33 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2015 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.
The Telecom Digest for Feb 24, 2015
|Communism is a hateful thing and a menace to peace and organized government; but the communism of combined wealth and capital, the outgrowth of overweening cupidity and selfishness, which insidiously undermines the justice and integrity of free institutions, is not less dangerous than the communism of oppressed poverty and toil, which, exasperated by injustice and discontent, attacks with wild disorder the citadel of rule.|
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
|Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:51:29 +0000 (UTC) From: unk <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Tons of AT&T and Verizon customers may not have "broadband" on Thursday Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:33:55 -0600, Gordon Burditt wrote: >> There's no way around it: "unlimited" is "impossible". > > And therefore advertising it is "false advertising". Is there not a defense to the effect the impossibility of something is so obvious that claiming it was to be believed and relied upon is unsupportable? How about an ad for a recently-popular class of life-style enhancing medications stating that taking it will "make the sun shine tomorrow"; it rains, I sue; how far would that get?|
|Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:26:17 -0800 (PST) From: HAncock4 <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Tons of AT&T and Verizon customers may not have "broadband" on Thursday Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 10:26:17 AM UTC-5, unk wrote: > On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:33:55 -0600, Gordon Burditt wrote: > >> There's no way around it: "unlimited" is "impossible". > > And therefore advertising it is "false advertising". > Is there not a defense to the effect the impossibility of something is > so obvious that claiming it was to be believed and relied upon is > unsupportable? Not in our context of telephone service. Based on the other offerings of telephone service, "unlimited" means just that--no limits or rate issues of any kind. The customer paid a flat rate and could use the srevice as much as he wanted. For instance, some folks with residential unlimited phone service were heavy talkers and used the phone all day and evening. They could do so. (Admittedly, in the old days the phone company had only limited means to test individual lines for very heavy use.) But overall, when the phone company chose to offer the unlimited packages, they knew in advance from experience that some people would be heavy users and were prepared for it. Today, the carriers know full well that some digital users will be heavy. If they expect that some heavy users will "break the bank" as it were in terms of capacity, than it is simply impractical to offer "unlimited" digital service. If they offer it but also have in place rate surcharges or digital limits, then they are indeed falsely advetising their service. Some old voice carriers did not offer unlimited service, but rather a very high number of calls for a flat fee. For most users, this would be the same as unlimited, but some heavy users still had to be careful. There's no reason modern carriers couldn't do likewise--advertise different tiers of digital service, so that light, moderate, and heavy users can all pick the best plan for themselves. While it's not fair to consumers to advertise a service as unlimited when it's not, it is also unfair for heavy users to "suck out" too much of the infrastructure when they should be really be using a thicker heavy-duty connection. An analogy: generally speaking, a business won't be allowed to route its big tractor trailers over small neighborhood streets, but will have to use arterial roads instead. P.S. IMHO, it's dishonest for a company to claim "unlimited", stick an asterisk, and then say, in fine cryptic print, that there ARE limits to the service. But nowadays, every business does that. Doesn't make it right.|
|Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 02:39:09 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Sprint, T-Mobile urge FCC to allow for joint bidding arrangements Message-ID: <email@example.com> Sprint, T-Mobile urge FCC to allow for joint bidding arrangements in 600 MHz auction By Phil Goldstein AT&T and T-Mobile want the FCC to take a hard line on entities like the ones Dish partnered with in the AWS-3 auction Sprint and T-Mobile US are pushing the FCC to allow for joint bidding arrangements in the 600 MHz incentive auction, arguing that the agency should not issue a blanket prohibition against them for nationwide operators. Meanwhile, AT&T Mobility wants any companies that wish to bid jointly to form a consortium or joint venture well before the auction. Both T-Mobile and AT&T also want the FCC to make its rules more restrictive for the incentive auction to curtail the kind of bidding arrangements Dish Network established with so-called designated entities for the AWS-3 auction. http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-t-mobile-urge-fcc-allow-joint-bidding-arrangements-600-mhz-auction/2015-02-23 -or- http://goo.gl/dR4oCT -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)|
|Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 02:34:13 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Verizon Wireless admits to hoarding spectrum Message-ID: <email@example.com> Verizon Wireless admits to hoarding spectrum, ends any argument about a spectrum crunch by William Neilson Jr. Recently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) received a record-breaking $44.9 billion worth of bids in the spectrum auction of AWS-3 airwaves. As I noted at the time, this was proof itself of the absurdity in wireless carriers claiming that Title II rules would deter industry investment. But the auction also proved that wireless carriers, such as Verizon, should stop crying about a "disastrous spectrum crunch" coming if regulators don't do precisely what the major carriers want. It wasn't even three years ago that Verizon told the FCC that they were running out of spectrum. Verizon was telling the FCC this because they were pushing the FCC to approve a spectrum and marketing deal with the cable industry. Of course, Verizon was at the same time telling investors in 2012 that they had more than enough spectrum for a variety of future projects. http://www.androidauthority.com/verizon-wireless-admits-hoarding-spectrum-ends-argument-spectrum-crunch-588913/ -or- http://goo.gl/VWocfJ -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)|
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.
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 © 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.