31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for June 29, 2013
====== 31 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
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, 27 Jun 2013 13:27:16 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: It's vacation time again Message-ID: <51CCA024.email@example.com> On 6/26/2013 1:19 PM, Telecom Digest Moderator wrote: > It's that time of year again, when Telecom Digest readers book flights > to far-away places, pack their clothes, and head out on vacation. > > But ... > > Many of the auto-response "vacation macro" features of various email > servers are not able to give "bulk" email any special attention, and > so I get "I'm on vacation" replies every time a post goes out. Of > course, I can intercept them, but if you're subscribed to any public > mailing lists or Usenet groups that are not moderated, then your > automatic reply will be sent out for all to see, including, of course, > your company email address. > > So, please do yourself a favor, and ask your IT staff how to set the > options so that vacation programs will not reply to any emails > marked "Bulk" (they know what that means), and I suggest you set up > the rules so that only addresses in your addressbook, or those inside > your company, will get any auto-reply at all. Usenet's posted articles as far as I know remain on the server(s) and are not sent individually to subscribers like bulk spam email which could trigger "vacation" responses from an email server. For the 30+ years I've been using Usenet I have always had to explicitly use a Usenet reader or an email client configured to contact a Usenet server(s) for me to see anything. In other words, Bill, I don't see how it's possible for you to be receiving "vacation" messages from comp.dcom.telecom "subscribers" unless you are emailing them directly in addition to also injecting the moderator-approved c.d.telecom articles onto a Usenet server. For example, the Usenet server I use is eternal-september: http://www.eternal-september.org/ http://www.eternal-september.org/serverstatus.php?language=en I have to explicitly use knews or Thunderbird to connect to that server to see anything in comp.dcom.telecom -- absolutely NOTHING appears in my email inbox that could ever send a "vacation" email back to you regarding comp.dcom.telecom unless it's private email directly from you and I'd still never have a "vacation" email sent to you because I don't use the "vacation" facility. If you're receiving "vacation" messages simply by approving articles and injecting them for worldwide distribution onto your Usenet server then something is seriously wrong with your setup. Describing your distribution setup and approving this article will encourage all subscribers to offer possible "fixes" that will prevent "vacation" messages being received by you. Just trying to be helpful. :-) Thad ***** Moderator's Note ***** I appreciate the help. The Telecom Digest is available in its original form, as a mailing list, as well as via Usenet. Since the Digest predates Usenet, we're still delivering it via email as well as on comp.dcom.telecom, for those who prefer to receive emails instead. Interested readers may send a message to majordomo atsign telecom-digest.org, with the word "help" in the body of the message. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: 28 Jun 2013 23:37:45 -0000 From: "John Levine" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: It's vacation time again Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> >In other words, Bill, I don't see how it's possible for you to be >receiving "vacation" messages from comp.dcom.telecom "subscribers" >unless you are emailing them directly in addition to also injecting >the moderator-approved c.d.telecom articles onto a Usenet server. There has always been a mailing list in addition to the newsgroup. I've run the list mechanics for a long time. R's, John
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:45:52 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: It's vacation time again Message-ID: <51CDF600.email@example.com> On 6/27/2013 1:27 PM, Thad Floryan wrote: > On 6/26/2013 1:19 PM, Telecom Digest Moderator wrote: >> [...] > > Describing your distribution setup and approving this article will > encourage all subscribers to offer possible "fixes" that will prevent > "vacation" messages being received by you. > > Just trying to be helpful. :-) > > Thad > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I appreciate the help. > > The Telecom Digest is available in its original form, as a mailing > list, as well as via Usenet. Since the Digest predates Usenet, we're > still delivering it via email as well as on comp.dcom.telecom, for > those who prefer to receive emails instead. D'oh! Headslap and facepalm -- I didn't know comp.dcom.telecom was also being distributed via a mailing list. Learn something new every day! :-) > Interested readers may send a message to majordomo atsign > telecom-digest.org, with the word "help" in the body of the message. > > Bill Horne > Moderator Thank you very much for the clarification. Thad
Date: 27 Jun 2013 00:14:54 -0400 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Brian Gordon) To: email@example.com. Subject: Walmart cellphone plans? Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> So the plethora of Walmart ads say you can keep your phone(s) and number(s) and switch to their off-brand carriers for the same networks and a lot less money. Anyone try that? Experiences? Is one better than others? We use cellphones as phones, with a little texting, nothing exotic. Sprint prices aren't that great. Any recommendations? -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | Brian Gordon -->briang.atsign.panix.com<-- brian dot gordon at cox dot net | | + brianggordon.atsign.hotmail.com | | + Bass: Lexington "Main Street Harmonizers" chorus + | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 23:37:05 +0000 (UTC) From: John Levine <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Walmart cellphone plans? Message-ID: <email@example.com> >Anyone try that? Experiences? Is one better than others? We use cellphones as >phones, with a little texting, nothing exotic. Sprint prices aren't that >great. Any recommendations? For modest amounts of usage primarily for voice, I've been surprisingly happy with Tracfone. The underlying carriers vary, but you can definitely get phones that run on AT&T and T-Mobile. If you get one with triple minutes and look for promo codes when you buy credit, it works out to about 7 cpm. You can port numbers in and out, I've done it. -- Regards, John Levine, firstname.lastname@example.org, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:12:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: FCC Whacks TV Max Message-ID: <email@example.com> Posted on CommLawBlog on June 26, 2013 by Paul J. Feldman | No consent for retransmission of TV signals? That'll be $2.25 million, | please. | | If you've ever wondered what would happen if you retransmitted the | programming of TV stations without their consent, and then dissembled | about it to the FCC, listen up. If you go that route, you could be | looking at a fine north of $2,000,000. That's right - two MILLION | dollars plus. | | Do we have your attention? | | We know about the likely penalty thanks to a Notice of Apparent | Liability For Forfeiture and Order (Order) - directed to TV Max, Inc. | and its affiliates and its individual controlling principals - for | violating Section 325(b) of the Communications Act and Section 76.64 | of the Commission's rules. Those sections lay out the general | retransmission consent rules governing multichannel video programming | distributor (MVPD) carriage of over-the-air TV signals other than | through the "must-carry" process. According to the Order, TV Max | retransmitted the signals of six broadcast stations without obtaining | their consent. For doing so, TV Max is looking at a proposed fine of | $2,250,000. Since the Commission has penalized MVPD's for | retransmission consent violations only a couple of times in the | past - and then only in the low five-figure range of $15,000 (reduced | from a maximum potential of $250,000 or so) - we can probably assume | that TV Max really ticked off the FCC. Continued: http://tinyurl.com/FCC-Whacks According to Bloomberg Businessweek: | TVMAX Holdings, Inc., doing business as Wavevision, provides broadband | Internet and cable TV services through fiber optic lines to residential | customers, and small and medium-sized businesses. It serves customers in | Arizona, Maryland, Texas, and Delaware. TVMAX Holdings, Inc. was | formerly known as OpTel, Inc. and changed its name to TVMAX Holdings, | Inc. in 2002. The company was founded in 1993 and is based in Houston, | Texas. TVMAX Holdings, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Videotron Ltd. http://tinyurl.com/otpmhj8 The FCC's definition of a "Cable system or cable television system" specifies, among other things: | 76.5 Cable system or cable television system. A facility consisting of | a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, | reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable | service which includes video programming and which is provided to | multiple subscribers within a community, but such term does not include: | ... | (2) A facility that serves subscribers without using any public | right-of-way... 47 CFR 76.5(a)(2)] http://tinyurl.com/povu2kc According to the CommLawBlog post, TV Max claimed that the signals had "not been carried on any fiber ring owned or controlled by TV Max." Thus, TV Max claimed, because it didn't own the fiber ring, its facilities did not cross public right of way. Presumably, the fiber ring itself -- whoever owned it -- did cross public right-of-way. The FCC didn't accept that claim. I wonder how this will affect Aereo. Does the connection that Aereo provides between each customer's unique antenna and the customer's premises cross public right-of-way? 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.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
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) 2013 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.