From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jun 13 18:28:03 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i5DMS2I16468; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:28:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:28:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200406132228.i5DMS2I16468@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 #288 TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:28:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 288 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Health of U.S. Democracy Tied to New Model for Public Access (M Solomon) The Educated Blogger: Using Weblogs to Promote Literacy (Monty Solomon) Apple Readies Next-Gen MPEG-4 Part 10 (Monty Solomon) Re: California: SBC Restrictions on DSL Are Illegal (Steven J Sobol) Re: California: SBC Restrictions on DSL Are Illegal (Robert Bonomi) Re: CLI via CSTA (Siemens HiPath 3000) (Mike Blake-Knox) Note to Unaware Long Distance Users (Steve H.) Need Expert Legal and Medical Testimony For Impending Lawsuit (knowledge) Washington State Regulators Rule on LocalDial VoIP Service (VOIP News Making Phone Calls Over the Net (Brian) Last Laugh! Telecom Humor From the Comics (J. Mayson) 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: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:54:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Health of U.S. Democracy Tied to New Model for Public Access Report on "Information Commons" Released By Free Expression Policy Project New York, NY -- Today, the Free Expression Policy Project released The Information Commons , a groundbreaking report that links the vitality of 21st century democracy to the creation of online communities dedicated to producing and sharing information. Nancy Kranich, a former president of the American Library Association, is the report's author. http://www.brennancenter.org/presscenter/releases_2004/pressrelease_2004_0608b.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:02:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Educated Blogger: Using Weblogs to Promote Literacy in Classroom by David Huffaker Abstract This paper explores the role of weblogs or "blogs" in classroom settings. Blogs, which resemble personal journals or diaries and provide an online venue where self-expression and creativity is encouraged and online communities are built, provide an excellent opportunity for educators to advance literacy through storytelling and dialogue. This paper explores the importance of literacy and storytelling in learning, and then juxtaposes these concepts with the features of blogs. The paper also reviews examples of blogs in practice. Contents Introduction The importance of literacy The art of storytelling Blogs in the classroom Examples of blogs in practice Conclusion http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_6/huffaker/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:14:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Apple Readies Next-Gen MPEG-4 Part 10 By Michael Singer Apple Computer is currently testing new video compression software that will eventually improve its QuickTime Player. The company said the technology, known as MPEG-4 part 10 or H.264/AVC, is the next-generation video compression technology in the MPEG-4 standard. Already ratified by both the ITU and ISO MPEG, Frank Casanova, Apple Senior Director, QuickTime Product Marketing, told internetnews.com that the company is pole-positioning the improvements as the standard for video encoding for everything from 3G to High Definition (HD) broadcast. http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3366831 ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: California: SBC Restrictions on DSL Are Illegal, Judge Rules Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:06:55 -0500 TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > Truth be told, I have not missed SWB/SBC at all. Me neither. Out here in the desert, Verizon is my ILEC. I know others have had problems with them, but I haven't had any issues whatsoever (of course, I refuse to buy DSL from them, but still ...) I don't miss SBC either. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: California: SBC Restrictions on DSL Are Illegal, Judge Rules From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:30:55 +0000 In article , wrote: > VOIP News wrote: >> SBC executives, who have not yet seen the decision, insisted Wednesday >> that the company didn't have to provide its DSL service to customers >> who wanted to move their local phone service to a rival. > The crooks never give up, do they. The fact they won't simply offer > DSL without voice shows their true nature. While I "_really_ *DON'T* like" SBC's policy, the Calif. judge got things _wrong_. There *are* _legitimate_ reasons behind SBC's policy. 'Everybody knows' that there are two 'DSL' technologies -- ADSL, and SDSL. SDSL _requires_ a dedicated pair of wires, because the signalling extends into the 'voice' frequencies. ADSL runs on frequencies that _exclude_ the voice band. This means that ADSL can run on a dedicated pair, *OR* that it can run on a pair that is 'shared' with voice (POTS) services. Offering *only* 'shared line' ADSL services is a business decision, motivated by the cost -- and resource -- savings of doing so, vs. dedicated-line service. The 'cost' differential is in three figures, just on the 'initial install' of the service. Starting with the labor savings because there is no need for a 'site visit' by a telco installer, to verify the line and 'tag' it. Or to visit the 'multiples' to remove a prior connect on that pair. Trouble-shooting is a _whole_ lot easier/simpler, too. If the phone works, that eliminates about 99% of the possible problems. And, if the phone _doesn't_ work, then it's a 'regulated services' problem, and _that_ side of the house deals with it, *without* impacting the profitability of the 'non-regulated' side. (Note: one could have _great_ fun arguing that this is a disallowed 'cross-subsidy' of the unregulated operation by the regulated one. ) Then there is the issue of consumption of the 'physical plant' resources. The telco is _required_ to provide voice service to anyone who orders it. If they don't have any available pairs in the trunk cable, they must _install_ an additional cable, or a bigger one, or employ some sort of 'work-around', like a "pair gain" device. And this must be done *at*no*additional*cost* to the customer. *IF* as a result of selling DSL on 'dedicated pairs' (which _could_ have been used for voice services), they lack avail pairs for voice service, they would have to do that same "no cost to the customer" install of the extra trunk capacity -- to deliver the _required_ voice service. And they can't charge it back to the 'dedicated line' DSL customer(s) who were the proximate cause why sufficient physical plant resources were not available for the required voice service. A "simple" run of a new trunk cable is into five figures, _per_mile_. It takes a -long- time to recover that 'sunk cost'. For a 100-pair cable, it's something like 700 'pair years' of _gross_ local-loop revenues. That's all 100 pairs 'rented', for 7 years. or 50% utilization for 14 years. AND that assumes that none of the local service charge revenue goes towards central-office equipment, or maintenance. over that period. If the physical plant resources are 'tight', it is just "good business sense" to offer *only* shared-line DSL services. And in a _lot_ of territory, the physical plant _is_ stretched. The 'average number of phone lines' per household is *way* up from, say, the 1970s. (Second lines, 'teen' lines, fax lines, dedicated modem lines, etc., etc.) In a lot of territory, _only_ the use of "pair-gain" devices has prevented utter exhaustion of the installed plant. The simple fact is that there _are_ sound business reasons for an ILEC to offer _only_ shared-line ADSL service. Depending on the state of the physical plant in any area, they may even be _compelling_ ones. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is precisely (one of) the problems > I had with Southwestern Bell here in Independence. They tried to tell > Prairie Stream I was 'not eligible' for transfer to that CLEC since I > had 'DSL on my line'. Well, the -only- other thing they could have done was let the transfer happen, and *turn*off* the DSL, _WITHOUT_ANY_NOTICE_TO_YOU_. Would you have preferred that they had done that? When the ILEC 'leases' a pair to a CLEC, that CLEC gets _exclusive_ control of that pair. They can use it for _whatever_*THEY*_want_to_. That CLEC 'inherits' the 'right', if _they_ have the capability to do so, to offer THEIR OWN 'shared-line DSL' service. The ILEC leases the CLEC the _entire_ copper pair, not merely the 'voice band' of it. If some CLEC does _not_ offer such a service -- and while some CLECs _do_, some do *not* -- then that needs to be a factor in your choice of your LEC. It is _not_ fair to blame the ILEC for failing to pirate a signal onto wire where they have leased the *exclusive* use of that wire to a third party. The party that actually leased those wires would have grounds for an incredible lawsuit, were the ILEC to do so. > My response to SWB was if it has to be all or nothing then you will > wind up getting nothing, and I went down that day and changed over > to cable internet. Right away they started getting after me with all > kinds of special offers and bonuses to stick with them. Truth be > told, I have not missed SWB/SBC at all. And since I got to keep my > number, who cares. But here in Kansas, SBC may not have to get sued > before they change their tune. There _are_ valid technical issues involved. It is not ("entirely", nor even "mostly" -- and probably not even "incidentally") an anti-competitive practice. Hell, they aren't required to offer DSL _at_all_. If they choose to offer only limited forms of delivery, that _is_ their prerogative. > Reason is, so many folks are splitting on their own from SBC to one > of the CLECs. The Kansas Commission has said they do not have a lot > of sympathy either way for SBC or Sprint (formerly United Telephone, > our other dominant carrier). They seem to give a cold shoulder to > whatever causes SBC and Sprint Local grief. If SBC had been > gracious about this and allowed me to keep DSL without keeping their > lousy phone service as well, then probably today I would have still > had DSL. PAT] Review the above, and explain just *HOW* you think that they _could_ have done that. When they 'lease' that pair to the CLEC, the law *requires* that they give the CLEC _total_ control of that pair. They _cannot_ say "you can use this pair for voice, but we're going to continue to put a DSL signal on it." Next, tell me, _who's_fault_is_it_, when something breaks? Can you IMAGINE the finger-pointing that would go on? And since they both insist "it's not _our_ fault/problem" you _have_ to pay for the service you're not getting. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will not comment on your reply to Frank, waiting for him to do so if he wishes. But regards your reply to me, you have several things wrong. My local telephone company, Prairie Stream Communications is a UNI-CLEC as Clarence Dold or Fred Goldstein explained. That is, they lease *everything* from Bell, including, as you pointed out the lines, over which they have full control; again as you noted. Thier 'parent company' is Terra World ( http://terraworld.net ) a highly successful ISP, albiet (originally) totally rural, with all the problems which seem to pass along to rural ISPs. From their beginning in 1996, Terra World struggled along. As Duane, the owner told me more than once, they had no illusions or misconceptions about getting rich in a rural environment. Duane lives three or four blocks down the street from me here in Independence. I've been to his home for dinner and seen him working on his front lawn a couple times. In 1998, Terra World expanded to several small or mid-sized towns around Kansas and Missouri with local 'dialup numbers' to get those customers as well. In 2001 their 'reach' included major cities like Chicago and New York, again with dialups local to those places so they could get customers from those cities. A few months ago I got a mailing piece from a long distance telephone aggragator (or broker) and one of the keys to lure me in was in essence "Do you want 56 K dialup for your modem for only 10.95 per month? If you join our telephone plan you can get the unlimited 56-K modem service for only 10.95". Calling on the pretense of being interested they told me "for zip code 67301 you would dial into *our* service at 714-0005". Gee whiz, one of Duane's local numbers for his ISP. I asked Duane later that day, 'do you also wholesale Terra World to pretend-ISP guys such as (name I have forgotten)?' "Oh sure", he said. "If guys get tired of TerraWorld for $21 per month, then they may decide to go to Carol's Web or one of the others for $15.00 per month; they all still go through me." Around 2001, Duane struck a deal with Southwestern Bell to resell their DSL wholesale. You could get phone service from SBC but buy your DSL from Terra World, a little bit cheaper than what SBC was selling it for. SBC didn't see any problems with that, *as long as they got to sell the phone service; Duane could have the enhanced, unregulated DSL side if he wanted.* But then in 2002, Duane decided to start a phone company also; it was called 'Prairie Stream Communications' and he sold an entire package for $25 per month while Bell was getting $50 or $60. He applied for permission from the Kansas Commission; it was granted originally just for Independence, then eventually anywhere in the state. Now, SBC took a closer look. His office and staff of *four employees* had been located on the second floor of the Independence Corporate office building (it was originally the Arco [nee Sinclair] Corporate offices when that company was in business. [Historical note: Terra World was physically in the second floor space that had been the Arco 'wire room' where the satellite stuff was serviced and Duane used the rooftop satellite stations for Terra World. When he started Prairie Stream Communications he had to get a bit more space and also easily accessible pairs, so he took over the basement space where all the building pairs terminated and hired five more employees. Now he has a total of *ten employees* I think. He is co-located in the Bell central office six blocks away at 6th and Maple Streets and runs his 'central office' remotely from terminals in the basement of the Arco Building.] Bell still allows Duane to resell their DSL (with them keeping the regulated phone side) **but they won't do it in reverse with him selling the phone service and they the DSL**, or him doing both phone and DSL. Duane pointed out to me once that "if a DSL customer of mine wants to get Prairie Stream as well, then I have to give him up on DSL but that's okay; I'd rather have him on Prairie Stream than as a DSL customer if it comes to that." Prairie Stream gets its operator services and directory assistance services from Southwestern Bell, and with number portabilty we get to keep our existing EDison-1 (620-331) phone numbers. His LD service comes from various carriers. Duane also said to me in sort of a sly voice, "I also use Bell to run my credit checks. (smirk). When I started Prairie Stream I would hand out phone numbers to people (thus the reason for the 620-714 exchange) but I got burned so often by non-payers now I insist that they have to have existing working service from Bell (this part of the state, United Telephone [Sprint] in the north part of state) before I will take them as a customer on Prairie Stream." He continued, "To hell with SBC and their almighty DSL service. When a customer of Prairie Stream wants 'DSL-like' service here in Independence, I refer them over to Mike Flood at Cable One [formerly Time-Warner] to get cable internet; of course I play it from both directions -- I still resell Bell DSL also for people who have chosen to stay on Bell for phone service as well." Duane concluded our latest talk by answering your question abouut who to turn to for repairs when there is a problem either with the voice or DSL sides of the line. **Whoever 'controls' the customer; that is, has the contracts and collects the bill is responsible for taking care of the problem.** "When a Prairie Stream customer dials 611, the '611' is aliased into a number at our tech support department. All the customer has to be able to do is succinctly describe the problem. We take it from there. It may involve our equipment or it may involve something of Bell/United, mainly some of the lines, etc. Our tech explains to the customer how to make sure if the problem is or is not his phone. But it is *our* customer and *our* reponsibility, as it would be if Bell's if they 'controlled' the customer. When I said in my earlier message that if Bell had allowed DSL without requiring phone service as well, I would have kept DSL (and ultimatly Bell would have profited) I meant to say if Bell had handed over the entire account to Prairie Stream rather than insisting the 'control' of the customer be split in confusing parts I would have kept DSL. And Prairie Stream is an excellent LOCAL phone company, if you consider things like a LOCAL business office (I walk over to the Arco Building, see the cashier and pay my bill each month; if I call them on 331-9000 I get a live answer within two or three rings, and very little time waiting on hold while they look something up); and if you consider the pricing ($24.95 per month for unlimited service and many features such as call-waiting, three-way, caller-ID and all that, and one hundred minutes per month of long distance in the package, then additional minutes at 2 cents each.) When I go over to pay my bill each month I am in and out in one or two minutes. Whether or not Bell chose to make a 'business decision' regards DSL or not, I will suggest they are so sluggish and wrapped up with internal politics, etc, it makes them miserable to do business with. I mean, ten or fifteen minutes in voicemail hell before you even reach someone who may or may not know what to do about your problem is really a bit much. Getting transfered around a few times and having to tell your story over and over each time is a bit much also. But Duane took a very realistic approach to it all: "When Prairie Stream gets to the point we have even one percent of the customers Bell has then of necessity you will see our service and response get bad also. I guar- entee it. I would be thrilled if we got to that point -- one percent -- even though we would lose the personalization we give now." PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Blake-Knox Subject: Re: CLI via CSTA (Siemens HiPath 3000) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 10:55:52 EDT Organization: CompuServe Interactive Services Reply-To: mikebkdontspam@Intrex.net In article , Matt Hall wrote: > Has anyone else had any experience in decoding the ASN.1 encoded data, > and recognising the semantics of the data once it has been decoded? The reference on ASN.1 and BER that I've used is "Abstract Syntax Notation (ASN.1): The Tutorial and Reference" ISBN 1 871802 06 07. > I'm finding it difficult to recognise the meanings of these strings Do you have a Siemen's spec and/or the ECMA standard? If so, what kind of strings are you having problems with? Mike Blake-Knox ------------------------------ From: steve2470@yahoo.com (Steve H.) Subject: Note to Unaware Long Distance Users Date: 13 Jun 2004 09:18:31 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com A Cautionary tale: unless you know for a fact that you are getting "cheap" international long distance rates with MCI or your long distance carrier, do not make an international long distance phone call. I was charged up to $4.95 a minute by MCI and it was perfectly legal. Caveat Emptor. Steve ------------------------------ From: Subject: Need Expert Legal and Medical Testimony for Lawsuit Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 9:02:20 -0500 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not a telecom thing, but an interesting problem facing a man who needs help obtaining a personal injury lawsuit. Included here FYI and thoughts. PAT] Im Hotep telecom-request@xx.lcs.mit.edu, I'm a poor widows son rummaging around in a rubbish pile in Southeast Missouri looking for a non biased, righteous living, clear thinking medical doctor who is willing to testify in court to the possibility of a person developing a life threatening disease a few weeks after being struck broadside by a huge rotor rooter type van going nearly 60 miles per hour. I also need a sharp attorney who sees the potential of this case to help me prosecute it. The doctor should be well versed in endocrinology. The attorney in personal injury law. The female in the van admitted in the police report, that, they were looking down on the floor of the van and ran the red light. They made no efforts to stop. I was driving a brand new National rental car 2000 Grand Prix with about 50 miles on it, and making a left turn on two green left turn arrows. It happened on October 12 of 1999. My time to file a lawsuit runs out in October 12 of 2004 I have been told that I have a six digit or greater winnable lawsuit if I can make the link between the sudden onset of the disease that left me a fatality, and the car accident. I have physicals from 1996 showing I was OK. I have another VA physical from September 7, 1999 just six weeks before the accident showing I was playing with a full deck. I had just returned from a ten day vacation to N'awlins and the south. I was feeling great eating the best of foods down there, and drinking some excellent spirits. I was riding high. I am a 14 year Air Force veteran with an honorable discharge. I have a B.A. degree. I have never been involved with the criminal justice system, and I don't like drugs; not even legal ones. I only take one-a- day vitamins and aspirin. I need to find cases on-line where people have already won judgments in cases similar to the one I'm filing. Without making this link all the insurance company is willing to pay is $2,700 dollars to cover emergency room expenses. They won't pay me not even a nickel for all of the post traumatic stress, ??????s, sexual dysfunctions, major depression, dissolution of my marriage. To my mind that is not JUSTICE. The woman who struck me continues to raise her children and be happy with her husband. They probably don't even remember the accident, and she certainly doesn't know how it has ruined my life. I can no longer work. I'm afraid to drive now. Every time I see a Sport Utility Vehicle, or something bigger coming towards me on a two lane road, I begin to hyper ventilate and sweat. If I don't watch myself, I tend to steer to far to the right side of the road. Many times, I have actually left the road and nearly over corrected getting back on. I can never forget the horrible sound and the force of the impact of that person broad siding me. Remember, There but for the grace of the SUPREME BEING go you! Contact me at this email address if you have the expertise and are willing to be a part of a landmark case. If you know someone who is willing and able, then have them email me. Thank you for the manner and spirit you have shown in taking the time to read and consider this information. knowledgeNee@charterinternet.com So mote it be. Amicably Yours 1-212-561-5483 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:38:16 -0400 Subject: Washington State Regulators Rule on LocalDial VoIP Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001954423_bizbriefs12.html Business Digest SEATTLE Washington state regulators yesterday determined that Portland-based LocalDial, which offers Internet phone service, is a telecommunications company and must start paying access charges like any other phone company. The unanimous ruling marks the first time the state Utilities and Transportation Commission has squarely addressed issues involving voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. The decision was based on narrow facts, however, and does not represent a sweeping ruling in the emerging regulatory debate over VoIP service. In the case of LocalDial, which claims "tens of thousands" of customers nationwide, including about 10,000 in Washington state, calls begin with an ordinary phone connected to a local phone network. LocalDial then converts the calls into digital packets before reconverting them into voice as the signal rejoins the regular phone network. Full story at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001954423_bizbriefs12.html 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/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:07:26 GMT From: JustSomeGuy Subject: Make Phone Call Over Net? Organization: Shaw Residential Internet I'm looking for an API to make telephone calls via my ISP. I believe I may also need a ITSP. That should be easier to find but what is the standard I must follow in order to make a voice call via TCP/IP? TIA. Brian ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Last Laugh! Telecom Humor From the Comic Pages Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:44:38 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2004/06/11/ John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ 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 #288 ******************************