---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <20180107040152.GA7694@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 23:01:52 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: AT&T sues Mediacom over 911 interconnection agreement terms by Sean Buckley AT&T has filed a lawsuit against Mediacom in Illinois, claiming the cable operator did not pay for 911 network facilities and equipment in the state. The two service providers have had an interconnection agreement (ICA) in place since 2009. "We are still reviewing the complaint and have no comment at this time," a Mediacom spokesman told FierceTelecom in an e-mail. https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/at-t-sues-mediacom-over-911-interconnection-agreement-terms -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20180107040902.GA7714@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 23:09:02 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: Colorado city beats cable lobby, moves ahead with muni broadband After beating cable lobby, Colorado city moves ahead with muni broadband Fort Collins plans universal broadband, net neutrality, and gigabit speeds. By Jon Brodkin The city council in Fort Collins, Colorado, last night voted to move ahead with a municipal fiber broadband network providing gigabit speeds, two months after the cable industry failed to stop the project. Last night's city council vote came after residents of Fort Collins approved a ballot question that authorized the city to build a broadband network. The ballot question, passed in November, didn't guarantee that the network would be built because city council approval was still required, but that hurdle is now cleared. Residents approved the ballot question despite an anti-municipal broadband lobbying campaign backed by groups funded by Comcast and CenturyLink. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/colorado-city-to-build-fiber-broadband-network-with-net-neutrality/ -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <32adaaae-eb99-4682-a6e4-017a01fc31fa@googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 11:15:46 -0800 (PST) From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: Western Electric-- Any lawful device: Revisiting Carterfone On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 7:16:30 PM UTC-5, Bill Horne wrote: > In the end, however, Carterfone's significance extends far beyond the > convenience that Thomas Carter's machine provided its users over a > decade. It is no exaggeration to say that the world that Ars Technica > writes about was created, in good part, by the legal battle between > Carter, AT&T, and the FCC's resolution of that fight - its Carterfone > decision. The Carterfone saga starts as the appealing tale of one > developer's willingness to stick to his guns. But it is really about > the victory of two indispensable values: creativity and sharing. > > https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/carterfone-40-years/ This article makes the statement, "AT&T should never have been allowed to own Western Electric in the first place", and that is incorrect. In the past, many companies were vertically integrated, that is, they owned the manufacturing, sales, and service divisions. So, it was not unusual that AT&T owned Western Electric. Further, Western Electric was more than just manufacturing. AT&T delegated procurement and installation to W/E as well, functions that other companies did in-house. W/E saved money by utilizing substantial economies of scale in both manufacturing and procurement. In my personal opinion, Western Electric equipment was superior to that of other telephone manufacturers, such as Automatic Electric, Kellogg, and Stromberg Carlson. There is one other key issue: government policy dictated that the Bell System depreciate its equipment over a long period of time. Accordingly, Bell built its equipment to last for a long period of time. We can see that by the following Bell advertising, one from 1948, one from 1966: (This was a frequent theme). (LIFE 12/6/1948 "We expected this") https://books.google.com/books?id=iUoEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA5&dq=life%20%22we%20expected%20this%22&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false (LIFE 7/22/1966) "You don't have to worry about a Bell Telephone" https://books.google.com/books?id=JlYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA3&dq=life%20july%2022%201966&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false This business model worked well for Bell and its customers for decades. However, by the late 1960s onward, society was rapidly changing, and consumers were no longer satisfied with the status-quo. They were tired of the same old black rotary dial set (and plenty of the older 302 sets remained in service in the 1960s). Most significantly, people didn't mind spending $10 for a cheap poor quality telephone--even if it only lasted a year or so (which was often the case), they still felt they were ahead of the game over paying $1/month forever to rent a boring black W/E set. Likewise, the business community wanted more sophistication in its telephone systems. The Bell Labs history admits development lagged behind foreign competition. Bell had several electronic PBX systems for business (800 series, Dimension), but apparently many business customers wanted more "glitz" (whether that glitz actually served their needs is another story.) Had there not been a Divestiture, changing market forces and consumer desires would have resulted in a very different AT&T today. As von Auw's book explains, AT&T recognized in the 1970s that renting a telephone set--and providing full maintenance for it and the associated wiring--was no longer economical. A key question never answered was if government regulation would've allowed the Bell System to compete on a level playing field against the newcomers. That is, for Bell to charge market rates for its services rather than rates designed for cross-subsidy or universal service. ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Sun, 07 Jan 2018