Pat, the Editor

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

 

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:21:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 295

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Supreme Court Overturns Ruling on Cable Internet Lines (Lisa Minter)
    File Trading Networks Can Be Held Liable (Lisa Minter)
    Supreme Court Backs Cable in FCC v. Brand X (Telecom dailyLead USTA)
    Re: DSL Speed (Neal McLain)
    Re: DSL Speed (Choreboy)
    Re: WECO 302 Wiring Question (Joseph)
    Re: WECO 302 Wiring Question (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (Clark W. Griswold, Jr.)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (mc)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (Joseph)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: Using Comcast to Host Web Site (Clark W. Griswold, Jr.)
    Re: Using Comcast to Host Web Site (T. Sean Weintz)
    Re: Using Comcast to Host Web Site (Bit Twister)
    Re: Cardholders Kept in Dark After Breach (mc)
    Re: Cardholders Kept in Dark After Breach (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Beginning of the End for AT&T (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Objections to SBC Purchase of AT&T (Steve Sobol)

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: Court Overturns Ruling on Cable Internet Lines
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:30 -0500


The Supreme Court on Monday overturned a ruling that cable high-speed
Internet lines must be opened to rival online service providers,
handing a victory to the Federal Communications Commission.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling
that cable high-speed Internet service, known as broadband, has a
telecommunications component and is subject to traditional telephone
network access requirements.

The appeals court overturned an FCC decision in 2002 that cable
broadband was an information service and therefore free from most
traditional telephone service rules, like requirements to lease
network access to rivals.

At the time, FCC officials said the move was necessary to spur more
investment in high-speed Internet services. Cable companies have
invested billions of dollars in upgrading their networks and are
aggressively pushing those services.

Telephone companies, which also offer Internet services, have long
complained that the FCC rules put them at a competitive disadvantage
because they have to lease some of their high-speed Internet lines to
rivals.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the government and cable companies
argued the appeals court did not extend the required deference to the
agency's expertise and decision-making process. Internet service
providers opposed the appeal.

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed in the majority opinion that the
appeals court had erred.

He said the FCC's conclusion that broadband cable modem companies are
exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation is a lawful
construction of the Communications Act.

Justices Antonin Scalia, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
dissented.

The cable industry has about 21 million high-speed Internet access
subscribers. Independent Internet service providers like EarthLink
Inc.  and public interest groups have worried that, without some
safeguards by the FCC, consumers would have limited choices for
providers or Web-surfing capabilities.


Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.


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.

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

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: File-Trading Networks Can be Held Liable
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:07:16 -0500


A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Internet
file-trading networks can be held liable when their users copy music,
movies and other protected works without permission.

The justices set aside a U.S. appeals court ruling that the
peer-to-peer networks cannot be held liable for copyright infringement
because they can be used for legitimate purposes as well.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of
promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the
resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David Souter
wrote for the court.


Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. 

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 Editor's Note: Now wait a minute ... FTP is also a
'file trading scheme' is it not?  Admittedly a bit longer to transfer
files, and perhaps sort of klutzy compared to the newer schemes, but
it is used to transfer files from one place to another, is it not?
And the Supreme Court ruled today that 'legitimate purposes' will not
be a good enough reason any longer. So point one, if I am willing to
spend hours or days downloading an illegal copy of a video from
somewhere via my FTP account, that means Cable One (or heck, even
mit.edu for example) can get sued for 'facilitating' the device (FTP)
which made the transfer possible? Or will FTP somehow be treated
'differently'?  Point two, what about VCRs, tape recorders, and the
like: all have legitimate purposes, but the Supremes said today that
isn't good enough ... will they be treated 'differently' also?  Point
three, what about when the _real villians_ in the eyes of the Music
and Film Industry _totally repudiate_ the transfer of 'illegal' files
and insist (on their web sites and elsewhere) that the only intended
purpose of their software (or devices) is to swap  public domain
files and that they (the villians) totally repudiate the transfer of
illegal stuff. Might that be enough to prevent lawsuits; that in 
combination with them inquiring 'why are we getting sued but MIT and
Harvard are _not_ getting sued (with their FTP stuff)?'  PAT] 

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:31:39 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Supreme Court Backs Cable in FCC v. Brand X


Telecom dailyLead from USTA
June 27, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=22641&l=2017006

		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Supreme Court backs cable in FCC v. Brand X
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Supreme Court rules file-sharing sites may be sued
* Cingular interested in iTunes phone
* IPTV finds acceptance, growth in Asia
USTA SPOTLIGHT 
* Register for TELECOM '05 by June 30 and Save $300!
HOT TOPICS
* BT avoids breakup
* France Telecom eyes Cable & Wireless takeover
* Siemens gets serious about VoIP
* Cities worry VoIP will erode tax revenue
* NTT DoCoMo revs 4G
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Extreme takes wraps off Wi-Fi solution
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Cable, phone companies seek relief from franchise regs

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=22641&l=2017006

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 05:26:56 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com
Subject: Re: DSL Speed


Choreboy <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:

> A relative has a farm. His phone service comes in on 700 yards
> of ordinary telephone cable buried along his driveway.  Last
> week he got Bellsouth DSL.  It comes in on the same conductors
> as before, but I've seen speeds fifty times faster than dialup

And in a subsequent post, wrote:
 
> Between the CO and the customer, isn't voice service just bare
> wire?

Not necessarily.  But let's clarify some terminology first.

I assume that:

  - By "between the CO and the customer," you mean what's
    commonly known as the "local loop."

  - By "bare wire" you don't really mean "bare" (as in
    uninsulated); you're simply implying that there's nothing in
    the wirepair, other than copper conductors, that would affect
    the transmission of signals.

Based on those assumptions, here's an attempt to explain "local loop":
it's a pair of metallic (usually copper) conductors between the
customer's premises and the telco's facilities.  The conductors are
designated "ring" and "tip."  These terms originated from the physical
configuration of the plugs used in old manual switchboards.  Photo:
http://tinyurl.com/9pjla .  Note that the term "ring," as used here,
does not mean "ringing the telephone."

The two conductors are usually twisted together, and contained inside
a cable along with several other wirepairs.  At the customer's
premises, the conductors may run parallel (not twisted) in the drop
cable from the pole (or pedestal) to the building.

At the telco's end, the loop may terminate at the CO, or it may
terminate at a "digital loop carrier remote terminal" (DLCRT, or just
RT).  Telcos often deploy RTs to provide POTS service to outlying
areas (e.g., new residential neighborhoods or business parks) in order
to reduce the number and/or length of wirepairs needed to provide
service to additional customers.  Photo: http://tinyurl.com/dlj7o .

Each RT is connected to a host CO, and from the point of view of the
customer, it's indistinguishable from the CO.  POTS lines served from
the RT are switched at the CO; the RT simply relays signals back and
forth between the customer and the CO.  Numbers are part of the same
NPA-NXX blocks as the host CO.

Each RT is connected to its host CO by one or more digital circuits.
Depending on the number of POTS lines needed, the digital connection
can be as simple as a single T1 implemented over two copper wirepairs,
or it can be some multiplexed combination of several T1s implemented
over coax, fiber, or microwave.  See http://tinyurl.com/9oqru .

Whether or not these digital circuits are part of the "local loop" is
a matter of some confusion: I've heard it both ways.  For the purpose
of this explanation, I don't include them.

Now slightly restating the original definition, we can state: the
local loop consists of two copper conductors between the customer's
premises and the telco's CO or RT.

For POTS service, this copper pair carries an amazing number of signals:

  - Balanced baseband analog voice signals in the range 
    300 to 3000 Hz., carried in both directions simultaneously.

  - Audio control signals carried in the same 300-3000 voice
    passband: DTMF signaling tones, dialtone, ring, busy, fault
    tones, etc.

  - DC loop current resulting from a DC bias voltage ("battery")
    applied at the CO or RT.  Originally, this current was
    necessary to operate the carbon microphones (or "transmitters"
    as they were called) of older telephones.  Modern telephones
    don't use carbon mikes, but they still need DC operating power
    for their transistor or IC circuits.  Because this voltage is
    applied directly across the talk circuit, it must be an
    absolutely pure DC voltage (no noise, no ripple).  Typical
    battery voltages, applied at the CO or RT, are:
         Tip  = ground
         Ring = -48 volts

  - On hook/off hook status, implemented by interrupting the
    DC loop current:
         Loop open = no current = on hook.
         Loop closed = current > 20 ma. = off hook.

  - Rotary-dial pulses, implemented by interrupting the DC loop
    current at specified intervals:
         One pulse  = "1"
         Two pulses = "2" etc.
         Ten pulses = "0"

  - Caller ID data, carried as analog data in the voice passband.

  - Ring voltage to ring the customer's phone.  The typical ring
    voltage for a single-party line is 90 volts at 20 Hz,
    asserted across the ring and tip conductors.  In party-line
    service, several alternatives have been used:
         Different frequencies (up to about 70 Hz).
         Different connections (tip-to-ground; ring-to-ground)
         Different ring cadences (one long, two short, etc.)
         Combinations of above.

All of the above signals are carried at frequencies below 4000 Hz.
Although the voice passband is limited to 300-3000 Hz, the actual
range of the audio channel extends to 4000 Hz.

The 3000-Hz cutoff represents the highest frequency necessary for good
voice communication.  That may not be very good by modern hi-fi
standards, but it's fine for voice.

Dialup modems (data, fax, home-security, whatever) all utilize this
same frequency band.  There are several modulation schemes floating
around, but they all do basically the same thing: they modulate the
data signals onto one or more analog audio carriers, which are then
carried over the loop in the 300-3000 Hz voice band.

Every audio signal arriving at the CO (or RT) is digitized at a rate
of 8000 samples per second before any further switching or
transmission takes place.  This sampling rate is dictated by the
Nyquist Sampling Theorem, which states that the sampling rate must be
at least twice the highest frequency being sampled.  See
http://tinyurl.com/474f9

After sampling, each sample is quantized at one of 256 discrete
levels, and the resulting value is encoded as an 8-bit binary number.
The final result is a PCM data stream of 64,000 bits per second.  This
data stream is then transported to the customer's ISP over the PSTN.

Note that dialup-modem data signals carried in the 300-3000 Hz voice
passband are not demodulated at the CO or RT; instead, they are
sampled at 8000 sps just like voice or any other audio signal.  This
fact imposes an absolute theoretical maximum dial-up data rate of
64Kbps.  As other contributors have noted, it's impossible to attain
even that rate in practice due to synchronization errors between the
user's modem and the sampling rate.

Note further that this 4000-Hz limitation is imposed by the CO (or RT)
equipment, not by the wires themselves.  It's possible to use
frequencies above 4000 Hz for other signals.  And that's exactly what
DSL does.  At the CO, a separate piece of equipment, called a "Digital
Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer" (DSLAM) is connected ahead of the
voice processing equipment so that it can provide an independent path
for the DSL signals.  Small DSLAMs can be installed in RTs.  The DSLAM
acts as a modem at the telco's end of the loop: it communicates with
the customer's DSL modem using RF carriers in two frequency bands:
Uplink (Modem to DSLAM) 30- 110 KHz Downlink (DSLAM to Modem) 110-1100
KHz

The DSLAM demodulates uplinked data carriers to recover the original
data stream.  It then sends that data stream to the customer's ISP
over whatever data link the ISP has installed (which might even be
another DSL link).  For downlink data, the DSLAM accepts data from the
ISP and modulates it onto a downlink carrier for transmission to the
customer's DSL modem.  The maximum speed is limited by the speed of
the two data links, the equipment involved, and the policies of the
telco and the ISP.  Images: Large DSLAM for CO installation:
http://tinyurl.com/7atcq Small DSLAM for RT installation:
http://tinyurl.com/7nobj

NOTE THIS DISTINCTION:

 - Dialup modem signals are carried to your ISP over the
   PSTN as a 64Kbps digital representation of the analog
   signal that your dialup modem originally generated.

 - DSL modem signals are carried to your ISP as the actual
   data stream your DSL modem started with.

Choreboy also asked or commented:

> Are there inline amps [between the CO and the customer]?

There are no inline amps, but there are plenty of other things that
can impair DSL signals (and, for that matter, POTS):

NOISE.  Wirepairs inside a multipair cable are not individually
shielded (although the cable as a whole may be shielded).  Each
wirepair is twisted so that inductive crosstalk from neighboring
wirepairs is cancelled out, but some residual crosstalk (particularly
from other DSL-carrying loops) may not be completely cancelled.
External signals, such as power-line transients or AM radio station
carriers, may be inductively coupled into the cable.  Drop cables at
customer premises are usually not shielded; these cables are also
vulnerable to external noise sources, particularly from nearby
power-line transients.

All of these noise sources collectively impair the ability of the loop
to carry DSL signals.

Noise can be mitigated by careful testing to track down noise sources,
and then by making appropriate repairs.  Several manufacturers make
test equipment for this purpose; see http://tinyurl.com/7pnbz for an
example.

SIGNAL ATTENUATION.  Like any other electrical circuit, telco
wirepairs comply with a fundamental law of physics: the higher the
frequency, and/or the longer the wire, the greater the attenuation.
This situation results from the interaction between the interconductor
capacitance and the DC resistance of the conductors themselves.  Taken
together, these two parameters cause the wirepair to act like an RC
circuit (textbooks frequently represent a wirepair as series of lumped
RC circuits; see http://tinyurl.com/cm5mn for an example).

This problem can be mitigated by careful selection of transmission
voltages and by judicious consideration of the tradeoff between loop
length and transmission speed.  Ultimately, however, this situation is
one reason for the limitation on the length of loops that can be used
for DSL.

LOAD COILS.  The frequency-dependent attenuation characteristics of
the loop (as described above) also affect voice band frequencies
(300-3000 Hz), resulting in rolloff of the higher frequencies of voice
signals.  To solve this problem, telcos have traditionally installed
"load coils" at 6000-foot intervals on long (typically >18K feet)
loops.  A load coil is a small inductor installed across the
conductors to cancel the affects of interconductor capacitance.
Although load coils reduce high-frequency rolloff within the voice
band, they cause severe attenuation above 4000 Hz.  See
http://tinyurl.com/8njv3 .

This problem can be resolved by removing the load coils and/or by
restricting DSL service to loops without load coils.  Of course,
removing the load coils brings back the original problem: rolloff in
the voice band.  Furthermore, any attempt to remove load coils assumes
that the telco actually knows where they are (anyone who has ever
worked with telco outside-plant records will recognize the futility of
that assumption).  Appropriate test equipment can be used to determine
if load coils are present, and to indicate their approximate
locations.

BRIDGED TAPS.  In a typical telco distribution network, big multipair
"feeder" cables leave of the CO or the RT, and head off throughout the
service territory, often along main streets.  Smaller (fewer wirepair)
distribution cables split off from the feeders to serve the customers
in a "serving area."  As the distribution cables pass through the
serving area, "drop terminals" are installed at intervals.  From these
terminals, drop cables feed individual buildings.  A single-family
home is usually connected by a two- or three-pair drop; larger
buildings are connected by appropriately larger drop cables.

In areas where outside plant (OSP) is installed on utility poles,
telco drop terminals are called "aerial terminals" or "boots";
typically, a terminal is installed at each pole.  Images:

   Aerial terminal:     http://tinyurl.com/7qzan
   Aerial terminal:     http://tinyurl.com/74y7y
   Pole with terminal:  http://tinyurl.com/7qqru
   Drawing of interior: http://tinyurl.com/b62ej page 74 of 77

In areas where OSP is buried, drop terminals are installed in
pedestals.  In urban areas, telco peds are usually installed in
easements along rear-property lines.  In rural areas, peds are usually
installed along roadways, at the edge of the right-of-way.  Telco peds
are often placed in "ped clusters" near CATV peds, power peds, and
power transformers.  

Images: Telco ped, closed: http://tinyurl.com/apd3y 
        Telco ped,   open: http://tinyurl.com/8pok7 Ped
                  cluster: http://tinyurl.com/cqjk7

Each drop terminal has:

  - Two cable ports for the distribution cable: input and output.
    When a drop terminal is installed, these ports are often
    sealed as protection against water intrusion.  These seals 
    make it virtually impossible to gain access to the individual
    wirepairs within the distribution cable.

  - Several drop ports, one for each wirepair in the distribution
    cable.  These ports are usually implemented with screw
    terminals or punchdown blocks.

Every wirepair appears at every drop terminal.  When a drop is
installed, the installer connects it to the assigned drop port at the
nearest terminal; electrically, the drop is bridged across the
wirepair.  But the portion of the wirepair downstream from the bridge
remains connected, and unterminated at the far end.  These
unterminated downstream wirepairs have come to be known as "bridged
taps."

These unterminated wirepairs act like tuned-stub filters.  Since
they're unterminated, arriving signals are reflected back; these
reflected signals interfere with the primary signals.  In the extreme
case -- when the reflected signal is 180 degrees out-of-phase with the
primary signal -- the primary signal is severely attenuated.

This problem can only be solved by locating and removing bridged taps.
This can be an exceedingly difficult job if the distribution cable is
sealed at that point where it exits the drop terminal.

Test equipment, such as the Fluke 990 http://tinyurl.com/7pnbz , can be
used to determine if bridged taps are present, and if so, their
severity.  If the effect of a bridged tap is "minimal" (Fluke's term,
not mine), it can probably be left in place.

> Is DSL modulated into some sort of analog signal?

DSL signals are modulated onto carriers in two bands:
        Uplink   (Modem to DSLAM)  30- 110 KHz
        Downlink (DSLAM to Modem) 110-1100 KHz

> It's hard to imagine carrying hig-frequency digital pulses on 
> copper telephone lines.

Well, T1 circuits do just that.  But carrying high-frequency pulses on
a POTS loop would present a different problem: overlap with the voice
passband.

> 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).

If the farm is indeed 35,000 feet from the CO, then I'd have to
conclude that the loop between the telco and the farm is actually
connected to a DSLAM-equipped RT, not directly to the CO.  Look for a
large metal box somewhere along the road between the farm and the CO.
It will have an electric meter; it will probably be set on a concrete
pad, and it might be surrounded by a security fence.
 
> On dialup, the farm couldn't negotiate modem speeds quite as
> fast as I could in town.  I assumed the limitation was in the
> wire.  That's why I was amazed to see that DSL seems to use the
> wire in the same way as dialup.  Was I wrong to think the reason
> dialup data rates were slower at the farm was that the wire to
> the CO is longer? 

I'm not sure that it is longer.  See previous answer.

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

I hope I've answered that question.

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

Crosstalk is indeed present, but it's usually only a problem when two
DSL-carrying loops crosstalk to each other.

> 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.

In current practice, there's usually just one analog voice channel per
loop.

Historically, telcos have used various "pair gain" schemes.  In one
scheme, additional voice channels ride on RF carriers superimposed
across the primary voice channel.  See http://tinyurl.com/9oqru .  In
another scheme, a "phantom" channel is run on two loops, yielding a
total of three voice channels on two loops.  As far as I know, these
schemes have been phased out by now, but I suppose there might be a
few still in service somewhere.

Of course, T1 circuits running on copper are still widely used today. 
Drive down country roads, and you'll often see T1 repeaters spaced at
(approximately) one-mile intervals.  Each T1 can carry 24 voice channels
over two copper pairs.  But a T1 wouldn't normally go to a farm.  
Photo: http://tinyurl.com/cgp6p .

> 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.

I agree; however, the limited bandwidth is also a factor.

In a previous life, when I worked for a radio station, we sometimes
used phone patches for connections to remote locations.  At each end,
we'd connect a "phone patch box" directly to the ring-and-tip of a
phone line.  Then we'd dial up a connection with a conventional phone,
switch in resistors to keep the line open, and hang up the phones.
Voice quality wasn't as good as it would have been with a wideband
audio circuit, but it was certainly far better than it would have been
if we'd used the telephones themselves.  More than adequate for a
sports or news report.

Of course, making a direct electrical connection to a phone line was
illegal back in those days (late 50s, early 60s).  But we were on good
terms with the phone guys, so they just looked the other way.

> If the telco owns the DSLAM, won't their investment
> cost depend on capacity?

Yes.  But the equipment doesn't have to be installed all at once.
Once the initial investment in the infrastructure (cabinets, racks,
power supplies, etc.) has been made, circuit cards can be added as
needed (equipment manufacturers call this approach "scalable").  It's
the same approach telcos take to POTS.

> If they contract for the DSLAM service, won't they be charged
> according to traffic?

Telcos don't "contract for DSLAM service"; they contract with other
ISPs (e.g. Covad) who wish to offer their own DSL service over telco
loops.  The telco charges them for the use of their loops.  Telco's
claim they can't charge enough to recover their costs, but that's a
whole different story -- one that will precipitate a thread even
longer than this one.

> Think what would have happened if RG-59 hadn't been invented.
> Everybody would have used RG-6, which looks nearly the same but
> attenuates uhf much less.  With better reception there would have
> been more uhf stations and less demand for cable.

As a former cable guy, I don't agree with that.  Many UHF stations
depended on cable TV systems to distribute their signals throughout
their "specified zones" (which, back in the '60s and '70s, was a
35-mile radius around the city of license).  This was particularly
true in mountainous areas where cable TV systems carried UHF signals
to specified-zone communities that were beyond the reach of their
transmitters.


Neal McLain

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

From: Choreboy <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com>
Subject: Re: DSL Speed
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 02:47:17 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Robert Bonomi wrote:

> In article <telecom24.291.5@telecom-digest.org>,
> Choreboy  <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:

>>>> 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.

> Get thee to a _library_.  they have entire books on the subject.

There's no library around here.  I have searched the internet without
success.  I hope you'll share your knowledge.

>>> 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).

> That which "appears" to be the situation is often not the reality.

> There may be a 'remote node' outlying from where you "think" the central
> office is.  The DSLAM equipment can be located there.

You said DSL speed depends on the distance from the CO.  I told you
how far it is to the CO.  I don't understand how the presence of a
node would mean the CO was somewhere else.

I have read that with a new cluster of houses, the teclo may use a
high-speed cable to bring service to a terminal near the houses.  I
understand the terminal will make it impossible for residents to dial
up at V.90 speeds.  That doesn't sound like the case at the farm,
where we had V.90.

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

> Some phones are made cheaper than others.   <grin>

Features other than sound make phones expensive.  How many people
listen before buying?  If you get it home and the sound isn't clear,
it may not be clear that the problem is with the phone.  If frequency
response and distortion were published, they could be strong selling
points, as with hi-fi gear.

>>>> 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?

> Or even between the telco and _customer_ facilities that use 'digital
> entrance' to the telco.

>>>> 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?

> If the telco itself is offering/providing DSL service, then it is
> virtually certain that they own the DSLAM equipment.  If a third-party
> provider is doing the DSL provisioning, then the incumbent telco may,
> or _may_not_ have any involvement with the DSL equipment.

> As to 'how things are priced/charged-for', that's a whole 'nuther
> kettle of fish.  Some arrangements are 'flat rate', where you pay a
> fixed price for the capacity that is available to you. Pthers are
> so-called 'burstable' rates, where you pay based on how much traffic
> you send.

I understood another poster to say the telco's big cost for DSL is in
the DSLAM equipment they must purchase for a peak capacity.  If 1,000
customers had DSL at 1.5Mb/s, I wonder how much peak capacity they
would need compared to 1,000 DSL customers limited to 150kb/s.

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: WECO 302 Wiring Question
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:22:12 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:46:54 -0400, Telecom Digest Editor noted
in response:

> [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]

The WECO 302 was the first model to have both the network and the
ringer inside the base of the phone.  The earlier models such as 102
and 202 had a separate ringer/network box.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: WECO 302 Wiring Question
Date: 27 Jun 2005 07:09:22 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


> [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]

As others mentioned, the WE 302, which came out in 1938, has
all the parts in one unit.  This was an advance since a separate
ringer box was no longer required, simplifying maintenance.

Also, the 302 has much better transmission than the 202 (the first
Bell "French" style phone).  Many 202 sets had their old handset ("E")
replaced with a 302 handset ("F") and remained in service for many
more years.

No changes should be required to a 302 set to put it into regular
service (other than cleaning it up and checking the internal wiring
for shorts and rot).  Obviously rotary service is needed and a regular
line.  Some office lines intended for advanced phones may not support
a basic phone.

There have been some books published on wiring/repair of old phones.
If interested, I'll post the titles.  TCI and ATCA are always helpful.

I have a 302 in service at my cube at work.  I still need a 2500 set
to get my voice mail msgs and connect to other stuff.  But the 302 has
a unique ringer so when it rings I can tell my phone from all the
others and know to run for it.

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

From: Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <spamtrap100@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:41:35 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Bruce L. Bergman <blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote:

> Jamming wouldn't be very effective.  They would have to block the
> entire 800, 900, 1800 and 1900 MHz bands to get all cellulars

Actually, it's not all that hard. Even though there are hundreds of
channels in those frequency bands, there are relatively few control
channels. All you need to do is block the control channels and you
prevent the phone from operating.

There is another technique that is somewhat more elegant -- spoofing
the tower.  Since cell phones will latch onto the strongest signal,
you just need a signal that is slightly stronger than the towers in
the area. That signal has enough of the correct protocol behind it
that the phone uses it and doesn't connect to the real system.

This is a variation on the pico-cell concept that they are talking
about for aircraft, subways, etc.

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

From: mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu>
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:08:42 -0400
Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net)


> Jamming wouldn't be very effective.  They would have to block the
> entire 800, 900, 1800 and 1900 MHz bands to get all cellulars, with
> enough power that they would splatter them within at least 1/2 mile
> around the facility (if not more) - and that would miss things like
> Nextel iDEN service, commercial radio, amateur radio, and other
> services.  And if they have the capability to do spread spectrum that
> would make it even harder to stop.

That is the real problem.  Radio signals don't stop at property lines.
If you jam all the cell phones in a theater, you take out several
surrounding office buildings too, at least intermittently.  A rule of
thumb I've used in ham radio is that if a signal goes 1 mile reliably,
it will go 10 miles a lot of the time and 100 miles some of the time.
And similarly for any distance.

Now what might work is a device to detect that cell phones are in use
and complain about them.  Cell phones transmit an identifying signal
periodically even when you're not talking on them, so that the towers
will know where they are.

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:23:09 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:21:42 -0400, mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote:

> If cell phones are jammed in, say, a theater, you create an ideal
> place to take hostages.

And you don't have to go back too far to remember what happened in
Russia to show that!

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

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Reply-To: fatkinson@mishmash.com
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:22:47 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:21:42 -0400, mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote:

> Not as far as I know.  The Communications Act of 1934 gets amended
> all the time, but it is still, as far as I know, the basis of radio
> regulation in this country (and, yes, television and cell phones
> are, physically, radio).  Did it go away when I wasn't looking?

Well, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted.  I had assumed
that it replaced the Communications Act of 1934.  I guess I was wrong
on that assumption.  Do we have any lawyers on here that can clarify
that issue?

http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html 

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

From: Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <spamtrap100@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Using Comcast to Host Web Site
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:50:27 -0600


autogoor@yahoo.com wrote:

> I developed a web site and would like to host it with my own computer
> at home. I am thinking using Comcast Cable broadband as my ISP. Does
> Comcast allow web host? Anyone has experience? Anyone has any other ISP
> suggestions? I am in California.

You really need to reconsider. I gave up hosting on my own computer
several years ago. There was a literally continuous stream of attacks
from around the world. Even though I was using a Linux based machine
as my host, it was still a pain to review the logs and keep up with
all the patches. I shudder to think what it would be like on a Windows
machine.

Comcast used to ban hosting on local machines. Don't know if they've
relaxed that or not.

Comcast does allocate some web space for home users on their servers,
but you do have to go to the control panel and activate it. Not sure
what their rules are regarding business use and the amount of
bandwidth they permit though.

I would recommend a hosting company like www.1and1.com. They sell very
reliable low volume web hosting for a few dollars a month. No security
hassles and they have really easy upgrades for bandwidth and space if
you need it.

(No connection, no referral -- just a satisfied customer.)

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

From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Subject: Re: Using Comcast to Host Web Site
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:35:32 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


autogoor@yahoo.com wrote:

> I developed a web site and would like to host it with my own computer
> at home. I am thinking using Comcast Cable broadband as my ISP. Does
> Comcast allow web host? Anyone has experience? Anyone has any other ISP
> suggestions? I am in California.

> Thanks.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did you ask Comcast about their rules
> on this?  PAT]

Unless you spend about $250 for their business service with a static 
address, then officially no, you can't. They can terminate your service 
if they catch you at it -- it's in their TOS. No servers.

However, in reality, if the site is non-commercial and there is not
that much traffic to the site, you can probably get away with it.

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

From: Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com>
Subject: Re: Using Comcast to Host Web Site
Organization: home user
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:43:52 -0500


On 26 Jun 2005 20:19:42 -0700, autogoor@yahoo.com wrote:

> I developed a web site and would like to host it with my own computer
> at home. I am thinking using Comcast Cable broadband as my ISP. Does
> Comcast allow web host?

Comcast High-Speed Internet Acceptable Use Policy
http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp

XIV. Should answer the question.

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

From: mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu>
Subject: Re: Cardholders Kept in Dark After Breach 
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:06:01 -0400
Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net)


Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:telecom24.294.11@telecom-digest.org:

>> Well, unless, _you_ keep a record of everything you charge -- date and
>> amount.  And match them against the statements you get.  It's not
>> really rocket science.

> For checks, that's practical. (It helps if you get the original checks
> back, something that will end in the US soon).)

> Where there are dozens or hundreds of transactions as on really busy
> cards, it becomes difficult. Particularly since the name and date of
> the payer on the statement may differ from that on the receipt. And,
> in the case of international transactions, the amount will differ,
> too.

What we *need* is more information on our statement about each
credit-card transaction.  I'm annoyed by companies that operate under
multiple names and make genuine charges look fake.

Here's what should be required for each transaction:

Name of seller (which MUST BE THE SAME as was given to the customer at time 
of purchase);
City and state or country of seller;
Telephone number of seller, which MUST BE CORRECT or the charge is 
considered invalid;
Description of item purchased (or of the most expensive single item if
there are several on the invoice)

That would make it a lot easier to reconcile credit card statements.

The present system still seems to be designed for people back in the
1970s who had only a couple of charges per month.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One problem with your list of
requirements is that sometimes, in a family, one member of the family
 -- let's say the husband for example -- likes to use the net to look
at some, well, 'perverted' stuff and charge his viewing of same to the
family credit card.  But then, some other member of the family --
let's say the wife for example -- has the duty of reconciling and
paying the credit card bill each month. The husband does _not_ want
his wife seeing an entry for a purchase on the credit card bill
entitled "Lisa's Big Boobs" or whatever, which is what attracted the
husband to the site to start with. 

So to protect his privacy and security (from his wife, secretary,
bookkeeper, whoever) the purveyor of all that filth tells the man,
"you don't have to be embarrassed about what you did/saw/thought about
doing ... just look for an entry on your credit card from 'Acme
Universal Corporation', (which is d/b/a Lisa's Big Boobs.)"  PAT]

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Cardholders Kept in Dark After Breach 
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:52:55 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.294.11@telecom-digest.org>,
Marcus Didius Falco  <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote about Re:
> Cardholders Kept in Dark After Breach -- Washington Post on
> Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:02:59 -0000

>> In article <telecom24.287.1@telecom-digest.org>, Marcus Didius Falco
>> <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Where there are dozens or hundreds of transactions as on really busy
> cards, it becomes difficult.

My real-world experience over several years indicates otherwise.

> Particularly since the name and date of the payer on the statement
> may differ from that on the receipt.

There is a 'transaction date', and a 'posting date'.  The posting date
can wander fairly widely, although it is always _after_ the date of
the actual transaction.  The recorded transaction date is also
guaranteed to be 'on or after' the date the purchaser has recorded.
Except in cases of 'delayed' shipments, it is almost invariably (at
least in my experience) within 2-3 days of that date.

In nearly 3 years, I had a grand total of 4 'suspect' transactions
that required a 'non-trivial' amount of work to sort out.  By that, I
mean more than a minute or so.  "Average" time was a few seconds per
transaction.

2 were cleared up with a total of about 15 minutes work each -- a
check with the card user to see if they recognized the seller (just
failed to turn in a record of the transaction -- unrecognized name ),
phone call to the seller, asking for info on the transaction -- which
_was_ consistent with a company purchase; and' included the name of
_their_ division that the purchase was made through.  Confirmed as
correct, by the card user for a phone order they'd placed.

#3 was the company President's son using daddy's card to sign up for
ISP service.  That one consumed a fair part of an afternoon -- most of
it in getting to the 'right people' at the (somewhat disorganized)
ISP, who actually had access to the answers, and the authority to 'do
something' ...

#4 was a bad charge, all around.  The merchant couldn't find anything
that matched it, when I called them.  Forwarded that to AMEX, for them
to deal with, while disputing the charge.  Turned out to be a
transcription error -- applied to wrong card number; yeah, the
check-digit is supposed to catch things like that, but in this case it
didn't ...

> And, in the case of international transactions, the amount will
> differ, too.

>> I used to do it every month, for several corporate cards that had
>> several _hundred_ charges/month.  Life was _really_ fun when the
>> Company President's son (away at college) used daddy's card to sign up
>> for Internet access (and the fact that the initial posting was 'late',
>> and was for _4_ months services).  That one _jumped_ off the statement
>> at me -- the company had it's own dial-up pool, and everybody used
>> _that_ for home access.

> Well, if you have a full time job, and can spend a day or two at it,
> then you might succeed. Except that you have to spot that a charge for
> $5 to $10 from "Strange Parking" isn't the same as the receipt you may
> have for a similar amount from "Storage Parking".

Reconciling circa 1000 transactions on 3 active cards generally took
me less than an afternoon.

Mistaking that 'Strange Parking' charge tends not to be a problem,
when the charge from 'Storage Parking' is _also_ on the statement.
The fact that there are more _items_ on the statement, than there are
items in the user- maintained record, *is* a little hard to miss.
<grin>

>> If you choose not to do so, and 'uncritically' accept their
>> accounting, that _is_ your choice.

> If they want to send my a diskette of my charges. (No, I won't trust
> it to the internet for reasons that have been explored very thoroughly
> in this Digest in the past.)

Strange. I never needed anything more than the 'detail' data that came
with the mailed statement.

>> Note: if you are in the UK, as your email address seems to indicate,
>> it is _unlikely_ that any of your cards were exposed via the
>> CardSystems 'problem'.  Unless you're doing siginficant credit-card
>> buying in the U.S., that is.  CardSystems clears almost exclusively
>> for U.S.-based merchants.

> They would have processed charges in the US for foreign cards,

Make that "may have", for _some_ foreign card purchases in the U.S.,
and you'll be correct.

> and charges on US-based cards for holders dwelling abroad.

*VERY* unlikely.

The _merchant_ the purchase was made from would have to be using
CardSystems as *their* charge processor.  CardSystems is by no means
the only player in that field.  They are a fairly large one, but there
are *lots* of other firms (as in "hundreds") in the same business in
the U.S.  They are nothing more that a 'middleman' (one of _many_
possible such agents) between the merchant and the various CC
companies.  The merchant 'talks' to the middle-man's computers, who
'talks' to the CC company's computers, which "talk" to the issuing
institution computers (in some cases, like AMEX, this _is_ the CC
company; in the case of 'bank' cards, it is not), which accept/decline
the charge.

Any characteristics of the customer are wholly irrelevant to the
matter of who the particular merchant uses as the 'middleman'.

For purchases made through merchants who use a different company to
process their transactions, there is no possible exposure from the
CardSystems security failure -- the data never went near CardSystems'
machines.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Beginning of the End for AT&T
Date: 27 Jun 2005 07:21:47 -0700


Lisa Minter wrote:

> DENVER -- AT&T's shareholders -- at what will probably be their last
> meeting -- are expected to approve a $16 billion merger with SBC
> Communications in Denver on Thursday, forming the largest
> telecommunications company in the nation.

While that might be the official "end" of AT&T, it's end started a
long time ago.  AT&T planned to expand into new businesses after
divesture.  It went after cable, wireless, and computers.  None of
these worked out very well.  That's the risks of business.

There aren't too many 100 year old businesses out there still intact.
Those that survived are usually very different than the businesses
they once were.  US Steel, for example, was once an economic
powerhouse high up in the Fortune 500, but now it is much smaller.

IBM survived two crises in its life, first the transition to
electronic computers which it almost missed, and second the transition
to services rather than hardware which it now is doing.  (Unisys, the
merger of two old once giant companies, is very small and is mostly
services now.)

> The deal, together with the upcoming Verizon-MCI merger,
> represents an unprecedented consolidation of the telecom industry.

I agree that it sure looks like rebuilding a single telecom monopoly
 -- in some BUT NOT ALL ways.  But I think the present trend is good
for customers.

The forced isolation of local Bell companies out of some fields only
raised prices and inconvenience for some consumers.  When Verizon was
allowed to go into Long Distance, I switched over to them and saved a
lot of money and time over AT&T.  I'm back to a single monthly check
and statement.  (They even merged my wireless line into my regular
phone book which I like too).

Customers still have a choice of equipment suppliers, LD carriers,
local service, and a multitude of other options if they so chose.

Too bad nobody builds telephone sets the way Western Electric used to.
(I have had good service from one Panasonic set and also their
answering machines, but are they still in the phone business?  I don't
seem to see any of their traditional consumer electronic products as I
used to.)

[public replies please]

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

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Objections to SBC Purchase of AT&T
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:08:44 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


Lisa Minter wrote:

> SBC spokesman John Britton said the concerns about the merger are
> unfounded. 

I think I might have to agree. SBC's service can't get much worse than
it already is. :P

JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table"   --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

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


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 #295
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues