TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:03:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 109

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Billing (Choreboy)
    Skype Phone Numbers (UK)
    Re: Need PC Based Call Attendant/Answering Service (LB@notmine.com)
    Re: Need PC Based Call Attendant/Answering Service (Tony P.)
    Re: Cell Phone Radiation Dangers (Tony P.)
    Re: Cell Phone Radiation Dangers (Tim Keating)
    Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack (Wesrock@aol.com)
    Re: Vonage Outage Last Thursday (Tony P.)
    Re: FCC to Cellcos: Clean up Your Bills and Invoices (Tony P.)
    Re: How to Make Skype Wireless ? (John Levine)
    Re: How to Make Skype Wireless ? (Phillip LeNir)
    Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack (Paul Coxwell)
    Re: Long Distance Carrier Verification (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Technion (Choreboy)
    Re: Privacy Self-Regulation, A Decade of Disappointment (Peter Pearson)

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.  

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

From: Choreboy <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com>
Subject: AT&T Billing
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:52:41 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Robert Bonomi wrote:

> The telco _is_ "responsible" (as in 'legally liable') for the actions
> of any 'agent' or contract marketing service that violates the law.

That reminds me of a string of bad experiences with AT&T.  Five or six
years ago I had another carrier.  Then an AT&T agent phoned and
offered a plan with no monthly charge and two hours free.  I agreed.

When the letter came a couple of weeks later, it said there would be a
$5 monthly charge and there was no mention of free minutes. I phoned
AT&T, whose representative said they were not responsible for lies
their agents told.

The representative said he'd put me on a plan with no monthly charge
and send me a calling card for my two free hours.

I read the document that came with the card.  There was no mention of
free minutes.  Instead, it said I'd be billed 35 a minute.  I would
have been billed $42 for the two "free" hours the AT&T representative
had promised.

I never used AT&T and no charge appeared on my telephone bill.  My
bills were paid by automatic bank draft.  I didn't check them promptly
because they were always the same.  After five years or so, I saw on
my bank statement that my phone bill had jumped $8.50.

AT&T was now charging me. By now we were two days into AT&T's third
billing cycle, so it would cost me $25.50.  Their representative said
they had sent me a card six months ago informing me of their increase,
so there was nothing I could do.

She offered to switch me to an account with no monthly charge but not
refund any money.  I wanted to know why I had been switched *from* an
account with no monthly charge.  She spoke as if I'd agreed to it by
receiving the post card.

I had saved that card.  It said that in the future they would abide by
state law if they changed their rates.  If that was an announcement
that they would change my account, it was deceptive.  Anyway, it said
continuing to use or pay for an AT&T service would constitute
acceptance of the "agreement."  I hadn't used or paid for any AT&T
service in years.

I said I wanted to cancel any account I had.  AT&T required me to jump
through hoops with them and Bell South.  

If AT&T had signed me up for a different kind of account without even
notifying me, that sounded like slamming.  I complained to the FCC. 
They said as long as AT&T had not stolen me from another carrier, they
could do as they pleased with me.

Eventually, AT&T refunded two months' charges.  They did not explain why
they refused to refund the third month.

AT&T seems like a criminal enterprise to me.

Choreboy

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note Yet, Traditional Bell and its apologists
keep talking complaining about what a bum deal telco is getting from the
alternative services such as the CLECs and VOIP, etc. This is just
IMO, but I think AT&T, SBC, etc have mostly brought on their own
troubles over the years.  PAT]

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

From: Alan Burkitt-Gray <ABurkitt@EUROMONEYPLC.COM>
Subject: Skype Phone Numbers
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:50:07 -0000


Knowing Digest readers' interest in VoIP and Skype, I thought you
might like to see the item we published in our free email newsletter,
Global Telecoms Business Top 5 Daily, yesterday. Incidentally, if
anyone wants to get on our mailing list, drop me an email directly. It
goes out at around 12.30 UK time, 7.30am ET, Mon-Fri.

Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business
<mailto:aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com> aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com tel +44
20 7779 8518 or +1 212 224 3880 

Skype launches real phone numbers at Eur30 a year

Peer-to-peer phone operator Skype is beta-testing its SkypeIn service,
offering customers real phone numbers from 30 area codes in the US as
well as London and Hong Kong, plus non-geographic French
numbers. Customers can buy up to three numbers for their Skype account
at Eur30 (about $40) a year each, with no charges for incoming calls
and with free voicemail.

There's been no formal announcement of any launch, but details have
just appeared on the company's site, with the warning: "Right now
we're just testing the service, so there might be some kinks and it
might not be entirely stable all the time."

Meanwhile Skype's CEO Niklas Zennstrm said yesterday that one million
users have bought SkypeOut, enabling them to call regular phone
numbers around the world at Eur0.017 a minute. The minimum pre-pay
amount is Eur10.

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

From: LB@notmine.com
Subject: Re: Need PC Based Call Attendant/Answering Service
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:37:09 -0500
Organization: Optimum Online


pgrogan@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm looking for an inexpensive (under 400) software/hardware solution
> that will act as an answering service/call attendant.  Preferably
> something that can run off of a PC and with Vonage (VoIP).  Here are
> the features that I need:

> -Multiple Mailboxes
> -Ability to transfer caller to my cell phone (if caller chooses this
>  option)

> Any ideas?  This software package seems like it might work, but I have
> never heard of them:

> http://www.nch.com.au/ivm/index.html

> TIA

> Ron

A search in Google for answering service call attendant software
returned 146,000 hits.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=answering+service+call+attendant+software


LB

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Need PC Based Call Attendant/Answering Service
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:59:04 -0500


In article <telecom24.108.10@telecom-digest.org>, pgrogan@gmail.com 
says:

> I'm looking for an inexpensive (under 400) software/hardware solution
> that will act as an answering service/call attendant.  Preferably
> something that can run off of a PC and with Vonage (VoIP).  Here are
> the features that I need:

> -Multiple Mailboxes
> -Ability to transfer caller to my cell phone (if caller chooses this
>  option)

> Any ideas?  This software package seems like it might work, but I have
> never heard of them:

> http://www.nch.com.au/ivm/index.html

Asterisk PBX -- runs on pretty much any Linux distribution. The
software doesn't cost anything. It's the hardware that will cost you.

I know that Digium (Who curiously produces Asterisk - nice business
model if you ask me.) produces a bunch of FXO and FXS cards, I think a
four port FXS will run you about $300 or so. And an FXO add on for
that is about $100. You don't mention number of CO lines or stations
so what I've recommended is a 4:1 ratio.

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Radiation Dangers
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:44:30 -0500


In article <telecom24.107.16@telecom-digest.org>, cjmebox-
telecomdigest@yahoo.com says:

> Isaiah Beard wrote:

>> Dean wrote:

>>> A while back some on this list engaged in a lively debate about cell
>>> phone radiation risks. This article may have some information of
>>> interest to those of you who think this issue isn't dead yet.

>>> The cell phone industry: Big Tobacco 2.0?

>>> By Molly Wood, senior editor, CNET.com
>>> Tuesday, March 8, 2005

>> Oh, C|Net.  Now we KNOW it's quality journalism.  </sarcasm>

>> Consider that Ms. Wood readily admits she has an agenda (she has an
>> axe to grind with cell phone manufacturers over what she perceives as
>> "iron-clad control over phone releases and pricing, its
>> ever-lengthening contracts, and the annoying habit it has of crippling
>> Bluetooth phones so that [she] can't use them the way [she wants]
>> to").  I would thus take this with a heavy handful of salt.

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

> OK OK, I'm not saying there's anything absolutely definitive in that
> article. But it seems certainly prudent to use a headset and try to
> keep the antenna at a certain distance -- just as she suggests toward
> the end of the article. (although I think I read somewhere that the
> cord of the headset can have some adverse effect too - one can only
> take so many precautions and still be reasonable:-)

> Regards,

The problem is that many of the headsets are now Bluetooth enabled.
Those put out signals on what, 2.4GHz at relatively low power.

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

From: Tim Keating <NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Radiation Dangers
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:27:01 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 06:11:58 -0800, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On 9 Mar 2005 08:56:41 -0800, Dean <cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

>> A while back some on this list engaged in a lively debate about cell
>> phone radiation risks. This article may have some information of
>> interest to those of you who think this issue isn't dead yet.

> They've brought out this pony for a couple decades now and haven't
> found anything.  Why should we believe this latest scare?

Because the technology has change dramatically over time. 

A couple of decades ago:

  A. Cell phones were fairly rare and air time was expensive. 
           (short and infrequent calls). 
  B. Used benign handsets.
      Most where trunk or bag units with antenna mounted on the
      exterior of motor vehicles.  (Increased Distance from RF radiator). 
  C. Operated in or around the 900 Mhz band..  
      The human body is more transparent to lower frequency RF energy.
  D. Volume of tissue which absorbed RF energy was much greater, thus 
      overall exposer per in^3 was way lower. 


The danger has increased because:

    a. Self contained hand unit proximity to  users head.
       (Inverse square law.. increases exposer dramatically.)
    b. Higher operating frequencies. (1.8 to 2.0 Ghz). 
       (Overall RF absorption gets concentrated into a relatively
       small volume centered above the users ear.).
    c.  People are using them wit greater frequency and talking for
        long periods. 

http://www.willthomas.net/Investigations/Articles/cellphones.htm

Care to roll the dice again?? 

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

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:30:11 EST
Subject: Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack


In a message dated Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:34:59 -0500, Marcus Didius Falco
<falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Many years ago the standard was somewhat different, and the yellow
> wire was sometimes used as a ground. Then, for a time, I think the
> yellow wire was used to power the lights on princess phones. Almost
> certainly the yellow wire is either dead or shorted to one of the
> other wires. Check this with a volt meter.

The yellow wire was indeed used for ground, required for the generally
used type of party-line ringing, and also for calling party
identification when DDD came along.

Two wires were required, as for all electrical circuits, for the
lights on Princess and Trimline phones.  They were normally on
yellow-black.  Usually a wall war was used, but there were also
separate plug-in transformers with binding post terminals that could
be put in an inconspicuous location and multipled (normally on the
yellow-black) to several Princess or Trimline phones.

Later examples of Trimline phones got the power for the lights from
the phone pairs (another task for the C.O. battery).


Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Vonage Outage Last Thursday
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:49:09 -0500


In article <telecom24.107.17@telecom-digest.org>, sjsobol@JustThe.net 
says:

> Brian Inglis wrote:

>> It works, ship it ... we're all beta test sites now!

> Given this discussion of apparent Vonage incompetence, their whining
> about their traffic being blocked is quite funny. Seems they are quite
> capable of blocking their own traffic, if inadvertently. ;)

I've had Vonage for 5 months now and haven't had any outages at all
that were caused by their alleged incompetence.

One was ISP related where the cable service for a good chunk of
Providence went dark during a snow storm. The other was a chunk of ice
damaging a piece of cable on the outside of the house. Seems the
methods employed by the previous building owner weren't held to
exacting standards. They've got the siding off the building now so I
should tack down a section of CAT-5 and replace the damaged wire. But
why should I?  I don't own the building and it only affected the phone
in the bedroom.  It also severed by connection to the NID which means
there's no chance of getting a reverse voltage on my VoIP line.

I think that many of the problems people are having in the mid-west
are ISP related. Therefore I understand Vonage whining about being
denied access to certain ports necessary for their service to
function.

Maybe I've had good luck. Who knows. 

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: FCC to Cellcos: Clean up Your Bills and Invoices
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:55:15 -0500


In article <telecom24.107.21@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com 
says:

> Danny Burstein wrote:

>> "FCC Extends Truth-in-Billing Rules to Wireless Phones; Seeks
>> Comment on Additional Measures to Increase Ability of Consumers to
>> Make Informed Choices ...

> I wonder if this will make bills _harder_ to understand.

> As a result of all the "fair disclosure" laws, companies now send out
> whole books in fine print on their numerous policies.  They're
> impossible for a lay person to understand, and they're constantly
> changing.  Overloading someone with detail is an easy way to fraud
> someone.

> Years ago our electric bill was on a postcard.  Name, address, KWH
> hours used, total cost.  Now it's several pages of graphs and charts.
> Our phone bill used to be one small slip of paper -- fixed costs on one
> side, toll charges on the other.  Now it's so thick it requires extra
> postage -- and I don't even have toll charges!  (And it's on
> double-sided paper too!)

> I'm pretty sure it was the PUCs that ordered the breakouts of
> toll/non-toll and basic/non-basic data blocks.  Further, all imposed
> charges, ie 911, FCC line, should be rolled up in service and
> equipment; all taxes rolled into one item just as the old days.

> Can anyone justify mailing out the Encyclopedia Britannica for a
> monthly utility bill?

There are certain details that shouldn't be rolled up under one fee. I
suspect that in the days of the Bell System the equipment rental
charges were actually subsidizing certain elements of service.

But you're right about the electric bills. I don't so much object to
the graphs but the increased fees ever since de-regulation took
place. You see, now we have a separate distribution and generation
charge.  Theoretically you could choose the source for your
electricity but the cost differential is inconsequential for
residential users. Instead the de-regulation benefits business.

I don't for a moment think the Narragansett Electric was going to walk
away owning just the distribution network and not make people pay top
dollar for it. All this at the time that our electric system
infrastructure is crumbling.

There are echoes of Enron all over the place. Now you just have to dig
a bit deeper to find them.

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

Date: 12 Mar 2005 16:20:50 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: How to Make Skype Wireless ?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> There are plenty of companies that sell phones made specifically for
> Skype. Some of these phones are wireless. One of the more popular ones
> that I have noticed can be found at http://www.dualphone.net/

These all seem to be phones that have a base unit plug into your
computer's USB port, and handsets that talk to that base unit.

Has anyone seen (or even heard rumors of) a usable WiFi phone for
Skype that talks to your LAN rather than to a proprietary base?  Zyxel
makes a phone for normal SIP but it doesn't seem to be compatible with
Skype.


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

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

Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:36:11 PST
From: Philip LeNir <phil@summitcircle.com>
Subject: Re: How to Make Skype Wireless ?


John,

I have not actually found any products that can be purchased right now
 ... however ... I've noticed a series of press releases that indicate
a variety of companies are headed in this direction and that Skype is
organizing partnerships that will make it attractive for Hardware
vendors to produce these types of devices.

I certainly believe that Skype is creating a business ecosystem around
itself, and as such provide value for its customers that it could not
do on its own.

Title: "Skype alights on Broadreach hotspots"
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70029/skype-alights-on-broadreach-hotspots.html

"Anyone with a wireless-ready device can now use Broadreach hotspots
for free to make Skype voice calls, which are also free.

What's the catch? There isn't one. Broadreach has configured its
hotspots to recognise the Skype protocol and allow that traffic to
connect. Any of the Skype services - eg instant messaging - can be
used in this way."

My opinion: This makes a Skype enabled WiFi phone more attractive to
users. It also sets a precedent that wireless providers cannot be
happy with... it is completely free...you do not have to pay the WiFi
provider any money what so ever to make wireless calls to anywhere in
the world (assuming the callee has Skype.. otherwise 2 cents per
minute with SkypeOut).  See related article below regarding Motorola's
acquisition of MeshNetworks.

Title: "i-mate & Skype form global partnership"
http://www.skype.com/company/news/2005/imate.html

"Newly manufactured i-mate PDA2K and i-mate PDA2 handsets will
be produced with Skype's award-winning software preloaded, enabling
i-mate owners to use Skype immediately on start-up of their
device. Both handsets are dual mode GSM/GPRS Wifi handsets that, with
Skype included, allow users to make free, superior quality voice calls
wherever they are worldwide."

My opinion: I haven't had a chance to read too deeply into this, but I
figure it will probably work over a home area WiFI network.


Title: "Motorola launches Skype alliance"
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/wireless/0,39020348,39187936,00.htm

"The handset manufacturer is developing Wi-Fi compatible mobiles, and
will bundle popular VoIP application Skype with the planned devices"

My opinion: I think that Motorola is covering its bases and making a
wise bet on the future.

Title: "Motorola Extends Broadband Wireless Technology
Portfolio with Acquisition of MeshNetworks"
http://www.motorola.com.cn/en/news/2005/01/0202_01.asp

Title: "Motorola Mesh Networks Solution Transforms The
Way Minnesota Town Communicates"
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050228/cgm031_1.html

My opinion: I don't think it will take Motorola long to combine the
technology they got with MeshNetworks, Skype enabled WiFi phones, as
well as the various pushes to completely WiFi enabled entire cities
(as a public service ... Philadelphia, San Franscisco, Taipei are three
examples I know of) and thus threaten Cell phone providers.


Philip.

Find a Skype phone, Skype add-on or Skype community
at http://www.summitcircle.com/

 --- John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

>> There are plenty of companies that sell phones made specifically for
>> Skype. Some of these phones are wireless. One of the more popular ones
>> that I have noticed can be found at http://www.dualphone.net/

> These all seem to be phones that have a base unit plug into your
> computer's USB port, and handsets that talk to that base unit.

> Has anyone seen (or even heard rumors of) a usable WiFi phone for
> Skype that talks to your LAN rather than to a proprietary base?  Zyxel
> makes a phone for normal SIP but it doesn't seem to be compatible with
> Skype.

> 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: Paul Coxwell <paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:25:51 -0000


> John Beaman <jbeaman@good-sam.com> wrote:

> Standard wire               Cat 3

> Tip- Green -----Line 1----- Blue
> Ring- Red  -----Line 1----- White/Blue stripe
> Tip- Black -----Line 2----- Orange
> Ring-Yellow ----Line 2----- White/Orange stripe

Other way around for the tip and ring colors in the last column.

Conductors with a white base color are tip, those with blue or orange
base are ring.

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

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Carrier Verification
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:45:48 -0800
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


Bill Matern wrote:

> When I worked on a 700 number service, the number was 700-555-1212 to
> find out about your IXC.  This was over 10 years ago.  However, when I
> just tired it in Salem, NH it did not work, but you may want to try
> this alternative number.

> On Verizon's site, they indicate the 700-555-4141 number so it
> probably has changed in that time.  This number did not work either
> for me.

Apple Valley, CA, March 12th: 700-555-4141 works just fine with VZ as
the ILEC and Sprint as the IXC. Has worked everywhere else I've tried
it, too. I've never seen -1212 advertised as the IXC number.


JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
     --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

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

From: Choreboy <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com>
Subject: Re: Technion
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:52:51 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Robert Bonomi wrote:

> In article <telecom24.106.6@telecom-digest.org>,
> Choreboy  <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:

[...]

>> It seems like harassment to me.  Can I do anything to stop it?

[...]

> I betcha Bell South will too.  The law *requires* that companies
> maintain their _own_ internal Do not call list -- for *anyone* who has
> expressly requested that "that company" not call them.  The 'prior
> business relation- ship' exemption does *not* trump the
> company-maintained 'do not call' list for marketing calls.

Thanks.  I seem to be on Technion's DNC list now.

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

From: Peter Pearson <ppearson@nowhere.invalid.lga.highwinds-media.com>
Subject: Re: Privacy Self-Regulation, A Decade of Disappointment
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:26:54 -0800


Monty Solomon wrote:

> EPIC Report: Privacy Self-Regulation, A Decade of Disappointment:

>      http://www.epic.org/reports/decadedisappoint.html

Summary: Freedom is ugly. The FTC should do something. The
"specifics", if you can call them that, of the "something" are: (1)
abandon its faith, (2) reexamine something, (3) reexamine something
else, (4) investigate something, (5) investigate something else, and
(6) develop a mechanism for opting out.


Peter Pearson
To get my email address, substitute:
nowhere -> spamcop, invalid -> net

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


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 #109
******************************