32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for June 16, 2014
====== 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: 15 Jun 2014 00:32:39 -0000 From: "John Levine" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Questioning the wisdom of permitting texting to E911 services Message-ID: <email@example.com> >> 878787 is a short code. These 5 and 6 digit numbers are sold by CTIA >> (the cellular trade group) and respected by US carriers. > >Hi Fred, > >Thank you VERY MUCH for that information! What you wrote strongly >suggests these "short codes" are profit-motivated by the CTIA and >used presumably by infrequent callers to the codes' service(s). No, not at all. Short codes are wildly popular. They're typically used by businesses who use them to brand services or sometimes promotional campaigns. >> It is annoying that if you don't subscribe to a texting plan, you are >> charged to receive texts, not just send them. So jackass marketers can >> run up your phone bill with text spam. > >I've been fortunate receiving only one or two spam texts a year, and >calling AT&T Wireless' accounting results in a billing adjustment. I used to care about the money, but since my prepaid phone currently has 2153 text credits that I'm unlikely to use in the year before the credit expires, now it's just the annoyance of having the phone buzz and wasting my time deleting it. R's, John
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:32:21 -0400 From: Julian Thomas <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Questioning the wisdom of permitting texting to E911 services Message-ID: <38645186-279C-4818-8780-BB260DA7AEBE@jt-mj.net> On 14 Jun 2014, at 13:18, Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.invalid> wrote: > > It is annoying that if you don't subscribe to a texting plan, you are > charged to receive texts, not just send them. So jackass marketers can > run up your phone bill with text spam. If you are willing to forgo all texting, you can probably have the carrier block it. If you do that, there are alternative texting apps available - they assign you a number dedicated just for texting. jt
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:52:33 -0400 From: John Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Odds of Aereo prevailing about 30 percent, analyst says Message-ID: <jthompson-D04CAF.firstname.lastname@example.org> In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote: > >"Go straight to cable." It sounds so simple. CBS may find that it's not so > >simple to negotiate carriage agreements with hundreds of cable TV Companies, > >each of which has its own ax to grind. > > Hundreds? How about five? Comcast, Cox, Charter, Bright House, and > (for now) Time Warner. Are there any important markets where one of > those companies does not control the market for wireline cable TV? > Remember that CBS doesn't care about market #150. Yes. Columbus, OH, market ranking 32. Forever and ever Columbus had the traditional setup of TW handling one side of town, and another player handling the other side of town. Then the other player was bought by Insight, then recently TW bought Insight. So TW is doing what it can to be "the one". But: During all of this over the last 15-20 years, AT&T went in with a huge bang with their Americast--and they overlaid cable in the ENTIRE city, over both sides of town, and competed with both established players. Then Americast sold to Wide Open West when the economy started going down, and Wide Open West bought themselves--CHEAP--an entire citywide infrastructure and continued to run TV/broadband service to consumers. Then the original Wide Open West sold to investors and became WOW. So today Columbus has TW/Insight, which is all TW now, and WOW running side by side. Then five or more years ago AT&T went back into the market with their fiber based Uverse, again covering the entire city because they were already there at every residence with the last mile copper phone lines. So today Columbus has THREE hardwire TV/broadband/phone competitors running through the backyards of every resident. We now return to the ongoing Aereo discussion.
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:09:53 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Questioning the wisdom of permitting texting to E911 services Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:40 -0700, Thad Floryan wrote: > On 6/14/2014 10:18 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: >> On 6/13/2014 8:37 PM, Thad Floryan wrote: >>> On 6/13/2014 11:12 AM, Rob Warnock wrote: >> .. >>>> The 878787 is just the (pseudo-)phone number you send the text >>> Now THAT is what I don't understand: 878787 as a pseudo-phone >>> number. >>> >>> For normal voice cellphone usage, a full and correct phone number >>> is required to route a call to its proper destination. I have no >>> issue with placing BART's (or anyone else's) phone number in my >>> phone's "phonebook" (aka "contact list"). >>> >>> So who, or what, is routing 878787 to BART? Would all carriers >>> in the USA (or even worldwide) route 878787 to BART? >> >> 878787 is a short code. These 5 and 6 digit numbers are sold by CTIA >> (the cellular trade group) and respected by US carriers. > > Hi Fred, > > Thank you VERY MUCH for that information! What you wrote strongly > suggests these "short codes" are profit-motivated by the CTIA and > used presumably by infrequent callers to the codes' service(s). > > I've begun additional research for my own learning here: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTIA_%E2%80%93_The_Wireless_Association > > > and a friend responded in email with this comment: > > The carrier(s) translate the 878787 short code to the full E.164 > number in the U.S. Which carriers will be determined by > geographic area and desired coverage, so, for example, don't > expect the BART code to automatically work in Oklahoma. > > Aha! Another texting factoid that's NOT well documented. > > "E.164" didn't ring a bell (no pun); searching found these 4 items: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.164 > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number_mapping > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.214 > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_calling_codes > > > which, in summary. "... define the numbering plan for the world-wide > public switched telephone network (PSTN) and some other data networks." > > Learn something new every day! :-) > >>> ... >>> I try to persuade folks not to text me because it costs me. I >>> wasn't concerned with the cost when I was working (I'm now >>> retired) because I always programmed servers at all my client >>> and employer sites to send a message to my cell phone when >>> anomalies were automatically detected (e.g., water from a >>> leaking HVAC, overtemp alert, power failures, and more) and I'd >>> simply expense the cost of the alert to the client or employer. >> >> It is annoying that if you don't subscribe to a texting plan, you are >> charged to receive texts, not just send them. So jackass marketers can >> run up your phone bill with text spam. > > I've been fortunate receiving only one or two spam texts a year, and > calling AT&T Wireless' accounting results in a billing adjustment. > > Thad A few other "short codes", valid at least on the T-Mobile cellular network (but probably on other USA cellular networks as well) include 4664, 46645, and 466453 all of which are (or were) for addressing SMS messages to Google, 7726 to which to forward SMS spam, and 227663 for texting the bank card provider Capital One. (Do you see the mnemonics GOOG, GOOGL, GOOGLE, SPAM, and CAP ONE in there?) HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
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) 2014 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.