Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 
Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 61 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: Taxes and surcharges over 36% of bill, is this normal?       
  Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle) 
  Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle) 
  Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle) 
  Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle) 
  update on TeleTrap from TelTech Systems 


====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== 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, and other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:20:41 -0800 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Taxes and surcharges over 36% of bill, is this normal? Message-ID: <_hmql.528$im1.360@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com> T wrote: > In article <3nhbq4d9ku7eaap68d30e72okhrbjphvp3@4ax.com>, > rng@richbonnie.com says... >> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:19:13 -0500 (EST), muzician21 >> <muzician21@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm with Embarq since they're the only game in town for DSL in my >>> area. >>> >>> Taxes and surcharges of 16.51 on total charges of 44.80 - the DSL >>> internet which is an additional 19.95 isn't taxed according to the >>> bill. >>> >>> The taxes have names like Telecommunications relay surcharge, >>> Interstate access surcharge, etc. etc. >>> >>> So that works out to almost 37% of the taxed portion of the bill. >>> That's over 5x the tax rate on consumer items in many counties. Is >>> this typical? >> I use AT&T for my wire-line telephone service in Nevada. >> My surcharges and other fees are: >> >> Federal Subscriber Line Charge 5.14 >> Federal Universal Service Fee 1.59 >> Carrier Cost recovery Fee (Long Dist) 1.99 >> Total 8.72 >> >> My bill for local and unlimited long distance is 51.00 (which includes >> many custom calling features) before the above fees. So the tax+fee >> rate is 8.72/51.00 = 17%. >> There is no tax listed, so apparently communiations services are not >> taxed in Nevada. (That's good, because our sales tax rate is about >> 7%). >> >> I get Internet (but not cable TV) from the local cable TV company. The >> bill lists CALEA fee of 0.42, but no other fees or taxes. I believe >> that CALEA stands for "Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement >> Act", so the fee is to reimburse the cable company for complying with >> this law. Hmm, this means that I'm paying a fee for the government to >> spy on me. > > My Vonage $24.99 becomes $31.99 due to the following: > > Regulatory Recovery Fee $0.99 > Emergency 911 Cost Recovery $0.99 > Sales Tax $2.01 > Federal Program Fee $1.75 > State 911 Fee $1.00 > State Telecom Education Access Fund $0.26 > > Only $7 in taxes and fees. Of that, the Regulatory Recovery Fee, > Emergency 911 Cost Recovery Fee, and Federal Program Fee are all money > grabs by Vonage. $3.73 or more than half that $7. > > Don't even ask about my $39.99 T-Mobile plan. It ends up at $50 a month > with the same baloney. > The City of Riverside, Calif. tried to add a tax to Cellular phone about 18 years ago; they had a meeting on it and over 500 peopke showed up to protest, most of them made it very very clear that they never even used their phone in the city, just lived here or had a Riverside billing address. Things are very different now since almost all plans come with huge amount of minutes. I myself still only use mine for work and that is out of the area; they are now going to try it again and I expect there will be again a protest, but I'm sure that it will get passed this time since the elected officials still think we work for them and they have to stuff their pockets with our cash so they can drive their city owned Hummers and the like. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 04:18:31 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle) Message-ID: <god2an$cf1$1@reader1.panix.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >In terms of communications: I don't believe the New Deal contributed >in any way toward improved telephone technology. I don't believe the >New Deal funded any significant scientific research. >Did the Rural Electrification Act also cover telephone service to >rural homes? And it does to this day. Many REA Coop's provide telephone service to rural areas. Those that are now gone were bought by GTE, Alltel or similar. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 04:22:52 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle) Message-ID: <god2is$cf1$2@reader1.panix.com> More on REA telco's.... <http://www.ntca.org/index.php?view=article&id=51%3Ahistory-of-rural-telecommunications&option=com_content&Itemid=279> -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 00:23:43 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle) Message-ID: <MPG.2413e5ea1fb8a32298991f@reader.motzarella.org> In article <Pccql.61266$6r1.19155@newsfe19.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says... > > Kenneth P. Stox wrote: > > > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > > >> In contrast, FDR was a expert at handling the press and at "spin". > >> His fireside chats gave the people the sense that someone cared > >> about them and was working on their behalf. That was a critical > >> contribution, giving the people hope for the future. But FDR's > >> programs did not end the Depression, spark a business recovery and > >> for many people did nothing to alleviate the suffering. People > >> forget that FDR didn't like deficit spending either and in the late > >> 1930s cut back on social programs, FDR's cutback brought a fresh > >> business slowdown. > > > > > > Whether or not the New Deal ended the depression is arguable, but > > without the New Deal we would have lost Europe and the Pacific in > > WWII. We would not have been able to mobilize at nearly the speed > > we did. Had the TVA not been constructed, we would not have been > > able to develop the atomic bomb as quickly as we did. > > Whether a person likes FDR or not, history has proven he did his best > to prepare this country for the inevitable world war with Hitler. In > fact, there is a fair amount of evidence he baited Japan to attack us > somewhere in the Pacific so we could declare war on them, thus forcing > Hitler's hand before England fell. > > I generally vote Republican but both FDR and Harry Truman were heros > so far as I am concerned. Yes there is evidence that Washington delayed the transmission of warnings to Pearl Harbor in order to use it as a catalyst for entry into WW II. There was a strong isolationist movement in the U.S. at the time that FDR had to overcome. Our industry had been pretty busy building up aircraft, guns and boats for the UK under the lend-lease program. But FDR knew that the West was doomed if the U.S. didn't enter the war. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:53:47 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle) Message-ID: <2d1ea145-9c7f-4d8e-9e85-96fd77a8c3e4@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> On Mar 1, 11:06 am, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote: > Yes there is evidence that Washington delayed the transmission of > warnings to Pearl Harbor in order to use it as a catalyst for entry into > WW II. Telecom reference: Despite advances in technology, in 1941 long distance telecommunications, by either wire or wireless, were still very slow and cumbersome. War comment: The historical record is very strong that the military was very well aware of the risk of war, including Pearl Harbor. Pearl Habor got caught off guard because the Japanese outsmarted us by using a new kind of warfare--planes launched from aircraft carriers. Ironically, the Japanese hit the battleships which were actually made obsolete by their very attack. The US' carriers were out at sea and far more valuable. While the Pearl Harbor commanders were blamed, with some justification, for not being as prepared as they should've been, MacArthur in the Phillipines was likewise unprepared (planes parked too close) and had extra time. Further, an attack on the Phillipines was expected. > There was a strong isolationist movement in the U.S. at the time that > FDR had to overcome. Even if Pearl Harbor would've been on full readiness, the Japanese attack was still a surprise and in bad faith. The outcome of rage in the U.S. would've been the same. If FDR was "baiting" anyone, it was the Germans. He wanted to stall the Japanese as long as possible because the US did not have the resources to fight them. ***** Moderator's Note ***** This is the last message in this thread. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:02:29 -0500 From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: update on TeleTrap from TelTech Systems Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0903010921520.16190@panix5.panix.com> background: This company lets users of _some_ cellular phones, when receiving a "blocked-CNID" call, hit a few buttons, and then, through some magic, the CNID appears. I've just duplicated the probable sequence using my own cellphone, (without using TelTech) and yes, I was able to get the "blocked" CNID to appear. The trick, so to speak, is two fold: a: when you "bounce" or "forward" a call aimed at a cellphone (at least of some companies), that second call is treated by the phone network, in many aspects, as a brand new one from the original caller - but this time to the third party. Hence the CNID is transmitted (unless blocked) to that third party. b: calls to "toll free" numbers such as "1-800" _do_ pass along the CNID even when "blocked". (ok, often it's ANI rather than CNID, but the concept is the same). So... I set up my cell phone to bounce (when I hit a key) the calls to my own toll free number [a], which routed to my landline. I then made some tests. First, calling my cellphone using a "blocked" CNID (by prepending the "*67) did, as expected, get me a "private call" (that is, no CNID) on the display. I then made another blocked call to the cellphone, which, as before, got a "private" flag. I "bounced" the call to my tollfree number, which routed to my landline. And eyup, a couple of seconds later my landline rang _and_ it displayed the CNID. Finally, I reset my tollfree number to route to my cellphone. I wasn't sure whether I could "bounce" a call from my cellphone, out to the tollfree number, and then back to my cellphone. It worked. When I called my cellphone (again, with a blocked CNID), the initial display said "private". I hit the "bounce" key, it routed out _and back_ through the tollfree vendor, and eyup, I got to see the CNID. [a] I use "kall8" as my "tollfree" supplier. Their rates are decent, although not the greatest. Their key advantage is their realtime web-based control page, letting you designate the "real" number the tollfree one routes to with just a few clickthroughs. They also have very good management options - such as deciding which areas can get through to you and which should be blocked, also via that real time interface. Oh, and the calls I made immediately showed up on their web page, and the billing info also appeared in my e-mail inbox a moment later. This included the CNID... No other connection with them except as a satisfied customer. _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ***** Moderator's Note ***** Privacy, like spam, is an arms race. The US/Canada phone system uses a "Payee wins" paradigm, where the company paying for the call gets to know which number dialed it even if the caller doesn't like that; ergo, toll-free numbers pass along ANI info. In the future, however, we might change to a bidding model, where a caller can pay more for privacy than a recipient is willing to bid to know the number. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition 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. The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: mailto:telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom 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://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 The Telecom digest (6 messages) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues