30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for June 13, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 143 : "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: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:14:12 -0400
From: Justin Goldberg <justgold79@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Star 69 is a joke?
Message-ID: <CAAU2BpYi4vvMGMHUOES2QK-2ci=xsiGU7j_AEN-wf_RsiqSU6g@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/11/12, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>Is star 69 a joke in the USA? Did they have to choose the one number
>>between 1 and a hundred with a prurient meaning?
>
> My goodness, some people have dirty minds.
>
> That's what's known as a vertical service code. Most of the
> possible *xx codes are assigned to various features, so something
> was going to end up as number 69.
>
>
> http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/vsc_assignments.html
>
Just seemed kind of funny that it happened to be the "prank call" redial code.
I didn't know there were that many codes. I thought they started at *67.
Date: 12 Jun 2012 09:49:30 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Haverhill teen to serve year in jail for fatal texting crash; judge calls for people to keep eyes on road
Message-ID: <jr7hda$6s5$1@panix2.panix.com>
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>Do you really think that, say, 50 years with frequent beatings would
>be more of a deterrent to an absent minded teenager? My recollection
>of my teen years is that one year and 50 years seemed equally close
>to eternal.
>
>In a case like this, where he was negligent rather than malicious, a
>long prison term would primarily ensure that we spend hundreds of
>thousands of dollars to keep him in prison, and when he got out, he'd
>have no skills other than for committing more crimes.
True enough. However, if had been smoking crack while driving, say,
and ran into a car and killed someone, he'd be getting ten to twenty.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 21:37:15 -0500
From: gordonb.jo4ns@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Star 69 is a joke?
Message-ID: <_IOdnQHyou_GNkvSnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
> Is star 69 a joke in the USA? Did they have to choose the one number
> between 1 and a hundred with a prurient meaning?
According to Wikipedia under "vertical service codes", they use about
30 of the codes. I also recall codes *1X and *2X being used for speed-
dial numbers in one system (Houston, Texas landlines in the late 1970's).
So no, they didn't pick one number out of 100 to use.
> For those that don't know, *69 in the USA is the last-call-return
> vertical service code.
I'd like to see *86 used for Remote Telemarketer Destruct, but it's
already taken for something else.
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Star 69 is a joke?
Message-ID: <31482eec-cc4a-4239-b998-aab6293cf14d@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 11, 7:21 pm, Wes Leatherock <wleat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And it's 1169 from a rotary dial phone (actually 1169 will also work
> from a T.T. phone.)
Yes, most or all of the special codes allow "11" instead of "*" for
use on rotary phones. These codes were developed long before Touch
Tones phones became commonplace, so rotary signals had to be
accomodated.
I wonder how these services would work if developed for modern phones
using a modern interface. For instance, I always thought flashing the
hookswitch (such as for Call Waiting or 3-way calling) was not a good
idea. Too quick a flash doesn't do anything, but too slow a flash
will disconnect the call.
Some modern phones today have a flash button which issue out a 7/10
sec cutoff to signal a 'flash'.
In some service areas, one must be careful to hang up for at least two
seconds when making multiple calls. (Some phones do this
automatically). Otherwise, the system might think it's a flash and
set up a 3-way call; charging you a fee in the process and leaving the
other party connected. Not good if the second call needs to be
private.
Years ago placing a call through the operator meant the one could
flash the operator if assistance was needed. I don't think that works
anymore--trying to flash an operator who placed the call would only a
result in a disconnect. But in TSP/TSPS days (and obviously in cord)
the call would be returned to the operator.
Per the 1940 film on the AT&T archives, flashing the operator in 1940
would result in her time-stamping the toll ticket to suspend timing.
The ticket would be stamped again when the conversation resumed and an
explanation noted on the ticket.
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:19:56 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Romney's Ads Go Mobile
Message-ID: <p06240803cbfc5763841d@[10.0.1.2]>
Romney's Ads Go Mobile
By AMY SCHATZ
June 8, 2012
Political advertising is about to become a lot more common on some
iPhones and iPads.
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's campaign said it is
using Apple Inc.'s iAd mobile advertising service on an ad drive for
the iPhone, iTouch and iPad devices. It is the first time a political
candidate has used Apple's iAd service, which started in 2010, an
Apple spokesman said.
The effort is part of a broader strategy by the campaigns of both
President Barack Obama and Mr. Romney to use mobile ad networks and
website-based advertising to target their messages at likely
swing-state voters. Ad networks from Apple, Google Inc. and others
allow advertisers to target specific demographic segments such as
women or age groups, as well as focus on specific geographic areas.
...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303296604577454760015016028.html
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Verizon Wireless overhauls service plans with new options
Message-ID: <d9962074-ad24-44bd-9ede-55892bd4bca6@eh4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
USA Today reported that -
Verizon Wireless, the nation's largest wireless carrier, is
dramatically overhauling its service plans, replacing the entire
lineup with a new set that focuses on devices sharing a bucket of
data. The new "Share Everything Plans," which will be sold
starting June 28, include unlimited voice minutes and text,
including video and picture messaging, as well as a single, capped
data allotment for up to 10 devices. For new customers, these plans
will replace its current tiered pricing plans that charge based on
the amount of voice minutes and data consumed.
for full article please see:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-06-12/verizon-data-service-plans/55542720/1
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/7sk3cx8
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 (6 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues