… Of lawyering — Know your facts before you make your case. Which pretty much sinks the Australian Internet censorship law. –

South Australia’s thin-skinned candy-ass politicians passed a law prohibiting any anonymous political commentary on blogs (but not “real” news-sources) prior to elections on penalty of a fine of AU$1250. Defending the measure, South Australia’s Attorney General, Michael Atkinson claimed that a poster on AdelaideNow, Aaron Fornarino, was a fictional construct created by his political opponents to smear him. Turns out that Mr Fornarino lives just down the street from Atkinson’s office. Humiliated, Atkinson rescinded the censorship law: “From the feedback we’ve received through AdelaideNow, the blogging generation believes that the law supported by all MPs and all political parties is unduly restrictive. I have listened. I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively… It may be humiliating for me, but that’s politics in a democracy and I’ll take my lumps.”

The major foopah? Atkinson, the regional AG made the claim that the person posting on an Internet site lambasting him was not a real person but fictitious, made up by the opposition party. Problem? Yeah, the person exists and there are pictures to prove it. Much to Atkinson’s credit, he will move for repeal of the law after the major embarrassment.

Linky.

Previously we had pointed out that the Telcos can take care of their own. They have a revenue stream (well used to, it is getting a little frayed), that is mostly never ending. The resource is finite but better than what anyone else has. So why do they want to do this to their more lesser mortal peers? —

In the dead of night, just before the latest draft of the Stevens bill came out, a helpful Telco lobbyist inserted a little provision to stack the deck in the case of judicial review. Section 1004 of the Stevens draft now places exclusive jurisdiction for all decisions by the FCC in the D.C. Circuit. This includes not just network neutrality, but media ownership, CALEA, wireless issues, anything.

Why would anyone do that you ask? Because the D.C. Cir. is, without doubt, the most activist court in the land when it comes to pressing its vision of media and telecom policy. More than any other court, the D.C. Cir. can be credited with destroying hope of telecom competition in the United States by perpetually reversing and remanding the FCC’s efforts at rulemaking and enforcement until the FCC finally gave up and effectively deregulated. The D.C. Cir. is also responsible for vacating (eliminating by judicial fiat) the rule preventing cable companies from owning television stations where they have cable systems, and overturning much of the FCC’s cable and broadcast ownership limits. Finally, through the legal doctrine known as “standing”, the D.C. Crcuit has done its best to make it impossible for regular people to challenge FCC decisions or bring individual cases on antitrust grounds.

Source: WetMachine

Why? Well to make it more costly to litigate telecom policy. So if you are a small coop outside to Duluth and are being destroyed by some arcane rule your choice would be under this suggestion having to hire a high priced heavy weight from Georgetown.

There is something else that bothers me about this that has nothing to do with Telecom. Consistency. In the history of this country we have applied the mindset that one tries a case in the jurisdiction of either the defendant or the place where the infraction occurred. Even at appellate, you remand to the closest circuit district from which the original case issued. And NOW we are going to turn this on its ear? The system as envisioned has worked reasonably well, there is no need to change it at this late date.

This provision needs to be removed. Verizon can afford to get on a damn airplane like anybody else.

I’ll be blunt — this stinks!

“People are paying money in to go to college,” she said, “I don’t think any of that money should be used to subsidize the broadband effort that really is competing with the private sector.”

– Sen. Lisa Marrache, the assistant Senate majority leader

Oh, you are asking what’s the argument? The Univ of Mass is considering going into partnership with several communities and private enterprise in rural Maine locations to get broadband to these localities that are not being served now. The beef of course is that the University is competing with private enterprise. —

Marrache said constituents raised the issue with her after charges were leveled this summer that UMS is competing with private companies in the broadband business.

Severin Beliveau, an Augusta attorney representing FairPoint, blasted UMS at a meeting of the State Broadband Advisory Council, arguing their participation in a group seeking federal funds was improper competition with the private sector.

“I am concerned at what the university is proposing here, because it is receiving a form of subsidy, no they are in fact receiving a subsidy from taxpayers, in competing with the private sector,” he said.

Jeff Letourneau, associate director of information technology at UMS, said the university is part of a private-public partnership created to provide broadband capacity at a “wholesale” level and the university’s role is minor.

“The grant from the federal government went to GWI [Great Works Internet] and two private investors,” he said. “As for tuition subsidizing our broadband efforts, that does not happen and will not happen.”

I am a dirty stinking capitalist of the first order. There are not many $$ deals I won’t turn down. (Though there are moral ones I won’t touch.) But if private companies don’t want to service these areas; and that has been the case for Verizon, now FairPoint for years, then by God you have no right to complain. You were offered a franchise there Telcos, decided it was not worth your effort and now complain when your unopened candy bar is taken away from you. Pffft, tough. Capitalism works best when there is fair exchange going on. Capitalism does not work where monopolistic haunch sitting goes on and the citizenry suffer as a consequence.

Which brings me to the title of this missive. You have to ask yourself whose ox gets gored if UofMaine went thru with the deal? Why the resident Telco is who. That ladies and gentlemen has to be the back story. As a fellow conservative I know says — flare drops. This is only a cover to prevent competition.

Serve your constituents Marrache.

Link.
HT:WetMachine.

Yes, with all that goes on in the telecom world there is always room for a lawsuit! Only this time Verizon is not the Plaintiff —

Located at 375 Pearl Street in Manhattan, the TriBeca Trib reports that the city is now suing Verizon and real estate company Taconic Investment Partners for $53 million. Allegedly the city lost that much money after what they claim were fraudulent dealings.

When they purchased the land and air rights from the city in 1972, “the agreement called for the phone company to give the city $17 million and to build Murry Bergtraum High School. But, the city says, New York Telephone built far more usable space—1.2 million square feet—than it said it would, thereby undervaluing the deal and shortchanging taxpayers.”

What’s a couple of thousand square feet of space between friends in one of the highest priced markets in the world?

More here.

If you’re a regular reader, you’re already well informed on the end of voice as a viable wireless business. Sprint and Verizon had invested heavily in national 3G data services for years, while AT&T lagged. Now that 4G is coming online and 3G matters to to a growing number of customers -  like those who grossly overpaid for iPhones, AT&T is playing catch up. It hurts if you’re AT&T and one of your competitors that has been out investing you in 3G calls attention to that fact in advertising.  True to AT&T’s track record it continues to prefer competing in the courts over upgrading. Perhaps AT&T customers who are experiencing poor data service should be careful about what they say publicly too.

AT&T earlier this month filed a lawsuit claiming that Verizon is misleading customers by suggesting that AT&T subscribers cannot access wireless Internet services throughout its network. In the opening paragraph of its legal rebuttal to the suit, Verizon very plainly surmised its argument: “AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s ‘There’s A Map For That’ advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts.”

The rebuttal filed on Monday in a Georgia district court was in response to two complaints AT&T filed with the court asking that the Verizon advertisements be pulled from the airwaves. AT&T has called the claims in the advertisement “false” and “misleading.” And the company claims it has caused “irreparable harm” to AT&T’s wireless business. (Cnet)

Verizon representatives have responded to the press on these claims. But now the company has filed its official response to the court in a 53-page document that lays out the company’s defense.

It’s also worth mentioning that if Verizon really wanted to put the hurt on AT&T, all it would really need to do is dramatically drop 3G  prices. Since the wireless space is a cartel of spectrum licensees, that isn’t likely to happen. Still, a little competitive sparring is a good thing, There should be more of it. I’d bet even the lawyers agree.

COSHOCTON — A free service enjoyed by hundreds has been shut down due to illegal activity conducted by one individual.

“It’s unfortunate that one person ruins it for those who use the service legitimately,” said Commissioner Gary Fisher.

About five years ago, the county made a free wireless Internet connection available in the block surrounding the Coshocton County Courthouse at 318 Main St.

It was disabled last week after someone used the wireless local area network address to illegally download a movie.

The county’s Internet Service Provider — OneCommunity — was notified by Sony Pictures Entertainment about the breach, and the county’s Information Technology Department was in turn notified by OneCommunity.

Yes you got it. The actions of one person has ruined it for a whole town. Which is the problem with the current state of law in the realm of Internet Law. The innocent suffer along with the guilty.

‘Nuf Said?

Linky.

When two elephants start a fracas in the room what is the best course of action? Get the Hell out of the room of course! Well that is what is preparing to go on between Verizon and AT&T. The two are locked horns on the coverage map ads that Verizon is running in reference to their 3G wireless network

I hope the judge has a good sense of humor. He will need it for this case. –

In essence, we believe the ads mislead consumers into believing that AT&T doesn’t offer ANY wireless service in the vast majority of the country. In fact, AT&T’s wireless network blankets the US, reaching approximately 296M people. Additionally, our 3G service is available in over 9,600 cities and towns. Verizon’s misleading advertising tactics appear to be a response to AT&T’s strong leadership in smartphones. We have twice the number of smartphone customers… and we’ve beaten them two quarters in a row on net post-paid subscribers. We also had lower churn — a sign that customers are quite happy with the service they receive.

The fun part of this? Like these two companies don’t have something else to do? Like maybe lay some fiber or something? But it is par for the course in the Telco industry. Now I suspect that why AT&T did this has little to do with the ads and more to do with some underlying cross interlata agreement they have been locking horns on. You don’t burn $1,000/hr in legal costs for this kind of piddly stuff.

Endgadget has the gory details.

TDS Telecom, the company that tried using the courts to stop the 10,000 or so people in Monticello, MN from building their own fiber network is offering competitive service. Of course, that was only after the court refused to see things TDS’s way. TDS had given us the impression that it would lose money offering a competing product.

As it turns out, offering a competitive service wasn’t really beyond the company’s means:

Wisconsin-based TDS Telecom (see our user reviews) today announced that the company will soon launch 50 Mbps downstream and 20 upstream upstream fiber service in Monticello, Minnesota. According to the company, the service will cost customers $64.95/month when bundled with local phone service. For those who don’t want to bundle, the company also offers a nice looking “Broadband Raw” tier, that includes 50 Mbps service and local access to 911 services for $49.95/month. (DSL Reports)

The New York State Attorney General has slapped Frontier Communications with a $35,000 fine and ordered the phone company to refund up to $50,000 it wrongfully charged consumers in so-called “early termination fees” for telephone and broadband service — fees consumers were never properly informed about at the time they ordered service.

“Frontier failed to spell out in its contracts the existence of costly fees,” said Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo. “The company is now fixing the issue by providing written notices of these fees and paying back consumers who were wrongfully charged.”

What can I say? Live by the scheme, die by the scheme. If you live in NY proper and were hit with a ETF for service termination keep your eyes open. Some money is due you.

Linky.

Dr. Johnny Fever, explaining the plot to blow up the station radio transmitter. Sounds funny, crazy as a concept, right? Or is it? —

“The communications between the agencies and telecommunications companies regarding the immunity provisions of the proposed legislation have been regarded as intra-agency because the government and the companies have a common interest in the defense of the pending litigation and the communications regarding the immunity provisions concerned that common interest.”

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffery White disagreed and ruled on September 24 that the feds had to release the names of the telecom employees that contacted the Justice Department and the White House to lobby for a get-out-of-court-free card.

“Here, the telecommunications companies communicated with the government to ensure that Congress would pass legislation to grant them immunity from legal liability for their participation in the surveillance,” White wrote. “Those documents are not protected from disclosure because the companies communicated with the government agencies “with their own … interests in mind,” rather than the agency’s interests.”

Yes, the government is advocating that AT&T, Verizon and Sprint are arms of the Federal government for purposes of this court case. The whole idea sounds almost Pythonesque if it wasn’t for the government trying that line of reasoning and hoping it sticks.

Linky.