From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 19 13:39:41 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i7JHdfM01853; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:39:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:39:41 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408191739.i7JHdfM01853@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 #388 TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:40:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 388 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson U.S. Broadband Connections Reach Critical Mass (Monty Solomon) DISH Network Ranks No. 1 in Customer Satisfaction (Monty Solomon) More Software Aims To Make Web Safer for Kids (Monty Solomon) Internet Patent Claims Stir Concern (Monty Solomon) How Do I Get "Kewlstart" From My Phone Company? (Kyler Laird) Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake (MR) FCC Takes Next Steps To Promote Digital TV Transition (Neal McLain) Connecting to a SMS Gateway, How? (Rik Dekyvere) Rotary Step Relays (John Schuch) Re: Transmission Time Calculation & Impact of Distance (Robert Bonomi) Re: Transmission Time Calculation & Impact of Distance (Nick Landsberg) Re: Transmission Time Calculation & Impact of Distance (T. Sean Weintz) Re: Transmission Time Calculation & Impact of Distance (Justin Time) Re: Delete: Bathwater. Undelete: Baby (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Phone Fraud: xtremeISP.com ? (Robert Bonomi) Re: LecStar Uses Power Lines For VoIP Trial (John McHarry) Re: Number of Corporate Phone Accounts? (Justin Time) Re: 3L-4N Cities, Exchange Names, Lettered Dials (Paul Coxwell) Re: Q and Z on Dials - Standards? (Paul Coxwell) 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: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:20:17 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: U.S. Broadband Connections Reach Critical Mass U.S. Broadband Connections Reach Critical Mass, Crossing 50 Percent Mark for Web Surfers, According to Nielsen//NetRatings Young Adults and Kids Boast Highest Broadband Penetration; Seniors Still Log-on via Narrowband NEW YORK, Aug. 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Nielsen//NetRatings (Nasdaq: NTRT), the global standard for Internet audience measurement and analysis, reported that broadband connections for the first time reached 51 percent of the American online population at-home during the month of July, as compared to 38 percent last July (see Table 1). Sixty-three million Web users connected to the Internet via broadband during July 2004 as compared to 61.3 million accessing the Internet through narrowband. Overall growth for broadband connections rose 47 percent year-over-year, while narrowband dropped 13 percent annually. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=43184583 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:25:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DISH Network Ranks No. 1 in Customer Satisfaction in J.D. Power Associates Satellite/Cable TV 2004 Study ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 18, 2004--EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:DISH) announced today that its DISH Network(TM), the fastest growing multichannel TV provider in the last four years, has been ranked No. 1 in customer satisfaction among satellite and cable TV subscribers, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2004 Syndicated Cable/Satellite TV Customer Satisfaction Study(SM). This marks the third time in six years that DISH Network has received the J.D. Power and Associates No. 1 ranking. DISH Network received the highest score (725 out of 1,000 points) in the 2004 J.D. Power and Associates study. The average for cable and satellite TV providers tracked in the study was 664 points. This year's J.D. Power and Associates study is based on responses from 8,668 satellite TV and cable households nationwide. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=43182464 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:38:55 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: More Software Aims To Make Web Safer for Kids By WALTER S. MOSSBERG The Internet can be a dangerous playground for kids and teens. Unlike the physical world, where it is relatively easy for parents to keep children out of pornography shops and away from hate groups, the Web makes it simple for minors to visit their digital equivalents. So, many parents are looking for ways to bar their kids from inappropriate Web sites, while still allowing them to partake of the Internet's many benefits. The best, and most complete, parental controls on children's online activities are offered by AOL and MSN, the big Internet service providers. Their customizable filters allow parents to block inappropriate Web pages, and to limit and tailor kids' use of e-mail, instant messaging and chat rooms. But these online services are expensive, and not everyone wants to subscribe to them. For parents who use other services, and who are mainly concerned about porn and hate sites on the Web, a number of add-on filtering products are available. This week, my assistant Katie Boehret and I tested three such programs: Net Nanny 5 by LookSmart Ltd., CyberPatrol 6.2 by SurfControl PLC and FilterLogix At Home. CyberPatrol and FilterLogix cost $39.95 and $34.95, respectively, for a yearlong subscription. Net Nanny's program costs $39.95 for a lifetime license. In our tests, CyberPatrol and FilterLogix did the best job of weeding out bad sites, though we preferred FilterLogix, because it required the least tweaking. Net Nanny failed to block some blatantly inappropriate Web pages, so we can't recommend it. http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20040818.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:47:12 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Internet Patent Claims Stir Concern By TERESA RIORDAN IMAGINE being able to set up a tollbooth on the Internet. Now imagine collecting a small fee every time anyone in the United States clicked on the Web to watch a video of a car advertisement, to listen to an audio clip of a garage band or to review an updated credit card statement. Sound far-fetched? Acacia Research Corporation, an obscure but well-financed company in Newport Beach, Calif., has a portfolio of patents that, it claims, allows it to do exactly that. Acacia holds five patents covering streaming video and audio. The earliest one, numbered 5,132,992, was issued in 1992. In 2002, the company began sending out letters demanding licensing fees, largely from the lucrative online pornography industry. But of late, it has stepped up pressure on financial and educational institutions and news organizations, including The New York Times Company, which has received a letter from Acacia relating to its corporate Web site. In June, Acacia sued nine cable and satellite companies, including Comcast, DirecTV and EchoStar Communications. In late July, it sent out more letters demanding licensing fees from educational organizations that offer Web-based classes. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/technology/16patent.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To read NY Times articles, many Digest readers use our group reading name: operator10 and password operator10 in order to preserve their own privacy and prevent spam. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: How Do I Get "Kewlstart" From my Phone Company? From: Kyler Laird Organization: Insight Broadband Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:09:13 GMT I'm trying to set up a home PBX and I decided to just take a crack at getting kewlstart/calling party control/disconnect supervision on my home line. I called Verizon and got bounced around until I hit someone "with 31 years of experience" who had never heard of such a thing. I was told that Verizon certainly doesn't offer it. I suspect that someone in Verizon knows how to provision the switch and can twiddle a few bits to give it to me. Is that reasonable? How do I find that person? Thank you. --kyler [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Might you be thinking of the term 'Winkstart'. I am not sure of all the details but there is a condition where one trunk line 'winks' at another trunk or station. I do not recall how it works but remember seeing the term. PAT] ------------------------------ From: post_it_instead@hotmail.com (MR) Subject: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake Date: 18 Aug 2004 15:24:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Go to Cingular or T-Mobile!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AT&T s@#ks. My first two statements have been incorrect by HUNDREDS of dollars. I have wasted hours sorting this out on the phone with their reps. And after these corrections the website still reflects the wrong billing amounts. Every time I make a call I get a very loud static ticking before connection. The minutes usage portion of the website is indecipherable even to their service reps. After ten minutes of explaining and back pedaling the rep only made things worse by making me realize I have a two year contract with a@#holes. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:18:33 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: FCC Takes Next Steps To Promote Digital TV Transition At its meeting on August 4, the FCC adopted a Report and Order "that implements several steps necessary for the continued progress of the conversion of the nation's television broadcast system from analog technology to digital television." http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250542A1.doc This R&O covers many aspects of the transition, but I found the procedure for selecting the final digital channel assignments particularly interesting. The FCC is proposing a three-round channel-selection process: - ROUND ONE (December 2004) - Stations currently assigned two channels (one analog + one digital) in the "core" group of channels (2-51) can choose either of those channels (and, by implication, vacate the other one once the digital transition is complete). Stations with only one in-core channel can either choose it, or wait for Round Two. - ROUND TWO (July 2005) - Stations that don't yet have an in-core channel can choose any in-core channel still available after Round One. - ROUND THREE (January 2006) - Stations that still don't have an in-core channel (or that are assigned a low-band channel) may choose any in-core channel still available after Round Two. Between each round, the FCC will announce which channels are protected, which are in conflict, and which are available. Stations with interference conflicts can either accept the interference and remain on their chosen channels or move to the next election round. Assuming everything stays on schedule, the FCC will issue a final Table of Allotments in August 2006. Note that although low-band channels (2-6) are in the core group, the FCC is allowing any low-band station to move to a higher channel during Round Three. The Commission's Public Notice doesn't explain why this provision was included (and the actual R&O hasn't been published yet). There may be several reasons why a station would want to be in the high band (7-13) or the UHF band (14-51), but the two most obvious are: - To avoid channels 2, 3, and 4, which are often used as output channels for consumer devices (cable boxes, satellite receivers, VCRs, DVRs, etc.). - To more closely match the propagation characteristics of competitive stations operating in the higher bands (note that the low band is four octaves below UHF, but the high band is only two octaves below UHF). Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: info@wellow.nl (Rik Dekyvere) Subject: Connecting to a SMS Gateway, How? Date: 19 Aug 2004 06:41:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi there, I have to connect to a gateway in order to send and receive SMS messages. The gateway was built by this company where our firm bought the SMS bundles. My problem is that I have no experience on this. I'm a web designer and I'm used to create concepts of websites and I also build them, including database driven websites. They handed me a short manual but it does not help me enough, and calling them does not resolve my problems neither, because they are too technical. This is what is in the manual: "To send SMS messages via the Gateway, your client application is required to establish a network connection (over HTTP) with the Gateway." I can't use pre-made api's like Clickatell, I've already looked into that. I'm using PHP on all the websites I'm making, can anyone give me a hing, please. Rik Dekyvere www.wellow.nl Webdesign & Development ------------------------------ From: John Schuch Organization: Earth Subject: Rotary Step Relays Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:59:04 GMT Does anyone know of a source for rotary stepping relays? AKA Step relays, sequencing relays, Strowger relays. I need several that have at least two poles, and 10 positions. Yea, I know I could accomplish the same thing fairly simply with electronics, but this is an "art project", and the coolness is the sound and action of the old relays. I searched the web ad-nausium with no luck. Thanks, John ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Transmission Time Calculation & Impact of Distance on it From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:36:17 +0000 In article , qazmlp wrote: > Two nodes are connected in the same IP network. > The average bandwidth of the IP link between those 2 nodes is 'T' > MB/sec. These 2 nodes are 'D'(maybe, 200 or 300 km)km apart from > each other. > In that case, how much time it will take for transferring 'A' MB > amount of data from one node to the other one? I am just confused > about how the distance need to be considered for calculating this. > Kindly clarify! The first bit of the first byte of the data leaves node 1 at time 'X'. The first bit of the first byte of the data reaches node 2 at time 'X' + 'D'/speed-of-light ASSUMING that node 1 can output a _continuous_ stream of bits, *at*the* bandwidth of the link, then it will take 'A'/'T' seconds to send the first bit through the last one. Each bit will arrive at node 2 at a time 'D'/speed- of-light after it was sent. The delays are -not- cumulative. So the last bit arrives at node 2 at 'A'/'T' + 'D'/speed-of-light seconds after the 1st bit _leaves_ node 1. So much for the theory. In practice, using standard Internet protocols, you don't get the 'continuous stream of bits'. 'ACK' delays, etc., not to mention propagation delay through intermediate equipment, etc., all serve to reduce the throughput, *and* increase the latency. IF you have a situation where RTT delays contribute, then _those_ delays *are* cumulative. ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: SPAMhukolautTRAP@SPAMattTRAP.net Subject: Re: Transmission Time Calculation & Impact of Distance on it Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:51:37 GMT qazmlp wrote: > Two nodes are connected in the same IP network. > The average bandwidth of the IP link between those 2 nodes is 'T' > MB/sec. These 2 nodes are 'D'(maybe, 200 or 300 km)km apart from > each other. > In that case, how much time it will take for transferring 'A' MB > amount of data from one node to the other one? I am just confused > about how the distance need to be considered for calculating this. > Kindly clarify! For short distances the "speed of light" delay is probably "in the noise." What is probably more significant is how many "hops" the messages makes between the nodes, i.e. how many routers and things like that it passes through. A heuristic I use for coast-to-coast network delay (about 3,000 miles or about 5,000 km. in North America)) is approximately 15 ms. (speed of light delay) and about 5 ms. per "hop" *each way*. For a 250 km. distance, the latency due to speed of light will be under a millisecond, but the latency introduced by hopping through routers will still stay at 5 ms. per hop. Note that this heuristic is for a relatively unloaded network (operating at no more than 25% of rated bandwidth). Past that point, you have to bring out the queueing theory experts to explain what happens (and I'm not one of them). If you already have the network in place, you might want to try a "ping" between the endpoints to verify this. A "traceroute" would be helpful to determine the number of hops the messages make. Hope This Helps, NPL "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: T. Sean Weintz Subject: Re: Transmission Time Calculation & Impact of Distance on it Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:22:05 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com qazmlp wrote: > Two nodes are connected in the same IP network. > The average bandwidth of the IP link between those 2 nodes is 'T' > MB/sec. These 2 nodes are 'D'(maybe, 200 or 300 km)km apart from > each other. > In that case, how much time it will take for transferring 'A' MB > amount of data from one node to the other one? I am just confused > about how the distance need to be considered for calculating this. > Kindly clarify! Distance generally makes no difference. What does make a difference is the capacity of the circuit between the two nodes (sometimes the capacity can be dependant on distance, as is the case with aDSL, but in most cases it is NOT the case) The other thing that matters GREATLY is what protocol will be used to transfer "'A' MB of data" between the two nodes. And there are multiple layers. At the physical and datalink layers, are you running ethernet over fiber, t1 circuits, or what? Frame Relay? ATM? Are these PT to PT connections, brigdged, routed in any way? And it gets even more diverse going up the layers toward the application layer -- Are you sending the data using NCP (netware native) or SMB (microsoft compatible) or NIS (unix protocol)? Are you using TCP/IP? If so is it native or encapulated? If using IP, What MTU (packet size) is being used? What about recieve window size? Or are you not using IP at all but IPX/SPX? How is that configured? Packet burst, etc. There are too many variables involved for there to be a simple answer to your question. ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Transmission Time Calculation & Impact of Distance on it Date: 19 Aug 2004 06:02:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com qazmlp1209@rediffmail.com (qazmlp) wrote in message news:: > Two nodes are connected in the same IP network. > The average bandwidth of the IP link between those 2 nodes is 'T' > MB/sec. These 2 nodes are 'D'(maybe, 200 or 300 km)km apart from > each other. > In that case, how much time it will take for transferring 'A' MB > amount of data from one node to the other one? I am just confused > about how the distance need to be considered for calculating this. > Kindly clarify! Electrons move at the speed of light. How long does it take an electron to travel 200 or 300 Km? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:10:50 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Delete: Bathwater. Undelete: Baby Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > Feel free to use > user=operator10 > pw=operator10 > at least until some moron messes with it. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for doing this. Everyone who > likes to check out the NYT feel free to use operator10 for user name > and password. And http://www.bugmenot.com is another good source if > it is going to stay up. PAT] In light of the recent thread about using a company's WiFi network just because it happened to be open, I have to ask: why isn't it the same thing to use a public username/password combo for a site that asks for individual registration? -Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The username 'operator10' and password 'operator10' when reading the New York Times web site are available out of self defense when dealing with spam and spy- cookies. Self defense is always allowed when one faces a real threat which is the case with spam and spying on the net. If NYT would cease the practice of spamming their readers with unwanted advertisements on the net and distributing their user list to anyone with some money to spend for same, then a group name/password would not be needed. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phone Fraud: xtremeISP.com ? Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:03:53 +0000 In article , Isaiah Beard wrote: > TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Raj: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sounds to me to a bit rotten also. And >> another one to watch out for is the television ad for 'get a new >> computer with no credit check. If you have a telephone and a checking >> account you can have a new computer for just $35 per week.' $35 per >> *week* for 52 weeks and they debit/ACH your checking account each >> week. That's a scam also. PAT] > Yeah, people who jump into these things don't do the math. I saw the ad > too, and if you do the math, after 52 weeks (one year) of $35.99 > payments, you've got an old outdated computer that you paid $1871.48 > for. Dell's top of the line consumer model currently sells for $1679, > and something that is comparable in specs to what this scam was offering > can be had for a mere $449. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To make matters a bit worse, some years > have *53* weeks in a year; well they all do including years with a > February 29 in them. A normal year is 52 weeks plus _one_ day. A leap year is 52 weeks plus _two_ days. > And depending on the day of the week when they > start their ACH debits you get about three chances out of seven that > your 'billing/debiting cycle' will get hit 53 times instead of 52. Make that 1 chance in 7 for regular years, 2 chances in 7 for leap years, or an 'average' of 5 chances in 28. ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: LecStar Uses Power Lines For VoIP Trial Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:08:23 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Jack Decker wrote: > LecStar Telecom Inc. on Tuesday said it is testing the use of > broadband over power lines in providing Internet-based telephone > services. > LecStar, the Atlanta-based communications subsidiary of Fonix Corp., > launched a trial of the voice-over-Internet service using power lines > of a Southeastern United States electric utility company, which > LecStar declined to identify. This is probably because they don't want people to know why their radios suddenly quit working. ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Number of Corporate Phone Accounts? Date: 19 Aug 2004 06:09:13 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com rjdennison@hotmail.com (Robert J. Dennison) wrote in message news:: > Any idea how I can find out how many corporate phone accounts exist in > North America (or U.S. only)? This is essentially a market sizing > exercise, but I thought a few of you guys might be able to steer me in > the right direction ... > Thanks, > R. How about counting the number of business / government listings in a few telephone directories (on-line ones that can be parsed would be a lot faster), dividing that by the reported population of the cities counted and then applying the percentage against the population of the US? But remember 46.7% of all statistics are made up - Justin Time ------------------------------ From: Paul Coxwell Subject: Re: 3L-4N Cities, Exchange Names, Lettered Dials Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:56:43 +0100 > Prior to the implemntation of STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialling in the > late 1950s or early 1960s, with "area codes" of the 0XX(X(etc)) > format, the UK used '0' as a standalone digit code to reach the > Operator, just like in the US and Canada. When STD Codes beginning > with '0' came about, the local assistance operator in the UK was > changed to '100'. In most parts of the country, callers just dialed 0 to place any long-distance call through the operator, but in London (and possibly other director areas) subscribers were instructed to dial TOL or TRU to reach the appropriate operator for toll and trunk calls (toll being short-haul, trunk being to anywhere else in the country). The 0 code was still used to reach a general assistance operator. I've often wondered why the decision was taken to use 0 as the STD prefix. Maybe the logic was that most people were already used to dialing 0 for reach an operator to place a long-distance call, so why not use zero for STD? The change of operator code to 100 was mirrored by a change of other service codes to the 1 level as well: 191 for general inquiries, 192 for "DQ" (Directory enQuiries), 151 for engineering, etc. ------------------------------ From: Paul Coxwell Subject: Re: Q and Z on Dials - Standards? Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:57:07 +0100 > In a separate post, someone discussed London dials. What do > modern dials look like today in the rest of the world. Do they > even have letters? If so, are they over the same digits as us? Lisa, As far as British dials are concerned, there were some variants in the very early days, but they were soon standardized as follows (notice that the location of the letter "O" is the only difference between this and the standard U.S. dial): 1 - 2 ABC 3 DEF 4 GHI 5 JKL 6 MN 7 PRS 8 TUV 9 WXY 0 O / Operator Not all telephones were supplied with lettered dials however. They were required for London and the other 3L-4N cities, and for areas which could dial directly into these urban centers, but as letters were not used in most other areas the GPO supplied phones fitted with dials which had just numbers. When the STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialing) system started to go into service in the late 1950s, letters were employed (e.g. 0PL2 = Plymouth), so phones with STD access then needed lettered dials. By the mid 1960s, however, the decision had been made to drop letters entirely, so this use was short-lived, and for many areas letters had gone before STD service was available. Thus many parts of the country never had any need for lettered dials at all. The introduction of STD also resulted in 0 being used as the access prefix, so "Operator" was dropped from the zero position and "Q" was added, although little -- if ever -- used. So by the end of the 1960s there were no letters in STD codes, and all-figure numbering in the cities that were previously 3L-4N. From that point onward the GPO issued telephones with number-only dials. Their push-button phones followed suit, having only numbers on the buttons (by the way, these weren't TouchTone at this time, but a store/pulse-dial arrangement). Number-only dials/keypads became the norm right through the 1970s and well into the 1980s after privatization and the formation of British Telecom. Letters have only made a re-appearance in comparatively recent years with the vast range of imported equipment now on sale. This new generation of lettered keypads (now DTMF) uses the now-international system with 6=MNO, 7=PQRS, 9=WXYZ. That should be confusing for any youngsters looking at old exchange names and not realizing that some letters were assigned differently on the old dials. By the way, the use of letters as a convenient way to promote your business ("Call 222-TAXI" etc.) never really got off the ground over here. As letters were not universally printed on dials, and from the late-1960s on the GPO issued number-only dials to everyone, that's not surprising, of course. A few businesses have taken to this approach recently, but it's still nothing like as common as in the United States. Naturally, any business advertising in this way would really need to consider the fact that they're going to make life much harder for the many people who still use 1980s phones with no letters. Paul ------------------------------ 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 #388 ******************************