The Telecom Digest for September 26, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 259 : "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: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:13:37 +0800
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: TV comedy about outsourced telephone call center
Message-ID: <AANLkTimzkoPBMPrteDDOONFa87Dc7f2LaNB5ZAVHhLW1@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:06 PM, annie <dmr436@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having people lose their jobs to a low-price outsourcer in India is
> not funny, sorry! :(
The same could be said of a certain situation comedy set in a German
prisoner-of-war camp.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 07:08:28 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Hempstead NY has toughest cellphone tower restrictions
Message-ID: <4C9E025C.3030708@thadlabs.com>
Cell phones: getting tough on towers
Frank Eltman,Associated Press Writer
story posted Sep 24, 2010
GARDEN CITY, N.Y. (AP) -- A Long Island township has imposed
restrictions on the placement of new cell towers that are
among the toughest in the country, and one phone company
says it effectively bans new construction.
The town of Hempstead is a notable example on a list of
municipalities tightening rules on where cell phone companies
can place antennas. The moves come as consumers are demanding
blanket wireless coverage for their phones and buying laptops
and, more recently, tablet computers that also rely on cell
towers.
Despite a 1996 federal law prohibiting municipalities from
considering health issues in approving locations for cell
antennas, a group of mothers concerned about what they
consider risky cell towers outside their children's schools
successfully lobbied the town of Hempstead.
"Our position is we want to be more proactive," said Jody
Turk-Goldberg, co-founder of a civic group called "Moms of
Merrick," which discounts pronouncements by groups like
the American Cancer Society that conclude there is scant
evidence that cell towers are a health hazard.
"We saw what the tobacco companies did years ago; everybody
said smoking was safe," she added.
The ordinance passed unanimously this week by the Hempstead
town board prohibits wireless companies from installing
equipment closer than 1,500 feet to homes, day care centers,
schools and houses of worship, unless they submit compelling
evidence that there is an absolute need. Hempstead, home to
America's first suburban community -- Levittown -- is a densely
populated township just east of New York City.
{ long article continues at following URL }
http://skunkpost.com/news.sp?newsId=3256
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: TV comedy about outsourced telephone call center
Message-ID: <27808c00-ed98-43e4-b35e-4bb0182ad51a@q2g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 23, 9:07 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> 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):
In the early 1960s comedian Alan King complained about Bell System
automation--he resented ANC and DDD. He wrote "the system is becoming
so automated the only humans will be the musicians on the Bell
Telephone Hour [a TV show back then]".
When I think back to the level of personal service provided to
customers in the early 1960s compared to today I don't feel so good.
As said, note the complaints about basic loop maintenance in the other
threads.
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:53:25 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 1930, when the US Senate tried to ban dial telephones
Message-ID: <i7ioil$1r2p$1@gal.iecc.com>
>>Reminds me of the arguments about why mere citizens should not be
>>allowed to pump their own gas in a couple of US states. ...
>New Jersey and Oregon still forbid citizens pumping their own gas.
>http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100727/NEWS/7270320
Quite right, and both have gas prices significantly lower than adjacent
states. We should ban self-service gas everywhere.
R's,
John
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:28:49 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 1930, when the US Senate tried to ban dial telephones
Message-ID: <4C9E5B81.9080101@thadlabs.com>
On 9/24/2010 10:53 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Reminds me of the arguments about why mere citizens should not be
>>> allowed to pump their own gas in a couple of US states. ...
>
>> New Jersey and Oregon still forbid citizens pumping their own gas.
>> http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100727/NEWS/7270320
>
> Quite right, and both have gas prices significantly lower than adjacent
> states. We should ban self-service gas everywhere.
I hope you were joking. :-)
I realize this is off-topic, but the above needs some clarification.
I cannot comment about New Jersey (it's been 45+ years since I was
there to visit relatives), but Oregon has a less-expensive gas blend
than California.
Self-service is a great convenience. I cannot recall any safety
incident regarding self-service since I've been in California (1966).
My local gas station is 1/3 mile from my home and the pumps are open
and available 24/7/365 though the station closes at 10pm. I usually
buy gas around 1am-4am because I'm a "night person" and that's a
convenient time for me, and I'm in-and-out in generally less than 3
minutes or so -- daytimes I'd have to queue for the pumps wasting time.
A friend in Pendleton OR was really PO'd about the lack of self-service
gas stations in Oregon and recently moved to Reno NV.
I lament the 17 cents per gallon I used to pay for premium gas at the
full-serve stations in Texas and New Mexico circa early 1960s. :-)
***** Moderator's Note *****
ObTelecom: Dial vs. Manual, Self-serve vs. attendant; it's the same
thing. My father use to say "They'll spend a million dollars to
eliminate your job", and he was right: machines are always cheaper
than men.
Bill Horne
Moderator
John Henry said to his captain,
"A man is nothing but a man,
But before I let your steam drill beat me down,
I'd die with a hammer in my hand, Lord, Lord,
I'd die with a hammer in my hand."
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 1930, when the US Senate tried to ban dial telephones
Message-ID: <8fa02299-93c1-4992-93e1-a3bdf6f1a499@y3g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 22, 8:12 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.comwrote:
> 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:
According to various New York Times articles of 1930:
4/24 President Hoover, a heavy phone user, rejects dial phones for the
White House. Only two trunks of twelve were to have dial service.
5/23: Senator Carter Glass explained his objection to dial: he didn't
like being made an employee of the telephone company without
compensation, "you need good light to see the dial", and "too easy to
reach a wrong number." His fellow Senators cheered him on. The House
was very interested in the Senate's manual service proposal. There
was talk of banning dial phones for all of Washington. They said, "if
we actually said what we thought of dial phones the Congressional
record couldn't go through the mails".
5/24: NY Telephone says NYC subscribers are very happy with dial
service and it would be impossible to provide manual operators to
serve the volume and complexity of calls.
6/20: A C&P crew of 30 men came to the capitol on the deadline day to
convert the Senate phones back to manual. The count of station sets
was given variously as 450 or 811.
6/26: The Senate agrees to have a dual system of dial and manual
phones.
7/13: NY Telephone estimates 2 million dial phones in NY State, 1.5
million in NYC. They were converting to automation as fast as
possible, though the outlying sections of the city wouldn't get it
until 1942.
12/15: NY Telephone announces a conversion from 3L-4N to 2L-5N in
order to have more exchanges. There will be an overlap period.
12/15: A demonstration was made of direct dialing a call between NYC
and Chicago.
Comments:
In fairness to Sen. Glass, I had an older family member who was not
a good 'dialer'. He was ok on local calls, but on long distance he
would pause between digits so long that equipment would time out. To
a young person or experienced techie today, the concept of dialing 1
then an area code seems very simple, but to an older person it was not
so easy to learn. I saw plenty of older people have trouble in the
early days of DDD. Indeed, in the early days of Teletype terminals,
people had to get used to properly formatting strings of characters
and hitting [return] at the end of the line.
Philadelphia made a similar 3L to 2L conversion circa 1946 but did
not have an overlap period.
Somewhere I read the the White House today still has a cord
switchboard since that's the only way they can handle the President's
needs. Don't know if true.
Back then the telephone company was very sensitive to subscriber
reaction and went to great lengths to smooth the way toward
automation. While many subscribers did like the advantages of
automation, others felt as Senator Glass did that they now had to do
the phone company's work and resented it. In small towns the
telephone operator often provided special services, such as keeping
track of where the town doctor was and calling volunteers and
officials during a public safety emergency. In my town the retired
town operator described to me performing these services as a young
operator, when the town went dial she was transferred to a nearby city
exchange which was far more regimentated.
When a community was about to switch to dial the phone company sent
out considerable literature. It opened up training bureaus for walk-
ins or even sent out people home to home to explain how to use the new
phones. It also endeavored by various means to minimize full time
permanent operators getting laid off.
Contrast that kind of personal approach to the concurrent threads
about line maintenance troubles or billing issues.
Unfortunately these articles from 1930 are not available for free.
Subscribers to the NYT can get them for free or one can purchase them.
Some libraries may have free access to the NYT history on-line, and of
course larger libraries have the traditional NYT index in hard copy
and the full newspaper on microfilm. However, the following on the
dial conversion of NYC in 1922 are available free and are interesting:
advance description
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F02E4DD1E3EEE3ABC4A52DFB5668389639EDE
pre-test of dial equipment
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=940CE5D91E39EF3ABC4E52DFB6678389639EDE
description
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=990CEFD71E39E133A25754C1A9649D946395D6CF
another description
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D02E5DE1139E133A2575BC0A9669D946395D6CF
overseas wireless--replacing alternators with vacuum tubes
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F04E6D91E39EF3ABC4E52DFB6678389639EDE
[public replies, please]
Date: 26 Sep 2010 00:07:57 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 1930, when the US Senate tried to ban dial telephones
Message-ID: <20100926000757.57564.qmail@joyce.lan>
>5/23: Senator Carter Glass explained his objection to dial: he didn't
>like being made an employee of the telephone company without
>compensation, ...
He was right, too. In the 1940s when my mother was in college in
Massachusetts, she would call her parents in Vermont, and the town's
operator would say "you mother's playing bridge at the Smith's --
should I call her there?" Try and find a dial exchange that can do
that.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:01:18 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...
Message-ID: <e1tp96pb14nabrjjmkqk9gvqvcd0gdcsqt@4ax.com>
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 00:22:10 -0500, Dave Garland
<dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>On 9/23/2010 6:50 PM, Robert Neville wrote:
>> bonomi@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...
>
>> While that used to be true in the US, the children in the current
>> administration decided they know better and overruled those rules:
>>
>> http://www.bankrate.com/financing/credit-cards/what-the-dodd-frank-act-means-for-you/
>>
>>
>
>I'm not sure that link applies. It says:
>
>> Payment networks also can't restrict retailers from offering
>> incentives for using any general form of payment over another, such
>> as cash instead of cards, or debit cards instead of credit cards.
>> Basically, merchants can offer discounts as long as they those
>> discounts don't discriminate towards cards issued by particular
>> financial institutions.
>
>It entitles merchants to offer discounts for particular types of
>payment, but doesn't mention surcharges.
>
>Of course, IANAL and the effect might be different from what it appears.
>
>Dave
Whether it's a surcharge or a discount depends upon your point of
view. Assume that an item costs $100 cash and $105 via CC. From one
point of view, it's a $5 surcharge for CC. From the other point of
view, it's a $5 discount for cash. But the effect on the consumer is
the same.
Richard
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:09:48 -0500
From: Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...
Message-ID: <W4CdnShSmeMxvADRnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@posted.palinacquisition>
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> writes:
>On Sep 23, 8:41 pm, Wes Leatherock <Wesr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > CC issuers really don't like it when merchants do things like
>> > that. [surcharges]
>> The recent consumer protections for credit card users specifically
>> prohibit those provisions in merchant constracts.
>I think the way merchants get around that is by using an outside
>vendor to process the credit card payment. The fee is paid to the
>separate vendor, not the merchant.
>I still pay my bills by mailing in a check. I don't like the idea of
>allowing them automatic pay direct from my checking account. While
>foul-ups are rare, they do happen and I don't want some huge chunk of
>money taken out until the billing dispute is resolved.
Generally, the trick is to auto "push" money to the payee (you set up the automatic
payment from your end), rather than allowing them to auto "pull" from your account
(where you give them your account # and an authorization to debit the account.
When you push from your side, you're fairly safe in case of a screw-up, assuming the
bank is reputable.
I just got a letter today from Chase apologizing for a three-day outage of their
online bill pay service -- they were offering to pay any late fees charged by payees
who did not get payments on time because of this. Where they could, Chase
had already automatically waived or credited late fees. They even advised keeping
the letter should any late fees show up in the future. I was rather amazed at this
level of Customer Service.
Frank
--
.
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:37:46 -0400
From: Ron <ron@see.below>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...
Message-ID: <0kjq965qkc003vtfegv18nqufm1ojle6q8@4ax.com>
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> 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.
No violation if done right. They can't add a surcharge for using
the card, but they're allowed to offer a discount for cash. From
the Mastercard merchant agreement (complete with the original
pseudo-German capitalization style)
A Merchant must not directly or indirectly require any
Cardholder to pay a surcharge or any part of any
Merchant discount or contemperanous finance charge in
connection with a Transaction. A Merchant may provide
a discount to its customers for cash payments.
The paragraph continues with some more info that's relevant to
this thread:
A Merchant is permitted to charge a fee (such as a bona
fide commission, postage, expedited service or
convenience fees, and the like) if the fee is imposed
on all like transactions regardless of the form of
payment used, or as the Corporation has expressly
permitted in writing.
--
Ron
(user telnom.for.plume
in domain antichef.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:37:34 -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: <eq2dnRsmzYGzlAPRnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <bcba68eb-7608-43e9-9129-de1e5009f51a@q2g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>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.
>
Policy was that you "couldn't charge more" for paying by CC, but you
could "give a discount" for paying cash. A semantic difference that
affects the way you market things, but 'functionally', no difference.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:53:06 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon to add another surcharge on some bills
Message-ID: <AOCdndjvwqxPkQPRnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <36a87.69e16a39.39cd4ca6@aol.com>,
Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
>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.
FALSE TO FACT. Historically credit-card merchant contracts have forbidden
charging a higher price (i.e., a 'surcharge') for a customer who pays by
credit card. NOTHING in either those merchant contracts, nor 'in law'
in general forbids giving a discount for paying cash. And some merchants
have been doing it for multiple decades.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 14:03:41 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon to add another surcharge on some bills
Message-ID: <rr-dnapk5fkS2gPRnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@posted.visi>
On 9/25/2010 9:53 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Historically credit-card merchant contracts have forbidden
> charging a higher price (i.e., a 'surcharge') for a customer who pays by
> credit card. NOTHING in either those merchant contracts, nor 'in law'
> in general forbids giving a discount for paying cash. And some merchants
> have been doing it for multiple decades.
>
But, bringing this back to phone companies and similar utilities,
typically one receives a bill for a set amount. They do not give a
discount for paying by cash (or any other particular way). In the
case of companies like telcos, I'm not sure the average customer
(outside a big city) has any way to pay by cash anyhow, it would
almost always be by check or ACH.
But there is often a higher price to pay (online) with a CC. It may
be that just calling it a "convenience fee" (that phrase does sound
familiar) instead of a "surcharge" is all it takes for them to get
away with it, which would make such a contract clause not worth the
paper it was written on.
And the end customer doesn't really have any standing to challenge it,
since they're not a party to the contract between the CC company and
the merchant. Not if the CC company doesn't care.
Dave
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:41:20 -0700
From: "Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ" <fred@remove-this.wb4aej.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: PDF Manuals
Message-ID: <E1OzZjy-0008RF-Hs@billhorne.homelinux.org>
Does anyone have or know where I can get PDF copies of manuals for the
Codex 2121 modem and the Fireberd 6000?
I've done Internet searches without yielding much luck.
Regards,
Fred
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 (14 messages)
|
| |
or 