31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for June 19, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 133 : "text" Format
====== 31 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: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:00:37 -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: End of Cable Bundle Inevitable, With or Without Aereo: CEO
Message-ID: <6113d4ec-e6f1-4577-b2b4-83f9a88148c5@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 16, 8:45 pm, "John Levine" <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> >Well, if your business model is stealing (oops -- I mean "stealing") a
> >product from one party and selling it to another party, I guess that
> >argument make sense. After all, you don't have to comply with
> >programming agreements if you don't have any.
>
> We have laws that describe the deal that broadcasters make with the
> public, including a set of requirements in return for an extremely
> valuable local monopoly on a slice of the RF spectrum. Part of that
> deal has always been that anyone with an antenna gets to listen to or
> watch the broadcast. Aereo doesn't cut out the commercials, which have
> always been where the broadcasters' revenue comes from.
>
> Although I understand why the broadcasters would like the laws to be
> different, and to be able to extract even more money from the rest of
> us than their current franchise allows, wanting doesn't make it so.
Agreed. But we also have laws that describe the deal that copyright
owners make with the public. If a broadcaster buys the rights to a
copyrighted work, the agreement between the broadcaster and the
copyright owner can (and presumably does) stipulate the conditions
under which the copyrighted work can be used. To the extent that
Aereo reuses the copyrighted work above and beyond the stipulations
set forth in the agreement, the copyright owner has reason to assert a
claim of infringement.
As I noted in a previous post, this case bears a remarkable similarity
to the battles that the cable TV industry fought 50 years ago.
http://tinyurl.com/cyzxtap
Neal McLain
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:04:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: End of Cable Bundle Inevitable, With or Without Aereo: CEO
Message-ID: <kpof6l$2np5$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <20130617014549.83222.qmail@joyce.lan>,
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>Well, if your business model is stealing (oops -- I mean "stealing") a
>>product from one party and selling it to another party, I guess that
>>argument make sense. After all, you don't have to comply with
>>programming agreements if you don't have any.
>
>We have laws that describe the deal that broadcasters make with the
>public, including a set of requirements in return for an extremely
>valuable local monopoly on a slice of the RF spectrum. Part of that
>deal has always been that anyone with an antenna gets to listen to or
>watch the broadcast. Aereo doesn't cut out the commercials, which have
>always been where the broadcasters' revenue comes from.
Historically that has been the case. However, things have changed
substantially since the last Cable Act was passed in 1992. A larger
and larger fraction of broadcasters' revenue now comes from
"retransmission consent" payments from MVPDs, and a much smaller
fraction of broadcasters' total audience depends on over-the-air
reception as a way to acquire the programming. Most metropolitan
areas are monopoly or duopoly markets for wireline MVPDs.[1] Thus, the
"extremely valuable local monopoly" on 6 MHz of spectrum is no longer
particularly valuable (particularly if it's unsaleable VHF); it is the
other perquisites that come along with being a licensed broadcaster,
such as retrans consent and the right to exclude competing broadcasts
of the same programming, that have value today.
Stations use retransmission consent in two ways: first, to directly
extract rents from cable subscribers by requiring them to pay cash for
carrying the station, and second, to require MVPDs to carry (at an
additional fee, of course) other programming owned by the licensee or
an affiliate of the licensee. (I believe, without direct evidence,
that the networks offer better affiliate compensation if their
affiliates negotiate cable carriage of network-owned services.)
Aereo's claim, as made before the Second Circuit but not yet tested in
any other circuit, is that their system rents to each customer an
individual tuner (and antenna?), located at one facility in each
market where they operate, and current laws exclude this arrangement
from the definition of a regulated "cable television system". If they
were regulated, they would be subject to the same
must-carry/retransmission-consent regime.
If I were dictator, I would eliminate the must-carry side entirely for
commercial stations (*so* sorry to Lowell and Devon Paxson, whose
stations would now be worthless), provide retransmission consent only
for subscribers who are located outside each station's FCC service
contour, and end the use of Nielsen DMAs for the purpose of defining
stations' exclusive markets. TV broadcasters would hate this, but
many pointless stations would go under, making it easier to reuse the
valuable upper-UHF spectrum (not to mention cable-TV spectrum) for
something more productive.
-GAWollman
[1] I'm lucky enough to live in a market with three competing MVPDs:
Comcast (formerly Cablevision in my town), Verizon FiOS, and RCN. It
does not have an appreciable effect on ever-increasing cable rates,
but it does make it somewhat easier to get a decent deal on Internet
access. At my home I have a Verizon POTS line, Comcast video service,
and RCN Business Internet.
--
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:30:33 -0700
From: Lou Meiss <lmeiss@cox.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Excellent new book about Phone Phreaks
Message-ID: <51C109B9.8060503@cox.net>
Here is an excellent new book that traces the history of Phone Phreaks.
It is well researched and well put together.
"Exploding The Phone : The untold story of the teenagers and outlaws who
hacked Ma Bell", by Phil Lapsley.
I am not involved with above book, just found it great reading.
Look for it in your local library.
- -
Lou, WA6EPD
***** Moderator's Note *****
The book is available for about $15 from Amazon and other sites. I
haven't read it yet.
The URL is
http://www.amazon.com/dp/080212061X
, but be sure to shop
around. Checking out Amazon is worth it just to see the other books
they recommend to go with it: titles such as "Top Secret Tourism".
Amazon also lets you read the Foreword by Steve Woniak.
Bill Horne
Moderator
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) 2013 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 (3 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues