The Telecom Digest for October 14, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 276 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 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, 7 Oct 2010 07:38:02 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Iranians discover that finding a needle in a Haystack ain't hard...
Message-ID: <E1P3p0S-0004dB-3Q@billhorne.homelinux.org>
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:52:02 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> [VOA]
>
> What Went Wrong With Haystack?
>
> It seemed too good to be true, and perhaps that should have been
> the first warning. "Haystack" was said to be just the needed tool
> for Iranian democracy activists to break through governmental
> firewalls and hide their identity. In the end, it may have put
> them at risk. How did the promise of Haystack go so wrong?
> --------
> rest (basically that too many people wanted to believe in
> the Emperor's new clothes, and almost no one checked first...):
>
> http://www.voanews.com/english/news/science-technology/What-Went-Wrong-With-Haystack-103708474.html
>
There was nothing wrong with Haystack: it just never existed. It was
an idea borne aloft on the winds of hype, sustained by the breezy
publicity of the "once over, lightly" technical press, and finally
brought down by a zephyr of reality.
Anyone who has dealt with the Iranian police - my cousin was in that
country while in the Army - will tell you that they're not the
brightest bulbs on the tree. They are however, very effective, with an
arsenal that includes pliers, flatirons, and cattle prods. It's
ludicrous to think that anyone could "hide" something from them when
their first (and, usually, the only needed) response to a computer
security problem is rubber-hose cryptography.
The "authors" of Haystack are - let's be kind - inexperienced in
International Politics. Their time would have been better spent
conducting a hunger strike outside the Iranian embassy: perhaps the
clarity of starvation would have taught them to start with the basics
instead of jumping from supposition to grand scheme.
My 2¢. YMMV.
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: No dial tone, no service, no respect -- not even for Alexander Graham Bell descendant
Message-ID: <567696.48681.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Her telephone died weeks ago. Since then, Helene Pancoast has been
engaged in a farcical struggle familiar to any no-account customer up
against an errant provider of cable, gas, electricity or telephone
service.
You know the feeling. Like wandering through a maze. Reduced to
communicating with robotic voices reciting touch-tone menus of choices
that hardly correspond to your particular dilemma. ``Press 3 if your
phone is inoperable.''
Finally comes the live voice of a service rep with a tenuous grip on
English, who shunts you to another line that kicks you back to the
original recording. ``Press 9 if you would like to be transferred to
the suicide hot-line.''
Helene Pancoast speaks for all of us, as she bemoans the ``general
malaise and disconnection of the service industries of people serving
people.''
``General disregard, for the problems of others and of service to
customers and community, has become the norm,'' she complains.
WHAT'S IN A NAME
Except it's not just you or me who can't convince AT&T to fix the
phone.
``My grandmother Marian Bell Fairchild always told us that we should
never `use the connection' of the Bell Name to get special
attention,'' Pancoast says.
A few days ago, in the midst of trying (and failing) to convince a
telephone repairman to reconnect her to civilization, she violated
grandmother's edict. ``I did mention as well that, as the last
remaining Bell descendant living in Miami, I felt their service was
beyond terrible.''
The very great granddaughter of Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the
telephone, father of the Bell communications conglomerate known lately
as AT&T, can only rage against the machine.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/11/1868716/no-dial-tone-no-service-no-respect.html
or http://goo.gl/co0O
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:10:04 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No dial tone, no service, no respect -- not even for Alexander Graham Bell descendant
Message-ID: <Dq-dnR6Sw7FTVijRnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com>
Joseph Singer wrote:
> Helene Pancoast speaks for all of us, as she bemoans the ``general
> malaise and disconnection of the service industries of people serving
> people.''
>
> ``General disregard, for the problems of others and of service to
> customers and community, has become the norm,'' she complains.
This is by design. Staffing customer support is not a profit center.
Thus, the modern bean counter have convinced management to discourage
customers from complaining.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I can't think of a better way to drive customers toward the
competition, and I've got an email history with Virgin Mobile to prove
it.
Does anyone know how to reach Sir Richard Branson? I've got a
complaint I want to deliver.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: History--unlisted number charge
Message-ID: <dbdee76d-77e7-4686-a201-269f09224b1a@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
Recently we discussed the current charge to have an unlisted number.
I discovered that New York Telephone introduced it in its service area
way back in 1959, and it was 50c a month. An article in the NYT said
after the fee went in many people went back to having a listed number.
In Philadelphia, a charge didn't apply until much, much later.
We had a relative living with us and he had his own listing in the
phone book under his name (our number); we were charged 50c extra for
that. Later on (1980s?) they said a spouse could have his/her own
separate listing for free; so anyone could get one free extra
listing. At that time they stopped charging us the 50c. I believe it
was around then they put in the unlisted charge for the Phila area.
Also, DDD was implemented in New York City gradually in the early
1960s. It already had a regional capability to dial short haul toll
calls to Long Island, Westchester, and New Jersey. The Bell Labs
history shows a picture of an early network control center for the NYC
area.
DDD required not only the long distance switching capability, but also
AMA (automatic message accounting) equipment to record toll calls and
later process the recorded tapes for billing.
Did the prototype installation at Englewood have AMA? I got the
impression AMA came out later.
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:18:32 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--unlisted number charge
Message-ID: <i94f3o$7us$1@gal.iecc.com>
>DDD required not only the long distance switching capability, but also
>AMA (automatic message accounting) equipment to record toll calls and
>later process the recorded tapes for billing.
>
>Did the prototype installation at Englewood have AMA? I got the
>impression AMA came out later.
I recall ONI in that part of New Jersey. You'd dial the call, an
operator would come on the line and ask for your number, then the
call would go through.
My relatives who run a rural telco in Vermont said that in the ONI
era they were constantly having to move calls from one account to
another due to kids who lied to the ONI operator.
R's,
John
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <1e5800f5-09c4-43ba-ab9f-109d9446427d@f25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 12, 2:27 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> The panel phone was one of a handful of 'specialty' telephone sets
> that Bell offered -- ones where you shelled out a bunch of money to
> 'buy' the phone (actually just the housing), and then paid a
> recurring monthly for 'renting' the actual phone mechanism
> innards. What, a decade later, was marketed as the (greatly
> expanded) 'design-line'.
I remember seeing the panel phone in leaflets and in displays.
The "design line" phones were more popular, quite a few people had
them. I've seen candle sticks, wooden boxes, country junction wall
set, circle banana set, french phone. Rotary models showed up at yard
sales. There was a flap later on when people thought they had bought
the entire phone when all they bought was the housing. But I recall
the terms being made quite clear when the phones first came out.
Anyway, as divesture approached Bell sold its phones to subscribers
for a very low price--and allowed subscribers to exchange an old set
for a new one before making the purchase at the used price. So, it
wasn't a bad deal. Further, one was buying a real Western Electric
built-to-withstand-a-nuclear-attack phone which would last in service
far longer than any replacements offered by other companies down the
road.
> If I'm remembering right (some 45 years later) the 'purchase' price
> for that phone was something like $120. Including the
> installation. Which was a significant chunk of money in 1964
> dollars.
That is a high price. I thought it was rented like most everything
else.
In our area Trimlines and Princesses went for an extra $1 a month,
which wasn't that cheap in 1970 dollars. The early models required a
little plug in transformer to power the dial light; later models used
LCDs powered by the phone line. The prior occupants of our house had
Trimlines all over, so they were wired with a central transformer in
the basement and used the yellow/black wires for light power. We
didn't use Trimlines so the transformer was unplugged. When I got my
own line, they used the yellow/black for that.
Actually, I don't particularly care for Trimlines. Today I have to
use the tone pad for many calls to businesses, and it is cumbersome to
do that on a Trimline with the pad in the handset. But their ringer
was nicer sounding than a 500/2500 set.
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:02:01 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <e4pbb658f2nfl8t3bu1eeecreeo3b6shb2@4ax.com>
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:59:11 -0700 (PDT), Lisa or Jeff
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>Anyway, as divesture approached Bell sold its phones to subscribers
>for a very low price--and allowed subscribers to exchange an old set
>for a new one before making the purchase at the used price. So, it
>wasn't a bad deal. Further, one was buying a real Western Electric
>built-to-withstand-a-nuclear-attack phone which would last in service
>far longer than any replacements offered by other companies down the
>road.
I worked for AT&T at the time of divestiture. Employees were given at
no cost up to 2 Western Electric phones currently in their homes. I
received stickers to put on the bottoms of my phones to denote that
they were now my property. I don't know if the offer included all
employees, or just management and engineers (I was one of the latter).
Dick
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:59:45 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What is a "female-specific mobile handset"?
Message-ID: <d18ab61n5gam4k87j25akr85q7ibrf08o8@4ax.com>
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:01:34 -0400, April Coffman
<april.remove-this@and-this-too.americanclec.com> wrote:
> I hope just coloring a phone pink is not the answer, I am a woman who
>hates the color pink. I would think making phones smaller so that they
>fit better in a woman's hand would be nice, for me some Blackberrys feel
>very cumbersome because they are so wide. The other issue I have is
>finding headsets that fit my tiny little ears properly (the Jabra 125
>fits well though).
>
>-April Coffman
>
Apparently marketers think that women would like an item colored pink.
They even make guns with a pink color:
http://www.thegunsource.com/category/2580_Pink_Pistols.aspx?w=%2BCJWDALnoPg%3D
Richard
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:25:21 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <p_adnXFiEsK8CijRnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <siegman-E0CD25.09500812102010@BMEDCFSC-SRV02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>,
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
>In article <4CB3CA0A.6060104@annsgarden.com>,
> Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It's easy to criticize the whole modular concept, but if you consider
>> the requirements I've noted above, you begin to understand why the
>> industry and the FCC chose it.
>>
>
>Interesting to read this add'l information.
>
>However, I wasn't criticizing the modular concept per se. I was
>criticizing the design of the "lever" on the modular connector, which in
>many (most?) cases was angled outward pointing back along the cord --
>a perfect "fishhook" to catch on anything it came close to.
>
>Surely some other "snap-in" design or level design would have possible.
Surely it would have. <grin>
that said, the answer to why something else wasn't chosen is covered by
the (mildly cynical);
'The answer to any question that starts off "Why didn't they.." is
always "Money."'
-- Maureen Johnson Smith, 'To Sail Beyond The Sunset', by R.A.H.
The 'phone cord' -- no longer being permanently attached to either the
telephone instrument, or the rest of the premises wiring -- was now being
considered as a 'replaceable' element, a "consumable', if you will, rather
than part of the durable ('capitalized expense') physical plant. As such,
the economic touchstone was 'minimize the amortized cost over the projected
lifetime', without requiring any specific guaranteed lifetime. If you
can make something for 1/10th the cost (or less) that will deliver a 5-year
projected life-span, vs. the traditional '40 years', you go with the low-
cost version.
The other half of the answer is that in the early 1970s, when the standard
was being developed, the 'rats nest' of wiring that commonly exists near
the modern phone/computer/fax/scanner/printer/etc. was simply not
anticipated. 'In isolation', or in a 'managed' high-density wiring
environment (e.g. 'patch-panels', with 'dressed' wiring harnesses).
the modular jack works well.
The drawbacks of the 'fishhook' as you put it, manifest themselves primarily
in _undisciplined_ wiring environments, and it is arguable the problems
=there= are more a result of said lack of discipline, rather than any
inherent failing if the modular design.
The fact is that there are a fairly limited number of ways to make a
'durable' multi-wire connection. you can use 'friction fit', like a
standard 120V electrical plug does, but this places requirements on
conductor mass and rigidity that are 'far beyond' what is needed for a
telephone circuit. use of 'twist-lock' (like a 'BNC' connector) or screw-
thread (like a coax TV 'F' connector) has numerous issues -- orientation
is problematic for more than a 2-conductor configuration, the connector
has to be manufactured as multiple separate/distinct pieces and assembled,
building 'flush-mount' jack is tricky (and, on one where the jack pro-
trudes, the jack is much more vulnerable to physical damage), etc.
This essentially leaves you with the 'spring clip' design, in some form or
other. There are only 3 basic ways to build the spring clip -- hinge on
the inside end, hinge on the outside end, or hinged/attached on -both-
ends, requiring some sort of 'expansion' mechanism. 'Hinged on both ends'
is significantly more complicated than a single-ended mechanism. "hinged
on the outside" has to either be fairly rigid -- so you can't plug it
in without the tab fully depressed -- or you have something that can
be plugged in with the tab not engaged, whereupon the tab is acting as
a spring to force the plug =out= of the socket. Not a good thing.
There is a "possible' alternative -- where the tab lever is 'hinged on the
inside', but the outside end is somehow 'contained' (e.g. between a couple
of 'walls' or 'boxed in' ) and can't 'snag' things -- but this requires
that the 'back side' of the plug extend considerably further out from the
surface of the jack. Which makes it much more vulnerable to damage from
side blows.
"Building a better connector" seems like it should be easy enough -- until
you actually try to design it. <wry grin>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <85caae23-273e-488f-a4d9-0feab3be46a8@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 13, 7:25 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> The 'phone cord' -- no longer being permanently attached to either the
> telephone instrument, or the rest of the premises wiring -- was now being
> considered as a 'replaceable' element, a "consumable', if you will, rather
> than part of the durable ('capitalized expense') physical plant. As such,
> the economic touchstone was 'minimize the amortized cost over the projected
> lifetime', without requiring any specific guaranteed lifetime. If you
> can make something for 1/10th the cost (or less) that will deliver a 5-year
> projected life-span, vs. the traditional '40 years', you go with the low-
> cost version.
I suspect that some advocates of Bell System Divesture expected the
traditional Bell System heavy-duty standards to continue and that
competition would reduce only the price, not the quality. They didn't
realize that Divesture would eliminate the economic reasons to build
components to last a long time.
I also suspect that other advocates of Divesture did understand the
economic changes, and saw an opportunity to get in on the action for
themselves. That is, they knew they could build telephone components
much cheaper than Western Electric had been building them. Thus the
market was flooded with cheap phones that broke if you merely hung up
too hard or business systems that didn't work very well. Further, as
discussed in the past on this newsgroup, some equipment and service
vendors were outright dishonest.
> The other half of the answer is that in the early 1970s, when the
> standard was being developed, the 'rats nest' of wiring that
> commonly exists near the modern
> phone/computer/fax/scanner/printer/etc. was simply not
> anticipated. 'In isolation', or in a 'managed' high-density wiring
> environment (e.g. 'patch-panels', with 'dressed' wiring harnesses).
> the modular jack works well.
The Bell System itself suffered from "rats nests" wiring, particularly
in cities where there were constant service changes. In the late
1960s people began to move their location much more frequently and
this resulted in central office distrubting frames getting quite messy
and backups in executing installation orders. (There were other
issues at work as well, such as trouble finding qualified staff in
certain areas). In addition, the service panel in larger buildings
became quite cluttered. These contributed to the service crisis of
that era.
A Bell Labs Record article of that era described a new service panel
for buildings using pink and blue backplates and other aides to keep
wiring clean.
However, generally speaking Bell System crews were pretty careful.
That was one advantaged of the high-priced network--the crews had the
time to spend to do things right.
Side note: At a worksite in the 1990s the patch panel had new old-
style four prong plugs and jacks for some connections. I was told
this was for "test purposes", but I could not find out anything more
why they installed something 20 years after it became obsolete.
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:37:52 -0400
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What is a "female-specific mobile handset"?
Message-ID: <barmar-1AC39C.01375213102010@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>
In article <4CB4946E.8070704@AmericanCLEC.com>,
April Coffman <april.remove-this@and-this-too.americanclec.com> wrote:
> I hope just coloring a phone pink is not the answer, I am a woman who
> hates the color pink.
So? Just because something is female-specific doesn't mean it's
expected to be attractive to ALL women. Just more attractive to women
in general.
By analogy, dresses are female-specific clothing, but there are many
women who prefer not to wear dresses.
> I would think making phones smaller so that they
> fit better in a woman's hand would be nice, for me some Blackberrys feel
> very cumbersome because they are so wide. The other issue I have is
> finding headsets that fit my tiny little ears properly (the Jabra 125
> fits well though).
I expect some of these things are in their mind, too.
It could also be marketing differences. There are cigarette brands that
are more popular among blacks, yet I assume there's not much difference
in the way blacks and whites smoke cigarettes.
--
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: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:56:42 -0500
From: hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Uptick in do-not-call violations
Message-ID: <taidndMtSfmH1yjRnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@megapath.net>
>The easiest way to avoid the problem is to avoid being on their list
>in the first place. I always lie when banks or other businesses ask
>for my phone number: I think that since they're never going to call me
>for anything important (_that_ kind of service is gone forever), they
>deserve to have their time wasted.
I've had legitimate calls from my bank's credit card side.
They wanted to know if I had ordered $2K of flowers. Nope.
I got a new credit card number out of that one.
--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:16:20 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Uptick in do-not-call violations
Message-ID: <i94evj$g10$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <taidndMtSfmH1yjRnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@megapath.net> hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) writes:
>>The easiest way to avoid the problem is to avoid being on their list
>>in the first place. I always lie when banks or other businesses ask
>>for my phone number: I think that since they're never going to call me
>>for anything important (_that_ kind of service is gone forever), they
>>deserve to have their time wasted.
>I've had legitimate calls from my bank's credit card side.
>They wanted to know if I had ordered $2K of flowers. Nope.
>I got a new credit card number out of that one.
It's bad enough when you forget your anniversary. But it's
even worse when, after arranging for the flowers, your
memory goes hiccup...
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 03:18:43 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Uptick in do-not-call violations
Message-ID: <op.vkh6lhs1itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:50:19 -0400, after tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
wrote, Bill Horne as moderator added this
> Moderator's Note
> The easiest way to avoid the problem is to avoid being on their list
> in the first place. I always lie when banks or other businesses ask
> for my phone number: I think that since they're never going to call me
> for anything important (_that_ kind of service is gone forever), they
> deserve to have their time wasted.
Actually, several banks do make legitimate use of my phone number, as
follows:
should they encounter a charge -- or a pattern of charges -- that triggers
their "suspicious-activity" flag, they phone me to inquire.
If the activity took place at some location far from my home base, they use my
cellular number, otherwise they use my home number.
I'm always happy to be able either to confirm that yes, that was me, or, in
one case, to be able to respond, "No, Good Grief, I did NOT charge anything to
any vendor on the Isle of Man, please Refuse That Charge!"
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:41:45 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Uptick in do-not-call violations
Message-ID: <u1qbb61pp1l5qr3mh6s7teigl8io3clt2d@4ax.com>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>The easiest way to avoid the problem is to avoid being on their list
>in the first place. I always lie when banks or other businesses ask
>for my phone number: I think that since they're never going to call me
>for anything important (_that_ kind of service is gone forever), they
>deserve to have their time wasted.
This is very inconsiderate of you. The fake number you enter
corresponds to some innocent party who now gets these annoying calls
through no fault of his own.
I always give my home and mobile phone numbers when opening a checking
or a credit card account, so that they can call me in case of trouble,
like suspicious charges. I have gotten several calls from Citi Card's
suspicious-charge division asking if I had made a particular charge or
charges. Most of the time, it was me. But once it wasn't, and they
cancelled the account and gave me another number and card.
Once, I got a call that I had forgotten my card at a merchant (a large
department store) after buying something. The apparently-honest
merchant called Citi to report it. Five minutes after the transaction
Citi called me on my mobile and told me. I responded that I would
return to the store to retrieve my card. They said no, as a
precaution they cancelled my number and sent to me a new card by
over-night Fedex.
Obtelecom (in a way): Several years ago, while reviewing my credit
card charges online, I spotted a $25 charge for Internet service in
Leningrad, Russia. When I reported it, Citi agreed that it had to be
bogus, and that my card had been compomised. They cancelled the
charge, closed the account and over-nighted to me a new card. This is
a good reason to examine your credit card and checking accounts
several times a month.
Dick
***** Moderator's Note *****
Give me a little credit: this is, after all, a telecom forum.
I give out the busy-test number at a Boston-area CO.
Bill Horne
Moderator
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 (15 messages)
|
| |
or 