34 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2015 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.
The Telecom Digest for Oct 28, 2015
The wisdom of mankind creeps slowly on,|
Subject to every doubt that can retard
Or fling it back upon an earlier time.
|Richard Henry Horne (1803-1884)|
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
|Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 22:20:56 +0000 (UTC) From: email@example.com (Michael Moroney) To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: FCC hopes to shut down robocallers by publishing numbers weekly Message-ID: <email@example.com> Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >by Megan Geuss >On Wednesday the Federal Communications Commission said that it >would begin releasing a spreadsheet every week of numbers >belonging to robocallers and telemarketers in the hopes of making it >easier for third parties to build Do Not Call functions into their >products. >The spreadsheet, published as a downloadable CSV file, contains >numbers reported through informal consumer complaints. "Consumer >complaints to the FCC are a vital tool in the agency's work," a >statement by the FCC said. "Complaints about unwanted calls and texts >are by far the largest complaint category to the agency, with over >215,000 complaints last year." > >http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/fcc-hopes-to-shut-down-robocallers > >-by-publishing-numbers-weekly/ >***** Moderator's Note ***** >I don't think that will work: it's another whack-a-mole game, and I'm >surprised that the FCC would try it. >This may be a case of the FCC commissioners feeling that they must do >"something", and not thinking it through. >Bill Horne >Moderator Exactly. They will simply fake caller-ID even more than they already do now. Recently I've gotten a few calls on my home phone "from" myself -- the caller ID displayed our own name and number exactly how it gets displayed on someone else's phone when I call them! I don't know who it was, I didn't answer and they didn't leave a message. On the other end of the creativity scale are the telemarketers/scammers who use as a caller ID 000-000-0000. ***** Moderator's Note ***** The most frequent trick I've seen is to use the same NPA-NNX as mine, but not my line-number. I get the feeling there's som lord-of-telemarketing doing a maniacal laugh in his fortress of doom every time I answer one of those - until I've wasted five or ten minutes of the human's time and then said "I'm not interested. My number is on the do-not-call list, so don't call me again." I don't know why, but they always say they can't do that. Bill Horne Moderator|
|Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:27:10 -0400 From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: FCC hopes to shut down robocallers by publishing numbers weekly Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Per Telecom Digest Moderator: >I don't think that will work: it's another whack-a-mole game, and I'm >surprised that the FCC would try it. > >This may be a case of the FCC commissioners feeling that they must do >"something", and not thinking it through. I can't even begin to see how it would work. I don't have firsthand knowledge, but the picture I have in my mind is of an extremely fluid environment. FCC publishes list.... Robocallers take the list and modify their fake CallerIDs to not include said numbers.... Probably takes all of, what?... a half hour ? I could even spin it as an assist to the robocallers.... maybe keeping them a half-step ahead of services like NoMoRobo. For my money, the most effective thing they could do is require all phone companies to include CallerID and Simultaneous Ring as part of their basic package - at no additional charge. Failing that, set up "Honey Pot" situations where whoever is behind a robocall gets prosecuted once money changes hands.... but I would think that's awfully cost-intensive in an environment where much worse stuff is competing for budget dollars. --- Pete Cresswell ***** Moderator's Note ***** It's "almost" an election year in the U.S., and I think a lot of Washington regulars are feeling like they have to cover every base on every complaint in every possible way - and in this case, the only possible ways are either to put some teeth in the do-not-call law, or lip service. That, of course, is my opinion. (Pauses to check Constitution; yup, I can still have opinions.) Bill Horne Moderator|
|Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 08:06:15 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Apple sued over iOS 9's eagerness to chew up cellular data Message-ID: <288AD0EC-8C3A-4F18-BA6B-CD485EE2D808@roscom.com> Apple sued over iOS 9's eagerness to chew up cellular data Not happy that iOS 9's WiFi Assist feature is quietly gobbling your iPhone's cellular data for the sake of boosting your WiFi performance? You're not alone -- and you might get compensation for your troubles. A California-based couple has filed a class action lawsuit accusing Apple of doing too little to warn iPhone owners about WiFi Assist's data use. Allegedly, the guide it posted in response to concerns about the feature doesn't cut the mustard. It "downplays" the kind of overage charges you could rack up after upgrading to the newer iOS revision, according to the complaint. http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/25/apple-sued-over-ios-9-wifi-assist/|
|Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:00:17 -0400 From: "Adam Pawlowski" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: New federal rate caps on telephone calls by prison inmates Message-ID: <email@example.com> Regarding per-minute rates being higher, there certainly are 'kickbacks' in a number of installations. However, consider also that these are generally full-service installations. A vendor installs the telephones and systems at their rates. These include not only traditional voice calling, but accounting services, and call detail records and recording retentions for a number of years. That is turned into a per-minute value cost instead of piecemeal billing for ease. Reportedly, a number of services are looking into video calling, for when in-person visits are not possible (a separate topic itself). Those would not be regulated and are certain to come at much higher usage rates. Adam Pawlowski PS Please forgive a breach of posting etiquette. I know you'd replied before of a way I should reply as I'd done it wrong, but I'm unable to find that mail. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I don't remember. It's all a blank. Let's see: 1. Charset=us-ascii, but Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit. Hmmm. 2. No "In-Reply-To" or "References" headers. Fixed. I forgive you. That's all I noticed. Bill Horne Moderator > -----Original Message----- > From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:telecom-owner@telecom- > digest.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:20 AM > To: email@example.com > > Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 17:17:38 -0400 > From: Barry Margolin <firstname.lastname@example.org> > To: email@example.com. > Subject: Re: New federal rate caps on telephone calls by prison inmates > Message-ID: <barmar-28B58A.firstname.lastname@example.org> > > Maybe those would explain a 50-100% bump in the price, but they hardly > explains rates that were reported to be more than 1,000 times higher > than the rates on the outside. Nor would increased costs explain why > the states should make a profit on the service -- if it costs the > telco more to provide the service, the fees should go to the telco. > > -- > Barry Margolin, email@example.com > Arlington, MA > *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***|
|Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:36:25 -0700 From: John David Galt <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: FCC hopes to shut down robocallers by publishing numbers weekly Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> > I don't think that will work: it's another whack-a-mole game, and I'm > surprised that the FCC would try it. Agreed. What I think would work would be to rule that all carriers must reveal actual ANI to people on the list who complain about junk robocalls, or at least their lawyers, and that the callers must pay some statutory penalty large enough to make it worthwhile for the callees to pursue.|
|Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:38:26 -0700 From: John David Galt <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Prison phone companies fight for right to charge inmates $14 a minute Message-ID: <email@example.com> On 2015-10-26 05:43, Monty Solomon wrote: > Yesterday's vote came after complaints that inmate-calling companies > are overcharging prisoners, their families, and attorneys. Saying the > price of calls sometimes hits $14 per minute, the FCC has now capped > rates at 11¢ per minute. $14 is price gouging, but the actual cost is probably in the range of $.50 to $1. The likely result of this cap is that companies stop offering the service entirely.|
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 educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne.
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 © 2015 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself. Thank you!
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.