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.

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.

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.

Apple and AT&T have an agreement in principle that neither party would partake of supporting anything that injuries the other party in any material fashion. AT&T is concerned about users foregoing the voice components on iPhone and using the data component via VoIP. Google then shows up with an application for the iStore to do exactly what AT&T does not want. Is it rejected? Welllll, not exactly, but then you can’t download it either –

AT&T and Apple told the FCC that they did have an agreement that Apple would not help iPhone owners use VOIP calling services like Skype on the iPhone. VOIP calls use the data, rather than the voice plan, and would cut into the companies profits. Thus, Apple and AT&T agreed to cripple the Skype iPhone app so that it would only work when the iPhone used a WiFi connection.

The companies say they also agree not to let apps that stream live television, which AT&T says would strain its network.

As for Google and its app store?

Its FCC filing emphasizes that Android phone users can get apps from outside the store — unlike iPhone users. (Users can “jailbreak” their iPhones to do so, but this invalidates the warranty.)

It says only one percent of apps in its online marketplace have been rejected, mostly due to copyright or obscenity reasons.

Google did not, however, mention that it too crippled mobile apps at the request of a telecom.

T-Mobile asked Google to remove apps that let customers use their phone as a modem for a laptop, a practice known as tethering, and Google complied. T-Mobile, like all of the U.S.’s largest carriers, charges customers extra for that service. Google later re-allowed the app, but not for T-Mobile customers.

Is Google the unvarnished victim in this? The maiden for her prince to open the gates? Well not exactly either. Google is doing the same thing for T-Mobile on Android platforms. Google you can pucker up, but wash your shoes first, they reek of BS.

All this jockeying and “where’s the pea” is going for naught too. Wimax is continuing to rollout. The following cities are targeted this year — Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Fort Worth, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle. Wimax is already in Atlanta, NYC, Los Angeles and the outskirt of WashDC. So many of the mass market areas are in coverage. The upshot is the Wimax providers are not freaking out that VoIP will traverse their network. Fact some providers are offering bundles that include VoIP. So the cat’s already out of the bag. Fact some are considering using a “netbook-as-phone”.

By the way Who if on first and What is on second and Google is in the outfield. Google still has not understood how damaging their lack of 700mhz ownership means to them over the long haul.

Linky.

In opposing petitioner’s application, the Anonymous Blogger contends that petitioner is not entitled to pre-action discovery because she cannot demonstratte a meritorious claim for defamation. The Anonymous Blogger asserts that the statements on the Blog, which appear as captions to provacative photographs which the Blogger alleges were posted by petitioner herself, are “non-actionalble opinion and/or hyperbole, “and that no reasonable viewer of the Blog would conclude that the statements referring to petitioner purport to convey verifiable statements of fact. The Blogger argues that the words “skank” and “ho” are not statements of objective fact which cabe proven true or false; rather the words are used in a “loose hyperbolic” manner, and “have become a popular form of ‘trash talk’ ubiquitous across the Internet as well as network television and should be treated no differently than ‘jerk’ or any other form of loose and vague insults that the Constitution protects.” …

Do you Dear Reader believe that one? I hope not. Conversation, even trash talk is composed as a duality. Regardless of the intent of the sender, the actionable component, legally is triggered by the reader/listener. One needs to keep that in mind before one pumps innuendo and presumptions out on the Net.

I am not saying go out of your way to not offend anyone. But a little common sense is in order. This is the kind of stuff in the physical world has been pretty settled law. The fact that it is on the Internet somewhere just puts a new twist to it.

Oh and by the way. Google DID cough up the who in that court case. So just because you use a handle does not mean you are free and clear of any consequence of your actions. The Internet has a long memory and never forgets.

More here.

In a blistering 2-1 opinion, the D.C. Circuit today reinstated a challenge to the IRS’s procedures for issuing billions of dollars of refunds of the long distance telephone excise tax. Cohen v. Commissioner, No. 08-5088 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 7, 2009). Here is the opening of the majority’s opinion:

Comic-strip writer Bob Thaves famously quipped, “A fool and his money are soon parted. It takes creative tax laws for the rest.” In this case it took the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS” or “the Service”) aggressive interpretation of the tax code to part millions of Americans with billions of dollars in excise tax collections. Even this remarkable feat did not end the IRS’s creativity. When it finally conceded defeat on the legal front, the IRS got really inventive and developed a refund scheme under which almost half the funds remained unclaimed. Now the IRS seeks to avoid judicial review by insisting the notice it issued, acknowledging its error and announcing the refund process, is not a binding rule but only a general policy statement.

This is a win for we the user base on process only. But it does put the IRS on notice you can’t make the refund process to get your excise tax money back a labyrinth nightmare.

Linky.

In what has to be big downer for the DISH, they have to pay out a considerable sum to States and customers for deceptive practices, failure to uphold Agency responsibilities, No Call List violations, etc. –

“We’ve had 196 written complaints in Iowa since 2004 about DISH Network,” Miller said. “TV satellite service in general has been one of our top complaint categories in recent years.”

The states had alleged a wide array of unfair and deceptive practices by DISH Network and its third-party retailers.

The states alleged that DISH Network: Refused to accept responsibility for misconduct by its third-party retailers and installers; violated do-not-call rules; failed to disclose all key terms and conditions of their customer agreements; did not disclose that purchased or leased equipment was previously used and/or refurbished; charged customer credit cards and debited bank accounts without providing adequate notice and obtaining appropriate authorization; and committed other violations. The company denied any wrongdoing.

The agreement between DISH Network and the states (called an “Assurance of Voluntary Compliance,” or AVC) says DISH “shall not commit any unfair or deceptive trade practices.” The AVC contains fifteen pages of details about how the company must avoid misrepresentations, must clearly disclose all material terms, must clearly disclose any limitations on programming (such as unavailability of local channels or sports programming), must clearly disclose any termination or cancellation policies, must not violate Do Not Call requirements, must handle complaints rapidly and effectively, and must adhere to many other requirements.

All well and good. How about a peek into Comcast while you are at it there Mr. Miller?

Linky.