The Telecom Digest for August 16, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 221 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 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: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:13:59 -0700
From: "Al Gillis" <al.1020@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do rate centers cross state lines?
Message-ID: <4c6609f5$0$86441$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>
"Fred Goldstein" <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net> wrote in message
news:20100809224040.5403930722@mailout.easydns.com...
Snip, snip, snip...
>
> There's also Lost Peninsula, a bit of Michigan attached to land only via
> Ohio. But it gets its telephone service from its own wire center, a
> Frontier remote off of its Temperance, MI host. The nearby land area in
> Michigan is the Erie rate center, also hosted off of Temperance.
So Fred - Using Google maps to look at Lost Peninsula I noticed a lot of
"blurred out" territory there. Any idea what's so important to make Google
blur it? Some major concentration of communications equipment? A major DOD
installation? Or just a bunch of rich guys yachts they don't want us
looking at?
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's the home of the Last Testman: a place sacred to all who labored
at the shrine of the great Wheatstone.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:37:31 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: TW Cable CEO: Programmers Oppose Smaller Channel Bundles
Message-ID: <4C66AA2B.9090904@annsgarden.com>
wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> In article <4C644AC7.9060707@annsgarden.com>,
> Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> quotes a Dow Jones article
> reporting a statement by the CEO of Time Warner Cable:
>
>>| Britt said he isn't calling for a la carte pricing, which would
>>| allow customers to tailor their own channel lineup and pay for
>>| just the networks they want. He said such a scheme wouldn't work
>>| in favor of consumers...
>
> I'm really curious about this (oft-repeated) claim, and
> where I can find some actual evidence to support it.
Did you read the blog that I cited at the end of my post? I addressed
this question indirectly by explaining the impact that mandatory
a-la-carte would have on the production budgets of non-broadcast
advertising-supported programmers. Whether or not such an impact would
or would not "work in favor of consumers" is debatable, but it's
nonetheless real.
http://theoldcatvequipmentmuseum.org/320/321/index.html#alacarte
> Currently on my TiVo, I have about 170 of the 200-odd channels I
> receive programmed out. ... Yet, because of tiering, I still
> have to pay about $80 a month. How much would 30 channels
> actually cost?
Based solely on license fees, somewhere between zero and $30/month.
But, as I noted in my blog post, the cost of delivering those 30
channels to your TiVo is substantial. Furthermore, delivery costs are
largely independent of the number of channels. The incremental cost of
delivering 200 channels is small compared to the cost of delivering the
first 30 channels.
> What if I were permitted to turn down broadcast-basic channels
> that I don't watch but which demand high retrans-consent fees?
By "broadcast", do you really mean broadcast signals, as in secondary
retransmission of the signals of licensed broadcast stations? Or are
using the word as generic term for all programming you receive from your
CATV company?
If the former, note that, under federal law, CATVs must carry most local
broadcast stations on the basic tier (the "must-carry" rule). Under
certain conditions, federal law also allows broadcast stations to demand
cash payments, or other forms of compensation (the "retransmission
consent" rules). Either way, the CATV company is required by law to
deliver most broadcast signals to your TiVo, and station licensees are
authorized to charge whatever the market will bear. (I use "most"
because some LPTV stations do not have mandatory carriage rights.)
That said, I sometimes ask the same question. I'd love to find out how
many subscribers would pay $1.00/month for, say, Univision.
> Clearly the elimination of hidden cross-subsidies would drive
> some specialty channels with minuscule audiences and poor
> business models out of business entirely. Would this be a bad
> thing?
"Minuscule audience" doesn't necessarily equate to "poor business
model." Three of my favorite Dish network services are C-SPAN, RFD-TV
(for "Trains and Locomotives") and Metropolitan Opera Radio. All three
are non-profits. Their audiences may be minuscule, but I don't think
you can accuse them of being poor business models. Losing them would be
"a bad thing" for me.
> Perhaps, if the half-dozen or so program providers[1] were
> actually forced to compete with each other, the result might
> actually lower consumers' costs...
If you cut the revenue earned of a program provider by, say, 50%, does
it curtail its production budget by 50%? Or does raise its wholesale
price by 50% to compensate for lost revenue?
> -- and it might be the only way for the cable ecosystem to
> compete effectively with independent program producers bypassing
> their distribution channels entirely.
How may independent program producers offer their products over the
internet for free?
What's the monthly rate for an internet connection capable of carrying
an HDTV signal?
> (I know several people who subscribe to data but not video
> service, and get all of their video entertainment from
> Netflix.)
Hey, if you're happy with Netflix, nobody is going to object.
> [1] Time Warner, NBC Universal, News Corp., Liberty Media,
> Viacom, Discovery Communications, Disney... anyone else who
> counts?
CJR has a comprehensive compilation at http://www.cjr.org/resources/
Neal McLain
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:35:00 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Model 15 RO Teletype available (OT)
Message-ID: <62a8e.2877ea6b.39973eb4@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/11/2010 8:04:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
the Telecom Digest Moderator commented:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The "sensor bar" that Wes refers to was a mechanical arm which hung
> down beside the tape reader on a Model 19 or similar machine: if the
> operator who was typing the original text onto the punched tape
> wasn't fast enough to keep up with the reader, then the tape would
> become taut and the sensor arm would rise, interrupting the reader's
> feed mechanism.
>
> I don't know how an operator could "get ahead" of the reader: the
> Model 19's keyboard was driven by the same shaft as the printing
> mechanism, so I don't understand how it was possible to exceed the
> reader's speed.
I worked for five years in a wire service office with many
professional operators who did so regularly. Even I got so I could do
it, staring even on a basketball box score. I found that was some of
the most challenging copy, since teletypes did not use tabs and you
had to judge where the column would be by using the space bar and
watching the counter.
We had professional operators for all the major wires, but for some
the editors/reporters/editors did their own punching.
Press wires run virtually continuously, not intermittently, and a lot
of the copy is moved in real time, not archived or prepunched.
The continuous operation of press wires comes as a shock to some
operator not accustomed to the operation. We had a (professional)
operator, a 70-year-old woman, who retired at the mandatory retirement
age from Western Union. At W.U. the traffic comes and goes, not
continuously. She was determined to conquer the continuous operation,
and she succeeded, becoming a really sharp operator and one that wire
filers enjoyed working with.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
Wes, I apologize: I didn't mean to infer that you were incorrect, only
that I don't understand the Teletype mechanism well enough to
figure out how it was possible to get ahead of the reader.
The operators in the Order Bureau at New England Telephone were able
to "Type ahead" of the readers on Model 28 machines, and I could get
ahead of the reader on the Model 19 now and then. ;-)
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:42:41 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Model 15 RO Teletype available (OT)
Message-ID: <62fde.1abc3817.39974081@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/12/2010 9:01:42 PM Central Daylight Time,
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> writes:
> I wonder in a room full of Teletypes clacking away (newsrooms
> usually had multiple machines) if their bell was equally barely
> audible. As mentioned, the bell would send at the end of every line
> anyway so it wasn't a unique sound.
Yes indeed you could hear the bell (not the puny sound at the end of a
line). I believe the bureau in which I worked (Dallas) had 14
Teletypes arranged in an oval around an oblong desk.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:46:00 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Model 15 RO Teletype available (OT)
Message-ID: <631e9.3f72383f.39974148@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/12/2010 9:03:13 PM Central Daylight Time,
wb8foz@panix.com writes:
> a) All the wires; AP & UPI's, Sports, Finance, state, local..
> all went silent and stayed that way for several minutes....
>
> b) They all restarted together [They had been patched
> together...], and simoutanously printed out the same message....
I don't know where there would be the physical capoability to patch
together AP, UP and INS wires. (INS was a third service then and had
not yet been acquired by UP.)
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:34:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Model 15 RO Teletype available (OT)
Message-ID: <i46k2u$mv$1@reader1.panix.com>
Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com> writes:
>> b) They all restarted together [They had been patched
>> together...], and simoutanously printed out the same message....
>I don't know where there would be the physical capoability to patch
>together AP, UP and INS wires. (INS was a third service then and had
>not yet been acquired by UP.)
Well, this IS a telcom forum. It would be technically trivial
to do so at the wire center. And then and now, there are pool
arrangements. I can't say that's what happened; it's also
possible that they ran the same tape, started at the same time.
--
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: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:16:17 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do rate centers cross state lines?
Message-ID: <wfSdnbL837P8c_jRnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Steven wrote:
> On 8/11/10 6:11 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Steven wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/9/10 3:30 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> On the other side of that coin Zerox had a major facility on the east
>>>> side of Pasadena, California. The main building was in GTE terriotry,
>>>> formerly CWT territory. GTE built a new C.O. close by hopping to get
>>>> Zerox to buy their SxS "centrex" system. This was mid-1970s when
>>>> Pacific
>>>> Bell, that served most of Pasadena had cut over to 1ESS several office
>>>> codes, which served a smaller part of Zerox's facility on the west side
>>>> of the street across from the main building. Zerox subscribed to
>>>> Pacific
>
>
>>
>> I didn't know they had bought most of that gear. Perhaps they used it
>> until the advent of Pasadena Pacific Bell ESS Centrex. I recall that Pac
>> Bell was fairly conservative in deploying the 1ESS until they had
>> Centrex working quite well.
>>
>> BTW, two friend of mine (brothers) built several of those GTE CO
>> building including Hastings as I recall. I know they built the
>> replacement building after the Sylmar earthquake.
>>
> What buildings did they build. The Sylmar CO was intact and they just
> put some really large poles in the ground. I started with CWT in 1967
> as the merger was completed. I was on the force that rebuilt the CO. We
> used the Pacoima CO to wire the equipment and placed them on
> transporters and sent to Sylmar. I have a VHS of it that I moved to DVD
> a few years ago, it shows how it was done and an over view of the
> damage, it was done by GTE, looking at the DVD and seeing me at age 22
> years. I was leading a bunch of temps so I was seen in a lot of the tape.
>
It's been a long time. They built a few, perhaps including the Hastings
C.O.
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.
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) 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 (7 messages)
|
| |
or 