28 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 


The Telecom Digest for July 23, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 198 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:

Re: Is Broadcast TV about to be killed?(David Clayton)
Re: Is Broadcast TV about to be killed?(Harold)
Re: Is Broadcast TV about to be killed?(AES)
Re: Is Broadcast TV about to be killed?(Lisa or Jeff)
AT&T Delivers Double-Digit Earnings Growth in Second Quarter, Raises Full-Year Outlook (Monty Solomon)
AT&T defensively publishes private dropped call data(Monty Solomon)
Apple responds to US congressmen's query about iOS privacy (Monty Solomon)
Re: The iPhone 4 Redux: Analyzing Apple's iOS 4.0.1 Signal Fix(tlvp)


====== 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-verse® 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)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues