Volume 28 : Issue 294 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Re: RJ11 plug strip (Telecom)
Re: RJ11 plug strip
Re: RJ11 plug strip (Telecom)
Re: Security warning on Verizon server
====== 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
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: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:08:52 -0400
From: Neal McLain <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U
John Mayson wrote:
> How soon will be before an NBC or CBS decides they're going
> cable/satellite/Internet only and allow local affiliates to
> I don't think it's at all likely. Broadcasters may be having a
> rough time these days, but a television broadcast license is
> still a valuable property.
> Furthermore, broadcasters enjoy significant government-mandated
> advantages over non-broadcast programmers...
Bill Horne wrote:
> Neal, no offense, but I think you're missing something.
> Your argument assumes that local TV station are still needed,
> and that's not the case.
I didn't say that local TV stations are needed. I said (or was trying
to say) that the National Association of Broadcasters has convinced
Congress that local TV stations are needed.
> As it stands now, local TV executives are on the same dead-end
> road as the record executives of yesterday: their influence
> comes from their position astride a distribution bottleneck
> which has been greatly diminished and will soon disappear.
What bottleneck? As long as the NAB gets its way, local TV stations
will continue to be carried by cable TV retailers, and they will
continue to enj oy favored treatment vis-a-vis non-broadcast
A local TV station doesn't have to provide a usable signal to all
viewers within its DMA. Simply by virtue of operating a broadcast
transmitter within its DMA, a broadcast TV station licensee has
preferential access to cable TV distribution networks:
- Mandatory carriage by either must-carry or retransmission consent rules.
- Mandatory access to the basic tier.
- Exclusive geographic territory based on half-century-old market
If you're saying that many programmers will bypass broadcast stations
and deliver their programming directly to cable TV retailers, I agree.
They've been doing just that since 1977. But that hasn't killed
> Local television transmission is going to go away: the only question
> is how long it will take. The new Digital TV standard was a gift to
> the cable/satellite/etc industry: it's not usable for over-the-air
> transmission, and those like me who used to rely on rabbit ears will
> have to either put up expensive outdoor antennas or put up the money
> to rent a pipe from Comcrap et al. Even if (as you said) 30% of
> consumers still use rabbit ears, that percentage - and the consumers
> who it measures - will quickly fade to a marginal factor, both
> because those whose antennas come down in ice storms will be looking
> to their elected officials for cheaper solutions...
Which elected officials? Congress, the puppet of the NAB? Or your
Local Franchising Authority, forever addicted to that 5.26% franchise
What kind of "cheaper solution" do you have in mind, if not "Comcrap
> ... and because the current generation of children is so used to
> having cable TV that they won't accept the limits of over-the-air
> reception. Either way, the local stations lose: their bottleneck
> will be ineffective as a source of profit and political influence
> within my son's lifetime.
I think you're a generation behind. The generation that came of age
in the 90s was already used to cable TV.
That didn't kill local broadcast stations. It did, however, largely
erase the perceptual distinction between broadcast and non-broadcast
programming. In the minds of members of that generation today, cable
TV is just television. Beyond the fact that some channels may be more
likely to have local news, they simply don't perceive a distinction.
> We could debate the time line, but I think the endpoint is certain.
> This is the almost the same thing that happened to radio broadcasting,
> although in the case of radio it was the distribution channel which
> caused the change: program delivery via satellites obviated the need
> for local employees, and most radio programs now come from a "Jock in
> the box" in Cleveland (or wherever). Although radio still require
> local transmitters, the lesson is the same: economies of scale will
> doom local TV stations.
> You heard it here first[tm].
Perhaps so. But never underestimate the power of the NAB.
> P.S. This is telecom related: Shannon was right, and Ma Bell's
> bottleneck is also going to go away. It's just a question of when:
> just ask yourself what happens when satellite phones cost as much as
> cell phones.
I submit that video distribution systems are "telecom-related" for
reasons more fundamental than that. IMO (admittedly not unbiased),
the technologies and regulatory policies of video distribution are
valid topics for Telecom Digest - as valid as telephone or VOIP. I
hope you'll agree.
I also wrote:
> AFAIK, no TV station currently streams its signals. But I doubt
> that copyright liability would be any less onerous for TV than it is
> for radio.
Wes Leatherock wrote:
> KFOR, the NBC outlet in Oklahoma City, announces at the beginning of
> every news program "We are streaming our program worldwide."
John Mayson wrote:
> KXAN in Austin offers their nightly newscast as audio and video
> podcasts. But I think the original poster was speaking of streaming
> the regular broadcast schedule, including prime time shows.
That would be me. You're right.
Broadcast stations can stream their newscasts because they own the
copyrights to those newscasts. But they don't own the copyrights to
programming provided by affiliated networks or purchased from
In a later post, Bill Horne wrote:
> However profitable TV stations are, they are also serving as
> middlemen in between the content producers and the public. As I
> said, they are enjoying control of a bottleneck which I think will
> The networks and the syndicators all have access to satellites, and
> every TV distribution system operator does too. Sooner or later,
> those men will realize that the price isn't right anymore: they're
> paying for a local delivery service that they don't need.
> Someone always wants more, and the network brass - never the
> brightest bulbs in the studio, to be sure - will realize that they
> can distribute their programs to something like 80% of their current
> audience without paying local stations "carry" fees. The few viewers
> that they might lose by bypassing local TV stations aren't enough of
> a factor to stop this change, and IMNSHO, local TV will fade away.
That argument ignores the fact that broadcast stations have
preferential access to satellite and cable TV retail distribution
"Network brass" folks already understand that they can reach
"something like 80% of their current audience" without paying local
stations "carry" (properly known as "compensation") fees. Indeed, if
they distribute their programming directly to cable and satellite
retailers, they can actually charge for it instead of paying
But they also understand that if they try to bypass local stations and
sell their wares directly to cable and satellite retailers, they lose
their government-mandated access. Their programming becomes just one
more video stream in an already-crowded field. The retailers decide
what programming they carry, not the federal government.
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: JimB <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: RJ11 plug strip (Telecom)
This comment is really directed at your original question(s), I'm
putting it in this thread because it is the most current.
You mentioned that the "weird junction boxes" it the utility closet
are the termination of lead-sheathed underground cables. These boxes
are almost certainly the protectors!! Please do not remove these, as
doing so can create a very dangerous condition. The NEC requires
them, and the grounds of the protectors MUST be bonded to the ground
point of your electrical power service entrance. Furthermore, these
protectors are the property (and responsibility) of your service
Could you post a link to a photo of the demarc in question? That
would help clear this up and eliminate conjecture on my part....
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:11:17 -0700
From: AES <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: RJ11 plug strip
In article <200910250219.WAA04608@ss10.danlan.com>,
Dan Lanciani <email@example.com> wrote:
> Something like this?
> Dan Lanciani
Thanks much! You had the magic incantation. (And a six to one price
variation across these sources.)
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:39:22 -0500
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: RJ11 plug strip (Telecom)
In article <email@example.com>,
AES <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Thanks for replies to my overblown earlier question, and I realize now
>that what I want is an RJ11 plug strip (or 5 of them) .....
>Except, looks like nobody seems to make such an object, or any
>low-cost fully pre-assembled functional equivalent to it. Odd . . .
Well 'low-cost' is asking a lot, for something that is, at best, a
'niche' market. <wry grin>
Beasties similar to what you're now asking about, but with only 2 or 3
outlets are readily available, 'for cheap'. They're calle 'line
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:32:17 -0500
From: email@example.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Security warning on Verizon server
In article <E6qdnTxaWujv3H7XnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
Robert Bonomi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <20091023023407.GA24599@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
>Telecom digest moderator
>> I just tried to access https://www.verizon.com/ . I got an error
>> message, saying that "The certificate is only valid for
>> a248.e.akamai.net". Anyone else have this result?
> Despite appearances, this is a non-issue. 'akamai.net' is a
> well-known provider of large-scale distributed web-page delivery.
> They have server farms "everywhere" (both geographically, and 'on
> net' at most major connectivity providers) and "automagically"
> direct a query for a page for one of their customers to the server
> 'nearest' the query source. This allows for servicing truly
> enormous numbers of requests, and for providing fast response to
> page requests.
> Getting SSL certificates 'right' in that environment is really
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> If it's too messy, they shouldn't try to do it. A server which is
> configured to deliver a default certificate that has no relationship
> to the URL it's serving should not offer the service.
When you figure out how to make HTTPS work without having a
certificate, let me know. I know people who will pay a fortune for
that know-how. :)
Truth is, VERIZON shouldn't be using a 3rd-party network for
something that is 'sensitive enough' to call for HTTPS. But, then,
the odds are that -nothing- of the verizon content hosted on the
akamai-hosted server is actually that sensitive. <wry grin>
***** Moderator's Note *****
My point is that https should not work without a certificate. If the
server can't deal with an https request properly, it should refuse to
serve it. Better to not do a job than to do it half-fast.
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
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
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: email@example.com?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: firstname.lastname@example.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
End of The Telecom digest (5 messages)