Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 
Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 138 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: Verizon selling off phone lines 
  Re: Verizon selling off phone lines 
  Re: NC votes to end telephone regulation 
  Re: NC votes to end telephone regulation 
  Re: Verizon selling off phone lines  
  Old Phone Books digitized, Marlene Dietrich old listing    
  Vonage and phone numbers 


====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the 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, and other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 May 2009 00:26:01 -0400 From: adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines Message-ID: <gv00op$ka7$1@panix5.panix.com> In article <MPG.247d1c8f6c3e9bc1989a20@reader.motzarella.org>, T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote: >In article <gusvjq$cta$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com says... >> >> In article <gusigv$mrh$1@reader1.panix.com>, >> David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote: >> >David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> writes: >> > >> >> Do US telcos get any "freebie" use of public space for their >> >> infrastructure, or do they have to pay market rates (like land for >> >> their COs)? >> > >> >Buildings they own; but in MD, they get a free ride on property taxes. >> > >> >The easements for outside plant are a different matter. AFAIK, they >> >get such free. Fred Goldstein would know the details. >> >> In NYC, rights to use under-street ducting is franchised to major >> electrical contractors in big chunks of area. If my private company >> wants to run fibre between two buildings under or via a city street, >> all it takes is money, but it has to be done by the franchise owner or >> his subcontractors. >> >> There are some under-used tunnels in Manhattan and nobody ever ran a >> unofficial wire through any of them. <ahem> > >The same is true here in Providence, RI. When I was with the AG's office >we had a run of fiber about 600 yards long running through a then >Narragansett Electric conduit on South Main St. It connected the >judiciary with the AG's office. > Did Narragansett know about it? -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 21:24:44 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines Message-ID: <MPG.247e77638035bb88989a25@reader.motzarella.org> In article <gv00op$ka7$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com says... > > In article <MPG.247d1c8f6c3e9bc1989a20@reader.motzarella.org>, > T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote: > >In article <gusvjq$cta$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com says... > >> > >> In article <gusigv$mrh$1@reader1.panix.com>, > >> David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote: > >> >David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> writes: > >> > > >> >> Do US telcos get any "freebie" use of public space for their > >> >> infrastructure, or do they have to pay market rates (like land for > >> >> their COs)? > >> > > >> >Buildings they own; but in MD, they get a free ride on property taxes. > >> > > >> >The easements for outside plant are a different matter. AFAIK, they > >> >get such free. Fred Goldstein would know the details. > >> > >> In NYC, rights to use under-street ducting is franchised to major > >> electrical contractors in big chunks of area. If my private company > >> wants to run fibre between two buildings under or via a city street, > >> all it takes is money, but it has to be done by the franchise owner or > >> his subcontractors. > >> > >> There are some under-used tunnels in Manhattan and nobody ever ran a > >> unofficial wire through any of them. <ahem> > > > >The same is true here in Providence, RI. When I was with the AG's office > >we had a run of fiber about 600 yards long running through a then > >Narragansett Electric conduit on South Main St. It connected the > >judiciary with the AG's office. > > > > Did Narragansett know about it? Yes, the Civil Division worked out the easement agreement with them. Loads of paperwork, took up half a file drawer. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 06:37:49 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: NC votes to end telephone regulation Message-ID: <NITQl.58095$9w4.34006@newsfe08.iad> John Meissen wrote: > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Actually, one could make a case for the removal of government > regulation by saying that it's obviously ineffective, and clearly > corrupt, and that it's best for consumers of telecommunications > services to know that they're on their own and can't expect any help > from Uncle Sam. > > Bill Horne > Temporary Moderator > Then let's do away with subscriber subsidies for "universal service" (isn't that a quaint term?), low-income service, 911 add-ons, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 10:27:16 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: NC votes to end telephone regulation Message-ID: <MPG.247ddd4b2d51e93c989a21@reader.motzarella.org> In article <20090519233514.363FB340D0@john>, john@meissen.org says... > > I don't recall seeing this here yet. > > http://www.cnbc.com/id/30745434 > > "The [North Carolina] House on Wednesday voted 102-11 to allow 16 providers > that cover the state to cut loose from state Utilities Commission conditions > setting the rates, terms, and quality of their landline services." > > The same old, tired arguments.. no longer monopolies, consumers benefit from > competition, etc. > > "It's not possible for consumers to get the full benefit of a > competitive marketplace when that marketplace is impacted by > rules that were in place to regulate a monopoly industry that no > longer exists," Clifton Metcalf, a spokesman for AT&T, said. > > Right. Anybody want to buy a bridge? > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Actually, one could make a case for the removal of government > regulation by saying that it's obviously ineffective, and clearly > corrupt, and that it's best for consumers of telecommunications > services to know that they're on their own and can't expect any help > from Uncle Sam. > > Bill Horne > Temporary Moderator The problem is that you end up at best with a duopoly and at worst and oligarchy with great collusion in price fixing. This won't bode well for North Carolina. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 06:41:58 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines Message-ID: <GMTQl.58096$9w4.36933@newsfe08.iad> Neal McLain wrote: > David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: > > > Do US telcos get any "freebie" use of public space for > > their infrastructure, or do they have to pay market rates > > (like land for their COs)? > > I can't speak for telcos, but I'll try to answer on behalf of the cable > TV industry, which now offers telephone service. When Cox first offered telephone service in my area, they were much more attractive than Pacific Bell (SBC, now AT&T). But, Cox has continued to raise its prices to the extent the advantage is gone. And, Cox doesn't offer network features such as Privacy Manager. So, if the price differential is minimal, why not go with the 900 pound gorilla that controls the network? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:28:32 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Old Phone Books digitized, Marlene Dietrich old listing Message-ID: <e7b25035-698f-43eb-a07d-6769389ced32@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> The NYT had an article about the German telephone directory listing of actress/singer Marlene Dietrich. The article included a scan and explanation of the directory page. Article: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/number-please-phoning-in-love-again/ Page Scan: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/2009/records/marlenedietrich.pdf While the article provides a general explantion of the listing, if anyone is familiar with the exchange layout perhaps they could add some additional comments. The article mentioned that some old phone books are being digitized for ancestral research. This seems very interesting. I knew someone with a 50 year old phone book of my city and going through the old listings was quite interesting. For families and people that I knew, most were living in the old neighborhood. Also of interest was a comparison between the old directory and the current one. We could see for some names a man in the old neighborhood vs. a woman's name in a senior apartment, presumably the widow of the man in the old listing. We saw a surprising number of listings that hadn't changed in 50 years, and many where the name/ address was the same though the number was different. In the new directory we saw new ethnicities that weren't in the city 50 years ago. In a very old phone book, I saw a church whose number was unchanged from 1923 to today. Back then it was merely '29', today it is nnx-0029. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 18:16:29 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Vonage and phone numbers Message-ID: <NX1Rl.66646$i24.59937@newsfe14.iad> I recall perhaps two year ago someone complaining about not being able to retrieve their directory number upon leaving that they had transfered to Vonage when they subscribed. It seemed the issue was that Vonage didn't "own" the number transfered in, rather it was "owned" by a third party. Anyone know the current status of getting a customer number back from Vonage? I suspect [Vonage] doesn't have a clue. ------------------------------ 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, 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. The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of The Telecom digest (7 messages) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues