Metroliner telephone article
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
the original telephone service provided on the Penn Central Metroliner
trains in 1969. This was the first application of the "cell" concept
of re-using radio frequencies and shifting frequencies as the vehicle
is in motion. While we take cell phones for granted these days, in
1969 the Metroliner service was a major technical advancement. There
were passenger radio-trainphones before Metroliner, but they were
limited.
The article notes:
- The system was two-way. Land based people could call any train by
giving the train number, location was not necessary. The equipment
automatically located the desired train along the route. An attendant
answered the call and paged the desired passenger.
- Calls could be paid by collect, credit card, or coin.
- Passengers would dial direct on a Touch Tone. Direct dialing and
Touch Tone on coin phones was a new concept in 1969.
- Service was provided in the five Baltimore tunnels and under Phila
30th Street by special antenna work designed for the underground
environment. I don't think service was provided in the Hudson River
tunnels.
- As mentioned, the system was cellular. The article describes some
technical details on radio transmission within the cells and separation
of the cells.
- Because calling traffic was expected to be heavy as the train
approached its end terminals, additional channel capacity was provided
in those areas.
- The train transmitters produce 12 watts of RF power.
- Every phone on a car is independent of other phones on a train.
- The system accounts for variation of train battery supply from 56 to
88 volts.
- The car antenna was protected from sharp brushes used in the carwash
and noise from the 11KV AC pantograph arcs and power cable.
- Base station transmission power design took into account terrain,
antenna heights, and distances between base stations so as to maximize
the signal up to cell boundaries but not far beyond.
http://long-lines.net/tech-equip/mobile/BLR0369/076-077.html
Philip Nasadowski
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> The following has an article from the Bell Laboratories Record about
> the original telephone service provided on the Penn Central Metroliner
> trains in 1969. This was the first application of the "cell" concept
> of re-using radio frequencies and shifting frequencies as the vehicle
> is in motion. While we take cell phones for granted these days, in
> 1969 the Metroliner service was a major technical advancement. There
> were passenger radio-trainphones before Metroliner, but they were
> limited.
I was about to mention that but you beat me to the punch. How
successful was this system, anyway? I imagine that AT&T learned quite a
bit about cellular communications (so new, it wasn't even a 'cell
phone'!). I wonder how much of this filtered out into modern phones?
> - Passengers would dial direct on a Touch Tone. Direct dialing and
> Touch Tone on coin phones was a new concept in 1969.
Barely 6 years old. The metro phones might predate the * and # keys.
BTW, Bell labs did a LOT of studies to come up with the keypad design
(no joke!) and tried numerous arrangements in order to find one with the
fastest keying speed and least errors. I don't know if I should be
amazed or amused...
> - Service was provided in the five Baltimore tunnels and under Phila
> 30th Street by special antenna work designed for the underground
> environment. I don't think service was provided in the Hudson River
> tunnels.
They likely figured most people by that point were looking to get out
and to the office...
danny burstein
>> 30th Street by special antenna work designed for the underground
>> environment. I don't think service was provided in the Hudson River
>> tunnels.
Having used the system back in 1970 give or take.., I can confirm
that there was no service under the Hudson.
There was a hefty surcharge for using the phones above the
normal coin phone (or collect) rates, but... they were
usable for " 800 " calls (not 1-800) and there was no
extra cost to the "owner" of the number.
(Oh, and that 800 number had to be reachable
from.. philadelphia, regardless of where on
the Metroliner run you made the call).
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
danny burstein wrote:
> There was a hefty surcharge for using the phones above the
> normal coin phone (or collect) rates, but... they were
> usable for " 800 " calls (not 1-800) and there was no
> extra cost to the "owner" of the number.
IIRC, the station-to-station charge was $3 for the first three minutes.
I used the phones on a trip and would not have had the cost been too
high.
Note that back then (1969) there were no hefty surcharges for coin,
collect, or credit card calls as there is today. Those came much
later.
I'm not sure when 800 numbers came out, I thought it was later than
1969. Before them there were "Enterprise" (or "UX") numbers which had
to be placed by the operator. For businesses offering toll-free
service, the directory listing said: "Ask Operator for Enterprise
nnnn". The operator would look up nnnn in a table then connect you
with the business, automatically charging the business with a collect
call. This service started in the 1930s. Although 800 numbers became
widespread, some businesses still had Enterprise service--still
requiring an operator to connect--into the 1990s. I made such a call
and it took a while since the local and long distance operators argued
over who was to handle the call, then the operator had to dig up the
conversion table. Obviously not widely used by that point.
> (Oh, and that 800 number had to be reachable
> from.. philadelphia, regardless of where on
> the Metroliner run you made the call).
Yes, all the Metroliner calls were routed in and out of Philadelphia.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> I was about to mention that but you beat me to the punch. How
> successful was this system, anyway? I imagine that AT&T learned quite a
> bit about cellular communications (so new, it wasn't even a 'cell
> phone'!). I wonder how much of this filtered out into modern phones?
The article was written in March 1969, just after service began, so it
didn't report on patronage.
What impressed me was how the Bell engineers anticipated a number of
factors, such as higher call volume as the train approached the
terminals, high voltage interference, and the tunnels. Too bad the
GE/WH people didn't.
The Feds later took the frequencies away and the service was cut off.
Eventually Amtrak discontinued using the original cars (there were
terribly unreliable) and replaced them with locomotives and coaches.
Another train phone system appeared on Amtrak NEC trains.
The phones were booths with a closable door for privacy. Later train
phones had no booth at all. Metro North had a huge program to put a
trainphone everywhere and made a big deal about it, but it was just
when cell phones were coming out and I don't think they got much use
out of it.
AFAIK the phones worked well in service. I used it once. I have no
idea if usage justified the investment although it was a worthwhile
training ground.
The article concludes: "It is the first practical integrated system to
use the radio zone concept within the Bell System in order to achieve
optimum nuse of a limited number of radio-frequency channels."
> > - Passengers would dial direct on a Touch Tone. Direct dialing and
> > Touch Tone on coin phones was a new concept in 1969.
>
> Barely 6 years old. The metro phones might predate the * and # keys.
> BTW, Bell labs did a LOT of studies to come up with the keypad design
> (no joke!) and tried numerous arrangements in order to find one with the
> fastest keying speed and least errors. I don't know if I should be
> amazed or amused...
A sketch of the phones shows they do have *#.
The Bell System thoroughly tested everything before it went into
national production. For example, trials of the Princess telephone set
showed the phone was too light and had to be redesigned. Too bad
modern technology is not as thoroughly debugged before implementation
as Bell System stuff was.
> > - Service was provided in the five Baltimore tunnels and under Phila
> > 30th Street by special antenna work designed for the underground
> > environment. I don't think service was provided in the Hudson River
> > tunnels.
>
> They likely figured most people by that point were looking to get out
> and to the office...
The Hudson tunnels have very little clearance; I don't think the
engineers wanted to play around with antenna and associated base
station stuff in there. They are twice as long as the Baltimore
tunnels with steep grades and moist, additional challenges. Do cell
phone work in them now?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> I imagine that AT&T learned quite a
> bit about cellular communications (so new, it wasn't even a 'cell
> phone'!). I wonder how much of this filtered out into modern phones?
Phil, I hope you as an engineer, will take a look at the article.
Obviously the technology is very dated--what was a big deal to them 30
years you do now on the head of a pin. But I'm curious as to what you
think of some of the technical details, such as the channel and zone
markers and how they handed off calls from one zone to another.
I forgot to mention that in 1971 Bell had a small mobile cellular phone
test in Chicago. There was a tremendous demand for mobile phones even
though it cost ten times what a home phone cost at the time.
The test was successful and then Bell wanted to do a wider test. The
FCC sat on the proposal for two years. When service finally was
allowed, the FCC required two companies, one Bell, one non-Bell.
What is ironic that with supposedly "competition" cell phone rates are
much higher than ten years ago! When I got mine, the phone was free
and an off-peak oriented plan was $20 per month. Today, such an
equivalent plan is $40 per month and I have to buy a new phone for
$30-$50 and expect it to last only a few years. I could get a $20 plan
but it is for very limited use. "Pay as you go" plans are deceiving
because the pre-paid minutes expire--they're lost whether you use them
or not.
(My old phone works just fine except the batteries won't hold a charge
very long and I use the car plug adapter.)
[public replies please]
Stephen Sprunk
news:1154105758.0...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> What is ironic that with supposedly "competition" cell phone rates
> are much higher than ten years ago! When I got mine, the phone
> was free and an off-peak oriented plan was $20 per month. Today,
> such an equivalent plan is $40 per month and I have to buy a new
> phone for $30-$50 and expect it to last only a few years. I could
> get a $20 plan but it is for very limited use.
Your experience is very different from mine... I got my first cell
phone in 1995 or so, and it ran me $100 for the phone, $50/mo for
service, plus $0.60/min for peak usage and $0.10/min for off-peak (and
there were only 100 mins or so included). And those were the
non-roaming rates; it went up to $3/min if I left Houston.
Now, my phone is free every couple years (when resigning the
contract), I pay $99/mo for 2500mins/mo with nationwide coverage,
excess usage at about $0.05/min and Canadian roamin at $0.30/min. My
total bills are lower now than they were a decade ago, and I'm using
at least ten times as many minutes (I burn up to 4000min/mo for work).
The price of entry is a bit higher, but I'm paying less and getting a
lot more (caller ID, SMS, data services, fewer dropped handoffs,
better sound quality, etc)
And don't even get me started on coverage maps... AMPS has better
coverage than GSM today, but GSM has far better coverage now than AMPS
had in the mid-90s. Give it another decade and GSM will cover 96% of
the US population just like AMPS does. It takes a long time to
justify building out those last few rural towers...
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
David Scheidt
:What is ironic that with supposedly "competition" cell phone rates are
:much higher than ten years ago! When I got mine, the phone was free
:and an off-peak oriented plan was $20 per month. Today, such an
:equivalent plan is $40 per month and I have to buy a new phone for
:$30-$50 and expect it to last only a few years. I could get a $20 plan
:but it is for very limited use. "Pay as you go" plans are deceiving
:because the pre-paid minutes expire--they're lost whether you use them
:or not.
There are pre-paid plans that have minutes that expire after a year.
T-mobile has one that requires $100 initial prepay, for 1000 minutes.
That's $8.33 a month, plus whatever the phone runs you. Ten cents a
minute, if you prefer to look at it that way. There are other
carriers that offer similar plans.
David
Tim Shoppa
> - As mentioned, the system was cellular. The article describes some
> technical details on radio transmission within the cells and separation
> of the cells.
Incidentally, the trainside-oscillator-with-wayside-resonator marker
coil system described there is still in use by several mass transit
systems (not for cell switching but for conveying fixed or variable
wayside information to the train). The most common configuration is
still to use marker coils in pairs (so direction can be determined from
sequence).
Tim.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<snip>
>I'm not sure when 800 numbers came out, I thought it was later than
>1969. Before them there were "Enterprise" (or "UX") numbers which had
It was in either Chicago or San Diego that those were called "Zenith"
numbers. I lived in both locales in the 60s and don't remember which
had which.
>to be placed by the operator. For businesses offering toll-free
>service, the directory listing said: "Ask Operator for Enterprise
>nnnn". The operator would look up nnnn in a table then connect you
>with the business, automatically charging the business with a collect
>call. This service started in the 1930s. Although 800 numbers became
>widespread, some businesses still had Enterprise service--still
>requiring an operator to connect--into the 1990s. I made such a call
>and it took a while since the local and long distance operators argued
>over who was to handle the call, then the operator had to dig up the
>conversion table. Obviously not widely used by that point.
<snip>
--
ArarghMail607 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<snip>
>The Hudson tunnels have very little clearance; I don't think the
>engineers wanted to play around with antenna and associated base
>station stuff in there. They are twice as long as the Baltimore
>tunnels with steep grades and moist, additional challenges. Do cell
>phone work in them now?
I can't see how. A piece of wet paper is almost enough to stop a cell
phone, I am sure that many feet of wet ground would do better. :-)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Tim Shoppa wrote:
> Incidentally, the trainside-oscillator-with-wayside-resonator marker
> coil system described there is still in use by several mass transit
> systems (not for cell switching but for conveying fixed or variable
> wayside information to the train). The most common configuration is
> still to use marker coils in pairs (so direction can be determined from
> sequence).
In the late 1950s WABCO developed a device called the "Indentra Coil".
This was a metal loop, about a foot in diameter and an inch wide which
had various settings. The train's motorman set it for the route he was
taking. Wayside equipment read the loop and set the switches
accordingly. This is used by the Phila Broad Street Subway and a
modernized version by PATCO. It was used by the NYC 7-Flushing Line
but I believe no longer.
I wonder if it's the same technology you describe or something simpler.
In the late 1960s both PATCO and BART developed automatic train
operation which required wayside and on board electronics. PATCOs
worked well using "off the shelf" technology (such as tried and true
100 Hz signalling). BART used advance electronics and had a lot of
trouble. Washington's system opened later and learned from that.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<snip>
>I forgot to mention that in 1971 Bell had a small mobile cellular phone
>test in Chicago. There was a tremendous demand for mobile phones even
>though it cost ten times what a home phone cost at the time.
I had thought that 'AMPS' (if I remembered that correctly) system was
being test in the early to mid 80's. I was doing work for one of the
companies that was installing the automotive side of the test. IIRC,
the system was setup to work between Chicago and Springfield, and a
lot the testers worked for the state.
>The test was successful and then Bell wanted to do a wider test. The
>FCC sat on the proposal for two years. When service finally was
>allowed, the FCC required two companies, one Bell, one non-Bell.
Known as 'wireline' and 'non-wireline'
>What is ironic that with supposedly "competition" cell phone rates are
>much higher than ten years ago! When I got mine, the phone was free
>and an off-peak oriented plan was $20 per month. Today, such an
>equivalent plan is $40 per month and I have to buy a new phone for
>$30-$50 and expect it to last only a few years. I could get a $20 plan
>but it is for very limited use. "Pay as you go" plans are deceiving
>because the pre-paid minutes expire--they're lost whether you use them
>or not.
My first cell cost about $1,000 to buy, and service was about $15 per
month and .32/.20 per minute.
>(My old phone works just fine except the batteries won't hold a charge
>very long and I use the car plug adapter.)
Same here. I can't even FIND batteries for mine. The other problem
is that mine is the original analog system, and I don't even know it
that works anymore. Add to that, the phone cost me something like
$2,000 (it was a top of the line unit in 1989) and I only got about 18
months of use out of it. I turned it off because I got tired of
paying $20 per month and not using it. I turned it back on in 2000
because I was going on a trip and wanted it just in case. That's when
I discovered the dead batteries.
If I could find a battery, and service for about $25 per year with a
not too outrageous per minute charge, I would consider using it again.
Maybe.
Phil Kane
>The article concludes: "It is the first practical integrated system to
>use the radio zone concept within the Bell System in order to achieve
>optimum nuse of a limited number of radio-frequency channels."
That is true to the extent that it was the first such use within the
"domestic" Bell System. They had sold such a cellular-cincept system
to the military almost a decade earlier.....as with most Bell Labs
stuff, we wonder how much of Uncle Sam's money was co-mingled with the
"civilian" side to develop all the goodies which we take for granted
these days.
AT&T had several other tariffed services prior to the "800" service
which were not all that different in the end. There was, of course,
the WATS service - "bulk" outward dialing - but there was also "Inward
WATS" which supplanted the Enterprise number system. Then came
TelPak, a bulk system where the subscriber could dial a local number
and would be automatically switched - at the recipient's cost - to a
distant location. Once the "800" totally-free-to-the- caller service
was established, the others went away.
--
"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"
Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Milepost 755 - Tillamook District
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
> It was in either Chicago or San Diego that those were called "Zenith"
> numbers. I lived in both locales in the 60s and don't remember which
> had which.
They had a variety of names in different places, Zenith was a popular
one. Why they weren't consistent I don't know.
Why people continued with such accounts when 800 service was so much
cheaper I don't know.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Phil Kane wrote:
> That is true to the extent that it was the first such use within the
> "domestic" Bell System. They had sold such a cellular-cincept system
> to the military almost a decade earlier.....as with most Bell Labs
> stuff, we wonder how much of Uncle Sam's money was co-mingled with the
> "civilian" side to develop all the goodies which we take for granted
> these days.
An awful lot of civilian technology was first developed for the
military or military contractors, by military money.
As we know, the Internet was in part used by the military.
In the early 1950s, pioneer data processing equipment and computers was
bought by defense contractors, especially nuclear and aeronautical
research. They had the money to buy the newest computers and cover
their development costs. Northup was so desperate for calculating
horsepower they jerry-rigged some IBM card machines to create an
electronic calculator. IBM refined it and sold it as a poor man's
computer (the CPC). Popular for its day and far, far cheaper than a
real Univac.
> AT&T had several other tariffed services prior to the "800" service
> which were not all that different in the end. There was, of course,
> the WATS service - "bulk" outward dialing - but there was also "Inward
> WATS" which supplanted the Enterprise number system. Then came
> TelPak, a bulk system where the subscriber could dial a local number
> and would be automatically switched - at the recipient's cost - to a
> distant location. Once the "800" totally-free-to-the- caller service
> was established, the others went away.
Having a local number serve a distant location is not new. Originally
that was called foreign exchange and enabled local calling in both
directions. For example, it allowed customers in Phila call the
business in NYC and NYC to call customers locally in Phila. Such lines
were expensive. It was very common and may still be for a business or
even a home to have such lines between city and suburbs so suburbanites
wouldn't have to pay to call the city business. I knew a number of
suburbanites who had two phone lines, one city, one suburban.
I believe the switching local number aspect is still common to this
day. It gives customers the sense that the business has a local
presence and of course lets them call for free. A look in today's
Yellow Pages shows many businesses with multiple numbers but one actual
location.
Philip Nasadowski
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> What impressed me was how the Bell engineers anticipated a number of
> factors, such as higher call volume as the train approached the
> terminals, high voltage interference, and the tunnels. Too bad the
> GE/WH people didn't.
Bell dealt with phones day in/day out, and likely knew the average
caller better than the average caller knew himself. They knew RF, and
knew EMI - high voltages weren't foreign to them, neither was high
interference. GE and WH can't totally be blamed for the Metroliner's
shortcomings, it had a few silly features such as a seperate brake stand
in addition to the P wire system, whereas the LIRR M-1s had P wire only.
And it had a speed maintaining feature (set the speed you wanted and the
train did the rest), and a few other things, such as dynamic braking to
0mph. And it was a VERY heavy train. I don't think Budd intended that
(their documentation of the time doesn't suggest it. In fact, they were
champions of light weight, and found the jumps in the Silverliner II's
weight to be a problem)
> AFAIK the phones worked well in service. I used it once. I have no
> idea if usage justified the investment although it was a worthwhile
> training ground.
Bell likely got the most out of the Metroliner - just about everything
they did ultimately worked back to the phone system. The breakthoughs
were a side effect. They're one of the few organizations that for so
long were focused on one basic product, and exceptionally good at it.
> The Bell System thoroughly tested everything before it went into
> national production. For example, trials of the Princess telephone set
> showed the phone was too light and had to be redesigned. Too bad
> modern technology is not as thoroughly debugged before implementation
> as Bell System stuff was.
The first few actually didn't have the weight, but it was added almost
immediately after production began. Later models had the ringer inside
the phone - the first ones had an external bell you mounted somewhere,,
and of course, the familliar wall wart that made it light ("remember:
"It's little! It's lovely! It LIGHTS!"). The wall wart stayed right
through the trimline days - my parent's house had one to power the two
trimlines we had. This was before the LED. Of course, the internal
ringer meant less work for the phone man.
For our foreign readers: Back then, the phone service in the US was
basically run by AT&T (there was GTE and a few others, it's not the
total monopoly it's made out to be, and frankly, GTE was the butt of
jokes for decades anyway.). You couldn't just 'add another phone', in
fact, you couldn't buy a phone - you had to lease it from 'the Bell
system'. They did regular lines tests at the central offices, and the
added phone would show up on the circuits. Unless you disconnected the
ringer. Naturally, with so many phones out there, a considerable number
got 'lost', and there was a 'black market' for phones. Unplugging the
ringer meant it could no longer be seen by the central office. I
recently aquired a nice old desk set (WWII vintage - beautiful bell to
it), that not surprisingly had the bell unhooked.
Of course, today, the phone company wants no part of your site wiring.
everything after the network box is your problem...
I've heard the tests for some of the ESS switches Western Electric built
involved stuff like high voltage arcs to the cabinet while in operation.
WE's old phone equipment was the stuff of ledgends - exceptionally well
built, remarkably dependable, and if it was instrumentation, it was
always perfect and stayed in calibration forever. There's plenty of
stories of phones that have survived falls out of windows, down stairs,
etc. I think the Princess and trimlines had cast bases for a long time.
You couldn't kill them. Even the plastic cases were pretty thick..
John Mara
>
> I believe the switching local number aspect is still common to this
> day. It gives customers the sense that the business has a local
> presence and of course lets them call for free. A look in today's
> Yellow Pages shows many businesses with multiple numbers but one actual
> location.
>
When New York City first got the 718 area code some businesses had the
same number in 718 as they had in 212. Now that you have to dial 10
digits anyway it doesn't matter although I think most business try to
have a 718 or 212 number rather than one of the overlay area codes.
John Mara
Phil Kane
ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>I had thought that 'AMPS' (if I remembered that correctly) system was
>being test in the early to mid 80's. I was doing work for one of the
>companies that was installing the automotive side of the test. IIRC,
>the system was setup to work between Chicago and Springfield, and a
>lot the testers worked for the state.
IIRC the first public AMPS limited rollout was the Bell Atlantic area
around Washington DC (of course!). The first real widespread exposure
to the public was for the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles.
Even though I was and still am in the communications engineering field
I was a late adopter, not getting either business or personal
cellphone service until 1995., I still have and use the Sony "half
brick" 800 MHz CDMA phone that I had to buy for several humdred bucks.
I have no desire to go to any of the newer PCS "plans" as long as the
Sony keeps on working. I keep it turned off unless I have to make a
call or I know that someone specific will be attempting to call me
when I am away from home.
Phil Kane
>BART used advance electronics and had a lot of
>trouble. Washington's system opened later and learned from that.
The geniuses at Westigghouse (not WABCO) designed the system to use
100 millivolt signaling in an environement where traction current was
in the order of 1000 A peak. Only one of the "marvelous" "advances
in technology" that we Bay Area taxpayers footed the bill for,
courtesy of Bechtel.
For the EEs here, you'll get a kick out of one proposed propulsion
system that used 3-phase 440 V AC, picked uhp by three shoes
perpendicular to the sides of the car from three third rales' vertical
sides.. Somewhere in the IEEE Spectrum in the early '60s there was a
picture of same.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
I was thinking of the test system that proceeded the real AMPS system.
I am pretty sure that they had to pull the test phones from the cars
and replace them as they were not compatible with the final system.
I don't have a cell phone for the same reason that I don't have cable
or satellite TV or DSL. The pricing structure is such that you paying
for far more that I want or would use.
The only reason that I would need a cell phone is a highway emergency.
And for that, I would really prefer the old MITS system (which had a
lot better range than the current cell system) or a satellite phone
which works most anywhere (and which costs much more than I can
afford).
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> Bell dealt with phones day in/day out, and likely knew the average
> caller better than the average caller knew himself. They knew RF, and
> knew EMI - high voltages weren't foreign to them, neither was high
> interference. GE and WH can't totally be blamed for the Metroliner's
> shortcomings, it had a few silly features such as a seperate brake stand
> in addition to the P wire system, whereas the LIRR M-1s had P wire only.
Given the pwire concept was new, I don't see the problem of having the
old brake stand as a back up. I don't think that stand caused
debugging problems that the electronics did, and p wire did take some
debugging on the LIRR. (The LIRR got a lot of flack at the beginning
for going too far too fast with the Metropolitan fleet--same sort of
complaints made against Amtrak with Acela).
> Bell likely got the most out of the Metroliner - just about everything
> they did ultimately worked back to the phone system. The breakthoughs
> were a side effect. They're one of the few organizations that for so
> long were focused on one basic product, and exceptionally good at it.
People forgot that as a result of their consent decree, Bell wasn't
allowed to do anything else except military sales. Western Electric
made movie sound systems but had to give that up. A lot of things
people blamed Bell for doing was mandated by the govt. Those mandates
allowed MCI to undersell Bell on high volume routes. MCI didn't have
to service towers in isolated areas on mountain tops nor poor areas.
> The first few actually didn't have the weight, but it was added almost
> immediately after production began. Later models had the ringer inside
> the phone - the first ones had an external bell you mounted somewhere,,
That's right. Ironically, having a self contained ringer was a big
plus in the 302 set introduced in 1938. Before that ringers and
capacitors were so big they required a separate wall box.
> and of course, the familliar wall wart that made it light ("remember:
> "It's little! It's lovely! It LIGHTS!"). The wall wart stayed right
> through the trimline days - my parent's house had one to power the two
> trimlines we had. This was before the LED. Of course, the internal
> ringer meant less work for the phone man.
Yes, they used a little transformer to power the dial lights; later
they used LEDs powered by the phone line. The house my parents bought
was loaded with Trimlines so they hooked up a larger transformer in the
basement plugged into an outlet, and using the yellow/black lines in
the house wiring (red/gree were the actual service line). I meant to
take the transformer when we sold the house but it was painted over and
I didn't want to leave a spot on the wall.
I found a 1948 article where Bell wanted up to upgrade the interior
lighting of a building. They even tested flourescent lighting fixtures
before implementation!
> For our foreign readers: Back then, the phone service in the US was
> basically run by AT&T (there was GTE and a few others, it's not the
> total monopoly it's made out to be, and frankly, GTE was the butt of
> jokes for decades anyway.). You couldn't just 'add another phone', in
> fact, you couldn't buy a phone - you had to lease it from 'the Bell
> system'. They did regular lines tests at the central offices, and the
> added phone would show up on the circuits. Unless you disconnected the
> ringer. Naturally, with so many phones out there, a considerable number
> got 'lost', and there was a 'black market' for phones. Unplugging the
> ringer meant it could no longer be seen by the central office. I
> recently aquired a nice old desk set (WWII vintage - beautiful bell to
> it), that not surprisingly had the bell unhooked.
Your phone is probably a 302. If you open it, the capacitor is almost
as big as a hot dog. I use one at work, the distinct ringer lets me
know its my phone instead of all the other identical phones on other
desks. Ringer is loud. The 500 set, introduced in 1950, had an
adjustable ringer.
It should be noted that the old Bell System took responsibility for
everything from your phone to the destination, usually no questions
asked. They had real crafstmen at the other end of 611 (repair
service). You got full service for the rent you paid (just as IBM
renters got full service for their rent).
Given all the garbage phones out there today, Bell had a legitimate
reason to not want interconnects without protection. Back then the
system was more vulnerable to abuse, intentional or accidental. Bell
didn't want to be called out on service problems resulting from bad
customer equipment.
> I've heard the tests for some of the ESS switches Western Electric built
> involved stuff like high voltage arcs to the cabinet while in operation.
Yes. They tested for every possible problem in every part of the
system. There's a whole chapter devoted to heat sinks for power
supplies, for example.
> WE's old phone equipment was the stuff of ledgends - exceptionally well
> built, remarkably dependable, and if it was instrumentation, it was
> always perfect and stayed in calibration forever. There's plenty of
> stories of phones that have survived falls out of windows, down stairs,
> etc. I think the Princess and trimlines had cast bases for a long time.
> You couldn't kill them. Even the plastic cases were pretty thick..
Because they were rented and Bell wanted to keep service calls down.
Now everything is disposable junk.
Of course, the time frame for technology is much faster. Exchanges
were built to last 30 years, now maybe five years.
John Mara
>For our foreign readers: Back then, the phone service in the US was
>basically run by AT&T (there was GTE and a few others, it's not the
>total monopoly it's made out to be, and frankly, GTE was the butt of
>jokes for decades anyway.). You couldn't just 'add another phone', in
>fact, you couldn't buy a phone - you had to lease it from 'the Bell
>system'. They did regular lines tests at the central offices, and the
>added phone would show up on the circuits. Unless you disconnected the
>ringer. Naturally, with so many phones out there, a considerable number
>got 'lost', and there was a 'black market' for phones. Unplugging the
>ringer meant it could no longer be seen by the central office. I
>recently aquired a nice old desk set (WWII vintage - beautiful bell to
>it), that not surprisingly had the bell unhooked.
The Bell System put a lot of effort into getting their phones back.
When I was a kid a small apartment house in our neighborhood had a bad
fire and partially collapsed. When they tore it down the next day the
phone company had a guy hanging around all day to fish the phones out of
the ruins. I think it was a four family building. So we're talking 8
phones at most (I never knew anyone who had more than 2 and a lot of
people only had 1.)
John Mara
Phil Kane
<nasa...@usermale.com> wrote re the Princess Telephone of the early
1960s:
>The first few actually didn't have the weight, but it was added almost
>immediately after production began. Later models had the ringer inside
>the phone - the first ones had an external bell you mounted somewhere,,
>and of course, the familliar wall wart that made it light ("remember:
>"It's little! It's lovely! It LIGHTS!").
My wife at the time had a job with the business office of Pacific
Telephone (a Bell company) selling service to subscribers. Her script
for the Princess phobe had the phrase "how would you like to have a
little princess in your bedroom" !!
Fortunately a position opened in the engineering department and she
went to work there, updating the cable maps of the Oakland Hills (San
Francisco Bay area) after a major fire. She actually had to tramp the
roads with maps in hand!
She's now retiring from a 45 year career as an elecrical engineering
designer (non-degreed engineer) dealing with instrumentation and power
systems in heavy industry. She's very much at home in the world of
MCCs, switchgear, PLCs and their progeny.
Phil Kane
>Of course, today, the phone company wants no part of your site wiring.
>everything after the network box [*] is your problem...
[*] "The Demark" in telephone-man/woman-in the street-speak.
Actually that's not true -- they will be more than happy to sell you
an inside/premises wiring insurance plan (de-tariffed, of course)
covering stuff that rarely if ever needs any repair unless it is
abused (which is excluded from coverage). New wiring is done at
"market rates". I've done my own IW to Bell Stystem standards for
over 50 years, pre-Carterfone notwithstanding.
>
>WE's old phone equipment was the stuff of ledgends - exceptionally well
>built, remarkably dependable, and if it was instrumentation, it was
>always perfect and stayed in calibration forever. There's plenty of
>stories of phones that have survived falls out of windows, down stairs,
>etc. I think the Princess and trimlines had cast bases for a long time.
>You couldn't kill them. Even the plastic cases were pretty thick..
IIRC the WE 500 (WW-ii era) and 2500 (1950-70s) desk sets -- plain
black unless one paid extra each month -- were amortized for a 25-year
life.
In 1963 I moved into a place in Riverside, CA and ordered a WE 213 set
from Pacific Telephone -- the one that was mounted vertically on the
side of a desk, with the hook and 500-series handset out to the side
and the dial - rotary of course - on top of the main housing, in an
almost vertical plane. The installer said that they had to scour the
warehouse to find one (it was about 20 years old) and it was the first
time that I had ever seen an installer pull out the diagram to wire a
telephone in......
Notwithstanding all the bells and whistels avalable currently, I wish
the current sets worked as well and were as rugged as those were.
Lars Poulsen (impulse news)
>>The Hudson tunnels have very little clearance; I don't think the
>>engineers wanted to play around with antenna and associated base
>>station stuff in there. They are twice as long as the Baltimore
>>tunnels with steep grades and moist, additional challenges. Do cell
>>phone work in them now?
ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
> I can't see how. A piece of wet paper is almost enough to stop a cell
> phone, I am sure that many feet of wet ground would do better. :-)
RF in tunnels are a specialty. The signal is not expected to
penetrate the ground; rather special antennas serve the tunnel.
One type of antenna often used in train tunnels is called "Radiax".
It is a leaky coaxial cable, routed through the entire tunnel, so
that it is only a foot or two away from the train.
For the train's own control systems, the Radiax cable is typically
mounted between the rails, and the moving antenna is mounted under
the train car, pointed down.
/ Lars Poulsen - partner in a wireless communications equipment
company which supplies radios for ATC (automatic
train control)
Phil Kane
> A lot of things
>people blamed Bell for doing was mandated by the govt. Those mandates
>allowed MCI to undersell Bell on high volume routes. MCI didn't have
>to service towers in isolated areas on mountain tops nor poor areas.
McGowan made good on his threat to destroy the Bell System, using the
"gov't" as his tool. I've had ATT and Sprint accounts over the years
but I refuse to have a MCI account. ATT is currently being soldered
together again, sort of. My son started as a tech (actually a wire
monkey) with post-divestiture AT&T, transferred to Pacific Bell when
it was a "'Baby Bell" essentially doing the same things for its
internall IT system, rode it out through the merger with SBC, becoming
a program manager when he finished his degree in e-management, and is
now riding out the merger with ATT and the transfer of his workplace
to the suburbs. I know that he loves both his home and his job - he
commutes 50 miles each way in an SUV over a toll bridge!
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<la...@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>On 28 Jul 2006 07:09:39 -0700, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>The Hudson tunnels have very little clearance; I don't think the
>>>engineers wanted to play around with antenna and associated base
>>>station stuff in there. They are twice as long as the Baltimore
>>>tunnels with steep grades and moist, additional challenges. Do cell
>>>phone work in them now?
>
>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>> I can't see how. A piece of wet paper is almost enough to stop a cell
>> phone, I am sure that many feet of wet ground would do better. :-)
>
>RF in tunnels are a specialty. The signal is not expected to
>penetrate the ground; rather special antennas serve the tunnel.
I kinda knew that. On the subject of cell phones, if they don't have
some kind of antenna in the tunnel, it ain't goina work, was my point.
>One type of antenna often used in train tunnels is called "Radiax".
>It is a leaky coaxial cable, routed through the entire tunnel, so
>that it is only a foot or two away from the train.
>
>For the train's own control systems, the Radiax cable is typically
>mounted between the rails, and the moving antenna is mounted under
>the train car, pointed down.
Sounds something like what might also be used for the AM traffic
broadcasts along side of a highway.
>
>/ Lars Poulsen - partner in a wireless communications equipment
> company which supplies radios for ATC (automatic
> train control)
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
<snip>
>Notwithstanding all the bells and whistels avalable currently, I wish
>the current sets worked as well and were as rugged as those were.
That's why I still use a plain old black 2500DM phone. It's probably
30 years old, and works just fine.
Although, the contacts on the buttons are getting just a bit flakey.
May have to take it apart and burnish the contacts. (I don't dial out
enough)
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
or totally new? ..because..
Late on 18DEC85, I was stuck (cable snapped) on a regular
(non-metroliner) WDC-NYC Amtrak between Maryland and Delaware for four
hours and they told me there was no way I could communicate. As a
result, 3am 22DEC85 my dad had a massive heart attack. They didn't say
"we normally have telephones but the cable snapped" they just said
there was no way to call home. They wouldn't even promise to give us
enough time to call from the phone booths later at Philly station
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Reagan Mozart Pindus BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Yellary Clinton & Yellalot Spitzer: Nasty Together]
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:40:01 GMT, Philip Nasadowski
> <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Of course, today, the phone company wants no part of your site wiring.
>>everything after the network box [*] is your problem...
>
>
> [*] "The Demark" in telephone-man/woman-in the street-speak.
>
> Actually that's not true -- they will be more than happy to sell you
> an inside/premises wiring insurance plan (de-tariffed, of course)
> covering stuff that rarely if ever needs any repair unless it is
> abused (which is excluded from coverage). New wiring is done at
> "market rates". I've done my own IW to Bell Stystem standards for
> over 50 years, pre-Carterfone notwithstanding.
>
insurance protection.
Before when I was not paying them protection, I was having problems
with the quality of my DSL connection. BS would always point their
finger accusing the quality on my inside house wiring. A couple of
service calls after I started paying protection finally resulted in
a visit by a technician who corrected the shoddy BS DSL installation,
done by their original installer. Subsequent problems have always
been outside the demark.
--
Rostyk
John Mara
>
> McGowan made good on his threat to destroy the Bell System, using the
> "gov't" as his tool. I've had ATT and Sprint accounts over the years
> but I refuse to have a MCI account.
The Bell System deserved to be broken up. They had the same arrogance
that all monopoly businesses had (including railroads). No you can't
buy your own phone. In this market we only have unlimited local service
but in that market we only have measured local service, whichever
happens to be best for us. You don't want your name in the phone book.
We'll be charging you for that. You want to avoid the unpublished
number charge by having a different name in the directory. That would
be a violation of our tariffs.
They deserved what they got.
John Mara
Joseph D. Korman
Not to mention charging a premium for touch tone, which cost them less
to maintain.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| AOL-IM user name joekoreln |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Don't take any wooden Metrocards |
| Happily retired since May 2005! |
| Battlestar Galactica is better than... |
| the last two Star Treks - WAY better! !
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work! |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
wa...@fordham.edu
"Merchants Limited" and "Yankee Clipper", and the B&O's "Royal Blue"
offered radio telephone service, according to the 2003 _Dream Trains_
special issue of _Classic Trains_.
The article gives no details of the service, nor any indication of
whether it started before 1952.
Michael Wares
Steve Grant
<joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Not to mention charging a premium for touch tone, which cost them less
>to maintain.
And this is a bad practice because ... ?
For the umpteenth time, people: *price* and *cost* have nothing to do
with one another.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Phil Kane wrote:
> In 1963 I moved into a place in Riverside, CA and ordered a WE 213 set
> from Pacific Telephone -- the one that was mounted vertically on the
> side of a desk, with the hook and 500-series handset out to the side
> and the dial - rotary of course - on top of the main housing, in an
> almost vertical plane. The installer said that they had to scour the
> warehouse to find one (it was about 20 years old) and it was the first
> time that I had ever seen an installer pull out the diagram to wire a
> telephone in......
I believe you're referring to the "space saver" or "druggist" telephone
set. It was small and intended sit be mounted on the edge of
workbenches so it wouldn't take up much room. (It required a separate
bell box). In 1963 these were very common and I'm surprised they had
trouble finding such a set.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:59:26 GMT, "Joseph D. Korman"
><joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Not to mention charging a premium for touch tone, which cost them less
>>to maintain.
>
>And this is a bad practice because ... ?
Because some people figured it out on their own, got all pissed off
about it, and refused to pay for touch tone. Thereby forcing the
phone company to maintain the old (more expensive) system. :-) Myself
for one. I didn't offically have touch tone until it was included in
the base price.
>For the umpteenth time, people: *price* and *cost* have nothing to do
>with one another.
As long as nobody figures is out. This is part of why I don't have a
cell phone, cable or satellete TV, or DSL. They all cost more than
they are worth.
AllstonPar...@hotmail.com
> Because some people figured it out on their own, got all pissed off
> about it, and refused to pay for touch tone. Thereby forcing the
> phone company to maintain the old (more expensive) system. :-) Myself
> for one. I didn't offically have touch tone until it was included in
> the base price.
I'd think that state public utility commisions are the reason phone
companies can't eliminate pulse dial service, not the people who are
too cheap to pay for touch tone.
In most states where they "eliminated" the surcharge for touch tone,
they did it by just raising the base rates by that amount.
-Apr
Philip Nasadowski
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I believe you're referring to the "space saver" or "druggist" telephone
> set. It was small and intended sit be mounted on the edge of
> workbenches so it wouldn't take up much room. (It required a separate
> bell box). In 1963 these were very common and I'm surprised they had
> trouble finding such a set.
I LOVE the look and design - when I get a computer desk in the other
room, I want to get one so I can have a phone nearby. I must be one of
the few in the under 30 crowd who doesn't mind dialing a rotary at all,
but then again, I type rungs of SLC 5 logic out rather than use Allen
Bradley's silly graphical tool, too (It's a LOT faster to type than
fight with RS Logix with the mouse. BST XIC B3:5/0 NXB XIC I:6.0/5 BND
OTE O:2.0/6 A lot faster than dragging silly lines around and punching
in addresses...) My cow-orkers think I'm weird. *shrug*
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>> Because some people figured it out on their own, got all pissed off
>> about it, and refused to pay for touch tone. Thereby forcing the
>> phone company to maintain the old (more expensive) system. :-) Myself
>> for one. I didn't offically have touch tone until it was included in
>> the base price.
>
>I'd think that state public utility commisions are the reason phone
>companies can't eliminate pulse dial service, not the people who are
>too cheap to pay for touch tone.
I don't think it makes much difference, anymore. I presume that the
tone decoder chip also decodes pulse. Might cost a cent more per to
make.
>In most states where they "eliminated" the surcharge for touch tone,
>they did it by just raising the base rates by that amount.
I don't know. The ICC (Illinois Commerce Commission) was usually
pretty good about things like that. That happened in the late 70s or
early 80s around here, and I would have to dig out the bills from that
period to see.
Philip Nasadowski
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Given the pwire concept was new, I don't see the problem of having the
> old brake stand as a back up. I don't think that stand caused
> debugging problems that the electronics did, and p wire did take some
> debugging on the LIRR. (The LIRR got a lot of flack at the beginning
> for going too far too fast with the Metropolitan fleet--same sort of
> complaints made against Amtrak with Acela).
Maybe initially, but once P wire was debugged, there was no reason to
retain it. The metros also were built as pairs (Budd was advocating
unit trains at the time), meaning that the ends had to have a silly
extending bellows arrangement due to their pointy design, which was
motorized, and no doubt added to weight. They also had a massive
propulsion system, unrealistically high gearing (well over 150mph), etc
etc etc. It wasn't the car Budd envisioned in the mid 60's, except in
the basic look, and even that was different from the origional
conceptual drawings. I suspect they wanted to use Pioneer III trucks,
but even the Silverliner II didn't use the actual PIII design, which had
right angle drive and high speed motors, outboard disc brakes, and
hollow axles (though the latter 2 were provided on the SL II units, as
they were very successful on the SL Is). Budd was almost fanatical
about light weight in the 50's and 60's, believeing that the lower costs
and higher performance it brought would be the only rational way to end
the money drain passenger rail was by then.
> People forgot that as a result of their consent decree, Bell wasn't
> allowed to do anything else except military sales. Western Electric
> made movie sound systems but had to give that up.
When was this? I seem to recall that Westrex was a popular type of
early stereo cutting head, and that it was a Western Electric product.
> Yes, they used a little transformer to power the dial lights; later
> they used LEDs powered by the phone line. The house my parents bought
> was loaded with Trimlines so they hooked up a larger transformer in the
> basement plugged into an outlet, and using the yellow/black lines in
> the house wiring (red/gree were the actual service line). I meant to
> take the transformer when we sold the house but it was painted over and
> I didn't want to leave a spot on the wall.
They pop up everywhere because so many Trimlines were made. And every
one came with one. I don't think those little units ever failed (though
they DID have a recall on one or two, once). Any home older than 30 or
40 years around here most certainly has one in the basement - most
people don't know what it's for, it's hooked to the phone line, and they
figure better to leave it plugged in than disturb it and mess up their
phones. I took me until college and researching online to figure out
what it did and try unplugging the one in our basement. The world
didn't end and now we've got one laying in a parts box somewhere....
> I found a 1948 article where Bell wanted up to upgrade the interior
> lighting of a building. They even tested flourescent lighting fixtures
> before implementation!
Sounds about right. There's a famous manual about floor sweeping they
put out once for their janitors...
> Your phone is probably a 302. If you open it, the capacitor is almost
> as big as a hot dog. I use one at work, the distinct ringer lets me
> know its my phone instead of all the other identical phones on other
> desks. Ringer is loud. The 500 set, introduced in 1950, had an
> adjustable ringer.
Yes, I think it is a 302 I wish I could plug it into the system at
work, since i never can tell when it's my phone ringing, but i can't
since it's a digital weird system and I can't get to my voice mail with
a rotary anyway...
> Given all the garbage phones out there today, Bell had a legitimate
> reason to not want interconnects without protection. Back then the
> system was more vulnerable to abuse, intentional or accidental. Bell
> didn't want to be called out on service problems resulting from bad
> customer equipment.
On the HBLRT startup of Bergenline ave, we actually wore out the phone
in one room from being on it 8-10 hours at a time, talking to people
around the system for testing. The thing basically up and died after a
month or so of heavy use.
> Yes. They tested for every possible problem in every part of the
> system. There's a whole chapter devoted to heat sinks for power
> supplies, for example.
Old RCA studio gear was like that too - their cameras were very heavy
and overbuilt....
> Because they were rented and Bell wanted to keep service calls down.
> Now everything is disposable junk.
I wish someone would still make a tough phone. I bet there'd be a good
market for it.
Interestingly, I've read that as recently as the late 80's, a few very
rural areas in the US had *no* dial phone service, rather, picking up
the phone got you an AT&T operator at the other end. Yet you can still
call anywhere in the world.
On the other hand, I've heard the French phone system used to at one
time play a tone after you dialed so you could tell the system was still
switching your call and didn't get stuck. This seems crazy - even in
the 70's, long distance calls in the US connected in barely a few
seconds...
Brian Inglis
AllstonPar...@hotmail.com wrote:
I'm with Arargh: kept my "touch-tone" phones switched to fast pulse
(20 Hz) until they dropped the charge. I knew the local telco
(AGT/Telus) had installed new DMS switches to service our area, and
were just trying to increase charges.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Brian....@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
Philip Nasadowski
John Mara <john...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> The Bell System deserved to be broken up.
Why? because they were flat out better and more successful than GTE?
> They had the same arrogance
> that all monopoly businesses had (including railroads).
Not as bad, though.
> No you can't buy your own phone.
And, prior to FCC Part 68, there was a very legitamate reason for that.
> In this market we only have unlimited local service
> but in that market we only have measured local service, whichever
> happens to be best for us.
Unlimited local existed just about everywhere, except where you were
rural, in which case there wasn't such a thing as a 'local' call anyway.
> You don't want your name in the phone book.
> We'll be charging you for that.
And they STILL DO.
And today, we have the 'number portability' surcharge, 10 digit dialing
in many places, bait and switch long distance, the ever changing area
code shuffle, DSL that's not available to everyone, piss poor service,
so called 'competition', crap system reliability, little acountability,
phones that self destruct...
Oh, and that 'number portability' surcharge. I'm forced to pay a few
dollars every month for a feature I don't want and don't need, not to
mention the other 'mandated' surcharge.
And NJ only dropped the touch tone charges a year ago anyway.
Honestly, even though it wasn't perfect, I'd much rather have AT&T as
AT&T, than the clusterfuck that exists today. My land line doesn't
work. My DSL over it does. This is a wiring problem with my phone,
somehow. Verizon won't fix it. I've called, I've complained. They
don't care. I leave my phone disconnected anyway - all I ever got was
telemarketer calls, and yes, I'm on the so-called 'do not call' list.
of course, even though 'Verizon doesn't sell your name or number to
anyone', magically, every roof insurance salesman in the US knew who I
was and where I lived about 2 days after my phone service started here.
Even after I signed up for a 'do not call' list (about 2 weeks after I
moved in), I STILL got tons of calls.
And don't get me started on how bad mobile service is (I've had dropped
calls even when I'm within direct sight of a tower, and there's freaking
towers every 10 feet around here), not to mention the shady crap pulled
there.
Give me the old Bell System any day. I consider the current
'telecommunications' industry to be a slight notch above used car
salesmen...
Phil Kane
<nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
>Give me the old Bell System any day. I consider the current
>'telecommunications' industry to be a slight notch above used car
>salesmen...
Amen, brother.
James Robinson
> Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
>
>> Give me the old Bell System any day. I consider the current
>> 'telecommunications' industry to be a slight notch above used car
>> salesmen...
>
> Amen, brother.
Do you really want to pay the prices the old Bell system charged? If
they had remained, there would have been no reason to lower their
rates.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
Because it slowed down the technological progress resulting from
the switch to touchtone.
Stephen Sprunk
news:tcvpc2dcv5n7ubsfe...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:31:56 -0400, Steve Grant
> <ACE...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:59:26 GMT, "Joseph D. Korman"
>><joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>Not to mention charging a premium for touch tone, which cost them
>>>less to maintain.
>>
>>And this is a bad practice because ... ?
>
> Because some people figured it out on their own, got all pissed off
> about it, and refused to pay for touch tone. Thereby forcing the
> phone company to maintain the old (more expensive) system. :-)
> Myself
> for one. I didn't offically have touch tone until it was included
> in
> the base price.
It's still not in the base price here... I had a heck of a time when
I ordered my current phone line, but I eventually managed to get it
for $11/mo (plus about $8/mo in taxes). I had to speak to two
supervisors before they could find someone who knew how to order a
line without touch tone service. I checked after the install and
touch tone does indeed work, it's just not on my bill.
The way the PUCs regulate telcos has no relation to the actual cost of
delivering service. The telco incurs the _cost_ of making a service
available up front regardless of whether anyone buys it; if anyone
actually does, the _price_ is pure profit to them. So, given the way
they're regulated, they're incented to provide either (a) as few
services as permitted, or (b) all possible services for a fixed price.
Neither is good for the consumer.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Stephen Sprunk
news:1154287834.9...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
... and in states that still have the surcharge, you'll notice the
base rates haven't changed for 30+ years. The telcos combat inflation
by adding more and more "must have" services each year and doing their
best to convince new subscribers they can't opt out.
The most bizarre charge I've seen is the new $5/mo fee that my local
bell wants to charge for not having a LD carrier selected. Of course,
I can't find an LD carrier that will charge me less than $5/mo even if
I don't make a single call -- they'd lose money just sending me blank
bills. I threatened to take it up with the PUC and Bell decided to
issue me a $5/mo credit to cover the "mandatory" $5/mo fee -- they
didn't want to risk losing a new cash cow over one customer.
Stephen Sprunk
news:nasadowsk-22341...@news.verizon.net...
> In article <2D2zg.4182$u05....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
> John Mara <john...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
Right, but that's the only way to pay for the horrendous cost of the
LNP system. It's similar to welfare -- tax everyone to pay for the
few that take advantage of it.
> Honestly, even though it wasn't perfect, I'd much rather have AT&T
> as
> AT&T, than the clusterfuck that exists today. My land line doesn't
> work. My DSL over it does. This is a wiring problem with my phone,
> somehow. Verizon won't fix it. I've called, I've complained. They
> don't care.
Even back in the Bell days, the same thing happened. I don't know how
many times I had SWB techs out to fix a problem with my phone line,
and every time they showed up the problem was "cleared during
testing", only to return a few weeks later. One of the techs confided
in me that SWB paid their CO managers based on the number of faults
reported, and so everything was "cleared during testing" regardless of
the problem found so that the mgr would get his full bonus.
> And don't get me started on how bad mobile service is (I've had
> dropped
> calls even when I'm within direct sight of a tower, and there's
> freaking
> towers every 10 feet around here), not to mention the shady crap
> pulled
> there.
Yeah, there's some seriously shady stuff in the mobile world, but I've
had pretty good luck overall and I travel quite a bit. I've used
Sprint and T-Mobile over the last few years, and both are quite happy
to refund minutes for dropped calls and respond well to reports of
dead spots (Sprint would even call me back when they put up a new
tower so I could go verify that each dead spot was gone).
Also, many of the mobile problems aren't actually the carriers' fault.
For instance, a past employer was acquired by Sprint, and our office
didn't have Sprint PCS service because it was in a dead spot. Turns
out the city we were in simply refused to grant permits for towers
anywhere within its limits, so coverage was provided by a ring of
towers around the city pointing in, and deadspots were thus
inevitable.
There's plenty of carrier idiocy too, though. I called T-Mobile a
while back to complain about dropped calls in RTP, NC, and they
responded that they didn't have service there. It turned out I was
roaming on Cingular's GSM network, and apparently they didn't actually
have a roaming agreement with them... nobody could explain why I was
able to make calls in the first place. No charges on my bill for that
trip either. Oops. (I noticed about a year later that roaming
coverage is now official there, but I haven't been back to see if it
works any better)
> Give me the old Bell System any day. I consider the current
> 'telecommunications' industry to be a slight notch above used car
> salesmen...
You want to go back to paying the pre-MFJ Bell rates for everything?
The simple matter is the vast majority of the public is willing to
tolerate bad service to get significantly lower rates. And, frankly,
landline service doesn't seem to be noticeably worse today than it was
20 years ago; it's still the same union flunkies doing the same bad
union-quality work. It just costs about 1% of what it used to.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
>In article <2D2zg.4182$u05....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
> John Mara <john...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>> You don't want your name in the phone book.
>> We'll be charging you for that.
>
>And they STILL DO.
Yup. Costs me either .75 or 1.75 per month, I forget which. The only
advantage of that is that I have had the same number for about 30
years now, unpub the entire time. Which pretty much means that nobody
calls me except those 3 or 4 people that I gave the number. And the
occasional sequential dialer. But they give up pretty quick after I
slam the phone in their ear. Banging a 2500 series handset on a
hardwood floor makes for a nice load noise. Doesn't hurt the handset,
either. Does dent the floor a bit. :-)
>And today, we have the 'number portability' surcharge, 10 digit dialing
>in many places, bait and switch long distance, the ever changing area
>code shuffle, DSL that's not available to everyone, piss poor service,
>so called 'competition', crap system reliability, little acountability,
>phones that self destruct...
>
>Oh, and that 'number portability' surcharge. I'm forced to pay a few
>dollars every month for a feature I don't want and don't need, not to
>mention the other 'mandated' surcharge.
Yup.
>And NJ only dropped the touch tone charges a year ago anyway.
>
>Honestly, even though it wasn't perfect, I'd much rather have AT&T as
>AT&T, than the clusterfuck that exists today. My land line doesn't
I tend to agree. Instead of breaking up the Bell System, they should
have been stomped upon rather well, to allow competition.
>work. My DSL over it does. This is a wiring problem with my phone,
>somehow. Verizon won't fix it. I've called, I've complained. They
>don't care. I leave my phone disconnected anyway - all I ever got was
>telemarketer calls, and yes, I'm on the so-called 'do not call' list.
>of course, even though 'Verizon doesn't sell your name or number to
>anyone', magically, every roof insurance salesman in the US knew who I
>was and where I lived about 2 days after my phone service started here.
>
>Even after I signed up for a 'do not call' list (about 2 weeks after I
>moved in), I STILL got tons of calls.
I never bothered. I get maybe 1 call a year. And they get an ear
ache. :-)
>And don't get me started on how bad mobile service is (I've had dropped
>calls even when I'm within direct sight of a tower, and there's freaking
>towers every 10 feet around here), not to mention the shady crap pulled
>there.
The tower might not have been for your system, but I know what you
mean. The original AMPS system worked pretty well, when you were in
range. I remember, one time, I was able to get into a cell some 30
miles out of a large city. But, that was from a high powered car
phone, not one of those micro watt portables of today. Plus I had a
high gain roof antenna.
>Give me the old Bell System any day. I consider the current
>'telecommunications' industry to be a slight notch above used car
>salesmen...
Haven't really dealt with either for 15 years or so. :-)
David Lesher
>Sounds about right. There's a famous manual about floor sweeping they
>put out once for their janitors...
http://long-lines.net/documents/BSP-770-130-301/BSP-770-130-301-p1.html
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The Bell System deserved to be broken up. They had the same arrogance
> that all monopoly businesses had (including railroads).
That's really an inaccurate generalization.
Three big organizations of that era--the Bell System, IBM, and the
railroads all operated under various forms of govt supervision and
mandates. The railroads and Bell were under strict Federal and state
regulation. IBM and Bell were under strict consent decrees, making
Bell doubly regulated. IBM and Bell were also being sued again by the
govt; it should be noted that IBM won its lawsuit.
All of three of those organizations had a very expensive base of
physical plant. This plant, especially in those days, could not simply
be picked up, modified, and moved somewhere on the drop of a pin. The
plant was built to very heavy standards intended to last for a long
time. The technology we have now and take for granted simply didn't
exist at the time.
> No you can't
> buy your own phone.
That was a separate issue from divesture. That policy was on its way
out. It must be remembered that in that policy the Bell System was
responsible end-to-end and generally took that responsibility very
seriously. (There were of course exceptions, but then EVERY
organization has service problems at some point.) It was likewise when
IBM bundled its service with its hardware.
In the old days, the phone company installed and was responsible for
inside wiring. We didn't have this finger pointing nonsense at the
demarc box or the nonsense cable TV companies pull.
For example, today: My cable company installed the wiring for me. It
did a lousy job yet charged me for what was supposed to be "free
installation". It wanted to charge me again to fix it. Now they want
to charge me to fix obviously their problem (my neighbors and I have
the exact same symptons.)
> In this market we only have unlimited local service
> but in that market we only have measured local service, whichever
> happens to be best for us.
That actually is from local, state, and federal regulations. It also
hasn't changed 20 years after divesture--old policies remain the same.
Some regulators/politicians felt flat rate pricing was better, others
felt usage sensitive pricing was better, and that debate continues. In
railroading, some argue a transit system should be a single flat fare
(as is New York City), others argue for fares on distance (as is
Washington and Boston).
As a consumer, I don't like it when a third party intervenes and tells
me I can't have bundled pricing that would save me money. That
happened with IBM forced to go a la carte, the Bell System divesture,
and now with new trends in broadband service.
> You don't want your name in the phone book.
> We'll be charging you for that. You want to avoid the unpublished
> number charge by having a different name in the directory. That would
> be a violation of our tariffs.
Again, tariffs are the creation of regulatory agencies, not the
companies. Many practices of IBM and the railroads were as frustrating
but they were mandated too per above.
The real lesson here is that if we as the public are disatisfied with a
public service, we must first learn accurately the REAL reasons for the
way things are. Otherwise, we will not solve the problem, indeed make
it worse.
> They deserved what they got.
No, we consumers got screwed. The newcomers take the cream business
and serve selected areas and can't even provide decent service (like
VOIP being unable to reach 911 because they were too cheap to develop
the proper technical interface and customer database the traditional
companies spent a lot of money doing.)
Today's technology make mobile phone service easy. But it didn't just
happen out of thin air. It took the old Bell System's resources the
ability to invest in a trial service on the Metroliner of cellular
service and learn from it to develop AMPS. (Note the FCC held up
subsequent testing for two years.)
[public replies, please]
Philip Nasadowski
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> In the old days, the phone company installed and was responsible for
> inside wiring. We didn't have this finger pointing nonsense at the
> demarc box or the nonsense cable TV companies pull.
Yep. My DSL service works just fine, my landline 9SAME LINE) phone
won't give me a dial tone. Verizon SWEARS this is wiring in my
apartment, won't do anything. Excuse me, how on earth is my DSL not
affected by bad wiring, but my phone was?
I tried complaining. They don't care. They don't have to - it's a
'competitive' market and if I don't like it I can get VOIP or move
elsewhere.
> For example, today: My cable company installed the wiring for me. It
> did a lousy job yet charged me for what was supposed to be "free
> installation". It wanted to charge me again to fix it. Now they want
> to charge me to fix obviously their problem (my neighbors and I have
> the exact same symptons.)
Witness my mess with my apartment phone. Or, my parent's house.
They're less than 10 miles from NYC, yet can not get DSL. Verizon won't
tell them if/when it'll be installed, just 'Try again in 3 months'. I'm
pretty sure Verizon's decided NOT to bother with DSL in the area, but
they won't fess up, for fear that it'll cause us to go get cable modem
(it will). This has been an ongoing thing for about 4 years now. At
first, it was 'It'll be installed in 6 months'. Now, they won't even
say THAT, just 'call us another time'. The last time we had a problem
on their side of the demark, it took 3 WEEKS to get them to come out and
fix it.
Of course, their canned answer is "don't like it, get something else".
They can hide behind that now.
> No, we consumers got screwed.
No kidding.
> The newcomers take the cream business
> and serve selected areas and can't even provide decent service (like
> VOIP being unable to reach 911 because they were too cheap to develop
> the proper technical interface and customer database the traditional
> companies spent a lot of money doing.)
Oh, forget that. Try getting a leased line installed by a telco now.
Oh yeah, you want it to work and be equalized right? Have fun. VOIP is
a cute fad, but computer geeks don't understand zilch about reliability,
and the hardware is dismally poor anyway. Vonage tried the old dot com
trick on their IPO about saying how they might never make money. Heck,
they might not be here in 2 years...
The sad thing is the FCC now allows a free for all in telephone, while
forcing useless bullshit onto the public's TV sets. I get to pay for a
V chip I don't need or want, I have to get closed captioning, even
though I don't need or want it, new TVs have to have a digital tuner to
receive so called HDTV channels* that come in poorly by me (the current
standard transmits like shit).
> Today's technology make mobile phone service easy. But it didn't just
> happen out of thin air.
It still hasn't happened. I get regular drops, even in NJ. Voice
quality on GSM is a joke, too.
> It took the old Bell System's resources the
> ability to invest in a trial service on the Metroliner of cellular
> service and learn from it to develop AMPS. (Note the FCC held up
> subsequent testing for two years.)
The FCC's a political beast and always was. Look at how HDTV evolved -
nobody could agree on a picture standard, we 'needed' HDTV, so the FCC
just approved every standard, instead...
*The technical quality of TV today's poor anyway - the other day, a
local PBS station showed a movie in the letterbox format. Of course,
the movie was shot in 4:3, so to make up for the 'missing' space on the
sides, they added thick black bars in...
randee
What technical progress?
--
wf.
randee
$4.98 a month sounds good to me.
--
wf.
Floyd L. Davidson
>Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> writes:
>
>>Sounds about right. There's a famous manual about floor sweeping they
>>put out once for their janitors...
>
>http://long-lines.net/documents/BSP-770-130-301/BSP-770-130-301-p1.html
I remember a friend in the mid-1960's who worked as a janitor
for AT&T in Tucson AZ, who told me about a union meeting they
had to discuss the retirement plan. Seems nobody was even the
slightest bit interested, which greatly baffled the union reps,
given how interested the technical staff was in retirement.
Then he explained the difference: The janitors were virtually
all students at the University of Arizona, and most of them were
working on PhD's.
The Bell System: designed by geniuses to be operated by
idiots... The best job they had for sharp folks was as a
janitor! The management was a bit more tolerable if all you did
was push a broom.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
John Mara
> Of course, their canned answer is "don't like it, get something else".
> They can hide behind that now.
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.(Lily Tomlin)
Candide
news:72cqc2pn2mjhh94ho...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:46:16 GMT, Philip Nasadowski
> <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <2D2zg.4182$u05....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
> > John Mara <john...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> >> You don't want your name in the phone book.
> >> We'll be charging you for that.
> >
> >And they STILL DO.
> Yup. Costs me either .75 or 1.75 per month, I forget which. The only
> advantage of that is that I have had the same number for about 30
> years now, unpub the entire time. Which pretty much means that nobody
> calls me except those 3 or 4 people that I gave the number. And the
> occasional sequential dialer. But they give up pretty quick after I
> slam the phone in their ear. Banging a 2500 series handset on a
> hardwood floor makes for a nice load noise. Doesn't hurt the handset,
> either. Does dent the floor a bit. :-)
Unpublished does not mean no one can find/see/or otherwise obtain your
phone number. There are many, many ways of gaining non pubished
information, as the recent Congressional hearing on information brokers
brought to light.
For instance a business can use software that shows your phone number
when you contact them by phone, even if it is unpublished. While the
information is supposed to be used for "tracking and customer
identification" purposes, once it is in their system, it is accessible
and can easily be given out.
Under laws, unless you explicity opt out of a companies privacy program,
they are legally allowed to sell or give your personal information to
subsidiaries, affiliates and other parts of said company for certian
uses.
Finally credit reports contain phone numbers, and while it is supposed
to be difficult to obtain them, we all know it is not impossible.
> >And today, we have the 'number portability' surcharge, 10 digit
dialing
> >in many places, bait and switch long distance, the ever changing area
> >code shuffle, DSL that's not available to everyone, piss poor
service,
> >so called 'competition', crap system reliability, little
acountability,
> >phones that self destruct...
It never ceases to amaze me that a phone bill of only $30 or so dollars
as almost $20 or more of taxes, fees and surcharges.
We have "untimed/unlimited" service from Verizon, a hold over from when
I first opened my phone account with New York Telephone (a slimline
princess telephone in aqua, installed in my bedroom so my parents could
get me off their phone, paid for out of my babysitting pocket money),
thus can make calls and talk for along as we want for a set amout, but
still the bills do not go down.
> >Oh, and that 'number portability' surcharge. I'm forced to pay a few
> >dollars every month for a feature I don't want and don't need, not to
> >mention the other 'mandated' surcharge.
> Yup.
Well there is hope, Congress did finally do away with the surcharge
meant to pay for the Spanish/American war last year. *LOL*
> >And NJ only dropped the touch tone charges a year ago anyway.
> >
> >Honestly, even though it wasn't perfect, I'd much rather have AT&T as
> >AT&T, than the clusterfuck that exists today. My land line doesn't
> I tend to agree. Instead of breaking up the Bell System, they should
> have been stomped upon rather well, to allow competition.
>
> >work. My DSL over it does. This is a wiring problem with my phone,
> >somehow. Verizon won't fix it. I've called, I've complained. They
> >don't care. I leave my phone disconnected anyway - all I ever got
was
> >telemarketer calls, and yes, I'm on the so-called 'do not call' list.
> >of course, even though 'Verizon doesn't sell your name or number to
> >anyone', magically, every roof insurance salesman in the US knew who
I
> >was and where I lived about 2 days after my phone service started
here.
One of our phone lines had horrible static several months back.
Contacted "Verizon" repair and after going through the motions and
agreeing that the problem was not our equipment, they sent someone out.
First time tech could find "nothing wrong" with the wiring inside and
would check the connection from the street, then left. Still the static
remained. Next tech ran a check from the central office that he claimed
corrected the problem, but it didn't. The third time was the charm as
the tech found the problem was caused by a wire being corroded by and
sitting in water where the lines enter our home under the sidewalk.
> >Give me the old Bell System any day. I consider the current
> >'telecommunications' industry to be a slight notch above used car
> >salesmen...
> Haven't really dealt with either for 15 years or so. :-)
Guess the only thing I miss about the "old" Bell system is that
character "Ernestine", played by Miss. Lily Tomlin. "One ringy-dingy",
"Sir, do you realise you are talking to Ma Bell?"
Candide
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
According to Harvard b-school case #9-481-074 p6, ATT was formed by
Woodrow Wilson when he nationalised the phone companies for a year
then denationalised them. As usual, the grubmint is to blame!
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Reagan Mozart Pindus BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Yellary Clinton & Yellalot Spitzer: Nasty Together]
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
the employes of Con Ed have consistently been better mannered (and
downright decent) compared to telco? [In Septembers 2005 & 2004 they
accidentally cut my line and insisted on coming in to collect their
visitation fee.]
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
week. Initially their software always found something not to like
about my computer. That cost me a few add-on cards. Then the DSL
modem wouldn't detect a signal. I called it in, and they wated to
come and collect their visitation fee. I said no way. Then they
called and left a message it was fixed. But then I was talking on the
phone during Thanskgiving and my line was crossed with someone else
who kept picking up while I was talking. The helpdesk blamed DSL.
Again they were looking for a visitation fee. Finally they fixed the
voice line. I gave up. I cut my Verizon service to absolute minimum.
Verizon has the most radical leftist union in NYC.
AllstonPar...@hotmail.com
> The most bizarre charge I've seen is the new $5/mo fee that my local
> bell wants to charge for not having a LD carrier selected. Of course,
> I can't find an LD carrier that will charge me less than $5/mo even if
> I don't make a single call -- they'd lose money just sending me blank
> bills. I threatened to take it up with the PUC and Bell decided to
> issue me a $5/mo credit to cover the "mandatory" $5/mo fee -- they
> didn't want to risk losing a new cash cow over one customer.
Is such a fee forbidden in your state? And does the PUC actually
bother to listen to individual consumer complaints?
There are plenty of long-distance carriers that have no monthly fee or
minimum (and charge less than 5 cents a minute anyway, in case you
actually want to make a call some day). Most don't mail paper bills --
they do it all on the web, by email and with credit cards. Some will
even reimburse or credit a switching fee charged by your local phone
company. Go to the comparison site abtolls.com and take a look around.
I hope they don't have to pay a monthly fee to each of their customers'
local phone companies.
-Apr
Phil Kane
wrote:
>Guess the only thing I miss about the "old" Bell system is that
>character "Ernestine", played by Miss. Lily Tomlin. "One ringy-dingy",
>"Sir, do you realise you are talking to Ma Bell?"
When my wife worked in the Pacific Telephone business office in the
early 1960s one of her co-workers was named - for real - Betsy Bell.
"Management" made her use a pseudonym when talking to the public.
David Scheidt
:The tower might not have been for your system, but I know what you
:mean. The original AMPS system worked pretty well, when you were in
:range.
If there was a free channel, and if you weren't dropped when you moved
from one cell to another, and if you didn't have an RF multi-path, and
if you didn't to travel with your phone, and you didn't mind paying
much more for less than what you get with modern cellular systems.
David
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Joseph D. Korman wrote:
> Not to mention charging a premium for touch tone, which cost them less
> to maintain.
No, Touch Tone cost them more. The telephone sets were more expensive
to make. The switching system was electro-mechanical, designed to
respond to dial pulses. They required a variety of converters to
translate the DTMF tones to dial pulses.
VINCE
The worst over charge was when the cost of a pay phone went up
to 20 cents in the rest of the US, BUT went to 25 cents here in NYC.
What a windfall for the phone co. Oh please don't tell me it cost
more in NYC then the rest of the US.
--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress
http://computerpast.blogspot.com/
Also check out our sales page(s)
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
><ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote in message
That should only be available on inward wats & 911. I have multiple
phone lines. Outgoing calls are on a line that has no ringer. If
some fool insists on having a phone number, I give them the modem
line. And the modem is turned off 99.999% of the time.
>
>Under laws, unless you explicity opt out of a companies privacy program,
>they are legally allowed to sell or give your personal information to
>subsidiaries, affiliates and other parts of said company for certian
>uses.
>
>Finally credit reports contain phone numbers, and while it is supposed
>to be difficult to obtain them, we all know it is not impossible.
I haven't given any business my real phone number in 25 or 30 years.
>> >And today, we have the 'number portability' surcharge, 10 digit
>dialing
>> >in many places, bait and switch long distance, the ever changing area
>> >code shuffle, DSL that's not available to everyone, piss poor
>service,
>> >so called 'competition', crap system reliability, little
>acountability,
>> >phones that self destruct...
>
>It never ceases to amaze me that a phone bill of only $30 or so dollars
>as almost $20 or more of taxes, fees and surcharges.
More like $10, but yes.
>We have "untimed/unlimited" service from Verizon, a hold over from when
>I first opened my phone account with New York Telephone (a slimline
>princess telephone in aqua, installed in my bedroom so my parents could
>get me off their phone, paid for out of my babysitting pocket money),
>thus can make calls and talk for along as we want for a set amout, but
>still the bills do not go down.
I used to have 'callpak unlimited extended', which cost me something
like $75 per month, and meant I could call anywhere for about 100
miles around Chicago for no additional charges. (I used to do a LOT of
modem calling into Chicago, and this was a lot cheaper than the toll
rates) Anyway, Ameritec decided to do away with all those plans
because of some stupidity with CUB (Citizens Utility Board) about
equalizing rates in Chicago, or some such nonsense. I think that the
net result was that some people in Chicago got lower rates, and
everybody else wound up paying paying more. I probably would have
kept the callpak, even when I no longer needed it, just to have it
available. This was all before 1990, and the widespread use of the
internet. Now, of course, I would connect to a customer site via
telnet or equivelent.
The few times I have to call for line noise, I always disconnected the
inside at the demark, and if the noise was still there, make the call
from the demark. Nobody ever tried to tell me it was my problem after
I told them of the above. And the problem got fixed. The only repeat
calls were for wet cables (you know, the lead covered paper kind) and
one time where another tech unfixed the fix, and they hed to refix it.
>
>
>> >Give me the old Bell System any day. I consider the current
>> >'telecommunications' industry to be a slight notch above used car
>> >salesmen...
>> Haven't really dealt with either for 15 years or so. :-)
>
>
>Guess the only thing I miss about the "old" Bell system is that
>character "Ernestine", played by Miss. Lily Tomlin. "One ringy-dingy",
>"Sir, do you realise you are talking to Ma Bell?"
"Sir, do you realise you are talking to Phone Company?" and that is
not even quite correct.
>
>Candide
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
James Robinson wrote:
> Do you really want to pay the prices the old Bell system charged? If
> they had remained, there would have been no reason to lower their
> rates.
I hate to disagree with you, but you're not correct in this instance.
If you look at the long term record, Bell's rates were continually
declining thanks to advances of new technology they invented and
implemented.
In other words, the Bell telephone system was a lot better yet cheaper
in 1983 than it was in 1973 and so on, particularly on long distance
rates.
Many of us were screwed with long distance at divesture. I was paying
old Bell 5c/minute for short haul night toll calls. That went up to
25c/minute. Coin calls skyrocketed. Local rates went up to cover the
lost cross subsidy in toll rates.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> I've had DSL for a year and it never worked. I'm off contract in a
>week. Initially their software always found something not to like
>about my computer. That cost me a few add-on cards. Then the DSL
>modem wouldn't detect a signal. I called it in, and they wated to
>come and collect their visitation fee. I said no way. Then they
>called and left a message it was fixed. But then I was talking on the
>phone during Thanskgiving and my line was crossed with someone else
>who kept picking up while I was talking. The helpdesk blamed DSL.
>Again they were looking for a visitation fee. Finally they fixed the
>voice line. I gave up. I cut my Verizon service to absolute minimum.
>Verizon has the most radical leftist union in NYC.
Another reason that I don't have DSL. I would rather pay thru the
nose, and get a T1.
>
> - = -
> Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Reagan Mozart Pindus BioStrategist
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
> ---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
> [Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
> [Yellary Clinton & Yellalot Spitzer: Nasty Together]
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> The way the PUCs regulate telcos has no relation to the actual cost of
> delivering service. The telco incurs the _cost_ of making a service
> available up front regardless of whether anyone buys it; if anyone
> actually does, the _price_ is pure profit to them. So, given the way
> they're regulated, they're incented to provide either (a) as few
> services as permitted, or (b) all possible services for a fixed price.
> Neither is good for the consumer.
I can't speak to PUC pricing which is a mismash.
But their cost of offering services IS variable and dependent on usage.
When they install a switch, they estimate how many lines the community
will need, how much traffic and peaks, and how many premium services
will be required. The switch is purchased with the appropriate
hardware to serve those needs. If they underestimate, then they must
go out upgrade the hardware.
So while on a very specific one-to-one basis there is not a direct
correlation (the physical line to your house usually is there already),
but there does remains a relation. If it happens they must run a new
cable to serve you, you won't pay the incremental cost of that new
cable. Likewise, if your Caller ID request puts the switch overload
and they must buy more hardware, you won't pay for it either. Hey, you
might be the one who forces them to build an addition to the building,
as happened in my town.
Again, as to Touch Tone, before ESS that was an extra cost for the
phone company to serve. With ESS it's not (AFAIK, though the frequence
decoder may be more than the simple logic of scanning the line which
has to be done anyway). Someone else mentioned using 20 pulse/second
dialing. That wouldn't work on many pre-ESS machines, such as
Step-by-step. It may or may not have worked on other machines
depending on the sender you happened to access.
Candide
"Phil Kane" <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in message
news:k7tqc2hspbhgs05ap...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:18:08 GMT, "Candide" <PityM...@anywhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Guess the only thing I miss about the "old" Bell system is that
> >character "Ernestine", played by Miss. Lily Tomlin. "One
ringy-dingy",
> >"Sir, do you realise you are talking to Ma Bell?"
>
> When my wife worked in the Pacific Telephone business office in the
> early 1960s one of her co-workers was named - for real - Betsy Bell.
> "Management" made her use a pseudonym when talking to the public.
>
All joking aside "Ma Bell" was one tough mother. If you had your service
disconnected for non-payment, New York Telephone would under no
circumstances install new phone service at the same address until proof
(to their satisfaction) that the person/persons requesting new service
was not in any way the same deadbeat or related to said deadbeat. Hate
to admit it, but growing up in the 1970's knew a few families that did
not have phone service for this reason. They got their calls at a
friendly neighbour's house, or used the call box at the candy store.
Candide
VINCE
to have a phone installed and that was only after I called the public
service comm.
<<used the call box at the candy store.>>
My friend had a situation like this one the store was right downstairs
only the owner was one nasty BITCH. When she give me a hardtime on more
than one occasion over nothing mind you. I told her off and my friend
got on my back something awful. "We need her phone Vin you can't do
that" etc
gl4...@yahoo.com
Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
> Witness my mess with my apartment phone. Or, my parent's house.
> They're less than 10 miles from NYC, yet can not get DSL.
This is a very interesting contrast between the phone systems here and in
Brazil:
1. When I have visited even very remote places, some people have DSL over
their phone lines. One place was so remote that 3 years ago, their "phone
line" wasn't a real line, but the phone jack went out the wall, into an
aplifier, and up to a radio antenna which was linked to the central office
by way of microwave signal 15 miles away - that was the "land line" at
this place. 3 years ago, Sercomtel decided to install actual copper wire
where possible to such places (I believe some state of Paraná money was
involved for rural communication improvements). Today, this same farm
house has DSL and faster internet service than I have here in the USA.
2. Public phones are popular in Brazil. However, they do not use pay
phones because they are too expensive to maintain. Instead, they are
operated with a card that is similar to American money: paper with a
little magnetic strip hidden inside it. Insert the card into the phone
and talk for however many units are available on the card. Depending on
the calling plan, this can actually be cheaper than having a phone line in
your house.
3. Cell phones: most cell phones are treated like a long distance call
here in the USA: the person who makes the call pays for the call. This
discourages telemarketers and other such nonsense from calling them.
4. The 10 digit dialing nonsense doesn't exist, for the most part. City
codes exist so the areas are a bit localized. Also, when certain cities
in Brazil needed more phone numbers, rather than do area code swapping,
moving, and adding, all they did was add another digit to make 8 digits.
For example, suppose my phone number 456-7890 in a city. During one of my
visits they were transitioning one of the cities into having more numbers
available, and so in this particular city they added another digit. All
existing numbers had a 3 added in front of them, so under this new system
my number would be 3456-7890. Thus, no city codes needed to be changed or
added to increase the amount of phone numbers by a significant amount.
5. All cell phone numbers are 8 digit numbers that start with 9, no matter
where they are located (7 digit city or 8 digit city for land lines).
This lets the caller know they are going to be billed for the call, and
identifies the number to anyone looking at it that it is a cell phone
number.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Brian Boutel
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:18:08 GMT, "Candide" <PityM...@anywhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>For instance a business can use software that shows your phone number
>>when you contact them by phone, even if it is unpublished. While the
>>information is supposed to be used for "tracking and customer
>>identification" purposes, once it is in their system, it is accessible
>>and can easily be given out.
>
> That should only be available on inward wats & 911. I have multiple
> phone lines. Outgoing calls are on a line that has no ringer. If
> some fool insists on having a phone number, I give them the modem
> line. And the modem is turned off 99.999% of the time.
>
I find this puzzling. Don't your phone systems have a feature called
Caller ID (or caller display)? Here, the number of any incoming call is
available unless the sender has blocked it. Blocking is overridden for
calls to the emergency services.
--brian
--
Wellington, New Zealand
"What's life? Life's easy. A quirk of matter. Nature's way of keeping
meat fresh."
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:18:08 GMT, "Candide" <PityM...@anywhere.com>
>> wrote:
<snip>
>
>I find this puzzling. Don't your phone systems have a feature called
>Caller ID (or caller display)? Here, the number of any incoming call is
>available unless the sender has blocked it. Blocking is overridden for
>calls to the emergency services.
Sure. Call out on the modem line, they get that number, it never
answers.
In some locales (but not around here, AFAIK) you can have a permanent
caller-id block put on a line. For any call, you can dial *??, where
the ?? is some number that I don't know, to hide outbound caller-id.
In fact, I have heard of a box you can get that automatically dials
the *?? every time the phone goes off-hook.
Candide
"VINCE" <Holvb...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:wcgzg.12678$UY2....@fe11.lga...
Well "Verizon" in NYC is really no better, as one must pass a credit
check before they will install new service. And again, if the address is
one where previous service was disconnected for non-payment, one must
submit proof (a lease, deed) that one is a new resident and not the
deadbeat. FWIW ConEd is the same way, as had to send them a copy of the
lease when I moved into a new apartment where the previous tenant was a
deadbeat. This struck me as odd since was moving from another apartment
where I already had electrical service, and in essence was merely asking
to have the account transferred.
Many young kids today don't even bother with landline phones in their
new apartments, and just use their cell phone as their primary phone.
>
> <<used the call box at the candy store.>>
>
>
> My friend had a situation like this one the store was right downstairs
> only the owner was one nasty BITCH. When she give me a hardtime on
more
> than one occasion over nothing mind you. I told her off and my friend
> got on my back something awful. "We need her phone Vin you can't do
> that" etc
>
Sorry to hear about your problem, but having lived on the other end of
the problem, it does get annoying running up and down stairs/street to
fetch people for telephone calls/messages. Persons would telephone at
odd hours or *gasp* during dinner (always no-no in our house), and that
would drive anyone crazy. Worse still were the moochers that would make
long-distance and or toll calls then not pay up when the bill came in.
Always some excuse about "I'll pay up next week", In the mean time the
phone company did not want to hear it, if you didn't pay your bill on
time. In their view, anyone who let strangers use their phone got what
they deserved, that is what call boxes were for.
Had a friend whose father was a serial deadbeat with NYT, but she
finally got an account set up (she lived in the basement apartment),
using her mother's maiden name. About one day before NYT was due to come
out and hook up service, New York Telephone's business office called the
girls mother at work and told her service was NOT going to be connected
and that she was to return the equipment (trimline phone, etc) at once
or else. The woman tried to play innocent by asking "what is the
problem?", the woman from NYT told her "you know what the problem is,
your husband didn't pay his previous bills". Poor woman tried her best,
but New York Telephone was not giving an inch, the phone was returned
and it wasn't until serious changes took place with the Bells, that the
house ever got phone service again.
Candide
Brian Inglis
ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:18:08 GMT, "Candide" <PityM...@anywhere.com>
>wrote:
>>For instance a business can use software that shows your phone number
>>when you contact them by phone, even if it is unpublished. While the
>>information is supposed to be used for "tracking and customer
>>identification" purposes, once it is in their system, it is accessible
>>and can easily be given out.
>That should only be available on inward wats & 911.
That may be CID (Caller ID) or ANI (Automatic Number Identification)
made available as CID.
ANI is available on any PBX if the telco passes it along (don't know
if they have an option) and on CDR (Call Detail Records) used for
internal billing, etc.
The CDR are similar to Unix wtmp logon/-off records, and can be
processed against NECA Tariff 4 Wire Centre V&H data for billing.
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Brian....@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>>
>> Do you really want to pay the prices the old Bell system charged? If
>> they had remained, there would have been no reason to lower their
>> rates.
>
> I hate to disagree with you, but you're not correct in this instance.
>
> If you look at the long term record, Bell's rates were continually
> declining thanks to advances of new technology they invented and
> implemented.
The Bell systems were very slow in introducing new technologies, and you
paid through the nose for them. When companies like SPRINT came about,
long distance rates plummeted.
Business customers, in particular, had far more equipment choice. They
could buy switches with many more features than had previously been
available, and at prices that were a fraction of what the old line
companies wanted.
The original Bell companies were simply a license to print money.
James Robinson
... and your long distance rates?
Philip Nasadowski
vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> I've had DSL for a year and it never worked. I'm off contract in a
> week.
Mine works fine, but my landline won't work at all. This is my wiring,
Verizon says...
> Initially their software always found something not to like
> about my computer.
Verizon's install stomped on my bookmark file, putting THEIR idea of
bookmarks in. Lost a nice long multiyear, multi level list of stuff
that way...
> Then the DSL modem wouldn't detect a signal.
Mine's good, but every now and then, the modem decides to forget
everything and drop my service. Doesn't give me much confidence in the
DSL modem software....
Clark F Morris
<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> much snipped
>
>You want to go back to paying the pre-MFJ Bell rates for everything?
>
>The simple matter is the vast majority of the public is willing to
>tolerate bad service to get significantly lower rates. And, frankly,
>landline service doesn't seem to be noticeably worse today than it was
>20 years ago; it's still the same union flunkies doing the same bad
>union-quality work. It just costs about 1% of what it used to.
My wife and I were very pleased with the quality of work and technical
competence shown by the technician who installed our DSL on the rural
road we live on. He gave a clear explanation as to why he had to
install a new box and a separate line to the router (basically
strength of signal). Many times the problem isn't the unionized help,
it is the management policies. There are people who hide behind the
union and there are those who want to do a good job.
ON a rail related note, my wife still complains that Via abandoned the
Yarmouth - Halifax service too soon after they made it dependable
enough to actually use. Of course there was the problem of the major
need for infrastructure renewal (bridges, etc.) and the line west of
Kentville would have been Via only but I still think that Nova Scotia
should have looked at what they do for rail service in rural Scotland.
>
>S
>
>--
>Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
>CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
>K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> > The Bell System deserved to be broken up
> Why? because they were flat out better and more successful than GTE?
Good point. While GTE and Bell were not in direct competition,
generally Bell's service was superior or far superior to that offered
by GTE and other independent phone companies. GTE was heavy into Step
by Step which was the most limited equipment. Their telephone sets
were not as durable as Bell's.
> > No you can't buy your own phone.
> And, prior to FCC Part 68, there was a very legitamate reason for that.
Absolutely. The switchgear of that era was not as tolerant as errors as
modern gear is, and a bad customer PBX could easily foul up the central
exchange for other customers.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
James Robinson wrote:
> > If you look at the long term record, Bell's rates were continually
> > declining thanks to advances of new technology they invented and
> > implemented.
>
> The Bell systems were very slow in introducing new technologies, and you
> paid through the nose for them. When companies like SPRINT came about,
> long distance rates plummeted.
That's not the way it happened. I think you're comparing today's
technological circumstances against that of the past.
In the 1960s and 1970s technology did not advance as quickly as it does
today. Today, every few years the price of electronic computers drops
while the power grows. Back in the 1960s this was going on, too, but
at a much slower pace. A piece of gear would last in service would
typically last 10 years in primary service before retirement, then
would be used 5 more years in secondary (used) service. (I've seen
business many machines in service for 35 years! It wasn't cost
effective to replace them.) Today gear lasts 3-4 years and it's
junked. Technology gear was extremely expensive back then, and not
something you abandon after just a few years.
Further, behind the scenes (like the old Volkswagons) the Bell System
was continually making subtle improvements to the network to improve
efficiency and hold costs down.
When Sprint and MCI came along, they took off the high profit segment
of the market leaving Bell stuck with the entrails. The FCC long ago
set--as national policy--uniform national rates. In other words, a
long distance call was the same charge regardless of the costs to
complete. People on high volume circuits (ie NYC to Washington)
subsidized those on low volume circuits (ie Butte to Billings). If
Bell was allowed, it could've easily undercut MCI's and Sprint's rates
and raised them in high cost areas, but that wasn't FCC policy.
Further, Bell maintained very high reliability standards--if Sprint or
MCI failed--which they often did--they just told their customers to use
Bell.
Under the regulatory system Bell was mandated to work under, customers
who wanted Sprint or MCI should've been requird to take ALL their
service from them. So if they wanted a rural area or there was network
trouble, they would've been SOL. In that case, it would not have been
such a bargain. Or, Bell should've been allowed to charge cost
sensitive rates instead of averaged rates.
> Business customers, in particular, had far more equipment choice. They
> could buy switches with many more features than had previously been
> available, and at prices that were a fraction of what the old line
> companies wanted.
The Bell Labs history "Engineering & Science--Switching" describes the
varied Bell System business products of that time. I've seen them in
service. Pre-Divesture Bell offered an excellent product line and
service to back it up. I am not sure there were significant
cost/benefit--and service--benefits to other equipment prior to the
breakup. (The few I saw in service were pretty lousy, saved money yes
but not good quality). I've seen several organizations that owned
their own private switchgear abandon it and go to Bell to get better
service. (SEPTA city transit was one, Phila city govt was another.)
I do agree that certain pricing policies could've been adjusted, but
again, that was due to express government policy of cross
subsidization. Diviesture had nothing to do with that. Business
customers paid a premium to keep residential service low. Now we pay a
surcharge on our bills to do the same thing.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> Maybe initially, but once P wire was debugged, there was no reason to
> retain it.
Probably cost more to remove it.
> Budd was almost fanatical
> about light weight in the 50's and 60's, believeing that the lower costs
> and higher performance it brought would be the only rational way to end
> the money drain passenger rail was by then.
Even back then propulsion costs were a concern (be it diesel fuel or
electric power) and light weight saved money over the life of the car.
SEPTA was screwed recently since its newest P&W and MFSE cars came in
very heavy and power is expensive in Phila.
Budd's stainless steel didn't need painting and was corrosion
resistant, another big cost savings over time. The carbodies of the 45
year old MFSE cars were as good as new at retirement. (I hope SEPTA got
a good scrap price for them as stainless steel is very expensive
compared to plain steel.)
And that was the flip side to Budd: they had to push the light weight
savings since their stainless steel cars cost a lot more and the
savings would take time to achieve. Unfortunately, Budd couldn't
compete on price and lost order after order and went out of business.
It lost big money on the Metropolitan order due to inflation and
debugging costs. The Red Lion Rd plain in Phila was torn down and is
now a golf course. The main Hunting Park Ave plant will become a
casino.
> > People forgot that as a result of their consent decree, Bell wasn't
> > allowed to do anything else except military sales. Western Electric
> > made movie sound systems but had to give that up.
> When was this? I seem to recall that Westrex was a popular type of
> early stereo cutting head, and that it was a Western Electric product.
In the mid 1950s. There may have been some special exceptions, but
basically Western Electric was telephone company and military sales
only, by govt order. W/E certainly had the expertise to make other
electronic goods but was not allowed to.
IIRC when Bell developed Unix and C they had to give out for free.
(Another thing the Bell System developed which we all take for
granted.)
> Sounds about right. There's a famous manual about floor sweeping they
> put out once for their janitors...
That's on the same website where I got the Metroliner article.
> Yes, I think it is a 302 I wish I could plug it into the system at
> work, since i never can tell when it's my phone ringing, but i can't
> since it's a digital weird system and I can't get to my voice mail with
> a rotary anyway...
We use standard phones and I have a splitter in the jack. My "real"
phone, a 2500 set, has the ringer off. I use that to dial out and get
messages.
> I wish someone would still make a tough phone. I bet there'd be a good
> market for it.
People like disposable. Maybe there's some esoteric industrial grade
phones but I bet they're extremely expensive.
> Interestingly, I've read that as recently as the late 80's, a few very
> rural areas in the US had *no* dial phone service, rather, picking up
> the phone got you an AT&T operator at the other end. Yet you can still
> call anywhere in the world.
The last Bell System real town to go dial was Santa Catalina Island in
Calif. They had to ship a new ESS by boat and haul it up hilly roads.
I think the islanders like having manual just fine.
There were a couple of very isolated trailer parks and the like with
manual. The cheapness of solid state and radio transmission allowed
that to go away so I think everything is dial now. (I have some
references to a Grand Canyon bottom town that is still manual, but I
wonder if that's still true.)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wa...@fordham.edu wrote:
> As early as 1952, the Pennsylvania's "Congressional", New Haven's
> "Merchants Limited" and "Yankee Clipper", and the B&O's "Royal Blue"
> offered radio telephone service, according to the 2003 _Dream Trains_
> special issue of _Classic Trains_.
>
> The article gives no details of the service, nor any indication of
> whether it started before 1952.
August 15, 1947. I have some info on that which I'll post, trying to
get more.
Stephen Sprunk
news:v0vqc2hepi4018jmi...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:18:08 GMT, "Candide"
> <PityM...@anywhere.com>
> wrote:
>> For instance a business can use software that shows your phone
>> number when you contact them by phone, even if it is unpublished.
>> While the information is supposed to be used for "tracking and
>> customer identification" purposes, once it is in their system, it
>> is
>> accessible and can easily be given out.
>
> That should only be available on inward wats & 911.
It's available on any SS7 circuit. SS7 always passes the ANI
information, and if you block caller ID, it just sets the "private"
bit in the signaling. The ANI is still there for anyone who bothers
to look for it.
SS7 circuits ain't cheap, and the telcos don't like giving them out
because of the severe security implications, but they can be had and
are really the only solution once you reach a certain number of lines.
There's lots of businesses out there that installed a real class 5
switch instead of a PBX back in the 80s, and those will only take an
SS7 connection to the CO. One of my friends works at such a place,
and I've always thought it was funny their caller ID is
(intentionally) 000-111-XXXX.
> I have multiple phone lines. Outgoing calls are on a line that has
> no ringer. If some fool insists on having a phone number, I give
> them the modem line. And the modem is turned off 99.999% of
> the time.
Ditto. I have a landline just because some stupid companies insist on
having a "home" phone number for me (e.g. electric co, citibank, etc)
or whose systems can't accept the same number for both home and work
(I use my mobile for both). There's never been a phone attached since
the day it was installed; I'm not even sure it works, but I pay the
$11/mo so that I've got a number to give the idiots.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Stephen Sprunk
news:1154313249....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> The most bizarre charge I've seen is the new $5/mo fee that my
>> local
>> bell wants to charge for not having a LD carrier selected. Of
>> course,
>> I can't find an LD carrier that will charge me less than $5/mo even
>> if
>> I don't make a single call -- they'd lose money just sending me
>> blank
>> bills. I threatened to take it up with the PUC and Bell decided to
>> issue me a $5/mo credit to cover the "mandatory" $5/mo fee -- they
>> didn't want to risk losing a new cash cow over one customer.
>
> Is such a fee forbidden in your state?
I asked for information on the tarriff and Bell refused to give me the
info, so I'm pretty sure there's nothing that allows the fee (and, the
way things work here, at least, anything that is not explicitly
allowed is forbidden).
All I was able to find was a tarriff that allowed them to charge a $5
fee any month that I tried to make a LD call and didn't have a carrier
selected, which boots you to the operator (unless you use a 101-XXXX
code). Since I don't make LD calls on that line -- there's no phone
attached -- I run no risk of incurring that fee.
> And does the PUC actually bother to listen to individual consumer
> complaints?
Oh yeah. The Texas PUC views assessing fines against utilities as a
revenue source for the state. They'll rip whatever utility you have a
complaint with a new hole if you can prove your case -- and they'll do
most of the legwork for you if it sounds like you're right. The
various utilities will do nearly anything to make you shut up rather
than deal with a PUC investigation -- even if you're wrong.
> There are plenty of long-distance carriers that have no monthly fee
> or
> minimum (and charge less than 5 cents a minute anyway, in case you
> actually want to make a call some day). Most don't mail paper
> bills --
> they do it all on the web, by email and with credit cards. Some
> will
> even reimburse or credit a switching fee charged by your local phone
> company. Go to the comparison site abtolls.com and take a look
> around.
I'll only bother if I can't get that fee waived in the future.
> I hope they don't have to pay a monthly fee to each of their
> customers'
> local phone companies.
Bell does charge a fee for including the LD carrier's bill in their
own bill, and most of the LD companies immediately switched to sending
their own bills when that was introduced. I don't know if there's a
fee for simply providing service, but I wouldn't doubt it.
VINCE
My problem? Friend this was over 40 years ago in any case she was a
BITCH period.
Stephen Sprunk
news:1154319663.7...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> The way the PUCs regulate telcos has no relation to the actual cost
>> of
>> delivering service. The telco incurs the _cost_ of making a
>> service
>> available up front regardless of whether anyone buys it; if anyone
>> actually does, the _price_ is pure profit to them. So, given the
>> way
>> they're regulated, they're incented to provide either (a) as few
>> services as permitted, or (b) all possible services for a fixed
>> price.
>> Neither is good for the consumer.
>
> I can't speak to PUC pricing which is a mismash.
>
> But their cost of offering services IS variable and dependent on
> usage.
> When they install a switch, they estimate how many lines the
> community will need, how much traffic and peaks, and how many
> premium services will be required. The switch is purchased with the
> appropriate hardware to serve those needs. If they underestimate,
> then they must go out upgrade the hardware.
For trunk (switch-to-switch) capacity, that's true, but for
"services", it's totally false. The line cards in a particular CO
either offer a hardware service like Caller ID or Touch Tone or they
don't. To make services like that "available" in that exchange, they
have to go upgrade all the line cards, whether the services are used
or not on individual lines. It's cheaper to do that than keep track
of which cards support what, and once new cards come out, you can't
buy the older cards anyways, so all new lines will require those
higher-priced cards anyways.
For software services, those are licensed by the switch vendors on a
per-CO basis, so again things like Call Waiting require the telco to
pay the license fee to make the service "available" in a given
exchange regardless of whether anyone orders it (and such things
require 6-12 months planning, so you can't just wait until someone
orders it to upgrade). And, due to the way volume pricing works, a
telco typically must upgrade _all_ of their COs to the new software,
even if a particular feature is only in use on one line in one
exchange. Also, such upgrades tend to be for _all_ services the
vendor offers, so even if they just want 3-way calling, they have to
pay for the caller ID, call waiting, etc. licenses.
> Again, as to Touch Tone, before ESS that was an extra cost for the
> phone company to serve. With ESS it's not (AFAIK, though the
> frequence decoder may be more than the simple logic of scanning the
> line which has to be done anyway). Someone else mentioned using
> 20 pulse/second dialing. That wouldn't work on many pre-ESS
> machines, such as Step-by-step. It may or may not have worked
> on other machines depending on the sender you happened to access.
In the early days I wouldn't be surprised if the telcos had used a
front-end box to convert DTMF from the customer into pulse to the
switch, but once you reach a critical mass, you need it integrated
directly into the switch, which means wholesale hardware and software
upgrades. The cost of doing one-offs is hideous when you consider the
extra equipment cost, extra labor (at union rates), etc. Everything
about Bell's procedures is aimed at making every line the same, no
matter what. That's why DSL has thrown them for such a loop...
KR Williams
ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com says...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:31:56 -0400, Steve Grant <ACE...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:59:26 GMT, "Joseph D. Korman"
> ><joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Not to mention charging a premium for touch tone, which cost them less
> >>to maintain.
> >
> Because some people figured it out on their own, got all pissed off
> about it, and refused to pay for touch tone. Thereby forcing the
> phone company to maintain the old (more expensive) system. :-) Myself
> for one. I didn't offically have touch tone until it was included in
> the base price.
>
>
> >For the umpteenth time, people: *price* and *cost* have nothing to do
> >with one another.
> As long as nobody figures is out. This is part of why I don't have a
> cell phone, cable or satellete TV, or DSL. They all cost more than
> they are worth.
I guess they "cost" more than they are worth to you. I don't have
a land line because it "costs" too much. Cell is cheaper. I do
have cable TV and Internet.
--
Keith
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> For trunk (switch-to-switch) capacity, that's true, but for
> "services", it's totally false. The line cards in a particular CO
> either offer a hardware service like Caller ID or Touch Tone or they
> don't.
That's not the issue. The issue is that the use of services use up CPU
cycles. The more CPU cycles used, the more capacity is needed or speed
slows down. Slow speed is intolerable in a telephone switch because it
means slow or no dial tone.
A switch could have the capability to do any function, but not
necessarily the capacity.
> In the early days I wouldn't be surprised if the telcos had used a
> front-end box to convert DTMF from the customer into pulse to the
> switch,
That's exactly what they did. Such boxes cost money.
> but once you reach a critical mass, you need it integrated
> directly into the switch, which means wholesale hardware and software
> upgrades.
Which was extremely expensive and was uneconomical to do merely to
implement Touch Tone.
The bottom line was that in the old days (not now) Touch Tone
deservedly was an extra cost item because it cost more to provide.
However, I do agree with someone's else comment that premium services
did not necessarily cost the provider proportionally more. A cement
factory sold raw cement at one rate, and ready-mix at a higher price.
The ready-mix was actually cheaper because it had less cement and
filled out with sand, but the sale price was higher.
Indeed, governmental policy for the old Bell System was that premium
priced items were to cross-subsidize basic services. People who had a
basic phone and didn't use it much were getting a subsidy from those
who used ther phone a lot--by government mandate.
This applied to long distance charges as well. They were averaged out
nationally so high cost areas were subsidized by low cost areas and
long distance subsidized basic residence.
At the time of divesture this all went out the window.
> Everything
> about Bell's procedures is aimed at making every line the same, no
> matter what.
Bell lines were never ever the same in the history of the company.
They had four major switching machine types which worked radically
differently. They had a huge variety of service areas.
What Bell went for was compatibility, not uniformity. That's easy
today with electronics but was difficult with varying switchgear.
>That's why DSL has thrown them for such a loop...
Whatever happened to ISDN? Anyway, I know a number of people with DSL
and they love it. Obviously different areas with different local
companies and legacies will have different results.
Charlie Gibbs
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (hancock4) writes:
> Whatever happened to ISDN?
It Still Does Nothing.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
James Robinson
>> you paid through the nose for them. When companies like SPRINT came
>> about, long distance rates plummeted.
>
> That's not the way it happened. I think you're comparing today's
> technological circumstances against that of the past.
>
> In the 1960s and 1970s technology did not advance as quickly as it
> does today. Today, every few years the price of electronic computers
> drops while the power grows. Back in the 1960s this was going on,
> too, but at a much slower pace.
I'm talking about the 1980s. I was involved with a project that required
a major communication system. The competition to the traditional phone
companies came in with better equipment, lower rates, and more enthusiasm
for the project. The Bell rep couldn't be found half the time, and acted
like he was doing us a favor by even talking to us.
> A piece of gear would last in service
> would typically last 10 years in primary service before retirement,
> then would be used 5 more years in secondary (used) service. (I've
> seen business many machines in service for 35 years! It wasn't cost
> effective to replace them.) Today gear lasts 3-4 years and it's
> junked. Technology gear was extremely expensive back then, and not
> something you abandon after just a few years.
Yep, Bell wanted to keep the old equipment, when the competition was
offering far more features at much reduced prices. They had become
fossilized with the lack of competition.
> I've seen several organizations that owned
> their own private switchgear abandon it and go to Bell to get better
> service. (SEPTA city transit was one, Phila city govt was another.)
Our organization went with the non-Bell equipment, and never looked back.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<snip>
>
>Whatever happened to ISDN? Anyway, I know a number of people with DSL
>and they love it. Obviously different areas with different local
>companies and legacies will have different results.
I have ISDN, but I got it a while back. The story I heard is that if
you tried to order an ISDN line, you were told that there were no
pairs available, and then they tried to stuff DSL down your throat.
However, if you ordered a POTS line, they are available.
My suggestion was order the POTS line, and once it was in and working,
order the ISDN. When they give you the no pair BS, give them the
number of your new POTS line, and tell them to use it.
I did just about that. I gave them two POTS lines, and got to keep my
old numbers. I also ordered a 6 pair drop and inside termination, but
they screwed that up. The installer had to spend a half hour
straighting out the fubared order. But, I finally got what I ordered.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>In article <tcvpc2dcv5n7ubsfe...@4ax.com>,
>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com says...
<snip>
>> As long as nobody figures is out. This is part of why I don't have a
>> cell phone, cable or satellete TV, or DSL. They all cost more than
>> they are worth.
>
>I guess they "cost" more than they are worth to you.
Yup.
>I don't have a land line because it "costs" too much. Cell is cheaper.
Depends upon your definiation of cheaper. Alarm systems don't work
all that well on a cell, at least not when I got mine. Likewise ISDN
kinda needs a land line.
>I do have cable TV
And of all those channels you have to pay for, how many do you
actually watch more that once or twice a month? I bet that if keep
track of which you watch, it's maybe only 5 to 10. And if you want
channel 'zzz' which is only available as part of package 'xxx' you get
stuck paying for the rest of 'xxx'.
>and Internet.
So do I. A nice 2B ISDN, of which I normally only use 1B. And that
sits idle 95% of the day. If I need to download a 100meg file, OK, so
it takes a few hours. If I had the bandwidth to download lots of
movies or something, I would go broke buying hard drives for the
server to hold it all.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
James Robinson wrote:
> I'm talking about the 1980s.
I was speaking of the 1960s and 1970s.
I am not all surprised you had trouble after 1980. Things were a mess.
The classic Bell System effectively ceased to exist by 1980 and was
completely gone by 1983. After that point you were not dealing with
the Bell System, but with various new entities thrown together or
broken apart as the courts deemed fit, not what was appropriate for
service.
The lawsuit cast great doubt and uncertainty on the Bell System as no
one knew how things would play out.
One can't make a judgement about post-divesture as if it was the same
system, anymore than one can demand Amtrak provide equal service and
schedule as the Twentieth Century Ltd did in 1948. The external world
and laws changed too much.
No one knew what the rules were. The competitors could do anything
they wanted and did. However, the former Bell components were tightly
bound in constantly changing court orders to protect the competition.
It was very unclear what was AT&T and what was the Baby Bell.
Within the central offices, there was a lot of equipment that did dual
purpose (local and long distance) and was arbitarily divided. If your
business territory crossed a LATA line you were forced to double deal
with a baby bell AND long distance carrier. MCI filed lawsuits
demanding assignment of marketshare for it and Sprint.
My employer had terrible post divesture headaches. Previously, they
dealt with the local Bell company for private line and data comm needs.
Then they had a whole parade of players, all pointing the finger at
each other denying responsibility when things went wrong.
KR Williams
ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com says...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:21:45 -0400, KR Williams <k...@att.bizzzz>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <tcvpc2dcv5n7ubsfe...@4ax.com>,
> >ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com says...
> <snip>
> >> As long as nobody figures is out. This is part of why I don't have a
> >> cell phone, cable or satellete TV, or DSL. They all cost more than
> >> they are worth.
> >
> >I guess they "cost" more than they are worth to you.
> Yup.
>
> >I don't have a land line because it "costs" too much. Cell is cheaper.
> Depends upon your definiation of cheaper.
Indeed.
> Alarm systems don't work all that well on a cell, at least not when I got mine.
My S&W 686 works just fine.
> Likewise ISDN kinda needs a land line.
ISDN???? Sheesh I though that died with the dinosaurs.
> >I do have cable TV
> And of all those channels you have to pay for, how many do you
> actually watch more that once or twice a month? I bet that if keep
> track of which you watch, it's maybe only 5 to 10. And if you want
> channel 'zzz' which is only available as part of package 'xxx' you get
> stuck paying for the rest of 'xxx'.
I don't watch much TV (I watch one of perhaps three channels, when
I'm alone), but you're likely right about most people's viewing
habits. Though more premium channels get watched, but what makes
you think it would be cheaper by the channel? That would involve
even more administrative costs.
> >and Internet.
> So do I. A nice 2B ISDN, of which I normally only use 1B. And that
> sits idle 95% of the day. If I need to download a 100meg file, OK, so
> it takes a few hours. If I had the bandwidth to download lots of
> movies or something, I would go broke buying hard drives for the
> server to hold it all.
Please. My last 200GB hard drive was $30. ISDN is a turtle, only
marginally better than a quiet POTS line.
--
Keith
VINCE
Oh yeah like that something new.
I worked for many years in the mainframe computer area.
Sometimes to save money a company would buy an IBM mainframe
but another brand of lets say tape drives. The tape drive would
go down so the company would have to call the maker of the tape drive.
Who sometimes would say "Oh the problem is with the IBM control unit"
So one would call IBM and their CE would say the problem is the tape
drive.
Geoffrey F. Green
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> The classic Bell System effectively ceased to exist by 1980 and was
> completely gone by 1983. After that point you were not dealing with
> the Bell System, but with various new entities thrown together or
> broken apart as the courts deemed fit, not what was appropriate for
> service.
[snip]
> Within the central offices, there was a lot of equipment that did dual
> purpose (local and long distance) and was arbitarily divided. If your
> business territory crossed a LATA line you were forced to double deal
> with a baby bell AND long distance carrier. MCI filed lawsuits
> demanding assignment of marketshare for it and Sprint.
Of course, the Bell System is responsible for part of this confusion,
as they did their best to make sure that both personnel and equipment
were intermingled among the various Bell companies so as to help
forestall any attempts to break up the company (or really even to
figure out how much it cost Bell to provide various services). That
comingling was not a business requirement.
- geoff
Brian Inglis
ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:21:45 -0400, KR Williams <k...@att.bizzzz>
>wrote:
>>I don't have a land line because it "costs" too much. Cell is cheaper.
>Depends upon your definiation of cheaper. Alarm systems don't work
>all that well on a cell, at least not when I got mine.
Land lines can be cut at the external demarc: yes, it's illegal, but
so are burglary and housebreaking! Cell phones can be blocked, but
that's not (yet) common in burglary.