32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for November 26, 2013
====== 32 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: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:01:23 -0500 From: Fred Goldstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Introducing 844 Toll Free Numbers Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On 11/24/2013 12:30 PM, John Levine wrote: >> So, it must be fairly cheap to sit on a number, and many companies are >> doing so for unknown reasons to me, other than they are a resource, >> maybe holding things until the right set of circumstances. > > It's extremely cheap. My 800 number costs me $1/mo retail, and I know > that's far from the lowest price. We have practically no traffic, but > I hold onto it because it spells my wife's name. > > I share your impression that there must be a market in toll-free > numbers somewhere, but I have no idea where to find it. Somewhere I saw it mentioned that there is one company that owns most of the 800 numbers, or at least over 10 million of them. They may be in Philadelphia. It is a shadowy business. Their business model is to grab all of the "wrong" numbers that are close to an actual business 800 number. So a misdialed number will go to them, and they can use it to sell porn or something else shady. The FCC's rules about 800 numbers of course did not anticipate this type of bad behavior. 800 numbers are managed by SMS/800 in Bismarck, ND, a company originally owned by the seven Bells, and whose ownership structure is now being modified to include a few more companies than the three remaining ones. They manage the central database. Write access to the database is given to "Responsible Organizations" (RespOrgs), some of which are not all that responsible... and since the cost of running it is fairly low, the cost of an 800 number, to a RespOrg, is low. Hence squatting on >10M numbers doesn't cost much. The FCC should crack down on this, since it's purely their bailiwick, but since it's not IP, or as sexy as meddling in Internet content, they seem to be ignoring it. -- Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:46:57 -0800 (PST) From: HAncock4 <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Introducing 844 Toll Free Numbers Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:50:57 AM UTC-5, Wes Leatherock wrote: > > ... And I've also got to ask why there's still such a huge demand > > for "tollfree" numbers. More and more people, and pretty much all > > businesses by now, have calling plans that are no longer distance > > sensitive > "More and more people" is not all, and many marketers want to reach > those who do not have "free" long distance. ... Many people have free long distance on their cell phone, but conventional service on their landline phone. In my area, landline unlimited still costs more than plain service (about $30/month more). So, the toll free number is still attractive. Also, at some work- places, there is low-cost long distance, but not free service, so the meter is still running on toll calls. But I think the moderator's point is the big one--true ANI that can't be altered or blocked, even if the caller think's it is. That allows anyone you call to subsequently call you, even on your cell or un- listed number, to solicit you since you now have a "prior relationship". Whether that truly counts legally as a prior relationship I can't say, but I'll bet it's good enough for a business to make use of it. I've noticed many local and regional businesses getting 800 numbers, and I'll bet it's for a similar reason. Also, many regional busi- nesses once had FX lines into nearby areas that otherwise would be a short-haul toll call to reach them.
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:07:04 -0800 (PST) From: Neal McLain <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Report: Comcast, Charter may chop up Time Warner Cable Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> By Steve Donohue, FierceCable, November 25, 2013 | Executives at Comcast and Charter Communications have had | preliminary talks aimed at acquiring Time Warner Cable, which | could help each operator expand cable system clusters in Los | Angeles, New York and other markets, Bloomberg reported | Saturday. Officials at Charter, Time Warner Cable and Comcast | declined to comment. | | While Charter and investor Liberty Media have been touting the | benefits of consolidation for several months, Comcast CFO | Michel Angelakis said in July that the nation's largest cable | MSO was more focused on expanding internationally through | deals involving its NBCUniversal subsidiary. But striking a | deal with TWC could help Comcast expand its cable system | clusters in Florida, New York and Texas. And Charter could | create efficiencies in marketing, advertising, sales and | operations in areas where it operates near TWC systems, | including Los Angeles and the Carolinas. | | Word of a possible joint bid from Comcast and Charter for Time | Warner Cable has drawn comparisons to a deal that Comcast and | TWC struck in 2006 to acquire nearly all of the cable systems | that were owned by Adelphia Communications. In addition to | splitting up Adelphia systems in New York, Massachusetts and | several other states, TWC and Comcast agreed to swap several | cable systems. Those transactions helped TWC gain an | additional 3.3 million subscribers, while Comcast picked up | 1.7 million subscribers. Continued: http://tinyurl.com/kya77mh Neal McLain
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.