32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Previous Issue (Only one)
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for April 25, 2014
Volume 33 : Issue 64 : "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: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:22:02 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: F.B.I. Informant Is Tied to Cyberattacks Abroad
Message-ID: <p0624080bcf7e4fd179ce@[172.16.42.3]>
F.B.I. Informant Is Tied to Cyberattacks Abroad
By MARK MAZZETTI
APRIL 23, 2014
WASHINGTON - An informant working for the F.B.I. coordinated a 2012
campaign of hundreds of cyberattacks on foreign websites, including
some operated by the governments of Iran, Syria, Brazil and Pakistan,
according to documents and interviews with people involved in the
attacks.
Exploiting a vulnerability in a popular web hosting software, the
informant directed at least one hacker to extract vast amounts of
data - from bank records to login information - from the government
servers of a number of countries and upload it to a server monitored
by the F.B.I., according to court statements.
The details of the 2012 episode have, until now, been kept largely a
secret in closed sessions of a federal court in New York and heavily
redacted documents. While the documents do not indicate whether the
F.B.I. directly ordered the attacks, they suggest that the government
may have used hackers to gather intelligence overseas even as
investigators were trying to dismantle hacking groups like Anonymous
and send computer activists away for lengthy prison terms.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/world/fbi-informant-is-tied-to-cyberattacks-abroad.html
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:09:08 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: In Policy Shift, F.C.C. Will Allow a Web Fast Lane
Message-ID: <p06240803cf7e4ccac419@[172.16.42.3]>
In Policy Shift, F.C.C. Will Allow a Web Fast Lane
By EDWARD WYATT
APRIL 23, 2014
WASHINGTON - The principle that all Internet content should be
treated equally as it flows through cables and pipes to consumers
looks all but dead.
The Federal Communications Commission said on Wednesday that it would
propose new rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix
to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for
special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their
customers.
The proposed changes would affect what is known as net neutrality -
the idea that no providers of legal Internet content should face
discrimination in providing offerings to consumers, and that users
should have equal access to see any legal content they choose.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html
[moderator pro tem's note: I don't think we should turn this group into yet another NN debate forum. What is the "telecom" angle? The DC Circuit's January decision overturning the previous NN rules, which never really took effect, said that the FCC couldn't apply common carrier regulation (neutrality) to ISPs while simultaneously denying that they were common carriers. It sounds like the next round will be similar, trying to get a more reasonable set of common carrier-like rules for ISPs while still not creating common carriage for the telecommunications function, the lower layers, which the Court said was okay. Anybody else see the problem? So it's really more political posturing. -fg]
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:02:26 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Football team settles suit over text messages to fans for $3 million
Message-ID: <p0624081acf7ed7d35aa0@[172.16.42.3]>
Football team settles suit over text messages to fans for $3 million
The Buffalo Bills went to court over texting fans one (or two) too many times.
by Casey Johnston
Apr 23 2014
Ars Technica
A class-action lawsuit over too many text messages from the Buffalo
Bills football team has been settled for a sum of $3 million,
according to a report from the Buffalo News on Monday. The lawsuit's
claim was that the Buffalo Bills were violating the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, which regulates phone solicitations, by
sending texts to fans' phones one too many times.
The texts in question were sent to Bills fans who enrolled in an
alert service on the team's website. According to the site, the
service would send fans three to five texts for 12 months. Jerry
Wojcik, the class-action leader, filed the suit in 2012 when he
received six texts in one week and seven the next.
...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/football-team-settles-suit-over-text-messages-to-fans-for-3-million/
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Aereo in the Supremes: A Post Mortem Post
Message-ID: <d5725927-deb9-4d17-8f28-95c64267a777@googlegroups.com>
By FHH Law, CommLawBlog, April 23, 2014
| So the storm that had been brewing for some months -- the
| long-impending Aereo argument in the Supreme Court -- has now come
| and gone, and we are left to sift through what remains to try to
| figure out what's next.
|
| We are pleased to report that, as planned, our intrepid reporters
| on the Aereo beat, Kevin Goldberg and Harry Cole, attended the
| argument (nearly front-row seats, thank you very much) and were
| able to provide an overview of the festivities on CommLawBlog Live!
| less than three hours after the gavel came down in the courtroom.
| (That's just a metaphor -- Chief Justice Roberts did not appear to
| wield an actual gavel.) For those of you who missed it, you can
| catch a recording of the audio portion here, although you'll miss
| the video of Kevin and Harry -- which is, of course, the price you
| pay for not signing up for the live presentation.
Continued:
http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/04/articles/broadcast/aereo-in-the-supremes-a-post-mortem-post/index.html
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/ltstr3p
I watched the webinar that Kevin and Harry steamed yesterday, and
took numerous scribbled notes. From my notes:
- Cole stated that Aereo's attorney (David Frederick) was
"unbelievably good."
- Attorney Frederick repeatedly claimed that a decision against
Aereo would negatively affect "cloud" storage for all other uses.
But the DoJ's amicus brief specifically countered this claim. [1]
- Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, and Roberts all asked
variations of the same question: "How does Aereo differ from
a cable system?"
- The issue of "static" antennas came up a few times: does Aereo
assign a specific ("static") antenna to each customer, or
does the customer get whatever antenna is available when he/she
logs in?
- The Court was narrowly focused on the Second Circuit's 2-1
decision favoring Aereo. There was no mention of the Tenth
Circuit's decision (favoring plaintiffs) or the FilmOn X
case (enjoined by the DC District Court).
- The questions asked by the members of the court did not
indicate any definite positions. In Cole's opinion, "the case
is too difficult to call." [2]
[1] The DoJ specifically addressed this claim in its amicus brief:
| [The DOJ's position] should not call into question the
| legitimacy of businesses that use the Internet to provide
| new ways for consumers to store, hear, and view their own
| lawfully acquired copies of copyrighted works.
FFH Law cited this issue in a previous post:
http://tinyurl.com/la49hhe
Neal McLain
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Aereo in the Supremes: A Post Mortem Post
Message-ID: <d5725927-deb9-4d17-8f28-95c64267a777@googlegroups.com>
By FHH Law, CommLawBlog, April 23, 2014
| So the storm that had been brewing for some months -- the
| long-impending Aereo argument in the Supreme Court -- has now come
| and gone, and we are left to sift through what remains to try to
| figure out what's next.
|
| We are pleased to report that, as planned, our intrepid reporters
| on the Aereo beat, Kevin Goldberg and Harry Cole, attended the
| argument (nearly front-row seats, thank you very much) and were
| able to provide an overview of the festivities on CommLawBlog Live!
| less than three hours after the gavel came down in the courtroom.
| (That's just a metaphor -- Chief Justice Roberts did not appear to
| wield an actual gavel.) For those of you who missed it, you can
| catch a recording of the audio portion here, although you'll miss
| the video of Kevin and Harry -- which is, of course, the price you
| pay for not signing up for the live presentation.
Continued:
http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/04/articles/broadcast/aereo-in-the-supremes-a-post-mortem-post/index.html
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/ltstr3p
I watched the webinar that Kevin and Harry steamed yesterday, and
took numerous scribbled notes. From my notes:
- Cole stated that Aereo's attorney (David Frederick) was
"unbelievably good."
- Attorney Frederick repeatedly claimed that a decision against
Aereo would negatively affect "cloud" storage for all other uses.
But the DoJ's amicus brief specifically countered this claim. [1]
- Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, and Roberts all asked
variations of the same question: "How does Aereo differ from
a cable system?"
- The issue of "static" antennas came up a few times: does Aereo
assign a specific ("static") antenna to each customer, or
does the customer get whatever antenna is available when he/she
logs in?
- The Court was narrowly focused on the Second Circuit's 2-1
decision favoring Aereo. There was no mention of the Tenth
Circuit's decision (favoring plaintiffs) or the FilmOn X
case (enjoined by the DC District Court).
- The questions asked by the members of the court did not
indicate any definite positions. In Cole's opinion, "the case
is too difficult to call." [2]
[1] The DoJ specifically addressed this claim in its amicus brief:
| [The DOJ's position] should not call into question the
| legitimacy of businesses that use the Internet to provide
| new ways for consumers to store, hear, and view their own
| lawfully acquired copies of copyrighted works.
FFH Law cited this issue in a previous post:
http://tinyurl.com/la49hhe
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 (5 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues