The Telecom Digest for September 04, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 239 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 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: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:08:09 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <DqidnT4wseCUVB3RnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com>
tlvp wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:30:45 -0400, Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ... airports had a large display box of nearby hotels and
>> services with a phone with an autodialer. (Some hotel lobbies had
>> them containing restaurants and tourist attractions). One selected a
>> particular establishment and the phone did the rest automatically. I
>> don't know if such devices are still in use.
>
>
> Certainly each arrival terminal at JFK and LAG has such an autodialing
> phone
> as part of its Ground Services kiosk, with local hotels and Airport
> Shuttles
> as the primary beneficiaries of the autodialer.
>
> Cheers, -- tlvp
> --
> Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
>
I believe such panels are at many airports. Even they would be better
off with C.O. based hotline service.
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:16:06 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <siegman-E634FB.11160603092010@BMEDCFSC-SRV02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article <DqidnT4wseCUVB3RnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com>,
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
> >> ... airports had a large display box of nearby hotels and
> >> services with a phone with an autodialer. One selected a
> >> particular establishment and the phone did the rest automatically. I
> >> don't know if such devices are still in use.
> >
>
> I believe such panels are at many airports. Even they would be better
> off with C.O. based hotline service.
Out of curiosity: Suppose you could hold your personal cellphone up to a
panel on such a board (or stick it into a small slot on the board, next
to a given listing), and the board would set up a call directly from it,
to the relevant hotel or service? (Or from them, to your cellphone?)
Technically feasible, with current cellphones? (via Bluetooth, or
whatever?)
Potential advantage: Once the cellphone connection was established,
you'd be able to move on, pick up your luggage, grab some food, whatever
(and, your phone would have captured the number, in case you wanted to
reconnect later on).
Security concerns? Maybe the wireless connection would only set up the
call on your display panel -- you'd have to press Send to actually send
it.
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:09:01 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <DqidnTkwseCgVB3RnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com>
danny burstein wrote:
> In <op.vid9kchgitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:30:45 -0400, Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
>>wrote:
>
>
>>>... airports had a large display box of nearby hotels and
>>>services with a phone with an autodialer. (Some hotel lobbies had
>>>them containing restaurants and tourist attractions). One selected a
>>>particular establishment and the phone did the rest automatically. I
>>>don't know if such devices are still in use.
>
>
>>Certainly each arrival terminal at JFK and LAG has such an autodialing phone
>>as part of its Ground Services kiosk, with local hotels and Airport Shuttles
>>as the primary beneficiaries of the autodialer.
>
>
> Same at numerous highway "rest stops".
>
> In the Good Old Days I've heard it was possible, if you timed
> it just right, to lift the handset, tap a button in a way
> to just get you a dial tone but without the associated
> dialing (sometime Touch Tone, sometimes pulse).
>
> Supposedly, the stories went, you then had an unrestricted
> dial tone and could place your acousticly coupled tone
> generating pad over the mouthpiece and make your own calls.
>
> Or so I've heard.
>
>
Again, C.O. based hotline service would prevent that.
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:11:01 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <DqidnTgwseAoVB3RnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lisa or Jeff wrote:
> On Sep 1, 10:38 am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The real security and reliability comes from switch-based protocol
>>rather than a auto-dialer in the telephone. The auto-dialer requires
>>dial tone, which can be accessed through tampering with the telephone.
>>The switch-based protocol never provides dial tone, thus only the
>>intended destination can be reached.
>>
>>"Hot line" telephones should be considrably less expensive than coin
>>telephones, both as to the instrument and the tariffs.
>
>
> I can the understand the telephone set being simpler since it doesn't
> have to handle coins, but the set still must be rugged to be vandal
> resistant.
>
> I don't understand why the tariff would be considerably less expensive
> because it's still a wire pair like any other phone line and service
> by the switch.
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I think a "911 only" phone should cost more than a regular pay phone.
>
> 1. There's no revenue to offset costs: no long-distance, no
> Information calls, no toll-free calls.
>
> 2. There's no ordinary usage to test the line and instrument, so any
> trouble calls would be on a priority basis, thus adding to costs.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
>
That would be a good question to ask the local LEC.
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 08:31:18 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Where, oh where, will my next phone come from?
Message-ID: <p062408c4c8a69ae03dd7@[192.168.1.70]>
The Definitive iPhone SIM Card Test - Will Answer All Your SIM Questions
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1191069-The-Definitive-iPhone-SIM-Card-Test-Will-Answer-All-Your-SIM-Questions
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 02:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: annie <dmr436@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to travelers' cheques (checks)
Message-ID: <d4bfb72f-634d-4881-958e-71b943e056bf@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
> * I believe their names used to be Bank Americard and Master Charge.
There was also First National City "Everything Card" way back when.
> I should also note that years ago using the card was less convenient.
> They did not have the instant automatic validators they have now. A
> store clerk would first check a booklet, and for big purchases,
> telephone (slow rotary dial 10 digits) a service bureau and orally
> pass the information, wait, and then write down an authorization code.
Back when I worked retail, we had a "Floor Limit", usually $25. Above
that you had to phone in and get an Auth Code. Below that you checked
the book for a stolen card. Back then they would even give a merchant
the customer's address and phone number if you requested it.
I remember getting a special "Validator" phone maybe 1975. It was much
faster and it gave you approve/decline in a few seconds. There was no
swiping. You imprinted the card on the charge slip and then punched in
the card number and the amount on the Validator.
Back then they offered a reward to any salesperson who caught and
turned in a stolen card. Nobody I ever worked with ever found one, but
we were always speculating if the thief would pull a gun or something
if we wouldn't give the card back to him.
Oh well ...
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to travelers' cheques (checks)
Message-ID: <7c3d7515-6ecb-4d0c-b49c-638969061d69@h25g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 3, 5:40 am, annie <dmr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I remember getting a special "Validator" phone maybe 1975. It was much
> faster and it gave you approve/decline in a few seconds. There was no
> swiping. You imprinted the card on the charge slip and then punched in
> the card number and the amount on the Validator.
I believe in the waning days of the old Bell System they developed
such a unit. This was likely one of the last customer sets designed
by the old Bell System. How widely it was used I can't say; don't
recall seeing any in service. Large dept. stores tended to use their
own homegrown variety of validator.
BTW, I remember credit cards issued way back that had punched holes in
them instead of the mag stripe, as an early form of machine
readability. I think _widespread_ usage of magstripes on credit
cards didn't come out until the 1980s.
Our emeritus moderator worked in credit card processing for an oil
company; his thread describes their operations in handling all the
charge slips. They card number and amount were optically read--
embossed by the Addressograph machine most charge counters used.
I understand going back even further, charge cards were once known as
"charge plates" and were metallic, not plastic.
> Back then they offered a reward to any salesperson who caught and
> turned in a stolen card. Nobody I ever worked with ever found one, but
> we were always speculating if the thief would pull a gun or something
> if we wouldn't give the card back to him.
In today's world, a possibiliity. People I know who work in retail
today tell me they're told never to stop a thief or confiscate a
refused card.
As an aside, today, I notice in smaller stores the charge validator
uses a dial up connection, sometimes you hear it dial and connect.
Bigger stores seem to have them permanently on-line.
I suspect the Baby Bell companies are busy selling data link services
to retail stores. A chain drugstore would require extensive data
links for not only credit card purchases, but prescription insurance
validations, and corporate reporting. Indeed, such stores have self-
service terminals where one types out a job application.
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 20:12:46 +0000 (UTC)
From: snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <i5rkru$mm1$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <009b8de7-e741-4d27-bd9a-265b34e0e98c@g17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>I recall that airports had a large display box of nearby hotels and
>services with a phone with an autodialer. (Some hotel lobbies had
>them containing restaurants and tourist attractions). One selected a
>particular establishment and the phone did the rest automatically. I
>don't know if such devices are still in use.
Logan Airport in Boston had these in the baggage-claim areas up
through at least the late 1990s. They were Western Electric
touch-a-matic sets with a cover over the dial pad and record buttons,
but with the cradle, switchhook, and auto-dial buttons exposed.
And, yes, you could dial other numbers by tapping out the number
with the switchhook (or, presumably, with a tone generator). I
think that they still have something like this, but with more
attention paid to security.
>Regarding the above post of college campus phones, the phones I've
>seen were vandal resistant boxes with a speakerphone, no handset. One
>could call an extension on campus or of course campus security
>(security was the main motivation for their installation). I wonder
>how much they get used today since it appears students no longer have
>landline phones in their dorm rooms but use their cellphones for
>everything instead.
When I was in college (late 1990s), we had these near the door of
each dormatory. The primary use for them was for visitors or pizza
delivery drivers to call individual rooms and ask to be let into
the building (the doors were automatically locked after, I think,
9pm, with access thereafter only possible with magnetic-stripe
cards held by the building's residents). They also had an "emergency"
button, but I don't know anyone who ever pressed it (presumably,
it would call the campus police). Being speakerphones, they required
AC power and would not work in the event of a power failure.
In many ways, the Gamewell fire alarm telegraph is still a superior
device for emergency calls, as it does not require the user to know
his own location or even to be able to speak into the device.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The Gamewell box - or, more accurately - the McCulloch-loop telegraph
system - is a much more RELIABLE system device for emergency calls,
but that's a double-edged, and very sharp, sword.
The Gamewell Fire Alarm boxes are only able to signal the location
where help was needed, NOT what KIND of help. Municipal
governments, which are inherently adverse to change, had to make a
switch after voters across the U.S. took advantage of initiative
petition lawmaking rights, and put a rat trap in what used to be a
bottomless pocket that mayors, selectmen, city managers, and school
boards were picking with ever-increasing finesse. In the face of such
pre-tea-party revolts, the solons were forced to economize in any way
they could, and the most effective way to cut costs for city emergency
services is to deliver ONLY the minimum amount of help needed when
someone calls. That means, of course, that they have to be able to
describe what is wrong, not just _where_, and that means E911.
Of course, everything has a price: Gamewell boxes were inherently
multi-lingual, required minimal maintenance, and were usable by
_anyone_, not just those with access to telephones. But, they are
relics of an earlier time, long before telephones, let alone a cell
phone in everyone's pocket. E911, even accounting for the higher cost
of multi-lingual operators, is far less pricey than providing enough
firefighters, EMT's, and police to respond to every single incident.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:40:19 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to travelers' cheques (checks)
Message-ID: <op.vihalheuitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:42:31 -0400, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
> ... Remember the good old days when most of us were reasonably honest?
Heck, most of us are still reasonably honest -- it's the recent rampant
increase in crooks out there that makes dishonesty such a problem of late.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 11:05:56 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to travelers' cheques (checks)
Message-ID: <102ab6.7e39bdac.39b268d4@aol.com>
In a message dated 9/1/2010 7:24:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
ddl@danlan.com writes:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> IIRC, Travelers' checks can be purchased in any currency.
>
> I never thought to try that. The last time I used Travelers' checks
> (about 20 years ago) was in Italy. The banks and other money changing
> locations would not accept them unless you presented your passport.
Yes, but most banks don't have a variety of currencies in stock, only the
ones for which there is some appreciable demand (usually just the local
currency.
More than 25 years ago I cashed some U.S. dollar, American Express,
traveler's checks in Reynosa, Mexico, just a few miles from the border, and the
bank still wanted to see my driver's license and other identifying material
(that was before you needed passprots for Mexico; I think they may still not
be required in the border zone.)
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 11:21:25 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to travelers' cheques (checks)
Message-ID: <103ced.a9e30bc.39b26c75@aol.com>
In a message dated 9/2/2010 7:19:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
john@mayson.us writes:
> The only fly in the ointment could be if the machine isn't
> programmed for English, or at least a language you understand. I also
> suggest using ATMs associated with a bank and not standalone,
> independent ATM. I don't trust those. I use the ATM at work which
> belongs to Maybank. I can even "top off" my pre-paid cellular at most
> ATMs.
Chase Bank ATMs have a menu with many foreign languages to select from,
many in non-Latin characters. I think I mistakenly hit one in Slavic
characters one day but the preompts were obvious enough I didn't bother to start
over.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 21:17:28 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to travelers' cheques (checks)
Message-ID: <c25ee.1c9a3b31.39b2f828@aol.com>
In a message dated 9/2/2010 10:20:42 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> I should also note that years ago using the card was less convenient.
> They did not have the instant automatic validators they have now. A
> store clerk would first check a booklet, and for big purchases,
> telephone (slow rotary dial 10 digits) a service bureau and orally
> pass the information, wait, and then write down an authorization code.
I once was paying for a corporate dinner by credit card in those days, and
the authorization bureau closed by the time we were thorugh eating and the
amount, of course, was over the floor limit. Fortunately I had two credit
cards and the restaurant split the bill.
Early credit cards started out local and were peddled mostly to merchants
that the issuing bank could handle their credit card for less than it cost
the neighborhood merchant. Also as soon as they got some merchants signed
up they sent you a card good at all the merchants who had signed up.
(That's how I got two cards from two different banks which were each pushing
their own plans and had signed up different merchants. Many banks sent out
cards to all or most of their customers. As to being something special, not
originally. I don't even remember a formal credit limit, although anything
over a specified amount (the "floor limit") had to get authorization from
the bank. I don't recall that the floor limit was published to customers,
but any merchant could tell you.
There were no magnetic strips and the imprinting raised characters were on
a metal strip riveted to the paper card.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
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 (12 messages)
|
| |
or 