32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for June 15, 2014
Volume 33 : Issue 106 : "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: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Odds of Aereo prevailing about 30 percent, analyst says
Message-ID: <f037ab71-ed69-454e-88c3-b2d8bbfd5d3e@googlegroups.com>
By Daniel Frankel, FierceCable, June 12, 2014 |
The chances of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of SVOD
service Aereo in its battle with broadcasters hover at around 30
percent, according to Wells Fargo Securities' Marci Ryvicker, who
outlined what she believes investors should expect from the
pending court ruling Thursday.
Aereo, which streams broadcast signals to subscribers using a
system of individualized, cloud-based antennas, went into April
22's SCOTUS oral arguments with 50-50 odds in Ryvicker's view.
But stringent grilling from the Justices, including Chief Justice
John Roberts, have cast doubt, at least on Wall Street, about
Aereo gaining a favorable ruling.
"Your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal
prohibitions that you don't want to comply with," Roberts told
Aereo attorney David Frederick.
[snip]
So what does Ryvicker think would happen if Aereo were to
surprisingly come out on the right side of the High Court
decision, which is expected to be announced by the end of June?
Broadcasters would certainly lose leverage to demand
retransmission fees from pay TV companies, but the immediate
impact would be marginal, she believes. The market impact on
media conglomerates with broadcast TV divisions and publicly
broadcast stations groups might be significant, with investor
over-reaction dropping broadcast company stock prices by as much
as 20 percent in the near term, Ryvicker predicts.
Ryvicker does not believe broadcast companies like CBS would
see their stock prices hindered too long, however. "CBS can
pursue its option to go straight to cable or figure out some
sort of other business model that would lessen any potential
long term impact of Aereo," Ryvicker adds.
Continued:
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/odds-aereo-prevailing-about-30-percent-analyst-says/2014-06-12?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/ny872ct
"Go straight to cable." It sounds so simple. CBS may find that it's not so
simple to negotiate carriage agreements with hundreds of cable TV Companies,
each of which has its own ax to grind. Without the big stick of the 1992
Cable Act on its side, CBS will be just one more non-broadcast video feed
competing for channel space in an already-crowded market.
Neal McLain
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:03:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Odds of Aereo prevailing about 30 percent, analyst says
Message-ID: <lnhv89$1hf5$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <f037ab71-ed69-454e-88c3-b2d8bbfd5d3e@googlegroups.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com> wrote:
>"Go straight to cable." It sounds so simple. CBS may find that it's not so
>simple to negotiate carriage agreements with hundreds of cable TV Companies,
>each of which has its own ax to grind.
Hundreds? How about five? Comcast, Cox, Charter, Bright House, and
(for now) Time Warner. Are there any important markets where one of
those companies does not control the market for wireline cable TV?
Remember that CBS doesn't care about market #150.
The issue for CBS would more likely be all their non-O&O-market
broadcast affiliation contracts. Would they terminate those, or
remain on broadcast in those markets? They have some fairly
significant large-market affiliates owned by large group owners who
could tie them up in court for a long time.
>Without the big stick of the 1992 Cable Act on its side, CBS will be
>just one more non-broadcast video feed competing for channel space in
>an already-crowded market.
Um, they are already, by electing retrans consent. Cable companies
are already free to say "no, thanks"; the only reason for MVPDs to
negotiate retrans deals with CBS is that their customers demand CBS's
programming, and that doesn't change if that programming is no longer
available over the air.
If we saw any sort of broad-based move of the major networks to drop
their FTA broadcast service, I would not be surprised to see an
a-la-carte bill actually pass Congress, effectively restoring the
status quo ante. That might not be an unlikely outcome if Aereo
loses, either, depending on exactly how they lose.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:37:20 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Questioning the wisdom of permitting texting to E911 services
Message-ID: <539B9940.60303@thadlabs.com>
On 6/13/2014 11:12 AM, Rob Warnock wrote:
> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | You can also use BART's text-on-demand system, which will
> | give you info only when you ask for it. Text "BART" and a
> | command like "delay" to 878787 and they'll text you back.
> ..
> | ...and I'm still scratching my head.
> | How does one text "BART"? Is there a worldwide "phone book" in which
> | there is only one "BART" entry? Every texting "guidebook" shows either
> | short numbers (e.g., 123456) or actual cellphone numbers or alphabetics
> | similar to "BART" which makes no sense at all to me. And what is the
> | "878787" mentioned in the Road Show item ...
> +---------------
>
> It seems like you might be overthinking it just a little bit. ;-}
Hi Rob,
You're correct; I was weary at 2am when I posted. :-)
> The 878787 is just the (pseudo-)phone number you send the text
Now THAT is what I don't understand: 878787 as a pseudo-phone
number.
For normal voice cellphone usage, a full and correct phone number
is required to route a call to its proper destination. I have no
issue with placing BART's (or anyone else's) phone number in my
phone's "phonebook" (aka "contact list").
So who, or what, is routing 878787 to BART? Would all carriers
in the USA (or even worldwide) route 878787 to BART?
[moderator pro tem's note: 878787 is a short code. These are 5 and 6-digit numbers that are sold by CTIA and accepted by all of the US carriers.]
> message to; the content of that text should be "bart <something>"
> [either "BART" or "bart"] where <something> is one of the
> defined commands for the service, such as "delay". That is, text
> the message "bart delay" to the phone number 878787 and you'll
> get a list of current system delays (if any) sent back to you.
Thank you! Barry Margolin sent an email clarifying my earlier
misunderstanding about the ROAD SHOW's snippet contacting BART
and also a quick explanation how to actually text which really
is not clear in either of my cellphone's user manuals.
> For more on available commands, text "bart help" to 878787,
> or see this page:
>
>
> http://www.bart.gov/schedules/mobile/sms
>
That's good to know, thank you!
I try to persuade folks not to text me because it costs me. I
wasn't concerned with the cost when I was working (I'm now
retired) because I always programmed servers at all my client
and employer sites to send a message to my cell phone when
anomalies were automatically detected (e.g., water from a
leaking HVAC, overtemp alert, power failures, and more) and I'd
simply expense the cost of the alert to the client or employer.
This still leaves open the issue about using SMS to contact
E911 services with this paragraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#Unreliability
disparaging the texting-to-E911 efforts as reported here:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4-major-phone-carriers-providing-text-911
Thad
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:37:20 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Questioning the wisdom of permitting texting to E911 services
Message-ID: <539B9940.60303@thadlabs.com>
On 6/13/2014 11:12 AM, Rob Warnock wrote:
> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | You can also use BART's text-on-demand system, which will
> | give you info only when you ask for it. Text "BART" and a
> | command like "delay" to 878787 and they'll text you back.
> ..
> | ...and I'm still scratching my head.
> | How does one text "BART"? Is there a worldwide "phone book" in which
> | there is only one "BART" entry? Every texting "guidebook" shows either
> | short numbers (e.g., 123456) or actual cellphone numbers or alphabetics
> | similar to "BART" which makes no sense at all to me. And what is the
> | "878787" mentioned in the Road Show item ...
> +---------------
>
> It seems like you might be overthinking it just a little bit. ;-}
Hi Rob,
You're correct; I was weary at 2am when I posted. :-)
> The 878787 is just the (pseudo-)phone number you send the text
Now THAT is what I don't understand: 878787 as a pseudo-phone
number.
For normal voice cellphone usage, a full and correct phone number
is required to route a call to its proper destination. I have no
issue with placing BART's (or anyone else's) phone number in my
phone's "phonebook" (aka "contact list").
So who, or what, is routing 878787 to BART? Would all carriers
in the USA (or even worldwide) route 878787 to BART?
> message to; the content of that text should be "bart <something>"
> [either "BART" or "bart"] where <something> is one of the
> defined commands for the service, such as "delay". That is, text
> the message "bart delay" to the phone number 878787 and you'll
> get a list of current system delays (if any) sent back to you.
Thank you! Barry Margolin sent an email clarifying my earlier
misunderstanding about the ROAD SHOW's snippet contacting BART
and also a quick explanation how to actually text which really
is not clear in either of my cellphone's user manuals.
> For more on available commands, text "bart help" to 878787,
> or see this page:
>
>
> http://www.bart.gov/schedules/mobile/sms
>
That's good to know, thank you!
I try to persuade folks not to text me because it costs me. I
wasn't concerned with the cost when I was working (I'm now
retired) because I always programmed servers at all my client
and employer sites to send a message to my cell phone when
anomalies were automatically detected (e.g., water from a
leaking HVAC, overtemp alert, power failures, and more) and I'd
simply expense the cost of the alert to the client or employer.
This still leaves open the issue about using SMS to contact
E911 services with this paragraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#Unreliability
disparaging the texting-to-E911 efforts as reported here:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4-major-phone-carriers-providing-text-911
Thad
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:18:33 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.invalid>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Questioning the wisdom of permitting texting to E911 services
Message-ID: <lni057$2ub$1@dont-email.me>
On 6/13/2014 8:37 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 6/13/2014 11:12 AM, Rob Warnock wrote:
...
>
>> The 878787 is just the (pseudo-)phone number you send the text
>
> Now THAT is what I don't understand: 878787 as a pseudo-phone
> number.
>
> For normal voice cellphone usage, a full and correct phone number
> is required to route a call to its proper destination. I have no
> issue with placing BART's (or anyone else's) phone number in my
> phone's "phonebook" (aka "contact list").
>
> So who, or what, is routing 878787 to BART? Would all carriers
> in the USA (or even worldwide) route 878787 to BART?
>
878787 is a short code. These 5 and 6 digit numbers are sold by CTIA
(the cellular trade group) and respected by US carriers.
>...
> I try to persuade folks not to text me because it costs me. I
> wasn't concerned with the cost when I was working (I'm now
> retired) because I always programmed servers at all my client
> and employer sites to send a message to my cell phone when
> anomalies were automatically detected (e.g., water from a
> leaking HVAC, overtemp alert, power failures, and more) and I'd
> simply expense the cost of the alert to the client or employer.
It is annoying that if you don't subscribe to a texting plan, you are
charged to receive texts, not just send them. So jackass marketers can
run up your phone bill with text spam.
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:40 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Questioning the wisdom of permitting texting to E911 services
Message-ID: <539CDDB4.60602@thadlabs.com>
On 6/14/2014 10:18 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> On 6/13/2014 8:37 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
>> On 6/13/2014 11:12 AM, Rob Warnock wrote:
> ..
>>> The 878787 is just the (pseudo-)phone number you send the text
>> Now THAT is what I don't understand: 878787 as a pseudo-phone
>> number.
>>
>> For normal voice cellphone usage, a full and correct phone number
>> is required to route a call to its proper destination. I have no
>> issue with placing BART's (or anyone else's) phone number in my
>> phone's "phonebook" (aka "contact list").
>>
>> So who, or what, is routing 878787 to BART? Would all carriers
>> in the USA (or even worldwide) route 878787 to BART?
>
> 878787 is a short code. These 5 and 6 digit numbers are sold by CTIA
> (the cellular trade group) and respected by US carriers.
Hi Fred,
Thank you VERY MUCH for that information! What you wrote strongly
suggests these "short codes" are profit-motivated by the CTIA and
used presumably by infrequent callers to the codes' service(s).
I've begun additional research for my own learning here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTIA_%E2%80%93_The_Wireless_Association
and a friend responded in email with this comment:
The carrier(s) translate the 878787 short code to the full E.164
number in the U.S. Which carriers will be determined by
geographic area and desired coverage, so, for example, don't
expect the BART code to automatically work in Oklahoma.
Aha! Another texting factoid that's NOT well documented.
"E.164" didn't ring a bell (no pun); searching found these 4 items:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.164
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number_mapping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.214
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_calling_codes
which, in summary. "... define the numbering plan for the world-wide
public switched telephone network (PSTN) and some other data networks."
Learn something new every day! :-)
>> ...
>> I try to persuade folks not to text me because it costs me. I
>> wasn't concerned with the cost when I was working (I'm now
>> retired) because I always programmed servers at all my client
>> and employer sites to send a message to my cell phone when
>> anomalies were automatically detected (e.g., water from a
>> leaking HVAC, overtemp alert, power failures, and more) and I'd
>> simply expense the cost of the alert to the client or employer.
>
> It is annoying that if you don't subscribe to a texting plan, you are
> charged to receive texts, not just send them. So jackass marketers can
> run up your phone bill with text spam.
I've been fortunate receiving only one or two spam texts a year, and
calling AT&T Wireless' accounting results in a billing adjustment.
Thad
Date: 14 Jun 2014 18:02:52 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: When the Landline Is a Lifeline
Message-ID: <20140614180252.3319.qmail@joyce.lan>
>> 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.
>
>They don't HAVE to, but that's how they've decided to do it, because
>it's most economical for various reasons.
The main reason is regulatory arbitrage: if they can persuade the
regulators that IP == Internet == unregulated, they can get out from
all of the requirements of a regluated telco, like providing service
even to people where it's unprofitable.
R's,
John
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 (7 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues