31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for May 23, 2013
====== 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: Mon, 20 May 2013 22:56:53 -0400 From: danny burstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Supreme Court: FCC timeframes overrule local delays Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.firstname.lastname@example.org> [Reuters] U.S. justices endorse FCC authority in cellphone tower case The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has authority to try to speed up the process for installing wireless communications towers when local governments have been slow to act. The case hinged on a federal law requiring state and local governments to act on tower-siting applications within a "reasonable period of time." In a 6-3 vote, the court said that the agency has leeway to interpret ambiguity in the law about the extent of its regulatory authority. The FCC had decided that 90-day and 150-day deadlines relating to decisions on cellphone towers were fair, and a federal appeals court upheld its decision. ========== rest: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/20/usa-court-agencies-idUSL1N0BF5M920130520 - on the other paw, how's about demanding that federal agencies _including the FCC_ observe similar timeframes? _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key email@example.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 21:57:53 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Tell Verizon to bring back FTP Message-ID: <email@example.com> On 20 May 2013 15:15:29 -0000, John Levine wrote: > They've probably noticed that the cable providers they compete with > don't provide any web hosting at all on consumer accounts. Ah, but have they noticed that those cable providers are providing static IPs, so that their subscribers can register a domain with any registrar and then host their very own servers from their very own basements? No static IP from DSL providers except at extra cost AFAIK. Cheers, -- tlvp --- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Comcast forbids home servers, and blocks all common server ports, including SMTP, HTTP, and FTP. Althouh it's possible to work around the blocks, it's a PITA. Whenever I complained, the blocks would go away for a couple of weeks, and then it was back to blockage as usual. At one time, Comcast was also blocking ports used by competing companies: an issue so sensititve to Bostonians that Comcast packed a public FCC meeting to prevent local voices from being heard. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: 21 May 2013 17:14:24 -0000 From: "John Levine" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Tell Verizon to bring back FTP Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> >> They've probably noticed that the cable providers they compete with >> don't provide any web hosting at all on consumer accounts. > >Ah, but have they noticed that those cable providers are providing static >IPs, so that their subscribers can register a domain with any registrar and >then host their very own servers from their very own basements? No, because the cable providers do not provide static IPs, except at extra cost to "business class" customers. I'm a T-W cable customer, my IP can change whenever my modem reboots which it does every couple of weeks. Maybe my IPv6 address block will be static. R's, John ***** Moderator's Note ***** In the Boston area, just before my Comcast trial was over, I was getting a "static" IP address which was changed about once a month, for no discernable reason. It was, however, publicly addressable, so I could point my domain names to it using a dynamic DNS service. Of course, as I wrote before, it was impossible to run any kind of server without using non-standard ports, and a glance at the server logs of a site I visited showed that all outgoing http connections were being diverted through Comcast's proxy servers. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:09:16 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Tell Verizon to bring back FTP Message-ID: <519A90FC.email@example.com> On 5/20/2013 10:11 AM, Bill Horne wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:15:29PM -0000, John Levine wrote: >>> The question is, why is Verizon sabotaging its own web offering? >> It's Verizon. Because they can. >> >> "We don't care. We don't have to. We wouldn't even know how." >> >> HTH, HAND, >> >> PS: They've probably noticed that the cable providers they compete with >> don't provide any web hosting at all on consumer accounts. > > Well, that's certainly the simplest explanation, and Occam's Razor > would yield that result - if it fit all the facts. However, given the > "because they can" reason, I'd expect them to just turn the web > servers off. Similar to ISPs shutting down all their NNTP Usenet servers -- it's been happening for awhile now and it's continuing. Duke University, where Usenet began, shut down their server(s) on May 20, 2010, three years ago to the day: http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2010/05/usenet.html > But, it doesn't make sense to me. I'm the last guy in the world to > defend Ma Bell, but ISTM that someone has to benefit from what > they're doing, and I don't see the logic. Inexpensive web hosting is readily available for dirt cheap. I've directed many friends, colleagues and associates to the provider I have been using since mid-1995 and they provide today a FreeBSD virtual system with full shell access, Apache, WordPress, qmail, spamassassin, Dovecot IMAP, etc. all bundled in together for just $9.95/month. The account I have has been grandfathered and no longer available for new customers -- it gives me backup hard drives and a lot of other services for just $25/month and I've over 200GB online (most of it private). Uptime is the proverbial 99.999% as you can see (since the last OS update): thadlabs bash 78070/78072> date Mon May 20 14:06:02 PDT 2013 thadlabs bash 78070/78072> uptime 2:06PM up 579 days, 11:23, 5 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 thadlabs bash 78070/78072> uname -sn FreeBSD thadlabs.com For those unaware, Dovecot is one of only three 100% IMAP conforming servers as you can read here: http://imapwiki.org/ImapTest/ServerStatus Thad
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 12:49:34 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Tell Verizon to bring back FTP Message-ID: <email@example.com> On 5/16/2013 3:36 PM, Bill Horne wrote: > - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Tell Verizon to bring back FTP for web designers on Verizon.Net > Posted in the Verizon Forum > > Jan 18, 2013 > > Please do me a favor and sign my petition asking Verizon to allow it's > Verizon.Net web designers to use FTP when creating and modifying their > personal web pages. FTP is the industry standard for uploading files > to web sites. We had it as a free service and they removed it stating > security issues. Without FTP users have to use Verizon's Site Builder > and it ain't pretty. > > Please click - > > > http://www.change.org/petitions/verizon-return-ftp-to-users-who-maintain-web-sites-at-verizon-net?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created > > -or- > > http://goo.gl/jdtxL > I just suffered through two hours of "Site Builder". That was after I had to use Google to find the update page for the site that's associated with my ADSL service! I'm going to sign the petition, and I think you should, too. BTW, my verizon.net site is at http://mysite.verizon.net/vze17ebj8/ . Feel free to feedback your criticisms to my horne dot net address. Bill -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 07:52:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Aereo Update: Next Stop, En Banc? Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> This is a month-old article about Aereo, but I wasn't aware of it until yesterday. It states the legal situation more clearly than any other article I've seen. And it's not obsolete even though it's a month old: the Second Circuit still hasn't taken any action on the broadcasters' en banc petition. | April 19, 2013 by Kevin Goldberg | | Broadcasters ask full Second Circuit to review panel's | decision allowing Aereo to continue to operate pending | trial of infringement claim | | We told you the Aereo saga wasn't over. | | Having lost the most recent (but certainly not the last) | round in their litigation war with Aereo, the broadcast | plaintiffs have filed a "petition for rehearing en banc" | with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In | that petition, the broadcasters are asking the full | 13-member court to review the 2-1 decision of a three-judge | panel that affirmed a lower court ruling allowing Aereo to | continue to operate while the trial of the case moves ahead. | | Before we get into the nitty-gritty of the petition, let's | take a brief introductory side trip into the world of | appellate procedure... Continued: http://tinyurl.com/onx42qh 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) 2013 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.