29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for April 30, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 111 : "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: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:02:08 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Looks like "fake caller ID" laws are about to get a boost
Message-ID: <pan.2011.04.29.06.02.06.935122@yahoo.com.au>
Telecom Digest Moderator said:
> Telemarketing is a numbers game: if a phone sales sleezoid makes a sale
> every n calls, then for every hangup, the salesdroid at the other end of
> the phone knows he is now 1/n calls closer to making a sale. THEY WANT YOU
> TO HANG UP QUICKLY!
>
> If everyone whom they called took the time to listen to their sales pitch
> and then say "No, thank you, but please put me on your do-not-call list",
> then the whole industry would be out of business in two months.
When is somebody going to come out with an AI box that you switch on to
have a "conversation" with a telemarketer before they finally get
frustrated and terminate the call?
Why waste your own time baiting this industry when a bit of technology
should be able to do it for you.
--
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, 29 Apr 2011 19:09:30 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Looks like "fake caller ID" laws are about to get a boost
Message-ID: <MPG.28250f327b43ce7989d2d@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <pan.2011.04.29.06.02.06.935122@yahoo.com.au>, dcstarbox-
usenet@yahoo.com.au says...
>
> Telecom Digest Moderator said:
> > Telemarketing is a numbers game: if a phone sales sleezoid makes a sale
> > every n calls, then for every hangup, the salesdroid at the other end of
> > the phone knows he is now 1/n calls closer to making a sale. THEY WANT YOU
> > TO HANG UP QUICKLY!
> >
> > If everyone whom they called took the time to listen to their sales pitch
> > and then say "No, thank you, but please put me on your do-not-call list",
> > then the whole industry would be out of business in two months.
>
> When is somebody going to come out with an AI box that you switch on to
> have a "conversation" with a telemarketer before they finally get
> frustrated and terminate the call?
>
> Why waste your own time baiting this industry when a bit of technology
> should be able to do it for you.
Give the boys at IBM a call. They can tie a bunch of lines into Watson
and there we go.
At some point though I see how it could be Watson talking to Watson.
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:22:33 -0500
From: hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Looks like "fake caller ID" laws are about to get a boost
Message-ID: <eYidnWLhaK20xCfQnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@megapath.net>
In article <20110429000058.19922.qmail@gal.iecc.com>,
Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> writes:
> I don't believe it.
>
> I almost never get a telemarketing call and my number has
>been on the DNC list for nearly three years now.
>
> It works for me.
I've been on the DNC list since it started.
I get one or two a week. They are mostly for local businesses
like carpet cleaning and air duct cleaning. They call again and
again and again. I recognize them.
I got one from from Heather at Account Services this morning.
I get occasional mortgage or credit card stuff.
We are having a local election in a few days/weeks. The local
politicians have been dialing away... One was a real person.
It's less than one a day but more than one a week.
--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:27:07 -0600
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Looks like "fake caller ID" laws are about to get a boost
Message-ID: <4b3f1330b939dddadb89d545d8581239.squirrel@webmail.mishmash.com>
> In article <20110429000058.19922.qmail@gal.iecc.com>,
> Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> writes:
>> I don't believe it.
>>
>> I almost never get a telemarketing call and my number has
>>been on the DNC list for nearly three years now.
>>
>> It works for me.
>
> I've been on the DNC list since it started.
>
> I get one or two a week. They are mostly for local businesses
> like carpet cleaning and air duct cleaning. They call again and
> again and again. I recognize them.
>
> I got one from from Heather at Account Services this morning.
>
> I get occasional mortgage or credit card stuff.
>
> We are having a local election in a few days/weeks. The local
> politicians have been dialing away... One was a real person.
> It's less than one a day but more than one a week.
Do you tell them?: Put me on your Do Not Call list.
Also, it would be a good idea to go to the FTC Web site and report
whichever company is continuing to call you. If they get enough
complaints, they'll at least send them a warning letter.
Regards,
Fred
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Who is John Galt?
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:50:42 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Looks like "fake caller ID" laws are about to get a boost
Message-ID: <ipf8ba$7o7$1@dont-email.me>
On 4/29/2011 1:22 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
> I've been on the DNC list since it started.
>
> I get one or two a week. They are mostly for local businesses
> like carpet cleaning and air duct cleaning. They call again and
> again and again. I recognize them.
>
> I got one from from Heather at Account Services this morning.
>
> I get occasional mortgage or credit card stuff.
Likewise. But at least with VoIP I can set up a filter, so that the
next time they call from that number, it gets a "The number you have
dialed has been disconnected" (or busy, or hangup). If I was
energetic enough, I could make a custom intercept recording tailored
to spammers.
Dave
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:37:40 -0500
From: Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Looks like "fake caller ID" laws are about to get a boost
Message-ID: <KbCdnQnuIYfZRifQnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@earthlink.com>
On 2011-04-29, Hal Murray <hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> wrote:
>
> I got one from from Heather at Account Services this morning.
>
Most of the calls I get are from that same outfit using one or another
of its fake names.
Is it interesting that I haven't got a car extended warranty call in
quite a long time, after some congresscritter got one of those calls
and demanded something be done about it? Maybe we just need them to
call a congress member with the credit card scam.
Every spring I get one or more calls from supposedly local contractors
wanting to sell me new windows for my house.
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:13:06 +0100
From: Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Looks like "fake caller ID" laws are about to get a boost
Message-ID: <k7elr6pnqa9u6pi0iijhn22njmotcvn1r1@4ax.com>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:43:38 -0400, "\(PeteCresswell\)" <x@y.Invalid>
wrote:
>Per Lisa or Jeff:
>>
>>It's amazing how many "honest mistakes" telemarketers have made after
>>they're caught violating various laws, such as calling people on no-
>>call lists, claiming someone had an existing relationship when they
>>did not, calling people in nursing homes or on cell phones, etc.
>
>It's my take that No-Call is fast becoming moot as more
>telemarketers move offshore and spoof numbers.
>
The UK take on "do not call" lists is that if the company exists /
trades in the UK then they are legally bound to observe them.
>According to the (rather lame sounding) letters I've been getting
>from the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office, there's "nothing
>we can do"....
--
Regards
stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
Date: 29 Apr 2011 09:24:57 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Need a large PBX.
Message-ID: <ipee79$s92$1@panix2.panix.com>
Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@panix.com> wrote:
>Almost all traffic is local to the PBX. The minimal outside traffic
>is currently handled by 10 ground-start trunks but this particular
>aspect of the system could, of course, be replaced by something more
>modern. Elsewise, I really do want a plain vanilla old fashioned PBX.
>
>Not that anyone seems to want to sell me one of those these days.
Call your Nortel rep. They will actually talk to you.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
***** Moderator's Note *****
Is Rolm still in business?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 22:43:39 -0700
From: The Kaminsky Family <kaminsky@kaminsky.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Need a large PBX.
Message-ID: <4dbba172$0$10600$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
On 4/29/2011 6:24 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Thor Lancelot Simon<tls@panix.com> wrote:
>> Almost all traffic is local to the PBX. The minimal outside traffic
>> is currently handled by 10 ground-start trunks but this particular
>> aspect of the system could, of course, be replaced by something more
>> modern. Elsewise, I really do want a plain vanilla old fashioned PBX.
>>
>> Not that anyone seems to want to sell me one of those these days.
>
> Call your Nortel rep. They will actually talk to you.
> --scott
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> Is Rolm still in business?
When I stopped working for them (ten years ago - time flies!)
they were part of Siemens, and were no longer using the ROLM
name. I think they are still around; I'll ping someone, and
post again what I find out.
Mark
Date: 29 Apr 2011 14:52:33 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Need a large PBX.
Message-ID: <20110429145233.54654.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Call your Nortel rep. They will actually talk to you.
Nortel? They're in the process of being dismantled. Who bought
their PBX business?
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:41:10 +0000 (UTC)
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Need a large PBX.
Message-ID: <ipem6m$3bg$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <ipee79$s92$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@panix.com> wrote:
>>Almost all traffic is local to the PBX. The minimal outside traffic
>>is currently handled by 10 ground-start trunks but this particular
>>aspect of the system could, of course, be replaced by something more
>>modern. Elsewise, I really do want a plain vanilla old fashioned PBX.
>>
>>Not that anyone seems to want to sell me one of those these days.
>
>Call your Nortel rep. They will actually talk to you.
They're also operating in bankruptcy, are they not?
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.com
And now he couldn't remember when this passion had flown, leaving him so
foolish and bewildered and astray: can any man?
William Styron
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:51:43 -0400
From: ajbcommconsulting@frontier.com (Jim Bennett)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Need a large PBX.
Message-ID: <4DBB40FF.400@frontier.com>
On 2011-04-29 09:24, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Thor Lancelot Simon<tls@panix.com> wrote:
>> Almost all traffic is local to the PBX. The minimal outside traffic
>> is currently handled by 10 ground-start trunks but this particular
>> aspect of the system could, of course, be replaced by something more
>> modern. Elsewise, I really do want a plain vanilla old fashioned PBX.
>>
>> Not that anyone seems to want to sell me one of those these days.
>
> Call your Nortel rep. They will actually talk to you.
> --scott
>
>
Nortel is in flux right now. It is unsure who even owns what, as far as
product lines. Just navigating "their" website is an adventure in pain,
reminiscent of post-apocalyptic fiction.
One thing I can say with certainty, they don't make conventional phone
systems anymore. :^(
Thor,
Can you provide some additional background info?
1. What is the make and model of the existing PBX?
2. What type of phones are used at the stations?
3. What is the exact nature of the existing cable plant?
a. Inside wire only, or is some of it outside?
b. Distance of longest loop?
c. Type of existing inside wire?
4. What is your geographic location [nearest city, if in the U.S.]
The reason for the third degree is this: I would like very much to
present your case on an Interconnect forum that I belong to [with your
permission, of course]. If your existing system is like I imagine it
is, then your case is a perfect example of why VoIP is not the "be-all,
end-all" that some people think it is.
Here is what I imagine you have: A campus type environment, with a
number of separate buildings. Some stations may be located thousands of
feet, or even miles from the switch. The outside plant is
conventional PIC cable, and most of the inside wire is CAT 3 or lower,
with 66 blocks at the distribution points. The stations are
conventional 2500 style sets.
If this is close to describing your system, then it would be a perfect
example to be used in a long running debate concerning the rush to
VoIP. As you are already aware, you need a real phone system with 48
volt loops and true 90V ringing. Nothing else will do. You know it, I
know it, but some people just don't get it. That is why the debate has
been going on for years.
If you can furnish a detailed description of your current system, and if
you allow me to present it [or join the forum and present it yourself],
the benefit will be that you will likely find a vendor that can furnish
what you need. Some of the larger Interconnect companies are sitting on
gently used or even NOS PBX systems, and may be anxious to make a deal
that you can't refuse.
Jim Bennett
**************************************************
Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:18:45 -0400
From: Pete Cresswell <x@y.Invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Looks like "fake caller ID" laws are about to get a boost
Message-ID: <p9lmr6p53roao5u8n6no562u1fk7q06of3@4ax.com>
Per Fred Atkinson:
> I don't believe it.
>
> I almost never get a telemarketing call and my number has
>been on the DNC list for nearly three years now.
>
> It works for me.
Count your blessings.
I would have said the same thing a year ago.
Now, even my cell phone is getting hammered - and they leave
voicemail messages... so there's no escape.
--
PeteCresswell
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:10:41 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Looks like "fake caller ID" laws are about to get a boost
Message-ID: <MPG.28250f775fae2161989d2e@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <jonjr6h5fnk3rgf4kc64j27d010q1ksjs8@4ax.com>, x@y.Invalid
says...
>
> Per Lisa or Jeff:
> >
> >It's amazing how many "honest mistakes" telemarketers have made after
> >they're caught violating various laws, such as calling people on no-
> >call lists, claiming someone had an existing relationship when they
> >did not, calling people in nursing homes or on cell phones, etc.
>
> It's my take that No-Call is fast becoming moot as more
> telemarketers move offshore and spoof numbers.
>
> According to the (rather lame sounding) letters I've been getting
> from the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office, there's "nothing
> we can do"....
Of course there's nothing they can do because the legislature has to
create the law to be enforced.
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:00:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Looks like "fake caller ID" laws are about to get a boost
Message-ID: <ipeqrs$7ap$1@reader1.panix.com>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
[...]
>And, as I wrote before, I think it's better to listen to the whole
>pitch so as to slow the process down and keep the telemarketers from
>getting to the next victim that much more quickly.
What I have done is ask them to wait, "I'mm just finishing a call on the
other line", then press hold and go about my business, glancing at the
phone from time to time. Most give up after 4-5 minutes, I have
occasionally had one wait 10-15 minutes.
--
Rich Greenberg Sarasota, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 941 378 2097
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines: Val, Red, Shasta, Zero & Casey (At the bridge) Owner:Chinook-L
Canines: Red & Cinnar (Siberians) Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:57:49 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Innocent man busted for child porn after neighbour leached Wi-Fi
Message-ID: <MPG.28250c74ac939dfc989d2c@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <ip6p7r$aa2$1@reader1.panix.com>, dannyb@panix.com says...
>
> In <pan.2011.04.26.01.06.12.947182@yahoo.com.au> David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>
> >http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/innocent-man-busted-for-child-porn-after-neighbour-leached-wifi-20110426-1dugz.html
>
> >Innocent man busted for child porn after neighbour leached Wi-Fi
>
> >Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts
> >of "paedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and
> >bruises, the US homeowner didn't need long to figure out the reason for
> >the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.
> .....
> >It was 6:20 a.m. March 7 when he and his wife were awakened by the sound
> >of someone breaking down their rear door. He threw a robe on and walked to
> >the top of the stairs, looking down to see seven armed people with jackets
> >bearing the initials I-C-E, which he didn't immediately know stood for
> >Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
>
> >"They are screaming at him, 'Get down! Get down on the ground!' He's
> >saying, 'Who are you? Who are you?'" Covert said.
>
> >"One of the agents runs up and basically throws him down the stairs, and
> >he's got the cuts and bruises to show for it,"
>
> Perhaps it's also time to have the local (or, in this case,
> Federal) law enforcement types to rethink their gung-ho
> "assault team" attitude when apprehending suspects for
> non-violent crimes, eh?
>
> These people weren't running away, there was no child
> at risk in the home, and 6 AM gunplay can lead to some
> pretty ugly results. On both sides.
Yeah - but here's what I've noticed. There used to be a number of open
WiFi networks where I live but now they're all locked up. Mine has
ALWAYS been encrypted.
However I have noticed one thing. Of all the locked routers only two are
using WPA or WPA2, the rest are WEP. WEP is pretty trivial to crack into
so if I wanted to do something nefarious I could.
Most of the WEP encrypted, they are wireless access points supplied by
the ISP. So the ISP enables weak encryption. Nice to know.
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:15:52 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones?
Message-ID: <MPG.282510b45aa72c30989d2f@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <ipbu44$72m$2@reader1.panix.com>, tls@panix.com says...
>
> In article <incs58$5lr$1@reader1.panix.com>,
> David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
> >>***** Moderator's Note *****
> >
> >> I suppose it's possible that the cable which came in from the street
> >> was, in fact, a fiber-optic cable: the Verizon tech told me it was
> >> coaxial, but that might be a misnomer.
> >
> >> The tech told me that the cable used "Moca" format, and when I asked
> >> how it compared to Docsis, he just said "It's better".
> >
> >> I'll leave it to the experts to explain my confusion away.
> >
> >He's the confused one....not you.
> >
> >I see no way that Verizontal ever puts the ONT anywhere but inside the
> >residence, for a basic reason: what would power it out there on the
> >pole? Further, since it's the vict^H^H^H^H subscriber's job to not
> >just supply it power but also buy & install new batteries..who will
> >climb the pole...?
> >
> >Obviously in a MDU, where there's one multiport unit; it's slightly
> >different. There, your unit does get POTS via existing twisted pair
> >and TV & TCP/IP via MOCA/coax.
>
> It's not different. This isn't how Verizon wires multiple dwellings,
> likely because they do not want to maintain or are (with good reason)
> concerned they could not get permission to install duplicative coax
> cable in structures already served by the local cableco.
Ha! Around here they vampire the coax left in place by the predominant
carrier to get the net and CATV signal into the domicile.
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Zorbampano <and-real3@live.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The most profound question about cellphones ever.
Message-ID: <3b89d27c-ba2c-4bab-a770-f7bb1e6f8096@k7g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
Is it okay to charge one's cellphone with it turned on? The manual
says the cellphone should be turned off when charging. So, will it
charge even if it's turned on? And if you charge it with it turned on,
can you receive calls?
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 (18 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues