From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Nov 20 00:29:05 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iAK5T5B01333; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:29:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:29:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200411200529.iAK5T5B01333@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 #557 TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:29:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 557 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Should I Put Cell Phone Number on Natl Do Not Call List? (Marcus Falco) Lexmark Accused of Installing Spyware (Monty Solomon) Re: Looking For VOIP Provider to Do Business With Government (Weintz) Re: Looking For VOIP Provider to Do Business With Government (J Levine) Re: Movie Studios to Sue Internet File Traders (Lee Hollaar) Re: Movie Studios to Sue Internet File Traders (Robert Bonomi) Re: The Complete Communicator (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: The Complete Communicator (Robert Bonomi) Off-Shore Call Centers (John Schmerold) Re: NEC IP Phone Works, One Way (Robert Bonomi) Re: USOC, SLDC, and FID Concepts Re: Somewhat Off Topic But a Must Read (Robert Bonomi) Re: EFF: Anti-Spam Measures Block Free Speech (Ed Clarke) Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits (Wesrock@aol.com) Last Laugh! Re: Texas Officials Wary of Plan to Hunt by Internet (Bell) 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: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:44:32 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Should I Put Cell Phone on National do Not Call List? Thanks Mike G. for finding this. http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_cell_phone_directory.htm Comments: While it's true that the major wireless phone providers (with the sole exception of Verizon) have announced their intention to compile a directory of customers' cell phone numbers, it isn't true that they plan to "publish" said directory for all to see. The numbers will be made available only if customers opt in, and will be accessible only by those who call information and pay a fee. Participating service providers swear the numbers will never be available to telemarketers. Not everyone believes that, however, as evidenced by a privacy protection bill already introduced in Congress which would modify the plan to allow 411 callers to be directly connected to requested parties but would not allow those parties' numbers to be given out. It remains to be seen precisely what form the cell phone "directory" will ultimately take. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission does allow http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=https://www.donotcall.gov/FAQ/FAQConsumersNew.aspx worried cell phone users to add their numbers to the National Do Not Call Registry the same one that is already in force for landlines either online or by calling 1-888-382-1222 . Online registration: www.donotcall.gov ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:31:54 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Lexmark Accused of Installing Spyware Dan Ilett ZDNet UK A Usenet news group has claimed that Lexmark is installing spyware on its customers' computers. Allegations have been swirling around an online newsgroup this week that printer manufacturer Lexmark has been installing spyware on its customers' computers. Reports on the comp.periphs.printers Usenet newsgroup claim that Lexmark has been planting spyware on its customers' PCs in the form of undocumented software that monitors the use of its printers and silently reports back to a Lexmark-owned company Web site. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39173517,00.htm Lexmark spyware puts hardware in security spotlight Dan Ilett ZDNet UK The revelation that Lexmark uses software that monitors customers' printing raises interesting questions for other hardware vendors, says a technology lawyer. Allegations of printer manufacturer Lexmark installing "spyware" will cause hardware companies to reconsider their licensing practices, a leading technology law firm has said. Experts at law firm Olswang believe hardware companies have to review their data-gathering tactics to play fairly with their customers. Lexmark and fellow printer firm HP have admitted to ZDNet that they use software to collect information on their customers' printing habits. Although the companies claim that no personal data is collected, the Lexmark program gathers information on things such CPU and button usage. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39174382,00.htm The Lexmark lesson - make more noise Rupert Goodwins ZDNet UK November 16, 2004, 17:45 GMT Lexmark's inky fingers are all over your printer data -- but did you say 'help yourself'? Lexmark's printers are smarter than they look. Perhaps a little too smart -- a recent story showed that the printer drivers for a recent model were surreptitiously relaying information over the Internet back to base. Users were mystified, and more than a little outraged. Spyware, they said. Lexmark was stung. 'It's not spyware, it's remote reporting about printer parameters,' the company said after a marked pause. We told you all about it when you installed the drivers. It's even got a name -- Lexmark Connect. http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/rupertgoodwins/0,39020691,39174087,00.htm ------------------------------ From: T. Sean Weintz Subject: Re: Looking For VOIP Provider That Can Do Business With Government Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:25:54 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com T. Sean Weintz wrote: > Problem is it would NOT be high volume. Just 2-3 lines. What I plan on > doing is hanging them off our PBX and having it route only the long > distance calls over the VOIP lines. > Have spoken to the Billing Dept at Vonage and they actually sounded > annoyed at me for even asking. Never mind. Thanks to all who replied -- turns out someone in our purchasing dept didn't know what they were talking about, and we DO pay federal excise tax. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 2004 04:14:34 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Looking For VOIP Provider That Can Do Business With Government Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Problem is it would NOT be high volume. Just 2-3 lines. What I plan on > doing is hanging them off our PBX and having it route only the long > distance calls over the VOIP lines. Oh, forget it. Vonage numbers all terminate on Vonage-provided terminal adapters, except for their auxiliary softphone numbers. Try iconnecthere.com which offers very reasonably priced outbound service and lets you use any adapter you want. 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 ------------------------------ From: hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) Subject: Re: Movie Studios to Sue Internet File Traders Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:30:14 UTC Organization: University of Utah Computer Science In article charlize_sand@yahoo.com (charsand) writes: > I heard somewhere that those caught could receive not only fines, but > jail time-is this true? Not from an RIAA or MPAA suit. All they can get is an injunction against future file sharing and civil damages. But statutory damages of up to $150,000 per movie or song can be awarded without proof of actual damages. Plus court costs and attorney fees. But there is also criminal copyright infringement, a felony about certain levels which most large "file sharers" exceed. Like all federal criminal prosecutions, it must be brought by the U.S. Attorney, not the copyright owner. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would not suprise me at all. Nor > does it surprise me that they just toss out lawsuits all over the > place without even having the *name* or *any identity* of the persons > they intend to sue. I can see where 'John Doe' might be a valid way > to sue someone you had caught when you could not otherwise get his > name, but lawsuits at random against John Does 1 through 9999 (fill > in the names, addresses and particulars when you find the person) > seems to me to be a gross abuse of the legal system. But they seem to > be setting out the lawsuits, then finding the person later on and > already having the suit set up. Not a good faith thing, IMO. PAT] As much as one might hate the RIAA or MPAA, it's not reasonable to blame them for filing "John Doe" suits or not contacting the people before filing suit. Originally, under the DMCA a copyright owner that only knew the IP address of an alleged infringer could get their name and address from their ISP using a special subpoena. Verizon resisted those subpeonas and convinced the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that they were not authorized against file-sharers because a misdrafting of the DMCA. See RIAA v. Verizon, 351 F.3d 1229, 69 USPQ2d 1075 (CA DC 2003). That means that in order to get a user's name from an ISP, a "John Doe" suit must be filed first, and then the name is subpoenaed from the ISP. More expense, same result. Hard to see how ISP customers were helped, since in the end the loser has to pay these added costs. ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Movie Studios to Sue Internet File Traders From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:46:06 +0000 In article , charsand wrote: > billyzane1@excite.com (Bob Smythe) wrote in message > news:: >> The thing is, it is illegal to download or upload copyrighted works, >> the concept of file sharing and actual file sharing is not illegal. I >> do not condone illegal file sharing, but am just trying to clarify a >> few things. >> The MPAA (and RIAA) have not and will not target individual >> downloaders. There is no real way to get them. They are not a law >> enforcement agency. They cannot entrap individual users. If you >> download from them, and they are the rightful owners, then there is no >> law broken, even if it is widely know that the service being used is >> to illegally obtain files. Plus having downloaded one file will not be >> worthwhile anyway in court. Statutory copyright infringement penalty, $30,000 per occurrence. Each making of a copy is a separate violation. Don't _bet_ on it not being worthwhile in court. You can't afford to be _right_, let alone wrong. (A _successful_ infringement defense typically runs into six figures left of the decimal point.) Particularly, an 'association' is _not_ looking to 'make money' from the lawsuit -- their primary aim is the 'chilling effect', as it were, of the successful prosecution. The _smaller_ the perp that is successfully prosecuted, the stronger the message that is 'sent', regarding the 'risk' of such actions. >> [[., munch ..]] > I heard somewhere that those caught could receive not only fines, but > jail time-is this true? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would not suprise me at all. Nor > does it surprise me that they just toss out lawsuits all over the > place without even having the *name* or *any identity* of the persons > they intend to sue. I can see where 'John Doe' might be a valid way > to sue someone you had caught when you could not otherwise get his > name, but lawsuits at random against John Does 1 through 9999 (fill > in the names, addresses and particulars when you find the person) > seems to me to be a gross abuse of the legal system. But they seem to > be setting out the lawsuits, then finding the person later on and > already having the suit set up. Not a good faith thing, IMO. PAT] Not surprisingly, our esteemed moderator doesn't understand the process. They've _already_ got the IP address, and timestamp, data, and all the 'downloading' evidence to support the suit. But they don't know _who_ was using that IP address at that time. And the ISP's will -not- divulge *that* information except by court order. Hence the John Doe filing. followed by a subpoena to the ISP. Followed by an 'amended' filing to insert the actual perpetrators name. Then, and *ONLY*THEN* can you 'serve' the perp with the summons for the lawsuit. Any _given_ "John Doe" is alleged to have committed _specific_ acts -- e.g., "at this specific date/time, did download thus-and-such movie from IP address aa.bb.cc.dd to xx.yy.zz.ww" You can't file the suit, -then- go find some *other* violations, and change the allegations in pre-existing suit to match. As to the prior poster's question regarding jail time -- the answer is "yes". The "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" _did_ introduce *criminal* prosecution and penalties for certain kinds of copyright infringement. In general, the criminal provisions deal with those who _distribute_, for money or otherwise, infringing copies. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But many IP addresses are not static, but dynamic. What do they do then to find the person who 'stole' the movie or the piece of music? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:01:59 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: The Complete Communicator At 05:36 PM 11/19/04, ama3@aol.com (A M Andrews) wrote about The Complete Communicator: > Looking for an answering/fax package for Win98 that is as good as the > proprietary Complete Communicator was [for Win3.1]. "Was" because it > seems to have disappeared -- and required its own modem. Everything > was excellent: voices, defaults, setup ... Tried downloads/trial > versions of others and setup is dreadful/non-intuitive, or worse, > freezes system; usual response from help is "modem problem". Looking > for basic telephone answering management package! For a fax package I used to use Norton's Winfax Pro. Nowadays I've pretty much stopped using faxes, so I didn't re-install it when I went to Win98SE. Direct replies are unlikely to be read. To reply use the address below: falco_marcus_didius yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: The Complete Communicator From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:22:49 +0000 In article , A M Andrews wrote: > Looking for an answering/fax package for Win98 that is as good as the > proprietary Complete Communicator was [for Win3.1]. "Was" because it > seems to have disappeared -- and required its own modem. Everything > was excellent: voices, defaults, setup ... Tried downloads/trial > versions of others and setup is dreadful/non-intuitive, or worse, > freezes system; usual response from help is "modem problem". Looking > for basic telephone answering management package! "The Complete PC", the company that made "The Complete Communicator" is long gone. Probably 10 years, now. Unfortunately. I've still got some of their cards. Note: if anybody has a "Complete PC" _fax_ scanner in working order, I'd be interested -- mine died a few months ago. There's a voice-mail / telephone answering package that comes bundled with Toshiba laptops, that is quite good, and easy to use. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:59:39 -0600 From: John Schmerold Subject: Off-Shore Call Centers I sent the following note to a Covad salesperson. Wouldn't it be great if we could convince every telecommunications manager to do the same! ------------------ "I will warn you at this point we won't consider Covad services unless I get a written guarantee backed up by penalty fees and contract termination rights. This guarantee will stipulate that if I ever get transferred to an overseas call center or to a call-center not staffed by native US staff, I am entitled to significant penalty payments and may terminate my contract with Covad. I've spent too much time on the phone talking to someone in India about a problem with one of my clients. Never again from now on, every agreement I sign will have this clause." John ------------------------------ Subject: Re: NEC IP Phone Works, One Way Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:04:59 +0000 In article , Anthony wrote: > Hey folks, > I am a bit lost, as this is my 1st go around with VoIP. I currently > have a NEC Electra IPK system w/ the VoIP card, etc. > I set the unit up today, and uploaded the latest firmware to the > card. I took the phone to one of my satellite offices about 40 miles > away from the PBX. I got the systems to connect, I can check > voicemail, get an outside line, and page, however nobody can hear > anything that I say, however I can hear the other end w/ the PBX > absolutely fine. > I've blown away the settings on both the card, and on the phone, and > nothing I am doing is working. Is there something I am missing here? > Is there a specific set of ports I need to open on either firewall? I > have the phones set on the DMZ ip's, so all ports apparently are > opened. > Any help would be appreciated. TURN ON LOGGING OF DROPPED PACKETS ON *BOTH* FIREWALLS. See 'who is dropping what'. One of them will be dropping a sh*tload of packets going toward the main office. Probably UDP protocol stuff. ------------------------------ From: Internet Oracle Subject: Re: USOC, SLDC, and FID Concepts Organization: We Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:56:33 +0000 In article , Matt wrote: > I tried to search for info. on USOC, SLDC, and FID, but couldn't find > useful info. Can anyone gives me some definitions, or URL for those > info.? > Thanks!! USOC 'Universal Soldier' Operational Charter SLDC Submarine Launched Data Center FID Ferro-resonant Intermodulation Distortion You owe the Internet Oracle two ..... (oops. nevermind, wrong group) see also: ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Somewhat Off Topic But a Must Read From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:09:46 +0000 In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: K-Mart (remember when it used to be > the 'dime store' Kresge's?) and Sears (remember when it used to be > known as 'Sears and Roebuck' ?) in fact have merged. Walmart is not > at all pleased about it. PAT] FACT: K-Mart was *never* Kresge's. K-Mart and Kresge's existed simultaneously. Yes, K-Mart was owned by the parent of the Kresge's stores -- and was set up to compete in the 'discount store' niche (i.e. against _Target_). Kresge's competed against Woolworths, and the other full-line retail-only (no catalog mail-order/phone-order sales) department stores. Also, Sears and K-Mart have _not_ yet merged. Management has made a deal to do so. It still requires (a) stockholder approval by _both_ companies, and (b) regulatory approval. Neither of those approvals is a sure thing. ------------------------------ From: Ed Clarke Subject: Re: EFF: Anti-Spam Measures Block Free Speech Date: 20 Nov 2004 02:18:15 GMT Organization: Ciliophora Associates, Inc. Reply-To: clarke@cilia.org In article , Barry Margolin wrote: >> This is absolutely on purpose. Collateral Damage is a necessary >> technique to rid the net of spammers. If you give money to a company >> that facilitates spamming then you are no better than a spammer. Move >> the damn website to an IP range owned by a company that does not spam. >> Let the spam supporting service providers go broke because they have >> no customers. > Where does it say that this is the reason why MoveOn.org's mail is > being blocked? One of the other problems that the white paper > mentioned is mailers that assume that any bulk email is spam -- but > legitimate mailing lists will necessarily send out bulk email. They are on abovenet. Abovenet is listed (twice) in SPEWS and also in SPAMBAG. There's a whole blacklist just dedicated to abovenet: above.blackholes.us This does not bode well for connectivity to moveon.org. MoveOn.org is a specific case that I had not looked up before you mentioned them. My posting refers to collateral damage as a valid antispam technique in the general case. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:59:03 EST Subject: Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits In a message dated 19 Nov 2004 11:06:13 -0800, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) writes: > Telecom editor wrote: >> ... in 1963, I was employed by the fund raising committee to build a >> new McCormick YWCA ... one of the guests at the luncheon was Myrtle >> Walgreen, ... she reached in her purse and pulled out a check for >> **fifty thousand dollars** > I presume by that time the Walgreen chain had started and was > properous. Walgreen's had a very busy store (complete with lunch counter and soda fountain) in downtown Oklahoma City certainly in the early 1940s, and it wasn't new then. That was when downtown was the principal business area, and the first suburban shopping center had been opened on N.W. 10th Street, 10 blocks north of downtown. The nearest Wal-Mart supercenter to me today is at N.W. 136th Street, a couple of miles from where I live. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The two principal Walgreen's stores in downtown Chicago (Randolph and State Street, also two blocks south at Madison and State Street) were both active stores with lunch counters and basement cafeterias as well during the 1940's also. Like today, there are/were five or six Walgreens stores in the downtown Chicago area, but none of them have lunch counters or cafeterias any longer. The two Woolworth dime stores in downtown Chicago (almost directly across the street from each other on State Street) still have their restaurant things however. Lisa Hancock also noted in her message on this that some corporations could be quite generous with their money and the one in Chicago in those days which comes to mind for me was the phone company. During the early/middle 1960's, Dr. Martin Luther King was a regular guest preacher both at Chicago Temple on Sunday mornings and at Sunday Evening Club at Orchestra Hall. I always went to hear him speak and meet him each time he was in town, usually three or four times per year. Both at the Chicago Temple and at the Sunday Evening Club they *always* made a point of printing in the program words to the effect, "The personal expenses of Dr. and Mrs. King on this visit to Chicago and the honorarium for his message to us were met with a gift from the Illinois Bell Telephone Company." And Dr. King did not come cheap as a speaker, either. Temple paid him five hundred dollars to speak and I think Sunday Evening Club did the same, always through Illinois Bell which was a very generous, good corporation. PAT] ------------------------------ From: robertbell@erols.com (RobertPlattBell) Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Texas Officials Wary of Plan to Hunt by Internet Date: 19 Nov 2004 14:04:55 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com You think Internet HUNTING is bad? Take the concept to its logical conclusion ... (some fun with cut and paste techniques). By Jeff Franks HOUSTON (Reuters) - Killers soon may be able to sit at their computers and blast away at people in an unnamed third-world country via the Internet, a prospect that has human rights activists up in arms. A controversial Web site, http://www.live-shot.com, already offers target practice with a .22 caliber rifle and could soon let Killers shoot at women and children, site creator John Underwood said on Tuesday. U.S. Government officials are not quite sure what to make of Underwood's Web site, but may tweak existing laws to make sure Internet killing does not get out of hand. "This is the first one I've seen," said senior FBI agent Mike Berger. "The current state statutes don't cover this sort of thing." Underwood, an estimator for a San Antonio, Texas auto body shop, has invested $10,000 to build a platform for a rifle and camera that can be remotely aimed on his 330-acre (133-hectare) estate located in an undisclosed third-world country, by anyone on the Internet anywhere in the world. The idea came last year while viewing another Web site on which cameras posted in in various third-world countries are used to snap photos of people. "We were looking at a beautiful young Hispanic girl and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said. Internet killing could be popular with the disabled unable to get out of the house who still want to experience a "thrill kill", or for those who cannot afford a trip to third-world countries to commit murders, Underwood said. Berger said state law only covers "regulated people" such as U.S. Citizens within the United States and cannot prevent Underwood from offering Internet kills of "unregulated" people such as foreigners located in distant lands. He has proposed a rule that will come up for public discussion in January that anyone killing people via Internet, even if the victim is in a foreign land, could be tried for murder in the State. Berger expressed reservations about remote control killing, but noted that humans have always adopted new technologies to kill. "First it was rocks and clubs, then we sharpened it and put it on a stick. Then there was the bow and arrow, black powder, smokeless power and optics," Berger said. "Maybe this is the next technological step out there." Underwood, 39, said he will offer human killing as soon as he gets a fast Internet connection to his third world estate that will enable killers to aim the rifle quickly at passing people. He said an attendant would retrieve shot people for the shooters, who could have the heads preserved by a taxidermist. They could also have the meat processed and shipped home, or donated to orphanages. ------------------------------ 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 #557 ******************************