The Telecom Digest for January 03, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 3 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
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, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 06:16:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: CNAM for toll-free numbers
Message-ID: <ifp57c$qaj$8@news.albasani.net>
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>>Except that toll-free numbers CANNOT originate calls. ...
>>I frequently get junk calls and legitimate calls where the Caller ID
>>is a toll-free number, e.g., 800-xxx-xxxx. Are these numbers spoofed?
John, would you PLEASE stop cutting attribution lines?
>ANI is not Caller ID. The ANI is the billing info, which is very hard
>to spoof, provided by the originating telco switch, and points to the
>actual line that made the call. Caller ID can be set by terminal
>equipment, particularly if the call originates over ISDN or VoIP, and
>can be set to more or less whatever the caller wants. There are
>perfectly legitimate reasons for ANI and CNID not to match, with the
>most common being that the ANI is a PBX trunk, and the CNID is the
>number of the extension.
>If the 800-xxx-xxxx really is a number at which you can call back the
>person who's calling, I suppose I wouldn't describe it as spoofed.
>And they're doing you a favor, since approximately 100% of calls with
>800 CNID are calls you can safely not answer.
I agree with what you wrote, but I do get calls returned from companies I
do business with in which the 800 number is shown and the employee leaving
the message has nearly zero telephone etiquette. If they are returning
my call with the answer to my question, then at least knowing what city
they called from may be helpful. ANI gives me that; a substituted number
in Caller ID does not. Otherwise, I call back, give my account number,
and the person finds no notes on the account, so I have the fun of
repeating everything.
I've found that the telephone company has the worst telephone etiquette of
all, and they have no concept of leaving the number of their extension.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Etiquette?
Excuse me sir: I'll have you know that I am a high school graduate!
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 23:50:04 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Google As A Carrier?
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Jh7bQzjTrr0Horn-OmHuMWUSAmigZVniUZpW2@mail.gmail.com>
http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/30/google-carrier/
CNNMoney published an interesting piece by David Goldman this morning
entitled, Google: Your new phone carrier? In it, Goldman lays out what
he sees as the preliminary steps Google has taken to become a wireless
carrier themselves down the road. He also gives some reasons for why
they would and would not want to do that. In my mind, the concept is
much more straightforward. Goldman ends the title of his piece with a
question mark - but it should be a period.
It's not a question of "if" Google will try to become a carrier. It's
just a matter of "when" they'll try to.
Now, to be clear, that doesn't mean I think they'll actually be able
to become a carrier. The biggest hurdle there has nothing to do with
the technology needed, the money needed, or the expertise. Rather, the
major issue would be the government. Would they allow Google, already
one of the biggest corporations in the United States, to enter a new
area that could extend their control (particularly in the advertising
space)? Probably not. Actually, I have a feeling it might have more to
do with Verizon and AT&T lobbying dollars influencing the government
to block Google in such a cause.
But again, Google will try. It may be a few years from now, but it's inevitable.
Here's the key blurb of the CNNMoney piece, far down:
It's not likely in the immediate future. Google's Android is the
hottest item in the mobile market, and the company relies on carriers
to adopt its software and drive customers to its search site.
But it's a real possibility down the road. The Federal Communications
Commission recently failed to enact strong Net neutrality rules for
the wireless community. That leaves open the option for carriers to
restrict their subscribers' access to some of Google's offerings.
Without the net neutrality safeguards in place, the carriers will make
moves to restrict certain services down the road. YouTube is one
example. Google Voice is probably another. There will likely be a
dozen others.
Interestingly enough, it's none other than Google who will share a big
part of the blame for this happening. Not only did they leave Android
so open so as to allow for the carriers to do whatever they want, but
they also teamed up with none other than Verizon to dream up the
current bogus non-rules the FCC just voted to adopt for wireless
access.
But what if it is just a big "Keep your friends close and your enemies
closer" scenario? What if Google saw teaming up with Verizon as the
only way to move at least part of the net neutrality debate forward
(as Google CEO Eric Schmidt has more or less stated) and realized that
it was inevitable that they'd be competing with them in wireless down
the road? It can't be ruled out. And at the very least, the
partnership may be a bit of bet hedging - a way to ensure continued
money-making just in case they can't enter the wireless space down the
road.
Remember that Google has done some sly manipulation of the space in
the past. In 2008, they put up a huge bid to buy a portion of the
wireless spectrum that the FCC was opening. But Google had no
intention of actually winning with that bid. Instead, they bid just
enough ($4.6 billion) to ensure that the open device and application
rules would be put in place on the spectrum, no matter who won the
rights to control it. And who won those rights? Verizon (and AT&T to a
lesser extent).
While Google and the carriers may seem all buddy-buddy now, in the
not-too-distant future, they will likely be at odds with one another.
The reason will be that the carriers will begin restricting what
Google thinks should be open. And Google will have to make some moves
to open things up once again.
Rumors of Google buying one of the smaller U.S. carriers, namely
Sprint, have been around since at least 2007. Those rumors pop up
every year, and they will likely only intensify going forward. One
issue there is that it would only solve the U.S. problem. Of course,
given the state of carrier control in this country, it is likely the
problem Google will want to solve first. The other bigger issue,
again, is the government blocking such a purchase.
Instead, Google may simply try to buy up chunks of spectrum from
others. Or build out their white space initiative, the so-called "WiFi
on steroids". Or maybe they'll dream up some other new technology to
try to end carrier dominance. This is the company behind self-driving
cars, after all.
Remember, Google is already entering the ISP game with their fiber
optic broadband test. Why? Because the state of broadband in this
country is pretty piss poor thanks largely to de-facto regional
monopolies in place. The next, and more important step is for them to
take to the skies, and for largely the same reason. And Google will
try to: it's only a matter of time. I'm just worried that like most
things they're attempting these days, it will be easier said than
done.
Date: 2 Jan 2011 23:26:52 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Google As A Carrier?
Message-ID: <20110102232652.34119.qmail@joyce.lan>
> Would they allow Google, already one of the biggest corporations in
>the United States, to enter a new area that could extend their
>control (particularly in the advertising space)? Probably
>not. Actually, I have a feeling it might have more to do with Verizon
>and AT&T lobbying dollars influencing the government to block Google
>in such a cause.
Ahem. Let's look at some annual revenue figures:
T 124.13B
VZ 107.26B
S 32.13B
GOOG 27.55B
Google is a rather small company compared to AT&T or Verizon, and is
still smaller than Sprint, although I expect it may pass Sprint this
year. I would argue that far from Google being too large, it is
barely large enough to compete with behemoths like VZ and T.
R's,
John
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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 Bill Horne. 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.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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
Copyright (C) 2009 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.
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 The Telecom Digest (3 messages)
|
| |
or 