From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 20 23:39:46 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3L3dkY05485; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:39:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:39:46 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404210339.i3L3dkY05485@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 #198 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:40:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 198 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Non-Repudiation in Electronic Commerce", Zhou (Rob Slade) Cingular Wireless Reports First-Quarter Results: Solid Subs (M Solomon) Sex.Com Settles Monumental Case Against VeriSign/Network Sol (M Solomon) G.726 G.727 Differences? (nearly blind) Heat Seems to Affect Speed (Mike) Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck (Fred Goldstein) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (J Kelly) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (Joseph) Re: Paying For Incoming Mobile Phone Calls (Joseph) Re: Paying For Incoming Mobile Phone Calls (John Levine) Re: Digital Cellular, was Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (John Levine) Re: Who is "VoIP News" (Charles Cryderman) Employment Opportunity: Billing Software Consultants in Malaysia (jobs) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:02:11 -0800 Subject: REVIEW: "Non-Repudiation in Electronic Commerce", Jianying Zhou BKNNRPDT.RVW 20031205 "Non-Repudiation in Electronic Commerce", Jianying Zhou, 2001, 1-58053-247-0, U$89.00/C$131.95 %A Jianying Zhou %C 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062 %D 2001 %G 1-58053-247-0 %I Artech House/Horizon %O U$89.00/C$131.95 617-769-9750 800-225-9977 fax: +1-617-769-6334 %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1580532470/robsladesinterne http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1580532470/robsladesinte-21 %O http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1580532470/robsladesin03-20 %P 200 p. %T "Non-Repudiation in Electronic Commerce" The preface outlines non-repudiation as a security service in its own right, with supporting requirements, rather than an effect of another security mechanism. This position is in rather interesting contrast to most works that tag non-repudiation onto the list of functions that can be accomplished by asymmetric (public key) cryptography: a benefit, but a bit of an afterthought. Chapter one gives us an introduction to the basics of non-repudiation, in both electronic mail and electronic commerce. Various parties to a transaction, the means, requirements, and forms of evidence all make up the fundamentals of non-repudiation in chapter two. Digital signatures are the traditional, but not the only way to prevent repudiation of a transaction or message, and chapter three examines four approaches for maintaining their validity. Chapter four investigates the concept of fairness in a non-repudiation system, ensuring that where the transaction is not completed neither side is able to obtain an advantage over the other. In general, fairness requires either gradual disclosure (in an ad hoc situation) or the involvement of a trusted third party. Specific "Fair" protocols are reviewed in chapter five. Chapter six looks at the ISO's (International Standards Organization) non-repudiation mechanisms. Case studies of the detailed requirements and proposed protocols for an online lottery (which also involves anonymity) and mobile (wireless) billing are in chapter seven. Chapter eight has a summary of the main points in the book, and appendix A deals with formal verification of non-repudiation. A detailed and interesting account of a rather neglected but important topic. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2003 BKNNRPDT.RVW 20031205 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu He who asks is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask remains a fool forever. http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:23:01 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cingular Wireless Reports First-Quarter Results Cingular Wireless Reports First-Quarter Results: Solid Subscriber Growth, Improved Margins, Continued GSM Success - First-quarter net adds total 554,000, to reach 24.6 million cellular/PCS subscribers; 2.5 million net gain over the past four quarters - Cingular's nationwide GSM/GPRS network overlay on track to achieve 100 percent network coverage in next 90 days - 66 percent of Cingular's minutes now on its GSM/GPRS network - Revenues up 8.4 percent to $3.9 billion; cellular/PCS data revenues up 53 percent - 580 basis point sequential improvement in operating margin, delivering on goals outlined in January ATLANTA, April 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Cingular Wireless LLC, a joint venture between SBC Communications (NYSE:SBC) and BellSouth Corporation (NYSE:BLS), today reported first-quarter 2004 results shaped by continued solid subscriber growth, rapid progress in its GSM/GPRS conversion, and a 580 basis point sequential improvement in operating margins, in line with goals outlined by the company in January. For the three months ended March 31, 2004, Cingular achieved net subscriber additions of 554,000, bringing its nationwide cellular/PCS customer base to 24.6 million - up 2.5 million over the past four quarters. Gross customer additions in the first quarter totaled 2.5 million, marking Cingular's third consecutive quarter with gross adds at or above 2.5 million. Average monthly subscriber churn declined 10 basis points sequentially to 2.7 percent, driven by a decline in postpaid retail subscriber churn. Wireless local number portability, implemented in November of 2003, continues to have minimal impact on Cingular's subscriber results. As it has sustained solid subscriber growth, Cingular continues to move forward aggressively toward completion of its nationwide network overlay of next-generation GSM/GPRS technology. At the end of the first quarter, Cingular's GSM/GPRS network was available to 94 percent of the company's operational POPs, up from approximately 56 percent a year earlier. Cingular now expects to achieve 100 percent GSM/GPRS network coverage by July of this year. At the end of the first quarter, more than 53 percent of Cingular's handsets in service were GSM capable, up from 22 percent a year earlier and 45 percent at the end of 2003. Approximately 66 percent of Cingular's total minutes are now carried on its GSM network. GSM provides the truest voice quality in wireless. GSM is the world's most popular wireless technology, and it provides customers the widest selection of handsets in the industry with features such as color screens, built-in cameras and the latest data services. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41111863 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:19:41 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Sex.Com Settles Monumental Case Against VeriSign/Network Solutions Six-Year Contested Court Battle Is Over SAN FRANCISCO, April 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Sex.Com (www. sex.com) announced today a final settlement with VeriSign (Nasdaq: VRSN) (formerly Network Solutions, Inc.), concluding a six-year legal fight that set several important precedents for the future of the Internet. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Sex.Com a sweeping victory that held VeriSign/Network Solutions, Inc. (collectively "VeriSign") strictly responsible for mishandling the famous domain name, Sex.Com and VeriSign have settled Sex.Com's lawsuit against VeriSign. The implications of the lawsuit are far-reaching in all areas of Internet infrastructure and governance, as well as intellectual property law. Sex.Com single-handedly caused the courts to define domain names as property, and thus changed the laws governing the World Wide Web. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41112663 ------------------------------ From: nearly_blind@yahoo.com (nearly blind) Subject: G.726 G.727 Differences? Date: 20 Apr 2004 10:35:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com What is the difference between G.726 and G.727 (ITU)? What are the algorithmic changes? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: littleboyblu87@yahoo.com (Mike) Subject: Heat Seems to Affect Speed Date: 20 Apr 2004 16:34:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have dialup internet access and I've noticed something whenever it gets hot outside. I noticed that when I try to get online before about 10 or 11 PM that my speed is extremely slow. I tested it on a website and it's like 14k. I can barely even access any webpages at all. Then after 11PM I reconnect and my speed is back to normal again (about 44k). I'm assuming this has something to do with my phone lines or some phone lines somewhere. This seems to only happen on days when it's above 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Why would this happen? Is it most likely a problem with my home wiring or could it be somewhere else? I have no way of testing my phone lines and I know the phone company isn't gonna bother with it. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'd be more inclined to say its not a weather-related problem as it is a network congestion problem. You mention 'dialup internet access' and that it 'gets back to normal after 11 PM'. That's about the time many folks log off and go to bed. What time of day does your sluggish condition usually begin? Now, I do not know *where* you are located, but around here in Independence when it gets *hot* -- like a baking-oven is hot during August -- between about 6 AM and 3 AM next day. What happens during your winter season? I am sure the problem is not with your home wiring, and if the problem is 'somewhere else' how do you know the weather condi- tions in that place. If anything, I would suggest the very hot weather and heavy daytime network congestion are just coincidental. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:48:03 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck On April 18, my old friend Nick fiekowsky@aol.com wrote, > I am skeptical about how well the Motorola box does QoS. I have > Vonage's Motorola sitting between my cable modem (Motorola Surfboard / > Comcast) and my home network. Last week my wife was unable to use > Vonage until I stopped a massive (> 1 gByte) directory upload I was > running at the time. My wife also complains that calls to Paris & > South Africa (our primary Vonage use) get cut off. If we don't use our > computers during the call, things are more reliable. Pat the Moderator noted something similar, > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am curious about this also. After > someone wrote me and said try putting the (Vonage) Cisco ATA-186 at > the front of the line, I discovered there was no way to do this > without getting a *new* adapter (the Motorola one) from Vonage. ... > But then their technician 'Edgar' called me back and said he really > did not think the new Motorola Telephone Adapter was going to cure my > ailments. "You still only have 250 K upload from Cable One, regardless > how how much download you bought. The Motorola can and does give > priority to certain ports first; other ports later, but as long as you > are having your Win 98 and Win 95 make those big huge FTP dumps (of > .jpg files) every fifteen seconds or so, I just can't see the > Motorola able to keep up with it if you have a lengthy phone call as > well." ... Reality check time. In #191, Pat said, > But if you cannot see that VOIP is the direction things are going, then > I pity you. PAT Anybody see the problem here? VoIP is "the direction things are going", but somehow reality seems to intrude. We didn't have this type of problem when moving from analog to TDM-digital telephony. Why is VoIP taken for granted when the problems in getting it to work well are understated? Yes, it's possible to make VoIP work well, though it can't quite reach TDM performance, ever, essentially by definition. To even come close requires careful traffic engineering, something not native to (or required by) IP data networks. Here's a quick summary of why. IP networks, by themselves, treat each packet atomically; there's no metering flow, rate, or anything else. No guarantee of delivery. By design! TCP's job is to fix things for the data application. Packets do get dropped when congestion occurs. And it's supposed to occur. Take, for instance, a 100 Mbps Ethernet cord from your computer to your DSL/cable router, which has, say, a .5 Mbps upstream cap. The computer can upload to the router 200 times faster than the router can forward packets along. So what happens? There's no flow control in IP, no "shaddup" signal, no "XOFF". The router's buffer fills up. Packets fall on the floor. TCP retransmits. It works well because TCP has rules for this. "Slow start" means that it sends one packet, waits for an Acknowledgment from the receiver, then sends two packets, waits, three, etc. This is called the "window" -- the number of unack'd packets allowed in transit. At some point either the packets are ack'd faster than the sender can go, or the sender outstrips the network. The latter is what occurs in our example. The 100 Mbps sender outstrips the .5 Mbps cable uplink, if not something else along the way. So the router drops packets. When the sender doesn't receive an Ack on time, it hits the brakes, lowers the window back to 1 packet, and starts again. Data rate thus has a sort of a sawtooth pattern, the drop-off happening when the buffer fills and packets are lost. Voice is not like that. Voice has constant demand. No TCP. So it doesn't slow down. If the buffer's full, the voice packet is lost, unless there's a priority set *and* enough room in the priority buffer for the voice stream. Ideally, voice will push past data. Of course this kills data if the voice is too high a percentage of the total -- not a common problem domestically, but it's happened on thin overseas routes carrying lots of VoIP arbitrage. That's an oversimplification, but I'm trying to make the point that voice and data have different dynamic behavior. Mixing them willy-nilly is risky. IF you know what you're doing, and have the right tools, it can be made to work. But it's not automatic. PacketCable prioritizes voice, essentially creating a TDM channel when VoIP traffic is sent. (Of course the IP header is sometimes vestigial, but it's needed for that Wall Street Image.) Vonage and other parasitic (i.e., not paying for bandwidth) applications can't be expected to work as well. The network isn't prioritizing their packets. EVEN IF your Moto has priorities, there could be a bottleneck upstream, say between the head end and the Internet backbone. Fred Goldstein Thanks! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My Mototola MTA adapter box arrived yesterday, has now been installed, and the old Cicso ATA-186 returned to Vonage. Thus far, it seems to be working better, Quality of Service wise. Someone had said to me in email to make sure Vonage was at the head of the line, so it could talk with ease whenever by slowing down the other traffic. There is no way to do that with the Cisco, but with the Motorola, you plug it directly into the modem then from the *extra* port on the back which is labeled 'pc' you plug your network router/ firewall. And where the NetGear firewall/router is known as 192.168.0.1 through 192.168.0.5, the Motorola MTA now becomes like a 'sub-net' on your LAN, known as 192.168.100.2 I of course had to diddle up the Zone Alarm to convince them to trust each other, but the whole procedure went pretty smoothly. The best part is it now leaves me with an idle slot on the NetGear router (the Vonage had previous been on 192.168.0.4) in case I wish to add some additional computer to the setup here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:24:59 -0500 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:48:37 GMT, Tony P. wrote: > After the 2009 cutoff for NTSC signals, you'll see cell providers start > cranking digital signals down in the UHF bands of the former TV plan. > Lower frequency = better propagation, less multi-path etc. Cell providers don't want the signals to go very far, except maybe in very rural areas. If a cell covers to much area it quickly gets overloaded with traffic, then they have to make the cell smaller and add more cells to handle the traffic. Bigger cells = less frequency reuse, which = less capacity. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:33:18 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:33:12 -0300, jtaylor wrote: > Mark Crispin wrote in message > news:telecom23.195.20@telecom-digest.org: >> In the case of cellular, they ran out of bandwidth and had to move to >> digital in order to serve more customers. Digital cellular occupies >> much more bandwidth than analog. > Is there an un-forced error in the second sentence above, or is there > something else about cellular telephonology (?) that explains the > conflicting statements? I'm not sure what the intent of the original was, but the reality is that analog cellular i.e. AMPS there's no bundling of calls on one channel whereas on TDMA (IS-136, iDen, GSM) and CDMA it's possible to have multiple calls on one channel. CDMA and TDMA arrive at the solution via different methods. The bottom line is that analog cellular is very inefficient and digital cellular is much more efficient and is also much more secure than analog AMPS. remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Paying For Incoming Mobile Phone Calls Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:48:00 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On 20 Apr 2004 02:51:01 -0700, skailaje@hotmail.com (Sachin Kailaje) wrote: > I am from India and I was talking to a friend in the U.S.A. yesterday > and I got to know that his mobile phone service-provider charges > minutes (talk-time) even for incoming calls. > In India, we used to have that (charged incoming calls) when the > mobile phone services started emerging a few years back. However, a > couple of years earlier, it was ruled by the telecom regulating > authority in India that the incoming calls on a mobile phone should be > free of cost, just as it is for land-line phones in India (or in the > U.S.A., and I hope in the rest of the world too). Just as in other things North Americans think differently about things including telecommunications. In North America subscribers to wireline telephone services are used to flat rate service i.e. we pay a monthly rate for service and we have a "local" area in which we do not pay anything to make calls and can talk as much as we like and we'll not pay anything except for the monthly line rental charge. Contrast this with much of the rest of the world where every call you make is either meter pulsed once per call or multiple times per call depending on the distance to the called party or the time of day the call is placed. In other countries they're used to paying for all calls and just take calling mobile numbers as another call albeit with a different tarriff. The thing is though that the tarriff they pay to call from a wireline to a mobile line can be *very* expensive. Some times up to 10 times as much to call a mobile line as to even make an international call. You may like it that calls to you are "free", but the reality is that even though you are not paying for the call the person calling you is paying a hefty premium to call you on your mobile line. > My question is: Do all mobile phone rate plans in the U.S.A. charge > talk-time for the incoming calls? If Yes, then why isn't anybody > demanding that incoming calls be free for the mobile phones there? Nextel has plans where you do not pay for incoming calls. The initial monthly cost for the plan is quite a bit more expensive than typical plans offerred by other mobile providers and usually includes less outgoing message allowance. The Nextel plans are mostly taken by businessmen who take many incoming calls per month. You also have to look at the business model comparing North American plans versus those offerred in Europe and Asia. Plans typically offerred in North America will give you a goodly amount of peak time minutes and very often they will give you unlimited off-peak and weekend minutes and also include long distance. Contrast this with many European/Asian plans which either don't include any minutes in the monthly line rental or don't include that many minutes at all. They also do not give you andy free off-peak or weekend minutes. > I don't know about the U.S., but in India, it made a phenomenal > difference in the number of people grabbing onto a mobile phone > subscription once incoming calls got free-of-charge and the outgoing > calls rates reduces from Rs.16 a minute to Rs.1-2 per minute! Also, we > have lesser 'phone-rage' when someone dials to a wrong number and it > turns out to be a mobile phone!! ;) Unless, of course, the callee > happens to be outside his/her call circle, is in the 'roaming mode', > and is being charged a roaming charge even for incoming calls ... : The business model for mobile phone use is decidedly different in North America comparing it to the way it's done in calling party pays countries in Europe and Asia. I wouldn't say the calling party pays vs. the called party pays is better or worse it's just different. remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 2004 01:55:21 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Paying For Incoming Mobile Phone Calls Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > My question is: Do all mobile phone rate plans in the U.S.A. charge > talk-time for the incoming calls? There are a few that offer first incoming minute free, but the mobile subscriber pays all the per-minute fees. > If Yes, then why isn't anybody demanding that incoming calls be free > for the mobile phones there? In the US, mobile and landline phones are integrated much more closely than they are in the rest of the world. In many areas, you can switch between landline and mobile and keep the same phone number. A system that charged extra for calls to mobiles could be horrible because you cannot tell whether a number you're calling is mobile or not. There have been occasional attempts to offer caller-pays mobile service, all of which have failed as it became apparent that callers have no interst in paying. > I don't know about the U.S., but in India, it made a phenomenal > difference in the number of people grabbing onto a mobile phone > subscription once incoming calls got free-of-charge and the outgoing > calls rates reduces from Rs.16 a minute to Rs.1-2 per minute! In the US, most people buy bundled minute plans that include more minutes than we use. For example, my cell phone includes 250 daytime minutes and 3000 night/weekend minutes per month for $30, usable anywhere in the US to call anywhere in the US, which is about the same monthly price as I pay for my landline phone, not including long distance. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 2004 22:45:28 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Digital Cellular, was Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> In the case of cellular, they ran out of bandwidth and had to move to >> digital in order to serve more customers. Digital cellular occupies >> much more bandwidth than analog. > Is there an un-forced error in the second sentence above, or is there > something else about cellular telephonology (?) that explains the > conflicting statements? Digital cellular runs in the same band as analog, and cell carriers can allocate the 100 channels in each cell to any combination of analog and digital. Mark presumably meant that they allocate more channels to digital than to analog these days since digital usses the channels more efficiently. TDMA digital puts three connections in each analog channel, CDMA digital puts some number of connections in a group of channels, anywhere from 5x to to 40x the number of channels depending on local conditions and who you believe. Unlike the TV conversion, if cell providers want to leave a channel or two reserved for analog phones, they can do so without affecting anyone else. Since HDTV runs in a different band than analog NTSC TV, as long as anyone is still using analog TV, they can't release the bands for other uses. As it happens, one of those uses is cellular telephony since the top of the UHF band overlaps with some of the cell channels. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Re: What is "VoIP News"? Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:55:59 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V23 #196 Jack Decker wrote: > But the one claim you cannot make is that VoIP news is not > telecommunications news. You might as well be saying that you > refuse to read anything about high definition television because you > have some objection to HDTV. You might as well killfile all items > about new designs of automobile engines because you're in love with > the internal combustion engine and hope it never goes away. The > debate is not WHETHER circuit-switched telephony is going away -- > that is inevitable. The question is how soon it is going away, and > whether whatever replaces it will be saddled with all the taxes, > fees, and "corporate welfare" subsidies currently applied to > traditional telephony. If some people want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that VoIP won't be a major part of telecommunications, that's certainly their prerogative. But when they complain because you're presenting TELECOM related news in a TELECOM Digest, I just find it a little difficult to understand where they are coming from. I guess if I were the moderator, my response would be, if you don't like it, don't read it (which would be a polite way of telling them to stick it in their ear, or some other part of their anatomy)! There must be thousands of other mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups out there. I would say, find one you like, if you don't like what you're reading." Now first of all Jack, I love the internal combustion engine but am hoping for something to replace it so gas prices go down and I can afford to drive my 64' Dart. :~) But back to the point you are making here. VoIP is here to stay. For example, Global Crossing now is carrying about 2,000,000,000 (yes, that is 2 billion) minuets each month now with the plan to push for 3 billion by the end of the year. Every major carrier is move all of the switched traffic to VoIP. It is here to stay and will grow more and more each day. In a recent issue there was a story about fiber to the home, what do you think you going to be pushing across that. Every thing that has anything to do with communications. Just wait and see, picture phones with multi-party video conference calls. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ From: jobs Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:25:47 +0800 Subject: Employment Oppoortunity: Billing Software Consultants for Malaysia Reply-To: telecom-news@yahoogroups.com We are an international Information Technology (IT) company, with focus in providing Software Solutions, Software Products/tools, Software Consultancy and Out Sourcing. We are looking for the following resources for our project in Malaysia. Skill Set : Telecom Billing Software Consultants (BSCS or Kenon Arbor etc) with Billing, Rating, Interconnect prepaid, Inteligent Network experience. Job Location : Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Contract Duration : 2 Years - extendable Commencement : June 2004 Interested candidates, kindly send us your detailed resume with the following details. EXPECTED SALARY: JOINING TIME: ------------------------------ 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 2004 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 #198 ******************************