From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 10 16:52:18 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i7AKqHi12582; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:52:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:52:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408102052.i7AKqHi12582@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 #373 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:52:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 373 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case (Monty Solomon) VoIP Terms of Service May Surprise You (Dave Garland) I Have the Same Problem (Wesley) New Report Released - Toll Free Usage Growing (Judith Oppenheimer) Net Phone Customers Brace For 'VoIP Spam' (Jack Decker - VOIP News) Re: US FCC Denies Will and Grace, Buffy Shows Indecent (Hammond Texas) Re: US FCC Denies Will and Grace, Buffy Shows Indecent (Lisa Hancock) Re: POTS' Dirty Little Secret (Justin Time) Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out (Lisa Chambers) Re: Norvergence (Susan Rogers) Searching Digest Archives for Norvergence (RJ Strauss) A Calling Card Type Solution Needed (sekhar) How do I Subscribe to Telecom Digest (Peter Lee) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 02:41:40 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Aug 5 2004 3:35PM In what prosecutors say is likely the first criminal conviction for wardriving in the U.S., a Michigan man plead guilty Wednesday to a federal misdemeanor for using the Internet through an open wi-fi access point at a Lowe's home improvement store in suburban Detroit. Paul Timmins, 23, pleaded guilty to a single count of unauthorized access to a protected computer. He was cleared of more serious charges of participating in a scheme organized by his roommate and another man to later use the wireless network to hack into Lowe's computers and siphon credit card numbers. Timmins, who works as a network engineer, and his then-roommate Adam Botbyl, now 21, initially stumbled across the unsecured wireless network at the Southfield, Michigan Lowe's in the spring of 2003, while driving around with laptop computers looking for wireless networks -- the geek sport of "wardriving." Timmins immediately used the network to check his e-mail, not knowing that it wasn't intended for public access, he claimed in an a telephone interview with SecurityFocus Thursday. Then when he tried to surf the Web, and found himself connected to a Lowe's corporate portal instead, he realized it was a private corporate network, and he disconnected, he says. http://www.securityfocus.com/news/9281 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have never met Mr. Timmins and I do not wish to be judgmental. But his excuse 'wanted to check email, did so, tried using net, discovered it was a private net, etc' is so damn flimsy, so awful. Neither do I drive a car, but *if I did, and I felt I had to have a computer present* I would probably use a cellular modem type connection. When Mr. Timmins was driving around, his computer turned on and he saw that visual indicator on his screen that he within range of *some radio signal*, what could he have possibly thought it was? Some store, out of the goodness of their heart offering free connectivity to computer users? Was it an internet cafe he was approaching? He had to have known that whatever the source of the signal, it was not intended for the general public to use. Either he was very dumb or he was very smart, and I suspect the latter. He was not just 'average' because the 'average American' does not drive around with a computer in his vehicle turned on for the purpose of checking email if he happens to find someone else's nickle to use for his connection. As I said above, I do not even drive a car, so allow me to be a little biased here, but by the time I got my laptop out of a carrying case, booted up and started looking for radio signals, I would already be wherever the Independence taxi was taking me. And no email -- probably all spam anyway -- is that important to have my computer in my (non-existant) car, always booted up, etc. I would suggest that in the absence of a cellular modem, if I were the judge, I would not have believed that excuse at all; apparently the judge didn't accept it. If you guys are going to go around war-driving, at the very least cover yourselves by having a cellular modem also installed and turned on, so your excuse can be you thought you were getting its signals, not the signal from a WiFi card. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: VoIP Terms of Service May Surprise You Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:57:12 -0500 Organization: Wizard Information "If you are thinking of ditching a land-line for a VOIP provider such as Vonage or Net2Phone, you might want to think again. Software 'End User license Agreements' have gotten a lot of attention in the past over their onerous and restrictive terms, but who would expect such things from your phone company? The prime example is Vonage, which states among other things that 'If Vonage, in its sole discretion believes that you have violated the above restrictions, Vonage may forward the objectionable material, as well as your communications with Vonage and your personally identifiable information to the appropriate authorities for investigation and prosecution and you hereby consent to such forwarding.'" (Slashdot article with discussion in the customary food-fight fashion) http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/10/0023210&tid=158&tid=215&tid=126&tid=218 ------------------------------ From: wesley_lefebvre@hotmail.com (Wesley) Subject: I Have the Same Problem Date: 10 Aug 2004 00:07:23 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Can someone please explain to the what PR1 and PR3 mean? I have seen alot of this on search engine talk but have no idea what it means. Thanks a ton. Wesley wes@cellphonefinder.com http://www.cellphonefinder.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Subject: New Report Released - Toll Free Usage Growing Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:26:47 -0400 Organization: ICB Inc./WhoSells800.com New Report Released - Toll Free Usage Growing Boonton, NJ, August 9, 2004 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) - The growth of online services and e-commerce is actually increasing demand for 800 or toll free services, says a new research study released by the Insight Research Corporation. According to the report "Call Center Operations and the 800 Services Market 2004-2009", Insight projects that total toll-free services revenue will grow from $10.9 billion in 2004 to almost $14.5 billion in 2009. Call centers, the specialized organizations within an enterprise that have traditionally been big buyers of to toll free to provide customer service, are adapting to online growth by providing Web-based customer services. Though migrating customer service from a voice-oriented toll-free service to Web-enabled customer service costs the enterprise less per transaction, online shopping and customer service continues to drive demand for voice-based customer service. "As consumers shift from brick and mortar shopping to shopping on-line the need for service doesn't go away," says Insight's president Robert Rosenberg. "When shoppers migrate away from brick and mortar stores to make an online purchase, they know they cannot go back to a store clerk to resolve a problem. In this context, the toll-free call that the customer can make to register a complaint or resolve an issue takes on an even more strategic role that the 800 call did when first used to build recognition in the late 1980s" Rosenberg concluded. ---------------- This report is particularly interesting as we at ICB Consulting (www.800Consulting.com) have been observing a steady rise in service providers and marketing companies entering the toll free industry. A free report excerpt, table of contents, and ordering information for "Call Center Operations and the 800 Services Market 2004-2009" can be found online http://www.insight-corp.com/reports/callcenter.asp. The full, 101-page report is available immediately for $3995 (hard copy)**. Adobe Acrobat (PDF) report licenses are also offered. **To inquire about a Special Discount for ICB Toll Free News readers, email editor@icbtollfree.com, subject TOLL FREE REPORT. http://ICBTollFreeNews.com _ http://800Consulting.com 160 East 26 Street, Suite 6E New York, New York 10010 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:23:11 -0400 Subject: Net Phone Customers Brace For 'VoIP Spam' Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5302988.html By Ben Charny CNET News.com If you're sick of spam, imagine wading through dozens of prerecorded porn and Viagra messages on your voice mail. Some computer security and privacy experts are warning that such a day may not be far off for customers of new Internet phone services, which marry the immediacy of a voice call with the conveniences -- and inconveniences -- of e-mail. That could be unwelcome news for those who believe telemarketing is already so bad it can't possibly get any worse. "The fear with VoIP spam is you will have an Internet address for your phone number, which means you can use the same tools you use for e-mail to generate traffic, said Tom Kershaw, a vice president at security specialist VeriSign. "That raises automation to scary degrees." So-called voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services have begun winning converts thanks to cheap rates and a slew of features that traditional phone companies can't match. But consumers who adopt the technology could pay a steep price if "VoIP spam" takes hold. Full story at: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5302988.html How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:21:12 -0700 From: Hammond of Texas Subject: Re: US FCC Denies Will and Grace, Buffy Shows Indecent Monty Solomon wrote: > The Federal Communications Commission ruled that two women kissing and > faking sexual intercourse on "Will and Grace" did not violate > regulations that limit indecent material to late night hours and bans > outright obscene material. One wonders just what IS considered indecent ... Oh, right. It's anything that Howard Stern says, or the display of a female nipple on prime-time TV. Now THAT's scandalous. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: US FCC Denies Will and Grace, Buffy Shows Indecent Date: 10 Aug 2004 08:28:03 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Monty Solomon wrote: > WASHINGTON, Aug 9 (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators have > denied complaints that TV stations violated indecency rules when they > aired episodes of NBC's "Will and Grace" and UPN's "Buffy the Vampire > Slayer" with fake lesbian and heterosexual sex, according to orders > released on Monday. Well, let's talk about sex. Having watched both shows, I do not think of them as being "indecent" as charged in this situation. However, I feel there is a awful lot of broadcasts that I would call "inappropriate" for children to see. Using B/VS as an example, "appropriateness" standards dropped considerably during the seven year run of the show. Toward the end of the run, sex and profanity among the characters was very common. Indeed, Buffy, instead of being the vampire slayer, was nicknamed the vampire -- [without the "s"]. One episode had B and her boyfriend under a spell and they spent the whole episode in bed having sex. Basically, I wish this kind of fare would air later in the evening so that younger kids don't see it. I think shows where profanity or sexual situations are shown so loosely send a message to impressionable kids that this stuff is ok. The networks like to claim they show "safe sex" and proper situations, but it's still sex. At one time TV did hold off its more risque offerings until later in the evening. I also think standard cable TV, now that it is extremely common, ought to be under the same standards as broadcast TV. (Premium pay channels like HBO could do what they want). IMHO, the show B/VS was strongest in its earliest three seasons before the characters became sluts. Buffy actually had sex with her first vampire boyfriend but it was handled a lot better than the violent sex shown in later seasons. In other words, it was part of the story rather than being the story itself. Cheap sex lessened the show's quality. What is especially troubling is that whenever anyone suggests this sort of thing, people get real defensive and scream "censorship!" "imposition of religion!". That's ridiculous. No one is talking about bringing back bland shows like "Leave it to Beaver" or make every show nice and sweet like Full House or Seventh Heaven. On the other hand, it seems like TV writers go out of their way to use profanity and sex stories just because they can get away with it. [But it is an interesting tell on how times have changed: Beaver could take his new 13 y/o love interest up to his room, and June didn't give them a second thought because most kids in those days were pretty innocent. Today June would not be so comfortable. Back then Beaver's new friend wore a full dress; indeed, she probably wore more underwear than today's girls wear as their whole outfit. Look at "Summerland"; I think June Cleaver would've fainted.] ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: POTS' Dirty Little Secret Date: 10 Aug 2004 09:51:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) wrote in message news:: > a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) wrote in message > news:: >> We have need to support little things like a PSAP -- Public Safety >> Answering Point, and guess what -- VoIP doesn't work with when your >> life may be in danger. Why, because VoIP can't provide a known >> connection point from which an address can be derived. Well, let me >> expand a little further. We know where the router is, but where is >> the connection being made from to the router on the user side? > How is that different than the way many traditional PBX-type systems > are installed? Sure, the new ones are technically capable of > providing the necessary 911 information, but many aren't set up > correctly to do so. And there are still older PBX's where this isn't > even technically possible. > Tim. Been away for a few days. But, traditional PBX systems normally do not cover large areas such as an entire building. A PBX will typically handle only a few workgroups that are located on a few floors, but again, because they are served by trunks, the location of the trunks are known and reported to the PSAP on the ANI/ALI data dip. ------------------------------ From: Lisa Chambers Subject: Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:14:17 -0400 TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Steven J Sobol : Please don't release my email address. I happened upon this website after meeting with an aquaintance earlier tonite, and hearing about his business experience with Norvergence. Since I've seen the contract, I thought maybe I could add my opinion to this thread. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not a lawyer and cannot give >> legal advice. With that being said, I still maintain that an >> agressive and litigous debtor is the best debtor in this case. **Do >> not** just give in to bank's demands for payment from you; they are >> hoping their bullying tactics will do the job. **If** it comes to >> the point of suit which is not at all certain, at the very least >> countersue, which will send many banks (and collection agencies) >> running for the hills. > I would tend to agree, but first I would review the contract very > carefully with a good attorney. > Other than that, I'm pessimistic. Without knowing the actual > loan agreement, everything below is speculative. I've seen the contract. There is NOTHING in the contract to connect the 'lease' of the equipment with the promise of service. As a matter of fact, the contract specifically states, in BOLD print, that the lease is non-cancelable. Other interesting clauses state that the equipment is used specifically for business (no consumer protection there) AND that the signer waives the right to jury trial. Also interesting was a clause that the contract could be changed at anytime, and the renter would be bound to the changes. I'm not a lawyer -- it seems impossible you could sign away all rights forever -- but that IS what the contract says. >> Maybe it was not a *deliberate* act (i.e. fraud) by the bank, but it >> was extremely careless of the bank not to completely investigate what >> they were being asked to finance. Either bank knew (was part of fraud) >> or **should have known** what was going on. > I'm not sure if that's accurate, it depends on the terms of the > loan and lease. The bank DID, I am sure, investigate what they were financing. They were financing a lease agreement. The poor folks who signed the 60 month leases were most likely thoroughly investigated as to their credit worthiness. > In general, when a bank lends you money, you are responsible > to pay it back, regardless of whatever you did with that money. > For instance, if you buy some land and it turns out to be worthless > or even a liability, the bank is not responsible, you are. Actually -- there was no 'loan' of money, at least not in an obvious way. There was a lease agreement on a piece of equipment. > Any prudent buyer of a lease should and would know about early > termination options and quality guarantees, especially on a > five year lease. Normal business contracts have termination > clauses. >> Another warning sign should have been that Norvergence wanted the >> bank to pay them a full five year's worth before even one year (or >> a few months) had been honored on the contract. So end-users are >> expected to be responsible for the mistakes idiots at the bank >> make? There was no 'mistake' made at the bank. The 'idiots' who suggested purchasing the lease agreements from Norvergence probably got promotions and a nice bonus year-end. The banks probably purchased the financing options at a deep discount. And here, Norvergence has gone out of business, and the money still flows. > Unless the bank was acting as Norv.'s agent or was certifying > the reliability of the company, the end-customer is ultimately > responsible to pay the loan. I strongly doubt a bank made > any representation as to the fitness or applicability of the > produce/service. Again, they did not finance a service. They sure as s**t did NOT make ANY representations about the equipment. > When you take out a loan on something, the bank will check it > out to see that it basically actually exists and has some value > to it (that you're not buying thin air with their money). Clearly > this company existed and was running. I doubt a bank goes > beyond that; they certainly don't go poking around the switchroom. > As best I can tell, the bank loaned the customer money, nor Norv. Well, here is where it may get sticky for the banks ... the equipment DID exist -- but it was leased to different businesses at different prices. The price of the contracts had no relation to the price of the equipment -- and was, in fact, based on the business phone/cellular/and internet bills. An average was taken, and 20% was discounted. An insurance policy was also required -- at an additional cost -- that valued the equipment at the five year contract price. If anything, THAT might indicate collusion with the bank and Norvergence. Surely, nothing in the contract or in ANY of the literature sent out by Norvergence indicated an agreement to provide phone service. Yet, the equipment valuation was BASED on phone bills. > Every business takes a risk with every supplier and customer it deals > with. If a customer or vendor screws a business and goes bankrupt, > the business is stuck with the bill. The only recourse is to get in > line at bankruptcy court. UNLESS there was an intent to commit fraud -- and the banks were complicit in that attempt. >> Although it is likely and probable that many end-users signed off on >> the obscene contract presented to them by the Norvergence sales rep >> under much pressure. > I have to ask why commercial customers were willing to sign under such > pressure. I asked. What I was told was that they never realized it was a lease agreement - even tho the papers were clearly marked. The way it worked was this: The Norvergence folks contacted them to tell them about this great network that would provide them with a 20% savings over their current bills -- guaranteed for the next five years. There were various AirMail overnites to determine if they were WORTHY of this great opportunity. The news comes in -- YES! they qualify. The rep comes over. The contract is passed for the owner to sign. Equipment rental? Oh yes, that is for the "magic box" -- the item that makes the cost savings possible. The pen is pulled out, the contract is signed, the deal is done. > To be frank, it's hard for me to be sympathetic with such > commercial customers who'd were so anxious to save money they jumped > on a too-good-to-be-true contract. Any business person should know > whom they're dealing with, and dealing with a start-up entails extra > risk. Going out of business is NOT unusual. Why was it too-good-to-be-true? Heck, long distance companies call me (often) with promises to reduce my monthly bills -- by combining services under one company. And here was this company with a new technique -- a piece of equipment and accompanying software -- that promised faster (and therefore cheaper) throughput. Now, for those of you who think Norvergence was a victim -- a start-up who just happened to go out of business ... consider this: Even tho the sales reps were speaking about the 20% reduction -- the literature only refers to "Free" unlimited service. That's right, free. There is NO "service" contract. Not for any of these folks. The ONLY contract is the lease. So, how can you sue Norvergence? There is no 'breech' of service contract - THERE IS NO SERVICE CONTRACT. The scheme was a scam from the get-go. Oh, there were some who got away relatively unscathed. The company HAD to provide services in order to stay in business long enough to bilk thousands of customers. As in most pyramid schemes, it was the ones who signed on last who TRULY got taken. My friends had a year and a half of service -- but the lease on their equipment still has $16,000.00 to go. There are some who signed leases only days ago -- and will still be held liable. As to how/why 'commercial' folks got taken: There are hundreds of honest hardworking small business owners. People who never had an urge to defraud or steal. Perhaps it never occurred to them someone else could -- and would get away with it -- and to such an incredible magnitude. I know I was floored when I heard the story, and read the communications from Norvergence. The Norvergence folks deserve to be in jail. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And in the meantime, if/until we get to that point, that someone is in jail or the truth is made definitive and explained fully in a court of law, smart end users (readers like yourselves perhaps) will mitigate their own losses by putting a freeze on all accounts payable regards Norvergence 'leases', and pay out not a nickel to the various crooks, shysters and others who caused this to happen. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Susan Rogers Subject: Re: Norvergence Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:48:15 -0400 Organization: Investigative Solutions, Inc. Has anyone signed up with Norvergence that had a lease less than 60 months with U. S. Bancorp? U. S. Bancorp is trying to have us settle for a lesser amount quickly. We have never had operational land line service or T1 service from Norvergence. Susan C. Rogers Investigative Solutions, Inc. 3620 Dekalb Technology Parkway Suite 2118 Atlanta, GA 30340 (770)220-1912 (770)220-1918 Fax [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: **DO NOT** settle with US Bancorp or any other idiot lenders who want to get this out of their hair. They know that *their* bosses, the ones who recommended purchasing the agreements from Norvergence -- the ones who got increased salaries and year-end bonuses -- are the damn fools who ought to be obliged to eat the losses -- the entire thing; not the men and women who fell for the scam, small business owners, etc. I suggest you tell Bancorp that only your own attorney is authorized to receive phone calls from them, and that you will pay only the full amount which he tells you to pay, or a judge orders you to pay. US Bancorp is *not* your friend, they are only looking out for themselves. When US Bancorp hears that your attorney is now involved, I am sure they will back off. And if you get this rot from them about how 'all the end users via Bancorp have agreed to the deal except yourself and there is no settlement deal until you go along also' I urge you to not give in to that pressure. Repeat, Bancorp is not your friend. They are not asking you to settle in your best interest. They are looking out only for *their* best interest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: RJ Strauss Subject: Digest Archives Search on Norvergence Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:00:11 -0500 Is there a way to search any information that has been published in the Digest about Norvergence? Thank You, RJ Strauss ABC Printing Co. 5654 N Elston Ave Chicago, Illinois 60646 rjs@abcprint.com www.abcprint.com 773-774-8282 fax: 773-774-8290 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, there is a way. You go to our web site http://telecom-digest.org, then select one of our various search engines and search for the articles. Or, use any search engine of your choice; some are better than others, I cannot recommend one over another. There are plenty of articles in the past several months, most are very negative about the company. Or, if you prefer, forward your certified check or money order for $100 (one hundred dollars) to our office at TELECOM Digest, PO Box 50, Independence, KS 67301-0050 and I will have someone do all the searching work for you and send you print outs of a dozen appropriate articles. But a bit of free scolding in the meantime, RJS. How much did they clip your company for? A five year lease? How many thousand dollars is that? A bit of free advice comes with every scolding: **Put a total freeze on accounts payable to Norvergence and Shyster Associates until your attorney or the court instructs you to make payment.** PAT] ------------------------------ From: mail@sekhar.net (Sekhar) Subject: A Calling Card Type of Solution Needed Date: 10 Aug 2004 12:22:05 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have two telephone lines - one a US telephone number and the other one a Indian telephone number. I need a device which would allow users connected through the US line to be able to dial and use the Indian line and vice versa. Does it seem to be a calling card type of a solution, how best could this be accomplished? Thanks in advance. Sekhar ------------------------------ From: Peter Lee (NBC Universal) Subject: How Can I Subscribe to the Telecom Digest Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:34:47 -0400 Dear Patrick, I used to be a subscriber but our company's email address has changed. I have attempted to subscribe again but am not on your mailing list. Could you please manually enter me in, thank you. Peter Lee Sales Coordinator NBC Universal (312) 970-2125 peter.lee@nbcuni.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You can enter yourself on the mailing list if you prefer to read this *ASCII text only* version of the Digest by sending email to telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org with a one word subject 'subscribe your name@email'.No other text needed or even read. -- Make certain your spam filter has me whitelisted so I do not get garbaged each time an issue comes out -- . You can also read this Digest through our web site in the 'latest issue' link or through the 'Digest Online' link which is similar to Usenet or on Usenet itself in the 'comp.dcom.telecom' newsgroup. Or if you prefer, read us regularly on Yahoo Groups in the Telecom News area. And if you like reading these daily words of wit, consider helping financially from the home page http://telecom-digest.org at the bottom of the page where the PayPal clicker is located. 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 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #373 ******************************