On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Chris wrote:
> I had been taught that was a Rj-11 "handset", which has never really
> sat well with me... but it is what I was taught, and it is what my
> telco catalogs list the part as, so I had to accept it.
That's completely wrong. I've never heard that terminology used, or if I
did I ignored it as being ignorant. An RJ-11 is a single pair telephone
jack plug.
> Thanks to that link, it is claimed to be an RJ-22, which sits MUCH
> better with me since it has its own designation. I can't speak for its
> accuracy as it is the first time I have heard that, but if I had to
> pick, I would go with RJ-22 over RJ-11 "handset".
I never knew a handset had an RJ number. But anyway, I'll still just call
it a "handset" as that makes more sense.
> Oh, and I was taught in the field all my telco knowledge, never went
> to school... it is learned from various Bell and private
> installers/techs/whathaveyou... so who knows how accurate they are,
> but I tend to give them more credence than most schools (except maybe
> some Bell installers, the older ones are good, but most of the younger
> ones suck royally)
Ditto, but I had very good mentors, and they all knew the proper
terminology.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
Received on Wed Jan 02 2002 - 12:56:16 GMT