[telecom] Re: To Thwart TiVo, a Nod to Television's Golden Age

[telecom] Re: To Thwart TiVo, a Nod to Television's Golden Age

NewsGroups | Search | Tools
 comp.dcom.telecom  Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
[telecom] Re: To Thwart TiVo, a Nod to Television's Golden Age Joseph Singer 06-02-2008
Posted by Joseph Singer on June 2, 2008, 6:37 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
NYTimes article:

<<TELEVISION may be the ultimate "green" medium, recycling ideas that
go in one era and out the other. NBC, for instance, plans to bring
back "Knight Rider" in the fall, and CW is scheduling a new version
of "Beverly Hills 90210.">>

Unfortunately TV has learned some new "tricks" that totally turn me
off. It wasn't bad enough that all the networks and local TV decided
to put a logo (at first just a watermark and now something that
actually blocks the screen) they decided that those watching TV were
stupid so they needed to put a popup to tell them what they are
watching and then more popups to show what's going to be up next, next
week or next month. They even go further to put ads in their network
logos annoying even more. If that's not enough they think that adding
wooshing noises and sound effects makes their programming more
valuable. It's getting to the point now where spending $50 or more
per month is like flushing money down the commode and you're better
off renting DVDs from Netflix and forgetting about live TV entirely.
I think someone in network programming stays awake nights thinking up
things to make watching TV more annoying than it is already.



***** Moderator's Note *****

So long as Ma Bell doesn't put ads on their ring tones and busy
signal, I'll be content to see television fulfill Newton Minnow's
predictions.

Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator

(Please put [Telecom] at the end of the subject line of your post, or
I may never see it. Thanks!)


NMFall 20%
Posted by DTC on June 2, 2008, 11:23 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Bill Horne wrote:
> So long as Ma Bell doesn't put ads on their ring tones and busy
> signal.

Do you not think the telcos have already thought of this profit
model? Thats a scary thought.

OTHH, it will force telemarketers and bill collectors that use
some form of voice pattern detection to start playing their
prompts to rethink a few things.


Posted by B. Wright on June 5, 2008, 10:18 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Bill Horne wrote:
> > So long as Ma Bell doesn't put ads on their ring tones and busy
> > signal.

> Do you not think the telcos have already thought of this profit
> model? Thats a scary thought.

        On a similar note, now, more annoying than paying a 1 minute
charge to hear the beginning of a voice mail announcement when you
don't want to: The "Please enjoy the music while we contact the
person you called". Complete crap, it immediately connects the call
and starts to charge you whether or not you will actually speak to the
person. This is nothing more than a sham in many ways, they probably
charge the subscriber for this "custom music" feature, they collect
revenue for terminating the call if it's intralata (?), also the
originating telco receives money for the call. Really, when I call
someone I want to speak to them. Very rarely leave a voicemail and if
I know they're not available and it's a mobile phone # then a text
message is much better than a voice message in most cases.

        The US needs to get with the program and stop using 1 minute
billing increments. Most Euro based pre-paid etc.. phone service I
have used bills in per second increments or [increments] much smaller
[than a minute, such as] 5 or 10 second blocks of time so you don't
get ripped off for that 2 second call to someone's voicemail. In
fact, in Brazil the first 3-4 seconds of the call is non-chargeable if
you hang right up.


Posted by T on June 6, 2008, 5:00 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
says...
> > Bill Horne wrote:
> > > So long as Ma Bell doesn't put ads on their ring tones and busy
> > > signal.
>
> > Do you not think the telcos have already thought of this profit
> > model? Thats a scary thought.
>
>         On a similar note, now, more annoying than paying a 1 minute
> charge to hear the beginning of a voice mail announcement when you
> don't want to: The "Please enjoy the music while we contact the
> person you called". Complete crap, it immediately connects the call
> and starts to charge you whether or not you will actually speak to the
> person. This is nothing more than a sham in many ways, they probably
> charge the subscriber for this "custom music" feature, they collect
> revenue for terminating the call if it's intralata (?), also the
> originating telco receives money for the call. Really, when I call
> someone I want to speak to them. Very rarely leave a voicemail and if
> I know they're not available and it's a mobile phone # then a text
> message is much better than a voice message in most cases.
>
>         The US needs to get with the program and stop using 1 minute
> billing increments. Most Euro based pre-paid etc.. phone service I
> have used bills in per second increments or [increments] much smaller
> [than a minute, such as] 5 or 10 second blocks of time so you don't
> get ripped off for that 2 second call to someone's voicemail. In
> fact, in Brazil the first 3-4 seconds of the call is non-chargeable if
> you hang right up.
>
>

The issue of time increments for billing isn't a technical issue but a
policy issue instead.

It comes down to regulation. The wireless carriers operate under very
little regulation. They only report to the FCC and that entity is more
concerned with selling bandwidth than actually regulating anything.

It might be time to stop the political games at the FCC and empanel a
committee that won't be answerable to any hack poitician or lobbyist.
Then pass acts to give the FCC serious regulatory enforcement powers.

That would put every carrier on the same page, fix the time increments
hopefully in the seconds vs. minutes direction, and quite possibly give
us open standard for cellular communications.


Similar ThreadsPosted
To Thwart TiVo, a Nod to Television's Golden Age June 1, 2008, 12:19 am
TiVo Dual Tuner TiVo Series2 DT DVR April 25, 2006, 10:18 pm
For Stolen Saltcellar, a Cellphone Is Golden January 29, 2006, 1:08 am
Where is "Golden Boy" Sprit of Communications Statue? May 11, 2007, 10:31 am
Re: Where is "Golden Boy" Sprit of Communications Statue? May 18, 2007, 12:10 am
Congress Aims to Thwart Identity Theft April 14, 2005, 6:23 pm
Re: Congress Aims to Thwart Identity Theft April 16, 2005, 11:02 pm
Defcon Tries to Thwart Counterfeit Admission Badges August 6, 2006, 12:30 am
No Pictures Please: Researchers Develop System to Thwart Unwanted June 20, 2006, 9:01 am
Re: No Pictures Please: Researchers Develop System to Thwart Unwanted June 22, 2006, 1:56 pm

other useful resources:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Telecommunications Industry Association
Electronic and Software Security Products and Services
International Telecommunication Union

Custom CGI Perl and PHP programming by 1-Script.com

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
The site map in XML format XML site map