From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 28 17:40:55 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i8SLeth05518; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:40:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:40:55 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200409282140.i8SLeth05518@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #454 TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:40:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 454 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Miguel Fornie Named Chairman Of United Telecom Council (eworldwire.com) Auto Attendant Within PBX (omarello) Re: VOIP Server Setup (Kenneth P. Stox) Re: What is the Name of #? How did # Get its Name? (Robert Bonomi) Re: The Wal-Mart Supremacy (Lisa Hancock) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (DevilsPGD) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (Brian Inglis) Re: No Call Ref ID in SS7/C7 Why? (Phil Anderton) Re: Any Old Mechanical Systems Still in Use in the US? (John R. Levine) Re: Out of Area Calls (Truth) Re: Out of Area Calls (Michael A. Covington) 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; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:32:11 -0400 Subject: Iberdrola's Fornie Named First Chairman Of United Telecom Council From: distribution@eworldwire.com Iberdrola's Miguel Angel Sanchez Fornie Named First Chairman Of United Telecom Council European Board Of Directors MADRID, SPAIN/EWORLDWIRE/Sep. 28, 2004 --- Miguel Angel Sanchez Fornie, Director de Sistemas de Control y Telecomunicaciones at Iberdrola, headquartered in Madrid, Spain, has been appointed the first Chairman of the European Board of Directors of the United Telecom Council (UTC). UTC is the telecommunications and information technology trade association for electric and gas utilities, water companies, energy companies, and other critical infrastructure companies. Founded in 1948, and until recently known as the Utilities Telecommunications Council, UTC is now an international federation of direct business members and affiliated trade associations representing over 10,000 organizations worldwide. With technology rapidly changing the role of telecommunications in Europe's electric, gas and water utilities and energy companies, many UTC members are using their vast experience in building and managing sophisticated telecommunications networks to enter Europe's new competitive telecoms markets, while continuing to improve support for their core businesses. Many are also facing issues around the introduction of new wireless communications systems and managing internal telecoms businesses in a shared services environment. To meet this need, UTC has created a uniquely European program that will build on UTC's 60 years of experience that will be designed for Europeans, will be uniquely European in focus, and will be led by a European Board of Directors. "I have been actively involved with UTC for years," said Sanchez Fornie. "The information I have received and insights I have gained have proved to be invaluable. I am excited by the prospect of a new UTC program focused on our unique needs as Europeans. Now is the perfect time to do this," he added. "We are indeed fortunate to have someone of Miguel's caliber and commitment to assume the leadership of our European Board," said UTC President/CEO, William R. Moroney, in making the announcement. "At a time when so much is in flux in Europe," he added, "he will bring a needed level of experience and commitment to finding European solutions to the challenges of the day." In addition to announcing Sanchez Fornie's appointment as the Chairman of the UTC European Board of Directors, UTC also made the following announcements: * Peter Moray, formerly of Mason Communications, has been appointed UTC's Director of European Services. Moray is based in the United Kingdom, will work directly with the European Board, and provide a staff focal point for all European members. * UTC has entered into an arrangement with the London-based law firm of Simmons and Simmons to provide regular reports and guidance to the UTC European Board on energy, utility and telecom regulations impacting UTC members throughout Europe. * The full European Board of Directors will be introduced at UTC's Annual European Utility Telecom Conference (EUTC), November 7-10, 2004, in Dublin. For additional information please contact Peter Moray, UTC Director of European Services, at +44 (7710) 057-694 or peter.moray@utc.org. Web sites of special interest with more information are UTC's European web portal (www.europe.utc.org), where more information on Charter European Membership may be found, and the home page for the 2004 European Utility Telecom Conference (www.eutc.utc.org). For more information on Iberdrola, please visit the company web site at www.iberdrola.es. The 2004 European Utility Telecom Conference represents the largest gathering of telecommunications and technology executives from Europe's electric, gas, and water utilities and their technology partners who are focused on exploring the latest telecommunications and data networking business solutions and business opportunities. EUTC 2004 is the only conference devoted to utility telecom issues in Europe that is created by and for European utilities and their technology partners. Session topics will include in-depth case studies, regulatory updates, technology overviews, competitive telecom opportunities, standards updates, and an overview of the European Commission's PLC project, OPERA. Utility CEOs are increasingly asking questions about the telecom service delivery models, how to select and run competitive telecom ventures, how to apply new technologies to increase revenues, and how to secure telecom systems. EUTC 2004 will give answers to all of these questions. About United Telecom Council The United Telecom Council (UTC), formerly known as the Utilities Telecommunications Council is an international trade association whose members own, manage or provide critical telecommunications systems in support of their core business. Founded in 1948 to advocate for the allocation of additional radio spectrum for power utilities, UTC now represents over 10,000 electric, gas, and water utilities, natural gas pipelines and critical infrastructure companies who serve all corners of the world and virtually every community in North America. HTML: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/wr/092804/10643.htm PDF: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/pdf/092804/10643.pdf ONLINE NEWSROOM: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/2880.htm LOGO: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/2880.htm CONTACT: Peter Moray United Telecom Council Washington, DC 20006 PHONE. 44 (7710) 057-694 EMAIL: peter.moray@utc.org http://www.utc.org Copyright 2004 Eworldwire, All rights reserved. Press Relase Distribution By EWORLDWIRE http://www.eworldwire.com (973)252-6800. ------------------------------ From: omarello1@hotmail.com (omarello) Subject: Auto Attendant Within PBX Date: 27 Sep 2004 23:37:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hello all, I am trying to write an auto attendant application for the office I am working at. I was wondering what hardware I need, noting that the PBX my company uses is a Sigma DP 50. I thought I could just use a voice modem to do the job but it appears that the PBX is a digital pbx and I cannot do the job with a modem. We are trying to invest in a dialogic card, but I wasn't sure which one satisfies the need, we need one that could work on both a digital and an analog PBX. Any ideas?? Also I know that some pbx's have the auto attendant built in but I don't have access to the pbx and well, we need to have a computer do the job cause we are trying to build another CT application afterwards. Thanks a lot for the help. Omarello ------------------------------ From: Kenneth P. Stox Organization: Imaginary Landscape, LLC. Subject: Re: VOIP Server Setup Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:08:30 GMT Ted Nugent wrote: > I would like to set up my home computer so it acts as a VOIP Server. > I have a home phone line, voice modem, and a broadband connection. I > would like to be able to make phone calls through the Internet via my > home phone line. Is there any software out there that allows you to > do this? http://www.asteriskpbx.com, Free/Open Source. ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: What is the Name of #? How did # Get its Name? From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 07:02:35 GMT In article , Dave Thompson wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:51:34 +0000, bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com > (Robert Bonomi) wrote: >> The 80-columns wide 'standard' for a video display is simply a >> reflection of the 80-column width of a standard punch-card. Because, >> in the 'commercial' environment, 'input' software *was* standardized >> at 80 columns -- directly attributable to the punch-card antecedents. >> Many early 'budget' video terminals for home/hobby use did *not* show >> 80 columns -- it was difficult to achieve that many characters across >> a standard TV receiver display -- > Right; see below. (Except they were mostly used locally and called > displays not terminals.) Sorry, there is use that predates the personal computer -- with a modem on a dial-up to a mainframe time-sharing service. 'Terminal' is the correct word. Yeah, it got more common with the 1st generation hobby computers, like SWTPC, and MITS. But there was prior art. :) >> As to 'why punch cards were 80 columns', the answer is probably >> similar to "why railroad tracks are 4' 8-1/2" apart." Standard >> lettering for a _lot_ of business applications is 10 characters/inch. >> A punch-card is 8-1/2" wide. between the cut corner, and the rounded >> edge, you have just over 8" available for the printing on the top. > Although it was entirely possible, and not that rare, to use cards > without printing on them. And for that matter to get cards without the > top-left corner cut -- either none, or a different one -- or with a > colored band across the top, for visual markers or sorting, which > incidentally made printing illegible. The point being that the cards were _designed_ to accommodate that printing, One of the early IBM 'interpreters' (an O49 or was that a sorter?) could only print 40 columns in a pass; had to change the program on the plugboard to get the other 40 columns. And change where the printing fell on the card, so it didn't write over the first 40 characters. :) >> 80 cols was *not* universal, though. Burroughs used a 96-column card, >> that was less than 1/2 the size, side-to-side, of the Hollerith card. >> They would _completely_ fit in a shirt-pocket. > So did IBM, later, around the S/34 or S/36 IIRC, not too long before > punch cards passed out of mainstream usage altogether. >> The 24 rows of text, on the other hand, is directly traceable to the >> timing standards employed in a standard (TV set type ) video display. >> Of the nominal 525 lines in the raster, only 484 are 'visible'. >> [and only half distinguishable due to interlace = 242] > Maybe somewhat less depending on how well the set was built and > maintained, especially in the analog days of yore. (I don't know if > that's why you used the scare quotes.) 484 lines is the 'theoretical maximum' displayable. The video signal is =blanked= for the other 41 line-intervals that make up the frame. One can _never_ see anything on those lines. One may see even less, if the set is configured to 'over-scan' -- then some of the 'visible' lines are lost behind the faceplate of the display. 'Display' type units were usually set to _under-scan_, so the user saw a black border around the entire raster area. This meant that everything possible was visible, even if not at the largest possible size. >> The minimum cell for a character-generator capable of >> clearly displaying upper _and_lower_ case letters is a 7x9 cell. Add >> one 'dot space' between lines, and it takes 10 dots vertically, per >> line of text. With an 'available' space of 242 dots to work with, >> Guess how many lines you can fit in? >> You could go 'upper-case only' -- requiring a >> 5x7 character cell, [perhaps doubled] > But this is anachronistic (mythtaken?). The first "textual" video > displays used in any number were IBM 3270 series, which were either > 12x40 (model 1, cheaper) or 24x80 (model 2). They clearly got the 80 > from cards, but I have no idea where they got the 24 -- possibly so > that, as you also noted, the screen buffer is < 2KC. By "textual" I > mean a raster chargen display as opposed to some earlier vector or > "graphic" displays which could build a few characters out of line > segments, but would flicker unusably for more than a few full lines of > text; and Tektronix storage tubes which solved the flicker problem at > the cost of taking a minute or several to draw each page, up to about > 80x120 (squarish) IIRC, which then could not be edited. A TEK 4019, with the high-res option, had an addressable matrix of 3072x4096 points. It was -not- a 'raster' device, but rather, a pure -vector- one. You didn't turn 'dots' on/off to make lines, you could connect _any_ pair of arbitrary points with an actual straight line. It also had hardware to draw actual circles (or arcs), given a center-point and a radius. In the smallest rendering from the on-board character generator, you got two columns of 80-column text. With about 60 (66?) lines in each column. Makes the quality of today's 'high resolution' 1280x1600 displays look like sh*t. At least when doing technical graphics, like architectural plans, or electronics schematics. The 3270 used "standard TV" video circuitry. Slightly tweaked. instead of 525 lines/frame interlaced, it used 262/field lines non-interlaced (equivalent to 524 lines/frame), 60 fields/sec. Of those 262 lines,242 were 'visible', giving a max vertical resolution of 242 dots. This allowed the use of 'commodity' components for the CRT and the sweep circuitry. As well as allowing for maintenance with 'standard' diagnostic and troubleshooting gear. The 3270 was a 'smart' terminal -- necessitated by IBM's "block mode" architecture -- and used 16 bits per displayed character. 1 byte for the character itself, and one byte for the 'attributes'. things like 'bright', 'blank', 'input', 'protected', etc. Thus 12x80 was all you could get with _one_ 2k RAM for video memory. The 3270 was engineered from day one to be a 24x80 display. The model 1 displayed a (manufactured) blank line between each line of 'real' text. > IBM was followed, closely in time, and I believe in numbers, by DEC's > VT50, VT52, and later VT100, which were also 24x80 standard; some > models had options for different sizes. (I think VT05 also but don't > recall for sure.) A number of third-party manufacturers also followed > 24x80 -- LearSiegler, Beehive, and PerkinElmer spring to mind, but I > know there were more I've forgotten. *LOTS* of em. Look in the 'termcap' file on any UNIX box -- the stock file includes entries for well over 100 types of terminals. Hazeltine, and Televideo were a couple of the other 'big boys'. > In addition to the third-party > clones of IBM which of course had to.) All of these were custom > designed and built video circuitry which could use whatever lines and > dots they chose, and never (AFAIK) used interlace. In particular some > of the later IBMs (3276/8) that I used fairly extensively had really > beautiful video, much crisper than you could get on a normal TV and > looking more like a good (and expensive!) laboratory oscilloscope -- > or a good computer (digital) or HD monitor of today. (Although the > systems those terminals connected to might be a different story. ) > In many cases they were actually 25 lines -- 24 data and one reserved > for terminal status, operation, and configuration. Virtually _everything_ up to the 'MDA' for the IBM PC used standard TV-type video raster circuitry. Tweaked slightly to eliminate the interlace, resulting in 242 visible lines out of 262 intervals. 60 Hz refresh. The video _signal_ circuit was nearly universally a higher bandwidth than a stock TV. Necessary to get 'crisp' rendering of 80 characters across the display. 40 characters was 'iffy' in TV video bandwidth. The 3276/8 was a VGA-class display. > It was over a decade later when hobbyist computers like Apple, Altair, > Imsai, Cromemco, Ohio Scientific wanted to use cheaply available > consumer TVs that the NTSC limits of about 240 lines usable per field Yes, and no. *Manufacturing* (including maintenance/repair/calibration) economies dictated the use of standard tubes and sweep-circuit componentry. > and 400-some dots usable per line in the standard video bandwidth of > ~4MHz became an issue, and yes 24x80 was pushing it and often less and > often only uppercase 5x7 or 5x9 was used. Building higher-bandwidth (well, within reason :) video amps is relatively cheap. which is all that is necessary to get crisp 80 col (or even 132 col) display, even at 'standard' sweep rates. 'TV video bandwidth' was an issue only when trying to use a 'consumer grade' TV device as the display output. even back in the 60's-70's, 'commercial grade' video monitors had response bandwidths well above 10mhz. more than sufficient for 'crisp' 80-col upper-lower display. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: The Wal-Mart Supremacy Date: 28 Sep 2004 08:23:24 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com John David Galt wrote > First off, it is a well established fact that most people prefer the > freedom and convenience-they've-already-paid-for of driving, and > always will drive, even if you force them into "transit oriented > developments" and make driving as big a pain as you possibly can. > Portland proves this. Something to think about: Newsradio 1010wins.com reported (AP) a study by the Rand Corp that people who live in suburban sprawl are more likely to report chronic health problems like high blood pressure, arthitis, headaches, and breathing difficulties than residents of more compact cities. This was because people in cities walk more than people in sprawling suburbs. For the full story see: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SPRAWL_HEALTH?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HEALTH&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Another issue of low density spread-out housing and commerce is the lower efficiency of running utility lines, since individual lines must be run in separate ducts or poles to each separate building. Years ago, the phone company charged suburban customers 20% more of the basic service charge because of this. To this day, there is still a price differential, but it represents a much lower percentage. Our suburban water rates -- for which we get very hard water -- are several times as high as the nearby big city water rates; despite the city govt having constant problems with corruption and incompetence. Despite all that, the big city manages to deliver water and take sewage much more cheaply than suburban private and municipal facilities are able to do. Perhaps economies of scale play a role -- the city water plants, tanks, and resevoirs are huge facilities. There certainly may be some attractive aspects to low density development, but there are just as certainly many costs to go along with it. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Instead of debating the merits or demerits of an urban versus a (sub)urban lifestyle, where in fact much of the suburban lifestyle is dictated by its big city neighbor, give some thought to an (ex)urban lifestyle. Independence is one such example. People have often times asked me 'what big city are you part of?' and the answer, frankly is 'none'. Tulsa, Oklahoma is the nearest 'big city', and it is 80 miles south of us. For cellular phone purposes and some other commercial enterprises, we are part of the 'Tulsa Market'. Wichita, KS is 110 miles northwest of us; Topeka, KS, our state capitol is a hundred plus miles north of us, and the KCMO metro area (which we tend to think of as sort of a foreign place) is 250 miles north of us. Southeast Kansas is a *very* rural area. With our population of eight thousand people, we are considered 'big town' to the tiny villages around us, who seem to be defined as 'Independence rural'. All those places get their water from us, their fire protection and (what little they need of it) their police services. So what 'big cities' get, or demand in the way of services, we have to make do for ourselves. But we do pretty well, minus the big city government corruption and politics. PAT] ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 06:10:40 GMT In message pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) wrote: > One thing that does occur to me -- security. Maybe I don't want someone > on the flight being able to call in the plane's exact position to > someone on the ground. I seem to remember that the maximum groundspeed > that terrestrial GPSes would work at was reduced at some point (I can > for a fact say that my old unit works beautifully up to at least > 500mph); maybe this is the reason. * Maybe ... But you are allowed to have a GPS, just not to use it -- I doubt terrorists on the plane are going to forget about their plans and leave their GPS turned off. To the book depository! -- Homer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:22:36 GMT From: Brian Inglis Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.ab.ca Organization: Systematic Software On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:55:52 -0700 in comp.dcom.telecom, jdj wrote: > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:55:18 +0000, Brian Inglis wrote: >> fOn 25 Sep 2004 19:39:25 -0700 in comp.dcom.telecom, >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: >>> Never heard that. But I've heard to turn off cell phones while >>> refueling the car, and I wonder if that's really necessary. >> According to MythBusters, it's not; but opening the car door (e.g. to >> get at a ringing cell phone) has caused incidents, either from static >> electricity or the lighting circuit (haven't seen a definitive cause). > MythBusters did not test this. Their test was something completely > different: No vehicles or petrol pumps were involved. They attempted to cause ignition/explosion of gasoline vapour by calling a cell phone. Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca) fake address use address above to reply ------------------------------ From: Phil Anderton Subject: Re: No Call Ref ID in SS7/C7 Why? Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:05:57 +0200 Organization: Peoples' Front of Judaea Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > wrote: >> ISUP does have mechanisms for end to end signalling, but in normal use >> it's almost exclusively link by link signalling, and for that all you >> need is OPC+DPC+CIC. > You know, I hear that from time to time. But aside from the PAM > (Pass-Along-Message) which is so loosely defined by the standard that > it is unclear whether or not it could actually be used, I'm at a loss > as to just what these "mechanisms for end to end signaling" are. It's been many years since I last looked at the specs, but I was thinking of the end-to-end method indicator which can be used to inform the other end which mechanisms (pass along and/or SCCP) are available. > I had occasion to try to generate and send PAM messages in a test > environment a few years ago. It is difficult, to say the least, to > understand exactly what should be in them: one reading of the standard > suggests that it should be a complete encapsulated ISUP message, with > addresses and all. Now, _that_ begs the question "how do I know what > address to put in the inner message, since I don't know the address of > the terminating-end switch?" There are many similar issues. Well I've never seen the pass along method used in anger, but I'm pretty sure the PAM doesn't contain an MTP envelope, just the ISUP message itself. > The Nortel DMS switch documentation describes one very obscure > DMS-only feature that is evidently implemented using PAMs; but as of > the time I last studied this, if that feature actually works at all, > that's the only environment in which it would. > Can you give me better examples of end-to-end signaling in ISUP? I'd > love to have some. How about CCBS? That uses a TCAP/SCCP connection, so clearly the end switches must somehow exchange addresses and yes, some kind of call reference. I'm afraid I don't know/remember the details, but I have seen CCBS working successfully across network boundaries (GSM to ISDN). Phil It's perfectly ordinary banter, Squiffy. Bally Jerry...pranged his kite right in the how's yer father...hairy blighter, dicky-birdied, feathered back on his Sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harper's and caught his can in the Bertie. ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Any Old Mechanical Systems Still in Use in the US? Date: 28 Sep 2004 16:04:17 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > The single 5E in town, where there was once two xbars, handles eight > LEC exchanges and at least three CLEC exchanges. Really? I've heard of Bell handling switching for tiny independents (VZ North for Naushon Island, for example), but I've never heard of a LEC selling switching to a CLEC. ------------------------------ From: Truth Organization: http://www.truthaboutwar.com Subject: Re: Out of Area Calls Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:45:53 GMT >> However, once in a while, I get calls that are "out of area" with no >> phone number shown. >> My question is -- is there a way to block these from ever getting to >> the phone unless the caller IDs themselves? > Yes, if your phone company offers "call intercept." > Such callers hear a message that their call has been intercepted and > they must identify themselves. They are put on hold and you hear a > distinctive ring as well as see "call intercept" on your CID. This no longer works. Telemarketers display numbers like 555-555-5555 and then they get through, or they just say "this is an urgent message, please pick up" and then your phone rings anyway. What this service does, is make it difficult for friends and family trying to get through to you many times. If you can't see how wrong it is for the phone company to sell phone lines to telemarketers, then sell you some service that is supposed to block their calls, then you need to stand back and take a look at the whole picture. How can you even have a service like this, and national do not call lists unless the majority of people don't like to get telemarketing calls? So why not just make telemarketing ILLEGAL instead of allowing the problem, then trying to use duct tape to fix the problem you allowed to happen? Why not make murder legal, then just sell bullet proof windows and clothes to everyone? Because it makes more sense to make murder illegal, and not have everyone else have to wear bullet proof clothes all the time. THINK ... it causes many questions to be answered. >> "There are some exemptions, for example, as you might expect, >> telephone companies can still call you to solicit you and so can banks >> and credit card companies," Cohen said. Also still allowed to call >> are: charities, insurance companies and politicians." > What does the law say about when you ask a charity to stop calling and > they refuse? They say YOU go and get all sorts of information, like charity name, place of business address, and all sorts of things these telemarketers refuse to give you when you ask, so you are screwed. You are supposed to take all this info and sue the company. Not something most people are willing to take the time and effort to do. And the telemarketers know this. Laws only protect the criminals, never the victims. > The Texas Paralyzed Veterans keeps calling asking for > donations. I have called their office, spoken to a supervisor, and > explcitly asked that my number be removed from their call list. They > always promise, but three or four times a week I continue to receive > calls from them. Of course. The other funny part is how Veterans of a superpower country need to ask and beg for donations because the government doesn't take care of them. You can always tell how good a country is by how well they take care of their veterans! > I had the campaign of a major party presidential candidate (the one I > support over the other) continue to call asking for a $75 donation. They don't need any money. They get FREE publicity every single day on the news media. They don't have to spend one penny and they would still be the top two recognized candidates. The ONLY ones that need money, are the other parties that the press refuse to mention at all. > I kindly asked they remove me but I kept getting calls. I finally told > them, "If you call me one more time I will donate $75 to your opponent and > vote for him in November." The calls immediately stopped. I would've > done it too. You know how this works. You say they stopped, then after you say that, they start calling again. This doesn't work. The type of people that can live with themselves calling and bothering people in their homes, are the type of people that get enjoyment in calling people who beg for you to stop calling them. The more you beg for them to stop, the more they will call you over other people. This is their whole life. The only way to deal with law breakers is to play them on their own level. >> Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop >> most, but not all, telemarketing calls. You may still receive calls >> from political organizations, charities, telephone surveyors or >> companies with which you have an existing business relationship. > And there, Mr Falsehood, you have the ONLY exceptions. You don't even realize you just helped prove my point, do you? Of course not. What good is the do not call list if all these thousands of companies can still call you? Go sit down and think about that for a while. THEN, add all the companies that don't care about the law or the do not call list. You know, the ones when you tell to stop calling you, continue to call you even more? Go put your head back in the sand and keep repeating to yourself everything your government preaches to you. > Said it early on, will say it again: The intelligent and effective way > to handle telemarketing would have been legislation requiring that any > and all telemarketing calls be made using Caller ID with a distinctive > and national standardized Area Code, e.g. 311 or something similar, so > that recipients who didn't want to receive such calls could easily > filter and reject them. No, again that is like allowing people to break into your house and steal stuff, so long as they have to wear a bright orange suit when doing so. The ONLY way to solve the problem of telemarketing, is to make telemarketing illegal and not allowed under any situation. > What First Amendment concerns are there in me telling other people > (with the assistance of the government) how they may or may not use my > property to annoy me? My phone was not installed for their benefit; > free speech belongs to those who hire their own hall. Funny thing is, when a telemarketer calls, you are not even allowed free speech in your own home, because if you use offensive language, they will get outraged and demand you not use that language when speaking to them. They entered YOUR home and are telling you that you can't say what you want in your OWN HOME! Free speech only applies to the criminal, not to the victim. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, teleco is required as a common carrier to provide service to every qualified applicant. 'Qualified applicant' is defined under the tariff as any person or organzation who has demonstrated an ability and willingness to pay for the service. What do you want telco to do, ask you upon your application for service what you intend to talk about on the phone? Then if you state that you intend to sell things, refuse to give you the service? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael A. Covington Subject: Re: Out of Area Calls Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:23:23 -0400 Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net) Gary Novosielski wrote in message news:telecom23.453.6@telecom-digest.org: > It's much better to require the companies to provide their REAL phone > number in the Caller ID than some fictitious number. Agreed. What's wrong with honesty? But it would be better yet to ban telemarketing altogether. The telephone is not a broadcast medium. Does *anybody* actually *want* to receive telemarketing calls? The do-not-call list is based on the fiction that not everybody wants telemarketers blocked. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Apparently some people *do* wish to recieve those phone calls. Apparently enough money is made from tele- marketing phone calls that an entire science has been developed around it, as to location (telemarketers prefer a 'bland' midwestern English speaker, preferably a white person so that the telemarketer's speech and accent patterns do not get them off 'on the wrong foot' to start with.) No southern accents, no east-coast accents, no 'black speech patterns' allowed. The telemarketers feel their job is to work with and make sales regardless of the prejudice possible in the person they are speaking with. A telemarketer, to be successful, does not have five seconds to waste on a person who is (even more than usual) unlikely to purchase from them because a (name your ethnic prejudice) called them. And you cannot ban telemarketing totally, even if everyone wanted to be listed on the 'do not call list'. Any qualified applicant for a phone is entitled to have one and you cannot ask what the person intends to talk about on the telephone before allowing them to have an instrument. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 TELECOM Digest V23 #454 ******************************