From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 6 18:55:12 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i66MtCX25411; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:55:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:55:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200407062255.i66MtCX25411@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 #320 TELECOM Digest Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:55:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 320 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Network Security Jumpstart", Matthew Strebe (Rob Slade) Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software? (Frank@nospam.biz) Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software? (Scott Dorsey) Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software? (Lisa Hancock) Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software? (Paul Vader) Tap Into Neighbors' WiFi? Why Not, Some Say (Monty Solomon) Philadelphia Marks 20 Years of Cell Phones (Carl Moore) Speakeasy Gets Naked - Set to Launch 'Onelink' Service (VOIP News) More Taxes Coming to VoIP Near You (VOIP News) Re: Norvergence - How do I Get Out (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Norvergence - How do I Get Out (Paul Vader) Refuge From Recent Telecom Changes (Christine Collins) Norvergence Sales Reps (Unlimited Calling) A Link of Interest (Dan Popescu) 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: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:25:13 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Network Security Jumpstart", Matthew Strebe BKNTSCJS.RVW 20030604 "Network Security Jumpstart", Matthew Strebe, 2002, 0-7821-4120-X, U$24.99/C$39.95/UK#18.99 %A Matthew Strebe mbs+jumpstart@connectic.net %C 1151 Marina Village Parkway, Alameda, CA 94501 %D 2002 %G 0-7821-4120-X %I Sybex Computer Books %O U$24.99/C$39.95/UK#18.99 800-227-2346 info@sybex.com %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/078214120X/robsladesinterne http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/078214120X/robsladesinte-21 %O http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/078214120X/robsladesin03-20 %P 365 p. %T "Network Security Jumpstart" The introduction states that this book is suitable for anyone from the home user to the network administrator to the CEO. Which is a pretty tall order. Chapter one has a decent overview of why computers aren't secure, a scant computer security history, a few security concepts, and a fairly trivial set of "review" questions. There is a media level exposition on "hackers," in chapter two, a rough outline of intrusion procedures, and a list of specific attacks that I'm not sure the author fully understands. (Immediately following "Denial of Service" comes a separate entry for "Floods": flooding being a type of denial of service.) There is a terse introduction to cryptography, and not much more than chapter one gave us about authentication, in chapter three. The suggestions for policy creation, in chapter four, aren't bad for simple cases, but seriously understate the difficulty of establishing a full policy, even for home users. Chapter five describes firewalls (and seven tells a little bit more about using them at home). Chapter six makes the common mistake of assuming that all VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) are about confidentiality: some are merely about managing communications configurations. There is some correct and useful information about viruses in chapter eight, but it is unfortunately mixed in with a lot of garbage. Windows NT and its subsequent versions are *not* immune to viruses, although a rigorous set of file permissions can reduce your risk of file infectors (which are no longer a major category anyway). Signature scanners are *not* the only type of antiviral software. Viruses were *not* invented by accident, BRAIN *never* had an onscreen display and didn't infect program files, and neither Stoned nor Jerusalem (Friday the 13th is one variant) were based on BRAIN. Neither Stoned nor BRAIN relied on program sharing to propagate: data disks were quite sufficient. Viruses that only replicate are *not* benign (anybody ever have problems with Stoned? Melissa? Loveletter?), *will* be discovered, and scanning signatures *are* created. Fault tolerance, in chapter nine, is not quite business continuity planning (BCP), but does go beyond the usual UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) and backup recommendations. Although chapter ten lists a number of security mechanisms in Windows, a practical understanding of their use is not presented. The UNIX tools in eleven are described more usefully -- but they only relate to file permissions. The network security tools for UNIX are in twelve -- but are only enumerated. Chapter thirteen has good suggestions for Web server security -- but doesn't say how to implement them. A random collection of email security tools and threats makes up chapter fourteen. IDS (Intrusion Detection System) concepts are not explained very well in chapter fifteen: Strebe apparently doesn't understand that all forms use audit data of one type or another, and doesn't list the major distinctions between either the engine type or sensor location. Even given all the faults, one has to admit that Strebe has not done a bad job with his ambitious intent. Certainly home users and CEOs can find better explanations here than in many of the other works aimed at them, however much I might wish that the book as a whole was more accurate. And, yes, even the network administrators might find some helpful points in the more conceptual material at the beginning of the book: most of them could do with a better understanding of the need for policy. This work isn't great, by any means, but it can fulfill a need for a quick guide to network threats, for a variety of audiences. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2004 BKNTSCJS.RVW 20030604 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great. - Mark Twain http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: Frank@nospam.biz Subject: Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software These Days? Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 07:06:50 -0700 Organization: Cox Communications How would anyone know that? Lisa Minter wrote: > I know that Bill Gates started Microsoft, back in 1976, I think (?) > and one of his first products was Microsoft Basic. Does anyone know > if he wrote all that code himself? Also, the Microsoft Company has > grown a lot since those days, and how much does Bill Gates actually > know about Windows, etc these days; that is, has personal knowledge > of the various technical aspects of his products, or like many folks, > are large parts of the code outside his personal ability to under- > stand also? I am just wondering to what extent he has kept up in his > personal knowledge of his products, etc. Anyone know? > Lisa [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (Lisa says:) I would think it would be in his personal involvement in writing code, answering questions from customers, etc. But he does not do that, does he? PAT] ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software These Days? Date: 6 Jul 2004 10:15:12 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Lisa Minter wrote: > I know that Bill Gates started Microsoft, back in 1976, I think (?) > and one of his first products was Microsoft Basic. Does anyone know > if he wrote all that code himself? Not all of it. Remember that Microsoft had over 120 ports of BASIC for different architectures, and while Gates was very tightly involved with all of this, it was not a job for a single human being. I remember calling Microsoft around 1978 or so and talking to Mr. Gates about why their HP 2101 BASIC wasn't any good. I was told basically that it wasn't a very good computer and it was HP's fault that their BASIC had bugs and they weren't going to do anything about it. That was the last Microsoft product I ever bought. > Also, the Microsoft Company has grown a lot since those days, and how > much does Bill Gates actually know about Windows, etc these days; > that is, has personal knowledge of the various technical aspects of > his products, or like many folks, are large parts of the code outside > his personal ability to understand also? I am just wondering to > what extent he has kept up in his personal knowledge of his products, > etc. Anyone know? The problem is that Windows has now grown to such an enormous size, with literally thousands of individual systems calls, that no one human being can be familiar with more than a small part of the internals. This, I might add, is a recipe for trouble. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software These Days? Date: 6 Jul 2004 08:39:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lisa Minter wrote > I know that Bill Gates started Microsoft, back in 1976, I think (?) > and one of his first products was Microsoft Basic. Does anyone know > if he wrote all that code himself? There are a number of books in the library about the life of Gates and the history of Microsoft; I would recommend checking several of them for good information. I don't know when they formally adopted the name "Microsoft" or officially chartered the company. However, Gates started in the software business at a very young age (14-16) writing programs for local businesses back in a time when programming was still a new and unknown field. A lot of bright youngsters, the early computer geeks, were doing that in those days, using 10 char/sec Teletypewriters as I/O machines connected to BASIC timesharing services. What set Gates apart was his intensity. He knocked on lots of doors to get business, then would stay up all night programming. I knew a lot of bright kids in those days doing the same sort of thing, but none pushing it as hard as Gates did. AFAIK, Gates wrote the code himself and was a very smart programmer. IMHO what set Gates apart from others of those days was that Gates wanted to build a business. The kids I knew liked making money, but it was more for the programming fun itself and also feeling "grown up" by selling to businesses something other than cutting the grass. > Also, the Microsoft Company has grown a lot since those days, and > how much does Bill Gates actually know about Windows, etc these > days; that is, has personal knowledge of the various technical > aspects of his products, or like many folks, are large parts of the > code outside his personal ability to under- stand also? I am just > wondering to what extent he has kept up in his personal knowledge of > his products, etc. Anyone know? I would suspect the more recent biographies of Gates might have something or articles in mainstream publications may have something (ie Fortune Magazine, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc.) I have no actual data on what he does. But I suspect he is no longer involved in actual coding or very basic technical issues; he is too busy worrying about the future direction of the company. Obviously he uses his company's products in his everyday work and I'm sure pays very close attention to their functionality from the user's and competitive point of view. But I strongly doubt he pulls up a listing of actual program code other than perhaps curiousity. ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software These Days? Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:47:30 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations Lisa Minter writes: > I know that Bill Gates started Microsoft, back in 1976, I think (?) > and one of his first products was Microsoft Basic. Does anyone know > if he wrote all that code himself? The original Microsoft Basic (GWBASIC) was written by Bill Gates. Has he written anything else since then? It doesn't appear so. MSDOS was purchased for $50,000 from a hobbyist (who had no idea how bad the deal was for him), and by that time Microsoft had staff to get the real work done. Some day they might even get around to doing it. > Also, the Microsoft Company has grown a lot since those days, and how > much does Bill Gates actually know about Windows, Probably not very much. Ballmer runs the company these days. Bill is a figurehead. > stand also? I am just wondering to what extent he has kept up in his > personal knowledge of his products, etc. Anyone know? Based on his book, and some ridiculously clueless statements on spam, I'd say he hasn't done a good job of keeping current. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:20:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Tap Into Neighbors' WiFi? Why Not, Some Say By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff | July 4, 2004 Like a Robin Hood of the Internet age, Carrie Russell of South Boston takes bandwidth from the rich (neighbors who have wireless high-speed Internet connections) and uses it herself to surf for free. "I don't think of it as stealing," Russell said. "They've left their network open. If they're going to leave it open, then it's there for the taking." The savings are substantial. High-speed Internet access typically costs $30 to $60 a month or more, depending on the speed and whether it's packaged with other services offered by the provider. Michael Oh, president and founder of Tech Superpowers, a Boston-based specialist on wireless networking, said it's difficult to tell how many people are piggybacking on or sharing the wireless high-speed Internet access of their neighbors. But he is convinced a lot of people are trying it in densely populated neighborhoods where wireless connections overlap. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2004/07/04/tap_into_neighbors_wifi_why_not_some_say/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:52:52 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Philadelphia Marks 20 Years of Cell Phones That is the title of a story on KYW news-radio web page. "Philadelphia joined the cellular telephone revolution exactly 20 years ago -- on July 6, 1984. It was on that date that Bell Atlantic Mobile got its cell tower license for the area, three months after the first cellular service was installed in Chicago." It also says that in 20 years, cell phone usership jumped from 100 to 100 million. However, a car phone was depicted in a 1960 TV episode (Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour, the last episode before the divorce of Lucille Ball & Desi Arnaz). ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:59:21 -0400 Subject: Speakeasy Gets Naked - Set to Launch 'Onelink' Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/47203 Written by Karl Bode Speakeasy will next week announce a new nationwide "naked DSL" product -- or dry DSL on a dedicated loop that doesn't require a local voice component. Dubbed OneLink DSL, the service will be nationally available for users who are attracted to the idea of ditching their landline to go VoIP or cell only. [.....] "We hear often from many consumers and businesses that they are tired of being tied to the phone company and are seeking superior service and new creative options from the broadband industry," says Speakeasy President and CEO Bruce Chatterley. "In fact, in a recent customer survey we learned that more than 30% of our existing customers use a cell phone as their primary voice line. These customers have a telephone line solely to get DSL service from Speakeasy. We have listened to these customers and are very excited to be the first national provider of this new product." Speakeasy hopes to appeal to those users looking to flee their local bell by announcing their own VoIP service this summer, which they hope to bundle with the OneLink service. While the 1.5Mbps/256kbps will be the only package available at first, the company will eventually deliver 1.5Mbps/768kbps, 6Mbps/768kbps on dedicated pairs as well. Full story plus reader comments at: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/47203 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: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:17:53 -0400 Subject: More Taxes Coming to VoIP Near You Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Jun/gee20040706025869.htm Voice over IP (VoIP) phone service is becoming more popular thanks to companies like Vonage (see our review), and one of its major draws is its lower cost. Because the technology is newer, VoIP service companies can avoid some of the government taxes and regulation that add universal service fees, access charges, and more to your land-line phone service. But that situation may change soon as more and more U.S. legislators cast their eyes on VoIP and the new tax revenue targets it offers. For example, a telecommunications subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives is having a hearing tomorrow on how regulation would affect VoIP technology; AT&T, BellSouth, Vonage, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and others will be there to throw their hats in the ring. There are already bills floating in the House and Senate on VoIP regulation, and the latest Congressmen to throw a bill on the "make VoIP like regular phone service" bonfire are Representatives Rick Boucher (Democrat out of Virginia) and Cliff Stearns (Republican out of Florida). In short, they want to "declare that the service is an interstate service and subject it completely to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission." The Representatives' proposal is to let the FCC expand its oversight of telecommunications from regular land-line service to VoIP/Internet- based telephony, keeping the states out of the mix. The language of the bill has not been revealed yet, but it's expected to "set broad guidelines" directing the FCC to "apply universal service formulas to VoIP" but not saying how. The bill wouldn't let anyone set rates for VoIP offerings, but it would let the FCC levy the semi-mysterious "universal service" and "access" taxes/fees we see on our land-line invoices on our VoIP invoices as well. Universal service fees that local telecoms pay (and charge back to consumers) go to subsidize telecom services in low-income and rural areas and 'Net connections for libraries and schools; the access fees they charge subscribers and long-distance service providers (the long distance companies charge those back to us as well) cover the cost of sending long distance calls across the local networks. Full story at: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Jun/gee20040706025869.htm ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:34:13 -0500 n-line@juno.com wrote: > Well if all is true then Norvergence is out of business. One thing > hasn't been addressed though ... what are the existing customers > supposed to do now? We have signed lease agreements with banks for > equipment that won't work when Quest turns off the lines again. How > do we get out of those? Anyone have any ideas?? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suggest simply ignoring those fraud- > ulent contracts the banks are holding. How are they fraudulent? It's not the bank's fault that Norvergence stole from Qwest. > FREEZE ALL TELECOM PAYMENTS > IMMEDIATLY. If the bank wants to sue, that's okay. They *should* be > suing the remains of Norvergence, since Norvergence got the money > illegally, through trickery and fraud. Of course the bank will choose > to pick on the weaker party (yourself) because they assume they can > twist your arm easier. The bank has no claim on Norvergence in this case and a lawsuit would fail. n-line's company has a claim on Norvergence, but the bank does not. > If the bank *does* choose to sue you (not at all certain, IMO) then > your response should be to countersue the bank for harassment and > for being a party to the same fraud as Norvergence. This is very, very bad advice. > The bank after all *did* facilitate the fraud by paying > Norvergence money, and they knew or should have known that > Norvergence had a worthless scheme going on. I'm not sure it was that obvious. > The bank is equally (or more so) able to investigate the collateral > being put up for the money the bank advanced to Norvergence, the > 'collateral' in this case being the promises of satisfied customers > able and willing to pay. If you recall, we had that one message in the > Digest several months ago from the lady who said she worked for the > bank (which had been approached by Norvergence to handle their paper) > and she was investigating if the bank should get involved or not. Is this the same bank? If the bank was actively investigating Norvergence, there might be some liability on their part -- maybe. > by a smooth talking salesman. Just ignore those invoices and let the > bank deal with it as they must. PAT] I'd suggest talking to a lawyer. I'm not at all convinced that Pat's advice is correct. 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. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. With that being said, I still maintain that an agressive and litigous debtor is the best debtor in this case. **Do not** just give in to bank's demands for payment from you; they are hoping their bullying tactics will do the job. **If** it comes to the point of suit which is not at all certain, at the very least countersue, which will send many banks (and collection agencies) running for the hills. Maybe it was not a *deliberate* act (i.e. fraud) by the bank, but it was extremely careless of the bank not to completely investigate what they were being asked to finance. Either bank knew (was part of fraud) or **should have known** what was going on. At least one bank officer or employee took the trouble to investigate on the net (here in this Digest) what was known about the company they were being asked to finance. Why didn't others, or maybe they did and chose to ignore the warning signs; why bother to cover our backsides when there are always debtors we can stick it to instead? I mean, many small merchants cannot even get a Visa Merchant account, the bank says its not worth all the hassles to us with customers refusing to pay, no signature on file, etc; the merchant is mostly (or excusively) in a sex related business, etc. Yet bank is willing to carry the paper for a multi-year thousands of dollars deal *based on fraud* against end-users (regardless of who actually committed whatever part of the fraud) and in essence try to commit extortion against same end-users as needed to worm out of any liability on their part? Uh huh ... and there were warning signs from more than a year ago; when Norvergence started trying to go legal on getting messages about them removed from the net, etc. Another warning sign should have been that Norvergence wanted the bank to pay them a full five year's worth before even one year (or a few months) had been honored on the contract. So end-users are expected to be responsible for the mistakes idiots at the bank make? Although it is likely and probable that many end-users signed off on the obscene contract presented to them by the Norvergence sales rep under much pressure (remember the message we had here from the sales rep who said he was trained to always insist on speaking directly and only to the 'decision maker' in the company and keep the pressure up on that person [that person's personal knowledge of telecom, or the lack thereof not withstanding]?), I sincerely doubt that bank had that kind of pressure on them. If bank even began to consider the deal offered them by Norvergence, I am sure bank just told them 'cool your heels, we will get back to you' or words to that effect. So to those of you reading this who have pestered me on the phone or in email ('send me everything in your archives about Norvergence, etc') I would give this admittedly non-legal but hopefully useful self-help advice: FREEZE*ALL*PAYMENTS*TO*BANK*RELATIVE*TO*NORVERGENCE*IMMEDIATLY*. No more money, let bank sue if they wish, which I doubt. They *know* it was their fault. PAT] ----------------------------- From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:16:39 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to n-line@juno.com : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suggest simply ignoring those fraud- > ulent contracts the banks are holding. FREEZE ALL TELECOM PAYMENTS > IMMEDIATLY. If the bank wants to sue, that's okay. They *should* be No, it probably isn't. From what we've been told here, Norv is in no way a party to those loans. That was completely intentional, and we now see the reason for that. Most likey, the customers themselves are going to have to be the ones to sue the smoking crater where Norvergence once was. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The bank did *not* loan the end user any money. The bank loaned money to Norvergence, backed up by collateral offered by the end user: his promise to pay. Norvergence screwed the bank; the end user did not screw the bank! The bank did not investigate the loan request very well that Norvergence asked for. In any kind of a third party deal like this, the bank has a fiduciary obligation to investigate it fully before going along with it. A good rule of thumb in any lawsuit is sue the easiest target; the weakest link. I will suggest that is the bank in this case; they are the ones who got their pockets picked because of their carelessness. The bank is out the money they were deluded into paying to Norvergence. The end user only signed on in the deal under duress and high pressure tactics from the sales reps. The bank obviously thinks the easiest target is the end user; after all he fell for high pressure from the sales rep; maybe he will fall for high pressure tactics from us when we place him with an agency. I say no! I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice but I suggest end users turn the screws back on the bank, unless they wish to be on a bankruptcy creditor's commitee. I would let the bank fill that role (creditor's committee in a bankruptcy) instead. Oh, and any end-user who does find himself getting sued by bank, take note if bank is also on the creditor's committee in bankruptcy. They can't have it both ways: Either end user owes the money to the bank or Norvergence owes the money. Bank cannot have it both ways. In the meantime, FREEZE ALL ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TO BANK IN RE NORVERGENCE. PAT] ------------------------------ From: christine.collins@atx.com (Christine Collins) Subject: Refuge from Recent Telco Changes Date: 6 Jul 2004 15:08:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I am communication consultant for a well known regional telecommunications company. ATX communications has been around for nearly 20 years and serves over 20,000 business customers. We have one of lowest customer attrition rates in the industry. The reason for my post is that it has come to my attention that are many companies that are failing to live up to their promises, projected savings, and business models in the telco industry. When these companies go under financially, drop product lines, or change their focus it leaves their customers with the awful burden of cleaning up the mess. I have been helping my clients see the big picture in respect to their voice, data, and infrastructure needs and I am willing to consult freely with companies who need immeadiate alternatives to their telco solutions. ATX has built a solid foundation since 1985 with an excellent management team that gives me the confidence that I can help companies with these changes. E-mail me to share ideas. christine.collins@atx.com ------------------------------ From: unlimitedcallingusa@yahoo.com (Unlimited Calling) Subject: Norvergence Sales Reps Date: 6 Jul 2004 13:49:40 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have been working with a company that offers a service similar to Norvergence and has been up an running for a year now with no problems. If there are any Norvergence sales reps with deals they want to close, this company will pay you at least as much as Norvergence paid you maybe more, as soon as the customer is installed. You can send your contact info or email directly at unlimitedcallingusa@yahoo.com for more info. Don't let your deals fall apart, get paid on them and deal with a reputable company. Thanks, Nic ------------------------------ From: Dan Popescu Subject: A Link of Interest Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:31:17 +0300 Hello, We have a telecom related website at www.longdistancephonedepot.com The site features quite a few consumer articles as well as a large selection of US domestic and international calling plans. We'd very much appreciate it if you would consider adding a link to this website. If you agree we will link back. Thanks for your time. Kind regards, Dan Popescu http://www.CallingBargains.com http://www.LongDistancePhoneDepot.com http://ld.net/?dpopescu webmaster@CallingBargains.com More phone calls for your money! -------------------------------- 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 #320 ******************************