From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 24 14:55:42 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i8OItgI19946; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:55:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:55:42 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200409241855.i8OItgI19946@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 #444 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:55:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 444 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Is DTV Reception Problem Solved? (Monty Solomon) DTV Interference Could Be Mitigated by Receivers (Monty Solomon) Global Positioning to Track Sex Offenders (Monty Solomon) Re: Global Positioning to Track Sex Offenders (Monty Solomon) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (Doug Faunt) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (Mark Atwood) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (Fred Atkinson) Re: BUSH Leaked Documents to CBS (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: BUSH Leaked Documents to CBS (Fred Atkinson) LNP, FCO, FX, RCF, RACF (Anthony Bellanga) Re: LNP For a Move (Tony P.) Re: LNP For a Move (Fred Goldstein) Need Advice Regarding Communications / Networking Problem (Jonathan) Rotary Phone Props in New TV Shows (Lisa Hancock) Re: FTC Do-Not-Call Registry; was Out of Area Calls (John Levine) Re: Out of Area Calls (Michael D. Sullivan) No Call Ref ID in SS7/C7; Why? (Ariel Burbaickij) 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: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:22:16 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Is DTV Reception Problem Solved? News: by Bob Kovacs Zenith's receiver draws kudos WASHINGTON The scramble to switch television broadcasting to digital sometimes overlooked what occurred at the final link in the over-the-air broadcast chain: the viewer. Although megabucks have been spent to upgrade stations and simultaneously transmit analog and digital signals, stable and reliable over-the-air DTV reception has been a crapshoot. However, the latest generation of DTV receiver technology from LG/Zenith seems to have solved the worst of the problems and is receiving praise from both broadcasters and other interested parties. Dubbed the "fifth-generation" receiver, the new technology has converted some early DTV skeptics into believers. http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/news/N_Zenith.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:36:31 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DTV Interference Could Be Mitigated by Receivers Digital TV: Charles W. Rhodes My previous column introduced readers to a new parameter, third-order intermodulation (IM3), which is the sideband splatter from a DTV transmitter into both adjacent channels. This splatter is limited by the DTV RF mask required of all DTV transmitters. What the RF mask filter cannot remove is the splatter close to the DTV signal channel. This splatter is what causes interference into adjacent channels, not poor selectivity of the victim receiver. The maximum IM3, radiated in each adjacent channel, is 44.5 dB below the power radiated in the DTV channel. I define this as the co-channel noise afflicting reception of an adjacent channel, calling it (I): I = U -46.5 dB. Did I just contradict myself? No. The maximum power radiated by a DTV transmitter is U -44.5 dB, but a DTV receiver tuned to either adjacent channel has some selectivity that discriminates against noise just inside the desired channel; hence, the bottom line is I = U -46.5 dB. I'll try to pick up a dB of interference rejection anywhere I can find it. Suppose the D/U ratio at your home is -30 dB. The co-channel noise due to IM3 radiated by one adjacent DTV channel transmitter is D -16.5 dB. This means that a 1.3 dB fade or a little echo will put your signal-to-noise + interference (S/N+I) at threshold, 15.2 dB. If two DTV adjacent-channel signals are at the same level, I = U -43.5 dB, so your S/(N+I) falls to 13.5 dB, and reception fails. Why? But that was just the first part of the story. Even at a moderate U signal level, there may be additional IM3 generated in your DTV tuner. The ATTC tests demonstrated this at a U level of -25 dBm. Receiver-generated IM3 adds directly to the IM3 that accompanies the adjacent-channel DTV signal into your tuner; receiver-generated IM3 attacks your desired signal, unattenuated. You might have had reliable reception until a DTV transmitter signed on at its maximum authorized power. Fortunately, if you put a 3 dB attenuator in the downlead right at the receiver, you will attenuate the receiver-generated IM3 by 9 dB! With only a 3 dB loss in desired signal power, that may take care of the problem. Suitable 75-ohm, 3 dB attenuators are readily available and inexpensive. That simple remedy may fix your reception problem, but what will happen when your viewers encounter such problems? Perhaps broadcasters should make a brochure available to help viewers with DTV reception problems. They might look to the NAB for such help. http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/digital_tv/f_DTV_interference.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:56:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Global Positioning to Track Sex Offenders By Elise Castelli, Globe Correspondent | September 21, 2004 Global positioning systems and electronic bracelets will be used to track more than 200 of the state's most serious sex offenders on probation or parole starting early next year, Governor Mitt Romney and state lawmakers announced yesterday. Under a $1 million pilot program Romney signed into law on Friday, the tracking system would alert probation officers when offenders violate conditions of their release by entering an ''exclusion zone," such as a school, a playground, or the home of a prior victim. Using cellular technology, the system records and sends a record of the exact date, time, and location of the violation via text message or e-mail to the officer handling the case. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/09/21/global_positioning_to_track_sex_offenders/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:59:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: Global Positioning to Track Sex Offenders Hosted by: Dick Gordon Show Originally Aired: 9/23/2004 CALL 1 800-423-TALK Following Sex Offenders Global positioning system technology was invented to pin point bomb targets. Now its increasingly part of the surveillance system for sex offenders. Forty states have programs that require convicted offenders to wear an ankle bracelet. If the parolee strays into a no-go zone like a playground or school -- police are supposed to swoop in and pick them up. Proponents agree these bracelets smack of big brother, but argue that because they prevent crime, they're a wise investment. Others say the GPS leash is a high tech hoax that does little to protect society, while unfairly targeting society's least popular offenders. Guests Justin Jones, Deputy of Director of Community Corrections in Oklahoma Barbara Fedders, Clinical Instructor at the Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard Law School Richard Nimer, Director of business development for Pro Tech Monitoring, the biggest company producing offender tracking technology in the U.S. http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2004/09/20040923_a_main.asp http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/connection/audio/2004/09/con_0923a.rm ------------------------------ From: Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains Date: 23 Sep 2004 20:26:34 -0400 Organization: at home, in Oakland, California jdj writes: > A BART cop ordered riders to turn off their FRS radios while in the > station and on trains to keep the trains from crashing. That's so much BS. Where and when did this happen? Go to a BART board meeting and ask the board to get an explanation. > Of course, the above is fallacious but it occurs to me that similar > threats could be made against anyone in possession of a radio while > boarding a plane. I carry many radio transmitters on commercial aircraft. I do make a point of making sure they can't be accidently, or easily, turned on. For HT's a bit of paper between the battery pack and radio proper works well. I do that to cell phones in my baggage, too. > Eight years ago I was not allowed to board with a general coverage > receiver because "it could make the plane crash". They let me keep my > Casio stereo radio and a scanner. > Has anyone faced a situation where security or police have threatened > people with radios? Some amusement parks have banned personal 2 way radios at times, since they say that gangs use them to avoid security. And they've have been banned at the Olympics in the US and in France, IIRC. > Are there any hams who have boarded planes with radios? > I wonder what makes them think that even an unpowered radio is such a > threat? Mostly ignorance and fear. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Security and police are often times > very heavy-handed, often times just to make up for their personal > feelings of inadequacy. Have you ever been told *as a passenger, not > the driver* in an automobile not to use your cellular phone because > it 'might distract the driver'? I can sort of see why they do not want > drivers to use cell phones in cars, but before they enforce that too > strongly, they should look at their own radio use in the car: driving > a hundred miles an hour chasing someone, while talking on the radio, > yet a citizen is not supposed to obey traffic rules and speed limits > and talk on a cell phone? PAT] There's some legitimacy to this. They've had some training on doing this, and tend to maintain the proper priority, which is drive first, then talk. Too many people using cell phones have reversed that priority, so even people who have their priorities straight are paying the price. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains From: Mark Atwood Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:08:31 GMT Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) writes: >> Are there any hams who have boarded planes with radios? > I've never had any problem boarding planes with my handheld amateur > radios. I've done it many times. I noticed in Alaska Air's safety brochure that, along with AM/FM radios and cellphones, they ban in inflight operation of GPS receivers. Does anyone have any idea why? It certainly doesnt radiate any more than a PDA or laptop does. Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure mra@pobox.com | you've done anything at all. http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:34:54 -0400 I have boarded planes with an amateur radio walkie-talkie. In fact, in 1991 I carried one with me all the way from Washington to Australia and back with no problem whatsoever. As long as you can power it up to prove it's a working radio (and presumably not some sort of dangerous item in disguise) when you get on, there's no problem. You're just not allowed to use it in the plane. In fact, I understand that using it in a *commercial* aircraft is strictly illegal (as are using cellphones in flight). I once tried to board with my mobile ham radio set in my carry on. Because it ran on twelve volts DC through a cigarette lighter plug (and not 110 volts AC), I couldn't power it up for them at the gate. To that end, they wouldn't let me past security. I had to get them to retrieve my checked bag and put it in there. No problem with carrying it in a checked bag. BWI was more liberal years ago. They would just X-ray it. They didn't require you to power it up. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the policy has changed in view of recent events. Ciau for now. Fred, WB4AEJ ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: BUSH Leaked Documents to CBS Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:48:40 GMT In article , yenc@sucks.com says... >> As CBS News faces one of the worst public embarrassments in its >> history, experts say that the damage to the network's news division >> could be significant -- and costly. > BUSH "leaked" the fake documents to Viacom/CBS because Bush has been > after them for a long time. Then he "leaked" that the documents were > fake, and now instead of the attention being on BUSH for lying about > serving in the military, the attention is on DAN RATHER. While it is entirely possible (and likely, in my mind) that Republican dirty tricks were involved in this caper, you seem to be quite certain. Do you have any sources, or are you expecting us to trust that you are right? Are you presenting opinion or fact? If the former, you might consider prefacing it by "In my opinion" or "It would appear" or the like. If fact, please provide some support. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: BUSH Leaked Documents to CBS Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:34:53 -0400 Do I detect a liberal here? Fred ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:57:50 -0600 From: Anthony Bellanga Subject: LNP, FCO, FX, RCF, RACF Reply-To: anthonybellanga@withheld on request PAT, to prevent $pam, please do NOT display my email address, neither in the "from" line, nor in the "reply to" line. Tony P wrote: >> I'll be moving from a true Providence rate center in Providence, >> to a Providence rate center in Cranston. (401-621 to 401-46x or >> 401-94x). >> Here is my question. Since they're both the same rate center could >> I request to keep my current numbers under LNP? >> It'd work the same as real LNP that being when someone dials a >> number it looks at a database to see what switch the call should >> be passed to. In essence it makes Foreign Exchange service a thing >> of the past but I'll be it's still tarrifed that way. John Levine replied: > You can ask, but I doubt that VZ would do it since I doubt that they > have any procedure to port a number to and from themselves. Not all incumbent local telcos will allow any porting of your number from one co switch to another when you physically between co switches within the same ratecenter. Even though this is "essentially" no different than porting your number from one service provier to another, since in most cases, you will be served from a different dialtone co switch. One reason is that the incumbent local telco might want to try to sell you expensive FCO service. Another reason is because the FCC/CRTC and possibly state reg doesn't REQUIRE them to -- all they are "required" to do at this point in time is to allow you to port your number to/from them and a CLEC. But some incumbent LECs (Sprint, United and Centel, for example) do allow porting your number between two different co switches of theirs in the same ratecenter if you physically move. Valerie in Florida also replied: > It can be done. BellSouth will do it, for businesses at least. I don't > know about Verizon. Good luck finding a service rep who will know what > you're talking about, and how to do it. > What you're actually talking about is Foreign Central Office, where > the original CO and the new CO are in the same rate center. In Foreign > Exchange, the new CO is in a different rate center. LNP does make FCO > obsolete, but not FX. FCO and FX are "essentially" the same service in a technological sense. However, in some states or telco service areas, they are tariffed differently. FX means you get full dialtone for outgoing (and incoming) calls from a co switch not your own "default" one, and also the co switch is a different ratecenter. Many businesses need this for appearing to have a "presence" in a distant city, and they need it for "local" calls in BOTH directions. RCF (Remote Call Forwarding) allows one to have a number assigned to them associated with a different city, but without having to have a physical presence in that different location -- not even a "closet" for a telepohne with *72 Call Forwarding turned on. The local telco in that distant city simply has your assigned number always set at the co for call forwarding turned on, to the different co switch and usually ratecenter. This is ONLY for incoming calls, not outbound calls to a different ratecenter. To include the second (outbound calls) you would need "real" FX. FCO and LNP are not really the same thing. With FCO, you get dialtone from a co switch different than the "default" one you "should" be getting dialtone from. Usually you would have a number with an NPA+ co code "traditionally" associated with the distant co switch you are getting dialtone from. You do NOT "port" that number to a "new" co switch, at least not for dialtone. You will still be "wired" to the incumbent local telco's neighborhood co switch BUILDING that you "should" be getting dialtone from, but only wired to that building and not into the switch itself. Instead you go out over a dedicated line or trunk to the co switch you would probably have moved away from for your dialtone. But the two co switches are supposed to be in the same ratecenter. LNP means you actually port your number to a different local telco or service provider AND/or different co switch, but within the same ratecenter. In the "long run", true implementation of LNP makes FCO "obsolete", but there may be instances where the customer might still want to get their dialtone from a co switch (of the incumbent local telco) that is DIFFERENT from their neighborhood co switch of that same (incumbent) lcoal telco. Some businesses might have ISDN arrangements which can't be modified by "porting" to a different co switch, and need to keep their current switch providing them without ANY interruption and/or modification. That (ISDN arrangements) could still be a reason for (usually a business) to get FCO in a physical move rather than LNP. Also, if Verizon refuses to allow you to port your number within the Providence RI ratecenter, between two different Verizon neighborhood co switches if you physically move, you might want to try porting your number before your move, over to a CLEC. They most likely have a single co switch serving the entire state, but with dedicated 401-NXX co codes per ratecenter they choose to provide tariffed service within. Thus after you have ported to the CLEC, you then make your physical move across town (within the ratecenter), but since they don't have to change your dialtone-providing switch (since the CLEC most likely has just that one co switch at least in the metro area), you would have no problems keeping your once-NETel number. Then after you have settled in, and if there are no "cancellation" penalties with the CLEC, port your same telephone number BACK to Verizon! And they would most probably would HAVE to honor the port this time, under federal guidelines! It's a "roundabout" way of doing it, but in the long run, it achieves the same effect as if Verizon would have ported you in the first place, assuming they don't usually allow such intra-ratecenter intra-Verizon inter co switch ports of the number! One more thing -- I'd mentioned RCF, Remote Call Forwarding. This is NOT to be confused with RACF, Remote ACCESS to Call Forwarding. RACF (Remote Access to Call Forwarding) is an additional optional service offered by many local telcos where a subscriber who also has the traditional *72 All Calls Variable Call Forwarding can activate or deactivate the "*72" type of forwarding associated with their "base" or "home" line, but from any other telephone. They must first dial a "POTS" number usually associated with their "home" central office (which would incur toll, coin, airtime or roaming charges if applicable -- some telcos might also offer a toll-free access number for an added monthly or per-use charge?), then key in their home or "base" number which has *72 Forwarding as well as RACF, then a passcode or PIN, and finally the telephone number where they want their calls forwarded from that home/base number, to. Or they dial in to the platform and after keying in the validation and indentification information (according to a menu), they can remotely deactivate any forwarding already turned on. Of course, if the forward-to number is toll with respect to the home or base number, that customer and NOT any calling customers, would be responsible for any (added) toll charges for calls forwarded from their home/base number to the forward-to number. RCF (Remote Call Forwarding) is something that is "transparent" and always turned on, and sort of a "halfway" version of FX (Foreign Exchange) or FCO (Foreign Central Office) since it would be for incoming calls ONLY. - anthony ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: LNP For a Move Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:00:12 GMT In article , vjkahler@bellsouth.net says: > It can be done. BellSouth will do it, for businesses at least. I don't > know about Verizon. Good luck finding a service rep who will know what > you're talking about, and how to do it. > What you're actually talking about is Foreign Central Office, where > the original CO and the new CO are in the same rate center. In Foreign > Exchange, the new CO is in a different rate center. LNP does make FCO > obsolete, but not FX. > Valerie in FL The concept of LNP has shown FX service to be intentionally erroneous. Same rate center means just that, the only technical difference is the switch it lives on. LNP does database dips. What else do you think the LNP fee on your phone bill pays for? FX is still used when you cross rate centers. But then unlimited packages have pretty much killed that too. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:59:20 -0400 From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: Re: LNP For a Move Hi Pat, I accidentally sent you a message last night -- a reply to Tony P's question about local number portability -- and didn't mask the From field. Can you please mask the address (leave the name) so the spambots don't devour me? Just turn my real address into something false. On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:18:09 GMT, Tony P. wrote, > I'll be moving from a true Providence rate center in Providence, to a > Providence rate center in Cranston. (401-621 to 401-46x or 401-94x). > Here is my question. Since they're both the same rate center could I > request to keep my current numbers under LNP? > It'd work the same as real LNP that being when someone dials a number > it looks at a database to see what switch the call should be passed > to. In essence it makes Foreign Exchange service a thing of the past > but I'll be it's still tarrifed that way. Before LNP, Verizon could only provision a number that way via Foreign Central Office service, running a leased line from the old CO to the new one. It was costly, but sometimes worthwhile to a business. With LNP, it's a matter of entering a simple entry into a database, and telling the old switch that the number was ported out. Which means that Verizon's as likely to do that for you as the Queen of England is likely to come to tea with you. They don't do rational, nice things like that for residential subscribers. For a large Centrex customer, sure. But you don't deserve it. They have nine ways to hell of saying that the tariff doesn't allow it, their procedures don't allow it, their systems don't allow it. They're lying, of course, but then at Verizon, telling the truth is the firing offense. On the other hand, any CLEC can do what you want. Even Cox, if they offer phone service, can take your old Providence number and install it at your new Providence (rate center) location. Verizon's wire center boundaries are meaningless to a CLEC, since CLECs have one switch serving a wider area, and most will do LNP to the customer's spec if that's what it takes to make a sale. I expect that there are other CLECs who can take over the number too. ------------------------------ From: jfklein@shaw.ca (Jonathan) Subject: Need Advice Regarding Communications / Networking Problem Date: 24 Sep 2004 08:14:05 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I am looking for some advice about accessing internet service and making it available on a network using minimal resources. Here is the situation. I work for most of the year in a third world country. When I am here I stay in a small compound consisting of two buildings each with 35 rooms (ie: 70 rooms total. They are like two small hotels). The buildings are separated by about 15 meters. There are about 30 to 40 people here at any given time. We have no internet access at the compound. There are only two telephone lines coming into the compound and the company which runs the compound is unwilling to rent more lines and a switchboard system for the rooms due to the high expense. Therefore, dial-up internet access is not a possibility. However, the company does have an office about 18 km away (11 miles) at which they have high speed internet service. There are technical problems as I see it, these are: 1) How do we connect a server at the compound to high speed internet service, at minimal cost? 2) How do we make the internet accessible to the people living here from the server? I have little knowledge about communications technology but I have got a few ideas from talking with a few people. Possible Solutions to Problem 1): a) It seems like it may be possible to connect a server at the compound with the server at the office. But I don't know how to do this. I have thought of a "leased line" using one of the two telephone lines to the compound and connecting it to the server at the office. To me it seems like this might be the most feasible solution. However, I am concerned that this may not give us enough bandwidth for say, 15 people using it at once. b) Perhaps another possibility is a radio frequency communications system between the office and the compound (ie: wireless over a long distance). However, this sounds like it might be expensive. c) I am aware that there are satellite systems to connect to the internet. But again I am concerned that, with only one satellite receiver, the bandwidth wouldn't be high enough. Possible Solutions to Problem 2): As I see it there are four possible solutions to this problem. a) We could use a wireless system for the two buildings from a single server. The people living here would then simply need to have wireless capability on computers in their rooms to connect to the server. However, the buildings are made of concrete. So I am concerned that the signals may not penetrate into the rooms. Also, I am wondering if these systems can transmit far enough to cover two separate buildings with only one server. b) All the rooms are wired with telephone lines (although they aren't connected to external lines). So it seems possible that these could be connected to a single server for both buildings. But the questions I have are, will the bandwidth be high enough through telephone lines? Also, how do we get the lines from the building without the server over to the other building? Do the lines need to be run individually or should we install a router or something in one building and a single cable from the router to the server in the other building? The buildings are a bit old also (about 35 years), so how do we know if the lines are still in good condition. c) All of the rooms are wired with coaxial cable television lines (also not used). So, as with the telephone lines it seems possible that these could be used to connect to a single server for both buildings. My questions are the same as with the using the telephone lines but also, do we need some special hardware to transmit to each room using a coaxial line? d) Last possible solution, probably the most expensive, is to wire each room with new cabling. With this possible solution I wonder, as with the telephone lines and coaxial cable, if we can do this with a single server in one building or if we should be installing a router in the other building and a single cable from the router to the server. Any advice on this problem and the possible solutions I have mentioned would be greatly appreciated by the 100 or so people who stay here and the staff that work here. -Jonathan Klein ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Rotary Phone Props in New TV Shows Date: 24 Sep 2004 10:17:04 -0700 I've noticed a number of TV shows (set in the present) have had rotary dial telephone sets in the background. Examples are listed below. In all of the cases the characters did not use the rotary phone but had access to and used modern phones. I wonder what is the percentage of U.S. subscribers who still have solely rotary telephones? In shows like this background props often change, even from scene to scene (what we see as continuous are often shot are different days and edited together). A new TV show, "Veronica Mars" debuted this week on UPN. It's about a father-daughter private detective team. Anyway, in the premier episode there was a very quick shot of a wall black rotary phone (plastic dial, apparently modular cord) in the office. It was not used as a telephone, the characters used modern desk phones to make and receive calls. It was curious why it was there because the office, while in an old building, wasn't that old fashioned. (Don't let the "teenage girl" or UPN focus steer you away from this new show. It's quite edgy and good.) Earlier this year, "What I like about you" (WB) had a scene in a hospital and a payphone in the background was rotary dial. Curiously, other background payphones seen and used in the show (such as the airport) were TT. Not too long ago "Angel" (WB) had a 302 set with modern multi-line keyset (lighted small square line buttons) added to the bottom. While 302s did have multi line versions, the buttons were black and tiny, and the early 500 keysets had round line buttons; square ones came later. Obviously such a set never existed, I don't know if they shoved a keyset onto an old phone or added it in the special effects room. The phone was not used by the characters, they had modern desk sets. One exception where old phones were sometimes used was a related show (B/VS). The girls had a blue Princess rotary phone in their dorm room. It rang with a modern electronic sound. IIRC they used it, but I never saw them dial. The school library _on occassion_ had a rotary set and the librarian was seen speaking on it, but on most other occassions it had a modern phone. I remember the old "All in the Family" show had a 302 set in their living room at a time (1971) they were becomming pretty rare in service. I believe the older style was purposely chosen to give the home a poorer look to it. At some point in the show or its successor the house got a 2500 TT phone. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 2004 01:01:30 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: FTC Do-Not-Call Registry, was Out of Area Calls Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> Could you point to the section of the law or FTC regulations that >> provides the exemptions? Because there is no such exemption, and >> you're just wrong. > People like you, who don't even bother to do research or CHECK before > they call someone wrong never cease to amaze me. > Next time, go to google.com and CHECK before you call someone a liar. Sigh. You saw it on the Internet, so it must be true, huh? > "There are some exemptions, for example, as you might expect, > telephone companies can still call you to solicit you and so can banks > and credit card companies," Cohen said. Also still allowed to call > are: charities, insurance companies and politicians." In the page that Google found with that quote, "Cohen" was some self-appointed expert quoted on a local TV show in Chicago a year ago. I don't think he counts either as a law or as an FTC regulation. On the other hand, if you visit the FTC's www.donotcall.gov web site, and visit their FAQ page, you can find the actual exception list at https://www.donotcall.gov/FAQ/FAQConsumers.aspx#Exceptions You will note it does not contain telephone companies, banks, credit card companies, or insurance companies, unless they have an existing business relationship with you and you haven't told them to stop. Charities and politicians are indeed exempt, but two out of six is a pretty poor score for an alleged expert. >> If you are getting calls from companies with which you are not >> currently doing business (or with whom you are doing business and >> have told them to stop), you can sue them under the TCPA. > THINK before you start typing! You have to know WHO they are before > you can sue someone! Well, duh. The people who sue under the same law for junk faxes have gotten pretty good at teasing out the junkers' identities. >> The only significant exemptions are for established business >> relationship and non-profits. > Bullshit. Check the FCC or FTC websites for the complete law I did. I suppose the law is too hard for some people to understand, but let me give you a hint: just because it calls out banks and telcos as regulated by different agencies doesn't mean they're exempt. >> FYI, I haven't gotten a call from a long distance company in years, > Because you are probably one of the stupid people that HAS a long > distance company connected to your phone line so that you can pay > hundreds of dollars a year even if you never make one single long > distance phone call. Intelligent people have NO long distance company > connected with their home phone lines at all, and use one of the > THOUSANDS of 10-10 numbers that have NO MONTHLY FEES or charges and > you can change companies for each call made, just by using a different > 10-10 number. A most interesting guess, but not surprisingly, it's wrong. There are plenty of LD companies with no monthly fee, no monthly minimum, and rates lower than the 1010 dialaround companies. I pay 4.9 cpm since I'm in a high cost NECA area. For people in Bell areas, it's not hard to find 3 cpm or less. They've gotten plenty of mention in the digest so I won't belabor the details again. R's, John ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Out of Area Calls Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:34:45 GMT In article , yenc@sucks.com says: >>> So you think. This is nothing more than coincidence. The biggest >>> telemarketers (such as long distance phone companies) are EXEMPT from >>> these lists. >> Could you point to the section of the law or FTC regulations that >> provides the exemptions? Because there is no such exemption, and >> you're just wrong. > People like you, who don't even bother to do research or CHECK before > they call someone wrong never cease to amaze me. > Next time, go to google.com and CHECK before you call someone a liar. > "There are some exemptions, for example, as you might expect, > telephone companies can still call you to solicit you and so can banks > and credit card companies," Cohen said. Also still allowed to call > are: charities, insurance companies and politicians." WRONG, except for politicians and charities. As the FCC's web site explains: The Do-Not-Call registry will not prevent all unwanted calls. It will not cover the following: * calls from organizations with which you have established a business relationship; * calls for which you have given prior written consent; * calls which are not commercial or do not include unsolicited advertisements; * calls by or on behalf of tax-exempt non-profit organizations. Check it out at Noncommercial calls, such as political and charitable solicitors, can call. Commercial solicitors with whom you have no existing relationship and to whom have not given written consent cannot call. There is no exception for telephone companies, insurance companies, banks, or credit card companies, except those who have an existing business relationship. If you have an MBNA credit card, MBNA can call you to ask you to upgrade to platinum or to take out a home equity line, but Bank One cannot call you, if your number is on the do-not-call list. > Then, keep in mind MOST telemarketers don't abide by laws or do not > call lists ANYWAY! By keeping their number from showing on caller ID > (which is also against the law now, but they continue to do) or using > a fake number like 111-111-1111 (which I have seen many times myself) > you don't know what company to report for violating Federal Law > anyway. MOST telemarketers who want to stay in business do abide by laws and the do-not-call list. MOST of those telemarketers also show a dialable number in the Caller ID. I have received virtually no telemarketing calls after a reasonable transition period from the beginning of the do- not-call list. It has been almost completely successful. Now we're down to politicians and charities calling in the evening. >> If you are getting calls from companies with which you are not >> currently doing business (or with whom you are doing business and >> have told them to stop), you can sue them under the TCPA. > THINK before you start typing! You have to know WHO they are before > you can sue someone! ASKING them who they are doesn't work. You have > to play long games with them pretending to be interested in what they > are selling so you can figure out who they are, but then you have no > caller ID to prove they called either, the laws only protect them, not > the victims. They don't call any more. And when I get a marketing call, it has invariably had caller ID showing. > Anyone with half a brain can figure out that a law making > telemarketing ILLEGAL would have made more sense than a DO NOT CALL > LIST. Or having a DO CALL LIST in which the 2 or 3 people in the > world that like to get telelmarketing calls could sign up on a > permission list, rather than make millions of people sign up saying > they don't want to be harassed. > THINK! So you have half a brain. If you had a whole brain, you would realize that making telemarketing illegal would (a) probably be unconstitutional, (b) be politically impossible, and (c) prevent perfectly legitimate calls that you want from people you do business with. Do you want your lawyer to be precluded from calling you to tell you that Congress or the State Legislature has passed a law affecting your business? Do you want your broker to be precluded from calling you to tell you that one of your stocks has tanked? Do you want your travel agent to be precluded from calling you to tell you that the airline you have booked with has cancelled your flight and you need to rebook? There is no way in h*ll the average person wants to prevent all commercial calls from persons with whom he does business. And there is no way in h*ll Congress, the FCC, or the FTC will bar such calls. >> The only significant exemptions are for established business >> relationship and non-profits. > Bullshit. Check the FCC or FTC websites for the complete law and read > through all the exemptions as I did a long time ago in promoting to the > public what a farce this stupid law was, and how MOST of the telemarketers > we get calls from are EXEMPT for the do not call list. Doesn't matter > if you have an established relationship with them or not. Maybe you should read through all the exemptions now. I've quoted the FCC's summary above. It's actually a reasonable summary of the rules. Your conception of the rules bears no resemblance to what they say. An established business relationship is in the statute itself. >> FYI, I haven't gotten a call from a long distance company in years, > Because you are probably one of the stupid people that HAS a long > distance company connected to your phone line so that you can pay > hundreds of dollars a year even if you never make one single long > distance phone call. Intelligent people have NO long distance company > connected with their home phone lines at all, and use one of the > THOUSANDS of 10-10 numbers that have NO MONTHLY FEES or charges and > you can change companies for each call made, just by using a different > 10-10 number. > If you cancelled the long distance company you have now, you will > indeed get several calls a day for MONTHS from that company trying to > get you back. This is a FACT that I, and everyone I know has gone > through. If you try to say this is not true, then you can only be one > of their employees or a telemarketer yourself. I cancelled MCI a few years ago, before the do-not-call list. I got a single call from their retention group. I told them the rate I was getting from a reseller, they said there was no way they would match that rate, and I never got another call. I am certainly not an MCI employee or a telemarketer. And before the do-not-call list went into effect, I got calls from AT&T very frequently. Since then, I have gotten none. Nor any from other telephone companies, local or long-distance. In all, the do-not-call list and associated FCC/FTC rules have been very successful from my perspective. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: ariel.burbaickij@gmail.com (Ariel Burbaickij) Subject: No Call Ref ID in SS7/C7 Why? Date: 24 Sep 2004 04:07:58 -0700 Hello dear newsgroup participants, Could someone explain to me why it was decided not to have call reference ID in at least plain ISUP (i.e. not B-ISUP where it could be present)? There is call ref id in DSS1, in SIP and again transaction id in SCCP/TCAP (with transaction being defined as series of queries and responses), so why no call ref ids in ISUP? With Best Regards, Ariel Burbaickij 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 #444 ******************************