The Telecom Digest for September 02, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 237 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 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: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:50:35 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Time Warner Cable doubles fee to not list phone number
Message-ID: <4C7DBF7B.9040403@thadlabs.com>
>From Dave Lazarus' column in the LA Times today (31-AUG-2010):
That monthly $1.99 fee for something the company isn't doing
for customers is now one of the highest of its type in the
telecom industry, and there appears to be nothing to justify it.
Time for an update on one of my all-time favorite fees -- the
fee that telecom companies charge to not provide you a service.
That service is publishing your name in a phone book, which is
undoubtedly a pricey endeavor for phone and cable companies.
So if a customer asks that his or her name not be included in
the directory, you'd think you'd be saving the telecom
provider a little cash. That's one less entry in the database,
for example, one less dollop of ink at the printer.
But this month, Time Warner Cable more than doubled its fee
for an unlisted number to a whopping $1.99 a month, or
nearly $24 a year.
The higher fee applies immediately for new customers.
Existing customers will see their unlisted number charge
go up in January.
Again, that's a recurring fee -- now one of the highest
of its type in the telecom industry -- for something Time
Warner isn't doing for customers.
What prompted the increase? I asked Jim Gordon, a Time
Warner spokesman, if the company's own costs had gone up.
He declined to answer that question directly, saying only
that this is "an administrative fee" and that it's
"consistent with our competitors in this space."
Actually, it's higher. Verizon Communications charges
$1.75 a month not to list your name in its phone book
and not to give your number to people who call directory
assistance. AT&T charges $1.25 monthly not to provide
these services.
OK, so why is the unlisted number fee charged on a
recurring basis? After all, your ongoing preference
can be recorded with a few taps at a keyboard, and
then it's done.
"It's a recurring service that you're provided
throughout the month," Gordon explained.
Let's savor that a moment, shall we?
Time Warner and other telecom companies are charging
for a service that consists of them basically not
doing anything. And because they continue not to do
anything month after month, they keep charging you
on the grounds that it's a recurring service.
Time Warner's fee is all the more remarkable because
the company doesn't produce its own phone book. It
pays Sprint to compile all its customers' names and
numbers, and to then pass them along to whichever
phone company dominates a particular market for
inclusion in that firm's directory.
Just to be clear: That's $1.99 a month not to be in a
phone book that Time Warner doesn't even publish.
AT&T's and Verizon's fees are a little more
understandable. After all, they make extra cash
selling ads in their phone books. The more people
who choose not to be listed, the less valuable the
directory becomes to advertisers, so the phone
company wants to discourage people from leaving.
But Time Warner isn't in the phone book business.
Its recurring fee for unlisted numbers is a money
grab, pure and simple.
And the unlisted number charge isn't the only way
that the cable giant has started reaching deeper
into people's pockets.
{article continues at the following URL}
<http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20100831,1,917352.column>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:59:48 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Time Warner Cable doubles fee to not list phone number
Message-ID: <ROKdnajXaslYI-PRnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Thad Floryan wrote:
>>From Dave Lazarus' column in the LA Times today (31-AUG-2010):
> AT&T's and Verizon's fees are a little more understandable. After
> all, they make extra cash selling ads in their phone books. The more
> people who choose not to be listed, the less valuable the directory
> becomes to advertisers, so the phone company wants to discourage
> people from leaving.
> {article continues at the following URL}
>
> <http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20100831,1,917352.column>
The best part is further in the article where a California Assemblywoman
tried to introduce legislation to outlaw the fee. But, the various and
sundry telephone industry prediators descended like locust on Sacramento
and squished it dead.
The real point: "Let them eat cake." The politicos are beholden to the
various lobby groups, especially the public service unions. The heck
with the voters, the legislators know the system is rigged in favor of
their reelection in spite of voter sentiments and wishes.
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:33:15 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Time Warner Cable doubles fee to not list phone number
Message-ID: <siegman-59375A.12331501092010@BMEDCFSC-SRV02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article <4C7DBF7B.9040403@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
> So if a customer asks that his or her name not be included in
> the directory, you'd think you'd be saving the telecom
> provider a little cash. That's one less entry in the database,
> for example, one less dollop of ink at the printer.
>
As Tom Lehrer, or Mort Sahl, or somebody once pointed, you're mistaken
on this point, because when they take your name out, it costs them a lot
of money to move all the following names up by one.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Ma Bell used to say that non-listed numbers cost extra because they
caused more calls to Information - oh, 'scuse me, "Directory
Assistance".
Now, however, most Information calls are billed, so logically,
non-listed numbers should cost less. Then again, I'm not a PUC comish,
wondering if it's better to bank in the Channel Islands or Bermuda ...
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 16:01:03 +0800
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Where, oh where, will my next phone come from?
Message-ID: <AANLkTinySxzbZn7e=AWny+TE1XtKfV3F3qtHUSy7OTiK@mail.gmail.com>
I have long been an easy cell phone customer. I've always taken the
free phone, just used it for talking and texting, paid my bill on
time, and the carrier & I just left each other alone. Then something
happened. I traveled abroad. I'm considering trading in my Pantech
C530 for a smart phone. But before I take the plunge I want run some
things past the braintrust here.
I am an AT&T Wireless customer and my first choice is the iPhone.
However I need an unlocked phone, or at least one that can be
unlocked. My understanding is Apple will not allow iPhones to be
unlocked. Or is it AT&T? In any case, it can't (easily) be done. I
can expect to spend time in Malaysia and Hungary for the foreseeable
future and having a local number (i.e. a local SIM card) makes life
much easier.
I have narrowed my choices down to a few Android handhelds and the
Nokia N900. I'm not here to debate or discuss the merits of any of
these platforms. I don't want to start a holy war. Here are my
questions.
Various, non-authoritative, websites claim AT&T Wireless will unlock
phones for customers who have been in good-standing for more than 90
days. Is this true? Does the 90 days start from when I first opened
my current account or when I bought the locked phone? For the record
they happily unlocked my Pantech phone that I had owned for about 15
months.
If I were to walk in off the streets with an unlocked GSM phone would
AT&T Wireless necessarily support it? Would I still be able to buy a
data plan assuming the hardware is compatible?
And finally... suppose one day I buy an iPhone to go with, say, my
Android phone. What would happen if I swapped the SIM back and forth
between the two phones, say iPhone on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday,
Android the remaining days. Would AT&T Wireless care?
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:38:48 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <3sadnR4K_dbl-OPRnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> People are willing to pay more money for the 911-only phones (some of which
> are actually on a POTS line with an autodialer built into the phone) because
> they are worried that a payphone will attract drug dealers.
>
The real security and reliability comes from switch-based protocol
rather than a auto-dialer in the telephone. The auto-dialer requires
dial tone, which can be accessed through tampering with the telephone.
The switch-based protocol never provides dial tone, thus only the
intended destination can be reached.
"Hot line" telephones should be considrably less expensive than coin
telephones, both as to the instrument and the tariffs.
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Whatever happened to travelers' cheques (checks)
Message-ID: <757185.33765.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Bill Horne asked "whatever happened to travelers' cheques?"
They're still around (in fact when my 89 year old dad came to the
states in May he brought some with him.) The reason they're not so
popular now is that if you use a bank check card/debit card generally
you'll have easier access to local cash and you'll also get a much
better exchange rate generally than you do exchanging travelers'
cheques.
***** Moderator's Note *****
IIRC, Travelers' checks can be purchased in any currency.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:42:31 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to travelers' cheques (checks)
Message-ID: <NZedna4p5vl6eePRnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Joseph Singer wrote:
> Bill Horne asked "whatever happened to travelers' cheques?"
>
> They're still around (in fact when my 89 year old dad came to the
> states in May he brought some with him.) The reason they're not so
> popular now is that if you use a bank check card/debit card generally
> you'll have easier access to local cash and you'll also get a much
> better exchange rate generally than you do exchanging travelers'
> cheques.
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> IIRC, Travelers' checks can be purchased in any currency.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
>
The big issue these days are the fear of forgeries, thus many merchants
won't take them internationally.
Remember the good old days when most of us were reasonably honest?
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:22:43 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to travelers' cheques (checks)
Message-ID: <i5mqom$onh$1@news.eternal-september.org>
On 9/1/10 4:42 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
> Joseph Singer wrote:
>> Bill Horne asked "whatever happened to travelers' cheques?"
>>
>> They're still around (in fact when my 89 year old dad came to the
>> states in May he brought some with him.) The reason they're not so
>> popular now is that if you use a bank check card/debit card generally
>> you'll have easier access to local cash and you'll also get a much
>> better exchange rate generally than you do exchanging travelers'
>> cheques.
>>
>>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> IIRC, Travelers' checks can be purchased in any currency.
>> Bill Horne
>> Moderator
>>
>
> The big issue these days are the fear of forgeries, thus many merchants
> won't take them internationally.
>
> Remember the good old days when most of us were reasonably honest?
>
They forge almost anything. The other day my wife went to the market
and had about $5.00 worth of Internet coupons and the market no longer
will take them since they got burned on forgeries, that is the fault of
the markets employees the coupons all have an anti-copy lines on them.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 16:25:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to travelers' cheques (checks)
Message-ID: <201009012025.QAA05094@ss10.danlan.com>
|***** Moderator's Note *****
|
|IIRC, Travelers' checks can be purchased in any currency.
I never thought to try that. The last time I used Travelers' checks
(about 20 years ago) was in Italy. The banks and other money changing
locations would not accept them unless you presented your passport.
Italy has this thing where the hotel is (supposedly) required to take
your passport at check-in to register with the police. After that they
really don't like to give it back until you check out. Eventually I
stood at the desk making a pain of myself asking when they would finish
"registering" me so I could have my passport back. (This was already day
2 so they had had plenty of time.) After a few rounds telling me I really
didn't need it they decided they could make a photocopy for themselves and
let me have the original.
If the Travelers' checks had been denominated in local currency I wonder
if I could have used them without a passport.
I've never encountered the hotel passport thing in any other "modern"
European country nor have the money changers there needed to see my
passport. Seems like a funny coincidence.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:06:34 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: iOS 4.1 Software Update
Message-ID: <p06240896c8a470a6acc0@[192.168.1.70]>
iOS 4.1 Software Update
The iOS 4.1 Software Update is the first major update to iOS 4,
bringing Game Center, new iTunes features, high dynamic range
photography, and more to iPhone.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/software-update/
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:00:45 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: After BlackBerry, India now wants Google, Skype, & VPN data
Message-ID: <4C7EDB1D.4080003@thadlabs.com>
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/after-blackberry-india-now-wants-access-to-google-skype-vpn-data-/1
A day after giving the maker of BlackBerry two months to open
its data to authorities, Indian regulators have put all
telecom firms on notice that they have "lawful access" to
their data. That puts a bull's-eye on Google's Gmail, Skype's
VoIP calls and corporate virtual privacy networks.
"The ministry of home affairs has made it clear that any
communication through the telecom networks should be
accessible to the law enforcement agencies and all telecom
service providers including third parties have to comply
with this," an official told the Times of India.
"Any company with a telecoms network should be accessible,"
an Indian Home Ministry official told the BBC. "It could
be Google or Skype, but anyone operating in India will
have to provide data."
"Skype has a similar issue to BlackBerry, in so far as it
uses a proprietary protocol and no one knows what is under
the hood," Carsten Casper, a research director at analyst
firm Gartner, told the BBC. He said the government is
simply "working its way down the to-do list."
The government is also targeting VPNs used by corporate employees
working remotely.
Additional info:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-31/rim-s-agreement-with-india-is-likely-to-foreshadow-wider-government-access.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/India-seeks-lawful-access-to-all-telecom-data/articleshow/6468957.cms
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/%20technology-11137647
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-08-30-india-blackberry_N.htm
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:04:07 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AT&T Says Net Rules Must Allow 'Paid Prioritization'
Message-ID: <4C7EDBE7.6080607@thadlabs.com>
" AT&T said Tuesday that any Net neutrality plan restricting
" its ability to engage in 'paid prioritization' of network
" traffic would be harmful and contrary to the fundamental
" principles of the Internet.
{ [long] article continues at the following URL}
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20015231-38.html
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 13:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: College - home communications today article
Message-ID: <7b966fdd-664c-4e21-8231-88b0a6523ff0@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
An article in the Phila Inqr describes how college students today keep
in touch with their families at home.
see: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20100901_At_college__still_talking_daily_to_Mom_and_Dad.html
How times have changed. Back when I was in college, it was considered
a nice new innovation for a student to get a telephone in his room--
most dorms made do with a few pay phones in the hall and maybe a house
phone. Indeed, the Bell System history "Telephone" by John Brooks
describes the cutover work necessary in spring and fall to serve
dorms.
Dorm landline phones were often part of the college centrex which
meant students had to dial 9 to call out and could directly dial other
college extensions internally. Students were charged the residential
rate.
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.
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 (13 messages)
|
| |
or 