|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 220 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: junk calls, was Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: junk calls, was Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: junk calls, was Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Woodstock--telephone/telegraph issues?
The End of (Telephone) Polling?
How fast is your cellphone moving?
====== 27 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, 10 Aug 2009 02:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign
Message-ID: <251514.94827.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:51:27 EDT Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> If you call your mailbox from another number, including a landline,
> you are still charged on your cell bill for the minutes you spend
> listening to your msssages. My carrier is AT&T.
AT&T (formerly cingular) is the only company that does this.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:25:26 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <06p0855rhkobsrmas00iv9haesgficcjls@4ax.com>
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 08:59:30 -0400 (EDT), Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
wrote:
>But, the only "relief" the FTC offers is to advise you to hire an
>attorney and sue the offending party in state court. All the FTC does
>is gather statistics. The Do Not Call list is a farce.
I agree that it is a farce.
Both my home and cell phones are registered. My home phone gets about
10 junk calls per day, many with obviously spoofed numbers (all-zero
area codes or office codes, office codes beginning with 0 or 1, etc.)
My cell phone gets about 2 junk calls per week. I thought there was a
blanket prohibition against junk calls to cell phones. I even get
text messages from my cellphone company (Tracfone) advertising
specials.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Aug 2009 19:38:22 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: junk calls, was Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <20090810193822.56192.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>My cell phone gets about 2 junk calls per week. I thought there was a
>blanket prohibition against junk calls to cell phones.
Indeed there is.
> I even get text messages from my cellphone company (Tracfone)
>advertising specials.
Those are legal, there's doubtless fine print in the agreement where
you agee to accept messages from your provider.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:26:46 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: junk calls, was Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <6645152a0908101426jadd96bbw112dbc6e6494b460@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, John Levine<johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>> My cell phone gets about 2 junk calls per week. Â I thought there was a
>> blanket prohibition against junk calls to cell phones.
>
> Indeed there is.
>
I get about the same number of junk calls and they are for... auto
warranties!
The latest issue of "2600" has an article about how you can get money
out of these creeps. It's a royal pain, but if you do it right you
can win a settlement worth thousands.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
***** Moderator's Note *****
What does a subscription to 2600 cost these days?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:15:50 +0000 (UTC)
From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: junk calls, was Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <h5q66m$aln$1@reader1.panix.com>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>What does a subscription to 2600 cost these days?
http://www.2600.com/
--
Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L
Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:45:18 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <6645152a0908101445s29742f3fw7e1b260f9a15cdd0@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Richard<rng@richbonnie.com> wrote:
> I even get
> text messages from my cellphone company (Tracfone) advertising
> specials.
I used to get those from my carrier, but they were marked as free
texts. I was able to end them by visiting their website. It's AT&T,
FWIW.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:05:43 +0000 (UTC)
From: Lee Choquette <leec@xmission.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h5pr27$jkv$1@news.xmission.com>
In article <MPG.24d263401b8d1fdc989b10@news.eternal-september.org>,
T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>In article <SHN9m.576$646.342@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, hornetd@verizon.net
>says...
>> And _I_ don't want them to know they've [even] _had_ a call until they
>> next set their parking brake. I just don't know how to make that
>> happen. -- Tom Horne
>> [...]
>
>Pretty easy to implement with Bluetooth connectivity. If the car senses
>a cell phone just have it jam the cell phone band or send an instruction
>to turn the cell phone off when the car is in motion.
If my phone rings while I'm driving, I just take it out of my shirt
pocket and hand it to my wife without looking at it. She takes the call
for me. If I happen to be in the middle of merging or something
requiring great concentration, I let it ring, but then hand it to her a
minute later so she can find out who called, and call back while I
continue to drive.
You need to either explain why I shouldn't be able to do that, or
explain how your solution will allow me to continue to do that.
Lee
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:58:27 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <siegman-8FF277.13575710082009@news.stanford.edu>
In article <h5pr27$jkv$1@news.xmission.com>,
Lee Choquette <leec@xmission.com> wrote:
>
> You need to either explain why I shouldn't be able to do that, or
> explain how your solution will allow me to continue to do that.
>
Actually, we don't need to. There are a lot of things in life that are
sufficiently hazardous when done by the great majority of people that we
make them illegal for everyone and anyone, at least on public property,
even if some very small minority of people are capable of doing them
without causing hazard to others.
[You can phone or text or play the accordion while driving at any speed
your car can achieve -- if you do it on your own private property.]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:57:46 +0000 (UTC)
From: Lee Choquette <leec@xmission.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h5q8la$qdc$1@news.xmission.com>
In article <siegman-8FF277.13575710082009@news.stanford.edu>,
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Actually, we don't need to. There are a lot of things in life that are
>sufficiently hazardous when done by the great majority of people that we
>make them illegal for everyone and anyone, at least on public property,
>even if some very small minority of people are capable of doing them
>without causing hazard to others.
What!?! I would imagine it's the other way around: it's a small minority
of drivers who would cause a hazard to others if they attempt to hand a
ringing phone to somebody else in the car.
What if to appease you the driver were to hand the phone to another
passenger before leaving the driveway, in case it rings while the car is
in motion? Do you think that the vast majority of drivers would somehow
cause a hazard to others if a passenger answers the phone while the car
is in motion?
Given your logic, we should take radios out of police cars and taxi
cabs, since we can't allow the minority to do something that's hazardous
for the majority to do. (I would settle for making driving tests more
thorough, including testing whether the driver can deal with
distraction.)
Lee
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:54:06 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <6645152a0908101754i5cad3e90mb5741fcf2959e3b6@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Lee Choquette<leec@xmission.com> wrote:
>
> Given your logic, we should take radios out of police cars and taxi
> cabs, since we can't allow the minority to do something that's hazardous
> for the majority to do. (I would settle for making driving tests more
> thorough, including testing whether the driver can deal with
> distraction.)
I search my archives and it doesn't appear I've mentioned something
here. I came across this piece the other day:
http://www.activetrans.org/blog/rsadowsky/really-distracted-driving
where the author says "I look to my left through the passenger window
and the driver has got a skilsaw out in his right hand and he's
operating it while driving."
I am willing to bet there isn't a jurisdiction on the planet that has
outlawed using a skilsaw while driving. So we've banned cell phones
and now we've banned using power tools. So what about the guy who
decides it's his inalienable right to have a fondue pot full of
boiling oil bubbling on his dashboard as he drives? Or the woman who
does her ironing on the way to work. Human stupidity will always stay
one step ahead of the law books. Which is why I keep coming back to
hold drivers strictly accountable for crashes they cause. If I know I
will likely face loss of license, stiff fines, even jail time for
causing a crash I'm going to think twice before I pull out my cell,
cut 2 x 4's, or teach myself to juggle while driving.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 19:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Woodstock--telephone/telegraph issues?
Message-ID: <d4b20cbb-4297-4747-9463-c996f9f571d7@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Woodstock was held 40 years ago. Many newspaper articles about it.
I'm curious about the telecommunications aspect.
Before the days of cellphones, people would've depended on public
phones to call home. Except whereever the event was actually held (I
believe it was other than actually Woodstock), there were probably
very few phones at all, maybe a rural community dial office.
Also, in something like that, I suspect many kids ran out of money and
needed to call home and get money wired to them via Western Union,
which would require an agency near by.
On some special events the telephone company would set up special
phone lines for the event, phones for reporters, and pay phones for
the public. Western Union would set up telegraph lines for the wire
service reporters; and may have still been doing that in 1969.
But Woodstock, as we know, exploded out of control, and maybe there
wasn't planning for communications.
Would anyone be familiar with what special facilities, if any, Bell
and WU set up in advance or subsequent to serve the event?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 02:23:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: The End of (Telephone) Polling?
Message-ID: <h5qkn6$124c$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
Mark Blumenthal writes an interesting summary in NationalJournal.com
of remarks made by SurveyUSA founder Jay Leve about the future of
randomized telephone polling. For the past several decades, telephone
polling has been the most cost-effective way of constructing an
unbiased probability sample of American households -- an essential
prerequisite for meaningful public-opinion surveys. But changes in
people's attitude towards the telephone, and changes in communications
technology, are together making this research tool less reliable.
Leve notes that young adults are particularly underrepresented in
randomized phone samples: for every 100 young adults SurveyUSA expects
to reach, based on population statistics, they actually only manage to
find 24.
Quoting Blumenthal:
To conclude his talk, Leve summed up the problem. All phone
polling, he said, depends on a set of assumptions:
You're at home; you have a [home] phone; your phone has a
hard-coded area code and exchange which means I know where you
are; ... you're waiting for your phone to ring; when it rings
you'll answer it; it's OK for me to interrupt you; you're
happy to talk to me; whatever you're doing is less important
than talking to me; and I won't take no for an answer -- I'm
going to keep calling back until you talk to me.
The current reality, he said, is often much different:
In fact, you don't have a home phone; your number can ring
anywhere in the world; you're not waiting for your phone to
ring; nobody calls you on the phone anyway they text you or IM
you; when your phone rings you don't answer it -- your time is
precious, you have competing interests, you resent calls from
strangers, you're on one or more do-not-call lists, and 20
minutes [the length of many pollsters' interviews] is an
eternity.
All of this brought Leve to a somewhat stunning bottom line: "If
you look at where we are here in 2009," for phone polling, he
said, "it's over... this is the end. Something else has got to
come along."
Full article at <http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20090810_1804.php>
(Hat tip to Taegan Goddard.)
-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: Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: How fast is your cellphone moving?
Message-ID: <E1Mahgv-0006rm-7O@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
Are cellphone GPS capabilities good enough for the phone itself, or the
cellphone company, to know how fast it's moving -- say, in a car, on a
highway?
Could they be?
Seems as if lots of cars have GPS units these days. Could they trigger
a cellphone disabler above some speed? Or, just have the speedometer do
it?
["Disable" could mean the cellphone will still receive and signal that a
"page" has been received, indicating that someone has left a voice-mail
or text-mail on the cellphone system; but the ability to read, listen
to, or respond to that communication will remain disabled until the
phone has been at a halt for 5 minutes.]
------------------------------
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: 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 (13 messages)
******************************
|
or 