The Telecom Digest for November 15, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 308 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
| T-Mobile MMS spam deluge ... stemmed now? | (tlvp) |
| Asurion, cell phone insurer, reaping profit | (Thad Floryan) |
| End to the mobile phone bores: New 'quiet' train
carriages to block mobile phone signals | (David Clayton) |
| Re:End to the mobile phone bores: New 'quiet' train carriages to block mobile phone signals
| (Stephen) |
| Should You Be Snuggling With Your Cellphone? | (Monty Solomon) |
| Android holes allow secret installation of apps | (Thad Floryan) |
| The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires
| (Monty Solomon) |
| One on One: Tim Wu, Author of 'The Master Switch' | (Monty Solomon) |
| In the Grip of the Internet Monopolists | (Monty Solomon) |
| Re: early CATV, was: Bell System Technical Journal, 1922-1983
| (Eric Tappert) |
| Re: early CATV, was: Bell System Technical Journal, 1922-1983
| (Robert Bonomi) |
| Re: early CATV, was: Bell System Technical Journal, 1922-1983
| (Garrett Wollman) |
| Re: early CATV, was: Bell System Technical Journal, 1922-1983 | (AES) |
| Re: Happy anniversary cellphone! | (tlvp) |
| Re: early CATV - terrestrial HBO distribution
| (bernies@netaxs.com) |
| Re: Users as Toast: The Blocking of Google TV | (Neal McLain) |
| Re: Users as Toast: The Blocking of Google TV | (Garrett Wollman) |
| Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system
| (Wes Leatherock) |
| Re: early CATV, was: Bell System Technical Journal | (Neal McLain) |
====== 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: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:33:31 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: T-Mobile MMS spam deluge ... stemmed now?
Message-ID: <op.vl4ot5svitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
Beginning towards 1:30 pm EST on November 11, my T-Mobile cellular handset
started receiving regular MMS spam: text messages touting organ-enhancement,
pain-relief, e-d, and other "nutri-ceutical" products, as well as
"reproduction" timepieces, jewelry, and fashion accessories; linking to
web-sites in the *.ru TLD; and arriving spasmodically at an average rate of
roughly one per hour until 9:55 pm EST on November 12.
Calls to T-Mobile CC revealed that CC was being swamped (half-hour hold times
and longer) with customer inquiries. Even front-line agents were aware of the
problem, and had already been authorized to assure anxious customers that
T-Mobile would be voiding any standard tariff charges for these spam MMS
messages. (My plan, for example, envisages 30 MMS messages per billing period,
in and/or out, before per-message surcharges apply, and here I had an actual
31 spam MMSes arrive in just the 32-hour period indicated above!)
Higher tier agents sought to minimize the impact of the current deluge by
reconfiguring users' email filter settings to block messages for whom the user
was merely a "Bcc:" recipient, but ran smack into the wall, of T-Mobile's own
erection, that the relevant T-Mobile EmailFilters.aspx Active Server database
manipulation page has been throwing 500-style server errors -- despite the
issuance of numerous Trouble Tickets, Helpdesk Tickets, and even Master
Tickets -- since mid-summer 2009.
Fortunately, the T-Mobile Engineering crew seems to have stemmed the spam tide
for now -- or else the Russian bot-masters behind it have just turned it off
:-) .
Cheers from the T-Mo trenches, -- tlvp
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:47:13 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Asurion, cell phone insurer, reaping profit
Message-ID: <4CDF0761.8050402@thadlabs.com>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/12/BUMD1GAR0T.DTL
Asurion, cell phone insurer, reaping profit
Olga Kharif,Brad Stone, Bloomberg Businessweek
Saturday November 13, 2010 04:00 AM
Verizon Wireless calls its mobile phone insurance program
Total Equipment Coverage. Sprint Nextel has Total Equipment
Protection. T-Mobile USA: Premium Handset Protection. The
names are barely distinguishable, and the insurance all
comes from the same place: Asurion, a 16-year-old company
in Nashville that would prefer you never heard of it.
Asurion, which has 5,000 employees in more than two dozen
offices around the world, is the quiet giant of the mobile
phone industry. The four top wireless carriers offer its
insurance exclusively, and more than 20 percent of the
293 million mobile customers in the United States pay
surion to protect their handsets, according to the company.
Asurion charges policyholders between $5 and $12 a month,
depending on the model and type of coverage. If a customer
loses a phone, breaks it, drops it in the toilet, or
renders it unusable in any way, Asurion will try to ship a
replacement in a single day - after the person pays a
deductible.
Some accident-prone owners - and parents of phone-toting
kids - praise the sense of security Asurion provides.
Consumer advocates, though, almost uniformly say the
insurance isn't worth the extra expense.
"We think it's worthless," said Michael Shames, executive
director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network. Consumer
Reports magazine advises cell phone shoppers to skip the
coverage and hang on to their old phones as a backup should
the new hardware meet its demise.
Asurion disagrees with those opinions, of course, but just
getting the company to pipe up in its own defense isn't easy.
{ long article continues at the following URL }
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/12/BUMD1GAR0T.DTL
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:54:11 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject:End to the mobile phone bores: New 'quiet' train carriages to block mobile phone signals
Message-ID: <pan.2010.11.13.22.54.10.852307@myrealbox.com>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1080866/End-mobile-phone-bores
-New-quiet-train-carriages-block-mobile-phone-signals.html
End to the mobile phone bores: New 'quiet' train carriages to block mobile
phone signals
By Andrew Levy
Last updated at 3:03 AM on 28th October 2008
Mobile phones on the train could be a thing of the past as carriages are
to be layered with a film that blocks all transmissions
It is the scourge of public transport - you settle into your seat hoping
for a relaxing journey and someone beside you starts a loud and animated
mobile phone conversation.
Some train companies have introduced 'quiet' carriages in an attempt to
give passengers a break from the racket.
Inevitably, however, some travellers ignore the rules, infuriating fellow
passengers.
But one company is fighting back by coating the windows of some carriages
with a hi-tech film that blocks phone signals.
.........
(more in article)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 20:44:12 +0000
From: Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:End to the mobile phone bores: New 'quiet' train carriages to block mobile phone signals
Message-ID: <3ei0e69o46lcn5vu4nd3828if6al8snajf@4ax.com>
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:54:11 +1100, David Clayton
<dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1080866/End-mobile-phone-bores
>-New-quiet-train-carriages-block-mobile-phone-signals.html
>
>End to the mobile phone bores: New 'quiet' train carriages to block mobile
>phone signals
>
>By Andrew Levy
>Last updated at 3:03 AM on 28th October 2008
seems a pretty old source?
>
>Mobile phones on the train could be a thing of the past as carriages are
>to be layered with a film that blocks all transmissions
>
done on virgin trains in the UK (on all carriages).
Now mainly removed due to complaints......
>It is the scourge of public transport - you settle into your seat hoping
>for a relaxing journey and someone beside you starts a loud and animated
>mobile phone conversation.
>
>Some train companies have introduced 'quiet' carriages in an attempt to
>give passengers a break from the racket.
>
>Inevitably, however, some travellers ignore the rules, infuriating fellow
>passengers.
>
it looks like the consensus is "please block everybody elses mobile
signal....."
>But one company is fighting back by coating the windows of some carriages
>with a hi-tech film that blocks phone signals.
>.........
>(more in article)
--
Regards
stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 00:14:21 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Should You Be Snuggling With Your Cellphone?
Message-ID: <p0624081dc9052071f732@[10.0.1.3]>
Should You Be Snuggling With Your Cellphone?
By RANDALL STROSS
The New York Times
November 13, 2010
WARNING: Holding a cellphone against your ear may be hazardous to
your health. So may stuffing it in a pocket against your body.
I'm paraphrasing here. But the legal departments of cellphone
manufacturers slip a warning about holding the phone against your
head or body into the fine print of the little slip that you toss
aside when unpacking your phone. Apple, for example, doesn't want
iPhones to come closer than 5/8 of an inch; Research In Motion,
BlackBerry's manufacturer, is still more cautious: keep a distance of
about an inch.
The warnings may be missed by an awful lot of customers. The United
States has 292 million wireless numbers in use, approaching one for
every adult and child, according to C.T.I.A.-The Wireless
Association, the cellphone industry's primary trade group. It says
that as of June, about a quarter of domestic households were
wireless-only.
If health issues arise from ordinary use of this hardware, it would
affect not just many customers but also a huge industry. Our voice
calls - we chat on our cellphones 2.26 trillion minutes annually,
according to the C.T.I.A. - generate $109 billion for the wireless
carriers.
The cellphone instructions-cum-warnings were brought to my attention
by Devra Davis, an epidemiologist who has worked for the University
of Pittsburgh and has published a book about cellphone radiation,
"Disconnect." I had assumed that radiation specialists had long ago
established that worries about low-energy radiation were unfounded.
Her book, however, surveys the scientific investigations and
concludes that the question is not yet settled.
Brain cancer is a concern that Ms. Davis takes up. Over all, there
has not been a general increase in its incidence since cellphones
arrived. But the average masks an increase in brain cancer in the
20-to-29 age group and a drop for the older population.
...
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14digi.html
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:34:58 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Android holes allow secret installation of apps
Message-ID: <4CDF8312.3080204@thadlabs.com>
At the following URL:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Android-holes-allow-secret-installation-of-apps-1134940.html
is the following article. A number of embedded links in
the article reference examples and additional information.
Android holes allow secret installation of apps
11 November 2010, 13:46 (no byline)
Security researchers have demonstrated two vulnerabilities
that allow attackers to install apps on Android and its
vendor-specific implementations without a user's permission.
During normal installation, users are at least asked to
confirm whether an application is to have certain access
rights. Bypassing this confirmation request reportedly allow
spyware or even diallers to be installed on a smartphone.
What's special about the two vulnerabilities is that they
can be exploited without an attack on Android's underlying
Linux kernel and function in the userspace alone. When
analysing HTC devices, the security specialist known as
Nils found that the integrated web browser has the right
to install further packages (INSTALL_PACKAGES). Nils says
that HTC integrated this functionality so that the browser
can automatically update its Flash Lite plug-in. However,
attackers can exploit this if they have found another
browser hole.
Such browser holes in Android 2.1 were already disclosed
by security firm MWR InfoSecurity (Nils happens to be
its head of research) in mid-August. A browser exploit
for Motorola's Droid was also released recently. To
demonstrate the attack, Nils used a HTC Legend running
Android 2.1. The browser hole has been closed in
Android 2.2, but only about a third of users are already
running this version on their devices.
Android specialist Jon Oberheide demonstrated another hole
which involved misusing the Account Manager to generate an
authentication token for the Android Market and obtaining
permission to install further apps from there. However,
this initially requires a specially crafted app to be
installed on the smartphone. Nothing could be easier:
Oberheide released the allegedly harmless "Angry Birds
Bonus Levels" app intothe Android Market and, upon
installation, this app downloaded and installed three
further apps ("Fake Toll Fraud", "Fake Contact Stealer"
and "Fake Location Tracker") without requesting the
user's permission.
The privileges of "Fake Tool Fraud" included the right to
send premium SMS messages. Google has since removed all
of Oberheide's apps from the Market. Back in June,
Oberheide had already used an app to demonstrate an Android
vulnerability. At the time, Google used the remote deletion
feature, available on Android devices, for the first time.
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:57:39 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires
Message-ID: <p06240828c905a6a156ab@[10.0.1.3]>
The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires
by Tim Wu
Reviewed by Robert Nersesian | Released: November 2, 2010
Publisher: Knopf (384 pages)
Would the ideas Tim Wu espouses in The Master Switch: The Rise and
Fall of Information Empires have been published if we weren't still
picking through the wreckage caused by the financial sector?
That catastrophe has ushered in a new movement of the righteous.
Publishers nowadays are looking for both the wisdom of hindsight and
the new warnings being trumpeted for any and all business sectors.
In that spirit, Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, has come
up with solutions to problems that haven't actually occurred in our
information economy. It may make his intent attractive to those who
believe ubiquitous industries such as energy, finance, and
information should be regulated, but it's also what makes his book so
curious.
The bulk of The Master Switch looks at media industries and their
dominant companies of the past 150 years: AT&T and the telephone
(full disclosure: this reviewer worked for a number of years at
AT&T); Paramount Pictures and the movies; and RCA with radio and
television.
Wu discounts these commercializers' achievements-universal telephone
service; a motion picture canon unique to American culture; and news
and entertainment piped into every American household.
Instead, he focuses on the ravages of a market system where the
strong winnow out the weak (he names it the "Kronos Effect" though
most say "competition") and the push and pull between open and closed
models is constant-what Wu calls the "Cycle." His greatest fear is
given to the book's title-the effort to centralize the flow of
information so that it may be controlled by a single entity.
...
http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/review/master-switch-rise-and-fall-information-empires
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:58:29 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: One on One: Tim Wu, Author of 'The Master Switch'
Message-ID: <p06240827c905a6123545@[10.0.1.3]>
Bits - Business, Innovation, Technology, Society
November 14, 2010, 7:19 am
One on One: Tim Wu, Author of 'The Master Switch'
By NICK BILTON
Tim Wu, the Columbia law professor who came up with the term "net
neutrality" in a research paper, has just written a new book, "The
Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires," published
by Knopf. The book chronicles the rise and fall of companies that
develop new technologies, and discusses the future of the Internet.
The following Q&A is an edited version of an interview with Professor
Wu:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/one-on-one-tim-wu-author-of-the-master-switch/
October 11, 2010
Tim Wu on Communication, Chaos, and Control
Posted by The New Yorker
Jeffrey Toobin talks with Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School
and the author of "The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of
Information Empires," about how forms of communication, from the
telephone to the Internet, are eventually controlled by monopolies;
the battle between Apple and Google; and the future of information
technology.
...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currents/2010/10/tim-wu-on-communication-chaos-control.html
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:18:30 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: In the Grip of the Internet Monopolists
Message-ID: <p0624082cc905ada3fb3d@[10.0.1.3]>
In the Grip of the New Monopolists
Do away with Google? Break up Facebook? We can't imagine life without
them-and that's the problem
By TIM WU
WSJ
November 13, 2010
How hard would it be to go a week without Google? Or, to up the ante,
without Facebook, Amazon, Skype, Twitter, Apple, eBay and Google? It
wouldn't be impossible, but for even a moderate Internet user, it
would be a real pain. Forgoing Google and Amazon is just
inconvenient; forgoing Facebook or Twitter means giving up whole
categories of activity. For most of us, avoiding the Internet's
dominant firms would be a lot harder than bypassing Starbucks,
Wal-Mart or other companies that dominate some corner of what was
once called the real world.
The Internet has long been held up as a model for what the free
market is supposed to look like-competition in its purest form. So
why does it look increasingly like a Monopoly board? Most of the
major sectors today are controlled by one dominant company or an
oligopoly. Google "owns" search; Facebook, social networking; eBay
rules auctions; Apple dominates online content delivery; Amazon,
retail; and so on.
There are digital Kashmirs, disputed territories that remain anyone's
game, like digital publishing. But the dominions of major firms have
enjoyed surprisingly secure borders over the last five years, their
core markets secure. Microsoft's Bing, launched last year by a giant
with $40 billion in cash on hand, has captured a mere 3.25% of query
volume (Google retains 83%). Still, no one expects Google Buzz to
seriously encroach on Facebook's market, or, for that matter, Skype
to take over from Twitter. Though the border incursions do keep
dominant firms on their toes, they have largely foundered as business
ventures.
The rise of the app (a dedicated program that runs on a mobile device
or Facebook) may seem to challenge the neat sorting of functions
among a handful of firms, but even this development is part of the
larger trend. To stay alive, all apps must secure a place on a
monopolist's platform, thus strengthening the monopolist's market
dominance.
...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635704575604993311538482.html
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:36:26 -0500
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: early CATV, was: Bell System Technical Journal, 1922-1983
Message-ID: <g700e6tn0ha22ro827ufad3o2hdtib5lbo@4ax.com>
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 20:37:28 -0800 (PST), Lisa or Jeff
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Nov 10, 7:38 pm, Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spam...@worldnet.att.net>
>wrote:
>> >The first "cable tv system", or the first "community antenna tv system"?
>> >And are you referring to the US, or including the rest of the world?
>>
>> Service Electric Cable TV Co. was started in June 1948 in Mahony City,
>> PA with the three Philadelphia channels (3, 6, and 10).
>>
>> Reference:http://www.sectv.com/LV/our_founder.html
>>
>> Of course, this is for the US and doesn't count any Bell Labs'
>> experiments or trials....
>> PS - the founder and his wife owned an appliance business and started
>> the cable company so they could sell TV sets.
>
>
>Additional TV trivia:
>
>--A former governor of Pennsylvania in the 1970s, Milton J. Shapp,
>made his fortune as a maker of cable TV components.
>
>--In the waning days of WW II, IBM applied to the FCC for microwave
>channels so it could transmit data and television. Given the
>notorious conservatism of IBM's president at the time, Thomas J.
>Watson, Sr, one would have trouble imagining the broadcasted TV
>programs he would allow--probably classical music performances and
>Shakespeare (censored, of course), with commercials of IBMers singing
>"Ever Onward", the IBM song.
>
>--There's a website out there that talks about the old Bell System
>microwave network, much of it now apparently dismantled. Several
>towers were dedicated to just television transmission. Indeed, does
>anyone know if AT&T or the other LD carriers still supply transmission
>facilities for broadcast television and radio networks? Or is it all
>done by satellite today?
>
>--In Philadelphia, for about 50 years ABC was on 6, NBC on 3, and CBS
>on 10. Due to a switch in ownership and FCC regulations, NBC and CBS
>had to switch stations. When PBS came along, it had 12.
>
>--In Phila, an independent UHF station, Ch 48, had internal ownership
>problems, and they ended up surrending their license back to the FCC.
>(Wasn't that a big loss of money?)
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WKBS-TV_(Philadelphia)
Virtual channel 48 (actually using UHF channel 27) in the Philadelphia
area is now WGTW, a TBN station.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WGTW-TV
ET
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:30:26 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: early CATV, was: Bell System Technical Journal, 1922-1983
Message-ID: <ke6dnddBx_c_k33RnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <53b90ec1-cc91-4775-8b7b-34738a21b30b@w21g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>--In Phila, an independent UHF station, Ch 48, had internal ownership
>problems, and they ended up surrending their license back to the FCC.
>(Wasn't that a big loss of money?)
To mis-use a Clintonism, "that depends on what a 'big loss' means".
A broadcast TV license is a potentially valuable property, if you can
find someone (acceptable to the FCC) interested in buying it. Acquiring
an existing license is -far- easier and quicker that applying for one
'from scratch', assuming there is an available 'slot' in the locale
for the power level you want to run.
OTOH, if there are no offers, or the existing ownership is divided on
'who we refuse to sell to', the 'value' of the thing is effectively 'zero'.
Assuming they had held the license for at least the 'initial' term, the
out-of-pocket cost -- paid to the gov't, that is -- of retaining the license
is in the 'petty cash' department. That catagorization does -not- inclde
the 'operational' costs of keeping the license in good standing.
As for the 'surrender' itself, the station ownership had little to no choice
in the matter. Broadcast licenses are "use it or lose it' items. You are
required to be 'on the air' a minimum number of hours, per day, every day,
albeit with some provisions for certain emergency ("act of God") situations.
If they couldn't find an 'acceptable' -- to the existing ownership and the
FCC -- new owner (one who was ready and able to 'execute' quiclky enough
to continue operations) when facing the shut-down situation, they had no
choice but to promptly return the license to the FCC for possible re-issue.
Dem is de rules. :
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 23:21:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: early CATV, was: Bell System Technical Journal, 1922-1983
Message-ID: <ibpqt2$e53$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <ke6dnddBx_c_k33RnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>In article <53b90ec1-cc91-4775-8b7b-34738a21b30b@w21g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
>Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>--In Phila, an independent UHF station, Ch 48, had internal ownership
>>problems, and they ended up surrending their license back to the FCC.
>>(Wasn't that a big loss of money?)
>
>To mis-use a Clintonism, "that depends on what a 'big loss' means".
>
>A broadcast TV license is a potentially valuable property, if you can
>find someone (acceptable to the FCC) interested in buying it.
And if the FCC hasn't already taken it away. At one point during the
great RKO General Saga, RKO (which was fighting license revocation at
its Boston TV station, WNAC-TV) proposed to the FCC that they sell the
license to one of the competing applicants for the channel. The FCC
responded, "You haven't got a license to sell." The whole thing took
another decade to completely unwind, as General Tire was forced to
sell off all of their remaining stations. (It would have happened
faster were it not for Sen. Bill Bradley's intervention to give RKO's
WOR-TV an automatic license renewal in exchange for moving from New
York to Secaucus, N.J.) The FCC made it clear that it would not renew
RKO's other licenses, judging it to be an unfit broadcast licensee.
Eventually the WNAC-TV license was revoked, and the remaining
applicant for the channel (of the two that had filed against WNAC in
1972) was granted a new license for WNEV-TV; RKO agreed to sell its
equipment and facilities to the new company as a way of salvaging some
of their investment. The last of RKO's stations was finally sold in
1990.
Boston is the only city to lose two major-network affiliates to
license revocation; WNAC-TV (channel 7) was the second, but the first
-- and the proceedings started about the same time for both -- was
WHDH-TV (channel 5). In a twist of surely unintended irony, WNEV-TV
owner David Mugar changed the new channel 7's callsign to WHDH-TV
after he bought WHDH radio.
-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: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:32:44 -0800
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: early CATV, was: Bell System Technical Journal, 1922-1983
Message-ID: <siegman-10B81B.09324414112010@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>
In article
<53b90ec1-cc91-4775-8b7b-34738a21b30b@w21g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> --There's a website out there that talks about the old Bell System
> microwave network, much of it now apparently dismantled. Several
> towers were dedicated to just television transmission. Indeed, does
> anyone know if AT&T or the other LD carriers still supply transmission
> facilities for broadcast television and radio networks? Or is it all
> done by satellite today?
Almost totally by inter-city fiber networks, one might guess . . . ???
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:44:17 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Happy anniversary cellphone!
Message-ID: <op.vl58v3jjitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:04:05 -0500, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> I have long been cursed with phone numbers laden with 0's and 1's so
> mine usually spell nothing. However I just returned from working
> overseas and just now figured my mobile phone number was
> +60-1-PIMP-HATS.
And if it bothers you to have to remember PIMP, remember MACKEREL
instead, and the pimp will come to you after round-tripping a
translation into/out of French:
(MACKEREL, the fish ==> (Fr.) maquereau; MAQUEREAU (Fr., slang) ==>
(En.) pimp)
(That's the useless linguistic knowledge lesson for today :-) .)
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:20:29 -0500
From: "bernies@netaxs.com" <bernies@netaxs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: early CATV - terrestrial HBO distribution
Message-ID: <20101114122029.71194xwkxe1kdsow@webmail.uslec.net>
When I was a kid in the early 1970's I visited my uncle in Allentown,
PA, who was a research scientist for AT&T Bell Labs there. We
attended a party at a well-off neighbor's house where the TV was tuned
to a new channel their kids called "Home Box". They said it came over
the "box" and there was indeed a special box on the TV stand that
received it.
They told me it showed movies during prime time, but that they were
all very dated movies. It was mid Sunday afternoon, and because that
wasn't prime-time, "Home Box Office" was playing its usual
non-prime-time endless loop 'interval signal' of a Frenchman riding a
bicycle. For hours all we could see on "Home Box" was the rear view
of that Frenchman pedaling away, with a French music loop soundtrack.
My uncle told me the signal was delivered to the house via cable after
coming over AT&T microwave repeaters located on mounaintops, a concept
that intrigued me. I've read that in 1975 HBO became the first TV
network to broadcast via satellite when it showed the "Thrilla in
Manila" boxing match between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier to its
subscribers.
-Ed
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 20:24:41 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Users as Toast: The Blocking of Google TV
Message-ID: <4CDF4869.8030501@annsgarden.com>
Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> posted the following article by Lauren
Weinstein:
| Users as Toast: The Blocking of Google TV
| By Lauren Weinstein October 22, 2010
|
| Greetings. The day started badly. All he wanted was a
| piece of toast. Yet instead of creating a crispy slice
| of goodness, his General Electric toaster ejected the
| still soft slice, and flashed a bizarre admonition on its
| display (odd, he didn't even remember it having a
| display) -- informing him that due to an ongoing dispute
| with Van de Kamp's bakeries, he was blocked from toasting
| that particular brand of bread until further notice. How
| droll.
|
| At least he could head out and pick up something to eat
| elsewhere. But he was low on gas -- better buy some
| first.
|
| More trouble. The pump refused to operate. What's this
| flashing on its screen? A list of acceptable car brands
| that have made deals with ARCO. His old car wasn't on
| the OK list. So -- no gas. Amazing. What's the world
| coming to?
|
| Back home, at least he can watch some TV. Now what?
| Instead of shows, messages are popping up hot and heavy.
| CBS says they will only allow viewers using SONY
| televisions to tune in. FOX demands Toshiba or
| Samsung....
|
| http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000777.html
Those analogies are nonsense. Weinstein misses three points:
PAYMENT MECHANISM. Producers of any product expect to be paid for their
efforts. He (whoever "he" is) has already bought the bread, so the
producer has been paid. And he's trying to buy gasoline, so the
producer will get paid at the point of retail sale. But how would CBS
and FOX be paid?
Perhaps Google TV has (or will have) a payment mechanism. If so,
Weinstein doesn't mention it. Absent such a mechanism, I doubt that any
video program producer/distributor will agree to let Google TV access
their products.
ADVERTISING MEDIA. Bread and gasoline are not advertising media (unless
you count the bread wrapper and signage at gas stations). CBS and FOX
are ad media, and they expect that their retail distributors will
support that business model.
Perhaps Google TV has (or will have) a mechanism for such support. But
absent such a mechanism, I doubt that any program producer/distributor
will agree to let Google TV access their products.
BROADCAST STATION MONOPOLY STATUS. As I noted in my post dated Oct 26,
2010, 9:33 pm, every commercial television broadcast licensee has an
exclusive market monopoly within its DMA.
http://tinyurl.com/3y4xyfl Every MVPD (CATV, satellite TV, telco TV,
whatever) is required, by federal law, to protect that monopoly. FOX
recently provided a vivid illustration of this monopoly power in its
retransmission-consent negotiations with Cablevision and Dish Network.
Perhaps Google TV has (or will have) a mechanism for protecting this
monopoly. In order to implement such a mechanism, Google would have to
obtain a separate video signal from every network station in the
country, and map every Google TV viewer to the correct station. I
suppose this could be done by sorting on county name, zip code, or
landline NPA-NXX, but even for Google, this would be a monumental task.
In any case, absent such a mechanism, I doubt any program
producer/distributor will agree to let Google TV access their products.
Weinstein doesn't seem to understand any of this. In fact, it appears
that he doesn't even understand the difference between broadcast
television program and non-broadcast television programming.
Neal McLain
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 23:00:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Users as Toast: The Blocking of Google TV
Message-ID: <ibppmj$c4q$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <4CDF4869.8030501@annsgarden.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>Weinstein doesn't seem to understand any of this. In fact, it appears
>that he doesn't even understand the difference between broadcast
>television program and non-broadcast television programming.
No, I think Weinstein believes these distinctions are irrelevant
relics of a bygone age. Obviously, the video programming aggregators
disagree, hence the dispute.
Why anyone would think it reasonable for Hulu to allow me to watch a
Fox comedy on my laptop but not on my Google TV (if I had one, which I
don't) is not clear to me, but monopolies do all sorts of unreasonable
things to maximize the amount of wealth they extract from their
customers, and Fox certainly has a monopoly on this particular
entertainment product. The usual rules against tying only apply to
market-created monopolies, not government-created ones like copyright.
-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: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:56:07 EST
From: Wes Leatherock <wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system
Message-ID: <735fc.2ac4d32.3a116097@aol.com>
In a message dated 11/13/2010 11:15:54 PM Central Standard Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> I believe the original reason for ANC was because the spelling of
> certain local exchange names wasn't the same as it sounded. For
> example, most people upon hearing "BAring" would think it's BEaring,
> not BA, or LOmbard was LUmbard, not LO*. When calls were placed by
> the operator who plugged into jack it didn't matter, but when people
> were dialing it did matter.
Bala-Cynwood was often cited as a prime example.
Also note 1 and 0 could not be used in 2L-5N office codes because there
were no letters associated with them on the dial. This made unusable a
large number of office codes.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
Wes, I think it's the other way around: letters weren't assigned to
"1" or "0" because those numbers were reserved for use in Area Codes
(second digit) and Terminating Toll Center codes (First digit), and so
they were never considered for use in the "AA" part of "AAN" Exchange
codes.
What does the BSTJ say? ;-)
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:22:13 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: early CATV, was: Bell System Technical Journal
Message-ID: <4CDFE285.5070109@annsgarden.com>
Lisa or Jeff (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote:
> Additional TV trivia:
> --A former governor of Pennsylvania in the 1970s,
> Milton J. Shapp, made his fortune as a maker of
> cable TV components.
Milton JERROLD Shapp, founder of Jerrold Electronics
http://theoldcatvequipmentmuseum.org/350/index.html#Shapp
> --There's a website out there that talks about the old
> Bell System microwave network, much of it now apparently
> dismantled.
http://long-lines.net/
> Several towers were dedicated to just
> television transmission. Indeed, does anyone know if
> AT&T or the other LD carriers still supply transmission
> facilities for broadcast television and radio networks?
> Or is it all done by satellite today?
I don't think towers were dedicated exclusively to television. AFAIK,
AT&T used dedicated links in the same 4- and 6-GHz bands, and over the
same geographic routes, that it used for voice circuits. Richard of
Pahrump is our resident expert on such matters, so I'm sure he'll jump
in here.
In my various road trips, I've noted several old AT&T LL towers with
intact horn antennas; I assume they're still in service. But the
majority of old LL towers are now devoid of horns. Many of them now
support cell, PCS, or mobile relay antennas.
http://antennastructures.blogspot.com/
The majority of intercity broadcast television network programming is
now distributed by satellite. The same holds true for wholesale
distribution of non-broadcast television network programming intended
for resale by CATV, DBS, and Telco TV retailers. However, there are
notable exceptions:
- Point-to-point transfer of individual programs or commercials can be
implemented by any of several methods: dedicated satellite links ("wild
feeds"), dedicated fiber links, terrestrial microwave links, dialup
ISDN, or even DVDs shipped by UPS or FedEx.
- Non-broadcast networks within local geographic areas may be
distributed by terrestrial microwave or fiber links. An example is
Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, distributed by microwave and fiber. As
you're undoubtedly aware, Comcast has tried to use this "terrestrial
loophole" as a basis for refusing to sell CSN to DBS retailers.
http://tinyurl.com/32nffg3
Neal McLain
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 (19 messages)
|
| |
or 