30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

The Telecom Digest for February 19, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 47 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work? (Arnie Goetchius)
Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work? (Wes Leatherock)
Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls" (Bill Horne)
Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls". (John David Galt)

====== 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 owner.
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: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:25:06 -0500 From: Arnie Goetchius <arnie.goetchius@nogood.dummy> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work? Message-ID: <jhofsj$196$1@dont-email.me> Bill Horne wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 08:23:43AM -0500, Arnie Goetchius wrote: >> My daughter moved about 10 miles from Houston city to the suburbs. She >> arranged to have her business line (713-467-xxxx)"trunked" to a >> residential line (281-496-yyyy) in Houston suburbs. The service provider >> is AT&T. The central switching office handling 713-467-xxxx is HSTNTXHODSO >> and the one handling 281-496-yyyy is HSTNTXBUDSO. Both offices are 5ESS. > > [snip] > >> Questions: >> >> 1. Is the 713-467-xxxx really "trunked" (term used by AT&T customer >> service) or is this some kind of Fixed Call Forwarding? She would like to >> have the ability to change the receiving number from 281-496-yyyy to >> another number, e.g a cell phone at will. In other words, is there a way >> for her to change the receiving number through computer access or >> otherwise to any number she wants at any time or is this fixed and can't >> be changed except by service order? > > It's almost certainly a "Remote Call Forwarding" service, which means > the HSTNTXHODS0 office is re-routing calls that were intended for the > 713-467-xxxx number as if they were originally dialed to the > 281-496-yyyy line. It's a fixed translation in the HSTNTXHODS0 office, > and a service order is needed to change it AFAIK. > > She can install call forwarding on the 281-496 number, and forward > calls to the desired destination. Some LEC companies offer "Follow > Me" service, which enables customers to change the "forward to" number > from a separate location, but that's not very common, so she'd have to > re-route calls before leaving home, and could only change the > forward-to number after she got back. > > Google Voice and other alternative service providers will sell her > service that rings different destination numbers in sequence, i.e., if > 281-496-yyyy doesn't answer, Google Voice could then ring > 281-555-4444, then 281-555-6666, etc. Of course, if one of the numbers > in that chain has voice mail service or an answering machine on the > line, then the call will be "delivered" to that number. > >> 2. She wants to be able to tell if the call coming in on 281-496-yyyy >> originated from the 713 business line or is a personal call directly to >> the 281 number. Can she have a Personal Ring code on the 713 number so >> that when a call is placed to 713-467-xxxx and then rings at 281-496-yyyy, >> the Personal Ring will transfer to the 281 number? > > If the service is offered in the HSTNTXBUDSO office, she can order > "RingMate" (it might be called something else in your area) service, > which will assign a second phone number to the 281-496-yyyy line, and > provide a distinctive ringing code when the new number is > dialed. For example, if her current number is 281-496-1234, she could > have 281-496-2345 added to the line, and calls made to the -2345 > number would have a distinctive ringing code. > > If this sounds familiar, it's because it is: RingMate is just another > name for party line service, which allowed multiple families to share > the same overhead wire when copper was in short supply. The only > difference is that both numbers terminate at the same location, namely > your daughter's house. > > Of course, after getting the new number installed, she'll have to have > the Remote Call Forwarding service on the 713-467 number changed so > that it points to her new home number. She might find it more > convenient to simply installs a second phone line, since that will > provide for a separate bill for her "business" calls. > > Bill > The problem now is that if some one calls her on the 713-467 number, she cannot respond to the caller using the 713-467 (unless she uses a spoofing service). She has to use the 281-496 number. A customer receiving her return call may check their Caller ID and, not recognizing the number, does not answer the call. I think installing a second phone line for business is the way to go. Her concern is that the current business number has been in use for many years and includes a listing in the Yellow Pages. If she gets a new business line, she will have to cancel the old business line. Granted she will eventually appear in the YP with the new number but there will be confusion for some time. But that solves the problem of her being able to return the call using the same line that the call came in on. Ideally, she would like to have a private line so that 713-467 rings directly in her house and she could return calls using the 713-467. While that may be possible, it is probably not economically feasible. Arnie
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:46:08 -0800 (PST) From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work? Message-ID: <1329579968.52850.YahooMailClassic@web111722.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 2/17/12, Arnie Goetchius <arnie.goetchius@nogood.dummy> wrote: Questions: > 1. Is the 713-467-xxxx really "trunked" (term used by AT&T customer > service) or is this some kind of Fixed Call Forwarding? She would > like to have the ability to change the receiving number from > 281-496-yyyy to another number, e.g a cell phone at will. In other > words, is there a way for her to change the receiving number through > computer access or otherwise to any number she wants at any time or > is this fixed and can't be changed except by service order? [ ... snip ... ] If the service is provided by call forwarding, the service to provide this is RACF (Remote Access to Call Forwarding). Wes Leatherock wleathus@yahoo.com wesrock@aol.com
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:00:51 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls" Message-ID: <20120217210051.GA26973@telecom.csail.mit.edu> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 06:12:43PM +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote: > In article <20120217152430.GA13583@telecom.csail.mit.edu>, > Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: > >They're not "news people". They are performers, reading from a script > >that someone else wrote while concentrating on looking sincere and > >trustworthy. Their only marketable skill is that they look good on > >television. > > A few moments' investigation would make it abundantly clear that this > is not true. (I assume you weren't intending to libel any particular > ABC News reporter, just television reporters in general.) We disagree. I think TV reporters are performers. I think every aspect of commercial TV "news" is scripted and planned to give the impression of sincerity while avoiding any glint of controversy that might potentially embarrass any major advertiser. Mine is not a new complaint: consider this quote, from 1979 (1): For the past several years, local news shows have placed an increasing emphasis on turning news into entertainment, turning reporters into celebrities and turning short film clips into a substitute for journalism. As the competition for local ratings has intensified, the rivalry among these public affairs situation comedies has grown accordingly. WLS-TV, the ABC affiliate in Chicago, is generally credited with pioneering the concept of "Happy News" a half-dozen years ago. Its success in the ratings led ABC to spread the format to the four other major city stations it directly owns and operates. By now, elements of the approach have been picked up and incorporated into local news shows on nearly every commercial station in the country. As if further evidence were needed, the illusion of autonomy on the part of local TV stations is effectively punctured by the remarkable congruence of news formats in different cities. Our choices have been reduced to the kind of cynical manipulation that Deborah Serani, Psy.D. wrote about in "Two Takes on Depression"(2) News programming uses a hierarchy [of] if it bleeds, it leads. Fear-based news programming has two aims. The first is to grab the viewer's attention. In the news media, this is called the teaser. The second aim is to persuade the viewer that the solution for reducing the identified fear will be in the news story. If a teaser asks, "What's in your tap water that YOU need to know about?" a viewer will likely tune in to get the up-to-date information to ensure safety. The success of fear-based news relies on presenting dramatic anecdotes in place of scientific evidence, promoting isolated events as trends, depicting categories of people as dangerous and replacing optimism with fatalistic thinking. U.S. news reportage is a fundamentally biased system, right from the start(3): Media critics argue that corporate values dominate newsroom decisions. ... The study examined whether news executives seek employees with characteristics valued by the organizational culture or those valued by the professional culture of journalism. The data show that news executives emphasize hiring people based on personality and work habits over any professional characteristic except language skills. The sad truth is that news programs are directed at the lowest common denominator of the American viewing audience, and that means that when TV reporters conduct interviews, the interviewees are always told to answer questions at an eighth-grade comprehension level. Ask yourself if Edward R. Murrow would be allowed to go after Senator McCarthy in today's media world. Ask yourself if an FCC Commissioner would be allowed to repeat the substance or even the tone of Minow's famous "Wasteland" speech(4). I think the answers are obvious. Bill 1. "Eyewitless news - An amusing aid to digestion", by Tim Patterson http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC20folder/EyewitlessNews.html 2. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/two-takes-depression/201106/if-it-bleeds-it-leads-understanding-fear-based-media -or- http://goo.gl/guCtC 3. "Organization vs. Professional Culture in the Newsroom: Television News Directors' and Newspaper Editors' Hiring Decisions" by C. Ann Hollifield, Gerald M. Kosicki, and Lee B. Becker. See http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15506878jobem4501_7#preview 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasteland_Speech -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) (Guest moderation by Robert Bonomi for this post only)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:50:40 -0800 From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls". Message-ID: <jhp6fj$2d0$1@blue-new.rahul.net> On 2012-02-17 15:38, Paul wrote: > To make enforcement and reporting easier and more efficient, we need a > vertical service code which would work similarly to *57, which could > be dialed after receiving such a call. Giving details and followup > might be by AVR right after dialing the code, or through a web site at > some time afterwards. I don't know about wherever you live, but here in California, even if you pay for *57 it has no effect because the telco won't cooperate with law enforcement against junk callers. at&t company policy seems to be that junk = revenue and is therefore good.
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
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) 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.

End of The Telecom Digest (4 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues