From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 24 14:02:55 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2OJ2s813648; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:02:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:02:55 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403241902.i2OJ2s813648@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 #138 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:03:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 138 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson In Fights Over Telecom Issues, Record Shows, Kerry's Worked (M Solomon) The Real Story Behind Must-Carry (Monty Solomon) Broadcasters Hate Digital-TV Proposal (Monty Solomon) Broadcasters: Keep Must-Carry as it Is (Monty Solomon) The Free Lane on the Information Highway (Monty Solomon) Supreme Court Rules Against Local Government Phone Service (M Solomon) Public Knowledge Demystifies Digital Rights Management (Monty Solomon) Thumbs Up For APTS Digital-Only Strategy (Monty Solomon) DTV: Should we Bet the Farm on a Digital-Only Strategy? (Monty Solomon) Re: Last Modern Towns to Go Dial (Tony P.) Re: Last Modern Towns to Go Dial (Sammy@nospam.biz) Re: Lafayette, IN Long Distance (was Re: Last Modern Towns) (Geo. Adams) Re: Google Local is Cool (Phil Earnhardt) Review of Norvergence (Joel Keck) 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: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:39:27 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: In Fights Over Telecom Issues, Record Shows, Kerry's Worked In Fights Over Telecom Issues, Record Shows, Kerry's Worked on Many Sides By TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN and STEPHEN LABATON In late 1999, as deregulation and a stock market boom propelled a wave of deal making among the nation's biggest telecommunications concerns, Senator John Kerry worked hard to ensure that Bell Atlantic, the largest private employer in his home state, Massachusetts, remained in the industry's front ranks. In letters to senior Federal Communications Commission officials that year, Mr. Kerry -- a member of the Senate committee that oversees the F.C.C. -- pushed the agency to remove roadblocks to regulatory approval of a merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. He also pressed the agency to allow the company to enter New York's lucrative long-distance market. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/politics/campaign/24TELE.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:45:23 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Real Story Behind Must-Carry From Multichannel News, March 22, 2004 By Ted Hearn Washington- A decade ago, five U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed behind closed doors to strike down a new federal law that required mandatory cable carriage of local TV stations. But the coalition, spearheaded by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that wanted to topple the must-carry law turned out to be fragile. It collapsed when Justice David H. Souter had second thoughts and joined the pro-must-carry camp, supporting a law that broadcasters considered vital. Thomas Veered Souter's flip followed a mid-course correction by Justice Clarence Thomas into the anti-must-carry camp. The result: What once might have been a 5-4 vote to overturn must-carry became a 5-4 vote simply remanding the case to a lower court. The high court ultimately affirmed must-carry in a 5-4 vote in 1997. Cable's near miss on that important Supreme Court decision -- and the nine justices' circuitous process -- might never have become known outside the court's inner core, had it not been spelled out in the recently released papers and records of former Justice Harry A. Blackmun, a Nixon appointee who penned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion. Blackmun, who helped change Souter's mind on must-carry, retired in 1994 and died in 1999 at 85. In 1997, he donated records from his long and distinguished judicial career to the Library of Congress, with instructions not to release them for five years after his death. On March 4, the Library opened the records to the public -- in all, about 1,600 boxes of letters, memos, draft opinions and notes that shed some light on the inner workings of the country's most secretive institution from a man who served it for 24 years. The must-carry case has a long shadow. Broadcasters today rely on their victory in their effort to get the Federal Communications Commission to force cable systems to carry not just one programming service per TV station, but as many free programming services as a station can pack into its digital spectrum. http://www.mediareform.net/news/article.php?id=2838 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:50:02 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Broadcasters Hate Digital-TV Proposal From Multichannel News, March 22, 2004 By Ted Hearn Washington- What's good for Berlin, Germany, isn't so good for Berlin, N.H. That's the word broadcasters quietly put out last week in their effort to quell a bold plan by the Federal Communications Commission that would require TV stations to give back their analog licenses many years sooner than expected. The FCC would like to get its hands on the analog spectrum as quickly as possible for reallocation to the wireless phone industry, which wants to deploy over-the-air broadband data services. Public safety groups also want a slice of the airwaves. The FCC's transition model is the German capital, which last August became the first major city in the world to complete the DTV transition and did so apparently without complication. Broadcasting sources, who asked not to be identified, had nothing nice to say about elements of the FCC plan they had seen. They called it too complicated, politically naive -- and generous to the cable industry on a scale not seen in many years. http://www.freepress.net/news/article.php?id=2839 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:52:05 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Broadcasters: Keep must-carry as it is From Multichannel News, March 22, 2004 By Ted Hearn Washington - The cable industry may have found its most lethal weapon yet against a policy to expand cable carriage of local TV stations. It's opposition from broadcasters themselves. The vast majority of TV stations want a federal rule to require cable systems to carry their multiple digital-programming services in an expansion of current analog must-carry rules that limit carriage to one service. But at least one TV-station group has other ideas. FEARS BREAKDOWN Spanish broadcaster Entravision Holdings Inc. is a holdout from the multicast must-carry consensus, telling the Federal Communications Commission that broadening the carriage rules for digital TV could cause the courts to bring down all must-carry rules. That would greatly harm Entravision stations, which need bare bones must-carry rights to get berths on cable systems. Cable programmers are beginning to replay Entravision's message at the FCC. In a March 16 filing, A&E Television Networks and Court TV cited Entravision's analysis as yet another -- and telling -- rationale for limiting TV stations to just one programming stream on cable. http://www.freepress.net/news/article.php?id=2840 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:58:35 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Free Lane on the Information Highway By DALTON CONLEY The WiFi revolution is here. With the technology known as wireless fidelity, laptop users can get onto the Internet and download e-mail, photos and other electronic files from places once well off the information superhighway -- parks, truck stops and cafes, to name a few. That's a wonderful thing, but what's better is that WiFi holds the promise of bridging America's much discussed digital divide - if we make it ubiquitous and free to use, like the public library system. After all, just as roads and bridges were among the most important public investments in the industrial period, wireless access to the Internet is arguably the most crucial public investment of the information age. For now, though, wireless Internet access is a hodgepodge. In most cases, a home computer user buys a wireless router (which costs less than $100) that links to an Internet connection (which can cost several hundred dollars a year). The router then broadcasts a signal, which typically covers 300 feet to 1,600 feet, that allows all computers within that range to tap into the Internet. Some businesses, like coffee shops, have WiFi on their premises to lure customers. Some institutions also provide WiFi to the public. In Bryant Park, next to the New York Public Library on 42nd Street, laptop users can sit at one of the public tables on a glorious afternoon and read their e-mail while sipping a latte, thanks to the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation. Similarly, Columbia University offers free wireless access on its campus. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/19/opinion/19CONL.html ------------------------------ Subject: Supreme Court Rules Against Local Government Phone Service Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:00:29 -0500 From: Monty Solomon WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Wednesday that states may block cities and other local governments from setting up shop as phone service providers. http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0304/24phone.html NIXON, ATT'Y GEN. OF MO v. MO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, ET AL. No. 02-1238. Argued January 12, 2004 -- Decided March 24, 2004 http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1238.ZS.html Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1238.pdf ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:43:06 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Public Knowledge Demystifies Digital Rights Management Public Knowledge has published a comprehensive resource that makes understandable for everyone the increasingly complex and highly technical issue of digital rights management. Digital Rights Management (DRM) is the term applied to technologies that prevent you from using a copyrighted digital work beyond the degree to which the copyright owner wishes to allow you to use it. The technologies can be applied to digital movies, television programs, books or music. The 40-page primer, "What Every Citizen Should Know About DRM, a.k.a. Digital Rights Management," was written by Mike Godwin, senior technology counsel at Public Knowledge. Godwin is a veteran of Internet law, and the author of "Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age" (MIT Press, 2003). http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/press-releases/press-release-2004-03-19 What Every Citizen Should Know About DRM a.k.a. "Digital Rights Management" http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/overviews/citizens-guide-to-drm/view ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:35:12 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Thumbs up For APTS Digital-Only Strategy But first, another test: linking with PBS dues Originally published in Current, March 8, 2004 By Steve Behrens With a show of hands, all but a few public TV station chiefs attending an APTS Capitol Hill Day meeting Feb. 24 [2004] said the lobbying group should keep developing its "digital-only broadcasting," or DOB, strategy. Instead of continuing to use analog TV channels for the next decade or more, the strategy goes, public TV would make a concerted effort to speed viewers' move to digital over-the-air broadcasting, cable or satellite reception. The government, pleased to earn billions from early auctions of the channels, would give public TV special assistance in exchange. Public TV would not only save transmitter power bills but could also win mandated cable carriage and an endowed trust fund from Congress, APTS President John Lawson told station execs. http://www.current.org/federal/fed0404apts.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:35:44 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DTV: Should we Bet the Farm on a Digital-Only Strategy? APTS plan is creative, but is it wise to rely on the kindness of cable? Originally published in Current, Feb. 23, 2004 Commentary by Dennis L. Haarsager No segment of the broadcasting industry has worked harder to make the digital transition work than has public broadcasting. For example, NPR's Tomorrow Radio project may keep digital radio from joining the dustbin of failed technology innovations. Many public television stations offer enhanced DTV services to realize promises they made to the public and to funders. Both public media are expanding the frankly limited conception of the designers of digital radio and television. In spite of these innovations, there is so much going on in the development of alternative digital distribution platforms that neither medium should bet the farm on over-the-air digital broadcasting. On the television side, here's why. When the FCC began a rulemaking to anoint an "advanced television'' standard in 1987, the focus was on stuffing a high-definition television signal into a 6-MHz channel. It was a different world. MS-DOS was still the dominant computer operating system, the Internet and World Wide Web were as a practical matter about six years away, and the first DTV station (WRAL in Raleigh, N.C.) eight years away. Cable was less developed and DBS didn't exist. We still live with the vision of digital TV distribution set in that context 16 years ago. In 1987, many knowledgeable people thought HDTV couldn't be stuffed into the 6-MHz channels stations had available. But the designers of the 8-VSB system were determined to fool Mother Nature. They succeeded heroically and the FCC adopted the system as a standard. http://www.current.org/dtv/dtv0403dob.shtml ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Last Modern Towns to Go Dial Organization: ATCC Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 05:59:53 GMT In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: About fifty years ago, when Hammond, IN > was just getting converted to dial, to reach Whiting, IN (still manual) > one dialed '911' and talked to the Whiting operator to get the desired > number. But in Whiting when you asked the operator for a Hammond > number you would then hear 'beep beep beep' as she punched it in to > get the Hammond number. PAT] Sure, routing calls using MF signalling has been around since the 30's. But I think the biggest challenges in the Bell System were definitely signalling. Supervision and routing had to understand all sorts of different signals (Ie. revertive pulse, MF and who knows what other bastardized signalling systems were around.) ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Last Modern Towns to Go Dial Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 05:54:13 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications Lisa Hancock wrote: > One of the tough challenges the Bell System faced in the 1950s was the > vast variety of equipment in its switching centers -- most dating from > a time switches were installed to meet a community's needs only > without much concern to a bigger picture. Converting to dial in the > mid 1950s meant not only replacing existing equipment in kind, but > assessing future growth and providing a building and equipment > accordingly. Plenty of towns undoubtedly got second-hand SxS gear > from other towns upgraded to XBar, and probably a few got additional > manual board positions to tide them over for a while. Remember that > SxS lines didn't peak out until 1974. In urban and suburban areas Bell got at least one office code on a XBAR machine, even though the remainder of the office was SxS. The XBAR not only provided service to one office code, it provided common control for the steppers' toll calls, thus avoiding the call director fiasco that almost buried General Telephone from 1965-1980, or so. ------------------------------ From: George Adams Subject: Re: Lafayette, IN long distance Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:18:53 -0500 On Mar 23, 2004, at 10:29 PM, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Wasn't Lafayette, Indiana and its > neighbor West Lafayette a similar situation? Long after that part of > Indiana was in the 317 area code, and largely dialable, I recall we > still had to go through the operator to get Lafayette from the Chicago > area. So was Fort Wayne, Indiana I think, in the 219 area. PAT] Pat, you are correct. It was also interesting from Lafayette, dialing out. In the fall of 1978 I moved to West Lafayette, IN. Long distance calls were dialed with 1 plus 10 digits, you would hear ringing, then the operator would come on and ask "What number are you calling FROM, please?" It was an honor system for billing the call. You would state your number, and then your call would ring out to the intended destination. Per minute long distance rates in those days dropped sharply for calls that started at or after 11:00 pm; calls that started at 10:59 pm were billed for all minutes at the high rate. So there was a nightly rush of calls when people felt sure the cheaper rate was in effect. This often swamped the system, and instead of getting the operator you would hear a few rings and then be connected to many other poor souls wanting to call long distance but also not reaching the operator. You could talk to all of them as a giant chat until you got tired, hung up, and tried again. An accurate clock was very valuable in guiding your dialing to reach the operator just at 11:00 so your entire call would benefit from the cheap rate, yet reliably go through, since you were a minute or two ahead of the "rush hour". As I recall, some time in 1980, the central office was upgraded to capture caller numbers, and ringing to the destination phone was not longer interrupted by the operator's billing question. Capacity was also upgraded and I don't recall failing to get a long distance call to go through after that time. George [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You may remember when the telco there had a real funky system for calling Purdue University from anywhere in Lafayette or West Lafayette. Callers dialed '90' (only!) and reached the Purdue operator then verbally passed her a five digit extension. Or, people could dial '92' and the desired five digit extension if they knew it. Purdue took up six or eight entire pages in the Lafayette phone directory. At some point, I suppose around 1980, they did away with that system. Fort Riley, in Junction City, Kansas also had a peculiar arrangement. They were served by United Telephone in those days, and had something like thirty or forty pages in the center of the Junction City phone book. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Re: Google Local is Cool Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 01:26:00 -0700 Organization: Kaos OnLine Coalition On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:15:07 -0600, John Cummings wrote: >>> One wonders what countermeasures the Baby Bells -- and other >>> owners of Yellow Pages services -- will launch. >> SmartPages.com is an SBC operation. > RealPages.com is a BellSouth operation. And Qwest's service -- the one they sold -- is called dexonline.com. What are these services providing beyond a computer interface to the traditional Yellow Pages mechanism? I've messed with a couple of these services, but haven't seen anything at all remarkable. AFAICT, each of these services has access to (the same?) national database. That's interesting, but is hardly remarkable. BTW: local.google definitely has problems, too. My chiropracter moved her practice to a new city well over a year ago, but Google has her located in the old town. And I don't know why -- she has her address specified on her webpage. > John Cummings --phil ------------------------------ From: Joel Keck Subject: Review of Norvergence Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:25:55 -0500 Mr. Townson, Working in the telecom industry this company has recently been brought to my attention. Here is a fairly detailed and in depth assessment from what I've read. It's rather lengthy so I hope it goes through, and I have a copy backed up on word. You can reach me at the above email address, though I ask that you remove it if you post this on your digest. Anyone else wishing to contact me in regards to this can email me at Crane999@yahoo.com with the title "Norvergence" and I should catch it. Gotta love those spam filters. In response to the recent queries and various boards I've read that deal with the telecommunications company Norvergence I would like to supply the following opinion. I work for a competitor of this company, however I have learned to respect competitors. While I have not come up against a deal with this company, nor have I seen any of the paperwork they produce I do have some points that might be of interest. First I must point out that these opinions are based solely on hearsay. I am taking this information from what I have read on these bulletin boards. 1. If it saves you money, it's worth looking into. It appears that Norvergence can, and does save companies money on their telecom bills. 2. If at the same time as saving you money it provides a service that is better than what you have, or exactly what you need then go for it. Here are some concerns I have from a business standpoint, and also from what I would ask as a consumer looking into these services. 1. Why am I signing a loan application and not a credit verification form? 2. If you can't tell me about what kind of service you provide, who can? 3. How is your customer service? 4. What is your service level agreement (what happens if/when I lose service?) 5. Why do I have to purchase the equipment, can't I just rent it? 6. If I'm purchasing the equipment and it breaks, what recourse do I have? 7. Why should I have to leave my current carrier up for redundancy? 8. All the other telecom companies only offer a 3 year deal maximum, why am I signing a 5 year deal? Some of the issues mentioned, that I want to provide some measure of clarity on. * Reselling of services. In the case of Norvergence there appears to be an issue with their reselling the cellular services. Each company (aside from the Incumbent carriers - Bell, Sprint, Verizon) must in some manner "resell" some measure of their business. If you have an analog line at your business and you don't have service with one of the Incumbents, chances are that line is resold. Same situation, the difference is you're dealing with Cell phones which most companies don't do. * From what I've read, the customer service is terrible. Ok, admittedly every company has at some point or another been known for bad customer service. There are growing pains, especially if Norvergence is growing as fast as it seems. My only statement on this subject currently (I address this further, later on) is that they will need to improve this area to keep customers. Any company with a continued record of horrible customer service often gets in trouble with state agencies. I'm sure they are aware of this issue and there was some indication from the posts I read that they had improved to some measure. * Raising the rates of services with 30 days notice. I am not aware of any company (other than perhaps the Incumbent Carriers) that do not have some form of this. Your initial response even from most of the companies will be that they do not, because you signed a contract. Your thoughts are, I signed a contract that guarantees me a price for the specified amount of time. o Each company must file tariffs within each state they elect to provide services in. These tariffs are reviewed by the Utility Commissions or Regulatory agencies within that state. Due to the lengthy nature of these legal documents (think taxes) they are not given to customers but are readily available. My company has them located on the internet for anyone to view. Within these tariffs are the regulations of how the company would go about raising the rates. o The tariffs do also have limits to raising the rates. So while the rates can be raised, it cannot be done without limit. o If you wish to contact your current provider, ask them if you can view a copy of their tariff's for your state. Hopefully they will have it in a format that will allow you to do so at your leisure. * The "MATRIX" box. According to the website information I viewed (there is a link to Adtran on the Norvergence website) this equipment was specifically designed by Adtran for what Norvergence wanted. This does mean that what Norvergence claims is technically true. However, it's still an Adtran. Look around and see what other Adtran may cost anywhere near what they are apparently selling it to you for. * The equipment is purchased. Most telecom companies do not sell the equipment they use to customers. There are exceptions, since the right amount of money really can get you just about anything. o The reason behind not selling the equipment is the concern that if anything happens to your services that is equipment related it can be repaired or replaced by the provider. If you own the equipment, the provider can do nothing to assist you (other than selling you another one) due to liability issues. o This is still a business, and yes we will make some money off of renting or selling you the equipment. I will say though, that nowadays many companies are simply building the cost of the equipment into the pricing so you'll never see it. * Norvergence's alleged denial of using Voice over IP (VoIP) technology. If you go to their website you will see at the top of the web browser a description of the page. It does state there, that they use this technology. I find it difficult to believe that they would deny using this as it is one of the most current out there. o You have 3 choices of phone services right now, based on two types. Analog, which is the same as what you have at home. Or digital, which is broken down by how the packets are dealt with. That is very important, because of the digital types you have VoIP, and VoATM (Voice over ATM). o The age old adage of paying for what you get is very true in this case. VoIP tends to be cheaper, because it is overall not as good as VoATM. VoIP sends the signal and that's it. If it has nowhere to go, it doesn't matter. VoATM does a little more. Generally it will attempt to recover more of any lost packets, and will try to make sure the signal has somewhere to go. The end difference is usually minimal. In some cases, the difference is quite telling. o The idea of the digital services has an innate difference in what can be done on the higher end. Norvergence is offering a voice/data solution to give plenty of voice lines, while maintaining data access to a broadband level. VoIP will lose data bandwidth with each voice line that is in use. VoATM will lose data bandwidth to a specified level, and then maintain that level no matter how many voice channels are used. o Please note that the term "broadband" is not completely defined. It generally means anything that is faster than what a dial up connection on an analog line can provide. If it's above 56k it can probably be called "broadband". Their web page says the following: "NorVergence is a $200 Million Dollar Business Equipment and Systems Engineering Company ...." The issue I have with this statement is the manner in which Norvergence apparently receives their earnings. From what I've read, the bank pays the loan amount to Norvergence, and the customer is set for a 5 year period of paying up. None of the actual financial numbers I've seen tossed around on the boards seems to fit exactly with what everyone is saying, so I can't provide any truly accurate measure or financial assessment. However, what this means to me is that Norvergence can do well quickly because they have all of their next 5 years of revenue from the customer up front. There is an ingrained problem with this. All of the money they will make from you over the next 5 years is already in their pockets. There is little or no incentive to provide any type of customer service because they are not depending on the residual revenue you provide. It seems, or has been claimed that a small portion of the monthly payments goes to Norvergence and the remaining to the bank. All this seems to provide for Norvergence is their cost of services and goods to the customer. This is how I would guess they will be able to maintain services for some time. Lack of residual cost is a good thing, especially in a business that is based off of that very thing. Overall I think that as long as you feel the risk is worth it, this may very well be the best decision you ever make. It seems that currently, if you have a problem Norvergence is slow to provide any type of customer service or assistance. That may change. The issues and warning signs I see are that they use very high pressure sales tactics. They provide few answers to legitimate questions that are quite valid. You're signing a 5 year loan. They have all their money up front. It doesn't sit right with me, but for you it very well could be the best deal you find. Joel Keck ------------------------------ 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 2004 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 #138 ******************************