TELECOM Digest     Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:57:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 589

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Justice Probe Over Domestic Spy Leak (Toni Locy)
    Re: What Carriers Does Vonage Use to Terminate Calls? (gabriel)
    Re: Cell Phone Extenders? (niallgal@yahoo.com)
    Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones) (Seth Breidbart)
    Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones) (John Levine)
    Re: Payphone Surcharges to call Toll-Free Numbers (Anthony Bellanga)
    Re: Secret Court Modified Bush Wiretap Requests (Tony P.)
    Re: Amtrak Passengers Stranded in Woods in Georgia (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com)
    Re: Amtrack Passengers Stranded in Woods in Georgia (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Amtrack Passengers Stranded in Woods in Georgia (Wesrock@aol.com)

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: Toni Locy <ap@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Justice Probe Over Domestic Spy Leak
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:55:37 -0600


Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak
By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer

The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of
classified information about President Bush's secret domestic spying
program.

The inquiry focuses on disclosures to The New York Times about
warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency
since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, officials said.

The Times revealed the existence of the program two weeks ago in a
front-page story that acknowledged the news had been withheld from
publication for a year, partly at the request of the administration
and partly because the newspaper wanted more time to confirm various
aspects of the program.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Justice undertook the action on
its own, and the president was informed of it on Friday.

"The leaking of classified information is a serious issue. The fact is
that al-Qaida's playbook is not printed on Page One and when America's
is, it has serious ramifications," Duffy told reporters in Crawford,
Texas, where Bush was spending the holidays.

Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The Times, said the paper will not
comment on the investigation.

Revelation of the secret spying program unleashed a firestorm of
criticism of the administration. Some critics accused the president of
breaking the law by authorizing intercepts of conversations - without
prior court approval or oversight - of people inside the United States
and abroad who had suspected ties to al-Qaida or its affiliates.

The surveillance program, which Bush acknowledged authorizing,
bypassed a nearly 30-year-old secret court established to oversee
highly sensitive investigations involving espionage and terrorism.

Administration officials insisted that Bush has the power to conduct
the warrantless surveillance under the Constitution's war powers
provision. They also argued that Congress gave Bush the power to
conduct such a secret program when it authorized the use of military
force against terrorism in a resolution adopted within days of the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Justice Department's investigation was being initiated after the
agency received a request for the probe from the NSA.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been conducting a separate
leak investigation to determine who in the administration leaked CIA
operative Valerie Plame's name to the media in 2003.

Several reporters have been called to testify before a grand jury or
to give depositions. New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85
days in jail, refusing to reveal her source, before testifying in the
probe.

The administration's legal interpretation of the president's powers
allowed the government to avoid requirements under the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act in conducting the warrantless
surveillance.

The act established procedures that an 11-member court used in 2004 to
oversee nearly 1,800 government applications for secret surveillance
or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or
espionage.

Congressional leaders have said they were not briefed four years ago,
when the secret program began, as thoroughly as the administration has
since contended.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said in an article printed
last week on the op-ed page of The Washington Post that Congress
explicitly denied a White House request for war-making authority in
the United States.

"This last-minute change would have given the president broad
authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas ... but right
here in the United States, potentially against American citizens,"
Daschle wrote.

Daschle was Senate Democratic leader at the time of the 2001 terrorist
attacks on New York City and Washington. He is now a fellow at the
Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank.

The administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a
letter to Congress last week, saying the nation's security outweighs
privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.

In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence
committees, the Justice Department said Bush authorized conducting
electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort
to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.

Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella acknowledged
"legitimate" privacy interests. But he said those interests "must be
balanced" against national security.

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. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more headlines from Associated Press, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/AP.html  (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/newstoday.html


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As some of you may know, I have a blog
http://ptownson.blogspot.com, where, as a crazy old man with a
diseased brain who wears a tin-foil hat as I set about bringing shame
and mortification on the internet each day. Earlier today, I posted on
this very topic there: how typical it is of our government to (instead
of) dealing with the president who broke the law by doing domestic
spying on U.S. citizens; they instead twist it around and say they
will find out who snitched on the president for doing it and punish
_that person_ instead. Dubya has to be the worst president we have
ever had since Richard Milhouse Nixon, or maybe even earlier than
him. It was the same kind of thing in Nixon's instance; he and his
cheering squad complained about someone tattling on Nixon, and the
government tried to turn the screws on all involved. But finally the
Congress of the U.S. prevailed, and Nixon received the essence of an
impeachment. I do not know what will happen to Bush as a result of
him being so naughty, but I would sure hate to see the whistleblower
get punished instead. But that's your government for you these days.
PAT]

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

From: Gabe <gabriel@gafana.com>
Subject: Re: What Carriers Does Vonage Use to Terminate Calls?
Date: 30 Dec 2005 17:36:15 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


John Levine wrote:

>> I'm just currious what companies Vonage users to terminate calls
>> across the country since they do not have their own true
>> infrastructure.  Any ideas?

> Lots of different ones.  Here in upstate NY it's Paetec but they have
> lots of different deals with different CLECs.  If you're wondering and
> have a lot of spare time, visit their voicemail help page at
> http://www.vonage.com/features.php?feature=voicemail which has a list
> of their voicemail access numbers which are in the same number blocks
> as their phone numbers.  Look up the NPA-NXX of the voicemail number
> to see what CLEC they use in that area.

> Regards,

> John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711
> johnl@iecc.com, Mayor, http://johnlevine.com,
> Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail


Awesome!  You guys are great!

Gabe

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

From: niallgal@yahoo.com <niallgal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Extenders?
Date: 30 Dec 2005 14:41:13 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


AES wrote:

> In article <telecom24.585.17@telecom-digest.org>, niallgal@yahoo.com
> <niallgal@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> A quick web search comes up with
>> http://www.digitalantenna.com/cellamprep_DA4000SBR.html which makes
>> the following claims:

> Thanks for info, but the packaged retail version of this seems to be:

>    DA4KSBR-50U -  For Large Yachts and RVs, Home, Office
>    MSRP $699.95
 ...
> At that price I'm afraid I'll have to wait until my financial status
> gets closer to the "large yacht" stage before going after one of these
> for my (comparatively modest) home.

The best online price I found is from
http://www.boatersland.com/da4000sbr.html, about $398.  As far as
legality goes, caveat emptor!

I have no connection with the manufacturer or the reseller and found
this device while researching ways to get better cellular coverage in
a rural part of Quebec! It's a project for next summer.

Good luck.

NIall

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

From: sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones)
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:50:41 UTC
Organization: Society for the Promulgation of Cruelty to the Clueless


In article <telecom24.588.12@telecom-digest.org>, John Levine
<johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Wait a minute ... either an 800 call is 
> a 'free call' to the caller or it is a chargeable call to the
> caller. One or the other.

It's free to the caller (that being the person at the physical phone).

> If it costs me 35 cents, then it should be
> referred to as a 'premium charge' call rather than a 'toll free' call
> shouldn't it?

The recipient pays, as always.  The phone owner gets 30 cents.

> How does the recipient of the call know that the call
> is originating from a COCOT style phone instead of a 'regular' line?

All payphone owners, not just COCOT phones, get the 30 cents.  The
recipient gets some information when the call is set up.  It's
possible to disallow receipt of those calls, too.

> How does that fact (COCOT instead of regular) make any difference
> where what the carriage costs telco?  Or is that 35 cents only to
> appease the COCOT owner?  PAT]

The 30 cents goes to the phone owner.

Seth

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

Date: 31 Dec 2005 02:16:01 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones)
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Wait a minute ... either an 800 call is 
> a 'free call' to the caller or it is a chargeable call to the
> caller. One or the other.

The telco doesn't charge the caller anything.  The phone bill charges
I was describing are on the 800 number bill sent to the owner of the
800 number, i.e., if you were to call my 800 number from a payphone, I
would see the extra 54 cents on my phone bill.

On the other hand, if you use the 800 number to access a calling card,
the calling card company invariably passes along the payphone
surcharge and marks it up somewhat.

>  How does the recipient of the call know that the call is
> originating from a COCOT style phone instead of a 'regular' line?

There's a pair of line type digits sent along with the ANI.  That
topic has been discussed in the digest at some length.

> How does that fact (COCOT instead of regular) make any difference
> where what the carriage costs telco?  Or is that 35 cents only to
> appease the COCOT owner?  PAT]

The latter, it's to compensate the payphone owner (either COCOT or LEC
payphones) who otherwise gets no revenue for the call since
separations have gone away and the caller didn't put in any coins.

R's,

John

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

Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:41:26 -0700
From: Anthony Bellanga <anthonybellanga@spam-poison.com
Reply-To: no-spam@no-spam.no-spam
Subject: Re: Payphone Surcharges to call Toll-Free Numbers


PAT: *PLEASE* suppress my email address in the "from" line.

In reply to John Levine, TELECOM Digest Editor noted:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Wait a minute ... either an 800 call is 
> a 'free call' to the caller or it is a chargeable call to the
> caller. One or the other. If it costs me 35 cents, then it should be
> referred to as a 'premium charge' call rather than a 'toll free' call
> shouldn't it?  How does the recipient of the call know that the call
> is originating from a COCOT style phone instead of a 'regular' line?
> How does that fact (COCOT instead of regular) make any difference
> where what the carriage costs telco?  Or is that 35 cents only to
> appease the COCOT owner?  PAT]

If you read what John Levine posted, I think he was clear that the
"holder" of that 800 (or 888, 877, 866, etc) number is the one who
not only pays a fee for receiving calls (usually a small per-call
charge, but maybe per-minute or a maybe a "fixed" monthly fee for a
"bulk" of inbound calls), as well as that "toll-free-number 'holder'"
also must pay the additional per-call fee if the caller placed the call
from a pay phone. The calling party (usually) does NOT pay extra to
call an 800, 888, 877, 866, etc. number from a payphone, although SOME
private payhone owners have been known (at least in the past) to demand
an extra 25-c or whatever even though the owner of that private payphone
doesn't pay a penny for the call to that toll-free 800, 888, 877, 866
number to be placed from their payphone.

The toll-free number "holder", i.e., the recipient usually has no way of
knowing that the call came from a payphone and that they might have to
pay more to receive that call, paid to the owner of the private payphone
via the long distance carrier who handles the toll-free service. But if
the 800/888/877/866/etc. number "holder" is a big business with realtime
delivery of ANI information, they probably also have realtime deliver of
the FULL ANI which includes additional digits or parameters along with
the ten-digit billing number of the calling party. These additional
digits are referred to as the 'II' or Information Integers. They
represent the "class of service" of the calling line, i.e., single party
residential, business, ANI failure for the calling party, multi-party
calling line, hotel/motel line, hospital bed, prison phone, university
dorm extension, regular business PBX or Centrex, Operator Handled,
coinless "credit card" phone, telco owned payphone, and privately owned
(COCOT) payphone, as well as dozens of other sub-classes. Most small
businesses with 800/888/877/866/etc. numbers wouldn't have realtime
delivery of ANI and ANI-II data. Virtually all residential customers who
have a "personal" 800/888/877/866/etc. number wouldn't require such
detailed realtime information neither.

However, when you get your bill, depending on your carrier for your
inbound 800/888/etc. service, you should get some kind of ten-digit
number of each inbound call to your toll-free number. And, as John points
out, if the call originated from a payphone subject to compensation to
the owner of that payphone, there is usually some kind of footnote
flagging next to that number indicating such. And the cost of the call
would also reflect the increased price.

I don't know about all long distance carriers, but AT&T will allow a
holder of an 800/888/etc. number (whether big business, small
business, or a residential customer with a "personal"
800/888/etc. number), to be able to have AT&T *BLOCK* access to their
toll-free number if the caller is at a payphone. This would be based
on the ANI-II data that is sent from the calling payphone's telco over
to AT&T. If I try calling that (payphone restricted) toll-free number
from a payhone, I will get a intercepted by AT&T (or whoever) with an
announcement that the called 800/888/etc. toll-free party does not
accept calls from payphones, and to try to place the call from another
phone. And then I'm disconnected. I'm not even given the option to
"somehow pay" the extorted additional charge for calling that
number. Even if I am using my own AT&T or local telco calling card to
call a toll-free number (it sounds weird to try to call a toll-free
number with a card but read on)... where I would "agree" to pay the
extra surcharge on my calling card, AT&T won't allow that.

About the only thing is that if I use an 800/888/877/866/etc. number
to access a long distance carrier's card platform, or use 0+ or 0-, or
950-xxxx, to place an outgoing call to a POTS telephone number from a
payphone, where I would pay the toll charges on my card rather than
with coins (or collect), as the caller and user of the card (and
carrier's access numbers or codes), I will incurr the payphone
compensation extored surcharge via my long distance carrier / card
issuer's billing, in addition to the card charge for the call. Even if
I use the toll-free access number once and make several "sequence"
calls on a single "session" to different destination numbers, most
carriers will ding me the payphone compensation surcharge for each
(completed) call. However, my simply dialing 1-800-CALL-ATT, even if I
put in a card number, does not "in and of itself" ding me the extorted
surcharge if none of my attempts to reach specific destination numbers
don't return answer supervision -- i.e., are busy, don't answer, or
reach a non supervising vacant or intercept type recording. However, I
don't know if AT&T or whoever is liable for compensating the payphone
owner for such non-supervised incomplete call attempts. The owner of
the COCOT might keep their own "log" of all attempts to call
particular 800/888/etc.  toll-free numbers in the chip circuits inside
the phone.

Anyhow, regardless of what some might think, I would tend to think
that most people who have been hit with such charges in recent years,
whether they are toll-free number holders, or else calling parties
making card calls from payphones, would tend to refer to this practice
as extortion. I have had a very low opinion of the private (COCOT)
payphone industry for many years, and if I had my way, I'd put such
private payphone owners in Abu Ghraib prison for the rest of their
lives!

Finally, the other sleazeballs, those toll-free number "holders" who
provide sex or psycho "services" and charge back to the calling party
somehow ... these always seem to reject calls to their 800/888/etc.
numbers that are originated from payphones altogather. Many of them were
rejecting payphone originated calls long before the sleazy private
payphone industry convinved the government and telco industry that they
had the right to demand "tribute" money extorted from the telephone using
public.

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

From: Tony P. <nospam.kd1s@cox.nospam.net>
Subject: Re: Secret Court Modified Bush Wiretap Requests
Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:09:56 -0500


In article <telecom24.588.13@telecom-digest.org>, hornetd@mindspring.com 
says:

> Stewart M. Powell wrote:

>> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html

>> Secret court modified wiretap requests;
>> Intervention may have led Bush to bypass panel.

>> Saturday, December 24, 2005

>> By STEWART M. POWELL
>> SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU

>> WASHINGTON -- Government records show that the administration was
>> encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal
>> surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and
>> order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's
>> approval.

>> A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the
>> 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more
>> wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four
>> previous presidential administrations combined.

>> The court's repeated intervention in Bush administration wiretap
>> requests may explain why the president decided to bypass the court
>> nearly four years ago to launch secret National Security Agency spying
>> on hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans and foreigners inside
>> the United States, according to James Bamford, an acknowledged
>> authority on the supersecret NSA, which intercepts telephone calls,
>> e-mails, faxes and Internet communications.

>> "They wanted to expand the number of people they were eavesdropping
>> on, and they didn't think they could get the warrants they needed from
>> the court to monitor those people," said Bamford, author of "Body of
>> Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" and
>> "The Puzzle Palace: Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence
>> Organization." "The FISA court has shown its displeasure by tinkering
>> with these applications by the Bush administration."

>> Bamford offered his speculation in an interview last week.

>> The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adopted by Congress in
>> the wake of President Nixon's misuse of the NSA and the CIA before his
>> resignation over Watergate, sets a high standard for court-approved
>> wiretaps on Americans and resident aliens inside the United States.

>> To win a court-approved wiretap, the government must show "probable
>> cause" that the target of the surveillance is a member of a foreign
>> terrorist organization or foreign power and is engaged in activities
>> that "may" involve a violation of criminal law.

>> Faced with that standard, Bamford said, the Bush administration had
>> difficulty obtaining FISA court-approved wiretaps on dozens of people
>> within the United States who were communicating with targeted al-Qaida
>> suspects inside the United States.

>> The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps has approved at least
>> 18,740 applications for electronic surveillance or physical searches
>> from five presidential administrations since 1979.

>> The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102
>> applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's
>> operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court's
>> activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that "no
>> orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the
>> requested authority" submitted by the government.

>> But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for
>> court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173
>> of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003
>> and 2004 -- the most recent years for which public records are
>> available.

>> The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for
>> warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection in the
>> court's history.

>> Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said last week that Bush authorized
>> NSA surveillance of overseas communications by U.S.-based terror
>> suspects because the FISA court's approval process was too cumbersome.

>> The Bush administration, responding to concerns expressed by some
>> judges on the 11-member panel, agreed last week to give them a
>> classified briefing on the domestic spying program. U.S. District
>> Judge Malcolm Howard, a member of the panel, told CNN that the Bush
>> administration agreed to brief the judges after U.S. District Judge
>> James Robertson resigned from the FISA panel, apparently to protest
>> Bush's spying program.

>> Bamford, 59, a Vietnam-era Navy veteran, likens the Bush administra-
>> tion's domestic surveillance without court approval to Nixon-era
>> abuses of intelligence agencies.

>> NSA and previous eavesdropping agencies collected duplicates of all
>> international telegrams to and from the United States for decades
>> during the Cold War under a program code-named "Shamrock" before the
>> program ended in the 1970s. A program known as "Minaret" tracked
>> 75,000 Americans whose activities had drawn government interest
>> between 1952 and 1974, including participation in the anti-war
>> movement during the Vietnam War.

>> "NSA prides itself on learning the lessons of the 1970s and obeying
>> the legal restrictions imposed by FISA," Bamford said. "Now it looks
>> like we're going back to the bad old days again."

>> Copyright 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

> All we have of freedom, all we use or know
> This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.

> Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw
> Leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the Law.

> So they bought us freedom not at little cost
> Wherefore must we watch the King, lest our gain be lost,

> Over all things certain, this is sure indeed,
> Suffer not the old King: for we know the breed.

> Excerpted from The Old Issue by Rudyard Kipling

> If any substantial number of Americans begin using encryption for
> their ordinary emails even the NSA's Cray computers will bog down to a
> crawl.

> Since the NSA is no longer under the rule of law I have begun
> encrypting my ordinary emails so the NSA will not know how boring my
> life really is without investing computing time to find out.  Even the
> NSA's resources are not unlimited.  We can jam this genie back into
> it's bottle.  Encrypt your personal Email today and join a new main
> stream civil liberties movement to protect the US from
> totalitarianism.  

> Tom Horne

> "people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve=20
> neither and will lose both"  Benjamin Franklin

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would be interested in finding out if
> anyone could assist me in encrypting _this Digest_ each day. Could 
> anyone help with that?

> Also, I _do_ need to speak with the gentleman who has helped me get
> the Internet Historical Society back on line. Will you please call me
> today or tomorrow, or email me. Thanks.  PAT]

Oh it would drive them crazy of all of a sudden public key encryption 
were in use on NNTP groups. Not that pk can't be broken -- it can. It all 
depends on the number of bits in the key. 

If they want to read my email so be it. Same with my blog, my flickr
site, etc.

So far I've only advocated the overthrow of the Roman Catholic hierarchy,
not much else. 


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I want the strongest encryption I
can get for this Digest, if anyone will help me work on it. Maybe I
will do it for all my web pages, etc. PAT]

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Amtrak Passengers Stranded in Woods in Georgia
Date: 30 Dec 2005 15:02:18 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This must certainly be one of the
> grander moments in the glorious history of the Toonerville Trolley.
> If it has not occurred to Amtrack authorities by now to (a) either
> split the wrecked train in two parts and clear the way or (b)
> considering they were already delayed 12 hours in Jacksonville, simply
> evacuate the trains passengers, bus them to the nearest airport and
> have airplanes take everyone to their home town immediatly, then I do
> not suppose another eight or ten hours stranded there will change
> anything.

Note -- The proper spelling is "Amtrak".

I doubt very much splitting the train in two would work since a key
intersection is blocked.  A second locomotive would be needed to take
the second part of the train and with the blockade it couldn't reach
the spot.

I suspect passengers can't be evacuated to buses because the train is
in an inaccessible area where buses couldn't reach.  Normally that is
done.  Further, it seems to be taking CSX too long to clear the
intersection.

You seem to be blaming Amtrak for this incident when it is clearly the
host railroad's fault, and that is CSX.  In the last decade, after many
mega-mergers in the railroad industry, Amtrak has had a very tough time
because the host railroads refuse to properly transport Amtrak trains,
indeed, they can't even run their own trains.  When CSX and NS (Norfolk
Southern) carved up Conrail a few years ago it was supposed to improve
service but instead service is much worse.

Recently fired Amtrak president David Gunn had a win-win plan to
improve service.  He wanted to partner Federal and freight railroad
money to improve key bottleneck intersections per above so that there
is additional capacity to handle more trains and run them faster.  The
freight lines would do better and Amtrak trains would do better.  The
Bush Adm fired Mr. Gunn, claiming he had no future plans.  Gunn had
plans to significantly increase Amtrak train speeds and reliabiltiy at
modest cost by focusing on the best "bang for the buck" needs.  Firing
Mr. Gunn was a very stupid decision.  The Bush Adm plans for Amtrak
will only destroy it.  IMHO, Gunn was fired because he was doing too
good a job and had too many good ideas.

>I mean is anyone besides me old enough to remember when we
> had real, honest-to-God reliable rail service in America?  PAT]

The answer to that clear, but a bit complex.  We had good trains before
this country chose to invest many billions of our taxpayer dollars into
aviation and highways.  While most of their expenses are covered by
user fees, a considerable amount are not.  Our local property taxes,
for example, pay for police/fire/rescue of motorists.  Highways and
airplanes use land that is tax free, railroads (such as CSX) must pay
properly taxes on their tracks.  Indeed, in the 1950s many towns added
surcharge taxes to railroad properties to get money to build a
municipal airport.  Other towns had to make up for taxes lost when a
highway used once taxable land.  All this killed off psgr trains.
Amtrak's subsidy is a single number easy to see, but highways and
airways get their subsidies from multiple sources.

Today, Amtrak must pay the expensive pensions of retired railroaders
who never worked for Amtrak.  Amtrak must pay dearly to clean up PCBs
and asbestos in old facilities it never even used.  This is all part of
the terms of creating Amtrak--it inherited all the legacy debt.  In
contrast, today airlines have their debts removed by bankruptcy and
won't even pay pensions for their own employees.  The airlines have
dumped about $15 billion of their pension funds onto the pension
guaranty fund -- that's enough money to run Amtrak for ten years.

In 1970 some farsighted people realized that the passenger train still
had a role to play and Amtrak was created.  It is documented in a book
about the Nixon Adm, "The Palace Guard", that the highway interests
were furious at DOT Sec Volpe for creating Amtrak and pushed for his
firing.  Today Amtrak critics focus literally on how many napkins food
service uses, yet conveniently ignore far bigger waste in the highway
and airline world -- waste that we taxpayers have to pay for.  Clearly
Amtrak critics are not interested in saving money, but rather pursuing
an ideological battle.  We just don't have the land anymore to build
massive highways and airports.  A passenger train can snake underground
and the land above used for other purposes as is done in some cities.

Obviously today the highway and airway will be the primary transport
medium, but there is still a need for passenger trains.  The demand is
certainly there -- new Amtrak service is well patronized--but Amtrak is
denied the resources to add more services.  Mr. Gunn also had a
corridor improvement plan, sadly that is forgotten too.

[public replies, please]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Excuses, excuses!  My main point was
_what business does the government have in being in the Rail Road 
business anyway? The trains ran perfectly well by themselves, and when
the government took over they just got worse and worse. PAT]

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomni.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Amtrack Passengers Stranded in Woods in Georgia
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:03:00 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.588.1@telecom-digest.org>,
Associated Press News Wire  <ap@telecom-digest.org> wrote:

> A trainload of frustrated passengers has been stuck on an Amtrak train
> stranded in a patch of woods in south Georgia for more than 24 hours.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This must certainly be one of the
> grander moments in the glorious history of the Toonerville Trolley.
> If it has not occurred to Amtrack authorities by now to (a) either
> split the wrecked train in two parts and clear the way or (b)

First off, _AMTRAK_ can't do that.  AMTRAK doesn't own the tracks. *OR* the 
derailed train.

AMTRAK is not in control of the situation.  All such "operational"
decisions are made by the freight railroad that owns the tracks, and
the train.

Second, the railroad in that whole area is a "one lane road".  *not*
'one lane _each_way_', but *one*lane* total.  Again this is not
AMTRAK's doing, but is a decision by the railroad company that owns
the tracks.

A minor screw-up on the 'one-lane road' can lead to big time delays,
simply due to 'traffic jam' effects.

> considering they were already delayed 12 hours in Jacksonville, simply
> evacuate the trains passengers, bus them to the nearest airport and

"Simply evacuate the passengers" ... you say.

*HOW* do you do that?  There's trains blocking the track in front of you,
and behind you.  There *isn't* any _road_ near the tracks where you are.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (i.e. the Tin-Foil Hat man). Oh gosh, I
keep forgetting, no one is in charge of anything; certainly not the
internet (right, Robert?) and I guess not the nation's Rail Road
system either. If we evacuated the train and had the people all start
walking down the tracks, presumably the old people would find a drug
store open somewhere along the way where they could replenish their
pharmaceuticals and hope to live for another day or three, and
hopefully they would find an outhouse along the way where they could 
filch a roll or two of toilet paper to use. Probably before they got
all the way back to Our Nation's (drug and crime-ridden) Capitol --
where I guess a train from Florida northbound is headed -- they might
even find a store or restaurant to take their check or ATM card so
they can get some groceries to eat on the way. Instead of blaming this
fiasco on the wonderful folks at Amtrak (for after all, they knew
what was best for us when they turned over the Rail Road to the
government long ago) probably 'since no one is in charge of anything'
they could blame the doctors who did not write scripts for larger
pill containers (at least a full week's worth of pills for when 
someone decides to ride Amtrak, or the people themselves for not
thinking ahead and bringing lots of loose change to feed the rip off
vending machines on board. After all, the people should have known 
that they would get hungry sitting in place for 24+ hours on a non-
moving train, and probably brought along a couple rolls of paper; the
people should have known the bathroom on the train would run
out. Imagine that ... some people believe Amtrak should have had
enough smarts to figure some of this out ahead of time. But who are
they kidding; Amtrak is just another bunch of stupid politicians.  I
hope Amtrak pays dearly for this fiasco; oops, I forgot; you cannot
sue the government without getting its permission to do so, since
after all its motives are pure and noble and all that rot.   PAT]

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

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:56:05 EST
Subject: Re: Amtrack Passengers Stranded in Woods in Georgia


In a message dated 12/30/05 2:39:40 PM Central Standard Time, 
editor@telecom-digest.org writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This must certainly be one of the
> grander moments in the glorious history of the Toonerville Trolley.
> If it has not occurred to Amtrack authorities by now to (a) either
> split the wrecked train in two parts and clear the way or (b)
> considering they were already delayed 12 hours in Jacksonville, simply
> evacuate the trains passengers, bus them to the nearest airport and
> have airplanes take everyone to their home town immediatly, then I do
> not suppose another eight or ten hours stranded there will change
> anything. I mean is anyone besides me old enough to remember when we
> had real, honest-to-God reliable rail service in America?  PAT]

Pat,

It's Amtrak, not Amtrack.  The AP story spelled it correctly.

The freight train that derailed is a train owned by the CSX Railway, 
which also owns the track.  It is not up to Amtrak.  

We have "real, honest-to-God reliable rail service in America,"
provided by railroads doing what they do best, handling great
quantities of freight (and without government subsidies).  Passenger
service is no longer the important function it once was, which is why
the share of passenger traffic on the few passenger trains which do
exist is such a minuscule percentage of all passenger travel.


Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got one other detail wrong; it is not
the 'Toonerville Trolley System' it is the 'Hooterville Railroad' you
know, that train which runs through Green Acres on television except
for 'Kosiusko's Birthday and other more major holidays'. So, Wes, I
guess you would agree with Robert Bomoni, since no one knows who to
blame, the passengers will have to just sit there and make-do until
if/when the derailed train gets out of the way, and hopefully make
their kids quit squalling and running wild through the coaches while
they find a working, stocked bathroom before it is too late.  PAT 

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


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications 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.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   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 2005-06 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 #589
******************************