29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

  The Telecom Digest for March 05, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 56 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:

Re:Annoyance Calls(Sam Spade)
Re: ShopAlerts by AT&T(John Levine)
Caller-Pays, Texting (was: ShopAlerts by AT&T)(Mark Cuccia)
Re:Annoyance Calls(danny burstein)
Re:Annoyance Calls(Jack Myers)
Re: Annoyance Calls(Lisa or Jeff)
Re: Caller Pays vs. Called Party Pays (was Re: ShopAlerts by AT&T) (Joseph Singer)

====== 29 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 Bill Horne 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: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:25:42 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Annoyance Calls
Message-ID: <D9-dnSd7sIkKou3QnZ2dnUVZ_ucAAAAA@giganews.com>

fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com wrote:

> 
>       I guess I'm going to be filing a complaint with the Federal Trade
> Commission soon if I don't resolve this.
> 

All the FTC does is gather statistics on these telephonic invasions.  If 
you push them hard enough they will advise you that federal law permits 
you to file a lawsuit agains the violator.




Date: 4 Mar 2011 01:35:06 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ShopAlerts by AT&T 
Message-ID: <20110304013506.76581.qmail@joyce.lan>

>Have we had a discussion of the merits of this way versus the US way of
>doing things where the example of this thread costs the (passive) receiver
>money?

Often.  People in caller pays like it because incoming calls are "free",
but of course they're not, they're charged to someone else.  Caller
pays has what's known as a "terminating monopoly", which means that if
I want to call your mobile, I have to pay whatever price your carrier
sets for people to call.  As a result, terminating prices tend to be
very high, and the actual per-minute price people pay is considerably
higher than in mobile pays areas.

In North America, where it's all mobile pays, we're quite aware of the
price of both outgoing and incoming calls, so there is a great deal
of competition for both.  I pay 10 cents/min on my cheap low volume
prepaid phone; people who talk a lot and have monthly bundles pay less.

R's,
John




Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:35:50 -0800 (PST)
From: markjcuccia@yahoo.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Caller-Pays, Texting (was: ShopAlerts by AT&T) 
Message-ID: <dfe6ce6d-cde4-4d75-8c4a-51b4fa6f5a19@n18g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>

John Levine wrote:

> David Clayton in Australia wrote:

>> Have we had a discussion of the merits of this way versus the US

(and don't forget Canada)

>> way of doing things where the example of this thread costs the
>> (passive) receiver money?

> Often.  People in caller pays like it because incoming calls are
> "free", but of course they're not, they're charged to someone else.
> Caller pays has what's known as a "terminating monopoly", which
> means that if I want to call your mobile, I have to pay whatever
> price your carrier sets for people to call.  As a result,
> terminating prices tend to be very high, and the actual per-minute
> price people pay is considerably higher than in mobile pays areas.
>
> In North America, where it's all mobile pays, we're quite aware of
> the price of both outgoing and incoming calls, so there is a great
> deal of competition for both.  I pay 10 cents/min on my cheap low
> volume prepaid phone; people who talk a lot and have monthly
> bundles pay less.

And these days, more and more wireless providers offer fixed monthly
prices for "unlimited" US calling, or even unlimited US AND Canada
calling! That includes both outgoing calls, and ALL incoming calls.

As for text messaging, I simply told at&t/cingular that I don't text,
and never intend on texting anyone. I had been getting $pam texts of
"stock market quotes" from "brokers" in the middle of the night at
1am or 2am, or $pam texts of sports scores and wanting me to
"purchase" their "package" of "unlimited" incoming texts of sports
scores. I don't think that these $pam texts were coming from
at&t/cingular, but rather from some $leazy $cumbag $pammer. It sort of
reminded me of the old 900/976 PAY numbers.

I think that at&t/cingular removed the charges for receiving these
$pam texts, and the second time it happened, I called them up and told
them to simply BLOCK ALL texts. And I have had to tell people that I
know that they should NEVER ASSUME that anyone automatically has
texting capability, or even if they do, they might have texting turned
off. If I still had my old analog AMPS cellphone, it wouldn't have
even been text-capable at all! But for those people who still insist
that they just "have" to text me instead of CALLING me (and leaving
a voicemail if necessary, afterall, it's a PHONE first, not a TTY),
and I don't get their text, it's NOT my problem, but THEIR'S!

at&t/cingular told me that I might still receive "administrative"
texts from them, at NO charge. I did tell them that "admin texts" from
at&t/cingular should NOT include any of "their" telemarketing, even
if I wouldn't be charged, and so far, I haven't received any such
at&t/cingular-based telemarketing texts, even though it would be
"free" to me.

... and that I could still send a "remaining monthly minutes" text
request to them, and receive (moments later) a text-back indicating
how many "free" (voice) min's are remaining that month, all at no
charge. But about a year ago, I switched over the unlimited US plan,
and there's no longer a need for any "impromptu" monthly (voice) min's
remaining (free) text from them!

Mark J. Cuccia
markjcuccia at yahoo dot com




Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 02:22:15 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Annoyance Calls
Message-ID: <ikpicn$kap$3@reader1.panix.com>

In <f56534d0e00df2b4555dd93dfd7dd4a3.squirrel@webmail.mishmash.com> fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com writes:
[snip]

>      I guess I'm going to be filing a complaint with the Federal Trade
>Commission soon if I don't resolve this.

Why wait? Do that _now_, along with cc's to the various PUC/PSCs.

- I had a vaguely similar series of hassle calls from a law
firm in Utah using a robot dialer, claiming they were looking
for mumble mumble, and that if I wasn't mumble mumble, I
should jump through hoops and waste plenty of time calling
them back, getting v-mail, demands for ID, etc.

I wrote letters to the Utah AG. End of story.

-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]




Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:26:58 -0800
From: "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Annoyance Calls
Message-ID: <iad648-ul1.ln1@n6wuz.net>

fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com wrote:
>       I have been getting annoyance calls from phone numbers in Harlingen,
> Texas.  ...
>       When I call one of those numbers, I get only a touch tone
> auto-dialer.  No voice or company identification is given.
>       ... my residential toll-free number ...
>       I guess I'm going to be filing a complaint with the Federal Trade
> Commission soon if I don't resolve this.

FCC has jurisdiction here. The scam is that you get dinged fifty cents or
so for each call to your toll-free number and the originating telco gets
a piece of that. 

   http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm

-- 
Jack Myers / Westminster, California, USA
 
Aibohphobia: The fear of palindromes.




Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:14:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls 
Message-ID: <9a720fee-2d42-4a2a-8ff6-c12d8edcd5d7@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>

On Mar 3, 3:34 pm, fatkinson.remove-t...@and-this-too.mishmash.com
wrote:

>       I have been getting annoyance calls from phone numbers in Harlingen,
> Texas.  The latest numbers are . . . :

Is it possible those numbers are spoofed?

>    I called my VOIP company.  They are unable to help me contact the
>offenders.

Why can't your carrier help you?  Aren't they responsible to do so
as your telephone service provider?  My local carrier has an office
specifically to deal with serious harrassment calls.  The number is
reported by dialing 1157 immediately after the call is received.  I
think that's a standard service, and I believe it uses the ANI, not
Caller-ID, so is more accurate.

sample description:

"Call Trace automatically initiates a trace of the last call you
received. You can use this feature to trace unlawful or threatening
calls that alarm, frighten, or harass you. The trace results include
the calling and called number and the date and the time of the call.
The results are sent to the Verizon Unlawful Call Center and are
stored for future action.

Your phone is already equipped for Call Trace; there is no charge for
the connection. Charges and fees for using Call Trace may vary.

Note If you are threatened with bodily harm or an explosive device,
use Call Trace and immediately contact your local police department.

All calling features are subject to availability and compatibility
restrictions."

for full description and instructions please see:
http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/phone/calling+features/call+trace/call+trace.htm


another carrier's description:
http://www.corp.att.com/smbcc/aio/aio_callmgmt.html

[a google search on "Call Trace 57" yields many results.]




Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:01:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Caller Pays vs. Called Party Pays (was Re: ShopAlerts by AT&T) 
Message-ID: <455680.43785.qm@web52705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:43:17 +1100 David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:

> In Australia (and probably other countries as well) mobile users do
> not pay to receive calls or SMS - but on the flip side all outgoings
> from mobiles cost way more than "normal" phones.
> 
> Have we had a discussion of the merits of this way versus the US way
> of doing things where the example of this thread costs the (passive)
> receiver money?

This topic has been breached many many many times.  Bringing it up
again is not likely to settle anything.

      





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 (7 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues