From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 9 15:17:59 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i29KHw608750; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:17:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:17:59 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403092017.i29KHw608750@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #112 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:18:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 112 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson PFIR Conference: "Preventing the Internet Meltdown" (PFIR Organization) Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance (William Warren) Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance (Mark Crispin) Spam and the Law (was Re: The Price of Email is)(Danny Burstein) Re: AT&T Expands 'City Savings' for International Calling (Joseph) Re: AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Options (Joseph) Re: Snapshots in Time (Nick Landsberg) Curious Plurals (was Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name) (Michael Quinn) DISH Network to Lose CBS in 16 Markets (Monty Solomon) EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS (J Kelly) 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 is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:56:49 PST From: PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility Subject: PFIR Conference Announcement: "Preventing the Internet Meltdown" PFIR Conference Announcement "Preventing the Internet Meltdown" Spring/Summer 2004 Los Angeles, California, USA --------------------------------- March 6, 2004 PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org [ To subscribe or unsubscribe to/from this list, please send the command "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" respectively (without the quotes) in the body of an e-mail to "pfir-request@pfir.org". ] ================================== --- Please Distribute Widely --- PFIR Conference Announcement "Preventing the Internet Meltdown" Spring/Summer 2004 Los Angeles, California, USA http://www.pfir.org/meltdown People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR) is pleased to preliminarily announce an "emergency" conference aimed at preventing the "meltdown" of the Internet -- the risks of imminent disruption, degradation, unfair manipulation, and other negative impacts on critical Internet services and systems in ways that will have a profound impact on the Net and its users around the world. We are planning for this conference (lasting two or three days) to take place as soon as possible, ideally as early as this coming June, with all sessions and working groups at a hotel in convenient proximity to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). A continuing and rapidly escalating series of alarming events suggest that immediate cooperative, specific planning is necessary if we are to have any chance of avoiding the meltdown. "Red flag" warning signs are many. A merely partial list includes attempts to manipulate key network infrastructures such as the domain name system; lawsuits over Internet regulatory issues (e.g. VeriSign and domain registrars vs. ICANN); serious issues of privacy and security; and ever-increasing spam, virus, and related problems, along with largely ad hoc or non-coordinated "anti-spam" systems that may do more harm than good and may cause serious collateral damage. All facets of Internet users and a vast range of critical applications are at risk from the meltdown. Commercial firms, schools, nonprofit and governmental organizations, home users, and everybody else around the world whose lives are touched in some way by the Internet (and that's practically everyone) are likely to be seriously and negatively impacted. Most of these problems are either directly or indirectly the result of the Internet's lack of responsible and fair planning related to Internet operations and oversight. A perceived historical desire for a "hands off" attitude regarding Internet "governance" has now resulted not only in commercial abuses, and the specter of lawsuits and courts dictating key technical issues relating to the Net, but has also invited unilateral actions by organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and International Telecommunications Union (ITU) that could profoundly affect the Internet and its users in unpredictable ways. Representatives from commercial firms, educational institutions, governmental entities, nonprofit and other organizations, and any other interested parties are invited to participate at this conference. International participation is most definitely encouraged. The ultimate goal of the conference is to establish a set of *specific* actions and contingency plans for the Internet-related problems that could lead to the meltdown. These may include (but are not limited to) technical, governance, regulatory, political, and legal actions and plans. Scenarios to consider may also include more "radical" technical approaches such as "alternate root" domain systems, technologies to bypass unreasonable ISP restrictions, and a wide range of other practical possibilities. It is anticipated that the conference will include a variety of panels focused on illuminating specific aspects of these problems, along with potential reactions, solutions, and contingency planning for worst-case scenarios. Breakout working groups will be available for detailed discussion and planning efforts. Formal papers will not be required, but panel members may be asked to submit brief abstracts of prepared remarks in advance to assist in organizing the sessions. The ability of this conference to take place, and necessary conference details such as the specific program, costs, etc. will depend largely on the response to this announcement and particularly on the number of persons and organizations who express a potential interest in attending. If you may be interested in participating (no obligation at this point, of course) or have any questions, please send an e-mail as soon as possible to: meltdown@pfir.org or feel free to contact Lauren at the phone number below. As appropriate, please be sure to mention how many people from your organization may be interested in attending. If you express an interest in attending, you will be added to a private mailing list for upcoming announcements regarding this conference unless you ask not to be so notified. Together, we may be able to stop the Internet meltdown. But we need to act now. Thank you for your consideration. - - - Lauren Weinstein lauren@pfir.org or lauren@vortex.com or lauren@privacyforum.org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy http://www.pfir.org/lauren Peter G. Neumann neumann@pfir.org or neumann@csl.sri.com or neumann@risks.org Tel: +1 (650) 859-2375 Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Moderator, RISKS Forum - http://risks.org Chairman, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy http://www.csl.sri.com/neumann David J. Farber dave@farber.net Tel: +1 (412) 726-9889 Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science Member of the Board of Trustees EFF - http://www.eff.org Member of the Advisory Board -- EPIC - http://www.epic.org Member of the Advisory Board -- CDT - http://www.cdt.org Member of Board of Directors -- PFIR - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Member of the Executive Committee USACM http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~farber (Affiliations shown for identification only.) ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance Organization: Comcast Online Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:47:51 GMT Fred Goldstein wrote in message news:telecom23.111.2@telecom-digest.org: > On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:37:19 -0800, Rob Slade wrote: >> Peter Wilson's article on spam and viruses (on Saturday, March 6, >> 2004) lists a number of antispam measures that are currently being >> promoted. [big snip] > It is going to be painful, and I think that the best way to fix it, > once we accept that there's no simple fix, is to design an *entirely* > new email machanism. SMTP is 32 years old. A new from-scratch email > system can incorporate all of the requirements that have been clumsily > overlaid on top of SMTP, which was after all designed to pass short > text messages between timesharing computers on a closed network. > Until a new system is in place, email will be a mess of spam and > worms, growing less useful as countermeasures interfere with > legitimate usage. Fred, I disagree: the problem cannot be solved by technical means, because no matter what software and/or hardware we throw at it, spammers can find a way around it and keep going. Remeber that spammers don't care about someone else's costs: they'll just send 10xE10 messages instead of 10xE5, and adjust their sending as needed to get a profitable response. Spam _can_ be stopped, and it doesn't take technology to do it -- just a small percentage of recipients whom are willing to take action. There's no mystery to why spam is profitable: it's because the only responses are usually from those willing to buy the product, and all the non-response and other costs have been externalized. If a small percentage of spam recipients take the time to answer the pitches, track down those whom have started the spew, and make their feelings known, the human costs to the spammers will quickly overwhelm their profit margins. When I get a mortgage pitch, I fill it out and send it back. If someone is pitching a weigh-loss product, I demand details via postal mail. For "herbal viagra", I ram my complaints right down the throat of the distribution center. When the guy from the bank/finance company/drug company/whatever calls, I tell him to go back to whomever sold him the lead and get his money back, and I make it clear that I don't do business with spammers and I don't do business with anyone spammers do business with. We don't need more software: we need to fight back. FWIW. YMMV. Bill Warren ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: The Price of Email is Constant Vigilance Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 07:14:04 -0800 Organization: University of Washington On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Fred Goldstein wrote: > SMTP is 32 years old. More like 22 or so years old. Until the TCP/IP transition on January 1983, the primary means of conveying mail was via the MAIL command in FTP. I wrote one of the first widely-distributed SMTP servers in 1982. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Spam and the Law was Re: The Price of Email is Constant Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 06:51:43 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In Fred Goldstein writes: [ snip ] > While others have diagreed with me on this and I respect their > opinions, I'm still convinced that the *only* solution is to have > micropayments. Once again I'll disagree with this whole concept. The only thing necessary is to acknowledge that ISPs and their customers only have connectivity to others because of the kindness of strangers. And to take action based on that. Each and every ISP, in order to gain continued connectivity, simply has to establish terms of service (and enforce them) in a way so as to prevent its customers from spamming. (see below for my suggestion) If the East Cupcake Bakery and Internet Service allows its customers to spam, then we cut it off. Pure and Simple. It and its spammers can cheerfully wallow in the smelly pit of their own putrid intranet. Yes, some non spamming customers will get hurt. But that is NOT my problem. It's the same way, to use my favorite analogy, of what would happen to a supermarket using (because it's cheaper) an unrefrigerated meat supplier. Sure they'd make more money for the first couple of hours. But then they'd see a huge dropoff in customers. And pretty soon not only wouldn't they sell any of the rotten meat, but they also wouldn't sell any milk. Or chocolate. Or toilet paper. Those other companies do NOT have the right to demand that I hold my nose and purchase their products from a rotten meat supermarket. And similarly, the non-spamming customers of East Cupcake do NOT have any unalienable right to access my ISP or my mailspool. The *only* change in law might (and that's a might) be a clarification that ISPs could act in concert so as to jointly set up these quarantines. As to what would be a good Term of Service? The following is my rec: Any customer of the ISP agrees that the ISP acts as its correspondence agent. Any and all notes, letters, e-mails, faxen, etc. that the ISP has to respond to as a result of the customer's actions may be charged for at the following rates: first five per month: no charge sixth through tenth: $10 apiece 11th on up: $50 apiece, beginning with first. (adjust the numbers as appropriate, and add a similar modified rate chart for yearly counts). If an ISP chooses not to have such a policy, then I don't want to hear from it. Or its customers. Anymore than I want to go to a shopping mall where the supermarket has tons of rotting meat in the aisles and roadway. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think Danny makes an excellent suggestion. Wouldn't it be far easier to control a few dozen errant ISP's than track down and deal with several million users? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: AT&T Expands 'City Savings' for International Calling Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 04:01:46 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 09:17:33 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote: > In Western Europe, the reduced country rate of only 10 cents a > minute is welcome news to all international callers, but especially > those with family and loved-ones in countries such as Germany, Spain > and Italy, which have a sizeable presence of American military > personnel stationed there. "Only" 10 cents a minute is supposed to be a bargain? I've shopped international plans and it's quite possible to get rates to the UK for 5 cents per minute or 6 cents per minute to call continental Europe and also without paying a $4 per month "privilege" fee to use the plan. That "bargain" rate is further diluted by the monthly charge. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Options Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 04:06:33 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:18:24 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote: > AT&T Wireless Introduces Early Evenings; New Option Offers > Unlimited Night and Weekend Minutes Beginning at 7 p.m. Instead > of 9 p.m. > - Mar 8, 2004 11:00 AM (BusinessWire) Woohoo! And how long will this last? Perhaps the article doesn't mention it, but 7:00 p.m. night minutes were the norm until the wireless companies decided to change start of night time to 9:00 p.m. People are naive if they think that any particular market condition won't make night minutes change again. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Snapshots in Time Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 05:30:37 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Al Gillis wrote: > wrote in message > news:telecom23.110.11@telecom-digest.org: >> In a message dated Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:44:00 -0800 Al Gillis >> writes: >>> An oddity that would probably never happen in this age is reviewed >>> on pages 83-85. Moving the Indianapolis headquarters building of >>> Indiana Bell WHILE IT'S STILL IN OPERATION as an office and >>> Central Office building! Those guys were gutsy! >> The Dallas Automatic Telephone Company building, full of step >> equipment, was moved while still in service to accomodate a street >> widening project. >> Wes Leatherock >> wesrock@aol.com >> wleathus@yahoo.com > That's interesting, Wes ... First, I couldn't even imagine such a > feat, then I hear it's not unique! Well, I guess those Texans were > gutsy, too! > Do you have any additional information about this move? About when > did it take place? Where in Dallas was the building located? Any web > resources available to see photos or read accounts of the move? > Thanks!! > Al I have heard of (but never witnessed) cutovers happening in the same building, like going from a Cross-Bar to an electronic switch. All the wires from the main distributing frame (MDF) were bridged to both switches and the "new" switch was programmed to do everything EXCEPT complete the outgoing call. Similarly for trunks, do everyting except make the final connection. Once the "magic moment" hit, the new switch would go live with a console command, and at the same time, a technician with a BIG set of wire cutters would cut the cables to the old switch. This would usuallly create a spark, hence the term "flash cut." Trying to pull off this trick on the other side of the MDF is walking where angels fear to tread. My hat is off to the folks with the brass to even try it, much less make it work! "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember very well three such 'cuts' in my life. In 1954, Hammond, Indiana went from manual to dial service. The old 'Sheffield' and 'Russell' exchanges were no more, with WEstmore-1,2,3 and TIlden-4 taking their place. At 2 AM that Saturday morning, the operators disappeared and the dial tone took their place. But the Whiting, Indiana and the East Chicago, Indiana exchanges were to remain manual for a couple years. So telephone users in Hammond were told to dial '711' and wait for an operator to respond who would connect with East Chicago numbers and users were told to dial '911' for Whiting numbers. For a L-o-n-g time (several years went by in fact), before 312 (Chicago) had any 931-932-933 or 844 numbers, since those were assigned in 219 right across the state line. I don't really remember East Chicago cutting over to EXport-7 and EXport-8 and losing the need for '711' from Chicago/Hammond but Whiting I recall. To call Whiting from Chicago/Hammond/East Chicago (later on) or Gary, Indiana, one dialed '911' and spoke to the operator. That was at least 10-15 years before 911 was given its more well known assignment. About 1958-59 Whiting was cut. I remember when I was in high school although the other places had to call 911 and ask for our number at the school, when we wanted to call one of those places we did ask the operator for the number, but then in the background we would hear a series (of seven) very rapid 'chirps' as the operator pulsed out the number on her keypad. Whiting was cut to '659' instead of 2-L/5-D and (I do not think it was a coincidence) in 312 there was no 659 either for many years; in fact when Cellular One first went into business in 1983 (or maybe 1982?) they were assigned 312-659 as their very first prefix. The third such 'cut' I remember was the University of Chicago. Originally one 'exchange' (or group of manual cord boards) back in the 1920-30's era, by the time I started working there (part time, while in high school in the telecom room) they were up to three 'exchanges' (or groups of manual cord boards) labled 'University boards' (eight positions along one wall), 'Hospital boards' (six or eight position along the opposite wall), and 'computation center boards' (a two or three position cord board perpendicular to the other switchboards). At the opposite end of the room was the clerk's desk, where there were also a teletype machine, bunches of directory books, and 'Telepage' was there also. Actually there were two or three teletype machines, but one was 'hot wired' directly into 'long distance' where Bell operators would send messages giving time and charges on long distance calls. The so-called 'university boards' were MIDway 3-0800 (with extensions 2000 through 4999), the 'hospital boards' were MUseum-4-6100 (with extensions 5000 through 6999) and the 'computation center' boards were NORmal-7-4700, with extensions 8000 through 8999.) The extensions could all dial each other, or dial 9 for an outside line. If they dialed '7' they reached Telepage. Campus police/fire was on extension 2111. Then one day Illinois Bell and UC officials decided to cut over to 'centrex' (gee, I wonder why!) and UC agreed with Bell to split with them the cost of a new central office building, located on 61st and Kenwood Streets, right across the alley from the existing central office building serving the Hyde Park neighborhood. After about six or eight months, the new addition to the telephone exchange was built and ready to be cut over. All the existing UC extensions were assigned '753' and their existing four digit extension number, except the 'hospital board' extensions were put on '951' with their existing extensions. They could call each other now with a '1' plus four digits or a '3' plus four digits, and they could get calls directly from the outside world! This was in 1965 I think, or about three years after I was no longer employed by U of C. The cutover was scheduled for a Saturday at 2 AM and being curious, I wondered what would happen if I dialed 753-anyfour on Thursday or Friday before. The numbers rang, but when the person picked up the phone, before we could start talking, *dial tone* came on the person's line I was calling. We could talk over the dial tone, but it was there. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:41:16 -0500 From: Michael Quinn Organization: Booz Allen Hamilton Subject: Curious Plurals (was Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name) This discussion of latinate plurals reminds me of one I saw some sometime back ago in a handbook on shipboard radio antenna systems - it went to some length to argue that that the plural of (radio) antenna was "antennas", not "antennae", the latter being reserved for insects (or as I later read, politicians, as in "political antennae", which may invite a debate over the distinctions between the two species.) Never came across it again, but I think of it when I occasionally hear someone refer to "radio antennae". Regards, Mike [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So are there any real differences between politicians and insects, or spammers for that matter. Or did spammers (a low specie of life) evolve from insects? PAT] > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:51:02 +0000 > From: Withheld > Subject: Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name > Nouns in Latin come in 5 categories, called declensions. The > commonest has a singular ending in -us, with plural -i; an example is > "cactus", forming "cacti". If "virus" was from that class, its plural > would be "viri", but it isn't. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 08:19:13 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DISH Network to Lose CBS in 16 Markets EchoStar to Yank Viacom Channels - Mar 9, 2004 01:46 AM (AP Online) By CATHERINE TSAI AP Business Writer ENGLEWOOD, Colo. (AP) -- EchoStar Communications Corp. plans to remove channels from Viacom Inc., including local CBS affiliates, Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon, from its DISH Network satellite system in 16 markets because of an unresolved dispute over programming fees. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40781000 Viacom's Demands Create Impasse in Negotiations For Rights to Carry Channels; DISH Network to Lose CBS in 16 Markets - Mar 9, 2004 12:38 AM (BusinessWire) ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 9, 2004--EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:DISH) confirmed today that Viacom Inc.'s demands for rate increases and other terms had left EchoStar's DISH Network satellite TV service with no choice other than to remove 16 of Viacom's owned-and-operated CBS local stations and 10 of its nationally distributed channels as of midnight (PT). Among Viacom's strong-arm tactics is the demand that DISH Network carry Viacom-owned channels of little or no measurable appeal to viewers in exchange for the rights to carry the 16 owned-and-operated CBS stations. Viacom also threatened to withhold the Super Bowl from DISH Network customers until a federal judge intervened. EchoStar has challenged Viacom in court on these antitrust issues, noting that Viacom is leveraging its control of the public airwaves -- acquired by Viacom for free. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40780861 UPDATE 1-Echostar pulls Viacom channels from its service - Mar 9, 2004 05:40 AM (Reuters) (Adds details, Viacom, Echostar quotes) NEW YORK, March 9 (Reuters) - EchoStar Communications Corp (NASDAQ:DISH) on Tuesday pulled from service 16 of Viacom's (NYSE:VIAb) local CBS stations and 10 of its national channels after the companies failed to agree on contract terms and prices. Viacom said in a statement it was "dismayed and disappointed" by the action, which affected channels like MTV and Nickelodeon, after a deadline expired early on Tuesday. Satellite company EchoStar said it would like to transmit CBS programming on its DISH network again, but both parties stood their ground in the dispute. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40781456 ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: EchoStar May Lose More After Removing Viacom's CBS Date: 9 Mar 2004 07:54:17 -0800 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] EchoStar Communications Corp. Chief Executive Charles Ergen, who today dropped Viacom Inc.'s television networks including CBS from his Dish satellite-TV service, may lose sales in the standoff. EchoStar at midnight California time stopped broadcasting the signals of Viacom-owned CBS stations, including those in New York and Los Angeles, and will stop showing its cable networks, including MTV and Nickelodeon. A court order requiring Viacom to let EchoStar broadcast the 16 stations expired today. EchoStar failed to reach terms on a new contract with Viacom, the third-largest U.S. media company. EchoStar has said Viacom is demanding rates that are too high and forcing EchoStar to carry networks it doesn't want. EchoStar's Dish Network may lose sales if the dispute isn't resolved soon. "This is a game of chicken -- who will blink first is the question," Richard Greenfield, an analyst at New York-based Fulcrum Global Partners, wrote in a note to clients this morning. EchoStar may lose "a meaningful number of subscribers if this battle takes too long to conclude," he said. He has a 'neutral' rating on Viacom and doesn't cover EchoStar. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5_2i6CLuzDg&refer=news_index [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And indeed, they did yank them off at midnight Pacific time last night, after a couple hours of warning beginning about midnight Eastern and for the next three or four hours. The first time last night I saw the announcement was on TV-Land during their 11 PM showing of 'Beaver'. Right at the stroke of 11 PM central that chirp was heard on the cable and an audible/visual message was heard. No, it was not a notice of a tornado or anything like that. It was telling us that (the satellite viewers) will be disconnected in about three hours, then a list of all the channels and shows that would be taken away from DISH which seemed to go on and on and on ... MTV-2 is one of the victims, many other channels, as well and 'the show in progress now' will not be available any longer either. They repeated it again at midnight and 1 AM central time. You readers who subscribe to satellite: tell us more about it. What is on all of those dark channels today? Anything, or old re-runs of shows the satellite operators had in stock or what? PAT] ------------------------------ 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #112 ******************************