30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

The Telecom Digest for February 6, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 37 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Google offers explanation for removing Galaxy Nexus phone from (Henry Horne)
Federal regulators taking a hard look at $3.6 billion Verizon (Henry Horne)
Judge says RIAA can identify Internet users (Henry Horne)
Re: Judge says RIAA can identify Internet users (Thad Floryan)
Re: History--SF Chronicle`-telephone photos (T)
Complaints about Verizon Fios (Henry Horne)
LightSquared's GPS-Interference Controversy Comes to a Boil (Henry Horne)
Apple's iPhone Business Alone Is Now Bigger Than All Of Microsoft (Monty Solomon)

====== 30 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: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:17:34 -0500 From: Henry Horne <horneht@gmail.VALID-IF-THIS-IS-ELIDED.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Google offers explanation for removing Galaxy Nexus phone from Message-ID: <CAOhpKK8e=9FfgbXj09RN7Q5UgsP4W1XLW55x_uaC73yMSJpiSg@mail.gmail.com> Verizon Galaxy Nexus, other CDMA devices, no longer listed with Google developer support by Kevin Krause on February 3rd, 2012 at 4:22 pm UPDATE: The Android Team's Dan Morrill has posted an explanation https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/android-contrib/phz3S5ZdveU for the removal of the Galaxy Nexus http://phandroid.com/galaxy-nexus/ and other CDMA devices from the official developer support page. This has nothing to do with Google Wallet (we never thought it did) and everything to do with the way the Android code is compiled for CDMA devices. In short, if a dev were to simply compile the pure AOSP source code for the Verizon Galaxy Nexus the build would be lacking in full telephony functionality. Google still plans to support the devices directly via software updates. A quick visit to the Android developer support page http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html reveals some startling news. It appears as if Google is dropping the "developer device" tag of once-listed CDMA models. The Samsung Nexus S 4G http://phandroid.com/nexus-s-4g/ Verizon's Motorola XOOM, and even the LTE Galaxy Nexus have disappeared from the site, leaving us with a note explaining exactly which versions of these devices will be supported moving forward. For the XOOM, only the "wingray" WiFi-only version of the slate gets developer designation. The GSM "crespo" version of the Nexus S also retains support. For the Galaxy Nexus, the GSM/HSPA+ "maguro" build is supported, but only if it originally shipped with the "yakju" build of Android 4.0. Rest at: http://phandroid.com/2012/02/03/verizon-galaxy-nexus-other-cdma-devices-no-longer-listed-with-google-developer-support/ Bill Horne
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:08:14 -0500 From: Henry Horne <horneht@gmail.VALID-IF-THIS-IS-ELIDED.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Federal regulators taking a hard look at $3.6 billion Verizon Message-ID: <CAOhpKK9fGWRYKZai6QDO7A5e3b3WD=7vkw=THBYuJg3tJHKVsA@mail.gmail.com> {{ from The Hill newspaper }} Federal regulators taking a hard look at $3.6 billion Verizon cable deal By Brendan Sasso - 02/04/12 03:25 PM ET Verizon's $3.6 billion deal with a coalition of cable companies is raising eyebrows in Washington and could come under intense regulatory scrutiny. Verizon agreed in December to buy wireless airwave licenses, or spectrum, from a group of cable companies, including Comcast and Time Warner. Under a separate deal announced simultaneously, Verizon and the cable companies agreed to cross-sell each other's services. Rest at: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/208683-federal-regulators-taking-a-hard-look-at-verizon-cable-deal Bill Horne
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:59:29 -0500 From: Henry Horne <horneht@gmail.VALID-IF-THIS-IS-ELIDED.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Judge says RIAA can identify Internet users Message-ID: <CAOhpKK8N_S9MVoNO4SXzx7_dp-8DZF2FrotQgwCKB6qzg6vkYQ@mail.gmail.com> I don't know how old this decision is, and I don't see a date on the .pdf file, but I don't think it has appeared in the Digest before. Long story short: a judge has ruled that Internet Service Providers have to hand over the identities of their users when the RIAA serves a subpoena. Verizon had claimed that, since the allegedly infringing data wasn't on Verizon's servers, that they didn't have to do anything. The Judge sided with the RIAA, saying that Verizon had to provide the identity of their user. I'm curious what others think about this isse: as I wrote a few weeks ago, allowing companies to sue anyone they claim is violating copyright would effectively remove all reference material on older technologies from the Internet, thus making it much more difficult for small CLECs to avoid paying for new equipment. Decision is at: http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/verizon/inreverizon12103opn.pdf Bill Horne
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:05:03 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Judge says RIAA can identify Internet users Message-ID: <4F2F7B9F.7000900@thadlabs.com> [ Discussion of the 'age' of this decision is now closed. ] [ As the content is 'old news', anything related to that ] [ will require contemporary content. -- rdb, acting mod. ] On 2/5/2012 4:59 PM, Henry Horne wrote: > I don't know how old this decision is, and I don't see a date on the .pdf > file, but I don't think it has appeared in the Digest before. Above the signature line on page 35 of the PDF [URL below] is the date: January 21, 2003 [ moderator snip ] ` > Decision is at: > > http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/verizon/inreverizon12103opn.pdf > Oddly, the "Subject:" within the PDF envelope is: "January 21, 2002 Memorandum Opinion and Order" and the PDF was created using PDP90 with a Corel PDF Engine Version 9.654. I would assume the date above the judge's signature is the correct date and the exactly-one-year-earlier date in the PDF "envelope" is a computer error. ** Moderator note: The document name in the URL (above), parsed as: "in re Verizon 1{/}21{/}03 op{inio}n" would seem to confirm.
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:22:49 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: History--SF Chronicle`-telephone photos Message-ID: <MPG.2998a110ade5a916989d85@news.eternal-september.org> In article <TizonC.A.HzE.V6XLPB@telecom>, bernies@netaxs.com says... > > One of the historical telephone photos in that series at > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/thebigevent/detail?entry_id=107304 > > show a Touch-Tone payphone with what appears to be a 2-line > vacuum-fluorescent display. Does anyone on the list know what that > is? Is it Caller ID? I've never seen a payphone with that feature. > > -bernieS > > ** Moderator note: > > It appears that Bernie is talking about photo #9 in the series, as it is > the only Touch-Tone pay phone. The caption indicates it is the first > Touch-Tone pay phone installed in S.F., and is dated Feb 11, 1972. > > This pre-dates the deployment of Caller-ID by roughly 15 years, and thus, > that possibility can be safely ruled out. Leaving the question of "what > IS it for?" unanswered. Fascinating look back. I note in photo 18, I have one of those phones. Mine was originally beige and then painted green. http://www.flickr.com/photos/kd1s/3110671683/ sitting next to my 1D2. The model number stamped inside the housing: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kd1s/3110902013/ D-180574 C.S. I should also add that the TouchTone (DTMF) pad on that photo uses the standard dark gray/white combination. Later versions use a metalized key with the number embossed and filled with black paint.
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:44:59 -0500 From: Henry Horne <horneht@gmail.VALID-IF-THIS-IS-ELIDED.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Complaints about Verizon Fios Message-ID: <CAOhpKK_ZUSpfNvp=5Lt=OzragjNhOiMNrH6W-y=LnncyWP-X5A@mail.gmail.com> {{ from the 'consumer affairs' website }} Laura of Round Hill, VA on Feb. 5, 2012 Since 2009, I've had to fend off a Verizon collection agency to advise them that I do not owe the debt in collection, or any portion thereof. In October 2009, I signed up for a one-month free trial residential high speed internet account. It took countless telephone calls to Verizon and multiple Verizon technicians home visits to troubleshoot the lack of connection issue. To help remedy the problem, a Verizon employee opened up a separate account number in my name without closing the existing original account, making it appear that I had more than one internet account. Then Verizon started sending me bills for separate internet accounts! I made regular payments on the bill for my original account, but when I refused to pay the other duplicate, illegitimate account; they closed my connection and sent my account to collection. For an entire year I invested my personal time and money trying to get Verizon customer service personnel and various managers to remedy this issue, but they insisted that they were unable to close the duplicate account until I paid the account in full and then they would send me a refund. Rest at: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/internet/verizon_fios.html Bill Horne
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:06:13 -0500 From: Henry Horne <horneht@gmail.VALID-IF-THIS-IS-ELIDED.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: LightSquared's GPS-Interference Controversy Comes to a Boil Message-ID: <CAOhpKK_+FKr0P+06Oz+_8jsEDUEjRUTkES9RoRFxB5DQt8KS4w@mail.gmail.com> {{ From the IEEE }} LightSquared's GPS-Interference Controversy Comes to a Boil Cellular wannabe can't reach a deal with GPS community By David Schneider / February 2012 Lightsquared http://www.lightsquared.com/ a Reston, Va.-based provider of satellite communications, intends to start up a new 4G cellular communications network using a portion of the radio spectrum traditionally reserved for mobile-satellite communications. That should be good news to the many U.S. consumers hungry for more bandwidth. The trouble is, LightSquared's cellular base stations could interfere with <http://ttp//spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/telecom/internet/lightsquared-network-faces-interference-of-its-own-making> certain GPS receivers http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/satellites/are-we-getting-overly-reliant-on-gps-systems tuned to the adjacent satellite-navigation band. Groups with an interest in the matter have been waging a public-relations battle http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/telecom/wireless/gps-interference-lightsquared-blames-gps-industry-for-not-following-standards-gps-industry-says-hogwash over the past year, and members of the U.S. military and Congress have weighed in, too. Sadly, much of this discourse has shed more heat than light on the controversy. But more levelheaded engineers have also scrutinized the problem in detail, and the technical issues appear to be understood well enough to suggest possible work-arounds. Time to forge a solution, though, may have run out. Rest at: http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/lightsquareds-gpsinterference-controversy-comes-to-a-boil Bill Horne
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 01:24:11 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Apple's iPhone Business Alone Is Now Bigger Than All Of Microsoft Message-ID: <sIo6JC.A.mtH.YP4LPB@telecom> Apple's iPhone Business Alone Is Now Bigger Than All Of Microsoft Henry Blodget Business Insider February 4, 2012 (Business Insider, company filings, CQ4 2011 revenue.) Tech writer MG Siegler just noted a remarkable fact: Apple's iPhone business alone is now bigger than Microsoft. Not Windows. Not Office. Microsoft. Think about that. The iPhone did not exist five years ago. And now it's bigger than a company that, 15 years ago, was dragged into court and threatened with forcible break-up because it had amassed an unassailable and unthinkably profitable monopoly. The iPhone also appears to be considerably more profitable than Microsoft. ... http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-04/tech/31023911_1_steve-ballmer-iphone-microsoft-ceo
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.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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) 2012 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 (8 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues