Ok AT&T aka Ma Bell was loath to service rural areas and such there are a number of small phone co-ops and companies out there. Did the State PUCOs and the FCC had to make sure that the small towns got service even at a loss??From what I know we had Chatuaqua Phone Company out at my cottage in the 1980s in Mayville NY.
Ulrich [snipped; emphasis added - PDN.] Some time ago I read "The Octopus" by Frank Norris. . . . The premise of the book was a railroad (the Southern Pacific but not named as such in the book) that was using its monopoly to drive the farmers in central CA out of business. . . .
"Charging all the traffic would bear" I can believe - that's still with us today (see above). There's an important difference between maximizing profit, and going too far and losing it entirely. But not putting a whole class of shippers in a region - the SP's customers - out of business. That just makes no sense from a business perspective. The SP's management - the successors to the "Big Four" - was too smart to make that kind of a mistake. Would any of us do such a thing ?
- Paul North.
When the FCC was formed in 1934, radio stations were interfering with other radio stations signals. Regulation by the FCC was both to serve the public AND to protect the radio stations signals. Radio stations in Denver, Louisville, Fort Worth, and Minneapolis all were broadcasting on a frequency very close to each other on the AM band. The FCC regulated the signal patterns so that these stations so that these stations could conduct their broadcasts without interference. These radio stations could not have conducted business without FCC regulation because the listeners would not have tolerated interference from out of town radio stations.
The United States has opted for the private sector in broadcasting unlike most of the rest of the world. THe British created the BBC as a government entity which allowed no competition with it until the 1970's. Since the airwaves belong to the public in the United States; The FCC regulations serve both the public and the companies that want to serve the public, or at least they are supposed to. Today communications are far different than when the telephone industry was deregulated in 1983. It was a world without home computers and cell phones.
Paul_D_North_Jr Ulrich [snipped; emphasis added - PDN.] Some time ago I read "The Octopus" by Frank Norris. . . . The premise of the book was a railroad (the Southern Pacific but not named as such in the book) that was using its monopoly to drive the farmers in central CA out of business. . . . Illogical and counterintuitive - instead, carry that premise to its conclusion: If the SP had succeeded in driving the farmers out of business - then what traffic would be left for SP to carry from there ? What would it gain from that ? A lot of track and railroad, but no traffic ? "Charging all the traffic would bear" I can believe - that's still with us today (see above). There's an important difference between maximizing profit, and going too far and losing it entirely. But not putting a whole class of shippers in a region - the SP's customers - out of business. That just makes no sense from a business perspective. The SP's management - the successors to the "Big Four" - was too smart to make that kind of a mistake. Would any of us do such a thing ? - Paul North.
Illogical and counterintuitive - instead, carry that premise to its conclusion: If the SP had succeeded in driving the farmers out of business - then what traffic would be left for SP to carry from there ? What would it gain from that ? A lot of track and railroad, but no traffic ?
Well, no. Charging what the traffic will bear generally doesn't lead to a bloodbath like Mussel Slough. There would have to be a little more to the story don't you think? It was a land dispute between the farmers and the SP which led to the conflict known famously as Mussel Slough. I don't think SP was opposed to farmers or food or the cultivation of the land... SP disputed the value and ownership of the land and wanted those who were (in its estimation) squatters off of it. You've really got to read the book as a paragraph or two here doesn't do this important event in American history justice.
UlrichPaul_D_North_Jr Ulrich [snipped; emphasis added - PDN.] Some time ago I read "The Octopus" by Frank Norris. . . . The premise of the book was a railroad (the Southern Pacific but not named as such in the book) that was using its monopoly to drive the farmers in central CA out of business. . . . Illogical and counterintuitive - instead, carry that premise to its conclusion: If the SP had succeeded in driving the farmers out of business - then what traffic would be left for SP to carry from there ? What would it gain from that ? A lot of track and railroad, but no traffic ? "Charging all the traffic would bear" I can believe - that's still with us today (see above). There's an important difference between maximizing profit, and going too far and losing it entirely. But not putting a whole class of shippers in a region - the SP's customers - out of business. That just makes no sense from a business perspective. The SP's management - the successors to the "Big Four" - was too smart to make that kind of a mistake. Would any of us do such a thing ? - Paul North. Well, no. Charging what the traffic will bear generally doesn't lead to a bloodbath like Mussel Slough. There would have to be a little more to the story don't you think? It was a land dispute between the farmers and the SP which led to the conflict known famously as Mussel Slough. I don't think SP was opposed to farmers or food or the cultivation of the land... SP disputed the value and ownership of the land and wanted those who were (in its estimation) squatters off of it. You've really got to read the book as a paragraph or two here doesn't do this important event in American history justice.
Ulrich [snipped; emphasis added - PDN.] Some time ago I read "The Octopus" by Frank Norris. . . . The premise of the book was a railroad (the Southern Pacific but not named as such in the book) that was using its monopoly to drive the farmers in central CA out of business. . . . Illogical and counterintuitive - instead, carry that premise to its conclusion: If the SP had succeeded in driving the farmers out of business - then what traffic would be left for SP to carry from there ? What would it gain from that ? A lot of track and railroad, but no traffic ? "Charging all the traffic would bear" I can believe - that's still with us today (see above). There's an important difference between maximizing profit, and going too far and losing it entirely. But not putting a whole class of shippers in a region - the SP's customers - out of business. That just makes no sense from a business perspective. The SP's management - the successors to the "Big Four" - was too smart to make that kind of a mistake. Would any of us do such a thing ? - Paul North.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussel_Slough_Tragedy
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
One version of the Mussel Slough story was that the SP was clearing the squatters to allow the people who actually pay for the land to move in. Another side of the story is that the farmers' crops wouldn't be worth much without transportation to a market.
FWIW, I did read "The Octopus" as part of the Califonia History course at UC Berkeley.
For the purposes of the discussion I brought up SP and Frank Norris's book to show that perhaps events leading up to Mussel Slough served as a catalyst for change i.e in more economic regulations, antitrust laws, curtailment of monopolies, and even in the formation of the ICC.
greyhoundsI'd like to see a source for this writing. I'd also like to see some specifics regarding the "manifold sins and transgressions of the railroad", which the writer leaves unspecified. I do not claim that the SP was run by a bunch of little angles. But here they've been pronounced guilty with no specific charges. There are two sides to a story and unless we know what is being charged it is impossible to understand what really happened. What, specifically, did they do and when did they do it? I've seen too many cases where a legitimate, honest, normal business practice has been vilified because people either don't like the result or don't understand what is being done and/or why it is being done. In making charges such as these, there need to be some specifics.
Sorry it was a summary review of his book, putting it in the context. I neglected the link. It is a balanced review, taking into account the previous research. I am trying to get a link to a long review in a a scholarly history journal through a friend. I have not read the book, but it seems that its author made a career of a revisionist aprroach to looking at the SP, with some acceptance and success. However, his research was conducted by examining the SP archives, not through first-hand accounts of the people involved in the Mussel Slough incident.
This summary was written by a historian, for readers (mostly other historians) already familiar with the historiography on the topic. I or you would have to do a lot of reading of journals and monographs and some books to look at that.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
A. You people certainly interfere in my life; here I am, re-reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and you induce me to re-read The Octopus . The blurb on the front cover of Bantam edition that I have reads, "A monument in the course of realistic writing in America, THE OCTOPUS is a vivid picture of the struggles of California's wheat farmers against the encroaching railroad, their only road to the market" On the back cover, we find the following, "Etched in sharp, pitiless detail, here is the Nineteeth Century's historic clash between the men who grew the wheat that made America rich and strong. and the ruthless, power-hungry railroads, thrusting their steel tentacles relentlessly across the fertile California valleys. Frank Norris's THE OCTOPUS is America's first big novel of social protest, a milestone in modern realism."
B. As to broadcasting stations, AM stations were limited to 50,000 watts of radiated power.
I grew up 50 miles south of Charlotte, N.C., and we listened to the CBS station (50,000 watts) there, quite clearly. For a time, I went to sleep listening to WWL in New Orleans--and woke up to a station in Kannapolis, which is about 30 miles north of Charlotte--the same frequency. Many local, lower-powered stations broadcast during the day only, on the same frequencies used by more powerful stations far away.
Johnny
I'm going to read it again too. I read it back when I was 19 years old. Norris may have had his biases, and I'm sure there were good people with the railroad. But railroads and big business in particular were fairly recent developments in 1880, and there were few laws to govern behavior (and consequently few laws that could be broken). It was possible for large companies (who often had the local elected representatives in their pockets), to run roughshod over the interests of common people. Apparently that's what happened in California. Since then laws as well as checks and balances have been developed to prevent this from happening again. Nevertheless large corporations still push the envelope in terms of skirting tax laws and walking that very thin line between tax minimization and downright tax evasion. Now imagine if we had no laws at all.
Broadcasting stations - there were a few (and probably still are, although fewer people listen to AM, what with niche FM, satellite, and Internet) that were well known as "clear channel" stations - they owned the frequency pretty much nationwide. WLS (Chicago), WBZ (Boston), CKLW (Windsor, ON), KOMA (OKC), and plenty more - all could be heard for huge distances at night. It was something of a game to hide under the covers with your transistor radio and see who you could hear. If it was a Top 40 station it was interesting to see what was on their playlist vs what was playing locally.
I'm sure most have seen the multi-antenna arrays (three in a row, a square, etc). Those were required for smaller AM stations to "shape" their signal to a target area. Oftimes you could listen to the local station during the day, but if you were in the wrong area, you could not hear that same station at night... Turn down the transmit power and switch in the full array at sundown...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
No, Larry, I did not have a transistor radio (they had not been invented yet); I had a radio that I had put together, primarily from military surplus parts, and used a pillow speaker. It was was too big to take under the covers. Except for the rectifier (5 volt filament or mercury vapor tube), the tubes had 6 volt heaters.
UlrichI'm going to read it again too. I read it back when I was 19 years old.
Everybody just remember, it's fiction. Norris may have talked to a few locals, but he wrote fiction.
For example, Norris turned the railroad's land sale policy on its head to make up his story. It was SP's policy to sell the land as soon as possible to people who would live on the land and work it for agricultural production. They did not want large, absentee land owners. They wanted stable communities whoes people had an ownership stake in the development of the community.
SP was not about to give the land away. But they priced it to sell. Norris has the railroad holding on to land in order to get a better price for the land. This is the exact opposite of what acctually happened.
The railroad was interested in making money from hauling the production of the land and the supplies to the producers. Making the maxium money from land sales was not their policy.
The Octopus is a work of fiction and should be treated as such. Disclosure: I have not read The Octopus and I do not intend to. I don't read much fiction.
Don't knock fiction. Upton Sinclair's fiction brought about changes in the meat packing industry. Jack London, George Orwell and others also wrote powerful fact based fiction that was intended to bring about social change. And you would probably prefer Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" over her protege's hugely boring tome on the merits of Objectivism.
UlrichDon't knock fiction. Upton Sinclair's fiction brought about changes in the meat packing industry. Jack London, George Orwell and others also wrote powerful fact based fiction that was intended to bring about social change. And you would probably prefer Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" over her protege's hugely boring tome on the merits of Objectivism.
Nope, I never finished Ms. Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I had/have no interest in even starting "The Fountainhead". I found Tom Clancy's early novels interesting and entertaining. But aside from that I read very little, if any, fiction. I find reality much more interesting.
I have nothing against fiction. Whatever floats your boat. The problem I see comes about when people start treating fiction as actual historical fact. That certainly has been done with "The Octopus". It seems "The Jungle" by Sinclair, another work of fiction, is also questionable as to its accuracy. The authors were: 1) out to sell books and, 2) out to promote a political point of view. (at least in Sinclair's case.) Those two things in a work of fiction can produce a distorted picture of reality.
Just keep that in mind.
greyhoundsEverybody just remember, it's fiction. Norris may have talked to a few locals, but he wrote fiction. For example, Norris turned the railroad's land sale policy on its head to make up his story. It was SP's policy to sell the land as soon as possible to people who would live on the land and work it for agricultural production. They did not want large, absentee land owners. They wanted stable communities whoes people had an ownership stake in the development of the community. SP was not about to give the land away. But they priced it to sell. Norris has the railroad holding on to land in order to get a better price for the land. This is the exact opposite of what acctually happened. The railroad was interested in making money from hauling the production of the land and the supplies to the producers. Making the maxium money from land sales was not their policy.
Not so fast. The precise treatment of the land grant parcel sales by the SP to settlers is disputed among historians. To baldly make your pronouncement above as gospel (on the basis of your reading of one rather one-sided revisionist history based on SP archives) is misleading at best. As I said before, Norris wrote a novel which was based on many interviews of the farmers who were at the center of the land controversy. Those were first hand accounts and oral history and interviews are the basis of much of our knowledge of the past. To smugly dismiss it as mere fiction (as though it were of the same ilk as some fantasy or dimestore novel) reveals your lack of understanding of literature, as well as the historiography of the period.
schlimmNot so fast. The precise treatment of the land grant parcel sales by the SP to settlers is disputed among historians.
OK,who are these historians that dispute the SP's treatment of land grant parcels? I'm more than willing to read what they say. If you'll just be good enough to point them out and direct me to their writings.
schlimmNorris wrote a novel which was based on many interviews of the farmers who were at the center of the land controversy. Those were first hand accounts and oral history and interviews are the basis of much of our knowledge of the past.
I'm sorry. He did the interviews 20 years after the fact. Stories grow and get embellished over time. And which stories he used and which stories he ignored we'll never know.
The Octopus is a work of fiction and should be seen in that context.
Try google scholar. But the difficulty is access to journals, since that is where most good research is.
Interviews with the settlers 20 years later are better than none at all. It is a source of inormation to be considered in context rather than dismissed. Corsi uses mostly records in SP archives. Valuable, but also one-sided. The best historians try to get as broad a picture as possible and draw conclusions, not have an preconceived agenda and cherry-pick for support.
schlimmTry google scholar. But the difficulty is access to journals, since that is where most good research is.
Aw come on. Give me a name or two. What journal? When?
Let me worry about access. I can probably get access through a library.
I no longer have journal access (other than clinical psychology) and you won't either in your library. However, several authors who write about California history come to mind: Bill Deverell and Kevin Starr at USC and the late Gerald Nash. You could even look up the classic by H. H. Bancroft: Hist. of CA(1888). Populism is treated in J.D. Hicks, The Populist Revolt.
schlimm I no longer have journal access (other than clinical psychology) and you won't either in your library. However, several authors who write about California history come to mind: Bill Deverell and Kevin Starr at USC and the late Gerald Nash. You could even look up the classic by H. H. Bancroft: Hist. of CA(1888). Populism is treated in J.D. Hicks, The Populist Revolt.
OK, I just ordered a hardback used copy of
I ordered it from Amazon for a total of $9.24 including shipping and handling. When it gets here I'll read it and report on what it says.
I do have library privilges at the Northwestern U Transportation Library. So I should be able to get to just about anything transportation related.
Hope that helps. NU is great, and maybe the Transportation Library can get you access to the main library's history journals and academic search engines.
Some works of fiction have driven government policy. If you read Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Octupus or The Jungle you can obtain a deeper understanding of American history. Sinclair Lewis wrote the Jungle to advance the cause of Socialism. Instead his readers got sick and the Fed. pased the first regulations on food safety. The Octupus was taught in CA public schools as history not polemics. That just condems the quality of history instruction in CA. I wonder if they teach the Grapes of Wrath as history.
What's the problem with that? I read "The Scarlet Letter" for high school US History, not American literature. My father thought that history class was an appropriate place for that book. Including these books on a reading list for history classes gives the student a better insight into the culture and ethos of that period. History is much more than a collection of facts and events.
Popular fiction is a way of seeing back into time, same as the Annals of Congress, letters, newspapers, etc.. Perhaps the real reason some on here object is they do not agree with what the themes of the novels were? Uncle Tom's Cabin was a major, anti-slavery influence in its time. I wonder what bobwilcox's objection is to that?
schlimmPopular fiction is a way of seeing back into time, same as the Annals of Congress, letters, newspapers, etc.. Perhaps the real reason some on here object is they do not agree with what the themes of the novels were
I certainly do not agree with the theme of "The Octopus". But that, in and of itself, is irrelevant. It's a work of fiction and a fiction writer is certainly free to write as he/she desires.
What I object to is this fictional tale being treated as if it is a factual history. That, it is not.
I'll read Deverell's book when it arrives. If there are any differences with Orsi's book I'll say so.
Orsi and Deverell are PhD historians. Norris, of The Octopus, was a fiction writer. Big difference.
The Octopus and similar works may give us insight in to the popular mood of the day. But that was then, this is now. We now can, and should, deal in factual information.
The Southern Pacific did significantly help make life in California (and other parts of the west) better. To see them fictionally vilified with that fiction being accecpted as unquestioned fact is disgusting.
greyhoundsThe Octopus and similar works may give us insight in to the popular mood of the day.
And that's about it. Even "history" books are sometimes suspect.
To really understand "based on a true story" fiction (such as the book in question) one must study the world around it at the time.
Not much different than reading Shakespeare, who apparently was quite the punster, if you understand the humor of his day.
I loose track as to where in this thread's 2 pages or the several links I clicked or references I googled, but I see the railroad accused of both inserting its steel tentacles into land the heroic farmers developed and deciding to build on a different route than their original proposal and so make that same land worthless.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.