---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <86lfgpzt7o.fsf@telecom2018.csail.mit.edu> Date: 1 Oct 2020 18:39:23 +0000 From: Moderator <telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Minnesota investigates cause of multi-state 911 outage ST. PAUL - The Minnesota Department of Public Safety Emergency Communi- cation Networks division (DPS-ECN) is in contact with the state's con- tracted 911 service provider, CenturyLink, to determine the cause behind a multi-state 911 outage on Sept. 28. https://www.marshallindependent.com/news/minnesota-news-apwire/2020/10/minnesota-investigates-cause-of-multi-state-911-outage/ -- Bill Horne Telecom Digest Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <CAH8yC8nj6pHjahg0WBJMYxcdseX0OmQJ+TZKPzK5QAwsZw20vQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: 30 Sep 2020 21:55:42 -0400 From: "Jeffrey Walton" <noloader@gmail.com> Subject: Re: AT&T Must Face Lawsuit Over DirecTV Robocalls On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 9:46 PM Moderator <telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.remove-this.telecom-digest.org> wrote: > > AT&T's DirecTV must face a lawsuit alleging the company violated a > consumer protection law by making robocalls to a consumer's cell phone, > a federal appellate court ruled Wednesday. > > https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/356401/att-must-face-lawsuit-over-directv-robocalls.html I think it is worse than simple robocalling... Last week I filed FCC and FTC complaints because DirectTV was using fake CallerId information from their Indian Call Center. The call I got from DirectTV used: Name: PETER HAGLUND Number: 5034323901 Date Time: 2020-09-24 20:26:00 Jeff ------------------------------ Message-ID: <bd237b8a83326475de5627069ed709b7.squirrel@mai.hallikainen.org> Date: 1 Oct 2020 10:11:52 -0700 From: "Harold Hallikainen" <harold@mai.hallikainen.org> Subject: Re: Verizon scrambling to unload HuffPost as losses mount > From: "Jeffrey Walton" <noloader@gmail.com> > I can't help but wonder.... Why is a telecom company dabling in > journalism? It is not of their core business. As Warren Buffet would > say, it is a distraction that should be struck from the list of goals. > > What else non-essential junk is Verizon holding? Grocery store chains? > Gas stations? Meat packaging plants? I think telecom companies thought they could get rich by getting into the content and advertising business. Verizon got Huffington Post through their purchase of AOL. ATT bought Direct TV and appears to be trying to unload it at a significant loss. They do not want to admit that they are in the telecom business, instead saying they are "information providers" thus skirting around regulations on telecom providers. But, there is a lot of competition in content providing, and the online ad market is severely oversaturated driving down prices. Direct TV and Verizon's Fios TV service are in the declining linear TV market. They face ever increasing retransmission fee costs from local broadcasters and declining viewership. Telecom companies should, I think, stay out of the content business and just deliver what people request over IP. This discussion reminds me of another issue I read of recently. Some cities are trying to charge Netflix a "franchise fee" for delivering video in the city. These fees are normally justified for use of the public right of way for cables. However, the cable company or telephone company is already paying these fees for use of the right of way (do I remember correctly that telephone may be exempt from right of way fees?). However, some cities are trying to charge Netflix and even charge Direct TV and Dish (who don't even use the cables in the right of way) since they "deliver video" in the city. Looking at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/253 , it appears cities are allowed to charge telecom companies for use of the right of way. Looking further, https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1755&context=sulr#page=12 says that cities often waived fees for use of the right of way as a means of getting telecommunications services to their citizens. This paper also discusses spectrum auctions as a comparison of payments for private use of public property. That, of course, reminds me of my paper on spectrum auctions (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/6513196902.pdf ). I really think the Communications Act requires a complete review. POTS, ISP, and any other communications service should be regulated similarly. This may involve regulating ISPs more heavily or deregulating POTS. Harold -- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com Not sent from an iPhone. ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Fri, 02 Oct 2020