From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 8 18:19:12 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i68MJC620056; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 18:19:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 18:19:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200407082219.i68MJC620056@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 #324 TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Jul 2004 18:19:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 324 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Jeff Pulver on Yesterday's VoIP Hearing in Washington, D.C. (VOIP News) New Bill to Give Regulators VoIP oversight, Bells Connection (VOIP News) Legislators Scramble to Prevent VOIP Regulation (VOIP News) Feds Weigh Role in Net Telephony (VOIP News) Re: SS7 Help (Endeavor7) Re: Us Like Spies/How Computer Users Ask to be Doomed (Lisa Hancock) Destination Wi-Fi, by Rail, Bus or Boat (Monty Solomon) Re: "Overseas Blackberry" Service: Free Trial Participants (Joseph) Employment Opportunity: Telco Operations Support Systems Engineer (jobs) Re: Replay it Again, Sam (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: A Strange Phone Call Yesterday Evening (Steven J Sobol) Phone Scammer Put Away for Awhile (Thomas A. Horsley) Re: Tap Into Neighbors' WiFi? Why Not, Some Say (Tony P.) 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: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:17:10 -0400 Subject: Jeff Pulver on yesterday's VoIP Hearing in Washington, D.C. Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com This is from "The Jeff Pulver Blog" at http://192.246.69.231/jeff/personal/index.html Recap: Today's VoIP Hearing in Washington, D.C. (July 7 entry) Jonathan Askin, General Counsel, pulver.com attended today's House Subcommittee Hearing on VoIP. Below is Jonathan's recap of the hearing: The Telecom Subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee held a hearing today on VoIP. It was, for the most part, a high level discussion on the need for Federal legislation. The panelists and Members did focus on some of the broad definitional, jurisdictional and regulatory issues raised by VoIP and the implications that VoIP has on traditional telecommunications. The House Hearing, however, did not delve into the specifics and level of detail that I witnessed at the Senate Hearing on the Sununu VoIP Bill on June 16. The Panelists were as follows: Jeff Carlisle, Senior Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC Jeffrey Citron, Co-Founder, Chairman and CEO, Vonage Margaret Greene, President, Regulatory & External Affairs, BellSouth Michael Jensen, CEO, Great Plains Communications James Kirkland, General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Covad Communications Cathy Martine-Dolecki, Senior Vice President, AT&T Robert Nelson, Commissioner Michigan PSC and Chairman, Committee on Telecommunications, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Tom Rutledge, COO, Cablevision Ron Vidal, Group Vice President, Emerging Opportunities, Level 3 Communications. About 23 of the approximately 33 Members of the Committee (including the Chairmen and Ranking Members of both the full Commerce Committee and the Telecom Subcommittee) weighed in with opening statements and questions for the panelists. For those of you unfamiliar with the House Hearing process, this is a remarkable turnout for this sort of hearing -- a preliminary hearing without anything on which to vote. It was probably the first opportunity that the public has had to hear the varying views of most of the members of the House Telecom Subcommittee on VoIP. Some of the statements were pretty telling and it seems that we are in store for a very exciting time in DC over the next 1-4 years. Rep. Chip Pickering was a star. He beautifully laid out the case for immediate, narrowly-tailored Federal legislation that will clearly preempt state authority and send a clear signal to IP innovators that they are, broadly speaking, free to bring IP communications services to consumers without fear of excessive government interference. Pickering also noted the potential problem of international outsourcing if the US does not immediately and clearly embrace VoIP. Chairman Joe Barton (a possible "wild card" in my mind because he is relatively new to communications issues, having recently replaced Billy Tauzin as Chairman) weighed in VERY positively, echoing many of these same sentiments for immediate Federal preemption of state action and a very light Federal regulatory touch. Heather Wilson (R NM) revealed a keen knowledge of communications and technology and the need to ensure a hands-off approach, as did Jim Davis (D. FL). I suspect these two are the most likely co-spon sors of the Pickering Bill. A couple of the rural congressmen, most notably Lee Terry from Nebraska, expressed concerns about loss of revenue streams for rural telcos, echoing many of the sentiments of the panelist from Great Plains Communications. Jeff Carlisle of the FCC was particularly good, communicating the FCC's desired hands-off approach towards new technology. He indicated that the FCC was moving forward to ensure that IP communications can proceed relatively unregulated but indicated some desire to have Congress resolve some statutory, regulatory, and, in particular, definitional confusions and state more clearly the unregulated nature of IP communications and the FCC's authority to preempt state action. My sense is that the VoIP innovators have overwhelming support from many of the powerful players on the Committee, but it will be difficult to move legislation this year, given the impending election and the few days left this session. Having said that, Chairman Barton, Rep. Pickering and others seemed genuinely committed to try to move targeted VoIP legislation this term. As noted in a prior Blog, Reps. Stearns and Boucher introduced another IP communications bill yesterday. The bill, on the surface and based on press statements, seems quite similar in many respects to the Pickering (and Sununu Senate corollary) bill, but I think today's statements reveal some telling, and troubling, distinctions. Stearns and Boucher seem set on doing an entire rewrite of the Telecom Act, which they believe was flawed from the get-go, and, in particular, does not allow the Bells to compete on a level playing field with cable companies. Their bill also speaks of generally not regulating "Advanced Internet Communications Services." The Stearns-Boucher Bill, however, indicates that this is also the time to deregulate the underlying telecom transmission facilities used to provide IP-based communications services. The biggest problem I see with the Stearns-Boucher bill is that it probably gums up the works. I'm not saying we could have seen the House and Senate pass something akin to the Pickering or Sununu legislation, but having a second bill before the House Commerce Committee, will make many Congressmen pause and wonder which, if any, bill to support. As a result, there will probably be many months of prolonged debate and it becomes increasingly less likely to see any VoIP-specific legislation this term. Boucher and Stearns admitted this candidly, indicating that they would like to use their bill to form the basis of debate next Congress and to frame the debate for a much broader rewrite of the Telecom Act. In any event, I heard today that both bills will likely be referred to the House Judiciary Committee, because of the law enforcement implications. With a second committee having to weigh in, the prospects of timely legislation further dim. I hope to have the opportunity to testify as the legislation is reviewed by the Judiciary Committee. 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, 07 Jul 2004 21:57:38 -0400 Subject: New Bill to Give Regulators VoIP Oversight, Bells Connection Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=18763 by Jeffrey Silva July 07, 2004 1:30 PM EST WASHINGTON New legislation introduced by Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.) would give federal regulators unfettered oversight of Voice-over-Internet-Protocol applications, while requiring service providers to compensate Bell telephone giants for connections and preserving existing social programs and emergency calling for consumers. The Advanced Internet Communications Services Act of 2004 outlines for the Federal Communications Commission procedures to promote investment and innovation in the deployment of advanced applications such as VoIP, while maintaining core public policies that impose limited obligations on AICS providers that offer voice communications. VoIP has the potential to cause disruption throughout the telecom industry, including the wireless sector. Full story at: http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=18763 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 21:48:06 -0400 Subject: Legislators Scramble to Prevent VOIP Regulation Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1620830,00.asp By Caron Carlson WASHINGTON Lawmakers admit that they were caught by surprise by Voice-over-IP service and its capacity to radically disrupt the country's legacy telephone system. Still, the legislators are urging preemptory steps to ensure that state regulators can't impose legacy obligations that might drag the upcoming technology down. Proponents say the actions are needed to protect VOIP, which likely faces years of contentious debate before Congress can update telecommunications laws to address the emerging technology. In fact, preempting state regulation of VOIP is one of the very few matters not being vigorously disputed by the many diverse players in the industry here. With so much support behind a proposed preemption bill -- and with vast differences of opinion on how to address the many issues peripheral to VOIP -- several lawmakers are calling for passage of the bill this summer. "We should act this year," Rep. Chip Pickering, R-Miss., urged his colleagues on the telecommunications and Internet subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Wednesday. Warning that it will take a minimum of three years for Congress to pass a broad reform of telecom policy, Pickering said that VOIP technology will not wait. Full story at: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1620830,00.asp ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:35:53 -0400 Subject: Feds Weigh Role in Net Telephony Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64131,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 By Michael Grebb As Congress braces for a comprehensive overhaul of the 1996 Telecommunications Act next year, a House subcommittee on Wednesday debated whether it should first warm up its legislative chops on voice-over-IP telephony services. The hearing of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet highlighted the varied mix of VOIP providers, which include companies that sell only VOIP as well as some cable firms and other traditional telecommunications services. At issue is whether Congress should pre-empt state regulation of VOIP and, if so, how the federal government can devise safeguards to protect public safety and sustain social goals such as keeping telecom services affordable in rural areas. Full story at: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64131,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 ------------------------------ From: Endeavor7 Subject: Re: SS7 Help Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:12:19 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net I'm assuming China and Japan use the ITU SS7 standard as a base with their own "flavor" overlaying it. In the U.S. we use ANSI SS7. So start with the ITU and ANSI SS7 standards for info about each. The differences between them is probably huge. For detailed info about the country specific differences, you need to locate the standards body in China and Japan that defined/wrote the flavor standard and published documents describing it. I know in Mexico the standards body was a government agency (i.e. their equivilent of the FCC). Hope this helps. Jeff wrote: > I have been assigned a research project, and I am having a nearly > impossible time completing it. I have been asked to find the > differences in the SS7 networks in China, Japan, and the U.S. I was > wondering if anyone had any insight into this, or knew of any > resources I could use to find the answers to these questions. > Thanks in advance for your help. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Us Like Spies / How Computer Users Ask to be Doomed to Viruses Date: 8 Jul 2004 11:00:09 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Monty Solomon wrote: > The digital pests never seem to let up. > More than any other modern tool, computers are a total mystery to > their users. When I took driver's ed, we were taught what goes on under the hood and the function of various components. I certainly have no idea how to repair my automatic transmission, but at least I know what it is supposed to do and can be more alert for subtle malfunctions. I know the basic functionality of the car -- from the key allowing electrictity from the battery to turn the starter motor to turn the engine and fire the sparkplugs so the motor runs on its own, generating its own electricity to recharge the battery and fire the sparkplugs. I know that fuel in the tank is pumped to the motor and injected with air into the cylinders, ignited to burn on the power stroke. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a lay user to understand an equivalent amount of functionaltiy for how a computer works. That is, they should know that a program is a series of machine instructions that tells electronic circuits to do various things-- fetch and store things from memory, write things to the printer and screen, accept data from the keyboard, and read/write to/from floppy and hard disks. They should know the difference between the operating system and an application program. They should know that when starting up a program the machine instructions are recalled from disk, loaded into memory, and execution of the instructions begin. When we learn to drive, we also learn about car care and safety. It isn't unreasonable for computer users to know some basics about that as well, not just to protect themselves from viruses and hackers, but some basics on how those things work and are spread around. Geez, I couldn't differentiate between a bacteria, virus, or DNA strand, but I understand the basics of what they are. I know leaving milk out in the sun all day and then drinking it is not a good idea. A computer virus is not mysterious as many biological viruses are, but a known human creation. (It ought to be called sabotage.) I blame two reasons: 1) The design of the Internet, and 2) software that is too automated. 1) The Internet was originally a private network among qualified users and organizations. Such a population was unlikely to spread mischief and strict controls weren't necessary. However, when the Internet became public, legal and software controls that were necessary not there. Nothing should be allowed on a network without a secure 'from' identifier. "Anonymous" relay units should not have been allowed. The many open places that hackers and spammers take advantage of should not exist. IMHO, backers of the Internet allowed it to expand too fast before appropriate controls and safeguards could be adopted. 2) In traditional mainframe systems (ie IBM S/360 and successors), there is physical hardware protection to prevent an errant program from straying outside its assigned space, and operating system controls to prevent errant I/O access. As PCs grew more powerful, such protections should have been included in the basic design. Secondly, some of the high automation is unnecessary. For instance, upon receipt of an email, a user should explicity allow a program to start running and be aware of initiating such a program. Secondly, upon bringing up an application, the execution of a macro can wait until the user explicitly tells it to go. While these explicit commands won't stop all attacks, they will cut it down somewhat. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:59:12 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Destination Wi-Fi, by Rail, Bus or Boat By GLENN FLEISHMAN ABOARD THE KLICKITAT, on the Admiralty Inlet, Wash. THE Klickitat, a 1927 steel ferry boat plying waters between a 19th-century port and an island harbor, may seem a quaint way to travel -- and an unlikely place to get work done. But it may be headed for a new frontier in Internet access for commuters. The ship is the test bed for a plan to offer high-speed wireless Internet access on most Washington State ferry runs, serving tens of thousands of regular commuters. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/08/technology/circuits/08wifi.html Access on Metro-North or Amtrak Cars? Not So Fast BY GLENN FLEISHMAN WHILE the Northeast may offer the nation's largest concentration of commuter trains and buses, Wi-Fi is not available on most of them. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/08/technology/circuits/08york.html ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: "Overseas Blackberry" Service: Free Trial Participants Needed Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 06:52:21 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On 7 Jul 2004 08:01:10 -0700, johnambulance@hotmail.com (John A) wrote: > What do non-GSM Blackberry users do when they travel abroad? I would > really like to hear your experiences. > Why? Because I have been asked to put together an "overseas > Blackberry" service for my company. We will either be renting or > selling overseas Blackberry handsets, at surprisingly low prices. I > want to design the service around the needs of the customers, so I > would like to hear your wishes. It seems to me that if one knows that they're going to be spending appreciable time overseas one would pick a service that already exists that can do the job. This already exists with GSM networks. If you really need connectivity in these countries you'll get a GSM account with one of the GSM operators and if you have a non-GSM service you'll just forward/divert calls to that non-GSM service to your GSM number. remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: jobs Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:35:51 +0800 Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telco Operations Support Systems Engineer Reply-To: telecom-news@yahoogroups.com We are now looking for very urgently for a well-experienced person on OSS (Operations Support Systems) for Telecom. Skill Set : OSS(Operations Support Systems) for Telco. OSS generally refers to systems that perform management, inventory, engineering, Planning and repair functions for Telecommunications Service networks. Job Location : Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Duration : 1 year -extendable Start Date : ASAP Interested, please send in your latest resume to jobs@technoforce.biz with the following details. 1) Your Expected Salary : 2) Earliest Joining date : These details will enable us in processing your candidature faster. ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Replay it Again, Sam Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:42:09 -0400 Organization: Primus Canada Carl Moore wrote: > Responding to something in Dec. 2002: I guess that was also "fair use" > in what I heard earlier regarding taping of TV programs via VCR. I > guess "fair use" comes into play in the case of a program you are > interested in but which has not been available for years (for example, > I was YEARS late in seeing the I Love Lucy Christmas episode, which is > not part of the "regular" 179-episode package). Now, this is not the idea that I had about "fair use"; I have always taken fair use to mean that I could, when reviewing a work or using it as an example of something I'm trying to illustrate, use a part of it (not in whole, unless the work is so small that any part which might be useful is materially the whole anyways) without paying royalties. Specifically, it is my impression that my inability to obtain a work legitimately does not mean that copyright is waived and I am entitled to obtain it any way I can. I hope that someone with specific knowledge in this area can correct either Carl or myself (or, likely, both.) I do not know what principle gave legitimacy to "time shifting" (if any; perhaps it is still technically a violation!) but I did scan the legal documents in the "BetaMax case" and the court's stated reasoning for declaring the VCR legitimate had nothing to do with legitimizing its common uses but the simple observation that there could be legitimate uses (e.g. taping educational shows meant for redistribution) and that the mere possibility of such legitimate uses, let alone their actual exercise, meant that the device was legitimate and its misuses did not change that. Geoffrey Welsh [This space for rent] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For a good discussion of 'fair use' you may wish to consult my advisors on same at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: A Strange Phone Call Yesterday Evening Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:11:12 -0500 John R. Covert wrote: > He said it was a new reminder system for re-ordering. I told him > there was no way anyone could tell that the call is really coming from > them, and that they really can't be asking questions like that. > People should not get used to systems like this and start trusting > them, because if they do, the phishers will show up right behind them. So who were the flaming idiots? Let me know so I can avoid doing business with them. -- 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. ------------------------------ Subject: Phone Scammer Put Away for Awhile From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 21:40:20 GMT From the Palm Beach Post today, they finally put one phone scammer away: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/auto/epaper/editions/wednesday/south_county_04beb654a0e671ee007c.html That like probably got wrapped and busted, but hopefully you can put it back together :-). Try this one instead: http://tinyurl.com/3ar9e I'm not sure how long the Post keeps stories active, so maybe you'll want to cut and paste the whole thing. >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Tap Into Neighbors' WiFi? Why Not, Some Say Organization: ATCC Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 22:52:07 GMT In article , support@sellcom.com says: > Monty Solomon posted on that vast internet thingie: >> 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. > It is astounding how many people are running wide open wireless. I > went to my car to check a power supply for my laptop and a wireless > connection just popped up, and it wasn't mine. > I went to a free WiFi coffee shop and had my choice of two free > connections, one due to the kindness/wisdom of the coffee shop owner, > the other probably some local business that was not aware that they > were giving away free Internet. > I think the limitation on range gives some people the feeling that if > someone does use it that it is a neighbor so they don't really mind. Yup ... I'm working for a government agency and the boss keeps a Linksys router running so he can connect via his Mac. It doesn't forward SMB packets which is good, but it does provide IP via DHCP. Granted, we're in the sub-basement of a building made of marble, steel and brick. The connection doesn't go far but he doesn't even bother turning on WEP or even hiding the SSID. I shake my head sometimes. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If no other laws exist against this sort of behavior (using someone else's WiFi without permission) do you think FCC regulations against intercepting radio signals not intended for yourself and using them to your benefit would apply? PAT] ------------------------------ 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 #324 ******************************