31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for June 21, 2013
====== 31 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: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 02:02:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Number, Please! Comment Deadlines Set in Telephone Numbering Proceeding Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Posted on June 19, 2013 by FHH Law > In April we reported on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and > Notice of Inquiry (NPRM/NOI) in which the FCC has proposed > changes in how telephone numbers are obtained by certain types > of providers. The ultimate upshot of the Commission's > proceeding could eventually mean serious changes in what we > understand a telephone number to represent. The NPRM/NOI has > now been published in the Federal Register, which (as loyal > readers should know by now) sets the deadlines for comments > and reply comments. Anyone interested in commenting has until > July 19, 2013; reply comments are due by August 19. Source: http://tinyurl.com/jvo87sb Neal McLain
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:29:32 -0700 (PDT) From: HAncock4 <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: History--1968 telephone credit card verification Message-ID: <email@example.com> An article in the August 1968 Computers & Automation describes using a card-dialer telephone to verify credit card transactions. (Note that in the 1970s AT&T developed a special telephone set and corresponding network specifically to give economical fast credit card verification. It was not necessary to dial up each time a verification was needed, but the cost was far less than a normal private line. However, I don't think the system found wide acceptance.) "WAR ON CREDIT CARD FRAUD ASSISTED BY COMPUTER At American Express Credit Card Division headquarters in New York, a computer is combating fraudulent and abusive use of credit cards by automatically answering telephone inquiries from airlines restaurants, hotels, shops, and other businesses. An IBM System/360 Model 40 computer 'remembers' details on over two million credit card accounts - including account numbers of lost, stolen and cancelled cards - and can supply information on a specific account in seconds. Under this new systern, when credit authorization is required or desirabIe, the firm contacts the computer in New York by means of a Touch-Tone Card Dialer telephone. An employee first inserts special dialing cards which signal the computer and identify his place of business. Then, using the push buttons on the phone, he transmits the credit card account number and the amount of the transaction. The computer either gives verbal credit approval immediately or, in doubtful cases, transfers the call to a "credit authorizer," at the same time displaying the account record for him on a display screen. The new system protects the cardmember, the business establishment and the Company. In addition to being a major weapon against fraud, the new system gives American Express much better control over delinquent accounts. Businesses which do not have the Card Dialer phones installed can relay their queries to the computer through an American Express telephone operator." http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/computersAndAutomation/196808.pdf this issue also has ads from Digital for their PDP-9 and PDP-10 systems; There is an article on computer communications and time sharing: "Some strong arguments why the requirements of most on-line commercial (and military) computer applications can best be satisfied with a communications data processing system rather than a time-shared system." pg 34.
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:50:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Telegram not dead. Stop. Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Despite end of India's national telegraph service, telegraphy lives on. by Sean Gallagher, Ars Technica, June 19 2013, 9:38am CST > The Christian Science Monitor recently reported what many > people may have assumed had already happened years ago: the > death of the telegram. With the pending closure of Indian > national telecommunications company Bharat Sanchar Nigam > Limited's telegraph service offices, the Monitor reported > that "the world's last telegram message will be sent > somewhere in India on July 14." > > But news of the death of the telegram has been greatly > exaggerated. "Somehow they got the impression that this meant > the end of telegrams worldwide," Colin Stone, Director of > Operations for International Telegram, a telegraphy service > based in Canada, said in a phone conversation with Ars. "We'll > still offer services in India, even though the state-run > service is closing." Continued: http://tinyurl.com/kputz6w The Monitor has since posted the following clarification on its website: > Editor's Note: The original story incorrectly heralded the > worldwide demise of the telegram. In fact, some telegram > services live on, including an international telegram service > that will continue to operate in India even as the state-run > service is shutting down.) Continued: http://tinyurl.com/o4efy6x Neal McLain
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:26:30 -0500 From: Dave Garland <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Access Recovery Charge Message-ID: <email@example.com> Having just received a bill in which CenturyLink (motto: "proving Qwest wasn't so bad after all") raises my Access Recovery Charge, I started to wonder. The bill says the charges are "to recover costs of providing access to the telephone network". Since I do not receive any telephone service from CenturyLink (only DSL, a non-regulated service), or the "telephone network" (aside from the copper from my house back to the pedestal 2 blocks away) should I be subject to this charge? Google finds FCC filings and rulings regarding the Access Recovery Charge, so is this actually a federally regulated thing (and not just another BS "extra charge for being alive")? And if so, should I be charged it, since I'm not using the switched telephone network?
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) 2013 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.