From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 31 12:32:09 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i4VGW9O04018; Mon, 31 May 2004 12:32:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 12:32:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405311632.i4VGW9O04018@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 #270 TELECOM Digest Mon, 31 May 2004 12:32:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 270 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #435, May 31, 2004 (Angus TeleManagement) Credit Card Phishing, was Re: Wake-Me-Up From AT&T (Danny Burstein) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modem? (Gary Novosielski) Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers (DevilsPGD) Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers (M. Sullivan) Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers (Jack Decker) Cable Poised to Offer Phone Service -- Just Not so Fast (VOIP News) 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, 31 May 2004 09:42:39 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #435, May 31, 2004 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 435: May 31, 2004 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** ALLSTREAM: www.allstream.com ** BELL CANADA: www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: www.cisco.com/ca ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: www.cygcom.com ** GROUP TELECOM: www.360.net ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: www.primustel.ca ** SPRINT CANADA: www.sprint.ca ** TELUS: www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Bell Buys 360/GT, Sells Part to Call-Net ** MTS-Allstream Deal in Court ** Nortel Names Manley to Board ** CRTC to Hold Another Expedited Hearing ** Telus Launches Wireless Home Networking ** Rogers Offers Five-Megabit Home Internet ** Directory Business in Turmoil ** Nortel Gets Export Support Waiver ** Rogers Seeks to Align Operating Units ** 2004 Price Cap Filings Approved ** Revised Bell High-Speed Metro Service Approved ** BCE Sued Again Over Teleglobe ** Horhota Joins Wi-LAN Board ** Does Telecom Policy Need an Overhaul? ============================================================ BELL BUYS 360/GT, SELLS PART TO CALL-NET: Bell Canada is buying all the Canadian assets of 360networks and its subsidiary, GT Group Telecom Services, for $275 million, and will immediately sell 360/GT's business customer accounts in Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces to Call-Net Telecommunications for about $12.5 million. ** The deal, expected to close in September, will give Bell West about 8,000 new customers in western Canada and fibre access to 200 Alberta and B.C. buildings it is not now connected to. ** Call-Net's 5,000 new customers will generate about $50 million in annual revenue, but it will pay Bell 70% of that for network and support services. In two years, Call-Net will have the option to buy a large part of the infrastructure that supports those customers. MTS-ALLSTREAM DEAL IN COURT: Today the Ontario Superior Court will hear Bell Canada's application for an injunction to block Manitoba Telecom's purchase of Allstream (see Telecom Update #434). Allstream has extended the deadline for the tender of shares in return for shares of MTS, originally May 27, to June 1. ** Allstream now says the deal will close in early June. NORTEL NAMES MANLEY TO BOARD: Nortel Networks has named former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley to its Board of Directors. Former CEO Frank Dunn has resigned from the Board. His replacement (appointed last month) is Manfred Bischoff, chairman of EADS, the European aerospace consortium. CRTC TO HOLD ANOTHER EXPEDITED HEARING: On June 28, a CRTC panel will hear three disputes under its new expedited process (see Telecom Update #420): ** MCI Canada's dispute with Bell Canada over CDNA rates. (See Telecom Update #433) ** EastLink's continuing battle with Aliant over the telco's Value Packages. (See Telecom Update #430) ** Bruce Municipal Telephone System's January 2003 complaint that Bruce Power is providing local telephone service to Ontario Power Generation. (See Telecom Update #367) www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/process/2004/jun28.htm TELUS LAUNCHES WIRELESS HOME NETWORKING: Telus now offers its B.C. and Alberta customers a Wireless LAN to connect up to five home computers to its high-speed Internet link, with access speeds up to 2.5 Mbps. Price: $8/month, plus $19.95- $149.95 for equipment, depending on contract length. ROGERS OFFERS FIVE-MEGABIT HOME INTERNET: Rogers Cable has launched Hi-Speed Internet Extreme, which provides Internet access at up to 5 Mbps (download) and 800 Kbps (upload), in Ontario and New Brunswick. The monthly fee is the same as for existing Hi-Speed service, but customers pay $99.95 for a new modem. DIRECTORY BUSINESS IN TURMOIL: Yellow Pages Group is raising $743 million to buy the 19% stake of New York buyout firm Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts. Including the proceeds of previous sales, KKR has made a profit of about $1.6 billion on the $545 million it invested in Yellow Pages two years ago. ** According to published reports, Verizon Communications is looking for buyers for its Canadian telephone directory business, which it bought from Telus for $810 million three years ago. NORTEL GETS EXPORT SUPPORT WAIVER: Export Development Canada will continue financial support for Nortel export deals despite the company's failure to file a 2003 financial statement. Under the new waiver, which expires August 30, support will be considered on a case-by-case basis. (See Telecom Update #434) ROGERS SEEKS TO ALIGN OPERATING UNITS: Speaking at Rogers Communications' annual meeting, Ted Rogers said the holding company is going to play a more active role in managing its subsidiaries, to be better able to bundle TV, Internet, and mobile phone services. 2004 PRICE CAP FILINGS APPROVED: In a series of rulings on May 27, the CRTC approved various 2004 price changes filed by the major incumbent telcos under the price cap regime. www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/whatsnew/2004/may27.htm REVISED BELL HIGH-SPEED METRO SERVICE APPROVED: CRTC Telecom Order 2004-17 approves revisions to Bell Canada's High Speed Metro service, adding 2.5 Gbps optical channels, on 1, 3, and 5-year contract terms. www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Orders/2004/o2004-174.htm BCE SUED AGAIN OVER TELEGLOBE: Teleglobe Communications and its unsecured debtors have sued BCE and former Teleglobe officials over issues related to BCE's sale of the international carrier in 2002. (See Telecom Update #400) HORHOTA JOINS WI-LAN BOARD: George Horhota, co-founder of Suiteworks, which supplies teleworking services, has been named to the Board of Wi-LAN Inc. Earlier, Horhota held posts with Royal Bank, the CBTA, ACC, AT&T Canada, Cannect, and BCE Emergis. DOES TELECOM POLICY NEED AN OVERHAUL? The June Telemanagement, available to online subscribers on Tuesday June 1, features an exclusive interview with Bell Canada Executive VP Lawson Hunter on why Canada's biggest telco wants a telecom policy review, and an analysis of the issues by Lis and Ian Angus. Also in this issue: ** Implementing enterprise mobile data applications ** What's behind Telus's bid for Fido? ** VON Canada: Is VoIP really nearing the takeoff point? To become a Telemanagement subscriber -- including unlimited access to Telemanagement's extensive online content -- visit www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub-online.html. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: join-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: leave-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2004 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Credit Card Phishing, was Re: Wake-Me-Up From AT&T Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 03:54:42 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In Norm writes: > The other morning I got a literal wakeup call from someone at AT&T > long-distance about an overdue bill. After getting assurance, and > because my credit-card number had recently changed, I provided the > information -- then realized I *assumed* he was talking about the same > phone number I was using. Please, please, don't tell me the original poster gave out credit card info over the phone to an unidentified caller. I suggest that "Norm" contact his bank asap. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modem? Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 04:49:16 GMT Fred Atkinson wrote: > I'm not so sure that DSL is a cost effective alternative to > DSL. Umm, neither am I. In fact I'm not so sure it's an "alternative" at all. ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 08:12:11 GMT In message <> John Levine did ramble: > Aha, now we get to the nub of the problem. VoIP is a service that > only appears competitive with real telephones when it is coddled with > special tax exemptions and it doesn't have to offer the reliability > and service of real telephones. If VoIP had to compete head to head > with real telephones, it would shrivel and die. I've rarely seen a > VoIP advocate admit this so honestly. Thanks. Head to head? There's a lot more to the difference between taxes, the fact that the user is required to provide the last mile (the broadband service) instead of a telco being required to maintain everything up to and sometimes including the demarc ... That alone should ensure a cheaper price. Will reliability suffer? Likely, there's of other factors involved, many of which are not set up to provide the uptime of a telco. > By the way, it's not true. Cable providers can and do offer > competently engineered VoIP service that's just as good as POTS, > including E911, and still slightly cheaper than wireline, particularly > if you use all of the features and bundled LD they include. Sure, but like with a telco, the cable provider controls the last mile. Without that, no one company can provide "as good as POTS" In message <> richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) did ramble: >> (Note: If you cannot read a Microsoft Word file, you may be able to >> convert it using an online document conversion service. Here are a >> few that I'm aware of, although I have not attempted to use them on >> this particular document. If anyone knows of a better free conversion >> service, I'd like to know about it too:) > This is less of a problem than you might think. Most of the newer > crop of M$ Windows systems come standard with Wordpad, which is > essentially a subset of word. It's extremely limited (try opening a file with an image, a table, or just about anything else beyond text) However, Microsoft does provide a free Word viewer that can handle most of the features of Word. If a job is worth doing, then get someone in to do it properly. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 13:48:25 GMT In article , richgr@panix.com says: > In article , Jack Decker > wrote: >> "NASUCA's VOIP Comments", or use this direct link to the .doc file: >> http://www.nasuca.org/filings/VOIP%20Comments%205-28-04.doc >> (Note: If you cannot read a Microsoft Word file, you may be able to >> convert it using an online document conversion service. Here are a >> few that I'm aware of, although I have not attempted to use them on >> this particular document. If anyone knows of a better free conversion >> service, I'd like to know about it too:) > This is less of a problem than you might think. Most of the newer > crop of M$ Windows systems come standard with Wordpad, which is > essentially a subset of word. Actually, if you have a Windows system you can download a free Word Viewer program from Microsoft that will allow you to open and view any Word document, but not modify the document. Instructions at: Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 08:55:21 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Consumer Advocates Tell FCC That VoIP Telephone Customers Pat, please conceal my e-mail address as usual. On 30 May 2004 11:46:13 EDT, Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) wrote: > Historical precedent does not come down on the side of Mr. Decker's > argument if you consider auto emissions standards. [Long explanation of auto emissions standards snipped] It seems to me that Mr. Wilber is reaching pretty far for an analogy here. The major difference I see is that auto emissions is something that affects everyone, not just the owner of the vehicle. In fact the vehicle owner often doesn't care if their vehicle is more "dirty" than the vehicles of others. On the other hand, if 911 service is not available on VoIP, that affects only the VoIP customer and his or her family, not the entire neighborhood (unless you are the sort of socialist that feels that everyone has some duty to have working 911 service in case their neighbors need to use it. My feeling on that is best stated by paraphrasing the snack cracker commercial: Get your own 911 service. And if you're worried that it won't be accessible during a house fire, then put an extension in a garage or storage shed. Don't expect your neighbors to provide your emergency phone service for you; they may not be home when you need it anyway). But another point might be that while all *automobiles* have to conform to the same emission standards, there are in fact different standards for automobiles, trucks (and by the way, don't SUV's fall into some truck-like classification, so that they don't have to conform to the same standards as automobiles?), motorcycles, etc. I take exception to categorizing VoIP in the same manner as traditional phone service. Others have made this point more eloquently than I in different forums, but basically VoIP is no more like traditional phone service than cellular is. Even so, and with all its limitations, it may be "good enough" for some users. If it isn't for you, then by all means don't use it. But to try and regulate it out of existence would be like car drivers trying to regulate motorcycles out of existence because only a minority of people ride them (and in today's "nanny state" atmosphere, I'm almost surprised that hasn't happened). Please remember, though, that when you advocate taking away the free choice of others, sooner or later the attitude that you can take away anything not enjoyed by the majority of people is going to turn around and bite you in the butt when they restrict some activity that you enjoy. Or, as I think is partly the case here, when they start restricting people's freedom of choice solely to protect entrenched corporations, the public's freedom of access to new technology is restricted and we all suffer. If you want to make analogies, I would compare the people wanting restrictions on VoIP to the people who want restrictions on the capabilities of PVR's (personal video recorders). If you are comfortable with denying new technology to the general public just to protect entrenched interests then we have a difference of opinion here, because I am certainly not comfortable with that. Furthermore we should remember that the United States is not the only country on the face of the earth, and when we give up technological advantage to protect entrenched interests, businesses in other countries will take the opportunity to move ahead of us. On 30 May 2004 16:24:48 -0000, John Levine wrote: > Sigh. Had you actually read the message you were responding to, you > would have noticed that I said that the vast majority of VoIP phones > stay still, not that they all do. The ones that move would, I hope, > have enough sense either to update their location when they do, or > else not to register a location. There are a few wireline phone users > who use radio phone patches and other stuff that let them make calls > other than from the phone's nominal location, but nobody claims that > we should therefore throw out all of E911. Okay, John, I think that the problem here is that you're not suggesting the same thing as what NASUCA is wanting. From reading their comments, I don't think a Vonage-like solution is what they are advocating at all, and in fact I do not think it would be acceptable to them. >> It always strikes me as odd that people who might want the Internet to >> remain at least somewhat anonymous nevertheless seem to think that >> there is a way to positively locate a VoIP device. > Had you actually read the message you were responding to, you would > have noticed that I didn't say that. And I didn't mean it, either. Great, I'm very glad to hear you say that. >> Now that is all well and good but they might as well mandate that >> from now on, all automobiles must be capable of flying. I believe >> they know full well that no VoIP company could afford to stay in >> business if they had to obtain direct trunking to every 911 >> center. > Aha, now we get to the nub of the problem. VoIP is a service that > only appears competitive with real telephones when it is coddled with > special tax exemptions and it doesn't have to offer the reliability > and service of real telephones. If VoIP had to compete head to head > with real telephones, it would shrivel and die. I've rarely seen a > VoIP advocate admit this so honestly. Thanks. See my comments above. I saw a message once that in effect said that Vonage has done the VoIP industry a great disservice by holding themselves out to be a "broadband telephone company." If VoIP companies were smart they'd try to put as much distance between themselves and wireline telephony as possible. I find it interesting that VoIP has been around since probably 1996 or thereabouts (give or take a year), and other than the original ACTA petition to have the FCC ban VoIP altogether (as if the FCC could have ever stopped it), nobody has made any attempt to regulate VoIP until devices came along that let a user plug in a regular phone and get dial tone. I'm sure that many of us at least tried using DialPad, the free service that let people make calls anywhere in the U.S. back when it was in operation, but because you had to use your computer as an interface no one seemed to care much. The Minnesota PUC was the first to try and regulate VoIP in the 21st century and the crux of their argument was based on appearance, the so-called "duck" test. I suspect that if VoIP had only been offered using wi-fi compatible handsets, we wouldn't even be having this discussion -- everyone would be comparing VoIP to cellular telephony (which I think is a more appropriate comparison anyway) and the expectations would be much lower. But because the VoIP companies dared to offer their service in a form that would be comfortable and familiar for the non-techie user, suddenly there is this hue and cry for regulation. > By the way, it's not true. Cable providers can and do offer > competently engineered VoIP service that's just as good as POTS, > including E911, and still slightly cheaper than wireline, > particularly if you use all of the features and bundled LD they > include. Cable providers can offer VoIP in a different way. Remember that they already have facilities in the area. They can probably run cable right to the local 911 center. If you are comfortable with saying that only the incumbent cable company should be allowed to offer VoIP (thereby restricting customer choice), then this is a valid point. But if you want to have access to VoIP providers anywhere in the world, then you have to realize that a VoIP company in New Jersey can't afford to have direct trunking to every little Podunk town's 911 center. I'm more than happy to concede the point that VoIP isn't "real" telephone service, if by "real" you mean "like wireline." It has limitations that wireline service doesn't have, but at the same time it permits features that wireline service doesn't offer. I simply don't feel that the lack of one particular feature, "enhanced" 911, should be sufficient to prohibit anyone from offering the service as-is. If you want to make some FTC rule that says that you can't use the words "telephone service" in advertising VoIP unless you clearly explain the differences, I'm fine with that (note, however, that we do use terms like "cellular telephone service" and that isn't wireline, either). >> Now, what I think is going to happen if the FCC comes up with some >> ridiculous requirements is that VoIP will simply move offshore. >> Vonage, for example, could simply close up shop in New Jersey, move >> to Canada, and run their operation from there (and continue to >> serve their Canadian customers, along with any U.S. Residents that >> could figure out how to obtain a Canadian mail forwarding address). >> Right, and they will thrive with the 2% of their customers that >> don't mind losing their local U.S. numbers. (In case you forgot, >> Vonage and other VoIP providers all depend on U.S. CLECs to >> provide connections to the U.S. local network.) Sheesh. Well, that comment opens a couple interesting questions. Do you really think that only 2% of customers would be interested in VoIP if they could only save money on outbound calls? And, would CLEC's be prohibited from providing U.S. phone number mapping to companies not located in the United States? What would make the situation really interesting would be if VoIP were perfectly legal and relatively unrestricted someplace in the NANP area. For example, if Canada allows VoIP companies to operate relatively unfettered compared to the United States, I think a lot of U.S. residents would be willing to have a Canadian phone number if they could save considerably on outgoing calls. I'm not suggesting everyone would be comfortable with that, but the uptake might be a little higher than 2%. Of course, I realize it's a bit of a stretch to imagine Canada NOT over-regulating some form of communications, given the heavy-handed ways of the CRTC, but maybe some Caribbean country in the NANP would be willing to host VoIP companies with few restrictions. On 30 May 2004 13:07:20 -0400, richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) wrote: >> (Note: If you cannot read a Microsoft Word file, you may be able to >> convert it using an online document conversion service. Here are a >> few that I'm aware of, although I have not attempted to use them on >> this particular document. If anyone knows of a better free conversion >> service, I'd like to know about it too:) > This is less of a problem than you might think. Most of the newer > crop of M$ Windows systems come standard with Wordpad, which is > essentially a subset of word. I realize that, but Wordpad won't always read a Word document (or won't display certain types of embedded images), and also not everyone uses a Windows-based system. I was thinking that maybe the Linux and Macintosh users might need some way to access these documents, but then again, perhaps they already have some way of dealing with .doc files? Jack ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 10:02:46 -0400 Subject: Cable Poised to Offer Phone Service -- Just Not so Fast Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040527/6238330s.htm By David Lieberman USA TODAY NEW YORK -- After years of big talk and tests, cable operators agree: They finally have the right technology and business plans to challenge phone companies with an array of low-priced local and long-distance services. The big surprise these days is that several operators, no strangers to hype, are warning consumers and investors not to expect too much, too soon. Comcast found itself in the uncomfortable position Wednesday of having to correct reports that it was committed to offering phone service via its cable lines to the 40 million homes in its service areas by 2006. "It depends on how our tests work out," Comcast's D'Arcy Rudnay said. "That's the key, key message." To be sure, all the major operators expect phone service to be one of their most attractive products. And all are ready to offer connections to some homes with fairly new technology that routes calls as Internet-like data over cable lines. "If you are a Cablevision subscriber, you're seeing it now," says Oppenheimer analyst Thomas Eagan. "If you're a Time Warner customer, you'll hear about it by the end of the year. And if you're a Cox and Comcast customer, you'll hear about it in 2005." Full story at: http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040527/6238330s.htm 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/ ------------------------------ 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. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #270 ******************************