The Telecom Digest for January 05, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 5 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 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
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: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:08:14 EST
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
Subject: The heart of Stuxnet
Here's an article from Wired: "A Four-Day Dive Into Stuxnet's Heart"
Those in the know says that the Stuxnet worm is a game-changer in
cyber-security. Althought apparently aimed at Iran's nuclear
processing efforts, the same principles and practices could be use to
compromise the ever-more-computer-dependent telecommunications
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
"I've been up and down this highway, far as my eye can see
No matter how fast I run, I can never seem to get away from me".
- Jackson Browne
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:30:38 -0600
From: email@example.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report...
In article <4D214A83.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Neal McLain <email@example.com> wrote:
>David Clayton wrote:
> >>> That is the issue I keep banging on about, it is a specific
> >>> technical term that has been hijacked by so many fools that it
> >>> is now almost worthless.
> >> But was it a "specific technical term" in 1972 when the Madison
> >> city council "hijacked" it?
> > AFAIK the term was used decades before that to describe any
> > telecommunication media that carried multiple disparate channels.
>Well, by that definition of "broadband", I guess it was broadband. The
>distribution network carried numerous signals, but they were all related
>to the delivery of cable TV and FM services:
>-- VHF TV channels 2-13 (54-88; 174-216 MHz downstream)
>-- A couple dozen FM signals in the FM band (88-108 MHz downstream)
>-- AGC Control carrier (108.25 MHz downstream)
>-- "Sniffer" leakage-detection carrier (downstream)
>-- Microwave pilot carrier (73.95640 MHz downstream)
>-- One or more video or audio return signals (5-30 MHz upstream)
Yes, that was a correct technical usage of the term. If one is carrying
the 'raw' signal only -- i.e. not imposed on a 'carrier' frequency,
that is "baseband" transmission. Baseband occupies the spectrum from
zero Hz to the 'bandwidth' of the signal, With rare exceptions,
two baseband signals cannot share the same physical circuit. the straight
'video out' from a CCTV camera is one 'obvious' example.
If signals are riding 'on a carrier', and multiple such signals can share
the same physical circuit, without materially interfering with each other,
that is 'broadband". The circuit must handle a "broad" band of frequencies,
not just the spectrum of a single baseband signal.
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:59:17 -0600
From: Neal McLain <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Court Throws Out FCC Fine Against ABC For 'NYPD Blue'
Used previous judgment in Fox music awards case as basis for Decision
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/4/2011
> The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out the FCC's
> fine against ABC for a shot of Charlotte Ross' bare behind on
> NYPD Blue.
> In a nonprecedential summary judgment, the court said that
> since it found that the FCC's fine "for fleeting, unscripted
> utterances" in Fox music awards shows was unconstitutionally
> vague, and the NYPD Blue case, though dealing with scripted
> nudity, "turns on an application of the same context-based
> indecency test" it found impermissibly vague in Fox, the court
> agreed to vacate the NYPD Blue fine for the same reason of
Obtelecom: None, but it's weird enough that I'll bet Bill lets it go
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's not the weirdness that I notice, but the possibility that the FCC
and/or FDA and/or FTC will start to draw lines between "common
carriers" (the ISPs who aren't providing content) and "content
creators", i.e., everyone else.
The relevance to telecom is that it's getting harder to even define a
"common carrier", let alone to decide who, if anyone, can be held
responsible for prurient material.
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
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.
Contact information: Bill Horne
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: email@example.com?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: firstname.lastname@example.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
End of The Telecom Digest (3 messages)