Comments on: Shall we go quiet into that good night? http://mrblog.org/2005/07/07/shall-we-go-quiet-into-that-good-night/ Mr Blog. Very technical, or silly, sometimes absurd. Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:31:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Mr Blog http://mrblog.org/2005/07/07/shall-we-go-quiet-into-that-good-night/comment-page-1/#comment-499 Mr Blog Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:50:45 +0000 http://mrblog.televolution.net/?p=201#comment-499 Thanks for the clarification, DG Lewis.<br /> <br /> Obviously, a short post has to be a little lose with details.<br /> <br /> Even though they may not be technically related, I would argue that the product of the Part 68 rules ties in with the changing sentiments and social mindshare shifts that gave rise to the public support that ultimately led to the break up. Thanks for the clarification, DG Lewis.

Obviously, a short post has to be a little lose with details.

Even though they may not be technically related, I would argue that the product of the Part 68 rules ties in with the changing sentiments and social mindshare shifts that gave rise to the public support that ultimately led to the break up.

]]> By: DG Lewis http://mrblog.org/2005/07/07/shall-we-go-quiet-into-that-good-night/comment-page-1/#comment-498 DG Lewis Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:04:12 +0000 http://mrblog.televolution.net/?p=201#comment-498 A historical quibble: FCC Part 68 requirements had nothing to do with the breakup of the Bell System. They came out of a rulemaking procedure that had its origins in the Hushaphone and Carterphone cases (as you mention), and were published in 1976. A historical quibble: FCC Part 68 requirements had nothing to do with the breakup of the Bell System. They came out of a rulemaking procedure that had its origins in the Hushaphone and Carterphone cases (as you mention), and were published in 1976.

]]>