TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Jun 2005 01:22:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 257

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Pay Phone Regulations (Robert Pierce)
    T-Mobile Tzones on Motorola A630 - Really 72 Hours to Setup? (Jason)
    MCI Now Charging Extra Payphones When Using Phone Card! (hizark21)
    Pre-Fabricated Cell Phone Retail Store? (officeforlease@gmail.com)
    Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy (Brad Houser)
    Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Valued Added Caller ID Spoofing (T. Sean Weintz)
    Re: Do Not do Business With Sprint PCS ! (SELLCOM Tech support)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Barry Margolin)
    Re: From our Archives: History of Standard Oil and Bell (Steve Sobol)

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.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Pay Phone Regulations
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:03:42 -0400
From: Robert Pierce <robert.a.pierce@withheld_on_request>


[Pat, please remove my e-mail address.  thx]

Good afternoon.

I have a client who would like to have a pay phone in their break area
for employee use.  The COCOT vendor they were using wasn't making
enough money, and so they pulled out.

They're not looking to turn a profit; they just want to give employees
without cell phones a chance to call home etc. without having to open
up an outside line to long distance charges, abuse, etc.

They would like to put a simple pay phone in place -- something like a
"Model 909."

o  What kind of federal or state (of Florida) regulations would apply
here?  A google didn't help, but perhaps I used the wrong search terms.

o  What kind of drawbacks/pitfalls would they be looking at by going
this route?

o  Does anyone have a better idea of how to set this up?

o  Does anyone have any experience with programming this type of
payphone?  I was hoping to find the documentation on line, but no luck.

Thanks,

Rob Pierce

------------------------------

From: jason@cyberpine.com
Subject: T-Mobile Tzones on Motorola A630 - Really 72 Hours to Setup?
Date: 8 Jun 2005 14:30:30 -0700


It's now been 48 hours since I subscribed to T-zones $4.99.

But still get "your plan does not support this feature" when
attempting to Go to URL for wap sites I know that work.

On the phone I'm able to go to T-zones Home page and I see the T-zone
animation. But, also, when I select Games & Applications I get the
same "your plan does not support this feature" message.

T-mobile saying wait the full 72 hours ... though I got a feeling, it
never really takes this long.

------------------------------

From: hizark21@yahoo.com
Subject: MCI Now Charging Extra on Payphones When Using Phone Card!
Date: 8 Jun 2005 17:52:19 -0700


MCI now charging extra payphones when using their phone
card!!!

MCI has started charging a 65 cent surcharge on calls using their phone
cards ...

I have a MCI phone card and it is a pretty good deal, because you can
make calls from a payphone for 3 or 5 cents a minute.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where they get you is that a person
near a landline phone or with a cell phone would not need to use a
payphone. I would think the main reason for using _any_ calling card
would be to avoid dropping coins in a payphone box. So although they
_claim_ a decent rate of 3-5 cents per minute, they know the actual
rate will be 65 plus 3-5 cents (or 68-70 cents) for one minute.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: officeforlease@gmail.com
Subject: Pre-fabricated cell phone retail store???
Date: 8 Jun 2005 13:59:17 -0700


Hi Guys,

I got a postcard in the mail that got accidentally misplaced.  This
company was advertising a cell phone store solution which was a
standard 317 square feet, with a standardized setup which can be
placed at pretty much any parking lot.  Basically, it was a
pre-fabricated store.

I forgot the name of the company or the website.  The website started
with http://www.cellular ...

Anyone out there know what I am referring to?

Thanks,

John

------------------------------

From: brad.houser@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy
Date: 8 Jun 2005 16:48:18 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


PAT Wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to ask you just one
> question: _Why_ can't a registrar be expected to screen potential or
> actual spammers?  If registrars started doing that, they'd be heros
> in the eyes of most netters.  PAT]

Asking a registrar to be responsible for what an internet site does is
not like asking a landlord to be responsible for what his tenants do
in his apartment. (If a landlord knows his tenant is breaking the law
by growing pot, the landlord can break a lease.)

The registrar provides a pointer, like a signpost to Michael Jackson's
house. No one forces you to go there. What goes on there is not the
fault of the sign.

> _Why_ can't a registrar be expected to screen potential or actual
>  spammers?

Because they have no control. I can register 100 domain names and have
them all point to the same server. The server is where the bad stuff
is done, just like the alleged Neverland. They have not control, it is
the _hosting_ site that _might_ have the hardware the spammers rely
on.

Note that anyone with an internet connection can be their own host. In
that case they need an ISP to connect through. Then you might ask how
can ISPs screen people. Well, they can't. How would they determine
what you plan on doing? They can enforce the service agreement and
terminate you, but only if you do something bad.

What needs to be fixed is the email systems need to be able to put a
wrapper around messages identifying the true source and make it
impossible to spoof return addresses. Then spammers can be located.

Brad Houser



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But landlords can (or not, as they
wish) choose to rent an apartment to someone. If they get bad vibes
about it, prior to rental, then they just don't rent. Landlords can
also consult credit bureaus to detirmine the wisdom of renting (or
not) to someone. As long as the landlord does not discriminate for
various illegal reasons (for example, the proposed tenant's race or
religion or sex or age) he is free to rent or not as he chooses.
Of course, greedy landlords, like greedy registrars rent as much and
as often as they can, saying we will let the future take care of
itself. I used to know a landlord of furnished apartments in Chicago.
Her philosophy was 'the best apartment in this complex is the one 
which is _vacant_, because I know what is going on there; nothing. 
PAT]

------------------------------

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy 
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 01:15:35 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.256.11@telecom-digest.org>,
TELECOM Digest noted in response to Joseph  <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>:

> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 03:27:55 GMT, [Telecom Digest Editor] writes:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to ask you just one
>> question: _Why_ can't a registrar be expected to screen potential or
>> actual spammers?  If registrars started doing that, they'd be heros
>> in the eyes of most netters.  PAT]

> If you're going to use that logic you might as well use it on the
> telephone company for selling service to fly-by-night boiler room
> scamsters in South Florida and Montreal as well.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One small problem with your logic. 
> Telco is a common carrier; they are required by law to supply service
> to _anyone_ asking for service on the condition the potential
> subscriber has demonstrated an ability and willingness to pay for
> the service. Registrars are not common carriers, they are free to 
> accept or reject customers at will; for most of them, all that seems
> to matter is getting the ten dollar fee every couple years or so. That
> should not be the case. Registrars could be our front line defense 
> against spammers/scammers/phishers if the netters and or ICANN
> demanded it. But of course, ICANN won't demand anything. They _like_
> things the way they are now. And of course there is always some
> idiot who will speak out and say "oh, but if we were to impose on
> Itzy-Pooh Corporation and refuse to carry their traffic because of
> the huge amount of spam they overlook, why then Itzy-Pooh may sue
> some registrar or something like that." All I can say to that is
> God Bless America and God Bless ICANN. Lets begin to turn the screws
> on the registrars and get them contractually committed to a few 
> simple facts: If Itzy Pooh gets bounced by some registrar for
> malfeasance, no other registar can touch him until whatever got him
> bounced in the first place gets cured.  PAT]n

Of course, spammers/scammers/phishers can, and *do* use raw IP addresses,
without having domain-names attached.  So can anybody else.  e.g.
http://208.31.42.81/index.html or mailto:esteemedmoderator@[208.31.42.98]

Thanks to the wonders of HTML, unsophisticated readers need never _see_
the above forms, you do something like
  a href=http://208.31.42.81/>Telecom Digest or
  a href=mailto:esteemedmoderator@[208.31.42.98] email Patrick Townson  </a>
or fatuously: 
 email a href=mailto:esteemedmoderator@[208.31.42.98]
 AlGore@whitehouse.gov/

Domain-names are not necessary.  They are simply a 'convenience'.

Is 'directory assistance' (a non-common-carrier, *non-regulated*
ancillary service for the PSTN) responsible when you get telemarketing
calls?  or harassment calls?

Is _directory assistance_ responsible for checking out the 'history'
of the person who buys into having their name 'indexed' in the
database?  ILEC telephone service usually includes getting entered
into the database.  CLEC telephone service often does *NOT*.
Frequently you have to order that separately, sometimes via the CLEC,
sometimes directly from the ILEC.  Just like the way you can get your
non-ILEC, or even VOIP number listed in the ILEC 'white pages' phone
book.

Registrars serve an essentially identical function to 'directory
assistance'.

[TELECOM Digest Editors' Note: No, directory services are not
responsible for that type of phone call. But we can and do prevent
that type of phone call by having our numbers unlisted/non-pub. And
I do not agree that the registrar serves an 'essentially identical'
function. One difference might be that telco makes the number assign-
ment and _forwards_ that information to the various directory services
where no single entity tells the registrar what numerics will be
applied; the registrar simply assigns the requested name and tells
the root servers to deal with the names. If no registrar ever listened
to you and assigned the name you wanted, thus no root servers would
ever know of that name, then how would anyone be able to reach you
_by number only_ if the root servers did not know what to do with
the number?  

So I, John Q. Spammer go to an ISP and ask for a connection. I tell
ISP I want to be known as 'spam.com'. I do not tell the ISP I want
to be known as '208.31.42.98'  ... ISP says I will take care of all
that once you get installed by a registrar. Quite a difference, the
registrar _is_ like directory assistance, but different in the sense
that directory assistance does not _assign_ anything, but simply
reports on what has been assigned. So if the registrar was not a 
greedy son-of-a-bitch and started saying NO! that would help a lot.
Oh yes, I know that John Q. Spammer could try to cut a deal under the
table direct with the ISP, or whomever it is that physically makes
his connections in and out, but ISPs working in concert with
registrars could do a lot to clean up the mess. And like the old
system which was used with FIDO, when a site becomes a nuisance, he
gets delisted, and if others up the line do not cooperate then _they_
get delisted also.  The rule ISP's and registrars would use is that
if John Q. Spammer was expelled by whoever, then no one touches
him or works with him. PAT]

------------------------------

From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Subject: Re: Valued Added Caller ID Spoofing
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:03:34 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Pat wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And did you notice the Tricktel people
> do not work for free either; I think I saw on their web site where the
> rate for their 'services' ranges from 25 cents up to one dollar per
> incident, depending on what they think about you as a customer. Let's
> assume you pay one dollar per call made. Can you afford that? I sure
> cannot. I think Tricktel also said that depending on how tough things
> get on them (in the event of a complaint) they may or may not protect
> your 'privacy'. I just don't know you can trust them.  PAT]

Not only that, but clearly the service is aimed at making harrassing 
calls. Making such calls is illegal, is it not? So here we have a 
business who's only line of service is set up to make illegal harrassing 
phone calls.

I'd think they would be pretty easy to shut down under the RICO
statutes. Could make a pretty good "criminal enterprise" argument. I
doubt they'd be able to do much to protect anyone if their ISP access
logs are all subpoenaed by some DA.

If ya DO use it, use an anonymous prepaid debit card, and only go to
their server via an anonymous proxy!

------------------------------

From: SELLCOM Tech support <support@sellcom.com>
Subject: Re: Do Not do Business With Sprint PCS !
Organization: www.sellcom.com
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:45:57 GMT


pierreberto@yahoo.fr posted on that vast internet thingie:

> I've been a customer of them
> for four years, but it took four years for me to suddenly figure out
> what an unethical company Sprint is.  They're awful.  Avoid them at
> all costs!

Well, around here for the Internet and handheld computer / phone they
are about half the price of a similar plan with Verizon, yes about
HALF.  In a recent matter they refused to honor a rebate promise made
by their sales person.  I simply documented everything and made a
complaint with the state Atty General consumer protection.  Suddenly
they have decided to honor their word!  Check your state website.

File a complaint, protect the next guy.

Steve at SELLCOM (Opinions expressed are not necessarily the official
opinions of any company though they should be)

http://www.sellcom.com
Discount multihandset cordless phones by Panasonic 
5.8Ghz 2line; TMC ET4300 4line Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, Brickmail voicemail
Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Firewood splitters www.splitlogs.com
If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz.  New www.electrictrains.biz

------------------------------

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:24:02 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.256.7@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Robert Bonomi wrote:

>> In private industry, and employer can allow use of company property
>> for non-work activities by employees -- e.g. using the copy machine to
>> run off flyeres for a local club activity.
>> In a federal government agency, if an employee does that it they are
>> comitting a *crime* -- one with _prison time_ attached to it.

> There are state government agencies where that is NOT that case.

Nearly every State in the Union, has a statute that reads almost
identically to 18 USC 641.  In governmental employ (at whatever level)
one would be a fool to assume that such a prohibition did not exist --
absent exhaustive research into the statutes and/or ordinances
covering that particular jurisdiction.

I, admittedly, have not done an exhaustive search, but in every
jurisdiction where I have had occasion to check, such a prohibition
_was_ enshrined in law.

> There are private sector units that mirror the Fed policy you state
> above.

So?  The fact that they choose to do so, does not mean that they are
_required_ do do so.

For Feds, it is -not- "policy", it is the _law_.  And *that* law (18
USC 641) does _not_ apply to any private employment
situation. Regardless of what the employer's policies might be.

A private employer _cannot_ avail themselves of that law, in the event
of employee misfeasance.  They may be able to avail themselves of
municipal or state law, regarding 'petty theft', In general, however,
the penalties for that are generally an order of magnitude less than
that for 18 USC 641.

> I would be extremely surprised if people were sent to prison solely
> for personal use of a federal copier machine. 

I've sat in a federal courtroom, and witnessed sentencing for an 18
USC 641 violation.  It wasn't a single egregious act, but an ongoing
series of really 'little' things. After having been reminded by
management "not to".  The idjit had a side-line personal business, and
was doing stuff for it at the office, after hours -- writing
correspondence, and printing it out, doing estimates in a
spread-sheet, a little bit of photo-copying, etc.

> However, some private firms are very fussy about employee theft and
> have criminally charged their employees.

Again, you miss the fundamental point.  A private employer _can_ allow
such private use.  A Federal (nor in many states) agency employer
*cannot*.

The fact that _some_ private employers do not do so does not invalidate
the difference.

"Are not forbidden to" is an *entirely* different thing from "are not
allowed to".  Even if specific implementations under the two different
sets of 'rules' happen to be similar.

>> I can cite a Supreme Court ruling expressly invalidating a
>> governmental unit 'dress code' item that forbade the wearing of
>> certain items of apparel.

> Virtually every government organization I know has a dress code.  You
> may be referring to very narrow situations.  (There's a case in the
> NYC subway system over wearing a religious turban and hat badge.  It's
> ONE case out of 50,000 employees).

Cite: TINKER ET AL. v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
393 U.S. 503 (1969)

>> An organization in 'private industry' would have had *NO* problem
>> enforcing that particular dress-code item..

> Actually, in some cases private employers have gotten into trouble on
> some dress code requirements.

In the above-mentioned situation, I can state as fact that private
employers banning exactly the same apparel did *NOT* have any
problems. One of the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned case actually
got _fired_ from a private-industry job at the same time that case
was proceeding.  For wearing the specific item of apparel -- after
having been instructed not to -- that was the subject of the lawsuit.


>> *HOW* you said those things is what gets the summons for "disorderly
>> CONDUCT".  It is the _conduect_ that is the problem, not the language.

>>> If I threaten to kill you,
>>> you can have me arrested and convicted for making threats.

>> You're obviously ignorant of the existing 'case law' on *that* point.
>> With the exception of a remark of that nature about the President of
>> the United States, one cannot be charged/convicted *just* for making
>> such a remark.

> If what you say is true, there's a lot of people wrongly in trouble
> and fined or even jailed by local courts for making terroristic
> threats.  The "how" was irrelevent, it was the threat that counts.
> Whether it was shouted or whispered, or discretely written on a piece
> of paper didn't matter.  Indeed, some of the quietest threats are
> treated the most seriously.

What I said _is _true.  "Words alone" do *NOT* constitute a threat.
There are other elements that _must_ be present before a speaking or a
writing is a threat.

BTW, My claim was that "how" a thing is said is a primary element of a
"disorderly conduct" charge.

"How" you came to conclude that it is relevant to a charge of 'making
threats', I do not follow.

If it is not obvious to you, different laws (and different crimes)
have different 'required elements' as to what constitutes a violation.
Prosecution for "making threats" is an *entirely* different matter,
with entirely different component requirements than 'disorderly
conduct'.

> [rest snipped]

> I am not lawyer nor claim to be a legal expert.  However, I have quite
> a number of years out there and have seen quite a few things over and
> over again.

> Basically, I do not agree with your post.  My real issue on
> disagreement is not on case law but rather actual practice.

Any time you start asserting claims about how someone/something is
required or forbidden to act, that _is_ the realm of law.

Actual practice -- how people/organizations 'do' or 'do not' act, is a
significantly different set of boundaries.

What "is" allowed is considerably more restrictive than what 'can be'
allowed.  What "is not" allowed is much more restrictive than what
'cannot be' allowed.  That which 'is allowed' is often more
restrictive than 'that which is not forbidden'.  That which 'is not
allowed' is often *much* more restrictive than 'that which is not
forbidden.

*ALL* of our differences of opinion come from your co-mingling of
those distinct classifications.

> On some of your arguments, frankly, you seem to be splitting hairs.

That, kiddo, *IS* the way the law works.  Get used to it.

If you want to assert what is required/forbidden by law, you have to
get the details right.

> That does not resolve the question in terms of real life practice.

> The reality is that there are many laws that are not enforced and
> people get away with stuff.  Likewise, we have theorectically rights
> that we can't effectively exercise because it would be too expensive
> or time-consuming to fight for them.  One of the things a good lawyer
> does is advise on the reality of a particular situation.  "Yes, you're
> absolutely right but to fight them will cost $100,000 in legal fees."

> Stating what is on paper seriously misses the issue.  Actual practice
> is what counts.

> (If I may point out, in another discussion on Autovon phones, you said
> those phones were "standard".  There may be a piece of paper saying
> just that, but the vast majority of Touch Tone phones out there do not
> comply with that standard because they don't have the fourth column.
> Indeed, there are a lot of official technical standards out there that
> are basically ignored and unwritten practices that are essentially
> standard.)

Since you bring it up.  I will repeat that the *FULL* standard _does_ 
specifies a 4x4 matrix of frequency pairs.

The Autovon phones were 100% compliant with the specifications in the
standard.

The 'vast majority' of Touch-Tone phones in existence for the
'civilian' (shall we say) market do not implement the _full_ standard,
They are, none the less "standards-compliant", as a "subset
implementation", which is recognized and allowed for in the standard.

And, since you have chosen to bring it up, your prior assertation
about the Arsenal having "Autovon" phones that were pulse-dial, behind
a cord-board switchboard is utter cr*p.  The actual Autovon system was
'4-wire' -- with outgoing audio on a _separate_ wire-pair from
incoming audio.  This 4-wire architecture was carried all the way
through to the telephone sets.  For sets that were used both for PSTN
and Autovon, there _was_ a hybrid in the phone, for PSTN call use --
disconnected and bypassed, when an Autovon call was made.

> FWIW, in a previous discussion it was insisted certain estate legal
> certifications were required.

You wouldn't want to try to _prove_ that statement, would you?

I said that certain certifications were the only thing that parties
were *required* _to_accept_.

If you offer 'something else', they _may_ accept it, or they MAY NOT.

And, if they do not accept it, "tough cookies" applies.  You cannot
force them to accept that 'inadequate documentation'.  You have to go
get 'the real thing'.

The full-blown works are not always 'necessary', they are, however
_guaranteed_ to be 'sufficient'.

> I was just working with some one on
> that and the cited certifications were not required to deal with an
> external agency to obtain a refund.  Again, what is said on paper is
> not always reality.

"Reality' is in the details.  What 'may' work in some situations is
unrelated to what is guaranteed to work in *all* situations.  If, as
in the case of the ISP and the deceased soldier, the party refuses to
accept any 'lesser standerd', there is nothing that one can do, but
provide the court order.  As that soldiers kin did, and which was then
accepted.

Now, go back and review what I _actually_ said on that subject.

Which was that *IF* the external agency demands 'proof', of the right
to access the property of another, that the only document that they
are *required* to accept is the order from the probate court.  They
may _choose_ to accept some 'lesser standard', but they are *not*
_required_ to accept anything short of the court order of
executorship.

As with *any* legal mater, the precise details of the specific
situation make _all_the_difference_in_the_world_.  Accessing a bank
account established 'with right of survivorship' is fairly trivial.
Accessing a safety-deposit box, where no such provision had been made,
and no alternate signatory was on record, can be a much different
story. Especially if you don't have the key in hand.

_In_the_event_ that an external agency 'refuses to accept' whatever
'lesser standard' documentation you provide, you are simply SOL until
you get the 'real thing'.  There is no way, practically, *or* legally,
to force them to accept the 'inadequate' documentation offered.

Note that just because the 'external agency' is required to accept a
thing as proof, does not mean that _you_ are required to present that
thing. If they will accept a 'lesser standard', well and good.  IF
they refuse to do so, you have no alternative, but to present the
'real thing'.

> Anyone with a legal question should consult a competent reputable
> attorney.  (How to find one that is competent?  Tough to say.)

Referrals from those you know who have been in 'like' situations is a
good start.

A referral from a competent (in other areas) attorney is also a good
beginning.

If you don't know any competent attorneys yourself, and if you don't
know people who have been in 'like situations', then you start looking
for people you know, who know a competent attorney.  And ask them for
a referral in the area you have need.

------------------------------

From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Organization: Symantec
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:26:51 -0400


In article <telecom24.255.12@telecom-digest.org>, tls@panix.com (Thor
 Lancelot Simon) wrote:

> In article <telecom24.254.9@telecom-digest.org>,
> Gary Novosielski  <gpn@suespammers.org> wrote:

>> Fred Atkinson wrote:

>>> Sorry to come down on you this hard, but limiting student access to
>>> information simply because we think they don't 'need' access to it is
>>> a pretty short sighted opinion for an educator to take.

>> You're presuming that it's educators who are in favor of blocking
>> technology, but I think that's jumping to an unsupported conclusion.

> As both an educator and a student, I am, in fact, in favor of
> "blocking technology".  The last thing I need is students distracted
> by more crap on their laptops while I'm lecturing -- and the last
> thing I need, as a student, is more distraction.

What does this have to do with technology being used in the
appropriate place, like a library?

You don't want students doing other things when they're supposed to be
listening to you.  That's not particular to technology -- before IM,
you'd have had to deal with kids passing paper notes between each
other.


Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

------------------------------

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: From our Archives: History of Standard Oil and Bell System
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:35:31 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


Wesrock@aol.com wrote:

> You have it backwards about the relationship of Valero and Diamond
> Shamrock.  Valero is the parent company; Diamond Shamrock is one of
> several brands they market under.

Thank you for the correction. To make it more confusing, the Valero
and Beacon stations here all used to be Ultramar stations, and I know
Ultramar at one point *was* an independent Canadian refiner and
marketer, but I have no idea of their status *now.* :)

I'm pretty sure the Beacon stations are owned by ... well, I guess it's 
Valero ... :)

JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table"   --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

------------------------------


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)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedroll.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecom

*************************************************************************
*   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 #257
******************************