32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for February 14, 2014
Volume 33 : Issue 28 : "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: 3 Feb 2014 09:11:57 -0500
From: "Bob K" <SPAMpot@Rochester.RR.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Stopping Illegal Robocalling
Message-ID: <52EFA3AD.5020507@Rochester.RR.com>
On 2/2/2014 4:00 PM, news wrote:
> comp.dcom.telecom readership:
>
> I'd like your help. Perhaps together we can get an infrastructure in place
> to stop illegal robocalling.
<snip>
I read thru the proposal. Most of it I think I understood -- but it
would take someone far more knowledgeable than myself to get a good
handle on it. But, assuming it all would work, I suspect that it would
take a lot of reprogramming of switches to get it implemented. That in
itself would take years!
Here is an alternate idea. A year ago, while the mechanism for it was
in place, the public was not aware of it. As it stands now, every phone
call made is added to a large database. We don't know how much
information about each call is recorded -- but probably as a minimum it
must include the actual calling number, the called number, and a
timestamp. The government is the custodian of that database.
When I receive an illegal robocall, and elect to complain, the only
information I really should have to supply is my number and the
approximate time and date. That could be simplified with a new vertical
code (the suggested *99 maybe).
Should not require much for the database be queried and the calling
party accurately identified.
When the new Bureau of Robocaller Police (or whatever) gets multiple
complaints that point to some originating source, then it would seem
that a court could issue an order to actually record calls from that
source, and prosecution begun. With high enough fines for illegal
robocalls, then the national debt could be wiped out.
We have already paid for (in many ways) the collection of phone call
history -- let's put it to use for our good.
...Bob
http://www.avast.com
Date: 3 Feb 2014 11:39:23 -0500
From: "Pete Cresswell" <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Stopping Illegal Robocalling
Message-ID: <s8hve99nt962jnbv2lk925ak76qmf0lmgm@4ax.com>
Per Bob K:
>When the new Bureau of Robocaller Police (or whatever) gets multiple
>complaints that point to some originating source, then it would seem
>that a court could issue an order to actually record calls from that
>source, and prosecution begun. With high enough fines for illegal
>robocalls, then the national debt could be wiped out.
The lame-sounding letters that I usually get from the Pennsylvania
Attorney General's office (in response to my registering a complaint on
their DNC violation page) suggest that they have pretty much given up on
prosecution because the perpetrators are largely offshore, user VOIP,
and hide behind multiple VOIP relays (whatever that means...).
Couple months ago I fed them a pretty good one: some scam operation
where they pose as bill collectors and threaten to garnish people's
wages if the don't pay up.
They actually were able to locate them - and agreed that it was a scam.
But they came back saying that there was nothing they could do because
it was a corporation that had since been bought by somebody else. I
translated that to "We just don't care anymore".
Budget cuts?
--
Pete Cresswell
Date: 4 Feb 2014 16:39:27 -0500
From: "news" <news@fx28.iad.highwinds-media.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Stopping Illegal Robocalling
Message-ID: <q6dIu.288345$wB.66412@fx28.iad>
With due respect, none of this or its follow-ups address the question posed
by the poster (to critique the proposal), and some of it is addressed in the
proposal:
"Bob K" wrote in message news:52EFA3AD.5020507@Rochester.RR.com...
On 2/2/2014 4:00 PM, news wrote:
> comp.dcom.telecom readership:
>
> I'd like your help. Perhaps together we can get an infrastructure in
> place to stop illegal robocalling.
<snip>
I read thru the proposal. Most of it I think I understood -- but it
would take someone far more knowledgeable than myself to get a good
handle on it. But, assuming it all would work, I suspect that it would
take a lot of reprogramming of switches to get it implemented. That in
itself would take years!
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
The poster claims to have participated in planning the development of
switching features, and estimates between 6 months and 2 years for this.
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Here is an alternate idea. A year ago, while the mechanism for it was
in place, the public was not aware of it. As it stands now, every phone
call made is added to a large database. We don't know how much
information about each call is recorded -- but probably as a minimum it
must include the actual calling number, the called number, and a
timestamp. The government is the custodian of that database.
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Presumably this is about what the NSA collects. Whether this will
continue is debatable, and whether it can be legally accessed for
stopping robocalling is even more debatable. It cannot, however,
record an "actual calling number" when there isn't one (VoIP calls).
And perhaps most importantly, it is an after-the-fact method - it
depends on the calls completing, being recorded and finally
prosecuted. Talk about "years!" The proposal claims to actually stop
the calls from completing. As I understand it, robocallers are
expected to stop of their own accord if they can't make money because
they will be charged (however little) for every call because all calls
would all be answered at the phone switch.
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
When I receive an illegal robocall, and elect to complain, the only
information I really should have to supply is my number and the
approximate time and date. That could be simplified with a new
vertical code (the suggested *99 maybe).
Should not require much for the database be queried and the calling
party accurately identified.
When the new Bureau of Robocaller Police (or whatever) gets multiple
complaints that point to some originating source, then it would seem
that a court could issue an order to actually record calls from that
source, and prosecution begun. With high enough fines for illegal
robocalls, then the national debt could be wiped out.
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
>>From what I read, many of the callers are offshore, so prosecuting
and collecting money are problematic. My own view is that of the
poster - the only way to stop these people is for them to lose money.
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
We have already paid for (in many ways) the collection of phone call
history -- let's put it to use for our good.
....Bob
http://www.avast.com
Date: 3 Feb 2014 19:49:11 -0500
From: "Arnie Goetchius" <arnie.goetchius.remove-this@and-this-too.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Stopping Illegal Robocalling
Message-ID: <lcpde8$5l8$1@dont-email.me>
Bob K wrote:
> On 2/2/2014 4:00 PM, news wrote:
>> comp.dcom.telecom readership:
>>
>> I'd like your help. Perhaps together we can get an infrastructure in place
>> to stop illegal robocalling.
> <snip>
>
> Should not require much for the database be queried and the calling
> party accurately identified.
I have developed my own personal database and use PhoneTray to block any
robocaller that I have entered on my Black list. I prefer that approach
rather then have some private or government entity (NSA :-) ) do the work.
The only problem I have is for those calls who the CID says are
"Anonymous" or "Private Caller". Ordinarily, I would block all of those
calls. However, the calls I receive from Europe also show up as
"Anonymous" or "Private Caller" so I have to answer all of them.
Date: 3 Feb 2014 23:19:05 -0500
From: "Bill Horne" <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Stopping Illegal Robocalling
Message-ID: <lcppnp$oug$1@dont-email.me>
On 2/3/2014 7:49 PM, Arnie Goetchius wrote:
> I have developed my own personal database and use PhoneTray to block any
> robocaller that I have entered on my Black list. I prefer that approach
> rather then have some private or government entity (NSA :-) ) do the work.
I was under the impression that the robocallers were altering their CID
each time that they make a call, so as to prevent just the kind of
blacklisting that you're doing. Not so?
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: 4 Feb 2014 07:35:59 -0500
From: "Arnie Goetchius" <arnie.goetchius.remove-this@and-this-too.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Stopping Illegal Robocalling
Message-ID: <lcqmrg$4bt$1@dont-email.me>
Bill Horne wrote:
> On 2/3/2014 7:49 PM, Arnie Goetchius wrote:
>
>> I have developed my own personal database and use PhoneTray to block any
>> robocaller that I have entered on my Black list. I prefer that approach
>> rather then have some private or government entity (NSA :-) ) do the work.
>
> I was under the impression that the robocallers were altering their CID
> each time that they make a call, so as to prevent just the kind of
> blacklisting that you're doing. Not so?
They may do that but they don't change the area code or the NNX so I
just block everything that they keep the same. I have one who just
changes the last digit so my black list may show Areacode, NNX, 120?
which blocks everything ending in 1200 to 1209. In some cases, I will
block an entire area code just because I would never receive a
legitimate call from that area.
Date: 3 Feb 2014 12:58:36 -0800
From: "Neal McLain" <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FCC Invites Experiments To Test Effects of All-IP Telephone Network.
Message-ID: <ab029925-96f0-4fa8-8c13-92b548e3157f@googlegroups.com>
By Paul J. Feldman, CommLawBlog, February 3, 2014.
| Commission seeks data for critical policy dialogue; coming changes
| may particularly affect smaller carriers - and their customers.
|
| Major changes are coming to the telephone system that provides the
| interconnected communications system on which American society has
| long depended. For more than 125 years that system has been based
| on a circuit-switched, mostly copper-wire-based public switched
| network (PSTN) -- nowadays sometimes called a "Time Division
| Multiplex (TDM)" network. But networks based on Internet Protocol
| (IP) technology have begun to replace the PSTN. The FCC has now
| expressly acknowledged that the "the global multimedia
| communications infrastructure of the future" will consist of all-IP
| networks very different from the circuit-switched technology we
| have been used to since Alexander Graham Bell.
|
| And with that acknowledgement, the FCC has now started to take
| steps to identify and assess the effects that the fundamental
| technological overhaul of our nationwide phone system are likely to
| have on phone companies, consumers, and the FCC's own ability to
| achieve its statutory responsibilities.
Continued:
http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/02/articles/wireline-telephony/fcc-invites-experiments-to-test-effects-of-allip-telephone-network/index.html
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/jvswrmd
Neal McLain
Date: 3 Feb 2014 16:18:59 -0500
From: "Bill Horne" <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC Invites Experiments To Test Effects of All-IP Telephone Network.
Message-ID: <20140203211859.GB9734@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:58:36PM -0800, Neal McLain wrote:
> By Paul J. Feldman, CommLawBlog, February 3, 2014.
> | Major changes are coming to the telephone system that provides the
> | interconnected communications system on which American society has
> | long depended. For more than 125 years that system has been based
> | on a circuit-switched, mostly copper-wire-based public switched
> | network (PSTN) -- nowadays sometimes called a "Time Division
> | Multiplex (TDM)" network. But networks based on Internet Protocol
> | (IP) technology have begun to replace the PSTN. The FCC has now
> | expressly acknowledged that the "the global multimedia
> | communications infrastructure of the future" will consist of all-IP
> | networks very different from the circuit-switched technology we
> | have been used to since Alexander Graham Bell.
AFAIK, there is no specification for transit time in IP. The whole
idea of the ARPANET was that a reliable network could be
constructed from unreliable links, using a protocol that would retry
and/or reroute failed packets.
In other words, unlike ATM, the Internet was never intended for
"real time" traffic. If the PSTN is going to morph into a Public Routed
Telephone Virtual Network, then there will have to be a new set of
protocols that can deliver something akin to the "virtual circuit"
technology we're using now. Either that, or we'll all have to get used
to getting "almost as good as a cell call" quality on our landlines.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: 3 Feb 2014 22:43:33 +0000
From: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC Invites Experiments To Test Effects of All-IP Telephone Network.
Message-ID: <lcp62l$pq1$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <20140203211859.GB9734@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>AFAIK, there is no specification for transit time in IP.
No, that was considered out of scope. There was a separate protocol
called ST (the STream protocol) which was intended to serve that
purpose, but it had little deployment, and the ATM FUD killed off any
desire to implement it.
In later years -- the mid-1990s, when I was working on it -- people
realized that you didn't need a circuit-based network techology to
have reliable multimedia. What you did need was two things:
1) Adaptive protocols that could cope with jitter by buffering playout
by a few milliseconds. RTP/UDP (and the protocols built on top of it,
like SIP) essentially solves this problem, particularly if you have
the bandwidth budget for some forward error correction.
2) A mechanism for network elements (routers, switches) to allocate
resources in a way that provides for the differing requirements of
best-effort and real-time traffic.
The people I worked for called this "ISIP" -- "Integrated Services
Internet Protocol". Two different approaches were developed for
requirement (2): a soft-state-based resource reservation protocol,
RSVP (which IIRC was mostly the work of Bob Braden and colleagues at
USC Information Sciences Institute), and a set of "differentiated
services" specifications that allowed administrators to describe
different applications' requirements in a way that could be aggregated
all the way up to the level of tier-1 network service providers while
preserving the specified behavior for each individual stream (provided
that the network was provisioned adequately).
The thing they didn't figure out was the economics. Nobody understood
the economics of the Internet in the mid-90s, not even the ISPs. Dave
Clark, who heads the research group I used to work for, has spent much
of the last fifteen years trying to understand the economics so that
market structures can be designed that give NSPs the necessary
incentive to provide these services. One of the most significant
issues is determining who actually derives the value in any particular
communication; this is the question at the center of the Network
Neutrality debate. If I'm paying Netflix to stream me a movie, then
it's clear in which direction the money flows, and there does not seem
to be any reason why Netflix should not be able to pay my network
provider to get service that I find more satisfactory. But if I'm
using peer-to-peer SIP, for example, they have no way of knowing who
benefits from the transaction -- if indeed anybody does.
Of course, this is all irrelevant to the issue of running voice over
private IP circuits within a carrier.
>The whole /idea/ of the ARPANET was that a reliable network could
>be constructed from unreliable links, using a protocol that would
>retry and/or reroute failed packets.
That whole business about "rerouting packets" is a myth, and has
always been one, so far as I can tell. If a packet doesn't reach the
intended recipient, it's the sender's responsibility, not the
network's, to try again. Maybe there will be a different route.
Maybe there won't. Maybe it will go through. Maybe it was dropped
due to congestion, and the sender should wait before trying again.
Neither sender nor recipient has any way of knowing.[1]
There is some experience with reliable, or semi-reliable, link-layer
networks, and the general conclusion is that they are usually a bad
idea, because of the end-to-end principle. One exception has proved
to be wireless networks, which have a loss rate (and a "physics
problem") far greater than fiber- or copper-based technologies do, and
link-layer retransmissions are required to get the loss rate down to
the point where TCP performance is acceptable.
-GAWollman
[1] Well, there is something called Explicit Congestion Notification
(ECN), which is specified, and is implemented in many operating
systems, but has fairly limited implementation in the network devices
(home gateways and at-best-duopoly last-mile access devices) where
most congestion occurs.
--
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: 3 Feb 2014 10:10:39 -0500
From: "Bob K" <SPAMpot@Rochester.RR.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Caller ID information wrong
Message-ID: <52EFB16F.3050401@Rochester.RR.com>
Background:
I have two landline telephone numbers available here. One is thru
Time Warner, the other is a netTalk VoIP line. Also a cell phone,
which I have had for a number of years (with the same number).
Very seldom I call myself! But a week ago as a demo I called the TW
number from the cell phone, and found, while the number displayed was
correct, a name was displayed that I have never heard of. Normally, I
would expect on a call from a cell phone to have possible something
like the city and state for the phone.
Today I reran the test, and the display name is still screwed up on
the TW number. However, in calling the netTalk number, it displays
"WIRELESS CALLER" -- which is what I would expect.
Where might this information get corrupted? (Or, where should I
direct a complaint?)
Oh, I also realize that I can (on some phones) enter a name in the
phone's directory, and have it override the provided name for incoming
calls. That is not the case here!
...Bob
http://www.avast.com
Date: 3 Feb 2014 20:41:15 -0600
From: "Doug McIntyre" <merlyn@dork.geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Caller ID information wrong
Message-ID: <WIKdnRBVbcvWzm3PnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bob K <SPAMpot@Rochester.RR.com> writes:
>Very seldom I call myself! But a week ago as a demo I called the TW
>number from the cell phone, and found, while the number displayed was
>correct, a name was displayed that I have never heard of. Normally, I
>would expect on a call from a cell phone to have possible something
>like the city and state for the phone.
>Today I reran the test, and the display name is still screwed up on
>the TW number. However, in calling the netTalk number, it displays
>"WIRELESS CALLER" -- which is what I would expect.
....
Welcome to the wonderful world of CNAM lookup. The CNAM data doesn't
transfer along with a call, only the calling number does.
Basicly, each telco keeps a database of lookups of CNAMs. When a call
connects and the telco terminating the call needs to send callerID data,
they need to do a database dip out of a variety of sources to get the
proper data.
The ILECs probably are the most correct, as they have a huge database
of their own CNAM data, and are willing to pay the CNAM database dip
fee from a CLEC or other ILEC to find the CNAM data to feed
along. (wholesale rates of these are on the order of $0.002 to $0.006
a database dip).
Now, a CLEC may not feel like paying for the database dip, so they
may just look at the flag on the # if it is a mobile number or not,
and display "WIRELESS CALLER" and figure that nobody on mobile
cares about caller ID delivery, because everybody has their contact
books all setup for anybody they care about.
Or, they may cache old database dip data they got ages ago and stored
away so they didn't have to pay for new lookups on the number.
Or a CLEC may cheap out by going to something like listyourself.net,
which takes some public info, some user submitted data, to give data
out of questionable value.
There is no "central" database of CNAM data, unlike some of the other
telco style data that LECs have to subscribe to. But the terminating
telco may do a variety of things, from ILEC style full-proper lookups
to tossing up random data.
As to fixing up things. You could figure out where your such-and-such
telco gets its CNAM data, and try to contact that company to see if
you can get your data updated there properly. Or maybe your LEC can do
that for you. Ie. I'd expect the CLEC I use to go out and do that for
me, but that is just how they operate. I would expect an ILEC to do
so, but only after explaining myself 20 times trying to get to the
right person that can do it.
--
Doug McIntyre
doug@themcintyres.us
Date: 4 Feb 2014 03:08:10 -0500
From: "James Cloos" <cloos@jhcloos.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Caller ID information wrong
Message-ID: <m3bnynb8qk.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
If you want to confirm what a dip will return for a given number, I'd
suggest opening an account with
https://www.opencnam.com.
They require a minimum deposit of US$10 to open an account, and charge
only $0.004 per dip (so $10 buys 2500 dips).
If the dip returns different info than what TW showed, you'll know they
are at fault (for not doing a dip). If it returns the same info you
know that your cell provider is at fault.
One can find a number of other similar providers via a net search, but
they required the smallest initial outlay the last time I searched.
-JimC
--
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Date: 10 Feb 2014 12:05:51 -0800
From: "Neal McLain" <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Aereo Update: Side Action in Utah
Message-ID: <85f760cb-bb2e-49a0-bbf2-35acbbf23543@googlegroups.com>
by Kevin Goldberg, CommLawBlog, February 10, 2014
Poster's note: in the following message, the "Blogmeister" is
CommLawBlog's webmaster, not me.
| [Blogmeister's Note: If you've got the Heartbreak of ALA (that
| would be Aereo Litigation Addiction) and you're jonesin' for some
| action while you're waiting for the Big Showdown at the Supreme
| Court later the spring, you're in luck. On February 11, the U.S.
| District Court in Utah is going to be holding a hearing on (a) the
| broadcasters' motions for preliminary injunction (here and here)
| and (b) Aereo's motion to move the case out of Utah and back to the
| more Aereo-friendly Southern District of New York. Aereo has also
| filed a separate motion asking the trial judge to put the Utah case
| on hold until the Supreme Court acts on the Second Circuit case.
| The Utah court took that last motion under advisement on
| February 7.
|
| There are obviously a number of moving parts here, so we called in
| the Swami [Kevin Goldberg] for his thoughts on how this might shake
| out. Here's his take on the various items on the table - the Aereo
| transfer motion, the Aereo motion to stay proceedings and the
| broadcasters' motions for a preliminary injunction.]
|
| This is pretty hard to put odds on.
Continued:
http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/02/articles/broadcast/aereo-update-side-action-in-utah/index.html
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/nezyex6
Neal McLain
Date: 11 Feb 2014 13:00:11 -0500
From: "Monty Solomon" <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Wikipedia vs. the Small Screen
Message-ID: <p06240804cf201589625b@[172.16.42.2]>
Wikipedia vs. the Small Screen
By NOAM COHEN
FEB. 9, 2014
The Internet behemoths Google and Facebook have proved they can still
attract users and advertisers as their traffic shifts from desktops
to mobile devices.
But at Wikipedia, the giant online encyclopedia, the transition to a
mobile world raises a different existential question: Will people
continue to create articles and edit its nine million existing ones
on the small screen of a smartphone or tablet?
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/technology/wikipedia-vs-the-small-screen.html
Date: 14 Feb 2014 02:43:44 -0000
From: johnl@iecc.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: a test post
Message-ID: <20140214024344.26254.qmail@submit.iecc.com>
sort of to telecom
Date: 9 Feb 2014 14:07:44 -0800
From: "Neal McLain" <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FCC Takes a First Data-Gathering Step TV Channel Sharing
Message-ID: <b0147b15-949a-4e84-b87c-e69a7082f01e@googlegroups.com>
By Davina Sashkin, CommLawBlog, February 9, 2014
| With the FCC's blessing and help from the wireless industry, two
| L.A.-area TV stations set to temporarily cohabit a channel.
|
| An essential component of the FCC's long-discussed, still-in-
| development plan to free up TV spectrum for mobile broadband use
| is the concept of channel sharing by television stations. The idea,
| which the Commission has been officially studying for more than
| three years already, seems relatively straightforward. Thanks to
| the efficiency of digital operation, the standard 6-MHz channel
| allotted to each TV licensee can accommodate at least two separate
| stations. That being the case, in theory the Commission could
| retake half of the spectrum currently occupied by TV operations
| simply by encouraging each station to shack up with one other
| station on a shared channel.
|
| Nearly two years ago the FCC took a preliminary step by announcing
| some initial minimal guidelines to govern such channel sharing. In
| the Incentive Auction Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, channel
| sharing was expressly identified as one option available to TV
| licensees in the spectrum re-packing effort. So the concept of
| channel sharing is more than just a glimmer in the FCC's eye.
Continued:
http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/02/articles/broadcast/tv-channel-sharing-fcc-takes-a-first-datagathering-step/index.html
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/mrlzqce
Neal McLain
Date: 11 Feb 2014 20:34:19 -0800
From: "Neal McLain" <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: In the Supreme Court: Aereo Argument Date Set
Message-ID: <d5e27c5d-d83c-4215-badd-588b83c5d854@googlegroups.com>
Posted on February 11, 2014 by FHH Law
| It's official. The big day is April 22, 2014. That's when the
| Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the Aereo case. From the
| calendar released by the Court, it looks like the argument will be
| the second of two on the card -- but that's subject to change. If
| you're planning on attending the argument, expect to get to the
| Court early in the morning, stand in line for a long time, and
| probably sit through a case you know nothing about
|
| Or you could just make a point of checking in with us for our post-
| argument take on things.
|
| While predicting the final result in a case based on oral argument
| is an unreliable (at best) exercise, the exchanges between the
| Justices and counsel for the various parties invariably lend
| themselves to beaucoup speculation. And we here at CommLawBlog plan
| to be speculating with the rest of the crowd. The difference? We'll
| have Swami Kevin Goldberg - no stranger to this kind of this -- and
| his pal the Blogmeister (Harry Cole) doing the heavy lifting for
| us. Kevin and Harry are planning to attend the argument and to
| share their observations with our readers promptly thereafter.
| Stay tuned.
Source:
http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/02/articles/broadcast/in-the-supreme-court-aereo-argument-date-set/
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/nhrwa2t
Neal McLain
Date: 11 Feb 2014 13:01:29 -0500
From: "Monty Solomon" <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Court Rejects Apple Appeal in E-Book Case
Message-ID: <p06240805cf2015c770ae@[172.16.42.2]>
Court Rejects Apple Appeal in E-Book Case
By MATTHEW GOLDSTEIN
FEBRUARY 10, 2014
The court-appointed monitor in the Apple e-book price-fixing case can
get back to work.
A federal appellate court on Monday rejected Apple's request to stay
the monitor, Michael R. Bromwich, a Washington lawyer, from doing any
more work pending the outcome of its challenge to a judge's earlier
order appointing the monitor in the first place.
But a one-page ruling from the three-judge panel of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit did put some limits on how
far Mr. Bromwich can go in demanding documents and interviews with
Apple employees.
The ruling said that the monitor's job was to make sure the company
was putting in place procedures to comply with federal antitrust laws
and that Apple executives and board members "are being instructed on
what those compliance policies mean and how they work." Yet, the
order went on to say the monitor was not supposed to "investigate
whether such personnel were in fact complying with the antitrust or
other laws."
...
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/court-rejects-apple-appeal-in-e-book-case/
Date: 7 Feb 2014 13:05:45 -0800
From: "Neal McLain" <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FCC Proposes Expansion of Text-to-911 Mandate to ALL Texting Service Providers
Message-ID: <fbaa0357-1f9b-41f4-8f39-d9bd8f73b38a@googlegroups.com>
by Tony Lee, CommLawBlog, February 7, 2014
| Comments sought on how and when text-to-911 should be required
| across-the-board, including by interconnected "over the top"
| services
|
| Pity the poor FCC. Saddled with an outdated governing statute and
| limited resources, it's supposed to regulate newly-minted whiz bang
| technologies that get embraced by the public seemingly before the
| FCC even learns about them. And when it tries to get ahead of the
| curve, it occasionally gets too far ahead. Case in point: its text-
| to-911 bounce-back rule for roaming customers. A great idea on
| paper but, as the FCC learned, beyond the capabilities of existing
| technology, the result being a last-minute revision to the rule
| last September.
Continued:
http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/02/articles/deadlines/update-fcc-proposes-expansion-of-textto911-mandate-to-all-texting-service-providers/index.html
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/l3fvh6f
Neal McCLain
Date: 8 Feb 2014 10:42:12 -0500
From: "Bill Horne" <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Verizon denies throttling NetFlix and Amazon AWS
Message-ID: <ld5j8n$jj2$1@dont-email.me>
Verizon this week denied taking advantage of its recent net neutrality
victory to throttle traffic and punish bandwidth-heavy services like
Netflix.
"We treat all traffic equally, and that has not changed," Verizon
Communications said in a statement.
Rest at:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2430429,00.asp
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
- The Who
Date: 2 Feb 2014 23:33:32 -0500
From: "Monty Solomon" <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Flappy Bird is the embodiment of our descent into madness
Message-ID: <p06240800cf14cc44d584@[172.16.42.4]>
Flappy Bird is the embodiment of our descent into madness
We'll do anything for a quick fix these days -- so long as it's free,
shamelessly manipulative, and comes with a high score counter.
by Nick Statt
February 2, 2014
It was after maybe the 14th or 15th time I'd seen "Game Over" flash
across my iPhone screen in the last maybe seven minutes that I
decided that the app Flappy Bird -- an experience so simultaneously
simple and maddening that I could already picture it haunting my
dreams -- was perhaps the worst smartphone game ever created.
...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57618175-94/flappy-bird-is-the-embodiment-of-our-descent-into-madness/
Date: 2 Feb 2014 23:33:32 -0500
From: "Monty Solomon" <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Flappy Bird is the embodiment of our descent into madness
Message-ID: <p06240800cf14cc44d584@[172.16.42.4]>
Flappy Bird is the embodiment of our descent into madness
We'll do anything for a quick fix these days -- so long as it's free,
shamelessly manipulative, and comes with a high score counter.
by Nick Statt
February 2, 2014
It was after maybe the 14th or 15th time I'd seen "Game Over" flash
across my iPhone screen in the last maybe seven minutes that I
decided that the app Flappy Bird -- an experience so simultaneously
simple and maddening that I could already picture it haunting my
dreams -- was perhaps the worst smartphone game ever created.
...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57618175-94/flappy-bird-is-the-embodiment-of-our-descent-into-madness/
Date: 3 Feb 2014 08:45:18 -0800
From: "Jon Danniken" <jonSPAMdanniken@yaSMPAhoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Flappy Bird is the embodiment of our descent into madness
Message-ID: <lcoh2s$1l9$1@speranza.aioe.org>
On 02/02/2014 08:33 PM, Monty Solomon wrote:
> Flappy Bird is the embodiment of our descent into madness
>
> We'll do anything for a quick fix these days -- so long as it's free,
> shamelessly manipulative, and comes with a high score counter.
[snip]
>
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57618175-94/flappy-bird-is-the-embodiment-of-our-descent-into-madness/
>
>>From the same:
"...Flappy Bird is a game with no conclusion that subsists solely on
your hunger for a higher score and your dumb, completely illogical
belief that you will in fact get any value out of playing...."
35 years ago he might have said the same thing about Space Invaders. or
a few years later, Asteroids. Of course back then you actually had to
leave your house to play the games, which required at least some level
of human interaction.
Jon
***** Moderator's Note *****
And I'd have given anything
To have my own Pac-Man game at home
I used to have to get a ride down to the arcade
Now I've got it on my phone
- Brad Paisley
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: 5 Feb 2014 15:36:15 -0800
From: "Neal McLain" <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Aereo sets expansion into San Antonio as legal battle presses on
Message-ID: <44443464-aa72-4eeb-9fcf-8a54ffc8f80b@googlegroups.com>
By Josh Wein, FierceOnlineVideo, February 3, 2014
| Aereo plans to begin offering service in San Antonio, Texas, while
| the legal theory underpinning the company's operations awaits
| review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Aereo will begin taking new
| subscribers in and around San Antonio on Feb. 19.
|
| The move comes as Aereo's New York City-area service is reportedly
| oversubscribed. According to DSLReports, Aereo reached its capacity
| in that market some time before the Super Bowl. A spokesperson for
| the company told DSLReports that it is working to add more capacity
| in the markets where it already offers service.
|
| While the high court's decision to hear the case didn't stall
| Aereo's expansion plans, it has put some related litigation on
| pause around the country. Two appeals involving Aereo copycat
| FilmOn X were held in abeyance last week, court filings show.
|
| Now, FilmOn plans to ask the Supreme Court to let it intervene in
| the Aereo case, according to Reuters. If its request is granted, it
| would entitle FilmOn to file a brief in the case and answer
| questions from the judges during oral argument. A lawyer for Aereo
| told Reuters that it would oppose such a request.
Continued:
http://www.fierceonlinevideo.com/story/aereo-sets-expansion-legal-battle-presses/2014-02-03
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/ppnaxh8
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, 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 (24 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues