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
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, 18 Mar 2005 06:26:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 120
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Mobile Phone Porn Set for Sales Spike - Survey (Lisa Minter)
Web Design Hampers Mobile Internet, Pioneer Says (Lisa Minter)
EBay May Face Injunction in MercExchange Case (Lisa Minter)
GAO Questions FCC Management of E-Rate Program (Lisa Minter)
BC Warns its Alumni of Possible ID Theft After Computer Hack (M Solomon)
Debit Card Fraud a Growing Problem (Monty Solomon)
Can Somebody Please Explain CSD to Me? (bob@jfcl.com)
Blackberry Enterprise Server Calendar Sharing (sollento)
Kevin Martin Picked for FCC Chief (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
Third Time's No Charm (Eric Friedebach)
FCC May Allow VOIP Access Charges (Jack Decker)
AT&T Net Phone Disappoints (Jack Decker)
Toll-free Number Service for Europe - I Need Information (Michael Av)
Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Paul Coxwell)
Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Tony P.)
Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Neal McLain)
Re: Vonage Number Portability (John Levine)
Re: Vonage Number Portability (Randal Hayes)
Re: E-Mail Paranoia (Henry)
Re: Lifespan of a Desktop PC? (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Los Angeles Times: Low-Tech Methods Used in Data Theft (L Hancock)
Re: Sending Ringtones via a Web Service (Joseph)
Re: Iridium II: Is Satellite Radio Doomed? (delete the 'z' for address)
Re: Attacked by a Dog Which was Playing (Hudson Leighton)
Re: Attacked by a Dog Which was Playing (John McHarry)
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: 17 Mar 2005 16:19:48 -0800
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Mobile Phone Porn Set for Sales Spike - Survey
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Mobile phone users around the world spent $400
million on pornographic pictures and video in 2004, an amount that is
expected to rise to $5 billion by 2010, despite the tiny screen sizes,
a survey found on Thursday.
The adult entertainment sector was one of the first media industries
to take advantage of the World Wide Web, and its customers were the
among the first to get high-speed Internet access for downloading
X-rated films.
In mobile communications, however, pornography might not do as well as
on the fixed-line Internet, because the screens are small and download
prices charged by telecoms operators are high, research group Strategy
Analytics said in a report.
"In 2010 we estimate that expenditure on mobile adult content will
represent just 5 percent of total end-user spend on mobile content
services," said analyst Nitesh Patel.
"We expect services that are built around sports, music and media to
perform better, because they appeal to a wider audience of users," he
added. In addition, there is value in offering news bulletins or a
recently scored goal on a mobile screen.
Still, the $5 billion in porn revenues by 2010 is $4 billion more than
Strategy Analytics had forecast until recently. It has upgraded its
estimates, because adult entertainment businesses are aggressively
building services, and customers are buying.
Playboy and rival Private Media Group have geared up their offerings,
and many mobile phone makers are busy implementing strategies to make
sure no subscribers aged under 18 years will be able to access x-rated
services.
In addition, one in every two phones sold in 2005 had bright color
screens, which will rise to four out of five by 2010.
In the meantime, anecdotal evidence from countries that have a
technological edge shows interest from consumers. South Korea 's SK
Telecom (017670.KS) said in late 2003 that 23 percent of the traffic
over its higher speed mobile network was adult content.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily
media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . Hundreds of new articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Reuters Limited/Tech Tuesday.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Who was it once who said here that the
internet of the 21st century consists of porn stuff and TELECOM Digest
mostly? I know I get _so tired_ of zapping porn each day from my
computers I am almost becoming numb from it. And I still say if you
actually want porn, you don't need to bother paying for it, just use
the Porn Worm program I have announced here a couple times, start it
running, go off to bed, and when you wake up in the morning your
computer will be over run by it ( http://porn-worm.us.tf ). The worm
never quits finding it until/unless you stop it. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: 17 Mar 2005 16:22:22 -0800
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Web Design Hampers Mobile Internet, Pioneer Says
By Daniel Frykholm
TAMPERE, Finland (Reuters) - A mass market exists for the mobile
Internet, but it will remain untapped until designers make simpler Web
pages that can be viewed properly on handsets, the inventor of the
World Wide Web said.
"(The mobile Internet) will be a huge enabler for the industry ... and
for big profits," Tim Berners-Lee told a seminar on Thursday on the
future of the Web.
"Web designers have learned to design for the visually impaired and
for other people. They will learn in a few years how to make Web sites
available for people with mobile devices too," he said.
Berners-Lee invented the Web in 1990 while working at European
particle-physics lab CERN in Geneva, trying to make it easier for
fellow scientists to share information and collaborate over the
Internet.
While his invention has revolutionized the way people across the globe
work and communicate, repeated attempts by mobile device makers and
operators to lure users with mobile Internet access have failed.
"Everyone was supposed to be browsing the Web with their mobile phone,
but the problem is that it has not happened," Berners-Lee said, adding
later this was not a question of weak demand.
"It is a chicken or egg thing, just like originally when the Web
became the Web. Nobody asked for Web clients or Web servers ... you
have to get enough people to understand the potential returns," he
told Reuters on the sidelines of the seminar.
Berners-Lee's original vision of the Web was as a resource for
collaboration. He said that so far it had been "a big disappointment"
in this respect, although exceptions such as "wikis" -- essentially
interactive online note pads -- showed its potential.
"Wikis in general are great examples of how people want to be creative
and not just suck in information," he told the seminar, pointing to
the online encyclopedia Wikipedia as the most advanced development in
this area.
Information on the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org) can be edited
by the site's users. The Web page currently shows around 500,000
items.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily
media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . Hundreds of new articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Reuters Limited/Tech Tuesday.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------------------
Date: 17 Mar 2005 16:24:38 -0800
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: EBay May Face Injunction in MercExchange Case
In a wide-ranging, 30-page ruling on Wednesday, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit found one MercExchange patent invalid
but reversed a lower court's rejection of MercExchange's motion for a
permanent injunction.
A federal judge in 2003 ordered eBay to pay Virginia-based
MercExchange $29.5 million for infringing a trio of e-commerce patents
that MercExchange charged were key to eBay's "Buy it Now" feature that
handles fixed-price sales.
Such sales accounted for about 31 percent of the total value of goods
sold on eBay in the fourth quarter of last year.
That lower court also denied MercExchange's request for a permanent
injunction against eBay.
EBay had appealed the initial judgment and was allowed to suspend
payment to MercExchange during appeal.
"Each side can claim partial victory in the appeal," Dennis nCrouch, a
patent attorney at McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff in Chicago,
wrote in an e-mail to Reuters.
Attorneys for MercExchange said the judgment on the invalidated patent
was equal to $4.5 million, meaning that $25 million of the earlier
judgment was affirmed.
"In this case, the district court did not provide any persuasive
reason to believe this case is sufficiently exceptional to justify the
denial of a permanent injunction," the appeals court said in its
ruling.
"We're going to go back the district court and ask for the permanent
injunction and ask for an additional two years of damages,"
MercExchange lawyer Scott Robertson, a partner at Hunton & Williams,
told Reuters.
"We believe that any injunction that might be issued by the district
court with respect to the other patent will not have an impact on our
business because of changes we have made following the District
Court's original verdict," eBay said in a statement.
The Web marketplace said it was pleased with the appeals court's
decision to invalidate one of MercExchange's patent, and as a result,
the related damages.
"We are confident in our position against MercExchange and do not
believe that these matters will have any impact on our business," said
eBay, which in 2003 booked a $30 million charge related to the
lawsuit.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is reexamining the validity of
MercExchange's patents upon eBay's request, the company said.
Crouch said the legal battle is far from over since the two other
patents in the suit will require more litigation in district court.
"There is only a small likelihood that eBay will allow its servers to
be shut-down rather than settle the case," Crouch said.
Shares of eBay, which finished down 59 cents to $36.48 on
the Nasdaq, slipped to $36.40 in after-hours trade.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily
media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . Hundreds of new articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Reuters Limited.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------------------
Date: 17 Mar 2005 16:26:48 -0800
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: GAO Questions FCC Management of E-Rate Program
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators are not
effectively managing a $2.25 billion program to link schools and
libraries to the Internet, congressional investigators said on
Wednesday said in a new report.
The Government Accountability Office said the Federal Communications
Commission has been slow to respond to problems uncovered by auditors,
has not tracked the effectiveness of the program, and a backlog of
cases has been growing.
"We remain concerned that FCC has not done enough to proactively
manage and provide a framework of government accountability for the
multi-billion-dollar E-rate program," the new report said.
The FCC, Congress and prosecutors have been investigating waste, fraud
and abuse in the E-rate program, which subsidizes telecommunications
equipment and services for schools and libraries. Telephone carriers
fund the program by paying a percentage of their long-distance service
revenues.
The findings by the GAO prompted U.S. House Energy and Commerce
Committee Chairman Rep. Joe Barton to say he plans to push legislation
to overhaul the program.
"This committee has no choice but to develop legislation to scrap the
status quo and apply some common sense to the E-rate program," the
Texas Republican said in a statement. He did not elaborate on what the
legislation would include.
Barton pointed to $101.2 million in funds that were disbursed between
1998 and 2001 to provide schools in Puerto Rico with high-speed
Internet access, but a warehouse full of unopened boxes of equipment
was discovered and few schools connected.
"We look forward to continuing to work with GAO to improve our
processes," Jeffrey Carlisle, head of the FCC's wireline bureau, said
in testimony to Barton's committee. "We are continuing existing and
have initiated new measures to address issues identified by the GAO."
The GAO urged the FCC to establish performance goals and measures,
take steps to reduce the backlog of appeals and determine all of the
federal accounting requirements that apply to the program.
Last year the FCC froze new commitments for a few months while it
determined how to account for funds it obligated to schools and
libraries on the government's balance sheets.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily
media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . Hundreds of new articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Reuters Limited.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:02:04 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: BC Warns its Alumni of Possible ID Theft After Computer is Hacked
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | March 17, 2005
Boston College has sent warning letters to 120,000 of its alumni,
after a computer containing their addresses and Social Security
numbers was hacked by an unknown intruder.
College officials say they have no reason to believe the intruder was
looking for personal information to steal; instead, the attacker
planted a program that would enable him to use the computer to launch
attacks on other machines. But the school is taking no chances,
because of the sensitive information stored on the computer.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/03/17/bc_warns_its_alumni_of_possible_id_theft_after_computer_is_hacked/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:16:08 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Debit Card Fraud a Growing Problem
By Beverley Wang, Associated Press Writer | March 17, 2005
CONCORD, N.H. -- The recent theft of thousands of dollars from people
who used their debit cards at a Manchester ATM is one type of identity
theft becoming more common as consumers increasingly rely on
electronic transactions.
The crime known as "card skimming" takes three steps:
Using scanners placed over ATM card slots, thieves steal account
information stored on a debit card's magnetic strip. A dummy number
pad, camera or stealthy glance over a customer's shoulder captures the
PIN. Those who know where to look can easily find Web sites that sell
blank magnetic cards and card-printing machines.
"It's a very popular type of crime these days," said Connie Stratton,
a senior assistant attorney general in New Hampshire's consumer
protection bureau. "Cards are simple to make," she said. "You can buy
bundles of cards on the Internet -- you can buy them with the
electronic strip on them, you can buy them with the strip not on them
-- there are a number of varieties."
In the most recent cases, two women who used a Bank of America ATM at
the T.J. Maxx plaza on Monday reported having money withdrawn without
their knowledge at a Saugus, Mass., ATM on Tuesday. One woman said
$4,500 was taken from her account, another said $1,900 was taken.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2005/03/17/customer_account_info_stolen_from_atm_machine/
------------------------------
From: bob@jfcl.com
Subject: Can Somebody Please Explain CSD to Me?
Date: 17 Mar 2005 20:18:38 -0800
I live in San Jose (San Francisco Bay Area) and have Cingular GSM
service with a Nokia 6620 phone. I'm told that with CSD I can use my
phone as a modem for my laptop and place a point-to-point data call to
my ISP. Is that right? Does my ISP need any special equipment to
receive this call, or does any regular dial up line suffice for the
destination?
What do I tell the Cingular sales people on the phone that I want to
buy? They've never heard of CSD and want to sell me either Laptop
Connect or Media Net. Media net is certainly not what I want, and
Laptop Connect is a) expensive and b) doesn't seem to work with my
VPN.
I know CSD is only 9600bps and not as fast as EDGE, but I can live
with that to save money.
Is this going to work when I travel around the US, or is this setup
unique to each little Cingular area?
Thanks in advance for the help. I won't have any trouble setting up a
dialup connection on my PC, but I'm afraid I don't know very much
about cell phone technology. Sadly, all the Cingular sales people
seem to know even less about it than I do!
Bob Armstrong
------------------------------
From: sollento <hani_ar@hotmail.com>
Subject: Blackberry Enterprise Server Calendar Sharing
Date: 17 Mar 2005 23:26:28 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Hi,
I am looking for a solution / configuratuon to synchronise two BB
(version 4) devices with a blackberry enterprise server. The backend
email system is Lotus notes. The solution should work as a priority
over the air, and as a second priority with the cradle.
Basically, it's like having two devices synchronised with the same
calendar which will allow a secretary to view her boss' calendar on
the move, view any changes he's made, and vice versa.
Help would be greatly appreciated (Lotus notices replication, BES
feature, or third party product).
Thank you in advance.
H
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:54:01 EST
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Kevin Martin Picked For FCC Chief
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
March 17, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20137&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Kevin Martin picked for FCC chief
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Qwest raises offer for MCI
* Sprint affiliates join forces
* Wireless companies see gold in home networking
* Adelphia picks Level 3 for VoIP
* Wireless execs discuss current, future trends in industry
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* CenturyTel Executive Urges Congress to Update the Nation's Telecom Laws
* USTA Small Company Summit is Right Around the Corner! April 6 and 7 in Minneapolis
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* NTL tests 18 mbps broadband lines
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Ebbers' lawyers plan appeal
* GAO: Overhaul E-rate program to stop fraud and abuse
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20137&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: Eric Friedebach <friedebach@yahoo.com>
Subject: Third Time's No Charm
Date: 17 Mar 2005 11:25:22 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
David M. Ewalt, 03.17.05, Forbes.com
NEW YORK - Benjamin Franklin once remarked that the definition of
insanity is repeating the same action over and over and expecting
different results. If that's true, then someone needs to fit Qwest
Communications International Chief Executive Richard Notebaert for a
straightjacket.
Wednesday night, Qwest submitted yet another bid to purchase MCI,
upping its offer to $8.45 billion in cash and stock, or about $26 per
share. The new offer is up significantly from the $8 billion Qwest
offered just over two weeks ago. The cash part of the deal was
increased to $10.50 a share from $9.10, with the stock terms unchanged
at $15.50.
This is the third offer Qwest has made, and it's likely to be the
third offer MCI will ignore. Last month, the company accepted an offer
from Verizon Communnications for $6.75 billion, or about $20.75 a
share, even though MCI CEO Michael Capellas and his board were well
aware that Qwest was willing to pony up more cash.
http://www.forbes.com/wireless/2005/03/17/cx_de_0317qwest.html
{Hey Pat, looks like you could use one of those pallets of dog food I
see at Sam's Club!}
Eric Friedebach
/An Apollo Sandwich from Corky & Lenny's/
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, I could use one, Eric. Right now
the monster is in _my_ bedroom, on _my_ bed, sound asleep. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:42:46 -0500
Subject: FCC May Allow VOIP Access Charges
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=70369&site=lightreading
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to deny a
forbearance petition that has kept VOIP providers from paying PSTN
access charges, just days before the Commission's March 22 deadline,
sources close to the Commission say.
When this happens, VOIP providers will be subject to access charges
for terminating their calls on other carrier networks. But all is not
lost for the VOIP crowd.
The FCC is expected to deny the forbearance request before Tuesday,
rather than let the deadline pass, sources say. But soon after, the
FCC may also order a rule change further exempting the VOIP carriers
from access charges. Either way, the resolution of the situation will
have very serious implications for the fledgling VOIP industry.
"I know there will be order of denial on the forbearance," says Staci
Pies, vice president of governmental and regulatory affairs at VOIP
provider PointOne Telecommunications.
"But because of the way they will deny it, following that will be an
additional order that will change the rules in such a way that Level 3
and others like them will be afforded relief," says Pies, who
worked at Level 3 when the petition was filed, and before that held an
office at the FCC in Washington.
"The commissioners understand that it doesn't make any sense to deny
the forbearance because the rules are substandard, and then not change
the rules," Pies says.
Background: The forbearance petition was filed a year ago by VOIP
provider Level 3 Communications Inc., and since then the VOIP industry
has watched for the Commission to grant or deny it, hoping all the
while that it would do neither as the deadline approached. If the
Commission did let the deadline pass, it would mean that VOIP carriers
would continue to be exempt from the access charges.
Outgoing chairman Michael Powell, in one of the last actions of his
term, has reportedly floated two possible responses to the Level 3
petition, sources close to the situation say. The first is an outright
denial of the forbearance petition, and the second is an 'interim'
rule change that would further protect Level 3 and others from the
access charges.
Telecom carriers, on the other hand, believe that the FCC will deny
the petition -- period.
Full story at:
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=70369&site=lightreading
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/
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:10:53 -0500
Subject: AT&T Net Phone Disappoints
Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com
http://news.com.com/ATT+Net+phone+disappoints/2100-7352_3-5623538.html
Published: March 17, 2005, 12:04 PM PST
By Ben Charny
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
AT&T's Internet phone service, CallVantage, had a paltry 53,000
subscribers at the end of 2004 -- a lesson in how millions of dollars in
marketing and a well-known brand name don't always guarantee success.
Full story at:
http://news.com.com/ATT+Net+phone+disappoints/2100-7352_3-5623538.html
------------------------------
From: Mikeavian@go2.pl (Michael Av)
Subject: Toll-Free Number Service For Europe - I Need Information
Date: 17 Mar 2005 12:58:20 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
I need to set up a toll-free number service for Europe which would
redirect calls to my cell phone in a Eastern European country -- can
somebody recommend me a company offering such services or a place for
further search? (google.com is't too helpful)
Mikeavian
------------------------------
From: Paul Coxwell <paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:27:42 -0000
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is an example of how someone
> screwed up when the Citizens Band radio channels were numbered. CB is
> allocated the space between 26.965 kc and (originally) 27.255 kc. The
> 'channels' were 10 kc apart, and there were (originally) 23 channels.
> (Well, not originally, when there were 8 channels, but in later
> years.) If you look at the difference between 27.255 and 26.965 as
> divided in 10 kc increments you get more than 23. That's because the
> FCC took three spaces in the middle and reserved them for use on
> garage door openers. So we had channel 22 as 27.225 and channel 23
> a full 30 kc later, on 27.255. Then the FCC said they would expand the
> CB area all the way up to 27.405, or 40 channels, although common
> sense would imply actually 43 channels if you take 27.405 minus 26.965
> at 10 kc increments. What the FCC did, in an effort to 'tidy up' that
> discrepany was run the channels slightly out of order. After channel
> 22 (27.225) they created channel _24_ at 27.235, channel _25_ at 27.245,
> then they had the (already existing) channel _23_ at 27.255 where it
> had always been, and then by 10 kc up to channel 40 at 27.405.
There were more than three gaps left in the channels for radio-control.
They are at:
26.995 (between channels 3 / 4)
27.045 (7 / 8)
27.095 (11/ 12)
27.145 (15 / 16)
27.195 (19 / 20)
then 27.235 and 27.245 as you say, which were later filled by channels
24 and 25. In addition, 27.255 was shared between CB channel 23 and
the "blue" radio-control channel.
> Having those two channels out of order in the frequency allocations
> did make for some tricky programming of the 'gang switches'
> (revolving knobs which select the channels). PAT]
It also resulted in some interesting switching modifications over here in
Britain as well, as when we finally got a legal CB allocation in the early
1980s it was just 40 channels running in straight 10kHz steps all the way
(27.60125 through 27.99125).
I did quite a lot of EPROM burning to provide UK bands on export sets
20-odd years ago.
- Paul
------------------------------
From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Organization: ATCC
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:31:50 -0500
In article <telecom24.118.13@telecom-digest.org>, bonomi@host122.r-
bonomi.com says:
> In article <telecom24.117.9@telecom-digest.org>, Michael Quinn
> <quinnm@bah.com> wrote:
>> Along this line, and at the risk of perhaps being slightly OT, if anyone
>> knows why television uses channels while radio uses frequencies (for the
>> most part, that is, the 88 channel) FM Marine Band in the 156 MHz range
>> being an exception), I would be interested in hearing about it.
> There's no intrinsic reason for using one form of naming over another.
> However, note that _if_ you assign "channel numbers" to specific
> frequency allocations, you are *permanently* fixing the utilization of
> that chunk of RF spectrum. e.g. in going from 15khz deviation to 5khz
> deviation on FM, you'd have to either completely 're-number'
> everything, or you have non- consecutive "channel numbers" as you go
> up the band.
> When you (the regulatory authority) "haven't decided" what the minimum
> allowable spacing between frequency assignments is, or even _if_ the
> spacing between assignments will always be a multiple of that minimum
> -- it is *really* difficult to come up with a channel 'number'.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is an example of how someone
> screwed up when the Citizens Band radio channels were numbered. CB is
> allocated the space between 26.965 kc and (originally) 27.255 kc. The
> 'channels' were 10 kc apart, and there were (originally) 23 channels.
> (Well, not originally, when there were 8 channels, but in later
> years.) If you look at the difference between 27.255 and 26.965 as
> divided in 10 kc increments you get more than 23. That's because the
> FCC took three spaces in the middle and reserved them for use on
> garage door openers. So we had channel 22 as 27.225 and channel 23
> a full 30 kc later, on 27.255. Then the FCC said they would expand the
> CB area all the way up to 27.405, or 40 channels, although common
> sense would imply actually 43 channels if you take 27.405 minus 26.965
> at 10 kc increments. What the FCC did, in an effort to 'tidy up' that
> discrepany was run the channels slightly out of order. After channel
> 22 (27.225) they created channel _24_ at 27.235, channel _25_ at 27.245,
> then they had the (already existing) channel _23_ at 27.255 where it
> had always been, and then by 10 kc up to channel 40 at 27.405. Having
> those two channels out of order in the frequency allocations did make
> for some tricky programming of the 'gang switches' (revolving knobs
> which select the channels). PAT]
LOL - and then there were those who had the Siltronics sets. They used
to be on 27.415 or Channel 41 as we called it. This was in the days
before I got my amateur license.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:17:54 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1?
davisdynasty83 <davisdynasty83@yahoo.com> asked [TD V24#116]:
> I've always wondered what happened to Channel 1 as a viable
> television channel. Is there a substantial reason behind this?
> I am very interested in this particular issue and if anyone
> could provide me with any information pertaining to this
> subject I would greatly apprecaite it.
An excellent narrative on this subject is "Whatever Happened To
Channel 1" by David A. Ferre (Radio-Electronics, March 1982,
43-46,89). http://www.tvhistory.tv/1946%20RCA%20630TS%20TV.htm
PAT added the following comment:
> Now cable-ready television sets and channel one is a totally
> different matter.
Indeed. Except for channels 2-13, cable TV channel-number assignments
differ in frequency from same-number broadcast channel assignments. A CATV
Frequency Assignment chart is posted at
http://www.annsgarden.com/telecom/CATV.html. My previous post about Cable
Channel 1 is at http://tinyurl.com/5uljg.
Michael Quinn <quinnm@bah.com> wrote [TD V24 #117]:
> Along this line, and at the risk of perhaps being slightly OT,
> if anyone knows why television uses channels while radio uses
> frequencies (for the most part, that is, the 88 channel) FM
> Marine Band in the 156 MHz range being an exception), I would
> be interested in hearing about it.
Historical accident, cultural inertia, administrative convenience, and
commercial branding.
Back in the early days of radio (before Congress enacted the Radio Act
of 1927), broadcasting was a free-for-all. Domestic frequency
assignments were made by the Department of Commerce on a more or less
first-come-first-served basis. Many foreign governments didn't even
have a mechanism for assigning frequencies; some stations, operating
without (or ignoring) governmental authority, simply picked their own
frequencies. Even the boundaries of specific "bands" (as we use the
term today) weren't uniformly defined. Given the chaotic nature of
things, it's not surprising that the Commerce Department didn't assign
channel numbers.
The legacy of this chaos lives on to this day: we still use frequency
designations in the domestic AM broadcast band and the international
shortwave bands.
In order to impose some sort of order on the situation, Congress
enacted the Radio Act of 1927, creating the Federal Radio Commission.
A few years later, it enacted the Communications Act of 1934, which
created the Federal Communications Commission to replace the FRC.
Both commissions were charged with responsibility for managing the
radio spectrum.
Over the years, the FCC's frequency-assignment policies have evolved
into three patterns:
====== ASSIGNMENT by BAND ======
In some bands, the FCC simply assigns the entire band to a specific
service, and leaves it up to licensees to assign specific frequencies
within the band. Examples of this policy include the amateur radio bands,
the common-carrier satellite C- and Ku-bands, and the DBS bands.
====== ASSIGNMENT by FREQUENCY AS CHANNEL NUMBER ======
In some bands, the FCC assigns "channel" numbers to specific frequency
blocks, but uses the center frequency of the block as the channel
number. Examples:
Radio Control (R/C) Radio Service (47 CFR 95.207):
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2005/95/207/
Paging operation (47 CFR 22.531):
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2005/22/531/
And even domestic AM Broadcasting: many FCC rules now
refer to AM "channels" instead of frequencies, even
though the channel number and the center frequency are
the same (47 CFR 73.25, -.26, and -.27).
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2005/73/25/
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2005/73/26/
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2005/73/27/
====== ASSIGNMENT by ARBITRARY CHANNEL NUMBER ======
In some bands -- notably FM and TV broadcasting -- the FCC assigns
arbitrary channel numbers. These assignments are tabulated in the FCC
Rules as follows:
TV broadcasting (47 CFR 73.603):
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2005/73/603/
FM broadcasting (47 CFR 73.501):
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2005/73/201/
One additional FM Channel (200, at 87.9 MHz) has been assigned since
the original assignments were made. It overlaps TV Channel 6;
consequently, its use is limited to certain types of stations (see
footnote \1\ at 47 CFR 73.501).
Once the FCC finally established television channel assignments, the
broadcast and receiver-manufacturing industries adopted them.
But these industries didn't adopt the FM channel assignments. Why
not? There's no single reason, but I suspect that it was largely a
matter of cultural inertia: broadcasters had been using AM frequency
designations for years, and they simply continued the practice with
FM.
Furthermore, even by the late 1940s, there was still a lot of
confusion about channel assignments (as the aforementioned article by
David Ferre makes clear). Receiver manufacturers who had been
building FM radios (before channel assignments were finalized) had
been using frequency designations by default. Apparently they just
continued doing so.
This legacy too lives on to this day: we still use channel numbers for
TV and frequency designations (albeit in megahertz rather than
megacycles) for FM.
Broadcast stations take these designations very seriously: they've
become commercial brand names. AM and FM broadcast stations brand
their frequency designations, often with superficial (and
not-necessarily-accurate) descriptions: "Nifty Ninety" (really 900);
"Super 101" (really 101.3); etc.
Television stations brand their channel numbers: "Local 2";
"Virginia's 13"; "CBS-19"; etc. As brand names, these numbers are so
important that many television stations don't even use their actual
call signs. Stations even demand that CATV and DBS companies identify
them by their channel numbers, even though the actual RF frequencies
may be different.
Carrying this branding game to extreme, most television stations plan to
continue using their old analog channel numbers as their DTV "channels,"
even if they move to new channels for DTV. Receiver manufacturers have
included mapping logic to display the old numbers. Thus, for example,
WISC-TV Channel 3 will become WISC-DT Channel 50, but receivers will
display 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc. to identify the various video streams.
The FCC also assigns (or accepts ITU assignment of) arbitrary channel
designations for certain non-broadcast services. Examples:
Citizens Band Radio Service (47 CFR 95.407):
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2005/95/407/
Television Broadcast Auxiliary Service [point-to-point
microwave] (47 CFR 74.602): http://tinyurl.com/2k9d9
Cable Television Relay Service [point-to-point
microwave] (47 CFR 78.18):
http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2005/78/18/
VHF Marine Channels (ITU RR Appendix S18):
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/vhf.htm
Note that the VHF Marine Channels (as mentioned in Michael Quinn's post
quoted above) were assigned by the ITU, not the FCC. The FCC incorporates
these assignments by reference.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: 17 Mar 2005 20:59:01 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Vonage Number Portability
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> I put in our order, a week later, I get a note from ATT stating that
> they could not port my number, so I phone ATT. They tell me they
> cannot use number portability to transfer a number from Vonage, if I
> want to move my number to Callvantage, I'll need to port it back to
> SBC, then move it to ATT from SBC.
> Hmmm, now I've heard everything. Anyone know of a way around this BS ?
Try a different VoIP carrier. I ported my number from Vonage to Lingo
last month with no trouble at all.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:09:28 -0600
From: Randal Hayes <randal.hayes@uni.edu>
Subject: Re: Vonage Number Portability
My guess is that very simply none of the VOIP providers have the
systems installed or capability to perform number portability, so it
has to be done in concert with an ILEC or CLEC which does have the
system and capability in place.
ILECs and CLECs put systems in place to be able to perform number
porting, and the FCC allowed them to recover their costs of doing so
via the Local Number Portability surcharge (which I believe is also
being used to produce some additional revenue, but that's another
discussion). To my knowledge, none of the strictly VOIP providers
have these systems in place or plan to do so in the reasonable
future.
This brings-up a question for me regarding the efforts to have VOIP
providers be able to receive telephone numbers directly from the
NANPA, rather than having to get them from an ILEC or CLEC. I'm
presuming this would simply complicate the porting process, but then
again maybe it's just a matter of the procedure for porting numbers
from a VOIP provider requiring more steps in the process..
Randy Hayes
University of Northern Iowa
------------------------------
From: henry999@eircom.net (Henry)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Paranoia
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:57:52 +0200
Organization: Elisa Internet customer
Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I love the Toshiba laptop I bought last year. I keep just about
> everything related to work, school, and my finances on it. So when I
> received an e-mail from Toshiba etc.
Except _Lisa Minter_ didn't 'write' this, did she?
I got into this article and after a while started to think that it
wasn't really anything like the comments Lisa has written here before.
Then, at the end, I found
> Scott Spanbauer is a contributing editor for PC World He writes the
> monthly Internet Tips column.
which suggests that the entire article in fact is from PC World,
written by this Scott Spanbauer.
Looks like there was a (big?) lapse in attribution here.
I of course believe in Fair Use, etc., etc. I'm just saying that
perhaps we should have been notified of the source of this article at
the beginning, rather than at the end.
Cheers,
Henry
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, when the _original_ article
appeared, the attribution and fair use quotes were given. But, when
the first response by a reader was printed, the problem so common
occurred, which was that the person given in the header as 'From:'
(in this case and many others, Lisa Minter), the software did not
read the actual article and instead attributed it to Lisa Minter.
Often times I catch that in the final editing and add a line at the
very top of the article saying 'TELECOM Digest Editor noted in
response to an article by X' since as often as not that happens to
my editor's notes. The responder wants to talk about what I said
rather than what the 'original writer' said. I probably should have
been more careful to catch that. I've commented a couple times that I
am probably the only person to actually read every word in the Digest
each day, and that is only because I _have_ to; I am the editor. I
frankly only expect people to read the articles of especial interest
to them; not the other stuff. If I were not the editor here, I would
not read every word of it either. Anyway, please excuse the slipshod
editing. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Lifespan of a Desktop PC?
Date: 17 Mar 2005 12:53:27 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Drive 'compatibility' is pretty much a "non-issue". *Very* old PCs
> used, primarily, what were called MFM drives, Or sometimes a cousin
> thereof, called RLL. Newer generations -- meaning most 386/486 class
> machines, and everything past that -- use what is called IDE. IDE has
> gone through a number of changes, adding higher-performance options to
> the base technology.
My machine, a Pentium 120 (by HP) is from 1996, so I'm hopeful I could
just transfer over the hard-drive. It would be easiest for me.
> Then there is the issue of any software installed on the old drive.
> If that drive was in a machine running a MS operating system that
> includes the "Registry", most software will _not_ be usable if the
> disk is simply installed in a new machine, nor if the software is
> 'copied' from the old machine to the new one. Because the required
> "Registry" settings are not propagated to the Registry on the new
> system.
Hmmm. My present machine is early Win95. I don't think any of my
software would've used the registry when installed since they were for
either Windows 3.1 or plain DOS. The DOS stuff was loaded by merely
copying the file off of a diskette.
I have some manufacturer's original source diskettes, but I really
don't want to load from scratch because I've made so many setting
changes and customization to various products. For instance, I have
Word 6.0, and I want to continue using exactly as I have it.
Thanks for your help!
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And don't, for one minute, buy into
that Microsoft BS about how "this installation of (for example) Win 98
or Win 2000 will take about 45 minutes to an hour to install." I have
never yet installed a new Microsoft OS in '45 minutes to an
hour'. Most of the time I start one evening, and several hours later,
completely nervous and upset set the thing aside until the next day
and then go back to continue my work after a good night's sleep. Of
course I have to install the networking components, etc as well. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Times: Low-Tech Methods Used in Data Theft
Date: 17 Mar 2005 13:05:01 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Clark wrote:
> Consumers have been able to challenge adverse entries in their reports
> for years. Reporting companies are required to investigate and remove
> said item if it can't be substantiated. Furthermore, the consumer is
> required to be told when a credit report was used to as a basis of an
> adverse decision and is entitled to request a copy of that report,
> even if they have their free annual report allowance used already.
From what I read in the newspapers, that protection doesn't
work very well in practice. In other words, the consumer ends
up with the burden of proof to show the errors were indeed errors.
In real life, there can be gray areas. For instance, suppose you have
an obligation but the company screws up your address and you never get
a bill. They never get paid. (This has happened to me.) Since they
never were paid, they blackmark you. I had a heck of a time proving
it was their error (they left my apt # off the address and the post
office returned it); further, they claimed it was still my
responsibility to get them payment no matter what. I got it cleared
up, but it was very aggravating.
For victims of identity theft or outright fraud, it seems the
companies take their time investigating the problem, in the mean time,
the blackmarks are on your record. It seems victims have to hire a
lawyer to push the companies to correct theft/fraud errors. (I can
understand a credit company not wanting to writeoff thousands of
dollars of fraud charges, but that's shouldn't be the consumer's
problem.)
When I got my credit report, I discovered a lot of junk in it -- long
closed accounts listed as active or not responsive, stores long out of
business, bad addresses, etc. For instance, I had a card with a store
that closed. Unbeknowst to me, the successor store opened a new
account for me, but had my address badly wrong so I never knew an
account was out there. There were no charges, but still lots of
bookeeping activity. This was frightening since it showed how easily
errors can creep in or valid cards mailed to wrong places.
------------------------------
From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Sending Ringtones via a Web Service
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:20:07 -0800
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com
On 17 Mar 2005 03:53:24 -0800, absolutemcv
<absolutemcvicar@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Does anyone know the process involved in sending ringtone's to mobile
> phoned via either a web service or other server based system?
Are you talking regular monophonic ring tones or polyphonic ring
tones? In either case you go to a site that sends ring tones and
usually there's some sign up procedure. They'll send the ring tone to
you (usually for a fee) and you'll receive it as an SMS. When the
tone comes into your phone you'll have the opportunity to play the
tone and if you like it you'll then have the opportunity to save it.
There are also PC programs that will allow you to compose your own
ring tones and send them to your phone through either a cable or sent
over the air to your phone through your computer.
------------------------------
From: Walter Dnes (delete 'z' to get my address) <wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org>
Subject: Re: Iridium II: Is Satellite Radio Doomed?
Date: 18 Mar 2005 02:44:20 GMT
Reply-To: see_my_sig_at_bottom_of_message@waltdnes.org
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:15:10 -0500, Gene S Berkowitz,
<first.last@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <telecom24.116.6@telecom-digest.org>, Walter Dnes (delete the
> 'z')<wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org> says:
> You have your bandwidth calculations all wrong. The satellites (and
> the US domestic "networks" only have two and three birds,
> respectively) are continuously streaming all ~100 channels. When you
> make a net connection, you are consuming a large portion of you
> available network bandwidth. Should everyone on your neighborhood
> subnet attempt this, you'll reach saturation. The satellite broadcast
> doesn't care if there's 1 or 1 billion receivers.
Internet multi-casting is the next step. It isn't being used because
it isn't needed right now. I can see it being adopted if/when
"regular" internet radio (and especially TV) starts straining the
system. As it is, Bit-Torrent and other file-sharing programs are the
number 1 bandwidth user.
On 17 Mar 2005 04:11:54 -0000, John Levine, <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> Actually, long distance rates plummeted more due to regulatory
> changes and fiber optics than to competition. For the past
> century long distance had been deliberately overpriced to subsidize
> local service and (in places with PTTs) other bits of government
> bureaucracy. The mistake there was not to realize that with a
> stroke of a pen those subsidies could be and were removed, which
> is the main reason that a call from the US to the UK or Hong Kong
> now costs 2 cpm rather than a dollar.
Actually, satellites helped cut long distance rates in two ways:
1) being cheaper than land (actually under the ocean) lines.
2) you mentioned the subsidy factor. Years ago, before deregulation,
big companies would lease dedicated channels via satellite to
carry internal phone traffic between widely separated offices
(e.g. New York to LA). This was cheaper than calling long
distance during business hours.
> Satellite really broadcasts, but internet radio fakes it with a
> separate connection to each recipient. (There is real Internet
> multicasting but it's a pain to set up and is only used in the geek
> community to broadcast IETF meetings and the like.) With broad,
> the question is how you get the same one-way signal to lots of
> recipients.
> This means that it's a question of scale. With the current low
> numbers of listeners, Internet has the edge as you note due to its
> parasitic carriage.
Once internet radio (and especially TV) becomes more than a minor
traffic blip, and overtakes Bit-Torrent and friends as the number 1
bandwidth user, multicasting will become more widespread. As for
being a pain to set up, Windows is a pain to install. Joe Sixpack may
not be able to do so, but his PC comes with Windows pre-installed.
Once PCs start coming with multi-cast reception enabled
out-of-the-box, it'll take off.
> I think the real outcome will depend on questions like whether the
> satellite radio stations are able to bribe car makers to install
> receivers as standard equipment in cars so users need only call up
> and subscribe, no installation or visible startup cost involved.
> It'd be like cell phones are now, using the equipment as a loss
> leader made up from subscription revenue. It looks to me like the
> incremental cost of a Sirius or XM receiver and antenna would be
> about $100 which is well within the range that cell plans subsidize.
I don't think the subsidized-cellphone analogy is valid. Verizon
etal, "subsidize" cellphones *ONLY FOR CUSTOMERS WHO ENTER A CELLPHONE
SERVICE CONTRACT*. Subsidizing satellite-radio receivers on *ALL
CARS* in order to get subscribers from only a small percentage, is not
an economically viable business plan.
All it takes is for one car producer to not make it standard, and
they can undercut their competitors, who won't dare end up looking like
they're trying to ram it down customers' throats. Look at FM radio. It
had to be legislatively mandated into all car radios in many countries.
This is not going to happen with satellite radio. There aren't any
"free" satellite radio stations and there isn't a generic satellite
radio reciever that will work with Sirius, XM, and all other competing
services. I don't see governments mandating any one specific service in
all cars.
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:08:16 -0600
From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton)
Subject: Re: Attacked by a Dog Which was Playing
Organization: MRRP
In article <telecom24.119.12@telecom-digest.org>,
fatkinson@mishmash.com wrote:
> Pat,
> When I was a teenager, my family had an enormous German Shepherd. Her
> name was Heidi, she was approximately 125 pounds, all lean, strong as
> a bull, and very protective of the family. She grew to be so big that
> we couldn't get a harness big enough to fit her from the local pet
> store.
A friend had a German Shepard who could have been Heidi's brother, He
was a great dog, on of my favorite memories was him laying on the
floor being mauled by a crawling baby, pulling, pooking, tugging
anything he could get his hands on, the only time the dog moved was
when a hand reached for a eye.
The same dog put a burglar in the hospital.
http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl
------------------------------
From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Attacked by a Dog Which was Playing
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:31:11 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your good words. Very oddly
> (at least to me) Buffy very seldom barks. Now it is quite rare that we
> have any burglars or other malfeasants in this area, however, Buffy
> was always letting me know when the the garbage collection truck came
> through the alley every Monday and Thursday morning.
Some wag remarked awhile back that, to a dog, garbage men are burglars
stealing all your best stuff.
------------------------------
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 #120
******************************
| |