dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Friday Evening Links
by Revcb 05:54PM Friday Nov 25 2011
AT&T to offer bigger asset sale in bid to save T-Mobile take-over [bloomberg.com]
Carrier IQ drops legal precedings against security researcher who revealed company's Verizon, Sprint 'rootkit' [cnet.com]
Feds seize 130+ domain names in mass crackdown [torrentfreak.com]
FCC Puts Some LightSquared Waiver Documents Online, Move Results In Possible Nomination Delays For Commissioner Candidates [multichannel.com/]
Class action lawsuit accuses Comcast and Charter of "gouging" subs by not giving credit/refunds after storm outages [fiercecable.com]
French Prez Worried About The Internet 'Stealing Audience Share' From 'Regulated' TV Services [techdirt.com]
Has online video become the light at the end of the tunnel for pay-TV, programmers? [fierceonlinevideo.com]
Comcast raises rates almost 5% in Washington & Oregon [fiercecable.com]
Verizon Ordered To Stop Using ActiveVideo Patents, Must Pay $2.74 per Sub per Month to ITV Firm [multichannel.com]
UK reveals cruel new hacker punishment: Bans from Facebook, Twitter [theregister.co.uk]
Apple or operators - Who rules the roost? [fiercewireless.com]
More Problems With iOS 5 Update, iPhone Users Losing Wi-Fi Connectivity [itproportal.com]
IPCom to enforce injunction against HTC, ban sales of its 3G devices in Germany [fosspatents.com]
Spectrum clash engulfs bionic tech that would help paralyzed patients move again [networkworld.com]
Scareware slingers stumped by Google secure search [theregister.co.uk]

view:
topics flat nest 
jerseyjoe123

join:2008-04-28
Picton, ON

Feds seize 130+ domain names in mass crackdown

Geez, what did they do? Google the word Jersey? Yet, somehow, Jersey Shore remained unscathed. Bummer.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Feds seize 130+ domain names in mass crackdown

Considering the accuracy and how many innocent domains get taken out in their hit path I bet they just do google something and said "Seize the first five pages"
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

Re: Feds seize 130+ domain names in mass crackdown

said by Kearnstd:

Considering the accuracy and how many innocent domains get taken out in their hit path I bet they just do google something and said "Seize the first five pages"

according to the list many of the domains had NFL in them and seeing as only the NFL can actually have domains with NFL in it I'm 100% sure those seizures were correct.

Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY
Unfiltered DNS.

I wonder which one is free from governmnet interference.
--
Semper Fi
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06
The Attorney General of the United States of America, Eric Holder, reminds us that the "theft of ideas" is not a victimless crime. That he hasn't been immediately relieved of office for being batshit insane is a sign that much of the government has permanently lost touch with reality.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

Re: Feds seize 130+ domain names in mass crackdown

said by Wilsdom:

The Attorney General of the United States of America, Eric Holder, reminds us that the "theft of ideas" is not a victimless crime. That he hasn't been immediately relieved of office for being batshit insane is a sign that much of the government has permanently lost touch with reality.

Before the internet were you against people at flea markets being arrested for selling bogus items?
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

Re: Feds seize 130+ domain names in mass crackdown

Holder is talking about "ideas" that are given away for free so I don't see the analogy. I do support the arrest of politicians who sell bogus ideas, though if found mentally incompetent lifetime hospitalization might be more appropriate.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

Re: Feds seize 130+ domain names in mass crackdown

said by Wilsdom:

Holder is talking about "ideas" that are given away for free so I don't see the analogy. I do support the arrest of politicians who sell bogus ideas, though if found mentally incompetent lifetime hospitalization might be more appropriate.

Please you are not that obtuse. Ok so I take a DVD of a movie. I break encryption and make hundreds of copies which I sell at the local flea market. Is that illegal? Yes. Well what if I just gave away those copies? Still illegal? Yes. Now instead of making hundreds of copies on DVD I just upload it to the internet and give it away? According to your logic it magically becomes not illegal.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Feds seize 130+ domain names in mass crackdown

Technically breaking the encryption just to make a copy of a DVD so the kids do not destroy the original or so you can keep some in the minivan for trips is also illegal thanks to the DMCA.

Thankfully the DMCA is a lower form of law than the speed limit because you can personally break it all you want and never get caught.(by personally I mean things like those spare copies so the origninal stays safe or ripping to a Home media server)
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: Feds seize 130+ domain names in mass crackdown

said by Kearnstd:

Technically breaking the encryption just to make a copy of a DVD so the kids do not destroy the original or so you can keep some in the minivan for trips is also illegal thanks to the DMCA.

Personally I don't care if you make copies of shit you already paid for. It's the assholes that try to ge something for nothing that are making hard on the rest of us. So as much as you like to bash the media companies( and they deserve a lot too ) you should get getting on any asshole you know that illegally downloads shit.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Re: Feds seize 130+ domain names in mass crackdown

>Personally I don't care if you make copies of shit you already paid for.

The point is that no one should care about this yet it is still illegal. I am sure the MPAA is in no rush to 'fix' it since someone with a scratched DVD will now have to go buy a new one... more revenue.

Personally, I don't see a problem with copying or downloading as long as you aren't making a profit (like your flea market example). Personal use should be free, commercial users should pay.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
said by 88615298:

According to your logic it magically becomes not illegal.

Unless I'm reading the wrong thread, he didn't state anything of the sort.

Simply the idea that one can steal an "idea" is a scary one. Literally every math and science book on the planet is guilty of massive "intellectual property" theft.

Intellectual property and science don't mix.

And quite frankly, there is really no evidence that intellectual property is beneficial to the business sector as well.

The idea that nobody will develop new things with out patents or copyrights is absurd.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: Feds seize 130+ domain names in mass crackdown

said by DataRiker:

said by 88615298:

According to your logic it magically becomes not illegal.

Unless I'm reading the wrong thread, he didn't state anything of the sort.

Simply the idea that one can steal an "idea" is a scary one.

So you never heard of plagiarism?
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
said by DataRiker:

And quite frankly, there is really no evidence that intellectual property is beneficial to the business sector as well.

Huh?
chimera

join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC
Actually, you can't copyright an idea or a fact. This has been established by both copyright law and upheld by the Supreme Court since the United States was founded. Ideas can only be protected via patents, which have a far more limited lifespan. Furthermore the "ideas" a patent protects most be new a novel (meaning it can't have already been done) and cannot simply be discoveries of basic facts or theories nor can they be obvious to those trained in a particular trade or art (for example adding an extra two wheels to a truck to support a greater weight).

So it doesn't cause as many problems as you might think with science. Likewise patent law does encourage some serious investment in basic industry. There are points to be made saying that a twenty year term for a patent is too long given how quickly technology moves these days, but that isn't to say that no protection would be better as this would just encourage companies to never share their developments via trade secrets while wasting resources to keep these secret and to steal these secrets from each other.

It should also be noted that patent durations are still no where near as long a copyright durations, which currently stand at 70 + life and unlike copyright duration have not been significantly changed since the United States was founded.

andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1

AT&T

Marketwatch has a good Commentary

AT&T’s $4 billion mess is of its own making
Commentary: Shareholders on hook, but AT&T is to blame.

By John C. Dvorak
BERKELEY, Calif. (MarketWatch) — If AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile fails, as appears likely, it will cost AT&T some $4 billion, according to the terms of the deal. If AT&T had spent half of that $4 billion on public relations in the first place, the deal would not be falling apart.

»www.marketwatch.com/story/atts-4···est_news

My own thought on this is that since it is marketwatch an investing hype website this guy who probably bought their stock is now feeling what normal people get all the time.Its what happens when people like him demand more return and they end up offshoring it.Dont be such greedy shareholder and maybe it wouldn't of happened

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: AT&T

Or at&t could have used that $4 bil to improve it's network. You know like providing my area with at least 3G. Hey at&t you want to know why 90% of the people in my area choose Verizon over you there you go.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Re: AT&T

Or maybe they could have given their employees a nice bonus! Yes, ok... back to reality. Infrastructure improvements would have been a great idea but unless someone makes up a nice portfolio and power point and gives a presentation explaining how that investment will come back X3 or X4 within the next 5 years, they just aren't going to bother.

It is a real shame that publicly owned companies somehow reach a critical mass and go from offering a product/service to aggressive expansion, leaving the product as an afterthought.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: AT&T

said by CXM_Splicer:

Or maybe they could have given their employees a nice bonus!

Some of their employees did get nice bonuses. They're called CEOs.

Infrastructure improvements would have been a great idea but unless someone makes up a nice portfolio and power point and gives a presentation explaining how that investment will come back X3 or X4 within the next 5 years, they just aren't going to bother.

How is paying that German company $4 bil for basically nothing going to help the bottom line?
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Re: AT&T

>Some of their employees did get nice bonuses. They're called CEOs.

Yes, well I was referring to the workers... the ones who generate the billions, not the executives that lose them.

>How is paying that German company $4 bil for basically nothing going to help the bottom line?

Obviously it wont. I have no doubt that AT&T thought the merger would go through without a hitch and they wouldn't be paying Deutsche Telekom for nothing. The merger (had it been approved) would probably have helped their bottom line, that's why they decided to try it. Enhancing their own infrastructure would probably not help their bottom line, that's why they didn't do it. That was my point.

Perhaps Verizon will now try to buy AT&T? Maybe I should fire up my Power Point!

jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

1 recommendation

Re: AT&T

said by CXM_Splicer:

Enhancing their own infrastructure would probably not help their bottom line, ...

Yeah, because, in the face of competition, where it exists, customers will just continue to put up with SBC's lousy copper pairs, with the attendant poor voice and/or data quality and reliability, rather than move their TelCom business elsewhere.

That is: Unless they know better.

Just week-before-last I moved better than $2k/mo. in business to a competitor's of SBC's. If they work out, the odds of SBC ever getting that business back are somewhere between slim and none. This week they'll lose more business to that competitor, as I port a remaining COTS trunk and move our Internet connectivity over.

Yeah, SBC came up with a roughly competitive quote for service on a fiber connection, but, after four (4) years of abysmal performance, we weren't much inclined to go with them. Ironically, the move of our phone service occurred two weeks ahead of schedule, because the new provider was able to port us over faster than SBC was able to repair the circuits they broke yet again.

And, yeah, I know: It's "AT&T" now. Only it isn't. Not really. I knew AT&T. The real AT&T. The thing that calls itself "AT&T" these days is no more AT&T than I am Princess Stéphanie of Monaco. So it can call itself "AT&T," but it's the Same Bulls**t Company it was before it bought the name.

Jim

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

Re: AT&T

said by jseymour:

And, yeah, I know: It's "AT&T" now. Only it isn't. Not really. I knew AT&T. The real AT&T. The thing that calls itself "AT&T" these days is no more AT&T than I am Princess Stéphanie of Monaco. So it can call itself "AT&T," but it's the Same Bulls**t Company it was before it bought the name.

Jim

I agree 100%. The old "Ma Bell" AT&T was a regulated monopoly and was respected. The owned Western Electric and Bell Labs; they did real R&D and invented things. This abomination named at&t is warmed over cr_p formerly called SBC. I have no use for them. John Dvorak summed it up best in his MarketWatch column:

"Let me try to summarize for the AT&T executives: If everyone hates your guts, don’t expect a helping hand when you are in trouble."
IMHO, at&t is an arrogant, clueless company that deserves to be split up and put out to pasture. They should forget about doing what only what is legal and instead doing what is right. Lord knows legal these days does not mean ethical or right.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA

Re: AT&T

The first us wireless carrier to ditch entirely limited text plans :-/
chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA
said by 88615298:

Or at&t could have used that $4 bil to improve it's network. You know like providing my area with at least 3G. Hey at&t you want to know why 90% of the people in my area choose Verizon over you there you go.

Sometimes at&t doesn't invest in infrastructure in areas where are needed and should bring profit. This is especially true for tourist resorts or small towns that have something going on for higher upper class or rich folks.

One of town like that is Galena, IL. Its in northwest illinois. There is Galena Territory with new houses and acres to purchase, they have there ski resorts, spa, golf, etc. Yet the town still till this day isn't wired with 3G service. Most areas don't have dsl, and the only ISP provider is shi**y cable provider Mediacom.

Interesting is also the fact that Dubuque, IA (thank god since I have to work there) got 3G service but does not have any at&t stores nearby. The closest one is in Cedar Rapids. Its perhaps because 3G did not come until january 2011. T-Mobile does not compete there (they have i-wireless (t-mobile's partner) that offers older phones and more expensive, less flexible plans especially for data, i-wireless is even still on EDGE there despite of population 50,000+). The only stores I see there are Verizon, Sprint and US Cellular.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: AT&T

said by chgo_man99:

said by 88615298:

Or at&t could have used that $4 bil to improve it's network. You know like providing my area with at least 3G. Hey at&t you want to know why 90% of the people in my area choose Verizon over you there you go.

Sometimes at&t doesn't invest in infrastructure in areas where are needed and should bring profit. This is especially true for tourist resorts or small towns that have something going on for higher upper class or rich folks.

Well we are not a tourist area and we don't have rich folks. Unlike T-mobile and Sprint which have ZERO service here and thus would be a huge expense to start to offer it, at&t does provide EDGE service here. So they have antennas they have towers here already. So how much of investment would it be to bring 3G or 4G here? It wasn't an issue for Verizon.
chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA

Re: AT&T

ah. VZW as CDMA had to use just software upgrade to upgrade CDMA2000 to EVDO. AT&T on other hand had to install new gear, because UMTS/WCDMA (3G) is backward incompatible with GSM despite being the "same family". Still both had to increase backhaul. For example, if you go to Japan or South Korea, who have UMTS/HSPA but no GSM, you won't be able to use phone if it has only gsm (2g) chip (like old BB Curve 8310). In Canada, CDMA carriers such as Bell or Telus implemented UMTS as 3G service unlike here in the US implemented only by GSM ones (att & t-mobile, the latter running on AWS though). When I went on trip to Canada my iphone 4 on at&t roamed between Telus and Rogers. They both cover quite large rural areas in southern Ontario with 3G! But I prefer smaller 3G nationwide footprint covering just urban and suburban areas to ridiculous overpriced regional roaming and LD charges. How can Canadians still tolerate and live with those plans in this modern age of mobility is way beyond my understanding!

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
"You know like providing my area"

That's the real root of why people don't want the merger. It's not about AT&T becoming bigger but what is AT&T going to do for them.

Greed on both sides of the table.

When it comes down to it I don't really care if the merger happens or it doesn't happen. I am not a customer of AT&T and I am not a customer of one of the companies that is crying about AT&T's merger.

jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

Re: AT&T

said by battleop:

It's not about AT&T becoming bigger but what is AT&T going to do for them.

Not really. It's more concern about what "AT&T" might do to them once it gains greater monopoly power.

said by battleop:

Greed on both sides of the table.

Not always and everywhere. For some, perhaps many, it's more a question of survival.

I've been at the tender mercies of "AT&T." No. Thanks.

said by battleop:

When it comes down to it I don't really care if the merger happens or it doesn't happen. I am not a customer of AT&T and I am not a customer of one of the companies that is crying about AT&T's merger.

Awfully short-sighted. Not currently, you're not. And do you not imagine that the existence of the competitors "AT&T" is trying to obliterate might have some positive effect on the competitiveness of whomever you are using?

Jim

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Re: AT&T

"Not currently, you're not."

It's not very likely that AT&T is going to buy Verizon.

Anyways I have never in 20 years had to pay for a single month of cell service. If an employer wants for me to be on call 24/7/365 then they provide my cell phone. So in the end I really don't care who the service is with as long as it works.

jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI
said by andyb:

Marketwatch has a good Commentary

AT&T’s $4 billion mess is of its own making
Commentary: Shareholders on hook, but AT&T is to blame.

By John C. Dvorak
BERKELEY, Calif. (MarketWatch) — If AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile fails, as appears likely, it will cost AT&T some $4 billion, according to the terms of the deal. If AT&T had spent half of that $4 billion on public relations in the first place, ...

Their hype and attempts at misdirection would still have been no more than hype and and attempts at misdirection, those objecting to it because it would be bad for everybody but "AT&T" would still be objecting to it, and "AT&T" would've wasted an additional $2b.

These people living in the Wall St. fantasy world are a hoot.

As for the alleged new proposal they're going to make: I hardly see how that changes anything.

Anybody notice the similarity between "AT&T" efforts and those of LightSquared? Both companies are proposing something that is manifestly, provably bad for everybody but them; are insisting that black is white and white is black; and, apparently, expecting to get what they want by sufficient application of smoke and mirrors. (And, one cannot help but suspect, bribes campaign contributions to politicians.)

Jim

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Cruel punishment?

Take that evil haX0r! No Facebook for you!