The Telecom Digest for July 23, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 198 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 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: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:53:15 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Is Broadcast TV about to be killed?
Message-ID: <pan.2010.07.22.05.53.12.869980@myrealbox.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> ObTelecom: The price of implementing {4|5|n}G mobile service is affected
> by the amount and "quality" of radio spectrum carriers must obtain.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
This seems part of the modern debate about how some convenient technology
that has been around for - in reality - a short time suddenly becomes a
"right" that some - usually a vested interest - demands be protected for
all time.
Why does a limited resource (like radio spectrum) become a "right" for
some people who use it when a case might be able to be made that
potentially far more people may be able to utilise it in the future - what
about their "rights"?
I really dislike the use of terms like "rights" when it comes to these
technological debates, it just seems to pander to the (usually) overblown
sense of entitlement that so many people seem to have these days.
Shouldn't powerful terms like "rights" be reserved for really important
things rather than being hijacked by narrow, selfish interests in areas
that really are trivial when compared to most other things in our lives?
I'm glad that 100 years ago those that used spark driven morse generators
didn't demand the "right" to all the spectrum they splattered with their
technology in the face of newer voice radio services.....
--
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 *****
There is an old saying in Paris: "The law, in all of its majesty,
forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under the bridges that cross
the Seine".
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harold <harold@hallikainen.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Is Broadcast TV about to be killed?
Message-ID: <3429157b-e0e9-4422-a100-70b3f4f232ba@v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
How to allocate spectrum has been quite an issue for quite a while.
The market approach was apparently first suggested in 1951. About 50
years later, I wrote a paper looking at this again. I like the idea of
an auction of fixed term spectrum leases. Right now, licensees have a
term on their licenses where they release any claim to use of the
spectrum beyond the term of the license. But, also, the law provides
for a renewal expectancy. So, it's a mess. My paper is at
http://louise.hallikainen.org/ijclp/ijclp_webdoc_6_5_2000.pdf . It's
called "Spectrum For Sale or Rent".
Harold
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:44:22 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Is Broadcast TV about to be killed?
Message-ID: <siegman-ED1C51.08442222072010@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article <pan.2010.07.22.05.53.12.869980@myrealbox.com>,
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> This seems part of the modern debate about how some convenient technology
> that has been around for - in reality - a short time suddenly becomes a
> "right" that some - usually a vested interest - demands be protected for
> all time.
>
> Why does a limited resource (like radio spectrum) become a "right" for
> some people who use it when a case might be able to be made that
> potentially far more people may be able to utilise it in the future - what
> about their "rights"?
>
> I really dislike the use of terms like "rights" when it comes to these
> technological debates, it just seems to pander to the (usually) overblown
> sense of entitlement that so many people seem to have these days.
> Shouldn't powerful terms like "rights" be reserved for really important
> things rather than being hijacked by narrow, selfish interests in areas
> that really are trivial when compared to most other things in our lives?
>
> I'm glad that 100 years ago those that used spark driven morse generators
> didn't demand the "right" to all the spectrum they splattered with their
> technology in the face of newer voice radio services.....
>
I for one take this reply as a very meaningful and meritorious response
to the initial post.
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Is Broadcast TV about to be killed?
Message-ID: <d665eced-b04d-4113-a1ee-1d69452f864c@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 22, 1:53 am, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Why does a limited resource (like radio spectrum) become a "right" for
> some people who use it when a case might be able to be made that
> potentially far more people may be able to utilise it in the future - what
> about their "rights"?
[snip]
Mr. Clayton makes excellent points throughout his post.
I did not care for Mr. Whedbee's letter. He seems to spend more time
rambling on about irrelevant partisan-political issues than he does on
his specific complaint. I don't care if he's a donor, a Democrat, nor
do I care about the background of FCC officials.
My impression is that he feels the government made a committment to
him, as a broadcast television station owner, then later broke that
committment, causing him to suffer substantial economic loss.
To me, that raises the following issues:
1) Did the government in fact create a binding contract with him? If
so, he would be entitled to damages for the government's
actions.
However, if the government only made a vague promise--which may be
the case--he does not have much of a case. For example, say a
house developer buys up land and builds a community in
anticipation of an announced freeway, but the freeway ends up
being cancelled and nobody wants the developer's houses. Does the
developer have a claim with the government? I would say not. In
this case, I'm not sure if the govt truly made a binding
committment to the broadcasters.
2) The second issue is the rights and responsibilities of those who
receive scarce resources from the government, in this case, a
broadcast frequency. Since the resource is scarce, the business
person is protected from the normal currents of of competition -
another business can't open up next door because there isn't
frequency space. (The same would apply to say a food concession
at a ballpark or national park.) In return for the concession,
businesses typically give up traditional rights, and broadcasters
have to submit to FCC regulations beyond what say a newspaper had
to comply with. In this case, changing technical requirements
might be part of the price he pays for having a concession.
However, somewhere I think it said this fellow was a "low power"
transmitter, which is one of the newly created broadcasters. If
that is true, I have less sympathy for him--he mentioned the
"lifeline" task of broadcasters, but I don't think a low power
broadcaster meets that need.
3) Let's remember the govt does things that devalue our properties
without compensation. For example, say you own a roadside
business. The govt builds a new bypass road and your business
suffers. You have no recourse or claim. Even if say the govt
adds a median strip making it harder for people to turn into your
business--AFAIK you have no recourse.
4) I'm also less sympathetic because as a consumer I'm forced to spend
my money to keep up with the world. I have cassette tapes, video
tapes, and phonograph records. All of which are essentially
obsolete so I'll have to spend money either converting them to a
new medium or repurchase what I already paid for. (For the audio
stuff it probably will be cheaper and easier to simply download
replacement songs).
For the video, I understand whatever replaced videotape does not
allow for permanent records. That is, I'm told that one can
record a TV show on a device's hard drive, but one can not copy
that to a DVD for permanent storage the way I do now with video
tapes. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
[public replies, please]
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:16:00 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AT&T Delivers Double-Digit Earnings Growth in Second Quarter, Raises Full-Year Outlook
Message-ID: <p06240802c86e5710f2fb@[10.5.11.42]>
AT&T Delivers Double-Digit Earnings Growth in Second Quarter, Raises
Full-Year Outlook
Consolidated Revenues Increase, Margins Expand and Cash Flow Remains Strong
Dallas, Texas, July 22, 2010
$0.68 diluted EPS compares with $0.54 diluted EPS in the second
quarter of 2009, up 25.9 percent; up 13.0 percent excluding a $0.07
one-time gain from a Telmex Internacional stock transaction
$30.8 billion second-quarter consolidated revenues from continuing
operations, up $194 million, or 0.6 percent, versus the year-earlier
period and up $278 million, or 0.9 percent, sequentially
Consolidated operating margin expansion to 19.8 percent, up from 18.0
percent in the year-earlier quarter
1.6 million organic net adds in total wireless subscribers, best-ever
second quarter, to reach 90.1 million in service
3.2 million iPhone activations in second quarter, a company record
Best-ever wireless churn levels, with 1.01 percent postpaid churn and
1.29 percent total churn
10.3 percent increase in wireless service revenues, with postpaid
subscriber ARPU (average monthly revenues per subscriber) up 3.4
percent; sixth consecutive quarter with a year-over-year increase in
postpaid ARPU
27.2 percent growth in wireless data revenues, up $936 million versus
the year-earlier quarter
2.9 million net increase in 3G postpaid integrated devices on AT&T's
wireless network to reach 29.7 million
32.0 percent growth in wireline consumer IP data revenues driven by
AT&T U-verseŽ expansion; first-ever billion-dollar revenue quarter
for AT&T U-verse services
209,000 net gain in AT&T U-verse TV subscribers to reach 2.5 million
in service, with continued high broadband and voice attach rates
15.8 percent growth in revenues from strategic business services such
as Ethernet, Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), hosting and application
services
(404 link deleted - bh)
...
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=18142&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=30971
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:26:04 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AT&T defensively publishes private dropped call data
Message-ID: <p06240805c86e59bc937a@[10.5.11.42]>
AT&T defensively publishes private dropped call data
By Daniel Eran Dilger
Published: 05:30 PM EST
While Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs said AT&T wouldn't let him
reveal its proprietary data about dropped call statistics for
competitive reasons, the mobile provider has revealed some numbers in
an effort to defend its network from poor dropped call scores
collected by ChangeWave.
ChangeWave published the results of a March survey which indicated
AT&T had much higher dropped calls than its US competitors: 4.5
percent compared to 2.8 percent for T-Mobile, 2.4 percent for Sprint,
and just 1.5 percent for Verizon Wireless.
That data was collected by a survey of 4,040 smartphone users who
were asked to report their own percentage of dropped calls. AT&T's
dropped call rate has reportedly inched higher since September 2008,
when it was reported to be 3.6 percent, while Verizon's score
improved over the same period from a high of 2.7 percent.
...
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/21/att_defensively_publishes_private_dropped_call_data.html
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:28:38 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Apple responds to US congressmen's query about iOS privacy
Message-ID: <p06240806c86e5a4db591@[10.5.11.42]>
Apple responds to US congressmen's query about iOS privacy
By Neil Hughes
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Published: 09:55 AM EST
Apple has given a detailed summary its iOS privacy policy to two
members of the U.S. House of Representatives who inquired about
changes that were implemented in June.
Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) sent a
letter to Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs in June. The congressmen
expressed their concerns over Apple's modifications to its iOS
privacy policy, and asked for information on exactly what information
Apple is gathering on its customers.
Bruce Sewell, general counsel for Apple, responded with a letter
dated July 12, which explained the basics of the privacy policy
revisions. Last month, the company added a new section to its
customer privacy policy entitled "Location-Based Services." Users
were required to agree to the new terms and conditions before they
could download anything from iTunes or the App Store. Sewell said the
company did this to ensure that everyone would see the changes.
The update said Apple and its partners could "collect, use and share
precise location data, including real-time geographic location" of a
device. The information could be supplied anonymously to help Apple's
partners and licensees provide better products and services, but a
user's personal information is never shared. Users can opt out of the
service by visiting oo.apple.com.
In the letter, Sewell said Apple keeps location data for six months
to improve its iAd network. After that, the information is aggregated.
...
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/20/apple_responds_to_us_congressmens_query_about_ios_privacy.html
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:55:13 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The iPhone 4 Redux: Analyzing Apple's iOS 4.0.1 Signal Fix
Message-ID: <op.vf9ombehitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:15:08 -0400, Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> ... [snip] ...
> ... You need to take responsibility for your own actions.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of glib the-blame-is-on-the-victim statements
like that above.
Folks do get sandbagged by unintended -- and unforeseeable -- consequences
of Murphy's Law. To hold the sandbagees responsible for the damage those
consequences entail is the height of arrogance, IMnsHO.
Telecom illustration: You have an unlimited data plan for WAP access. Your
bill shows that, one fine day, your Megabyte of WAP access data that day
registered as Internet data instead, and you are billed for it, and the
fine folks at your cellular provider cannot accept that it's all a one-day
mis-characterization of your data access type by the billing software. You
are to "take responsibility" for that? (That's happened to me.)
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
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 (8 messages)
|
| |
or 