|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 61 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Taxes and surcharges over 36% of bill, is this normal?
Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle)
Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle)
Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle)
Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle)
update on TeleTrap from TelTech Systems
====== 27 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: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:20:41 -0800
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Taxes and surcharges over 36% of bill, is this normal?
Message-ID: <_hmql.528$im1.360@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>
T wrote:
> In article <3nhbq4d9ku7eaap68d30e72okhrbjphvp3@4ax.com>,
> rng@richbonnie.com says...
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:19:13 -0500 (EST), muzician21
>> <muzician21@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm with Embarq since they're the only game in town for DSL in my
>>> area.
>>>
>>> Taxes and surcharges of 16.51 on total charges of 44.80 - the DSL
>>> internet which is an additional 19.95 isn't taxed according to the
>>> bill.
>>>
>>> The taxes have names like Telecommunications relay surcharge,
>>> Interstate access surcharge, etc. etc.
>>>
>>> So that works out to almost 37% of the taxed portion of the bill.
>>> That's over 5x the tax rate on consumer items in many counties. Is
>>> this typical?
>> I use AT&T for my wire-line telephone service in Nevada.
>> My surcharges and other fees are:
>>
>> Federal Subscriber Line Charge 5.14
>> Federal Universal Service Fee 1.59
>> Carrier Cost recovery Fee (Long Dist) 1.99
>> Total 8.72
>>
>> My bill for local and unlimited long distance is 51.00 (which includes
>> many custom calling features) before the above fees. So the tax+fee
>> rate is 8.72/51.00 = 17%.
>> There is no tax listed, so apparently communiations services are not
>> taxed in Nevada. (That's good, because our sales tax rate is about
>> 7%).
>>
>> I get Internet (but not cable TV) from the local cable TV company. The
>> bill lists CALEA fee of 0.42, but no other fees or taxes. I believe
>> that CALEA stands for "Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
>> Act", so the fee is to reimburse the cable company for complying with
>> this law. Hmm, this means that I'm paying a fee for the government to
>> spy on me.
>
> My Vonage $24.99 becomes $31.99 due to the following:
>
> Regulatory Recovery Fee $0.99
> Emergency 911 Cost Recovery $0.99
> Sales Tax $2.01
> Federal Program Fee $1.75
> State 911 Fee $1.00
> State Telecom Education Access Fund $0.26
>
> Only $7 in taxes and fees. Of that, the Regulatory Recovery Fee,
> Emergency 911 Cost Recovery Fee, and Federal Program Fee are all money
> grabs by Vonage. $3.73 or more than half that $7.
>
> Don't even ask about my $39.99 T-Mobile plan. It ends up at $50 a month
> with the same baloney.
>
The City of Riverside, Calif. tried to add a tax to Cellular phone
about 18 years ago; they had a meeting on it and over 500 peopke showed
up to protest, most of them made it very very clear that they never even
used their phone in the city, just lived here or had a Riverside
billing address. Things are very different now since almost all plans
come with huge amount of minutes. I myself still only use mine for work
and that is out of the area; they are now going to try it again and I
expect there will be again a protest, but I'm sure that it will get
passed this time since the elected officials still think we work for
them and they have to stuff their pockets with our cash so they can
drive their city owned Hummers and the like.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 04:18:31 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle)
Message-ID: <god2an$cf1$1@reader1.panix.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>In terms of communications: I don't believe the New Deal contributed
>in any way toward improved telephone technology. I don't believe the
>New Deal funded any significant scientific research.
>Did the Rural Electrification Act also cover telephone service to
>rural homes?
And it does to this day. Many REA Coop's provide telephone service to rural
areas. Those that are now gone were bought by GTE, Alltel or similar.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 04:22:52 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle)
Message-ID: <god2is$cf1$2@reader1.panix.com>
More on REA telco's....
<http://www.ntca.org/index.php?view=article&id=51%3Ahistory-of-rural-telecommunications&option=com_content&Itemid=279>
--
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
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 00:23:43 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle)
Message-ID: <MPG.2413e5ea1fb8a32298991f@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <Pccql.61266$6r1.19155@newsfe19.iad>, sam@coldmail.com
says...
>
> Kenneth P. Stox wrote:
>
> > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >
> >> In contrast, FDR was a expert at handling the press and at "spin".
> >> His fireside chats gave the people the sense that someone cared
> >> about them and was working on their behalf. That was a critical
> >> contribution, giving the people hope for the future. But FDR's
> >> programs did not end the Depression, spark a business recovery and
> >> for many people did nothing to alleviate the suffering. People
> >> forget that FDR didn't like deficit spending either and in the late
> >> 1930s cut back on social programs, FDR's cutback brought a fresh
> >> business slowdown.
> >
> >
> > Whether or not the New Deal ended the depression is arguable, but
> > without the New Deal we would have lost Europe and the Pacific in
> > WWII. We would not have been able to mobilize at nearly the speed
> > we did. Had the TVA not been constructed, we would not have been
> > able to develop the atomic bomb as quickly as we did.
>
> Whether a person likes FDR or not, history has proven he did his best
> to prepare this country for the inevitable world war with Hitler. In
> fact, there is a fair amount of evidence he baited Japan to attack us
> somewhere in the Pacific so we could declare war on them, thus forcing
> Hitler's hand before England fell.
>
> I generally vote Republican but both FDR and Harry Truman were heros
> so far as I am concerned.
Yes there is evidence that Washington delayed the transmission of
warnings to Pearl Harbor in order to use it as a catalyst for entry into
WW II.
There was a strong isolationist movement in the U.S. at the time that
FDR had to overcome.
Our industry had been pretty busy building up aircraft, guns and boats
for the UK under the lend-lease program.
But FDR knew that the West was doomed if the U.S. didn't enter the war.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:53:47 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle)
Message-ID: <2d1ea145-9c7f-4d8e-9e85-96fd77a8c3e4@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 1, 11:06 am, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
> Yes there is evidence that Washington delayed the transmission of
> warnings to Pearl Harbor in order to use it as a catalyst for entry into
> WW II.
Telecom reference: Despite advances in technology, in 1941 long
distance telecommunications, by either wire or wireless, were still
very slow and cumbersome.
War comment:
The historical record is very strong that the military was very well
aware of the risk of war, including Pearl Harbor. Pearl Habor got
caught off guard because the Japanese outsmarted us by using a new
kind of warfare--planes launched from aircraft carriers. Ironically,
the Japanese hit the battleships which were actually made obsolete by
their very attack. The US' carriers were out at sea and far more
valuable.
While the Pearl Harbor commanders were blamed, with some
justification, for not being as prepared as they should've been,
MacArthur in the Phillipines was likewise unprepared (planes parked
too close) and had extra time. Further, an attack on the Phillipines
was expected.
> There was a strong isolationist movement in the U.S. at the time that
> FDR had to overcome.
Even if Pearl Harbor would've been on full readiness, the Japanese
attack was still a surprise and in bad faith. The outcome of rage in
the U.S. would've been the same.
If FDR was "baiting" anyone, it was the Germans. He wanted to stall
the Japanese as long as possible because the US did not have the
resources to fight them.
***** Moderator's Note *****
This is the last message in this thread.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:02:29 -0500
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: update on TeleTrap from TelTech Systems
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0903010921520.16190@panix5.panix.com>
background: This company lets users of _some_ cellular phones,
when receiving a "blocked-CNID" call, hit a few buttons, and
then, through some magic, the CNID appears.
I've just duplicated the probable sequence using my own cellphone,
(without using TelTech) and yes, I was able to get the "blocked"
CNID to appear.
The trick, so to speak, is two fold:
a: when you "bounce" or "forward" a call aimed at a cellphone
(at least of some companies), that second call is treated by
the phone network, in many aspects, as a brand new one from
the original caller - but this time to the third party. Hence
the CNID is transmitted (unless blocked) to that third party.
b: calls to "toll free" numbers such as "1-800" _do_ pass
along the CNID even when "blocked". (ok, often it's ANI
rather than CNID, but the concept is the same).
So... I set up my cell phone to bounce (when I hit a key)
the calls to my own toll free number [a], which routed to
my landline. I then made some tests.
First, calling my cellphone using a "blocked" CNID (by prepending
the "*67) did, as expected, get me a "private call"
(that is, no CNID) on the display.
I then made another blocked call to the cellphone, which, as before,
got a "private" flag. I "bounced" the call to my tollfree number,
which routed to my landline. And eyup, a couple of seconds later
my landline rang _and_ it displayed the CNID.
Finally, I reset my tollfree number to route to my cellphone.
I wasn't sure whether I could "bounce" a call from my cellphone,
out to the tollfree number, and then back to my cellphone.
It worked. When I called my cellphone (again, with a
blocked CNID), the initial display said "private". I hit
the "bounce" key, it routed out _and back_ through the
tollfree vendor, and eyup, I got to see the CNID.
[a] I use "kall8" as my "tollfree" supplier. Their rates
are decent, although not the greatest. Their key advantage
is their realtime web-based control page, letting you
designate the "real" number the tollfree one routes to
with just a few clickthroughs. They also have very good
management options - such as deciding which areas can
get through to you and which should be blocked, also
via that real time interface.
Oh, and the calls I made immediately showed up on their
web page, and the billing info also appeared in my e-mail
inbox a moment later. This included the CNID...
No other connection with them except as a satisfied customer.
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
***** Moderator's Note *****
Privacy, like spam, is an arms race. The US/Canada phone
system uses a "Payee wins" paradigm, where the company
paying for the call gets to know which number dialed it
even if the caller doesn't like that; ergo, toll-free
numbers pass along ANI info.
In the future, however, we might change to a bidding model,
where a caller can pay more for privacy than a recipient
is willing to bid to know the number.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
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 Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
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: mailto: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
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest
Copyright (C) 2008 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 (6 messages)
******************************
|
or 