Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 
Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 78 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Tales of data pirates: Opting out of Verizon's open-ended sharing 
  Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960 
  Re: under-sea power transmission cables 
  Re: under-sea power transmission cables 
  Re: VoIP Latency Problem? 
  Seeking a company to provide data bandwidth to Internet in Ontario Canada 
  History of AT&T Mail [TELECOM]
  Re: History of AT&T Mail [TELECOM]
  Re: History of AT&T Mail [TELECOM]
  Re: VoIP Latency Problem? 
  Re: VoIP Latency Problem? 
  Palm Reports Q3 FY09 Results


====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. 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, and other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:11:14 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Tales of data pirates: Opting out of Verizon's open-ended sharing Message-ID: <p06240869c5e74be98db9@[10.0.1.6]> Tales of data pirates: Opting out of Verizon's open-ended sharing Posted on March 7th, 2009 A small legalistic pamphlet from Verizon arrived today telling me that I have 45 days to opt out of "agreeing" to let Verizon share Customer Proprietary Network Information, i.e., "information created by virtue of your relationship with Verizon Wireless," including "services purchased (including specific calls you make and receive," billing info, technical info and location info. They promise to only share this with "affiliates, agents and parent companies." It will definitely not be shared with "unrelated third parties"... unless, perhaps that third party pays Verizon to become an affiliate, whatever the heck "affiliate " means. ... http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/03/07/tales-of-data-pirates-opting-out-of-verizons-open-ended-sharing/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:06:56 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960 Message-ID: <pan.2009.03.19.07.06.55.276272@myrealbox.com> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:59:20 -0400, AES wrote: ..... > Not to mention that, as I've read somewhere, at the time it was > "discontinued" the Concorde had accumulated by far the _worst_ > cumulative safety record (deaths per passenger mile) of any major model > of jet airliner ever operated in commercial service. Which was probably due to that Paris crash *caused* by debris from another plane that took off immediately before it. Anyhow, Concord was a woefully inefficient conveyance with those 1960's technology engines gobbling fuel at an extraordinary rate and depositing masses of pollution high in the stratosphere - the planet is better off without it. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Let's all celebrate the Concorde's retirement by dropping this out of the discussion, OK? Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:08:57 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: under-sea power transmission cables Message-ID: <pan.2009.03.19.07.08.56.923271@myrealbox.com> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:23:49 -0400, Richard wrote: > On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:10:10 -0400 (EDT), David Clayton > <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: ......... >>I'm assuming all these long cable runs are now DC to maximise the >>overall power that you can pipe down these things - all built on the >>back of super-efficient AC to DC conversions at either end. That might >>keep "bitey" things away from the cable rather than an AC field. > > There is another reason to use DC. With AC, some of the transmitted > energy is in the fields between the conductors, leading to losses due to > the conductive sea water. With DC, any fields are static, and do not > lose energy. Yep, not having any reactive losses would also be a big plus. The proponents of DC in the very early years would be having a laugh now as the limitations of AC are being circumvented with the aid of modern technology. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. ***** Moderator's Note ***** OK, the Concorde might be powered by DC solar cells someday. Until then, I think the readers' susceptance is at an ebb, and their admittance is waning as well. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:42:04 -0400 From: "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz" <BLOrnitz84@charter.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: under-sea power transmission cables Message-ID: <nexwl.88685$Rg3.13303@newsfe17.iad> "David Clayton" <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:pan.2009.03.19.07.08.56.923271@myrealbox.com... > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:23:49 -0400, Richard wrote: > >> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:10:10 -0400 (EDT), David Clayton >> <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: > ......... >>>I'm assuming all these long cable runs are now DC to maximise the >>>overall power that you can pipe down these things - all built on the >>>back of super-efficient AC to DC conversions at either end. That might >>>keep "bitey" things away from the cable rather than an AC field. >> >> There is another reason to use DC. With AC, some of the transmitted >> energy is in the fields between the conductors, leading to losses due to >> the conductive sea water. With DC, any fields are static, and do not >> lose energy. > > Yep, not having any reactive losses would also be a big plus. The > proponents of DC in the very early years would be having a laugh now as > the limitations of AC are being circumvented with the aid of modern > technology. It is not the dielectric losses that are at fault. Even if perfect insulating materials are used (the imaginary component of the dielectric constant is zero), the capacitance between the conductors will create a very low power factor increasing system losses. Years ago, I think it was in the late 1960's, Scientific American had an article about an underground high tension line that was being tested by GE. The line was 26 miles long, three phase 60 Hz. From the generator end of the line, the current into the line was the same with the load end open-circuited as it was when the load end was short circuited! At that time, conversion of DC back to AC required expensive silicon controlled rectifier circuitry. Today this is less of a problem. With DC, capacitance between the conductors is beneficial as it serves to lessen the requirements of the end inverters circuitry. -- 73, Dr. Barry L. Ornitz BLOrnitz84@charter.net [transpose digits to reply] ***** Moderator's Note ***** This came in before my announcement that this thread was closed. Last one! Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:45:12 +0000 From: David Quinton <usenet_2005D_email@REMOVETHISBITbizorg.co.uk> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: VoIP Latency Problem? Message-ID: <nut3s45fec9qtg8c0u3maljl4o21855j3b@4ax.com> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:48:43 -0400 (EDT), Tom <tdenham735@gmail.com> wrote: >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >Since there is no specification for minimum transit time in the IP >specification, you're going to deal with latency on every VoIP >call. Although 280 ms is a good figure, I'm at a loss to explain the >dropouts if Wireshark doesn't show any anomaly. > >If some party along the line is "traffic shaping" because they don't >get paid for VoIP (and they want you to use the PSTN instead), that >would explain the dropouts. I suggest you try encapsulating the VoIP >calls in a VPN for some tests: the VPN will hide the traffic >signature, so that might reveal if there's sabotage. > >Hate to be cynical, but Comcast has been doing shaping for years (and >denying it), so it's worth checking out. Please pass along the landing >country(ies) as well: there might be some history. I'm no expert, but that figure seems high to me. Also beware of the jitter! Reference: http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-QoS ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:23:59 -0400 From: "chayn" <chayn123@gmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Seeking a company to provide data bandwidth to Internet in Ontario Canada Message-ID: <3D557ACDD94B4D6CB5C142E3D0AD0C08@newsergio> Hello, Can someone please recommend a company that provides reliable data connections to the Internet in Ontario, Canada? I need about 3MB and am seeking an agent/reseller relationship with them. Thank you, Robert ***** Moderator's Note ***** Robert, are you asking for 3 Megabits per second speed, or 3 Megabytes per second? (I'm actually astonished that this has become a valid question in my lifetime!) Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:58:37 -0500 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: History of AT&T Mail [TELECOM] Message-ID: <6645152a0903190858k42ae1dd2hd3990576aeb4cde@mail.gmail.com> When I was in college in the late 1980's I worked for AT&T as a co-op student. During my second quarter I was given the task of rolling out AT&T Mail to our site and training people how to use it. At the time I thought the service was pretty neat. It had email-to-fax and email-to-snail-mail gateways. It was used mostly by AT&T, but the service was available to the public and I found the governor of Kentucky listed in the directory. It didn't take me long to realize I could send email to @attmail.com from my school account, which raised a few eyebrows about me "hacking into AT&T Mail". When it came time to graduate I had promised myself I would get an AT&T Mail account if my future employer did not have Internet access (turns out they did). I was reminiscing about the service, so I visited Google and Wikipedia trying to find information. I cannot find anything. The search terms bring up information about today's at&t email service via their DSL service or really old archives containing messages from people with @attmail.com email addresses. Perhaps I'm the only person on the planet who thinks this topic is interesting, but in case I'm not, does anyone have more information about AT&T Mail? Until my last move I still had all of my manuals, but they're long gone. I want to create a Wikipedia entry. I believe AT&T Mail was as significant as Compuserve or Prodigy. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA ***** Moderator's Note ***** Allowing this post is a judgement call: while I try to keep the digest from straying too far into "computer" territory, the history of AT&T1 and AT&T2 is relevent to telecom. I ask, however, that respondents confine their remarks to the ways that AT&T1's forays into email affected its telecom business. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:33:56 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: History of AT&T Mail [TELECOM] Message-ID: <V_xwl.16042$as4.9111@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> John Mayson wrote: > When I was in college in the late 1980's I worked for AT&T as a co-op > student. During my second quarter I was given the task of rolling out > AT&T Mail to our site and training people how to use it. At the time > I thought the service was pretty neat. It had email-to-fax and > email-to-snail-mail gateways. It was used mostly by AT&T, but the > service was available to the public and I found the governor of > Kentucky listed in the directory. It didn't take me long to realize I > could send email to @attmail.com from my school account, which raised > a few eyebrows about me "hacking into AT&T Mail". When it came time > to graduate I had promised myself I would get an AT&T Mail account if > my future employer did not have Internet access (turns out they did). > > I was reminiscing about the service, so I visited Google and Wikipedia > trying to find information. I cannot find anything. The search terms > bring up information about today's at&t email service via their DSL > service or really old archives containing messages from people with > @attmail.com email addresses. Perhaps I'm the only person on the > planet who thinks this topic is interesting, but in case I'm not, does > anyone have more information about AT&T Mail? Until my last move I > still had all of my manuals, but they're long gone. I want to create > a Wikipedia entry. I believe AT&T Mail was as significant as > Compuserve or Prodigy. > > John > You might try EasyLink, I had that with Western Union and AT@T took it over. I remember using it with friends, sending mail to Fax and linked into the USPS MailGram service. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:03:24 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: History of AT&T Mail [TELECOM] Message-ID: <5be3499c-1f96-42c9-af06-9949edaf3c01@a39g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> On Mar 19, 3:54 pm, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote: > When I was in college in the late 1980's ... I was given the > task of rolling out AT&T Mail to our site and training people > how to use it. At the time I thought the service was pretty > neat. ... > Does anyone have more information about AT&T Mail? I'm not familiiar with that specific package, but at that time corporations were starting email systems. Initially they were internal but eventually were Internet as well. My employer at the time (late 1980s) installed PROFS, which was a mainframe based system. Very reliable, I was sad when they cut it off. I'm not sure how big the various early email systems--AT&T'e Mail, EasyLink, Prodigy, and Compuserve were. In the grand scheme of things they were relatively small as most people did not have computers back then, and many who did weren't connected. If a fading memory serves, I think Compuserve was the biggest. A related question is: When did email--using today's standards-- begin? That is, when did people get email addresses of "PERSON@SITE" and there was an Internet capable of routing such messages to the appropriate site. I recall Compuserve having optional extra-fee links to send a Western Union Mailgram. I had Compuserve for a while but never used it; had no real need and was always afraid of running up the bill; things that I wanted cost extra. >***** Moderator's Note ***** > Allowing this post is a judgement call: while I try to keep the digest > from straying too far into "computer" territory, the history of AT&T1 > and AT&T2 is relevent to telecom. I ask, however, that respondents > confine their remarks to the ways that AT&T1's forays into email > affected its telecom business. In my opinion, general email issues, especially historical issues like this, are part of the telecom world and appropriate for us. Per your question, I don't think AT&T's own foray into email affected its telecom business; the email back then was just too limited to have a specific effect. IMHO, back then email in general tended to reduce long distance telephone traffic because people would communicate by email instead of a toll call. Now it doesn't matter since so many people have cheap or free long distance. For myself easy availability of email makes me send more quickie messages to friends, and I don't telephone as much. I think email, including emailed responses to webpages, has really done a job on the US Postal Service. I know today I use email for miscellaneous inquiries and comments for which in the past I'd use postcards, and of course the reply is via email instead of a letter. E-commerce in general--web pages as catalogs and to accept orders, electronic money transfers, etc., also has hurt the USPS. I suspect we'll soon go to five day a week mail. I have mixed feelings about this since I think the USPS still has a very important role to play in commerce and society. There are some communications that still are better mailed, particularly important correspondance or documents via Certified or Registered Mail and given the Internet's weaknesses there will be no substitute for some time. As to AT&T and other carriers (short and long haul), the growth of email and the Internet data lines to carry it as resulted in a huge growth of data transmissions. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I think there will always be a job for the Postal Service: after all, our business and government will be dependent on paper records for the foreseeable future. The Western way of life revolves around written records, and there has to be some way to get them from place to place. Our businesses, educational institutions, and governments still use paper as the primary medium-of-record. Despite the plethora of electronic alternatives, the post office is still, and probably always will be, in the business of carrying the mountain of Purchase Orders, checks, bills, magazines, stock certificates, bank statements, greeting cards, and personal messages that keep the wheels of society spinning. Having said that, I can't help but wonder if the electronic signatures that were made possible by public-key cryptography will someday supplant the paper records we now rely on. It would be a monumental change, and would require that every family have both access to the Internet and a computer, not to mention training in electronic record-keeping. I doubt it will happen: there's nothing like getting a letter that you can read anywhere and anytime you want, again and again. (If you don't believe me, just ask any other ex-GI). Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:29:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom <tdenham735@gmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: VoIP Latency Problem? Message-ID: <8dc2212b-b58e-4e27-bc2e-2a8e09d9acc6@a39g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> On Mar 18, 11:48 am, Tom <tdenham...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > We currently have a very simple VPN from our US office to our remote > office. Our bandwidth is fine, but our latency is running around 280 > ms on average to the remote office. The interesting thing is that at > least 70% of the time our calls are pretty good, but often we get very > odd noises and dropped calls, even though the bandwidth usage and > latency appear to be running at their usual baseline. Once the > problem starts it seems to persist for hours at a time. Even at times > when bandwidth is [much] lower than our baseline the VoIP problem can > crop up. > > We're not doing any VLAN tagging (we have cheap switches/routers), so > QoS is likely out of the question, although I'm not sure that will > help because it appears to happen at times when we have plenty of > bandwidth, so I suspect that it may have something to do with our poor > latency, but then why does it work well most of the time? > > I'm just puzzled as to why this works so well much of the time, but > some days can become unusable. Peeking with wireshark does not show > anything unusual during these bad calls, so we're a bit stumped. > > Any ideas or suggestions? > > Thanks... > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Since there is no specification for minimum transit time in the IP > specification, you're going to deal with latency on every VoIP > call. Although 280 ms is a good figure, I'm at a loss to explain the > dropouts if Wireshark doesn't show any anomaly. > > If some party along the line is "traffic shaping" because they don't > get paid for VoIP (and they want you to use the PSTN instead), that > would explain the dropouts. I suggest you try encapsulating the VoIP > calls in a VPN for some tests: the VPN will hide the traffic > signature, so that might reveal if there's sabotage. > > Hate to be cynical, but Comcast has been doing shaping for years (and > denying it), so it's worth checking out. Please pass along the landing > country(ies) as well: there might be some history. > > Bill Horne > Temporary Moderator Thanks for the feedback Bill...we are actually using a VPN...forgot to mention, basically running on Linux FreeSWAN. We're just totally stumped, but your comments are helpful...thanks! ***** Moderator's Note ***** In that case, try it _without_ the VPN! Encryption adds latency, so I suggest you have some teleconferences without the VPN, and compare results. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:57:55 GMT From: Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: VoIP Latency Problem? Message-ID: <uvb5s4dvhajqrrt6f1emf4s67k94i4me93@4ax.com> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:48:43 -0400 (EDT), Tom <tdenham735@gmail.com> wrote: >Hello, > >We currently have a very simple VPN from our US office to our remote >office. Our bandwidth is fine, but our latency is running around 280 >ms on average to the remote office. The interesting thing is that at >least 70% of the time our calls are pretty good, but often we get very >odd noises and dropped calls, even though the bandwidth usage and >latency appear to be running at their usual baseline. Once the >problem starts it seems to persist for hours at a time. Even at times >when bandwidth is [much] lower than our baseline the VoIP problem can >crop up. > >We're not doing any VLAN tagging (we have cheap switches/routers), so >QoS is likely out of the question, although I'm not sure that will >help because it appears to happen at times when we have plenty of >bandwidth, so I suspect that it may have something to do with our poor >latency, but then why does it work well most of the time? For a VPN tunnel (IPsec maybe) you would need to use DSCP or type of service depending the links the traffic will flow across. However even if you get the QoS to work (ie high priority packets overtake slower ones) the IPsec tunnel will then carefully put the packets back in the order they were injected - destroying any QoS benefit. The fix if you run over a QoS capable network is separate tunnel per QoS - or just mark everything high priority if you mainly contend with other peoples traffic. >I'm just puzzled as to why this works so well much of the time, but >some days can become unusable. Peeking with wireshark does not show >anything unusual during these bad calls, so we're a bit stumped. Jitter is much more of an issue with VoIP than absolute delay (and any packet loss above 1% is going to hurt as well). >Any ideas or suggestions? See if you are sending big packets down the link. IPsec fragmentation and reassembly can really hurt the performance of a router doing IPsec. >Thanks... > >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >Since there is no specification for minimum transit time in the IP >specification, you're going to deal with latency on every VoIP >call. Although 280 ms is a good figure, I'm at a loss to explain the >dropouts if Wireshark doesn't show any anomaly. Sort of depends if that is "round trip" (so inside the ITU 150 mSec 1 way recommendation), or each way. Also the codec delays and buffers will add a fair bit to the raw latency of the traffic path, so the voice latency may be up to 50 mSec higher each way depending on the codec. [Moderator snip] If the phones / adaptors have good stats (eg analog voice ports on a cisco router) the equipment may tell you why things are not right. Regards stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:12:03 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Palm Reports Q3 FY09 Results Message-ID: <p06240872c5e8d55db8ff@[10.0.1.6]> http://investor.palm.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=371862 Palm Reports Q3 FY09 Results SUNNYVALE, Calif., Mar 19, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Palm, Inc. (NASDAQ:PALM) today reported that total revenue in the third quarter of fiscal year 2009, ended Feb. 27, 2009, was $90.6 million. Smartphone sell-through for the quarter was 482,000 units, down 42 percent year over year. Smartphone revenue was $77.5 million, down 72 percent from the year-ago period. "We're proceeding through a challenging transitional period, however our current results shouldn't overshadow the tremendous progress we've made against our strategic goals. We're poised to usher in a new era at Palm," said Ed Colligan, Palm president and chief executive officer. Net loss applicable to common shareholders for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009 was $(98.0) million, or $(0.89) per diluted common share. Net loss applicable to common shareholders included stock-based compensation of $5.3 million, amortization of intangible assets of $0.9 million, restructuring charges of $5.7 million, a casualty loss of $5.0 million, an impairment of non-current auction rate securities of $4.0 million, a gain on a series C derivative of $20.6 million and accretion of series B and series C preferred stocks of $3.0 million. This compares to a net loss applicable to common shareholders for the third quarter of fiscal year 2008 of $(57.0) million or $(0.53) per diluted common share, which included stock-based compensation of $6.2 million, amortization of intangible assets of $1.0 million, restructuring charges of $12.3 million, an impairment of non-current auction rate securities of $25.5 million and accretion of series B preferred stock of $2.4 million. Net loss for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009, measured on a non-GAAP(1) basis, totaled $(94.7) million, or $(0.86) per diluted share, excluding stock-based compensation, amortization of intangible assets, restructuring charges, a casualty loss, an impairment of non-current auction rate securities, a gain on a series C derivative and accretion of series B and series C preferred stocks. This compares to a non-GAAP net loss for the third quarter of fiscal year 2008 of $(17.0) million, or $(0.16) per diluted share, which excluded the effects of stock-based compensation, amortization of intangible assets, restructuring charges, an impairment of non-current auction rate securities, accretion of series B preferred stock and an adjustment to the related tax provision. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009 totaled $(81.9) million. EBITDA, adjusted to add back stock-based compensation, net other income (expense), restructuring charges, a casualty loss, an impairment of non-current auction rate securities and a gain on a series C derivative, or Adjusted EBITDA, totaled $(78.6) million. Cash used in operations for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009 was $(92.1) million. The company's cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments balance was $219.4 million at the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2009. Palm recently announced the closing of a public offering of common stock and the associated exercise of its underwriters' over-allotment option. In total, approximately 26.6 million shares were sold in the offering, including shares subject to the over-allotment option and approximately 18.5 million common shares underlying 49 percent of the units of series C preferred stock and warrants acquired by Elevation Partners in January 2009, for a public offering price of $6.00 per share. Elevation Partners, which recouped the $49 million it originally paid for its units included in the offering, used those funds to purchase approximately 8.2 million shares of Palm's common stock in the offering at the public offering price. In total, Palm received estimated net proceeds of approximately $103.6 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions, estimated offering expenses and the original purchase price of Elevation Partners' units. Separately, Palm indicated that since it expects to periodically provide new software features free of charge to customers of its Palm(R) webOS(TM) products, including the recently announced Palm Pre(TM), it will recognize Palm webOS product revenues and related standard costs of revenues on a subscription basis based on the applicable product's estimated economic life, which is currently 24 months. The company will be recording deferred revenues and deferred costs of revenues on its balance sheet, and amortizing them into earnings on a straight-line basis over the estimated economic product life. Certain administrative and other related period costs of revenues will be expensed as incurred. This accounting policy will have no impact on cash flows and does not change how Palm accounts for Palm OS(R) products, like the Centro(TM), or its Treo(TM) line. A more detailed discussion of the new accounting treatment can be found on Palm's Investor Relations website at http://investor.palm.com/ . ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition 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. The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom 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 Copyright (C) 2008 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. 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 The Telecom digest (12 messages) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues