Comments for TLGDC's Blog

Comment on AT&T/T-Mobile: Putting Humpty Dumpty Back Together? by Matthew Toth

Matthew Toth — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:28:20 +0000

This merger should be denied by the FCC. What is AT&T gaining here other than some slight economies of scale? They are wiping out a competitor that serves a specific niche in the market – low cost nationwide service. This move was done because a $120 billion dollar company can’t show natural growth of 10% to antsy shareholders. This move will result in less choices and less competition. I can’t remember the last time anyone considered this a good thing in any industry.

Comment on Proposed Reporting & TRS Funding Obligations for Non-Interconnected VoIP Providers by VoIP Switch

VoIP Switch — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:34:38 +0000

Voip switch services helps us to communicate with people through internet

Comment on Rural Broadband Federal Legislative Update by The State of Public Broadcasting | Tao of the Original Tracy Tran

The State of Public Broadcasting | Tao of the Original Tracy Tran — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:49:54 +0000

[...] not only restore funding of public media to rural areas, but call upon officials to approve a Rural Broadband Initiative. This way, it will not only benefit the local stations that have few resources, but it improves [...]

Comment on CAN SPAM: What You Can Do About Unwanted Text Messages by Rick

Rick — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:50:54 +0000

Is there a pay-by-number phone lookup service? Most of these services ask at least for $14.95 for using it for just one number. Many of us wanting such a service will only use it once, so I think that a service that charges for just the number we want to lookup would be less expensive and more practical.

Also, the option of using PayPal should be included, as paying for these unknown services with a credit card will scare a lot of possible customers, like me.

If you know of such a service it would be nice to post it here.

Thanks.

Comment on California Appeals Court Rules: Some E-mails Not Protected by Attorney Client Privilege by Bob

Bob — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:12:46 +0000

The question at hand should be how was the expectable use policy written for the companies IT systems. If it was written so users are aware that there is no privacy and actions can/will be monitored then this is fair. If there was no expectation of privacy set then they should be able to assume there was privacy. Without a policy, they should question the legitimacy and scope of the search for emails.

From the technical precedence side emails are usually compared to phone calls. In CA there was a ruling that a tone was required when a call was recorded (California Public Utilities Commission General Order 107-B). The employer is also required to stop listening to personal calls once they’ve identified it as personal (Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577, 583 (11th Cir. 1983)). Shouldn’t this have impacted this? Unless the employer established a zero expectation of privacy policy, I think this is a bad precedence.

Comment on Mobile Service Alerts: Bill or Regulation Shock? by Jeff Means

Jeff Means — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:47:09 +0000

Just another example of government-intervention in our lives… all it takes is one “overage” for a cellular subscriber to learn how to use the tools already in place to monitor usage. We don’t need the GOVERNMENT requiring our cell providers to give us reminders… just leave us alone!

Comment on FCC Universal Service Fund Reform by tlgdc

tlgdc — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:00:25 +0000

We understand your frustration. Rightly or wrongly, however, the Universal Service goals as mandated by the 1996 Communications Act include promoting the availability of quality services at just, reasonable and affordable rates for all consumers; increasing nationwide access to advanced telecommunications services; and advancing the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas. Like most things, where you stand depends on where you sit. Most rural Americans with whom I’ve spoken want at least the same or similar telecom technology that is available in urban areas at comparable costs. Also, promoting rural broadband is a key initiative in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan. Fortunately, technology is bridging the distance gap, and wireless technology such as Wi-Fi and Wi-Max may help promote broadband deployment to rural areas in a cost efficient manner. The United States trails many other countries, including Finland and South Korea, in broadband penetration. We can, and should, do a better job of promoting and fostering broadband and other advanced technologies.

Comment on FCC Universal Service Fund Reform by Matthew Toth

Matthew Toth — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:54:37 +0000

Does anyone else have a problem with subsidizing rural American’s telecom needs? Put simply, we are giving rural America money to pay for a higher telecom bill. Doesn’t living in rural America mean that you’ve accepted the fact that you can’t have access to the same technology that urban America has? Can someone tell me what the difference is between this and cutting a check to rural America to help pay for their gasoline bill because their commute to work is typically longer?

Comment on Verizon to Pay Customers $21M for Early Termination Fee Policy by Kandi Urquilla

Kandi Urquilla — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:41:54 +0000

Spotted your blog via yahoo the other day and absolutely like it. Carry on the truly great work.

Comment on Broadband Priority Lanes: Super Toll Road or Road to Abilene? by holiday gift

holiday gift — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:02:29 +0000

Terrific, that’ s exactly what I was seeking for! You just spared me alot of work