30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for February 18, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 46 : "text" Format
====== 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
owner.
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: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:12:20 -0500
From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls".
Message-ID: <rtnsj71hvr2co7nfsdu09rlqibn54j2shc@4ax.com>
They reported that on ABC nightly news last nite and my reactions
were:
- "What a load of crap! Don't these news people even bother to
look into the stuff they're reporting?"
i.e. Call centers going offshore and using VOIP with multiple
relays to become totally immune to No-Call List prosecution.
- Typical Washington legislative activity: do something that
gives people a warm fuzzy in a sound byte, but has virtually
no substance.
--
Pete Cresswell
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:24:30 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls"
Message-ID: <20120217152430.GA13583@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 09:12:20AM -0500, Pete Cresswell wrote:
> They reported that on ABC nightly news last nite and my reactions
> were:
>
> - "What a load of crap! Don't these news people even bother to
> look into the stuff they're reporting?"
They're not "news people". They are performers, reading from a script
that someone else wrote while concentrating on looking sincere and
trustworthy. Their only marketable skill is that they look good on
television.
--
Bill Horne
"This is not what I expected
I did not expect to feel this good
I always kept my heart protected
I crossed my fingers and I knocked on wood"
- John Gorka
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:12:43 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls"
Message-ID: <jhm5ar$1ka1$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <20120217152430.GA13583@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>They're not "news people". They are performers, reading from a script
>that someone else wrote while concentrating on looking sincere and
>trustworthy. Their only marketable skill is that they look good on
>television.
A few moments' investigation would make it abundantly clear that this
is not true. (I assume you weren't intending to libel any particular
ABC News reporter, just television reporters in general.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.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
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:16:33 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls".
Message-ID: <jhm5i1$1ka1$2@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <rtnsj71hvr2co7nfsdu09rlqibn54j2shc@4ax.com>,
Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> i.e. Call centers going offshore and using VOIP with multiple
> relays to become totally immune to No-Call List prosecution.
Again: if they are calling Americans, then they are working for
someone who does business in the United States and is within reach of
the Federal courts. They don't annoy people for the fun of it: they
actually reap some economic benefit from doing so, and the people who
pay them must in turn be engaging in some sort of economic activity
with the people they are soliciting, which places them (even if they
are not U.S. nationals) under the jurisdiction of U.S. law.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.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
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:38:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls".
Message-ID: <Xns9FFCBD910EA77Senex@88.198.244.100>
wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote in
news:jhm5i1$1ka1$2@grapevine.csail.mit.edu:
> In article <rtnsj71hvr2co7nfsdu09rlqibn54j2shc@4ax.com>,
> Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>
>> i.e. Call centers going offshore and using VOIP with multiple
>> relays to become totally immune to No-Call List prosecution.
>
> Again: if they are calling Americans, then they are working for
> someone who does business in the United States and is within reach
> of the Federal courts. They don't annoy people for the fun of it:
> they actually reap some economic benefit from doing so, and the
> people who pay them must in turn be engaging in some sort of
> economic activity with the people they are soliciting, which
> places them (even if they are not U.S. nationals) under the
> jurisdiction of U.S. law.
>
> -GAWollman
To make enforcement and reporting easier and more efficient, we need a
vertical service code which would work similarly to *57, which could
be dialed after receiving such a call. Giving details and followup
might be by AVR right after dialing the code, or through a web site at
some time afterwards.
--
Paul
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:03:09 -0500
From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls".
Message-ID: <p1ntj7t5gjmops8j1t4idvqk46g0kj4s64@4ax.com>
Per Garrett Wollman:
>Again: if they are calling Americans, then they are working for
>someone who does business in the United States and is within reach of
>the Federal courts. They don't annoy people for the fun of it: they
>actually reap some economic benefit from doing so, and the people who
>pay them must in turn be engaging in some sort of economic activity
>with the people they are soliciting, which places them (even if they
>are not U.S. nationals) under the jurisdiction of U.S. law.
The logic sounds unassailable - but the practice seems to be that
nobody's getting prosecuted anymore.
If my scanner hadn't bitten the big one months ago, I'd scan and
post a couple of the lame letters I've been getting from the
Pennsylvania Attorney General's office - basically denying any
more responsibility for enforcing the Penna Do-Not-Call List.
--
Pete Cresswell
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:17:37 -0500
From: Reed <reedh@rmi.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: LD carrier, what's that?
Message-ID: <dfidnXn1_5vDSKDSnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
On 2/16/12 3:23 PM, David Lesher wrote:
> For years, I used "usadatanet" as my LD carrier. It was not FGD; rather,
> you called a local POP, it answered& knew you from ANI/CID; you dialed
> 10D. The advantage was there were no monthly fees and no minimums; so it
> was ideal for my very minumum usage.
>
> A telecommuting friend also used it as his employer got the
> bill...not him.
>
> Somehow it morphed into "Spot" and he has continued to use
> it. (I now have other options.) But he got a message they are
> dropping service in DC and several other states; no idea why.
>
> Are there any carriers left out there without big
> minimums/monthly fees....? I'll listen for pins dropping in
> response.
If you are OK with "prepaid", check out
http://www.onesuite.com/
no min, no monthly
Local & 800 access
Int'l rates cheaper sometimes than US
Int'l access #s for calls back to US
same CID recognition + you can assign other #s as needed
speed dial etc etc
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:23:43 -0500
From: Arnie Goetchius <arnie.goetchius@nogood.dummy>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work?
Message-ID: <jhlkcr$b50$1@dont-email.me>
My daughter moved about 10 miles from Houston city to the suburbs. She
arranged to have her business line (713-467-xxxx)"trunked" to a
residential line (281-496-yyyy) in Houston suburbs. The service provider
is AT&T. The central switching office handling 713-467-xxxx is HSTNTXHODSO
and the one handling 281-496-yyyy is HSTNTXBUDSO. Both offices are 5ESS.
She no longer has access to the premises where the original 713-467 line
was located as someone else lives there now. She has used the 713-467-xxxx
number in the business for many years and wants to keep that number for
the convenience of existing customers.
Questions:
1. Is the 713-467-xxxx really "trunked" (term used by AT&T customer
service) or is this some kind of Fixed Call Forwarding? She would like to
have the ability to change the receiving number from 281-496-yyyy to
another number, e.g a cell phone at will. In other words, is there a way
for her to change the receiving number through computer access or
otherwise to any number she wants at any time or is this fixed and can't
be changed except by service order?
2. She wants to be able to tell if the call coming in on 281-496-yyyy
originated from the 713 business line or is a personal call directly to
the 281 number. Can she have a Personal Ring code on the 713 number so
that when a call is placed to 713-467-xxxx and then rings at 281-496-yyyy,
the Personal Ring will transfer to the 281 number?
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:29:17 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work?
Message-ID: <20120217162917.GB13583@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 08:23:43AM -0500, Arnie Goetchius wrote:
> My daughter moved about 10 miles from Houston city to the suburbs. She
> arranged to have her business line (713-467-xxxx)"trunked" to a
> residential line (281-496-yyyy) in Houston suburbs. The service provider
> is AT&T. The central switching office handling 713-467-xxxx is HSTNTXHODSO
> and the one handling 281-496-yyyy is HSTNTXBUDSO. Both offices are 5ESS.
[snip]
> Questions:
>
> 1. Is the 713-467-xxxx really "trunked" (term used by AT&T customer
> service) or is this some kind of Fixed Call Forwarding? She would like to
> have the ability to change the receiving number from 281-496-yyyy to
> another number, e.g a cell phone at will. In other words, is there a way
> for her to change the receiving number through computer access or
> otherwise to any number she wants at any time or is this fixed and can't
> be changed except by service order?
It's almost certainly a "Remote Call Forwarding" service, which means
the HSTNTXHODS0 office is re-routing calls that were intended for the
713-467-xxxx number as if they were originally dialed to the
281-496-yyyy line. It's a fixed translation in the HSTNTXHODS0 office,
and a service order is needed to change it AFAIK.
She can install call forwarding on the 281-496 number, and forward
calls to the desired destination. Some LEC companies offer "Follow
Me" service, which enables customers to change the "forward to" number
from a separate location, but that's not very common, so she'd have to
re-route calls before leaving home, and could only change the
forward-to number after she got back.
Google Voice and other alternative service providers will sell her
service that rings different destination numbers in sequence, i.e., if
281-496-yyyy doesn't answer, Google Voice could then ring
281-555-4444, then 281-555-6666, etc. Of course, if one of the numbers
in that chain has voice mail service or an answering machine on the
line, then the call will be "delivered" to that number.
> 2. She wants to be able to tell if the call coming in on 281-496-yyyy
> originated from the 713 business line or is a personal call directly to
> the 281 number. Can she have a Personal Ring code on the 713 number so
> that when a call is placed to 713-467-xxxx and then rings at 281-496-yyyy,
> the Personal Ring will transfer to the 281 number?
If the service is offered in the HSTNTXBUDSO office, she can order
"RingMate" (it might be called something else in your area) service,
which will assign a second phone number to the 281-496-yyyy line, and
provide a distinctive ringing code when the new number is
dialed. For example, if her current number is 281-496-1234, she could
have 281-496-2345 added to the line, and calls made to the -2345
number would have a distinctive ringing code.
If this sounds familiar, it's because it is: RingMate is just another
name for party line service, which allowed multiple families to share
the same overhead wire when copper was in short supply. The only
difference is that both numbers terminate at the same location, namely
your daughter's house.
Of course, after getting the new number installed, she'll have to have
the Remote Call Forwarding service on the 713-467 number changed so
that it points to her new home number. She might find it more
convenient to simply installs a second phone line, since that will
provide for a separate bill for her "business" calls.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:00:06 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: TomTom GPS watches you drive, sets your insurance rate accordingly
Message-ID: <jhlq1o$cc6$1@dont-email.me>
On 2/16/2012 8:52 AM, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
> TomTom GPS watches you drive, sets your insurance rate accordingly
>
> By Bill Howard
> February 10, 2012
>
> The next portable navigation device on your dash could watch your
> driving habits and provide you with a lower insurance rate, but it
> could also rat you out (too fast! too hard on the brakes!) and have
> you paying more. The next step in usage-based insurance comes
> courtesy of Dutch firm TomTom and UK insurer Motaquote, who are
> teaming to offer a form of Carrot-and-Stick Auto Insurance. That's
> not the real title but it's close enough because it penalizes
> aggressive drivers at the same time it rewards good ones. TomTom's
> technology can be viewed as Big Brother (if you're paranoid) while it
> could be a godsend for good drivers or for those that really need
> low-cost insurance and are willing to reprogram their driving habits
> to get it.
>
>
> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/117889-tomtom-watches-you-drive-insurance-rate
>
On first glance, it seems like a good idea. But then, I thought about
all the times that I exceeded the speed limit and I jammed on the
brakes due to a momentary lapse of attention and I drove on roads that
were officially "closed" for construction.
Insurance clerks love fine print, and their ultimate weapon is shame.
Does your policy include exceptions for closed roads, speeding, or
distracted driving? Could YOU fight a large company that denied you
coverage because TomTom said you were speeding two minutes before an
accident, or driving on a closed road?
I think I'll pass on this "benefit" of technology.
--
Bill Horne
"I'm from New Jersey
I don't expect too much
If the world ended today
I would adjust"
- John Gorka
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.
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.
End of The Telecom Digest (10 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues