rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com (03/21/91)
Pat,
Walk to Radio Shack and pick up a Touch-tone phone? I've never
been satisfied w/ anything less than a genuine Bell-made or AT&T-made
Touch-tone phone. I've had nothing but bad luck with those Radio
Shack, QT&T, etc. phones. Give me a REAL Touch-tone phone, with those
familiar beeps and boops, anyday. Who'd you think invented
"Touch-tone" anyway? Of course, it has fallen into everyday use, like
other corporate trademarks: xerox, etc.
And I'll take the old mechanical bell ringers, too!
Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, Il.oberman@rogue.llnl.gov (03/22/91)
In article <telecom11.221.12@eecs.nwu.edu>, rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com writes: > Walk to Radio Shack and pick up a Touch-tone phone? I've never > been satisfied w/ anything less than a genuine Bell-made or AT&T-made > Touch-tone phone. I've had nothing but bad luck with those Radio > Shack, QT&T, etc. phones. Give me a REAL Touch-tone phone, with those > familiar beeps and boops, anyday. Who'd you think invented > "Touch-tone" anyway? Of course, it has fallen into everyday use, like > other corporate trademarks: xerox, etc. While Western Electric made very good equipment, some of the worst JUNK now on the market has "Genuine Bell" stamped all over it! So what is a REAL Touch-tone (sic) phone, anyway. The term Touch-Tone is now in the public domain, or so I've seen posted here. While I can't comment on Radio Shack phones, my favorites are GE phones. They feel good in the hand with no irritating edges, have a good keypad. Everything I want in a phone. I'd much rather have one of these than one of those things with the Bell logo on them! R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.
levin@bbn.com (Joel B. Levin) (03/22/91)
> Walk to Radio Shack and pick up a Touch-tone phone? I've never >been satisfied w/ anything less than a genuine Bell-made or AT&T-made >Touch-tone phone. . . Give me a REAL Touch-tone phone, . . . I don't know if it's changed, but I've seen some cheap lightweight junk under AT&T's label (not to mention under the label of some of the BOCs -- Bell South or Southwestern Bell comes to mind. nets: levin@bbn.com | BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin | M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 | 150 Cambridge Park Drive FAX: +1 617 873 8202 | Cambridge, MA 02140
petrilli@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (03/22/91)
Randy Borow writes about his preference for genuine Bell phones. [Moderator's Note: Reference text eliminated. See above messages. PAT] I take it you know everything about phones? It may be Pat's perogative that he peronally prefers Radio-Shack telehone equipment to AT&T or Bell equipment, and that is his choice. Some of us are unsatisfied with some of the AT&T made equipment, both price wise and in teh area of features. Do you also propose that nobody should purchase a UNIX machine or UNIX implementation from anyone but AT&T simply because they invented it, does not mean that they produce the best there is. I am using an HP machine at the moment, and am 10x as satisfied with is as I was with a 3b2 system from AT&T. Please take personal attacks elsewhere, they do not belong in this forum. Chris Petrilli Internet: petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu [Moderator's Note: Really, I think you are being a bit harsh. I didn't regard his comment as a personal attack, and truth be told, I do like AT&T phones also ... but Radio Shack is two blocks away, and the nearest phone center store is on Devon and California Avenue, about six blocks west. Since I don't own a car, and don't know how to drive, I either walk, take a cab, or the Devon #155 bus. Given my 'druthers, I walk to Radio Shack, and stop at Dunkin Donuts on the way home. PAT]
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (03/22/91)
I guess you haven't looked at a genuine AT&T Touch-tone phone lately.
The model 100s, the current basic wall and desk sets, are now
lightweight electronic sets made in Asia that neither look nor feel
very much like the 500 sets we all know and love. The Rat-Shack
phones these days are a lot closer to the feel of the old WECO
instruments.
"Genuine Bell" now encompasses any piece of junk resold by any of the
baby Bells, including such items as shoe-shaped phones and
piano-shaped phones where the piano keyboard is the dial. Genuine, my
eye.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnlrborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com (03/23/91)
I suppose I should have clarified what I meant by "Genuine Bell" phones. I agree with most of you hypersensitive critics of such phones. What I actually meant by such terminology was the old Western Electric phones -- you know, the hard as rock, durable, nuclear bomb proof phones with the authentic Bell logo on them. Heck, my grandfather worked in the old Cicero, IL. Western Electric factory (remember THAT place, Pat, and its towering walls on Cermak?), and I can't forget the stuff he got for us years ago. Over 40 years he spent with them. It was a sad time when they called it quits! So, I know some of AT&T's phones, GE's phones, SW Bell's phones, etc. "ain't what they used to be." I simply miss the old days. Nothing wrong with a bit of nostalgia, now is there, folks? Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL.
carroll@ssc-vax.uucp (Jeff Carroll) (03/24/91)
In article <telecom11.221.12@eecs.nwu.edu> rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com writes: > Walk to Radio Shack and pick up a Touch-tone phone? I've never > been satisfied w/ anything less than a genuine Bell-made or AT&T-made > Touch-tone phone. I've had nothing but bad luck with those Radio > Shack, QT&T, etc. phones. Give me a REAL Touch-tone phone, with those > familiar beeps and boops, anyday. Who'd you think invented > "Touch-tone" anyway? Of course, it has fallen into everyday use, like > other corporate trademarks: xerox, etc. There is a whole continuum of telephone manufacturers these days, from AT&T (clearly out in front in terms of quality) to the kind of outfit that builds the football-shaped gizmos that Sports Illustrated gives away. IMHO Radio Shack phones are nearer the high end of the quality spectrum than the low end, especially the stuff that was built by Stromberg-Carlson (do they still stock them?) In fact, I have seen Radio Shack phones that were clearly of higher quality than some of the stuff marketed by the Baby Bells. All the phones at my house say "AT&T" on them, though. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com
louk@tslwat.uucp (Lou Kates) (03/24/91)
In article <telecom11.233.10@eecs.nwu.edu# Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax! carroll@cs.washington.edu> writes: # In article <telecom11.221.12@eecs.nwu.edu> rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com # writes: # There is a whole continuum of telephone manufacturers these # days, from AT&T (clearly out in front in terms of quality) to the kind # of outfit that builds the football-shaped gizmos that {Sports # Illustrated} gives away. Would anyone care to give us information on which are manufacturers of the high quality sets? With a cordless phone this is particularly important. AT&T? Sony? ...? Lou Kates, Teleride Sage Ltd., louk%tslwat@watmath.waterloo.edu
ndallen@eecs.nwu.edu (Nigel Allen) (03/27/91)
Several posters have referred to some modern residential telephones, manufactured by AT&T and other companies, as "lightweight". Northern Telecom's Harmony telephone set, which Bell Canada and some other companies rent but do not sell, is a modern electronic telephone set. The working parts and plastic shell do not weigh very much, and apparently Northern Telecom's market research with prototypes of the phone showed that consumers equated low weight with low quality. And *that's* why there are lead weights in a Harmony telephone. People who want a heavy telephone will find that manufacturers will address that demand, but perhaps in an unexpected way. Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/27/91)
Nigel Allen <contact!ndallen@eecs.nwu.edu> writes: > And *that's* why there are lead weights in a Harmony telephone. > People who want a heavy telephone will find that manufacturers will > address that demand, but perhaps in an unexpected way. ITT's 2500-style phones are about as close as you can get now to the phones of yore. But time marches on and the components used for these otherwise excellent instruments just do not weigh what the old ones did. Capacitors are little plastic things rather than big lead-enclosed clunkers. The high-impact plactics now can be made thinner (and stronger, even so) and nothing weighed as much as bakelite. Today's more powerful permanent magnets weigh a fraction of the old Alnico things. Networks are "solid state" rather than being based on a big induction coil. Even the TT pads are one-chip affairs as opposed to those that used adjustable coils. Add all this up and you have a telephone that weighs significantly less than its older counterpart. ITT does not see fit to install weights, but I can assure everyone that the instruments are every bit as durable and work just as well as some of the antiques I have around here. They even have standard mechanical ringers -- a rarity these days! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (03/29/91)
In article <telecom11.243.7@eecs.nwu.edu> you write: > Several posters have referred to some modern residential telephones, > manufactured by AT&T and other companies, as "lightweight". > [Some vendors weight phones with heavy pieces of metal.] I like heavy telephones because they don't fall off the table when you stretch out the cord. It doesn't really matter whether the weight is in active or inactive parts of the phone. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
carroll@ssc-vax.uucp (Jeff Carroll) (03/29/91)
In article <telecom11.243.7@eecs.nwu.edu> contact!ndallen@eecs.nwu.edu (Nigel Allen) writes: > Northern Telecom's Harmony telephone set, which Bell Canada and some > other companies rent but do not sell, is a modern electronic telephone > set. The working parts and plastic shell do not weigh very much, and > apparently Northern Telecom's market research with prototypes of the > phone showed that consumers equated low weight with low quality. > And *that's* why there are lead weights in a Harmony telephone. > People who want a heavy telephone will find that manufacturers will > address that demand, but perhaps in an unexpected way. Several of the desk phones of more recent vintage around the office here are AT&T Touchtone desk phones with a carefully engineered (not lead, I don't think; there are health concerns) metallic weight bolted to the inside of the genuine used-to-be-Western-Electric base plate. The phone itself consists merely of a PC card the same size as the keypad and attached to the back of it. Although Boeing is gradually being ISDN-ized, the only ISDN circuits I have seen are at the desks of employees who used to have old-fashioned keysets. These have been replaced by Merlin-style ISDN terminals. The more fortunate of the rest of us (around this particular office, anyway) are using AT&T 610s, which are designed to look like the Japanese programmable speakerphones, down to the simulated speaker baffle in the middle of the handset cradle. Though the 610 *is* programmable, the "speaker baffle" has no slots in it, and no speaker. Don't tell me AT&T is totally without marketing savvy. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com
julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) (04/01/91)
In article <telecom11.243.7@eecs.nwu.edu> contact!ndallen@eecs.nwu.edu (Nigel Allen) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 243, Message 7 of 14 > Several posters have referred to some modern residential telephones, > manufactured by AT&T and other companies, as "lightweight". > Northern Telecom's Harmony telephone set, which Bell Canada and some > other companies rent but do not sell, is a modern electronic telephone > set. The working parts and plastic shell do not weigh very much, and > apparently Northern Telecom's market research with prototypes of the > phone showed that consumers equated low weight with low quality. > And *that's* why there are lead weights in a Harmony telephone. > People who want a heavy telephone will find that manufacturers will > address that demand, but perhaps in an unexpected way. There are a couple of reasons to add weight to today's modern electronic phones: 1. Give the handset enough weight so it can activate the hookswitch. The alternative to this is to use cheezy microswitches instead of decent solid multicontact switches. Yes, this is one thing that distinguishes garbage phones. 2. Give the base some weight so the damn thing doesn't keep being yanked off the desk and dropping to the floor. Cheezy, crummy, sleezy, phones that are supposed to handle today's telecommunications needs are also often lighter because they use thin wall plastic that cracks and bends easily. A good phone (and that includes Northern telecom) is made from thick wall ABS such as Monsanto Cycolac T grade. This stuff is hard to break or flex. Modern handsets, even if they are using decent G3 style handsets, often are lighter because they have an electret element rather than a carbon T1 type element. Old style phones also had metal bases and gong ringers with iron and brass in them. These weighed more than phones with Ceramic resonator disc warble units. I have always considered TIE phones to be excellant examples of cheap, nasty, crummy, cheezy phones with nasty plastic, nasty little hook switches and armies of dweebs in polyester suits peddling them door to door. They managed to move telecommunications back five decades by selling phone systems that blew fuses when Tip and Ring were shorted. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495