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 Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:48:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 323 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson UN Panel Fails to Agree on How to Govern Internet (Irwin Arieff) UN Panel Presents Four Options for Internet (Aoife White) Competition Slashes Cost of Broadband Service (Deborah Yao) Who Really Controls Internet? (Andrew Kantor) Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You (Joseph) Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You (Jim Rusling) Re: Non-Bell ESS? (John McHarry) Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use? (Arthur Kamlet) Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use? (Charles Cryderman) Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use? (Lisa Hancock) Re: Last Laugh! Western Union's Comment About Useless Phones (J Haynes) 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: Irwin Arieff <reuters@telecom-digest.org> Subject: UN Panel Fails to Agree on How to Govern Internet Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:27:46 -0500 UN panel fails to agree on how to govern Internet By Irwin Arieff A group set up by the United Nations to come up with a global plan for managing the Internet said on Thursday that it has been unable to agree on who should do the job or how it should be done. The Working Group on Internet Governance instead came up with four rival models for overseeing the Web and sorting out technical and public policy questions. In a report to be submitted to the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in November, the group also proposed creation of a permanent forum to carry on the debate. To understand the problem, "you must recognize that the Internet was set up largely by academicians for limited use, but has grown beyond anyone's wildest expectations, with nearly one billion users today," Markus Kummer, the working group's executive coordinator, said in a telephone interview. At issue for the world body is who runs the Internet and how it can better serve the world. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has long pressed industry, government and private interest groups to try to narrow the "digital divide" and ensure that people in poor nations have greater access to the Internet. The Internet is now loosely managed by various groups. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), for example, manages the domain name system and is under the control of the U.S. government. Helping set technical standards are the International Telecommunication Union, an international organization; the private-sector-led Internet Engineering Task Force, and the academia-oriented W3C. Among the governance options put forward by the group were a continuation of the current system, creation of a world body to address public policy issues stemming from the work of ICANN, and creation of a body to address a broader range of public policy issues. The fourth option is to create three bodies, one to address policy issues, one for oversight and one for global coordination. The group also recommended a coordinated global effort to combat spam, or junk e-mails, which they agreed now comprises about 90 percent of all email, and urged that law enforcement authorities respect the right to freedom of expression when they crack down on Internet-related crimes. 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: Aoife White <ap@telecom-digest.org> Subject: UN Panel Presents Four Internet Options Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:29:18 -0500 By AOIFE WHITE, AP Business Writer A U.N. panel created to recommend how the Internet should be run in the future has failed to reach consensus but did agree that no single country should dominate. The United States stated two weeks ago that it intended to maintain control over the computers that serve as the Internet's principal traffic cops. In a report released Thursday, the U.N. panel outlined four possible options for the future of Internet governance for world leaders to consider at a November "Information Society" summit. One option would largely keep the current system intact, with a U.S.-based non-profit organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, continuing to handle basic policies over Internet addresses. At the other end, ICANN would be revamped and new international agencies formed under the auspices of the United Nations. "In the end it will be up to governments, if at all, to decide if there will be any change," said Markus Kummer, executive director of the U.N. Working Group on Internet Governance, which issued the report. The 40 members of the panel hailed from around the world and included representatives from business, academia and government. World leaders who convened in December 2003 for the U.N. World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva couldn't agree on a structure for Internet governance. Some countries were satisfied with the current arrangement, while others, particularly developing ones, wanted to wrest control from ICANN and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the United Nations. Leaders ducked the issue and directed U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to convene the working group to come up with a proposal for the second and final phase of the summit, in Tunisia in November. Though the group could not agree on a single model, it does recommend the creation of a new global forum for governments, industry and others to discuss key issues such as spam and cybercrime -- areas not currently handled by ICANN. The panel recommended a larger international role for "governance arrangements," Kummer said, and participants felt no one country should dominate. He stressed the sentiment dates back to the Geneva summit and was not meant as an attack on the United States or a direct response to the U.S. Department of Commerce statement two weeks ago that it intends to keep ultimate authority for authorizing changes to the list of Internet suffixes, such as ".com." The United States historically has played that role because it funded much of the Internet's early development. "The group as a whole recognizes that it is clear the U.S. has played a beneficial role," Kummer said. ICANN chief executive Paul Twomey said the report confirmed his organization's role. "If the Internet was a postal system, what we ensure is that the addresses on the letters work," he said. "We don't think we're a regulator. We think we're a technical co-ordinator." Twomey said ICANN had a narrow technical coordination role for a particular layer of the Internet -- specifically domain names and the numeric Internet Protocol addresses used to identify specific computers. But ICANN critics believe the organization has drifted beyond its technical mandate. They have cited ICANN's growing budget and its involvement in creating procedures for resolving trademark dispute as examples. Paul Kane, chairman of a Brussels-based coalition of domain name administrators called the Council of European and National Top-Level Domain Registries, said the report told ICANN diplomatically that it needed to narrow its focus. "Keeping things focused means not having a massive budget, having a well-defined scope and a well-defined mission," Kane said. "They have neither. They're not following their original remit." Others have expressed concerns that ICANN remains too close to the U.S. government, which gave ICANN its authority in 1998 but retains veto power. Developing countries have been frustrated that Western countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations to share a limited supply. And some countries want faster approval of domain names in non-English characters - China even threatened a few years ago to split the Internet in two and set up its own naming system for Chinese. 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. Read Associated Press stories with no login nor registration requirements at: http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/AP.html ------------------------------ From: Deborah Yao <ap@telecom-digest.org> Subject: Competition Slashing Costs of Broadband Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:30:28 -0500 By DEBORAH YAO, AP Business Writer Telephone and cable TV companies are slashing broadband prices and boosting connection speeds as the two monopoly-prone industries prepare to lock horns on multiple fronts. Comcast Corp. fired the latest shot in the battle this week by announcing plans to boost the speed of its entry-level cable broadband service to 6 megabits per second -- as much as four times faster than a typical DSL connection over a phone line. That move follows a series of promotions which have lowered introductory rates for a high-speed Internet line to between $15 and $30 a month, down from the typical $30 and $45 a month. The prize is far larger than signing up more high-speed Internet users, analysts say. Companies are trying to lock in customers who may soon be offered the convenience of buying phone, cable, Internet and wireless services from a single provider out of convenience. Two of the big regional phone companies, Verizon Communications Inc. and SBC Communications Inc., are spending billions to replace their copper lines with fiber-optic cables that provide enough capacity to deliver hundreds of channels of cable TV starting later this year. The cable companies, meanwhile, are rolling out phone service over their cable lines and exploring options to add cell phones to their mix. In advance of this head-to-head competition, Verizon, SBC and Qwest Communications International Inc. recently cut their introductory rates for DSL to $15 or $20 per month, and the cable carriers Comcast, Time Warner Inc. and Charter Communications Inc. sweetened their introductory prices to $20 to $30 per month. The phone companies are especially "willing to take a hit on margins ... if they can keep their landline users," said Mike Paxton, a senior analyst at In-Stat, a technology research firm in Scottsdale, Ariz. But by limiting the price cuts to new customers, the companies may risk angering their current subscribers. "It's frustrating that they're not giving their loyal customers the same kind of deal," said Kerry Smith, an attorney from South Philadelphia who subscribes to Comcast for cable, but pays Verizon for Internet and phone service. The cable and phone companies are betting that existing customers will find it too inconvenient to switch. That's why cable operators -- which are ahead of phone companies in signing up broadband Internet users -- don't feel as pressured to slash prices as deeply, Paxton said. Even in markets where DSL prices have dropped, cable has not been hurt badly, Paxton said. "It's frankly a pain in the butt to switch," he said. Cable broadband typically costs more than DSL, but cable operators have emphasized speed, arguing that their rates are competitive since the connections are often faster. Phone companies, however, have been closing the speed gap between cable and DSL. Comcast's speedier connections will be available later this month in Pennsylvania, New England, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan and Washington, D.C. For most of its other markets, the new speeds will be available by the end of summer. In May, Qwest unveiled a premium DSL service with a top download speed of 5 Mbps. "Speed very much matters. Reliability matters," said Dave Watson, executive vice president of cable operations at Comcast. The phone companies appear to believe that customers are more aware of price than speed. "A lot of people can't tell the difference" in download speed, spokeswoman Bobbi Henson said. SBC has been the most aggressive in cutting prices. The company has cut its DSL price at least three times in less than two years -- from $26.95 in early 2004 to $19.95 last November and $14.95 in June, said spokeswoman April Borlinghaus. But the Internet price war is just a precursor of a larger battle to come between the industries. 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. ------------------------------ From: Andrew Kantor <usa-today@telecom-digest.org> Subject: Who Really Controls Internet? Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:33:38 -0500 The recent U.S. decision to control the Internet is no big deal. Last week the Bush Administration announced that it was backing out of a pledge it had made, saying the U.S. government would retain control over the Internet. You may have heard that no one controls the Internet. That's sort of true for a couple of reasons. Most importantly, the Internet is a "network of networks," meaning that although it has its own backbone and connections, it also comprises lots of other networks -- educational, corporate, government, and so on. Take the Internet backbone away and those other networks would probably work just fine. Second, the Internet isn't really a thing any more than "government" is a thing. It's just a whole lot of computers that all speak the same language that happen to be connected. But, just as government has evolved a massive bureaucracy to support it, so too has the Internet. In the Net's case, the center of that 'bureaucracy' is a set of 13 root nameservers. These are computers that manage the flow of bits around the world. (Or "across the world," if you're not a believer in the "round-Earth" theory.) Those nameservers are controlled by an organization known as ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). And ICANN is controlled by the U.S. Department of Commerce. ICANN is the organization that decides, among other things, what top-level domains are allowed -- a top-level domain being .com, .org, .uk, etc. The nameservers it controls maintain those, so when you type in " http://www.usatoday.com ", your computer's message ("Send me that Web page") goes to the right place. Yes, it's more complicated than that. But I covered the complexities of the workings of the Net in an earlier column. What's important is that _he who controls the root nameservers controls the traffic on the Internet._ And right now that's the government of the U.S. of A. (Cue patriotic music.) But ICANN is a private organization, and it's supervision by the DoC is based on a memorandum of understanding that was written in 1997, when "the President directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the management of the domain name system (DNS) in a manner that increases competition and facilitates international participation in its management." ICANN has a worldwide membership -- in fact, its president and CEO is an Aussie named Paul Twomey. The U.S. government was supposed to give up control in 2006, when it would be up to the world at large to decide how ICANN would fit into the scheme of things. Most likely it would then be run by the International Telecommunications Union, a body that's sorta kinda part of the U.N., but has actually been around since 1865 in one form or another. Among other things, it established the ground rules for linking telegraph systems in the late 1800s. But that's neither here nor there. That's because this is the land of doing as you please, and President Bush decided that he pleased not to give up control of the Net. Obviously Bush didn't say it that way. As usual these days, Bush claims it was done in the name of "security" -- the same reason, for example, the FBI needs access to your library records. "The United States Government intends to preserve the security and stability of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System," went a statement from Michael Gallagher, assistant secretary at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. "The United States will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.") Translation: We don't trust other people to run the Internet, and since we made it in the first place, tough noogies. Luckily for us, since 9-11 we've enjoyed the goodwill of the rest of the world. Most people and most governments trust us and like us, so this probably won't be a big deal. Everyone knows that America has the whole world's best interests at heart. Of course, there are a few grumblegutses out there who, for reasons I don't understand (because the mass media doesn't really tell us) don't completely trust us. What they say is that this unilateral decision by Bush could split the Internet -- it could literally cause the rest of the world to set up its own routing system because, like us, they want to have control over their own data infrastructure. That would mean that representatives of U.S. Internet, the European Internet, and potentially the Asian, African, and South American internets would have to reach some sort of connectivity agreement to allow the bits to flow. It might also allow any country to 'lock out' data from any other country. Not that we would do that, what with the U.S. being so committed to a free and open society, but it could happen in places that don't value freedom as much as we do. Of course, this is all speculative. The Internet is, in fact, fractured already -- that "network of networks" thing. So connecting new networks to the existing one is fairly simple, especially if that new network was originally part of the Internet in the first place. In other words, if the Internet splits because of the president's decision, connecting the two (or three, or more) remaining parts will be fairly straightforward, at least from a technical viewpoint. After all, new devices and technologies using the "language" of the Net -- Internet Protocol, or IP - are popping up all the time. Voice over IP, video over IP, IP-enabled phones and PDAs and what have you. Connecting two or more entire Internets will be a piece of cake. The issues, instead, will be political ones, and how could that be bad? ============================ Andrew Kantor is a technology writer, pundit, and know-it-all who covers technology for the Roanoke Times. He's also a former editor for PC Magazine and Internet World. Read more of his work at kantor.com. His column appears Fridays on USATODAY.com. Copyright 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett 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. To read USA Today news stories with no login nor registration requirements go to http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/othernews.html ------------------------------ From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:20:32 -0700 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:53:59 +0000, Alan Burkitt-Gray, London SE3, UK <burkittgray@hotmail.com> wrote: > Wireless credit card terminals are now fairly common outside France, > in other parts of Europe -- in trains, for ticket payment, and in > restaurants. Odd that they're not apparently in the US yet. They indeed do exist in the US. ------------------------------ From: Jim Rusling <usenet@rusling.org> Subject: Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You Organization: Retired Reply-To: usenet@rusling.org Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:15:38 -0500 Gary Novosielski <gpn@suespammers.org> wrote: > Wesrock@aol.com wrote: >> Apparently you would not be able to use your credit or debit card in a >> restaurant then, since they require you give them the card to swipe at >> a location out of your sight. > Having recently spent a few weeks in France, I noticed a practice that > would solve this problem completely. It seems now to be the standard > method of operation at all restaurants from the trendy "gastronomique" > places (with prices astronomique) to the neighborhood "steak/frit" > joints. > When paying with a credit card, the server brings a small wireless > terminal directly to the table. It looks just like a compact adding > machine, with a paper roll on the back, but with a card slot on the > front, where you insert your card. If it's a debit card, you key your > PIN on the keypad. The receipts are printed right from the same > device, and the card never leaves your possession. > If devices like this were used in the states, you could presumably > also use the keypad to add a tip amount to the check. (In France, > where service is included, tips are a rarity, and when offered at all > are invariably in cash.) I would worry about the security of the wireless connection. Jim Rusling More or Less Retired Mustang, OK http://www.rusling.org ------------------------------ From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Non-Bell ESS? Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:42:21 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:44:48 +0000, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > In article <telecom24.321.5@telecom-digest.org>, John Stahl > <aljon@stny.rr.com> wrote: >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote about Re: Non-Bell ESS? on Date: 12 Jul >> 2005 12:11:16 -0700: >>> I'm very sure it was a non Western Electric switch. It was made in >>> Plano Tx (forgot the maker's name) and it was used for local calls.... >>> ... The basic pattern was the same-an unexplained deluge of >>> electronic messages shutting down a computer built by DSC >>> Communications Corp. of Plano, Texas ... >> To the best of my memory, DSC, whose name was mentioned in the archive >> you added (above), never made any type of an ESS switch, which the >> original essage questioned a non-Bell switch. DSC, now owned by >> Alcatel (France), made a whole line of CPE including multi-line >> systems and even some FO based equipment. DSC stood originally for Digital Switch Corporation, and they did make a switch. I know they were fairly big in the large PBX area, and possibly in toll tandems, but I don't recall whether they made a local switch. I would be somewhat surprised if they never did. I think they achieved their greatest fame for making STPs, where they became the dominant supplier for some time. ------------------------------ From: kamlet@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use? Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:04:10 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Reply-To: ArtKamlet@aol.REMOVE.com In article <telecom24.322.3@telecom-digest.org>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > He said: >> They are still in use, yes. Their purpose is different from 800 >> numbers, as it gave the called party the ability to restrict >> incoming calls to selected areas of his choosing, areas as small as >> a single exchange. That's never been available with 800 numbers. 800 numbers require multiple dips into SCPs, at least one to identify the carrier and another to help route and bill the call. During the routing stage, the SCP can inquire about where to route the call, or not to route, based on all sorts of "intelligent" criteria, such as time of day, day of week, and originating NPA or exchange or full number. So if you want an, 800 number can be routed based on the full 10 digit ANI. The days of mileage based zones were interesting, but as more and more intelligence gets built into 800 numbers, just distant memories. Art Kamlet ArtKamlet @ AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use? Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:59:04 -0400 From: Charles Cryderman <Charles.Cryderman@globalcrossing.com> Dear Lisa posted: > Someone on the railroad newsgroup said Enterprise numbers are still > in use. (Enterprise numbers were manually reached through the > operator and served as toll-free lines prior to 800 direct dialed > service. The operator had a table in which she converted the > Enterprise number to an actual telephone number and placed the call, > billing the recipient.) > I don't think he's correct. Then she quoted: > They are still in use, yes. Their purpose is different from 800 > numbers, as it gave the called party the ability to restrict incoming > calls to selected areas of his choosing, areas as small as a single > exchange. That's never been available with 800 numbers. What I wish to correct him on is the "selected areas of his choosing" commit. That is not correct with 800 (toll free) numbers they can be assigned to any type of customer (800 number owner/user) needs. They can be set to work in a central office, many offices. Limit calls from one state from coming in or set it so only calls from a single state can come in. If the customer wants to be able to receive a call from, let us say for example all of southeast Michigan but not the western suburbs of Detroit it can be set up that way. Now this isn't a perfect solution due to maybe a few parts of those western suburbs may be served by a end off in Detroit and the customer wants more then anything to get those Detroit calls they will either have to deal with it or exclude the western Detroit calls. Each code (800-NXX) only has to do what the customer wants. Even let us say the customer does want the western Detroit suburb calls but would rather have them go to a different service center, that as well can be accomplished. Now at one time the great originator of toll free service (AT&T) didn't want to do it and so there was a time that these types of toll free routing wasn't available but to say never is just plan wrong. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers Still in Use? Date: 14 Jul 2005 13:20:18 -0700 TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He is wrong, but so are > you. 'Enterprise' numbers (they were called 'Zenith' in many places; > 'Enterprise' was the Bell System word; I think 'Zenith' was the word > used by GTE and some others) are now pretty much grandfathered to > existing subscribers (basically long time customers since the > 1970's?) who wanted to keep them. I do not think you can order new > Enterprise/Zenith service, but it is there for people who always had > it and wanted to keep it. But if you give it up, (or move, or > otherwise change your service) that's it. Don't ask for it back. Thanks for your response. I've seen a variety of designations for this service depending on the city, Bell used Zenith as well as "WX" and "UX", all had a line underneath "ask Operator for ..." Until around the late 1990s, several large cities in the NE US still had many listings for Enterprise numbers. Most were defunct; I suspect somehow they escaped the normal directory purge process. Directories since then do not have Enterprise numbers, even for businesses that still actively had them. (I don't want to call such a business to test it since they have to pay for the call.) I would be surprised if anyone would still have one today because, AFAIK, it would cost so much more than 800 service. AFAIK, every Enterprise call was billed as a collect call. Way back when, collect calls cost the same as regular calls, and short distance calls were relatively cheap. That is, someone from the suburb calling a city business would generate a charge of say 20c. But now the surcharge for collect calls is quite steep. I doubt AT&T would give a discount because it is an operator handled service which they would want to duly charge for. Plus, because it is so obscure, they use up an operator's and supervisor's time to figure out the rare request and dig out the dusty translation table. I'm sure AT&T wouldn't want that. Also, most callers today wouldn't know what it was compared to an 800 number. Lastly, I don't think basic level 800 or remote-call-forwarded service costs very much these days. Do you know of specific businesses that still are using them? (You don't have to give their actual name.) Were they still listed in the current Chicago directory? > Anyway Lisa, tell your newsgroup person about > this won't you please? Thanks. PAT] Your text copied over to the misc.transport.rail.americas newsgroup. Thanks again. [public replies please] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Western Union's Comment About Useless Phones Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:30:33 GMT In article <telecom24.321.10@telecom-digest.org>, Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@omsdev.com> wrote: > Joe Morris <jcmorris@mitre.org> wrote in news:telecom24.312.11@telecom- > digest.org: >> neither at the time nor in retrospect can I find any justification for >> the DAA other than protecting AT&T's revenue stream. > But the DAA requirement was dropped as a result of FCC action in the > late 1970s (the enactment of the Part 68 regulations). It had nothing > to do with the breakup. And the DAA, while no doubt helping to protect the revenue stream, was arguably necessary until a process was developed for certifying devices to be attached to the network. Although it was hypocritical to require it for the switched network and not for private lines; but then private lines are relatively rare and can be marked as such. I can imagine fly-by-night modem makers turning out products that would put excessive levels into the line (causing crosstalk), unbalanced to ground (causing hum, noise, and crosstalk), leaking power line AC to the phone line (causing shocks to the telephone repair people), having DC leakage on the line (causing false trouble reports and tripping ringing falsely), and on and on. Some devices might not have these troubles to begin with but would develop them when there were lightning strikes around telephone lines. jhhaynes at earthlink dot net ------------------------------ 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 ************************ In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #323 ****************************** | |