31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for April 11, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 81 : "text" Format
====== 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
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: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 23:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: As Aereo threatens to alter TV landscape, major networks promise a fight
Message-ID: <4a63aa2f-3b7c-4dde-bd99-286513d812e9@d8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
Re: As Aereo threatens to alter TV landscape, major networks promise a
fight
Further to my previous post on this subject: the current decision is
far from final. The current decision was the result of a 2-1 vote by
a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. The plaintiffs will surely request a rehearing en
banc, and the loser in that proceeding will surely appeal to the
Supreme Court.
This case bears a remarkable similarity to the battles that the cable
TV industry fought 50 years ago. At the time, a number of program
suppliers had sued various cable TV companies on grounds that the
systems had "performed" their copyrighted works. The then-current
copyright law -- the Copyright Act of 1909 -- clearly did not provide
much guidance for the courts.
One of these cases, Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists (1968),
reached the Supreme Court. In this case, United Artists Television,
as owner of the copyright on several motion pictures, had sued
Fortnightly Corporation, a cable television operator, alleging that
Fortnightly had "performed" several of United Artists' motion pictures
without permission. United Artists won the first round in District
Court. Fortnightly appealed; United Artists won again in the Court of
Appeals. Finally, Fortnightly appealed to the United States Supreme
Court; in a divided opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of
Appeals and ruled for Fortnightly.
But the Court made it clear that it was not ruling on the merits of
the case; instead, it was merely refusing to write new laws. Justice
Potter Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
"We have been invited ... to render a compromise decision
in this case hat would, it is said, accommodate various
competing considerations of copyright, communications,
and antitrust policy. We decline the invitation. That
job is for Congress. We take the Copyright Act of 1909
as we find it. With due regard to changing technology,
we hold that the petitioner did not under that law
'perform' the respondent's copyrighted works. The
judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed."
The Court's decision was far from unanimous: five Justices voted for
reversal, three abstained, and one dissented. The lone dissenter,
Justice Abe Fortas, noted that the Court was not only reversing two
lower courts; it was also reversing a precedent which it itself had
set 40 years earlier in the case of a hotel which distributed radio
signals by wire to its guests:
"... the Court, speaking unanimously through Mr.
Justice Brandeis, held that a hotel which received
a broadcast on a master radio set and piped the
broadcast to all public and private rooms of the
hotel had 'performed' the material that had been
broadcast. As I understand the case, the holding
was that the use of mechanical equipment to extend a
broadcast to a significantly wider public than the
broadcast would otherwise enjoy constitutes a
'performance' of the material originally broadcast.
I believe this decision stands squarely in the path
of the route which the majority today traverses. If
a CATV system performs a function 'little different
from that served by the equipment generally furnished
by a television viewer,' and if that is to be the
test, then it seems to me that a master radio set
attached by wire to numerous other sets in various
rooms of a hotel cannot be distinguished."
Congress eventually enacted a new copyright law, the Copyright Act of
1976. This act imposed copyright liability on cable television
systems that carry radio or television broadcast stations. Copyright
liability applies to any tier of programming which includes one or
more broadcast stations.
The Act created a legal construct known as the "compulsory license"
for cable television systems. The compulsory license did two things:
- It guaranteed that cable systems had the right to "secondarily
transmit" broadcast stations without having to obtain copyright
clearance from the individual stations or from any program supplier.
- It established a system for collecting royalties from cable
operators and disbursing them to "claimants". The Copyright Office
identified the following groups of claimants: Program Suppliers
(movies, reruns, and specials); Sports; Public Television (PBS,
affiliates, and programmers); Broadcast (commercial networks and
stations); Devotional; Canadian; Noncommercial Radio (NPR and
affiliates); and Music (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC).
Two government agencies were charged with the responsibility for
collecting and disbursing royalties:
- The Copyright Office, a unit of the Library of Congress, was
assigned the job of collecting the royalty fees and depositing them
into a trust fund in the United States Treasury.
- An independent federal agency known as the Copyright Royalty
Tribunal (CRT) received two assignments: establishing the fee schedule
and allocating the proceeds among the claimants. In the years since
1976, the CRT has been reorganized twice; its functions are now
performed by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), another branch of the
Library of Congress.
The cable TV industry has operated pursuant to this law ever since.
Under the regulations established by the Copyright Office, every cable
television system is required to submit a Cable Statement of Account
Form, accompanied by the royalty payment, semiannually.
How the Supreme Court eventually rules in the Aereo case is anybody's
guess. But it seems to me that the Second Circuit's panel has
assigned another job to Congress. Congress could, of course, simply
extend the existing compulsory license procedure to Aereo.
But if the cable TV proceeding is any guide, it'll be a decade before
the Aereo case is final.
Further reading:
- Fortnightly Corp. b. United Artists, 392 U.S. 390 (1968)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/392/390.html
- WNET v. Aereo Inc., 2d Cir., No. 12-2786, 04/01/13
http://tinyurl.com/cms5bho
Neal McLain
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:11:16 -0400
From: Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: anti-robocall technology encouraged by FTC
Message-ID: <net-news69-FF1F1A.12111610042013@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <3878m8dilu503bu8mfd29fr687t64aiu9c@4ax.com>,
Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> Realistically, I'd expect us to be using whatever Google comes up
> with...
Google is in the advertising business. I wouldn't expect them to invest
in anti-advertising technology.
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Canceled Foreign Listing Accounts
Message-ID: <1365605851.18083.YahooMailClassic@web125202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
--- On Tue, 4/9/13, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> wrote:
> > Is there anyone who can give > me AT&T's executive complaints
> > number? I used to call it to get results but I > can't seem to
> > locate it now.
>
> Don't do it. Write a letter to the office of the president.
>
> 208 S. Akard St. Dallas TX 75202.
>
> A letter always does much better than a phone call or email, it
> gives you an opportunity to describe exactly what has happened in
> detail and offer supporting information and dates, and it only costs
> one stamp.
>
> Do note that AT&T isn't AT&T anymore, though, so if you are
> complaining to them make sure that you're actually complaining about
> AT&T
And it goes to the Executive Complaint Department, which is usually
very responsive.
Somebody mentioned writing or calling the attorney general. In
general, writing or calling the state commission is more effective in
most states than the attorney general.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 03:51:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Canceled Foreign Listing Accounts
Message-ID: <kk2nk6$4n5$1@reader1.panix.com>
Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> writes:
> I submitted a complaint to the BBB yesterday morning.
> Today, I was called by someone from the office of the president
>of executive complaints. She got it resolved within an hour.
A friend never could get AT&T to list his ported-to-Comcrap
number. I was coaching him on how to escalate when he took a
teaser to go back to them... for now.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:40:27 -0600
From: fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Canceled Foreign Listing Accounts
Message-ID: <ec8d14efd8c83313bd13aa2cf13a27b3.squirrel@webmail.mishmash.org>
> Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> writes:
>
>
>
>> I submitted a complaint to the BBB yesterday morning.
>
>> Today, I was called by someone from the office of the president
>>of executive complaints. She got it resolved within an hour.
>
> A friend never could get AT&T to list his ported-to-Comcrap
> number. I was coaching him on how to escalate when he took a
> teaser to go back to them... for now.
I had the same problem in three different states (SC, NC, and GA and
in that order).
In SC, I finally had to get the SC PSC to hammer on them to make the
listing. I got my listing.
In NC (Verizon), I finally had to get the NC PSC to hammer on them to
make the listing. I got my listing.
In GA, I finally had to get the GA PSC to hammer on them to make the
listings. I got both of my listings (in the Atlanta book and the
Marietta book as well).
Sadly, you have to do these things to get it done.
In SC, I had a direct number to the lady who got my listing
straightened out.
In NC, I had a toll-free number to the Verizon Executive Complaints
department as a result of my going to the PSC.
In GA, I had a toll-free number to the AT&T Executive Complaints
department.
Regretfully, I had to use those toll-free numbers more than once
because I often couldn't get their CSRs to handle issues (billing or
otherwise) with my listing.
Regards,
Fred
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) 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.
End of The Telecom Digest (5 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues