From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 17 20:27:49 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i9I0Rna14977; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:27:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:27:49 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410180027.i9I0Rna14977@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 #493 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:28:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 493 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Identity Badge Worn Under Skin Approved for Use in Health Care (Solomon) Let the Caller Beware / Homework Here Pays in Wireless Service (Solomon) The Limits of SpongeBob SquarePants/One Canadian's Wireless (M Solomon) Radio Questions (Lelannie) Re: Sinclair's Disgrace (Jim Haynes) Re: Sinclair's Disgrace (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) AMTRAK (was Re: Last Laugh! Nice Place to Work!) (John McHarry) A Problem With VOIP and Phone Books (Ed Clarke) VOIP2 Scam Warning (Alex Wright) Re: Privacy Eroding, Bit by Byte (Jack Decker) 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: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:53:23 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Identity Badge Worn Under Skin Approved for Use in Health Care By BARNABY J. FEDER and TOM ZELLER Jr. The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the way for a Florida company to market implantable chips that would provide easy access to individual medical records. The approval, which the company announced yesterday, is expected to bring to public attention a simmering debate over a technology that has evoked Orwellian overtones for privacy advocates and fueled fears of widespread tracking of people with implanted radio frequency tags, even though that ability does not yet exist. Applied Digital Solutions , based in Delray Beach, Fla., said that its devices, which it calls VeriChips, could save lives and limit injuries from errors in medical treatment. And it expressed hope that such medical uses would accelerate the acceptance of under-the-skin ID chips as security and access-control devices. Scott R. Silverman, chairman and chief executive of Applied Digital, said the F.D.A.'s approval should help the company overcome "the creepy factor" of implanted tags and the suspicion it has stirred. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/14/technology/14implant.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Readers should also note an essay on privacy and 'marks of the beast' near the end of this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:45:35 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Let the caller beware / Homework here pays in wireless service THE SENSIBLE TRAVELER By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff | October 10, 2004 Nancy of Winchester rented a wireless phone in a rush last summer before dashing off to Europe to work on a one-month research grant. Now, she's paying the price. Nancy ended up with a bill for more than $900, more than she paid for her airplane ticket or her rail pass, and several hundred dollars more than she expected to pay. Embarrassed by the size of the bill, she asked that her last name not be used. "Others should know ahead of time what I have learned from a very expensive mistake," Nancy said. "It's the old caveat emptor story, once again." The key for travelers who want to take the convenience of a wireless phone abroad with them is doing your homework before you go. Do you plan to make a lot of calls or just a few? Will you be calling locally inside one country, or traveling widely and making a lot of international calls? Is convenience more important than cost? http://www.boston.com/travel/articles/2004/10/10/let_the_caller_beware/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:50:33 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Limits of SpongeBob SquarePants / One Canadian's Wireless One Canadian's Wireless Neighborhood Network Could Someday Serve Us All By Robert X. Cringely Like many of us, Andrew Greig put a WiFi access point in his house so he could share his broadband Internet connection. But like hardly any of us, Andrew uses his WiFi network for Internet, television, and telephone. He cancelled his telephone line and cable TV service. Then his neighbors dropped-by, saw what Andrew had done, and they cancelled their telephone and cable TV services, too, many of them without having a wired broadband connection of their own. They get their service from Andrew, who added an inline amplifier and put a better antenna in his attic. Now most of Andrew's neighborhood is watching digital TV with full PVR capability, making unmetered VoIP telephone calls, and downloading data at prodigious rates thanks to shared bandwidth. Is this the future of home communications and entertainment? It could be, five years from now, if Andrew Greig has anything to say about it. The advantage Andrew Greig has over most of the rest of us is that he works for Starnix, an international Open Source software and services consultancy in Toronto, Canada. Starnix, which deals with huge corporate clients, has the brain power to get running what I described above. And it goes much further than that simple introduction. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040930.html ------------------------------ From: Lelannie55@yahoo.com (Lelannie) Subject: Radio Questions Date: 16 Oct 2004 22:31:47 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, I am very interested in the history of radio and I was wondering if anyone knew where the first radio station in the United States was located? Thank you so much for all your help with my question. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe it was in Pittsburgh, PA in 1921. Unlike the rules today, where 'W' is east of the Mississippi River, and 'K' stations are to the west of the same river, the station in Pittsburgh was K-something, but I have forgotten its call sign for sure. Another early station, perhaps the second, was WBBM in Chicago, which began as a ham/shortwave station several years earlier in Joliet, Illinois, but it became an *official* broadcasting station when its owner got his license from the Federal Radio Commission (the precursor to the present time FCC) to use the call sign WBBM and moved his operation to the Broadmoor Hotel on the north side of Chicago, also in 1921. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sinclair's Disgrace Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:26:39 GMT And as Molly Ivins has pointed out, Sinclair has been bending the rules about multiple-station ownership by "selling" some stations to its employees and their relatives. jhhaynes at earthlink dot net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:50:37 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Sinclair's Disgrace Organization: Excelsior Computer Services >> The right-wing network's decision to force its affiliates >> to air anti-Kerry propaganda is one of the lowest moments >> in the history of television news, says the former head >> of the FCC. > Just to clarify: Sinclair didn't "order its affiliates" to clear the Bringing this back to telecom somewhat, has anyone looked at how much TV (Sinclair, NBC, the live debates, etc.) has influenced this election compared to internet sites (whoisbush.com, chat groups, etc.)? -Joel ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: AMTRAK (was Re: Last, Sad Laugh! A Nice Place to Work!) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:10:58 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Lisa Hancock wrote: > For some reason Amtrak, which takes up a miniscule part of the Federal > budget (1% of DOT, let alone the whole fed), seems to be the target of > deficit haters and the "reform govt" movements. Yet, they ignore > abuses like the aviation industry. > Both sides of the political aisle have their pet projects and their > pet dislikes. Amtrak happens to fall through the cracks. IMHO, solid > funding of Amtrak would take some of the overcrowding off highways and > airports (on short haul routes, obviously) saving the taxpayer money. It is also the easiest way to move up and down the Eastern Corridor. I took the Metroliner between DC and Newark a couple times shortly after 9/11. For that distance it is about as fast, and less expensive, than flying, if you are going to the city center. A day trip is easily doable, if a bit of a long day. It strikes me that one of our biggest voluntary economic disadvantages is our failure to maintain and improve a strong rail infrastructure. ------------------------------ From: Ed Clarke Subject: A Problem With VOIP and Phone Books Date: 16 Oct 2004 10:34:03 GMT Organization: Ciliophora Associates, Inc. Reply-To: clarke@cilia.org If you read the fine print in your contract, you'll discover that the phone numbers that you are given (if you can't port your old number over) are not listed in the "telephone book". This means that you've gone to an "unlisted" number. I wonder how long the "phone company" will keep your old number in their own very expensive book? Why should they? It's not their customer, is it? I just finished looking at several local guide or mini-phonebook websites; all the ones that I've looked at (411.com, worldpages.com, whitepages.com) refuse to let you add or edit a residential listing. In this age of information overload, it's disconcerting to find that information you want to publish is no longer available. Aren't cell phones in the same situation? I don't know of a cell phone directory that's equivalent to the phone book. And what's the situation when you move to an alternate provider? My wife moved us from Verizon to Excel for the home phone; is there a reason to expect our home phone number to remain in the Verizon book? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The reason it should remain in the Verizon phone book is because one of the things about divestiture and the rules everyone has to play by now is that the telephone company of record in your community (usually a former Bell or GTE company) has the responsibility of maintaining the directory listings. Here in Independence for example, Southwestern Bell prints listings for Prairie Stream in *its* directory. PAT] ------------------------------ From: alexwright321@altavista.com (alex wright) Subject: VOIP2 Scam Warning Date: 16 Oct 2004 03:35:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I signed up for service with this company. They advertised a "Small World" plan with unlimited world-wide calling for $49.99 residential. If you go to their main website now. They removed the word "unlimited" from their main page for the Small World plan. They also impose a cap on the minutes which they didn't have before. Here's an email I got from them, because I was calling too much. avoid http://www.voip2.com SmallWorld is designed for users who fall within the industry standards for residential usage of 750-1000 average minutes per month. SmallWorld allows costumers to use a percentage of their usage to stay in touch with friends and family overseas without worrying about additional per minute rates. These percentages vary based on the countries called most frequently. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:31:33 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Privacy Eroding, Bit by Byte [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please see another message in this issue of the Digest from Monty Solomon discussing a company which makes 'body chip implants' for doctors and government agencies. PAT] Pat, please conceal my e-mail address as usual. Content advisory: There are a few quotes from the Bible in this message, specifically the prophetic book of Revelation. If that really offends you, please feel free to skip this message. I use them only to make a point, as you will see if you read on, but I know some people feel it is an affront to them to be exposed to anything from the Bible, so I'm just placing this warning up front. On 15 Oct 2004 16:07:38 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: > The flip side is that collecting information makes it possible to > protect business from fraud and allow them to offer many conveniences > which consumers want. I doubt most of us would want to give up our > credit cards and go back to paying cash or using traveler's checks, or > wait weeks just to get a car loan approved. Or, give up ATM cards > useable anywhere or automatic toll collection for their cars (like > EZPASS). And of course doing business over the web. A long time ago, in the early days of the public Internet, I used to have a signature line that read, "What were once options are now mandates!" What I meant by that is that the government (or, sometimes, a business) will introduce, for example, some new technology or service in a way that seems totally innocent and benign, perhaps even beneficial, but always totally optional. The problem is that at some point these "optional" things suddenly become mandatory, usually at some cost to our liberty, our pocketbooks, or both. Insurance is a good example. There was a time that if you were willing to assume your own risk, you were perfectly free to do so. But then it was decided that there was some benefit to society to forcing people to buy certain types of insurance, whether they wanted it or not. Of course, you can bet that it was the insurance company lobbyists that helped get some of the mandatory insurance laws passed. Now, I can assure you that there are people who do not wish to use credit cards, and are perfectly happy to use cash or checks. And many people (especially older people) want nothing to do with ATM's, and prefer to deal with a live bank teller. Nevertheless, it appears that these things are being gradually forced upon us. Maybe "forced" seems like too strong a word, but it's becoming less and less convenient to function in society without these things. Of course, we tend to forget that all this convenience comes at a price, as one way or another the people who implement these schemes get a small cut out of every transaction. > Information users are not only big corporations, but also small > businesses, who legitimately need to know the credit worthiness of > customers _before_ they risk their limited resources. Otherwise > they'd have to have payment in advance which isn't a good idea. Um, why not? Where did we ever get the idea that it's a good idea to spend money we don't yet have? Sure, you can make an exception for major purchases such as a house, or possibly a car, but I have always personally felt it's generally a good idea to have the money before you spend it! And I think that up until the 1950's or so, most everyone felt that way. Then along came the pushers of credit cards, and somehow we got to a point where it was just considered normal to live beyond our means, while paying the credit card companies usurious interest rates. >> Now comes the news that federal regulators on Wednesday approved the >> injection of microchips under the skin, enabling physicians with the >> right gear to know who someone is without having to ask. > Yes that is a privacy concern, but there are also strong benefits. > Having been an emergency room patient myself, I would've appreciated > the ability for the doctors to get my history without me struggling to > answer questions while I was ill. More significantly, my mother who > had memory problems and was great at tearing off bracelets and the > like, could have benefited from such a device. Here's my question -- will I have the right to refuse implantation of such devices, or will someone else decide that I have no choice in the matter and forcibly inject these things into me? Bear in mind that we already force schoolchildren to be injected with various vaccines, which are helpful for many but still cause death to some small proportion of children who receive these vaccines. Currently it's a very small proportion, but it's still a risk some parents don't wish to take, but the law forces them to do it anyway. Why would I object to such a "helpful" device? I refer you to the book of Revelation, a prophetic book of the Bible: "Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. ... He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666." Note the mark on the right hand or forehead, and that no one can buy or sell unless they have this mark. That indicates that the "mark" must be some kind of data storage device; at the very least, some sort of identification device. I would guess that it would normally be placed on the right hand because that's the easiest for most people to wave over a scanner, but someone who is missing that particular limb may be required to take it in the forehead instead (since that can usually be easily scanned also, and let's face it, no one who is alive is without a head)! What I find interesting is that when one of the companies that make these things first brought these devices out, they used the name "Digital Angel" to refer to them -- see this story from 2000, and note especially the comment by Dr. Zhou near the bottom of the story: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17705 Now, in a subsequent chapter in Revelation, we find this: "A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: 'If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.'" Traditional Christian teaching (at least among those churches that recognize the book of Revelation as true prophecy) is that anyone who takes the "mark of the beast" is eternally doomed. Now, I don't know if this sort of implant really is the "mark of the beast" or perhaps some sort of precursor to it, or if the "mark" is something else entirely. But all the same, I'm not real comfortable with having that sort of technology implanted in my body, and I hope that I will always have the right to refuse it and that no one will forcibly implant one in me, or do it when I'm unconscious or otherwise unable to object. I would imagine that many Bible believers are going to have the same discomfort with these devices. Now, it's not my intent to start a theological discussion -- I realize that many people won't share my beliefs (and, indeed, some of my beliefs have changed considerably in the past few years). I'm certainly not going to argue how literally we should take the descriptions in Revelation. All I'm saying is that just as people with certain religious convictions are exempted from going to war, I believe those who object to these implants (and particularly those who object because of their religious beliefs) should have their wishes honored. Would you force someone to take one of these chips, if they sincerely believe that by doing so, they might be eternally damned? Whether you hold that belief or not isn't relevant -- if people have the right to hold their own beliefs and to have those beliefs respected, then a person who believes that taking an implant is wrong should have that belief respected. Since I have gone this far, I might as well add that some people have postulated that one reason that taking the "mark of the beast" will be such a bad thing is that it will somehow actively interfere with our transition to the next plane of existence -- Revelation states it this way: "I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." It appears that what is being said here is that those who do not receive the mark, even though they are beheaded, will somehow come back to life and live without further experiencing death. But for whatever reason, taking the mark will make this resurrection impossible. In the past, some churches have taught that this is a punishment from God for not taking the mark, but lately I've heard more theorizing that the mark itself will somehow actively interfere with that transition. That, of course, would be impossible if the mark were just a mark, but perhaps quite possible if the mark were some sort of technology that in some way blocks or impedes some natural process that will take place at the time that the Bible refers to as the "first resurrection" (or what some others have postulated will be some sort of dimensional shift, but that's not my theory so I'll not comment further on that). Again, I realize that some will pooh-pooh all this as total nonsense, but I am just trying to show that some people may have what in their own minds are very valid reasons to not want such implants, despite any supposedly beneficial effects they may have. I, for one, would not want a doctor to have the information available to save my life if it means I will lose my eternal soul. I'm not saying that is definitely the case; so far nothing has come along (that I'm aware of) to tie the current crop of implants to the "mark" described in Revelation, and perhaps nothing ever will. But even if that is true, maybe we are being prepared to accept these implants, and when the real "mark" come along, it will seem like just another implant to most people, and those who choose to refuse it will be thought of as crazy, since they may have already accepted the "beneficial" implants. I really, truly hope that the day will never come when they start requiring people to take such implants, whether they want them or not. With my present beliefs, I would NOT want one, even if having one would somehow save my life. And I think you are going to find that a significant number of people feel as strongly about that as I do, or even moreso. Would you believe that not two hours after sending this message that (among other things) discussed implants (and their possible relevance to the Biblical "mark of the beast"), I came across the following article, which is the first time I've actually heard of such an implant being specifically placed for the purpose of facilitating commerce: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3697940.stm Barcelona clubbers get chipped BBC Science producer Simon Morton goes clubbing in Barcelona with a microchip implanted in his arm to pay for drinks. Simon Morton gets his microchip Having the chip inserted was a breeze Imagine having a glass capsule measuring 1.3mm by 1mm, about the size of a large grain of rice injected under your skin. Implanting microchips that emit a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) into animals has been common practice in many countries around the world, with some looking to make it a legal requirement for domestic pet owners. The idea of having my very own microchip implanted in my body appealed. I have always been an early adopter, so why not. [Jack Decker comment: I fear this is the attitude many will take on these things, and that such people will view those who object on religious grounds as nuts, or "potential terrorists", or worse.] Last week I headed for the bright lights of the Catalan city of Barcelona to enter the exclusive VIP Baja Beach Club. The night club offers its VIP clients the opportunity to have a syringe-injected microchip implanted in their upper arms that not only gives them special access to VIP lounges, but also acts as a debit account from which they can pay for drinks. This sort of thing is handy for a beach club where bikinis and board shorts are the uniform and carrying a wallet or purse is really not practical. [ ... snip ...] The chip is made of glass and is inert so there is no risk of it reacting with my body. It sits dormant under the skin sending out a very low range radio frequency so it will not set off airport security systems. The chip responds to a signal when a scanner is held near it and supplies its own unique ID number. The number can then be linked to a database that is linked to other data, at the Baja beach club it make charges to a customers account. [End of excerpts. So, there you have it -- a implant that is used for facilitating buying and selling. Totally optional now, and in fact portrayed as desirable, at least for patrons of that club. But will it always be optional, and will it always be just a dormant device that simply provides an ID number when scanned?] Full story at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3697940.stm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Immaterial to the discussion perhaps, but here in Independence, a professor at the college has, for a few years now, conducted an on-going discussion of the contents of the book of the Bible called 'The Revelation of Jesus Christ', as the King James Version titles it. Written about the year 95-100 AD, by John, the last living disciple of Jesus (it is thought he was the 'John' who wrote it) it is an incredible and extremely difficult book to read. And some of the allusions in it to vases, horses and their horsemen, and numerology get *awfully* complex and deep. Its for no particular religion, just people who are curious. With 21 chapters, a comprehensive verse-by-verse examination takes most of a year to get through it. Its fun to go to his weekly lectures, but after two or three of them it went way over my head. 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 #493 ******************************