TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 Apr 2005 06:17:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 157

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Piercing the Peer-to-Peer Myths: Examination of Canadian (Monty Solomon)
    Computer-Aided Music Distribution: Future of Selection (Monty Solomon)
    Verizon Wireless Expands Availability of Ringback Tones (Monty Solomon)
    Verizon Agrees to Buy Stake Of MCI (Marcus Didius Falco)
    Report Critical of Philly's Wi-Fi Plan (Marcus Didius Falco)
    Study: Consumers Oppose Cell Phones in Flight (Marcus Didius Falco)
    Why Must a Cordless Phone be Away From Other Electronics? (curious)
    Re: Reporters Get Credit For Simple ID Switch (Wesrock@aol.com)
    Re: Spammer Gets 9 Years (Ed Clarke)
    Re: Simultaneous Ring Problem With Cell (Nathan Anderson)

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, 12 Apr 2005 00:03:39 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Piercing the Peer-to-Peer Myths: Examination of Canadian


Piercing the peer-to-peer myths: An examination of the Canadian experience
by Michael Geist

Abstract

Canada is in the midst of a contentious copyright reform with
advocates for stronger copyright protection maintaining that the
Internet has led to widespread infringement that has harmed the
economic interests of Canadian artists. The Canadian Recording
Industry Association (CRIA) has emerged as the leading proponent of
copyright reform, claiming that peer-to-peer file sharing has led to
billions in lost sales in Canada.

This article examines CRIA's claims by conducting an analysis of
industry figures. It concludes that loss claims have been greatly
exaggerated and challenges the contention that recent sales declines
are primarily attributable to file-sharing activities. Moreover, the
article assesses the financial impact of declining sales on Canadian
artists, concluding that revenue collected through a private copying
levy system already adequately compensates Canadian artists for the
private copying that occurs on peer-to-peer networks.

http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_4/geist/

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

Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:08:22 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Computer-Aided Music Distribution: The Future of Selection


Computer-aided music distribution: The future of selection, retrieval 
and transmission

by Nancy Bogucki Duncan and Mark A. Fox

Abstract

The Internet has made music more widely available and increased the
convenience with which we can listen to music. We increasingly
recognize that recorded music can take the form of digital files. The
Internet and related technologies for music delivery have been made
viable by advances in compression, data storage, and transmission
technologies. To provide greater value to consumers, music labels need
to make greater use of retrieval and selection technologies.

Contents

Introduction

The product of music

Why do we choose to experience music in different ways?

Technology and the provision of value to consumers.

Conclusions


http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_4/duncan/

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

Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:05:34 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Verizon Wireless Expands Availability of Ringback Tones;


     Verizon Wireless Expands Availability of Ringback Tones;
     Customers Can Play Their Favorite Song, Soundtrack or Voice Track
     for Callers; New Service Now Available to More Verizon Wireless
     Customers

     - Apr 11, 2005 03:14 PM (BusinessWire)

PHOENIX--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 11, 2005--Verizon Wireless, the first
national carrier to offer Ringback Tones -- short clips of real music
that replace the standard ring callers hear when they call the Verizon
Wireless phone of a Ringback Tone subscriber -- has expanded the
availability of the service to include Arizona. The service is now
available in most western states.

     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=48289993

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

Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:49:16 -0400
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Verizon Agrees to Buy Stake Of MCI's


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40350-2005Apr9

washingtonpost.com
Verizon Agrees to Buy Stake Of MCI's Biggest Shareholder
$1.1 Billion Purchase an Attempt to Shut Out Qwest's Bids

By Yuki Noguchi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 10, 2005; Page A12

Verizon Communications Inc. said yesterday it agreed to pay $1.1
billion in cash to purchase the shares of MCI Inc.'s largest
shareholder in an attempt to lock up its deal to buy MCI and shut out
rival Qwest Communications International Inc.

New York-based Verizon agreed to buy about 43.5 million shares -- or
13 percent of MCI's stock -- from Mexican telecom magnate Carlos Slim
Helu. At $25.72 a share, MCI's market price at the time of the
agreement, the price is higher than the $23.10 per share Verizon has
offered to pay other MCI shareholders to acquire the company.

It's the latest chess move between Verizon and Qwest, two regional
phone companies locked in a two-month battle to acquire MCI of
Ashburn. So far, MCI's board of directors has sided with Verizon,
citing that company's greater resources and financial strength, even
though Qwest is offering to pay substantially more.

Analysts described Verizon's move as a significant development, but
some said Qwest could still muster support for its offer.

Qwest has sweetened its bid three times in its attempts to win the
support of the MCI board, forcing Verizon to raise its original offer,
but the MCI board spurned Qwest each time. For the past week, Qwest
has been considering ways to pursue a hostile offer, including seeking
the backing of MCI shareowners to vote down the proposed merger with
Verizon.

In buying Slim's shares, Verizon sought to reduce Qwest's maneuvering
room.  The deal "was an opportunity for us to purchase a block of
shares under unique circumstances and is an important step forward in
our acquisition of MCI," Verizon chairman and chief executive Ivan
Seidenberg said yesterday in a statement. The purchase of Slim's
shares, which must be approved by regulators, is expected to close in
several weeks, the company said.

Verizon will not be able to acquire more shares one block at a time
from MCI investors because of a "poison pill" provision in MCI's
charter that makes it prohibitively expensive for a single entity to
accumulate more than 15 percent of the company's shares.

Verizon's deal with Slim came after Denver-based Qwest said a survey
it commissioned showed that a majority of MCI shareholders supported
Qwest's most recent offer. The company declined to disclose details of
that survey but said Slim was not among the investors it had been
counting on to support the Qwest offer of $27.50 a share, or a total
of $8.9 billion, in cash and stock. Verizon's offer totals $7.65
billion in cash and stock.

"I don't think it's over for Qwest at all," said Martin Hyman, an
independent telecommunications consultant. "It was a very clever move
on Verizon's part. Obviously, it gives Verizon additional support, but
this is a very, very critical acquisition from [Qwest's] standpoint."
The company needs MCI's corporate customer base and its cash, he
said. "It's do or die."

Striking a deal with a single shareholder may create pressure for
Verizon to increase its bid to the rest of MCI's shareholders, many of
whom have spoken in favor of Qwest's offer or have demanded that MCI
seek a better deal from Verizon.

"Verizon has basically told the world what they think MCI shares are
worth, and what they've said is that they're worth more than $23.10,"
said Patrick Comack, an analyst with Zachary Investment Research in
Miami. If Verizon offers what it's paying to Slim to the rest of MCI's
shareholders, that could put MCI out of Qwest's reach, Comack said. "I
think today's move may make Qwest say, 'Uncle.' "

Calls and e-mails requesting a comment from Slim were not returned
yesterday, although his office released a statement confirming the deal.

In a statement responding to Verizon's latest move, Qwest said Verizon
was trying to drive a wedge between shareholders.

"By entering into this deal with Mr. Slim, Verizon has both created
two classes of shareholders and called into question the MCI board's
previous determination that Verizon's lower offer to the other MCI
shareholders was superior and fair," the statement said.

Qwest spokesman Tyler Gronbach said the company previously had its own
negotiations with Slim. Gronbach said Qwest is considering all of its
options, including a higher bid for MCI.

Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis declined to comment, as did MCI spokesman
Peter Lucht.

Copyright 2005 The Washington Post Company

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/more-news.html . 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, Washington Post Company.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

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

Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:16:17 -0400
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Report Critical of Philly's Wi-Fi Plan


http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=newsat2direct&starting=1&pubdate=04/11/05&

www.wirelessweek.com

Report Critical of Philly's Wi-Fi Plan
By Mark Rockwell
April 11, 2005
news@2 direct


WASHINGTON -- A Bell company-supported think tank has issued a report
that's highly critical of the City of Philadelphia's recently
announced plans for a city-sponsored, city-wide Wi-Fi network.

"My principal conclusion is that the analysis and financial
projections contained in [the City of Philadelphia's Wi-Fi] business
plan are simply not plausible," says Thomas Lenard, senior fellow and
vice president of research at the Progress & Freedom Foundation.

Last Thursday, the City of Philadelphia began asking for bids on the
$10 million Wi-Fi project that would provide low-cost Wi-Fi access to
all Philadelphia citizens across the city's 135 square miles of
territory. The project's aim is to provide low-cost, high-bandwidth
connections for all Philadelphia residents for about $16 to $20 a
month. The winning bidder will install the network by next summer. The
city's plans call for services on the network to be marketed, sold and
billed by the 430 independent, private ISPs operating in the city.

"The Business Plan projects that Wireless Philadelphia [the city's
plan] will be able to offer wireless broadband access to everyone,
everywhere in Philadelphia, at a lower cost than competitive broadband
offerings such as DSL and cable modem," Lenard says. "Notwithstanding
this rosy scenario, the Business Plan asserts that this service
[Wi-Fi] will not be offered by the private sector. But there is no
explanation as to why the private sector would pass up such a profit
opportunity."

The foundation also issued an accompanying essay questioning the
wisdom of local governments' involvement with the rollout of
high-speed networks.

The Progress and Freedom Foundation is backed by many high-tech
companies, including big local wireline phone companies such as
BellSouth, SBC Communications and Verizon Communications, as well as
big wireless companies like Nextel Communications and T-Mobile
USA. The city of Philadelphia got an exemption last fall from a state
law that restricted local governments from installing wireless
Internet access networks.  Verizon Wireless had backed the legislation
that forced the city to accelerate its installation plans and forced
the city to give Verizon Wireless "right of first refusal" on any
other plans for wireless network services.

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/more-news.html . 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, Wireless Week.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

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

Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:19:39 -0400
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Study: Consumers Oppose Cell Phones in Flight


http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=3Ddocument&doc_id=3D1340004344

www.wirelessweek.com

Study: Consumers Oppose Cell Phones in Flight
By Susan Rush
April 8, 2005
news@2 direct

Worried about "air rage" and constant phone calls, 67 percent of air
travelers would prefer current airborne cell phone restrictions remain
in place, according to a new air passenger poll.

The survey also found that 78 percent of respondents said cell phone use
during flight could hamper passengers from hearing emergency instructions.

As in the days when people could smoke on airplanes, 70 percent of
respondents indicated if the ban is lifted, airlines should separate out
cell phone users on flights.

However, not everyone in the survey was against lifting the ban on
in-flight cell phone use -- 21 percent supported allowing passengers
to chat during flight.

The Association of Flight Attendants and the National Consumers League
sponsored the survey conducted with 702 air passengers.

"This survey and the popularity of the Do Not Call Registry for
telemarketing illustrate the growing desire of many consumers to put
up the 'do not disturb' sign and have some peace and quiet," said
Susan Grant, the National Consumers League vice president for public
policy.

The FCC is currently reviewing rules governing the use of cell phones
on aircraft. In December 2004 the commission said it would make 4 MHz
of 800 MHz spectrum available to providers through an auction process,
but at the time of the announcement, it stressed that whether to give
the green light to enable cell phone use on board flights is an issue
the industry and consumers need to hammer out.

Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier
Inc. 

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/more-news.html . 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, Wireless Week.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

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

From: curious@nospam.com
Subject: Why Must a Cordless Phone be Away From Electronic Devices?
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:02:56 -0400


I just got a 900 MHz DSS cordless phone, and I had the perfect spot
for it, right on top of my tower computer case.  But then I noticed
that the manual says that the base unit must be placed away from all
electronic equipment, including PCs, stereos, TVs, and microwaves.
What is the reasoning for this?  Could the magnetic fields generated
by the speakers in the phone cause any problems?

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

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:02:19 EDT
Subject: Re: Reporters Get Credit For Simple ID Switch


Pat wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the early to middle 1960's, as VISA
> franchises were first getting started in Chicago, they were known as
> 'Bank Americard'; named after Bank of America which was then a one or
> two branch bank in San Francisco. First National Bank of Chicago were
> the idiots responsible for VISA (Bank Americard) taking such a
> dreadful hit from fraud in the first few years. 

I don't know about the First National Bank of Chicago, but Bank of
America was not then a "one or two branch bank."  It was a massive
operation with branches all over the West, many through subsidiaries,
until they were required to limit themselves to one state, and of
course they limited themself to their largest state, also their home
state, California.

They had hundred of branches throughout California and were the
prototype for today's banks that have branches on every street corner.
At a about the time they launched BankAmericard, they were the largest
bank in the world, surpassing any of the New York banks.

As you know, in later years they fell on less prosperous times and
were eventually acquired by NationsBank, formerly North Carolina
National Bank (NCNB).  NationsBank, upon acquiring Bank of America,
changed its name from NationsBank to Bank of America and still has its
headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.


Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I should have originally said BoA was
not very common in the Chicago and other midwest areas. To Chicago
people, BoA was considered a San Francisco operation.  Our local
branch of BoA here in Independence did not arrive until about 1990.
PAT]

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

From: Ed Clarke <clarke@cilia.org>
Subject: Re: Spammer Gets 9 Years
Date: 12 Apr 2005 00:32:10 GMT
Organization: Ciliophora Associates, Inc.
Reply-To: clarke@cilia.org


On 2005-04-08, Chris Farrar <cfarrar@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> North Carolina spammer gets nine years; Sentence postponed while
> appeal is heard. Jeremy Jaynes was among the top 10 spammers in the
> world when arrested, prosecutors say.

> ASSOCIATED PRESS

> LEESBURG, Va. A man convicted in the U.S.'s first felony prosecution
> for illegal spamming was sentenced to nine years in prison today, but
> the judge postponed the sentence while the case is appealed.

Here's what he'll get if there's any justice:

	http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050410


This signature left blank.

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

From: Nathan Anderson <nathan@anderson-net.com>
Reply-To: Nathan Anderson <nathan@anderson-net.com>
Subject: Re: Simultaneous Ring Problem With Cell
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:54:18 GMT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will tell you how I handle the same
> problem here: Instead of simultaneous ring, my home phone is set
> up for 'transfer on busy/no answer' to my cell phone. If I do not
> answer my home phone (or am already on a conversation) then the
> incoming call forwards (after 3-4 rings) to my cellular phone, then
> the cellular phone 'transfers on busy/no answer' to voicemail.

Thanks for the response, Pat.

I had thought of that actually, and I suppose that this solution is the
"lesser of two evils" (since at least people will not get the "wrong
message"), but this solution has several disadvantages that I was hoping
to avoid:

1) If my cell phone is off, then the caller hears the average 4 rings
before voicemail kicks in.  If my cell phone is ON (which is true most of
the time), the caller is going to have to wait for 8 rings!  This has
confused people in the past who just give up before voicemail even comes
on to take their message ("oh, I guess he's not home and doesn't have an
answering machine").  I'm sure that the number of rings before my cell
phone transfers to voicemail can be adjusted, but I don't want it ringing
less than 4 times otherwise I don't have much time to answer the call if I
want to.

2) If my cell phone provider's voicemail system takes the call, then
my cool little "Message" indicator light on my Packet8 DTA won't tell
me if I have a message or not because Packet8's system didn't take the
message.  I will also not have a "stutter" tone on my home phone
anymore to alert me of the presence of a new message.  Granted, if I
don't use my cellular carrier's voicemail system, then my cell phone
can't alert me about new messages either, but if the call is
"simulring"-transferred to my phone, I at least have a record from the
phone that someone called, I missed the call, and caller ID tells me
who it was.  At that point I can call Packet8 voicemail from my cell
to see if I have any new messages.

3) Although it is a trivial charge, with the plan that I'm on with my
cellular provider, voicemail is not "standard" unless I add it on for
an extra fee.  If I don't have to pay that fee, I don't want to.

4) Packet8's voicemail system has some cool features (such as the
ability to e-mail myself a copy of a voicemail that I'd like to keep
as a WAV file attachment) that I'm sure my cellular provider cannot
replicate and which I don't wish to lose.

This gent claims that he managed to find a way to solve this problem
without using cellular voicemail; I wonder how he did it? (hit
"Complete Thread" and look at his last response):

http://groups.googlecom.com/groups?selm=telecom23.408.7%40telecom-digest.org

Thanks again,

-- Nathan Anderson           <mailto:nathan@anderson-net.com>
   <xri:=nathan.anderson>      <http://www.anderson-net.com/>

   "You can't appreciate Shakespeare until you've read him in
   the original Klingon."
     -- General Chang, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, as I see it, those are your two
choices. But, bear in mind that after the first 3-4 rings (the ones
going to your landline), there is a very brief pause in the ringing as
the call is pulled away from your landline and switched over to your
cellular. The regular people who call me at least understand that
pause means the call is being shifted elsewhere. I don't think you can
ever make everyone happy on this, short of spending a lot more money
on a very sophisticated system. Understand, the above is relatively
sophisticated for 'residential' service. And most people, in my 
experience, are willing to wait 7-8 rings for _something_ to kick in,
although not much more than that.  PAT]

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


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums.  It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        Post Office Box 50
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 620-402-0134
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 530-309-7234
                        Fax 3: 208-692-5145         
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe:  telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information:        http://telecom-digest.org

Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
  (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from                  *
*   Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate  *
*   800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting.         *
*   http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com                    *
*   Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing      *
*   views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc.                             *
*************************************************************************

ICB Toll Free News.  Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.

One click a day feeds a person a meal.  Go to http://www.thehungersite.com

Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

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

DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD!  REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM   SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list. 

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.

End of TELECOM Digest V24 #157
******************************