From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 5 02:20:05 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i257K5l25928; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:20:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:20:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403050720.i257K5l25928@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 #105 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:20:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 105 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Phone Cos. to Counterattack Cable TV (Tony P.) Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers (Sammy@nospam.biz) Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers (Laura Halliday) Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax (John Levine) Re: Wireless and Internet Phones not Yet Reliable For 911 (Griswold Jr.) Re: (Claims to Be) Cellular-Phone Dealer in Nigeria (Steven J Sobol) Re: Verizon Wireless/Verizon Airfone Offer 10 Cents/Minute (Novosielski) Re: Unauthorized Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill (Donaldson) Re: More Re: the GTE Side of Verizon (Linc Madison) 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: Tony P. Subject: Re: Phone Cos. to Counterattack Cable TV Organization: ATCC Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:11:10 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor Noted in response to sjsobol@JustThe.net: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, Steve, the more I read about > SBC, the happier I am I got rid of them for good in my house. They > seem to be less and less interested in providing good phone service > and much more into becoming a media conglomerate these days. I got a > piece of mail from them yesterday. Another one of their 'please, > please come back to us' mailings, with all the usual cut rate deals > they are offering for one year, only $25 dollars for this and only > three cents per minute on that, free installation, a fifty dollar gift > card, and how they have finally begun to take notice now that in their > own words, sixty thousand Kansas residents have jumped ship on them > and gone elsewhere. Trouble is, I just can't trust them. They seem to > lie so much. I'm quite happy with Prairie Stream, thanks. PAT] That sounds almost like what Cox is doing here in Rhode Island. You see - I ditched them a couple months ago because of their predatory pricing model. Went DSL and Sat and spend less per month. In any case -- while I had Cox Digital cable you never saw a sat ad, only ads for Cox services. I know why -- they were putting their own ads over the sat ads. Nice huh? Now they're even blasting their ads on the local channels offering half off for the first 3 to 6 months, etc. And I'm seeing sat dishes popping up everywhere. It's a beautiful thing to see Cox running scared. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I just now realized I misquoted the letter from Southwestern Bell. They did NOT say 'sixty thousand Kansas residents had jumped ship on them. They said about sixty thousand *former* customers (who had left earlier) had decided to return. I am sure there were many others who have not returned, so the total number of ship jumpers would be how many ever jumped less the sixty thousand who had come back. That's Kansas alone. I think that Prairie Stream/Terraword got most of those. That's great! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific Numbers Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:57:21 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications The only way you can solve that problem is to pay for call rejection service for those three folks. Then, they can set the list (usually a maximum of 10 numbers) to reject calls from your number. Withheld at Users Request wrote: > [PAT - In the interest of privacy, please delete my .sig and email > address from this post. Thanks.] > I'm looking for a way to block outgoing calls to three specific phone > numbers. The problem is a relative with Alzheimer's who repeatedly > calls a couple of neighbors (dozens of times a day), to the point that > they're threatening to call the police. I'd like to be able to simply > disallow calls to those numbers. > Obviously we don't want to interfere with her ability to call 911, or > call friends or family members. We really only need to shut down > these three specific phone numbers. And yes, we're also taking steps > to get her to stop trying to call these people in the first place. > I'm pretty sure telco can block _incoming_ calls _from_ a certain > number, and this might be an option -- I could offer to pay for this > service on the neighbors' lines. But I'd rather handle it on the > originating end if possible. I plan to call telco tomorrow and see if > they offer an outbound-blocking feature. > Barring that, is there a piece of hardware that can do this? I didn't > see anything on sandman.com. Mike's got some restrictors but they look > to be too general for what I want to do; I want to allow everything > EXCEPT three specific phone numbers. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think Mike has 'toll restrictor' > devices which are programmable. Ask him for specific details. If they > are programmable -- to a deep enough level -- at least seven or eight > digits -- you can accomplish this. If they can restrict all the way, > then you have it made. If they can only restrict any six digits, then > percievably you could catch those three numbers but *maybe* a 'good' > number she calls might get caught as well. Also, consider a mechanical > dialer to set next to the phone with eight or ten or twelve or more > numbers (NOT the ones she is offending) then go inside the phone and > disconnect the touch tones, so she has to use the dialer device to > make all her calls. I do not think telco will disallow specific local > numbers. You can reach Mike's office on 630-980-7710. I'd suggest yo > ask Mike in confidence for details. Ask him how to program the toll > restrictors to do what you need to have done. PAT] ------------------------------ From: marsgal42@hotmail.com (Laura Halliday) Subject: Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers Date: 4 Mar 2004 13:40:28 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Speaking of the old Nevada Bell, did > you ever see their telephone book? One book *only* for the entire > state... I was recently in Costa Rica on vacation, and the entire country is one phone book. Two volumes: residential white pages in one volume, business white pages and yellow pages in the other, published by Verizon. The phone numbers are 7 digits, with no area codes. You just dial the number, with no indication of local or long distance. The white pages are divided up by province, from Alajuela to San Jose. Like much of Latin America the Costa Ricans don't use house numbers, so the addresses in the phone book tended to be cryptic. The hotel I stayed at in San Jose gave its full street address (250m west of the Escazu Country Club, old highway to Santa Ana, San Rafael de Escazu) only in the yellow pages. In B.C. we used Zenith numbers, by the way. Yes, BCTel was owned by GTE ... Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..." ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 2004 23:05:29 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Vonage with Modem and Fax Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I'm talking about running a regular modem, such as a Zoom, USR, etc, > over a Vonage phoneline. I'm assuming if a standard telephone works > over the Vonage lines then a standard analog modem would as well, Forget it. > They say Fax machines will work, but Faxes are generally 9600 bps. > I need 28,800 bps for a good PPP connection. I find that faxes usually work, but their compression scheme is written with faxes in mind. If you need 28K dialup, you need a real phone. I like my Vonage phone just fine, but I wouldn't want it as the only phone in the house because it doesn't work when the power fails, and its 911 service is inferior to that on a real phone. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried this experiment as I promised I would do in the last issue. When I tried plugging a fax machine directly into the Vonage adapter, it worked fine. When I plugged in one of the (computer) modems directly to the Vonage adapter, it worked mostly okay at 300-1200 baud, or even 9600 baud. But it just would not do any better. So my suggestion would be to put Vonage on for your main line and also keep one telco line as an overflow for the Vonage and for your incoming dialup sessions. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <73115.1041@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Wireless and Internet Phones not Yet Reliable For 911 Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:03:51 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Sammy@nospam.biz wrote: > In the case of wireless service, if the user has half a brain they > should understand that 911 is a crap shoot when away from home. If > they have a fully functioning brain they should realize that all local > and county police have a 10-digit number that will go to emergency > dispatch 24 hours a day. Most of the time such numbers are listed. > If they aren't they can be found easily by calling the cop's listed > business number and asking. It's not just 911 wireless that is a crap shoot. The shall be nameless metroplex (>500K population) I live in has a 911 center that appears to be run as a patronage make work, social services department for the local government. Articles regularly appear in the local paper about callers being hung up on and insufficient staffing. Considering that more than enough funds should be available from the 911 phone tax to support such a center, one doesn't have to wonder very hard about what is going on. A few years back, the police dispatch office was moving from one location to another. The new office was served by a different CO and thus the very easy to remember direct line to the dispatchers who knew how to handle a call was going to change. The city tried to make the argument that since the public should be using 911, dropping the old direct line number wasn't a problem. They received so much flack from the public that they ordered remote call forwarding for the old number. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: (Claims to Be) Cellular-Phone Dealer in Nigeria Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:46:30 -0600 Joseph wrote: > [Lots of trash deleted] > First of all how much faith can someone have for an ALL CAPS post. > Second of all this is *obviously* a scam. > Common knowledge says don't do business with Nigeria, Indonesia or > Romania when dealing with mobile phones. The old addage of if it > looks too good to be true it probably is. Um, I'd like to clarify my post: I agree with this. I receive offers to buy bulk cellphones/PINs/etc from the USA, and I suspect that at least some of THEM are legitimate. Not the ones from Nigeria. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless and Verizon Airfone Offer 10 Cents-a-Minute Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 03:30:24 GMT Here's another opportunity to get ripped off by believing what the news release says. And yes, if one were inclined to be suspicious, one might conclude that the language is intentionally misleading. A quick reading (come to think of it, even a CAREFUL reading) of this news release makes it seem as though VZW customers who want the $.10/min rate must subscribe to the $10/month service, while customers who want the $.69/min rate (with no other charges) need do nothing. THIS IS NOT THE CASE! You need to "sign up" for EITHER the subscription or the non-subscription feature. If you do nothing and place a call from an AirFone handset, you'll be charged the normal ~$4/min rate. What Verizon could have stated clearly, but chose not to, but which I've managed to drag out of the customer service drones is the following: The plan has two rate levels: 10 cents per AirFone minute with a $10 monthly fee (frequent user) 69 cents per AirFone minute with no monthly fee (occasional user) To sign up for EITHER plan, you dial *611 from your VZW handset, which MUST be TXT-message compatible. Once you get a human, you tell them you want to sign up for the "AirFone for Verizon Wireless Customers" feature. If you want the $.69/min plan, you tell them you want the "Flat Rate-No Monthly Charge" option. Yes, that's a misleading name too, because it's not "Flat Rate" it's $.69/min. Just make sure you're not signing up for the $10/month plan by mistake. You should expect them to be completely unfamiliar with this feature and to have to go looking up memos or consulting with their supervisor, but they will eventually figure it out. Once they punch the proper code to add the feature to your account (it's available on all Verizon rate plans except pre-paid) you should, within seconds, receive a TXT-message to your handset containing your password (actually a four-digit PIN number). SAVE THIS NUMBER. This is the number you will need to enter on the AirFone seatback handset to avoid the ~$4/min charges, and to start forwarding your mobile number to your seatback while in flight. The forwarding lasts until you cancel it, or it times out (based on the length of the flight), or until you power on your wireless handset, whichever occurs first. This PIN will undoubtedly be different from any other PIN you have, such as voice mail or web access, and IT CANNOT BE CHANGED. Better write that puppy down and keep it in a safe place, especially if you're on the "infrequent flier" plan. AirFone minutes used will show up on your VZW bill as "roaming" minutes. =Gary Monty Solomon wrote: > In-Flight Calls And Discounted JetConnect Services > 'Excuse me, I believe the call on the seatback phone is for you.' > Airfone(R) Service for Verizon Wireless Plan Lets Customers Make and > Receive In-Flight Calls and Charge Them to Their Verizon Wireless > Bills > BEDMINSTER, N.J., March 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon Wireless, the > nation's largest wireless service provider and operator of the most > reliable wireless network, today announced it is teaming up with > Verizon Airfone to offer discounted in-flight calls for Verizon > Wireless customers. Beginning today, Verizon Wireless frequent flyers > can stay connected while in flight for just 10 cents-a-minute when > they sign up for the new Airfone Service for Verizon Wireless $10 > monthly subscription plan. > Verizon Wireless customers who want to make and receive calls while in > flight need only register as a user on a Verizon Airfone handset to > make and receive calls for 10 cents-a-minute with a monthly > subscription or 69 cents-a- minute with no subscription. Callers > dialing the customer's Verizon Wireless phone number will reach them > on board any of the more than 2,000 planes served by Verizon Airfone > nationwide. Charges will be billed directly to the customer's Verizon > Wireless bill. > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40725518 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So whatever happened to all the dire warnings about using your cell phone when in flight? PAT] ------------------------------ From: tryitoz@hotmail.com (Joe Donaldson) Subject: Re: Unauthorized Bogus Phone Charges Appearing on Local Phone Bill? Date: 4 Mar 2004 19:57:36 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Yes she now has blocked International calls with her local provider and is using a long distance provider via an 800 number for international calls. Thanks, Joe Steven J Sobol wrote in message news:: > Joseph wrote: >> This has been in the news of late and here's something I found when >> referencing google: > Why doesn't she just block direct-dialed international calls and use a > service that offers cheap international calling where you must use an > 800 number and a PIN? > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /sjsobol@JustThe.net > PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED ------------------------------ Subject: Re: More Re: the GTE Side of Verizon Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:17:05 -0800 From: Linc Madison Reply-To: lincmad@suespammers.org Organization: California resident; nospam; no unsolicited e-mail allowed In article , John David Galt wrote: > Sammy@nospam.biz wrote: >> I think the Palms, Springs, California area was still a GTE LATA >> within a LATA when Verizon gobbled it all up. > The Palm Springs area (an old GTE area that extends north and east to > cover Morongo Valley, Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and 29 Palms) is a > separate LATA (number 973, according to NANPA) and has been that way > ever since LATAs have existed. It annoys me that phone books > published by SBC and SureWest give the false impression that it is > part of the Los Angeles LATA. The San Francisco area SBC directories show the Palm Springs area as a large black blob in the Los Angeles LATA, with a notation "Palm Springs Area -- Other Company." However, they incorrectly state that California has 10 LATAs. In fact, there are 11, not counting minor "border incursions" with neighboring states. Our LATA maps, even in directories that include the affected area, also make the incorrect claim that the San Francisco LATA includes all of area codes 408, 415, 510, 650, 707, and 925, plus the northern portion of 831. In fact, there is one small part of 707 that is in the Sacramento LATA. It has always been in the Sacramento LATA, although it has only much more recently become area code 707. The town of Dixon, along I-80 in Solano County, switched from 916 to 707 instead of 916 to 530, since the rest of Solano County was already 707. However, the LATA boundary was not changed. The rest of the area code information in this year's directory (Nov 2003 San Francisco) is also of embarrassingly poor quality. The maps look like they were faxed to the printer, and the text listings were obviously printed on a computer that didn't have the correct fonts. Still, it doesn't quite compare to last year's directory, on whose cover SBC actually misspelled one of the cities in the directory area! It says "San Francisco Including Brisbane, Colma, and Daily City." Umm, folks, that's DALY City, not DAILY City. They did at least get that one fixed this year. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org * primary e-mail: Telecom at LincMad dot com All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c) This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3). DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned. ------------------------------ 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 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 #105 ******************************