Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 29 : Issue 42 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain ISDN (was: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain ) Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Re: Area Code 710? Re: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data Re: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data On-line telephone directory databases On-line telephone directory databases Re: Area Code 710? Re: Area Code 710? Re: Area Code 710? Re: Area Code 710? Re: Area Code 710? Re: Area Code 710? Re: Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Re: Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages Re: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Re: Area Code 710? Re: Touch-Tone<tm> on SxS ====== 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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:36:55 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain Message-ID: <hksv39$jhj$1@news.eternal-september.org> Sam Spade wrote: > Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > ~ >> >> WECO/Lucent/Alcatel 1AESS switches still exist in the US. There are >> around 60 such 1As remaining, basically all within >> at&t/SBC/Ameritech, sbc's at&t/BellSouth, and >> at&t/SBC/Southwestern-Bell territory. From what I can tell, there >> are NO more 1As in at&t/SBC/Pacific*Telesis (Pacific*Bell in CA >> nor Nevada*Bell), nor Qwest/US-West territory, nor Cincinnati Bell >> territory, nor at&t/SBC/SNET (Connecticut). > > Do you (or anyone) know why Pacific Bell, et al, decided to replace > perfectly good 1AESS platforms with either DMS-100s or 5ESSes? I can > understand changing to digital for further replacement of remaining > 5XBAR and SXS, but some of those 1AESS platforms had been in service for > as little as 15 years. > > What does a digital end office do that a 1AESS won't (wouldn't) do? > I would guess because customers wanted services that the 1A could not support. I wanted something and was in a 1A; don't remember what it was, but after a long protracted dispute; I wanted them to port my number to the 5E in the same office, the finally agreed to move me with a new phone number to the 5E with no charge. What was funny is that the 1A was replaced less then a year later. Switches don't have the life time (25 years or more) and can be replaced it 5 years. I like that because I'm a CO Installer and it keeps me very busy. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:12:13 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain Message-ID: <2Evcn.57675$s%.21535@newsfe18.iad> markjcuccia@yahoo.com wrote: > Well, when was the cutover? If it was past 2000, then the 1A was > originally installed after 1985. I don't know if WECO/AT&T was still > making 1As for NEW installations or complete cutovers replacements > of electro-mechanical switches (SXS, Panel, XB) after the mid-1980s. > In 1987 in New Orleans, the last two #5XBs were cutover to "ESS". > Broadmoor (NWORLABM---) became a 5ESS. Michoud (NWORLAMU---) became > a DMS-100. The two I am familiar with: one was an early 1ESS, installed in 1970 or so. Upgraded to 1AESS in the late 1970s. Changed out to a 5ESS about 1986. The other was installed in 1975 (I recall the year on that one with certainty). It was upgraded to a 1AESS perhaps 4 years later, and changed out to a 5ESS in the early 1990s. > 1AESSes and similar non-digital, yet still electronic/SPC offices > apparently can NOT do ISDN, nor other more modern/enhanced > packet-type functions. Of course, for the average residential or > small business customer of the general public, this really isn't > much of an issue. But for larger business customers, if there > aren't any 5Es or DMSes or other digital switches nearby to get > FX/FCO from, then the ILEC will need to replace the 1A with a > digital. Or else that business customer will port away to a CLEC > willing to provide service off of their digital or packet switched > local network! My city (San Clemente, CA) cut from 5XBAR to DMS-100 in 1985. The next town over was the one that cut from 1AESS to 5ESS about 1986. In the early 1990s when ISDN was being promoted I decided to go for it. My local DMS-100 could not handle ISDN. Apparently that is a major upgrade. So, Pacific Bell provisioned my two ISDN lines to the Irving DMS, some 27 circuit miles away. The 5ESS close by was ISDN capable, but Pacific Bell's policy was to place you on an ISDN platform of the same switch type as your local switch. I guess there were sufficient differences between the 5ESS and the DMS 100 that resulted in that policy. I also understand that all the 5ESS could do ISDN unlike the DMS-100s. That was an expensive arrangement to provide me two 27 effective FX circuits at no change. I have up on ISDN after two years because the adapter I bought for $700 was lousy and did not perform to specs. I did get the data speed but most other features did not work. I finally sued the adapter vendor in small claims court and got my money back. ISDN, at least for me, was indeed Is Still Doing Nothing. I understand it's still around, but why escapes me, with it's painfully slow speed compared to DSL. (and DSL is not nearly as good as my local cable broadband). What else do most people want other than broadband. I wonder whether DSL could have been made to work on 1AESSes with adjunct hardware? Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:32:12 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: ISDN (was: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain ) Message-ID: <hkv54c$1eb6$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <2Evcn.57675$s%.21535@newsfe18.iad>, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > ... ISDN, at least for me, was indeed "Is Still Doing Nothing". I > understand it's still around, but why escapes me, with it's > painfully slow speed compared to DSL. It is still very important for broadcasters, because it provides better reliability and performance guarantees than IP-based technology -- important if you're doing a live broadcast from a remote location or a home studio. Many radio stations also use ISDN as a backup studio-transmitter link, although T1 circuits are more popular now (because they have enough spare bandwidth to remotely operate all sorts of IP-based equipment now used at transmitter sites). A few years ago, I was with a friend at a live broadcast of "A Prairie Home Companion" from the Koussevitzky Music Shed at Tanglewood in Lenox, Mass. We asked the show's engineer how they were getting the audio to the network, and he said that they had three ISDN circuits to Minnesota Public Radio HQ in St. Paul (where the show normally originates), and for emergency backup, three ISDN circuits to NPR Satellite Services in Virginia. Each one of those circuits had both "B" channels in use, since the broadcast feed is stereo. Two of each set of circuits were used for the audio feed and one was used for confidence monitoring. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:39:48 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Message-ID: <hksv8j$jhj$2@news.eternal-september.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Feb 9, 11:23 am, Robert Neville <d...@bother.com> wrote: > >> The first number Qwest assigned started receiving one to two calls >> a day almost immediately. > > Years ago, when I [first] got a phone, I got obscene calls the very > first night. At first Bell wanted a service charge to change the > number but after some pressure they agreed to change the number at > no charge. The new number had no problem. > > For your situation I would try to get a hold of a carrier's > supervisor and demand a new number (at no charge) that has been idle > for a while. Perhaps you should send a Certified Letter to them > rather than call them. > > As to [how long disconnected numbers are held before reassignment] > today, I retired two phone lines a few years ago. One line, which > was rarely used, was reassigned after several months. The other > line is still forwarding the calls after several years. I ran a BBS for 10 years and 5 years after I took it down AT&T still has it on recording, I'm told it still gets 20 or more hits a day, -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:37:48 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Message-ID: <hkvn1c$fnt$1@reader2.panix.com> Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> writes: >> As to [how long disconnected numbers are held before reassignment] >> today, I retired two phone lines a few years ago. One line, which >> was rarely used, was reassigned after several months. The other >> line is still forwarding the calls after several years. >I ran a BBS for 10 years and 5 years after I took it down AT&T still >has it on recording, I'm told it still gets 20 or more hits a day, There is a cure for "poisoned" numbers, both those from past use, and adjacent to important ones [one away from the biggest hospital, etc.] Issue them out as fax numbers. Fax machines never complain about too many wrong numbers..... - - A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ***** Moderator's Note ***** One of my brothers-in-law is in the habit of attaching a fax machine to his home phone whenever my sister is out of the house. I started sending him faxes asking him to have her call me, and he got mad. C'est la vie. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:40:56 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Message-ID: <6645152a1002091640k78f224c7j33101f72cd28e46e@mail.gmail.com> I had an AT&T cell phone (pre-Cingular days) and gave it up along with the number. A couple of weeks later a friend told me he called my old number and the recipient was FURIOUS as he had been getting calls for me the whole time he had the phone. So my number was recycled anywhere between immediately and two weeks after surrendering the number. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:55:58 +0000 (UTC) From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Message-ID: <hkurve$grs$1@pcls6.std.com> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> writes: > I had an AT&T cell phone (pre-Cingular days) and gave it up along > with the number. A couple of weeks later a friend told me he called > my old number and the recipient was FURIOUS as he had been getting > calls for me the whole time he had the phone. So my number was > recycled anywhere between immediately and two weeks after > surrendering the number. My home phone number apparently belonged to a doctor's office at one time. I don't know how long before it was recycled, but I got calls for the doctor at a decreasing rate to this day (20 years later). ***** Moderator's Note ***** There's a sure-fire cure for that problem: tell anyone who asks for the doctor to go straight to the emergency room. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:41:37 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Message-ID: <6645152a1002101041y32cd8fcs16d4544c01cbdff5@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > My home phone number apparently belonged to a doctor's office at one > time. Â I don't know how long before it was recycled, but I got calls > for the doctor at a decreasing rate to this day (20 years later). > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > There's a sure-fire cure for that problem: tell anyone who asks for > the doctor to go straight to the emergency room. A few years ago a flight attendant started receiving 9-1-1 calls on her home phone. Because of her first aid training she was able to assist a caller. I think it was childbirth, I don't quite remember. This happened in El Paso. My favorite tale involving hospitals and phones was when I worked for AT&T in suburban Atlanta. At the time all of north Georgia had a single area code, 404. People living in Georgia but near Chattanooga, TN could call Chattanooga by dialing only 7 numbers. My desk phone number happened to be the same as a hospital ER in Chattanooga. Someone in northwest Georgia, but outside the local calling area for Chattanooga, dialed seven digits and got me. I answered the phone only to get a earful of medical history, vital signs, and the whole monologue was peppered with "stat" (short of Latin "statim" as in "RIGHT NOW!"). I finally explained to her she had reached an AT&T office. She assumed I was an operator and demanded I connect her right away to such-and-such hospital. We did quickly figure out what went wrong and once I told her to dial the same number with 1-615 in front of it she was happy. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:55:38 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Message-ID: <hkuvfa$h66$2@news.eternal-september.org> Michael Moroney wrote: > John Mayson <john@mayson.us> writes: > >> I had an AT&T cell phone (pre-Cingular days) and gave it up along >> with the number. A couple of weeks later a friend told me he called >> my old number and the recipient was FURIOUS as he had been getting >> calls for me the whole time he had the phone. So my number was >> recycled anywhere between immediately and two weeks after >> surrendering the number. > > My home phone number apparently belonged to a doctor's office at one > time. I don't know how long before it was recycled, but I got calls > for the doctor at a decreasing rate to this day (20 years later). > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > There's a sure-fire cure for that problem: tell anyone who asks for > the doctor to go straight to the emergency room. We did that to people calling a number for a golf course to set tee times, had about a hundred golfers [whom we told to show up] at the same time, then [we] went over to watch. Problem solved. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:41:58 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Area Code 710? Message-ID: <hksvcm$jhj$3@news.eternal-september.org> Ann O'Nymous wrote: > Area Code 710 is assigned to "US Government Services". According to > the Wikipedia article on it > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_710) there is only one > working number as of 2006. It seems rather silly to allocate an > entire area code to one phone number, esp. when it was assigned when > area codes were rapidly becoming scarce (NNX format). > How is it really used? I assume that high level government > officials such as the President/VP, House and Senate Members, the > Cabinet, high level officials in the military/CIA/etc have 710 area > code numbers, not reachable by phones not in that area code other > than those with a need (home phones, those of family members). > Correct, or am I way off base? That may be from the old FTS days. You could not dial those numbers unless you were on the FTS net. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:15:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Julian Thomas" <jt@jt-mj.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data Message-ID: <100.00e80300a708724b.010@jt-mj.net> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:11:10 -0500 ed wrote: > If anyone wants to hear how easy it is for law-enforcement to snoop > on your physical location (with the friendly help of your mobile > carrier Not if I turn off my phone or leave it at home! -- Julian Thomas: jt@jt-mj.net http://jt-mj.net In the beautiful Genesee Valley of Western New York State! -- -- Stupidity is NOT a survival trait. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:49:54 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data Message-ID: <6645152a1002100949g2584c5c2i273e800697db839c@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Julian Thomas <jt@jt-mj.net> wrote: > On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:11:10 -0500 ed wrote: > >> If anyone wants to hear how easy it is for law-enforcement to snoop >> on your physical location (with the friendly help of your mobile >> carrier > > Not if I turn off my phone or leave it at home! Which brings up a question. Why is it the people I personally know who are so vocal about their privacy the very ones posting every detail of their lives, including what I would call "too much information", to their Twitter, Facebook, Friendfeed, etc.? John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:14:05 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: On-line telephone directory databases Message-ID: <hktfat$giv$1@news.albasani.net> Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote: > The AT&T local digital addition is very good, it is a digital > version of the local pages and it set up just like the printed > version. http://www.realpageslive.com/ AT&T Directory Publishing does not cover all AT&T territory. In the Chicago area especially, the listing services agreement was with Reuben H. Donnelley. RHD has its own "look and feel" telephone directory Web site: http://dexpages.com/ ... which also includes directories they publish for non-AT&T areas, both where they have listing services agreements with the ILEC and where they publish the alternative telephone directory. Alas, Verizon areas don't have anything like this. But their spun off directory publisher (twice bankrupt) keeps changing its name. First it was Idearc, and now it's SuperMedia. Not much has changed since I last started a similar thread. whitepages.com is the only remaining on line phone directory for residential listings. However, they are now doing some information consolidation, not just getting information from phone directories (which could be up to 15 months old), with databases that have even more out-of-date information, like Intellius. Nearly every yellow pages Web site that offers people searching is merely offering whitepages.com. Yellowpages.com is AT&T's site, with plenty of information consolidated from Dun & Bradstreet. Boy, if you were ever curious what business last had your telephone number, check D&B. If you're not using one of the two "look and feel" sites I mentioned earlier, then I prefer superpages.com (from SuperMedia) over yellowpages.com. The once great Switchboard site is nothing more than a front end to superpages.com these days. anywho.com is gone, now just another Intellius front end. infousa411.com is the front end to infoUSA, the list broker, as you might guess. Lots of out of date listings. However, infoUSA claims its business listings are checked for accuracy by humans, so that helps a little. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:22:16 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: On-line telephone directory databases Message-ID: <hktfq8$giv$2@news.albasani.net> David Kaye <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote: > Until it is discontinued later this month, Yahoo has been offering a > superb distance-based yellow pages service: http://yp.yahoo.com but > unfortunately they're replacing it with a Yelp-like recommendation > service, which is really no service to *me*. > On yp.yahoo.com you set your city (a cookie remembers it) and enter > the kind of or name of business and after a few paid listings will > show a list of matches starting with the ones closest to you. Yahoo's yellow pages service was a front end to the infoUSA database. The information is still available at www.infousa411.com but the user cannot control its distance-based searching methodology. Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:38:41 -0700 From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Area Code 710? Message-ID: <u234n519md6dvtru2mesc2777u1k3339qh@4ax.com> Ann O'Nymous <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: > Area Code 710 is assigned to "US Government Services". According to > the Wikipedia article on it > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_710) there is only one > working number as of 2006. It seems rather silly to allocate an > entire area code to one phone number, esp. when it was assigned when > area codes were rapidly becoming scarce (NNX format). > > How is it really used? I assume that high level government > officials such as the President/VP, House and Senate Members, the > Cabinet, high level officials in the military/CIA/etc have 710 area > code numbers, not reachable by phones not in that area code other > than those with a need (home phones, those of family members). > Correct, or am I way off base? Area Code 710 is for the FEMA Government Emergency Telecommunications System (GETS). Basically a way for goverment officials at all levels (federal, state and local) to communicate when the government shuts down the regular system, or restricts it's use due to potential overloading. I used to know a GETS program manager. Much of the system operation was (and probably still is) classified, but it supported inbound and outbound calls and used a reasonable use authentication system. There's a lot more than 1 number in use - don't believe everything you read in Wikipedia. In fact, I wouldn't believe much of anything in Wikipedia without a couple of other independent sources. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Central offices used in the U.S. have provision for DIAL TONE priority, with public officials and TDD users being giving a better chance of getting a dial tone during a mass-calling event, but to make an emergency phone system viable, it would have to be equipped to disconnect in-progress calls when no route is available for the priority traffic. Is there any public information about the GETS system? I used to work on SS7, and I'm not aware of any mechanism that would allow the kind of traffic prioritization and override-disconnection-of-existing-calls that the military system uses. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:21:29 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Area Code 710? Message-ID: <hkutf9$mjb$1@reader2.panix.com> In <u234n519md6dvtru2mesc2777u1k3339qh@4ax.com> Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> writes: [snip] > Area Code 710 is for the FEMA Government Emergency Telecommunications > System (GETS). Basically a way for goverment officials at all levels > (federal, state and local) to communicate when the government shuts > down the regular system, or restricts it's use due to potential > overloading. > I used to know a GETS program manager. Much of the system operation > was (and probably still is) classified, but it supported inbound and > outbound calls and used a reasonable use authentication > system. > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > Central offices used in the U.S. have provision for DIAL TONE > priority, with public officials and TDD users being giving a better > chance of getting a dial tone during a mass-calling event, but to > make an emergency phone system viable, it would have to be equipped > to disconnect in-progress calls when no route is available for the > priority traffic. > Is there any public information about the GETS system? I used to work > on SS7, and I'm not aware of any mechanism that would allow the kind > of traffic prioritization and override-disconnection-of-existing-calls > that the military system uses. > > Bill Horne > Moderator The GETS arrangments are public, with only small parts (e.g., the Presidnent's GETS number) classified. The WIKI article is actually pretty good, and the various State sites, which a Google search will pick up, give some more. Basically there are dedicated lines, or more likely, priority bump-capable circuits, between your local CO, the IXC, and the GETS cloud. Once you've got a dial tone and punch in your GETS number, you're supposed to be put through... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Emergency_Telecommunications_Service http://gets.ncs.gov/ -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:38:48 -0700 From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Area Code 710? Message-ID: <f9k6n599afvgg6fg48hvnfq934rf74dndd@4ax.com> Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> wrote: >Is there any public information about the GETS system? I used to work >on SS7, and I'm not aware of any mechanism that would allow the kind >of traffic prioritization and override-disconnection-of-existing-calls >that the military system uses. I did a little more poking around and found a surprising amount of information published by the government now: http://gets.ncs.gov/ I don't believe the material on this website is complete though. Much of the functionality I understand to exist is understandably not published openly. Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:13:25 -0600 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Area Code 710? Message-ID: <I4adnfhfo834r-_WnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <hksrt0$v3$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Ann O'Nymous <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: > Area Code 710 is assigned to "US Government Services". According to > the Wikipedia article on it > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_710) there is only one > working number as of 2006. It seems rather silly to allocate an > entire area code to one phone number, esp. when it was assigned when > area codes were rapidly becoming scarce (NNX format). > >How is it really used? Have you heard the phrase "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you"? <evil grin> > I assume that high level government officials such as the > President/VP, House and Senate Members, the Cabinet, high level > officials in the military/CIA/etc have 710 area code numbers, not > reachable by phones not in that area code other than those with a > need (home phones, those of family members). Correct, or am I way > off base? You're way off base. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Emergency_Telecommunications_Service To make a 'priority' call to any PSTS number, you have to identify yourself to the local C.O. switch. You do that by calling the 'magic' areacode 710 number and authenticating. This authentication is verified by the local C.0. without building a voice circuit to a 'termination point for that number. After you've successfully authenticated yourself, you get another dial tone where you enter the PSTS number you wish to reach. And the call is put through on a 'priority' basis. Because of the necessity for the local C.O. to take special actions, one either had to use one of the '3 digit' numbers (N11 format), reserve a given line number (last 4 digits) in every exchange everywhere in the country, or use a 'unique' area-code. There wasn't any N11 number without an already existing declared use; reserving a specific 'line' number would have 'removed from public use' approximately as many 'usable' numbers as exist in an area- code_, and meant that the C.O. had to 'inspect' EVERY call for that last 4 digits. This means looking at a lot more calls than when you only have to look at 'long distance' ones (to check for the 'magic' areacode). In addition to that, older C.O.hardware (especially the non-computerized gear) did not necessarily look at the 'entire' number at the originating C.O. Putting the decision-point early in the digit stream was a practical way to implement, without requiring massive changes to in-place C.O. switch hardware. 'Dumb" C.O. hardware was already punting long-distance calls to newer/smarter equipment -- equipment that had the computer-based smarts to provide the 'enhanced' capabilities required. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:15:48 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Area Code 710? Message-ID: <6645152a1002101015j11ad1dc1v81af9e37f41ae10d@mail.gmail.com> Anyone willing to dial 710-555-1212 to see what happens? Maybe we can get directory assistance? :-) It looks like some shady operators (no pun intended) are spoofing 710 numbers: http://800notes.com/AreaCode.aspx/1-710 John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:59:38 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Area Code 710? Message-ID: <hkuvmq$h66$3@news.eternal-september.org> John Mayson wrote: > Anyone willing to dial 710-555-1212 to see what happens? Maybe we > can get directory assistance? :-) > > It looks like some shady operators (no pun intended) are spoofing > 710 numbers: http://800notes.com/AreaCode.aspx/1-710 I just tried the number and got can't complete call; 113T, so it did get to a toll switch. I'll have to try that the next time i get to Beale AFB's switch. I know the military still uses a form of the old Autovon system which can knock low priority calls off. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:53:36 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Message-ID: <hktak0$8ug$8@news.albasani.net> Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote: >Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>I posted this in the XDSL group, but that group is too quiet. >> Recently, I had a new phone service installed, shared with ADSL. I >> used the filters shipped with the DSL device, but I'm getting lousy >> sound on my old cordless phone, Sony SPP 2000, a 1.7 Mhz >> instrument. Yes, I know that such phones were always inadequate and >> readily overheard, but the handset is cool looking, it has >> swappable sealed lead acid batteries which means the handset is >> never recharged in the base. It's survived being dropped quite a >> lot. >> Anyway, do these require a different filter than the one that came >> in the box? > I had a problems like that, AT&T placed a filter at the Network > outside the house and ran a new cable direct to the DSL, that took > care of the problem as the voice phones no longer needed the filter. Was the filter on everything, on the branch going to the DSL device, or ahead of the branches going to the phone jacks? Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:50:20 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Message-ID: <hkuv5e$h66$1@news.eternal-september.org> Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote: >> Adam H. Kerman wrote: > >>> I posted this in the XDSL group, but that group is too quiet. > >>> Recently, I had a new phone service installed, shared with ADSL. I >>> used the filters shipped with the DSL device, but I'm getting lousy >>> sound on my old cordless phone, Sony SPP 2000, a 1.7 Mhz >>> instrument. Yes, I know that such phones were always inadequate and >>> readily overheard, but the handset is cool looking, it has >>> swappable sealed lead acid batteries which means the handset is >>> never recharged in the base. It's survived being dropped quite a >>> lot. > >>> Anyway, do these require a different filter than the one that came >>> in the box? > >> I had a problems like that, AT&T placed a filter at the Network >> outside the house and ran a new cable direct to the DSL, that took >> care of the problem as the voice phones no longer needed the filter. > > Was the filter on everything, on the branch going to the DSL device, > or ahead of the branches going to the phone jacks? The Tech removed all the filters from my phones and placed a DSL interface above the network interface, ran a pair to the DSL and used another pair to the DSL, in other words the DSL jack is it own and the regular phones that run through the house are also on a pair. The voice is on the blue pair, DSL is on orange pair and the second line is on the green pair -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:53:54 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Message-ID: <pan.2010.02.10.07.53.52.887819@myrealbox.com> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:09:11 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > I posted this in the XDSL group, but that group is too quiet. > > Recently, I had a new phone service installed, shared with ADSL. I > used the filters shipped with the DSL device, but I'm getting lousy > sound on my old cordless phone, Sony SPP 2000, a 1.7 Mhz > instrument. Yes, I know that such phones were always inadequate and > readily overheard, but the handset is cool looking, it has swappable > sealed lead acid batteries which means the handset is never > recharged in the base. It's survived being dropped quite a lot. > > Anyway, do these require a different filter than the one that came > in the box? Get certified ADSL2 filters, old ADSL1 filters may not be good enough. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:09:25 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Message-ID: <hkvlc4$rqt$9@news.albasani.net> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: >On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:09:11 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> I posted this in the XDSL group, but that group is too quiet. >> >> Recently, I had a new phone service installed, shared with ADSL. I >> used the filters shipped with the DSL device, but I'm getting lousy >> sound on my old cordless phone, Sony SPP 2000, a 1.7 Mhz >> instrument. Yes, I know that such phones were always inadequate and >> readily overheard, but the handset is cool looking, it has >> swappable sealed lead acid batteries which means the handset is >> never recharged in the base. It's survived being dropped quite a >> lot. >> >> Anyway, do these require a different filter than the one that came >> in the box? > Get certified ADSL2 filters, old ADSL1 filters may not be good > enough. Who certifies these things? There's independent testing? Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:01:49 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Message-ID: <hktb3d$8ug$9@news.albasani.net> Robert Neville <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: > Back in the day... > I seem to recall a general telco policy of retiring used phone numbers > a minimum of six months, and much longer if there continued to be hits > on the not in service number. I can recall a few exceptions when area > codes/exchanges filled up, but for the most part, when you received a > number from the phone company it was for all intents an unused number. > I don't know if it's abandonment of that policy, nearly free long > distance, debt collection companies who buy up past due accounts or an > upsurge in people skipping out, but I'm going nuts dealing with collection > company calls. . . . I got a new phone number over a week ago. I checked with a number of lists and learned it was a number for an electrical contractor. This number is on a lot of calling lists. The problem is that there are plenty of lists to which newly connected numbers are added, but never receive information about disconnected numbers. The excuse is always that disconnected numbers are never supplied by the various phone companies. But that's the only way to solve the problem. So a disconnected number remains on a list with the old listing unless or until a new listing is received of a subsequent subscriber. If the next subscriber has a nonpublished number or it's not a primary billing number and doesn't get a listing, then there is plenty of opportunity for calls in error. Number portability further complicates the issue, because the phone company doesn't even include those numbers on lists of disconnected numbers it would otherwise supply, such as to the official phone book delivery publisher. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:16:59 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Message-ID: <0a68d562-ce4f-4ce8-95cd-490007361f27@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> On Feb 9, 11:01 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote: > The problem is that there are plenty of lists to which newly > connected numbers are added, but never receive information about > disconnected numbers.  The excuse is always that disconnected > numbers are never supplied by the various phone companies. But > that's the only way to solve the problem. IMHO, the way to solve the problem is not to have all these "lists" out there in the first place. This is to reduce the bureaucracy, not add more of it. Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:07:01 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired Message-ID: <hkvl7l$rqt$8@news.albasani.net> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >On Feb 9, 11:01 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote: >> The problem is that there are plenty of lists to which newly >> connected numbers are added, but never receive information about >> disconnected numbers.  The excuse is always that disconnected >> numbers are never supplied by the various phone companies. But >> that's the only way to solve the problem. > IMHO, the way to solve the problem is not to have all these "lists" > out there in the first place. This is to reduce the bureaucracy, > not add more of it. Sheer genyoos. Then there'd be no one to call. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:39:48 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages Message-ID: <U3Dcn.18728$4p5.10083@newsfe22.iad> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On line listings are notoriously inaccurate, yet people seem to > think because it's "on line" it's correct. My on-line home phone > listing erroneously shows me living in a town 15 miles away. It > also shows me having a telephone line which I disconnected over five > years ago. People use those listings and have trouble calling me > even though I am properly listed in the telephone directory or from > 411. Unfortunately, distant 411 services can use out of date or > erroneous sources, too. That certainly is not true of the at&t on-line directories. They are an exact reproduction of the paper directory. They can do it, and now several magazines and newspapers can do it, so why can't all LECs do it? Answer: they can if they care to. As far as your multi-page telephone bill you have been given the option for several years now to receive that bill via electronic distribution (typically a PDF file). So, opt into "e billing." Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:20:28 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages Message-ID: <hktc6b$cpi$1@news.albasani.net> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > That phonebook was left on my door step in a plastic bag even though > I haven't had landline service since 2002 (though I do have stock in > the company) -- I'm not listed. And having AT&T Mobility as a cell > carrier does not qualify one for a listing in the White Pages (which > is fine with me). Right now, phone books are delivered based on the number of residences in a building. If a residence has lines on multiple bills, I suspect that triggers delivery of an extra book. In the past, phone books were delivered based on the number of telephone lines. And before NAFTA and prior bilateral trade agreements protected Canadian wood pulp causing newsprint prices to skyrocket (just at the time that directory advertising was declining and newspapers were starting to struggle), one's home used to get a phone directory per telephone extension. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:08:23 -0800 (PST) From: "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <5a03bb92-8cde-4b3c-a464-e94288414116@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> On Jan 8, 1:28 pm, Steven <diespamm...@killspammers.com> wrote: > MagicJack's next act: disappearing cell phone fees > > Jan 8, 12:01 PM (ET) > > By PETER SVENSSON > > LAS VEGAS (AP) - The company behind the MagicJack, the cheap Internet > phone gadget that's been heavily promoted on TV, has made a new version > of the device that allows free calls from cell phones in the home, in a > fashion that's sure to draw protest from cellular carriers. > > The new MagicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for which > cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive licenses. > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/20100108/D9D3M9U80.html > > I saw this today at CAS, but I don't have a GSM phone. Interesting Magicjack EULA described in RIGHT PANEL of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlkbwsyii2A Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:57:19 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain Message-ID: <MPG.25dce7be19113428989c7c@news.eternal-september.org> In article <QFlcn.69684$RS6.19071@newsfe15.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says... > > Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > ~ > > > > WECO/Lucent/Alcatel 1AESS switches still exist in the US. There are > > around 60 such 1As remaining, basically all within > > at&t/SBC/Ameritech, sbc's at&t/BellSouth, and > > at&t/SBC/Southwestern-Bell territory. From what I can tell, there > > are NO more 1As in at&t/SBC/Pacific*Telesis (Pacific*Bell in CA > > nor Nevada*Bell), nor Qwest/US-West territory, nor Cincinnati Bell > > territory, nor at&t/SBC/SNET (Connecticut). > > Do you (or anyone) know why Pacific Bell, et al, decided to replace > perfectly good 1AESS platforms with either DMS-100s or 5ESSes? I can > understand changing to digital for further replacement of remaining > 5XBAR and SXS, but some of those 1AESS platforms had been in service for > as little as 15 years. > > What does a digital end office do that a 1AESS won't (wouldn't) do? It really comes down to maintenance expense. Plus the fact that I think Alcatel isn't making many parts for 1AESS these days. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:25:35 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain Message-ID: <38Icn.24801$aU4.2575@newsfe13.iad> T wrote: >>What does a digital end office do that a 1AESS won't (wouldn't) do? > > It really comes down to maintenance expense. Plus the fact that I > think Alcatel isn't making many parts for 1AESS these days. Understood, but it's sort of the chicken-egg syndrome. Had several hundred 1AESSes remained in service, parts wouldn't be an issue. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I think they retire 1A ESS offices because only the oldest techs can understand Type 3 E&M. Bill "Protected member of the class" Horne Moderator Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:56:08 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <hkvdi8$ov$1@reader2.panix.com> Every couple of months I get a call, often with blocked or pseudo-fake caller ID, asking for "Jane Doe" (name changed, but it's the same one each time). These calls are on behalf of a fundraising arm (although they try to hide it at first) of the Democratic Party Senatorial election group. Apparently, sometime in the past decade, Ms. Doe gave them (or they transcribed) a wrong number. And I've been getting hassled ever since. I've politely explained this each time to the caller. They take me off the list they're using... but naturally, when they repurchase it six months later, I get bothered again. And they can never tell me where they're getting the list from. I've gone so far as to write my Senator, who is a Democrat... expressing my annoyance, and after not getting answers, wrote that I'd give donations to the Republicans each time. Still no answer. Since our politicians have exempted themselves from pretty much all of the DNC ("Do Not Call", as opposed to "Democratic National Committee") oversight, what other options can anyone here recommend? Thermonukes, while a plausable solution, are a bit extreme Thanks. -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:18:52 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <6645152a1002101518k5b6344e0w85361cf9c5b6509d@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:56 PM, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: > > And they can never tell me where they're getting the list from. > > I've gone so far as to write my Senator, who is a Democrat... > expressing my annoyance, and after not getting answers, wrote that I'd > give donations to the Republicans each time. I had the same happen. Well sort of. Different parties. I'd get a call asking for money. The first time they called they informed me there was a $75 minimum donation. I pointed out I was on the "Do Not Call" list. They quickly pointed out they're exempt. I explained I knew that, but I would like them to honor that still. They told me they didn't have to. I explained that I'm not going to give them any money and if they continue to call I will not only never give them money, but I will give money to their opponent and vote for their opponent. That actually did the trick despite me living in a conservative county and congressional district in Texas. Me voting for a Democrat would be as effective as spitting into the wind. The one that really irks me are charities. I politely ask them not to call me and I get an earful that they're exempt from the DNC list. Again, I know that, but I still don't want them calling. I have a unique last name (the spelling) and I get calls from bill collectors looking for people with that last name. I had American Express and a mortgage company calling almost daily looking for Melvin Mayson. No idea who that is. Since we disconnected our home number the problem has gone away. Lately I've gotten in the habit of giving out my Google Voice number since I can easily block callers. Last spring I signed up for 30 days of a free investment paper. I never got it but did get calls (to Google Voice) and emails asking I [wanted to] get a paid subscription. I told them that I wasn't going to pay for something that they couldn't get to me for free and I wasn't interested. I ended up simply blocking them. 2 or 3 weeks ago I logged into my GV account and saw they are STILL calling me. Almost 8 or 9 months later I'm still getting calls. They're blocked so I don't get bothered. You'd think they'd just give up. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:00:39 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <OO6dnSLc5u9U-e7WnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> On 2/10/2010 6:18 PM, John Mayson wrote: > ... I'd get a call [from a candidate] asking for money. The first > time they called they informed me there was a $75 minimum donation. > I pointed out I was on the "Do Not Call" list. They quickly pointed > out they're exempt. I explained I knew that, but I would like them > to honor that still. They told me they didn't have to. I explained > that I'm not going to give them any money and if they continue to > call I will not only never give them money, but I will give money to > their opponent and vote for their opponent. That actually did the > trick despite me living in a conservative county and congressional > district in Texas. Me voting for a Democrat would be as effective > as spitting into the wind. They only know that you're an angry voter, and angry voters get the most attention. After all, modern telecommunications cuts both ways: a faxed picture of the candidate meeting <some liberal person> could be in every NRA office in the country within 48 hours. > The one that really irks me are charities. I politely ask them not to > call me and I get an earful that they're exempt from the DNC list. > Again, I know that, but I still don't want them calling. Send a letter to the directors and/or trustees. Ask them to be sure it stops. It usually will. > I have a unique last name (the spelling) and I get calls from bill > collectors looking for people with that last name. I had American > Express and a mortgage company calling almost daily looking for > Melvin Mayson. No idea who that is. Since we disconnected our home > number the problem has gone away. Write a letter to the CEO of each company. Tell them you're talking to a reporter about the harassment. Remind them that they're breaking the law, that you're not Melvin, and that you deserve to be left alone. Let me know what they do: I'm the reporter, so I'd like to follow up. ;-) > Lately I've gotten in the habit of giving out my Google Voice number > since I can easily block callers. Last spring I signed up for 30 days > of a free investment paper. I never got it but did get calls (to > Google Voice) and emails asking I [wanted to] get a paid subscription. > I told them that I wasn't going to pay for something that they > couldn't get to me for free and I wasn't interested. I ended up > simply blocking them. 2 or 3 weeks ago I logged into my GV account > and saw they are STILL calling me. Almost 8 or 9 months later I'm > still getting calls. They're blocked so I don't get bothered. You'd > think they'd just give up. To a database designer, your phone number is you. It changes so seldom that it's a good-as-it-gets way to track you, and unlike your Social Security Number, which Health Maintenance Organizations now have access to but most other companies don't, most consumers hand it over, without thinking, to any store clerk in the world, provided that it's not already on the check you give them or recorded with your "loyalty" card that gets scanned along with your groceries. I always lie about my phone number when a store clerk asks for it: I don't mind being called by a human (I'm in the book), but I don't want my buying habits to be cross-referenced. Nobody has ever (pun intended) called me on it, and the phony numbers haven't shown up at online "411" sites, so I'm sure they ask in order to have a common database key. Bill Horne (Filter QRM for direct replies) -- "Hunger in the midnight, hunger at the stroke of noon Hunger in the mansion, hunger in the rented room Hunger on the TV, hunger on the printed page And there's a God-sized hunger underneath the laughing and the rage" - Jackson Browne Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:22:47 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <r5Icn.24800$aU4.14604@newsfe13.iad> danny burstein wrote: > Since our politicians have exempted themselves from pretty much all of > the DNC ("Do Not Call", as opposed to "Democratic National Committee") > oversight, what other options can anyone here recommend? > > Thermonukes, while a plausable solution, are a bit extreme Holding a Touchtone button down for several seconds followed by a hang-up is one option. Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:28:40 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <hkvmg8$29g$1@news.albasani.net> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: > Every couple of months I get a call, often with blocked or > pseudo-fake caller ID, asking for "Jane Doe" (name changed, but it's > the same one each time). > These calls are on behalf of a fundraising arm (although they try to > hide it at first) of the Democratic Party Senatorial election group. > Apparently, sometime in the past decade, Ms. Doe gave them (or they > transcribed) a wrong number. And I've been getting hassled ever > since. > I've politely explained this each time to the caller. They take me > off the list they're using... but naturally, when they repurchase it > six months later, I get bothered again. > And they can never tell me where they're getting the list from. You're absolutely right. The logical solution to this problem of wrong numbers would be to require that those who call lists to report their experience with out of date information to the list broker and for the list broker in turn to report it to the source he obtained it from. Also, the call center should be able to tell the called party the source of the name. But here's what happens in practice. Political organizations are exempt from maintaining or using Do Not Call registries, which were themselves a highly imperfect solution to telemarketing. Political fundraising is subject to disclosure under federal and state law, so if a contributor gives an amount greater than a couple of hundred bucks, his name is known and readily available to the list consolidators. Typically, a phone number would not be part of the disclosure, but name and address, and under federal law, employer, would be. The list consolidators, in turn, use extremely fuzzy matches to assign phone numbers to names. Political organizations are allowed to use voter registration lists which business solicitors cannot, so those are often sources of phone numbers. Hint: When registering to vote, no state law requires disclosure of your phone number, so do not disclose it. Otherwise they get phone numbers from credit reports or lists of customers that businesses have sold, etc. Even out of date phone record matches are more current than some of this other information they use. But list consolidators and information brokers don't care about the quality of the data they provide. They just want as many hits as possible. I've mentioned before about a phone number that was never installed that nevertheless got sold to list brokers, and then with fuzzy matching, the wrong address was associated with the billing name and phone number. Thanks to very soft indexing criteria, you can never get off a list because the list itself was assembled from weak criteria. Bad information never expires and will match future index searches. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:44:00 -0500 From: "Michael D. Sullivan" <mds@camsul.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Area Code 710? Message-ID: <a76e5e941002101844u6480dcfbv424f0724709e4920@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:42:23 -0500, Ann O'Nymous <nobody@nowhere.com> posted: > Area Code 710 is assigned to "US Government Services".  According > to the Wikipedia article on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_710) > there is only one working number as of 2006.  It seems rather silly > to allocate an entire area code to one phone number, esp. when it was > assigned when area codes were rapidly becoming scarce (NNX format). > > How is it really used?  I assume that high level government officials > such as the President/VP, House and Senate Members, the Cabinet, high > level officials in the military/CIA/etc have 710 area code numbers, > not reachable by phones not in that area code other than those with a > need (home phones, those of family members).  Correct, or am I way off > base? My guest is that this is a relic of the TWX days. I believe 510 and 610 were the NPAs for TWX; perhaps 710 was for Government TWX? After the demise of TWX, the government may have special-purposed this NPA code for Autovon or some other specialized system, accessible only from lines that are authorized. Any TWX or Autovon experts out there? - - Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD ***** Moderator's Note ***** The 710 NPA was used for 100-speed TWX in the Eastern part of the U.S. Since the WADS offices were sold to Western Union after the divestiture of TWX, and were eventually retired, I doubt there's any vestige of the TWX infrastructure remaining. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:52:09 EST From: Wesrock@aol.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Touch-Tone<tm> on SxS Message-ID: <1aff8.7315377d.38a35d39@aol.com> In a message dated 2/9/2010 3:06:51 PM Central Standard Time, jsw@ivgate.omahug.org writes: > When dialing was complete, the common-control unit then either drove > the switches to complete the intra-office call or selected a trunk > to another office and outpulsed the appropriate digits using the > method the far-end office spoke. While not exactly the same thing, when Blackwell, Okla., was cut to dial with a new 5XB, it homed on Ponca City, a step office. It also had high usage trunks from the 4A in Oklahoma City. You could readily tell which route your call had taken, because if it used the high usage trunks from the 4A, the call setup was almost instantaneous, while if it took the final route through Ponca City, the 4A outpulsed to the step office in Ponca City and through it to Blackwell with step pulses. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com 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 (39 messages)