|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 155 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: 1984 All Over Again?
Re: 1984 All Over Again?
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
====== 27 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 Patrick Townson 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: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:18:54 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 1984 All Over Again?
Message-ID: <tf1m259h18ibikqa2n2pq1kfng5jjjmb8l@4ax.com>
Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote:
>Another reason to keep POTS: in an disaster (earthquake, widespread
>power failure, etc.),
Agreed.
>VOIP or cellular systems may stop working, but a
>wired POTS line almost always will work. You may not be able to call
>out of town, but at least you can call the local police or fire
>departments.
It's not so much that cellular systems stop working but they get overloaded much more
rapidly than copper wires. When the media arrives on the scene of a disaster they
keep redialing their office. As soon as they connect they keep the cell phone
active even if it's for days. At the office end they just have it on a speaker
phone.
The above aise the battery systems in cell towers, if they have any, may only last
eight hours. Here in Telus land in western Canada they will last 24 hours. And the
batteries are checked annually. According to some Telus employeers who are friends.
VOIP may work longer than any other method if there is even some capacity to get out
of your area. I recall that during the San Francisco earthquake either the Internet
or AOL and/or similar were the only thing working for a while.
That said I'd trust VOIP more if provided by the telco rather than the cableco as it
seems the telco understands 24x7 better.
And if there is a disaster assume you won't be getting any food or water for ten
days. FEMA states three days but one of my job titles is paranoid pessimist.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 18:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 1984 All Over Again?
Message-ID: <d502f090-4272-4c33-b8b0-7069508c9af3@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 6, 7:08 pm, Richard <r...@richbonnie.com> wrote:
> Another reason to keep POTS: in an disaster (earthquake, widespread
> power failure, etc.), VOIP or cellular systems may stop working, but a
> wired POTS line almost always will work. You may not be able to call
> out of town, but at least you can call the local police or fire
> departments.
For what it's worth, over a long period of time, in our own
experience, we've never had a telephone line failure. There were
times when we had annoying heavy static, but the phones still worked.
There were a few times when dial tone was slow. In contrast, we've had
numerous power failures, ranging from local ones to massive multi-
state ones.
A good deal, though obviously not all, of the telephone plant is
underground, protecting it from storms and trees.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Complexity --> Brittleness --> Increased likelihood of failure
The more complex a system, the more likely it is to fail: a truism of
design in telecommunications, computer science, and military defense.
Cell users choose portability, but give up survivability. VoIP users
choose low cost, but endure latency, drop-outs, and hidden costs. POTS
users served by copper pair get increased reliability, but endure all
the shortcomings of service being tied to a single location, and
higher prices for long-distance.
There's no perfect solution.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:24:11 -0500
From: gordonb.nrwq3@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <TOWdnYGedd02lbbXnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> A government could "require" that caller-id be accurate, but that
> won't stop telemarketeers and/or dunning agencies from spoofing it:
> there's money at stake, and the fines that _might_ be imposed are
> likely to be less than the profit to be had.
I propose that anyone caught spoofing caller-ID would not be allowed
to send caller-ID. They are permanently stuck on "private call"
mode. The calls themselves will go through, but perhaps no one
will answer them.
Or how about a real simple solution: if you're not a telco, you
DON'T get to send your own caller-ID, and if you try, it doesn't
matter, because the telco isn't paying attention to it. This doesn't
prevent collection agencies from becoming rogue telcos, but it could
prevent a lot of the problems.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Your proposal needs a backer: someone with deep pockets, a lot of
patience, and the political muscle to be heard in Washington. Absent
such a Galahad, it's dead on arrival.
Let's cut to the chase: ILECs and CLECs are paid per-call. They're not
going to pay to modify their software, retrain their workforce, and
fight legal battles just so they can alienate the high-volume callers
who write five-figure checks, each and every month, as regular as
clockwork.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 10:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <710aa71b-3bc5-4c8b-bfee-e4527f0bf0d5@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 7, 9:30 am, gordonb.nr...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Your proposal needs a backer: someone with deep pockets, a lot of
> patience, and the political muscle to be heard in Washington. Absent
> such a Galahad, it's dead on arrival.
>
> Let's cut to the chase: ILECs and CLECs are paid per-call. They're not
> going to pay to modify their software, retrain their workforce, and
> fight legal battles just so they can alienate the high-volume callers
> who write five-figure checks, each and every month, as regular as
> clockwork.
In response to this and other posts, I will agree that individuals
can't force the issue to make the necessary changes.
But I strongly do not agree that it's "not legal" or it's so
"technically expensive" , or "too hard to change" to do so. With all
due respect, they're just bureaucratic excuses. The law is not
"frozen". The telephone network is not technically "frozen".
I've heard such excuses for many ideas of reform over the years. Then
suddenly, someone new comes into power, gives the order, and the
changes are made, without the horrors predicted. In our discussion it
could be someone from the Federal Trade Commission issuing an order,
or the FCC, or an influence state PUC officer, or a telco official.
It may be a telco losing a lawsuit from someone hurt by a false
Caller-ID display.
Once again, a single individual can't force this [to] happen, but a
powerful person can.
***** Moderator's Note *****
In the end, we agree. Such changes need backing from those in power,
but powerful people do not obtain their position by tilting at
windmills.
Forcing major corporations to bear the expense of verifying CLID
information is asking for trouble, and savvy politicians never make
an enemy when they don't have to.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 18:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <e2eac2c2-ec0b-4a7b-a763-e024f747af3b@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 7, 4:13 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> In the end, we agree. Such changes need backing from those in power,
> but powerful people do not obtain their position by tilting at
> windmills.
>
> Forcing major corporations to bear the expense of verifying CLID
> information is asking for trouble, and savvy politicians never make
> an enemy when they don't have to.
I remembered a current example. In our town, the municipal utility
charges a very high fixed charge, even if you use no services. Some
of us feel that it is unfair to small users who end up paying more per
unit than other users. When asked to go to a more usage-based rate
system (with no change in overall revenues), some commissioners dug in
their heels and made a long speech how that would be fiscally
imprudent, violate the bond holder convenants, etc. It was all B/S.
Some new commissioners were appointed and the rates will be changed.
It does NOT affect the bond holders as was claimed.
Now certain users will be upset since they will pay more, but they've
been getting a big break for some years. The point is that the
commissioners know they'll upset those users, but other users will be
happy.
So what we were told for years was "impossible" suddenly became quite
easily done.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm very surprised that a municipality would assess a flat fee for
services which vary by household: please tell me what town this is.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 19:47:47 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <be5.56299977.375daba3@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/7/2009 3:06:26 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Also an excellent point. It's only a matter of time before spammers
> get on the telephone network in high volume. Already spammers send
> out fraud text messages to cell phones
Denial of service attacks have been used, or at least threatened, by
union members during labor negotiations with telcos. They have large
numbers of people who will participate.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 19:55:10 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <d38.4d69e21c.375dad5e@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/7/2009 6:16:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
diespammers@ikillspammers.com writes:
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> This is the model I'm trying to achieve. The similar (analogous)
>> technique applied to TCP/IP works quite well against spam, and it's
>> only a matter of time before the volume of junk/spoofed phone calls
>> as a fraction of all traffic approaches that of spam.
-----------------------------Reply-----------------------------
I have to check the spam folder every day or so because an
important message gets blocked as spam.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <009354fd-e828-43f3-938d-933e0ff2ccfc@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 6, 6:36 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
wrote:
> As our moderator pointed out downthread, any technical fix is going to
> have to be installed and used on a switch-by-switch basis, since some
> people who control switches won't cooperate or can't understand how.
> So even if there is a law requiring all IDs sent to the network to be
> adequately validated at the injection point, it simply won't happen.
I don't agree with that. The Bell System--and the numerous
Independents--have to deal with numerous protocols between manual,
step, panel, crossbar, and ESS on both a local and long distance
basis. Many different signalling arrangements--and this was electro-
mechanical equipment. Somehow they managed to get everything together
AND accomodate continuing improvements and expansions.
With software it's much easier. As mentioned before, software changes
have a huge economy of scale to spread out the cost to many different
users.
> But although a "good-guy" telco apparently cannot refuse any traffic
> from other telcos (at least under the law as it is),
Good point. The law needs to be changed so that telcos CAN refuse
other traffic.
> I see no reason
> why that telco can't have its own list that names some of its own
> neighbors (defined by network connectivity) as trustworthy and others
> not. Then the good-guy telco could use one bit in the CLID strings it
> sends its own customers to tell them whether it regards the string as
> trustworthy. And if it doesn't, individual customers might choose to
> block the call at their equipment.
Good point, and ought to be implemented.
> This is the model I'm trying to achieve. The similar (analogous)
> technique applied to TCP/IP works quite well against spam, and it's
> only a matter of time before the volume of junk/spoofed phone calls
> as a fraction of all traffic approaches that of spam.
Also an excellent point. It's only a matter of time before spammers
get on the telephone network in high volume. Already spammers send
out fraud text messages to cell phones.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:17:18 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <jfVWl.31710$YU2.13337@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jun 6, 6:36 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
> wrote:
>
>> As our moderator pointed out downthread, any technical fix is going to
>> have to be installed and used on a switch-by-switch basis, since some
>> people who control switches won't cooperate or can't understand how.
>> So even if there is a law requiring all IDs sent to the network to be
>> adequately validated at the injection point, it simply won't happen.
>
> I don't agree with that. The Bell System--and the numerous
> Independents--have to deal with numerous protocols between manual,
> step, panel, crossbar, and ESS on both a local and long distance
> basis. Many different signalling arrangements--and this was electro-
> mechanical equipment. Somehow they managed to get everything together
> AND accomodate continuing improvements and expansions.
>
> With software it's much easier. As mentioned before, software changes
> have a huge economy of scale to spread out the cost to many different
> users.
>
>
>> But although a "good-guy" telco apparently cannot refuse any traffic
>> from other telcos (at least under the law as it is),
>
> Good point. The law needs to be changed so that telcos CAN refuse
> other traffic.
>
>> I see no reason
>> why that telco can't have its own list that names some of its own
>> neighbors (defined by network connectivity) as trustworthy and others
>> not. Then the good-guy telco could use one bit in the CLID strings it
>> sends its own customers to tell them whether it regards the string as
>> trustworthy. And if it doesn't, individual customers might choose to
>> block the call at their equipment.
>
> Good point, and ought to be implemented.
>
>
>> This is the model I'm trying to achieve. The similar (analogous)
>> technique applied to TCP/IP works quite well against spam, and it's
>> only a matter of time before the volume of junk/spoofed phone calls
>> as a fraction of all traffic approaches that of spam.
>
> Also an excellent point. It's only a matter of time before spammers
> get on the telephone network in high volume. Already spammers send
> out fraud text messages to cell phones.
The Fax Spammers are already on the network; using spoofed CID. I made
an error the other day and left the fax link on my computer open and
came home to 200 faxes on my hard drive, most were just trash and one
was porn, the number to get removed was one of those numbers you call
overseas and get charged $6,000 a second and can't drop off.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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) 2008 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 (9 messages)
******************************
|
or 