Pat, the Editor

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
Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 Aug 2005 23:42:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 349

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Info Appliance Offers Nice Touches, but It's Costly (Monty Solomon)
    Comparison Shopping (Monty Solomon)
    Apple to Add Trusted Computing to the New Kernel? (Monty Solomon)
    BellSouth Rolls Out Wireless Broadband Service (USTelecom dailyLead)
    Personal Opinion Telegram and Mailgram - Discontinuance? (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Unauthorized Remote Access to Answering Machine (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Cincinnati Bell Sets 'New Rules' in Wireless Plan (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Cell Phone For VOIP - Home Device Imitates Provider Signal (Tim)
    Re: itunes is a RIPOFF (AES)
    Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator? (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator? (John McHarry)
    Re: Use of a Mysterious Cookie Irks Some Internet Users (David Quinton)
    Re: Use of a Mysterious Cookie Irks Some Internet Users (rsvlsys.com)
    Re: AT&T Customers Being Taken Over By AllTel (Ryan)
    Re: Credit Reports, was Re: AT&T Customers Taken Over By Alltel (Cryder)
    Re: Nextel False Advertising (Danny Burstein)
    Re: Nextel False Advertising (Ron Chapman)
    Re: Nextel False Advertising (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Nextel False Advertising (NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info)
    Re: Nextel False Advertising (Lee Sweet)
    Re: Nextel False Advertising (Joseph)
    Re: Last Laugh!  Spammer, age 35,  Meets "Moscow Rules" (Tony P.)

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: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:10:56 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Info Appliance Offers Nice Touches, but It's Costly


By WALTER S. MOSSBERG

For years, there have been sporadic efforts to create a digital device
that would be simpler and more reliable than a personal computer, yet
large enough and capable enough to carry out the most common tasks PCs
perform.

The movement for such "information appliances," which I supported, was
especially strong in the early and mid-1990s, when computers running
Microsoft Windows were far more complicated and crash-prone than they
are today.

Several companies tried to build desktop and laptop-computer-size
information appliances, but none of the designs captivated the public,
and they cost almost as much as a cheap PC. The movement lost steam by
2001, when both Microsoft and Apple Computer were producing
better-designed, more stable PC operating systems.

Information appliances actually did arrive, but in a different guise
 -- the smart cellphone and the advanced personal digital assistant, or
PDA. These hand-held devices are gradually accumulating the hardware
power and software selection needed to do most core PC tasks, like Web
surfing, email and even document creation.

Now, however, a small Massachusetts startup company is making another
go at the full-size information appliance. The company, Pepper
Computer, is launching a slick-looking tablet device called the Pepper
Pad, which it hopes will attract PC users and nonusers alike as a
simple, convenient tool for using the Internet, playing digital media,
keeping a journal and more.

The idea is to offer something as convenient and simple as a
Web-connected PDA without the complexity and security problems of a
PC. The rugged device even has a tiny, built-in keyboard that can be
used for thumb typing. It also comes with desktop software that lets
users wirelessly synchronize the Pepper Pad's contents with a Windows
PC (Mac compatibility is in the works).

In my tests of the Pepper Pad over the past few days, I found it
mostly did what was promised, but it isn't quite as easy and intuitive
to use as its makers claim. Many of its built-in programs offer
limited functionality and seem rough around the edges. And, at $799,
it costs more than some laptops and much more than a basic desktop PC.

http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20050721.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:13:26 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Comparison Shopping


By WALTER S. MOSSBERG

While the online shopping business continues to attract new customers,
few shoppers are about to completely forgo trips to the mall anytime
soon. But shopping online has one advantage that physical shopping has
lacked: With a few keystrokes, prices on one retail Web site can be
compared with the sale prices on another. When you shop at
bricks-and-mortar stores, you have to manually compare prices in ads,
or rely on tips from friends about good deals.

But the Net's comparison shopping power now is being extended to the
physical world as well.

This week, my assistant Katie Boehret and I tested two Web sites that
enable consumers to search for items that are on sale in physical
stores, making it much easier for price-driven shoppers to find the
best deals. The sites that we tested, Cairo.com and ShopLocal.com,
helped us find plenty of things on sale at our neighborhood stores,
without so much as leafing through a Sunday circular.

http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20050727.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:42:42 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Apple to Add Trusted Computing to the New Kernel?


Cory Doctorow

People working with early versions of the forthcoming Intel-based
MacOS X operating system have discovered that Apple's new kernel makes
use of Intel's Trusted Computing hardware. If this "feature" appears
in a commercial, shipping version of Apple's OS, they'll lose me as a
customer -- I've used Apple computers since 1979 and have a Mac
tattooed on my right bicep, but this is a deal-breaker.

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/31/apple_to_add_trusted.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:18:00 EDT
From: USTelecom dailyLead <ustelecom@dailylead.com>
Subject: BellSouth Rolls Out Wireless Broadband Service


USTelecom dailyLead
August 1, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=23490&l=2017006

		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* BellSouth rolls out wireless broadband service
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Nokia taps insider to succeed Ollila
* Report: Telecom companies use wireless stores to sell fixed-line services
* Study: PC emerges as top digital hub
* Cingular sells stake in India's Idea Cellular
USTELECOM SPOTLIGHT 
* USTelecom's McCormick Stands Up for Industry on CBS News
HOT TOPICS
* Motorola shows off the "Q"
* Ten technologies every CEO should know about
* Telecom act update proposed
* Rural telco raises $203M in IPO
* Cisco makes home-networking play
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Telework gains favor in some high-tech companies
* Web-based programming content catching on
* Uploading over broadband is too slow, some say
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Senator takes aim at file-sharing companies

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=23490&l=2017006


Legal and Privacy information at
http://www.dailylead.com/about/privacy_legal.jsp

SmartBrief, Inc.
1100 H ST NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Personal Opinion Telegram and Mailgram - Discontinuance?
Date: 1 Aug 2005 10:51:02 -0700


Back in the 1960s and 1970s Western Union offered a discount telegram
service called the Personal Opinion Telegram.  They simply used
teleprinters located in every state capitol and in Washington.  I
recall using the service on occassion.

See:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/22-3/p120.htm

This service seemed to last fairly long, even after conventional
telegrams fell out of favor.  Would anyone know when it was officially
discontinued?

Western Union with the US Post Office also offered a popular and
profitable service known as Mailgram.  WU would send your message to a
teleprinter in a post office where it would be delivered in the next
mail.  This was a prompt and cost-effective way to communicate
important information.  Industries used it extensively to officially
notify laid-off workers to return to work.  While Mailgram didn't
offer proof of delivery, it did offer proof of sending which is
important*.  I remember when Compuserve opened up it offered the
option to send a Mailgram and some businesses had a terminal on site
to send Mailgrams.

Would anyone know when it was officially discontinued?

*The US post office will give you an official receipt "Certificate of
Mailing" as proof of mailing (but NOT proof of delivery) for a nominal
fee.  It is cheaper than Certified Mail and in some cases adequate as
proof of response.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In this final paragraph, what Lisa is
referring to is often times known as 'poor man's certified mail'. It
is the theory -- usually correct -- that if you mail something and do
not get it back undelivered, it i presumed to have 'stuck' at its
destination. We are assuming now that the post office is doing its job
also ... big assumption maybe. Ask at the post office for a
'certificate of mailing sticker' when you want to use it. You _must_
present the item to be mailed to the clerk at the counter; _do not_
just drop it in a slot or whatever. You have to _hand_ the letter to
them; they will then stamp their cancellation indicia on the envelope
and take it from you. You get half of the 'certificate' (which is 
glued on the face of the mailing piece) also with indicia supplied by
them. That is your 'proof of mailing'. "I mailed you the letter, it
stuck (that is, I did not get it back undeliverable) so therefore you
must have gotten it." The recipient does _not_ sign for it; it is
just dumped in their mailbox like everything else that day. It is 
called 'poor mans certified' since it serves about the same purpose
(except for the recieving signature) and it costs considerably less.
A certified outgoing letter (which you also have to hand over to an
employee at the counter) costs a few dollars; proof of mailing on the
other hand costs a few cents more than regular mail.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Remote Access to Answering Machine
Date: 1 Aug 2005 11:47:14 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Choreboy:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It could be a spy machine, but I think
> it more likely that you/relatives are being terrorized by an incorrectly
> programmed fax machine ...

Just like voice calls, fax users may enter/dial the wrong number.

The problem is compounded by the fact that many fax machines store the
document and retry if the call doesn't go through.  That could be in a
few minutes or the next day.  It drives people crazy.

I once got such calls.  I was able to hook up my computer and set it
to fax so I could receive the fax and I did.  It was a normal business
communication and the sender transposed two digits, enterting my
number by mistake.  I telephoned the sender and explained what
happened.

> ... Like complaints made to the Illinois Commerce
> Commission where the complaint is raised and the prissy old lady
> secretary at the Commission makes a _single_ phone call of inquiry,
> then folds her hands and announces self-righteously "I have called the
> company and they _assure_ me it will be corrected"  ...

I know people bothered by such calls at home and complained to the
phone company.  Normally the problem ended at that point with no more
effort by the customer.  I think today they have some good trace tools
and don't fool around with errant fax callers.

> ... Telco explained to FNB
> (I assume with a straight face) what had happened. I do not know if
> telco eventually wrote it off (as they used to do _everything_ that
> a customer would not pay for) or not.

Some years ago, due to a CO wiring error, my toll calls were charged
to some business.  The business complained and the phoneco would NOT
write off the calls.  After the business made a big enough stink, the
phoneco traced down the problem and transferred the charges to me.
(The orig rep said since it was their error I could pay for it over a
few months, but then a subsequent rep demanded payment in full
immediately).

> I wonder if the people using the hotel public fax machine wherever in
> your account also blamed the added charges on their bill on a screw
> up by the hotel switchboard. Probably.

I've noticed that many people don't check their bills the way people
once did.  I don't know if it's laziness, stupidity, over complexity,
but auditors go nuts finding obivous overcharges left uncorrected by
staff.

Years ago if people had a strange 5c call on their phone bill they'll
call the phone company and raise heck.  Nowadays many people don't
bother.  For myself, the damn phone bill is so big and complex it's
hard to interpret -- and that's with national unlimited!  Even if I do
find a 25c error, I'm not going to bother to waste my time to call and
complain.  (When I got a $25.00 charge for a calling card I most
certainly did complain.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Several years ago I was living in a
residential apartment building with a tenant switchboard. I preferred 
to have a personal 'direct line' which was okayed by the management.
Trouble is, it was never billed to me' not for about a year anyway.
Since Chicago had 'unlimited call pack' in those days, there was never
any reason for any charges to go through the accounting department on
it. Then one day, a long distance charge _did_ get billed to the line;
it 'fell out' into suspense when telco accounting was unable to find a
'home' for it. Telco person working the suspense ledger tried the
technique of actually calling the number, hearing it ring, therefore
it was a working number. Telco person then calls outside plant and
asks them "why didn't you give accounting _our_ copy of this new order?"
No good answer to that; they had to reconstruct the paperwork for the
accounting people. When my bill finally arrived it was backdated to
_one year_ plus the usual 'month in advance'. I complained, and the
service rep apologized and said she would give me time to pay it off.
I naturally suggested why don't you write it off and let me start 
 from fresh. But I could hear service rep snickering as she said,
"Yes, it was our fault taking so long, but Mr. Townson, you _knew_
what was happening with it, didn't you? I'll give you three or four
months to pay a little each month; I will not write it off, but a
few reps in this office would place you with an agency right now and
not give you any time!"  PAT]

------------------------------

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Cincinnati Bell Sets 'New Rules' in Wireless Plan
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:54:39 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


James Pilcher wrote:

> By James Pilcher, Enquirer staff writer

> New Plan:

> Cincinnati Bell will unveil Monday a new calling plan, allowing
> unlimited calls to and from any Bell wireless or land-line number
> within the local calling area. 

Companies like Cricket and MetroPCS are already doing this. Northcoast
PCS does it upstate, in Columbus and Cleveland (I used to be a
customer of theirs), and a former boss of mine in Cleveland is
presumably still on the Alltel $69.99 plan that allows unlimited local
calling. (Alltel offers similar plans in other markets, too.)

CintiBell's a little late ...

Steve Sobol, Professional Geek   888-480-4638   PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

------------------------------

From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Cell Phone For VOIP - Home Device Imitates Provider Signal
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 05:27:36 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications


I've used a cordless phone with my Vonage service for three years now.
Why reinvent the wheel?

jhedfors wrote:

> I wonder if such a device is feasible?

> Could there be a device that gives give off a home network signal that
> your cell phone can connect to as it does your service provider?  You
> could then user your cell handset for VOIP calls when near such a
> device.

> There is talk of special wi-fi enabled phones doing this, but this
> could be used with any phone, and could possibly be wi-fi enabled as
> well.

> Any thoughts?

> J

------------------------------

From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: itunes is a RIPOFF
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:17:30 -0700
Organization: Stanford University


Posters on the first three of various newsgroups, in a to date very 
lengthy thread, have posted:

>> I stand behind it! My decision to dump TV was a good one and I'm
>> definitely happy with it.

> They called the area in which Leipzig or Dresden sits (I can't
> remember which city) the valley of the dumb during the time of the
> DDR, as the West German TV was not available to them because of the
> geography.

> So if you wish to separate yourself from the world in this way, go ahead.

> You will regret it one day, I assure you.

I just got in on the tail end of this thread, but I wonder if
something I heard (or think I recall hearing) on NPR the other day is
(a) true?, and (b) relevant -- viz.

   Professional TV producers and other network personnel commonly 
   speak of "content" and "fill" in their TV programming.

   To them, "content" refers (really!) to the **advertising** part of   
   their programming.

   And "fill" refers to all the rest of stuff (aka junk) that they have 
   to (reluctantly) intersperse between the advertising, to get people 
   to watch the (much more important) "content".

Notes:

1)  If this is not true, apologies.  I'm pretty sure I heard it, but I 
was driving at the time and could have misheard it.

2  I've added comp.dcom.telecom to the reply list, not to drag that 
group into the rest of this otherwise not very great thread, but because 
there may be some professionals there who know if the above assertions 
are correct.

3)  Even if it's not true, it's entirely believable (especially to 
anyone who's watched cable TV).

4)  By this definition, certain TV channels -- e.g., the shopping and 
"infomercial" channels -- have managed to reach the happy situation of 
having 100% "content" and zero useless "fill".

5)  If it's actually true, and it's NPR who let the secret out, you can 
fully understand why the Bush administration is all out to kill NPR.

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator?
Date: 31 Jul 2005 19:51:42 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Steven Lichter wrote:

> As you said when TSPS systems came online things changed.  I worked a
> lot of the TSPS conversons, the directors had to be modified and
> tested then we had to move 800 and payphone detection systems and
> convert them for TSPS.  As the changes were made fewer and fewer
> offices Toll offices and a few remotes.  ... I
> remember some of the operators coing into the CO to see what we were
> doing, they were either very young kids or older woman who had been
> operators for years, they were transfere to other offices and jobs, it
> was really said.

Both veteran operators and Brooks' "Telephone" said TSP/TSPS wasn't as
satisfying as cord switchboards.  TSP did all the interesting stuff
automatically.  From the company's and customer's viewpoint, it was
much more efficient.  Occassionally, they still had to 'build up' a
call by relay the old fashioned way.  One time I had trouble placing a
call and the operator did that for me, it was interesting to listen.
I wonder if they can (or would) do that today.

For some reason, my home exch was served by two types of operators.  If
we just dialed zero, we got a older toll & assist cord board in one
location.  But if we dialed 0+ or 1+ from a payphone, we went to a TSP
office in a different location.  That TSP did not handle plain 0 calls
for some reason even though it was part of the design.  (One other
quirk we had:  local Info was 411, long distance was 1+ac+555-1212.
But distant Info within the area code (short range toll calls) was
explicitly stated to go through 0.  Then they went to 555-1212 for
local Info (to discourage use).  Now we're back to 411 for everything.
I don't know when they hit you with a charge.)

> The same came as we converted our offices to EAX.  The good old days.

What's "EAX"?

> (c) 2005  I Kill Spammers, Inc.  A Rot in Hell Co.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Traditional Bell had a habit of always
using an 'X' to mean 'e(X)change', as in PBX (P)rivate (B)ranch e(X)change,
FX as in (F)oreign E(X)change, and PAX as (P)rivate (A)utomatic 
e(X)change. An exception was FAX as in (FACS)imile Service. But you
asked about EAX which was (E)lectronic (A)utomatic e(X)change, or
another name for an electronic and automated switchboard. Of course
there is also CENTREX or a (C)entral Office e(X)change. The only 
difference between a PBX and a PAX is the former involved an operator
at a manual cordboard in a company and the latter was the same thing 
but an 'automated switchboard'. I am not well-versed enough to tell
you what small distinction there was between EAX, PAX and PBX but I
guess there was something. After all, Bell was always right about 
everything, weren't they?   PAT]

------------------------------

From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator?
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:29:54 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


I met the chief operator at the Pentagon, Miss Bailey. She was one of
the original tenants at the Pentagon, and worked there until her death
in 2001. When I knew her, around 1990, she was a beloved character who
traveled the halls in a golf cart that was given to her as a perk. Her
cart was an exception to the rule prohibiting motorized vehicles in
certain hallways, and the story is that more than one new guard got
dressed down for accosting her. She was also an avid golfer, and was
actually given two, but the other was for golfing. She knew every
secretary of defense, having started before the office was created.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/standard/6_04/local_news/5162-1.html

------------------------------

From: David Quinton <usenet_2005D_email@REMOVETHISBITbizorg.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Use of a Mysterious Cookie Irks Some Internet Users
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:02:50 +0100


On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 11:03:11 -0400, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
wrote:

> A fair amount of Web know-how was required for users to discover
> that Omniture owned the 2o7.net Web address.

Domain Name: 2O7.NET
   Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
   Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
   Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
   Name Server: NS1.OMNITURE.COM
   Name Server: NS2.OMNITURE.COM
   Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
   Updated Date: 23-jun-2005
   Creation Date: 29-sep-2000
   Expiration Date: 29-sep-2010

Wow. I have a "fair amount of of web know-how" ...

Locate your Mobile phone: <http://www.bizorg.co.uk/news.html>
Great gifts: <http://www.ThisBritain.com/ASOS_popup.html>

------------------------------

From: news.rsvl.unisys.com <kenneth.wheatley@gb.unisys.com>
Subject: Re: Use of a Mysterious Cookie Irks Some Internet Users
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:39:18 +0100
Organization: Unisys - Roseville, MN


Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote in message 
news:telecom24.347.8@telecom-digest.org:

> By DAVID KESMODEL    THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

> Earlier this summer, Uno Bloom, a songwriter in Brentwood, Tenn.,
> noticed that his home computer appeared to be slowing down. He
> searched the files on his hard drive in an effort to uncover clutter,
> and found dozens of Internet cookies labeled "2o7.net."

Maybe I'm being dim, but I don't see how cookies will make a system slow 
down appreciably. 

------------------------------

From: Ryan <welziak@snet.net>
Subject: Re: AT&T Customers Being Taken Over By AllTel
Date: 1 Aug 2005 11:32:03 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


It is true that AllTel bought a bunch of AT&T Wireless licences
Cingular was forced to sell as part of the merger. There are customers
here that are now AllTel, but the sad part is AllTel has no presense
in our region at all so you have to wonder how they plan to service
these accounts. No one here has ever heard of them prior to this.

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Credit Reports, was Re: AT&T Customers Taken Over By Alltel
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:57:13 -0400
From: Charles Cryderman <Charles.Cryderman@globalcrossing.com>


I wrote:

> The law providing free credit reports of all credit reporting
> companies has been on the books for many year.

Then Steve Sobol asked if my commits were based on Federal Law.

Yes Steve, it is my understanding that this is a Federal Law.

Chip Cryderman

------------------------------

From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 02:12:15 UTC
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC


In <telecom24.348.12@telecom-digest.org> johnl@iecc.com (John
R. Levine) writes:

>> I believe the NYS Attorney General recently hauled them into court for
>> false advertising. 

> If he did, he managed to do so without issuing a press release nor
> without anyone in the media noticing, which is rather unlikely.

Sigh. It was NYC's Department of Consumer Affairs, as posted here in
this very BBS:

Message is repeated here:

	From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
	Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:10:05 -0400
	Subject: NYC's Consumer Affairs Suing Cellcos Re: False Adverts

	"New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) Acting 
	Commissioner Jonathan Mintz today announced the agency has filed 
	suit in New York Supreme Court against three major wireless 
	companies for pitching cell phones and services in deceptive 
	advertisements that misled consumers. DCA filed suit against 
	Nextel Communications Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P., and T-Mobile
	...
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I _knew_ I had read it somewhere on the
net about Nextel getting sued; my own newsgroup would be a good place
to go looking, I guess ... IMO, Nextel is not very forthright about 
the distinctions between 'regular' cell phone service and their own
thing, nor about how the word 'nationwide' is to be interpreted.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:41:05 -0400
From: Ron Chapman <ronchapman@wideopenwest.com>
Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising


In article <telecom24.348.13@telecom-digest.org>,
wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote:

> In article <telecom24.347.18@telecom-digest.org>, PAT writes:

>> (2)"Although we do serve a large portion of the public and are
>> considered 'nationwide', we only serve mostly people centered near
>> major interstate highways and in larger cities successfully"

> Look closely at the advertising and you'll probably find that they do
> say that.  There's probably some fine print to the tune of "nationwide
> coverage claims based on 89% of US population".  That means that they
> don't claim to serve the least-economical 11% of the country, as
> determined by population, which is of course a huge land area.  They
> could exclude all of Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas and still meet
> that claim.  (In actuality, they probably do serve, KCK, Wichita,
> Omaha, Lincoln, Sioux Falls, Fargo, and Bismarck -- just not the
> hundreds of miles of small towns and farms in between.)

> Their Web site is quite honest about this (much more so than most
> carriers' coverage maps that I have seen):

> <http://www.nextel.com/en/coverage/index.shtml>

Take a look at TMobile's web site and their "Personal Coverage Check".
It's FAR more detailed than what Nextel has; it amounts to a
topographical map of signal quality.

------------------------------

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:58:13 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <telecom24.347.18@telecom-digest.org>, PAT writes:

>> (2)"Although we do serve a large portion of the public and are
>> considered 'nationwide', we only serve mostly people centered near
>> major interstate highways and in larger cities successfully"

> Look closely at the advertising and you'll probably find that they do
> say that.  There's probably some fine print to the tune of "nationwide
> coverage claims based on 89% of US population". 

Sprint used to claim the "largest all-digital nationwide network
covering 240 million people" (it became 280 million later) -- the
number referred to the total population of the areas they served. A
couple other carriers have made similar claims about their network.


Steve Sobol, Professional Geek   888-480-4638   PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And now we see that NYC Comsumer
Affairs has sued several of them for making claims like that.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info
Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising
Date: 31 Jul 2005 22:54:55 -0700


In my earlier mesage I made an oops; it should be NYC, 
see http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/html/pr_072105.html

------------------------------

From: Lee Sweet <lee@datatel.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:53:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising


In re Nextel coverage.  We use it heavily for corporate use, but are
thinking of switching to Verizon, since on weekends, coverage to where
people are further out in the countryside (even here in the
Washington, DC area) is marginal for Nextel. People carry their
corporate cell phones, and it does get hard to contact them if they
are out in the wilderness!

But, for any location, see the coverage map for Nextel at their
website.  I put in the zip code that Pat has for his mailing address
(perhaps not the right one?), and the Nextel site comes back with 'no
Nextel service'.  The *map* for Independence, Kansas, shows absolutely
nothing around that area (Route 75, etc.).

Here's the KS coverage map:
http://www.nextel.com/cgi-bin/localMarketMap.cgi?market=mkt09
Independence, MO, is fine, but that area of KS has no (Nextel) 
coverage at all.

To check an area for Nextel coverage:
http://nextelonline.nextel.com/NASApp/onlinestore/en/Action/DefineRegi
onAction


Lee Sweet
Datatel, Inc.
Manager of Telephony Services 
   and Information Security
How higher education does business.

Voice: 703-968-4661
Cell: 703-932-9425
Fax: 703-968-4625
lee@datatel.com
www.datatel.com



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, Independence _Missouri_ is no
where close to the same name in Kansas. The former is a Missouri
suburb of Kansas City, Missouri, the place where we in the
southeastern rural part of the state refer to as 'Cupcake Land'.
The Mission Hills, Overland Park and other (ooh, ick!) Johnson
County, Kansas suburbs of KCMO. Mission Hills/Overland Park is 
the home base of millionaires like the executives of Sprint and
Boeing and other telcos. Mostly insane people, IMO. I get so sick
and tired, when I tell people I live in Kansas they reply "oh, Kansas
City".  I have to say no, dammit, _Kansas_.     PAT]

------------------------------

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:08:45 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On 30 Jul 2005 22:22:28 -0000, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not a 'major crisis'; but rather,
> just quite inconvenient when you are sold a device (commonly known as
> a 'cell phone') with the assurance it will work 'anywhere', and you
> have no particular reason to distrust the seller of same only to then
> later find out the seller was full of hot air.

Pat, I know you've been around long enough that for any claim on any
product you have to have some history from others or history which you
have discovered yourself.  If you believed every claim that came down
the pike you'd be buying into all the scams that spammers throw at you
never mind all the 419 scams that are around.  As in everything else
don't believe everything you see in print, on TV or on the internet.
Some people's "truth" is not necessarily *your* truth!  Don't ASSume.
We all know what that stands for!

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If a cellular telephone company told
> you 'we have no roaming charges' would you take that to mean (1) we
> have arrangements with other carriers and do not charge you _extra money_
> for roaming, or would you take that statement to mean (2) we do not
> have any roaming at all? Since in the past, the subject of excessive
> charges for 'roaming' on another carrier's network has often times
> been an issue (since resolved by many carriers with 'national' plans
> such as the old AT&T), wouldn't you think that statement would be
> interpreted as (1) above?   PAT]

Almost every carrier in their advertising will have disclaimers such
as "not available everywhere" indicating that their service may not be
suitable for use in all locations.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, please remember this was not
my problem originally; just a problem left for me to clean up. My
nephew Justin and his wife thought up Nextel as the way to go. No one
has ever accused Justin of being an Einstein in disguise; frankly he
is a couple of sacks short of a full load ... _they_ decided on Nextel
as a good deal, not me. They never asked my opinion. It worked okay in
Florida, the land of Jeb Bush and Orlando, and Walt Disney World; the
where my sister died on the street due to cirrosis of the liver 
(drinking too much iced tea I guess); so why wouldn;t Nextel work 
here? After all, we have a 'major highway' going though town, Highway
75 otherwise known as Penn Street. All I know is Justin showed up here
to be of help to Uncle Pat and was confronted by a frantic wife who
could not understand why Nextel failed her.  I gave him a prepaid
phone from AT&T/Cingular Wireless and a Yahoo Messenger account to
tide him over.   PAT] 

------------------------------

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Spammer, age 35, Meets "Moscow Rules"
Organization: ATCC
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:21:20 -0400


In article <telecom24.341.13@telecom-digest.org>, 
shlichter@diespammers.com says:

> I guess someone finally took my signature seriously.

> The only good spammer is a dead one!!  Have you hunted one down today?
> (c) 2005  I Kill Spammers, Inc.  A Rot in Hell Co.

I was at work when I saw the article on Slashdot. I told my coworkers
that in my opinion the only good spammer was a dead spammer. They were
aghast. But then, they've never had to maintain mail servers or spam
filters so they don't know the hell involved.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, and they probably never had the
'pleasure' of maintaining a Usenet newsgroup either; a newsgroup 
which started over twenty years ago with a dozen or two concise,
very precise messages each day, unlike today where I get the same
dozen or so decent messages daily but _several hundred_ spam/scam
things mixed in with it. Nah, they would not know anything about all
that. I have sat people down here at the computer and actually let
them _look_ at the stuff, rolling out everywhere. Any more, I have
gotten very thick skin from it all, and am completely immune to the
thousands of mortgage offers, notices from 'PayPal Security' about my
accounts have to be reconstructed (at their website, of course),
the endless news of penis enlargements and ways to sexually please
women or other men. I refuse to be as gross and filthy as much of
the porn spam which rolls in here daily; I have just grown calluses
on my eyes and ears, etc; I just keep zapping it and moving along. 

What gets me, however, are these uppity Usenetters who somehow think
we are still living in the 1960's when there was peace and goodwill
toward everyone, and they are *so shocked* at the idea of just
crashing and destroying the 'web sites' of those fools.  So many of
them refuse to accept reality: passive filtering is _not_ doing
anything to maintain our net. Some of them with their filtering stuff
are actually bigger abusers than the spammers they claim to dislike so
much. As we come close to the hundred percent spam saturation point,
they go right on bravely with their passive filtering, their white
lists, their black lists, bigger and more powerful CPUs and all that
nonsense. They claim if we challenge or autorespond we are just
causing more email garbage, as if there could possibly be any more 
than there is already. Or if we challenge, then some prissy Usenetter
might get offended that he has to open his filter to receive a 
message asking for a one word reply. 

Let someone find a reasonably effecient and effective (but admittedly
imperfect) way to 'drill down' and locate an _actual offender_
and my oh my, don't they get pissed off royally, even threatening to
cut us off who had the audacity to challenge instead of their beloved
and useless filtering. He might sue us, don't you know!  An innocent
party might get trounced in the process, don't you know!  And
unspoken, yet a real concern, we might get our undewear in a knot,
don't you know! They consider themselves the only real experts on how
to deal with spam and that is by ignoring it and half-way filtering
it. They are slowly becoming the minority on the net, thankfully,
generally I think because so many users these days hold Vint Cerf and
ICANN in such disdain. But right now they are quite vocal and will do
anything to prevent the rest of us from escaping the hell hole as mail
administrators and newsgroup moderators we are in.  If they want to
continue being sodomized, as seems to be the case, I have some old,
defective condoms they can use for 'protection', just like their email
filters, with leaks everywhere. (Hey, maybe a good idea for the
spammers who tell me many times daily about how to make my 'bodily
fluids' come out thicker and with more pressure, etc). I wish these
so-called 'spam experts' would quit trying to save us from ourselves.
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)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   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 #349
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues