From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 17 14:15:17 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i7HIFH416074; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:15:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:15:17 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408171815.i7HIFH416074@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 #385 TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:13:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 385 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case (Jack Decker) Re: Delete: Bathwater. Undelete: Baby (Linuxfreak) Re: Delete: Bathwater. Undelete: Baby (Paul Vader) Re: Delete: Bathwater. Undelete: Baby (L) Re: Interconnect Fees Get Ugly (Steven J Sobol) Re: Interconnect Fees Get Ugly (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Dating an Old Phone Number (sin nombre) Re: Dating an Old Phone Number (Lisa Hancock) Re: Number Not in Use (Robert Bonomi) Outdated Operator Inward Codes (Merri Clinton) ALTIGEN PBX With 58 Nortel Sets - For Sale (Phone System) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:02:47 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case Pat, please conceal my e-mail address as usual. On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:13:39 GMT, Nick Landsberg wrote: > In the specific case in point, I don't think it was actually > "wardriving" (or whatever the term is). Given the circumstances as I > have seen them described in this forum, several individuals "set up > shop" in the parking lot of this store. (Correct me if I'm wrong on > the details please.) One individual with a laptop computer was > actively engaged in "finding a way in" to this store's wireless > network. They found it (because the store was negligent in securing > their network). I find it exceedingly hard to disbelieve that the > other occupants of the car did not know the prupose for which they had > "set up shop" in the parking lot of this particular store. One reason there is so much confusion on this case is because the press insists on republishing old, inaccurate information which makes it appear as though two separate incidents were all one incident. This may work when you're making a film loosely based on historical events, but it is never good journalism. Paul Timmins was nowhere near the store on the night of the break-in. He was in fact minding his own business, getting ready to go on an out-of-town business trip to the west coast, one that he had been looking forward to I might add. The incident in which Paul had accessed Lowes wireless network, checked his e-mail and attempted to do some web surfing (which he discontinued when he realized he was on Lowes corporate network) happened months earlier. Since a lot of folks are using analogies, here's one that probably comes pretty close. You're walking home one night and you walk into the wrong house by mistake. Since the door was unlocked and your mind is preoccupied on other things, it takes you a minute or to realize you're in the wrong house. So you quickly leave and hope no one notices. When you actually do get home, you say to your roommate, "The strangest thing happened tonight -- I walked into that house two blocks down the street by mistake, and I was able to do it because the homeowner left the door wide open!" In other words, you are simply commenting on the carelessness of the homeowner in leaving his doors unlocked so anyone can walk in. But your roommate, after sitting on this information for a few months, for some unknown reason takes this as an invitation to go down and have a look for himself, despite the fact that you didn't encourage him to do so at all. Maybe he's just curious about how someone else decorated their house, but he still has no business entering it. And worse yet, he invites his friend who turns out to be a thief, and while he's admiring the wall hangings his friend is helping himself to the jewelry in the bedroom (still in a totally unlocked house). Now the police happen to figure out "who dunnit" and they come after your roommate and his friend, only at first they mistake you for his friend, the jewel thief. So they haul you and your roommate in, and charge you both, and go crowing to the press about how they caught a major jewel thief, naming you as the thief. After the cops figure out that they made a mistake and nab the real thief, they have the problem of what to do with you -- after all they told the press you were guilty of a crime, and the story went all around the world. But in the process of the investigation your roommate mentions that had probably would not have had the idea to enter that house had you not mentioned in passing that you'd mistakenly entered it months ago. Well! Entering a house is technically trespassing, and you did it, even if you left without causing any damage or taking a single thing of value. So they charge you with that, "forget" to mention to the press that it happened months earlier as part of a totally separate incident, and because the press has totally forgotten how to do any sort of meaningful fact-checking they just make the best sense they can out of the information they've been spoon-fed by the police, which of course is designed to above all not make the police look bad. Now as I say, it's not a perfect analogy but I think it comes pretty close. Some may say that anyone who is "wardriving" is in fact worthy of jail; I just wonder if such people think that people should be jailed for going five miles over the speed limit. My limited understanding is that "wardriving", when done without malicious intent, really is about as close as you can get to a victimless crime (granted you're exchanging minuscule amounts of data with a network, but in the grand scheme of things it's next to nothing, like finding a penny on the sidewalk and taking it without attempting to find the rightful owner). Of course, stealing credit card numbers is several magnitudes worse. But, Paul never stole credit card numbers, he never suggested that anyone else should go and steal credit card numbers, and he certainly wasn't present when the credit card numbers were being stolen. I probably should stop there, but I guess I'm either too stupid or too pigheaded to do that, because I'm going to express another opinion that will probably be unpopular. It really bothers me that we have so many laws nowadays, many of which specify punishments far out of proportion to the act committed. But what REALLY bothers me are the people who, the moment they see any HINT of wrongdoing, are ready to yell, "Off with his head!" Either these are perfect people (which they cannot be, because they have no sense of mercy) or they are not willing to acknowledge that they themselves have at times broken the law (perhaps unintentionally, or perhaps in a minor way, or perhaps because "everyone else does it" and gets away with it) and somehow were spared the same strict punishment that they would wish to see inflicted on others. When a society starts putting "law and order" above all else, that is very likely what they will get -- very severe laws and very stiff penalties for going against the established order. Such societies have existed, though sometimes they don't last very long. But I am reminded of what Jesus said about 2,000 years ago: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Yet people read a newspaper article, and even knowing how inaccurate the press can be, still rush to judgment without really knowing any of the facts. And worse yet, once they have formed an opinion, when the facts DO finally come out they make certain not to let those facts get in the way of that preconceived opinion. NOW I'll stop. Jack [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: **Thank you very much**, Jack, for phrasing it better than I could in recent years. Under the terms of a financial settlement I received now about three years ago from the Cook County, Illinois government and the Skokie Police Department I am forbidden to say *in detail* much about a situation I had with them; one that turned out quite embarassing for them and very disasterous for me. Suffice to say, that was where one of my three heart attacks came from and my brain aneurysm came from. The settlement money -- a mere pittance compared to the hell I went through -- has long since been spent to pay toward my hospital stay at Storemont Vail Medical Center in Topeka, and the nursing home which followed, where it was assumed I would spend the rest of my life; and where I sometimes now feel I would have been better off remaining. Did YOU ever get a hospital bill with a bottom line of -three hundred thousand- dollars? Police of course could care less; take the pittance remittance we give you and be grateful, you scum. Fortunatly, Kansas SRS paid the rest of the bill so I did not have to. But Skokie police, with their fingers pursed strongly on their lips say "you promised to keep quiet". Indeed I did, so I shall. I promised that when I signed the check they handed me, forgoing any acts of revenge against them (and the pen, they say, is mightier than the sword any day). So Jack, you are correct when you note how people tend to gobble up anything the press or the talking heads on television/radio tell them. The same is true of the internet, even more so I think, since television/radio have some constraints on them socially and legally which internet is sorely lacking. But Jack, I have a < l-o-n-g > memory, and desite my brain disease, I *do* remember a few incidents both recently and twenty or thirty years ago which won't be forgotten anytime soon, as I work to self-defend myself through life. And your allusion to Jesus and the Christian religion were duly noted also. You should know that Jesus or anything to do with Christianty -- true Christianity at least -- are not in vogue on the net or in society these days. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Linuxfreak Subject: Re: Delete: Bathwater. Undelete: Baby Date: 16 Aug 2004 22:47:36 -0500 Organization: Linuxfreaks Of Tuxas. Monty Solomon posted this first bit of an article: > As it turned out, she had sent Dr. Kim and Mrs. Crasco an e-mail > message suggesting that they work together on a grant application. > The application deadline had since passed, and the acquaintance was > more than a little miffed that she had gotten no response from them. Excuse me, but you send an email, receive no response within a reasonable period of time, and this means so little to you that you don't follow it up with a phone call? Guess what, people! Email is unreliable! It doesn't work 100% of the time! It doesn't work at the speed of light 100% of the time! And, while it might work most of the time, it doesn't work ALL the time! There are multiple ways that email can fail. For example, my ISPs SPAM filter has been set too tight and email from my father-in-law never made it into my inbox. This has since been corrrected, of course. I have been the victim of (what I consider) a DOS (Denial Of Service) attack which has filled my inbox to the point where my email provider would accept no more email for my address until I cleared out my inbox. This has happened to my yahoo.com email account, due to a virus let loose to infect machines running Microsoft Outlook. There are the people who take their time and answer email at their leisure. Of course, some them are so busy, you'll never hear from them! And then, there are the people I know who receive MUCH more email than I do (and I'm talking about real email, not SPAM). I don't know how they keep up with it. Sometimes, they don't. Or can't. So, if I need to communicate with them, I call them or walk over to their desk and talk to them! (Imagine, communication via talking! Who'da thunk it! Oh, wait a second, this is my favorite telephone newsgroup! Telephones! Talking! Yeah!) If the message is that important, you may want not want to use email. You may want to use the telephone instead! And, for old time's sake, put that 554 beige rotary wall phone back in service on the kitchen wall, and confuse the younger folk by asking them if they know how to block Caller ID on a per-call basis from a rotary phone! End of messag&$*%#)&%...... NO CARRIER ...... ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: Delete: Bathwater. Undelete: Baby Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:04:01 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, Paul, I am not in a position > to use the telephone either to call submitters and let them know their > message was received, nor to receive telephone calls from people who I wasn't talking about you -- I was talking about the digest item, where some bonehead researcher was mad at an acquaintance because they didn't return their email and they lost a grant because of it. Gee, writing it out like that makes it REALLY obvious that this was a made-up story. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:07:42 +0000 (GMT) From: L Subject: Re: Delete: Bathwater. Undelete: Baby Organization: Optimum Online Monty Solomon wrote in message news:telecom23.382.3@telecom-digest.org: > By KATIE HAFNER > LIKE many people these days, Jason Kim and Linda Crasco rely heavily > on e-mail for their work, running a small educational research and > evaluation company in Norwood, Mass. And like many people, they get > plenty of spam, some 400 pieces of unwanted e-mail daily. > So when their company, Systemic Research, first installed a spam > filter 18 months ago, they were impressed by the noticeable reduction > in the amount of spam they received. > Several months ago, Dr. Kim and Mrs. Crasco were at a meeting when > they ran into a program director they knew from the American > Association for the Advancement of Science. She greeted them coolly. > Puzzled, Dr. Kim and Mrs. Crasco asked what they might have done to > offend her. > As it turned out, she had sent Dr. Kim and Mrs. Crasco an e-mail > message suggesting that they work together on a grant application. > The application deadline had since passed, and the acquaintance was > more than a little miffed that she had gotten no response from them. > The two entrepreneurs were flabbergasted. Not only did they have no > idea the e-mail had been sent, they had no idea that it had been > snuffed out as junk. > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/technology/circuits/05filt.html Are you aware? The above link does not work unless you register. Please don't promulgate reference links that require payment and/or the providing of HOUSEHOLD income -- or, if you do, warn us in advance. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There was, at one time, an account set up for people to use when they wished to read my competitor, the New York Times, which did *not* invade their privacy. I think it had a user name of telecomdigest and a password of telecomdigest. Anyone was free to use it. That way, telecomdigest got all the spam and spy cookies the Times gives out as free souveniers to people who come to visit. Then some bonehead went and changed the password on it. If someone wishes to once again set up a community reading account name on NYT please do so and tell the rest of us what it is. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Interconnect Fees Get Ugly Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:28:49 -0500 Paul Vader wrote: >> Seems this little co-op phone company is about to bring the cell >> carriers to their knees. > More likely, to get sued into a smoking crater. * On what grounds? Restraint of trade? 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. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Interconnect Fees Get Ugly Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:51:15 GMT Fred Goldstein wrote: > But let's review the federal rules. (Note IANAL. This is just > my understanding, not a legal opinion.) Way back when, when cellular > first came out, it was really expensive, and the FCC allowed the > cellular companies to interconnect to the local exchange carriers via > the latters' *Access* tariffs. Access is the tariff used for > interexchange carriers like AT&T and MCI to purchase the last mile > from local carriers. It's generally expensive, carrying some > subsidies above direct cost. Especially in small rural telephone > companies. Cellular carriers came into being before the access charge regime existed. There were significant differences of opinion about how and whether cellular carriers should be charged for local call termination. In 1985, the FCC's common carrier bureau issued a decision holding that they should be treated as co-carriers, akin to independent local telcos, for interconnection purposes. (I was one of the authors of that opinion.) A few years later, when LECs tried to impose access charges on cellular carriers, the FCC held that cellular carriers were *not* subject to access charges. Nevertheless, the rates telcos negotiated with cellular carriers were resembled access charges more than independent LEC arranagements. > The Telecom Act of 1996 changed the rules. It redefined > cellular (CMRS, to be precise -- that also includes paging, PCS, and > Nextel-like ESMR carriers) carriers to be co-carriers of local calls, > peers rather than monopoly ratepayers. So the CMRS carriers are > expected to pay a cost-based rate for the calls that they send to the > LEC, but the LEC is expected to pay the *same* rate to the CMRS > carriers for calls made to the CMRS subscribers. In general, > cellular-originated calls are more than twice the volume of > cellular-received calls, so the local telco still comes out ahead. > But not as far ahead as under Access, because that tariff charges the > other carrier (like AT&T) for *both* directions. So calls to cell > phones used to be charged to the cellular carrier but for most of a > decade have been charged to the local carrier. And at lower rates. Again, it has been FCC policy that cellular carriers are co-carriers since 1985, not only since the 1996 Telecom Act. But even since passage of that Act it has been difficult for cellular carriers to get compensated for terminating calls. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: sin nombre Subject: Re: Dating an Old Phone Number Date: 17 Aug 2004 01:31:19 GMT on 8/15/2004 in comp.dcom.telecom wrote: > Hi! > I am hoping you can help ... I have an old picture that has a "antique" > phone number. I am trying to date the picture. Below is the phone > number located in Brooklyn New York: > TRiangle 5-7871 > Can you date this phone number? I have searched the internet with no = > luck. > Any help is appreciated, > Debra http://www.nyhistory.org/library/nyhsqa.html#tele When were New York City telephone exchanges switched from a combination of letters and numbers to all numbers? The first all-number telephone exchange was assigned in 1960, to the offices of Western Electric, as part of the New York Telephone Company's long-range plan to avert an anticipated shortage of phone numbers. And a long-range plan it was: not until 1978 were lettered exchanges eliminated from the white pages directory, followed by the switch to all-number exchanges in the yellow pages directory in February, 1979. Still, many New Yorkers, for reasons of status, habit or sentiment, continued to state their numbers with the obsolete prefixes of PLaza 5, REgent-7 or TRafalgar-3 well into the 1980s. Sources: "All-Number Numbers for Phone Begun Here." New York Times, 6 December 1960. Ferretti, Fred. "PHone EXchanges LOse THeir LEtters." The New York Times, 24 July 1978. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Dating an Old Phone Number Date: 17 Aug 2004 09:21:40 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com wrote > I am hoping you can help ... I have an old picture that has a "antique" > phone number. I am trying to date the picture. Below is the phone > number located in Brooklyn New York: TRiangle 5-7871 > Can you date this phone number? I have searched the internet with no = > luck. Unfortunately, there is not enough information. I don't know when that particular exchange went into service in NYC, but the picture could easily date from the 1930s until whenever the old telephone set shown was replaced by a modern set. If we knew the model of the telephone set we might be able to define a start date (that is, if it is a modern 500 set (basically the same kind used today except with Touch Tone) we would know the picture was after 1950s. But if it was an older sets we'd have to guess because older sets remained in service for many years. ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Number Not in Use From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:56:37 +0000 In article , Ned Protter wrote: > In article , Ned Protter > wrote: >> Today my answering machine received a telemarketing message telling me >> to press 1 if I was interested. >> I was interested. I got the number from Call Return. I wrote it down >> and reread it when they announced it the second time. >> I dialed it. After two rings I got three shrill tones and an >> announcement that the number was not in service. I dialed again with >> the same result. >> How could I receive a call from an out-of-service number? >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You got that recording because the >> company which called you diddled with their caller ID to keep you from >> finding out what number they were really at. Its a very common technique >> telemarketers use. I do not know if your comment 'I was interested' >> was because you really were interested or if it was tongue in cheek >> and you actually more interested in making trouble for the telemarketer, >> but in any event they assumed you would not be interested and took >> measures to assure you would not get back to them. PAT] > Do they diddle with their caller ID because it's illegal for them to > block it? Historically, such operations have 'diddled' with their caller-ID info because the telco they connected through would insert _accurate_ data if they didn't provide 'something'. Recent rule-making by the FTC requires that caller-ID info be presented, 'whenever technically possible'. > Is it illegal to fake their caller ID? By the same FTC rule-making *accurate* info is required. > Could the phone company trace them anyway? That is a complicated question. For inter-carrier "settlement" purposes, your local telco maintains a record of all calls between their network and any other telco. The local telco _could_ identify _where_ (carrier, trunk, circuit) that call 'came from' -- as far as the carrier that delivered the call _to_ them. They will, however, resist any demand for such information. A court order would be needed. _Then_ you get to repeat the whole process with the next 'upstream' carrier. Again, and again, until you reach the 'originating' carrier who can identify the customer who actually originated the call. > Can they fake the area code and exchange as well as the OCN? Yup. with the right equipment and telco-connection, the _entire_ caller-ID data is under the control of the customer. They can make it say _anything_ they want it to. > The message intrigued me for two reasons. First, all I got was the last > few seconds. She said it was a medical and dental discount plan for > $129 a month. My machine's announcement is only four seconds, so it > seems as if their message must have started before my machine answered. > Second, the going rate for discount plans seems to be $129 per year, not > per month. > A couple of weeks ago, my machine recorded a message saying I'd won a > trip. There was a thirteen-second delay before it started, and it was > very distorted. It had come from a cell phone, as if somebody had > dialed me and held the cell phone over an answering machine that played > back a telemarketing message. > I wonder if the discount-plan message was also a prank. In the exchange > area I got from Call Return is a household where the father and son are > IT professionals who love games. The message may have been designed to > raise eyebrows if it had not started prematurely. If their computer was > set to tell callers the number was out of service, Caller ID would give > them a list of people who had been intrigued enough to call back. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Its not illegal for them to block their BZZZZT! Thank you for playing. It *IS* illegal for a telemarketer to block their number. Recent FTC rule-making *requires* the marketeers to (a) provide caller-ID info 'whenever technically possible', and that the data provided MUST BE ACCURATE. Penalties of up to $11,000 _per_call_ in violation. ------------------------------ From: merri.clinton@comporium.com Subject: Outdated Operator Inward Codes Date: 17 Aug 2004 09:52:05 -0700 I am a supervisor of a telecommunications company. We have very outdated operator inward codes and would like any information on how to obtain updated ones. ------------------------------ From: altigensystem@yahoo.com (Phone System) Subject: ALTIGEN PBX With 58 Nortel Sets - For Sale Date: 17 Aug 2004 09:14:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5715560497 ------------------------------ 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 #385 ******************************