TELECOM Digest     Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:30:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 291

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    16 to 25? Pentagon Has Your Number, and More (Monty Solomon)
    An Army of Soulless 1's and 0's (Monty Solomon)
    Verizon Wireless 3G Expansion in New York and New Jersey (Monty Solomon)
    Federal Laws Needed on ID Theft Notice (Monty Solomon)
    Re: DSL Speed (Choreboy)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (Bruce L. Bergman)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (Joseph)
    Re: Breakup Revisited (Thomas A. Horsley)
    Re: Companies Want _US_ to Pay For Their Mistakes (DevilsPGD)
    Re: Power Strips for Home Networks (DevilsPGD)
    Re: ISP Hunting (DevilsPGD)
    Re: Cardholders Kept in Dark After Breach -- Washington Post (panoptes)
    Re: Dial/Touch Tone Speeds (was Re: Bell Divestiture) (Tim@Backhome.org)
    Last Laugh! You Got the Wrong Number! (Patrick Townson)

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: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:30:28 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: 16 to 25? Pentagon Has Your Number, and More


By DAMIEN CAVE

The Defense Department and a private contractor have been building an
extensive database of 30 million 16-to-25-year-olds, combining names
with Social Security numbers, grade-point averages, e-mail addresses
and phone numbers.

The department began building the database three years ago, but
military officials filed a notice announcing plans for it only last
month. That is apparently a violation of the federal Privacy Act,
which requires that government agencies accept public comment before
new records systems are created.

David S. C. Chu, the under secretary of defense for personnel and
readiness, acknowledged yesterday that the database had been in the
works since 2002. Pentagon officials said they discovered in May 2004
that no Privacy Act notice had been filed. The filing last month was
an effort to correct that, officials said.

Mr. Chu said the database was just a tool to send out general material
from the Pentagon to those most likely to enlist.

"Congress wants to ensure the success of the volunteer force," he said
at a reporters' roundtable in Washington. "Congress does not want
conscription, the country does not want conscription. If we don't want
conscription, you have to give the Department of Defense, the military
services, an avenue to contact young people to tell them what is being
offered. It would be na=EF=BF1=8E2ve to believe that in any
enterprise, that you are going to do well just by waiting for people
to call you."

On Wednesday, The Washington Post reported that the notification in
The Federal Register had drawn criticism from a coalition of eight
privacy groups that filed a brief opposing the database's creation.
Yesterday, many of those privacy advocates, learning that the database
had been under development for three years, called its existence an
egregious violation of the Privacy Act's rules and intent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/politics/24recruit.html?ex=1277265600&en=10803fe5d6f59fe1&ei=5090

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:31:45 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: An Army of Soulless 1's and 0's


By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, June 23 - For thousands of Internet users, the offer
seemed all too alluring: revealing pictures of Jennifer Lopez,
available at a mere click of the mouse.

But the pictures never appeared. The offer was a ruse, and the click
downloaded software code that turned the user's computer into a
launching pad for Internet warfare.

On the instructions of a remote master, the software could deploy an
army of commandeered computers - known as zombies - that
simultaneously bombarded a target Web site with so many requests for
pages that it would be impossible for others to gain access to the
site.

And all for the sake of selling a few more sports jerseys.

The facts of the case, as given by law enforcement officials, may seem
trivial: a small-time Internet merchant enlisting a fellow teenager,
in exchange for some sneakers and a watch, to disable the sites of two
rivals in the athletic jersey trade. But the method was far from rare.

Experts say hundreds of thousands of computers each week are being
added to the ranks of zombies, infected with software that makes them
susceptible to remote deployment for a variety of illicit purposes,
from overwhelming a Web site with traffic -- a so-called denial-of-
service attack -- to cracking complicated security codes. In most
instances, the user of a zombie computer is never aware that it has
been commandeered.

The networks of zombie computers are used for a variety of purposes,
from attacking Web sites of companies and government agencies to
generating huge batches of spam e-mail. In some cases, experts say,
the spam messages are used by fraud artists, known as phishers, to try
to trick computer users into giving confidential information, like
bank-account passwords and Social Security numbers.

Officials at the F.B.I. and the Justice Department say their inquiries
on the zombie networks are exposing serious vulnerabilities in the
Internet that could be exploited more widely by saboteurs to bring
down Web sites or online messaging systems. One case under
investigation, officials say, may involve as many as 300,000 zombie
computers.

While the use of zombie computers to launch attacks is not new, such
episodes are on the rise, and investigators say they are devoting more
resources to such cases. Many investigations remain confidential, they
say, because companies are hesitant to acknowledge they have been
targets, fearful of undermining their customers' confidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/technology/24zombie.html?ex=1277265600&en=c003ced33d1adfcf&ei=5090

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:34:49 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Verizon Wireless 3G Expansion in New York and New Jersey


New V CAST Consumer Wireless Multimedia Service and BroadbandAccess
Fast Data

Connections for Business Now Available in More Places

ORANGEBURG, N.Y., June 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Continuing to build on its
strategy to provide its customers superior wireless services in the
United States, Verizon Wireless today expanded its Evolution-Data
Optimized (EV-DO) third generation (3G) wide-area network in the New
York metropolitan area.  Verizon Wireless' 3G EV-DO network enables V
CAST -- the nation's first wireless broadband multimedia service for
consumers -- and BroadbandAccess, the fastest wide-area wireless
Internet access service available in the nation.

In New York City, Verizon Wireless' V CAST and BroadbandAccess
services now are available to more residents of Brooklyn and
Queens. The services were launched in Manhattan, portions of Queens
and Brooklyn, and at LaGuardia and JFK International Airports earlier
this year.

On Long Island, the high speed data network now is available to
residents and summer vacationers along the entire southern shore and
in portions of the north shore including Port Jefferson and
Centerport.

North of the City, V CAST and BroadbandAccess services now are
available in southern Rockland County including Nyack and Pearl River,
and in southern and central portions of Westchester County including
White Plains.

In New Jersey, the service now extends south along the Jersey Shore to
the Ocean County border, west into Morris and Somerset counties, and
north to Alpine in Bergen County.  Businesses and consumers in large
portions of northeastern New Jersey including Essex, Hudson and Union
counties and at Newark Liberty International Airport have enjoyed V
CAST and BroadbandAccess services for more than six months.

      - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=50066733

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:39:24 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Federal Laws Needed on ID Theft Notice


By RACHEL BECK AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- The names and bank account details of up to 40
million credit-card holders have been exposed to fraud. Too bad the
only way that information reached the public was largely thanks to
California.

That's right, the rest of the nation has been made aware of serious
identity breaches because California forces companies to notify
consumers when such theft happens. The federal government, in the
meantime, hasn't done anything to require the same.

Even though other states are following its California's lead, Congress
can't afford to drag its feet on this national issue anymore. The
reason is simple: Consumers have the right to know when their private
information has been compromised.

      - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=50068256

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

From: Choreboy <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com>
Subject: Re: DSL Speed
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:11:52 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Robert Bonomi wrote:

> In article <telecom24.288.13@telecom-digest.org>, Choreboy
> <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:

>> At the farm, it seems to be the wire that limited my dialups to 46k
>> when I got 52k in town.

> Yes, and no.  The particular _type_of_signaling_used_ over that wire
> was limited by that wire to 46k.

>> If the wire wouldn't carry more than 46k, it wouldn't matter what
>> the telco did at their end.

> *NOT* exclusively a 'wire' limitation.  Also a limitation of the
> signalling technology employed. the distributed capacitance of the
> wire was such that it 'blurred' the signal such that reconstruction of
> the original waveform =after= the *VOICE*GRADE* analog-to-digital
> conversion in the CO switch lost the 'fidelity' required for the
> higher data rate.

>> I wonder how a DSL signal can carry 1.5M through those mile of wire.

> DSL uses a different 'signalling technology' for sending the data down
> the wire.

> The DSL signal does _not_ go through those 'voice-grade'
> analog-to-digital converters that PSTN calls do.  the signal is
> isolated before that point, and dumped into a totally _different_ kind
> of receiver.

Is DSL modulated into some sort of analog signal?  It's hard to imagine
carrying hig-frequency digital pulses on copper telephone lines.

> DSL _does_ suffer 'performance losses', as the wire length gets
> greater.  The degree of degradation is considerably worse than with
> POTS modems.  E.g., at 1,000' from the C.O. you may be able to get
> several megabits/sec.  at 15000 ft, you'll be lucky to get 256k.  At
> 18,000 ft, even 144kbit/sec is iffy.  Beyond 25,000 ft, "forget it"
> applies -- an analog POTS modem is higher performance.

The farm appears to be 35,000 feet from the central office.  My browser
often shows downloads faster than 1.5 Mb/s (150kB/s).

>>>> 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.  You could
>>>> have broadcast quality microphones and loudspeakers and it will
>>>> still sound like a telephone because of the limited bandwidth.
>>>> Since bandwidth is limited, telephone components aren't high
>>>> fidelity as it would be a waste to make them so.  (I believe the
>>>> modern "K" handset is clearer than the older "G" handset.)

>> Military AM and SSB are limited to 300-3000 Hz. Shortwave radios can
>> be filtered that way for tuning and difficult conditions.  Speach
>> comes across pretty clearly.  If telephone voices are harder to
>> understand, I think the problem must be something besides the nominal
>> bandwidth of a telephone.

> The official specification for a voice-grade POTS call is that same
> 300-3000Hz passband.  Modern digital systems deliver a 'high end' of
> 4000hz. and often have a lower 'low end' as well.

Some modern phones sound very good.  It depends on who's calling.

>>>> Does a POTS line from the CO to a house carry multiple voices?

>>> Depending on the location, often times yes.  Between central offices
>>> or within the CO almost always yes.  I mean if you live across the
>>> street from the CO you probably have dedicated copper pair, but you
>>> live some distance you probably are multiplexed over a carrier line.
>>> The degree of multiplex determines your bandwidth.

>> Would you be able to connect with V90 on a multiplexed line?

> Only in *very* rare situations.

>> As far as capacity goes, I don't know how fast is the digital stream
>> for a voice call,

> After digitalization, a standard POTS voice-grade call uses 64000
  bits/sec.

Is that between telco facilities?

>> but I'm sure DSL at 2.5Mb/s requires much more of the telco's
>> capacity.

> "Not Exactly" applies here.  The DSL signal rides the wires from the
> customer premises _to_ the telco switching facility.  *BUT* before it
> would get to the telco switching gear, it is separated out,
> segeregated, and sent to some *entirely*different* equipment -- called
> a DSLAM, if you care.  Frequently that DSLAM equipment does *NOT*
> belong to the telephone company, but to the company providing DSL
> services.  the 'upstream' connection out of the DSLAM is a dedicated
> data circuit -- possibly rented from the telco, but often _also_
> supplied by the company that runs the DSLAM.  Regardless, it is not
> using up any capacity on the Telco's VOICE network.

If the telco owns the DSLAM, won't their investment cost depend on
capacity?  If they contract for the DSLAM service, won't they be
charged according to traffic?

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

From: NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Date: 25 Jun 2005 12:30:58 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Within walking distance of CONUS is Canada.

I think some are sold there.

Maybe someone going there for their prescriptions could pick one up.

Google and also search Ebay.

Incredibly low long distance phone rates. As low as USA-Canada 1.9CPM!
Works as prepaid phone card. PIN not needed for calls from home or
cell phone. Compare the rates at https://www.OneSuite.com/ No monthly
fee or minimum. Use Promotion/SuiteTreat Code: FREEoffer23 for FREE
time.

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

From: Bruce L. Bergman <blbergman@withheld_on_request>
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:05:50 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


Patrick, please strip or mung my E-mail address from Telecom Digest
for spam purposes.  A courtesy E-mail copy of this reply was also sent
to the original poster.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:22:42 -0500, Kathleen Carmody
<councilmemberNOSPAMcarmody@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us.INVALID> wrote:

> (No lectures or legal opinions needed nor desired, please). 

> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferable 
> stateside.  There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS 
> that I know of.  Please post here any vendors that sell cellular 
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.) 

How Rude!  Do you think that I would actually give you a lecture or
legal opinion simply based on your innocent sounding question? ...

Hell Yes, I Would - and if needed, I'll do it again, whether you ask
or not.  It would be far worse if nobody had the courage to speak up.

I refer you first to the FCC Regulations on the subject, quoted and
referenced at the bottom of the reply.  There is a VERY GOOD REASON
why nobody sells or imports jamming devices like that into the United
States, because they are very illegal.

I would strongly suggest you drop all thoughts as to buying or
installing them.  It would be a fun device to keep people from making
or receiving cell calls and interrupting your City Council meetings.

But let's say someone has a heart attack while alone in a stall in the
public restroom right outside the Council Chambers, and they die while
trying to call 911 for help from their jammed cellphone.  The minute
someone figures it out (and with CSI and NCIS giving people pointers
on where to look, someone will check the phone and see the failed
calls in the Outgoing Calls log) I guarantee you that all holy hell is
going to break loose.

Or there is a disturbance in the Council Chambers, and a local
policeman is delayed in making his radio call for backup and
assistance.  Or a commercial airplane making an instrument approach
into the local airport in bad weather or heavy fog is 1/4 mile from
the runway, and suddenly sees his whole instrument landing beacon
system go blank ...

The type jammers used for this service are not very selective, they
will wipe out all communications over a broad spectrum of radio
frequencies and services including commercial, industrial, public
safety, and aeronautic services, not just the narrow segments serving
cellular telephone communications.

And if you are worried about bugging or malicious transmissions, you
are just going to have to hire an expert to actively sweep for them.
They can be anywhere in the electromagnetic spectrum, from DC to
light, and a cellular jammer will probably miss the intended target.

  --<< Bruce >>--

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/operations/blockingjamming.html

> Operations
> Blocking & Jamming 

> The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless 
> communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, 
> as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act 
> prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with 
> the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under 
> the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. 
> The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including 
> advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless 
> transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in 
> violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set 
> out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can 
> range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up 
> to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited 
> to the U.S. government.

Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700 
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address:  Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:51:34 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:22:42 -0500, Kathleen Carmody
<councilmembercarmody@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote:

> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferable 
> stateside.  There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS 
> that I know of.  Please post here any vendors that sell cellular 
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.) 

No lecture just be aware that if the FCC catches you using it in the
US you'll get fined big time.

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

Subject: Re: Breakup Revisited
From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley)
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:30:09 GMT


I always felt that the one thing we really need is total separation of
bandwidth providers from content providers -- in these days of modern
times bits is bits, who cares if it is voice or data, TV or internet,
allowing the content providers to also control the bandwidth restricts
your choices and enables the providers to price gouge to their hearts
content.

(Of course, as long as all the politicians are for sale to the highest
bidder, this is one telcom reform we'll never get :-).

>>==>> The *Best* political site <URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/> >>==+
      email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL      |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+

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

From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Companies Want _US_ to Pay For Their Mistakes
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:34:03 -0600
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.286.8@telecom-digest.org> DevilsPGD
<spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> [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. 

Why not?  If I'm taking 600 hours of time to correct everything, and
I'm paying for insurance that covers lost wages due to dealing with
fraud ...

> 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]

That's a good point -- I don't know about you, but my off-hours are more
important then my work hours.

In fact, there is even a basis in law for this, in my area overtime
pay is a minimum of 1.5x your base pay rate.

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

From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Power Strips for Home Networks
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:34:03 -0600
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.280.13@telecom-digest.org> David B. Horvath, CCP
<dhorvath@withheld_on_request wrote:

> PAT -- please remove email address, too much SPAM.

> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 17:49:42 PDT, Fred Atkinson 
> <fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:

>> I've accumulated so many devices on my home network (and some devices
>> that are not network related as well) that power strips are an issue.
>> Most of these devices have the big 'calculator charger' type of power
>> supply that plugs directly into the AC outlet.

> Yes, you are not the only one with this problem. My current solution
> is multiple power strips plugged into multiple outlets.  However, I've
> also seen (sorry, can't remember where, try a web search) short
> extension cords for use with wall-worts and power strips. The cords
> get the blocks away from the strip so you can use all the available
> power jacks.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=392778

This is the best solution I've seen so far, you can not only use the
extension for a brick, but you can also stack tall bricks over+above
smaller bricks too.

In message <telecom24.280.16@telecom-digest.org> "Howard S. Wharton"
<yhshowie@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:

> Pat,

> By daisy chaining your power strips, you are causing the first ones in
> the chain to be overloaded and possibility the circuit it's plugged into.
> And it is a fire waiting to happen. 

The risk isn't generally relevant in the case of typical brick
adapters.

I have a bunch of powerbars in the basement that are rated between 5
Amp and 12 Amps each, and are chained.  I tossed in a meter in front
of the only powerbar that actually connects to the wall and the whole
thing is actively using less then 2 Amp.

The power spikes up to 4 Amp right when the power is initially
connected, but that's about it.

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

From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: ISP Hunting
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:34:02 -0600
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.279.3@telecom-digest.org> Julian Thomas
<jt@jt-mj.net> wrote:

> In <20050619061216.5CE9F1501A@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, on 06/19/05 
> at 02:12 AM, was written:

>> 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.

> Check out bamnet.net

200 minutes later it has cost me more then ISP.COM would cost me for
the entire month.  I'll probably spend more then 200 minutes a day
online, so I think I'll go for an unlimited plan.

Thanks for the suggestion though :)

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

From: panoptes@iquest.net
Subject: Re: Cardholders Kept in Dark After Breach -- Washington Post
Date: 25 Jun 2005 10:59:13 -0700


Steve Sobol wrote:

> The clearinghouse has the account numbers. The first six digits of a
> MC/Visa number indicate the issuing bank, and Discover and Amex cards
> are only issued by one company. (Diners Club too, IIRC.) The
> clearinghouse SHOULD be informing the bank, and the bank SHOULD be
> informing their customers.

At least one bank is informing their customers.

"Your Visa account number was in that group of accounts.  We have
already established a new account number to replace your old account.
Please watch for your new cards in the mail in approximately 10
business days.  We will not block your existing account until we
believe you have had time to receive the new cards.  While we believe
that your account is secure we are taking this step to insure that
your account will not be used for fraudulent activity in the future."

The letter goes on to remind me that I am not liable for fraudulent
transactions and that I should review my statements and make any
disputes in writing.

They got my street name wrong on this letter; my bill (which arrived
in the same batch of mail) has it correctly.  This suggests that
someone is putting in a lot of keyboard time.

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

From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Dial/Touch Tone Speeds (was Re: Bell Divestiture)
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:36:18 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications


Robert Bonomi wrote:

> In article <telecom24.286.2@telecom-digest.org>,
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>> 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.

> Third-party manufacturers of phones for direct attach to the PSTN
> offered it from nearly day one.  That way you could have th 'fancy
> looking' push-button phone _without_ having to pay the telco extra
> every month for Touch-Tone(tm) service.

I recall a few models that only did DP, but with buttons like a DTMF
pad.  The far more common application, though, was a phone with a DTMF
pad, but could be switched between DTMF and DP.  There were still
pockets of switches around until into the 1990s that could not handle
DTMF.

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

From: Patrick Townson <ptownson@cableone.net>
Subject: Last Laugh! You Got the Wrong Number
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:26:18 -0500


Some 'Dancing' Voters Call Wrong Number

MOUNT PLEASANT, Mich. - An apparent phone number mix-up has voters for
an ABC reality show calling a central Michigan answering service
instead. Fans of "Dancing with the Stars" were mistakenly calling a
toll-free 888 number to vote for the dance team lead by actor John
O'Hurley, known for his role as J. Peterman on the sitcom "Seinfeld."

The phone number to vote for his team was an 866 number, according to
ABC's Web site.

"People are saying that they are getting the number off the screen," phone
operator Alannah Turnwald told the Morning Sun for a recent story.

Kathy Klein, owner of Mt. Pleasant Answering Service, said she was
getting 200 to 300 mistaken calls on Wednesdays, when the show airs.

"You can tell when the show ends at every time zone because the phones
ring off the hook at the top of every hour," she said.

Calls cost Klein's answering service 6 cents per minute, plus the cost
of an extra employee she has been forced to hire to weed them out. She
said she wants ABC to reimburse her for the calls.

The network learned of the mix-up Thursday and is investigating, said
Lauren Tobin, a spokeswoman for ABC.

"It's clearly a case of people misreading the number on the screen,"
Tobin said.

Information from: Morning Sun, http://www.themorningsun.com/

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.

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.

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


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 #291
******************************