From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 4 21:58:13 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i851wCp13577; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 21:58:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 21:58:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200409050158.i851wCp13577@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 #414 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Sep 2004 21:57:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 414 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Soft Invasion (Monty Solomon) Watching TV on Your Cellphone (Monty Solomon) Website Offers Caller I.D. Falsification Service (Monty Solomon) Citing Threats, Entrepreneur Wants to Quit Caller ID Venture (M Solomon) Is Portable Video Ready for Its Close-Up? (Monty Solomon) Protecting Your Files When a Password Isn't Enough (Monty Solomon) Cellphones in Flight Face Technical and Social Hurdles (Monty Solomon) Re: Website Offers Caller I.D. Falsification Service (DevilsPGD) C-SPAN to Air Badnarik/Cobb Debate (Patrick Townson) Re: Sender ID Finds Followers Ahead of Approval (Robert Bonomi) Re: Telephone Vocabulary -- "Straight Line" (Carl Navarro) Re: Telephone Vocabulary -- "Straight Line" (Tim@Backhome.org) 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: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:22:35 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Soft Invasion By WALTER S. MOSSBERG WHAT IF A private company could legally break into your house and rig your television so that it would always start up on a special station the company had created that showed deceptive ads every minute, all day? And what if, when you tried to change the station, you could choose only among obscure and dubious channels selected by the invading company? Oh, and suppose that same sleazy company could erect billboards for phony medical cures and get-rich-quick schemes on your lawn anytime, without your permission? And suppose it could also make a record of everything you said or did in your house and sell it to other companies? You'd be more than angry. You'd be lobbying for jail time for these guys. But something similar happens every day on the personal computers of tens of millions of people. It's offensive but legal, and it's driving its victims crazy. This phenomenon is called spyware, or adware, and it is rapidly replacing viruses and spam as the No. 1 hassle associated with using an Internet-connected computer. Spyware is a type of software placed surreptitiously on a Windows PC, often by means of a file, downloaded from a Web site, that is either invisible or is disguised as a legitimate file. Once on your PC, spyware can do many nefarious things. Unlike a virus, it rarely tries to destroy files or propagate itself through e-mail. Instead, it tries to seize control of key aspects of your machine and turn them into conduits for selling you junk, or for gathering information that can help others do so. There are many forms of spyware, but the big four, which correspond to the household examples above, are: http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/report-200408.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The two forms of protection I use against spies are 'Ad-Aware' and 'Spybot: Seek and Destroy'. Of course I also use AVG for virus protection. All three of these items are free on the web and highly effective. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:26:40 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Watching TV on Your Cellphone By WALTER S. MOSSBERG Not enough television in your life? Well, now you can stay tuned in at all times, thanks to your cellphone. Sprint has begun offering two different TV services on its cellphones. One, called MobiTV, offers real-time broadcasts of programming from a variety of networks. The second, called Sprint TV, serves up specially produced short clips from major networks. Each costs about $10 a month, and both are powered onto Sprint cellphones by a privately held California-based company called Idetec Inc. The Sprint phones don't actually contain TV receivers. Instead, the programs are "streamed" onto the phones, via the Internet, from servers that first convert the TV signals into digital files. While the idea of watching TV on a wireless phone is new in the U.S., it's old hat in some other countries. When I was in Korea earlier this year, I was able to receive perfectly rendered TV broadcasts on a little Samsung phone during long rides in a minibus stalled in choked traffic in Seoul. But Korean cellphone networks handle data -- like the TV streams -- much faster than Sprint's network. While Sprint's network is one of the fastest nationally deployed systems in the U.S., it's pathetically slow compared with Korean and other foreign wireless phone networks. So, my question was: How good could it be? To find out, my assistant Katie Boehret and I have been testing MobiTV and Sprint TV. Our verdict: Neither service will ever be confused with even basic cable on a cheap TV set, but MobiTV was pretty fair, while Sprint TV had serious problems. ... http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20040901.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:39:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: Website Offers Caller I.D. Falsification Service A Commercial Software Service Aims to Outfox Caller ID By KEN BELSON Like most bill collectors, Marvin Smith is always seeking ways to get chronic debtors to pay up. When he calls the first time, he typically hears excuses and requests for more time. When Mr. Smith calls again, the debtors often block his calls using ordinary caller ID technology from the phone company. That means he then visits in person, a time-consuming and sometimes dangerous task. But Mr. Smith, who runs a collection agency in Austin, Tex., says he may have found a solution: a new computerized service enabling him to create false outbound phone numbers with a click of a mouse, so he can skirt the call blockers. The service, the first commercial version of a technology known mainly among software programmers and the computer-hacker underground until now, was introduced nationwide on Wednesday by a California company called Star38. For $19.99 a month and as little as 7 cents a minute, customers can go to the company's Web site (www.star38.com), log in and then type the number that they want to call and the number that they want to appear on the caller ID screen of the recipient's phone. For an additional fee, they can also specify names that can appear along with their telephone numbers. http://nytimes.com/2004/09/02/technology/02caller.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:17:11 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Citing Threats, Entrepreneur Wants to Quit Caller ID Venture By KEN BELSON It may be known as caller ID spoofing, but it is evidently no laughing matter. Three days after the start-up company Star38 began offering a service that fools caller ID systems, the founder, Jason Jepson, has decided to sell the business. Mr. Jepson said he had received harassing e-mail and phone messages and even a death threat taped to his front door - all he said from people opposed to his publicizing a commercial version of technology that until now has been mainly used by software programmers and the computer hackers' underground. For a fee, customers using the Star38.com Web site would be able to alter the number that would appear on the caller ID screen of the recipient's phone. The technique could mask the identity of a bill collector, for example, or enable a private investigator to fool someone into answering the phone on the false belief that a friend or relative was ringing. Mr. Jepson said yesterday that he did not yet have any paying customers for the service. But he said he had received hundreds of messages from potential customers - as well as from people concerned that his product would invade their privacy. He also said he had received inquiries from five investors who were interested in investing in or buying his company. http://nytimes.com/2004/09/04/technology/04caller.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:34:16 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Is Portable Video Ready for Its Close-Up? By MICHEL MARRIOTT A FEW years ago, when MP3 players were establishing themselves as the hot cool thing, the next question seemed clear: What if you could take along not only music but movies, television programs, home video and still pictures in a high-tech box svelte enough to slip into a briefcase, backpack or purse, or perhaps a pocket? An answer is beginning to emerge, however tentatively. Microsoft's response takes the form of a system called the Portable Media Center, being incorporated first by Creative, an early maker of MP3 audio players, into a sort of oversized audio player with a color video screen. Samsung and iRiver will follow with sleeker versions this fall; all three will cost about $500 each and be capable of 80 hours of video play. The Windows-powered machines enter a nascent marketplace that includes devices by Archos, a French maker, and RCA. Each camp makes the case for its own pioneer status on a new frontier of hand-held devices. And all say the devices will appeal to commuters and travelers, including those looking to occupy small children on long trips. http://nytimes.com/2004/09/02/technology/circuits/02vide.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:36:48 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Protecting Your Files When a Password Isn't Enough BASICS By THOMAS J. FITZGERALD IT'S a prospect that nobody likes to think about: a laptop or hand-held computer left behind on a train or bus -- or worse, stolen. As people amass larger amounts of personal and business data on their hard disks, it becomes increasingly important to make sure that confidential files will stay that way, even if a machine is lost. What computer owners may not know is that a computer's standard log-on password does not block access to files on the hard disk. That line of defense can be bypassed by removing the disk and connecting it to another computer, by using forensics tools or by booting the computer to a different operating system. Various methods of file encryption are available to protect files against these kinds of direct assaults. Some of the newer ones are easy to set up and can run seamlessly in the background as you go about your work. They can encrypt individual files, or they can create "vaults" in which many files can be encrypted at once. Some can encrypt entire hard disks while others integrate smart cards or U.S.B. tokens to add extra security. To help decide whether file encryption is for you, it is useful to know some basic information about the technology, its limitations and how to spot products that may contain weaknesses. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/02/technology/circuits/02basi.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:42:24 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cellphones in Flight Face Technical and Social Hurdles By ERIC A. TAUB BUSINESS travelers who think there are not enough hours in the day, take note: in two years there may be a few more at your disposal. In 2006 the nation's commercial airliners may begin to allow passengers to make cellphone calls and connect to the Internet throughout a flight. No longer will passengers have to cram in their last cellular calls before takeoff. Instead, they will be able to use standard mobile phones to make and receive calls while in flight. Technical and social issues must still be worked out. The airlines, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Communications Commission must be assured that cellphones will not interfere with navigation or communications equipment. And the airlines also must devise ways to avoid conflict between cell yellers and passengers looking for a quiet trip. While the airlines wait for government approval, Lufthansa currently offers Internet access on some international flights. As a foreign carrier, it is not subject to federal restrictions. http://nytimes.com/2004/09/02/technology/circuits/02next.html ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Website Offers Caller I.D. Falsification Service Reply-To: bond-jamesbond@crazyhat.net Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:49:28 GMT In message AES/newspost wrote: > They want to publish 3 distinct phone numbers that they will always > maintain open for *incoming* calls that concern A, B or C. > (And also maybe they want regular customers or call recipients that > they call *out* to be able to identify in an automated fashion whether > the call they're receiving has to do with A, B or C.) > But, maybe the organization has people making outgoing calls from phone > lines all over the place, or from temporary setups, or calls concerning > different subjects at different times. > Allowing these outgoing calls to be given the appropriate Caller ID for > the function A, B or C associated with the given call, no matter who > makes 'em or from where, seems perfectly sensible to me. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Can't you think of any more hypothetical > examples why you must be allowed to tamper with your caller ID? I > mean, that's all totally ridiculous. Tell your people to walk over to > an 'A' phone or a 'B' phone or a 'C' phone and use the appropriate > line for the particular business. PAT] Expand this to a company like HP that runs managed/outsourced help desks. Think of a few hundred reps which each handle 6-10 different clients (different support contracts) Having 500 people running across the building to use an appropriate line, or trying to run 6-10 phone lines to every desk is beyond ridiculous. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's an old trick, but quite effec- > tive. Place (and enforce) the blame on the last person or entity in > the line unless *they* can push it further along. And believe me, > when push comes to shove, they *will* find someone further down > the line to hand the hot potato to. You give them one or two passes > with a firm warning there will be no further excuses allowed, then > watch how the conditions so prevalent in much of telephony get > corrected/cured in a hurry. Hot potato is probably the only way to avoid endless finger pointing. If, ultimately, you end up in a situation where there is no way to prove who made the error, then you simply blame the telco that failed to keep accurate records. It will be an expensive lesson, but lets face it, a million dollars won't sink your average telco, but it will screw up whoever's budget that ends up on enough that they'll fix it, and fix it for good. If they claim technical problems, then they should get a free pass or two, but only if they demonstrate a legitimate reason for the screw up (A fatfingered typo is good. A completely wrong number is bad) AND can post a reasonably sized bond. They would be given a fixed time period in which to fix the problem (say, 168 hours), during which time complaints would be held. If they should happen to receive further complaints after the 168 hours then ALL of the complaints would apply jointly. In other words, we have to avoid sinking a company for a legitimate technical screw up, but at the same time, avoid letting people wiggle out of their responsibility by claiming incompetence. > I for one, cannot see why *any* user or subscriber should ever be > allowed to tamper with their own caller ID. I can see a few issues, but all of which could be solved by giving the actual owner the ability to get the spoofer off the hook by validating the spoof. Ideally this would be done in advance and registered "somewhere" to prevent a firm from randomizing their CID and then bribing the actual owner when they get caught. In my first call center job (ISP) our phones all had two lines. Calls from the queue came in on line 1, and outbound calls displayed the switchboard. Calls on your person line came in on line 2, and outbound calls displayed your personal number. It was a perfect system, if I was acting as a rep I would use line 1, if I was acting as a supervisor and wanted the person to be able to call back, I would use line 2. It's legitimate to want an entire company (with multiple locations, possibly in multiple countries) to want one number displayed on all outbound calls (a tollfree, perhaps), or for a contracted call center to want their outbound calls to display the name/number of their client when they dial out, either of which could be classified as spoofing. "Gee, Bill what do you want to do tonight?" "The same thing we do every night Steve. Try to take over the world!" ------------------------------ From: Patrick Townson Subject: C-SPAN to air Badnarik/Cobb debate Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:37:28 -0500 According to a posting at http://www.c-span.org, C-SPAN will cover the debate between Green Party Presidential Nominee David Cobb and Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee Michael Badnarik on C-SPAN at 1 pm ET Monday, September 6. This is the debate which was held in New York City during the Republican National Convention. Please pass this message around to encourage your friends to watch this debate -- as it is clearly in sharp contrast to anything one will find in the produced and scripted debates between Bush and Kerry. It is up to you to help make the voice of freedom heard. Also, on Sunday, September 5, at 7:45 AM EST The program Washington Journal hosts Janet Brown, Executive Director, Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), for live call-in on C-SPAN. Ms. Brown will talk by video link from Boston about the status and history of presidential debates. She will respond to telephone calls, faxes, and electronic mail from viewers. The telephone numbers to call to find out why Badnarik is not being allowed in the debates are: > Washington Journal: Democrats (202) 585-3881 > Washington Journal: Republicans (202) 585-3880 > Washington Journal: Others (202) 585-3882 According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 68% of Americans want Michael in the debates -- including 67% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats - but not Ms. Brown, the CPD, George Bush, or John Kerry. Please don't forget to challenge the CPD on Sunday morning as to why they don't care about open debates, or even the will of the American people. Finally, the Badnarik campaign footed the lion's share of the bill for the debate in NYC, as the Cobb campaign simply did not have enough financial resources to cover the expenses. To be clear, the Badnarik campaign was more than willing to help out our third-party brothers. Several Green Party members were more than generous and slipped a few dollars into my jacket pocket to help defray the cost. However, it was costly to fly several of us to New York, pay for the building, and cover the other incidental costs for the debate. Your contribution to help cover these expenses is vital for us to continue being able to hold televised presidential debates. Please contribute now by simply clicking https://badnarik.org/. Then you might wish to pass this message to a few of your Green Party friends to see if they might consider making a small one time donation at https://badnarik.org/ to help pay for the expenses related to the first presidential debate of 2004. In peace and prosperity, Stephen P. Gordon Paid for by Badnarik/Campagna 2004 and space contributed by participating website and Usenet newsgroups. [TELECOM Digest Editors's Note: I for one would be quite interested in hearing Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry explain why they did not want to allow Mr. Badnarick -- a bonafide candidate of a legitimate political party -- to be part of the debates. I am sure Ms. Brown will enlighten us on Sunday. Yeah, and I am a terrorist also. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Sender ID Finds Followers Ahead of Approval From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:08:40 +0000 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > By Jim Wagner > As a new Sender ID specification for beating back spam wends its way > through the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), some e-mail > software vendors are not waiting around for its final approval > before implementing the system that the IETF will eventually bless a > specification that will be used on e-mail systems throughout the > world. > One of the contributors to the Sender ID specification, > Microsoft (Quote, Chart), has patents pending on certain components > of the Sender ID technology it has donated to the IETF's > efforts. Microsoft has repeatedly said that -- even if it is > granted a patent on the technology -- it would "make licenses > available on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms." > But the issue has some in the open source world talking. The drive > in the business community to press ahead with Sender ID comes at a > time when some in the open source community are claiming the > licensing stipulations around Sender ID don't interoperate with the > most popular open source license variant, the General Public License > (define). > In a post to the IETF's MARID (MTA Authorization Records in DNS) > discussion list the chairman of the Apache Software Foundation > (ASF), Greg Stein, called Microsoft's Royalty-Free Sender ID license > agreement a barrier to any ASF project. > http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3402921 > > > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What exactly is the problem with the > Open Source proponents? That *they* did not think of it first? > That Microsoft may get the credit? Why not try *reading* their position paper on the subject. Even you might be able to learn something from it. Do you think there is any problem with an arrangement whereby Microsoft could, in, say 5 years, after "everybody" is using the protocol, _change_ the terms for continuing use of the technology _by_those_CURRENTLY_using_it_ to "if the technology is not embedded in a MicroSoft product, you must pay $100 for each e-mail message processed"? Do you have any doubt that MS _would_ do such a thing if they thought they could get away with it? > It is really a damn shame when these intelligent men and women fight > and squabble among themselves while the rest of the world has to > fight with the spammers. But oh well, most of them probably never > even see spam (save one or two pieces each day which slip past the > myriad of filters used by their secretary to get rid of it), Congratulations PAT, you've just re-proved the definition of USENET. to wit: "Open mouth, insert foot. Echo internationally." The ASF (pache oftware oundation) is almost exclusively a *VOLUNTEER* software development community. 'Secretaries'?? You've _got_ to be kidding! If _you_ are only getting one spam message every few minutes on average, you don't know what a *real* problem is. Contemplate getting 30-50,000 _per_day_ for one mailbox. A million-plus per day across all the accounts on the server. > and those one or two pieces which they do have to view makes them > angry enough to squabble with other professionals about it, but not > so angry that they would even consider for a minute getting off > their own high horses in order to wade through the sewer that the > net has become with the rest of us. Rant, based on delusions that are *not* supported by any actual facts. > Do most of those people even realize how tragic and awful the > problem of spam has become? I don't think so, otherwise they surely > would not be blocking the restoration efforts as much as they do, > would they? Nah, I'm *sure* they don't. That's why 'spamassassin' is one of the '*FREE* for everyone' projects under the ASF umbrella. You _have_ heard of spamassassin, haven't you? In message Fred Goldstein wrote: > Another interesting study, from CipherTrust, has just shown that the > primary users of Sender Policy Framework are (drumroll, please) -- > Spammers! Yes, it's trivial for a spammer to pass an SPF screen. So the > main potential benefit is, I suppose, making phishing a bit harder or > easier for educated users to detect. But as an anti-spam weapon, it's > nearly worthless. Which makes sense, SPF was never built to combat spam in the first place. It was built to combat forgery, and it does that nicely. Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have heard of Spam Assassin. On my (unix-based) account at MIT I use it, and the $SPAMBOX is always full and over loaded. Despite the fact that I have the user-settable point score set very low (1 or 2 qualifies the mail as 'spam') I still manage to wind up with 85-90 percent spam in my mailbox each day, out of *hundreds* of pieces of mail daily. I think I heard that MS was granting the license in prepetuity -- forever -- to groups working to fight spam. But you seem to be saying "no matter what Microsoft says, after five or ten years they will change the terms of the license." I do not think that is so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Telephone Vocabulary -- "Straight Line" Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 09:14:45 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On 3 Sep 2004 18:53:47 -0400, stevekl@panix.com (Steve Kl.) wrote: > I have posted here from time to time over the past many years and have > occasionally asked questions relating to my field -- lexicography. One > of my colleagues, Joan Hall, editor of the Dictionary of American > Regional English knows I have an interest in telephone history, and > asked me the following question: >> Do you know the term "straight line," used to mean a direct telephone >> line rather than a party line? And do you have any ideas where we might >> find citations with the term? > (My family had a party line when I grew up; however, as far as I > recall, the opposite of a party line was a "private line") > Anyhow, if you are aware of the term "straight line" in this use, > please drop me an email, and include what part of the country you > were in when you used this term and your age. > Additionally, if any of you own any old phone books or other > telecommunications materials that use this phrase that DARE can cite > as written evidence, please let me know what the name of the > publication is. I'll pass it on to DARE, and they can contact you if > they need further information. > (For information on the Dictionary of American Regional English, > see http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/dare/dare.html ) We used the term "straight line" in reference to the ringer. A straight line ringer would ring on frequencies of 16 2/3 to about 33 Hz, as opposed to a party line ringer that would only ring on the frequency it was tuned to. For Central Offices, private line ring generator was either was either 20 or 30 Hz. Other frequencies were different, depending on whether the ring scheme was Harmonic or Decimonic. No, I don't remember what party was what, except that party 2 was 50Hz in Harmonic. I suppose I could look it up if it's important. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: Tim@Backhome.org Subject: Re: Telephone Vocabulary -- "Straight Line" Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:51:26 -0700 Organization: Cox Communications Just a guess, but a straight line sounds more like one that is not switched, like the old hot lines and alarm McCollough loops. Steve Kl. wrote: > I have posted here from time to time over the past many years and have > occasionally asked questions relating to my field -- lexicography. One > of my colleagues, Joan Hall, editor of the Dictionary of American > Regional English knows I have an interest in telephone history, and > asked me the following question: >> Do you know the term "straight line," used to mean a direct telephone >> line rather than a party line? And do you have any ideas where we might >> find citations with the term? > (My family had a party line when I grew up; however, as far as I > recall, the opposite of a party line was a "private line") > Anyhow, if you are aware of the term "straight line" in this use, > please drop me an email, and include what part of the country you > were in when you used this term and your age. > Additionally, if any of you own any old phone books or other > telecommunications materials that use this phrase that DARE can cite > as written evidence, please let me know what the name of the > publication is. I'll pass it on to DARE, and they can contact you if > they need further information. > (For information on the Dictionary of American Regional English, > see http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/dare/dare.html ) > Thank you! > Steve Kleinedler > Senior Editor > American Heritage Dictionary > -- Steve Kl. ------------------------------ 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. 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 #414 ******************************