28 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 

The Telecom Digest 
Volume 29 : Issue 94 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
 Re: Cory Doctorow, You Are a Consumer, Too                                         (Sam Spade)
 The latest Facebook fracas: Your privacy vs. its profit                        (Monty Solomon)
 TiVo Faces Patent-Infringement Countersuits By AT&T, Verizon                   (Monty Solomon)
 Re: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds  (Michael D. Sullivan)
 California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving                      (Thad Floryan)
 Re: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving                        (Steven)
 Data security law sparks concerns                                              (Monty Solomon)


====== 28 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: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:09:35 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Cory Doctorow, You Are a Consumer, Too Message-ID: <kFRtn.304837$OX4.248340@newsfe25.iad> Monty Solomon wrote: > > But you know what won't change these things? Refusing to buy an iPad, > the stage for some of the most exciting software of the last decade. > Nor will using Linux on a Lenovo laptop. It definitely won't help to > sneer at everyone who is excited about the iPad, warts and all, and > explain to us that we're dupes. And it is a sneer. It's talking down > to hundreds of thousands of people who probably already know your > position by heart. You may not read it like that, Cory, but I'm > telling you that's how it comes off. I'm not sure I understand all this. As an iPhone owner for 20 months now, my primary reaction is "ho hum." Then, some of the silly applications, like watching HDTV on the thing. Apple is a culture onto itself.
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 01:08:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: The latest Facebook fracas: Your privacy vs. its profit Message-ID: <p0624081ac7ddb0f5f59e@[10.0.1.4]> The latest Facebook fracas: Your privacy vs. its profit By Rob Pegoraro Sunday, April 4, 2010; G04 The signs of a new season surround us: Flowers are blooming, trees are budding, and another Facebook privacy fracas is brewing. The last event kicked off a week ago, when the popular social network posted a note on its blog about "working with some partner Web sites that we pre-approve to offer a more personalized experience" at those sites. This possible change didn't exactly get a charitable read in reactions like "Facebook's Plan To Automatically Share Your Data With Sites You Never Signed Up For," and "Facebook Planning To Give Away Your Data To 'Partners.' " How bad could things get for the 400 million-plus Facebook users when this test begins a few months from now? The potential downside seems obvious. You'll see that some random site knows who your Facebook friends are and fret about other once-private information Facebook might be leaking. But what will you be able to do when so much of your life is tied up there? As Sherry Turkle, a sociologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in an e-mail Thursday: "There is a sense of the 'investment' in Facebook being so great that one is beholden to it. . . . This is not empowering." (Before I go further, a few disclaimers: Washington Post Co. chairman and chief executive Donald E. Graham sits on Facebook's board of directors; Facebook's chief privacy officer, Chris Kelly, who is on leave to run for political office, is a friend of mine from college; and many Post staffers, myself included, use public Facebook pages to connect with readers.) The upside isn't quite as clear. ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/02/AR2010040200762.html
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 01:14:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: TiVo Faces Patent-Infringement Countersuits By AT&T, Verizon Message-ID: <p06240821c7ddd0424bc7@[10.0.1.4]> TiVo Faces Patent-Infringement Countersuits By AT&T, Verizon Telcos Cite Their Own Patent Porfolios in Complaints By Todd Spangler Multichannel News 3/31/2010 The telcos have struck back: AT&T and Verizon Communications have separately filed countersuits against TiVo -- which previously sued both telcos over patents -- alleging the DVR company is infringing their intellectual property. The countersuits were detailed in TiVo's 10-K annual report filed Wednesday. Separately, TiVo is awaiting the resolution of its six-year-old litigation against Dish Network and EchoStar, which have been ordered to pay $300 million in damages and sanctions to the DVR company. Last week, the Texas district court judge overseeing the case gave Dish an extension until April 30 on a previously issued stay on the injunction ordering the satellite TV operator to disable infringing DVRs. Perhaps emboldened by a legal victory over Dish and EchoStar last summer, TiVo filed separate lawsuits in August 2009 against AT&T and Verizon. TiVo argued that the DVRs provided with AT&T's U-verse TV and Verizon's FiOS TV infringed three TiVo patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,233,389 B1 ("Multimedia Time Warping System") -- the one that Dish and EchoStar were found to have violated -- as well as 7,529,465 B2 ("System for Time Shifting Multimedia Content Streams") and 7,493,015 B1 ("Automatic Playback Overshoot Correction System"). Now TiVo is the target of countersuits from AT&T and Verizon. ... http://www.multichannel.com/article/450916-TiVo_Faces_Patent_Infringement_Countersuits_By_AT_T_Verizon.php
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 21:10:36 -0400 From: "Michael D. Sullivan" <mds@camsul.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds Message-ID: <s2ha76e5e941004031810o15c0f190q265ef10002a166a1@mail.gmail.com> In Message-ID: <hp5sra$4p9$1@news.eternal-september.org> Steven wrote: >> ***** Moderator's Note ***** >> >> You're the best choice to answer the question everybody asks about >> cellphones on airplanes: "Why are they banned"? >> >> Bill Horne >> Moderator >> >She was using her laptop, it was an e-mail, the plane had WiFI. As far >as using a cell phone, I have used mine on planns with no problems, not >over the North Atlantic, We were told we could use cell phone after >reaching flying altitude. I have only been asked not to connect once on >a flight with my laptop. As to using my cell, I have found that it >works most of the time, but as in dead zones on the ground you get them >on plans. I was on a flight to Japan that had WIFI for free in Business >and First Class and $25.00 for anyone else, I tend to use my miles for >upgrade, as it is to hard to use them for getting a ticket The laptop is fine; the WiFi on the plane is connected to the net either through satellite or through the 800 MHz air-ground network, which is designed to connect planes to the terrestrial network. Its cellsites are widely spaced to deal with aircraft at cruising altitude. Not so the terrestrial cellular networks; you could be causing serious and widespread interference whether you have a good connection at the moment or not. At flying altitude, your horizon is about 200 miles. Your phone has an unimpeded line of sight to virtually every cellsite within that 200 mile radius. As a result, your phone will be capable of reaching a substantial number of them at maximum power -- probably all but those directly under you and at the outer fringes of your horizon. Say half of them are compatible with your phone's technology (CDMA or GSM); and half of them receive your phone's signal adequately. When you turn your phone on, it sends out a registration message that is received and processed by hundreds or thousands of cellsites, all of which assume you are in the local area and thus not being served by some other system. So each system within range attempts to register your phone. Obviously, your phone picks only one to register with. But soon after it's registered in system A, that system may be out of range, given that you are flying at several hundred miles per hour, and it then needs to re-register. If you try to use your phone, it may seem like you are in a "dead spot," but you are actually within range of many systems and not have one locked in because they aren't designed to deal with aircraft. Moreover, if you are using a CDMA phone, the cellsites receiving your signal will reduce the power of other phones in their cell to equalize the signal strengths, which may cause some calls to be dropped -- not just in one cell, but in many cells. Please don't use cellphones while airborne. Not because it is a hazard to the aircraft, but because it is can be a significant source of interference to terrestrial networks. And it's against FCC rules. -- Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 13:11:15 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving Message-ID: <4BB8F263.3020008@thadlabs.com> " Calif bill boosts fines for illegal cell phone use " " Cell phones are causing fewer accidents since California " outlawed the use of handheld devices behind the wheel, but " the senator behind the law says too many people are still " driving distracted. " " A bill by Sen. Joe Simitian would create a bigger deterrent " to keep drivers from texting or using a cell phone without " a handsfree device. " " "While I think compliance is pretty good, there's room to " save even more lives and avoid even more collisions," said " Simitian, D-Palo Alto. {article continues at following URL} <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/04/state/n100029D96.DTL > and " A Cellphone Fine, Billed as Small, Is No Longer That " " What started as a quest for safer driving could soon turn " into a new revenue stream worth tens of millions of dollars " to state and local governments. A bill working its way " through Sacramento could sharply increase the penalties for " driving while using a handheld cellphone, fines that some say " are already deceptively higher than had been expected. " " The ban was instituted in July 2008, and six months later, " texting while driving was similarly prohibited. Only hands- " free talking is now allowed. " " Senator Joe Simitian, Democrat of Palo Alto, wrote both bills, " which include modest fines of $20 for a first offense and " $50 for the second. Mr. Simitian said the low penalties made " it possible to get the measures passed. " " "It was easier than it would have been had the fines been " higher," he said. " " Easy? Even with the low fines, it took six years. " " But as those who stood before Judge Susan J. Greenberg in the " San Mateo County courthouse one day last week learned, the " fine was never just $20. Additional assessments on behalf of " courts, cities and counties multiply the costs of traffic " tickets by $26 for every $10 of the base fine. With other " fees, the total swells to $114 to $143 for a first offense. " " The California Highway Patrol issued 137,056 cellphone " citations in 2009. Analysts say counties and municipalities " traditionally issue an equal number, bringing the total to " nearly 275,000 a possible $31 million collected. {article continues at following URL} http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/us/02sfmetro.html
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 19:08:25 -0700 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving Message-ID: <hpbgmp$9un$1@news.eternal-september.org> Thad Floryan wrote: > " Calif bill boosts fines for illegal cell phone use > " > " Cell phones are causing fewer accidents since California > " outlawed the use of handheld devices behind the wheel, but > " the senator behind the law says too many people are still > " driving distracted. > " > " A bill by Sen. Joe Simitian would create a bigger deterrent > " to keep drivers from texting or using a cell phone without > " a handsfree device. > " > " "While I think compliance is pretty good, there's room to > " save even more lives and avoid even more collisions," said > " Simitian, D-Palo Alto. > > {article continues at following URL} > > > http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/04/state/n100029D96.DTL > > and > > " A Cellphone Fine, Billed as Small, Is No Longer That > " > " What started as a quest for safer driving could soon turn > " into a new revenue stream worth tens of millions of dollars > " to state and local governments. A bill working its way > " through Sacramento could sharply increase the penalties for > " driving while using a handheld cellphone, fines that some say > " are already deceptively higher than had been expected. > " > " The ban was instituted in July 2008, and six months later, > " texting while driving was similarly prohibited. Only hands- > " free talking is now allowed. > " > " Senator Joe Simitian, Democrat of Palo Alto, wrote both bills, > " which include modest fines of $20 for a first offense and > " $50 for the second. Mr. Simitian said the low penalties made > " it possible to get the measures passed. > " > " "It was easier than it would have been had the fines been > " higher," he said. > " > " Easy? Even with the low fines, it took six years. > " > " But as those who stood before Judge Susan J. Greenberg in the > " San Mateo County courthouse one day last week learned, the > " fine was never just $20. Additional assessments on behalf of > " courts, cities and counties multiply the costs of traffic > " tickets by $26 for every $10 of the base fine. With other > " fees, the total swells to $114 to $143 for a first offense. > " > " The California Highway Patrol issued 137,056 cellphone > " citations in 2009. Analysts say counties and municipalities > " traditionally issue an equal number, bringing the total to > " nearly 275,000 a possible $31 million collected. > > {article continues at following URL} > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/us/02sfmetro.html > The only way to stop usage of cell phones by drivers while holding them is to increase the fines to a few thousand dollars, anything under that will have no effect. I see hundreds of people each day using phones as I drive around. I stay as far as I can from them. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 18:42:31 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Data security law sparks concerns Message-ID: <p0624082ac7dec3365af2@[10.0.1.4]> Data security law sparks concerns Massachusetts rule may boost exposure for companies Judy Greenwald Apr. 04, 2010 Data security regulations in Massachusetts, which many describe as the most stringent such rules to date, are proving to be a challenge for businesses, observers say. The regulations, which apply to any company that has personal information on a Massachusetts resident regardless of whether the business is based in the state, could lead to increased litigation against firms, legal experts say. The rules that Massachusetts implemented last month based on a 2007 law are likely to influence other states in developing their own regulations, experts say. Unlike most previous data security rules, Massachusetts' regulations require businesses to proactively implement security measures to protect personal information before a data breach occurs. The 2007 law, however, is ambiguous about fines for violating the data protection requirements. It also is unclear how vigorously the state attorney general will enforce the provisions. The law was delayed and revised several times in response to complaints by businesses about its feasibility and expense. ... http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100404/ISSUE01/304049981 ***** Moderaotor's Note ***** My new employer has given me a new laptop, which has a built in provision to encrypt the entire hard disk. The encryption is done by the laptop's hardware, not the Operating System, and I've been assured that the hard drive is unreadable in any other machine. The point is that I don't think protecting data is that hard to do. Bill Horne 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 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. 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) 2009 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)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues