29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for May 03, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 112 : "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: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:11:01 -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: <20110430081205.42190.qmail@gal.iecc.com>
At 06:18 PM 4/29/2011, you wrote:
>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
There is something you are doing wrong.
Are you ordering things from catalogs? That gives them
implied consent to call you.
How are these people getting your numbers?
Are you telling them 'Put me on your do not call list' when
they call you (if not, you should be)?
Check Bob Bulmash's Web site (www.private-citizen.com).
Regards,
Fred
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:50:46 -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: <m78or6t0jnh0mdttp1ui51jmiq85ijl7im@4ax.com>
Per Fred Atkinson:
> There is something you are doing wrong.
>
> Are you ordering things from catalogs? That gives them
>implied consent to call you.
>
> How are these people getting your numbers?
I've tried, but it's pretty hard not to give out my phone number
to anybody - sort of removes part of the phone's functionality.
The problem children seem to take pains to hide their identity -
so I'm guessing they get the numbers from some not-so-legal
source.
--
PeteCresswell
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:19:20 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.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: <hJ-dnZ9un9qFSSbQnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
T wrote:
> Of course there's nothing they can do because the legislature has to
> create the law to be enforced.
>
Then fund the enforcement...ha, ha, ha.
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:21:10 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The most profound question about cellphones ever.
Message-ID: <hJ-dnZ5un9oaSSbQnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Zorbampano wrote:
> 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?
>
None I've owned have had that limitation that I am aware of. All of
mine have been on charge when in the car.
Date: 30 Apr 2011 13:28:07 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The most profound question about cellphones ever.
Message-ID: <20110430132807.37836.qmail@joyce.lan>
>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?
It depends on the phone, but I've never seen a phone that was damaged
by being charged while it was turned on, or that didn't work while
it was being charged.
I suppose it'll charge a little faster if you turn it off.
R's,
John
Date: 30 Apr 2011 13:29:39 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.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: <20110430132939.38281.qmail@joyce.lan>
>> 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.
State attorneys general can file TCPA suits if they want to. It's the
"want to" bit that's a problem here.
R's,
John
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:33:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.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: <ipgviv$oo4$2@reader1.panix.com>
> 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.
Not meaning to dump on the poster here, but what proof do
we have that the FTC (and the related for this purpose, FCC)
does even this diddlysquat? Yes, we see the periodic press releases
that they put out, but as of last month I was still getting
calls from "Rachel of Card Services", and the feds have gotten
thousands, perhaps tens of thousands... or hundreds...
of complaints.
She's been at it for literally (and I mean that literally) years.
For that matter, where in their enabling legislation is
there a provision that states "ignore the public and
disregard violations of the law unless you get X number
of complaints"?
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:45:32 -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: <hr7or6dc4cjbnvvsntqrva40ko2qg86t5r@4ax.com>
Per Dave Garland:
> If I was
>energetic enough, I could make a custom intercept recording tailored
>to spammers.
I'm coming around to the idea of a challenge/response:
- Somebody calls
- Phone doesn't ring yet
- Challenge: "Please press 1 for Dave, 2 for Sue, 3 for Don,
4 for Sam, 5 for Chris, 6 for Ethel, 7 for George,
8 for Charlie, or 9 for Pete.
- I'm "Pete" and when somebody presses 9, the phone rings.
- If anything else is pressed, some sort of extended BS message
ensues - hoping to burn a few minutes for the caller.
My theory: people who call me with any regularity will learn to
just hit "9" right away and not be inconvenienced by the
challenge.
--
PeteCresswell
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:55:03 -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: <je8or61h5skkfgp8t4l7hs7a4gsiokoecq@4ax.com>
Per T:
>Of course there's nothing they can do because the legislature has to
>create the law to be enforced.
I would have expected them to take some more proactive measures
to prosecute - as in putting up some "bait" numbers and getting
in contact with the callers on the premise of buying their
product.
OTOH, with the calls I've received, there was no obvious way to
do that - and I am fearful of pushing too far and falling into
some sort of BS "established business relationship" trap.
Sometimes I wonder if they're not selling anything - just honing
their list for sale to others by seeing how many hoops the target
is willing to jump through (e.g. "Press 1 for this, press 2 for
that....")
Laws are in place. The problem is pinning the call on somebody.
--
PeteCresswell
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 07:58:40 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.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: <siegman-443CE1.07584030042011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article <ipeqrs$7ap$1@reader1.panix.com>,
richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) wrote:
> >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.
My line has been, "Oh, hang on just a second, I have to turn something
off on the stove here", then set the phone down and continue with
whatever I was doing.
But I'd suspect that major telemarketers on onto this and instantly
terminate the call when they hear it.
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:54:25 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The most profound question about cellphones ever.
Message-ID: <pan.2011.04.30.12.54.24.823825@yahoo.com.au>
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:56:02 -0700, Zorbampano wrote:
> 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?
Some power supplies only have enough grunt (technical term, that) to fast
charge a phone only when it is turned off. When it is turned on they can
still charge, but it will take longer.
There is usually not problem making calls while charging.
--
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: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 13:02:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones?
Message-ID: <iph1a1$qkb$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <MPG.282510b45aa72c30989d2f@news.eternal-september.org>,
T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>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:
>> >
>> >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.
But not in multiple dwellings, right? That would require them to either
install a duplicate network of coax feeding each "lit" unit, or for the
owner of the MDU to have completely kicked the other carrier out -- they
can't run MOCA over the same cable someone else is running digital cable
and DOCSIS on. Or can they?
--
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
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 (12 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues