The Telecom Digest for December 24, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 347 : "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: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 08:03:15 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: ZIP Codes and barcodes (was: Telstra loses directory copyright appeal)
Message-ID: <ieuvo3$oh2$1@news.albasani.net>
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Dec 20, 11:15 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>The United States Postal Service ZIP Code directory is copyrighted and
>>competing directories are published under license. I suppose since the
>>post office does the actual work assigning ZIP Codes that it's possible
>>to copyright? ZIP Codes are basic information incorporated into any
>>demographic and transporation routing database without license, so I'm
>>not sure how it's possible to prevent someone else from publishing a ZIP
>>Code directory.
>I thought the US Govt wasn't allowed to copyright anything? Or is the
>Post Office exempt from that since it is now a separate "Service" as
>opposed to a regular Department of the govt?
The copyright notice appears on ZIP Code directories from the 1960's,
when the post office was still an executive department and not an
independent agency.
>M/S Word has long had a facility to print a bar code above an address
>with the zip or zip+5 code in it.
They removed support for the POSTNET barcode several versions ago.
POSTNET barcode represents a 12-digit number: 11-digit Delivery Point ZIP
Code plus a check digit. The Delivery Point ZIP Code includes 9 digits
for the ZIP+4 and two additional digits to allow sequencing by delivery
point. The delivery point digits were initially calculated with a simple
algorithm, the last two digits of the street address. The current algorith
is much more complicated to allow sequencing of mail by secondary address
element (apartment and suite number) required in certain multiple unit
buildings (although not typically in buildings with three apartments or
fewer). A lookup in the Address Information System database is required
to know which buildings require encoding of secondary address elements.
When the algorithm changed, the post office requested that Microsoft
remove the feature as it didn't want the lookup and encoding performed
without the use of certified software. Microsoft didn't want to compete
in the commercial mailing list and address management software market
and never published certified software to perform these functions.
A kludge, if you really really want Microsoft Word's mail merge function
to print qualifying barcodes on your letters, is to provide numeric
representations of the barcode to an outdated version of Microsoft Word
after having the lookup performed with certified software. Saves you from
buying expensive new software or learning how to program, although the
barcode itself is readily handled as a font.
The POSTNET barcode is a 2-state barcode made up of 62 bars, 2 frame
bars plus sequences of five bars representing 11 digits plus the check
digit. The bars themselves are full and half bars above a baseline. The
baseline is significant as the tall bars have ascenders and there are
no descenders.
Starting in May, 2011, unless it gets delayed again, Intelligent Mail
Barcodes will be required on letters and flats claiming automation
discounts, and the POSTNET barcode will no longer be used when preparing
mail. These are 4-state barcodes, encoding 31 digits and comprising 65
bars. As the bars come in four flavors (four states) instead of two,
more information may be encoded. The four states are tracker (short bar),
tracker with ascender, tracker with descender, and full bar (tracker with
ascender and descender). The barcode will be used to encode data from a
number of different programs in addition to the Delivery Point ZIP Code,
some of which currently use a second POSTNET barcode in the address
block. Yes, it can include a serial number assigned by the mailer to
the mailpiece.
More information than you want to know is here:
https://ribbs.usps.gov/index.cfm?page=intellmailmailpieces
>I once heard that the post office has people working out of their
>homes sorting mail that isn't machine readable (eg handwritten letters
>and postcards). An image of the front of a letter is displayed on the
>computer screen and the person keys in the address and the proper zip
>code/routing information is bar coded on the mail. The technology to
>do this sort of thing is certainly easy. Anyone know if they actually
>do this?
It's certainly possible that such remote encoding work can be performed
at home, instead of in a datacenter. I don't know where the work is
performed any more. There used to be a great many remote encoding centers,
one for several major plants, set up temporarily till optical character
recognition technology improved to the point that fewer and fewer human
eyes were required to encode the address block. By the way, letters
that have been through remote encoding have a red barcode on the back,
which is an ID number, to match the piece to the machine that sprays on
the barcode for the Delivery Point ZIP Code.
>Returning to telecom, at one time some other countries had their post
>office also run their telephone system. Is that still the case today?
It's typical in Europe that the government telephone monopoly was through
the postal and telecom administration, but many of these have been partly
or fully privatized, including the some privatization of post office
functions. Travelers would know to use the banks of pay phones at the
post office to make cheaper calls than in their hotel rooms. I don't
know where these government telecom monopolies through the post office
continue to exist.
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:25:42 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Australian phone book content not protected by copyright
Message-ID: <pan.2010.12.23.05.25.41.82704@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:13:46 -0800, Richard wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:51:00 -0800 (PST), Lisa or Jeff
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>>I suspect telcos will not accept ads for illegal activities such as drug
>>dealers or prostitution.
>
> Prostitution is listed, but not by that name. It is called "escort
> services" or "models".
........
What?, I thought it was listed in the "Political Lobbyist" section?
Old age is obviously confusing me.......
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:14:58 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Australian phone book content not protected by copyright
Message-ID: <Ft2dnRiado6Pjo7QnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <26abb623-4b78-47ae-a3d2-50c9659b110c@g26g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Dec 15, 9:58 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>> Under U.S. copyright law, 'facts of nature' are not
>> copyrightable. For a thing to be copyrightable, it must embody a
>> degree of 'creative effort'. That 'creativity' is what is
>> protected. . . . A "selective' compilation of facts, may qualify
>> for a compilation copyright, where the necessary 'creativity' is in
>> the selection of which facts to include, and which to exclude.
>
>White Pages may include:
>1) Dialing instructions for local and toll calls;
>2) Dialing instructions for special feature services (ie disable
> call waiting)
>3) Special listing sections for government numbers, broken down
> by federal, state, and local, and social service help listings.
>
>It would seem to me all of the above would meet the defintion for
>creative work and be copyrightable.
ANY work, _taken_as_a_whole_ may exhibit the required creativity
and be eligible for copyright on th work TAKEN AS A WHOLE.
The fact that some portions of a work exhibit the requisite degree of
creativity does -not- mean that -everything- in said work is automatically
so protected. ONLY the 'creative expression' component in a work is
protected by copyright. Any and all 'facts of nature' embodied in that
work are =NOT= protected by that copyright.
>Suppose a scientist discovers a new law of nature. Would it be
>correct to say that if he merely published the law it would not be
>copyrightable because it was a 'fact'; but if he wrote up his research
>to show how he discovered the new law that would be copyrightable
>since it was his 'creative effort'?
*REGARDLESS* of what he publishes, or how he says it, the 'facts' of
the "law of nature" itself are not protected by any valid copyright
on the work that describes them.
It's not that you can't claim copyright on a publication that contains
'facts', but that copyright on the publication does not extend to any
'facts' contained within that publication.
Copyright does -not- protect the 'ideas' underlying any publication, only
that particular _creative_expression_ of those ideas. Facts are not
protectible/protected because everyone will/does express them in
essentially the same way.
In Feist v Rural Tel. it was claimed that someone who extracted the,
names, addresses, and phone numbers, from the white pages of a telco-
published directory, and used those 'facts' to produce their own directory
was infringing on the copyright of the publishing telco. The U.S. Sup. Ct.
held, regarding white pages directory listings, which were found to be
(a) only a compilation of 'facts' (not subject to copyright protection,
in and of themselves) and
(b) being organized by an entirely mechanical process based on a 'natural'
ordering,
That there was "no infringement" if someone:
(a) 'copied' those _facts_, and
(b) applied the same 'natural' ordering thereunto.
Obviously, it the 'same' natural ordering was non-infringing, then neither
would be a 'similar, but not identical' one -- being 'less close' to the
original than the action already determined to be non-infringing.
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:26:38 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Zip codes (Was:Re: Telstra loses directory copyright appeal)
Message-ID: <DuudnZyfydIjmo7QnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <480000.77750.qm@web111715.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>--- On Tue, 12/21/10, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>> The USPS's concern is for their electronic program. They want
>> complete accuracy if they are going to give junk mail and bills a
>> discount. Even though the software that verifies Zip+4 or Carrier
>> Route presort is not sold by the USPS, they want to make sure that
>> it is accurate.
>
>The Zip code system has been extended, first with the +4, which mainly
>identifies usually a block of house numbrs, or a specific post office
>box, with another three digits which are the last two digits of your
>house number, plus a check digit.
NOT EXACTLY.
At least where multi-unit dwellings (apt bldgs,etc.) are concerned.
Last condo building I lived in, there were THREE separate, valid ZIP+4 codes
I could use for my mail. (still are, according to the USPS zip-code locater
web-page.) One was valid for any building with an odd-numbered address with
in the same 'hundreds', the second uniquely identified the building, _only_,
and the third identified a block of units within the building.
The additional digits mentioned are -not- part of the 'ZIP' coding system,
but are a two digit 'delivery point' and a check digit that are encoded into
the Postnet DPBC (delivery point bar code), or IMC (intelligent mail barcode)
The delivery-point ID and the ZIP+4 may change *independently* of each other.
In the early days of the DBP, the 2-digit value _was_"typically", the last
two digits the street address. This is NO LONGER a valid assumption, as
the DPB values have been refined to differentiate between recipients at
the same street address (office suites, apts, etc.)
Not to mention the fact that the DPB value for a particular 'mailbox' will
differ depending on which of the multiple valid ZIP+4 codes is used for
that mailbox address.
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 23:06:52 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: ZIP Codes and barcodes
Message-ID: <if0kmc$90f$1@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 12/21/10, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>The USPS's concern is for their electronic program. They want
>>>complete accuracy if they are going to give junk mail and bills a
>>>discount. Even though the software that verifies Zip+4 or Carrier
>>>Route presort is not sold by the USPS, they want to make sure that
>>>it is accurate.
>>The Zip code system has been extended, first with the +4, which mainly
>>identifies usually a block of house numbrs, or a specific post office
>>box, with another three digits which are the last two digits of your
>>house number, plus a check digit.
>NOT EXACTLY.
>At least where multi-unit dwellings (apt bldgs,etc.) are concerned.
>Last condo building I lived in, there were THREE separate, valid ZIP+4 codes
>I could use for my mail. (still are, according to the USPS zip-code locater
>web-page.) One was valid for any building with an odd-numbered address with
>in the same 'hundreds', the second uniquely identified the building, _only_,
>and the third identified a block of units within the building.
You correctly observe the hierarchical nature of the database. In city
delivery, the default encoding is either "blockface", one side of the street
between intersections, or "hundreds", one side of the street until there is
an increment to the next hundreds group, whichever is smaller. By default,
a street address (not necessarily a building) with at least four units gets
a ZIP+4, and there can be finer encodings if there are a great many units.
If a firm has a lot of incoming mail, it might get one or more ZIP+4 codes,
but this has become less necessary with encoding to delivery point. Encoding
to a firm would be the finest encoding of all.
You're not correct that each ZIP+4 is valid, for grosser encodings aren't
used where finer encodings are available. If you gave a correspondent the
ZIP+4 of the blockface but a different ZIP+4 is used specific to a small
group of apartments, the system should print a barcode of the finest
sortation level, otherwise sequencing is more difficult and they try to
avoid having the carrier do any at all.
In fact, a mailer claiming qualification for automation discounts MUST use
the finest sortation available, which means that if a secondary address
element is missing, he must obtain it, or remove the piece from the presort
and send it as a residual piece. In that case, it's smarter to send the
unsortable pieces at single-piece first-class rates, which happen to be
the same as residual rates anyway, to receive First-Class service.
>The additional digits mentioned are -not- part of the 'ZIP' coding system,
>but are a two digit 'delivery point' and a check digit that are encoded into
>the Postnet DPBC (delivery point bar code), or IMC (intelligent mail barcode)
>The delivery-point ID and the ZIP+4 may change *independently* of each other.
Uh, yes, the eleven digits are a Delivery Point ZIP Code.
>Not to mention the fact that the DPB value for a particular 'mailbox' will
>*differ* depending on which of the multiple valid ZIP+4 codes is used for
>that mailbox address.
That's not correct. If enough address elements are known, then when the
lookup is performed, the ZIP+4 code for the finest sortation level is
returned (even though the lookup returns ZIP+4 codes for grosser sortation
levels). If necessary address elements are missing, such as the apartment
number in a high-rise building, then the mailpiece isn't encoded to the
delivery point (mailbox) and if the system hasn't corrected it, it'll be
in a group of unsequenced pieces for the address.
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:38:22 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Number portability and the demise of line number pools in bankruptcy
Message-ID: <jd2dnVux45wThY7QnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <ietvtc$ces$1@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
>John, please correctly attribute quotes of my remarks to me. If I was sloppy
>in phrasing my question, then the error is on me and shouldn't be assumed
>to be on anyone else.
>
>>>What happens to the ported numbers? Is routing to the pool simply shut down?
>>>I assume that there is no obligation by the incumbent telephone company to
>>>switch those virtual lines.
>
>>You seem to be confusing porting with call forwarding.
>
>I was not.
>
>I assumed that a call would be routed to the default network and, if
>the number was ported, the database of ported numbers would be consulted for
>routing instructions.
Assumption is incorrect.
Originating switch does a database dip to find appropriate destination switch,
and routes directly to that destination switch.
This is desirable/necessary because the 'native' switch, and 'ported number
destination switch' may require -different- inter-carrier routing to get
to the destination.
Case in point, if call origin is on the same network as the ported destination,
and where ported destination is not the same as the 'native' network,
does it make sense for origination network to hand call off to 'native' network
only to have that network hand it back for final delivery? And how do
you do the 'settlement' for that call? Does the 'native network' get
something for a 'zero miles' hand-off?
>What happens to telephone numbers ported out of a pool when the pool is
>eliminated due to the demise of the telephone company authorized to assign
>numbers from it? I theorized that the incumbent local exchange carrier
>might be temporarily assigned as the default network for the pool (until
>the pool is reassigned to another phone company that's run out of numbers),
>doing nothing more than referring queries to those remaining numbers ported
>out of the pool to the ported number database, but I assumed that the ILEC
>had no such obligation in the regulatory scheme. No, I should not have said
>"switch".
The 'native' LEC, defunct or otherwise, has -nothing- to do with the routing
of calls to 'ported away' numbers. an independent third party maintains
the consolidated database.
>John kindly explained that we use an All Call Query scheme, in which case
>the ported number database is queried to learn if the number is indeed
>ported, instead of a Query on Release scheme, in which case the ported
>number database is queried only if the number was ported out of the
>default network's pool. In ACQ, I can see how routing instructions to
>numbers ported out of a pool that no longer exists could survive the
>demise of the pool.
One can either query before every call, or attempt a call set-up to
the 'native' network, and if that set-up fails (for pretty much any
reason other than 'circuit in use'), do the (third-party maintained)
master database dip, and re-try. Note: if the 'native' network has
gone defunct, the above logic will work because the required info is
still in the 3rd-party maintained database.
The 'critical' element in making this stuff work, regardless of how it is
done, is having the "ported number database" operated and maintained by a
third party, with the funding for that operation/maintenance coming from
all the 'interested parties' -- so that loss of revenue from some
network operator does -not- result in the 'loss' of the information about
numbers that 'used to' belong to that operator.
Date: 23 Dec 2010 16:25:59 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Number portability and the demise of line number pools in bankruptcy
Message-ID: <20101223162559.70035.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Originating switch does a database dip to find appropriate destination switch,
>and routes directly to that destination switch.
>
>This is desirable/necessary because the 'native' switch, and 'ported number
>destination switch' may require -different- inter-carrier routing to get
>to the destination.
The FCC laid it out quite clearly in 1996. They did not want calls to
ported numbers to depend in any way on cooperation from the target
number's former switch. That would give the ILECs a huge incentive to
screw it up, since they would almost always be the former switch.
> And how do you do the 'settlement' for that call? Does the
>'native network' get something for a 'zero miles' hand-off?
That's actually not the problem. LECs do local transit for other
reasons, and they do some sort of settlements.
>The 'critical' element in making this stuff work, regardless of how it is
>done, is having the "ported number database" operated and maintained by a
>third party, with the funding for that operation/maintenance coming from
>_all_ the 'interested parties'
Right. That would be Neustar.
R's,
John
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 22:11:21 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Number portability and the demise of line number pools in bankruptcy
Message-ID: <if0he9$4am$1@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>John, please correctly attribute quotes of my remarks to me. If I was sloppy
>>in phrasing my question, then the error is on me and shouldn't be assumed
>>to be on anyone else.
>>>>What happens to the ported numbers? Is routing to the pool simply
>>>>shut down? I assume that there is no obligation by the incumbent
>>>>telephone company to switch those virtual lines.
>>>You seem to be confusing porting with call forwarding.
>>I was not.
>>I assumed that a call would be routed to the default network and, if
>>the number was ported, the database of ported numbers would be consulted for
>>routing instructions.
>Assumption is incorrect.
>Originating switch does a database dip to find appropriate destination switch,
>and routes directly to that destination switch.
>This is desirable/necessary because the 'native' switch, and 'ported number
>destination switch' may require -different- inter-carrier routing to get
>to the destination.
>Case in point, if call origin is on the same network as the ported
>destination, and where ported destination is not the same as the
>'native' network, does it make sense for origination network to hand
>call off to 'native' network only to have that network hand it back for
>final delivery?
My assumption was that the originating network would query the default
destination network for routing instructions, and if informed by the
default destination network that the number has been ported out of its
pool, then the originating network would query the ported number database
for routing instructions.
>And how do you do the 'settlement' for that call? Does the 'native
>network' get something for a 'zero miles' hand-off?
Same as they settle up for any database dips.
>>John kindly explained that we use an All Call Query scheme, in which case
>>the ported number database is queried to learn if the number is indeed
>>ported, instead of a Query on Release scheme, in which case the ported
>>number database is queried only if the number was ported out of the
>>default network's pool. In ACQ, I can see how routing instructions to
>>numbers ported out of a pool that no longer exists could survive the
>>demise of the pool.
>One can either query before every call, or attempt a call set-up to
>the 'native' network, and if that set-up fails (for pretty much any
>reason other than 'circuit in use'), do the (third-party maintained)
>master database dip, and re-try.
That seems like a truly bad idea. Under a Query on Release scheme, the
referral to the ported number database should take place for ported
numbers, only, and not for any other reason, especially not for "number
not in use".
>Note: if the 'native' network has gone defunct, the above logic will
>work because the required info is still in the 3rd-party maintained
>database.
Yes, the information exists, but if every switch in the world has been
informed that the pool of numbers no longer exists, then no attempts should
be made to route calls into that pool. If QoR were in effect, you'd have
to assign the entire pool to the network on which the ported number database
lived, which seems wasteful when you might have a mere handful of numbers
living on due to number porting.
An interesting situation would occur if that defunct pool of numbers were
reactivated and assigned to a completely different rate center. Any
remaining ported numbers would have their rate center changed, a bizarre
circumstance.
The RFC John Levine came up with said QoR is a possible scheme but didn't
state where it's implemented, so I'm really curious how they'd handle
my hypothetical.
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 07:49:17 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Number portability and the demise of line number pools in bankruptcy
Message-ID: <HJydnaZBfIXj8o7QnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> A hypothetical VoIP service doesn't resell line numbers from bandwidth.com
> or one of its competitors that do nothing but provide line numbers at
> needed rate centers. Instead, the VoIP company obtains its own pool
> of line numbers and an adequate physical presence at various telephone
> company central offices and participates in number portability following
> existing telco rate center polygons.
>
In non-technical terms it is my understanding that I still "own" my
ported number if it is ported from a wireline or wireless carrier to a
different wireline or wireless carrier. My duty is to not disconnect
the former service until the new service is established and my porting
request has been completed.
But, with Vonage (which I have) I understand any number I port to them
is probably lost should I choose to discontinue my Vonage account. I am
speaking of a directly number I ported from my former wireline or
wireless carrier, not a number Vonage assigned to me.
Can anyone clarify or explain it better?
Date: 23 Dec 2010 19:56:47 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Number portability and the demise of line number pools in bankruptcy
Message-ID: <20101223195647.23101.qmail@joyce.lan>
>But, with Vonage (which I have) I understand any number I port to them
>is probably lost should I choose to discontinue my Vonage account. I am
>speaking of a directly number I ported from my former wireline or
>wireless carrier, not a number Vonage assigned to me.
That's not unique to Vonage. If you cancel your service without
porting your number away first, the number is available and is
returned to the original carrier.
By the way, has anyone else managed to port a number away from Vonage?
I did it, but they didn't make it easy.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
***** Moderator's Note *****
John, did you have to order Neustar to force the change, or did Vonage
give up before then?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: 23 Dec 2010 22:01:33 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Number portability and the demise of line number pools in bankruptcy
Message-ID: <20101223220133.54376.qmail@joyce.lan>
>By the way, has anyone else managed to port a number away from Vonage?
>I did it, but they didn't make it easy.
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>John, did you have to order Neustar to force the change, or did Vonage
>give up before then?
That was back in the chaotic era when you couldn't even get them on
the phone, so I ported it to another VoIP provider which completed
before they noticed. Then I changed my credit card number, which made
it easier to get their attention and cancel my account. ("Sir, we will
have to cancel your account if you don't pay." "Cancel the account,
I've been telling you that for months." "Uh, er, I'll have to call you
back.") Much later I simultaneously started getting notices from a
collection agency due to Vonage trying to collect for months after I
cancelled, along with junk mail in which Vonage told me how much they
wanted me back.
About a year after I cancelled, I started getting some odd calls from
an old guy whose daughter was in college near here, and realized that
chaos still reigned: they had attempted to reassign my number to the
daughter. What this meant was that my number showed up on the
caller-id when she called home, any non-Vonage customer who tried to
call her got me, and any Vonage customer who tried to call me got her.
Fortunately, at that time I realized I knew one of the guys on their
board of directors, sent him an e-mail, and a couple of days later got
a call from a very nervous flack assuring me at great length that
everything was fixed and they wouldn't be bothering me any more. That
would have been fine except that I was in England that week with my
number forwarded to my cell phone, so it was costing me about $1 per
minute to listen to him. And I haven't heard from them since. If I
hadn't had the connection to the board member, who knows whether I'd
ever have been able to get the girl's number changed.
So anyway, if anyone was asking, no, I would not recommend Vonage for
your telephone service.
R's,
John
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 06:51:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Telstra loses directory copyright appeal
Message-ID: <293337.60595.qm@web111710.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Wed, 12/22/10, Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> Returning to telecom, at one time some other countries had their
> post office also run their telephone system. Is that still the case
> today?
It was true in many (most?) countries at one time. Usually by a
department of government ending with the letters PTT. (Post,
telegraph, telephone). Privately owned telegraph and telephone
companies were once a rarity in many countries of the world.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 07:01:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Australian phone book content not protected by copyright
Message-ID: <696989.67260.qm@web111710.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Wed, 12/22/10, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> About 15 years ago an entry appeared in the Melbourne/Palm Bay (FL)
> white pages published by BellSouth. The name was Jablome Haywood,
> but the first and last names were swapped as is always the case with
> personal names in the white pages. Needless to say it didn't appear
> the following year.
Not connected with abortion in any way, we once were friends [with a
woman] whose husbnad's father was Richard Long, [and he] went by
"Dick", and had an insurance agency in Wichita Falls, Texas. They
told us his agency was listed as "Long Dick Insurance Agency." We
later visited them in Wichita Falls and of course I looked to see if
it were true. It was -- big as life in the Wichita Falls diredtory.
They said the telco had tried to get him to list it several other
ways, but he refused. After all, it was the legal name of his
business.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:54:10 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Navigon MobileNavigator App Bests Standalone Devices
Message-ID: <if0ctp$77l$1@blue.rahul.net>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Yet another quick trip to a horrific car crash.
>
> Yee gads, haven't we debated endlessly the hazards of voice and text
> wireless in the automobile?!
Show me numbers, before and after the ban. Until then we don't know.
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 (14 messages)
|
| |
or 