|
|
The Telecom Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 94 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cory Doctorow, You Are a Consumer, Too (Sam Spade)
The latest Facebook fracas: Your privacy vs. its profit (Monty Solomon)
TiVo Faces Patent-Infringement Countersuits By AT&T, Verizon (Monty Solomon)
Re: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds (Michael D. Sullivan)
California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving (Thad Floryan)
Re: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving (Steven)
Data security law sparks concerns (Monty Solomon)
====== 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
email.
===========================
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: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:09:35 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cory Doctorow, You Are a Consumer, Too
Message-ID: <kFRtn.304837$OX4.248340@newsfe25.iad>
Monty Solomon wrote:
>
> But you know what won't change these things? Refusing to buy an iPad,
> the stage for some of the most exciting software of the last decade.
> Nor will using Linux on a Lenovo laptop. It definitely won't help to
> sneer at everyone who is excited about the iPad, warts and all, and
> explain to us that we're dupes. And it is a sneer. It's talking down
> to hundreds of thousands of people who probably already know your
> position by heart. You may not read it like that, Cory, but I'm
> telling you that's how it comes off.
I'm not sure I understand all this.
As an iPhone owner for 20 months now, my primary reaction is "ho hum."
Then, some of the silly applications, like watching HDTV on the thing.
Apple is a culture onto itself.
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 01:08:20 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The latest Facebook fracas: Your privacy vs. its profit
Message-ID: <p0624081ac7ddb0f5f59e@[10.0.1.4]>
The latest Facebook fracas: Your privacy vs. its profit
By Rob Pegoraro
Sunday, April 4, 2010; G04
The signs of a new season surround us: Flowers are blooming, trees
are budding, and another Facebook privacy fracas is brewing.
The last event kicked off a week ago, when the popular social network
posted a note on its blog about "working with some partner Web sites
that we pre-approve to offer a more personalized experience" at those
sites.
This possible change didn't exactly get a charitable read in
reactions like "Facebook's Plan To Automatically Share Your Data With
Sites You Never Signed Up For," and "Facebook Planning To Give Away
Your Data To 'Partners.' "
How bad could things get for the 400 million-plus Facebook users when
this test begins a few months from now?
The potential downside seems obvious. You'll see that some random
site knows who your Facebook friends are and fret about other
once-private information Facebook might be leaking. But what will you
be able to do when so much of your life is tied up there?
As Sherry Turkle, a sociologist at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, said in an e-mail Thursday: "There is a sense of the
'investment' in Facebook being so great that one is beholden to it. .
. . This is not empowering."
(Before I go further, a few disclaimers: Washington Post Co. chairman
and chief executive Donald E. Graham sits on Facebook's board of
directors; Facebook's chief privacy officer, Chris Kelly, who is on
leave to run for political office, is a friend of mine from college;
and many Post staffers, myself included, use public Facebook pages to
connect with readers.)
The upside isn't quite as clear.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/02/AR2010040200762.html
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 01:14:36 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: TiVo Faces Patent-Infringement Countersuits By AT&T, Verizon
Message-ID: <p06240821c7ddd0424bc7@[10.0.1.4]>
TiVo Faces Patent-Infringement Countersuits By AT&T, Verizon
Telcos Cite Their Own Patent Porfolios in Complaints
By Todd Spangler
Multichannel News
3/31/2010
The telcos have struck back: AT&T and Verizon Communications have
separately filed countersuits against TiVo -- which previously sued
both telcos over patents -- alleging the DVR company is infringing
their intellectual property.
The countersuits were detailed in TiVo's 10-K annual report filed
Wednesday.
Separately, TiVo is awaiting the resolution of its six-year-old
litigation against Dish Network and EchoStar, which have been ordered
to pay $300 million in damages and sanctions to the DVR company. Last
week, the Texas district court judge overseeing the case gave Dish an
extension until April 30 on a previously issued stay on the
injunction ordering the satellite TV operator to disable infringing
DVRs.
Perhaps emboldened by a legal victory over Dish and EchoStar last
summer, TiVo filed separate lawsuits in August 2009 against AT&T and
Verizon.
TiVo argued that the DVRs provided with AT&T's U-verse TV and
Verizon's FiOS TV infringed three TiVo patents: U.S. Patent Nos.
6,233,389 B1 ("Multimedia Time Warping System") -- the one that Dish
and EchoStar were found to have violated -- as well as 7,529,465 B2
("System for Time Shifting Multimedia Content Streams") and 7,493,015
B1 ("Automatic Playback Overshoot Correction System").
Now TiVo is the target of countersuits from AT&T and Verizon.
...
http://www.multichannel.com/article/450916-TiVo_Faces_Patent_Infringement_Countersuits_By_AT_T_Verizon.php
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 21:10:36 -0400
From: "Michael D. Sullivan" <mds@camsul.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds
Message-ID: <s2ha76e5e941004031810o15c0f190q265ef10002a166a1@mail.gmail.com>
In Message-ID: <hp5sra$4p9$1@news.eternal-september.org> Steven wrote:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> You're the best choice to answer the question everybody asks about
>> cellphones on airplanes: "Why are they banned"?
>>
>> Bill Horne
>> Moderator
>>
>She was using her laptop, it was an e-mail, the plane had WiFI. As far
>as using a cell phone, I have used mine on planns with no problems, not
>over the North Atlantic, We were told we could use cell phone after
>reaching flying altitude. I have only been asked not to connect once on
>a flight with my laptop. As to using my cell, I have found that it
>works most of the time, but as in dead zones on the ground you get them
>on plans. I was on a flight to Japan that had WIFI for free in Business
>and First Class and $25.00 for anyone else, I tend to use my miles for
>upgrade, as it is to hard to use them for getting a ticket
The laptop is fine; the WiFi on the plane is connected to the net either
through satellite or through the 800 MHz air-ground network, which is
designed to connect planes to the terrestrial network. Its cellsites are
widely spaced to deal with aircraft at cruising altitude.
Not so the terrestrial cellular networks; you could be causing serious and
widespread interference whether you have a good connection at the moment or
not. At flying altitude, your horizon is about 200 miles. Your phone has
an unimpeded line of sight to virtually every cellsite within that 200 mile
radius. As a result, your phone will be capable of reaching a substantial
number of them at maximum power -- probably all but those directly under you
and at the outer fringes of your horizon. Say half of them are compatible
with your phone's technology (CDMA or GSM); and half of them receive your
phone's signal adequately. When you turn your phone on, it sends out a
registration message that is received and processed by hundreds or thousands
of cellsites, all of which assume you are in the local area and thus not
being served by some other system.
So each system within range attempts to register your phone. Obviously,
your phone picks only one to register with. But soon after it's registered
in system A, that system may be out of range, given that you are flying at
several hundred miles per hour, and it then needs to re-register. If you
try to use your phone, it may seem like you are in a "dead spot," but you
are actually within range of many systems and not have one locked in because
they aren't designed to deal with aircraft. Moreover, if you are using a
CDMA phone, the cellsites receiving your signal will reduce the power of
other phones in their cell to equalize the signal strengths, which may cause
some calls to be dropped -- not just in one cell, but in many cells.
Please don't use cellphones while airborne. Not because it is a hazard to
the aircraft, but because it is can be a significant source of interference
to terrestrial networks. And it's against FCC rules.
--
Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 13:11:15 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving
Message-ID: <4BB8F263.3020008@thadlabs.com>
" Calif bill boosts fines for illegal cell phone use
"
" Cell phones are causing fewer accidents since California
" outlawed the use of handheld devices behind the wheel, but
" the senator behind the law says too many people are still
" driving distracted.
"
" A bill by Sen. Joe Simitian would create a bigger deterrent
" to keep drivers from texting or using a cell phone without
" a handsfree device.
"
" "While I think compliance is pretty good, there's room to
" save even more lives and avoid even more collisions," said
" Simitian, D-Palo Alto.
{article continues at following URL}
<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/04/state/n100029D96.DTL
>
and
" A Cellphone Fine, Billed as Small, Is No Longer That
"
" What started as a quest for safer driving could soon turn
" into a new revenue stream worth tens of millions of dollars
" to state and local governments. A bill working its way
" through Sacramento could sharply increase the penalties for
" driving while using a handheld cellphone, fines that some say
" are already deceptively higher than had been expected.
"
" The ban was instituted in July 2008, and six months later,
" texting while driving was similarly prohibited. Only hands-
" free talking is now allowed.
"
" Senator Joe Simitian, Democrat of Palo Alto, wrote both bills,
" which include modest fines of $20 for a first offense and
" $50 for the second. Mr. Simitian said the low penalties made
" it possible to get the measures passed.
"
" "It was easier than it would have been had the fines been
" higher," he said.
"
" Easy? Even with the low fines, it took six years.
"
" But as those who stood before Judge Susan J. Greenberg in the
" San Mateo County courthouse one day last week learned, the
" fine was never just $20. Additional assessments on behalf of
" courts, cities and counties multiply the costs of traffic
" tickets by $26 for every $10 of the base fine. With other
" fees, the total swells to $114 to $143 for a first offense.
"
" The California Highway Patrol issued 137,056 cellphone
" citations in 2009. Analysts say counties and municipalities
" traditionally issue an equal number, bringing the total to
" nearly 275,000 — a possible $31 million collected.
{article continues at following URL}
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/us/02sfmetro.html
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 19:08:25 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving
Message-ID: <hpbgmp$9un$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> " Calif bill boosts fines for illegal cell phone use
> "
> " Cell phones are causing fewer accidents since California
> " outlawed the use of handheld devices behind the wheel, but
> " the senator behind the law says too many people are still
> " driving distracted.
> "
> " A bill by Sen. Joe Simitian would create a bigger deterrent
> " to keep drivers from texting or using a cell phone without
> " a handsfree device.
> "
> " "While I think compliance is pretty good, there's room to
> " save even more lives and avoid even more collisions," said
> " Simitian, D-Palo Alto.
>
> {article continues at following URL}
>
>
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/04/state/n100029D96.DTL
>
> and
>
> " A Cellphone Fine, Billed as Small, Is No Longer That
> "
> " What started as a quest for safer driving could soon turn
> " into a new revenue stream worth tens of millions of dollars
> " to state and local governments. A bill working its way
> " through Sacramento could sharply increase the penalties for
> " driving while using a handheld cellphone, fines that some say
> " are already deceptively higher than had been expected.
> "
> " The ban was instituted in July 2008, and six months later,
> " texting while driving was similarly prohibited. Only hands-
> " free talking is now allowed.
> "
> " Senator Joe Simitian, Democrat of Palo Alto, wrote both bills,
> " which include modest fines of $20 for a first offense and
> " $50 for the second. Mr. Simitian said the low penalties made
> " it possible to get the measures passed.
> "
> " "It was easier than it would have been had the fines been
> " higher," he said.
> "
> " Easy? Even with the low fines, it took six years.
> "
> " But as those who stood before Judge Susan J. Greenberg in the
> " San Mateo County courthouse one day last week learned, the
> " fine was never just $20. Additional assessments on behalf of
> " courts, cities and counties multiply the costs of traffic
> " tickets by $26 for every $10 of the base fine. With other
> " fees, the total swells to $114 to $143 for a first offense.
> "
> " The California Highway Patrol issued 137,056 cellphone
> " citations in 2009. Analysts say counties and municipalities
> " traditionally issue an equal number, bringing the total to
> " nearly 275,000 — a possible $31 million collected.
>
> {article continues at following URL}
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/us/02sfmetro.html
>
The only way to stop usage of cell phones by drivers while holding them
is to increase the fines to a few thousand dollars, anything under that
will have no effect. I see hundreds of people each day using phones as
I drive around. I stay as far as I can from them.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 18:42:31 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Data security law sparks concerns
Message-ID: <p0624082ac7dec3365af2@[10.0.1.4]>
Data security law sparks concerns
Massachusetts rule may boost exposure for companies
Judy Greenwald
Apr. 04, 2010
Data security regulations in Massachusetts, which many describe as
the most stringent such rules to date, are proving to be a challenge
for businesses, observers say.
The regulations, which apply to any company that has personal
information on a Massachusetts resident regardless of whether the
business is based in the state, could lead to increased litigation
against firms, legal experts say.
The rules that Massachusetts implemented last month based on a 2007
law are likely to influence other states in developing their own
regulations, experts say.
Unlike most previous data security rules, Massachusetts' regulations
require businesses to proactively implement security measures to
protect personal information before a data breach occurs.
The 2007 law, however, is ambiguous about fines for violating the
data protection requirements. It also is unclear how vigorously the
state attorney general will enforce the provisions. The law was
delayed and revised several times in response to complaints by
businesses about its feasibility and expense.
...
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100404/ISSUE01/304049981
***** Moderaotor's Note *****
My new employer has given me a new laptop, which has a built in
provision to encrypt the entire hard disk. The encryption is done by
the laptop's hardware, not the Operating System, and I've been assured
that the hard drive is unreadable in any other machine.
The point is that I don't think protecting data is that hard to do.
Bill Horne
Moderator
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 (7 messages)
|
or 