See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
| Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 00:16:31 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Avoid buying locked iPhones with Apple's Activation Lock status page
Message-ID: <p06240821d0567685a744@[172.16.42.4]>
Avoid buying locked iPhones with Apple's Activation Lock status page
The feature discourages theft by tanking locked iDevices' resale value.
by Andrew Cunningham
Oct 2 2014
Ars Technica
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/10/avoid-buying-locked-iphones-with-apples-activation-lock-status-page/
|
| Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 20:50:29 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Hackers' attack cracked 10 companies in major assault
Message-ID: <0876AA35-9EB1-4869-989F-AB74A6740C50@roscom.com>
http://nyti.ms/1BEe8yZ
NYTimes: Hackers' Attack Cracked 10 Companies in Major Assault
As the breadth and potential source of the attack on JPMorgan Chase
became clearer, Washington officials urgently expressed concern
about the potential for more serious attacks in the future.
|
| Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 00:12:44 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The NSA and Me
Message-ID: <p0624081cd056753c5a32@[172.16.42.4]>
The NSA and Me
By James Bamford
The Intercept
10/2/2014
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/02/the-nsa-and-me/
|
| Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 23:35:31 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The Unpatchable Malware That Infects USBs Is Now on the Loose
Message-ID: <p0624080fd0566caf5918@[172.16.42.4]>
The Unpatchable Malware That Infects USBs Is Now on the Loose
BY ANDY GREENBERG
10.02.14
It's been just two months since researcher Karsten Nohl demonstrated
an attack he called BadUSB to a standing-room-only crowd at the Black
Hat security conference in Las Vegas, showing that it's possible to
corrupt any USB device with insidious, undetectable malware. Given
the severity of that security problem - and the lack of any easy
patch - Nohl has held back on releasing the code he used to pull off
the attack. But at least two of Nohl's fellow researchers aren't
waiting any longer.
In a talk at the Derbycon hacker conference in Louisville, Kentucky
last week, researchers Adam Caudill and Brandon Wilson showed that
they've reverse engineered the same USB firmware as Nohl's SR Labs,
reproducing some of Nohl's BadUSB tricks. And unlike Nohl, the hacker
pair has also published the code for those attacks on Github, raising
the stakes for USB makers to either fix the problem or leave hundreds
of millions of users vulnerable.
...
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/code-published-for-unfixable-usb-attack/
|
| Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 23:30:58 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: After blocking personal hotspot at hotel, Marriott to pay FCC $600,000
Message-ID: <p0624080cd0566bc822f0@[172.16.42.4]>
After blocking personal hotspot at hotel, Marriott to pay FCC $600,000
Marriott remains defiant: "We believe that the Opryland's actions were lawful."
by Cyrus Farivar
Oct 3 2014
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/after-blocking-personal-hotspot-at-hotel-marriott-to-pay-fcc-600000/
|
| Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 00:36:07 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Hackers' Attack Cracked 10 Financial Firms in Major Assault
Message-ID: <p06240828d0567a929a70@[172.16.42.4]>
Hackers' Attack Cracked 10 Financial Firms in Major Assault
By MATTHEW GOLDSTEIN, NICOLE PERLROTH and DAVID E. SANGER
OCTOBER 3, 2014
The huge cyberattack on JPMorgan Chase that touched more than 83
million households and businesses was one of the most serious
computer intrusions into an American corporation. But it could have
been much worse.
Questions over who the hackers are and the approach of their attack
concern government and industry officials. Also troubling is that
about nine other financial institutions - a number that has not been
previously reported - were also infiltrated by the same group of
overseas hackers, according to people briefed on the matter. The
hackers are thought to be operating from Russia and appear to have at
least loose connections with officials of the Russian government, the
people briefed on the matter said.
...
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/hackers-attack-cracked-10-banks-in-major-assault/
JPMorgan Chase Hacking Affects 76 Million Households
By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG, MATTHEW GOLDSTEIN and NICOLE PERLROTH
OCTOBER 2, 2014
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/jpmorgan-discovers-further-cyber-security-issues/
Ways to Protect Yourself After the JPMorgan Hacking
By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD
OCT. 3, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/your-money/jpmorgan-chase-hack-ways-to-protect-yourself.html
|
| Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 22:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Incentive Auctions
Message-ID: <9dcd5b0e-8985-44b7-9aa7-e23119fe2b16@googlegroups.com>
This is a post about the upcoming Incentive Auctions proposed by the FCC. The
objective of the incentive auction is to consolidate ("repack") the television
broadcast band by moving some stations to other channels. In the process, the
FCC hopes to clear at least 100 MHz of bandwidth for mobile data and other
applications.
The auction has two parts:
PART 1 - CHANNEL BUYBACK: The FCC wants broadcast stations currently operating
on conflicting channels to "voluntarily" move to other channels, or to
consolidate their signals with other stations (thereby allowing two stations
to operate within the same 6-MHz channel). In exchange, the FCC would pay
participating stations big bucks to reimburse them for their costs. Congress
has appropriated several million dollars for this purpose.
PART 2 - BANDWIDTH AUCTIONS: The cleared bandwidth would then be auctioned to
mobile data providers or other users in accordance with established auction
procedures.
Moderator Bill Horne has asked me to address the following questions:
[Q1] HOW does this affect telecom?
[A1] Repacking TV channels is supposed to make spectrum space available for
other services such as mobile data. Depending on the success of the auctions,
as much as 100 MHz could be cleared.
Further information:
- FCC:
- http://www.fcc.gov/incentiveauctions
-
- FierceWireless:
- http://tinyurl.com/m8xd2pk
-
- WSJ:
- http://tinyurl.com/mwobz69
-
- B&C:
- http://tinyurl.com/khtedaj
-
- Policy Tracker:
- http://tinyurl.com/nwfdyy5
-
[Q1A] Will there be more or less bandwidth available for cellular, for mobile
data, or for other telecom uses?
[A1A] More. That's the objective.
[Q1B] Will any current cellular users be affected? In other words, will the
auctions precede some major change to the cellular allocations?
[A1B] That's not an advertised part of the plan, but I wouldn't attempt to
predict what the FCC might do in the future. This is an important question
and one that T-D readers might be interested in discussing. I suspect that
there are some T-D readers who know more about the auctions than I do (Garrett
Wollman perhaps).
[Q2] Those whom are "in the business" sometimes use jargon that's a
bit beyond ordinary readers ... "Full Power" and "Class A" are
confusing: what's the difference? Why is it important?
[A2] Distinctions:
FULL-POWER TELEVISION STATIONS. Full-power stations:
- Typically originate several hours of programming per week.
- Operate at power levels of 100 Kw. or more.
- Have "must-carry" rights for carriage by cable TV and Satellite TV
retailers.
- Have protected channel assignments (cannot be bumped off channel by another
full-power station).
- Are eligible to participate in the incentive auction.
CLASS A LOW-POWER TELEVISION STATIONS. Class A LPTV stations:
- Are identified by callsign suffix -CA (analog) or -CD (digital).
- Must originate at least two hours of local programming per week.
- Must operate a studio inside Grade B Contour
- Maximum power 15 Kw.
- Do NOT have must-carry rights.
- Have protected channel assignments.
- Are eligible to participate in the incentive auction.
NON-CLASS A LOW-POWER TELEVISION STATIONS. All other LPTV stations:
- Are identified by callsign suffix -LP.
- Usually originate some programming, not necessarily local.
- Maximum power 15 Kw.
- Do NOT have must-carry rights.
- Do NOT Have protected channel assignments.
- Are NOT eligible to participate in the incentive auction.
The importance of these distinctions: Full-power and Class A stations are
eligible to participate in the incentive auction. Non-Class-A LPTVs are NOT
eligible, and may lose their operating licenses in the process (but they may
attempt to move if they can find a place to land).
[Q3] What is the "Incentive Auction"? What changes does it/will it make?
[A3] See above.
[Q4] Will "repacking" cause stations to have to buy new transmitters?
[A3] Maybe, maybe not. If two stations share the same data stream from the
same transmitter, then an existing digital TV transmitter might be sufficient.
[Q4] Is it a "virtual" move, which just changes the channel numbers viewers
see?
[A4] Just the opposite. If a station's signal moves to a different frequency,
the virtual channel number seen by the viewer stays the same (unless the
station itself opts to do otherwise). Even if two stations share the same
transmitter and the same 6-MHz channel, each can have a separate virtual
channel number.
[Q5] Will stations be given the option to share transmitters?
[A5] Yes. They're encouraged to do so.
Neal McLain
|
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 17:14:30 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Incentive Auctions
Message-ID: <m0ru9m$qkt$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <9dcd5b0e-8985-44b7-9aa7-e23119fe2b16@googlegroups.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>[Q4] Will "repacking" cause stations to have to buy new transmitters?
>
>[A3] Maybe, maybe not. If two stations share the same data stream from the
>same transmitter, then an existing digital TV transmitter might be sufficient.
To answer this question with greater specificity: most of the time
they will not need to buy a new transmitter, however many stations
will need to buy new antennas, and most stations (unless they choose
to "share time" with another station) will need to retune their
transmitters (a fairly complicated procedure possibly requiring
components to be replaced, as most TV transmitters are not
frequency-agile). The only stations that should need to buy entirely
new transmitters would be those moving from upper UHF spectrum to VHF
-- and they will need to buy new antennas as well, unless it happens
that they are moving back to their old analog channel AND the old
antenna is still good and the old pattern meets the DTV spacing
requirements.
The FCC proposes to include at least channels 38 to 51 -- the high end
of the current UHF TV band -- in the auction. Just to make this a bit
more concrete, here's a listing of what the current allocations look
like in the Boston area (TV market #6), with virtual channels in
parentheses:
VHF chanels:
9 - WMUR (9) [d] // owned by Hearst
10 - WWDP (46)
11 - WENH (11)
// 12 and 13 used in Providence
UHF channels:
// 17 used in Providence
18 - WMFP (62) [a] // owned by NRJ, a spectrum speculator
19 - WGBH (2) [b] // owned by WGBH Educational Foundation
20 - WCVB (5) [b] // owned by Hearst
// 21 and 22 used in Providence
25 - WFXZ-CA (31) [a]
27 - WUTF (66) // owned by Univision, operated by Entravision
29 - WUNI (27) // owned by Entravision
30 - WBZ (4) [b] // owned by CBS
31 - WFXT (25) [c] // owned by Fox
32 - WBPX (68) [a] // owned by ION
33 - WPXG (21) // owned by ION
34 - WNEU (60) [d] // owned by NBC Universal
35 - WBIN (50)
39 - WSBK (38) [b] // owned by CBS
40 - WDPX (58) // owned by ION
41 - WLVI (56) [c] // owned by Sunbeam
42 - WHDH (7) // owned by Sunbeam
43 - WGBX (44) [b] // owned by WGBH Educational Foundation
47 - WYDN (48) [a]
49 - WEKW (52)
// 50 and 51 used in Providence
[a] currently located at ATC Newton tower ("FM-128", ex-WHDH-TV 5,
1165 Chestnut St.)
[b] currently located at ATC Needham tower ("Westinghouse", ex-Richland,
ex-CBS, 350 Cedar St.)
[c] currently located at ATC Needham tower ("Candelabra", 140 Cabot St.)
[d] currently located on Mt. Uncanoonuc, Goffstown, N.H.
So if channels 38 and higher go to successful auction, that means
finding new homes for WSBK, WDPX, WLVI, WHDH, WGBX, WYDN, and WEKW.
WYDN (a religious station) is an ideal candidate for conversion to
low-band VHF, since nobody watches its OTA signal anyway. WEKW is New
Hampshire Public TV's station in Keene, and they have been strapped
for cash since their state grant was terminated a few years ago. WGBX
could "share time" with sister station WGBH on channel 19. WDPX (on
Cape Cod) could just go away (and take the money), or could be another
conversion to low-power VHF operation. WSBK could "share time" with
sister station WBZ on channel 30.
That leaves co-owned WHDH and WLVI, which are on adjacent channels.
WHDH is on the old channel 7 tower, and after the DTV transition
operated on channel 7 for several months, but the limitations of the
DTV signal on that channel caused them to move back to their
transitional DTV channel, 42. As far as I know, the channel 7 antenna
is still mounted on WHDH's tower, which the station owns outright.
WLVI on the other hand is on a leased tower (the UHF Candelabra, of
which it was an anchor tenant back in the 1970s) about half a mile
away. The cheapest option would be for WLVI to "share time" with
WHDH. In that case, the auction payments combined with savings on
tower rent would certainly be sufficient either to build fill-in
translators to make up for the poor coverage of VHF channel 7, or to
acquire channel 18 (WMFP) from spectrum speculator NRJ and move there
instead. (They could do so from the existing WHDH tower, as WMFP is
located close by, but they would have to buy a new antenna -- I don't
believe the existing channel 42 antenna is broadband enough to
transmit at channel 18.) Or perhaps they could move WLVI to channel
18 and not "share time" with WHDH, moving the latter to channel 7.
(In addition to WMFP, I would assume that WBPX, WPXG, WDPX, WUTF, and
WWDP are all available for the right offer.)
Now, this is all assuming that all of the affected licensees
participate. But in my view this should be a no-brainer for a company
like CBS, whose "broadcast" strategy is predicated on MVPD
retransmission fees, and given CBS's reluctance thus far to multicast
on its DTV facilities (such as WBZ-TV and WSBK in Boston), it's
possible that they have been planning for this from the beginning.
It's also possible that some stations' bids may be too high to win;
it's not clear what will happen if the "voluntary" repacking fails to
release enough spectrum. If the alternative is the FCC ordering
recalcitrant stations to relocate without compensation -- which the
FCC has been at pains to play down in its discussions with
broadcasters -- that will have an effect on the bids broadcasters will
make for their spectrum.
The assumption is that spectrum speculators like NRJ will take the
going rate, whatever that turns out to be, because they have no
intention of being in the TV business long-term. (How this will work
out in a market like Boston where they don't have auctionable spectrum
is unclear, but presumably their expectation is that they will sell
their spectrum to someone who both is in the auction and wants to
continue broadcasting, probably for a cut of the auction proceeds.)
-GAWollman
Garrett A. Wollman
wollman@bimajority.org
Opinions not shared by
my employers.
|
What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
repeated, than the story of a large research program
that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
|
|
| Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 16:24:44 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Incentive Auctions
Message-ID: <20141005202444.GA19230@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 05:14:30PM +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <9dcd5b0e-8985-44b7-9aa7-e23119fe2b16@googlegroups.com>,
> Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> >[Q4] Will "repacking" cause stations to have to buy new transmitters?
> >
> >[A3] Maybe, maybe not. If two stations share the same data stream from the
> >same transmitter, then an existing digital TV transmitter might be sufficient.
>
> To answer this question with greater specificity: most of the time
> they will not need to buy a new transmitter, however many stations
> will need to buy new antennas, and most stations (unless they choose
> to "share time" with another station) will need to retune their
> transmitters (a fairly complicated procedure possibly requiring
> components to be replaced, as most TV transmitters are not
> frequency-agile). The only stations that should need to buy entirely
> new transmitters would be those moving from upper UHF spectrum to VHF
> -- and they will need to buy new antennas as well, unless it happens
> that they are moving back to their old analog channel AND the old
> antenna is still good and the old pattern meets the DTV spacing
> requirements.
Some questions:
1. I very surprised to see that channel 7 is still in use: I thought all
the stations had gone to "UHF" channels. Channel 7 is around 175 MHz,
and ISTM that those frequencies would be the ones most desired for
"5G" data offerings.
2. Come to think of it, the Pentagon still uses most of the 200-400 MHz
spectrum: will there be any movement there?
3. IIRC, The "Low" VHF band is now vacant, correct? That's 54 to 72
and 76 to 88 MHz, and I'm wondering what plans the FCC has for
it. Come to think of that, will Aircraft Marker Beacons stay at
75 MHz?
4. When stations "share time" on the same transmitter, do they give up
the capacity for added virtual channels? For instance: in Boston,
channel 5.1 is the regular "WCVB" ABC lineup, and 5.2 is a nostalgia
channel that replays 50's sitcoms. Would WCVB have to give up 5.2 if
it moved to another stations' transmitter?
I guess what I'm really asking is "How many 'old' TV signals can fit
in a 'new' signal?"
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
I got a hot-rod Ford and a two-dollar bill
And I know a place right over the hill
There's soda pop and the dancing's free
So if you wanna have fun come along with me
- Hank Williams
|
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 23:04:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Incentive Auctions
Message-ID: <m0sips$1030$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <20141005202444.GA19230@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>1. I very surprised to see that channel 7 is still in use: I thought all
> the stations had gone to "UHF" channels. Channel 7 is around 175 MHz,
> and ISTM that those frequencies would be the ones most desired for
> "5G" data offerings.
VHF spectrum in general is very undesirable because of the required
size of antennas.
>2. Come to think of it, the Pentagon still uses most of the 200-400 MHz
> spectrum: will there be any movement there?
The DoD generally speaking does not give up spectrum unless the White
House tells it to.
>3. IIRC, The "Low" VHF band is now vacant, correct?
Not correct. That is where most stations that move to VHF will be
ending up. A small number of stations ended up on VHF low-band --
usually but not always on their old channel assignments. This
spectrum remained part of the broadcast television service in exchange
for allowing channels 52 and above to be auctioned off to wireless
companies (and MediaFLO) in the last round of spectrum reallocation.
The FCC lacked statutory authority to do what they're doing now, so
they had to keep enough spectrum in the broadcast service in order for
transitional digital and legacy analog stations to operate up to the
switchover. There are new TV stations being built in fairly large
markets on VHF-low channels simply because that's the only place they
can be put any more.
>4. When stations "share time" on the same transmitter, do they give up
> the capacity for added virtual channels?
No. However, they do give up bandwidth, which they can make up for
either by dropping multicasts or by increasing the compression on
their existing services. There are some DTV stations in the Los
Angeles market with 10 (very poor quality) subchannels.
-GAWollman
Garrett A. Wollman
wollman@bimajority.org
Opinions not shared by
my employers.
|
What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
repeated, than the story of a large research program
that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
|
|
| Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:19:18 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Incentive Auctions
Message-ID: <m0sn68$g3b$1@dont-email.me>
On 10/5/2014 4:24 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 05:14:30PM +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> In article <9dcd5b0e-8985-44b7-9aa7-e23119fe2b16@googlegroups.com>,
>> Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>>> [Q4] Will "repacking" cause stations to have to buy new transmitters?
>>>
>>> [A3] Maybe, maybe not. If two stations share the same data stream from the
>>> same transmitter, then an existing digital TV transmitter might be sufficient.
>>
>> To answer this question with greater specificity: most of the time
>> they will not need to buy a new transmitter, however many stations
>> will need to buy new antennas, and most stations (unless they choose
>> to "share time" with another station) will need to retune their
>> transmitters (a fairly complicated procedure possibly requiring
>> components to be replaced, as most TV transmitters are not
>> frequency-agile). The only stations that should need to buy entirely
>> new transmitters would be those moving from upper UHF spectrum to VHF
>> -- and they will need to buy new antennas as well, unless it happens
>> that they are moving back to their old analog channel AND the old
>> antenna is still good and the old pattern meets the DTV spacing
>> requirements.
>
> Some questions:
>
> 1. I very surprised to see that channel 7 is still in use: I thought all
> the stations had gone to "UHF" channels. Channel 7 is around 175 MHz,
> and ISTM that those frequencies would be the ones most desired for
> "5G" data offerings.
>
VHF channels are still around. But no major station in an urban market
wants them. WHDH-TV "7" tried to stay on 7 at the DTV transition but a
day or so later gave up the idea and moved back to its "transitional"
42. Turns out that a) not many people have VHF antennas any more, and
probably more importantly, b) the FCC's new DTV power limits were far
lower than analog, and turned out to be inadequate. UHF power limits
were higher and worked better in practice, since a majority of OTA
viewers were using indoor antennas. The FCC's rules were predicated on
the same 30-foot-up outdoor antenna that the 1950s rules used, and since
TVs are more sensitive nowadays, lower power would be okay with the same
antennas... but instead, everyone had already moved to crappier
antennas. Must Carry, however, is predicated on the FCC's curves, so
preachervsion (like WWDP) doesn't care. And in rural areas that never
had cable, high-up outdoor antennas still exist, so stations like WMUR
and WENH (both in NH) stay on high VHF. Low VHF (2=6) is even rarer.
Nobody wants VHF any more -- mobile is all UHF; "beachfront property" is
the UHF-TV spectrum. So-called "5G" is really undefined, but there's
talk about using millimeter wave frequencies that hardly penetrate
paper, let alone trees. I think that's silly for mobility... but do
watch for "WiGig" devices on 60 GHz to become more common soon.
> 2. Come to think of it, the Pentagon still uses most of the 200-400 MHz
> spectrum: will there be any movement there?
>
There's always pressure on them to give up some of their holdings, but
225-400 has a lot of aircraft use, and they're naturally reticent to
give much if any up. I forget if the NTIA report found anything there.
> 3. IIRC, The "Low" VHF band is now vacant, correct? That's 54 to 72
> and 76 to 88 MHz, and I'm wondering what plans the FCC has for
> it. Come to think of that, will Aircraft Marker Beacons stay at
> 75 MHz?
VHF-low is still available for broadcasting. I think one station in
Vermont uses it, for instance. But it's pretty sparse. However, the
audio channel of analog TV-6 is FM at 87.75, and low power TV stations
can stay analog, so there are some virtual-FM stations operating as
LPTVs with no video carrier. Of course there are also pirates on 87.7...
> 4. When stations "share time" on the same transmitter, do they give up
> the capacity for added virtual channels? For instance: in Boston,
> channel 5.1 is the regular "WCVB" ABC lineup, and 5.2 is a nostalgia
> channel that replays 50's sitcoms. Would WCVB have to give up 5.2 if
> it moved to another stations' transmitter?
>
> I guess what I'm really asking is "How many 'old' TV signals can fit
> in a 'new' signal?"
>
If there's no HD, six or more can share a carrier; "68" in Boston has
six streams at once, including both HSN and QVC. Two HDs can share a
carrier if they compress to mediocre sorta-HD. It has around 20 Mbps to
share, and good HD IIRC typically takes around 14-16 Mbps.
|
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 educational service offered to
the Internet 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 © 2014 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself. Thank you!
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.
