From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Nov 22 17:00:32 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iAMM0VK05038; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:00:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:00:32 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200411222200.iAMM0VK05038@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #562 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:00:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 562 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson SBC VoIP Access Tariff Creates Stir at FCC (Lisa Minter) BellSouth Petition to FCC Threat to VoIP, Says Pulver (Lisa Minter) New Broadcasting Treaty Makes Progress at WIPO (Lisa Minter) Phone, Satellite Alliances Seize Ground With Packages (dailyLead USTA) Re: The Pitfalls of VoIP (Lisa Hancock) Re: The Persuaders (Lisa Hancock) Re: Sears and K-Mart (Lisa Hancock) Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits (Clarence Dold) Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits (Robert Bonomi) Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits (Dave VanHorn) Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits (Paul A Lee) Re: How Do I Learn an Unknown Number? (Paul A Lee) Last Laugh! was Re: Should I Put Cell Phone on Natl List? (Dave VanHorn) 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 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:06:22 -0500 Subject: SBC VoIP Access Tariff Creates Stir at FCC http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=134331 COMMUNICATIONS DAILY via NewsEdge Corporation : An SBC plan to offer a new VoIP access tariff that might raise the cost of completing calls for VoIP providers has triggered talks between FCC and SBC representatives. FCC officials wouldn't talk about the meetings but there was speculation the agency was seeking assurances from the company. SBC's proposed tariff, which the company said it planned to file no earlier than Fri., would offer VoIP providers a voluntary access method whose price would fall between those of traditional access charges and lower-cost reciprocal compensation. SBC's tariff could take effect 24 hours after it's filed, although the FCC might halt it for investigation if parties filed objections. The agency also might halt the tariff on its own. News of SBC's plan began to raise red flags for some VoIP providers, including members of the VON Coalition, this week. FCC Chmn. Powell told reporters the FCC needs to be careful that the tariff request not force the agency to "inadvertently or prematurely try to solve compensation issues in an ad hoc sort of way." Speaking after an appearance at a TV conference sponsored by CNBC Wed., Powell said that would be his main concern -- "that we are not undermining a direction we are trying to take" in the intercarrier compensation proceeding. Full story at: http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=134331 ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:15:12 -0500 Subject: BellSouth Petition to FCC Threat to VoIP, Says Pulver http://www.x-changemag.com/hotnews/4bh19114724.html By Charlotte Wolter A recent petition by BellSouth Corp. to the FCC 'might cause serious problems' for VoIP service providers, says Jeff Pulver, president and CEO of Pulver.com. The petition could limit "the ability of unaffiliated ISPs and VoIP application service providers [without their own underlying telecom transmission facilities] to continue to be viable providers of VoIP services," he continues. The petition, which Pulver calls "this season's sleeper issue" asks for changes to two areas of FCC rules: the so-called Computer Inquiry Rules and features of the common-carriage requirements for broadband networks. BellSouth is asking for 'forbearance' on both rules. Full story at: http://www.x-changemag.com/hotnews/4bh19114724.html ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: New Broadcasting Treaty Makes Progress at WIPO Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:53:25 EST GENEVA (Reuters) - Negotiators have made progress toward agreeing a new international treaty on broadcasting, helped by a U.S. concession that webcasting need not necessarily be included, U.N. officials said on Monday. Members of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) are seeking to update the 1961 Rome Convention on the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, which has been under discussion at the United Nations body since 1997. But many developing countries had been resisting pressure from the United States, and to a lesser extent the European Union to include at least aspects of webcasting in any pact. "It was a big move to take it (webcasting) out," said Rita Hayes, deputy WIPO director-general, who is overseeing the work on the new treaty. At the latest closed-door talks, which concluded last Friday, states agreed to hold regional meetings ahead of the next round of treaty negotiations scheduled for mid-2005, officials said. "We have made progress," Hayes told a news conference. But she added it was not certain that one more negotiating session would be enough for states to call a diplomatic conference, the final step in the treaty-making process. In any case, such a conference appeared unlikely before 2006 at the earliest because the decision to call one would have to be approved by WIPO's next general assembly, which will not be held before next autumn, diplomats noted. The need to update the existing treaty, which pre-dates much of modern television technology, has been made more acute by a growing signal-piracy problem in many parts of the world. Signal piracy, a problem particularly affecting developing countries, was growing at between 11 and 14 percent a year in Asia, leading to significant loss of income for broadcasters, Hayes said. Piracy is one thing on which states agree on the need to act, with some developing countries, led by Brazil, Argentina, India and Egypt, seeking to limit the scope of the treaty largely to that issue. Their stance is backed by many activist organizations, which question whether the broadcasters need any further protection than that already given them by international copyright and other existing forms of intellectual property protection. The scope of a future treaty, as well as the duration of any protection granted, are two of the issues still outstanding, U.N. officials said. Some countries want the period of protection limited to 20 years, while others are pushing for 50. *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance, Reuters News Service. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:41:22 EST From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA Subject: Phone, Satellite Alliances Seize Ground With Service Packages Telecom dailyLead from USTA November 22, 2004 http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=17680&l=2017006 TODAY'S HEADLINES NEWS OF THE DAY * Phone, satellite alliances seize ground with service packages BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH * BT joins mobile phone fray * Verizon's SuperPages.com launches online shopping tool * AOL switching focus to selling online ads * Nokia's strategy chief leaves company USTA SPOTLIGHT * "3G Wireless with WiMAX and Wi-Fi" -- Now in the Telecom Bookstore EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES * Microsoft hopes seniors will embrace its Web TV effort REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE * Congress approves three-year Internet tax ban * Qwest wins Colorado contract Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others. http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=17680&l=2017006 Legal and Privacy information at http://www.dailylead.com/about/privacy_legal.jsp SmartBrief, Inc. 1100 H ST NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: The Pitfalls of VoIP Date: 21 Nov 2004 19:32:26 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lisa Minter wrote > I'm not saying there's any > such quid pro quo in the case of this specific story, just that the > increase in negative stories about VoIP in the press has me wondering. Perhaps they are legitimate concerns. Newsweek did a piece on VoIP with some precautions that seemed reasonable. If the broadband channel you are using gets busy, your telephone call may have difficulty. This is only reasonable; any new technology takes time to get the bugs out of it. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) Subject: Re: The Persuaders Date: 22 Nov 2004 08:02:51 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Monty Solomon wrote: > In "The Persuaders," FRONTLINE explores how the cultures of > marketing and advertising have come to influence not only what > Americans buy, but also how they view themselves and the world > around them. ... This should be an interesting piece, but it is not current news. There were a number of books written in the 1950s about this sort of thing, especially as TV was taking hold on the US. It has also been well documented that advertisers can influence the public only to a point, then the public will do what it wants. For example, in the 1980s, all of Detroit's aggressive advertising couldn't convince motorists to buy their cars -- motorists were buying imports instead. For many reasons, sometimes products just fail in the marketplace and no amount of advertising can move them ("new Coke" anyone?). Other times products become a big success with very little advertising. Most people think of "advertising" and "marketing" as the same thing, but they're not. Advertising is only one component of marketing. Distribution, post-sale support (if appropriate), packaging, pricing, etc. all play a big role. For example, there is nothing special about a hamburger from McDonald's, but the way that hamburger is made and sold to you was a major innovation in the quick-serve restaurant business. > Take the 2004 presidential sweepstakes for example. Both the > Republicans and the Democrats were prepared to go to extraordinary > lengths to custom craft their messages. "What politicians do is tailor > their message to each demographic group," .... This is nothing new. All modern communications does is make it more _efficient_ to what they've been doing all along. In the old days politicians travelled the stump, driving from town to town. The candidate would stop at each courthouse or general store and say a few words to whoever was gathered there. It was grueling work. Talks were tuned to the audience of the particular town; obviously city dwellers had different interests than rural people. In the big cities there was a political "machine" of many local people who spread the word on candidates. President Truman came out of such a machine in Kansas City, and that association tainted him until he proved his integrity and independence. > ... It hardens the partisanship > that's been such a feature of recent American politics." When I read about campaigns and practices of US politics of the 1920s and 1930s, I see no shortage of viscious partisanship. In the early 1930s, for example, the Democratic majority in Congress blocked some Depression relief measures President Hoover proposed. The Dems wanted Hoover to get full blame for the Depression and not any credit for any fixes. [A good on this subject: "The Political Biography of James F. Byrnes"]. Politics is and was hardball, thrown fast and without a glove. > Political marketers are just now discovering new ways to use the > techniques that have long been employed by the private sector. This was done for Eisenhower's campaign. He didn't like it, but he went along with it. Again, modern technologies allows greater efficiencies than in the past, but the basic method of operation remains unchanged. PBS "Frontline" has interesting shows but they are by no means the journalistic record; they represent a particular point of view. A few years ago they did a piece on a suburban Atlanta town which had a syphllis epidemic among young teenagers. Some viewers got the impression that all the young teens of that town were bored and thus "active" to kill time, which was not the case. I felt their most recent piece on Walmart wasn't quite right, either. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Sears and K-Mart Date: 22 Nov 2004 08:27:19 -0800 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yet, they have the temerity to wonder > 'why customers go postal' sometimes ... and your two reasons given for > why there are no more (or very few) public offices available any longer > does not explain how small independent telcos still manage to do it: I strongly doubt that all independent telcos have a public office in every town they serve. They may have some offices here and there, but not necessarily within convenient reach of every customer. > Making floor space available for chairs and the cost of rent is an > equal problem for them. And I would suppose theoretically the problem > of someone 'going postal' is also worth considering. But why do you > suppose the small, non-Bell telcos don't have those problems, and can > continue to operate their public facilities? My feeling is that the concerns and costs are _not_ equal. The security is not just for someone "going postal", but also for more conventional crime like holdups or disorderly patrons. Operating such a center in a big city than a small town has more risks. I remember the Bell office downtown -- the whole place had heavy locks and walls, with tellers behind security windows. I think if you wanted to talk to someone it was like talking to someone through a glass like in prison. (And this was 30 years ago!) Unfortunately, urban life was the way it is. If someone "went off" it wasn't so much they were made at the phone company (or whereever they happened to be at), rather, they were frustrated with their miserable own life in general and had to vent -- sometimes violently. Sadly, a lot of people don't manage their personal lives very well (like paying bills on time) and their lives get messed up, so they're angry. They take it out on whoever happens to be nearby. It only takes one person out of 1,000 visitors to terrorize a staff. In community service I've seen, usually the most angry people have been those that have been the most irresponsible. Also, some major companies become the target of political protest movements who hold sit-ins. For example, a local Bell office would get targeted for a forced shutdown because the protesters are angry that Western Electric had defense contracts; today protesters have a renewed hatred of business. Eliminating the office eliminates that risk. Generally, offices in pleasant small towns don't have those security problems. As to the costs of running an office, the rent in a small town main street will be much less than in a downtown city. The incremental cost of providing customer space would be modest. Further, the office might double has an office for engineers and contractors who have business with the phone company, so adding a few POTS customers here and there is no big deal -- in other words, a receptionist and waiting room are already there. In contrast, a big phone company in a city could get flooded with customers and would need much more expensive space. ------------------------------ From: dold@XReXXWhatX.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:19:25 UTC Organization: a2i network Robert Bonomi wrote: > First, it is not clear that WalMart is actually doing this (title > remains with distributor), today. Walmart wants to implement the new inventory plan at the end of the move to RFID. I don't know why those two are related. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:11:17 +0000 In article , the Moderator pontificates: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Have you ever considered applying for a > job as a Walmart 'customer service' representative? You already have > their list of excuses perfectly memorized. Facts _are_ facts. Even when you don't like them. I don't know diddly-squat about Walmart's operations. I _do_ happen to worked on charge-processing software, and written clearing- house interfaces. I _know_ what/where the possible failure modes are, and the checks that are there, both real-time and otherwise, to detect them. > When I first called then > went back to the store, for all I knew, the clerk *had* swiped me > three times, then took the money out of the register for the two > additional swipes and pocketed it. I've been in a Walmart precisely _once_ in my life (BB's are d*mn hard to find in the big cities these days -- the kid at the local hardware store said "what are BBs?" *sigh* Walmart is about the *only* place in the area that has 'em. I wasn't going shooting, I just needed a bunch of 'em as lightweight ball-bearings. Anyway ...) In that store, and in *every* *other*store*of*any*type* that takes 'mixed bag' (debit, credit, check, ATM) cards that I've been in in the last circa 10 years, the card NEVER LEAVES THE CUSTOMER'S HAND. Now, maybe your store _is_ different in that respect, but I take leave to doubt it. The fact that the card remains in the customer's possession are some of the "basic protections" against 'employee theft' fraud that are usually required by contract from (a) the card issuer, and (b) the clearing-house, before you can process such cards. (For precessing credit/debit cards _only_, the requirements are not as strict.) > There had been an article in the Independence Reporter a few days > earlier about a cashier at Walmart who had gotten arrested for > stealing several thousand dollars from the store and some customers. There are *very* limited ways for a cashier to themselves steal cash money 'from the store', and approximately _one_ way to steal from the customers, with 'computerized' registers. Doing multiple charges against a card is simply *not* one of them. The audit trail catches it at the end-of-shift, or over-night, at worst. And the records point directly to the perp. Stealing from the customer involves either 'under-counting' cash he gives you to pay for a purchase, or 'short-changing' what you give back. A cashier, and customer, _in_collusion_, can steal merchandise from the store, by the simple expedient of the cashier 'failing to ring' the item as it passes to the sacking area. Stealing money from the till is a real problem. There is a known count (counted by _several_ people, including you) in the till when you start, every sale is recorded, how much money is given in, and how much change is given out, are also recorded. If you over-state the amount of money given in, the amount of change is over-stated by exactly the same amount. Excess credits, or coupons show on the amount due from the customer, and the customer expects to pay only what is shown as 'due'. If you 'over-charge' for items, the computer expects _that_ money to be in the till. If you 'under-charge', the customer does not expect to -pay- that undercharged amount. At end-of-shift there is, again, a multiple-person 'count' of the money in the till. It had _better_ match what the computer 'says' should be there. If the count is 'short', you're a suspect for stealing from the company; and, if it is 'long', you're a suspect for short-changing customers. Really_ small amounts, like 10 cents or less, _may_ get overlooked. Unless they happen frequently. *Many* years ago, a cashier got caught -- he was systematically short-changing customers -- _because_ when the count for his till was off, it was _always_ on the high side. He didn't want the store to 'suspect' he was stealing, so he made sure that any error was in the store's favor. [.. munch ..]] > They did **not** check any tapes or logs to either > verify or deny what I said, just saying 'it could not have happened > because our procedures call for X followed by Y and Z.' Bringing up the possibility of 'employee theft' early on, putting them on the defensive -- was *not* particularly smart. At least, not if you wanted their help in getting to the bottom of things. If the card never leaves your hand, they are correct. it could *not* happened via multiple swipes. *Unless* _you_ did it, in which case it =is= valid multiple charges. :) Whether you believe it or not, the 'customer premises equipment' for swiping the card, and transmitting the information upstream to the clearinghouse is the *most*extensively*tested* part of the entire system, and the _second_least_ likely place for there to be any problems. (The least likely place is the interaction between the cash register and the card reader -- because it is a -series- of steps that all must occur in the proper sequence. If anything goes wrong part-way through, the only recovery is 'cancel and start over from the beginning', and *nothing* goes upstream until the entire sequence is completed.) *Almost*invariably* when something of this sort happens, it is a communications_ problem _between_ two systems. In broad, as follows: System 'a' sends a transaction to system 'b'; system 'b' sends an 'ack' back to system 'a'. *BUT* system 'a' "sees" an error return from 'b', instead of the 'ack'. FAILURE #1 Because it got an 'error' response 'a' *re-sends* the transaction. System 'b' _should_ catch this, because it has the same 'transaction ID' as a prior one that was already processed. Postulate the ID got garbled on the re-send. FAILURE #2. B now 'acks' _this_ transaction (this is the second time it has seen and acked what should have been a single transaction). System 'a' 'sees' the ack and moves on to the next transaction. Result: 'a' thinks it has submitted the transaction _once_, 'b' thinks it has received *two* separate transactions. The discrepancy shows *only* when the 'end-of-day' (shift, whatever) totals are compared between the two systems. One _cannot_ prevent this kind of problem from =ever= happening. One can take steps to (a) make it unlikely, and (b) ensure that it is -detected- after-the-fact, in a 'relatively timely' manner. > I've also told Bob Donaldson (local Walmart manager) that his store > security officers were pretty obnoxious also and that he should fire > them and get more responsible guys to work at his store, and that he > might start getting people to work there who helped customers out to > their car or taxi with shopping bags, or made home delivery like other > stores in town do. The whole place is really a dreadful store. PAT] Yup. That's why you shop there. It's dreadful, and doesn't provide the services you want. Helping customers out to their car or taxi, or making home deliveries COSTS MONEY. Surprisingly _large_ amounts of money. Walmart sells 'low prices', not 'service'. If you want service, go 'somewhere else', and pay more. Available evidence says that _most_ people prefer 'low prices' to 'service'. This is not the fault of the _store_. I do a fair amount of my shopping at 'no frills' stores. I do *not* expect 'full service' from those stores; I *do* expect their prices to reflect that they are not 'full service'. I _also_ shop at some 'full price' stores. *Because* of the 'service' they provide. Like knowing _where_ to refer me, when they are 'not the right source' for what I'm looking for -- saving me _hours_ of research. That *is* worth 'paying extra' for, so they continue to get my business. They also carry a 'better grade' of product, so when I'm looking for 'quality', I go there first. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are generally correct as far as the plastic never leaving my hands. At the bank of cash registers, there is an LED screen facing the cashier and a side facing the customer. The side facing me had a place to slide your card, and a keypad to enter your PIN as needed. The cashier slides your item across a glass thing which examines it and reads the bar code, the the register makes a 'ping' noise and the display screen says what the item was and how much it costs. If the register does not make its 'ping noise' they slide it over the glass again until the register *does* ping. If it never will ping (I have seen that happen, then the cashier manually enters the price on the keypad on that side, But they work so rapidly I cannot keep up with them. With a debit card if you want cash back, you tell the cashier and that amount is added to the total you paid, and it is treated like amount due, total tendered (sale plus cash back) and change due (amount of the cash back). Bob Donaldson told me once that each cashier has to check their money box out of the office when they start their shift. But in the customer service office, it is different. If you want to purchase a money order for example, you cannot use a credit card, only a debit card (bank/ATM card). So they want to take your card, look at it, etc. When the computer finishes printing up your money orders or your postage stamps (and other things you buy in that area) then the customer service person swipes your card on her side of the counter. I do not shop at Independence Walmart because of the dreadful service and things they do not do; I shop there *in spite of all that* when I cannot get an item elsewhere or I happen to be at my hair dresser which is a block north and happen to recall something I need to get to take back home with me. Very rarely do I go there; usually I just call Jeff and tell him to come back to Klassy Klippers and get me to go back home, and *maybe*/maybe not as needed I have him stop downtown for me to get something on the way back. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave VanHorn Subject: Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:22:38 -0500 > Earlier this year I went to Walmart to get something, and used my > debit card to pay for it. When I got home I checked the computer and > there were *three* identical charges instead of only one. I called > and went back to Walmart, all they would say is 'not our problem, we > did not swipe you three times, we only swiped you once. The problem > got corrected in a couple days, but Walmart never admitted to any > part of it. PAT] Normally, this sort of thing is caused by not using transaction sequence numbers in the packets. Terminal sends a packet, host acks, the ack gets corrupted into a nak, and the terminal re-sends. The terminal eventually gets a good ack, and thinks it's only done one transaction, but the host sees multiple identical transactions, and believes they are independent. Adding a sequence number makes finding dupes trivial. This is not probably something that WM has any direct control over though. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you say is true, but I have been in other stores when the same kind of problem came up, and they at least apologize for any confusion and offer some free gift or coupon for the trouble. Not Walmart though. Our Chamber of Commerce has a thing called 'Main Street Gift Certificates'. They sell them to you in any denomination wanted, and they are redeemable at almost any store in town. They are great to give as gifts when you do not know what to give the other person, or they can be used for food at several restaurants. The redemptor turns them in to the Chamber office less a *one percent* administrative fee. Walmart, which refuses to belong to the Chamber of Commerce also refuses to accept those gift certificates; I guess they do not feel they should have to pay the one percent administrative fee charged the redemptors. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:39:50 -0500 Organization: Rite Aid Corporation In TELECOM Digest V23 #555, NoSpamForMe wrote (in part): > Why is it OK for the a big chain like Walgreen's (or CVS, > Rite-Aid, etc.) to come into a town and drive the little > independent drugstores out of business ... indeed you salute > them for opening a new store in your downtown More often than not, when a Rite Aid pharmacy replaces a little independent drugstore", we acquire and "pour over" the pharmacy business into a new or nearby existing Rite Aid store. Many times, Rite Aid "saves" a small, pharmacist-owned store by purchasing it for a tidy sum when its business is dwindling, but still profitable. Typically, most of the pharmacy staff and at least some of the front end staff are offered positions with Rite Aid. Our Esteemed Editor then noted (in part): > I was not praising Goddess for *Walgreens* opening a store > here so much as I was praising any business for opening in > our slowly decaying, beginning to show signs of wear and tear > downtown. Likewise, Rite Aid has put stores into many locations _after_ a neighborhood store or another chain has abandoned the area. We've done architectural matching, historical restorations, and some unique constructions for urban sites. By the way, there's no hyphen (but there is a space) in "Rite Aid". Similarly, there's no hyphen (or space) in "Kmart" (even though it's often written as "K-mart"), and there _is_ a hyphen in "Wal-Mart" (even though it's often written as "WalMart"). You don't have to take my word for it -- just check the legalese at the respectively eponymous web sites. Please note that I do *not* speak "officially" for Rite Aid -- these are just my observations of practices that are part of the public record. Paul A Lee Sr Telecom Engineer Rite Aid Corporation HL-IS-COM (Telecomm) V: +1 717 730-8355 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 F: +1 717 975-3789 P.O. Box 3165, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3165 W: +1 717 805-6208 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is why Walgreen's is getting a good reception here, even though they will not be open for at least six or eight more months. (They are bulding from scratch where the old Alf Landon [former Kansas governor] house sits). Walgreen's has already joined our Chamber of Commerce, and they plan to build a very nice looking store at 9th and Maple, and have stated they will work with the community, at the last town council meeting a few weeks ago. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: How Do I Learn an Unknown Number? Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:08:11 -0500 Organization: Rite Aid Corporation In TELECOM Digest V23 #561, rekingus@yahoo.com (reking) wrote (in part): > Anyone know how I can retrieve a phone number for a line that=0D > I have recently discovered within our business. Hook up a butt set or a phone set you have lying around and call your cell phone. Read the CPN from the display. > SBC is our carrier but they tell me I would have to have=0D > someone come out and trace the line at a charge. If you know the location of SBC's demarcation point ("demarc"), network interface device (NID, pronounced "nid"), or minimum point of entry (MPoE, pronounced "EM-poe") serving your location, trace the line in question back to that point. If the phone number or circuit number is not legibly and accurately marked there, then SBC is obliged to come out and so mark it without charge to you. This is a repair issue, and a line that is not identified at the demarc is considered a service problem on the carrier's side of the demarc. The only legitimate reasons they would have to charge you are if you had them trace inside wiring back to the demarc, or if the demarc were damaged or defaced even though it was under your control. If the demarc is outside and accessible to others without your knowledge, even a damaged or defaced NID is the carrier's responsibility. If SBC gives you any static about it, let them know that you'll be checking their claims with your state's public utilities or public service commission. Find it through the following: http://www.naruc.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=3D15 You may wind up at the bottom of their repair schedule, but they're still obliged to show up -- within 10 business days, typically, absent any weather emergency or disaster affecting phone service. Paul A Lee Sr Telecom Engineer Rite Aid Corporation HL-IS-COM (Telecomm) V: +1 717 730-8355 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 F: +1 717 975-3789 P.O. Box 3165, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3165 W: +1 717 805-6208 ------------------------------ From: Dave VanHorn Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Should I Put Cell Phone on National No Call List? Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:24:09 -0500 You frequently hear that "we do not sell our customer list".. Of course not! The rent or lease them! ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 V23 #562 ******************************