|
|
The Telecom Digest for April 29, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 118 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Please do not change your password (Steven)
FCC could reclassify broadband Internet as "telecom" within weeks (Thad Floryan)
Re: NY MTA to expand wireless at Grand Central Terminal (tlvp)
Re: A Convenient, Mysterious Service From Cable Companies (harold)
FCC and FTC battling for control of the Internet (Thad Floryan)
Re: FCC and FTC battling for control of the Internet (David Clayton)
====== 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: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:35:31 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please do not change your password
Message-ID: <hr7sc6$q1u$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Wes Leatherock wrote:
> When I was with Southwewstern Bell we traded with GTE and one of the
> ones we got in exchange was Moore, OK, a growing suburb of Oklahoma
> City which had an XY office.
>
> When it needed expansion (which was soon) the engineers wanted to just
> add XY equipment to it, and wrote an estimate using W.E. prices for
> SxS as a guide.
>
> When Western priced it with Stromberg, the prices were out of sight
> and the engineers found you could repalce all the equipment with a new
> W.E. SxS office for less than what it would cost to add XY equipment.
>
> Which they did, and sent the XY offices to two small towns in Western
> Oklahoma which were awaiting dial conversion. They were in the same
> wire chief's area, and so they only had to train one bunch on XY.
When GTE California took over CWT, there were contracts for several XY
offices, GTE canceled them and move a lot of the equipment to Valle
Vista, but that office also had SXS in it , which made it very interesting.
We had an office that was built to WE standards because GTE and Pacific
Telephone were going to trade the South Laguna CO for Newport Beach as
that area was GTE on 3 sites. The PUC would not allow the exchange and I
would bet PacBell was happy because that is a very big financial center.
In Huntington Beach, we had an office that sat on the 213/714 and had 2
switches in it, one was Full Satt (213) Satt Access (714) at that time
it was the only office in the US that was set up like that, it was a
very good training center and also getting visitors from all over the US
to see it. With the way things are setup today that is old hat, sometime
3 or more A/C in an office.
--
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: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:49:06 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FCC could reclassify broadband Internet as "telecom" within weeks
Message-ID: <4BD7BE42.4050106@thadlabs.com>
This is somewhat suprising news found in Dave Lazarus' column in
the LA Times today:
" A battle is about to erupt between federal regulators and telecom
" companies, and nothing less than the future of the Internet could
" be on the line.
"
" At issue is a seemingly benign question: Is the Net an
" information service or a telecommunication service?
"
" As it stands, high-speed Internet service is classified by the
" Federal Communications Commission as a "Title I" information
" service in the same way that Google is an information
" service. This means broadband providers such as phone and cable
" companies are only lightly regulated by the agency.
"
" By reclassifying broadband as a "Title II" telecom service --
" like, say, phone service -- the FCC would be able to more closely
" oversee providers' actions and pricing, and would be better
" positioned to implement its recently announced 10-year plan to
" bring high-speed Net access to virtually every U.S. home.
"
" I know: This is wonky stuff. But the stakes couldn't be higher,
" especially at a time when broadband Internet service is playing
" an increasingly vital role in a wide variety of areas, including
" entertainment, education and healthcare.
"
" "This could determine whether the FCC really has the power to act
" on its broadband plan," said Ben Scott, policy director with Free
" Press, a communications advocacy group. "It will define who
" really runs the Net."
"
" The issue has its roots in a ruling this month by the U.S. Court
" of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the FCC has
" only limited power under current law to control the online
" actions of network operators such as phone and cable companies.
"
" The case grew out of assertions by cable giant Comcast Corp. that
" it had a right to block Net users from accessing file-sharing
" websites such as BitTorrent.
"
" The ruling effectively declared that the Net's corporate
" gatekeepers can claim the last word when it comes to what passes
" through their pipes -- not a great position for federal regulators
" seeking to improve the nation's broadband resources.
"
" One possible way to enhance the FCC's jurisdiction over the Net
" would be a bill from Congress firmly establishing the agency's
" dominion over broadband networks, just as it oversees phone
" systems. But with Republicans in full no-more-regulation mode,
" such a legislative fix seems unlikely.
"
" That leaves reclassification of broadband's status from
" information to telecom service. The FCC could do this
" unilaterally, but it would then have to withstand a full-on
" assault by interest-protecting, deep-pocketed phone and cable
" companies.
" [...]
" But agency insiders tell me that movement toward reclassifying
" broadband networks as telecom services could come within weeks.
{article continues at the following URL}
<http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus27-20100427,1,7986031.column>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:14:58 -0300
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: NY MTA to expand wireless at Grand Central Terminal
Message-ID: <op.vbulq8gritl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:46:29 -0300, Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> One thing I don't understand is what changes they will make since
> passengers on trains in the terminal and tunnel can already make
> wireless calls.
Some carriers provide signal in the Park Avenue tunnel. Others
don't. In particular, T-Mobile has never had signal I could use
there, neither for voice nor for data. So I guess there'll be more
carriers' "towers" in there.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 05:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Convenient, Mysterious Service From Cable Companies
Message-ID: <d7b896c6-6a52-4b1a-96d1-e964a966c89a@t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
I really think anyone offering "last mile" Internet connectivity
should be doing something like this. It'd be really easy to do. Just
give all your customers a wireless router like that used by
http://www.fon.com . It sets up a private wireless network and a
public one. Your cable, DSL, or whatever, would provide the Internet
connectivity. If you are away from home, all you have to do is be near
another subscriber and use the public wireless on their router. Data
could be prioritized to give the most bandwidth to the private side of
the network (the one who is actually paying for the connection). This
sort of roaming would be very beneficial to users and would help sell
the ISP service.
Harold
FCC Rules updated daily at http://www.hallikainen.com
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:19:20 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FCC and FTC battling for control of the Internet
Message-ID: <4BD8A658.909@thadlabs.com>
This is becoming hilarious. For those outside the USA:
FCC = Federal Communications Commission, and
FTC = Federal Trade Commission.
Simple view: the FCC regulates telephony and the use of
the airwaves, and the FTC is involved with commerce.
The following extract is from the 27-April-2010 issue of
the Washington Post:
" The Federal Trade Commission could become a more powerful
" watchdog for Internet users under a little-known provision in
" financial overhaul legislation that would expand the agency's
" ability to create rules.
"
" An emboldened FTC would stand in stark contrast to a besieged
" Federal Communications Commission, whose ability to oversee
" broadband providers has been cast into doubt after a federal
" court ruled last month that the agency lacked the ability to
" punish Comcast for violating open-Internet guidelines.
"
" The version of regulatory overhaul legislation passed by the
" House would allow the FTC to issue rules on a fast track and
" permit the agency to impose civil penalties on companies that
" hurt consumers. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz has argued in favor of
" bolstering his agency's enforcement ability.
"
" "If we had a deterrent, a bigger stick to fine malefactors, that
" would be helpful," Leibowitz told Fox News last week.
"
" That provision to strengthen the FTC is absent from the financial
" overhaul legislation before the Senate. Some observers, however,
" expect the measure to be included when the House and Senate
" versions are combined.
"
" The proposal comes as uncertainty surrounds the federal
" government's ability to regulate the Internet and oversee service
" providers. Spokeswomen at the FTC and FCC declined to comment.
{Washington Post article continues at the following URL}
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042604335.html
The FTC's charter concerning online access and security is here:
http://www.ftc.gov/acoas/acoascharter.shtm
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:21:17 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC and FTC battling for control of the Internet
Message-ID: <pan.2010.04.28.22.21.13.160688@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:19:20 -0700, Thad Floryan wrote:
> This is becoming hilarious. For those outside the USA:
>
> FCC = Federal Communications Commission, and FTC = Federal Trade
> Commission.
>
> Simple view: the FCC regulates telephony and the use of the airwaves, and
> the FTC is involved with commerce.
.........
At least you should/will have something looking after your interests.
In Australia we have a government hell-bent on filtering web sites
(and keeping the filter list secret) for the whole country, and the
major telco still holding the country back in an ongoing attempt to
squeeze as much revenue as they can out of their legacy
infrastructure.
Our (separate) competition and communications regulators don't seem to
have anywhere near as much influence as your do.
There is a time where things can go crazy in one direction or the
other, but on balance you don't seem to be doing too bad.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
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 (6 messages)
|
or 