From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 23 00:05:48 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i9N45mH18563; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:05:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:05:48 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410230405.i9N45mH18563@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 #508 TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:06:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 508 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell System Competition: Private Telephone Networks (Wesrock@aol) Re: What Happened to Channel 1? (Phil Stripling) Re: What Happened to Channel 1? (Michael Muderick) Re: Verizon Taking Lessons From Hooterville Phone (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: Who Carries TV Signals and Long Distance -- Today? (John Levine) Home Phones Face Uncertain Future (Lisa Minter) Re: 11-Sept Police Widow Gets Domain-Cyberburned (Gene S. Berkowitz) 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: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:58:09 EDT Subject: Re: Bell System Competition: Private Telephone Networks In a message dated 21 Oct 2004 21:16:47 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) writes: > It is often said that the old Bell System was a strict monopoly on > telephone service. That wasn't 100% true. Many large organizations > had their own internal telephone systems that were not Bell supplied -- > those companies chose to lease/buy their systems from someone else > rather than Bell. AFAIK, those systems were internal only and could > not connect to the outside Bell network, but their internal network > could be quite large. One company with plants on the Gulf Coast figured it could save a great deal of money by a private PBX, but chose to use Bell service because of the Bell System's ability to restore service after a hurricane. These adjacent plants were served by a 5-digit PBX and the company maintained its own radar installations from the Sabine River to Brownsville. This radar network was more extensive than the Weather Bureau's at the time and the telco often consulted with the company as to what it's radar showed when a hurricane was in the offing. > In an old Bell Telephone employees magazine, they had an article about > that. They had a picture of a businessman with two phones on his desk > and the story described how that arrangement was costing the Bell > System lost business. They wanted employees upon seeing that to > encourage the customer to go 100% Bell. > I wonder what the actual cost differentials were between self- > ownership and self-maintenance (which included capitalization) > vs. leasing from Bell. I also wonder how much effort and thought Bell > gave to that competition -- did they ever consider lowering their > rates or selling equipment for such large installations? The Bell companies were heavily regulated and required to serve all comers at uniform rates. There were anti-trust restrictions on the sale of Western Electric equipment to other than telephone companies/ > Private networks were easy to spot since, esp in later years, the > private phone would be an AE 40 with a numeric-only dial with the > silvery bands compared to a Bell 500 set. This was not universally true, in fact may not have been common at all in later years, since independent manufactures, including A.E., made phones similar or identical to W.E. phone. What you describe was true, however, in many older Montgomery Ward retail stores, complete with two telephones at counters, one the A.E. set you describe, the other a Bell phone, not necessarily a 500 set. Newer stores had all Bell phones without the duplication. > Railroads: These were very large networks, connecting stations, > headquarters, shops, offices and wayside stations. These was > particularly important since otherwise toll charges would be incurred. > Railroads had their own signal depts, so they could easily maintain a > phone system. Wayside phones were often local battery (crank), and > many remained in service through the 1980s. Railroads also had > internal Teletype networks. Railroads and pipeline companies were "right-of-way" companies and could interconnect with Bell pretty much without restriction, including such cases as using their own lines to extend to what otherwise would have been FCO locations. Their PBXs usually had incoming and outgoing Bell trunks that could dial and be dialed and connected with the internal communications system, even for intercity communications. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Phil Stripling Subject: Re: What Happened to Channel 1? Date: 22 Oct 2004 16:11:30 -0700 Organization: Legal Assistance on the Web andrea8090@gmail.com (Andrea) writes: > Does anyone know the real reason American TVs don't utilize channel 1? > I've read many conflicting theories. See: http://members.aol.com/jeff560/tvch1.html http://www.discovery.com/area/skinnyon/skinnyon971031/skinnyon.html http://anarc.org/wtfda/channel1.htm http://www.tech-notes.tv/History&Trivia/Channel%20One/Channel_1.htm Google is your friend. :-> Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@ http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily. ------------------------------ From: Michael Muderick Subject: Re: What Happened to Channel 1? Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:32:46 -0400 Channel 1 did appear on some early tv's. I have an RCA TK-630 Eyewitness television that has Channel 1. I think it was given back to government. mm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:44:11 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: Verizon Taking Lessons From Hooterville Telephone Company kd1s@yahoo.com (Tony Pelliccio) wrote about Re: Verizon Taking Lessons From Hooterville Telephone Company on 22 Oct 2004 08:00:17 -0700 > Marcus Didius Falco wrote in message > news:: >>> From: J Kelly >>> Subject: Re: Verizon Taking Lessons From Hooterville Telephone Company >>> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:55:50 -0500 >>> Organization: http://newsguy.com >>> Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com >>> Where my brother lives if the power goes out across town, or even in a >>> town 30 miles away (where the headend is), his cable tv and internet >>> die. Hard to believe that Mediacom has no UPS's or generators for the >>> headend or any of the line amps. I think they bought some cable co's >>> that were pretty messed up though. In time I suppose they will clean >>> them up. >> There isn't much you can do if the utility dies. However, you can keep >> your house running indefinitely using something called an "inverter". >> This converts DC into "modified sine wave" AC. If you connect an >> inverter to the battery of your car with the engine running, you can >> power your computer, telephones, or other small utilities until you >> run out of gas -- which would probably take several days idling if you >> start with a full tank. >> An inverter is rated by peak and sustained power. One that will >> provide about 1200 Watts sustained will be rated for about 2400 Watts >> peak. You can probably find one for under $140 on the internet. This >> is enough power to start and run your refrigerator or, possibly, the >> fan on your furnace. Maybe even your well pump. >> The power is clean enough to run your computer, phones, or other >> electronics. >> If you have more than one car, then you can have more than one >> inverter. The alternator on a car can produce about 400 to 600 Watts, >> but the battery can supply the rest of the load. Thus, you can run >> your refrigerator, even though it draws about 900 Watts, because it >> does not run continuously -- your alternator recharges your battery. > Some inverters are better than others. If the wave is too square many > pieces of electronic gear will complain. > So stay away from cheap inverters. A UPS and a generator are the best > way to go. An inverter costs $100 to $150 and sits in a drawer until you need it. A generator costs $1000 to $5000 and requires regular maintenance if it's going to start when needed. Even if you have to try several inverters to get one that will work your critical equipment (much of which will NOT be electronic -- the real urgent stuff for most people are the refrigerator in summer and the furnace in winter), you're way ahead of the game financially. This is especially true if you expect long blackouts only a few times per decade. (For most people a blackout of a few hours is not a problem.) A UPS is always a good idea. However, most of them have only enough reserve capacity to allow an orderly shutdown (that is, about a half hour or less, and don't try to run your laser printer). ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:59:51 EDT Subject: Re: K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns In a message dated Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:55:43 -0700, Linc Madison writes: > I grew up in Dallas, Texas, with WRR-FM and WRR-AM (now KAAM-AM), > WBAP-AM and WBAP-TV (now KXAS-TV), WFAA-AM and WFAA-TV, and, down in > San Antonio, WOAI-AM and -TV. Remember when stations had locally produced children's shows? My son watched the "Waste Basket Animal Players" on WBAP-TV (note the initial letters of the program's name). Then we moved to Austin, where there was one TV station -- KTBC-TV, I believe it was, licensed to The L.B.J. Company. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 2004 02:17:59 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Who Carries TV Signals and Long Distance -- Today? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> For example, New York City to Newark NJ is "long distance" >> since it crosses states and LATA boundaries, but is physically so >> close calls be carried over plain copper interoffice trunks. Are such >> close LD calls still sent that way? It would seem strange to bounce >> 10 mile call off of a satellite. > It is not inherently true that a call that crosses state > boundaries and LATA boundaries is long distance. That's true. LATA boundaries only matter for calls that were already long distance. Local calling areas cross state and LATA boundaries all over the country, and in a few areas (as often noted here in the past) even international boundaries. With respect to the specific case of calls between New York and Newark, that's always been a toll call, but NY Tel and NJ Bell got a special waiver at the time of the Bell breakup that let them continue to carry toll traffic between NYC and the adjacent part of NJ. Once equal access came in, callers could use 10NYT or 10NJB to select them as the carrier for those calls. There was a similar waiver between Philadelphia and nearby southern NJ, slightly more confusing since Phila to Camden was a local call, but Phila to slightly more distant towns like Cherry Hill was toll. Now that all of the Bells have long distance authority, the waivers are irrelevant. I don't think anyone used satellite for much domestic traffic other than SBS which didn't last very long. Satellites are great for broadcast but lousy for point to point unless one of the points is the top of a mountain or otherwise inaccessible. NY to NJ was doubtless carrier and now fiber, most likely run through some of the rail tunnels underneath the Hudson. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Home Phones Face Uncertain Future Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:35:00 +0000 Nokia in the UK seems to feel landline phones will be gone entirely in the next few years, at least in many countries, replaced by cellular phones. Check out this link: The fixed line phone in the home could soon disappear, a study by mobile firm Nokia shows. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/technology/3762844.stm > ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: 11-Sept Police Widow Gets Domain-Cyberburned Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:49:11 -0400 In article , dannyb@panix.com says: > "The widow of a hero NYPD Emergency Service detective killed on 9/11 > created a Web site as a loving tribute to her husband -- only to have > it snapped up by a heartless Internet company that forced her to fork > over $800 to buy it back, The Post has learned. > "Kathy Vigiano's gut-wrenching ordeal began in January when she > discovered that her husband Joseph's memorial Web site -- which she > filled with personal photos and an emotional letter from one of their > sons -- had been replaced by ads for penile-enlargement tools, > sexual-performance drugs and Viagra... > http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/30859.htm > _____________________________________________________ > Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key > dannyb@panix.com > [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The very same people did that to our > internet-history.org site as well. If you type in > http://internet-history.org you get the very same preposterous ads. > And of course, the guy wants to sell that one also. I **thought** > there were laws against that sort of cybersquatting, but I guess > that only pertains for large commercial web sites. Any damn fool > would know that 'internet history' was discussed there on the site > which was the property of the Internet Historical Society, which is > *my* name, and it was a running site for three or four years. Yet, > that moron simply walked away with it, got the org registrar to give > it to him I guess. > I had asked John Levine to take it away from the person and give it > back to me. John won't do it. I thought he was one of the registrars > for .org ... so I know how this poor lady feels now as well. But I can > tell you *I* am not going to pay his blackmail ransom demand. If I had > any money I would just sue the damn registrar who took it from me and > gave it to him (I understand he is in some country in Europe. The lady > should not have paid anything either, just immediatly filed suit > against the registrar she had used when she first set up the site and > done it that way. Of course, I have no money to pay any lawyers to > help me, so that leaves me and internet-history.org high and dry. Maybe > some attorney doing pro-bono work will be able to get our site back. > If people would quit paying good money to these charlatans who steal > the names that netizens use for their web sites, then they would go > out of business. PAT] What am I missing here? Where is it actually stated that "buying" a domain name grants you rights to it in perpetuity? It's very obvious from the agreements made with the registrars that you are _renting_ the domain. ICANN insists that no domain can be registered for more than ten years at a time; that certainly seems to preclude automatically owning the right to a domain for life. Of course, by simply renewing it before the term expires, the rights remain with you. On the day your "lease" expires, if you haven't renewed, that name returns to the pool, or is possibly auctioned off by the registrar. How is this any different from a telephone number? If you stop paying the bill, the telco shuts off service, and eventually gives (sells) the number to someone else. Should I sue Verizon to get the phone number of my childhood home? Gene [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you are overlooking is that the lady did not come close to having her domain name for ten years. She had it at best for two or three years, it was an active domain name then it up and disappeared when the registrar chose to give it or sell it to the penis enlargement man. What you are overlooking is that very few netizens care much either way about what ICANN says or thinks should be done. ICANN *only* represents big business interests anyway, not the small, average person with a web site. If you don't think that is the case, then since Microsoft has had their domain name 'microsoft.com' well over ten years, petition the registrars or ICANN to force Microsoft to give it up and give others a chance at it. Or maybe now that Yahoo has had their domain names for that same length of time, they can be forced out. Oh, and you don't hear ICANN complaining that the joker who registered 'whitehouse.com' most likely did it knowing full well that people looking for information on the White House will unwittingly type '.com' instead of '.gov' ICANN represents big business only, **not** people like Mrs. Viagino. The government wants business to control the net; they use ICANN as their tool. What you are overlooking regards phone numbers is that if a phone number is listed in a directory and is in active service for no matter how many years, as your childhood phone number might well have been if your parents or yourself had chosen to continue living there and were still referring to that number as your own then one day Verizon chooses to disconnect it or route it to someone else without so much as a single notice to you then you *would* have a very actionable suit against Verizon. Finally, what you are overlooking is that if the registrar had any care about people's sensibilities, even if Mrs. Viagino *had* misunderstood the terms of registration (I do not think she was even told it had to be renewed, etc) then the registrar might have told the lady something like 'this is a final notice, the site is being removed from you; gather up your files, pictures, etc and find some other place to park them.' Then maybe after two or three weeks shut it down. Or was the penis-enlargement man in such a rush he could not spare a week or two for a man killed in the line of duty, leaving a wife and family behind? Oh, I know it would not matter to ICANN, but you would think there might have been some courtesy given. PAT] ------------------------------ 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 #508 ******************************