|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 193 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up"
Fool! You Fell Victim to One of the Classic Blunders! Never Negotiate with Steve Jobs...
Re: Chips in official IDs raise privacy fears
Re: Chips in official IDs raise privacy fears
Re: Chips in official IDs raise privacy fears
New Apple Airport Extreme base stations?
Re: Cellphone savings worth research
====== 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: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <d324ac69-538c-4642-8cee-4f82bab4e211@j21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 13, 7:58 pm, "wdag" <wge...@verizon.net> wrote:
> And I wonder how many of those centers are in municipalities that have been
> collecting "911 fees" for decades and spending the proceeds as general
> revenue?
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> Well, if cellular users can dial 911, then the "911 fees" would be
> justified, n'est-ce-pas?
I suspect the 911 fees are used to pay for the equipment (whatever it
may be), employees, and other expenses of the 911 call center.
I believe 911 operators are a specialty in centralized call centers
these days; calls used to be handled by cops on special duty or in
smaller towns whoever happens to answer the phone.
My guess is that the 911 surcharge on our phone bills replaces general
tax dollars once used to pay for such services.
But the real question is how were such expenses paid in the past,
between Bell and the police? That is, in the past one dialed 0-
operator and asked for help and the Bell operator connected the person
to the cops. I believe the calls were free. If need be, the
operators would stay on the line to assist, indeed, the Bell System
made a big deal about heroic assistance provided by an operator to
someone in distress. I do not think Bell got any extra compensation
for that service (unlike today, where if you merely stare at the 0
button you get charged service fee.)
Presumably Bell did collect rental on the police dept telephones.
Bell had dispatcher switchboards as part of its product line for
larger police departments. Basic 911 goes way back when it was merrly
a dial shortcut in cities. Did Bell get anything for that; or were
they just happy to remove some call volume from 0-operators?
Note that in the 1970s Bell needed to add more operators, despite
automation, to handle ever more requests for operator services, and
was naturally concerned about the increased labor costs. That's when
they introduced discounts for dialed direct station toll calls and
surcharges for operator handled toll calls. Directory assistance
charges came next.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:33:09 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <6cadnbNaIf7IXMHXnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <d324ac69-538c-4642-8cee-4f82bab4e211@j21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Jul 13, 7:58 pm, "wdag" <wge...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> And I wonder how many of those centers are in municipalities that have been
>> collecting "911 fees" for decades and spending the proceeds as general
>> revenue?
>>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>> Well, if cellular users can dial 911, then the "911 fees" would be
>> justified, n'est-ce-pas?
>
> I suspect the 911 fees are used to pay for the equipment (whatever
> it may be), employees, and other expenses of the 911 call center.
_PART_ of the money also goes to the telco, to pay for the required
extra capabilities on the C.O. side. Both one-time costs for
acquisition, and recurring monthly for maintaining it.
The '911 fee' money is _strictly_ for the *telecom* side of the 911
center operation -- i.e., C.O. side interfaces, dedicated trunks, and
the center CPE. Everything _else_ -- payroll, space, power, etc. --
comes out of the regular operating budget of the serving agency. If
it's a 'consolidated' 911 center, then the costs are distributed, pro
rata, among the multiple agencies it serves.
> I believe 911 operators are a specialty in centralized call centers
> these days;
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It *really* depends on the locale. From
my experience, in a lot of more built-up areas, 911 tends to be
handled as a function of the _city_, usually the police dept -- with
'hotline' communications and direct call-transfer capability to the
dispatchers for other emergency services. In more rural areas, it may
be a consolidated function, at the _county_ level. Again, with
hotlines and call-transfer to city/town/village/whatever units within
the boundaries, _and_ similar capabilities to adjacent (at least)
counties.
> But the real question is how were such expenses paid in the past,
> between Bell and the police? That is, in the past one dialed 0-
> operator and asked for help and the Bell operator connected the
> person to the cops. I believe the calls were free. If need be, the
> operators would stay on the line to assist, indeed, the Bell System
> made a big deal about heroic assistance provided by an operator to
> someone in distress. I do not think Bell got any extra compensation
> for that service (unlike today, where if you merely stare at the 0
> button you get charged service fee.)
Entirely correct. It was a 'public service' function of the ILEC,
performed on a 'pro bono' basis.
> Presumably Bell did collect rental on the police dept telephones.
> Bell had dispatcher switchboards as part of its product line for
> larger police departments. Basic 911 goes way back when it was
> merrly a dial shortcut in cities.
All gov't "emergency services agencies" had a published "emergencies"
number. People were expected to call that number if they could.
Calling <O>perator in an emergency was intended as a "back-up"
procedure -- it was put in place expressly to cope with two kinds of
problems.
1) The person making the call _does_not_know_ the correct *local*
emergency-service number (there was -no- consistency between
communities), and
2) The person making the call is in such 'dire straits' that they
might not be able to dial the full 7-digit number.
> Note that in the 1970s Bell needed to add more operators, despite
> automation, to handle ever more requests for operator services, and
> was naturally concerned about the increased labor costs. That's
> when they introduced discounts for dialed direct station toll calls
> and surcharges for operator handled toll calls. Directory
> assistance charges came next.
The *big* increase in operator requirements occurred
Post-WWII/post-Korea, coinciding with the -vast- increase in
installations of residential phone lines.
DDD ("Direct Distance Dialing") had discounted pricing -- essentially
from 'day one' -- for the express purpose of getting people to migrate
their calling to the 'new' technology. After _most_ calls were being
placed without operator assistance, a change to the 'default' rates
was made, quoting the DDD rate as base, with a surcharge for operator
assistance, vs. quoting the operator- assisted rate, with a discount
for DDD. The two ways of calculating rates gave effectively identical
results, the real difference being the amount of 'think time' it took
to get the 'not specifically quoted' rate figure.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <332d6148-df79-4707-a299-d916374b4d83@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 14, 1:54 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> DDD ("Direct Distance Dialing") had discounted pricing -- essentially
> from 'day one' -- for the express purpose of getting people to migrate
> their calling to the 'new' technology.
I dunno (see other post). Back in the 1960s my family and employer
both made many toll calls and we kept careful track of toll rates and
discount options.
I recall the only two classes were station-to-station and person-to-
person; it did not matter how you made the call. (Evenings and
Sundays were discounted). Some members of my family purposely used a
pay phone as a way to force a short call (and thus save money)--when
time was up the money dropped and time was up. Anyway, the charges
were the same from a pay phone or the home phone.
When DDD first came out some members of my family didn't trust it and
refused to use it. No extra cost.
My employer always got time & charges. No extra cost.
A NYT article, May 29, 1969, announces a "new rate _structure_
designed to encourage use of automatic switching equipment". This to
me confirms it was a new structure and I remember that. Also, see NYT
of Jan 3, 1970.
Not everyone liked the long distance rate reductions. AT&T said
microwave high capacity allowed the reduction. However, local rates
were going up, and some claimed local service was cross subsidizing
long distance service.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:53:11 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <d22.47711c2b.378df5d7@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/14/2009 7:52:39 AM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> My guess is that the 911 surcharge on our phone bills replaces
> general tax dollars once used to pay for such services.
There was no 911 service before the 911 tax (not a surcharge, a legally
binding tax.)
> But the real question is how were such expenses paid in the past,
> between Bell and the police? That is, in the past one dialed 0-
> operator and asked for help and the Bell operator connected the person
> to the cops. I believe the calls were free. If need be, the
> operators would stay on the line to assist, indeed, the Bell System
> made a big deal about heroic assistance provided by an operator to
> someone in distress. I do not think Bell got any extra compensation
> for that service (unlike today, where if you merely stare at the 0
> button you get charged service fee.)
Before 911 it was a telephone serivce paid for by the cops. The 911
idea came later, and many people wondered why, since there seemed to
be no real problen with the "Dial-Operator" arrangement, for which
there was no charge to the caller (you think anyone would have stood
for having to pay for calling the police?) Regular charge for
whatever service and equipment the cops had, charged to the police.
> Presumably Bell did collect rental on the police dept telephones.
> Bell had dispatcher switchboards as part of its product line for
> larger police departments.
Many businesses and operations needed dispatching equipment, not just
police departments.
> Basic 911 goes way back when it was merrly a dial shortcut in cities
Never heard of 911 other than that associated with the entire 911
philosophy.
> Did Bell get anything for that; or were they just happy to remove
> some call volume from 0-operators?
Don't know and don't know how you would know where to terminate the
911 calls, if that ever existed other than the entire 911 she-bang.
PSAPs were a concept of the 911 philosophy.
> Note that in the 1970s Bell needed to add more operators, despite
> automation, to handle ever more requests for operator services, and
> was naturally concerned about the increased labor costs. That's when
> they introduced discounts for dialed direct station toll calls and
> surcharges for operator handled toll calls. Directory assistance
> charges came next.
Reduced rates for DDD station-to-station calls came with the first DDD
installation in the 1950s or 1960s. Person-to-person calls (operator
handled, of course) go back before DDD, i.e., in the days of manual
offices.
911 service, of course, applies for a lot of emergencies, not just the
cops.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:49:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <h3igfi$g8q$2@reader1.panix.com>
In <d22.47711c2b.378df5d7@aol.com> Wesrock@aol.com writes:
>In a message dated 7/14/2009 7:52:39 AM Central Daylight Time,
>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>> My guess is that the 911 surcharge on our phone bills replaces
>> general tax dollars once used to pay for such services.
> There was no 911 service before the 911 tax (not a surcharge, a
> legally binding tax.)
Maybe in your neck of the woods, but in NYC the "911 service" has been
in operation, originally paid for out of general tax revenue, since
1970 or so.
The first step was to consolidate all the different phone numbers (you
used to call the local precinct. The "Kitty genovese" story vividly
demonstrated some of those problems).
In the mid 1960s NYC oganized all police dispatch (let's not talk
about fire...) into one office, using a single seven digit phone
number.
(Ok, you old timers, dust off those memory cells.)
This was later upgraded, so to speak, into using the three digits
we're now all accustomed to.
But again, at least for the first few years, all of this was financed
through standard tax revenue. It was only later that NYC, as well as
more and more other jurisdictions, decided to use sleight-of-hand
tricks to get more cash into the stream, but pretend it wasn't a
government tax.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:06:55 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <h3ihfv$ppu$1@news.eternal-september.org>
danny burstein wrote:
> In <d22.47711c2b.378df5d7@aol.com> Wesrock@aol.com writes:
>
>> In a message dated 7/14/2009 7:52:39 AM Central Daylight Time,
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>>> My guess is that the 911 surcharge on our phone bills replaces
>>> general tax dollars once used to pay for such services.
>
>> There was no 911 service before the 911 tax (not a surcharge, a
>> legally binding tax.)
>
> Maybe in your neck of the woods, but in NYC the "911 service" has been
> in operation, originally paid for out of general tax revenue, since
> 1970 or so.
>
> The first step was to consolidate all the different phone numbers (you
> used to call the local precinct. The "Kitty genovese" story vividly
> demonstrated some of those problems).
>
> In the mid 1960s NYC oganized all police dispatch (let's not talk
> about fire...) into one office, using a single seven digit phone
> number.
>
> (Ok, you old timers, dust off those memory cells.)
>
> This was later upgraded, so to speak, into using the three digits
> we're now all accustomed to.
>
> But again, at least for the first few years, all of this was financed
> through standard tax revenue. It was only later that NYC, as well as
> more and more other jurisdictions, decided to use sleight-of-hand
> tricks to get more cash into the stream, but pretend it wasn't a
> government tax.
>
Many years ago Los Angeles City had a single 3 digit number (116) with
the ad on radio and TV " If your in a fix dial 116", this was for police
and fire, I would guess it was paid for with regular city funds.
--
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: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <76e16dab-5980-4e1b-8a61-13b5c943d980@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 14, 1:23 pm, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
> > My guess is that the 911 surcharge on our phone bills replaces
> > general tax dollars once used to pay for such services.
>
> There was no 911 service before the 911 tax (not a surcharge, a legally
> binding tax.)
Cities had 911 service _decades_ before it was taxed.
Before that, cities had central dispatching units to handle such
calls.
> Before 911 it was a telephone serivce paid for by the cops. The 911
> idea came later, and many people wondered why, since there seemed to
> be no real problen with the "Dial-Operator" arrangement, for which
> there was no charge to the caller (you think anyone would have stood
> for having to pay for calling the police?) Regular charge for
> whatever service and equipment the cops had, charged to the police.
In a city, where the police/fire/rescue district normally coincided
with the telephone district, dialing zero was not an issue.
In 1968 most pay phones were coin first. But 911 was planned to be no
coin required, a feature keeping pay phones active to this day as
emergency phones.
But in suburban communities, which were growing, very often the
telephone district and the municipal service boundary did not match.
A suburban telephone exchange could easily be handling at least three
or four different municipalities. Likewise, a suburban municipality
could be supported by multiple exchange districts.
See NYT 1/13/68, 6/27/68.
> > Basic 911 goes way back when it was merrly a dial shortcut in cities
>
> Never heard of 911 other than that associated with the entire 911
> philosophy.
911 is a service that evolved over time. (Just as ESS was once analog
and is now digital). It saved time from dialing the operator and
asking for help and was intended to be a universal number. It began
in 1968.
Later "enhanced 911" came along that was more sophisticated. I
believe it was around that time the tax came out.
> Reduced rates for DDD station-to-station calls came with the first DDD
> installation in the 1950s or 1960s. Person-to-person calls (operator
> handled, of course) go back before DDD, i.e., in the days of manual
> offices.
Was that for state services? It seems strange to have a discounted
rate for something the vast majority of subscribers did not have
access to.
I remembver when the new interstate long distance rate structure came
out, circa 1970, and it was a big deal because it: 1) added a third
highly discounted period, at that time after 12 midnight, 2) reduced
the initial period to one minute instead of three minutes, 3) reduced
rates overall, and 4) gave additional discounts to dialed-direct
station rates. By 1970 most of the country had DDD for station-to-
station non-coin calls (though 0+ for other calls was by no means
universal).
Before the DDD discounts there were two rates--station to station in
which charges began when the phone was answered, and person to person
when the desired person came to the phone. Person to person was
obviously higher. There were no surcharges for operator assistance on
station calls, such as time & charges, 3 minute notification, 3rd
number billing, collect, credit card, coin, and/or extension ONI*,
even though more operator time was required.
*A special business service where an operator would ask for a code,
assigned to each extension of a PBX, so outward calls could be
tracked.
Before the 1960s person-to-person calls were very common for
businesses. Charging did not start until the desired party came to
the phone and the conversation began. Into the 1950s many people
placed a call by name "get me Joe Smith in Kansas City", which meant
the local toll operator had to first call directory, then make the
actual call. The telephone compnay pushed "call by number" and later
"call by area code and number".
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:06:39 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <MPG.24c703b7be4b6b50989ae3@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <d22.47711c2b.378df5d7@aol.com>, Wesrock@aol.com says...
> Before 911 it was a telephone serivce paid for by the cops. The 911
> idea came later, and many people wondered why, since there seemed to
> be no real problen with the "Dial-Operator" arrangement, for which
> there was no charge to the caller (you think anyone would have stood
> for having to pay for calling the police?) Regular charge for
> whatever service and equipment the cops had, charged to the police.
Or the polic departments got vanity numbers. For example, in
Providence, RI to this day if you dial 272-111 you'll get the police,
273-3344 for fire.
They've now moved all police and fire numbers onto 401-243. It's all
run off a Lucent G3iV12 system.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:27:12 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up"
Message-ID: <4A5C5D80.1050800@annsgarden.com>
"Kenneth P. Stox" <stox@yahoo.com> asked:
> Didn't those used to be referred to as MATV ( Master
> Antenna Television) Systems?
An MATV system performs the same function as a CATV/Cable TV system, but
with one crucial difference: an MATV does not cross public rights-of-way
with any physical medium (copper, glass, or plastic).
This may sound like a trivial distinction, but it's vitally important
to the parties involved. MATVs do not fall within the legal
definition of cable television systems. As such:
- They are exempt from local regulation concerning rates, content, level
of services, or franchise fees.
- They are exempt from most federal regulations applicable to CATV systems.
- They are not subject to the must-carry provisions of the 1992 Cable
Act, although they are subject to retransmission consent. See [this
Microsoft Word document] http://tinyurl.com/HowardBarr
Many MATV systems are quite small. A four-unit apartment building
with a rooftop antenna and a Radio Shack amplifier in the attic is an
MATV.
At the other end of the spectrum, some MATVs can be quite extensive:
- Apartment/condo complexes.
- Mobile home and RV parks.
- Medical facilities (hospitals, retirement communities, hospice
facilities).
- Government facilities (prisons, military bases, state and national parks).
- Educational facilities (college and university campuses).
- Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs).
Many large MATV systems operate on a commercial basis, and charge
monthly (or weekly or daily) fees. They call themselves Private Cable
Operators (PCOs); they're represented nationally by the Independent
Multi-Family Communications Council (IMCC). http://www.imcc-online.org
To illustrate the distinction between an MATV and a CATV, here's an
example. If a large apartment or condo complex operates a video
distribution network serving a few hundred residents in a dozen
buildings, is it an MATV (PCO) or a CATV?
If the complex is entirely contained within one piece of property, and
none of its physical facilities ever crosses a public street or alley,
it's an MATV. But if, say, there's a public street or alley running
through the middle of the property, can it connect the two halves of the
complex together with a physical medium (coax or fiber) and still be an
MATV?
The local franchising facility (LFA) would assert that it's a CATV, and
try to regulate it (and, not coincidentally, collect that 5.26%
franchise fee).
But what if the connection across the street is a beam of infrared
light? Is it a CATV or an MATV?
What about the landlord that owns dozens of apartment buildings
scattered across a city, and connects them with 18-GHz microwave
links? [Is this] CATV or MATV?
What about a University campus with several residence hall buildings
connected through century-old underground steam tunnels. If it
installs a coax through a tunnel under a public street to connect
residence halls to a campus video network (and charges residents for
the video service), is it operating as a CATV or an MATV?
What about a MUD that owns the public streets, the land beneath the
public streets, the electrical, gas, water, and wastewater utilities,
and the video distribution network. Is that network CATV or MATV?
Numerous consultants and lawyers have made a lot of money arguing these
questions.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:17:25 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Fool! You Fell Victim to One of the Classic Blunders! Never Negotiate with Steve Jobs...
Message-ID: <p06240804c68234c4e86e@[10.0.1.3]>
Digital Daily
Fool! You Fell Victim to One of the Classic Blunders! Never Negotiate
with Steve Jobs!
Published on July 14, 2009
by John Paczkowski
Apple is doing to the wireless industry what it did to the recording
industry beginning back in 2001: Stealing its customer relationships.
That's the gist of an argument put forth this week by Bernstein
analyst Craig Moffett who believes Apple (AAPL) has with the iPhone
and App Store upended the wireless market in much the same way it
upended the music industry with the iPod and iTunes.
..
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090714/moffett-note
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:59:31 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Chips in official IDs raise privacy fears
Message-ID: <7b07m.17669$5A4.13484@newsfe14.iad>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> A technology which may be disabled by a sheet of aluminum foil is
> hardly a threat to our rights. When they start injecting chips under
> the skin of newborn babies, _that's_ when we have lost the battle.
>
> Bill
>
"Slippery slope" comes to mind, Bill. Also, we have already lost a lot
of battles: it's the war that is still not quite decided.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:49:02 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Chips in official IDs raise privacy fears
Message-ID: <MPG.24c664ec151ae3d8989ae0@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <h3ebsn$odl$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
diespammers@killspammers.com says...
>
> Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 7/12/2009 4:29:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
> > diespammers@killspammers.com writes:
> >
> >> I had my Credit Union deactivate the chip in my card and opted out
> >> of another one. A few years ago Mobil Oil had chip key chains and
> >> one day I noticed credit card charges in a bunch of cities all over
> >> the country at the same time. When I found out what it was I
> >> smashed that key chain into a million little peaces and joined a
> >> suit against them, but that suit went nowhere.
> >
> > This sounds like the things that Chase and Citibank (For
> > Phillisp-Conoco credit cards) have added to their cards where you just
> > wave them at the receiver. I think Mobil and now Exxon still have
> > theirs, too.
> >
> > Wes Leatherock
> > wesrock@aol.com
> > wleathus@yahoo.com
>
>
> That is what they are, Mobil has had them for some time, at least 10
> years. As I posted earlier store products are tagged with simple ones,
> not like the older tags which worked like magnets. The tag that was on
> my shoe had the size, color and price along with which store it came
> from. Mine was bought at Kmart but set off alarms at Walmart stores
> until is was deactivated.
Interesting on the price. Having worked in retail at one point there
were always price changes going on.
Or instead of a price, maybe it is a price code. That way you can just
change it at the back end POS system.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:15:49 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Chips in official IDs raise privacy fears
Message-ID: <h3ii0o$t04$1@news.eternal-september.org>
T wrote:
> In article <h3ebsn$odl$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> diespammers@killspammers.com says...
>> Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>>> In a message dated 7/12/2009 4:29:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
>>> diespammers@killspammers.com writes:
>>>
>>>> I had my Credit Union deactivate the chip in my card and opted out
>>>> of another one. A few years ago Mobil Oil had chip key chains and
>>>> one day I noticed credit card charges in a bunch of cities all over
>>>> the country at the same time. When I found out what it was I
>>>> smashed that key chain into a million little peaces and joined a
>>>> suit against them, but that suit went nowhere.
>>>
>>> This sounds like the things that Chase and Citibank (For
>>> Phillisp-Conoco credit cards) have added to their cards where you just
>>> wave them at the receiver. I think Mobil and now Exxon still have
>>> theirs, too.
>>>
>>> Wes Leatherock
>>> wesrock@aol.com
>>> wleathus@yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> That is what they are, Mobil has had them for some time, at least 10
>> years. As I posted earlier store products are tagged with simple ones,
>> not like the older tags which worked like magnets. The tag that was on
>> my shoe had the size, color and price along with which store it came
>> from. Mine was bought at Kmart but set off alarms at Walmart stores
>> until is was deactivated.
>
> Interesting on the price. Having worked in retail at one point there
> were always price changes going on.
>
> Or instead of a price, maybe it is a price code. That way you can just
> change it at the back end POS system.
>
It could have just been a code, all I know is when he brought it up on
his system that is what came up, also remember this was Walmart and the
shoes were purchased at Kmart 6 months earlier, also the brand name on
them were a Kmart brand. It has not happened since on anything, but
then I know make sure the take ins deactivated, the shoes one was in
bedded in the heal, most tags are placed on an item and removed.
--
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: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:14:18 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: New Apple Airport Extreme base stations?
Message-ID: <siegman-3B92F9.12134814072009@news.stanford.edu>
We have Comcast Internet access; an older Airport Extreme base station;
a brand new Airport Extreme (2009) base station; and a large house with
a rental section at one end.
The new Airport Extreme lets you create an "Owner" SSID and a "Guest"
SSID, which can be kept isolated from each other. In our case the guest
area is at the opposite end of the house from where the Comcast modem is
located. So, suppose we
* Install the new Extreme at the end by the cable modem;
* Let it hand out all the IP addresses for Owner and Guest SSIDs,
and broadcast *both* SSIDs to that end of the house;
* Install old Extreme in middle of house, connected to new Extreme
via an existing Cat 5 cable run, and operate this old Extreme in
bridge mode.
Question: Will this old Extreme then be able to retransmit -- that is,
also broadcast -- *both* SSIDs to the middle and far end of the house?
[Our installer guy says, no, it can't -- it can only broadcast *one* of
those SSIDs.]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone savings worth research
Message-ID: <f193afe6-162b-4ad9-a83b-e9790d292642@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 13, 8:59 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> SPENDING SMART
> Cellphone savings worth research
> Competition for wireless customers leads to a bewildering array of
> options - and a price war
>
> By Todd Wallack, Globe Staff | July 12, 2009
> The Boston Globe
>
> When we looked into switching cellphone companies recently, we were
> soon drowning in options.
>
> T-Mobile USA alone offers more than 40 individual and family plans.
> Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Sprint Nextel offer dozens more. And then
> there's a pack of upstarts offering prepaid service, including Boost
> Mobile (a unit of Sprint Nextel that uses Nextel's network), Virgin
> Mobile USA (which uses Sprint's network), and MetroPCS (which has its
> own network in Boston and some other cities.)
>
> The great news is that all this competition has sparked a price war
> of sorts. Boost Mobile recently made a splash by offering unlimited
> calls and text messages for $50 per month - half the price of
> traditional plans with unlimited minutes. Virgin Mobile countered by
> offering unlimited calls for $50 (or $60 if you add in text
> messages). Now some say their plans are even cheaper. MetroPCS
> charges $40-$50 for unlimited calls and text. And TracFone just
> launched its own $45 option called StraightTalk.
>
>http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2009/07/12/cellphone_savings_worth_research/
Story mention:
"For instance, we found a T-Mobile prepaid plan that allowed us to buy
a block of 1,000 minutes good for a year for $100, which works out to
less than $9 per month, less than one-third of the cost of the
cheapest traditional monthly plans."
I pay $15.00 every three months on Virgin. That averages to $5.00 per
month.
Here is how it is done:
Go to www.virginmobileusa.com Check out Virgin Mobile phones and
plans. Buy one of their phones and activate it.
While activating it look at the selection where you will make a top-
up of $20.00 every three 90 days BUT while in that area of the site
you pick AUTOMATIC top-up of $15.00 every 90 days linked to either:
PayPal
Credit Card or
Debit Card
Want a one-time savings of even more? If you enter Kickbacks Code
number: yQqUHOsQ when signing up we EACH get get 60 minutes of bonus
airtime after you add money to your account http://www.virginmobileusa.com
------------------------------
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 (15 messages)
******************************
|
or 