From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 16 14:23:51 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2GJNps19760; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:23:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:23:51 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403161923.i2GJNps19760@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #125 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:23:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 125 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Call Control (was Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls)(Withheld by reader) Need Sys Admin Manual for VODAVI Starplus STS System (Mike Roman) Re: Caller ID for PC (Flatus Ohlfahrt) Re: Caller ID for PC (J Kelly) Re: Dial From Outlook (RC@mail2.sol.net) Re: Dial From Outlook (saturnius) Re: Thanks For the Norvergence Red Flags! (Justin Time) Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet (jmayson@nyx.net) Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet (Tony P.) Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet (Michael Chance) Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet (Paul Vader) Re: I Found Something You May Like (Andrew Bell) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:33:52 -0600 From: Withheld at Request Subject: Call Control (was Re: Need to Block Outgoing Calls to Specific) [Hi, PAT -- please drop email and sig again. Thanks.] OK, here's the wrap-up on this situation. We finally got Call Control installed and configured; hopefully this will solve the problem. Strangely, Call Screening is not available in this area even though Call Control is. Perhaps there's a regulatory requirement for Call Control? It seems to be implemented in a pretty kludgy fashion (see below). When I called to actually get Call Control installed (BTW I'm in Illinois and the Call Center I was talking to was in Spokane, WA), the rep said, "OK, what type of call control would you like?" They didn't know that Call Control was the name of a specific feature. Once we got over that hump, they had to poke around in several different screens before they found it. Before Call Control was ordered, dialing "*95" got reorder and nothing else. After ordering Call Control but before it was working, for a while *95 got a recording: "Your call cannot be completed as dialed." The recording was very scratchy and almost unintelligible. Now that Call Control is installed, here's how it works: You pick up the phone and dial *95. There is a long delay, I counted 6 seconds before anything happened. You are prompted to enter your telephone number, then your PIN (default is "9999"). Then a recording says, "Please wait while your phone number and PIN are verified." The first time (only) you are then taken immediately to the "change PIN" routine. A system of menus walks you through setting up numbers to be blocked, or permitted, and exceptions. For instance, you can block all LD, except this number, or this AC. All we're using here (so far) is the "block specific numbers" feature. Every time you dial *95, you are prompted to enter your telephone number. I don't know why this should be needed, as you can only program it from the line it's been installed on. Once the service is programmed, if you dial a blocked number you get a (very bad!) recording saying, "The number you have dialed is not authorized." At least, I _think_ that's what the recording says. It's so scratchy and distorted I really can't understand the last few syllables. But the service does work, in that you can't complete a directly-dialed call to blocked numbers. The way Call Control is programmed, and the way it acts in operation, lead me to believe it's implemented outside the switch -- at least in 708-354. It seems quite rough around the edges. I can't believe how crappy those recordings are! But it gets the job done, anyway. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Two questions: How much was the charge to set it up and how much is the monthly fee? Does *95 also allow for numbers/codes, etc previously blocked to be removed from the list or re-authorized once again as needed? Another question of a more personal nature: How has the alzheimers patient reacted to this change in service? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Roman Subject: Need Sys Admin Manual for VODAVI Starplus STS System Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:27:14 -0500 The Trenton Area Soup Kitchen just purchased a VODAVI Starplus STS phone and voice mail system, and we are in need of the system administrator's manual(s). Our vendor claims not to have them, but someone has gotta have the information he's learned and keeps in his head. :-) Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Flatus Ohlfahrt Subject: Re: Caller ID for PC Date: 15 Mar 2004 22:44:30 GMT Organization: USAF Ret On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:24:16 GMT, Tony P. wrote in news:telecom23.123.5@telecom-digest.org: > In article , > jkelly@newsguy.com says: >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:54:24 UTC, >> dold@CallerXIDX.usenet.us.com wrote: >>> Why not get a $10 caller ID device at Target, and plug it >>> in to the "phone" port of your modem? >> Because the desk has enough devices sitting on it, and I >> like the pop-up CID software I have. I just got a new >> cordless phone so the old one that also had CID moved to >> the computer room, so I guess that solves my dillema for >> the most part. I will miss the logging that the software >> did, but I guess I'll live. Thanks for the reply. > Just FYI -- the HSP56 modems built into most PC's handle > CLID just fine. You just need software to monitor it. Go to > download.com and search on Caller ID. I tried every caller ID software I could find on line a couple of years back. None met my expectations when used with Windows (as opposed to a couple of pretty good ones from the DOS days). What I wanted, in addition to a really large visual pop-up, was call logging, ability to pull the computer out of screen-saver mode, very fast reaction time, and ability to return calls. FWIW, the best CID devices I have are the ones built into my DirecTV receivers. They really do work well. Flatus ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Caller ID for PC Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:49:27 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 04:23:48 UTC, dold@CallerXIDX.usenet.us.com wrote: > Why doesn't your popup work anymore? I missed that part. I thought > you were looking for a modem where you never had success before. I was using an old USR External modem, and it takes up too much room on the desk so I ditched it. Looking for something either *very* small, or internal PCI. I've tried a half dozen internal PCI's (all claiming to support CLID) and none work properly. It appears that most winmodems either can't do CLID or require specialized software, but do not necesarrily supports the AT command set for CLID which is what the software I like uses. Most of the cheap USRs I've seen do not mention CLID. I wish there was a PCI version of the USR Courier, I have an ISA one but PC's don't come with ISA slots these days. ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Subject: Re: Dial From Outlook Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:08:09 -0500 Organization: NNTP Servers - The best Usenet service available anywhere Scott Dorsey wrote in message news:telecom23.123.3@telecom: > Why would you want to use Outlook, when there are plenty of dialing > packages out there? At worst you could export your outlook address > book to one. Or are you looking for some new way to get more virus > infections and spread them by telephone too? > --scott > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Scott, Isn't there enough misinformation without confusing people by saying you can spread a computer virus through a phone call. Stick with reality. And for the record I use Outlook and manage dozens of networks none of which have EVER had a virus problem after they put in the AV solution I recommend. It's even maintaince free, does all it's own updates, can't be turned off by the uses, has NEVER returned a false positive, and there is no yearly subscription fee. It's all about picking the right product and knowing how to use it. And if you need a reason to use Outlook, how about this it's FREE and mayby they're using some of the more advanced features of Exchange that don't translate to another application. Outlook isn't Outlook Express (God I wish MS would rename it). Randall Cohen Sr. Systems Engineer Alternative Communication Systems, Inc. Email: rcohen_at_acsvoicedata_dot_com.no-spam The only thing I guaranty about my free advice is that it's mine and it's free. ------------------------------ From: saturnius@gmx.net (saturnius) Subject: Re: Dial From Outlook Date: 16 Mar 2004 06:09:35 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Dear all, Thank you for your replies. The reason for using Outlook is because I do synchronise with my mobile telephone and my PDA -- Why using an other programme? On the other hand, me and my collegues (they are a bit older ;-) are used to "standard" telephones. Why is there not a progamme that uses the serial interface (or USB) to connect to a standard telephone? Cheers, Saturnius kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:: > saturnius wrote: >> I am looking for a product that connects a standard telephone with MS >> Outlook. I was just wondering whether there is a standard telephone >> with a serial/USB/Bluetooth interface and an Outlook plugin. I would >> like to use the Outlook Contacts but also keep my standard >> telephone. Is there something like this? > Why would you want to use Outlook, when there are plenty of dialing > packages out there? At worst you could export your outlook address > book to one. Or are you looking for some new way to get more virus > infections and spread them by telephone too? > --scott > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just of curiosity, I have a Motorola Cable Modem model 'SB4220' Surfboard. On the back of this modem, in addition to the cable in/output and the ethernet cable connection and the power cord, there is a place for a USB connection. Who knows what that USB connection is for? Would some people use that instead of the ethernet connector? PAT] ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Thanks For the Norvergence Red Flags! Date: 16 Mar 2004 06:07:14 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Richard Ramirez wrote in message news:: > So you never actually met with a rep and you really are just assuming > what type of sales tactic they would use? > Did you know that they leave all the documents with you for your > review after the initial interview? They do not expect you to "sign > on the spot" as you feared. Now, in all fairness, if you didn't like > the phone call, then say that. If you had received a proposal that > made no sense, then say that. > But don't post that they used a high pressure sales tactic when you > never even met with a rep. There is nothing wrong with a company not > wanting to meet with an admin or secretary. Anybody with sales > experience will tell you the importance of meeting with an authorized > decision maker. It prevents the rep from wasting their (& the > company's) time. That is sales 101. > R.R. I hate to burst Mr. Ramirez's bubble, but there are courses labled Sales 101 and there are courses labled Sales 101. I work in a position where I am not the decision maker, I cannot sign documents committing money, time or resources, so, according to your class in Sales 101 I am not worth speaking to. Please tell that to the 15 to 20 representatives I meet or speak with monthly. They all realize that I do not sign the orders, nor do I commit the resources they need to close the sale, but they all realize that I am the person who will recommend the product or service they represent to those who can commit resources. What it boils down to is this: If you want to get the people I represent to use your product or services, you have to convince me that it is in their best interest to do so first. Now, recognizing who the key players are in the decision chain is really the lesson that should be learned in Sales 101, not making demands that only those who can commit are worth pitching to. The companies that come through me normally end up with much larger sales than those who bypass me. Users of goods and services seek my opinion and guidance. If I state I know nothing about this company or its services, the next question is usually along the lines of: "Well, why are we doing business with them then?" There have been those who have come in, graduating from your version of Sales 101 and have landed agreements but they are hollow. There are no orders placed against their contracts or agreements and they are usually never renewed. Those who follow the more normal pathway of determining who is in the decision path and obtaining a concensus seem to walk away with the same contracts and agreements that are actually worth something. Now, not to sound conceited, I am not the only recommender, just one of several, but I work in Telecommunications, specifically voice telecommunications and do infrastructure design. If your product or service fits in one of those categories, then I am one of the people that should be on your list. Rodgers Platt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And the people who *are* authorized to spend the company's money in all probability have *no idea* or expertise in the company telecommunications network. What President or CEO or Chairman of the Board have you ever met who knew anything about how the company's phone system worked? This is NOT to speak in either way about Norvergence, good or bad, but if a salesperson is trying to sell some sort of crappy phone thing to a company, s/he needs to chat with a 'decision maker' (i.e. money spender) in the hopes of slipping one through before the company's workers get wind of what is happening. That was how MCI telemarketers operated back in the 1970's when MCI was first getting started. They would talk to the telecom people first with their 'get one over on AT&T and their high prices' routine, and if the telecom people bought it (and many did, for no other reason than the general dislike of AT&T that was so prevalent in the 1970-80's) they were all set. If the telecom people did NOT buy the routine, then the MCI telemarketers would always shoot right for the top of the line, the CEO, or Board Chairman, etc, knowing the 'save money' lie would work and nothing else would matter (at that level). Stop and think about it: in any really large, huge corporation, what does the CEO, or president or Chairman of the Board *really* know about anything? Computers, customer service, telecommunications; three areas which can bring a company down to its knees if they are mismanaged, and the three areas which are horribly expensive to oper- ate and maintain. So Rodgers, do you see why telemarketers have to 'jump the line' and get right to the top if they are going to slip their crap in the door? PAT] ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:38:42 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com > Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, why is it so bad if the > government can tap into my e-mail the same way they do into my phones? > If the government can use the technology to stop one terrorist attack, > or to catch one future greedy CEO, or to break up a drug dealing > operation, why should I care if they can also read my personal e-mail? Would you allow the police to search your home whenever they felt like it? What about pulling you over for any reason? I cannot trust a government that doesn't trust its citizens. I have absolutely nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I want to give the government carte blanche to investigate me and spy on me. Yes, we could possibly catch the next Enron. But I doubt it. We couldn't catch a bunch of Middle Eastern flight students who wanted to skip those boring classes about take-offs and landings. > Why aren't the same people who are afraid of touch-screen voting > problems in favor of tools that will help police catch cyber- > criminals? Or what about spam? What's the point of making it illegal > if law enforcement doesn't have the tools to catch violators? I'm not against touch-screen voting because I'm afraid of vote fraud. I'm against it because it's a waste of money. My county uses the good old fashioned #2 pencil and Scantron sheet and it works just fine. Other voting methods were demonized in 2000 when, quite frankly, the problem was human error. I used to live in Florida and I remember even in 1992 checking my ballot to make sure everything punched through. I can't expect the government to do everything for me. > Every aspect of my well being in the USA is based upon the rule of > law. Couldn't one make the argument that the only way this "bugging" > of the Internet could be used against innocent people is if we lose > the rule of law here, but that if we lose the rule of law then the > Internet problems will be insignificant compared to all the others? > > My personal view is that all of these efforts are in vain anyway. Any > first-semester encryption textbook gives me the tools to create secure > electronic communications on the Internet. (For example, if I really > cared to, I could generate a huge one-time random cypher, give the > only copy to my friend, and the only way people could read our > conversations is if they stole a copy of the key. If I wanted to > transfer the key without telling my friend "I'm transfering the key," > I could use a track on a publicly available CD for the key, or send a > JPG of a friend, etc.) I agree. There are plenty of tools out there allowing people to encrypt their messages. If someone were really motivated I supposed they could create their own. Or use low-tech methods of communicating. During World War I, Germans in this country had phonographs to send Morse code at something like 100 words per minute. This was recorded in Germany and played back and a slower speed. Are we actively monitoring every inch of RF spectrum for something like this? What about face-to-face conversations? Letters? Even hidden messages in personal ads or comp.dcom.telecom postings could be used. John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet Organization: ATCC Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:03:20 GMT In article , joel@exc.com says: > Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, why is it so bad if the > government can tap into my e-mail the same way they do into my phones? > If the government can use the technology to stop one terrorist attack, > or to catch one future greedy CEO, or to break up a drug dealing > operation, why should I care if they can also read my personal e-mail? Because it has been proven that if you give government agencies an inch, they'll take a mile. Do the Hoover years mean nothing to you? How about COINTELPRO? When you remove the courts from the process bad things tend to happen in the form of abuses for political gain, etc. > Why aren't the same people who are afraid of touch-screen voting > problems in favor of tools that will help police catch cyber- > criminals? Or what about spam? What's the point of making it illegal > if law enforcement doesn't have the tools to catch violators? Ok, let me preface this by saying I worked for the state AG's office and dealt with PD's on a regular basis. Most PD's don't have the resources to have a full time I.T. specialist, let alone an investigator that specialized in I.T. investigations. Even at the AG's office the only forensic unit we had was limited to using EnCase software but nothing beyond that. Even the prosecutors weren't really aware we could get warrants to trace IP traffic if we wished. Law enforcement right now is too concerned with the War on Drugs to be truly effective in much else. The AG's office implemented a program called the Nuisance Task Force (NTF). NTF had wide leeway to clean up neighborhoods. > Every aspect of my well being in the USA is based upon the rule of > law. Couldn't one make the argument that the only way this "bugging" > of the Internet could be used against innocent people is if we lose > the rule of law here, but that if we lose the rule of law then the > Internet problems will be insignificant compared to all the others? The main problem is that the 'rule of law' as you so like to put it has been perverted over the years. > My personal view is that all of these efforts are in vain anyway. Any > first-semester encryption textbook gives me the tools to create secure > electronic communications on the Internet. (For example, if I really > cared to, I could generate a huge one-time random cypher, give the > only copy to my friend, and the only way people could read our > conversations is if they stole a copy of the key. If I wanted to > transfer the key without telling my friend "I'm transfering the key," > I could use a track on a publicly available CD for the key, or send a > JPG of a friend, etc.) It is an escalating battle that will never be solved until those people in the I.T. field start becoming police officers, or even prosecutors. While at the AG's office I did my best to educate as many of the prosecutors as I could about crimes involving information systems. But to date, I haven't seen a single computer crime prosecuted in my state. ------------------------------ From: Michael Chance Subject: Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:27:21 GMT In article , eelder1@tampabay.rr.com says: > An insidious plot is underway to bug the Internet. Many of you who > have lost jobs know what bad news the Bush administration has been to > the IT community. The story is getting even worse. President Bush > wants to bug the Internet. He wants to read your email, see what you > are downloading and find out what you are buying on Ebay. He also > wants to listen in your VoiP calls. Just a bit Chicken Little-ish, eh? Frankly, I doubt if President Bush would be interested in much of what your saying over the Internet, or on your VoIP phone calls, or anything else, even if he had the time. However, if you're engaged in criminal behavior and law enforcement types need proof positive before they haul you into court, and they can convince a judge that you're up to no good, then you'd have something to worry about. Just like you do with your wireline and wireless phone calls now. No great conspiracy. Just extending the current rules, with all of the current protections, to digital communications. Wireline and wireless phone companies have to provide the means to put legal wiretaps on their facilities under court orders. Why should ISPs and VoIP phone companies be exempt? Michael Chance ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:26:39 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) writes: > If the government can use the technology to stop one terrorist attack, > or to catch one future greedy CEO, or to break up a drug dealing > operation, why should I care if they can also read my personal e-mail? There's a certain quote by Benjamin Franklin that you need to familiarize yourself with. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:41:38 PST From: Andrew Bell Subject: Re: I Found Something You May Like [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Referring now to last month's thread on the infamous porn worm. PAT] It sure does find a LOT of porn. I've never seen so many transvestite shots in one place before. :( TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > I have something here you may enjoy. I call it the perpetual porn > maker machine. Actually, what it does is goes about the entire net, > like a hungry worm, looking for all the porn it can find. It never > goes hungry! > It simply starts out with some well-known sites, traverses them one > by one crawling around, and exploring every link it finds therein, > and because it has been taught what 'porn looks like' it brings back > all it can find, like several thousand jpg files every hour more or > less. > It takes a while, maybe a couple minutes to get started, but once > the results start coming in, they pour in heavily. More porn than > anyone can ever deal with. In an experiment, I turned it on one > night before going to bed, and had (eighteen thousand) porn images > on my computer the next morning. It neatly puts all the results in a > file of whatever size, subject to the limits of your hard drive in > c:/my thumb gallery. > Be careful, don't let the worm run unsupervised or uncontrolled for > very long at a time. And there is no front door or cashier's window > to go past. It just goes in deep and takes it all out and brings it > to you. No advertising, no pop ups, no spy-cookies installed on your > computer, etc. If you click on the picture of the camera, then you > get to see the work that is going on in the background. > Let me know how you like it. > http://www.thumbgal.com/download/thumbgal2.exe > PAT [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Also known as http://porn-worm.us.tf which is an alias re-director, nothing more or less. That UNONIC place is a great spot to get all the alias re-directors you want at no charge in any country of the world you want it. Just look at http://unonic.com and take what you need. They like it if you run a banner ad for them on your site, no big deal either way. Register your 'true name and address' and the alias re-director right there on line. They also give away page counters, and passworded pages if you want. For the former just a line of the form inserted on your page works okay. Except for a couple readers who stunk up the place something awful about porn worm when I mentioned it last month, the more industrious readers here have been busy reverse engineering the damn thing, and have discovered 'porn' is only one by-product of the worm, which knows from nothing until you teach it what 'porn looks like' or indeed, what an mp-3 looks like or other files of interest look like, such as Hollywood movie trailers, games, etc, then send the worm looking for same. You can build up a huge collection of .mid files also if desired. I suppose if I had announced a worm which went around looking for classical music midi files on the net, everyone -- even the stink raisers -- would have applauded politely but by now someone would have reverse engineered it to go around collecting porn to play on their pornograph machines. But you are correct, Andrew. As it is now configured, the porn-worm (also known as Thumbgal version 2), sometimes seems to concentrate on tranvestite pictures, other times 'amateurs' and God knows what. You can always be sure of one thing though; let it run for a few hours and whatever it is picking up runs you out of space on the computer or wherever. Reverse engineer it to be your very effecient picker-upper of files on the net! PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #125 ******************************