|
|
The Telecom Digest for April 12, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 101 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Phone in one hand, ticket in the other (Thad Floryan)
Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones (Gordon Burditt)
Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon, to Join Toll-Free 800, 888, 877, 866 Area Codes (Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ)
Re: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon, to Join Toll-Free 800, 888, 877, 866 Area Codes (danny burstein)
Re: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ... (Barry Margolin)
Re: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon, to Join Toll-Free 800, 888, 877, 866 Area Codes (Bill Horne)
Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ... (Jeff or Lisa)
Mexico shutting down 25.9 Million cellphones (Thad Floryan)
Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ... (Jeff or Lisa)
Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ... (Thad Floryan)
Please do not change your password (Monty Solomon)
====== 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, 11 Apr 2010 10:45:40 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Phone in one hand, ticket in the other
Message-ID: <4BC20AC4.6060308@thadlabs.com>
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/feds-fund-distracted-driving-traps/
In an effort to curb cellphone use by drivers, federal regulators said
on Thursday that they planned a pilot project to test "high visibility"
crackdown efforts in two cities, Hartford and Syracuse.
The tests entail ramping up enforcement on state bans of hands-free
phones by motorists, advertising the campaigns and undertaking studies
to see if the efforts curb behavior and attitudes. The Transportation
Department says it wants to send the message: "Phone in One Hand.
Ticket in the Other."
The federal government said it would spend $200,000 in each city, while
each state would contribute $100,000. Connecticut's pilot program will
take place April 10-16 and New York's will take place April 8-17.
The federal agency said the efforts drew on programs aimed at
discouraging drunk driving and encouraging use of seat belts.
[ Click-it-or-ticket program:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811232.pdf
]
"It's time for drivers to act responsibly, put their hands on the wheel
and focus on the road," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who
last year called distracted driving an "epidemic."
Six states ban hand-held use of cellphones; 21 ban texting. Still, use
of devices by drivers continues to rise, according to various polls.
Some police officers say enforcement is difficult because, for instance,
it can be difficult to tell the difference between a motorist texting
or dialing a phone, an act not prohibited under any law.
Studies have shown that drivers talking on a cellphone face four times
the crash risk of someone not talking on a cellphone, and that the
risks at least double when a motorist is texting.
Mr. LaHood and safety advocates have said that curbing the behavior
requires enforcement and education, which they say has been clearly
evident in past efforts with seat belts and drunk driving. Ultimately,
Mr. LaHood said, the challenge is steep in trying to change a culture
in which many motorists feel it is safe or acceptable to use a mobile
device.
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:07:22 -0500
From: gordonb.epcgy@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones
Message-ID: <FPydncq8NpKnHlzWnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>My car is pretty high-tech but it is silent while in motion unless I
>activate a route in the GPS Navigator. But, that is my choice, not
>forced upon me.
>
>My car also has a factory-installed hands-free BlueTooth link to my
>cell phone...again my choice for the resultant noise if someone
>calls.
Please don't use it while driving.
It irritates me a lot whenever I see some commercial selling a
hands-free solution to "talking on the phone while driving" which can
pretty much only be used to talk on the phone while driving.
For those advocating a technical solution, I think it's going to be
very difficult to meet all the desirable characteristics of such a
system, and when it malfunctions, someone will be sued:
1. You don't want the driver talking on the phone while he's driving,
free hands or not. Ditto texting, dialing, answering, surfing the
web, and watching mobile TV (the next big cause of distracted
driving), hands-free or not.
2. You don't want to prohibit the driver from talking on the phone
when his car is disabled at the side of (or middle of) the road.
Or parked somewhere.
3. You don't want to prohibit the driver of that Toyota that wouldn't
stop and was stuck at 90mph from calling 911 to get help, even if
he was faking it.
4. You don't want to prohibit the driver who's having medical
problems (e.g. heart attack, epileptic seizure) with cruise
control on who can't stop the car from calling for help.
5. There's nothing wrong with *passengers* talking on the phone while
driving. On several long trips with lots of people in multiple
cars, it's proved useful to assign a "communications officer" in
each car (not the driver) to coordinate navigation, rest stops,
look up directions on the Internet, and such, with the other cars
rather than having all of the cars try to guess what the first car
is going to do and try to follow it. I think that takes a lot of
distraction away from the driver.
6. There's nothing wrong with passengers on buses, trains, trolleys
(some of which follow roads), amusement park rides, boats in
runaway flood waters, etc. using the phone. Especially for
emergencies.
7. You don't want the driver suddenly moving right 5 lanes and
pulling off the road and stopping so he can answer a call before
it stops ringing. That's what you get if you turn off the cell
phone while the car is in motion but still let it ring. I've seen
this several times from just behind the guy. One was a tire
blowout; my bet is the others were incoming cell phone calls. You
want a brain-free cellular answering machine (voice mail) which
does not notify of an incoming call while driving. That's going
to upset people who want to call the driver to say "come back;
meeting cancelled" or "you forgot your presentation".
8. You don't want the driver talking about subjects that require
concentration, such as talking to the boss about a promotion, or
talking to a soon-to-be-ex-wife about child custody, even as
fellow passengers. Probably the only saving grace of passengers
is that the passengers may act to save their own lives by yelling
at the driver if he's neglecting his driving.
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 05:28:54 -0600
From: "Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ" <fred@remove-this.wb4aej.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon, to Join Toll-Free 800, 888, 877, 866 Area Codes
Message-ID: <008e01cad96a$2b7ea000$c800000a@mishmash>
> "DSMI, the FCC's designated Toll Free Administrator, has notified
> the FCC of the projected exhaust of current toll free numbers and
> requested approval to release the 855 NPA code. Timeframe for
> availability of 855 numbers is no later than 4Q-2011."
The thing that seems odd is that [with the cost of long distance very
low or non-existant on my telephone services] is why there is such a need
for toll-free numbers any more. When everyone gets flat rate long distance
[and that day is coming], they will be of no additional value over
standard numbers.
So why is there such a big rush to growth on them?
Fred
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:15:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon, to Join Toll-Free 800, 888, 877, 866 Area Codes
Message-ID: <hpt75d$q7i$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <008e01cad96a$2b7ea000$c800000a@mishmash> "Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ" <fred@remove-this.remove-this.wb4aej.com> writes:
>> "DSMI, the FCC's designated Toll Free Administrator, has notified
>> the FCC of the projected exhaust of current toll free numbers and
>> requested approval to release the 855 NPA code. Timeframe for
>> availability of 855 numbers is no later than 4Q-2011."
> The thing that seems odd is that [with the cost of long distance very
>low or non-existant on my telephone services] is why there is such a need
>for toll-free numbers any more. When everyone gets flat rate long distance
>[and that day is coming], they will be of no additional value over
>standard numbers.
It looks more professional for the company, and gives
the impression that the caller is dealing with a national
organization rather than a local rinky-dink all the
way over in East Cupcake.
(Of course, if the caller is also in East Cupcake, they
might prefer knowing that when they head to the phone...).
> Fred
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:21:54 -0400
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ...
Message-ID: <barmar-986FDE.22215411042010@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>
In article <hpt75d$q7i$1@reader1.panix.com>,
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> In <008e01cad96a$2b7ea000$c800000a@mishmash> "Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ"
> <fred@remove-this.remove-this.remove-this.wb4aej.com> writes:
>
> > The thing that seems odd is that [with the cost of long distance very
> >low or non-existant on my telephone services] is why there is such a need
> >for toll-free numbers any more. When everyone gets flat rate long distance
> >[and that day is coming], they will be of no additional value over
> >standard numbers.
>
> It looks more professional for the company, and gives
> the impression that the caller is dealing with a national
> organization rather than a local rinky-dink all the
> way over in East Cupcake.
That's always bugged me about Walt Disney World. To make a reservation
there, you have to call 407-WDISNEY. How could a company like this not
offer a toll free number?
Maybe they think they're so well known and popular that they don't need
this to increase their goodwill. People will go to Disney despite
having to pay to call them (and in many cases they probably make the
reservations through an agent, so they never call in the first place).
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:29:59 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon, to Join Toll-Free 800, 888, 877, 866 Area Codes
Message-ID: <JsednbMve7qlvl_WnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
On 4/11/2010 7:28 AM, Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ wrote:
>> "DSMI, the FCC's designated Toll Free Administrator, has notified
>> the FCC of the projected exhaust of current toll free numbers and
>> requested approval to release the 855 NPA code. Timeframe for
>> availability of 855 numbers is no later than 4Q-2011."
>
> The thing that seems odd is that [with the cost of long distance very
> low or non-existant on my telephone services] is why there is such a need
> for toll-free numbers any more. When everyone gets flat rate long distance
> [and that day is coming], they will be of no additional value over
> standard numbers.
>
> So why is there such a big rush to growth on them?
Companies pay for toll-free service because it comes with accurate ANI
information that allows them to prioritize and route the calls before
the call is answered.
If you're calling Land's End, and they have your number in their
database as someone who places orders on every call and spends more than
<secret-threshold-value>, you'll get a live attendant. If not, you get
voice-mail-hell. If you owe them money, you get
voice-mail-hell-with-attitude.
The point is, the decision is made while the line is still ringing. The
economies of scale are worth millions.
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff or Lisa <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ...
Message-ID: <f2a2d5a8-87cd-403d-9435-818f68fd8a95@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 11, 7:28 am, "Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ" <f...@remove-
this.remove-this.wb4aej.com> wrote:
> The thing that seems odd is that [with the cost of long distance
> very low or non-existant on my telephone services] is why there is
> such a need for toll-free numbers any more. When everyone gets flat
> rate long distance [and that day is coming], they will be of no
> additional value over standard numbers.
>
> So why is there such a big rush to growth on them?
First, for some reason, large companies have a large amount of toll-
free numbers that seem to end up to the same call center. I don't
know this is, but they do it But also, many companies have different
toll free numbers for different purposes--sales, service, internal,
different product lines, etc.
Secondly, per your post, the cost of long distance is not necessarily
that low for many telephone users, especially people who don't make
many calls, or businesses which don't get residential discounts. The
cost for my unlimited long distance on my residential line is not
inconsequential.
Third, calling a business might result in a long phone call due to
waiting on hold, being transferred, phone mail jail, etc. Someone
paying per minute, even at a modest rate, won't appreciate that.
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:23:15 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Mexico shutting down 25.9 Million cellphones
Message-ID: <4BC22FB3.5060106@thadlabs.com>
The following article is in today's Slashdot. Normally I'd include
the cited URLs, but some are so long (especially the ones invoking
Google's language translator) it's not feasible and I do NOT like
TinyURL and similar due to "hiding" of the destination site as
regards security.
The short Slashdot article is included below in its entirety and the
article itself is at the following URL if you'd like to click on
and view the article-cited URLs in Spanish or translated to English:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/11/1930249/Mexico-Will-Shut-Down-259-Million-Cell-Phones
" Several months ago, as a way to prevent the use of cellular phones in
" criminal activities, the government of Mexico started a program to
" require all phone owners to register cell phones in their own
" names. The registry associates each phone with the listed owner's
" Clave Unica de Registro de Poblacion (CURP) [CURP, in English], which
" is supposed to be a unique ID for every Mexican citizen.
"
" Yesterday the timeline to register the cell phones expired, and there
" are [approx 26] million cell phones yet unregistered (English
" translation of the Spanish original). While the procedure is simple,
" sending a text message with the CURP to a special number, most people
" do not want to register: some are wary of the uses to which the
" government will put the data; others did not understand or did not
" know the procedure. So far, only 69% have registered, most of them in
" the last few days, while the system to register has been
" oversaturated. So in an unprecedented move for any country, the
" Mexican government is announcing the shutdown of 25.9 million cell
" phone lines. Meanwhile, as a measure of protest, hundreds of people
" have registered their cell phones in the name of the president of
" Mexico, Felipe Calderon Hinojosa, to show how pointless is the
" registry.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I wonder if there are exceptions for "disposable" phones, such as
those sold at airports, or for other reasons. While I admire the
Mexican government's decisiveness in this matter (a quality sadly
lacking in the U.S. government's handling of every technical challenge
from uniform rules for ten-digit-dialing to the Citizens Radio Service
debacle), I can't help but wonder just how effective such programs
really are in reducing crime.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff or Lisa <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ...
Message-ID: <6e3b4bca-1d9e-47a7-bf26-a59d82485dc0@z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 10, 11:44 pm, "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The original AT&T/Bell System Inward-WATS toll-free 800 was
> introduced in the US over the 1966/67 time-frame. Alabama was the
> first state with intra-state "only" 800 service in 1966, and then
> during Spring 1967, inter-state nationwide (48-states/DC only) 800
> toll-free service was introduced. I don't know when the other 47
> states began their own intra-state "only" 800 service though.
Mark, thanks for your report. Good to hear from you again and hope
you'll be sending the newsgroup more of your excellent contributions.
As an aside, the Bell System offered a manually connected toll free
service since the 1930s. It's name varied by location, but often
called "Enterprise". One dialed their operator and asked for
Enterprise nnnn. The operator looked it up in table to get the actual
number and placed a collect call to it, not bothering to get
permission to accept the charges. This service was offered for both
intra state and interstate callers, even short haul toll callers.
This service apparently ceased in the 1990s. In its last days, one
had to get an AT&T operator supervisor to dig out the conversion table
since the service was very rarely used by that point and most
operators never heard of it. Indeed, once 800 numbers came out, I
don't know why the service lasted as long as it did. Anyone know?
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:35:51 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ...
Message-ID: <4BC278F7.5060805@thadlabs.com>
On 4/11/2010 4:04 PM, Jeff or Lisa wrote:
> [...]
> As an aside, the Bell System offered a manually connected toll free
> service since the 1930s. It's name varied by location, but often
> called "Enterprise". One dialed their operator and asked for
> Enterprise nnnn. The operator looked it up in table to get the actual
> number and placed a collect call to it, not bothering to get
> permission to accept the charges. This service was offered for both
> intra state and interstate callers, even short haul toll callers.
>
> This service apparently ceased in the 1990s. In its last days, one
> had to get an AT&T operator supervisor to dig out the conversion table
> since the service was very rarely used by that point and most
> operators never heard of it. Indeed, once 800 numbers came out, I
> don't know why the service lasted as long as it did. Anyone know?
No, but you have a good memory! :-) The last time I heard of such
"Enterprise" numbers must have been during the late 1950s.
A Google search didn't turn up anything useful (the word "enterprise"
is too ubiquitous) but it did find the following article from this
group's archives dated 7-May-2007 in which "Enterprise" is attributed
to AT&T and "Zenith" to GTE:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/TELECOM_Digest_Online/1186.html
Dunno 'bout everyone else, but reading white print on a star-studded
black background is neither easy nor comfortable for me.
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's a scientific fact that dark backgrounds and white (or color)
symbols, combined with proper lighting, is the most easily readable
presentation. That's why the FAA uses it on "radar" displays in
aircraft control centers.
But you're right about the archives, and I'm working on it.
Vis-a-vis "Enterprise" numbers: some may still be in service -
http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/911center/history.htm
http://state.hi.us/dlnr/chair/pio/HtmlNR/02-09.htm
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:48:15 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Please do not change your password
Message-ID: <p06240826c7e83a2be92f@[10.0.1.4]>
Please do not change your password
You were right: It's a waste of your time. A study says much computer
security advice is not worth following.
By Mark Pothier | April 11, 2010
To continue reading this story, enter your password now. If you do
not have a password, please create one. It must contain a minimum of
eight characters, including upper- and lower-case letters and one
number. This is for your own good.
Nonsense, of course, but it helps illustrate a point: You will need a
computer password today, maybe a half dozen or more - those secret
sign-ins that serve as sentries for everything from Amazon shopping
carts to work files to online bank accounts. Just when you have them
all sorted out, along comes another "urgent" directive from the bank
or IT department - time to reset those codes, for safety's sake. And
the latest lineup of log-ins you've concocted won't last for long,
either. Some might temporarily stay in your head, others are jotted
on scraps of paper and stuffed in a wallet. A few might be taped to
your computer monitor in plain view (or are those are from last
year's batch? Who can remember?).
Now, a study has concluded what lots of us have long suspected: Many
of these irritating security measures are a waste of time. The study,
by a top researcher at Microsoft, found that instructions intended to
spare us from costly computer attacks often exact a much steeper
price in the form of user effort and time expended.
...
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/04/11/please_do_not_change_your_password/
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 (11 messages)
|
or 