29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for March 22, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 73 : "text" Format
====== 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: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:14:28 -0700
From: Andrew Carey <carey.remove-this@and-this-too.ar-ballbat.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: AZ, MN, WA, FCC Approved CenturyLink/Qwest Merger; OR Still Needs to Approve
Message-ID: <6B67401C-6B98-4836-AC22-881B11B233AE@ar-ballbat.org>
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@yahoo.com>
>
> But I don't seem to think that these US-West exchanges that were
> sold off to PTI in the mid-1990s which have been subsequently
> acquired by CenturyTel are still treated by regulatory as "legacy
> BOCs"
Exchanges follow the owning company not their historical status. For
the most part, there is little to no regulation based on being a BOC
vs. an independent anymore. All are covered as local exchange
carriers, specifically, incumbent local exchange carriers. There are
some differences based on the size of the carrier.
In Oregon, for instance, an ILEC can be either a cooperative, a small
telecommunications utility, or a large telecommunications utility.
Qwest, Frontier, CenturyTel (formerly PTI now dba CenturyLink, the
official name of the owning company), and United Telephone (owned by
CenturyLink, formerly dba Sprint-United then Embarq) are all large
telecommunications utilities and regulated as such.
An interesting note on exchange pedigree is that Pacific Northwest Bell
& United Telephone swapped several properties to better align their
service area about 25 years ago. Those former PNB exchanges as now part
of CenturyLink via Embarq. Of the former United Telephone exchanges,
some are still with Qwest, but several others were sold along historical
PNB exchanges to PTI 15 years ago and are also owned by CenturyLink as
Mark mentions.
For the utterly pedantic types out there, the official style was U S
WEST (in caps and spaced), but most just used US West or USW.
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:42:25 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: bye, bye T-Mobile (fwd)
Message-ID: <AANLkTinVCPLr2HHEmGHfE+_Tvi3oV4tiF7qrRcqbOoUF@mail.gmail.com>
Any bets on when Verizon Wireless will make its move for Sprint/Nextel?
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:39:38 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: *72 during an incoming call?
Message-ID: <siegman-B32BEB.08393821032011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
I know how to forward my own Comcast VOIP phone number to some other
number by picking up my handset and dialing * 72 followed by that number.
But there was a recent warning about a scam that involves being asked to
dial * 72 while talking to an incoming call on your line -- a procedure
I don't recall ever seeing mentioned anywhere.
Does this exist? What does it do? What are the consequences?
Some education for the innocent will be appreciated . . .
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:52:47 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls
Message-ID: <aq6dnQL9Z5CiGBvQnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <AANLkTi=pKPLhSsyqO-1-iM+kqhm4sbbutHZquyHBCOFN@mail.gmail.com>,
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>Speaking of annoyance calls. How do the "robodialers" that
>telemarketers use work? Specifically how do they handle
>out-of-service numbers? I thought that if an automated dialer hit an
>out-of-service number enough times it was dropped from the table.
_Intelligent_ robodialers listen for "SIT" tones, regular "busy" and "fast
busy" signals.
On the first instance of SIT for any of the various 'non-working number'
types, the number is purged from the calling database.
Unfortunately, many 'less than ethical' marketeers don't use that intelligence.
>What got me thinking about this was I logged into my Google Voice
>account this morning. About two years ago I agreed to a free 30-day
>subscription to a business newspaper. I gave them my Google Voice
>number which gave them the right to call me. What happened was I
>never received the free trial, but they started calling asking me to
>sign up for a paid subscription. I asked that they stop calling, but
>they didn't. I was new to Google Voice at the time, so it took me a
>couple of weeks to figure out I could block them. I did.
Even if you 'gave consent' for them to call you, once you have asked
them to stop calling, any further solicitation calls are a violation
of the law, in the United States.
>Here we are two years later and they are STILL calling me. What I'm
>guessing is Google Voice tells them in a computer generated voice the
>number is not in service. However no signaling information is going
>back to them indicating the same. So the automated dialer just thinks
>someone answered and the number is good, so I stay in their table.
>It'd be no different than if I answered the phone and said, "This
>number is no longer in service" and hung up. And I'm also guessing
>there's nothing in the software (or if there is, it's being ignored)
>telling them that despite calling me every single weekday for the last
>two years I've never subscribed so perhaps there's a problem.
Assuming you've got records of the calls, and can prove you gave them
the 'put me on your do-not-call list' request, you've got the basis
for a big lawsuit. Something on the order of $500,000 just in "statutory'
damages. And, with that track record, it would be hard for them to
rebut an 'intentional' actions claim, which authorizes treble damages.
>At this point I'm really curious how long this is going to go on. :-)
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.
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 (4 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues