From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jan 4 19:36:58 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i050aw528802; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:36:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:36:58 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200401050036.i050aw528802@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 #5 TELECOM Digest Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:37:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 5 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Forget Your Bank Balance? It's Available on Internet (Monty Solomon) Apple's Tablet Computer Might Finally Be That Link (Monty Solomon) Re: NANP Numbering (John R. Levine) Re: NANP Numbering (Bob Goudreau) Fore ESX-3810 (bleed-22) Re: Is TiVo Really All That Great? (Rob) IN Billing (Ajith) Re: My Upgraded Computer System (Greg T. Knopf) Re: BBC Writer Can't Fathom the Internet (Rob) Re: BBC Writer Fathoms the Internet Pretty Well (Ronda Hauben) Re: BBC Writer Fathoms the Internet Pretty Well (John Levine) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:33:52 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Forget Your Bank Balance? It's Available on the Internet Consumers' financial details easy pickings on the Net By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff, 1/4/2004 Eric F. Bourassa, a privacy advocate at the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, knows how difficult it is to keep personal financial information personal. But even he was surprised at how easy it was for The Boston Globe to obtain his private bank account information. Trafficking in confidential financial information is commonplace on the Web, with a quick Google search turning up more than a dozen sites selling everything from Social Security numbers to bank balances. The Globe tested one of the sites in September, paying $125 for Governor Mitt Romney's credit report and in the process discovering a major security weakness in the nation's credit reporting network. In November, with Bourassa's blessing, the Globe began to explore the shadowy world of asset search firms, which advertise that they can unlock the financial secrets of virtually anyone. The mystery is where these firms get their information. Does it come directly from financial institutions? Or does it come through more indirect, possibly illegal, methods? The Globe agreed to pay Ohio-based I.C.U. Inc., whose Web address is Tracerservices.com, $475 for Bourassa's bank account information and his stock and bond holdings. Not all of the information the website provided was accurate, but the bank account information, with the balance listed right down to the penny, was so close that it made Bourassa feel violated. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/004/business/Forget_your_bank_balance_It_s_available_on_the_Internet+.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:11:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Apple's Tablet Computer Might Finally Be That Link Digital Hubris: Apple's Tablet Computer Might Finally Be That Link Between Your PC and TV By Robert X. Cringely High-tech is relentlessly optimistic and for good reason: the good times -- ALL the good times -- are caused by product transitions. New stuff costs more, has higher profit margins, and occasionally leads to changes in market leadership. A year or two later, these products will have been commoditized, the profit sucked out of them by intense competition, and it will be time to move on to the next big thing. Four years ago, the cheapest 802.11b access point you could buy cost $299. This week, I saw one advertised that with rebates brought the final cost down to zero, nothing, nada, zilch. Time to move on. So high-tech is always looking forward, never back, and taking a gamble on something new isn't perceived so much as a gamble but as a way of life. The techniques for getting us to buy new stuff vary. In the best of cases, these new sales are driven by new functionality -- a color printer instead of black-and-white, a notebook computer instead of a desktop, a DVD instead of a VCR. At other times, the upgrade is driven by bloat as new MIPS-burning applications and operating systems make our old stuff too painfully slow. This doesn't happen by accident, folks. And into this performance abyss we throw not just new products but new TYPES of products, because industrial dynasties come from defining new market niches. Hewlett-Packard, for all its glorious history, is more than anything else a laser printer company. Cisco Systems, for all its desire to be something more, is a router company. These are niches they defined and that have led to decades of success. And that brings us to the tablet computer, a tightly-defined product still in search of success. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20031127.html ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: NANP Numbering Date: 3 Jan 2004 20:19:32 -0500 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > While the NANP system had its merits as you point out, the ITU > nowadays is more logical. I think all you can conclude is that people like what they're used to. If you want to start an instant religious war, for example, ask people from different parts of the NANP whether you should be able to dial a short distance toll call without dialing 1 first. > First of all, it avoids all those area code changes that occur > periodically in the states. Um, the UK and France have had their share of renumbering, too. The NANP could have avoided most of the area code changes if state regulators had looked ahead and done overlays sooner. It's a political problem, not a technical one. > It also is simpler and more flexible. In countries like Germany, you > can dial the number and the extension number. That's Direct Inward Dialing. We have that here in NANP-land, too. We probably had it first. > There is no limit on the number of digits, as you point out, with > the ITU system. Actually, the limit is 15 digits, raised from 12 a few years ago when German PBXes got really long extension numbers. > Here in France we have an implementation that permits easy dialing > around for long distance calls, too. We have that, too. Dial 011-33-1-23-45-67-89-00 for a call to Paris with your normal carrier, dial 1010XXXX first to pick a different carrier. Yeah, it's a lot of digits, we have a lot of phone companies. Like I said, people like what they're used to. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: NANP Numbering Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:03:31 -0500 [Please eliminate my email address too. Thanks.] Earle Robinson wrote: > While the NANP system had its merits as you point out, the ITU > nowadays is more logical. First of all, it avoids all those area code > changes that occur periodically in the states. It certainly hasn't worked out that way. In fact, I would wager that a great proportion of people in Europe have had their phone numbers change in the past two decades than in the NANP. For instance, in the UK, *every* POTS number has changed its area code at least once. Remember when London used to be +44 1? Then it was +44 71/81. It may have been +44 171/181 for awhile after that, before it went to the current +44 20. Similarly, every landline number in France is now dialed differently than it was 20 years ago. Check out the WTNG for details on the incredible amount of numbering changes that have taken place in Europe in recent years. Meanwhile, in the NANP, there are tens of millions of people who still have the same area code that they had 30 or 40 years ago. Even the ones who have encountered an area code split got to keep their local numbers. And, with overlay area codes now the most common way to expand the numbering space, most of us will probably never be forced to change our numbers again. > It also is simpler and more flexible. More flexible, yes. Simpler, no. A numbering plan in which all numbers are of uniform length is simpler for people to grasp than one in which number lengths may vary wildly even within a single town. But even most European countries these days employ (or are moving toward) closed numbering plans in which the total nationally- significant phone number length is uniform (though the breakdown between area code length and local number length may differ from area to area). As you note, even France now has a completely uniform numbering-length scheme, just like the NANP. I believe that Germany is now probably the greatest remaining European example of fully variable numbering, in which the number of digits in numbers can vary even within a single exchange. (Other, smaller examples such as Austria remain too.) > In countries like Germany, you can dial the number and > the extension number. There is no limit on the number of digits, as > you point out, with the ITU system. Yes, there is. The ITU limit is 15 significant digits, including the country code (but not including intra-national long distance access codes such as "0", which are not actually part of the area code). The ITU limit used to be 12 until less than a decade ago. Bob Goudreau Cary, NC ------------------------------ From: wink_1000@yahoo.com (bleed-22) Subject: Fore ESX-3810 Date: 3 Jan 2004 18:04:31 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Anyone ever have a Fore 3810 freeze up on you when you reset the counters? It happened to me last night, and no one believes me. Ugh. As soon as I typed 'yes' and pressed enter to confirm I wanted to clear the counters, the switch froze. The customer's network engineer got an automated page (via SNMP poll failure) at 6:00 in the morning that the switch went down. Any ideas? Prior to resetting the counters, I viewed the System parameters (to get uptime), viewed SONET/ATM counters and the counters on B* (ethernet ports). TIA. ------------------------------ From: rob51166@yahoo.com (Rob) Subject: Re: Is TiVo Really All That Great? Date: 4 Jan 2004 04:27:29 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > Cable companies slashing fees, crafting services in bid to get > consumers to hop on the TV replay bandwagon. > By Ron Lieber > The Wall Street Journal > Originally published December 29, 2003 > LOS ANGELES -- The future of TiVo may be uncertain, but the TiVolution > has never been more accessible than it is this holiday season. > TiVo, which is both popular usage for newfangled alternatives to VCRs > and the brand-name of the company that helped popularize them, once > required an initial investment of hundreds of dollars. But, as new > competitors continue to emerge, most people can now try the new way of > watching and recording television for far less. > Last week, ReplayTV lowered the price on its cheapest machine to $149 > and stopped forcing consumers to buy three years of service upfront, > cutting the initial cost by more than $300. Time Warner Cable this > year began a widespread rollout of a service that has a TiVo-like > digital video recorder built into the cable box and costs less than > $10 a month. > Some of Cox Communications Inc.'s customers already have cable DVR > service, and Comcast Corp. plans to roll it out to all of its > subscribers next year. > Hate your cable company? EchoStar Communications Corp.'s Dish Network > has started offering a free DVR box to new satellite TV subscribers. > Though only a tiny fraction of households now have the service, TiVo > and its progeny offer features that radically change the way people > watch television. They make it easy to record shows so you can watch > what you want, when you want. Then, they make it easy to skip > commercials [or, in the case of the Super Bowl, watch them > repeatedly]. > http://www.sunspot.net/technology/bal-tivo122903,0,1069107.story I remember TiVo being advertised over here in the UK several years ago, but it never took off. In fact, I'd say it died a death. I put it down to Sky TV (the satellite TV company) introducing a system called Sky+. This is a digital satellite set-top box which can record programmes onto a hard drive without the need of a VCR or recordable DVD. OK, Sky+ isn't exactly cheap as you have to pay to upgrade your current digital set-top box, but it's becoming much more popular than TiVo ever did. ------------------------------ From: kaajith@hotmail.com (Ajith) Subject: IN Billing Date: 4 Jan 2004 11:02:28 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Can anybody explain how the IN Billing in telecom takes place? ------------------------------ From: Greg T. Knopf Subject: Re: My Upgraded Computer System Date: 03 Jan 2004 18:36:48 EST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Reply-To: gtknopf@concentric.net Hello, Just a quick note and perhaps a caveat: TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Starting at about 5 PM New Year's Eve > ... > I have been giving some thought to moving Windows 2000 onto the new > 80 GB drive (F) and expanding Linux to the full 20 GB drive (C) which > used to be split between Windows and Linux. I know that with numerous Windows versions I have used the OS requires that it's boot partition and home drive be on C:. This has caused me so much grief in the past that when I'm fooling around changing operating systems and loading linux, etc., that I just make sure to include the Windows partition and operating system on my first IDE drive and in fact on the first partitions. I would rather put my linux swap as the first partition, for access speed reasons, but after being driven near to madness with the @%$#! Windows assumptions I have given up trying to move it. This is just a little point, but it might save you some grief to keep it in mind. - Greg gtknopf@concentric.net info@knopfnet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What I did was first use a program called 'Digital Lifeguard' to entirely format the new hard drive (known as 'F') and move all the contents of 'C' to 'F'. Then I took the computer apart and removed the ribbon connector and power cable from the 'C' drive. Then I put the computer back together and booted it up to make sure it would work. Computer *did* attempt to boot and run Windows from 'C' but finding 'C' unavailable it moved along to 'F' and ran okay from there. Then I took the computer apart again, went back inside it and moved the slave/master jumpers in reverse, so that (the now old) 'F' drive impostered C ... and vice versa with 'F', also making the required changes on the ribbon connector so that the 'primary' connection went to 'C' and the secondary connection was 'F'. Then I put the computer back together again, and was now booting from 'C' normally with 'F' as the backup drive. I presume I could have skipped a step here and moved the jumpers and the ribbons first, before screwing it all back together, but having brain desease as badly as I do, I was scared of trying to do it that way. I wanted to make sure it would work first. Trouble now is I have no way to boot into Linux, but my Canadian expert said he is meditating on that problem for me. Nor can I get Windows to recognize the full 80 GB; the Digital Lifeguard program could only do FAT up to about 34-35 GB. I would have had it do NTFS for the full 80 but that would prevent Linux from being able to use the data files of Windows. (On the old partioned C drive although I could boot Linux or Windows, I used FAT rather that NTFS so Linux could move around as it wished through the files, etc.) If the Canadian guy is unable to 'convince' the computer to allow bootup choice of Linux/Windows with Linux on (what will now be 'F') and Windows to continue to default to (what is now) 'C' then I may wind up re-opening the computer, reversing the slave/master relationship, restoring 'C' back to where it was and use the entire 80 on 'F' like I had it planned originally. Yeah, and I may check into Stormont-Vail Medical Center next week and get brain surgery again, also. (wink). PAT] ------------------------------ From: rob51166@yahoo.com (Rob) Subject: Re: BBC Writer Can't Fathom the Internet Date: 4 Jan 2004 04:12:00 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Ronda Hauben wrote in message news:: > Is there some reason the BBC can't understand what the Internet is > about, or take the trouble to spread an accurate understanding of it, > rather than a mistaken conception that makes the Internet into the one > network ARPANET? No doubt because it's just that -- the BBC! They've never *QUITE* got the grasp of the words 'technology' and 'modernisation' -- especially the fatcats who have offices on the top floor of Broadcasting House in London. They seem to have the opinion that all equipment dating back to the 1960s is still perfectly suitable for the 21st Century; while anything introduced since then is no use whatsoever! BTW, as you can probably guess, I'm British! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:15:52 EST From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: BBC Writer Fathoms the Internet Pretty Well On Sat, 4 Jan 2004, John Levine wrote: >> Is there some reason the BBC can't understand what the Internet is >> about, > Not that I can see. The description of the difference between the > ARPANET and Internet in the BBC article that you quoted is quite > accurate: Are you saying that the ARPANET is the same as the IMP subnetwork of the ARPANET? The whole point of the IMP subnetwork is to connect diverse computers and diverse operating systems. The ARPANET is the connection of these diverse computers and operating systems. It isn't the IMP subnetwork. The IMP subnetwork is the means of connecting the diverse computers, but is *not* the ARPANET. >>> The Arpanet came before the net and demanded that all computers that >>> connect to it do so with the same hardware and software. Essentially this is saying that the Arpanet is the IMP an interconnection of the same hardware and software. That is an inaccurate presentation of the reality. The ARPANET was the solution to the problem of resource sharing among diverse computers and operating systems and their respective users. The BBC quote above says that all of the computers that connect to the ARPANET need the same hardware and software. This does *not* describe the ARPANET. The BBC reporter doesn't say that all diverse computers in the ARPANET that connected to each other used an IMP subnetwork and NCP protocol. But even that would not be helpful in understanding and spreading the essence of the ARPANET among people. >>> By contrast, the net, thanks to TCP/IP, could let people on >>> different sorts of computers running different software, swap >>> information. > You comment: >> Specifically the Internet is a network of networks -- or a metasystem >> of networks. It makes it possible for diverse networks to speak to > Right. >> The ARPANET was a connection of different computers and operating >> systems > Nope. The ARPANET consisted entirely of IMPs and TIPs, which were > built from Honeywell 316 minis and later BBN's own C/30s which ran the > IMP code after Honeywell stopped making the 316 and the occasional > experimental machine like the multiprocessor Pluribus IMP. Are you claiming that the ARPANET was the IMP subnetwork? And that the Hosts were something different? The IMP subnetwork was part of the ARPANET, but *not* the ARPANET. The Hosts were part of the ARPANET. > Lots of different hosts attached to the IMPs, but the hosts were not > part of the packet switching network. It is true that the Arpanet > researchers did all sorts of work trying to deal with incompatible > data formats on the various hosts, but that was above the level of > the ARPANET IMPs which just sent packets around. You say "ARPANET IMPs" - I am saying the IMP subnetwork of the ARPANET. There is a difference between these statements. The ARPANET includes diverse computers and operating systems such as the SDS Sigma 7 computer system at UCLA using the SEX operating system, the SDS-940 using GENIE at SRI, the IBM 360/75 using OS/MVT at UCSB and the DEC PDP-10 using TENEX at the University of Utah. These along with the IMP subnetwork are what are referred to as the ARPANET, at its earliest stages. The significant is that all these 4 host computers were different computers using different operating systems. It is the diversity of computers and operating systems that were connected, that is the essence of the ARPANET. > One of the key differences between the ARPANET and the Internet is > that the Internet doesn't need IMPs -- the host to host protocols are > all well defined and any kind of computer that can talk IP can play. So are you saying that the essence of the difference between the ARPANET and the Internet is that the Internet makes it possible to connect computers without using IMPs? I am saying the important difference between the INTERNET and the ARPANET is that the Internet made it possible to connect different networks, not just different computers. The ARPANET made it possible to connect different computers. > The Unix box on which I'm typing this runs its own TCP and IP software > and connects to other hosts that speak IP, as do my Windows laptop and > the occasional visiting Mac. My router also happens to be a PC > running Unix but it could be a dedicated Cisco box or anything else > that can move IP packets from one network to another. The architectural conception that made it possible to create TCP/IP wasn't the effort to connect different computers and operating sytems. It was the effort to create a way to connect different packet switching networks. Originally the idea was to try to connect the US ARPANET, the French CYCLADES, and the British NPL. That wasn't what happened, but that was the impetus for the architectural conception. One couldn't expect the French CYCLADES to become part of the ARPANET. The French CYCLADES was a packet switching network using different technical aspects, and was under the ownership and control of different political and administrative entities. >> We want the Internet to grow and flourish. It would seem important >> than to start the new year off with accurate information about its >> development. What would you suggest I revise? Perhaps you might find it of interest to read the paper. It is about the difference between the ARPANET and the Internet. It does seem it would be good if there were the effort to help reporters like those of the BBC understand the difference. > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet > for Dummies$ > Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, > Sewer Commission$ > "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web With best wishes, Ronda ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 2004 01:11:14 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: BBC Writer Fathoms the Internet Pretty Well Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Is there some reason the BBC can't understand what the Internet is > about, Not that I can see. The description of the difference between the ARPANET and Internet in the BBC article that you quoted is quite accurate: >> The Arpanet came before the net and demanded that all computers that >> connect to it do so with the same hardware and software. >> By contrast, the net, thanks to TCP/IP, could let people on >> different sorts of computers running different software, swap >> information. You comment: > Specifically the Internet is a network of networks -- or a metasystem > of networks. It makes it possible for diverse networks to speak to > each other. Right. > The ARPANET was a connection of different computers and operating > systems Nope. The ARPANET consisted entirely of IMPs and TIPs, which were built from Honeywell 316 minis and later BBN's own C/30s which ran the IMP code after Honeywell stopped making the 316 and the occasional experimental machine like the multiprocessor Pluribus IMP. Lots of different hosts attached to the IMPs, but the hosts were not part of the packet switching network. It is true that the Arpanet researchers did all sorts of work trying to deal with incompatible data formats on the various hosts, but that was above the level of the ARPANET IMPs which just sent packets around. One of the key differences between the ARPANET and the Internet is that the Internet doesn't need IMPs -- the host to host protocols are all well defined and any kind of computer that can talk IP can play. The Unix box on which I'm typing this runs its own TCP and IP software and connects to other hosts that speak IP, as do my Windows laptop and the occasional visiting Mac. My router also happens to be a PC running Unix but it could be a dedicated Cisco box or anything else that can move IP packets from one network to another. > We want the Internet to grow and flourish. It would seem important > than to start the new year off with accurate information about its > development. Agreed. Perhaps now would be a good time to go back and revise the paper of yours that you quoted. > I am saying the important difference between the INTERNET and the > ARPANET is that the Internet made it possible to connect different > networks, not just different computers. The ARPANET made it possible > to connect different computers. This must be some different ARPANET than the one that BBN built and that ran solely on Honeywell 316s and C/30s. Like I said, they did indeed connect all sorts of different computers to the ARPANET, but the network itself was a closed system running on a single fairly exotic set of equipment. The redesign of the Internet that let it run on any old hardware that people chose to connect was and is a crucial difference and one of the most important reasons the Internet succeeded while many other single-architecture networks didn't. The Internet's design to permit multiple networks was important, too, but SNA (remember SNA?) also could handle multiple networks yet didn't go anywhere largely due to its closed design that ran mostly on pricey IBM communication processors. These facts are well known and easily checked by anyone who cares to do so, and you only make yourself look foolish by trying to argue that the situation was and is otherwise. I have no interest in arguing about facts, so this is my last message on this topic. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #5 ****************************