32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for January 13, 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, 12 Jan 2014 20:15:56 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Why T-Mobile wants Verizon's discarded 4G airwaves Message-ID: <email@example.com> by Kevin Fitchard JAN. 6, 2014 Verizon has owned these 700 MHz licenses for six years but never found a use for them. One's man trash is another's treasure. By buying these licenses T-Mobile can build an LTE network more like Verizon's. http://gigaom.com/2014/01/06/why-t-mobile-wants-verizons-discarded-4g-airwaves/ -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly) Be careful there's a baby in the house and a baby will play for real If your "I love you" is an IOU Don't expect to get a good deal ... - Loudon Wainwright III
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:05:01 -0800 (PST) From: Neal McLain <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Communications Act Overhaul Underway ... Sort of Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> By Howard Weiss, CommLawBlog, January 11, 2014 by Howard Weiss | Commerce, Communications Committee chairmen seek public input | on fundamental questions about federal regulation of | communications. | | It's generally acknowledged that the Communications Act -- | first enacted four score years ago and not substantially | updated in nearly 20 years -- is ill-suited for regulation of | the 21st Century communications landscape. And now two well- | placed members of Congress have announced the start of an | effort to update the Act and perhaps restructure the FCC | itself. | | Given the prominence of the folks making that announcement, | anyone subject to the FCC's regulatory reach should pay | attention. But before you get overcome with visions of | sweeping change just around the corner, it's important to | temper your expectations with a healthy splash of reality: any | significant change to the Act that may occur isn't likely to | happen in the immediate future, if at all. | | The two gentlemen responsible for the latest initiative are | Fred Upton (R-MI) and Greg Walden (R-OR), the Chairs of, | respectively, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and that | Committee's Communications and Technology Subcommittee. You | can see them explain their plans in a 13-minute video posted | von the Committee's website. To summarize: Noting that (a) the | FCC first opened its doors in the Great Depression and (b) the | last time the Act was amended, 56 kb/s by dial-up modem was | the state of the art, Upton and Walden sensibly feel that it's | time to talk about an update. | | The emphasis, though, is more on the "talk" part than the | "update" part. Continued: http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/01/articles/broadcast/comm-act-overhaul-underway-sort-of/index.html Well, I can think of a few things for Upton and Walden to consider. First off, Congress should coordinate (or merge) the laws governing telephone and cable TV networks. Under current law, telcos are regulated under Title II of the Communications Act, but CATVs are regulated under Title VI. Yet the two industries have been invading each other's markets for years, and their product lines are becoming increasingly similar. Furthermore their differing distribution technologies -- coax v. copper wires -- are merging as both industries deploy fiber optic distribution networks. Secondly, Congress should address the retransmission-consent issue. It's certainly no secret that retrans-consent battles have been the source of numerous broadcast-signal shutdowns resulting from the failure of broadcast licensees and MVPDs (CATV, telco, satellite) to reach agreements. Speaking as an ex-cable guy, I'd like to see the entire retrans mechanism repealed outright. But failing that, Congress might consider other procedures to avoid shutdowns. The most obvious is contained in the Video CHOICE (Consumers Have Options in Choosing Entertainment) Act sponsored by Representative Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) . Alternatively, Congress might consider mandatory arbitration or a special court. Finally, no matter which side wins in the current Aereo case, the losing side is likely to petition Congress to address the underlying issue: the right of a third part to retransmit the signal of a broadcast station over the internet. As I've noted before in this space, the Aereo battle bears a remarkable similarity to the copyright battle that the CATV industry fought fifty years ago . CATV won that battle, but its win wasn't based on the merits of the case. It was based on the then-current law -- the Copyright Act of 1909 -- which didn't say anything about television. Although this case is a matter of copyright law, not communications law, the underlying arguments are closely related to communications law.  "Eshoo Releases Draft Bill to Address TV Programming Pitfalls." By Anna Eshoo, September 9, 2013. http://votesmart.org/public-statement/808845/eshoo-releases-draft-bill-to-address-tv-programming-pitfalls  "As Aereo threatens to alter TV landscape, major networks promise a fight." By Neal McLain, April 10, 2013. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.dcom.telecom/03LY3OofG5s/cQWW5U1OLpEJ 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.