The Telecom Digest for October 04, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 266 : "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, 2 Oct 2010 12:09:46 +0800
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Rahm Emanuel leaving white house
Message-ID: <AANLkTinUehCWTQNo=YD8CavdpeC+_bBCG4tAAQpdiw=A@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
> I also suspect that this particular person, having very close ties to
> Chicago, probably never gave up his old cellphone.
It's been many, many years now, but I read an article in our local
paper about young Texans who were moving to DC to work/volunteer for
then President Bush. They were keeping their Texas phone numbers
during their entire stay in DC because area codes have become pretty
meaningless in a mobile world. So it's very likely Emanuel kept his
Chicagoland phone number. And yes, reference to 312 probably meant
Chicago in general.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 00:48:16 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: t-Mobile settles SMS blockade case
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1010020036500.20443@panix1.panix.com>
Background: Just like "vanity numbers" for the telephone network,
there are similar shortcuts for SMS transmissions.
A company called "ez texting" offers a shared service,
letting numerous companies use its abbreviated number
for their own marketing.
To use their example (again, this is theirs...)
someone texting "church" to that number would get
a list of (advertised) church services, while
someone texting the word "party" would get a list
of party rental services.
A couple of months ago they got into a dispute with
T-Mobile. Seems that one of their clients was a
medical marijuana distributer. While the court
papers didn't list the code word, presumably if
you texted something like "maryjane" you'd get
back a list of local facilities.
There's some dispute as to the timeline, with EZ
claiming they had already dropped the marijuana
group from their lineup. In any event, T-Mobile
began blocking all messages to the short cut,
thus not only cutting off the pot folk, but also
all the other customers.
The complainant also claimed that TM blocked msgs
from them to TM subscribers, which sounds a bit
trickier to do. And quite a bit messier
In any event, the battle was "was settled out of court
Friday" [a] with TM agreeing to stop its global blocking
of messages to EZ. However, "lawyers declined to say
whether T-Mobile had to allow texts from the medical
marijuana info service."
[a]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/texting-censorship-flap-settled-out-of-court.ars
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:57:52 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: grasping at straws, was :In a Computer Worm, a Possible Biblical Clue
Message-ID: <i87dov$n11$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <p0624080fc8cc3aff7f93@[192.168.180.244]> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> writes:
>In a Computer Worm, a Possible Biblical Clue
>By JOHN MARKOFF and DAVID E. SANGER
>Deep inside the computer worm that some specialists suspect is aimed
>at slowing Iran's race for a nuclear weapon lies what could be a
>fleeting reference to the Book of Esther, the Old Testament tale in
>which the Jews pre-empt a Persian plot to destroy them.
>That use of the word "Myrtus" - which can be read as an allusion to
>Esther - to name a file inside the code is one of several murky clues
>that have emerged as computer experts try to trace the origin and
>purpose of the rogue Stuxnet program, which seeks out a specific kind
>of command module for industrial equipment.
>...
>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/world/middleeast/30worm.html
Funny how there's no listing in the article of all
those other "murky clues", eh?
And I bet'cha that somewhere in the computer code is a
reference to the color green, as in US currency. Hence
it's an American plot.
Or maybe there's a sentence with 182 characters in it. Oh
my $dawg, that's the same number as the count of subway
stations in Moscow!
You have to wonder about these so called experts and their
press reports. For that matter, you've got to be even more
curious about the agendas of such folk, and their sycophants
in the media. Using the flimsiest of foundations to blame
a certain country makes one ask why...
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 08:05:10 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Email bankruptcy
Message-ID: <siegman-3998FF.08051002102010@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>
In article <pan.2010.10.02.03.51.36.288566@myrealbox.com>,
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> I was once impressed with the out of office email message of one of my
> previous editors. It informed emailers that "I am out of the office until
> January 12th. When I return, I will delete my whole inbox. If your message
> was important send it again when I'm back.''
>
Lawrence Lessig, noted IT guy, on one occasion some years ago found he
had X hundred (or was it X thousand?) backlogged, long unanswered emails
in his email IN box which he had briefly noted and saved, really meaning
to read or reply to them when he had a chance. But since it was obvious
that he was never really going to be able to do this, he decided his
only out was to formally declare "email bankruptcy".
Bankruptcy procedure was to have a robotic program return a copy of
every unanswered email message in this IN box to its sender, along with
a cover letter explaining that he was declaring email bankruptcy, then
deleting all the original messages, and changing to a new (unidentified)
email address.
Cover letter also contained a code that allowed anyone receiving it, if
they wished, to send a single one-page reply back to him at a temporary
one-time address (**one** such email per sending email address), which
he promised he would read -- but not necessarily reply to.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Pioneers of the past have shown us the way, and I hope many more will
follow. The constant, and constantly increasing, bombardment of
electronic I.O.U.'s is diminishing our ability to draw boundaries
between our personal lives and our public ones.
I've known employees in major corporations, who came back from
vacation to find their email inboxes were at a manageable level for
the first time in years. Their "Vacation macro" auto-responders had
restored the control they hadn't know how to claim directly: by
(effectively) ordering email senders to figure it out for themselves or
wait for the recipient's return, the automated "Not now" replies had
shown their owners how important it is to draw boundaries between what
others want and what they were willing to do. Those who took the
lesson to heart, and who had the hutzpah needed to change their
habits, started telling real-live people "not now" and "that has to
wait".
I never knew a single one who regretted the change: they had discovered
anew the lesson which every kid in a schoolyard learns, and that is
that if you try to ignore a bully, you become a target. In short, they
realized that email from their cow-orkers is often just an electronic
spitball: at best, a plea for attention or sympathy; at worst, a
demand for someone else to do what the sender either didn't want to, or
wasn't capable of, doing for themselves.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:39:32 -0700
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
Message-ID: <i885ae$fvo$1@blue.rahul.net>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> It won't work.
>
> Businessmen take credit cards because their customers insist on using
> them, and because the card fee is offset by the costs of handling,
> counting, and safeguarding cash.
Businesses take on substantial burdens to accept credit cards. Typically
they pay the card company 10-20% of the amount charged, and have to agree
to let the card company resolve all disagreements in favor of the customer,
with no proof required (which often means the merchant gets stiffed, since
its only recourse is to sue the customer).
The main reason businesses put up with these burdens is that cards enable
customers who don't have enough cash with them (whether because they forgot
or because they fear being robbed) to make impulse purchases.
Ordinary people don't have this reason to accept credit cards. They also
sometimes don't want their transactions recorded (whether because they want
to evade taxes or just to keep their leisure activities private). Thus,
any attempt to legislate a "plastic-only economy" will only be evaded, even
if it means barter.
> Ordinary people don't trust banks, and they don't trust credit cards:
> not when they're on the receiving end.
And with good reason. I've yet to find a bank or credit union that didn't
regard its possession of my money as a license to steal (and call it a
"fee") whenever they felt like it.
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:59:11 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call?
Message-ID: <L-OdnQuKLuOiJDrRnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@giganews.com>
markjcuccia@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 01-Oct-2010, Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>>I was of the impression that the FCC's standing order on Caller ID
>>required the originating LEC to honor a caller's request for
>>non-delivery of Caller ID if the caller either preceded the call with
>>*67 (1167) or had line blocking provided by the LEC.
>>
>>The exceptions are 911 call centers and calls to IN-WATs numbers, but in
>>those cases it is actually ANI that is delivered, not CPN; to 911
>>centers for obvious reasons and to IN-WATs subscribers on the premise it
>>is a "collect" call.
>>
>>My local cable television company as an ordinary directly number. When I
>>call they state (automated voice) they have my number. I don't have
>>line blocking so I am not surprised. But, I decided to test it so I
>>called again but with *67 first. Yep, the automated voice still had my
>>number. I tested my *67 to another number in my residence and it works
>>fine.
>>
>>Anyone have any idea if there is an exception for cable television
>>companies for calls to their ordinary (billable) directory numbers?
>>
>>People are concerned about privacy these days. This seems like a big
>>breach of the expectations of telephone subscribers.
>
>
> Is your cable-TV company also a telco (CLEC)? If so, then they ARE a
> telephone company, and as such, have access to C-ID info at their own
> switch, even for per-line suppressed originating C-ID, as well as
> *67/11-67 prefix per-call suppressed originating C-ID.
>
> Remember that "per-line" and *67/11-67 per-call "blocking" isn't
> really completely "blocking" SS7-delivered C-ID, at least not between
> (SS7-capable) c.o.switches/trunks, but only suppressing it from actual
> delivery over the final loop to the end-customer. Telcos (and possibly
> even PBX systems of "non-telco" companies) can easily pickup ANY
> (delivered) C-ID on incoming calls to their business offices, even if
> the calling customer has "per-line" or *67/11-67 per-call "blocking"
> (actually suppression) to the far-end.
>
> And it's also likely possible that the cable-TV company, _also acting
> as a CLEC_, has access to any ANI info delivered as well.
>
> Mark J. Cuccia
> markjcuccia at yahoo dot com
>
Yes, indeed, they do operate a CLEC. I fail to see why that gives the
right to ignore the privacy flag sent by my LEC, and display it to any
directory number they service, including their combined cable
television/CLEC business office.
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:50:21 +0000 (UTC)
From: dwolff@panix.com (David Wolff)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
Message-ID: <i88gfs$3iq$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <p0624080dc8cc39962b0d@[192.168.180.244]>,
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
> A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
>
> By DAVID POGUE
> September 29, 2010
<snip>
> Why can't we use them to pay the piano teacher, the baby sitter, the
> lawn-mowing teenager, even first graders at their lemonade stand? Why
> aren't credit cards accepted at garage sales, food carts and PTA bake
> sales? Heck, when your tipsy buddy wants to borrow $20 for a cab
> home, why can't you eliminate the awkwardness and future conflict by
> just running his Visa card on the spot?
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/technology/personaltech/30pogue.html
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> It won't work.
>
> Businessmen take credit cards because their customers insist on using
> them, and because the card fee is offset by the costs of handling,
> counting, and safeguarding cash.
>
> Ordinary people don't trust banks, and they don't trust credit cards:
> not when they're on the receiving end.
Are you kidding? Half the people in this country would give you their
bank account number and online password if you pretended to be from the
bank.
Thanks
--
David
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 09:45:41 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
Message-ID: <pan.2010.10.02.22.45.36.999497@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:23:00 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
> A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
>
> By DAVID POGUE
> September 29, 2010
..........
> Recently, a San Francisco company has been asking an equally groundshaking
> question: Why can't everyone accept credit cards?
>
> Look, credit cards are great. There's a paper trail, there's fraud
> protection, there's incredible convenience - just swipe and go. But why is
> it that only companies accept them?
>
> Why can't we use them to pay the piano teacher, the baby sitter, the
> lawn-mowing teenager, even first graders at their lemonade stand? Why
> aren't credit cards accepted at garage sales, food carts and PTA bake
> sales? Heck, when your tipsy buddy wants to borrow $20 for a cab home, why
> can't you eliminate the awkwardness and future conflict by just running
> his Visa card on the spot?
>
> ...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/technology/personaltech/30pogue.html
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> It won't work.
>
> Businessmen take credit cards because their customers insist on using
> them, and because the card fee is offset by the costs of handling,
> counting, and safeguarding cash.
>
> Ordinary people don't trust banks, and they don't trust credit cards: not
> when they're on the receiving end.
There are further non-technical reasons for people not having that instant
convenience of accepting card instead of cash transactions - and that is
it is too convenient.
A lot of people continually get themselves into more debt than they would
like by getting sucked in to impulse purchases on their card(s), purchases
they may have to give more thought to if they had to accumulate to the
actual cash for the transaction.
And for those accepting card payments for trivial items, imagine the
hassles of having a transaction challenged months after a "garage sale" by
someone disgruntled over an old lamp that only worked for a day etc?
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 08:33:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Rahm Emanuel leaving white house
Message-ID: <i89f55$ao6$1@news.albasani.net>
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 4:30 pm, Joseph Singer <joeofseat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Mr. Emanuel had not submitted a letter of resignation by Thursday
>>afternoon, but he had held repeated conversations with the president
>>about his plans and his future, officials said. Mr. Emanuel has
>>canceled appearances at several scheduled events in Washington in the
>>next few weeks. And he has a new cellphone with a 312 area code."
>>I was under the impression that all 312 numbers were no longer
>>available and you'd have to get another area code which was overlaid
>>on the 312 area.
>I suspect the statement was a generic reference to Chicago being
>area code 312 as opposed to whatever his actual phone number is.
hancock, I suspect that prospective Mayor Rahm is more than capable of
obtaining a 312 phone number upon request, given that they are readily
available. If he can't scare up a genuine 312 line number, gosh, he
may not be mayor material.
Chicago had no shortage of office codes till Cricket came to town and
gobbled up a huge number of codes.
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 08:40:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call?
Message-ID: <i89fhb$ao6$2@news.albasani.net>
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>you write:
>>I was of the impression that the FCC's standing order on Caller ID
>>required the originating LEC to honor a caller's request for
>>non-delivery of Caller ID if the caller either preceded the call with
>>*67 (1167) or had line blocking provided by the LEC.
>Nope. It sets a do-not-display flag that is supposed to be
>interpreted by whatever does the displaying, which I suppose is the
>terminating switch on POTS and either the switch or the phone on ISDN
>sets.
>If Comcast sees your number, it's because their switch isn't paying
>attention to the do-not-display flag.
I question whether a PBX receiving ANI is even subject to any state or
federal regulatory orders on the subject. It's the called party's own
equipment, not public switched network equipment, so why would any such
rules have been written in the first place?
***** Moderator's Note *****
PBX's are not supposed to receive blocked CID info: they are, as you
point out, PRIVATE branch exchanges, not a part of the DDD
network. However, the problem here appears to be that Comcast, which
is a CLEC, is ignoring the rule that the last class-5 office should
honor the display flags. Their switch is NOT a PBX: it is part of
the DDD network.
Bill Horne
Moderator
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 (10 messages)
|
| |
or 