From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 13 21:08:54 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3E18rX15486; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:08:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:08:54 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404140108.i3E18rX15486@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 #185 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:09:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 185 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Join the Technology Review Research Panel (Kathleen Kennedy) Cordless Phone With IM Phone Calls? (Harold James) Re: Response to Request for PSTN Information (Wes Leatherock) Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? (Carl Navarro) Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? (Dave Garland) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Mark Brader) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of World (M. Muderick) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Joseph) Re: CRTC Ruling (Hank Karl) Re: Spam Issues (Barry Margolin) Re: Spam Issues (SELLCOM Tech Support) Re: Spam Issues (Robert Pierce) PluggedIn: Stow Luggage, Not Phones, While in Flight (Monty Solomon) Re: Calif. Lawmaker Moves to Block Google's Gmail (Clarence Dold) Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? (Matt) More "Leave it to Beaver" Then and Now (Lisa Hancock) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Join the Technology Review Research Panel Reply-To: kathleen.kennedy@technologyreview.com From: Kathleen Kennedy Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:26:40 PDT I am inviting you to join the Technology Review Research Panel, an online community of individuals interested in sharing their expert opinions about software and technology-related products and services in order to directly influence industry manufacturers and developers. In exchange for your opinions, you will be offered some type of compensation in the form of cash, prizes or access to research findings for most surveys. Survey participation is always voluntary you choose when and if to participate based on your interest and availability. To join the panel, please complete the brief, 10 minute panel registration survey, which is hosted by Technology Review's research partner, Socratic Technologies (http://www.sotech.com), by clicking on the link below, or cutting and pasting it into your Internet browser window. If you complete the entire registration survey, you will be entered into our monthly drawing to win $100. Note: When prompted to enter an email address on the opening screen, you will need to use the email address where this invitation was received: telecom@telecomdigest.org http://survey.sotech.com/477001/start.asp?s=6 We hope you enjoy the survey! Kathleen D. Kennedy Associate Director of Marketing and Research Technology Review, Inc. One Main Street, 7th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 Technology Review Research Panel http://survey.sotech.com/477001/start.asp?s=6 ------------------------------ From: homardysa@yahoo.com (Harold James) Subject: Cordless Phone With IM Phone Calls? Date: 13 Apr 2004 10:27:57 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Has anyone heard of an easy way that I can use a regular cordless phone with IM or Skype phone calls? ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:58:13 EDT Subject: Response to Request for PSTN Info In a message dated Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:34:00 -0500, Charles G Gray writes: > When I worked at American > Airlines our entire telecommunications budget worldwide was less than > 3.6% of annual revenue. As an "old telephone guy" I would not be > willing to risk my corporate network to this kind of failure rate to > save a penney a minute. I recall many years ago American Airlines required two separate routes connecting its headquarters in Fort Worth with its secret hidden underground computer center in Tulsa. The phone companies, in their proposals (this was in regulated days) had to specify the exact segments to be used for each of the two geographically diverse routes, and these were subject to AA approval. Among the other things, they had to enter Tulsa from different sides of the city and be routed diversely to the computer center. Probably the same requirement in Fort Worth. [ ... ] > 4.) Will there be a backlash against the idea of "always on" > connectivity? > Yes, and it may have already started. As an aside, see "Blondie" in > the Sunday Funnies for 11 April where Dagwood gets up his courage to > confront a loud talker in a restaurant. I have been in that situation, and was sorely tempted to confront the speaker. But it also depends on the users. I was in a restaurant a week or two ago and looking around I saw five cellphones in use -- but only occasionally was there even a single syllable audible at the adjacent tables. (These all appeared to be workmen -- craftsmen -- contractor types, not the self-designated big shot types that seem to be especially likely to talk in a loud tone.) > Charles G. Gray > Senior Lecturer, Telecommunications > Oklahoma State University - Tulsa > (918)594-8433 Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:12:20 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:17:24 -0700, AES/newspost wrote: > I'd like to get free of the hassles of maintaining an old-fashioned > fax machine. I can handle the occasional outgoing fax by connecting > my laptop to my office voice line temporarily; being open to incoming > faxes is more problematic. > I'm told there are Internet services where anyone can send a fax from > a standard fax machine to some special telephone number that's listed > as my fax number, and the fax is then transmitted to me over the > Internet as an email attachment or a temporary web page? > Anyone had direct experience with any such service? (and some idea of > the monthly or per fax cost?) I've used the free efax (www.efax.com) service since 1998, but at an extremely low volume. They have some rules regarding the number of faxes and commercial use, but it is a fine incoming service for the price. I think about 20 faxes a month is the limit and you will get a number that is not related to anything near you. The pay service used to be $3.95 a month but now they are in love with the full ervice at $9.95. I believe they also charge for pages, maybe 10 cents. Carl "fax me in suburban Detroit" Navarro > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: E-Fax (efax.com) is one such service > and the cost is FREE. (You know your poor mouth moderator; would I > have it any other way?) EFax gives you a number (*not* local unless > you pay for that) and you get your incoming faxes as email. See the > end of each issue of the Digest for the various free EFax numbers I > have which point either here to the Digest mailbox or my personal > mailbox. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:24:42 -0500 Organization: Wizard Information It was a dark and stormy night when PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: E-Fax (efax.com) is one such service > and the cost is FREE. Sometimes. They haven't charged me, either, but I know people who were told that their free service was being discontinued and they'd have to buy the pay service. I notice that their TOS now says the free service is for "personal noncommercial use only", and that you can't receive more than 20 pages/month, so they may have fallen afoul of one of those provisions. For the regular non-free ("eFax Plus") service they charge $12.95/mo with a $12.95 setup fee. Plus $0.20/page if you're using one of their toll-free numbers. $0.10/page to send, inside the USA. Looks like the dot-com business model of "we'll give the product away and make up for the losses with high volume" had some flaws. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:15:53 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Carl Navarro: >> What happened to comp.dcom.voice-over-ip? Happened? On the server that vex uses, it's present with about 100-200 messages per month (although if the half-dozen messages I sampled are representative, much of the traffic is cross-posted to other newsgroups). Google Groups shows hundreds of threads in the group this year. Pat Townson: > How about it, Usenet authorities, i.e. John Levine, David Lawrence and > others? Is it sitting there idle? If so, and you flag it moderated > and send it here to me ... Uh, converting a newsgroup to moderated requires the same procedures as starting a new group. But this is irrelevant here anyway, since the "if so" part is false. Mark Brader, Toronto | "This is an excellent opportunity for msb@vex.net | out-of-context quoting..." --Mike Hardy My text in this article is in the public domain. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have three sources of news feed. The one I checked last night had two very old messages in it. I did not check the other two feeds until *after* I received and read your message this morning. Those two feeds were pretty-well populated, so I guess no help is needed with comp.dcom.voice-over-IP. That's fine with me anyway. My impression, on first reading the original message was that c.d.voip was straggling along, going no where, so (a) I was going to suggest to Jack Decker that he go in there (a little more appropriate) and (b) I would try to get it going for him if that was needed. Just as when Bill Pfieffer passed away in 1999, leaving a Digest and newsgroup and web site sitting without a moderator to keep them going, I kept all three of them going for awhile until someone new could be found. I didn't really need that, nor the high blood pressure and resulting aneurysm which followed it. Bill died in the car accident in September, 1999, two months later, November 26, 1999 plus various web sites (pioneers, internet-history, telecom, plus this Digest and all of Bill's things the brain aneurysm damn near took me away also; in fact as many of you know, I was out of circu- lation for a year so so while recovering. I still miss Bill quite a lot, but I am **so glad** others were found to take over his work on the net. And the more I think about it, I would have been a damn fool (hey! maybe I am anyway!) to take over c.d.voip even if it had been in need, which apparently it is not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael Muderick Subject: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to Outside World Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:27:10 -0400 I occasionally pickup my mail through an internet server such as mail2web.com. I get a message back: Error : AOL email accounts are not POP3 or IMAP4 compatible. You must have POP3 or IMAP4 compatible email account to use mail2web. Is this because they haven't updated their auto-response to AOL mail requests? Michael Muderick ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 06:28:35 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:13:49 -0400, Telecom Digest Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly > Opens ...' as if it was something new? For as long as I can > remember, I have been able to send mail to name@aol.com and get > replies to same. What am I missing here? PAT] It's not just about outside access *to* AOL, but AOL access to the outside and not through their proprietary email client. It's evidently opening itself so that you can use other mail clients and not be limited to use just the dumbed down AOL client. Though the article didn't expressly say this it appears that if you have an email client that has IMAP capability you will be able to use that instead of the native AOL application. remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe that's the reason I never had any hassles with getting email there and responses back over the years (although I do not know what gyrations *they* had to do when writing me). I had (still have?) a lot of names@aol.com on the mailing list here and for a long time this Digest was going into a public area of AOL for anyone who wanted to read it and/or reply. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: CRTC Ruling Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:43:25 -0400 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ Both sides seem to have some good points on the issue of "is VoIP a phone service or an internet service?". Looking at the different flavors of VoIP, SS7, and ISDN (and possibly RBS/R2), the systems all look more alike than not, with the exception that some technologies use packet switching, others use circuit switching for the voice bytes. The issue becomes "why pay USF and the other taxes on any of these systems?" Others have pointed out "On the other hand, the network is more valuable because there is 'universal service' "', while pointing out that the USF does lead to unjust rates. It may be best to look at the USF as a fee for being able to connect to all those other users. Without the connectivity, your network has limited value. For example, compare Free World Dialup (FWD) to Vonage. FWD is a great service, its free, and I even have a FWD number and TA for it, but I still need a PSTN connection. Vonage is also a great service, and many people have given up their PSTN connection to go with Vonage. Vonage charges start at $15/month. So it seems that many people think the higher priced service (Vonage) is worth the money because they can connect to more people, and there may be some reason for some level of USF. (but not as high as it is now). On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:18:22 -0400, Aswath Rao wrote: > Jack: > I have a different interpretation of CRTC preliminary view. It is not > clear to me why you feel that CRTC does not recognize VoIP to be a new > type of communication. They have declared that VoIP is special if it > does not use NANP resource and if they do not interface to PSTN. If > VoIP providers already pay the taxes and fees, then the ruling is just > a confirmation of what is currently taking place. In this respect it > is a good thing, because we have clarity now. > Regards, > Aswath [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On my (software) version of FWD, not only can I call other computers, but by starting the diailing string with *1 I can reach any ten digit NANP number, or by starting with *countrycode, I can call anywhere I want. I do not know about any gateway or DID number to reach me however. Maybe John Covert will explain how I can do that part of it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Spam Issues Organization: Looking for work Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:46:38 -0400 In article , panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) wrote: > Barry Margolin wrote in message > news:: >> Isn't this similar to the argument given by people who operate web >> sites that list abortion doctors, when they are included as >> conspirators or accessories when these doctors get murdered? In both >> cases, the list operators know full well what purpose their lists will >> be put to, they're hardly just innocent publishers. They compile >> these lists with the express purpose of encouraging others to use them >> for a specific purpose. > A conspiracy requires that an actual crime be committed or planned. I don't think conspiracies are limited to crimes. You can conspire with your friends to pull of a practical joke, can't you? > A conspirator puts a bullet through the head of a doctor (or plans > to): Illegal in most, if not all, jurisdictions. > A "conspirator" refuses permission for outsiders to use the > "conspirator"'s own private property (e.g., mailserver): I challenge > you to name three jurisdictions where this would be a crime. Whether it's a crime is irrelevant to my analogy; I never said that blacklists are, or should be, illegal. I'm talking about the relationship between the list compiler and the person/organization that uses the list, and the responsibility that the list compiler bears towards the actions of the user. If he publishes the list for the express purpose of facilitating a specific activity, then I think he's partially responsible for the results of that activity when his list is used as intended. If the activity is illegal (like murder) then he could be prosecuted; but in the case of legal activities, he should still be expected to operate it responsibly, to avoid problems for his users. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** Please don't copy me on replies. *** ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Spam Issues Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:58:58 GMT sin nombre posted on that vast internet thingie: > I say hooray for FIVE-TEN; and stop whining and dump your spam- > friendly provider. Blocklisting an entire /16 or /24 block of IP's > will sometimes get a provider's attention when all normal measures > such as abuse@ notifications have failed. What an idiot! Verizon does not let spammers run on their network. The trash at FIVETEN are also known for refusing to remove blocks even when ISPs deal with the spammers. Steve at SELLCOM http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, AT&T, Panasonic, Motorola Vtech 5.8Ghz; TMC ET4000 4line Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, Beamer, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Mini-Splitter log splitter! If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:30:27 -0400 From: Robert Pierce [Pat, please remove my e-mail address. Thanks, Rob] Sellcom, > FIVETEN has us blackholed because of spam from X.X.208.x and we are > x.x.22.x. Think how you would feel if your email to customers was > being blocked without cause. FIVETEN says: IP address x.x.22.x is listed here as x.x.208.x.dsl-verizon.net.misc spam. So your recourse in re: FIVETEN is either to 1) move to a different ISP or 2) ask your correspondents to white list you. How many people use FIVETEN? Looks like FIVETEN is blocking quite a bit: Your ISP's net block is x.x.0.0 - x.x.255.255 FIVETEN says: IP address x.x.0.1 is listed here as x.x.208.x.dsl-verizon.net.misc spam IP address x.x.255.255 is listed here as x.x.208.x.dsl-verizon.net.misc spam. Now, I'm not using the FIVETEN blocklist. I use the SPAMHAUS blocklist for blocking and the SORBS list for filtering. I checked your address as well as the spammer's on SPAMHAUS and found this: http://cbl.abuseat.org/lookup.cgi?ip=x.x.208.x Your IP address wasn't listed. Sorbs returned this: Your ip address: No entry found x.x.208.x returned: x.x.192.0/19 Dynamic Address Space So it looks like FIVETEN is blocking the entire class-b based on spam from consumer-grade IP space. I can understand that. If everyone did that, then ISPs would have to clean up their act, and stop dumping spam on the internet. It's really the same as dumping waste in public waterways. AOL keeps their network clean. Mail.com keeps their network clean. If they can do it, then Comcast, RoadRunner, and the rest can do it -- if they _want_ to. Now, I'm not as aggressive as the FIVETEN guys, but here's something to think about. A lot of mail administrators keep local block lists in addition to using DNS-based lists. My list of banned IP addresses has over 7500 lines, including large swaths like 80.0.0.0-80.255.255.255, and only a few single IP addresses. It takes too much time to try and track down each individual spammer and block that and only that IP address, especially since spammers will bounce around inside their /24 or /19 or more. So when I find spam getting through my filters, I pull the IP addresses from them and run them through this: awk -F"." '{print $1"."$2"."$3".0-"$1"."$2"."$3".255"}' and add that to the block list. Is that the most fair way to do it? Maybe not fair to those who are locked into spamming IP addresses, but it's the most fair way for my users. So my advice is not to be mad at the blocklist providers, and not to be mad at the harried mail administrators trying to do the best they can, but to be mad at the spammers who are the cause of all this mess to start with. Rob Pierce [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe some of you guys who know about this kind of thing can give me some advice. What do you show, if anything about 24.119.225.28 and any blacklists? Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:29:08 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: PluggedIn: Stow Luggage, Not Phones, While in Flight By Lucas Grinsven AMSTERDAM, April 13 (Reuters) - The next time a flight attendant asks you to switch off that handheld computer phone, keep smiling -- and pull out a copy of the latest plane safety guidelines. Clever computer and handset makers offer an option called "flight mode," which disables the radio. As a result, the British Civil Aviation Authority has decided passengers in planes under its jurisdiction should be allowed to use these portable devices as a calendar or photo viewer because they do not interfere with the electronic circuits and radio systems used by the pilots. The CAA says airlines should let travelers write messages, read documents and perform all other nonphone functions on phones that double up as computers, just as they can now work on a laptop, play on a GameBoy or listen to music on an iPod at cruising altitudes. But some flight crews still fume when they spot a passenger toying with a computer phone. Airlines from no-frills JetBlue (NASDAQ:JBLU) to United and British Airways (LSE:BAY) have their crews scanning the aisles for them. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41061719 ------------------------------ From: dold@CalifXXLaw.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Calif. Lawmaker Moves to Block Google's Gmail Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:06:28 UTC Organization: a2i network Monty Solomon wrote: > By Lisa Baertlein > SAN FRANCISCO, April 12 (Reuters) - A California state senator on > Monday said she was drafting legislation to block Google Inc.'s free > e-mail service "Gmail" because it would place advertising in personal > messages after searching them for key words. I have a GMail account. I don't see any ads yet. They will look just like the ads on the side of a Google search results screen. I don't see them as an invasion of anything. What I want to say to Liz is "keep your stupid invasive laws away from my free choice!". Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Matt Subject: Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:08:00 -0400 To follow up on Pat's note, if EFax see's that you are receiving too many faxes, they will make you switch to a paid account. Thats what I ended up doing. And it works real well. For example, I am on the road 75% of the time and I never miss a fax since it winds up in my email. The file that gets transmitted is basically a TIF file with some special encoding. AES/newspost wrote in message news:telecom23.183.15@telecom-digest.org: > I'd like to get free of the hassles of maintaining an old-fashioned > fax machine. I can handle the occasional outgoing fax by connecting > my laptop to my office voice line temporarily; being open to incoming > faxes is more problematic. > I'm told there are Internet services where anyone can send a fax from > a standard fax machine to some special telephone number that's listed > as my fax number, and the fax is then transmitted to me over the > Internet as an email attachment or a temporary web page? > Anyone had direct experience with any such service? (and some idea of > the monthly or per fax cost?) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: E-Fax (efax.com) is one such service > and the cost is FREE. (You know your poor mouth moderator; would I > have it any other way?) EFax gives you a number (*not* local unless > you pay for that) and you get your incoming faxes as email. See the > end of each issue of the Digest for the various free EFax numbers I > have which point either here to the Digest mailbox or my personal > mailbox. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: More "Leave it to Beaver" Then and Now Date: 13 Apr 2004 13:37:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Two recent episodes (shown on cable's TV Land) brought to mind changes in the last 40 years. Both episodes were when Beaver was about 12-13. First, Beaver saw an ad for a typewriter and decided he wanted one, so he went to his father for it. His father approved the ID, but was concerned that Beaver would quickly lose interest, as he did with other things bought for him. (TV back then blacked out brands, and this typewriter looked rather inexpensive.) I wonder today how many kids today pester their parents to buy them their own computer. Some parents tell me their kids come home from school and love to "instant message" their friends. While it would seem a typewriter would be much cheaper than a computer, actually a good new typewriter back then wasn't cheap in today's dollars. I bought a good SCM electric portable in the late 1970s for several hundred dollars; it wasn't a purchase I made lightly. There were stores back then who just sold typewriters and adding machines. Amazing how much technology has changed since then -- how much more we can do with an electronic printer and computer. Back then, I thought my typewriter, with the carbon ribbon and light touch, was really neat, but by today's standards it was a paperweight. Back then, upper/lowercase Teletypewriters were relatively new, replacing the ubiquitous TTY 33 ASR (and older dark green models) that were all caps. Of course today we do all the communicating we want. Well, back then I didn't come home to find ads for sexual aids on my typewriter. The other episode reflects changes in social mores. As mentioned, Beaver was 12-13. He liked a girl in his class, and she accompanied him home after school. He announced to his mother, "I'm taking Mary up to my room", and his mother smiled "have fun". Given the earlier maturity of kids these days, I don't think the parents of a boy that age would permit him so easily to take a girl into his room. Another observation: In one unrelated scene, Wally asks his mother where his father is -- he needs help with a trig question. The father is out, but the mother says she can help him; but the son declines her offer. Interesting how way back then they showed that the mother was educated too. Indeed, on that show, the mother was always portrayed as being pretty sharp. Oh yes, when Beaver was in his room and got a phone call, he came downstairs to take it. While many scenes took place in the boys' room, the parent's room (AFAIK) was never shown. The house colored extensions in Ward's den, the living room, and the kitchen, all of which were regularly used. ------------------------------ 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 #185 ******************************