From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 26 18:29:51 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i8QMTph13276; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:29:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:29:51 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200409262229.i8QMTph13276@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 #449 TELECOM Digest Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:30:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 449 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson EPIC Alert 11.18 (Monty Solomon) EFFector 17.35: Govt. to Demand Airline Records (Monty Solomon) HBO: The Tough Act TV Tries to Follow (Monty Solomon) Scam Involving Cashier's Checks is Gaining Steam (Monty Solomon) Verizon Wireless to Expand Data Service (Monty Solomon) Re: Telemarketing, was re: Out of Area Calls (Fred Atkinson) Re: Out of Area Calls (John Levine) Magic Telemarketer Bullets, was Re: Out of Area Calls (John Levine) Voicepulse Disconnects Remote Computers When Phone Used (Chris Eilersen) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (Lisa Hancock) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (jdj) Re: Need Advice Regarding Communications / Networking Problem (jmeissen) Re: Need Advice Regarding Communications / Networking Problem (Jonathan) Re: Movies/Documentaries That Feature Crossbar, Panel, or SxS? (jdj) Help Wanted With Wireless 802.11 Router Range (Patrick Townson) 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, 25 Sep 2004 22:52:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC Alert 11.18 ======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 11.18 September 24, 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.18.html ====================================================================== Table of Contents ====================================================================== [1] Poland Conference Examines Privacy in a New Era [2] Gov't Details Secure Flight; Documents Show CAPPS II Mission Creep [3] Wireless Privacy Bill Moves Forward in Senate [4] EPIC Challenges Dismissal of Privacy Claim Against Northwest [5] EPIC Testifies on Voting and Privacy [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.18.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:52:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.35: Govt. to Demand Airline Records EFFector Vol. 17, No. 35 September 24, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 308th Issue of EFFector: * Government to Demand Passenger Records for "Secure Flight" * A New Hope for Patent Reform: Consumer and Public Interest Groups Ask Court to Take a Narrow View of Ambiguous Patents * EFF Releases Quick Reference Guides to E-voting Machines * Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 214: "Pen Register and Trap and Trace Authority Under FISA" * EcoPhone: Recycle Your Cell Phone, Support EFF! * BayFF Event - "E-voting and the Upcoming Election," Tuesday, October 12 * MiniLinks (16): WIPO 2.0 * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/35.php ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:35:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: HBO: The Tough Act TV Tries to Follow By BERNARD WEINRAUB Despite this cable channel's extraordinary dominance at the Emmy Awards on Sunday night, HBO executives insist that the best is yet to come. Rival television executives, perhaps thinking wishfully, say they are not so sure. They note that HBO's most prestigious and popular drama series, "The Sopranos," will not be eligible for Emmys next year because it will not be shown again until 2006. HBO's most popular comedy series, "Sex and the City," has completed its run. And other cable channels, notably Showtime, have begun to play on the same creative turf as HBO.But Chris Albrecht, HBO's chairman and chief executive, said he was confident that the channel would maintain its leadership. "Everyone is always saying, 'What next?' " Mr. Albrecht said in an interview. "We've been answering that 'what next?' question for a long time." On Sunday HBO won 32 Emmys, far more than any other nominee, and almost double the number it won last year. "Angels in America," the Pulitzer Prize-winning drama by Tony Kushner, which HBO turned into a two-part mini-series, won 11 Emmys, breaking the mini-series record (nine) set by ABC's "Roots" in 1977. At the same time, after consistently losing to NBC's "West Wing," "The Sopranos" finally won as best drama series. Among the HBO series returning this season are the acclaimed dramas "The Wire" and "Six Feet Under," as well as "Deadwood" and "Carnivale," which have had mixed receptions. Its comedies include "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and "Entourage." None of these shows have yet gained the audiences of "The Sopranos" or "Sex and the City." http://nytimes.com/2004/09/25/arts/television/25hbo.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:45:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Scam Involving Cashier's Checks is Gaining Steam By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff Abigail R. Safran was taken for more than $5,000 earlier this year in what appears to be a burgeoning scam involving counterfeit cashier's checks, but the Northeastern University student is balking at paying back the money because she says her bank bears some of the responsibility. Safran deposited a $7,230 cashier's check at FleetBoston last June and the next day withdrew more than $5,100 and wired it to what she thought was a company preparing to ship furniture to a woman who was going to sublet her apartment. It turned out to be an elaborate scam. The woman never showed up to sublet the apartment, the money disappeared, the cashier's check turned out to be counterfeit, and Fleet is now demanding that Safran reimburse it for the $5,100 she withdrew from her account. "At this point, they can totally ruin my credit," Safran said. "I honestly don't know what to do." Safran is the latest victim in a scam that seems to be snowballing in size and sophistication. Banking industry officials say millions of dollars are being sucked out of consumer bank accounts and out of the country by scam artists operating largely from abroad. http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/09/26/scam_involving_cashiers_checks_is_gaining_steam/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:07:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon Wireless to Expand Data Service BroadbandAccess plan not expected in Hub till winter By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff Verizon Wireless will expand its fastest wireless data service to New York City and 13 other markets Monday, but Boston will probably have to wait until winter. Verizon's BroadbandAccess service, which it markets only to businesses, not individuals, offers Internet downloads at average speeds of 300 to 500 kilobits per second, and occasional peak speeds over 1 megabit, for $80 a month. The average download rates are about 10 times as fast as a dial-up modem. Subscribers whose employer has signed up for the service use an antenna card inserted in their laptop computer for access, which includes secured access to workplace e-mail and stored documents. When the faster service is unavailable, subscribers automatically revert to coverage from Verizon's NationalAccess service, which operates at 60 to 80 kilobits per second nationwide. So far, Verizon has launched the faster broadband version in Washington, D.C., San Diego, and Las Vegas. Starting Monday, it will add Atlanta; Austin, Texas; Baltimore; Kansas City; Los Angeles; Miami; Milwaukee; Philadelphia; and Tampa and West Palm Beach, Fla. The New York service zone extends from Central Park to Wall Street and several communities around Newark, including the Newark airport. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2004/09/23/verizon_wireless_to_expand_data_service/ ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: Telemarketing, was Re: Out of Area Calls Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:21:22 -0400 His problem is that he is not saying the magic sentence: 'Put me on your do not call list'. It's not taking you off their list that you should be requesting. You should be asking to be added to the list of numbers they are not supposed to call. The above sentence is industry recognized. There is not ambiguity if you say it to them. They know what they are supposed to do. But if you just tell them to stop calling, they don't do anything about it. Also, have you listed your number in the National Do Not Call Registry? If not, do so. Three months from now you should have them stop calling. If they persist beyond that, file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Fred ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 2004 19:29:05 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Out of Area Calls Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > What does a phone being a COCOT (privately owned payphone) have to do > with caller ID or lack thereof? My impression is COCOT calls are still often splashed (reoriginated from someplace other than the location of the phone) by junky equipment that doesn't provide CLID. I get a few out of area calls, none from telemarketers, but I haven't kept track of where they're from. Calls from outside North America mostly show up as out of area. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com, Mayor, http://johnlevine.com, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 2004 19:55:10 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Magic Telemarketer Bullets, was Re: Out of Area Calls Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Said it early on, will say it again: The intelligent and effective way > to handle telemarketing would have been legislation requiring that any > and all telemarketing calls be made using Caller ID with a distinctive > and national standardized Area Code, e.g. 311 or something similar, so > that recipients who didn't want to receive such calls could easily > filter and reject them. > Would have been cheap and easy to implement (for callers and > recipients); Well, let's see. Cost to telcos to implement the overlay area code in your plan, several billion dollars. (Every tandem switch in the country would have to be upgraded, since there's no such thing as a national overlay now.) Cost of network upgrades in the current system, zero, since none are needed. Service cost to users who'd have to buy CLID service to hide from telemarketers but don't want CLID otherwise, three bucks a month or so times something like 30 million people who don't have CLID now, about a billion dollars a year. Monthly cost of current system, zero since no special service is required. Hardware cost to phone users who'd all have to buy special CLID boxes that recognize the magic area code and don't ring, say $20 each times a hundred million phone lines, again several billion dollars. Hardware cost of the current scheme, zero, since no new hardware is needed. Likelihood that telemarketers who disobey the current law would all obediently sign up for special service with their 311 "bad neigborhood" area code, about zero. Get real. In case you haven't been paying attention, the cost of the do-not-call list is paid for by telemarketers in subscription fees. Cost to recipients, zero. Your scheme only strikes me as "cheap and easy" in comparison to fighting a land war in Asia. R's, John PS: Every time you make this silly proposal, someone writes in to point out how impractical it is. In the future, could you save us all time by sending the response along with the proposal? ------------------------------ From: Chris Eilersen Subject: Voicepulse Disconnects Remote Computers When Phone is Used Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:04:27 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com I have a Linksys wireless-G router which is connected to one main computer. I have 3 other computers in remote locations throughout my house which with NIC cards and I share my internet bandwidth with these machines through the Linksys router. I recently got Voicepulse phone service and it works fine except I just noticed that my network connection on the remote machines only is lost when I use the phone. (I have a GE 2.4 GHz phone with a cordless "satellite" handset). If I use the cordless handset, the connection returns when I hang up. If I use the corded phone, I have to reboot the remote machines and wait until the connection is restored. The computer that is directly connected to the router is unaffected when using the phone. Does anyone have any ideas why this is happening and what I can do to fix it? Thanks. Chris Eilersen eilerc51@chartermi.net ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains Date: 25 Sep 2004 19:39:25 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com jdj wrote in message news:: > A BART cop ordered riders to turn off their FRS radios while in the > station and on trains to keep the trains from crashing. Would you have a newspaper or other citation for this? We need a lot more information to reach any conclusion and what and why happened. > This reminds me when they ordered people to turn off receivers or face > jail years earlier. At the time they claimed their own radios were > "special" and so could be used on trains. I later verified with their > own radio shop that there was nothing special about their radios. I have never heard of BART placing any restrictions on radios, other then perhaps asking people with radios to keep them off to avoid disturbing other passengers. Before lightweight "Walkman" headphones came out. some rude people carried "boom boxes" which were big portable radios with big speakers, and played them very loudly. Years ago airlines wouldn't allow psgrs to use their transistor radios onboard because it interfered with their navigation equipment. I never understood how just listening to a radio could interfere with other equipment, but this was a common standard restriction. I don't know if it still applies today. As to the claim BART radios were "special" years ago, there is definitely truth to that. BART's original train control system had many problems, including a train that ignored a stop signal and flew off at a terminal into the parking lot. Whether silencing radio receivers would make a difference I don't know, but it is a fact BART had serious system problems and may have been very sensitive about any perceived risk of interference, justified or not. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Security and police are often times > very heavy-handed, often times just to make up for their personal > feelings of inadequacy. It is important to distinguish invidual officer actions from department policy, and also take into account the circumstances present. When someone is bearing safety responsibility, it is natural to err on the side of caution; and people without any of that responsibility might not understand that reasoning. Also, like it or not, some citizen complaints against cops are simply unfounded. In my old city cops had a bad reputation among young people and I tried to research it out. It turned out nobody personally had a bad experience, indeed several people had been helped by cops going out of their way for them. It was that everybody "had heard" something. Lots of rumors, no facts. I have personally seen incidents where cops took a lot of abuse yet were blamed for the incident. Cops and prosecutors are human and do make mistakes, but it is important to get all the facts before reaching a conclusion. > Have you ever been told *as a passenger, not > the driver* in an automobile not to use your cellular phone because > it 'might distract the driver'? Never heard that. But I've heard to turn off cell phones while refueling the car, and I wonder if that's really necessary. > I can sort of see why they do not want > drivers to use cell phones in cars, but before they enforce that too > strongly, they should look at their own radio use in the car: driving > a hundred miles an hour chasing someone, while talking on the radio, > yet a citizen is not supposed to obey traffic rules and speed limits > and talk on a cell phone? PAT] You have a point, cops driving at high speed do get into some nasty accidents, although many times it's the person their chasing that plows into an innocent person, or a motorist ignores the siren and flashing lights and drives out in front of the cop (which I've seen). I will note that cops get a very vigorous driver training program and their radio calls are generally quite terse and to the point. In contrast, I've seen uncountable cell phone drivers get so distracted as to just stop dead in the middle of an intersection or street, to concentrate on the conversation, get in the wrong lane and be oblvious about it, etc. If someone's cell phone call was simply "I'm running late, be there in 15 minutes" it wouldn't be so bad, but people have extended detailed conversations which distracts them from their driving. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are correct that police and prose- cutors are human beings (or human beans as Mayor Daley once said after the nasty riots in April, 1968 when MLK was assassinated.) And, people do get very angry when they discover their supermen and super- heros are just as human as they themselves. That being said, however, because police officers are routinely given so much more trust than the rest of us, the trade off should be they are *very careful, almost exceptionally well behaved and honest* -- at least that's how it should be. Police officers are often times fond of saying, 'we have our civil liberties and free speech rights also.' Yes, they do, but IMO some of their 'free speech rights' and 'civil rights' should be an agreed on trade off in exchange for their jobs. An officer who lies or otherwise misbehaves should be dealt with very sternly, not just a slap on the wrist as they often times get if they get caught. I mean, if you cannot depend on *them* to tell the truth and behave themselves, then exactly who are we supposed to be able to trust? PAT] ------------------------------ From: jdj Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:33:02 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Security and police are often times very > heavy-handed, often times just to make up for their personal feelings of > inadequacy. Have you ever been told *as a passenger, not the driver* in > an automobile not to use your cellular phone because it 'might distract > the driver'? I can sort of see why they do not want drivers to use cell > phones in cars, but before they enforce that too strongly, they should > look at their own radio use in the car: driving a hundred miles an hour > chasing someone, while talking on the radio, yet a citizen is not > supposed to obey traffic rules and speed limits and talk on a cell > phone? PAT] A lot of people in law enforcement are truly ignorant of everything they did not pick up in the academy or on TV. That is why some agencies require applicants to hold at least a 2-year degree. Then we have other agencies like the Secret Service running around spreading their own wrong opinion of the law. It seems as if they have learned little from the Steve Jackson Games fiasco. It was once illegal for any driver in California to do anything that was not directly related to operating a motor vehicle, which included tuning the radio, adjusting the heater, rolling down the window, scratching one's nose, etc., adn. Now it is illegal for everyone except law enforcement. But operating a radio during a pursuit is not as dangerous as it seems. It has a lot to do with training on keeping from focusing on any one thing. And copcars are generally very easy to drive even in a pursuit, unlike many others. MDT's and PC's are a greater distraction and have led to fatal crashes. chitchatting on MDT's makes cops look like they're driving drunk. It seems that a lot of people concentrate so much on their phone call that they cannot hear anything else or even see. It seems a few people actually go blind when on the phone, unable to talk and drive at the same time. Perhaps because the sound quality is so poor or because the sound is in one ear and they're concentrating on that voice in their ear and excluding ambient noise. On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:08:31 +0000, Mark Atwood wrote: > Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) writes: >>> Are there any hams who have boarded planes with radios? >> I've never had any problem boarding planes with my handheld amateur >> radios. I've done it many times. > I noticed in Alaska Air's safety brochure that, along with AM/FM radios > and cellphones, they ban in inflight operation of GPS receivers. > Does anyone have any idea why? It certainly doesnt radiate any more > than a PDA or laptop does. IIRC, a personal GPS should not operate above a specified speed and altitude. It's supposed to be a DOD restriction. I've seen it in product specs but I have not had occasion to test it. It is probably unsafe to operate any device, particularly in a fly-by-wire craft. Electronics tend to be too vulnerable. Most radios have far lower and generally far narrower emissions than do PC's. So I think the rules prohibiting receivers while allowing PC's arise more from business considerations and some degree of technical ignorance. An airline that does not allow inflight PC use is going to lose customers to one that does. It is "acceptable risk" if it means staying in business. ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Re: Need Advice Regarding Communications / Networking Problem Date: 26 Sep 2004 00:34:06 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com In article , Tony P. wrote: > In article , siegman@stanford.edu > says: >>> However, the company does have an office about 18 km away (11 miles) >>> at which they have high speed internet service. >> If there is a clear line of sight from the office to the compound, >> there are commercially available free-space optical or laser >> communications links that could easily bring broadband to the compound > 11 miles is well within the range of 802.11 devices if you use a well > tuned Yagi antenna. > Uses the same LOS that laser does. If cost is an issue, there are lots of inexpensive 802.11 approaches. Check this out... http://www.turnpoint.net/wireless/has.html A quote from one of the sites referenced: "Over a clear line of sight, with short antenna cable runs, a 12db to 12db can-to-can shot should be able to carry an 11Mbps link well over ten miles." John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com ------------------------------ From: jfklein@shaw.ca (Jonathan) Subject: Re: Need Advice Regarding Communications / Networking Problem Date: 26 Sep 2004 08:54:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com AES/newspost wrote in message news:: > In article , jfklein@shaw.ca > (Jonathan) wrote: >> Here is the situation. I work for most of the year in a third world >> country. When I am here I stay in a small compound consisting of two >> buildings each with 35 rooms (ie: 70 rooms total. They are like two >> small hotels). The buildings are separated by about 15 meters. There >> are about 30 to 40 people here at any given time. >> We have no internet access at the compound. There are only two >> telephone lines coming into the compound and the company which runs >> the compound is unwilling to rent more lines and a switchboard system >> for the rooms due to the high expense. Therefore, dial-up internet >> access is not a possibility. >> However, the company does have an office about 18 km away (11 miles) >> at which they have high speed internet service. > If there is a clear line of sight from the office to the compound, > there are commercially available free-space optical or laser > communications links that could easily bring broadband to the compound > -- this would be a classic situation for using this technology, in > fact. > One of the major companies in the field is TeraBeam: > > A Google search should bring up numerous others (and there's some funny > business about an unrelated Terabeam company that has the domain name > www.terabeam.com). > Sorry, don't know prices -- not cheap, probably, but not impossibly > expensive either. Maybe you could pluck some heartstrings about the > needs of your group, or the merits of putting in a demo unit for other > potential sales in the country. > Capacities are in the 100 MB range or higher. I believe there are no geographic obstructions (ie: hills) between the office and the compound. However, there is a lot of haze and find sand in the air. Because of this I don't think it is possible to see one location when at the other. I am guessing the laser won't work in these conditions. You might be wondering where this is. It is in Libya. The office is in an office building in downtown Tripoli and the compound is about 18km east along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. It might very well be a good opportunity for a communications company to make some connections here (accidental pun). The US and EU sanctions were just dropped against Libya so the country could really see a flood of development in the next 5 to 10 years. There is a huge need for development here also, as US sanctions lasted almost 20 eyars and EU sanctions 10 years. They have basically missed the internet revolution. -Jonathan ------------------------------ From: jdj Subject: Re: Movies/Documentaries That Feature Crossbar, Panel, or SxS? Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:26:30 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:14:25 -0700, vu huong wrote: > Hello, > Does anyone know of any movies or documentaries that show footage of old > telco technology? "Three Days of the Condor" with Robert Redford. The Condor enters a switch to call up the CIA and diddles the switch to keep his call from being traced. The CIA scene shows automated tracing in use. There are some espionage-thriller B movies from the 1950's with footage where the G-men enter switches and get the techs to trace calls. Nothing but loud background music can be heard in those scenes. ------------------------------ From: Patrick Townson Subject: Help Needed With Wireless NetGear 802.11b Device Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:00:00 CDT I have a four port Netgear Router with wireless 802.11 capability. My problem is the range of the wireless part seems rather skimpy. I can get out in my (relatively small) back yard and use the computer, but a few steps away and it konks out. My thinking is when I am standing right on top of the main unit, I should easily get signal strength of about one hundred percent or close to it. But I get a few feet away and the signal strength drops to 70-75 percent. I get out the door and into the back yard (but by the door, maybe 20 feet away and my signal strengh is 50 percent at best. The chair and table where I like to sit in the backyard is all of maybe 50 feet from the base, yet signal strength is almost non-existent. It sometimes comes in okay, other times not. This unit has a little 'rubber ducky' two inch long antenna on the back of the router, with no place to attach the 'pringles can' type solution at all. If I pull out the rubber ducky thing I see a thin wire running up into it from the base. I was hoping there might be a way to 'peak up' the output power a little bit, maybe with a diode inside it, all the way up to some fractional part of a watt *of course without blowing up the unit*. Or is there any way I can make it sort of directional using the rubber ducky thing? I don't care if it gets ten miles down the road or not, but I would like to be able to get around my house entirely or in the front yard (impossible now.) Any suggestions or ideas? PAT ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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 #449 ******************************