TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Jun 2005 17:05:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 250

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Tests Show Voter Fraud Possible(Lisa Minter)
    Kids Going Online at Very Early Age (Lisa Minter)
    Wireless Carriers' Veto Over How Phones Work Hampers Innovation (Monty)
    New Anonymous Surfing Site (Free): anonycat.com (Tom Cervenka)
    Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy (Chris Farrar)
    Another Norvergence Debacle on the Way, Possibly (Ken Lyle)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Porting an 800 Number (DevilsPGD)
    Re: Can You Disable Text Messaging? (Joseph)
    Re: Nokia 3310 (GSM) and Prepaid in the US? (Joseph)
    Re: Prepaid SIM Cards - Are They Any Good? (Joseph)
    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.  

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

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Tests Show Voter Fraud Possible
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 19:37:30 -0500


In view of the election results in 2000 and 2004, and various comments
attributed to officials from Diebold which appeared on the net, this
report from the Tallahassee, Florida Democrat Newspaper seems
important reading. Lisa.  

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

Machines are vulnerable to manipulation
By Tony Bridges
DEMOCRAT (Newspaper) STAFF WRITER

All it takes is the right access.

Get that, and an election worker could manipulate voting results
in the computers that read paper ballots -- without leaving any digital
fingerprints.

That was the verdict after Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho
invited a team of researchers to look for holes in election software.

The group wasn't able to crack the Diebold system from outside the
office. But, at the computer itself, they changed vote tallies,
completely unrecorded.

Sancho said it illustrates the need for tight physical security, as
well as a paper trail that can verify results, which the Legislature
has rejected.

Black Box Voting, the non-profit that ran the test and published a
report on the Internet, pointed to the findings as proof of an
elections system clearly vulnerable to corruption.

But state officials in charge of overseeing elections pooh-poohed the
test process and dismissed the group's report.

"Information on a web site is not viable or credible," said Jenny
Nash, a spokeswoman for the Department of State. "Who are you going to
believe, trusted government officials or a bunch of liars on various
computer web sites? These so-called test results were just rigged up
to make trouble for the government and the Diebold Company."

It went like this:

Sancho figured Leon County's security could withstand just about any
sort of probing and wanted to prove it.

He went to one of the most skeptical -- and vocal -- watchdogs of
election procedures. Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting, had
experience with voting machines across the country.

She recruited two computer-security experts and made the trip to
Tallahassee from her home in Washington state three times between
February and late May.

Leon County is one of 30 counties in Florida that use Diebold optical
scanners. Voters darken bubbles on a sheet of paper, sort of like
filling in the answers on the SAT, and the scanners read them and add
up the numbers.

So the task was simple. Get in, tamper with vote numbers, and come out
clean.

They made their first attempts from outside the building. No success.

Then, they sat down at the vote-counting computers, the sort of access
to the machines an employee might have. For the crackers, security
protocols were no problem, passwords unnecessary.

They simply went around themm as a computer 'hacker' might do.

After that, the security experts accomplished two things that should
not have been possible.

They made 65,000 votes disappear simply by changing the real memory
card -- which stores the numbers -- for one that had been altered.

And, while the software is supposed to create a record whenever
someone makes changes to data stored in the system, it showed no
evidence they'd managed to access and change information.

When they were done, they printed the poll tapes. Those are paper
records, like cash register tape, that show the official numbers on
the memory cards.

Two tapes, with different results. And the only way to tell the fake
one?

At the bottom, it read, "Is this real? Or is it Memorex?"

"That was troubling," Sancho said.

Leon County more secure?

A disaster?

Not exactly.

In Leon County, access to the machines is strictly controlled, limited
to a single employee. The memory cards are kept locked away, and
they're tracked by serial number.

Those precautions help prevent any tampering.

"You've got to have security over the individual who's accessing the
system," Sancho said. In fact, "you've got to have good security and
control over every step of this process."

The trouble is, not every county is as closely run.

In Volusia County, her group has found what they think was memory-card
tampering during the 2000 election. More than 16,000 votes for Al Gore
vanished.

Harris said her research turned up memos -- obtained from the
elections supervisor's office -- that blamed the failure on an extra
memory card that showed up, and disappeared, without explanation.

She believes that was an attempt to change the outcome of the
election, but one carried out clumsily. The test in Leon County proved
it was possible, if done by more experienced computer programmers, she
said.

So what does the Department of State say?

Nash, the spokeswoman, said that the Diebold systems were designed to
be used in secure settings, and that, by giving the testers direct
access to the computers, Sancho had basically allowed them to bypass
security.

In other words, not much of a test.

Except that the security experts were given only as much opportunity
as any other election worker would have. Less so, considering that
Sancho did not provide them with passwords or any other way to
actually get into the programming.

As for the exact vulnerabilities that Harris reported -- and Sancho
confirmed -- Nash said no one from the state could comment, since they
hadn't been present at the test. 

She added later that Sancho could request help from state certifiers
if he had concerns, but had not asked yet. Nash repeated her
allegations of 'people from web sites making trouble for the
government, and not to believe their lies' but had nothing else to say.

To read the entire report, visit http://www.BlackBoxVoting.org .

Ion Sancho, supervisor of elections, will post a summary of the test
results this weekend at www.leonfl.org/elect/

Copyright 2005 Tallahassee Democrat and other wire service sources.
http://www.tallahassee.com

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/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

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

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: More Nursery School Children Going Online
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 19:40:34 -0500


By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer

Before they can even read, almost one in four children in nursery
school is learning a skill that even some adults have yet to master:
using the Internet.

Some 23 percent of children in nursery school -- kids age 3, 4 or 5 --
have gone online, according to the Education Department. By
kindergarten, 32 percent have used the Internet, typically under adult
supervision.

The numbers underscore a trend in which the largest group of new users
of the Internet are kids 2 to 5. At school and home, children are
viewing Web sites with interactive stories and animated lessons that
teach letters, numbers and rhymes.

"Young students don't differentiate between the face-to-face world and
the Internet world," said Susan Patrick, who oversees technology for
the department. "They were born into the age of the Internet. They see
it as part of the continuum of the way life is today."

At a preschool age, children need some grown-up help to get online,
said Francie Alexander, chief academic officer for children's book
publisher Scholastic Inc.

One of their favorite computer activities is writing an e-mail to a
grandparent, said Alexander, author of a children's guide to the
Internet.

"It's great for letter recognition," she said. "Everybody likes to get
mail and little kids don't have great tolerance for waiting. So the
whole idea that they can write grandma and get an e-mail back a
half-hour later saying, 'I got your note' -- they love that, and are
thrilled that 'grandma' saw what they had done.

Scholastic has a section of its Web site that is intended just for
children, who go online to read, write and play with "Clifford the Big
Red Dog." PBS Kids Online has more than a dozen educational Web sites
for preschool children, including "Sesame Street" and "Barney and
Friends."

Overall computer use, too, is becoming more common among the youngest
learners. Department figures show that two-thirds of nursery school
children and 80 percent of kindergartners have used computers.

At the Arnold & Porter Children's Center in Washington, 4- and
5-year-olds have the option to spend time on a computer, working in
small teams. They learn basic problem-solving and hand-eye coordin-
ation, but the social component of working with classmates on computer
exercises is just as important, said Sally D'Italia, director of the
center, which a law firm offers for its employees.

"It helps them become more relaxed, more adventurous, and more willing
to take risks as they learn," she said. "With adults, we're still
afraid that we're going to blow up the computer. You never know if
you're going to push the wrong button and lose all your data."

Virtually all U.S. schools are connected to the Internet, with about
one computer for every five students, the government reports. Many
older students are often far ahead of their teachers in computer
literacy and they know their younger siblings are gaining on them.

As one high school student told Patrick recently: "You grew up with
music in your blood. Well, we have technology in our blood."

Educators say such access needs scrutiny.

Beyond blocking inappropriate content, schools must be certain the
lessons they choose are based on research and geared to the
developmental stage of the children, experts say.

"Kids have a tremendous ability to expand their learning, and a
computer is just one tool," said Mark Ginsberg, executive director of
the National Association for the Education of Young Children. The
potential danger, he said, is putting 3- and 4-year-olds in front of a
computer lesson that demands graphic skills or word-recognition
knowledge for which they are not ready.

Still, Ginsberg said, more educators are using technology creatively --
and appropriately.

On the Net:

Education Department report:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid2005111

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.


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/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:57:50 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Wireless Carriers' Veto Over How Phones Work Hampers Innovation


By WALTER S. MOSSBERG

One reason the American high-tech industry has been able to create so
many innovative products is that it was able to maintain a close,
direct relationship with the individuals and companies that used its
products. High-tech companies could quickly determine whether their
software, hardware and online services were meeting user needs, and
they could revise and improve these products rapidly and continuously.

This direct feedback loop between the high-tech industry and its user
base became even better and faster in the past decade because of the
Internet. The Net created both an electronic-commerce system where
products could be directly purchased, and electronic forums where user
comments and complaints could be better heard.

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has called this Internet-aided feedback
loop "frictionless" because it minimizes the distorting and masking
effects of the middleman. It is one of the purest examples in history
of the benefits of free-market capitalism.

But in recent years, as the high-tech industry has begun to offer
wireless-phone products, this connection between technology producers
and users has been blocked by huge, powerful middlemen. In the U.S.,
the wireless phone carriers have used their ownership of networks to
sharply restrict what technologies can actually reach users.

I call these cellphone companies the new Soviet ministries, because
they are reminiscent of the Communist bureaucracies in Russia that
stood athwart the free market for decades. Like the real Soviet
ministries, these technology middlemen too often believe they can
decide better than the market what goods consumers need.

http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20050602.html

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

From: tom.cervenka@gmail.com
Subject: New Anonymous Surfing Site (Free):  anonycat.com
Date: 4 Jun 2005 22:05:20 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


There is a new (free) web-based proxy for anonymous surfing at
http://anonycat.com

It's much better than the other web proxies, like
anonymizer.com, and it doesn't require registration.

-Tom

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

Date: Sat,  4 Jun 2005 20:22:59 -0400
From: Chris Farrar <cfarrar@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy 


> Godaddy is a reputable registrar.  I have three domains registered
> with them.  The don't sell spam address lists or function as a
> spamhaus.

> What led you to jump to this particular conclusion?

Over the last several days Spamcop has blocked a considerable number
of emails to me, which all generated reports to Godaddy as the site
orginating them.

Other major spammers to my inbox seem to be kornet.com, hanaro.com,
comcast.net

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 11:14:30 PDT
From: Ken Lyle <klyleiii@yahoo.com>
Subject: Another Norvergence Debacle on the Way, Possibly


Hello,

I worked with Dan (Smith?) last year, and became a member of your
organization's email publication. I was one of the first companies to
start posting on your site about the Norvergence debacle. I've
referred over 50 companies, to different legal resources after they
contacted me from my postings on your site. To date, I believe we are
the only company that was able to successfully cancel the signed lease
agreement with them, and paid nothing out of pocket.

I wish all the 11,000 other companies the best of luck in the class
action suit.  Anyway, now I am looking at possibly doing business with
ACN, out of Michigan. I've looked through your threads and have not
been able to find many complaints about them. I'm trying to do as much
research as possible before I get myself into something I'd regret
again. I've already checked the BBB and they called the company
satisfactory. I also have not found many complaints on the web, or
anything negative about the company President/CEO. Is there any info
you may be able to point me to that may be useful?

Thank you very much,

Ken Lyle
Controller 
B.S. Cable, Co. Inc.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know about any Dan Smith(?)
but you worked with me; my name is Patrick Townson, and I do remember
you. You were not the only one to get out of the Norvergence scam
totally unscathed financially, but there were several who had made at
least two or three payments, which is not as good as 'nothing' but is
still better than Norvergence planned it originally. Various of the
state attorney generals have turned the screws on the banks and other
lenders involved. As a result, many of the fast talking salesmen who
brought Norvergence accounts into the house thinking they were going
to get a raise and a good filet mignon dinner from their bosses for
the 'good business they brought the (bank or financial company)' wound
up getting fired when the Attorney General in that state forced the
house to write off all that paper. Some banks and lenders took _huge_
losses on it and are still trying to get the ear of the bankruptcy
judge. To my way of thinking, better that the greedy banks and other
financial operations were obliged to eat it all instead of the little
business people who had been tricked by Solzano. There were many
readers here who just 'knew for certain' all the debtors (the small
business people) were going to get sued -- severely -- if they
followed my advice and stalled on making any further payments. And
they all presented me with the 'holder in due course' argument, but
apparently many attornies general felt somehow the financial houses
may have been at least a bit complicit in the fraud, or at least 
they should have investigated before taking that worthless paper. 

One fat cow wrote to really bawl me out good, telling me she knew 'for
a fact' that 'your advice has caused many debtors to get sued' and
that most debtors were making payments as agreed, but I retorted by
asking her what collection agency _she_ worked for. 
		
Now regards your latest inquiry, I know nothing about 'ACN out of
Michigan'. Jack Decker is our reader/writer from Michigan, so maybe
he will know something. Jack, are you reading this?  Does any reader
know about 'ACN out of Michigan'? Regards BBB, I have been told any
company who is a member of BBB is therefore in 'good standing' with 
that bunch. If you are a member of BBB you are in good standing with
them, if not a member, then you are not in good standing. 

Good luck with your inquiry, Mr. Lyle.   PAT]
 
------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: 4 Jun 2005 19:37:43 -0700


Robert Bonomi wrote:

> Yuppers.  First Amendment means that, as a government agency, you
> cannot monitor/filter/block/etc what students _say_ in outgoing
> email. (It's even a seriously sticky situation in government agencies
> with their employees.)

Sorry, but I know too many government agencies that have strict rules
on what their employees may say using any government equipment, and
AFAIK these rules are perfectly legal and upheld.  Employees have been
terminated over violations and their unions were unable to do
anything.  Shop stewards have been fired and union activists convicted
of trespassing for exceeding the boundaries of these rules.  A
government agency may secretly monitor employees' phone calls and
computer use without any warning or notice.

I assure you the unions would've fought this stuff if they could've.

Further, agencies have rules regarding public statements, such as that
external questions have to be forwarded to the designated public
affairs officer.

Just because something is publicly funded does not change every rule
or policy.

I think what you folks are confusing is the right of students and
goverment employees to freely speak outside of school or work.  That
is protected speech.  But inside the building, especially on
government owned facilities -- computers, phones, bulletin boards*,
etc., you do not have that protection.

> On the other hand, you _can_ ban individuals from using the equipment
> _at_all_, if you have a rational reason for doing so.

Equipment may be assigned or not assigned to individuals as the
administration sees fit in school or in industry.

> Silly as it seems on the face of it, restricting them from 'saying
> anything' it not the First Amendment problem that restricting them
> from 'saying *specific* things' is.

Sorry, but rules do exist prohibiting "specific things" in government
and in schools.

My local library requires a signature observing their rules on using
their public computers.

Just because someone is publicly funded does not mean the individual
using it has unlimited rights over it.  When you drive a car on a
public road or visit a public park you must obey the law on usage.

There is no such thing as unlimited free speech.  Try screaming a
tirade at your neighbor and you'll get a summons for disorderly
conduct.  There are many examples.

Indeed, lately many people have objected toward the expression of
religion in public schools and some courts have upheld restrictions on
that. For example, a school choir was forbidden by the courts to sing
black spirtual gospel songs even as an all-volunteer after school
activity.

As Pat said, administrative convenience is important or schools and
government would grind to a halt mired in bureaucracy.  Yes, different
states and municipalities do vary, but this is the way it is.



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is also important to remember the
difference between someone who is _governed by the government_ versus
someone who is _employed by the government_ (except as the government
employee happens to coincidentally also be a citizen). Things like
the First Amendment theoretically serve as protection for those who
are being governed. While it is grossly inconvenient for most of us
to choose some other governor, on the other hand we have no automatic
right to _employment_ by the government. Because of the inconvenience
or impossibility for us to change governors, we therefore get the
protection of things like the Bill of Right, which do not have to be
given to a 'mere' employee, of the government or otherwise. And
administrative convenience is given much weight in the courts. The
goverment says 'it is more convenient for us to have person X do our
speaking for us, and for persons Y and Z to keep quiet.' And the
courts have occassionally ruled that this is _not_ a violation of 
persons Y and Z 'free speech rights'. Certainly any person being
governed can speak _about_ the government, but they cannot speak _for_
the government nor mislead any reasonable person to think that is 
what they are doing. PAT] 

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

From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Porting an 800 Number
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 21:12:15 -0600
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.248.9@telecom-digest.org> Fred Atkinson
<fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Fred, I may be missing something here,
>> but regards the redirection of your personal 800 number, why wouldn't
>> you just do that yourself (to wherever you like) rather than pointing
>> it at still another 800 number from Vonage, so you will now get twice
>> the fees for your inbound calls? PAT]

> You did miss something, PAT.

> A personal (or business) 800 number can be pointed at whatever carrier
> that will take it and route your call.  My first personal 800 was
> gotten for me by the folks at Sprint.  When I moved on to another
> carrier, the new carrier arranged to repoint the number from Sprint to
> their service.  And I moved a couple of more times.  Each time, the
> new carrier repointed the number to go to them when I moved my
> service.  I never had to do it myself.

> This carrier says I have to arrange for it to be pointed at them.  But
> once it is pointed at them, they will arrange for it to be sent to my
> local phone number that they provide me.

> Vonage offers toll-free numbers (I say 800 because both of my
> toll-free numbers happen to be 800 numbers).  But, they won't accept a
> toll-free number that you already have.  They will get you a new one,
> but they won't transfer an existing toll-free number.  I spoke to
> several people at Vonage (including those who do the number
> portability stuff) and they all said the same thing.  They did say
> that if you wanted to use another carrier and point it at your Vonage
> number that you were free to do so.  So, when you dial my personal 800
> number, it currently gets routed to Power Net Global who routes it to
> my Vonage number.  Double whammy.

Unless I'm missing something obvious, there is only one whammy -- On
Vonage, inbound calls to a non-tollfree number are free calls.  The
only thing you're paying for is to have your 800 number routed to
Vonage.

I'm among those with a personal tollfree number (It happens to match
my cellphone, but 888 instead of 403) -- I just pay my 5.9c/minute to
my tollfree provider to terminate the calls, no other fees involved.

Even if Vonage would let you transfer tollfree numbers, I wouldn't do
it, Vonage's monthly fee for the included minutes is more then I'm
spending now.

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Can You Disable Text Messaging?
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:39:26 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:52:01 -0500, John Mayson <jmayson@nyx.net>
wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience with T-Mobile?  Can they disable text
> messaging?  I don't want to have to pay $20 to $30 per month for
> incoming spam.

T-Mobile can remove "email" text messaging where someone would send a
message to 3115552368@tmomail.net (where your phone is (310) 555-2368
 ..)  They cannot however cancel text messaging phone to phone e.g.
someone sends a text message (SMS) to +13115552368.  Text messaging is
also used to deliver an alert to your phone if someone has left a
message in your voicemail box.  So, yes they can remove email text
messaging to your phone.  They cannot and will not remove phone to
phone text messaging from your account.

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Nokia 3310 (GSM) and Prepaid in the US?
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:41:46 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On 2 Jun 2005 19:52:08 -0700, gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi, I got a Nokia 3310 (GSM) while i was in Italy but will be in the
> US for a few months and don't want to bother getting a new phone or
> locked in monthly phone service.  Can the 3310 be used in the US and
> if so what prepaid options are there?  Any help would be *greatly*
> appreciated!

A Nokia 3310 absolutely will not work at all in North America.  It is
a phone meant to work on 900 or 1800 Mhz.  To work in North America it
has to at least have 1900 Mhz reception capability.  The equivalent
phone for use in North America would be the Nokia 3390.

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Prepaid SIM Cards - Are They Any Good?
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:43:05 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On 2 Jun 2005 21:21:19 -0700, gavin@interprom.com wrote:

> I travel to the US a lot and refuse to pay the inflated roaming
> charges that Rogers Wireless, and I'm sure ALL cariers charge.  I was
> wondering if services such as www.interlinkwireless.ca who provide
> prepaid SIM cards that you can refill are on the up and up?

You can purchase prepaid SIM packs from both T-Mobile and cingular.
It's cheaper to get them through eBay auctions than at dealers
however.

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

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: From our Archives: History of Standard Oil and Bell System
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 21:18:58 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


Mark Cuccia wrote:

> Standard Oil of Ohio

Owned the Sohio and Boron brands in Ohio, Pennsylvania and
elsewhere. BP eventually rebranded the Sohio stations as BP stations,
in April 1991, at the culmination of a process that apparently started
in the late 1960s. Mark doesn't say much about it, but apparently
there was some special arrangement between Standard and BP at that
time that led to BP buying Sohio.

I worked at a BP station in Cleveland for a couple years starting in
December 1991. Boy, were people *fuming* about the purchase of Sohio,
a local refiner, by a British company. It was a fun time to be a BP
employee.  OK, perhaps not fun, but definitely interesting.

Sohio, incidentally, was the only company allowed to use the Standard
Oil name after the breakup, and right up until BP started rebranding
Sohio stations, there were a ton of gas stations that said "Standard
Oil" on one side and "Sohio" on the other...

> Standard Oil of Indiana was organized in 1889 by Standard Oil of New
> Jersey. Indiana Standard became separated from Jersey Standard in the
> "trust bust" of 1911. They marketed their products using the Standard
> name in a fifteen state territory in the midwest. Through mergers with
> other companies, they were able to market under the names Pan-Am,
> American and Amoco by the early 1920's. In 1956, Indiana Standard
> bought Utah Oil and began marketing out west under the name Utoco,
> using the same red-white-blue shield with torch and flame. By 1960 or
> so, they changed all Pan-Am and Utoco stations to either American or
> Amoco. By the early 1970's, all American stations were changed to
> Amoco. They didn't drop the use of Standard as a name at that time. I
> don't know if the red-white-blue oval shield with torch and flame logo
> still carries the name "Standard" in the mid-west. (Pat?)

I was in various places in the Midwest throughout the 90s, and lived
in Northeast Ohio, where Amoco had a large presence -- and I don't
think I recall seeing any stations with the Standard logo.

> The Ohio Oil Company was founded in 1887 and was taken over by the
> Standard Trust in 1889. It was separated from the Trust in 1911. In
> 1962, Ohio Oil acquired Plymouth Oil and changed its name to Marathon,
> which it had been using for marketing purposes since the late 1930's.

> Trust. Conoco's logo was a minuteman soldier. In 1929, Continental
> merged with Marland Oil, which had the red triangle logo, and the new
> merged company used the Conoco name and the Marland triangle logo.

Wow. I never realized Marathon and Conoco were originally Standard
spinoffs.

Marathon is now Marathon-Ashland Petroleum, and owns the Marathon,
Ashland and Speedway brands. ConocoPhillips owns Conoco, Phillips 66,
76 (the old Unocal brand), and the Circle K convenience store chain.

> name. I'm not sure if US West or Ameritech has the Bell logo with
> their corporate name, as a local service provider. 

Ameritech used to put the Bell logo on their phonebooks. SBC doesn't.


JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
     --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In much of the midwest area now, Amoco 
does business as 'The Standard Oil Division of Amoco Oil Company'.  PAT]

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


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 #250
******************************