|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 23 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Old pay phone
Re: Old pay phone
Re: Old pay phone
OT - Re: Old pay phone
Do you have room for a museum?
Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Additional Area Code Planned for New York City
====== 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: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:50:01 -0500
From: "Michael D. Sullivan" <mds@camsul.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Message-ID: <a76e5e941001212150s37c3a554q8aaabd9ae6615bee@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> (Note that today it's spelled "at&t" in lower case, and the company
> was formed in 2005 when SBC bought the old Ma Bell AT&T).
No, the logo of the company is lower case "at&t". The actual name
of the company is AT&T Inc. (and was previously AT&T Corporation).
AT&T always refers to itself using the all-caps name, except in the
graphic logo. Take a look at one of the recent filings the company
made with the FCC:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020381930
... on this and other filings, the company always calls itself AT&T.
Similarly on the company's own website, on the company profile page,
there's the lower-case logo in the corner, but all textual references
are to AT&T, uppercase.
http://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=5711
Or, you can look at the company's 2008 annual report:
http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/annual_report/pdfs/2008ATT_FullReport.pdf
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:24:33 EST
From: wesrock@aol.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Message-ID: <6b62.5fbd4186.388b1d31@aol.com>
In a message dated 1/22/2010 8:42:18 AM Central Standard Time,
mds@camsul.com writes:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > (Note that today it's spelled "at&t" in lower case, and the company
> > was formed in 2005 when SBC bought the old Ma Bell AT&T).
>
> No, the logo of the company is lower case "at&t". The actual name
> of the company is AT&T Inc. (and was previously AT&T Corporation).
> AT&T always refers to itself using the all-caps name, except in the
> graphic logo. Take a look at one of the recent filings the company
> made with the FCC:
>
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020381930
>
> ... on this and other filings, the company always calls itself AT&T.
> Similarly on the company's own website, on the company profile page,
> there's the lower-case logo in the corner, but all textual references
> are to AT&T, uppercase.
>
> http://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=5711
>
> Or, you can look at the company's 2008 annual report:
>
> http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/annual_report/pdfs/2008ATT_FullReport.pdf
AT&T (or if appropriate AT&T Inc.) is used on all notices to retirees
(I am retired trom Southwestern Bell, which adopted the AT&T name
after acquiring the former AT&T. Notices about benefits (and payment
addresses where applicable) all use AT&T. (The logo with the lower
case letters may appear on the document somewhere, but never as part
of the text.)
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:59:58 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Message-ID: <052f784b-3c9d-4690-9e08-f3755a4884af@d30g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 22, 12:50 am, "Michael D. Sullivan" <m...@camsul.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > (Note that today it's spelled "at&t" in lower case, and the company
> > was formed in 2005 when SBC bought the old Ma Bell AT&T).
>
> No, the logo of the company is lower case "at&t". The actual name
> of the company is AT&T Inc. (and was previously AT&T Corporation).
> AT&T always refers to itself using the all-caps name, except in the
> graphic logo. Take a look at one of the recent filings the company
> made with the FCC: . . .
True.
In my humble opinion, there is a great deal of confusion between the
old and new AT&T. They are very different companies, but many people
think today's AT&T is the old powerful nationwide "Ma Bell" when it is
not.
Accordingly, in my humble opinion, to avoid that confusion today's
at&t should be referred to in lower case. The company did, after all,
adopt a new logo.
I don't think the carriers publish stats anymore, but I wonder who are
the biggest carriers in terms of various measures--employees, number
of landlines (full service), number of landliness (physical loop
only), number of wireless lines, revenues, etc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:27:09 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Message-ID: <6645152a1001221427i173eb54agbfceea07aad1ceb8@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:59 PM, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
> In my humble opinion, there is a great deal of confusion between the
> old and new AT&T. They are very different companies, but many
> people think today's AT&T is the old powerful nationwide "Ma Bell"
> when it is not.
>
> Accordingly, in my humble opinion, to avoid that confusion today's
> at&t should be referred to in lower case. The company did, after
> all, adopt a new logo.
I do the same. I used to work for the old AT&T.
Here in Austin we have "AT&T Labs" (formerly SBC Labs). Their sign has
the modified "Death Star" logo with "at&t" below it and next to that
is says "AT&T Labs" in a very plain font with that capitalization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Labs
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:35:11 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Message-ID: <4B5A362F.10907@thadlabs.com>
On 1/22/2010 1:59 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jan 22, 12:50 am, "Michael D. Sullivan" <m...@camsul.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> (Note that today it's spelled "at&t" in lower case, and the company
>>> was formed in 2005 when SBC bought the old Ma Bell AT&T).
>> No, the logo of the company is lower case "at&t". The actual name
>> of the company is AT&T Inc. (and was previously AT&T Corporation).
>> AT&T always refers to itself using the all-caps name, except in the
>> graphic logo. Take a look at one of the recent filings the company
>> made with the FCC: . . .
>
> True.
>
> In my humble opinion, there is a great deal of confusion between the
> old and new AT&T. They are very different companies, but many people
> think today's AT&T is the old powerful nationwide "Ma Bell" when it is
> not.
>
> Accordingly, in my humble opinion, to avoid that confusion today's
> at&t should be referred to in lower case. The company did, after all,
> adopt a new logo.
> [...]
I agree. The present at&t is not the company who brought us Bell Labs and
Western Electric. And the new at&t is arguably still only one of the Baby
Bell spinoffs from the 1984 DoJ breakup of (the real) AT&T.
The new logo with "at&t" has become ubiquitous:
http://thadlabs.com/PIX/at+t_div_check.jpg
http://thadlabs.com/PIX/at+t_phone_book.jpg
although "AT&T California" also appears on that phone book JPG.
What to do, what to do, ... :-)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:23:31 EST
From: wesrock@aol.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Message-ID: <f5fc.691e950d.388ba993@aol.com>
> In a message dated 1/22/2010 6:47:33 PM Central Standard Time,
> thad@thadlabs.com writes:
>
> I agree. The present at&t is not the company who brought us Bell Labs and
> Western Electric. And the new at&t is arguably still only one of the Baby
> Bell spinoffs from the 1984 DoJ breakup of (the real) AT&T.
>
> The new logo with "at&t" has become ubiquitous:
>
> http://thadlabs.com/PIX/at+t_div_check.jpg
> http://thadlabs.com/PIX/at+t_phone_book.jpg
>
> although "AT&T California" also appears on that phone book JPG.
>
> What to do, what to do, ... :-)
Southwestern Bell, later SBC Corporation, now AT&T Inc., is not just
"one of the Baby Bells." SBC Corporation acquired Pacific Telephone
(and its subsidiary, Bell of Nevada, Ameritech, itself a merger of
seveal other Bell companies, Bell South and Southern New England
Telephone Company. All before buying the (old) AT&T and changing its
own name to AT&T. It includes all of the old AT&T, such as remained
at that time.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:18:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: ranck@vt.edu
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Old pay phone
Message-ID: <hjcfjq$spl$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
A friend just sent me this link to a 1903 picture
of Steeplechase Park. If you look at the full size image
you will find an early pay telephone mounted to one
of the columns on the right hand side of the picture near
the roast beef vendor. Right under the telephone pole. ;-)
http://shorpy.com/node/7523
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:19:16 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Old pay phone
Message-ID: <USm6n.1911$z44.1758@newsfe03.iad>
ranck@vt.edu wrote:
> A friend just sent me this link to a 1903 picture
> of Steeplechase Park. If you look at the full size image
> you will find an early pay telephone mounted to one
> of the columns on the right hand side of the picture near
> the roast beef vendor. Right under the telephone pole. ;-)
>
> http://shorpy.com/node/7523
>
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.
"I'd like two of the roast beef sandwhiches please. Here is my dime."
***** Moderator's Note *****
In the immortal words of David Amram:
"If you worship the good old days,
beware of returning to the bad old ways."
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:42:28 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Old pay phone
Message-ID: <242310b4-768f-4703-b448-647b9c16ca83@e11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 22, 2:19 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> "I'd like two of the roast beef sandwhiches please. Here is my dime."
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> In the immortal words of David Amram:
>
> "If you worship the good old days,
> beware of returning to the bad old ways."
Yeah, people reminise about 5c phone calls, not realizing that 5c was
about $2.00 long ago.
***** Moderator's Note *****
... and not remembering that the guy selling the roast beef could
refuse to serve you if he didn't like the color of your skin or the
place you chose to worship or your name or ...
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:44:24 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: OT - Re: Old pay phone
Message-ID: <pan.2010.01.23.05.44.20.814263@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:19:16 -0800, Sam Spade wrote: ........
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> In the immortal words of David Amram:
>
> "If you worship the good old days,
> beware of returning to the bad old ways."
I reckon the phrase "Good old days" only exists because of the human
survival trait of remembering the better things of the past over the
more unpleasant ones..... And that probably explains why we keep
making the same mistakes again and again...... and again......
Ahh yes the 20th Century, multiple world wars, atmospheric nuclear
tests, DDT, asbestos, smoking, unfettered exploitation of the natural
resources of the planet.....
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:18:31 -0500
From: Michael Muderick <michael.muderick@verizon.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Do you have room for a museum?
http://www.antiquetrader.com/article/telephone_museum_looking_for_new_home/
***** Moderator's Note ****
This looks genuine. I don't usually allow posts with only a URL, but
AFAICT it's for a good cause.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:07:19 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Message-ID: <86WdnVSxu5iKTcXWnZ2dnUVZ_rli4p2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <hj8qod$k6d$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>John Mayson wrote:
>
>[Moderator snip]
>
>> Clear has rolled out their 4G network in Austin and I saw it in
>> action. Drool! It's basically your cable modem in portable form.
>> Amazing!
>>
>> John
>
>Isn't Clear in partner with Sprint on the 4G? They are getting ready to
>roll it out in Corona, Ca.
Clear is rolling out a bunch of stuff in their own name, at least in
Chicago. I've seen the legal notices for the access-point installations.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:22:46 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Message-ID: <6645152a1001221422y56f1749u5c454751c9088a8c@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Robert Bonomi
<bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>
> In article <hj8qod$k6d$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>> Isn't Clear in partner with Sprint on the 4G? They are getting
>> ready to roll it out in Corona, Ca.
>
> Clear is rolling out a bunch of stuff in their own name, at least
> in Chicago. I've seen the legal notices for the access-point
> installat ions.
They are using "Clear" as their brand name and their brand color is
green. They never mention Sprint. I know two people who work for
them.
Here's a little information about their relationship with Sprint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearwire
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:37:45 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Additional Area Code Planned for New York City
Message-ID: <4B5A8B29.4010201@annsgarden.com>
Additional Area Code Planned for New York City
STERLING, Va., Jan. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Neustar, Inc., serving
in its capacity as the North American Numbering Plan Administrator
(NANPA), announced today that an additional area code (929) has been
assigned to the existing 718 and 347 area codes that serve the outer
boroughs of New York City -- namely the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and
Staten Island. The dialing pattern, which is already in effect in the
New York City area, requires all local calls within and between the 718
and 347 area codes and the new 929 area code to be dialed by using 1+10
digit dialing. Existing 718 and 347 telephone numbers will not change.
http://tinyurl.com/NYC-929
Thanks for Mark Cuccia for this information.
Neal McLain
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 (14 messages)
|
or 
