|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 78 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Tales of data pirates: Opting out of Verizon's open-ended sharing
Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Re: under-sea power transmission cables
Re: under-sea power transmission cables
Re: VoIP Latency Problem?
Seeking a company to provide data bandwidth to Internet in Ontario Canada
History of AT&T Mail [TELECOM]
Re: History of AT&T Mail [TELECOM]
Re: History of AT&T Mail [TELECOM]
Re: VoIP Latency Problem?
Re: VoIP Latency Problem?
Palm Reports Q3 FY09 Results
====== 27 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: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:11:14 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Tales of data pirates: Opting out of Verizon's open-ended sharing
Message-ID: <p06240869c5e74be98db9@[10.0.1.6]>
Tales of data pirates: Opting out of Verizon's open-ended sharing
Posted on March 7th, 2009
A small legalistic pamphlet from Verizon arrived today telling me
that I have 45 days to opt out of "agreeing" to let Verizon share
Customer Proprietary Network Information, i.e., "information created
by virtue of your relationship with Verizon Wireless," including
"services purchased (including specific calls you make and receive,"
billing info, technical info and location info. They promise to only
share this with "affiliates, agents and parent companies." It will
definitely not be shared with "unrelated third parties"... unless,
perhaps that third party pays Verizon to become an affiliate,
whatever the heck "affiliate " means.
...
http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/03/07/tales-of-data-pirates-opting-out-of-verizons-open-ended-sharing/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:06:56 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Message-ID: <pan.2009.03.19.07.06.55.276272@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:59:20 -0400, AES wrote: .....
> Not to mention that, as I've read somewhere, at the time it was
> "discontinued" the Concorde had accumulated by far the _worst_
> cumulative safety record (deaths per passenger mile) of any major model
> of jet airliner ever operated in commercial service.
Which was probably due to that Paris crash *caused* by debris from another
plane that took off immediately before it.
Anyhow, Concord was a woefully inefficient conveyance with those 1960's
technology engines gobbling fuel at an extraordinary rate and depositing
masses of pollution high in the stratosphere - the planet is better off
without it.
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Let's all celebrate the Concorde's retirement by dropping this out of
the discussion, OK?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:08:57 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: under-sea power transmission cables
Message-ID: <pan.2009.03.19.07.08.56.923271@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:23:49 -0400, Richard wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:10:10 -0400 (EDT), David Clayton
> <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
.........
>>I'm assuming all these long cable runs are now DC to maximise the
>>overall power that you can pipe down these things - all built on the
>>back of super-efficient AC to DC conversions at either end. That might
>>keep "bitey" things away from the cable rather than an AC field.
>
> There is another reason to use DC. With AC, some of the transmitted
> energy is in the fields between the conductors, leading to losses due to
> the conductive sea water. With DC, any fields are static, and do not
> lose energy.
Yep, not having any reactive losses would also be a big plus. The
proponents of DC in the very early years would be having a laugh now as
the limitations of AC are being circumvented with the aid of modern
technology.
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
OK, the Concorde might be powered by DC solar cells someday. Until
then, I think the readers' susceptance is at an ebb, and their
admittance is waning as well.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:42:04 -0400
From: "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz" <BLOrnitz84@charter.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: under-sea power transmission cables
Message-ID: <nexwl.88685$Rg3.13303@newsfe17.iad>
"David Clayton" <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.03.19.07.08.56.923271@myrealbox.com...
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:23:49 -0400, Richard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:10:10 -0400 (EDT), David Clayton
>> <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> .........
>>>I'm assuming all these long cable runs are now DC to maximise the
>>>overall power that you can pipe down these things - all built on the
>>>back of super-efficient AC to DC conversions at either end. That might
>>>keep "bitey" things away from the cable rather than an AC field.
>>
>> There is another reason to use DC. With AC, some of the transmitted
>> energy is in the fields between the conductors, leading to losses due to
>> the conductive sea water. With DC, any fields are static, and do not
>> lose energy.
>
> Yep, not having any reactive losses would also be a big plus. The
> proponents of DC in the very early years would be having a laugh now as
> the limitations of AC are being circumvented with the aid of modern
> technology.
It is not the dielectric losses that are at fault. Even if perfect
insulating materials are used (the imaginary component of the
dielectric constant is zero), the capacitance between the conductors
will create a very low power factor increasing system losses. Years
ago, I think it was in the late 1960's, Scientific American had an
article about an underground high tension line that was being tested
by GE. The line was 26 miles long, three phase 60 Hz. From the
generator end of the line, the current into the line was the same with
the load end open-circuited as it was when the load end was short
circuited! At that time, conversion of DC back to AC required
expensive silicon controlled rectifier circuitry. Today this is less
of a problem. With DC, capacitance between the conductors is
beneficial as it serves to lessen the requirements of the end
inverters circuitry.
--
73, Dr. Barry L. Ornitz
BLOrnitz84@charter.net
[transpose digits to reply]
***** Moderator's Note *****
This came in before my announcement that this thread was closed. Last one!
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:45:12 +0000
From: David Quinton <usenet_2005D_email@REMOVETHISBITbizorg.co.uk>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP Latency Problem?
Message-ID: <nut3s45fec9qtg8c0u3maljl4o21855j3b@4ax.com>
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:48:43 -0400 (EDT), Tom <tdenham735@gmail.com>
wrote:
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Since there is no specification for minimum transit time in the IP
>specification, you're going to deal with latency on every VoIP
>call. Although 280 ms is a good figure, I'm at a loss to explain the
>dropouts if Wireshark doesn't show any anomaly.
>
>If some party along the line is "traffic shaping" because they don't
>get paid for VoIP (and they want you to use the PSTN instead), that
>would explain the dropouts. I suggest you try encapsulating the VoIP
>calls in a VPN for some tests: the VPN will hide the traffic
>signature, so that might reveal if there's sabotage.
>
>Hate to be cynical, but Comcast has been doing shaping for years (and
>denying it), so it's worth checking out. Please pass along the landing
>country(ies) as well: there might be some history.
I'm no expert, but that figure seems high to me. Also beware of the
jitter!
Reference: http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-QoS
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:23:59 -0400
From: "chayn" <chayn123@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Seeking a company to provide data bandwidth to Internet in Ontario Canada
Message-ID: <3D557ACDD94B4D6CB5C142E3D0AD0C08@newsergio>
Hello,
Can someone please recommend a company that provides reliable data
connections to the Internet in Ontario, Canada?
I need about 3MB and am seeking an agent/reseller relationship with
them.
Thank you,
Robert
***** Moderator's Note *****
Robert, are you asking for 3 Megabits per second speed, or 3 Megabytes
per second?
(I'm actually astonished that this has become a valid question in my
lifetime!)
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:58:37 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: History of AT&T Mail [TELECOM]
Message-ID: <6645152a0903190858k42ae1dd2hd3990576aeb4cde@mail.gmail.com>
When I was in college in the late 1980's I worked for AT&T as a co-op
student. During my second quarter I was given the task of rolling out
AT&T Mail to our site and training people how to use it. At the time
I thought the service was pretty neat. It had email-to-fax and
email-to-snail-mail gateways. It was used mostly by AT&T, but the
service was available to the public and I found the governor of
Kentucky listed in the directory. It didn't take me long to realize I
could send email to @attmail.com from my school account, which raised
a few eyebrows about me "hacking into AT&T Mail". When it came time
to graduate I had promised myself I would get an AT&T Mail account if
my future employer did not have Internet access (turns out they did).
I was reminiscing about the service, so I visited Google and Wikipedia
trying to find information. I cannot find anything. The search terms
bring up information about today's at&t email service via their DSL
service or really old archives containing messages from people with
@attmail.com email addresses. Perhaps I'm the only person on the
planet who thinks this topic is interesting, but in case I'm not, does
anyone have more information about AT&T Mail? Until my last move I
still had all of my manuals, but they're long gone. I want to create
a Wikipedia entry. I believe AT&T Mail was as significant as
Compuserve or Prodigy.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
***** Moderator's Note *****
Allowing this post is a judgement call: while I try to keep the digest
from straying too far into "computer" territory, the history of AT&T1
and AT&T2 is relevent to telecom. I ask, however, that respondents
confine their remarks to the ways that AT&T1's forays into email
affected its telecom business.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:33:56 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: History of AT&T Mail [TELECOM]
Message-ID: <V_xwl.16042$as4.9111@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>
John Mayson wrote:
> When I was in college in the late 1980's I worked for AT&T as a co-op
> student. During my second quarter I was given the task of rolling out
> AT&T Mail to our site and training people how to use it. At the time
> I thought the service was pretty neat. It had email-to-fax and
> email-to-snail-mail gateways. It was used mostly by AT&T, but the
> service was available to the public and I found the governor of
> Kentucky listed in the directory. It didn't take me long to realize I
> could send email to @attmail.com from my school account, which raised
> a few eyebrows about me "hacking into AT&T Mail". When it came time
> to graduate I had promised myself I would get an AT&T Mail account if
> my future employer did not have Internet access (turns out they did).
>
> I was reminiscing about the service, so I visited Google and Wikipedia
> trying to find information. I cannot find anything. The search terms
> bring up information about today's at&t email service via their DSL
> service or really old archives containing messages from people with
> @attmail.com email addresses. Perhaps I'm the only person on the
> planet who thinks this topic is interesting, but in case I'm not, does
> anyone have more information about AT&T Mail? Until my last move I
> still had all of my manuals, but they're long gone. I want to create
> a Wikipedia entry. I believe AT&T Mail was as significant as
> Compuserve or Prodigy.
>
> John
>
You might try EasyLink, I had that with Western Union and AT@T took it
over. I remember using it with friends, sending mail to Fax and linked
into the USPS MailGram service.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: History of AT&T Mail [TELECOM]
Message-ID: <5be3499c-1f96-42c9-af06-9949edaf3c01@a39g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 19, 3:54 pm, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> When I was in college in the late 1980's ... I was given the
> task of rolling out AT&T Mail to our site and training people
> how to use it. At the time I thought the service was pretty
> neat. ...
> Does anyone have more information about AT&T Mail?
I'm not familiiar with that specific package, but at that time
corporations were starting email systems. Initially they were
internal but eventually were Internet as well. My employer at the
time (late 1980s) installed PROFS, which was a mainframe based system.
Very reliable, I was sad when they cut it off.
I'm not sure how big the various early email systems--AT&T'e Mail,
EasyLink, Prodigy, and Compuserve were. In the grand scheme of things
they were relatively small as most people did not have computers back
then, and many who did weren't connected.
If a fading memory serves, I think Compuserve was the biggest.
A related question is: When did email--using today's standards--
begin? That is, when did people get email addresses of "PERSON@SITE"
and there was an Internet capable of routing such messages to the
appropriate site.
I recall Compuserve having optional extra-fee links to send a Western
Union Mailgram. I had Compuserve for a while but never used it; had
no real need and was always afraid of running up the bill; things that
I wanted cost extra.
>***** Moderator's Note *****
> Allowing this post is a judgement call: while I try to keep the digest
> from straying too far into "computer" territory, the history of AT&T1
> and AT&T2 is relevent to telecom. I ask, however, that respondents
> confine their remarks to the ways that AT&T1's forays into email
> affected its telecom business.
In my opinion, general email issues, especially historical issues like
this, are part of the telecom world and appropriate for us.
Per your question, I don't think AT&T's own foray into email affected
its telecom business; the email back then was just too limited to have
a specific effect.
IMHO, back then email in general tended to reduce long distance
telephone traffic because people would communicate by email instead of
a toll call. Now it doesn't matter since so many people have cheap or
free long distance. For myself easy availability of email makes me
send more quickie messages to friends, and I don't telephone as much.
I think email, including emailed responses to webpages, has really
done a job on the US Postal Service. I know today I use email for
miscellaneous inquiries and comments for which in the past I'd use
postcards, and of course the reply is via email instead of a letter.
E-commerce in general--web pages as catalogs and to accept orders,
electronic money transfers, etc., also has hurt the USPS. I suspect
we'll soon go to five day a week mail. I have mixed feelings about
this since I think the USPS still has a very important role to play in
commerce and society. There are some communications that still are
better mailed, particularly important correspondance or documents via
Certified or Registered Mail and given the Internet's weaknesses there
will be no substitute for some time.
As to AT&T and other carriers (short and long haul), the growth of
email and the Internet data lines to carry it as resulted in a huge
growth of data transmissions.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I think there will always be a job for the Postal Service: after all,
our business and government will be dependent on paper records for the
foreseeable future. The Western way of life revolves around written
records, and there has to be some way to get them from place to place.
Our businesses, educational institutions, and governments still use
paper as the primary medium-of-record. Despite the plethora of
electronic alternatives, the post office is still, and probably always
will be, in the business of carrying the mountain of Purchase Orders,
checks, bills, magazines, stock certificates, bank statements,
greeting cards, and personal messages that keep the wheels of society
spinning.
Having said that, I can't help but wonder if the electronic signatures
that were made possible by public-key cryptography will someday
supplant the paper records we now rely on. It would be a monumental
change, and would require that every family have both access to the
Internet and a computer, not to mention training in electronic
record-keeping.
I doubt it will happen: there's nothing like getting a letter that you
can read anywhere and anytime you want, again and again. (If you don't
believe me, just ask any other ex-GI).
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom <tdenham735@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP Latency Problem?
Message-ID: <8dc2212b-b58e-4e27-bc2e-2a8e09d9acc6@a39g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 18, 11:48 am, Tom <tdenham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We currently have a very simple VPN from our US office to our remote
> office. Our bandwidth is fine, but our latency is running around 280
> ms on average to the remote office. The interesting thing is that at
> least 70% of the time our calls are pretty good, but often we get very
> odd noises and dropped calls, even though the bandwidth usage and
> latency appear to be running at their usual baseline. Once the
> problem starts it seems to persist for hours at a time. Even at times
> when bandwidth is [much] lower than our baseline the VoIP problem can
> crop up.
>
> We're not doing any VLAN tagging (we have cheap switches/routers), so
> QoS is likely out of the question, although I'm not sure that will
> help because it appears to happen at times when we have plenty of
> bandwidth, so I suspect that it may have something to do with our poor
> latency, but then why does it work well most of the time?
>
> I'm just puzzled as to why this works so well much of the time, but
> some days can become unusable. Peeking with wireshark does not show
> anything unusual during these bad calls, so we're a bit stumped.
>
> Any ideas or suggestions?
>
> Thanks...
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Since there is no specification for minimum transit time in the IP
> specification, you're going to deal with latency on every VoIP
> call. Although 280 ms is a good figure, I'm at a loss to explain the
> dropouts if Wireshark doesn't show any anomaly.
>
> If some party along the line is "traffic shaping" because they don't
> get paid for VoIP (and they want you to use the PSTN instead), that
> would explain the dropouts. I suggest you try encapsulating the VoIP
> calls in a VPN for some tests: the VPN will hide the traffic
> signature, so that might reveal if there's sabotage.
>
> Hate to be cynical, but Comcast has been doing shaping for years (and
> denying it), so it's worth checking out. Please pass along the landing
> country(ies) as well: there might be some history.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
Thanks for the feedback Bill...we are actually using a VPN...forgot to
mention, basically running on Linux FreeSWAN.
We're just totally stumped, but your comments are helpful...thanks!
***** Moderator's Note *****
In that case, try it _without_ the VPN! Encryption adds latency, so I
suggest you have some teleconferences without the VPN, and compare
results.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:57:55 GMT
From: Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP Latency Problem?
Message-ID: <uvb5s4dvhajqrrt6f1emf4s67k94i4me93@4ax.com>
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:48:43 -0400 (EDT), Tom <tdenham735@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>We currently have a very simple VPN from our US office to our remote
>office. Our bandwidth is fine, but our latency is running around 280
>ms on average to the remote office. The interesting thing is that at
>least 70% of the time our calls are pretty good, but often we get very
>odd noises and dropped calls, even though the bandwidth usage and
>latency appear to be running at their usual baseline. Once the
>problem starts it seems to persist for hours at a time. Even at times
>when bandwidth is [much] lower than our baseline the VoIP problem can
>crop up.
>
>We're not doing any VLAN tagging (we have cheap switches/routers), so
>QoS is likely out of the question, although I'm not sure that will
>help because it appears to happen at times when we have plenty of
>bandwidth, so I suspect that it may have something to do with our poor
>latency, but then why does it work well most of the time?
For a VPN tunnel (IPsec maybe) you would need to use DSCP or type of
service depending the links the traffic will flow across.
However even if you get the QoS to work (ie high priority packets
overtake slower ones) the IPsec tunnel will then carefully put the
packets back in the order they were injected - destroying any QoS
benefit.
The fix if you run over a QoS capable network is separate tunnel per
QoS - or just mark everything high priority if you mainly contend with
other peoples traffic.
>I'm just puzzled as to why this works so well much of the time, but
>some days can become unusable. Peeking with wireshark does not show
>anything unusual during these bad calls, so we're a bit stumped.
Jitter is much more of an issue with VoIP than absolute delay (and any
packet loss above 1% is going to hurt as well).
>Any ideas or suggestions?
See if you are sending big packets down the link. IPsec fragmentation
and reassembly can really hurt the performance of a router doing
IPsec.
>Thanks...
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Since there is no specification for minimum transit time in the IP
>specification, you're going to deal with latency on every VoIP
>call. Although 280 ms is a good figure, I'm at a loss to explain the
>dropouts if Wireshark doesn't show any anomaly.
Sort of depends if that is "round trip" (so inside the ITU 150 mSec 1
way recommendation), or each way.
Also the codec delays and buffers will add a fair bit to the raw
latency of the traffic path, so the voice latency may be up to 50 mSec
higher each way depending on the codec.
[Moderator snip]
If the phones / adaptors have good stats (eg analog voice ports on a
cisco router) the equipment may tell you why things are not right.
Regards
stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:12:03 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Palm Reports Q3 FY09 Results
Message-ID: <p06240872c5e8d55db8ff@[10.0.1.6]>
http://investor.palm.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=371862
Palm Reports Q3 FY09 Results
SUNNYVALE, Calif., Mar 19, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Palm, Inc.
(NASDAQ:PALM) today reported that total revenue in the third quarter
of fiscal year 2009, ended Feb. 27, 2009, was $90.6 million.
Smartphone sell-through for the quarter was 482,000 units, down 42
percent year over year. Smartphone revenue was $77.5 million, down 72
percent from the year-ago period.
"We're proceeding through a challenging transitional period, however
our current results shouldn't overshadow the tremendous progress
we've made against our strategic goals. We're poised to usher in a
new era at Palm," said Ed Colligan, Palm president and chief
executive officer.
Net loss applicable to common shareholders for the third quarter of
fiscal year 2009 was $(98.0) million, or $(0.89) per diluted common
share. Net loss applicable to common shareholders included
stock-based compensation of $5.3 million, amortization of intangible
assets of $0.9 million, restructuring charges of $5.7 million, a
casualty loss of $5.0 million, an impairment of non-current auction
rate securities of $4.0 million, a gain on a series C derivative of
$20.6 million and accretion of series B and series C preferred stocks
of $3.0 million. This compares to a net loss applicable to common
shareholders for the third quarter of fiscal year 2008 of $(57.0)
million or $(0.53) per diluted common share, which included
stock-based compensation of $6.2 million, amortization of intangible
assets of $1.0 million, restructuring charges of $12.3 million, an
impairment of non-current auction rate securities of $25.5 million
and accretion of series B preferred stock of $2.4 million.
Net loss for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009, measured on a
non-GAAP(1) basis, totaled $(94.7) million, or $(0.86) per diluted
share, excluding stock-based compensation, amortization of intangible
assets, restructuring charges, a casualty loss, an impairment of
non-current auction rate securities, a gain on a series C derivative
and accretion of series B and series C preferred stocks. This
compares to a non-GAAP net loss for the third quarter of fiscal year
2008 of $(17.0) million, or $(0.16) per diluted share, which excluded
the effects of stock-based compensation, amortization of intangible
assets, restructuring charges, an impairment of non-current auction
rate securities, accretion of series B preferred stock and an
adjustment to the related tax provision.
Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or
EBITDA, for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009 totaled $(81.9)
million. EBITDA, adjusted to add back stock-based compensation, net
other income (expense), restructuring charges, a casualty loss, an
impairment of non-current auction rate securities and a gain on a
series C derivative, or Adjusted EBITDA, totaled $(78.6) million.
Cash used in operations for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009 was
$(92.1) million. The company's cash, cash equivalents and short-term
investments balance was $219.4 million at the end of the third
quarter of fiscal year 2009.
Palm recently announced the closing of a public offering of common
stock and the associated exercise of its underwriters' over-allotment
option. In total, approximately 26.6 million shares were sold in the
offering, including shares subject to the over-allotment option and
approximately 18.5 million common shares underlying 49 percent of the
units of series C preferred stock and warrants acquired by Elevation
Partners in January 2009, for a public offering price of $6.00 per
share. Elevation Partners, which recouped the $49 million it
originally paid for its units included in the offering, used those
funds to purchase approximately 8.2 million shares of Palm's common
stock in the offering at the public offering price. In total, Palm
received estimated net proceeds of approximately $103.6 million after
deducting underwriting discounts and commissions, estimated offering
expenses and the original purchase price of Elevation Partners' units.
Separately, Palm indicated that since it expects to periodically
provide new software features free of charge to customers of its
Palm(R) webOS(TM) products, including the recently announced Palm
Pre(TM), it will recognize Palm webOS product revenues and related
standard costs of revenues on a subscription basis based on the
applicable product's estimated economic life, which is currently 24
months. The company will be recording deferred revenues and deferred
costs of revenues on its balance sheet, and amortizing them into
earnings on a straight-line basis over the estimated economic product
life. Certain administrative and other related period costs of
revenues will be expensed as incurred. This accounting policy will
have no impact on cash flows and does not change how Palm accounts
for Palm OS(R) products, like the Centro(TM), or its Treo(TM) line. A
more detailed discussion of the new accounting treatment can be found
on Palm's Investor Relations website at http://investor.palm.com/ .
------------------------------
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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
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) 2008 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 (12 messages)
******************************
|
or 