|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 68 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Slammed and crammed
Re: Slammed and crammed
Re: Slammed and crammed
NY's Sen. Schumer re: phone cramming and slamming
Cell phone in the toilet, what to do?
Re: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Re: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
====== 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: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 02:18:23 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Slammed and crammed
Message-ID: <op.u86rwxctitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:45:26 -0500, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> I haven't had phone service from the telephone company in a number of
> years. I had new service installed February 2. Got my first bill
> today.
>
> It's the 1980s! I was both slammed and crammed!
>
> Slammed: The phone company itself billed me a recurring fee for
> international calling service.
>
> Crammed: A company with the innocuous name of Network Connections USA
> billed me a recurring charge for "discount" directory assistance plan.
>
> The clerk at the phone company couldn't explain how either of these
> charges were authorized, and claimed that the international calling
> plan was ordered on the initial service order. But the service didn't
> begin for 11 days after installation and it wasn't mentioned in the
> confirmation letters I received in the mail, so that's not true.
>
> Nor could he tell me who authorized the directory assistance plan.
>
> He put cramming protection on the line. For slamming protection, I
> have to fill out the form and mail it back in.
>
> A quick Google search turns up a few complaints about Network
> Connections USA going back to 2007. Anyone know who is behind the
> fraud?
Must be the season of the witch! In early February I received January
bills, both from my local loop AT&T and from AT&T Consumer Services,
with third party or calling card charges for calls from a Cayman
Islands number to various phone numbers in NYC, some made with an AT&T
calling card, issued in my name, and using my billing address, that I
never requested, others as bill-to-third calls.
Latest bills now show those call charges have been reversed, but it
took hours on the phone, through implacable IVR systems, advice to
"call back during normal business hours", reports from my local loop
AT&T that they have no business relationship with "Legacy AT&T", as
they style AT&T Consumer Services, and other frustrations both too
numerous to mention and too annoying to care to recall.
"Legacy AT&T" reports that a LD account was established with my
billing credentials, back in the late '80s, to show AT&T as my Dial-1
carrier (when my Dial-1 carrier back then was, in fact, MCI), and that
the LD calling card was first issued in the late '90s, linked to that
LD account, at the request of a person with a woman's name (and
unknown to me).
Late '80s? Late '90s? And not used until just late this past December,
appearing first on a January bill? Sounds to me like a little clever
account-creation and surreptitious back-dating, with the aim of
selling someone in the Cayman Islands a cheap calling card in time for
Christmas.
Is that "slamming"? "cramming"? just plain fraud on the part of some
personnel in whatever organization AT&T has outsourced its billing
operations to? ... other?
Anyway, both "Legacy" and local loop AT&Ts have now been requested to
close whatever LD account and/or calling cards they show,
respectively, as issued with my name/address/phone as billing data
... we'll see whether that marks an end to the story.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:07:31 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Slammed and crammed
Message-ID: <hn470j$kiv$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <op.u86rwxctitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> writes:
>Must be the season of the witch! In early February I received January
>bills, both from my local loop AT&T and from AT&T Consumer Services,
>with third party or calling card charges for calls from a Cayman
>Islands number to various phone numbers in NYC, some made with an AT&T
>calling card, issued in my name, and using my billing address, that I
>never requested, others as bill-to-third calls.
>Latest bills now show those call charges have been reversed, but it
>took hours on the phone, through implacable IVR systems,
[snip]
A letter to your State Attorney General, with a copy to the FTC,
would take 10 minutes and 88 cents (44 cents each). Using their
web based forms would be cheaper.
(I prefer letters. Oh, and for good measure, I cc my Congressman
and Senators pointing out that many of these groups have
had lots and lots of complaints, and it's about time the FTC, etc.,
got off their asses).
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:21:00 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Slammed and crammed
Message-ID: <hgiln.26061$cp7.7341@newsfe23.iad>
tlvp wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:45:26 -0500, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I haven't had phone service from the telephone company in a number of
>>years. I had new service installed February 2. Got my first bill
>>today.
>>
>>It's the 1980s! I was both slammed and crammed!
>>
>>Slammed: The phone company itself billed me a recurring fee for
>>international calling service.
>>
>>Crammed: A company with the innocuous name of Network Connections USA
>>billed me a recurring charge for "discount" directory assistance plan.
>>
>>The clerk at the phone company couldn't explain how either of these
>>charges were authorized, and claimed that the international calling
>>plan was ordered on the initial service order. But the service didn't
>>begin for 11 days after installation and it wasn't mentioned in the
>>confirmation letters I received in the mail, so that's not true.
>>
>>Nor could he tell me who authorized the directory assistance plan.
>>
>>He put cramming protection on the line. For slamming protection, I
>>have to fill out the form and mail it back in.
>>
>>A quick Google search turns up a few complaints about Network
>>Connections USA going back to 2007. Anyone know who is behind the
>>fraud?
>
>
> Must be the season of the witch! In early February I received January
> bills, both from my local loop AT&T and from AT&T Consumer Services,
> with third party or calling card charges for calls from a Cayman
> Islands number to various phone numbers in NYC, some made with an AT&T
> calling card, issued in my name, and using my billing address, that I
> never requested, others as bill-to-third calls.
>
> Latest bills now show those call charges have been reversed, but it
> took hours on the phone, through implacable IVR systems, advice to
> "call back during normal business hours", reports from my local loop
> AT&T that they have no business relationship with "Legacy AT&T", as
> they style AT&T Consumer Services, and other frustrations both too
> numerous to mention and too annoying to care to recall.
>
> "Legacy AT&T" reports that a LD account was established with my
> billing credentials, back in the late '80s, to show AT&T as my Dial-1
> carrier (when my Dial-1 carrier back then was, in fact, MCI), and that
> the LD calling card was first issued in the late '90s, linked to that
> LD account, at the request of a person with a woman's name (and
> unknown to me).
>
> Late '80s? Late '90s? And not used until just late this past December,
> appearing first on a January bill? Sounds to me like a little clever
> account-creation and surreptitious back-dating, with the aim of
> selling someone in the Cayman Islands a cheap calling card in time for
> Christmas.
>
> Is that "slamming"? "cramming"? just plain fraud on the part of some
> personnel in whatever organization AT&T has outsourced its billing
> operations to? ... other?
>
> Anyway, both "Legacy" and local loop AT&Ts have now been requested to
> close whatever LD account and/or calling cards they show,
> respectively, as issued with my name/address/phone as billing data
> ... we'll see whether that marks an end to the story.
>
> Cheers, -- tlvp
> --
> Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
>
I got so burned out by all the bad stuff that went on with cramming,
slamming, and worse, even with blocking, I gave up my LEC wireline
service for a period of time.
I am back, because of the reliability and the 911 "anchor," but I have
everything blocked, toll restriction (I pay for that), and no designated
inter-LATA carrier. As I progressed through this I was confronted by
uncooperative and/or unknowlegeable representatives. But, I persisted.
As I have said before, we have used Vonage for our outgoing toll line
since its inception.
The AT$T wireline phone is for incoming calls and real 911.
I would think you retired troops from the pre-divest Bell System would
be saddened by how crummy your former august companies have become.
I have to wonder about maintenance as the end-office switches and local
loop gain ever more idle capacity.
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:26:52 -0500
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: NY's Sen. Schumer re: phone cramming and slamming
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1003082113530.12179@panix5.panix.com>
[Schumer press release]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 8, 2010
SCHUMER REVEALS: MYSTERY CHARGES ADDED TO NY'ERS CELL PHONE BILLS
WITHOUT THEIR NOTIFICATION - COSTS COUNTLESS NY PHONE USERS HUNDREDS
EVERY YEAR
Scam Called "Cramming"-- Bogus Charges for Calling Services NY'ers
Never Signed Up For Added to Bills but Bills So Complex Most NY'ers
Never Even Notice the Charges - Loophole in Phone Deregulation Allows
Scammers to Add Charges No Questions Asked
....
Schumer to Call for Federal Crackdown on "Cramming", Require
Notification Before Any New Charges Are Added to a Phone Bill
....
"Consumers and businesses are being swindled by cramming charges and
it's time to put a stop to it," Schumer said. "Cramming is an annoying
scam that is not only costing people thousands of dollars in bogus
fees, but countless hours of valuable time trying to get those charges
removed.
........
According to a recent FTC filing, cramming has become a significant
area of increasing consumer complaint. The FTC received over 3,000
complaints over the last year regarding unauthorized charges on
telephone bills, including landline, mobile wireless, and VoIP
services.
-----------
rest:
http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=322880&
- so the FTC has received over 3,000 complaints. One Would Think
that they'd actually, you know, do something useful.
My rec's:
a: any telco agreement to allow for third party billing must
include something like "if there's more than a one percent
complaint rate, this agreement is dead".
b: the telco's must agree to handle customer complaints
directly and not tell customers they have to find that elusive
third party.
c: fraud by these companies, and the telcos, should be treated
as the theft and crime it is. Including criminal charges.
d: customer accounts should have a default setting of no
third party billing allowed on them, with an option of
allowing "just direct phone related" charges.
Oh, and let's not forget the complicity of the various gov't
agencies in creating these charges in the first place. Such
as the "Gore Tax" and lots and lots of other fees and "911
surchages" and all sorts of other taxes and non tax taxes...
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:25:23 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Cell phone in the toilet, what to do?
Message-ID: <4B94A663.4060106@thadlabs.com>
It's not often there's something funny (as in "Hah hah!") in the
"COMPUTING Q&A" column of the San Francisco Chronicle, but today
there was:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/07/BU8O1CATE9.DTL
What to do when cell phone falls in the toilet
Q: I accidentally dropped my cell phone into the toilet, and now it
doesn't work. Is there any way to salvage it, or am I out of luck?
A: I'd bet on "out of luck," but there are a few things you can try.
Two $20 products - the Bheestie Bag (from bheestie.com) and Dry-All
(from dry-all.com) - are designed to remove moisture from soaked cell
phones and other devices.
They both use a desiccant in the form of moisture-absorbing beads.
You place the device (sans battery) into a Bheestie Bag or a sealed
container with Dry-All and let the beads do their job overnight.
Other, cheaper options include rice and kitty litter. You also could
use packets of silica that come with some medicines.
Your chances of salvaging your phone depend on how water resistant
it is, how much water seeped into it, and how long it stayed wet
before you took action to dry it out. In other words, there are no
guarantees. Your best bet is to be very careful when using a phone,
MP3 player or other small electronic device around liquids.
Some of the Reader-Comments are humorous and/or useful, too:
1. Ziploc and a bunch of the dessicant packets that come with Japanese
rice crackers. Leave alone 2-3 days.
If you have a removable battery, take it out of the phone ASAP.
Do not take to carrier as there are moisture detection strips inside
the phone they will check and will charge you full price for a
replacement phone.
2. My son's cell phone went through an entire wash cycle and 55
minutes in the dryer. It was obvious the screen was shot since we
could watch water roll about in it. So we went to Target bought a
cheap prepaid phone and put his SIM card in it. Works like a charm
and who told us to do this, a guy working at a T-Mobole (sic) kiosk in
the mall. Saved us yet another two year commitment if we had bought
the phone through them.
3. you have only one business to do in the toilet, and it "aint"
playing with your phone.
4. Remind yourself as you are buying a new phone that nothing in this
world is so important that it can't wait until you finish pooping...
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 07:47:55 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Message-ID: <hn2a3a$m7p$4@news.eternal-september.org>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>How well will the telecom infrastructure withstand a quake? That
>includes...
I was managing a telephone call center when the Pretty Big One (the Loma
Prieta quake) hit in 1989.
T-1 circuits from SF to Mountain View stayed up. Power was out in SF, but I
think this was largely a precaution to avoid igniting natural gas fires (the
apartment building in SF's Marina district that showed the massive fire was
really a large gaslight fed by a gas main that our local utility PG&E couldn't
figure how to turn off.
Local central offices seemed to be okay, but that was in the days when most of
SF was wired to telco COs and they had backup batteries. I am told that
Pacific Bell (the local RBOC) and AT&T (the long distance company) still
shared the McCoppin Street (MArket exchange) central office and that before
long, AT&T was draining PacBell's batteries.
Now, the thing about quakes is that they strike oddly. While the epicenter
was in the Forest of Nicene Marks in the Santa Cruz Mountains between San Jose
and Santa Cruz, it devastated an area of downtown Santa Cruz and leveled the
downtown of, I think Hollister, but barely touched nearby Los Gatos or San
Jose. It collapsed a freeway in Oakland (the Cypress Structure), about 60
miles from the epicenter, but didn't do much damage inbetween. It caused
damage in San Francisco, but not much to speak of in the closer cities of San
Mateo, Burlingame, Redwood City, etc. Also, none of those cities to my
knowledge lost power.
So, basically I'm saying that hardwired equipment will probably be okay, but
that you just can't know exactly what areas will be hit and which will remain
untouched.
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:34:25 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Message-ID: <4B95B3B1.708@thadlabs.com>
On 3/7/2010 11:47 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> [...]
> Now, the thing about quakes is that they strike oddly. While the epicenter
> was in the Forest of Nicene Marks in the Santa Cruz Mountains between San Jose
> and Santa Cruz, it devastated an area of downtown Santa Cruz and leveled the
> downtown of, I think Hollister, but barely touched nearby Los Gatos or San
> Jose. It collapsed a freeway in Oakland (the Cypress Structure), about 60
> miles from the epicenter, but didn't do much damage inbetween. It caused
> damage in San Francisco, but not much to speak of in the closer cities of San
> Mateo, Burlingame, Redwood City, etc. Also, none of those cities to my
> knowledge lost power.
It's been 21 years and I recall the power was out for awhile on the Peninsula
(Mountain View, Cupertino, Los Altos, Palo Alto, etc.) but must have been
restored quickly since I don't recall using my generator.
Landlines were OK. This was before I had my first cell phone and I recall
calling PG&E to report a possible gas leak; they arrived quickly and found
the odor to be from broken/spilled insecticide bottles in a neighbor's
garage.
> So, basically I'm saying that hardwired equipment will probably be okay, but
> that you just can't know exactly what areas will be hit and which will remain
> untouched.
It's important to know what areas are susceptible for insurance and simply
peace-of-mind purposes. California requires (since the 1971 San Fernando
earthquake) all rupture zones, liquefaction zones, landslide zones, and
dike failure zones be publicly available by county as hazard maps. In my
county (Santa Clara) such maps are available as legal-sized (8-1/2" x 14")
PDFs here:
http://www.sccplanning.org
They're quite detailed and one's lot can be easily seen by magnifying using
a PDF reader.
Flood zone maps (for Santa Clara County) are only available at the Santa Clara
County Building Inspection Office in the county government center at
70 W. Hedding St., East Wing, 7th Floor, San Jose.
Similar resources should be available for all other California counties and,
given this was mandated by FEMA, I'd venture to guess is also available
throughout the USA.
With such maps one can see vulnerabilities around one's home and also at
COs and cellphone tower structures.
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:29:38 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Message-ID: <pan.2010.03.08.10.29.35.4171@myrealbox.com>
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:25:24 +1100, David Clayton wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:20:19 -0500, Dan Lanciani wrote: ........
>> For anyone who has the necessary unix-style machine on all the time and
>> whose answering machine is reaching end-of-life I recommend this
>> approach.
>> If you have other functions that can be subsumed by Asterisk (e.g.,
>> alarm
>> dialer) the payoff may be even higher, though at the cost of increased
>> single-point-of-failure issues.
>
> Must use a lot more juice than a stand-alone answering machine?
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Not compared to the cost of a new answering machine: PC's are much more
> power-friendly these days, and there are now "PC Cubes" that have no
> mechanical parts and whose power consumption may be less than that of an
> answering machine.
>
> In any case, the versatility of the Asterisk software makes the
> comparison problematic: take a PC one-generation-out-of-fashion, some
> free-as-in-speech software, and some time, and you have a combined
> voicemail, PBX, and emergency-alert system for zero cash outlay. That
> difference covers a lot of electricity.
I have actually done measurements of all the electrical devices in my
home and unfortunately PC hardware still consumes quite a bit of juice
24x7 in comparison to something like my cordless Handset/Answering
machine + VoIP modem combo.
You can build low power PC devices these days with low power hard
drives and low power CPUs etc - or source those little boxes designed
for POS use that are low power - but you do need to combine a lot of
functions to balance out the power use of all the separate devices.
The modern world has so much equipment in the home/office these days
just sitting there consuming power - even down to mobile battery
chargers that some of us have plugged in all the time just waiting to
charge up our handsets when we need it.
I have a power board on my PC that controls power to all my ancillary
devices via the PC power connection (had a USB controlled one a while
back, but a new motherboard made that useless), it only saves a small
amount overall but at least it's something
--
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: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:59:30 -0600
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Message-ID: <OsSdnS17u9mP1AjWnZ2dnUVZ_g8yAAAA@supernews.com>
(Moderator's note)
>Small nitpick: I think it's reasonable to expert privacy when using
>an unsecured WiFi hotspot, but not reasonable to expect _exclusivity_.
How can you possibly have privacy on an unsecured hotspot? By definition,
everything is in the clear unless you happen to be using an ssl equipped
service.
The blackhat conference has the "wall of sheep" precisely for people who
don't pay attention like this. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 12:24:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Message-ID: <879b5811-ce1f-481e-a0e6-37b8fa2ec0d2@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 7, 10:24 pm, tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeL...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:26:07 -0500, following what
> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote, Moderator added:
>
> > ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> > Small nitpick: I think it's reasonable to expert privacy when using
> > an unsecured WiFi hotspot, but not reasonable to expect _exclusivity_.
>
> May I ask a "test-case" question?
>
> Background: many owner-occupied single-family residences have a
> water spigot mounted near the foundation, for use with lawn- or
> garden-watering equipment. Such water is usually billed, either
> by the gallon or by the 100 cubic feet, to the home-owner.
>
> Questions: is it "reasonable" for an unrelated person unobtrusively
> to use the water from such a spigot? and "unreasonable" for the
> home-owner to expect "exclusivity"-of-use for that (payable) resource?
>
> I, myself, take no position on these questions for now, but wonder ... .
>
> TIA. And cheers, -- tlvp
> - -
> Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The problem with talking about Access Points is that most analogies to
> the brick-and-morter world don't apply. With few exceptions, Internet
> access for homeowners isn't billed by the Megabyte: it would, of
> course, be wrong for someone sharing a WiFi Access Point to
> knowingly cause it's owner to pay extra, but that's not the usual
> case.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
In Washington, DC it is quite common for the Taxi Drivers to pull up
in front of a private home, late at night; hook up to the sillcock,
and wash their cabs. The front of many homes in the District of
Columbia are at the sidewalk line so there is no yard to pass
through. I found a cabby doing it at a home I was house sitting. He
was so surprised when the police responded to my complaint. He was
even more surprised when they seized his wall hydrant key ring as
evidence on a charge of possession of burglary tools. The police who
responded told me that the practice was quite wide spread but that
when they made arrests they usually loose in court because the
complaining witness does not show The cabby was really bummed out
when I not only appeared but brought the homes security videos showing
he was a repeat offender. The court fined him several thousand
dollars and pulled his hack license. The Hack Bureau went on a tare
and started using security videos from public and private buildings to
check on cabby misconduct. Strangely enough the judge opined from the
bench that had their been an unfenced fountain from which the cabby
had pulled water with a bucket for the same use he would have been
blameless at law. Not surprisingly the cabbies prefer pressurized
water so the fountains that the city has plenty of don't seem to get
molested. What does surprise me is that cabbies and others continue
to use other peoples wall hydrants and water to wash cars. About two
years ago I saw a group of cabbies sharing a portable water meter off
of a fire hydrant. I wonder who turned them on to the legal way of
doing it. It seems that if you have to operate any device that is
owned by another to obtain the thing you are using the act constitutes
trespass and theft. In the case I got involved in the act constituted
burglary of a dwelling in the night time. An interesting side note is
that these water thieves often cause false fire alarms by hooking up
to fire sprinkler drains in parking garages. They are always gone
when the responding firefighters arrive though. The sprinkler systems
water motor gong on the front of the building coming up to it's full
roar is kind of a clue that they had best leave.
As to what this has to do with telecom the McCullough circuits that
are still in use in Washington, DC for fire alarms travel over leased
lines. Now that I have my tongue out of my cheek I'll point out that
the wifi is a lot more like a fountain than a wall hydrant. In the
absence of a fence between the fountain and the public way the
fountain is an offer of water to the public. The hose bib that you
have to open with a valve or key is not such an offer.
--
Tom Horne
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:38:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Message-ID: <hn45ag$ibe$3@news.albasani.net>
tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:
>May I ask a "test-case" question?
>Background: many owner-occupied single-family residences have a
>water spigot mounted near the foundation, for use with lawn- or
>garden-watering equipment. Such water is usually billed, either
>by the gallon or by the 100 cubic feet, to the home-owner.
>Questions: is it "reasonable" for an unrelated person unobtrusively
>to use the water from such a spigot? and "unreasonable" for the
>home-owner to expect "exclusivity"-of-use for that (payable) resource?
>I, myself, take no position on these questions for now, but wonder ... .
Water in plumbing that one owns is not a public resource comparable to
public use of the radio spectrum, a public resource. Bad analogy.
If the water were still in the lake or river or aquifer from whence it came,
sure, have a sip.
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 00:41:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Message-ID: <201003080541.AAA14947@ss10.danlan.com>
dcstar@myrealbox.com (David Clayton) wrote:
|On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:20:19 -0500, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|........
|> For anyone who has the necessary unix-style machine on all the time and
|> whose answering machine is reaching end-of-life I recommend this approach.
|> If you have other functions that can be subsumed by Asterisk (e.g., alarm
|> dialer) the payoff may be even higher, though at the cost of increased
|> single-point-of-failure issues.
|
|Must use a lot more juice than a stand-alone answering machine?
I was careful to specify that this applied to someone who has the
necessary unix-style machine on all the time. I would argue that
the incremental "juice" used by running Asterisk (which is likely
sleeping most of the time) is probably less than that used by any
stand-alone answering machine. Of course, it does depend on what
you are using for the FXO interface.
|***** Moderator's Note *****
|
|Not compared to the cost of a new answering machine: PC's are much
|more power-friendly these days, and there are now "PC Cubes" that have
|no mechanical parts and whose power consumpsion may be less than that
|of an answering machine.
|
|In any case, the versatility of the Asterisk software makes the
|comparison problematic: take a PC one-generation-out-of-fashion, some
|free-as-in-speech software, and some time, and you have a compined
|voicemail, PBX, and emergency-alert system for zero cash outlay. That
|difference covers a lot of electricity.
I should mention that the machine I use for Asterisk must be at
least three generations out of fashion (I've lost track of how
they count but it is 6+ years old and it wasn't cutting edge
when I bought it) and it also acts as my DVR (which is was
doing before I installed Asterisk) and does a few other home
automation tasks.
Oh, one tip if you install Asterisk: take the time (and it isn't
much time--the Wiki makes it sound more complicated than it is)
to make the Asterisk server process run as some user other than
root. There are really very few file it needs to write and it
isn't even necessary to change the ownership of the config and
sound files. I suggest this because the Asterisk code, while
very useful, isn't super robust. You don't want to be the next
victim of some SIP-delivered stack overflow root shell escape
attack. Similar note if you install the Festival speech
synthesizer. There is no reason at all for it to run as root
though that is the default installation.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
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 (12 messages)
|
or 