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) 2008 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 (11 messages)
******************************
|
or 