|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 138 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Re: NC votes to end telephone regulation
Re: NC votes to end telephone regulation
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Old Phone Books digitized, Marlene Dietrich old listing
Vonage and phone numbers
====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 May 2009 00:26:01 -0400
From: adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <gv00op$ka7$1@panix5.panix.com>
In article <MPG.247d1c8f6c3e9bc1989a20@reader.motzarella.org>,
T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>In article <gusvjq$cta$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com says...
>>
>> In article <gusigv$mrh$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>> David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
>> >David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Do US telcos get any "freebie" use of public space for their
>> >> infrastructure, or do they have to pay market rates (like land for
>> >> their COs)?
>> >
>> >Buildings they own; but in MD, they get a free ride on property taxes.
>> >
>> >The easements for outside plant are a different matter. AFAIK, they
>> >get such free. Fred Goldstein would know the details.
>>
>> In NYC, rights to use under-street ducting is franchised to major
>> electrical contractors in big chunks of area. If my private company
>> wants to run fibre between two buildings under or via a city street,
>> all it takes is money, but it has to be done by the franchise owner or
>> his subcontractors.
>>
>> There are some under-used tunnels in Manhattan and nobody ever ran a
>> unofficial wire through any of them. <ahem>
>
>The same is true here in Providence, RI. When I was with the AG's office
>we had a run of fiber about 600 yards long running through a then
>Narragansett Electric conduit on South Main St. It connected the
>judiciary with the AG's office.
>
Did Narragansett know about it?
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 21:24:44 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <MPG.247e77638035bb88989a25@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <gv00op$ka7$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com says...
>
> In article <MPG.247d1c8f6c3e9bc1989a20@reader.motzarella.org>,
> T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
> >In article <gusvjq$cta$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com says...
> >>
> >> In article <gusigv$mrh$1@reader1.panix.com>,
> >> David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> Do US telcos get any "freebie" use of public space for their
> >> >> infrastructure, or do they have to pay market rates (like land for
> >> >> their COs)?
> >> >
> >> >Buildings they own; but in MD, they get a free ride on property taxes.
> >> >
> >> >The easements for outside plant are a different matter. AFAIK, they
> >> >get such free. Fred Goldstein would know the details.
> >>
> >> In NYC, rights to use under-street ducting is franchised to major
> >> electrical contractors in big chunks of area. If my private company
> >> wants to run fibre between two buildings under or via a city street,
> >> all it takes is money, but it has to be done by the franchise owner or
> >> his subcontractors.
> >>
> >> There are some under-used tunnels in Manhattan and nobody ever ran a
> >> unofficial wire through any of them. <ahem>
> >
> >The same is true here in Providence, RI. When I was with the AG's office
> >we had a run of fiber about 600 yards long running through a then
> >Narragansett Electric conduit on South Main St. It connected the
> >judiciary with the AG's office.
> >
>
> Did Narragansett know about it?
Yes, the Civil Division worked out the easement agreement with them.
Loads of paperwork, took up half a file drawer.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 06:37:49 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NC votes to end telephone regulation
Message-ID: <NITQl.58095$9w4.34006@newsfe08.iad>
John Meissen wrote:
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Actually, one could make a case for the removal of government
> regulation by saying that it's obviously ineffective, and clearly
> corrupt, and that it's best for consumers of telecommunications
> services to know that they're on their own and can't expect any help
> from Uncle Sam.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
>
Then let's do away with subscriber subsidies for "universal service"
(isn't that a quaint term?), low-income service, 911 add-ons, etc.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 10:27:16 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NC votes to end telephone regulation
Message-ID: <MPG.247ddd4b2d51e93c989a21@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <20090519233514.363FB340D0@john>, john@meissen.org says...
>
> I don't recall seeing this here yet.
>
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/30745434
>
> "The [North Carolina] House on Wednesday voted 102-11 to allow 16 providers
> that cover the state to cut loose from state Utilities Commission conditions
> setting the rates, terms, and quality of their landline services."
>
> The same old, tired arguments.. no longer monopolies, consumers benefit from
> competition, etc.
>
> "It's not possible for consumers to get the full benefit of a
> competitive marketplace when that marketplace is impacted by
> rules that were in place to regulate a monopoly industry that no
> longer exists," Clifton Metcalf, a spokesman for AT&T, said.
>
> Right. Anybody want to buy a bridge?
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Actually, one could make a case for the removal of government
> regulation by saying that it's obviously ineffective, and clearly
> corrupt, and that it's best for consumers of telecommunications
> services to know that they're on their own and can't expect any help
> from Uncle Sam.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
The problem is that you end up at best with a duopoly and at worst and
oligarchy with great collusion in price fixing.
This won't bode well for North Carolina.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 06:41:58 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <GMTQl.58096$9w4.36933@newsfe08.iad>
Neal McLain wrote:
> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> > Do US telcos get any "freebie" use of public space for
> > their infrastructure, or do they have to pay market rates
> > (like land for their COs)?
>
> I can't speak for telcos, but I'll try to answer on behalf of the cable
> TV industry, which now offers telephone service.
When Cox first offered telephone service in my area, they were much more
attractive than Pacific Bell (SBC, now AT&T). But, Cox has continued to
raise its prices to the extent the advantage is gone. And, Cox doesn't
offer network features such as Privacy Manager.
So, if the price differential is minimal, why not go with the 900 pound
gorilla that controls the network?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Old Phone Books digitized, Marlene Dietrich old listing
Message-ID: <e7b25035-698f-43eb-a07d-6769389ced32@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
The NYT had an article about the German telephone directory listing of
actress/singer Marlene Dietrich. The article included a scan and
explanation of the directory page.
Article: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/number-please-phoning-in-love-again/
Page Scan: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/2009/records/marlenedietrich.pdf
While the article provides a general explantion of the listing, if
anyone is familiar with the exchange layout perhaps they could add
some additional comments.
The article mentioned that some old phone books are being digitized
for ancestral research. This seems very interesting.
I knew someone with a 50 year old phone book of my city and going
through the old listings was quite interesting. For families and
people that I knew, most were living in the old neighborhood.
Also of interest was a comparison between the old directory and the
current one. We could see for some names a man in the old
neighborhood vs. a woman's name in a senior apartment, presumably the
widow of the man in the old listing. We saw a surprising number of
listings that hadn't changed in 50 years, and many where the name/
address was the same though the number was different. In the new
directory we saw new ethnicities that weren't in the city 50 years
ago.
In a very old phone book, I saw a church whose number was unchanged
from 1923 to today. Back then it was merely '29', today it is
nnx-0029.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 18:16:29 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Vonage and phone numbers
Message-ID: <NX1Rl.66646$i24.59937@newsfe14.iad>
I recall perhaps two year ago someone complaining about not being able
to retrieve their directory number upon leaving that they had
transfered to Vonage when they subscribed.
It seemed the issue was that Vonage didn't "own" the number transfered
in, rather it was "owned" by a third party.
Anyone know the current status of getting a customer number back from
Vonage?
I suspect [Vonage] doesn't have a clue.
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom digest (7 messages)
******************************
|
or 