From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jan 11 23:47:05 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i0C4l5114958; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:47:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:47:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200401120447.i0C4l5114958@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 #16 TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:47:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 16 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Verizon DSL - Idiots (Charles P.) Re: Verizon DSL - Idiots (Steven J Sobol) Re: Verizon DSL - Idiots (Joe@nospancity.com) Re: Vonage Virtual Number Crap Shoot (Sam Nickerson) Re: Vonage Virtual Number Crap Shoot (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) NEC and Centigram (Tvargas) Re: Siemens Gigabit 2420/8825 Voicemail Question (Rupa Schomaker) Trouble Getting Into Archives (DC) More on NANP Numbering Compared to Europe (Bob Goudreau) Re: BBC Writer Fathoms the Internet Pretty Well (Ronda Hauben) Re: Automated Attendant Systems (Carl Navarro) Doubling Down on Digital Entertainment (Monty Solomon) New TVs Are Easy to Admire, Tougher to Comprehend (Monty Solomon) Mars Info on NASA Web Site Gets Inundated (Monty Solomon) 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: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:53:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Charles P. Subject: Re: Verizon DSL - Idiots Organization: Optimum Online I had Verizon tell one customer they couldn't do it, even though their neighbor had it. They then called Earthlink who said no problem and put it in on Verizon's wires. cp Kilo Delta One Sierra wrote in message news:telecom23.15.10@telecom-digest.org ... > I wanted to install DSL (Cable company finally pissed me off enough > that I went to the local office, threw my cable box on the desk and > told them to shove their crappy service. It's Cox btw.) but Verizon > droids tell me it's not available, that I'm close to 5 miles from the > CO. > Now I know for a fact that I'm nowhere near 5 miles from the CO. More > like a mile maximum. So I went on their web site and sure enough I get > the 'future notification' page. I plug in the phone number of the > restaurant below me which is served on the same cable group, same CO > and guess what, it's available. > Time to call the morons back. > Tony ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Verizon DSL - Idiots Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:57:29 -0600 Kilo Delta One Sierra wrote: > I wanted to install DSL (Cable company finally pissed me off enough > that I went to the local office, threw my cable box on the desk and > told them to shove their crappy service. It's Cox btw.) but Verizon > droids tell me it's not available, that I'm close to 5 miles from the > CO. Telco droids are idiots. Upper-level repair techs are usually clued, but the front-level people are stupid. What did you expect from a phone company? (And Verizon's not as bad as the other ILECs, in my opinion!) JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Geek In Charge * 888.480.4NET (4638) * sjsobol@JustThe.net ------------------------------ From: Joe@nospancity.com Subject: Re: Verizon DSL - Idiots Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:03:12 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications If the web site tests the line and says it's eligible why not place the order on-line so you don't have to deal with the "morons." Kilo Delta One Sierra wrote: > I wanted to install DSL (Cable company finally pissed me off enough > that I went to the local office, threw my cable box on the desk and > told them to shove their crappy service. It's Cox btw.) but Verizon > droids tell me it's not available, that I'm close to 5 miles from the > CO. > Now I know for a fact that I'm nowhere near 5 miles from the CO. More > like a mile maximum. So I went on their web site and sure enough I get > the 'future notification' page. I plug in the phone number of the > restaurant below me which is served on the same cable group, same CO > and guess what, it's available. > Time to call the morons back. > Tony ------------------------------ From: Sam Nickerson Subject: Re: Vonage Virtual Number Crap Shoot Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:31:31 GMT On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:59:18 -0800, Joe wrote: > Sam Nickerson wrote: >> Just a quick warning to anyone thinking about going Vonage for the >> "Virtual Number" feature. I am a new customer to them; jumped on board >> because of the virtual number idea. >> I have a mother in Florida living on a fixed income and it would help >> her alot to be able to call me when she needs to. After getting set up >> and generating a virtual number, mom in Florida at the same area code >> could not make a non-toll call. I called Vonage customer no care and >> they said the prefix generated was not in her calling region ... sorry. >> Was there any way for them to refund the 14 bucks I >> spent on a useless number ... nope. But they did give me a list of >> prefixes that would work for her, and that all I need to do was >> generate another and look at the number before final submit and I >> would not get charged, just hit back and try another until a working >> number magically appears and hit submit to accept it. Tried that, then >> found the generated number does not show prior to submit and I get hit >> with another 14 bucks charge. 28 bucks of worthless numbers I, and >> mom, can not use. >> Called Vonage Customer no care again, guy says sorry, let me put a >> credit against your account for the 14 bucks so you can try again at >> no charge. Thru the dice again, no good. Well sorry sir, guess we don't >> have numbers in her local area; nothing I can do about the 28 bucks you >> have spent so far, no managers around that can help, send us an email >> and they will review. >> Sheeeesh, for a company looking to break into an emerging market you >> would think they would handle customers better, their marketing group >> is spending a lot of time, money and effort only to have customer no >> care mess it up. Just my experience; your mileage may vary. >> Sam > I think the problem may be with you and your mother. In my part of > California when I selected Area Code 949, it gives me the option of > selecting one of four locations. Those locations have exactly the > same name as the SBC exchanges in the 949 area code. > What could be simpler? Sure, either you or your mother has to figure > out which of the listed exchanges, if any, are a local call for her. > But, that can easily be done before you hit "go." Perhaps you don't get out much, perhaps English is not your first language, in either case I forgive your misinterpretation of my post. As posted Vonage Technical Support was not able to discern a correct exchange, so how should a customer? Not all areas of the U.S. are as over populated and well defined as the California region, and the majority of this country lies outside of California. Per Vonage Tech support you take a throw of the dice, get charged against your credit card, and hope for a prefix in the desired area. Whoa dude surfs up, Sam ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:47:38 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Vonage Virtual Number Crap Shoot Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > I have a mother in Florida living on a fixed income and it would help > her alot to be able to call me when she needs to. After getting set up If you call the business office, you can probably get a business number in any exchange you want, and then have it forward anywhere you want. Should be about $25/month, plus usage. -Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, but if he did that, why not just get an 800 number -- much cheaper -- for mom's use in calling him using Bell all the way. In that case, a long haul via Bell from mom to him would be much cheaper that a combination of 'extended toll' for mom and a Vonage virtual number for himself. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tvargas@networld.com (Tvargas) Subject: NEC and Centigram Date: 11 Jan 2004 11:27:29 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Has anyone ever integrated a NEC 2000 IVS system to a Centigram Model 70 Voicemail system? If so, how was your template configured? ------------------------------ From: Rupa Schomaker Subject: Re: Siemens Gigabit 2420/8825 Voicemail Question Date: 11 Jan 2004 12:13:38 -0600 sf@mnetsys.com (Steve Fitzgerald) writes: > Does anyone know if on the 2420 or 8825 it is possible to disable the > answering machine on only one of the lines? I have two lines and only > want the answering machine to answer one of the them. The other line > has dedicated voicemail service off-site. Don't know about the 2420. My 8825 allows you to configure answering machine, auto attendant, etc for each line independently. Now if I could just get it to detect when the other end hangs up on my Vonage line. For now I limit the message length to 1 min and have to suffer up to 1 min of "off hook notification beeps" ... > Thanks. -rupa [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mike Sandman ( http://www.sandman.com ) and I did some testing on this recently. Unfortunatly, Vonage does not do call supervision if that is a critical point with you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:15:20 -0800 From: DC Subject: Trouble Getting Into Archives I would like to look at vol 15, issue 362 but there seems to be a problem getting into that directory. It just hangs when I click on that directory. Is there something wrong? Thank You, Darold Coffey [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I sent a copy of Vol15_#362 to Mr. Coffey today. Anyone who wants something from the archives and for whatever reason gets hung up or has trouble finding what they want is welcome to ask for help in getting it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bob Goudreau Subject: More on NANP Numbering Compared to Europe Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:49:16 -0500 [Patrick, it occurs to me that I never received the usual auto-acknowledgement to the message I submitted several days ago, so it apparently never made it. Here's another attempt.] [Please continue to omit my email address too.] Earle Robinson writes: > While the UK did fumble its modernization of the telephone numbering > system, this didn't occur in the rest of Europe. Er, actually if you'll check the WTNG, you'll see quite a lot of examples of European numbering plans that endured wholesale changes over the past couple of decades (adding digits, rearranging entire area code schemes, etc.) It's not just a UK thing by any means. Greece, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, etc. Not to mention France ... > My number in Paris has remained the same for 20 years now. Was it the early 1980s that Paris changed from 7D to 8D numbers? Of course, from a dialing perspective, your number has only remained unchanged to those callers who were outside of France, who have been able to dial you as +33 1 AB CD EF GH for that entire period. Inside France, the dialing of your number (and every other POTS number) has certainly changed in that time. You used to be dialable as AB CD EF GH from within the Paris region (+33 1), and as AB CD EF GH from the rest of the country, IIRC. (Wasn't the access code something like 16-1 or 19-1?) But now you are reachable as 01 AB CD EF GH from everywhere in the country. > Friends of mine in the states > have endured 3, 4 or more area code changes during this time. I think you'll find that the number of people living in areas that have undergone that many NPA splits is proportionally very tiny compared to the number who have undergone no changes at all. (Mark & Co., are there actually *any* areas at all that have undergone *four* splits since 1984? PAT complained about having four area codes over the years, but bear in mind that he moved to different cities at least a couple of times, which isn't at all the same as having your number change due to an area code split.) Of course *most* of France had to change its numbers during the past decade; the entire "rest of the country" outside the Paris (+33 1) region had their numbers lengthened by prefixing an area code to their existing numbers (+33 AB CD EF GH became +33 X AB CD EF GH). I.e., their numbers changed from everyone's perspective (international and intranational). > In the USA the dialing system is also very confusing. In some areas > you dial 7 digits for a local call, in others 10, and in others 11. > Why? In Europe, the dialing system is even more confusing. In some areas you dial 5 digits for a local call, in others 6, in others 7, in others 8, in others 9 or 10. > Mr. Cuccia also praises and repraises the "free" local calls in much > of the states. However, he omits a couple of salient points. First, > one pays much more monthly for a telephone line in the states than > here in France. What does monthly service for a POTS line from FT cost these days (including any fees/taxes)? I thought it was in the EUR 15 range, which is certainly comparable with many areas of the US. (Canada tends to be slightly cheaper.) Regards, Bob Goudreau Cary, NC [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not remember the *exact* order of things from back when I was living in Chicago but let us take a hypothetical person living in Evanston/Skokie, IL for thirty years or so. They began with 312 for all of northern Illinois. Then they went to 708 when all suburbs were split away from Chicago. Then they would have gone to 847 when the northern suburbs were split away from the southern/western suburbs. Now they have gone to 224 when the northeastern suburbs were split away from the northwestern suburbs. That would appear to be four potential area code splits in a bit over twenty years wouldn't it? Yes, I did move from Chicago to Skokie but I got 312/773 even though I was gone from the area before 847/224 took place. I am talking now about the hypothetical person who never moved out of the same house in Evanston for 20 plus years, of which there have been many folks. Or, let's take Northwestern University, which has been in the same spot for more than a century: 312 --> 708 --> 847 --> 224. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: BBC Writer Fathoms the Internet Pretty Well Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:40:07 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Mark Crispin wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Ronda Hauben wrote: >> Are you saying that the ARPANET is the same as the IMP subnetwork >> of the ARPANET? The whole point of the IMP subnetwork is to connect >> diverse computers and diverse operating systems. The ARPANET is the >> connection of these diverse computers and operating systems. It isn't >> the IMP subnetwork. The IMP subnetwork is the means of connecting the >> diverse computers, but is *not* the ARPANET. > Ronda, were you a user of the ARPAnet in its halcyon days (1970-1982)? > I was. I implemented the first 96-bit leader (32-bit address) ARPAnet > NCP for the PDP-10 in 1978. I was very much part of the TCP/IP > transition in 1983, and the subsequent ARPAnet/Milnet split. I wrote > some of the earliest implementations of Telnet and SMTP. I even wrote > an EGP. I know you were Mark, as I have written you several years ago based on my research on TCP/IP digest and other early Internet documentation. And I wrote some about how you spoke out with regard to issues you disagreed about on the tcp/ip digest. That you now complain when I speak out about issues that are a problem is a bit of a surprise. I am glad that there are people like you online who were involved with the early development of the ARPANET. But then I would hope you would be helpful in spreading accurate knowledge about the technical developments. To ask if I was online then isn't quite relevant, is it? I have read many of the documents and been in contact with many who were online then. And I hav2 done substantial research both by being in contact with people who were there and by researching the documents created at the time. I an co-author of one of the early books about the history and development of the ARPANET, Usenet and the Internet. The book was written on the basis of help from people who had been involved in the early developments of the Net. > I have never heard the term "IMP subnetwork" used. I don't understand the point of your saying this? Whether or not you have heard of it, it has been used. I didn't make it up. If you were interested in helping to sort this out you might take a look back at some of the RFC's that a short search on google shows used the term "IMP subnetwork." A short search turns up: RFC 687 by David C. Walden from June 1975 NIC #32654 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc687.html RFC 410 by John M. McQuillan 10 November 1970 http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc410.html RFC 528 by J. McQuillan 20 June 1973 NIC: 17164 http://rfc-528.rfc-search.org/ RFC 533 by David Walden July 17, 1973 NIC: 17452 So though you may not have noticed "IMP subnetwork" in those RFC's, it has been a term used and it expresses a helpful concept. > Nor have I ever heard of this strange case which you seem to be making. > The notion that the wires of an LH or DH connection are part of a > "network" is rather, uh, strange to anyone who actually dealt with it > on an electrical basis. A better case may be made for a VDH > interface, but that in turn was more of a point-to-point network. > So is the notion that the hosts on the ARPAnet were part of the > network. It's akin to saying that a human user of a telephone is > "part of the telephone network." Mark, are you saying that the telephone isn't part of the telephone network? It is important that people have some understanding of the technology. Do you disagree? The hosts are more akin to the telephone. They were the different computers and different operating systems that were part of the ARPANET. This is more akin to the telephone being part of the telephone network, than to refer to the human telephone user or human computer user. The question whether the human telephone user or the human computer user is part of their respective networks is a serious question, but doesn't seem relevant to trying to clarify whether the ARPANET was made up of both the IMPs and HOSTs and whether the telephone network is made up of the switching network and the phones that make the communication possible. > The notion that the only important difference between ARPAnet and > Internet is that "Internet made it possible to connect different > networks, not just different computers" is laughable to anyone who was > actually there. Are you stressing "only" here? I am stressing that an "important difference" between them is that the ARPANET connected different operating systems and different computer systems, and the Internet connected different networks. I wasn't focusing on whether there is only one important difference or more. To say "laughable" doesn't help to clarify anything. Instead it can serve to intimidate any disagreement. Similarly to refer to anyone "who was actually there" as the being the deciding factor, is not helpful. There will in the not too distant future be no one who was "actually there" to refer to. It is important that knowledge of these developments be made available to those who weren't there. That is why I took the trouble to comment on the BBC reporter's article, as it didn't help clarify, but only spread sand in the eyes of anyone trying to understand the ARPANET and Internet. > In conclusion, I will echo John Levine: >> These facts are well known and easily checked by anyone who cares to >> do so, and you only make yourself look foolish by trying to argue >> do so, and you only make yourself look foolish by trying to argue >> that the situation was and is otherwise. If these facts are easily checked, I wondered why neither you nor John tried to look up "IMP subnetwork" instead of insisting it is a phantom term. >> I have no interest in arguing about facts, so this is my last >> message on this topic. > -- Mark -- That is your perogative of course. It is the 10th anniversary this weekend of Michael and I putting the online book "Netizens" online. We worked on the book and put it online because we felt it was important to spread an understanding of the history and impact of the Net as it seemed it was not understood by many online who were enthralled by what it made possible, but had no idea where it had come from. The book was an early history of the Net and explored its potential impact. Michael, particularly, and I had been encouraged by many online at the time to do our work and we got help from many online. Michael still continues to get numerous emails that say that people have found his work very helpful to them, especially the chapters of Netizens that he had done about the creation of the ARPANET. Based on this work, many other efforts to write about the history were begun. So it is sad to see the state of the situation now, where when one makes an effort to clarify a misrepresentation that a BBC reporter makes which is being spread via the powerful distribution mechanisms of the BBC and also online, that there is an attack on the effort to make the clarification. How can the BBC reporter care to try to understand the ARPANET and Internet if there isn't an effort to correct misrepresentations. The IMP subnetwork was not the ARPA network (as the ARPANET was sometimes called before the creation of the Internet). The ARPANET is the interconnection of different computers and operating systems and the IMP subnetwork. The Internet was the interconnection of diverse networks, or a network of networks (or a metasystem of networks). Usenet is about disagreements, so hopefully it can help to have discussion over the differences. I wrote a paper on the tcp/ip digest where I refer to the role you played there Mark. It was a very helpful role. It is online at: A Study of the ARPANET TCP/IP Digest and of the Role of Online Communication in the Transition from the ARPANET to the Internet http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/tcpdraft.txt I am working on a paper about the early development of the Internet as an international collaboration. And I welcome input into that process. Ronda Netizens is online at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ A draft paper on the 10th anniversary of Netizens http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netizens2004.doc ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Automated Attendant Systems Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:52:29 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 02:30:33 GMT, JamminDJ wrote: > Hello, I am a tech consonant for a computer help desk at a mid to > large size university. Currently all calls to the centre go through an > initial auto attendant system, then are forwarded to dept. depending > on need. One of these options is password change. This is all done by > human operator right now, we take their SSN numbers and get fed a new > password out. This becomes quite tiresome, and some higher ups have > actually threatened to quit due to the infinite number of calls for > change password requests. My question is, is there a piece of software > or hardware, capable of taking a purely numeric SSN number, feeding to > one of our mainframes, and spit out the purely alphaic password? I > know it can be done, this is evident in the CVS 'Rapid Refill' > system. I just wonder if there is any third party software that can do > this, and do it at a university price. I have never done this, but Amanda does simple comma delimited or ODBC compliant database lookups, depending on which system you buy. Try www.taa.com and look at Amanda @work.group or Amanda Portal. The former is fairly inexpensive for what it does, about $2500 retail, and the latter about $5200 for 4 port systems. Carl Navarro > Thank you for your time, > Paul Miller ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:22:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Doubling Down on Digital Entertainment By Cynthia L. Webb washingtonpost.com Staff Writer When the world's technology heavyweights get together every January to tout their flashy gadgets, you know it's more than just "Vegas, baby." It's the International Consumer Electronics Show , and this year's event kicked off with the latest installment in Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates's vision of the wired future. That future will play out in a seamless melange of connected PCs, TVs and a host of other electronics devices -- a digital entertainment system with the computer as its central nervous system, Gates said in his opening keynote. And in a familiar refrain, Gates wants Microsoft to be the market leader. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64733-2004Jan8.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:28:37 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New TVs Are Easy to Admire, Tougher to Comprehend By Rob Pegoraro LAS VEGAS It is becoming harder to buy a television set than a personal computer. The unheralded side effect of the digital transformation that promises to bring TV sets new levels of quality and performance is that they've become much harder to decipher. These things were once commodity items that anybody could buy based largely on brand and price, but the evidence on the show floor at the Consumer Electronics Show here indicates that they're all shifting painfully back into the status of "exclusive" products, each with a unique mix of innovations, limitations and, most of the time, higher prices. This tension between creativity and commodity is part of this industry's way of life. A product can't be born without creativity, but it can't be a success until it hits commodity status. In between, it's a mess for consumers to sort out. That's the story behind three big stories of this year's CES: flat-panel digital televisions, digital video recording and wireless media networks. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5386-2004Jan10.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:57:35 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Mars Info on NASA Web Site Gets Inundated By ANICK JESDANUN AP Internet Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- Think of the Library of Congress' entire print collections _ and then some _ to get an idea of how much data space enthusiasts have downloaded from NASA's Web sites this week. Visitors had obtained more than 34.6 terabytes of images, video and other information as of Friday afternoon, the bulk related to the Mars rover Spirit. By some estimates, all the words in every book in the Library of Congress total 20 terabytes. So far, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has posted all raw images from Spirit, some within a half-hour of the data reaching Earth. At least 10 to 30 images are expected daily, with some even available in 3-D. NASA also created panoramic views by piecing several images together and plans interactive features in which viewers control the view with a mouse (sorry, but you won't be able to control the spacecraft's camera directly). Once the rover begins moving, NASA plans video summaries at least weekly by combining still images. For now, video is largely limited to animation of the spacecraft's journey, documentary-style clips and streaming of the NASA TV cable channel. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40157493 ------------------------------ 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: 620-330-6774 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 second 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 #16 *****************************