|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 238 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Re: my future telephones
Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Re: NYS bans texting while driving
====== 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, 27 Aug 2009 22:19:01 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Message-ID: <rupe95hd2mnj04jpulgm41i3jbrcjdc39e@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:27:01 -0400 (EDT), John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
wrote:
>ObTelecom: if a charity calls you, you can be quite sure that the
>majority of the money you give will pay the fundraiser, not the
>charity
An extreme case: Some 20 years ago, when I lived in New Hampshire,
I read in the local newspapers that the New Hampshire chapter of the
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) hired a fundraising firm to
solicit for them. After the firm deducted its fee and expenses, MADD
got zero dollars.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:57:38 -0700
From: The Kaminsky Family <kaminsky@kaminsky.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Message-ID: <4a9780b4$0$1625$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <4A93C8AC.3070105@annsgarden.com>,
> Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>
>>>> Except that NPA 702 only covers Clark County. Lincoln and Ney
>>>> Counties (including Town of Pahrump) are also "local" to (same DMA
>>>> as) Las Vegas, but they're in NPA 775.
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>>> Approximate populations:
>>> Lincoln County: 4,000
>>> Nye County: 44,375
>>> Clark County 2,000,000
>>>
>>> Clark County contains about 97% of their audience. No point in
>>> wasting air time with an area code.
>>
>> Acknowledged. Still, I'm surprised that the station's management
>> didn't insist on including the entire DMA's audience. In the
>> broadcast business, advertising rates are based on TV homes in the
>> entire DMA, not just homes in the county of license.
>
> The station management "DOESN'T CARE" _what_ the content of the ad
> is. Well, as long as it won't get them _legal_ trouble for airing
> it, that is. If you want to buy air time to advertise something
> that's only available in a 6 block radius, that's just _fine_ with
> the station. You _will_ pay the same rate as someone who's
> advertising something with national availability -- but that's
> *your* (the advertiser, that is) choice.
Think about it from the audience perspective. Folks outside NPA 702
fully understand that any number they get from a Las Vegas station
without an NPA refers to 702, and anyone who advertises a number in
775 (or 800 or whatever) on a Las Vegas station will clearly state the
correct NPA.
It is no different here in Silicon Valley - if you see an ad in a San
Jose newspaper, they do not have to say NPA 408 (although most folks
do state the NPA - as the paper is delivered into at least NPA 650,
and probably 510 and 831 as well). Ditto for a San Francisco paper -
NPA 415 is understood.
Things may be different in places far from an NPA boundary, especially
where the local NPA has not changed from its original value, but that
is not the case in Lincoln and Nye Counties.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:09:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: my future telephones
Message-ID: <200908280709.DAA28224@ss10.danlan.com>
|There's a variety of hacks. The easiest is to observe that most VoIP
|traffic uses UDP port 5060 so the router can move those packets to the
|head of the queue.
Most SIP traffic uses port 5060, but that's just call setup. Aren't
the ports of the actual RTP audio streams pretty much unpredictable
(unless you snoop on the SIP packets)?
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Message-ID: <2120966c-2e6c-4ac7-bd65-6fddc3b2ca06@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 28, 12:30 am, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> "[Gov. Paterson signed a bill that] requires utilities,
> energy companies, municipalities, telephone companies and
> cable TV companies to provide large-print versions of bills
> on request..."
For a large utility, using high-end mainframe volume printers, the
reprogramming involved would not be too much of a burden, though
certainly some redesign of the forms and customer profile record are
required. The bills will use much more paper and require extra
postage to mail out. The largest utilities can spread the cost over a
large customer base; and other states will probably follow suit.
But small operators, such as small boroughs, will face a tougher
challenge and much higher costs. Plenty of places still use pre-
printed stock forms for their invoices and modifying them is more
difficult and costly.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:28:32 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Message-ID: <siegman-2CC564.13280228082009@news.stanford.edu>
In article
<2120966c-2e6c-4ac7-bd65-6fddc3b2ca06@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Aug 28, 12:30 am, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > "[Gov. Paterson signed a bill that] requires utilities,
> > energy companies, municipalities, telephone companies and
> > cable TV companies to provide large-print versions of bills
> > on request..."
> But small operators, such as small boroughs, will face a tougher
> challenge and much higher costs. Plenty of places still use pre-
> printed stock forms for their invoices and modifying them is more
> difficult and costly.
Have to say, speaking as a basically liberal, maybe even a "do gooder"
type, this is the kind of thing that can give progressive or socially
conscious government actions a bad name, and make "tax and spend" a
not totally undeserved criticism.
Certain levels of government-mandated assistance to handicapped
individuals make sense; others just cost more than they're worth, create
more problems than the ones they solve, or address problems that could
be handled in other, less costly fashions.
This one seems to me to fall in these latter categories.
***** Moderator's Note *****
What alternative would you propose?
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Message-ID: <7ddf6125-aedb-473d-ae2e-8ee924f5597d@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 28, 5:32 pm, AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <2120966c-2e6c-4ac7-bd65-6fddc3b2c...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 12:30 am, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > "[Gov. Paterson signed a bill that] requires utilities,
> > > energy companies, municipalities, telephone companies and
> > > cable TV companies to provide large-print versions of bills
> > > on request..."
> > But small operators, such as small boroughs, will face a tougher
> > challenge and much higher costs. Plenty of places still use pre-
> > printed stock forms for their invoices and modifying them is more
> > difficult and costly.
>
> Have to say, speaking as a basically liberal, maybe even a "do gooder"
> type, this is the kind of thing that can give progressive or socially
> conscious government actions a bad name, and make "tax and spend" a
> not totally undeserved criticism.
>
> Certain levels of government-mandated assistance to handicapped
> individuals make sense; others just cost more than they're worth, create
> more problems than the ones they solve, or address problems that could
> be handled in other, less costly fashions.
>
> This one seems to me to fall in these latter categories.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> What alternative would you propose?
>
> Bill Horne
I had been getting my NYC MetroCard statement in large print, but I
think that they may be switching to on-line only.
I am on a 22" monitor with nice size type, so that is OK by me.
My big problem is with some fast food places such as McDonalds where I
can not read the behind-the-cashier menus.
I have asked McDonalds if they could put full menu on line so I could
read it a home, and McDonalds just blew me off.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The problem with online bills is that elderly people who can't see
very well often can't afford internet access or a computer. They may
also be physically challenged, and thus unable to get to a library to
view a bill online, even assuming that they're able to learn how to
use the computer.
This kind of issue will crop up more and more as the baby bommers
retire, especially given the political clout of the AARP and other
organizations which champion causes for the elderly.
I'll bet that the utilities simply contract the process to a service
bureau which specializes in large-print media.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: 29 Aug 2009 00:00:43 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Message-ID: <20090829000043.56086.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>But small operators, such as small boroughs, will face a tougher
>challenge and much higher costs. Plenty of places still use pre-
>printed stock forms for their invoices and modifying them is more
>difficult and costly.
Our village sends out water and sewer bills on postcards. I expect
that if three people want large print bills, our clerk will take those
three postcards, set the photocopier to 2:1 enlarge, make copies, and
mail them. Sheesh. You don't have to do everything in software.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:11:59 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Message-ID: <bcidna0Gts-SpwXXnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <op.uzcawn1to63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
>
>Just yesterday I actually answered what turned out to be a
>tele-solicitation call from some "charity". I asked if they
>were aware my number was on the National DoNotCall List.
>
>The caller informed me that charitable organizations are
>not bound by that list. I thought he was putting me on --
>so thanks for letting me know he was on the up-and-up :-) .
Well, "yes", _AND_ "no", applies. If they're soliciting charitable
donations, they _are_ exempt from the DNC list. If they're selling
a product/service, with the charity getting the profits, then those
calls are _not_ exempt from the DNC list. e.g. if they're calling you
to ask you to buy Easter Seals, or Catholic Charities Christmas Cards,
they _do_ have to screen against the DNC list.
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>The new rule has an exception for calls where the victim gave written
>consent. I can't help but wonder if charitable organizations will
>include "permission" clauses in their donation literature, and then
>sell their donor lists to commercial marketers.
The permission document is _not_ transferable. It must name the organization
(singular!!) to which the permission is being given.
>Come to think of it, I wonder if the "charitable organizations"
>exception would allow marketers to rent phone lists from charities in
>return for some percentage of receipts.
Authoritative answer: "No."
> Does a call made by a
>commercial firm that benefits a charity count as a "charitable
>organizations" exception?
See above. "It depends". That particular situation -is- =expressly=
addressed in the telemarketing rules. If they're strictly soliciting
donations, and get paid a share of the money they raise, they _are_ exempt
from the DNC rules. If they're 'selling something', with (some of) the
profits going to the charity, they are *NOT* exempt. Even a charity, _itself_
which is phoning to 'sell something' has to screen against the DNC list.
This stuff was all settled years ago.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:28:18 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Message-ID: <qcednTapJ59_oAXXnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <6645152a0908271954qc043b8bkdf8ea2babf278fd5@mail.gmail.com>,
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:20 PM, tlvp<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> Just yesterday I actually answered what turned out to be a
>> tele-solicitation call from some "charity". I asked if they
>> were aware my number was on the National DoNotCall List.
>>
>> The caller informed me that charitable organizations are
>> not bound by that list. I thought he was putting me on --
>> so thanks for letting me know he was on the up-and-up :-) .
>
>That's a burr in my saddle.
>
>If I went to the trouble of joining the DNC list wouldn't it stand to
>reason I don't want calls from politicians or "charitable
>organizations"?
Yeah, it 'stands to reason'. But marketing people -- and *especially*
politicians -- are well known to be extremely resistant to actually engaging
in 'reasoning'.
The law _is_ the way it is, because of *Constitutional* limitations. The
underlying principle for _all_ the telemarketing regulation is the "Commerce
Clause" of the Constitution. To pass Constitutional muster, the law had to
regulate only activities with "some degree" of relation to commerce, and
commercial activity. Politics, charitable solicitations, opinion surveys,
etc -- all the "exempt" stuff -- are *not* "commerce" related. The
Congressional choice was: (1) regulate just what you legally can, or (2) try
to regulate all calls, and have the courts throw it out as unconstitutional.
They chose alternative #1.
> Yes, I know they're exempt. And I'm polite about it.
>But then they argue with me that they're under no obligation to remove
>me from their call list.
That's _not_ "precisely" true. They =do= have to remove you if asked. But,
it _is_ legal for them to add you right back onto the list.
You found the 'most effective' approach to stopping the calls -- telling them
that if they call again for a donation, you'll donate to their opponent instead
(even better, that you'll do it in _their_ name -- *evil* grin); and that if
they call soliciting your vote, you'll vote 'a straight party ticket' for the
opposition. To make this work, you need to get the caller's name _before_
handing out the bombshell. Then, as appropriate, you make the donation 'on
behalf of' of the named person and organization, *And* you notify state/
national party headquarters that the action of said 'local' has cost them a
vote for _all_ the offices they fielded candidates for.
Going 'up the food chain like this' can be *very* effective in reining in
individual campaigns.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:33:28 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Message-ID: <qcednTGpJ5-FogXXnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <bd0.5bf0e4d8.37c882b0@aol.com>,
>
>I understand that charitable organizations hire professional fund
>raisers to raise money for them, but that's not what I was wondering
>about.
Yup. Legal under the law.
>I'm curious if XYZ Life Insurance could legally call me and pitch me a
>whole life policy, based on their having gotten my number from the
>Appalachin Mountain Club and assuming that they kick back a percentage
>of the premiums. Any lawyers out there?
Not a lawyer, but the answer is a resounding "No." The calls that are
exempt, by statute, are "Charitable solicitations". *NOT* "any call from,
on behalf of, or in some remote way connected with, a charity". If the
Charity _itself_ is calling to sell something (easter seals, raffle tickets,
christmas/channukah cards, "indulgences", whatever) _they_ have to follow
the DNC list.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:50:40 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Message-ID: <1cGdnX7W9YW93gXXnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@supernews.com>
Wesrock@aol.com writes:
>Oh, yes. It's a thriving business. When the Fraternal Order of
>Police or the Firefighters [called], did you ever ask the caller if
>he or she (usually a he) was a cop or firefighter? The commercial
>callers have some pretty creative answers.
In my experience, if you question those two particular groups, they will
get nasty. They are rarely if ever associated with any real group (the best
class of scum may donate 5% of their take to a real police charity), and
some of them are out of their freaking minds. I have done ridiculous things
to telemarketers over the years (I once read one an entire Edgar Alan Poe
story), and they either hang up or just take it, but not "police benevolent
association" scammers - they're all nutbars. These days, in the rare
situation where I'm tricked into answering before the machine, I just hang
up without saying anything at all.
If you want to give to police or firemen, go to your local station and ask
someone on duty who to donate to. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:37:52 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Message-ID: <2MCdndqKFMi93QXXnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@supernews.com>
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>Microsoft seems absolutely terrified of doing anything that will in some
>way reduce user functionality, even if it only involves removing silly
>gewgaws. Sometimes these things needs to be done in order to properly
>deal with security issues.
It usually isn't user functionality, but features that are only used in
enterprises. Between the insane and stupid hooks they've put in for remote
management, support for crap that should never have been allowed (windows
3.1 compatability? Really?), and activeX, it's a mess that can never be
fixed without breaking stuff used by 5 people in outer mongolia.
>Most of the automated features you describe are Microsoft-specific. Many
>other systems are developed by people who look at such features and realize
>in advance that they are security problems.
The hole that never closes is activeX controls in IE. The stupidest thing
they ever did is enable all activeX controls by default, with a "kill bit"
to disallow their use in IE. It should have went the other way!
>For example, the first real viruses found in the wild were on Apple MacIntosh
>machines, due to a very boneheaded design decision in which an executable
>block in the boot sector was run every time a new floppy was mounted. When
>it became clear this was a bad thing, Apple removed it and fixed the problem.
A mac is not a fruit, a raincoat, or an acronym - It's not MacIntosh, or
a MAC. Sorry, pet peeve. In truth, viruses predate macs by some years. They
existed on PCs almost from the start, and I remember a boot disk infector
on apple IIs called "disease dos" in 1980, wiping out a computer lab full
of machines.
>A decade later, Microsoft came up with the notion of "autorun" in which
>a file on a device is executed when the device is first mounted. They
>didn't realize in advance this was boneheaded. They didn't look at Apple's
Autorun compounded the previous stupidity of assuming than any mounted
device could be a boot device. Early rampant PC viruses lived on the boot
sectors of floppies, waiting for someone to accidentally boot with one in
the drive. This may even still be possible, if you have a floppy drive in
your boot sequence.
>previous experience with it being bad. They did it anyway. It caused all
>sorts of massive security issues. Five or six years later... they're still
>doing it. This is not an organization that gives a damn about security.
Oh, I think they care a great deal. They have even learned a bit. But they
have a long way to go, and it's not as institutionalized as it should be.
They don't "default to NO" like they should. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:14:58 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYS bans texting while driving
Message-ID: <UMKdndetL-Cc7gXXnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
danny burstein wrote:
> [AP story]
>
> "[Gov. Paterson signed a bill that] requires utilities,
> energy companies, municipalities, telephone companies and
> cable TV companies to provide large-print versions of bills
> on request..."
>
> http://www.vosizneias.com/37395/2009/08/27/albany-ny-paterson-signed-anti-texting-and-several-other-bills-into-law/
I just looked at the site, and realized that the governor also signed a
measure which forbids texting while driving. Kudos to New York!
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
------------------------------
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 (13 messages)
******************************
|
or 