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
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues