30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for April 2, 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: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 00:43:13 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Police Are Using Phone Tracking as a Routine Tool Message-ID: <email@example.com> Police Are Using Phone Tracking as a Routine Tool By ERIC LICHTBLAU March 31, 2012 WASHINGTON - Law enforcement tracking of cellphones, once the province mainly of federal agents, has become a powerful and widely used surveillance tool for local police officials, with hundreds of departments, large and small, often using it aggressively with little or no court oversight, documents show. The practice has become big business for cellphone companies, too, with a handful of carriers marketing a catalog of "surveillance fees" to police departments to determine a suspect's location, trace phone calls and texts or provide other services. Some departments log dozens of traces a month for both emergencies and routine investigations. With cellphones ubiquitous, the police [say that] phone tracing [is] a valuable weapon in emergencies like child abductions, suicide calls, and investigations in drug cases and murders. One police training manual describes cellphones as "the virtual biographer of our daily activities," providing a hunting ground for learning contacts and travels. But civil liberties advocates say the wider use of cell tracking raises legal and constitutional questions, particularly when the police act without judicial orders. While many departments require warrants to use phone tracking in nonemergencies, others claim broad discretion to get the records on their own, according to 5,500 pages of internal records obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union from 205 police departments nationwide. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us/police-tracking-of-cellphones-raises-privacy-fears.html -or- http://goo.gl/M27XD
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 15:23:24 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Q.: Credo mobile: who are they? Message-ID: <email@example.com> Postal flier reached me yesterday, from "Credo mobile", seemingly a MVNO reselling Sprint wireless service, and portraying itself as anti-tea-party in keeping with its activist-oriented sales hook. Who -- or what -- are they, really? In league with Working Assets? Other? TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:55:23 -0500 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Bonomi) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Verizon, at&t agree to stop 'cramming' on customers' bills Message-ID: <ZdSdnWHx5oH25-XSnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <HYmdnfn4T7pkrevSnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@earthlink.com>, r.e.d. <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >Regarding this posting and linked article, I have always wondered about >this: > >From: "HAncock4" <email@example.com> >> >> MSNBC reported: >> "Verizon and AT&T have agreed to stop "cramming" consumers' telephone >> bills with unauthorized third-party charges, Sen. Jay Rockefeller >> announced Wednesday. > >[Moderator snip] > > >Is there expertise in the newsgroup readership as to how cramming >works, technically? I gather it's not like billing for carrier >interconnection (not that I understand that, either). The 'simplest' how-it-works explanation is that a 3rd-party service provider sends the telephone company a list of phone numbers, and the amounts to be billed against those accounts. The telco gives the provider that money (less a 'service fee', for doing the billing/collection) and bills the telco subscriber 'as directed'. If the subscriber disputes the charge, there is a 'chargeback' mechanism, but things get really messy. Historically, there is a LONG_STANDING industry practice of letting 'select' third parties bill through your telephone bill for the services of that third party. I'm not sure when 'Ma Bell' and Western Union came to the 'special agreement' whereby you could phone the local Western Union office, dictate a telegram, and have it billed to your telephone account. WU was one of a very small number -- possibly the only one -- of 'outside' providers with this special billing arrangement. Ma Bell also offered some 'specialty' on-demand services that could be billed on the phone bill -- conference-call bridges, translation, transcription services, and the like. Comes the 'divestiture' boondoggle, and it was ruled that (a) 'Ma Bell', in it's "regulated" operations, could NO offer such 'enhanced' services, and (b) the 'regulated' side had to provide 'equal access' to competitors of the telco's 'unregulated' service offerings. Since the telco 'unregulated' division could bill on the phone bill, it was held that 3rd-party providers also had to be given that capability. In the early days, the mechanics of the process were that the 3rd-party services provider wrote a computer tape with the billing info, and sent it to the telco's processing center. Also in those early days, the situation was rife with fraud and large- scale scams, with the telco caught in the middle. They had already paid the scammer, and couldn't recover the money paid out, so (oddly enough) were very reluctant to 'refund' those bogus charges to their subscriber. Telcos could, and did, disconnect your service if you failed to pay those 3rd-party charges. It took several rounds of revisions to the relevant regulations to get the situation 'mostly' under control. Today, 3rd-paty billers don't get any money until the subscriber pays the 'phone bill', in full. In addition, telcos cannot disconnect, or pursue 'collection', over disputed 3rd-party charges; they are just bounced back to the originator, who has to do all the collection/enforcement themselves. And, I believe, significant restrictions were imposed on 'who' can now do such billing. It may involve posting 'substantial' surety bonds, and/or have an 'established' business record (which would eliminate the newly- established 'fly by night' operators). I think the 3rd-party biller must also, now, have explicit written consent from the telco subscriber, a -signed- document specifying the nature and amount of the charges that are 'authorized'.
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.