|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 113 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: Does anyone remember this payphone trick?
Re: Does anyone remember this payphone trick?
Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
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: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:46:07 -0500
From: ellis@no.spam ()
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <1240544767.41479@no.spam>
In article <6645152a0904212102y67ab333eqaf0891e6bc6bc19b@mail.gmail.com>,
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>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.
That worked in California too and it was still working where I lived
at least until GTE became Verizon.
--
http://yosemitenews.info/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:18:20 -0400
From: Will Roberts <oldbear@arctos.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <0MKp8S-1LxMIX1tYI-000gAq@mrelay.perfora.net>
In Telecom Digest, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>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?
>
>. . .
>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
I recall that these numbers were changed and made confidential in the
late 1960s during the Vietnam anti-war protest era. At that time, there
was a lot of concern about security of domestic infrastructure.
For example, manhole covers were changed to castings reading "sewer"
rather than "telephone" in some areas.
ANI response systems were thought to pose a risk because they could be
used to identify specific telephone lines in unsecured terminal boxes
and wiring closets. This could be useful to someone wanting to tap
into a particular phone line.
Or, at least, so I was told by a New England Telephone repair person.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:46:23 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <don2v49hc1sqsho91iha6hfhuf4hn53qvh@4ax.com>
A friend of mine has a magnetic-mounted whip antenna on his car. The
cable from the antenna goes to his cell phone. It gives him extra
cellphone range while traveling in very rural areas.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:00:45 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <PToIl.30816$ZP4.10110@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>
Richard wrote:
> A friend of mine has a magnetic-mounted whip antenna on his car. The
> cable from the antenna goes to his cell phone. It gives him extra
> cellphone range while traveling in very rural areas.
>
I had one of those when I had my old Analog Bag Phone, but the hand
helds don't have an antenna connection on them.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: 24 Apr 2009 21:03:51 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <20090424210351.84239.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>I had one of those when I had my old Analog Bag Phone, but the hand
>helds don't have an antenna connection on them.
Some do, some don't. You can still find car kits on eBay for the
Nokia 6540i, which is a perfectly usable GSM phone. There's also
some newer ones with bluetooth for the audio but a hardwired antenna.
And of course there's the Motorola M900 series, the last of the real
car phones.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:36:21 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <G9rIl.8864$im1.415@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>
John Levine wrote:
>> I had one of those when I had my old Analog Bag Phone, but the hand
>> helds don't have an antenna connection on them.
>
> Some do, some don't. You can still find car kits on eBay for the
> Nokia 6540i, which is a perfectly usable GSM phone. There's also
> some newer ones with bluetooth for the audio but a hardwired antenna.
>
> And of course there's the Motorola M900 series, the last of the real
> car phones.
>
All my phone are CDMA; I one tried one of those antennas that you stick
on the rear or side window with a small one on the inside that are
supposed to help the signal improve, but I did not see any difference.
My biggest problem seems to be between California and Las Vegas on
Interstate 15 and on 395, both have major dead spots; other phone I had
would switch to Analog and work, but new ones don't. I don't use the
phone when I am driving even hands free, but at times I have needed to.
--
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: 24 Apr 2009 13:08:04 -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: <20090424130804.68782.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>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?
Of course not, but base stations have always had higher power than
mobiles, because mobiles are transmitting to the well engineered
antenna on the base station, but the base is usually transmitting to a
junk 1cm antenna inside the phone.
>My understanding is that digital phones only transmit with just
>enough power to ensure reliable reception at the base station they
>are attached to
Modern (AMPS and later) mobiles have always done that. The base
station adjusts its own power and tells the mobile to adjust its power
as well.
> (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....)
Ah, the power of silly urban legends about RF danger from mobile
towers. I've never seen a mobile base station that transmitted above
100W total, although people seem to have no trouble with radio and TV
towers broadcasting at 50,000 or 100,000W. The tower adjusts its
signal to minimize interference with other towers using the same
frequencies. That's one of the ways they make cellular phones work.
>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.
I believe it tells the mobile to adjust power to the lowest level that
the tower can receive reliably. Why would it do anything else?
Somewhat unrelated anecdote: there are towers along the French coast
that have a lot of users on ferries between France, the UK, and
various islands. Signal strength isn't an issue since salt water is
an ideal ground plane and if the tower is reasonably high it's line of
sight. But since the mobiles are so much farther from the tower than
normal, the round trip time for the signal is a lot longer than usual.
GSM uses time-division multiplexing to share each channel, and the
extra time makes the conversation not fit in the usual time slots. So
on those towers, they have half as many slots of double length, so the
GSM phones on the ferries work.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Does anyone remember this payphone trick?
Message-ID: <717f3639-10c6-444f-bd66-10df00105611@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 23, 10:32 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> 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.
In rural areas there was a dial-tone-first "post pay" design that
worked a bit differently. One listened for dial tone then dialed the
number. Upon actually reaching the desired party (not a busy or no
answer), one would then put in a dime or two nickels to allow the
transmitter to function. These pay phones were simpler all way
around--the phone was simpler since it didn't have a deposit holder--
the coins just dropped straight through. The CO gear was simpler,
too.
As an aside I noticed that all the payphones in my village have been
removed; the last ones in front of the convenience store were just
pulled out.
At one time a few square blocks of the village center had pay phone
at:
1) In front of convenience store (pair).
2) in front of the drugstore (booth)
3) in front of pizza shop
4) inside lobby of bar
5) outside of bar
6) inside nice restaurant
7) semi-public inside coffeeshop.
One pay phone remains at the train station, but I think it is
essentially subsidized by the railroad to serve as an emergency
telephone. It appears various railroads are doing that. The phone co
will install a payphone anywhere, but the property owner must
guarantee a minimum revenue or they must make up the difference. I
would guess that the cost of a stardard public pay phone is less than
the cost of a dedicated 'lift-receiver for help' phone directly
connected to a 911 center, and of course more flexible for public use.
Not everyone, even today, has a cellphone, and even for those that do
the batteries run out, the phones get lost, the pay-as-you-go contract
is not kept up, etc.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:58:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Does anyone remember this payphone trick?
Message-ID: <gssr3u$12e$3@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
Phluge <phluge1@yafarthoo.com> wrote in <Di%Hl.81564$GU6.28292@newsfe09.iad>:
> 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.
This trick was beautifully used in the movie WarGames(1983)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/
Showing it in the movie must have put an end to the last payphones where it
worked.
Koos
--
Koos van den Hout, PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 via keyservers
koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl or RSA/1024 0xCA845CB5 -?)
Visit the site about books with reviews /\\
http://idefix.net/~koos/ http://www.virtualbookcase.com/ _\_V
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:22:40 -0500
From: John Schmerold <john@katycomputer.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Message-ID: <49F257D0.5050204@katycomputer.com>
One of my fears has come to pass, an irresponsible Telco disconnected
our 800 # on 4/10/09, we just learned of the issue. To our knowledge we
don't owe them any money, nor have we ever been tardy in our payments.
Qwest gave us no notification, we just happened to find out about the
issue. Of course the published numbers are closed for the day :-( so I
get to stew about this all week-end.
Anyone know the procedure for demanding that our number be returned to
us? We have had this number for 15+ years.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Judging by the tone of your message, a little "cooling off" time may
be a good thing: you're not going to get anywhere by lashing out.
Let's step back and look at the basics:
1. Is the 800 number still being routed, or is it going to a recording?
2. Do you have a dial tone on at the demarcation point?
3. Do you know the "plant test number" associated with your 800 line?
If so, are you able to ring the line and talk on it?
4. Are you sure the bills have _ALL_ been paid? Remember, QWest is
probably _not_ the inter-exchange carrier for your line, unless
it's a Band 9 number, so you must check with your IXC and be sure
you're not in arrears with them.
Please provide the answers to these questions, and then take a breath:
this isn't rocket science, and you can get this fixed without waiting
for Monday if you can identify the point of failure.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Message-ID: <6054041c-04de-46af-8058-c3a724310c7f@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 24, 9:09 pm, John Schmerold <j...@katycomputer.com> wrote:
> One of my fears has come to pass, an irresponsible Telco disconnected
> our 800 # on 4/10/09, we just learned of the issue. To our knowledge we
> don't owe them any money, nor have we ever been tardy in our payments.
> Qwest gave us no notification, we just happened to find out about the
> issue. Of course the published numbers are closed for the day :-( so I
> get to stew about this all week-end.
I'm sorry you're having trouble. But there are several things that I
don't understand, perhaps you or other readers can explain how things
work these days and we can all learn together.
1) How do you know there merely isn't a breakdown with your service,
as opposed to an intentional disconnection of service? You said you
had no notification; so maybe it's a mechanical difficulty? Maybe a
wire was cut inside your building?
2) Isn't repair service open 24/7? I presume your 800 number is for a
business and as such, don't they have personnel on duty off hours?
That is to say, if a car hits a pole and knocks out my phone service
at 6 pm on a Friday night, am I and my neighbors out of luck until at
least Monday morning when their offices reopen?
3) Just out of curiosity, why was this "one of your fears"? Did you
have other troubles with your service?
4) With 800 services, aren't there normally two providers involved--
the local telephone company which supplies the loop to the Central
Office, and the long distance company that actually handles the call?
For 800 service, does one need a conventional local phone line plus a
toll carrier?
5) Presuming you are a business, it's been two weeks since 4/10. How
did you ultimately find out the line wasn't working? Is the line
physically dead--no incoming or outgoing calls of any sort, or does
any of it partially work?
> Anyone know the procedure for demanding that our number be returned to
> us? We have had this number for 15+ years.
6) Our 800 numbers portable from one toll carrier to another? Is that
physically and legally possible?
While we're on the subject of 800 numbers, are they still important
for business? So many local subscribers today have unlimited long
distance in their land line or cell phone, or their toll service is so
cheap that it doesn't matter as it did years ago. Usually businesses
advertise both a regular number along with their 800 number.
(The only time it does matter to me if I'm calling a business that
keeps me on hold for a while, then I don't like it and rather it be on
their dime.)
***** Moderator's Note *****
800 numbers have been portable for a while now: advertisers demanded
the capability as soon as the competitive long-distance market got
going. In fact, the system predates Local Number Portability.
800 numbers are important for business because it's a great cost-saver
to have the caller's ANI info sent to you with every call: it allows
sophisticated call-center routing based on stored data about the
individual caller and the area where the call is originating.
Consider the advantages of knowing the following _before_ you decide
to answer the call:
* Whether the caller has recently made a purchase
* Average household income for the caller's area
* The average profit per purchase from callers in that area
... and anything else the database has on either the particular number
that originated the call, or the area surrounding the exchange that
serves that number. Trust me: it's a powerful and effective marketing
tool, allowing real-time routing decisions that shunt customers with a
low profit potential in to the voice-response system, and likely
high-dollar buyers to the "A Team" sales staff.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:51:06 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <MPG.245c60c9253c5f809899ec@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <MPG.24592f37761d6a8998995a@news.verizon.net>,
first.last@verizon.net says...
>
> In article <MpqdnfX74Yj8FXPUnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, red-nospam-
> 99@mindspring.com says...
>
> > One famous kind of test number belongs to NYNEX, the regional Bell
> > telephone company operating in the northeast U.S.A.. In New York at
> > least, there are "9901" numbers, or local numbers of the form xxx.9901,
> > which result in a recording which identifies the exchange represented
> > by the first three digits. The 9901 numbers may not necessarily exist
> > for all combinations of first three local number (central office code)
> > digits.
> >
> > All these tests and services vary with each phone company; they are
> > not usually found in the phone book, needless to say.
>
> In the old New England Telephone days, I used to dial 9816 for a
> ringback. Not sure if the "6" could be any digit or not..
>
> --Gene
Yes it used to be 981+last 4 digits of your telephone number in RI.
------------------------------
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 (12 messages)
******************************
|
or 