Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 256 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider? Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider? Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider? Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent? Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent? Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent? Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent? Please tell me if you like the new look and feel Line Status Verifier (was Re: Heathkits P.S.) Re: Line Status Verifier (was Re: Heathkits P.S.) ====== 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 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 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: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:39:43 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment Message-ID: <op.uz94ghqho63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> As postscript to what, on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:23:04 -0400, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote, Moderator added: > Trying to sound like a lawyer is an old spammer trick, since spammers > often send threatenting emails filled with legalese to those who > report them. The spam fighters call such messages "Cartoonies", a > morphed word which is a combination of "cartoon" and "attorney". > > Long story short: just get to the point, and never threaten what you > can't or won't deliver. You'll get farther by being an angry customer > than by trying to sound like something else. > > Bill Horne While I've never tried to "sound like a lawyer," I have (on occasion) added a line after my signature suggesting a lawyer was getting a copy: | Cc.: Atty. James Smith, c/o Cooper & Fenwick, LLC (well, names changed, of course, to protect the guilty :-) ). In general, it can't have hurt to do so; and it may have helped. Only once did I actually send a copy to the lawyer mentioned. On that occasion, my fifth letter after four fruitless ones without such a Cc, it did help :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP ***** Moderator's Note ***** Sending a copy to your lawyer is far different that trying to sound like a lawyer yourself. Of course, the person you're writing to might just refer the matter to his lawyers, in which case they'll call your lawyer, and you'll get a bill. Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:44:46 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment Message-ID: <pan.2009.09.15.07.44.44.977136@myrealbox.com> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:52:08 -0400, Robert Bonomi wrote: ....... >> ... are we so self-absorbed (or spoiled by the bundles available at >> home) that we expect our home plans to cover service worldwide? > Apparently some from the USA are. > When the 'home plan' lets you do it to any place in the world, it is > not "all that unreasonable" to assume that the costs from somewhere > else in the world ("to home") will be of the same order of magnitude. > It's the same collection of resources being used, just in the reverse > direction. The rest of the world seems to work under a different "assumption", especially when services exist to set up calls from the US to save on the massive rate difference on calls initiated one way versus the other. > The assumption may not be correct, but is it not unreasonable to > expect things to be 'of the same order of magnitude'. It is unreasonable to assume that the rest of the world will fit into the view one particular country's citizens (or at least some of them) may have. The whole point of travel for most people is be in a different environment, and if people cannot grasp that the concept of "different" actually means not the same, then why do they bother leaving their comfort zone anyway? Next thing you know you will see people complaining that they dialled wrong numbers when they were overseas because they did not use the full International format and demand refunds because of their own stupidity. -- 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: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:09:12 -0400 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider? Message-ID: <barmar-E33DF6.01091215092009@news.eternal-september.org> In article <4hota5di2109bhvethh1ku79vj53dtredj@4ax.com>, Ron <ron@see.below> wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > > As to anti-trust issues with cellphone companies, I'd like to know > > why none offers a low-use phone where the minutes do not expire. > > Many people would like to have a phone for very occasional use and > > no user maintenance, but pre-paid phones require buying minutes that > > require if not used and end up being almost as expensive as a > > regular line. Seems to be a low-use plan might be $15/month with a > > $1/minute when used. > > To the best of my knowledge, the company that comes closest to this > is Tracfone. For $20, you buy a magic number to feed to your phone > that adds 60 minutes and extends your "subscription" by 90 days. > > As long as you keep your subscription alive, the minutes never > expire. You can add those 90-day extensions at any time; they extend > your current expiration date by 90 days, so you lose nothing by doing > this early. > > This gives you a low-usage plan for roughly $6.75 a month. I have Virgin Mobile, it's even cheaper. It's $20 for 3 months if you top up manually, but if you let them top you up automatically whenever you're running low, it's only $15 for 3 months. When you use the phone it's $0.25/min for the first 4 minutes in a day, $0.10/min for additional minutes that day. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:45:01 -0600 From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider? Message-ID: <lg6va5lbv9o4ls321u3bbdu8q8ci2ilv27@4ax.com> Ron <ron@see.below> wrote: > To the best of my knowledge, the company that comes closest to this >is Tracfone. For $20, you buy a magic number to feed to your phone >that adds 60 minutes and extends your "subscription" by 90 days. > > As long as you keep your subscription alive, the minutes never >expire. You can add those 90-day extensions at any time; they extend >your current expiration date by 90 days, so you lose nothing by doing >this early. > > This gives you a low-usage plan for roughly $6.75 a month. Virgin Mobile has a similar plan. The trick with either of these is to check the coverage. IIRC Virgin uses Sprint's network and TracFone uses Verizon in most locations. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I use Virgin Mobile too, and can confirm that they use the Sprint PCS network. In the US, coverage gets spotty outside major metro areas. Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:12:57 GMT From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider? Message-ID: <diiua5lurv05808613mlvjk562rlbuitr0@4ax.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >As to anti-trust issues with cellphone companies, I'd like to know why >none offers a low-use phone where the minutes do not expire. Many >people would like to have a phone for very occasional use and no user >maintenance, but pre-paid phones require buying minutes that require >if not used and end up being almost as expensive as a regular line. >Seems to be a low-use plan might be $15/month with a $1/minute when >used. I'm currently on a $100 365 day plan with Virgin Mobile in Canada. Along with my starting $25 or $30, or whatever it was I'm now down to $95 and have had the phone since December. So I've used about $35 in 10 months at a rate of 30 cents per minute and same again for long distance if applicable. I'm their worst nightmare. Hehehehe BTW I don't mind paying the 30 cents per mniute for my usage. However 30 cents for long distance is ridiculous. It should be more like 5 or 10 cents per minute. Telus's, the local telco is 4 cents per minute anywhere in Canada or the US. http://www.telus.com/portalWeb/inlineLink/CP_SCS/General/Telephone/Long_Distance/Subcategory_Description/Long_Distance/ Telus Mobility, their cell division, also charge 30 cents per minute long distance on prepaid cell phones. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:43:10 -0400 From: ed <bernies@netaxs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent? Message-ID: <1252993390.4aaf296e313c2@webmail.uslec.net> Quoting telecom-owner@telecom-digest.org: > Message Digest > Volume 28 : Issue 254 : "text" Format > Sam Spade wrote: > > > Isn't this a case where prudent planning can go a long way? I'm > > thinking in terms of calling customer service before I leave home, and > > going over my travel plans with them. Perhaps getting a supervisor's > > name if there is any hint of a run around? They are the folks who > > finally do the billing. > > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > > > Please write up a report of your experiences and submit it here: I'm > > very interested in seeing how you're received when you make that > > request. > > If you are in a state where to do so is legal, I'd suggest recording > the call, so you'll have irrefutable proof of what they told you. > > Dave If you call a company that plays an automated attendant message like , "For training and quality control, this call may be recorded", does that constitute consent to record the call? They don't say, "we may record this call" or "you may not record this call", they say "this call may be recorded." Sounds like clear consent to me! After all, the reason I want to record my conversations with any company is to ensure quality control--i.e., that they keep their word. Does anyone on this list know if this legal argument ever been used in any state or federal court? -Ed Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:36:39 GMT From: Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent? Message-ID: <59nva595452djsbf9n0avge82bfrf2aosd@4ax.com> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:50:49 -0400 (EDT), ed <bernies@netaxs.com> wrote: > If you call a company that plays an automated attendant message like , "For > training and quality control, this call may be recorded", does that constitute > consent to record the call? > > They don't say, "we may record this call" or "you may not record this call", > they say "this call may be recorded." Sounds like clear consent to me! > > After all, the reason I want to record my conversations with any company is to > ensure quality control--i.e., that they keep their word. It may depend on jurisdiction. Here in UK you can record any call without asking permission, but AIUI you need to tell any other party involved you are recording if you want to let anyone else listen to it later. I always thought the recorded messages used in this way are inherently arrogant. Basically the logic is "our computer can talk to you and our lawyers think that is enough for legal clearance". Since they go to great lengths to make it natural sounding, so it isnt obvious whether there is anyone or thing listening. So if you tell them at that point that you are recording as well and they dont bother to collect that audio stream and record it, then using the same logic applied by the announcement that is their problem. -- Regards stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:14:06 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent? Message-ID: <yZWrm.17582$dV4.15713@newsfe04.iad> Stephen wrote: > Here in UK you can record any call without asking permission, but AIUI > you need to tell any other party involved you are recording if you > want to let anyone else listen to it later. I can record any call in every jurisdiction without permission provided I don't let anyone else listen to it later. ;-) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:18:22 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent? Message-ID: <cde.5365f221.37e188ce@aol.com> In a message dated 9/15/2009 5:42:18 PM Central Daylight Time, stephen_hope@xyzworld.com writes: > I always thought the recorded messages used in this way are > inherently arrogant. Basically the logic is "our computer can talk > to you and our lawyers think that is enough for legal clearance". I always assumed that if you didn't want the call to be recorded you should hang up. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:40:05 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Please tell me if you like the new look and feel Message-ID: <sPOdnfiLU63IKDLXnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> I'm experimenting with a new look and feel for the online version of the Telecom Digest. Please take a look at today's Digest, and feedback your opinions offline. I've included a link to yesterday's Digest for comparison. TIA. Bill Horne Today: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/back.issues/recent.single.issues/archive2.php?issue=255 Yesterday: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/back.issues/recent.single.issues/archive2.php?issue=254 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:57:41 -0500 (CDT) From: jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Line Status Verifier (was Re: Heathkits P.S.) Message-ID: <200909151957.n8FJvfi8096577@ivgate.omahug.org> >While Bell literature described such devices, I question if they >really existed or were used to any great extent. I can't testify to the extent, but I can say most certainly that they did exist, and went by a TLA, something like LSV (Line Status Verifier or something) at one time. I was one who was indeed pursued by the Ma Bell gesta^H^H^H^H inspectors who swore I had more devices that I was authorized on the line. Yes, I did, but I was VERY sure to be sure that only one ringer was connected. I received a very snotty phone call at work from a Ma Bell agent confronting me about unauthorized equipment. Of course I lied my @$$ off. (At the time, lying to Ma Bell inspectors was not only ethical, but the honorable thing to do.) ;-) They wanted to come over right now and inspect, but I told them that said inspection would be at my convenience, and they seemed to back off. (Knowing good and well that it was very easy for me to prepare for inspection and they would be wasting their time. Both of us knew the rules to the game.) ;-) Anyway, I phoned a friend who worked at Ma Bell and told him what was going on. He said he could very easily repeat the test using what they called the LSV. He did so, and said 'It looks to me like two', meaning two ringers. I was only authorized one, and I knew I had only one. He said that the tests were not always accurate due to the cable capacitance and the like. He also said that he would have a chat with the gestap^H^H^H^H^H^H agents and have them back off, which they did. It turns out that a nosy neighbor had observed my extension in my garage, and the IW I had run next to the downspout to connect it and thought it was their Patriotic Duty to report me !! ***** Moderator's Note ***** In N.E.T., the program was run with "DUE", a device which was supposed to Detect Unauthorized Equipment. It also measured capacitance, and I assume it was a software extension to the LSV. One of the agents' favorite tricks was to call a "DUE" customer who was paying for one phone, right after school, and ask the kids to have their mom pick up the extension. With two voices on the line at the same time, they had an easy time collecting. Bill Horne Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:30:48 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Line Status Verifier (was Re: Heathkits P.S.) Message-ID: <h8pf48$qeh$1@reader1.panix.com> jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org> writes: >I can't testify to the extent, but I can say most certainly >that they did exist, and went by a TLA, something like LSV >(Line Status Verifier or something) at one time. A friend in Transmission Engineering at an Operating Company built one for their X-bar offices. It ran at night and used a spinning-wheel calculator-type printer to dump the results. He said it generated so much data they didn't know what to do with it. [This is the same guy who fixed the box he wasn't supposed to know about, but I digress...] -- 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 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 (12 messages)