---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <20180203174107.GA29964@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 12:41:07 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: AT&T merger judge says 'no big issues' in trial preparations WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. judge who will decide if wireless and pay TV provider AT&T Inc may purchase Time Warner Inc said on Friday that he saw "no big issues" in pre-trial preparations. The Justice Department has said that the $85 billion deal is illegal because AT&T, once it owned movie and television show maker Time Warner, would have the ability and incentive to raise prices that it charges cable, satellite and streaming rivals for Time Warner's content. -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20180203173909.GA29930@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 12:39:09 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: EFF slams AT&T, says company's Internet Bill of Rights is 'Hypocritical Arrogance' By Chris Mills Internet service providers might have won the battle within the FCC to strike down net neutrality rules, but it came at the cost of public opinion. Telecoms providers dominate this year's list of most-hated companies, and [calls to reinstate] net neutrality provisions are now exceptionally popular among Republicans and Democrats alike. So rather than challenge the idea that net "neutrality =3D good", internet providers are trying a bold and very different strategy: gaslighting consumers into thinking they've been fans of net neutrality all along. http://bgr.com/2018/02/03/net-neutrality-att-argument-explanation/ -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <495A7328-564E-4CFD-9E81-F4407B841608@roscom.com> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 02:11:01 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Cellphone radiation study finds mixed effects in rodents, without clear implications for human health Cellphone radiation study finds mixed effects in rodents, without clear implications for human health. A senior scientist involved in the 10-year study said, "I have not changed the way I use a cellphone, no." By Ariana Eunjung Cha The long-awaited results of a $25 million National Institutes of Health study on the effects of cellphone radio-frequency radiation exposure on animals is out, and the results are mixed. They showed a higher risk of tumors, DNA or tissue damage, and lower body weight in some groups of rodents, but no obvious ill effect in others and no clear implications for human health. John Bucher, a senior scientist involved in the 10-year study, was cautious in his interpretation of the results in a conference call with journalists Friday. Given the inconsistent pattern of the findings, the fact that the subjects were rats and mice rather than people and the high level of radiation used, he said, he could not extrapolate from the data the potential health effects on humans. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/02/02/cellphone-radiation-shows-mixed-effects-in-rodents-without-clear-implications-for-human-health/ ------------------------------ Message-ID: <80ed8d28-9421-56cb-3a8b-5cceadafc40a@horne.net> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 13:14:26 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: Gmail has marked this morning's Telecom Digest with a warning I just got an email from reader Charles Jackson, alerting me to a warninghe received when he opened this morning's Telecom Digest. Mr. Jackson uses Gmail, and I confirmed the problem by bouncing a copy of the digest to my Gmail account, where it showed up in the "Spam" folder. When I opened the message, I got this warning: +------------------------------------------------------------+ + Be careful with this message. Many people marked similar + + messages as phishing scams, so this might contain unsafe + + content. + +------------------------------------------------------------+ Google doesn't reveal the way it rates emails, but I reviewed this copy of the Digest with an eye toward "Spaminess," and I don't see any reason for the warning. The warning is accompanied by a "Learn More" link, which states that "You can mark or unmark emails as spam. Gmail also automatically identifies spam and other suspicious emails and sends them to Spam." ... and gives instructions on how to unmark email as spam, by clicking the "Not Spam" link at the top of the Gmail page. When I did that, the message immediately moved to the Inbox. Please do that too, if you get the digest via Gmail: it's a good bet that a few dozen "Not spam" ratings will put this copy of the Digest in the "Safe" category at Gmail. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Sun, 04 Feb 2018