Path: utzoo!telecom-request
Date: Mon, 27 May 91 18:40:46 CST
From: Jack Winslade <ivgate!Jack.Winslade@uunet.uu.net>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Potential telesleaze countermeasure
Message-ID: <telecom11.404.4@eecs.nwu.edu>
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 404, Message 4 of 10
Lines: 27

In a recent article, DONALD E. KIMBERLIN writes:

>   (Just think of listening to a 900 pitch EVERY time you place
>   a call!)

>  *LECs will derive yet a tertiary revenue source by tariffing a
>   monthly charge to *stop* the telesleaze on your order (Do we have
>   any *7n codes left for an "ad blocking" option?).

(An aside here.  Think of the controversy between per-line and
per-call sleazoid blocking. ;-)

Yes, and how about a magic box that detects the 'real' ringback signal
and blanks audio between the rings.  I can see a real market for
those.  I guess that THEY (the ubiquitous 'they') will then come up
with the technology to fool those boxes into passing the slime
through, but then a NEW IMPROVED box will have to be developed at
twice the price.

>  ... and so on. The mind boggles, once the nausea subsides.

I agree.
 

Good Day!       JSW