32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for June 7, 2014
====== 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
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, 5 Jun 2014 20:26:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Aereo wants a TV revolution, if the Supreme Court will let it Message-ID: <email@example.com> By Scott Helman, The Boston Globe, June 05, 2014 Can a daring entrepreneur from Newton and his team of technologists upend the way we watch TV? Only if the Supreme Court doesn't quash their idea first. This tiny antenna could revolutionize the way we watch tv. But first Chet Kanojia needs the Supreme Court to see things his way. DON'T CALL CHET KANOJIA A DISRUPTER. First, it's hackneyed. "You go around in [Silicon] Valley, every punk is running around saying, you know, 'Disrupt, disrupt, disrupt,' " he says. "It's like, 'Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.' " Kanojia, a Newton entrepreneur who's trying to lead a TV revolution, does know what he's talking about . Which brings us to his second objection. Disruption, he says, is too often conflated with destruction, which is not his goal. He's not out to destroy TV networks or the cable industry, he insists. Just to make things better for viewers. "Something's gotta give," he says, citing continued increases in cable rates. "Otherwise you end up in a system where it's another mortgage payment." Continued: http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2014/06/05/aereo-wants-revolution-supreme-court-will-let/xevtnDRJj9HzbCdVQM22XK/story.html -or- http://tinyurl.com/oo2wkyb Neal McLain
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 20:16:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Reasonableness and Roaming Charges: In Search of More Definite Standards Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Posted on CommLawBlog on June 5, 2014 by Donald Evans Sometimes even nationwide carriers need a little reasonableness. The rates that carriers charge one another for providing roaming service have never been subject to precise regulatory limits. Voice roaming has historically been treated as subject to the traditional common carrier standard, i.e., voice roaming rates must be "just and reasonable" and "not unreasonably discriminatory". And, since 2011, data roaming service - which the FCC has chosen to treat as an "information service" not subject to common carrier regulation - must be available on "commercially reasonable" terms. Neither standard lends itself to ready quantification, a fact which major carriers have taken advantage of. As it turns out, this lack of clarity has worked to the disadvantage of at least one big carrier as well as many smaller ones. But now, efforts on a couple of fronts are being made to graft some useful flesh onto the historically bony standards. A small carrier has filed a complaint alleging that Verizon's roaming rates, both voice and data, are unreasonable (commercially and otherwise) and discriminatory. And, more recently, T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-MO) -- by no means a small fish in the telecom pond -- has asked the FCC to issue an expedited declaratory ruling about how the term "commercially reasonable" should be interpreted in the context of data roaming rate negotiations. Continued: http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/06/articles/cellular/reasonableness-and-roaming-charges-in-search-of-more-definite-standards/index.html -or- http://tinyurl.com/qcetfjv 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) 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.