From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 20 13:55:09 2004
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i4KHt9T01938;
	Thu, 20 May 2004 13:55:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:55:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200405201755.i4KHt9T01938@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 #250

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 20 May 2004 13:55:00 EDT    Volume 23 : Issue 250

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    New York Defines Vonage as Telco Provider (VOIP News)
    New York Classifies Vonage as Phone Company (VOIP News)
    Dorman Tells of AT&T's Advances in VoIP, and Wireless (VOIP News)
    Jeff Pulver Statement on New York Public Services Commission (VOIP News)
    New York Classifies Vonage as Phone Company (Alex)
    Re: Verizon Payphones in non-Verizon Area (Justin Time)
    Re: Verizon Payphones in non-Verizon Area (Steven J Sobol)
    Re: Verizon Payphones in non-Verizon Area (Kenneth P. Stox)
    Re: Geico Sues Google, Overture Over Trademarks (Clarence Dold)
    Re: Geico Sues Google, Overture Over Trademarks (jmayson@nyx.net)
    Re: Unconventional Parsing (Henry)
    Re: Unconventional Parsing (DevilsPGD)
    Re: Unconventional Parsing (Clarence Dold)
    Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio Programming (Wales)
    Re: Revving the VOIP Market - Vonage Cuts its Prices (DevilsPGD)
    802.16(Wi-Max) (Gangadhar)
    Re: Question About Verizon Home Voicemail (Temporary FL@L&ER)
    Re: The Making of an Idol (David Quinton)
    Re: Ventures Aim to Cut Cost of Overseas Cell Calls (Ray Normandeau)
    Re: Best Consumer Answering Machine? (Ray Normandeau)
    Infozech/TransNexus Launch Product for Small Service Providers (D Charles)

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.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: VOIP News <voip news>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 23:51:16 -0400
Subject: New York Defines Vonage as Telco Provider
Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com


http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20040519S0012

A state regulatory agency in New York ruled Wednesday that Vonage
Holdings is a telco provider, a significant classification that has
important ramifications for the ongoing debate over government
regulation of the emerging technology.

In its ruling, the New York State Public Utilities Commission
determined the Internet telephony provider offers competitive
telephone services via Voice over IP technology and is therefore a
telephone corporation as defined by New York state law.

Specifically, the commission noted a core public interest in ensuring
public safety and network reliability, but it also suggested only
minimal regulation would be advised because of the rapid growth of the
new field.

Full story at:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20040519S0012

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 <voip news>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 23:49:53 -0400
Subject: New York Classifies Vonage as Phone Company
Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com


http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-5216639.html
 
By Evan Hansen 
CNET News.com
 
Handing a setback to emerging Internet phone services, the New York
State Public Service Commission on Wednesday ruled that Vonage
Holdings is a telephone company and thus subject to state regulation.

In a statement announcing its decision, the agency sought to soften
the blow, saying that it nevertheless hoped to apply "only minimal
regulations to ensure that it does not interfere with the rapid,
widespread deployment of new technologies."

New York is the latest state to weigh in on regulation of so-called
voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, a hot-button policy
issue that has some local officials worried about potential tax losses
as the technology grows in popularity.

Full story at:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-5216639.html

------------------------------

From: VOIP News <voip news>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:05:02 -0400
Subject: Dorman Tells of AT&T's Advances in VoIP, Wireless and Alternatives
Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com


http://www.wi-fitechnology.com/displayarticle1173.html

AUSTIN, Texas -/May 20, 2004 The Wi-Fi Technology Forum/- AT&T
Chairman and CEO David W. Dorman, addressing shareowners at the
company's 119th Annual Meeting yesterday, said AT&T is enriching its
array of services and choices for consumers and businesses to assure
the company's position of industry leadership for years to come.

Speaking at the Austin Convention Center here, Dorman cited AT&T's
continued technological and strategic progress while transforming into
the industry's leader in Internet Protocol (IP) services and
continuing to innovate for businesses and consumers.

"We're confident that we have the right strategy in place to position
this company for leadership and success over the long-term," Dorman
said. "We're on the right path, and we fully intend to stay the
course."

The most recent example: AT&T's announcement Tuesday that it has
chosen Sprint as a wireless network supplier, enabling AT&T to offer
wireless voice and data services to consumers and businesses
nationwide. This agreement will help AT&T compete and give customers
what they increasingly desire -- mobility -- while AT&T also will gain
a unique opportunity to build a wireless business quickly via the
power and reach of its brand and an existing customer base of more
than 30 million.

AT&T has been aggressively expanding its business model beyond long
distance, Dorman said. The company is investing to create a single
global IP network to better serve enterprise and consumer
customers. The delivery of new and advanced application services over
AT&T's core IP backbone remains central to the company's customer
strategy, Dorman said.

Full story at:
http://www.wi-fitechnology.com/displayarticle1173.html

------------------------------

From: VOIP News <voip news>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 00:06:13 -0400
Subject: Jeff Pulver Statement on New York Public Services Commission
Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com


 From The Jeff Pulver Blog at
http://192.246.69.231/jeff/personal/index.html

May 19, 2004 
New York State Rules Vonage is a "Telecom Company"

Earlier today the New York Public Services Commission announced their
decision that Vonage is a telecom company under NY State rules.

Specifically the Commission determined that " ...Vonage owns and
manages equipment that is used to provide telephone service to
Vonage's customers and to connect Vonage's customers to the customers
of other telephone corporations via their public networks and thus,
like other owners of telecommunications-provisioning equipment, is
subject to the NYS Public Service Law."

This is a very troubling development.

I am quite disappointed to see that New York State decided to apply
legacy telephone regulation to Internet based communications while the
FCC is in the process of figuring out the right regulatory treatment
for VoIP.

Between this decision in New York and a pending decision in
California, these new developments may lead to the introduction of new
regulatory barriers that in fact could slow the adoption of IP
Communication services and delay the extraordinary benefits available
from such services.

This is not a good day for Telecom Policy in New York.

Posted by jeff at 05:10 PM

[Comment: I'm guessing that the ILEC's in New York State had something
to do with this, and I'm also assuming that Vonage will probably take
this to court as they did in Minnesota.  I hope the precedent set in
Minnesota will be followed by the judges in New York, or that the FCC
or Congress will simply strike down state level regulation.  As far as
I know, no VoIP company is headquartered in New York, so it would seem
to me that every VoIP call would be inherently interstate and subject
to FCC regulation (if subject to regulation at all), and not to New
York PSC regulation.]

------------------------------

From: alex@totallynerd.com (Alex)
Subject: New York Classifies Vonage as Phone Company
Date: 20 May 2004 08:30:42 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


http://news.com.com/2100-7352_3-5216639.html

I'm still waiting for them to be available in my area in Texas, but
I'm now wondering if they'll be changing their rates or services if
other states do as New York is doing.

FYI,

Alex

------------------------------

From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time)
Subject: Re: Verizon Payphones in non-Verizon Area
Date: 20 May 2004 05:20:13 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Daryl R Gibson <drg@bluediamond.byu.edu> wrote in message
news:<telecom23.249.12@telecom-digest.org>:

> I was surprised a couple of months ago to find a Verizon-branded 
> payphone at the local 7-Eleven, complete with the Bell logo. I since have 
> seen other Verizon-branded payphones at 7-11 locations in Nevada. Both 
> here (Utah) and there (Nevada) are non-Verizon (landline) areas. I look at 
> the phone and it's a pre-divesture Western Electric phone, with a new 
> Verizon coinbox cover.

> I'm interested if other people in other states have also seen this. I
> note Verizon has also started distributing a phone book in this area,
> which is served by Qwest (U.S. West/Mountain Bell). Qwest has never
> used the Bell logo, which was only briefly used in transition by
> U.S. West shortly after the Bell breakup, but you would assume there
> would be some restrictions on its use in areas where the RBOC had the
> rights to it.

> It seems to me that Verizon would not be building up brand visibility
> without a purpose. Verizon Wireless operates in this area (former
> Airtouch/former U.S. West Cellular), so maybe that's enough.

> Daryl Gibson

Verizon has a contract with the Southland Corporation to provide pay
phones at all their locations.  Much as Ameritech has/had a contract
with McDonalds to provide payphones in their stores.

Rodgers Platt

------------------------------

From: Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Verizon Payphones in non-Verizon Area
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:21:55 -0500


Daryl R Gibson <drg@bluediamond.byu.edu> wrote:

> I was surprised a couple of months ago to find a Verizon-branded 
> payphone at the local 7-Eleven, complete with the Bell logo. I since have 
> seen other Verizon-branded payphones at 7-11 locations in Nevada. Both 
> here (Utah) and there (Nevada) are non-Verizon (landline) areas. I look at 
> the phone and it's a pre-divesture Western Electric phone, with a new 
> Verizon coinbox cover.

> I'm interested if other people in other states have also seen this.

Cuyahoga Falls (Akron), Ohio. Bell Atlantic-branded phones at the
Sheetz on Steels Corners Road. HOWEVER, Sheetz is a Pennsylvania
company and PA is Bell Atlantic territory, so perhaps this isn't so
weird.

Cuyahoga Falls/Summit County is SBC, but parts of neighboring Medina
and Portage counties are Verizon (former GTE, not former Bell
Titanic).

Walgreens in Cleveland have Cincinnati Bell phones outside. There are
no other sites in Northeast Ohio that have Cincinnati Bell phones, as
far as I know.

JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA   PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/

"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush
out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86,
Windows 98/2000/2003

------------------------------

From: Kenneth P. Stox <stox@sbcglobal.net>
Organization: Imaginary Landscape, LLC.
Subject: Re: Verizon Payphones in non-Verizon Area
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 04:02:24 GMT


Daryl R Gibson wrote:

> I'm interested if other people in other states have also seen this. 

Just saw one at a gas station down the street here in Westmont,
Illinois ( a western suburb of Chicago ).

------------------------------

From: dold@GeicoXSues.usenet.us.com
Subject: Re: Geico Sues Google, Overture Over Trademarks
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 02:09:39 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: a2i network


Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:

> The insurer charged the two companies with infringing on its
> trademarks when they sold them as keywords to Geico's rivals, so that

File suit first, ask if the premise is correct later.

I believe that the participants in Google's paid advertising select
their own keywords.  You don't "buy" keywords from a search engine.
And if Google is selling this one, they aren't doing a very good job,
since they only seem to have one buyer.

A Google search for "I hate Geico" shows up 25 listings, and one
"Sponsored Link" on the right side.  It goes to geico-comnn.com.  I
would think that would be the target of Geico's wrath, a misuse of
their (presumably) trademarked name as part of someone else's domain
name.  Since that page is merely a listing of competitive insurance
companies, it would seem like a misuse of "geico" to me.  The only
entry for "geico" at dictionary.com is as an acronym for "Government
Employees Insurance Company".


Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA  38.8-122.5

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The weird thing to me is the company
name (or acronym) is phonetically pronounced G-eye-co yet the little
reptile mascot's name is pronounced 'g-ekk-o'?  To the biologists
among us: is there such a reptile as a gekko/g-eye-co?  The little guy
looks more like a baby frog to me. They have got some very clever
commercials on TV-land in any event, all based on the "I have good
news, I saved money" theme.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: jmayson@nyx.net
Subject: Re: Geico Sues Google, Overture Over Trademarks
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 03:33:05 GMT
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com


> Although Geico marketed largely to government employees, it was not
> a government agency. See

Sounds like it was a civilian version of USAA.

USAA caters to military officers and their dependents.  Military folks
moved from state to state and often had trouble getting car insurance, so
former officers started the company.

John Mayson <jmayson@nyx.net>
Austin, Texas, USA

------------------------------

From: henry999@eircom.net (Henry)
Subject: Re: Unconventional Parsing
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 09:08:43 +0300
Organization: Elisa Internet customer


Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>  Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.ARMY.MIL> wrote:

>> telephone number...
>> 888-3737-888 .

>> "Officials are promoting the unconventional parsing of the phone
>> number in the hope that people can remember it better that way."

> Isn't there a standup comic who does a bit about people who pronounce
> phone numbers wrong, with the pauses in unusual places?

'Wrong'? Why 'wrong'?? (Just because it's 'un-American'?)

You are obviously unaware that in many, many places in the world,
telephone numbers are other than the (w)-(xxx)-yyy-zzzz gringo formula.

Cheers,

Henry

------------------------------

From: DevilsPGD <lalalaNOSPAM@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Unconventional Parsing
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 06:11:29 GMT


In message <<telecom23.249.7@telecom-digest.org>> Barry Margolin
<barmar@alum.mit.edu> did ramble:

> Isn't there a standup comic who does a bit about people who pronounce
> phone numbers wrong, with the pauses in unusual places?  Can someone
> remind me who it is?

Fat guy, has/had a FOX sitcom I think?


I see dumb people, walking around like regular people.  They don't see
each other. They only see what they wanna see. They don't know they're
dumb.

------------------------------

From: dold@Unconventi.usenet.us.com
Subject: Re: Unconventional Parsing
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 02:15:45 UTC
Organization: a2i network


Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Isn't there a standup comic who does a bit about people who pronounce
> phone numbers wrong, with the pauses in unusual places?  Can someone
> remind me who it is?

Long, long, ago, I moved into a new apartment.  I had ordered phone
service, and happened to see a telco guy next door, where people were
also moving in.  I asked him if my apartment was on his list.  He said
no, but if I called the dispatcher and told them he was nearby, on job
something-or-other, he might be able to get scheduled to turn my
service on.  I tried repeating the nonsensical number that he gave me
back to him, and he looked at me like I was a tad slow.  He was
reciting a phone number, but I was new to the area, and didn't
recognize the area code or prefix.

There was a pair of digits in there somewhere, and my cadence was off
as I grouped around the pair instead of at the invisble hyphens.

Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA  38.8-122.5

------------------------------

From: richw@richw.org (Rich Wales)
Subject: Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio Programming
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 16:37:16 UTC


Mark Crispin wrote:

> I personally witnessed an incident in which US newspapers were
> blocked at the [Canadian] border and US TV channels on Canadian
> cable censored, because they covered something that the Canadian
> government did not want disclosed to its population.  Of course,
> individuals brought in newspapers and you could tune in the US
> channels over the air, and find out what the Canadian government
> didn't want you to hear.  But then again, in the mid-1930s you could
> listen to the BBC in Germany without getting arrested.

I assume Mark was alluding to the Robert Pickton murder case in the
Vancouver area -- and/or to the Paul Bernardo / Karla Homolka murder
case in the early 1990's in Ontario.

In both cases, Canadian judges imposed "publication bans" (gag orders)
on the media, primarily in an attempt to prevent prospective jurors
from being hopelessly tainted by pretrial publicity.

Not surprisingly, there was no way that American journalists could
possibly restrain themselves in the face of such sordid, salacious
filth, and both gag orders were ignored by the US media.

In all fairness, Mark, I really feel it's a distortion to refer to
situations like these as government censorship, or accuse Canada of
acting like a fascist police state, without offering any background.

In case anyone is interested, here are references to some of my own
USENET postings on this topic (mostly about the Bernardo / Homolka
case).

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030519165935.J23660.richw%40jessejames.Stanford.EDU

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19961230003058.richw%40yank.kitchener.on.ca

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=39egfb%24roe%40panix.com

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38106d%24cqf%40ia.mks.com

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1994Jan26.133236.2591%40mks.com

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1993Jul10.042222.8977%40mks.com

Mark Crispin also wrote:

> There is nothing illegal under US law in taking your
> legitimate Bell ExpressVu receivers into the US and
> using them in the US.

There may, in fact, technically be such a prohibition -- hidden in
an obscure FCC regulation [47 CFR 25.131(j); 47 CFR 25.137(a)] that
appears to say that a satellite receiving station used to receive
transmissions from a non-US-licensed service must have a special
FCC license, and that the granting of such a license by the FCC
will be contingent upon whether the other country involved allows
US competition in its own market.

I've never been able, though, to get a reliable opinion on whether the
above FCC regulations apply to private individuals, or just to
commercial entities who might want to rebroadcast foreign programs in
the US.

I tried asking the FCC about this once, via e-mail, a few years ago,
but the reply I received was wildly off point (it was clear that they
completely misunderstood my question), and my subsequent attempts to
get a proper answer were ignored.

Even if these regulations do technically prohibit grey-market dish use
in the US, I suspect it's a non-issue, because the FCC probably has
neither the desire nor the resources to mount any enforcement measures
against private individuals.  And even if they did, it's not at all
clear to me whether the regs would pass constitutional muster in the
eyes of the courts.

Rich Wales            richw@richw.org            http://www.richw.org

------------------------------

From: DevilsPGD <lalalaNOSPAM@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Revving the VOIP Market - Vonage Cuts its Prices
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 06:10:15 GMT


In message <<telecom23.249.2@telecom-digest.org>> VOIP News <voip
news> did ramble:

> Lou Holder, a vice president at Vonage, says the cost-cutting move was
> a result of "economies of scale. To build the customer relationship,
> you don't want to nickel-and-dime your customers. You want to be
> fair."

My one complaint about Vonage is that it feels like I'm being nickeled
and dimed to death with service charges whenever I change anything
(add a virtual number, add another phone line, etc)

I've paid about $150 in setup charges, fees, shipping charges and
whatever else they've dreamed up for three lines (I'm using one as a
fax, but $12.99CDN/month for a fax line is a ripoff compared to
$14.99/month for a 500 minute plan.  The extra minutes will pay for
themselves, and the call forward after 30 seconds and network
availability number features are important to me.

I see dumb people, walking around like regular people.  They don't see
each other. They only see what they wanna see. They don't know they're
dumb.

------------------------------

From: ganga_mg@rediffmail.com (Gangadhar)
Subject: 802.16(Wi-Max)
Date: 20 May 2004 00:46:17 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Hi,

I am just doing some literature survey on this WI-Max and I got few
doubts since I am new to wireless technology. Can you tell me what is
the licensed and unlicensed band in wireless communication?

The 802.16 standards say that throughput it provides is about 70 Mbps
is it shared by all the users of MAN? And it says the area covered is
around 50 km, since the frequency of operation is 11 Ghz is it
possible to cover 50 km?


Thanks,

gangadhar

------------------------------

From: Temporary FL@L&ER <w9vhe@nospam.sysmatrix.net>
Subject: Re: Question About Verizon Home Voicemail
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 07:39:12 -0500
Reply-To: w9vhe@arrl.net


Unless I am mistaken, on 19 May 2004 11:41:56 -0700,
dahauss@unlimitedsounds.com (Dave Hauss) wrote:

> I have Verizon home voicemail and am trying to find out if there is
> any possible way I can have it sent a text message to my cell phone
> when a voicemail comes in.  Right now, the only thing verizon told me
> it can do is ring a number when a voicemail comes in. I don't want it
> to do that. Any ideas?

If you have the enhanced home voice mail, you can have it dial your
cellphone -- don't think there is any way for it to do a speech-to-text
conversion. All it will do is call whatever number you program it to,
then it will *replay* the message over your cell.  That's what you
have, not what you want, right?

Use the usual techniques if you wish to reply via email.

Molon Labe!

------------------------------

From: David Quinton <usenet_2004_email@REMOVETHISBITbizorg.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The Making of an Idol
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 15:51:24 +0100


On Wed, 19 May 2004 15:19:03 -0400, Charles Cryderman
<Charles.Cryderman@globalcrossing.com> wrote:

> With SS7 implemented there is no need to actually complete a
> call. What I don't understand is with ANI why are they accepting more
> then one call per number. With SS7 and the abilities of computers it
> should set up so only one vote per telephone number and that
> information be put out. If they truly wanted to know which performed
> the best it would be limited this way. The congestion would be reduced
> and demon dialers would be useless.

I think I read that, with World Idol, 1-800 numbers were used.
In the UK, 090 numbers were used - so much money was made from the
calls!

Multiple voting therefore is encouraged ...

> Now my disclaimer, I have watched it only a few times and found it
> unworthily of my time. If you want to see quality programming watch
> the Fox show "24".

Agreed.

UK Computer stuff from Morgan Auctions. Bids start at £1. No
reserve. Sign up NOW!  <http://www.bizorg.co.uk/shopping/morgan.php>
Track a Mobile phone: <http://www.bizorg.co.uk/news.html> .

------------------------------

From: rayta@msn.com (Ray Normandeau)
Subject: Re: Ventures Aim to Cut Cost of Overseas Cell Calls to Pennies
Date: 20 May 2004 08:07:28 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


VOIP News <voip news> wrote in message
news:<telecom23.249.1@telecom-digest.org>:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/business/17voip.html?ex=1085457600&en=fec11120b8ab2792&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

> By KEN BELSON and MATT RICHTEL

> Now several entrepreneurs want to use Internet technology to reduce
> to pennies the cost of using cellphones to call overseas.

To call out of the county on my cell phone I use
https://www.onesuite.com/ It is basically a prepaid phone card but you
can do away with the PIN for calls from a phone you use all the
time. Program it as a speed dial, you don't even have to remember
their #. No monthly fee or minimum.

If you use the promotion code "ray60273" we both get some free
miniutes.

If you call one country all the time, there may even be phone cards
you can buy from a store catering to that countries nationals here in
the USA offering even a lower rate.

------------------------------

From: rayta@msn.com (Ray Normandeau)
Subject: Re: Best Consumer Answering Machine?
Date: 20 May 2004 08:23:06 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


zmike6 <zmike6@*SPAMBLOCK*yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<telecom23.248.10@telecom-digest.org>:

> A google search suggested that this group had the most discussion of
> answering machines.  My 10-year-old dual microcassette unit is acting
> flaky, and I fear will have to be replaced soon. 

I have three TADs and no longer use tape.

I sometimes get paid for public speaking and I want my voice on my TAD
to sound good. Potential bookers must be impressed by my voice on the
TAD. Altho I have 2 TAD that were originally $400 each, Muratec
VF1000, I am equally impressed w/the voice quality of my GE TAD which
I got for under twenty dollars a few years ago at Best Buy. Underside
it looks like it indicates it is a model 1906.

------------------------------

Reply-To: <douglas@infozech.com>
From: Douglas Charles <douglas@infozech.com>
Subject: Infozech/TransNexus Launch Product For Small Service Providers
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:29:40 +0530


'The Joint Solution Provides Pre-Paid and Wholesale Billing to a Carrier
Class IP Interconnect Solution for the Lowest Price'

Washington DC, May 14, 2004: TransNexus and Infozech Software Inc
today announced that they have partnered to provide a standards based,
complete end-to-end solution to manage IP Interconnect and offer
related wholesale and prepaid billing services to new and emerging
carriers.

The solution brings together the industry leading open IP
interconnection solutions from TransNexus and Carrier Access Billing &
Settlement solution from Infozech. The integrated solution allows
Carriers and ITSPs to manage their Interconnect in a secure fashion
and be able to bill for it in near real time. With this offering the
carriers can implement a retail pre-paid solution and a low-cost
wholesale IP interconnect solution for approximately $60,000 USD for 5
million minutes monthly.

The TransNexus solution provides security, multi-vendor H323
interoperability, routing and collection of accounting information
from a central platform while Infozech's iCAS provides for retail and
wholesale billing and Settlement with interconnecting partners and
performs bill audits for revenue assurance on a Windows platform. The
TransNexus platform provides iCAS with the Call Details in near real
time for the purpose of rating and balance updates. The solution also
manages the wholesale credit control.

Infozech's CEO Mr. Ankur Lal comments, "The partnership enables new
and emerging next generation carriers an affordable and reliable
end-to-end Interconnect solution. They no longer need to plan 100's of
thousand dollars (USD) to enable a regional pre-paid and wholesale IP
telephony solution.  This offer is intended to enable low cost calling
on a worldwide basis "

Speaking on the occasion, TransNexus Vice President, Mr. Frank Estes
remarked, "In the era of deregulation, TransNexus and Infozech have
provided an open, efficient, carrier-class and low cost platform for
service providers to quickly become international carriers for their
customer base.  We see this market as an underserved market by
traditional proprietary, large equipment and billing system
providers".

About TransNexus:

TransNexus provides VoIP interconnect products for H.323 and SIP networks.
The NexSRS(TM) server provides interdomain routing, number translation and
secure access control.

For more information please contact:

TransNexus Inc
Tel: +1 (404)-526-6060
info@transnexus.com
www.transnexus.com

About Infozech:

Infozech As a leader in Telecom services and billing solutions, Infozech is
focused on providing complete e-commerce automation and integration for any
Telecom Service provider.

For more information please contact:
Infozech Software Inc.
Winston Michael,
Tel: +1 (703)-406-6091
ussales@infozech.com
www.infozech.com

This message is brought to you as a service from the Virginia Economic
Development Partnership, to help you in your export promotion activities.
There is no formal relationship between the sender of this message and the
person(s)/organization(s) for whom this message was distributed.

------------------------------

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 #250
******************************
