For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:40:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 101
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Richard Clarke: Real ID's, Real Dangers (NY Times) (Marcus Didius Falco)
Voip in Northern KY (Kevin)
SPRING VON: Vonage CEO Slams VOIP Blocking (Jack Decker)
Ohio Law Require Auction License for eBay Sellers (Lisa Minter)
Qualcomm Picks New CEO (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
Hackers Wreck Christian Family Group Web Site (Lisa Minter)
Home PBX Info: Switching Between Landline and VOIP (Lee Sweet)
Re: Vonage's Citron Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship' (DevilsPGD)
Re: Vonage's Citron Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship' (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Vonage Outage Last Thursday, was: Vonage (Tim@Backhome.org)
Re: Vonage (Tony P.)
Re: New Monopoly in Dept Stores; Federated and May to Merge (Goudreau)
Re: New Monopoly in Dept Stores; Federated and May to Merge (wesrock)
Re: Last Laugh! was Re: Reporter's Name (wesrock)
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; other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:01:41 -0500
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Richard Clarke: Real ID's, Real Dangers (NY Times)
From the New York Times --
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/magazine/06ADVISER.html
THE SECURITY ADVISER
Real ID's, Real Dangers
By RICHARD A. CLARKE
Have you ever wondered what good it does when they look at your
driver's license at the airport? Let me assure you, as a former
bureaucrat partly responsible for the 1996 decision to create a
photo-ID requirement, it no longer does any good whatsoever. The ID
check is not done by federal officers but by the same kind of
minimum-wage rent-a-cops who were doing the inspection of carry-on
luggage before 9/11.
They do nothing to verify that your license is real. For $48 you can
buy a phony license on the Internet (ask any 18-year-old) and fool
most airport ID checkers. Airport personnel could be equipped with
scanners to look for the hidden security features incorporated into
most states' driver's licenses, but although some bars use this
technology to spot under-age drinkers, airports do not. The photo-ID
requirement provides only a false sense of security.
Congress is debating the Real ID bill in part because many states have
been issuing real driver's licenses, complete with the hidden security
features, to people who have established their identities using phony
birth certificates or fake Social Security cards. Indeed, some 9/11
hijackers obtained real driver's licenses using false documents. The
Real ID bill has, however, provoked negative reaction from those who
think it has little to do with terrorism and a lot to do with making
life difficult for illegal immigrants. While the bill has passed the
House, it faces difficulty in the Senate. If portions of it do pass,
it will mean that the next time you apply for a driver's license, you
may need substantial proof that you are who you claim to be.
The Real ID legislation has caused the right and the left of the
political spectrum to worry again that a national ID card is in the
offing. Since we use licenses as de facto national ID's now, we should
make them difficult to counterfeit and relatively easy to verify. With
existing technology, that can be done. The Homeland Security
Department is testing ''smart cards'' (credit-card-size devices with
computer chips and embedded biometric information, like fingerprints)
for all workers in the transportation industry and is also
experimenting with voluntary smart cards for expedited passage through
airport security. President Bush has directed that all federal
employees, starting later this year, carry smart cards for access to
federal buildings and computer networks. Industry analysts estimate
that tens of millions of Americans will be using government-issued
smart cards in a few years.
Should we feel safer or be concerned about Big Brother government and
the loss of privacy? Since we are already widely using government-
issued ID's for a variety of purposes, employing cards that are
difficult to counterfeit seems on its face like a good idea. Verifiable,
secure ID's will certainly reduce some crimes (nine
million Americans were victims of identity theft last year, according
to the Federal Trade Commission) and may create an impediment to
terrorism.
I would voluntarily give up credit and other information for a card to
avoid long airport lines, but I am not sure the Internal Revenue
Service should have access to that data. Moreover, the government's
performance to date with anti-terrorism laws does not inspire trust;
the new authorities in the Patriot Act, which we readily gave the
government to fight terrorists, are now being used for a variety of
other purposes. For example, reports suggest that federal agents have
been persuading courts to order that personal records be turned over
regardless of whether there is any suspicion about the person involved
and regardless of whether the crime being investigated is linked to
terrorism.
If Americans are going to have to carry smart cards, we will want
fellow citizens whom we trust ensuring the data collected are not used
by the wrong people or for the wrong purposes. Technology will not
help us there; we will need strict privacy rules, truly independent
oversight and tough punishment for government abuse. Only then will we
be comfortable using the new security technologies, which actually can
make us safer. The National Intelligence Reform Act of last year
provided for a new Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which
could do the necessary work to restrain the government's tendencies to
overreach. The quality of President Bush's nominees for that board
will show how serious he is about protecting freedoms in America while
he is promoting them abroad.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily
media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . Hundreds of new articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, New York Times Company
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
John F. McMullen
http://www.westnet.com/~observer
BLOG: http://johnmacrants.blogspot.com/
------------------------------
From: Kevin <kevin@xxvwkebxyz.com>
Subject: Voip in Northern KY
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:46:51 GMT
Hi,
Does anyone know if there's any VOIP service in Northern KY/Cincinnati
area? Per the vonage website, I can't get a number with any of the
local area codes. I don't know if that means that I can still sign up
and get a number with another area code ... which doesn't make any
sense but I guess it's possible.
Thanks,
Kevin
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@witheld on request>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:53:59 -0500
Subject: SPRING VON: Vonage CEO slams VOIP blocking
http://www.itworld.com/Net/3303/050308vonagevoip/
Stephen Lawson, IDG News Service, San Francisco Bureau
The top executive of VOIP (Voice over IP) provider Vonage Holdings
Corp. is satisfied with regulators' response to a carrier that blocked
Vonage's service but sees a broader danger ahead with technology for
detecting the data service that customers are using.
In an interview Monday at the Spring VON (Voice on the Net) trade show
in San Jose, California, Vonage Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Jeffrey
Citron also said traditional carriers can't afford to compete all-out
with Vonage and other VOIP upstarts despite having greater resources.
[.....]
"I think it's a technical issue that extrapolates itself into a First
Amendment issue," Citron said. Service providers that own
infrastructure and deliver content or services over it now have the
capability to look into the packets going to and from a customer's
connection and determine what kind of service they are using and even
the content of those packets, he said. It is technically possible for
network operators to read e-mail, block e-mail messages based on
content and limit access to Web sites, Citron said.
In addition to anti-competitive moves against VOIP companies and other
content and service providers, the problem raises censorship issues,
he said.
"What happens when the media property that owns distribution is owned
by a religious group?" Citron asked. Laws should be brought up to date
to prevent abuse, he said.
Full story at:
http://www.itworld.com/Net/3303/050308vonagevoip/
How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html
If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:52:34 PST
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Ohio Law Would Require Auction License for eBay Sellers
CNN, via Yahoo News on Tuesday reports that the State of Ohio has
become very unfriendly toward online sellers using E-Bay.
According to CNN-Money, State of Ohio now requires an auction license
of people who want to sell on E-Bay, as well as a one-year training
class required of sellers _and_ a fifty thousand dollar security
bond. The auction license costs two hundred dollars. If you fail to
do these things, they have some jail time waiting for you. Their
excuse is they want to 'cut back on internet fraud using E-Bay'.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/07/technology/ohio_ebay/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:26:36 EST
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Qualcomm Picks New CEO
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
March 8, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=19903&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Qualcomm picks new CEO
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Cox Communications may sell four cable systems
* Siemens decides to keep mobile business unit open
* McKinsey: Telecoms must automate customer service
* Analyst: Stand-alone VoIP providers may face hurdles
* Vonage's Citron sour on cable's triple play
* DirecTV president Stern resigns; CEO Carey to assume duties
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* Calling ALL Carriers Ready to Explore!
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Nokia tests mobile TV service
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Jurors review videos of Ebbers
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=19903&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Hackers Deface Christian Family Group Web Site
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:11:08 -0500
http://www.wlbz2.com/newscenter/article.asp?id=20748
------------------------------
From: Lee Sweet <lee@datatel.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:20:57 -0500
Subject: Home PBX Info: Switching Between Landlines and VoIP
I've got an application that may apply to many with VoIP. I've got
two home landlines (one for myself, and one for my wife). I also have
a Vonage line for LD and Fax. We are keeping the landlines for the
usual reasons, including inability to port, E-911, etc.
Now, what I want to do is have all outbound LD calls go out on the
Vonage line automatically. Right now, I have a separate cordless
phone for that line, but that's not the optimal answer! :-) \
I'd like to have the various corded and cordless phones and the three
lines hooked to some sort of home PBX where, either by dialing the
required '1' (best answer) or perhaps an '8', calls are connected to
the Vonage line. Else, they go out the (correct) landline. (I assume
each handset could know its 'proper' outbound landline for local
traffic if each input phone jack on the PBX can be programmed to use
the appropriate outbound line.)
Now, before PAT jumps in with his PBXtra recommendation :-) , I've
discussed this with Mike Sandman, and he really doesn't recommend it
for this application.
I'll bet a lot of people have Vonage as an extra LD/Fax line, still
have landlines, and would like to do this.
Any recommendations/pointers about home PBX info? Thanks!
Lee Sweet
Datatel, Inc.
Manager of Telephony Services
and Information Security
How higher education does business
Voice: 703.968.4661
Fax: 703.968.4625
Cell: 703.932.9425
lee@datatel.com
www.datatel.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I _know_ what Mike Sandman says about
PBXs in general as opposed to multi-button phones with all the
features such as holding, call transfer, flash, etc on individual
buttons. He has never yet met a PBX he liked, and Lee, he told me
that you called last week and he explained 'why PBXtra would not
be suitable.' I talk to Mike on the phone a couple times per week.
Mike's complaints can be summarized thusly: (1) People cannot be trained
to do a proper flashhook, therefore as often as not cutting off the
person. (2) People cannot be trained to correctly dial the number they
want to reach, and forget the 9 or 8 or whatever at the start of the
call. (3) People do not usually have their houses wired in a 'star'
configuration (needed for using PBX) although their office may be
thus wired. Mike seems to feel a phone with umpty-dozen buttons (for
line selection and feature use) is a better deal, even though to
install/move such a phone requires many pairs of wires and is quite
labor-intensive to install/move/replace. That's Mike's opinion, to
which he is certainly entitled. If I have overlooked other complaints
by Mike, perhaps you or he will permit me to stand corrected. Oh, and
we have talked off and on about 'custom calling features' such as
hookflash to three way call, hookflash to answer call waiting, and
hookflash to interject other features in the middle of a call, such
as forward to voicemail, etc but he does not think all that matters;
its just the dreaded hookflash used on PBX transfers, etc which he
dislikes so much.
PBXtra works perfectly well in small applications like mine: more than
one phone instrument in a large (geographic space) house; a person who
is a wee bit handicapped like myself getting to a phone in time to
anwer it before the caller disconnects; a situation where there are a
bunch of computers, each of them has their own 'extension' and modem,
in addition to a phone in my bedroom, my parlor/dining area, the
computer room, a phone where Lisa sits to work, etc. The traffic both
inbound and outbound is very slow here, so the PBXtra being 'virtually
non-blocking' is almost an overkill. The phone in my bedroom (ext. 104)
and the one in my parlor (ext. 105) are both wireless headset style
phones, with a range of about half a city block, which I guess is also
an overkill. I put all my long distance calls via Vonage (dial 8 +)
and all my local calls over Prairie Stream (dial 9+) and answer
incoming calls from either line by dialing *70 (forced pickup from the
'operator' line). The modem ability (between computers or in/out from
wherever to a computer is about 28.8). Not the best, but okay, since I
usually use the cable for the computers, not the modems.
Do as you wish, Lee, but Mike Sandman is just one voice in the
wilderness here, mine is another voice. PAT]
------------------------------
From: DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Vonage's Citron Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship'
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 22:40:00 -0700
Organization: Disorganized
In message <telecom24.97.14@telecom-digest.org> joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel
M. Hoffman) wrote:
>> Yes Pat, but it didn't do it on the basis of the 1st Amendment. As I
>> understand it, the fine was to preserve "Net Freedom" (Powell's term)
>> and although I like it, I still don't understand the legal basis for
>> this action. It seems to me the Telco's ought to be concerned about
>> this because if there is now a "must carry" rule for VoIP traffic, what
>> happens when they start to offer TV/video? Will they be forced to allow
> In the end, the only reason VoIP is so cheap is that it passes the
> costs off to other sectors.
Not exactly.
The difference isn't that VoIP is "passing the cost", but rather, that
with VoIP, the customer is providing the connection from their
premises to the telco.
Back in my ISP days, the ISP I worked for provided DSL over dry copper
pairs. We were selling 2.5Mb/1Mb and later 7Mb/1.5Mb before either
the telco or cableco were offering any soft of connectivity.
We gave customers a choice: Either provide your own copper pair from
your location to the nearest CO, or pay us more and we'll cover the loop
costs (As well as handle the installation and whatnot)
VoIP is similar. You can either pay a telco to bring the service to
your door, or you can pay a cheaper rate if you provide the last mile
yourself.
VoIP is virtually always more expensive then traditional telco
services if you include the cost of the internet connection. However,
since I already have an internet connection, I don't include the cost
of my internet connection in the cost of VoIP service.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is what I said yesterday. It is
unfair to amortize the entire cost of the connectivity off to VOIP
since you have the connection there already. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Vonage's Citron Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship'
Date: 8 Mar 2005 06:57:27 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Isaiah Beard wrote:
>> My local convenience store and drugstore carry certain newspapers, but
>> not all for my area. Does that mean they are _censoring_ the ones
>> they don't sell? According to Vonage they are.
> You comparison is overbroad and overreaching, and compares apples to
> oranges.
> I would think of it more this way: let's say that your phone company
> provider, be it Verizon or other LEC, decided that profanity should no
> longer be used on its phone lines, and installs special filters to
> capture and "bleep out" such speech. Would that be acceptable?
Actually, I think a more proper analogy would be them not letting
me call certain destinations, rather than the content of the call
itself.
I want to clarify some confusion I had -- I misunderstood that the
blockage was done by an ISP, not apparently a telephone company. ISPs
are totally free market and they can do what they choose, blocking or
not. Local telephone companies are regulated "critical service"
carriers and as such have more obligations.
Charles Cryderman wrote:
> I totally agree with this. But remember the courts do as they
> please. A case in point. A very religious married couple in Ann Arbor,
> Michigan owned a apartment building. Because of their religious
> beliefs, chose not to rent to un-married persons. Now this was private
> property and their religious beliefs told them not to, but the courts
> ruled that they were in violation of the law. So in essence the court
> said, your right to do as you wish with you private property and to
> follow your religious teaching do not exists. What takes precedent,
> the Constitution or laws made by Congress? I was taught that nothing
> supersedes the Constitution yet the courts do it all the time.
That's a good point.
Actually, in your specific example, court decisions have gone both
ways. In some cases a 'mom and pop' apt owner, say of a duplex, can
exercise their religion to deny to a unmarried or gay couple; but
that's a pretty isolated narrow situation.
> See this a misconception that the VoIP providers do not have to follow
> some regulations. What they want to insure is that they do not have to
> collect a bunch of crap taxes and fees per line. In my opinion none of
> the companies should be forced to do this. But these providers do pay
> into these. For the lines that they install to terminate to they are
> paying E911, sales tax and into the universal service fund. Just not
> for the customer access side. Why? because the law requires these fees
> based on a telephone line, not access to making telephone calls.
Not paying into those 'taxes' saves them a heck of a lot of money and
allows them to undercut their competition. Given that benefit, it's
wrong for them to turn around and demand that same competition help
them.
To me it's like I set up a hot dog cart in the parking lot of a
convenience store (that also sells hot dogs) and I get the govt to say
it's ok for me not to pay taxes for my spot that the host store has to
pay. Now I'm demanding the host store provide me with hot dogs as
well for me to sell.
Perhaps another analogy would be people who ride on the bumper of a
bus for free, and then complain if the bus is discontinued for lack of
ridership.
> Did you notice as well, Pat that all along we have been talking about a
> ISP doing this. It wasn't, it was a regulated telephone company that did
> it. So all the brew-ha-ha about ISPs wanting freedom from regulation had
> nothing to do with it after all.
I correct myself on this -- a regulated local telephone company has
different obligations than an ISP. But to me it's still cream
skimming.
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Vonage Outage Last Thursday, was: Vonage
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 06:46:26 -0800
Organization: Cox Communications
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> In article <telecom24.99.4@telecom-digest.org>, Danny Burstein
> Unfortunately, the actualy duration of the problem was several hours;
> Vonage is, quite simply, lying. And the problem recurred on two
> successive days.
No doubt about it. It caused major problems for me.
> If Vonage were a regulated entity -- which it's gone to great lengths
> to not be -- there would be significant penalties not just for this
> sort of service failure (note that Vonage hasn't exactly contacted its
> customers and offered to refund any of their money for the time that
> their phones were out of service) -- but also for lying about it.
What this proves is that Vonage is simply not a viable replacement for
wireline service. I've been a Vonage user from the beginning,
suffering through echos and quality issues for the first several
months.
I figured it was all worth it for the unlimited, inexpensive "out
WATS." But, now that SBC offers unlimited nation-wide toll for a
competitive price, it makes me think about using only my wireline
(which I never got rid of). The only advantage Vonage offers today
are virtual numbers.
------------------------------
From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Vonage
Organization: ATCC
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:09:28 -0500
In article <telecom24.98.3@telecom-digest.org>, johnl@iecc.com says...
>> They definitely have some problems in different parts of the country
>> but my service in the northeast has been rock solid. I wonder -- I
>> know I'm on a Paetec switch so is it a Focal issue?
> No, my service which became unsuably bad was switched by Paetec, too.
Must be some accident of living in RI then. All I can say is I've been
extremely fortunate that my only outages both involved snow/ice storms.
The same kind of storms that would probably have knocked my Verizon
service out of commission.
------------------------------
From: Bob Goudreau <BobGoudreau@withheld on request>
Subject: Re: New Monopoly in Dept Stores; Federated and May to Merge
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 22:59:42 -0500
[Please remove my email address.]
Lisa Hancock wrote:
>> More to the point, the Bell system monopoly was actually sanctioned by
>> the government. No analogous situation has ever existed in US
>> retail, thankfully.
> I don't know of anything major, but Pennsylvania's liquor stores (wine
> and hard stuff) were and remain the sole source of that for within
> Pennsylvania.
Yes, we have a similar setup here in NC: state Alcoholic Beverage
Commissions are the only sellers of hard liquor (though not beer and
wine). But as you mentioned in an earlier Digest, the repeal of
Prohibition gave states special and unique constitutional powers with
respect to alcohol.
> At the end of WW II the govt had a monopoly on reactor by-products
> used for medical and physics research.
I'm having a little trouble thinking of reactor by-products as retail
items that would be bought by consumers :-). I was thinking more
along the lines of the experience my wife's East German-born
sister-in-law (who unfortunately passed away two weeks ago) had when
she escaped the iron curtain in the early 1980s and first encountered
a West German retail store, with its exhilarating but confusing array
of choices, so very different from the limited selection of crappy
products available in the state-run retail outlets of East Germany.
> As I said, the railroads were FORBIDDEN by the govt to do what you
> suggest, and ORDERED to divest what things they had done.
I think you missed my point. They could have chosen to divest the
entire regulated railroad business instead (in the way that AT&T chose
to give up the local telco business in the early 1980s), leaving the
now-separate rump company to concentrate exclusively on rail while the
new successor company (which would have purchased the non-rail assets)
chased the newer markets. Instead, the execs chose to stay with the
rump themselves. They bet on the wrong pony. Of course, sometimes
the ho-hum legacy business turns out to be the winning horse after
all. It now looks like that's what happened with AT&T; the Baby Bells
seem to have been the winning choice there, while AT&T's grandiose
plans to make money in the computer business came to naught (twice!).
>> People just don't particularly need department stores any more in
>> order to purchase their clothes and furnishings. They can buy their
>> clothes and furnishings elsewhere, and they increasingly are doing so,
>> which is why the department store chains are having so much trouble in
>> the first place.
> I would be curious: take men's dress suits. What is the breakdown for
> men buying suits? I doubt Walmart/Kmart are that big. One
> discounter, Today's Man, went out of business.
I think the main issue here is that demand for men's suits has been
gradually declining for a few decades. Not quite buggy-whip status
(yet), but casual clothing is far more prevalent in the workplace than
it was in the 1950s or 1960s. I've never heard of Today's Man, but
perhaps the competition from the likes of Men's Wearhouse was too much
for them in the overall slow-growing (or even shrinking) market for
men's suits.
TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Henry:
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have seen mentions of Sears, Roebuck
>> occasionally in this thread. Back in the 1920's, Sears Roebuck was a
>> very large chain of stores. The radio station they started
>> acknowledged this fact by its call sign:
>> 'W'(orlds)'L'(argest)'S'(tore),
>> based in Chicago. WLS is on AM radio 890 kc...
> Interesting. I knew a different version of the 'World's Largest Store'
> story. The way I heard it, the radio station was owned by the same
> outfit that owned the Merchandise Mart (also in Chicago).
Our esteemed Editor is correct, according to
http://www.wlshistory.com/WLS20/.
The Merchandise Mart was a spinoff of Marshall Field's. See
http://www.merchandisemart.com/marchitecture/history.html.
Bob Goudreau
Cary, NC
------------------------------
From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:50:47 EST
Subject: Re: New Monopoly in Dept Stores; Federated and May to Merge
In a message dated 7 Mar 2005 13:15:01 -0800, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
writes:
> As I said, the railroads were FORBIDDEN by the govt to do what you
> suggest, and ORDERED to divest what things they had done. For
> example, the railroads set up bus lines to more efficiently serve
> light-volume areas, but the govt ordered them out. Railroads were
> regulated, just like the phone company, and the phone company was
> tightly limited into what communication product markets it could
> enter. (Western Electric had sound systems they had to discontinue.)
It was the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 that prohibited railroads from
owning motor carriers. Such operations that were in existence before
the passage of that act were grandfathered.
The Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company was perhaps the dominant
freight and passenger motor carrier in many parts of the western
Midwest/Southwest region. The Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company's
bus operation, known as Santa Fe Trailways, was one of the core
companies that first former the National Trailways Bus System, and
then many of the largest, dominated by Santa Fe Trailways, merged to
form Transcontinental Bus Systerm, Inc., which continued to use the
name of its large Texas (non-railroad-owned) component, Continental
Trailways.
There were a number of such major motor carriers, both freight and
passenger, organized before 1935 by major railroads, which continued
in operation for many decades; their successors may continue to be in
operation.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:55:02 EST
Subject: Last Laugh! was Re: Reporter Name
Pat wrote:
> The newspapers make that mistake now and then when writing
> about former president 'Harry S Truman'. His middle name, in fact, was
> merely the initial /S/ and there shouldn't be a period after a complete
> name. There were many conjectures over the years about what the 'S' stood
> for in his name. His wife Bess and his daughter Margaruite both confirmed
> it meant nothing at all. Just 'S'. PAT]
Scholarly works have been written on this subject. Harry S (or S.)
Truman often signed documents without the period, also signed many with the
period.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums. It is also gatewayed 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.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 50
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 620-402-0134
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 530-309-7234
Fax 3: 208-692-5145
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org
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
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from *
* Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
* 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
* http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
* Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
* views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
*************************************************************************
ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 TELECOM Digest V24 #101
******************************
| |