From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 24 01:03:16 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i9O53GR29843; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:03:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410240503.i9O53GR29843@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 #510 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:03:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 510 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Qwest to Pay $250 Million in Fraud Probe (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: 'K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns (Steve Sobol) Re: 'K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns (Robert Bonomi) Re: 'K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns (Dave Close) Re: Who Carries TV Signals and Long Distance -- Today? (Neal McLain) Re: Bell System Competition: Private Telephone Networks (jdj) Re: Bell System Competition: Private Telephone Networks (Julian Thomas) Re: What Happened to Channel 1? (Robert Bonomi) Re: What Happened to Channel 1? (Herb Stein) Re: What Happened to Channel 1? (Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ) Re: What Happened to Channel 1? (DevilsPGD) Re: Callsigns and Horse Teeth (Fritz Whittington) Re: Yet Another Telco Tax Proposed (Gene S. Berkowitz) AT&T Reports $7 Billion Loss (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: Sinclair: From Bad to Worse (Gene S. Berkowitz) Last Laugh! Re: Boston's Big Rebound Makes a Winner of Fox (HorneTD) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:22:50 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Qwest to Pay $250 Million in Fraud Probe http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53148-2004Oct21.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53148-2004Oct21?language=3Dprinter By Carrie Johnson Washington Post Staff Writer Qwest Communications International Inc. yesterday agreed to pay $250 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that the company fraudulently booked $3.8 billion in revenue over nearly three years, repeatedly turning to accounting tricks that employees compared to a heroin "addiction." Qwest employees carried out an extensive fraud, under orders from senior managers who made "outrageously optimistic" assertions that the Denver company would post double-digit profit gains at a time when demand sharply lagged, regulators alleged. The SEC is continuing to investigate the role of individuals in the scheme. In one common tactic, employees reported revenue from one-time sales of fiber-optic capacity as recurring revenue, referring to such transactions as "one hit wonders." They also swapped assets with other companies but treated Qwest's side of the swaps as if they were sales, producing immediate revenue, the SEC said. Qwest also allegedly understated $231 million in expenses from June 1999 to March 2002. Employees employed the strategies so often that some began to refer to them as Qwest's "heroin," the SEC said. The nation's fourth-largest long-distance telephone service provider did not admit or deny wrongdoing as part of the settlement. "Qwest senior management created a corrupt corporate culture in which meeting Wall Street expectations was paramount," said Randall J. Fons, director of the SEC's Denver regional office. "Senior management projected unrealistic revenue growth and would not tolerate missing the numbers." Qwest's current chief executive, Richard C. Notebaert, said in a prepared statement: "We are pleased to conclude this matter, which will now allow us to focus even more of our effort to provide exceptional value and service to customers." Qwest, whose stock price plunged from a high of $55 to less than $2 a share after the fraud surfaced in August 2002, said it would cover the settlement in two separate payments. It will send the agency $125 million soon, and the rest by December 2005. The money eventually will be given to Qwest shareholders, regulators said. Qwest stock closed yesterday at $3.44 a share, up 12 cents. The company also agreed to hire a compliance official to ensure that managers never again stretch or ignore accounting rules to meet earnings targets and trigger executive bonuses, as was also alleged by the SEC. Regulators said that Qwest misled investors about its business partnerships and improper relationships with suppliers, who were sometimes pressured by unidentified Qwest officials to award them shares in the supplier before initial public offerings during the Internet boom. Qwest also failed to disclose to shareholders a $7.6 million aircraft sale between the company and the Anschutz Co., owned by Philip F. Anschutz, Qwest's founder and co-chairman of its board of directors. The May 2001 deal brought tax benefits and savings to Qwest, regulators said. "Disinterested" Qwest board members approved the transaction, according to the SEC order. The order did not question the propriety of the transaction itself, only that it was not disclosed as it should have been in the company's annual report or its proxy statement. SEC enforcement chief Stephen M. Cutler said yesterday in a prepared statement that the investigation of individuals at Qwest who participated in the fraud is "active and ongoing." Federal prosecutors in Denver said they are continuing to investigate the company and former executives. Former Qwest chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, who is referred to by title in yesterday's SEC complaint, recently received notice that the agency planned to file related civil charges against him. Nacchio joined the company in January 1997 and departed under pressure in June 2002. "Mr. Nacchio never did anything improper or illegal -- nor instructed anyone else to do anything improper or illegal -- during his tenure as the CEO of Qwest," William Anderson, a spokesman for Nacchio, said in a prepared statement yesterday. Anderson added that many of the activities mentioned in the SEC order were reviewed and approved by lawyers, accountants and Qwest's board. The SEC and Justice Department prosecutors already have sued several former Qwest managers. Two have pleaded guilty to criminal offenses; two others were acquitted after a seven-week trial this year. Copyright 2004 The Washington Post Company *** 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 Washington Post. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Steve Sobol Subject: Re: 'K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:07:05 -0700 Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com Linc Madison wrote: > 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. I then moved near Philadelphia and > watched KYW-TV. > What I find rather more interesting are situations where stations > sharing the same callsign are in completely different metropolitan > areas. For example, KCBS-TV is in Los Angeles, but KCBS-AM is in San > Francisco. WONE-AM Dayton, Ohio WONE-FM Akron, Ohio This one is pretty easily explained, though. Both were owned by Summit Broadcasting at one time (Not sure where they were located but I assume it's near Akron, since Akron's in Summit County) AM was sold to Clear Channel. The FM ended up in the hands of another local broadcaster, Rubber City Radio. Both still use the same calls. 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. ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: 'K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:18:22 +0000 In article , Neal McLain wrote: > Anthony Bellanga wrote: >> Louisiana and Minnesota both "straddle" the Mississippi River. > In my experience (mostly in cable TV), the Mississippi-River rule can be > more accurately stated as follows: > "K" = west of the Mississippi River plus the entire state of > Minnesota. _that_ "rule" adds at least half-a-dozen 'out-of-place' 'W' stations to the list. Including places such as Duluth, MN. :) >"W" = east of the Mississippi River plus Louisiana parishes > located in the Baton Rouge and New Orleans DMAs. [[.. munch ..]] > Bonomi's list included: >> WOI (AM, FM, and TV ... ), Ames, Iowa > WOI(AM) and WOI-FM are licensed to Iowa State University. WOI-TV is a > commercial station (ABC affiliate) serving the Des Moines/Ames/ > Marshalltown DMA; it's still licensed to Ames, but it claims "Des > Moines" in its publicity. ISU does not operate a TV station (most > public television stations in Iowa are operated by Iowa Public > Television, a state agency independent of the state universities). Your knowledge of history is woefully lacking. WOI TV _was_ owned and operated by Iowa State University (known as "Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts" until 1959), *was*an*ABC-affiliate*station*, until relatively recently. (i.e. 10 years ago -- ISU sold the station to ABC's parent company in March 1994; it was perceived as a 'valuable asset' that could be sold, at a time when the Regents, and the State as a whole, were in dire financial straits. People in education were _extremely_ opposed to the sale idea, and went to court over it; the issue eventually ended up before the _U.S._ Supreme Court.) See: for some of the station history, and the contention surrounding the selling of the station. WOI-TV was in operation _long_ before 'Iowa Public Television' came into existence. In point of fact, WOI-TV was the _first_ TV station in the state broadcasting on a regular schedule. They became an ABC affiliate fairly early. Yes, a public-university-owned =commercial= broadcast station is _unusual_. As a network affiliate of a commercial network (the *only* kind of 'network' TV in those days :), it was _very_ unusual, possibly even =unique=. >> WWL Waterloo, Iowa. Intrestingly, KWWL is in the same town. > WWL(AM) and WWL-TV are now located in New Orleans, LA. Looks like memory has played me false on this one. Further checking shows it has always belonged to Loyola University, in New Orleans. (I'm going to have to do some more digging on this -- I'm _sure_ that WWL was in the Cedar Rapids/Waterloo metro area in the 50's-70's. "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain" applies :) The university-owned and operated TV station in New Orleans was a CBS network affiliate, as of 1959. So, WOI-TV was not the only university-owned network TV affiliate -- but I don't know of any other that was owned/operated by a _public_ institution. >> WSUI Iowa City, Iowa Also the home of KSUI. *SAME* owner, >> even. :) > WSUI(AM) and KSUI(FM) are licensed to the University of Iowa > (formerly, State University of Iowa; hence, "SUI"). UI does not > operate a TV station (same reason ISU doesn't). Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing. See above. Iowa State owned and operated a commercial (_not_ 'public' television) station for more than 40 years. Among other things it provided 'hands on' training, in a "real, working station environment" for students in the television programs (both in journalism and engineering) at Iowa State. The University of Iowa, on the other hand, never had a program in television, and thus never found a 'need' for their own television station. :) >> WOW Omaha, Nebraska > AM only; sister TV is WOWT. Again, knowledge of history is lacking. see: WOW _did_ operate AM and FM stations, for years, WOWT is a call-sign change, from the original WOW-TV. >> WMT Cedar Rapids, Iowa > WMT(AM) and WMT-FM only; sister TV is KGAN(TV), formerly WMT-TV. A call-sign change for the TV station. >> WOC Davenport, Iowa > AM only; sister FM is WLLR(FM); sister TV is KWQC(TV). >> WRR Dallas, Texas > FM only (PAT: classical music, streamed online!) I believe there was an AM station with that call-sign, originally. Has since undergone a name-change. [[.. munch ..]] >> and, some hair-splitting (Metro area crosses the river, >> transmitter_could_ be on the Illinois side of the Missippi): >> WIL St. Louis, Missouri > FM only. Transmitter is located in Missouri. >> WRTH St. Louis, Missouri > The FCC has no record of this callsign. *THAT* is a surprise! Considering ... My cribsheet says "1430 AM, St. Louis". And, according to : WRTH1430 Business Office (314) 983 -6000 11647 Olive Boulevard Saint Louis, MO 63141 >> WLTE Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota > FM only. Transmitter is located in Minnesota, on the east side of the > Mississippi River. That's still on the "K" side of the line according to > the version of the rule I stated above. If you're going to put all of MN in the 'K' district, there are at least another half-a-dozen 'W' call-signs worthy of being listed. As far east as Duluth. >> WMCN St. Paul, Minnesota > FM only. Transmitter is located in Minnesota, on the east side of the > Mississippi River. >> WBJI Blackduck, Minnesota > FM only. Blackduck is in Beltrami County (page 72-B2 in DeLorme). >> WIRN Buhl, Minnesota > FM only; Minnesota Public Radio affiliate. Buhl is in St. Louis County, > near Hibbing (page 75-D6 in DeLorme). >> WACO Waco, Texas. > FM only. > WEW(AM) is licensed to St. Louis, but the transmitter is located in > Washington Park, Illinois. FCC record at: > . > WIL-FM is licensed to St. Louis, and the transmitter is located in > Missouri. FCC record (scroll down below WILL-FM) at: > > Neal McLain > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is there a 'WIL' (one /L/) in > St. Louis? The reason I ask is because there is a 'WILL' (two /L/) > at the University of Illinois in Champaign, 580 KC on AM band.) PAT] Yes. WIL (one 'L') has been in St. Louis for a *long* time; W-ILL (two 'L') is a comparative newcomer. And, as Ogden Nash says, I've never heard of a three-'L' spelling. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When you discuss WLTE or other 'W' stations in Minnesota, maybe the reason for the 'W' there is because the Mississipi River only begins part way into Minnesota; a bit south of St. Paul (or actually Bay City, WI) where the water is just a small stream and becomes known as the 'Mississippi River'. Most of Minnesota has nothing to do with the river. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: 'K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns Date: 22 Oct 2004 20:10:32 -0700 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Linc Madison writes: > What I find rather more interesting are situations where stations > sharing the same callsign are in completely different metropolitan > areas. For example, KCBS-TV is in Los Angeles, but KCBS-AM is in San > Francisco. That's because, until fairly recently, KCBS-TV was KNXT. The network evidently decided branding was more important than history. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:28:48 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: Who Carries TV Signals and Long Distance -- Today? Lisa Hancock wrote: > With satellites and competing companies that own their > own fibre networks, does AT&T still carry broadcast > transmissions today? If not, when did the transition > start? Anthony Bellanga responded: > Also in the later 1970s, emerging national-in-scope Cable-TV > services such as HBO, CSPAN, CBN, CNN, etc. chose to distribute via > satellite directly to local cable franchise operation centers rather > than use Bell System facilities. I also don't know if Bell had > enough landline VIDEO capacity using the technology of the time for > all of the new emerging cable services, on a NATIONAL basis. The "new emerging cable services" didn't emerge until satellite distribution made them economically feasible. Before satellites came along, cable television systems relied almost exclusively on broadcast stations for their programming. Given enough money, the cable industry could have built a microwave network with sufficient capacity to distribute non-broadcast cable-only programming nationally. But the industry never considered it: the cost would have been astronomical. By the early 70s, the industry had been around for 25 years, and there were far more cable headends (by some two orders of magnitude) than broadcast stations in the country. A ground-based microwave network for cable TV would have had to reach many more end-points than the network AT&T was operating for the broadcast networks. Headends in remote places like mountaintops or barrier islands might never have been reached. The first nationally-distributed satellite-delivered non-broadcast programming service was Time Inc's HBO, launched in December 1975 on Satcom 3R. Prior to its satellite launch, Time had been using non-AT&T microwave to distribute HBO to its own cable systems in the northeast. Time wanted to extend HBO's coverage nationwide, and satellite was the only economically-feasible way to do it. Once HBO broke the ice, other non-broadcast services soon followed. By 1979, programming was available from Turner Communications Group (WTCG, now TBS Superstation), Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Southern Satellite Systems (Satellite Programming Network, or SPN), USA Network, C-SPAN (sharing transponder time with USA), ESPN, and Nickelodeon. A year later, Turner launched CNN, the first in a string of non-broadcast services that now includes Cartoon Network, CNNSI, CNNFN, Headline News, TCM, and TNT. Of course, not all of these new services survived. CBN became ABC Family; SPN morphed into CNBC. Others flashed across the horizon and disappeared: Reuters "Newsview"; TEC (The Entertainment Channel); HTN (Home Theater Network); MSN (Modern Satellite Network); Cinemerica. But the basic financial model worked: operating a non-broadcast satellite-delivered programming service proved to be a viable business. These services now make up the bulk of the programming offered by cable television systems on their basic and extended-basic tiers. Lisa continued: > With satellites, is there a problem with transmission lag > time? Anthony continued: > Radio/TV network broadcasting is different [from telephone > conversations] in that a program usually originates from one > point (or maybe a small number of locations) and is sent to > "everyone" across the country... Programming production studios sometimes have a trio of video monitors sitting side-by-side: - The first displays the program signal directly from the studio. - The second displays the downlink from the programmer's own uplink, after a delay of about 0.24 seconds (one round trip to/from a geostationary satellite). - The third displays the downlink from the DirecTV or Dish Network, after a delay of about 0.48 seconds (two round trips). It's fascinating to watch the same image signal jump from monitor to monitor. But a home viewer would never be aware of it. But two-way phone conversations make the round-trip delay obvious. I often notice this on CNN when the studio anchor asks a question of a field reporter who is using a videophone. After the anchor finishes the question, we watch the reporter just standing there (trying not to look too stupid) for a half second before answering. Neal McLain [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've noticed the television set in my parlor runs about two seconds later than the televison set in my bedroom. That is to say, the bedroom set displays an image and audio, then the same audio/video appears a couple seconds later on the other set. I wondered about that, then I remembered that the television in the parlor is fed from the cable through the DVR; the television in the bedroom is cable through converter box straight to the television. It must be because the DVR first puts the signal onto the hard drive (which is where it gets to to feed the television set. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jdj Subject: Re: Bell System Competition: Private Telephone Networks Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:39:45 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:58:09 -0400, Wesroc wrote: > In a message dated 21 Oct 2004 21:16:47 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com > (Lisa Hancock) writes: >> 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. Southern Pacific's SPRINT and Microwave Communications, Inc. (later MCI) were pretty well known. Most of what I heard on the SPRR telephone channels were patches to/from moving trains but occasionally there were strange signals including dtmf prior to an actual phone call. The call progress signals were often very different from Bell stuff. ------------------------------ From: Julian Thomas Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:37:01 -0400 Subject: Re: Bell System Competition: Private Telephone Networks (as usual, please obscure my email - thanks). In <1098564678.198.7892.m12@yahoogroups.com>, on 10/23/04 at 08:51 PM, telecom-news@yahoogroups.com typed: > Blurring the picture even further, there were big companies that had > their own telephone systems, but using lines leased from Bell and > connecting with the Bell public system. When I worked for G.E. circa > 1967 there was such a system -- I don't remember now what the name of it > was -- where we could dial a certain prefix and then dial most other G.E. > locations without going through the public switched network. In 1962, IBM had a moderately extensive tie line system, with special access codes between different sites even within Poughkeepsie, and to many other nearby locations (such as Endicott). ISTR many of these codes began with '1'. Later this was recreated as a 'dial 8 [from most locations; one location stubbornly used 8 for local access and something else, 7? for tie line access]' and then a 7 digit number within the IBM internal network. I believe that later some of the traffic was moved to the PSTN, and later yet, the dial 8 system was replaced by smarter PBX/CENTREX systems that would route an external 1+10 digit number optimally including on a tie line if it still existed. Julian Thomas: jt at jt-mj dot net http://jt-mj.net In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org If you want it done right, forget Microsoft. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What Happened to Channel 1? Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:38:06 +0000 In article , Andrea wrote: > Does anyone know the real reason American TVs don't utilize channel 1? > I've read many conflicting theories. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have always heard that Channel 1 was > occupying frequencies used in the VHF-low area (30-50 mc band) and > that *originally* (1940's) some of that spectrum was going to be taken > away from the users of VHF-low band radio and given to television, but > many people protested it, so rather than re-align the television > channels to move Channel 1 a bit further up, the FCC simply abandoned > it for television use. PAT] _Which_ 'channel 1' ?? In point of fact, there were several different channel 1 allocations at various times in history. See: for a good description of that all went on. ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: What Happened to Channel 1? Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:47:11 -0500 6 meter amateur 50-54 mhz. Andrea wrote in message news:telecom23.507.5@telecom-digest.org: > Does anyone know the real reason American TVs don't utilize channel 1? > I've read many conflicting theories. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have always heard that Channel 1 was > occupying frequencies used in the VHF-low area (30-50 mc band) and > that *originally* (1940's) some of that spectrum was going to be taken > away from the users of VHF-low band radio and given to television, but > many people protested it, so rather than re-align the television > channels to move Channel 1 a bit further up, the FCC simply abandoned > it for television use. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ Subject: Re: What Happened to Channel 1? Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:58:41 -0400 As I recall, most of Channel 1 was reallocated to the amateur radio service (six meters) as six meters is fifty to fifty-four Mhz. Can someone tell me if I am wrong? Fred, WB4AEJ http://www.wb4aej.com/hamdomain ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: What Happened to Channel 1? Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:06:43 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Michael Muderick wrote: > 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 Interestingly enough, channel 1 is making somewhat of a comeback since in a digital environment any channel can be used without regards to what frequency the channel uses. Shaw cable is (or was, I don't have my TV connected to my DCT right now) using channel 1 as a digital channel for themselves. Analog cable still starts at 2 though. Next on FOX, all new REALITY SHOW promises to be a hit: "STOP A BULLET WITH YOUR HEAD" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:46:47 -0500 From: Fritz Whittington Subject: Re: Callsigns and Horse Teeth On or about 2004-10-22 09:58, Tony Pelliccio whipped out a trusty #2 pencil and scribbled: > jtaylor wrote in message > news:: >> TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to in message >> news:telecom23.505.2@telecom-digest.org: >>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, no matter how many teeth you >>> saw in the mouth of some particular horse, there can always be >>> exceptions. For example, how many toes does a cat have on its paws? >>> Some people would say 'five', which is normally the correct >>> answer. But some cats have *six* toes on one (or all four) feet. The >>> vernacular name for such cats is 'polydex' and my first cat 'Nicholas' >>> (the one who was so warm and loving, not the later Nicholas who was >>> always hateful with humans) was that way. Nicholas had six toes on >>> each of his two front paws, five toes on each of his back paws. I >>> guess it is some genetic thing going back a million years or so. PAT] >> Polydactyl cats are particularly common (not just if you count them by >> their toes) around Boston and Halifax; must have been some good >> mousers in the first lot of ships to come over. > Throughout New England actually. I've got a very heavy polydactyl who > knows he should pounce on a mouse but then plays around until he kills > it and then doesn't know what to do with it. > In his case he weighs in at close to 30 lbs. so it is a little bit hard > to pounce when you are that large. Thing is, he's a big cat. Let me guess. You call him "Garfield", right? Well, you should! Fritz Whittington It is better to live in a free society, and risk death by a terrorist attack, than to live in a "safe" police state. ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: Yet Another Telco Tax Proposed Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:21:43 -0400 In article , kd1s@yahoo.com says: > Danny Burstein wrote in message > news:: >> In the continuing tradition of government that try to offload taxes >> onto third parties (that way they're not "raising taxes", you see ...) >> California has a very real problem with medical costs. The hospitals >> and other medical providers provide services, but don't take in >> anywhere near as much money as they claim to be expending. >> Hospital and medical finances are such a huge mess they put Enron to >> shame. Normally this isn't a telecom issue but ... >> The telco point: The usual folk have pushed forward a fee on telco >> services to cover the shortfall. Quoting from a VOA clip: >> "A voter initiative that Doctor Higgins calls a "Band-Aid" could >> provide a short-term fix, and he supports the measure. Appearing >> on the November 2nd ballot as Proposition 67, it would raise 500 >> million dollars a year by adding a three-percent surcharge to the >> cost for telephone calls made in California. >> To which the curmodgeons retort: >> "It's the wrong solution for a real problem. This is a phone tax. >> This is a tax on a service that has absolutely nothing to do with >> emergency medical care whatsoever. > It does have some relation. People use the telephone to call the > emergency services which then deliver them to the hospital. > But I think too many other taxes have been loaded onto phone bills in > recent years. In essence it is nickle and diming us to death. > Now my medical system rant. There are several reasons why medical > services have gotten so expensive and they have to do with supply and > demand. Many more people seek medical attention now than they did > years ago, but infrastructure improves glacially and so cannot keep > up. No, that's not it. It has nothing to do with the number of people; more paying customers would mean more money. It has much more to do with the services now delivered (and expected): 30 years ago, if you had congestive heart failure, you died of it. Today, it is routine that a heart bypass operation be performed, at an average cost of $23,000, or a a minimum, an angioplasty, at around $5,000. 50 years ago, severely premature infants died. Today, many, if not most, survive after months of hospital care at an average cost of about $30,000. 40 years ago, if you were injured, the x-ray was the only diagnostic procedure besides "tell me where it hurts". Today, tennis elbow is diagnosed in an MRI, which costs around $2 million to buy, and is considered as essential in a modern U.S. hospital as bedpans. --Gene [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I had my two heart attacks back in the middle 1990's, I lived in the Chicago area and thought the bills from Northshore Medical Center were pretty awful. There were angioplasties each time and other treatment as well. But when I got here to Kansas and had a brain aneurysm (which is more or less a stroke but not entirely), when I got out of Stormont-Vail Medical Center in Topeka and the associated Kansas Rehabiitation Hospital (yes, the nearest brain surgeon was a 125 mile ambulance ride going down I-70) I got a bill for *three hundred thousand dollars*. Ever had a hospital or doctor bill with a bottom line of $300,000.00 ? Not bad, I guess for someone who is comotose for over two months and in emergency rehabilitation for another month after that. Add about another $35,000 for a year's stay in a nursing home. How can anyone afford to get sick these days? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:04:09 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: AT&T Reports $7 Billion Loss http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53075-2004Oct21.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53075-2004Oct21?language=3Dprinter Retreat From Traditional Phone Service Causes Drop By Bruce Meyerson NEW YORK, Oct. 21 -- AT&T Corp. reported a third-quarter loss of $7.12 billion Thursday because of huge charges resulting from the company's retreat from traditional telephone services, which included at least 7,500 more job cuts and a write-down in the value of the company's long-distance network. The loss amounted to $8.95 per share for the period ended Sept. 30. The results, which topped more pessimistic analyst forecasts, reflect write-down and severance costs of $12.47 billion, as well as a resulting $4.38 billion tax benefit and after-tax savings of $331 million on depreciation thanks to the write-down. In the corresponding quarter last year, AT&T earned $418 million, or 53 cents a share. Third-quarter revenue totaled $7.6 billion, down 11.7 percent from $8.65 billion a year earlier, but the decline was less than many analysts had projected. Shares of AT&T rose 22 cents, or 1.4 percent, to close at $15.80 on the New York Stock Exchange. Business services revenue fell 10.4 percent, to $5.65 billion, as voice and data services suffered from ongoing price battles and competition from cell phones. Consumer revenue fell 15.2 percent, to $1.98 billion, driven by a sharp drop-off in new customers following AT&T's decision to stop marketing local and long-distance service. Long-distance price wars and the loss of business to wireless and Internet-based calling also reduced revenue. AT&T, still the nation's largest long-distance company with 26 million customers, said two weeks ago that it would reduce the book value of its assets by about $11.4 billion now that its network is expected to generate far less revenue from consumer voice traffic. The decision to cut spending on customer acquisitions followed a federal court decision that will make it more expensive for AT&T to sell local service by leasing residential lines from the four regional phone companies -- which at the same time are luring away AT&T's long-distance customers. When it announced the write-down, AT&T also said it was expanding this year's job cuts to more than 20 percent of the workforce, or at least 12,500 jobs. The company had previously projected a downsizing of 8 percent of the workforce, or about 4,900 positions. More than 9,000 of the affected employees have either already left the company or been notified they were being laid off. To cover severance benefits and other costs related to those cuts, AT&T said it would record a charge of about $1 billion with the third-quarter results. Copyright 2004 The Washington Post Company *** 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 Washington Post. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Poor AT&T ... how long do you think it will be until we report here that they went bankrupt completely, or maybe are totally gone, like Western Union? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: Sinclair: From Bad to Worse Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:00:42 -0400 In article , tom.horsley@att.net says: >> On Monday, Sinclair fired the head of its Washington bureau for having >> the temerity to criticize the airing of one-sided propaganda (ironic, >> considering Sinclair is claiming a First Amendment right to air the >> film). > I don't like Sinclair, but I'm afraid I can't find any irony here. > Sinclair owns the stations -- he can put anything he wants on and hire > or fire anyone he wants to. There is nothing in the First Amendment > that guarantees there will be no consequences for speaking up -- it > just guarantees the gummint can't do anything to stop you. Well, the Smiths, who control the majority of the stock (Sinclair was the founder's middle name) may own the stations (and that is questionable also; they have "operating agreements" with other stations in markets where they already own one, in order to avoid the (eroding) limits on media ownership); however they DO NOT OWN the spectrum allocations they broadcast in. That is supposedly held in trust for its true owners, the American Public, and broadcasters are granted a LICENSE to use the airwaves that belong to US, in order to serve the public interest. The U.S. Government has auctioned portions of the spectrum for use by mobile phone and PCS services; they have yet to hold such an auction for the TV spectrum. --Gene ------------------------------ From: HorneTD Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Boston's Big Rebound Makes a Winner of Fox, Too Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:31:06 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Monty Solomon wrote: > By RICHARD SANDOMIR > It was the game that wasn't supposed to be televised because it wasn't > supposed to happen. But you have to think that Fox was pleased and > astonished that the Boston Red Sox had done the impossible in > postseason: they had forced a seventh game after losing the first > three of the American League Championship Series to the Yankees. > Then the Red Sox took it one step further last night, beating the > Yankees, 10-3. > For Fox, it's too bad that Yankees-Red Sox league championship series > aren't best-of-nine affairs. A ninth game might approach Super Bowl > ratings levels. > Game 6 produced a 15.6 Nielsen rating, or 25.1 million viewers, which > made it the highest-rated nondecisive league championship series game > in 13 years, Fox said, in spin that would gladden a break dancer. > Even more fortunate for Fox is the type of television rabidity in the > Boston market: 70 percent of those tuned to televisions in the center > of Red Sox Nation were watching Game 6 (compared with 44 percent among > New Yorkers). > The last time the Red Sox were in the World Series -- 18 years ago > against the Mets -- they generated a 28.6 rating, the best performance > since 1981. Fox might now produce a new reality show: "My Big Fat > Obnoxious Idiots." > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/sports/baseball/21tv.html What do you call twenty seven men watching the World Series on television? Answer: The New York Yankees. Tom H ------------------------------ 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 #510 ******************************