From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 22 17:52:35 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i7MLqZg05601; Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:52:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:52:35 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408222152.i7MLqZg05601@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 #394 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:52:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 394 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Web Phones Connect on Buzz Circuit (Jack Decker-VOIP News) Vonage - Area Codes (Matt B.) Hunt Group / Trunk Group (zombie) International Call Forwarding (Divert) to US, UK or Germany (Helman) Political Advocacy Group (Ned Protter) Microsoft Changed My Mind (SELLCOM Tech support) Re: Verizon Cable TV? (Danny Burstein) Re: Verizon Cable TV? (Steven J Sobol) Re: Verizon Cable TV? (Neal McLain) Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake (Steven J Sobol) Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake (Joseph) Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake (Earle Robinson) 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: Jack Decker@VOIP News Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:01:17 PDT Subject: Web Phones Connect on Buzz Circuit Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com VoIP technology excites many, though there is a fear of dot-comlike hysteria By Jon Van Tribune staff reporter Running a telecom equipment company seldom elicits much excitement from ordinary people. But these days, when the conversation turns to the business of making phone calls over the Internet, a telecom executive can become the life of the party. "When someone heard I was in telecom, they'd ask what they should buy to invest" in Internet phone calling, said Westell Technologies' Van Cullens of a recent trip back to his hometown in Georgia. "It's a hot topic." It is more like a gold rush, and a lot of people are looking for nuggets. Commonly known as VoIP, for voice over Internet protocol, the technology that routes phone calls over the Web has generated a powerful buzz. Phone giants like AT&T Corp. are building a new business around Internet telephony, start-ups are abundant and cable companies are beginning to launch phone services through high-speed Web connections. Entrepreneurs and investors are drawn to Internet telephony because there's no clear industry leader and the technology is in its infancy, providing an attractive target for innovation -- and investment. Yet the sudden interest in VoIP is reminiscent of the dot-com euphoria that led to an ever-escalating stock market in the late 1990s and into 2000. And that worries veteran telecom executives like Cullens, who fears the hyperbole percolating through the media and Wall Street is starting to put air into another bubble. "Everybody's running around thinking there's going to be a quick buck here," he said. "But this isn't a revolution, it's an evolution. There are too many unresolved issues for this to happen quickly." Still, Cullens believes Internet telephony is the industry's future. His Aurora (Illinois) firm said two weeks ago it will partner with a pioneering VoIP company to develop a suite of Internet telephony equipment for carriers like SBC Communications Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. The telecom industry, which is only now emerging from the deep slump following the bust of the dot-com bubble, both craves and fears VoIP. Revenue a concern Internet telephony moves voice over networks in data packets identical to how information moves for e-mail and Web pages. It offers lower costs and versatility that could inject telecom with new vitality. But implementing VoIP will cost billions, and it's unclear how carriers will generate new revenue. No one has devised a business plan outlining how carriers can make big money. That deficiency, which was the hallmark of the dot-com boom, is making insiders nervous. Big phone companies make three-fourths of their money with voice service, and those revenues are shrinking significantly. Long-distance companies, including giants like AT&T and MCI, are financially shaky because their calling revenues are rapidly declining. Local companies like SBC and Verizon, once accustomed to adding new phone lines, are now subtracting them. If anything, VoIP will accelerate these trends, said Rob Marano, director of global restructuring services for PricewaterhouseCoopers. "So when vendors roll out VoIP, with prices going down, where is the revenue going to come from to pay for the new equipment? That's the big unknown." While VoIP has been around for several years, users comprise only a few percent of the tens of millions using traditional phone service. Even so, the new technology has generated a powerful buzz. The buzz began last year with Vonage, an upstart offering inexpensive calling packages through an Internet voice service. VoIP recently was embraced by AT&T, which is exiting its traditional consumer phone business, and now promotes VoIP as an alternative. How many will fail? Most recognize there's no way that everyone jumping into VoIP -- or even a majority -- can succeed. "It's a dangerous space," said David Helfrich, managing director of Garnett & Helfrich Capital, a Silicon Valley investment partnership. "VoIP is going to happen because it's great technology and clearly the future. "But it's visible to everyone in the marketplace and there's a lot of competition. I prefer to find a niche with less competition and use that as a base and grow from there." Because so many businesses and investors were burned by dot-com mania, entrepreneurs are seeking new strategies. HyperEdge Corp., a small telecom company in Itasca, brought in a new president and vice president with experience in Silicon Valley-style start-ups. The company wants to develop VoIP technology and sell it to the likes of SBC and Verizon. The new executives went to HyperEdge as a vehicle to create VoIP technology because it's been in business for more than a decade. The company has a history of selling dull but profitable equipment to telecom carriers. "To innovate and produce new, disruptive technology, you have to be small and agile," said Marty Hahnfeld, HyperEdge's new president. "But doing this with a start-up company would be difficult because large carriers don't like doing business with start-ups. "Too many carriers got burned recently when they bought technology from companies that went out of business. Also, by working through HyperEdge, we can develop technology more quickly and with less expense because we don't have to raise funding," he said. "We call this an inverse start-up." Hahnfeld's strategy makes sense, said venture investor Peter Fuss, former president of Tellabs International. "We used to call it a restart," Fuss said. "It's a good strategy because customer relationships are very important." Larry Strickling, a former SBC executive who also headed the telecom agency at the Federal Communications Commission, said "the problem for any start-up trying to work for a Bell company is the lack of a track record. The Bells don't want any undue risk and are always more comfortable working with a company they already know." While established vendors like HyperEdge and Westell work to develop VoIP technology, there's no shortage of entrepreneurs using the same start-up route so many traveled during the dot-com run-up. "We're pursuing VoIP ourselves," said Joseph D'Angelo, managing partner of Alvarez & Marsal, a New York-based restructuring firm. "There are lots of start-ups out there. Some have enough critical mass that I think they'll succeed. "Some late entry start-ups may need to go to established companies to partner just because they're a little late to the race. No one has cornered the VoIP market." While carriers fret over revenue potential, consumers may be disappointed that VoIP underdelivers on promises of cheaper calling rates. That's because most calls made from a VoIP service end up going to someone with traditional phone service, said Jim Andrew, vice president with Adventis, a telecom consultancy in Boston. "The cost of carrying a VoIP call isn't significantly lower than for a traditional call," Andrew said. "That's because 96 percent of VoIP calls end up on a traditional phone line. "The real benefits of VoIP won't be felt until a majority of people use it. Whether that'll be 10 years from now or 30, I'm not sure. But it won't happen in two years. "A lot of people are acting as if it will." - - - Telecom Giants Hook up With VoIP VoIP, or voice over Internet protocol, allows voice communications using the same technology to package and send data, such as e-mail, over networks. Nearly every company involved in telecom is adopting Internet telephony technology in some way. Here is a sampling: AT&T Corp. is withdrawing from offering traditional long-distance and local phone service to consumers, but has moved aggressively into offering VoIP. Cisco Systems Inc. is the leading supplier of VoIP equipment to the enterprise market and seeks to supply carriers as well. Comcast Corp., the country's largest cable TV operator, is testing VoIP in several markets and plans to roll out service next year. Covad Communications Group Inc., a competitive telecom carrier, recently launched a VoIP product aimed at small to medium-size businesses. -- Jon Van Copyright (c) 2004, Chicago Tribune *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance, Chicago Tribune Company. For more information on copyright law go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 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: Matt B. Subject: Vonage - Area Codes Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:22:27 -0400 Pat, Please hide my e-mail address. Thanks. All, I've had Vonage for about 2 years now. I signed up with a 631 area code (Suffolk County, NY). About a year after I signed up, I moved to Philadelphia so I added a virtual area code (215). Nobody has the 631 number as I never gave it out when I had it, and the 215 number is what I use. I called Vonage to have them remove the 631 and put the 215 as the primary phone number. They told me they can not do this. Has anyone had any experience with this or gotten this done? If you want to reply off-list, e-mail to moc.oohay@02091bttam (backwards) Thanks! Matt B. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Exactly, precisely the same problem. I started Vonage two years ago with a 415 San Francisco number when the company only had east/west coast numbers, and nothing in the middle of the USA at all, because I thought maybe I would some day visit San Francisco again. And I had a Chicago area 773 number since some family and friends are sill in the Chicago area. Then one day Vonage announced they were expanding thier service to include the southeast Kansas area, with numbers in the 620-402 exchange, which is relatively local to where I actually live. So in addiion to my 'virtual' area 773 number I got a 'virtual' 620-402 number and kept my primary 415 number. But I did not want to spend that much money on phone service each month (although for the time being I am getting by on 'next month free' e-coupon proceeds from Vonage.) So I asked Vonage to drop the 415 primary number, make 620 the new primary number and retain 773 as a virtual number. Vonage said the same thing to me: "we cannot do that". We reasoned together for a while, then they said "We will ask our technical guru to try and make this happen." It took them (or their guru to be exact) a full two or three weeks to make it happen. During that two or three week period, although my Vonage phone *did* work both directions, the web page interface was *very confused*, at times claiming I had no primary numbers; other times claiming I had two or three primary numbers. As often as not, voice mail could not be retrieved either on the phone or on the web page. Finally after much effort and several trouble ticket calls by me, the 415 number eventually vanished and the 620 number became primary. But it was a challenge, to say the least. I think (not certain) I saw something on one of their web pages a while back which said they could change the primary number and another of their web pages which said they could not change it. In any event I do not think they *like* changing a primary number. After all the commotions in my case, I rewarded them by taking yet another virtual number for a toll free 888 line, which was an easy, thirty- second job, but they get another five dollars per month out of my e-coupon residual account. I'd say in general don't press your luck on that primary number change. If it is totally essential to you, then I would suggest *closing* your one account totally and *opening* a new account in the desired area code. PAT] ------------------------------ From: zombie Subject: Hunt Group / Trunk Group Date: 21 Aug 2004 21:51:21 -0700 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Hi Folks, I am new to the world of telecom products and protocols. Would like to know the difference between a trunk group and a hunt group. Are there any good articles on the internet that discuss the following topics. Any books regarding these topics ... Would appreciate any good pointers. Zombie ------------------------------ Subject: International Call Forwarding (Divert) to US, UK or Germany Needed From: David Helman Organization: NY Office Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:56:39 GMT Hello, I have a customer with special requirement. I need to get one telephone number in as many countries as possible (except the US, UK, and Germany) to forward a call to either my telephone number (DID) in either the US, UK, or Germany (whichever is cheaper). There are several ways to do this, but I think this would be the best and cheapest way: Have the local phone company install a single telephone line (POTS). This could be at a home or business (which ever is cheaper/easier). This telephone line should have call forwarding (maybe known as call divert, or something else by your local phone company). Once this is done, I will ask that the phone number be forwarded to a telephone number (direct dial to a DID) in either the US, UK, or Germany, depending on which is the least expensive call from your country. I of course will pay for the cost to install the service and all usage charges. In addition, I will pay a 10% premium over the cost of the service or if you prefer, provide you with a free voice mail number in New York, London, or Germany (your choice) with messages forwarded to you via e-mail. This is a USD$ 15 monthly value. While neither the 10% or free voice mail is a lot of compensation, you would have helped me a great deal in meeting the special requirement of one of my customers, which would be very much appreciated by me and my customer. If you are willing to help, please advise me of an estimate of any one- off installation charges, monthly costs, and per minute call forwarding cost to US/UK/Germany. I would prefer to pay the telephone companies directly via my credit card, but if this is not possible, I can pay you via PayPal or other means in advance so that you are not out of pocket. For general questions, please reply to this posting or e-mail me at callforwarding@nyoffice.com Thanks for reading! David ------------------------------ From: Ned Protter Subject: Political Advocacy Group Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:00:41 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Today when I answered the phone,the caller asked "Ned?" I assumed it was an acquaintance who thought he recognized my voice. He said he wondered if I was interested in voting for candidates with realistic health-care plans. I said I was interested and would like to know where to find out more about where the candidates stood. He said he wasn't allowed to tell me. I said I could try Google but would appreciate it if he could give me a hint. He said he couldn't. He gave figures about how many people in my state had trouble affording health care and asked if he could count on me as a member of the citizens' group pledged to vote for candidates with realistic plans. I said sure. I found it peculiar that he did not ask me to affirm who I was and would not tell me where to find out what plans were realistic. Call Return said the number could not be given. It it legal for a political advocacy group to block its number? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You *may* have gotten burned by someone who is seeking your whereabouts. These are purely hypothetical examples: An investigator or bill collector is looking for you. He does not want to say why; he just wants to confirm that your working telephone number is in fact *you*, not someone who knows you or some new person who took over your number. If he asked for 'Ned?" when he called, and you answered affirmatively, then he got the answer he was seeking; the rest of the conversation was just bulljive to keep you from getting suspicious about his true purpose in calling. I've had calls like that, unknown females (in most instances) who ask in a sort of whiny, plaintiff voice "hello Pat ... " or "Pat? ..." before they say anything else. My response to *any caller whose voice I do not instantly recognize* is to demand, "who is calling please and the purpose of your call?" Either they answer, or they stall for time, and my subsequent conversations with the caller are predicated on that. As I said, just a hypothetical example. Any unknown voice who uses my name in their opening line is just like someone who sends me email with my name (or some variation on my name) in the subject line of email. They're up to no good, or spammers or telemarketers. Last time a question like this about 'is it allowed to do this' came in I told the person (you?) that is what *67 is for. I was promptly corrected by folks who told me about new laws forbidding telemarketers from blocking their ID. I do not know where 'political advocacy groups' fit in the spectrum of telephone pests. PAT] ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Microsoft Changed My Mind Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:11:01 GMT I hope this subject is not too much of a stretch for this forum but it seems consistent with certain types of threads here. I just went from a "poor Microsoft why are they persecuting it" to a "Microsoft is really really dangerous and something needs to be done" in only a few short hours. What caused this great change of heart you might ask? The answer is "XP". I held out for as long as I could without buying it, but ... I had a simple motherboard problem so I simply removed the hard disk on that machine and moved it to one of the little used computers. Then, not only do I have the effort etc of the reconfig, I have this garbage where I have to call Microsoft and explain to them why I am requesting an activation code for software that I BOUGHT AND PAID FOR! What if the phones had been down ... etc ... Then I am advised that someone had been using that "little used" computer and had extremely important work on it. So I take the other computer, fix it, and then put the hard disk back in that computer. Sooo ... then we have the same Microsoft garbage that I only have "three days to activate". I figure it is best to set up networking first so I click no to the reactivate now planning to do it later but install some Windows update that it had there. The next reboot it would not let me log on unless I activated, minutes later not "three days". Of course I called the phone number and wasted more of my time. But this is software I PAID FOR! If this kind of thing doesn't scare you, you are not paying attention. I admit that I was not paying attention before enjoying all the free updates and cool software etc and etc ... The next time I read of some patriot trying to bust the Microsoft monopoly I will have a whole new attitude. Steve Winter (The opinions expressed here are not necessarily the opinions of any company express or implied, but they SHOULD BE!) http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, AT&T, Panasonic, Motorola Vtech 5.8Ghz; TMC ET4000 4line Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, Beamer, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Uniden 2line 5.8GHz cordless If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have been told by people who know how to generate Microsoft 'product keys' that if you have a good, working product key it will work on other copies of the same product; that the product key is not peculiar to the individual disk. I am told that a product key is based on some mathematical formula (like a credit card 'check digit'); that I could install XP and later when you decided to install your copy of XP you could use my product key number. I know that when I installed my copy of Win 98 on a different laptop it worked just fine. Now when I recently attempted to install Win 98 on an old IBM Think Pad which had Win 95 on it out of the (original) box. I ran into a crude awakening. I could not just format the hard drive and install Win 98. I was missing some drivers needed by IBM Think Pad, so I had to first run the Win 95 restore disk to get those missing drivers and then I discovered that Win 95 would not lay down unless it had FAT-16 on the hard drive. I started from scratch, formatted the hard drive with FAT-16, ran the restore CD, *then* installed Win 98 on top of that. It *still* did not work right, and my friend said the problem is "you cannot do all that with it in the docking station, do it without the laptop attached to anything. Only use the docking station when you have everything else finished and installed." When I removed it from the docking station, and started from scratch once again, it actually worked. **Then** I started working on the networking side of it. It finally, more or less, came around to working right as of Friday, about three months after I first made an appeal here to get a new laptop to replace the one that had bit the dust. Someone also sent me a second IBM Think Pad, and I 'celebrated' my victory over Microsoft yesterday by installing a WiFi card in it to go with my wireless router. Today for the first time in three months I am not feeling so depressed with myself. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Re: Verizon Cable TV? Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:44:11 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) writes: > Verizon is stringing new wires in our neighborhood and we've heard > rumors (unconfirmed) that they're planning to introduce Cable TV and > other services. Verizon has been doing a couple of in house tests using hi capacity DSL circuitry to provide switched video [a], which they hope to market as an alternative to cable systems. It's possible your area will be a semi-public alpha test. Keep your eyes and ears open ... [a] while a cable tv system sends all the channels to your setup and then your tv (or converter) chooses which one to display, the video over DSL circuits don't have the same bandwidth. When you tune to, say, channel two on a standard cable box, the other 50 or 100 or whatver channels are still in your apt, but just not getting to your screen. When you tune to channel two in a video-over-dsl circuit, the server gets the instruction to feed that broadcast over to you. The other channels don't get anywhere near your home. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Verizon Cable TV? Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:01:59 -0500 Lisa Hancock wrote: > Verizon is stringing new wires in our neighborhood and we've heard > rumors (unconfirmed) that they're planning to introduce Cable TV and > other services. > I presume this is now legal due to deregulation of both cable and > telephone industries. It's been legal. When I lived in Cleveland, SBC Ameritech offered cable service through their Americast subsidiary. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 07:57:02 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: Verizon Cable TV? Lisa Hancock (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote: > Verizon is stringing new wires in our neighborhood and we've > heard rumors (unconfirmed) that they're planning to introduce > Cable TV and other services. > I presume this is now legal due to deregulation of both cable > and telephone industries. It's always been legal. Every cable TV franchise agreement I've ever seen purports to be "non-exclusive," and every LFA (local franchising authority) I've ever encountered claims that it would like to grant franchises to competitors. At one time or another, at least two telcos (Ameritech and SNET) have obtained franchises and constructed ("overbuilt") competitive cable TV networks. Apparently, these networks weren't successful financially; SBC's management sold them once it gained control. RCN bought some of these networks, but it's apparently having financial problems too as per http://bankrupt.com/rcn.txt So why aren't there any competitive cable systems? Several reasons, but the three most obvious: 1. Simple economics: it requires (at least) twice as much capital to build two cable systems as one, yet the number of potential subscribers remains the same. 2. Buried-cable construction costs: it requires substantially *more* capital to build a second cable system today (compared with the first system's capital cost) in any neighborhood with buried utilities. Sometime back in the 50s or 60s, many county and municipal governments began mandating buried utilities in new residential neighborhoods. Ever since then, utility companies have been installing buried facilities in utility easements dedicated by developers. Typically, this work has been done right after the land surveys were completed, but before any street, house, fence, or landscape construction was begun. Power, telephone, and cable TV companies usually installed their facilities in joint trenches, splitting costs three ways. These arrangements minimized costs for all three parties. Now imagine the construction problems a new cable TV company would face today. Instead of dropping its cable into an open trench across an open field, it would have to work its way through easements in established neighborhoods, working around existing utilities, streets, sidewalks, signs, lawns, buried lawn-sprinkling systems, fences, bushes, trees, gardens, garden sheds, woodpiles, kiddie play equipment, swimming pools, doghouses, whatever. Not to mention dogs, children, nude sunbathers, and hostile homeowners. Even with modern computer-controlled directional-boring equipment, much of this work would still have to be done by hand. 3. Franchise requirements: many cable systems were originally franchised during the Great Franchise Wars of the 70s and 80s, when LFAs were demanding all sorts of fancy extras: color studios, multiple access channels, I-nets, free basic service for schools and municipal buildings, million-dollar construction bonds (the City of Sacramento even demanded that the cable company plant trees). By the time this process was finished, the bidder that had agreed to the most goodies got the franchise -- essentially an exclusive franchise in spite of the fact that the LFA piously claimed otherwise. The net result of all this was to drive construction costs even higher, further inhibiting any interest from competitive bidders. In the process, the LFAs painted themselves into a corner: they can't relax their franchise requirements now without inviting lawsuits from incumbent cable companies. > Many of the neighbors are excited about this prospect. When > cable was regulated, an intermediate-teir (sic) customer paid > $35/month, just a few years later it's up to $50/month under > deregulation. I'm sure you've heard this a hundred times before, but here it is again: the primary reason for rising prices for cable (and satellite) service is the increase in the wholesale cost ("license fee") for programming. To cite the extreme case, ESPN has risen 20% per year for the past few years, and now costs well over $2.00 per sub per month ($2.61 according to one reader's post here a year or so ago). All of this is exacerbated by the fact that programmers can -- and do -- bundle broadcast programming with non-broadcast programming. The absurdly-misnamed "Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992" (and similar legislation applicable to satellite carriers) allows programmers to force cable and satellite companies to carry, and pay for, non-broadcast programming as a condition for getting "retransmission consent" for the broadcast programming. This situation was the cause of some notable squabbles we've discussed here before: Time Warner v. Disney (ABC) and Dish Network v. Viacom (CBS). Even without rate deregulation, the price for your neighbor's intermediate tier would have risen. Under the FCC's now-defunct upper-tier cable-rate regulation formula, increases in programming costs were "external costs" which could be passed through to subscribers [47 CFR 76.922(d)(3)(i) and 76.922(f)(1)(v)]. > The cable company is very profitable. I suspect that some of their stockholders might not agree. Especially Paul Allen. > Anyone have any experience with Verizon cable TV or other > new services? Verizon and SBC are building FTTP networks, not conventional cable TV networks. According to this month's FiberOptic Product News, "The lowest data streams Verizon will deliver are 5 Mbits/sec downstream and 2 Mbits/sec upstream" (Bob Pease, "The Windy City Fills The Sails of Those Attending Supercomm," FiberOptic Product News 19:8, August 2004, p.4). Verizon and SBC will certainly be able to deliver cable-TV-like video these networks, but they must have a lot more in mind than just "cable TV" in order to justify the construction costs. Several obvious applications come to mind: high-speed internet access, VoIP telephony, HDTV PPV, real-time full-motion videoconferencing, high-speed virtual private data networks. But I rather doubt that even Verizon and SBC will be able to get video programming any cheaper than Comcast or Time Warner can. Especially from Disney. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:03:32 -0500 Joseph wrote: > AT&T "SOC" locks their phones to work with their system. But Alltel is CDMA, so an AT&T phone would only work in analog on Alltel's network anyhow. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:25:22 -0700 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:56:41 -0700, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to John Levine in a quote by Jack Hamilton : >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John are you *certain* the Cingular and >> AT&T Wireless handsets are interchangable? Reason I ask is the AT&T >> rep said AT&T locked the firmware in the phone so they could NOT be >> swapped with any other service (Nokia 6100 series at least) and the >> Cingular Wireless rep and the Alltel rep both confirmed the same >> thing. The Alltel tech at their shop here in Independence spent close >> to an hour attempting to reprogram my Nokia 6100 phone to work on >> their network with no success. PAT] > What that often means is that the phone is required to use a SIM card > from the provider from which you bought the phone. It doesn't really > have anything to do with roaming. But not in this case. They are not talking about GSM phones, but rather TDMA (IS-136) models. TDMA does not use SIMs. > There seems to be a healthy market for phone unlocking programs and > codes -- try Googling "unlock cingular SIM", for example. But since the models being referred to are TDMA models your advice does not apply. AT&T has their TDMA phones SOC locked which can lead to problems if you attempt to use it on other TDMA systems. Also worth noting that in the last couple of years Nokia has switched their model numbering where formerly you could tell which technology was used by the model number that no longer is the case. So saying "6100" series can be misleading since there is now a model number 6100 as well as 5100 which could be confusing. The TDMA "6100" series is very different from the different current models that Nokia is marketing. On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:10:31 -0500, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Steven J Sobol : >> thing. The Alltel tech at their shop here in Independence spent close >> to an hour attempting to reprogram my Nokia 6100 phone to work on >> their network with no success. PAT] > Well, of course; Alltel doesn't run GSM and the 6100 is a GSM > phone. If the 6100 has analog you MIGHT be able to get it to run in > analog if Alltel has analog coverage. Maybe. Be very careful in your assumptions. Pat keeps referring to a "6100" model but it's in fact probably a 6120 or 6160 which is decidedly a different model than the 6100 which is a digital only GSM phone. Pat was/is using TDMA (IS-136) handset. Both the 6120 (800 TDMA/800 AMPS) and the 6160 (800/1900 TDMA 800 AMPS) have analog AMPS built in as part of the phone. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My two Nokia phones are actually model 5165 Type NSW-1NX. The batteries, the headsets, the chargers, etc are all interchangable between my two phones. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Earle Robinson Subject: Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:44:27 +0200 Pat, please mask my email address. Thank you. In Europe, GSM phones are locked if included at a lower price to subscribe for a period of one year minimum. This is normal since an unlocked phone is sold at a somewhat higher price. However, after six months the carrier will provide the code to unlock the phone. This doesn't release you from fulfilling the year's contract, however. There are backstreet stores that will unlock any phone, too, for $10 or so. This service is mainly for phones that were stolen. But, more carriers now monitor the phones' own serial number, so that it if is stolen the carriers will disable any use of the phone whatsoever. This has reduced the number of phone thefts, as one can imagine. -er ------------------------------ 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. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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 #394 ******************************