TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:07:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 121

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Cell Annoyance Calls (How to Handle?) (AES)
    Survey: SMS Takes Hold in U.S. (Telecom dailyLead from USTA ")
    After Years In The Dark, Utilities See The Light (Eric Friedebach)
    New FCC Chief Not So VoIP-Friendly (Jack Decker)
    Pressure Builds Over FCC's Level 3 VoIP Issue (Jack Decker)
    Inbound CAMA Capabable PC Card? (Tom Johnson)
    WTS NEC NEAX 2000 IVS (Adam)
    Re: Iridium II: Is Satellite Radio Doomed? (John Levine)
    Re: Iridium II: Is Satellite Radio Doomed? (J Kelly)
    Re: Toll-Free Number Service For Europe - I Need Information (Joseph)
    Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: Attacked by a Dog Which was Playing (Lisa Hancock)

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: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
Subject: Cell Annoyance Calls (How to Handle?)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:23:16 -0800
Organization: Stanford University


Been getting intermittent calls to my cellphone (Verizon 650 Area
Code) for some time now, once every few days, 2 rings, then
terminates.  Caller ID in most recent case shows 916-235-4999; earlier
ones were 916-???-?888.

If I try to call back on our SBC land line a voice says

   "This call cannot be completed:  Code NTI-20"

and then it turns into a busy signal.  So:

1)  What might this be?

2)  If I want to pursue it further, is there anyone or any organization 
I can query or hassle who will actually respond/potentially supply 
information or actually do something?  

In particular, any way (Internet or otherwise) to discover who is
associated with that number?

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

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:55:05 EST
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: March 18, 2005 - Survey: SMS takes hold in U.S.


Telecom dailyLead from USTA
March 18, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20174&l=2017006

TODAY'S HEADLINES

NEWS OF THE DAY
* Survey: SMS takes hold in U.S.
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Qwest puts heat on MCI shareholders with raised offer
* Churn slowing for mobile phone companies
* Cox makes data, phone gains
USTA SPOTLIGHT 
* Telecom Engineering Conference at SUPERCOMM: Registration is Open
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Paris calling
VOIP DOWNLOAD
* Is VoIP mainstream?
* Spammers jump on VoIP bandwagon
* U.K. security guru warns of massive attack on enterprise VoIP networks
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Wireless industry may be headed for clash with states

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20174&l=2017006

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

From: Eric Friedebach <friedebach@yahoo.com>
Subject: After Years In The Dark, Utilities See The Light
Date: 18 Mar 2005 10:56:01 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Lisa DiCarlo, 03.18.05, Forbes.com

NEW YORK - In February the New Millennium Research Council, a
Washington, D.C., policy group, pronounced that 2005 could be the
breakthrough year for a technology called broadband over power line,
or BPL, where utility companies use standard power lines to deliver
broadband connections to anyone with a power outlet.

It is compelling technology that could provide meaningful competition
to cable and to broadband service providers for digital subscriber
lines. But that might not even be the most interesting thing about
BPL.  What's groundbreaking is that utility companies are, for the
first time, using modern technology like BPL to automate critical
functions and manage their networks.

In most cases, there is little or no "intelligence" between an
electric substation and a power outlet. That means that utility
companies provide electric power pretty much the same way they did a
century ago.

But that's changing.

Several municipal and investor-owned utilities are deploying BPL
services to consumers to leverage their valuable infrastructure and
drive new revenue, but also to manage their networks. The result will
be better customer service, faster response to problems, lower costs
and better profit margins.

nIn Manassas, Va., the municipal utility is using BPL for tracking
power outages in real time, automated meter reading and remote
switching, even turning on Wi-Fi hot spots.

"We can use the [BPL] infrastructure to serve multiple purposes," says
John Hewa, director of utilities for the city of Manassas.

Those purposes could also include automated customer service, remote
monitoring and remote control of substations.

http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/03/16/cx_ld_0317bpl.html

Eric Friedebach
/An Apollo Sandwich from Corky & Lenny's/

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

From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:11:08 -0500
Subject: New FCC Chief Not So VoIP-Friendly


http://voxilla.com/voxstory151.html

New FCC Chief Not So VoIP-Friendly

Regulation

By CAROLYN SCHUK
for VOXILLA.COM

Kevin J. Martin, President Bush's appointee as Chair of the Federal
Communications Commission may not be as friendly to Voice over IP
service provider as Michael Powell, whom Martin replaces this week.

Martin, a 38-year-old attorney and FCC boardmember, clashed over
regulatory issues with Powell in the past, advocating, for example,
even greater government regulation in areas such as television
broadcast program content than his predecessor.

Unlike Powell, who espoused a 'hands-off' approach to government
regulation of the fledgling VoIP industry, Martin has said that all
providers using the public switched telephone network -- including
VoIP providers -- should contribute to the Universal Service Fund
(USF), an FCC-managed program to subsidize basic telephone services in
areas where the costs of offering such services are high, primarily
sparsely populated rural areas, and to provide telephone service
discounts to low-income consumers.

USF funds are not used for new technology or wider bandwidth, which
are needed for VoIP services. Instead, they finance only the most
basic twisted pair telephony. Critics suggest that if wireline
carriers were not subsidized they would be more likely to develop
alternative wireless services for their rural customers; something
they currently have no incentive to provide.

VoIP service providers do not directly contribute to the USF. And some
believe that requiring them to make such contributions, is in effect,
forcing new technology to subsidize old technology, or forcing new
providers to subsidize their legacy competition.

"We support the general principles behind the USF," said Ravi Sakaria,
CEO of VoIP service provider VoicePulse. "However, the bulk of USF
dollars go to traditional telecom infrastructure. It doesn't go in
fair share for broadband access. Because broadband is a requirement
for our services, we view this as funding competitive technology."

Martin made public his views on expanded USF contributions on at least
two separate occassions.

Full story at:
http://voxilla.com/voxstory151.html


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As to whether or not Martin, as a 'Bush
appointee' will be friendly to VOIP, my observations to date have been
that Bush or his appointments are usually not very friendly to most of
us, for various reasons. I don't know why the FCC in its governance of 
VOIP should be any exception.   PAT]

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

From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:32:17 -0500
Subject: Pressure Builds Over FCC's Level 3 VoIP Issue
Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com


COMMENT: For those that don't want to read the full story below, here'
a quick summary, seasoned with perhaps a hint of sarcasm:


Dear FCC:

[Whine] Please preserve our monopolies and let us continue to gouge
our customers, since there is almost no competition and we really love
being able to extract every last penny we can from them.  

[Whine] Please don't look at our filings with the SEC, or our
financial statements, or you might get the wrong idea and think we're
doing a whole lot better than we're telling you. 

[Whine] Please continue to give us all those subsidies we've grown so
accustomed to, after all we are corporations and the law says
corporations are like people in the eyes of the law, and if people can
get welfare from the government then we should get it too. 

[Whine] And please kill the evil VoIP companies, who are stealing our
slaves, er, customers, after all we have a God-given right to squeeze
them because their families have lived in our turf for ages and they
are too stupid to move out of our area.

Signed,
The rural (not necessarily small) telephone companies of the United States

P.S. And please, while you are at it, we want MORE.  [Whine]

End of admittedly snarky comment (hey, it's Friday), now here's the real story.

http://www.telecomweb.com/news/1111169709.htm

Pressure Builds Over FCC's Level 3 VoIP Issue

The House Rural Caucus and several trade organizations are making a
last ditch effort to get the Federal Communications Commission to deny
a Level 3 Communications request to exempt certain VoIP calls from
access charges. Under commission rules, Level 3's forbearance
petition not to apply access charges would require FCC action by this
Tuesday, March 22, otherwise by default the petition is considered
granted.

Since the matter is being cut this close, the House group recently
sent a letter to outgoing FCC chairman Michael Powell urging the Level
3 petition be denied, not only because of concerns for rural telco
revenues from access charges, but also the Rural Caucus maintained
that segments of VoIP, the broader proceeding on intercarrier
compensation (ICC) and many other related issues should be treated
comprehensively as a whole and not a in a piecemeal fashion.. A
central Level 3 question is whether VoIP calls should be subject to
reciprocal compensation or access charges.

The Rural Caucus move drew support from the Independent Telephone &
Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA), the National Telecommunications
Cooperative Association (NTCA), the Organization for the Promotion and
Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO), and the
Western Telecommunications Alliance (WTA). They lauded the Rural
Caucus for recognizing that a granting of Level 3's petition“
'would prejudge' many of the issues.

Full story at:
http://www.telecomweb.com/news/1111169709.htm

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: Tom Johnson <Arkenor@gmail.com>
Subject: Inbound CAMA Capabable PC Card?
Date: 18 Mar 2005 12:09:34 -0800


I am looking for a card that supports analog CAMA trunks from a CO.
My understanding is that the card needs to support reverse battery for
wink-start and MF tone detection for CAMA compliance.  A PCI card
would be preferred, but at this point, might take anything that can be
hooked into a PC.

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

From: Adam <adamatcdr@yahoo.com>
Subject: WTS NEC NEAX 2000 IVS
Date: 18 Mar 2005 12:48:00 -0800


Hello, I have the NEC NEAX 2000 IVS phone system and I am looking for
offers.  This unit has these cards in it:

*PN-8DLCJ
*PN-8LCS
*PN-4COTB
*PN-2DATA
*PN-CP03
Also have these phones availible:

1x DTP-8D-1 (BK) TEL - used

1X DTP-32D-1 (BK) TEL - used

1X DTP-8-1 (BK) TEL - used

12X DTP-8-1 (BK) TEL - new in box

Please email me at Adamatcdr@yahoo.com if you have any questions or
are interested.

Thank you.

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

Date: 18 Mar 2005 17:05:33 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Iridium II: Is Satellite Radio Doomed?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


>>  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. ...

and it never will be used.  More below.

>> Actually, long distance rates plummeted more due to regulatory
>> changes and fiber optics than to competition. ...

> Actually, satellites helped cut long distance rates in two ways:
>   1) being cheaper than land (actually under the ocean) lines.

That might have been true at the dawn of the satellite era when cables
were still coax.  These days, the TAT-14 cable has more capacity
across the Atlantic than all satellites combined, and that's not even
the fastest cable.

>   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.

Well, sure, it was an arbitrage play since leased lines of any sort,
not just satellite, didn't pay into the access scheme.  This has
nothing to do with satellite, and just reinforces my point that the
high price was due to politics, not technology.

> 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.

Setting up multicast on a PC is not the problem; you can install a
program and be done with it.  The painful part of multicast is that
every router between the program source and each listener has to be
set up to pass on multicast traffic, perhaps with some IP-in-IP
tunnels between areas where multicast works, but the multicast must be
supported on the end user networks or there's no point.  If you think
that Comcast and Cox and Road Runner are going to provide multicast
for free to subsidize parasitic competition with their own cable radio
offerings, or Verizon or SBC are going to add anything that will make
it easier for people to compete with the always present chimera of
ADSL video-on-demand, I would like some of whatever you're smoking.  I
can see it in WiFi cybercafes, but that'll never be more than a tiny
niche market.

>> 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 ...

> 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.

I realize that car companies have done stupid things in the past, but
why in the world would they want to provide satellite radios that
don't worj the satellite broadcasters?  XM or Sirius or maybe both
would pay car makers to put in receivers that can receive their stuff.
I suppose that in theory GM could try to invent their own proprietary
sat rad network (don't they still own Hughes satellite?) but I don't
see them heading down that rat hole.

It doesn't have to happen to every car right away.  I would expect
them to start with high-end brands whose owners would be more likely
to subscribe, and to provide a few months for free to get them used to
it.

R's,

John

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

From: J Kelly <jkelly@*newsguy.com>
Subject: Re: Iridium II: Is Satellite Radio Doomed?
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:34:42 -0600
Organization: http://newsguy.com
Reply-To: jkelly@*newsguy.com


On 18 Mar 2005 02:44:20 GMT, Walter Dnes (delete 'z' to get my
address) <wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:

> 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.  

Many GM cars already come standard with XM Radio.  

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Toll-Free Number Service For Europe - I Need Information
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:00:57 -0800
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On 17 Mar 2005 12:58:20 -0800, Mikeavian@go2.pl (Michael Av) wrote:

> 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)

Try Kall8

http://www.kall8.com/international_tollfree.html 

Freephone numbers in the UK, France, the Netherlands, Spain and
Germany.  

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

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Reply-To: fatkinson@mishmash.com
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:11:26 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


> 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. 

When the FCC was preparing to open the additional seventeen channels
for CB, the CBers were already using the new channels with those
Siltronics sets and other illegal units.  In fact, I had one of those
folks confront me at work and brag about how he used his 'slider' (CB
slang for a VFO) to go outside the bands allocated for CB.  He said
they were even thinking of going up on the 10 meter amateur radio
band.  It was disgusting to see someone who cared absolutely nothing
about encroaching on other services and breaking radio laws and
treaties.

When I was out doing radio maintenance for the company two-way
radio system, a CBer asked my working buddy (Jerry) to use our watt
meter to check the power output on his radio.  I generally refused
such requests because if we did it for everyone, it would encroach on
company time and make it more difficult for us to meet our objectives.
But, Jerry said he would loan our wattmeter to the guy.  He told him
to use the reverse scale on the wattmeter because that was the only
way our wattmeter was going to read something as low as four watts.

The guy came back and talked Jerry into coming over and doing it for
him as he said the meter was full scale.  When Jerry did this, he
discovered that the CB radio in this guy's truck was putting out
nearly two hundred watts.  That was the last time Jerry ever
volunteered our equipment or agreed to help someone with Citizen's
band equipment.  

There was such a huge amount of misinformation running around
among the CBers.  I couldn't believe some of the things they would say
and I can't imagine where they were getting information like that.  

For example, another one of our radio technicians (Ed) saw a
fellow at a truck stop installing a power mike on his CB.  He claimed
that with the additional audio power in, that there would be more
radio power out.  When Ed told him that this was not true, he told Ed
(our experienced, FCC licensed radio technician) that he was wrong.
He said that all of the CBers were doing it and they were getting a
lot more power out.  Ed didn't try to argue with him any further.  

One fellow asked me to help him figure out why the antennas on
his car weren't working properly.  I told him I couldn't do it on
company time (to be polite), but he told me about it, anyway.  He had
the truckers antennas mounted on a Volkswagon fastback.  He told me
that what the truckers antennas were for was to keep from 'messing up
your SWR' when you had a 'huge metallic load' behind you.  I had
learned never to try to correct CBers on their information because
they would usually tell you you are wrong.  So I didn't correct him.
But there was no way he was going to get enough separation between
those two antennas for them to work properly on a Volkswagon fastback.
He also told me that you had to keep your power mike turned down or
'Uncle Charlie' (an old expression used to refer to the FCC) would get
you for running too much power.  I knew it was an effort in futility,
but I explained to him why that was not true and how cranking up the
audio too much would corrupt your signal, not increase the radio
power.  He looked at me kind of baffled.  I was very surprised he
didn't tell me I was wrong.  

A ham radio operator friend of mine (Ross) had a two meter rig in his
car.  Ross would periodically have some CBer pull up next to him on
the road and show what channel they were on by holding up the correct
amount of fingers.  My friend made the mistake of holding up two
fingers (intending to tell them that he wasn't on CB but rather was on
two meters).  The CBer turned his set over to channel 2.  Ross told me
he had since given up on trying to explain to CBers the difference
between ham radio and CB.

Another fellow I knew (Jim) was in Florence, SC.  Jim was parked in
front of a beauty salon waiting for his wife to come out.  He was
having a good, long conversation with another ham who was in
Fayetteville, NC on his two meter set while he waited.  A CBer pulled
up behind him and parked.  He saw Jim talking on his radio and he
dialed through all the CB channels trying to pick him up.  After a
while, he got out of his car and walked up to Jim telling him 'Good
buddy, your CB isn't modulating'.  Jim responded by telling the ham in
Fayetteville to about this CBer and asking him to tell the guy where
he was located.  He responded that he was in Fayetteville, NC.  The
CBer's eyes almost popped out when he heard that come over Jim's
radio.  He went back to his car, pulled his CB out, set it on the
sidewalk, and took it apart to work on it.  When Jim's wife returned
to the car, Jim got out and spoke to the guy explaining that that CB
would never pick up his signals.  The guy insisted that his radio
would pick up any CB.  Jim informed him that his radio was not a CB
then got in his car and drove off leaving the poor guy sitting on the
sidewalk with his CB completely disassembled.  While funny, I think it
was also a little mean.

The Citizen's Band radio service spawned the biggest pool of
misinformation I've ever heard of.  And certainly it led to complete
chaos on a number of radio bands.  It was very poorly planned and the
FCC never had the manpower for enforcement.

Also, I believe that this thread was started by wondering what
happened to television channel one.  The six meter amateur band is
from fifty to fifty-four megahertz.  That should explain much of it.

Regards, 

Fred, WB4AEJ  
http://www.wb4aej.com 



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And that was the main conflict with
television 'channel one' I think. A conflict with other services in
the 50-54 megs area. CB radio operators did have a lot of ignorance. 
It was almost impossible to explain to them about the relationship of
carrier power and modulation, for example, or height of the antenna,
or how radio waves can 'skip' across bodies of water, such as Lake
Michigan, and how using 3.5 watts with 90-95 percent modulation with
an antenna on the top of an eight story apartment building on the edge
of Lake Michigan (north side of Chicago) could _easily_ get you a nice
clean signal in Benton Harbor, Michigan or Michigan City, Indiana. I
often-times had people curse me out, tell me to 'quiet down out there'
when I was operating totally legally. I would tell those people, "take
your cheap, toy radio back to Walmart where you got it, and ask them
to please refund your welfare check for last month." They could not
understand a four watt radio (assuming it was legal) could only put
out _four watts_ distributed between the carrier and the modulation.
Too much carrier you could not be heard; too much modulation you would
splash all over the band. They would 'peak up' their radio for closer
to five watts, and then complain when you said you could not hear
them. They did not understand the relationship between watts of power
and decibels either, and when I would take the time to explain it all
to them, they would tell me I was 'full of xxxx' and cuss me out. The
analogy I would often times use was to tell the person, take an empty,
sort of small, glass, put it in the sink and turn the water on full
blast. Come back in a few minutes and see how much water is in the
glass. Very little, most of it splashed into the sink or on the floor.
Now, turn the water down to a slow, steady stream, and watch the glass
fill up nicely with cold, fresh water. Some would listen, some would 
cuss me out even more. PAT]
------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Attacked by a Dog Which was Playing
Date: 18 Mar 2005 10:01:00 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Patrick Townson wrote:

> Buffy is  _huge_ dog of the Australian Cattle Dog variety.

Best wishes to recover quickly from your wounds.  Unfortunately with
pets even attempts to show love and affection can result in human
injury if they come at the wrong time or are unexpected.

Trying to adopt an animal, especially one that was mistreated, is a
very noble and honorable thing.  But it is not an easy task to break
old habits and earn a new trust.  Good luck, it sounds like you've
made great progress.

We have some feral cats in the neighborhood I want to adopt and have
tried over the years to lure them with food and kindness.  They always
kept their distance (although they would eagerly take the food if I
stayed far away).  I described their behavior to my vet and he said
they were feral and that they could not be domesticated.  One has been
around for seven years, which isn't bad for feral.



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Try each day to move their food closer
to where you are sitting, then just sit there quietly; they'll
eventually decide to come closer for their food. They will never come
to you if you keep chasing after them. But each day, make sure they
can see/smell the food, but have it a bit closer and closer until it
is eventually only a few feet away. 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

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

   In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
   have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
   enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order 
   telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
   been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
   inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
   a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------

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.


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