30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for February 17, 2012
====== 30 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of that address. 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, 16 Feb 2012 15:11:06 -0500 From: Telecom Digest Moderator <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Thank you, Robert Message-ID: <20120216201106.GA27684@telecom.csail.mit.edu> I've just returned from a two-week stay in Maine, where I was asked to house-sit for an old friend who had to leave unexpectedly. My thanks to Robert Bonomi for taking on the Moderator job during my absence. Bill -- Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:29:58 -0500 From: danny burstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls". Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.firstname.lastname@example.org> Of course politicians and "non profits" are still exempt. And as all of us who are still getting calls from "Rachel of Cardholder Services", we've just got to wonder how concerned the FCC/FTC really area... ------ [FCC press release] 1.In this Report and Order (Order), we take steps to protect consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).1 The protections we adopt will protect consumers from unwanted autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls, also known as "telemarketing robocalls," ..... 1.None of our actions change requirements for prerecorded messages that are non-telemarketing, informational calls, such as calls by or on behalf of tax-exempt non-profit organizations, calls for political purposes, ------------ rest: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-strengthens-consumer-protections-against-telemarketing-robocalls-0 -or- http://goo.gl/bbn08 _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key email@example.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: 16 Feb 2012 16:37:37 -0500 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Dorsey) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls". Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> danny burstein <email@example.com> wrote: >Of course politicians and "non profits" are still exempt. And as all >of us who are still getting calls from "Rachel of Cardholder >Services", we've just got to wonder how concerned the FCC/FTC really >area... Rachel's real name is Rajani and she is calling from a call center in Bangalore, far out of the reach of the FTC. Cheap long distance providers using VoIP have made it much less expensive to call friends abroad, but they have also made it much less expensive for fraudulent operations abroad to call you. --scott - - "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ***** Moderator's Note ***** The solution is simple: wait until Rachel finishes her announcement, tap through to speak to a human, and waste as much of that person's time as possible. If only 1/10 of Rachel's targets did that, she and her friends - wherever they are - would be out of business in a month. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:35:44 +0000 (UTC) From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Garrett Wollman) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls". Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> In article <email@example.com>, Scott Dorsey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >Rachel's real name is Rajani and she is calling from a call center in >Bangalore, far out of the reach of the FTC. Rachel may be out of the reach of the FTC, but the sleaze who hires her employer almost certainly is not. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft email@example.com| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:14:26 -0600 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Bonomi) To: email@example.com. Subject: New FCC rules restricting 'robocalls' Message-ID: <cL2dne6Hr-AvDaHSnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> The FCC today released a 'Report and Order' changing the rules regarding automated telemarketing calls. Highlights, and implementation timetable: 1) 30 days after publication of the new Order in the Federal Register, significantly lower limits on 'abandoned' calls take effect. 2) 90 days after publication, all automated calls must include an automatic, interactive, 'opt out' mechanism, announced at the beginning of the call, and available for the entire duration of the call. i.e., press the magic button you are automatically added to the caller's company-wide 'do not call' list, and the call must immediately disconnect. 3) 12 months after publication, a caller must have express_written_consent to make automated calls, regardless of whether or not an 'existing business relationship' exists. Some exceptions remain -- certain calls from medical services providers covered under the privacy provisions of HIPPA, and calls made WITH_THE_CONSENT of the called party from a non-profit charity (Note: advance 'consent' is now required, albeit not "written consent"). Also calls made for 'emergency purposes' are allowed. The new FCC rules 'harmonize' with recent FTC 'telemarketing rule' changes. The real issue, as always, is going to be 'enforcement'. One will have to 'wait and see' on that. All the gory details at: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0215/FCC-12-21A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0215/FCC-12-21A2.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0215/FCC-12-21A3.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0215/FCC-12-21A4.pdf
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:52:22 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: TomTom GPS watches you drive, sets your insurance rate accordingly Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> TomTom GPS watches you drive, sets your insurance rate accordingly By Bill Howard February 10, 2012 The next portable navigation device on your dash could watch your driving habits and provide you with a lower insurance rate, but it could also rat you out (too fast! too hard on the brakes!) and have you paying more. The next step in usage-based insurance comes courtesy of Dutch firm TomTom and UK insurer Motaquote, who are teaming to offer a form of Carrot-and-Stick Auto Insurance. That's not the real title but it's close enough because it penalizes aggressive drivers at the same time it rewards good ones. TomTom's technology can be viewed as Big Brother (if you're paranoid) while it could be a godsend for good drivers or for those that really need low-cost insurance and are willing to reprogram their driving habits to get it. ... http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/117889-tomtom-watches-you-drive-insurance-rate
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:23:13 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: LD carrier, what's that? Message-ID: <email@example.com> For years, I used "usadatanet" as my LD carrier. It was not FGD; rather, you called a local POP, it answered & knew you from ANI/CID; you dialed 10D. The advantage was there were no monthly fees and no minimums; so it was ideal for my very minumum usage. A telecommuting friend also used it as his employer got the bill...not him. Somehow it morphed into "Spot" and he has continued to use it. (I now have other options.) But he got a message they are dropping service in DC and several other states; no idea why. Are there any carriers left out there without big minimums/monthly fees....? I'll listen for pins dropping in response. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................firstname.lastname@example.org & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Date: 16 Feb 2012 23:07:48 -0000 From: "John Levine" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: LD carrier, what's that? Message-ID: <email@example.com> I don't know anyone who'll do dial-1 telephony without a monthly fee. For my 800 number and beach house, I use Pioneer Telecom, rates are about 3 cpm, no minimum if you get billed electronically, monthly "regulatory recovery fee" is $1.61 for my account. If you like dialaround and you're ever in Canada, get a President's Choice prepaid calling card at a Loblaws's grocery store. Rates are 4 cpm (Canadian cents) to U.S. and Canada, and you can set it up online to top up automatically with $5 from a credit card when you run out of credit. Access is by toll-free number, you can tell it your home number so you don't have to enter a PIN from home. They used to expire but don't any more so long as they're linked to a credit card. Since it is a Canadian calling card, there is NO PAYPHONE SURCHARGE. That's right, none, even in the U.S. R's, John
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:58:28 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Flaw Found in an Online Encryption Method Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Flaw Found in an Online Encryption Method By JOHN MARKOFF February 14, 2012 SAN FRANCISCO - A team of European and American mathematicians and cryptographers have discovered an unexpected weakness in the encryption system widely used worldwide for online shopping, banking, e-mail and other Internet services intended to remain private and secure. The flaw - which involves a small but measurable number of cases - has to do with the way the system generates random numbers, which are used to make it practically impossible for an attacker to unscramble digital messages. While it can affect the transactions of individual Internet users, there is nothing an individual can do about it. The operators of large Web sites will need to make changes to ensure the security of their systems, the researchers said. The potential danger of the flaw is that even though the number of users affected by the flaw may be small, confidence in the security of Web transactions is reduced, the authors said. The system requires that a user first create and publish the product of two large prime numbers, in addition to another number, to generate a public "key." The original numbers are kept secret. To encrypt a message, a second person employs a formula that contains the public number. In practice, only someone with knowledge of the original prime numbers can decode that message. For the system to provide security, however, it is essential that the secret prime numbers be generated randomly. The researchers discovered that in a small but significant number of cases, the random number generation system failed to work correctly. The importance in ensuring that encryption systems do not have undetected flaws cannot be overstated. The modern world's online commerce system rests entirely on the secrecy afforded by the public key cryptographic infrastructure. The researchers described their work in a paper that the authors have submitted for publication at a cryptography conference to be held in Santa Barbara, Calif., in August. They made their findings public Tuesday because they believe the issue is of immediate concern to the operators of Web servers that rely on the public key cryptography system. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/technology/researchers-find-flaw-in-an-online-encryption-method.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.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
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) 2012 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.