|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 187 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Another Blow to Usenet Providers?
Re: Another Blow to Usenet Providers?
Re: Rating cell phone calls
Re: Rating cell phone calls
Re: Rating cell phone calls
Re: Rating cell phone calls
BBC reports widespread invasion of privacy
====== 27 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 Patrick Townson 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 the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. 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, 9 Jul 2009 00:07:35 -0400
From: ed <bernies@netaxs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Another Blow to Usenet Providers?
Message-ID: <1247112455.4a556d07ca1fd@webmail.uslec.net>
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10276607-93.htmol
RIAA triumphs in Usenet copyright case
by Greg Sandoval
cnet news
June 30, 2009 5:37 PM PDT
The Recording Industry Association of America has prevailed in its
copyright fight against Usenet.com, according to court documents.
In a decision that hands the RIAA an overwhelming victory, U.S. District
Judge Harold Baer of the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of
the music industry on all its main theories: that Usenet.com is guilty
of direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement. In addition, and
perhaps most important for future cases, Baer said that Usenet.com can't
claim protection under the Sony Betamax decision. That ruling says
companies can't be held liable for contributory infringement if the
device they create is "capable of significant non-infringing uses."
Baer noted that in citing the Betamax case, Usenet.com failed to see one
important difference between it and Sony. Once Sony sold a Betamax, an
early videotape recorder, the company's relationship with the buyer
ended. Sony held no sway over what the buyer did with the device after
that. Usenet.com, however, maintains an ongoing relationship with the
customer and does has some say in how the customer uses the service.
Usenet.com's lawyers could not be reached Tuesday evening.
The two-decade-old Usenet network was one of the early ways to
distribute conversations and binary files, long before the Web or
peer-to-peer networks existed. Usenet.com is a company that enabled
users to access the Usenet network.The RIAA filed suit against
Usenet.com in October 2007, accusing the company of encouraging
customers to pay up to $19 a month by enticing them with copyrighted
music.
The case is highly unusual because of Baer's many findings of discovery
misconduct by the Usenet.com side. The rules of discovery in a civil
case requires both sides to exchange information. The RIAA produced
evidence, however, that Usenet.com destroyed evidence or failed to
produce witnesses on multiple occasions.
The RIAA accused Usenet.com of intentionally destroying the contents on
seven hard drives that contained employee-generated data; providing
false information; and attempting to prevent employees from giving
depositions by sending them to Europe.
The judge found the evidence credible but denied the RIAA's motion to
hand it a victory based solely on the misconduct. Instead, the judge
sanctioned Usenet.com "from asserting (the company's) affirmative
defense of protection under the DMCA's safe harbor provision."
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provides refuge to
Internet service providers from being held responsible for criminal acts
committed by users. Without that and without the Betamax decision,
Usenet.com was a sitting duck.
In a brief note posted Tuesday to RIAA.com, the trade group for the
music industry said: "We're pleased that the court recognized not just
that Usenet.com directly infringed the record companies' copyrights but
also took action against the defendants for their egregious litigation
misconduct."
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jul 2009 16:59:43 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Another Blow to Usenet Providers?
Message-ID: <20090709165943.36291.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>The Recording Industry Association of America has prevailed in its
>copyright fight against Usenet.com, according to court documents.
This is a problem for usenet.com, not for Usenet.
usenet.com is Sierra Corporate Design, who are infamous for their
spite suit against long standing anti-spam activist David Ritz:
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/search/label/Ritz
>The RIAA accused Usenet.com of intentionally destroying the contents
>on seven hard drives that contained employee-generated data;
>providing false information; and attempting to prevent employees from
>giving depositions by sending them to Europe.
Their problem was their sleazy behavior, which I gather was motivated
by their history of advertising that they provided access to illegal
content.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 05:13:31 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <h33u9q$brt$1@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>>John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>>>>For the fifth time, the subscriber wasn't expected to know his
>>>>>rate center.
>>>>In places like Chicago with large local calling areas, I agree that
>>>>you don't care which of umpteen rate centers that are all local to
>>>>each other you were assigned to.
>>>Chicago _doesn't_ have "large" local calling areas. the local calling area
>>>for a Chicago land-line is one where the destination _C.O._ is 8 miles or
>>>less from the origin _C.0._
>>>Within that 8-mile radius, residential calls are 1 billing unit,
>>>regardless of time, out to 15 miles, they're still a 'local' call,
>>>but you _are_ billed for time, beyond 15 miles, it is an "Intra-LATA"
>>>_toll_ call, until you cross. the LATA boundary, then you're looking at
>>>"Inter-LATA" toll.
>>Let me embellish this, for the plan you describe was implemented
>>pre-divestiture, so there was no concept of LATA in tariff.
>The _original_ was implemented way back then, yup. What I was talking about
>was essentially current -- from dealing with the swamp for business telecom
>as recently as 4 years ago.
>[ snip accurate historical detail ]
>>>You can actually have _three_ phone companies for your phone (residential or
>>>business) -- the LEC (ILEC or CLEC), the "intra-LATA toll carrier", and the
>>>"Inter-LATA toll carrier".
>>>In the Chicago market, cell phones are subject to the _same_
>>>distance-related charge scheme, but the distance is taken from the point
>>>where the call _enters_ the PSTN. Cell carriers generally have enough
>>>POP that they can back-haul an outgoing call on _their_ network to a
>>>point where the PSTN ingress _is_ within "Band A" 8 mi., C.O.-to-C.O.,
>>>of the destination -- a cost that is 'cheap enough' they can eat it on
>>>the monthly minutes fee.
>>I have no idea how inter-carrier compensation worked let alone charges
>>to terminate calls. Cell phone subscribers didn't see those charges, for
>>their plans defined a very large local calling area with calls rated for
>>time, never distance.
>>The concept of competition for pre-subscribed intra-LATA toll carriers
>>on Illinois Bell land lines is from, what, mid '90's? At that point,
>>we had another change in local calling rates.
>Early 90's, I think. It was in place before I was dealing with telecom mgmt.
>>Between 1982 and the mid '90's, calls from each rate center were subject
>>to one of three distance rating bands. A was 8 miles. Calls from
>>residential numbers were untimed, but timed from business. B was 8 to 15
>>miles, timed. C was over 15 miles.
>There is/was a fourth band 'D', as well. I don't remember the distance
>boundary for it -- it was in the 30-45 mile range. Wasn't a whole lot
>of 'D' traffic unless you were calling 'clear across' the metro area., e.g.
>north suburbs to far south suburbs.
I don't recall Band D. Perhaps it applied to business. It didn't apply
to residential, unless it's something I'd forgotten from the 1982-83 era.
>> There were also time of day charges.
>>Peak was calls during the middle of the business day, shoulder peak at
>>the beginning and end of the business day and right around lunch time,
>>and off peak (nights and weekends).
>>
>>Calls were still rated in units for a couple of years, perhaps for
>>transition terminology since so many of the old rate plans had unit
>>charges, but this didn't make sense as new fractional unit charges for
>>time of day were introduced and it made rate calculation too
>>complicated. By 1985 or 1986, there were no more references to units.
>>
>>After the mid '90's, the three calling bands were eliminated. A and B
>>were merged into an untimed calling area for residential, or in some
>>plans, a pre-paid calling area.
>
>Sorry, that's _NOT_ true. I had a fight with AT&T last year (spring 2008)
>over the matter. AT*T pay phone advertising 'unlimited-length local calls'
>for the initial 50 cent coin drop. Got a 'please deposit more money' demand
>after 3 minutes on a circa 10-mile call. After much discussion with multiple
>operators, it turns out that those 'untimed' local calls are 'band A' (less
>than 8 miles) *ONLY*. Band B (8-15) mile calls are still timed for that use.
I have a vague recollection of when pay phone rates were raised from 25
cents to 50 cents that for a few years, all local calls were 50 cents,
untimed and not rated for distance. Later, they then went back to rating
local calls to more distant locations for time and distance.
No, they never changed the labels, the bastards.
They are out of the pay phone business. A company called PTS took many
of the pay phone locations, but didn't want all of them, so numerous
places simply lost pay phones. This happened in 2008. PTS has been
pretty slow to put its own labels on pay phones.
>>>Land-lines calling _to_ a cell-phone are a different story. Making
>>>sure the C.O. access point for your cell phone _is_ within the 8
>>>mi. C.O.-C.O. of the people who will be calling you *is* a significant
>>>concern -- at least *if* you care about costs to people who call you. :)
>>I don't know if this is a correct statement. Cell phone providers had to
>>declare rate centers to be assigned prefixes for 10,000-block pools of
>>line numbers, but I've never read that interfacing with the LEC at each
>>rate center was a pre-requisite for declaring a rate center. Wouldn't one
>>point of interface per rate center be a needless amount of equipment to
>>maintain for traffic needs?
>"yeah but" applies. <wry grin>
>It's not so much as for interfacing with the LEC, as with the various IXCs.
>For an IXC to get paid for delivering a call _to_ that rate center, the IXC
>has to deliver *TO* that rate center. If they deliver it "somewhere else",
>they will expect to get paid for delivering it somewhere else (i.e. that
>other rate center). This is, to belabor the obvious, the _definition_ of a
>rate center -- by definition, one could say. :) the wireless carrier may
>be willing to 'eat' the cost of the back-haul from 'distant' interface to the
>the actual rate-center locale, but the 'upstream' (presumably wireline)
>carrier who has to carry the call _past_ the rate-center to reach the
>interface point is -not- likely to look favorably on that 'excess' cost that
>they are incurring. That 'cost' issue will rear it's ugly head, regardless of
>whether the 'upstream' for the call is a IXC delivering a foreign call, or a
>LEC with a presence in that rate center. Thus the LECs do have a 'dog in
>that fight' (albeit a small one :) as well.
>Sometimes the 'equipment cost' is a piddling amount, in the greater scheme
>of things. <grin>
How does this apply given that we have no shortage of land line territory
that is wired to a switch in one location but is rated at another
location? As these are neighboring polygons, is the extra distance
simply ignored?
What about a super switch like Hinsdale, through which other switches
serving the western suburbs are routed? Wouldn't a location like this
simply be used for interface among various networks? It would be utterly
silly if every IXC attempted to co-locate in each switch associated with
the uberswitch.
Ah, telecom. The paperwork costs far more than moving the electrons around.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <b468f142-9fcf-45f6-954a-2256c0737eda@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 9, 7:41 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> How does this apply given that we have no shortage of land line territory
> that is wired to a switch in one location but is rated at another
> location? As these are neighboring polygons, is the extra distance
> simply ignored?
It varies.
In the Philadelphia area, a few small locations were merged (Melrose
Park (MElrose) and Cheltenham (ESsex) merged into Jenkintown
(TUrner).)
As mentioned, in the Phila area the call bands still exist, 6 of
them. Instead of "message units" it's now called "measured service".
They give discounts for late night calls. But the basic principal is
the same--instead of getting an itemized listing of every call with a
charge of a nickel or dime, such calls are rolled up and listed as one
line item on the bill. Many residential customers have plans that
allow various grades of unlimited calling. The highest plan,
Metropolitan service, costs almost as much as national unlimited, so
many customers got national unlimited.
> Ah, telecom. The paperwork costs far more than moving the electrons
> around.
That's one reason message units were introduced. I believe in the
early days they merely used relay logic to increment the message unit
counter already assigned to lines.
But it's only been in the last few decades that the cost of moving
electrons around has gotten that cheap. Interoffice trunks--both the
physical wire and terminal equipment at each end--were enormously
expensive to build _and_ maintain. Many times it was cheaper to run
copper as opposed to multiplexing due to the high expense of terminal
equipment. A great deal of effort went into engineering trunk
capacity--just enough to meet high demand but not too much to be
wasteful. The textbook has whole chapters on the math required. "Do
we run direct from A to B or multiplex from A to C and then to B?"
Actually, despite capacity costs dropping in the 1970s, there was a
counter trend to bill more by usage. Around that time they billed for
directory assistance since that was becomming a high volume and thus
high expense item. As mentioned here, some locations lost unlimited
service and everyone had to take measured service, even with timing on
local calls. (Phila did not change.) In the mid 1970s there were
plans to increase such billing arrangements, and make use of better
computers and AMA equipment. Bell Labs was working up such stuff.
What many people do not realize is that telephone costs dropped
radically due to cheap technology. Say you have a $500 plain vanilla
PC today. How much would it cost in 1975 to buy a computer with the
same CPU horsepower, RAM, and disk? Then add in the air conditioning.
The same drop in costs applied to telephone terminal and transmission
equipment.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jul 2009 16:54:34 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <20090709165434.35022.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>>I don't know if this is a correct statement. Cell phone providers had to
>>declare rate centers to be assigned prefixes for 10,000-block pools of
>>line numbers, but I've never read that interfacing with the LEC at each
>>rate center was a pre-requisite for declaring a rate center. Wouldn't one
>>point of interface per rate center be a needless amount of equipment to
>>maintain for traffic needs?
>
>"yeah but" applies. <wry grin>
In my part of upstate New York, the only significant city in the LATA
is Syracuse, and that's where every non-ILEC switch is. My mobile and
VoIP numbers are both in the Ithaca rate center, and inbound callers
pay whatever they pay for calls to any other Ithaca number, but the
switches are both in Syracuse.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:59:45 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <68-dnVZapOWs0cvXnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <20090709165434.35022.qmail@simone.iecc.com>,
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>>I don't know if this is a correct statement. Cell phone providers had to
>>>declare rate centers to be assigned prefixes for 10,000-block pools of
>>>line numbers, but I've never read that interfacing with the LEC at each
>>>rate center was a pre-requisite for declaring a rate center. Wouldn't one
>>>point of interface per rate center be a needless amount of equipment to
>>>maintain for traffic needs?
>>
>>"yeah but" applies. <wry grin>
>
>In my part of upstate New York, the only significant city in the LATA
>is Syracuse, and that's where every non-ILEC switch is. My mobile and
>VoIP numbers are both in the Ithaca rate center, and inbound callers
>pay whatever they pay for calls to any other Ithaca number, but the
>switches are both in Syracuse.
Who (back-)hauls the traffic to what interchange point? <grin>
I figure it's _very_ likely that the wireless carrier has a minimal
presence within the Ithaca rate center with trunk terminations. Don't
need the switch there, just the hand-off to the other carrier(s).
This is one of those things where the 'implementation details' really
don't matter to anybody *except* the bean-counters of the folks that
are actually doing it. but -they- care a *lot*.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 17:27:46 -0400
From: Telecom digest moderator <redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: BBC reports widespread invasion of privacy
Message-ID: <20090709212746.GA21104@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
According to BBC World News, the British newspaper "News Of The World"
paid private investigators to breach voicemail security and listen in
to messages left for politicians, celebrities, and businessmen of all
kinds. Only one individual has been brought to justice so far.
How was it possible? It seems that very few cellphone users ever
bother to change the "security" code assigned to them when they get
their phone.
--
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
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) 2008 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 (7 messages)
******************************
|
or 