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

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 

Message Digest 
Volume 29 : Issue 50 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
 Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
 Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
 Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming 
 Re: Pay phone nostalgia 
 Re: Pay phone nostalgia 
 Re: Pay phone nostalgia 
 Re: Pay phone nostalgia 
 Re: Pay phone nostalgia 
 Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
 Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
 Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
 Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone
 Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone
 Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
 Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
 Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
 Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
 Re: Crippled pay phones 
 Re: What is an "app"? 
 RESEND: 873 NPA Test Number Verbage (Re: 819/873 Area Code Overlay in Quebec) 
 Re: Pay phone nostalgia 
 Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming 


====== 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: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:18:19 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming Message-ID: <hliiir$30e$1@reader2.panix.com> ranck@vt.edu writes: > Sigh! Can't they just RF sheild the damn buildings? Then they > don't risk interfering with people outside. Churches and theatres > certainly have that option. Jammers are a bad idea. RF shielding is VERY expensive to install, and requires constant maintenance on the doors. You need "air-lock" doorways with interlocks, and bronze fingerstock that need cleaning. In short, impossible in that environment. What I suspect they will do is install microcells in the facility, that do NOT route calls to the outside PSTN. They could even accept 911 calls & route to their command center, in case someone outside the walls roams there. You will not find ANY cell phones inside and here is why: Subject: Man gets 309 years for ID theft, bribery Organization: Copyright 2010 by United Press International (via ClariNet) Message-ID: <Uus-idtheftURZvn_KFH@clari.net> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:24:48 EST BATON ROUGE, La., Feb. 17 (UPI) -- A 309-year prison sentence was meted out Wednesday by a federal judge in Louisiana against the leader of a massive identity theft and bribery scheme. Robert Thompson was sentenced based on charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, computer fraud, access device fraud, aggravated identity theft, money laundering and obstruction of justice, the Justice Department said in a release. ..... To facilitate the scheme Thompson bribed a corrections officer at Elyan Hunt Correctional Center with $10,000 to provide Thompson with cellphones while an inmate at the facility, Dugas said. ...... In short, if the Corrections Officers were allowed to carry phones, this would be an everyday event. I suspect in any competent facility, they'd be fired for such. One thing the microcell approach will do is immediately alert staff if a phone goes live "inside" the area. -- 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: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:10:14 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming Message-ID: <pan.2010.02.18.22.10.11.82232@myrealbox.com> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:18:19 +0000, David Lesher wrote: ....... > One thing the microcell approach will do is immediately alert staff > if a phone goes live "inside" the area. Assuming you have a "microcell" for every potential wireless type available now and in the past. People could replace the insides of handsets so that something that may look like an innocuous modern GSM handset on the outside could well operate on something totally different and go undetected by equipment "assuming" that it is a normal phone. Big can of worms here......... -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:42:40 -0800 (PST) From: annie <dmr436@gmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming Message-ID: <81403b12-d870-4658-bcd1-528bcdac2502@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> Possibly stupid question here ... How do you know if you're in an area covered by a cell phone jammer? Do you just get no bars? Or does it just refuse to ring and calls do not complete? I'm kind of suspicious of one area in particular, but I have no way of knowing for sure. Thanks. :)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:29:27 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia Message-ID: <HVdfn.537$Cw3.72@newsfe21.iad> Sam Spade wrote: > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Those who (briefly) benefitted from the COCOT craze soon found out > that people resent being ripped off more than they resent paying > extra for cell phones: as I said, people are funny. > > Bill Horne > Moderator I doubt most reasonable folks minded paying a little bit extra for a local call. It was those COCOT routings to an alternative operator service that accepted only credit cards. The next billing cycle you find you were charged $20 for a 3 minute call to Cleveland, so such.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:19:42 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia Message-ID: <hliile$3u1$1@reader2.panix.com> In <pan.2010.02.18.03.45.44.617799@myrealbox.com> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> writes: > How many hotel chains are now regreting the decades ripping-off > guests with exorbitant outgoing call costs which basically > kick-started the business mobile phone industry as an alternative? > Talk about "biting the hand that feeds you", I wonder how much > revenue hotels get now from guests using their own phones now that > virtually everyone has a mobile? There's a similar issue now going on with WiFI internet access. Just about all hotels phased it in in the past five years. (Which is pretty fast and amazing...). When it started being possible, many initially charge an extra five dollars or so in order to give you the password. Now, though, with the vast majority providing the service for "free" (that is, no additional charge), the ones that still try a surcharge are losing customers. I personally have told hotels that I refused to do business (or further business) with them. (There will be some that will manage to pull it off due to their unique circumstances - if, for example, they're the only one for 50 miles... or if their market niche is sufficiently esoteric). So it's pretty rare, at least in the US, for WiFi to carry a surcharge anymore. -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:46:14 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia Message-ID: <6645152a1002181446m3971d7a4n8ad0347ff1dfd5b7@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:19 PM, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: > > When it started being possible, many initially charge an extra five > dollars or so in order to give you the password. Now, though, with the > vast majority providing the service for "free" (that is, no additional > charge), the ones that still try a surcharge are losing customers. My experience has been the lower-end motels catering to the casual traveler offer free wifi. The upper-end hotels that cater to business travelers charge. I think it's because business travelers are more likely to need a connection for work and can put the cost on their expense statement. - - John Mayson <john@mayson.us> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson ***** Moderator's Note ***** I suspect hotels abandoned WiFi charges because many corporations negotiate special rates for their employees, and it may have been too complicated to keep track of which guests would and wouldn't be billed for Internet access.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:41:11 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia Message-ID: <110cb215-bbae-4b51-bf87-66c6a83fc6b2@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> On Feb 17, 10:45†pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > How many hotel chains are now regreting the decades ripping-off > guests with exorbitant outgoing call costs which basically > kick-started the business mobile phone industry as an alternative? I do not think hotel phone surcharges were responsible for the business mobile phone industry. Remember, cell phones were originally installed in cars, replacing the old limited capacity mobile system, and were very popular as such. Car phones originally were expensive to buy and use. As such, I don't think they impacted hotel phone usage that much. Hotels always had plenty of payphones in the lobby, sometimes even on every floor. I'm not sure if hotels charged a fee on toll calls made from a guestroom. However, Bell may (unconfirmed) given the hotel a commission on toll charges. Bell developed switchboard systems specifically for hotel/motel use. I recall a large resort complex that had a Teletype to receive time & charges from Bell since their call volume was so large. > Talk about "biting the hand that feeds you", I wonder how much revenue > hotels get now from guests using their own phones now that virtually > everyone has a mobile? Probably very little. But remember, in the old days the phone in the room, the PBX, and operators were cost items. Any large hotel had dedicated PBX operators 24/7 (in small hotels the desk clerk handled it.) Today the phone system is much cheaper in terms of both labor and equipment so there are less costs to recover.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:54:20 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia Message-ID: <09d7871b-00dc-4ade-87d8-59c05558963d@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> On Feb 17, 6:31†pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote: > I don't know which did in public pay stations quicker: > > 1. Wireless phones The widespread usage of wireless phones, including to children, probably was the biggest factor. They were so much more convenient. Note that it was not a matter of price since it takes a lot of 50c local calls to add up to the monthly cost of a wireless phone. > 2. Private pay phones that quickly became notorious, making a > one-arm bandit in Las Vegas look like a gift machine by comparison. One problem with toll calls from pay phones, both private and Bell, was that toll calls were considered operator-handled and higher rates applied. As time went on into the 1980s dialed-direct calls went down in cost while operator handled calls became ridiculously expensive, even though 1+ station coin calls became automated. Then the "AOS" alternative operator services got involved thanks to divesture and "competition" making calls ridiculously expensive ($25.00!) Private pay phones were only a ripoff on toll calls; on local calls they usually charged the same or even slightly less than Bell. People who traveled extensively got calling cards and special access numbers to beat the onerous toll charges of all payphones. Note that a great many businesses, and even many residences have 800 toll free numbers, so to the caller it doesn't matter. I would add a third factor and that is the decreased cost of phone calls in general. In my area, the price of a local call from a business is one message unit and has been a flat 7c since the 1960s. In 1965 7c was worth much more and added up. Most businesses strictly frowned upon their phones being used for personal calls by either employees or guests for that reason. Most business PBXs could and were set up to restrict extensions from dialing out or from making toll calls. But today 7c is not a big deal and companies don't care about local calls; indeed, many office receptionists have a phone for guests to use to make local calls. Likewise with toll calls, which were strictly controlled. But today businesses pay a very low cost per minute, especially when compared to the inflation adjusted cost of a toll call in the 1960-1970s. So again, businesses don't mind employee or even guest toll calls as much as in the past. Thus, a business doesn't need payphones as it once did.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:28:36 -0500 From: "Gene S. Berkowitz" <first.last@verizon.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Message-ID: <MPG.25e69a0ce0d8ebd098968d@news.giganews.com> In article <pan.2010.02.16.06.40.45.926376@myrealbox.com>, dcstar@myrealbox.com says... > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:44:46 -0500, Gene S. Berkowitz wrote: > >> In article <hkrc86$r28$8@news.albasani.net>, ahk@chinet.com says... >>> I posted this in the XDSL group, but that group is too quiet. >>> >>> Recently, I had a new phone service installed, shared with ADSL. I used >>> the filters shipped with the DSL device, but I'm getting lousy sound on >>> my old cordless phone, Sony SPP 2000, a 1.7 Mhz instrument. Yes, I know >>> that such phones were always inadequate and readily overheard, but the >>> handset is cool looking, it has swappable sealed lead acid batteries >>> which means the handset is never recharged in the base. It's survived >>> being dropped quite a lot. >>> >>> Anyway, do these require a different filter than the one that came in >>> the box? >> >> In my experience, it's best to leave the DSL filter off at the >> cordless base station. Cordless phones are already bandwidth >> limited and highly filtered to remove the artifacts from their own >> RF stages. >> >> ***** Moderator's Note ***** >> >> Gene, I think the filters are mostly to benefit the ADSL modem, which >> needs all the signal strength it can get: some phones short out the high >> frequencies the ADSL gear is trying to hear. The standard DSL filters (line in, phone out) are not going to achieve that result; these are not isolators, they're impedance matching low-pass filters. What is called for is a DSL splitter (line in, phone out + modem out). > ADSL performance is based on maximum possible S/N ratio at the remote > modem end: allow another digital device to pump even tiny amounts of > HF noise into the line (which "normal" handsets care little about) and > you will find you maximum sync rate far lower than it could be. > > Just don't use one filter on a cordless base station, use two. That's just silly. --Gene
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:27:51 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Message-ID: <pan.2010.02.19.00.27.46.942789@myrealbox.com> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:28:36 -0500, Gene S. Berkowitz wrote: > In article <pan.2010.02.16.06.40.45.926376@myrealbox.com>, > dcstar@myrealbox.com says... ........ >> ADSL performance is based on maximum possible S/N ratio at the remote >> modem end: allow another digital device to pump even tiny amounts of HF >> noise into the line (which "normal" handsets care little about) and you >> will find you maximum sync rate far lower than it could be. >> >> Just don't use one filter on a cordless base station, use two. > > That's just silly. Most ADSL filters are designed to be low pass in one direction but they do seem to also have low pass characteristics in the other direction (these things are invariably built to the lowest cost to do the basic job - which does not include filtering in the opposite direction). The purpose of putting two on a digital handset base station which has the potential to put the internally generated digital hash back into the phone line it connects to - which is very bad for any ADSL signal that is also on that line - is to reduce that potential hash. Using two "standard" ADSL line filters with some filtering in the other direction will be better than using just one - and a nice simple solution for people who may not have the knowledge to source better quality filters that will do the job better. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:20:59 -0800 From: Bruce L.Bergman <bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming Message-ID: <4bvqn5tmh36tkvfsa2ljkn8b12mncuhbo6@4ax.com> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:27:26 -0600, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote: >On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM, <ranck@vt.edu> wrote: >> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: >> >>> ANNAPOLIS, Md - Equipment that jams cellphones will get its first >>> federally sanctioned test inside a prison in Maryland this week >>> ... >> > >> Sigh! Can't they just RF sheild the damn buildings? Then they >> don't risk interfering with people outside. Churches and theatres >> certain ly have that option. Jammers are a bad idea. Passive jamming through shielding the building is very difficult, not perfect, and will not work well for an existing building - too easy to find (or make) a hole in the screen room. Even opening the door is enough, unless they are all man-trap double doors. The only way to do that is weld them inside a steel box - which isn't necessarily a bad idea for a Super Max Prison. > That was my first thought but it would never fly. Bill gave some > valid reasons but another huge one is passive shields can't be > turned off. Prison staff, medical services, law enforcement, > etc. need for their radios to work and perhaps even their cell > phones. The prison could turn off a jammer temporarily in those > instances. Precisely why active jamming is illegal in the United States. The jamming party has no way of knowing what vital services they are interfering with, and it's too easy to find a frequency band that isn't jammed as well and get the call through. If you try jamming "DC to Daylight" broad-spectrum indiscriminately on any band that could be used for illicit comms you will get in all sorts of trouble, with dozens of agencies. And you will just force the prisoners to find other ways... (I just about gave away a good idea, but redacted myself.) > They could design that feature into new prisons, but it would create > issues for the staff if they needed to radio for help. > John The only way I can see making it work in a prison setting is one that is physically isolated from the outside world in a far off canyon or prairie - wouldn't work as well in a dense urban setting, too much radio traffic to sift through... But that's fine, we put the real baddies in that isolated prison setting for a reason. You don't try to jam the cellphones, you Honeypot them. With the cooperation of the local cell carriers you run a cell site either on or right outside the premises for every service. And don't forget other common carriers like Nextel and your local Business and Ham repeaters, GMRS, Family Radio, CB... You'll have to setup an automated scanning and DF system to catch that. Capture the call, triangulate to determine if it's inside or right outside in the buffer zone, and if it's inside you have several choices. If you run a multi-point antenna system through the prison for the Officer's radios, you can use it as a passive receiver and triangulate the cellphone location down to inches. The simplest response is to play a pre-recorded announcement that since one party to the call has been determined to be inside or within an X-mile exclusion zone of a prison, all the call details and the audio is being recorded for possible law enforcement action. That would control prisoners from passing illegal coded messages to the outside, because all the calls are being monitored just like from the prison phone system. Except that the Attorney Client Privilege doesn't apply on a smuggled cellphone - you say it, we know it. Oh, and we put a readout of the Direction Finding gear in the prison security office, and all the call info will pop up along with an open speaker with both sides of the conversation... In about 15 seconds or so they will announce a lockdown, then six guards in full riot gear will be in to toss your cell. We know there's an illegal phone in there, and exactly who had it in their hands. This should be fairly easy to accomplish with current technology, just integrate a bunch of off-the-shelf gear and (here's the fun part) write the software that makes it all work together. --<< Bruce >>--
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:53:43 EST From: Wesrock@aol.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone Message-ID: <5891.6a1de02c.38aeae77@aol.com> In a message dated 2/17/2010 8:38:18 PM Central Standard Time, ranck@vt.edu writes: > We still get some people who are upset because someone did not > answer the phone when they called, so we'll answer if it's > reasonable to do so and they can leave a message and get a call > back. I am usually very annoyed when I have gotten some material (documents, ordering information, etc.) together for the spefic purpose of dealing with a business I know is open. They want to call back when it is convenient for them but it may not be a convenient time for me and then I have to gather all the information again and go over the subject in my mind. Of course, the postal service will not let you talk to your local post office and many big multi-branch banks won't either, only an 800 number. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:12:19 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone Message-ID: <6smfn.2312$bx3.938@newsfe13.iad> Wesrock@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 2/17/2010 8:38:18 PM Central Standard Time, ranck@vt.edu > writes: > >> We still get some people who are upset because someone did not >> answer the phone when they called, so we'll answer if it's >> reasonable to do so and they can leave a message and get a call >> back. > > > I am usually very annoyed when I have gotten some material > (documents, ordering information, etc.) together for the spefic > purpose of dealing with a business I know is open. I think your situation is not typical for a retail "brick" store.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:57:59 EST From: Wesrock@aol.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming Message-ID: <5ae4.732b1338.38aeaf77@aol.com> In a message dated 2/17/2010 8:58:55 PM Central Standard Time, kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net writes: > Here is a solution for places like churches, et al. Put in little > cubbyholes in the vestibule. Eveybody places their device in the > cubbhole before services and retrieves after service. It will be stolen, as almost anything left in the vestibule will be from time to time. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:45:26 -0500 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming Message-ID: <barmar-5B25BB.21452618022010@news.eternal-september.org> In article <6645152a1002170636m16f656fyb561feed834ba4c6@mail.gmail.com>, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote: > I've never been in prison either as a visitor or a "guest". I > question if they can monitor ALL legal phone calls in and out. > And I also question if this is more about lost revenue with their > pay phone service than anything else. Are we responding > appropriately or overreacting like we have with buying cold medicine > or boarding an airplane? I thought prisoners had to call collect. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:09:30 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming Message-ID: <6645152a1002182009j67c54461u8be9afb158cd9b5c@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > I thought prisoners had to call collect. It could vary from state to state or even county to county for jails. Texas apparently has a friends and family plan. http://www.texasprisonphone.com/ The FAQ specifies a land line phone and the registration form says it's for security reasons. There are a variety of payment plans including recipient pays and caller pays. Have we made it so difficult for a prisoner to make a legal call that smuggled cell phones have become the path of least resistance? I forget where I was living, Florida or Texas. I received a call from a prisoner with in prison or a jail. The announcement only identified the fact the caller was in a correctional facility. Since I didn't know anyone in prison or jail I declined the call and hung up. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:10:51 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming Message-ID: <hll30a$5s3$1@news.eternal-september.org> Barry Margolin wrote: > In article > <6645152a1002170636m16f656fyb561feed834ba4c6@mail.gmail.com>, > John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote: > >> I've never been in prison either as a visitor or a "guest". I >> question if they can monitor ALL legal phone calls in and out. >> And I also question if this is more about lost revenue with their >> pay phone service than anything else. Are we responding >> appropriately or overreacting like we have with buying cold >> medicine or boarding an airplane? > > I thought prisoners had to call collect. They can buy special calling cards, at least in California. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:04:42 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Crippled pay phones Message-ID: <2725c1c0-a2d1-4d96-a9cc-e7817b43d861@t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> On Feb 17, 2:22†am, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote: > Further searching doesn't reveal anything. †I'm guessing with pay > phones being so passť this just doesn't come up. †I'm curious if > anyone here knows the story of Texas pay phones and why they didn't > like incoming calls. As others mentioned, it was to deter use by drug dealers and criminals and lost revenue by the phone company. In high crime areas municipal officials encouraged installing rotary phones and outward only to deter the drug trade. The pay phones in my area used to be unlimited time for local calls, just like regular phones. But then Bell changed the pay phones to time local calls and charge overtime. At that point many people simply asked the person they called to call them back to avoid the overtime charge; which meant lost revenue by the company. However, at that time many people objected. For instance, AAA (auto club) said it needed to be able to call back phones to assist motorists in need. There are so few payphones now I think the issue is moot. Payphones I've seen in public places take incoming calls. The phones still have a real ringer, not electronic. Given how many payphones have been pulled out, I suspect new ones haven't been built in some time and they have a huge idle inventory. I suspect the remaining phones in service are relatively old.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:53:56 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: What is an "app"? Message-ID: <633129.77327.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:29:26 -0800 (PST) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > The term "app" has been floating around a great deal these days in > terms of fancy cell phones. > What exactly is an "app"? > Is the word merely shorthand for 'computer application', that is, a > computer program (or programs) that perform tasks for the user, such > as a word processor, alarm clock calendar, obtain and display train > schedules, etc.?>> App is the term Apple uses to describe programs. In Windows they are referred to as programs and with Apple they are called applications or apps for short.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:56:53 -0800 (PST) From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: RESEND: 873 NPA Test Number Verbage (Re: 819/873 Area Code Overlay in Quebec) Message-ID: <160258.75060.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> RESEND: I sent the following for submission on Wednesday 17 February 2010, 21:11:15 -0800 Pacific, using GoogleGroups comp.dcom.telecom as a reply to to the original posting. This reply has NOT yet appeared, thus the re-send. I cc'd my own email address when I posted to comp.dcom.telecom via googlegroups, therefore I'm able to include the full header information, and am sending what might be the important ones. Without the auto-acknowledgements that Pat had originally set up, I have no way of knowing anymore whether or not you've actually received a subsmission or not. Please consider restoring that feature! Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:11:15 -0800 (PST) References: <37761.40007.qm@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02565eec-2876-4c9d-ac45-067b510aa182@i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> Subject: 873 NPA Test Number Verbage (Re: 819/873 Area Code Overlay in Quebec) Earlier, I wrote: > Verbage/text for the test-number announcements will be > French-then-English: > > "La communication a t tablie avec succ s au num ro de > v rification de l'indicatif r gional 8-7-3, > [NOM DU T L COMMUNICATEUR], Qu bec, Canada." > > "You have successfully completed a call to the 8-7-3 > Area Code Test Number at [CARRIER NAME] in Qu bec, Canada." Sorry about the 8-bit ASCII for the text/verbage of the French portion of the 873 test-number. I was posting it exactly as displayed on CNA documents, which inlcuded all of the French-specific punctuation, accents, etc. Here it is without any such 8-bit ASCII non-English accents, etc: "La communication a ete etablie avec succes au numero de verification de l'indicatif regional 8-7-3, a [NOM DU TELECOMMUNICATEUR], Quebec, Canada." "You have successfully completed a call to the 8-7-3 Area Code Test Number at [CARRIER NAME] in Quebec, Canada." Hopefully it won't upset French purists, and that nothing could get lost or misinterpreted in translation. Mark J. Cuccia markjcuccia at yahoo dot com Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA pre-Katrina ***** Moderator's Note ***** The Telecom Digest's "official" charset is ISO-8859-1, so your posts were OK with accented characters, since that's the charset you used. However: "Quoted-Printable" encoding is a PITA to edit. Please don't use it when submitting posts to the Digest. Bill Horne Moderator P.S. Our web server isn't telling browsers to use ISO-8859-1 encoding, even though the web pages have that charset in the headers. Suggestions are welcome.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:37:58 -0600 From: Jason <bmwjason@bmwlt.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia Message-ID: <bbe40$4b7df985$407e2cd9$32414@EVERESTKC.NET> John Mayson wrote: > I last flew in and out of Atlanta's airport in 2005. I pointed out > something to my son and I still find it amazing. When I lived in > Atlanta (1987-1992) it seemed every bare section of wall in the > various concourses had pay phones. I would love to know how many > Southern Bell had crammed in there. Even more amazingly I found > myself at times having to wait for a phone to become available to make > a call. In 2005 every phone was gone. If there were any pay phones I > couldn't find them. I couldn't even tell they had even existed. > > Lately around Austin I've made it a point to search for pay phones. I > have been in malls, airports, supermarkets, and hospitals and haven't > seen any. > > To make this a worthwhile post and not the ramblings of a telephone > geek with insomnia I found this page to be interesting: > http://www.payphone-project.com/. It appears there are at least a few > pay phones still out in the wild. > > John > > - - > John Mayson <john@mayson.us> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Telephone geek? Insomnia? Remind you of anyone? ;-) At Kennedy Space Center Visitor Center, outside the main pedestrian entrance (after the ticket booths, before the "screener") is a wall-mounted pay phone. The unique aspect is that the enclosure is shaped as a Mercury program space capsule. It was there as late as last summer. I did not see another pay phone on the grounds. I have pictures around here somewhere. Jason (very long time lurker)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:38:17 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming Message-ID: <befc2dd9-364e-4c25-85e3-8d9f2a6ec08b@j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> On Feb 17, 9:36†am, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote: > I've never been in prison either as a visitor or a "guest". †I > question if they can monitor ALL legal phone calls in and > out. †And I also question if this is more about lost revenue with > their pay phone service than anything else. †Are we responding > appropriately or overreacting like we have with buying cold medicine > or boarding an airplane? As mentioned, they have a legal right to monitor all telephone calls in and out of a facility except attorney-client. There were several newspaper reports of studies on this issue. It is a fact of life that extensive monitoring is required to deter criminal activity such as gangs and drug running directed by prison inmates. The gangs are growing and are particularly vicious; they make the Corleone's 'family business' look like at kitty-cat. It is a serious problem. It has also been reported that there is a big problem of smuggling cell phones into prison for the above usage. This is a lousy situation and has to be curtailed. Note that many prisons are large complexes of multiple buildings over acres of property. Many are located in rural areas. Accordingly, the idea of jamming cell phone use IMHO is necessary. Communication between inmates and their families is important toward rehabilitation and maintaining a peaceful prison. Unfortunately, many inmates have greatly abused telephone and visitor privileges and use them for smuggling and making dangerous trouble. (Many prisons have open visitor areas, not the glass and phone as seen in the movies). I do not agree with charging inmate families ridiculously high telephone charges to keep in touch. Inmate families are usually very poor. (I also think visitation ought to be a lot easier, too.) Telephones are cheap these days. But unfortunately the labor cost of officers to monitor calls is expensive, but necessary.
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 (22 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues