31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for November 15, 2012
====== 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
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, 13 Nov 2012 22:19:06 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Papa John's faces class-action suit for alleged barrage of spam texts Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Papa John's faces class-action suit for alleged barrage of spam texts Plaintiffs say pizza chain hired company to serve thousands of unwanted texts. by Megan Geuss Nov 13 2012 Ars Technica A judge from the Western District of Washington Seattle Court approved a class action suit against Papa John's on Friday. The plaintiffs, three people from Washington State, are standing in for thousands of customers claiming that Papa John's and a marketing firm called OnTime4U worked together to send spam texts to customers who hadn't given their consent to be texted with marketing information, violating the US Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Seattle law firm Heyrich Kalish McGuigan is representing the plaintiffs. It claims Papa John's customers received 500,000 unwanted text messages nationally, and the firm also claims this could cost Papa John's $500 per text message (a bill that would tally up to $250 million). While such a large payout is highly unlikely, a class-action payout may be in the future for the pizza chain. The order granting a motion for class action says Papa John's LLC worked with OnTime4U and encouraged their individual franchisees to cooperate with the company. OnTime4U then solicited the franchisees for lists of their customers' phone numbers (which most pizza-delivery stores keep for speedy phone-orders). OnTime4U then removed the land-line numbers, and texted promotional messages to the rest. ... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/papa-johns-faces-class-action-suit-for-alleged-barrage-of-spam-texts/ ***** Moderator's Note ***** When clerks at the supermarket ask for my phone number, I always lie. They don't want to call me: they want to sell my buying habits, and I resent it. I'm going to write a book about how our privacy was stolen, one molecule at a time. Bill Horne Moderator Moderators Note Copyright (C) 2012 E.W. Horne. All Rights Reserved.
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:32:41 -0500 From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Papa John's faces class-action suit for alleged barrage of spam texts Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Per Moderator's Note: >When clerks at the supermarket ask for my phone number, I always >lie. They don't want to call me: they want to sell my buying habits, >and I resent it. I tell them straight-up: I don't want to give them a phone number. My fallback position in the event that somebody digs their heels in ("...well, the system needs a phone number...." or "Nobody will call unless there is a problem... we just need the number...") is the phone number of my congressman, who has been spamming me mercilessly ever since I supplied an email address to the local civic association. Come to think of it.... maybe I just ought to give out that number no matter what..... -) -- Pete Cresswell
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:59:28 -0500 From: T <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: The Smart TV Viewer's Bill Of Rights Message-ID: <MPG.email@example.com> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com says... > > The Smart TV Viewer's Bill Of Rights > > by Jim Monroe > Nov 6, 2012 > MediaPost > > Silicon Valley innovation has given television executives plenty to > worry about. In my years with NBC-at the network as well as in the > station group-we worried about cable splintering our audience. We > worried about DVRs skipping our commercials and high definition > revealing our wrinkles. > > We never worried whether people knew how to work their TV sets. > > However in the new world of connected TV, finding and watching > Internet-delivered shows is a challenge, even for tech-savvy viewers. > So in addition to fretting about all the things we can't control, we > now need to worry about one thing we can: complicated smart TVs. > > Here's the problem: When you plug in connected TVs, you get a really > big version of the iPad, complete with App Store and apps-some free, > some paid. This seems to make sense. After all, apps enable our > tablets and phones to do amazing things, so why not use that same > concept to expand the capabilities of our big flat-panel TVs? > > Here's why not: By enabling our living room TVs to do more, we are > making it harder for them to do what we bought them for in the first > place-bring us great TV. > > There are three significant (and frankly, obvious) differences > between tablets and TVs that suggest we need to rethink the current > approach to connected TVs. > > ... > > > http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/186757/the-smart-tv-viewers-bill-of-rights.html > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > What networks fear more than anything else is the loss of control. > > Bill Horne > Moderator Part of the trouble with net based video is the insane copyright issues. Netflix Watch Instantly is a perfect example - videos now come with expiration dates. Or they'll have one of a series of videos but not the others because the copyright holder thinks they can extract more dollars our of DVD and Blu-Ray sales.
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:21:06 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: iOS apps hijack Twitter accounts, post false "confessions" of piracy Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> iOS apps hijack Twitter accounts, post false "confessions" of piracy Dictionary app maker's move is the very definition of how not to fight theft. by Jon Brodkin Nov 13 2012 Ars Technica An iOS application developer has come up with an extreme way of fighting software piracy-by auto-posting "confessions" to its users' Twitter accounts. If you search Twitter for the hashtag #softwarepirateconfession you'll find a stream of tweets stating, "How about we all stop using pirated iOS apps? I promise to stop. I really will. #softwarepirateconfession." There are many dozens of these tweets in the past day alone, all identical. So what's happening? It turns out that Enfour, the maker of a variety of dictionary apps, is auto-posting tweets to users' accounts to shame them for being pirates. But the auto-tweeting seems to be affecting a huge portion of its paid user base, not just those who actually stole the apps. An apology in Japanese was posted on the Japan-based Enfour's site, listing affected products including more than a dozen English dictionary and thesaurus apps, such as American Heritage, Collins, and Australian Oxford dictionaries. There are another half-dozen or so Japanese language apps affected as well. ... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/ios-apps-hijack-twitter-accounts-post-false-confessions-of-piracy/
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:12:40 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Google Fiber is live in Kansas City, real-world speeds at 700 Mbps Message-ID: <email@example.com> Google Fiber is live in Kansas City, real-world speeds at 700 Mbps Startup founder: "It's unbelievable. I'm probably not going to leave the house." by Cyrus Farivar Nov 13 2012 Ars Technica Mike Demarais posted this to Twitter during the first few minutes that Google Fiber went live in his Kansas City home. After months of fanfare and anticipation, gigabit home Internet service Google Fiber finally went live on Tuesday in Kansas City. The search giant is offering 1 Gbps speeds for just $70 per month-significantly faster and cheaper than what any traditional American ISPs are offering. ... http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/11/google-fiber-is-live-in-kansas-city-real-world-speeds-at-700-mbps/ ***** Moderator's Note ***** When they have enough bandwidth to beam down groceries and beer to my house, then I'll get interested. 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.
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) 2012 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.