See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
| Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 22:20:56 +0000 (UTC)
From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC hopes to shut down robocallers by publishing numbers weekly
Message-ID: <n0otc8$d02$1@pcls7.std.com>
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> writes:
>by Megan Geuss
>On Wednesday the Federal Communications Commission said that it
>would begin releasing a spreadsheet every week of numbers
>belonging to robocallers and telemarketers in the hopes of making it
>easier for third parties to build Do Not Call functions into their
>products.
>The spreadsheet, published as a downloadable CSV file, contains
>numbers reported through informal consumer complaints. "Consumer
>complaints to the FCC are a vital tool in the agency's work," a
>statement by the FCC said. "Complaints about unwanted calls and texts
>are by far the largest complaint category to the agency, with over
>215,000 complaints last year."
>
>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/fcc-hopes-to-shut-down-robocallers
>
>-by-publishing-numbers-weekly/
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>I don't think that will work: it's another whack-a-mole game, and I'm
>surprised that the FCC would try it.
>This may be a case of the FCC commissioners feeling that they must do
>"something", and not thinking it through.
>Bill Horne
>Moderator
Exactly. They will simply fake caller-ID even more than they already do
now. Recently I've gotten a few calls on my home phone "from" myself --
the caller ID displayed our own name and number exactly how it gets
displayed on someone else's phone when I call them! I don't know who it
was, I didn't answer and they didn't leave a message.
On the other end of the creativity scale are the telemarketers/scammers
who use as a caller ID 000-000-0000.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The most frequent trick I've seen is to use the same NPA-NNX as mine,
but not my line-number. I get the feeling there's som
lord-of-telemarketing doing a maniacal laugh in his fortress of doom
every time I answer one of those - until I've wasted five or ten
minutes of the human's time and then said "I'm not interested. My
number is on the do-not-call list, so don't call me again."
I don't know why, but they always say they can't do that.
Bill Horne
Moderator
|
| Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:27:10 -0400
From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC hopes to shut down robocallers by publishing numbers weekly
Message-ID: <5mcv2b9qbbpmfc7435kebfjuble2ki3p19@4ax.com>
Per Telecom Digest Moderator:
>I don't think that will work: it's another whack-a-mole game, and I'm
>surprised that the FCC would try it.
>
>This may be a case of the FCC commissioners feeling that they must do
>"something", and not thinking it through.
I can't even begin to see how it would work. I don't have firsthand
knowledge, but the picture I have in my mind is of an extremely fluid
environment. FCC publishes list.... Robocallers take the list and
modify their fake CallerIDs to not include said numbers.... Probably
takes all of, what?... a half hour ?
I could even spin it as an assist to the robocallers.... maybe keeping
them a half-step ahead of services like NoMoRobo.
For my money, the most effective thing they could do is require all
phone companies to include CallerID and Simultaneous Ring as part of
their basic package - at no additional charge.
Failing that, set up "Honey Pot" situations where whoever is behind a
robocall gets prosecuted once money changes hands.... but I would think
that's awfully cost-intensive in an environment where much worse stuff
is competing for budget dollars.
---
Pete Cresswell
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's "almost" an election year in the U.S., and I think a lot of
Washington regulars are feeling like they have to cover every base on
every complaint in every possible way - and in this case, the only
possible ways are either to put some teeth in the do-not-call law, or
lip service.
That, of course, is my opinion. (Pauses to check Constitution; yup, I
can still have opinions.)
Bill Horne
Moderator
|
| Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 08:06:15 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Apple sued over iOS 9's eagerness to chew up cellular data
Message-ID: <288AD0EC-8C3A-4F18-BA6B-CD485EE2D808@roscom.com>
Apple sued over iOS 9's eagerness to chew up cellular data
Not happy that iOS 9's WiFi Assist feature is quietly gobbling your
iPhone's cellular data for the sake of boosting your WiFi performance?
You're not alone -- and you might get compensation for your
troubles. A California-based couple has filed a class action lawsuit
accusing Apple of doing too little to warn iPhone owners about WiFi
Assist's data use. Allegedly, the guide it posted in response to
concerns about the feature doesn't cut the mustard. It "downplays" the
kind of overage charges you could rack up after upgrading to the newer
iOS revision, according to the complaint.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/25/apple-sued-over-ios-9-wifi-assist/
|
| Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:00:17 -0400
From: "Adam Pawlowski" <ajp26@acsu.buffalo.edu>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: New federal rate caps on telephone calls by prison inmates
Message-ID: <07c301d110b7$6dd8cf40$498a6dc0$@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Regarding per-minute rates being higher, there certainly are 'kickbacks' in
a number of installations. However, consider also that these are generally
full-service installations. A vendor installs the telephones and systems at
their rates. These include not only traditional voice calling, but
accounting services, and call detail records and recording retentions for a
number of years. That is turned into a per-minute value cost instead of
piecemeal billing for ease. Reportedly, a number of services are looking
into video calling, for when in-person visits are not possible (a separate
topic itself). Those would not be regulated and are certain to come at much
higher usage rates.
Adam Pawlowski
PS Please forgive a breach of posting etiquette. I know you'd replied before
of a way I should reply as I'd done it wrong, but I'm unable to find that
mail.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I don't remember. It's all a blank.
Let's see:
1. Charset=us-ascii, but Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit. Hmmm.
2. No "In-Reply-To" or "References" headers. Fixed. I forgive you.
That's all I noticed.
Bill Horne
Moderator
> -----Original Message-----
> From: telecom-owner@telecom-digest.org [mailto:telecom-owner@telecom-
> digest.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:20 AM
> To: telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.telecom-digest.org
>
> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 17:17:38 -0400
> From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
> To: telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.telecom-digest.org.
> Subject: Re: New federal rate caps on telephone calls by prison inmates
> Message-ID: <barmar-28B58A.17173824102015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
>
> Maybe those would explain a 50-100% bump in the price, but they hardly
> explains rates that were reported to be more than 1,000 times higher
> than the rates on the outside. Nor would increased costs explain why
> the states should make a profit on the service -- if it costs the
> telco more to provide the service, the fees should go to the telco.
>
> --
> Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
> Arlington, MA
> *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
|
| Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:36:25 -0700
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC hopes to shut down robocallers by publishing numbers weekly
Message-ID: <n0p8q3$nhn$1@blue-new.rahul.net>
> I don't think that will work: it's another whack-a-mole game, and I'm
> surprised that the FCC would try it.
Agreed. What I think would work would be to rule that all carriers must
reveal actual ANI to people on the list who complain about junk
robocalls, or at least their lawyers, and that the callers must pay some
statutory penalty large enough to make it worthwhile for the callees to
pursue.
|
| Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:38:26 -0700
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison phone companies fight for right to charge inmates $14 a minute
Message-ID: <n0p8ts$nhn$2@blue-new.rahul.net>
On 2015-10-26 05:43, Monty Solomon wrote:
> Yesterday's vote came after complaints that inmate-calling companies
> are overcharging prisoners, their families, and attorneys. Saying the
> price of calls sometimes hits $14 per minute, the FCC has now capped
> rates at 11ยข per minute.
$14 is price gouging, but the actual cost is probably in the range of
$.50 to $1. The likely result of this cap is that companies stop
offering the service entirely.
|
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 educational service offered to
the Internet 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 © 2015 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself. Thank you!
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.
