29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for March 23, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 74 : "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: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 06:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John C. Fowler" <johnfpublic@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: *72 during an incoming call?
Message-ID: <173301.30815.qm@web34201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
AES wrote:
>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?
It's a mixed-up scam warning. Once they get a few years old, scam
warnings and other passed-around "urgent" E-mails tend to mix up
details. If you look around for old "Craig Shergold" messages (the
poor little deathly ill kid who wanted to break the Guinness Book of
World Records for number of post cards received, but didn't include an
expiration date on the message, and he's no longer poor, little,
deathly ill, or a kid), you'll find that they changed both the
spelling of the name and the kinds of cards requested as the years
went by.
Rest assured that once you're connected to someone, you can touch tone
to your heart's content without affecting your phone line.
Scams these days mostly involve wiring money or giving out information
that could be used for identity theft, so if you're smart enough not
to do those, you'll dodge 99% of them.
John C. Fowler, johnfpublic@yahoo.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
ISTR a scam where con artists would convince their victims to activate
call forwarding by using the "Three way-calling" feature, i.e., by
flashing for a dial tone and entering *72 while the scammer was on
hold. This might have been limited to Centrex customer, but details
are hazy.
The objective, of course, was to have the victim's phone forwarded to
a high-cost number, presumably one in another country, so that the con
artist could make repeated calls to that number without charge. I'm
tempted to say that Skype et al have obviated such a con, if it ever
worked, but I don't know who would be the con man's customers.
This is a varient of "Clip on" fraud, and (at least in the case of
Verizon) the HP AcceSS7 system would flag such usage fairly quickly.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:51:32 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: *72 during an incoming call?
Message-ID: <rpGdndfht90ochXQnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@giganews.com>
AES wrote:
> 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 . . .
>
>
That should not work. First, you have to have a dial tone to make any
feature code recognized by your local switch. The only way you can get
a dial tone on an incoming call is if you have flash privledges, such as
three-way calling. If you have call waiting, that is how you can cancel
call waiting (*70) after an incoming call is in progress. But, *72
won't work on flash dial tone, at least not on the DMS-100 I am
connected to.
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:50:34 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: *72 during an incoming call?
Message-ID: <EbWdnfAO3ffHKRTQnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <imbhes$1p6r$1@gal.iecc.com>,
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>ISTR a scam where con artists would convince their victims to activate
>call forwarding by using the "Three way-calling" feature, i.e., by
>flashing for a dial tone and entering *72 while the scammer was on
>hold. This might have been limited to Centrex customer, but details
>are hazy.
>
>The objective, of course, was to have the victim's phone forwarded to
>a high-cost number, presumably one in another country, so that the con
>artist could make repeated calls to that number without charge. I'm
>tempted to say that Skype et al have obviated such a con, if it ever
>worked, but I don't know who would be the con man's customers.
>
>This is a varient of "Clip on" fraud, and (at least in the case of
>Verizon) the HP AcceSS7 system would flag such usage fairly quickly.
The con definitely existed. However, the object was not for con
artist to make calls 'without charge' to that number, but to generate
calls to a telco that (a) let the customer set rates for the incoming
call, and (b) gave a large portion of those 'excessive' LD monies to
the owner of the receiving number. Sort-of like U.S NPA '900' calls
but without the visibility of the 900 prefix, or the FCC mandated rate
statement and option to disconnect before billing started.
There was at least one fairly wide-spread computer virus that subverted
users dial-up access to their ISP to call a data number in the Former
Soviet Union -- Moldavia, IIRC -- and the far-end telco was billing at
dollars per minute. There were arrests and convictions with regard
to that scam. One can probably find at least some of the details in
the Telecom Digest archives.
There were also numerous voice-call scams, terminating in the Caribbean
and/or sub-Saharan Africa, where the 'connect' charge (incurred before
the timer started running) was in the $10-$20 range.
Those telcos were happy to get the inbound minutes, as they offset
outgoing 'foreign' calls, allowing them to keep that revenue, as
well as a portion of the 'excess' revenue from the rape-rate calls.
International treaties are such that the originating end can not make
a decision to waive the charges for anything billed by an intermediate
(or the destination) carrier -- such decision has to originate from
the telco generating the inter-carrier billing. If the originating
carrier does not collect from their customer, they have to pay the
charges out of their own pocket.
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:21:46 -0600
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Annoyance Calls
Message-ID: <20110323002142.51233.qmail@gal.iecc.com>
Well, I got a reply from the Texas PUC.
They mailed it to me at my home address in New Mexico.
They told me that I have to contact the Colorado PUC since I live in
Colorado.
Did they miss something?
Read it for yourself: http://www.mishmash.com/txpuc/txpuc.pdf
Regards,
Fred Atkinson
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:07:48 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: bye, bye T-Mobile
Message-ID: <imaohk$ebs$1@news.albasani.net>
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>[press release]
>http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110320005040/en/ATT-Acquire-T-Mobile-USA-Deutsche-Telekom
>Dallas and Bonn, Germany (Business Wire)- AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) and
>Deutsche Telekom AG (FWB: DTE) today announced that they have entered
>into a definitive agreement under which AT&T will acquire T-Mobile USA
>from Deutsche Telekom in a cash-and-stock transaction currently valued
>at approximately $39 billion. The agreement has been approved by the
>Boards of Directors of both companies.
>[snip]
> ------
>disclosure: I'm both a subscriber and shareholder
>in T-Mobile (for a long, long, time).
>I'm not happy.
It's not a Great Day at T-Mobile, sigh. I am a subscriber too.
Does anyone know the company's history? Didn't know it was a Deutsche Telekom
subsidiary.
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: NYT, Phila Inqr on AT&T--T-Mobile merger
Message-ID: <3f992178-519c-43ef-b010-0465e5da9879@o15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
Several articles:
. Opposed by consumer advocates:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110322_Consumer_advocates_oppose_AT&T_buyout_of_T-Mobile.html
. description of AT&T command center
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/mike_armstrong/20110322_PhillyInc___Massive_river_of_data__going_through_AT&T_command_center.html
. AT&T tries to sell merger as pro-consumer
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/joseph-distefano/20110322_PhillyDeals__AT&T_tries_to_sell_T-Mobile_purchase_as_pro-consumer.html
. For consumers, little to cheer about:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/technology/22phone.html?hp
. Cost to acquire:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/at&t's-full-cost-for-getting-t-mobile/
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:56:43 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Regarding that proposed ATT takeover of TM
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1103211847450.25468@panix5.panix.com>
With the disclosure that I'm both a TM customer and
also a shareholder.
Seems to me this is a major anti trust issue, one that's
big enough that we just might, even under the current
"see nothing wrong" gov't agencies, get some action.
I've just communicated to my various Washington critters
that this would, if approved, lead to just three major
national cellular carriers.
But it's worse than that.
First, the two others are flirting with their own merger,
which would lead to just two cellular companies.
And second, one (ATT/TM) is GSM, the other (Sprint/VZ)
is CDMA.
Claiming that this would still be a competitive marketplace
is analogous to having one national supplier of gasoline
and another for diesel fuel. Sure, they're both liquids
used for highway traffic. But to switch from one to the
other (even accepting that a duopoly is at all competitive)
sure isn't practical.
_____________________________________________________
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 *****
I thought that Sprint used PCS, not CDMA. Is that correct? Also, I
was under the impression that T-Mobile's GSM used a different
frequency band than does AT&T's GSM.
In any case, I feel that the technical differences are not a factor:
no matter which handset a former T-Mobile user has, it's the ability
to set rates for calls that counts.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:17:20 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Regarding that proposed ATT takeover of TM
Message-ID: <imbl7g$l02$1@news.eternal-september.org>
On 3/21/11 3:56 PM, danny burstein wrote:
> With the disclosure that I'm both a TM customer and
> also a shareholder.
>
> Seems to me this is a major anti trust issue, one that's
> big enough that we just might, even under the current
> "see nothing wrong" gov't agencies, get some action.
>
> I've just communicated to my various Washington critters
> that this would, if approved, lead to just three major
> national cellular carriers.
>
> But it's worse than that.
>
> First, the two others are flirting with their own merger,
> which would lead to just two cellular companies.
>
> And second, one (ATT/TM) is GSM, the other (Sprint/VZ)
> is CDMA.
>
> Claiming that this would still be a competitive marketplace
> is analogous to having one national supplier of gasoline
> and another for diesel fuel. Sure, they're both liquids
> used for highway traffic. But to switch from one to the
> other (even accepting that a duopoly is at all competitive)
> sure isn't practical.
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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 *****
>
> I thought that Sprint used PCS, not CDMA. Is that correct? Also, I
> was under the impression that T-Mobile's GSM used a different
> frequency band than does AT&T's GSM.
>
> In any case, I feel that the technical differences are not a factor:
> no matter which handset a former T-Mobile user has, it's the ability
> to set rates for calls that counts.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
>
Both Verizon and Sprint have said they are not interested in merging. I
retired from Verizon (GTE) and have done a lot of work for Sprint, the
companies are not a like in anyway. Sprint and the old GTE were much
more like each other. I did some work for Verizon in offices that I had
once worked in as an employee and I can't believe it was every the way I
remember, it is like a Bell Company.
-
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2011 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:47:01 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Regarding that proposed ATT takeover of TM
Message-ID: <imbmv5$2ukj$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <imbheq$1p6f$1@gal.iecc.com>, Bill Horne wrote:
>I thought that Sprint used PCS, not CDMA. Is that correct?
That is not correct. PCS is a frequency band; CDMA is a radio
technology that works on any band of the requisite capacity. CDMA
phones have long been capable of operating on all currently-licensed
frequency bands, because all of the major carriers' networks are
cobbled together from licenses on different bands. There was a time
when a cellular carrier was not permitted to own PCS licenses, but
that went by the wayside long ago. (Most of Verizon Wireless started
out as "B"-side cellular licenses.[1]) To add to the confusion, Nextel
used Motorola iDEN, a GSM-based technology that operates in spectrum
licensed for two-way land-mobile radio; I don't know what Sprint has
done with this platform since acquiring Nextel. (Most of Sprint
started out as PCS licenses; the old rule was still in place when
Sprint merged with United and Centel; the old United and Centel
"B"-side cellular properties were spun off as 360 Communications,
which appears to have vanished entirely.)
US Cellular and MetroPCS also run CDMA networks.
>Also, I was under the impression that T-Mobile's GSM used a different
>frequency band than does AT&T's GSM.
T-Mobile USA was formed through the roll-up of several GSM providers
who were all operating in the PCS band.
>In any case, I feel that the technical differences are not a factor:
>no matter which handset a former T-Mobile user has, it's the ability
>to set rates for calls that counts.
Actually, that's pretty irrelevant these days. It's the ability to
set rates for data, and to demand bribes from content providers for
access to those customers, that counts.
-GAWollman
[1] Verizon Wireless inherited the old Bell Atlantic-NYNEX Mobile
licenses, which were all "B"-side cellular, the old GTE licenses
(again, as the incumbent wireline carrier, these were "B"-side
cellular), the old Alltel licenses ("B"-side), and the Vodafone
AirTouch's licenses (which were "B"-side cellular licenses sold off by
Pacific*Telesis and U S WEST). VZW inherited PCS licenses from
PrimeCo, former joint venture between Bell Atlantic and AirTouch.
AT&T has the old McCaw "A"-side licenses in those territories, plus
the old BellSouth Mobility "B"-side licenses in the south, plus
various PCS licenses they've picked up along the way, plus Qualcomm's
nationwide UHF channel 55 license and channel 56 in some markets
(ex-MediaFLO).
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: 23 Mar 2011 04:32:34 GMT
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Regarding that proposed ATT takeover of TM
Message-ID: <4d8977e2$0$87580$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>I thought that Sprint used PCS, not CDMA. Is that correct? Also, I
>was under the impression that T-Mobile's GSM used a different
>frequency band than does AT&T's GSM.
T-Mobile's different frequency band is only for its 3G data features.
It uses the same frequency bands as AT&T for its voice and Edge
(ie. 2G) Data Features.
You can mix-and-match AT&T and T-Mobile phones, although if you want
3G data speeds, then you need to use the correct hardware on the
correct network. Ie. I swapped my SIM regularly between the phone AT&T
issued, and the phone T-Mobile issued.
Date: 22 Mar 2011 21:05:53 -0300
From: Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: What to do with a switchboard
Message-ID: <878vw6g0pq.fsf@nudel.nodomain.nowhere>
A friend has just bought an old house. Therein, among sundries too
numerous to enumerate, is a telephone switchboard. Wooden case, about
30 plug cables, new enough to have a 50s-type (?) dial on a pedestal
to operator's right, hand crank to operate a ringer magneto(?). Maybe
6' tall by 24" wide. No immediately obvious external maker's tag.
Is anyone here eager to buy such a thing? If not, are there many
people elsewhere known to be keen to have one? Any advice on how my
friend could profit from disposing of this lovely but unwanted object?
Or should he just procede directly to eBay?
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
mspenbellscer@tallwhistlesships.ca (Remove bells and whistles)
***** Moderator's Note *****
Sound like a WE 555 cord board. If it's in working order, and
especially if it's in good cosmetic condition, it's worth serious
money. Epay for sure.
Bill Horne
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 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 (11 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues