31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for March 22, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 68 : "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: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:39:21 -0600
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon's Latest Plan For Cable Fees Could Lower Your Cable Bill -- Eventually
Message-ID: <86D402F8-72BC-457D-8B40-73E07A00ABD1@mishmash.com>
On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:26 PM, Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>
> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net wrote:
>
>> Verizon's Latest Plan For Cable Fees Could Lower Your Cable Bill --
Eventually
>>
>> By Alexis Kleinman
>>
>> What if, instead of paying for all of the hundreds of channels that
>> your cable provider offers when you sign up, you could choose exactly
>> which ones you want? That's definitely a dream of most cable
>> subscribers, riled by ever-high fees. And while Verizon isn't ready to
>> start offering a-la-carte channels, a new plan of theirs, reported in
>> The Wall Street Journal, could take us one step closer to making that
>> dream a reality.
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/verizon-cable-fees_n_2901271.html
>
>
> Good luck with that. I worked in the retail end of CATV industry for
> 25 years and I've been writing about it for another dozen years since
> I retired. "The dream of most cable subscribers" is also the dream of
> many CATV retailers.
>
> Retailers are companies that sell video services to end consumers;
> e.g., franchised cable TV companies, non-franchised "private cable"
> companies, telephone companies (Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-Verse), and
> satellite TV companies (DirecTV and Dish Network).
>
> Programmers are companies that produce video programming and provide
> it to retailers. Programmers fall into three categories: - Television
> broadcast stations. - PEG (Public Access, Educational Access,
> Government Access) channels. - Non-broadcast channels.
>
> In any discussion of a-la-carte, the programmers hold the winning
> hand:
>
> - Broadcast station licensees have a legal right to force retailers to
> carry their signals on the basic tier.
>
> - Broadcast licensees have federally-mandated geographic markets
> ("Designated Market Area" or DMA). In any other industry, this
> arrangement would be called a "geographic monopoly." In the
> upside-down world of television broadcasting, it's called "consumer
> protection."
>
> - CATV franchising authorities have a legal right to force retailers
> to carry PEG channels on the basic tier.
>
> - Any programmer that owns non-broadcast programming and a broadcast
> station licensee has a legal right to force retailers to carry the
> non-broadcast programming on the basic tier as a condition for
> granting retransmission consent for the broadcast signal.
>
> As I've noted before in this space, if Verizon or any other retailer
> wants to offer programming a-la-carte, it has to start by getting
> Congress to repeal the grotesquely misnamed "Cable Television Consumer
> Protection and Competition Act of 1992" and companion legislation
> governing satellite retailers.
>
> All that said, I have some doubt that a-la-carte would actually lower
> retail prices anyway. My narrative about that is at:
>
>
> http://theoldcatvequipmentmuseum.org/320/321/index.html
>
This is probably a diversion.
I've been using a box called Roku (www.roku.com) which allows me
to take video programs over the Internet.
Aside from Fox News, there isn't anything on cable which I
particularly care to watch.
But the Roku box gives me plenty that I enjoy. Though I haven't
counted them, they claim over seven hundred channels. And it is a one
time fee versus monthly payments.
Many of the services are free. Some (like Netflix) you pay a
small monthly fee (not to Roku).
But as I get unlimited Internet from Roku for a mere eight
dollars per month, it is a lot cheaper than paying for a lot of cable
channels I never use.
In fact, I decided that what I was paying the cable companies
[just so I could watch Fox News] wasn't cost efficient. And I could
listen to them on my XM radio. So I called our cable company and
asked them what the difference in my bill would be if I returned the
cable box and kept only the high speed Internet.
They freaked when I asked them that. They gave me a special two
year deal that saves me forty dollars per month for the first year and
twenty a month for the second year so I would not cancel the cable
portion of my service. I can cancel at any time with what I consider
to be a reasonable fee for early cancellation. And as I am in the
process of purchasing a new home, I can take the deal with me when I
move.
Another solution by the free market.
Fred
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:34:26 -0600
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: More Extensions and Lightning Protection
Message-ID: <20130320193427.4A61C5EF9AC5D@gateway11.websitewelcome.com>
Folks,
I'm on my way to closing on a house.
I have a Linksys VOIP terminal adapter to support my phones.
Though it will support two lines, I'm only using one at the present
time.
Linksys says the maximum number of extensions on one line is
two.
Since I'm moving into a three bedroom house with a large
living area, a garage, and a workshop out back, I am likely going to
want to support more than two extension phones on one line.
Does anyone know of a device that will plug into the RJ11 jack
of my ATA and then providesupport for five lines or more (so I can
connect up to five extensions)?
Also, I plan to run wire from the house to the workshop out
back. I'll need some form of lightning protector.
I've struck out with Mike Sandman. So I thought the rest of
you might have some suggestions.
Regards,
Fred
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: More Extensions and Lightning Protection
Message-ID: <kifkbh$7fd$1@leila.iecc.com>
> Linksys says the maximum number of extensions on one line is
> two.
Linksys is being very conservative. Three phones will probably work
fine, particularly if they are modern phones with electronic ringers.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
http://jl.ly
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:54:01 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: More Extensions and Lightning Protection
Message-ID: <kifodf$26a$1@dont-email.me>
On 3/20/2013 2:34 PM, Fred Atkinson wrote:
> I have a Linksys VOIP terminal adapter to support my phones.
> Though it will support two lines, I'm only using one at the present
> time.
>
> Linksys says the maximum number of extensions on one line is
> two.
>
> Since I'm moving into a three bedroom house with a large
> living area, a garage, and a workshop out back, I am likely going to
> want to support more than two extension phones on one line.
>
> Does anyone know of a device that will plug into the RJ11 jack
> of my ATA and then providesupport for five lines or more (so I can
> connect up to five extensions)?
Do you mean individually addressable extensions, or just phones on the
line?
If this is an SPA2102 or suchlike, I've got 5 phones hooked onto one
line without any problem. I can't imagine why there would be any
limit except for ringer load and current draw (if line-powered). The
SPA2102 has a maximum ringer load of 3 REN, Since modern (no 2500
sets, please) phones have a REN of 0.1 or less, that wouldn't be a
problem.
>
> Also, I plan to run wire from the house to the workshop out
> back. I'll need some form of lightning protector.
Dunno there. I'd bury it, myself. I'd trust a lightning protector to
keep from burning the house down, but not to keep it from crisping the
electronics.
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:58:09 -0400
From: Retired <Retired@home.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: More Extensions and Lightning Protection
Message-ID: <4ZudnYpRQML_6dbMnZ2dnUVZ5rqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
On 3/20/13 3:34 PM, Fred Atkinson wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm on my way to closing on a house.
>
> I have a Linksys VOIP terminal adapter to support my phones.
> Though it will support two lines, I'm only using one at the present
> time.
>
> Linksys says the maximum number of extensions on one line is
> two.
>
> Since I'm moving into a three bedroom house with a large
> living area, a garage, and a workshop out back, I am likely going to
> want to support more than two extension phones on one line.
>
> Does anyone know of a device that will plug into the RJ11 jack
> of my ATA and then providesupport for five lines or more (so I can
> connect up to five extensions)?
>
> Also, I plan to run wire from the house to the workshop out
> back. I'll need some form of lightning protector.
>
> I've struck out with Mike Sandman. So I thought the rest of
> you might have some suggestions.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
> Fred
>
Is there a reason to not use a cordless base at the ATA, and multiple
cordless remotes around the house, and maybe even in the garage ??
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:47:30 -0700
From: Bob <RBF1147-UN@YAH0O.COM>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: More Extensions and Lightning Protection
Message-ID: <kig9im$2j9$1@dont-email.me>
On 3/20/2013 12:34, Fred Atkinson wrote:
> Does anyone know of a device that will plug into the RJ11 jack
> of my ATA and then providesupport for five lines or more (so I can
> connect up to five extensions)?
The easiest solution would be a cordless system with multiple handsets.
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Verizon switching building remade into data center
Message-ID: <dd5405ae-a050-47f1-a124-e393e5a76cc9@w3g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
The NY Times reported that a former Verizon (NY Telephone Co.)
switching center is being remade into a secured data center where
companies can place their servers. "There will be uninterrupted
power, cooling and security. The first phase, now nearing completion,
has the capacity to handle 5.4 megawatts of electrical demand; up to
40 megawatts of demand" The building's floors can handle much heavier
loads and there is space for ductwork. Vz still uses three floors.
for full article please see:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/a-new-purpose-for-an-old-telephone-building-but-its-dull-face-remains/?ref=nyregion
In Philadelphia, a major Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania
downtown central office has been remade into luxury apartments.
www.1835arch.com
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 05:43:19 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon's Latest Plan For Cable Fees Could Lower Your Cable Bill -- Eventually
Message-ID: <kibi9n$1sju$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <51493A76.1070100@annsgarden.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
[I reordered his comments somewhat]
>- Broadcast station licensees have a legal right to force retailers to
> carry their signals on the basic tier.
>- Any programmer that owns non-broadcast programming and a broadcast
> station licensee has a legal right to force retailers to carry the
> non-broadcast programming on the basic tier as a condition for
> granting retransmission consent for the broadcast signal.
Note that these mechanisms are mutually exclusive: a broadcaster can
elect retrans consent or must-carry but not both. There are also
limits to how much channel capacity can be tied up with
mandatory-carriage channels, but there are likely few cable systems
left that qualify for anything other than the highest tier.
>- Broadcast licensees have federally-mandated geographic markets
> ("Designated Market Area" or DMA). In any other industry, this
> arrangement would be called a "geographic monopoly." In the
> upside-down world of television broadcasting, it's called "consumer
> protection."
I'm not sure what you're on about here. DMA is Nielsen's invention
and trademark, not the government's -- the FCC merely adopted it as a
frame of reference for presumptively determining the boundaries of a
market for CATV and SHVIA purposes. (Ownership limits in
Arbitron-rated radio markets use a similar mechanism.) The only
monopoly a television licensee has comes from its contracts with
program providers (networks and syndicators) -- and those program
proviers have a legal monopoly granted to them by their contracts with
the copyright owners of those works. (There is less competition in
broadcast television than there used to be, thanks to the partial
repeal of the duopoly rule for large markets, and the "failing
station" waiver that allows television duopolies in small markets.
However, this is more than balanced out by the large number of
additional non-broadcast options.)
It is true, and maybe this is your point, that when CATV operators
offer two stations that carry the same programming, they are generally
required to substitute the programming from whichever station is
considered "local" to their market, if that station requests it.
>All that said, I have some doubt that a-la-carte would actually lower
>retail prices anyway. My narrative about that is at:
>
>
>http://theoldcatvequipmentmuseum.org/320/321/index.html
>
I strongly suspect that many consumers would be happy to pay only a
token amount less in the knowledge that they are "not paying for"
those channels that they have no interest in (whether it's EWTN or
LOGO).
-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
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 (8 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues