text:
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 524 > AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC 524 U.S. 214 (1998) > Full Text
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC - 524 U.S. 214 (1998)
OCTOBER TERM, 1997
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v.
CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-679. Argued March 23, 1998-Decided June 15, 1998
Respondent purchases "bulk" communications services from long-distance providers, such as petitioner AT&T, and resells them to its customers. Petitioner, as a common carrier under the Communications Act of 1934, must file with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) "tariffs" containing all its "charges" for interstate services and all "classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such charges," 47 U. S. C. § 203(a). A carrier may not "extend to any person any privileges or facilities in such communication, or employ or enforce any classifications, regulations, or practices affecting such charges, except as specified in such [tariff]." § 203(c). The FCC requires carriers to sell longdistance services to resellers under the same rates, terms, and conditions as apply to other customers. In 1989, petitioner agreed to sell respondent a long-distance service, which, under the parties' written subscription agreements, would be governed by the rates, terms, and conditions in the appropriate AT&T tariffs. Respondent soon experienced problems with the service it received, and withdrew from the contract before the expiration date. Meanwhile, it had sued petitioner in Federal District Court, asserting, inter alia, state-law claims for breach of contract and for tortious interference with contractual relations (viz., respondent's contracts with its customers), the latter claim derivative of the former. Respondent alleged that petitioner had promised and failed to deliver various service, provisioning, and billing options in addition to those set forth in the tariff, and that petitioner's conduct was willful, so that consequential damages were available under the tariff. The Magistrate Judge rejected petitioner's argument that the claims were pre-empted by § 203's filed-tariff requirements; he declined, however, to instruct on punitive damages for the tortiousinterference claim. The jury found for respondent and awarded damages. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, but reversed the Magistrate Judge's failure to instruct on punitive damages and remanded for a trial on that aspect of the case.
Held: The Communications Act's filed-tariff requirements pre-empt respondent's state-law claims. Pp.221-228.
(a) Sections 203(a) and (c) are modeled after similar provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), and the "filed rate doctrine" associated with the ICA tariff provisions applies to the Communications Act as well. MC! Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U. S. 218, 229-231. Under that doctrine, the rate a carrier duly files is the only lawful charge. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, 97. Even if a carrier intentionally misrepresents its rate and a customer relies on the misrepresentation, the carrier cannot be held to the promised rate if it conflicts with the published tariff. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 653. That this case involves services and billing rather than rates or rate setting does not make the filed rate doctrine inapplicable. Since rates have meaning only when one knows the services to which they are attached, any claim for excessive rates can be couched as a claim for inadequate services and vice versa. The Communications Act recognizes this in the §§203(a) and (c) requirements, and the cases decided under the ICA make it clear that discriminatory privileges are not limited to discounted rates, see, e. g., United States v. Wabash R. Co., 321 U. S. 403, 412-413. Pp.221-224.
(b) This Court's filed-rate cases involving special services claims cannot be distinguished on the ground that the services they involved should have been included in the tariff. That is precisely the case here. Even provisioning and billing are "covered" by the applicable tariff. Nor does it make any difference that petitioner provided the same services, without charge, to other customers; that only tends to show that petitioner acted unlawfully with regard to the other customers as well. Pp. 224-226.
(c) The analysis used in evaluating respondent's contract claim applies with equal force to its wholly derivative tortious-interference claim. The Communications Act's saving clause does not dictate a different result. It copies the ICA's saving clause, which has long been held to preserve only those rights that are not inconsistent with the statutory filed-rate requirements. Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 260 U. S. 156, 163. Finally, respondent's argument that petitioner's willful misconduct makes the relief awarded here consistent with the tariff is rejected. Pp.226-228.
108 F.3d 981, reversed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 228. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 231. O'CONNOR, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
David W Carpenter argued the cause for petitioner.
With him on the briefs were Carter G. Phillips, Thomas W Merrill, Peter D. Keisler, and Marc E. Manly.
Bruce M. Hall argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent. *
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent Central Office Telephone, Inc. (COT), a reseller of long-distance communications services, sued petitioner AT&T, a provider of long-distance communications services, under state law for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract. Petitioner is regulated as a common carrier under the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. The issue before us is whether the federal filed-tariff requirements of the Communications Act pre-empt respondent's state-law claims.
Respondent purchases "bulk" long-distance servicesvolume-discounted services designed for large customersfrom long-distance providers, and resells them to smaller customers. Like many other resellers in the telecommunications industry, respondent does not own or operate facilities of its own; it is known as a "switchless reseller," which is the industry nomenclature for arbitrageur. Of course respondent passes along only a portion of the bulk-purchase discount to its aggregated customers, and retains the remaining discount as profit.
Petitioner provides long-distance services and, as a common carrier under the Communications Act, § 153(h), must
*Gary M. Epstein, Maureen E. Mahoney, Teresa D. Baer, Walter H.
Alford, William B. Barfield, M. Robert Sutherland, and Michael J. Zpevak filed a brief for the United States Telephone Association et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
Henry D. Levine, Ellen G. Block, and James S. Blaszak filed a brief for the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee et al. as amici curiae.
observe certain substantive requirements imposed by that law. Section 203 of the Act requires that common carriers file "schedules" (also known as "tariffs") containing all their "charges" for interstate services and all "classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such charges." § 203(a). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is the agency responsible for enforcing the Act, requires carriers to sell long-distance services to resellers such as respondent under the same rates, terms, and conditions as apply to other customers.
Prior to 1989, petitioner had developed a type of longdistance service known as Software Defined Network (SDN), designed to meet the needs of large companies with offices in multiple locations. SDN established a "virtual private network" that allowed employees in different locations to communicate easily. For example, an employee in Washington could call a co-worker in Denver simply by dialing a four-digit extension. SDN customers, in exchange for a commitment to purchase large volumes of long-distance communication time, received this service at a rate much below what it would otherwise cost.
Several changes to SDN in 1989 made the service extremely attractive to resellers, such as respondent, who aggregate smaller customers. Petitioner developed the capability to allow customers to use ordinary ("switched access") telephone lines to connect locations to their SDN networks. Previously, locations had to be connected over special "dedicated access" lines, which are direct lines from a location's telephone system to petitioner's long-distance network, bypassing the switches of the local exchange carrier. Dedicated access involves large fixed costs, so it is cost effective only when a location originates a large volume of calls. Switched access, in contrast, does not entail additional high fixed costs, so it is better suited to small users and hence to resellers. Petitioner also instituted two pricing promotions for SDN in 1989: additional discounts from the basic SDN
rates for customers making large usage and duration commitments, and waiver of installation charges for customers making multiyear commitments (subject to penalties for early termination). Petitioner also added a new billing option. In addition to network billing, whereby petitioner prepares a single bill that applies the tariffed rate to all usage at all locations, petitioner started to offer multilocation billing (MLB), which allows the SDN volume discounts to be apportioned between an SDN customer and individual locations on its network, with the proportion being chosen by the customer. Under this option, petitioner sends bills directly to the customer's individual locations (which, in the case of resellers, means to the reseller's customers) but the customer (or reseller) remains responsible for all payments. The tariff provides, however, that petitioner is not responsible for the allocation of charges. See AT&T Tariff FCC No.1, § 6.2.4 (1986), App. to Brief for Petitioner 24a.
Attracted by these changes, in October 1989, respondent approached petitioner regarding its possible purchase of SDN. LaDonna Kisor, a sales representative in petitioner's Portland, Oregon, office, described the service and gave respondent literature on SDN. She predicted that petitioner could establish an initial SDN network for respondent in four to five months, and could thereafter add new locations within 30 days of receiving an order. Respondent subscribed to a tariffed switched-access SDN plan under which the up-front installation charges would be waived and respondent would receive a 17% to 20% discount off basic SDN rates in exchange for a 4-year commitment to purchase two million minutes of service annually. Respondent also requested MLB. Petitioner confirmed respondent's order, stating that respondent would obtain SDN "'pursuant to the rates, terms and conditions in AT&T's [FCC Tariff No.1],'" and that the provisions of the tariff, "'including limitations on AT&T's liabilities, shall govern your and AT&T's obligations and liabilities with respect to the service and options you have
selected.'" Brief for Petitioner 14. Respondent accepted these terms in writing on October 30, 1989.
By February 1990, it had become apparent that the demand for SDN exceeded petitioner's expectations-largely because of the switchless resellers attracted to the service. Petitioner could not fill the volumes of switched-access orders as rapidly as dedicated access orders, or as quickly as petitioner's personnel had predicted. Accordingly, Ms. Kisor notified respondent that it would take up to 90 days to add new locations after the initial SDN was established. She suggested placing respondent's customers with another AT&T service, the Multilocation Calling Plan (MLCP), until they could be placed on SDN. Respondent agreed to this, and ordered MLCP. Again, respondent signed a letter confirming that MLCP "'is provided under the terms and conditions stated in AT&T's Tariff F. C. C. Nos. 1 and 2.'" Brief for Appellant in Nos. 94-36116, 94-36156 (CA9), p. 15.
Ms. Kisor informed respondent that its initial SDN network was functioning in April 1990. At that point, respondent elected to increase to a larger SDN volume commitment in order to qualify for a larger discount. In placing this order, respondent signed a form stating that the SDN service "'WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE RATES AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE APPROPRIATE AT&T TARIFFS.'" Brief for Petitioner 14-15. Respondent then began reselling SDN to its own customers and placing orders with petitioner that required petitioner to treat respondent's customers as if they were new locations on a corporate SDN.
Almost from the outset, respondent experienced problems with the network, including delays in provisioning (the filling of orders) and in billing. An additional billing problem was especially damaging to respondent: respondent's customers received bills reflecting 100% of the discount instead of the 50% respondent selected. These problems continued, and in October 1990, they led respondent to switch to network bill-
ing. Although respondent continued to resell SDN, it was ultimately unable to meet its usage commitment for the first period in which it was applicable. In September 1992, respondent notified petitioner that it was terminating its SDN service effective September 30,1992, with 18 months remaining on its contract.
Meanwhile, on November 27, 1991, respondent had filed suit against petitioner in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The complaint contained a variety of claims, none of which arose under the Communications Act, and ultimately two state-law claims went to trial: (1) breach of contract (including breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing); and (2) tortious interference with contractual relations (viz., respondent's contracts with its customers). Respondent's state-law claims rested on the allegation that its contracts with petitioner were not limited by petitioner's tariff but also included certain understandings respondent's president derived from reading petitioner's brochures and talking with its representatives. According to respondent, petitioner promised various service, provisioning, and billing options in addition to those set forth in the tariff. Respondent also claimed that petitioner violated its state-law implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by taking actions that undermined the purpose of the contract for respondent, which was to purchase SDN services for resale at a profit. The tortious-interference claim was derivative of the contract claim. Respondent asserted that, because respondent promised certain benefits of SDN to its customers, and because petitioner provided competing services, any intentional violation of petitioner's contractual duties constituted tortious-interference with respondent's relationship with its customers. Respondent also asserted that, since petitioner's conduct was willful, consequential damages were available under the terms of the tariff. Petitioner filed a counterclaim to recover $200,000 in unpaid tariffed charges
from April to October 1990, and to obtain the termination charges that respondent did not pay in 1992.
Throughout the proceedings in District Court, petitioner argued that respondent's state-law contract and tort claims were pre-empted by the filed-tariff requirements of § 203 of the Act. The Magistrate Judge rejected this argument and instructed the jury to consider not only the written subscription agreements, but also any statements made or documents furnished before the parties signed the agreements "'if you find that the parties intended that those statements or written materials form part of their agreements.'" Brief for Petitioner 18. The Magistrate Judge also instructed the jury that it could not find for respondent on its contract claims unless it found that petitioner engaged in willful misconduct. He declined to instruct on punitive damages for the tortious-interference claim. The jury found for respondent on its state-law claims, rejected petitioner's counterclaim, and awarded respondent $13 million in lost profits. The Magistrate Judge reduced the judgment to $1.154 million, which represented the lost profits respondent claimed during the period before it canceled SDN on September 30, 1992; he found that there was no competent evidence for lost profits after that date. The Court of Appeals, over a dissent by Judge Brunetti, affirmed the judgment but reversed the Magistrate Judge's failure to instruct on punitive damages and remanded for a trial on that aspect of the case. 108 F.3d 981 (CA9 1997). We granted certiorari to determine whether the federal filed-rate requirements of § 203 pre-empt respondent's claims. 522 U. S. 1024 (1997).
Section 203(a) of the Communications Act requires every common carrier to file with the FCC "schedules," i. e., tariffs, "showing all charges" and "showing the classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such charges." 47 U. S. C. § 203(a). Section 203(c) makes it unlawful for a carrier to
"extend to any person any privileges or facilities in such communication, or employ or enforce any classifications, regulations, or practices affecting such charges, except as specified in such schedule." These provisions are modeled after similar provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) and share its goal of preventing unreasonable and discriminatory charges. MC! Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U. S. 218, 229-230 (1994). Accordingly, the century-old "filed rate doctrine" associated with the ICA tariff provisions applies to the Communications Act as well. See id., at 229-231; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U. S. 571, 577 (1981); cf. United States Nav. Co. v. Cunard S. S. Co., 284 U. S. 474, 481 (1932). In Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, 97 (1915), we described the basic contours of the filed rate doctrine under the ICA:
"Under the Interstate Commerce Act, the rate of the carrier duly filed is the only lawful charge. Deviation from it is not permitted upon any pretext. Shippers and travelers are charged with notice of it, and they as well as the carrier must abide by it, unless it is found by the Commission to be unreasonable. Ignorance or misquotation of rates is not an excuse for paying or charging either less or more than the rate filed. This rule is undeniably strict and it obviously may work hardship in some cases, but it embodies the policy which has been adopted by Congress in the regulation of interstate commerce in order to prevent unjust discrimina ti on."
Thus, even if a carrier intentionally misrepresents its rate and a customer relies on the misrepresentation, the carrier cannot be held to the promised rate if it conflicts with the published tariff. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 653 (1913).
While the filed rate doctrine may seem harsh in some circumstances, see, e. g., Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U. S. 116, 130-131 (1990), its strict application is necessary to "prevent carriers from intentionally 'misquoting' rates to shippers as a means of offering them rebates or discounts," the very evil the filing requirement seeks to prevent. Id., at 127. Regardless of the carrier's motive-whether it seeks to benefit or harm a particular customer-the policy of nondiscriminatory rates is violated when similarly situated customers pay different rates for the same services. It is that antidiscriminatory policy which lies at "the heart of the common-carrier section of the Communications Act." MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., supra, at 229.
The Ninth Circuit thought the filed rate doctrine inapplicable "[b]ecause this case does not involve rates or ratesetting, but rather involves the provisioning of services and billing." 108 F. 3d, at 990. Rates, however, do not exist in isolation. They have meaning only when one knows the services to which they are attached. Any claim for excessive rates can be couched as a claim for inadequate services and vice versa. "If 'discrimination in charges' does not include non-price features, then the carrier could defeat the broad purpose of the statute by the simple expedient of providing an additional benefit at no additional charge .... An unreasonable 'discrimination in charges,' that is, can come in the form of a lower price for an equivalent service or in the form of an enhanced service for an equivalent price." Competitive Telecommunications Assn. v. FCC, 998 F.2d 1058, 1062 (CADC 1993). The Communications Act recognizes this when it requires the filed tariff to show not only "charges," but also "the classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such charges," 47 U. S. C. § 203(a); and when it makes it unlawful to "extend to any person any privileges or facilities in such communication, or employ or en-
force any classifications, regulations, or practices affecting such charges" except those set forth in the tariff, § 203(c).
Unsurprisingly, the cases decided under the ICA make it clear that discriminatory "privileges" come in many guises, and are not limited to discounted rates. "[A] preference or rebate is the necessary result of every violation of [the analog to § 203(c) in the ICA] where the carrier renders or pays for a service not covered by the prescribed tariffs." United States v. Wabash R. Co., 321 U. S. 403, 412-413 (1944). In Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155 (1912), we rejected a shipper's breach-of-contract claim against a railroad for failure to ship a carload of race horses by a particularly fast train. We held that the contract was invalid as a matter of law because the carrier's tariffs "did not provide for an expedited service, nor for transportation by any particular train," and therefore the shipper received "an undue advantage ... that is not one open to others in the same situation." Id., at 163, 165. Similarly, in Davis v. Cornwell, 264 U. S. 560 (1924), we invalidated the carrier's agreement to provide the shipper with a number of railroad cars on a specified day; such a special advantage, we said, "is illegal, when not provided for in the tariff." Id., at 562. See also Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, supra, at 653; Wight v. United States, 167 U. S. 512, 517-518 (1897); 1. Lake, Discrimination by Railroads and Other Public Utilities 310-315 (1947).
The Ninth Circuit distinguished the Court's filed rate cases involving claims for special services on the ground that the services at issue there "should have been included in the tariff and made available to all" because "the customer would have been expected to pay a higher rate" for those services. 108 F. 3d, at 989, n. 9. But that is precisely the case here. Indeed, the additional services and guarantees that respondent claims it was entitled to by virtue of Ms. Kisor's representations and petitioner's sales brochures-
viz., faster provisioning, the allocation of charges through multilocation billing, and various matters relating to deposits, calling cards, and service support, see 108 F. 3d, at 987988-all pertain to subjects that are specifically addressed by the filed tariff. See AT&T Tariff FCC No.1, § 2.5.10 (provisioning of orders); § 6.2.4 (allocation of charges); § 2.5.6 (deposits); § 2.5.12.B (calling cards); § 6.2.5 (service supports).
The Ninth Circuit agreed that all of respondent's claims except those relating to provisioning and billing would be pre-empted if the filed rate doctrine applied. 108 F. 3d, at 990. But even provisioning and billing are, in the relevant sense, "covered" by the tariff. For example, whereas respondent asks to enforce a guarantee that orders would be provisioned within 30 to 90 days, the tariff leaves it up to petitioner to "establis[h] and confir[m]" a due date for provisioning, requires that petitioner merely make "every reasonable effort" to meet that due date, and if it fails gives the customer no recourse except to "cancel the order without penalty or payment of nonrecurring charges." § 2.5.10(B). Faster, guaranteed provisioning of orders for the same rate is certainly a privilege within the meaning of 47 U. S. C. § 203(c) and the filed rate doctrine. Cf. Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Kirby, supra, at 163 (refusing to enforce promise for faster, guaranteed service not included in the tariff). As for billing, whereas respondent claims that, pursuant to the MLB option, petitioner promised to allocate usage and charges accurately among respondent's customers, the tariff provides that petitioner "will not allocate ... usage or charges" among the locations on the customer's network and "is not responsible for the way that the Customer may allocate usage or charges." AT&T Tariff FCC No.1, § 6.2.4. Any assurance by petitioner that it would allocate usage and charges and take responsibility for the task would have been in flat contradiction of the tariff. See Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 270 U. S. 260, 266 (1926).
The Ninth Circuit distinguished respondent's claims from those in our filed-rate cases involving special services in one other respect: according to respondent, the "special services" that it sought were provided by petitioner, without charge, to other customers, 108 F. 3d, at 989, n. 9. Even if that were so, the claim for these services would still be pre-empted under the filed rate doctrine. To the extent respondent is asserting discriminatory treatment, its remedy is to bring suit under § 202 of the Communications Act.1 To the extent petitioner is claiming that its own claims for special services are not really special because other companies get the same preferences, "that would only tend to show that the practice was unlawful [with regard to] the others as well." United States v. Wabash R. Co., supra, at 413. Because respondent asks for privileges not included in the tariff, its state-law claims are barred in either case.
Our analysis applies with equal force to respondent's tortious-interference claim because that is wholly derivative of the contract claim for additional and better services. Respondent contended that the tort claim was based on "AT&T's refusal to provide [respondent] with certain types of service" and the Magistrate Judge agreed, noting that "'the claims in this case, even the tort claim, ... stem from the alleged failure of AT&T to comply with its contractual relationship.'" 2 Brief for Appellant in Nos. 94-36116, 94-
1 Eight months after the close of discovery (and well after the 2-year statute of limitations in the Communications Act, § 415), respondent sought leave to file a second amended complaint to add a § 202 claim. The Magistrate Judge denied the request. Respondent did not appeal that ruling.
2 The dissent argues that "the jury's verdict on respondent's tort claim is supported by evidence that went well beyond, and differed in nature from, the contract claim," post, at 231, which the dissent asserts requires us to remand this case rather than reverse the judgment. This issue of non contract evidence neither was included within the question presented
36156 (CA9), p. 33. Respondent can no more obtain unlawful preferences under the cloak of a tort claim than it can by contract. "The rights as defined by the tariff cannot be varied or enlarged by either contract or tort of the carrier." Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 260 U. S. 156, 163 (1922); see also Maislin, 497 U. S., at 126.
The saving clause of the Communications Act, § 414, contrary to respondent's reading of it, does not dictate a different result. Section 414 copies the saving clause of the lCA, and we have long held that the latter preserves only those rights that are not inconsistent with the statutory filed-tariff requirements. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 507 (1913). A claim for services that constitute unlawful preferences or that directly conflict with the tariff-the basis for both the tort and contract claims here-cannot be "saved" under § 414. "Th[e saving] clause ... cannot in reason be construed as continuing in [customers] a common law
for our review ("Whether ... the Ninth Circuit improperly allowed statelaw contract and tort claims based on a common carrier's failure to honor an alleged side agreement to give its customer better service than called for by the carrier's tariff") nor was raised by respondent as an alternative ground in support of the judgment. Nor has respondent ever suggested the need for a remand, even though the petition for certiorari sought not merely reversal, but summary reversal. In its brief on the merits, respondent argued that the intentional tort claim was not pre-empted because AT&T's willful breach of its contractual commitments was not protected by the filed rate doctrine. There was no hint of an argument that, even if that willful breach could not form the basis for an action, other alleged intentional acts sufficed to support the judgment below. At no point has respondent disputed the Magistrate Judge's finding that the tort claim is derivative of the contract claim, or the Ninth Circuit's description of its tort claim as based on the fact that "because COT had promised certain benefits of SDN to its customers, and because AT&T provided competing services, any violation of AT&T's contractual duties constituted tortious interference with COT's relationship with its customers." 108 F.3d 981, 988 (1997). Contrary to the dissent's assertion, we have no obligation to search the record for the existence of a nonjurisdictional point not presented, and to consider a disposition (remand instead of reversal) not suggested by either side.
right, the continued existence of which would be absolutely inconsistent with the provisions of the act. In other words, the act cannot be held to destroy itself." Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 446 (1907).
Finally, we reject respondent's argument that, even if the tariff exclusively governs the parties' relationship, the relief awarded is consistent with the tariff, since AT&T Tariff FCC No.1, § 2.3.1 provides that petitioner's "liability, if any, for its willful misconduct is not limited by this tariff." Respondent reasons that, because the jury found that petitioner engaged in willful misconduct, the verdict does not conflict with the tariff. Section 2.3.1, however, cannot be construed to do what the parties have no power to do. It removes only those limitations upon liability imposed by the tariff, not those imposed by law. It is the Communications Act that renders the promise of preferences unenforceable. The tariff can no more exempt the broken promise of preference that is willful than it can the broken promise of preference that is unintentional. (In fact, perversely enough, the willful breach displays a greater, if belated, attempt to comply with the law.)
Because respondent's state-law claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine, we reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, concurring.
The Court concludes that respondent's tortious interference claim is "wholly derivative of the contract claim" and therefore barred by the filed rate doctrine. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's finding to that effect, ante, at 226, and I agree: The acts of tortious interference asserted
against AT&T amount to no more than an intentional refusal to provide services to respondent in an amount or manner contrary to the filed tariff.
I write separately to note that this finding is necessary to the conclusion that respondent's state-law tort claim may not proceed. As the majority correctly states, the filed rate doctrine exists to protect the "antidiscriminatory policy which lies at 'the heart of the common-carrier section of the Communications Act.'" Ante, at 223. Central to that antidiscriminatory policy is the notion that all purchasers of services covered by the tariff will pay the same rate. The filed rate doctrine furthers this policy by disallowing suits brought to enforce agreements to provide services on terms different from those listed in the tariff. This ensures that the tariff governs the terms by which the common carrier provides those services to its customers.
It is crucial to note, however, that this is all the tariff governs. In order for the filed rate doctrine to serve its purpose, therefore, it need pre-empt only those suits that seek to alter the terms and conditions provided for in the tariff. This is how the doctrine has been applied in the past. In Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155 (1912), for example, respondent entered into a contract with petitioner to ship horses from Springfield, Illinois, to New York City via a special fast train. The tariff that the petitioner had filed "did not provide for an expedited service, nor for transportation by any particular train." Id., at 163. The Court ruled that respondent's suit to enforce the special arrangement could not proceed:
"An advantage accorded by special agreement which affects the value of the service to the shipper and its cost to the carrier should be published in the tariffs, and for a breach of such a contract, relief will be denied, because its allowance without such publication is a violation of the act. It is also illegal because it is an undue advan-
tage in that it is not one open to all others in the same situation." Id., at 165.
In Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 260 U. S. 156, 163 (1922), the question was not whether a separate contract could be enforced, but rather whether petitioner could bring an antitrust complaint challenging the rate that respondents had filed in their tariff. The Court ruled that he could not:
"The legal rights of shipper as against carrier in respect to a rate are measured by the published tariff. Unless and until suspended or set aside, this rate is made, for all purposes, the legal rate, as between carrier and shipper. The rights as defined by the tariff cannot be varied or enlarged by either contract or tort of the carrier." Ibid. (emphasis added).
In this case respondent's contract claim seeks to enforce side arrangements that it made with petitioner. Respondent contends that petitioner promised to provide it with services on terms different from those listed in the tariff. As the above cases make clear, the filed rate doctrine bars such a claim. Respondent's tort claim is entirely derivative of its contractual claim, and the Court is therefore correct in concluding that the doctrine also bars the tort claim.
The tariff does not govern, however, the entirety of the relationship between the common carrier and its customers. For example, it does not affect whatever duties state law might impose on petitioner to refrain from intentionally interfering with respondent's relationships with its customers by means other than failing to honor unenforceable side agreements, or to refrain from engaging in slander or libel, or to satisfy other contractual obligations. The filed rate doctrine's purpose is to ensure that the filed rates are the exclusive source of the terms and conditions by which the common carrier provides to its customers the services covered by the tariff. It does not serve as a shield against all
actions based in state law. It is with this understanding that I join the Court's opinion.
JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.
Everyone agrees that respondent's tortious interference claim would be barred by the filed rate doctrine if it is "wholly derivative of the contract claim for additional and better services." Ante, at 226 (majority opinion); ante, at 228 (REHNQUIST, C. J., concurring). Moreover, it is true that when the Magistrate Judge ruled that respondent's case would not support a punitive damages award as a matter of state law, he characterized the tort claim as "stem[ming] from the alleged failure of AT&T to comply with its contractual relationship." Tr. 2207. In my opinion, however, the jury's verdict on respondent's tort claim is supported by evidence that went well beyond, and differed in nature from, the contract claim.
If petitioner, in an effort to appropriate respondent's customers, had included with each bill sent to a customer a statement expressly characterizing respondent as an unethical, profit-hungry middleman, I would think it clear that the filed rate doctrine would not constitute a defense to such tortious conduct. The evidence in the record indicates that a similar result was obtained by mailing bills to the customers that disclosed the markup that respondent obtained on their calls.
Respondent's tort claim was also premised in part on testimony that AT&T used a telemarketer to contact respondent's customers and, without their authorization, convert them to AT&T's own long-distance service. Id., at 557-558. In rejecting AT&T's motion for a directed verdict on the tort claim, the Magistrate recognized that this practice of "slamming" customers could "easily be a case of intentional interference" that would not necessarily also constitute breach of contract. Id., at 2166-2167. Slamming was clearly a part of the case presented in the District Court. There was an
STEVENS, J., dissenting
allegation of slamming in respondent's amended complaint; 1 in the District Court, AT&T's trial counsel took issue with respondent's effort to make slamming "a big part of this case," id., at 2170, and said in closing argument that slamming "is the basis for this intentional interference" claim, id., at 2921; and nothing in the jury instructions remotely suggested that the tort claim required proof of broken promises by AT&T to provide additional services. Respondent's evidence easily fits within the definition of intentional interference set forth in the jury charge:
"COT asserts that AT&T intentionally interfered with its business relations and expectations of future business relations with its customers, the end users of its SD N service. In order to prevail on this claim, COT must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, one, that COT had business relations with the probability of future economic benefit. Two, that AT&T was aware of the relationships and expectation of future benefits. Three, that AT&T intentionally interfered with COT's business relations. Four, that AT&T interfered for an improper motive or by using improper means. And, five, that COT suffered economic injury as a result of the interference." App. 71.
It may be the fact that the billing disclosures and slamming were the consequence of negligence rather than a deliberate plan to take over a network of customers that respondent had developed, but the jury concluded otherwise. It found that petitioner acted intentionally and willfully in interfering with respondent's business relations. See ibid.2 That finding is doubly significant.
1 "[D]espite repeated requests by COT to AT&T, AT&T failed to rectify incidents of unauthorized changes made in the designated carriers ('slamming') of COT's customers." App. 28.
2 The jury's $13 million damages award, reduced by the Magistrate Judge to $1.154 million, did not differentiate between the contract and tort claims.
First, as the Court acknowledges, ante, at 228, the jury's finding precludes a defense based on the provisions of the tariff that purport to limit petitioner's liability. Second, and of greater importance, it determines that the most egregious tortious conduct was not merely derivative of the contract violations. Enforcement of respondent's state-law right to be free from tortious interference with business relations does not somehow award respondent an unlawful preference that should have been specified in the tariff (presumably in return for an added fee or higher rate); it instead gives effect to a generally applicable right that petitioner is required, by state law, to respect in dealing with all others, customers and noncustomers alike. Thus, at least some of the tortious interference occurred independently of the customer-carrier relationship and would have been actionable even if respondent had never entered into a contract with AT&T.
The Court correctly states that the filed rate doctrine will pre-empt some tort claims, but we have never before applied that harsh doctrine to bar relief for tortious conduct with so little connection to, or effect upon, the relationship governed by the tariff. To the extent respondent's tort claim is based on petitioner's billing disclosures and slamming practices, it neither challenges the carrier's filed rates, as did the antitrust claim in Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 260 U. S. 156 (1922), nor seeks a special service or privilege of the sort requested in cases such as Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155 (1912), and Davis v. Cornwell, 264 U. S. 560 (1924). More akin to this case is Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 426 U. S. 290, 300 (1976), in which we held that a common-law tort action for fraudulent misrepresentation against a federally regulated air carrier could "coexist" with the Federal Aviation Act. To a limited degree it may be said that here, as in Nader, "any impact on rates that may result from the imposition of tort liability or from practices adopted by a carrier to avoid such liability would be merely incidental." Ibid. If the Communications Act's
saving clause 3 means anything, it preserves state-law remedies against carriers on facts such as these.
The District Court and the Court of Appeals never considered whether respondent's tort claim is wholly derivative of its contract claim for purposes of the filed rate doctrine, because those courts mistakenly believed that even the contract claim was not covered by the doctrine. On my own reading of the record, I think it clear that a portion of the tort claim is not pre-empted. The Court should therefore remand the case for a new trial rather than ordering judgment outright for AT&T.4
Although the Court holds broadly that respondent's tort claim is totally barred, it declines to consider whether a portion of the claim might survive on remand because this issue was not part of the question presented in the petition for certiorari and was not specifically raised by respondent. Ante, at 226-227, n. 2. The latter point is wholly irrelevant, precisely because of the scope of the question presented. The only question that we agreed to decide was whether the filed rate doctrine pre-empts "state-law contract and tort claims based on a common carrier's failure to honor an alleged side agreement to give its customer better service than called for by the carrier's tariff." Pet. for Cert. i. The Court answers that legal question, and then decides an additional, factual one: whether respondent's tort claim is "based on" AT&T's "failure to honor an alleged side agreement," and thus is "wholly derivative" of the pre-empted contract claim. In resolving that issue, the Court cannot
3"Nothing in this chapter contained shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such remedies." 47 U. S. C. § 414.
4 Beyond the billing disclosures and slamming, respondent asserts that AT&T also misappropriated customer information from respondent's confidential data base. Brief for Respondent 4. That basis for a tort remedy, if supported by sufficient evidence, would also appear not to be pre-empted by the filed rate doctrine.
simply rely on AT&T's bald assertion, supported only by a statement of the Magistrate taken out of context, that the tort claim is "wholly derivative"; we have an obligation either to study the record or at least to remand and allow the lower courts to consider the proper application of the legal rule to the facts of this case.
I respectfully dissent.
Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC - 524 U.S. 214 (1998)


text:
Tag: Mueller
#ImpeachTrump
The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
Robert Mueller via the New York Times
Robert S. Mueller III, his first public comments about the Russia investigation. – Doug Mills/The New York Times
This was a not too subtle hint to the US Congress that the next action that needs to be taken is by them. Like it or not, they have to impeach Donald Trump or they will be abandoning the framework that this country was founded upon. It is one way or the other, and there is no way in between.
Trump is a criminal, many times over. This was true even before he became the president, as documented over and over on this blog, referencing dozens of news outlets. Now he has committed other crimes that Bobby three sticks cannot charge him for. Congress must take up this task, or admit that they have no power to curb a modern president. If they admit this, they admit that they are no longer a co-equal branch of government.
The full Mueller report is here.
Author ranthonysteelePosted on May 30, 2019 June 4, 2019 Format QuoteCategories OHM, PoliticsTags ImpeachTrump, MuellerLeave a comment on #ImpeachTrump
An Article of Impeachment Against Donald J. Trump
When the framers were debating impeachment at the Constitutional Convention, George Mason asked: "Shall any man be above justice?"
The same question faces us now: Can a president use the power of his office to hold himself above the law? Trump is unlikely to face impeachment anytime soon, or perhaps anytime at all. But it's time for all of us — voters, members of Congress, Trump's own staff — to be honest about what he's done. He has obstructed justice.
He may not be finished doing so, either.
New York Times Opinion By David Leonhardt Jan. 28, 2018
This was in my Facebook memories for today. On this day, one year ago, you posted this link from your Tumblr account. A dead link to my now deleted Tumblr account. As I was reading over the list of charges in the article I realized the list is longer than 10 points now, a full year later. Some of these points have been enumerated on this blog over the last two years. This article is the latest in a series of articles that carry the tag #ImpeachTrump but even that list of articles is hardly exhaustive or even current. I've grown tired over the past two years. Tired of attempting to categorize the many, many impeachable offenses of the sitting president. But the offenses continue unabated, whether I'm paying attention or not.
The appointment of Matthew Whitaker to the job of Attorney General after firing Jeff Sessions would figure highly in the expanded list of charges. Appointing someone who was not Senate approved to the job of Attorney General is itself an extra-constitutional act, let alone naming someone who explicitly applied for the job by stating he would end the Mueller investigation.
…and yet Matthew Whitaker hasn't done the one thing he was sent to do. Have you seen the video of the guy sweating in front of television cameras? That is the look of a man with his balls in a vice. Caudillo Trump gave him a job to do, and then Bobby three sticks explained to the idiot what would happen to him if he did the job that His Excellency sent him to do. Now Matthew Whitaker's balls are in a vice. He can't do what he was appointed to do and he can't answer questions about the thing that he was sent to end because Mueller will throw him to the wolves along with Trump if he does. Clearly, Matthew Whitaker can't wait to be out of the hot seat so that he can let the next guy take over.
Which brings me to the next point on the list of impeachable acts. The nominee for the Attorney General's job currently being reviewed by the Senate. He too applied for the job by stating he would end the Mueller investigation. If he gets the nod from the Senate (and why hasn't he already gotten that?) Bobby three sticks will explain to him, in pretty much the same detail he explained to Whitaker, exactly what will happen to him if he interferes with the investigation of Caudillo Trump. In short order he will be seen sweating in front of the cameras refusing to answer questions about the Mueller investigation, while it continues unimpeded.
Caudillo Trump just can't seem to figure out that he's digging his own grave with each thing he does to attempt to hinder the investigation. Each act, another example of his willingness to subvert justice. Why would an innocent man feel the need to keep trying to subvert justice in this way? Could it be he is as guilty as I argued he was two years ago? Caveat Emptor?
The Democratic party now runs the U.S. House of Representatives. Speaker Pelosi holds the gavel, and articles of impeachment would pass the house if they were proposed and seconded, and the trial were to be held today. But the Senate is still held by Republicans, and we need two-thirds of the Senate to convict the current occupant of the Office of the President and remove him from the office that he has repeatedly demonstrated he is not fit to hold. That number is sixty-six. Sixty-six Senators to vote to convict, and only 49 firm votes are currently available for that conviction. We need seventeen Republicans that want to get re-elected next year to step forward and call for the removal of Caudillo Trump. Who will those brave souls be?
First they'll have to oust McConnell as leader of the Republicans in the Senate. I wish them luck in that endeavor. We could take that hard road, or we could hold out a little longer and then cheer President Pelosi as she accepts the nomination of the Democratic party for the office of President of the United States in 2020, an office she inherited due to the crimes committed by the previous president and his vice president. And then cheer her election that November, and her swearing in the following January. Pick one.
Author ranthonysteelePosted on February 1, 2019 February 22, 2019 Categories OHMTags Barr, ImpeachTrump, McConnell, Mueller, Pelosi, Whitaker1 Comment on An Article of Impeachment Against Donald J. Trump
An Increasingly Isolated Orange Hate-Monkey
Today's Sunday talk shows reveal Republicans are distancing themselves from Trump:
Sen. Marco Rubio: "If any president tries to impede an investigation — any president, no matter who it is — by interfering with the F.B.I., yes, that would be problematic. It would be not just problematic. It would be, obviously, a potential obstruction of justice that people have to make a decision on."
Rep. Jason Chaffetz: "You would like, I would think, the president to kind of beat him [Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov] over the head with the fact that, if they actually did interfere in any way, shape or form, how wrong that is and how outraged America is on both sides of the aisle."
Sen. John McCain: "I don't know how to read [Trump's remarks about shutting down the investigation], except that I'm almost speechless because I don't know why someone would say something like that." And Lavrov "had no business in the Oval Office."
As Trump's polls slide, keep particular watch on Republicans from states Hillary Clinton won in 2016 or Obama won in 2012. They'll join in opposition to Trump.
What do you think? – Robert Reich on Facebook
They are rats leaving a sinking ship. It's just too bad that the GOP put him in power in the first place. I don't think their tactical retreat will do them much good; or rather, I hope they don't profit from it. They don't deserve it, they backed him solidly right up to this point and now, Now, NOW that he's admitted impeding an investigation into his and his campaign's actions, NOW they think this presidency is questionable.
So the targeting of hispanics and muslims wasn't bad enough? The scapegoating of the poor wasn't disqualifying enough? The bragging that he could kill people in the street and he would still win wasn't troubling enough? The evidence that he is a sexual predator wasn't damning enough?
Now he fires Comey and brags that he told him to lay off the investigation, the investigation that he insisted was fake news since day one, so this isn't surprising behavior, and NOW they have a problem.
Well, welcome to the club, dumbasses. Wipe the drool off your collective chins and try to pay attention. Caveat Emptor.
Facebook status post backdated to the blog.
Author ranthonysteelePosted on May 22, 2017 Categories OHM, Philosophy, PoliticsTags Crime, Elections, Facebook, Law, Mueller, Party, Race, Robert ReichLeave a comment on An Increasingly Isolated Orange Hate-Monkey

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The products are expected to be in stores in Q1 2013 with distribution throughout the U.S.
"Children's kitchen appliances have been a staple in the toy aisle ever since the first kiddie oven hit the shelves. These new products will add a fun element as well as play value because of the Ringling Bros.association," said Liza Abrams, Sakar Vice President of Licensing. "These aren't just tools for cooking - although they are that - but also props for putting on a circus and serving concessions to match. It will be like having the Ringling Bros.and Barnum & Bailey Circusin your home every day."
Since 1871, The Greatest Show On Earth has been a part of America's cultural heritage. Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus is a family tradition handed down from generation to generation. With three independent touring units - the Red, Blue and Gold - collectively hosting millions of visitors and traveling to more than 120 cities throughout North America each year, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus is unrivaled in size, quality, popularity, attendance and the number of cities visited. For more information about RinglingBros., visit www.ringling.com.


text:
NASA Conducts eVTOL Crash Test
NASA researchers conducted a crash test of an electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft at the Langley Research Center in Virginia. (Photo: NASA)
Just before the holidays, NASA researchers conducted a crash test of an electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. More than 200 channels of data gathered will aid researchers in understanding how the structure of an eVTOL reacts to a crash landing. The data collected will be used to make more accurate predictions for future simulations and testing. It will also inform the potential conditions for a second drop test that is planned to take place in late 2023.
"We successfully tested the eVTOL vehicle concept representing a six-passenger, high wing, overhead mass, multiple rotor vehicle, obtaining more than 200 channels of data, and collecting over 20 onboard and off-board camera views." – Justin Littell, NASA research assistant (Photo: screenshot from video footage provided by NASA / Credits: Gary Banziger)
The eVTOL concept vehicle, developed by NASA's Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology (RVLT) project, featured a "Lift + Cruise" configuration. The aircraft was designed to represent a six-passenger vehicle with multiple rotors. Along with the crash test, NASA's team conducted a variety of experiments such as a range of sizes of crash test dummies and a variety of seat configurations. NASA also tested a modular energy-absorbing composite subfloor on the aircraft.
According to NASA's announcement, "The subfloor and energy absorbing seats functioned as intended and limited the effect of the impact on the crash test dummies." It was also noted that "the vehicle was destroyed beyond expectations which gives researchers valuable data when planning to make AAM vehicles safe for public use."
"Crash test dummies can be seen seated in the vehicle after suffering a severe crash. The vehicle was destroyed beyond expectations which gives researchers valuable data when planning to make AAM vehicles safe for public use." (Photo: screenshot from video footage provided by NASA / Credits: Gary Banziger)
The researchers are still determining the effect of the collapse of the overhead structure on the crash test dummies that occurred during the test.
The crash test took place at the Landing and Impact Research facility at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. Justin Littell, research assistant for Langley's Structural Dynamics Branch, commented on the experiment, saying, "Our computational pretest models did a good job predicting the composite deformation until overhead structural failure. However, the computational models did not predict the overall collapse as seen in the test."
Footage of the crash test can be viewed here.
The post NASA Conducts eVTOL Crash Test appeared first on Avionics International.


Long time, no post (... real life intrudes on my fun, unfortunately).
However, recently Flex have been kind enough to grant me access to their API program, so I have been learning and experimenting with connecting to the radio over ethernet.
This is every bit as fun as I had hoped, not least because it brings together some of my biggest passions: radio, digital comms and functional programming (the latter because I'm creating a Flex 6x00 Haskell API as I go).
Visibility into what Flex have done in regard to the radio as an internet appliance further reinforces my positive impression of this product and the company. Clearly, the 6x00 is a product resulting from a remarkable amount of combined intellectual capital. It continues to be very exciting to contemplate the opportunities afforded by bringing together the technologies in the 6x00. Without a doubt this was a very ambitious project, especially for such a small company, but I really respect what they have accomplished already here, especially 'in the box'.
As an aside, it's clear that the SmartSDR client has a long way to go to fill out features and ergonomics, however even there I would commend Flex for making a great start - the UX is clean and uncluttered, emphasizing the signal visualization in the panadapter(s). SmartSDR does not semi-permanently surface every single control a la HF radio front panel, which I think is a big mistake of many SDR interfaces. Doing a 'genuinely digital', simple, yet efficient UI for an SDR is far more intellectually challenging than just sticking controls everywhere on the screen (even if they are organized in different panels). There is of course always a 'matter of taste' involved in UX and naturally also a large degree of hysteresis due to experiences that users become habituated with. In Amateur Radio it's certainly true that many operators prefer hardware front panels with many options immediately available via dedicated controls. However, I feel that the default views for software controls should be clean as possible, even if there are options for pinning additional controls in the UI so they are available with fewer clicks or keyboard interactions. One thing it's hard to argue with concerning SmartSDR today is that the basic panadater view is awesome, affording such an amazing real-time, high-fidelity view of the received signals. It's wonderful to have a realtime frequency analyzer as your view on the world (and from experience with my son, it's also an amazing learning tool). That's not unique to SmartSDR of course, but the emphasis and fidelity of this feature is the best I've personally seen.
Back to the API, unsurprisingly my initial goals are to get signal data streaming from the radio. Hopefully I can send audio out without too much trouble and then move onto some of my ideas for scanning the band and deducing signal locations and modes.
There's a lively discussion ongoing regarding appropriate and effective metrics for SDRs given their entirely different modus operandi compared to analog radios. This discussion is converging on some methodologies and metrics that should be a better fit for meaningful comparisons across SDRs (in particular) and additional test runs are collecting relevant data.


It is being dubbed the new "bullet-proof bra", a new kind of Wonderbra which could help protect thousands of women police officers here in Germany.
It may sound like a joke, but this is a serious matter - the policewoman who came up with the idea said normal bras can be dangerous when worn in combination with a bullet-proof vest.
"The impact of a bullet can push the metal and plastic bits of the bra into an officer's body, causing serious injury," said Carmen Kibat, an adviser on equal opportunities for the Hamburg-based Bundespolizei - Germany's federal police force.
"I always thought normal bras posed a safety risk and I wanted to change that," she said.
"These new bras are very important and they will help all our women officers."
Dozens of German policewomen have already tested the new bras and, after a two-month long trial, the underwear is being issued to officers as part of their uniform.
So what do the new bras look like?
Well, looking similar to sports bras, the new bras are white, made from cotton or polyester and padded. They also have the word "Police" printed at the bottom.
Crucially, though, the bras do not have any under-wire or fastener made out of metal or plastic.
From now on, women police officers will be allowed to pick three bras from a range of designs, varying in size and style.
"These new bras represent pioneering work," said Ruediger Carstens, a spokesman for the Bundespolizei. "It shows that the safety of our officers is a top priority."
In all, more than 3,000 front-line women police officers across Germany are being encouraged to wear the new bras on duty.
So that includes female officers deployed at airports, train stations, or those deployed at border crossings.
But at the end of the day, it is up to each individual officer to decide whether she will go for the latest "bullet-proof" lingerie - a police spokesman was keen to point out that the new bras "are optional".


text:
Internet Communications Technology
MIL OSI Economics
MIL-OSI Economics: Oprah's Book Club starts a new chapter with Apple
Source: Apple
Headline: Oprah's Book Club starts a new chapter with Apple
Oprah's Book Club starts a new chapter with Apple
Powerful Stories to be Celebrated on Apple Books; First Author Interview Premieres Exclusively on Apple TV+ November 1
Cupertino, California — Apple and Oprah Winfrey today announced Oprah's Book Club will connect a community of readers worldwide to stories that truly matter by today's most thought-provoking authors. Winfrey, the esteemed producer, actress, talk show host, philanthropist and CEO of OWN, will partner with Apple to build a vibrant, global book club that has the power to both transport and transform people — turning every book into an opportunity for self-discovery, and bringing the world together through reading.
Winfrey's first book selection is "The Water Dancer" by Ta-Nehisi Coates, available for pre-order now on Apple Books in both ebook and audiobook formats, and debuting tomorrow.1 Winfrey will interview Coates for the first installment of her new exclusive Apple TV+ series, "Oprah's Book Club," premiering November 1. A new episode will be available every two months. For every Oprah's Book Club selection sold on Apple Books, Apple will make a contribution to the American Library Association to support local libraries, fund programs that give access to everyone and create lifelong readers at an early age.
"Few people in the world can bring us together like Oprah, whose compassion and grace celebrating the power of books are unmatched," said Tim Cook, Apple's CEO. "It's our honor to provide a new platform for Oprah's Book Club and support the American Library Association in opening hearts and minds to the joy of reading."
"I am who I am today because of the experience of learning to read at an early age. Reading opened up a whole world for me beyond the red dirt road and my grandmother's porch in Mississippi," said Oprah Winfrey. "I want to do that for everybody. And the opportunity to do this with Apple, to speak to people all over the world about the pleasures, the excitement, the tension, the drama that a good book can bring you … I don't know what's better than that."
Readers around the world can easily discover Oprah's Book Club through the Apple Books app, where they can learn more about the latest selection and browse previous selections in a beautiful and immersive experience. With the new Reading Goals feature in Apple Books, readers can make reading a daily habit more easily.
Winfrey will interview the authors of her book club selections at various locations. Her conversation with Coates about "The Water Dancer" will be filmed in front of a live audience at Apple Carnegie Library in Washington, D.C. next month. Audiences around the world can watch "Oprah's Book Club" starting November 1 exclusively on Apple TV+, Apple's all-original video subscription service and home for the world's greatest storytellers.
1 The availability of the Oprah's Book Club page and selections will vary based on publisher rights, translations and available format.
Bernadette Simpao,Apple,bsimpao@apple.com,(669) 227-9273
Rita Cooper Lee,Apple,rcooperlee@apple.com,(424) 326-4515
Apple Media Helpline,media.help@apple.com,(408) 974-2042
MIL OSI Economics –
Previous articleMIL-OSI Banking: DCI lost 5.25 percent year to date
Next articleMIL-OSI Translation: LYNX 6 : Year a major allied in Latvia
MIL-OSI Australia: Rebuilding Australian tourism
MIL-OSI Australia: Aggravated robbery at Sefton Park
MIL-OSI China: 4 people die in home shooting in US state of Utah
MIL-OSI China: Ukraine's president rejects PM's resignation
MIL-OSI China: Shanghai-built Tesla popular in China after new tax break


text:
"""
Use a HistogramLUTWidget to control the contrast / coloration of an image.
"""

## Add path to library (just for examples; you do not need this)
import initExample

import numpy as np
from pyqtgraph.Qt import QtGui, QtCore
import pyqtgraph as pg

app = QtGui.QApplication([])
win = QtGui.QMainWindow()
win.resize(800,600)
win.show()
win.setWindowTitle('pyqtgraph example: Histogram LUT')

cw = QtGui.QWidget()
win.setCentralWidget(cw)

l = QtGui.QGridLayout()
cw.setLayout(l)
l.setSpacing(0)

v = pg.GraphicsView()
vb = pg.ViewBox()
vb.setAspectLocked()
v.setCentralItem(vb)
l.addWidget(v, 0, 0)

w = pg.HistogramLUTWidget()
l.addWidget(w, 0, 1)

data = pg.gaussianFilter(np.random.normal(size=(256, 256)), (20, 20))
for i in range(32):
    for j in range(32):
        data[i*8, j*8] += .1
img = pg.ImageItem(data)
#data2 = np.zeros((2,) + data.shape + (2,))
#data2[0,:,:,0] = data  ## make non-contiguous array for testing purposes
#img = pg.ImageItem(data2[0,:,:,0])
vb.addItem(img)
vb.autoRange()

w.setImageItem(img)

## Start Qt event loop unless running in interactive mode.
if __name__ == '__main__':
    import sys
    if (sys.flags.interactive != 1) or not hasattr(QtCore, 'PYQT_VERSION'):
        QtGui.QApplication.instance().exec_()

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Abrothrix jelskii, also known as Jelski's Altiplano mouse, Jelski's grass mouse, or the ornate akodont, is a species of rodent in the genus Abrothrix of family Cricetidae. It is found in the altiplano habitat of the Andes from central Peru through Bolivia into northwestern Argentina. Populations classified under A. jelskii include more than one species.

References

Literature cited
Bernal, N., Zeballos, H., Vargas, J., Patterson, B., Jayat, J.P., and Pardinas, U. 2008. . In IUCN. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on January 12, 2010.
Duff, A. and Lawson, A. 2004. Mammals of the World: A checklist. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 312 pp.
Musser, G.G. and Carleton, M.D. 2005. Superfamily Muroidea. Pp. 894–1531 in Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2 vols., 2142 pp.

Abrothrix
Mammals of the Andes
Mammals of Argentina
Mammals of Bolivia
Mammals of Peru
Mammals described in 1894
Taxa named by Oldfield Thomas
Taxonomy articles created by Polbot

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Two Minnesota Governor's Commendation awards for GIS were presented at the GIS/LIS Conference in St. Cloud, Minnesota, October 6, 2006 to:
Firewise in the Classroom
Firewise in the Classroom helps students from grades 6-12 learn about GIS/GPS technology, while they assist their communities by assessing fire risk of homes and neighborhoods. In a three-phase process, the students:
use GIS and orthophotography to assess home proximity to surrounding trees,
conduct a ground assessment using GPS to pinpoint locations, and
prepare a community assessment.
Residents are provided necessary information about their risk and ways to reduce it. The community report assists firefighters and helps build a statewide database. Since the 2004-05 school year, this program has benefited over 100,000 homeowners, 400 communities and 1,500 students in 18 school districts. The program meets state and national educational criteria and recently received prestigious George F. Cram Awards from the National Council for Geographic Education.
Recognized organizations include:
Minnesota DNR Firewise Program
GIS 4 Schools
Macalester College Department of Geography
Minnesota Alliance for Geographic Education
For more information, see the Firewise in the Classroom Project
Preserving GLO Plat Maps
Plats of the original General Land Office (GLO) Public Land Survey serve as the fundamental legal records for all real estate in the state; all property titles and descriptions stem from them. These plats were created from 1848 to 1907 and are deteriorating from both age and use. This commendation awards a multi-agency effort to scan and preserve more than 3,600 of Minnesota's original survey plat maps. These high-quality scanned plat maps are now online, readily accessible to surveyors and the GIS community, making their work easier and saving them countless hours in searching for this vital source material. These savings lower costs for citizens and governments across the state. The plat maps also serve as a rich source of information about the state's physical geography prior to European settlement. Their inherent beauty has made them popular with citizens and copies hang on many home and office walls. More than 5,000 copies are viewed online or downloaded each month.
Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State
Minnesota Association of County Surveyors
Land Management Information Center
Minnesota Historical Society
More information about the online plat maps can be found at the GLO Historic Plat Map Retrieval System webpage.


text:
Satellite map July 5 – July 10
New Virginia Eagle Locator Website
Overwhelming Response to Eagle Site
Published by Center for Conservation Biology at July 13, 2009
The latest satellite map (early morning July 5 to early morning July 10) from data transmitted from Azalea (HH) indicates that she has expanded her range further east including trips across the runway at Norfolk International Airport. There have been reports by local photographers that she has been seen soaring high. At least one of the data points was likely transmitted while she was in the air soaring rather than perched in a tree. Also a reminder that this data is sent from a satellite 250 miles up in the sky and there can be up to a 60 foot error in the data.
Bald Eagle Purple DC Jan 1, 2018
Grace Transmitter Stops Sending Signal
Location October 29-31, 2017 Bald Eagles with Transmitters
annsva says:
It's a big world out there….I guess we'll have to adapt and accept the fact eagles don't live in a small protected environment.
Winddancer says:
Looks like Azalea is expanding her world. I love to watch eagles soar,they are so majestic and strong. It also is a worry that Azalea might get tangle with a aircraft,but as my dh says,I can't worry,what will be will be. But I will remain positive that she and all the rest of the eagle will do well. Happy Soaring Azalea
This reminds me that on July 4th, my family were together for a cookout. I have mentioned before, we have a nest of eagles about three miles from my house that have only been there for about four years. As we were setting outside, one of the adults flew right over us twice. My dad who was in the battle of the Frozen Chosen and is now 86 was sitting there. I looked around and thanked him for all of us who are free, that of which this eagle flyover was a reminder and so fitting. the timing was perfect. He looked at me and smiled. with a little tear in his eye..soooo fitting.. I love all military people. he was in the United States Marines…oohh raahh!!!


ShopoLance.com lets the shoppers to choose the best available Large Chest Box. Our goal is to make your shopping experience easy and pleasant.
ShopoLance.com provides a fundamentally better way for consumers to shop and allows consumers to search for Large Chest Box across the leading stores at the same time.
DEWALT DWST38000 63-gal. Tough Chest Mobile Storage Massive storage capacity for anything you can think of.
ShopoLance.com is your premier resource for shopping & gift ideas for everyone. We compare prices of 100+ online stores and collect shopping details for every gift: shop for Large Chest Box gift ideas from clothes to electronics at ShopoLance.com.
© ShopoLance.com - 500 000+ Items For Special Prices: Large Chest Box Price Comparison, Coupons, Stores.


text:
Home > News Stories > Cloud > Pulsant Expands Data Centre
Pulsant Expands Data Centre
Pulsant has announced the expansion of its well-established South Gyle tier 3 data centre site, based just outside of Edinburgh, with the construction of a new facility.
The expansion project includes the construction of two new data halls, consisting of up to 64 racks in each, as well as build and configuration rooms and secure storage areas. The new facility will feature two-factor authentication security access and will be configurable according to specific customer requirements.
"This expansion is part of Pulsant's overall growth strategy which includes upgrading and growing our existing data centre sites," says Matt Lovell, CTO, Pulsant. "The drive behind this strategy is to ensure we deliver cost-effective, highly secure, environmentally sound services to our customers through our technologically up-to-date facilities that deliver maximum uptime, redundancy and support."
"The decision to expand our existing site means that new customers can effectively move right into the new halls once construction is complete, as the infrastructure to support the racks is already in place. For our existing customers this increase in capacity ensures that they experience no disruption to their service, but will be able to take advantage of the additional racks with ease," says Lovell.


3 Must Have University of Wales fake degree Resources. Founded in 1893, the University of Wales is a former University of Wales College (predecessor to Aberystwyth University), buy University of Wales fake degree, fake diploma, fake certificate, fake transcript online, University of North Wales College (formerly Bangor University) and South Wales and Monmouthshire A joint university initiated and formed by the University College (the first name of Cardiff University). Swansea University College (predecessor of Swansea University), buy University of Wales fake degree, fake diploma, fake certificate, fake transcript online, National College of Wales (in Cardiff University in 2004, became Cardiff University School of Medicine), Higher Institute of Technology in Wales (renamed "University of Wales Science and Technology" The College, merged with Cardiff University College in 1988, and St. David's College (predecessor of St. David's Trinity University) joined the University of Wales in 1920, 1931, 1967, and 1971, respectively. In 1988, due to the economic crisis, the University of Wales School of Science and Technology and Cardiff University College (predecessor of Cardiff University) merged into Cardiff University College (one of the former names of Cardiff University).
In 1996, the school recruited the Cardiff Institute of Higher Education (renamed after the University of Wales Cardiff College, the predecessor of Cardiff City University) and the Kwant College of Higher Education (predecessor of Newport University) as members and reorganized into A joint university with a two-tier system. The original seven colleges became the seven components of the University of Wales, buy University of Wales fake degree, fake diploma, fake certificate, fake transcript online, and the two new colleges became the University of Wales College. buy University of Wales fake degree, fake diploma, fake certificate, fake transcript online. The latter two schools were approved by the Privy Council in 2003 to become full members of the University of Wales.
2: Pay 50% down payment as deposit.
3: Confirm with you after finish drafts.
4: After confirming, pay the balance.
5: Printing, packaging the delivery.
6: Send you the tracking numbers.


For the last few years when you ordered software from Rockwell Automation, in addition to being shipped the physical media you also received a confirmation email with activation information and download link.
This gave facilities with high speed internet access the ability to download, install, and activate newly purchased software within twenty four hours of placing their order.
And while I found those order confirmation emails extremely helpful, I also took comfort in the fact that when I ordered Rockwell Software I would also receive the physical media and activation document.
That's not to say I think Rockwell's move is necessarily a bad thing.
While I've been a late adopter in switching from physical media to digital content in my personal life (music, games, etc,) the ease of access and immediate availability of the digital versions have slowly been luring me away from always buying the physical editions.
And while the process of logging into Rockwell's website and finding your software can be described as "tedious" when compared to Amazon or Steam, making use of the Rockwell order confirmation email couldn't be easier: Click the link, type in your activation info, and download the desired version.
So while I hate to pay more today for the same software and physical media that I purchase last month, in the end the move to electronic delivery of software and media seems to the way of the future.
Will you pay $100 more for each Rockwell Software package you purchase to continue to receive the physical media, or are you content with just receiving the digital download?
Let me know your thoughts by using the post a comment or question link below.
Next Article:Insights Inbox: How do I edit a PanelView Plus .MER file?
One of the main challenges I have with the online download is that the entire RSLogix array of versions cannot be installed at once. When using the physical media, the installation allows you to check all of the versions during the initial installation including the firmware. I have yet to figure out if this is possible from the downloads.
Yeah, I totally agree! When I recently setup a new VM I grabbed my Disc to install all the back revs in one swoop – so very convenient!
Maybe for packages like RSLogix where there is an advantage you could just give your PA the ENM part number?
I know on my projects using expensive software like Historian, I will require it as $100 is just a drop in the bucket, and I'm not continually downloading 4g installs lol!
Thanks for your comment – have a great weekend!
I have no idea what my purchasing department will do for the next year's licenses, but I don't miss the DVDs or hard drive. That being said, I'm the guy usually sending out the email to my coworkers that XYZ software is located on the server at ABC location.
Towards the bottom of the Rockwell Software Downloads page is a semi-hidden drop down arrow labeled "Additional Download Files". If you expand this you can download all of the content on what would be the Rockwell RSRevs Hard Drive. If you download that you have a digital copy that will install all of the versions in one shot like you are use too. So still available via digital, just have to know where to click!
I've found the "additional downloads" to be very helpful with some packages, but not so much with others.
Maybe moving forward they will insure all packages always have all their "additional downloads" available? Or even revert to offering the "shipping disc version" along with the default "lite web" download?
Yes, I think you are correct – that looks to be the entire RSRevs hard drive, versus the additional downloads which I have found does not always provide the same software found on the DVDs.
I installed this software in Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit and Prior, I have never installed yet AB Software in this PC. Could you help me to give solution to fix this issue, please?
I don't have Win 7 Ultimate, so I'm not sure what the problem you are running into is?


COLUMBUS, Ind. — Preliminary used Class 8 volumes (same dealer sales) slipped for a second consecutive month in December with a 7 percent decline, marking the first time since January 2016 that same dealer sales have fallen below 2,000 units, according to the latest preliminary release of the State of the Industry: U.S. Classes 3-8 Used Trucks published by ACT Research. However, the report indicated that this is not particularly concerning, in and of itself.
Other data released in ACT's preliminary report included year-to-date comparisons for December 2018, which showed that volume was up 8 percent compared to the end of 2017.
The average price rose 13 percent year-to-date, while average miles were flat.
Average age improved but was still 3 percent below year-to-date December 2017.
ACT's Classes 3-8 Used Truck Report provides data on the average selling price, miles, and age based on a sample of industry data.
In addition, the report provides the average selling price for top-selling Class 8 models for each of the major truck OEMs – Freightliner (Daimler); Kenworth and Peterbilt (Paccar); International (Navistar); and Volvo and Mack (Volvo).


text:
New Farmed Animal Slaughter Rules Proposed – Have Your Say
As part of a food safety modernization initiative, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is overhauling our decades-old slaughter regulations.
Though it's unsurprising that the focus of the new food safety regulations is food safety, it's concerning that the welfare of the 750 million land animals we kill for food each year in Canada reads more like a footnote than an integral aspect of the regulatory scheme.
In fact, the entire preamble that introduces the new rules (over 22 thousand words) discusses only food safety and economics. There's not a single reference to animal welfare.
Although suspending conscious animals will be banned under the new rules, an exception is made for birds—including chickens and turkeys—even though these animals are the vast majority of the ones we kill for food (97 percent). Conscious chickens and turkeys will continue to be shackled upside-down before their heads are dragged through an electrified vat of water.
It's not because these animals don't suffer when hung upside down, their legs yanked into wedge-shaped metal shackles—they do. And it's not because less cruel methods aren't available—they are. Rather, it's because the priority in drafting new farmed animal rules is industry convenience instead of animal welfare.
The new rules also don't address the serious problem of too many of animals being improperly stunned on fast moving slaughter lines. In practice, this margin of error means that animals are routinely drowned, scalded, or skinned alive.
Aquatic animals are entirely excluded from the rules, meaning not a single piece of legislation regulates the welfare of fishes at slaughter, despite a growing body of science showing these animals are conscious and experience pain and fear. By contrast, in the European Union, fishes too are covered by the general rule that prohibits inflicting excessive pain and distress at slaughter.
Like their predecessors, the new rules require animals to be unconscious before having their throats cut, but allow an exemption for ritual slaughter. The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association—as well as most transnational veterinary and animal welfare groups—opposes this non-stun slaughter for inflicting additional pain and fear onto animals.
The new rules continue to permit electric prods. Covertly obtained footage has shown not only that these cruel devices are used to force injured and ill animals to walk, but that government inspectors have been present for such reprehensible conduct and failed to act.
Government inspectors aren't even required to always be on-site. When violations occur there's a good chance nobody will be there to enforce the law anyway. The EU deals with the economic and practical difficulty of always having government inspectors present by requiring slaughterhouses to appoint Animal Welfare Officers on their own dime to implement animal welfare measures.
As part of a worrying trend away from measurable regulations, the new rules are filled with vague terms like "sufficient space," "avoidable injury," and "sufficient ventilation." These amorphous terms—termed "outcomes-based measures"—tend to be under-enforced to animals' detriment. In the European Union, quantifiable and well-defined standards delineate clear regulatory boundaries.
Updated labelling rules make it more explicit that the government's priority is monitoring packaging quantities and ingredients. So-called values claims, such as "free range" and "grass fed," will be left to industry to define—even if it misleads consumers.
When it comes to food safety, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency demonstrates that it's capable of creating rigorous standards—for instance, chewing gum is prohibited in any food packaging or animal slaughtering facility because evidently it risks contaminating food. Yet, the new slaughter rules lump living animals together with inanimate food items, sidelining even their most fundamental interests to the most trivial of ours.
There is a growing awareness that animals—including farmed animals—are sentient individuals with rich emotional lives. Fortunately, it's not too late to demand better for these animals from the regulator. The public is invited to submit comments on the draft rules until April 21st, 2017 to [email protected]inspection.gc.ca.


I am delighted to inform you that with immediate effect, all staff will be able to order from our core list with the 'consortium' and will benefit from up to 80% discount on some lines.
As part of our 52 improvements, we have been researching ways that our colleagues can benefit from some of the amazing discounts that we get with our suppliers.
The consortium offers a wide range of products from toys, books, stationery and cleaning products.
Please visit the website at www.consortiumeducation.com. You will get 10% off all lines, however, higher discounts are applied to our core range. To browse our core range in your own time, this would need to be done via the Nursery login details and at a time that is convenient for the Admin / Manager.
Payment on account or Credit/Debit card. For personal items you must pay there and then by credit or debit card and the items will be delivered directly to the setting.


Score 9 Another good looking box of ribs. I gave this a 9, but wish they had another couple of ribs for the volunteers.
9. Looks great and if y'all will turn your heads, I'll eat all 6 of these ribs!
9. Maybe a little heavy on the sauce. Hard to tell in the picture.
Solid 8, maybe 9 in person.
Interesting presentation. As a judge you get used to the majority of boxes looking a certain way and then you get a box like this. You have to make sure to not let the fact that the box looks different influence you. That being said these ribs look excellent! I'd give this box a 9.
Score 8. Nice ribs! The box layout just does not appeal to me.
9 - That's what I'm talking about!!!! Great box!!
The meat looks great, but sauce is a bit messy and the presentation may look a little better with 2 rows so you hide those "burnt ends".
Too much sauce for my liking, but I can't help myself from giving this box a 9!
A little tough to tell, but these look pretty nice. There's perhaps a bit of gloppy going on with the sauce and perhaps a thumb print type-of-thing, which if I'm seeing this right would probably make it more of an 8 than a 9.
8 - The sauce looks a little gloppy, but it could be the photo.


Maxresdefault From Bedroom Makeover is one of brilliant home design remodeling ideas to get great and perfect home. The Maxresdefault From Bedroom Makeover is also one of the popular designs for home design categories on June, 2016. Moreover Maxresdefault From Bedroom Makeover has been created by awesome architecture designer.
For images reference about Maxresdefault From Bedroom Makeover you can choose one of gallery Maxresdefault From Bedroom Makeover below, so many image references about Maxresdefault From Bedroom Makeover that you can choose for best inspirations and great solutions for home design problems.


Although I prepared these photos days ago, I have been regarding them carefully one a time for a while, letting the sun outside my window bow into itself, just as it did while I had taken them.
You see, I have been out of sorts all day. A silly thing, really. Remi is up in Paris on business and I couldn't sleep at all without the reassurance of his presence. The rise and fall of his breathing at my side. Something that hasn't happened in a long time, that sneaking fear winning me over but there I was, rising in the night, wandering through the rooms, checking the locks, searching up for stars. My own private ghost.
One of the men that we spoke to--my, they speak slowly in Simiane--said that tourists don't often bother with this "village de caractère" because it is not directly on the road. Peu importe, if it is only two minutes away. Well, tant mieux. For the rest of us.
Speaking of something to listen to, my honey is about to board his TGV and should be home just after midnight.
Have a wonderful weekend everyone, full of lots of dreams, yes, the good kind!
Falling in love can be so easy, can't it?
Sometimes you just know. I had a hunch from the first moment that the village of Simiane la Rotonde would be the real thing and my instinct didn't let me down.
Patina, time pushing up against each other at odd angles and solitude. Simiane checks the boxes of more than a few of my favorite things. Remi and I eventually stopped talking as we wound our way up and around, delighting in suspended gardens and ornate gates leading to forgotten bastides.
A bird is free now to make his nest in the curlicues of a Renaissance manor but Simiane was once quite wealthy, quite populated. While 1,157 people strolled its cobble stone streets in 1753, there are 30-70 residents living in the village year-round, depending on who you ask.
The 16th century covered market hall opens out onto the lavender fields below and is a simple token of the village's more glorious past.
When we fall in love it is hard not to be exuberant, n'est-ce pas?
When my wonderful companion, Remi, first came up with the idea to escape the noise of the Feria or Harvest Bullfights in Arles by going away, I responded with an immediate and emphatic "Yeessss". It was the best idea I had ever heard! While our friends had been dashing off to the beach or the mountains all summer long, Remi was working and working hard. We were city-bound, without the lazy glamour of being able to dive into air-conditioned multiplexes and echoing museums mid-afternoon. So when it was time to decide on a destination, we approached our search with the tenacity of France's rugby team preparing to head off against New Zealand.
We knew one thing and one thing only. We were both in serious need of Quiet. Yes, the capital Q kind. And as the beginning of September is still considered high season in many parts of Southern France, we had budget considerations to keep in mind as well. Of course I took my hunt very seriously. Hello? I am a travel writer! It is my job to sniff out the overlooked, the undiscovered but fabulous. So I spent days and I do mean days trawling every website imaginable. Until one evening, without saying anything to me, Remi popped online. Ten minutes later, pas plus, he casually tossed me a line, "Hey, what about this?"
"This" was a cabanon in the Northern Luberon, the anti-bling non-Maylesy kind that ne'er a tour bus does see. The wee abode is on the edge of a lavender field and yes, they accept dogs, yes, there was availability for that week, no there wasn't plastic garden chairs used as the living room furniture and for...300€ per week (that is $388 USD, 239 British Pounds). Done. So beyond done.
The owners, Eric and Sabine, were away on a little vacation of their own and so we were met and welcomed by Sabine's parents both of whom are from the area since generations. It says a lot about the people of the region that Sabine and Eric were trusting enough for us to be les maitres du domaine in their absence. But it was still with trepidation that I entered the cabanon--would it be all that I hoped?
Up a short flight of stairs to the cozy bedroom. Sabine's Mom proudly showed me the magnetic blinds she had made to block out the ever-present sunlight for those that didn't want to rise with the dawn. Um yes, that would be us, merci.
Back down to le salon and down a bit more to the fully stocked and I do mean fully stocked kitchen. I have to admit, this was one of the key factors that had sold me on the cabanon as how very, very rare that is. There was even un panier of left behind items--a box of spaghetti, coffee filters and the like--for the just in case. A touch which is completely in line with the beautifully thought out details of the renovation of what was once the family farm's four à pain or bakery. When I later learned that Eric is an interior architect, I was hardly surprised. I loved how he recuperated and integrated materials from the existing structure, such as the beams and shelves just over Ben's head below, not to mention that the sand-based lime-wash on the walls was one of the best executed I have seen, which for Provence, is saying something. Truly, a really lovely renovation that makes the best of what is and what was.
Beyond the kitchen is a small but entirely serviceable bath (and positively enormous compared to the "pirouette in place" shower that we have at home). Need I mention that everything was spotlessly and I do mean spotlessly clean?
It was no wonder at all that soon we felt right at home.
It is such a lovely area that it is also a preferred choice of certain other visitors...I warned you that this is the country!
Yes, there are cats and dogs and chickens but that is all part of the experience. Here, you are not isolated on the edge of the world but a part of something authentic even if the design is authentic! When Eric and Sabine returned, along with their toddler twins, they were not only extremely charming hosts but discreet ones as well.
The cabanon is exactly what it claims to be, a wonderfully comfortable stone cabin, at only 30 square meters large. But we honestly felt like we didn't need anything more.
And most importantly, we felt entirely bienvenue.
One final aspect worth noting, the cabanon goes up to 350€ in the peak of high season, which remains an extremely reasonable price and one in accordance with the farm setting. I only ask that you don't book the cabanon during the week of the lavender harvest because we plan on going back!