For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal
or  
TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Aug 2005 23:42:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 349 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Info Appliance Offers Nice Touches, but It's Costly (Monty Solomon) Comparison Shopping (Monty Solomon) Apple to Add Trusted Computing to the New Kernel? (Monty Solomon) BellSouth Rolls Out Wireless Broadband Service (USTelecom dailyLead) Personal Opinion Telegram and Mailgram - Discontinuance? (Lisa Hancock) Re: Unauthorized Remote Access to Answering Machine (Lisa Hancock) Re: Cincinnati Bell Sets 'New Rules' in Wireless Plan (Steve Sobol) Re: Cell Phone For VOIP - Home Device Imitates Provider Signal (Tim) Re: itunes is a RIPOFF (AES) Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator? (Lisa Hancock) Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator? (John McHarry) Re: Use of a Mysterious Cookie Irks Some Internet Users (David Quinton) Re: Use of a Mysterious Cookie Irks Some Internet Users (rsvlsys.com) Re: AT&T Customers Being Taken Over By AllTel (Ryan) Re: Credit Reports, was Re: AT&T Customers Taken Over By Alltel (Cryder) Re: Nextel False Advertising (Danny Burstein) Re: Nextel False Advertising (Ron Chapman) Re: Nextel False Advertising (Steve Sobol) Re: Nextel False Advertising (NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info) Re: Nextel False Advertising (Lee Sweet) Re: Nextel False Advertising (Joseph) Re: Last Laugh! Spammer, age 35, Meets "Moscow Rules" (Tony P.) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:10:56 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Info Appliance Offers Nice Touches, but It's Costly By WALTER S. MOSSBERG For years, there have been sporadic efforts to create a digital device that would be simpler and more reliable than a personal computer, yet large enough and capable enough to carry out the most common tasks PCs perform. The movement for such "information appliances," which I supported, was especially strong in the early and mid-1990s, when computers running Microsoft Windows were far more complicated and crash-prone than they are today. Several companies tried to build desktop and laptop-computer-size information appliances, but none of the designs captivated the public, and they cost almost as much as a cheap PC. The movement lost steam by 2001, when both Microsoft and Apple Computer were producing better-designed, more stable PC operating systems. Information appliances actually did arrive, but in a different guise -- the smart cellphone and the advanced personal digital assistant, or PDA. These hand-held devices are gradually accumulating the hardware power and software selection needed to do most core PC tasks, like Web surfing, email and even document creation. Now, however, a small Massachusetts startup company is making another go at the full-size information appliance. The company, Pepper Computer, is launching a slick-looking tablet device called the Pepper Pad, which it hopes will attract PC users and nonusers alike as a simple, convenient tool for using the Internet, playing digital media, keeping a journal and more. The idea is to offer something as convenient and simple as a Web-connected PDA without the complexity and security problems of a PC. The rugged device even has a tiny, built-in keyboard that can be used for thumb typing. It also comes with desktop software that lets users wirelessly synchronize the Pepper Pad's contents with a Windows PC (Mac compatibility is in the works). In my tests of the Pepper Pad over the past few days, I found it mostly did what was promised, but it isn't quite as easy and intuitive to use as its makers claim. Many of its built-in programs offer limited functionality and seem rough around the edges. And, at $799, it costs more than some laptops and much more than a basic desktop PC. http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20050721.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:13:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Comparison Shopping By WALTER S. MOSSBERG While the online shopping business continues to attract new customers, few shoppers are about to completely forgo trips to the mall anytime soon. But shopping online has one advantage that physical shopping has lacked: With a few keystrokes, prices on one retail Web site can be compared with the sale prices on another. When you shop at bricks-and-mortar stores, you have to manually compare prices in ads, or rely on tips from friends about good deals. But the Net's comparison shopping power now is being extended to the physical world as well. This week, my assistant Katie Boehret and I tested two Web sites that enable consumers to search for items that are on sale in physical stores, making it much easier for price-driven shoppers to find the best deals. The sites that we tested, Cairo.com and ShopLocal.com, helped us find plenty of things on sale at our neighborhood stores, without so much as leafing through a Sunday circular. http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20050727.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:42:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Apple to Add Trusted Computing to the New Kernel? Cory Doctorow People working with early versions of the forthcoming Intel-based MacOS X operating system have discovered that Apple's new kernel makes use of Intel's Trusted Computing hardware. If this "feature" appears in a commercial, shipping version of Apple's OS, they'll lose me as a customer -- I've used Apple computers since 1979 and have a Mac tattooed on my right bicep, but this is a deal-breaker. http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/31/apple_to_add_trusted.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:18:00 EDT From: USTelecom dailyLead <ustelecom@dailylead.com> Subject: BellSouth Rolls Out Wireless Broadband Service USTelecom dailyLead August 1, 2005 http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=23490&l=2017006 TODAY'S HEADLINES NEWS OF THE DAY * BellSouth rolls out wireless broadband service BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH * Nokia taps insider to succeed Ollila * Report: Telecom companies use wireless stores to sell fixed-line services * Study: PC emerges as top digital hub * Cingular sells stake in India's Idea Cellular USTELECOM SPOTLIGHT * USTelecom's McCormick Stands Up for Industry on CBS News HOT TOPICS * Motorola shows off the "Q" * Ten technologies every CEO should know about * Telecom act update proposed * Rural telco raises $203M in IPO * Cisco makes home-networking play EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES * Telework gains favor in some high-tech companies * Web-based programming content catching on * Uploading over broadband is too slow, some say REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE * Senator takes aim at file-sharing companies Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others. http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=23490&l=2017006 Legal and Privacy information at http://www.dailylead.com/about/privacy_legal.jsp SmartBrief, Inc. 1100 H ST NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Subject: Personal Opinion Telegram and Mailgram - Discontinuance? Date: 1 Aug 2005 10:51:02 -0700 Back in the 1960s and 1970s Western Union offered a discount telegram service called the Personal Opinion Telegram. They simply used teleprinters located in every state capitol and in Washington. I recall using the service on occassion. See: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/22-3/p120.htm This service seemed to last fairly long, even after conventional telegrams fell out of favor. Would anyone know when it was officially discontinued? Western Union with the US Post Office also offered a popular and profitable service known as Mailgram. WU would send your message to a teleprinter in a post office where it would be delivered in the next mail. This was a prompt and cost-effective way to communicate important information. Industries used it extensively to officially notify laid-off workers to return to work. While Mailgram didn't offer proof of delivery, it did offer proof of sending which is important*. I remember when Compuserve opened up it offered the option to send a Mailgram and some businesses had a terminal on site to send Mailgrams. Would anyone know when it was officially discontinued? *The US post office will give you an official receipt "Certificate of Mailing" as proof of mailing (but NOT proof of delivery) for a nominal fee. It is cheaper than Certified Mail and in some cases adequate as proof of response. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In this final paragraph, what Lisa is referring to is often times known as 'poor man's certified mail'. It is the theory -- usually correct -- that if you mail something and do not get it back undelivered, it i presumed to have 'stuck' at its destination. We are assuming now that the post office is doing its job also ... big assumption maybe. Ask at the post office for a 'certificate of mailing sticker' when you want to use it. You _must_ present the item to be mailed to the clerk at the counter; _do not_ just drop it in a slot or whatever. You have to _hand_ the letter to them; they will then stamp their cancellation indicia on the envelope and take it from you. You get half of the 'certificate' (which is glued on the face of the mailing piece) also with indicia supplied by them. That is your 'proof of mailing'. "I mailed you the letter, it stuck (that is, I did not get it back undeliverable) so therefore you must have gotten it." The recipient does _not_ sign for it; it is just dumped in their mailbox like everything else that day. It is called 'poor mans certified' since it serves about the same purpose (except for the recieving signature) and it costs considerably less. A certified outgoing letter (which you also have to hand over to an employee at the counter) costs a few dollars; proof of mailing on the other hand costs a few cents more than regular mail. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Subject: Re: Unauthorized Remote Access to Answering Machine Date: 1 Aug 2005 11:47:14 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Choreboy: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It could be a spy machine, but I think > it more likely that you/relatives are being terrorized by an incorrectly > programmed fax machine ... Just like voice calls, fax users may enter/dial the wrong number. The problem is compounded by the fact that many fax machines store the document and retry if the call doesn't go through. That could be in a few minutes or the next day. It drives people crazy. I once got such calls. I was able to hook up my computer and set it to fax so I could receive the fax and I did. It was a normal business communication and the sender transposed two digits, enterting my number by mistake. I telephoned the sender and explained what happened. > ... Like complaints made to the Illinois Commerce > Commission where the complaint is raised and the prissy old lady > secretary at the Commission makes a _single_ phone call of inquiry, > then folds her hands and announces self-righteously "I have called the > company and they _assure_ me it will be corrected" ... I know people bothered by such calls at home and complained to the phone company. Normally the problem ended at that point with no more effort by the customer. I think today they have some good trace tools and don't fool around with errant fax callers. > ... Telco explained to FNB > (I assume with a straight face) what had happened. I do not know if > telco eventually wrote it off (as they used to do _everything_ that > a customer would not pay for) or not. Some years ago, due to a CO wiring error, my toll calls were charged to some business. The business complained and the phoneco would NOT write off the calls. After the business made a big enough stink, the phoneco traced down the problem and transferred the charges to me. (The orig rep said since it was their error I could pay for it over a few months, but then a subsequent rep demanded payment in full immediately). > I wonder if the people using the hotel public fax machine wherever in > your account also blamed the added charges on their bill on a screw > up by the hotel switchboard. Probably. I've noticed that many people don't check their bills the way people once did. I don't know if it's laziness, stupidity, over complexity, but auditors go nuts finding obivous overcharges left uncorrected by staff. Years ago if people had a strange 5c call on their phone bill they'll call the phone company and raise heck. Nowadays many people don't bother. For myself, the damn phone bill is so big and complex it's hard to interpret -- and that's with national unlimited! Even if I do find a 25c error, I'm not going to bother to waste my time to call and complain. (When I got a $25.00 charge for a calling card I most certainly did complain.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Several years ago I was living in a residential apartment building with a tenant switchboard. I preferred to have a personal 'direct line' which was okayed by the management. Trouble is, it was never billed to me' not for about a year anyway. Since Chicago had 'unlimited call pack' in those days, there was never any reason for any charges to go through the accounting department on it. Then one day, a long distance charge _did_ get billed to the line; it 'fell out' into suspense when telco accounting was unable to find a 'home' for it. Telco person working the suspense ledger tried the technique of actually calling the number, hearing it ring, therefore it was a working number. Telco person then calls outside plant and asks them "why didn't you give accounting _our_ copy of this new order?" No good answer to that; they had to reconstruct the paperwork for the accounting people. When my bill finally arrived it was backdated to _one year_ plus the usual 'month in advance'. I complained, and the service rep apologized and said she would give me time to pay it off. I naturally suggested why don't you write it off and let me start from fresh. But I could hear service rep snickering as she said, "Yes, it was our fault taking so long, but Mr. Townson, you _knew_ what was happening with it, didn't you? I'll give you three or four months to pay a little each month; I will not write it off, but a few reps in this office would place you with an agency right now and not give you any time!" PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> Subject: Re: Cincinnati Bell Sets 'New Rules' in Wireless Plan Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:54:39 -0700 Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com James Pilcher wrote: > By James Pilcher, Enquirer staff writer > New Plan: > Cincinnati Bell will unveil Monday a new calling plan, allowing > unlimited calls to and from any Bell wireless or land-line number > within the local calling area. Companies like Cricket and MetroPCS are already doing this. Northcoast PCS does it upstate, in Columbus and Cleveland (I used to be a customer of theirs), and a former boss of mine in Cleveland is presumably still on the Alltel $69.99 plan that allows unlimited local calling. (Alltel offers similar plans in other markets, too.) CintiBell's a little late ... Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307 ------------------------------ From: Tim@Backhome.org Subject: Re: Cell Phone For VOIP - Home Device Imitates Provider Signal Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 05:27:36 -0700 Organization: Cox Communications I've used a cordless phone with my Vonage service for three years now. Why reinvent the wheel? jhedfors wrote: > I wonder if such a device is feasible? > Could there be a device that gives give off a home network signal that > your cell phone can connect to as it does your service provider? You > could then user your cell handset for VOIP calls when near such a > device. > There is talk of special wi-fi enabled phones doing this, but this > could be used with any phone, and could possibly be wi-fi enabled as > well. > Any thoughts? > J ------------------------------ From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> Subject: Re: itunes is a RIPOFF Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:17:30 -0700 Organization: Stanford University Posters on the first three of various newsgroups, in a to date very lengthy thread, have posted: >> I stand behind it! My decision to dump TV was a good one and I'm >> definitely happy with it. > They called the area in which Leipzig or Dresden sits (I can't > remember which city) the valley of the dumb during the time of the > DDR, as the West German TV was not available to them because of the > geography. > So if you wish to separate yourself from the world in this way, go ahead. > You will regret it one day, I assure you. I just got in on the tail end of this thread, but I wonder if something I heard (or think I recall hearing) on NPR the other day is (a) true?, and (b) relevant -- viz. Professional TV producers and other network personnel commonly speak of "content" and "fill" in their TV programming. To them, "content" refers (really!) to the **advertising** part of their programming. And "fill" refers to all the rest of stuff (aka junk) that they have to (reluctantly) intersperse between the advertising, to get people to watch the (much more important) "content". Notes: 1) If this is not true, apologies. I'm pretty sure I heard it, but I was driving at the time and could have misheard it. 2 I've added comp.dcom.telecom to the reply list, not to drag that group into the rest of this otherwise not very great thread, but because there may be some professionals there who know if the above assertions are correct. 3) Even if it's not true, it's entirely believable (especially to anyone who's watched cable TV). 4) By this definition, certain TV channels -- e.g., the shopping and "infomercial" channels -- have managed to reach the happy situation of having 100% "content" and zero useless "fill". 5) If it's actually true, and it's NPR who let the secret out, you can fully understand why the Bush administration is all out to kill NPR. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Subject: Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator? Date: 31 Jul 2005 19:51:42 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Steven Lichter wrote: > As you said when TSPS systems came online things changed. I worked a > lot of the TSPS conversons, the directors had to be modified and > tested then we had to move 800 and payphone detection systems and > convert them for TSPS. As the changes were made fewer and fewer > offices Toll offices and a few remotes. ... I > remember some of the operators coing into the CO to see what we were > doing, they were either very young kids or older woman who had been > operators for years, they were transfere to other offices and jobs, it > was really said. Both veteran operators and Brooks' "Telephone" said TSP/TSPS wasn't as satisfying as cord switchboards. TSP did all the interesting stuff automatically. From the company's and customer's viewpoint, it was much more efficient. Occassionally, they still had to 'build up' a call by relay the old fashioned way. One time I had trouble placing a call and the operator did that for me, it was interesting to listen. I wonder if they can (or would) do that today. For some reason, my home exch was served by two types of operators. If we just dialed zero, we got a older toll & assist cord board in one location. But if we dialed 0+ or 1+ from a payphone, we went to a TSP office in a different location. That TSP did not handle plain 0 calls for some reason even though it was part of the design. (One other quirk we had: local Info was 411, long distance was 1+ac+555-1212. But distant Info within the area code (short range toll calls) was explicitly stated to go through 0. Then they went to 555-1212 for local Info (to discourage use). Now we're back to 411 for everything. I don't know when they hit you with a charge.) > The same came as we converted our offices to EAX. The good old days. What's "EAX"? > (c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Traditional Bell had a habit of always using an 'X' to mean 'e(X)change', as in PBX (P)rivate (B)ranch e(X)change, FX as in (F)oreign E(X)change, and PAX as (P)rivate (A)utomatic e(X)change. An exception was FAX as in (FACS)imile Service. But you asked about EAX which was (E)lectronic (A)utomatic e(X)change, or another name for an electronic and automated switchboard. Of course there is also CENTREX or a (C)entral Office e(X)change. The only difference between a PBX and a PAX is the former involved an operator at a manual cordboard in a company and the latter was the same thing but an 'automated switchboard'. I am not well-versed enough to tell you what small distinction there was between EAX, PAX and PBX but I guess there was something. After all, Bell was always right about everything, weren't they? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator? Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:29:54 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net I met the chief operator at the Pentagon, Miss Bailey. She was one of the original tenants at the Pentagon, and worked there until her death in 2001. When I knew her, around 1990, she was a beloved character who traveled the halls in a golf cart that was given to her as a perk. Her cart was an exception to the rule prohibiting motorized vehicles in certain hallways, and the story is that more than one new guard got dressed down for accosting her. She was also an avid golfer, and was actually given two, but the other was for golfing. She knew every secretary of defense, having started before the office was created. http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/standard/6_04/local_news/5162-1.html ------------------------------ From: David Quinton <usenet_2005D_email@REMOVETHISBITbizorg.co.uk> Subject: Re: Use of a Mysterious Cookie Irks Some Internet Users Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:02:50 +0100 On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 11:03:11 -0400, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote: > A fair amount of Web know-how was required for users to discover > that Omniture owned the 2o7.net Web address. Domain Name: 2O7.NET Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com Name Server: NS1.OMNITURE.COM Name Server: NS2.OMNITURE.COM Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK Updated Date: 23-jun-2005 Creation Date: 29-sep-2000 Expiration Date: 29-sep-2010 Wow. I have a "fair amount of of web know-how" ... Locate your Mobile phone: <http://www.bizorg.co.uk/news.html> Great gifts: <http://www.ThisBritain.com/ASOS_popup.html> ------------------------------ From: news.rsvl.unisys.com <kenneth.wheatley@gb.unisys.com> Subject: Re: Use of a Mysterious Cookie Irks Some Internet Users Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:39:18 +0100 Organization: Unisys - Roseville, MN Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote in message news:telecom24.347.8@telecom-digest.org: > By DAVID KESMODEL THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE > Earlier this summer, Uno Bloom, a songwriter in Brentwood, Tenn., > noticed that his home computer appeared to be slowing down. He > searched the files on his hard drive in an effort to uncover clutter, > and found dozens of Internet cookies labeled "2o7.net." Maybe I'm being dim, but I don't see how cookies will make a system slow down appreciably. ------------------------------ From: Ryan <welziak@snet.net> Subject: Re: AT&T Customers Being Taken Over By AllTel Date: 1 Aug 2005 11:32:03 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com It is true that AllTel bought a bunch of AT&T Wireless licences Cingular was forced to sell as part of the merger. There are customers here that are now AllTel, but the sad part is AllTel has no presense in our region at all so you have to wonder how they plan to service these accounts. No one here has ever heard of them prior to this. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Credit Reports, was Re: AT&T Customers Taken Over By Alltel Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:57:13 -0400 From: Charles Cryderman <Charles.Cryderman@globalcrossing.com> I wrote: > The law providing free credit reports of all credit reporting > companies has been on the books for many year. Then Steve Sobol asked if my commits were based on Federal Law. Yes Steve, it is my understanding that this is a Federal Law. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com> Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 02:12:15 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In <telecom24.348.12@telecom-digest.org> johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) writes: >> I believe the NYS Attorney General recently hauled them into court for >> false advertising. > If he did, he managed to do so without issuing a press release nor > without anyone in the media noticing, which is rather unlikely. Sigh. It was NYC's Department of Consumer Affairs, as posted here in this very BBS: Message is repeated here: From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:10:05 -0400 Subject: NYC's Consumer Affairs Suing Cellcos Re: False Adverts "New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) Acting Commissioner Jonathan Mintz today announced the agency has filed suit in New York Supreme Court against three major wireless companies for pitching cell phones and services in deceptive advertisements that misled consumers. DCA filed suit against Nextel Communications Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P., and T-Mobile ... _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I _knew_ I had read it somewhere on the net about Nextel getting sued; my own newsgroup would be a good place to go looking, I guess ... IMO, Nextel is not very forthright about the distinctions between 'regular' cell phone service and their own thing, nor about how the word 'nationwide' is to be interpreted. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:41:05 -0400 From: Ron Chapman <ronchapman@wideopenwest.com> Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising In article <telecom24.348.13@telecom-digest.org>, wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote: > In article <telecom24.347.18@telecom-digest.org>, PAT writes: >> (2)"Although we do serve a large portion of the public and are >> considered 'nationwide', we only serve mostly people centered near >> major interstate highways and in larger cities successfully" > Look closely at the advertising and you'll probably find that they do > say that. There's probably some fine print to the tune of "nationwide > coverage claims based on 89% of US population". That means that they > don't claim to serve the least-economical 11% of the country, as > determined by population, which is of course a huge land area. They > could exclude all of Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas and still meet > that claim. (In actuality, they probably do serve, KCK, Wichita, > Omaha, Lincoln, Sioux Falls, Fargo, and Bismarck -- just not the > hundreds of miles of small towns and farms in between.) > Their Web site is quite honest about this (much more so than most > carriers' coverage maps that I have seen): > <http://www.nextel.com/en/coverage/index.shtml> Take a look at TMobile's web site and their "Personal Coverage Check". It's FAR more detailed than what Nextel has; it amounts to a topographical map of signal quality. ------------------------------ From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:58:13 -0700 Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com Garrett Wollman wrote: > In article <telecom24.347.18@telecom-digest.org>, PAT writes: >> (2)"Although we do serve a large portion of the public and are >> considered 'nationwide', we only serve mostly people centered near >> major interstate highways and in larger cities successfully" > Look closely at the advertising and you'll probably find that they do > say that. There's probably some fine print to the tune of "nationwide > coverage claims based on 89% of US population". Sprint used to claim the "largest all-digital nationwide network covering 240 million people" (it became 280 million later) -- the number referred to the total population of the areas they served. A couple other carriers have made similar claims about their network. Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And now we see that NYC Comsumer Affairs has sued several of them for making claims like that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising Date: 31 Jul 2005 22:54:55 -0700 In my earlier mesage I made an oops; it should be NYC, see http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/html/pr_072105.html ------------------------------ From: Lee Sweet <lee@datatel.com> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:53:11 -0400 Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising In re Nextel coverage. We use it heavily for corporate use, but are thinking of switching to Verizon, since on weekends, coverage to where people are further out in the countryside (even here in the Washington, DC area) is marginal for Nextel. People carry their corporate cell phones, and it does get hard to contact them if they are out in the wilderness! But, for any location, see the coverage map for Nextel at their website. I put in the zip code that Pat has for his mailing address (perhaps not the right one?), and the Nextel site comes back with 'no Nextel service'. The *map* for Independence, Kansas, shows absolutely nothing around that area (Route 75, etc.). Here's the KS coverage map: http://www.nextel.com/cgi-bin/localMarketMap.cgi?market=mkt09 Independence, MO, is fine, but that area of KS has no (Nextel) coverage at all. To check an area for Nextel coverage: http://nextelonline.nextel.com/NASApp/onlinestore/en/Action/DefineRegi onAction Lee Sweet Datatel, Inc. Manager of Telephony Services and Information Security How higher education does business. Voice: 703-968-4661 Cell: 703-932-9425 Fax: 703-968-4625 lee@datatel.com www.datatel.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, Independence _Missouri_ is no where close to the same name in Kansas. The former is a Missouri suburb of Kansas City, Missouri, the place where we in the southeastern rural part of the state refer to as 'Cupcake Land'. The Mission Hills, Overland Park and other (ooh, ick!) Johnson County, Kansas suburbs of KCMO. Mission Hills/Overland Park is the home base of millionaires like the executives of Sprint and Boeing and other telcos. Mostly insane people, IMO. I get so sick and tired, when I tell people I live in Kansas they reply "oh, Kansas City". I have to say no, dammit, _Kansas_. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:08:45 -0700 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On 30 Jul 2005 22:22:28 -0000, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not a 'major crisis'; but rather, > just quite inconvenient when you are sold a device (commonly known as > a 'cell phone') with the assurance it will work 'anywhere', and you > have no particular reason to distrust the seller of same only to then > later find out the seller was full of hot air. Pat, I know you've been around long enough that for any claim on any product you have to have some history from others or history which you have discovered yourself. If you believed every claim that came down the pike you'd be buying into all the scams that spammers throw at you never mind all the 419 scams that are around. As in everything else don't believe everything you see in print, on TV or on the internet. Some people's "truth" is not necessarily *your* truth! Don't ASSume. We all know what that stands for! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If a cellular telephone company told > you 'we have no roaming charges' would you take that to mean (1) we > have arrangements with other carriers and do not charge you _extra money_ > for roaming, or would you take that statement to mean (2) we do not > have any roaming at all? Since in the past, the subject of excessive > charges for 'roaming' on another carrier's network has often times > been an issue (since resolved by many carriers with 'national' plans > such as the old AT&T), wouldn't you think that statement would be > interpreted as (1) above? PAT] Almost every carrier in their advertising will have disclaimers such as "not available everywhere" indicating that their service may not be suitable for use in all locations. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, please remember this was not my problem originally; just a problem left for me to clean up. My nephew Justin and his wife thought up Nextel as the way to go. No one has ever accused Justin of being an Einstein in disguise; frankly he is a couple of sacks short of a full load ... _they_ decided on Nextel as a good deal, not me. They never asked my opinion. It worked okay in Florida, the land of Jeb Bush and Orlando, and Walt Disney World; the where my sister died on the street due to cirrosis of the liver (drinking too much iced tea I guess); so why wouldn;t Nextel work here? After all, we have a 'major highway' going though town, Highway 75 otherwise known as Penn Street. All I know is Justin showed up here to be of help to Uncle Pat and was confronted by a frantic wife who could not understand why Nextel failed her. I gave him a prepaid phone from AT&T/Cingular Wireless and a Yahoo Messenger account to tide him over. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Spammer, age 35, Meets "Moscow Rules" Organization: ATCC Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:21:20 -0400 In article <telecom24.341.13@telecom-digest.org>, shlichter@diespammers.com says: > I guess someone finally took my signature seriously. > The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? > (c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co. I was at work when I saw the article on Slashdot. I told my coworkers that in my opinion the only good spammer was a dead spammer. They were aghast. But then, they've never had to maintain mail servers or spam filters so they don't know the hell involved. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, and they probably never had the 'pleasure' of maintaining a Usenet newsgroup either; a newsgroup which started over twenty years ago with a dozen or two concise, very precise messages each day, unlike today where I get the same dozen or so decent messages daily but _several hundred_ spam/scam things mixed in with it. Nah, they would not know anything about all that. I have sat people down here at the computer and actually let them _look_ at the stuff, rolling out everywhere. Any more, I have gotten very thick skin from it all, and am completely immune to the thousands of mortgage offers, notices from 'PayPal Security' about my accounts have to be reconstructed (at their website, of course), the endless news of penis enlargements and ways to sexually please women or other men. I refuse to be as gross and filthy as much of the porn spam which rolls in here daily; I have just grown calluses on my eyes and ears, etc; I just keep zapping it and moving along. What gets me, however, are these uppity Usenetters who somehow think we are still living in the 1960's when there was peace and goodwill toward everyone, and they are *so shocked* at the idea of just crashing and destroying the 'web sites' of those fools. So many of them refuse to accept reality: passive filtering is _not_ doing anything to maintain our net. Some of them with their filtering stuff are actually bigger abusers than the spammers they claim to dislike so much. As we come close to the hundred percent spam saturation point, they go right on bravely with their passive filtering, their white lists, their black lists, bigger and more powerful CPUs and all that nonsense. They claim if we challenge or autorespond we are just causing more email garbage, as if there could possibly be any more than there is already. Or if we challenge, then some prissy Usenetter might get offended that he has to open his filter to receive a message asking for a one word reply. Let someone find a reasonably effecient and effective (but admittedly imperfect) way to 'drill down' and locate an _actual offender_ and my oh my, don't they get pissed off royally, even threatening to cut us off who had the audacity to challenge instead of their beloved and useless filtering. He might sue us, don't you know! An innocent party might get trounced in the process, don't you know! And unspoken, yet a real concern, we might get our undewear in a knot, don't you know! They consider themselves the only real experts on how to deal with spam and that is by ignoring it and half-way filtering it. They are slowly becoming the minority on the net, thankfully, generally I think because so many users these days hold Vint Cerf and ICANN in such disdain. But right now they are quite vocal and will do anything to prevent the rest of us from escaping the hell hole as mail administrators and newsgroup moderators we are in. If they want to continue being sodomized, as seems to be the case, I have some old, defective condoms they can use for 'protection', just like their email filters, with leaks everywhere. (Hey, maybe a good idea for the spammers who tell me many times daily about how to make my 'bodily fluids' come out thicker and with more pressure, etc). I wish these so-called 'spam experts' would quit trying to save us from ourselves. 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) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308 and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest ************************************************************************* * 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 ! ************************ Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management (MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35 credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including data, video, and voice networks. The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning. Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at 405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at http://www.mstm.okstate.edu ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 V24 #349 ****************************** | |