|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 255 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
====== 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, 14 Sep 2009 06:19:24 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <xprrm.161656$8B7.74980@newsfe20.iad>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Or, the old lawyer trick. Put your recollections in writing and send
>> to the top dog, stating the purpose of the letter, a detailed
>> statement of the information provided to you by rep "Jones at 10:55
>> AM, PDT, August 16, 2009. Conclude the letter by saying, "Please let
>> me know by mail or telephone if you disagree with my statement of the
>> facts as set forth in this letter."
>>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> I don't think you need to involve an attorney: keep in mind that top
>> executives deal with lawyers on a daily basis, and are not likely to
>> be impressed or intimidated by a lawyer.
>>
>> However, a paper letter can bring good results: just state your case
>> as clearly and simply as possible, and you'll almost always get a good
>> result.
>
>
> I was speaking of the customer writing the letter using that style. ;-)
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> That's unlikely to impress or intimidate anyone. The "top dog" gets
> legal notices every day, and some top executives get so many of them
> that they designate a secretary with a limited power-of-attorney which
> allows the secretary to be served with legal notices.
>
> Trying to sound like a lawyer is an old spammer trick, since spammers
> often send threatenting emails filled with legalese to those who
> report them. The spam fighters call such messages "Cartoonies", a
> morphed word which is a combination of "cartoon" and "attorney".
>
> Long story short: just get to the point, and never threaten what you
> can't or won't deliver. You'll get farther by being an angry customer
> than by trying to sound like something else.
>
> Bill Horne
>
I think you are missing the point Bill. A letter of this type is
neither threatening nor angry. It is a specific summation of the factrs
provided by the customer service agent about the foreign destination
charges that will be imposed. And, the letter concludes "Unless I hear
from your company to the contrary I will assume this letter accurately
reflects the statements made by your representative, Joan D, to me on
October 15, 2009."
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:22:30 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <qsrrm.161657$8B7.22762@newsfe20.iad>
Dave Garland wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>On Sep 13, 1:33 pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you are in a state where to do so is legal, I'd suggest recording
>>>the call, so you'll have irrefutable proof of what they told you.
>>
>>I am not a lawyer. Perhaps people with actual experience in
>>recording calls could respond to the following post (not merely
>>reading what the law says on paper).
>
>
> I can't speak to what you can get away with, but according to
> http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations
>
> Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call
> or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These
> "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California,
> Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana,
> Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
>
> Now, IANAL either, but if the recording started off with an
> announcement from the VM hell of the party you were calling that said
> "this call may be monitored for quality assurance", I'd take that as
> permission.
>
> [Moderator snip]
>
> Dave
>
Indeed California ia a dual-consent state, but that only applies to
intrastate calls. Interstate calls are governed by FCC rules, which are
single-consent.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:34:36 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <h8krmc$4gj$1@reader1.panix.com>
Ten years ago, I asked AT&T what the rate was Taiwan->US with my {then}
AT&T credit card. I made a a call; and got charged 6-8 times that rate.
When I got that bill; I sent a money order for the quoted rate straight
to the CEO's office with a letter. Some underling answered and admitted I
was quoted a collect rate, not the CC; one. They accepted my payment; so
I won.
The underlying problem is with phone calls, you really have no way of
knowing what rate you'll get charged...even if you asked... until AFTER
you've incurred the expense and gotten the bill.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:20:27 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Message-ID: <wVnrm.315905$E61.227653@newsfe09.iad>
Monty Solomon wrote:
> Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
>
> By Eric Bender
> Thursday, Sep. 10, 2009
>
[Moderator snip]
> That situation set antitrust alarm bells ringing when AT&T, Sprint,
> T-Mobile and Verizon all raised their pay-per-use costs of sending a
> text message from 10 cents to 20 cents over the past three years.
> That prompted Senator Herbert Kohl, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs
> the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Antitrust,
> Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, to hold hearings on the matter
> in June.
>
> http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1921373,00.html
So, was this a "feel good" hearing, or is anything going to become of it?
***** Moderator's Note *****
Senator Kohl was reelected in 2006, so he's not on the stump at the
moment. However, I doubt any legislation will be filed, since the
Senate is dealing with President Obama's Health Care reform
initiative.
Bill Horne
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Message-ID: <e4f78511-cb3a-485a-bf8b-0d2747753914@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 14, 1:44 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> ... but they also cleverly exploit today's digital phone networks,
> leveraging transmission channels between phone and cell tower that
> were originally designed to coordinate voice calls.
Long, long ago AT&T's long distance wires also carried telegraph
signals along with voice signals since the telegraph frequency was
well below voice frequency and was easily separated out, plus its
bandwidth was narrow.
> "They cost the mobile carriers so little that you could argue that
> they're free," says Collins.
One could've said the same thing about telegraph over voice lines.
But it was not "free". Telegraph circuits still required loops to a
central office and toll lines required terminal equipment to filter
out and distribute telegraph and voice signals to the proper places.
If memory serves, loading coil and repeater amp utilization on a toll
line had to be modified to accompany the telegraph signals. All that
was a cost.
While I have no great love for the wireless carriers, carrying text
messages still involves a cost of channel capacity, switching gear,
sending equipment, and terminal equipment. I wonder what happens when
a large middle or high school lets out at the end of the day and
nearly every kid is texting away simultaneously. I suppose they
queue, store, and later forward messages when capacity is reached, but
that requires a software and hardware solution.
As to anti-trust issues with cellphone companies, I'd like to know why
none offers a low-use phone where the minutes do not expire. Many
people would like to have a phone for very occasional use and no user
maintenance, but pre-paid phones require buying minutes that require
if not used and end up being almost as expensive as a regular line.
Seems to be a low-use plan might be $15/month with a $1/minute when
used.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:34:14 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Message-ID: <p7Kdnev63KQyfTPXnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@posted.visi>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> As to anti-trust issues with cellphone companies, I'd like to know why
> none offers a low-use phone where the minutes do not expire. Many
> people would like to have a phone for very occasional use and no user
> maintenance, but pre-paid phones require buying minutes that require
> if not used and end up being almost as expensive as a regular line.
> Seems to be a low-use plan might be $15/month with a $1/minute when
> used.
But that's higher than what it costs now. T-mobile prepay is $25/130
minutes with a 3 month lifetime (but time rolls over if you refill
before then) or $100/1000 min. with a year lifetime. Either of those
is a far better deal than you propose. PagePlus (and perhaps others)
also has inexpensive deals.
Me, I always lose the phone before then.
Dave
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:51:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Message-ID: <h8mvg8$5j7$1@reader1.panix.com>
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes:
>But that's higher than what it costs now. T-mobile prepay is $25/130
>minutes with a 3 month lifetime (but time rolls over if you refill
>before then) or $100/1000 min. with a year lifetime.
T-Mobile actually has a $10/90 day refill. As far as I know, it's the best
bargain in standby phone service.
--
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: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:47:23 -0400
From: Ron <ron@see.below>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Message-ID: <4hota5di2109bhvethh1ku79vj53dtredj@4ax.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> As to anti-trust issues with cellphone companies, I'd like to know
> why none offers a low-use phone where the minutes do not expire.
> Many people would like to have a phone for very occasional use and
> no user maintenance, but pre-paid phones require buying minutes that
> require if not used and end up being almost as expensive as a
> regular line. Seems to be a low-use plan might be $15/month with a
> $1/minute when used.
To the best of my knowledge, the company that comes closest to this
is Tracfone. For $20, you buy a magic number to feed to your phone
that adds 60 minutes and extends your "subscription" by 90 days.
As long as you keep your subscription alive, the minutes never
expire. You can add those 90-day extensions at any time; they extend
your current expiration date by 90 days, so you lose nothing by doing
this early.
This gives you a low-usage plan for roughly $6.75 a month.
--
Ron
(Email to tlcnom.of.plume in domain antichef.com)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:00:09 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <09CdnY4x-Z0kDzPXnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <h8jnrs$1f2$1@reader1.panix.com>,
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>In <1NKdnbHwE-denDDXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@posted.visi> Dave Garland
><dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes:
>>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>>
>>> Please write up a report of your experiences and submit it here: I'm
>>> very interested in seeing how you're received when you make that
>>> request.
>
>> If you are in a state where to do so is legal, I'd suggest recording
>> the call, so you'll have irrefutable proof of what they told you.
>
> I'd suggest that... the recording played by just about every telco
> (and far too many other businesses) at the beginning of any phone call
> that says "this call may be recorded for quality assurance or training
> purposes" grants you permission...
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> IANALB I think that announcement about how a call may be recorded
> gives them permission to record, not you. AFAIK, you have to
> announce that you are recording in order to make it legal.
There is little doubt that that is their 'intention'.
HOWEVER the actual language used does -not- specify whom it is that
'may' be doing the recording.
It is a clear announcement that -they- "may" record the call for the
purposes indicated.
It is -not- as clear, but it IS an arguable interpretation of the
actual language used, that it 'gives permission' for others to record
the call, for the purposes indicated.
The exact language that is 'nearly universally' used for this function
IS 'bad verbiage'. Precisely because it can be interpreted in
multiple ways.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:25:01 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <gu5ta5pb0v8l3bhj8jovonrqg4uke484me@4ax.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>I'm not at all sure that it's "common knowledge" among ordinary
>consumers that cellphone charges out of the country can be
>significantly higher than here.
A friend in the US who had some death threats because of an irrational individual in
the newsgroups phoned me in Canada from the Seattle area where we talked about the
situation. (I was number two on this individuals list.)
He mentioned in a conversation several montns later that our hour long conversation
cost him $20 on his long distance plan. From then on I called him or he phoned me on
my 800 number.
Now that I think about it I don't know if that was his cell phone or his land line.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <565693.8445.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
13 Sep 2009 13:35:52 -0000 John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> Take what happened to P. Morgan Brown when his wife decided to take a
> spur-of-the-moment vacation to Indonesia.
> Too bad she happened to be in one of the handful of countries that
> has a mobile network compatible with Verizon's.
That might have been the case years ago, but Verizon sells several
devices (phones/smart phones)that are hybrid GSM/CDMA that will
basically work anywhere there's a roaming agreement on CDMA or GSM
networks.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:35:18 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <s6KdnZ4-xK6rTjPXnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <359c8$4aad403f$43e693f6$16918@PRIMUS.CA>,
Geoffrey Welsh <gwelsh@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Monty Solomon wrote:
>> By Christopher Elliott
>> Tribune Media Services
>> Her Verizon bill came to a staggering $8,000. Text-messages home cost
>> an astounding $2.50 each and the meter was running at an eye-popping
>> $1.75 a minute for phone calls.
>
> Let's assume that it was a two-week vacation and that the $8000 was $5,000
> for minutes and $3,000 for messages: that's almost 3,000 minutes (almost
> three and a half hours per day) and 1200 messages (almost 100 per day).
Far fewer phone calls, or 'text messages'. A bunch of web-browsing and
e-mail reading/sending (which billed at 'per packet' rates close to that
of text messaging). One web-page, with graphics, could be *expensive*.
> ... are we so self-absorbed (or spoiled by the bundles available at
> home) that we expect our home plans to cover service worldwide?
When the 'home plan' lets you do it to any place in the world, it is not
"all that unreasonable" to assume that the costs from somewhere else in the
world ("to home") will be of the same order of magnitude. It's the _same_
collection of resources being used, just in the reverse direction.
The assumption may not be _correct_, but is it not unreasonable to expect
things to be 'of the same order of magnitude'.
> And, if my estimates are anywhere near correct,
They aren't. <grin>
> ... the person in question was a fool from the beginning for
> spending money to fly >halfway around the world just so she could
> spend half the day talking >and texting on her cellphone!
But the conclusion does hold a fair degree of validity, regardless. :)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <b19ce799-5960-4472-a9aa-5b2f5074106a@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 14, 8:52 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> The assumption may not be _correct_, but is it not unreasonable to expect
> things to be 'of the same order of magnitude'.
Correct--it is reasonable to expect prices to be in the same ballpark
with what is paid at home.
One thing special about phone rates is that they're not marked, unlike
most other consumer products and services where prices are clearly
posted.
In the old days you would ask the Operator the rate and she'd tell
you. Doesn't work anymore.
With modern technology, it ought to be very easy to have a rate sent
to the display or an audio message before the call is completed so the
caller knows what to expect. This is especially important where the
call might be expensive, such as from 'alternate operator service'
companies.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:31:29 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <MPG.251864195b9e2056989b82@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <76fc7$4aad356a$43e693f6$12935@PRIMUS.CA>, gwelsh@spamcop.net
says...
[Moderator snip]
> The pieces from my story - the Amiga and the then-record low priced
> modem - were significant stepping stones on the path to the
> computers and communication facilities we're using to discuss them
> today. They also taught me that it wasn't nearly as smart as I
> thought it was to use ribbon cable and quick-snap DB-25 connectors
> for quick and dirty RS-232 cables! Yes, I also interpreted the
> RS-232 standard in a way that I thought suited me, and that makes me
> as guilty as Commodore and that modem manufacturer. (Did I forget
> to mention that part in the original recounting? <grin>)
Remember too that the async ports on a Data General Eclipse swapped
the xmit/rcv pins.
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 (14 messages)
|
or 