Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 
Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 206 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: Cellphones and driving 
  Re: Cellphones and driving 
  Re: Cellphones and driving 
  Re: Cellphones and driving 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security     
  Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security       
  Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security         
  Re: Polling switches for record information - any guidance?     
  Cellphone tower coverage Qs 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: What is this device called 
  Re: Walter's Telephones 
  Re: Cellphone savings worth research 


====== 27 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: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:26:43 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving Message-ID: <pan.2009.07.27.07.26.42.838735@myrealbox.com> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:02:26 -0400, John David Galt wrote: > David Clayton wrote: >> Too many people reject attempts to reduce any problem if the proposed >> solution isn't somehow "perfect" in obtaining a 100% solution to the >> issue. >> >> I rather have 70% (or whatever the compliance rate actually is) less >> people using phones while driving because that reduces that particular >> risk to everyone else by that amount, if 30% continue to indulge in that >> sort of risky behaviour then it is still far better than the original >> situation. > > The vast majority of drivers are still phoning while driving (not a > scientific survey, just my personal observation). > > If we want drivers to obey this law, then let's increase the penalty > and/or create more enforcement mechanisms (for instance, have the red > light camera operators look for people phoning). Otherwise, repeal it. Hey, I reckon that any driver caught illegally using a phone should have the phone immediately confiscated and smashed to bits before their eyes. Give that sort of enforcement a few months of use and then see the compliance rate soar...... :-) -- 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. ***** Moderator's Note ***** My first reaction to David's idea was "Get Real!" ... but then I remembered seeing film of a Connecticut State Trooper confiscating a radar detector, so now I'm not sure if it's such a far-fetched idea. Any lawyers want to weigh in? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:56:14 -0700 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving Message-ID: <h4kf6f$js5$1@news.eternal-september.org> David Clayton wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:02:26 -0400, John David Galt wrote: > >> David Clayton wrote: >>> Too many people reject attempts to reduce any problem if the proposed >>> solution isn't somehow "perfect" in obtaining a 100% solution to the >>> issue. >>> >>> I rather have 70% (or whatever the compliance rate actually is) less >>> people using phones while driving because that reduces that particular >>> risk to everyone else by that amount, if 30% continue to indulge in that >>> sort of risky behaviour then it is still far better than the original >>> situation. >> The vast majority of drivers are still phoning while driving (not a >> scientific survey, just my personal observation). >> >> If we want drivers to obey this law, then let's increase the penalty >> and/or create more enforcement mechanisms (for instance, have the red >> light camera operators look for people phoning). Otherwise, repeal it. > > Hey, I reckon that any driver caught illegally using a phone should have > the phone immediately confiscated and smashed to bits before their eyes. > > Give that sort of enforcement a few months of use and then see the > compliance rate soar...... :-) > A law would have to be passed, several states have those types of traffic laws on the books, one southern state takes the car also. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, inc, A Rot in Hell. Co. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:45:54 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving Message-ID: <cbd.4386a8df.379f9632@aol.com> In a message dated 7/27/2009 9:26:44 AM Central Daylight Time, kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net writes: > Doesn't take much to slow down traffic. On a recent road trip to North > Carolina I noted traffic jams most often occured near toll booths. About > 4 miles out you'd come to a complete standstill and then inch your way > to the tolls. > > They have to do something about that. It would cost money--more toll booths, more toll takers. Many things people think something ought to be done about never do get done, especially if the state or turnpike authority can't can't find the money.. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ***** Moderator's Note ***** They could install high-speed readers for cars with transponders, and promote the service and the time saved in the 'Fly By' lane. That would cost very little in relative terms, especially compared to the value of the time wasted by all those motorists. And if 'Fly By' isn't a trade mark, I claim it here and now. Copyright (C) 2009 E. W. Horne. All Rights Reserved. (So there) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:01:52 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving Message-ID: <MPG.24d77d5733e74875989b1f@news.eternal-september.org> In article <h4j678$vfa$1@news.eternal-september.org>, diespammers@killspammers.com says... > > Thad Floryan wrote: > > On 7/26/2009 1:56 PM, Steven Lichter wrote: > >> [...] > >> California enforces it and the fines add up, but more people are > >> violating it now then when it first passed, some claim they did not know > >> it was the law, others from out of state say the same; even though there > >> are ads on TV, Radio and billboards. > >> [...] > > > > Locally (Silicon Valley) there's a column in the San Jose Mercury News > > (SJMN) named "Road Show" (though we often joke it's "Road Kill" :-). > > I'm in frequent email contact with the columnist, Gary Richards, and > > feed him a lot of behind-the-scenes info (including what we discuss > > here), such as the NY Times articles, especially the one about the > > suppressed cellphone driving info. > > > > The SJMN requires one to signup (free) to view their pages (and I must > > reenter my password once a month or so when cookies expire). A story > > in today's column is almost unbelievable. > > > > If you have/want access to the online SJMN, the article is here: > > > > http://www.mercurynews.com/mrroadshow/ci_12908862 > > > > Following is a formatted copy'n'paste of the specific story: > > > > Q: The other morning, I was driving to work on Interstate 880, and > > my little car was nearly sideswiped by a giant SUV that drifted > > into my lane as if I weren't there. Furious at nearly being > > squashed, I drove up next to the SUV, but before I could sternly > > shake my fist at it, I spotted a young woman behind the wheel > > holding a phone in one hand and punching in a text message with > > the other. I rode alongside her for about 10 seconds, and I never > > saw her look up at the road once. She was completely engrossed in > > what was going on in her lap. > > > > Bruce Newman > > Los Gatos > > > > A: Bruce is a Mercury News reporter whose desk is near mine. He's > > a very calm fellow, so when I heard him talking about this > > incident, I asked him to tell me more. > > > > Q: Gary, I make it a practice to stay away from these texting > > fools when I can, so I fell back several car lengths, still > > fuming about what she had nearly done to me and the menace she > > presented to others. Over the next couple of miles, she nearly > > sideswiped a pickup and repeatedly drifted onto the left > > shoulder. I fell behind an eighteen-wheeler and lost sight of her > > for a while. > > > > Bruce Newman > > > > A: Unfortunately, it was not good riddance. > > > > Q: Then as I approached the San Jose airport I saw her again, > > sitting in the middle lane of the freeway, going about 20 mph > > while cars and trucks whizzed by on either side. Traffic had > > slowed, and when it picked up again, she was so consumed with > > texting that she had no idea what was going on around her. As I > > passed by, I saw her furiously pecking away at that infernal > > thing. > > > > Here's my question. I see those signs that say "Report drunk > > drivers, call 911," and I really wanted to call and report > > her. She clearly presented as great a hazard as any drunken > > driver. But I figured if the CHP caught up to her and discovered > > she wasn't drunk, they'd come after me for filing a false police > > report. So I did nothing. Except fume. What should I have done? > > > > Bruce Newman > > > > A: This deserved a 911 call. When I asked the Highway Patrol if a > > 911 call was appropriate, here is how Cristina-the-CHP-Lady > > responded: > > > > "Absolutely. Sounds like a reckless driver to me. Call 911 and > > provide the license plate, location, description of the driver > > and the details of her recklessness. A log will be kept against > > her plate and if she gets caught all the details will be on the > > log, which will be attached to the citation." > > > > To the woman driving the champagne-colored BMW X5, the CHP now > > has your license plate number. > > > The Press-Enterprise had a writer like him. He used to report on the > roads and freeways around Riverside County. He had a thing for the 91 > Freeway, which is the only roadway between Riverside and Orange County. > I have been using it since moving out here in 1977 and it was bad > then, but they have made it larger added carpool and toll roads and it > is still bad. He use to talk about traffic slowing down for no reason, > then going normal again, he used to say it was aliens scooping up the > cars. What it really caused it was people slowing down because a > section of the road was torn up and stayed that way for ten years and > thousands of dollars in damage claims. Doesn't take much to slow down traffic. On a recent road trip to North Carolina I noted traffic jams most often occured near toll booths. About 4 miles out you'd come to a complete standstill and then inch your way to the tolls. They have to do something about that. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:55:59 -0400 From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <uccr65lo5g14k8s0jvmba03q3952jqd0ja@4ax.com> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 01:28:01 -0400 (EDT), Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: >Garrett Wollman wrote: > >> WPVI is still on channel 6. > >I've been Googling the DTV transition assignments, and came up with this >document, entitled "DTV Tentative Channel Designations for the First and >Second Rounds": > >http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf > >.... which says that WPVI was assigned UHF channel 46 for DTV >transmission. The document doesn't say what "first and second rounds" >are (or were), but since others have said WPVI is using VHF Channel 6 >for DTV, I assume they were the transitional phases of the DTV switch, >during which WPVI simulcast it's programming to the DTV audience on >channel 46. > >This thread has gotten me curious: does anyone have the URL for the list >of VHF channels that *were* retired/reassigned, and which ones are still > available or in use for television? Does it vary by area, or is it the >same throughout the U.S.? > >I'd also like to have a list of stations which switched to UHF channels >for their final DTV assignment, and which ones remained on VHF (or moved >there after the changeover). Does anyone have a URL? > >Bill Horne Bill, Try http://www.dtv.gov/stationlist.htm for a list of all DTV stations, their channel assignments and the cutover dates. It is organized by areas. Eric T. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Thank you! That's perfect! Some questions, after a quick look: 1. Are the digital channel numbers the same as the old analog ones, i.e., does "Channel 12" occupy the same frequency range under the analog _and_ the digital assignments? I know that there are a lot of "Virtual" numbers that aren't actual frequency assignments, but the list shows some digital channels next to each other, such as channels 12 and 13 in Rhode Island, which used to be forbidden for analog stations. 2. There are a lot more digital stations on VHF than I had expected, since I had been under the impression that (one of) the justifications for DTV was to "re-farm" allocations for new services and public safety. Was there ever a fixed range of frequencies that were to be reused for non-tv services, or are new services expected to be frequency-agile and able to slip into "white space" between the new DTV stations? 3. If I wanted to help out all the little old ladies who still have rabit ears, could I rebroadcast the DTV stations onto analog channels? Are there still translators in existence that do that? Bill Horne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:12:33 -0500 From: "David" <someone@somewhere.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <h4kk3o$uc4$1@news.eternal-september.org> > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Thank you! That's perfect! > > Some questions, after a quick look: > > 1. Are the digital channel numbers the same as the old analog ones, > i.e., does "Channel 12" occupy the same frequency range under > the analog _and_ the digital assignments? I know that there are > a lot of "Virtual" numbers that aren't actual frequency > assignments, but the list shows some digital channels next to > each other, such as channels 12 and 13 in Rhode Island, which > used to be forbidden for analog stations. In most cases the stations want to be identified by their old analog assignment and have chosen that for the PSIP channel identification. The RF frequencies are the same. Adjacent channels are allowed if about the same power level from the same retransmitting site ([just] like CATV). > 2. There are a lot more digital stations on VHF than I had > expected, since I had been under the impression that (one of) > the justifications for DTV was to "re-farm" allocations for new > services and public safety. Was there ever a fixed range of > frequencies that were to be reused for non-tv services, or are > new services expected to be frequency-agile and able to slip > into "white space" between the new DTV stations? The spectrum removed from TV service is UHF channels 52-69. > 3. If I wanted to help out all the little old ladies who still have > rabit ears, could I rebroadcast the DTV stations onto analog > channels? Are there still translators in existence that do that? I suppose you could get a DTV converter and an RF modulator to do that job. The coupon DTV converters all have channel 3/4 modulators though. David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:31:46 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <h4l6c2$1mr9$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <h4kk3o$uc4$1@news.eternal-september.org>, David <someone@somewhere.com> wrote: >In most cases the stations want to be identified by their >old analog assignment and have chosen that for the PSIP >channel identification. In point of fact, they were not given a choice about it. The DTV rules in effect on transition day required that stations use their old analog channel as their virtual channel. The FCC has shown some flexibility since then, mostly for stations that were "double out of core" before the transition. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:44:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <98b8d488-3f82-41bd-bca2-43648ae26185@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com> On Jul 27, 9:43am, Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spam...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 01:28:01 -0400 (EDT), Bill Horne > > > > <b...@horneQRM.net> wrote: > >Garrett Wollman wrote: > > >> WPVI is still on channel 6. > > >I've been Googling the DTV transition assignments, and came up with this > >document, entitled "DTV Tentative Channel Designations for the First and > >Second Rounds": > > >http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf > > >.... which says that WPVI was assigned UHF channel 46 for DTV > >transmission. The document doesn't say what "first and second rounds" > >are (or were), but since others have said WPVI is using VHF Channel 6 > >for DTV, I assume they were the transitional phases of the DTV switch, > >during which WPVI simulcast it's programming to the DTV audience on > >channel 46. > > >This thread has gotten me curious: does anyone have the URL for the list > >of VHF channels that *were* retired/reassigned, and which ones are still > > available or in use for television? Does it vary by area, or is it the > >same throughout the U.S.? > > >I'd also like to have a list of stations which switched to UHF channels > >for their final DTV assignment, and which ones remained on VHF (or moved > >there after the changeover). Does anyone have a URL? > > >Bill Horne > > Bill, > > Try http://www.dtv.gov/stationlist.htm for a list of all DTV stations, > their channel assignments and the cutover dates. It is organized by > areas. > > Eric T. > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Thank you! That's perfect! > > Some questions, after a quick look: > > 1. Are the digital channel numbers the same as the old analog ones, > i.e., does "Channel 12" occupy the same frequency range under the > analog _and_ the digital assignments? I know that there are a lot > of "Virtual" numbers that aren't actual frequency assignments, but > the list shows some digital channels next to each other, such as > channels 12 and 13 in Rhode Island, which used to be forbidden for > analog stations. > > 2. There are a lot more digital stations on VHF than I had expected, > since I had been under the impression that (one of) the > justifications for DTV was to "re-farm" allocations for new > services and public safety. Was there ever a fixed range of > frequencies that were to be reused for non-tv services, or are new > services expected to be frequency-agile and able to slip into > "white space" between the new DTV stations? > > 3. If I wanted to help out all the little old ladies who still have > rabit ears, could I rebroadcast the DTV stations onto analog > channels? Are there still translators in existence that do that? > > Bill Horne ====================================================== Bill: > 1. Are the digital channel numbers the same as the old analog ones, > i.e., does "Channel 12" occupy the same frequency range under the > analog _and_ the digital assignments? Assuming the FCC's chart is up-to-date, the digital channel numbers in use now (as in today) are (or should be) what the chart says they are. A chart showing the temporary assignments in use before the transition date is at http://www.transmitter.com/FCC98315/chanplan.html As for your hypothetical "Channel 12", the digital may or may not occupy the same frequency range that Channel 12 analog occupied. Subject to some limitations, every (well, almost every) station could choose to remain in its temporary digital channel or return to its old analog channel. See Wollman's post of Jul 27, 12:25 am. > I know that there are a lot of "Virtual" numbers that aren't actual > frequency assignments ... Indeed there are. Many (most?) stations have retained their old analog channel numbers for promotional reasons even if they're actually on a different channel. Case in point: Philadelphia's KYW-TV is now on Channel 26, but still calls itself CBS3. http://cbs3.com/ > ... but the list shows some digital channels next to each other, such > as channels 12 and 13 in Rhode Island, which used to be forbidden for > analog stations. I'm not sure I trust that chart. I can believe that 12 and 13 could be adjacent in Providence, but I doubt that there are three digital stations all operating on Channel 7 in Rapid City. Neal McLain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:34:45 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <h4l6hl$1mr9$2@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <98b8d488-3f82-41bd-bca2-43648ae26185@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote: >I'm not sure I trust that chart. I can believe that 12 and 13 could >be adjacent in Providence, but I doubt that there are three digital >stations all operating on Channel 7 in Rapid City. Actually, that's entirely possible, assuming they are all the same station, because the FCC now allows something called a "distributed transmission system": instead of using one big facility to serve their allocated coverage area, stations may elect to use multiple smaller transmitters, possibly with directional antennas, to serve their markets. A number of stations made the transition using DTS to reduce the cost, particularly in rural areas where an omnidirectional antenna would waste a lot of energy over sparsely-populated parts of the market. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness ***** Moderator's Note ***** Please tell us about the various combinations of mode and signal available to digital stations. For example, if a station has two separate broadcasts going on, as does channel 7 in Boston, are they both being transmitted as part of the same digital stream, or are they only logically linked and transmitted on separate physical channels? What about channel 44 in Boston? It has four separate subchannels: are they all just slots in one large bit stream coming out of WGBX's transmitter? I ask because I regularly get dropouts and pixelation on 7-2 when 7-1 is coming in OK, and likewise have trouble with 44-3 or 44-4 when 44-1 is fine. If they're all part of the same bit stream, why does the problem affect only some of them and not all? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:17:56 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <h4kng4$pvj$1@reader1.panix.com> >***** Moderator's Note ***** >Thank you! That's perfect! >Some questions, after a quick look: >1. Are the digital channel numbers the same as the old analog ones, > i.e., does "Channel 12" occupy the same frequency range under the > analog _and_ the digital assignments? I know that there are a lot > of "Virtual" numbers that aren't actual frequency assignments, but > the list shows some digital channels next to each other, such as > channels 12 and 13 in Rhode Island, which used to be forbidden for > analog stations. Depends on how you word the question. DTV and NTSC frequencies are still in good old Megahertz. They get talked about as channels by by some engineering types and yes they are the same as always. I've seen various labels for those channels: "RF Channel" "raw channel" etc. See that FCC spreadsheet for their term. The viewer-seen "Channel" is now just a marketing logo. It has zero correlation with the engineering one. In a FEW cases, they will be the same [see below]; but stopped clocks, etc. As others said, stations had the choice of a 1) new temporary frequency or a 2) new permanent one [or 3), move twice]. There were tradeoffs either way. With 1), they'd be able to use their existing antenna and maybe transmitter final stages; with the new digital modulator. I don't know how most NTSC transmitters did modulation, but will guess it was NOT at the last stage. Correction welcome. With 2) They could plow money into the digital transmitter and antenna as a permanent investment. Some fudged; I know WETA [RF-26] got RF-27 for DTV; I suspect they retuned, not replaced, that antenna. The economic analysis is actually a LOT more complex. In The Good Old Daze, everyone wanted Low VHF [2-6] for max range aka market size. Then color came along, and 2 etc had more issues with subcarrier phase shifts and such. Now, Low VHF greater multipath vulnerability is a bigger issue than with NTSC. But the BIG factor in the Musical Chairs game is: market areas have changed. There was a time when that flyover state Chan 2 had a 1500 ft tower to get way out to Hooterville and Bugtussle; now there's less audience for Chan 2's ads over there. And the local cable system in those burgs gives them NBC from a bird. And for a REAL joker; some large % of TV station ad revenue dollars are from {remember them?} local car dealers. There are far fewer of those and less Detroit kickback money to pay for TV, etc... >2. There are a lot more digital stations on VHF than I had expected, .... I always figured the channel {interference} protection rules had to go back to Philo and DeForest; ISTM there were not just adjacent no-use areas, but also IF image ones, harmonics, images of harmonics, and you name it. One reason is obvious; think about the selectivity and image rejection of the circa 1930 tuners. I assume the FCC could/did use the DTV adventure to /dev/null many of those old rules. There was no plan to reassign VHF TV space to others users, but a chuck of the UHF was peddled off at a very tidy sum. [THAT was the real instigator of the whole process; the Hill wanted to auction off spectrum space to cellco's to Make Money Fast...but they had to make the TV lobby happy too.] A very good place to look for ALL kinds of data is the "AVS forum" site. They have some participants who know their stuph. One guy runs <rabbitears.info> -- it's useful enough I bet even the FCC checks there. Another note. Both the ABC & CBS outlets in DC, WJLA & WUSA, old 7 & 9, used the 1) plan above. When D-Day came, and they abandoned their temporary UHF slots; they were flooded with complaints by people who could no longer receive them, but had in NTSC. [As well as those who needed to rescan..] Even the WashPost Technology editor was a victim. No one has yet to offer a lucid explanation as to why their DTV coverage was so much poorer than predicted. One or both got interim power increases [I am GLAD I was not working at the FCC Broadcast Bureau that week...] but have nearby co-channel neighbors as well. [Maybe Delaware in one case; I don't recall.] In any case, there are unhappy campers out there still. One last thing to recall. The very last people to want more space, ergo more stations, to be available are those current license holders. The value of that piece of paper is inversely proportional to the number of competitors. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:05:06 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <h4l8ah$1nkf$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <h4kng4$pvj$1@reader1.panix.com>, David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote: >Some fudged; I know WETA [RF-26] got RF-27 for DTV; I suspect they >retuned, not replaced, that antenna. WETA uses a Dielectric TUP-O4-12-2 antenna, a high-gain broadband UHF panel antenna, which was installed a few years ago for the transitional DTV facilities of WJLA and WUSA, at a different site from the old channel 26 analog. So, no "retuning" required, or indeed possible. (The old tower, if I remember correctly, was in Virginia; the new tower is in far Northwest DC at the Maryland line.) >I always figured the channel {interference} protection rules had to go >back to Philo and DeForest; ISTM there were not just adjacent no-use >areas, but also IF image ones, harmonics, images of harmonics, and you >name it. The rules have changed over time, and the FCC's approach to the rules has also changed. The FCC no longer models TV facilities using fuzzy photocopied charts derived from experiments done in the 1950s; now everything is done using the Longley-Rice propagation model. Furthermore, new TV allocations must follow a set of distance constraints in addition to the contour-overlap constraints, of which the most significant is the "donut hole" first-adjacent-channel taboo, which requires adjacent channels to be either very close or very far apart. >No one has yet to offer a lucid explanation as to why their DTV coverage >was so much poorer than predicted. It seems widely agreed that the FCC's modeling did not accurately reflect real-world coverage of VHF DTV operations. (The fact that they assume everyone has an outdoor antenna ten meters off the ground doesn't help.) VHF-low band, in particular, had its initial maximum power rule very low, compared to VHF-high or UHF. There was also the issue that converter boxes were not required to include FM traps to be part of the coupon program, so people who bought them, live in markets with DTV on VHF-low, and live near an FM station lost big time. >increases [I am GLAD I was not working at the FCC Broadcast Bureau that >week...] It's the Media Bureau these days. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:46:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <3fef94f5-1ec0-46d8-893a-058bfcb5c5e0@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com> On Jul 27, 9:43am, Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spam...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 01:28:01 -0400 (EDT), Bill Horne > > > > <b...@horneQRM.net> wrote: > >Garrett Wollman wrote: > > >> WPVI is still on channel 6. > > >I've been Googling the DTV transition assignments, and came up with this > >document, entitled "DTV Tentative Channel Designations for the First and > >Second Rounds": > > >http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf > > >.... which says that WPVI was assigned UHF channel 46 for DTV > >transmission. The document doesn't say what "first and second rounds" > >are (or were), but since others have said WPVI is using VHF Channel 6 > >for DTV, I assume they were the transitional phases of the DTV switch, > >during which WPVI simulcast it's programming to the DTV audience on > >channel 46. > > >This thread has gotten me curious: does anyone have the URL for the list > >of VHF channels that *were* retired/reassigned, and which ones are still > > available or in use for television? Does it vary by area, or is it the > >same throughout the U.S.? > > >I'd also like to have a list of stations which switched to UHF channels > >for their final DTV assignment, and which ones remained on VHF (or moved > >there after the changeover). Does anyone have a URL? > > >Bill Horne > > Bill, > > Try http://www.dtv.gov/stationlist.htm for a list of all DTV stations, > their channel assignments and the cutover dates. It is organized by > areas. > > Eric T. > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Thank you! That's perfect! > > Some questions, after a quick look: > > 1. Are the digital channel numbers the same as the old analog ones, > i.e., does "Channel 12" occupy the same frequency range under the > analog _and_ the digital assignments? I know that there are a lot > of "Virtual" numbers that aren't actual frequency assignments, but > the list shows some digital channels next to each other, such as > channels 12 and 13 in Rhode Island, which used to be forbidden for > analog stations. > > 2. There are a lot more digital stations on VHF than I had expected, > since I had been under the impression that (one of) the > justifications for DTV was to "re-farm" allocations for new > services and public safety. Was there ever a fixed range of > frequencies that were to be reused for non-tv services, or are new > services expected to be frequency-agile and able to slip into > "white space" between the new DTV stations? > > 3. If I wanted to help out all the little old ladies who still have > rabit ears, could I rebroadcast the DTV stations onto analog > channels? Are there still translators in existence that do that? > > Bill Horne PS to my previous post ... I suppose three stations could share one DTV channel ... FOX on 7.1, ABC on 7.2, and NBC on 7.3 or something like that. Or, in view of the fact that there are two affiliates in the DMA for each network, maybe there's sufficient spacing to allow three Channel 7 transmitters to operate simultaneously without co-channel interference. Neal McLain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:06:00 -0400 From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <grtr651mem6pqjmjl4botdbe97b8mql1b3@4ax.com> Bill et al. Answers in-line. E. T. On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:43:14 -0400 (EDT), Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 01:28:01 -0400 (EDT), Bill Horne ><bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: > >>Garrett Wollman wrote: >> >>> WPVI is still on channel 6. >> >>I've been Googling the DTV transition assignments, and came up with this >>document, entitled "DTV Tentative Channel Designations for the First and >>Second Rounds": >> >>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf >> >>.... which says that WPVI was assigned UHF channel 46 for DTV >>transmission. The document doesn't say what "first and second rounds" >>are (or were), but since others have said WPVI is using VHF Channel 6 >>for DTV, I assume they were the transitional phases of the DTV switch, >>during which WPVI simulcast it's programming to the DTV audience on >>channel 46. >> >>This thread has gotten me curious: does anyone have the URL for the list >>of VHF channels that *were* retired/reassigned, and which ones are still >> available or in use for television? Does it vary by area, or is it the >>same throughout the U.S.? >> >>I'd also like to have a list of stations which switched to UHF channels >>for their final DTV assignment, and which ones remained on VHF (or moved >>there after the changeover). Does anyone have a URL? >> >>Bill Horne > > >Bill, > >Try http://www.dtv.gov/stationlist.htm for a list of all DTV stations, >their channel assignments and the cutover dates. It is organized by >areas. > >Eric T. > >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >Thank you! That's perfect! > >Some questions, after a quick look: > >1. Are the digital channel numbers the same as the old analog ones, > i.e., does "Channel 12" occupy the same frequency range under the > analog _and_ the digital assignments? I know that there are a lot > of "Virtual" numbers that aren't actual frequency assignments, but > the list shows some digital channels next to each other, such as > channels 12 and 13 in Rhode Island, which used to be forbidden for > analog stations. Yes and yes. Same channel frequency assignments, just a shuffle of channels and a change of modulation... The virtual channels are just to keep the TV station identity the same. The old channel 10 may now be on a different frequency assignmentl, but your tuner can tune it by being told it is "10.1" even though it is somewhere in the UHF band. Also digital allows multiple subchannels. I get some channels with up to 5 different programs in the same frequency band as one "channel". Accordingly, you need 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc. to pick the right bitstream. It really is kind of neat. I used to get 12 channels over the air, now I get 31 (counting all the subchannels). Some old ones no longer come through, but there were some new ones... > >2. There are a lot more digital stations on VHF than I had expected, > since I had been under the impression that (one of) the > justifications for DTV was to "re-farm" allocations for new > services and public safety. Was there ever a fixed range of > frequencies that were to be reused for non-tv services, or are new > services expected to be frequency-agile and able to slip into > "white space" between the new DTV stations? Not knowing the inner thinking of the FCC, I can't answer this one... I suspect that the channels that are freed up are being used for other (non-TV) services that don't geographically extend beyond the old TV channel range. > >3. If I wanted to help out all the little old ladies who still have > rabit ears, could I rebroadcast the DTV stations onto analog > channels? Are there still translators in existence that do that? My understanding is that all full power stations are now digital and the low power ones will have to convert in the next couple of years. The rabbit ears will work (with a converter box for an analog TV) for the VHF channels. There are "rabbit ear" type antennas for the UHF channels, so the little old ladies just need a converter box (which puts DTV channels on analog channel 3 or 4 on an RG-58 cable or an S video output for newer sets) and an indoor antenna that covers both the VHF (rabbit ears) and the UHF bands. Actually rebroadcasting over the air requires a license and there will be no more analog TV licenses in a couple of years. > >Bill Horne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:10:30 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <bbc.467cdd0a.379f0f56@aol.com> In a message dated 7/27/2009 12:07:39 AM Central Daylight Time, harold@hallikainen.com writes: > None of the stations I worked with put their control on their program > line. The program lines were generally driven with a WE 111C > transformer to drop the 600 ohm source resistance (studio equipment) > down to 150 ohms to drive the line. Another 111C converted it back to > 600 ohms at the transmitter. Just a matter of curiosity--what was the advantage of 150 ohm lines? 600 ohms was the standard for telco lines, including program grade lines. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ***** Moderator's Note ***** I'm always tempted to answer these sorts of questions myself - I worked on the "Radio" board, after all - but then I realize that a lot of the things I "know" about program audio lines are just memories of the way we did things, and I'm not sure of the technical basis. Let's see: impedance varies with frequency, so (I'm guessing) I think 150 ohms is closer to the impedance at the upper frequencies, thus giving a boost to the "high end" tones, and making equalization easier. Come to think of it, that would be _part_ of the equalization, wouldn't it? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:59:00 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security Message-ID: <MPG.24d77caca064de21989b1e@news.eternal-september.org> In article <h4fq3f$ndo$2@optima5.xanadu-bbs.net>, john@example.invalid says... > > Thad Floryan wrote: > > Just found this on Slashdot: > > > > http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/25/0015250/Skype-Apparently-Threatens-Russian-National-Security > > > > "Reuters reports that 'Russia's most powerful business lobby moved to clamp > > down on Skype and its peers this week, telling lawmakers that the Internet > > phone services are a threat to Russian businesses and to national security.' > > The lobby, closely associated with Putin's political party, cites concerns of > > 'a likely and uncontrolled fall in profits for the core telecom operators,' as > > well as a fear that law enforcement agencies have thus far been unable to > > listen in on Skype conversations due to its 256-bit encryption." > > > > > I betcha the CIA knows how to listen to Americans! ;-) Not the CIA but the NSA. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:40:59 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security Message-ID: <4A6DCA8B.20605@thadlabs.com> On 7/27/2009 7:43 AM, T wrote: > In article <h4fq3f$ndo$2@optima5.xanadu-bbs.net>, john@example.invalid > says... >> Thad Floryan wrote: >>> Just found this on Slashdot: >>> >>> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/25/0015250/Skype-Apparently-Threatens-Russian-National-Security >>> >>> "Reuters reports that 'Russia's most powerful business lobby moved to clamp >>> down on Skype and its peers this week, telling lawmakers that the Internet >>> phone services are a threat to Russian businesses and to national security.' >>> The lobby, closely associated with Putin's political party, cites concerns of >>> 'a likely and uncontrolled fall in profits for the core telecom operators,' as >>> well as a fear that law enforcement agencies have thus far been unable to >>> listen in on Skype conversations due to its 256-bit encryption." >>> >> >> I betcha the CIA knows how to listen to Americans! ;-) > > Not the CIA but the NSA. Think "Echelon"; I'm not sure if the FBI's "Carnivore" is still in operation. Russia's "SORM-IV" is allegedly equivalent to the NSA's Echelon. For an eye-opening report of AT&T complicity with the NSA, one of the NSA taps on the AT&T Internet backbone was accidentally discovered 7 years ago in a facility in San Francisco and reported in this article from 2007: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/07/MNIST7NS9.DTL Basically, the fiber runs have 2-way optical splitters: NSA gets everything. Prior stories in the SF Chronicle stated every communication channel from cellphone, radio, landline telephones, etc. is "received" by the NSA. Claims made for the Echelon system boggle my mind, but knowing what I was doing in the 1960s at the GTE Electronic Defense Labs (Mountain View CA), I cannot dismiss those claims outright. I'm no longer in "that business" so I'm unaware of what's really possible today and I cannot discuss what I did "back then". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:45:00 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security Message-ID: <4A6E11CC.1030106@thadlabs.com> On 7/27/2009 12:32 PM, Thad Floryan wrote: > [...] > Think "Echelon"; I'm not sure if the FBI's "Carnivore" is still in operation. > Russia's "SORM-IV" is allegedly equivalent to the NSA's Echelon. SORM has a dual meaning. SORM became Russian law in 1996 to monitor ALL telecommunications (phones, FAX, etc.) within Russia. SORM-2, in 1998, added the Internet. An ex-Russian military officer at a client site circa 2005 informed me SORM-IV was the hardware equivalent to the NSA's Echelon and ostensibly operates also outside the confines of Russia (as Echelon also (primarily?) operates outside the confines of the USA). Some background for Echelon, SORM, Carnivore, etc. can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance New KGB Takes Internet by SORM http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/02/new-kgb-takes-internet-sorm SORM - Russia's Big Brother http://www.cvni.net/radio/nsnl/nsnl021/nsnl21sorm.html Russian FAPSI wants lines to tap all (in English) http://www.fitug.de/debate/9808/msg00265.html SORM Acceptance Report (in English) http://reseau.echelon.free.fr/reseau.echelon/sorm.htm > [...] > For an eye-opening report of AT&T complicity with the NSA, one of the NSA > taps on the AT&T Internet backbone was accidentally discovered 7 years ago in > a facility in San Francisco and reported in this article from 2007: > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/07/MNIST7NS9.DTL > > Basically, the fiber runs have 2-way optical splitters: NSA gets everything. > [...] Back to Echelon (which monitors phones, Internet, FAX, all radio transmissions, and even has 100m (~300 foot) dishes in geosynchronous Earth orbit (which I presume is the "Clarke Belt" that Bill, our moderator references) to pick up some of the radio and microwave traffic (in addition to what the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office http://www.nro.gov/) does)), I found these article URLs in my archives and they're all still active and good: Privacy Concerns Grow Along With Electronic Communication http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1999/09/08/ED77886.DTL Europe Accuses U.S. Of Economic Spying http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/02/24/MN101995.DTL Spy in the Gray Flannel Suit http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/02/25/ED48854.DTL Pals shouldn't spy http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/2000/02/28/NEWS10843.dtl France Opens Inquiry Into American Surveillance Network http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/07/05/MN54683.DTL EU group denounces U.S. Spying http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/07/30/BU225644.DTL Tech pros and cons revealed http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/17/BU96110.DTL EU says 5 members' offices bugged http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/20/MN272782.DTL Spying on U.N. chief provokes only yawns http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/04/MNG8S5VF1U1.DTL A Sept. 10 State of Mind http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/01/11/cstillwell.DTL "1984" took a bit longer to arrive than originally predicted. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:03:03 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Polling switches for record information - any guidance? Message-ID: <MPG.24d77da6617159fd989b20@news.eternal-september.org> In article <7c1bm.89518$qx1.59551@newsfe04.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says... > AFAIK, central office switches aren't allowed to touch the > Internet. That may have changed in the past few years, but at the time > I retired, access was limited to dedicated lines or X.25 PADS, neither > of which could be reached from the net. > > I think they do, or at least that is how Vonage does it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:20:03 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Cellphone tower coverage Qs Message-ID: <4A6DC5A3.9000104@thadlabs.com> Today's SF Chronicle COMPUTING column has some Q&As about cellphones and this URL was mentioned: http://cellreception.com/ Curious, I wanted to see where the local cell towers were located for my carrier (AT&T Mobility grandfathered all the way back to Cellular One). I seldom have fewer than 4 (out of 5) bars on my phone's display, so I figured there would be a hive of towers especially here, Silicon Valley. Visiting this URL: http://www.cellreception.com/towers/towers.php?city=los%20altos&state_abr=ca and clicking "[*] AT&T", I wondered where the towers were and had to zoom out to see a few. There's a cluster of 3 flanking Moffett Federal Airfield about 3.5-4 miles north from my home, another grouping of 5 about 8-9 miles east between Santa Clara and San Jose, then two NW about 20-25 miles away in Burlingame. That's it for the places I normally would be concerned about coverage. This doesn't make any sense to me for two reasons: 1. I have excellent signal strength at my home, and 2. if I dial 911 (on the cellphone) from home I get the local city's 911 center, and if I dial 911 while driving along I-280 all the way up to San Mateo (just south of Burlingame) I get the CHP 911 dispatch. My two questions: 1. is that tower spacing "normal"? The "cellreception" site claims to have all registered towers in its database of 135,800 towers last updated in May 2009. 2. how/why would I get routed to CHP's 911 while on I-280 headed NW even just a mile or two from home while I get routed to the local city's 911 if I call from home? [I'm not complaining because that's exactly what I want to happen] The reason I'm puzzled is that when the service was still Cellular One they claimed a tower within 1/2 mile of my home and even assisted getting service to function within the local food supermarket which had a metal roof and zero reception. Later, as Cingular, again I was informed new towers were being installed. To date since AT&T acquired the contract, I've received no indication of new towers, only claims of "service improvements" -- given I really have no quarrel with AT&T Mobility, I accept that claim. Perhaps I should be asking: is there a better resource showing cellphone coverage and/or tower locations by carrier? I'm still scratching my head wondering how cellphone service works here at all. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:26:34 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <3380e1f6-b61f-4dde-9c24-653b4085ead1@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> On Jul 27, 1:29am, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote: > > Not according to the newspaper. Apparently, surprisingly many people > > miss it and they're looking into bringing it back. > > Has the newspaper reported what WPVI's owners think about this? They're considering it. I'll try to contact their P/R person to get the latest. > > 1) Before the digital switchover, TV stations were broadcasting in > > _both_ digital and analog. They would have tests pre-cutover where > > they'd tell viewers they were temporarily cutting off the analog > > signal. If the viewer could continue receiving, the viewer was set > > for digital, but if not, the viewer was not ready. > > The FCC assigned every full-power TV station a temporary digital channel > for the transition. WPVI-DT was on channel 64 during the transition. > When the transition period ended, each station could choose to remain on > its temporary digital channel, or move back to its original analog > channel. WPVI-DT's owners chose to move back to Channel 6. http://www.water-damage.org/tag/wpvi-dt-reception/ Thank you for the explanation which helps. Since the space is in use the issue is moot. I thought the TV digital transition was to make better use of the bandwidth and make space available for other things, like public safety. That is, the new digital bandwidth would be narrower (use less room) than the old analog bandwidth thanks to the greater efficiency of digital transmission, and, be assigned to a different place on the spectrum. That is, the definition of a TV "channel" would be _entirely_ new. We'd get more 'information' (sharper pictures and better sound) yet use a smaller 'pipe'. Was the primary purpose of going to digital TV to save bandwidth or to simply give prettier TV pictures? > > Frankly, I was troubled by the bureaucratic stance; I was hoping > > someone would take a consumer or public service stance. That is, > > instead of coming up with all sorts of _legal_ reasons why it > > couldn't be done, come up with a reason how it _could_ be done. > > It can be done, but in the FM band, not outside the FM band. As I've > noted before, any television station licensee is free to apply for an FM > broadcast license in the FM band. I presume a TV broadcaster could get an AM license as well for the audio. The technical siutation--reuse of the same frequency--makes the whole issue _moot_. But if the frequency space _had_ been available, to me the real issue was grandfathering. As technology changes, we allow for many things to be 'grandfathered' in. I simply thought if a station had been audible for at least the last 45 years it ought to continue and not suddenly become a huge legal issue. For example, in communities that are at a LATA boundary, including state lines, many retain local phone call priviledges across the boundary, even though technically it's inter-LATA and thus a full "long distance" call. ***** Moderator's Note ***** The most important issue, assuming the channel was still available for analog assignments, is that the old analog stations used only 25 Kilohertz deviation on their FM aural carriers, and that meant that they could never match the noise margins of regular FM stations and could never transmit stereo. Expecting FM broadcast quality audio from a TV audio signal is like trying to record a song by holding a cassette recorder up to a radio. Sooner or later, those who attempt it have to admit that it's not a productive approach. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:08:49 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <h4l8hh$1nkf$2@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <3380e1f6-b61f-4dde-9c24-653b4085ead1@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >I thought the TV digital transition was to make better use of the >bandwidth and make space available for other things, like public >safety. That is, the new digital bandwidth would be narrower (use >less room) than the old analog bandwidth thanks to the greater >efficiency of digital transmission, and, be assigned to a different >place on the spectrum. That is, the definition of a TV "channel" >would be _entirely_ new. We'd get more 'information' (sharper >pictures and better sound) yet use a smaller 'pipe'. No. The channels are the same width (this is set by international treaty and so can't be modified easily or unilaterally). There are simply fewer channels allocated to television, because the transition means that older tuners, which would have problems with more closely-spaced stations, are no longer relevant for planning purposes. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:45:01 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <h4ki1t$d3e$1@reader1.panix.com> "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com> writes: > Control was generally on another pair (or two). The first system I > worked with was a Gates RDC-10. It used different voltages and > polarities on each wire of the pair to ground. Twentyfive years ago, when I had a dozen+ LMC's for pipeline control; we were getting told by Ma that She would not give us an new inter-CO metallic circuits [i.e. DC connectivity], and the ones we had were subject to shutdown any time. Further, no guarantee as to how long intra-CO metallic ones would be available. This was because inter-CO copper was being retired in favor of T Carrier. I'd assume N-Carrier [an analog mux scheme noted for causing global warming due to its array of vacuum tubes...] was also being scrapped but that's not germane here. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ***** Moderator's Note ***** The push to install T-Carrier had an unintended consequence: many local municipalities were using "dry" pairs to interconnect parts of McCulloch-loop alarm systems, mostly used by burglar alarm systems, but sometimes even for fire alarms. The McCulloch Loops were set up like the original telegraph circuits, with negative voltage feeding one side of the loop, and positive feeding the other, so that if any part of the loop went open, the stations on either side of the break could still signal using ground return. Most municipal fire alarm systems that use Gamewell boxes still operate this way. When told they would have to switch to tone or data-based alarms, the municipal managers screemed so loudly that Ma Bell bid a hasty retreat, and ordered D-4 boards which could repeat McCulloch Loop signalling. The towns and hamlets got to keep their investments in McCulloch Loop equipment going, and Ma Bell got to put the trunk pairs to better use. That compromise would normally be called a "Win-Win" scenario, but T-Carriers turned out to be much less fault-tolerant than DC circuits on dry pairs, because, as I said, the McCulloch Loop devices could still signal with one side of the circuit open. With early T-Carrier spans suffering high failure rates, some mayors and city managers went to the PUC in their states and demanded that they be given access to dry pairs again. AFAIK, such requests were granted on an "As available" basis, but ONLY to government agencies, not to commercial BA providers such are Atlas, Wells Fargo, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:30:22 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <h4kkmu$1h7m$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <4A6D39D7.8080005@annsgarden.com>, Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote: >The FCC assigned every full-power TV station a temporary digital channel >for the transition. WPVI-DT was on channel 64 during the transition. >When the transition period ended, each station could choose to remain on >its temporary digital channel, or move back to its original analog >channel. WPVI-DT's owners chose to move back to Channel 6. Actually, they weren't given a choice. Channels 52 and above are no longer assigned to the broadcast television service. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:28:09 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: What is this device called Message-ID: <fb0be663-9f2f-4aef-8749-56c2648205f1@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com> > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > There have been books written about the hidebound management at Ma > Bell, and about the arrogant and intractible attitudes exhibited by > many of her employees. I went through the same frustration you > experienced when I ordered an interface for a phone patch - and _I_ > was working at New England Telephone! I'm sorry Mr. Atkinson had trouble, but back then our experience was totally the opposite. We obtained such devices for computer terminals without any trouble. We abandoned the more expensive Bell-leased Teletypes (the kind with the ORG button and built-in automatic modem) for cheaper terminals and modems, and even though Bell would lose revenue, they fully accomodated our needs. To be fair, we must remember there are also books written about how some pre-divesture customers and businesses tried to get a free ride in blatant violation of the tarriffs in existent in those days, as well as how the pre-divesture Bell System bent over backwards to accomodate customer service needs. In those days, the Bell System was forced to waste its money servicing repair calls that were the result of bad customer owned equipment, such as improperly wired bootleg extension sets or unauthorized modifications to a business key system. Nobody talks about that side of the issue. Contrary to myth, they did not disconnect the subscriber's service or rein the wrath of the heavens upon the hapless subscriber as critics complained, but merely disconnected the offending device. Even when using their own personally-owned device, customers still expected the Bell System to provide end-to-end responsibility for calls (unlike today). Good public policy does NOT result from anti-utility attitudes that favor cream-skimming. In pre-divesture days people demanded both rock- bottom rates AND super high levels of service. That is, they expected actual-cost rates on busy corridors like Chicago to St. Louis, but also expected cross-subsidized rates on light volume and expensive corridors such as in the west. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:52:19 -0700 From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones Message-ID: <t24s65hp17r3vou90lovurkdb7cptu0mlr@4ax.com> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:37:41 -0400 (EDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >The FCC won't allow the audio to stay on 87.75 because the entire >range from 54 to 88 MHz (The old channels 2 through 6) is being >reassigned to other services. Not true. The only TV spectrum auctioned off was the upper UHF channels from channels 52 theough 69. A few Digital TV stations still are trnsmitting in the low VHF band (channels 2 through 6). See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-138A2.pdf A sampling of channels on low VHF: Chan City 5 Anchorage, AK 3 Bethel, AK 6 New Haven, CT 3 Key West, FL 6 Pelham, GA 6 Wrens, GA 2 Las Vegas, NV These channels are digital, so an FM radio in, for examle, New Haven, CT tuned to 87.7 will only get noise. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:36:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cellphone savings worth research Message-ID: <d1492ff8-2f33-4f62-9348-27eaf5eb8e27@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> On Jul 16, 8:08am, Zee <zza...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 8:15 am, "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTva...@Queensbridge.us> > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 13, 8:59 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote: > > > > SPENDING SMART > > > Cellphone savings worth research > > > Competition for wireless customers leads to a bewildering array of > > > options - and a price war > > > > By Todd Wallack, Globe Staff | July 12, 2009 > > > The Boston Globe > > > > When we looked into switching cellphone companies recently, we were > > > soon drowning in options. > > > > T-Mobile USA alone offers more than 40 individual and family plans. > > > Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Sprint Nextel offer dozens more. And then > > > there's a pack of upstarts offering prepaid service, including Boost > > > Mobile (a unit of Sprint Nextel that uses Nextel's network), Virgin > > > Mobile USA (which uses Sprint's network), and MetroPCS (which has its > > > own network in Boston and some other cities.) > > > > The great news is that all this competition has sparked a price war > > > of sorts. Boost Mobile recently made a splash by offering unlimited > > > calls and text messages for $50 per month - half the price of > > > traditional plans with unlimited minutes. Virgin Mobile countered by > > > offering unlimited calls for $50 (or $60 if you add in text > > > messages). Now some say their plans are even cheaper. MetroPCS > > > charges $40-$50 for unlimited calls and text. And TracFone just > > > launched its own $45 option called StraightTalk. > > > > ... > > > >http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2009/07/12/ce... > > > Story mention: > > "For instance, we found a T-Mobile prepaid plan that allowed us to buy > > a block of 1,000 minutes good for a year for $100, which works out to > > less than $9 per month, less than one-third of the cost of the > > cheapest traditional monthly plans." > > > I pay $15.00 every three months on Virgin. > > That averages to $5.00 per month. > > > Here is how it is done: > > Go towww.virginmobileusa.comCheckout Virgin Mobile phones and > > plans. Buy one of their phones and activate it. > > > While activating it look at the selection where you will make a top- > > up of $20.00 every three 90 days > > BUT while in that area of the site you pick AUTOMATIC top-up of $15.00 > > every 90 days linked to either: > > PayPal > > Credit Card or > > Debit Card > > > Want a one-time savings of even more? If you enter Kickbacks Code > > number: yQqUHOsQ when signing up we EACH get get 60 minutes of bonus > > airtime after you add money to your account. > > http://www.virginmobileusa.com - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I use T-mobile pay as you go > > http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/prepaid-plans.aspx > > My $100 refill valid for 1 year gives me 1000 minutes plus 150 bonus > minutes. I only use it for emergency or if I don't have any other > options. For my regular long distance calls, I use Onesuite prepaid > long distance card and some times its VoIP service. I have been a happy OneSuite customer for several years, BUT recently have been making as many calls from home using GoogleVoice for free. My phone book book of frequent contacts is on my computer's googleVoice interface. Only works for free intra-USA. If I am not at my computer but at home I still use OneSuite for almost all of my calls, even to other a few blocks away. Verizon charges me 11 to connect a local call. I can talk forever. OneSuite charges me 2.9 CPM thru their toll free number. So this is cheaper then VZ for very short calls. Works as prepaid phone card. PIN not needed for calls from home or cell phone. Use Promotion/SuiteTreat Code: "FREEoffer23" for FREE time. Works FROM many other countries. Compare the rates at https://www.OneSuite.com No monthly fee or minimum. ------------------------------ 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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. 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 (26 messages) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues