32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for July 11, 2014
Volume 33 : Issue 121 : "text" Format
====== 32 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:14:09 -0400
From: Julian Thomas <jt@jt-mj.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Anonymous call blocking (whether you want it or not)
Message-ID: <D2B32663-9CBD-4AE0-A844-3891A2C726B4@jt-mj.net>
>> But if you ever need to call the "doctor on call" for an
>> off-hours medical emergency, for instance, the doctor on call will
>> usually have call blocking (because they're calling you back from home=
).
On 9 Jul 2014, at 08:40, tonypo <t-nospam-ony.pelliccio@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't have any VOIP or wireline service anymore. But on my cell phone
> there's a feature you can turn on in Android 4.1.2 called Call Block. B=
ut
> it does something different from all the other call blockers I've seen.
> Instead of having you white list callers it instead derives a white lis=
t
> from you contacts.
>
> So long as someone is in your contacts they can call you. Otherwise it
> just shunts off to your voicemail.
That doesn't address the 'doctor on call' issue.
-- -- --
jt
http://jt-mj.net
It is interesting to note that before the advent of Microsoft Windows, 'G=
PF'
was better known for its usage in plumbing: Gallons Per Flush
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:06:49 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Anonymous call blocking (whether you want it or not)
Message-ID: <lpm6lr$p3q$1@dont-email.me>
On 7/9/2014 5:14 PM, Julian Thomas wrote:
>>> But if you ever need to call the "doctor on call" for an
>>> off-hours medical emergency, for instance, the doctor on call will
>>> usually have call blocking (because they're calling you back from home).
>
> On 9 Jul 2014, at 08:40, tonypo<t-nospam-ony.pelliccio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't have any VOIP or wireline service anymore. But on my cell phone
>> there's a feature you can turn on in Android 4.1.2 called Call Block. But
>> it does something different from all the other call blockers I've seen.
>> Instead of having you white list callers it instead derives a white list
>> from [your] contacts.
>>
>> So long as someone is in your contacts they can call you. Otherwise it
>> just shunts off to your voicemail.
>
> That doesn't address the 'doctor on call' issue.
I think that "Anonymous Call Rejection" was turned on by
default in order to lessen the number of complaints from customers who
didn't like getting anonymous calls. After all,
"personnel" is the largest expense item in any corporate
budget, even when those persons are 8,000 miles away.
"Doctors on call" is not an exception unless all concerned
agree that physicians are entitled to have more privacy than the rest
of us. That's not always the case, but even if we agree that a
workaround is needed, there are other means by which to achieve the
desired result, some of them very old ("WATS Boxes", for
example), and some new (burner phones or originate-only lines).
[moderator pro tem's note: It had not been on all along; I've
received numerous doctor-on-call anonymous calls in the past. It just
so happened that I found out about its being turned on without being
asked. We have two lines; it was not turned on for the other line.
Doctors on call is important; physicians do deserve privacy on their
home lines. If you turn on blocking, you should expect trouble. I
didn't turn it on, Comcast did.]
> It is interesting to note that before the advent of Microsoft Windows, 'GPF'
> was better known for its usage in plumbing: Gallons Per Flush
Damn. I knew what "GPF" meant until I read that, and now I
can't get your definition out of my head!
Green Page of Failure?
Great Pacifier Formula?
Godawful Political Foulup?
Google Provides Frustration?
Bill
--=20
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Gypsy Davey with a blowtorch he burns out their camps
With his faithful slave Pedro behind him he tramps
With a fantastic collection of stamps
To win friends and influence his uncle
- Bob Dylan
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: It's ALIVE!!!! Aereo Lurches Back to Life, Sort of
Message-ID: <8811a2d9-68cb-452e-a746-d92fc79e2634@googlegroups.com>
By Harry Cole, CommLawBlog, July 10, 2014
Trying to make lemonade out of the lemon handed to it by the Supreme
Court, Aereo has come up with Plan B.
The best stories never really end when you think they're going to,
do they? Threes always a nifty twist that keeps the plot chugging
along.
So we really didn't expect that the Supreme Court's decision
was the last word in the Aereo case, did we? And right we were.
After pulling the plug on its service within a couple of days after
taking a seeming knock-out punch from the Supreme Court, Aereo has
come up with a plan.
According to a letter filed by Aereo with Judge Alison Nathan of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (where the
Aereo saga first got our attention back in 2012), Aereo is now a cable
company that is entitled - by Congress, thank you very much - to
retransmit over-the-air broadcast programming. As long, that is, as
Aereo files the necessary "statements of account" and
"royalty fees "required of cable systems. And in its letter
Aereo advises that it "is proceeding" to file just those
items .
Following the adage about making lemonade when handed lemons,
Aereo has taken the Supreme Court's decision and tried to turn it to
Aereo's advantage. Since the Supremes said that Aereo is
"highly similar" to a conventional cable company, well then
(according to Aereo), Aereo is a cable system and, therefore, "is
entitled to a license" under Section 111 of the Copyright Act.
And even if it's not entitled to such a license, Aereo's got another
argument. The Supreme Court concluded that Aereo is like a
cable system because Aereo provides "near simultaneous"
retransmissions of over-the-air programming. So (Aereo reasons) if
Aereo's service were to be limited to delayed (i.e., not
"near simultaneous") retransmissions - providing, instead,
essentially an elaborate recording-and-playback service - then Aereo
would no longer be like a cable system and would no longer be subject
to the terms of the Supreme Court's decision. (Blogmeister's
Note: Props to the Swami, Kevin Goldberg, for seeing this argument
coming.)
Continued
http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/07/articles/broadcast/its-alive-aereo-lurches-back-to-life-sort-of/index.html
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/l6ytcdw
But cable TV companies have to comply with two federal laws:
The Copyright Act of 1976 and the Cable TV Act of 1992. Paying
copyright fees might satisfy Aereo's claim to be in compliance
with the Copyright Act but it doesn't bring it into compliance
with the Cable Act. If the district court buys Aereo's argument
this time, the broadcasters would sue them again.
Neal McLain
[moderator pro tem's note: The Copyright Act requires them to pay
money for the statutory license, so it's not as if it Aereo has a
complete escape clause, just a costlier Plan B to try. - fg]
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.
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) 2014 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 (3 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues