Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 318 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Direct dial long distance Re: Direct dial long distance Re: Direct dial long distance Re: Direct dial long distance Re: Direct dial long distance analysis of the "9/11" pager info Maine PUC tells FairPoint to give customers rebate Verizon femtocell user report Re: Verizon femtocell user report GE, Vivendi Forge Tentative Deal on NBCU Stake Re: GE, Vivendi Forge Tentative Deal on NBCU Stake Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals Dial-1 and 800 provider for low volume user? 'Sexting' popular among teens ====== 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, 30 Nov 2009 11:48:56 -0800 (PST) From: gzm <gzmwest@yahoo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Direct dial long distance Message-ID: <b2bbb8d4-6099-40db-87dd-17948112fb19@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> Howdy: I hope this post is appropriate for this group. If not, would appreciate your redirecting me. I'm helping out my 80-something mom in Massachusetts (Arlington -- suburban Boston) with her phone service. Actually, my aim is to get a DSL line installed in her condo, send her a netbook, and have someone there set it up so that we can Skype each other. She's never used a computer and I don't expect her to use Skype for ordinary long- distance calls -- only on the specific occasions that she and I connect. I'm searching for the least expensive options for her land line phone service, long distance and Internet service. Verizon appears to be the main man in her area. They have a number of package deal combinations, but I'd like to see whether it makes sense to "un-bundle" the various services she needs. Here's my question: in the past, when I lived in the DC area, Verizon (and formerly Bell Atlantic) allowed you to select your long distance provider, and to have that company carry all of your long distance calls automatically when you dialed a long distance number from your home phone. The carrier's portion of the bill appeared on your monthly statement. For example, I could choose to have AT&T as my long distance provider, and pay their rates rather than Verizon's. I sent one check to Verizon, and they in turn paid AT&T for their charges. For a long time now I've been using dial-around services for my long distance (actually, I'm now using a MagicJack with acceptable results), but for my mom, it's a bit too much to have her dial an access number. In searching for rate comparisons for long distance providers, I've not found very much. AT&T listed a rate of $2.99/month plus 10 cents/min. http://www.shop.att.com/offer.jsp?service=ld&offer=shop_or_nw_direct&portal=shopatt Does anyone know: (a) is it still possible to have separate long- distance and local/regional carriers as before (b) what companies provide such service (c) is there a place where the fees/rates are published so I can compare them? thanks Al Fairfield, Iowa, USA Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:35:02 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Direct dial long distance Message-ID: <1432c3f2-201b-4789-8eff-f85aef34cb15@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> On Nov 30, 2:48 pm, gzm <gzmw...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm helping out my 80-something mom in Massachusetts (Arlington -- > suburban Boston) with her phone service. Actually, my aim is to get > a DSL line installed in her condo, send her a netbook, and have > someone there set it up so that we can Skype each other. She's never > used a computer and I don't expect her to use Skype for ordinary > long- distance calls -- only on the specific occasions that she and > I connect. First, each region has its own telephone rates and offerings, even by national companies. Second, my own experience in teaching computer use to a person that age who has never used a computer is hard. It's not easy getting someone used to 'typewriter mode' to think in terms of 'computer mode'. (Of course, each person is different, plenty of elderly people are heavy users.) Where I am, Verizon (our landline carrier) offers a national long distance package with local service. With that, your mother can call you as much as she wants and talk as long as she wants; as well as any other of her friends and family anywhere in the country at anytime. You get one bill and no worries. Our family found that an attractive option. Note that that includes all local and regional calling as well. I don't know what the cost would be for her. I suggest this over a computer because getting DSL, buying a notebook, installing it, etc., will be costly and might not even work out that well. Hope this helps. Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:24:05 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Direct dial long distance Message-ID: <hf8e5k$4sc$3@news.eternal-september.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >Second, my own experience in teaching computer use to a person that >age who has never used a computer is hard. It's not easy getting >someone used to 'typewriter mode' to think in terms of 'computer >mode'. (Of course, each person is different, plenty of elderly people >are heavy users.) I think this is why those services that plug a standard phone into a router are becoming popular. Seems like someone would have come up with a "picturephone" of a similar fashion by now. I wonder if they have... Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:44:48 -0500 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Direct dial long distance Message-ID: <op.u4cfcyrqo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:48:56 -0500, gzm <gzmwest@yahoo.com> wrote: > Howdy: > > I hope this post is appropriate for this group. If not, would > appreciate your redirecting me. > > I'm helping out my 80-something mom in Massachusetts (Arlington -- > suburban Boston) with her phone service. Actually, my aim is to get a > DSL line installed in her condo, send her a netbook, and have someone > there set it up so that we can Skype each other. She's never used a > computer and I don't expect her to use Skype for ordinary long- > distance calls -- only on the specific occasions that she and I > connect. > > I'm searching for the least expensive options for her land line phone > service, long distance and Internet service. Verizon appears to be the > main man in her area. They have a number of package deal combinations, > but I'd like to see whether it makes sense to "un-bundle" the various > services she needs. I agree that dialing access numbers for dial-around services is a pain, so why not just give your mom a magicJack? Is the idea of her having the netbook on 24/7 the deal-breaker? Skype, though, would require that, too, no? Why not use a "subsistence" land line with "basic" DSL, if that's available -- or even just "dry" DSL? That magicJack and an old 500 desk-set should be just great together ... . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:49:26 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Direct dial long distance Message-ID: <4B174356.6010503@thadlabs.com> On 12/2/2009 7:44 PM, tlvp wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:48:56 -0500, gzm <gzmwest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> [...] >> I'm helping out my 80-something mom in Massachusetts (Arlington -- >> suburban Boston) with her phone service. Actually, my aim is to get a >> DSL line installed in her condo, send her a netbook, and have someone >> there set it up so that we can Skype each other. She's never used a >> computer and I don't expect her to use Skype for ordinary long- >> distance calls -- only on the specific occasions that she and I >> connect. >> >> I'm searching for the least expensive options for her land line phone >> service, long distance and Internet service. Verizon appears to be the >> main man in her area. They have a number of package deal combinations, >> but I'd like to see whether it makes sense to "un-bundle" the various >> services she needs. > > I agree that dialing access numbers for dial-around services > is a pain, so why not just give your mom a magicJack? Is the > idea of her having the netbook on 24/7 the deal-breaker? > Skype, though, would require that, too, no? > > Why not use a "subsistence" land line with "basic" DSL, if > that's available -- or even just "dry" DSL? That magicJack > and an old 500 desk-set should be just great together ... . Perhaps much, much better, less confusing, and cheaper: Ooma. http://www.ooma.com/ Apparently available from Costco, too. Just the one-time cost with free calls forever as we were discussing here this past Summer. Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:54:32 -0500 From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: analysis of the "9/11" pager info Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0912011154160.18663@panix5.panix.com> - these refer to the "pages" (to "pagers"...) that were sent out in the NYC area on september 11th, and were recently released to the public by Wikileaks. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/digital-tools-to-sift-through-wikileaks-911-messages/ _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:59:47 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Maine PUC tells FairPoint to give customers rebate Message-ID: <701438.7592.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> AUGUSTA, Maine: The Maine Public Utilities Commission is ordering FairPoint Communications to give customers rebates because of its poor service. The commission says FairPoint didn't meet its specific quality performance standards in 2008 and 2009. On Monday the commission ordered FairPoint to send its Maine customers rebates of $1.72 per line each month through Dec. 1 next year. Commission Chair Sharon Reishus (RY'-shush) says the commission must protect Maine's phone customers. And she reminded FairPoint the commission can impose additional penalties if needed. FairPoint's operations in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont have been beset with problems since it bought the system from Verizon almost two years ago. http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2009/12/01/maine_puc_tells_fairpoint_to_give_customers_rebate/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Maine+news Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:18:08 -0800 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Verizon femtocell user report (Telecom) Message-ID: <siegman-CB4201.10173602122009@news.stanford.edu> (Apologies if this message is or seems trivial to some readers.) Despite being within 2 or 3 miles of downtown Palo Alto, my house (and several adjacent houses in our area) are in a dead zone or shadow zone where our Verizon cell phones (and those of anyone else coming to our house) are more or less unusable inside our house or anywhere on our lot (their displays show at most a single bar or tower which flickers randomly on and off every few seconds, losing any calls that may get connected). Two days ago we purchased a Verizon femtocell unit (officially known as a "Verizon Wireless Network Extender") and plugged it into the Ethernet router for our Comcast Triple Play Internet connection. The unit auto-connected to the Verizon Internet site within minutes; the GPS light went on a few minutes later; and we now have 2 to 4 bars on all our phones throughout our largish house (and still zero bars at the street side and the back edge of the lot). Purchase price about $120; 3 or 4 simultaneous calling channels; no monthly charge. Wish we'd done this months ago. Date: 3 Dec 2009 06:33:01 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report (Telecom) Message-ID: <20091203063301.20447.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >Purchase price about $120; 3 or 4 simultaneous calling channels; no >monthly charge. Wish we'd done this months ago. I'm impressed. In the normal world telcos pay for the base station equipment, pay for the backhaul, and pay rent to the site owner. I negotiated three cell site leases on the municipal water tower when I was the water commissioner and later the mayor. The rent is substantial, totalling about $40,000 per year even though we are in a rural area far from any major highways. But they've persuaded you to flip the model around entirely so you pay for the base station equipment, you pay for the backhaul, and you give them free rent. Time to buy VZ stock, I guess. R's, John Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:20:27 -0600 From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: GE, Vivendi Forge Tentative Deal on NBCU Stake Message-ID: <4B15505B.9070206@annsgarden.com> Looks like it's getting closer... | GE, Vivendi Forge Tentative Deal on NBC Stake | New York Times, Business, December 1, 2009 | By Jeffrey McCracken and Sam Schechner | | General Electric Co. has hammered out a tentative | agreement to buy partner Vivendi SA's minority stake in | NBC Universal for $5.8 billion, according to people | familiar with the matter,setting up a deal that would | give control of NBC Universal to Comcast Corp. http://tinyurl.com/ya5zvha Neal McLain Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 13:44:40 -0800 (PST) From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: GE, Vivendi Forge Tentative Deal on NBCU Stake Message-ID: <f1deafe2-b478-4632-83f0-f0e8b8285665@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> On Dec 1, 11:20 am, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote: > Looks like it's getting closer... > > | GE, Vivendi Forge Tentative Deal on NBC Stake > | New York Times, Business, December 1, 2009 > | By Jeffrey McCracken and Sam Schechner > | > | General Electric Co. has hammered out a tentative > | agreement to buy partner Vivendi SA's minority stake in > | NBC Universal for $5.8 billion, according to people > | familiar with the matter,setting up a deal that would > | give control of NBC Universal to Comcast Corp. > > http://tinyurl.com/ya5zvha > > Neal McLain ============= The deal is done. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/business/media/04nbc.html?_r=1 Neal McLain Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:44:25 -0600 From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals Message-ID: <4B1555F9.4020004@annsgarden.com> Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals | Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals | By Anthony Crupi, Media Week, Nov 30, 2009 | | With a handful of carriage deals set to expire at the end | of the year, Time Warner Cable has launched a preemptive | strike against programmers who may be looking to jack up | their affiliate fees. | | The cable operator on Wednesday unveiled | RollOverOrGetTough.com, a site that will allow | subscribers to weigh in on increasing programming costs. | On the home page, users are prompted to click on one of | two icons: a "rewind" button that indicates Time Warner | should "roll over" on network demand, or a "fast-forward" | button that allows customers to add their two cents to | the debate. http://tinyurl.com/ygl5uro http://rolloverorgettough.com/ The last time I wrote about this subject, Univision had announced plans to demand $1.00/subscriber/month. ----- Re: Cable Firms Raise Set-Top Box Rates http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/TELECOM_Digest_Online/1793.html Now they're talking about $3.00/sub/month? Get tough. Neal McLain Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:07:15 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals Message-ID: <DuQRm.47957$ky1.28034@newsfe14.iad> Neal McLain wrote: > Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals > > | Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals > | By Anthony Crupi, Media Week, Nov 30, 2009 > | > | With a handful of carriage deals set to expire at the end > | of the year, Time Warner Cable has launched a preemptive > | strike against programmers who may be looking to jack up > | their affiliate fees. > | > | The cable operator on Wednesday unveiled > | RollOverOrGetTough.com, a site that will allow > | subscribers to weigh in on increasing programming costs. > | On the home page, users are prompted to click on one of > | two icons: a "rewind" button that indicates Time Warner > | should "roll over" on network demand, or a "fast-forward" > | button that allows customers to add their two cents to > | the debate. > > http://tinyurl.com/ygl5uro > http://rolloverorgettough.com/ > > The last time I wrote about this subject, Univision had announced plans > to demand $1.00/subscriber/month. > > ----- > > Re: Cable Firms Raise Set-Top Box Rates > > http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/TELECOM_Digest_Online/1793.html > > Now they're talking about $3.00/sub/month? > > Get tough. > > Neal McLain > If nothing else, the time is overdue for subscribers being able to select only those channels they wish to subscribe to. Date: 3 Dec 2009 03:05:54 -0500 From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Dial-1 and 800 provider for low volume user? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0912030238130.17505@simone.lan> For several years I have had the long distance service for my house in upstate NY, the family beach house in NJ and two toll-free numbers provided by ECG. Their service is fine but their rates are kind of high and they have a lot of nuisance fees, notably a $5 low usage fee when my total bill is under $10 which it is about half the time. We are in what's known as a Tier 3 area, a rural non-Bell telco, which a lot of low cost LD companies won't serve. The beach house is VZ territory, no problem there. The bills fluctuate a lot, notably the beach house has a $0 bill for eight months of the year, and about $25 when people are there in the summer. One toll-free number terminates here, [and the other] one at my sister's house in another Tier 3 area in Vermont. I'm looking for someone else who will provide good service at lower cost, without so many nuisance fees. Any suggestions? Poking around on the net I found a company in Maine called Pioneer Telephone that looks promising with reasonable Tier 3 rates of 3.3 cpm and no monthly minimum if I get billed online. Anyone use them? R's, John PS: I'm NOT looking for dialaround, VoIP, calling cards, Skype, Magicjack, or anything else. I need something that will work when my wife picks up the phone and calls her mother, or my daughter calls home on the 800 number because she forgot her wallet. They're perfectly able to use all that other stuff, but they has better things to worry about and my wife would think it silly to have to do funky stuff just to save 1.5 cents/min. Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:33:43 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: 'Sexting' popular among teens Message-ID: <605f8d58-c3ee-4f1f-b016-bbecdee69c14@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com> NYC 1010newsradio reported that 'sexting' is common among young people, despite the risk that intimate pictures are often shared with others without consent, and that in some states sexting results in a felony charge. see: http://www.1010wins.com/Poll-Finds-Sexting-Common-Among-Young-People/5810157 IMHO, while this practice should be discouraged, kids should not be prosecuted under felony charges for this sort of thing. But I've heard from some parents who feel aggressive law enforcement is the right way to go. 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. 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 (15 messages)