|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 140 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Vonage and phone numbers
FTC builds case against telemarketers
Re: FTC builds case against telemarketers
Re: FTC builds case against telemarketers
====== 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: Fri, 22 May 2009 19:01:01 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Vonage and phone numbers
Message-ID: <gv6spd$knq$1@news.albasani.net>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>I recall perhaps two year ago someone complaining about not being able
>to retrieve their directory number upon leaving that they had
>transfered to Vonage when they subscribed.
>It seemed the issue was that Vonage didn't "own" the number transfered
>in, rather it was "owned" by a third party.
>Anyone know the current status of getting a customer number back from
>Vonage?
>I suspect [Vonage] doesn't have a clue.
That's interesting. I called a company that sets up follow me numbers to
ask if they would set up a business white pages listings should I wish to
use that number as a main contact number. They told me that the
companies that supply their numbers prohibits that.
Somebody must be in the business of supplying telephone numbers to
virtual services. That's better than in the old days in which pager
companies could demand a block of 10,000 line number (an entire prefix)
per local area they wished to do business in, even if they never signed up
more than a handful of customers in any given locality.
The whole point of number portability is if the number can be ported in,
it can be ported out as well. If the subscriber ends service, the ported
number is supposed to be returned to its original number pool to be
assigned by the original carrier. Surely a complaint to FCC is in order as
this aspect is regulated. We've been paying for portability for years.
It's never been as flexible or as seemless as promised.
I'd keep paying the bill till I finally got the number ported, then
fight for a refund for the extra months it took till the porting
actually took place. Otherwise there's no way to reclaim the number.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 14:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: FTC builds case against telemarketers
Message-ID: <f6601023-8a0b-4f38-8359-0090259ccbe5@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
The following article from the Phila Inqr describes some outrageous
stuff pulled by telemarketers in violation of multiple laws and how
people fought back. This includes spoofing the caller ID.
See: http://www.philly.com/philly/business/personal_finance/45231832.html
Would anyone know if Call Trace (1157) works when a telemarketer
calls? That is, does Call Trace send the real ANI or the caller-ID to
the Call Trace Bureau.
Unfortunately, the Call Trace Bureau appears to only respond to
repeated threatening calls, not mere sales calls and now has a high
fee per use. They seem to really discourage people from using it. I
think that's wrong--IMHO this usage should be encouraged and the
Bureau should be staffed with enough investigators to deal with
violators.
One problem with telemarketers is that the govt only goes after the
most outrageous violators (per above), and smaller crooks get away
with it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 18:47:03 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FTC builds case against telemarketers
Message-ID: <uAIRl.27158$c45.17658@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> The following article from the Phila Inqr describes some outrageous
> stuff pulled by telemarketers in violation of multiple laws and how
> people fought back. This includes spoofing the caller ID.
>
> See: http://www.philly.com/philly/business/personal_finance/45231832.html
>
> Would anyone know if Call Trace (1157) works when a telemarketer
> calls? That is, does Call Trace send the real ANI or the caller-ID to
> the Call Trace Bureau.
>
> Unfortunately, the Call Trace Bureau appears to only respond to
> repeated threatening calls, not mere sales calls and now has a high
> fee per use. They seem to really discourage people from using it. I
> think that's wrong--IMHO this usage should be encouraged and the
> Bureau should be staffed with enough investigators to deal with
> violators.
>
> One problem with telemarketers is that the govt only goes after the
> most outrageous violators (per above), and smaller crooks get away
> with it.
>
Dialing the number would not help, since it was either a spoof CID or
the equipment does not allow you to reach a real person.
I got 6 calls on my cell phone in 5 days, the number was real and I was
able to find out who supplied the dial tone. It was listed as Level 3,
but they only supplied the backbone, it really was XO Communications.
Having done some work for them over the years I had numbers to call.
They were aware of the problem and in the process of cutting them off.
I also called the Nassau County Police in New York and made a complaint
with them since the number was ported from there. At least I had no
calls today, yesterday when they called I hit the 1 on the phone and
when the person answered I gave them a very high blast of Milliwatt.
--
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: Fri, 22 May 2009 20:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FTC builds case against telemarketers
Message-ID: <02f0bd39-3448-4f0e-9854-dd1863a6d6c2@d14g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
On May 22, 10:30 pm, Steven Lichter <diespamm...@ikillspammers.com>
wrote:
> I got 6 calls on my cell phone in 5 days, the number was real and I was
> able to find out who supplied the dial tone. It was listed as Level 3,
> but they only supplied the backbone, it really was XO Communications.
Could you explian what "level 3" and "only the backbone" means?
> They were aware of the problem and in the process of cutting them off.
Unfortunately, they'll probably find another 'backdoor' way and
continue from there.
> I also called the Nassau County Police in New York and made a complaint
> with them since the number was ported from there.
If the cops get back to you, could you let us know what they say and
if they were able to do anything? Thanks.
------------------------------
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: 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
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 (4 messages)
******************************
|
or 