32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for January 27, 2014
Volume 33 : Issue 21 : "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: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 08:10:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Aereo Update: And the Question is . . .
Message-ID: <7591ebee-4449-4a25-a990-a3df85687522@googlegroups.com>
By Harry Cole, CommLawBlog, January 26, 2014
| The Supremes opt to use the broadcasters' formulation of the
| question to be resolved by the Court.
|
| OK, all you Supreme Court tea leaf readers, you've got another leaf
| to read in the Aereo case. According to the Supreme Court's
| website, the "question presented" that the Court has decided to use
| as the focus for briefing in that case is this:
|
| "A copyright holder possesses the exclusive right "to perform
| the copyrighted work publicly." 17 U.S.C. §106(4). In the
| Copyright Act of 1976, Congress defined the phrase "[t]o
| perform ... 'publicly'" to include, among other things, "o
| transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of
| the work ... to the public, by means of any device or process,
| whether the members of the public capable of receiving the
| performance or display receive it in the same place or in
| separate places and at the same time or at different times."
Continued:
http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/01/articles/broadcast/aereo-update-and-the-question-is-/index.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/kt2nfb8
Neal McLain
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:23:16 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Aereo Update: And the Question is . . .
Message-ID: <lc3jqk$2utm$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <7591ebee-4449-4a25-a990-a3df85687522@googlegroups.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com> wrote:
>By Harry Cole, CommLawBlog, January 26, 2014
>| OK, all you Supreme Court tea leaf readers, you've got another leaf
>| to read in the Aereo case. According to the Supreme Court's
>| website, the "question presented" that the Court has decided to use
>| as the focus for briefing in that case is this:
>Continued:
>
>http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/01/articles/broadcast/aereo-update-and-the-question-is-/index.html
>
But in your quotation, you trimmed what the actual question was:
Whether a company "publicly performs" a copyrighted television
program when it retransmits a broadcast of that program to
thousands of paid subscribers over the Internet.
Aereo's answer to this question is, of course, going to be "no": their
claim all along is that they are renting the use of an antenna and a
DVR to their customers, and that to the extent any retransmission is
being done, it is being done by the customers themselves.
The court's selection of this particular formulation of the question
presented, as the blog author notes, suggests that Aereo is going to
have a tough row to hoe. It's by no means impossible; I would not be
surprised, actually, if Aereo conceded the question as written (which
seems obvious from copyright law), and focused its briefing on its
claim that it is not the entity doing the retransmission, its
customers are. How successful this strategy could possibly be may
depend on what factual record was developed in the lower courts -- did
the broadcasters concede, or the trial court conclude, for example,
that Aereo does allocate individual antennas and tuners to each
customer?
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:41:31 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Aereo Update: And the Question is . . .
Message-ID: <20140126184131.GB7141@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 06:23:16PM +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> I would not be surprised, actually, if Aereo conceded the question
> as written (which seems obvious from copyright law), and focused its
> briefing on its claim that it is not the entity doing the
> retransmission, its customers are. How successful this strategy
> could possibly be may depend on what factual record was developed in
> the lower courts -- did the broadcasters concede, or the trial court
> conclude, for example, that Aereo does allocate individual antennas
> and tuners to each customer?
IANALB ISTM that Aereo's would do better by focusing on the root
issue: so long as Aereo is not modifying the television signal, and is
passing the commercials through untouched, I don't see why the TV
stations have a problem.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:53:06 +1100
From: David Clayton <dc33box-usenet2@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Person Cell Phone Wipe by Employers
Message-ID: <pan.2014.01.26.05.53.03.18657@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au>
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:06:33 -0500, Pete Cresswell wrote:
> Per David Clayton:
>>When you connect a phone/device to a corporate e-mail system you give
>>that system permissions to access these features so the Sysadmin can
>>either wipe or lock the phone if it is stolen etc. This feature exists
>>to protect any corporate data on the device and has been around since
>>this method of connectivity was created (many years).
>>
>>It is a standard feature of the Microsoft Activesync protocol that
>>connects phones to Exchange e-mail systems and I assume similar
>>functionality from other e-mail platforms.
>
> I have something called "Good For Enterprise" on my smartphone and my
> 10" tablet. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't recall ever
> giving the admins anything in the way of a password or ID to either
> device.
You don't "give" the admins anything as a specific response, it happens
automatically when you connect to these services through the setup
procedure on the device.
One other thing that occurs is that your device will (usually) now require
a PIN/Unlock to allow it to access the corporate system so it meets this
basic security standard - most people already have it set up like this but
it can be confusing for those with no security as the device either
suddenly demands that you set it up or just refuses to connect to the
corporate system until you set it up manually.
> Seems to me like the erasing/factory reset thing is a perfectly sensible
> policy from the corporation's perspective - but I would not want it
> enforced on my device without plenty of prior notice.... and that's what
> has me spun up.
You have already given the corporation all that control just by using the
process to connect to their system - if you don't want to let them have it
for your private device then don't connect to them.
A sysadmin can use their e-mail system to list all of the devices
connected in this way. In Exchange you can see the various registered
devices and what they are and when they last connected to the system -
along with options to remotely lock or wipe them when the device next
makes a connection (which is usually automatic as they are usually set up
to be "Push" systems).
--
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.
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 17:00:46 +1100
From: David Clayton <dc33box-usenet2@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Person Cell Phone Wipe by Employers
Message-ID: <pan.2014.01.26.06.00.42.229417@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au>
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:22:33 +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <pan.2014.01.25.06.17.16.758721@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au>, David
> Clayton <dc33box-usenet2@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>It is a standard feature of the Microsoft Activesync protocol that
>>connects phones to Exchange e-mail systems and I assume similar
>>functionality from other e-mail platforms.
>
> It's not a standard feature of either IMAP or SMTP/MSP. Good thing, too.
The functionality of the Activesync connection gives you real time
Calendar, Task and other functionality along with E-mail. It is a
quite powerful interface into a corporate e-mail system and that is
the main reason you give up device control when you set up one of
these connections.
--
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.
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:05:29 -0600
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Wall plug wires?
Message-ID: <o5OdnWHGicCkuXjPnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews.com>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>Does anyone make phone sets that will connect directly to a two-wire
>ISDN line? All the ones I know about have "T" (i.e., four wire)
>interfaces, and so require an adapter.
I think you'd have a much harder time finding somebody who made ISDN
phones rather than worrying about if they are U interface or S-T
interface. If you really are going that hardcore retro, mounting an
NT-1 on the backerboard to support your 2-pair S-T ISDN phone probably
isn't much an issue.
I think the AT&T/Avaya ISDN phone I have is S-T, but the documentation
(available at
http://telecom-digest.org/ISDN_Manual.pdf
does mention
that their 6500 series has a U-Interface option when buying.
You can drive pretty far on the S-T bus, long enough for a residential
application, although in practice, ISDN phone wasn't exactly without
constant hiccups. Could just be the one I have though too.
And at MRC of $78 + CALC in these parts for a BRI (if you could
actually find a sales rep that knew what the H you were talking about)
isn't really worthwhile either.
I think they still sell enough to radio stations for remotes that it
won't be going away any time soon.
--
Doug McIntyre
doug@themcintyres.us
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:23:05 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Wall plug wires?
Message-ID: <20140126182305.GA7141@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 09:05:29AM -0600, Doug McIntyre wrote:
> Bill Horne wrote:
>> Does anyone make phone sets that will connect directly to a two-wire
>> ISDN line? All the ones I know about have "T" (i.e., four wire)
>> interfaces, and so require an adapter.
>
> I think you'd have a much harder time finding somebody who made ISDN
> phones rather than worrying about if they are U interface or S-T
> interface. If you really are going that hardcore retro, mounting an
> NT-1 on the backerboard to support your 2-pair S-T ISDN phone probably
> isn't much an issue.
>
> I think the AT&T/Avaya ISDN phone I have is S-T, but the documentation
> (available at
> http://telecom-digest.org/ISDN_Manual.pdf
> does mention
> that their 6500 series has a U-Interface option when buying.
>
> You can drive pretty far on the S-T bus, long enough for a residential
> application, although in practice, ISDN phone wasn't exactly without
> constant hiccups. Could just be the one I have though too.
>
> And at MRC of $78 + CALC in these parts for a BRI (if you could
> actually find a sales rep that knew what the H you were talking about)
> isn't really worthwhile either.
>
> I think they still sell enough to radio stations for remotes that it
> won't be going away any time soon.
I have some customers who still need ISDN, because they have work-at-home
setups and don't want their cow-orkers to know when they aren't in the
company building.
ISDN provides exceptional voice quality: so good, in fact, that it's a
major asset to managers who choose to avoid the questions which come
with being "out of the office" more than others. Since almost all of
my customers whom are in that situation work in buildings that have
ISDN sets on a PBX, it's easier for them to use a familiar instrument
at home, but it's always been the kind that requires a "T" interface,
and I'm looking for alternatives.
At least in Massachusetts, ISDN lines can be ordered for residential
service, and they cost little more than POTS when installed in a
home. Data calls are always billed by the minute, but voice is
flat-rate, so it's a minor expense when used only for voice calls.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
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 (7 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues