Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 28 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: AT&T Reports Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year Results Verizon Reports 4Q and Full-Year 2008 Re: GateHouse and The New York Times Co. settle dispute over Web sites Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Re: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Re: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Re: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Re: Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages ====== 27 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, 28 Jan 2009 10:20:06 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: AT&T Reports Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year Results Message-ID: <p06240858c5a6267a7487@[10.0.1.6]> AT&T Reports Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year Results Highlighted by Robust Wireless Data Growth, Accelerated U-verse TV Ramp, Continued Double-Digit Growth in IP Data Services http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26502 Dallas, Texas, January 28, 2009 * Full-year reported EPS of $2.16, up from $1.94 for 2007; full-year adjusted EPS of $2.81, compared with $2.76 for 2007 * Fourth-quarter reported EPS of $0.41 versus $0.51 for the year-earlier quarter; adjusted fourth-quarter EPS of $0.64 versus $0.71 * Fourth-quarter EPS reflects the success of AT&T's iPhone 3G launch. Adjusted results exclude merger-related costs and a previously announced force reduction charge. In addition, both reported and adjusted fourth-quarter 2008 earnings include $0.07 of pressure from the company's iPhone 3G initiative, hurricane-related expenses and foreign exchange impacts * 2.1 million fourth-quarter net gain in wireless subscribers to reach 77.0 million in service, up 7.0 million over the past year * 4.3 million iPhone 3G devices activated in the second half of 2008, including 1.9 million in the fourth quarter. Approximately 40 percent of iPhone activations were for customers new to AT&T. iPhone 3G continues to deliver high-value subscribers with significantly higher ARPU (average monthly revenues per subscriber) and lower churn than AT&T's postpaid subscriber average * Wireless postpaid subscriber ARPU growth of 3.9 percent versus the year-earlier quarter to $59.59; postpaid data ARPU up 35.7 percent versus the fourth quarter of 2007 and up 10.9 percent sequentially * 51.2 percent growth in wireless data revenues - reflecting rapid adoption of wireless integrated devices and increased usage of wireless Internet access, messaging and related services; AT&T's wireless integrated devices in service more than doubled over the past year * Strong ramp in AT&T U-verseSM TV subscribers, with a fourth-quarter net increase of 264,000, the company's best quarterly gain to date, to reach more than 1 million in service; U-verse network deployment now reaches 17 million living units * 14.2 percent fourth-quarter growth in wireline IP data revenues driven by rapid expansion in AT&T U-verse services and growth in business products such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and managed Internet services Consolidated Statements of Income http://www.att.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/IS_IB_4Q08.xls Statements of Segment Income http://www.att.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/Segments_IB_4Q08.xls Consolidated Balance Sheets http://www.att.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/BS_IB_4Q08.xls Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows http://www.att.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/CF_IB_4Q08.xls Supplementary Operating and Financial Data http://www.att.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/Supp_IB_4Q08.xls Reconciliation of OIBDA http://www.att.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/OIBDA_reconciliation_4Q.xls Reconciliation of Free Cash Flow http://www.att.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/FCF_4Q08.xls Wireline Non-GAAP Consolidated Reconciliations http://www.att.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/Wireline_Non-GAAP_Rec_4Q08.xls OIBDA and Free Cash Flow Discussions http://www.att.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/OIBDA_FCF%20Discussion_4Q08.pdf Investor Briefing (531 kb PDF) http://www.att.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/4Q_08_IB_FINAL.pdf Slide Presentation http://www.att.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/4Q_08_slide_c.pdf http://www.att.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/4Q_08_slide_bw.pdf Financial and Operational Results http://www.att.com/Investor/Growth_Profile/download/master.pdf http://www.att.com/Investor/Growth_Profile/download/master.xls ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:21:44 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Verizon Reports 4Q and Full-Year 2008 Message-ID: <p0624085ac5a6284ae122@[10.0.1.6]> Verizon Reports Sustained Revenue Growth and Continued Strong Cash Flows for 4Q and Full-Year 2008 http://investor.verizon.com/news/view.aspx?NewsID=961 Review Q4 2008 Financials Earnings Webcast http://investor.verizon.com/news/20090127/webcast.aspx Presentation (PDF 187 KB) http://investor.verizon.com/news/20090127/20090127.pdf Quarterly Bulletin (PDF 774 KB) http://investor.verizon.com/financial/quarterly/vz/4Q2008/4Q08Bulletin.pdf Supplemental Schedule (Excel, 80 KB) http://investor.verizon.com/financial/quarterly/vz/4Q2008/supplemental_schedule_4Q08.xls Non-GAAP Reconciliation (Excel 79 KB) http://investor.verizon.com/financial/quarterly/vz/4Q2008/non_gaap_recs_4Q08.xls 2006-4Q 2008 Financials Effective January 27, 2009 (Excel, 615 KB). http://investor.verizon.com/financial/quarterly/xls/hist_financials_4Q08.xls 4Q Results Fueled by Record Growth in FiOS Internet and TV Customers, Continued Strong Sales of Verizon Wireless and Strategic Business Services 4Q 2008 HIGHLIGHTS Consolidated Results * 43 cents in diluted EPS and 61 cents in adjusted EPS (non-GAAP), compared with 4Q 2007 diluted EPS of 37 cents reported and 62 cents adjusted. * $24.6 billion in 4Q revenues, up 3.4 percent, or adjusted growth (non-GAAP) of 4.6 percent. Wireless * 1.4 million organic (non-acquisition-related) net customer additions, almost all retail; 1.2 million total net customer additions, including a net customer loss under a previously announced exchange agreement related to the 3Q 2008 acquisition of Rural Cellular. * 72.1 million total customers; 70.0 million retail customers, up 9.9 percent, not including customers added with the Jan. 9, 2009, acquisition of Alltel. * 12.3 percent increase in total revenues; data revenues up 41.4 percent; ARPU growth for 11th consecutive quarter; strong 47.2 percent EBITDA margin on service revenues (non-GAAP). Wireline * 303,000 net new FiOS TV customers and 282,000 net new FiOS Internet customers, the highest ever for the company. * 14.3 percent increase in consumer ARPU in legacy telecom markets. * 8.4 percent increase in revenues from strategic business services. YEAR-END 2008 HIGHLIGHTS * $2.26 in 2008 diluted EPS from continuing operations and $2.54 in adjusted EPS, compared with 2007 earnings of $1.90 per share and $2.36 per share, respectively. * $97.4 billion in 2008 revenues, up 4.2 percent, or adjusted growth of 5.1 percent. * $26.6 billion in cash flows from operating activities; $17.2 billion in capital expenditures. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:01:43 -0800 (PST) From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: GateHouse and The New York Times Co. settle dispute over Web sites Message-ID: <bca3d581-a605-41eb-ae9b-2563a78ace6a@g3g2000pre.googlegroups.com> It will be interesting to see what happens to traffic on the Gatehouse site with NYT no longer linking to it. Newspapers are, of course, complaining of others, like Google, making money off their content. But, Google and others (including Telecom Digest) only provide enough of the story for a reader to decide whether to read the whole thing, then provide a link to the story on the original site. This brings traffic to the site and viewers to the ads on the site. This should be good, but apparently web ads are bringing in less money than comparable print ads. Advertisers consider ads in print publications more valuable if the publication has paid circulation, since the subscriber is less likely to throw the publication away unread. But, does it mean the reader actually looks at the ads? The web ad has to be considered quite a bit more valuable since, in most cases, the advertiser pays only if a reader clicks on the ad. This indicates considerably more interest in the ad than can ever be demonstrated for a print ad. So, are print ads just overpriced? Or, are web ads underpriced in that they cannot pay for a reporting staff? Back on web ads, the hit rate seems much higher on ads placed in search results than ones placed in content, since the viewer is actually looking for something similar to what the advertiser is selling. In ads in content, this is much less likely to be the case. I recall hearing of one content sensitive ad where an ad for luggage was placed alongside a newspaper story about a killer who placed body parts in suitcases. Anyway, linking seems reasonable to me. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:13:00 -0600 From: Denise Reinecke <dmr436@gmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Message-ID: <10a0585f0901280713p715b002dg2fd90ac3c9043453@mail.gmail.com> You guys are gonna love this one! No, I am not making this up! http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.414: No, it's not April 1 either! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:48:30 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Message-ID: <7a1c02f0-eada-49a4-8c21-8dc6a7958e24@e3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> On Jan 28, 12:03 pm, Denise Reinecke <dmr...@gmail.com> wrote: > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.414: "Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone." Well, this is a fact, and adults are being targeted as well. The same could apply to modern digital cameras, which are also silent compared to film cameras which have a mechanical shutter that make a click. This is a weird issue. On the one hand, we don't like the idea of secret picture taking, especially in private areas. On the other hand, serious photographers always could take pictures secretly using telephoto lens cameras. Further, computer mini-cams are easily hidden. Generally, picture taking is an protected right of free speech; restrictions apply toward how pictures are published. In other words, you may freely (usually) take a picture of anyone or anything in a public place, but you may be limited on how you publish it (for example, you can't use it for advertising purposes without the subject's consent and you are subject to libel/slander laws). On the other hand, existing laws already protect privacy in non-public places or issues of a personal matter. (If someone's bathing suit flies off at the beach that's an private matter and you can't take a picture of the naked person.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:41:35 -0800 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Message-ID: <BF1gl.9627$hc1.592@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com> Denise Reinecke wrote: > You guys are gonna love this one! > > No, I am not making this up! > > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.414: > > No, it's not April 1 either! How about a huge flash like the old plate cameras? Like the Congress has nothing better to do then add stupid bills. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:41:05 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Message-ID: <d9cfaeff-a4a8-4c75-9d41-cbed3d2714dc@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com> On Jan 28, 4:26 pm, Steven Lichter <diespamm...@ikillspammers.com> wrote: > How about a huge flash like the old plate cameras? As an aside, the big flash reflectors of the past created a much better picture since the light source was larger and not as specular. Today's flash units are so tiny that very harsh shadows and flatness making pictures look like a lousy ID card photo. Those old flash reflectors were much more powerful as well, so the photographer could be further away from the subject. On the other hand, dealing with disposable flashbulbs was a real pain. They could fail or break before use, and after use they were very hot and uncomfortable to handle. They could shatter on occassion. They were expensive. Coming back to telecom, it took many years before both film and electronic (video) were sensitive to utilize existing light indoors. TV and movies used to be shot under horrendously bright--and hot-- lamps, I'm surprised actors didn't suffer high damage. I don't know how Bell managed to make a tiny Picturephone video camera that would work without auxillary lights, although it was intended for relatively bright offices and the resolution and image size was relatively low. (Though Bell offered a special lens to allow document transmission as well.) Today of course both still and motion video sensors work in low light, although high quality TV and film production still requires strong lighting. Except for some Internet users, Picturephone service still never caught on. People very frequently send still or movies attached to emails, but see-and-talk still seems more of a novelty than day to day standard practice. Can cell phones go to live video mode while someone is talking on them, a la Picturephone style? Do they make landline telephone sets capable of that, or does someone require a computer and Internet connection? Video conferencing is apparently quite popular, especially as a way to save money from travel expenses. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:17:03 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages Message-ID: <cb1c2123-b102-4f6e-8af2-598e03e55af9@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com> On Jan 27, 4:51 pm, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote: Mr. MC and Mr. Wollman make some excellent points. > The "early people" knew very well that they had completely ignored > security: they did so intentionally, knowing that the network would > only ever be accessible to a few thousand DoD-approved contractors and > grantees.  (Many of the "early people" had spent their prior careers > working on operating systems with significant security design > requirements, like Multics.)  There was a fundamental principle that > hosts were responsible for their own security, which made[1] a great > deal of sense in a world where computers required large rooms and > skilled full-time staff to maintain (as opposed to today, where a > resource inversion has given the "bad guys" access to vastly more > computational power and network resources than the "good guys"). > Nobody expected that their "walled garden" would be turned inside out. I can understand where they're coming from, but I don't agree with their thinking. First, even though you mention their experience in security on earlier systems, I still think the designers consciously chose a very open architecture for flexibility in connections and freedom to communicate. Hacking for malicious reasons is not new, kids were doing it in 1968, probably earlier. Likewise for hacking for intellectual reasons, which could also damage machines and service. Secondly, protection against malicious end users isn't enough. Anything and everything that is input into a computer has to be edited for validity to ensure the data accidently or intentionally causes a program to crash (e.g. a "data exception" on IBM machines) or to compromise memory on any machine that has multiple programs or users on it. This protection is a must for transmissions from a remote network, if nothing else, to ensure the data stream is valid and doesn't crash the network controllers themselves. This could be from merely communication line static, certainly a common problem in the 1960s. But there is no guarantee that programmers on remote computers are properly sending data and control streams to another. Today we have the problem of hackers seizing control of unprotected servers and hijacking them for their own maliscious use. This could easily be an unintentional problem from sloppy communications programming and the network should've had protections for it. Also, flooding a target machine ("denial of service" attack) could've been done very easily by accident (an "infinite loop" bug in a program) in the past, and there should've been protections against that. In short, by the 1960s, computer people had enough experience of common programming bugs that 'firewalls' should've been part of the very basic design of networking, especially in the days when computer cycles were costly and limited, you obviously didn't want a remote machine sucking out the power of your machine through a flood of erroneous requests. What is sad is that when mini and personal computers replaced the big mainframes as connection points, the old protections of the mainframe were forgotten or ignored. Part of this was intentional since one attraction of the new small boxes was the low overhead--simple operating systems without the cumbersome software maintenance and controls required by the big boxes. Users no longer had to navigate their way through policy manuals and snooty human gate keepers to get computer time. Also, many of these users were "free thinkers" opposed to controls. Also sad is that the Internet developed first, then people woke up and realized the mainframe's overhead wasn't such a bad idea after all. Today we have firewalls and the same bureaucracy to protect our mini's and PCs, except it doesn't work as well since it was added after the fact rather than designed in in the first place. [public replies, please] ------------------------------ 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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. 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: mailto: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 Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest Copyright (C) 2008 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) ******************************