32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Previous Issue (Only one)
The Telecom Digest for April 22, 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: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:03:32 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Do rate centers cross state lines? Message-ID: <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org writes: >Yep, Del Norte County, California, in the northeast corner of >it, is served by 541-596 (O'Brien, OR) >[moderator pro tem's note: In general a rate center does not >cross a state line. But if an area is served by a switch >across the state line, it's called a locality, and gets its >own NPA-NXX codes. The Vermont-New Hampshire border is full >of localities crossing the river. But when Verizon sold >the states to FairPoint, the locality arrangements with >Massachusetts, in both directions, had to be rewired to stay >within each carrier's network. -fg] As was VA<->WV. Verizontal unloaded WV & had to undo several cases where a CO in the one state served subscribers in the other. This was made easier with the evolution of small remotes eliminating the need for a new CO building. Another one I recall was on the WY-CO border, but the name escapes me. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................email@example.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:26:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Another Aereo story: Inside the tech aiming Aereo through TV's legal hoops Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Inside the tech aiming Aereo through TV's legal hoops By Joan E. Solsman, CNET, April 21, 2014 4:00 AM PDT | Aereo wants to give you broadcast TV on the Web. But it needed | thousands of mini antennas, high-octane transcoding, and lots of | air conditioners to build a system it hopes can pass legal scrutiny. Continued: http://www.cnet.com/news/inside-the-tech-that-tossed-aereo-through-tvs-legal-hoops/?tag=nl.e404&s_cid=e404&ttag=e404&ftag=CAD1acfa04 -or- http://tinyurl.com/l6tgruy This article explains a lot of technical detail behind Aereo's operations. Neal McLain
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:28:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Tomorrow (April 22) is Aereo day at the Supreme Court. Message-ID: <email@example.com> This is a complicated legal case. Three Courts of Appeals have reached conflicting decisions: - Aereo won in the First (Boston) and Second (New York) Circuits http://tinyurl.com/mc5zlu4 - Plaintiffs won in the Tenth Circuit (Denver) http://tinyurl.com/ozs3xul When two Courts of Appeals reach conflicting decisions, the Supreme Court has the final say. CNNMondey published an excellent summary of the case today (April 21) by Fortune staff writer Roger Parloff, Senior Editor, Legal Affairs: | Why the Supreme Court might pull the plug on Aereo | | FORTUNE -- For two remarkable years the tiny company Aereo, | which delivers broadcast TV to smartphones, tablets, and PCs, | has walked through the valley of the shadow of death. | | Armies of litigators, hired by the nation's largest media | giants, have bombarded it with lawsuits, accusing it of | flagrant copyright infringement. All the while, Aereo has | protested its innocence. It's been cleverly engineered, | it insists, to slip through the cracks of the copyright | regimen the broadcasters are invoking, and -- | superficial appearances notwithstanding -- it is therefore | operating completely on the up-and-up. Continued at http://tinyurl.com/lwe3ctj The author cites the 1968 Supreme Court decision in which it determined that Cable TV companies were not violating copyright law by retransmitting broadcast stations. But he seems to have omitted the underlying reason for the Court's decision: the copyright act in force in 1968 had not been revised since 1909. For obvious reasons, the Copyright Act of 1909 did not say anything about television, much less cable television. See my comment at the end of this article: http://tinyurl.com/onx42qh But things have changed since 1968. Congress revised the copyright act in 1976 and included very specific language regarding the retransmission of broadcast signals. The Fortune author emphasizes this: | The trouble, from Aereo's perspective, with these favorable | Supreme Court precedents concerning business models quite | similar to its own, is that Congress explicitly overturned | both of these rulings in 1976, and did so in very broad | terms. It said that henceforth it was bestowing upon | copyright holders an exclusive right over transmissions of "a | performance or display" of their work "to the public, by | means of any device or process, whether the members of the | public capable of receiving the performance or display | receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the | same time or at different times."... So now it's up to the Supreme Court to decide if Aereo's separate-antenna/separate stream loophole violates the Copyright Act of 1976. 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.