32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Previous Issue (Only one)
The Telecom Digest for May 8, 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: Wed, 7 May 2014 04:12:33 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: at&t-to-Frontier handover in CT? Message-ID: <email@example.com> My local cable company made me aware today that Frontier Communications may soon "Acquire at&t's Connecticut Wireline Properties" -- cf. http://frontier.com/ct . In Frontier's words, "On December 17th 2013, Frontier Communications announced that it entered into an agreement to acquire AT&T's wireline properties in Connecticut. Upon completion of the transaction, Frontier will become the communications service provider for AT&T's residential and business broadband, phone and TV customers in Connecticut â?" including U-verse® and satellite customers. We expect the transition to close in the second half of 2014." More detail in the link above. I'm shocked that it's taken nearly five months for this December announcement to come to my attention -- not a peep about it to me from either at&t, the local press, or the local broadcast media. It's almost as if only Comcast/Xfinity has any motive to report it :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 17:14:25 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: at&t-to-Frontier handover in CT Message-ID: <536ACC61.firstname.lastname@example.org> On 5/7/2014 1:12 AM, tlvp wrote: > My local cable company made me aware today that Frontier Communications may > soon "Acquire at&t's Connecticut Wireline Properties" -- cf. > > > http://frontier.com/ct > . > > In Frontier's words, "On December 17th 2013, Frontier Communications > announced that it entered into an agreement to acquire AT&T's wireline > properties in Connecticut. Upon completion of the transaction, Frontier > will become the communications service provider for AT&T's residential and > business broadband, phone and TV customers in Connecticut including > U-verse® and satellite customers. We expect the transition to close in the > second half of 2014." More detail in the link above. > > I'm shocked that it's taken nearly five months for this December > announcement to come to my attention -- not a peep about it to me from > either at&t, the local press, or the local broadcast media. It's almost as > if only Comcast/Xfinity has any motive to report it :-) . Hilarious! But I'm not surprised -- I have stock in both the "new" at&t and Frontier and your posting above is the first I've heard of that transition. Long story short, I used to own a large number of shares in the original AT&T since the 1960s. In 1984 the US DoJ broke up AT&T into the seven RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) and I received new certificates from Nynex, SW Bell, et al, and those split and/or were acquired or whatever into more splinter companies and whatnot and/or were re-absorbed by the "new" at&t and I don't dare sell any of the shares to avoid a tax nightmare (regarding "basis") so I simply deposit dividend checks from each splintered company plus the "new" aggregated at&t every 3 months to avoid any hassles. Fast forward 30 years to 2014 and I receive some small dividends from both Comcast (which must have acquired some splintered company(ies)) and a $0.22 check from Frontier which costs them more to mail the check to me than the value of the dividend -- it'll cost me more to contact Frontier and ask for direct deposit than I care to spend so I'll let them continue sending me a check every 3 months. :-) Thad
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 09:35:01 -0400 From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Re-post: Stopping illegal robocalling Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Per John David Galt: >I expect that the market will solve this problem sooner or later. One >way would be for more widespread use of VOIP to replace POTS, after >which similar filtering could be done by software on the computer >receiving the calls. That rings true to me. With VOIP, one can implement challenge-response (i.e. Press 1 for Fred, Press 2 for Sam....). I'm seriously considering moving my incoming calls to VOIP. I already have all my non-800 outgoing calls going through a VOIP provider. Only reason I haven't gone all the way is that it seems like VOIP providers' implementation of 911 is unreliable. OTOH, the DNC lists have become moot and we're sometimes getting a half-dozen solicitor calls a day.... so maybe I'll be making the cutover. Cellphone-wise, I have something called "Call Control" on my Android phone and robocalls and other solicitor calls have dropped off to near zero from a high of several per week. -- Pete Cresswell
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 09:29:46 -0500 From: Jim Haynes <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Re-post: Stopping illegal robocalling Message-ID: <slrnlmkgqp.2s7.jhaynes@Henry.localdomain> Why not replace caller ID with a non-spoofable variety. I presume this kind of thing already exists in the kinds of records the telephone plant makes. Or, have your proposed *99 code act not on the CID number but on the actual originating number. [moderator pro tem's note: It's not that simple. Calls from individual line analog (home-type) phones have an ANI, which is generally accurate, and PBX trunks can have an accurate ANI and a user-generated CID. But robocalls come through a chain of providers, typically VoIP intermediaries, and there is no clear ANI. There are also carriers not delivering ANI to other carriers. It's a mess.]
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 00:28:17 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Re-post: Stopping illegal robocalling Message-ID: <5369E091.email@example.com> On 5/6/2014 11:34 AM, news wrote: > Because of the weak response to my previous posting (2 Feb.2014), I'm once > again asking the newsgroup readership to help form a grassroots alliance to > get illegal robocalling stopped. > The method is detailed in my entry to the 2012-2013 FTC Robocalling contest. > See > http://telecom-digest.org/robocalls.pdf > . I'll give a brief overview > here. > > In my opinion it will be fruitless to try to stop these calls by threats, > making them illegal, etc. This will work only if the callers can be > identified and prosecuted easily. Therefore, my proposal relies on > technical means to actually stop most calls from completing. The method is > based on caller ID (CID) information delivered with the calls. It requires > development of new features to be deployed in the phone network. > [...] I'm all for blocking robocallers. But as Fred, the pro tem moderator, wrote [appended to your Tuesday May 6 article]: " The probem is that it requires changing switch software in " existing old DMS and 5E switches, and in the SS7 network. That " stuff is old, not well supported, and the telcos are just letting " them rot in place. So trying to get them to do anything would be " extremely difficult. Comments from the rest of the readership are " welcome! Shoe-horning a solution into the aging existing infrastructure is going to be a very difficult part of achieving the goal assuming legislative support for the task. I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting. :-) Note your original February 3, 2014, article also cited the IETF in addition to your http://telecom-digest.org/robocalls.pdf document: " The main thrust of the proposal is to detect Caller ID spoofing. " For your information, the IETF has resurrected its efforts to " detect Caller ID spoofing. " " Check it out: " &http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-stir-problem-statement-03 & " " Also available at: " &ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-stir-problem-statement-03.txt & Out of curiosity, I did some Googling regarding the Ooma VoIP service in this regards and found these 3 URLs with some interesting solutions and thoughts: 1. View topic - Robocall blocking suggestions. - Ooma http://www.ooma.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=16626 2. Want to block telemarketers? Use Ooma's Blacklist feature ... http://www.ooma.com/node/1325 [ noting Ooma Premier has a personal blacklist and a community one ] 3. AMERICANS FED UP WITH POLITICAL ROBOCALLS - Ooma http://www.ooma.com/press/press-releases/americans-fed-political-robocalls " " [...] " At the top of the list of most desirable home phone features is " the ability to automatically block unwanted callers. Among " people considering switching home phone service, 77% said a " feature that automatically blocks telemarketers and other " unwanted callers would make them more likely to switch, says " another study conducted by novaQuant, Inc., a leading market " research firm, and commissioned by Ooma, Inc., a leading " Internet-based home phone service. " " Ooma offers this unique privacy feature as part of its Premier " Service via a personal and community blacklist. The Personal " Blacklist blocks specific callers or sends them directly to " voicemail and the Community Blacklist draws on a database of " thousands of known telemarketers and solicitors automatically " blocking those callers. " [...] Thad
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 13:09:06 -0400 From: "news" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Re-post: Stopping illegal robocalling Message-ID: <YMtav.firstname.lastname@example.org> A significant aspect of this proposal not emphasized in the re-post is that, assuming PLMN switches are appropriately upgraded, it works for cell phones as well as landlines. I.e., the proposal stops illegal robocalls to cell phones. If we're going to solve the problem, let's do it only once, if possible, for ALL phones.
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.