|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 216 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: More on distracted drivers
Re: More on distracted drivers
Re: More on distracted drivers
Re: More on distracted drivers
Mobile phones teach youths to focus on speed, not accuracy
Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
Re: Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
Re: Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
Re: Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
"cramming" fraudulent phone charges, was: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: "cramming" fraudulent phone charges, was: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: "cramming" fraudulent phone charges, was: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: Who does today what Bell Labs did in the past?
GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Telco payments question
Re: Telco payments question
Re: Telco payments question
====== 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: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 02:13:32 -0400
From: Webrat <sub@mercury.windsaloft.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <h5dsak$jh$1@aioe.org>
danny burstein wrote:
>
> Seems to me the same claims were made regarding prohibiting
> smoking in airplanes, bars, restaurants, and stores.
>
> obtelecom: the fumes, ash, and particulates from cigarette
> smoke dramatically raise the maintenance requirements at
> any central office using step-by-step switches.
They do the same thing to airliner equipment. One thing the mechanics
did miss when smoking was first banned...were the nicotine stains
on/about the doors/seals/vents/etc that indicated a pressurization
leak. These weren't any kind of bad leak, just kind of a 'heads-up'
that this area is needing some attention before it gets too bad; but
aircraft mechanics are an obsessive lot. :))
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:13:39 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <h5f9t4$4gc$1@blue.rahul.net>
Webrat wrote:
> They do the same thing to airliner equipment. One thing the mechanics
> did miss when smoking was first banned...were the nicotine stains
> on/about the doors/seals/vents/etc that indicated a pressurization
> leak. These weren't any kind of bad leak, just kind of a 'heads-up'
> that this area is needing some attention before it gets too bad; but
> aircraft mechanics are an obsessive lot. :))
According to Spider Robinson ("The Crazy Years"), the airlines got
smoking banned aboard aircraft for a completely different reason: it
meant they could slow down the air circulation systems in aircraft
cabins by a factor of two or three (to save energy and money for the
airline) without the fact being visible. The stagnant air that
passengers now have to breathe as a result is almost certainly more
of a health hazard than the slightly smoky air it replaces.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Jet aircraft have so much spare power
that air circulation is never a problem: the engines provide
pressurized air for free, so moving air through the cabin is very easy
to do.
In any case, it doesn't pass the common-sense test: why risk offending
passengers when the aircraft has all the ventilation anyone could ever
want?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 04:06:00 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <h5g978$ojr$2@reader1.panix.com>
John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> writes:
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Jet aircraft have so much spare power
>that air circulation is never a problem: the engines provide
>pressurized air for free, so moving air through the cabin is very easy
>to do.
But it does. You steal bleed air from an engine, or the system runs from
AC from same. In either case, TANSTAAFL applies; their fuel costs go up.
I've see the controls on a Airbus that allowed running one or both
"pack"... With both, there was more air injected, hence more expelled.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:38:07 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: More on distracted drivers
Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.06.07.38.06.532775@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:19:14 -0400, Geoffrey Welsh wrote:
..........
> The problem is not the cellphone. The problem is not the GPS. The
> problem is not the other teengers in the car. The problem is that drivers
> (and, possibly, passengers) do not acknowledge that controlling a heavy
> vehicle moving down a common pathway is a dangerous, potentially deadly,
> activity and conduct themselves appropriately, including prioritizing
> their activities or deciding not to do something because they need to
> focus on driving. There are existing laws against bad driving which could
> improve safety immensely if enforced but politicians do not have the
> courage to crack down on bad driving because most of the people who vote
> for them do it and would resent being pulled over for what "everybody"
> does. So they blame scapegoats like cellphones rather than drivers. This
> is NOT a technical problem!
>
> I can't see how this could change for the better, but I can certainly see
> it getting worse... and, frankly, I'm frightened.
>
It may well get worse, but with cellphones there is now the technical
ability to prove that a particular handset may have been on a call at
the time of a particular incident (reading/writing text can't be
caught, though).
For most places passing a driving test means getting from point A to
point B without breaking too many laws, it doesn't really prove that
you sufficient driving skills (or the proper attitude) for the
increasingly hazardous environment that the roads are these days - and
the developed countries are way ahead of places like India and South
Africa where the road trauma rates are horrendous in comparison!
I don't know what the real answer is, but I would think it has to
start with people recognising that being allowed to drive a vehicle is
a privilege that can be lost, not a god-given right regardless of the
threat it may pose to innocent people.
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The "real answer" varies according to your background, status, wealth,
and position in society.
If you're an executive in the cellular industry, you'll probably
oppose any change that reduces (or threatens to reduce) cellular
revenues. Nothing personal, it's just business, and your only human,
so you'll find excuses to justify the use of cellphones while driving.
If you're a politician, you'll listen to the cellular executive,
because he has money to pay for the TV ads on your next election
campaign, _unless_ enough people (it's a large number, btw) come to
believe that _you_ should do something about it, in which case you'll
adopt a public posture which gives the impression that you're doing
something but does, in reality, make little or no difference.
If you're a salesman, worried about making your quota and dropping off
the present for your lead customer's daughter's birthday and how to
sell the next mid-life kicker on your somewhat outdated product line,
you'll be feeling the same thing that a heroin addict feels when the
needle goes in: you know it's hurting you in the long term, but you
can't get past the need to feel productive and important and
successful _now_. You'll lobby against, ignore, and/or find ways to
hide your cellular use while driving.
If you're a bureaucrat in a large corporation (several come to mind
;-)), you'll probably resent the fact that cellular calls are an
intrusion on your driving time, which may be the only quiet interval
in your day. You'll keep the phone off and check voice mail after
you're at the office, and you'll applaud laws that forbid cellular use
while driving.
"You know where it ends
Yo, it usually depends on where you start"
- Everlast
------------------------------
Date: 6 Aug 2009 15:25:19 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: More on distracted drivers
Message-ID: <20090806152519.62758.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>It may well get worse, but with cellphones there is now the technical
>ability to prove that a particular handset may have been on a call at
>the time of a particular incident (reading/writing text can't be
>caught, though).
Of course, that doesn't show who was using the phone. If I'm driving
with a family member and the phone rings, I hand it to her and ask her
to answer it.
>I don't know what the real answer is, but I would think it has to
>start with people recognising that being allowed to drive a vehicle is
>a privilege that can be lost, not a god-given right regardless of the
>threat it may pose to innocent people.
Too bad you can't legislate being reasonable.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:06:55 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: More on distracted drivers
Message-ID: <6645152a0908061506s1097f59cxfa0159d9fee0540f@mail.gmail.com>
Bill, as usual, feel free to kill this one if you see fit. :-)
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:25 AM, John Levine<johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
> Too bad you can't legislate being reasonable.
I keep telling myself I'm going to write an 800-page book criticizing
what American society has become.
I am not a liberal elitist. I have never sympathized with any
totalitarian regime be it left or right-wing. In fact I consider
myself to be mostly libertarian and it's because of this is why I am
so critical of American culture and soceity. I firmly believe so many
social ills have their roots in the fact that people simply don't know
how to conduct their own lives nor do they practice personal
responsibility. I do not advocate telling people how to live their
lives. However since more and more adults are showing themselves
incapable of acting responsibly, it opens the door wider and wider for
government intrusion in all our lives.
In college I knew two people. One was born in the USSR, a country
that still existed at the time. The other was a black man from South
Africa, this being the Apartheid era. They both said to me a number
of times over the years I knew them that Americans squander their
freedom. Our personal freedoms have never seriously been challenged
since the founding of the republic, so we really don't value them. At
the time I dismissed the criticism as people taking cheap, easy shots
at the greatest nation on earth. But 20 years later I see what they
mean. Freedom to many Americans means to freedom to act as childishly
and [boorishly] as possible. The reaction I have seen from people
concerning cell phone bans while driving reminds me of watching a
toddler at a supermarket being told he can't have any candy. Instead
of deciding to be part of the solution and only use a cell phone when
it's safe they throw a tantrum, say "they'll never take my cell phone
away" and pepper it with accusations of a police state.
Author and social critic, James Howard Kunstler, is even more cynical
calling certain segments of our adult population "violent clowns"
based on how idioticly they dress and [how] they take everything as a
personal affront.
I realize this strays pretty far from telecom, so I'll being it back.
In my mind restoring order and safety by regulating cell phone use is
akin to handing New Orleans residents tattered umbrellas to survive
the next Katrina. It's not going to do much. I don't think we have
the political will any more to hold everyone accountable for their
indiscretions. Yeah, we get tough with child predators and murders.
But asking someone to refrain from cell phone use to put a dent into
the 40,000+ traffic deaths, which far exceeds our murder rate, is
simply too much. Remember the Beltway Sniper from a few years back.
During his killing spree four times as [many] people in the
Virginia/DC/Maryland area were killed in crashes. But that's somehow
okay.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:39:35 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: More on distracted drivers
Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.06.07.39.35.152140@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:41:07 -0400, Steven wrote:
> David Clayton wrote:
>
>> This comes after another trial where another "professional" truck driver
>> was found not guilty after colliding with a passenger train in the
>> country on a day with perfect, sunny conditions with the crossing lights
>> working correctly - also killing multiple people and maiming others.
>>
>> It seems that some juries containing drivers are extremely forgiving of
>> other drivers - and if those on trial may have been using a phone, well
>> we all do it, don't we?...... :-(
>
> Did they happen to say if the jury were talking and texting on their
> cellphone during the trial and deliberations?
I didn't see that mentioned, but I seem to recall some reports of jurors
being threatened with contempt if they were caught doing such things in
previous court reports.
--
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, 06 Aug 2009 17:45:01 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Mobile phones teach youths to focus on speed, not accuracy
Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.06.07.45.01.343445@myrealbox.com>
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25887488-662,00.html
Mobile phones teach youths to focus on speed, not accuracy
Article from: Herald Sun
Peter Familari
August 05, 2009 05:00pm
A NEW study suggests young heavy mobile phone users have poorer
memory, slower reaction times and make more mistakes. A recent study
of 300 students aged 12 to 14 from 20 Melbourne private and state
schools shows children who use their mobile a lot may be sacrificing
accuracy for speed.
The study by researchers from Monash University shows kids regarded as
heavy mobile phone users were likely to have poorer memory, react
slower to set tasks and made more mistakes than students who used
their mobiles a lot less.
"We took into account age, gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status
in our research," one of the report's authors, Dr Geza Benke, said.
"But simply put, mobile phones may be teaching kids to go for speed
rather than accuracy."
The Monash University report found that overall mobile phone use was
associated with faster and less accurate responses to high level
cognitive tests.
The good news is the students' error rate was unlikely to be linked to
mobile phone radiation.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:09:48 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
Message-ID: <p0624082fc6a0783c619d@[10.0.1.3]>
Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
http://www.cmcsk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=118591&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1317694&highlight=
Consolidated Revenue Increased 4.5%
Consolidated Operating Cash Flow Increased 5.5%
Consolidated Operating Income Increased 7.1%
Earnings per Share of $0.33 Increased 57.1%
Generated Free Cash Flow of $1.2 Billion Repurchased 15.5 Million Common Shares for $215 Million
Financial Tables
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/11/118591/Q209.htm
PDF Version
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIyNzR8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1
Trending Schedules (PDF)
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIyNzd8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1
Trending Schedules (XLS)
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIyNzh8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1
Click Here for Webcast
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=118591&eventID=2285950
***** Moderator's Note *****
I would really like to know how Comcast has the gaul to list
Goodwill 14,889 14,928 (in Millions)
... on their balance sheet. I _might_ believe it was a valid entry if
it showed a negative number, but to make such a Blue Sky claim just
boggles my mind.
Bill Horne
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: 6 Aug 2009 16:17:11 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
Message-ID: <20090806161711.7001.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>I would really like to know how Comcast has the gaul to list
>
>Goodwill 14,889 14,928 (in Millions)
It's just an accounting entry from when they bought other companies,
the excess of what they paid over the acquisition's book value. Normally
it's written off over some number of years.
It certainly doesn't imply that anyone likes them.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:20:20 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
Message-ID: <nKWdnXGSbZNJjebXnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <p0624082fc6a0783c619d@[10.0.1.3]>,
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
>Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
>http://www.cmcsk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=118591&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1317694&highlight=
>
>Consolidated Revenue Increased 4.5%
>Consolidated Operating Cash Flow Increased 5.5%
>Consolidated Operating Income Increased 7.1%
>Earnings per Share of $0.33 Increased 57.1%
>Generated Free Cash Flow of $1.2 Billion Repurchased 15.5 Million Common
>Shares for $215 Million
>
>Financial Tables
>http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/11/118591/Q209.htm
>
>PDF Version
>http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIyNzR8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1
>
>Trending Schedules (PDF)
>http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIyNzd8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1
>
>Trending Schedules (XLS)
>http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIyNzh8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1
>
>Click Here for Webcast
>http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=118591&eventID=2285950
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>I would really like to know how Comcast has the gaul to list
^^^^
Nit: Your spell checquer mis-led you. The correct spelling is 'gall'.
>Goodwill 14,889 14,928 (in Millions)
>
>... on their balance sheet. I _might_ believe it was a valid entry if
>it showed a negative number, but to make such a Blue Sky claim just
>boggles my mind.
It isn't a Blue Sky claim -- it's a real, _auditable_ number.
The explanation is *really* quite simple -- the word doesn't mean what you
think it does. <wry grin>
"Goodwill" is a 'term of art' in the accounting trade. It is the part of the
price you pay for acquiring an existing business, that is _in_excess_of_ the
value of the physical assets you are acquiring.
This is a recognition of the fact that the existing customers of a business
are 'probably' going to continue to do business with the company, even though
it has been bought by 'somebody else'. There is a 'value' to that future
stream of revenue (sales) -- that 'value' comes from the work done _before_
the company's purchase, by the 'then' owners (now the 'seller') of the
company. Thus, they deserve compensation for that work, and since the buyer
is the one that will reap the (eventual) benefit of that work, the buyer
gives money to the seller as that compensation.
BUT, you have to 'account' for it on the books, "somehow". So, that money
spent is 'set off' against the acquisition of an 'intangible asset' called
"good will".
Because it's an 'intangible', it doesn't wear out, it doesn't become obsolete,
etc. And, therefore, it is stuck on the 'books', _forever_. Because of that,
it bears no relation to 'reality' in any way. <wry grin>
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm not an accountant, so this is a layman's view.
I thought "Blue Sky" was the accounting term applied to intangibles
such as "good will". If that's not correct, let me know.
I also thought that the purchase price of a company, above the book
value of the assets, had to be listed as a long term investment and
discounted (as John Levine said) over some period of time. Is that
correct?
Bill Horne
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 01:26:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
Message-ID: <h5fvrf$sct$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <nKWdnXGSbZNJjebXnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>I also thought that the purchase price of a company, above the book
>value of the assets, had to be listed as a long term investment and
>discounted (as John Levine said) over some period of time. Is that
>correct?
That was true, until SFAS 142 ("Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets")
came into effect. SFAS 142 replaced the old system of scheduled
amortization of goodwill with a new system of "impairment testing".
Instead of assuming that the goodwill is automatically worth less over
each successive year, the new system requires companies to determine
the value of the business to which the goodwill is attached, both
regularly and when management becomes aware of events which are likely
to have a material negative impact, and make adjustments when they
determine that the goodwill has been "impaired". The company's
management is given a reasonable amount of latitude in how they
actually figure out the value of a business; obviously, if it is being
closed down, or sold for a loss, then they must write off the goodwill
that this represents. (There are some weird circumstances in which
you can even get "negative goodwill" in a business, which as I'm not
an accountant I don't pretend to understand.)
Pretty much every U.S. public company's annual report on SEC form 10-K
will include an explanation of this, and describe how management
determined the value of business, if they took an impairment charge.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:58:51 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <irednQmOMPpWlubXnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <h5as31$9om$1@blue.rahul.net>,
John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>> "No collect or 3rd party billings, please."
>
>> It shouldn't have to be there at all since you can tell your LEC to
>> put blocks on your line to prohibit third party billing or collect.
>
>I agree, but this hasn't worked since 1984. IXCs and CLECs either don't
>know about your prohibition or just ignore it, and nothing can be done.
You simply 'serve notice', formally, in writing, to the LEC that you forbid
them, in accordance with {appropriate regulatory cite), to apply any such
charges to your account.
Then, if/when such a charge occurs, you (a) notify the carrier you will not
pay the charge, (b) demand it be removed from your account, (c) file a formal
complaint with the State, _and_ Federal regulatory authorities, and last, but
not least, if they take part of a payment made for _their_ services and send
it to the scam biller (d) swear out a _criminal_ complaint against the LEC.
Charges like: "theft by deception" (name the scam biller as well on this),
'accomplice before, during, and after the fact", "theft by conversion", not
to mention the 'obvious' like 'fraud', 'bunco', etc.
NOTIFYING the LEC that you 'intend' to do (d) if they fail to do (b), does
tend to get 'corporate' attention. *Don't* make the mistake of sending
these missives _with_ a bill-payment -- the _only_ thing that goes with the
payment is the statement that those charges are 'disputed'. Send the other
demands _separately_, to 'customer service', _with_ a duplicate, 'mailed
under separate cover' (to use the traditional phrase), addressed to the
'legal' department. Remind 'legal' that you _did_ 'serve notice' on such-
and-such date, per {regulatory cite}, that they _are_ in violation, and that
they have now caused you 'actionable harm' by their negligence. Conclude
on a 'conciliatory' note -- the you hope this situation can be remedied
_before_ the damages you suffer are such that legal action becomes necessary.
<evil grin>
***** Moderator's Note *****
IANAL.
Crammers get away with their thefts because most users are too busy to
even read the detailed part of their phone bills, let alone engage in
a complicated and time-consuming complaint process that might or might
not suceed.
The FBI and Secret Service have been so overwhelmed by electronic
fraud that they now refer complaints to a web site where they take
reports automatically. I'd bet that neither the crammers nor the LEC's
nor the IEC's are very afraid of individual consumers threatening
legal action.
But, as I said, IANAL.
Bill Horne
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:46:02 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: "cramming" fraudulent phone charges, was: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <h5f4sq$4lo$1@reader1.panix.com>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>IANAL.
>Crammers get away with their thefts because most users are too busy to
>even read the detailed part of their phone bills, let alone engage in
>a complicated and time-consuming complaint process that might or might
>not suceed.
I must respectfully disagree. Crammers and similar sleazoids
get away with this because of collusion, whether by commission
or ommission, with the billing telephone entity.
Yes, the telco may have the legal requirement to grant "equal
access" to their billing systems (and I'm not sure that's
even the case) ...
.. but, there's nothing to stop them from including language
similar to the following when they sign those papers:
"In the event there's a verified complaint rate
of greater than X percent, this agreement is subject
to immediate termination".
Simple, objective, and standard business practice. The reluctance
of the telcos to include this says quite a bit about their
true intentions.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
***** Moderator's Note *****
I once coded PL/I in a NYNEX shop that billed over Six (B)Billion
dollars per year. Setting up and terminating a billing agreement isn't
something that would be subject to that kind of termination: it costs
too much to start the process, and to maintain it, for the LEC
involved to terminate it without an external authority such as the
FCC being involved.
I don't know what standard business practice is, but please remember
that LEC's aren't a standard business: they don't get to choose their
customers. All of their procedures and belief systems are based on the
notion that they _Must_ take all comers.
Bill Horne
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:32:29 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: "cramming" fraudulent phone charges, was: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <h5f82k$hg1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
danny burstein wrote:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>> IANAL.
>
>> Crammers get away with their thefts because most users are too busy to
>> even read the detailed part of their phone bills, let alone engage in
>> a complicated and time-consuming complaint process that might or might
>> not suceed.
>
> I must respectfully disagree. Crammers and similar sleazoids
> get away with this because of collusion, whether by commission
> or ommission, with the billing telephone entity. [Moderator snip]
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I once coded PL/I in a NYNEX shop that billed over Six (B)Billion
> dollars per year. Setting up and terminating a billing agreement isn't
> something that would be subject to that kind of termination: it costs
> too much to start the process, and to maintain it, for the LEC
> involved to terminate it without an external authority such as the
> FCC being involved.
>
> I don't know what standard business practice is, but please remember
> that LEC's aren't a standard business: they don't get to choose their
> customers. All of their procedures and belief systems are based on the
> notion that they _Must_ take all comers.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
It is my understanding that most LECs will not bill for 3rd party
billing without prier permission. I found a couple of charges from a
prison located in New York on my bill, [and] I contacted ([what was]
at the time) SBC and disputed the charges: they removed them right at
first request and that was the end of it. On my voice mail system it
now clearly states that I don't accept collect calls, not that it
would make any difference since most calls are made by voice robots.
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I sometimes feel that Ma Bell's co-operative billing agreements are
revenge for all the years she put up with we ungrateful wretches
scamming her in ways both subtle and gross. ;-)
My grandfather had a code book filled with hundreds of names, and he'd
call his office at least once per day to find out if his pressence was
required. If <name #99> wasn't available for a person-to-person call,
he knew that nothing was going on. If his secretary said that <name
#99> wasn't available, but <name #15> was, he knew that he had to
rearrange his schedule to go see <name #15>.
My grandfather was a state representative, and chair of the committee
that oversaw New England Telephone & Telegraph, so I suppose he had a
wider lattitude than many others, but such scams were common in the
days when a "long distance" call could cost an average worker a day's
pay.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:12:12 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: "cramming" fraudulent phone charges, was: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <h5fad6$78r$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Steven wrote:
> danny burstein wrote:
>>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>>> IANAL.
>>
>>> Crammers get away with their thefts because most users are too busy to
>>> even read the detailed part of their phone bills, let alone engage in
>>> a complicated and time-consuming complaint process that might or might
>>> not suceed.
>>
>> I must respectfully disagree. Crammers and similar sleazoids
>> get away with this because of collusion, whether by commission
>> or ommission, with the billing telephone entity. [Moderator snip]
>>
>>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> I once coded PL/I in a NYNEX shop that billed over Six (B)Billion
>> dollars per year. Setting up and terminating a billing agreement isn't
>> something that would be subject to that kind of termination: it costs
>> too much to start the process, and to maintain it, for the LEC
>> involved to terminate it without an external authority such as the
>> FCC being involved.
>>
>> I don't know what standard business practice is, but please remember
>> that LEC's aren't a standard business: they don't get to choose their
>> customers. All of their procedures and belief systems are based on the
>> notion that they _Must_ take all comers.
>>
>> Bill Horne
>> Moderator
>
> It is my understanding that most LECs will not bill for 3rd party
> billing without prier permission. I found a couple of charges from a
> prison located in New York on my bill, [and] I contacted ([what was]
> at the time) SBC and disputed the charges: they removed them right at
> first request and that was the end of it. On my voice mail system it
> now clearly states that I don't accept collect calls, not that it
> would make any difference since most calls are made by voice robots.
>
I remember calling home from where I was and would ask for myself, that
way my parents would know where I was. Later when I worked for GTE I
was able to make calls from the office when I was out of area, they
later gave us calling cards top use for both personal and business.
Deregulation ended that. In 1984 we were given cell phones by the
company and that was before the calling plans, but they also put a set
amount on the account each month to cover our use; I never went over the
amount.
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <1e419de7-0f54-4d53-bb91-f3d3566a3b21@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 6, 1:26 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> You simply 'serve notice', formally, in writing, to the LEC that you forbid
> them, in accordance with {appropriate regulatory cite), to apply any such
> charges to your account.
Determining the proper regulatory citation is not an easy task. Many
laws/regulations are written with exception situations described in
different paragraphs. So even if you cite paragraph (1)(c)(ii),
buried below paragraph (1)(d)(iv) might cancel it out. You would need
a specialist in regulatory law to dig out all the appropriate
paragraphs to insure your letter makes a valid citation. Also, you
might just discover that the exceptions to the process give you, the
consumer, not much ground to stand on.)
For example, many consumers are aware of the Do Not Call lists, and
even are aware of the many exceptions these lists have. But many
consumers probably do NOT know that the lists expire after a few years
and names must be reposted. Common sense would dictate once listed a
name would be permanent unless explicitly removed; after all, most
people hate soliciting calls.
> Then, if/when such a charge occurs, you (a) notify the carrier you
> will not pay the charge, (b) demand it be removed from your account,
> (c) file a formal complaint with the State, _and_ Federal regulatory
> authorities, and last, but not least, if they take part of a payment
> made for _their_ services and send it to the scam biller (d) swear
> out a _criminal_ complaint against the LEC. Charges like: "theft by
> deception" (name the scam biller as well on this), 'accomplice
> before, during, and after the fact", "theft by conversion", not to
> mention the 'obvious' like 'fraud', 'bunco', etc.
It's real easy to write a letter like that. But, sadly, it's real
easy for your carrier to ignore it. These days carriers (and other
businesses, too), have become awfully good at wearing someone down.
Filing a complaint with State and Federal authorities takes up time
and is not easy, filing a criminal complaint is particularly
difficult. That's just the _filing_ part. Once filed, you have to
follow up on these things, and the system puts you through the ringer
for that, too. Many times one will have to spend hours far from home
waiting in line to file papers or review progress.
The reality is that the vast majority of people are too busy with work
and family and have other priorities to deal with this stuff. Unless
the charges are outrageous and the carrier refuses a request to cancel
them, most people will just sigh and write out a check. Most people
don't want to lose hundreds of dollars in wages to save $25 in a bad
charge.
> NOTIFYING the LEC that you 'intend' to do (d) if they fail to do
> (b), does tend to get 'corporate' attention.
Not that long ago that would usuallly work. (Always use Certified
Mail, Return-Receipt Requested, and keep copies of the receipts and
correspondance). But carriers have gotten so big and arrogant in the
new age that they just don't care, and these days your efforts might
not be successful. Indeed, I'm waiting on a response from corporate
but I'm not holidng my breath.
> *Don't* make the mistake of sending these missives _with_ a
> bill-payment -- the _only_ thing that goes with the payment is the
> statement that those charges are 'disputed'. Send the other demands
> _separately_, to 'customer service', _with_ a duplicate, 'mailed
> under separate cover' (to use the traditional phrase), addressed to
> the 'legal' department. Remind 'legal' that you _did_ 'serve
> notice' on such-and-such date, per {regulatory cite}, that they
> _are_ in violation, and that they have now caused you 'actionable
> harm' by their negligence. Conclude on a 'conciliatory' note -- the
> you hope this situation can be remedied _before_ the damages you
> suffer are such that legal action becomes necessary. <evil grin>
If someone is having a problem they certainly should follow the steps
above. (Though finding the proper mailing address these days isn't
easy; it's often not plainly posted.)
I hate to be so cynical about this stuff, but as mentioned, companies
these days simply aren't as customer friendly as they once were, even
post divesture. Today it's "don't let the door hit you in the butt"
if you threaten to take your business elsewhere. I think that's a
really stupid way to run a business and chase your customers away, but
I guess since all the carriers do it it doesn't hurt much.
>***** Moderator's Note *****
> IANAL.
>
> Crammers get away with their thefts because most users are too busy to
> even read the detailed part of their phone bills, let alone engage in
> a complicated and time-consuming complaint process that might or might
> not suceed.
I have national flat rate service so there's no need for itemization.
Yet my home phone bill is so thick it requires extra postage for
weight. It is mostly undecipherable, with all sorts of different
sections and overlaps. I deal with only one carrier, but the carrier
has numerous subsets, for example, there's multiple long distance
portions (again, flat rate) which still takes up two pages with
numerous fees and charges. There are numerous line item charges of
$0.03 or so; why the heck can't that chickensh** be rolled up?
> The FBI and Secret Service have been so overwhelmed by electronic
> fraud that they now refer complaints to a web site where they take
> reports automatically. I'd bet that neither the crammers nor the LEC's
> nor the IEC's are very afraid of individual consumers threatening
> legal action.
>
> But, as I said, IANAL.
The only time they act is when a great many consumers have an
identical problem against a single really sleazy outfit.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:40:08 -0600
From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <8ttm75d03euo0d65q5chhoiscl1f52n1a9@4ax.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>For example, many consumers are aware of the Do Not Call lists, and
>even are aware of the many exceptions these lists have. But many
>consumers probably do NOT know that the lists expire after a few years
>and names must be reposted. Common sense would dictate once listed a
>name would be permanent unless explicitly removed; after all, most
>people hate soliciting calls.
Sorry - this is not correct. Once registered,the number does not expire.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/04/dncfyi.shtm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:03:34 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <h5g9hg$t1h$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Robert Neville wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> For example, many consumers are aware of the Do Not Call lists, and
>> even are aware of the many exceptions these lists have. But many
>> consumers probably do NOT know that the lists expire after a few years
>> and names must be reposted. Common sense would dictate once listed a
>> name would be permanent unless explicitly removed; after all, most
>> people hate soliciting calls.
>
>
> Sorry - this is not correct. Once registered,the number does not expire.
>
> http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/04/dncfyi.shtm
>
The rules had changed, I believe beforeit was five years, now it is
forever, Not that the Teleslim care.
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:26:39 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Who does today what Bell Labs did in the past?
Message-ID: <6645152a0908061426p207ec030m1d9ee004db1e901d@mail.gmail.com>
I had the very good fortune of working at two Bell Labs sites when I
was in college.
I was studying electrical engineering at Georgia Tech and participated
in the co-op program where I worked at AT&T. There was special
project involving teams from Bell Labs and the various regional
offices of AT&T across the country. We had a guy up in New Jersey,
but with his family back in Georgia he couldn't do it any more. So
they asked if I wanted to go. I was running out the door with my
one-way ticket to Newark before I could finish saying "Yes!".
I first worked at their Red Hill site and then the team moved to
Middletown. I used to visit the Holmdel site periodically. I loved
their technical library. I wanted to make a career out of Bell Labs.
But by the time I graduated in 1992 it already wasn't the place I knew
just two years prior. Some time in 1990 when I was there they
announced Bell Labs would have to show a profit. That just stunned so
many people there. They used to have the freedom to research and
didn't have to worry about suits watching the finances. It was
mesmerizing just to sit down at lunch and talk to these folks. They
were very kind and loved talking about their careers and the things
they had worked on. I was working late one evening and saw what
appeared to be an AT&T 49 MHz cordless phone that had been run over by
a tank. It was sitting in a chair. I followed the cord at least 100
yards into a lab where two engineers were running tests. They invited
me in and told me their jobs were to destroy phones and see how well
they continued to work.
I do think the nation, actually the world, greatly benefitted from the
work performed at Bell Labs. As a consumer I do think we're better
off with competition. Not trying to start a flame war, just my
opinion. But I do think we need another Bell Labs. We do have a
patchwork of university and quasi-government labs and they I'm sure
are discovering wonderful things. But I would like to see a
well-funded skunk works somewhere that hires the best engineers and
scientists and just stand back and watch what they come up with.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:10:57 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A7B7111.7050404@thadlabs.com>
I searched this group for "GSM interference" within Google Groups
and found nothing, so this may be "something new" for some readers.
Yesterday, after a lunch meeting with a Nokia guru, we adjourned to
my home office to review some matters and, within seconds of booting
one of my systems, a "noise problem" that has sort-of bugged me for
a year evidenced itself. The Nokia guru instantly stated that sound
was GSM interference.
I was both relieved and puzzled; my cell phone is a Motorola RAZR V3.
Relieved because I now knew for certain the "sound" wasn't a virus
or other malware. My concern began last year when I first heard a
"dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit" and thought some
malware had somehow arrived on my system. Using Process Explorer and
several AV scans revealed nothing, and since the sound only appeared
no more than once or twice every day and then only for a second or
two, I tolerated it.
Puzzled because the Nokia guru stated this was a common and known
problem. So bad that in fact at Nokia HQ they turn off all the
Polycomm conference room phones when having a meeting; he stated
also that Polycomm phones are the worst offender in this regards.
Later I did a normal Google search using "GSM interference" and,
WHOA!, 1000s of pages of hits. Many affecting pro audio studios'
sound mixing consoles. Long story short, this "GSM inteference"
appears to be a widespread problem and it's only with GSM, not
any of the other cell phone or PDA technologies.
To hear the sound I'm talking about (just a few seconds each):
http://www.corporatetalkradio.com/databurst.mp3
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1mlponX_jw
Here's one explanation for the sound which I found here:
http://www.corporatetalkradio.com/thatnoise.html
" If you ever do any type of recording or use devices with
" audio components the day will come where you hear this
" awful racket. Some call it buzz, some say it sounds like
" a fax machine and others call it things I won't print here.
" It sounds like this. What is that noise? It's a BlackBerry®
" type device or an iPhone (GSM) checking in with master
" control. It is the sound of digital data being transmitted.
" At very low levels (when the phone is some distance away),
" the "buzz" may not be heard, but your audio will sound like
" there's some "fuzz" on it. The guilty device can be anywhere
" in the room, possibly passing in the hallway or all the way
" across the lobby. It is imperative that you monitor your
" recording because you never know when the problem will occur.
"
" What can you do about it?
" Have the device turned OFF. Not on silent or vibrate but OFF.
" If the device must remain on, then create as much distance
" between the device and the audio equipment. The greater the
" distance, the softer the interference.
"
" Cellular phones (GSM , TDMA), iPhones, or a BlackBerry® and
" the like send out strong electromagnetic (EM) pulses as data
" messages. They check in with the network for messages and to
" report their location. CDMA phones and BlackBerry® devices
" (Verizon) usually do NOT cause any problems.
So, how did GSM ever get FCC approval given this very widespread
RFI/EMI problem?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 23:20:30 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <6645152a0908062120h24a64451we48ba0f68cc64d@mail.gmail.com>
I have a friend back in Atlanta who's a pretty straight-shooters. I
don't think he was making this up. He placed his GSM phone on his
paper shredder to charge as his cord wasn't long enough to reach
anything else. His paper shredder kept turning on and then off all by
itself. He moved the phone and it stopped.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:23:27 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.07.03.23.26.899121@myrealbox.com>
In Australia all the major telcos will now charge customers extra for
paying their bills by non-electronic means, has this sort of thing become
the norm in the US and other countries?
--
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, 6 Aug 2009 23:30:29 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <6645152a0908062130j172adc3ay4ba390bee99d0611@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:23 PM, David Clayton<dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> In Australia all the major telcos will now charge customers extra for
> paying their bills by non-electronic means, has this sort of thing become
> the norm in the US and other countries?
Airlines and banks have started charging extra for non-electronic interactions.
The 7-11 ATMs used to be quite handy. I could pay our phone,
electricity, and gas bills at the ATM. And once upon a time you could
buy Southwest Airlines tickets through them.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:38:07 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <h5gbi9$bkc$1@news.eternal-september.org>
David Clayton wrote:
> In Australia all the major telcos will now charge customers extra for
> paying their bills by non-electronic means, has this sort of thing become
> the norm in the US and other countries?
>
If you want to pay your bill at a Sprint store and don't ise oen the of
terminals they charge, unless the terminal is down, at&t charges or at
least the place you pay it at does. I do all mine online at their web page.
--
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) 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 (25 messages)
******************************
|
or 