From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 30 14:58:31 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3UIwUX20558; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:58:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:58:31 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404301858.i3UIwUX20558@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 #217 TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:56:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 217 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson EPIC Alert 11.08 (Monty Solomon) VoIP Summit: Industry Experts Foresee Trouble on the Horizon (VOIP News) Yak Communications Inc. Releases Its Voice Over Internet (VOIP News) Re: Telemarketers Buy Suspicious Lists (Fred Atkinson) Re: Good News: Four Oakland Cited in First U.S. Spam Case (Wesrock) Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? (Phil Stripling) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (Mark Crispin) SNL Research Labs Advance Z-Quantum Physics (Tim Liverance) Re: Is Anyone Using MCI Business Complete Unlimited (Michael Sullivan) Re: Missouri Moves to Ban 'UnFees' - Part of Larger Backlash (Sullivan) Re: Getting Your Number Listed Deliberately (Fred Atkinson) Re: TiVo Will Not Die (Ron Chapman) Re: Used Norstar M7310 Sets Worth Anything? (Dave Phelps) Re: "If I am Elected" (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: "If I am Elected" (John Smith) Find Update: Bellcore SR-320 Exchange Message Interface (Madra Beag) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:13:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC Alert 11.08 ======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 11.08 April 29, 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.08.html ====================================================================== Table of Contents ====================================================================== [1] EPIC Files Gmail FOIA Requests; Groups Call for System Suspension [2] EPIC Files Brief in Maryland DNA Database Case [3] EPIC Urges FCC to Reject Expansion of CALEA [4] American Airlines Admits Disclosing Passenger Data [5] New U.S. Election Assistance Commission Begins its Work [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events ====================================================================== http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.08.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:38:01 -0400 Subject: VoIP Summit: Industry Experts Foresee Trouble on the Horizon Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=93735 VoIP Summit Industry experts foresee trouble on the horizon - as rules change and competition erupts May 1, 2004 By: Al Senia America's Network What is the current state of VoIP technology? Where is it headed? Who will emerge as winners and losers? What role will regulators play? These were among the questions a distinguished panel of telecom executives examined several weeks ago when America's Network sponsored its first VoIP industry summit in the Washington, D.C. law offices of Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman. The freewheeling, roundtable discussion was directed by William Wilhelm, a telecom law expert with the firm. The discussion was co-chaired by Al Senia, the managing editor of America's Network. The VoIP roundtable lasted more than two hours. Edited excerpts of the questions and answers follow. A fuller, more detailed discussion is available at America's Network Web site (www.americasnetwork.com). Full story at: http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=93735 Full transcript of VoIP Summit at: http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=93524 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:07:09 -0400 Subject: Yak Communications Inc. Releases Its Voice Over Internet Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040430005317&newsLang=en April 30, 2004 10:37 AM US Eastern Timezone Yak Communications Inc. Releases Its Voice Over Internet Protocol Services-VOIP MIAMI & TORONTO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 30, 2004-- Local & Long Distance Voice Services Over High Speed Networks Yak Communications Inc. (Nasdaq:YAKC), a provider of telecommunication services to residential and business customers, has completed Phase I of the technical and engineering testing of its VOIP services and has started a market test. Charles Zwebner, Yak President and Chief Executive Officer said "The Company continues to execute on its planned rollout of VOIP services to the residential and small business markets and expects to be in market testing to approximately 1,000 users until full commercial deployment, to consumers anywhere in the world, anticipated by September 8, 2004." The product is expected to be commercially released with full features including such options as: Caller ID, Call Blocking, Call Return, Call Forwarding, Three Way Calling, Voicemail, Free On Net Calls, local and international DID's (direct inward dialing numbers), and 911 operator services. Pricing for the bundled services including local, long distance and basic features, will be in the $24.99 to $39.99 range, all-inclusive. "We have tested our products on high speed DSL networks and currently have consumers making inbound and outbound calls using both IP phones and regular telephones, with operational connectivity between the two on both the IP and PSTN networks (public switched telephone), and it works well. Final testing for cable subscribers on high-speed cable networks is anticipated by May 15, 2004. We are extremely pleased with our engineering results and the call quality, and look forward to our anticipated full commercial rollout on September 8, 2004. We believe the market opportunities for our products are extremely large both in Canada and USA, as well as internationally," added Zwebner. For more information on YAK Broadband please visit www.yak.com About YAK Communications Inc.: YAK Communications Inc. (the "Company") (NASDAQ: YAKC) was incorporated in December 1998 in Florida with the objective of providing international long distance discount services to both business and residential customers. The Company specializes in offering these services to consumers by way of a dial-around (known as "10-10"). The Company is a facilities based reseller, which utilizes its own switching systems. For more information about YAK Communications, please visit www.yak.com ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: Telemarketers Buy Suspicious Lists Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:32:48 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net If they pretend not to know about the DNC list, then that is one you should definitely report to the FTC. If they get enough complaints about them, they may well take action. Fred On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:11:02 -0500, McWebber wrote: > Recently I got two calls from telemarketers that ask for my name and > when I ask how they're spelling my name they give me a misspelling > that exists only on the old Internic, (now Network Solutions), whois > database. I got a call yesterday, despite being on the DNC list from > (561-338-7877 Hunter Scott Financial) a telemarketer with some > investment scam. Played dumb when I mentioned the DNC list and thought > all they had to do was promise not to call me again. > McWebber > No email replies read > If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends > please forget that I'm your friend. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:57:43 EDT Subject: Re: Good News: Four Oakland Cited in First U.S. Spam Case In a message dated 4/30/04 2:38:49 AM Central Daylight Time, editor@telecom-digest.org writes, in a comment on my message as to whether Amoco Corp. is still in existence: > From: Wesrock@aol.com > Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:28:45 EDT > Subject: as > In a message dated Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:43:33 -0400, Joe Wineburgh > writes: >> Other unwitting companies and agencies whose computers were used >> include Unisys Corp., Amoco Corp., the Administrative Office of the >> United States Courts and the U.S. Army Information Center, according >> to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit on Wednesday. > I thought Amoco Corp. ceased to exist a number of years ago, > becoming an integral part of BP, Inc. > Wes Leatherock > wesrock@aol.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The American Oil Company was absorbed > by Standard Oil of Indiana many years ago and the new combined company > became known as (AM)erican (O)il (CO)rporation, or 'AMOCO' for short. > But because of regulations and laws pertaining to the ways the > Standard Oil Company had to do business, with antitrust laws from > years ago, and marketing rules the various Standard Oil Companies had > agreed on, Amoco did business under that name everywhere *except* > about five midwestern states where it was known as 'The Standard Oil > Divison of Amoco'. When BP (British Petroleum) bought out Amoco, they > chose to retain the 'Standard Oil Division of Amoco' name for some > parts of their empire. Some of their computer facilities company wide > are still known as 'Amoco' (or now) 'Amoco Division of BP'. Yes, I am familiar with all the history you provided. But the complaint specifically mentioned that the spammers had made use of Amoco Corp.'s computer system. "Amoco Corp.," or any other corporation, has or has not a specific legal existence. Regardless of whether BP uses "Standard" or "Amoco" as a trade name, or refers to one or more of its divisions or brands by those names, that does not re-create the corporation "Amoco Corp." if it has passed out of existence or ever existed. (I might note Pan-American Petroleum Corporation, later Stanolind, later Amoco, had, and I think still has, vast computer operations in Tulsa. The American Airlines and Amoco computer centers were and probably are such vast operations that they attract all kinds of computer expertise to Tulsa and in turn make it a center of all kinds of computer operations -- including First Data which was involved in the Wal-Mart double/triple billing discussed here earlier.) The corporate parent of Amoco, up until the time it was acquired by BP, was "The Standard Oil Company (incorporated in Indiana)." Note that a corporation has one and only one name. When you see a bank with the name "in Kansas City" or "at Kansas City," rather than the more normal "of Kansas City" (or whatever place), it almost always means the original bank of that name failed, usually during the Great Depression, and the reorganized bank is a different bank. Or, for that matter, when NationsBank acquired Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association, NationsBank changed its name to Bank of America National Association. Bank of America N.T.& S.A. ceased to exist and became part of Bank of America N.A., nee NationsBank. My question was only about whether "Amoco Corp." had a legal existence, not whether the name "Amoco" was used by the owner of whatever computer system was allegedly being used. My former Amoco credit card was renewed as a BP card, but is also good at Amoco stations. That does not mean that the "Amoco Corp." has a legal existence, only that it is a brand named owned by BP and used on some of its stations. I have been told by another person interested in oil company history that BP is also rebranding a few of its stations as "Standard" in the states where it succeeded to the right to the "Standard" name, to maintain its ownership of the "Standard" trademark in those states by its continuing use in trade and commerce. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: While Wes is correct, he should recall that television, radio and newspapers deal with thirty second 'sound bites' for the general public, not oil company historians or economists dealing with stocks and corporate mergers, etc. I am sure the use of 'Amoco' in the source document was intended to be a convenient landmark for the public readership rather than any official statement. I am sure the official indictments, etc list the exact legal name of the 'victims' of the theft of service the spammers used. "British Petroleum" tends to make many folks think it is 'some sort of company over there somewhere' while 'Amoco' on the other hand is around them everywhere in this country. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Stripling Subject: Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? Date: 30 Apr 2004 08:23:51 -0700 Organization: Legal Assistance on the Web AES/newspost writes: > 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 CallWave for years to receive faxes, with no charge. http://www.callwave.com/landing/p47c2.asp for information. Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@ http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily. ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:26:28 -0700 Organization: University of Washington On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, J Kelly wrote: > I find the gray bars unacceptable, black I could live with. Grey bars are less likely to cause phosphor damage on the monitor, especially if you leave your TV at the default settings which generally have the white balance ("picture" or "contrast" control) much too high. > But what is the point when 90%+ is in 4:3 anyway. What was the point of buying a color TV in the early 1960s when 90% was in B&W anyway? I remember celebrating when TV listings switched from a "[C]" icon to a "[BW]"... -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ From: betalimit@yahoo.com (Timothy Liverance) Subject: SNL Research Labs Advance Z-Quantum Physics New Type of Physics Date: 30 Apr 2004 09:47:39 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com RE: SNL Research labs Advance Z-Quantum Physics new type of physics is unlocked! Has to be run with A.I THE WEB SITE http://www.beyond-science.com RESOURCE ACCESS CONTROL FACILITY IN PHYSICS , futuristic Definition: 1. [n] someone who predicts the future 2. [adj] of or relating to futurism; "futurist art" See Also: illusionist, seer, visionary " "Quantum chaos is real quantium computing!!" RUN THIS WEBSITE WITH A.I. TO UNLOCK IT"S SECRETS Infinite Dynamics Computing ( ICD ) making quantum computing out dated The Theory of everything is the quantum address Computing to infinite the fundamental laws A Quantum bomb at such a magnitude The most powerful question to ask A.I is Our D.N.A contains a book the Code of life! can you break The periodic table of quantum energy. There is light of Advance technology beyond area 51 Is there a D.N.A Echelon What is the theory of R.O.M.? Quantum replicator, One Billionth of a 1nm Data encryption 360 degrees There is a race so classified Omega partial Alpha and omega = IMAN partial Infinite Dynamics Computing ( ICD ) Making quantum computing outdated. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Is Anyone Using MCI Business Complete Unlimited Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 05:01:37 GMT In article , mailias@yahoo.com says: > I've been having conversations with an MCI rep about switching our > business's local phone lines over to MCI. Part of the deal is their > unlimited long distance calling. The first line is $59.95 and each > additional line is $44.95 (you can also get regular lines without free > LD for $24.95). > This looks like a really good deal. It would definitely save us some > money over our current setup. We don't have to get any new lines > pulled in, they just take over billing, so the disruption should be > minimal (cringe). I haven't seen the fine print but have been told > that unlimited really means unlimited. I'd still read the fine print > to be 100% sure. > We're in SBC Ameritech's service area in IN. Someone from AT&T has > called but I haven't talked to them yet. Also getting some quotes > from a CLEC and pulling in a T1. Sounds pretty good but it doesn't > have the unlimited LD feature. > So, is this a pretty good plan? Are the others out there that you're > aware of for businesses? MCI has, over the years. been known to engage in a habit that I will charitably call "overpromising." Salesmen will say virtually anything, without regard to the terms of the contract or the tariff, to make the sale, and then the contract or tariff terms take over, and nothing the salesman said is worth a warm bucket of spit. If you are told that unlimited really means unlimited, you have been misled. Are outgoing fax calls included? Data calls? "Excessive" calls to a given number? Calls to numbers served by independent telephone companies with high terminating access charges? You need to look at the fine print -- not just on the sales order, but on the full terms and conditions of the plan. This used to be in a tariff, now it's in a contract. Anything you don't understand in this WILL cost you money. Also, how long are these rates guaranteed for, and how long are you either contractually or practically locked in for? If you incur significant costs to switch, you don't want to have to switch again when they jack up their rates. > Update: did some searching and found Talk America for $53.95 for the > first line and $49.00 for each additional. That's a little bit higher > than MCI's plan, but maybe close enough if other things balance out. If you get a detailed quote, with terms and conditions, shop it with Talk America and with SBC Ameritech. Tell your current provider, "here's what MCI offers; what will you offer to keep me as a customer?" Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Missouri Moves to Ban 'UnFees' - Part of Larger Backlash Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 05:26:21 GMT In article , VOIP News says: > http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/43047 > Written by Karl Bode > The Missouri state Public Service Commission is considering banning > all extra provider charges and fees not mandated by state or federal > regulators, reports the Kansas City Star. The move is a response to > the recent increase in so called "regulatory recovery" and other fees > that appear frequently on landline and wireless -- and most recently -- > on DSL bills. [Comment: And also on the bills of a few VoIP providers.] > The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA), > which represents some 43 state agencies, recently urged lawmakers to > ban such "fees". "In the last few years, wireline and wireless > carriers have concocted line item charges, fees, and surcharges, > purporting to recover all manner of "regulatory," "administrative," or > "government-mandated" costs, but which do nothing more than soak > consumers for the carriers' ordinary operating costs," the group > recently noted in a petition to the FCC (Word document). > Full story (with links and comments) at: > http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/43047 Regulatory recovery charges typically seek to recover costs that have been imposed on carriers that are not figured into their standard rates, pursuant to provisions in tariffs or contracts that permit this. Not to say this hasn't been abused in some cases, but it's actually not an unreasonable practice in general. In a competitive business, nobody is going to raise prices in anticipation of future regulatory mandates. When the mandates come into effect, and all carriers have to spend big money to comply, the money has to come from somewhere. If a wireless carrier, for example, priced its service a year ago without regard to possible future expenses for a regulatory mandate such as LNP, unsure of whether this would actually come to pass, and then it did come to pass, it needs to pay for LNP. Mostly, it needs to pay up front, with substantial continuing expenses. These costs weren't figured in when it determined its rates, so it invokes its contractual right to pass these costs along to customers in an incremental manner -- spend $2B now for LNP and charge the customers a quarter or a dollar a month per line to recover it over time. With respect to wireless LNP, in particular, the FCC expressly said that wireless carriers were entitled to recover these costs. Would NASUCA have wireless carriers raise their basic rates in advance of possible regulatory mandates? Would it require wireless carriers to absorb these costs and go bankrupt? How does NASUCA expect carriers to pay for "services" such as LNP, CALEA wiretap capability, and E911 Phase II, which were required by regulators, not demanded by customers in contract negotiations? Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Fred Atkinson From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: Getting Your Number Listed Deliberately Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:36:30 -0400 I followed up on getting information about listing a number [not provided by the local telephone company] with the local telephone company's directory assistance. I sent a request for this information over their Web site with a local number where I could be contacted. I explained that I would be getting a number provided by a VOIP company and wanted to know what it would cost and how I would go about getting it listed as a residence. They replied that they couldn't discuss this account with me because I was not the contact listed for the telephone number I gave them to contact me at. When I replied and pointed out that this wasn't about the account of the telephone number where I could be reached, they responded and told me it couldn't be done. I responded telling them I knew this wasn't true and if they didn't get me the correct information, I would first contact the state Public Service Commission and if that didn't get me any relief that I would call the Federal Communications Commission (I really thought I was going to have to resort to this, too). The response was a surprise. They gave me a triple-eight toll free number I would have to call to place the order and told me that it would cost two dollars per month (billed annually) plus applicable taxes. They said I could even get a yellow pages listing (if I wanted it) for a little more money. The service is called a "Foreign Listing". I was told to ask for that when I called the triple-eight number. Why doesn't the telephone company just do it the right way the first time? If they'd just told me this up front there wouldn't have been a confrontation. Oh, well. So the answer is, it *can* be done in South Carolina and I know it can be done in Maryland. The likelihood is that it can be done anywhere in the U. S. you want to list a residential VOIP number. If anyone has additional information on this especially with another state or telco, please pass it on. Fred ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:31:49 -0400 From: Ron Chapman Subject: Re: TiVo Will Not Die In article , Method to Madness wrote: > Tivo will eventually just disappear. Cable companies will upgrade and > tweak their DVR services and that's pretty much it. I'm not sure or > would know why some one would actually have cable TV service and get > Tivo instead of just upgrading their cable box via a small price with > the cable company. Because I don't have or believe in cable boxes? I bought TVs and VCRs with tuners in them. I'd rather use them as intended, and not be tied to a separate box that does nothing but tune the channel for me. Maybe it would be different if all I watched was the box, and never actually tuned anything in. I'd have to commit to never recording anything onto tape again. > And when DVD recorder prices eventually drop more and more ... ... you'll *still* play hell getting that show out of the cable company's DVR and onto your own DVD. Next point? ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Used Norstar M7310 Sets Worth Anything? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:35:20 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , spammers_lie@pobox.com says: > We've just moved a commercial bakery into a new building with a new > phone system, and while the (working, remarkably) DR-5 and voicemail > systems and cabinets are so cocoa-encrusted as to be pretty much > worthless, I have 9 or 10 M7310 sets in black (from the offices) that > work. Am I right to estimate that they are probably worth about $50 > each on the used market? > |I always wanted to be someone,| Tom Betz, Generalist | but now I > |think I should have | Want to send me email? | been a wee bit more > |specific. | | > Remarkably? That DR5 > |will probably run for another 10 years. ALthough the VM is probably > |a mini and has a HD that should be dead already. As far as the sets, it looks like you could start the bidding around $50 on ebay and see what happens. Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: "If I am Elected" Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 05:46:08 GMT In article , dneiburg@umd.edu says: > In Telecom Digest, number 209, the editor opined, > "Of course Bush has occassionally (?) been sometimes less than > forthright in his statements and promises ..." > But he isn't obligated to keep his campaign promises. Remember, they > all began, "If I am elected ..." > --Dale Neiburg > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "If I am elected" ... But Dale, he > *was* elected. And when listening to my radio and 'All Things Considered' > and other propoganda produced by your employer (locally, KRPS 89.9 FM > for southeast Kansas) I get the distinct impression that your employer > looks rather askance at his antics sometimes also. PAT] Pat, I think Dale was very gently suggesting that George W. Bush was *not* elected; he was *selected* by the Supreme Court, which barred a fair Florida recount. This is one reason why some refer to him as the "Resident" of the White House instead of the "President" of the United States. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: John Smith Subject: Re: "If I am Elected" Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:34:23 GMT In a message by Dale Neiburg, the esteemed moderator wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "If I [Bush] am elected" ... But Dale, he > *was* elected. No, he was appointed by the Supreme Court when the election fraud perpetrated by his brother Jeb began to unravel, and time was of the essense. ------------------------------ From: Madra Beag Subject: Find Update: Bellcore SR-320 Exchange Message Interface (EMI) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:31:34 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - West I hope someone might be able to help. I own an old copy of the Bellcore Special Report SR-320, Exchange Message Interface (EMI) Issue 12 October 1995 Is this record format still used today (by local and LD carriers)? Is this record format still called EMI? Is this some how related to CABS? I did some reading on Telcordia, but with no luck. Where might I get an updated version of this or similar record format? Thanks in advance to anyone who has thoughts on this. ------------------------------ 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 #217 ******************************