From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Feb 21 00:21:09 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i1L5L9t28648; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:21:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:21:09 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200402210521.i1L5L9t28648@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 #85 TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:21:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 85 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 779 to Overlay 815 in Northern Illinois (Mark J Cuccia) 321 Studios Will Appeal Court Ruling (Monty Solomon) Order in 321 Studios vrs. MGM (Monty Solomon) DVD-XCOPY Contains Remote De-Activation Feature (Monty Solomon) Cable and Satellite Have Blurred Difference Between Networks (Solomon) Judge: DVD-Copying Software is Illegal (Monty Solomon) Re: Symbol Added to Morse Code (Gary Novosielski) Re: Symbol Added to Morse Code (William Warren) Re: Distractions While Driving, And Not Just Cell Phones (N Landsberg) Re: Distractions While Driving, And Not Just Cell Phones (jmayson) Re: Distractions While Driving, And Not Just Cell Phones (Tony P.) Re: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash (email@crazyhat.net) Re: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash (Tony P.) Re: Pros & Cons of Digital Epabx Compare to Hybrid Epabx (Tony P.) Re: Home Intercom Phone System With Cordless Phone? (Tom Betz) Re: Quest to Offer "Naked DSL" (Tony P.) Re: ESPN Ends Ugly Fight With Cox Over Fees (Tony P.) Re: Cable Modem Hackers Conquer the Co-ax (Tony P.) 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 is 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: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:56:41 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: 779 to Overlay 815 in Northern Illinois It WILL BE 779 to overlay 815! See the press release dated today, 20-Feb-2004, from the Illinois Commerce Commission's (state regulatory) website, transcribed below ... http://www.icc.state.il.us/tc/docs/040220AC815PR.pdf ICC DIRECTS OVERLAY OF NEW AREA CODE FOR 815 AREA IN NORTHERN ILLINOIS February 20, 2004 Beth Bosch The Illinois Commerce Commission has issued an order establishing an "overlay" of a new area code, to supplement the telephone number supply in Illinois' 815 area code. The 815 area code serves northern Illinois, including the cities of DeKalb, Joliet, Kankakee and Rockford. NeuStar, Inc., under contract by the Federal Communications Commission to act as the national numbering administrator, has assigned 779 to be new area code. Once in service, 779 will serve the same geographic area presently served by 815. The overlay plan, approved by the ICC on February 4, was chosen from several other relief alternatives, including various geographic splits. A geographic split divides an existing area code into two or more parts, requiring at least 50 percent of customers to change their telephone numbers. By contrast, the overlay will serve the same geographic area of the existing 815 area code, allowing all current customers to keep their 815 telephone numbers, while new customers to the area may be assigned a telephone number in the new area code. NeuStar first identified the 815 area code as being in need of "relief" in May of 2000. The "relief" designation identifies an area code that may run out of numbers within a short period of time unless conservation efforts are employed, and one that will ultimately need to be supplemented by a new area code. Since then, a variety of conservation measures have been put in place to prolong the life of the 815 area code and use telephone numbers more efficiently. For example, in June of 2003, thousand block number pooling went into effect in a significant portion of 815. Number pooling allows multiple telecommunications carriers to share telephone numbers within a prefix serving the same geographic area. Prior to number pooling, each individual telecommunications carrier needed its own unique "prefix" (10,000 numbers) in order to serve a city or town. Since the introduction of thousand block number pooling, more than 1.6 million phone numbers have been "donated" to the "pool" by carriers. These numbers, in turn, can be used by other companies wishing to provide service in the same cities and towns. Number pooling and the voluntary return or reclamation of unneeded or unused numbering resources, continues to maximize the efficient use of numbers. Telephone numbers in the new 779 area code will not be assigned until the 815 area code has reached exhaust. At that time, FCC rules mandate that all telephone calls be made dialing the full 10-digit or 1+10-digit phone number, even within the same area code. This does not affect the cost of the call. A local call remains local, and a toll call remains toll, regardless of the number of digits that are dialed to complete it. Prior to the assignment of numbers from the new 779 area code, customers in the 815 area code will have a period of time to adjust to dialing 10 or 1+10 digits to complete their calls. There will be at least a 90-120 day notice period prior to activation of the new 779 area code. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:56:33 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: 321 Studios Will Appeal Court Ruling 321 Studios Will Appeal Court Ruling ST. LOUIS, Feb. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- 321 Studios (321) will appeal today's ruling of the Northern District Court of California's Judge Susan Illston, and will seek a stay during the appeal process. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200402202309_PRN__CGF044 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:27:08 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Order in 321 Studios v. MGM, et al. 321 STUDIOS v. METRO GOLDWYN MAYER STUDIOS, INC., ET AL. Order Granting Defendants' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment And Resolving Related Motions http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mgm/321mgm22004ord.pdf ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:58:21 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DVDXCOPY Contains Remote De-Activation Feature 321 Studios Shuts Down Piracy Suspect Preliminary Injunction and Transfer Motions to be Heard in New York City Court Today ST. LOUIS, Feb. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- 321 Studios (321) declares that its piracy prevention measures are working on the day transfer and preliminary injunction motions are to be heard in a New York City courtroom. 321 Studios recently relied on DVDXCOPY's built-in piracy prevention measures - the backup copy video disclaimer and ability to remotely de-activate a customer's copy of DVDXCOPY -- to shut down an accused copyright pirate. 321 first heard of this Illinois man's alleged activities in court papers related to Paramount Pictures Corporation and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. 321 Studios, a lawsuit filed in the Southern District Court of New York on November 14, 2003. The company took action the same day by remotely de-activating the man's copy of DVDXCOPY XPRESS. 321 Studios has several anti-piracy measures built into its DVDXCOPY series of software, including: -- An eight-second, indelible video warning, similar to the FBI warning found at the beginning of many DVD movies, alerting viewers of the backup copy that the DVD is not an original and is to be only used for non-commercial, personal use. -- An electronic watermark that can trace any backup copy made with DVDXCOPY back to the original point of purchase allowing 321 Studios to remotely de-activate the software and prevent further misuse. -- An embedded bit flag that prevents making a copy of a copy using DVDXCOPY. -- A $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person using 321's software to pirate movies. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200402051302_PRN__CGTH019 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:13:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: "Cable and Satellite Have Blurred the Difference Between Networks" Excerpt from Cable Boxes Can Block Unwanted Channels 20 February 2004, 1:35pm ET By JONATHAN D. SALANT Associated Press Writer http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200402201835_APO_V1388 The problem, critics say, is that cable and satellite have blurred the difference between networks. The traditional free networks _ CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox _ are just different channels on the cable box. The result is that a parent or child who channel surfs might click the "up" button on the remote control and go from CBS to Spike TV's "Stripperella," a cartoon about a buxom stripper doubling as a crime fighter, or FX's "Nip/Tuck," about a sex-crazed plastic surgeon. "The average person sees no difference between the two," said L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Parents Television Council, a conservative advocacy group. "The key distinction between the two of them _ i.e., you subscribe to cable _ is kind of flawed as well." Cable companies sell tiers of channels. If you want Disney and Discover Kids, you also must take MTV and FX. The only channels ordered individually are "premium" channels like Home Box Office and Showtime. FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin said he wants to allow subscribers to pick and choose cable channels. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200402201835_APO_V1388 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:43:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Judge: DVD-Copying Software is Illegal By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com After eight months of deliberation, a San Francisco federal judge has ruled that software company 321 Studios' popular DVD-copying products are illegal. In a ruling released Friday, Judge Susan Illston granted Hollywood studios' request for an injunction against 321 Studios, saying the small software company has seven days to stop distributing its DVD-copying products. http://news.com.com/2100-1025-5162749.html ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Symbol Added to Morse Code Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:23:37 GMT Tony P. wrote: > Ahem -- that's dit-dah dah-dit-dah-dit -- another amateur radio > prosign to remember. Ahem yourself, actually @ would be di-dah-dah-di-dah-dit. There's no pause in the middle. > Thing is AT is dit-dah dah, several elements shorter than the new > prosign. Well, Yes, but di-dah-dah was already taken. It's the letter W. ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: Symbol Added to Morse Code Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:40:19 GMT Tony P. wrote in message news:telecom23.84.9@telecom-digest.org: > In article , > Joe_Wineburgh@cable.comcast.com says: >> http://www.cjonline.com/stories/021704/pag_morsecode.shtml >> The Associated Press >> Morse code is entering the 21st century -- or at least the late 20th. >> The 160-year-old communication system now has a new character to >> denote the "@" symbol used in e-mail addresses. >> In December, the International Telecommunications Union, which >> oversees the entire frequency spectrum, from amateur radio to >> satellites, voted to add the new character. >> The new sign, which will be known as a "commat," consists of the >> signals for "A" (dot-dash) and "C" (dash-dot-dash-dot), with no space >> between them. > Ahem -- that's dit-dah dah-dit-dah-dit -- another amateur radio > prosign to remember. Thing is AT is dit-dah dah, several elements > shorter than the new prosign. > I hate it when that happens. > kd1s - an extra who had to do the 20WPM code damn it. I recommend that hams continue using the old style AT instead of AC , so that spammers can't strip their addresses off the airwaves and send them junk mail ads for ham radio gear. Just a thought. Bill (Remove the 'noham' portion of my return address for direct replies.) ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Subject: Re: Distractions While Driving -- And Not Just Cell Phones Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:08:41 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Gary Novosielski wrote: > Doug Aspinwall wrote: >> New York is currently the only state to ban hand-held cell phones >> while driving without using a hands-free device. Several states have >> tried to pass a similar ban for the general public, but they have not >> passed. > New Jersey passed such a bill recently, and it was signed into law. I > believe it takes effect July 1. > It is only a secondary offense; an officer cannot stop you merely for > using a phone handset, if you're doing nothing else wrong. However, > if you are stopped for another infraction the officer can add the > cellphone violation to whatever else they write you up for. > =Gary Any bets as to how long it will be before it becomes a primary offense???? They said that about the seat-belt law, too. Any self-respecting cop can come up with a reason to stop you at any time. Thus this "secondary infraction" wording is pure horse-bleep. "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh sure ... if a police officer could not think of any reason to arrest you he would be a poor police officer indeed. That's why laws such as 'disorderly conduct' are so valuable. Anyone saying they are not disorderly have never met a police officer who decided they were. If you are 'disorderly' then you can bed while they look up other more serious offenses against you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Re: Distractions While Driving -- And Not Just Cell Phones Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:00:19 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com > A - the police officer is presumably talking about the task at hand > (which is driving), rather than something completely unrelated. Not to mention, police officers are trained to drive at such speeds. The average driver isn't. John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Distractions While Driving -- And Not Just Cell Phones Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:23:04 GMT In article , gpn@suespammers.org says: > Doug Aspinwall wrote: >> New York is currently the only state to ban hand-held cell phones >> while driving without using a hands-free device. Several states have >> tried to pass a similar ban for the general public, but they have not >> passed. > New Jersey passed such a bill recently, and it was signed into law. I > believe it takes effect July 1. > It is only a secondary offense; an officer cannot stop you merely for > using a phone handset, if you're doing nothing else wrong. However, > if you are stopped for another infraction the officer can add the > cellphone violation to whatever else they write you up for. Give it time. Once they figure out what a cash cow it's going to be it will become a primary offense. It surprises me that the seatbelt law in Rhode Island is still secondary, though there has been a push to make it primary. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:35:24 -0700 From: In message <> joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) did ramble: >>> But if more people drop their regular telephone service in favor of >>> tax-free Internet calling, the financial underpinnings of 911 will be >>> weakened, he said. >> But presumably as more and more people get phone lines incapable of >> dialing 911, the costs for operating 911 should drop as well, no? > Seems to me it's just the opposite. 911 *can* respond to VoIP, but > it's (currently) more expensive. Each VoIP phone that uses the 911 > network instead of a landline doubly drains 911 funds. Most of the VoIP services I've seen don't offer 911. I would expect that a phone which cannot call 911, by definition, costs the 911 system less then a number which can call 911. Admittedly, at their best, some VoIP services forward 911 to a local 7 digit emergency number of some sort. I could accept that these calls cost more to handle since the emergency operator will not have accurate caller information as they would with a valid E911 service. Even if you wanted to implement full E911, I'd still suggest that false locations would occur since the VoIP service could have been moved, Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Vonage offers 911 service. They ask you FIRST to sign up for it THEN wait for their comfirmation before you start using it. When I was unable to get a local Vonage number I took a San Franciso 415 number. I enrolled in 911 and a day ot two later, Vonage responded saying I was registerd at my street address. I got a letter the same day or next day from City of Independence Police confirming it as given by Vonage via PSAP. Then once Vonage got into this rural area of s.e. Kansas and had an area 620 local number avail- able, I took that instead, and signed up that number 620-402-0134 for 911 also. Vonage sent that one through like the earlier one, but because the first one 'obviously' was not Kansas -- e.g. San Francisco -- when the paperwork got here to Independence a day or two later, the lady from the police department called me and asked, "Did you move over to Winfield (KS), where the number is at?" When I told her it was still my Vonage computer phone but with a more local number, but Vonage was not yet co-located here in town. Terra World is all over this part of the state; I do not know why Vonage chose Winfield instead of Independence (20 miles away) but no matter I guess. So she corrected their records at the police station to show same address but new 620 number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:46:44 GMT In article , dave.garland@wizinfo.com says: > It was a dark and stormy night when joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel > M. Hoffman) wrote: > While on the topic, though, why do only phone > users pay the 911 tax? Because it was easy to sneak that in, and > provides implausible deniability to the politicians who want to say > they're "lowering taxes". It's all the rage, call it a "mandatory > surcharge" or a "user fee" or an "access charge", anything but a > "tax". Too bad truth-in-advertising doesn't apply to politicians. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, Dave, it also occurs to me > that the present attacks on VOIP (Internet phone service) by > politicians and others also helps the FBI/Justice people who have a > king-size grudge right now about how difficult it will be to trace > or tap or bug telephone calls using this medium. Don't listen to > that balogna about how the 'poor 911 tax will suffer so badly > because of people getting into VOIP'. They've made more than enough > money to fund every 911 call center in the world many times over; > that is, if they had spent the money properly, not misappropriated > it or sqaundered it on other often times useless projects as part of > the overall goal to have 'no servants left behind'. They just cannot > stand having anything around they cannot have their hands in, can > they? PAT] Most law enforcement doesn't know it's ass from it's elbow when it comes to telecommunications technology. I had to laugh while watching the HBO series "The Wire" -- yeah right, regular grunt cops are going to understand wiretaps, etc. The reality of it is that tapping ANY line is easy. Digital switches make it a simple proposition -- I remember a key demo on an AT&T 5ESS/2000 - we could pluck any number and listen in, and the parties on the line wouldn't even know it because we were just picking a bit stream out of the matrix. The same is true of VoIP -- that call has to be routed through somewhere -- and you can bet there's a way to monitor. Even though the main path is over IP it eventually enters a switch somewhere that authenticates the connection (Wouldn't do to have people who don't pay on the network!) and then finds a path to the PSTN to route the call. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But the fact that the call drops onto the public telephone network is only because there are still some folks who do not have Vonage (or other VOIP) phones. When two VOIP customers call each other on the phone, the call does NOT go on the telephone network. As more and more people sign up for Vonage as an example, less and less of the VOIP traffic will find its way onto the public telephone network. As far as having 'people who do not pay on the network', we *DO* pay! We pay Vonage each month. And that is the beef the authorities have now. Gradually fewer and fewer calls (of the no-good citizens they wish to track) will ever reach the network, making tracking them nearly impossible unless one bunch of public servants (justice, FBI, etc) can convince another bunch of the public servants (FCC, various regulators) that Vonage and other VOIP connections have to be treated like 'regular' telephones. (Oh, don't they just wish!) If they cannot get what they want by an appeal to the regulators and they cannot get anywhere by appealing to your sense of good citizenship and how the 911 funds are going to go bankrupt, and how police will not be able to find the pervert who raped your grandmother because the 911 PSAP database is all screwed up since some bad citizens insist on using VOIP, then they will go to Congress and the President and twist their arms for relief in the form of laws, etc. You won't get away with it for very long. But in the meantime, while they are still tolerating it, if you want to try a month of Vonage as my gift to you, just write to me not-for pub and request a Vonage e-coupon. You get a month of free service (the second month) of whatever service plan you choose with no further obligation. Just write and ask for it : ptownson@telecom-digest.org . or call my 'business office' at 620-402-0134 or 773-353-5067 whichever is closest to you. Vonage is very good about delivering your ATA box promptly and getting you in business. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Pros & Cons of Digital Epabx Compare to Hybrid Epabx Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:30:47 GMT In article , son_tha@yahoo.com says: > Hello, > I want to buy new Epabx system for my office. I need maximum 40 > extension & KTS. > Can any one please tell me pros & cons of Digital Epabx compare to > Hybrid Epabx. > At present I have quote for Karel 40, Panasonic 1232, Matrix Eternity > & Symense 48i. > Which is advisable? Know what I like about the better digital systems? One pair. Hybrids take at least two pairs and even some digital systems had phones that were so power hungry that one of the pairs had to be power. In the case of my dealings with the G3i the 8410's were one pair, while the 7406D's were two pair. As for reliability -- the 7406D's had it hands down. ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Home Intercom Phone System With Cordless Phone? Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:31:40 +0000 (UTC) Organization: XOme Quoth Andrew Bell in news:telecom23.83.9@telecom- digest.org: > joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote about Home Intercom Phone > System With Cordless Phone: >> In light of the dicussion about a home phone system (2-4 lines, a >> half-dozen extensions, perhaps) that offers intercom connections >> between any two phones, I'm wondering: >> Is there such a system that will work with a cordless phone? The idea >> is that the cordless phone could be one of the stations. > Siemens makes a 2 line system (the 8825) that handles up to 8 cordless > extensions from a single base. The base is a fully functional station > as well, with a built in 4 mailbox answering machine and > auto-attendant. It has full intercom between all handsets, conference > calling, etc. Has anyone here used the three-line Circle Communications 5.8 GHz system Hello Direct is selling at ? I may need to put WiFi in an office where I now use a KX-TG4000 system, and the systems will be incompatible with each other, living in the same spectrum. It would be nice to be able to stay with cordless phones. "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln, to Col. William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864 ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Quest to Offer "Naked DSL" Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:38:38 GMT In article , epg1@comcast.net says: > McWebber (mcwebber@my-deja.com) wrote: >> Verizon recently caved and now allows DSL only subscriptions, so I'm >> sure Qworst looked at that before making the decision. > Can anyone provide details of DSL-only subscriptions through Verizon > (in Eastern Massachusetts, if it matters)? I would love to tell > Comcast where to shove their overpriced service. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, if you think the telephone > company is going to give you a better deal *and* stick to their word, > you might need to review your premises. (in other words, think again.) > PAT] Somewhat true -- I was promised 1.5MBps service and got 760KBps but know what, it's as fast or faster in many cases than Cox own 2MBps service promise. just go to http://www.verizon.net and on that page I believe there's a script that will tell you if you qualify for DSL. ** WARNING ** The folks at Verizon DSL are a little bit brain dead. I was told I was 27K feet from the CO when I know that's not the case. Turns out I'm actually 9K feet from the CO, or 1/3 the distance. Their records are notoriously bad. So don't accept a no answer without first calling repair and asking them to run a loop length test. Then call the Verizon DSL folks and explain that you called repair and they verified the distance recorded in the Verizon DSL database is wrong. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: ESPN Ends Ugly Fight With Cox Over Fees Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:39:59 GMT In article , monty@roscom.com says: > By GARY GENTILE AP Business Writer > LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Sports cable network ESPN has reached new > agreements with two cable television systems, ending a particularly > nasty dispute with Cox Communications that saw the launch of dueling > Web sites and ad campaigns. > The deal with Cox keeps ESPN and ESPN 2 on the extended basic tier > level of cable service _ meaning it will be available to most Cox > cable subscribers. Cox, in the face of what it said was unwarranted > price increases by ESPN, had threatened to move the cable channels to > a premium level of service. > Also Thursday, ESPN announced it had a similar long-term deal with > Charter Communications. In exchange for lower annual fee increases, > Charter agreed to add three new services to its system. > Specific terms of the new deals were not released, except that ESPN > confirmed the new annual price increases will be less than 20 percent. > On its own Web site, Cox said the new deal called for an average rate > increase of 7 percent per year. I'm so glad I kicked Cox to the curb. It's nothing but increase after increase with them. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Cable Modem Hackers Conquer the Co-ax Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:42:10 GMT In article , lawrence.jones@ugsplm.com says: > Tony P. wrote: >> The thing about cable vs. DSL is that the cable coming into your >> home is a shared medium. On the cable side it looks like one big >> Ethernet LAN even using CDMA/CD. > Not quite. Cable modems transmit and receive on completely different > frequency bands, so it's not possible for one cable modem to receive > another cable modem's transmissions. And it isn't CSMA/CD: The CMTS > (the head end) is the only thing that transmits on the downstream > channel, so there's no need for access control. The upstream channel > is divided into slots that are scheduled by the CMTS (the schedule is > broadcast on the downstream channel). Slots are usually assigned to > specific modems, so no other access control is needed. CSMA/CD is > only used when a slot is specifically assigned for it (mostly just for > modems to announce themselves when they first boot, although it's may > also be allowed for general transmissions when there's no pending > traffic to be scheduled). Ooops -- my bad. But there is in fact contention on the downstream side. In any case, overload a headend with nodes and watch what happens to cable modems. Performance drops like a rock. ------------------------------ 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: 620-330-6774 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 second 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 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #85 *****************************