32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for September 21, 2013
====== 32 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: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:49:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Ryvicker: Stations Losing $10.4B In Retrans Message-ID: <email@example.com> By Diana Marszalek, TVNewsCheck, September 18, 2013 | "Broadcast captures 35% of the audience, gets 7% of programming fees," | Wells Fargo analyst Marci Ryvicker told the TVB Forward conference | today. Growing retrans consent revenue (it's expected to total $2.6 | billion this year) is one factor driving investor interest in | broadcasting, she added, with broadcast TV stocks currently up 74% over | what it was at this time last year. | | Broadcasters would get $13 billion a year in retransmission consent | revenue if they got their fair share of programming fees --a far cry | from the $2.6 billion they are expected to get this year. | Speaking at the annual TVB Forward conference in New York, Ryvicker | said she does expect that figure to go up, climbing to about $6.2 | billion by 2018. Continued: http://tinyurl.com/mfkmdgc This is another reason to support Rep. Anna Eshoo's "Video CHOICE Act Draft Bill." As Steve Donohue of FierceCable noted, | Eshoo's bill would require stations that elect retransmission consent | to be carried on a tier separate from basic cable tiers containing | must-carry stations and PEG (public, government, education) channels. http://tinyurl.com/nz9mfna Enacting that bill would let viewers decide the "fair share of programming fees." http://tinyurl.com/lvn4s2b Neal McLain
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 03:45:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Court: cellphone customers may block robocalls Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Court: cellphone customers may block robocalls August 26, 2013 By Saranac Hale Spencer / The Legal Intelligencer Cellphone customers may revoke their consent to receive "robocalls" on those devices, the Third Circuit has ruled in a case of first impression. Interpreting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act broadly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court's holding, based on guidance from the Federal Communications Commission and common-law treatment of consent. ... http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/legal/court-cell-phone-customers-may-block-robocalls-700756/
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 03:03:00 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Aereo fumbles on NFL opening day, but it's still a streaming sports champion Message-ID: <email@example.com> Aereo fumbles on NFL opening day, but it's still a streaming sports champion Brad Chacos Sep 9, 2013 Ditching your hefty cable bill sounds great on paper, but one glaring issue has prevented scads of would-be cord cutters from flipping the all-digital switch: The lack of live sports. While Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and their ilk carry a cornucopia of TV shows and movies, none cast live sports, and the scant few streaming options offered directly by professional sports leagues tend to be expensive and limited to a handful of devices. And the NFL-the most popular sport in the U.S.-is the worst of the bunch. Enter Aereo. The streaming service that broadcasters love to hate recently expanded to the Boston area -including southern New Hampshire, my stomping grounds-as part of a nationwide expansion push. With Aereo, you can stream local broadcast stations such as FOX and CBS to your Internet-equipped devices in real-time, and the $8 monthly fee includes DVR capabilities and a channel guide. The vast majority of NFL games (and more than a few NHL, NBA, and MLB games) air on channels broadcast over the open air, making Aereo a potential cornerstone to the cord cutting strategy, or at least a low-cost way to catch live football on your mobile devices. So just before the Patriots kicked off at 1 P.M. E.T. Sunday, I signed up for the service with the hopes of using it to scratch my football itch. (I'm a cord cutter who can't easily place an antenna at my new house.) The final score: Aereo wasn't quite ready for football, but it came pretty close. ... http://www.techhive.com/article/2048414/aereo-fumbles-on-nfl-opening-day-but-its-still-a-streaming-sports-champion.html
Date: 19 Sep 2013 09:34:27 -0400 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Dorsey) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: X.25 links still available? Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> wrote: >Does anybody know if it is possible to get an X.25 hook up nowadays? Sure. You can route it over a T1. It's just a serial port. The public switched network, though, is pretty much gone, so you can't call Tymnet or Telenet up and ask for a switched line. You can also encapsulate X.25 over IP for transmission, which is how most folks with X.25 systems are going today. IP connectivity is very very cheap. >Ideally over the D channel of a basic ISDN connection. Cisco will sell you a box that will do the encapsulation. Get two boxes, two ISDN lines, call one from the other and you have a network. Mind you, getting two ISDN lines that actually work in the US is the hard part. And you are paying for the circuit-switched connection even when you're not using it, which defeats the benefit of X.25. --scott --- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ***** Moderator's Note ***** Why would someone be paying for the "circuit-switched connection" if they're not using it? IIRC, all ISDN calls were billed by the minute. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:31:26 -0500 (CDT) From: "B. Z. Lederman" <LEDERMAN@Encompasserve.org> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: X.25 links still available? Message-ID: <01OYKCUOQ4YA00FWWQ@Encompasserve.org> | To: email@example.com | Subject: Fwd: X.25 links still available? | Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org | | From: "B. Z. Lederman" <LEDERMAN@Encompasserve.org> | Subject: X.25 links still available? | Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:16:41 -0500 (CDT) | | | To: email@example.com | | Subject: Fwd: X.25 links still available? | | Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org | | | | From: email@example.com | | Subject: X.25 links still available? | | Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:40:41 -0700 (PDT) | | | | Does anybody know if it is possible to get an X.25 hook up nowadays? | | | | Ideally over the D channel of a basic ISDN connection. | | | | sampsa | | The anwer is almost certainly "no", unless you are already | an existing customer. | | I was working at Digital Equipment / Compaq / HP when | the port to Itanium was being done, back in the early | 2000s. At that time, we had to decide what layered | products to port. Since I had a background in | Telecommunications, I researched the question of | porting the PSI product set. Even back then, | all of the carriers in North America and Europe that | I could find had stopped accepting new customers for | X.25 and related services: they only supported | businesses that had their own private networks running | over the packet network. At most, there was one very | small carrier in Finland or Iceland that was privately | operated that accepted new customers, and possibly | one in Korea (couldn't read all of the web site). Most | of the companies that had offered X.25 in the U.S. | no longer existed at all. | | More than 10 years later, I would expect even most | support for private networks to be gone. | | Bart | | ***** Moderator's Note ***** | | I thought all the credit-card processing networks were on X.25 - not so? | | Come to think of it, what happened to Tymnet and Telenet? Weren't they | using X.25? | | Bill Horne | Moderator The credit-card systems may well have used a packet internally, but that would qualify as a private network. In 2005 private networks were still supported. The connection from the actual point of sale is often still dial-up for smaller vendors and restaurants. With the growth in the economy, I would expect the credit card network has switched to something newer with greater bandwidth, and less expensive equipment. But I haven't had personal contact with this business for some time. Incidentlaly, CCITT recommendation X.25 only refers to one interface between customer equipment and the packet network. Most of what people refer to as X.25 isn't, it's some other part of the network. And most terminals worked in accordance with the X.29 recommendation: not that any of that really matters anymore. Tymnet went through some acquisitions, eventually ending up in MCI, which ended up in Verizon. Telenet became part of GTE, which became Sprint. I don't think you'll find packet switching or X.25 on their web sites as an offering anymore. Bart
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:19:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Facebook Privacy Change Is Subject of F.T.C. Inquiry Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Facebook Privacy Change Is Subject of F.T.C. Inquiry By VINDU GOEL and EDWARD WYATT September 11, 2013 Facebook, which has repeatedly tripped over its own feet when changing its privacy practices, has stumbled yet again. The Federal Trade Commission said on Wednesday that it had begun an inquiry into whether the social network's proposed new privacy policies, unveiled two weeks ago, violated a 2011 agreement with regulators. Under that agreement, the social network is required to get the explicit consent of its users before exposing their private information to new audiences. Facebook's new policies make clear that users are required to grant the company wide permission to use their personal information in advertising as a condition of using the service. Facebook says the language was in part required by a federal court. In August, a judge approved some of the wording as part of a settlement in a class-action suit brought by users upset at seeing their names and photos used to endorse products in Facebook ads sent to their friends. Peter Kaplan, a spokesman for the F.T.C., said on Wednesday that Facebook was subject to continuing oversight by the commission because of the consent order. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/technology/personaltech/ftc-looking-into-facebook-privacy-policy.html
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:26:58 -0700 From: Duncan Smith <Duncan@xrtc.net> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: X.25 links still available? Message-ID: <1379705218.29414.24526801.17724F52@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 7:16, B. Z. Lederman wrote: > | From: firstname.lastname@example.org > | Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:40:41 -0700 (PDT) > | > | Does anybody know if it is possible to get an X.25 hook up nowadays? > | > | Ideally over the D channel of a basic ISDN connection. > > The anwer is almost certainly "no", unless you are already > an existing customer. > > More than 10 years later, I would expect even most > support for private networks to be gone. > > Bart > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I thought all the credit-card processing networks were on X.25 - not so? > > Come to think of it, what happened to Tymnet and Telenet? Weren't they > using X.25? I had ISDN from Qwest (in Seattle) briefly several years ago. I didn't have an opportunity to explore it in detail, but they allegedly provided X.25 service on the D-channel (at least, it's in the BRI tariff). Notably, they explicitly did not offer any X.25 connectivity between CO switches. -- Duncan Smith
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:28:47 -0400 From: danny burstein <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: FCC ack's the problem with call completion to high priced areas Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.email@example.com> The problem: complaints by customers in (mostly far off) rural areas that people calling them have lots of trouble getting through. While I can't go through Telecom Digest archives right now, I'm pretty sure we've discussed this. It's a well known problem in the communciations field. It seems this is courtesy of that whole issue of payments by the inter-exchange carrier to the final local telco. For various reasons dealing with lack of competition and the best intentions of gov't regulators... in some regions that cost can get pretty high. Hence, the telcos in the middle, so to speak, not wanting to spend all that money, don't give call transfer/completion very high priority. (Which is a polite way of rephrasing what they're really doing). I'm not sure how long this has been on the FCC's website as they've been making lots of redesigns, but the main fcc.gov page has a discussion of this problem, along with a link to more details at: https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/problems-long-distance-or-wireless-calling-rural-areas _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key firstname.lastname@example.org [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
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.