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
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 Mon, 2 May 2005 14:57:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 192
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
MCI Returns to Verizon (Lisa Minter)
Nortel Reports Results for the Fourth Quarter and Year 2004 (M Solomon)
Qwest - Last Resort Employment For Incompetent Imbeciles (greg1199)
Cell Phone Registry - Not Necessary (Marcus Didius Falco)
Verizon Raises Offer for MCI (Telecom DailyLead from USTA)
State's Regulatory Sites Set on Internet Phones (Jack Decker)
Who Answers 911? New Tech Puts Dispatchers to Test (Jack Decker)
Re: Verizon Pulling Plug on Free NYC Wi-Fi (Clark W. Griswold, Jr.)
Re: Verizon Pulling Plug on Free NYC Wi-Fi (Michael D. Sullivan)
Re: Verizon Pulling Plug on Free NYC Wi-Fi (Tony P.)
Re: Verizon Pulling Plug on Free NYC Wi-Fi (Danny Burstein)
Re: Is There a Device to Block Selected Incoming Numbers (Rick M)
Re: Is There a Device to Block Selected Incoming Numbers (Tim@Backhome)
Re: Inmates Use Intermediaries to Go Online (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: Inmates Use Intermediaries to Go Online (Robert Bonomi)
Last Laugh! What's Purchased in Omaha is Useless in Omaha (John Mayson)
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: Mon, 2 May 2005 12:46:37 -0400
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: MCI Returns to Verizon
by Colin C. Haley
http://www.internetnews.com/article.php/3501841
MCI has jilted Qwest yet again.
The Ashburn, Va., long-distance and enterprise network services
provider today deemed Verizon's latest $8.4 billion ($26 per share)
offer superior to Qwest's $9.7 billion ($30 per share) proposal.
MCI officials listed several factors they say compensate for the $1.3
billion difference, including "the increasing need for scale and
comprehensive wireless capabilities."
Verizon Wireless, co-owned by Verizon and Vodafone, is the
second-largest U.S. mobile carrier with 43 million subscribers on a
nationwide network. Meanwhile, Denver-based Qwest serves 767,000
through a third-party system.
A combined Verizon-MCI could bundle third-generation (define) wireless
offerings with Internet connectivity, data transport and virtual
private network (define) services to increase revenue from
corporations and government agencies.
Other factors cited by MCI include: Qwest's overall financial picture;
questions about its ability to invest in new capabilities; doubts
about synergies; and feedback from current enterprise customers.
"From the standpoint of risk versus reward, Verizon's revised offer
presents MCI with a stronger, superior choice," said Nicholas
Katzenbach, MCI chairman, in a statement.
Verizon, a regional telecom based in New York, upped its offer by
about $800 million this weekend to answer Qwest in the three-month
bidding war.
Before today, Qwest had finally pulled ahead of Verizon in the
competition for MCI, but the lead only lasted a week. A Qwest
spokesman was not immediately available for comment, but the carrier
could take its offer directly to MCI shareholders to see if they agree
with their board's opinion.
Verizon has been pushing financial stability in its proposals and
press releases over the sale price.
"The evolving nature of the telecommunications industry requires that
effective competitors have financial strength and a full array of
offerings," Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon CEO, said in a statement.
"Verizon is a leading national communications provider with a stable
balance sheet, a premier national wireless business, and a plan to
invest in MCI."
Qwest and Verizon covet MCI because of its large IP data-service deals
with government agencies and corporations. And with the pending merger
of SBC and AT&T, neither wants to be left behind by the wave of
industry consolidation.
The Baby Bells consider those long-term, high-margin contracts crucial
to their future prosperity, as cable operators, VoIP upstarts and
wireless carriers try to hone in on their traditional businesses.
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.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Jupiter Media.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 08:05:14 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Nortel Reports Results for the Fourth Quarter and Year 2004
TORONTO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 2, 2005--Nortel Networks Corporation
(NYSE:NT)(TSX:NT):
-- Q4 2004 revenues of $2.6 billion, up sequentially 20 percent
-- Q4 2004 net earnings of $133 million, $0.03 per common share
on a diluted basis
-- Q4 2004 cash balance of $3.7 billion, up sequentially $296
million
Nortel Networks Corporation (NYSE:NT)(TSX:NT) today reported results
for the fourth quarter and audited results for the year 2004 prepared
in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting
principles in U.S. dollars.
Today's announcements serve as a status update by the Company and its
principal operating subsidiary Nortel Networks Limited ("NNL"),
pursuant to the alternative information guidelines of the Ontario
Securities Commission. These guidelines contemplate that the Company
and NNL will normally provide bi-weekly updates on their affairs until
such time as they are current with their filing obligations under
Canadian securities laws.
Fourth Quarter 2004 Results
Revenues were $2.62 billion for the fourth quarter of 2004 compared to
$3.27 billion for the fourth quarter of 2003 and $2.18 billion for the
third quarter of 2004. The Company reported net earnings in the fourth
quarter of 2004 of $133 million, or $0.03 per common share on a
diluted basis, compared to a net earnings of $528 million, or $0.12
per common share on a diluted basis, in the fourth quarter of 2003 and
net loss of $259 million, or $0.06 per common share on a diluted
basis, in the third quarter of 2004.
Net earnings in the fourth quarter of 2004 included $37 million of net
earnings from discontinued operations; special charges of $81 million
related to restructuring activities; and a benefit of approximately
$134 million primarily related to customer financing recovery and
settlements.
- http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=48792662
------------------------------
From: greg1199@yahoo.com
Subject: Qwest - Last Resort Employment For Incompetent Imbeciles
Date: 1 May 2005 21:25:22 -0700
Qwest talking monkeys,
Either you offer online payment, or you don't offer it. Pick one, and
stick with it! But don't tell me you offer it, then wuss out of it
with some pathetic, miserable, poorly-worded, lame excuse that Beavis
wouldn't have used for failing to show up at Burger World.
You subhuman mongrels are fit only for use in medical experiments.
It's possible you could also pump gas, but only for those who have
enough gas to go somewhere else after you fail to pump it. As a
compromise, why don't you donate plasma, hopefully saving a life that
has at least some value.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well ! I never !! I guess you
certainly made your point very clear. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 22:35:26 -0400
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: FWD: Cell Phone Registry - Not Necessary
The following, from SNOPES corresponds with my understanding of the
issue. There is a concern about text-messaging SPAM to cell phones,
which has not been a major concern as yet (except in a few markets),
but may become one. There have been a few issues with people getting
telemarketing calls on their cell phones (particularly, but not
always, when they have "ported" a landline number to a cell phone), so
there may be an advantage to putting your cell phone number on the
national do-not-call list.
* Original: FROM..... Lyle Davis
I've already received a mailing on this and if you haven't, you likely will
fairly soon.
Relax.
Here's the real information from snopes.com
Claim: A directory of cell phone numbers will soon be published.
Status: Multiple:
a.. A consortium of wireless providers is planning to
create a 411 (directory assistance) service for cell phone
numbers: True.
b.. You must register your cell phone with the national "Do Not
Call" directory before 1 January 2005 to prevent your number from being
provided to telemarketers: False.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004]
A directory of cell phone numbers will soon be published for
all consumers to have access to. This will open the doors for solicitors to
call you on your cell phones, using up the precious minutes that we pay
lots of money for. The Federal Trade Commission has set up a "do not call"
list. It is called a cell phone registry. To be included on the "do not
call" list, you must call from the number you wish to register.
The number is 1-888-382-1222 or you can go to their website at
www.donotcall.gov.
=================================
Starting Jan 1, 2005, all cell phone numbers will be made
public to telemarketing firms. So this means as of Jan 1, your cell phone
may start ringing off the hook with telemarketers, but unlike your home
phone, most plans pay for your incoming calls. These telemarketers will eat
up your free minutes and end up costing money. According to the National Do
Not Call List, you have until Dec 15, 2004 to get on the national "Do Not
Call List" for cell phones. You can either call 1-888-382-1222 from the
cell phone that you wish to have put on the "do not call list" or you can
do it online at www.donotcall.gov.
Registering only takes a minute, is in effect for 5 years. All
of you will need to register before Dec 15. You may want to also do your
own personal cell phones.
Origins: As the use of cellular telephone technology has grown
tremendously in the last several years, many consumers have given up
maintaining traditional land-line phone service entirely. They prefer the
convenient portability of cell phones, as well as the privacy: So far, cell
phone numbers have generally been excluded from printed phone directories
and directory assistance services, and protections have been put in place
to restrict telemarketing calls to cell phones.
Soon, however, some of the privacy that cell phones provide may be
eroded. Six national wireless companies (AllTel, AT&T Wireless, Cingular,
Nextel, Sprint PCS, and T-Mobile) have banded together and hired Qsent,
Inc. to produce a Wireless 411 service. Their goal is to pool their
listings to create a comprehensive directory of cell phone customer names
and phone numbers that would be made available to directory assistance
providers. (In most places, telephone users can call directory assistance
at 411 [for local numbers] or by dialing an area code plus 555-1212 [for
out-of-area numbers] and, by providing enough information to identify an
individual phone customer [usually a full name and city of residence],
obtain that customer's phone number.
Many cell phone customers are opposed to the proposed Wireless 411
service for a number of reasons:
a.. They prefer the privacy of knowing that their cell phone
numbers are available only to those to whom they provide them. They don't
want other people being able to obtain their cell phone numbers without
their consent or knowledge.
b.. They are concerned that their cell phone numbers will be sold
to telemarketers (or other groups that might make undesirable use of those
numbers).
c.. They see one of the goals of the Wireless 411 service as a
ploy to spread cell phone numbers to wider circles of friends and
acquaintances, who will then place calls to cell phones and thereby force
cell customers to pay for additional wireless minutes.
The wireless companies behind the proposed Wireless 411 service
contend that their service will be beneficial to cellular customers
and that they have addressed those customers' major concerns:
a.. The service would save money for the estimated five
million customers who use only cellular phones and currently pay to
have their cell phone numbers listed in phone directories.
b.. The Wireless 411 service would be strictly "opt-in" - that is,
wireless customers will be included in the directory only if they
specifically request to be added. The phone numbers of wireless customers
who do nothing will not be included, those who choose to be listed can have
their numbers removed from the directory if they change their minds, and
there is no charge for requesting to be included or choosing not to be
included.
c.. The Wireless 411 information will not be included in printed
phone directories, distributed in other printed form, made available via
the Internet, or sold to telemarketers. It will be made available only to
operator service centers performing the 411 directory assistance service.
Nonetheless, many consumers don't trust the Wireless 411 consortium to
uphold their promises, and although Qsent and its clients plan to make
the Wireless 411 service available sometime in 2005, its
implementation in that time frame is far from certain, as the wireless
companies are still fighting proposed legislation which seeks to
regulate wireless phone directories.
So, although the gist of the message quoted at the head of this page
is correct in alerting consumers to a proposed directory of cell phone
numbers, it is misleading in stating that such a directory will "soon
be published" (the word "published" implies making a printed directory
available, which the wireless consortium maintains they will not do)
and in directing readers to sign up with the The National Do Not Call
Registry. The latter step will not keep wireless customer listings
out of the proposed Wireless 411 database - it will only add their
phone numbers to a list of numbers off-limits to most telemarketers, a
step which is premature (because the Wireless 411 directory has not
yet been implemented) and largely unnecessary (because the Wireless
411 directory information is not supposed to be supplied to
telemarketers, and because FCC regulations already in place block the
bulk of telemarketing calls to cell phones).
Some versions of the exhortation to cell phone users to add their
names to the Do Not Call Registry erroneously state there is a 15
December 2004 deadline for getting listed. Says Lois Greisman, the
Federal Trade Commission official who oversees the anti-telemarketing
registry: "There is no deadline; there never has been a deadline to
register."
However, belief that there might be such a cut-off coupled with the
e-mailed alerts themselves have served to multiply many times over the
number of registrations. Since the initial wave of sign-ups following
the 2003 launch of the list, registrations have come in at the rate of
200,000 new numbers a week. Yet in the final week of November 2004,
nearly 1 million new subscribers were added, and in the first week of
December 2004, that figure jumped to 2 million. At this point in time,
69 million phone numbers are contained in the registry.
Adding one's cell phone number to the National Do Not Call Registry
(even if currently unnecessary) won't likely have any adverse effect,
but customers should be aware of exactly what that action will or will
not accomplish.
Updates: Verizon Wireless and U.S. Cellular Corp. have always been
opposed to the proposed cell phone directory, and initial partners
Sprint Corp. and Alltel Corp. have since pulled away from the project
due to concerns about bad publicity and possible new government
regulations. So, as of January 2005, even if the cell phone directory
database was compiled as planned, at least 45% of U.S. cell phone
numbers wouldn't be included.
In April 2005, USA Today reported that registrations for the national
do-not-call list for the week ending April 2 were about double the
normal level, and registrations for the following week reached a peak
five times higher than average. The newspaper also reiterated what we
stated above:
... the anxiety is unfounded. First, it's illegal to make sales
pitches to wireless phones by using automatic dialers - which is how the
vast majority of telemarketing calls are placed. (One reason is that
cellular users must pay for incoming calls.)
Also, most of the big wireless carriers have chosen either not to take
part in the directory or to put off any plans to do so in light of
consumer fears. They say any directory would include only those
customers who agreed to participate and that the numbers would not be
shared with telemarketers or anyone else. Congress has considered a
bill to codify such rules.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 14:01:39 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Verizon Raises Offer For MCI
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
May 2, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21244&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Verizon raises offer for MCI
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Push e-mail market about to get crowded
* Versatel, Belgacom in merger talks
* Q-and-A with Juniper's Scott Kriens
* Nortel reports earnings
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* In USTA's Telecom Bookstore: "Softswitch Architecture for VoIP"
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Nextel beefs up push-to-talk service
* Siemens, Meru focus on WLAN
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Mobile phone towers prompt lawsuits
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21244&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 12:13:46 -0400
Subject: State's Regulatory Sights Set on Internet Phone
http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwendland2e_20050502.htm
BY MIKE WENDLAND
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
Michigan's Public Service Commission wants to have regulatory
authority over the rapidly growing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
service that uses a broadband Internet connection to place and receive
phone calls.
The commission, meeting last week in Lansing, sent a formal request to
the Legislature to amend the state's Telecommunications Act to include
VoIP service as an area the commission can oversee.
"Michigan residents using Voice over Internet Protocol deserve
consumer protections," said commission Chairman J. Peter
Lark. "Because the Michigan Telecommunications Act is silent on Voice
over Internet Protocol service ... customers using this new technology
do not have consumer protections that telecommunication customers
have."
Michigan is not alone in putting VoIP in its regulatory sights. But
based on the experiences of Minnesota and California, it may encounter
some stiff opposition from the Federal Communications Commission.
The FCC successfully fought both states in federal courts in recent
months, essentially arguing that VoIP is an interstate service beyond
state control. Still, facing a pile of complaints from landline phone
companies that claim VoIP interlopers are getting an unfair advantage,
the FCC has since agreed to reconsider its hands-off approach and is
seeking public comments on possible VoIP regulation.
In Michigan, meanwhile, officials believe it is necessary for the
state to provide consumer safeguards over what is a largely
unregulated business.
Full story at:
http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwendland2e_20050502.htm
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/
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_by_request>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 12:21:28 -0400
Subject: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders to Test
Cell phones have been around a LOT longer than VoIP, yet to the best
of my knowledge no state attorney general has ever sued a cell phone
company over the way they handle 911 calls.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/technology/personal_technology/11542733.htm
Who answers 911?
Technologies like cell phones and VoIP put emergency responders to the test
By Sam Diaz
Mercury News
It's the phone number that can help save a life.
But calling 911 and expecting help to come running is becoming more of
a gamble than ever before -- especially in a tech-savvy place like
Silicon Valley, where people rely heavily on cell phones and are more
likely to try out a new technology such as Internet phone service.
Now more than ever, the emergency phone system is being put to the
test. As mobile and Internet phone services spread, it's becoming
harder for 911 dispatchers to pinpoint a caller's geographic location,
a crucial element of 911 and speedy response times.
In the Bay Area, it's anyone's guess where a cell phone call to 911
will end up -- or how long it will take for a dispatcher to answer.
In most Santa Clara County cities, 911 calls from a cell phone will
end up at the local, city-run police dispatch centers. But dial 911
from Fremont or Menlo Park and it's more likely to end up at the
California Highway Patrol catchall dispatch center in Vallejo, where
it will be rerouted to a closer 911 center -- an extra step that could
slow emergency response times.
For those using one of the new Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP,
phone services, calls to 911 might not even make it to a dispatcher
because many of the providers aren't yet able to provide direct access
into the 911 network.
Full story at:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/technology/personal_technology/11542733.htm
------------------------------
From: Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <spamtrap100@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Verizon Pulling Plug on Free NYC Wi-Fi
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 16:02:14 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anyone know what the reasoning was on this?
Yep. They want to get people to buy their overpriced EV-DO cellular
data service instead of the cheaper WiFi connection.
------------------------------
From: Michael D. Sullivan <userid@camsul.example.invalid>
Subject: Re: Verizon Pulling Plug on Free NYC Wi-Fi
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 22:06:59 GMT
Lisa Minter wrote:
> Anyone know what the reasoning was on this?
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050430/ap_on_hi_te/verizon_nyc_wi_fi
It's pretty clear from the story. They are introducing EV-DO 3G data
service on the Verizon Wireless network, and operating a free outdoor
wi-fi network that doesn't produce any revenue isn't exactly going to
be good for business on their new pay-to-use data network.
Also, I'm not sure how much use the wi-fi network gets. How many
people use their laptops while on the city streets? I tried to use it
once; there was a base station at the phone booth across the street
from a hotel I was staying at, but I got no signal from it. I got a
good solid signal from a hotel two blocks away that I couldn't use
because I didn't have a room number and password, and I got a bunch of
unencrypted signals from the apartments of people with cable modems or
DSL. I successfully freeloaded on one of those for a few minutes.
Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD (USA)
(Replace "example.invalid" with "com" in my address.)
------------------------------
From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Verizon Pulling Plug on Free NYC Wi-Fi
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 18:21:28 -0400
In article <telecom24.191.6@telecom-digest.org>, lisa_minter2001
@yahoo.com says:
> Anyone know what the reasoning was on this?
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050430/ap_on_hi_te/verizon_nyc_wi_fi
Um, their ownership of Verizon Wireless holdings perhaps?
I'm ready to testify against Verizon when they pull the same crap in
Providence.
------------------------------
From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Verizon Pulling Plug on Free NYC Wi-Fi
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 22:34:45 UTC
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
In <telecom24.191.6@telecom-digest.org> Lisa Minter
<lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com> writes:
> Anyone know what the reasoning was on this?
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050430/ap_on_hi_te/verizon_nyc_wi_fi
Verizon, as a promotional tool for their landline DSL service, set up
a hundred or so (they announced more...) of their payphones with WIFI
(wireless interent/802.11) internet access.
If you had a _paid_ DSL account with them, your username/password
worked with these as well. And typically they were good for 100 or so
feet down the block pretty reliably. Quite handy for some folk.
But they've lately decided that the costs of maintining that network
(small, but real) weren't getting them enough additional customers for
their landline DSL service to warrant continuing it. And... they've
also got numerous flavors now of region-wide paid internet wireless
service, so they've decided to shut down the (kind-of) freebie.
And to confuse things more, the NYC franchise and taxing authorities
were looking at ways of charging VZ additional fees for the payphone
locations that were used as base stations.
I know some people who used it quite a bit, but the numbers just
weren't there for the VZ budget folk.
(Again, this wasn't "free". You got it as a no-cost add-on when you
had a paid landline dsl account).
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
From: Rick M <r.muscoplat_nospam@vikingelectronics.com>
Subject: Re: Is There a Device to Block Selected Incoming Numbers
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 01:32:15 -0500
Reply-To: r.muscoplat_nospam@vikingelectronics.com
Telco selective call blocking is best answer. Only the Telco knows the
I.D. of the incoming call before it generates ring voltage on your
phone line. In order for an aftermarket device to do what you want,
you would have to hear at least one ring, because the caller I.D.
information is sent in digital format between the 1st and 2nd ring.
So, an aftermarket device would have to process all 1st rings thru the
unit, or, all first rings would go thru to all house phones. Either
option is not very marketable.
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Is There a Device to Block Selected Incoming Numbers
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 02:29:32 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications
TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Tim@Backhome.org:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's what they call it here also,
> and what Illinois Bell called it in Chicago. And the limit is ten
> numbers, which I think _should_ be enough if you use it in a judicious
> fashion; in other words, only on the worst, most hopeless cases. You
> should not rush to do *60 everytime some drunk in a bar somewhere
> calls you; only for the really persistent and sort of stupid callers.
> It's hard for me to imagine you have _that many_ total jerks in your
> life to deal with. And bear in mind, all the problems with the
> service (such as out of LATA in the case of Southwestern Bell) and
> people sending bogus ID (again, Southwestern Bell) and people who
> walk around from one pay phone to another. I still maintain though
> that for the 'average phone user' it pretty much does what the
> original correspondent requested, especially if used in conjunction
> with *77 (reject all 'anonymous' [deliberatly blocked ID] callers).
> Although I am no longer with SBC -- I find Prairie Steam much
> better and far less expensive -- I still get both those features
> (*60 and *77) through Prairie Stream now. PAT]
I left SBC in California and went with my local cable company when wireline
LNP became available several years ago. But, then SBC began offering
Privacy Manager and the cable company did not (and still does not,
apparently because Privacy Manager requires a dominant presence in the
network that the cable company simply does not have.)
Privacy manager, in conjunction with talking Caller ID does the trick
for us. I find most nuisance calls have no Caller ID delivered, which
anonymous call rejection will not reject; Privacy Manager does, yet
gives the caller a chance to identify him/her self with a voice
announcement. If a Caller ID comes through that we don't recognize we
let it go to voice mail.
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Inmates Use Intermediaries to Go Online
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 01:00:36 UTC
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom24.191.5@telecom-digest.org>, PAT wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to know one thing about
> prison phone systems, which are notoriously rip-off systems. The
> prison authorities _claim_ the recipients of phone calls from
> prisoners are not allowed to use _call transfer_ or _call forwarding_
> or _three way calling_ on calls from prisoners. I guess that is
> because the end result -- the person with whom the prisoner wound
> up conversing with -- would possibly not be on the 'approved' list
> at the prison. Does the prison phone system have the technical
> capability to restrict the called party's phone in that way? For
> example, I forward my phone somewhere, then you, in prison, call me
> as we agreed on. Or, you call me from the prison, I flash the
> hook and bring someone else on the line with me. The prison says
> in their literature that is impossible. Is it really? PAT]
It's certainly possible: the type of line is part of the calling party
identity in SS7 ISUP, and "prison" is one type of line (along with
normal stations, payphones, etc.) specifically to allow this sort of
service discrimination.
I used to have a reasonably good set of CLASS service documentation
but it is in storage. To know if call forwarding, 3-way calling, etc.
are specified to not work if one leg of the call is a prison line,
those Bellcore specs would be where to look. To know whether a given
switch implements it that way, you'd need the switch documentation;
maybe someone here with a documentation set for a recent 5ESS or DMS
generic can have a look. Of course, it may just say that the switch
does what the spec requires, in which case you would still need the
CLASS spec to know for sure.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is
to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There was an interesting situation like
this in 1972, as ESS was first getting introduced around Chicago. The
first two offices cut over were Chicago-WABash in the downtown area
and Chicago-SUPerior on the near north side. Then the cutovers went
along until about 1980 or so when the final uncut exchange LOngbeach-1
in the EDGewater office went also. The oddity was in the way Call-
Forwarding was handled: -A- forwards his phone to -B- then later, -B-
forwarded his phone to -C-. A person dialing into B got forwarded to
C as you would expect, except a person dialing into A only got
forwarded to B, and not onward to C. Telco's rationale was that the
person calling into A 'expected to reach' B, not C, so that is why
the forwarding stopped short at that point, except if B dialed into A
and in that case it stopped with A anyway, regardless of A being
forwarded to B then B to C. PAT]
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Inmates Use Intermediaries to Go Online
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 16:51:57 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.191.5@telecom-digest.org>, Lisa Minter
<lisa_minter20012yahoo.com> wrote:
> Very few prisons/jails allow inmates any use of computers at all
> because the authorities assume the prisoners will use them for
> no good. Why, who knows, they may even use web sites to try and
> drum up sympathy for their cause.
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050501/ap_on_hi_te/internet_inmates
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to know one thing about
> prison phone systems, which are notoriously rip-off systems. The
> prison authorities _claim_ the recipients of phone calls from
> prisoners are not allowed to use _call transfer_ or _call forwarding_
> or _three way calling_ on calls from prisoners. I guess that is
> because the end result -- the person with whom the prisoner wound
> up conversing with -- would possibly not be on the 'approved' list
> at the prison. Does the prison phone system have the technical
> capability to restrict the called party's phone in that way? For
> example, I forward my phone somewhere, then you, in prison, call me
> as we agreed on. Or, you call me from the prison, I flash the
> hook and bring someone else on the line with me. The prison says
> in their literature that is impossible. Is it really? PAT]
"Not allowed to" means "not *ALLOWED* to". <grin>
It does not mean it's "impossible", or that the prison operation can prevent
you from doing it.
Residential-line telco-based "call fowarding" is relatively easy to detect
in software, at the originating end, if you have direct SS7 interconnect.
'Internal call forwarding' within a PBX would be virtually impossible to
detect. *Most* PBX-based _external_ call-forwarding has stigmata that would
allow "generally reliable" automatic detection.
'Call transfer' is relatively easy to detect via software -- just a DSP that
looks for anything resembling a 'ring' cadence, after the initial ringing
stops.
"Three-way calling" can also be detected with a fair degree reliability by
automated instrumentation. The _absolute_ silence on the inbound channel
is 'suspicious'. it _could_ be a 'mute' button, or it could be 3-way.
Justifies 'flagging' the recorded conversation for later checking by a
'trained ear'.
What it _does_ mean is that if they catch you doing it -- and those outgoing
calls _are_ subject to monitoring by the prison -- your number can, and
probably *will* "disappear" from the 'callable numbers' list.
It is simply "if you want to get calls from us (the prison), you agree to
play by _our_ rules."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 22:42:25 -0500
From: John Mayson <jmayson@nyx.net>
Subject: Last Laugh! What's Purchased in Omaha is Useless in Omaha
Organization: Nyx Net, The Spirit of the Night
http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/4431759/detail.html
"Some cell phones sold this week at area a Target stores won't work in
Omaha. The mistake was discovered after a KETV NewsWatch 7 viewer
called 7 Can Help."
John Mayson <jmayson@nyx.net>
Austin, Texas, USA
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For a collection of the better 'Last
Laugh!' items over the years including my favorite "Honesty on the
Internet" and a changing daily feed from 'rec.humor.funny' please
see http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/honesty.html every day or
so, as new jokes move in on the newsfeed. 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 #192
******************************
| |