The Telecom Digest for August 27, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 232 : "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, 25 Aug 2010 21:02:04 -0400
From: Leon Whyte <leon.whyte@shaw.ca>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <FGldo.75037$1F6.41401@newsfe01.iad>
On 08/25/2010 04:05 PM, Richard wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:53:37 -0700, Steven
> <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>
>> it does no good to be on the Do Not
>> Call List, there appears to be little enforcement
>
> I suspect that spammers are accessing the Do Not Call list in order to
> get a list of live phone numbers to call!
>
That is exactly what has been happening in Canada. The only hope is if you have not
registered with the do no call list and it only stops the Johnny-come-latelies if you
remove your selves from the "LIST"
--
Leon
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
< running Linux > http://www.okv.ca/
Date: 26 Aug 2010 16:28:42 GMT
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <4c76963a$0$24412$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>
Leon Whyte <leon.whyte@shaw.ca> writes:
>On 08/25/2010 04:05 PM, Richard wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:53:37 -0700, Steven
>> <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> it does no good to be on the Do Not
>>> Call List, there appears to be little enforcement
>>
>> I suspect that spammers are accessing the Do Not Call list in order to
>> get a list of live phone numbers to call!
>>
>That is exactly what has been happening in Canada. The only hope is
>if you have not registered with the do no call list and it only stops
>the Johnny-come-latelies if you remove your selves from the "LIST"
I've been registered on the DNC list since the start, and I rarely get
any junk calls. Maybe on the order of one a year.
Now, if the people that we have donated things to and the like, or my
bank trying to upsell me, or, etc. etc. just wouldn't call quite so
often as they do....
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:40:41 -0600
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <20100826024816.31406.qmail@gal.iecc.com>
How come I almost never get telemarketing calls?
I've been on that list for a couple of years on my current
number. I had the same experience with my previous numbers.
Fred
At 02:05 PM 8/25/2010, you wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:53:37 -0700, Steven
><diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>
> > it does no good to be on the Do Not
> >Call List, there appears to be little enforcement
>
>I suspect that spammers are accessing the Do Not Call list in order to
>get a list of live phone numbers to call!
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>* Please put "" (no quotes) in your subject line *
>* if it's OK to publish your post "as is". This keyword *
>* also prevents your post being caught by the spam filter. *
>------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:37:08 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Limited Availability for Online Sunday Ticket
Message-ID: <p0624080dc89b9f9bdc57@[192.168.1.70]>
Limited Availability for Online Sunday Ticket
By RICHARD SANDOMIR
AUGUST 25, 2010, 8:32 PM
The new online version of DirecTV's N.F.L. Sunday Ticket package will
be available to a small portion of the country - contrary to the
promise of much broader accessibility contained in its own internal
promotional material.
DirecTV will stream Sunday afternoon games to computers and mobile
devices starting next month, extending last year's test in the New
York market. But it can be bought only by those fans who absolutely
cannot get DirecTV - not those who do not want to get a satellite
dish or cannot afford one. If DirecTV deems a location viable for its
service, residents there will not be eligible for the $350
subscription.
...
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/limited-availability-for-online-sunday-ticket/
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:54:07 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Advice on Using Credit Cards While Traveling Abroad
Message-ID: <p06240814c89ba3aed0c0@[192.168.1.70]>
Advice on Using Credit Cards While Traveling Abroad
By SUSAN STELLIN
August 24, 2010
I WAS driving to the Los Angeles airport in April when apparently I
did something suspicious: I stopped at a gas station and filled up
the tank.
By the time I returned the rental car and got to my gate, I had a
fraud alert message from my credit card company, U.S. Bank. Since I
don't own a car and rarely buy gas, it seems that $13 fill-up raised
a red flag.
Such is the state of credit card security, a continuing battle
between card issuers and criminals who steal account numbers, with
consumers caught in the fray. Whether travelers are more likely to
become victims of credit card fraud is debatable, but we're certainly
more likely to get tripped up by efforts to combat fraud, especially
overseas.
Here are some things to watch out for if you plan on paying with
plastic, which isn't quite as widely accepted as the ad campaigns for
credit cards would have you believe.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/travel/29prac.html
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:03:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Advice on Using Credit Cards While Traveling Abroad
Message-ID: <201008261603.o7QG3Elw064281@ivgate.omahug.org>
>By the time I returned the rental car and got to my gate, I had a
>fraud alert message from my credit card company, U.S. Bank.
The similar occurrance which surprised me happened a number of
years ago when I was taking a trip from OMA to JAX via STL.
As luck would have it, I encountered a string of delays and
cancellations on the second leg of my flight, to the extent
that I thought I could claim permanent residency at Lambert
Field in St. Louis. ;-)
When I finally was about to board a confirmed flight, I phoned
my wife using the AT&T Universal Card and a pay phone. NBD.
When I landed in Jacksonville, I again found the nearest pay
phone and let her know I had arrived. Again, I used the AT&T
Universal Card.
The next day we received a call from AT&T card security who
reported the 'suspicious' activity on the card, two calls
from widely-distant phones within a short period of time. My
wife confirmed that I had indeed made both calls and there
was no fraud.
On one hand it was nice to know that the card folks were
watching things. On the other hand, this failed some very
obvious sanity checks. I'm very sure that many such AT&T
Universal Cards of that era were used in the same scenario,
at both airports at the start and finish of a flight. The
big one, however, is that both calls were made to the phone
number of record on the account. I seriously doubt that a
fraudster would be phoning the account holder. ;-)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:02:15 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Iran journalist sues Nokia after phone call landed him in jail
Message-ID: <pan.2010.08.26.05.02.11.374967@myrealbox.com>
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/iran-journalist-isa-saharkhiz-sues-nokia-after-phone-call-landed-him-in-jail/story-e6frf7lf-1225910457952
Iran journalist Isa Saharkhiz sues Nokia after phone call landed him in
jail
* Staff writers
* From: NewsCore
* August 26, 2010 2:14PM
AN Iranian journalist is suing phone company Nokia over surveillance
technology that helped Iranian authorities track and arrest him, the ABC
reported today.
Isa Saharkhiz was captured and sent to jail more than a year ago and his
family say has broken ribs from his severe beatings.
The journalist was charged with trying to overthrow the Iranian government
because of an article he wrote during last year's opposition protests.
Although Saharkhiz left Tehran and went into hiding authorities managed to
track him down after he turned on his Nokia mobile phone briefly to give
an interview.
Through his son in New York, the journalist is suing Nokia in a US court
on the grounds he was beaten and mistreated because the company knowingly
sold its surveillance technology to the Iranian regime, which is renowned
for its human rights abuses.
He says the technology, which enables authorities to track mobile phone
users, allowed the regime to monitor his phone calls.
"Nokia sold this technology to Iran knowing that it will be used not in
the way that it was meant to be," said Saharkhiz's son Mehdi.
"We're talking about a country that all around the world you're not able
to sell airplane spare parts to, but Nokia, for making a few more bucks
they've risked so many people's lives.
"We're hoping to set a precedent so companies like this don't sell
people's rights to make a few more dollars."
Nokia has admitted selling the technology to Iran, which it says is a
standard feature for law enforcement, but says Iran is to blame for
misusing the technology.
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:29:15 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The Fading Glory of the Television and Telephone
Message-ID: <p06240820c89babd3b974@[192.168.1.70]>
The Fading Glory of the Television and Telephone
by Paul Taylor and Wendy Wang, Pew Research Center
August 19, 2010
One day you're the brightest star in the galaxy. Then something new
comes along -- and suddenly you're a relic. It's a turn of fate that
awaits sports heroes, movie stars, political leaders. And, yes, even
household appliances.
After occupying center stage in the American household for much of
the 20th century, two of the grand old luminaries of consumer
technology -- the television set and the landline telephone -- are
suffering from a sharp decline in public perception that they are
necessities of life.
Just 42% of Americans say they consider the television set to be a
necessity, according to a new nationwide survey from the Pew Research
Center's Social & Demographic Trends project. Last year, this figure
was 52%. In 2006, it was 64%.
The drop-off has been less severe for the landline telephone: Some
62% of Americans say it's a necessity of life, down from 68% last
year.
But there's a related trend that's more perilous for the landline:
Fully 47% of the public say that its younger, smarter and more nimble
cousin -- the cell phone -- is a necessity of life.
Even more worrisome for both 20th-century household fixtures are the
oh-so-very-21st-century attitudes of today's young adults. Fewer than
half (46%) of 18- to 29-year-old survey respondents consider the
landline phone a necessity of life. Fewer than three-in-ten (29%) say
the same about the television set.
...
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1702/luxury-necessity-television-landline-cell-phone
http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/762/fading-glory-television-telephone-luxury-necessity
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:43:14 -0400
From: Steve Stone <spfleck@citlink.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The Fading Glory of the Television and Telephone
Message-ID: <i56ck8$p67$1@news.eternal-september.org>
My Great Grandfather died in 1978 at the age of 93.
He never had a telephone.
He did have a phone like intercom system with a wire strung between his
home and his sisters home across the alley.
My Mother likes to remind me that my grandparents did not have a
telephone until my Grandmother considered her "dating age". This would
have been mid 1950's.
Both locations were in the New York City borough of Queens, not back
woods by any means.
>
> The drop-off has been less severe for the landline telephone: Some
> 62% of Americans say it's a necessity of life, down from 68% last
> year.
Date: 26 Aug 2010 04:15:28 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <20100826041528.5092.qmail@joyce.lan>
>|>The "claim to fame" of IPV6 is that it has provision for inclusion of
>|>a globally unique ID in every packet, and that's the stuff of
>|>Marketeer's wet dreams.
>|
>|Nonsense. Or rather: we already have that now (modulo the
>|locator/identifier distinction);
>
>I assume that our moderator was referring to the ability to embed a unique
>hardware identifier (e.g., your Ethernet address) per address autoconfig.
>This really is different in that it follows the device across networks and
>providers, but the problem has been recognized and to some extent dealt with.
Not necessarily in every packet, but with IPv6 it would be easy to use a
different address for every outgoing TCP session.
>IMHO it would be very easy to make IPv6 take off. Just give everybody
>portable, free, routable address space as was done with IPv4.
Who's going to pay for all those entries in the backbone routers? They
can handle the current 300,000, but they can't handle a billion entries
any time soon.
R's,
John
Date: 26 Aug 2010 16:36:54 GMT
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <4c769826$0$24412$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
...
>>IMHO it would be very easy to make IPv6 take off. Just give everybody
>>portable, free, routable address space as was done with IPv4.
>Who's going to pay for all those entries in the backbone routers? They
>can handle the current 300,000, but they can't handle a billion entries
>any time soon.
???
IPv6 just like IPv4 is hierarchical. ISPs will be assigned a /32 and
allocate out of that space, while announcing just the one big block.
There's only 3350 active routes on the IPv6 Internet backbone right now.
(at least in my view of the Net).
The main reasons that there are 326,708 routes on the IPv4 backbone
are misconfiguration or providers announcing much smaller blocks than
they need to. Or people having lots of split up legacy space all over
that all needs announcing rather than renumber into a larger block.
Somewhat lesser, then old "swamp" area which companies are assigned
/24's willy-nilly and have to advertise it all out whatever ISP they get.
IPv6 is fairly "clean" as of yet, but those 3350 active routes reflect
more IP's routed than most people can count.
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:26:24 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <i55j0u$f35$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote:
>I suspect that spammers are accessing the Do Not Call list in order to
>get a list of live phone numbers to call!
That wouldn't surprise me.
I handle my voice calls this way: If the caller blocks their number as
"Restricted", I'll answer it because it's just someone who has blocked their
Caller ID. If it reads "Unknown" or has some strange numbers such as
000-000-0000 or part of a number, I'll let it roll to voicemail, since it's
almost guaranteed to be a junk call.
Likewise, if it's an out of area area code (unless I know the person) I'll
also let it roll -- this is doubly true if it's a Florida area code. Chances
are the caller will not leave a message.
If I notice a pattern -- the same number used over and over, I'll store the
number, label it as "junk", and give it a special ring tone, a pleasant
musical interlude. Thus, I've just turned junk phone calls into pleasant
music.
I pity the person who has a fax machine. The last company I worked for, about
8 years ago, made the mistake of buying a fax machine instead of using a fax
card in a computer. They wasted about half their fax paper receiving junk
faxes.
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harold Hallikainen <harold@hallikainen.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <5d65005c-d668-4169-9e79-9d7ef9ed4ca0@x24g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
The FCC does some enforcement in this area. Generally, based on
numerous complaints, they send a citation notifying the offender of
the rule. If the complaints continue, they issue a fine. They've
issued some large fines, but I don't know if they've collected.
For FCC website documents on the TCPA, see
http://www.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/CiteFind/0641200.htm .
Harold
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:47:47 -0500
From: Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <XKadnW3nM7NuT-vRnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
On 2010-08-26, Harold Hallikainen <harold@hallikainen.com> wrote:
> The FCC does some enforcement in this area. Generally, based on
One of my friends got numerous junk faxes and notified the FCC about
every one, but it didn't seem to affect them.
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:24:43 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves
Message-ID: <p06240825c89c34d9756d@[192.168.1.70]>
The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves
By Adam Cohen
Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2010
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the
night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of
everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights,
because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your
own driveway - and no reasonable expectation that the government
isn't tracking your movements.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html
United States V. Pineda-Moreno
Dissent
Having previously decimated the protections the Fourth Amendment
accords to the home itself, United States v. Lemus, 596 F.3d 512 (9th
Cir. 2010) (Kozinski, C.J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing
en banc); United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2007)
(Kozinski, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc), our
court now proceeds to dismantle the zone of privacy we enjoy in the
home's curtilage and in public. The needs of law enforcement, to
which my colleagues seem inclined to refuse nothing, are quickly
making personal privacy a distant memory. 1984 may have come a bit
later than predicted, but it's here at last.
...
Original Opinion:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/01/11/08-30385.pdf
Dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski;
Dissent by Judge Reinhardt:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/12/08-30385.pdf
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:39:50 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: End of fixed-price data plans may be near
Message-ID: <p0624082fc89c491d3562@[192.168.1.70]>
End of fixed-price data plans may be near
By Justus Bender, Globe Correspondent | August 25, 2010
The days when smartphone users could pay a fixed monthly price and
surf the Internet as much as they want may be coming to an end.
According to an international survey of 391 mobile industry
executives in 55 countries, including the United States, many want to
move away from flat-rate pricing for data services and start charging
for the amount of information that is transmitted, much in the way
that long-distance telephone callers used to pay by the minute. Users
who download more movies or spend more time on the Internet would
tend to pay more if that happens.
In the survey, released Monday by the international law firm
Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer LLP of London, 47 percent of the
executives said flat-rate data plans damage their ability to grow
revenues, and 55 percent said consumers can expect so-called tiered
pricing in the future.
Thirty-seven percent said downloads of smartphone software tools and
games, known as "apps,'' will become a primary revenue source within
three years, exceeding voice and video downloads.
According to Freshfields, the survey results mark "the beginning of
the end'' for flat-rate pricing.
...
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/08/25/end_of_fixed_price_data_plans_may_be_near/
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <f2d72589-b13e-41b5-84f8-82fd35387b42@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 25, 2:53 pm, Steven <diespamm...@killspammers.com> wrote:
> I have noticed more fake CID and it does no good to be on the Do Not
> Call List, there appears to be little enforcement and none on calls from
> the Moon!!!
I am flooded with junk calls. Unfortunately they are all legal:
opinion surveys, charity solicitations, and political ads. The
political ads are quite volumnious during election season, and also
duplicated. For example, on election day I will inundated with calls
to go out and vote and they don't care when I tell them they've called
me already. They also used to call for mother to vote even though
she wasn't registered and even well after she passed on. I was so
frustrated I was tempted to tell one of the callers that she needed a
ride and give them the cemetary address to get her. In hindsight,
given their lack of respect for me, maybe they deserved to be sent on
a wild goose chase.
They are persistent. I notice that if I don't answer the phone the
robot will call again and again until I do answer.
I told a charity I used to support I would not donate to them as a
result of their telephone solitications; I sent them a written letter
saying so. Still telephones me.
In the rare event a human calls me instead of a recording, they ignore
my request to take my name off their list But usually it's a
recorded sales pitch.
However, I normally hang up immediately when I discover a soliticing
call. One thing I've noticed is that when I answer the phone there is
a moment of silence after I say hello. Then I hear the background
noise of the caller's "boiler room"--this tips me off. Lastly is the
caller, usually misprouncing my name. I always hang up by that
point. You'd think they get the message by this point.
I only got one commercial sales call. The recording started off
"we've done business together in the past" which gets by the 'do not
call' restriction. However, I never had done business with that
company.
I am annoyed that the Do Not Call lists expire; they should be
permanent.
I am angry at the many exceptions the law provides. And the
politicians wonder why the citizens have no respect for them. Well,
when they pass laws exempting themselves, what should they expect?
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 (17 messages)
|
| |
or 