28 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  


The Telecom Digest for October 25, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 286 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:

Re: Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes(Barry Margolin)
Re: Bell System Technical Journal(Lisa or Jeff)
Re: Facebook in Privacy Breach(David Kaye)
Re: FaceTube/Yoogle(Randall)
Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...(T)
Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...(T)
Re: Letting our fingers do the talking(T)
Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid(T)

====== 28 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


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, and other stuff of interest.

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:13:27 -0400 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes Message-ID: <barmar-3D2B6B.22132722102010@reserved-multicast-range-not-delegated.example.com> In article <p06240849c8e72f0e0cfa@[]>, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote: > Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes I find this scenario questionable: > Scenario 3 - This will be the most likely scenario in most cases. The FCC > finds that both parties have negotiated in good faith but reached a true > impasse based on an honest disagreement on the value of the signal. In this > case, the FCC may request them to submit to binding arbitration. If one party > or the other refuses to engage in binding arbitration, then the FCC will > provide both parties with a model notice by which to inform consumers of the > potential loss of service as well as the difference in offers on the table so > that consumers can judge for themselves who was making the fairest offer. > This adds a more consumer friendly and transparent way to end transmission of > services if necessary and creates an attractive option for arbitration for > both parties. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't know enough about the economics of either industry to be able to judge the fairness of any particular offer. All the consumers care about is whether they can see their football games or favorite TV shows. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:02:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Bell System Technical Journal Message-ID: <3b1eb509-a41e-492c-804c-a641eeb815fc@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> On Oct 20, 4:15 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > What is happening is that everyone in the world is hammering that site. > This is a huge, huge deal.  Many of these papers were never available in > any digital form at all until now.   I'm surprised there is that much demand for this historical information. Isn't it all basically technologically all obsolete? Wouldn't someone designing any kind of system want to use modern literature for the latest research on telephone system, audio, and electronic theory and components? Much of the research of and operations of the old Bell System were concerned with economical usage of a very expensive physical plant. Copper wires or coax were expensive as was electro-mechanical and electronic switchgear. A great deal of the articles and work of the old Bell System was for planning the optimum level of equipment--not so much to be wasteful, but not so little to give poor service. Further, the old stuff was high maintenance compared to today and that was an issue, too. (How much did the PC you're using now cost vs. your very first one, and yet how much more powerful is the current model vs. your first one?) > Pretty much all of the fundamental research into audio systems is in > the BSTJ, and pretty much all of it was only available on paper or microfilm > at a limited number of libraries. Most decent sized colleges that had an engineering department had this stuff available. Most larger central public libraries did, too. As an aside, on my last visit to look up microfilm at a college library, I had to dig through the "compact shelving" where shelves are compressed (no aisles) to save space. I had the whole microfilm room all to myself the whole time. In contrast, they had a separate large room of PCs and every unit was in use. My old college library had Bell stuff stored off site and one had to request the desired volumes in advance. All this suggests to me the demand is not that high. (For what it's worth, reading old Datamation and its precedessor magazine from the 1950s is fascinating, as well as 1950s issues of things like Business Week). My biggest concern is that these large libraries will notice the limited use and dump the historic materials to use the space for other more desired items. Their space is finite, and sadly, many of their budgets are decreasing. (Many libraries have a rack out front with their discarded periodicals and books). > So now it is available and needless to say a LOT of people are grabbing > everything they can to make local copies.
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:37:54 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Facebook in Privacy Breach Message-ID: <i9t3nv$hvl$1@news.eternal-september.org> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: >I'm just glad I'm now retired and out of the workforce and that all my >social interactions are face-to-face with real people and not over the >phone or 'Net. What will eventually happen is that the most skilled people will simply refuse to work for corporations that insist on data mining them. It's sort of like the Cobol programmers dealing with Y2K. Companies went to extraordinary lengths to hire these guys because they had no choice. I knew someone who made over $200k in 1999 simply hacking old Cobol, and he was low-end. I doubt that had Facebook been available then he would have been vetted with it, given that so many Cobol programmers retired to pot farms in Mendocino... As for myself, I turned down a business that wanted me to do their desktop support. She wanted a resume, 5 references, a list of my degrees and credentials, etc. I told her that I didn't work that way. She said, "But I called you because I got a good reference on you." I told her that that should have been enough, then. Made me feel proud.
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:02:20 -0400 From: Randall <rvh40.remove-this@and-this-too.insightbb.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: FaceTube/Yoogle Message-ID: <CDD786FD-A213-40B1-A64B-C88B7452DF85@insightbb.com> > >What, exactly, is the big deal about Zuckerberg finding out this > >information? [Snip] > It may be "public", but it's not online - until now. The fact that > you're a veteran and over 60 and a registered Democrat may be > "available" to anyone willing to wade through reams of paper, but it's > not economically feasible for advertisers to do so - UNLESS YOU DO IT > FOR THEM. By using facetube, you give permission for those advertisers > to accumulate the data which YOU are entering into THEIR computer, > free of charge. > > Bill Horne > Moderator I'd love to be able to charge them for the use of my information. If you figure out a way to do that, let me know and we'll both be billionaires. That said, the whole "Web Economy" seems poised to collapse. Banner ads are paying for this series of tubes? How? Does ANYONE ever click a banner ad? Has anyone ever clicked a FaceBook ad? Does anyone ever enter their REAL information on pages that require signups? Oh, and last weekend someone stole the database of the company that sends email for Randy Cassingham's _This Is True_ list and hundreds of others. Everyone who is subscribed to that or any of those lists should begin to receive tons more spam soon. Time to change email addresses again. And the beat goes on. ----snip----snip---- "Email Subscriber Data Accessed; What We're Doing About It Posted by Tom Kulzer (AWeber CEO) Tuesday, October 19, 2010 Over the weekend, AWeber was the target of a deliberate and successful attempt to mine email addresses. On Saturday, October 16th, an unknown person gained unauthorized access to databases containing email subscriber information. This incident appears to be part of a broader series of similar successful attacks on a number of email service providers (ESPs). To learn more about what happened and what we're doing about it, please read on." http://www.aweber.com/blog/uncategorized/data-accessed.htm http://snipurl.com/1bvw4x ----snip----snip----
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:26:09 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them... Message-ID: <MPG.272cd6ab1c40abf5989cf0@news.eternal-september.org> In article <iM2dnc3ZY- DQ2AfRnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>, bonomi@host122.r- bonomi.com says... > > In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1009212225410.1825@panix5.panix.com>, > danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: > >[Broadband reports] > > > >FiOS users in our Verizon forums note that Verizon is now > >charging users a $3.50 fee if they want to pay their bill > >online with a credit card. > > -------- > >http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Charges-350-Fee-To-Pay-Them-110433 > > > >- per the posters, the fee applies if you make a "once off" > >payment. If you give VZ access to an autopay process, > >they won't charge it. > > > >***** Moderator's Note ***** > > > >Isn't Verizon still obligated to accept cash? If enough customers get > >fed up and drop off their payments at the company, the surcharge will > >stop. > > > >Bill Horne > >Moderator > > Chances are good that that policy is contrary to VZ's agreement with the > credit-card companies. EVERY merchant account I've seen expressly forbade > "charging extra" for payment by credit-card. Complaints to the card issuer > could put VZ at risk of losing the ability to take credit card payment > _at_all_. Wonder how they'd like -that-. <evil grin> > > CC issuers really don't like it when merchants do things like that. You're right on that one. The merchant agreements all forbid adding on fees for use of credit and debit cards. They also forbid minimum charge but I see minimum $5 or $10 in mom and pop stores all the time. That's probably because the fees for each transaction they're paying is probably around 20 cents per transaction plus 1 or 2 percent of the total. So a charge for $1.00 would mean the fee would amount to 21 cents! Imagine!
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:28:20 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them... Message-ID: <MPG.272cd72dda32b4dc989cf1@news.eternal-september.org> In article <9PqdnRXWb5VrrAHRnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@posted.visi>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com says... > > On 9/22/2010 1:05 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: > > > Chances are good that that policy is contrary to VZ's agreement with the > > credit-card companies. EVERY merchant account I've seen expressly forbade > > "charging extra" for payment by credit-card. Complaints to the card issuer > > could put VZ at risk of losing the ability to take credit card payment > > _at_all_. Wonder how they'd like -that-. <evil grin> > > > > CC issuers really don't like it when merchants do things like that. > > Do they really care that much? It seems common. Maybe the big > merchants get an exception? (Where I am, the electric utility charges > ~$4 extra to pay online by cc, though they seem to do it through a > link to a different website, whether that's an outside vendor or just > a misdirection.) > > Dave It's the same amount here with National Grid. You can side step it by doing ACH. But that has its own problems. The thing is most utilities were just plain stupid about PCI so they farmed it out to Western Union, which will ALWAYS extract its pound of flesh. They could just use the Google Checkout API and be done with it.
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:40:00 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Letting our fingers do the talking Message-ID: <MPG.272d042060328950989cf3@news.eternal-september.org> In article <p062408a9c8c46de359aa@[]>, monty@roscom.com says... > > Letting our fingers do the talking > For young, old alike, texting becoming more common than a call > > By Linda Matchan, Globe Staff | September 25, 2010 > > When Mandy Goldman was growing up, every morning started the same > way. Her mother, Joy Leone, got on the telephone at 7 a.m. and > chatted with Mary, her best friend in Burlington. > > "For at least an hour. Pretty much every day of my life,'' said > Goldman, 31, a Brookline hair stylist who grew up in Natick. "She'd > be screaming at us to wake up in poor Mary's ear.'' > > Like mother, like daughter - sort of. Goldman, the mother of two > little boys, uses her phone a lot, too. But Goldman has a > multifunction smartphone, and it hardly ever occurs to her to talk on > it. When Goldman, who is pregnant, learned a month ago that she was > having another boy, she promptly reached for her phone to send > Facebook messages to 20 of her friends. She had 20 responses within a > half-hour. "No one called me, at all,'' she said. "It was all on > Facebook.'' > > This illustrates why some people predict the phone call will soon be > dead. Almost everyone has a cellphone these days, yet, increasingly, > we use them to do everything but make calls. > > ... > > http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2010/09/25/letting_our_fingers_do_the_talking/ I had to get a cell phone for work. Not that I use the voice functionality all that much but I do use the web and texting features of the phone a hell of a lot. My total voice usage on the phone in four month is 11:47:53, texts 3,246. That works out to 177 minutes (2.95 hours). Texts 811.5 per month.
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:45:19 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid Message-ID: <MPG.272d055f53089192989cf4@news.eternal-september.org> In article <i885ae$fvo$1@blue.rahul.net>, jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us says... > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > > > It won't work. > > > > Businessmen take credit cards because their customers insist on using > > them, and because the card fee is offset by the costs of handling, > > counting, and safeguarding cash. > > Businesses take on substantial burdens to accept credit cards. Typically > they pay the card company 10-20% of the amount charged, and have to agree > to let the card company resolve all disagreements in favor of the customer, > with no proof required (which often means the merchant gets stiffed, since > its only recourse is to sue the customer). 10% to 20%? You obviously haven't shopped around. Most front load with 10 or 20 cents and then 1% or 2%. Say you swipe the card for $20. The fee would be $0.20 + 2% of $20 or $0.40. The total fee would be $0.60. By your rates it would be $2 to $4 for that $20 transaction. BTW, the rates I provided are what Google Checkout charges.
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. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom 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) 2009 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.
End of The Telecom Digest (8 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues