The Telecom Digest for August 29, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 233 : "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: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 02:56:01 -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: <20100827090303.39088.qmail@gal.iecc.com>
>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.
I had a bunch of survey calls for a while.
The way to fix it is to just tell them you don't do surveys.
As for the others, I don't get those calls and I'm not sure why.
I'd suggest you tell the charity calls that you don't support any
charity that invades your privacy by telephone. Then hang up.
I rarely get political calls, live or recorded. I'm also not
sure why. But I never donate as a result of these calls. Maybe that
is why. I donate to political [groups] when I want to support a
candidate or cause.
As for the Do Not Call list, I get telemarketing calls almost never.
Regards,
Fred
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: annie <dmr436@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <1ef124ad-5804-4b6f-9be5-6032c7788443@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>
>I'd suggest you tell the charity calls that you don't support any
>charity that invades your privacy by telephone.
That is exactly what I do. I tell them that I do not donate to any
charity which solicits by telephone. That usually gets them off my
case.
>I rarely get political calls, live or recorded.
I do the same thing for those. I tell them, very assertively, that one
more call from that candidate and I will not vote for them. It usually
works.
I am on the National Do Not Solicit list, but on the evenings I'm home
I will usually get at least one telemarketing call. Some are
recordings, which I hang up on, but the live ones I ask "Is this a
telemarketing call?" and they have all kinds of sneaky
non-answers. "This is a courtesy call." is the most common
rebuttal. (Interrupting your dinner or evening isn't very courteous,
is it?) I then tell them that I never buy anything from a telemarketer
and to please put me on the Do Not Solicit list. Often they hang up at
that point.
The ones which have been most pushy recently are a couple of local
small home improvement contractors. I guess they bought a list of
those living in our little semi-rural enclave. The one guy a couple
weeks ago responded to my "I never buy anything from a telemarketer
and please put me on your Do Not Solicit list" with "Why the
attitude?" Jeesh! I then explained that I rent and do not own, and he
still went on "I'm in the neighborhood and I'll be glad to give you a
free inspection, yadda yadda." I hate to be rude, but sometimes these
people will not give up! I mean, I know the economy is bad and such
and small businesses are struggling, but these guys are taking pushy
to a new extreme!
Oh well ...
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 05:43:20 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <i58bt9$a81$1@news.eternal-september.org>
On 8/26/10 12:12 PM, Lisa or Jeff wrote:
>
> 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?
>
I believe the DNC is now permanent.
I had one insurance agent that would call everyday, I told them not to
call, sent letters not to call, I even went to their office to tell
them. What stopped it was my putting a Demon Dialer set to call all of
their phone numbers every 5 seconds. After that not one call from them.
I also complained to every company he sold insurance for.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 03:05:35 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: End of fixed-price data plans may be near
Message-ID: <FJmdnapDgp9tEOrRnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Monty Solomon wrote:
>
> 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.
It seems "apps" are more toys than tools.
>
> According to Freshfields, the survey results mark "the beginning of
> the end'' for flat-rate pricing.
And, efficient use of capital will govern for the smart user who can
restrain his need to connect "everywhere" and opt, instead, to wait
until he can get back to a broadband connection that is not overloaded.
>
> ...
>
> http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/08/25/end_of_fixed_price_data_plans_may_be_near/
Date: 27 Aug 2010 05:13:46 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <20100827051346.68068.qmail@joyce.lan>
>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.
No, of course not, the boiler room people are paid by the call. Before
you hang up, you need to say the magic phrase "Put me on your do not
call list." Sometimes I follow that with "Can you do that?" Even
organizations not subject to the national DNC list are required to
keep their own DNC lists.
>I am annoyed that the Do Not Call lists expire; they should be
>permanent.
They don't expire. See www.donotcall.gov.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:50:36 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <siegman-E7FE5F.08503627082010@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>
In article <20100827051346.68068.qmail@joyce.lan>,
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
> No, of course not, the boiler room people are paid by the call.
>
Which sometimes leads me, after initial pleasantries, to say something
like, "Oh, yeah, hang on just a second, I've got to turn off the stove
(radio, fan, whatever) here . . . ", then just quietly set down the
handset and go back to what I was doing.
But, maybe the experienced boiler room types are onto that one . . .
Date: 27 Aug 2010 05:16:50 -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: <20100827051650.68826.qmail@joyce.lan>
>>>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.
>
>???
If everyone gets portable addresses, you're going to end up with a
route per user after a while as people move around and take their IP
space with them. It'll be like the phone number portability database.
>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.
True, but even if they consolidated the routes there would be 100,000
of them. This is apparently well within the state of the art for big
routers, but a billion entries is unlikely ever to be.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:56:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <201008272056.QAA13970@ss10.danlan.com>
johnl@iecc.com (John Levine) wrote:
|>>>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.
|>
|>???
|
|If everyone gets portable addresses, you're going to end up with a
|route per user after a while as people move around and take their IP
|space with them. It'll be like the phone number portability database.
|
|>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.
|
|True, but even if they consolidated the routes there would be 100,000
|of them. This is apparently well within the state of the art for big
|routers, but a billion entries is unlikely ever to be.
This tends to ignore what I wrote about actually addressing the routing
issue rather than piling hack upon hack with shim6 and address selection
policy distribution. Locator/identifier separation and/or distributed
source routing (what shim6 and address selection policy distribution
implement in part, respectively) could allow for routing that does not
require a central device to have such complete knowledge.
The thing I find funny about these arguments is the implicit assumption
that the DNS will scale just fine in the face of a similar load and with
the dynamic updates required by IPv6's "easier" renumbering. If the DNS
can map a billion sets of names to their corresponding addresses then
surely a similar system could map a billion portable network addresses
(identifiers) to their underlying hierarchical addresses (locators). The
actual DNS exploits hierarchical delegation only minimally, with the .COM
domain being essentially a flat map. There would be a much greater
opportunity for distributing the load with address mapping.
Unfortunately, the way things are going I predict we will have NAT6 for
the same reasons of portability, stability, and cost that gave us NAT.
That's if IPv6 takes off at all...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Date: 28 Aug 2010 01:13:05 -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: <20100828011305.59090.qmail@joyce.lan>
> Locator/identifier separation and/or distributed source routing
> (what shim6 and address selection policy distribution implement in
> part, respectively) could allow for routing that does not require a
> central device to have such complete knowledge.
Indeed it could. Too bad they did IPv6 instead.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:30:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <201008271730.o7RHUASQ017186@ivgate.omahug.org>
Well, I thought I was well-informed about telephony trends, but
I must admit this is a new one on me.
I stopped at a convenience store earlier this morning and noticed
something I had never seen before, a 911-only public phone mounted
on the front of the building.
It's in a mini hood-type enclosure, has a keypad, G series handset,
with the armored cable. Hood is painted bright red, and '911 only'
is noted very clearly.
It's made by GAI-Tronics, and googling a bit, it seems that they
make all kinds of special purpose telephone sets. I've never
heard of GAI-Tronics either, so I must be somewhat out of the
loop. ;-)
I admit that I have never seen such a 911-only set like that.
Date: 28 Aug 2010 01:11:32 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <20100828011132.58702.qmail@joyce.lan>
>I stopped at a convenience store earlier this morning and noticed
>something I had never seen before, a 911-only public phone mounted
>on the front of the building.
They're pretty common as replacements for fire alarm pull boxes. We
have one on the front of our volunteer fire department, in case someone
comes by when nobody's there.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:33:36 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <1atg769shl7m368kkvaqn61ao61gjne8cn@4ax.com>
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:47:47 -0500, Jim Haynes
<jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu> wrote:
>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.
The FCC does levy fines against some of the violators. See
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/ufax.html
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 