|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 310 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Inquiry: former AT&T shortwave radiotelephone station in Lawrenceville, NJ
Re: Inquiry: former AT&T shortwave radiotelephone station in Lawrenceville, NJ
Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
I'm looking, sigh, yes, for a "ring tone"
====== 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: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:42:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: techie@tantivy.tantivy.net (Bob Vaughan)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Inquiry: former AT&T shortwave radiotelephone station in Lawrenceville, NJ
Message-ID: <hddtdv$8kv$1@usenet.stanford.edu>
In article <siegman-F8A55A.07043110112009@news.stanford.edu>,
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Didn't there used to be some similar large antenna facility
> somewhere out on the salt flats here in the San Francisco Bay Area?
> Any history on that? Was it also an AT&T facility?
You are probably thinking of KFS, the former maritime radio station,
located in the Palo Alto baylands along East Bayshore rd, between
Embarcadero and San Antonio roads, near the City of Palo Alto
corporation yard.
The transmitter building still stands, although I believe that all the
large antenna masts have been removed.
The site was established in the 1920's, and operated until 7/12/1999,
when Morse Code transmissions from the site ceased.
The station was owned at various times by Federal Telegraph, MacKay
Cable and Wireless, ITT World Communications, and KFS World
Communications.
The Palo Alto site was the transmitter site. The receive site was
located in Half Moon Bay.
http://wikimapia.org/18873/Fomer-Maritime-and-VOA-Station-KFS-KROJ
http://www.radiomarine.org/
http://www.nps.gov/pore/planyourvisit/events_nightofnights.htm
http://jproc.ca/radiostor/kph.html
--
-- Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine --
Bob Vaughan | techie @ tantivy.net |
| P.O. Box 19792, Stanford, Ca 94309 |
-- I am Me, I am only Me, And no one else is Me, What could be simpler? --
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 5:56:51 -0800
From: "Martin Bose" <martyb@sonic.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Inquiry: former AT&T shortwave radiotelephone station in Lawrenceville, NJ
Message-ID: <07DE7D5A78CBD426E4542102BC5553FAA@sonic.net>
AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Didn't there used to be some similar large antenna facility
> somewhere out on the salt flats here in the San Francisco Bay Area?
> Any history on that? Was it also an AT&T facility?
I'm guessing that you're referring to the "dinsoaur cage" that was
located off of highway 37 at Skaggs Island near Sonoma. That was not
an AT&T facility; it was a Navy station that was a very sensitive
radio monitoring facility. Back in the 60's I spent some time there
learning Russian morse code, since at the time encrypted morse code
was the standard Soviet communications mechanism.
I'm not sure how long ago they tore it down, as it is no longer there.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:23:02 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Message-ID: <4AFAD6D6.5090101@annsgarden.com>
The NBCU-Comcast venture seems to be back on track after all.
http://tinyurl.com/yfw4gjt
http://tinyurl.com/yzpox5b
Neal McLain
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:54:36 -0500
From: "Gene S. Berkowitz" <first.last@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Message-ID: <MPG.2564b659b7b7153e989682@news.giganews.com>
In article <hd9pje$cbd$1@blue.rahul.net>,
jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us says...
>
> Geoffrey Welsh wrote:
> > Do advertising limits even make sense in the day of 24/7 shopping
> > channels?
>
> That's funny, I was about to ask exactly the opposite question. Now
> that we have the Web on which to look up whatever we want to buy, and
> it has plenty of good comparison sites, all ads in other media (except
> maybe those media that exist only for the purpose of ads, like the
> Penny Saver) have lost their usefulness to the consuming public. In
> effect they are nothing but nagging. Why does the TV watching public
> continue to put up with them, at all, ever? Do we need the
> commercials to tell us it's time to go to the bathroom?
Actually, most people watch ads because they reinforce the purchasing
decisions they have already made.
People rarely buy cars because of an ad, but they tend to notice the
ads for the car they bought more. This reinforces the brand, which
makes the customer more likely to choose that brand the next time
they make a purchase. For the seller/advertiser, a repeat customer is
a much better value than a new customer.
--Gene
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:03:16 -0600
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Message-ID: <z7OdnaXj05Tpl2bXnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@supernews.com>
wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
> Except, of course, that the latest research shows quite the
> opposite: most people can't be bothered to skip the commercials.
> See, for example,
> <http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/11/06/03>.
It's not most, it's a bit under 50%. But the amazing thing from that
piece is that some networks are saying now that DVRs may be what saves
them, because that percentage is watching more network shows than
those people who are limited to watching them live (duh, us DVR users
have been saying that since tivo came out in 1999). In the story, one
exec said that they should give DVRs away to their viewers.
And then you have NBC, who somehow got the idea that designing their
9-oclock hour to be un-dvrable (supposedly nobody records live
content, wha?), turning into the biggest disaster on a network that
seems to be MADE of disaster these days. They can't do anything
right. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:00:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Message-ID: <3187a745-7e4b-4eb6-a1bd-e75e57f1d51c@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 10, 4:48 pm, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:10 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Geoffrey Welsh wrote:
>> > Do advertising limits even make sense in the day of 24/7 shopping
>> > channels?
>
>> That's funny, I was about to ask exactly the opposite question. Now
>> that we have the Web on which to look up whatever we want to buy, and
>> it has plenty of good comparison sites, all ads in other media (except
>> maybe those media that exist only for the purpose of ads, like the
>> Penny Saver) have lost their usefulness to the consuming public. In
>> effect they are nothing but nagging. Why does the TV watching public
>> continue to put up with them, at all, ever? Do we need the
>> commercials to tell us it's time to go to the bathroom?
>
>> Fortunately, Tivo and its competitors are rapidly making TV ads so
>> easy to skip that they're becoming as useless to businesses as they
>> are to consumers. Now Hollywood is just left with the problem of
>> making TV shows good enough that people will pay for them.
>
>> I predict the demise of free (unencrypted) over-the-air TV any day.
>
> Well, maybe. But as I've noted before in this space, one should never
> underestimate the power of the National Association of Broadcasters.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8e84e85fefc9c69c
>
> Neal McLain
=======================================
The latest:
http://www.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUSN1133772320091112
-Neal
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:18:17 -0500
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: I'm looking, sigh, yes, for a "ring tone"
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0911111417180.24040@panix5.panix.com>
I was with a group of people and a cell phone "rang". Except
it wasn't one of those trendy tunes. It wasn't even
the Nokia or t-Mobile default.
It sounded just like... just like... a traditional "Bell 500"
metal-on-metal clapper bell.
(Well, a pretty close facsimile thereof).
The owner had no idea where his phone had gotten it.
I'm now using a Nokia, umm, something or another, which
allows me to add one of these.
Being way past my teenage years I have no idea whatsoever
how to find this tone, and every search I've tried has led
to even more confusion.
Suggestions? Thanks muchly.
(Yes, I know I might have to pay a few dollars for it).
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
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 (7 messages)
|
or 