From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Dec 19 22:14:23 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iBK3ENQ15409; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:14:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:14:23 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200412200314.iBK3ENQ15409@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #608 TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:14:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 608 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Vodafone Rim Blackberry 7100v (DFleming Ireland) Speaking of Giving Up Landline For Cellphone (Thomas A. Horsley) Foreign Residential Listings (Fred Atkinson) VoIP - Zyxel Prestige 2002 Analog Adaptor (lauricat) QCTimes.com -- Spam Suit Nets $1 Billion (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now (Joseph) Re: Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now (AES/newspost) Re: AFA (Flight Attendants) Opposes In-Flight Cell Phone Use (DevilsPGD) Re: AFA (Flight Attendants) Opposes In-Flight Cell Phone Use (n28110) Re: Vonage Voice Quality Getting Worse? (Tony P.) Re: Vonage Voice Quality Getting Worse? (Rob Levandowski) Re: Wireless in Cherryvale (John Levine) Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future? (DevilsPGD) Re: Cable TV Advertising (was 'Transitional Fair Use'...) (Neal McLain) Re: Cell Phone Motorists Are Dangerous (Thomas A. Horsley) Re: Access of Calling Card Dial in Number Prepaid Cellular (M Crispin) Re: VOIP (Rick Merrill) Re: VoicePoint - VoIP (Rick Merrill) Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. 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 are 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: davidfleming01@eircom.net (DFleming Ireland) Subject: Vodafone Rim Blackberry 7100v Date: 19 Dec 2004 12:27:25 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I am thinking of buying this phone for use in Ireland. Can someone tell me what is the real position re: Internet access? i.e. am I wasting my money and should I get separate phone & PDA? The price would put this item far ahead of the O2 XDA2 and it's much prettier than O2's Blackberry, but I still have doubts. Can anyone help? DF ------------------------------ Subject: Speaking of Giving up Landline For Cellphone From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:41:50 GMT Is there any kind of gadget available to interface with a cellphone (perhaps via the headset connection) that would allow you to plug your cellphone into it when you are at home, and have it provide your own little local phone system over your old phone wires so that you could use any phone in the house to make a call on the cellphone and have all the phones in the house ring when the cellphone rings? Or lacking that level of sophistication, is there anything that could at least amplify the ring so you could hear it if you left your phone on the other side of the house? >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Foreign Residential Listings Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:20:41 -0500 > Can anyone suggest an *easy* way for people to get foreign residential > or business telephone numbers listed with directory assistance? Most people who attempt to do this (for example, to get their Vonage residential number listed with directory assistance) encounter a bottomless pit of CSRs that don't want to find out how to do it and just tell them it can't be done rather than deal with it. It most certainly can. I've gotten my Vonage number listed with directory assistance. If you don't believe it, call 803 directory assistance (or Easy 411 or whichever one you use) and ask for Fred W. Atkinson, III in Columbia, SC. They'll give you my Vonage (803) 233 number. If you are trying to get Bellsouth to do it, get my number from directory assistance and refer to it when you call them. Tell them you want the same kind of account that I have. I posted my story on the Vonage forum (http://www.vonage-forum.com). Someone else is going through the same bottomless pit of CSRs. With all the telephone company people on here, I'm sure a solution can be found. Or perhaps there are or is a representative(s) of a company that can get these listings made. Certainly one of you can help with this. Then I can post it on the Vonage forum and we can make it easier for the other folks. As VOIP service continues to grow, this will become a bigger issue. We can solve it now if someone here will be a Good Samaritan and help. When I finally got it done, I had to have created what is called a 'miscellaneous account' and make a 'foreign listing'. The cost is a little over twenty-four dollars per year with Bellsouth for a residential listing. The account number consisted of my area code, the letter 'M' followed by a series of digits that did not correspond to my telephone number. They bill annually for the service. If you do it in the middle of the calendar year, they prorate it for the remaining months. But to get it done (because those CSRs did not want to be bothered with it), I had to call the South Carolina Public Service Commission and register a complaint. They called some vice-presiden's office at Bellsouth on my behalf. I was then promptly contacted by a Bellsouth representative who got it done immediately for me and without any further hassle. When the bill came, they billed me for access charges. I called them back and pointed out that this wasn't telelphone service, but only a listing. They promptly removed that charge from my bill, as they should have. But, it was less than a dollar overcharge. It wouldn't have killed me if I had gone ahead and paid it. Everyone should have the right to have their telephone number listed regardless of who is providing the service. That shouldn't be an issue. Feedback? Regards, Fred Atkinson ------------------------------ From: lauricat@gmail.com (lauricat) Subject: VoIP - Zyxel Prestige 2002 Analog Adaptor Date: 18 Dec 2004 23:35:44 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi all, I have recently bought a Zyxel Prestige 2002 Analog Telephone Adaptor. I am having all sorts of problems getting it to work. I am trying to hook up to a local (Australian) provider, www.faktortel.com.au and use the service. It does not matter what settings I use I can't make a call. I recently upgraded my firmware, so now I don't get a constantly engaged tone - also the new flash has changes to a "common" phone area that allows me to select my country, I assume to tailor the box to it's local connection. My VoIP provider supports SIP and G529, so does Prestige. I am running Win XP Pro (SP1), a 512/128 DSL connection and a Billion 711CE Modem/Router, through a 8 port hub. If any one has some experience with these adaptors I would be glad to get some info. (I have printed out the manual and gone right through it..) I am also working on this with my provider, to try and resolve the issue. There really does not *seem* to be much out there on this brand of adaptor. Thanks, Laurie. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:01:32 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: QCTimes.com -- Spam Suit Nets $1 Billion Trying yet another way of stripping the HTML. Hope this works better http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=3D1041776 http://www.qctimes.com/print.php?story_id=3D1041776&doc=3D Copyright 2004 The Quad-City Times | www.QCTimes.com By Todd Ruger and Kay Luna CLINTON, Iowa A federal judge awarded a Clinton Internet service= provider more than $1 billion in judgments Friday in a lawsuit against companies who used his equipment to send so-called spam e-mails. It is believed to be by far the largest judgment ever against companies accused of sending unsolicited commercial e-mail via the Internet, said those who track such practices. It's definitely a victory for all of us that open up our e-mail and find lewd and malicious and fraudulent e-mail in our boxes every day, said Robert Kramer, the owner of CIS Internet Services in Clinton. Kramer is unlikely to ever collect the large judgment, which was made possible through an Iowa law that allows plaintiffs to claim damages of $10 per spam message, said his attorney, Kelly O. Wallace of Atlanta. "We hope to recover at least his costs," Wallace said of the lawsuit, originally filed in October 2003 against 300 defendants then known only as John Does. "He decided it was worthwhile to take some of these guys down." Kramer;s relatively small service provided e-mail for about 5,000 subscribers in the Clinton vicinity when, at one point, his Internet server received 10 million or more spam e-mails per day, according to Kramer and the judgment documents. He was called away almost daily to repair downed e-mail servers that should run months without interruption, Kramer added. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Wolle of the Southern District of Iowa filed the default judgments Friday against three companies under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Iowa Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act: n $360 million against Cash Link Systems Inc., a Florida corporation shut down by the Securities and Exchange Commission in July for a fraudulent investment scheme involving automatic teller machines. n $720 million against AMP Dollar Savings Inc., an Arizona corporation that Wallace said is mainly a organization designed for spammers to hide their identities. n $140,000 against TEI Marketing Group Inc., a Florida corporation. Wallace described TEI as one guy selling spy software. Wallace said he has only heard of judgments up to $25 million in spam-related cases. The president of the SpamCon Foundation, an organization based in Palo Alto, Calif., said it was the biggest judgment in a spam lawsuit she has ever heard about. "This is just incredible," Laura Atkins said. "I'm not aware of anything that's been over $100 million. Steve Linford, the chief executive officer of a London-based spam tracker called The Spamhaus Project, also said he had not heard of a judgment reaching $1 billion, adding that such lawsuits and criminal investigations into spamming are starting to have an effect. "But the effect is still rather small," he said. "What we are seeing is slightly more spammers from overseas." While it used to be that 100 percent of spammers operated in the United States, about 10 percent of them now operate in other countries, including Russia and some Asian nations, with 70 percent of spam messages directing users to Web sites hosted in China, he said. Kramer said the lawsuit made a difference for his business almost immediately after it was filed, but not before 4 years of taking a toll on him at both the business and personal levels. "I was forced to set up an infrastructure that would support e-mail for millions of users," he said. "It has consumed me." Friday's judgment covers only three companies who did not respond to court papers and were found in default. The lawsuit continues against other named defendants. "It's a slow process and it's not cheap," Wallace said. "Our goal is the economic death penalty." He and Kramer said they began identifying the companies by doing what the spammers wanted purchasing spy software and other products typically hawked via the e-mails, including penis enlargement pills. "I've got a bottle of them sitting here," Kramer said. "I never opened them." Wallace said he presented about 1,400 pieces of evidence at a hearing to determine the amount of damages, including selections from thousands of CD-ROMs full of computer usage log files showing that large numbers of spam e-mail were not atypical. Kramer's problems are linked to a CD-ROM sold to spammers that is called 'Bulk Mailing 4 Dummies,' which includes a guide for sending spam and a large number of mainly fictitious e-mail addresses for some of the largest Internet providers in the nation, the judgment states. While most of the addresses were for large providers such as America Online, Microsoft Network, Hotmail and Earthlink, CIS somehow had 2.8 million addresses entered on the CD-ROM, Wallace said. Receiving e-mail at those bogus addresses uses as much computer resources as legitimate e-mail, the judgment states. "My dad put it well when he said I was being terrorized, and I was, Kramer said. "It's been a hassle to catch these people because of the method they use. Nothing will stop spam altogether, he said. "I think all of us as Internet service providers are always going to face spam problems," he said. "We are still pursuing others. We're going to catch more." The company, operating since 1996, has four full-time employees. Two are network administrators. In response to the spam congestion, CIS beefed up its core infrastructure, spending thousands of dollars to upgrade the system so it could handle the traffic flow. Kramer now calls himself a 'spam professional.' "We know how to handle this better than any other ISP (Internet service provider) in Clinton," he said. "We can virtually eliminate spam coming to your mailbox." Todd Ruger can be contacted at (563) 383-2493 or truger@qctimes.com. BY THE NUMBERS For the two larger parts of the anti-spam judgment he entered Friday, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Wolle used a formula based on trial testimony and Iowa and federal laws. This is how the judgment was calculated for Clinton Internet Services against AMP Dollar Services Inc.: AMP Dollar messages, per server per day 40,000 CIS mail servers X 3 Messages per day 120,000 Number of days X 150 Total e-mails sent 18 million Statutory damages per message X $10 Total statutory damages $180 million Federal, state laws triple statutory damages X 3 New damage total $540 million Punitive damages + $180 million Total liability of AMP Dollar $720 million Copyright 2002 The Quad-City Times NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . New articles daily. *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance Quad City Times. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: USATODAY.com - Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 08:16:08 -0800 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:07:08 -0800, Mark Crispin wrote: > I start mocking their conversation, in a loud enough tone of voice > that they can hear me. Be it lawyers plotting or trophy wives > babbling, I have the appropriate offensive comments at hand to offend > them enough to tone down their conversation, terminate it, or move > away from my vicinity. You're really lucky that someone hasn't slugged you yet for your obnoxious behavior. You seem to think that their being obnoxious is license for you to be as well, eh? > A short and/or obviously necessary phone conversation does not elicit > this response. After all, I use a cell phone myself. I would not > think of harassing someone arranging to be picked up, or learning > errands to do on the way home, etc. Ah, I see you are the arbeiter of what is a "long" or short conversation and what is necessary and what is not. How fortunate that you are around to judge for us what is the "right" length and subject for conversations. > It's only when they drag it out long beyond what is necessary (and > worse, use the walkie-talkie mode), to the point that it disturbs > others; and especially when the topic is inappropriate for a public > setting. And we should suppose that you are the judge of what is necessary and what is fluff, eh? > It's quite effective. Until some guy socks you in the mouth for commenting on his private conversation. ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: USATODAY.com - Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 09:38:50 -0800 In article , Mark Crispin wrote: > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, AES/newspost wrote (re in-flight cellphone call annoyance): >> * And of course finally the "Charles Bronson response": Bring a large >> battery-powered "boombox" tape deck with a really annoying musical >> selection as your carryon, and if the cellphone noise pollution around >> you gets too annoying just turn it on LOUD > There's a better way. It's what I do with excessively long/personal > cell phone conversations on the ferries. > I start mocking their conversation, in a loud enough tone of voice > that they can hear me. Marc, I think I knew you or knew of you, in long-ago Stanford computer center days (?); and it looks like you've inherited more Charles Bronson genes, and I've inherited more Walter Mitty genes. --AES ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: AFA (Flight Attendants) Opposes In-Flight Cell Phone Use Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 00:33:17 -0700 Organization: Octanews In message Joseph wrote: >> If they're talking about complaints from other passengers, perhaps >> they should divide the plane into "phoning" and "non-phoning" >> sections, now that the smokers are gone. At least phoning won't >> pollute the breathing air of the people in the non-phoning section. > More than likely that's just what they're afraid of. Considering that > some people haven't got the good sense their Lord gave them to be > considerate of others I'd be worried too. I happen to believe many folks weren't given any good sense to begin with. It explains a lot. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:20:11 +0000 (GMT) From: n28110 Subject: Re: AFA (Flight Attendants) Opposes In-Flight Cell Phone Use Organization: Shaw Residential Internet Joseph wrote in message news:telecom23.607.8@telecom-digest.org: > More than likely that's just what they're afraid of. Considering that > some people haven't got the good sense their Lord gave them to be > considerate of others I'd be worried too. I'm not convinced that sense is a god-given gift ... As a wearer of a cellular phone for work reasons, I'm absolutely amazed at the numer of people who power up the phone the instant the plane leaves the active runway onto the taxiway, only to call their (I'm assuming) loved ones to let them know that the plane has successfully smacked onto the ground. Of course I was amazed that a young lady would have a conversation that would drive her to tears on the MARTA in Atlanta ... ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Vonage Voice Quality Getting Worse? Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:03:20 -0500 In article , devilspgd@crazyhat.net says: > In message John Levine > wrote: >>> A number of people 'think' they have a problem with their VoIP >>> provider, BUT the problems only occur when talking to someone on a >>> CELL phone. >> In my case, I have observed lousy voice quality when picking up my >> Vonage voice mail on the voice prompts which are, I presume, coming >> directly from Vonage's servers. I haven't noticed cell phone voice >> quality being much worse than it is elsewhere. >> I do have one more clue: people tell me that even when I can barely >> understand them, they can understand me fine, so the problem is on the >> inbound side. I don't understand that at all, since my net connection >> is equally fast in both directions (it's a T1) and I usually have more >> outbound traffic from web servers than inbound. > It could be that Vonage is having issues on their side, or that some > router/link on the path Vonage's traffic takes to get to you is having > problems but the reverse is stable. Vonage is pretty much ISP dependent. They haul from your local ISP to either a Paetec or Focal switch and put it out on the PSTN from there. ------------------------------ From: Rob Levandowski Subject: Re: Vonage Voice Quality Getting Worse? Organization: MacWhiz Technologies Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:15:29 GMT In article , Rick Merrill wrote: > A number of people 'think' they have a problem with their VoIP > provider, BUT the problems only occur when talking to someone on a > CELL phone. The reason may be that the compression algorithms used in > the cell phone do not "fit well" with the compression algotithms used > for VoIP. - RM I've noticed that the voice quality of my Vonage line has *improved* lately. The line seems far more resistant to echo in the past few months. When I first got my Vonage line, I had many dropouts. I have a Cisco ATA, and I use a UNIX system as my home firewall/router. I was able to improve the reliability and call quality quite a nbit by configuring my firewall to give priority to the Vonage packets and to TCP ACK packets in general. Less geeky users with consumer-grade home routers may not have the ability to do this. Rob Levandowski robl@macwhiz.com ------------------------------ Date: 19 Dec 2004 06:56:35 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Wireless in Cherryvale Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> The A-side AMPS carrier is Alltel with CDMA and analog, and the B side >> is US Cellular with TDMA and analog. There's also some 1900 MHz >> carriers, but your 5165 is 800 MHz only. > Sorry you have incorrect information. The Nokia 5165 is 800/1900 TDMA > and 800 AMPS. Gee, look at that. All the time I had a 5165 it never picked up a 1900 signal, but I suppose that has more to do with where I live. Anyway, the guide says that Cingular does TDMA and GSM 1900 but not in Cherryvale. The guide says there is TDMA 1900 in Cherryvale from Dobson, but Dobson's web site says not. So I'd guess the lousy connections are from falling back to AMPS. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com, Mayor, http://johnlevine.com, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future? Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 00:33:12 -0700 Organization: Octanews In message Tony P. wrote: >>> I love how the cable companies harp on the fact that satellite >>> transmission can be interrupted by rain, and then one of their own >>> carried stations goes off the air because you guessed it, weather >>> interfered with the cable companies OWN satellite reception. >> While true, it takes a lot more weather to take out a 6' dish then a >> 20" dish. > It can be misting here and we lose channels. Anytime water is involved > you can kiss centimeter or lower bands goodbye. To tie it in to the cable-vs-satellite argument, does it take out any of the cable company's channels? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 04:55:47 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: Cable TV Advertising (was 'Transitional Fair Use'...) PAT wrote [TD 23:602]: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you remember *many, many* > years ago when cable television was first getting underway how > 'they' said cable would be a better deal 'since there would not > be any commercials; it is all paid for by your cable fees'. To which I wrote [TD 23:605]: > Given this history, I don't see how it's possible that anyone > familiar with the industry could have claimed that "there would > not be any commercials; it is all paid for by your cable fees." > Without distant independent commercial stations like WGN-TV and > WOR-TV, the cable industry wouldn't have had a salable product. Whereupon Barry Margolin wrote [TD 23:606]: > Of course they weren't talking about broadcast channels that > were piped in by the cable system -- those would obviously have > the same content as over-the-air. The no-commercials > expectation was for all the premium channels that were created > just for pay cable distribution. Since we have to pay extra to > get those, there was an expectation that these fees would > obviate commercials. But the only channels that have stayed > true to this vision are some of the movie channels, like HBO > and Showtime. So you're telling me that back in the late 40s and early 50s ("... when cable television was first getting underway"), "they" expected that the cable industry would create commercial-free "premium channels ... just for pay cable distribution"? And, by implication, that a technology would exist for distributing these channels nationwide at reasonable cost? Gee, I'd sure like to know who "they" are. Neal McLain [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I do not know who 'they' were either, but I distinctly remember sometime the late 1950's hearing about how 'cable television stations will not have commercials since the fee you pay for service takes care of all that ..." PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cell Phone Motorists Are Dangerous From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:34:38 GMT Actually, I think the point is moot now. From my own unscientific survey, I am the only person in the world driving without a cellphone stuck to my head. It has been years since I have seen anyone on my daily commute along I-95 in South Florida who wasn't on a cellphone (maybe the non-cell users all have that heavy window tinting or something :-). Oblivious behavior is not confined to drivers either. There is this one student waiting for a bus every day along the route from my house and not only is she always on a phone, but 90% of the time she has managed to wander out right into the middle of the road to stand and talk. I've been thinking of starting a comic book "Cellphone Girl" where the hero foils crime without realizing it by blundering into things while on her cellphone :-). -- >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Access of Calling Card Dial in Number From Prepaid Cellular Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:28:13 -0800 Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Marek Tomczyk wrote: > I like the offer of AT&T Wireless very much as it provides a long > validity of one year for balances starting at $100. That's news to me. I used to have AT&T Wireless Free2Go on my Alaska phone (now Dobson Cellular One). The expiration period was 45 days, although it would rollover if you recharge in time. AT&T Wireless was recently bought by Cingular, so this may have changed. In any case, Free2Go uses TDMA digital, which is on its way towards extinction. Most TDMA phones are also SOC locked, so you can't use them with another carrier. I suggest that you consider either a prepay GSM SIM card for your home country phone (assuming you have an unlocked tri-band or quad-band phone), or one of the CDMA prepaid services. Under CDMA prepay, Verizon's is on their network, the phones are unlocked, and can be used with monthly service. Virgin has ultra cheap prepay using Sprint's network (which almost certainly means that the phones are locked but there are ways of getting Sprint unlock codes). Another advantage of Verizon is that, overall, it probably has the best coverage in the continental US (48 states), especially if you pick a phone with analog capability. If you go to Alaska, you'll need a TDMA/analog phone, although GSM has finally appeared in Alaska. There is very little CDMA in Alaska. > So the idea is to use a calling card service for this matter. The AT&T > documents say that prepaid calling card service is not possible with > Free2Go. Besides this AT&T says in its terms that certain numbers can > be blocked if "abuse" to the network happens. Don't worry about it; your plan is fine. When you call one of the cheap international calling card companies, the cellular company still gets to charge you for the airtime, so they are happy. What they are concerned about are calls to numbers with delayed surcharges and fraud issues. Calls to the premium 900 area code, and to the local 976 premium exchange, are almost always blocked to cell phones. Most cell phones have international calls blocked unless you ask customer service to unblock it. Most people consider that to be a good thing, and also do that on their wired phones (although the default for wired phones is to allow international calls unless the customer asks for it to be disabled). However, "international calls" really means "calls outside of country code 1"; that is, the 011 North American international dialing prefix is disabled. That doesn't always help. Remember that country code 1 is quite a few countries. You get a message "urgent, please call me at (555) 555-5555" which looks like an ordinary US or Canada number, but is really an expensive pornography service in the Caribbean that charges $10/minute. The customer complains about the bill and refuses to pay. Usually, the phone company refunds the charge and takes the loss itself, but it then blocks future calls to that number. From the prepaid cell phone company's point of view, they are probably happy if you use a calling card for international calls, because then the problem (of how much to charge you for the international call) is some other company's problem. The cell phone company just charges you for the airtime, which they know how to do quite well. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:12:18 -0500 From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: VOIP Dave VanHorn wrote: > How do they handle 911 calls when the power is out? No. If your cable is up AND you have your modem and TA and phone on a UPS, then probably ok. Furthermore, the VoIP 911 is not the same as E911. Check with town and supplier. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Either they do not handle them at > all (the usual, default situation) or, if they planned ahead of > time for such contingencies they have a backup battery they use. > You can buy a backup battery (such as used for an orderly shut > down on computers) but use it to power the VOIP TA, the modem > and nothing else. Then the VOIP phone will continue to work. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:35:57 -0500 From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: VoicePoint - VoIP Lou Jahn wrote: > I am using VoicePoint and have several questions: > 1) How do I get my number listed within Verizon's Directory Assistance, > I think there was a prior post, but could not find it. Ask your provider: VoIP may not be under any obligation to "list" the number if it is a new one. > 2) Every once and awhile - the incoming voice discussions become > garbled -- or fade off (like early Cell phones) - anyone know why this > occurs? I have not noticed any thing around that might cause it. This is still in transition with some VoIP. For example, Call Vantage (ATT) says it is a problem when certain cell phones call their VoIP users because of compression algorithms! > 3) Recently (within the past 10 days) callers tell me that at times my > speech on my VoIP line sometime sounds as though I have been given a > shot of Novocain. Could this be a reverse version of item 2? > Also -- I have tried a second VoIP line to forward my Faxes, but it > does not work in a consistent fashion. People sending might get 2-3 of > a 5 page fax through and have to resubmit 2-3 times before I receive a > full 5 page Fax. So if there any tricks to make Fax operate "okay", > I'd love to hear them. Here too, you must talk with your specific VoIP provider. > Overall ... my judgment of VoicePoint is it has promise, but still > needs loads of improvement before any LEC selling true landline > service needs to worry if buyers need an equal level of quality. The > best part is their clever extra features where I can control them via > Internet and also getting email notice on calls and > Voicemail. However, if I call into voicemail for messages, it does not > let me know when the message arrived. > If it matters my ISP is Comcast using a Toshiba cable modem and > Syslink Router/Hub. If I had to grade the service, I guess it would be > a C+. > Lou Jahn > Info Partners Corp. > [TELCOM Digest Editor's Note: The answer to your first question > (regards listing in Directory Assistance) is you speak to *your > carrier*, they are the ones who handle it. They are the 'agents' > (both for placement and monthly collection of fees) with the > national DA database which Verizon and the others use. 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: 620-402-0134 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 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 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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 #608 ******************************