29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for May 29, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 136 : "text" Format
====== 29 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 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: Fri, 27 May 2011 17:02:08 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Cablevision Petitions FCC For Retrans Reform
Message-ID: <4DE01F60.1000300@annsgarden.com>
| Cablevision Petitions FCC For Retrans Reform
| By Wayne Friedman, 05/26/2011
|
| Looking to combat runaway retrans costs -- and sometimes testy
| negotiations that lead to TV program blackouts -- cable operator
| Cablevision Systems Corp. filed a proposal with the Federal
| Communications Commission for some reforms.
|
| The first would "end the practice of requiring the carriage of
| unrelated cable channels, owned by broadcasters, in order to also
| carry their broadcast networks."
|
| Cablevision says this has allowed broadcasters free spectrum and
| other advantages, which in turn raises consumer costs by forcing
| carriage of their channels of "limited interest" in exchange for
| access to major broadcast networks.
|
| Second, it proposes to demand "transparency." This would end the
| practice of allowing broadcasters to keep their prices for carrying
| broadcast stations a secret. Retrans fees should be public, it says.
|
| The third proposal would forbid discrimination. While it would allow
| broadcasters to continue to set the price of carriage, it would not
| allow them to discriminate among cable and satellite providers based
| on size or other factors.
http://tinyurl.com/3bv68k7
COMMENT: Ever since I joined this group, some 15 years ago, I've been
posting messages about retransmission consent, touching on some of these
same issues. I've discussed "bundling" (station licensees bundle
non-broadcast program channels with broadcast signals as a condition for
granting consent for carriage of the broadcast signals) and
discrimination issues (station licensees impose higher retransmission
fees on some retailers, lower retrans fees on others, and keep those
fees secret).
Cablevision Systems has been petitioning Congress and the FCC about
these issues for years. See, e.g., "Reply Comments of Cablevision
Systems Corporation in MB Docket No. 10-71"; specifically page 2 (PDF
page 4).
http://tinyurl.com/3rqwt4t
So far, Congress has taken no action, and the FCC can't do much without
Congressional authorization. Maybe this time...
Here are links to some of my previous posts:
- "A-la-carte v. Tiering" (Fri, 09 Apr 2004) - scroll down to
"NON-BROADCAST PROGRAMMING CARRIAGE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS."
http://tinyurl.com/76j3l
- "Re: Retrans Feuds Ease Up" by Mike Farrell, Multichannel News (June
20, 2009) - scroll down to my comments (writing as texascableguy).
http://tinyurl.com/yc4okto
- "Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds Ease Up" (Jul 4 2009).
http://tinyurl.com/3sa5ao6 .
- "Legislator looks to end split-market DMAs" (Thu, 16 Jul 2009).
http://tinyurl.com/3wfwwhj .
- "Re Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes?" (Mon, 25 Oct 2010)
http://tinyurl.com/3n9xzej .
- "Re Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes?" (Fri, 29 Oct 2010)
http://tinyurl.com/42mzjba .
Neal McLain
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 18:21:38 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Early Voice Mail ("voice storage") systems
Message-ID: <Ef-dnTLw3vC_033QnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Eric Tappert wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 11:11:04 -0700 (PDT), Lisa or Jeff
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The May 1982 issue of BSTJ has a seires of articles on voice storage.
>>This technology led to voice mail services.
>>
>>As usual, Bell Labs extensively researched the architecture, physical
>>design, software, office engineering, maintenance, and reliability,
>>with articles describing in detail the findings.
>>
>>The preface says the FCC ordered Bell to cease work on this system as
>>it violated regulatory policy--it was considered a premium add-on in
>>violation of "Computer II". So even though in 1982 Bell's competitors
>>were providing both transmission services and customer equipment, Bell
>>was forbidden to offer its own premium services.
>>
>>How much of this research carried forward to voice mail systems I
>>don't know. But I can't but suspect that subsequent private
>>developers benefited from Bell's original research and trials.
>>
>>
>>table of contents may be found at:
>>http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol61-1982/bstj-vol61-issue05.html
>
>
>
> Typical of the times. In fact, Western Electric was forbidden by the
> FCC to manufacture the radio equipment for the first cellular service
> trial in Chicago. The results created a real political storm as a
> Japanese firm submitted the lowest bid for mobile equipment.
>
> ET
>
The then-AT&T suffered the wounds of their own arrows.
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 00:01:19 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No. 10A Remote Switching System--experience/historical track record?
Message-ID: <irpe0f$pkq$1@reader1.panix.com>
"John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
>That's how pretty much all small phone switches work now, CDOs are
>remotes to a switch in a nearby town. The remote can complete calls
>between lines on that remote, but everything else requires the main
>switch.
Nod. The only 10A I knew of seems to have been replaced by an
ORM, such as at 301-283. It's remoted to a 5ESS within 150
miles.
It's all in the O&M cost. As Floyd from Alaska used to point
out; the more isolated the switch, the sooner it was upgraded.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 08:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No. 10A Remote Switching System--experience/historical track record?
Message-ID: <2ba2c4ce-d2a4-47b2-beab-7d0c0209af95@q30g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>
On May 27, 3:17 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know what the distance limit was/is for the remote. The old
> TOPS system was limited to about 50 miles; but then again, that was
> before F.O.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> There was a 50 mile limit on T-Carrier way back when, although some
> systems exceeded it and still worked well: I saw one T-Carrier system
> working over a ~70 mile span. I assume that the "50 miles" limit you
> mention was due to T-Carrier.
According to the 1977 Bell System textbook, "T1 generally has been
restricted to 50 miles in metropolitan areas, partly to minimize
errors, but primarily because of maintenance administration
difficulties. New techniques have been developed to accomodate
distances up to 150 miles. T1 carrier is being expanded into rural
areas served by N carrier."
Note that much of the technology introduced in the Bell System was
generally expanded after experienced was gained. That is, a switch
could handle additional lines and connections, or a carrier (line or
radio) could handle additional channels.
There was a whole series of articles in BSTJ when T1 was introduced,
and followup articles through the years as it was upgraded. Likewise
for other carrier systems--several articles at their introduction,
then followups as improvements were made.
As to concentrating functions in a single place, this had been a long
time goal of the Bell System for economic efficiency. For example,
one of the features of TSPS operator services was to allow one
operator facility to serve a wide geographical area, a big cost
savings.
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 09:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Abu Asmara <abuasmara50@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Islamic Mobile Service from SalamFone
Message-ID: <4344b735-dce5-4acb-9e7c-96384f5da476@z13g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 11, 10:38 am, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> Interesting...
>
> Salamfone Sdn Bhd, a subsidiary of Kuwait’s Reach Telecom has launched
> the first ever Shariah Compliant mobile service in the world, and it
> is now offered in Malaysia. The Mobile Virtual Network Operator(MVNO)
> will operate using the Maxis 2G network.
>
> [Moderator snip]
>
> Some of the services on SalamFone:
> Infaq-One sen will be donated by Salamfone every time a customer calls
> another Salamfone customer
> Talian Hidayah dedicated Islamic helpline
> Islamic Auspicious Days reminder and Bonus
> Free Inspiring Religious SMS
> Islamic Tunes Nasyid and Islamic RBT
> Subscription Islamic Value Added Services
> Reload Transfer
>
> More at...
> (Partial URL clipped - bh)
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I don't usually run PR notices like this (Sorry, John), but I'm making
> an exception because I'm curious what the readers think about this
> kind of marketing pitch.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
bill
it is a sales gimmik. there is no such theing as Islamic prepaid
telephone. the 1 sen to Islamic charity is no problem when they are
making a lot of monies since the sales price is very expansive. and
you know who make the most - maxis . last year maxis make 7billion
ringgit. so what is the problem sending a few winners of a gambling
draw (not Islamic at all) to go to haj and umrah.
abu
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 13:58:11 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pre-paid SIM cards in the US
Message-ID: <op.vv7di9jvitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Wed, 25 May 2011 21:00:26 -0400, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> ... SIMs aren't tied to phone numbers. That relationship is made at the
> switch. That's why you can move an existing number to a new phone,
> and change the number on an existing phone.
>
> R's,
> John
Interesting ... in Poland, at least with GSM provider Orange (aka Centertel),
each starter-SIM you buy comes with phone number already assigned to it and
printed right on its blisterpack and on its credit-card-sized card-holder
(right alongside that SIM's PUK number, for that matter :-) ).
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
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) 2009 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 (6 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues