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

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 


The Telecom Digest for September 24, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 257 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:

Re: Verizon to add another surcharge on some bills(Steven)
Re: Verizon to add another surcharge on some bills(Wes Leatherock)
History: hotel telephone operator strike(hancock4)
Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...(Sam Spade)
Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...(John Levine)
Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...(Michael G. Koerner)
1930, when the US Senate tried to ban dial telephones (Thad Floryan)
Re: 1930, when the US Senate tried to ban dial telephones (John Mayson)
AT&T instrumental in cosmic microwave background discovery in 1964 (Thad Floryan)
Re: AT&T instrumental in cosmic microwave background discovery in 1964 (AES)
TV comedy about outsourced telephone call center(hancock4)
Re: TV comedy about outsourced telephone call center(Thad Floryan)
Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...(Robert Bonomi)
Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...(Lisa or Jeff)
Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...(Wes Leatherock)
Re: Outside plant standards (for transient protection on a consumer NID) (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...(Dan Lanciani)
Re: Company behind magicJack to banish calling costs(Fred Linton)
T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages(Monty Solomon)


====== 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, 22 Sep 2010 11:22:13 -0700 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon to add another surcharge on some bills Message-ID: <i7dhgn$ci1$1@news.eternal-september.org> On 9/21/10 10:06 PM, www.Queensbridge.us wrote: > While on-line with Verizon to pay [my] bill with a credit card, I saw a > notice that there will soon be a $3.50 SURCHARGE for [using] a credit > card to pay bills on [the] VZ site. > > I find it strange that I can buy items on-line for 99, pay with > Paypal, and pay PayPal using a credit card, without a surcharge, and > now VZ wants a surcharge. > > Also their DSL, formerly listed as "up to 3 MBps", now says "1.5-3 > MBps". > > For people with a low monthly cellular bill, this could be a hefty per > centage of the bill. > It looks like they are adding the fee to cover charges made by their bank or costs, which appears to me to be much lower then they are going to charge. I pay my AT&T, Sprint and a lot of other bills and have never been charged anything. -- 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, 23 Sep 2010 20:36:54 EDT From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon to add another surcharge on some bills Message-ID: <36a87.69e16a39.39cd4ca6@aol.com> In a message dated 9/23/2010 1:42:45 PM Central Daylight Time, diespammers@killspammers.com writes: On 9/21/10 10:06 PM, www.Queensbridge.us wrote: >> While on-line with Verizon to pay [my] bill with a credit card, I saw a >> notice that there will soon be a $3.50 SURCHARGE for [using] a credit >> card to pay bills on [the] VZ site. >> >> I find it strange that I can buy items on-line for 99, pay with >> Paypal, and pay PayPal using a credit card, without a surcharge, and >> now VZ wants a surcharge. >> >> Also their DSL, formerly listed as "up to 3 MBps", now says "1.5-3 >> MBps". >> >> For people with a low monthly cellular bill, this could be a hefty per >> centage of the bill. > > It looks like they are adding the fee to cover charges made by their > bank or costs, which appears to me to be much lower then they are > going to charge. I pay my AT&T, Sprint and a lot of other bills and > have never been charged anything. Perhaps this is a result of the recent rules to protect credit card users, which for the first time allow vendors to charge reduced prices to cash customers. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:30:35 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: History: hotel telephone operator strike Message-ID: <23c639ff-2cbe-41ba-89dd-9d41f936373c@q9g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> The following article from the NY Times archives should be accessible by all. It's about a telephone operator strike in a NYC hotel 100 years ago. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9505E5D61E39E333A25757C0A96F9C946196D6CF
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:10:18 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them... Message-ID: <jOCdnUseAqZGEQfRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com> danny burstein wrote: > [Broadband reports] > > FiOS users in our Verizon forums note that Verizon is now > charging users a $3.50 fee if they want to pay their bill > online with a credit card. > -------- > http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Charges-350-Fee-To-Pay-Them-110433 > > > - per the posters, the fee applies if you make a "once off" > payment. If you give VZ access to an autopay process, > they won't charge it. I doubt they would charge if you pay using a major bank's online bill payment service. The bank pays the large vendors via the automated clearing house (ACH, or electronic debit) and small vendors via bank check.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:59:26 +0000 (UTC) From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them... Message-ID: <i7gm4e$q5u$1@gal.iecc.com> >I doubt they would charge if you pay using a major bank's online bill >payment service. The bank pays the large vendors via the automated >clearing house (ACH, or electronic debit) and small vendors via bank check. Probably not, but then you don't get a month's float, the ability to challenge wrong payments, and the various rebates, air miles, and other trinkets that credit cards offer. R's, John
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:42:06 -0500 From: "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk920@dataex.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them... Message-ID: <1pCdndY51e7IPwfRnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@ntd.net> On 2010.09.21 21:26:55, danny burstein wrote: > [Broadband reports] > > FiOS users in our Verizon forums note that Verizon is now > charging users a $3.50 fee if they want to pay their bill > online with a credit card. > -------- > http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Charges-350-Fee-To-Pay-Them-110433 > > > - per the posters, the fee applies if you make a "once off" > payment. If you give VZ access to an autopay process, > they won't charge it. > > _____________________________________________________ > Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key > dannyb@panix.com > [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Isn't Verizon still obligated to accept cash? If enough customers get > fed up and drop off their payments at the company, the surcharge will > stop. > > Bill Horne > Moderator I pay my monthly Verizon cell phone bill by stuffing $20 bills into the automatic bill-paying kiosks in any of their several local stores. Those things are quite popular. The surcharge is because the credit card companies charge fees to merchants for using their services. With the recent changes in federal credit card rules, expect MANY more retail level merchants, especially gas stations/C-stores, to start doing likewise. -- ___________________________________________ __ _______________ Regards, | |\ __ | | | | |\ Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again! Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | | ___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:12:26 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: 1930, when the US Senate tried to ban dial telephones Message-ID: <4C9A9B6A.4050903@thadlabs.com> Interesting article found at: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100919/02284211072/back-when-the-senate-tried-to-ban-dial-telephones.shtml With a group of Senators now looking to block various websites the Justice Department deems as "pirate," websites, it's worth taking a look back at how Senators can be rather silly in their rush to ban certain technologies, highlighting why it's generally not a good idea when politicians get involved in technology. The Nieman Journalism Lab points us to the news that, back in 1930, the Senate came close to banning dial telephones (where you dialed them yourself), preferring to have an operator do the connection instead. To the anti-dial Senators, it was seen as inappropriate to do the work of operators themselves. The resolution, which passed, read: Whereas dial telephones are more difficult to operate than are manual telephones; and Whereas Senators are required, since the installation of dial phones in the Capitol, to perform the duties of telephone operators in order to enjoy the benefits of telephone service; and Whereas dial telephones have failed to expedite telephone service; Therefore be it resolved that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and directed to order the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. to replace with manual phones within 30 days after the adoption of this resolution, all dial telephones in the Senate wing of the United States Capitol and in the Senate office building. Now, it's true that the resolution only impacted the Senate, but when another Senator asked why they didn't ban dial phones from all of Washington DC, Senator Carter Glass from Virginia who sponsored the resolution apparently said that "he hoped the phone company would take the hint," and would remove all dial phones. While the resolution did pass, some younger Senators were apparently upset about it -- as they actually preferred to dial their own numbers, and put forth a resolution to let Senators choose which they wanted -- leading to a "compromise" where those who wanted dial phones could keep them, but those who wanted to have the operator handle the difficulty for them, could do so. As one Senator, Clarence Dill, noted in support of the ban: In his experience, the dial phone "could not be more awkward than it is. One has to use both hands to dial; he must be in a position wherethere is good light, day or night, in order to see the number; and if he happens to turn the dial not quite far enough, then he gets a wrong connection." Is it any wonder that some of us think that it's not a good idea for elected officials to determine the relative merits of technology?
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:56:28 +0800 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: 1930, when the US Senate tried to ban dial telephones Message-ID: <AANLkTimSUK3sKVZX0yrrjr+E6CxjYq1d3rUY56D=gS1H@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > > With a group of Senators now looking to block various websites > the Justice Department deems as "pirate," websites, it's worth > taking a look back at how Senators can be rather silly in their > rush to ban certain technologies, highlighting why it's generally > not a good idea when politicians get involved in technology. Reminds me of the arguments about why mere citizens should not be allowed to pump their own gas in a couple of US states. Or of the California assemblywoman who, in response to GMail, wanted to forbid computers from reading any part of an email. -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:44:05 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: AT&T instrumental in cosmic microwave background discovery in 1964 Message-ID: <4C9AA2D5.4020606@thadlabs.com> In 1964 I was already with the Electronic Defense Labs at White Sands Missile Range and 2 years later at their facility in Silicon Valley. Being an amateur astronomer for nearly 60 years now (2010) and having every issue of Sky & Telescope magazine (thanks to DVDs), I'm red-faced to admit I'd forgotten about the Cosmic Microwave Background discovery in 1964 until reading a "Letters to the Editor" in the October 2010 issue of Sky & Telescope magazine, which begins: " I am writing about a historic landmark that has been left " abandoned and in jeopardy. " " On May 8th I traveled to New Jersey to see the horn antenna " with which Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the " cosmic microwave background in 1964, establishing the reality " of the Big Bang. The horn is frequently mentioned and pictured " in histories of science and astronomy, it's a registered " National History Landmark, and I figured it was time I had a " look at it. The experience left me disconcerted. " " After driving up and down Crawford Corners Road in Holmdel for " more than an hour, I was unable to find it. I did find a small " sign by the road that told me I was near the site where the " cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered. This was, " however, miles away from where I eventually found the antenna. " " I was on the verge of giving up when I happened upon Lucent " Technologies, which I knew had inherited the legendary Bell Labs " where Penzias and Wilson worked. I drove around the Lucent " campus until I found someone and explained my quest. He pointed " me to a road up a hill. " [...] I made a one-page PDF copy of that "Letters" page and you can see it, with a photo of the horn antenna, here: http://thadlabs.com/FILES/S+T_AT+T_horn.pdf [770 KB] I feel such a one-page PDF is "fair use" and felt this group might enjoy seeing a slice of AT&T arcana. The October 2010 issue should be on newsstands until mid-October.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:04:18 -0700 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: AT&T instrumental in cosmic microwave background discovery in 1964 Message-ID: <siegman-D1BFAA.15041723092010@BMEDCFSC-SRV02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu> In article <4C9AA2D5.4020606@thadlabs.com>, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > " On May 8th I traveled to New Jersey to see the horn antenna > " with which Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the > " cosmic microwave background in 1964, establishing the reality > " of the Big Bang. The horn is frequently mentioned and pictured > " in histories of science and astronomy, it's a registered > " National History Landmark, and I figured it was time I had a > " look at it. The experience left me disconcerted. > " A bit more detail is given in slides 18-23 of a 14 MB PDF at: http://www.stanford.edu/~siegman/aes_laser_history_talks/AES%20Laser%20History%20Talk%202010%20AFOSR%20Wash%20DC%2071pp.pdf [I'm not certain this is the exact horn used by Penzias and Wilson, but if not, then it's a slightly earlier horn and microwave solid-state maser system also at Holmdel. Also the masers in the cutaway drawings are from my lab at Stanford University, but are very similar to those that Bell Labs was making about the same time.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:20:40 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: TV comedy about outsourced telephone call center Message-ID: <0abce6cf-1b12-47d9-b50e-fa533a7f1e16@a30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> "Outsourced", Thursday, 9:30 pm, NBC. (check local listings) Premiers 9/23/10. The Phila Inqr describes this comedy as follows: When a novelty business closes its Kansas City call center, the manager gets sent to India to supervise the folks who will be taking orders for novelty gift items. The workers must learn to reconcile North American and South Asian ways. It appears most of the jokes will derive from culture clashes, but I suspect some will come from the call center operations and quirky customers who phone in. Someone who works in a telephone call center might find this show entertaining.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:07:13 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: TV comedy about outsourced telephone call center Message-ID: <4C9BF9C1.6010004@thadlabs.com> On 9/23/2010 8:20 AM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > "Outsourced", Thursday, 9:30 pm, NBC. (check local listings) > Premiers 9/23/10. > > The Phila Inqr describes this comedy as follows: > > When a novelty business closes its Kansas City call center, the > manager gets sent to India to supervise the folks who will be taking > orders for novelty gift items. The workers must learn to reconcile > North American and South Asian ways. > > It appears most of the jokes will derive from culture clashes, but I > suspect some will come from the call center operations and quirky > customers who phone in. Someone who works in a telephone call center > might find this show entertaining. "Outsourced" received the deepest pan and "don't bother watching" I've ever seen in the San Francisco Chronicle's TV Reviews today: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/23/DDV11FH439.DTL Oddly, the Los Angeles Times seems to like it in their review today: <http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-new-comedy-20100923,0,3993167.story> The only thing in the San Jose Mercury News (online) is a news item of more jobs lost and outsourced at the San Jose airport and their TV reviewer doesn't even seem aware the show exists (as of 9/23/2010): http://www.mercurynews.com/chuck-barney
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:05:01 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them... Message-ID: <iM2dnc3ZY-DQ2AfRnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1009212225410.1825@panix5.panix.com>, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: >[Broadband reports] > >FiOS users in our Verizon forums note that Verizon is now >charging users a $3.50 fee if they want to pay their bill >online with a credit card. > -------- >http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Charges-350-Fee-To-Pay-Them-110433 > >- per the posters, the fee applies if you make a "once off" >payment. If you give VZ access to an autopay process, >they won't charge it. > >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >Isn't Verizon still obligated to accept cash? If enough customers get >fed up and drop off their payments at the company, the surcharge will >stop. > >Bill Horne >Moderator Chances are good that that policy is contrary to VZ's agreement with the credit-card companies. EVERY merchant account I've seen expressly forbade "charging extra" for payment by credit-card. Complaints to the card issuer could put VZ at risk of losing the ability to take credit card payment _at_all_. Wonder how they'd like -that-. <evil grin> CC issuers really don't like it when merchants do things like that.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:45:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them... Message-ID: <bcba68eb-7608-43e9-9129-de1e5009f51a@q2g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> On Sep 22, 2:05 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote: > Chances are good that that policy is contrary to VZ's agreement with > the credit-card companies. EVERY merchant account I've seen > expressly forbade "charging extra" for payment by > credit-card. Complaints to the card issuer could put VZ at risk of > losing the ability to take credit card payment _at_all_. Wonder how > they'd like -that-. <evil grin> Many gasoline stations in my area charge more for credit card purchases than for cash, sometimes as much as 10c per gallon more. (On a 15 gallon purchase, that comes out to only $1.50.) Presumably that violates such merchant agreements, but none the less a great many stations do so and the higher prices are posted quite prominently.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:41:16 EDT From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them... Message-ID: <36e07.1a2ee457.39cd4dac@aol.com> In a message dated 9/23/2010 1:48:34 PM Central Daylight Time, bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com writes: > Chances are good that that policy is contrary to VZ's agreement with > the credit-card companies. EVERY merchant account I've seen > expressly forbade "charging extra" for payment by credit-card. > Complaints to the card issuer could put VZ at risk of losing the > ability to take credit card payment _at_all_. Wonder how they'd like > -that-. <evil grin> > > CC issuers really don't like it when merchants do things like > that. The recent consumer protections for credit card users specifically prohibit those provisions in merchant constracts. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:22:45 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Outside plant standards (for transient protection on a consumer NID) Message-ID: <86GdnfvjCsfo1AfRnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <e428dfc2-d754-4262-af75-b35508ac5450@q9g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, Heath Roberts <htroberts@gmail.com> wrote: >So, I have a CAC 7600 NID on my house. The house was built in 2001, so >the NID is whatever vintage was common at the time. > >I started getting bursts [of] noticable noise on the line about a >month ago, but not enough that I called to complain. When the line >stopped working entirely, though, I tried to determine whether [my >wiring was causing it]. This was confusing, because every time I >plugged into the RJ, my phone line (I have 3, but only one was bad) >worked, but when I connected the inside wiring, it stopped working. I >eventually realized that if I connected my inside wiring to the RJ in >the NID, things worked, but if I used the screw terminals, they >didn't. > >I think the customer module in the NID--the little block of >electronics with a RJ-type disconnection mechanism that actually >terminates the wires coming from inside--was poorly designed, and >there were brass ring terminals crimped to the wires going from the >modular plug to the screws for the inside wiring. Those ring terminals >corroded through. I looked at the other two modules, and their >terminals were green with corrosion, too, but not yet actually broken. > >So I called the phone company and explained the situation. The sent a >repair guy, but he showed up at 8:30am instead of his 1:00-4:00pm >'appointment' time, so I wasn't home to talk to him. > >When I got home, I found a new NID, about five feet away from the >old one, with a few clamps holding some inside station wire from the >old to the new. All the modules had been removed from the old NID, >with UY2s connecting the buried wire to the station wire going to the >new NID. Inside the new NID was a single protector block. The other >two lines were just spliced to the inside wiring. The telco has closed >the repair order, so it's not a temporary thing until he can come back >for a permanent repair. > >So, I was less than happy that he had drilled a bunch of new holes in >a stone foundation, but I'm even less happy that he left two lines >without transient protectors. I plan to call and to ask for whoever >manages outside plant in this area whether this meets their quality >standards, but I expect to get a run-around. > >Is there some regulatory or industry standard that requires protectors >on every line? There's an easy way to get the matter rectified. Send a -written- notice to the telco corporate offices, with a copy to the state regulatory authorities. In that letter explain that, "in reviewing work just done on your_side of te DMARC, you noticed that the technician had chosen to remove the transient protective devices. Therefore, you are hereby placed 'on notice' that you -will- be held liable, without limitation, for any damage that occurs to my equipment from transients received from your wiring." It may take a little while for said letter to percolate through the bureaucracy, but there -will- be 'fireworks' to be enjoyed.
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:22:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them... Message-ID: <201009222122.RAA10529@ss10.danlan.com> dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) wrote: [Broadband reports] |FiOS users in our Verizon forums note that Verizon is now |charging users a $3.50 fee if they want to pay their bill |online with a credit card. | -------- |http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Charges-350-Fee-To-Pay-Them-110433 | |- per the posters, the fee applies if you make a "once off" |payment. If you give VZ access to an autopay process, |they won't charge it. In this area (Massachusetts) if you set up autopay you must also give up paper bills. I've been making one-off payments for years for just that reason. Every few months they pop up a little box asking me to switch to autopay and paperless billing. I suppose if they implement this surcharge I'll go back to pushing EFT payments from my checking account. (Sending a physical check results in an ACH conversion even if you call the number to opt out.) Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:46:05 -0400 From: Fred Linton <tlvpress@hotmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Company behind magicJack to banish calling costs Message-ID: <BAY126-W27974ECAF29B6DAC81BF4BC6620@phx.gbl> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:38:00 -0400, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> w rote: > Company behind magicJack to banish calling costs ... > > MagicTalk would go one better by eliminating fees for calling > landline and cell phones in the U.S. and Canada, with no time limits > on the calls. ... > > The software will be available next week for Windows and Mac So: is it expected that a MagicJack user will be able to convert to the MagicTalk service arrangement using the existing MagicJack device? Or will some other mechanism be required? Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:02:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages Message-ID: <p06240892c8c1c3bf48ec@[10.0.1.8]> T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages By David Kravets September 22, 2010 T-Mobile told a federal judge Wednesday it may pick and choose which text messages to deliver on its network in a case weighing whether wireless carriers have the same "must carry" obligations as wire-line telephone providers. The Bellevue, Washington-based wireless service is being sued by a texting service claiming T-Mobile stopped servicing its "short code" clients after it signed up a California medical marijuana dispensary. In a court filing, T-Mobile said it had the right to pre-approve EZ Texting's clientele, which it said the New York-based texting service failed to submit for approval. EZ Texting offers a short code service, which works like this: A church could send its schedule to a cell phone user who texted "CHURCH" to 313131. Mobile phone users only receive text messages from EZ Texting's customers upon request. Each of its clients gets their own special word. ... http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/text-message-censorship/
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 (19 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues