32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for November 25, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 233 : "text" Format
====== 32 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: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 04:32:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Introducing 844 Toll Free Numbers
Message-ID: <00799af0-c3c4-4a5a-aba9-894424376852@googlegroups.com>
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:54:54 PM UTC-6, danny burstein wrote:
> Somehow this snuck up on me. I didn't realize these
> were about to get launched.
You must have missed this:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.dcom.telecom/Rs4GzLFnhhQ/UMYrn8QwBO4J
Neal McLain
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 00:34:58 -0600
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Introducing 844 Toll Free Numbers
Message-ID: <tpSdnZypQ_4P0Q3PnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@giganews.com>
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> writes:
>...
>- And I've also got to ask why there's still such
>a huge demand for "tollfree" numbers. More and more
>people, and pretty much all businesses by now, have
>calling plans that are no longer distance sensitive.
>From when I needed to go looking for my business for toll-numbers.
Almost every number I was looking at was held in reserve by some
company or the other, and finding one even going through all the
prefixes was quite a search. All of these numbers rang to an
intercept or something else, none of them went through to anywhere.
One would think that they were speculators sitting on it until the
right deal, but contacting the RespOrg on the # was pretty much
a bust for any sort of response. Granted, I wouldn't have paid
much for any number anyway, but you'd think they'd have some sort
of process having listed themselves as the RespOrg.
So, it must be fairly cheap to sit on a number, and many companies are
doing so for unknown reasons to me, other than they are a resource,
maybe holding things until the right set of circumstances.
--
Doug McIntyre
doug@themcintyres.us
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:30:32 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Introducing 844 Toll Free Numbers
Message-ID: <l6td3o$1r9$1@leila.iecc.com>
>So, it must be fairly cheap to sit on a number, and many companies are
>doing so for unknown reasons to me, other than they are a resource,
>maybe holding things until the right set of circumstances.
It's extremely cheap. My 800 number costs me $1/mo retail, and I know
that's far from the lowest price. We have practically no traffic, but
I hold onto it because it spells my wife's name.
I share your impression that there must be a market in toll-free
numbers somewhere, but I have no idea where to find it.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
http://jl.ly
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:17:17 -0500
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Most cellcos agree to end most "premium text msgs"
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1311231412280.16020@panix5.panix.com>
[press release from Vt. Attorney General]
Forty-five states, led by Vermont, with Delaware, Florida, Maryland,
Oregon, Texas and Washington, have been engaged in discussions aimed at
stopping the practice of mobile cramming - unauthorized third-party
charges that appear on mobile telephone bills. In what is a major
breakthrough in the fight against mobile cramming, Attorney General Bill
Sorrell announced today that three of the nation's largest mobile phone
carriers - AT&T Mobility, Sprint and T-Mobile - will no longer charge
their customers for commercial Premium Short Messaging Services, also
known as "PSMS" or "premium text messages." PSMS accounts for the
majority of third-party charges on cell phones and for the overwhelming
majority of cramming complaints.
....
AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile are the second, third and fourth largest
providers of mobile telephone services nationwide. Two carriers have
confirmed they will continue to allow charitable donations to be billed
via PSMS.
====
rest:
http://www.atg.state.vt.us/
(right now it's the lead story. You might have to scroll
down a few if others bump it)
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 04:51:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Unhappy about Airborne Cell Phones? Don't Call the FCC.
Message-ID: <08cfa05d-48d7-4096-bdee-81d7c2831b94@googlegroups.com>
Posted on CommLawBlog on November 22, 2013 by Mitchell Lazarus
| Yes, we all hate the FCC's proposal to allow cell phones in
| flight, but the FCC is not to blame.
|
| The FCC's release of its "tentative agenda" before each
| monthly meeting draws close scrutiny from people like us, but
| not much from the larger world outside the Beltway.
|
| Until, that is, this week. That's when the December agenda
| appeared, with this item:
|
| Increasing Consumer Access to In-Flight Mobile Wireless
| Services: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed
| Rulemaking to revise outdated rules and provide airlines with
| the ability to permit passengers to use mobile wireless
| services via onboard airborne access systems.
|
| The FCC confirmed that, yes, it will formally propose removing
| its ban on in-flight cell-phone use.
|
| The public reacted vehemently. Who says Americans are a
| pathetic? The 24 hours after the agenda item appeared saw
| intense press, TV, and online coverage. Website commenters
| were outraged - even more than usual. Flight attendants were
| up in arms. A White House petition is gaining hundreds of
| signatures by the hour. The FCC has not said, but we're
| betting their in-box is piling up angry messages.
|
| In fact, we can't think of another time when an FCC action
| (or, in this case, an announcement of a coming proposal to
| maybe take a possible future action) has triggered such a
| strong public outcry.
|
| We would join the outcry, too, except that we have an inside
| fact: the FCC is the wrong target.
Continued:
http://tinyurl.com/o3lojqf
Neal McLain
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:50:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Introducing 844 Toll Free Numbers
Message-ID: <1385218257.72390.YahooMailNeo@web125202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> ... And I've also got to ask why there's still such a huge demand
> for "tollfree" numbers. More and more people, and pretty much all
> businesses by now, have calling plans that are no longer distance
> sensitive
"More and more people" is not all, and many marketers want to reach
those who do not have "free" long distance. There must be a
substantial number, considering the pitch Cox Cable makes incessantly
to change your phone service to Cox to get the "free" long distance.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 07:26:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Supremes Grant Aereo More Time to Respond to Broadcasters
Message-ID: <347e678c-a4de-400b-a69d-e7e278e2af03@googlegroups.com>
By John Eggerton, Broadcasting & Cable, 11/8/2013
| The Supreme Court has given Aereo 30 more days to respond to
| broadcasters' petition to the court to decide whether Aereo's
| over-the-top TV station delivery service should be allowed to
| continue while a lower court hears a broadcaster challenge to
| the service.
|
| Aereo's request for a 30-day extension was a routine one,
| according to attorneys for the other side.
|
| The Court this week extended the deadline for responses to the
| broadcaster petition to Dec. 12. It also said lawyers for both
| sides had signaled their blanket consent for petitions in
| support or opposition, which means amicus curiae briefs don't
| have to get individual consent letters from the parties. That
| signals the lawyers are expecting a lot of briefs, which are
| still due Nov. 12, the original deadline for the Aereo
| response.
|
| Last month, the major broadcast networks and PBS asked the
| High Court to rule on whether Aereo's Internet delivery of TV
| station signals is a public performance subject to copyright
| payments, or rather -- as Aereo asserts -- remote, private
| access to the free over-the-air signals viewers are entitled
| to. The answer, broadcasters argue, is critical to their
| future.
|
| In making their case for why the court should review the
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals' denial of an injunction
| against Aereo, the broadcasters offered up their arguments for
| why not doing so would cause them major harm, which is one of
| the tests for granting a preliminary injunction.
Continued:
http://tinyurl.com/p9psu4b
Neal McLain
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 19:22:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Introducing 844 Toll Free Numbers
Message-ID: <1385263329.80406.YahooMailNeo@web121402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:54:54 -0500 danny burstein wrote:
> - And I've also got to ask why there's still such a huge demand for
> "tollfree" numbers. More and more people, and pretty much all
> businesses by now, have calling plans that are no longer distance
> sensitive.
And this is interesting to me since in the Netherlands there seems to
be "premium" 0900 numbers for pretty much everything whether it's
calling the police (other than 112) calling an infomercial on TV,
calling your mobile provider's customer service number or calling to
donate to a charity. On the other hand "freephone" toll-free numbers
are very rare and in fact some freephone numbers are just four digits
long!
Another interesting thing about freephone in the Netherlands is that
you can have freephone numbers that begin with a 0 such as AT&T Direct
which is - 0800-022 9111 !
***** Moderator's Note *****
A lot of toll numbers start with "0" in Europe, since zero is the
first position on a dial phone there. It's like dialing "One-plus"
in the U.S. or Canada: a single pulse that triggers special treatment
for the call
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:32:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Introducing 844 Toll Free Numbers
Message-ID: <l6td76$1r9$2@leila.iecc.com>
>And this is interesting to me since in the Netherlands there seems to
>be "premium" 0900 numbers for pretty much everything whether it's
>calling the police (other than 112) calling an infomercial on TV,
>calling your mobile provider's customer service number or calling to
>donate to a charity. On the other hand "freephone" toll-free numbers
>are very rare and in fact some freephone numbers are just four digits
>long!
I've noticed the same thing, the Dutch are oddly willing to pay extra
to call organizations that we'd expect to call for free.
Here in the US, 900 numbers are dead because there are no longer any
carriers that will bill for them.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
http://jl.ly
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 10:04:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The 411 on 844: A New Toll-Free Area Code Coming Soon
Message-ID: <1385316276.38767.YahooMailNeo@web125204.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:15:33 -0700 (PDT), Neal McLain wrote:
> Well, "Dig Safe" may have been "Miss Utility" where Peter Tannenwald
> lived, but it was identified by many different names around the USA.
> In Wisconsin, it was "Diggers Hotline." In Illinois, it was "JULIE"
> (Joint Utility Locating Information for Excavators). In Michigan,
> it was "Miss Dig" (although Mr. Dig sometimes answered). In Utah,
> it was Blue Stakes (and apparently still is). And probably others
> that I've forgotten.
And in Oklahoma it was "Call OKIE"
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
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) 2013 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 (10 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues