31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for June 23, 2013
====== 31 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of that address. 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: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:00:31 +0000 (UTC) From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Garrett Wollman) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: End of Cable Bundle Inevitable, With or Without Aereo: CEO Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> In article <email@example.com>, Neal McLain <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> If I were dictator, I would eliminate the must-carry side >> entirely for commercial stations..., provide retransmission >> consent only for subscribers who are located outside each >> station's FCC service contour, and end the use of Nielsen DMAs >> for the purpose of defining stations' exclusive markets. TV >> broadcasters would hate this, but many pointless stations would >> go under, making it easier to reuse the valuable upper-UHF >> spectrum (not to mention cable-TV spectrum) for something more >> productive. > >What about subs located inside the Grade B contour? If you eliminate both >must-carry and retrans-consent for every inside-contour home-DMA station, that >seems to imply that a CATV can carry, or not carry, the station, at its sole >discretion, without even letting the station know it. As an ex-cable guy, >that would be fine with me, but I don't think the NAB would approve. That's the idea: the CATV operator (or DBS operator) is merely providing a signal that the subscriber could receive already, so it doesn't seem to me that the broadcaster is entitled to receive any compensation as a result. The subscriber could always use an antenna (and with DTV, they would get just as good a signal as they get from cable and probably better than satellite); in this particular sense, the MVPD is deriving its consumer value primarily from the other services it offers, and secondarily from the convenience of not having to install and use one's own antenna. These days, you could easily do it on a per-subscriber basis with the point-to-point Longley-Rice model (as I believe is done for SHVIA/SHVERA in non-local-into-local markets). -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft email@example.com| 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: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:20:01 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Access Recovery Charge Message-ID: <51C4DFA1.firstname.lastname@example.org> On 6/19/2013 11:26 PM, Dave Garland wrote: > Having just received a bill in which CenturyLink (motto: "proving > Qwest wasn't so bad after all") raises my Access Recovery Charge, I > started to wonder. The bill says the charges are "to recover costs > of providing access to the telephone network". Since I do not receive > any telephone service from CenturyLink (only DSL, a non-regulated > service), or the "telephone network" (aside from the copper from my > house back to the pedestal 2 blocks away) should I be subject to this > charge? > > Google finds FCC filings and rulings regarding the Access Recovery > Charge, so is this actually a federally regulated thing (and not just > another BS "extra charge for being alive")? And if so, should I be > charged it, since I'm not using the switched telephone network? > The price of DSL is not regulated. So they can charge whatever they want, consistent with ordinary contract and fraud law of course. "Access" generally covers the cost of the wire, not the switched network that the wire is going to, so not being a switched telephone service, or not making LD calls, doesn't impact it. Access recovery charges are allowed on some telephone bills, where they are regulated, because part of the cost of phone service is in interstate jurisdiction, and the FCC sets those prices. -- Fred R. Goldstein fred "at" interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:22:11 -0600 From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Exploding the Phone Message-ID: <email@example.com> Lou, [Here is] the link to the book's Web site: http://explodingthephone.com Regards, Fred
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 18:24:21 -0500 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Hal Murray) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Google unveils Internet beaming balloons launched into stratosphere Message-ID: <AtGdnarbD8S4r1vMnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@megapath.net> Science Friday covered it yesterday. Beaming Internet to the Boondocks, Via Balloon http://tinyurl.com/l9f4vzu http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/06/21/2013/beaming-internet-to-the-boondocks-via-balloon.html -- These are my opinions. I hate spam.
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.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
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) 2013 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.