30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for April 24, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 102 : "text" Format
====== 30 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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: 23 Apr 2012 04:36:45 GMT
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Bell Canada is using door-to-door salespeople
Message-ID: <4f94dc5d$0$74662$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>
John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> writes:
>> Nigel Allen wrote:
>>> I just had a unsolicited visit at my front door from a Bell Canada
>>> salesperson who wanted to sell me Bell's television service.
>>> I didn't ask whether he was a Bell Canada employee or an employee
>>> of a contractor.
>>>
>>> Generally speaking, it is unwise to purchase anything from
>>> a door-to-door salesperson.
>Jon Danniken wrote:
>> Do you know for certain that he was indeed a BC salesman and not a scammer?
>Why couldn't he qualify as both?
>The only reason door-to-door soliciting isn't as big a problem as telephone
>soliciting is that it takes more effort to do. People have a right not to
>have either kind intruding into their homes.
I've had Comcast go door to door around here soliciting their
triple-play. I think these are comcast employees, not agents and/or
contractors.
While I haven't experienced it (probably because they've put in such
low-speed crappy service around my home), I've heard from many of my
customers that have had door-to-door solicitations from CenturyLink
pushing their FTTN DSL service.
But the absolute worst is at work, getting solitications from
who-knows what agency pushing phone services from CenturyLink. It has
been hilarious being that we are actually customers of the CLEC one
floor down in our building, but the agents get their foot in the door
so-to-speak by being pushy about [saying] "This is your phone company
calling about your account". Umm, who? they somehow brush over what
their agency name is, and just say its the phone company, nor of
course can they actually see what is on my account, because it really
is held with small friendly CLEC (well, not so small now after some
buyouts, but still small enough), and are just soliciting business.
Sigh.
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:07:33 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Bell Canada is using door-to-door salespeople
Message-ID: <20120423120733.GA23972@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 04:36:45AM +0000, Doug McIntyre wrote:
> John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> writes:
> >> Nigel Allen wrote:
> >>> I just had a unsolicited visit at my front door from a Bell Canada
> >>> salesperson who wanted to sell me Bell's television service.
> >>> I didn't ask whether he was a Bell Canada employee or an employee
> >>> of a contractor.
> >>>
> >>> Generally speaking, it is unwise to purchase anything from
> >>> a door-to-door salesperson.
>
> >Jon Danniken wrote:
> >> Do you know for certain that he was indeed a BC salesman and not a scammer?
>
> >Why couldn't he qualify as both?
>
> >The only reason door-to-door soliciting isn't as big a problem as telephone
> >soliciting is that it takes more effort to do. People have a right not to
> >have either kind intruding into their homes.
>
>
> I've had Comcast go door to door around here soliciting their
> triple-play. I think these are comcast employees, not agents and/or
> contractors.
Ask to see their ID cards. IIRC, Comcast gives out ID's that show
who's a contractor. If they say they don't have one, they're agents,
or freelancers trying to generate leads to sell to Comcast.
> While I haven't experienced it (probably because they've put in such
> low-speed crappy service around my home), I've heard from many of my
> customers that have had door-to-door solicitations from CenturyLink
> pushing their FTTN DSL service.
Same drill. No ID, not an employee or contractor. Stay away from
Centurylink if you can: the company does not have any "Bell System"
blood left, and its attitude reflects its new-age makeup and
management.
> But the absolute worst is at work, getting solitications from
> who-knows what agency pushing phone services from CenturyLink. It has
> been hilarious being that we are actually customers of the CLEC one
> floor down in our building, but the agents get their foot in the door
> so-to-speak by being pushy about [saying] "This is your phone company
> calling about your account". Umm, who? they somehow brush over what
> their agency name is, and just say its the phone company, nor of
> course can they actually see what is on my account, because it really
> is held with small friendly CLEC (well, not so small now after some
> buyouts, but still small enough), and are just soliciting business.
Demand to speak to the team leader, and tell that person that your
phone numbers are assigned to a CLEC. Make it clear that they are
wasting your time and theirs. Then, write a letter to the PUC in your
state, and complain about harassment. The calls will stop.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:48:48 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Brothers Fax & loop voltage
Message-ID: <jn4bn0$bsp$1@reader1.panix.com>
All CO telecom plant is -48V on hook. But some PBX's, knowing
that their loop lengths are usually hundreds of feet, not tens
of thousands, opt for less, say -24 to -36V.
This is no problem except in one case: line-in-use
detection. Fax machines and Zon-Jr type credit card machines
often share a line, and expect that -48V to be there and if it
is not; wait, as "the line must be in use by another device..."
The Zon, and other devices I know of, have a configuration
setting so if you ARE fed by a <48V loop, you can disable
this. But one HP "All in One" at a client's does not. It will
NEVER pick up as there is never -48 on that loop, just -35v.
We can find no way to disable it on the HP, and it's headed
to the same place that Newtons, serial mice, HP Vectra's and
KayPros went.
I'd like to get them a Brothers MFC, but have no idea if:
a) They even try this trick to detect "line in use"
b) If yes, can it be disabled?
I tried "tech support" by both email and phone; but the folks are
clueless at this level of question.
Anyone here with first-hand experience with a Brothers MFC on a
non-48V loop?
--
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:05:52 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Brothers Fax & loop voltage
Message-ID: <20120423200552.GA9072@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 07:48:48PM +0000, David Lesher wrote:
> The Zon, and other devices I know of, have a configuration
> setting so if you ARE fed by a <48V loop, you can disable
> this. But one HP "All in One" at a client's does not. It will
> NEVER pick up as there is never -48 on that loop, just -35v.
A quick search for "loop extender" on Ebay showed new units available
for $30. You'll have to do some research to find out if it will solve
the problem, but it's an option.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Revove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
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) 2012 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