31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for January 24, 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: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:19:11 -0600 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Bonomi) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: "Rachel" in the funny papers Message-ID: <3LidnfOFZuRyE2LNnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <xsmdnT2yAsHeQWPNnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@megapath.net>, Hal Murray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >In article <email@example.com>, > "John Levine" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >>> If law enforcement were serious about this, there'd be no need to >>>trace the call. The whole scheme is futile unless the scammer gets >>>paid. Therefore, all that's needed is to follow the money. >> >>The FTC, who are not entirely stupid, have done quite a lot of this, >>and put a lot of them out of business. >> >>Unfortunately, as someone else noted, "Rachel" isn't one person or one >>gang, but a whole lot of them who've bought the package. > >Is selling the package legal? legal where? that is the question. In the U.S., it is possible, albeit unlikely, for it to be used legally. Now, IF they market it, where they promote/suggest/recommend using it in a manner that is illegal in the jurisdiction where it is sold/used, they could be charged with 'aiding and abetting' and/or 'accomplice before the fact' and/or 'conspiracy'.
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:05:07 -0600 From: Jim Haynes <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: "Rachel" in the funny papers Message-ID: <slrnkg0nkj.2nl.jhaynes@Frances.localdomain> In any case it's hard to fathom the stupidity of the company in wasting its efforts calling people who don't want to be called. Surely the success rate of such calls approaches zero. Seems like their success rate would improve dramatically if they obeyed the do-not-call list. Albeit what they are selling is a scam.
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:09:02 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: "Rachel" in the funny papers Message-ID: <20130123230902.GB14124@telecom.csail.mit.edu> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 04:05:07PM -0600, Jim Haynes wrote: > In any case it's hard to fathom the stupidity of the company in wasting its > efforts calling people who don't want to be called. Surely the success rate > of such calls approaches zero. Seems like their success rate would > improve dramatically if they obeyed the do-not-call list. Albeit what > they are selling is a scam. There are several reasons that Rachel and friends might ignore the DNC: 1. They may not be able to check it: I don't know anything about the software Rachel runs on, but I think it robo-dials at random, and it may be coded to do only that. 2. The DNC, from what I've heard, was successful beyond anyone's expectations, and was therefore an unexpected barrier to Rachel's developers. They may have decided to ignore the DNC as a matter of expedience just to get their software "out the door". 3. I suspect that DNC entries are made by a single "techie" family member in most homes, and other family members might be unaware they even have the protection, so Rachel might have decided to go after them just to up her averages. As things stand now, there is no effective way to prevent Rachel from violating the DNC, since enforcement depends on civil, not criminal, action by the FTC or the persons who are being called. Moreover, there's no mechanism to enforce the list by electronic means: there's no way to classify originating calls so as to divide them by "unsolicited" vs. "existing relationship" status. The SS7 system has no bits assigned for information of this sort, and introducing them would be a major modification to the telephone signalling network. In addition, and this does need to be said, legislators are reluctant to restrict any commercial activity during the current depression. As repugnant as Rachel's franchisees may be, they are generating money for someone, and that's not something that an elected official wants to look at too closely. Bill -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:26:27 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: "Rachel" in the funny papers Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> In <20130123230902.GB14124@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> writes: >As things stand now, there is no effective way to prevent Rachel from >violating the DNC, since enforcement depends on civil, not criminal, >action by the FTC or the persons who are being called. I call bull***t. If the Feds actually cared about this there are huge numbers of laws that "Rachel" is breaking, way above and beyond the Do Not Call list. Wire fraud, lying to law enforcement, money laundering, and a dozen others before breakfast. Martha Stewart went to jail for a lot less. -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key email@example.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:10:01 -0800 (PST) From: HAncock4 <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: "Rachel" in the funny papers Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Jan 23, 6:26 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote: > >As things stand now, there is no effective way to prevent Rachel from > >violating the DNC, since enforcement depends on civil, not criminal, > >action by the FTC or the persons who are being called. > I call bull***t. If the Feds actually cared about this there > are huge numbers of laws that "Rachel" is breaking, way above > and beyond the Do Not Call list. > Wire fraud, lying to law enforcement, money laundering, and > a dozen others before breakfast. > Martha Stewart went to jail for a lot less. Agreed. First, the Feds could (and should) order regulations to stop callers from entering the network with inadequate or erroneous identification; so that Caller ID and Call Trace would work properly to identify them. Secondly, the Feds should start acting on reports of abuse. Third, in the cases where the illegal activity originates overseas, there still is some way payment from this country gets to the crooks elsewhere. The Feds should investigate and control those weakspots in international payments. Some of the solutions might take some creative legal work and reprogramming and rethinking of telephone network protocols. But this should not be that hard to do.
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:32:08 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Even if It Enrages Your Boss, Social Net Speech Is Protected Message-ID: <email@example.com> Even if It Enrages Your Boss, Social Net Speech Is Protected By STEVEN GREENHOUSE January 21, 2013 As Facebook and Twitter become as central to workplace conversation as the company cafeteria, federal regulators are ordering employers to scale back policies that limit what workers can say online. Employers often seek to discourage comments that paint them in a negative light. Don't discuss company matters publicly, a typical social media policy will say, and don't disparage managers, co-workers or the company itself. Violations can be a firing offense. But in a series of recent rulings and advisories, labor regulators have declared many such blanket restrictions illegal. The National Labor Relations Board says workers have a right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution, whether the discussion takes place at the office or on Facebook. In addition to ordering the reinstatement of various workers fired for their posts on social networks, the agency has pushed companies nationwide, including giants like General Motors, Target and Costco, to rewrite their social media rules. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/technology/employers-social-media-policies-come-under-regulatory-scrutiny.html ***** Moderator's Note ***** This is a two-edged sword. While employees may have a right to complain, I don't think they have a right to do it on company time. That means that companies which used to allow FaceTwiTube posts over the corporate network will now be more likely to block the traffic, and I'm not sure that's a "net gain" for the labor movement. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:14:11 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: MIT hacked again, URLs redirected Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> MIT hacked again, URLs redirected By Joanna Kao January 22, 2013 The Tech MIT was hacked on Tuesday around noon, with MIT URLs redirecting to a webpage claiming credit for the attack in remembrance of Aaron Swartz. As a result of the hack, people who visited tried to reach MIT over the Internet were redirected to the hacked Web page pictured here: http://goo.gl/kxdm1 . The hack affected all names under mit.edu, including web.mit.edu, tech.mit.edu, etc. The hack and subsequent outages were due to a compromise at EDUCAUSE, the registrar that provides information on all .EDU names. A registrar, which allows users to purchase domain names, also specifies the domain name system (DNS) servers for a domain, which convert domain names to IP addresses - needed to actually load the page. ... http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N62/hack.html ***** Moderator's Note ***** It's not yet clear if the Telecom Digest lost any email submissions: if you sent something in yesterday, and you don't see it published within the next week, please email me with a "[nfp]" tag in the email Subject. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:18:01 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Atlantic Tele-Network sells off rural carrier to AT&T Message-ID: <email@example.com> Atlantic Tele-Network sells off rural carrier to AT&T Nearly three years after Atlantic Tele-Network Inc. acquired rural cellphone carrier Alltel for $200 million, the Beverly-based company is cashing in, selling Alltel to wireless giant AT&T Inc. for $780 million in cash. "We are pleased with today's outcome, which represents a strong return on our investment," said Atlantic chief executive Michael Prior. http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/01/23/atlantic-tele-network-cashes-alltel/sUY3HdASoXdjoTjAhd5pWO/story.html?s_campaign=8315 -or- http://goo.gl/Dp14s
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.