Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.dcom.telecom > #262 > unrolled thread

RE: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom]

Back to article view | Back to comp.dcom.telecom

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  RE: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "AJB Consulting" <ajbcs@frontier.com> - 2011-04-01 09:22 -0400
    Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-01 19:49 -0400
      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "AJB Consulting" <ajbcs@frontier.com> - 2011-04-02 10:31 -0400
        Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-02 17:01 -0700
      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2011-04-02 10:42 -0700
        Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-02 17:45 -0400
          Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-02 22:18 -0400
            Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2011-04-03 18:18 -0700
        Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2011-04-04 10:05 -0400
          Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> - 2011-04-04 15:54 +0000
            Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> - 2011-04-04 15:24 -0400
              Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2011-04-04 19:52 +0000
              Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-04-04 17:00 -0700
                Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-10 13:55 -0400
                  Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> - 2011-04-11 15:35 +1000
                    Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-04-11 08:39 -0700
                      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> - 2011-04-12 08:29 +1000
                        Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) - 2011-04-11 21:42 -0500
                          Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2011-04-12 20:09 -0700
                            Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) - 2011-04-13 21:35 -0500
                          Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> - 2011-04-13 13:58 +1000
                        Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2011-04-12 03:30 +0000
              Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2011-04-04 18:38 -0700
                Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> - 2011-04-05 10:52 -0400
                  Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "AJB Telecom" <ajbtelecom@frontier.com> - 2011-04-06 09:25 -0400
                    Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "Jim Bennett" <ajbtelecom@frontier.com> - 2011-04-07 10:02 -0400
                      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2011-04-07 09:38 -0700
                      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2011-04-07 17:09 +0000
                      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "Jim Bennett" <ajbtelecom@frontier.com> - 2011-04-08 11:41 -0400
                      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) - 2011-04-08 11:31 -0500
                  Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2011-04-06 03:56 +0000
      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> - 2011-04-02 13:44 -0700
        Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2011-04-02 20:23 -0500
      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-02 16:51 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#353

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:42:58 -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:

> In article <pan.2011.04.11.22.29.51.300337@myrealbox.com>, David Clayton 
> <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>>People still complain about their ISP after storms in their area or
>>bellyache about their "crap" ADSL modems which - coincidently - seems to
>>either fail or degrade in performance after these self-same storms.
> 
> The only weather-related DSL problems I've known of were where a multi-
> pair distribution cable had a moisture problem.  After a hard rain some
> water would get into the cable, and cross-talk issues would go _way_ up.
> wait a few days, the damp spot dried out and things were back to normal.
> Well, until the next rain.

Basic electronic equipment - like ADSL modems - invariably have little
protection to surges and even small ones can cumulatively degrade
performance.

>From many years of observing one very popular broadband forum there were
*always* people complaining immediately after storms in every ISP's
individual forum. When you took a broader look at the complaints at a
regional level you could then see the pattern, and the subsequent
dissatisfaction with things until - magically - replacing the ADSL modem
seemed to fix all issues.

As I said before, good business for the modem manufacturers who sell the
replacements and maybe also those who also sell protection devices for the
incoming phone line (which aren't common in Australia).

-- 
Regards, David.

David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348

David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> writes:

>Most people still don't understand that a lightening strike hitting the
>ground in their vicinity can cause a massive spike in their metal phone
>lines - which essentially act as massive antennas - which end up affecting
>whatever is connected at either end. This can occur many miles away from
>people but it can still affect them.

I was always rather aware of that.  As a kid, we had a summer cottage
whose phone was on a 2 party party line.  The ringer was connected between
one of the two leads and the ground stake, not between the two leads.  
Whenever a thunderstorm was nearby the phone would ring, usually just a
'ding' in synch with a lightning stroke.  (actually the phone would tend
to ring more after the storm passed over us and was to the east)  We'd
joke, "Mr. Lightning calling, don't answer it!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#299

On Apr 4, 3:24 pm, Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spam...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

> Not having to change the batteries was the major reason to go to
> central office battery in the early days. Saved a bundle on
> maintenance costs, even more than the invention of the switch hook
> saved (not turning off the phone was a major cause of battery
> rundown...).  The change was maintenance cost driven, not at all due
> to customer convenience during power outages.  Sending a craftsperson
> out to change the batteries was expensive then and prohibitively
> expensive today.

Another disadvantage of local battery was the lack of supervisory
signals on the switchboard.  Subscribers were supposed to ring off
when done but most forgot.

There was an army technical manual, "Fundamentals of Telephony" that
had an excellent explanation of the differences between local battery
(hand cranked) and common battery (switchhook signal) telephone sets
and switchboards.

If memory serves, common battery required a more complex switchboard
than local battery.  A local battery indicator was a tiny shutter drop
released by the subscriber's magneto.  No lamp, no relays, so a
simpler switchboard.  Also, I believe local battery permitted longer
loops than common battery, and probably the wire didn't have to be in
as good condition.  Lastly, when I was a kid experimenting with No. 6
dry cells they lasted forever, so I don't think service visits to
change the battery were required very often.

I don't know when local battery ceased to be a _significant_ type of
commercial telephone service.  Anyone know?  I do know some railroads
and street railways used it for internal communications well into the
1970s.  They had modern-looking telephone sets--it looked like a 500
set except with a handcrank where the dial would go and the handset
had a push-to-talk button.

I don't think FIOS would work with local battery phones <g>.
(Interesting on how we've gone full  circle with a local battery).
However, an enthusiastic salesperson just might tell you it would to
make a sale, just as one told me DSL would work fine on a party line.

Not long ago someone posted an ad from a company in India that made
local battery telephone equipment.  Unfortunately, it didn't have
pricing or a US dealer.  But there's a lot of old local battery phones
available.

***** Moderator's Note *****

There are usually military-surplus "field" phones on Epay. My brother
has a TA-312 model, for which he was able to obtain, believe it or
not, an official government-issue touch tone pad, which fits over the
top of the phone and has a plastic barrier to remind users not to
crank the magneto. Go figure.

Interestingly, when I just did a search for "field phone" there, the
search produced listings for "Spirit of Saint Louis" "field phones"
that look like children's toys but are claimed to be actual
telephones: maybe something from the steampunk crowd, but
YMMV. They're definitely not local-battery sets.

Bill Horne
Moderator

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#301

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:38:16PM -0700, Moderator wrote:

> There are usually military-surplus "field" phones on Epay. My brother
> has a TA-312 model, for which he was able to obtain, believe it or
> not, an official government-issue touch tone pad, which fits over the
> top of the phone and has a plastic barrier to remind users not to
> crank the magneto. Go figure.

I had done a seach for "field phone" on Ebay, and I was about to
redirect my browser to another page when I noticed an ebay listing for
a ta-263/pt field phone. The listing says it comes with two linesman's
whistles, and has a picture of them.

Somebody, please make my day: tell me the frequencies of those
whistles. Ghod, please, let one of them be 2600. I'll laugh for a
whole day.

Bill

-- 
Bill Horne 
(Filter QRM for direct replies)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#303

Bill [our moderator] said:

>I had done a seach for "field phone" on Ebay, and I was about to
>redirect my browser to another page when I noticed an ebay listing for
>a ta-263/pt field phone. The listing says it comes with two linesman's
>whistles, and has a picture of them.

>Somebody, please make my day: tell me the frequencies of those
>whistles. Ghod, please, let one of them be 2600. I'll laugh for a
>whole day.

>Bill 

Bill, I wish I could make your day on this one, but those particular 
whistles do not do 2600 Hz.  One of them was indeed intended for SF 
trunk signaling, but at 1600 Hz.  The other whistle made a 1000 Hz 
tone that was pulsed at 20 hertz.  The TA-263 itself was actually a 
TA-43 field phone combined with a low-pass filter and [4-wire] matching 
network that allowed a tech in the field to clip on to [open wire] 
analog carrier trunks without disturbing the active traffic.

The whistles, of course, were used to replicate the in-band ringing and 
trunk seizure signals used by the carrier systems, and set up paths by 
which a crew in the field could talk to the CO end[s].  Note that the 
link that was set up was just a straight voice-band connection, the 
phone did not communicate using carrier.  I can not begin to guess 
whether it was possible to actually seize trunks and set up routes with 
the 1600 hertz SF tone [toot?], or if was merely used to ring-down the 
distant end.

Now, if you really want a field phone that can do 2600 Hz, there is 
at least one that I know of [and there could be others].  The TA-341 
wasn't actually a field unit, but it was ruggedized.  It is also the 
only Army phone I have ever seen that is painted a lovely Navy grey. 
It is a desk phone, designed for connection to the 4 wire lines that 
were commonly used by the military and government in the Autovon era. 
Note that these were not carrier trunks, but were often long-haul and 
could include voice-band repeaters.  The TA-341 can do 1000 hertz ring 
signaling, and can also speak 2600 hertz SF.  Amazingly, it does not 
have an Autovon keypad.

Jim Bennett
**************************************************
Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.


***** Moderator's Note *****

Jim, thank you for the info. I would like to know a little bit more,
not only about the ta-341 that you mention, but about "field" phones
in general. For those of us whom are facing their second childhood and
are considering higher-priced toys, please tell me which phones I can
hook up to my POTS line and use.

I mentioned my brother having a ta-312 phone, to which he added a
touch-tone adapter (it's a ta-955/pt, btw). It works fine on his home
phone line, and is too heavy & old-looking for his kids to take, so he
likes it. I might get one myself, since the cordless phone I usually
use is never at the base station when I need it, and I'm tired of
going on safari chasing the mating call of the elusive horned owlet. ;-)

Bill Horne
Moderator

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#312

Bill [our moderator] said:

>Jim, thank you for the info. I would like to know a little bit more,
>not only about the ta-341 that you mention, but about "field" phones
>in general. For those of us whom are facing their second childhood and
>are considering higher-priced toys, please tell me which phones I can
>hook up to my POTS line and use.

>I mentioned my brother having a ta-312 phone, to which he added a
>touch-tone adapter (it's a ta-955/pt, btw). It works fine on his home
>phone line, and is too heavy & old-looking for his kids to take, so he
>likes it. I might get one myself, since the cordless phone I usually
>use is never at the base station when I need it, and I'm tired of
>going on safari chasing the mating call of the elusive horned owlet. ;-)

>Bill Horne
>Moderator 

Bill, Military surplus field phones were once so plentiful that surplus 
dealers would purchase them by the skid load.  Now days, as the local 
"Army-Navy" store has all but disappeared, the best place to find them 
is ebay [of course], and on-line surplus dealers.  Condition ranges from 
NOS [New Old Stock] to "usable for parts only," and the prices are all 
over the map.

The TA-312/PT that your brother has was probably the most plentiful on 
the surplus market, being part of the second-to-last generation of non- 
digital field phones [the *final* generation of analog equipment never 
made it onto the surplus market in any great numbers, for reasons I 
never completely understood].  It was also the most "bulletproof" of 
all field phones, and surprisingly heavy for such a small unit.  While 
it was primarily designed to be used with a magneto switchboard [or 
with another 312, point-to-point only], it will work well on a POTS 
line.  The TA-955/PT keypad is a nice addition, but even without it the 
phone can still be used to answer calls. 

The TA-838 was the successor to the TA-312, and was part of the final 
generation of non-digital wireline comms equipment used by the various 
branches of the service.  This entire generation of equipment never 
made it into the surplus market in the same way as previous equipment, 
making the 838 somewhat elusive.  It is a nice phone, and certainly 
far more versatile that the 312.  It will work on a standard 2-wire 
POTS line, on a magneto switchboard, point-to-point with another 838 
or 312 [or others], on an automatic "tactical" switch using AC or DC 
signaling, on 4-wire lines [including Autovon], connected to a radio 
link with the necessary adapters, and probably several more modes of 
operation that I have never even heard of.  All of this versatility 
comes with a price, however: if you look inside a TA-838, you will find 
a circuit board with a micro-controller on it, making it far more 
complex and expensive to repair than a 312.  The 838 is still a very 
desirable phone, if you are lucky enough to find one at a good price.

The TA-341, mentioned in my previous post, was part of the earlier 
generation of analog phones and was once quite plentiful on the surplus 
market.  It is not strictly a "field" phone, but it was designed to be 
used with an automatic tactical switch.  Tactical switches, as the name 
implies, were used primarily "in-theater" only, being intended for 
temporary phone systems [some of which could get quite large and be set 
up and used for years].  The 341 is another multi-mode phone, and can 
use AC or DC signaling, making connection to a POTS line possible. 
It is also capable of 4-wire operation, but being intended primarily for 
use with a tactical switch, it does not have an Autovon keypad.  While 
it is far more rugged than a typical desk phone, it is only intended to 
be installed in a sheltered area, out of the weather.

There are other field phones, of course, but most of them are rare and 
not likely to turn up on the surplus market in any great number.  There 
are also much older generations of Military phones, these are usually 
much sought after by collectors and the prices sometimes very high. 
You will also notice a fair amount of digital wireline comms equipment 
on the surplus market.  This is all first-generation digital equipment, 
things for which obsolescence came too quickly indeed.  They can be 
readily discerned from their analog predecessors by the naming - the 
name plate will say things like: "Digital Non-Secure Voice Terminal." 
Needless to say, these are intended for use with a digital tactical 
switch and are completely useless without one, except that some of them 
are capable of direct connection to another DVT for a point-to-point 
system.  The TA-1042 DNSVT apparently became obsolete so quickly that 
entire truckloads of them, new-in-the-box, turned up on the secondary 
market about ten years ago.  They can still be found, and a pair of 
them will operate point-to-point, requiring only a power supply.  Note 
that the first-generation Military digital phones are *not* IP phones.

Lastly, here are a couple of links:

"The Phone Lady" has a page with some pictures and descriptions of the 
phones mentioned above.  It continues across several pages, so be sure 
to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page for the continuation 
links:

http://myinsulators.com/commokid/telephones/contemporary.htm

Brooke Clarke has some excellent information on his web site, but the 
pages have not been updated in a while and most of the links no longer 
work, including a broken link to Telecom Digest.  He does have info on 
connecting the phones mentioned above: 

http://www.prc68.com/I/phones.shtml#Mil

Jim
**************************************************
Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.


***** Moderator's Note *****

Jim, I appreciate the info. I'll check out the phones you mentioned,
and maybe even get one for a conversation piece.

Please answer these questions for me and the other readers:

1. Why were Autovan phones designed for four wire connections?

2. Were the "Digital Non-Secure Voice Terminals" actually ISDN sets?

3. Are any of the switchboards or other systems that these phones
   connected to available on the surplus market? I'm not looking to
   take over Radar O'Reilly's job, but I wonder if these "DNSVT" units
   connected to the equivalent of a small-business PBX.

4. Are repairs or parts available for any of the more recent models?

TIA.

Bill Horne
Moderator

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#314

On Apr 7, 10:02 am, "Jim Bennett" <ajbtele...@frontier.com> wrote:

> Bill, Military surplus field phones were once so plentiful that surplus
> dealers would purchase them by the skid load.  Now days, as the local
> "Army-Navy" store has all but disappeared, the best place to find them
> is ebay [of course], and on-line surplus dealers.  Condition ranges from
> NOS [New Old Stock] to "usable for parts only," and the prices are all
> over the map.

Another source might be via the two phone collectors' groups, ATCA and
TCI.  There's also Ron Knappen's telephone supply in Wisconsin.

www.phonecoinc.com

www.telephonecollectors.org

atcaonline.com



As mentioned, the military wasn't the only user of hand-crank (local
battery) phones; railroads used them as did others.  I believe they
were made commercially into the 1970s and there was a post here about
a company in India making them today.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#315

Telecom Digest Moderator writes:

>1. Why were Autovan phones designed for four wire connections?

autovOn.... AUTOmatic VOice Network 

They were 4-wire to allegedly offer far better transmission &
conferencing than possible with lots of hybrids at far ends
of the earth. This in an era well before exotic DSP-based
cancellers/conference systems were dreamed of.

They also were thinking of connection to half duplex radio
links, etc.

All good in theory, but friends who used same said the levels
were so low, you could barely hear.

It got messy when a phone was both 2 & 4 wire, depending on
what line you used. [SecDef/Oval Office Call Directors, etc.]
-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#320

Bill [our moderator] asked:

> Why were Autovon phones designed for four wire connections?

The short answer is that they didn't have to be four-wire.  Many
subscriber sets connected to the Autovon network were ordinary two-wire
phones, connected to a PBX or through Centrex lines to a local
switching center, which then connected to the Autovon network through
special, dedicated trunk interfaces.

The long answer includes some facts and a bit of conjecture.  A
subscriber set that connected directly to an Autovon switch was indeed
a four-wire instrument, with a different internal network in the phone
[lacking the "hybrid" transformer arrangement found in a typical POTS
phone].  The standard explanation for this is that these subscribers
were located a long distance from the Autovon switch, and the trunks
were four-wire for the same reasons that all long-distance circuits
have a separate transmit and receive path, i.e., the need for carrier
systems and/or repeaters, which are easier to design and build when they
do not have to be bi-directional [which they would need to be on a
single pair], and the issue of echo cancellation [a huge problem on a
long single-pair trunk].  Additional premise equipment was needed at
a subscriber location in order to connect directly to an Autovon switch.
In addition to the signaling system needed to place calls over a trunk
[they used SF, and, on shorter circuits, DX signaling on a separate E&M
pair], there was also a special interface required to handle call
priority. [1]

But now the answer gets even longer:  The Autovon switches themselves
are [were] referred to in the available literature as "four wire
switches."  Indeed, the crossbar switches originally used were in fact
modified, and the 1AESS that replaced crossbar in Autovon was also a
"special," with very different programming from a standard ESS.  Much
of the differences had to do with the actual route selection matrix,
which was remarkably complex and could re-route circuits to bypass
switching nodes and circuit paths that were down.  This concept will
likely sound quite familiar today - it is, of course, part of the basis
of how the internet works.  DARPA simply built on decades of existing
developments that were all driven by the impetus of the Cold War.

It is this reference to "four-wire switches" that leads to the
conjecture that makes this answer so long.  While I cannot produce
any documentation to prove this, it has always been my belief that
Autovon switches had the ability to treat the transmit and receive paths
of a telephone call as completely separate circuits.  In an ordinary
toll switch, the two circuits that carry to two sides of a conversation
are always handled and switched together as a unit, and will both travel
over the same physical route.  I will leave it as an exercise to the
reader to conclude why the Autovon system would wish to treat the
transmit and receive pairs [and their long-haul circuit routes] as
distinctly separate.  Officially, however, Autovon was always described
as a "non-secure" system, and was [supposedly] never intended to carry
"top secret" conversations.  Proving [or disproving] any or all of this
theory could be a challenge: While Autovon has been out of service for
almost two decades, much of the official documentation regarding its
operation remains classified to this day.  On his website, "A Secert
Landscape,"[2] Albert LaFrance has copies of two lists of Autovon
related documents that were furnished by the DoD's DTIC [Defense
Technical Information Center] in response to a Freedom of Information
Act request.  The first is the list of documents that have been
"approved for public release," and it runs about fifty pages.  The
second list, which contains those documents that remain classified
["distribution restricted" in DoD-speak] runs some two hundred pages.[3]

Bill continued:

> Were the "Digital Non-Secure Voice Terminals" actually ISDN sets?.
> Are any of the switchboards or other systems that these phones
> connected to available on the surplus market? I'm not looking to
> take over Radar O'Reilly's job, but I wonder if these "DNSVT" units
> connected to the equivalent of a small-business PBX.

As you know, ISDN does not actually specify a physical circuit type,
but I assume that you are referring to a typical ISDN phone in North
America, which connects to the CO over a four-wire circuit [two 64 kbps
channels, one transmit and one receive], essentially a single DS0
encoded using 2B1Q.  The Digital Voice Terminal field phones used by the
Army actually used a 16 kbps CVSD [Continuously Variable Slope Delta]
coding technique for the actual talk path, and 16 or 32 bit conditioned
diphase [sometimes called "differential Manchester encoding"] for call
set-up and signaling.  Some commercially available electronic key
systems use CVSD for the talk path, and when this question came up a
couple of years back on a popular interconnect forum, I questioned
whether such a key system could be adapted to work with these phones.
About a year after the thread first ran, an Army Signal Corps veteran
posted to describe what was actually required to connect one of these
phones to the PSTN: In addition to converting the talk path, you must of
course also interface the call setup and signaling, and based on this
person's comments it seems that there is no easy way to do this without
the actual equipment used by the Service.

As far as whether this equipment is available on the surplus market,
that is an excellent question.  As you know, surfing the global
internets using our favorite search engine reveals that many of the
common search terms for this sort of thing have been usurped by "content
farm" sites and others that have nothing to do with Military phones, and
exist only to try and sell you something completely unrelated [insert
long sigh here].  If anyone knows of any legitimate surplus dealers
that carry this equipment at a reasonable price, please let us all know!

Bill also asked:

> Are repairs or parts available for any of the more recent models?

The best bet for repair parts for any Military phone is to cannibalize
an identical unit.  This is why it never hurts to buy one that is
battered and incomplete, if the price is right and you have [or will
have] a "good" one.  In addition to ebay and actual surplus dealers,
this equipment and parts for it often turn up at Ham shows, "old-school"
computer shows, and even shows for Military vehicle collectors.  I don't
know of anyone that offers repairs for this equipment, but they may
exist, so again I would ask that if anyone knows of them, please let
us all know.

And now, [drum roll, please] the end notes:
    
[1] For an example of the additional premise equipment required to
    connect directly to an Autovon switching center, see BSP
    981-210-100 [if the following is split into two lines, you may
    need to paste them into a text editor and splice it back together
    to use the link]:

http://sc.infc.info/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=3478&Itemid=2

[2] "A Secret Landscape" is found at: http://coldwar-c4i.net/ . Also see
    Albert's other excellent site: http://long-lines.net/ .

[3] This will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever looked for
    certain info regarding telecom and the Armed Services, as the DoD
    has always played it very close to the vest in this area.  Some
    people may be amazed to discover that they can find a manual for
    their new mil-surplus machine gun in about 30 seconds, but days of
    searching can't turn up a manual for their ancient field phone.
    For example, the TA-1 phone is basically a butt-set with a built
    in magneto and a dynamic [sound powered] transmitter element.  It
    is considered an antique now, but the manual for it remains
    "restricted" to this day.  I keep mine locked in the safe, next to
    the launch codes. ;)

Jim Bennett
**************************************************
Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#321

In article <000501cbf52c$7ab353d0$01fea8c0@dell8100>,
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Jim, I appreciate the info. I'll check out the phones you mentioned,
>and maybe even get one for a conversation piece.
>
>Please answer these questions for me and the other readers:
>
>1. Why were Autovan phones designed for four wire connections?

This one I can contribute on:

  (There were separate pairs for tx and rx, obviously, thus --)

  no need for echo cancellers on long circuits.

  easier interface to radio links.

  better control of signal levels -- _very_ useful for multi-party calls.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306

ATT has U-Verse and a new "iNID" (short for "intelligent network
interface device") for same...

In a note to the alarm industry, they say:

	However, Pulse-Dialing is not supported by AT&T U-verse Voice. 
	Only monitored alarm panels that support Touch-Tone dialing 
	should be used.

I'm not clear on what the iNED does {not} do. It appears it bonds 2
pair back to the 52B U-verse coffin, and on your side it has POTS, TV
and TCP/IP out with the TCP/IP going inside via HPNA over coax [vice
MOCA over coax...].

-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#272

Gary wrote:
> "AJB Consulting"  wrote in message 
> news:000a01cbf06f$e2a98e30$01fea8c0@dell8100...
> 
>>
>> So does the FiOS ONT support rotary-dial phones?  That is the million
>> dollar question, and the only way to answer it is to get your mitts on
>> the manufacturer's documentation for the ONT.
> 
> 
> There's one other way; experimentation!  I've got FiOS with a Tellabs 
> ONT on the wall.  I've got a 500 set in a box.  I took the 500 set out 
> of the box, plugged it into one of my phone jacks.  Guess what?  I got 
> dial tone and was able to actually *dial* the phone.  In other words, it 
> worked.
> 
> -Gary
> 

I just tried an old DP phone on my Vonage service.  It works fine.  My 
guess is that most adapters support DP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#276

On 4/2/2011 3:44 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
> Gary wrote:
>> "AJB Consulting"  wrote in message
>> news:000a01cbf06f$e2a98e30$01fea8c0@dell8100...
>>
>>>
>>> So does the FiOS ONT support rotary-dial phones?  That is the million
>>> dollar question, and the only way to answer it is to get your mitts on
>>> the manufacturer's documentation for the ONT.
>>
>>
>> There's one other way; experimentation!  I've got FiOS with a
>> Tellabs ONT on the wall.  I've got a 500 set in a box.  I took the
>> 500 set out of the box, plugged it into one of my phone jacks. 
>> Guess what?  I got dial tone and was able to actually *dial* the
>> phone.  In other words, it worked.
>>
>> -Gary
>>
> 
> I just tried an old DP phone on my Vonage service.  It works fine.  My
> guess is that most adapters support DP.
> 

My Cisco SPA2102 just gives a fast busy after about three pulse
digits, and I don't find the phrase "pulse dial" in the Admin manual
or any relevant settings in the config screens (for what that's worth,
a lot of the settings I don't have any clue what they do).  Of course,
this isn't FiOS, but clearly it's up to the adapter to provide (or
not) the support for DP.

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#279

--- On Fri, 4/1/11, Gary <bogus-email@hotmail.com> wrote:

> There's one other way; experimentation!  I've got FiOS with a
> Tellabs ONT on the wall.  I've got a 500 set in a box.  I took the
> 500 set out of the box, plugged it into one of my phone jacks.
> Guess what?  I got dial tone and was able to actually *dial* the
> phone.  In other words, it worked.  -Gary
 
I wondered about that at the beginning.  I understood the original
poster as saying it was a neighbor who was asking and that rotary-dial
500 sets were handy, so why not take one over to his neighbor's and
try it?



Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.dcom.telecom

csiph-web