30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for October 8, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 254 : "text" Format
====== 30 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: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 20:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jimmy <JimmyGeldburg@mailinator.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Curbside (but not subway) phones bought by Titan
Message-ID: <79c2ad56-d134-4fc4-b585-4160b92dabf5@i33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
I recently noticed that there are no more Verizon curbside pay phones
in NYC. Apparently an advertising company called Titan bought them a
year ago, and took them over in the spring. This affected 30% of
curbside phones -- the rest are owned by smaller companies.
This does not affect phones on NYC Transit property (including street-
level phones at subway entrances), nor phones in NYC parks. Those are
still owned by Verizon.
For several years, I've heard a lot of complaints that most curbside
pay phones were missing or broken, since they only make money from the
advertising they display. But I hardly ever had trouble using a
Verizon phone, and when I did, it was easy to get a refund.
However, when I tried to use a Titan phone, the quarter got stuck in
the slot, and when I called 211 for a refund as listed on the
instructions, it rang forever.
I looked around for another phone, and more than half of the Titan
phones in the neighborhood were missing, or had stickers that said "NO
DIAL TONE" and had major damage. Here are some pictures taken by
other people:
http://www.payphone-project.com/news/archives/2011/06/titan360_paypho.html
http://beehivehairdresser.com/2011/09/04/the-broken-art-of-pay-phones/
The city clearly isn't doing their job enforcing the regulations that
require most phones to be working.
While pay phones obviously aren't as important as they once were, they
still get used reasonably often in NYC. And they're especially
important in emergencies, when cell phone networks don't work or don't
have enough capacity. Here's a picture of a crowd waiting to use a
pay phone during the 2003 blackout:
http://www.payphone-project.com/news/archives/payphone.blackout_030814.jpg
Jimmy
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 02:10:18 -0500
From: gordonb.zh5qu@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AT&T Telephone solicitor training
Message-ID: <cKCdnVtZXs5HOBPTnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
[snip]
> I'm not sure it's a matter of poor training, though: I suspect that
> CSR's are being taught that customers are sheep who'll believe
> anything they're told, and that they should lie like the devil to bump
> their sales. It's the wrong kind of training, but I've seen and
> heard too many stories like yours to believe that it's not
> intentional.
I've been getting calls recently from AT&T telephone solicitors
trying to sell me Uverse Internet service in Texas (used to be
Southwestern Bell here). I might be interested, depending on the
terms. There are a couple of things I want to make sure of first.
1. Show me in writing where it says I can run a mail server without
violating AT&T's Terms of Service. 2. How much do I have to pay
for the service, before and after the promotional period runs
out? 3. It has to be a better deal than what I've got now.
I've gotten some astounding statements from them:
1. It is illegal for AT&T sales reps to discuss sales tax. When
I called them on this one, they said it was company policy (because
they get it wrong so often, and that I'll believe), and proceeded
to tell me why there is no difference between AT&T company policy
and a law. Unfortunately, I think AT&T management really believes
this. Does AT&T think they have the death penalty?
2. AT&T will not shut off my account if I use it to threaten the
life of the President of the United States. I asked about this
hoping they would point me to the Terms of Service on their web
site, and find the stuff about servers right next to it. I eventually
found the part that says they WILL shut off my account if I use
it for illegal purposes, which certainly includes threatening the
President, with no help from the telephone solicitors who denied
such a document exists.
3. 6 Megabit DSL is too slow to run a mail server. Funny, they
didn't say anything about the upload speed here. If they thought
I meant the Yahoo or Google mail server, they're right, but I'm
talking about something smaller than a small 3-person office mail
server receiving a moderate amount of spam. A 64k ISDN line should
be plenty for just mail. It's also odd that it's working well now,
on 1.5 megabit DSL, using another ISP and DSL supplied by, surprise,
*AT&T*. Also, one telephone solicitor believed that attempting to
run something over a DSL link that is too slow "voids the modem
and damages the warranty". Yes, he said it that way twice.
Way long time ago (late 1980's), it was possible to run a mail *and
news* server using 1200 bps modems and dialup lines and an 8MHz
68000 processor. Granted, the news traffic load was a lot lower
then. At one point we even had TCP/IP set up over it, not just
UUCP.
4. Their DSL comes with a comprehensive security package and virus
protection. In spite of the fact that I had to tell them at least
3 times how to pronounce "FreeBSD", they insisted that it would run
on FreeBSD. I suppose they will tell me it runs on Eniac or Arduino
next.
5. The sales rep couldn't think of any tax on my *local phone bill*
besides sales tax and long distance calls. There is no 911 fee on
my internet service but he finally admitted that there is a $1 a
month 914 fee. What's a 914 fee? I don't know, but I kept
incrementing the number each call after they denied the existence
of the fee for the next question.
6. My current DSL (despite repeated warnings from me that I did
NOT have cable) operates over lines shared with my neighbors.
Well, if they were referring to the Internet "backbone", they're
right, but it was obvious they were confusing existing DSL with
cable.
7. No, we won't tell you the full terms of the deal until you sign
up for it. The deal was stated as $19.95/month for 12 months. Oh,
yes, there's also $100 for a modem. And a $150 contract termination
fee. And the regular price is $38.95/month (This is a deal-breaker,
and I suspect the bill will be more like $60/month including all
the taxes and fees). And no, if I don't like the deal after it's
connected up, they won't pay to get back my current connection.
8. You are/were advised to get the deal in writing and get the
full terms of the deal before signing by, *SURPRISE*, an AT&T
commercial (about 1992, referring to alternative long-distance
carriers). The current crowd of AT&T telephone solicitors, according
to one, is unable to send out any type of paper, not even toilet
paper. And apparently they don't have access to email or fax,
either. And they can't give out a URL more specific than "on our
web site" for the Terms of Service (there are multiple sets for
different services).
9. My current ISP charges $0.41/month in sales tax. Why do you
charge almost 4 times that for the promotional $19.95/month rate?
They had no answer. (The first $25/month in internet service is
not subject to sales tax in Texas. But I'm not so sure the phone
company would classify it that way, or that they've ever heard
of this law.)
***** Moderator's Note *****
I invited AT&T to comment on this article, but there has been no reply
as of one hour beyond the publication deadline I gave.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:41:35 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: CenturyLink and Minnesota PUC fight over OSS
Message-ID: <20111007204134.GA4458@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
I came across this at a website for the Minnesota PUC headlined "Decisions - August 11, 2011".
**11 P5340,5643,5323,
5981,438,465,
5986,421/C-11-684
Joint CLECs; Qwest; CenturyLink
Qwest/CenturyLink to stop implementing new OSS, explain problems with
current OSS, involve CLECs in future development. In the Matter of
the Complaint by Joint CLECs against Qwest and CenturyLink Regarding
OSS Implementation.
Does the Commission have jurisdiction over the matter and are there
grounds for further investigation of the allegations? (PUC: Briefing
Papers - O'Grady, Fournier)
In a Staff Briefing Paper prepared by Kevin O.Grady and Marc Fournier,
the dispute is summarized this way:
On June 28, 2011, several Competitive Local Exchange Carriers
(CLECs), referred to herein as the Joint CLECs, filed a complaint
against Qwest and CenturyLink, referred to herein as the Joint
Applicants, alleging that the Joint Applicants have:
(i) violated the terms of the Commission Order approving the
Qwest-CenturyLink merger (Docket 10-456; March 31, 2011);
(ii) breached settlement agreements between the Joint CLECs and
the Joint Applicants;
(iii) violated interconnection agreements between the Joint CLECs
and the Joint Applicants; and
(iv) breached their duty of non-discrimination pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes and the federal Telecommunications Act
of 1996.
Rest at:
https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId={E4091A8E-A4B1-499D-94E0-7B16FC12D66D}&documentTitle=20118-65056-01
Here's my question: the way I read this, the CLECs have complained
that Qwest/CenturyLink is ignoring a previous commitment to keep the
old OSS systems available for more than two years. Is
Qwest/CenturyLink trying to change the deal, or are the changes
between the "old" and "new" systems just cosmetic?
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:14:21 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FCC Chairman announces reforms to USF
Message-ID: <20111007211421.GA9122@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski delivered remarks on proposed reforms
to the Universal Service Fund (USF) and Intercarrier Compensation
(ICC) system. Modernizing USF and ICC is critical to connecting rural
consumers to 21st century broadband and mobility, and was a central
recommendation of the FCC.s National Broadband Plan.
Rest at:
http://www.fcc.gov/events/chairman-genachowski-speech-usf-and-icc-reform
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:26:01 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: CTIA reacts to proposed USF changes
Message-ID: <20111007212601.GA9304@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
WASHINGTON, Oct. 6, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
After FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski delivered a speech today
announcing proposed reforms of the Universal Service Fund and the
Intercarrier Compensation System, CTIA-The Wireless Association~
President and CEO Steve Largent released the following statement:
"CTIA strongly agrees that comprehensive reform of the federal
Universal Service Fund and Intercarrier Compensation System is
necessary in order to ensure these government programs meet the
changing needs of U.S. consumers. We are pleased Chairman
Genachowski has acknowledged the Universal Service Fund must take
into account the rapid consumer adoption of wireless services,
and we look forward to learning more about his proposals for a
dedicated, robust Mobility Fund."
Read more:
http://www.sunherald.com/2011/10/06/3490737/ctia-the-wireless-association.html#ixzz1a8KqsWsJ
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
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) 2011 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 (5 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues