30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for February 20, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 48 : "text" Format
====== 30 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
|
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using any name or email address
included herein for any reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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, 18 Feb 2012 21:07:10 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work?
Message-ID: <jhplgg$m9i$1@dont-email.me>
On 2/18/2012 10:25 AM, Arnie Goetchius wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 08:23:43AM -0500, Arnie Goetchius wrote:
>>> My daughter moved about 10 miles from Houston city to the suburbs. She
>>> arranged to have her business line (713-467-xxxx)"trunked" to a
>>> residential line (281-496-yyyy) in Houston suburbs. The service provider
>>> is AT&T. The central switching office handling 713-467-xxxx is HSTNTXHODSO
>>> and the one handling 281-496-yyyy is HSTNTXBUDSO. Both offices are 5ESS.
[snip]
> The problem now is that if some one calls her on the 713-467 number, she
> cannot respond to the caller using the 713-467 (unless she uses a spoofing
> service). She has to use the 281-496 number. A customer receiving her
> return call may check their Caller ID and, not recognizing the number,
> does not answer the call.
>
> I think installing a second phone line for business is the way to go. Her
> concern is that the current business number has been in use for many years
> and includes a listing in the Yellow Pages. If she gets a new business
> line, she will have to cancel the old business line. Granted she will
> eventually appear in the YP with the new number but there will be
> confusion for some time. But that solves the problem of her being able to
> return the call using the same line that the call came in on.
>
> Ideally, she would like to have a private line so that 713-467 rings
> directly in her house and she could return calls using the 713-467. While
> that may be possible, it is probably not economically feasible.
Her choices are to either pay for a foreign exchange line, which would
literally connect her new home to the "old" phone number on a dedicated
circuit, or to find a service to which she can port the 713-467 number,
and which will provide a two-way "lookalike" service which gives her a
virtual foreign exchange.
I know users who ported numbers to Vonage, which allows them to move
their office wherever their router is. There are many companies in this
market niche: a search for '"virtual foreign exchange" telephone' will
show you many firms that offer "virtual office" services.
HTH.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 07:17:00 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work?
Message-ID: <jhq7lc$cdv$1@reader1.panix.com>
> arranged to have her business line (713-467-xxxx) "trunked"
Lots of imprecise usage here muddle what's going on.
A) I agree it sounds as if she got sold RCF. That has several
issues. She is likely paying way too much for it, and may be
paying per call or minute as well.
B) She could, for some outragous amount, get "Foreign Exchnage"
service. In that case, she gets a actual set on her desk that
rings in and dials out on her 713-467 DN. But be sitting down;
it's typically priced as if a cable crew has to lay pairs the
whole route, as in centuries past.
Choices that may be viable all utilize LNP, transferring her
number to a more flexible service. This might be a VOIP carrier
such as "MagicJack" or Vonage or less controversial names. It
also might be a cell carrier.
If she can get her service moved to a prepaid cell, she can
THEN [port] it again, to Google Voice.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:48:38 -0600
From: "John F. Morse" <john@example.invalid>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work?
Message-ID: <pan.2012.02.19.17.48.37.555374@example.invalid>
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 07:17:00 +0000 David Lesher wrote:
>> arranged to have her business line (713-467-xxxx) "trunked"
>
> Lots of imprecise usage here muddle what's going on.
>
> A) I agree it sounds as if she got sold RCF. That has several issues. She
> is likely paying way too much for it, and may be paying per call or minute
> as well.
>
> B) She could, for some outragous amount, get "Foreign Exchnage" service.
> In that case, she gets a actual set on her desk that rings in and dials
> out on her 713-467 DN. But be sitting down; it's typically priced as if a
> cable crew has to lay pairs the whole route, as in centuries past.
>
> Choices that may be viable all utilize LNP, transferring her number to a
> more flexible service. This might be a VOIP carrier such as "MagicJack" or
> Vonage or less controversial names. It also might be a cell carrier.
>
> If she can get her service moved to a prepaid cell, she can THEN [port]
> it again, to Google Voice.
Evidently nobody remembers that Ma Bell has been extracting money from
customers for years, calling it "Number Portability."
You can move anywhere and demand your "number" be ported to your new
location.
We asked for and received this service when moving a machine shop from
one C.O. area to another.
You pay for it, so you can certainly demand it.
--
John
When a person has -- whether they knew it or not -- already
rejected the Truth, by what means do they discern a lie?
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:28:41 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Safari Trackers
Message-ID: <p06240840cb65ffcc2422@[10.0.1.8]>
Safari Trackers
by Jonathan Mayer, a grad student at Stanford
Web Policy
Feb 17 2012
Apple's Safari web browser is configured to block third-party cookies
by default. We identified four advertising companies that
unexpectedly place trackable cookies in Safari. Google and Vibrant
Media intentionally circumvent Safari's privacy feature. Media
Innovation Group and PointRoll serve scripts that appear to be
derived from circumvention example code.
In the interest of clearly establishing facts on the ground, this
post provides technical analysis of Safari's cookie blocking feature
and the four companies' practices. It does not address policy or
legal issues. (More on that soon.)
Before proceeding further, I want to thank the countless friends and
colleagues who provided invaluable feedback on this project. In
particular: [*****], whose insights have been vital at every step, and
Ashkan Soltani, whose crawling data was instrumental in uncovering
PointRoll's practices and understanding the prevalence of cookie
blocking circumvention.
...
http://webpolicy.org/2012/02/17/safari-trackers/
***** Moderator's Note *****
The original text has five stars at the place where I substituted five
asterisks. I assume that the five-star glyph is a symbol for the
author formerly known as [printable name].
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:23:42 -0500
From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Challenge/Response: The Only Way?
Message-ID: <9af0k71oh9eqrpnj95refivuuvt6jc8ecj@4ax.com>
As robocalls increase (up to 6x per day on my land line, enough
times per week on my cell to be a PITA - yes, all phones are on
both the national and state Do-Not-Call lists...) I keep coming
back to EarthLink's solution to spam: challenge/response.
Do-Not-Call lists seem to be becoming less relevant by the day -
especially with:
- Perpetrators moving offshore and insulating themselves behind
multiple VOIP relays,
- Special interests' donors/lobbyists getting us the best
government money can buy,
- Prosecutorial efforts by state and national governments
becoming lamer and lamer.
Am I the only one who thinks challenge-response is the next
logical move by consumers?
"Hello, this is the Jones' phone system. (spoken very
slowly....) Please press 1 for Tom. Please press 2 for Sue.
Please press 3 for Mo......."
Of course the only number that works is, say, "9" and once
regular callers are advised of that they do not have to wait at
all - just hit "9" the moment they hear the pickup.
The phone doesn't even start to ring until the right digit has
been entered.
People who don't press anything get the chance to leave a voice
mail, but that requires a response too - like "Please press 3 to
leave a voice mail."
The caller gets one chance.... if they hit a wrong digit, the
call is terminated.
Seems to me like this would be a durable method of defeating both
robocallers and telephone solicitors without unduly annoying the
vast majority of legitimate callers.... with maybe a tweak or two
that I can't think of at the moment to ease the burden on
first-time legitimate callers.
How about some comments by those with experience/knowledge (as
opposed to Yours Truly).... ?
- -
Pete Cresswell
***** Moderator's Note *****
I have one of the gadgets that does this, and also one which sounds
the SIT sequence of tones when I pick up the phone. After about a
month of using them, I found that they weren't needed anymore, since
the calls stopped.
Of course, my previous advice still holds: just get to a human and
waste their time once or twice, and that has the desired affect, at
least for that particular company.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 04:44:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls"
Message-ID: <jhpuo6$2o9j$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
[ This is getting a bit far into the 'personal attacks' category, ]
[ and rather far afield from 'telecom', per se. Direct responses to ]
[ prior messages in this thread will be allowed, as long as they are ]
[ primarily fact based. Any further follow- ups will face close ]
[ scrutiny for 'fact based' content, and lack of mere opinion-based ]
[ editorializing. ]
[ I have thrown in several fact-based (albeit without cites) notes ]
[ to provide a little perspective. ]
[ -- rdb, acting 'referee', at the moderator's request ]
Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>
>Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>
>> A few moments' investigation would make it abundantly clear that this
>> is not true. (I assume you weren't intending to libel any particular
>> ABC News reporter, just television reporters in general.)
>
>We disagree. I think TV reporters are performers.
Have you ever met any? (You do realize that the chirpy female weather
person is not a reporter, right?
[ Referee note: Today, that chirpy 'weather person', of whatever gender, ]
[ is likely to be a trained meteorologist -- there has been an amazing shift ]
[ in this direction in recent years; stations actually advertise the pro- ]
[ fessional credentials of their weather people. ]
And that these people have nothing
whatsoever to do with the people risking their lives in Syria to
report on the troubles there for the nightly network newscasts? And
that the local 9 AM sales-integration morning show isn't a news
program and isn't produced by the news department?)
>Mine is not a new complaint: consider this quote, from 1979 (1):
Not on point. Local stations and the network people you were
attacking don't work for the same people -- in most cases, not even
the same company.
[ Referee note: there is a 'transference' effect, however. As network ]
[ 'old guard' retires, essentially the only replacements are from the ]
[ local stations. It's not 'universal', yet, but one can see echoes ]
[ of the 'Happy News' style in network reporting of local hurricanes, ]
[ blizzards, etc. ]
Yes, it is true: people are mostly not interested in local news, and
they have a tendency to tune out when their local news programs are
actually broadcasting it, so most local news programs feature as
little news as possible. Maybe, in a big market, there will be enough
budget to pay for one investigative reporter and producer.
[ Referee note: in the Chicago market, -all- the major-network stations ]
[ have a specialist 'investigative team' that is part of the news dept. ]
[ Several reporters, a bunch of research assistants -- and a gaggle of ]
[ interns. Of course, the Chicago, and Illinois, political climate ]
[ provides a vast source of investigative fodder. <wry grin> ]
Meanwhile, the audience for the 6:30 (6:00 Mountain and Pacific)
network newscast has actually been going up recently, and the news
content there is still quite high. (Of course, there are many fewer
of those reporters you were attacking, since actually sending people
to far-away places to find out what is happening and tell you about it
is very expensive business.)
>Ask yourself if Edward R. Murrow would be allowed to go after Senator
>McCarthy in today's media world.
You bet he would. He'd have his own daily hour on one of the cable
networks -- if he weren't considered too tame. Of course, he wouldn't
be allowed to smoke on the set.
>Ask yourself if an FCC Commissioner would be allowed to repeat the
>substance or even the tone of Minow's famous "Wasteland" speech(4)
Of course they would -- and do, with some regularity (particularly the
ones from the minority party). Really, you should learn something
about the people you attack before you start flaming away.
[ Referee note: for some strange reason, although contemporary ]
[ Commissioners do say things similar in substance and tone, it ]
[ gets far less public 'play' than Minow's speech did. ]
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:42:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: LD carrier, what's that?
Message-ID: <1329687733.44664.YahooMailClassic@web161504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:23:13 +0000 (UTC)David Lesher wrote:
>
> For years, I used "usadatanet" as my LD carrier. It was not FGD; rather,
> you called a local POP, it answered & knew you from ANI/CID; you dialed
> 10D. The advantage was there were no monthly fees and no minimums; so it
> was ideal for my very minumum usage.
>
> [snip]
>
> Are there any carriers left out there without big minimums/monthly fees....?
> I'll listen for pins dropping in response.
I've been using OneSuite
http://www.onesuite.com
for years and have been
very pleased. As in the service you were using you make a call to a local
POTS number. When you call the number from one of three numbers. It
recognizes you from ANI or CID (I'm guessing ANI) and all you have to do
is key the NANP number with a 1 plus ten digits or key 011/CC/area/number
for international calls. It supposedly has an "expiration" date, but that
gets placed further and further away as you make calls and use the service.
Expiration is something like six months IIRC. Calls to US and Canadian
numbers are 2.5 cents/minute. Calls to the UK, most of Europe and to Israel
are 2.4 to 2.5 cents/minute using a local access number. You can also call
using a toll-free number, but per minute costs are a little more expensive.
Calls from a US coin phone have an additional surcharge. They also have
POPs in many foreign locations so you can make cheaper calls both to the US
and also to other countries as well. I've noticed that call quality is
usually pretty good though at times when I've called Israel -- the call
quality isn't the best, but calls at only 2.4 cents/minute I'm not
complaining too much.
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:14:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Who will you call? (humor)
Message-ID: <1329686071.53161.YahooMailClassic@web161502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
http://thereifixedit.failblog.org/2012/02/19/white-trash-repairs-who-will-you-call/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThereIFixedIt+%28There%2C+I+Fixed+It.%29
or
http://goo.gl/f3fdH
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.
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) 2012 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 (8 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues