TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:00:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 293

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Should VOIP be Put on 'Hold'? (Lisa Minter)
    VOIP Security Concerns are Severe, Say Some Experts (Lisa Minter)
    Spit in Here, Please (Lisa Minter)
    Technology Has its Own Hangups For Users (Lisa Minter)
    WECO 302 Wiring Question (David Perrussel)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Jammer (Dale Farmer)

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.  

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

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Should VOIP be Put on 'Hold' For Now?
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:59:17 -0500


A controversial series of articles about VOIP came across my desk over
the weekend; I am sharing them with you to get some opinions on the
topic.

Lisa

Let's Put VOIP on Hold
By David Coursey   May 17, 2005

Opinion: Until better defenses are available against phone hackers and
voice spam, hang up.

So you think your buying a VOIP telephone system for your company was
really smart? You certainly have reason to: Your users love the tight
integration between the phone system, their e-mail, and other PC
features. And the chief financial officer loves the "deal" you got on
long-distance rates. Everyone agrees: You're a hero.

Not so fast-and, probably, not for long.

How do you think people are going to feel about your VOIP (voice over
IP) system when they arrive one morning to find their voice mail boxes
completely filled with voice spam? When they read about hackers
listening in on what's being said in people's offices, even though the
phone is still on the hook?

VOIP has been around for a few years and, so far, seems to have been
pretty secure. But that's only because the bad guys have yet to turn
it into a major target. When they do, life promises to be very
different. And not in a good way.

Last week, I moderated another of our eSeminars, this one an
eye-opening discussion of VOIP security issues. I say "issues" because
there weren't too many solutions to discuss.

The panel included Wayne Rash, who writes much of our VOIP security
coverage; Andrew Graydon, of the VOIP Security Alliance, a trade
group; and Tom Leh, of VOIP Inc. a vendor.

[Lisa notes: See another article today here regards VOIP security threats.]

If you've got an hour, you can watch and listen to a replay of the
presentations. I walked away from the event convinced there shouldn't
be any more VOIP installations until we have a better idea of how to
protect them.

VOIP takes all the security problems associated with PCs and all the
security problems associated with the Internet, and throws in a bunch
of new telephony hardware, new protocols, and different user behavior
and expectations. The possibilities for voice spamming, called SPIT,
for SPam over Internet Telephony, ought to give every network
administrator pause.

[Lisa notes: We also talk about SPIT {or VOIP spam} in this issue and
the potential for SPIT, or voice spamming.]

Then comes eavesdropping, both of phone calls and room conversations,
and a whole new set of opportunities for what used to be called phone
phreaking.

We really don't know what's possible for the VOIP hacker, but we do
know that the hobby hacker has been replaced by the criminal
hacker. On thing's certain: This time phone phreaking won't be a
fairly harmless bunch of kids blowing Cap'n Crunch whistles to get
free long-distance calls.

ost people don't realize how secure our telephone network has
been. Sure, you get spam phone calls, despite the "no-call" list.

But, on the whole, your hardwired telephone is quite secure,
especially the one in your home. Getting at your conversations
generally requires a physical tap on your line. Modern cordless
telephones can be hacked, but you still have to be close enough to
pick up the radio signals.

With IP telephony, an intrusion can be launched from almost
anywhere. And even if the VOIP system is well-protected, each PC with
a "soft phone" application installed provides a potential door for a
hacker to exploit.

On basic principles, I am not wild about running our nation's critical
telecom infrastructure entirely over the Internet. Or even mostly.
There is too much at stake and the network is too insecure and perhaps
too brittle for the job.

Despite my grave misgivings, however, VOIP is here to stay. But until
we have seen what the hackers can do, I'll keep VOIP away from my
network and I recommend you do the same.

Check out eWEEK.com's VOIP & Telephony Center for the latest
news, views and analysis on voice over IP and telephony.

Copyright 1996-2005 Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc.



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Next, Lisa presents an article on 
security concerns when you install VOIP.   PAT]

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

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Severe Vulnerabilities Possible in VOIP According to Experts
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:02:30 -0500


By Wayne Rash
April 5, 2005

Dr. Shashi Phoha, director of the Information Technology Laboratory at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said she thinks
that the growth of VOIP technology brings with it some significant
risks that users need to be prepared to address.

"The vulnerabilities are severe," she said, pointing to a list that
included ways to spoof or spy that aren't easily available on regular
phones.

One of the biggest sources for vulnerabilities is the involvement of
personal computers in creating VOIP solutions.

She said that while it may not appear to be that critical, the fact
that it can be relatively easy to hack into computers can also expose
the phone system to fraud and abuse.

Phoha's list went on to address the availability of open source
eavesdropping tools, that digital phone calls could be edited by
digital voice editors to add, remove or change words without any
possibility of detection.

She also said that the government was worried that it would be
relatively easy with VOIP phones to bug a room using on-hook audio.

This is a technique in which hackers or spies can turn on the
microphone in a VOIP handset while it remains on its cradle.

This way, the phone would appear to be operating properly while
actually transmitting every sound within its range to a remote site.

Other things that keep Phoha worried, she says, are the
vulnerabilities related to soft phones, which are applications that
work like phones, but are entirely software and are run on personal
computers.

She said that these phones are vulnerable to worms, viruses and Trojan
horses, and could spread these problems throughout the voice network.

[Lisa notes: And you know, she has good points. Consider how many 
computers are 'Zombies' which spend their time attacking other 
computers. Would it be that much of a hassle to continue the
'zombification' to include the VOIP terminals on computers? Read my
third article today in this series about SPIT (spam over Internet 
telephony) which has begun to make its appearance.]

She says that what worries her the most, however, are "attacks we
haven't thought of yet."

Phoha made her remarks at a panel discussing VOIP held at the National
Press Club a few weeks ago.

Phoha said that it's possible to combat some of the threats her
organization is finding by careful design and risk analysis.

She said that risk can also be reduced by using encryption of the
voice traffic, and by using VOIP-specific intrusion detection systems
and firewalls.

She also advocated keeping data traffic and VOIP on logically separate
networks. She noted that her group is also working to develop new
security architectures for use by the government, but that commercial
and private users should also consider following the NIST
recommendations, which are available on the agency's Web site.

Check out eWEEK.com's VOIP & Telephony Center for the latest news,
views and analysis on voice over IP and telephony.

Copyright 1996-2005 Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc.

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

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Spit in Here, Please
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:00:47 -0500


SPIT Into This, Please
By Wayne Rash
March 16, 2005

Opinion: VOIP faces threats from spam and offshoring, but how bad?


Picture the world of voice traffic on the Internet as a dark and
forbidding place, rife with mobsters, con artists and shadowy sellers
of dubious products.

Now picture getting hundreds of calls from these people every day.

Imagine your worst day ever of telemarketing, back before the Do Not
Call list, and then magnify it 10 times over.

That's the depressing future of VOIP (voice over IP), according to a
report just released by the Burton Group.

According to analyst Daniel Golding, the report's author, low costs
brought on by outsourcing and offshoring, coupled with VOIP
communications that are essentially free, can bring you exactly that
kind of future, unless you take precautions.

According to Golding, current federal laws prohibiting such
unsolicited calls are also part of the driving force for those
overseas call centers.

"The big issue here is: How much do I have to spend to get a certain
number of responses?" Golding explained.

He predicts that most of the calls will come from organizations
operating illegally or committing fraud.

He said this will mean that they won't care about the Do Not Call
list, or about the hostility telemarketers currently meet.

"They don't care if 99 percent of the people hate them," Golding
said. "They know that 1 percent are idiots."

Despite all of the hoopla about just how much of a problem VOIP spam
might be, there's little agreement.

In fact, there's little agreement on what constitutes VOIP spam
(sometimes called "SPIT," for spam over Internet telephony).

On one hand, you'll hear that U.S. consumers are about to feel an
onslaught of tens of thousands of telemarketing calls from overseas
call centers taking advantage of cheap calling, and using their
location to avoid U.S. do-not-call regulations.

On another, you'll hear that the real threat is more traditional spam
aimed at VOIP systems, or perhaps denial of service attacks on these
systems.

And on a third hand, you'll hear that the problem isn't all that bad,
and that it can be managed.

Copyright 1996-2005 Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S.  Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings, Inc.

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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So ordinarily, we hear many good things
about VOIP; how it will revolutionize the telecom industry, etc, which
I am sure is the case. But there is a dark side to it all, as these
three special articles in this issue of the Digest indicate. Will in
fact the people who have turned so many computers into Zombies
continue their work with VOIP? If you think not, then why not?  PAT]

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

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Technology Has its Own Hangups For Users
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:54:27 -0500


Dateline: Pittsburgh, Pa. Sunday, June 26, 2005

Technology has its own hangups for users. For better or worse, techn-
ology that allows us to screen callers can throw a wrench into timely
communications.

We want answers, and we want them fast.

And when the speed with which these answers arrive isn't up to our
expectations, we look for someone -- or something -- to blame.

Technology, it seems, is an easy target.

In a recent survey, 67 percent of the 1,750 people interviewed by
Siemens Communications Inc. took target practice at telephone and
online communications, saying they spend too much time leaving voice
mails and sending e-mails when quick answers are what they need. And
when answers finally do arrive, these same people reported the calls
often came back too late.

Society is plugged in as never before -- with PDAs, cell phones,
e-mail, faxes, caller ID and voice mail -- and experts offer varying
opinions about the cause and effect. Some say Americans are feeling
increasingly unplugged, disconnected and out of control, trapped in a
never-ending game of phone tag. Others say that the ability to screen
phone calls through caller ID, sift through e-mail and, particularly
for businesses, handle customer calls through automated voice systems
is worth any inconvenience and potential waiting game.

"Isn't it interesting that we blame the technology?" said Richard
Thompson, a professor and director of the graduate program in
telecommunications at the University of Pittsburgh. Thompson worked
for 20 years at AT&T Bell Labs before coming to Pitt in 1989.

"Isn't this like being annoyed about traffic congestion, so we blame
the inventors of the automobile? It sounds to me like when people need
information from someone else, that 67 percent of them put off getting
it until the last possible minute.

"I think this complaint says a lot about how busy we are and how
hectic our jobs are, on both sides of the phone call or e-mail, but
especially on the calling party's side."

Barry Lawrence of Siemens, the survey folks, says productivity is
declining because it's so hard to reach people. And our personal lives
have grown more frustrating because it's hard to reach a live person
at your health club or day-care center. The communications technology
designed to make our lives easier is affecting our work, lifestyles
and mental health, Lawrence said.

Playing phone tag also is making our skins thinner, said Wu Zhou, a
senior analyst for Boston-based IDC, a top telecommunications research
firm, because we never know when or if the person we're trying to
reach listens to voice mail or reads e-mails.

But technology doesn't give people a license to be rude, said Martin
Weiss, associate professor of telecommunications at Pitt. "It's like
the argument about guns," he said -- do you blame the people who use
the technology for not returning calls or e-mails, or the technology
that allows them to screen your communication? And is caller ID
something the complainer covets himself because he can screen, say,
persistent telemarketers?

"You can't have it both ways," Weiss said.

Zhou argued that those who do listen to voice mails and read e-mails
could be using that time more productively.

It's a balancing act, these questions of civility versus service,
efficiency versus delay, and which side you fall on depends mostly on
which side of the phone line you happen to be on.

Out of reach

"We are so bombarded by information that we are defending ourselves
with tools such as caller ID," said Pier Forni, an expert on manners
at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and author of "Choosing
Civility: The 25 Rules of Considerate Conduct."

"If a talkative friend is calling and you are busy, you have the good,
traditional option of answering. Just state that you are busy, and
that you will call back later."

But not responding to voice or e-mails "is a form of
non-acknowledgement; hence it's rude," Forni said.

Once again, Pitt's Thompson advised not to blame the messenger.

In an e-mail -- a prompt answer to a query about this article -- he
set up a premise, explaining that he is "usually someone from whom
people want information, instead of the one seeking the
information. People have a question about my master's program, so they
call me or send an e-mail."

He notes that most questions could be answered by viewing the
University's Web site, "but they're too lazy or too busy to work
independently." So a percentage of that group might call him and wind
up leaving voice mail, setting up a potential phone-tag situation.

"If they had sent me an e-mail, with the question in the e-mail, I
could respond directly, at least by the next day," Thompson said.

"I think many of us haven't learned how to use the appropriate
technology for the given task."

Any human will do ...

The one universal villain in advanced telecommunications seems to be
automated voice mail. All telephone users have visited that special
ring of Hades where automated menus reside.

Last week, Gene Dwyer of Crafton called the Pennsylvania American
Water Co. to report a problem with muddy, rusty water.

"I went through three or four button pushes until a lady came on
wanting my account number, my Social Security number and telephone
number, and then they were willing to listen to my story," says Dwyer.

The woman told him they hadn't received any other complaints but that
one of their water experts would look into it.

Dwyer also called KQV radio, reporting the muddy water as a news tip.
They, too, said they'd look into it.

"You go through a long series of automated phone menus, then you pick
the number closest to your topic," Dwyer says. "Go through four menus,
then in the fourth menu, you go through two additional sub menus."

When Dwyer has called Duquesne Light during a power outage, he has
been given another number to call.

"You have to get a flashlight to make the call," he says.

"I won't even get into trying to contact a doctor, credit-card
company, Blue Cross, airlines, banks, etc.," says writer Patricia
Orendorff Smith, 62, of Indiana, Indiana County. "I am put on hold
after punching number after number only to hear a computerized
voice. It drives me nuts. I want to talk to a real live person, one in
the flesh."

Joanna L. Krotz, in a report titled "'Voice-mail jail' and other
blunders of automation" for www.microsoft.com, acknowledged that
"increasingly, customer care is being managed and massaged by
automation."  She added that more than 70 percent of midmarket
companies say they plan to invest in contact center or e-mail
management systems within the next two years, according to a survey
from AMR Research, a Boston-based market analyst.

Although automated systems may come at a cost to customers' time and
nerves, they also save the company money, a savings that should filter
back to clients.

"There's no question that computerized services offer dramatic
savings," Krotz wrote. "Typically, it costs an exorbitant $50 or more
for a human agent to field a customer's call. By contrast,
self-service interactions on the Web run mere pennies. In between,
combinations of human agents and technologies ... cost a few bucks per
call."

Weiss admitted that automated voice mail isn't winning any fans.

"I hate them, everybody hates them. But does it mean that, let's say,
the bank having them can offer me cheaper services? If it does, then
it's a trade-off. Life is full of trade-offs. This is just one of
them."

Interpreting the survey

We began with a poll that says a majority of us are ticked off about
the time ticking away as we wait for an answer.

The follow-up question we asked experts is: Are the trade-offs -- such
as caller ID and cheaper services -- worth the waiting game?

"I think the technology has raised our expectation that we can get the
information we need easier and sooner," Thompson said. "Like the
automobile has raised our expectation that we can commute from Harmar
Township to Smithfield Street in 25 minutes. Since we can't do it,
because we spend 20 minutes trying to get through the traffic light at
Route 28 and the 31st Street Bridge, we vent our frustration on the
technology in some survey."

If the survey implies that things are worse than they used to be, then
it's giving a false impression, Thompson said.

"I don't want to appear defensive about telecom technology, but what
did we do before we had voice mail and e-mail? That was a different
time, when we all weren't so frantic, so it's hard to make an A-B
comparison."

The survey reminded Pitt's Weiss of a time when caller ID was a case
for the Federal Communications Commissions and the courts.

"Back around the late '80s, early '90s, one of the big debates was
whether caller ID should be allowed at all because of privacy issues,"
he said.

"Some 15 years later, it's become ubiquitous," he said. "And where
before we were complaining about privacy invasion ... now we have it
and people are taking advantage of it. You can't have it both ways."

Liz Raphael Helegesen, 41, who records messages for corporate
America's voice mail systems, screens calls with caller ID and says
she returns all voice mails.

"When I'm on the other line, in a conference, in a recording session,
parenting or eating a meal, it would be inappropriate to interrupt an
existing conversation, meeting or family time to take a phone call,"
she said.

To Helegesen, caller ID is an important tool.

"People rely on caller ID because they don't want to talk to you,"
said Jeff Kagan, a national telecommunications analyst in
Atlanta. Added management consultant April Callis of Lansing, Mich.:
People use voice mail "to collect calls they don't want to deal with
and don't plan on returning."

Weiss quotes an article that he thinks sums it up when he said caller
ID and other telecom tools are "a way of defending ourselves from the
information onslaught, and I think that's true."

The future, he adds, is bound to include more intelligent screening
devices as the onslaught of information continues unabated.

"I think we'll see a lot of different techniques for helping us cope,"
Weiss said.

But that doesn't mean we'll see an end to complaints.

(Bill Hendrick of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Post-Gazette
staff writer L.A. Johnson contributed to this story.)

Copyright 1997-2005 PG Publishing Co., Inc.


NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S.  Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, PG Publishing, Pittsburgh, PA.

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

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

From: David Perrussel <diamond45@withheld_on_request>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:46:54 -0400
Subject: WECO 302 Wiring Question


Pat, please withhold my posting address for obvious resons.

I have a friend who has an old Western Electric 302 phone. He would
like to hook it up to the modern PSTN network, but doesn't know how to
connect the wires. This is how he explains it:

Inside is a transformer with connections labeled GN, R, Y(L2), L1, and
C, and on the base is a terminal block with connections labeled GND
and K.  The connections labeled Y(L2), and L1 have screws for
additional connections that appear to have been removed; the screws
are unscrewed up off the metal connector.

Could someone provide us with instructions of how to connect this
phone to a modern phone jack?  We would appreciate any help you can
give me.

Thanks!

David Perrussel


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I _thought_ most WE 302 phones had
all (or most of their guts) in the 'side ringer' box which was mounted
on the wall. PAT]

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

From: Dale Farmer <dale@cybercom.net>
Organization: The  fuzz in the back of the fridge. 
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:49:03 GMT


Fred Atkinson wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:05:50 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
> <blbergman@withheld_on_request> wrote:

>>> 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.

> Don't miunderstand me here.  I basically agree with your position.
> But didn't the more recent communications act render the
> Communications Act of 1934 obsolete?  I don't think that cell phone
> technology was considered when it was written, either.

> I do think that perhaps use of such jamming devices (if properly
> designed) might be useful in prisons where there is a problem with
> contraband cell phones running being used for drug deals and other
> problematic things.  Of course, we'd have to address the issues and
> how to correctly make it legal for use (so that situations like you've
> described can be avoided).

> Fred

And here you fall into that common fallacy.  'We can't have these
people doing this bad behavior that we outlawed.  So lets ban one of
their instrumentalities to stop their bad behavior.'  Remember how
effective those laws against flagrant beeper use in the 80s were at
stopping the drug dealers?  You would be far better served by going
after the root causes of the bad behavior, then by blocking this or
that object from functioning, or making the object more difficult to
obtain legally for the ordinary citizen.

    --Dale

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


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 #293
******************************