30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for July 5, 2012
====== 30 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of that address. 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: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:01:04 -0400 From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers Message-ID: <email@example.com> Per Steven: >If you built the SIT generator, you should sell them. I was wondering what a "SIT Tone" was until I read this: http://tinyurl.com/2xp9vw Sounds like a no-brainer to download a .WAV file and just add it to the start of the answering machine's message - with a long enough persistence to trigger the robo caller's response, but short enough so the actual message comes on before the innocent caller's "WTF?" response kicks in. -- Pete Cresswell ***** Moderator's Note ***** Actually, persistence is a bad thing. The SIT tones are intended to speed up the process of making robocalls - that's what they're for - so they should be the very first thing on the tape. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:43:27 +0000 (UTC) From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Moroney) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> writes: >***** Moderator's Note ***** >I have a gadget that generates SIT tones whenever I go off-hook. It >seems to be working well, even for the politicians. >Bill Horne >Moderator Don't SIT tone generators not work for any phone system using out-of-band signalling of stuff like that? (that is, just about anything other than POTS) ? Certainly telemarketers run from a call center with a DS-n feed. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Special Information Tones are in band because they are intended to signal to originating-end-point automatic calling equipment that the call has failed. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones: the page includes audio files for all eight SIT combinations. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:14:55 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:43:27 +0000 (UTC), after what Michael Moroney wrote, Moderator noted: > Special Information Tones are in band because they are intended to > signal to originating-end-point automatic calling equipment that the > call has failed. > > Please read > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones: > > the page includes audio files for all eight SIT combinations. The wiki page Moderator suggests here says, in part, of using "the above recordings of SITs ... on a voicemail or answering machine ...": > Some telephone companies advise against playing false SITs on active lines or > message equipment as it could confuse a caller, especially serious in an emergency. I'd welcome reactions -- Moderator's or others' -- to that cautionary word. Cheers, and TIA, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I've used it for about three years, on and off: never had a problem with a call from a human, including the local police. SIT tones are intended to be used by robodialers, and anyone who uses one is on my do-not-bother list. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 01:03:50 +0000 (UTC) From: email@example.com (Garrett Wollman) To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers Message-ID: <email@example.com> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Michael Moroney <email@example.com> wrote: >Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> writes: >Don't SIT tone generators not work for any phone system using out-of-band >signalling of stuff like that? (that is, just about anything other than >POTS) ? Certainly telemarketers run from a call center with a DS-n >feed. >Special Information Tones are in band because they are intended to >signal to originating-end-point automatic calling equipment that the >call has failed. Why would "automatic calling equipment" pay any attention to them when they have a trunk-side connection to the phone network that explicitly tells them otherwise? -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft firstname.lastname@example.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 ***** Moderator's Note ***** If I had to guess, I'd give two reasons: VoIP and the always-supervise policies of some LEC's. 1. VoIP signalling isn't as consistent as "Real telco" supervision, so there are a lot of calls that will return supervision even if the call is not "answered". 2. Some [C|I]LEC companies have started to return answering supervision on any call which they connect, both because SS7 will sometimes block audio transmission if the call is not supervised, and because there have been schemes that allow data transmission via CNID without "completing" a call. In any case, not all robodialers are connected to Primary-rate ISDN lines: many use channelized T1 and "in band" signalling, either because they have older equipement, or the local LEC doesn't offer PRI service. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:49:09 -0600 From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers ] Message-ID: <email@example.com> >> The problem is that the calls just keep coming - and coming. >> >> And, IMHO, will continue to do so even if laws are passed (as in >> the USA). >> >> This is from the USA perspective of one who is on both the >> nationwide and state Do-Not-Call lists. >> >> Years ago, when the laws were new, reporting somebody actually >> had an effect and unsolicited calls were rare. I hear you. But every time I get a new telephone number I put it on the Do Not Call list. My phone rarely receives a telemarketing call. I can't even remember when the last time I got one was. It has been so long. My experience is that the national Do Not Call list works very well. I wonder if there is something that you are doing that is getting you put back on their call lists? For example, if you are actively doing business (or have recently done business) with them, the DNC list doesn't apply unless you tell them to put you on their DNC list when they call you. Then they must stop. When they call you, are you saying to them, "Put me on your do not call list"?. If not, you should be. Then the calls should slow down and maybe ultimately stop. Regards, Fred
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:45:56 -0400 From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers ] Message-ID: <email@example.com> Per firstname.lastname@example.org: >But every time I get a new telephone number I put it on the Do Not >Call list. > > My phone rarely receives a telemarketing call. I can't even remember >when the last time I got one was. It has been so long. > > My experience is that the national Do Not Call list works very well. That was exactly my experience until maybe a year ago. Count your blessings. These could be the "good old days"... > I wonder if there is something that you are doing that is getting you >put back on their call lists? I can't think of anything... but that doesn't mean there's nothing. > For example, if you are actively doing business (or have recently >done business) with them, the DNC list doesn't apply unless you tell >them to put you on their DNC list when they call you. Then they must >stop. No active business. None, although I once did have a business at the land line number - but that was 10+ years ago. Still, a few people respond to my "Did you check the DNC list challenge" with "Well, you're on our list of businesses". But that is such a small percent that I don't think of it as significant. But still, I would caution anybody who registers a business that the phone number they supply will effectively be exempted from any DNC list basically forever. > When they call you, are you saying to them, "Put me on your do not >call list"?. If not, you should be. Then the calls should slow down >and maybe ultimately stop. Yes. But, best case, that would only affect a specific solicitor - and it definitely wouldn't help against those robocalls about one's credit card. They're getting really bad. After calling their attention to the fact that this number is on both federal and state DNC lists, I just ask them the questions that the Penna DNC reporting system wants answered - like "What is your name?", "What is your phone number?"... and so-on. Usually they hang up before I get too far. One guy was pretty quick. He interjected "How about the Do Not Care List?" and then hung up. Somebody else observed that, just by answering the phone, one could be increasing the value of a given list just by confirming that somebody is there that answers. Next thing I am going to try is prepending the SIT tones to both my answering machine's and my cell phone's message. -- Pete Cresswell
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:05:13 -0700 (PDT) From: HAncock4 <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Cold call firms flaunt rules that block telemarketers ] Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Jul 3, 1:49 pm, fatkinson.remove-t...@and-this-too.mishmash.com wrote: > But every time I get a new telephone number I put it on the Do Not > Call list. > My phone rarely receives a telemarketing call. I can't even remember > when the last time I got one was. It has been so long. > My experience is that the national Do Not Call list works very well. While I am on both my state and federal list, I still get plenty of telemarketing calls. They are blatantly illegal. They imply they're from a business I've now deal with or have dealt with when in fact they are not. Many of the calls show up as 'out of area' on *69. (see below). Not answering the phone doesn't help. Their machines just keep calling until contact is made. Recently I received a telemarketing call for a service I don't even use, though they claimed I did. I asked for the name and address of the caller. For the name she said "Discount Center", and refused to give out the address "for security reasons". She refused to get a supervisor, then hung up on me. As mentioned, they block their caller-ID. The telco offers a "Call Trace" service (*57), but it costs $5.00 per use and also is emphatically intended for criminal threatening calls only, not telemarketing problems. Some telemarketers claim to be doing a survey--which is legal--but then they turn it into a sales pitch. Someone mentioned VOIP gateways. IMHO, the nation's telephone system has to have better control over who they allow to have such gateways into the telephone network. Unfortunately, legimtiate businesses use this technology, too, and would protest anything that would raise their costs. (as discussed here before). I am dreading this fall when the political organizations and third- party advocacy groups start flooding me with calls. Those kinds of calls are perfectly legal as the law provided an exemption for them. I am going to try to put on an SIT tone on my answering machine message.
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 23:56:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: New State Proposal Grants Access To The Deceased's Email Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> New State Proposal Grants Access To The Deceased's Email http://radioboston.wbur.org/2012/07/02/deceased-email-massachusetts BY DAN MAUZY July 2, 2012 When U.S. Marine Justin Ellsworth was killed in Iraq in 2004, his parents sought to gain access to his Yahoo email account. Yahoo refused, but after a highly-publicized legal battle, the parents were eventually given a copy of their son's digital correspondence. The case cast a light on the fast-growing and often complex world of the digital afterlife. As we conduct more and more of our lives online, much of our legacy will be represented in 0's and 1's. That raises questions about how that legacy will be preserved - if at all - and who will have access to it. Perhaps you have never considered what happens when you sign-off for that very last time. But there's legislation making it's way through Beacon Hill that might make you want to start. A bill that passed the Senate last week would require email providers to grant access to the relatives or representatives of the deceased. Guests: Evan Carroll, co-author of "Your Digital Afterlife: When Facebook, Flickr and Twitter Are Your Estate, What's Your Legacy?" Listen http://soundcloud.com/radioboston/new-state-proposal-grants Download http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/51578049/download?client_id=0f8fdbbaa21a9bd18210986a7dc2d72c
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 13:09:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Joseph Singer <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: How a century of telephone expertise doomed Ericsson Message-ID: <1341432590.88001.YahooMailClassic@web161506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> The mobile phone industry is used to vendors flaming out, sometimes just a couple of years after companies peak. Yet few handset companies have self-destructed as spectacularly as Ericsson -- particularly considering its pedigree in telephony. During the summer of 1997, Ericsson spent a few months as the No.1 mobile phone brand in the world, buoyed by the early success of its brand new miniature phone called the 788. Ericsson's global market share briefly spiked to 27% around the same time Motorola's long decline finally cost the company its global leadership position. Nokia was rapidly gaining ground, but had not yet pulled decisively ahead of its two main rivals. For a brief moment, it looked like Ericsson might be able to retain its position as the world's No.1 mobile phone brand. Yet just four years later, Ericsson was forced into a merger with Sony's handset unit. http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/03/ericsson-implosion-century-telephone-expertise/-or- http://goo.gl/VELAJ
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:23:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Joseph Singer <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Value of Facebook Message-ID: <1341422638.22908.YahooMailClassic@web161501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> The moderator of CDT/Telecom digest opined: > Jill Duffy's comments for PC Magazine (third link, above) make me > want to shout "FINALLY"! It seems that I'm not the only person who > is questioning the (dubious) value of FaceTube. As always, it's one person's opinion of what is or what is not valuable to an individual. If Facebook was deemed to be not worth much they wouldn't have over a half-billion subscribers. If you've been paying any attention to what's been going on in the world you'd see that Facebook (and Twitter) have helped in many people's struggles dealing with repressive governments among other things. Just because one person doesn't think that something is useful doesn't mean someone else doesn't hold to that opinion. Something else to consider too is what generation you identify with. People over a certain age do things or think of things differently on a host of different things. Ob telecom: many young people don't use the phone much at all for voice calls any longer and use either text or some on line way to communicate. This may be a foreign concept to people of a different generation. That's not to say that Facebook hasn't done some pretty boneheaded moves and all those moves seem to do is to rile up their subscribers. It seems as if Facebook is constantly looking for ways to annoy its users. :) Then again, it seems as if all companies do something similar. If something works they feel they have to mess with it and "make it better" even if "better" is sometimes worse than what they started with.
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 00:20:12 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Fiber Is the Key to U.S. Telecom Diet Message-ID: <email@example.com> Fiber Is the Key to U.S. Telecom Diet By Susan Crawford 07.04.12 Wired It's big news that a 68-year-old bus monitor has been gifted more than half a million dollars by the People of the Internet. The online headlines are full of the Obama-Romney tussle, even though we have months to go before the election itself. Meanwhile, an extraordinary story that will actually have an impact on the day-to-day lives of tens of millions of Americans is rolling efficiently forward in dozens of state legislatures. And neither mainstream media nor the public is paying much attention. The National Regulatory Review Institute reported earlier this month that between January 2010 and April 2012 intense industry lobbying had resulted in passage of laws removing or reducing oversight of telecommunications providers in 20 states. It's a deregulatory tsunami. So many state bills are pending that it's hard to keep up: 14 more states are now considering legislation, and new bills are likely before the end of the year in several other places. In Michigan, a local phone company no longer has to provide wired service and is no longer subject to any quality-of-service requirements or rate regulation. A carrier in that state doesn't have to build lines to any household if it doesn't want to, and can stop selling services to you if you just want a phone line. Although every state is slightly different, and some states have hung on to the authority to require lines to all of their inhabitants, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin have also passed flavors of deregulatory bills. ... http://www.wired.com/business/2012/07/telecom-regs/
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.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
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) 2012 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.