Pat, the Editor

27 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 171 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID   
  Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID  
  Re: Subject: Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs.   Caller ID 
  Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID 
  Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID 
  Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID 
  Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID 
  Re: AT&T Usenet Netnews Service Shutting Down 
  Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID 
  Old analog cell phones--uses/disposal?  
  Re: Old analog cell phones--uses/disposal?  
  Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Goodbye to copper? 
  Good news from... Detroit: Spam King Ralsky pleads guilty   
  Re: Good news from... Detroit: Spam King Ralsky pleads guilty     
  Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever? 
  Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?    
  Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?   
  Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?   
  Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up" 


====== 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: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:49:26 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <c10.5fbb262d.37717286@aol.com> In a message dated 6/22/2009 9:29:44 AM Central Daylight Time, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: On Jun 21, 11:49 am, Mark Smith <marklsm...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> In Rhode Island, New England Bell did not have enough pairs to support >> the boom in the 50s of suburbia. . . . > This was a common problem after WW II. There was a huge backlog in > service requests and the country had a great deal of prosperity, > resulting in a big demand for service. In addition, the cold war had > an expanded Defense Department which took up a lot of Western's > Production. Hollywood made a silly Doris Day movie about it, "Pillow > Talk". There were a lot of held orders, not only for subsriber lines but for interoffice trunks between offices in the exchange area but for toll trunks. I remeber when I was in the Austin division office of SWBell in the mid-1950s there were discussions about held upgrade orders for customers in Waco, presumably party-line customers who wanted a higher grade of service, dating back to 1934 (the Great Depression intervened and then Worl War II). snother discussion was about an oil company in Beaumont that wanted an FX to Houston. There were 20 toll trunks between Houston and Beaumont, no relief in sight, and completing the FX order would mean turning down 1 of the 20 trunks to provide the FX. (Trunks were expensive then, much different than today.) Company headquarters in Stl. Louis couln't (or wouldn't) believe the forecast for much of Texas, leading to such things as when the initial dial office was built in Odessa, before it was cut over to service the wall of the building had been knocked out to provide for the first addition to the office, which required an addition to the building. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:21:26 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <c23.63579041.37717a06@aol.com> In a message dated 6/22/2009 9:29:54 AM Central Daylight Time, xanadu@example.invalid writes: > So, maybe the cost of labor was creeping up and Ma Bell decided to > run 5XB in a more automatic mode to cut down on tat cost? WEco and the Bell Labs were always working to reduce costs. So do most buinesses, Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:48:08 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <MPG.24aaed746d5c3761989a82@reader.motzarella.org> In article <c23.63579041.37717a06@aol.com>, Wesrock@aol.com says... > > In a message dated 6/22/2009 9:29:54 AM Central Daylight Time, > xanadu@example.invalid writes: > > > So, maybe the cost of labor was creeping up and Ma Bell decided to > > run 5XB in a more automatic mode to cut down on tat cost? > > WEco and the Bell Labs were always working to reduce costs. So do most > buinesses, > > Wes Leatherock > wesrock@aol.com > wleathus@yahoo.com So much so that if you're a VoIP subscriber today there is no additional cost for long distance calls. But Bell was cagey, they were keep LD rates artificially high to subsidize the local service. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:53:32 -0600 From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <1um245pb2t7cfmifiulmq37q2d82fh298d@4ax.com> T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote: >But Bell was cagey, they were keep LD rates artificially high to >subsidize the local service. In all fairness to Bell - that was at the bequest of the various state PUCs who saw long distance as a luxury or business service. Regular people wrote letters by post for interstate communication to friends and relatives. In effect, taxing long distance to subsidize the local service was a political decision. It fell apart as all subsidies eventually do, when businesses got tired of paying inflated rates and challenged the laws that prevented alternate services like MCI. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:06:00 -0500 From: "Kenneth P. Stox" <stox@sbcglobal.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <YoZ%l.500$kA.269@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com> > Would anyone know if the No. 4 ESS is still used as the long distance > switch or has it been superceded? As of 2007, 150 were still in service. The 5ESS only surpassed the 4ESS in raw call capacity in the last decade, and not by a significant margin. They are expected to be phased out around 2015. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:30:01 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <MPG.24aae931a5b79121989a80@reader.motzarella.org> In article <YoZ%l.500$kA.269@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, stox@sbcglobal.net says... > > > Would anyone know if the No. 4 ESS is still used as the long distance > > switch or has it been superceded? > > As of 2007, 150 were still in service. The 5ESS only surpassed the 4ESS > in raw call capacity in the last decade, and not by a significant > margin. They are expected to be phased out around 2015. The 5ESS is an interesting switch. It can do pretty much any job in a system and still keep going strong, which probably explains why there are a few 5E's even here in RI under Verizon's network. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 2009 09:42:25 -0400 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <h1qm41$h9p$1@panix2.panix.com> Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org> wrote: >In a very interesting 1963 short film, Ray Bradbury tours what appears to >be a 1XB office, and also describes the story development for the >haunting tale "Dial Double Zero", about spontaneous emergence of intelligence >in a telephone switch. I recommend downloading the MP4 or OGG video here: > >http://www.archive.org/details/RayBradburyStoryOfAWriterByDavidL.Wolper We hope to be showing a 16mm print of this film at the Arisia Science Fiction Convention in January. www.arisia.org. >I have strong memories of seeing a complete film version of "Dial Double >Zero" but cannot find any references to a release, either on film or >other media. Does anyone else have a recollection of it or know more >about it? I don't know. WGBH adapted a number of Bradbury stories in the early 1970s. This one would be an interesting one to do. I don't see any reference to it in any of the 1970s directories of educational films that I have here, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:03:58 GMT From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: AT&T Usenet Netnews Service Shutting Down Message-ID: <op.uvylk1flwqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:30:00 -0400, <news-admin@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be > offering access to the Usenet netnews service. If you wish to continue > reading Usenet newsgroups, access is available through third-party > vendors. > > For further information, please visit http://support.att.net/usenet. > > Sincerely, > > Your AT&T News Team > > Distribution: AT&T Worldnet Usenet Netnews Servers Hmm ... this must have been in the works for quite some time ... I see the suggested URL displays the following copyright announcement towards the bottom of the page: > © 2008 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. ... Cheers, -- tlvp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:43:37 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <MPG.24aaec38cd22bab6989a81@reader.motzarella.org> In article <61c42$4a3f1b80$4aded8bf$21446@EVERESTKC.NET>, xanadu@example.invalid says... > 5XB was designed for small COs in suburbs, usually to replace SXS. 1XB > was designed for large metropolitan COs, often replacing Panel, or those > monster SXS designs. > > That is interesting because New England Telephone chose a #5XB to server Pawtucket, and parts of North Providence, Lincoln, and Cumberland in RI. Total population now in those communities is: 162,646 people. Of that I could pull the number but it comes out to roughly 64,000 households. I'd say that the 5XB could handle a bit more. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:11:05 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Old analog cell phones--uses/disposal? Message-ID: <8e48d09a-976e-4ad0-be39-08576e54ecac@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> Do old analog cell phones and accessories (AC charger, car charger) have any value or usefulness? This was discussed a year ago. The only use suggested at that time was a donation to a soldiers' service group but it was not clear whether analog phones had any value to them. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:47:40 -0600 From: Reed <reedh@rmi.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Old analog cell phones--uses/disposal? Message-ID: <qfSdnSP0T6FxGNzXnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Do old analog cell phones and accessories (AC charger, car charger) > have any value or usefulness? > > This was discussed a year ago. The only use suggested at that time > was a donation to a soldiers' service group but it was not clear > whether analog phones had any value to them. > > Thanks. > Programs like http://www.cellphonesforsoldiers.com/ get money for the phones from recyclers like http://recellular.com/index.asp. Then they donate airtime cards to the soldiers. They don't actually re-use the phones for anything. They accept *any* old phone. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:39:20 -0400 From: Telecom digest moderator <redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <20090623193920.GA28353@telecom.csail.mit.edu> I'm passing along an email from the "discuss" mailing list run by the Boston Linux & Unix User Group. Mr. Ritter has given permission. Comments? Bill Horne -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper? Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:15:21 -0400 From: Dan Ritter <dsr@tao.merseine.nu> To: [Redacted] CC: blug <discuss@blu.org> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:37:20PM -0400, [Redacted] wrote: > I recently overheard a discussion from a FIOS tech saying at some > point in the near future the existing copper infrastructure is simply > so old it will be ripped out, apparently forcing existing landline > customers to switch to fiber...??? Didn't quite sound right, but > maybe the backbone infrastructure (poles/street) will be making way to > fiber? > > Was this tech telling the truth, providing an assumption, or maybe > offering what he hopes might happen? Every time VZ puts in a FIOS deployment, they rip out the copper. This is because copper is regulated and must be re-sold to their competitors, but fiber is not. The next people to ask for a copper service (or a competitor) will have to pay for an all-new install. -dsr- -- http://tao.merseine.nu/~dsr/eula.html is hereby incorporated by reference. You can't defend freedom by getting rid of it. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- E. William Horne William Warren Consulting Computer & Network Installations, Security, and Service http://william-warren.com 781-784-7287 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:03:07 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <h1rmvb$126$2@reader1.panix.com> Telecom digest moderator <redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu> writes: >Every time VZ puts in a FIOS deployment, they rip out the copper. This >is because copper is regulated and must be re-sold to their competitors, >but fiber is not. The next people to ask for a copper service (or a >competitor) will have to pay for an all-new install. Clearly this must be a misunderstanding. Why, the senior PR flack for Verizontal, VP Tom Tauke, in his 2 Oct 2007 House testimony resoundingly DENIED that his company would/could ever cut down your copper..... Thus the dozen-odd people I have spoken to who swear such happened to them must be victims of mass delusion. http://tinyurl.com/ms4q7f [From the MD PSC site...] Page ~59-61. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:23:22 -0400 From: jmnormand.removethis@removethistoo.yahoo.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <E1MJFKk-00007R-T3@telecom.csail.mit.edu> ------Original Message------ Subject: Goodbye to copper? Sent: Jun 22, 2009 8:37 PM > I recently overheard a discussion from a FIOS tech saying at some > point in the near future the existing copper infrastructure is simply > so old it will be ripped out, apparently forcing existing landline > customers to switch to fiber...??? Didn't quite sound right, but > maybe the backbone infrastructure (poles/street) will be making way to > fiber? > > Was this tech telling the truth, providing an assumption, or maybe > offering what he hopes might happen? > > Inquiring minds want to know... > > Thanks. Much of the back bone is already fiber. The copper is just the "last mile", basically the lines into the houses, on smaller streets and in rural markets. It will be decades before much of that last mile is replaced. Nor does it need to be in most cases. Now if the price of copper returns to the levels it saw last year, you may likely see new wiring switching to all fiber in the not to distant future. But at the moment its still at half the cost it was, and gigabit ethernet is fast enough for most people building new houses and small office buildings. As for forcing customers to "switch", this is just telco propaganda to scare customers into higher priced plans they don't need. Much like they used the "digital" tv switch to scare customers into high priced cable plans. They basically charge more for "digital" plans, even though it saves them billions to switch customers over. I'm not sure what level tech you over heard but many of the verizon fios techs don't know anything that isn't writen in their verizon books. Much like the geek squad, they are pretty hit or miss on skill level. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:58:42 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <379641ef-a865-401e-ba53-b659f3f64e6f@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> On Jun 23, 7:26pm, jmnormand.removet...@removethistoo.yahoo.com wrote: > As for forcing customers to "switch", this is just telco propaganda to > scare customers into higher priced plans they don't need. I have heard nothing about any telco propaganda. Around they have FIOS but no pressure at all. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:57:41 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <cd45d1a0-b5e2-46ef-951b-5f6e426e2c4e@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> On Jun 23, 3:44pm, Telecom digest moderator <redac...@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu> wrote: > > I recently overheard a discussion from a FIOS tech saying at some > > point in the near future the existing copper infrastructure is simply > > so old it will be ripped out, apparently forcing existing landline > > customers to switch to fiber...??? Didn't quite sound right, but > > maybe the backbone infrastructure (poles/street) will be making way to > > fiber? Undoubtedly there is old loop plant that is old and needs replacing. It will be replaced with whatever the most cost-effective medium--for that location--is at the time. It certainly could be new copper. But it could also be a carrier system, perhaps coax or perhaps fibre. Much depends on the specific situation--distance and traffic volume. The technical medium is different than the service provided, especially with regulated offerings. Basic residential telephone service is regulated so it must be supplied. Whether it comes from open wire on poles or fibre is irrelevent. > > Was this tech telling the truth, providing an assumption, or maybe > > offering what he hopes might happen? As this was an informal conversation we can't read very much into it. Also, policies will vary from one area to another. > Every time VZ puts in a FIOS deployment, they rip out the > copper. This is because copper is regulated and must be re-sold > to their competitors, but fiber is not. The next people to ask > for a copper service (or a competitor) will have to pay for an > all-new install. Again, the service, not the technology, is regulated. They certainly did NOT "rip out copper" around here when they put in FIOS. Not everyone wants or needs FIOS. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:17:20 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <MPG.24ab56b98662ed1d989a83@reader.motzarella.org> In article <20090623193920.GA28353@telecom.csail.mit.edu>, redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu says... > > I'm passing along an email from the "discuss" mailing list run by the > Boston Linux & Unix User Group. Mr. Ritter has given permission. > > Comments? > > Bill Horne > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper? > Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:15:21 -0400 > From: Dan Ritter <dsr@tao.merseine.nu> > To: [Redacted] > CC: blug <discuss@blu.org> > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:37:20PM -0400, [Redacted] wrote: > > I recently overheard a discussion from a FIOS tech saying at some > > point in the near future the existing copper infrastructure is simply > > so old it will be ripped out, apparently forcing existing landline > > customers to switch to fiber...??? Didn't quite sound right, but > > maybe the backbone infrastructure (poles/street) will be making way to > > fiber? > > > > Was this tech telling the truth, providing an assumption, or maybe > > offering what he hopes might happen? > > Every time VZ puts in a FIOS deployment, they rip out the > copper. This is because copper is regulated and must be re-sold > to their competitors, but fiber is not. The next people to ask > for a copper service (or a competitor) will have to pay for an > all-new install. > > -dsr- > > -- > http://tao.merseine.nu/~dsr/eula.html is hereby incorporated by reference. > > You can't defend freedom by getting rid of it. > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@blu.org > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss And I did my good turn recently, I took a Verizon FiOS box off my property. The tennant had moved out. My building, my rules. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:50:24 -0400 From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Good news from... Detroit: Spam King Ralsky pleads guilty Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0906231650150.24617@panix5.panix.com> [Detroit Free Press] W. Bloomfield spam king pleads guilty International spam king Alan Ralsky pleaded guilty this afternoon in U.S. District Court in Detroit to charges of violating federal anti-spam laws by sending millions of emails in a stock-fraud scheme. A 41-count indictment last year said Ralsky, 63, of West Bloomfield; his son-in-law, Scott Bradley, 47, also of West Bloomfield, and nine other people used unsolicited e-mail to pump up the price of penny stock in Chinese companies to artificially high prices and then sold it, reaping huge profits for themselves and leaving Internet subscribers who purchased it holding the bag. ------------ rest: http://www.freep.com/article/200906221248/NEWS05/90622041 __________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ***** Moderator's Note ***** There _is_ a God! It's not like "Pump and Dump" schemes will ever go away, but this guy is the worst of the bad actors in the spam world. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:56:24 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Good news from... Detroit: Spam King Ralsky pleads guilty Message-ID: <h1rj5m$aig$1@news.eternal-september.org> danny burstein wrote: > [Detroit Free Press] > > W. Bloomfield spam king pleads guilty > > International spam king Alan Ralsky pleaded guilty this afternoon in > U.S. District Court in Detroit to charges of violating federal anti-spam > laws by sending millions of emails in a stock-fraud scheme. > > A 41-count indictment last year said Ralsky, 63, of West Bloomfield; his > son-in-law, Scott Bradley, 47, also of West Bloomfield, and nine other > people used unsolicited e-mail to pump up the price of penny stock in > Chinese companies to artificially high prices and then sold it, reaping > huge profits for themselves and leaving Internet subscribers who > purchased it holding the bag. > ------------ > > rest: > http://www.freep.com/article/200906221248/NEWS05/90622041 > > __________________________________________________ > Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key > dannyb@panix.com > [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > There _is_ a God! > > It's not like "Pump and Dump" schemes will ever go away, but this guy > is the worst of the bad actors in the spam world. > They sure are not getting much prison time. They should be put in cells with a monitor that just has thousands of spam e-mail on them and make sure their eyes are glued open -- 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, 24 Jun 2009 10:57:38 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever? Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.24.00.57.36.988005@myrealbox.com> Having read the recent posts about people being cut off copper for fiber, and also being compelled to switch to Digital TV, it occurs to me that the underlying question should be is it really fair to retain - essentially ancient - technologies? Perhaps we should evaluate the ongoing costs/benefits of retaining or replacing these technologies, as it seems that the costs may well be outweighing the benefits now and in the future. I can see good arguments myself for both sides, but in reality a lot of these things are a bit like allowing "horse and buggy" vehicles onto a freeway and then requiring the freeway to accommodate them safely by providing legacy infrastructure (maybe a special lane just for them) or slowing everyone else down to their maximum capability - possible (and good for the horse and buggy user) but really tying up resources that newer technologies can use more efficiently. Telecom seems to be an area where the cost of retaining legacy infrastructure may well be increasing the costs of better infrastructure right now and/or slowing down the future deployment of even better infrastructure. Is it worth it? (let the debate begin, I'm sure there are plenty of people with good points for both sides in this NG.....) -- 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. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:49:50 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever? Message-ID: <5ffefae1-9870-4642-925f-0c2cb9f99fef@e39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> On Jun 23, 10:10pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > Having read the recent posts about people being cut off copper for fiber, > and also being compelled to switch to Digital TV, it occurs to me that the > underlying question should be is it really fair to retain - essentially > ancient - technologies? In any discussion like this we first must get out facts straight. These days, it includes separating out technology from policy, and marketing issues. We certainly don't know for sure if people were actually cut off from copper for fiber (I know I wasn't, and they seem in no rush to get me on fibre even if I wanted it). Likewise, we don't know if people were _compelled_ to switch to digital TV. (I do know someone who was falsely induced to switch to digital by a cable tech, though his bill remains the same. Of course, my own observations are quite limited. Just because a few techs or sales people are scumbags does not mean everyone is.) The second issue is that _any_ change in technology costs money. The new equipment must be purchased, installed, and employees and customers trained on it. There is a shakedown period. Capial itelf has a cost (interest or dividends) and capital is not unlimited--we must choose our purchases. Obviously the new technology must bring about enough cost savings and new featurse to truly justify its own cost. Too often marketing or techie types push new technologies before they're truly ready or exaagerate their benefits. Companies have been ruined by bad technological implementations. > Perhaps we should evaluate the ongoing costs/benefits of retaining or > replacing these technologies, as it seems that the costs may well be > outweighing the benefits now and in the future. This isn't a "perhaps", but rather an "absolute must in all cases". > I can see good arguments myself for both sides, but in reality a lot of > these things are a bit like allowing "horse and buggy" vehicles onto a > freeway and then requiring the freeway to accommodate them safely by > providing legacy infrastructure (maybe a special lane just for them) or > slowing everyone else down to their maximum capability - possible (and > good for the horse and buggy user) but really tying up resources that > newer technologies can use more efficiently. An extremely tiny minority of vehicles these days are horse and buggy. They wouldn't use a freeway, but old country roads. Indeed, a freeway is to their advantage as it takes cars off old roads. For our disucssion purposes, let's say old cars that max out at 50 mph and that many people still have them. A freeway is built by public funds and open to the public. As such, it must accomodate all or most of the public, not just a select few. If many drivers are using old cars then the freeway must accmoodate them. Indeed, that is the case today, not so much old cars but some drivers who aren't comfortable going too fast. (On the roads newsgroup, many there have no use for slow drivers; they expect everyone to go 75 or more.) In our situation, we must ask WHY so many people have old cars. It may very well be the cost of upgrade. They cars may run perfectly well for their purposes and they see no point in conversion. (This just happened to me. I was very happy using film, but film and developing got harder to get. I finally broke down and bought a $$$ digital camera. I just heard Kodachrome, the 'gold standard' of films, is being discontinued. So it goes.) I should point out that IBM, when introducing newer computer models, always made sure there was an easy transition path from earlier models. Old programs could be run on the new machine without change, despite a big difference in internal architecture. That was a major selling point. > Telecom seems to be an area where the cost of retaining legacy > infrastructure may well be increasing the costs of better infrastructure > right now and/or slowing down the future deployment of even better > infrastructure. Actually, exactly where and what is the "cost of retaining legacy infrastructure"? The telcos can't upgrade the entire plant overnight. I also want to point out that while some old technologies do totally fade away, others just take a smaller role. It took the Bell System years to get rid of operators--in the 1970s automated world they had _more_ than they did in manual days because traffic was so high! (There are still some today.) Many people still use Dixon Ticoneroga No. 2 pencils. Some audiophiles swear by vinyl records and vaccum tube amps. Streetcards, powered by 600 volt DC motors, still play their way in some cities. Some trains use 11,000 V 25 Hz current which is ancient (as are the substations). Heck, this ASCII conversation and dial-up protocol dates from 1962. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:41:18 -0500 From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever? Message-ID: <fpidnTa68bx4MNzXnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@posted.visi> David Clayton wrote: > Telecom seems to be an area where the cost of retaining legacy > infrastructure may well be increasing the costs of better infrastructure > right now and/or slowing down the future deployment of even better > infrastructure. > > Is it worth it? (let the debate begin, I'm sure there are plenty of people > with good points for both sides in this NG.....) Part of the question is, who benefits? There is almost no question to which that answer is "the public", it is always some segment or another. In the case of telecom, for example, people who make many long-distance calls may benefit at the expense of those who don't. People who want to receive TV from their telco may benefit at the expense of those who don't even own a TV. Those who move large quantities of data via the line may benefit at the expense of those who send/receive two non-spam emails a week. In almost all cases, the telco will benefit at the expense of the customers (else it would just balk and say the change was not practical). If "retaining legacy infrastructure" _increases_ costs of "better infrastructure", will getting rid of the legacy infrastructure _decrease_ costs to the customer? Not usually, not for the same level of service. (Touchtone service increased my costs, rather than decreasing them.) (It is reported that) telco rips out copper when they install FIOS. Does the consumer benefit? No, having the copper drop is not a drawback to most customers. Ripping it out serves to prevent the consumer from switching to another vendor. To some extent, "needs" change at a different time scale than technology. Needs are clocked in generations, which is a biological time-scale, while technology changes with the sweep hand of the clock. Modernizing infrastructure brought us DTV. That gave us higher resolution and more channels, but did not give us better programs to watch, and provides worse OTA fringe-area reception. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:49:55 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever? Message-ID: <h1sb9j$ims$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <pan.2009.06.24.00.57.36.988005@myrealbox.com>, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: >Telecom seems to be an area where the cost of retaining legacy >infrastructure may well be increasing the costs of better infrastructure >right now and/or slowing down the future deployment of even better >infrastructure. In other industries, where there's still a market for older technology, there are often specialized businesses who buy up the assets that the market leaders don't want to carry on their balance sheets. For example, semiconductor companies regularly sell the mask rights for older, less-profitable chips to someone else who specializes in making replacement parts for customers (like the military) who can't easily upgrade. If the regulators were to allow it, I could easily see a Verizon or a Thenewatt spinning off their entire copper infrastructure to a new company, which could then lease back to the ILEC only the parts needed to serve customers who haven't been converted over to fiber yet. They'd get a depreciating asset off their books, the new company would get an infrastructure that still has some remaining utility, and eventually, the copper could be pulled out and shipped to some third-world country to be stripped and sold to the Chinese. The ILEC would no longer be in the business of renting infrastructure to the competition. (The new company could effectively be a new sort of REIT.) -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:33:16 -0500 From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up" Message-ID: <4A41AC8C.4070500@annsgarden.com> | Multichannel News, June 20, 2009 | Retransmission Feuds Ease Up | Era of Feuding May Be Over, Analysts Say At Least for Big MSOs | by Mike Farrell | | Broadcasters and pay TV service providers may have informally | turned down the retransmission-consent volume over the past | several months, as the nation moved through some potentially | dicey regulatory periods the analog-to-digital transition | and the new presidential administration. | | And though it is likely that a few heated discussions will pop | up over the next few years, some analysts believe that, at | least for now, the old days of bitter, drawn-out fights | between cable operators and station groups may be over. This article (including comments from me writing as texascableguy) continues at: http://www.multichannel.com/article/talkback/295393-Retrans_Feuds_Ease_Up.php Prior to 1975, virtually all programming carried by cable TV systems consisted of local or nearby television broadcast stations, with a few channels originated locally by the cable TV company itself ("local origination") or dedicated to PEG (public, educational, and government) access. FCC rules in force at the time specified: - Which stations MUST BE carried. - Which stations could be carried at the cable company's option. - Which stations COULD NOT be carried. Cable companies did not have to obtain a station's permission before carrying it. Most broadcast station licensees didn't even know how many cable systems were carrying their signals, or where they were. In 1975, Time, Inc. began to transmit HBO nationwide via satellite. Shortly thereafter two more satellite-delivered cable-only channels were launched: Ted Turner's Atlanta UHF station WTCG (now TBS Superstation) and Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (now ABC Family). Within a few years, numerous other channels were launched. Today, hundreds of satellite-delivered channels are available from dozens of suppliers. Programmers charge cable systems for the right to carry their channels. License fees vary widely, ranging from zero (religious and home-shopping channels) to over $2.00 per subscriber per month (ESPN). But the old FCC rules governing the retransmission of broadcast television stations remained largely unchanged until 1992. In 1992, Congress enacted the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. This act gave broadcast station licensees control over cable-system carriage of their signals. Under this Act, each licensee has the right to choose two options with respect to any give cable system: - MUST CARRY: The cable system must carry the signal under technical rules specified by the FCC. However, the station cannot charge for the use of its signal. - RETRANSMISSION CONSENT: The cable system is required to obtain the permission of the licensee. The licensee is free to demand compensation or impose other requirements. Most large regional independent stations and major network affiliates usually elect retransmission consent. Less popular stations usually elect must carry. For several years after 1992, stations electing retransmission consent did not demand financial compensation. However, many of them demanded that cable systems carry (and pay for) co-owned non-broadcast programming. Example: Disney required cable systems to carry most Disney-owned non-broadcast channels (Disney Channel, Lifetime, A&E, History, ESPN and its clones). With the rise of satellite television (DirecTV and Dish) and telco-delivered television (FIOS, U-Verse), similar must-carry/retransmission-consent procedures were put in place. In recent years, station licensees have been demanding financial compensation as a condition for granting retransmission consent. Example: as I noted here two years ago, Univision affiliates now charge $1.00/subscriber/month for the signal. http://tinyurl.com/mnobou This situation has led to some notable battles. In a few cases, when retransmission negotiations failed, cable/sat companies have simply stopped carrying certain broadcast stations. Of course, whichever side wins these battles, the subscribers lose. If a cable/sat company drops a station's signal, the subscribers lose a channel. If the cable/sat company gives in and agrees to pay a larger fee, the cost is passed along to the subscribers. Although this situation has hit all cable and sat providers, it has hit small cable operators particularly hard. The American Cable Association, representing small cable companies, has led an effort to get Congress to provide some relief from ever-increasing retransmission consent fees. http://www.americancable.org/issues/page/Retransmission_Consent The Mutlichannel News article linked above notes that "Broadcasters and pay TV service providers may have informally turned down the retransmission-consent volume over the past several months..." Perhaps so, but ACA, led by its president Matt Polka, will certainly continue to fight for lower rates. Neal McLain aka texascableguy ------------------------------ 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: 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) 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 (24 messages) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues