|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 269 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Western Union's satellite loss
====== 28 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Message-ID: <4d55b2cd-5115-4a24-b677-0ad06656200b@z24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 21, 12:14 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> Large companies would love to use paperless billing rather than the
> mail: it reduces their costs and at the same time allows chest
> thumping about being green. But offering their customers positive
> sweeteners hasn't been very effective. T-Mobile tried another tack: a
> stick instead of a carrot. What woe it brought upon itself, however,
> when it told customers it was time to switch or pay up.
Another reason not stated is that it gives companies an easy way to
spam your email with their ads.
I tried to sign up for a paperless account. When I got to the "terms
and conditions" it noted the company had the right to send me email
ads. I rejected it then and there.
While I did not become a paperless company, my mere attempt at signup
was enough to add me to their email spam flood--I got email ads from
them immediately! When I called and finally got through to a human at
customer service they said there was nothing they can do because "the
computer is handled separately". I had to insist they do something
about it. The emails ended a few days later.
I must be a bad Luddite, because the idea of deleting unwanted
advertisements from my email in-basket every morning annoys the heck
out of me. If I don't check for a few days, the in-basket is flooded
with junk with risk of filling up and rejecting legitimate emails to
me. Again, I must be a Luddite because the idea of someone's else
work hurting me again annoys me to no end.
I "love" [sarc] how companies act as if these emails are from sort of
"separate' entity when you call to complain to them or tell them you
don't want them.
[public replies, please]
***** Moderator's Note *****
This subject has repercussions that go way beyond spam. Before I
give my email address to any company, I always check to be sure I'm
not agreeing to receive "official" notices from them, because some
firms like to send notices of changes to their privacy policy, terms
and conditions, security policy, etc., via email. As if that wasn't
bad enough, they'll often forget to mention that the policies which
apply to "their customers" stop applying the instant they decide
you're not their customer anymore, and then they'll sell your email
address to the highest bidders.
I am, fortunately, blessed with my own server (billhorne dot com), so
that I have an inexhaustible supply of "throwaway" addresses. I can
create, delete, or keep them as I choose, and it's useful to give out
addresses like megacorp@billhronre.com, so that I can track who
megacorp lends or sells the address to.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 00:41:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Message-ID: <200910010441.AAA10950@ss10.danlan.com>
|***** Moderator's Note *****
|
|This subject has repercussions that go way beyond spam. Before I
|give my email address to any company, I always check to be sure I'm
|not agreeing to receive "official" notices from them, because some
|firms like to send notices of changes to their privacy policy, terms
|and conditions, security policy, etc., via email.
Don't forget the part where they tell you that their "good faith"
attempt to send the notice to your email address implies your
constructive receipt.
On a vaguely related note, I was a bit confused by a recent notice
from Wamu aka Chase bank. It said that they would be sending me
check images (unless as they prefer they could send me nothing)
which are apparently not Check21 legal substitute checks. It
went on to say that I agree that these images will be sufficient to
determine whether the checks are legitimate. Now of course they
will be sufficient for me to determine if they are legitimate
since I will know whether I wrote the check in the first place.
But I don't think that is what they mean. This seems to be an
end-run around Check21's requirements (which were already very
generous to the banks).
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Message-ID: <d86d9937-8014-4572-ba81-06543092fa13@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 22, 12:09 am, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Typical issue: you move your phone service to a different
> provider and the first one closes your account. Can you
> still get that info? Guess what the answer usually is...
For a variety of reasons, people change their email addresses much
more often then they change their home address. Sometimes emails will
get forwarded to the new address, but usually not. First class postal
mail normally is forwarded for one year.
> The experiences in the US under the Old "One Bell System, It Works"
> are educational in this manner. It used to be, yes, children, that
> "information" ("directory assistance") was free, and you call dozens
> or even hundreds of times/month.
>
> Then New York Telephone cut it down to (iirc) six free
> calls/month, then a charge of $0.10 each, but gave everyone a credit
> of $0.30 so you could actually make nine calls. (numbers from memory
> but the sequence should be right).
To provide some background, around the time that was instituted, circa
1970, despite automation the pre-divesture Bell System had more
operators than in manual days and the labor costs were high.
Information services represented a huge proportion of that cost. They
realized a great many people were using Information for numbers
already in the phone book, and some callers were making very heavy use
of it. Also, as a result of competition the Bell System began to
change its rate schedule from 'average' to 'usage'. Low cost users
would pay less. MCI didn't offer directory assistance and it was
foolish for the Bell System to offer that as a free service to a
competitor.
> And nowadays, it's zero.
Fast forwarding to today, I just saw a big Verizon poster ad for 411
information services; they provide a variety of information now. I
don't believe the price was mentioned on the ad.
***** Moderator's Note *****
"DA" services were often used by bill collectors and other high-volume
call originators, who were externalizing the cost of locating their
targets when those they were chasing changed addresses or phone
numbers. Research also showed that the highest volume non-commercial
users were young customers who had never bothered to write down a
number, so some "throttling" of the service was justifiable.
I do, however, feel strongly that non-commercial users should have a
few calls "free" each month. Such allowances increase the likelihood
of new business calls, make it easier to get help after a tragedy, and
benefit the elderly and infirm, who may not be able to write anymore.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Message-ID: <5848e4bb-b347-4fed-a768-53a3b753bf4c@e12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 30, 6:26 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> . . .
> I do, however, feel strongly that non-commercial users should have a
> few calls "free" each month. Such allowances increase the likelihood
> of new business calls, make it easier to get help after a tragedy, and
> benefit the elderly and infirm, who may not be able to write anymore.
I thought residential users were allowed a few free calls until I
found out the hard way they are not. This annoyed me since it was a
changed number not available in the phone book. But I agree [users]
should have a few free DA calls.
I suspect the Baby Bells realized their competition cut costs and
prices by not offering any DA at all and the Bells were losing
customers, so they decided to go down to that level. I suspect the
number of Baby Bell telephone operators still around is a small
fraction of those in service right after Divesture.
Anyway, later they must have realized there's money to be made by
charging a premium fee for 411 and providing yellow pages (ie
restaurants) and other services.
As an aside, Verizon sold off its directory publishing business to
something called Idearc (sp?). I understand it went bankrupt. Anyone
know more?
[public replies please]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:11:15 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Message-ID: <ha16km$2f2$1@news.eternal-september.org>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sep 30, 6:26 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>> . . .
>
>> I do, however, feel strongly that non-commercial users should have a
>> few calls "free" each month. Such allowances increase the likelihood
>> of new business calls, make it easier to get help after a tragedy, and
>> benefit the elderly and infirm, who may not be able to write anymore.
>
> I thought residential users were allowed a few free calls until I
> found out the hard way they are not. This annoyed me since it was a
> changed number not available in the phone book. But I agree [users]
> should have a few free DA calls.
>
> I suspect the Baby Bells realized their competition cut costs and
> prices by not offering any DA at all and the Bells were losing
> customers, so they decided to go down to that level. I suspect the
> number of Baby Bell telephone operators still around is a small
> fraction of those in service right after Divesture.
>
> Anyway, later they must have realized there's money to be made by
> charging a premium fee for 411 and providing yellow pages (ie
> restaurants) and other services.
>
> As an aside, Verizon sold off its directory publishing business to
> something called Idearc (sp?). I understand it went bankrupt. Anyone
> know more?
>
> [public replies please]
>
It was spun off not sold. From the start it was under funded and would
fail. Also retired employees were moved to the new company, now there
is a major legal battle.
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Please provide details on the legal battle. Thanks.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:09:39 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Message-ID: <c9e.544a842e.37f54d43@aol.com>
In a message dated 9/30/2009 5:27:22 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
***** Moderator's Note *****
> "DA" services were often used by bill collectors and other
> high-volume call originators, who were externalizing the cost of
> locating their targets when those they were chasing changed
> addresses or phone numbers. Research also showed that the highest
> volume non-commercial users were young customers who had never
> bothered to write down a number, so some "throttling" of the service
> was justifiable.
Person-to-person calls were favored by bill collectors (and others
searching for somebody) because the operator did all the work at no
charge (after report charges were discontinued) and there was no
billing if the search was not successful. One reason, probably, why
report charges have returned even after the P-to-P rate was much
increased.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Western Union's satellite loss
Message-ID: <afbbd101-f0dc-4b2a-8a1c-f1647399682e@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
I understand that Western Union was launching one of its Westar
communication satellites with the Challenger and lost it. Apparently
the insurance company wouldn't pay so WU lost about $100 million, and
they were tight on money.
If anyone knows more, could they share it with us?
As mentioned in past discussions, it appeared that Western Union was
doing all the right things in the 1960-1970s to position itself to be
a high speed data communications provider. In 1967 WU published a
report that accurately foresaw the functionaltiy of today's Internet
(if not necessarily the topology).
At this point in my reading I now have the impression (subject to
change!) that WU failed because:
1) The loss of the satellite cost them critical cash and lost
revenues.
2) WU's pioneer e-mail service, EasyLink, wasn't doing well. I don't
know if it didn't have a big enough user base or it cost too much
to run or they ran it lousy. But apparently WU lost big money on
it when they hoped it would be the wave of the future.
3) MCI forced AT&T to increase the favorable rates it gave WU. While
WU had much of its own lines, it still leased AT&T lines. In
addition, companies were moving out of cities and old buildings
where WU had its own wires (some buildings were wired to WU
directly) to the suburbs where WU had no presence.
4) I don't know how well WU marketed its modern services. Despite
adding many computer and communication specialists, the company
'atmosphere' may have remained old fashioned.
5) Telex was very important in 1980 but soon lost lustre as companies
got their own inexpensive fax machines and personal computers.
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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne.
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) 2009 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 (7 messages)
|
or 