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 October 28, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 290 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:

Re: Happy anniversary cellphone!(John Mayson)
Re: Happy anniversary cellphone!(Thad Floryan)
Re: Happy anniversary cellphone!(Thad Floryan)
Re: Happy anniversary cellphone!(John Levine)
Did Charlie Chaplin film a cell phone in 1928?(Thad Floryan)
Re: Did Charlie Chaplin film a cell phone in 1928? (Lisa or Jeff)
Re: Did Charlie Chaplin film a cell phone in 1928?(Steven)
Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones (Gordon Burditt)
Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones (Lisa or Jeff)
Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones (David Clayton)
Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones (Thad Floryan)
Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones (Robert Neville)
Re: Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes(Gordon Burditt)
Re: Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes(Neal McLain)
Re: Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes(Garrett Wollman)
Re: paypass, was A Simple Swipe on a Phone(John Levine)
280,000 Medical Records Still Missing in Pennsylvania(Monty Solomon)
Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones (Scott Norwood)
Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones (r.e.d.)
Re: BPL(www.Queensbridge.us)


====== 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: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:54:03 +0800 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Happy anniversary cellphone! Message-ID: <AANLkTimncHkw7SU3dFDfBzntc6PXzzN+edENA+ntX7MT@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:03 AM, jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org> wrote: > At first I was on a three-tier plan. Business hours it was > something like $.25 per minute, evening was $.15, nights and > weekends were $.10 per minute. I remember those days. Also looking at the coverage maps to figure out where the boundaries were so I wouldn't have any surprises when the bill arrived. > Yes, I've had the same cell number since 1986. I think that's > some kind of a record, or close to it. ;-) Close to it. I cannot find the article at the moment, but there's a man in the Chicago-area who has had the same cell phone number since 1983. The article I read a while back didn't mention if his area code had changed over the years. Still, you going back to 1986 is quite a record. Reagan was president. The Cold War was still going on. I was thrilled to have a 2400 baud modem. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA ***** Moderator's Note ***** 2400 baud was just about Reagan's speed. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:31:35 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Happy anniversary cellphone! Message-ID: <4CC88C27.2090808@thadlabs.com> On 10/26/2010 6:54 PM, John Mayson wrote: > [...] > Close to it. I cannot find the article at the moment, but there's a > man in the Chicago-area who has had the same cell phone number since > 1983. The article I read a while back didn't mention if his area code > had changed over the years. Still, you going back to 1986 is quite a > record. Reagan was president. The Cold War was still going on. I > was thrilled to have a 2400 baud modem. That cannot compare to the thrill of getting a 300 baud modem after starting with a 110 baud acoustic modem and a TTY ASR33. :-) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/ASR-33_2.jpg It was circa 1967 I was using that 110-baud/ASR33 at Sylvania's (later GTE) Electronic Defense Labs to connect with Tymshare, ITT and several other timesharing services. Later in 1969 I left EDL to join Tymshare (http://thadlabs.com/FILES/Thad_Tymshare_BC.pdf) and had a TTY ASR33 at home still at 110 baud then later a Tymshare-made 300 baud acoustic modem with a Datapoint 3300 CRT. Then a Ven-Tel 212A 1200 baud modem with a Datamedia DT-80 (VT100 clone). Later both 2400 baud "standard" (Bell and Racal-Vadic) modems, then 9600 baud, then two Telebit T2500, followed by a Hayes 56K modem, then Sprint Broadband (6Mbits/S) and now cable at DOCSIS 2.0 (~24Mbits/S inbound, 6Mbps outbound) per <http:/thadlabs.com/PIX/Comcast_20090303.jpg>. 1983 has fond memories for me. I started/operated a manufacturing plant in Campbell CA (HyTek, Inc.) making my design power supplies for both Ven-Tel and Racal-Vadic, and started a second company (Adalogic, Inc.) which produced modem-based computer security devices ("Gateway") of my design utilizing Motorola's MC6859 DES chip in several Gateway models. 1983 is also the year I bought my 3rd car (since 1960). There's a funny story about that MC6859 chip. When my Motorola rep left docs and samples on my desk one morning before I arrived at work, there was a document atop the pile with a bold, black border and a statement (paraphrased) "products using this device [the MC6859] can not be exported without prior approval of the Office of Munitions Control of the Department of State." OK, but on the underside of the pretty purple ceramic chips is "MALAYSIA" meaning the silicon had already left the USA for entombment in Malaysia before returning to the USA. D'oh! :-) Picture of the MC6859 topside/underside here: http://thadlabs.com/PIX/MC6859_DES.jpg
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:10:43 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Happy anniversary cellphone! Message-ID: <4CC79833.6010707@thadlabs.com> On 10/19/2010 2:03 PM, jsw wrote: > [...] > The cell service was from Vector One Cellular, soon to become > QWest Cellular, soon to become {mumble}, soon to become > Verizon Wireless, which it has been for some time. > > Yes, I've had the same cell number since 1986. I think that's > some kind of a record, or close to it. ;-) Could very well be! :-) My original cellphone number in 1992 was nearly identical to my home landline PacBell number and I was pleased with that. Later, we (San Francisco Bay Area) lost what was then termed "permissive dialing" in which landline calls to cellphones were toll-free from almost anywhere in the Bay Area (exceptions being far North of San Francisco (e.g., Santa Rosa) and South of San Jose (e.g., Gilroy) for a range of at least 100+ miles North to South). Many of my clients began to grouse about the "new" expense to reach me by phone, so after several iterations with Cellular One until they got it "right", I ended up with a local rate center in Mountain View CA and a phone number that everyone says is the easiest number ever to remember. And I've had that number now for a long time on all my (3) phones. ***** Moderator's Note ***** 339-DOG-TITS. Beat that for being easy to remember! Bill Horne Moderator
Date: 27 Oct 2010 16:11:44 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Happy anniversary cellphone! Message-ID: <20101027161144.6009.qmail@joyce.lan> >339-DOG-TITS. Beat that for being easy to remember! My 800 number spells my wife's name. I think that's why she finally agreed to marry me. R's, John
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:14:57 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Did Charlie Chaplin film a cell phone in 1928? Message-ID: <4CC78B21.6030801@thadlabs.com> Time for something completely different. :-) After reading the article and watching the video, hmmmmm. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/hottopics/detail?entry_id=75457 Irish filmmaker George Clarke thinks he's stumbled across something rather strange: A film clip from a 1928 Charlie Chaplin film that appears to show a woman talking on a mobile phone. The image comes from behind-the-scenes footage shot during the premiere of The Circus at Mann's Chinese Theater in Hollywood. Clarke noticed that a woman - or what may be a man dressed as a woman - crosses the shot with her left hand held to the side of her head. As she turns toward the camera, there appears to be a small, square, thin, black object in her hand. She's clearly talking. Clarke thinks the simplest explanation is that you're looking at a time traveler talking on a cell phone. See for yourself. Clarke begins showing the footage at about 2:37 into this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6a4T2tJaSU Of course, there were no cell phones in 1928. And even if this was a time traveler, there would be no cell towers to handle the call. The original AT&T, however, did exist in 1928, so if this is someone using a mobile phone, you know the network connection was almost certainly lousy . . . Then again, any civilization advanced enough to travel through time doesn't need a cell tower, since the iPhone XXXIV will have a new feature: A personal wormhole. I found this item on film critic Roger Ebert's blog. Clarke says in the video that no one's been able to give him a good, non-science-fiction explanation of what the woman is really doing. He should read the comments under the Ebert entry - there are plenty of suggestions. { many, many reader comments at the above article URL } One surmised it's a hearing aid, but it appears smaller than the transistorized Zenith hearing aid I had/used in the 1950s.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:57:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Did Charlie Chaplin film a cell phone in 1928? Message-ID: <141b2db1-bc93-4ad5-81e4-3c8b1487b458@g25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> On Oct 26, 10:14pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote: > Of course, there were no cell phones in 1928. And even if this > was a time traveler, there would be no cell towers to handle > the call. The original AT&T, however, did exist in 1928, so if > this is someone using a mobile phone, you know the network > connection was almost certainly lousy . . . At that time, the Bell System was doing extensive research into radio. About that time overseas telephone service would begin. However, the transmitter gear was enormous and required constant monitoring and adjustment. I believe originally it was long wave, not short wave. While mobile radio sets would be developed for the military in WW II (and probably beforehand), mobile telephones for autos and trains did not come out until 1948. Would anyone know when police radios for automobiles came out? I recall it was after WW II. Before then police used call boxes located on street corners; rural police were on their own.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:55:51 -0700 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Did Charlie Chaplin film a cell phone in 1928? Message-ID: <iaaalq$c8d$1@news.eternal-september.org> On 10/27/10 10:57 AM, Lisa or Jeff wrote: > On Oct 26, 10:14 pm, Thad Floryan<t...@thadlabs.com> wrote: > >> Of course, there were no cell phones in 1928. And even if this >> was a time traveler, there would be no cell towers to handle >> the call. The original AT&T, however, did exist in 1928, so if >> this is someone using a mobile phone, you know the network >> connection was almost certainly lousy . . . > > At that time, the Bell System was doing extensive research into > radio. About that time overseas telephone service would begin. > However, the transmitter gear was enormous and required constant > monitoring and adjustment. I believe originally it was long wave, not > short wave. > > While mobile radio sets would be developed for the military in WW II > (and probably beforehand), mobile telephones for autos and trains did > not come out until 1948. > > Would anyone know when police radios for automobiles came out? I > recall it was after WW II. Before then police used call boxes located > on street corners; rural police were on their own. > It could be a hearing add, they were about the same size as cell phones are today. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:04:08 -0500 From: gordonb.8vogt@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones Message-ID: <BoKdnSHRUuQ1C1rRnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> >Experts I've read claim the problem is a cell phone at such an >altitude would light up too many cell towers and the towers couldn't >handle the hand offs of such a fast moving phone. That would tie up one frequency in each of however many cells you lit up (maybe hundreds). How many frequencies does an individual cell have? Probably the worst-case problem for this is a slowly moving phone, such as one in a blimp or hot air balloon, in a high floor of a very tall building, or on a mountain, in an area where cell phone capacity is near its limits (cities). One moving at warp one would be noticed only as a brief blip of static. Maybe someone should ask the Federal Mountain Administration about this :-) For tall buildings and mountains, carriers could put cells even closer than all the cells getting lit up: on the mountain or every few floors vertically in the building. I doubt the FCC cares whether rude people who were asked to turn off their phones get bad service and dropped calls. They are more concerned about everyone else getting bad service. >Others say this is >nonsense and the plane would have to be moving close to the speed of >light for any of that to be an issue. I say moving at the speed of a snail in an area with high-density cell traffic is a worse problem, unless you're talking about crashing at the speed of light. A slight variance in signal strength due to, say, the plane turning or weather, or the user switching ears, might make it appear that the phone is rapidly flitting between any of a few dozen or a few hundred cells. I'm not so sure that interference with aircraft navigation equipment can be taken off the table, and remember that the worst case is a few hundred passengers with phones all transmitting at the same time. Modern aviation equipment is designed better, but I doubt it's completely jam-proof. >lot lately and it amazes me how people immediately fire up their >phones and start dialing as soon as the wheels hit the ground. Is it >that necessary to be that connected? I'm not sure I blame them if the subject is: "I've landed, come get me" or "where do I meet you". That's likely what kept COCOTs in airports in business before the cell phones took over. But many of the cell phone callers are likely talking about something else. >Even if that weren't the case, it's just not something anyone wants to >fool around with. The standard for aviation is, and must be, "PROVEN >SAFE" - not "likely to be safe", nor "never proven unsafe", etc. It's one >thing to have a dropped cell call, and quite another to have a dropped >airliner. Given a number of cases of FUI or attempted FUI (PROVEN UNSAFE), how did human pilots get "type-accepted"? ***** Moderator's Note ***** Although modern avionics have better components and design than those used in the last century, it's not possible to make them "jam-proof". This may surprise you, but aircraft still use Amplitude Modulation for voice, which means that they're still subject to interference from a variety of noise sources, just like the AM radio stations that still suffer from static when your car goes under a power line. I'm not sure if a VOR can be considered an "AM" transmitter, but the Instrument Landing System's Locator and Glide Slope transmitters certainly are. I've written about this before, but here's the short version: unless we retrofit every aircraft, we're stuck with it. Pilots have to be able to talk to each other as well as to air traffic controllers on the ground, and that means no cellphones on airliners. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:50:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones Message-ID: <e5717175-91d8-441c-9e27-71c0a9a42d14@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> On Oct 26, 11:04pm, > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Although modern avionics have better components and design than those > used in the last century, it's not possible to make them > "jam-proof". This may surprise you, but aircraft still use Amplitude > Modulation for voice, which means that they're still subject to > interference from a variety of noise sources, just like the AM radio > stations that still suffer from static when your car goes under a > power line. I'm not sure if a VOR can be considered an "AM" > transmitter, but the Instrument Landing System's Locator and Glide > Slope transmitters certainly are. I'm surprised they still use AM. IIRC, back in WW II radios in tanks originally used AM but then switched to FM (from the Bell System History "War & Peace"). Would a portable AM/FM radio (eg a "Walkman") today be a risk of interference to an airplane's electronics? ***** Moderator's Note ***** I'm not an expert on WWII technology, but as far as a walkman, the answer is "I don't know" - and that's enough reason not to use one". Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:53:35 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones Message-ID: <pan.2010.10.27.21.53.31.460692@myrealbox.com> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:04:08 -0500, Gordon Burditt wrote: >>Experts I've read claim the problem is a cell phone at such an altitude >>would light up too many cell towers and the towers couldn't handle the >>hand offs of such a fast moving phone. > > That would tie up one frequency in each of however many cells you lit up > (maybe hundreds). Can someone explain to me how cell towers - which must have antenna arrays deliberately designed with focussed radiation patterns to maximise the signal going to handsets either on the horizontal plane to the tower, or below that plane - are able to somehow connect with all these handsets above them (way, way above them)? The radiation strength in the upper direction would be incidental in comparison to the normal target area so I find it hard to believe that cell towers would even detect most phones in flight let alone make a decent connection to them. -- 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: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:31:35 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones Message-ID: <4CC8B657.40002@thadlabs.com> On 10/27/2010 2:53 PM, David Clayton wrote: > On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:04:08 -0500, Gordon Burditt wrote: > >>> Experts I've read claim the problem is a cell phone at such an altitude >>> would light up too many cell towers and the towers couldn't handle the >>> hand offs of such a fast moving phone. >> That would tie up one frequency in each of however many cells you lit up >> (maybe hundreds). > > Can someone explain to me how cell towers - which must have antenna arrays > deliberately designed with focussed radiation patterns to maximise the > signal going to handsets either on the horizontal plane to the tower, or > below that plane - are able to somehow connect with all these handsets > above them (way, way above them)? > > The radiation strength in the upper direction would be incidental in > comparison to the normal target area so I find it hard to believe that > cell towers would even detect most phones in flight let alone make a > decent connection to them. I agree, and for the same reason I believe that SETI is wishful thinking because broadcasts are (mostly) horizontally polarized to maximize signal coverage (and advertising revenue); broadcasting to space is 100% waste and I wouldn't expect ET to be doing it either. A quick Google search turns up many references corroborating terrestrial- oriented alignment of antennas. This site has mixed commentary, to wit: http://www.rense.com/general56/cellpp.htm " [...] " An airplane is made of aluminum alloy. It is NOT transparent to RF " frequencies, but instead acts as a shield. Sections of the plane " made of carbon composite will greatly attenutate or even stop all " cell phone signals, as this is also conductive material. Only " when a cell phone has "line of sight" with a cell tower, can a " talk connection take place. And such a talk connection can only " take place THROUGH A WINDOW ON THE PLANE, because the body of a " plane cannot pass the signal from a cell phone. However, we all remember 9/11 and the cellphone conversations by the heroic passengers of UA Flight 93 who retook the plane from the terrorists but sadly later crashed in Pennsylvania. Per Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 " [...] " Altogether, the passengers and crew made 35 airphone calls and two " cell phone calls from the flight. So, cellphone connections can be made from an aircraft flying at altitude, but whether that's coincidence or pure_luck or by design is still up in the air (no pun).
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:59:46 -0600 From: Robert Neville <krj@ieee.org> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones Message-ID: <96ihc6tdq26n8htdsla4tijdkrlde80qq8@4ax.com> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: >Can someone explain to me how cell towers - which must have antenna arrays >deliberately designed with focussed radiation patterns to maximise the >signal going to handsets either on the horizontal plane to the tower, or >below that plane - are able to somehow connect with all these handsets >above them (way, way above them)? > >The radiation strength in the upper direction would be incidental in >comparison to the normal target area so I find it hard to believe that >cell towers would even detect most phones in flight let alone make a >decent connection to them. While I think you are correct in principle, there's a couple of points to consider: As soon as you get a fair distance from the tower, you will get some reception above the tower. And quite frequently, antenna towers are located at the highest elevation in the area, so there would be some coverage above that point. Related anecdote: I was flying from Phoenix to Albuquerque a few weeks ago and inadvertently (truthfully!) left my Blackberry on. Engrossed in my new Kindle, I was startled when my Blackberry vibrated indicating a new email when we were still some 60 miles out from the airport. We had started our descent prior to that but were at least 5000' above ground level, so it is possible to get a signal in certain flight phases.
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:33:55 -0500 From: gordonb.ht8ag@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes Message-ID: <C9SdnevZ6IM-AFrRnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> > > I keep seeing ads claiming that Dish has dropped > > these channels, and they're about to drop these > > November 1, (including, interestingly, a local > > channel) go to this web site to find another > > provider who still carries them. Obviously, they > > are trying to drum up complaints about distributor > > dropping these channels. > >If, by "a local channel," you're referring to WNYW (the Fox affiliate in >the New York DMA), then I agree: it is interesting. After all, >broadcast licensees have legal carriage rights with respect to MVPDs >(multichannel video programming distributors) that non-broadcast >programmers do not enjoy. No, I was referring to KDFW channel 4, the Fox affiliate in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. This is also the channel broadcasting those ads (no surprise here). Does the same situation exist with this station?
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:26:43 -0600 From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes Message-ID: <4CC7FE63.8080401@annsgarden.com> I wrote: > - If a MVPD cannot reach a retransmission-consent agreement > with a given licensee, it is prohibited from carrying > same-network programming from any other broadcast station. wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote: > Really? When did this change? It's been in effect since October 6, 1993, when the retransmission-consent rules (quoted below) became effective. > I remember some years ago, in the > second or third round of these negotiations, that an MSO in > the Boston area was preparing to take a Providence affiliate > if no carriage deal could be reached with the Boston affiliate > of the same network. And the Providence affiliate was willing to give its consent? > If Congress acted today to eliminate or severely restrict > retrans-consent (fat chance, I know), what effect would it > likely have on cable bills? I know back in 1994, WBZ-TV > (then an NBC affiliate) was getting a dollar a month from > the local MSOs for every CNBC subscriber. Was WBZ-TV itself getting the dollar-a-month license fee? A more likely scenario: CNBC received the licensee fee, and the parent company of both CNBC and WBZ-TV (presumably GE) imposed the CNBC carriage requirement. As I noted in my original post, the present rules allow programmers (e.g. GE) to bundle broadcast signals (e.g. WBZ-TV) with non-broadcast programming (e.g. CNBC), and to demand that both be carried on the basic tier. This gives programmers enormous market power over MVPDs. Perhaps Senator Kerry should consider legislation that would prevent such bundling. This would give MVPDs ability to place non-broadcast programming on separately-priced tiers. The applicable rules are: | 76.64 Retransmission consent. | | (a) After 12:01 a.m. on October 6, 1993, no | multichannel video programming distributor | shall retransmit the signal of any commercial | broadcasting station without the express | authority of the originating station, except | as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. | | (b) A commercial broadcast signal may be | retransmitted without express authority of the | originating station if? | | (1) The distributor is a cable system and the | signal is that of a commercial television | station (including a low-power television station) | that is being carried pursuant to the | Commission's must-carry rules set forth in 76.56; | | (2) The multichannel video programming distributor | obtains the signal of a superstation | that is distributed by a satellite carrier and | the originating station was a superstation on | May 1, 1991, and the distribution is made only | to areas outside the local market of the | originating station; or | | (3) The distributor is a satellite carrier and | the signal is transmitted directly to a home | satellite antenna, provided that: | | (i) The broadcast station is not owned or operated | by, or affiliated with, a broadcasting | network and its signal was retransmitted by a | satellite carrier on May 1, 1991, or | | (ii) The broadcast station is owned or operated by, | or affiliated with a broadcasting | network, and the household receiving the signal is | an unserved household. Source: 47 CFR 76.64 http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf Page 65 of 325. None of the exceptions set forth in 76.64(b) applies to the Cablevision-Dish squabble. Neal McLain
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:18:51 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes Message-ID: <ia9mtr$ofs$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <4CC7FE63.8080401@annsgarden.com>, Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote: [I wrote:] > > If Congress acted today to eliminate or severely restrict > > retrans-consent (fat chance, I know), what effect would it > > likely have on cable bills? I know back in 1994, WBZ-TV > > (then an NBC affiliate) was getting a dollar a month from > > the local MSOs for every CNBC subscriber. > >Was WBZ-TV itself getting the dollar-a-month license fee? A more likely >scenario: CNBC received the licensee fee, and the parent company of both >CNBC and WBZ-TV (presumably GE) imposed the CNBC carriage requirement. WBZ-TV was an NBC affiliate at the time, but was never owned by NBC -- it had always been a Westinghouse station. I would not be surprised if KYW-TV had made the same deal. What I was told, however, was that WBZ-TV was still receiving this dollar well after Westinghouse and CBS had merged and WBZ-TV dropped the CBS affiliation. (This was part of the great 1994-1996 affiliation mess, described in my article at http://www.bostonradio.org/essays/1994-tv-affiliation-mess.) Little-known trivia: Today's Westinghouse Electric Company, seller of nuclear reactors, is a division of Toshiba. The original Westinghouse Electric is now called CBS Corporation, and CBS still shows up from time to time in the news with respect to liabilities it incurred for hazardous-waste cleanup when it was still Westinghouse. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: 27 Oct 2010 02:50:04 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: paypass, was A Simple Swipe on a Phone Message-ID: <20101027025004.10056.qmail@joyce.lan> >How vulnerable is it to a paid-the-wrong-bill "attack"? (Or >paid-the-other-guy's-bill-too "attack"?) In my experience, not at all. I've had a Paypass card in my wallet for several years (it's the standard ATM card my bank offers) and it hasn't done any bogus transactions. FWIW, Mastercard says it has to be within an inch of the terminal, and if you have more than one wireless EMV card in your wallet, be sure to take out and wave the one you want to use. > I saw this happen at one gas station, I think with Mobil Speedpass. I believe it. Speedpass is an older and more primitive technology. My recollection (I had one which I dropped and some kid picked it up and used it to buy gas all over central NY) that it does work at considerably more than an inch. >The main problems with these systems are that the burden is on the >customer to prove that he didn't deliberately reveal his PIN, and >it's impossible to prove a negative. For typical transactions, there's no confirmation at all, so if you tell the bank it wasn't you, you win. When I lost my Speedpass, I told them which transactions weren't me, and they just went away. R's, John
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:34:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: 280,000 Medical Records Still Missing in Pennsylvania Message-ID: <p06240803c8ee04286400@[10.0.1.3]> 280,000 Medical Records Still Missing in Pennsylvania POSTED BY: ROBERT CHARETTE / MON, OCTOBER 25, 2010 The Philadelphia Inquirer last week reported that the names, addresses, and personal health information of some 280,000 Medicaid recipients have gone missing. The information was on a flash drive owned by two affiliated Philadelphia insurance companies, Keystone Mercy Health Plan and AmeriHealth Mercy Health Plan. The two companies are jointly owned by Independence Blue Cross and the Mercy Health System. The Inquirer says that, "Keystone Mercy Health Plan provides insurance to 300,000 Medicaid members in Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester Counties. AmeriHealth serves 100,000 in a 15-county arc running from Harrisburg to northeastern Pennsylvania." The flash drive went missing on September 20, but the situation only came to light after the Philadelphia Inquirer sought information about it. How the paper heard about the lost drive wasn't mentioned. According to the Inquirer, the flash drive was routinely taken to community health fairs, although the companies didn't think that the flash drive was lost at one of them, but at its corporate offices in Southwest Philadelphia. The Inquirer noted that the insurance companies refused to explain why a flash drive containing tens of thousands of sensitive records was routinely taken to health fairs in the first place. ... http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/computing/it/280000-medical-records-still-missing-in-pennsylvania
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:27:52 +0000 (UTC) From: snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones Message-ID: <ia9ct8$jkq$1@reader1.panix.com> In article <ia7v3t$vue$2@blue.rahul.net>, John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > >Why not have no-phoning sections, the way they used to have no-smoking >sections? It's a lot easier to block the spread of sound than smoke. Amtrak has this. They call it the Quiet Car, and there is one on most train routes (at least in the Northeast; other regions may be different). Passengers are asked not to use any device that makes noise (including cell phones), and to talk amongst themselves only in quiet voices. The train conductors enforce this policy. Passengers who wish to make more noise can choose to sit elsewhere. The system works quite well in my experience.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:35:21 -0400 From: "r.e.d." <red-nospam-99@mindspring.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones Message-ID: <O56dnXk8TdMypVXRnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@earthlink.com> I have not seen a reference to this older article in this thread: Tekla S. Perry and Linda Geppert, "Do portable electronics endanger flight? The evidence mounts," IEEE Spectrum, September 1996, p.26.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:28:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: BPL Message-ID: <51e6c2fa-db1a-42c4-950e-04d2aab3ffd3@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> On Oct 25, 11:46am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > Are there any broadband over power line systems still running in the US? > I have noticed (by the dramatic improvement in the RF noise floor throughout > northern VA) that Manassas seems to have shut their system down. Are there > any that are actually still operating? > > I still can't get over the fact that anyone managed to convince the FCC > that this was a good idea. > --scott > > -- > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I don't know if all PBL is gone, but Manassas has certainly gotten > out of it:http://www.arrl.org/news/city-of-manassas-to-end-bpl-service. > > Bill Horne > Moderator NYCHA talks about it here http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/about/it_strategic_plan.shtml -- http://www.Queensbridge.us
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 (20 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues