31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for April 19, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 85 : "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, 17 Apr 2013 20:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The Air If Aereo & Dish Win Lawsuits
Message-ID: <b722888e-8a8f-4ee7-bcf0-d0c6d526daff@y12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 16, 7:59 pm, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> Neal McLain wrote:
>> There are plenty of other second-tier networks that would jump at the
>> chance to grab a former FOX or CBS channel. Possibilities are
>> endless: Bounce TV, This TV, Ion Television, Retro Television Network,
>
> None of those pay enough to justify the electric bill.
>> foreign language, religious, home shopping.
>
> Those can be lucrative, and are generally the stations that elect
> must-carry anyway.
If you were a big broadcast group owner like Belo or Sinclair, what
would you do if your affiliated network announced that it would not
renew its affiliation agreement? Look for another network? Band
together with other group owners and create a new network? Buy CNN or
some other advertising-supported cable-only channel? Or just sell
your spectrum to the feds and go off the air?
I think the big group owners will survive.
>> Furthermore, if CBS and FOX go cable only, they lose all the cushy
>> perks their affiliates got under the 1992 Cable Act. No more mandatory
>> cable carriage,
>
> That's fine by them, since they weren't depending on must-carry
> anyway. They were depending on their NFL and other sports rights.
> (Murdoch, for his part, has been quietly accumulating sports rights
> over the past few years, because he thinks six national
> general-interest cable sports networks just aren't enough and plans to
> launch a seventh later this year from the remnants of SPEED.) Fox and
> CBS both think their programming is valuable enough to consumers that
> they could get at least as favorable a deal from the big-five MSOs
> (and anyone who isn't one of the big five is too small to count) and
> the two satellite companies.
>
>> no more retransmission-consent,
>
> See above.
I don't think it would be "fine with them" if the cable and sat
companies put sports on a separate tier. Surely you're aware of the
Cablevision v. Viacom Inc. lawsuit in which Cablevision accuses Viacom
of antitrust violations "for forcing it to carry and pay for more than
a dozen 'lesser-watched' channels in order to offer the popular ones
like Nickelodeon and MTV." (
http://tinyurl.com/bwmyds4
)
Whether or not Cablevision will win this suit is beyond my ability to
foresee, but if Cablevision prevails, the obvious place to start is to
isolate sports onto a separate tier.
Of course, FOX, DISNEY, YES, et al, would flood Capital Hill with
lobbyists. But so would Consumers Union and numerous other "public
interest" groups.
>> no more government-mandated geographic monopolies,
>
> A national service doesn't have any use for that anyway.
>
>> no more mandatory access to the basic- cable tier.
>
> See above.
See above.
>> But their former affiliates will still have those perks!
>
> But they won't have programming anyone (other than little old ladies
> on Social Security, who aren't the most lucrative advertising market
> out there) has the slightest interest in.
I think the big group owners will survive.
> I've believed for a long time that broadcast television is
> functionally obsolete, and will be gone (at least as a mainstream
> commercial offering) early in the next decade. It's just a huge waste
> of energy, and if the executives weren't mired in the sunk-cost
> fallacy, they'd have seen that and gotten rid of it already.
That's exactly what Bill said back in 2009. (
http://tinyurl.com/y8nysmy
)
At the time, I disagreed with him, citing the power of the NAB. The
NAB may not have as much power as it used to, especially if FOX and
CBS jump ship.
But I still think the big group owners will survive.
Neal McLain
***** Moderator's Note *****
Q. Is the Grasshopper book the earthly manifestation of Jon Postel's soul?
A. See above.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:33:20 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Do not mention his name
Message-ID: <20130418133320.GA29450@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
Every few days, I catch up on those I follow at the Twitter site, and
yesterday I got a "retweet" from Dan Tynan, who writes for Infoworld
and other publications. He referred to an aritcle by security
heavyweight Bruce Schneier, author of "Applied Cryptography" and the
man who coined the term "Security Theater" to describe the TSA.
Schneier's article in "The Atlantic"(1) struck what is, for him, a
familiar chord: the ever-so-hard-to-remember truth that terrorism is a
rare event, and that our visceral reaction to frightening events is
amplified (and, IMNSHO, exploited) by mass media.
Somehow, my memory brought up a song by Ellis Paul, which he wrote in
reaction to the TV hype that surrounded John Lennon's murder. The
song's first line says it all.
As I write this, there are three names to keep in mind:
Krystle Marie Campbell
Lu Lingzi
Martin Richard
But, not, unless another victim succumbs, a fourth, and I think we
should keep it that way. It's inevitable that the loser who put all of
Boston into an emotional preasure cooker on Patriot's Day will be
found, and called to account, but whatever revenge the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts takes on him will be an anticlimax compared to the
revenge you and I can exact: the only retribution that this pitiable
non-competitor will be afraid of.
We can disregard him.
Please help those around you, and history, to remember Krystle
Campbell, and Lu Lingzi, and Martin Richard. Please remember their
names, and shun that of whomever ended - note that I did not write
"took" - their lives.
Do not mention his name.
We can refer to him, in the years to come, as "Accused person 12345"
or "Inmate 54321", or whatever we choose, but please don't mention
his name. He doesn't deserve to be memorialized, or imitated, or even
recalled.
Forget him. He deserves no less.
Bill Horne
1.)
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-boston-marathon-bombing-keep-calm-and-carry-on/275014/
-or-
http://goo.gl/qzEh6
--
(Remove QRM from address to write to me directly)
- - -
Do not mention his name.
The man kills John Lennon, now he's on TV again.
He's blaming Holden Caulfield in the face of the lens.
And each time he does it, he kills him again.
Who killed John Lennon?
A loser with a pistol, a martyr's best friend.
And each time he's televised, he kills him again.
It's the prize that he wanted when he loaded the gun.
And each time he's mentioned, murder is done.
So, who killed John Lennon?
A no one.
- Ellis Paul
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 (2 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues