For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:04:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 95

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Update (Canada) #471, March 4, 2005 (John Riddell)
    Vonage (Henry Cabot Henhouse III)
    Re: Voom Goes Boom (Isaiah Beard)
    Re: Vonage's Citron Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship' (Isaiah Beard)
    Re: Vonage's Citron Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship' (Dean)
    Re: Vonage's Citron Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship' (Chas. Cryderman)
    Municipal WiFi and Incumbents (Dean)
    Re: FCC Reaches Telco Settlement Regards Blocking VOIP (jmeissen)
    Re: Nokia 6010 Reporting in to Mama - Radio Interference (John Levine)
    Re: New Monopoly in Department Stores (Bill Ranck)
    Re: Nokia 6010 Reporting in to Mama - Radio Interference? (Isaiah Beard)
    Re: Phone Prefix 620-924 (Isaiah Beard)

Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet.  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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:00:32 -0500
From: John Riddell <jriddell@angustel.ca>
Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #471, March 4, 2005


************************************************************
TELECOM UPDATE
************************************************************
published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group
http://www.angustel.ca

Number 471: March 4, 2005

Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous
financial support from:
** ALLSTREAM: www.allstream.com
** AVAYA: www.avaya.ca/en/
** BELL CANADA: www.bell.ca
** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: www.cisco.com/ca/
** ERICSSON: www.ericsson.ca
** MITEL NETWORKS: www.mitel.com/
** SPRINT CANADA: www.sprint.ca
** UTC CANADA: www.canada.utc.org/

************************************************************

IN THIS ISSUE:

** Richard French Named CRTC Vice-Chair
** Nortel Shakes Up Executive Suite
** Virgin Mobile Begins Service
** 450 to Get 10-Digit Dialing
** CAIP Organizes to Influence Telecom Review
** Shaw Plans Cellphone Service
** Plaintiffs Against BCE/BCI Lose Appeal
** Nortel Gets Another Extension
** Aliant Expands Broadband Access
** Survey Shows User Support for Wireless Portability

============================================================

RICHARD FRENCH NAMED CRTC VICE-CHAIR: Richard French has been
appointed head of the CRTC's telecom branch, replacing Vice- Chairman
David Colville, who retired in December. French, a former Bell Canada
executive and Quebec cabinet minister, more recently held posts with
Bombardier in Germany and Tata Communications in India.

** Rita Cugini has been named a full-time member of the
    Commission representing Ontario.

NORTEL SHAKES UP EXECUTIVE SUITE: Nortel Networks has named Gary
Daichendt, currently a Cisco Systems EVP, as President and COO,
effective March 14. Bill Owens, now President and CEO, will become
Vice-Chairman and CEO. Newly appointed CFO Peter Currie will assume
the additional post of Executive VP.  Pascal Debon will become special
advisor to Owens.

VIRGIN MOBILE BEGINS SERVICE: Virgin Mobile Canada, a joint venture of
Richard Branson's Virgin Group and Bell Mobility, launched its
youth-oriented prepaid wireless service in Ontario and Quebec March
2. Airtime price: 25 cents/minute for the first five minutes; then 15
cents/minute. Phone prices start at $99.

** Twelve days earlier, Bell Mobility lowered its prepaid
    airtime price to 30 cents/minute for the first two minutes
    and 5 cents/minute thereafter.

450 TO GET 10-DIGIT DIALING: Following a public consultation, the CRTC
has decided to apply 10-digit local dialing to area code 450, serving
the Montreal region, beginning in October 2006. (See Telecom Update
#451, 466)

CAIP ORGANIZES TO INFLUENCE TELECOM REVIEW: The Canadian Association
of Internet Providers says it will launch TelecomAct Campaign as a
vehicle to "advance recommendations and react to proposed changes"
with regard to the federal government's review of telecom policy (see
Telecom Update #470). Contact Joanne Stanley at 613-236-6550.

www.caip.ca

SHAW PLANS CELLPHONE SERVICE: According to published reports, CEO Jim
Shaw says that Shaw Communications plans to offer wireless service in
about six months.

PLAINTIFFS AGAINST BCE/BCI LOSE APPEAL: The Supreme Court of Canada
has dismissed an appeal by plaintiffs in a $1-billion suit against BCI
and BCE. The suit was previously dismissed by Ontario Court of
Appeal. (See Telecom Update #415)

NORTEL GETS ANOTHER EXTENSION: Nortel Networks has received court
permission to delay its 2004 annual meeting to the end of June -- the
fourth extension of this deadline. Nortel plans to file its 2004
results by the end of April.

ALIANT EXPANDS BROADBAND ACCESS: Aliant says it will invest more than
$35 million in 2005 to bring broadband connections to 90,000 more
homes in Atlantic Canada.

SURVEY SHOWS USER SUPPORT FOR WIRELESS PORTABILITY: A survey of
Canadian wireless users by Solutions Research Group reports 79%
support for introduction of Wireless Number Portability; 13% were
opposed and only 8% not sure. Support was strongest among business
users and youth.

============================================================

HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE

E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca

FAX:    905-686-2655

MAIL:   TELECOM UPDATE
         Angus TeleManagement Group
         8 Old Kingston Road
         Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7

===========================================================

HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE)

TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two
formats available:

1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web late
Friday afternoon each week at www.angustel.ca

2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge.
    To subscribe, send an e-mail message to:
       join-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com
    To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send
    an e-mail message to:
       leave-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com

    Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add
    or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave
    subject line and message area blank.

    We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail
    addresses to any third party. For more information,
    see www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html.

===========================================================

COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2005 Angus
TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further
information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please
e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500.

The information and data included has been obtained from sources which
we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no
warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy,
completeness, or adequacy.  Opinions expressed are based on
interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If
expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a
competent professional should be obtained.

------------------------------

From: Henry Cabot Henhouse III <sooper_chicken@hotmail.com>
Subject: Vonage
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:25:59 -0800


So, anyone else notice that Vonage has taken a dump?  I've tried from
a number of different networks, nada, zip, kerflunk.

Busy when you navigate thru the voice mail, no response from the
website, mungled voice response when you call their main number.

Ya know, all this just to save $20 a month.

I'm porting my number BACK to Verizon. At least they don't have
these stupid VOIP outages and calls that sound like you're in a sfx
chamber.

Bah!

------------------------------

From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Voom Goes Boom
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:47:58 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, J Kelly wrote:

>> I keep hearing a vocal minority whining about not enough HDTV
>> available.  If there are so many people interested in HDTV, explain
>> how Voom only managed to convince around 40,000 suckers into signing
>> up for their service.  Now Voom has gone Boom.

> Voom's service started out with a hefty (several hundred dollars)
> investment required in equipment that would not be useful for anything
> else.

Aside from that and all the other drawbacks mentioned, it's important
to realize that Voom was the pet project of Charles Dolan, chairman
of Cablevision.  The rest of Cablevision's board was not very happy
having a cable provider own and operate a competing satellite
carrier, so every attempt has been made by this board to kill off
the company.

Satellite radio started off with only a tiny niche market, and yet it
lasted and has mushroomed into a promising industry because there no
foes in the boradroom trying to kill it off.  If Voom had the support,
it likely would have succeeded in time, too.


E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

------------------------------

From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Vonage's Citron Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship'
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:05:33 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


> My local convenience store and drugstore carry certain newspapers, but
> not all for my area.  Does that mean they are _censoring_ the ones
> they don't sell?  According to Vonage they are.

You comparison is overbroad and overreaching, and compares apples to 
oranges.

I would think of it more this way: let's say that your phone company 
provider, be it Verizon or other LEC, decided that profanity should no 
longer be used on its phone lines, and installs special filters to 
capture and "bleep out" such speech.  Would that be acceptable?

Okay, you're a clean-talking person, and I can respect that.  What if
Verizon happened to be more, say, left leaning in who it favors
politically, and every time you wanted to talk to someone about how
great the president is, the connection would go dead, because Verizon
doesn't want to carry that kind of traffic?  Yet strangely, calls
praising anyone of Democratic affiliation never have this problem.
That would be a little odd, wouldn't it?  Would that be acceptable?
Of course, Verizon could say "If you don't like it, go find another
phone carrier!," but gee, they've done a really good job of stifling
competition lately, and your ISP happens to be blocking Vonage.  Pity,
that.

Or! Even if we don't want to argue the constitutional route, let's go
the technical route as to what are ethical business practices.  Let's
say that the local wireless provider installs a Motorola mobile
telephone switch.  Instantly, every phone in the network that isn't
manufactured by Motorola gets lower connection priorities, are forced
to transmit and receive in downsampled codes, miss calls, and calls
that do make it through randomly drop, while all Motorola-branded
phones are exhibiting remarkably crystal-clear reception.  Would that
be considered acceptable and ethical to you?


E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

------------------------------

From: Dean <cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Vonage's Citron Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship'
Date: 4 Mar 2005 12:37:16 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Lisa, see the two earlier messages
> in this issue on this topic (Jack Decker and Danny Burstein). It
> would appear the 'government' in the form of the FCC *did* get
> involved in this 'censorship' case, and after a friendly chat and a
> fine, the ISP had a change of attitude. And unlike at your place of
> employment, where someone else is paying the bill, here we have a
> public service where presumably the customers are paying the bill for
> the type of service they wish to receive.  PAT]

Yes Pat, but it didn't do it on the basis of the 1st Amendment. As I
understand it, the fine was to preserve "Net Freedom" (Powell's term)
and although I like it, I still don't understand the legal basis for
this action.  It seems to me the Telco's ought to be concerned about
this because if there is now a "must carry" rule for VoIP traffic, what
happens when they start to offer TV/video? Will they be forced to allow
competing networks to service their customers? (I don't mean specific
channels because the analogy breaks down there). In other words, can I
have an SBC broadband connection and bypass SBC's future TV offering to
get my TV service (over that same broadband connection) from "PatTV"?
If that's the case doesn't SBC lose some of its incentive to push
broadband? (I presume the profit margin for the TV service will be much
higher than for the access service, so that's where they'll expect to
make their money, right?)

Regards,

Dean

------------------------------

Subject: Vonage's Citron Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship'
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:49:19 -0500
From: Charles Cryderman <Charles.Cryderman@globalcrossing.com>


> The concept of "freedom of speech" is that the _govt_ can't stop you 
> from speaking. It does not mean that someone has to provide you with the
> soapbox or bullhorn from which to speak.  When it comes to that, you're
> on your own.

I totally agree with this. But remember the courts do as they
please. A case in point. A very religious married couple in Ann Arbor,
Michigan owned a apartment building. Because of their religious
beliefs, chose not to rent to un-married persons. Now this was private
property and their religious beliefs told them not to, but the courts
ruled that they were in violation of the law. So in essence the court
said, your right to do as you wish with you private property and to
follow your religious teaching do not exists. What takes precedent,
the Constitution or laws made by Congress? I was taught that nothing
supersedes the Constitution yet the courts do it all the time.

> As somene else here pointed out, the VOIP industry had a big
> celebration when it was recently determined that they're not under
> regulation -- they don't have any of the burdens the traditional phone
> companies have which saves them a heck of a lot of money and
> aggravation.  But now the VOIP people want to impose those very same
> regulations on others.  Seems rather unfair to me.

See this a misconception that the VoIP providers do not have to follow
some regulations. What they want to insure is that they do not have to
collect a bunch of crap taxes and fees per line. In my opinion none of
the companies should be forced to do this. But these providers do pay
into these. For the lines that they install to terminate to they are
paying E911, sales tax and into the universal service fund. Just not
for the customer access side. Why? because the law requires these fees
based on a telephone line, not access to making telephone calls.

> Someone asked the telecom director of my employer while we don't "save
> money and use VOIP".  The director replied
> emphatically that the Internet is NOT free -- having it requires routers
> and servers and networking and all of that comes at a cost.  Adding VOIP
> on an enterprise-wide basis would add quite a load said installation and
> increase its cost.

Your telecom director is correct and wrong. Yes, it cost money for the
internet access, but less then having the telephone lines. The cost to
set this up in a business environment is very high. The Cisco
telephones alone cost about $150.00 each from what I understand. Then
of course the routers and other items cost. For business they have to
decide the payback. If they are only being billed a few hundred
dollars a month the hardware cost alone could make it unwise. But if
you company is being bill a few thousand a month I would recommend
that it be looked at. If the payback is less then a year or two they
should go with VoIP. I would even go as far as to say, borrow to do
it.

> Right now VOIP is a novelty, but if and when a lot of people start
> using it I suspect the bandwidth to carry all that chatter will be
> consequential and drive up ISP costs.

VoIP maybe a novelty to you, but for my employer it is what we are
doing. Billions of minuets per month are going across our VoIP network
and we are adding more everyday. So much so that we have removed good
old fashion TDM switches and plan to have them all gone as soon as we
can. VoIP is no more a novelty today then the internet. There are some
that have no access or desire for the internet and see it as a
novelty, the opposite is true for VoIP. Within the next 5 to 10 years,
other then the slow pokes at the LECs no one will have TDM switches in
their networks.

Our Esteemed Moderator posted:

> But Lisa, see the two earlier messages in this issue on this topic
> (Jack Decker and Danny Burstein). It would appear the 'government'
> in the form of the FCC *did* get involved in this 'censorship' case,
> and after a friendly chat and a fine, the ISP had a change of
> attitude. And unlike at your place of employment, where someone else
> is paying the bill, here we have a public service where presumably
> the customers are paying the bill for the type of service they wish
> to receive.

Did you notice as well, Pat that all along we have been talking about a
ISP doing this. It wasn't, it was a regulated telephone company that did
it. So all the brew-ha-ha about ISPs wanting freedom from regulation had
nothing to do with it after all.


Chip Cryderman

------------------------------

From: Dean <cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com>
Subject: Municipal Wi-FI and Incumbents
Date: 4 Mar 2005 13:38:18 -0800


This is from yesterday's Guardian. It includes an interesting
juxtaposition of Verizon's and BT's positions on municipal Wi-Fi
networks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,,1428626,00.html

Excerpt:

........

So far, so good. But city hall soon ran into serious problems that
could stifle the wireless dreams of municipalities across the world. US
cable companies, which see citizen-funded networks as a threat to their
commercial fiefdoms, backed a bill that effectively outlawed municipal
wireless in the state of Pennsylvania. In December, the state passed a
bill forbidding any municipality in the state from running an
"information network". Only a last-minute deal with Verizon, the
state's de facto monopoly provider of broadband, saved Philadelphia's
vision. Verizon promised to allow the city's network, but at the
expense of the rest of the state. At least 15 US states are considering
similar telco-backed bills to ban municipal networks.

To Dianah Neff, Philadelphia's chief information officer, municipal
wireless is no mere luxury. Neff, a veteran public servant, sees
municipal networks as a potential leveller in a city where 70% of state
school children receive free school meals. "We have a vibrant
downtown," she says, "but we need to make sure all our neighbourhoods
can compete in the knowledge economy.

..........

Chris Clark, chief executive for BT Wireless Broadband, said the UK's
biggest broadband supplier would not be taking the same approach as
Verizon. "The community wireless projects, which started in an
environment of concern about rural service, are evolving into providing
all sorts of innovative services," he says. "It would be a pity to see
such innovation stifled. More recently, a number of metropolitan
wireless projects have been in the pipeline. BT is fully supportive of
these initiatives."

TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: City of Independence was looking very
favorably at muni-wi-fi for our town, but SBC -- Southwestern Bell -- 
put a kibosh on it, threatening to get the state commission to do a
rule like that proposed for Pennsylvania. SBC did not like the idea
at all of a community giving away for free the DSL service they
charge an arm and a leg for.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: FCC Reaches Telco Settlement to Stop Blocking VOIP
Date: 4 Mar 2005 21:54:18 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com


In article <telecom24.94.12@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Danny Burstein wrote:

>> "We saw a problem, and we acted swiftly to ensure that Internet voice
>> service remains a viable option for consumers", said FCC Chairman
>> Michael K. Powell.

> I don't understand.

> Why couldn't the consumers simply switch to another ISP?  Why did the
> FCC have to intervene?

It's not always that simple. Here in my high-tech haven in the Pacific
Northwest Verizon has managed to price DSL service at a level which
prevents other ISP's from competing for DSL broadband customers (the
bare DSL circuit is 50% more than Verizon Online's monthly charge,
without including any ISP charges). The ONLY other broadband choice is
Comcast (cable), and there is NO choice of ISP with them.

And you're not going to run VOIP over a dial-up connection.


John Meissen                                     jmeissen@aracnet.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And some telcos -- such as SBC --
flatly refuse to sell DSL to anyone (other then their own customers
with SBC phone service) at all. They know the handwriting is on the
wall, and they are going to fight to the bitter end to hang on to
their increasingly shrinking market. In Bell's arrogance they never
used to have to put up with any competition to speak of; it had to be
their way or no way at all, and they still like to act that way.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 2005 22:04:32 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Nokia 6010 Reporting in to Mama -- Radio Interference?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


>> My new Nokia 6010 has an interesting and somewhat annoying habit.  If
>> it's anywhere within a 5 foot radius of my PC speakers, I can hear it
>> periodically transmitting something ...

> Now, _why_ this stuff is being picked up on the PC speakers -- that's
> a whole nuther story.

The little song that GSM phones sing seems to be in a low enough
frequency range that it's picked up inductively by just about any
audio system.  My car has a shelf under the radio, and if I put the
phone there, the radio picks up the song.  Often on conference calls
with speakerphones, we have to remind people not to put their GSM
phones close to the phone because we'll all hear it singing.


Regards,

John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711
johnl@iecc.com, Mayor, http://johnlevine.com, 
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

------------------------------

From: Bill Ranck <ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: New Monopoly in Dept Stores -- Federated and May Co to Merge
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 22:12:09 UTC
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA


hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Second, the traditional old line dept stores actually had considerable
> variety.  The modern mgmt have eliminated a lot of departments and
> special services.  Gimbels, for example, had a scouting/camping dept,
> art supplies dept, and bookstore.

>> I think this sort of gradual fade into irrelevance is what terrifies
>> the heads of Federated and (heavily-indebted) May.  ...

> It's their own fault, and merger won't fix it, anymore than merging
> the Pennsylvania and New York Central railroads saved them.

It seems obvious to me that the traditional, old line, department
stores have been replaced by *malls*.  No, it's not one big store with
clothing, furniture, housewares, and whatnot all under one name, but
effectively the malls today have all the same stuff in a series of
small independent or chain stores under one roof.  It's better in some
ways because there will be competing stores in a mall selling similar
merchandise, while a department store does not have competing
departments.

So, it seems that malls have both centralized and de-centalized the
retail industry at the same time.  The telecom industry seems to be
working its way toward that same kind of situation.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

------------------------------

From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Nokia 6010 Reporting in to Mama -- Radio Interference?
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:09:28 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Ted Koppel wrote:

> My new Nokia 6010 has an interesting and somewhat annoying habit.  If
> it's anywhere within a 5 foot radius of my PC speakers, I can hear it
> periodically transmitting something (sort of a rhythmic
> dum-diddy-dum-diddy-dum-dum-dum).  Sounds like static, but definitely
> with a paced rhythm.  I haven't timed the intervals exactly, but it
> seems to take place every 17-20 minutes.  In a related activity, I
> hear a big burst of static on my PC speakers, and then some rhythmic
> noise, about 5-7 seconds before the cell phone begins to ring.

> This is the first cell phone I've had that caused these noises.  Do I 
> have a mutant phone?  Is this anything to be concerned about?

I've been noticing lately that a lot of the newer GSM phones are
starting to do this.  I worry that GSM handset manufacturers are
starting to get a little bit careless in taking steps to avoid
interference.

You will find, however, that CDMA based phones (those on Verizon,
Sprint, Alltel and a few others) will not have this problem.  This is
not to say that they are immune to interfering with toher equipment;
they just happen to do it in a way that is far less noticeable to the
layperson.


E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

------------------------------

From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Phone Prefix 620-924
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:22:11 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Carl Moore:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For those who do not know, Liberty, KS
> is a _tiny_ little 'wide spot' in the road southeast of Independence,
> population about a hundred souls, a Methodist Church, the obligatory
> road house and a gasoline station. Dobson Cellular One also has its
> antennas there. 620-924 _does_ ring in there but only as DID-type 
> lines for some of the cell phones based out of there.

telcodata.us reports the 620-924 exchange as being assigned to the 
"Tri-County Telephone Association," whatever that may be, and lists the 
switch as a Nortel DMS-10 RSLE.

> I think 620-485 picks up the rest of Liberty.

That it does. The TOTAH telephone company.  Another Nortel DMS-10.


E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Tri-County Telephone Association was
formerly the 'Tri-County Telephone Cooperative Society'; it is a group
of citizens in southeast Kansas who, back at the start of the last
century started rural telephone service in this area, or actually a
bit east of us covering the area between Pittsburg, KS and somewhere
east of Cherryvale, KS, when Southwestern Bell could not be bothered
with them. Once they got set up with 'modern' equipment in the 1930's
and Rural Electrification Administration bailed them out of debt,
Southwestern Bell started looking at the area with -- as Jimmy Carter
would have said -- lust in their heart. Comes the 1950's and they got
totally out of their debt to REA, and the farmer's wives got to be too
old to run the switchboard, and the farmer's daughters moved away to
the big city, Bell's lust got even stronger; all kinds of scummy
tricks were played on them; but to their credit, Tri-County stared
right back at Southwestern Bell and gave them an old fashioned Archie
Bunker-style Bronx cheer, and went with other _independents_ such as
Totah and GTE instead. That's pretty much where it stands even today.
Since Divestiture, I think they have gotten on somewhat friendlier 
terms with Bell. 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 !

              ************************

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

              ************************

   ---------------------------------------------------------------

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. 

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 V24 #95
*****************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues