The Telecom Digest for September 24, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 257 : "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: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:22:13 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon to add another surcharge on some bills
Message-ID: <i7dhgn$ci1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
On 9/21/10 10:06 PM, www.Queensbridge.us wrote:
> While on-line with Verizon to pay [my] bill with a credit card, I saw a
> notice that there will soon be a $3.50 SURCHARGE for [using] a credit
> card to pay bills on [the] VZ site.
>
> I find it strange that I can buy items on-line for 99¢, pay with
> Paypal, and pay PayPal using a credit card, without a surcharge, and
> now VZ wants a surcharge.
>
> Also their DSL, formerly listed as "up to 3 MBps", now says "1.5-3
> MBps".
>
> For people with a low monthly cellular bill, this could be a hefty per
> centage of the bill.
>
It looks like they are adding the fee to cover charges made by their
bank or costs, which appears to me to be much lower then they are going
to charge. I pay my AT&T, Sprint and a lot of other bills and have never
been charged anything.
--
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: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:36:54 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon to add another surcharge on some bills
Message-ID: <36a87.69e16a39.39cd4ca6@aol.com>
In a message dated 9/23/2010 1:42:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
diespammers@killspammers.com writes:
On 9/21/10 10:06 PM, www.Queensbridge.us wrote:
>> While on-line with Verizon to pay [my] bill with a credit card, I saw a
>> notice that there will soon be a $3.50 SURCHARGE for [using] a credit
>> card to pay bills on [the] VZ site.
>>
>> I find it strange that I can buy items on-line for 99¢, pay with
>> Paypal, and pay PayPal using a credit card, without a surcharge, and
>> now VZ wants a surcharge.
>>
>> Also their DSL, formerly listed as "up to 3 MBps", now says "1.5-3
>> MBps".
>>
>> For people with a low monthly cellular bill, this could be a hefty per
>> centage of the bill.
>
> It looks like they are adding the fee to cover charges made by their
> bank or costs, which appears to me to be much lower then they are
> going to charge. I pay my AT&T, Sprint and a lot of other bills and
> have never been charged anything.
Perhaps this is a result of the recent rules to protect credit card
users, which for the first time allow vendors to charge reduced prices
to cash customers.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: History: hotel telephone operator strike
Message-ID: <23c639ff-2cbe-41ba-89dd-9d41f936373c@q9g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
The following article from the NY Times archives should be accessible
by all. It's about a telephone operator strike in a NYC hotel 100
years ago.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9505E5D61E39E333A25757C0A96F9C946196D6CF
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:10:18 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...
Message-ID: <jOCdnUseAqZGEQfRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
danny burstein wrote:
> [Broadband reports]
>
> FiOS users in our Verizon forums note that Verizon is now
> charging users a $3.50 fee if they want to pay their bill
> online with a credit card.
> --------
> http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Charges-350-Fee-To-Pay-Them-110433
>
>
> - per the posters, the fee applies if you make a "once off"
> payment. If you give VZ access to an autopay process,
> they won't charge it.
I doubt they would charge if you pay using a major bank's online bill
payment service. The bank pays the large vendors via the automated
clearing house (ACH, or electronic debit) and small vendors via bank check.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:59:26 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...
Message-ID: <i7gm4e$q5u$1@gal.iecc.com>
>I doubt they would charge if you pay using a major bank's online bill
>payment service. The bank pays the large vendors via the automated
>clearing house (ACH, or electronic debit) and small vendors via bank check.
Probably not, but then you don't get a month's float, the ability to
challenge wrong payments, and the various rebates, air miles, and
other trinkets that credit cards offer.
R's,
John
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:42:06 -0500
From: "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk920@dataex.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...
Message-ID: <1pCdndY51e7IPwfRnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@ntd.net>
On 2010.09.21 21:26:55, danny burstein wrote:
> [Broadband reports]
>
> FiOS users in our Verizon forums note that Verizon is now
> charging users a $3.50 fee if they want to pay their bill
> online with a credit card.
> --------
> http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Charges-350-Fee-To-Pay-Them-110433
>
>
> - per the posters, the fee applies if you make a "once off"
> payment. If you give VZ access to an autopay process,
> they won't charge it.
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
> dannyb@panix.com
> [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Isn't Verizon still obligated to accept cash? If enough customers get
> fed up and drop off their payments at the company, the surcharge will
> stop.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
I pay my monthly Verizon cell phone bill by stuffing $20 bills into the
automatic bill-paying kiosks in any of their several local stores. Those
things are quite popular.
The surcharge is because the credit card companies charge fees to merchants
for using their services. With the recent changes in federal credit card
rules, expect MANY more retail level merchants, especially gas
stations/C-stores, to start doing likewise.
--
___________________________________________ __ _______________
Regards, | |\ __
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:12:26 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: 1930, when the US Senate tried to ban dial telephones
Message-ID: <4C9A9B6A.4050903@thadlabs.com>
Interesting article found at:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100919/02284211072/back-when-the-senate-tried-to-ban-dial-telephones.shtml
With a group of Senators now looking to block various websites
the Justice Department deems as "pirate," websites, it's worth
taking a look back at how Senators can be rather silly in their
rush to ban certain technologies, highlighting why it's generally
not a good idea when politicians get involved in technology.
The Nieman Journalism Lab points us to the news that, back in
1930, the Senate came close to banning dial telephones (where
you dialed them yourself), preferring to have an operator do the
connection instead. To the anti-dial Senators, it was seen as
inappropriate to do the work of operators themselves. The
resolution, which passed, read:
Whereas dial telephones are more difficult to operate
than are manual telephones; and Whereas Senators are
required, since the installation of dial phones in the
Capitol, to perform the duties of telephone operators
in order to enjoy the benefits of telephone service;
and Whereas dial telephones have failed to expedite
telephone service; Therefore be it resolved that the
Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and
directed to order the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone
Co. to replace with manual phones within 30 days after
the adoption of this resolution, all dial telephones
in the Senate wing of the United States Capitol and in
the Senate office building.
Now, it's true that the resolution only impacted the Senate,
but when another Senator asked why they didn't ban dial
phones from all of Washington DC, Senator Carter Glass from
Virginia who sponsored the resolution apparently said that
"he hoped the phone company would take the hint," and would
remove all dial phones.
While the resolution did pass, some younger Senators were
apparently upset about it -- as they actually preferred to
dial their own numbers, and put forth a resolution to let
Senators choose which they wanted -- leading to a
"compromise" where those who wanted dial phones could keep
them, but those who wanted to have the operator handle the
difficulty for them, could do so. As one Senator, Clarence
Dill, noted in support of the ban:
In his experience, the dial phone "could not be more awkward
than it is. One has to use both hands to dial; he must be in
a position wherethere is good light, day or night, in order
to see the number; and if he happens to turn the dial not
quite far enough, then he gets a wrong connection."
Is it any wonder that some of us think that it's not a good
idea for elected officials to determine the relative merits
of technology?
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:56:28 +0800
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 1930, when the US Senate tried to ban dial telephones
Message-ID: <AANLkTimSUK3sKVZX0yrrjr+E6CxjYq1d3rUY56D=gS1H@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
> With a group of Senators now looking to block  various websites
> the Justice Department deems as "pirate," websites, it's worth
> taking a look back at how Senators can be rather silly in their
> rush to ban certain technologies, highlighting why it's generally
> not a good idea when politicians get involved in technology.
Reminds me of the arguments about why mere citizens should not be
allowed to pump their own gas in a couple of US states. Or of the
California assemblywoman who, in response to GMail, wanted to forbid
computers from reading any part of an email.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:44:05 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AT&T instrumental in cosmic microwave background discovery in 1964
Message-ID: <4C9AA2D5.4020606@thadlabs.com>
In 1964 I was already with the Electronic Defense Labs at
White Sands Missile Range and 2 years later at their facility
in Silicon Valley. Being an amateur astronomer for nearly 60
years now (2010) and having every issue of Sky & Telescope
magazine (thanks to DVDs), I'm red-faced to admit I'd forgotten
about the Cosmic Microwave Background discovery in 1964 until
reading a "Letters to the Editor" in the October 2010 issue of
Sky & Telescope magazine, which begins:
" I am writing about a historic landmark that has been left
" abandoned and in jeopardy.
"
" On May 8th I traveled to New Jersey to see the horn antenna
" with which Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the
" cosmic microwave background in 1964, establishing the reality
" of the Big Bang. The horn is frequently mentioned and pictured
" in histories of science and astronomy, it's a registered
" National History Landmark, and I figured it was time I had a
" look at it. The experience left me disconcerted.
"
" After driving up and down Crawford Corners Road in Holmdel for
" more than an hour, I was unable to find it. I did find a small
" sign by the road that told me I was near the site where the
" cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered. This was,
" however, miles away from where I eventually found the antenna.
"
" I was on the verge of giving up when I happened upon Lucent
" Technologies, which I knew had inherited the legendary Bell Labs
" where Penzias and Wilson worked. I drove around the Lucent
" campus until I found someone and explained my quest. He pointed
" me to a road up a hill.
" [...]
I made a one-page PDF copy of that "Letters" page and you can see
it, with a photo of the horn antenna, here:
http://thadlabs.com/FILES/S+T_AT+T_horn.pdf [770 KB]
I feel such a one-page PDF is "fair use" and felt this group might
enjoy seeing a slice of AT&T arcana.
The October 2010 issue should be on newsstands until mid-October.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:04:18 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: AT&T instrumental in cosmic microwave background discovery in 1964
Message-ID: <siegman-D1BFAA.15041723092010@BMEDCFSC-SRV02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article <4C9AA2D5.4020606@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> " On May 8th I traveled to New Jersey to see the horn antenna
> " with which Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the
> " cosmic microwave background in 1964, establishing the reality
> " of the Big Bang. The horn is frequently mentioned and pictured
> " in histories of science and astronomy, it's a registered
> " National History Landmark, and I figured it was time I had a
> " look at it. The experience left me disconcerted.
> "
A bit more detail is given in slides 18-23 of a 14 MB PDF at:
http://www.stanford.edu/~siegman/aes_laser_history_talks/AES%20Laser%20History%20Talk%202010%20AFOSR%20Wash%20DC%2071pp.pdf
[I'm not certain this is the exact horn used by Penzias and Wilson, but
if not, then it's a slightly earlier horn and microwave solid-state
maser system also at Holmdel. Also the masers in the cutaway drawings
are from my lab at Stanford University, but are very similar to those
that Bell Labs was making about the same time.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: TV comedy about outsourced telephone call center
Message-ID: <0abce6cf-1b12-47d9-b50e-fa533a7f1e16@a30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>
"Outsourced", Thursday, 9:30 pm, NBC. (check local listings)
Premiers 9/23/10.
The Phila Inqr describes this comedy as follows:
When a novelty business closes its Kansas City call center, the
manager gets sent to India to supervise the folks who will be taking
orders for novelty gift items. The workers must learn to reconcile
North American and South Asian ways.
It appears most of the jokes will derive from culture clashes, but I
suspect some will come from the call center operations and quirky
customers who phone in. Someone who works in a telephone call center
might find this show entertaining.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:07:13 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: TV comedy about outsourced telephone call center
Message-ID: <4C9BF9C1.6010004@thadlabs.com>
On 9/23/2010 8:20 AM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> "Outsourced", Thursday, 9:30 pm, NBC. (check local listings)
> Premiers 9/23/10.
>
> The Phila Inqr describes this comedy as follows:
>
> When a novelty business closes its Kansas City call center, the
> manager gets sent to India to supervise the folks who will be taking
> orders for novelty gift items. The workers must learn to reconcile
> North American and South Asian ways.
>
> It appears most of the jokes will derive from culture clashes, but I
> suspect some will come from the call center operations and quirky
> customers who phone in. Someone who works in a telephone call center
> might find this show entertaining.
"Outsourced" received the deepest pan and "don't bother watching" I've
ever seen in the San Francisco Chronicle's TV Reviews today:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/23/DDV11FH439.DTL
Oddly, the Los Angeles Times seems to like it in their review today:
<http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-new-comedy-20100923,0,3993167.story>
The only thing in the San Jose Mercury News (online) is a news item
of more jobs lost and outsourced at the San Jose airport and their
TV reviewer doesn't even seem aware the show exists (as of 9/23/2010):
http://www.mercurynews.com/chuck-barney
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:05:01 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...
Message-ID: <iM2dnc3ZY-DQ2AfRnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1009212225410.1825@panix5.panix.com>,
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>[Broadband reports]
>
>FiOS users in our Verizon forums note that Verizon is now
>charging users a $3.50 fee if they want to pay their bill
>online with a credit card.
> --------
>http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Charges-350-Fee-To-Pay-Them-110433
>
>- per the posters, the fee applies if you make a "once off"
>payment. If you give VZ access to an autopay process,
>they won't charge it.
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Isn't Verizon still obligated to accept cash? If enough customers get
>fed up and drop off their payments at the company, the surcharge will
>stop.
>
>Bill Horne
>Moderator
Chances are good that that policy is contrary to VZ's agreement with the
credit-card companies. EVERY merchant account I've seen expressly forbade
"charging extra" for payment by credit-card. Complaints to the card issuer
could put VZ at risk of losing the ability to take credit card payment
_at_all_. Wonder how they'd like -that-. <evil grin>
CC issuers really don't like it when merchants do things like that.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...
Message-ID: <bcba68eb-7608-43e9-9129-de1e5009f51a@q2g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 22, 2:05 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> Chances are good that that policy is contrary to VZ's agreement with
> the credit-card companies. EVERY merchant account I've seen
> expressly forbade "charging extra" for payment by
> credit-card. Complaints to the card issuer could put VZ at risk of
> losing the ability to take credit card payment _at_all_. Wonder how
> they'd like -that-. <evil grin>
Many gasoline stations in my area charge more for credit card
purchases than for cash, sometimes as much as 10c per gallon more.
(On a 15 gallon purchase, that comes out to only $1.50.) Presumably
that violates such merchant agreements, but none the less a great many
stations do so and the higher prices are posted quite prominently.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:41:16 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...
Message-ID: <36e07.1a2ee457.39cd4dac@aol.com>
In a message dated 9/23/2010 1:48:34 PM Central Daylight Time,
bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com writes:
> Chances are good that that policy is contrary to VZ's agreement with
> the credit-card companies. EVERY merchant account I've seen
> expressly forbade "charging extra" for payment by credit-card.
> Complaints to the card issuer could put VZ at risk of losing the
> ability to take credit card payment _at_all_. Wonder how they'd like
> -that-. <evil grin>
>
> CC issuers really don't like it when merchants do things like
> that.
The recent consumer protections for credit card users specifically
prohibit those provisions in merchant constracts.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:22:45 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Outside plant standards (for transient protection on a consumer NID)
Message-ID: <86GdnfvjCsfo1AfRnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <e428dfc2-d754-4262-af75-b35508ac5450@q9g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Heath Roberts <htroberts@gmail.com> wrote:
>So, I have a CAC 7600 NID on my house. The house was built in 2001, so
>the NID is whatever vintage was common at the time.
>
>I started getting bursts [of] noticable noise on the line about a
>month ago, but not enough that I called to complain. When the line
>stopped working entirely, though, I tried to determine whether [my
>wiring was causing it]. This was confusing, because every time I
>plugged into the RJ, my phone line (I have 3, but only one was bad)
>worked, but when I connected the inside wiring, it stopped working. I
>eventually realized that if I connected my inside wiring to the RJ in
>the NID, things worked, but if I used the screw terminals, they
>didn't.
>
>I think the customer module in the NID--the little block of
>electronics with a RJ-type disconnection mechanism that actually
>terminates the wires coming from inside--was poorly designed, and
>there were brass ring terminals crimped to the wires going from the
>modular plug to the screws for the inside wiring. Those ring terminals
>corroded through. I looked at the other two modules, and their
>terminals were green with corrosion, too, but not yet actually broken.
>
>So I called the phone company and explained the situation. The sent a
>repair guy, but he showed up at 8:30am instead of his 1:00-4:00pm
>'appointment' time, so I wasn't home to talk to him.
>
>When I got home, I found a new NID, about five feet away from the
>old one, with a few clamps holding some inside station wire from the
>old to the new. All the modules had been removed from the old NID,
>with UY2s connecting the buried wire to the station wire going to the
>new NID. Inside the new NID was a single protector block. The other
>two lines were just spliced to the inside wiring. The telco has closed
>the repair order, so it's not a temporary thing until he can come back
>for a permanent repair.
>
>So, I was less than happy that he had drilled a bunch of new holes in
>a stone foundation, but I'm even less happy that he left two lines
>without transient protectors. I plan to call and to ask for whoever
>manages outside plant in this area whether this meets their quality
>standards, but I expect to get a run-around.
>
>Is there some regulatory or industry standard that requires protectors
>on every line?
There's an easy way to get the matter rectified.
Send a -written- notice to the telco corporate offices, with a copy to
the state regulatory authorities.
In that letter explain that, "in reviewing work just done on your_side
of te DMARC, you noticed that the technician had chosen to remove the
transient protective devices. Therefore, you are hereby placed 'on notice'
that you -will- be held liable, without limitation, for any damage that
occurs to my equipment from transients received from your wiring."
It may take a little while for said letter to percolate through the
bureaucracy, but there -will- be 'fireworks' to be enjoyed.
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:22:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...
Message-ID: <201009222122.RAA10529@ss10.danlan.com>
dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) wrote:
[Broadband reports]
|FiOS users in our Verizon forums note that Verizon is now
|charging users a $3.50 fee if they want to pay their bill
|online with a credit card.
| --------
|http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Charges-350-Fee-To-Pay-Them-110433
|
|- per the posters, the fee applies if you make a "once off"
|payment. If you give VZ access to an autopay process,
|they won't charge it.
In this area (Massachusetts) if you set up autopay you must also give
up paper bills. I've been making one-off payments for years for just
that reason. Every few months they pop up a little box asking me to
switch to autopay and paperless billing. I suppose if they implement
this surcharge I'll go back to pushing EFT payments from my checking
account. (Sending a physical check results in an ACH conversion even
if you call the number to opt out.)
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:46:05 -0400
From: Fred Linton <tlvpress@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Company behind magicJack to banish calling costs
Message-ID: <BAY126-W27974ECAF29B6DAC81BF4BC6620@phx.gbl>
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:38:00 -0400, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> w
rote:
> Company behind magicJack to banish calling costs ...
>
> MagicTalk would go one better by eliminating fees for calling
> landline and cell phones in the U.S. and Canada, with no time limits
> on the calls. ...
>
> The software will be available next week for Windows and Mac
So: is it expected that a MagicJack user will be able to convert
to the MagicTalk service arrangement using the existing MagicJack
device? Or will some other mechanism be required?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:02:20 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages
Message-ID: <p06240892c8c1c3bf48ec@[10.0.1.8]>
T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages
By David Kravets
September 22, 2010
T-Mobile told a federal judge Wednesday it may pick and choose which
text messages to deliver on its network in a case weighing whether
wireless carriers have the same "must carry" obligations as wire-line
telephone providers.
The Bellevue, Washington-based wireless service is being sued by a
texting service claiming T-Mobile stopped servicing its "short code"
clients after it signed up a California medical marijuana dispensary.
In a court filing, T-Mobile said it had the right to pre-approve EZ
Texting's clientele, which it said the New York-based texting service
failed to submit for approval.
EZ Texting offers a short code service, which works like this: A
church could send its schedule to a cell phone user who texted
"CHURCH" to 313131. Mobile phone users only receive text messages
from EZ Texting's customers upon request. Each of its clients gets
their own special word.
...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/text-message-censorship/
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 (19 messages)
|
| |
or 