TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:00:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 286

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Samsung Phone Offers Wireless Broadband But Has Drawbacks (M Solomon)
    Dial/Touch Tone Speeds (was Re: Bell Divestiture) (Lisa Hancock)
    Hayes Smartmodems (was Re: Bell Divestiture) (Fred Atkinson)
    User Manual For BellSouth Phone (Ralph)
    BT Avoids Breakup (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
    This Guy is Just Stupid (Steven Lichter)
    Re: Worst Phishing Fraud Attack Ever! 40 Million Cards Affected (mc)
    Re: Companies Want _US_ to Pay For Their Mistakes (DevilsPGD)
    Re: DSL Speed (Choreboy)
    Re: Bell Divestiture (Tony P.)
    Re: ISP Hunting (DevilsPGD)
    Re: 700-555-4141 Does Not Work (Ted Klugman)

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, 23 Jun 2005 11:36:15 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Samsung Phone Offers Wireless Broadband, But It Has Drawbacks


By WALTER S. MOSSBERG

For Americans who want a smart cellphone with a built-in keyboard for
typing email, the best choice by far has been PalmOne's Treo 650, sold
by most major U.S. wireless carriers.

The standard BlackBerry hand-helds from Research In Motion make clunky
phones, and the slimmer BlackBerry 7100, while an acceptable phone,
lacks a full keyboard. The models using Microsoft's hand-held software
have either lacked keyboards altogether or been too large to make
comfortable phones. In contrast, the Treo is both roomy enough to be a
good hand-held email device and compact enough to be a good phone.

Starting today, Verizon Wireless will introduce in the U.S. the first
Microsoft-based smart phone with a built-in keyboard that is about the
same shape, size and weight as the Treo. This new phone, the $599
Samsung i730, has one major capability the $399 Treo lacks -- the
ability to surf the Web and to send and receive email at broadband
speeds.

The new Samsung can operate at speeds roughly comparable to home
digital subscriber line, or DSL, connections through Verizon's
wireless Broadband Access network, which works on a wireless
technology called EVDO. Or it can use speedy Wi-Fi wireless networking
at places like coffee shops and airports.

I don't expect to see an EVDO-capable Treo until very late this year
or early in 2006. And the Treo lacks Wi-Fi capability. So the Samsung
is the fastest email and Web device with a built-in keyboard that is
small enough to be used comfortably as a phone. It will be available
starting today for corporate customers and will be in Verizon stores
in a couple of weeks.

I have been testing the new i730 and comparing it to the Treo 650 from
Sprint that I carry as my own phone. The Samsung worked as promised
for making voice calls, accessing Web sites, and sending and receiving
emails. It also played music and videos and displayed photos, though
unlike my Sprint Treo, the configuration Verizon sells lacks a camera.

http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20050623.html

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Dial/Touch Tone Speeds (was Re: Bell Divestiture)
Date: 23 Jun 2005 06:52:58 -0700


hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> I note that PBX operators had 20 pps dials while the rest of us had 10
> pps.  Some kids experimented and found 20 pps worked at home.  Now, it
> was easy to modify the dial to go faster -- so why didn't Bell have
> everyone at 20 pps -- faster utilization of equipment?  I strongly
> suspect there were valid technical reasons not to.

Note -- I subsequently learned we were served by a #1 Crossbar at the
time.  I believe the office serving the PBX was a panel, as was most
of the city.

I have no idea whether the fast dials on the PBX switchboard
required a special mod at the central office.  As mentioned,
someone tried it at home and it worked fine (around 1971).

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had a couple of Hayes Modems which
> could be switched between pulse and tone dialing, and you could set
> the 'speed' of the pulsing or the 'speed' of the tone signals. You
> could make both modes go quite fast; with tone dialing so fast that
> it was little more than just a single blip in your ear, and most
> times it would work quite well. Only on occassion the modem would
> give its short little blip or tone burst when dialing *before* the
> line was set up to allow it, and you would have to redial, but
> usually it worked okay.  PAT]

Modems were easy to adjust using the AT commands.  I adjusted my Touch
Tone speed to be a little faster than the default, but too fast would
not go through.  I never tinkered with changing the pulse rate, but
there were AT commands to do that as well.  I think in foreign
countries the "make/break" ratio of pulses was different and I didn't
want to risk screwing up my modem/software with an oddball setting.
Now it doesn't matter and I ought to experiment with it.

FWIW, I have a Panasonic telephone with an auto dialer.  It was rather
slow on pulse mode, whether from memory or entered via keys.  I could
dial a call faster on a real rotary phone than the Panasonic.

In the 1980s I found that some locations not equipped with Touch Tone
would still take it but others would not.  Now it is included almost
everywhere.

Would anyone remember in what year dual-mode phones (keypad with a
little switch to convert to pulse if necessary) came out in wide
quantity?  I think that was around the time they stopped using real
ringer bells.  My guess is the late 1980s.

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

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Hayes Smartmodems (was Re: Bell Divestiture) 
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:26:35 -0400


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had a couple of Hayes Modems which
> could be switched between pulse and tone dialing, and you could set
> the 'speed' of the pulsing or the 'speed' of the tone signals. You
> could make both modes go quite fast; with tone dialing so fast that
> it was little more than just a single blip in your ear, and most
> times it would work quite well. Only on occassion the modem would
> give its short little blip or tone burst when dialing *before* the
> line was set up to allow it, and you would have to redial, but
>usually it worked okay.  PAT]

I had a Hayes 300 modem when 1200 baud was considered astronomically
fast.  I kept it until I upgraded to a Hayes 2400 baud modem.  I think
both of them are still in one of my goody boxes put away, for all the
good they'll be to me now.

I had become very familar with the Smartmodem when it first came out.
I was working for MCI at the time.  One day, we got a phone call from
a salesman who was at one of our customer sites.  This customer had
several MCI long distance lines hooked up to his PBX.  The salesman
had sold them a Smartmodem 1200 but was unable to make it work through
the PBX.  When the customer mentioned the MCI lines, the salesman
pointed the finger at MCI.

So the customer called and put the salesman on the phone with one of
our people.  That person just happened to know I knew a lot about the
Smartmodem and transfered the salesman to me.

I got him to describe the setup.  Then I asked him how he was making
it dial.  He told me that he was typing in 'ATD9,' and then the area
code and the number.

I knew immediately what was wrong when he said that.  I told him to
try typing in 'ATDT9,' and the area code and the number.  He took this
attitude that how could a telephone technician know anything about a
Smartmodem.

I asked him what he had to lose by trying it.  So, finally, he did.

I heard him typing, then I heard the dial tone from the Smartmodem,
then I heard it outpulse digit 9 in DTMF.  I then heard secondary
dialtone and then the area code and number outpulsed in DTMF.

Then, I heard the distant modem answer, the local modem respond in
carrier, and then the speaker went silent.

I then heard the salesman shout, 'IT WORKS'.  Then he came back to the
telephone.  His voice was showing that he was very embarrassed.

I knew I was going to laugh out loud, so I needed to get off the phone
quickly.  I told him I was glad to help him and that he should call me
back if he ever needed more help.  Thank you and goodbye, so to speak.
I laughed hysterically for several minutes after I got off the phone.

The boss was very grateful.  This was a customer we wanted to keep a
very good relationship with.  He thanked me very much.

When Hayes designed the Smartmodem, they should have had the unit
default to touch-tone instead of outpulsing rotor dialing by default.
Incidents like this could have been avoided.  I happened to know that
this customer's PBX did not support rotary dialing.  The 'T' I added
to the string switched the unit from default rotary dialing to touch
tone.  Problem solved.

Regards,

Fred Atkinson


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think we used 'ATT' for tone dialing
and 'ATP' for pulse dialing. Fred, (in a help desk capacity) did you
ever run across customers who _lied_, told you they had tried to do
something but in fact had not done it at all. When I used to work at
TerraWorld several years ago (even then, the oldest employee they
had working there) overnight shift on the help desk, I would make
suggestions to customers such as 'unplug and reboot your modem' and
people would not do it! They'd tell you they had 'already done that'
but you _knew_ they had not and were just looking for someone to
argue with . It sounds to me like your salesman was sort of the
same way. There was no where else he could pass the buck off to, so
decided to argue with you instead.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:24:15 -0700
From: Ralph <shaffer.rs@verizon.net>
Subject: User Manual for BellSouth Phone
Reply-To: <ralph@mamao.com>


Ralph Shaffer
K & M Enterprises
13782 De Foe Avenue
Sylmar, CA  91342

818-367-3875
mailto:Ralph@mamao.com 

Are you still looking for a user manual for the BellSouth 4300GR
phones?  I am looking for the actual phone to replace a broken one.
Drop me a e-mail.  Thank you.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:51:54 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: BT Avoids Breakup


Telecom dailyLead from USTA
June 23, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=22569&l=2017006

		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* BT avoids breakup
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Q-and-A with Motorola's Ed Zander
* Report: Pay-per-call ads to reach $1.4B
* TelecomNEXT gets a leg up in poll
USTA SPOTLIGHT 
* Just Released: The US Telecom IP Video
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Japan's Jupiter prepares 100 Mbps service
* Siemens gets serious about VoIP
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Telecom providers lobby against municipal networks
* China may delay 3G licenses

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=22569&l=2017006

Legal and Privacy information at
http://www.dailylead.com/about/privacy_legal.jsp

SmartBrief, Inc.
1100 H ST NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005

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

From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc.  (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: This guy is Just Stupid
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:09:55 GMT


Each day I have gotten 2 e-mails from him as well as 2 more selling
nail fungal removal.  I called the number and talked to someone there,
they said they have gotten hundreds of calls complaining about the
spasm, but the fool continues.  I guess this guy just needs a few
hundred thousand more calls from payhones to get the idea.  Or maybe
someone in Orlando can visit him and clear him up on his bad
advertising.

Are you still interested? If so you must call toll free 1.866.702.0972
to reserve before the promotion ends. The packages are open dated so
you can use a few days at a time or all at once. You do not even need
to know when you are going to go since you have up to two full years
to select travel dates.


The only good spammer is a dead one!!  Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2005  I Kill Spammers, Inc.  A Rot in Hell Co.

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

From: mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu>
Subject: Re: Worst Phishing Fraud Attack Ever! 40 Million Cards Affected
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:41:03 -0400
Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net)


Ed Clarke <clarke@cilia.org> wrote in message 
news:telecom24.284.6@telecom-digest.org:

> I went through our credit card bills yesterday.  LLBean Visa 27% APR.
> Delta Skymiles AmEx 25%.  I paid them both off in full and won't be
> using them again.  AmEx charges $15 for an over-the-phone eCheck but
> the INTEREST on the damn card was several dollars per day.  By the
> time the physical check would arrive and clear, I would have that much
> in interest.

You will probably find that they still have an amount due the next
month, to mop up finance charges.  As I understand it, some cards
charge interest on the average balance for the month rather than the
actual balance, which means they can keep charging interest on a loan
you've paid off!

> I'm about to dump all my Cisco switches (2900 Catalyst series, 5000
> series) and the RAID stuff onto eBay.  Simply shutting them down and
> replacing them with a 100 watt ReadyNAS 600 will save me hundreds of
> dollars per month even if I just threw them out.

I remember when Yale University gave away an IBM 370 for just that
reason. The whole new computer cost less than the saving on
electricity from turning the old one off.

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

From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Companies Want _US_ to Pay For Their Mistakes
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:35:35 -0600
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.282.1@telecom-digest.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:

> I called my credit card carrier to check my balance.  Instead of
> getting the automated answer, I was connected right through to a real
> person.

> He tried hard to pitch me with credit card insurance costing $100.

That's beautiful!  The law sets your maximum liability for credit card
fraud at $50, and that's only if fraud occurs.  Paying $100/year
whether or not fraud occurs is brilliant!

> ABC News, when reporting on the recent multiple credit card
> information thefts, also mentioned the availability of consumer
> insurance to protect against ID theft.  They said it took a victim 600
> hours of time to correct everything and the insurance would cover lost
> wages.

Would cover lost wages 'eh?  Maybe the $100/year is worth it then; I'd
sure spend a lot more then 600 hours if they were paying my salary in
the process.



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think they are a little too tricky to
fall for that, however. They _might_ pay for one or two hours of your
time -- maybe -- but I imagine they would tie it in with getting some
statement from your employer about time off the job. They are not
going to just send you a couple of regular payroll checks however. And
if you took time off from work to cure this 'fraud' was it a situation
you could not have accomplished during regular off hours from work?
PAT]

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

From: Choreboy <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com>
Subject: Re: DSL Speed
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:01:33 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Choreboy wrote:

>> It seems to me that dialup and DSL would be analagous to two ways of
>> yelling across a field; like two ways of yelling, DSL and dialup use
>> the same medium.

> A very simple analogy might be yelling, then using a megaphone
> to yell.  The megaphone doesn't "amplify" your voice, but directs
> it a little better so it can be heard further.

Couldn't technology analogous to a megaphone be applied to dialup as
well as DSL?

> Adding this analogy, imagine yelling across a field crowded with
> people talking as opposed yelling across an empty field.  The speech
> of the other people will interfere with your yelling.

Ah, crosstalk!  It seems to me that if DSL uses the same wire dialup
used, the same crosstalk will be present.

> Another analogy might be signalling across a field using colored
> flags.  In all cases you are using reflected light.  But the ability
> to see the distant flag will vary based on the color of the flag.  A
> person holding a green flag standing in front of trees will be
> difficult to discern compared to someone holding an orange flag.  The
> _carrier_ of your signal--the reflected color of the flag, is
> different and different carriers are more efficient.

I'm interested in how the DSL signal is different.

> Let's note that the limitation isn't just in the plain copper wire
> that comes out of your telephone.  

On dialup, it seemed to be the wire that wouldn't let me connect at
the farm at the same speed I could connect a block from the CO.  I
wonder how the farm wire, that wouldn't take 50k on dialup, will carry
1.5M or more on DSL.

> There's also a limitation in the
> telephone company facilities.  A voice conversation doesn't need much
> "room" (bandwidth) to be clearly understood.  

I have trouble understanding on the phone, and I often resort to the
phonetic alphabet to be understood.  I think the problem may be more
in the typical quality of phones than in bandwidth.  Who don't phone
manufacturers list frequency response, distortion, and sensitivity for
speaking and listening?  A control to match the telephone's impedence
to the line impedence at your location might also help.

> (Notice if you play music over a telephone that sounds terrible at
> the other end -- that's because the phone doesn't have the bandwidth
> for the more complex sounds of music compared to voice).

With better fidelity I might know for sure which family member answered
the phone.

> Anyway, the telephone company has your voice share space with other
> voices.  While this is fine for voice, it limits data transmission
> to 56K.

Does a POTS line from the CO to a house carry multiple voices?
Anyway, DSL at the farm uses the same line that the phones at the farm
still use.  

> Between the CO and the customer, isn't voice service just bare wire?
> Are there inline amps?  If so, they could preemphasize high 
> frequencies. That varies tremendously from customer to customer.

If there are inline amps, preemphasis could be set according to the
length of wire between the customer and the CO.

>> I don't understand what kind of signal dsl uses to carry so much more
>> data than dialup without needing broadband cable.

> It uses digital.  Crisp, to the point.  As mentioned above, an orange
> flag transmits 'better' than a green flag.  Both are using the same
> medium.  Digital transmits better and can make better use of a pair of
> wires.

Digital is clear because the receiver need recognize only two states.
Marconi invented the digital (telegraphic) radio transmitter in 1895.
In 1979, ships were still required to have telegraph operators because
nothing could match Marconi's radio for range and clarity.

The data stream was slow.  FSK allowed a faster data stream (between
teletype machines), but it operated at a higher frequency, which
reduced range, and with a wider bandwidth, which made it less clear
and reliable.

Satellites made Marconi's radio obsolete at sea.  I understand
satellite channels offer wide bandwidths, which have room for fast
data streams.  If at the farm I can download 1.5 Mb/s, it sounds as if
those miles of POTS telephone wire have a bigger bandwidth than I'd
thought.

>> If you have a second phone line for your modem, a $25 ISP, Direct TV,
>> and perhaps other Bellsouth services, they will give you a price where
>> going to DSL will lower your costs.  However, for somebody whose only
>> cost is $100 a year for an ISP, DSL would add $500 to his annual
>> budget.  Many feel they can't afford it, just as farmers before the
>> Model T felt that they had no choice but to stick with slow,
>> inconvenient horses and wagons.

> AFAIK, if you get DSL, you no longer need a second phone line and
> everything can come over your DSL line.  That is, you can talk on the
> phone and use the computer at the same time, and get faster computer
> response.

The same POTS wires feed all devices including the DSL modem.  You
plug in phones, answering machines, and dialup modems through inline
filters.  Bellsouth says the filters protect the conventional devices
from high frequencies.  I think the filters also keep those high
frequencies from draining through those devices.

Besides using a DSL computer and a phone at the same time, you can use
two or more computers with DSL modems at the same time.  That
surprises me because I think all computers on the same DSL line are
assigned the same IP.

> The pricing of services is a function of marketing, not technology.
> A consumer has to choose the best price/service suited to their needs.
> Sometimes a bundled package may end up still cheaper than a la carte.

A bundle can be cheaper if you would have bought all the services
anyway.  For marketing, bundling can entice a customer who would not
otherwise have bought them all.  You lose the customer who wnats just
one and doesn't have money to waste.  That's why Henry Ford didn't
bundle his cars with garages.

>> You say internet costs depend on how much traffic you have.

> That's not really accurate.  Internet costs whatever you want it to
> cost.  

I was speaking of Bellsouth's costs.  I understood million-dollar
switches were the big cost for voice service, while equipment to carry
heavy internet traffic was the big cost for DSL.

> If need your response RIGHT NOW, you should get a higher speed
> connection.  If you're doing a lot of work and don't like the long
> waits, you should get a higher speed connection.  If you don't mind
> slow response time, you can make do as is.  Plenty of people do.
> There are even higher speed connections than DSL, although at some
> point you're limited by the overall Internet traffic and the response
> time of remote sites.  

I'm talking about another possibility.  For example, sometimes I go to
to NWS to download ten radar images showing the progression of any
storms in the area over the last hour.  Suppose they total 10 Mb
(1MB).

That's:
 
12 minutes at 14.4kb
6  minutes at 28.8
4  minutes at 40
3  minutes at 50
1  minute at 150kb
7 seconds at 1.5 Mb

12 minutes for 1 MB shows why not many people surf at 14.4.  I never
want to go back to 28.8, which would take 6 minutes instead of 3.

If DSL let me download those images at let me download at 1.5Mb/s, I
could save another 173 seconds.  If I contracted for DSL that would
deliver only 10% of that speed, I would still save 120 seconds
compared to 56k.

> Indeed, often times what appears as slow
> connections is actually not related to your own connection, but at
> intermediate or distant ends.

That's another reason DSL with a limited speed would be interesting.  

>> I think there's a big untapped market for DSL, and it could be
>> profitable at a low price.  Cadillac did not introduce the Model T,
>> and I guess Bellsouth doesn't want to offer existing customers
>> something cheaper.

> What is being offered is changing rapidly as technologies change and
> new equipment is installed.  Many cable companies offer service over
> their lines as well in competition with Bell companies.  Some Bell
> companies are offering "FIOS" which is extra high speed.

> Some of us whose modems keep getting fried by lightning are making
> do with 14.4.

That happened to me with a 14.4 modem before I discovered that my
phone ground and power ground hadn't been bonded.  Is a 14.4 modem
more lightning proof than a 56k?

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Bell Divestiture
Organization: ATCC
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:13:22 -0400


In article <telecom24.285.5@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com 
says:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had a couple of Hayes Modems which
> could be switched between pulse and tone dialing, and you could set
> the 'speed' of the pulsing or the 'speed' of the tone signals. You 
> could make both modes go quite fast; with tone dialing so fast that
> it was little more than just a single blip in your ear, and most
> times it would work quite well. Only on occassion the modem would
> give its short little blip or tone burst when dialing *before* the
> line was set up to allow it, and you would have to redial, but
> usually it worked okay.  PAT] 

Yes I remember those Hayes modems. We use to run the DTMF at 30ms on ESS 
switches, and 70ms on SxS switches that were adapted to interpret DTMF. 

In some cases with a good pair you could get as low as 20ms but it 
wasn't reliable. 

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

From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: ISP Hunting
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:35:36 -0600
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.278.7@telecom-digest.org> Choreboy
<choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:

> DevilsPGD wrote:

>> I'm going to be just outside of Chicago (Skokie, if you must know) for
>> an unknown period of time and looking to find out what the cheapest
>> way to get internet access would be.

>> I have no need for anything other then basic connectivity, and the
>> ability to establish HTTPS connections to a known IP and PPTP
>> connections to another known IP (not even DNS is required) and I
>> certainly will not need ISP provided email, webspace, or anything of
>> the sort.  I also absolutely refuse to install any crapware provided
>> by an ISP.

>> I'm eyeballing dialup access through ISP.COM which offers $8.95 - 56K
>> Regular Dial-up -- any thoughts, good or bad?  Can I do better?

>> Any thoughts?

> Don't you want news-server access?  That's the most common
> deal-breaker for me.

Nope.  No web hosting, no email, no usenet, no technical support,
hell, they don't even need a tollfree customer service number.

DNS is about the only thing I'd use (other then IP transit) but it's
not mandatory, I run my own DNS servers anyway (and most of the stuff
I'll be accessing will be through my VPN and in-house proxies anyway)

Once the VPN is up I can access literally everything I need right
through there.  Just PPTP at the moment, although if I have the time
to get IPSec working, I might switch over.

> Budget ISPs often contract with dialup providers.  The quality of
> service can depend on this, and the ISP's representative may not be in
> a position to know what's wrong.

True enough.

> At $9.95 I've been with localnet a couple of years, I guess.  At times
> I've looked for alternatives, but in the long run things have worked
> out.

I'll check 'em out, thanks!  Any idea what they're like for short-term
access?

In message <telecom24.279.4@telecom-digest.org> Fred Atkinson
<fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:

>> Don't you want news-server access?  That's the most common
>> deal-breaker for me.

> It shouldn't be a concern.  

> If the price is cheap enough for an ISP you've chosen and they don't
> provide a news server, also get a news account at Newsguy 
> http://www.newsguy.com .  They have a special plan that they offer
> one year of news server access for forty dollars.  I used them once
> when a ten dollar a month ISP I was then using dropped their news
> server without telling anyone.

http://www.readfreenews.net/ -- You can't beat free.  Oh, and as soon
as Mike updates the page, my name will be appearing on
http://www.readfreenews.net/donations.html too :)

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

From: Ted Klugman <tedklugman@yahoo.no.spam.com.lga.highwinds-media.com>
Subject: Re: 700-555-4141 Does Not Work
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:11:44 -0400
Organization: Optimum Online


On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 03:24:23 GMT, Fred Atkinson
<fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:41:39 -0400, Ted Klugman
> <tedklugman@yahoo.no.spam.com.lga.highwinds-media.com> wrote:

>> Recently, my long distance carrier (TTI National, somehow a subsidary
>> of MCI) informed me that they're going to start charging a "monthly
>> fee" of $1.99. So I decided it was time to switch.

>> My new carrier's website instructs new users to call 700-555-4141 to
>> verify when the LD carrier has been changed. I hadn't dialed the
>> number in quite a while, so for kicks, I dialed it.

>> "We're sorry, your call can not be completed as dialed." This didn't
>> happen the last time I tried it (more than a year ago)

>> (Yes, I tried it with a "1" in front of the number)

>> So, any thoughts on  how I can check who my LD carrier is?

>> TIA

> Do you have 900, 700, and 976 blocking on your phone?  If you do, that
> explains it completely.

> Try dialing '00' and see what happens.  

Dialing '00' produced nothing. Nothing at all.

Yes, I did have 900, 700, and 976 blocking. Got rid of that and it
works fine now.

The odd thing is that I have *always* had 900, 700, and 976 blocking,
since I got the line in 1998.

One would think that telcos would still allow 700-555-4141, and block
all other numbers. Oh well.

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


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)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   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 #286
******************************