32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for June 19, 2014
Volume 33 : Issue 110 : "text" Format
====== 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
owner.
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: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:20:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Calling Old Numbers In Ads
Message-ID: <lnrlk6$ulb$2@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
Justin Goldberg <justgold79@gmail.com> wrote in <d4ce27e4-edf0-4ddb-9d70-8369da564737@googlegroups.com>:
> does anyone have any
> interesting stories of calling old phone numbers that are still working, that
> were featured in ads or other documents, especially pre-internet? (besides the
> ones that are now "chat lines", which probably comprises 95% of them). This is
> something that I do anytime I come across old numbers in the ads in Network
> World magazine on books.google.com, but unfortunately, I don't have any
> interesting stories to tell.
I have considered calling some old BBS numbers triggered by this article by
Jason Scott:
http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1835
The old number for my BBS was re-allocated to a friend of a friend and I
heard via that link a few years later that the new owners of that number
did get weird silent calls sometimes.
Koos van den Hout
--
Camp Wireless, the site about wireless Internet | Koos van den Hout
access at campsites
http://www.camp-wireless.org/
|
http://idefix.net/
PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 | IPv6 enabled!
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Odds of Aereo prevailing about 30 percent, analyst says
Message-ID: <f0fef319-c61c-4807-bef4-8f642513d590@googlegroups.com>
In article
<f037ab71-ed69-454e-88c3-b2d8bbfd5d3e@googlegroups.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain.r...@and-this-too.annsgarden.com> wrote:
>> "Go straight to cable." It sounds so simple. CBS may find
>> that it's not so simple to negotiate carriage agreements with
>> hundreds of cable TV Companies, each of which has its own ax
>> to grind.
> Hundreds? How about five? Comcast, Cox, Charter, Bright House,
> and (for now) Time Warner. Are there any important markets
> where one of those companies does not control the market for
> wireline cable TV? Remember that CBS doesn't care about
> market #150.
But their non-O&O affiliate stations certainly do. As I've noted
previously here on T-D, stations can switch networks. If CBS
goes cable-only, those stations are not going to just go off the
air.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.dcom.telecom/EgD-Sbbeppc/ZX9phQscEj0J
> The issue for CBS would more likely be all their non-O&O-market
> broadcast affiliation contracts. Would they terminate those, or
> remain on broadcast in those markets?
The stations would remain on the air, and one way or another, they'd
affiliate with a broadcast network. The big (and not-so-big)
group owners have the power to make or break a network. They can
build a network by switching to (or buying out) some Brand X
network, or by creating a new one from scratch, or by buying a
popular non-broadcast network and switching it to broadcast.
> They have some fairly
> significant large-market affiliates owned by large group owners
> who could tie them up in court for a long time.
Well, that's another possibility. But switching their affiliations
to a different network would be quicker and the outcome more
certain.
>> Without the big stick of the 1992 Cable Act on its side, CBS
>> will be just one more non-broadcast video feed competing for
>> channel space in an already-crowded market.
> Um, they are already, by electing retrans consent. Cable
> companies are already free to say "no, thanks"...
Yeah, right. And you know who gets blamed if some cable company
actually does that.
> ... the only reason for MVPDs to negotiate retrans deals with
> CBS is that their customers demand CBS's programming, and that
> doesn't change if that programming is no longer available over
> the air.
Not necessarily. Any programmer that sells its product for
broadcast use isn't likely to be happy if the network suddenly
becomes non-broadcast. If it wanted to sell its programming to a
non-broadcast network it could have done so in the first place.
Sooner or later that programming will move back to broadcast. It
might happen when the current contract runs out; or it might be
because of some specific language in the contract; or it might be
because the programmer sues the network alleging breach of
contract. But one way or another, that programming will be
available over the air.
As for the newly-reconstituted Brand-X network, it might be able to
buy that programming if the group owners put enough money into the
effort. It's likely that competing broadcast networks would join
the bidding war, especially for sports programming.
> If we saw any sort of broad-based move of the major networks
> to drop their FTA broadcast service, I would not be surprised
> to see an a-la-carte bill actually pass Congress, effectively
> restoring the status quo ante.
In the face of united opposition from ACA, NAB, NOTOA, and NCTA?
Broadcasters would oppose it because it would deprive them of their
power to force CATVs to carry their broadcast signals on the basic
tier. They'd oppose it because they wouldn't have the power to
bundle co-owned non-broadcast programming with retransmission
consent for broadcast signals.
NOTOA would oppose it if it allowed CATVs to drop PEG (public,
educational, and government) access channels.
Every other interest group from sports to religious to gameshows to
home-shopping to Al Jazeera to Glenn Beck would oppose anything that
would threaten their access to CATV subscribers.
> That might not be an unlikely outcome if Aereo
> loses, either, depending on exactly how they lose.
If anything resembling a-la-carte ever gets serious attention in
Congress it will be littered with so many exemptions for
special-interest groups that even Consumers Union will probably
oppose it.
Even a feeble attempt like Rep. Enshoo's CHOICE Act is still bottled
up in committee.
http://tinyurl.com/khdqzt7
More about a-la-carte on my blog:
http://catvm.org/320/321/index.html#alacarte
Neal McLain
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 23:16:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Odds of Aereo prevailing about 30 percent, analyst says
Message-ID: <lnt6jt$1u44$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <f0fef319-c61c-4807-bef4-8f642513d590@googlegroups.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com> wrote:
>> [I wrote:]
>> ... the only reason for MVPDs to negotiate retrans deals with
>> CBS is that their customers demand CBS's programming, and that
>> doesn't change if that programming is no longer available over
>> the air.
>
>Not necessarily. Any programmer that sells its product for
>broadcast use isn't likely to be happy if the network suddenly
>becomes non-broadcast.
I don't see why they'd care -- and the networks already own much of
the "marquee" programming they currently offer, so the "programmers"
are hardly independent any more. And even the big non-network rights
holders -- mostly sports leagues at this point -- can surely see the
writing on the wall, which is why they've been going towards a
subscription model as well. With the vast majority of households
using cable or satellite to access all of their "broadcast" video
already, and an ever-increasing number of young cord-cutter households
going exclusively to Hulu/Netflix/insert-your-favorite-video-platform,
there's really little downside for the networks any more.
Near as I can tell, the NFL is the only major sports league that has
any particular attachment to broadcast television, and I don't think
either Disney or the NFL has lost revenue since Monday Night Football
moved from Disney's ABC broadcast network to Disney's ESPN cable
network.
>If it wanted to sell its programming to a non-broadcast network it
>could have done so in the first place.
An independent program producer wants to sell its programming to the
highest bidder, and how that programming is delivered to consumers is
no longer of much consequence. If CBS and Fox did go "cable-only"
(really, MVPD-only), the sports leagues and awards shows would quickly
realize that it made absolutely no difference to their audience, so
long as they were still on the same dial positions as before.
-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: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:45:09 -0400
From: bernieS <bernies@netaxs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Calling Old Numbers In Ads
Message-ID: <20140618204528.85526.qmail@submit.iecc.com>
Reportedly the oldest continuously-operating telephone number in the
NANP is (212) PEnylvania6-5000 -- which was immortalized in the 1940
hit song by that name and recorded by the Glenn Miller Orchestra:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEnnsylvania_6-5000
The song lyrics were inspired by the telephone number for New York's
Hotel Pennsylvania, where the Glenn Miller Orchestra often
played. This July 18-20 the Hotel Pennsylvania will host HOPE X --
the tenth Hackers On Planet Earth conference, where thousands of
hackers and telecom phreaks and geeks and will hear approx 100
speakers, participate in many workshops, projects, and many other fun
things.
http://x.hope.net
(HOPE archives at
http://archive.hope.net/
)
(It's been rumored there'll be a presentation about the history of
the Telephone Digest by its editor at HOPE X...)
-bernieS
At 03:20 AM 6/18/2014, telecom-owner@telecom-digest.org wrote:
>The Telecom Digest
>Volume 33 : Issue 109 : "text" Format
>
>Messages in this Issue:
> Calling Old Numbers In Ads (Justin Goldberg)
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 19:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Justin Goldberg <justgold79@gmail.com>
>To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
>Subject: Calling Old Numbers In Ads
>Message-ID: <d4ce27e4-edf0-4ddb-9d70-8369da564737@googlegroups.com>
>
>Reading the original letter (or press-release, I can't tell) of Julia-Louis
>Dreyfus joining the cast of Seinfeld[1] got me thinking, does anyone have any
>interesting stories of calling old phone numbers that are still working, that
>were featured in ads or other documents, especially pre-internet? (besides the
>ones that are now "chat lines", which probably comprises 95% of them). This is
>something that I do anytime I come across old numbers in the ads in Network
>World magazine on books.google.com, but unfortunately, I don't have any
>interesting stories to tell.
>
>I called the number below, and it's not working, but it does have a generic
>greeting that mentions the building's main number, and another number for NBC
>telemundo.
>
[1]
[https://twitter.com/APKeatonLunchbx/status/477212265280962560/photo/1
>[
>
>
>------------------------------
>
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.
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) 2014 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 (1 message)
>**********
End of The Telecom Digest (4 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues