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 Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:21:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 128
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
More 'Tweens' Going Mobile; Long-Term Health Remains Unclear (M Solomon)
Symantec Internet Security Threat Report Volume VII (Monty Solomon)
News Corporation Completes Acquisition of Fox (Monty Solomon)
Phoning 0870 and 0844 UK Numbers Out of Free Minutes (polinaskulski@aol)
SS7 vs SIP (Michal_km)
Texas Files Lawsuit Against Vonage (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S (donestuardo@yahoo.com)
GSM900 (jason)
Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass (Wesrock@aol)
Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass (Lisa Hancock)
Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones? (Tony P.)
Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones (John Bartley)
Re: What happened to Channel 1 (Neal McLain)
Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Tony P.)
Re: What Happened to Channel 1 (Brad Houser)
Re: Dangling Broadband From the Phone Stick (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Our Telephonic Primacy (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Intertel Eclipse Telephone Programming (T. Sean Weintz)
Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (DevilsPGD)
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: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:42:02 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: More 'Tweens' Going Mobile; Long-Term Health Risks Remain Unclear
By Associated Press | March 21, 2005
CHICAGO -- There were two things 11-year-old Patty Wiegner really,
really, really wanted for Christmas. One was a furry, playful dog
that's now filling her parents' home with the sound of barking. The
other gift makes a different kind of noise -- it has a ring tone that
mimics rapper 50 Cent's hit song 'Candy Shop.'
While some might question why someone so young might need one, and
some scientists have expressed health concerns, Patty is one of many
kids her age who are asking their parents for cellphones. And
increasingly, they're getting them.
http://www.boston.com/business/personaltech/articles/2005/03/21/more_tweens_going_mobile/
Long-term health risks remain unclear
By Associated Press | March 21, 2005
SEATTLE -- Parents should think twice before giving in to a
middle-schooler's demands for a cellphone, some scientists say,
because potential long-term health risks remain unclear.
Researchers have speculated for more than 10 years that the
electromagnetic radiation emitted from cellphones may damage DNA and
cause benign brain tumors, said Henry Lai, a bioengineering professor
at the University of Washington.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/03/21/long_term_health_risks_remain_unclear/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:12:17 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Symantec Internet Security Threat Report Volume VII
Symantec Offers Webcast On Findings Of Latest Internet Security Threat
Report
CUPERTINO, Calif. - March 21, 2005 - Symantec Corp. (Nasdaq: SYMC),
the global leader in information security, today announced it will
host a webcast discussing the findings of its seventh bi-annual
Internet Security Threat Report. The webcast will be held on Wed.,
March 23, 2005 at 9 a.m. PST. The webcast and report are invaluable
for security IT management who are responsible for strategic security
decisions, policy setting, and learning about how security issues
affect business. Attendees can register at
http://enterprisesecurity.symantec.com/content/webcastinfo.cfm?webcastid=145
http://www.symantec.com/press/2005/n050321a.html
Symantec Internet Security Threat Report Volume VII
Presented by: Dean Turner, Executive Editor, Symantec Internet
Security Threat Report
Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Time: 9am PST
http://ses.symantec.com/content/webcastinfo.cfm?webcastid=145
Internet Security Threat Report
http://ses.symantec.com/ITR
https://ses.symantec.com/content.cfm?articleid=1539&EID=0
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:21:13 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: News Corporation Completes Acquisition of Fox
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 21, 2005--News Corporation (NYSE:
NWS, NWS.A; ASX: NWS, NWSLV) announced today that it has completed its
previously announced acquisition of Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.'s
Class A common stock (NYSE:FOX) that News Corporation did not already
own.
In a short-form merger of Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. with and into
News Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary, Fox Acquisition Corp, that
was effected earlier today, each share of Fox Class A common stock,
other than those owned by News Corporation or its subsidiaries, was
converted into 2.04 shares of News Corporation Class A common stock,
subject to the rights of stockholders to seek appraisal under Delaware
law.
- http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=47820386
------------------------------
From: polinaskulski@aol.com
Subject: Phoning 0870 and 0844 UK Numbers Out of Free Minutes
Date: 23 Mar 2005 06:16:40 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Does anyone know of any UK mobile phones companies/plans which allow
to phone 0870 and 0844 numbers out of the free minutes.
------------------------------
From: Michal_km <michalkm@013.net>
Subject: SS7 vs SIP
Date: 23 Mar 2005 01:55:58 -0800
Hi,
I'm looking for the equivelant terms in SIP to SS7 terms: OPC, DPC,
CIC, SLS.
Is it possible to compare between the two technologies? I am working
with a monitoring program that monitors SS7 equipment (such as STP,
SSP, SCP) and messages and the plan is to extend it to monitor IP
messages and equipment on a VoIP network.
Thanks,
M~
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:43:09 EST
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Texas Files Lawsuit Against Vonage
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
March 23, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20270&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Texas files lawsuit against Vonage
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Microsoft, Symbian target RIM
* SBC taps five execs for IPTV service
* MCI beefs up Wi-Fi coverage
* BellSouth pitches directories to Hispanic market
* AOL's new content plan
* MCI board to discuss Qwest offer
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* Register Today! VoIP 101 Webinar: Tomorrow at 1 p.m. ET
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* BT sets aggressive timeline for 21CN project
* AT&T conducts WiMax tests
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Texas city hires private company to build, operate Wi-Fi network
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20270&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: donestuardo@yahoo.com
Subject: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S
Date: 22 Mar 2005 17:12:24 -0800
I have a nearly new cell phone jammer for sale -- range is
approximately 30 metres in radius. Model MONIX MGB-1S cellular Jammer.
Used only one week (and then the tenant was gone! - hint great for
getting rid of loser tenants who depend on their cell phones for
calls).
Includes unit, plus 2 attennas, and a power cable and transformer for
North American Standard power.
Asking price $395 plus shipping.
I am located in Canada.
Please email me at donestuardo (AT Sign) yahoo.com or call me on my
cell at (416) 458-0012 and I will be happy to go over details with you.
Thanks,
Stew
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why is a person who relies on a cell
phone for their communications a 'loser'? Good luck finding someone
willing to buy this evil device. :( PAT]
------------------------------
From: jason <cheanglong@gmail.com>
Subject: GSM-900
Date: 22 Mar 2005 17:16:09 -0800
Hello All,
May I know why do we need the number 900 to make GSM900 meaningful?
Is it because the rf signal is in 900 MHz? or the local oscillator
used for GSM900 system is at 900 MHz? Kindly enlighthen.
rgds and thanks,
jason
------------------------------
From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:28:47 EST
Subject: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass System
In a message dated Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:06:56 -0500, Monty Solomon
<monty@roscom.com> writes:
> CONCORD, N.H. --The E-ZPass system that will soon make it easier to
> pay tolls in New Hampshire will make it easier to track people's
> movements, privacy advocates warn.
> State officials say strict policies are in place to prevent that, and
> stress that E-ZPass will be voluntary. They also say the system will
> reduce traffic congestion and put off the need to expand the current
> toll plazas.
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2005/03/21/some_concerned_about_privacy_implications_of_e_zpass_system/
NH is just now getting E-Z Pass or some similar system?
Oklahoma, with more turnpikes than any other state, has had them
for 15 years or more. In Texas, where most of the toll roads are
urban, there has been a similar system (made by the same company) for
years. Kansas put in a similar system a few years ago.
Those privacy concerns have been raised in each of those states, and
come up again every so often. As far as I know, no problems have been
reported in any of the three states with privacy problems.
As the story says, you can choose not to participate. It's a real
pain once you've gotten used to driving on the turnpikes without
stopping -- newer toll plazas are being built with 75 mph lanes for
holders of the devices. Older toll plazas are being replaced or
remodeled to provide high speed lanes for those who have the devices.
You can still pay in cash if you want to carry proper change and
thread your way across several lanes to wait for your turn. If you
have to make change (some remote entrances/exits do not have manned
toll booths) the line will be even longer.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass System
Date: 23 Mar 2005 06:59:50 -0800
Monty Solomon wrote:
> CONCORD, N.H. --The E-ZPass system that will soon make it easier to
> pay tolls in New Hampshire will make it easier to track people's
> movements, privacy advocates warn.
> State officials say strict policies are in place to prevent that, and
> stress that E-ZPass will be voluntary. They also say the system will
> reduce traffic congestion and put off the need to expand the current
> toll plazas.
Yes and No.
Some tollways give a big discount to EZPASS users and provide faster
lanes, making cash users pay more and wait longer. (Other tollways
actually charge more for EZPASS than cash users, which seems to defeat
the whole purpose of the program which is to encourage widespread
use.)
I'm sure each and every one of the organizations hit with big identity
data theft/loss cases recently would've also told us they had "strict
policies in place" what turned out to still happened, strict policies
or not.
I myself use EZPASS to get a toll discount and save time; it's also
convenient when I travel on other roads. But I don't like the loss of
privacy. My toll bridge doesn't handle it, some service contractor
down in DC does. The tollgates also have recording cameras to catch
toll skippers. Anyone who gets my account number and pin number can
go online and access my EZP driving history, and that's frightening.
There's also the concern if my car with its transponder unit is stolen.
------------------------------
From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones?
Organization: ATCC
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:40:06 -0500
In article <telecom24.126.10@telecom-digest.org>, newsgroups@dave!!!
christense!!n.o!!!r!!!g says:
> I saw a link earlier for this on Slash Dot. Its a cordless phone that
> supposedly works 100km from the base station (under ideal conditions).
> http://www.goodbyelongdistance.com/catalog/item/1441280/975984.htm
> Other then the obvious potential for grief from the FCC, anyone else
> have any thoughts?
> I'm living in a rural Alaskan town and traditional cell service is
> spotty to none, even with an old bag phone and roof antenna so I was
> thinking that this could be an interesting approach to local mobile
> phone service.
I highly doubt that it is legal in the U.S. However, modifying your
802.11 gear and using say a PalmOS type machine with an 802.11 card
you could probably cobble together a VoIP solution that has a linear
range of 11 miles or so, depending on what type and pattern of
radiator you decide to use.
From what I've read about these units they operate in the amateur
radio band so I take sort of strong offense to that.
------------------------------
From: John Bartley <johnbartley@email.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:31:58 -0800
Subject: Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones
> From: Dave <newsgroups@dave!!!christense!!n.o!!!r!!!g>
> Subject: New Long Range Cordless Phones?
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:46:17 -0900
> I saw a link earlier for this on Slash Dot. Its a cordless phone that
> supposedly works 100km from the base station (under ideal conditions).
> http://www.goodbyelongdistance.com/catalog/item/1441280/975984.htm
> Other then the obvious potential for grief from the FCC, anyone else
> have any thoughts?
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:10:07 -0500, Michael Quinn replied:
> Dave,
> I'm pretty sure these are illegal in the US&P(ossessions). One of the
> issues was interference with Air Traffic Control communications
> systems, as I recall. Someone on the list may be able to cite chapter
> and verse from US Code, or FCC regs. I may have saved a Navy
> Department spectrum management brief on the subject; if so, I'll
> forward off net.
> Regards,
> Mike
From the Amateur Radio Newsline report #1399 last year:
ENFORCEMENT: EATERY FINED $10,000 FOR USING 2 METERS Rem ember the
case of Best Wok? The New Jersey restaraunt that was warned b y the
FCC to stop using an illegal high power 2 meter cordless telephone to
coordinate deliveries but which continued to do so anyhow? Well, that
decision by the store manager is going to cost the company $10,0 00.
Thats the amount of the fine that the FCC has levvied against Best Wor
k for transmitting on 145.8376 MHz without Commission authorization.
The r esteraunt was given the customary 30 days to pay up or to file
an appeal. (FCC)
And, from , a Miami dealer was fined $7,000 for selling those kinds of
cordless phones.
Some hams ('observers') volunteer to track misuse, triangulate where
it's from, and report it to the local FCC field office or field
engineer. It's a well-respected role within the amateur radio
community.
So, just because it's on Slashdot don't mean you can sell it
Stateside.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:09:02 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
Subject: Re: What happened to Channel 1?
I wrote:
> A few years later, we moved HBO to channel 2 (so we could sell
> HBO to hotels and motels), installed negative traps to secure
> it, .....
Whereupon Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
> What science can take away, science can put back. Those traps
> did _not_ *completely* eliminate the signal getting into the
> customer premises, they just made it so weak that a
> conventional TV set couldn't amplify it enough to make a decent
> picture. A decent high-gain single-channel pre-amp, on
> the other hand, installed 'in front of' the TV receiver, could
> do a surprisingly good job of resurrecting the 'killed' signal.
> <grin>
Except that the relevant parameter is noise figure, not gain. To the
extent that the preamp has a better (i.e., lower) noise figure than
the TV set's own tuner (and holding all other variables constant),
you'll get a decibel-for-decibel improvement.
But even a relatively low-gain preamp (say, ca 20 dB) will show
similar improvement if it has a similarly lower noise figure.
http://www.broadband-pbimedia.com/ct/archives/0500/0500col2.htm
Neal McLain
------------------------------
From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Organization: ATCC
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:43:33 -0500
In article <telecom24.126.11@telecom-digest.org>, bonomi@host122.r-
bonomi.com says:
> What science can take away, science can put back. Those traps did _not_
> *completely* eliminate the signal getting into the customer premises, they
> just made it so weak that a conventional TV set couldn't amplify it enough
> to make a decent picture. A decent high-gain single-channel pre-amp, on
> the other hand, installed 'in front of' the TV receiver, could do a
> surprisingly good job of resurrecting the 'killed' signal. <grin>
Sort of how the FCC has pretty much admitted that anyone with a
modicum of technical knowledge will be able to defeat the broadcast
flag.
------------------------------
From: Brad Houser <bradDOThouser@intel.com>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:22:48 -0800
Organization: Intel
Reply-To: Brad Houser <bradDOThouser@intel.com>
The channel is the range of frequencies allocated to that broadcast
station. NTSC (analog TV) and ATSC (digital TV) still use the same
channels. Most of the new DTV channels are UHF, and the broadcasters
are allowed to continue to use the older analog channels (the best
ones being VHF) during the transition. Once the FCC tells them to shut
off the analog broadcasts, the original channels will be put up for
auction.
Brad H
<Tim@Backhome.org> wrote in message
news:telecom24.118.14@telecom-digest.org:
> An NTSC analog "channel" is called such because it is allocated to
> AM video and FM audio.
> These channels will soon be just a part of television history as they are
> phased out and replaced by the digital "channels."
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Dangling Broadband From the Phone Stick
Date: 23 Mar 2005 06:52:05 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Jack Decker wrote:
> For many consumers, the main alternative to broadband from the phone
> company is the local cable company. But cable broadband prices tend to
> be higher -- as much as $60 a month for access, compared typically with
> $40 or less for phone company broadband. And the cable companies
> prefer to sell the service as a package with television that can
> easily exceed $100 a month.
> ... It seems to me that the phone companies are just like that gas station
> owner when they refuse to sell unbundled DSL. ...
> ... But since the phone companies are monopolies, you don't have the
> option of walking six blocks down the road to the next nearest
> DSL provider.
It seems to me you contradicted your own post and have a double
standard.
Your clipping stated that cable companies offer broadband as an
alternative. So consumers DO have an alternative and don't have
to walk six blocks in bad weather to get it.
You also want the phone companies to be forced to drop their
bundling requirement. But your clipping says cable companies
do the same thing and charge even more. Why should the cable
companies be allowed to bundle and charge more when you want
the phone company controlled?
It seems from your article that the phone company, bundled or not, is
giving the consumer a better deal.
Remember, the phone company doesn't have to offer broadband at all
and you could get it only from the cable company and pay their
prices.
BTW, a lot of consumer goods are "bundled" whether you like it or
not. Sometimes it's for marketing convenience as a la carte
pricing and selling would be too cumbersome. But other times it's
to add profit to the mfr.
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Our Telephonic Primacy
Date: 23 Mar 2005 07:37:52 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Monty Solomon wrote:
> By William F. S. Miles | March 21, 2005
> Americans often make this jingoistic boast in bouts of competitive
> patriotism. But on what basis? When it comes to the standard
> international ranking of countries in terms of human development (life
> expectancy, literacy, and purchasing power, as compiled by the United
> Nations Development Program), the United States comes in a
> respectable, but hardly chest thumping, number 7 (bested by Belgium,
> for goodness sake!)
I wonder how accurate these international rankings are. Recently
someone claimed that infant mortality was worse in the U.S. than in
Cuba, something I find difficult to believe without additional
explanation.
Anyway, in the case of the United States, the national averages,
rankings, and indexes really don't mean very much. The U.S. is a very
big country with great economic diversity. Real estate costs more in
NYC, but salaries are higher, for example. Crime and disease are
often much higher in ghetto areas than most suburban areas.
Advocates of public policy on both sides of the aisle love to throw
out statistics. Newspapers like them as well -- they "authenticate" a
story. But the key component of all statistics is the base sample.
When we say 25% percent of such-and-such, we need to understand
exactly what 'such and such' _includes_ AND _excludes_, as well as
exactly the definition of the subset percentage. Further, it is
critical that statistics be compared in context to other yardsticks of
other equivalent areas and situations of past time. Often the full
story is not told.
------------------------------
From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Subject: Re: Intertel Eclipse Telephone Programming
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:50:42 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
marcsanders2003@yahoo.com wrote:
> Anybody with technical knowledge of the InterTel Eclipse telephone
> system? Here's what I'm trying to do:
> I'm trying to set up a shared mailbox. In other words, I've added a
> new extension, 262, and I want it to use the voice mailbox of 214. So
> both extensions will be using mailbox 214. I would also like
> notification of messages to go to 262.
> It seems fairly simple, but so far nothing seems to work.
> Any help would be appreciated.
I don't think that can be done.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Quite a few years ago, I had two lines
in Skokie, IL -- ORchard 7 9510 and ORchard 7 9511. Both had Voicemail
on them from Ameritech; both were handled from 9511. I think what
Ameritech told me was there was only one voicemail box in reality,
probably on 9511 (which was a roll-over line from 9510) and that the
voicemail on 9510 was 'aliased' to 9511. When someone dialed into 9510
and the voicemail was to pick up, the alias pointed at 9511; not
only for the storage of messages, but also notification in the form
of a flashing red LED on the phone. PAT]
------------------------------
From: DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:24:32 -0700
Organization: Disorganized
In message <telecom24.127.5@telecom-digest.org> Jack Decker
<jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request> wrote:
> A Vonage spokeswoman said the company was surprised to hear of the
> litigation and pointed out there are numerous references, both on the
> Internet and material mailed to customers, explaining the 911
> service's limitations and its proactive nature. Abbott's office
> contacted New Jersey-based Vonage about a week ago asking for
> marketing materials and other information; the company hadn't heard
> anything since it replied with the materials two days ago, the
> spokeswoman said.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Vonage should not be
offering 911 at all, rather, they should be highlighting the fact that
emergency call centers do not allow Vonage to route emergency calls to
the right place (so their only option is to dump the call to an
administrative number.)
Personally, I'd rather have attempts to dial 911 get the "Stop, this
phone does not have 911 service" then get through to someone who can't
or won't help.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But wouldn't the ideal arrangement be
like here? A number designated for 'emergency but not 911' phone is
terminated on the consoles of the persons who respond for police, etc,
and they are tipped off "if this line, with its unusual cadence in
ringing goes off, it is to be treated like any other emergency call".
Our dispatchers answer not only the occassional 911 call, but they
also answer for the city hall offices. The PSAP people (at Vonage, and
elsewhere) are told to connect with them as needed _using one of the
back lines_ on the city hall group; a line which would almost never
get calls on its own. Now, if _that phone_ rings/flashes, treat it as
a priority emergency call. The same woman sitting there taking calls
for the city hall centrex/switchboard sees that one phone give out a
continuous (never pausing) ring with the light on the wall flashing at
a furious pace says 'ah, it is an emergency call from a system which
cannot (for whatever reason) use 911. She answers it and makes
dispatch as needed. Does not seem like that major of problem. That
single phone, by the way, also has a caller-ID device on it, and a
rather detailed map on the wall as well, so the dispatcher gets the
essence of the desired information, even if not every single bit of
it. Ah, but that would involve _training_ the dispatchers in possibly
a new procedure. Do you think their Civil Servants Union would allow
that sort of a requirement?
------------------------------
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 #128
******************************
| |