31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for April 17, 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: 16 Apr 2013 14:20:17 -0400 From: email@example.com (Scott Dorsey) To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Coconut Connection Message-ID: <email@example.com> I'm reading a journal article from a decade or so ago which in passing refers to the "Coconut Connection" case, which it describes as the largest telecommunications fraud on record. A quick google search brings up basically nothing about this incident. Does anyone have any details or any suggestion where to look for more info? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:55:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The Air If Aereo & Dish Win Lawsuits Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Apr 15, 11:54 pm, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote: > Hilarious And Ridiculous: Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The > Air If Aereo & Dish Win Lawsuits > > by Mike Masnick > Mon, Apr 8 2013 > > The entertainment industry has a long, long history of claiming that > if copyright law doesn't go their way, they'll all go out of > business. It's the adult version of "if you don't do it my way, I'm > taking my ball and going home." If court cases don't go their way, or > if the law isn't changed, we've been told over and over and over > again for the last century (and more frequently in the last two > decades) that the industry will take its ball and go home, because > they won't create under such awful circumstances (even if those > circumstances really aren't particularly different than they've > operated under for years). The latest? First, Fox's COO, Chase Carey, > claims that if they lose the Aereo case, they might shut down Fox, > the network TV channel, and move all its content to cable TV channels. > > .. > > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130408/12161722625/hilarious-ridic > ... If CBS and FOX go cable-only, do they really think their affiliate stations are just going to turn in their licenses and go off the air? There are plenty of other second-tier networks that would jump at the chance to grab a former FOX or CBS channel. Possibilities are endless: Bounce TV, This TV, Ion Television, Retro Television Network, foreign language, religious, home shopping. It's also possible that some current cable channel (CNN for example) would turn itself into a broadcast network. Never underestimate Ted Turner. Furthermore, if CBS and FOX go cable only, they lose all the cushy perks their affiliates got under the 1992 Cable Act. No more mandatory cable carriage, no more retransmission-consent, no more government- mandated geographic monopolies, no more mandatory access to the basic- cable tier. From the cable TV operator's point of view, they'll become just two more advertising-supported video feeds competing for channel space in an already-crowded market. But their former affiliates will still have those perks! Of course CBS and FOX could still try to play these same tricks as cable-only channels, but they would be doing so in the free level- playing-field market without the big stick of the Cable Act on its side. The cable companies have ample reason so play tough if no other reason than to seek revenge for years of abuse by the networks. All that said, I think this whole discussion is premature. The decision that led to the current discussion was a 2-1 vote by a three- judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The lone dissenter, Judge Denny Chin, wrote a vigorous dissent. The broadcasters will surely request a rehearing en banc at the Court of Appeals, and the loser in that case will surely appeal to the Supreme Court. The final decision is years away. Neal McLain aka "Texas Cable Guy" in the comment section of the techdirt article.
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:00:48 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The Air If Aereo & Dish Win Lawsuits Message-ID: <email@example.com> In <firstname.lastname@example.org> Neal McLain <email@example.com> writes: >If CBS and FOX go cable-only, do they really think their affiliate >stations are just going to turn in their licenses and go off the air? >There are plenty of other second-tier networks that would jump at the >chance to grab a former FOX or CBS channel. Possibilities are >endless: Bounce TV, This TV, Ion Television, Retro Television Network, >foreign language, religious, home shopping. It's also possible that >some current cable channel (CNN for example) would turn itself into a >broadcast network. Never underestimate Ted Turner. I'm pretty sure I'm remembering, or maybe hallucinating, a period where CNN was carried by some over-the-air stations during the late night hours. Anybody else recall that? Thanks. -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key firstname.lastname@example.org [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:59:44 +0000 (UTC) From: email@example.com (Garrett Wollman) To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The Air If Aereo & Dish Win Lawsuits Message-ID: <email@example.com> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Neal McLain <email@example.com> wrote: >If CBS and FOX go cable-only, do they really think their affiliate >stations are just going to turn in their licenses and go off the air? I think they don't care about their affiliates, but are looking at their O&O stations as parts of a potentially lucrative spectrum-repacking deal. >There are plenty of other second-tier networks that would jump at the >chance to grab a former FOX or CBS channel. Possibilities are >endless: Bounce TV, This TV, Ion Television, Retro Television Network, None of those pay enough to justify the electric bill. >foreign language, religious, home shopping. Those can be lucrative, and are generally the stations that elect must-carry anyway. >Furthermore, if CBS and FOX go cable only, they lose all the cushy >perks their affiliates got under the 1992 Cable Act. No more mandatory >cable carriage, That's fine by them, since they weren't depending on must-carry anyway. They were depending on their NFL and other sports rights. (Murdoch, for his part, has been quietly accumulating sports rights over the past few years, because he thinks six national general-interest cable sports networks just aren't enough and plans to launch a seventh later this year from the remnants of SPEED.) Fox and CBS both think their programming is valuable enough to consumers that they could get at least as favorable a deal from the big-five MSOs (and anyone who isn't one of the big five is too small to count) and the two satellite companies. >no more retransmission-consent, See above. >no more government-mandated geographic monopolies, A national service doesn't have any use for that anyway. >no more mandatory access to the basic- cable tier. See above. >But their former affiliates will still have those perks! But they won't have programming anyone (other than little old ladies on Social Security, who aren't the most lucrative advertising market out there) has the slightest interest in. I've believed for a long time that broadcast television is functionally obsolete, and will be gone (at least as a mainstream commercial offering) early in the next decade. It's just a huge waste of energy, and if the executives weren't mired in the sunk-cost fallacy, they'd have seen that and gotten rid of it already. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft firstname.lastname@example.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
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.