The Telecom Digest for December 15, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 338 : "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: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:09:43 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Satellite Phones -- Why Can't The Business Work?
Message-ID: <4D06D1E7.5070001@thadlabs.com>
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/91197/20101211/sat-phones-why-can-t-the-business-work.htm
Sat Phones: Why Can't The Business Work?
By Jesse Emspak December 11, 2010 6:59 AM EST
Satellite phones aren't as clunky as they once were, and technology
has made them more powerful. Gone are the days when satellite phones
had to be accompanied by a suitcase.
Yet do date, the field is littered with bold attempts at a phone that
could be used anywhere, without depending on earthbound cell phone
networks. Billions have been invested, with relatively little to
show for it.
Part of the answer is debt. TerreStar is only the latest casualty of
a crushing $1.2 billion debt load. The company introduced its Genus
phone last month, but it is in the middle of chapter 11 proceedings
and it is unclear that the phone will sell enough to help TerreStar
stay in business, especially when it carries a $799 price tag.
LightSquared, formerly known as SkyTerra, also planned a hybrid
terrestrial-satellite network. That company too, carried a
billion-plus in debt that carries interest rates topping 16% as of
the end of 2009. Since then it has been taken private by Haringer
Capital Partners, a hedge fund headed up by Philip Falcone, which
LightSquared says has provided a total of $2.9 billion. But the
satellite it launched in November has been unable to fully deploy
its antenna. That means the satellite portion of the network doesn't
work. Lightsquared will need to launch another satellite for its
integrated network to deliver as promised.
[...]
Perhaps the most famous of the satellite phone companies is Iridium.
Iridium's plan was ambitious - a constellation of 66 satellites
that would allow their phones to work anywhere on Earth. In November
1998 the company was launched and only nine months later it was in
chapter 11. The company accumulated some $3 billion in debt, and
struggled to gain subscribers - rosy projections of hundreds of
thousands never materialized. The phones were bulky, even by the
standards of the day. They also didn't work indoors.
[...]
It's possible that satellite telephones are one of those markets
that is simply not tenable by itself. It wouldn't be te first
technology that didn't get much cheaper as time passed -- after
all, in the 1930s there were visions of personal aircraft flying
skyways in New York. Airplanes stayed expensive, while cars and
roads got cheaper. Satellite phones may well be a similar phenomenon.
full article here:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/91197/20101211/sat-phones-why-can-t-the-business-work.htm
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:35:23 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report December 2010
Message-ID: <pan.2010.12.14.02.35.20.368335@myrealbox.com>
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:03:58 -0500, tlvp wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:44:53 -0500, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> How about we dump "Broadband" and use a nice little TLA like "HSI" (High
>> Speed Internet)? ...
>
> You may have to fight at&t for rights to that "nice little TLA" -- they're
> using "HSI" to name their at&t/Yahoo! DSL service (which, incidentally,
> starts at as low as 768 kb/s for DL speed, barely 15x 56k modem DL
> speeds).
>
We currently use things like 3G, 4G etc for wireless data, surely we can
come up with something to use for other delivery media?
If this group can't come up with some good suggestions, I don't know where
else can.... ;-)
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:42:59 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report December 2010
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1012140830460.4452@AURM106297.americas.ad.flextronics.com>
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, David Clayton wrote:
> We currently use things like 3G, 4G etc for wireless data, surely we can
> come up with something to use for other delivery media?
>
> If this group can't come up with some good suggestions, I don't know where
> else can.... ;-)
I have an idea, but I'm also cynical enough to know it'll never work.
Nearly every country on earth has UHF television. Nearly every country
uses roughly the same frequencies we use in the US. Use the white space
to create a standard global wireless broadband network allowing people to
take their laptops, tablets, and phones anywhere and they'll just work.
Technically this would work fine. The problem is paying for it. Although
I'm very libertarian-minded I have thought it's in the national interest
to have reliable broadband infrastructure just like it's important to have
a reliable highway system, air traffic control, sea lanes, etc. One side
would say the private sector could do it better. Another would say the
government shouldn't control the Internet. And people like me realize the
government is flat broke and can't afford it.
My next thought is Google or a company like Google. But this is too big
even for them. Which brings us to the telcos and honestly I see them
sitting on the spectrum or balkanizing it, putting us back where we are
today.
I spent a good part of 2010 living and traveling outside of the United
States and saw how countries with a fraction of our GDP have better
infrastructure and how the US seems to be the only country on the planet
that puts the consumer last and we seem to like it that way.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 23:52:19 -0500
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report December 2010
Message-ID: <barmar-2E2E14.23521913122010@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <op.vnn7gwcpitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:44:53 -0500, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > How about we dump "Broadband" and use a nice little TLA like "HSI" (High
> > Speed Internet)? ...
>
> You may have to fight at&t for rights to that "nice little TLA" --
> they're using "HSI" to name their at&t/Yahoo! DSL service (which,
> incidentally, starts at as low as 768 kb/s for DL speed, barely 15x
> 56k modem DL speeds).
Comcast also uses that TLA, so I think it may be considered generic. In
general, descriptive phrases are harder to trademark than coined terms,
and "high speed Internet" is clearly of that type.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:39:07 -0500
From: Ray Fleischmann <rfleisch@mac.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report December 2010
Message-ID: <02336532-00B2-4D64-9A81-75BC7F75A860@mac.com>
Hello everyone,
In regards to this subject PLEASE remember just "HOW LARGE" America is in
relation to other countries. Hell, most WHOLE countries will fit in the state of
New Jersey. So it's not that hard for most countries to get over 50% broadband
coverage and then to keep it updated.
This is one example where a percentage doesn't mean [anything].
Just how many square miles or Kilometers is covered and just how many homes
are covered.
Just My 2 cents worth,
Ray Fleischmann
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:10:20 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report December 2010
Message-ID: <4D07A4FC.1080108@thadlabs.com>
On 12/14/2010 4:39 AM, Ray Fleischmann wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> In regards to this subject PLEASE remember just "HOW LARGE" America is in
> relation to other countries. Hell, most WHOLE countries will fit in the state of
> New Jersey. So it's not that hard for most countries to get over 50% broadband
> coverage and then to keep it updated.
> This is one example where a percentage doesn't mean [anything].
> Just how many square miles or Kilometers is covered and just how many homes
> are covered.
Excellent point!
Just yesterday I read a news article in which it was claimed
the entirety of England would easily fit within the confines
of California.
California (1) 155,959.34 square miles
England (2) 50,345.79 square miles
(1) http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
(2) http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/area_of_england_in_square_miles
:-)
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:47:05 -0800
From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report December 2010
Message-ID: <201012141947.oBEJl57L025478@server.meissen.org>
Ray Fleischmann <rfleisch@mac.com> said:
> Hello everyone,
> In regards to this subject PLEASE remember just "HOW LARGE" America is in
> relation to other countries. Hell, most WHOLE countries will fit in the
> state of New Jersey. So it's not that hard for most countries to get over
> 50% broadband coverage and then to keep it updated.
> This is one example where a percentage doesn't mean [anything].
> Just how many square miles or Kilometers is covered and just how many homes
> are covered.
>
I suppose it depends on whether the statistics refer to percentage of
population, or geographic coverage. I don't know the actual statistics,
but I expect that a majority of the US population is also concentrated
in equally dense geographic areas. The US may cover a lot of real
estate, but most of that is very, very sparsely populated.
john-
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:07:55 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report December 2010
Message-ID: <AANLkTimNPKnQ-FpRuAUXedzN5eY+Rev8Qn4JnPHzugDj@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:47 PM, <jmeissen@aracnet.com> wrote:
> I suppose it depends on whether the statistics refer to percentage of
> population, or geographic coverage. I don't know the actual statistics,
> but I expect that a majority of the US population is also concentrated
> in equally dense geographic areas. The US may cover a lot of real
> estate, but most of that is very, very sparsely populated.
Another difference is the relative lack of sprawl in Europe. Cities
in Europe are population dense, but the countryside between cities
isn't. In the US you tend to have a suburban population density in
between cities and it can be difficult to cover those areas. Take for
example Austin, Texas. Roughly half the population of the
metropolitan area lives in the city proper. The other half is
outside, but that five county region is at least four times the area
of the city meaning it could take up to four times the infrastructure
to cover the same number of subscribers. I realize that's a very
broad generalization, but I think my point is clear.
Didn't the US hit a tipping point recently where more than half of our
population is now suburban, meaning less than half is urban?
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: 14 Dec 2010 17:34:39 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report December 2010
Message-ID: <20101214173439.58437.qmail@joyce.lan>
> In regards to this subject PLEASE remember just "HOW LARGE"
>America is in relation to other countries. Hell, most WHOLE countries
>will fit in the state of New Jersey. So it's not that hard for most
>countries to get over 50% broadband coverage and then to keep it
>updated.
Actually, there are about 150 countries bigger than New Jersey, and
only 70 smaller. (Isn't Wikipedia great?) Make it Nevada or Arizona
to be larger than the majority of countries.
> This is one example where a percentage doesn't mean [anything].
> Just how many square miles or Kilometers is covered and just how
> many homes are covered.
Indeed. Although the US is very large, our population is quite urban.
About 80% of Americans live in a metropolitan area.
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/09/07/us-population-density-1990-and-2000/
Even in those metro areas, the so-called broadband tends to be pretty
poor. I am only three blocks from the local phone switch, and my DSL
is still only 3Mb down/382Kb up. Two years ago when I lived in
England, my DSL was 4Mb, which was by their standards considered
fairly bad. But it cost less, too.
R's,
John
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:07:53 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report December 2010
Message-ID: <op.vnp7vfjqitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:34:39 -0500, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> ... Even in ... metro areas, the so-called broadband tends to be pretty
> poor. I am only three blocks from the local phone switch, and my DSL
> is still only 3Mb down/382Kb up. Two years ago when I lived in
> England, my DSL was 4Mb, which was by their standards considered
> fairly bad. But it cost less, too.
Here in CT, AFAICT, optimal DSL download speed via at&t is 3 Mb/s.
And that's a "premium" service. Basic DSL is at 768 Kb/s (what I use).
Pretty soon cellular data under the HSDPA schemes of 7.2 or 10.8 Mb/s
will pretty much outrun all DSL speeds, and at least some cable, too.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:09:47 -0500
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: [EFF} Appeals Court Holds that Email Privacy Protected by Fourth Amendment
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1012141709120.9836@panix1.panix.com>
[EFF press release]
In a landmark decision issued today in the criminal appeal
of U.S. v. Warshak, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has
ruled that the government must have a search warrant before
it can secretly seize and search emails stored by email
service providers. Closely tracking arguments made by EFF
in its amicus brief, the court found that email users have
the same reasonable expectation of privacy in their stored
email as they do in their phone calls and postal mail.
---
rest:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/breaking-news-eff-victory-appeals-court-holds#
short url (courtesy of Lauren Weinstein):
http://bit.ly/hMZ7Xn
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 (11 messages)
|
| |
or 