See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
| Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:57:06 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Making the Supercookie a Little Sweeter
Message-ID: <magk52$7ej$1@dont-email.me>
by Charles Duan
Nine lines of code could make Verizon's controversial user-tracking
system a bit less invasive.
The text on the Privacy Policy Summary page, in bold letters right at
the very top, could not be more clear: "Verizon is Committed to
Protecting Your Privacy."
But that commitment is coming under challenge, in view of ongoing
revelations about Verizon's "supercookie" program. The New York Times
called it a "Threat to Privacy"; Wired went further, deeming it "a
Privacy-Killing Machine."
http://www.slate.com/articles/
technology/future_tense/2015/01/verizon_s_privacy_invading_uidh_
supercookie_could_be_reined_in_with_this.html
-or-
http://goo.gl/0VTJzO
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Tin can at my feet think I'll kick it down the street
That's the way to treat a friend
- Tim Hardin
|
| Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:43:06 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Verizon backpedals on supercookies, will allow users to opt-out
Message-ID: <magjap$33e$1@dont-email.me>
by Nate Swaner
Do you know what a "supercookie" is? It sounds delightful, but in this
context, it's really not. Verizon Wireless has been tracking users for
(mostly) marketing purposes, and assigning customers special codes.
Being tracked for marketing was opt-out, but those codes were not
deletable or opt-out. Some began dubbing those codes "supercookies"
because marketers could still access them and pick through your web
browsing activity (see? Supercookies can be bad!). Now, Verizon is
reversing course, and will allow customers to opt-out of any kind of
tracking.
http://www.slashgear.com/verizon-backpedals-on-supercookies-will-allow-users-to-opt-out-30366765/
-or-
http://goo.gl/GFAIHL
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Think in terms of bridges burning
Think of seasons at an end
See the rivers rise and fall
They will rise and fall again
- Bob Seger
|
| Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:09:13 +1100
From: David Clayton <dc33box-usenet2@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Tons of AT&T and Verizon customers may not have "broadband" on Thursday
Message-ID: <pan.2015.01.29.22.09.09.866809@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au>
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:42:24 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
........
> Finally, telecommunications engineers have had a completely different
> definition of "broadband" for many years. It's not related to any specific
> speed, just the ability to carry multiple signals:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband
>
And when ADSL was first introduced it was actually "Broadband" because
it had voice and data on the same physical carrier, the term was then
hijacked by ignorant marketing droids to mean any sort of Internet
connection with rates greater than dial-up modem connections and has
basically been misused ever since.
I have a Naked DSL service that does not have a phone connection, it
is NOT "Broadband" (if anything it is "Baseband"). If I got a phone
service put back on it then it would actually be "Broadband" again.
I still consider it a mark of technical ignorance to see anyone use
the term "Broadband" simply for high-speed Internet services.
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
David,
Never, ever, say that to an etymologist! ;-)
Bill Horne
Moderator
|
| Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 20:59:47 -0500
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Tons of AT&T and Verizon customers may not have "broadband" on Thursday
Message-ID: <barmar-77FA45.20594730012015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
In article <pan.2015.01.29.22.09.09.866809@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au>,
David Clayton <dc33box-usenet2@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:42:24 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
> ........
>> Finally, telecommunications engineers have had a completely
>> different definition of "broadband" for many years. It's not
>> related to any specific speed, just the ability to carry multiple
>> signals:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband
>>
> And when ADSL was first introduced it was actually "Broadband"
> because it had voice and data on the same physical carrier, the term
> was then hijacked by ignorant marketing droids to mean any sort of
> Internet connection with rates greater than dial-up modem
> connections and has basically been misused ever since.
Language evolves. Practically every word you know is the result of a
long chain of people "misusing" a word. When enough people use it in the
formerly wrong way, it becomes "right". Because language is whatever the
community that uses it does.
> I have a Naked DSL service that does not have a phone connection, it
> is NOT "Broadband" (if anything it is "Baseband"). If I got a phone
> service put back on it then it would actually be "Broadband" again.
> I still consider it a mark of technical ignorance to see anyone use
> the term "Broadband" simply for high-speed Internet services.
It may be "technical ignorance", but it's not general ignorance. Using
a word the way everyone else does is a mark of someone with a good
grasp of vocabulary.
I also remember when "computer hackers" were smart people who liked
doing clever things with computers, not necessarily breaking into them
for malicious purposes. That ship sailed at least a decade ago.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
***** Moderator's Note *****
We could debate the reasons that "Hacker" became a perjorative outside
the Internet community: the most believable explanation is that the TV
news execs didn't want to call anyone a "Cracker".
Of course, there's always good old fashioned resentment of
intelligence and accomplishment, which made it easier to brand all
data-processing professionals as "computer geeks" or "nerds", and to
turn "Hacker" into a Bad Thing(tm).
Sigh. Where's Cliff Stoll when I need him?
Bill Horne
Moderator
|
| Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 17:48:50 -0500
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FTC to Tracfone: the word "unlimited" means... unlimited
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1501291744120.16635@panix5.panix.com>
[FTC press release]
Prepaid Mobile Provider TracFone to Pay $40 Million to Settle
FTC Charges It Deceived Consumers About "Unlimited" Data Plans
Operator of Straight Talk, Net10, Simple Mobile and TelCel America Cut Off
and Drastically Slowed Data Service Without Telling Consumers
......
But despite emphasizing unlimited data in its advertisements, TracFone
drastically slowed or cut off consumers' mobile data after they used
more than certain fixed limits in a 30-day period.
"The issue here is simple: when you promise consumers 'unlimited,'
that means unlimited," said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's Bureau
of Consumer Protection.
======
rest:
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/01/prepaid-mobile-provider-tracfone-pay-40-million-settle-ftc
wow, the potential here... the Feds enforcing the "words mean
what they say" deal.
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
|
| Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:05:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FCC to strengthen oversight of ISP interconnection deals
Message-ID: <2644ef6b-fdb5-4789-89d7-34491502062f@googlegroups.com>
By Sean Buckley, FierceTelecom, January 30, 2015
The FCC is looking to tighten the rules regarding the interconnection terms
service providers like Verizon ask for to accept bandwidth-hungry Web traffic
from third party providers like Netflix, reports Bloomberg citing an unnamed
person close to the proposal.
These agreements are not regulated by the FCC and this plan is one of the
elements they have proposed as part of their new net neutrality rules that
would give the regulator more oversight over the Internet. Telcos and cable
operators maintain that they should have freedom on what they charge content
providers for accessing their network, while Netflix and others say they
should not have to pay these fees.
http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/fcc-strengthen-oversight-isp-interconnection-deals/2015-01-30?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/ng3cm82
Neal McLain
|
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 educational service offered to
the Internet 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 © 2015 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself. Thank you!
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.
