TELECOM Digest     Mon, 8 Aug 2005 19:25:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 360

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Google Gets Sued (Reuters News Wire)
    Google Gets Googled (Saul Hansel)
    Report: Cisco Mulls Offer For Nokia (USTelecom dailyLead)
    RJ-50 Specifications (chsvideo@hotmail.com)
    Re: Princeton University Goes Digital - The Wrong Way (jmeissen@aracnet)
    Re: Princeton University Goes Digital - The Wrong Way (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Hiroshima Marks 60th Anniversary of Atomic Bomb Attack (L Hancock)
    Re: How Do I Find GSM Coverage in the US? (A User)
    Re: How Do I Find GSM Coverage in the US? (Joseph)
    Re: Calling All Luddites (Dean M.)
    Re: The Wired Are A Rude Bunch (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Pay Phone Providers (Carl Navarro)
    Re: Death Sentence for Independent ISPs? (Matt Simpson)
    Re: FAX vs VOIP (I am a Sock Puppet)
    New Sponsor - Phone Call Busters (TELECOM Digest Editor)

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: Reuters News Wire <newswire@telecom-digest.org>  
Subject: Google Gets Sued
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:54:57 -0500


Google sued over claims of excess advertising fees

Google Inc. is being sued over accusations that it overcharged
advertisers who use the Web search giant's paid search advertising
program, which accounts for the vast majority of Google's revenue.

The proposed class-action suit, filed on August 3 in State Superior
Court in Santa Clara, California, accuses Google of charging in excess
of advertisers' "daily budgets," under which Google allows an
advertiser to limit how much it spends each day.

Lawyers for the proposed suit were not available to comment. The suit
seeks unspecified monetary damages and was filed on behalf of CLRB
Hanson Industries LLC in Minnesota and other advertisers.

Google said the allegations had no basis.

"The claims are without merit and we will defend against it
vigorously," said Google spokesman Steve Langdon.

The suit claims Google "engaged in conduct which injured members of the
general public, including the plaintiffs" and said it was "impossible
 ... to determine the exact amount of the injury without a detailed
review of Google's books and records."

It also accuses Google, based in Mountain View, California, of
disputing complaints from advertisers regarding the company's pricing
practices and for not reimbursing what the suit called "unlawful"
charges.

Google, the biggest player in the global Internet advertising market,
gets the vast majority of its revenue from Web search advertising.

Shares of Google closed down $1.10 to $291.25 on Nasdaq. The stock is
7.2 percent below its record close of $313.94 on July 21.

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: Saul Hansel <nytimes@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Google Gets Googled
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:57:51 -0500


Google says its mission is "to organize the world's information and
make it universally accessible and useful." But it does not appear to
take kindly to those who use its search engine to organize and publish
information about its own executives.

CNETNews.com, a technology news Web site, said last week that Google
had told it that the company would not answer any questions from
CNET's reporters until July 2006. The move came after CNET published
an article last month that discussed how the Google search engine can
uncover personal information and that raised questions about what
information Google collects about its users.

The article, by Elinor Mills, a CNET staff writer, gave several
examples of information about Google's chief executive, Eric
E. Schmidt, that could be gleaned from the search engine. These
included that his shares in the company were worth $1.5 billion, that
he lived in Atherton, Calif., that he was the host of a
$10,000-a-plate fund-raiser for Al Gore's presidential campaign and
that he was a pilot.

After the article appeared, David Krane, Google's director of public
relations, called CNET editors to complain, said Jai Singh, the editor
in chief of CNETNews.com. "They were unhappy about the fact we used
Schmidt's private information in our story," Mr. Singh said. "Our view
is what we published was all public information, and we actually used
their own product to find it."

He said Mr. Krane called back to say that Google would not speak to any
reporter from CNET for a year.

In an instant-message interview, Mr. Krane said, "You can put us down
for a 'no comment.'

When asked if Google had any objection to the reprinting of the
information about Mr. Schmidt in this article, Mr. Krane replied that
it did not.

Mr. Singh, who has worked in technology news for more than two decades,
said he could not recall a similar situation. "Sometimes a company is
ticked off and won't talk to a reporter for a bit," he said, "but I've 
never seen a company not talk to a whole news organization." 

by Saul Hansel
Copyright 2005 New York Times and CNET Com. 

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 NY Times on line each day with NO registration or
login requirements: http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/nytimes.html

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

Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:53:33 EDT
From: USTelecom DailyLead <ustelecom@dailylead.com>
Subject: Report: Cisco Mulls Offer For Nokia


USTelecom dailyLead
August 8, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=23672&l=2017006

		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Report: Cisco mulls offer for Nokia
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Iowa Telecom taps CopperCom for softswitch changeover
* Huawei considers Marconi bid
* Report: News Corp. made offer for Skype
* Nortel reports earnings
USTELECOM SPOTLIGHT 
* Carrier Grade Voice Over IP
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* AOL acquires phone-personalization software maker
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Evolving broadband raises new questions

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=23672&l=2017006

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

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

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

From: chsvideo@hotmail.com
Subject: RJ-50 Specifications
Date: 8 Aug 2005 08:56:03 -0700


Hi All,

Does anyone know where I can find the physical specifications for an
RJ-50 plug/jack?

We have some equipment that uses RJ-45s as well as an RJ-45-sized
connector with a 10P10C configuration -- coworkers say it's a "10
Conductor RJ45", I say it's a "RJ50" -- we'd like to know who is right
and have some hard evidence in the form of a spec or something.

Thanks!

Lincoln

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

From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Princeton University Goes Digital - The Wrong Way
Date: 8 Aug 2005 17:53:59 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com


In article <telecom24.358.5@telecom-digest.org>, Monty Solomon
<monty@roscom.com> wrote:

> http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=4658
>
 ....
> Alas, the e-books are encoded in DRM which pretty much spoils the 
> potential success of this pilot project:

>  * Textbook is locked to the computer where you downloaded it from;
>  * Copying and burning to CD is prohibited;
>  * Printing is limited to small passages;
>  * Unless otherwise stated, textbook activation expires after
>	5 months (*gasp*);
>  * Activated textbooks are not returnable;
>  * Buyback is not possible.

Do they use some proprietary Adobe DRM mechanism that makes them
incompatible with non-Adobe PDF readers? Specifically, what about
Linux platforms, where Windows-specific DRM measures don't usually
work?


John Meissen                           jmeissen@aracnet.com

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Princeton University Goes Digital - The Wrong Way
Date: 8 Aug 2005 11:33:37 -0700


Tony P. wrote:

>> go online for a one-time download of
>> the textbook in PDF format.

This is another issue in the ongoing debate between conventional paper
and book records and electronic media.

My conclusion is "mixed".  I've been doing library research with both
kinds of media.  I also use both at work.

There are a lot of advantagess of online media: it takes up less
space, it's more easily or much more easily searchable, and one can
'cut and paste' selected portions faster and easier than writing them
down or making a photocopy.

But there are some disadvantages, too.

Traditional hardcopy (a book) is eye scannable.  That means you can
see random things with your eyes that an electronic search will never
catch.  A book is movabl e-- you can arrange it in different ways on
the table or on your lap or even in the bathroom, you can't do that
with a fixed terminal.  Large format books are difficult to read on a
computer screen without constant size adjustment or screen scrolling
which gets dizzying after a short while.

For example, we have the telephone book available online.  They come
up slowly and are hard to read.  For such a reference it's faster to
use the real thing.

As the original article notes, there are many restrictions to the CDs
being offered which are significant disadvtgs to the book.

In the case of a textbook where you're reading the whole thing anyway
I don't see much advtg to CD.  I see it more with reference works or
indexes.

Microfilm saves tremendous space.  That's significant since space is
costly and a large collection probably couldn't be housed.  It also
lasts longer than paper, esp newsprint.  However, it is a pain to
search through and look at.  The problems of 'scrolling' a large image
over a screen remain.

Microfiche is a little bit better in terms of random access, but still
a pain.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Hiroshima Marks 60th Anniversary of Atomic Bomb Attack
Date: 8 Aug 2005 10:06:28 -0700


Eric Talmadge wrote:

> Outside the nearby A-Bomb Dome, one of the few buildings left standing
> after the blast, peace activists held a "die-in" -- falling to the
> ground to dramatize the toll from the United States bombing that
> turned life to death for more than 140,000 and forever changed the
> face of war.

I was wondering why the firebombing of Tokyo -- that burned to death
100,000 people -- doesn't get the same attention as Hiroshima?  Lots of
German and Japanese cities were fire bombed and many thousands of
civilians were killed by napalm and related incendiaries.  Indeed,
during the war US research labs continually sought better burning
materials that would stick harder and burn hotter to Japanese
buildings.  Analysts worked to develop the most efficient ratio between
explosives and fire -- how much explosives to use to properly blow
something apart, and then fire to burn it all up; all in a way to
maximize destruction.  Nobody talks about this stuff.

I point all this out because "the bomb" must be taken in context with
the rest of the WW II, not in isolation.  We also must look at the
causes of WW II.  That's a lot harder.

It's easy to denounce war.  It's something completely different to
prevent.  On Sept 11, many people worldwide cheered when the World
Trade Center was destroyed and thousands of people were killed.  That
kind of cheering seems rather warlike to me.

It's easy for someone to say in hindsight "I would not have dropped
the bomb."  But it's a lot harder to rethink decisions made by the
Allied countries in the 1930s in response to Axis powers aggression.
The Axis powers thought they had a legitimate right to do what they
did.  Germany felt it was unfairly screwed at the end of WW I and was
only making things right.  Japan felt it was unfairly shut out of
world commerce by actions of western powers.

At the time, it sure seemed that Chamberlain was doing the right thing
making concessions to Germany and avoiding war at that moment.  That's
a decision people need to rethink carefully.

> In central London, more than 200 anti-nuclear activists and others
> gathered at Tavistock Square, where a cherry tree was planted in 1967
> in memory of the victims of the Hiroshima bombing.

Do they remember the victims of the London blitz?  Do they remember
the victims of the 'rape of Nanking'?  The Bataan death march?

TELECOM Digest Editor's Note Note was responded to by Gene S. Berkowitz:

>> Do the Atomic Scientists still keep setting that clock periodically
>> on its journey to midnight?  What is that clock setting now?  PAT]

> The clock is now set at 7 minutes to Midnight.
> http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/

It has been 60 years since nuclear weapons were used.  They were used
only once.  However, conventional weapons and new weapons (like
hijacked airplanes) have been used many times.

The "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" is an interesting magazine; it
has a lot of good history and international political affairs
articles.

However, I don't agree with their general theme.

As I understood it, the Bulletin was established by some scientists
from the Manhattan Project who were opposed to using the bomb they
created against Japan.  They intended it for use against Germany, but
they objected for use in Japan.  In my opinion, those who objected at
the time did not understand the situation as well as the political
leaders who had to make the actual decision.  The scientists had been
busy in their laboratories and didn't realize the horrors and
casualties Allied soldiers suffered in the war in the Pacific.  The
scientists knew firsthand how evil Germany was.  But Japan's military
government was just as bad and had to be completely removed from
power.  Their actions at the time as well as subsequent history shows
clearly that military government was not about to step away despite a
string of defeats.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A group of World War Two veterans in
a counter-demonstration over the weekend at Arlington Cemetery carried
banners which stated 'had there been no Pearl Harbor there would
have been no Hiroshima.'  PAT]

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

From: A User <serge-newnew2715@mailblocks.com>
Subject: Re: How Do I Find GSM Coverage in the US?
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:14:56 +1000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


On 8 Aug 2005 02:45:58 -0000, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

>> I am going to be visiting Northern California shortly. I am trying
>> to find out what carriers have GSM coverage in 95437 Fort Bragg
>> California. Is there a database that might be able to help?

> The two major GSM carriers in the US, Cingular (now including what
> used to be AT&T Wireless) and T-Mobile both have 1900MHz band licenses
> in Mendocino.  If you visit Cingular's web site, you can find a
> coverage map with a little blob around Fort Bragg, so assuming you
> have a 1900MHz phone, it should work.  T-Mobile has no coverage at all
> in Mendocino, and the 800 MHz band carriers, US Cellular and Verizon,
> are both CDMA.

> The Mendocino coast is so hilly that I'd expect plenty of dead spots
> even for carriers that do cover the area.  But it's very pretty.

> R's,

> John

Thanks to all. 

The GSM World page is rarely up to date.

According to the Cingular web site, looks like there is a cell in Fort
Bragg. It looks like one cell. GSM cells are only 17 or so miles
across.

Still would nice to have a database of US and other global locations
with who services them and what technology.

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: How Do I Find GSM Coverage in the US?
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 08:00:37 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:16:26 +1000, A User
<serge-newnew2715@mailblocks.com> wrote:

> I am going to be visiting Northern California shortly. I am trying to
> find out what carriers have GSM coverage in 95437 Fort Bragg
> California. Is there a database that might be able to help?

According to Wireless Advisor http://www.wirelessadvisor.com for
that ZIP the GSM providers would be T-Mobile and Cingular.

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

Subject: Re: Calling All Luddites
From: Dean M. <cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com>
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:09:52 GMT


Heh! You should email Friedman this little piece of info:-) Although he  
was obviously making a larger point, it's rather amusing his supposed  
"straw that broke the camel's back" is bogus!

-Dean

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:07:28 -0700, Ed Clarke <clarke@cilia.org> wrote:

> On 2005-08-04, Thomas L  Friedman <ntytimes@telecom-digest.org> wrote:

>> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

>> I began thinking about this after watching the Japanese use cellphones
>> and laptops to get on the Internet from speeding bullet trains and
>> subways deep underground. But the last straw was when I couldn't get
>> cellphone service while visiting I.B.M.'s headquarters in Armonk, N.Y.

> No matter what you do, you aren't going to get cell service in CHQ
> Armonk.  The lobby (if you noticed it) has a copper foil ceiling; the
> walls are metal and the windows are metalized (and grounded).  You're
> not going to get a radio signal out of that building (or into it).
> I've tried.

> I had to set up a demo for the corporate staff that involved satellite
> data transmission. We ended up moving the meeting to a different
> building on the site that wasn't quite so RF secure.

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

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: The Wired Are A Rude Bunch
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 00:01:24 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


Steven Lichter wrote:

> There was a letter to the editor in the Press-Enterprise here in
> Riverside, Ca. today.  Someone wrote about being hit by a shopping
> card in a market here by a woman using her cell phone, the person took
> it away and shut it off, then the lady called the party she was taking
> to and said that SHE had been interrupted by a rude person.

Good thing she wasn't about an hour further north, because if she'd
run into me up here I probably would have done physical damage to the
phone before giving it back to her. :)

I try extremely hard *not* to be rude when I'm using my phone in a
public place, and I wish other people would too (though I don't expect
it; I know better).

> cart and talking, she never even know she had hit me, that one was not
> as lucky, I got up, took the phone from her and smashed it on the
> floor, she went nuts, but other pointed out that she had run me down
> and kept going, would that be considered hit and run?

Good for you. :)

Steve in Apple Valley

Steve Sobol, Professional Geek   888-480-4638   PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

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

From: Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org>
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Providers
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:50:26 GMT
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com


On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 21:23:28 -0700, <demetrios@word13.com> wrote:

> Hello,

> Do you have a list of pay phone providers nationally?

If you're the one buying the box, try the obvious.  www.payphone.com

Carl Navarro

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

From: Matt Simpson <msimpson@uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Death Sentence for Independent ISPs?
Organization: Yeah
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:13:22 -0400


In article <telecom24.355.8@telecom-digest.org>, jmeissen@aracnet.com 
wrote:

> I fail to see how enabling a monopoly reduces prices and improves 
> service. :-/

Since any service is an improvement over no service at all, this MIGHT
improve service if it really does encourage the "monopolies" to begin
serving areas which currently have no service.

Speaking as someone who can get neither cable nor DSL (and doesn't
consider satellite a viable option), I get a little tired of my
friends who currently have access to both cable and DSL whining about
their choices being limited.  At this point, I'd be pretty damn happy
if I could get just one option.

I'm not convinced that legislation favoring the "big guys" is
necessarily the answer, but until I have at least one vendor offering
to sell me broadband, I'm not going to whine about legislation
limiting other ISPs' ability to undercut the big guys in the
profitable urban markets, unless those ISPs also want to sell their
service to me.

I would be happier if the legislation actually provided some
incentives, or even requirements, to the big guys to expand service in
exchange for strangling the competition, instead of vague suggestions
that they'll feel more free to expand if competition isn't a threat.

For example, my telephone service is provided by Bell South.  Bell
South won't sell me DSL.  From a technical point of view, I don't know
what would be required for them to do so.  I've heard rumors that
maybe DSL equipment could be added to that SLC box at the end of my
road.  It would be nice to see a ruling that Bell South doesn't have
to give competitors access to their lines IF AND WHEN they offer DSL
to all their residential phone customers.

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

From: I am a Sock Puppet <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Subject: Re: FAX vs VOIP
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:25:42 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


John McHarry wrote:

> This is really a reply to a question posted on a discussion of Lingo,
> but the subject is really quite different from that of the original
> thread.

> I believe the issue with FAX over VOIP is that VOIP uses lossy
> compression that does not treat FAX modulation gently.

Depends the VOIP. But (when set to "high quality mode) use g7.11 for
the codec. This is the same that most digital lines (ie: isdn, t1) use
- so in most cases lossy compression is NOT an issue.

What IS often an issue is latency in the IP connection -- this
translates into audio latency. For instance, a 250ms delay on the IP
end means that there is a 1/4 second delay in the audio -- the
recieving end hears the audio 1/4 second after it is sent.

That sort of thing can play havoc with modems and faxes.


DO NOT REPLY TO THE EMAIL ADDRESS
IN THE HEADERS OF THIS POST.
IT IS A SPAM TRAP ADDRESS.

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

Subject: New Sponsor - Phone Bill Busters
Date: Mon,  8 Aug 2005 00:36:14 EDT
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)


A new sponsor for the Digest, starting today; Phone Call Busters and
its owner, Dave Seldon. You'll find his ad in the far right column on
our web site http://telecom-digest.org ; the green telephone and the
Phone Bill Busters message. You can either click on that logo itself
or check out http://phone-bill-busters.com to learn about his
techniques for reducing long distance costs, and also note his several
pages of good links, and reports on cell phones, etc. In addition, he
carries the .rss feed for TELECOM Digest and you might find that a
preferable way to read this Digest each day. Dave and I both thank you
for taking a few minutes today to visit with him.

Patrick Townson

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


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 #360
******************************