From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 27 15:22:40 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3RJMdr14469; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:22:40 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404271922.i3RJMdr14469@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #211 TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:21:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 211 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: VoIP Analogy (Dave Phelps) Re: VoIP Analogy (Jack Decker) Re: VoIP Analogy (Barry Margolin) New to VOIP, Can I Use workgroup Hub Instead of Router? (dannykewl) Re: The GMail Saga (John Mayson) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (Mark Crispin) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (Joseph) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (Scott Dorsey) Qwest Drops Access Fees on 'Pure' VoIP (VOIP News) Qwest to Forgo Link-up Fee for Some Web Phone Calls (VOIP News) Nupoint Messenger 4.7 (RAH) LERG and NXX Routing Question (Brett N) Comcast Releasing its Own Set-Top Box (Monty Solomon) NAB Wrap-up (Monty Solomon) Under Assault: Cable is About to Get Whacked (Monty Solomon) Verizon Reports First-Quarter Revenue Growth of 3.9% (Monty Solomon) Digital Switch on Target Says BBC (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: VoIP Analogy Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:53:51 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com There is something missing in your analogy. That is the fact that G (government) sets the price A pays to use B's refrigerator space. A does not have the financial capacity to purchase it's own refrigerator, which is required to offer cold soda. Therefore, A is required to rent refrigerator space from B to chill the soda. However, the price B gets to charge is set by G (the government). The question is not whether B is subsidizing A, but has G set a fair wholesale price for the refrigerator space? Knowing the answer to the second question will provide the answer to the first. If you listen to B's spin doctors, G has set the price too low. If you listen to A's spin doctors, G has set the price too high. In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says: > Someone explained how VoIP (voice over Internet) isn't paying > its share of the costs by the following analogy. Not knowing > much about this, I'll leave it others to judge its validity. > Imagine two grocery stores, A & B, located across a street from > each other. > "A" sells soda pop at 50c a can on a shelf. "B" sells chilled > soda pop from a refrigerated display case at 75c a can. It was > found that customers seeking a chilled soda would buy it from "A" > at 50c, then go over and put it in the refrigerator at "B" to > cool it. Thus, "B" ended up selling its competitor's product -- > and extra expense -- but without the revenue. > Our telecom director emphasizes that the Internet is NOT free, and > VoIP represents an additional expense. Just because the end consumer > pays a flat rate (or nothing at all in the case of employees) doesn't > mean that a service is free. > The consumers putting soda in a frige to cool it think it isn't > costing anything, but it really is, especially when adding up many > consumers. Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:49:17 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: VoIP Analogy Pat, please withhold my e-mail address as usual. On 26 Apr 2004 09:32:30 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: > Someone explained how VoIP (voice over Internet) isn't paying > its share of the costs by the following analogy. Not knowing > much about this, I'll leave it others to judge its validity. I won't quote the entire grocery store analogy again, but without further clarification it makes very little sense to me at all. Who are the two grocery stores supposed to represent? What does the pop represent? I guess what I'm saying is that this analogy doesn't seem to be truly applicable to anything I'm aware of! > Our telecom director emphasizes that the Internet is NOT free, and > VoIP represents an additional expense. Just because the end consumer > pays a flat rate (or nothing at all in the case of employees) doesn't > mean that a service is free. Okay, I'm getting really sick of hearing this sort of nonsense. When someone makes a statement like that, my thought is that he's either an idiot or a penny pincher. "Pure" VoIP is simply data flowing over the Internet. As far as the Internet is concerned, it is no different from e-mail, instant messaging, web browsing, reading Usenet news, or any of the hundreds of other types of data that can be sent over the Internet. Now one could argue that it uses more bandwidth than the activities I just named, but then I could counter with examples like streaming audio, streaming video, large file downloads, online gaming, and certain other activities that people engage in. And we're not even talking about certain types of commercial and institutional usage that consume enormous amounts of bandwidth. To give but one example, there is a particular streaming audio feed that I listen to from time to time -- it just happens to play a type of music I enjoy when I'm in the right mood. The feed just happens to be in London, England. So I am using bandwidth on a transatlantic circuit just for my own enjoyment. Don't tell the penny-pinching telecom director, he'd probably have a heart attack (by the way, Lisa, I'm just curious, does anyone in your workplace listen to streaming audio feeds while working?). All VoIP is, when you get right down to it, is two-way streaming audio. But note that with VoIP, we're only looking for voice grade quality, not FM music quality, so the speech can be highly compressed. Furthermore, I believe that most VoIP protocols actually don't transmit "silence" during pauses in speech, and the VoIP adapters use "comfort noise generation" to fool you into thinking you're hearing background noise from the other end for the duration of the call. So a 20 minute VoIP call probably uses a LOT less bandwidth than if I listen to the streaming audio feed from London for 20 minutes (and when I have that feed on, it's usually for longer than 20 minutes!). > The consumers putting soda in a fridge to cool it think it isn't > costing anything, but it really is, especially when adding up many > consumers. Well, if I'm understanding the point being made here, this gets down to the old "measured service" vs. "flat rate" argument. Certainly, it does cost to add bandwidth to an Internet link. But it's not necessarily a recurring monthly cost (at least for the owner of the fiber, or whatever underlying transport medium is used) -- once the added capacity is installed, it can probably work for years. Now, if a company buys bandwidth on a metered basis (where they pay so much per gigabyte transferred, for example), then yes, the use of VoIP might cause their costs to increase a small amount (but I would bet the amount would be negligible compared to what they'd save in toll charges). It should be noted that most home users pay a flat monthly rate and get either unlimited usage, or usage with a fairly large cap (such caps are very controversial because often the broadband provider won't tell customers how much they're allowed to download before they've exceeded the cap!). Now as for those unfortunate users with usage caps, I have yet to hear anyone complain that the use of VoIP alone caused them to exceed their cap and get a nastygram from their ISP. Typically the people who are most affected by the caps are those who engage in extensive file trading (particularly of the type of files frowned upon by certain organizations with four-letter acronyms). Some people seem to object to VoIP because it's a commercial service -- someone dares to charge money and then use the Internet for transport! Well my take on that is, each and every broadband subscriber is paying for "transport service", and should therefore be able to use that transport for anything that can be converted to bits and bytes (with certain exceptions that have nothing to do with what we're talking about). One person uses their bandwidth for real-time online gaming, another for buying and selling on eBay, another for watching Major League Baseball games -- and note that all of those activities may involve payment to another entity, above and beyond the bandwidth. So far, to the best of my knowledge, no one has suggested that when Major League Baseball sells a $14.95/month subscription to MLB.TV off their web site, they should kick back some amount to the ISP. When you buy a book from Amazon, no one complains that they are getting a free ride because you're using the Internet to browse their catalog. When some gaming company sells a subscription to an interactive online game service, nobody seems to question that. And yet, let someone do two-way audio over the Internet for the purpose of voice communications and suddenly certain special interests want to accuse them of being thieves or worse. For some reason certain people want to portray VoIP as different from *every other application* that sends data over the Internet, including those that send real-time audio and/or video. I'm afraid I just don't have a lot of patience with such folks. I figure they are either blathering idiots who have bought into the propaganda being spewed by some of the incumbent phone companies, or they have some financial interest in preserving the status quo. Okay, maybe I'm being a little harsh, maybe they've just never thought of it the way I've just explained it. But if they haven't put that much thought into it, then they ought not to be pontificating to others and displaying their ignorance for all to see (by the way, I am NOT talking about Lisa, who posted the message I'm responding to - she's just repeating something she was told by someone else, someone who probably ought to know better but apparently doesn't). Please keep this in mind: If by some really crazy turn of events VoIP is treated differently from every other application using the Internet, and required to pay for "transport" above and beyond what everyone else pays, how long do you think it will be before your ISP starts wanting to be paid by every content provider on the Internet? Once the ISP's decide they can collect at both ends on one type of application, what's to stop them from asking for money from every web site and every Internet-based service you want to access (or at least the popular and profitable ones)? Now please note that I have so far not addressed the issue of access charges that may come into play when a VoIP provider hands calls off to the PSTN. That is an entirely separate issue, and in regard to that, I'm hoping that sooner or later everyone goes to a "bill and keep" system because I think we are at, or getting very close to the point where the cost of metering a call is more than the cost of transporting the call (and the more that VoIP replaces circuit-switched telephony, the more true that will be). But there are many Internet applications that use as much or more bandwidth than VoIP and to single out VoIP as somehow not deserving of bandwidth or getting a "free ride" when all those other applications do exactly the same thing is totally ridiculous. If someone wants to complain about high bandwidth applications in general that's one thing, but it seems to me that VoIP is a lot more useful (and a lot less frivolous) than many of the other bandwidth-consuming apps out there. Jack Decker ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: VoIP Analogy Organization: Looking for work Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:38:16 -0400 In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: > Someone explained how VoIP (voice over Internet) isn't paying > its share of the costs by the following analogy. Not knowing > much about this, I'll leave it others to judge its validity. > Imagine two grocery stores, A & B, located across a street from > each other. > "A" sells soda pop at 50c a can on a shelf. "B" sells chilled > soda pop from a refrigerated display case at 75c a can. It was > found that customers seeking a chilled soda would buy it from "A" > at 50c, then go over and put it in the refrigerator at "B" to > cool it. Thus, "B" ended up selling its competitor's product -- > and extra expense -- but without the revenue. This seems like a very flawed analogy. First, B could charge for use of a refrigerator (how many grocery stores really allow people to come in and put random products in the fridge?). Second, chilled soda is a value-added product, and the value is in time -- you don't have to wait for the soda to cool down (who wants to buy a can of soda and wait an hour to drink it?). > Our telecom director emphasizes that the Internet is NOT free, and > VoIP represents an additional expense. Just because the end consumer > pays a flat rate (or nothing at all in the case of employees) doesn't > mean that a service is free. In what way is VoIP an "additional" expense? If you're calling another VoIP user, it's just an Internet-based application, and it's no more additional than HTTP or SMTP is. If you're calling someone with a POTS phone, you eventually have to go through a gateway run by your VoIP provider; they have to pay for those phone lines, and they charge their customers for the privilege of using them. They purchase these lines in bulk at a flat rate, and can then pass that flat rate on to their customers. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** ------------------------------ From: dannykewl Subject: New to Voip, Can I Use Workgroup Hub Instead of Router? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 02:08:20 -0400 Organization: Cox Communications Hi, I'm a complete noob at this, and hope this isn't one of those questions that come up "too much". I have cable broadband (Cox Cable Ohio), and a Pentium 4 w/ Win XP Pro. I just ordered phone service via www.packet8.net, seems like a great deal for $20 a month. They say I need a router, but provide the DTA (?) adapter to plug a normal phone into the system. I'm waiting for the DTA adaptor to arrive. Years ago I bought a used PC from a friend, and I was given a bunch of extra goodies with it, and included was a Linksys EW5HUB 5 Port Workgroup Hub. It has an Uplink connection, and 5 "ports"' all which look like they take that oversize type phone connector. I got a bunch of cables with it, but never used it for anything. My question is, can I use this instead of having to buy a router? Or will I still need a router to have 2 outputs to get Net and phone? If not, is the hub of any value, say to let me share my cable Internet connection with another pc? Thanks much, Dan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is exactly what I was doing when I first started with Vonage. Except I had a Linksys combination 'hub' and router. I had all my computers hooked together through this network arrangement (which by coincidence, Microsoft also called 'Workgroup'). I used one of the idle, extra ports or sockets on this 'hub' to attach my (then) Cisco ATA box and telephone. You need to make certain the TA device can see through any firewalls you have and can look around the (outside, wide area) net to find the company you are using, which I think you said was 'Packet8'. As long as the TA box can see outside, and outside can see it, then it should work okay. Where my trouble came up was when the computers, doing their daily duties began to contend for the bandwidth with little Vonage. They would shove it out of the way when they wanted to FTP a large image file every ten or fifteen seconds. So I wound up having to swap out my obsolete Cisco ATA box for one of Vonage's newer models, a Motorola MTA box. By that point I had also swapped out my Linksys hub/router/firewall combination for a NetGear combination of the same thing. But the problems continued, with Vonage getting shoved out of the way when the Win98 or Win2000 (or even the little Win95) wanted to do its thing. But the Motorola MTA acts like a stop and go traffic signal, making the big guys wait their turn when the Vonage is out there speaking. It appears to sit at the head of the line and in effect serves as my internal network, of which the Netgear (and its various computers) are like a sub-net under it. However you arrange yours, make sure the TA can see the outside net and vice versa. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Mayson Subject: Re: The GMail Saga Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:00:37 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com > I enjoyed Brad's article. Especially exposing the pieces I don't > think about. I have Google email. I don't click on the adsense ads > in GMail or in standard Google searches because they cost those folks > money. They hope to make some money when I click through and buy > something, but I feel guilty clicking on one when I know I'm probably > not going to buy based on that link. I enjoyed the article for the same reasons. I haven't seen any ads yet. I assumed that would turn on when the service went live. > John's comment about lack of signature caught me off guard. I hadn't > even noticed. I wonder which of John's comments have been forwarded > to the suggestion team at GMail? It isn't a public service yet. It > is only open by invitation, and each Google employee is limited in > their number of invitations. The bugs that I've noted have been fixed > almost immediately. The suggestions that haven't been implemented > have been answered with personalized explanations. Oddly, the bug > fixes are sometimes not acknowledged, just fixed. Yes, I passed them along and got a quick response which did appear to be canned. I could be wrong. (I usually am ;-) I still don't know how I "qualified" for an account. I guess I can thank Pat! He mentioned blogging and as a result I revived by Blogger account. It was through this Blogger account that I was offered the account. > I use GMail. I won't do the personal things there that I might do on > my home email, because I consider mail storage with a million users a > much more attractive safe to crack than my home PC. I'll just hide > over here, thanks. But for general chatting about the weather, and > transferring large files, it's a pretty cool deal. I'm using it the same way. I moved my YahooGroups to my GMail account. I figure that is public information anyway, there's little harm to using GMail. I did send a few messages to friends basically saying, "Nah, nah, na-nah, nah, I have a GMail and you-u-u-u don't!" Okay, I wasn't that childish. But some of them are jealous. ;-) I would never use GMail for banking. I don't mind using it for mailing lists and general chatter. I do have some mail files I wouldn't mind uploading to GMail if that were possible. It's benign stuff and GMail would be a good place to store them. But I prefer to hide and encrypt on my own computer (PDA actually). John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wish someone would offer me a GMail account. Can you use POP to get into it and read it from other sites, for example. I suppose not, because then you would miss the advertising they do. Still, it sounds like a reasonable deal. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:04:53 -0700 Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, J Kelly wrote: > Unless you are primarily watching 16:9 programming, I would stick with > 4:3. The writing is on the wall long-term for 4:3 TV programming. I would not yet recommend replacing a working 4:3 set with a 16:9 set yet (the prices are still a bit high) but I would certainly not recommend buying a premium 4:3 set today. > My dad bought a 16:9 and it is terribly annoying to watch 99.5% > of programming on that thing, it squashes the picture to make it wider > so everyone looks 25 lbs overweight. That's due to how he has the TV set up. A 16:9 TV typically has four modes when displaying 4:3 programming: . "full" or "wide" - this is the annoying behavior you saw . "justify" - the center is in normal proportion but the edges are stretched out even more than "full". Many people find this less obnoxious than "full". . "zoom" - the top and bottom are cropped, filling the screen in natural proportion at the cost of losing some picture. This is good for watching widescreen programming that has been letterboxed in 4:3. . "4:3" or "vertical fit" - this leaves grey or black bars at each side, thus displaying a normal 4:3 picture. This is what videophiles tend to prefer. If your TV allows grey bars, this is better on the phosphors than black. Generally, a TV automatically displays 16:9 programming in "full" mode even when you have the setup mode set to 4:3. This is also the case when there is 1080i input to the TV (e.g. HDTV). -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:57:02 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:04:51 -0500, J Kelly wrote: > Unless you are primarily watching 16:9 programming, I would stick with > 4:3. My dad bought a 16:9 and it is terribly annoying to watch 99.5% > of programming on that thing, it squashes the picture to make it wider > so everyone looks 25 lbs overweight. PC Magazine just did an article > on TV displays and they recommend 4:3 for most people unless they have > a compelling reason to need 16:9. I really thought I wanted > widescreen until I watched my dad's set for a couple of days. Now I > just plan to buy a bigger 4:3 set, something large enough to still I find myself that watching modern "hi def" programming that uses the aspect ration of 1:78/1 the width of the black letterboxing bars is not very objectionable at all on a TV which is made for 1:33/1 i.e. standard TV. > look okay for the widescreen stuff I do watch (mostly DVD's). remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: 27 Apr 2004 15:00:03 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) In article , J Kelly wrote: > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:45:57 +0000 (UTC), hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E > Schaffer) wrote: >> I'm with Clarence. We are considering replacing our 1987 Sears 27" >> (something around that size) -- and one of our delays is trying to >> decide on what aspect ratio we want or need (4:3 or 16:9). (That's >> another thing which may change in the few years.) > Unless you are primarily watching 16:9 programming, I would stick with > 4:3. My dad bought a 16:9 and it is terribly annoying to watch 99.5% > of programming on that thing, it squashes the picture to make it wider > so everyone looks 25 lbs overweight. This SHOULD NOT be the case and is a matter of misconfiguration. It should just letterbox the image so that there are black bars on either side. PC Magazine just did an article: > on TV displays and they recommend 4:3 for most people unless they > have a compelling reason to need 16:9. I really thought I wanted > widescreen until I watched my dad's set for a couple of days. Now I > just plan to buy a bigger 4:3 set, something large enough to still > look okay for the widescreen stuff I do watch (mostly DVD's). Tell your dad to page through the menus and get his TV set up correctly. This is not the sort of thing anyone should ever have to tolerate. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:45:32 -0400 Subject: Qwest Drops Access Fees on 'Pure' VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-5200236.html By Ben Charny CNET News.com Qwest Communications International has stopped levying expensive access charges on Internet phone calls made to its customers. In addition, the phone company plans to charge commercial voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers a cheaper rate for its local services, it announced. With so-called pure VoIP, voice communications completely bypass the traditional phone network and flow entirely over the Internet. Qwest's goal is twofold, said company Senior Vice President Steve Davis. It wants to set a precedent for federal regulators now drafting Net phone policies, and it's hoping that cheaper prices will attract more business from commercial Net phone providers. Full story at: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-5200236.html How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:29:36 -0400 Subject: Qwest to Forgo Link-up Fee For Some Web Phone Calls Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001913535_qwestnetcalls27.html By Scott Lanman Bloomberg News WASHINGTON Qwest said it won't bill other carriers for fees of about a half-cent per minute to connect callers who use a high-speed Internet connection to reach Qwest local-telephone customers. Qwest, the fourth-largest U.S. local-telephone company, said in a statement that it is urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt similar rules nationally. Denver-based Qwest is using the policy in its local-service territory, which covers 14 Western states, including Washington. Qwest is the only one of the four regional-phone carriers known as Baby Bells to adopt such a stance. The move comes as Internet-phone startups such as Vonage increasingly take customers from local carriers, who are also starting to offer similar services, as Qwest has done. The move won't have a big financial effect on the company because less than 1 percent of Qwest's call-connection fees come from Internet-phone services, Qwest Senior Vice President Steven Davis said. The company collects several hundred million dollars annually in total fees, said Davis, who couldn't immediately provide a precise number. "We're trying to set this policy here at the beginning," Davis said in an interview. The policy would speed the spread of so-called Voice-over-Internet-Protocol, or VoIP, services, and would benefit customers, the industry and Qwest, the company said. Full story at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001913535_qwestnetcalls27.html ------------------------------ From: dellrich@eastlink.ca (RAH) Subject: Nupoint Messenger 4.7 Date: 27 Apr 2004 06:54:19 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Trying to get our Mitel voicemail to send a notification page on receipt of a message. System will dial out, but not send the dtmf tones once the pager line picks up. Is there some special code required for this? ------------------------------ From: brettlist@nemeroff.com (Brett N) Subject: LERG and NXX Routing Question Date: 27 Apr 2004 08:09:01 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi All, I'm hoping someone can answer a "simple" LERG question for me. I'm simply tring to build my routing tables so that I know what tandem to send what traffic to. I'm tring to route both Local and IntraLata Toll Traffic, which of the following fields in LERG 7 SHA should I use to indicate the proper homing tandem for this type of traffic: 7. Originating Feature Group B Tandem 8. Originating Feature Group C Tandem 9. Originating Feature Group D Tandem 10. Originating Operator Services Tandem 11. Originating FG B Intermediate Tandem 12. Originating FG C Intermediate Tandem 13. Originating FG D Intermediate Tandem 14. Originating Local Tandem 15. Originating IntraLATA Tandem 16. Orig. Circuit Switched Data Tandem 17. filler 18. Terminating Feature Group B Tandem 19. Terminating Feature Group C Tandem 20. Terminating Feature Group D Tandem 21. Terminating Operator Services Tandem 22. Terminating FG B Intermediate Tandem 23. Terminating FG C Intermediate Tandem 24. Terminating FG D Intermediate Tandem 25. Terminating Local Tandem 26. Terminating IntraLATA Tandem 27. Term. Circuit Switched Data Tandem 28. filler 29. Host Thanks, Brett ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:00:23 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Comcast Releasing its Own Set-Top Box SATELLITE RIVALS GET COMPETITION By Sam Diaz Mercury News After raising rates twice in a year and watching customers flee to the competition, Comcast thinks it has a new cable television box that customers will want -- and will never want to give up. The box won't be widely available until the end of the year, but the news that Comcast is preparing to offer a state-of-the-art entertainment system through a set-top box should grab the attention of satellite TV providers DirecTV and Dish Network, as well as San Jose's TiVo. Comcast is expected to announce today that it will test the Moxi Media Center, offering TV viewers enough features to make DirecTV's TiVo box and Dish Network's own DVR look primitive. http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/8521855.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:03:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: NAB Wrap-Up From Broadcasting & Cable , April 26, 2004 By Ken Kerschbaumer There is the power of positive thinking -- and the power of positive products. For the nearly 98,000 attendees at the National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas, new technology fueled high spirits. After all, the industry has been hurt in recent years by a poor economy and broadcasters' preoccupation with DTV and HDTV transmission. Today, the DTV transmission transition is largely over. More than 1,200 broadcasters air digital signals. For manufacturers of cameras, switchers, editing systems, and graphics tools, that spells renewed interest in their gear as stations prepare for the next phase of the DTV transition: HDTV production. The one clear message on the NAB show floor was that high-definition equipment is here-and it's cost-effective. http://www.freepress.net/news/article.php?id=3277 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:04:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Under Assault: Cable is About to Get Whacked > From Broadcasting & Cable , April 26, 2004 By John Higgins Cable is about to get whacked. For years, cable networks exploited their immunity from the indecency restrictions that broadcast networks face, luring audience with edgier fare. Now Congress, the FCC, and advocacy groups are plotting a new assault on the cable industry. And networks like MTV, HBO, Comedy Central, and FX fear that the ride is coming to an end. Indecency critics-successful at clamping down on the broadcast networks-are trying to crack down on all television. Key critics-from FCC Chairman Michael Powell to House Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) to groups like the Parents Television Council-see no difference between broadcast and cable television and are calling for new, toughened standards. http://www.freepress.net/news/article.php?id=3276 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:31:35 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon Reports First-Quarter Revenue Growth of 3.9% Verizon Reports First-Quarter Revenue Growth of 3.9%, Including Industry-Leading Wireless Revenue Growth of $1.1 Billion - Apr 27, 2004 07:25 AM (PR Newswire) Company Posts Record Gains in DSL Lines, Continued Double-Digit Revenue Growth in Long-Distance, Solid Operating Income Margins First-Quarter Highlights * Verizon Wireless: Industry-leading first-quarter record of 1.4 million total net customer additions (1.2 million retail net additions), up 66.5 percent from last year's quarter; customers total nearly 39 million; lowest churn in industry; record-high revenue growth of 21.2 percent and operating income margin of 19.5 percent * Broadband DSL (digital subscriber lines): Company-record 345,000 net additions; nearly 2.7 million total lines * Long-Distance: 13.3 percent growth in revenues; 1.0 million net lines added in quarter; 17.6 million total lines * Total Company: 3.9 percent growth in operating revenues; 43 cents in fully diluted earnings per share, or 58 cents per share before special items (non-GAAP measure); operating income margin of 14.6 percent, or adjusted operating income margin of 20.4 percent excluding pension/other post-retirement benefit (OPEB) expense (non-GAAP measure) * Total Debt: $44.5 billion; $8.8 billion reduction over 12 months Notes: Growth percentages cited above compare first-quarter 2004 with first-quarter 2003. See the schedules accompanying this news release and www.verizon.com/investor for reconciliations to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the non-GAAP financial measures mentioned in this announcement. NEW YORK, April 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Driven by its highest year-over-year revenue growth in three years, Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE:VZ) today reported first-quarter 2004 earnings per share of 43 cents, or 58 cents per share before special and non-recurring items. For the quarter, Verizon's reported earnings were $1.2 billion. Earnings for the quarter were $1.6 billion before a net of 15 cents per share in special and non-recurring items, primarily for previously announced pension settlements associated with a voluntary separation plan under which more than 21,000 employees left the payroll in the fourth quarter 2003. Revenue Growth Consolidated operating revenues increased 3.9 percent in the first quarter 2004 to $17.1 billion, compared with $16.5 billion in the first quarter 2003. This was Verizon's highest reported quarterly growth rate since the first quarter 2001. Verizon Wireless was the main driver of this increase, posting total revenue growth of 21.2 percent, to $6.2 billion in the first quarter 2004, up $1.1 billion compared with $5.1 billion in the first quarter 2003. Domestic Telecom revenues decreased 3.3 percent to $9.6 billion in the first quarter 2004, compared with the first quarter 2003. Verizon's overall top-line growth was supported by increases in wireline long-distance and broadband. Long-distance revenues increased 13.3 percent, from $0.9 billion in first-quarter 2003 to $1.0 billion in first-quarter 2004, as Verizon added a net of 1.0 million long-distance lines in the quarter, for a total of 17.6 million long-distance lines. In the first quarter, Verizon also added a company-record net of 345,000 DSL lines, for a total of 2.7 million DSL lines. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41176127 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 04:20:46 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Digital Switch on Target says BBC The BBC has said it is on target to achieve switchover from analogue to digital television by 2010. In its first report on the switchover, the BBC described progress as "astonishing", stating it "puts the UK in an enviable position". But the report to Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell stressed the industry and government must work together if it is to be achieved within the timeframe. It lists a number issues which need addressing to achieve the switchover. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3659895.stm ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #211 ******************************