|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 252 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Verdict spares Microsoft $358M in patent damages
====== 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: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <883063a1-4196-4d80-abc8-ba815d7e4ac7@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 10, 11:08 pm, "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwe...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > it never occurred to me that a product designer would have wired a
> > power source into a RS232 connector.
>
> That reminded me of the time I plugged a modem - I can't for the
> life of me recall the name, though I recall that it was selling like
> mad at the time because it was really cheap - into an Amiga. As it
> happens, the Amiga used a couple of 'reserved' pins for power (+ and
> - 12V, according to a pinout I found via Google), and the modem
> manufacturer used them for something entirely incompatible. I do
> not recall whether the Amiga was damaged or the modem was converted
> into the doorstop it so strongly resembled.
All these posts about poor equipment manufacturing do seem to
demonstrate why the old Bell System--and regulators--were so hesitant
to allow customer owned equipment to be connected to the network.
What good were 'standards' if they weren't followed?
***** Moderator's Note *****
"Standards" has many meanings: if used to exclude competitors from any
meaningful opportunity, then standards are conterproductive. If used
to assure a level playing field, vice versa.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <26106f92-e576-45d1-937a-19aac20d29fb@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> "Standards" has many meanings: if used to exclude competitors from any
> meaningful opportunity, then standards are conterproductive. If used
> to assure a level playing field, vice versa.
It is not rocket science to build a device that properly meets
telephone communication specifications and also is built well enough
to ensure no power or other improper currents or signals get into the
phone line, and the device does not unnecessarily go off-hook or
otherwise misue the network. From the descriptions various posters
have made about the devices, an awful lot seemed to be done really
cheap, quick, and dirty.
I respectfully wish to offer some comments about monopolies, excluding
competitors, and a level playing field.
First, as to public policy and monopolies:
Yes, the Bell System and Independents were assigned a deliberate
monopoly which deliberately excluded competitors. But in return for
that privilege, they had many restrictions on their business. They
certainly could not charge rates to maximize profit, but rather had to
charge low rates to maximize a customer base. It certainly would've
been far more profitable for Bell to charge a higher minimum monthly
rate and not have to be bothered providing unprofitable full service
to very marginal subscribers.
Further, the Bell System was severely restricted from going into other
lines of business. The Bell System with Western Electric and Bell
Labs could've been a powerful player in industrial electronics and
computers. Bell was mandated to license all Bell Labs discoveries at
modest cost, not reap the profits from it. (Today, pharmaceutical
companies make big profits from their research.)
Bell never made the kind of profits that a typical technology company
of its times would make. American industry was in a long boom between
1950 and 1970, but the Bell System , despite its power technologies,
was not part of it by deliberate design.
So, yes, Bell was almost guaranteed to make a profit, but--at the same
time--it was likewise guaranteed never to make huge profits.
Let's look at it another way: Suppose you own a restaurant and the
government requires you to meet very stringent--and costly--food
safety and public service standards. You are mandated to feed the
homeless and be open with a full menu 24/7 , for example. Then the
government, to provide a so-called "level playing field", excuses
newcomer restaurants from meeting those same safety and public service
standards; they don't have to be as clean, feed the homeless, or be
open 24/7. Is that truly a "level playing field"? Is that truly in
the public interest?
We must remember that after MCI gained a foothold Bell sought revised
_lower_ rates to meet competition; rates that were based on
competitive cost, not widespread averaging. Bell's applicaton was
denied. Is that a level playing field?
Secondly, as to technology:
If your neighbor buys a modem or builds his own that fails to have
proper safety precautions or uses crappy or wrongly installed parts,
your neighbor could introduce power or interference current over a
phone line and disrupt your service or even create a safety hazard,
despite the system safeguards. Such "competitors" should be
excluded. In reality a lot of crap was sent over Bell lines and it
bore the cost of the cleanup. (A disrupted customer would call 611
and Bell would send a man and truck out to check it out but find
nothing, because the offending customer would quickly disconnect the
errant device.)
Let's look at another example:
In the 1960s, IBM revised its policies and allowed third party vendors
to build peripherals (tape and disk drives) for connection to IBM's
System/360-370 mainframe computers. A big business sprang up and
vendors were able to undercut IBM's prices. Helping the vendors was
IBM's Consent Decree, similar to Bell's, where it was required to
license out its research results for a nominal fee. Also helping were
former IBMers using their experience at a new company.
But when IBM, thanks to its research, wanted to upgrade (change the
standards) its peripherals or lower prices--a better deal for
customers--the changes would instantly obsolete the 3rd party vendors'
offerings and financially hurt them. The 3rd party vendors cried
foul, calling it unfair competition. I believe the court found IBM's
actions to be exactly what competition was supposed to do: IBM's
improvements benefited its customers and it was up to the competitors
to go along.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:19:48 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <h8eetk$mb4$1@news.albasani.net>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>"Standards" has many meanings: if used to exclude competitors from any
>meaningful opportunity, then standards are conterproductive. If used
>to assure a level playing field, vice versa.
Bill, was the standard in question published anywhere that might have made
it an industry standard, or was it simply patented?
***** Moderator's Note *****
I was speaking metaphorically. The original post drew an analogy
between the early microcomputer maker's failure to comply with the
RS-232-C standard, and how the old Bell System and its regulators were
reluctant to allow interconnection of customer-provided-equipment to
the PSTN.
I felt the need to point out that standards can be used to exclude
competitors as well as to encourage competition: for example, the
first response of Ma Bell to the Carterphone decision was to offer
interconnection only through protective interfaces which cost as much
to rent as the phones they replaced.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:52:21 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <pan.2009.09.12.01.52.19.900950@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:28:56 -0400, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
........
> I felt the need to point out that standards can be used to exclude
> competitors as well as to encourage competition: for example, the first
> response of Ma Bell to the Carterphone decision was to offer
> interconnection only through protective interfaces which cost as much to
> rent as the phones they replaced.
And that sort of behaviour - replicated by many controlling telco's
all around the place - ultimately led to their demise as it just
highlighted to everyone that they were holding things back for their
own interests.
It's amazing the resentment that can build up in
people/business/governments when some tech company tells them that
they must do things their way or take a hike - and as soon as an
opportunity arises to weaken that sort of power it usually happens in
a manner way out of magnitude to what would have been necessary, and
then most people sit back and say that they deserved it......
Has anyone made a list of classic "Shot themselves in the foot"
behaviour of Telco/IT companies and the ultimate consequences?
I imagine it could be quite a long list by now.
--
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: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:26:51 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Verdict spares Microsoft $358M in patent damages
Message-ID: <h8efar$31j$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Looks like Alcatel-Lucent is looking for cash and protecting patents.
Verdict spares Microsoft $358M in patent damages
Sep 11, 2:59 PM (ET)
By JESSICA MINTZ
SEATTLE (AP) - A federal appeals court said Friday that Microsoft
Corp. does not have to pay Alcatel-Lucent $358 million for patent
infringement because of problems with how the damages were calculated.
The disputed patent covers a method of entering information into
fields on a computer screen without using a keyboard. Alcatel-Lucent
says Microsoft's Outlook calendar and other programs illegally used
this technology.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20090911/D9AL9S502.html
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, inc, A Rot in Hell. Co.
------------------------------
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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
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 (5 messages)
**************************************
|
or 