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.

In this case its Verizon again. The name of the game is a Titanic shuffle of their data rate plan. May sound like small potatoes till you see the hurdle before you as a customer –

First, the details: Verizon has introduced a new data tier at $9.99 per month with a 25MB cap—this is the cheapest data plan now offered by the company and by most US wireless carriers, and applies to all 3G devices. Why does this equate to “upping” the data charges? Because the company is ditching its $19.99 per month plan with a 75MB cap altogether—you must either go with the $9.99 plan for a third of the data or or the $29.99 smartphone plan that applies to WinMo, Android, or BlackBerry devices.

This in a sense is a variant of the give the lantern away but charge for the oil dearly. Only this is charge minimally for low oil but if you want to use the lamp every night you has to pay!

Why can’t stuff be simple? Just charge .001¢ per kilobyte and be done with it. Equitable, quick and customers can check their bills quickly. But then that would not justify the marketees salary would it?

Linky.

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.

As is give the Telco monopoly a run for their money in the voice only space. Today, Google officially announced that they acquired Gizmo5 the internet smart phone service for ~$30m. –

It’s a potent recipe — take Gizmo5’s open standards-based online calling system. Add to it the new ability to route calls on Google’s massive network of cheap fiber. Toss in Google Voice’s free phone number, which will ring your mobile phone, your home phone and your Gizmo5 client on your laptop.


Meanwhile you can use Gizmo5 to make ultracheap outgoing calls to domestic and international phone numbers, and free calls to Skype, Google Talk, Yahoo and AIM users. You could make and receive calls that bypass the per-minute billing on your smartphone.

Then layer on deluxe phone services like free SMS, voicemail transcription, customized call routing, free conference calls and voicemails sent as recordings to your e-mail account, and you have a phone service that competes with Skype, landlines and the internet telephone offerings from Vonage and cable companies.

That’s not just pie in-the-sky dreaming.

Google could pull it off. Combined with their existing Google Voice offering, a GV-Gizmo5 combo might give the Telcos the heebes. Like how about a serious integrated message stack? Its been implemented for years as a per supplier proprietary service. But till now, as an open available anywhere service? Just hasn’t happened. But Google has the tools/network/talent to pull it off. Oh and they have the customer base to go from nothing to the most dominant intgrated message stack on the planet.

Bank on it.

Linky.

Above all, though, Weigman is still a teenager. While he expresses remorse over his swatting attacks, he takes giddy pleasure in recounting his other exploits — whether punking celebrities or playing the phone companies like an Xbox. “The phone system and infrastructure is just weak,” he says. “I had access to the entire AT&T and Verizon networks at times. I could have shut down an entire area.” Then he segues into an earnest pitch for a future job. “I’d love to work for a phone company, just doing what I do legally,” he says. “It’s not about power. I know the phone and telecommunication systems and can be a crucial part of any company.”

This is one graph out of a very interesting phreaking story here. Most that read this board probably know what a phreak is — someone who manipulates the PSTN network for fun. Please do read the whole thing, its interesting.

But the sobering side shows just how vulnerable our telecommunications on PSTN is at two levels. A) That it can be socially engineered around. B) That the infrastructure itself is very naive.

The latter first. Back in the 60’s two things happened. The Bells figured out how to design a computer that could operate like the old mechanical stepper CO switches without all the support issues. The second was the development of FSK keying better know to the public as touchtone. Both developments design at a time when shall we say the world that America operated in was one of innocence. The thoughts were, why would anybody muck with the phone systems? Its dull boring stuff that even those in the companies found only peripherally interesting. It never occurred to anyone that Bell could represent a ‘respectable’ challenge to manipulate.

Consider touchtone® its basically a two tone modulated signaling system. Barely a step up from Morse code. Its weak link is that it is in the human audio range. From a security perspective probably the worst set of choices one could make. Tones can be recorded. Tones can be generated to overcome the system (a blue box.) Compared to systems to day, its a security nightmare.

Then there are the companies themselves. For years, even while I was there, if you were ‘in the Bell loop’ you were a trusted entity. The companies are vast and diverse. If you work there you live on the phone, conduct most business via long distance and for the most part rarely if ever physically meet the people you interoperate with on a daily basis. It worked quite well so long as parties worked on the knowledge that their peers could be trusted. And why not? You were an employee!

That breaks down when outsiders can mimic the technobabble that is used in the industry. Even though employees are trained to spot interlopers, a 10% failure rate in that regard opens a large bundle of opportunity. Security training is required yearly at most Telcos. They still do it. But here is the interesting thing. To my knowledge none of them have implemented the simplest of measures for providing secure lines for fraud, security, and collection departments. Its one of the prime reasons that phreaking works.

Still sound droll, even with a possible threat of a swatting attack going wrong? Well then think about this before you go to bed tonight — What could Weigman have done had he been hired by terrorists?

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.

Yes in my continuing saga of ‘wake up and look around’ against the dark forces of ignorance, distraction and lack of social skills fostered by the smartphone, I present you with another one –

Why didn’t she see it? You’re ahead of me here. She was too intent on tapping out a text message to notice the gaping gap in the sidewalk and just dropped straight on in. Idiotic, yes, but now Alexa’s parents are trying to blame someone else for their daughter’s stupidity while making a little money into the bargain. They’re suing the city.

I’m all for punishing people who walk the streets staring into the tiny screens of their cells. They’re a danger to cyclists, for one, and at the very best they’re an annoyance to normal pedestrians, the kind who actually look where they’re walking. That Alexa’s parents are not doing anything to teach her a lesson but instead are blaming city workers is quite ridiculous.

Life ladies and gentlemen is not a RoadRunner cartoon mixed with scenes from Matrix I. There are consequences and if you do something stupid you will get bit. Live with it. Parents, call off the lawyers. Take the smartphone away and make her get a summer job to defray the cost of the medical insurance for a couple of months.

Read the whole thing.

The asshats at ASCAP are now making waves that ringtones are derivative works of commercial art and therefore due an payable. Why this is a scam after the jump –

Internet watchdog Electronic Frontier Foundation has hit out at a US music royalties collector, accusing it of making “outlandish copyright claims” about mobile phone ringtones.

The American Society of Composer, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) filed a lawsuit against telecoms giant AT&T, in which it told a federal court that ringtones fell under the public perfomance Copyright Act.

ASCAP collects royalties and licences on behalf of 350,000 members in the US.

In effect, the organisation is gunning for additional payments from mobile firms, and if they don’t cough up the royalties ASCAP could claim copyright infringement against mobile users, according to the EFF.

The lobby group responded by filing an amicus brief* for the case earlier this week in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The brief, which was also joined by the Center for Democracy and Technology and Public Knowledge, urged the federal court to reject what the EFF described as “bogus copyright claims… that could raise costs for consumers, jeopardise consumer rights, and curtail new technological innovation”.

Here’s the clue this is a con job. The threat that ASCAP is throwing around is that they will go after the carriers customers. BUT, they won’t if the likes of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint pay up for them. This is the typical lawyer trick. Don’t go after the violator, go after the peripheral player in the affair that possess deep pockets. Always go after the deep pockets is the lawyers choice. That is the tip off this is a legal scam.

Linky.

“Associate yourself with Men of good Quality if you Esteem your own Reputation; for ’tis better to be alone than in bad Company”. — Geo. Washington, axiom #56

Never truer than today when many who provide you products and services are but a what appears to be a faceless corporation or a virtual host service. Well priced you may wish for, but it is best to know whom you deal with and their attitudes towards those things you hold dear; like privacy –

Start up firm Connectivity, which will launch its 118800 service next week, approached O2 18 months ago for access to its customer database. The operator refused and argued that only an opt-in approach was appropriate because people typically consider their mobile number very private.

In response, Connectivity told O2 it was legally required to hand over the data as landline companies are required to give data to home phone directories.

A spokeswoman for O2 said: “Connectivity approached O2 some time ago to request customers’ details and we declined to participate, despite the threat of litigation.

And why would an opt-in approach not be acceptable to Connectivity? –

“We began briefly to exercise this right and Ofcom was in the process of resolving the debate and carrying out a consultation. But this would have slowed down the delivery of the service so, having found alternative reliable sources of data, we decided not to pursue legal action.”

O2 said that Ofcom, the communications regulator, had informally agreed with it that an opt-in approach was appropriate. But according to privacy campaigner Simon Davies, who worked as a consultant to Connectivity, the company had calculated that for the business to be viable it would have to use an opt-out consent model.

There in lies the tale, It was not that Connectivity felt that it was being discriminated against to gather the data by other suppliers. No. It was that their business model REQUIRED them to have the data by hook or crook.

The most assured way to have privacy is not to share.

Linky.

In a world swimming in wireless transmissions, how does one operate without it? Cell phone, WiFi, 900mhz phone, the list is endless. So is the FCC, hence the government’s right, to abrogate the 4th Amendment –

That’s the upshot of the rules the agency has followed for years to monitor licensed television and radio stations, and to crack down on pirate radio broadcasters. And the commission maintains the same policy applies to any licensed or unlicensed radio-frequency device.

“Anything using RF energy — we have the right to inspect it to make sure it is not causing interference,” says FCC spokesman David Fiske. That includes devices like Wi-Fi routers that use unlicensed spectrum, Fiske says.

The FCC claims it derives its warrantless search power from the Communications Act of 1934, though the constitutionality of the claim has gone untested in the courts. That’s largely because the FCC had little to do with average citizens for most of the last 75 years, when home transmitters were largely reserved to ham-radio operators and CB-radio aficionados. But in 2009, nearly every household in the United States has multiple devices that use radio waves and fall under the FCC’s purview, making the commission’s claimed authority ripe for a court challenge.

“It is a major stretch beyond case law to assert that authority with respect to a private home, which is at the heart of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure,” says Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer Lee Tien. “When it is a private home and when you are talking about an over-powered Wi-Fi antenna — the idea they could just go in is honestly quite bizarre.”

Alarmist? Well maybe. When you consider that the average consumer grade transmitter is running way less than a watt of RF output power, I don’t think you will be breaking the law nor the FCC being after you. The rule that the article points to was in place to go after large wattage stations and CB radios being upjacked to a 1000w linear amp.

But it is a tad troubling on the face. If a FCC guy came to the house asking. I probably would say come on in. I don’t have anything that does high watt RF transmission. But if they started acting like stormtroopers a call to my lawyer would be made long before they left.

Linky.