|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 321 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens
Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens
Re: no longer Direct dial long distance
Jamaica running out of phone numbers
Re: Jamaica running out of phone numbers
FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Re: FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals
Re: Old Caller ID Info on New Provider Caller ID
A new scam? "Congratulations! This is your lucky day, ..."
====== 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: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:15:49 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens
Message-ID: <hfih45$4fs$3@news.eternal-september.org>
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> This sort of thing was going on when I was a teenager, quite a few
> decades ago. It's just that cellphones didn't exist yet, and all
> anyone had were Polaroids and the US Mail. And back then you had to
> count to thirty after pulling the tab, separate the negative and
> positive, and spread the coater on the print surface....
Ah, Polaroids! Those were all the rage when I was a kid. I saw lots
of nude Polaroid photos, some of friends, but most of the girl (and
sometimes boy) down the street from a party or whatever, when I was in
high school.
In fact, the name Polaroid became synonymous with naked photo. "Do
you have any Polaroids of her?" meant "Do you have any naked photos of
her?"
As I developed my own photos I never owned a Polaroid camera. I
produced my own collection of photos, though. It was amazing how many
people would pose for photos, too.
So, sexting and cell phone photos are nothing new at all.
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:16:51 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens
Message-ID: <hfih62$4fs$4@news.eternal-september.org>
T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> And where was this darkroom? The local Boys Club.
The local Catholic high school I attended had a better darkroom than I
had at home, so most of the naked photos I took were developed
there...
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:39:05 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: no longer Direct dial long distance
Message-ID: <op.u4j7nfico63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:55:36 -0500, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>> ... If you use the services of One Suite http://www.onesuite.com
>
>> Thanks, Joseph, for this pointer to an interesting competitor to
>> the IDT dial-around service I use for international calling and
>> international access, and to the MagicJack.
>>
>> Alas, no matter how hard I search on their web site, I find no mention
>> of their outbound tariffs to Poland, or roaming tariffs from Poland.
>
> Odd, I clicked the RATES tab on the home page, picked Poland from the
> Destination Country list, and in a few moments it told me that the
> local origination dial-around and VoIP rates are both 4.5cpm to
> land-lines, 29cpm to mobile. That's pretty good for local origination
> dial-around, good but not great for VoIP. 800 origination dial-around
> is 9.5 and 34cpm, OK for 800 origination but you can do better.
>
> R's,
> John
Harrumpph! Browser shenanigans again. I did as you suggested, in Opera
v. 10, opening the OneSuite site cited in the quote, and clicking the
RATES tab, and there was no drop-down list of destination countries to
be seen. But:
Tried the same thing in IE7, and .. lo and behold .. a drop-down list,
where Opera showed just blank space. (Rates outbound to Poland just as
you quoted.)
But, even with IE7, there's no Poland in the "Originating Country"
list :-{ .
Oh, well ... . [I really have to back my Opera install back down to
v. 9.64 if I can: v. 10 just seems to have problems with sites (like
hotmail.com or the Google gMail site) that v. 9.64 handled with no
issues at all.]
Thanks, John, and cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 08:44:08 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Jamaica running out of phone numbers
Message-ID: <6645152a0912070644v68b01b78x59075a26e57d4d7e@mail.gmail.com>
Mobile number portability was not, up to a few months ago, in the
immediate plans of the Office of Utilities Regulations (OUR) but is
now a priority issue, as Jamaica prepares to apply to the North
American Numbering Plan (NANP) for a new batch of codes.
Jamaica was assigned eight million usable numbers in 1997, but is now
down to one million, according to Maurice Charvis, OUR deputy director
general, due largely to the growth in the mobile market.
More here: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20091120/business/business3.html
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 01:17:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Jamaica running out of phone numbers
Message-ID: <hfk9f8$ndq$4@news.albasani.net>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> Mobile number portability was not, up to a few months ago, in the
> immediate plans of the Office of Utilities Regulations (OUR) but is
> now a priority issue, as Jamaica prepares to apply to the North
> American Numbering Plan (NANP) for a new batch of codes.
> Jamaica was assigned eight million usable numbers in 1997, but is
> now down to one million, according to Maurice Charvis, OUR deputy
> director general, due largely to the growth in the mobile market.
> More here:
> http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20091120/business/business3.html
Jamaica has 2.7 million people, about the size of Chicago. Can they
prove that the 876 allocations were done efficiently without number
portability? Of course not. But then, this hasn't prevented NANPA
from assigning new area codes anywhere else.
I'd like to suggest that they get assigned 872.
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 08:46:58 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Message-ID: <6645152a0912070646u7ab8f525v78153fcfe96b5623@mail.gmail.com>
If you thought that the digital TV transition, with its billion-dollar
coupon program for converter boxes, was a migration nightmare, wait
until it's time for the phone system to dump its legacy
circuit-switched system and move to an all-IP communications network.
That day could be coming sooner than you think; the Federal
Communications Commission has just requested comment on its planning
for the transition.
More here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/fcc-plans-for-death-of-circuit-switched-phone-networks.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
Or here: http://z.mayson.us/dlufy
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
***** Moderator's Note *****
The FCC isn't planning any transition to IP telephony. What it is
planning is to show the Congress that it should be careful whose
bureaucratic ox it tries to gore.
Congress dictated progress. The FCC is sabotaging the idea, publicly
and crudely, in order to teach capitol hill just who is in charge of
the phone network. As soon as the "comments" have been received, the
FCC will report to Congress that it is "making progress" and then
shelve the whole thing.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:07:01 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Message-ID: <f48a8205-4c0b-4801-99e8-5bd679e8bc6b@g7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 7, 9:46 am, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> If you thought that the digital TV transition, with its billion-dollar
> coupon program for converter boxes, was a migration nightmare, wait
> until it's time for the phone system to dump its legacy
> circuit-switched system and move to an all-IP communications network.
> That day could be coming sooner than you think; the Federal
> Communications Commission has just requested comment on its planning
> for the transition.
What would be costs of such a transition? How much conversion would
be required in the local loop plant, especially in older areas? How
much in central offices such as in the cable vault to convert analog
loop lines to IP digital?
FIOS requires every subscriber to provide their own power and have a
battery backup. Right there is an additional cost to the subscriber.
While I'd say the number of traditional Western Electric sets (ie
2500, 2554) out there aren't too many, there is a huge number of more
modern analog sets that are not compatible with IP.
Unlike broadcast television, where most subscribers were already using
cable TV delivery, not over the air, far more people will require
converters. Further, conversion will be a nuisance since commercial
power would be needed.
Who is gonna pay for all that?
After that is done, what will the benefits be and who will be the
beneficiaries.
I can't help but suspect, given tech history, ordinary subscribers
will pay more and get less. Specialized subscribers who will benefit
will lobby hard for this.
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:52:36 EST
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals
Message-ID: <d65.409315e5.384efd54@aol.com>
In reply to: <_MPG.25852b48e05dfce6989bf8@news.eternal-september.org_
(mailto:MPG.25852b48e05dfce6989bf8@news.eternal-september.org) >
In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0912051605100.15674@panix5.panix.com>,
dannyb@panix.com says...
> In the good old daze of "One Bell System - It Works", the local
> operating companies used to justify their need for higher rates
> because... they had to pay more for the physical instruments.
>
> That is, Western Electric, a division of AT&T, was charging
> the local RBOC, another division of AT&T, more...
As a former Bell employee, I have to disagree with that. Many Bell
employees thought WE prices were about normal or high. So when we
acquired two independent company offices with Stromberg-Carlson XY
switches and a few years later need an addition, they assumed
Sromger's prices would be in about the same range and wrote estimates
on the basis of XY additions.
When they got quotations from Stromberg, they found the Stromberg
prices were so much higher that they could scrap the old office and
replace in its entirety with a WE step-by-step offices, including the
cost of new buildings in both places, for less cost than
Stromberg-Carlson would charge just for the additional XY equipment.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 01:26:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Old Caller ID Info on New Provider Caller ID
Message-ID: <hfka0u$ndq$5@news.albasani.net>
Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:
> I recently switched from one VOIP provider to another.
> With the old provider, the name of the company showed up in the name
> field of the caller ID box when I would call someone.
> With the new provider, my name was supposed to pop up on the caller
> ID when I would call someone.
> I've had two of my friends tell me that the name of my old VOIP
> provider was popping up when I call them. I called my new provider
> and asked them about it.
> They invested and told me that it was in the 'cache' of the
> destination phone company and until they cleared it in their system,
> it would continue to pop up this way.
> Anyone care to expand upon this? This seems weird. One would think
> that they would display the name sent by the originating provider.
I went through this with Comcast. When I called a telephone line
provisioned by Comcast, the wrong name showed up. Comcast refused to
purge its cache, even though I requested it. I'll guess that the
reason is what Danny said, that it would result in them having to pay
for another database dip.
Comcast insisted on creating the name record in its own database,
which they aren't supposed to do.
There's something about number porting that doesn't result in the
usual "line disconnected" notice from the original phone company to
all the other databases that they notify. Just got an automated call
the other day from the delivery side of the "official" phone book
publisher, thinking that my ported number was still a main land line
telephone number.
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:43:49 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: A new scam? "Congratulations! This is your lucky day, ..."
Message-ID: <op.u4li3bg3o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
What in the world is happening here?
Again today, for the third time in my +1-203 at&t territory, an 800
number I dialed fetched up with a telephone company "number has
changed" interrupt informing me of the "new number" (today, as
1-800-712-5000). At the new number I meet the greeting in the
"Subject:" line, followed by an urgent sales pitch offered by a very
enthusiastic mini-skirted-high-school-cheer-leader voice.
I hang up, dial my intended 800 number again, and get through to the
party I originally intended.
OK: the first time something like that happened to me, several weeks
ago, I had, to be honest, misread the number I wanted, hence
misdialed.
The second time I'm pretty sure I had dialed correctly.
On today's occasion, I'm certain I dialed correctly, as I was
looking at the number's listing in my phone book as I was dialing.
So, again: what's going on? Is at&t selling randomly selected
failed-call-completion moments to nefarious telephone marketers? Or
what?
Cheers, -- tlvp
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 