hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:10:14 -0700 wrote:
> The original 3-slot payphone, where coins dropping rang bells to
> indicate amounts, is now seen only in old movies. It was a very long-
> lasting design.
> In the 1960s the Bell System developed a replacement model that would
> be more efficient, suitable for automation, and more vandal resistant.
> It contained a single slot for coins and was in a boxy shape.
> Originally introduced in high demand locations, it eventually became
> the standard.
> Externally at least, the single slot phone offered by the baby Bell
> successors, looks the same. Many still say "BELL SYSTEM Western
> Electric" on some part. They have real mechanical ringers, not
> electronic.
> However, I presume the innards, even of basic models, are more
> advanced than that of the 1960s model.
> For the basic models in baby Bell service, would anyone know if there
> are significant changes from the 1960s version? Or, are they just
> using old units that they have a large inventory of?
Yes, the inner workings have changed somewhat and the way the phone
signals the network or the operator is different. Originally the
phones emitted "deedle" tones one deedle for a nickle and two for a
dime and five for a quarter unlike the three-slotters which had a ding
for each nickle or two dings for a dime and a bong gong for a quarter.
The later 1A1 (single slotters) had relays which signaled the operator
on their consoles or let the automatic equipment know that you had
deposited the correct amount of coins.
Modern 1A2's in some areas such as Bell South's territories have all
been "COCOTised" i.e. they are no longer central office controlled.
The new "smart" phones such as the Millennium marketed by Nortel are
also chip controlled rather than CO controlled. The Millenniums also
can take payment in multiple ways with coin, credit card or with a
smart card with a chip in it.
This site has a lot of information on the fortress:
http://www.dmine.com/phworld/payphone/weco.htm
Path: telecom-digest.org!ptownson
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:26:56 -0700
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: A Quaint Relic From Our Archives on Computer Spying
Message-ID: <telecom26.169.7@telecom-digest.org>
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Sender: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-URL: http://telecom-digest.org/
X-Submissions-To: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 26, Issue 169, Message 7 of 7
Lines: 62
On Jun 15, 1:00 pm, ptown...@telecom-digest.org wrote:
> For a special treat this weekend, I have a book review on the 'Rise of
> the Computer State' which was published more than 23 years ago ...
> What about you readers?
Very simply, the biggest change has been the way computers so easily
index and share information.
Sure a ton of information was collected and computerized for years.
But digging it out and sharing it with 1980s technology was
cumbersome. They had to pull off a file and dump it on mag tape and
mail the tape in most cases. On-line systems were small and limited.
Today it's real easy to strip out data and email it and even publish
it worldwide via net. Often data gets stolen and published (see
article on Ohio data theft).
Likewise, it's real easy to index and search out stuff via the
Internet. Court records are interlinked now.
Many people fear the "government" in this issue. Actually, there is
much to fear, maybe more, from the private sector. The private sector
NOW extensively uses your credit rating to decide whether you may get
a job, insurance, and a place to live and how much you will pay for
it. To me, that is wrong. Your credit history should be used solely
to judge your credit risk, not employability, insurability, or rental.
Undoubtedly more private information will be available to the business
world. If you have any kind of criminal past they may know about it.
The truth is we ALL have skeletons in our closet, many we forgot
about. But maybe that incident back in college will come back to
haunt you years later.
For example, maybe you want a job that requires clearance and they
discover 20 years ago you were arrested for some major drug use. You
had made a mistake long ago and never again, but now it is held
against you. Maybe someone in your family did bad.
I could see some businesses uses adverse information to legally
"blackmail" prospective applicants into getting less salarly or paying
more interest or rent.
I think anyone who runs for political office or becomes an entertainer
these days is crazy. Even if you seek a minor office, any dirt in
your past will be dug up and used against you. Computers make it
easier.
There are of course some laws protecting privacy and use of personal
information. But it seems based on experience these laws are woefully
inadequate to protect against sloppy security or secret data
collection and usage. Again, what was once buried in an obscure file
cabinet is now on the 'net for everyone to see, and that makes a big
difference. For example, juvenile law violations are supposed to be
secret but there are leaks. In the future, some stupid act could come
out. (Recently some drunken kids did some pretty digusting things to
a private house. I think they deserve punishment, but not be branded
for the rest of their lives.)
Mr Joseph Singer (joeofseattle@yahoo.com)