32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for June 14, 2014
Volume 33 : Issue 104 : "text" Format
====== 32 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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, 11 Jun 2014 22:29:04 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Controlling Your Smart Home With One Hub
Message-ID: <p0624081bcfbec08dbbb5@[172.16.42.7]>
Controlling Your Smart Home With One Hub
JUNE 11, 2014
Molly Wood
THE smart home is full of promise: Coffee makers that turn on when
you wake up, garage doors that open when you come home, relaxing
music that is controlled remotely and air-conditioners and
thermostats that perfectly regulate the home and save you money, too.
Promise is rarely reality, though. Smart-home automation is a tricky
and chaotic corner of tech right now. Companies are rushing to join
the fray, buoyed in part by the success of the Nest Learning
Thermostat, and Google's $3.2 billion acquisition of Nest.
For consumers, putting together a smart home remains mostly a
do-it-yourself project. You choose your components, connect them to
your home network and start living your connected life. Companies
like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T offer monitoring systems, but they
don't offer much flexibility. And installing a complete home
automation and security system can cost tens of thousands of dollars.
The trouble is that for anyone pursuing this as a D.I.Y. project, the
more devices you bring home, the more separate apps you need to
control them. Suddenly, convenience becomes cumbersome.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/technology/personaltech/your-coffee-maker-garage-door-and-air-conditioner-all-controlled-by-one-device.html
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:42:30 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Controlling Your Smart Home With One Hub
Message-ID: <lndhdo$296$1@dont-email.me>
On 6/11/2014 10:29 PM, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
> Controlling Your Smart Home With One Hub
>
> JUNE 11, 2014
> Molly Wood
>
> THE smart home is full of promise: Coffee makers that turn on when
> you wake up,
As opposed to the old-fashioned ones that merely turn on at the same
time your alarm goes off.
> ... garage doors that open when you come home,
Thus sparing you the obligation to push a button on the remote control
clipped to your sun visor.
> ... relaxing music that is controlled remotely
Unlike my current stereo, which responds to a remote from anywhere that
I'd want to listen.
> ... and air-conditioners and thermostats that perfectly regulate the
> home and save you money, too.
But, no competent civil servants to regulate the price of oil,
incentivize solar and wind power, or save me money by not spending
my tax dollars on the latest gaudy, chrome plated military toys.
> Promise is rarely reality, though.
That, at least, is true: reality must be part of the design of any new
technical gadget, be it a movement sensor that calls the cops when your
cat spies a mouse in a corner, or gee-wiz "smart" toys that are sold to
those whom are willing to believe that having a new toy will, ipso
facto, put them in charge of their lives, their schedule, or their
options for the future.
> Smart-home automation is a tricky and chaotic corner of tech
> right now. Companies are rushing to join the fray, buoyed in
> part by the success of the Nest Learning Thermostat, and
> Google's $3.2 billion acquisition of Nest.
So, a question for the analysts: are they all hoping to get
bought out by Larry and Sergei, or just to take advantage of
any venture capitalist who's willing to believe their claims?
> For consumers, putting together a smart home remains mostly a
> do-it-yourself project. You choose your components, connect them to
> your home network and start living your connected life.
My life is already "connected", and far too much so. I have
home phones that ring when I'm sitting down to dinner, a cell
phone which is, for practical purposes, an electronic leash held
by my employers, and a world-wide-wait that once promised to
give me access to the world's wisdom but is now being
perverted to deliver its hype.
> Companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T offer monitoring systems,
> but they don't offer much flexibility. And installing a complete home
> automation and security system can cost tens of thousands of dollars.
... and which are sold on the assumption that criminals are so
stupid that they couldn't grasp the concept of WiFi jamming
transmitters, let alone wire cutters.
> The trouble is that for anyone pursuing this as a D.I.Y. project, the
> more devices you bring home, the more separate apps you need to
> control them. Suddenly, convenience becomes cumbersome.
It's not "convenience": it's magical thinking. Putting a
crown on my head doesn't make me a king, any more than
buying a car just because I saw a commercial which was
filmed on an empty highway or a deserted street means
that I'll never get stuck in traffic, or that I can
take off and go anywhere on a whim.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that even the New York Times must
kowtow to its advertisers, and run this kind of gee-wiz fluff
piece that only hints at the obvious, instead of telling the
plain truth, which is that "smart" homes can't compensate for
dumb owners.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 21:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: New Study Shows That Consumers Favor Aereo in Supreme Court Case against American Broadcasting Companies
Message-ID: <93f9d395-20a5-4789-b933-3630b0e41347@googlegroups.com>
By Jennie Pearson, PRWEB, San Francisco, June 06, 2014
In anticipation of the Supreme Court decision for "American
Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc." market research firm
Peerless Insights has conducted a study on consumer opinions. The
research findings show that of the 1,231 adults surveyed, 46%
want Aereo to win while just 15% favor broadcasters.
Clearly, the demand for a service like Aereo is growing. Now the
question is: can the industry find a business model that will
benefit over-the-top services, TV broadcasters and viewers alike?
Today, market research firm Peerless Insights announced results
of a new study gauging consumer opinions about the highly
anticipated Supreme Court of the United States ruling "American
Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc." (Docket No. 13-461).
Findings reveal that the majority of consumers want to see Aereo
prevail; however they also believe that like traditional cable
companies, Aereo should compensate broadcasters for content
appropriation.
Continued:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/06/prweb11920412.htm
Well, if Aereo actually did "compensate broadcasters," doing so
would destroy its entire business model. Aereo would have to pay
monetary fees, and presumably it would have to comply with
whatever other demands that broadcasters impose on cable TV and
sat TV companies.
Principal among those other demands would be carriage of co-owned
non-broadcast programming. I doubt that, for example, an ABC O&O
station would grant retrans-consent for the ABC broadcast signal
without bundling it with ESPN, Disney Channel, ABC Family, and
whatever else ABC is demanding of cable and sat companies. Each
of those signals carries a separate monetary fee. Aereo would
end up carrying the same signals that cable and sat companies
carry and paying similar wholesale prices.
Of course, Aereo could undercut cable and sat retail prices by
using the internet for signal delivery. But one way or another,
the consumer still has to pay for internet access, thus largely
negating Aereo's price advantage.
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:05:26 -0400
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Handling telemarketers
Message-ID: <barmar-964F45.20052611062014@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <slrnlpf0na.3h5.jhaynes@Frances.localdomain>,
Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu> wrote:
> See today's (10 Jun 2014) "The Duplex" comic strip.
But see today's (11 June 2014) for the telemarketer's revenge.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Handling telemarketers
Message-ID: <239f7f61-7e6c-4804-96f4-aadd20bc849e@googlegroups.com>
On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:12:58 PM UTC-5, Jim Haynes wrote:
> See today's (10 Jun 2014) "The Duplex" comic strip.
>
Here's the direct link:
http://www.gocomics.com/duplex/2014/06/10#.U5kLFyhQZu0
Neal McLain
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 22:16:14 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: When the Landline Is a Lifeline
Message-ID: <p06240819cfbebdd217d7@[172.16.42.7]>
When the Landline Is a Lifeline
By JON BRODKIN
JUNE 4, 2014
AT&T and Verizon are pushing hard to shift traditional landline
service, which has mostly operated over copper lines, to a system of
Internet-based phones by around 2020. If the Federal Communications
Commission approves the switch as is, it could come as a shock to the
96 million Americans who still rely on landlines.
The change itself is inevitable: the old copper lines are aging and
expensive to maintain. And the new system is already in use. As of
December 2012, 42 million Americans had Internet-based phones. But
moving to an all Internet-based network will benefit Americans only
if the F.C.C. is able to protect them in the shift.
The new phones have some major technical flaws. They can't hold up
during long power failures or connect all emergency phone calls. But
there are also regulatory problems: The change in service could free
the telecom industry from its obligation to guarantee universal
access and fair prices to consumers.
As a result, people in remote or rural areas who rely on landlines
could end up paying a lot for a bad deal.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/opinion/when-the-landline-is-a-lifeline.html
[moderator pro tem's note: Just that excerpt alone contains a few whoppers, which tells you how confusing this topic is. For one thing, "copper" and "IP" are at different layers and not mutually exclusive. For another, fewer than 15 million Internet phones exist. Most "VoIP" is really Voice using IP (VuIP) over cable. That does not touch the Internet at all. Of course the Bells want to keep up the confusion.]
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:05:53 -0400
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: When the Landline Is a Lifeline
Message-ID: <barmar-43E807.15055312062014@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <p06240819cfbebdd217d7@[172.16.42.7]>,
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
> [moderator pro tem's note: Just that excerpt alone contains a few whoppers,
> which tells you how confusing this topic is. For one thing, "copper" and "IP"
> are at different layers and not mutually exclusive. For another, fewer than
While this is technically true, it's effectively irrelevant. The fact is
that the phone companies mostly tie the choice of upper-layer protocol
to lower-layer technology. You can't connect a POTS phone directly to a
fiber-optic cable, you need some kind of conversion device. And the
devices that exist are based on VOIP protocols. Yes, you can provide
broadband services over copper (that's what DSL is), but providers are
generally phasing those services out because of their limitations and
costs; so if you want broadband, you pretty much have to get fiber.
FG: They don't have to use VoIP; thre are better ways to run telephone over fiber optics. The point is that layers matter, and they can replace old copper without touching the insecure public Internet.
> 15 million Internet phones exist. Most "VoIP" is really Voice using IP
> (VuIP) over cable. That does not touch the Internet at all. Of course the
> Bells want to keep up the confusion.]
Now you are the one who is conflating things. IP and the Internet are
not the same thing. You can use VOIP over the public Internet, as with
third-party services like Vonage, or you can do it over a private IP
network, as is done by all the broadband providers.
FG> But that's the point I was making. The article said 42 milllion American had *Internet-based phones*. But most of that number is private IP (VuIP). That was my point. The Internet frankly sucks for voice.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 21:47:56 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The Privacy Paradox, a Challenge for Business
Message-ID: <p06240838cfc008a6a1ca@[172.16.42.7]>
The Privacy Paradox, a Challenge for Business
By STEVE LOHR
JUNE 12, 2014
People around the world are thrilled by the ease and convenience of
their smartphones and Internet services, but they aren't willing to
trade their privacy to get more of it.
That is the top-line finding of a new study of 15,000 consumers in 15
countries. The privacy paradox was surfaced most directly in one
question: Would you be willing to trade some privacy for greater
convenience and ease?
Worldwide, 51 percent replied no, and 27 percent said yes. (The
remainder had no opinion or didn't know.) There were
country-by-country differences, but there was a consistency to the
results, especially in the developed nations. The United States was
56 percent no and 21 percent yes. Britain was almost identical - 55
percent no, 18 percent yes. Germany was most privacy protective - 71
percent no, and 12 percent yes. India, by contrast, had the highest
yes percentage - 48 percent, to 40 percent no.
...
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/the-privacy-paradox-a-challenge-for-business/
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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne.
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) 2014 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 (8 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues