For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
Read Daily Spam News 
|
TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:11:00 EDT Volume 26 : Issue 80
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Court Strikes Down Internet Porn Law (Robert Campbell, Reuters)
FCC to Look at Future of Internet Access (Reuters News Wire)
NANP Number Lengths (Marc)
CommunicationsDirect News Daily Update (communicationsdirect_daily)
Motorola Shuffles Management, Cuts First-Quarter (USTelecom dailyLead)
Re: Unlisted Phone Number (Lisa Hancock)
Re: "Authorized Contractor" For Big Carriers? (Steven Lichter)
Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it (William Warren)
Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it (T)
Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it (davidesan@gmail)
Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it (Rick Merrill)
Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it (Kaminsky Family)
Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it (Matt Simpson)
Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it (Ron Kritzman)
====== 25 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 Patrick Townson 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 the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. 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; other stuff of interest, and why not
support Net Freedom Now http://www.freepress.net/netfreedom .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:09:26 -0500
From: Robert Campbell, Reuters <reuters@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Court Strikes Down Internet Porn Law
By Robert Campbell
A 1998 law designed to block children from viewing pornography Web
sites violates free speech rights, a U.S. federal court ruled on
Thursday, in a blow to government efforts to restrict Internet smut.
The ruling sided with a challenge brought by the American Civil
Liberties Union, which had argued that the provisions of the Child
Online Protection Act were too restrictive and violated the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that protects free speech.
Judge Lowell Reed of the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia wrote in
his ruling that while he sympathized with the goal of restricting
minors from seeing pornography, other means that were less restrictive
of free speech, such as software filters, were available to block such
content.
"I may not turn a blind eye to the law ... to protect this nation's
youth by upholding a flawed statute, especially when a more effective
and less restrictive alternative is readily available," the judge
wrote in his ruling.
Government lawyers had argued during the four-week trial that Internet
filters were ineffective tools since most parents did not actively use
them.
Supporters of the law predicted the ruling will be appealed or that
new legislation would be passed by Congress.
"It doesn't matter if the Republicans are in the majority or the
Democrats. This issue is something both sides of the aisle feel
strongly about," said Donna Rice Hughes of Enough Is Enough, an
Internet pornography watchdog group.
John Morris, a lawyer for the Center for Democracy and Technology,
told reporters in a teleconference, "This law is not really aimed at
commercial pornography but really reaches far beyond that to a broad
range of valuable content."
The Child Online Protection Act made it a crime for any person to
provide minors access to "harmful material" over the
Internet. Violators could be fined up to $50,000 and imprisoned for up
to 6 months.
The law was never enforced because it was immediately challenged in
court after being signed into law by former President Bill Clinton.
Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html
For more news and headlines, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/newstoday.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:12:20 -0500
From: Reuters News Wire <reuters@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: FCC to Look at Future of Internet Access
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission took
a small step to address a growing debate on whether high-speed
Internet providers like AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. should be barred
from charging extra fees to guarantee access to the Internet.
The five commissioners backed a proposal on Thursday to start a
"notice of inquiry" regarding broadband industry practices.
The notice of inquiry, a fact-finding mission that does not always
result in a rule being issued, grudgingly won support from the two
Democrats on the Republican-controlled panel.
"I would have preferred a more proactive approach," said Democrat
Jonathan Adelstein.
Fellow Democrat Michael Copps chided the commission for proceeding too
leisurely and said putting out a notice of inquiry is "not the way to
sail boldly forward."
"I want an FCC that unconditionally states its preference for
nondiscrimination on the Internet," Copps said.
The concept of broadband providers treating all Internet content in
the same way is also known as "net neutrality" and has been the
subject of much debate among lawmakers.
The fear is that if broadband providers charge extra fees for more
reliable service, that they would also be able to block access to the
Internet -- a contention that broadband providers hotly dispute.
Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell called the initial proposal a
sensible, thoughtful and reasonable step and said the commission
should resist the temptation to impose regulation based merely on
theory.
BROADBAND WIRELESS JUDGED INFORMATION SERVICE
The FCC also voted in favor of classifying wireless broadband as an
information service, shielding it from numerous regulations.
Wireless broadband, which powers items like the data cards used in
laptops to get a high-speed connection to do work on the road, will be
less regulated than if it was classified as a telecommunications
service.
An information service includes services like voice mail, that use
technology to manipulate and store information, while
telecommunications is the simple transmission of information.
Information services have always been lightly regulated by the FCC,
whereas telecommunication services are subject to many regulations.
Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html
For more news and headlines, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/internet-news.html
------------------------------
From: Marc <marc.p.cornelius@googlemail.com>
Subject: NANP Number Lengths
Organization: Vercor
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:46:10 +0000
I've been told by a UK carier that eleven digit numbers beginning 09 are in
use in Canada and diallable by the public - 1 09x xxx xxxx y.
As far as I'm aware, although the 09 number space /is/ used, it is only for
internal network routing purposes and even then will still only contain ten
digits.
Can somebody please tell me who's right?
Marc Cornelius
------------------------------
Subject: CommunicationsDirect News Daily Update
From: communicationsdirect <communicationsdirect@communicationsdirect.com>
Reply-To: communicationsdirect_daily-owner@communicationsdirectnews.com
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:50:17 EDT
********************************
PricewaterhouseCoopers Presents
The CommunicationsDirect Daily Update
For March 22, 2007
********************************
Telenor Deconsolidates Kyivstar from 2006 Results
http://communicationsdirectnews.com/do.php/120/23392?11228
The Norway-based telecoms group, Telenor, said yesterday that it
will deconsolidate its problem-laden Ukrainian unit, Kyivstar,
from its 2006 Annual Report. In a statement, Telenor's board
of directors said it had decided to present Telenor's
interests in the company in one line, as an investment, in its
2006 figures. Telenor ...
T-Systems Extends IP Network Agreement With Alcatel-Lucent
http://communicationsdirectnews.com/do.php/120/23388?11228
German incumbent Deutsche Telekom's business division, T-Systems,
has extended its partnership with the global telecoms equipment
vendor, Alcatel-Lucent. According to the terms of the deal,
Alcatel-Lucent will continue to provide IP-enabled voice
solutions for T-Systems, and will offer transformation of
networks and services through ...
IPTV revisited: Focusing on next-generation lifestyle services
http://communicationsdirectnews.com/do.php/150/23386?11228
The concept of IPTV has been much ballyhooed and rightfully
so. But with the raucous buzz that invariably accompanies a 'hot'
technology there sometimes is a tendency toward myopia. In the
case of IPTV, one first has to wonder what IPTV really is. Many
terms are being bandied about these days, like Digital TV,
Internet TV, TV ...
Court Backs FCC Over States in VoIP Case
http://communicationsdirectnews.com/do.php/130/23383?11228
MINNEAPOLIS -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a
decision by the Federal Communications Commission that barred
states, including Minnesota, from regulating Internet-based phone
services. A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of
Appeals agreed with the FCC's determination in 2004 that
companies like Vonage ...
Is Ericsson Abandoning WiMax?
http://communicationsdirectnews.com/do.php/140/23378?11228
Networking giant Ericsson AB may be pulling the plug on its
development of WiMax to concentrate on upgrading the 3G cellular
technology it favors for broadband speeds. The company appears
to have stopped internal iMax development efforts at the end of
last year and is instead relying on a reseller strategy for the
technology ...
Google Earth Mash-Up Helps Mesh Mumbai
http://communicationsdirectnews.com/do.php/140/23375?11228
NEW DELHI, India -- Indian startup network operator LifeStyle
Networks Ltd. is building a wireless mesh network in Mumbai in an
effort to bring broadband connectivity, and a wide range of
services from third party companies, to a city of 18 million
people. And according to LifeStyle's managing director (MD),
Abhishek Javeri, ...
Your feedback on our e-letter is always welcome. Send email to:
CommunicationsDirect Editor <telecom_direct_editor@us.pwc.com>
Copyright (C) 2007 PricewaterhouseCoopers.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:19:59 CDT
From: USTelecom dailyLead <ustelecom@dailylead.com>
Subject: Motorola Shuffles Management, Cuts First-Quarter
USTelecom dailyLead
March 22, 2007
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/guAcfDtusXotwSCibuddhFad
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Motorola shuffles management, cuts first-quarter outlook
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Wharton: Verizon evolves with the times
* Apple TV goes on sale, but may have tough climb ahead
* Sprint bundles GPS
* Telus questions Bell Canada's "most powerful network" claim
* Telstra sees value in the phone booth
* Integra Telecom buys Eschelon Telecom
* Former Qwest executive testifies he expressed concern to Nacchio
TECHNOLOGY TRENDS
* Opinion: IPTV to spark television war
* Genband purchases switching business from Tekelec
* YouTube to have new rival from News Corp., NBCU
* Verso, Navini join forces for VoWiMAX
* Dutch broadband market hits 5-million-customer mark
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Court: FCC, not states, can regulate VoIP
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/guAcfDtusXotwSCibuddhFad
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Unlisted Phone Number
Date: 21 Mar 2007 13:11:54 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
On Mar 2, 1:01 pm, Patricia Pascale <ppasc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Patrick,
> I'm not sure if you can help me but I've not been able to find
> information on when "unlisted" phone numbers first came to use.
FWIW:
The New York Times reported on 6/16/1960 that they began charging for
unlisted numbers (obviously available long before that). The phone
book was thicker because many subscribers chose to be listed rather
than pay the 50c per month fee (about $5.00 in today's money).
The same article reported that Direct Distance Dialing (1+) was
available for all NYC subscribers. They could dial up to 39 states
and provinces. Obviously many areas couldn't yet receive DDD calls in
1960.
The phone co switched from a full name BUtterfield to two letters only
BU.
Also the phone co began to use two letters than had no English
equivalent, e.g. TF and LF [sic]. Even though they could've found
names for those combinations, they wanted to try the idea out.
------------------------------
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc.
Subject: Re: "Authorized Contractor" For Big Carriers?
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:32:05 GMT
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> My area is served by Verizon and Comcast Cable.
> I've noticed plain white trucks bearing a stick-on sign saying
> "Verizon Authorized Contractor" or "Comcast Authorized Contractor".
> I am not very impressed with the people in such trucks. Compared to
> regular crews they seem, quite frankly, to be rather scuzzy. They
> don't seem to be as proficient in their work habits or job skills;
> that is, when I see them working on lines they seem confused in
> tracking down junction boxes or knowing what to do. In the case of
> fixing broken cableTV dome junctions, they never seem to do it right,
> or do it extremely sloppy (letting coax lay across the lawn or even
> sidewalks).
> My own experience with a Verizon Contractor was very negative and I
> complained to the company. They waived the charges for his services.
> My guess is that the carriers are trying to save money by outsourcing.
> They regular employees (particulary Verizon) get a salary and benefits
> and may be union, while contractors get zilch.
> I think we the public are the ones hurt by this practice; an example
> of cheap outsourcing results in cheap services.
> For Comcast Cable, whose predecessor local cable companies were rather
> threadbare already*, subcontracting is scary. If I lose my TV picture
> my life isn't over, but nowadays many people have the 'net hookup via
> cable and even their telephone service. That's "mission critical"
> service.
> I had them out on a service call once and their man blamed me for a
> problem in the wiring that _they_ installed, although I was not
> charged for the call.
> *Their intitial wire stringing was extremely low budget, done very
> fast on the cheap. It eventually had to be redone.
> Comments anyone?
> [R#2]
You can't say that about all contractors, many are retired company
people. I retired from GTE in 1997 and over the years have done
contract work for Verizon and others. I always get called back and in
one case was brought in to train Verizon employees in the CO; by the
way some of this companies are union, like Volt Telecom, don't know
much about them though.
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2007 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:42:51 -0400
From: William Warren <w_warren_nonoise@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I telephoned a large business today. As usual, the answering machine
> asked me to enter my account number "for faster service". I did so.
> After the usual parade through many menus I was connected to an actual
> human being. The first thing she asked me for was my account number,
> even though I had keyed it in "for faster service".
> I find this happens all the time.
> What is the point of requesting an account number if it isn't going to
> be automatically forwarded to the person handling the call?
[snip]
> With today's fancy computer systems, the idea is that after getting my
> account number, my account screen is immediately displayed to the
> person handling my call, saving the time to ask for my account number
> and her to key it it. But this never happens. [snip]
> Anyone familiar with the programming of these 'automated' systems and
> would care to comment? Thanks.
Automatic Call Distribution systems are very expensive, and every
company that runs a "customer service" number tries anything it can to
cut costs, which usually means outsourcing to third-party vendors, who
sometimes have different systems, software, and displays than those
you started with at the company you called.
In other words, although their in-house equipment might record your
number, they have transferred your call to another system or company
that can't make use of the information. This is especially common in
out-of-hours call centers, where costs are low enough to justify the
added time to manually key your number into the foreign system.
HTH.
William
(Filter noise from my address for direct replies)
------------------------------
From: T <nospam.kd1s@cox.nospam.net>
Subject: Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it
Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:31:45 -0400
In article <telecom26.79.3@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
says:
> I telephoned a large business today. As usual, the answering machine
> asked me to enter my account number "for faster service". I did so.
> After the usual parade through many menus I was connected to an actual
> human being. The first thing she asked me for was my account number,
> even though I had keyed it in "for faster service".
> I find this happens all the time.
> What is the point of requesting an account number if it isn't going to
> be automatically forwarded to the person handling the call?
> With today's fancy computer systems, the idea is that after getting my
> account number, my account screen is immediately displayed to the
> person handling my call, saving the time to ask for my account number
> and her to key it it. But this never happens. (Some systems are
> fancy enough to check the caller ID of your phone number and use that
> to bring up your account, but these get fouled if you call from work
> or a different phone.)
> Anyone familiar with the programming of these 'automated' systems and
> would care to comment? Thanks.
Cox and Verizon are both famous for that. Apparently it's used for
tracking not so much to help the CSR.
------------------------------
From: davidesan@gmail.com
Subject: Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it
Date: 22 Mar 2007 07:41:58 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
On Mar 20, 4:52 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I telephoned a large business today. As usual, the answering machine
> asked me to enter my account number "for faster service". I did so.
> After the usual parade through many menus I was connected to an actual
> human being. The first thing she asked me for was my account number,
> even though I had keyed it in "for faster service".
> I find this happens all the time.
> What is the point of requesting an account number if it isn't going to
> be automatically forwarded to the person handling the call?
> With today's fancy computer systems, the idea is that after getting my
> account number, my account screen is immediately displayed to the
> person handling my call, saving the time to ask for my account number
> and her to key it it. But this never happens. (Some systems are
> fancy enough to check the caller ID of your phone number and use that
> to bring up your account, but these get fouled if you call from work
> or a different phone.)
I don't know how to program the system, but this makes me crazy as
well. I know the system works, American Express used to know who I
was just from the caller-id on my home phone.
I recently called the local Blue Cross. I waded through the
voicemail, and then they asked for subscriber id. This is now done
with voice recognition since the subscriber ID now has letters. (Why?
We moved away from SS numbers, but why add letters? 10 billion ids
aren't enough?) Then I connect and they ask my ID number again! Why
waste my time and their money on the voice system?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:38:05 -0400
From: Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I telephoned a large business today. As usual, the answering machine
> asked me to enter my account number "for faster service". I did so.
> After the usual parade through many menus I was connected to an actual
> human being. The first thing she asked me for was my account number,
> even though I had keyed it in "for faster service".
> I find this happens all the time.
> What is the point of requesting an account number if it isn't going to
> be automatically forwarded to the person handling the call?
> With today's fancy computer systems, the idea is that after getting my
> account number, my account screen is immediately displayed to the
> person handling my call, saving the time to ask for my account number
> and her to key it it. But this never happens. (Some systems are
> fancy enough to check the caller ID of your phone number and use that
> to bring up your account, but these get fouled if you call from work
> or a different phone.)
> Anyone familiar with the programming of these 'automated' systems and
> would care to comment? Thanks.
I see it a lot. Call it a phase in. I always complement those whose
systems managed to retain the manually entered info and give it to the
answer desk!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:56:27 -0800
From: The Kaminsky Family <kaminsky@kaminsky.org>
Reply-To: kaminsky@kaminsky.org
Organization: None Whatsoever
Subject: Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> With today's fancy computer systems, the idea is that after getting my
> account number, my account screen is immediately displayed to the
> person handling my call, saving the time to ask for my account number
> and her to key it it. But this never happens.
Never say "never"! I have found a few applications where the
information I provided to the automated application did get to the
human attendant. You are correct, however, that this is infrequent
enough to be noticeable when it happens.
> (Some systems are fancy enough to check the caller ID of your phone number
> and use that to bring up your account, but these get fouled if you call
> from work or a different phone.)
> Anyone familiar with the programming of these 'automated' systems and
> would care to comment? Thanks.
I used to work for a company which provided the platform on which many
of these automated applications have been built. Before that, I worked
for a company which provided the framework for systems which are often
known as "voice mail jail".
The problem with all of these automated systems is that it is much
easier to create a bad application than a good one. Both companies
provided a way to build applications which did not require a
programmer -- for the voice mail product, anyone with the proper
access to the system could sit there with a telephone and create an
application. For the platform product, an application could be
created with "drag and drop" programming and some simple
configuration. However, to build a good application requires
programming skills -- such as making sure that all paths work, and all
error conditions are handled properly.
Building a great application requires some specialized skills in what
is known as "voice user interface", or VUI. There are a few VUI
experts around, and more are being trained, but most applications are
built by people with no formal VUI training -- and it shows.
Many of our customers built their applications themselves, rather than
hiring our development teams. Some of them built great applications,
but the bad ones tend to get noticed. As far as I know, neither
company had any program to evaluate our customers' applications and
let them know how they did -- that would have been a great suggestion
while I was working there!
In the last few years, voice recognition has become good enough to use
in building an application. This has pitfalls of its own (in testing
one system, when I said "four four", the system often heard "five
four", for example), but does allow building a much better
application. Many companies have built applications that say things
like "For X, press or say two" however, which wastes the whole
opportunity to escape from the limited interface provided by the
twelve buttons on a telephone.
We provided one system (at least five years ago) which went one step
further: it could use the caller's voice to identify the caller. No
password was needed (I forget if the caller had to give a name or an
account number as the voice sample -- I never actually patronized that
customer, and never used the application).
So the technology is available to build far better applications than
most of the ones we get stuck using. If enough people complain when
they find a bad application, perhaps companies will realize how much
bad applications are costing them -- which might motivate them to
improve. I'm not holding my breath ...
Mark
------------------------------
From: Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net>
Subject: Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:10:34 -0400
Organization: None
In article <telecom26.79.3@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> What is the point of requesting an account number if it isn't going to
> be automatically forwarded to the person handling the call?
> Anyone familiar with the programming of these 'automated' systems and
> would care to comment?
I'm not really familiar with the programming of the automated systems,
but I think in many cases the number is forwarded and the person who
answers the call does have your account on his screen. I think they
ask for your account number anyway just to verify that everything
worked and they're talking to the right person. They want to avoid
the possibility of a privacy breach if some signals get crossed and
they end up with a mismatch between caller and account.
That doesn't mean asking for your account number in advance is a total
waste. When the live person asks you for it again, then all he has to
do is verify that the one you give him matches the one on his screen,
and if so, he doesn't have to enter it and wait for your account to
appear.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:05:39 -0500
From: Ron Kritzman <ron@dbOnayAmspaYmasters.com>
Subject: Re: "Please Enter Your ID Number" So We May Ignore it
I don't know why they bothered to ask for your account number if they
had no mechanism for passing the info back to the attendant. What I do
know is that at present there are very few systems capable of passing
information collected by the IVR back to the attendant. Among my
customers only one can do it. They have a switch, an IVR and a live op
system all from the same manufacturer. The IVR and the live op screens
run off the same SQL database, and there is a whole other "call
gateway" app that watches the IVR, the switch and the live ops to see
which call lands where.
If someone has an off the shelf switch, another vendor's IVR and yet
another program for the op screens, I can't imagine that they could all
work together. At least not now. Maybe some day there will be a standard
for passing info from IVR to live attendants. Looking back on my former
rants in the newsgroup over umpteen years I see that many have been
solved over time and with improvements in technology. Lets hope this is
one of those.
- Ron
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I telephoned a large business today. As usual, the answering machine
> asked me to enter my account number "for faster service". I did so.
> After the usual parade through many menus I was connected to an actual
> human being. The first thing she asked me for was my account number,
> even though I had keyed it in "for faster service"......
> ..... Anyone familiar with the programming of these 'automated'
> systems and would care to comment? Thanks.
Emoveray ethay Igpay Atinlay otay eplyray
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as
Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is
also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 50
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 620-402-0134
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 530-309-7234
Fax 3: 208-692-5145
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org
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
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from *
* Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
* 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
* http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
* Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
* views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
*************************************************************************
ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Copyright 2007 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
End of TELECOM Digest V26 #80
*****************************
|