For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:16:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 188

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    What Search Sites Know About You (Monty Solomon)
    Nokia Draws Bead on iPod People (Monty Solomon)
    Your Money Under More Scrutiny (Monty Solomon)
    IP-Based TV Will Revolutionize Entertainment (Monty Solomon)
    Rainbow Media to Launch VOOM 21 HD Originals (Monty Solomon)
    Re: A Phone That Takes Dictation Testing Voice-to-Text (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: VoIP (T. Sean Weintz)
    Re: VoIP (Robert Bonomi)
    Remembering the panix.com Hijacking (Lisa Minter)

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: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:34:32 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: What Search Sites Know About You 


By Joanna Glasner

For most people who spend a lot of time online, impulsively typing
queries into a search engine has become second nature.

Got a nasty infection in an embarrassing spot? Look up a treatment on
your favorite search site. Obsessing about an ex? Try Googling his or
her name. Chances are the queries will unearth some enlightening
information.

But while search engines are quite upfront about sharing their
knowledge on topics you enter in the query box, it's not so clear what
they know about you. As operators of the most popular search engines
roll out more services that require user registration, industry
observers and privacy advocates say it's become more feasible to
associate a particular query with an individual.

"You should think about what you put in that search box, because it 
may not be as anonymous as you think," said Danny Sullivan, editor of 
SearchEngineWatch.com.

It has long been standard practice, Sullivan noted, for search sites 
to employ cookies, which track activity on a computer's internet 
browser. But cookies don't identify a person by name. If two people 
access a site on the same browser, the cookie wouldn't distinguish 
between them.

However, when people provide personal information to register for
services offered by search engine companies, such as free e-mail
accounts, news alerts or personalized homepages, they're no longer
anonymous.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67062,00.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:19:56 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Nokia Draws Bead on iPod People 


Reuters
11:28 AM Apr. 28, 2005 PT

Nokia expects to sell 25 million smartphones this year -- handsets 
offering limited PC-type functions like e-mail -- more than doubling 
the 12 million it sold in 2004, according to a forecast by company 
CEO Jorma Ollila.

He also said at a company event in Amsterdam that the company 
expects to ship 100 million camera phones in 2005, and that Nokia 
would sell 40 million phones with MP3 digital music players this 
year, compared with 10 million in 2004.

By comparison, Apple said it sold 5.3 million iPods in the first 
three months of 2005 while Canon was the top seller of digital 
cameras in 2004, with 17 percent of the global market of 74 million 
units, according to research firm IDC.

Nokia unveiled its N91 multimedia phone, which will have a 4-gigabyte 
hard drive that can store thousands of music files. The phone, which 
will also run on high-speed 3G and wireless LAN networks, is due out 
by the end of the year.

Nokia said its other new phones, the N90 and the N70, will have 
two-megapixel cameras with high-quality Carl Zeiss lenses. The N90 
will be in shops in the second quarter at a price of around 600 euros 
($784), while the N70, also a 3G phone, will hit the shelves in the 
third quarter. Apple's original iPod retails for about 319 euros in 
Europe while Canon's cameras start at less than half the cost of the 
N90.

The company launched the new N-series sub-brand to make the new phone 
lineup stand out as luxuries specifically designed for high quality 
photos, video and music.

http://www.wired.com/news/gizmos/0,1452,67380,00.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:21:28 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Your Money Under More Scrutiny


By Manu Joseph

Pressured by anti-terror laws, banks will be spending billions of 
dollars over the next few years on software to counter money 
laundering. The software will automatically track suspicious 
financial transactions, but it will also monitor millions of 
innocuous ones, and may make it harder to cheat on your taxes.

Thanks to the stringent requirements of the Patriot Act, enacted 
after 9/11 to choke the supply of terror funds, and the unambiguous 
threats of steep fines and even imprisonment of bank directors if 
their organizations facilitate money laundering, U.S. financial 
institutions are very enthusiastic about installing 
anti-money-laundering software.

Between 2005 and 2008, American banks are forecast to spend about 
$14.7 billion on anti-money-laundering software, hardware, 
maintenance and other compliance-related activities, according to 
Neil Katkov, a Tokyo-based analyst with Celent Communications. Europe 
and Asia are expected to spend over $11.6 billion during that period.

By 2006, 94 percent of large financial institutions in the United 
States will have installed anti-money-laundering, or AML, 
technologies, according to Celent.

Already, the United States is the global driver of anti-laundering 
software. And the number of transactions reported to government 
agencies, like the United States' Financial Crimes Enforcement 
Network, is growing fast. In 2004, banks reported 14.8 million 
transactions to FinCEN. That's 600,000 reports more than in 2003, 
according to FinCEN's annual report for 2004 (.pdf).

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67249,00.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:43:27 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: IP-Based TV Will Revolutionize Entertainment


IP-Based TV Will Revolutionize Entertainment; SBC calls for 
'light-touch' regulatory approach to ensure consumers receive new 
technology quickly

20 April 2005, 10:02am ET

SAN ANTONIO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 20, 2005--IP-based television will
change the way consumers watch TV while opening a new competitive
choice for millions, said Lea Ann Champion, senior executive vice
president of IP Operations and Services for SBC Communications
Inc. (NYSE:SBC) at a U.S. House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing
about the future of new technology.

Champion demonstrated the capabilities of IP-based video or IPTV for
lawmakers and urged them to avoid imposing incumbent obligations on
new entrants in the video services market that would discourage
deployment of the new system.

http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200504201402_BWR__BW5581

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

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:45:19 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Rainbow Media to Launch VOOM 21 HD Originals


Rainbow Media Holdings to Launch and Operate VOOM 21 HD Originals; 
Signs Major Distribution Agreement with EchoStar Communications 
Corporation

JERICHO, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 29, 2005--Rainbow Media Holdings LLC:

     --  Greg Moyer and Nora Ryan Named Co-General Managers of VOOM 21
         HD Originals

     --  VOOM HD originals will appear on DISH Network

Rainbow Media Holdings LLC today announced that it will operate and 
launch the VOOM 21 HD Originals, an innovative suite of 21 
high-definition channels, for distribution to cable operators and 
satellite TV providers. Rainbow also announced today that it has 
concluded its first major carriage agreement for the channels with 
EchoStar Communications Corporation, which will carry ten of the HD 
channels on its DISH Network, expanding to carry all 21 channels by 
2006. The terms of the deal were not disclosed.

http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200504291248_BWR__BW5229

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: A Phone That Takes Dictation: Testing Voice-to-Text Function
Date: 29 Apr 2005 07:21:57 -0700


Monty Solomon wrote:

> This week, my assistant Katie Boehret and I tested a new phone that
> attempts to solve the text-entry problem in a novel way that doesn't
> involve typing, and can be used on a small, inexpensive phone with
> just a numerical keypad. This new phone lets you dictate your text
> messages by just speaking into the phone.
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work very well.

Voice recognition technology still has a long way to go before it
works.  I don't like automated answering systems, but I much prefer
working with Touch-Tone signals than voice commands which seem to be
often misunderstood and less precise.

The English language is a horrible thing to automate.  Remember
English developed from TWO distinct sources and is a blend of syntax,
sounds, etc.  How do you deal with "their there they're"?

Years ago the hospital I worked at had automated voice dictation
recording equipment via the telephone system.  One dialed into
the system, then dialed various codes to start/stop/playback
the tape.  The tapes were sent out for transcription.

Note this was controlled by rotary phones.  I believe dictation
systems was one of the few things the Bell System allowed to be
interconnected with their network.  The PBX seized the incoming
extension line in order to get the dial pulses, and passed them onto
to the dictation system.  I presume supervision was passed too.
(Music for the PA system was also provided by independent playback
though the PA system itself was Bell and part of the PBX.)

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

From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Subject: Re: VoIP
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:24:52 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Choreboy wrote:

> For several months I've been getting calls with spoofed Caller IDs.  I
> understand spoofing requires either VoIP or a PBX system with DSL.

> Can anybody with cable internet access and suitable software make VoIP
> calls?

> The other day I received a wrong-number call from an exchange belonging
> to Level 3 Communications.  Among other services, they offer residential
> VoIP services through wholesalers such as ISPs and cable operators.  I'm
> confused.  Does a consumer need these services to use VoIP?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think either 'VOIP' or 'PBX system'
> have anything to do with it. If I understand correctly what I have
> read here in the Digest, it requires a 'PRI' type thing; that is, a
> multi-channel set of lines going to DID, or Direct Inward Dialing,
> which would, I guess, be similar to a PBX arrangement. Companies who
> have those lines _can_ set the caller ID to be whatever is appropriate
> in their instance. I suspect the fact that the ID shown was that
> company may have been just coincidental. You do need either cable
> internet or DSL to use VOIP; regular 'dialup' lines are just not wide
> enough or fast enough to do VOIP. But other than having DSL or cable,
> VOIP takes nothing especially fancy; just an adapter box from the
> place where you get the VOIP service and any regular telephone
> instrument will do the job.  And if you planned on totally getting
> rid of your landline phone taking VOIP instead, that is generally
> not possible with DSL, since most telcos will not give stand-alone
> DSL.  PAT]

Caller ID CAN be spoofed using VOIP. Apperently SIP allows for this, and 
some VOIP providers leave this feature open for customers to use/abuse. 
I know hackers were spoofing caller ID over VOIP using the ASTERISK open 
source PBX system which lets you set all the nitty gritty SIP parameters 
-- apparently including the CLID string. From what I understand, some 
providers filter this at their switch, some don't ...

PRI's are a standard type of high cap ISDN line (as opposed to BRI,
the low cap vesrion). I think caller ID can be spoofed from EITHER
type of ISDN line, assuming one has the right type of equipment
plugged into it (which usually means a PBX switch)

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: VoIP
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:34:52 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.186.17@telecom-digest.org>, Robert Bonomi
<bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:

> In article <telecom24.185.17@telecom-digest.org>, Choreboy
> <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:

>> For several months I've been getting calls with spoofed Caller IDs.  I
>> understand spoofing requires either VoIP or a PBX system with DSL.

>> Can anybody with cable internet access and suitable software make VoIP
>> calls?

>> The other day I received a wrong-number call from an exchange belonging
>> to Level 3 Communications.  Among other services, they offer residential
>> VoIP services through wholesalers such as ISPs and cable operators.  I'm
>> confused.  Does a consumer need these services to use VoIP?

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think either 'VOIP' or 'PBX
>> system' have anything to do with it. If I understand correctly what
>> I have read here in the Digest, it requires a 'PRI' type thing;
>> that is, a multi-channel set of lines going to DID, or Direct
>> Inward Dialing, 

>> Would you believe "DOD" -- direct *OUTWARD*
>> dial?  

>> "DID" trunks handle incoming calls only. "DOD" trunks
>> handle outgoing calls only.  

>> "DID/DOD" trunks handle both. 
>> Caller-id data _origination_ occurs only for outgoing calls.  
>> which would, I guess, be similar to a PBX arrangement.  

>> Some sort of  a 'switch', usually a PBX-equivalent,  is required to
>> handle DID / DOD trunks.

>> Then there are the "big boys" -- who have SS7-compatible switches,
>> which are a C.O.-equivalent, rather than PBX-equivalent, device.
>> Companies who have those lines _can_ set the caller ID to be
>> whatever is appropriate in their instance.

>> Sometimes the telco 'filters' what CID data the
>> company can send, sometimes not.  When "not", an unscrupulous
>> company can set the ID info to _anything_.  

>> Unfortunately, the "lowest-priced" PRI providers are the ones least
>> likely to do filtering, *and* are the ones that said unscrupulous
>> companies are most likely to use.

TELECOM Digest Editor continued:

>> I suspect the fact that the ID shown was
>> that company may have been just coincidental. You do need either
>> cable internet or DSL to use VOIP; regular 'dialup' lines are just
>> not wide enough or fast enough to do VOIP. But other than having
>> DSL or cable, VOIP takes nothing especially fancy; just an adapter
>> box from the place where you get the VOIP service and any regular
>> telephone instrument will do the job.  And if you planned on
>> totally getting rid of your landline phone taking VOIP instead,
>> that is generally not possible with DSL, since most telcos will not
>> give stand-alone DSL.  

Mr. Bonomi continued:

>> Unless you buy SDSL service, which is
>> _always_ delivered on it's own pair. 

>> Unless you get your DSL
>> from MCI, Covad, or New Edge Networks -- or a >'reseller' of any of
>> those carriers -- all of whom offer dedicated-pair ADSL. 
>> Unless Qwest is your ILEC.  

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I _defy you_ to pick up your
>> phone right now and talk to the first service rep who answers and
>> order SDSL service.  They will not know what you are talking about;
>> probably no one in the vicinity will know.

I guess I just deal with a better class of service rep than you do.
I've _never_ had any problem ordering SDSL. And I've only done it more
than a dozen times. Providers in CA, WA, FL, NY, and IL.  Never dealt
with New Edge; _have_ dealt with MCI, Covad, and several other
no-longer-existent physical-services providers, e.g. 'northlight'.

TELECOM Digest Editor continued:

> And if you _do_ order it satisfactorily
> from MCI, Covad, New Edge or others, then God bless you; it will be
> extraordinarily expensive and if your intent was to save money by 
> going with VOIP instead of landline, you've completely killed that
> plan. 

*ANY* dedicated internet connection with VoIP will be more expensive
than a simple POTS land-line, This is a given.

SDSL is generally more expensive -- yes, even "much more expensive" --
because of the 'class of service' provided with that physical
transport.  It doesn't _have_ to be, SDSL head-end equipment is no
more expensive than ADSL gear is.

The higher price tag generally buys you:

   Pro-active monitoring of circuit and head-end equipment, with vendor-
     initiated maintenance _before_ problems reach 'noticeable' levels

   LESS oversubscription of the upstream link(s).  This means that you
     have a _much_better_ chance of getting all the bandwidth you
     need/want, *WHEN* you need/want it.

   *immediate* contact with _knowledgeable_ tech-support staff.  none
     of this 'wait 30 minutes on hold, while being told how 'important
     your call is to us', crap.  No 'first-line' droids who don't know
     how to deal with anything that isn't in one of the 'scripts' they
     had to memorize. But actual _thinking_ people.  The types who
     _don't_ suggest that you need to restart Windows when the problem
     is that traceroute is dieing two hops _upstream_ of the DSLAM.

     If ones own time has any significant value, the 'opportunity
     cost' of the time spent "waiting on hold", with the typical
     consumer ISP, reaches significant figures in very short order.
     Cable companies seem to be especially bad in _this_ respect.
     Dealing with *one* recent problem, where their cable internet
     service was totally out for almost a week, my folks spent nearly
     _twelve_hours_ "on hold", trying to get the problem fixed.  As
     semi-retired professional business consultants, their time bills
     at only $80/hr.  That's a 'cost' of nearly $1,000, above and
     beyond the amounts invoiced.  If paying an _additional_ $75/month
     for service would have avoided the problem, they would have come
     out 'ahead' for the year.  Unfortunately, they _don't_ have ANY
     choice for high-speed access.  They're too far from the telco
     C.O. for DSL.  And there is only the one cable company "in town".
     Well,"in town", sort-of.  The customer support phones are
     answered in another state.

"Business class" service costs more than bottom-of-the-bucket.

If you grossly oversubscribe the uplink from the DSLAM -- and I've
seen a full shelf of 24 ports (at 768k down) serviced by a _single_
T-1 -- your costs are relatively low.

OTOH, 'business class' service often feeds four shelves of 768kbit
ports with at 45mbit T-3.

TELECOM Digest Editor continued:

> In essence -- in real life practice and experience -- you cannot
> get stand alone DSL (and pay your VOIP bill each month on top of that) 
> in any reasonable cost-effective way. After arguing with the service
> reps for some period of time on the matter, you will decide cable is a
> better and less expensive way to go. PAT]

*THAT* depends on what your needs are.

If you need _reliable_ amounts of bandwidth, especially uplink
bandwidth, cable generally cannot deliver it.  The sheer number of
customers sharing the same limited capacity on the cable prevents it.
Cable typically has several hundred -- up to a few _thousand_ --
customers sharing the circa 60mbit of cable capacity.  And usually
only a single T-3 feeding the head- end for that run.  It doesn't take
many 'bandwidth hogs' to saturate the upstream capacity.

*Very*few* cable companies can provide you with more than a *single*
IP address.

Many cable companies _forbid_ running 'servers' of any sort in their
contract.  (Typical allocation of cable bandwidth is 10=15% for 'up'
from the customer, and 85-90% for 'down' to the customer -- with
servers usually generating much more outbound traffic than inbound,
they chew up a disproportionate chunk of the 'up' bandwidth, adversely
impacting all the other cable customers on the same run.)

Virtually no cable company will give you more than a _single_ IP
address.

A fair number of cable companies do not offer the option of a true
'static' address.  DHCP pools *only*.

If you can get a static address, forget about getting 'reverse DNS'
that reflects _your_ information.

With, generally, a choice of *one* cable company in any locale, you
have only a 'take it or leave it' choice.

Some DSL providers, particularly the lowest-price ones, do make
similar engineering decisions, and impose similar restrictions on use
of their service. Doing so is one way of being able to hold costs
down, so that you _can_ offer service at a 'cheaper' price-point.

Virtually all DSL providers, however, offer a _much_wider_ range of
services, at a correspondingly wider range of price-points, than cable
companies do.  They can do this because, unlike cable companies, there
is _only_one_ customer on any given run of wire exiting the head-end.
And, therefore, they *can* connect different customers -- on a
customer-by-customer basis -- to different head-end equipment,
providing different levels of service.  They can put the _sustained_
high-bandwidth users -- with minimal 'over-subscription' -- all
together on gear that is engineered to handle the sustained loads, and
priced accordingly, while still advertising high-speed service, albeit
'grossly oversubscribed' to the casual user at a bargain price.

Cable service _is_ "absolutely great" for the 'early adopters'.  As
long as the number of customers sharing the same 'run' from the
head-end is small, it works superbly.

On the other hand, there are routine complaints from cable subscribers
in Chicago proper, that the "high-speed" service is nearly unusable
from around 3:30 in the afternoon till on towards 10:00PM.  That they
get throughput of a whopping 60-100k bits/second download speed on
their "advertised as multi-megabit" connection.  It seems directly
attributable to all the school-kids coming home and getting online to
play games.

"Too many users, not enough bandwidth"

No way to 'fix' it, either, short of physically *re-wiring* the
territory (the 'outside physical plant'), so that there are fewer
customers per run from the head-end.

The architecture of DSL 'scales' better, because there is *no*
'sharing' of the data connection between the customer and the head
end. Thus, one customer cannot adversely affect the 'last mile'
bandwidth available to another customer.

Cable Internet isn't necessarily "bad", but there are more places, and
more ways, where the quality of service can, _as_delivered_to_the_
customer_, get clobbered.

*ANY* assertation that any particular technology choice is alway "better" is
patent nonsense.

One has to consider:
   1) what the customer _requirements_ are
   2) what the available alternatives are *in*their*area*
   3) what the advantages/disadvantages of _those_ offerings are.


In _my_ situation, 'cable' was simply *not* a viable alternative.  

Firstly, because until quite recently, the cable company in my area
*DID*NOT* *OFFER* internet service.  This _is_ an 'insurmountable
barrier' to choosing cable internet service.  <grin>

Now that they do, their only offering is STILL not compatible with my
needs I need multiple public-network IP addresses (NAT is not a viable
option for technical reasons -- d*mn those protocols that put IP
addresses _inside_ the data part of the packet!) and the cable company
will only provide _one_ such address.

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

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 02:17:12 EDT
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Remembering the panix.com Hijacking


After we here, (telecom and Townson) accidentally lost the
internet-history.org domain and the company in Geneva, CH grabbed it
(and still have done nothing with it other than illegally squat on it
to prevent _us_ from using it), we did hear from the guy who grabbed
it, offering to return it for $800. At first, it sounded a lot like
the panix.com hijacking, and it does bear some similarities, but the
key distinction is that Panix ownership never "expired", so there was
no legal validity whatsoever to any other person's claims. But if Panix
hadn't had powerful and ugly friends helping them, no doubt they'd have
heard things like "well, it'll take a month or two to resolve, but if
we put our expert programmer on it, at $500/day, you'll have it back
in 48 hours"

Two articles worth reviewing to get more aquainted with the hijacking 
at Panix are these:

There's a half hearted article over at:
    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1781860,00.asp

and some more stuff at:
    http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm

This is not any official statement from Panix management about what
happened.

But an official statement from me might be "The internet just is not
fun to use any longer. The piles of shit through the barnyard have
long since exceeded the green pastures of the commons I have heard
through ancient tales used to be here instead."


Lisa Minter

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


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 #188
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues