33 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2014 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.

The Telecom Digest for Sep 12, 2014
Volume 33 : Issue 157 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
Re: AT&T and Verizon say 10Mbps is too fast for "broadband," 4Mbps is enough (Fred Goldstein)
Re: Penalty for driving while texting in Long Island-a disabled cell phone (John Levine)
Moonves to stations: Get more retrans money out of pay-TV operators or else (Neal McLain)

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.
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:04:35 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: AT&T and Verizon say 10Mbps is too fast for "broadband," 4Mbps is enough Message-ID: <lusa5g$esf$1@dont-email.me> On 9/9/2014 12:45 AM, Monty Solomon wrote: > AT&T and Verizon say 10Mbps is too fast for "broadband," 4Mbps is enough > Cable lobby also implores FCC not to change definition of broadband. > > by Jon Brodkin > Sept 8 2014 > Ars Technica > > AT&T and Verizon have asked the Federal Communications Commission not > to change its definition of broadband from 4Mbps to 10Mbps, saying > many Internet users get by just fine at the lower speeds. > > ... > > > http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/att-and-verizon-say-10mbps-is-too-fast-for-broadband-4mbps-is-enough/ > > -or- > > http://goo.gl/ZQ22gJ > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I suppose this is why the ADSL service I get is called "High speed" > instead of "Broadband". > > The article says that the FCC condluded that 0.1Mbps was adequate > speed for a "High Quality Voice Call", provided only one user was > making a call. As with so many things involving the FCC and the > Telecomunications Oligopoly, the estimate is theoretically true. In this case, AT&T and VZ are probably right, provided that they don't count CMRS mobile (even LTE) as "broadband". FWIW, full-quality voice only needs 100 kbps -- PCM voice is digitized at 0.064 Mbps and protocol overhead doesn't quite get it to 0.1. So that's fine -- the issue with voice is QoS, its need for low jitter, delay, and loss. You can have a gigabit service and those parameters can still be bad, or a 1 Mbps service where they're good. What matters is how the definition is used. If the FCC holds that 10 Mbps is the minimum for "unsubsidized competition" for the Connect America Fund, then a place with 4 Mbps service will be deemed "unserved" and ILECs will be offered federal subsidies (from a higher USF tax rate on all of our bills; it's adjusted quarterly to meet requirements, no Congressional intervention required) to build out. The losers will be the rural WISPs who already provide service. Fixed wireless is inexpensive, and is the predominant form of Internet access in many rural areas, but it rarely hits 10 Mbps to any subscriber. Capacity is constrained by both available (unlicensed) spectrum and by power limits (faster speeds need more power -- think energy per bit). Mobile (CMRS) on the other hand charges ridiculous amounts per byte ($10/GB being common) so it is not a substitute for fixed or wireline services, even if LTE can burst at or above 10 Mbps.
Date: 11 Sep 2014 15:01:47 -0000 From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Penalty for driving while texting in Long Island-a disabled cell phone Message-ID: <20140911150147.1948.qmail@joyce.lan> >Primary elections were held yesterday in Massachusetts, and I was >wondering if the Nassau County District Attorney was also in an >election cycle, and might be hungry for headlines. Yes, there was a primary, [although] not for D.A. The only interesting contested offices were [those of] governor and lieutenant governor. > There is no app, device, system, or method that would make it > possible to eliminate texting by the driver of a vehicle. It can, > of course, be done for the entire car, but not just for the driver. Cars already have bluetooth and sometimes wifi, so it wouldn't be out of the question to program the phone to recognize the car's bluetooth. I agree it's not something available off the shelf, but it doesn't seem technologically challenging if there were a demand for it. And even if it were expensive, it'd still be a lot cheaper than putting someone in jail. R's, John
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:54:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <nmclain@remove-this.annsgarden.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Moonves to stations: Get more retrans money out of pay-TV operators or else Message-ID: <02b64b5c-476b-40e5-8908-ae2683a24b74@googlegroups.com> By Daniel Frankel, FierceCable, September 11, 2014 Seemingly oblivious to the fact that a proposal that would end broadcast-retransmission payments nearly made it onto a Senate bill, CBS Corp. president Les Moonves urged TV stations to get tough with pay-TV operators during retrans negotiations. Speaking at the Goldman Sachs Communicopia Conference in New York on Wednesday, Moonves said he wants CBS to take in $2 billion in annual retrans money by 2020. And for that to happen, affiliated stations not owned by CBS need to step up the amount of retrans coin they're bringing in (CBS gets a cut of its affiliates' retrans money). "We the networks should not be penalized because you the station do not negotiate retrans properly," he said, with various media, including the New York Post, on hand. Continued: http://www.fiercecable.com/story/moonves-stations-get-more-retrans-money-out-pay-tv-operators-or-else/2014-09-11?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal -or- http://tinyurl.com/m4sko8x All in the name of "consumer protection" of course. Neal McLain

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 educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne.

The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
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 © 2014 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself. Thank you!

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 (3 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues