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)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal   or  
Read Daily Spam News

 

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:46:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 582

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Saudi Telecom Stops Text Vote for Arab Talent Show (Andrew Hammond)
    Mobile Phones to Announce "You've Been Indicted" (Reuters News Wire)
    Re: Unanswered Calls to Cell Phones? (Steven Lichter)
    Re: Unanswered Calls to Cell Phones? (DevilsPGD)
    Re: Unanswered Calls to Cell Phones (Anthony Bellanga)
    Re: NYC Transit Strike Midst Cold Weather and Christmas (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Physically Protecting The Local Loop Network? (Steven Lichter)

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.  

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

From: Andrew Hammond <reuters@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Saudi Telecom Stops Text Vote for Arab Talent Show
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:17:14 -0600


By Andrew Hammond

Saudi mobile operator Mobily has stopped users from text message
voting for an Arab "Star Academy" competition because of an Islamic
decree branding the reality show immoral, the company said on Monday.

Saudi religious scholars last May condemned the hugely popular talent
show aired by Lebanese channel LBC as a crime against Islam when a
young Saudi returned to a hero's welcome after winning in the Lebanese
capital Beirut.

"The decision was taken last night because of a fatwa (religious
decree) issued last year, since the program is culturally
inappropriate," spokesman Humoud Alghodaini said.

"It shows men and women living in one house, sometimes semi-naked and
in inappropriate situations," he added.

The program entered its third season last week with two 21-year-old
Saudi men among the 19 contestants from around the Arab world who will
share a house 24 hours a day in a bid to win a recording contract.

Saudi Arabia, home to the puritan Wahhabi school of Islam, requires
women to be fully covered and accompanied by a male relative in
public. Mixing of unmarried men and women is forbidden.

Saudi Telecommunications Co. (STC), the main mobile firm in the
conservative kingdom, said last January it would block customers from
voting by text message.

STC has around 10 million subscribers compared to the two million of
new-comer Mobily, which is owned by United Arab Emirates' telecom firm
Etisalat.

"We will definitely lose money, but how much, I don't know,"
Alghodaini said about the decision. "If we don't (stop messaging) it
would backfire on us and affect our brand."

April's victory by Hisham Abdulrahman triggered the closest thing to
pop hysteria in ultra-conservative Saudi Arabia, as admirers rushed to
shake his hand or even kiss him at a public appearance in a Riyadh
shopping mall.

Users in a Saudi Web chatroom often used by Islamists praised the
messaging ban. "We have to say thank you to these companies for their
initiative and for respecting young people," one said in a posting.

Some music fans say they managed in the past to vote via the Internet,
bypassing the government server which controls access.

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. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more news headlines, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/newstoday.html

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

From: Reuters News Wire <reuters@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Mobile Phones to Announce "You've Been Indicted"
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:19:59 -0600


South Koreans may look at their mobile phones with some trepidation in
the new year because prosecutors will start telling people they have
been indicted via text messages, an official said Monday.

In a country where about 75 percent of the population carries mobile
phones, prosecutors felt it was time to move away from sending legal
notices on paper and send them electronically instead, said Lee
Young-pyo, an administrative official.

"Most people in South Korea have mobile phones and since the notices
don't reach them immediately by regular mail, this is a more definite
way for the individuals to know they have received a legal notice,"
Lee said.

The indictments by text messages are not intended to take people by
surprise. "People will receive a text message of a legal notice only
after they apply for the service," he said.

Prosecutors expect to save about 160 million won ($158,000) a year by
shifting to the service and reducing the number of legal notices it
sends through the mail.

Other notices that will be sent by text messages include information
on fines and penalties.

The service starts Tuesday but will be fully implemented in 2006.

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. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more news headlines, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/internet-news.html

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

From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc.  (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: Re: Unanswered Calls to Cell Phones?
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 20:08:43 GMT


John Levine wrote:

>> When you reach that recording, is that call chargeable?

> Of course not.

>> I called a few times using my Calling Card but couldn't reach him
>> and I was billed for the calls.

> I suspect your calling card was charging you for any call over N
> seconds rather than checking for supervision.  I make test calls from
> my landline to my cell numbers in Luxembourg and Switzerland from time
> to time, hanging up once my phone starts ringing, and I don't ever
> recall being charged unless I answered.

> R's,

> John

I know in the days before SS7 some companies that interconnected with
the telephone netwoek did not have supervision, one was SprintNet
which at the time was a dial around system where you would call toll
free number and then your account # and the number you wanted to call.
Some cell systems where like this and still maybe, though it would
have to be a really old and small system.

DevilsPGD wrote:

> In message <telecom24.580.3@telecom-digest.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
> wrote:

>> If you call a cellphone (without voicemail) and it doesn't answer,
>> after a few rings an intercept recording will come on and tell you the
>> party is not available and terminate the call.

>> When you reach that recording, is that call chargeable?  I don't think
>> it should be since it was unanswered, but my experience is that one
>> does get charged.

> In general, it's not chargeable.  However, some systems get "confused"
> (intentionally misbill, since the consumer probably won't notice, and
> the company need only refund the amount of the overcharge, so there is
> little risk.)

> (TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, considering that a cell phone
> is normally always within its owner's reach (a holster fastened to
> your trousers, in your purse, in a holder near the driver of an
> automobile, etc) it would seem very odd that it had to ring more than
> three or four times, at best, unanswered.  PAT]

I have friends that have not configured their voiced mail.  I know
when I first got a cell phone that had voice mail, I did not configure
it and when I finally did I got so many calls to it, I reset it and it
took me a long time to get around to doing it again.  I tend to shut
mine off when I'm off work.

Anthony Bellanga wrote:

> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>> If you call a cellphone (without voicemail) and it doesn't answer,
>> after a few rings an intercept recording will come on and tell you
>> the party is not available and terminate the call.

>> When you reach that recording, is that call chargeable?  I don't
>> think it should be since it was unanswered, but my experience is
>> that one does get charged.

>> A few years ago I was meeting a friend at a convention, and I was
>> to call his cell phone from a pay phone upon my arrival.  His cell
>> phone number was long distance from that point.  I called a few
>> times using my Calling Card but couldn't reach him and I was billed
>> for the calls. I complained and they took it off.

>> Now I realize most people today have such low per-call fees (ie 10c)
>> so this isn't an issue, but there are times from a pay phone, long
>> distance, or peak period cell phone roaming where the per-call
>> charge is indeed significant, even as much as a dollar or more per
>> minute.

> And using a calling card from a payphone can be significant these
> days since the payphone owner can now "legally" extort huge charges
> from the long distance carrier or card provider, who will then extort
> those surcharges from us.

>> It doesn't seem to fair to charge for unanswered calls.  I don't
>> know if traditional supervision (call answered) signals are passed
>> back from cell phone switches.

> Answer supervision is indeed passed back from cellular service
> switches. But remember that these days (and even in times past as
> well), standardization is not perfect. And it isn't always consistant
> as to which cellular providers will supervise back your calls to
> such messages. It can vary from switch to switch within the same
> cellular provider as to whether you are charged or not for reaching
> such a "subscriber not available" (vacant) message.

> Even with traditional landline providers, sometimes you can find a
> charge condition on reaching intercepts (which are really the digit
> by digit quote back systems), and "vacant condition" recordings. And
> as I said, there were times this happened even in years past, back
> when the telephone industry in the US was still mostly managed by
> AT&T and Bell.

> If you are concerned, make a note of such calls, and check to see
> if they were indeed billed when the bill arrives. And then complain
> to your long distance company or card provider to get a credit.

I know that when I first got mine, if you let it ring more then 3
rings Pacific Telephone Cellular (later AirTouch) would charge you as
it would if you let a busy tone go too long.  I remember calling one
of our switchroom numbers which was set for no supervision and getting
charged for the call as well as a couple of times being dropped off
since the originating switch was looking for supervision and when it
got none it would timeout, that was before SS7 and when there was
still a "C" lead in the switch.

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.

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

From: DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Unanswered Calls to Cell Phones?
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:54:58 -0700
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.581.7@telecom-digest.org> DevilsPGD
<spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> In message <telecom24.580.3@telecom-digest.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
> wrote:

>> If you call a cellphone (without voicemail) and it doesn't answer,
>> after a few rings an intercept recording will come on and tell you the
>> party is not available and terminate the call.

>> When you reach that recording, is that call chargeable?  I don't think
>> it should be since it was unanswered, but my experience is that one
>> does get charged.

> In general, it's not chargeable.  However, some systems get "confused"
> (intentionally misbill, since the consumer probably won't notice, and
> the company need only refund the amount of the overcharge, so there is
> little risk.)

> (TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, considering that a cell phone
> is normally always within its owner's reach (a holster fastened to
> your trousers, in your purse, in a holder near the driver of an
> automobile, etc) it would seem very odd that it had to ring more than
> three or four times, at best, unanswered.  PAT]

Good theory, but a lot of people don't have their cell phones glued to
them 24/7 (I do, but most of my family does not)

In message <telecom24.581.8@telecom-digest.org> Anthony Bellanga
<anthonybellanga@spam-poison.com> wrote:

> And using a calling card from a payphone can be significant these
> days since the payphone owner can now "legally" extort huge charges
> from the long distance carrier or card provider, who will then extort
> those surcharges from us.

No extortion involved.  If someone held a gun to your head or
otherwise forced you to use the payphone, it would be extortion.

Since you choose to use a payphone, you choose to absorb that cost.  A
cost, which is regulated, and which helps telcos continue to run pay
phones at all, since they're not generally considered profitable
anymore, at least around here.

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

Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:09:51 -0700
From: Anthony Bellanga <anthonybellanga@spam-poison.com>
Reply-To: no-spam@no-spam.no-spam I did't forget this time, Anthony!
Subject: Re: Unanswered Calls to Cell Phones


*Please do NOT display my email address where-ever it appears! THNX*

> (TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, considering that a cell phone
> is normally always within its owner's reach (a holster fastened to
> your trousers, in your purse, in a holder near the driver of an
> automobile, etc) it would seem very odd that it had to ring more than
> three or four times, at best, unanswered.  PAT]

I dunno ...

Women do put their purse down somewhere and walk off momentarily,
or else they have so much sh*t stuffed into their purses they can't
easily grab a ringing cellphone immediately;

One might put their phone down on the table and walk off for a while,
not realizing that you might get an incoming call during the period
the phone is "unattended";

You forget to (or deliberately don't) take your cellphone with you
when you go to the bathroom;

You can't answer the phone even one within your reach because you are
involved with something else at that moment;

You might be on the phone with another call and just can't switch over
to answer the call-waiting beep, because the first call is an
important call (maybe you are on hold, and you just don't want to
leave the first call in case you are taken off hold at the moment you
have answered the new beeping call);

and so forth.

There are numerous reasons why one can't (or won't) answer their
inging cellphone at the moment it rings (or beeps or vibrates).

If you have to turn your phone off, most cellular carriers will
immediately send the incoming call to voicemail, or in the absence of
voicemail service on the called line (and there are those who never
did get voicemail when they first subscribed to cellular service), the
caller will be immediately sent to a "vacant" announcement indicating
that the desired party is either not available, or has roamed out of
any available coverage/service area.

If you have your phone turned on (and are in a signal/service area),
your phone will ring about four times (these days, your phone could
even ring six or more times), before the call is sent to voicemail, or
in the absence of voicemail, to a "vacant" type announcement described
above.

I don't know about all carriers, but some carriers do NOT give you a
"caller-ID log" of incoming calls during the time your phone is turned
off. If a caller doesn't choose to leave voicemail when my phone is
turned off, I have no way of knowing that I had an attempt at an
incoming call. So ... I leave my phone turned on at just about all
times. I put it in "vibrate" mode if I am in a library, in a theater,
at church, or other places where it would be rude for an incoming call
to ring. That way, even if I don't answer an incoming "vibrating"
call, and the caller doesn't leave voicemail, I can at least know that
I had an incoming call from such-and-such a number (if the number is
deliverable) at such-and-such a time.

If I can "politely" answer the incoming vibrating call and talk in
a very low voice, I will. If I need to "force" the incoming call to
voicemail, the caller might hear one or two spurts of "ringing" tone
before being sent on to voicemail. If I can't even do that, then the
phone will quietly vibrate on my end with the calling party hearing
"ringing" tone, for about six "ring" cycles, until the cell switch
finally sends the call over to voicemail. The caller can choose to
leave voicemail or not, but at least I have seen something about an
incoming call, in the incoming Caller-ID Log, or even at the moment
the call is ringing (vibrating).

So, I don't consider it one bit "odd" that calls to a cellphone could
ring several times unanswered, ultimately going to voicemail, or else
going to a "vacant" announcement (called party is not available or has
roamed outside of the coverage area). We all depend on our (and
others') cellphones, but some of us do have other things we are
involved with at the moment the cellphone rings, things that take
precedance over a cellphone call, just like it with a a ringing
landline phone. That's why there is voicemail, answering machines, and
answering services.  But some people might not even want these things
or services on their cellphone or landlines neither.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: NYC Transit Strike Midst Cold Weather and Christmas
Date: 26 Dec 2005 16:53:06 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


John Smith <u...@example.net> wrote:

> Roger Toussaint, President of TWU Local 100, responded to Mayor
                   Bloomberg, who had made remarks essentially the same
                   as those above.

                   He said, "There is a higher calling than the law
                   and that's justice and equality. Had Rosa Parks
                   answered the call of the law instead of the higher
                   call of justice, many of us who are driving buses
                   today would still be in the back of the bus."

                   In other words, there are times we MUST pick and
                   choose what laws we will obey.

During WW II, the Federal Government ordered changes in qualifications
for transit workers in response to a labor shortage.  The existing
transit motormen, conductors, and bus drivers vehmently disliked this
change and went out on strike to protest.  This was particularly
paralyzing because during the war few people could drive and Phila was
a vital war production center.  It was necessary for the government to
call out the Army and post men on every trolley.

I presume you and Toussaint would've called this strike "a higher call
to justice", right?  Certainly the men who went out on strike at that
time felt so.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can tell you that I have no love lost
for unions; some of them have virtually ruined American industry. But 
here, I am in a quandry; I do not have any love lost for American
government either, and particularly things like the obnoxious Taylor
Act. But, when the government insists on getting into areas where it
has no business being, such as (originally) privately owned transpor-
tation systems or schools or real estate, then IMO the government has
to stand in line and take its chances like anyone else where labor
forces and labor pools are concerned.  PAT]

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

From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc.  (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: Re: Physically Protecting The Local Loop Network?
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 20:22:27 GMT


Al Gillis wrote:

> Gordon Burditt <gordonb.wvukh@burditt.org> wrote in message 
> news:telecom24.570.7@telecom-digest.org:

>       (Snip, ship, snip...)

>> A long time ago, when they first started allowing other people to
>> connect modems to a phone line, but NOT directly, there was the DAA
>> ("Data Access Arrangement", I think).  I worked with these in the late
>> 1970's.  You rented it from the phone company.  It had a defined
>> interface so you could pass voice through it, take the phone off the
>> hook, pulse dial, detect ringing, etc.  For tone dialing you'd just...

>       (More Snippage...

> There was also a gizmo of much the same circuitry called a VCA --
> Voice Connecting Arrangement.  A VCA was used on a trunk connecting a
> common carrier's service to a customer owned PBX.  While a stand alone
> VCA was pretty simple, when there were a lot of them there was a lot
> of stuff -- equipment racks, mounting shelves, distributing frames, and
> who knows what other manner of monkey business.  At least there was no
> power -- as I recall these VCAs (made by TelLabs) used no external
> power.  (A "DanRay" PBX I installed in the early '80s had nearly 300
> trunks and an equal number of VCAs!  These were installed in a room
> separate from the PBX and consumed quite a footprint).

> Al

> (Oh -- Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!  Thanks for helping to educate me 
> throughout all of 2005 -- and several years before that as well!)

Many years ago I had an old magneto phone on my line (before
deregulation) my daughter at the time was about 1 1/2 years old and
cranked it, to say the least it caused problems, first the fuses on my
both sides of my line were blown, and it must have taken the protector
on the frame out, PacTel was out within an hour and they were not
happy with me, I pointed out it had been a phone that was made by for
for The Western Electric Co., that did not seem to impress them, I was
told not to put it on the line again; I did, but disables the magneto.

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.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Probably what you should have said to
the repair service people (after pointing out the Western Electric/Bell
stickers on the phone) "I have been trying to get a new phone for 
X years, you people would never come to do it."   PAT]

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


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications 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 #582
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues