---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <20170527201820.51265.qmail@ary.lan> Date: 27 May 2017 20:18:20 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> Subject: Re: Cancel Non-Published Service on landline? In article <20170527123519@telecom-digest.org> you write: > So I'm wondering if it makes sense to save the $3.45, or if my > junk calls will spike if I do so? Thanks in advance for any > thoughts from the phone experts here! I would be astonished if junk callers harvested numbers from phone books. These days, telco residential phone books hardly exist. Also, if you're getting 12 junx a day you're already on the high end. My listed residential phone (which appears in an actual printed phone book) gets maybe one a week. R's, John ------------------------------ Message-ID: <ec6e73d9-eeb9-49a6-8f59-b74eec63e580@googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 12:19:54 -0700 (PDT) From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: Cancel Non-Published Service on landline? On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 1:48:57 PM UTC-4, Anonymous Contributor wrote: > I'm debating if I should cancel the Non-Published Service on my AT&T landline. > I've had this service since I got the landline and it's now $3.45 a month. I > get an estimated 12 junk calls on weekdays (if I stay home from work) and six > junk calls on Saturdays. I screen all my calls with an answering machine, and > most callers don't leave a message. > > My number has been exposed in various data breeches. It's also on the second > page of Google search results, and I don't know if Google will take it down > as I requested. > > So I'm wondering if it makes sense to save the $3.45, or if my junk calls will > spike if I do so? Thanks in advance for any thoughts from the phone experts > here! In my humble opinion, your junk calls will still increase if you go published. Not by a lot, but it will be easier for them to find you. I can't say whether it would be worth saving the $3.45/month. Also, IMHO, it is absurd for the carriers to charge that fee these days. It's a leftover from the old days, and really wasn't even justified back then. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <798A0A9E-4559-4BE1-9DA7-8D1F7ECAC22E@roscom.com> Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 09:57:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Immigration crackdown relies on controversial cellphone tracking device Trump's immigration crackdown relies on controversial cellphone tracking device. Border patrol agents are using Stingrays, technology that pretends its a cell tower, to locate undocumented immigrants' phones. The Trump administration has turned to one of law enforcement's most controversial surveillance tools to implement its crackdown not on violent criminals, but on undocumented immigrants. https://thinkprogress.org/ice-stingray-use-545edb93aa3b ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20170527201623.51244.qmail@ary.lan> Date: 27 May 2017 20:16:23 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> Subject: Re: Verizon says no to FIOS in southern New Jersey In article <ce15222c-378c-40e9-aeab-a2ab96ac65af@googlegroups.com> you write: >In my personal opinion, Verizon and other large carriers like >Comcast, are trying to have it both ways: they want the power to do >whatever they want and maintain control like a public utility, yet >none of the responsibilities of a public utility. Particularly since Verizon's predecessor New Jersey Bell agreed to wire the whole state with at least 45Mb fiber as part of a rate negotiation. But they, uh, forgot. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <2B0BC481-97BF-468A-B155-A3001977E935@xrtc.net> Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:47:22 -0700 From: Astrid Smith <astrid@xrtc.net> Subject: Re: Cancel Non-Published Service on landline? On May 27, 2017, at 10:35, Anonymous Contributor wrote: > Hello, > > I'm debating if I should cancel the Non-Published Service on my AT&T > landline. I've had this service since I got the landline and it's > now $3.45 a month. I get an estimated 12 junk calls on weekdays (if > I stay home from work) and six junk calls on Saturdays. I screen all > my calls with an answering machine, and most callers don't leave a > message. My number has been exposed in various data breeches. It's > also on the second page of Google search results, and I don't know > if Google will take it down as I requested. > > So I'm wondering if it makes sense to save the $3.45, or if my junk > calls will spike if I do so? Thanks in advance for any thoughts from > the phone experts here! > > (Anonymous) I have a listed, published number. So far as I can tell, this only has resulted in me being listed in these gigantic website/databases that sell info on everyone in America. It's really irritating but I'm not going to pay extra to be excluded, especially given that I'm listed already. I get maybe two or three robocalls a day tops, and surveys every few days. At least during the evenings - I work days and don't have an answering machine. +--------------------------------------------------------------+ Astrid Smith Sent from my Teletype, apologies to the editor for any mailing-list formatting etiquette breaches :) ***** Moderator's Note ***** OK, I usually take formatting problems in stride, but sending a post with "Quoted Printable" encoding is just too much. I sentence you to spend five hours turning "=" and "=20" codes at the ends of lines into normally formatted text. Or, you can tell us all how you filed a post with an actual Teletype machine: a video of you doing so will be expected. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Mon, 29 May 2017