The Telecom Digest for August 19, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 224 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 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: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:55:08 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: For drivers, frisky dogs are as distracting as texting
Message-ID: <p06240867c8919686a8eb@[10.0.1.3]>
For drivers, frisky dogs are as distracting as texting
August 18, 2010 09:05 AM
Globe Staff
Much attention has been paid to texting while driving - a
behind-the-wheel texting ban will soon go into effect in the Bay
State - but feeding puppy treats to Fido while driving can also be
risky and distracting.
So suggests a new survey from AAA and Kurgo, a maker of pet travel
products. According to the survey, dog-owning drivers engage in all
sorts of risky behind-the-wheel behaviors such as feeding and petting
a dog or allowing a mutt to sit in a wheelman's lap.
...
http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2010/08/for_drivers_pet.html
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:40:46 -0400
From: Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Source of name on Caller-ID?
Message-ID: <net-news69-9AB89A.11404618082010@news.toast.net>
Is the name displayed in Caller-ID transmitted with the phone number
from the originating switch? Or does the destination switch use the
transmitted phone number to look up the name in a data base?
I'm receiving telemarketing calls with a suspicious caller-id. It's a
dumb robocaller that doesn't wait for the completion of my answering
machine's outgoing message, so I'm not getting enough of the message to
identify the source. But it seems to be some kind of loan scam, talking
about lowering my interest rate.
The number displayed on my caller id is in my local exchange
(859-987-xxxx). The displayed name is the name of a local horse farm.
The directory listing for the farm does not list that phone number. A
reverse lookup in phonelookup.com (the most reliable free source I've
found) just says "unpublished landline".
I've thought of several possible explanations:
The name and number are correct. The horse farm is branching into the
telemarketing business. The phone number is one of many they own, and
just not listed under their name. This seems a little unusual, but I
guess it's possible.
The number is correct, but the name is wrong. The name is being looked
up in a database, and it's out of date. In this case, the originating
and destination switch are the same. A little unlikely, because this is
a small area, and I don't think there are any local telemarketing
businesses.
The name and number are both spoofed. I'm not sure why a telemarketer
would use the name of a horse farm name for spoofing, but if the name is
transmitted from the origin, this seems most likely.
The number is spoofed, and the name is being looked up at the
destination end. If that's how caller-id works, this seems like the
most likely scenario. Even though I can't find a directory that links
the number to the farm, it may be linked in a database somewhere.
One interesting item, maybe just a coincidence, is that the displayed
number is identical to mine except for the last digit. I'm wondering if
the spoofing system is intentionally generating a number close to the
target number to make it look more authentic.
Date: 18 Aug 2010 21:28:53 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Source of name on Caller-ID?
Message-ID: <20100818212853.84535.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Is the name displayed in Caller-ID transmitted with the phone number
>from the originating switch? Or does the destination switch use the
>transmitted phone number to look up the name in a data base?
It varies. Usually the calling switch just sends the number and the
final switch does a database lookup to find the name, but it's possible
for the calling switch to send the name, too.
Your theory that the number is no longer assigned to the horse farm
seems plausible. When you call that number, does anyone answer?
R's,
John
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:14:54 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Source of name on Caller-ID?
Message-ID: <avSdne7AdM8SGPHRnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@giganews.com>
John Levine wrote:
>>Is the name displayed in Caller-ID transmitted with the phone number
>
>>from the originating switch? Or does the destination switch use the
>
>>transmitted phone number to look up the name in a data base?
>
>
> It varies. Usually the calling switch just sends the number and the
> final switch does a database lookup to find the name, but it's possible
> for the calling switch to send the name, too.
>
> Your theory that the number is no longer assigned to the horse farm
> seems plausible. When you call that number, does anyone answer?
>
> R's,
> John
>
The important thing to remember is the 1995 FCC decision on Caller ID
only required delivery of the number.
The name issue is a free-for-all in a messed up market place.
And, forever shame the FCC, or reserving the Caller ID issue with PBXes,
and just letting it slide into the trash can.
I would have hoped the present administration's commitment to
transparency and openess would have turned into an FCC mandate to
complete the regulation of all aspects of Caller ID, including name
delivery.
1995 to 2010, 15 years, is enough time to know that Caller ID's noble
purpose is being subverted by a whole lot of "enterprising folks."
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 02:30:32 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Overlay acceptance
Message-ID: <i4fgk8$4re$1@reader1.panix.com>
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
>>But now, does anyone even raise their voice? My pet theory is
>>coincident with splits/overlays was the saturation of users
>>with cell phones. Most cell phone calls are dialed with 10D;
>>and the users seem to cope. That coping seems to translate
>>back to wireline, even if the 2500 pad lacks a SPEND key to
>>push.
>I don't agree.
>While nearly no cell phone user cares about where the cell
>phone number is rated to (which could mean distance-based
>charges on an incoming caller's local calling plan), generally
>they care about area code, especially in situations in which
>7 digit home NPA dialing exists.
In MD, 10D has nothing to do with toll. All toll calls must be 11D.
(Local calls can be dialed with 10 or 11D.)
--
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: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:05:38 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Indian Youth killed by exploding mobile phone
Message-ID: <pan.2010.08.18.06.05.36.417067@myrealbox.com>
From
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/indian-youth-killed-by-exploding-mobile-phone/story-e6frf7lf-1225906753321
Indian Youth killed by exploding mobile phone
* August 18, 2010 11:16AM
An Indian youth was killed when the Nokia cell phone he was using
exploded, The Times of India reported Tuesday.
Manoj Singh, 24, was found dead Monday night with burns to his left ear,
neck and shoulders in a forest near Bandha village close to the city of
Kota in the northern Indian state of Rajasthan.
Police believe the youth was killed by an exploding cell phone after
finding pieces of the Nokia 1209 handset, a basic model released in August
2008, scattered nearby.
The youth had gone to the forest to graze his cattle about noon Monday.
His body was recovered later that night.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I didn't see this story repeated on any other site. Can anyone confirm
it?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:32:07 +0800
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Indian Youth killed by exploding mobile phone
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=zOfgjPJWG1Tv+fgznkipRMdYsciV7ud72ieRJ@mail.gmail.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I didn't see this story repeated on any other site. Can anyone confirm
> it?
http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&cf=all&ncl=d03YqXo3fijf-QM4EA8WrhurjrKzM
The name of the victim and his age varies, but they appear to be the
same story. Very strange.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
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 (7 messages)
|
| |
or 