From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue May 25 00:24:05 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i4P4O4a17412; Tue, 25 May 2004 00:24:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 00:24:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405250424.i4P4O4a17412@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 #256 TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 May 2004 00:24:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 256 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Strike Goes On (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Bye, bye Ma Bell - Internet Phones Give Land Lines Run for Money (Karl) Re: Western Union Public Telegraph Offices (Lisa Hancock) Re: The Efax Fax Police are After Me!!! (SELLCOM Tech Support) Re: Sharing DSL Wirelessly w/o Hardwiring Any Computers (SELLCOM Tech) Re: Sharing DSL Wirelessly w/o Hardwiring Any Computers (John Levine) Re: Sharing DSL Wirelessly w/o Hardwiring Any Computers (Brad Houser) Re: Sharing DSL Wirelessly w/o Hardwiring Any Computers (Gene S. Berkowitz) Re: Question About Verizon Home Voicemail (Shadrach) Port 25 Among First to Integrate Yahoo's Domain Keys Email (Monty Solomon) Time May Have Come For Ordering Channels a-la-carte (Monty Solomon) Best News in the War on Spam: Phishing (Monty Solomon) Re: Jeff Pulver Statement on New York Public Services Commission (Schaffra) Share Day for May (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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: Mon, 24 May 2004 23:18:57 -0400 (EDT) From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: The Strike Goes On According to the Independence Reporter for Sunday, May 23, the labor dispute at SBC continues. There was a time in the United States when a strike at the telephone company meant bad news. Now, all it seems to amount to is a slight delay in getting an answer from Directory Assistance or the operator. Here at our central office in Independence, over at 6th and Maple, there was no sign of any action other than back on Friday (when the strike started) two guys with picket signs on the sidewalk in front for a short time, but then they went away and there was nothing. The other tenants, with co-location cages, came and went normally. Telco may just allow this strike to linger on and make no real effort to settle it anytime fast. What is the reaction/ response in other communities? My understanding is it is not just SBC on strike, but all the (remnants of) Baby Bells. PAT ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Bye, bye Ma Bell - Internet Phones Give Land Lines Run for Money Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:56:55 -0400 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ On 21 May 2004 11:19:35 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: Price is only one part of the equation. and the cost differential between VoIP and GSTN calls is getting smaller (e.g. for $20/month, SBC allows me to make an unlimited number of domestic voice calls.) VoIP services have to compete on features. For example, AT&T's CallVantage offers a 9-way conference bridge, and the ability to have a call ring up to five devices. Both of these features can be done on a landline, but I don't know of any providers who offer the multiple ring capability. IMO, VoIP will grow because the VoIP providers can add the features that customers want cheaply and quickly. >> I'd be more inclined to look into VOIP hype if there was a true apples >> to oranges comparison. How do costs stack up: Right now, I get a line from SBC with some custom features that make it similar to Vonage's offering. (voice mail, unlimited domestic calling plan, SBC redirect to operator/cellphone vs Vonage ringing two numbers at once). SBC comes in at about $88/month, Vonage is about $50/month before taxes, etc. Vonage gives me an additional fax line (but I have an Internet fax service for $3.95/month vs having to maintain a fax machine for the Vonage line). Vonage has cheaper international calls. Since I use this line for business, it has to work all the time, so I'm willing to pay for the higher quality of service offered by SBC. But that may change as VoIP providers get their QOS acts together. > 1) A recent post described VOIP quality as being "nearly" as good > as land line. Well, call me back when you get the quality > to be as good or _better_ than land line. How good is the quality of your land-line? I've had occasional voice quality problems on mine (static when it rains, etc). I've used Free World Dialup. Some calls are better than land-line, some are terrible. Its been better lately (they may have upgraded their servers, or I may have finally gotten the config right :-) Overall, its worth what I paid for it. VoIP is relatively new and great progress will be made on the quality issues; how good was the quality of long distance 10 years after the landline telephone was invented? > 2) If the company's internal data lines can accomodate the full > volume of telephone traffic, including peaks, at all times > with 24/7 reliability? Work is progressing on these issues. Many approaches to QOS have been proposed. As far as reliability, companies will pay for what they need, and not all the telephone traffic need to be high availability. 911 calls do, other calls may have lower priorities, and it may be ok to have, say, non-emergency calls from most employees at a lower priority (of course, accounts receivables and sales would have a higher priority ;-) > 3) If the VOIP had to support everyone in a city using it for > local and long distance telecom--would the data lines, trunks, > and routers be able to handle the peak volume load? > Time and time again I've seen a new technology touted but > could only handle laboratory loads and not real life loads. Fortunately, everyone in a city will move to VoIP at different rates, so the infrastructure will have a chance to grow. And yes, it will be able to support everyone in a city, IP scales as well as the GSTN does. Besides, right now many people in a city don't even have Internet access, so they wouldn't use VoIP. > 4) If VOIP included all the taxes and fees landline charges. The government can screw up just about anything (and generally does so). > 5) If VOIP included the social requirements of regulated telephone > service, such as the expense of filing tarrifs with the PUC > (a big job in itself), and providing universal service to > unprofitable and non-paying customers, and other public service > obligations the regulated companies must meet. - I don't care if a bunch of tariffs are filed if I can quickly switch to a lower-cost provider. - Why should those who use the phone the most (i.e. businesses) pay to give phone service to people who can't afford their services? - public service obligations? Many people in the world today do not have a phone. Plenty of people lived before phones were invented. If the non-paying customers require a phone, shouldn't this burden be born by all (and be paid for by the state), rather than by the people who use the phone the most? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But really, Lisa, why does traditional > telephony have to carry the burden it does these days? Why shouldn't > there be some telecom reform in 2004 which grossly eliminated about > ninety percent of all the garbage sent through on telephone bills? PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Western Union Public Telegraph Offices Date: 24 May 2004 12:10:16 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Here is another historical look at Western Union, a company which was > known throughout the USA during the first half of the 20th Century. Thank you for putting this out. Please keep them coming. > Typically they were very ornate places, with marble top writing > desks for public use, a marble top counter where the clerk(s) could > be found, In 1979, the Western Union office in my town was not ornate. It had a very spartan seedy lobby, and the clerk was located behind a thick glass window. An office near Lake St in Chicago around that time had a similar appearance. I understand by 1975 the bulk of WU's business was money transfers. Soon after it closed and business was handled by an agent. > There were, in those days, any number of illiterate Americans. Another source was immigrants, who either couldn't read/write English or couldn't read/write at all. From what I've read, I sense that much of today's money transfer business, along with WU's other target markets, is for low-income people who may not have normal checking accounts or credit cards and deal solely in cash. > Now and again, however, the low pay the clerks/telegraphers received > and the lack of respect they received from the management put them in > a strike mood. Next week in this space we will discuss one or two of > the work stoppages by telegraphers to protest their working conditions. According to the Oslin book labor troubles were a factor in WU's demise. Union pressures forced the elimination of telegraph boys and staff cutbacks. I knew someone who worked in one of their computer centers around 1975 and she reported the job paid very well for the type of work, but was very closely monitored. The computer checked every keystroke and counted all errors as well as tracking time away such as in the restroom. Unfortunately, in some companies labor-mgmt deteriorates so low that it becomes a lose-lose. Each side digs in their heels and becomes unreasonable. Such places end up closing altogether. I don't think the Bell System generally ever had such severe labor problems, but the Bell System had an ever expanding business instead of a contracting one. I understand that generally Bell had Western Electric employees suffer layoffs in soft times as opposed to in the operating companies. Of course now the desendant Bell companies have unionized employees while the competitors don't. The RBOCs created new subsidiaries that are not union, and try to shift as much work over as possible. I once had an installer come out who was a contractor (not a Verizon employee -- his truck had the Verizon sign just taped on as opposed to painted on.) He was rude and slovenly. I contested and received credit for his charges afterwards. In the meantime, the CWA (Communications Workers of America) have sought to unionize workers in new industries. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By 1979, there was nothing of any significance left to the old Western Union empire. And on Lake Street in Chicago, a very racially diverse neighorhood where the citizens would murder your mother and attack you for the change or food stamps in your purse, Western Union money transfer agents were not the only business places to have thick, bullet proof glass over their cashier windows in those days, and even today, 25 years later, it stays that way. Lisa, I am curious; what were YOU doing on West Lake Street, during the seventies or anytime since? The main Western Union Building downtown *was* nice at one point; the last time I walked past in the middle nineties (when I was strongly thinking about checking out of Chicago once and for all), the building was not in good condition, and where the public office on the first floor had been was a currency- change looking place with two or three windows (again, behind thick glass) for money transfers. The building was otherwise mostly boarded up and abandoned. And speaking of unionized employees, the telcos are on strike as I write this, and I do not think it will end anytime soon. PAT] ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: The Efax Fax Police are After Me!!! Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 20:10:35 GMT Gordon S. Hlavenka posted on that vast internet thingie: > I mostly just get junk, which is the reason I signed up for it in the > first place; why buy paper for junk faxes? Well, I find that saving them up and about once a month sending them with a cover letter to the FCC Enforcement Divsion gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. FCC Enforcement Telecommunications 445 12st St SW Washington, DC 20554 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. ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Sharing DSL Wirelessly w/o Hardwiring Any Computers Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 20:14:03 GMT dsimcha@yahoo.com (Daveman750) posted on that vast internet thingie: > I would like to share DSL between 2 desktop computers. Is it > possible, since I don't have a phone jack near either, to share DSL > wirelessly by using 2 wireless adapters, one for each computer, and > placing a wireless router near the phone jack across my house (well > within range)? In other words, I would like all my computers to > access my DSL wirelessly and to have no "main" computer. If so, how > exactly would that work? I do it. Just buy a wireless router (G is best these days) to plug into your DSL / Cable thingie with the Ethernet cable (may require crossover cable). And then get wireless thingies for the computers. We just do it here for laptops but it is the same idea. Take a few moments and learn how to secure your setup. The mac address thing is a good idea and the WEP. Don't set up any security until you get it working without it. 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. ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 2004 21:01:58 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Sharing DSL Wirelessly w/o Hardwiring Any Computers Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I would like to share DSL between 2 desktop computers. Is it > possible, since I don't have a phone jack near either, to share DSL > wirelessly by using 2 wireless adapters, one for each computer, and > placing a wireless router near the phone jack across my house The router, which you can get for about $30 when they're on sale at places like Best Buy, connects to the DSL modem. The two computers have WiFi adapters. Works great. I'd suggest changing the SSID in the router to something other than the default and set a password, so passing tourists can't share your network. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. ------------------------------ From: Brad Houser Subject: Re: Sharing DSL Wirelessly w/o Hardwiring Any Computers Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:30:56 -0700 Organization: Intel Corporation Daveman750 wrote in message news:telecom23.255.2@telecom-digest.org: > Hi, > I would like to share DSL between 2 desktop computers. Is it > possible, since I don't have a phone jack near either, to share DSL > wirelessly by using 2 wireless adapters, one for each computer, and > placing a wireless router near the phone jack across my house (well > within range)? In other words, I would like all my computers to > access my DSL wirelessly and to have no "main" computer. If so, how > exactly would that work? A wireless router will do what you want. It connects to the DSL modem. Your 2 desktops will receive an IP address from the router. You will connect to the router, and give it the DSL logon information, and then both computers will see the internet. Make sure the wireless adapters you purchase for the desktops have PCI card adapters. Brad Houser ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: Sharing DSL Wirelessly w/o Hardwiring Any Computers Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 23:21:20 -0400 In article , dsimcha@yahoo.com says: > Hi, > I would like to share DSL between 2 desktop computers. Is it > possible, since I don't have a phone jack near either, to share DSL > wirelessly by using 2 wireless adapters, one for each computer, and > placing a wireless router near the phone jack across my house (well > within range)? In other words, I would like all my computers to > access my DSL wirelessly and to have no "main" computer. If so, how > exactly would that work? > Thanks. Yes, this is a common approach. The only device that needs to physically plug into the phone line is the DSL modem. It doesn't have to be right at the jack either, you can run a long phone cable to it. The modem will have an RJ45 Ethernet jack. Connect the wireless router to the modem. It may be necessary (depending on the router) to physically connect your PC to it for configuration purposes; once configured, you can connect via wireless. The router is a DHCP server, which means it will hand out IP addresses to PCs that connect to it automatically. --Gene ------------------------------ From: Shadrach Subject: Re: Question About Verizon Home Voicemail Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 22:46:07 -0500 Reply-To: w9vhe@arrl.net Unless I am mistaken, on 24 May 2004 05:25:55 -0700, dahauss@unlimitedsounds.com (Dave Hauss) wrote: > Yes I have it doing that now but its a pain to get a call every time > there there is voicemail. I wish Verizon would add the feature like > my BROADVOICE voicemail has where it will send an email with info such > as caller ID and other info and I had it going to my cell phones text > messaging. > Temporary FL@L&ER wrote in message > news:: >> 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! It would seem that VZ is using a different type VM system than Broadvoice. Most of the ones I was familiar with were from Digital Sound. Don't think they had the speech to text boards out yet. Use the usual techniques if you wish to reply via email. Molon Labe! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 23:37:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Port25 Among First to Integrate Yahoo's DomainKeys Email Port25 Among First to Integrate Yahoo's DomainKeys Email Authentication Technology ELLICOTT CITY, Md.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 24, 2004-- Port25 Demonstrates Commitment to Make it Easy for Senders to Adopt the Latest Anti-Spam Standards Port25 Solutions Inc., a leading provider of e-mail delivery software, announces that it has successfully integrated DomainKeys support into PowerMTA(TM), its intelligent e-mail delivery gateway product. Yahoo's (NASDAQ:YHOO) DomainKeys is a cryptographic authentication system that allows receivers of email to verify the identity an email sender and will help combat common spamming techniques. Port25 is the first company to announce its implementation of the current DomainKeys specification. Organizations interested in evaluating PowerMTA(TM) and/or learning more about our support for DomainKeys should visit http://www.port25.com/domainkeys . - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41611895 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 23:55:17 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Time May Have Come For Ordering Channels a la carte Page 1B Time may have come for ordering channels a la carte Congress, consumers push for paying only for what you want By Michael McCarthy USA TODAY Cara Cooper-Padilla is fed up with ever-higher bills for cable/satellite TV service to get the channels she wants -- along with dozens more she never watches. "Cable should be like ordering sushi, where you check off what you want on a menu," says the wife, mother and teacher from Torrance, Calif. "Give me a list of all the channels that you're offering -- then I'll check off what I want to pay for." Count Cooper-Padilla, 33, among a growing body of cable and satellite customers and consumer advocates demanding that pay TV companies be forced to offer so-called 'a la carte' pricing to give subscribers more control over bills. This model would price channels individually and let consumers buy the ones they want, as opposed to the industry practice of offering a few 'tiers' of progressively more expensive all-or-none packages. No U.S. pay-TV provider offers channels a la carte, and such demands have gone unheard in the past. But in the post-Janet-Jackson era of decency backlash, conservative and family advocacy groups have added their voices, seeing such 'channel choice' as a way to keep smut out of the family room. This coming together of groups that might disagree on everything but their pay TV bills -- along with the fact that cable or satellite TV is in about 88% of the nation's 108 million TV homes -- has caught bipartisan attention on Capitol Hill and brought at least saber-rattling about mandating more channel choice. http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040524/6226831s.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 00:09:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Best News in the war on Spam: Phishing UPGRADE Best news in the war on spam: phishing By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff The Internet continues to serve up a steady diet of rancid fare -- first spam, and now phish. You've heard of phishing by now; indeed, most active e-mailers have already received a few dozen helpings of the stuff. Phishing is the up-and-coming Internet ripoff technique that takes spamming one nasty step further. The phishers are scam artists who have designed e-mail messages that seem to come from legitimate businesses -- banks, credit card companies, online retailers. Anybody with some skill in Web page design can whip up an e-mail that looks like it really was sent from eBay or Citibank. And if they also know about e-mail 'spoofing,' they can add a phony but legitimate-looking return address. The message will generally contain a warning. Your account is overdrawn or may have been accessed by thieves. To be on the safe side, the company has deactivated the account. To get it started again, click on the Web link and fill out the very legitimate-looking form that appears on your screen. You're asked for information that proves who you are -- not just your account number, but also your Social Security number or driver's license number; and perhaps numbers from other bank accounts and credit cards. Of course, all of this data is relayed to crooks who will use it to empty out your savings or create false identity documents. It's a clever trick that often snookers people who are too smart to fall for other forms of spam. Indeed, the Anti-Phishing Working Group, a consortium of businesses and law enforcement agencies, estimates that this gimmick works on about 5 percent of those who get the e-mails. That's far better than the success rate for traditional spamming. Besides, regular spammers just sell a bottle of phony weight-loss pills for $50; phishermen can steal every cent you own. No wonder phishing is the next big thing in Internet crime. The APWG will release a report today that says the numbers of recorded phishing attacks rose 180 percent between March and April. Each attack represents a stream of thousands or millions of phony messages, each seeking sensitive financial data. In April, APWG counted over 37 million such outbreaks daily. All the crooks need is a few dozen suckers a day, and they could rake in millions. All in all, it's the best news yet in the war on Internet junk mail. Yes, you heard right: It's good news. Here's why. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2004/05/24/best_news_in_the_war_on_spam_phishing/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 01:29:49 GMT From: Schaffrath Subject: Re: Jeff Pulver Statement on New York Public Services Commission Organization: Total Disorganized > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My favorite take-off on this theme is > an old comedy show now appearing on TV Land a few times each day > called 'Green Acres' which takes place in a mythical town called > 'Hooterville'. One day the main character in the show, Oliver Wendall > Douglas, an attorney formerly in residence in New York City discovers > that Hooterville has no representation in Congress, just loads of > public servants who tax and regulate things in the little town as > much as they can. PAT] ... and just to interject a little telecom back into this thread; the motto of the Hooterville Telephone Company was "ervice is ur mott" (it was "Latin" according to County Agent Hank Kimball). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 23:21:28 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Share Day For May Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 00:00:00 EST Instead of changing the Digest over to an advrtising supported forum, I have always elected to keep it as a user supported forum, and for the most part keep it spam and virus free. I am *only* able to do this because of financial support from readers here, and if you would rather not see these messages every month, then please pitch in and help now and then! Consider it sort of like public radio, which goes on for days at a time trying to raise money ... and maybe I should adopt the same system. Turn over the entire Digest once or twice a year to fund raising (entire issues, etc) and stop doing it when the budget for the year has been raised. But for now, I will stick with the present system of devoting a few messages at the end of each month to raising money for the Digest publication expenses. Out of 400-500 messages per month, in a spam, virus free environment, two or three (only) devoted to fund raising. You know who you are; please provide some help here financially. You can use Pay Pal to donate with a credit/debit card by going to our web site http://telecom-digest.org and at the bottom of the home page look for the PayPal 'donate' button. Or if you prefer, send a check or money order to Patrick Townson/TELECOM, Post Office Box 50, Independence, Kansas 67301-0050. The amount you send is entirely up to you. You know best how much you can afford and whether or not this Digest has any value for you. Thank you very much. Patrick Townson, Editor/Publisher TELECOM Digest ------------------------------ 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 #256 ******************************