TELECOM Digest Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:50:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 30 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: America's Opinion of AOL (Paul) Re: America's Opinion of AOL (Joseph) Re: America's Opinion of AOL (Rich Greenberg) Re: All-Zeros Numbers (Robert Weller) Re: All-Zeros Numbers (Charles Cryderman) Re: Wireless Home Networks (Stan) Enhanced Services Adoption Rate (nix) Using Calling Card to Dial Internet Access From Hotel? (Joe Blo) Merlin Legend with Voice Server (Jacob) Is LD by the Minute Going the Way of the Dodo? (Paul) Triennial Review Order (Kaputnik) Ring Through to POTS (NJ) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Subject: Re: America's Opinion of AOL Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:24:28 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Personally, I think they're scumbags. It is almost impossible to cancel service with them. I witnessed a friend of mine on the phone with them for an hour trying to cancel his son's AOL account. Seems she kept "losing" the account info while he was on the line. You know, that crazy computer system, gosh darn ... She made him repeat his full name, address, account number, credit card number, blood type, etc. at least 4 times during the call. They really try to wear you out. Even though it was the parent's credit card on the account, AOL had the nerve to tell him they were not authorized to cancel the account and the son would need to do it. But the son is not 18 yet, so go figure. Their intent, in my opinion, is to get you to just hang up in disgust and live with the bill for another month. -- Paul Rob wrote in message news:telecom23.29.4@telecom-digest.org: > What's the general view of AOL in the US? I use them on their > broadband package here in the UK and find them really good -- but > expensive (GBP27.99 or USD50/month for broadband is not cheap, even in > Europe, where things are generally more expensive than in the USA). > However, they're often seen as something of a joke and as a > simpleton's version of the internet as they use their own software, > instead of using IE or NN. > Hmm ... Just thought I'd ask! :-) > Rob [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Like telco, you find good and bad in the customer service area at AOL. Some are total dumbos, like they were imported from the telemarketing unit to fill in for a short time, while a few others are sort of sharp mentally. PAT ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: America's Opinion of AOL Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:09:38 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NOcom On 20 Jan 2004 04:57:04 -0800, rob51166@yahoo.com (Rob) wrote: > What's the general view of AOL in the US? I use them on their > broadband package here in the UK and find them really good -- but > expensive (GBP27.99 or USD50/month for broadband is not cheap, even in > Europe, where things are generally more expensive than in the USA). > However, they're often seen as something of a joke and as a > simpleton's version of the internet as they use their own software, > instead of using IE or NN. Most people in the know seem to think of AOL as "the Internet with training wheels." AOL has most of its "clients" usually pretty dumbed down. Features that most net users take for granted are lacking in the AOL versions of things like web browser, news reader, email client, etc. It's usually the case that you can get an equivalent offering from a "real" Internet Service Provider at less cost than going through AOL. Some people who are really not very computer savvy will start out with AOL even though the standard internet tools are for the most part very easy-to-use. Then again people should use what works for them. I've used Eudora for email for over 10 years and have used Agent for about as long. I've gone through starting with one of the original versions of Netscape (that could fit on less than a 1.44 floppy!) and am currently using MicroSloth Internet Exploder. Bottom line is you use what you "grew up with" or whatever's comfortable whether that's AOL for some or using the "clients" that you use. remove NO from .NOcom to reply [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is one reason why as the USA now seriously starts to get wired up, the AOL customer as well is growing proportionatly. More and more and more guys are getting on the net for the first time in their lives and their level of intelligence gets them up to the level of AOL or Yahoo for their ISP service, and that is about all. Computers and the internet are at the phase in their development that the telephone was at around 1920 through recent years. People insisted they wanted a phone, but had no real idea how it worked, or why, just how to get numbers on it and talk, etc. I talk to a lot of younger guys here in Independence who have 'grown up all their lives' with a computer and net connectivity in their homes and treat it like the phone; a utility device for communications, nothing more. They know how to get on Yahoo or AOL to use the chat rooms, not much else. And some of them feel that is 'too complicated to learn or use on a regular basis'. Lisa Minter, for example, 'grew up with' Yahoo Messenger. Yahoo is even easier to use than AOL in my opinion, and as spam-ridden or more than AOL. Why do you feel AOL and Yahoo are targeted by so many spammers? (AOL claimed once a billion pieces of spam in a month ... imagine that!) Spammers want to go where the audience reception will be best. PAT] ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: America's Opinion of AOL Date: 21 Jan 2004 07:16:16 -0500 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Rob wrote: > What's the general view of AOL in the US? I use them on their Many of us feel that the purpose of AOL is to give experienced internet users a group to make ethnic jokes about. Rich Greenberg Work: Rich.Greenberg atsign worldspan.com + 1 770 563 6656 N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA Play: richgr atsign panix.com + 1 770 321 6507 Eastern time zone. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val(Chinook,CGC,TT), Red & Shasta(Husky,(RIP)) Owner:Chinook-L Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ From: Robert Weller Subject: Re: All-Zeros Numbers Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:36:16 -0800 Hello Pat, Oops. I meant NINE zeros. Airphone is a private network, so you can choose ANY 10-digit number. Most people choose their home or office phone numbers for easy memorization, but the choice is truly arbitrary. One can choose, for example, 500-000-0000 (nine zeros). I suppose that someone beat out my friend for 000-000-0000 (ten zeros), so he had to settle for nine! One dials the Airphone access number over the PSTN, and then enters the subscriber's Airphone number. Bob Weller TELECOM Digest Editor noted in reply to Robert Weller about Re: All-Zeros Numbers on Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:44:19 -0800 > I have two friends with "quad zero" home phone numbers. One also > has a cell phone number with 5 zeros, and his Airphone number has > s-e-v-e-n zeros! > Bob > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I cannot understand how someone would > get seven zero numbers, even if the zeros were not consecutive (that > is were in the area code and the rest of the number in various > orders.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Re: All-Zeros Numbers Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:52:47 -0500 In TD V23 #28 Dr. Hoffman wrote: > When I was in high school, I had a parent with a phone number ending > in -0000. A teacher wanted a parent-teacher onference, and when I > gave the teacher the number, I got punished and had to stay after > school for lying. Well Joel, good thing it wasn't today. They are now sending kids to be prosecuted for dang near anything. I read about a girl that was taken to jail just for not wanting to change her shirt. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ From: Stan Subject: Re: Wireless Home Networks Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:14:39 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Carolina Considering this thread, I had a recent experience and I ask the group for advice. While setting up my new iPaq, I tried to access the wireless router in my house in order to download content from the internet without having to place the device in its docking cradle. Granted, it's not a feature that I would use while at home, but I was playing. I have WEP enabled on my network, and no amount of combinations of the iPaq menu selections and entering my key manually would permit me access. I'm not really concerned about that right now. While playing with the options, I found that three of my neighbors apparently have wireless networks in their houses as well. This is not an apartment building, this is a subdivision in a former cornfield. Plenty of space between houses. While apparently one of my neighbors read the manual and set up some security, the other two networks were named "Linksys" and "Netgear". It looks like someone got some new toys for Christmas and didn't bother to change one setting out of the box. Without any effort at all (and I mean really NO effort ... automatic wireless is an option on the iPaq), I accessed Mr. Netgear's broadband connection and started surfing the web, using Internet Explorer built into the device. So now, the 'karma question' comes into play. Do I find out which of my neighbors is Mr. (or Mrs.) Netgear and Mr. Linksys and tell them to please turn on some security before someone comes along and downloads all their birthday party pictures? If I was going to be a nice neighbor and do that, what stops me from getting hit with the question, "Well now, what were you doing accessing my network?" So I leave it to the TD reader. How would you approach this dicey situation? Thanks ... -Stan Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote in message news:telecom23.28.4@telecom-digest.org: >> Three colleagues, all more knowledgeable and opinionated than me, have >> strongly warned against the more expedient wireless solution because >> of security vulnerabilities. I thought these things were range limited > If you set up your WiFi network properly, it's no more unsecure than > anything else you're probably running. > A really determined cracker can get to your computer from the Internet > through whatever firewall you have set up, or can even splice a > connection into your cable somewhere. Crackers don't need you to be > running a wireless network to get into your system. > The real problem with wireless is that most people don't install any > sort of encryption. > -Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well my suggestion is that if you find out who they are that you send them an *unsigned, anonymous* email telling them about it. In fact if you can get into NetGear or Linksys you can probably send them email in their own names using their mail client. Just send email from Mr. NetGear to Mr. NetGear discussing your findings and then let nature take its course. Stress to them both that you did nothing to harm their computers or their reputation (if you have not) and that as a 'concerned friend' you feel it should be mentioned. Go back in a few days and see if they have renamed their networks or done some kind of encryption. If not, then repeat your message once again. If they have done something, but it is a hopelessly simple and easily breakable solution, then write them again, but be encouraging and pleasant, and offer to help them make it better. When and if the day comes that *you* cannot break in, then the job has been done. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nix Subject: Enhanced services adoption rate Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:17:59 -0800 Hi, Just wanted to find out if there is a source of information that show adoption rates for various CLASS 5 services. Namely Call Waiting. Even anecdotal information will suffice. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: techman41973@yahoo.com (Joe Blo) Subject: Using Calling Card to Dial Internet Access From Hotel? Date: 20 Jan 2004 23:09:24 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I tried using my laptop to dial my local internet connection telephone number via my calling card from my hotel room. It did not work, even though I perfected the pauses and touch tone codes to where the laptop got through and started connecting. However no connection could be established. If I dialed direct from the hotel long distance, this number worked fine (@ a 1.50 per minute) Could it be that some calling cards (my Walmart & AT&T branded) could degrade the signal through its signal path significantly to cause problems? Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, that is possible but it is also possible and more likely that the hotel is playing games with calling cards, 1010, or 800 numbers, or anything that does not make extra money for the switchboard downstairs. Mrs. Brown, the manager of the first apartment I lived in back in the 1960's once said to me, "well the switchboard doesn't make any money for the owners, but you have to have one for the guests." But these days, every square inch of space in a motel/hotel is expected to be a profit center for the owners. Every square inch of floor space except maybe the elevator or mechanical lift between floors. And watch, someday there may be coin operated elevators as well. Lord knows having a human being sitting in the car in a chair operating the lift got to be too expensive so that got eliminated thanks to Otis and others. I would look at the politics of the hotel first instead of the possible signal degredation. You might also look at dialing the number manually *then* turning on your modem once the remote modem has answered and see what happens then. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jacobbec@yahoo.com (Jacob) Subject: Merin Legend With Voice Server Date: 21 Jan 2004 02:19:17 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hello, I would like to integrate an Amanda Voice mail ( equipped with six analog ports) with a Telephon switch type Lucent Merlin Legend communication system (Release 5.0), so I am asking what I have to do from the Telephon switch side to perform the integration and how I could configure Lucent Telephon switch for that? What should I do on the Amanda Side ? Note that I am new to Lucent Telephon switch operation and to the voice mail Integration so, any Urls and sample guides and configurations will be very appreciated. Best Regards, Jacob ------------------------------ From: Paul Subject: Is LD by the Minute Going the Way of the Dodo? Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:47:09 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In our area, SBC is now advertising $20/month per *business* line, unlimited long distance. For our little company, that means for $80/mo. I can have unlimited LD on our 4 lines. Seems too good an offer from the "evil empire". Sure, it's got a one year term, but heck, still a good deal. This is the grid of what they are offering here in Ohio: http://www05.sbc.com/Products_Services/Business/Catalog/1,,13--12-1-13,00.html Can anyone find a "gotcha" in the $20 plan? Why do they even offer the $50/mo plan with 3.5 cents/min.? To think two or three years ago we had $500+ bills every month, now we have sub $200 bills with ECG Telecom. I almost hate to switch from ECG since they are the first LD company in 10 years that has been decent and affordable. -- Paul ------------------------------ From: johnkaputnik@yahoo.com (Kaputnik) Subject: Triennial Review Order Date: 21 Jan 2004 11:43:37 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Where can I find talking points on how states are affected by the TRO? I need the talking points in layman's terms. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. JK ------------------------------ Subject: Ring Through to POTS From: NJ Organization: Please send all replies to the NG Date: 21 Jan 2004 19:32:05 GMT Hi, I was wondering if there are services available that will allow you to get a local number that would ring through to another number. Example: Let's say my cell phone number is 123-555-1234, but I don't want to give that out or print it on my business cards. Can I get a phone number (that can later be ported if necessary) that would ring to the cell phone (or any other number I designate)?? Thank you for your assistance, and my apologies if I have misused the terminology, I am not a phone expert. :) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, just get a number with Call Forwarding (or better still, delayed Call Forwarding) on it. Or as my last choice (because it is remote and you have no user control over it) a 'Remote Call Forwarded' line. That last choice is good if you want a number in a distant phone exchange for your callers. The first two choices are better if all you need is a local number behind which to secrete or hide your cell phone number. Delayed call forwarding is best IMO since if you are at your home and forget to turn on the forwarding when you go out (taking your cell phone along) your calls will reach there anyway after 3-4 additional rings. If you do not have a deseased brain like myself and can remember to turn on call forwarding each time you leave home then get a 'regular' call forwarding type phone line. As an example, our taxicab service here in Independence uses a call- forwarded line to reach the dispatchers. '6019' is a *well known* number here for a taxicab. But the dispatchers (who work from their homes) do not wish to be bothered by calls for cabs when they are off duty. So when a dispatcher goes on duty the 6019 line is call- forwarded to his home number; when he goes off duty at the end of his shift, another dispatcher notifies him and 'pulls' the 6019 number to *his* home line and starts taking calls from people who want a cab. (Then he uses *his* radio to call one of the drivers on the street, etc). Even though I happen to know the phone numbers of Betty or Ernie or Grover, all I *need to know* (and all the general public needs to know) is 'You want a cab? Then call 6019." Betty and Ernie also have a distinctive ring number (which is where the 6019 number is call-forwarded) so they know before they answer which answer-phrase to use, either 'good morning, this is I-Cab' or 'hello' or whatever they say. The other cab company (City Cab) does more or less the same thing, 1581 rings a call diverter in his home which redials his cell phone number. That's the other thing you can do, is buy a call diverter (see http://www.sandman.com for details, send mail to Mike there) but although these give you full control over the cloaking of one number by calling another number, call forwarding from telco is less expensive. Telco call forwarding costs each month the cost of the phone line (get a minimum outgoing package) and three or four dollars for the call forwarding option added to the line. I hope this has answered your questions. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #30 *****************************