32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for January 6, 2014
====== 32 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: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:51:50 -0500 From: Fred Goldstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Study documents dangers of texting, dialing while driving Message-ID: <52C98DA6.firstname.lastname@example.org> On 1/4/2014 3:11 AM, Monty Solomon wrote: > Study documents dangers of texting, dialing while driving > > By Marilynn Marchione | AP CHIEF MEDICAL WRITER > JANUARY 02, 2014 > > A sophisticated, real-world study confirms that dialing, texting or > reaching for a cellphone while driving raises the risk of a crash or > near-miss, especially for younger drivers. But the research also > produced a surprise: Simply talking on the phone did not prove > dangerous, as it has in other studies. > > This one did not distinguish between handheld and hands-free devices > - a major weakness. > > And even though talking doesn't require drivers to take their eyes > off the road, it's hard to talk on a phone without first reaching for > it or dialing a number -things that raise the risk of a crash, > researchers note. How much of this risk has to do with the awful design of modern smartphones? In order to dial or answer a call on a touch-screen phone, one generally needs to hold the phone in one hand and, while looking at it, sweep the finger the right way or press the display over a particularly illuminated spot. It is all about hand-eye coordination. It is perfectly reasonable for most people to do while sitting at a desk or table, walking, or riding a train. But it is incompatible with driving. Now some people do use headsets, corded or bluetooth, that have answer buttons, and some people may have gotten the hang of voice dialing, though I have my doubts that it is widely used in moving cars. More likely, most drivers use their iPhones or imitations thereof the same way they would if they were not driving, and that's a hazard. I still carry an old clamshell phone. I answer it by flipping it open with the thumb of the hand that's holding it. One hand, no eyes. I hang up by closing it. I don't like to dial while driving but if I do, it is done using tactile physical buttons, and single-key speed dialing covers many of my calls, two-digit speed numbers most of the rest. It is actually a mobile phone, not a small portable computer that taxes one's hand-eye coordination in honor of the calligrapher St. Steve. I might go to a smartphone if it had tactile keys, but those are becoming rarer and rarer. The Blackberry Q10, for instance, was the last BB to have actual keys, but they were only for messaging; unlike the older BB7 units, you couldn't dial calls on them. (That might have been fixed in BB10.2 but I haven't seen it, and BB has mismanaged itself down the crapper anyway.) A Chinese maker puts out a Bluetooth dialing accessory that sort of looks like a phone keypad, but it's in miniature. So by blindly following Apple, the mobile phone industry has evolved into one that is uniquely unsuited for mobile use. -- Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:46:50 -0500 From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Study documents dangers of texting, dialing while driving Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Per Monty Solomon: >a surprise: Simply talking on the phone did not prove >dangerous, as it has in other studies. They must not have studied the likes of Yours Truly then. I can guarantee - absolutely, unequivocally, without a shred of doubt - that my driving while I'm talking on the phone is significantly more dangerous than when not. Maybe it's just me..... but observation of other drivers yakking on a phone while wandering back-and-forth over lane markers suggest otherwise. -- Pete Cresswell
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 19:35:35 -0800 (PST) From: Neal McLain <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Aereo Cert Day - January 13, 2014? Message-ID: <email@example.com> Poster's note: "Cert" = certiorari, an order issued by the U.S. Supreme Court to a lower court (typically one of the Courts of Appeals) indicating that the Supreme Court will accept the case for further review. If the Supreme Court does not issue cert to a lower court, the lower court's decision stands. The Supreme Court may issue a cert if the losing party in the lower court appeals the lower court's decision, or if two or more lower courts reach conflicting decisions. In Aereo's case, several copyright owners (including broadcast station licensees) have sued Aereo alleging violation of the Copyright Act of 1976. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) ruled for Aereo. Plaintiffs have petitioned the Supreme Court for review of Second Circuit's decision. Aereo, apparently anxious to get the issue resolved once and for all, has stated that it will not oppose plaintiffs' petition. Will the Supreme Court issue cert? The following article, posted on CommLawBlog on January 1, 2014 by Harry Cole, asks that very question. | Supreme Court docket listing suggests decision on whether or | not to take the Aereo case is imminent. | | OK, it's obviously way too early for your offices Final Four | pool or even the Super Bowl® pool, but no problem: the time is | just right for organizing an Aereo Cert pool! | | Will the Supreme Court agree to hear the broadcasters' appeal | of the Second Circuits denial of their efforts to put a | temporary kibosh on Aereo's operations in the Big Apple or | not? According to the Supremes docket listings, that | question is currently scheduled to be considered by the | Justices in their closed-door conference on January 10, 2014 - | which means that it's ... likely that well find out the | answer mid-morning on January 13 (the next day on which the | Court will be sitting). So get that pool started because time | is short! | | Regular readers will recall that, when last we left the Second | Circuit phase of the Aereo saga, broadcasters had tried three | separate times - first before the presiding U.S. District | Judge, then before a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, | and finally before the Second Circuit en banc - to get Aereo | shut down at least until their copyright infringement lawsuit | against it can be completed. The broadcasters got nowhere in | any of those three fora. [snip] | So let the fun begin! The most obvious point of contention | will be on the yes-or-no question of whether cert is granted. | But the possibility of side action exists. If cert is denied, | will any justice dissent (and if so, which one(s))? If cert is | granted, will the case be heard on an accelerated basis so | that it can resolved this term (i.e., by the end of June), or | will it be set for argument next fall? Whichever way the cert | decision goes, how long will it take the prevailing party to | formally pass that word along to the judges presiding over | broadcaster-vs.-Aereo litigation in the various other | jurisdictions - and will such notification have any effect on | the progress of such litigation? | | Check back here for updates. Well report the news as soon as | we get it - possibly by January 13. Continued: http://tinyurl.com/p3tbktv or http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/01/articles/broadcast/aereo-cert-day-january-13-2014/ Here's my bet: Supremes will accept the case and will render a quick decision. 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) 2014 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.