From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jan 4 18:31:02 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i04NV2m28308; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:31:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:31:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200401042331.i04NV2m28308@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 #4 TELECOM Digest Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:31:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 4 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 (Kd1s) Re: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 (M. Sullivan) Re: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 (Joseph) Re: NANP Numbering (Mark J Cuccia) From the Archives: The Day the Bell System Died (TELECOM Digest Editor) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is 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: kd1s@aol.com (Kd1s) Date: 04 Jan 2004 01:14:04 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 > Well, my response was based on the comment that the Bell System > didn't care much for SxS. I'm suggesting that perhaps the more > tougher networking needs of bigger or major cities resulted in > their getting more attention. Those cities generated more revenue > and had more traffic to justify that attention. I dare say that > a east coast small city might have more telephone traffic than > a mid west or southwest city of the same population. This is > because the east was more interconnected and had more national > commerce that went by phone than smaller towns which were likely > more insular back then. In other words, a small bank in Philadelphia > probably had more long distance traffic and sophistication than a > bank of the same size in say a city like Houston. Under Bell System management it wasn't that the smaller cities were more interconnected to begin with (They probably were - especially New England) but that wasn't the prime motivator for things like Providence having a Panel swtich, or RI being an all digital state way before the rest of the country. Instead it all has to do with profitability. Those Bell Operating Companies that consistently showed profit got the best of the best. It's why New York city had some of the worst telecom gear in the 60's through the early 80's. They simply weren't profitable. I believe the term is diseconomies of scale. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:44:31 GMT On 2 Jan 2004 20:51:56 -0800, Jeff nor Lisa posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > The breakup of the Bell System had two big separate parts two it: > One was the discontinuance of the rental policy. The company > realized that the cost of renting out phones was now exceeded by > the cost of servicing them, and let that revenue source go. > I think that generally has been good for consumers, however, many > telephone sets out there today are pure junk. The "discontinuance of the rental policy" was not an economic decision by the telcos. Telephone rentals were a cash cow, pure gravy. They would never have discontinued them if it was up to them, and they opposed the end of phone rentals vigorously. In fact, the FCC forced this in a series of decisions, summarized (with some simplifications) as follows: First, it decided to allow competition in the provision of telecom equipment and the attachment of such equipment to the telephone network, provided it met certain standards. The telcos fought this, unsuccessfully, but nevertheless managed to suppress equipment competition to some extent by continuing to require equipment rental by requiring it in the tariff for phone service. Next, in the Second Computer Inquiry, also known as Computer II, the FCC decided to separate telecom service from customer premises equipment (CPE); the former was to be a common carrier service and the latter a non-common-carrier matter. The telcos appealed this and lost. The FCC then decided that CPE could not be offered as part of a tariffed service and required a phase-out of all such arrangements. Telcos had to offer customers with in-place equipment the opportunity to buy it or have it removed, or to continue leasing it. The telcos appealed this and lost. > The other was long distance competition. That has always bothered > me and I think consumers and investors got screwed and still get > screwed. Look at MCI/Worldcom. Investors in MCI did very well until the service became a commodity and MCI couldn't make a profit the old-fashioned way. Consumers unquestionably benefited from long-distance competition. If there had not been an MCI or a Sprint, you'd still be paying $1 or more per minute for a long-distance call, in 1975 dollars. Now, long-distance is practically free. How are consumers screwed? The only ones who are screwed are the ones who use a major carrier's "standard" rates, which apply to nobody except those who don't even try to find a reasonable rate. > As far as I'm concerned, if newcomers want a piece of the action, > let them pay to build their own infrastructure. The Cable TV > company managed to build a line to my house independent of Bell. > So should local competitors -- bypass the existing company completely, > and that would eliminate all the disputes and finger pointing over > the cost of the local loop. It might actually leave the newcomers > better off with a modern loop plant while Bell struggles with old > copper conduits. I agree completely, except that Congress decided otherwise in the 1996 Telecom Act. > When did cell phones come out? Originally they were a replacement for > mobile phones, and built into an automobile. I recall watching a > "90210" rerun episode, and the guy was talking on a corded phone in > the car, which struck me as strange. I then realized that episode was > old, and it was advanced for its day. Then they came out with bag > phones, then hand held ones, progressing getting smaller and smaller. > It blew my mind when I got my first Motorola "flip phone" -- for free > no less, with a $20/month (limited usage) rental. I was just like > "Captain Kirk" and his communicator; and it amazed me the power it had > at such an affordable price. > I recall reading articles in the Bell Laboratories Record about "AMPS" > which was cell phones. I presume Bell Labs invented the concept. Bell Labs invented the "concept" of cellular phone service, which was first publicly set forth in a 1971 technical report filed with the FCC. AT&T had lobbied for "hi-cap" mobile phone service for years before that and the FCC had begun an inquiry into the issue in 1968 in response. The FCC allocated spectrum for cellphones in 1974-75, but before setting rules for licensing wanted pilot programs. The Bell Systems Technical Journal devoted an entire issue (in 1975 or 1976, I think) to the subject. There were two pilot "developmental" programs, in the late 1970s: AT&T/Bell Labs' program, as implemented by Illinois Bell in Chicago, and Motorola's program, as implemented by Advanced Radio Telephone Service in Washington/Baltimore. These went online in the 1977-1978 timeframe. Based on the results of the experiments, the FCC initiated a proceedig at the end of 1979 to set rules for commercial cellular service and adopted rules in 1981, which were further refined numerous times. Regular commercial service commenced in late 1983. At that point, the customer equipment was mostly limited to vehicular mobile phones (a box in the trunk, connected to a handset in the car), although Motorola made a limited number of brick-sized handhelds available. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Cell phones began about > 1981. Chicago was the first city to have cellular service. Sometime > around 1984 I got my first cellular phone. It was a large thing > shaped like a brick, and you wore it in a shoulder holster like > thing. I got it from Radio Shack and it cost me about seven hundred > dollars and you *had* to have a contract with Ameritech for a year > or two to even be allowed to buy a phone. TELECOM Digest began in > August, 1981, and it was originally an ARPA group, called > arpa.telecom. For a few years, the connection to Usenet was through > a gateway computer. PAT] See above. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 07:01:56 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NOcom On 2 Jan 2004 20:51:56 -0800, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote: > I recall reading articles in the Bell Laboratories Record about "AMPS" > which was cell phones. I presume Bell Labs invented the concept. http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa070899.htm "By 1982, the slow-moving FCC finally authorized commercial cellular service for the USA. A year later, the first American commercial analog cellular service or AMPS (Advanced Mobile Phone Service) was made available in Chicago by Ameritech." remove NO from .NOcom to reply ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 20:36:12 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: NANP Numbering Earle Robinson (no email address indicated) wrote: > While the NANP system had its merits as you point out, the ITU > nowadays is more logical. First of all, it avoids all those area code > changes that occur periodically in the states. It also is simpler and > more flexible. In countries like Germany, you can dial the number and > the extension number. There is no limit on the number of digits, as > you point out, with the ITU system. Well, I beg to differ. The NANP system has *always* been more logical than "other countries". (and note that I don't say "ITU" system). First, the ITU is mostly concerned with country codes and with few exceptions doesn't dictate what *internal* domestic national numbering plans must be like. There are certain standards, in that the DECIMAL system of numeric digits will be used for basic numbering/addressing, even though the "*/#" and sometimes even fourth-column DTMF "A/B/C/D" are valid DTMF signals ... but for the most part, the ITU stays *OUT* of national numbering schemes. The NANP -- the US and Canada for the most part -- is "more-or-less" the same as it was 50+ years ago in 1947. We are still using the same "basic" ten-digit intra-NANP numbering format, although generallized a bit more. In 1947, the basic format was: N 0/1 X + NNX + xxxx Today, the basic format is: NXX + NXX + xxxx where N = any possible digit from 2 thru 9 (eight possiblities), and X = ANY of the ten possible decimal digits 0 thru 9. Actually, in the 1940s/50s and even early 60s (and in some places into the 1970s), the "office code" portion, the D-E-F position digits of the ten-digit NANP number were even generally a bit more restricted than the "general" NNX format. When using pure numeric-digits for the office code of the NNX format, you could have a theoretical possibility of 640 office codes (aka exchanges, prefixes, etc) within an area code ... Doing the Math for N-N-X gives 8 x 8 x 10 = 640 However, because the US/Canada was still using "EXchange NAme DIaling" in the 1950s era, where the first two letters of a name were indicated, there were certain word/letter combinations rarely used or impossible to come up with, meaning that those corresponding numeric combinations were un-used altogether. For the most part, this was the 55x, 57x, 95x, 97x ranges, since there are no (regular) vowels on the 5 (JKL), 7 (PRS), W (WXY), it was difficult to impossible to come up with a word having its first two letters correspond with these numeric combinations. Also, the third digit of '0' (zero), the 'F' position digit in the office code (D-E-F position digits) was usually avoided because it might be confused with the letter 'O' (oh) which is traditionally on the '6' on NANP dials. So, back in "the days", the usually expected theoretical maximum of office-codes (D-E-F) was only 540: Doing the Math: NNX = 8x8x10 = 640 but remove the four possible ranges 55, 57, 95, 97 from the sixty-four 'NN' ranges, and you only get 60 possible *use-able* 'NN' ranges, for the first two digits of the D-E-F office code. Then for the third digit, you multiply by '9' rather than '10' since you are not (usually) using a third digit of '0'. You only get 540. Today, the "theoretical" max for both area codes and for office codes is 800, both are generally of the NXX format, 8x10x10, but you subtract *CERTAIN* possiblities, such as the eight possible 'N11' codes which are used as three-digit "short" special services codes. But, as for the NANP's superiority over the "rest-of-the-world" ... We've maintained a basic *TEN* digit "national" structure for 50+ years. NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD can make such a similar claim! And the US/Canada (like it or not) *IS* the leader of the world in modern 20th/21st Century technology, culture, development, etc. OTHER countries have had MAJOR modifications to their numbering plans, including the UK, *FRANCE*, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, the Scandanavian countries, Aussie/NZ, Japan, etc. Sometimes it is major modifications only to certain cities, other times it is a wholesale change nationwide, and it could be anything in-between. Usually other countries of the world keep adding more digits to their national numbering. Again, the NANP's basic numbering scheme is still at TEN-digits, which was what officially began in Oct.1947, and was even proposed by Bell Labs in 1944/45. *DIALING* has expanded in most places, some to ten or 1+ten-digits where it had been only seven-digits for local calling, some places expanded from local dialing of less-than-seven to seven back in the 1950s/early 60s to conform with a standard (and now might even be at ten or 1+ten), but the BASIC NANP Numbering/Routing/Switching/Signaling format is *STILL* TEN-digit as was proposed in the 1940s and began the earliest implementation even as far back as then as well. YES, we've had our painful splits. Especially in the later 1990s and all the way up to and through 2001. BUT THOSE DAYS SEEM TO BE OVER FOREVER, now that there are safeguards in place in numbering/ assignment policies. 2002 had only eight new area codes in the US, some of them were overlays. 2003 only had three new area codes in the US, two of them from a single three-way split of 915 in west Texas, the third was an overlay to 903 in northeastern TX ... AND THAT WAS IT ... 2004 will have only two "known" new area codes, only ONE of them being a split (909/951 in southern California), and the other one being 684, which are identical to the currently assigned (ITU) digits +684 for the "Country" code for American Samoa, a US territory which migrates its numbering/dialing into the NANP beginning Oct.2004. There *MIGHT* be one other southern California split in later 2004, if it is determined that 310 will finally split off 424 this year rather than early/mid 2005. But as for splits ... VIRTUALLY EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM of the 1990 (thru 2001) time-frame could have been an OVERLAY rather than a split, which would have meant *NO* "changes" to observers of anyone dialing TO the EXISTING numbers/customers in the affected area. Even locally, the area code (if used) remained the same -- of course it HAS to be dialed for local calls.... BUT IN FRANCE... THESE DAYS ALL DOMESTIC (including LOCAL) calling now *HAS* to be dialed on a full "national" basis! (I think that there's a case of "pot calling the kettle black" somewhere in here! :-) As for: > There is no limit on the number of digits ... with the ITU system. Ummm ... well there *IS* a limit on the number of national/domestic digits if that country wants to receive calls to its "POTS" (regular) numbers/ customers on the automated *worldwide* network from ALL countries with automated customer outbound Interantional Calling, and here is where the ITU *DOES* get involved... The MINIMUM LIMIT (ooooh there's that word LIMIT!) for a significant worldwide number is SEVEN-digits. This means a domestic number minimum of four-digits if they have a three-digit country-code, and a domestic minimum of five-digits if they have a two-digit country-code. (and if +7 Russia and +1 NANP wanted a mimimum of less than what they each already have, it would be six-digits for a national mimimum matched up with the single-digit country codes). The MAXIMUM LIMIT -- it used to be TWELVE, it is now FIFTEEN -- for a significant worldwide number, as a matter of a standard. And one of the primary reasons that the ITU finally expanded it from twelve to fifteen which took effect circa 1996, was because of auto direct-dial-in to PABX systems mostly in Germany, Austria, and a few other European countries which were NON-standard in having LONGER than twelve-digit worldwide numbers when you include the country-code "itself" (+49, +43, etc) as well as the extension-digits of the PABX. Yes, some European countries were able to implement added customer-dialed-digit capacity in their systems to accommodate these LONGER-than-ITU-standard numbers, but since the ITU didn't "require" a max of greater-than-twelve at the time (until the expansion of the requirment of the max to 15-digits circa 1996), many countries such as carriers in the NANP didn't necessarily allow customer automated dialing to such longer-than-twelve-significant-digit-numbers. Again, me-thinks somewhere there is a "pot calling the kettle black" attitude here! :-) > Here in France we have an implementation that permits easy dialing > around for long distance calls, too. The initial 0 signifies that the > phone company selected as the designate local carrier is to be used. > (Note that one may choose another one quite easily.) ... So, a call > say to the Paris area might be 01-4444-5555. However, if you wished > to use say tele2 for the call, you'd dial 41-4444-5555. International > calls are initiated using the standard 00. But, if you wish to use say > tele2 you'd dial 40, then the country code, and finally the number. > For example, a call to New York City might be 401-212-444-5555. For > those carriers that aren't fortunate enough to have their own single > digit a 4 digit prefix must be used. An example using budgetelecom to > call New York City would be 3111-00-1212-444-5555. Here in the NANP, your "chosen" LD-carrier is accessed (in most cases) when you simply dial 1+/0+ for NANP-calls (1+ for station-sent-paid, 0+ being ONE method for "alternate billing" such as Card, Collect, 3d-Pty billing, etc), and 011+/01+ for IDDD-calls (011+ for station-sent-paid, 01+ for special-billing such as Card/Collect/etc). If you want to use a DIFFERENT carrier than your "chosen" carrier, you dial a STANDARD code of 101-XXXX+. It used to be 10-XXX+ but it was expanded to 101-XXXX+ in the 1990s. Yes, it is LONGER than what is used in France, but let's look at the geographic-size, population of, and the overall length of time that there has been such competitive LD in the US (and even Canada), when compared to ... France. Also, while there was a variable length of both 10-XXX+ and 101-XXXX+ "side-by-side" in the 1994-98 timeframe while existing/previous 10-XXX+ codes were expanding to 101-0XXX+ and NEW codes were assigned first out of the 101-5XXX+ and 101-6XXX+ ranges, until 101-0XXX+ became mandatory for previously existing 10-XXX+ codes in 1998, and now ANY 101-XXXX+ range is assigned ... you just COULD NEVER have such variable length code formats as a general practice in the US/Canada. Technical standards in the long run is one reason -- simplicity and streamlining, and an EASY and EFFICIENT way to expand when necessary... but variable length alternate-carrier-code-dialing would be deemed *ANTI* competitive, and even monopolistic. The "long-time" carriers would have shorter, easier to dial/remember codes, while the upstarts would have longer, more difficult to dial/remember codes. Of course, one "could" claim that the older/longer carriers were there first and had a much larger customer base, but things still need to be carrier/competitive NEUTRAL in the NANP and I would even tend to think in other countries as well... I don't know how government regulation of the telecom industry/standards is within France, but I tend to think that MOST other developed countries with LD competition and carrier-selection-code dialing ten to have STANDARD/ UNIFORM length carrier-codes, or are trending to standard uniform length codes, for the reasons I describe above as they are here in the NANP. There are indeed benefits to certain aspects of various non-NANP "most-of-the-rest-of-the-world" numbering/dialing/routing/switching/ signaling... but in the long run, I know that the NANP's formats and standards have stood up to the test of time, and will CONTINUE to do so. Now that the "scare" of running out of numbers, and WASTE of area codes in rash splits and over-assignments of the 1990s-thru-2001 time frame is FINALLY over with FOR GOOD(!), here in the NANP, the current projections to where the existing ten-digit format MIGHT need to expand to eleven or MAYBE even twelve-digits, is for the 2040 to 2050 timeframe. And even that projection could be pushed out further into the future as time continues and projections are made in later years. BTW, in the 199e/94 timeframe, just prior to the NANP area code format generalizing from N-0/1-X to NXX with an overall increase in the possible number of area codes, the projections for an "exhaust" of a ten-digit NXX-NXX-xxxx NANP was going to be circa 2040 to 2050, same as the current projections. There *WAS* the "scare" that the NANP might run-out of numbers and/or codes by 2007-2010, made back in 1998/99, but that was (IMO) mostly "crying wolf". Of course, area code assignments/activations (splits) in that 1998/99 period was INSANE, but that insanity is finally over. The NANP has had changes over the years, but NO-where NEARLY as crazy as virtually every other (developed and under-developed/non-developed) in the world has had since the 1960s/70s... Mark J. Cuccia mcuccia@tulane.edu New Orleans LA CSA (in the LAND OF DIXIE!) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 20:05:45 -0500 (EST) From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: From the Archives: The Day the Bell System Died It was twenty years ago (1984) that AT&T was divested under orders from Judge Harold Greene, or twenty-two years ago in this next week that the idea of divestiture of AT&T first came up, January 8, 1982 I think. Mark Cuccia suggested that this old archive file first submitted by Lauren Weinstein in the summer of 1983. So, here it is, Mark, and others. PAT 12-Jul-83 09:14:32-PDT,4930;000000000001 Return-path: <@LBL-CSAM:vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Received: from LBL-CSAM by USC-ECLB; Tue 12 Jul 83 09:12:46-PDT Date: Tuesday, 12-Jul-83 01:18:19-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: "The Day Bell System Died" Return-Path: Message-Id: <8307121614.AA17341@LBL-CSAM.ARPA> Received: by LBL-CSAM.ARPA (3.327/3.21) id AA17341; 12 Jul 83 09:14:35 PDT (Tue) To: TELECOM@ECLB Greetings. With the massive changes now taking place in the telecommunications industry, we're all being inundated with seemingly endless news items and points of information regarding the various effects now beginning to take place. However, one important element has been missing: a song! Since the great Tom Lehrer has retired from the composing world, I will now attempt to fill this void with my own light-hearted, non-serious look at a possible future of telecommunications. This work is entirely satirical, and none of its lyrics are meant to be interpreted in a non-satirical manner. The song should be sung to the tune of Don Mclean's classic "American Pie". I call my version "The Day Bell System Died"... --Lauren-- ************************************************************************** *==================================* * Notice: This is a satirical work * *==================================* "The Day Bell System Died" Lyrics Copyright (C) 1983 by Lauren Weinstein (To the tune of "American Pie") (With apologies to Don McLean) ARPA: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren ************************************************************************** Long, long, time ago, I can still remember, When the local calls were "free". And I knew if I paid my bill, And never wished them any ill, That the phone company would let me be... But Uncle Sam said he knew better, Split 'em up, for all and ever! We'll foster competition: It's good capital-ism! I can't remember if I cried, When my phone bill first tripled in size. But something touched me deep inside, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Is your office Step by Step, Or have you gotten some Crossbar yet? Everybody used to ask... Oh, is TSPS coming soon? IDDD will be a boon! And, I hope to get a Touch-Tone phone, real soon... The color phones are really neat, And direct dialing can't be beat! My area code is "low": The prestige way to go! Oh, they just raised phone booths to a dime! Well, I suppose it's about time. I remember how the payphones chimed, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Back then we were all at one rate, Phone installs didn't cause debate, About who'd put which wire where... Installers came right out to you, No "phone stores" with their ballyhoo, And 411 was free, seemed very fair! But FCC wanted it seems, To let others skim long-distance creams, No matter 'bout the locals, They're mostly all just yokels! And so one day it came to pass, That the great Bell System did collapse, In rubble now, we all do mass, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? I drove on out to Murray Hill, To see Bell Labs, some time to kill, But the sign there said the Labs were gone. I went back to my old CO, Where I'd had my phone lines, years ago, But it was empty, dark, and ever so forlorn... No relays pulsed, No data crooned, No MF tones did play their tunes, There wasn't a word spoken, All carrier paths were broken... And so that's how it all occurred, Microwave horns just nests for birds, Everything became so absurd, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? We were singing: Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? ------------------------------ 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: 620-330-6774 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 second 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 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #4 ****************************