28 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

Message Digest 
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 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: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:08:52 -0400 From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U Message-ID: <43263.1256468932@annsgarden.com> 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 > die? I wrote: > 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... Continued at http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.telecom/msg/6e76980a3cc9ea49?hlen 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 programmers. 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 definitions. 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 broadcast stations. > 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 fee? What kind of "cheaper solution" do you have in mind, if not "Comcrap et al"? > ... 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 syndicators. 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 > disappear. > 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 networks. "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 compensation. 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. Neal McLain
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:31:56 -0700 (PDT) From: JimB <ajbredacted@invalid.yahoo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: RJ11 plug strip (Telecom) Message-ID: <1b796f13-4964-4403-8b74-ae553ea077d9@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> 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 provider. 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 <siegman@stanford.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: RJ11 plug strip Message-ID: <siegman-DD0671.08104725102009@news.stanford.edu> In article <200910250219.WAA04608@ss10.danlan.com>, Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com> wrote: > Something like this? > > http://www.summitsource.com/ge-5jack-phone-extension-cable-adapter-modular-outlet-ivory-15-ft-cord-extension-one-phone-outlet-to-5-telephones-5-port-surface-mount-jack-block-junction-box-p-8311.html > > http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=90134891&listingid=1873226 > > http://www.keenzo.com/showproduct.asp?M=GENERAL_ELECTRIC_TL26131&ID=1252817 > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220428259414 > > Dan Lanciani > ddl@danlan.*com 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: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: RJ11 plug strip (Telecom) Message-ID: <d9WdndxJ1d-n4nnXnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <siegman-140312.16214924102009@news.stanford.edu>, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> 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 splitters'.
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:32:17 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Security warning on Verizon server Message-ID: <7KqdnVchwNcM4HnXnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <E6qdnTxaWujv3H7XnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote: >In article <20091023023407.GA24599@telecom.csail.mit.edu>, >Telecom digest moderator ><telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@telecom-digest.and-this-too.org> >wrote: > >> 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 > messy. > > ***** 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. Bill Horne Moderator
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 (5 messages)

Return to Archives**Older Issues