Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 02-Apr-12 17:11, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
wrote:

The analog cell phones of that era supposedly could be switched beteween
the A and B carrier, though I think in practice very people did so.

Hm? Even though the prefix was used to route the inbound call to the
correct cellular network?

My AMPS phones all had menu options controlling whether to prefer A or B
towers, allow roaming to the other one, etc. You couldn't port your
number from one carrier to another at the time, but at least you could
keep your (expensive) phone when switching.

Yeah, I recall. Ever have a Digital AMPS handset? hancock will have to
answer for himself if he meant that the subscriber could retain his handset
when switching carriers, or his telephone number.

Such settings are generally absent from phones today--and wouldn't do
much good in many cases due to the use of mutually incompatible
protocols (CDMA, GSM, iDEN, etc.). Even between two carriers using the
same protocol, carriers generally "lock" the phones they sell so they
can't be used on another's network; this is the price of getting "free"
or heavily-discounted phones when signing a service contract--but it
also means millions of phones (and their toxic batteries) go into
landfills every year.

Dude, you're completely wrong. Locked phones can be unlocked; codes are
available on the Web from a number of sites. You call the carrier whose
network the phone is locked to and request the unlock code. They'll tell
you the code regardless of how much time remains on your contract, if
any. If they argue, just tell them you'd like to use the phone on other
networks when travelling outside the United States.

I'm a T-Mobile subscriber. It turned out that my Motorola V195s, five years
old, didn't appreciate being laundered. I got the phone in the first place
because it's quad band and should work on most of the world's GSM networks.

I called around. Turned out that AT&T sold a $5 Samsung meant for use
with their prepaid service. I bought a few minutes, but didn't really need
to do that at all. Then I called AT&T to obtain the unlock code. They
provided the code without difficulty, even though I was not a subscriber.

I've been using it ever since. I'd bought a replacement phone from T-Mobile,
but it was magenta, so I returned it. I haven't looked for another phone.

Or the subscriber can buy an unlocked handset.

On Mar 31, 4:45*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

I think it was the digital side (packet switching etc.) of things that
the US military and others were playing with in more recent times. The
basic cellular concept (sans automatic switching) as described in e.g.
:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network
involves earlier zoned use by taxi firms in populated areas as a means
of re-using the same frequency on a relatively local basis by
providing sufficient distance from the nearest adjacent zones/cells
using the same frequencies but has no reference to military use.

The following is the BSTJ issue on cellular.
http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/v...8-issue01.html


A search of "mobile" on the BSTJ site produces many articles over the
years. Things like "An Extended Correlation Function of Two Random
Variables Applied to Mobile Radio Transmission", and "Frequency-Hopped
Single-Sideband Modulation for Mobile Radio", and "Frequency Economy
in Mobile Radio Bands"

http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/b...ce& x=14&y=13

On Apr 3, 9:25*am, Stephen Furley wrote:
Ok, so when cell phones came out widely, did Britain convert to that
scheme? *What about older landline Touch Tone and rotary phones--did
the dial ring have to be converted?


Sorry, I don't understand this; what does the introduction of cell
phones have to do with letters/numbers, and converting other 'phones?

The letter/number matchup on US dials/keypads has been the same since
letters were introduced in the 1920s.

I understand that historically Britain used a different matchup.
Thus, when cellphones came out with the US matchup, there was some
sort of 'conversion' between historical British practice and modern
units. That's what I'm trying to put into perspective.




I'm pretty sure Britain used exchange names as the US did. *When did
Britain go to all number calling? *(The last US city 'converted' in
1980, but it took a long time for old habits and signage to die.)
Then, businesses used the letters to give themselves memorable phone
numbers, such as TAXICAB.

[interesting history snip]

Things like your TAXICAB example were not common here. The letters
letters were not put on later dial plates, or on the rings outside
them, after all-figure numbers were introduced, so many people
wouldn't have known how to dial them. *Even in candlestick and
Bakelite days *many instruments were fitted with the 'F' versions of
the 10 and 12 dials, which did not have letters on them.
Interestingly, I've got a modern Mitel 5304 IP telephone in front of
me. *It has both a 'Z', on the 9 button, and a 'Q' on the 7 button,
whereas the 21L dial which I have at home added the Q to the 0 hole.

Before the 5304 Mitel made a similar IP model without a display, and
SIP only. *The model number of this was 5302, which probably means
something to our older American readers; a very different telephone.

Thanks for the explanation.

As mentioned, US dials stayed the same, and after exchange names were
phased out 'business names' were used. They're popular in toll free
numbers. (Amtrak is USARAIL).

Another big difference is that the US stayed at 10 digit numbers which
were introduced as the standard format in the early 1950s, but took
years to implement. Today, many callers must dial 10 digits for every
call, though some areas need only 7 if in the same area code.

(Going back some years, people in small towns had a 10-digit phone
number, but for local calls needed to dial only 5 digits.)

On Apr 3, 10:45*am, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

My AMPS phones all had menu options controlling whether to prefer A or B
towers, allow roaming to the other one, etc. *You couldn't port your
number from one carrier to another at the time, but at least you could
keep your (expensive) phone when switching.

Yeah, I recall. Ever have a Digital AMPS handset? hancock will have to
answer for himself if he meant that the subscriber could retain his handset
when switching carriers, or his telephone number.

In the earliest days of AMPS many (most?) users had the phone
installed in their automobile because the early units were still
fairly large. "Portable" phones consisted of a "bag phone". Truly
modest-sized 'handsets' (like the Motorola flip phone) didn't become
widespread until later.

Accordingly, switching carriers would mean keeping the handset, though
getting a new number. But I don't think very many people bothered to
switch carriers.

Anyway, as technology evolved, the old policies went out the window.
Indeed, in one piece of old literature I saw, the billing time meter
ran from send to end on _all_ calls, even those where the line was
busy or there was no answer. There was also an "activation" fee. As
mentioned, by the time I got my phone, the handset (an older simpler
model) was free, there was no activation charge, and only answered
calls were charged.


[snip]


When they switched from analog to digital, some people said remote
areas would have problems. People in those areas retained their older
bag or car phones because they were higher powered and needed to work
in remote areas. How that was handled by digital I don't know.

It does seem that anywhere there is a tower of any kind (high tension
line, water tower, building, etc) there are cell phone antenna
attached to it. Some old water towers are covered with antenna, kind
of freaky looking.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 02:58:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Apr 3, 1:14*am, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:33:21 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley





wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:15*pm, wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:20*am, wrote:

*Letters on dials were originally to aid in dialing exchange names, eg
PEnnsylvania 6-5000 instead of 736-5000. *The US gradually
transitioned to "All Number Calling" by 1980.

I wrote a reply to this, but for some reason Google Groups won't allow
me to send it. *I'll try to send it as a reply just to you, which may
be better since it's quite long, and off-topic for this group.-

The above came through fine. *Not sure why google rejected your other
reply.

An email won't work. *This thread has already gone way off topic, so
it probably won't hurt to post it publicly. *Others may find it of
interest. *Maybe break it up into parts. *Thanks.

(Trains and telecommunications have many 'connections' in that they're
both common carriers, some of telephone technology is used for
signalling, and trains always have been heavy users of
telecommunications, including development of their own networks.)

Your post which I was trying to reply to is on Google Groups, in both
uk.railway and misc.transport.rail.americas, but does not appear in
either group in Giganews; I don't know what's going on.

The reply which I tried to send earlier was:

Somewhat different here. *0 was not used for the operator, at least
not in my time, the operator was 100. 0 was used for subscriber trunk
dialing. *I think 0 may have been used for the operator in the early
days, but that was before my time. *Normal GPO dials did not have the
word 'Operator' on them.

Older (pre-1950s?) ones did.

That's interesting, I've got serveral No. 10 dials which must be
pre-1950s, but none have the word 'Operator', and I don't think I've
seen one which did; how common were they?

There is a drawing of one in :-
http://www.britishtelephones.com/dials/dialbrit.html
which looks vaguely like it has come from an old Engineering
Instruction (the extra holes implying it belonged to a Dial No.10),
and a photograph in :-
http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/miscellaneous.htm

but I've not seen one in the wild. At a rough guess there would have
been little practical necessity once automatic exchanges became
commonplace, allowing the change to 0/O matching the style and
legibility of the other characters. I have a tele 150 with IIRC a
1940s refurbishment label which has the newer style. The 1939 N
diagram accompanying one of the other dials in the above photograph
also does not show the "L" fingerplate label with "operator" on it so
it would seem to have been discarded entirely (apart from any
surviving on telephones) by then.

Most American dials do have
'Operator', including the WE dials on the 500, where it's printed in
such a way that it looks backwards.


0 is still used to call the local operator on PABX systems.

On small systems, larger systems sometimes used 01 (02 etc. being used
for inter-PBX calls) or 100 to extend the available numbering range.

Leaving aside some very early dials, and special ones for pre-payment
callboxes, test instruments etc. there were four main GPO dials, the
10, 12, 21 and 54a. *The 10 was used on candlesticks and early
Bakelite 'phones and was available in L (etter) and F (igure)
versions. *The L dial plate, *had only M and N on the 6 hole; O was on
the zero hole; there was no Q and no Z, *Later dials added the Q in
the zero hole.

Dials 10, 12 and 21 all used the same three-point fixing and could be
interchanged. Dials 54 (and 51) were manufacturers' designs with
simplified mechanisms which used a clamping ring to hold them (thus
could be replaced by the earlier types).

That's right, all could be mounted in models from the 150 candlestick
to the 300 series by this means. When mounted in the 706 a different
system was used, with a metal ring which clamped around the body of
the dial, held it place in the plone by two 'feet' fitting into slots
at the bottom, and a single screw at the top.

The 21 dial could also be fitted with a steel fingerwheel, with a
thicker spacer on the back of it, of the type used on the 10 and 12,
so it looked more like them when used as a replacement. The metal
fingerwheel was also used, always with a green dial plate, on the
standard payphone of the time.

The 21 was introduced for the new thermoplastic 706 'phone in 1959.

Early T.706s also used Dials No.12 which continued to be used for many
telephones supplied for railway use and optionally with PAXs.

A few very early 706s used the No. 12 dial, and also straight cloth
cords rather than the vinyl ones. One of these turned up on Ebay last
year, and was bought by somebody on the Classic Rotary Phones group
for a very good price. They also appear in some manufacturer's
literature of the time, but the vast majority of 706s were fitted with
21 dials.

Was the 51 the very similar lightweight plastic dial to the 54a, but
by a different maker? I've got the early dial version of the
ambassador, the bright yellow one, which is fitted with one of these
dials and that is fitted by means of four screws into the back of the
flange, so a different model of dial could not be fitted, unless you
drilled four small holes in it.

I've also got the (No. 25?) radioactive dial in a Trimphone, which
still has the glass tube in it, but I can no longer tetect any
radioactivity. I had three of the model 280 engineer's 'phones, with
the small dial mounted behind the receiver. I had to scrap one of
these when the rubber body turned to sticky black goo, so I've got a
spare dial, and various other parts. The other two 'phones of the
same model are still in good condition.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:09:38 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 07:45:42 on
Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Charles Ellson remarked:
Fixed telephones outwith the "director
areas" (those like Greater London, Glasgow etc. which used the first
three letters of the exchange as the code and where the exchanges used
translation) did not have letters except by accident

I agree that (Inner) London Exchanges had three-letter abbreviations,
but very many provincial exchanges had two-letter abbreviations, plus an
index digit, as a mnemonic...

So Cheltenham was CH2 ( 0-24-2 )
Chichester was CH3 ( 0-24-3 )
Chester was CH4 ( 0-24-4 )
Chelmsford was CH5 ( 0-24-5 ) etc

Not "director areas" though. The style of the STD codes was fairly
deliberate (rather than e.g. a helpful aid for use within the GPO) but
the future use of letters was dropped before STD working left the
trial stage.

wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:05*pm, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Note that our current ten-digit scheme allows for nearly 6.4 billion
phone numbers, which would be plenty for the 400 million people living
within the NANP if they weren't assigned so inefficiently.

It amazes me that dedicated outward trunks of a PBX get dialable
numbers even though no on ever calls them. They should get specially
identified numbers (eg in the 1nn-xxxx series) so they don't waste
addressable numbers.

Oh, c'mon. Then you'd need to program mechanical and electro-mechanical
devices to recognize phone numbers in different ways.

As there are almost always plenty of line numbers available for assignment,
what you suggest would have only negligible impact on the life of area
codes, and only in very limited areas.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:23:03 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote:

Nobody wrote:

It intrigues me as to why North America cannot go to area code +
eight-digit addressing. Theoretically, you're increasing the number
availability by ten but don't have to create a new area code.

Aussie's done it, so have Brazil, Japan, France...

If planned for early enough, it could have been done if use of 0 or 1 as
the second digit was for longer line numbers. But you're misunderstanding
the situation that leads to the opening of new area codes, which is not
now, and never has been, about rapid exhaustion of line numbers.

I'm not misunderstanding anything! I know why these area codes are
required. All I'm saying is for simplicity's sake for the Average Jo
and Joe, one area code for local calling would be easier than a bunch
of disparates.

"If planned early enuf"? Oz, France, Brazil, Japan I doubt would've
been planning any further ahead so it cannot be that difficult to
achieve.

It would however stop this "overlay" situation, e.g. here in Metro
Vancouver where 778 is overlaid on 604 and a third (236) has been
assigned for use beginning next year.

On Apr 3, 4:13*am, Neil Williams wrote:
On Apr 2, 6:56*pm, wrote:

It used to be the ticket agent at a US station would call the
dispatcher to get train status. *But now some won't bother.

The sort of stations we're talking about won't have any staff at all,
let alone a ticketing agent...

In the US some carriers are installed electronic displays at
unattended stations to provide information. One time at a SEPTA
station the indicator said the train was on-time, but there was no
train. As time went on, the indicator said the train was late--but
simply the number of minutes past due. It appeared to be simply
counting upward from the schedule as opposed to indicating the actual
projected late arrival time.


Also, computerized PA [public address] announcements are used.
Several times at a SEPTA station they announced a train would be
delayed just when the training was pulling into the station--on time.

On the River Line, sometimes the automated 'next station' announcement
gets ahead of itself and announces a station further down the line
rather than the one coming up next.


It seems that computerized indications, which are 'supposed' to be
more accurate, are less accurate than manual arrangements.

On the NYC subway, the automated professional-voice announcements
sound classy at first, but after a while becoming very irritating,
kind of like being stuck in a weird 1960s sci-fi movie.

wrote:

Anyway, as technology evolved, the old policies went out the window.
Indeed, in one piece of old literature I saw, the billing time meter
ran from send to end on _all_ calls, even those where the line was
busy or there was no answer. There was also an "activation" fee. As
mentioned, by the time I got my phone, the handset (an older simpler
model) was free, there was no activation charge, and only answered
calls were charged.

That's not a change of technology, just whether the first few seconds
are billed. Calls on cellular networks aren't supervised. They rely upon
the user to hang up quickly if the call doesn't go through.