33 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2014 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.
The Telecom Digest for Dec 30, 2014
|The Senate of the United States has been both extravagantly praised and unreasonably disparaged, according to the predisposition and temper of its various critics... The truth is, in this case as in so many others, something quite commonplace and practical. The Senate is just what the mode of its election and the conditions of public life in this country make it. - Woodrow Wilson|
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
|Date: 28 Dec 2014 18:38:11 -0000 From: "John Levine" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Verizon says it will charge NetFlix no matter what the FCC decides Message-ID: <email@example.com> >Netflix is already paying various ISPs to ensure that its customers >get a decent streaming experience, including Verizon, Time Warner >Cable, Comcast and AT&T, but the company has voiced its concerns more >than once regarding these payments, urging the FCC to look into these >agreements. Why is that bad? I am not a Netflix customer. Why should I subsidize my neighbors who all want to watch Game of Thrones at the same time? R's, John|
|Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 17:26:31 +0000 (UTC) From: David Scheidt <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Verizon says it will charge NetFlix no matter what the FCC decides Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> John Levine <email@example.com> wrote: :>Netflix is already paying various ISPs to ensure that its customers :>get a decent streaming experience, including Verizon, Time Warner :>Cable, Comcast and AT&T, but the company has voiced its concerns more :>than once regarding these payments, urging the FCC to look into these :>agreements. :Why is that bad? I am not a Netflix customer. Why should I subsidize :my neighbors who all want to watch Game of Thrones at the same time? You already do. Verizon, Comcast, et al. have the internal network capacity to deliver the content to their customers. What they lack is the interconnect with the networks of content provider. They simply want to be paid twice for doing one job. They want their customers to pay them for being able to use the internet, and then they want content providers to pay them for being able to deliver that content to ISP's customers. Nice work, if you can get it, but not exactly honest. -- There's nothing sadder than an ontologist without an ontogenesis. -- some guy with a beard|
|Date: 28 Dec 2014 18:36:44 -0000 From: "John Levine" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: The Slow Death of 'Do Not Track' Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> In article <90D87244-9075-492F-9E5F-852AB5990D1B@roscom.com> you write: >The Slow Death of "Do Not Track" > >The F.T.C. outsourced its job to industry. The victim: Your privacy. This article makes the common mistake of imagining that do not track is even vaguely similar to do not call. It is not. Web browsers do not have phone numbers, so there's no way to create a list of people to track. And unlike DNC, violations are invisible. A DNC violation is obvious, a junk call. A DNT violation is an oddly relevant ad on a web site, or perhaps an insurance company turning you down because an illegal tracker told them you've been searching for info on diabetes (which was for your dog, but they guessed wrong.) >The "Do Not Call" list also turned out to be a dud: as with most >things that claim to protect orginary people these days, the >"watchdog" has no teeth. Actually, the FTC whacks DNC violators all the time, and has an active program coordinating DNC actions with peer agencies in other countries.* The problem is that in the past decade the price of making long distance phone calls has dropped to effectively zero, courtesy of VoIP, so junk callers are as likely to be in Bangalore as Baltimore. Much worse, the SS7 network that transmits control info including caller ID was designed for a world in which there were a small number of large trustworthy phone companies who all knew each other. These days any little VoIP operator can and does inject arbitrary crud making junk calls nearly impossible to trace. It's a harder problem than you might think -- when I make a VoIP call from a phone in my house in NY, the caller ID shows up as my Canadian cell phone. Is that "false"? If you call the number and the phone is turned on, the person who answers it is me. The regulators understand that and have been beating on the telcos hard enough that they're starting to work on legal and technical changes to make SS7 data reasonably true. But it'll take a while. R's, John * - I help them schedule the conference calls, and could listen in if there were any chance I might say something useful.|
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 © 2014 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.