The Telecom Digest for September 01, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 236 : "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: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:32:19 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <i5ieo7$f2g$1@blue.rahul.net>
Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> 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 also. It seems to me this is the best argument for re-legalizing
competing (completely separate) phone networks.
> If you don't like living with the limits imposed by the Constitution.
> you, unfortunately , have rather limited alternatives.
The Constitution limits only *government's* powers to block communication.
> the alternative to 'what we have' is something that WOULD be challenged
> in the courts and would -not- survive that challenge. Whereupon we would
> have -no- protection at all.
We do have no protection at all, since the DNCL is completely toothless.
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:49:28 -0500
From: gordonb.tqwge@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <w8GdneKplJ1V5uHRnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>The worst is the health provider Anthem Blue Cross. They have a machine
>placing automated calls about twice a day trying to reach [a patient I've
>never heard of]. The machine demands to know if she is available to take
>the call, and won't hear any answer except yes or no. When I say no, the
>machine hangs up without giving any name or number I can contact to stop the
>damn calls! I've tried their web site, but the only number there reaches a
>salesman who has no idea what to do.
I recommend that you say YES optionally followed by "that was a
lie". From the wording you describe, you didn't say you ARE the
person in question. Tell any lie you need to get to a human. If
you do get to a human, complain about the constant calling. If you
get an automated device spewing private health information, put the
call on hold and hope that it thinks it reached the person so it
can quit calling. If you do get any private health information,
it might be worth tracking down this person and informing them that
the insurance company is giving out their private health information.
>Can anyone suggest a way to stop the calls short of driving down to their
>nearest office and taking it apart with a sledge hammer?
This problem ought to justify emergency cutoff of telephone service
and electrical power of the offender (with missiles).
Date: 31 Aug 2010 10:02:45 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <i5j225$9do$1@panix2.panix.com>
Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:08:02 -0800, John David Galt
><jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>The worst is the health provider Anthem Blue Cross. They have a machine
>>placing automated calls about twice a day trying to reach [a patient I've
>>never heard of]. The machine demands to know if she is available to take
>>the call, and won't hear any answer except yes or no. When I say no, the
>>machine hangs up without giving any name or number I can contact to stop the
>>damn calls! I've tried their web site, but the only number there reaches a
>>salesman who has no idea what to do.
>>
>>Can anyone suggest a way to stop the calls short of driving down to their
>>nearest office and taking it apart with a sledge hammer?
>
>Chane your telephone number.
Record a couple of the calls. Take them to small claims court.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:43:55 +0000 (UTC)
From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <i5j7vr$sf1$1@reader1.panix.com>
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:08:02 -0800, John David Galt
<jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>The worst is the health provider Anthem Blue Cross. They have a machine
>placing automated calls about twice a day trying to reach [a patient I've
>never heard of]. The machine demands to know if she is available to take
>the call, and won't hear any answer except yes or no. When I say no, the
>machine hangs up without giving any name or number I can contact to stop the
>damn calls! I've tried their web site, but the only number there reaches a
>salesman who has no idea what to do.
>
>Can anyone suggest a way to stop the calls short of driving down to their
>nearest office and taking it apart with a sledge hammer?
Subscribe to "call block" (or whatever telco calls it in your area).
--
Rich Greenberg Sarasota, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 941 378 2097
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines: Val, Red, Shasta, Zero & Casey (At the bridge) Owner:Chinook-L
Canines: Red & Cinnar (Siberians) Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Date: 31 Aug 2010 09:59:54 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <i5j1sq$33h$1@panix2.panix.com>
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Aug 27, 9:11 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>> >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.
>
>The above usage surprises me.
>
>A telecomm administrator told me paying the phoneco for a conventional
>public pay phone was cheaper than installing a "hot line" to the
>police or fire dept. People still ocassionally use pay phones so that
>revenue helps defray the cost. Further, it gives the public some
>convenience which isn't available with a "hot line" type of phone.
People are willing to pay more money for the 911-only phones (some of which
are actually on a POTS line with an autodialer built into the phone) because
they are worried that a payphone will attract drug dealers.
This is really no longer a problem now that all the drug dealers have
cellphones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:21:22 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <65lq769r21fcf8hh9deuo8189k4q74ib7u@4ax.com>
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:53:37 -0700, Steven
<diespammers@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 got a junk call yesterday. The name portion of the caller ID said
"PHONE SCAM". A least they are honest about that!
I let the machine answer, but they did not leave a message.
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:28:49 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Hackers blind quantum cryptographers
Message-ID: <U5OdnXFtYeKc--DRnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <p0624084ec8a0b7df6c6d@[192.168.1.70]>,
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
>Hackers blind quantum cryptographers
>
>Lasers crack commercial encryption systems, leaving no trace.
>
>Zeeya Merali
>Published online 29 August 2010 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2010.436
>
>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100829/full/news.2010.436.html
>
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>This is out of my league. Any comments from those that know more will be
>welcome.
I've just gone through the first article so far, but given that the
methodology causes the receiver to function as only a 'classical'
detector, AND that there is no way (not established) for the receiver
to detect that it is not operating in 'quantum' mode, then everything
else follows.
At a _first/cursory_ glance, it looks like this should be relatively
easy to defeat -- by injecting some 'pre-tampered-with' bits at the
originating side. On a direct receive, they'd show tampered, but on
a 'blinded' detector they'd show good. You'd have a data stream that
was 'too good to be true', in effect. :)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:05:56 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: EPIC Alert 17.16
Message-ID: <p06240872c8a33b26c2da@[192.168.1.70]>
=======================================================================
E P I C A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 17.16 August 16, 2010
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1716.htmlhttp://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1716.html
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
http://epic.org/donatehttp://epic.org/donate
=======================================================================
Table of Contents
=======================================================================
[1] Feds Admit that Body Scanner Machines Store Photos
[2] EPIC submits amicus in NASA v. Nelson
[3] Maine Law on Prescription Privacy Upheld
[4] Elena Kagan Confirmed as Supreme Court Justice
[5] Federal Appeals Court Requires Warrant for GPS Tracking
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Book Review: "Cyberwar"
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
...
http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1716.html
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:10:33 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: EPIC Alert 17.17
Message-ID: <p06240871c8a33a6f97f0@[192.168.1.70]>
=======================================================================
E P I C A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 17.17 August 31, 2010
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1717.htmlhttp://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1717.html
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
http://epic.org/donatehttp://epic.org/donate
=======================================================================
Table of Contents
=======================================================================
[1] Senators Question Full Body Scanners, Highlight Health Risks
[2] EPIC Launches Body Scanner Incident Report Page
[3] Facebook "Places" Embeds Privacy Risks
[4] Agency Reconsiders Medical Breach Notification Rule
[5] Lawsuit Filed for Travel Surveillance Records
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Book Review: "Islands of Privacy"
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
...
http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1717.htmlhttp://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1717.html
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:54:45 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AT&T Misleads FCC about 'Paid Prioritization' on the Internet
Message-ID: <p06240876c8a344e40b74@[192.168.1.70]>
AT&T Misleads FCC about 'Paid Prioritization' on the Internet
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: August 31, 2010
Contact: Jenn Ettinger, 202-265-1490 x 35
WASHINGTON - AT&T has filed a confusing and misleading letter with
the FCC in an attempt to justify charging content companies for
priority access to its Internet subscribers. In the letter, AT&T
conflates "paid prioritization" - the anti-consumer practice of
speeding up and slowing down Internet traffic according to which
service provider pays more - with far more accepted business network
management practices. Free Press and other Net Neutrality proponents
oppose discriminatory "paid prioritization," not these other
arrangements.
...
http://www.freepress.net/press-release/2010/8/31/att-misleads-fcc-about-%E2%80%98paid-prioritization%E2%80%99-internet
Re: Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 09-191; Framework for Broadband
Internet Service, GN Docket No. 10-127
Robert W. Quinn, Jr.
AT&T
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020910396
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 (10 messages)
|
| |
or 