30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for July 5, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 163 : "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, 03 Jul 2012 15:01:04 -0400
From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers
Message-ID: <77g6v7d6sg5hk25pp7enogbv030vnh9do7@4ax.com>
Per Steven:
>If you built the SIT generator, you should sell them.
I was wondering what a "SIT Tone" was until I read this:
http://tinyurl.com/2xp9vw
Sounds like a no-brainer to download a .WAV file and just add it
to the start of the answering machine's message - with a long
enough persistence to trigger the robo caller's response, but
short enough so the actual message comes on before the innocent
caller's "WTF?" response kicks in.
--
Pete Cresswell
***** Moderator's Note *****
Actually, persistence is a bad thing. The SIT tones are intended to
speed up the process of making robocalls - that's what they're for -
so they should be the very first thing on the tape.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:43:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers
Message-ID: <jsvp1v$gp3$1@pcls6.std.com>
Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> writes:
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>I have a gadget that generates SIT tones whenever I go off-hook. It
>seems to be working well, even for the politicians.
>Bill Horne
>Moderator
Don't SIT tone generators not work for any phone system using out-of-band
signalling of stuff like that? (that is, just about anything other than
POTS) ? Certainly telemarketers run from a call center with a DS-n
feed.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Special Information Tones are in band because they are intended to
signal to originating-end-point automatic calling equipment that the
call has failed.
Please read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones:
the page includes audio files for all eight SIT combinations.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:14:55 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers
Message-ID: <wwl9g3zedknd.jkjkcygphweu$.dlg@40tude.net>
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:43:27 +0000 (UTC), after what Michael Moroney wrote,
Moderator noted:
> Special Information Tones are in band because they are intended to
> signal to originating-end-point automatic calling equipment that the
> call has failed.
>
> Please read
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones:
>
> the page includes audio files for all eight SIT combinations.
The wiki page Moderator suggests here says, in part, of using "the above
recordings of SITs ... on a voicemail or answering machine ...":
> Some telephone companies advise against playing false SITs on active lines or
> message equipment as it could confuse a caller, especially serious in an emergency.
I'd welcome reactions -- Moderator's or others' -- to that cautionary word.
Cheers, and TIA, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I've used it for about three years, on and off: never had a problem
with a call from a human, including the local police. SIT tones are
intended to be used by robodialers, and anyone who uses one is on
my do-not-bother list.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 01:03:50 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers
Message-ID: <jt2p5m$ktl$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <jsvp1v$gp3$1@pcls6.std.com>,
Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> writes:
>Don't SIT tone generators not work for any phone system using out-of-band
>signalling of stuff like that? (that is, just about anything other than
>POTS) ? Certainly telemarketers run from a call center with a DS-n
>feed.
>Special Information Tones are in band because they are intended to
>signal to originating-end-point automatic calling equipment that the
>call has failed.
Why would "automatic calling equipment" pay any attention to them when
they have a trunk-side connection to the phone network that explicitly
tells them otherwise?
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
***** Moderator's Note *****
If I had to guess, I'd give two reasons: VoIP and the always-supervise
policies of some LEC's.
1. VoIP signalling isn't as consistent as "Real telco" supervision, so
there are a lot of calls that will return supervision even if the
call is not "answered".
2. Some [C|I]LEC companies have started to return answering
supervision on any call which they connect, both because SS7 will
sometimes block audio transmission if the call is not supervised,
and because there have been schemes that allow data transmission
via CNID without "completing" a call.
In any case, not all robodialers are connected to Primary-rate ISDN
lines: many use channelized T1 and "in band" signalling, either
because they have older equipement, or the local LEC doesn't offer PRI
service.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:49:09 -0600
From: fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers ]
Message-ID: <58314217d4804c804d4cb84b520a4d81.squirrel@webmail.mishmash.com>
>> The problem is that the calls just keep coming - and coming.
>>
>> And, IMHO, will continue to do so even if laws are passed (as in
>> the USA).
>>
>> This is from the USA perspective of one who is on both the
>> nationwide and state Do-Not-Call lists.
>>
>> Years ago, when the laws were new, reporting somebody actually
>> had an effect and unsolicited calls were rare.
I hear you.
But every time I get a new telephone number I put it on the Do Not
Call list.
My phone rarely receives a telemarketing call. I can't even remember
when the last time I got one was. It has been so long.
My experience is that the national Do Not Call list works very well.
I wonder if there is something that you are doing that is getting you
put back on their call lists?
For example, if you are actively doing business (or have recently
done business) with them, the DNC list doesn't apply unless you tell
them to put you on their DNC list when they call you. Then they must
stop.
When they call you, are you saying to them, "Put me on your do not
call list"?. If not, you should be. Then the calls should slow down
and maybe ultimately stop.
Regards,
Fred
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:45:56 -0400
From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers ]
Message-ID: <e839v7hnho1bvqv4ra1ff0l52gdciliu7k@4ax.com>
Per fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com:
>But every time I get a new telephone number I put it on the Do Not
>Call list.
>
> My phone rarely receives a telemarketing call. I can't even remember
>when the last time I got one was. It has been so long.
>
> My experience is that the national Do Not Call list works very well.
That was exactly my experience until maybe a year ago. Count
your blessings. These could be the "good old days"...
> I wonder if there is something that you are doing that is getting you
>put back on their call lists?
I can't think of anything... but that doesn't mean there's
nothing.
> For example, if you are actively doing business (or have recently
>done business) with them, the DNC list doesn't apply unless you tell
>them to put you on their DNC list when they call you. Then they must
>stop.
No active business. None, although I once did have a business at
the land line number - but that was 10+ years ago. Still, a few
people respond to my "Did you check the DNC list challenge" with
"Well, you're on our list of businesses". But that is such a
small percent that I don't think of it as significant. But
still, I would caution anybody who registers a business that the
phone number they supply will effectively be exempted from any
DNC list basically forever.
> When they call you, are you saying to them, "Put me on your do not
>call list"?. If not, you should be. Then the calls should slow down
>and maybe ultimately stop.
Yes. But, best case, that would only affect a specific
solicitor - and it definitely wouldn't help against those
robocalls about one's credit card. They're getting really bad.
After calling their attention to the fact that this number is on
both federal and state DNC lists, I just ask them the questions
that the Penna DNC reporting system wants answered - like "What
is your name?", "What is your phone number?"... and so-on.
Usually they hang up before I get too far. One guy was pretty
quick. He interjected "How about the Do Not Care List?" and then
hung up.
Somebody else observed that, just by answering the phone, one
could be increasing the value of a given list just by confirming
that somebody is there that answers.
Next thing I am going to try is prepending the SIT tones to both
my answering machine's and my cell phone's message.
--
Pete Cresswell
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers ]
Message-ID: <d0dce7bb-6b94-4c0f-b674-a27e27efbeed@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 3, 1:49 pm, fatkinson.remove-t...@and-this-too.mishmash.com
wrote:
> But every time I get a new telephone number I put it on the Do Not
> Call list.
> My phone rarely receives a telemarketing call. I can't even remember
> when the last time I got one was. It has been so long.
> My experience is that the national Do Not Call list works very well.
While I am on both my state and federal list, I still get plenty of
telemarketing calls. They are blatantly illegal. They imply they're
from a business I've now deal with or have dealt with when in fact
they are not.
Many of the calls show up as 'out of area' on *69. (see below).
Not answering the phone doesn't help. Their machines just keep
calling until contact is made.
Recently I received a telemarketing call for a service I don't even
use, though they claimed I did. I asked for the name and address of
the caller. For the name she said "Discount Center", and refused to
give out the address "for security reasons". She refused to get a
supervisor, then hung up on me.
As mentioned, they block their caller-ID. The telco offers a "Call
Trace" service (*57), but it costs $5.00 per use and also is
emphatically intended for criminal threatening calls only, not
telemarketing problems.
Some telemarketers claim to be doing a survey--which is legal--but
then they turn it into a sales pitch.
Someone mentioned VOIP gateways. IMHO, the nation's telephone system
has to have better control over who they allow to have such gateways
into the telephone network. Unfortunately, legimtiate businesses use
this technology, too, and would protest anything that would raise
their costs. (as discussed here before).
I am dreading this fall when the political organizations and third-
party advocacy groups start flooding me with calls. Those kinds of
calls are perfectly legal as the law provided an exemption for them.
I am going to try to put on an SIT tone on my answering machine
message.
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 23:56:29 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: New State Proposal Grants Access To The Deceased's Email
Message-ID: <p0624082ecc1ac00120cc@[10.0.1.6]>
New State Proposal Grants Access To The Deceased's Email
http://radioboston.wbur.org/2012/07/02/deceased-email-massachusetts
BY DAN MAUZY
July 2, 2012
When U.S. Marine Justin Ellsworth was killed in Iraq in 2004, his
parents sought to gain access to his Yahoo email account. Yahoo
refused, but after a highly-publicized legal battle, the parents were
eventually given a copy of their son's digital correspondence.
The case cast a light on the fast-growing and often complex world of
the digital afterlife. As we conduct more and more of our lives
online, much of our legacy will be represented in 0's and 1's. That
raises questions about how that legacy will be preserved - if at all
- and who will have access to it.
Perhaps you have never considered what happens when you sign-off for
that very last time. But there's legislation making it's way through
Beacon Hill that might make you want to start. A bill that passed the
Senate last week would require email providers to grant access to the
relatives or representatives of the deceased.
Guests:
Evan Carroll, co-author of "Your Digital Afterlife: When Facebook,
Flickr and Twitter Are Your Estate, What's Your Legacy?"
Listen
http://soundcloud.com/radioboston/new-state-proposal-grants
Download
http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/51578049/download?client_id=0f8fdbbaa21a9bd18210986a7dc2d72c
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 13:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: How a century of telephone expertise doomed Ericsson
Message-ID: <1341432590.88001.YahooMailClassic@web161506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
The mobile phone industry is used to vendors flaming out, sometimes
just a couple of years after companies peak. Yet few handset companies
have self-destructed as spectacularly as Ericsson -- particularly
considering its pedigree in telephony.
During the summer of 1997, Ericsson spent a few months as the No.1
mobile phone brand in the world, buoyed by the early success of its
brand new miniature phone called the 788. Ericsson's global market
share briefly spiked to 27% around the same time Motorola's long
decline finally cost the company its global leadership position. Nokia
was rapidly gaining ground, but had not yet pulled decisively ahead of
its two main rivals.
For a brief moment, it looked like Ericsson might be able to retain
its position as the world's No.1 mobile phone brand. Yet just four
years later, Ericsson was forced into a merger with Sony's handset
unit.
http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/03/ericsson-implosion-century-telephone-expertise/-or-
http://goo.gl/VELAJ
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Value of Facebook
Message-ID: <1341422638.22908.YahooMailClassic@web161501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
The moderator of CDT/Telecom digest opined:
> Jill Duffy's comments for PC Magazine (third link, above) make me
> want to shout "FINALLY"! It seems that I'm not the only person who
> is questioning the (dubious) value of FaceTube.
As always, it's one person's opinion of what is or what is not
valuable to an individual. If Facebook was deemed to be not worth
much they wouldn't have over a half-billion subscribers. If you've
been paying any attention to what's been going on in the world you'd
see that Facebook (and Twitter) have helped in many people's struggles
dealing with repressive governments among other things. Just because
one person doesn't think that something is useful doesn't mean someone
else doesn't hold to that opinion. Something else to consider too is
what generation you identify with. People over a certain age do
things or think of things differently on a host of different
things. Ob telecom: many young people don't use the phone much at all
for voice calls any longer and use either text or some on line way to
communicate. This may be a foreign concept to people of a different
generation.
That's not to say that Facebook hasn't done some pretty boneheaded
moves and all those moves seem to do is to rile up their subscribers.
It seems as if Facebook is constantly looking for ways to annoy its
users. :) Then again, it seems as if all companies do something
similar. If something works they feel they have to mess with it and
"make it better" even if "better" is sometimes worse than what they
started with.
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 00:20:12 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Fiber Is the Key to U.S. Telecom Diet
Message-ID: <p06240832cc1ac5ef8492@[10.0.1.6]>
Fiber Is the Key to U.S. Telecom Diet
By Susan Crawford
07.04.12
Wired
It's big news that a 68-year-old bus monitor has been gifted more
than half a million dollars by the People of the Internet. The online
headlines are full of the Obama-Romney tussle, even though we have
months to go before the election itself. Meanwhile, an extraordinary
story that will actually have an impact on the day-to-day lives of
tens of millions of Americans is rolling efficiently forward in
dozens of state legislatures. And neither mainstream media nor the
public is paying much attention.
The National Regulatory Review Institute reported earlier this month
that between January 2010 and April 2012 intense industry lobbying
had resulted in passage of laws removing or reducing oversight of
telecommunications providers in 20 states. It's a deregulatory
tsunami. So many state bills are pending that it's hard to keep up:
14 more states are now considering legislation, and new bills are
likely before the end of the year in several other places.
In Michigan, a local phone company no longer has to provide wired
service and is no longer subject to any quality-of-service
requirements or rate regulation. A carrier in that state doesn't have
to build lines to any household if it doesn't want to, and can stop
selling services to you if you just want a phone line. Although every
state is slightly different, and some states have hung on to the
authority to require lines to all of their inhabitants, Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine,
Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin have also
passed flavors of deregulatory bills.
...
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/07/telecom-regs/
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 (11 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues