Date: 9 Aug 2000 06:15:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20000809101512.14856.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org (Telecom Digest) To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #12 Reply-To: editor@telecom-digest.org Sender: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Errors-To: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Precedence: bulk X-UIDL: a577b9dfd5cb7d2dde2115fdc26d3528 Status: RO X-Status: Telecom Digest Wednesday, August 9 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 012 In this issue: Re: It's time to ante up ... Re: ICB spam Re: strategy vs. entitlement Re: Brown Orifice reveals major holes in Java, Netscape ICB Issue Re: Yahoo! Finance Story - Yahoo - Verizon Provides Tips for Directory assistance disconnect Telecom Digest V2000 #11 Directory Assistance Errors (Was Re: MSNBC on 411) Re: Telecom Digest V2000 #10 Directory assitance, was: Re: Yahoo! .. verizon strike Re: Directory assitance, was: Re: Yahoo! .. verizon strike ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 2000 06:52:13 -0400 From: "Joey Lindstrom" Subject: Re: It's time to ante up ... On 8 Aug 2000 06:15:14 -0400, Jay Hennigan wrote: >I have also supported it in the past, and would be willing to contribute >in the future, *if* at least the newsgroup is kept free of commercial spam. > >Apparently Pat has migrated from his stance supporting the free open >exchange of information which has been the hallmark of comp.dcom.telecom >for several years. If what others are saying is true, Pat will, for a >fee, permit the posting of lengthy commercial advertisements for >pay-for-access and register-for-access websites. This shifts the focus >of the newsgroup from a discussion forum to an advertising medium. I'm >not sure that I want to make a donation to further someone else's paid >advertising. Until this issue is resolved, I'm keeping my wallet in my >pocket. Take care, Jay. Your position (identical with my own) is not popular with some. In fact, after posting my own message on this topic, I received the following e-mail. === Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 02:04:31 -0400 From: Gene Gaines Organization: Gaines Associates, Sterling, Virginia USA To: Joey Lindstrom CC: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Arrogant bastard Reply-To: ggaines@generation.net Lindstrom, I read your email to the Telecom Digest dated 3 Aug 2000 09:55:58 -0400. You are arrogant and offensive -- I find your remarks to be completely uncaring about Pat and the years he has put in to make his newsletter available to people like you. And you spit on his work. Judith tries to help Pat. So you spit on her. Please go away and don't come back. After this one comment, you do not ever want to meet me in business or in any other dealings. Ever. Gene Gaines gene.gaines@attglobal.net === Keep it in mind, Jay. Mr. Gaines apparently feels that it's arrogant for us to not wish to underwrite somebody else's paid advertising... and that such a position spits upon Pat and his work. Therefore, if we ever attempt to do business with him (Gene Gaines, not Pat)... well, he didn't get specific, but it's certainly something we don't ever want to do. Sounds vaguely threatening, if ya ask me. I forward this as a warning to all the other arrogant bastards, such as ourselves, in this group in the remote event that they should ever wish to do business with Mr. Gaines or with Gaines Associates down there in Sterling, Virginia. Since you do not wish to support spam, your trade is not welcome. / From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom / Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU / Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU / / While I was gone, somebody rearranged on the furniture in my bedroom. / They put it in exactly the same place it was. When I told my roommate, / he said: "Do I know you?" / --Steven Wright ** Tag(s) inserted by Bandit Tagger98 - http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c918704 - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2000 09:51:06 -0400 From: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Re: ICB spam It was 7 Aug 2000 14:08:11 -0400, and Jay Hennigan wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: | Actually, the term "spam" was applied to Usenet long | before UCE became an issue. As "too much, unwanted, bland stuff" - a charactatization that Hormel does not appreciate. :-) Blame it on on Python (Monty). | I, too, have sent money to support the newsgroup, and | did so without any concept that doing so granted a | license to pollute it with daily, "Come see my pay site" | advertisements. Most sponsors have left their adverts off of the group. Pat would put something reasonable in the EMail version, and offer links on the TD website. But most sponsors did not 'take advantage' of their sponsorships. No post for Monday. Hopefully this will continue. JL - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2000 10:08:07 -0400 From: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Re: strategy vs. entitlement It was 7 Aug 2000 11:03:07 -0400, and "Judith Oppenheimer" wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: | That said, I am not opposed to any corp registering all | permutations of their domain names. In fact, I recommend | it, BUT as a marketing strategy, not a legal entitlement. | Same with toll free numbers. So you recommend that all toll free numbering space be eaten up as quickly as possible. All this leads to more confusion and more misdials, and according to you that is a valid excuse for duplication! While the world is trying to figure out number conservation and efficient numbering systems you recommend number duplication and redundancy. Oh well. | I am opposed to anyone having entitlement to the domain | name space - sunrise or first dibs or whatever you call it. Including numbering domains? | But I do think corps should have the same first-come | first-serve opportunity at domain names to protect or | expand their franchises, as others have for their | purposes (non-tm-infringing speculation; parody; | non-profit and personal or hobby use; etc.) Wake up Judith. TM owners overrule all others, and you are pushing that into the telephone number domain with your encouragement of branding over numbering. You would keep me from having the same digits spell something else because of misdials and confusion. And what would you say if I registered 1-888-videxpe(rt). Too close to a (TM) name? Shame TMs only apply on competing marketplaces. JL - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2000 11:08:54 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: Brown Orifice reveals major holes in Java, Netscape At 06:15 AM 8/8/00 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote: > > As a demonstration, I've written Brown Orifice HTTPD for Net- > > scape Communicator. BOHTTPD is a browser-resident web server > > and file-sharing tool that demonstrates these two problems in > > Netscape Communicator. BOHTTPD will serve files from a > > directory of your choice, and will also act as an HTTP/FTP > > proxy server. > > Brumleve has verified that the exploit works on Netscape 4.{5-7} > running on Linux and assorted flavors of Windows. He has seen it > work behind a firewall that was doing network address translation, > and also fail with a mysterious message when a browser was con- > figured to use a proxy. I tested this and indeed it works. It lets you specify a single directory that you wish to "serve". It defaults to, I think, C:\program files, but just for grins & chuckles I tested it pointing to the "music" directory I keep a handful of mp3s in. After all, everybody wants to share those, right? Hmmm, sharing files via the web on a peer-to-peer basis? Sounds a little like, uh, gnutella or napster, minus the directory service. But if there were a scour-like scooter that volunteer file-sharers signed up for... Hey, this guy just came up with Yet Another Model of what Napster et al do! This time it's a trivial java applet which, presumably, could also notify a selected server or three of the user's presence, so other clients could... oh, I'm sure you get the drift. What's missing is the way to turn this off -- what make BrO so dangerous is that it runs until Netscape is shut down, with no other off switch. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2000 11:29:46 -0400 From: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: ICB Issue Aparently I have annoyed Ms Oppenheimer enough that she has complained about my posts here. Let me remind the group of the restraint that I use when discussing ICB and Ms Oppenheimer's involvement here. As Ms Oppenheimer has complained specifically about my presence here, in the sense that I don't belong and she, as a paying sponsor with a deal does belong, I would like to be more specific in my request. Until Pat or another human moderator returns to the group I believe that all posters should be treated equal. While Pat would appreciate gifts to support him for his past and possibly future efforts, it is obvious that those gifts do not constitute support for the group itself. This in no way should cause Ms Oppenheimer or anyone else to cease supporting Pat as a friend and as one who provided such great service to the Internet community. Please, continue to support Pat, we do owe him a debt of gratitude. If that translates into a few checks sent to him, that is good. But as far as our group, the one that we are currently active in and supporting with discussion, all posters are equal. Pat tried to be fair in his selection of posts for the digest, including those that didn't agree with a sponsor. That spirit of openness should continue. There have been a few people (regulars) complaining about not being able to get their posts through. I believe that most eventually got their hello messages, responded and are now on the list. I cannot believe that anyone's inability to get a post to this group is intentional by the robot. Please check your settings. As for me personally, check the archives and you will find that Justa Lurker existed and had posts approved to the list by Pat. If my name was good enough for Pat, it should still be good. JL - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2000 11:46:40 -0400 From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: Yahoo! Finance Story - Yahoo - Verizon Provides Tips for Being a Verizon customer, you're incorrect when you say they may have difficulty reaching directory assistance. I've tried several times in the last twenty-four hours and I have been *unable* to reach them. I always seems to get a recording blaming the work stoppage for their inable to answer my inquiry. Fred - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2000 16:19:19 -0400 From: Mike Pollock Subject: Directory assistance disconnect Directory assistance disconnect At about a dollar a pop, you expect to get what you’re looking for when you dial directory assistance. But how good is it? More and more, consumer groups say, that dollar is wasted. By NBC’s Pete Williams. http://www.msnbc.com/news/442864.asp - --Mike __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2000 17:27:37 -0400 From: Louis Jahn Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #11 In Reference to the posting in V2000#11 by Tad Cook covering "MSNBC on 411" This shows you how "BAD NEWS" sells newspapers but also gets misdirected follow-on attention! My firm provides access to National Directory Assistance listings for man= y = telephone companies and the service has been frequently measured (mostly by customers) as being accurate in the mid to high 90% in accuracy! In fact one of my Customers spent about 30 minutes being interviewed by S= hu Shin Luh of the Chicago Sun Times and related their experience with our accuracy. He= claims to have mentioned our name to the reporter at least 10 times; however, we were never contacted to see what accuracy we offer nor how well our customers are doing in providing accurate numbers to their Callers. Simply put- "Good News" is not welcome in the news industry! Unfortunately, none of the three firms compared utilize our NDA service;however, many other extremely large RBOCs and LECs are now satisfactorily using our service. They all report accuracies in our NDA service often equal to their own internal local DA systems. It simply takes the = investment of money to assure daily updated records (some days reaching well over 500,000 updates) backed by experts in Directory Assistance systems going back to its creation around 1975 (the = computerized versions not simply DA). So don't despair! Don't panic! If AT&T was willing to pay 2-3 cents more= per DA call, they could have a far more accurate service. However, when Carriers charge Callers $1.49 or even $1.99 for a service that costs less than $0.50, and refuse to spend 2 cents more t= o make it accurate, you begin to see that the problem is NOT in the DA delivery end. = Maybe it is time for the frequent revolution Thomas Jefferson often referenced! Lou Jahn Info Partners Corp 609-823-6602 609-823-2202 Fax - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2000 18:02:30 -0400 From: AES Subject: Directory Assistance Errors (Was Re: MSNBC on 411) > By Pete Williams > NBC NEWS > Aug. 7 - At about a dollar a pop, you expect to get what you're looking > for when you dial directory assistance. But how good is it? > More and more, consumer groups say, that dollar is wasted. > > "YOU COULD EXPECT at least one out of three times to get the wrong > number, if not more frequently, even from the long-distance > companies," says consumer advocate Sam Simon. Make a note of it when it happens; deduct the charge from your next phone bill; attach a polite note saying why; and hang tough. If enough of us do that, for long enough, it should solve the problem eventually. [P.S. -- It's my understanding -- though I'm NOT an authority on this -- that your local phone company may NOT cut off your service, or otherwise hassle you, if you refuse to pay charges on your bill that they are just passing through for other companies.] - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2000 19:10:47 -0400 From: John Ledahl Subject: Re: Telecom Digest V2000 #10 Pat, Here is one that probably has been aired previously. Ah, the good old long distance days... Recently, I took a vacation with my family about 100 miles from my California home. While away at a cabin I used the host's phone to call my house to check on voice messages. Using my Pac Bell calling card on an AT&T line, unbeknownst to me, I received surcharges of $4.95 per call. Most calls were 1 or 2 minutes and each call totaled between $5 and $7. My monthly bill was double its normal rate. When I talked to an AT&T Supervisor named Monica, she basically said, in a very nice way, "Sorry Charlie!" I asked when I was officially notified of these surcharges and her response was "in the media." Of course, I hadn't. Why would I expose myself to these kinds of charges if I knew about them? Even with the threat of losing my business she stated she would not adjust my charges. Remember the old days when your favorite carrier would simply drop the charges on anything you could prove were onerous? John Ledahl At 06:15 AM 8/7/2000 -0400, you wrote: > >Telecom Digest Monday, August 7 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 010 > > > >In this issue: > > Number portability D O E S N O T W O R K ! ! ! ! > Verizon workers on strike > EFFector 13.06: Carnivore, New EFFers, Join via PayPal, DVD Updates > Registration > PAT at Storemont-Vail > Carnivore and RIP > ICB spam > Pittsburgh > re: ICB Spam > AT&T Wireless ill-prepared for rollout of 866 > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: 6 Aug 2000 11:26:55 -0400 >From: wdg@hal-pc.org (Bubba) >Subject: Number portability D O E S N O T W O R K ! ! ! ! > >Number portability D O E S N O T W O R K ! > >Last Tuesday, August 1, 2000, Southwestern Bell ported 500 numbers for me >(in contiguous 100-number blocks) between two adjacent SWB central >offices, HSTNTXNADSO and HSTNTXSUDSO. In both offices the facilities were >PRI ISDN. The numbers were moved from NAtional to SUnset. > >Although the actual porting of the numbers took considerably longer than >expected (some 4 hours), the initial observation was that at the end of >the 4 hours it was working. - or so I thought. > >Just one problem: While local callers inside the Houston LATA had no >trouble reaching the newly ported numbers, many long distance callers were >encountering 'out-of-service' intercept messages. Worse, two high profile >800 numbers which are translated to a couple of the ported numbers also no >longer work. > >Today is Sunday the 6th., 5 days after the number porting occurred. The >two inbound 800 numbers STILL do not work and I'm still getting sporadic >reports from around the countryside that the block of 500 ported numbers >are still unreachable. Callers are receiving an intercept recording >stating that the numbers have been disconnected. > >The LEC tells me the problem lies in propagation time for the various IXCs >and CLECs, etc. to pick up the database changes. Mother of God! > >Can someone help me understand WHY this happened and moreover how long >it's going to take for these various and sundry CLECS, IXCs and LECs to >pick up the changes? > >Just an observation here, it would seem to me that this number portability >thing does not work. >- -- >The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail >messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. > >------------------------------ > >Date: 6 Aug 2000 13:19:06 -0400 >From: Monty Solomon >Subject: Verizon workers on strike > >Talks continue at Verizon > >85,000 employees on strike; talks continue in hope of quick settlement > >August 6, 2000: 1:01 p.m. ET > >NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Negotiations between Verizon Communications and the unions representing some 85,000 of its workers continued Sunday after the company's telephone operators and line technicians officially walked off the job without a new contract. > >Two major unions, representing about 33 percent of Verizon's work force, said the company made a last-minute contract offer that responded to many of workers' concerns about more money and benefits, improved job security and restrictions on the amount of forced-overtime employees must work. > >http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2000/08/05/news/verizon_strike/ >- -- >The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail >messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. > >------------------------------ > >Date: 6 Aug 2000 13:22:57 -0400 >From: Monty Solomon >Subject: EFFector 13.06: Carnivore, New EFFers, Join via PayPal, DVD Updates > > EFFector Vol. 13, No. 6 Aug. 4, 2000 editor@eff.org > > A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 > > IN THE 154th ISSUE OF EFFECTOR (now with over 24,600 subscribers!): > > * EFF Position on FBI "Carnivore" Snooping System > + EFF's House Judiciary Committee Testimony on Carnivore > + Carnivore FAQ > * EFF Welcomes New Board and Staff Members: > + Prof. Pamela Samuelson, Boardmember > + Cindy Cohen, Legal Director > + Lee Tien, Senior Staff Attorney > + John Marttila, Administrative Assistant > * EFF Now Accepts PayPal Transactions for Memberships > * DVD Update Bulletins Available on CAFE-News > * Administrivia > > For more information on EFF activities & alerts: http://www.eff.org > _________________________________________________________________ > > >http://www.eff.org/effector/HTML/effect13.06.html >- -- >The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail >messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. > >------------------------------ > >Date: 6 Aug 2000 14:07:25 -0400 >From: Jay Hennigan >Subject: Registration > >Please allow posting. > >- -- >Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - jay@west.net >NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ >WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 >- -- >The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail >messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. > >------------------------------ > >Date: 6 Aug 2000 16:10:52 -0400 >From: "Tad Cook" >Subject: PAT at Storemont-Vail > >I was at a family reunion in Eugene, Oregon last weekend. It was for descendents of my great-grandparents on my father's mother's >side, who are from the Topeka, Kansas area. > >I ran into a woman who is a friend of one of my dad's cousins, and it turns out she is night PBX operator at Stormont-Vail Regional >Medical Center in Topeka, where our moderator Patrick Townsend first stayed before he moved to Kansas Rehabilitation Hospital. She >remembers his name, and remarked that she received quite a number of calls for him. I told her about his previous hospital stays in >Illinois, and how he would eventually seek out the PBX room and report back to the digest about how the phone system worked. She >said that she has had quite a number of telephone people who were patients come down to the phone room to check things out over the >years. > >I then found out that the hospital is built on the site of my grandmother's old home, which was torn down in the 1960s for the >hospital. > >Tad Cook >tad@aa.net >Seattle, WA >- -- >The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail >messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. > >------------------------------ > >Date: 6 Aug 2000 17:13:13 -0400 >From: "Steve Hayes" >Subject: Carnivore and RIP > >Hi everyone, > >Glad to see that the Digest is back, even with the robo-moderation. I hope >that Pat is able to get his life sorted out. Of course he can do a better >job than the robot but I'm not sure that it is worth all the aggro involved >so let's all be glad that the robot exists. I would remind those who have >benefitted from the Digest all these years without making any financial >contribution that they ought to send something to Pat for all his work. > >Anyway, in V2000, #6, we had a copy of EPIC ALERT Volume 7.15 forwarded by >Monty Solomon. Yes, it was big but it was also very interesting. In >particular, the information about the FBI's proposed Carnivore system for >intercepting communications at ISPs. > >There has been quite a bit of controversy here in the UK regarding the >proposals in the "Regulation of Investigatory Powers" (RIP) bill. This would >require ISPs to install "black boxes" which would be connected to secret >government facilities, supposedly to allow interception of communications by >the usual "terrorists and drug lords". US and UK spooks have a long history >of moving in lockstep and we can see that Carnivore and RIP are again one >and the same thing. What makes these "black boxes" particularly alarming is >that they sound like they will allow any or all communications to be >intercepted with no-one outside the government agencies knowing which ones >or able to check that the appropriate warrants have been obtained. > >Another contentious clause in the RIP bill relates to encrypted >communications. It allows the authorities to require someone to hand over >either decryption keys or decrypted versions of any communication on >request. The burden of proof is reversed - you would have to prove that you >did not have the key and how do you do that? Furthermore, there are very >severe penalties if you reveal to anyone that you have been made to hand >over any of this information! > >A number of countries have explicitly rejected this type of law, e.g. the >Irish Republic. One way I can see to bust this whole racket is to use a >version of Virtual Private Networking or similar to connect to an ISP in one >of these countries (via a local ISP - no international calls needed). When >you connected to your offshore ISP, your computer would generate a session >key. This would be sent to the offshore ISP after encryption with their >public key and would then be used to encrypt all communications in both >directions. At the end of the session, the session key would be >automatically destroyed. > >When the plods come knocking, you can easily demonstrate that the session >key exists no more. The only way to get it is with the ISPs private key but >they are beyond the jurisdiction. RIP RIP. > >There are probably dozens of other ways to thwart these systems. As a >law-abiding person, I am quite prepared to live with a system where my >e-mails can be intercepted (or my phone tapped) subject to the usual >safeguards of warrants, etc. However, I am not at all happy if governments >can scan all communications looking for any tasty tidbits of information >that they or their associates can use to their advantage. Most people will >probably feel the same way. If Carnivore and RIP don't have good, rat-proof >safeguards built in, I can see a situation developing where all >communications will end up beyond the reach of the authorities with or >without warrants - and it'll be their own stupid fault! > >Steve Hayes (please reply to stevehayes@compuserve.com) >South Wales, U.K. >- -- >The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail >messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. > >------------------------------ > >Date: 6 Aug 2000 17:46:41 -0400 >From: Jay Hennigan >Subject: ICB spam > >Can we do something to lose this spam? > >These repetitive "newsletters" are essentially advertisements for a paid >subscription web site. > >Spam is the same thing over and over again, and the message "Visit this >URL, pay money, and see what's there" is what is being said over and over >again. > >Spam is not about content. The message of "Visit this URL and pay to >view something" is every bit as much spam whether the website being >spamvertized is telecom related or a porn site. If it's really news, >and it's really on-topic and telecom related, then let the ICB people >simply post each item separately with an appropriate subject line for >that item. If they don't want to share information freely and simply >want to lure people to a paid website, they are spammers and should be >banned. > >Repetitive postings with teasers and lists of pay-for URLs aren't on >topic, don't have appropriate subject lines, and don't belong on a >moderated (or robo-moderated) newsgroup. > >- -- >Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - jay@west.net >NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ >WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 > >- -- >Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - jay@west.net >NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ >WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 >- -- >The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail >messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. > >------------------------------ > >Date: 6 Aug 2000 18:04:26 -0400 >From: "Ralph Sprang" >Subject: Pittsburgh > >Would anyone who is familiar with telecom related companies in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania please email me. > >Thanks. > >Ralph >decolores9@yahoo.com > > > >CCNmail for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.ccnmail.com >- -- >The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail >messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. > >------------------------------ > >Date: 6 Aug 2000 18:39:17 -0400 >From: "Peter Hope-Tindall" >Subject: re: ICB Spam > >I agree in substance with you. However, some of the ICB content is >certainly useful in this case. As I said in my previous posts, I think >a single (or even a couple) of tasteful links are appropriate for a >sponsor (just like the ITU and/or Microsoft used to get credit). Third >party ads are another matter. > >I complained a little last week (although, without realizing that this >was formally announced in April). > >The response I was given by the individual at ICB and the acting robo- >admin was that this person goes back a long way with Pat and pays a >sponsorship fee for the privilege of doing this. > >I don't agree with it, but I guess this digest (and comp.dcom.telecom >news group) is not a democracy. > >In many respects we have nobody to blame but ourselves if Pat has to >turn to third party sponsorship to finance his moderation. > >If there is a group inclination here, possibly we could find out how >much Judith contributes to the digest and replace those funds with >subscriptions. (the put-up-or-shut-up approach). > >Comments anyone? > > >Peter Hope-Tindall >peter@hope-tindall.com > > >"Jay Hennigan" wrote in message >news:Pine.SO4.4.05.10008061443211.24770-100000@slowpoke.sb.west.net... >> Can we do something to lose this spam? >> >> Spam is not about content. The message of "Visit this URL and pay to >> view something" is every bit as much spam whether the website being >> spamvertized is telecom related or a porn site. If it's really news, >> and it's really on-topic and telecom related, then let the ICB people >> simply post each item separately with an appropriate subject line for >> that item. If they don't want to share information freely and simply >> want to lure people to a paid website, they are spammers and should >be >> banned. >- -- >The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail >messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. > >------------------------------ > >Date: 6 Aug 2000 22:37:29 -0400 >From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" >Subject: AT&T Wireless ill-prepared for rollout of 866 > >Apparently having over a year to prepare for the rollout of 866 was not >sufficient for AT&T Wireless. I received my 866 number early last week >(yes, Judith, I was able to get my vanity number in 866) from AT&T Long >Distance. I currently have this 866 number forwarded to my Sprint PCS >wireless phone. > >It has worked from everywhere I have tried: land lines, pay phones, >Sprint PCS wireless, except AT&T Wireless (multiple phones). Late last >week from Pittsburgh and St. Louis, I was getting a ringing forever, but >it was not my Sprint PCS phone that was ringing. In Cleveland today, I >received a "your call cannot be completed as dialled" message. Tonight >in Pittsburgh, I am getting a fast busy. > >After spending 3 hours on the phone with AT&T Wireless on Friday, I was >finally able to convince a customer service representative to *request* >a trouble ticket be filed with the assistance of an representative from >AT&T Long Distance repair conferenced into the call. The repair rep was >able to convince the reluctant AT&T Wireless person that this was >*Wireless's* problem. The person refused to give me a trouble ticket >number, so who knows what actually was filed, if anything. > >Some of the more amusing/sad things I was told: > > * "oh, you are calling Sprint PCS voicemail, you cannot do that from > AT&T Wireless" (my Sprint phone was turned off) > * "who is it you are trying to call?" (what business is it of > theirs?) > * "you are calling a prepaid wireless phone, you cannot do > that(!!!!)" > * "866 had been delayed and is not yet available" > * "866 does not work yet, try it again in another month and it should > work" > * and, of course, "what is 866?" > >You would think for a company as large as AT&T that they would actually >have some of their technical staff on some of these numbering committees >and they might be clued in on the rollout of something like "866". But, >I guess not... > > > jeff > > > >- -- >Jeffrey J. Carpenter >P.O. Box 471 >Glenshaw, PA 15116-0471 > >Phone: +1 218 837-6000 >Fax: +1 310 914-1716 > >Email: jjc@pobox.com >Web: http://pobox.com/~jjc/ >- -- >The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail >messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. > >------------------------------ > >End of Telecom Digest V2000 #10 >******************************* > > > - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2000 19:57:05 -0400 From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: Directory assitance, was: Re: Yahoo! .. verizon strike In <200008081546.KAA07313@celadon.propagation.net> Fred Atkinson writes: > Being a Verizon customer, you're incorrect when you say they may >have difficulty reaching directory assistance. I've tried several >times in the last twenty-four hours and I have been *unable* to reach >them. I always seems to get a recording blaming the work stoppage >for their inable to answer my inquiry. Which brings up a related question: isn't a huge amount of Verizon's (and other telcos) directory assitance now handled by the third party groups who are, presumably, unaffected by the walkout? - -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2000 22:10:52 -0400 From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Directory assitance, was: Re: Yahoo! .. verizon strike > >Which brings up a related question: isn't a huge amount of Verizon's (and >other telcos) directory assitance now handled by the third party groups >who are, presumably, unaffected by the walkout? As far as I know, only the wireless is outsourced. But then I know only how GTE is set up, there are centers located in different areas which handle DA, so you could be talking one on the other side of the US. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. http://www.delphi.com/gbbs The only good spammer is a dead one, have you hunted one down today? (c) - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ End of Telecom Digest V2000 #12 *******************************