29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for March 08, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 59 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 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: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 02:49:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Number portability
Message-ID: <il1h44$24pb$1@gal.iecc.com>
>Can you port a mobile number to a land line?
In most areas, yes. There may be rural areas where you can't port between
mobile and landline, but in urban areas it should work.
Most of the porting goes the other way, people dump their landline in
favor of mobile, but it works the other way, too.
R's,
John
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:03:40 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Number portability
Message-ID: <7cqdncudfPCh6OnQnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <6PudnZJUtM_jbO_QnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@megapath.net>,
Hal Murray <hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> wrote:
>> There's another difference to consider. In the USA there is no way
>> for the calling party to know whether the number he is calling is a
>> landline or a mobile. Indeed, because of number portability, a
>> number whose office code is for landlines could actually have been
>> ported to a mobile.
>
>Can you port a mobile number to a land line?
Under some circumstances, yes. The simplest being where the number of
that mobile is a ported land-line number.
>In the old days, if you moved to a new house within the area served by
>your CO, you could keep your old number. Does the portability stuff
>let me keep my old number if I move to a new CO within the same phone
>company?
Maybe.
> Or move to a different area code?
No.
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:57:43 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Ways for telco to signal answer/hangup?
Message-ID: <7cqdncidfPBK7unQnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <0l37n6dlgt7k5mskft38j74v9t0bpmu0a4@4ax.com>,
Gilles Ganault <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>Hello
>
>I'm trying to figure out how Asterisk and an FXO module can detect
>that the remote end has answered and then hung up.
authoritative answer: "It depends."
On what the far end of your circuit does when the switched circuit has
been torn down.
If you are connected to a PBX, 'anything goes' -- you'll have to talk to
the PBX admin to find out (a) what the PBX is capable of doing, and (b)
how it is programmed to react for your line..
For telco C.O. gear, the situation is somewhat more predictable:
With a -basic- 'loopstart' circuit, you pretty much have to wait for the
C.O. to (a) re-assert dial-tone, (b) give you a 'busy' or 'fast busy', or
(c) give you a 'crybaby'.
With 'kewlstart' (an enhanced/extended loopstart) the C.O. will -- it is
virtually certain, at least in the U.S. -- drop battery to you, to signal
the 'disconnect'.
>In addition, is there a tone-based way to tell that the remote end has
>answered, eg. listen for the ringback tone to stop?
Pretty much anything you do in this area is simply a _guess_. You can
have situations where the far end answers before you get any ring
indication. And you can have situations where ringback is interrupted/
delayed, =without= the called party answering.
You can -try- looking for continuous 'tone' -- e.g. a modem 'answer' signal;
or 'voice' audio (will false-positive on far end 'intercept' message, unless
you have SIT checks in place, and they were not triggered); or (maybe) an
increase in 'background noise'.
It's possible that you get a battery polarity reversal on connect, but
unlikely (except maybe on a pay-phone circuit). Early "touch-tone" pads
=were= polarity sensitive, and customers bitched like h*ll about not being
able to navigate far end IVR systems, or enter their answering machine
password. Newer pads are -- almost universally -- not polarity sensitive
for exactly that reason, and C.O.s do not reverse polarity so as to not
provoke user complaints.
Date: 7 Mar 2011 11:07:14 -0500
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls
Message-ID: <il2vri$8jh$1@panix2.panix.com>
In article <20110306191023.66430.qmail@gal.iecc.com>,
Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> wrote:
>At 06:52 AM 3/5/2011, you wrote:
>>Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>You have just discovered the big difference between Verizon and the VOIP
>>providers. Verizon has an Unlawful Call Center because the FCC and the
>>PUC force them to have it. The VOIP providers do not have this pressure
>>on them.
>
> I have just discovered that Southwestern Bell refuses to stop
>one of its own customers from making annoyance calls.
>
> That's what I've discovered.
Now in THAT case, a letter to the PUC should be effective. SWBell doesn't
care, but the PUC will.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:37:25 -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: <ae3c8941-e195-46a7-9337-0f7db5465cc6@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 7, 11:07 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> I have just discovered that Southwestern Bell refuses to stop
>> one of its own customers from making annoyance calls.
>
>> That's what I've discovered.
>
> Now in THAT case, a letter to the PUC should be effective. SWBell
> doesn't care, but the PUC will.
I'm confused. How do we know that SW Bell is handling the originating
phone calls for this harassment? Assuming that the Caller ID is
accurate or you have the ANI, suppose it was a number ported to
another source, eg a VOIP provider?
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 16:38:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Caller-Pays, Texting
Message-ID: <94494.69694.qm@web111711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Fri, 3/4/11, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
> markjcuccia@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> When I upgraded to my iPhone in Dec, 2008, I instituted
> text blocking on my account (wife has old Motorola, but it
> can receive text).
>
> I have not received any text messages from AT&T.
I receive a text message from AT&T every month when I pay my bill. It
specifies it is a free message. I am not sure why AT&T finds it
worthwhile to send this message, which is simply an annoyance.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:32:01 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Using Phones, but Not to Talk or Surf
Message-ID: <p06240814c99ab8c7b6d0@[10.0.1.3]>
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/business/media/07drill.html
Using Phones, but Not to Talk or Surf
By ALEX MINDLIN
March 6, 2011
The average smartphone owner spends 667 minutes a month using apps.
That is more time spent with apps than spent talking on a smartphone
or using it to browse the Web. But not all smartphones are equally
friendly to apps.
Programmers have an easier time designing apps for iPhones and
Android phones, giving these devices a much broader pool to draw
from. Users of those devices fire up twice as many apps a month as
BlackBerry users do, according to Zokem, a research firm. Zokem
tracked the behavior of 2,100 British and American smartphone users
in January using software installed on their phones.
The most popular app to download is the game Angry Birds. But only 5
percent of users played that game in the month that Zokem measured.
That pattern is typical for a game, said Hannu Verkasalo, the chief
executive of Zokem. "For many games, the usage is quite sporadic.
People download a game, try it a few times, and then it falls away,"
he said.
- ALEX MINDLIN
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:47:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Using Phones, but Not to Talk or Surf
Message-ID: <f77ac5a0-1165-4f85-8bf9-2c72d9fb4a65@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 7, 11:32 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> The average smartphone owner spends 667 minutes a month using apps.
> That is more time spent with apps than spent talking on a smartphone
> or using it to browse the Web. But not all smartphones are equally
> friendly to apps.
I wonder what the counts are for domestic voice telephone traffic,
such as local and toll plain voice calls--by landline and cellular.
I wonder if voice call traffic is down due to so many messages being
done by text or email or internet.
For instance, if kids want to set up an outing, do they text each
other to make the arrangements or make a voice call (either cellular
or landline)? If a teen wants to ask another out on a date, it is
done by texting or phone or email?
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:15:22 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: View Cell Phone Coverage on Google Maps
Message-ID: <AANLkTincJ=9utqCg719ZwBaP7SQ7niwhhnJO6jbUFq1Q@mail.gmail.com>
http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2011/03/view-cell-phone-coverage-on-google-maps.html
OpenSignalMaps is a great source for data about cell phone towers,
cell phone signal strength readings, and Wi-Fi access points around
the world. OpenSignalsMaps uses Google Maps to allow you to view the
mobile signal strength for any location and view the locations of
nearby towers for your carrier.
Using the map you can search by location and view a heat map of the
signal strength for each of the carriers available in your area. You
can select to view the data of individual carriers and quickly see how
their local coverage compares. It is also possible to view the cell
tower locations for each of your local mobile phone service providers.
The data for the map is collected from users of the OpenSignalsMaps
Android application. Data from the downloaded apps is stripped of any
identifying information.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
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 (9 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues