Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is my friend's telecom network bugged? Is someone having some fun at our expense? Info needed.

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Hi am glad you got to the bottom of your situation,it at least must be somewhat of a relief to find out you were right all along and there was actually someone monitoring your calls.

As for these unlimited offers.I have an 'unlimited' web bolt on for my mobile phone with o2 but it runs out at 500mb after which I'm exceeding their 'fair usage' policy and have to pay £1 a day for limited access until my bolt ons anniversary date which is one month from the last time I received my bolt on !!




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Well to be fair and skeptical, I can't say with certitude that their monitoring my usage is responsible for the noises. Or whether their "monitoring" extends to listening in (which I am fairly certain is highly illegal unless I am suspected of some manner of crime) or simply logging my activity.

But it is suspicious and more than a little coincidental feeling to me.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Well to be fair and skeptical, I can't say with certitude that their monitoring my usage is responsible for the noises. Or whether their "monitoring" extends to listening in (which I am fairly certain is highly illegal unless I am suspected of some manner of crime) or simply logging my activity.

But it is suspicious and more than a little coincidental feeling to me.


I suggest you consider how else they determined that your usage was not commercial. The only way to determine that is if they listened in. You could ask them how they determined that fact, I'm certain you would not get a straight answer.

P



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
My usage isn't commercial, though, so I can't say whether they have some reason to think it is beyond the number of minutes used for certain. They just have (apparently) a limit of 5,000 minutes a month, which they consider "reasonable residential usage." Anything above that they define as "commercial usage" even if there is no actual commercial usage.

But, that does beg the question, how do they go about making the distinction? Is it automatic based on the minutes? Or do they actually attempt to discover what exactly you're doing with the service they provide? It seems reasonable to hypothesize that they would have a means of doing that. But unless a crime is being committed, I think they would have a lot of problems on their hands if they did this routinely. Hence my skepticism.

It is very odd though, that I have always talked this much - in fact, usually much more - and this is the first time in years that they have said anything about it. Why now? And why does this coincide with all of this weirdness?

Strange behavior.
edit on 11/10/2012 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
you got a ghost on your line. somebody is probably hacking in



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
This is the discussion I just had on the phone with Comcast. (Paraphrased from memory, but it is very close to verbatim. I remember conversations very vividly for an hour or two after I've had them.)

Me: I received a letter in the mail saying that my digital voice usage exceeds normal residential usage policy. Can you clarify what this means and what I can do about it?

Comcast: Well sir, we do have a limit for acceptable residential usage of 5,000 minutes in a one month period. Anything above that we classify as commercial usage, which is prohibited for residential subscribers. Your two options, unfortunately, are to curtail your usage so that you bring it into compliance with the policy, to purchase a business subscription, which I'd be happy to set up for you if you'd like, or we will have to proceed to account termination.

Me: Well, can you explain something to me? When I signed up with Comcast, I was told that I had unlimited long distance calling with this plan. 5,000 minutes a month, given a 30 day month, is 2.7 hours a day. Does that sound particularly unlimited to you?

Comcast: Well sir, it is unlimited long distance calling, that is correct. However, we polled thousands and thousands of Comcast subscribers, and determined that the average residential usage for a normal phone user is far below what you have been using. So there is that 5,000 minute limitation, and unfortunately there is no opt-out or exception. This is our policy.

Me: Well, I'm trying to be as polite and constructive as possible so please forgive me if this comes out the wrong way. But my understanding is that in the English language, words have definitions. The word unlimited has a specific definition. You're telling me that what I in fact have is limited long distance calling. No one ever told me this. I was never sent this policy in a bill, since I have e-billing. And while the policy technically is on the site - now that I know to look for it - no one ever directed me to it before this, and there was no reason to ever go hunting for it in the multiple links unrelated to my bill that I would have to sift through to find it. There was no fine print back when I signed up suggesting this.

Comcast: Well sir, this policy took effect in July of 2011, and has been in effect since that time. I don't know what to tell you other than, your usage is commercial, and not residential, and that is prohibited under the terms of your current subscription.

Me: I understand that. But I can assure you that there is no commercial usage happening here. Again, the definition of the word commercial is not an arbitrary criteria of minutes spent talking in a month. The word commercial means, by definition, that there is business and money making happening on my phone. I can assure you that it is not.

Comcast: Well sir, our records indicate otherwise.

Me: What do you mean your records indicate otherwise? Do you have proof that I have been conducting commercial business on my phone? I can assure you that you don't, since it hasn't happened.

Comcast: Well sir, our records indicate usage that is consistent with commercial usage, and we unfortunately can't simply take your word on that, I'm sorry.

Me: So before I was a valued customer, and now I'm a liar?

Comcast: Sir, I can't really comment on that. All I can do is inform you of our policy, and that it will be enforced if you do not being your usage back into compliance with that policy.

Me: Well obviously I will, because I have no choice. This is our only phone. We can't afford a business plan, and we can't afford to lose this phone. So I'll be doing what you're telling me to. I have no choice or power over the matter. But can you at least, as a person, as a human being, acknowledge that this is incredibly unfair and contradictory?

Comcast: I can't really comment on that, sir. Is there anything else I can do for you today?

Me: Apparently not. Have a nice day, sir.

Call ended.
edit on 11/13/2012 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/13/2012 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


I wonder if it's a random test of AI technology? Sorry, I know you didn't want speculation, but it just came to mind as I was reading through the various replies. A standard SOS transmitted at random to a number of paired connections would be enough to catch the attention of a few keen-of-mind folks such as you and your friend. In responding vocally, you may have triggered a pre-determined set of responses, including the ability to somehow damage your phone handsets.

Why would this be useful? Well, if a set of keywords were detected (on full roll-out of the AI monitoring system; presently I suppose it's in development & you guys are a random 'test group') - a set of responses coordinated by the AI, according to a scale of intrusiveness/ destructiveness, could be automatically brought to bear in order to:

a) Intimidate, by making the targets think they were being remote monitored - enough to stop some people in their tracks, if they're doing stuff they oughtn't be doing..

b) Obfuscate (covering over elements of conversation, various purposes served - possibly even causing you to hear a friend/contact saying something he/she didn't actually say, once the AI had gathered enough data about lexicon, tonality & inflection of his/her voice)

c) Trigger more active interference by human agents; putting a person 'on the radar', without the need for complex human surveillance measures to uncover potential targets.

d) Destroy communications links in the event that a militia subversion/ terrorist attack was on the cards.


I get the idea that this stuff would monitor less obvious targets, such as militia members - targets could be automatically selected by sophisticated analysis of online activity, purchase history, personal movements around certain areas, contacts & family connections, etc, etc. Anyone amassing more than a certain critical mass of 'triggers' in this way, would be linked to the AI monitoring system, which would naturally take advantage of all comms & data carrying networks/ devices within your personal 'family & close friends' circle, in order to capture a large enough volume of online activity/ phone chatter - to enable analysis leading to risk assessment. The 'backtalk' feature of the system is quite interesting, and may be designed to spread a general sense of paranoia/nervousness amongst underground networks as more and more people notice it - a state of mind easily manipulated to various ends; the all-powerful state, observing and letting you know they are in control.

All speculation, but might explain a few of the specifics of your experience, including graded interference/destruction protocols, and the reason there's been some activity on your partner's cellphone also. Major assumption in place - that this is some sort of technological monitoring development - I guess you would be a random test subject at this stage, seeing as you have zero criminality about you.

I wouldn't hold your breath getting the comms company to aid you - they have a healthy working relationship with the security services, for necessary reasons of course (I've worked in a couple of telecoms companies here in the UK, and they all have a 'secret room' stacked with tech, where data is analysed & fed to various law enforcement/ security agencies as necessary..) Despite necessity in the face of myriad enemies, both foreign and domestic, the whole situation is certainly open to abuse/ malpractice - particularly during the testing of new technologies (which I guess are well on the way to quantum-based AI setups by now, though I'm not techie by nature and don't understand the complexities of such things..)

Hopefully it'll stop soon enough - if there are no grounds to suspect you/ follow up with further surveillance, it should eventually phase out as the testing progresses towards full roll-out..

And of course, I might be completely wrong..! Hope you had a good Christmas..





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join