29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for July 22, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 181 : "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: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:48:21 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Automatic License Plate Readers track your every move
Message-ID: <CALtjCnLQM77=6ov4nTEuEvHujBsVupkZ3jXnCp+3qimDFK5HOQ@mail.gmail.com>
My question is do we have an expectation of privacy in a public space?
Having shades in our windows at home is different than operating a
motor vehicle on a public road. Police can already read license
plates with their eyeballs and have been able to for decades. But if
a machine does it, that's bad?
Just playing Devil's Advocate here, I really have no strong opinions either way.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: area code named beer
Message-ID: <268cabc7-23e8-40d0-8a56-f6b501560270@h14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 19, 10:06 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> Mark Smith <marklsm...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >Some exchanges were named for cities and neighborhoods:
> >PAwtucket2-XXXX was our number from 1951-1987.
> >Pawtucket is a major city in Rhode Island.
>
> I don't know what the exchange names for Fitchburg and Leominster, Mass.
> were, however many Fitchburg numbers are 34x-xxxx, and Leominster has
> many 53x-xxxx. It fits being FItchburg-X-xxxx and LEominster-X-xxxx.
>
> I think in larger cities they got more creative, naming exchanges after
> nearby landmarks or even random words. As a kid, one exchange used
> in my town was IVy-9-xxxx. There was nothing ivy-specific to the
> area.
Exchange names derived from many sources, some local landmarks, but
others randomly. When dial came along some renaming was necessary, as
MAin would conflict with MArket (unless it was seven digit, and in
many places it was six digit, eg MAin 1234).
For some reason, the Bell System renamed some exchange names that
referred to the town. For example, Elizabeth NJ had ELizabeth, but
that was changed to another name (FL), same dial pull. Why, I don't
know.
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:45:14 -0700
From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Using PDA VOIP Client As Incoming Extension?
Message-ID: <qgukf8-769.ln1@radagast.org>
In article <k5ie27h0f4monigpppgldhgbpglp03m93d@4ax.com>,
Pete Cresswell <x@y.Invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>If I were to migrate my "real" phone number from the telco to
>CallCentric and enable incoming calls from CallCentric and
>somebody called my number, how would it go down vis-a-vis the
>home phone system and my iPod/Bria?
>
>- Would both ring?
>
>- If I picked up on Bria, could somebody else pick up
> on the home phone system and participate in the call?
>
>- If the first person to pick up were somebody picking up
> the home phone system, would there be any hope of my
> chiming in via Bria?
That's very much up to how Concentric sets things up.
I'm assuming that you're using SIP for VoIP connectivity. I think
that in a setup of this sort, you would probably want to have separate
SIP "credentials" for the two SIP client (the SPA at home, and the
Bria softphone), both tied to the same CallCentric account, so that
both could register with CallCentric at the same time. Many but not
all SIP providers support multiple credentials / clients per account.
You would then configure your incoming DID line at CallCentric to ring
one, or both of these clients (assuming that they're active) when an
incoming call arrives.
It looks as if CallCentric will allow you to do a simultaneous ring of
up to three separate destinations.
If you have both clients run, the commonest situation in the SIP world
would be that the first one to answer would get the call, and the
ringing call to the second client would be cancelled as soon as the
first client picked up. There would be no "party line", no "3-way
calling" in this situation.
SIP-based VoIP systems certainly can support 3- or multi-way calling,
but it involves a more complex call-setup system, and some
audio-mixing software running at the VoIP provider's system.
CallCentric does support it (up to 4 parties) but it requires manual
action to set it up (e.g. your home phone would have to flash the hook
and then initiate a call to the Bria) and it looks as if it costs
additional for each call (e.g. the call to link in the Bria would be
billed as a separate pay-per-minute call).
--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do not wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:13:22 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Using PDA VOIP Client As Incoming Extension?
Message-ID: <Sa-dnZ1SvbM_QrrTnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <k5ie27h0f4monigpppgldhgbpglp03m93d@4ax.com>,
Pete Cresswell <x@y.Invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>My home phone system is hooked up to a LinkSys SPA3102 using
>CallCentric as my VOIP provider.
>
>Outgoing 800 and 911 calls go out on POTS and everything else
>goes out through the VOIP provider. CallCentric spoofs my telco
>phone number, so recipients get the right impression: that the
>call is coming from me on my home phone system.
>
>Incoming calls are 100% POTS.
>
>I just put an app called "Bria" on my iPod, pointed it at
>CallCentric, and it seems to be working a-ok for outbound calls.
>
>The Question:
>+--------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>If I were to migrate my "real" phone number from the telco to
>CallCentric and enable incoming calls from CallCentric and
>somebody called my number, how would it go down vis-a-vis the
>home phone system and my iPod/Bria?
The authoritative answer to this question involves the cross-mating
of a rhinoceros and an elephant.{1}
The best way to get a rational answer to this kind of query is to
ASK THE MAKER of the systems involved.
To find out how CallCentric deals with such things, *A*S*K* *CallCentric*.
To find out what 'Bria" does, ask 'whomever it is' that makes/sells it.
My crystal ball is suffering from a bad influx of smog, and is therefore
very hard to read, but I believe it {2} said the answers to you questions
are:
. it is likely
. Ask again later
. Cannot predict now
. Reply hazy, try again
{1} commonly known as an 'elephino'.
{2} a Magic 8-ball
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:57:38 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Tracing Calls w/Spoofed Numbers?
Message-ID: <pan.2011.07.21.06.57.33.654086@yahoo.com.au>
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:29:15 -0400, Pete Cresswell wrote:
..........
> Granted that it adds a nuisance factor for the innocent, but once that
> phone starts ringing 10-12 times a day with some bottom feeder on the
> other end, what're we gonna do?
>
> "Hello, you have reached 123-456-7890.
>
> Please press 1 for Dave
> Please press 2 for Sam
> Please press 3 for Sue
> Please press 4 for Phil
> Please press 5 for Doris
> Please press 6 for Fred
> Please press 7 for Mannie
> Please press 8 for Moe
> Please press 9 for Jack"
And of course we ALL know that best practice IVR prompts go:
"For Dave please press 1."
Not "Try and remember this number until I finally give you the reason to
use it" ;-)
--
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: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:17:46 -0400
From: Pete Cresswell <x@y.Invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Tracing Calls w/Spoofed Numbers?
Message-ID: <tsjh27t1abk1h7rcdsvr2qv3e5u3u1b7j7@4ax.com>
Per David Clayton:
>And of course we ALL know that best practice IVR prompts go:
>
>"For Dave please press 1."
>
>Not "Try and remember this number until I finally give you the reason to
>use it" ;-)
That one went right over my head.
How about a dumbed-down explanation for the humor-impaired?
--
PeteCresswell
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 02:35:56 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Tracing Calls w/Spoofed Numbers?
Message-ID: <j0anmc$laa$1@reader1.panix.com>
Pete Cresswell <x@y.invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
:Per David Clayton:
:>And of course we ALL know that best practice IVR prompts go:
:>
:>"For Dave please press 1."
:>
:>Not "Try and remember this number until I finally give you the reason to
:>use it" ;-)
:That one went right over my head.
:How about a dumbed-down explanation for the humor-impaired?
He means good prompts are "for Foo, press 1." Not "Press 1 for foo".
I know I want foo, or am at least likely to decide that's what I want
when I hear it as an option, so all I have to do is listen for press 1.
If you tell my which button to push, I have to remember that and listen
to the explanation at the same time.
That's annoying. It's worse if there's more instruction than that. A
company I deal with from time to time has an instruction "Hang up, and
dial 800-xxx-xxxx if this is an emergency". (It's worse, because one
of their prompts dials that number for you.)
--
sig 47
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:55:41 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Tracing Calls w/Spoofed Numbers?
Message-ID: <D8Odnd1El7PgRrrTnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <j05ace$d5h$1@blue-new.rahul.net>,
John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>>>> Now, if -you- can identify who the caller is, and establish that
>>>>> they're inside the U.S.A., such a complaint to the AG has a much
>>>>> better chance of action. In fact, you can also sue them directly.
>
>I would love it if this were true. Especially if you could collect enough
>to make it pay to sue them.
Making 'marketing' calls to a cell phone, or to a residential number on the
Federal "Do Not Call" list, is prohibited by Federal statute. 47 USC 227.
(Aside, the FCC and/or FTC will take action, if they get enough 'legally
admissible' -- i.e. where the caller can be reliably identified -- complaints
to warrant it.)
For a private lawsuit, 'statutory' damages are a minimum of $500 _per_call_.
If you can convince the Judge that it was a 'willful' violation -- 'spoofed'
caller-ID makes that a slam-dunk :) -- the statute provides for trebling the
damages award. So you have a potential $1,500 award per_call made.
[Note: in virtually all jurisdictions, neither side is allowed to use a
lawyer during the trial.]
A 'small-claims' filing is "petty cash". IF they are legally doing
business in the state, they are required to have an 'in state' agent for
legal purposes. This is on file with the Secretary of State in each state.
(Note: if they're -not- on file there, the SoS office is likely to be
'interested' because such 'failure to register' =is= a violation of State
law.) You probably =would= have to file in the county where said agent
is located.
The 'real fun' for a small-claims action could be in "discovery" -- asking
them to produce records of 'all similar calls' made for some 'reasonable'
(say, 'last three years') time period, and evidence of what tests they made
to prevent calling proscribed numbers. A pattern of proscribed calls
would be near-compelling evidence for a treble-damages award. Not to mention
fodder for a 'real court' "class action" suit
>>> In Great Britain, dialling 14258** after an unwanted call bars it; this
>>> seems to work even after a mobile call; do you have such a thing in the
>>> States?
>
>> Some telcos offer a service like that, for a limited (and *small*) number
>> of numbers, as an extra-cost (as in 'pay every month for the privilege of
>> being able to do it') service.
>
>But at least in California, the service has limitations that make it useless:
>(1) The number to be blocked must be within your local service area (LATA);
> they won't allow blocking of other numbers even if caller-ID shows them.
>(2) Blocked callers can still get you by calling the Operator. This should
> never have been allowed.
>
>If those were the only problems with it, I'd simply buy or build a gadget
>that captures Caller ID and lets me block as many numbers or ranges of
>numbers as I please. But even that is futile, because spoofing is easy.
There are commercially available devices that let you do exactly that, and
more. e.g. dump 'known bad' callers, pass 'known good' callers through,
and handle 'unknown' callers with any of several sorts of 'challenges',
before ringing the 'protected' phone(s).
>Indeed, this security blog reveals that spoofing is openly offered as a
>service you can buy over the internet:
>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/KrebsOnSecurity/~3/aum_M7_LTtc/
>
>So unless we can get the police to prosecute the likes of spooftel.com,
>there's no hope.
IF somebody uses a service like that for criminal use -- e.g. harassment,
threats, stalking, etc. -- then, in addition to prosecuting the actual
caller, the service could be prosecuted for 'aiding and abetting' the
crime, or, possibly, "accessory before the fact".
That said, not all uses of such a service are criminal. This makes it
-very- difficult to legislate such services out of business.
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:21:27 -0400
From: Pete Cresswell <x@y.Invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Tracing Calls w/Spoofed Numbers?
Message-ID: <a0kh27hads9nbmv4l977cpv685n0ricnnt@4ax.com>
Per Robert Bonomi:
>Making 'marketing' calls to a cell phone, or to a residential number on the
>Federal "Do Not Call" list, is prohibited by Federal statute. 47 USC 227.
>(Aside, the FCC and/or FTC will take action, if they get enough 'legally
>admissible' -- i.e. where the caller can be reliably identified -- complaints
>to warrant it.)
>
>For a private lawsuit, 'statutory' damages are a minimum of $500 _per_call_.
>If you can convince the Judge that it was a 'willful' violation -- 'spoofed'
>caller-ID makes that a slam-dunk :) -- the statute provides for trebling the
>damages award. So you have a potential $1,500 award per_call made.
>[Note: in virtually all jurisdictions, neither side is allowed to use a
> lawyer during the trial.]
>
>A 'small-claims' filing is "petty cash". IF they are legally doing
>business in the state, they are required to have an 'in state' agent for
>legal purposes. This is on file with the Secretary of State in each state.
>(Note: if they're -not- on file there, the SoS office is likely to be
>'interested' because such 'failure to register' =is= a violation of State
>law.) You probably =would= have to file in the county where said agent
>is located.
>
>The 'real fun' for a small-claims action could be.....
It sounds like the key ingredients are:
- Stringing along the caller until they reveal enough information
to positively identify them
- Somehow convincing a judge that I really did carry on the
conversation I'm citing.
The ones I've tried to string along so far seem to have the
evasion thing down pretty well. They keep wanting to know more
things about me but don't reveal anything about them (as in
where they are located and/or their phone number).... and tend to
terminate the call when I lean too hard.
--
PeteCresswell
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 (9 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues