See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
| Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 18:40:19 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The Government's Consumer Data Watchdog
Message-ID: <0D261862-206F-46B9-BDD9-E9D260C71938@roscom.com>
The Federal Trade Commission's chief technologist fights to ensure
that companies keep consumers' information safe and private.
When does the free flow of personal data benefit consumers, and when
might it damage their pocketbooks?
That question, at the heart of the debate over information economics
and fairness, took center stage one day last month when Hal R. Varian,
chief economist of Google, and Ashkan Soltani, chief technologist of
the Federal Trade Commission, participated in a conference on big data
and privacy at the Temple University Fox School of Business in
Philadelphia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/technology/the-governments-consumer-data-watchdog.html
-or-
http://goo.gl/VemDPB
|
| Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 14:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Does anyone remember the IMTS System?
Message-ID: <2a937a6a-2c3a-4969-9eac-cbb16214ec82@googlegroups.com>
On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 7:43:36 PM UTC-4, Bill Horne wrote:
> Here's a trip down memory lane: does anyone remember the IMTS
> systems that preceded cellular? I find myself getting nostalgic
> for the "good old days" of the mobile world, and I wonder if
> any of that equipment has been converted to other uses.
P.S.
Some additional early cellular telphone history:
In 1984, the Western Union Telegraph Company, along with its partners,
operated cell phone service in Buffalo, Indianapolis, and Milwaukee as
the non-wireline carrier. Construction was underway in Cleveland,
Detroit, and Toledo. Telephone sets were manufactured by WU's
subsidiary, E. F. Johnson.
WU also operated, along with Goeken Communications, Airfone service,
with phones in 15 widebody planes, and 100 expected by year end.
They handled 150 calls per day. E. F. Johnson also manufactured
the Airfone equipment.
In addition, in 1984 WU offered long distance voice service. WU said
a six minute daytime call from NYC to L.A. would cost $3.00 via AT&T,
$2.83 via GTE, $2.67 via MCI, and $2.64 via WU. WU claimed its
voice long distance rates were 25% cheaper than AT&T between points
served by WU's microwave system, and 15% cheaper between other points.
In those years, WU was Fighting very substantial rate increases
from local telephone companies for local loop access lines to
subscribers for data and teletypewriter services. Though WU had
been migrating such traffic over to its own lines, a considerable
part remained. For instance, after WU acquired AT&T's TWX system,
WU had to move all the subscribers over its own lines and switching
systems.
--Western Union News, July 1984, August 1984, November 1984.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Western Union's move of TWX to "it's own lines and offices" took a
great deal of time: I worked in the Boston-2 test center in the 80's,
and we had a "WADS" office there, which was a #5 Crossbar switch that
handled TWX. There were contracted TWX and Telex lines right up to the
time when I was promoted into NYNEX IS in 1989.
Bill Horne
Moderator
|
| Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 18:33:52 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Uber Closes In on Its Last Frontier: Airports
Message-ID: <36EF8136-67CE-49FD-9CE9-FA90CF8C04B0@roscom.com>
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/business/uber-closes-in-on-its-last-frontier-airports.html
American airport officials know the ride-hailing phenomenon will not recede, and they are rewriting regulations to welcome all manner of cars.
|
| Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 15:07:44 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Boston water main break disrupts telecommunication services for thousands throughout Massachusetts
Message-ID: <CA5E46CD-461B-4263-9F1B-31A93FF7EDFF@roscom.com>
Boston water main break disrupts telecommunication services for
thousands throughout Massachusetts
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/boston_water_main_break_disrup.html
-or-
http://goo.gl/arHzIH
|
| Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 07:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon's 'Pick Your Own Cable TV Channels' Is Just Another Bait & Switch
Message-ID: <0cd37be5-6d2a-4c44-b646-83cbd11f4d07@googlegroups.com>
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 6:47:58 PM UTC-5, Monty Solomon wrote:
> Verizon's 'Pick Your Own Cable TV Channels' Is Just Another Bait & Switch --
Read the Fine Print
>
> Bruce Kushnick
> 05/22/2015
When I first heard about Verizon's 'Pick Your Own Cable TV Channels' I was a
bit startled. How could Verizon offer anything resembling a-la-carte? Isn't
Verizon bound by the same wholesale costs for programming that cable TV faces?
And isn't Verizon bound by the same government-mandated fees and taxes?
Well, it appears that Verizon is indeed bound by the same costs, fees, and
taxes that cable TV system face. But the author of this article apparently
doesn't understand what the franchise fee covers. He writes:
> Franchise Fee @ 5% -- applies to all of the parts of the
> cable TV service, including the cable service itself, the set
> top box, as well as related charges, such as the Broadcast
> Fee and the Sports Fee.
Yep.
> But, if you have any movie channels,
> DVRs, etc; these appear to also be charged as part of the
> franchise fee.
Yep.
> And note that the franchise fee percentage can
> vary in the cable franchise agreements, even by even
> municipality, though 5% is relatively common. It can also
> vary by what is and is not taxed.
True. And even that list doesn't include everything that the franchise fee
covers. Under federal law, the franchise fee applies to:
(1) The charge for everything that's related to providing cable service
to a specific customer: installation charges, monthly service charges,
equipment charges (converter boxes, inside wiring, remotes), miscellaneous
charges such as returned-check fees.
(2) "Non-subscriber revenue" (revenue from locally-inserted advertising
and from commissions received from home-shopping networks), allocated to each
subscriber for each tier. Keep this in mind as you watch services like ESPN
or CNN: the revenue that the cable company derives from locally-inserted
advertising is subject to the same franchise fee. But the fee is passed
through to subscribers, not to the advertisers. Local Franchising Authorities
(LFAs), of course, object to this practice; however, the cable companies'
rationale is straightforward: federal regulations allow them to pass all
franchise fees through to subscribers, and if the LFAs insist on imposing
franchise fees on non-subscriber revenue, then the cable companies are merely
exercising their federal right to pass it along. The cable companies' right
to do this has been upheld by the FCC and by the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. [Texas Coalition of Cities, et al. v. FCC, 2003.]
(3) The amount collected to pay the franchise fee. Take the total from
(1) and (2) above, and add 5%. Then add 5% of that 5%. Then add 5% of that
5%. Then add ... etc. Or, as a close approximation, take the total of (1)
and (2) and add 5.26%. This situation results from a complaint filed by two
Texas cities (Dallas and Laredo) against cable operators who had been treating
the franchise fee like a tax, adding only 5%. The FCC ruled in favor of the
cable companies, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the cities'
position, holding that Congress' use of the term "gross revenues" should
include all revenues received by the cable operator, including revenue
received to pay the franchise fee. [City of Dallas, Texas; City of Laredo,
Texas v. FCC, 1997]
I find it interesting to compare the two decisions handed down by the Fifth
Circuit. One favors the cable industry and the other favors the LFAs, but
both result in higher cable bills.
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 educational service offered to
the Internet 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 © 2015 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself. Thank you!
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.
