For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:28:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 163 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Spam Hits Us Bad Today - Message Losses (TELECOM Digest Editor) Comcast Sued for Disclosing Customer Information (Lisa Minter) U.N. Expert Says Firms Should Do More Vs Child Porn (Lisa Minter) Cell Phone Wearing Out? (Choreboy) Is RocketVoIP Deceiving Customers Regarding Unlimited VoIP (Jack Decker) Can I Port an 800 Number Without the Old Carrier's OK? (william) Tradtional Mail Discouraged (Lisa Hancock) Re: Study: Consumers Oppose Cell Phones in Flight (Paul Coxwell) Bell Operating Company Employees/Retirees (sbctech) 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; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:49:02 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org> Subject: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses Ordinarily either Lisa Minter or myself get in here and flush the spam queue a few times daily. Then we go through the 'regular' file of 'good' incoming mail and sort through it, since about 80-90 percent of the stuff in the 'good' mail file is also spam which managed to not trip the Spam Assassin rules. Then we move the 'good' stuff into a protected area where it is stored until the next issue comes out. But from the last issue of the Digest on Wednesday through the present time, neither of us came in to do the usual flush, consequently there were several hundred spams in the so- called 'good' file today. And in the middle of them, here and there, the legitimate emails. Unfortunatly, the good stuff got flushed with the volumes of spam today by accident. What you see in this issue is _all we have left_ of the good stuff. If you wrote to the Digest anytime since Wednesday night; you got an autoack and _do not_ see your email in this issue, then please resubmit it. There *has to be* a better way of sorting out the spam. I have the trigger set now at 2 (according to Spam Assassin, 5 is average for most users), but I just do not feel I can go any lower than 2; there is too much stuff otherwise hitting the spam bucket; I use the very old 'mail' from 1993 with Unix here; I wish there were someway to see entire screens full of stuff and be able to dismiss it with a single keystroke instead of the 3-4 keystrokes needed at present. Anyway, if your message from (probably during the day) Thursday is not shown here, then sorry, I don't have it. Resubmit it please. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 2005 14:25:46 -0700 From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com> Subject: Comcast Sued for Disclosing Customer Information Comcast Corp. the top U.S. cable television network operator, is being sued by a Seattle-area woman for disclosing her name and contact information, court records showed on Thursday. In a lawsuit filed in King County, Washington, Dawnell Leadbetter said that she was contacted by a debt collection agency in January and told to pay a $4,500 for downloading copyright-protected music or face a lawsuit for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Leadbetter, a mother of two teenage children, was a customer of Comcast's high-speed Internet access service. The company, Settlement Support Center LLC, based in Washington state, was using information that the Recording Industry of Association of America had obtained in a Philadelphia lawsuit over the illegal sharing of digital music files, said Lory Lybeck, the lawyer representing Leadbetter. But no court authorized Comcast to release names and addresses of its customers, or notified his client that her information had been given to an outside party, Lybeck said. "Comcast should respect the rights of privacy who pay them monthly bills," Lybeck said. Representatives from Comcast said they could not immediately comment on the lawsuit. The RIAA has filed thousands of lawsuits since September and settled several hundred for about $3,000 each. Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new articles daily. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If, in fact, Comcast was legally subpoened for the information, then they _had_ to give it out, or face penalties themselves. I assume that is the case, but you'd think they would have told their customer about it. When the attorney stated that 'no court had authorized the release', I suppose that's what the subpoena did: the subpoena acts as the limited authorization does it not? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 2005 14:26:58 -0700 From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com> Subject: U.N. Expert Says Firms Should Do More Vs Child Porn By Thomas Atkins Credit card companies and technology firms should do more to combat child pornography on the Internet, a United Nations expert said Wednesday. Credit card firms may unwittingly process illegal Web transactions, Juan Miguel Petit, U.N. special rapporteur on child pornography said. "Credit card companies shouldn't wait for the problem to arrive," Petit said at a news briefing. "The international credit card companies and also the manufacturers of hardware and software ... surely know more than NGOs or governments about these problems and how to fight them." Petit also wants to force Internet service providers to remove or block access to illegal material when they see it and to oblige them to monitor their services to prevent it. Child pornography on the Internet has become one of the biggest areas of cybercrime in recent years with police forces around the world rounding up thousands of web users accused of accessing illegal sites. Credit card firm Visa International says it has already taken the battle to the enemy and pursues illegal operators. However, David Masters, spokesman for Visa, said tech-savvy operators made it a difficult problem to handle. "It's a horrific industry and we do everything we can against it," he said. "It's business we don't want and we're only too pleased to help where we can. We work very closely with law enforcement across the world." Illegal operators hide behind business fronts, meaning the only way to track them down is to troll the Web for possible abusers using high- tech search engines, he said by telephone. Horacio Gutierrez, head of Microsoft's legal and corporate department for Europe, Africa and the Middle East, said his company had engineered programs to aide police. Microsoft is also a partner of the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "Technology companies have a critical role to play in making the Internet safe for children," Gutierrez said by telephone. "It's a multifaceted issue which really has worldwide implications." International crime-fighting body Interpol will hold a meeting in Lyon, France, Thursday with the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, credit card companies and tech firms such as Microsoft. Gutierrez said companies, police and non-governmental organizations would explore the role of technology and the Internet industry in the growth of child pornography. Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new articles daily. ------------------------------ From: Choreboy <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> Subject: Cell Phone Wearing Out? Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:27:58 -0400 A relative complained to Verizon that she had trouble making calls on a trip through Georgia. Her phone is six years old. The saleswoman gave the phone to a technician who a said the transmitter was wearing out and she needed to buy a new phone. The saleswoman offered her a choice of second-hand phones. In this area the phone works as well as ever, so my relative decided not to replace it until she takes another long trip. Do cellphone transmitters normally get weak as they age? Wouldn't that cause a problem in normal use? My neighbor has two relatives who switched providers because both found Verizon's coverage unsatisfactory on trips through Georgia. Does it sound as if Verizon is conning my relative? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At first blush, I would say your relative got a con job. The cellphone transmitter has no idea where it is at; its job is just to radiate RF. If the phone works okay at your house, it should work as well in Georgia; I cannot imagine that Georgia has cellphone towers any further apart than cellphone towers are in your area of the country, and all that should really matter in the case of a 'transmitter getting weak from age' is how far it has to look for a tower. If it can find a tower, that should end the problem of 'old age'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:09:58 -0400 Subject: Is RocketVoIP Deceiving Customers Regarding "Unlimited" VoIP A disturbing post just appeared on BroadbandReports.com -- I have removed references to RocketVoIP from the Resources for Michigan Telephone Users web site until and unless this issue is resolved. "Hi all ... I have a problem with RocketVoip (www.rocketvoip.com) They said their service is unlimited ($24.95) and suddenly they sent me an email about a week ago, telling me that I'm not qualified as a residential user and they asked me to switch to business plan. Please read the attached email. ..." http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,13170575 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This sounds a lot like our friend Sprint's old "Friday Free" plan doesn't it? Remember that one? Sprint tricked people into signing up for long distance by lying to them saying their Friday traffic would always be free to _residential_ customers. Soon thereafter we started hearing from folks who said Sprint had written them a letter saying they were not a 'qualified' residential account, so they would have to pay for their Friday calls. Sprint signed the letters with some phone name (I forget off hand what it was), and many folks, including myself tried time after time to reach the person to ask him what it was about, and what made persons 'qualified'. I don't think anyone ever did reach that person, and as to be expected, no one in Sprint customer service ever had any idea what it was about. If the original writer wants to send along the email saying they were not 'qualified', and assuming it has a good name on it, we will try to reach that person and ask them what it is all about, and to explain the qualifications required. PAT] ------------------------------ From: william@withheld_on_request Subject: Can I Port an 800 Number Without the Old Carrier's Permission? Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:07:00 -0400 Pat, Please strip my email address and name; TIA. Here's a question about 800 number portability which I hope you or the other readers can answer. I have switched to a small CLEC for my service -- call them ma-pa-telco. I told ma-pa-telco that I was unsatisfied with the service I was getting from my old carrier -- let's call them "Cloacal" -- so I asked ma-pa-telco to take over my 800 line. I signed a "Letter of Agency", and thought it was all done. Today, however, ma-pa-telco tells me that after seven or eight false starts, Cloacal refuses to transfer my 800 line, saying that my signature on the letter of agency is "Unauthorized" and that they won't tell me who is "authorized" to sign it. So, some questions: 1. Can ma-pa-telco force a switch? I mean, can they tell the company-in-charge-of-the-800-number-portability-database to just move the number over? 2. Can I force Cloacal to release my 800 number even though they say I'm not the "authorized" person? It's my number, right? They've certainly got plenty of signatures to check: I've been paying the bill for this ever since I bought the company. Can I just tell Cloacal to grow up and consider me as authorized? 3. Is there a procedure in place to resolve this kind of issue? When they set up the 800 portability database, someone must have thought of things like a CEO retiring or a company like Cloacal refusing to play nice with the other children. This has been going on for over a week, and now it's just silly: as far as I'm concerned, Cloacal is dragging their feet just because I got tired of them acting like Ma Bell's idiot baby bell brother and I said so to their face. At this point, the FCC should spank them and tell them to get over it. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For starters, problems like this are often times handled very satisfactorily by Judith Oppenheimer, a reader here with several excellent web sites (begin your review of her work at http://judithoppenheimer.com which is the ICB Consultancy home page.) She has successfully cleared up things like this now and then. Generally, yes, the _owner_ of an 800 number can take it where he wants. One caveat: *who is the owner*? Signing a letter of agency does not an owner make, if the true owner has a sticky widget. Think back to when you first got the number ... did you sign any papers telling Cloacal they were the owner? Did you originally get the number from them? Who told _you_ that you are the owner of the number (not the user of the number, but the _owner_ of it?) Another caveat: do you owe any money to Cloacal on your bill with them? Telcos have a right under the rules pertaining to number portability to hold a number hostage if you do owe money. Under the law, telco has protection to assure they get paid. Still a third caveat: Is the number 'popular' or easy to remember, dial, etc? If it is -1212 or -2345 or -1234, etc and etched on people's minds and quite 'easy to remember or use', if Cloacal otherwise has any rights to the number, they are going to fight more than ever. Genuine 800 numbers (as opposed to 888, 877, 866 and yes! even 855) are not usually given up by their 'owners' without some effort. Ms. Oppenheimer will need to know all that in order to help you. But she seems to know her stuff and _who_ to talk to. Good luck with your problem. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Subject: Traditional Mail Discouraged? Date: 14 Apr 2005 12:35:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I get the feeling organizations no longer want the public to contact them via traditional postal mail. (No more "Keep those cards and letters coming in"). I suspect this is largely due to the antrax attacks of Sept 11, but possibly other factors as well (perhaps fear of walk-in attacks.) I base this on: 1) Magazines traditionally have a "masthead" where the editors and senior staff are listed. Traditionally, the addresses of the magazine were clearly listed there as well (letters to the editor, subscriptions, ads, etc.) I notice now no addresses are shown, and maybe some are shown elsewhere in very fine print. 2) Film studios used to have their addresses listed but some no longer do. Particuarly, the WB TV network refuses postal mail and has everything returned to the sender. Some organizations -- but by no means all -- offer email or web comment screens. But these have limitations: a) A certain percentage of mail is "crank" -- obvious nonsense, etc. But writing a traditional letter still requires some effort and postage. Email is easy and one can generate a great many crank emails at the push of a button. Thus, recipients are flooded with much more crank mail than in the past, which they have to weed through. There's a greater chance a legitimate letter will be bypassed. b) Lost in the shuffle: There's a far higher response rate to traditional mail than email/web comments. Sometimes electronic means never get delivered. Other times it's lost at the recipient's site. Sometimes it's sent to someone incompetent to deal with it. (On a number of occassions I've emailed an organization with a specific question that was not addressed on their web page. Their answer was to check the web page which of course was of no help.) c) Lost with spam: Legitimate letters get mixed up with spam. d) A piece of paper is durable: A paper letter or postcard is a tangible item. An email is a fleeting image on a screen. If 10,000 people write a TV network urging to keep a TV show, they'll have bags of mail sitting on the floor and that will say something to them. If 10,000 people email them, the server will probably crash and most will never even make it through. For places with less volumes, that piece of paper sits on someone's desk and calls for attention. It's a lot easier psychologically to DEL an email than throw out a piece of paper. ------------------------------ From: Paul Coxwell <paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk> Subject: Re: Study: Consumers Oppose Cell Phones in Flight Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:11:35 +0100 TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to my query: > Regards the City Engineering Department, like everything else in > Chicago, it is so full of corruption. The Great Flood, back in about > 1991 is a good example: Do you recall when one of the several > underground tunnels (one of them which crosses under the Chicago > River) sprang a leak? A city inspector, whose job it is (or was, he > got fired afterward, then rehired when he appealed to the union) to > walk through the tunnels frequently looking for water leakage, etc Pat, That story certainly seems like a case of the "big wigs" being too arrogant to take notice of what they are told, then trying to pass the blame afterward. I'm not at all familiar with Chicago. The longest I've ever spent there was a couple of hours one Sunday afternoon waiting for a connecting train at Union Station to go west. I just wandered around downtown a little, and looking at the map I guess I must have been close to some of the spots you mentioned. The union issue has been a huge problem in the past in Britain. I have a friend who worked for London Transport on the buses at one time, and he says he almost caused a strike one day by doing a little servicing. It seems he was "allowed" to change a filter in his job, but to get at one of them meant removing a small access panel in the wooden floor. A union boss spotted this and kicked up a fuss. Apprently he was expected to call the fitter/carpenter to come out and remove the panel, a procedure which could involve a wait of several hours. After changing the filter, he was then supposed to request the fitter to come out again to replace the cover. A half-hour job would suddenly take all day to complete. Apparently the rules also required a bus to go out on an hour-long test drive after _any_ service work was done on it, even just replacing a blown bulb. The unions sure had that lot wrapped up tightly. > attached in your exhibition booth. If they catch you with a light bulb > or a multiple outlet cord, etc, the union workers take it away from you Isn't that called theft? What happens if somebody refuses to give it up? ;-) - Paul [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know that they literally 'take it away from you'; just that you'll be very pressured to go along with their plans, just like you mentioned on your busses. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sbctech <ka2daniels@aol.com> Subject: Bell Operating Company Employees/Retirees Date: 14 Apr 2005 11:38:33 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hello Fellow Coworkers, Many of us have lost contact with good friends. Divestiture, retirement and other circumstances have played a roll in our loss. This is our new searchable Bell Operating Company Employee database. It is hosted on the sbceic.com website which is operated by SBC/Bell Operating Company Employees/Retirees. We invite all Bell Operating Company Employees/ Former Employees/Retirees to join our community for chats, forums, projects at sbceic.com sbceic.com Your Fellow Coworkers [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for sending this message along. Between divestiture, layoffs, retirements, etc the ranks have really been decimated have they not? I hope this message helps you pull your ranks together just a little. And the rest of you, don't forget: Our good friend King Spam really did a number on my mailboxes today. What you see here today is what you get. I'll go back to my hourly flushing of the spam box tomorrow and try to take better care of real, legitmate messages. 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 ! ************************ Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management (MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35 credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including data, video, and voice networks. The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning. Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at 405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at http://www.mstm.okstate.edu ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 V24 #163 ****************************** | |