31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for July 30, 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: 29 Jul 2013 08:34:02 -0000 From: "John Levine" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Verizon telemarketers violating laws? Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> >I get very few if any telemarketer calls on my cell phone. Probably >because I call block the really egregious stuff and block a lot of >800/888/877 numbers. You're just lucky. I get tons of junk calls on my cell phone, clearly because it is on sucker lists that junk callers trade. I've never given them anything more than instructing them to take me off their list and then die, so I can only imagine what the previous holder of the number did.
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:13:33 -0600 From: Fred Atkinson <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Verizon telemarketers violating laws? Message-ID: <A320EB7A-8D2D-486B-9170-3EADD85B8ABC@mishmash.com> On Jul 29, 2013, at 2:34 AM, "John Levine" <email@example.com> wrote: >> I get very few if any telemarketer calls on my cell phone. Probably >> because I call block the really egregious stuff and block a lot of >> 800/888/877 numbers. > > You're just lucky. I get tons of junk calls on my cell phone, clearly > because it is on sucker lists that junk callers trade. > > I've never given them anything more than instructing them to take me > off their list and then die, so I can only imagine what the previous > holder of the number did. I very seldom get telemarketing calls. In fact, I cannot remember getting one in the last few years. I have had my numbers on the national DNC list for a very long time. I rarely get survey calls either. When I have, I simply tell them that I do not do surveys and please do not waste their time or mine by calling me again. For me, it works. When I hear all of this crying about it not working, I wonder what people are doing to compromise their privacy. Regards, Fred
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:03:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Google Said to Weigh Supplying TV Channels Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Sunday, July 28, 2013 1:00:29 PM UTC-5, T wrote: > In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > > >> If Google has its way, you might someday get cable television the > > >> same way you get Gmail: through any ordinary Internet connection. > > >> > > >Er - how many of us get our internet connection from our cable company? > > >IIRC naked internet isn't a very attractive buy. > > > > Remember that Google is building its own fiber to the home network in > > Kansas City and other cities. That makes it a lot more interesting > > than it is here in T-W land. > > > > At least we can get IPv6. > > I so hope Google jumps into other cities, particularly on the east > coast. I'd love to see Cox and Verizon with a viable competitor like > Google. Competitor in which market? Internet access or video? If you're discussing HSI, then I agree: Google has the advantage in speed. If you're discussing video, then please explain how you think Google could be a "viable competitor" to Cox and Verizon. Are you raising the "a-la-carte" issue again? If so, please see previous discussions about this subject at http://tinyurl.com/kf7u6xq and http://tinyurl.com/ms344lm . > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I doubt they'll be able to. The existing LEC's, and the cable co's, > have been busy locking up every available right-of-way for years. > Bill Horne > Moderator Huh? How does one "lock up" right-of-way? I agree that every new competitor has a more difficult time getting pole space for overhead plant than previous occupants faced. At some point, pole space on every pole reaches legal capacity as additional facilities are added. Of course, if a pole were replaced at a previous occupant's request (at the previous occupant's cost of course) then there might be plenty of space. I agree that every new competitor has a more difficult time getting clear space for underground plant. Every buried cable within a strip of ground makes it more difficult for the next company to add another cable without damaging existing cables. This is especially true in older established neighborhoods where any attempt to bury anything has to deal with whatever is on the surface. See my previous posts at http://tinyurl.com/pkujr3c and http://tinyurl.com/m7h9jp5 . I agree that every new competitor may have a more difficult time getting a legal right to utilize existing rights-of-way. Landowners (local franchise authorities, private property owners, government agencies, railroad companies) have legitimate reasons for resisting additional facilities in their rights-of-way (traffic disruption; surface damage; appearance; possible damage to existing facilities). Even the most sanctimonious "we need competition for our greedy cable company" homeowner may have second thoughts when a construction crew arrives in his/her back yard. All of these situations make it more difficult for the next guy (Google or anybody else) to add new facilities to existing ROWs. But I don't see how that justifies the claim that an existing LEC or CATV is attempting to "lock up" the ROW. Neal McLain
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:59:38 -0400 From: T <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: MetroPCS 4G Service Issues Message-ID: <MPG.email@example.com> So this past week my Samsung SCH-R910 started exhibiting odd behavior. Voice calls would not work. But SMS and net services all worked just fine. Finally a few hours later the phone started working again and SMS and net services too. Then I get one of Metro's sneak voicemails saying I should bring my phone in for a firmware upgrade. It went from v2.2.1 to v2.2.2. Now knowing what firmware is, they upgraded the RF chip software. Now the phone and SMS work but no 4G service whatsoever from the very same location. It appears they did some upgrade to the network that crippled voice service, then rolled it back because they realized all the smart phones had to have their firmware upgraded. Then since I had the v2.2.2 firmware applied - no 4G service because we're now on the older software load on the infrastructure. Been round and round with support on this - they're useles. I'm going back to the store on Monday or Tuesday and telling them either back the firmware patch on my phone off, or give me a new phone that works with ALL the services I'm paying for. The reason this irritates me is that I use the net services on the phone far more than I use voice service. But this is indicative of a bigger problem. The cell carriers aren't regulated like the old wired phone networks were. But I think it's time the FCC steps in and starts regulating the hell out of them so stupid stuff like this doesn't happen anymore.
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:26:03 -0500 From: Frank Stearns <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Verizon telemarketers violating laws? Message-ID: <PdidnT1dkaJWfWjMnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> writes: snip >With an electronic butler guarding your phone line, and demanding a >security code that they don't have and can't guess in time, their >paradigm will, finally, be broken. Bill - Do you have any current brands to suggest? Several months back I found an entire line that looked promising only to find that the company had gone out of business, as had several others with similar offerings (perhaps they were all sourcing the same machines from China and the that shop went under). Or, maybe the telemarketers and buying and killing these manufacturers.. Thanks, Frank -- .
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:55:34 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Verizon telemarketers violating laws? Message-ID: <20130729115534.GA32587@telecom.csail.mit.edu> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 10:26:03PM -0500, Frank Stearns wrote: > Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> writes: > > >With an electronic butler guarding your phone line, and demanding a > >security code that they don't have and can't guess in time, their > >paradigm will, finally, be broken. > > Do you have any current brands to suggest? Several months back I found an entire > line that looked promising only to find that the company had gone out of business, > as had several others with similar offerings (perhaps they were all sourcing the > same machines from China and the that shop went under). Or, maybe the telemarketers > and buying and killing these manufacturers.. (I originally read your last sentence as "bullying and killing", but I don't think we're at that stage yet. ;-) ) I don't have any manufacturers in mind: my device is also "MD", and I have been thinking about getting a low-end Asterisk PBX, but I've been busy with work and have had to make do with the usual answering machine. Bill -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly) We can sit and dry just as long as it can pour 'cause the way it makes you look makes me hope it rains some more - John Sebastian
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.