From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 16 16:05:41 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i5GK5fV24868; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:05:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:05:41 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200406162005.i5GK5fV24868@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 #293 TELECOM Digest Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:06:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 293 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson As VoIP Traffic Ramps, Global Crossing Among First (VOIP News) A Long, Hot Summer for VoIP? (VOIP News) Text of Jeff Pulver's Testimony on VoIP Regulatory (VOIP News) Re: It May be Time to Answer the Call of Voice Over Internet (Lisa Hancock) Re: More Memories of Illinois Bell (Tony P.) Re: Server Requirement For CT-Connect (Srini) Re: SBC DSL Recent Changes and Soho Watchguard (tcnolan) Re: California: SBC Restrictions on DSL Are Illegal (Robert Bonomi) Re: Be Careful About Quoting Scanner Messages (Robert Bonomi) Re: J2 Billing Mystery/ Scam? (Robert Bonomi) Re: Ravings (David Esan) Recent Norvergence News (barryb) Share Day for June (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:22:06 -0400 Subject: As VoIP Traffic Ramps, Global Crossing Among First Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-16-2004/0002194222&STORY&EDATE= As VoIP Traffic Ramps, Global Crossing Among First to Decommission Legacy Switch in Network Core * First switch to be decommissioned demonstrates Global Crossing's long-term commitment to the efficiencies of VoIP technology. * Global Crossing's Sonus-based VoIP network is fully interoperable with its legacy switches, providing a migration path towards a fully IP voice network. * VoIP network delivers improved carrier-class quality, reliability and security. FLORHAM PARK, N.J., June 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- In response to steadily increasing usage of its Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) network, Global Crossing (Nasdaq: GLBCE) announced today that it has nearly completed decommissioning the first legacy time-division multiplexing (TDM) switch in the core of its network. By taking this step, Global Crossing expects to create optimum network efficiencies in its core multi-protocol label switching (MPLS) network, while continuing to deliver carrier and enterprise customers reliable, IP voice services. "As a leader in IP-enabled services, we are one of the first telecommunications providers to decommission a legacy voice switch in favor of next-generation VoIP technology," said John Legere, Global Crossing's chief executive officer. "By migrating more of our traffic onto our VoIP network, we can further enhance our customers' experience while supporting continued growth in voice traffic." The company's first TDM switch being decommissioned is in Chicago, and the company plans to remove additional switches later this year and in 2005. "This is a significant accomplishment that paves the way for future TDM/VoIP traffic migration," said Dan Enright, Global Crossing's executive vice president, operations. "This initiative aligns directly with our overarching goal of providing all our voice applications over our IP backbone, while still offering complete interoperability at the core and edge of our VoIP network." Global Crossing took on this project as VoIP traffic traversing on its private backbone grew to as much as 2.4 billion minutes each month, or approximately 40 percent of its total voice traffic. Global Crossing's VoIP network is fully interoperable with its TDM backbone and enables carriers and enterprises to transition to a fully-converged all-IP voice network environment over a single connection at their own pace, without having to invest in expensive network equipment or infrastructure. As previously announced, Global Crossing built its VoIP network with infrastructure solutions from Sonus Networks. Using Global Crossing's private IP network, customers experience the quality, reliability and security that is not available from public Internet sources. "Today's announcement of Global Crossing de-commissioning their first TDM switch places them in the vanguard of next-generation voice service providers no longer investing in legacy technology," stated Kevin Mitchell, directing analyst at Infonetics Research. "Global Crossing's commitment to realizing the service potential and efficiencies of next-generation IP voice technology is demonstrated by its fast-paced migration towards a ubiquitous VoIP network." An early adopter of VoIP, Global Crossing was one of the first providers to deploy a global VoIP platform approximately four years ago. Today, Global Crossing's Carrier VoIP Service, introduced in September 2003, provides carrier IP interconnection, transport and call completion of packet-based voice traffic over Global Crossing's integrated IP and TDM platforms. Customers can call around the globe, utilizing Global Crossing's service network connecting 500 cities in 50 countries on 6 continents. Security is ensured since the VoIP traffic traverses the MPLS-based IP backbone, with additional firewall functionality provided by the session border controllers, connecting the VoIP platform to IP-VPN customers, extending voice services natively over IP. "Global Crossing continues to lead the way in transitioning customers to a VoIP network," said Hassan Ahmed, CEO and chairman, Sonus Networks. "We are proud to have worked with Global Crossing in helping them develop one of the largest operating VoIP networks in the world and look forward to building on our successful relationship." Global Crossing recently announced three new VoIP service offers exclusively for enterprises. Global Crossing Enterprise VoIP Service(TM) portfolio has expanded from Global Crossing VoIP On-net Transport(TM) to include Global Crossing VoIP Outbound(TM), Global Crossing VoIP Toll-Free(TM) and Global Crossing VoIP On-net Plus(TM). All enterprise VoIP services offer carrier-class quality, backed by end-to-end IP service level agreements (SLAs) for jitter, packet loss, availability, and latency, plus traditional voice metrics including call completion rates, post dial delay and answer success ratio. Global Crossing is scheduled to participate in several IP panels and will host an exclusive executive networking event at SUPERCOMM 2004, June 22-24, 2004. For more information on Global Crossing's SUPERCOMM participation, please visit: http://www.globalcrossing.net/promo/supercomm04/index.html. Full press release at: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-16-2004/0002194222&STORY&EDATE= How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:13:14 -0400 Subject: A Long, Hot Summer for VoIP? Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://news.com.com/A+long%2C+hot+summer+for+VoIP%3F/2010-7352_3-5235523.html By Kevin Werbach Will May 19, 2004, be a date that lives in infamy for proponents of VoIP? Two ominous developments took place on that day. The New York Public Service Commission declared Vonage to be a regulated telephone company. Meanwhile, several key companies pulled out of the inter-carrier compensation forum (ICF) that is attempting to negotiate a replacement for the outmoded access-charge regime. That brought the effort to the brink of collapse. These seemingly unrelated events illustrate the failings of the Federal Communications Commission's current piecemeal approach to VoIP, or voice over Internet Protocol. Though no one in Washington seems to want to make VoIP subject to legacy telecommunications regulations, we may be drifting in exactly that direction. Full story at: http://news.com.com/A+long%2C+hot+summer+for+VoIP%3F/2010-7352_3-5235523.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:52:44 -0400 Subject: Text of Jeff Pulver's Testimony on VoIP Regulatory Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Mr. Pulver's prepared oral remarks for panel 2 at the US Senate Commerce Committee Meeting on S. 2281, "The VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004", may be found here: http://192.246.69.231/jeff/personal/archives/000891.html His formal written testimony is also available as a .DOC format file: http://pulver.com/reports/16jun04-s2281-pulver-written.doc ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: It May be Time to Answer the Call of Voice Over Internet Date: 16 Jun 2004 11:14:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com VOIP News wrote: > http://www.suntimes.com/output/worktech/cst-fin-andy15.html > But now I may have to change my attitude, or at least come up with a > new line. There's a new alternative to wireless and traditional > landline technologies: the Voice over Internet Protocol. I read the full article and there remain very serious drawbacks: > First among them is cost. Vonage (www.vonage.com), the current VoIP > leader, will sell you a startup kit for $79, and after paying a modest > setup fee, you get unlimited local and national long-distance for a > flat rate of $29 a month with no contracts or commitments. That's even > cheaper than it sounds because there are no added costs. Digital voice > mail, CallerID, Call Forwarding and all those other features you'd > normally pay extra for are included (that's typical for VoIP > providers), and because the FCC is eager to push this technology > forward, VoIP is exempt from added federal taxes and tariffs. If I open a fruit stand in the parking lot of my local supermarket, I'll be able to undercut their prices. I won't be paying any of their overhead charges (like maintaining the parking lot itself), collecting govt sales taxes, govt licensing and inspection, not taking food stamps, etc. Eventually I'll have to pay my true costs, charge appropriate taxes, etc. The traditional phone companies carry many regulatory burdens, such as maintaining service to deadbeats, serving unprofitable areas, meeting service standards, etc. Should they fail, the newspapers and govt hit them hard. In contrast, the VOIP providers have no such obligations at all. Eventually this will catch up to them and their prices will go up or they'll go broke just like MCI did. > If your call has to be routed through a heavily trafficked part of > the Internet, you'll experience some small but annoying lags. A power > outage at your house knocks out your phone service as well (though > Vonage automatically re-routes your calls to a designated number > whenever it can't locate your phone adapter on the Internet). I don't know about you folks, but I'm always experiencing momentary lags in Internet response time, regardless of what terminal I'm using (home, work, library, etc.) When using the computer, often I have two screens up at the same time while so I pass the time waiting for an Internet screen to come through. That won't be practical in voice conversation. > 911 service is pretty scary, too. None of the Advanced 911 System's > features work with VoIP, so while your provider might be able to route > your call to a local response center, you'd still better hope that you > never experience an emergency in which you can't clearly state your > address. In our suburban area, 911 was handled by the county seat. Before the address database, we had to give the operator detailed information about our location; some people don't even know the suburban municipality they live in, esp if they're new since the postal name is more often used. We have adjacent boroughs and townships with the same name that add to confusion. Anyway, with advanced 911, those problems went away. I question whether the VOIP would even know where to route a 911 call. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: More Memories of Illinois Bell Organization: ATCC Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:08:00 GMT In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says: > TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: >> You've all heard the expression that 'no good deed goes unpunished' or >> perhaps how things you do come back to bite you on the ass later in life. >> ... In other words he was one of those guys who works >> during overnight hours, going out to **important, and critical** customers >> whose phone service is down, when it **really** matters to the community >> or at least the customer. > I wonder in this post-divesture deregulated age if such critical > services would still be provided as described in your story. I tend > to doubt it. We have too many little vendors and manufacturers who > are way too small to accomodate the overhead of having "night people" > on duty to keep things running in emergencies. Further, with > competition, companies must be "lean and mean" which means no excess > capacity or staff on standby not earning revenue. Yes there are such arrangements. Public service agencies must have 24/7 access. When I was at the RI AG's office we had standing orders with Sprint, AT&T and Verizon to have staff on call for any issues we might run into. We were given pager and cell numbers for supervisors. And when we called we'd generally get resolution within an hour. I suspect the same services are available for big business too. Those who'll pay for it will receive all sorts of services not available to small business and residential customers. > It was the same thing in the computer business when it was dominated > by IBM. IBM had so many customers and was so big and profitable it > could and would have backup personnel and equipment ready at all times > to help customers out of a jam. Believe it or not, HP-Compaq still has 24/7 dial in for support. Granted, it's a bear to get through. One example is a time when I was trying to get POS software to dial out for credit card authorizations on a Compaq Deskpro. Using the DOS version of the POS product it worked fine, but as soon as I'd fire up the Windows version I couldn't connect. Called HP-Compaq and waded through menus and droids for several hours until at 2AM I finally got someone who knew what was going on. Seems the calls that the POS software (CouterPoint) used needed a special SoftPaq. So they pointed me to the location on the web where the update was located, I downloaded it and everything was fine. > Ironically, other industries that don't need to be so big, like > banking and retail, have merged into a few giant nationwide firms > eliminating competition. If you have a VISA/MC, there's a good chance > it was issued by MBNA, a huge outfit that issues cards under other > names. And the consumer ends up paying more in the end. In many cases all we really have is a duopoly (For instance, wired services in RI are provided by Verizon and Cox and when push comes to shove, those are your only two real choices.) or so few competitors that pricing doesn't move. > The recent big NE U.S. blackout apparently was initiated by problems > in a troubled Ohio utility. I don't know about them, but I wonder if > years ago, before deregulation, if they were a modest, but stable > outfit. Also, deregulation allowed for electric power sharing which > the national grid was not designed to accomodate and thus overloaded. > And of course there was the California power debacle a few years ago. Electric power sharing isn't the issue. Raping the consumer is. All these tapes coming out detailing what Enron execs were saying about the California power debacle are clear indicators it was a manufactured problem, not a problem that occurred because the systemm couldnt' handle it. People don't realize that big business has us over a barrel. We're also under the mistaken impression that the federal government derives it's power from the people. That hasn't been the case for nearly 60 years now. The federal government derives it's power from big business. > The real kicker is that all this deregulation hasn't saved me any > money. My phone bills are higher than ever thanks to all the "fees" > added on, and all the fine print in the contracts. (I did some comp- > arison shopping recently, and they ALL pull the same garbage -- a > low quoted rate in big bold type, but all sorts of exceptions/exclus- > ions/extras in microfine print that greatly increase your bill). Yes indeed. I recall my first phone, with the rental was $12.00 a month. That was in 1982. A basic line now is about $20 plus enough fees to hike the basic monthly service charge to near $35 or so. And I don't' rent the phone anymore. Damn it. ------------------------------ From: aone1504@yahoo.com (Srini) Subject: Re: Server Requirement For CT-Connect Date: 15 Jun 2004 23:36:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Chip G wrote in message news:... > "Srini" wrote in message > news:telecom23.289.3@telecom-digest.org: >> Ours is a call center which receives about 5 lakh calls per day. I am >> exploring the option of CT-Connect for CTI functionality that includes >> screen pop. Can any one tell me what would be the sizing for the CTI >> server that runs CT-Connect, for this kind of call volume. (Specifically >> the server configuration and number of servers). Server could be either >> a Unix (Sun Solaris machine) or Windows 2000 advanced server. >> Thanks in advance, >> Srini > I know this sounds a little strange, but the specific switch to which > you are integrating can make a difference. Some vendors CT links are > much more efficienct than others. In general, with the horsepower > available from most servers on the market today, you will probably be > just fine with any enterprise class server you can buy new on the > market ... assuming enough memory and hard drive. Memory is often a > gotcha depending on the specific apps you intend to run. Always go big > on RAM, it will stand you well. > What switch are you integrating with? Our switch is Avaya Multivantage. --srini ------------------------------ From: tcnolan@optonline.net (tcnolan) Subject: Re: SBC DSL Recent Changes and Soho Watchguard Date: 16 Jun 2004 03:59:47 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com We found the issue. I was able to view the firewall log just when we lost connectivity again and saw this: NAT DYNAMIC Translation pool exhausted I finally got someone from critical support on the phone from Soho Watchguard and they knew right away it was a virus on our server. So nothing to do with the DSL line ... this time :-) tcnolan@optonline.net (tcnolan) wrote in message news:: > Hi... > On Friday SBC announced that it was making DNS Server changes and to > "please make sure your DNS settings are "server assigned" or "use > DHCP."" > We are a small business and user a router/firewall to connect 10 pcs > to the DSL line. > As of yesterday, we could not stay connected to the internet for more > than 1 hour at the most. If we reboot the firewall, everything is > fine again for a while but eventually we lose connectivity again. We > called SBC but they say the line is fine so it must be the firewall > software. > And SBC would not say what specific changes they made. > We use Soho Watchguard 5.1. I assume something in the firewall > settings needs to be changed because when we reboot the firewall, we > can connect again. > Is anyone familar with both SBC and Soho Watchguard that has any > thoughts on what to look at in the firewall configuration? > We called Soho also and they just recommend upgrading to their latest > product. > Thank you, > Terry ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: California: SBC Restrictions on DSL Are Illegal, Judge Rules From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:01:57 +0000 In article , Rahul Dhesi wrote: > bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) writes: > [ about SBC disallowing transfer of voice service to a competitor while > still continuing DSL service on the same line ] >> When the ILEC 'leases' a pair to a CLEC, that CLEC gets _exclusive_ >> control of that pair.... >> ...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." > Question: Does the law prohibit an ILEC, a CLEC, and an end-user > customer, from entering into a three-party contract, with the consent > of all three parties, such that the ILEC provides voice service on the > line to the end-user customer, while the CLEC provides DSL service on > the same line to that customer? > If there is such a law, what is the rational basis for it? I dunno, but I doubt it. AFAIK, _every_ ILEC and CLEC will 'wholesale' their DSL transport to other ISPs. The law that forced ILECs to give CLECs access to the 'last mile' wiring does require that the CLEC get complete control of the pair. Thus, for a '3-way deal' like you propose, the ILEC would have to turn over complete control to the CLEC, then contract with the CLEC for DSL transport. *AND* the CLEC would have to have the appropriate split-out equipment in _their_ C.O. facilities. I'll point out that _if_ the CLEC had that equipment installed, then _they_ would probably be offering DSL themselves. In article , John David Galt wrote: > John Levine wrote: >> No, ILECs could do line splitting if they wanted to. The reason they >> don't is partly administrative, they'd have to invent some way to bill >> two different parties for the same line and figure out how to do the >> moves and changes and repairs. Mostly it's that the lord gave them the >> right to have 100% of the phone business so it'd be blasphemous to do >> so. > It seems to me the only fair answer is to give each individual subscriber > ownership of his "local loop" and let CLECs build their COs on its path. Are *you* prepared to go dig up the street 3 miles away from your house when the trunk cable gets a leak in it, and _your_ 'local loop' fails? Do _you_ have an easement for the right-of-way for "your" cable over all the private property (and municipal property) it passes through, between your property and the telco CO? In short, "don't be ridiculous", applies. Don't be ridiculous. ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Be Careful About Quoting Scanner Messages From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:35:12 +0000 In article , Charles B. Wilber wrote: > Pat, > You might want to be careful about repeating what you heard on the > scanner to other parties. Newt Gingrich and others learned about some > of the relevant state and federal statutes the hard way. Governmental 'public service' and law-enforcement frequencies are specifically exempted from the privacy rules in _federal_ statutes. Listening to, and repeating what you heard on those channels is not a problem -- at the FEDERAL level, at least. Can't speak to the various state laws. > Charlie Wilber > Dartmouth College > --- You wrote: >> It was from the sheriff PSAP database; that new computer thing >> called 'Vonage', this is the first time we ever had one of those, >> let me know if it is a good call or flaky." Apparently it was >> 'good' since a few minutes later the EMT responds, "citizen had some >> food caught in his throat, we've cleared it but are taking him over >> to Mercy (Hospital) Emergency Room." > --- end of quote --- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was rather certain Charlie was in error on those laws **where police and fire radios were concerned**, simply because there are at least two or three web sites where you can listen to police calls from other cities, and no one gets after them for doing that. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: J2 Billing Mystery/ Scam? From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:42:03 +0000 In article , Scott Perry wrote: > Last March I requested cancellation of my J2 number via email, and > still have a copy of the original email. One week later, my J2 > account was not accessible, and I assumed all had gone as requested. > A week after I requested cancellation a mysterious email from someone > named James Pitt arrives at J2 requesting reconnection of my account. > Now, 4 months and $60 later, J2 tells me that they cannot refund this. Probably correct. *IF* they were billing monthly. And you didn't contest the _first_ bill. ------------------------------ From: david_esan@hotmail.com (David Esan) Subject: Re: Ravings Date: 16 Jun 2004 07:46:44 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com 1. Canada and the US observe Thanksgiving on two different days because the holidays have different origins. The US Thanksgiving traces itself back to the Pilgrims choosing to give thanks for their harvest, imitating the Jewish holiday of Succoth. The Canadian Thanksgiving had its origins in the recovery of the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) from a serious illness. See www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/jfa-ha/index_e.cfm for details on all Canadian holidays. I was surprised to see that Victoria Day is actually the celebration of the Queen's birthday. 2. PAT - You stated that "Pope Gregory declared that henceforth the more modern Anglicized Easter holiday would be celebrated by the church." Gregory XII was born in Italy. The schism between the Catholic and Anglican Churches occured during his lifetime -- Henry VIII was died in 1547. I doubt you could call his reform of the calendar Anglican. Especially since the Anglicans ignored it for nearly 200 years. 3. One of the other sources for the date of Easter was the Jewish holiday of Passover. Originally, Easter was on the first Sunday of that holiday, and, in fact, you will often find that the two holidays still coincide. IIRC, there is still some connection between Passover's date and the date of the Orthodox church's Easter celebration. However, in order to distance itself from Judaism, the early church chose to have its own calculations on when to have Easter, and so sometimes the two holidays don't coincide. 4. US Memorial Day never really had a fixed reason associated with that date, unlike Independance Day or Armistice Day. Moving the date around to create a 3 day weekend really isn't tampering with history. According to one web site I visited, Memorial Day wasn't even celebrated in the South until after WWI, since they had their own days to honor the Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War. 5. Those who continued to celebrate New Year's at the end of March, when the rest of the country had moved to January, were called April Fools! ------------------------------ From: NarryB Subject: Recent News About Norvergence Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:37:07 -0500 I have had 5 calls today from various customers that Norvergence is completely down and when calling them you get a fast busy signal ... Barry ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Share Day For June Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:00:00 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. ************************ 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 #293 ******************************