Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

The Telecom Digest for October 05, 2010 Volume 29 : Issue 267 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: cite, kind of, was: Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call? (danny burstein) Re: Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call? (Sam Spade) iPhone Applications & Privacy Issues (Monty Solomon) iPhone and Android aircraft guidance App (Thad Floryan) [WSJ] Verizon Wireless plans $30M-$90M customer refunds (danny burstein) Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid (John Levine) Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid (Richard) Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid (Rich Greenberg) Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid (Robert Bonomi) Re: Rahm Emanuel leaving white house (Robert Bonomi) Re: Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call? (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call? (Sam Spade) Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid (Wes Leatherock) Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid (Richard) Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid (David Clayton) Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid (Wes Leatherock) Help needed differentiating email, texting and SMS (Thad Floryan) ====== 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: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 15:34:27 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: cite, kind of, was: Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call? Message-ID: <i8a7q3$spf$1@reader1.panix.com> [snippage] Original poster complained that, despite prepending his call with "*67", his calls to a "regular number" (not 1-800) at his cable company gave them his CNID. Others have explained the technical issues, namely that the number is always sent as far as the (roughly speaking) last central office, and it's there that the block (if so requested by the caller) is implemented. And... that since the number is sent all that way, a lot of CLECs are a bit careless about following that privacy flag, and do, in fact, send it the rest of the way. ------- >I question whether a PBX receiving ANI is even subject to any state or >federal regulatory orders on the subject. It's the called party's own >equipment, not public switched network equipment, so why would any such >rules have been written in the first place? >***** Moderator's Note ***** >PBX's are not supposed to receive blocked CID info: they are, as you >point out, PRIVATE branch exchanges, not a part of the DDD >network. However, the problem here appears to be that Comcast, which >is a CLEC, is ignoring the rule that the last class-5 office should >honor the display flags. Their switch is NOT a PBX: it is part of >the DDD network. ---- I can't pull up the FCC docket at this time, but about a decade ago I was involved in a related filing. ahh... thank you, FCC search index. It's docket RM-7397 of 2001 A group of universities and hospitals (and some related businesses), loosely affiliated under the name "Insight 100", chosen because they all use the Nortel Networks MSL 100 PBX, petitioned the FCC to let them send the CPN (calling party number) to the actual phone set that was dialed. Their rationale was that these groups often provided emergency and first responder actions. One obvious example would be the campus public safety office. Hence their request that calls to these folk be given the same treatment, that is, sending full caller ID, that the more official PSAPS (Public Safety Answering Points, aka the 911 centers) receive. I wrote in expressing our concern that this not be made the default for calls going through those switches, but only be applied to the phone lines traditionally associated with emergency use. As I put it in my submission, " (we recommend) that the 'emergency number', whether it reaches a nursing desk in the (hospital's) emergency room, an ambulance station, or a security office, should receive CPN even when the outgoing (caller) is trying to 'block' it. However, calls to the accounting division or any other 'routine' area should have their CNID (blocked)." One of the other submitters replied that, eyup, that's what they'd be doing. (At least once I had pointed it out...) So yes, groups operating their own central-office type equipment are mandated to follow these rules even in house. -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 09:11:50 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call? Message-ID: <-LadnR3C_tbaNjXRnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com> > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > PBX's are not supposed to receive blocked CID info: they are, as you > point out, PRIVATE branch exchanges, not a part of the DDD > network. However, the problem here appears to be that Comcast, which > is a CLEC, is ignoring the rule that the last class-5 office should > honor the display flags. Their switch is NOT a PBX: it is part of > the DDD network. > > Bill Horne > Moderator > Just for the record, it is Cox Communications of Orange County, California. They first operated as a cable television company. Later, they added local exchange service from a DMS-500 so they could offer dial tone anywhere they had cable in the street. Finally, they added high-speed internet service as a third option. Each of the three services is stand-alone. Interestingly, their local directory number, 949-240-1212, appears to the uninformed to be an AT&T (Pacific Bell) number in AT&T's Capistrano Exchange. For many years it was indeed a number that belonged to Pacific Bell and was serviced by them. Then, when Cox expanded to become an CLED, they ported the Pacific Bell number to the Cox DMS-500. Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 15:51:11 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: iPhone Applications & Privacy Issues Message-ID: <p0624082cc8ce8ce9d1a2@[192.168.180.244]> iPhone Applications & Privacy Issues: An Analysis of Application Transmission of iPhone Unique Device Identifiers (UDIDs) by Eric Smith October 1, 2010 Abstract Every Apple iPhone shipped since its introduction in 2007 contains a unique, software-visible serial number -- the Unique Device Identifier, or UDID. Apple provided this functionaly to allow application developers to uniquely identify the iPhone being used for purposes such as storing application preferences or video game high scores. While the UDID does facilitate the process of collecting and storing certain types of data, it also creates a tempting opportunity for use as a tracking agent or to correlate with other personally-identifiable information in unintended ways. In this paper, we investigate where and how UDIDs are being shared, with whom, and how the UDIDs are being used. ... http://www.pskl.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/iPhone-Applications-Privacy-Issues.pdf Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:37:16 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: iPhone and Android aircraft guidance App Message-ID: <4CA8F78C.7050605@thadlabs.com> Found in today's (3-OCT-2010) Slashdot: The Plane Finder AR application, developed by a British firm for the Apple iPhone and Google's Android, allows users to point their phone at the sky and see the position, height and speed of nearby aircraft. It also shows the airline, flight number, departure point, destination and even the likely course-the features which could be used to target an aircraft with a surface-to-air missile, or to direct another plane on to a collision course, the 'Daily Mail' reported. The program, sold for just 1.79 pounds in the online Apple store, has now been labelled an 'aid to terrorists' by security experts and the US Department of Homeland Security is also examining how to protect airliners. The new application works by intercepting the so-called Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcasts (ADS-B) transmitted by most passenger aircraft to a new satellite tracking system that supplements or, in some countries, replaces radar. More details here: http://www.ndtv.com/article/technology/a-phone-application-that-threatens-security-56673 Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 19:56:38 -0400 From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: [WSJ] Verizon Wireless plans $30M-$90M customer refunds Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1010031955090.4418@panix5.panix.com> [WSJ] Verizon Wireless could pay out up to $90 million in refunds to cell phone customers who were improperly charged for inadvertent Web access or data usage over the past several years. The FCC had asked Verizon Wireless last year about $1.99-a-megabyte data access fees that appeared on the bills of customers who didn't have data plans but who accidentally initiated data or Web access by pressing a button on their phones. In a statement on its website Sunday, Verizon Wireless said most of the 15 million customers affected will receive credits of $2 to $6 on their October or November bills. Some will receive larger sums. Customers no longer with the New York-based carrier will get refund checks. ----------- rest: http://online.wsj.com/article/AP9ec0435ceff6489caa4b31ac791fa480.html _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] Date: 3 Oct 2010 15:04:25 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid Message-ID: <20101003150425.73805.qmail@joyce.lan> >Businesses take on substantial burdens to accept credit cards. Typically >they pay the card company 10-20% of the amount charged, ,,, Uh, you've got an extra digit in there. The card companies take between 1% and 3%. The worst rate you get through Paypal is about 3%. People use credit cards for a variety of reasons. I use mine because it lets me pay for everything once a month, with a month's float on the money, and the card companies give me a rebate. ObTelecom: I even pay my phone bills with a credit card, for those reasons. >And with good reason. I've yet to find a bank or credit union that didn't >regard its possession of my money as a license to steal (and call it a >"fee") whenever they felt like it. Yeah, I've heard that the banks in California are unusually bad. R's, John Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 09:44:52 -0700 From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid Message-ID: <5b0ka65sna1b9t34k5v6splgamndbkomo4@4ax.com> On 3 Oct 2010 15:04:25 -0000, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >People use credit cards for a variety of reasons. I use mine because >it lets me pay for everything once a month, with a month's float on >the money, and the card companies give me a rebate. ObTelecom: I even >pay my phone bills with a credit card, for those reasons. I have all of my recurring bills (telephone, satellite TV, Internet service, etc.) charged to my credit card (CC). Once a month, the CC sends me an email that my statement is posted, and I pay it in full on-line via EFT from my bank. I started doing this when I was traveling extensively, gone for a month or two at a time, and I didn't want to incur late fees. As a bonus, my CC pays a 1% rebate. When dealing with a locally owned business like a restaurant or gas station, I pay cash to save them the CC fee. But with national companies like Wal-mart, I pay with CC. Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 17:24:12 +0000 (UTC) From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid Message-ID: <i8ae7r$36h$1@reader1.panix.com> In article <i885ae$fvo$1@blue.rahul.net>, John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: >Businesses take on substantial burdens to accept credit cards. Typically >they pay the card company 10-20% of the amount charged, and have to agree >to let the card company resolve all disagreements in favor of the customer, >with no proof required (which often means the merchant gets stiffed, since >its only recourse is to sue the customer). This quote contains 2 errors. Firstly the fee charged by the cc company is nowhere near 10-20%. Its 4-5% and down. The larger the average charge is and the larger the total charges over a month is, the lower the fee. Secondly, they don't resolve all disputes "in favor of the customer, with no proof required". I have had personal experience here. -- Rich Greenberg Sarasota, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 941 378 2097 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines: Val, Red, Shasta, Zero & Casey (At the bridge) Owner:Chinook-L Canines: Red & Cinnar (Siberians) Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:38:52 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid Message-ID: <9qednSTmbfTx9TTRnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <i885ae$fvo$1@blue.rahul.net>, John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: >> ***** Moderator's Note ***** >> >> It won't work. >> >> Businessmen take credit cards because their customers insist on using >> them, and because the card fee is offset by the costs of handling, >> counting, and safeguarding cash. > >Businesses take on substantial burdens to accept credit cards. Typically >they pay the card company 10-20% of the amount charged, GOOD %DEITY% I don't know where you get your mis-information, that is so far off-base it is comical. Some kinds of 'high risk' businesses do pay a 'substantial' premium to one of the relative handful of processors who will deal with their kind of business -- on-line pornography sales being one such 'high risk' line. That said, 'conventional' businesses, dealing with mainstream processing houses pay a fee that consists of a 'fixed price' component, plus a per- centage of the transaction amount. The 'fixed' charge component is typically around $0.70 per transaction, with the 'variable' component being in a range roughly between 1 and 3.5% of the transaction amount. The exact figures depend on the particular processor, and what kind of a track record (if any) your business has with regard to customer complaints and charge-backs. > and have to agree >to let the card company resolve all disagreements in favor of the customer, >with no proof required (which often means the merchant gets stiffed, since >its only recourse is to sue the customer). In reality, it is the -other- way around, IF the merchant does things 'by the book', and can produce the appropriate records of having done so, on request, customer complaints are virtually -always- resolved in favor of the merchant. Where the merchant gets sloppy with their own records- keeping, or accepts a card for payment without taking the mandated (by the issuer) steps to verify the cardholder, Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:03:13 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Rahm Emanuel leaving white house Message-ID: <D_adnX1OrcOM_TTRnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <355727.92927.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote: > >I was under the impression that all 312 numbers were no longer >available and you'd have to get another area code which was overlaid >on the 312 area. "Not Exactly" applies. Yes, 312 was "running short" of unassigned numbers, so an overlay area- code was allocated, and activated earlier this year. However, cell carriers (_and_ wireline carriers, for that matter) get "blocks" of numbers assigned to them, which they then dole out one-by-one to customers. If a cell carrier has a reserve of '312' numbers there's no problem in getting a phone with at 312-area number from them. Secondly, there is a constant 'churn' of phone numbers -- people leave the area and discontinue service, just for one example. when this happens, that number is available for 're-assignment' to somebody else. I recently (last month) signed up for "Google Voice" and had the choice of a whole bunch of 312 area numbers. In that respect, I've got at least as much 'clout' as Mr. Emmanuel does. <grin> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 07:36:36 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call? Message-ID: <i8c064$sfm$1@news.albasani.net> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >>you write: >>>I was of the impression that the FCC's standing order on Caller ID >>>required the originating LEC to honor a caller's request for >>>non-delivery of Caller ID if the caller either preceded the call with >>>*67 (1167) or had line blocking provided by the LEC. >>Nope. It sets a do-not-display flag that is supposed to be >>interpreted by whatever does the displaying, which I suppose is the >>terminating switch on POTS and either the switch or the phone on ISDN >>sets. >>If Comcast sees your number, it's because their switch isn't paying >>attention to the do-not-display flag. >I question whether a PBX receiving ANI is even subject to any state or >federal regulatory orders on the subject. It's the called party's own >equipment, not public switched network equipment, so why would any such >rules have been written in the first place? >***** Moderator's Note ***** >PBX's are not supposed to receive blocked CID info: they are, as you >point out, PRIVATE branch exchanges, not a part of the DDD >network. However, the problem here appears to be that Comcast, which >is a CLEC, is ignoring the rule that the last class-5 office should >honor the display flags. Their switch is NOT a PBX: it is part of >the DDD network. >Bill Horne >Moderator I suspect that the PBX is receiving ANI and not CID and is therefore not in violation of any federal regulation. In any event, Comcast wouldn't operate anything resembling a Class 5 switch as it's all VoIP, and wouldn't even own a switch. Comcast doesn't even provide dial tone to a single-line subscriber! That comes from the telephony cable modem. Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 07:14:57 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call? Message-ID: <i_SdnaPx8Of8fDTRnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@giganews.com> Adam H. Kerman wrote: > In any event, Comcast wouldn't operate anything resembling a Class 5 switch > as it's all VoIP, and wouldn't even own a switch. Comcast doesn't even > provide dial tone to a single-line subscriber! That comes from the telephony > cable modem. > It is not Comcast. It is Cox Communications. They operate as a CLEC with a DMS-500. Their CLEC Designation is 7661 Cox California Telecom, Inc., Switch RSMGCAHADSO, Switch Type NT5, rate center Trabuco, California. The number at issue is an ordinary directory number that used to belong to Pacific Bell and is now ported to RSMGCAHADSO. Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:12:22 EDT From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid Message-ID: <34e90.1a6c3317.39d9f756@aol.com> In a message dated 10/3/2010 9:46:07 AM Central Daylight Time, jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us writes: > Businesses take on substantial burdens to accept credit cards. > Typically they pay the card company 10-20% of the amount charged, and > have to agree to let the card company resolve all disagreements in > favor of the customer, with no proof required (which often means the > merchant gets stiffed, since its only recourse is to sue the > customer). > > The main reason businesses put up with these burdens is that cards > enable customers who don't have enough cash with them (whether because > they forgot or because they fear being robbed) to make impulse > purchases. They actually pay the card company 1 to 3% of the amount charged, not 10-20%. (For American Express it's higher. The largest convenience store chain in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area does not accept American Express cards for that reason. There is a local supermarket chain in the area that doesn't take Amex either, and for the same reason.) I do not know why Krispy Kremes does not accept Discove cards. At one time Discover cards were rejected by many businesses, due to the additional effort to get them reimbursed. but now most all businesses accept Discover. I have had very few disputes with credit card charges, once it was probably a mistake, the other time somebody had obviously stolen my credit card number.) Once the same charge had been run through twice. I can't imagine most types of stores expect to get that much in impulse purchases. They have a much wider access to customers from all over the country that think the additional business they generate is worth the cost. I usually carry a very small amount of cash, charging just about everything to my credit cards. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 09:54:58 -0700 From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid Message-ID: <s71ka65gloda1smf8hs2tmiqlh1dre533b@4ax.com> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:12:22 EDT, Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote: > >They actually pay the card company 1 to 3% of the amount charged, not >10-20%. (For American Express it's higher. The largest convenience >store chain in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area does not accept >American Express cards for that reason. There is a local supermarket >chain in the area that doesn't take Amex either, and for the same >reason.) About 30 years ago, I was staying at a mom-and-pop owned motel in Amarillo. At checkout, I offered the choice of 2 credit cards, Visa and AmEx. He chose Visa. I asked if it was because their fee was lower. He answered "Not the main reason. With Visa I get reimbursed faster. I can take the Visa charge to my local bank today and get reimbursed, but I mail AmEx charges to New York once a month." Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 08:41:38 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid Message-ID: <pan.2010.10.04.21.41.35.616837@myrealbox.com> On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 11:12:22 -0400, Wes Leatherock wrote: .......... > I can't imagine most types of stores expect to get that much in impulse > purchases. They have a much wider access to customers from all over the > country that think the additional business they generate is worth the > cost. > > I usually carry a very small amount of cash, charging just about > everything to my credit cards. In Australia Mastercard are introducing the "Swipe and go" system where you just wave your card at a terminal for transactions under under a certain amount - no signing, not PIN to enter, just grab your receipt and go (TV ads are running now promoting it). They are definitely going for the "impulse" market as a direct replacement for cash. -- 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: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:16:14 EDT From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid Message-ID: <350ed.3fb69957.39d9f83e@aol.com> In a message dated 10/3/2010 9:50:56 AM Central Daylight Time, dwolff@panix.com writes: > By DAVID POGUE > September 29, 2010 <snip> > Why can't we use them to pay the piano teacher, the baby sitter, the > lawn-mowing teenager, even first graders at their lemonade stand? Why > aren't credit cards accepted at garage sales, food carts and PTA bake > sales? Heck, when your tipsy buddy wants to borrow $20 for a cab > home, why can't you eliminate the awkwardness and future conflict by > just running his Visa card on the spot? One large church-sponsored festival in Oklahoma City, including food service and a bake sale, does accept credit cards. Taxicabs in many cities do, too. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:48:37 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Help needed differentiating email, texting and SMS Message-ID: <4CAA59C5.5040203@thadlabs.com> Last year Silicon Valley (aka Santa Clara County in California) setup a county-wide emergency alert system based on the Blackboard Connect platform used by many cities, universities and schools which broadcasts email and telephone voice messages systemwide per: http://www.blackboard.com/Alert-Notification/Connect-Platform.aspx Palo Alto was the last city to join the program last month after abandoning their proprietary Community Alerting and Notification System (CANS). Santa Clara County's info page is http://www.alertscc.com/. Palo Alto's info page is here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1642&TargetID=268 where they tout SMS messaging. There wasn't much fanfare in the local media and several Palo Alto friends asked me for some help regarding signing up for the new program because there's some confusion as to what constitutes SMS messaging for those of us who've never done any texting. Ever. This page: http://www.ehow.com/about_5030313_sms-phone-number.html confused them and me with comments like: 1. For most consumers, the SMS phone number is simply their mobile phone number. 2. A short code is essentially a mobile telephone number that, being significantly shorter than an average number (typically 4 to 6 digits in length), is designed to be easier to remember. and no indication how a "short code" is assigned and actually used and/or whether it's even relevant for this alert application. Here's the problem. The signup form for AlertSCC has these entry boxes, examples, and comments (among others such as name, address, etc.): [ Primary E-mail Address ] Example: name@domain.com [ Secondary E-mail Address ] [ Primary Phone Number ] Example: 555-555-5555 [ Secondary Phone Number ] [ TTY Phone Number (default N/A) ] SMS phone number will only be used for text messsaging. [ SMS phone number ] The question asked of me (for which I'm not sure of the answer) is where does one put the contact address or number of their cell phone? I looked back at what I entered for myself for my town last year and noticed I did this: my main real email address entered as "Primary E-mail", "cellphone#@txt.att.net" entered as "Secondary E-mail", and nothing for the "SMS phone number" I know for a fact my phone receives email sent to the "cellphone#@txt.att.net" address, but what is this method termed? Is it SMS or simply email? For the moment I advised my friends to do what I did and enter the email address of their cell phone as a secondary E-mail address and leave the SMS entry box blank; the data can always be easily changed/edited later. Confusion arises due to email arriving on the cellphones being termed "messages" and not specifically "email". Arrgh. :-) An anciliary question: HOW can they send 100000s of voice mail and email alerts in the supposedly rapid time frame required by an emergency alert system such as Blackboard's? Is there some special capability of landline COs and cellphone equivalents to handle such massive calling? 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 (17 messages)