Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 53 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Giving Up the Cellphone Contract Re: Giving Up the Cellphone Contract Re: The Cellphone, Navigating Our Lives Re: The Cellphone, Navigating Our Lives Re: Low-Tech Fixes for High-Tech Problems Re: Low-Tech Fixes for High-Tech Problems Re: Low-Tech Fixes for High-Tech Problems Re: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems Giving Up the Cellphone Contract Re: Giving Up the Cellphone Contract Re: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems Re: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems Re: The Cellphone, Navigating Our Lives ====== 27½ 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: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:08:56 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Giving Up the Cellphone Contract Message-ID: <p06240852c5c52ea7e2c1@[10.0.1.6]> Giving Up the Cellphone Contract By JENNA WORTHAM The New York Times February 21, 2009 Maybe Tony Soprano was onto something. As the lead mobster in the HBO series "The Sopranos," he and his crew often turned to prepaid cellphones, presumably to avoid wiretaps. But now these pay-as-you-go phones are winning over fans for different reasons - recession-battered consumers are buying them as a way to cut costs and avoid the lengthy contracts and occasional billing surprises that come with traditional cellphone plans. "Frugal is the new chic," said Joy Miller, 33, a piano teacher in Aubrey, Tex. After almost a decade on contract plans with Verizon Wireless, Mrs. Miller and her husband decided this month to test-drive a few prepaid plans, including MetroPCS. "In today's economy, it's not cool to pay $120 a month for a phone. It's a waste of money." Although prepaid phones remain a fraction of the overall mobile phone market, sales of the category grew 13 percent in North America last year, nearly three times faster than traditional cellphone plans, according to Pali Research, an investment advisory firm. For the first time in its history, T-Mobile has been signing up more new prepaid customers than traditional ones. And Sprint Nextel is betting that a new flat-rate prepaid plan will help it wring more value from its struggling Nextel unit. Any stigma attached to the phones - they are a common prop in any show or movie about gangs and spies - is falling away as prices drop and the quality of the phones rises. Prepaid carriers like MetroPCS, Virgin Mobile and Sprint's Boost Mobile division now offer sleeker handsets, better coverage and more options, from 10-cent-a-minute calling cards that customers refill as needed to $50-a-month, flat-rate plans for chatterboxes who want unlimited calling, Web browsing and text messaging. The savings can be considerable. An AT&T customer with an Apple iPhone on a traditional plan pays at least $130 a month, excluding taxes and fees, for unlimited calls and Web use. Compared with the $50-a-month, all-inclusive prepaid plans, the iPhone owner pays nearly $1,000 more over the course of a year. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/technology/21prepaid.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:38:36 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Giving Up the Cellphone Contract Message-ID: <MPG.240a92b1384e3e24989906@reader.motzarella.org> In article <p06240852c5c52ea7e2c1@[10.0.1.6]>, monty@roscom.com says... > > Giving Up the Cellphone Contract > > By JENNA WORTHAM > The New York Times > February 21, 2009 > > Maybe Tony Soprano was onto something. As the lead mobster in the HBO > series "The Sopranos," he and his crew often turned to prepaid > cellphones, presumably to avoid wiretaps. > > But now these pay-as-you-go phones are winning over fans for > different reasons - recession-battered consumers are buying them as a > way to cut costs and avoid the lengthy contracts and occasional > billing surprises that come with traditional cellphone plans. > > "Frugal is the new chic," said Joy Miller, 33, a piano teacher in > Aubrey, Tex. After almost a decade on contract plans with Verizon > Wireless, Mrs. Miller and her husband decided this month to > test-drive a few prepaid plans, including MetroPCS. "In today's > economy, it's not cool to pay $120 a month for a phone. It's a waste > of money." > > Although prepaid phones remain a fraction of the overall mobile phone > market, sales of the category grew 13 percent in North America last > year, nearly three times faster than traditional cellphone plans, > according to Pali Research, an investment advisory firm. For the > first time in its history, T-Mobile has been signing up more new > prepaid customers than traditional ones. And Sprint Nextel is betting > that a new flat-rate prepaid plan will help it wring more value from > its struggling Nextel unit. > > Any stigma attached to the phones - they are a common prop in any > show or movie about gangs and spies - is falling away as prices drop > and the quality of the phones rises. Prepaid carriers like MetroPCS, > Virgin Mobile and Sprint's Boost Mobile division now offer sleeker > handsets, better coverage and more options, from 10-cent-a-minute > calling cards that customers refill as needed to $50-a-month, > flat-rate plans for chatterboxes who want unlimited calling, Web > browsing and text messaging. > > The savings can be considerable. An AT&T customer with an Apple > iPhone on a traditional plan pays at least $130 a month, excluding > taxes and fees, for unlimited calls and Web use. Compared with the > $50-a-month, all-inclusive prepaid plans, the iPhone owner pays > nearly $1,000 more over the course of a year. > > ... > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/technology/21prepaid.html I was using a 1000 minute prepaid plan from T-Mobile but I'll be honest here. It was shown as $39.99 which got the per minute rate to 4 cents a minute. But the damned fees hiked that up to $50 a month or 5 cents a mminute. Uggh! We've all paid the FUSF fee many times over for at least 20 years now. By the definition of what the FUSF was for, I'd say the entire country should have an advances 21st century telecom infrastructure. Instead the companies just used the money to pay shareholders. I'm looking hard at Metro PCS. They've just expanded into RI and have coverage in my most traveled areas (RI, MA, CT) but CT isn't quite ready yet. Their rates are very attractive though. I wonder if they're GSM and if I could just snap the module into my Nokia phone. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:48:05 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: The Cellphone, Navigating Our Lives Message-ID: <pan.2009.02.21.09.48.04.628169@myrealbox.com> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:05:13 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote: > > The Cellphone, Navigating Our Lives > > By JOHN MARKOFF > The New York Times > February 17, 200 ......... > Digital map displays on hand-held phones can now show the nearest gas > station or A.T.M., reviews of nearby restaurants posted online by diners, > or the location of friends. In the latest and biggest example of the map's > power and versatility, Google started a location-aware friend-finding > system called Latitude in 27 countries early this month. > And so many of these things rely on a fully functional GPS system, how long until those who want to bring down Western civilization figure out a way to cripple this system by knocking out a satellite? -- 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: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:51:12 -0800 (PST) From: Sam Spade <samspade@invalid.coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: The Cellphone, Navigating Our Lives Message-ID: <114899.67309.qm@web44810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> David Clayton wrote: > And so many of these things rely on a fully functional GPS system, > how long until those who want to bring down Western civilization > figure out a way to cripple this system by knocking out a satellite? Not an easy task. There are spares on orbit right now. There [are] several spares awaiting launch. Someone would have to destroy several widely separated satellites before they would knock out the system. With our technology we would figure out quite quickly where the destruction was coming from. That would be a major act of war. Here is a link to info about the GPS constellation: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpscurr.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:17:09 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Low-Tech Fixes for High-Tech Problems Message-ID: <MPG.240982944c1f4d25989905@reader.motzarella.org> In article <p06240819c5c46bce36ca@[10.0.1.6]>, monty@roscom.com says... > BEHIND the cash register at Smoke Shop No. 2 in downtown San > Francisco, Sam Azar swipes a customer's credit card to ring up > Turkish cigarettes. The store's card reader fails to scan the card's > magnetic strip. Azar swipes again, and again. No luck. > > As customers begin to queue, he reaches beneath the counter for a > black plastic bag. He wraps one layer of the plastic around the card > and swipes it again. Success. The sale is rung up. > > It'a because the plastic creates drag so that the card reader actually has a chance to interpret the data on the card. I know some time back Citizens Bank switched from the black magstripe to this silver colored strip that 40% of the readers wouldn't read without resorting to that trick. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:59:49 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Low-Tech Fixes for High-Tech Problems Message-ID: <pan.2009.02.21.22.59.48.137191@myrealbox.com> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:43:14 -0500, T wrote: > In article <p06240819c5c46bce36ca@[10.0.1.6]>, monty@roscom.com says... >> BEHIND the cash register at Smoke Shop No. 2 in downtown San Francisco, >> Sam Azar swipes a customer's credit card to ring up Turkish cigarettes. >> The store's card reader fails to scan the card's magnetic strip. Azar >> swipes again, and again. No luck. >> >> As customers begin to queue, he reaches beneath the counter for a black >> plastic bag. He wraps one layer of the plastic around the card and >> swipes it again. Success. The sale is rung up. >> >> >> > It's because the plastic creates drag so that the card reader actually > has a chance to interpret the data on the card. More likely the thickness of the plastic keeps the card more centered in the slot so the "signal" is more consistent during the swipe and the detection/decoding process has a greater chance of achieving a good read versus a naked card which may simply move about too much inside the slot during a human hand swipe. -- 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: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:35:45 -0500 From: MC <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Low-Tech Fixes for High-Tech Problems Message-ID: <jB3ol.6905$i9.4371@bignews7.bellsouth.net> T wrote: >> As customers begin to queue, he reaches beneath the counter for a >> black plastic bag. He wraps one layer of the plastic around the card >> and swipes it again. Success. The sale is rung up. > > It'a because the plastic creates drag so that the card reader actually > has a chance to interpret the data on the card. Would simply sliding it more slowly do the same thing? I seem to recall that some card readers want the card to be slid fairly slowly. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:12:28 -0800 (PST) From: Sam Spade <samspade@invalid.coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems Message-ID: <809469.56964.qm@web44813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org Re: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems > b: now we get to the magic trick. In reality standard CNID > is, indeed, sent from the original caller along with the > call initiation itself. If it isn't "blocked", then it gets > transmitted to the recipient's phone. If the caller has > chosen to block it, then the CNID string makes it "all the way" > to the "central office" (term used a bit loosely) that's > just before the recipient. That CO, instead of continuing > to pass the CNID, sends along a "private" or "blocked" message. > > Keep in mind, again, that the CNID _is_ making it right to > that last central office. Indeed, the CNID is making it to the receiving parties central office via a SS7 trunk along with a privacy flag if the calling party has chosen to block. But, the CNID message with or without a privacy flag does not cross from the trunk frame through the switch to the receiving partie's local loop. The privacy flag results in the receiving central office generating a "private call" message to be sent out yhr receiving parties local loop. The analogy is similar with wireless, the receiving party receives no information all the number contained in the CNID message. The wireless carrier, just like a wireline carrier, was required to honor the privacy flag so nothing other than "private call" or a similar message is sent to the wireless set. So, there is nothing of an identifying nature that the wireless called party can send on. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:13:34 -0800 (PST) From: Sam Spade <samspade@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Giving Up the Cellphone Contract Message-ID: <545372.26314.qm@web44805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> > > The savings can be considerable. An AT&T customer with an Apple > iPhone on a traditional plan pays at least $130 a month, excluding > taxes and fees, for unlimited calls and Web use. Compared with the > $50-a-month, all-inclusive prepaid plans, the iPhone owner pays > nearly $1,000 more over the course of a year. > I have an iPhone and my wife is on my voice plan for an additional $9.95 month.  We have the "550" plan, which with rollover minutes keeps us with more minutes than we would ever use.  My iPhone also has the unlimited data plan (non-optional for the iPhone).  We don't text message so our account is blocked for that. My most recent bill is $84.30 including all taxes and surcharges. The author is also wrong in that AT&T doesn't offer an unlimited voice plan.. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:55:57 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Giving Up the Cellphone Contract Message-ID: <MPG.240a96d76e3acb02989907@reader.motzarella.org> In article <545372.26314.qm@web44805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, samspade@coldmail.com says... > > > > > The savings can be considerable. An AT&T customer with an Apple > > iPhone on a traditional plan pays at least $130 a month, excluding > > taxes and fees, for unlimited calls and Web use. Compared with the > > $50-a-month, all-inclusive prepaid plans, the iPhone owner pays > > nearly $1,000 more over the course of a year. > > > I have an iPhone and my wife is on my voice plan for an additional $9.95 month.  We have the "550" plan, which with rollover minutes keeps us with more minutes than we would ever use.  My iPhone also has the unlimited data plan (non-optional for the iPhone).  We don't text message so our account is blocked for that. > > My most recent bill is $84.30 including all taxes and surcharges. > > The author is also wrong in that AT&T doesn't offer an unlimited voice plan.. Actually I hear the iPhone has been jailbroken and you can use it on T- Mobile now. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:47:54 -0500 From: Mike Blake-Knox <mikebkdontspam@knology.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems Message-ID: <VA.000001fa.11785fd7@knology.net> In article <gnkj4s$s98$1@reader1.panix.com>, Danny burstein wrote: > What I suspect TelTech is doing is simply grabbing that CNID > on the "bounced" call, and instead of dumping it onto > the side, they've decided to pass it through. What's probably happening is that the cellular carrier is passing along the original CNID plus the cell phone number just as if it was going to a voice mail. SS7 then carries this plus the ANI to TelTech through the normal gateway to an IEC. The original concept was that an IEC would honor and pass along the presentation restriction info. Here we would seem to have a case where the "IEC" isn't honoring the presentation restriction. I've seen the reverse in real life. A customer's call center CTI system wasn't receiving ANI on as many calls as expected. Investigation showed that these were 800 calls placed from a blocked number. The IEC had copied the presentation restriction info from CNID into the ANI (which had the right number when the call reached the call center) and the ACD vendor was "enforcing" the presentation restriction by not including the ANI in messages to CTI. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:59:27 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TeleTrap from TelTech Systems Message-ID: <MPG.240a979e6dd3b9e8989908@reader.motzarella.org> In article <VA.000001fa.11785fd7@knology.net>, mikebkdontspam@knology.net says... > > In article <gnkj4s$s98$1@reader1.panix.com>, Danny burstein wrote: > > What I suspect TelTech is doing is simply grabbing that CNID > > on the "bounced" call, and instead of dumping it onto > > the side, they've decided to pass it through. > > What's probably happening is that the cellular carrier is passing along > the original CNID plus the cell phone number just as if it was going to > a voice mail. SS7 then carries this plus the ANI to TelTech through the > normal gateway to an IEC. The original concept was that an IEC would > honor and pass along the presentation restriction info. Here we would > seem to have a case where the "IEC" isn't honoring the presentation > restriction. > > I've seen the reverse in real life. A customer's call center CTI system > wasn't receiving ANI on as many calls as expected. Investigation showed > that these were 800 calls placed from a blocked number. The IEC had > copied the presentation restriction info from CNID into the ANI (which > had the right number when the call reached the call center) and the ACD > vendor was "enforcing" the presentation restriction by not including > the ANI in messages to CTI. > > Mike I recall some time ago I was using NetworkPlus 800 service. ANI is a beautiful thing, you cannot block. Ane Net+ would transmit the ANI as CLID. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:21:20 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: The Cellphone, Navigating Our Lives Message-ID: <6fef364c-696e-483e-bcbb-2a1336bcf64b@i38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> On Feb 20, 11:05 pm, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote: >As > researchers and businesses learn how to use all the information about > a user's location that phones can provide, new privacy issues will > emerge. You may use your phone to find friends and restaurants, but > somebody else may be using your phone to find you and find out about > you. Nobody seems to be least bit concerned about privacy. The kids who send naked pictures of themselves simply don't realize they can, and will, be broadcast to the world. Previously, kids' personal social pages contained all sorts of personal information and pictures they would never share in person to a stranger, but somehow think a computer is 'different' or 'protected' when it really isn't. Do a google on yourself and you'll be shocked where your name comes up. Not that it's anything harmful or embarassing, just surprising. Some dinner you went to, some special committee you participated in, perhaps your college or high school alumni association. Further, now that storage is so cheap, stuff doesn't go away. So your college intramural soccer career from ten years ago remains out there for all to see. Again, not really harmful nor embarassing, but your name and association is there, out there for all to _easily_ see, and you have no control over it. None. I find that disconcerting. At some point in our lives, all of us participated in something that didn't work out and we'd prefer to forget about. Maybe we didn't last very long on a job. Maybe we got kicked off a team, maybe we flunked out our first school. Maybe we got our name in the newspaper for less than ideal circumstances. Maybe a brief marriage. Way back in the old days teachers would threaten kids about misbehavior being posted on the "permanent record!" Well, today that threat is very true. A while back on the roads newsgroup the idea of open records of automatic tolling systems (e.g. EZPASS) was strongly supported by some people (apparently journalists). I don't agree. They also felt public municipal records should be freely available online as well. Now even though those records were public all along, interested parties had to make some effort to access them--show up at county hall and dig them out. It should be remembered that these records are great fodder for those interested in doing identity theft or fraud. They now _easily_ dig up your family details, when and how much you paid for your house, who has your mortgage, etc. [public replies, please] ------------------------------ 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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. 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: mailto: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 Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest Copyright (C) 2008 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 (13 messages) ******************************