|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 66 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Re: It's that time again in North America
Re: Loma Linda California Now Selling 911 Insurance
Re: iPad Available in US on April 3
Re: iPad Available in US on April 3
Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Re: Loma Linda California Now Selling 911 Insurance
Re: Loma Linda California Now Selling 911 Insurance
Re: Loma Linda California Now Selling 911 Insurance
Re: Loma Linda California Now Selling 911 Insurance
Re: Loma Linda California Now Selling 911 Insurance
Re: NYS "bill" in works to outlaw phone ID spoofing
Slammed and crammed
====== 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: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:28:22 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Message-ID: <pan.2010.03.06.06.28.18.819635@myrealbox.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
.......
> There are some things that can be shared without detriment to their
> owners, and some that can't, and many that are in between. Fallow
> land on which game can be taken for food is one example of the
> first, a properly maintained automobile is an example of the second,
> and seashore of the third. Over time, our society has arrived at a
> consensus as to which things are in which category, and I feel that
> open WiFi will be placed in the first when all is said and done.
.......
Isn't this whole argument about borderlines (or the lack of)?
If someone makes a resource (an unprotected wireless service)
available for access on your (or public) property, then that is a lot
different from having a resource clearly protected inside a boundary
or other clear and recognised delimiter of "ownership".
In reality, if anyone - company or individual - is going to make
something available on your property or on public property, then they
better take steps themselves to secure it.
Dumping radio signals all around the place and trying to protect them
by words on a law statue hasn't proven terribly effective over the
years, has it?
People can have fruit trees near their fenceline inside their
property, but the convention is that any fruit hanging outside of the
fence is fair game..... :-)
--
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: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:50:36 -0600
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Message-ID: <7tKdndtp3PUR_QzWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@supernews.com>
"Jeter la poubelle SVP" <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> writes:
> More likely, she thought wi-fi was some sort of birth-right, like
> air or water. Sure, you can buy your wi-fi service from an ISP, just
> as you can buy bottled water, but why do so if, like the air you
> breath or the water from your tap, it's just there, free for the
> taking?
If you listen to the clip, you know exactly what she was thinking,
because she told Leo. She rationalized stealing internet service
because "they charge too much".
Telecom Digest Moderator writes:
> Well, I've made my position clear already. Using a resource that
> the owner chooses not to safeguard is, to my mind, "acceptable
> use".
So if you don't lock your garden gate, I can spread a towel and
sunbathe in the flower bed? What's your address? *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
***** Moderator's Note *****
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon Massachusetts USA
There's a fence around the backyard where I keep my garden: IANALB the
law in this state, as I understand it, is that adults may not trespass
on fenced land even if the gate is unlocked[1]. If you have a different
theory of the law, and are willing to defend it, come ahead.
My WiFi Access Point is labelled "PrivateHorneFamily", and even if it
were not encrypted I would feel entitled to shoo you away if you tried
to use it: after all, I made my ownership and the restriction clear.
Bill Horne
Moderator
1. AFAIK, surveyors enjoy an exception to the rule, but their trespass is
limited to the scope of their work and is done at their own risk.
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:37:34 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: It's that time again in North America
Message-ID: <op.u84bwwr5itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
Because of a WEBFAK(*), On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:57:10 -0500,
tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
> Here's another local time/temp item for your collection:
>
> New Haven CT 203 xxx-xxxx (aka 203 SPRINGS)
Please add the number originally given to "la poubelle":
it was that of an innocent, random, residential line.
Please ignore it, and use instead the true 203 SPRINGS
time/temp number, 203 777-4647. Thank you.
Cheers, -- tlvp
[(*)WEBFAK: Wetware Error Between Fingers And Keyboard]
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:51:56 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Loma Linda California Now Selling 911 Insurance
Message-ID: <g_tkn.4011$ao7.2796@newsfe21.iad>
Dan Lanciani wrote:
> e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net (Eric Tappert) wrote:
>
> |The deal is that you donate a subscription fee (about $35-50 per year
> |depending on how many are in the family) and if you need them they'll
> |settle for whatever your insurance company pays and they don't bill
> |you for the rest. Not a subscriber? Then you get a bill for the
> |difference between the insurance payment and their real bill.
>
> Can they do this if your insurer is Medicare?
>
When you sign up you probably waive your rights under Medicare; at least
that's my guess.
The smartest move is to avoid these plans like the plague.
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:21:14 GMT
From: Howard Eisenhauer <howarde@NOSPAMhfx.eastlink.ca>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: iPad Available in US on April 3
Message-ID: <9ls4p5p0duub117vbie7th8hslsdj81mva@4ax.com>
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:26:36 -0800, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
wrote:
*Snip*
> I also don't understand the Windows 7/Vista/XP aspect of it as
> detailed on the "specs" URL (above) -- does one have to attach the
> iPad to a PC in order to do anything with it over USB? Is the iPad
> solely a conduit to iTunes for a PC? It's not clear what it does.
>
> As much as I like gadgets, the iPad doesn't look like something I'd
> be buying.
It has it's uses-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjU0K8QPhs
H.
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:17:09 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: iPad Available in US on April 3
Message-ID: <4B92AA35.6080604@thadlabs.com>
On 3/6/2010 7:21 AM, Howard Eisenhauer wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:26:36 -0800, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
> wrote:
>
> Snip
>
>> I also don't understand the Windows 7/Vista/XP aspect of it as
>> detailed on the "specs" URL (above) -- does one have to attach the
>> iPad to a PC in order to do anything with it over USB? Is the iPad
>> solely a conduit to iTunes for a PC? It's not clear what it does.
>>
>> As much as I like gadgets, the iPad doesn't look like something I'd
>> be buying.
>
> It has it's uses-
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjU0K8QPhs
Ah, that clarifies things perfectly. Thank you!
:-)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:36:31 -0800
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Message-ID: <siegman-580D9B.08363106032010@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
> >> Well, I've made my position clear already. Using a resource that
> >> the owner chooses not to safeguard is, to my mind, "acceptable
> >> use".
>
> > Hmm. Where would you draw the line? How about an unguarded donation
> > basket at a church function?
How about making the distinction based primarily on whether your use of
someone else's "unguarded resource" neither denies the owner of that
resource the use of that resource in any significant way, nor imposes
any other unwanted extra costs on the owner of that resource?
Trivial example: I'm driving up a narrow road, want to make a U-turn,
to do so make a left turn which puts me briefly and only for a short
distance into a private driveway, then back out, and reverse direction.
Doing this once imposes no cost on owner of the driveway. But if it's a
situation where people are doing this repeatedly, at all hours of the
day and night, with noisy engines and gear changes, flashing headlights
into bedrooms at midnight . . . well, that's different.
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:18:17 -0600
From: Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Message-ID: <yOmdnbt8Eug0SQ_WnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@posted.palinacquisition>
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> writes:
>> >> Well, I've made my position clear already. Using a resource that
>> >> the owner chooses not to safeguard is, to my mind, "acceptable
>> >> use".
>>
>> > Hmm. Where would you draw the line? How about an unguarded donation
>> > basket at a church function?
> How about making the distinction based primarily on whether your use
> of someone else's "unguarded resource" neither denies the owner of
> that resource the use of that resource in any significant way, nor
> imposes any other unwanted extra costs on the owner of that
> resource?
> Trivial example: I'm driving up a narrow road, want to make a
> U-turn, to do so make a left turn which puts me briefly and only for
> a short distance into a private driveway, then back out, and reverse
> direction.
> Doing this once imposes no cost on owner of the driveway. But if
> it's a situation where people are doing this repeatedly, at all
> hours of the day and night, with noisy engines and gear changes,
> flashing headlights into bedrooms at midnight . . . well, that's
> different.
Well, this gets to an issue of manners in modern society in
general. It's your assumption that you're doing no harm. But say
there's a sick infant in that house who needs rest; even though it's
not all hours with lights and engine noise, your innocent intrusion
with one engine and one gear change was perhaps enough to derail that
child from getting needed rest at that moment.
You never really know what your "innocent intent" is doing, so for me,
I usually err on the side of being considerate. When I do residential
U-turns, I either go to the end of the street and do it through the
intersection (better yet around the block), or worst case I do it in
the street. I always take my best guess as to how my engine noise,
quiet as it is, might bother someone, and avoid doing this right in
front of a window. I know this one because I myself have acute hearing
and understand how bothersome even small noises can be to others.
So, applied to an open wifi situation: suppose you're pulling music or
pictures through that node, when at the same time the legit owner
might be trying to get some time-sensitive task done and you've slowed
down their connection.
Worse, suppose you, like the owner, is technically ignorant and you're
streaming multiple videos, nearly completely shutting them out of
their perhaps important download, email access, what have you (this is
the scenario of multiple lights, car honks, gear changes at 3 in the
morning -- but here you don't even know you're doing it).
My underlying theme is one of simple manners, and if not that, a sense
at least of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
And if you're not sure how you might be intruding, just don't do
it. Manners.
Frank
--
.
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 10:05:49 EST
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Loma Linda California Now Selling 911 Insurance
Message-ID: <480b2.48055a9e.38c3c94d@aol.com>
In a message dated 3/5/2010 11:55:20 PM Central Standard Time,
ddl@danlan.com writes:
e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net (Eric Tappert) wrote:
>> The deal is that you donate a subscription fee (about $35-50 per
>> year depending on how many are in the family) and if you need them
>> they'll settle for whatever your insurance company pays and they
>> don't bill you for the rest. Not a subscriber? Then you get a
>> bill for the difference between the insurance payment and their
>> real bill.
> Can they do this if your insurer is Medicare?
Yes they can. My wife and I never had an ambulance call before we
were on Medicare but we have two since and it works just that way.
Medicare is just insurance and does not pay 100% (only 80% of the
"Medicare approved amount").
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:07:06 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Loma Linda California Now Selling 911 Insurance
Message-ID: <vJxkn.10420$bx3.2067@newsfe13.iad>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/5/2010 11:55:20 PM Central Standard Time,
> ddl@danlan.com writes:
>
> e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net (Eric Tappert) wrote:
>
>
>>>The deal is that you donate a subscription fee (about $35-50 per
>>>year depending on how many are in the family) and if you need them
>>>they'll settle for whatever your insurance company pays and they
>>>don't bill you for the rest. Not a subscriber? Then you get a
>>>bill for the difference between the insurance payment and their
>>>real bill.
>
>
>>Can they do this if your insurer is Medicare?
>
>
> Yes they can. My wife and I never had an ambulance call before we
> were on Medicare but we have two since and it works just that way.
> Medicare is just insurance and does not pay 100% (only 80% of the
> "Medicare approved amount").
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wesrock@aol.com
> wleathus@yahoo.com
>
Typically (but not always) Medicare pays 80% of the approved amount.
You are responsible for the other 20%. Example, Dr. Jones bills
Medicare for $145. They approve $100 and pay $80. You are responsible
for $20. The $45 is thrown out.
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 20:18:22 EST
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Loma Linda California Now Selling 911 Insurance
Message-ID: <64ca8.616397d.38c458de@aol.com>
In a message dated 3/6/2010 3:06:09 PM Central Standard Time,
sam@coldmail.com writes:
> Typically (but not always) Medicare pays 80% of the approved amount.
> You are responsible for the other 20%. Example, Dr. Jones bills
> Medicare for $145. They approve $100 and pay $80. You are
> responsible for $20. The $45 is thrown out.
The wording that appears on you doctor bill is usually "Medicare writeoff"
for that $45. A doctor that accepts Medicare assignment, by law may not
charge Medicare patients more than the "Medicare approved amount."
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: 7 Mar 2010 02:08:02 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Loma Linda California Now Selling 911 Insurance
Message-ID: <20100307020802.20370.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>> Typically (but not always) Medicare pays 80% of the approved
>> amount. You are responsible for the other 20%. Example, Dr. Jones
>> bills Medicare for $145. They approve $100 and pay $80. You are
>> responsible for $20. The $45 is thrown out.
>
> The wording that appears on you doctor bill is usually "Medicare
> writeoff" for that $45. A doctor that accepts Medicare assignment,
> by law may not charge Medicare patients more than the "Medicare
> approved amount."
They don't have to accept assignment to get paid something by
Medicare. Same deal with most insurance companies--my regular doctor
accepts assignment from Blue Cross so the doctor writes down the bill
to the BC amount, then, since I have a giantic deductible, that's how
much I pay. A few doctors don't accept assignment, BC pays less, and
they balance bill the patient.
But what does this have to do with telecom?
R's,
John
***** Moderator's Note *****
The bill collectors call you on the phone?
On that positive note, I'll close the thread.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 19:03:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Loma Linda California Now Selling 911 Insurance
Message-ID: <201003070003.TAA02110@ss10.danlan.com>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 3/5/2010 11:55:20 PM Central Standard Time,
>ddl@danlan.com writes:
>
>e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net (Eric Tappert) wrote:
>
>>> The deal is that you donate a subscription fee (about $35-50 per
>>> year depending on how many are in the family) and if you need them
>>> they'll settle for whatever your insurance company pays and they
>>> don't bill you for the rest. Not a subscriber? Then you get a
>>> bill for the difference between the insurance payment and their
>>> real bill.
>
>> Can they do this if your insurer is Medicare?
>
> Yes they can. My wife and I never had an ambulance call before we
> were on Medicare but we have two since and it works just that way.
> Medicare is just insurance and does not pay 100% (only 80% of the
> "Medicare approved amount").
I don't think this is obviously equivalent to the original statement.
If they bill you for the difference between what Medicare allows and
what Medicare pays (considering various co-pays and deductibles) then
they are doing exactly what any other provider does. If you have a
medigap policy it will cover that difference.
On the other hand, if they bill you for the difference between what
Medicare pays and their "real bill" (unless their real bill happens to
be less than or equal to the Medicare approved amount) then they are
in violation of Medicare policy and probably (since Medicare policy
seems to have the force of law) some laws.
There is a huge difference between the two policies. One of the big
benefits of Medicare is the reduced prices, to the point where it
would be beneficial to be able to buy into the price structure even
with no actual coverage. Other medical providers would love to be
able to bill you for the difference between what Medicare pays and
their "real bill" (for "real bill" equal to what an uninsured victim
would pay) but they obviously can't do that and still have the ability
to "accept" Medicare.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:26:15 -0500
From: Mike Blake-Knox <mikebkdontspam@knology.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: NYS "bill" in works to outlaw phone ID spoofing
Message-ID: <VA.00000253.2401eb45@knology.net>
In article <20100303155145.34908.qmail@simone.iecc.com>, John Levine
wrote:
> The design problem is that CNID was designed for a closed network in
> which all of the sources of CNID were trustworthy or could at least be
> verified.
And the SS7/ISDN screening indicator (e.g., Network provided, User-
provided Not screened) which would help isn't delivered through
CallerID.
Mike
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 02:45:26 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Slammed and crammed
Message-ID: <hmv406$eii$1@news.albasani.net>
I haven't had phone service from the telephone company in a number of
years. I had new service installed February 2. Got my first bill
today.
It's the 1980s! I was both slammed and crammed!
Slammed: The phone company itself billed me a recurring fee for
international calling service.
Crammed: A company with the innocuous name of Network Connections USA
billed me a recurring charge for "discount" directory assistance plan.
The clerk at the phone company couldn't explain how either of these
charges were authorized, and claimed that the international calling
plan was ordered on the initial service order. But the service didn't
begin for 11 days after installation and it wasn't mentioned in the
confirmation letters I received in the mail, so that's not true.
Nor could he tell me who authorized the directory assistance plan.
He put cramming protection on the line. For slamming protection, I
have to fill out the form and mail it back in.
A quick Google search turns up a few complaints about Network
Connections USA going back to 2007. Anyone know who is behind the
fraud?
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 (15 messages)
|
or 