|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 287 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Telephone number spoofing
Re: Telephone number spoofing
Re: Telephone number spoofing
Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Re: New top-level domain names are coming
Re: New top-level domain names are coming
Re: New top-level domain names are coming
Comcast seeks NBC-U
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
====== 28 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: 17 Oct 2009 19:58:33 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing
Message-ID: <hbdln9$4b5$1@panix2.panix.com>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>>With today's FCC that is not about to happen.
>>
>> We don't have today's FCC, we have the FCC of the Reagan era.
>>
>> Write your congressman and the president and demand a real FCC again, please.
>
>So, neither Bush 1 or 2, Clinton wouldn't change it. And, same for the
>current president?
Both Bushes and Mr. Clinton just made the problems worse, for the most
part.
The current president isn't doing much, but at least he has appointed a
head of the FCC who has some basic technical competence. When the upper
agency management doesn't understand the technology they are regulating,
it's impossible for them to make decisions competently.
There are still far fewer field offices today and most field offices only
have one or two real engineers on staff. Until this changes, I don't think
real enforcement of anything is going to happen.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
***** Moderator's Note *****
<rant>
The FCC's Enforcement Division has been missing in action for as long
as I can remember: the civil servants we entrust with the job of
putting teeth into the rulemaking process have been content to issue
citations to broadcast networks for trivial swear words, while
ignoring their duties in every other part of the spectrum.
The sewer which used to be the Citizens Band is just one example:
fishermen have taken to using amateur radio transceivers to talk with
their homes, so little concerned about the FCC that they are willing
to risk the title to their boats to save the cost of ship-to-shore
calls. I'm ashamed to admit it, but many ham operators have using
patently offensive language for years, behaving like spoiled children
who seek a spanking because it's the only way anyone will pay
attention to them anymore. Many businessmen, claiming the privilege of
having a private radio channel instead of training their employees to
share, have reprogrammed their fleet radios to usurp amateur,
government, or other frequencies, secure in the knowlege that the FCC
is a paper tiger intent only on looking good instead of doing well.
</rant>
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:17:48 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing
Message-ID: <xmNCm.16538$Lw1.10828@newsfe03.iad>
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>>Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>With today's FCC that is not about to happen.
>>>
>>>We don't have today's FCC, we have the FCC of the Reagan era.
>>>
>>>Write your congressman and the president and demand a real FCC again, please.
>>
>>So, neither Bush 1 or 2, Clinton wouldn't change it. And, same for the
>>current president?
>
>
> Both Bushes and Mr. Clinton just made the problems worse, for the most
> part.
>
> The current president isn't doing much, but at least he has appointed a
> head of the FCC who has some basic technical competence. When the upper
> agency management doesn't understand the technology they are regulating,
> it's impossible for them to make decisions competently.
>
> There are still far fewer field offices today and most field offices only
> have one or two real engineers on staff. Until this changes, I don't think
> real enforcement of anything is going to happen.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> <rant>
> The FCC's Enforcement Division has been missing in action for as long
> as I can remember: the civil servants we entrust with the job of
> putting teeth into the rulemaking process have been content to issue
> citations to broadcast networks for trivial swear words, while
> ignoring their duties in every other part of the spectrum.
>
> The sewer which used to be the Citizens Band is just one example:
> fishermen have taken to using amateur radio transceivers to talk with
> their homes, so little concerned about the FCC that they are willing
> to risk the title to their boats to save the cost of ship-to-shore
> calls. I'm ashamed to admit it, but many ham operators have using
> patently offensive language for years, behaving like spoiled children
> who seek a spanking because it's the only way anyone will pay
> attention to them anymore. Many businessmen, claiming the privilege of
> having a private radio channel instead of training their employees to
> share, have reprogrammed their fleet radios to usurp amateur,
> government, or other frequencies, secure in the knowlege that the FCC
> is a paper tiger intent only on looking good instead of doing well.
> </rant>
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
>
Slight different note: Remember a couple of month's ago the FCC
dismissed my informal complaint against Vonage for failure to honor the
FCC-mandated (and codified into federal regulation) per call blocking
(*67)? They dismissed the complaint twice, asserting lack of jurisdiction.
I referred it to my Congressman who sent my complaint along with the
form on his letterhead I had to fill out for his office. Gee, now the
complaint is being worked the third time around. Plus, the feature now
works.
Date: 18 Oct 2009 09:56:46 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing
Message-ID: <hbf6qu$8fa$1@panix2.panix.com>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Scott,
>
>I suggest that you take one for the team, and keep track of the
>spoofed numbers, the organizations which are calling, and the contact
>number(s) they give out. Please send us a list.
Not very useful, since most of them are 000-000-0000 or 123-456-7890
or various spurious 800 numbers which cannot be dialed back. I don't
even pick up the phone any more.
However, if you are curious about the organizations that use the invalid
(or even valid) 800 numbers, do a google search on the number and you'll
usually turn up all kinds of useful information.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Message-ID: <e7d4e278-c28c-40bc-ba39-cd445fccc6c8@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 17, 6:49 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> Both gentlemen told me in the early 1950s that GM was behind the
> push to eliminate streetcars in favor of diesel buses. Now that's
> almost 60 years ago they said that during normal conversation,
> neither gentleman had any axes to grind, and they had no reason
> to lie to me.
This is true.
Baltimore was one of the cities NCL took over and converted to buses.
I believe there's a book, "Who made our streetcars go?" documenting
this.
In 1974, with the country facing jam packed roads and an oil shortage,
the mayors of both San Francisco and Los Angeles pointed out that NCL
had taken over key streetcar routes in their cities (Key System in SF)
and converted them to buses, contributing to the mess.
As mentioned, NCL converted streetcars to buses in Philadelphia.
Now, NCL was not the only reason streetcars lost favor, there were
other reasons, too. Nor would I call it a "conspiracy", rather, it
was a business decision by automotive makers to vertically integrate
to sell more of their products.
None the less, the actions of NCL were not in the nation's long term
interest. The LA and SF mayors testified in detail before Congress of
the problems that resutled.
As to commuter trains, high taxes assessed on them while roads had no
taxes certainly was a very significant factor. When commuter trains
first got into difficulty, the NYT did a study of the issue and noted
[the] very heavy burden; back then, the commuter lines serving New
York City were paying about a billion dollars in property taxes (in
today's dollars). That's quite a hefty sum, especially when the
competition is paying zero. The NYT also found that local towns were
not about to cede the railroads any tax relief.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The more I think about it, the less sure I am that this is a valid
comparison. Railroads, as private corporations, are expected to pay
taxes: public roads are paid for by the taxpayers, and while they
don't generate any tax revenue while idle, the vehicles that use them
pay exorbitant taxes: everything from levies on fuel to excises to
"sales and use" taxes (which are 5% of "Blue Book" value in my state).
IMHO, pointing to a lack of taxes on roads, (which are, as public
property, exempt) isn't an effective argument at a macroeconomic
level. Railroads faded from prominence because they are too efficient,
i.e., because selling, fixing, fueling, and taxing automobiles and
trucks is both easier and more profitable than convincing the public
to suffer the indignity of sitting next to someone who likes a
different kind of newspaper than you do or wears different clothes.
Despite the barriers placed on them, some commuter rail systems
continue to do well: with the economy down, suburban car owners are
realizing that all the "little" costs of owning a car add up to a
_lot_ more than the cost of a rail pass.
FWIW. YMMV (No pun intended).
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:51:00 -0400
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming
Message-ID: <barmar-5E9EF4.20510017102009@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <pan.2009.10.17.22.57.26.287103@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>,
David Clayton <dcstar@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:40:57 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <6645152a0910162038n5f9d6a6dxaf5dde8b37e2b44@mail.gmail.com>,
> > John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> .........
> > Why would you have to say nothing existed below it? You can have an MX
> > record on "mayson", and an A record on "www.mayson". This is analogous to
> > having an MX record on "mayson.us" and an A record on "www.mayson.us".
> >
> >> but I would think this would cause problems because mail servers
> >> wouldn't know what to do with it. Did I mean mayson.com? mayson.us?
> >
> > Mail servers don't try to figure out what you mean. They just take the
> > name after the "@", and look up the MX record to see where mail should be
> > delivered (if there's no MX record they'll look for an A record).
> ........
> Are you absolutely sure that MX records are not required?
>
> My understanding (and experience) is that they are mandatory, and the RFC
> seems to say so:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc974.txt
Nope. The last paragraph on p.4 says:
It is possible that the list of MXs in the response to the query will
be empty. This is a special case. If the list is empty, mailers
should treat it as if it contained one RR, an MX RR with a preference
value of 0, and a host name of REMOTE. (I.e., REMOTE is its only
MX). In addition, the mailer should do no further processing on the
list, but should attempt to deliver the message to REMOTE.
That's also a pretty ancient RFC. RFC 2821 is the current SMTP RFC, it
says more clearly:
If no MX records are found, but an A RR is found, the A RR is
treated as if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a
preference of 0, pointing to that host.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
***** Moderator's Note *****
ISTR seeing an "MX" query returned from a DNS server with the "A"
record included: is this done to prevent a second DNS lookup if the MX
is empty?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: 18 Oct 2009 20:05:38 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming
Message-ID: <20091018200538.35838.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>ISTR seeing an "MX" query returned from a DNS server with the "A"
>record included: is this done to prevent a second DNS lookup if the MX
>is empty?
Each MX record points to an A record. If the server happens to have
that A record, it sends it along so the client doesn't have to do a
separate lookup.
R's,
John
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:03:36 -0500
From: rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming
Message-ID: <u4qdnS68ddMVGEfXnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
David Clayton <dcstar@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Barry Margolin wrote:
| > Mail servers don't try to figure out what you mean. They just take the
| > name after the "@", and look up the MX record to see where mail should be
| > delivered (if there's no MX record they'll look for an A record).
| ........
| Are you absolutely sure that MX records are not required?
| My understanding (and experience) is that they are mandatory,
| and the RFC seems to say so:
|
| http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc974.txt
+---------------
Well, RFC 974 was obsoleted by RFC 2821, and now has "Status: HISTORIC".
RFC 2821 [the "rewrite" of RFC 821] quite explicitly agrees with what
Barry said above:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
Obsoletes: 821, 974, 1869 April 2001
Updates: 1123
...
5. Address Resolution and Mail Handling
...
a DNS lookup MUST be performed to resolve the domain name.
...
The lookup first attempts to locate an MX record associated with
the name. If a CNAME record is found instead, the resulting name
is processed as if it were the initial name. If no MX records
are found, but an A RR is found, the A RR is treated as if it was
associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0, pointing
to that host.
Perhaps you were thinking of the next few sentences, which *don't*
contradict the previous but do require failure if an explicit MX RR
is present but unusable [regardless of any A RR]?
If one or more MX RRs are found for a given name, SMTP systems
MUST NOT utilize any A RRs associated with that name unless
they are located using the MX RRs; the "implicit MX" rule above
applies only if there are no MX records present. If MX records
are present, but none of them are usable, this situation MUST
be reported as an error.
In any case, it is certainly the case that an A RR without an MX RR
for the same domain is quite legal, and is supported by every major piece
of mail relay software I know of. I have administered numerous machines
which lacked MX RRs, and they had no trouble at all receiving mail.
-Rob
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Message-ID: <f997d8b7-6d8f-4464-ba10-81bb596df7ee@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
Comcast, a major cable TV distributor, has branched out into providing
telephone service and Internet service.
It now seeks to purchase NBC/Universal.
Before divesture, many people argued against the structure of the old
Bell System on the grounds that it was "too big". They objected to
AT&T owning three major elements--long distance, local service, and
Western Electric (mfrg), and wanted the parts broken up. The grudge
against WE being part of the Bell System goes back many years.
Now that Comcast is providing telephone and internet service, perhaps
it would be too big as well if it included NBC in its portfolio. In
other words, what was the point of breaking up the old AT&T if we're
gonna allow new companies to become as big and powerful?
The idea of a cable company--the distributor--owning the production
company troubles me. Before WW II, the big movie studios owned the
theatres and controlled what movies appeared. It was hard for
independents to get their films shown if they didn't have the
blessings of the big guys. After the war an anti-trust action forced
the studios to sell off the theatres, and it appeared things worked
better accordingly.
[public replies please]
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:49:21 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Message-ID: <hbfnvm$1ae$1@news.eternal-september.org>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Comcast, a major cable TV distributor, has branched out into providing
> telephone service and Internet service.
>
> It now seeks to purchase NBC/Universal.
> [Moderator snip]
All 4 major networks; ABC,CBS,NBC and FOX also own production companies
for TV, movies. Allowing Comcast would make it worse and drive up costs.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:20:25 -0400
From: "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Message-ID: <CACFD694C3424E8B94519C6E79C6557E@estore.us.dg.com>
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Only a small minority of land-line phone service is 'flat rate' based,
> even today -- business service is all 'metered'.
Do you have any documentation for that claim? When the ILEC in my part of
North Carolina was still known as BellSouth (and Southern Bell before that)
before it became AT&T a few years ago, the service plan pages in the front
of their directories showed flat rate unlimited local calling available for
both residential AND business service (albeit the latter was somewhat more
expensive then the former).
The new AT&T directories don't list any service plan prices now, but such
info is available on the web, and
http://smallbusiness.bellsouth.com/local.html seems to show that unlimited
local calling is available to business customers for a flat rate, both in NC
and in other former BellSouth service areas. Another package adds unlimited
domestic long-distance service for another flat rate, but the fine print
reveals it's really two flat rates: "If usage exceeds by 10 times the
average usage of all customers on this plan subscribing to the same number
of lines, the subscriber may be charged an additional fee of $50 per month
per line".
Bob Goudreau
Cary, NC
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:28:11 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Message-ID: <d02.64619d40.380ce26b@aol.com>
In a message dated 10/18/2009 11:41:24 AM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
On Oct 17, 6:49 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>> Both gentlemen told me in the early 1950s that GM was behind the
>> push to eliminate streetcars in favor of diesel buses. Now that's
>> almost 60 years ago they said that during normal conversation,
>> neither gentleman had any axes to grind, and they had no reason
>> to lie to me.
>
> This is true.
>
> Baltimore was one of the cities NCL took over and converted to
> buses. I believe there's a book, "Who made our streetcars go?"
> documenting this.
>
> In 1974, with the country facing jam packed roads and an oil
> shortage, the mayors of both San Francisco and Los Angeles pointed
> out that NCL had taken over key streetcar routes in their cities
> (Key System in SF) and converted them to buses, contributing to the
> mess.
>
> As mentioned, NCL converted streetcars to buses in Philadelphia.
>
> Now, NCL was not the only reason streetcars lost favor, there were
> other reasons, too. Nor would I call it a "conspiracy", rather, it
> was a business decision by automotive makers to vertically integrate
> to sell more of their products. >
>
> None the less, the actions of NCL were not in the nation's long term
> interest. The LA and SF mayors testified in detail before Congress
> of the problems that resutled.
>
> As to commuter trains, high taxes assessed on them while roads had
> no taxes certainly was a very significant factor. When commuter
> trains first got into difficulty, the NYT did a study of the issue
> and noted [the] very heavy burden; back then, the commuter lines
> serving New York City were paying about a billion dollars in
> property taxes (in today's dollars). That's quite a hefty sum,
> especially when the competition is paying zero. The NYT also found
> that local towns were not about to cede the railroads any tax
> relief.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The more I think about it, the less sure I am that this is a valid
> comparison. Railroads, as private corporations, are expected to pay
> taxes: public roads are paid for by the taxpayers, and while they
> don't generate any tax revenue while idle, the vehicles that use
> them pay exorbitant taxes: everything from levies on fuel to excises
> to "sales and use" taxes (which are 5% of "Blue Book" value in my
> state).
>
> IMHO, pointing to a lack of taxes on roads, (which are, as public
> property, exempt) isn't an effective argument at a macroeconomic
> level. Railroads faded from prominence because they are too
> efficient, i.e., because selling, fixing, fueling, and taxing
> automobiles and trucks is both easier and more profitable than
> convincing the public to suffer the indignity of sitting next to
> someone who likes a different kind of newspaper than you do or wears
> different clothes.
>
> Despite the barriers placed on them, some commuter rail systems
> continue to do well: with the economy down, suburban car owners are
> realizing that all the "little" costs of owning a car add up to a
> lot more than the cost of a rail pass.
>
> FWIW. YMMV (No pun intended).
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
Most street car systems were unable to pay the massive costs of
maintaining their trackage and cars. As a result, many, perhaps
most, of them were in very poor condition. Too, the public didn't
like them for two reasons: first, because they were perceived as an
impediment to traffic with their embedded paths, and secondly, many
people did not find it desirable to sit next to anybody, same
newspaper or same wardrobe styles or not.
Also an automobile can go when you want to and make stops along the
way for useful (or not useful) purposes as desired by the drivers or
riders. Taking the same street car or bus or interurban day after day
is the epitome of being in a rut.
In many cases, the reason for the routes changed their character, and
the cost of building new routes to areas newly needing service was
prohibitive. Buses could move flexibly to new routes with no great
trouble.
As an example of routes needing maintenance I can cite the Oklahoma
Railway Company interurban between Oklahoma City and Norman, which I
rode many times. As you went over most trestles or bridges you could
feel them subsiding under the weight of the car as it passed over.
They company had no money to replace the tracks and bridges.
The ORC (which by this time carried so little carload freight as to be
insignificant, was bought by the City Bus Company, which was owned by
the same local interests as three thriving intercity bus companies.
Soon they could see their was no profit in the future for their
interurban lines, and converted them to buses. The city street car
lines went in a couple of more years for lack of passengers, and they
were converted to buses. The City Bus Company soon had to be rescued
by the city partly with federal money and it now operates the city
buses.
There are [rumblings] now to get the citizens to vote a bond issue to
study light rail and commuter rail.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:48:00 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Message-ID: <hbg5v2$rjq$1@news.eternal-september.org>
A few years ago I was working in the Portland/Beaverton Or. area, the
seemed to have a nice Light Rail, I wonder how it is doing?
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Message-ID: <0f124a72-17f7-4df6-a954-da8c96ad5844@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 18, 5:28 pm, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
> Most street car systems were unable to pay the massive costs of
> maintaining their trackage and cars.
Streetcars do require a critical mass of passengers. But when they
carry enough riders they certainly are able to maintain their physical
plant, as did Philadelphia.
Unfortunately, municipalities dumped all sorts of franchise fees and
extra costs on streetcar companies, like being responsible to pave and
maintain the streets that their tracks were on, even though that meant
private autos got the benefit, as well as taxes on track.
Another factor killing many systems was the Depression.
Converting to buses eliminated those heavy fees and served as a
motivator to convert.
In some cases, a streetcar company wanted to convert or abandon a low
patronage route but the municipality ordered it maintained. Or the
municipality ordered unreasonably low fares.
Stupid public policy--greediness in the short run--helped hurt public
transit overall.
> Also an automobile can go when you want to and make stops along the
> way for useful (or not useful) purposes as desired by the drivers or
> riders. Taking the same street car or bus or interurban day after day
> is the epitome of being in a rut.
But in places where quality transit was offered--to this day--the
public makes good use of it.
> In many cases, the reason for the routes changed their character, and
> the cost of building new routes to areas newly needing service was
> prohibitive. Buses could move flexibly to new routes with no great
> trouble.
And buses were utilized when appropriate.
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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne.
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) 2009 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 (13 messages)
|
or 