From: (unknown)
Subject: [telecom] TELECOM Digest V22 #115
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 02:12:50 -0500 (EST)

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Nov 2002 02:13:00 EST    Volume 22 : Issue 115

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: SpamCop (vs. Politech) (Danny Burstein)
    Re: 000-000-0000 Caller ID (John Higdon)
    Re: 000-000-0000 Caller ID (John David Galt)
    Re: 000-000-0000 Caller ID (Dave Phelps)
    Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV (Ed Ellers)
    Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV (Zed**3)
    Re: Obtaining FEMA Essential Personell ID (Utility Employee) (D Farmer)
    Court to Clarify Definition of Fraud in Charitable Fund-Raising (Solomon)
    You Have Triggered a Spam Filter ( )
    Wholesale Air-Time (Kamal)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.  

From: danny burstein <> Subject: Re: SpamCop (vs. politech) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:30:49 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In <> Monty Solomon <> writes: > Politech incorrectly blocked by SpamCop -- for the third time > Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:20:56 -0500 (EST) > (similar urls clipped for space ) While I count myself among Declan's fans, I have to side with SpamCop in this case. To quote from the cited url ( ): Now SpamCop lists Politech on its spammer-list because some other servers also hosted at are alleged spammers. While SpamCop could have done a better job of explaining this process, it's a pretty clear and very strong, and effective, method of dealing with spam friendly companies. I personally have received plenty of spam that utilizes's services. As have many other people. Since their business model seems to be to take money from these parasites, many filtering groups have simply cut them off completely. Bit by bit, they'll find themselves in an ever shrinking intranet. Spammers, and spam facilitaters, have NO intrinsic right to my mailbox. And their trick of hosting "legitimate" services has long since lost any credibilty. To once again use my favorite analogy, they're equivalent to a supermarket that leaves rotting meat strewn across the aisles. As word gets out, fewer and fewer shoppers go there. The store may also have some of the best melt-in-your-mouth chocolate, in sealed containers (hence safe), but the store traffic just isn't there. Accordingly, the distributer ships and sells less product. The real complaint shouldn't be with the newspaper reporting the rotten meat, nor with the Department of Health. The chocolate distributer has the choice of: a) trucking their product to other stores b) leaning on the supermarket to clean up their act. Similarly, Declan's complaint shouldn't be with the spam filter groups, but should be with the spam friendly internet provider. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
From: John Higdon <> Subject: Re: 000-000-0000 Caller ID Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 13:42:13 -0800 In article <>, Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote: > No, not at all. If PBX owners want the luxury of running their own > little telco, they should expect to be accountable. If they can not > or will not, then they should buy individual phone lines from the > telco. > If PBX owners can not (or will not) clean up their act, there are quite a > few more steps that can (and should) be taken. I don't want to rain on everyone's parade, but the matter is moot. The new wave of telemarketers do this: They order a bank of residential lines in someone's home. They connect a PC to the lines and to a VPN. The thing sits in a closet making thousands of automated junk calls a day in the metro area in which it lives. It gets residential rates (and in CA that means free local calling). The lines have CID unblocked, so the name of the person who ordered the lines and the number of the line making the call are visible. No ACR or even Privacy Manager will stop those calls. I just got a "refinance your mortgage" call from a telemarketing machine that identified as "Jack Mortenson" at 408 226-0706. So I (and now you) know the guy's name and number. So what? What the hell can we do about it? Oh, yeah ... call the phone company. "I work out of my home." End of investigation. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Exactly ... and I might go one step > further. Telcos like SWB are infamous for selling services they cannot > or do not back up; like Privacy Manager. I would require the telcos > to put manual entries in their database of those 'special' names a lot > of telemarketers/others like to use; names such as 'Name Unavailable', > 'Name Withheld', etc. Not all of us have a caller ID box right in front > of our faces all the time when a phone rings, so we cannot always go > looking for an ID box before deciding whether we should ignore the > 'obviously bogus' call. PAT Sorry. Useless. How about "Jack Mortenson"? Go ahead; call his number. You'll find it busy; his machine is busily bothering people all around the southern part of the SFBA. For all I know, the machine is actually owned and operated by someone in New York ... and controlled from there. And there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. In article <>, wrote: > No, the way I'd set it up is you get one warning. If you repeatedly send > false CLID information then the penalties kick in per occurence. What is "false"? What number must be displayed? The billing number of the PRI? Some number derived from a DID bank served on the switch? What if the switch is part of a national network and reachable by numbers all over the country? Some CIDs are set dynamically based upon auth and employee codes. What restrictions would you impose and how would you define them? Enterprize telephony is not some little simplistic one-to-one relationship designed for the convenience of the terminally stupid. If a call shows up as some impossible or un-recognizable number, let it go to VM and be done with it. We don't need more (and simplistically stupid) laws hamstringing telecommunications. > Make it > something on the order of $25 per reported incident. Not enough to > bankrupt but enough of an accounting problem to be a real pain in the > butt for telemarketers who think they can get around things like ACR. What about the telemarketers that call with correct CID showing? How are you going to stop them? Any idiot that will answer "000-000-0000" will certainly answer a call from "Jack Mortenson" at 408 226-0706. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I want to review just one of John's points above, i.e.'there is nothing anyone can do about it.' Oh yes there is. You can make life hell for Mr. Mortenson. Does Jack have any other listed directory (published) numbers at his premises? He must have one or two, unless he goes in the closet to make calls. I need not explain to readers here what could happen in those cases. And you say he is in business for himself, working from home? Then I would assume he has the required licenses for his business from the city and state government. And he is in the mortgage financing business? Then he would have the required permits from the commissioner of banking for California, right? Now let's say enough people file complaints that Jack has called them after that have told 'him' not to continue calling. Maybe one or two of them sue him for harassment, etc. Oh, listen now to Jack as he squeals: not me! I just rented out my closet to that company in New York to install/operate their computer. Or maybe the telemarketer goes out of business leaving a large bill due to the local telco, who retaliates by cutting off all Jack's phones (even his personal non-pub line; the one he actually uses) until he (*Jack*) pays the entire bill. A very problematic situation, John. I dunno about you, but I for one would be most reluctant to allow *anyone* (telemarketer or otherwise) to have a telephone on my premises which they controlled remotely and had listed in *my name*. Maybe they could get you to do it; I'd be afraid of the reputation the company had which then in turn got rubbed off on me by virtue of my name on someone's caller-ID. I am afraid even now, assuming that you gave the correct number for Jack Mortenson 408-226-0706, that some readers here in the SF Bay area might get abusive toward Jack and his privacy. As to the second part of your message 'what makes up a real number', I would say a REAL honest-to-God number is one that can be dialed into and an answer received (not just all zeros or one that is forever busied-out or one that rings open from now until the Kingdom Comes.) You might have to call at all sorts of odd hours, but that's part of the fun ... in other words John, a 'real' number for caller-id purposes is a number which allows someone some recourse to the person who called them. PAT]
From: John David Galt <> Subject: Re: 000-000-0000 Caller ID Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 16:37:57 -0800 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Patrick Townson wrote: > I would say 'accidental misconfigurations' of PBX could be treated as > civil violations, let's say a $500 fine for each complaint against you > until you get it resolved. This is equivilent to stores which accept > your check as payment then have it bounce 'accidentally' because of your > error. In Kansas and many other states, the store is allowed to collect > a civil penalty up to three times the value of the check. That's the > law's way of saying do your math a little better in the future. They're > not interested in putting you in jail; just in getting it cleared. > Deliberate or willful miscongurations of a PBX would be treated like > any sort of willful behavior. If you wrote dozens of checks from a > check book you 'happened to find' laying around somewhere, or opened > an account with no money and started writing checks, that is deliberate > and willful behavior. That's a crime. So should be the willful or > deliberate misconfiguration of a PBX. > What is deliberate behavior versus accidental behavior? That's for a > judge to figure out if it goes that far. PAT] I'm all for it. (How does one go about formally requesting the FCC to make a rule like this, anyway? Does it require an attorney?) But there's a small problem -- how do we catch violators? Unless they happen to call someone who gets ANI on their line, ISTM that the only people in a position to discover the caller's identity is his own LEC, which is unlikely to want to cooperate. "Who will bell the cat?" > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Exactly ... and I might go one step > further. Telcos like SWB are infamous for selling services they cannot > or do not back up; like Privacy Manager. I would require the telcos > to put manual entries in their database of those 'special' names a lot > of telemarketers/others like to use; names such as 'Name Unavailable', > 'Name Withheld', etc. Not all of us have a caller ID box right in front > of our faces all the time when a phone rings, so we cannot always go > looking for an ID box before deciding whether we should ignore the > 'obviously bogus' call. PAT While we're at it, telcos should not be allowed to let callers evade PM simply by calling you via the operator. Their willingness to do this is advertised in the phone book as part of the instructions for using PM. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am tempted to say if they want to pay the outrageous surcharge given for operator-assisted calls these days, I would probably listen to them for a couple minutes before saying 'no' and hanging up. But you are correct; calls attempting to avoid privacy manager should be handled the same way calls to the operator to avoid 900 blocks on lines are handled. Did you ever call a 900 number from a line you knew was blocked just to see how it was handled? The intercept recording says 'calls to that number are not allowed from the phone you are using, **and the operator will not be able to complete your call for you either.**' . If in fact some dumb operator actually tries it, she can bubble all she likes on her keyboard terminal, the equipment simply will not release the call. PAT]
From: Dave Phelps <> Subject: Re: 000-000-0000 Caller ID Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 23:43:07 -0600 Pat said... > I would require the telcos > to put manual entries in their database of those 'special' names a lot > of telemarketers/others like to use; names such as 'Name Unavailable', > 'Name Withheld', etc. CID name is not provided by the PBX making the call, even with PRI. CID name lookups are performed by the CO serving the subscriber receiving the call. The only information a PBX can send is a phone number, and only with ISDN-PRI. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is true, however telcos which offer 'privacy manager' service (or like Southwestern Bell try to defraud people into signing up for it) maintain a database **on their end** which they have to dip when deciding whether or not a call is to be treated before being passed on to the subscriber. So, do all the reverse lookups you like matching names and numbers. If the recipient telco does a reverse lookup and gets back something like 'name unavailable', or 'private name' or etc, then recipient telco can jolly well manually edit their database to include those ficticious entries.
From: Ed Ellers <> Subject: Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 19:45:33 -0500 John Stahl <> wrote: > In the HAM (Licensed Radio Amateur) "world" we have learned about strange > weather influenced conditions called "inversion" which has great > effect "in the propagation of higher frequency radio waves." <snip> > These weather conditions sometimes bring in signals from very far away > than would normally be possible. Perhaps this type of weather inversion > caused the reported interference between the long-distance separated TV > and police radios, as reported by others, evidentially on the same > frequency. TV engineer Doug Lung has a good column on this subject at, with links to some other useful information including a fact sheet on VHF and UHF propagation prepared by the BBC ( if you just want to skip to the good stuff).
From: (Zed**3) Subject: Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV Date: 6 Nov 2002 16:46:36 GMT Organization: Spontaneous > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Tell me what police and/or television > station use the same range of frequencies? Police, operating in VHF > are usually around 150-155 megs. On UHF the police are usually around > 450-470 megs. What TV stations are around there? None. How could this > be an FCC problem? PAT] There are several possibilities. In several large metropolitan areas some of the lower UHF TV channels in the range 470-512MHz have been assigned to private land mobile services, including police and fire. WCVB is on channel 5, so that is not likely the problem. Another possibility is that it is not the TV broadcast station itself that is causing the problem, but a studio to transmitter link (STL) that could be in the 450-470MHz range. There is a lack of technical details in the online article.
From: Dale Farmer <> Subject: Re: Obtaining FEMA Essential Personell ID (Utility Employee/Telecom) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 21:46:38 -0500 Organization: Furry green fuzz in the back of the refrigerator Boo Phatty wrote: > Today, Sun, 03 Nov 2002 00:16:36 -0500, Two Buddha read a post from > Dale Farmer <> , and determined his interest in > BURP. Where's my beer? Oh and: >> Boo Phatty wrote: >>> Hello folks. Does anyone know where to apply for FEMA essential >>> personell access cards i.e. ID that allows you to be on the street and >>> in a disaster area? >>> For instance, VZ E-911 personnel carry old CD cards that allow them >>> access to/from the E911 center during blizzards or declared >>> emergencies, etc. >>> I'm probably not calling it the right thing, but I would appreciate a >>> pointer. FEMA's website is very light on information of this kind. >> You apply to your state emergency management agency. They are the >> ones that actually issue them. They do have agreements with >> hospitals, the phone company, cities and so on to have the appropriate >> logos and authorizations placed on the employees regular ID badges. >> This allows them to save a lot of money not issuing separate badges to >> all those folks. You had better have a good reason to have that >> badge. Saving your company a pile of money because you have to shut a >> process down or something like that will not cut it. You have to be >> part of something that will restore damaged public utilities, medical >> aid, or other emergency type services. >> --Dale > Thanks, that helps. I do have a reason, other than money, and it is > utilities related. > Do you know what they would call the program? Thanks in advance. Well, here in the People's Commonwealth of Taxachusetts, it is called the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency. ( MEMA) Their office is about thirty feet underground in a bunker in Framingham. That about runs out my direct knowledge on the subject. --Dale
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:57:54 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <> Subject: Court to Clarify Definition of Fraud in Charitable Fund-Raising Court to Clarify Definition of Fraud in Charitable Fund-Raising By LINDA GREENHOUSE WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 - Urged by a group of states to remove a constitutional obstacle to prosecuting fraud by professional fund-raisers, the Supreme Court agreed today to clarify the boundary that separates charitable solicitation from consumer fraud. The case was brought to the court by the Illinois attorney general's office, which for 10 years has tried to pursue a consumer fraud action against a telemarketing company that keeps 85 percent of the money it raises on behalf of a Vietnam War veterans' charity. The state's complaint against Telemarketing Associates Inc. was dismissed last year by the Illinois Supreme Court on the ground that charitable solicitation is a form of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. A trio of decisions by the United States Supreme Court in the 1980's established that principle and held that state regulators were constitutionally barred from designating a particular percentage of receipts that had to reach a charity in order for the fund-raising to be considered legitimate.
From: Subject: You Have Triggered a Spam Filter Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 05:43:31 GMT This is an automatic response: the recipient has not received your message. If you were trying to make a personal contact with the intended recipient, you have probably replied to a Usenet posting which has a spam-protected reply email address. Somewhere in that posting (probably in the .signature at the end) there will be instructions on how to mail the real address of its poster. Sorry for the inconvenience! Blame the spammers for causing people to go to these lengths. On the other hand, if you were trying to send spam (unsolicited bulk email) to this address, understand that it is utterly unwelcome, and has been utterly ignored, too. The recipient of your spam wishes your business all the success it deserves, given its current marketing strategy. Which is to say, none at all. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, tell me something tippingring; did the above come to you as a result of my mail to you, or something you attempted to send to me? All I got was the above, under your name. Spammers certainly have made a mess of the net and email; no doubt about it. PAT]
From: (Kamal) Subject: Wholesale Air-Time Date: 6 Nov 2002 08:30:26 -0800 Organization: If you live in the Marin County area and are thinking about switching from Verizon to Wholesale Air-Time, don't. I was told that I would be getting a substantial savings if I switched but it is actually costing me more than Verizon did. Ask all your questions before verifying your social security number with the account verification person. Anything discussed and promised to you after that is worthless. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It sounds a lot like the early days of MCI. In the 1970's, MCI reps would arrogantly contact telco customers of AT&T (the only game in town in those days) and as soon as the customer answered the phone would begin chattering about how much you would save on your monthly bill by going with them. If you said no, thank you, I am not interested, their response was to look incredulous and say, 'you are not interested in reducing your long distance bill by 25 percent' (or whatever amount the rep made up.) They always aimed for the president of the company or the highest person they could reach. The idea was to reach the highest possible employee so the person *would* be interested in saving money for the company but very likely know little or nothing about the mechanics of the company phone system. They knew if they could get him to sign off on it, then they could use the highly placed executive to do their dirty work for them shoving it down the throats of all the underlings who *actually worked* with the phone system day by day. And if they could not shake you off your 'not interested' posture with their incredulous looks and insinuations that 'you must be crazy not to want to save big money using our network then they would write you off and demand to 'let me speak to your supervisor or someone who knows what he is talking about.' Those were crazy times in the industry. PAT]
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications 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, 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: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 530-309-7234 Email: Subscribe: 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: Anonymous FTP: (or use our mirror site: Email <==> FTP: Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
* 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. * *, * * 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. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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
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 twenty 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 V22 #115
-- "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Noah Webster

Visit the Crazy Atheist Libertarian
Check out "David Dorn" - Hate Monger
Check out Atheists United - Arizona
Visit my atheist friends at Heritics, Atheists, Skeptics, Humanists, Infidels, and Secular Humanists - Arizona
Arizona Secular Humanists
Paul Putz Cooks the Arizona Secular Humanist's Check Book
News about crimes commited by the police and government
News about crimes commited by religious leaders and beleivers
Some strange but true news about the government
Some strange but real news about religion
Interesting, funny but otherwise useless news!
Libertarians talk about freedom
Cool Useless Photos, Cool gif files, Cool jpg files
Legal Library
Gif, JPG, and other images you can use on your web pages
David Dorn Insuranse