From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Nov 24 14:29:12 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iAOJTAR27691; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:29:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:29:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200411241929.iAOJTAR27691@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 #565 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:29:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 565 Inside This Issue: Happy Thanksgiving to All! FCC: 8M Wireless Users Keep Cell Numbers (Monty Solomon) Lobbyists Try to Kill Philly Wireless Plan (Monty Solomon) EFFector 17.42: Call for Independent Testing of E-voting (Monty Solomon) A-la-carte Pricing For Cable and Satellite TV (Neal McLain) How to Pronounce "Skype" (Noam Avnery) Draytek VoIP DSL Router, Vigor2500V Model (Chris Tsai) Vetting SBC's VOIP (Lisa Minter) Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits (Robert Bonomi) Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits (Tony P.) Re: Anyone Having any Luck With Google Ads? (Robert Bonomi) Re: How Do I Learn an Unknown Number? (jtaylor) Re: Dropping SBC For a VoIP Solution - Vonage or Packet8? (Ringo Langly) Broadband Use Doubled Between 2001-2003 (Daily Lead from USTA) Fax Machine Transmission Test (Forrest Nelson) Re: Trial Shows How Spammers Operate (Scott Dorsey) 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: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:42:16 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC: 8M Wireless Users Keep Cell Numbers By BRUCE MEYERSON AP Business Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- Nearly 8 million mobile phone users have switched carriers and kept their cell numbers since a new rule allowing that flexibility went into effect one year ago, the Federal Communications Commission disclosed Tuesday. Almost 750,000 more people have moved either a home or office phone number to a cell phone, the FCC told The Associated Press on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the agency's "number portability" order. The agency planned to report on Wednesday that by the end of October, 8.5 million people had taken advantage of the rule which took effect in the nation's 100 biggest markets on Nov. 24, 2003. That includes 7.8 million who switched from one cell phone company to another. The FCC also revealed that the pace picked up significantly when the rules were extended nationally to include smaller and rural markets in late spring, jumping from roughly 700,000 customer switches in March, April and May to more than 1 million in June and 950,000 in July. The figures suggest that millions of cell phone users may have been frustrated with their cell phone service but were hesitant to switch providers because they didn't want to give up a phone number which was familiar to friends, business associates and family. However, the tally is well short of many forecasts issued a year ago, some of which predicted that up to 30 million people might switch carriers in the first year. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=45219863 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:44:33 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Lobbyists Try to Kill Philly Wireless Plan By MARC LEVY Associated Press Writer HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- Philadelphia's plan to offer inexpensive wireless Internet as a municipal service _ the most ambitious yet by major U.S. city _ has collided with commercial interests including the local phone company, Verizon Communications Inc. In fact, a bill on Gov. Ed Rendell's desk that could humble Philadelphia's ambitions began 19 months ago as a proposal drafted by lobbyists for telecommunications companies. Regional and long-distance phone companies, who sell broadband Internet to consumers and businesses, have in recent months intensified a national campaign to quash municipal wireless initiatives like Philadelphia's as dozens of cities and towns have either begun or announced such plans _ from San Francisco to Chaska, Minn., to St. Cloud, Fla. Telecommunications companies are doubly worried because hundreds of other municipalities provide broadband service over cable or telephone lines. The idea of cheap, municipally provided Internet as social leveler is particularly appealing to big city politicians. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=45214162 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:48:07 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.42: Call for Independent Testing of E-voting EFFector Vol. 17, No. 42 November 19, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 313th Issue of EFFector: * Action Alert: Call for Independent Testing of E-voting Machines! * EFF Fights for Justice at WIPO * Public Interest Groups Support ISP in Protecting User Privacy * EFF Continues Push for Access to Secret Court Order in Indymedia Seizure * EFF Urges FCC Not to Mandate Surveillance Regime on the Internet * Anti-spam Measures Block Free Speech * Nitke v. Ashcroft Trial Highlights Difficulty of Applying "Community Standards" to Online Speech * EFF Seeks Detail-Oriented, Can-do Intake Coordinator * MiniLinks (11): "Music Is Not a Loaf of Bread" * Staff Calendar: 12.02.04 - Fred von Lohmann speaks at CATO City Seminar on "Liberty, Technology, and Prosperity," Palo Alto, CA * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/42.php ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:00:39 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: A-la-carte Pricing For Cable and Satellite TV The FCC has released its report on a-la-carte pricing for cable TV and satellite TV services (formally called "Report on the Packaging and Sale of Video Programming Services To the Public"). It's posted on the FCC website at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254432A1.pdf . It's a huge document (129 pdf pages), but it's interesting to read. Neal McLain ------------------------------ From: dnoam@il.ibm.com (Noam Avnery) Subject: How to Pronounce "Skype" Date: 23 Nov 2004 23:37:20 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, Is it like "Hype" or like "Sky-pee"? TIA ------------------------------ From: cisco8899@yahoo.com.sg (Chris Tsai) Subject: Draytek VoIP DSL Router, Vigor2500V Model Date: 24 Nov 2004 00:59:41 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com The DrayTek (Taiwan) Vigor 2500V is an ADSL firewall/router - ideal for sharing yourADSL connection between several PCs, with a built-in VoIP (Voice over IP) telephone port. The phone port enables you to use your existing ADSL broadband connection to make VoIP calls to any other compatible device, anywhere in the world and anywhere on the Internet, free of charge. You can receive calls too of course, and all with a standard (analogue) telephone which you connect into the socket on the back of the router. By using the DrayTEL PSTN gateway (see later) you can also make calls to any regular phone line too, including mobiles, as well as receive calls from anyone - the call is carried to your phone via your internet connection so your regular phone line remains free for other people/calls. Having the Vigor2500V on your ADSL line effectively gives you an extra phoneline -- with no extra line rental, so when family or co-workers are tying upthe main line you can still make calls using the phone on your Vigor2500V - ideal for teleworkers who need that extra flexibility. The Vigor2500V is visually pleasing too; its curved lines and brushed silver finish enable itto fit into any environement stylishly. Pls read at www.draytek.co.uk www.draytek.com ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:52:43 -0500 Subject: Vetting SBC's VOIP http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=63334 In a move that looks a bit cannibalistic, SBC Communications Inc. announced last week that it would begin offering residential VOIP service in early 2005, a move that will likely undercut the telecom giant's own traditional phone services. The big question here is: Will there be any suprises? So far, the answer appears to be no, as SBC is largely just catching up to the competition. Verizon Communications Inc., BellSouth Corp., Qwest Communications International Inc., and AT&T Corp. all have announced VOIP initiatives, each in various stages of implementation. Most have developed their VOIP systems in the enterprise arena and later migrated into the residential space, which is the pattern SBC is following. SBC sees the move as a way to offer next-generation services to its customers, expanding its lineup, and retaining those customers who want to be on the cutting edge. It can also bundle products to offer price savings. Full story at: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=63334 ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:23:53 +0000 In article , > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you say is true, but I have been > in other stores when the same kind of problem came up, and they at > least apologize for any confusion and offer some free gift or > coupon for the trouble. Not Walmart though. One of the reasons the 'other stores' charge higher prices is the cost of such policies. > Our Chamber of Commerce has a thing called 'Main Street Gift > Certificates'. They sell them to you in any denomination wanted, and > they are redeemable at almost any store in town. They are great to > give as gifts when you do not know what to give the other person, or > they can be used for food at several restaurants. The redemptor turns > them in to the Chamber office less a *one percent* administrative fee. > Walmart, which refuses to belong to the Chamber of Commerce also > refuses to accept those gift certificates; I guess they do not feel > they should have to pay the one percent administrative fee charged > the redemptors. PAT] If you'd ever had any management experience with an even 'medium sized' business, you'd have an appreciation for how *EXPENSIVE* that kind of 'funny money' is to handle and process. Check out the fine print on almost any _manufacturer_ 'cents off' coupon. 20, 30, 50 cent 'discount' on the purchase price. And the store gets paid at least an additional _seven_cents_. That's 14%-35% *extra* for taking coupons. It is also about _break-even_ *cost* for handling that 'non-currency' piece of paper, and depositing through a centralized 'coupon clearinghouse' for reimbursement. Local C of C 'funny money' is *much* more expensive to handle. It does -not- go to the coupon clearinghouse for reconciliation. It has to be *manually* separated out from the other coupons, etc. and _manually_ sent over to the C of C for reimbursement. 'Store issued" coupons, gift-certificates, etc. *are* a 'whole nuther ball game'. You *don't* have to do any 'extra' handling of that 'paper'. Once the cashier's till has been 'counted down', to ensure that it balances against the 'tape', you can *throw*away* the store coupon -- it is just so much waste-paper. For that reason, store coupons _are_ 'cheaper' than actual cash, *or* checks, to process. High-volume 'discount' operations work by paring 'margin' (aka 'mark-up') to the *minimum*, and rely on volume to produce the profits. There just isn't any money in the budget for the 'non-essential' cost of such programs. Yes, they _could_ do it, but to do so, they would have to _raise_ prices at least somewhat, to cover the increased costs. Which runs contrary to the policy of 'lowest prices'. Available evidence says that 'lower prices' are worth more to the vast majority of customers than 'convenience' things like accepting C of C 'gift certificates'. In article , DevilsPGD wrote: > In message > bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote: >> There are *very* limited ways for a cashier to themselves steal cash >> money 'from the store', and approximately _one_ way to steal from the >> customers, with 'computerized' registers. >> Doing multiple charges against a card is simply *not* one of them. >> The audit trail catches it at the end-of-shift, or over-night, at >> worst. And the records point directly to the perp. > Sure. However, since the customer can request cash back it's another > way to steal. The cashier fakes problems scanning an item, punches in > the amount manually as cash, and gives the customer the item. > The customer isn't over charged, so has no reason to complain. > The cashier's till is now over -- Now she just needs to grab the cash > at some point during the transaction. No, the till is _not_ over. Punching in the amount as 'cash due' instead of scanning the item, is no different than scanning the item itself, as far as the cash balance in the till goes. The *only* difference is in the store 'inventory', where the proper item was -not- deducted from the count. Scanning (or failing to scan) the item, then punching 'cash received' in the same amount _deducts_ the amount from the '*remaining* payment due' from the customer, *and* records it as being 'already in the till'. At the end of the transaction, the 'balance due' and _collected_ from the customer is the 'actual purchases' _less_ the amount previously entered. this means that the till is _short_ that amount, not *long*. And it is _not_ in the cashier's pocket. In fact, the cashier must *PUT* that amount of money _into_ the till, to make the till balance. Note: most modern computerized cash-registers do _not_ let you enter 'monies received' while still entering 'charged items'. Once you hit a 'payment received' key, you cannot enter additional items onto _that_ transaction -- without voiding out all the payment received items, first, that is. And then you usually have to get the manager's "over-ride" key before you can go any further with the transaction. Robert Bonomi [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You make it sound as though local acceptance of local C of C gift certificates is going to be a major, massive processing operation in a small town like ours. You make it sound as though joining the local C of C in a small town to show support of other community merchants and share tips, ideas, etc is going to cause a major outlay for Walmart. You make it sound as though any modicum of customer service and goodwill is going to have an effect on their 'lower prices'. Walmart does have its own gift 'certificates' in the form of prepaid plastic credit cards, branded in their own name, in the 6011 series of numbers. Those are processed like credit card sales at the cash register, and must cost them something to process. Independence Walmart was giving away free coffee to senior citizens on *Tuesday morning only* provided the person could show they were over 65 years of age and provided the person actually bought some merchandise there. You showed your receipt and your proof of age; they then poured you one small cup of coffee, between 9-11 AM Tuesday only. Then several downtown stores started giving coffee and donuts on a daily basis to seniors (no proof of age required, just 'look old and feeble') and no requirement to buy anything from that particular store) and Walmart quit doing it. Its like they are so 'stand offish' toward the community they are supposedly serving. I don't make any claim to know about Walmart operations, but I do know that certain intangible things like customer goodwill are worth much more than a few extra cents of lower prices. What does it cost Walmart for a customer service person to call the taxicab and ask them 'have Jeff come by the Walmart grocery (or general merchandise) entrance for Mrs. Smith or whoever'. But no, the folks are free to use the COCOT phone on the sidewalk in front to make that call if they want, at fifty cents per call, (when the whole ride anywhere in town costs $1.50) ? Lower prices in the store, I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits Organization: ATCC Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:06:17 -0500 In article , devilspgd@crazyhat.net says: > In message > bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote: >> There are *very* limited ways for a cashier to themselves steal cash >> money 'from the store', and approximately _one_ way to steal from the >> customers, with 'computerized' registers. >> Doing multiple charges against a card is simply *not* one of them. >> The audit trail catches it at the end-of-shift, or over-night, at >> worst. And the records point directly to the perp. > Sure. However, since the customer can request cash back it's another > way to steal. The cashier fakes problems scanning an item, punches in > the amount manually as cash, and gives the customer the item. > The customer isn't over charged, so has no reason to complain. > The cashier's till is now over -- Now she just needs to grab the cash > at some point during the transaction. Differences in transaction amounts show up on detail reports. I know -- I got really good at spotting manager screw ups for the small retail chain I used to work for. ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Anyone Having any Luck With Google Ads? From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:53:04 +0000 In article , DevilsPGD wrote: > As I understand it, Google ads require JavaScript to load. Every user > that hits your site without JavaScript, or with some adblocking > technology in place will count as a hit as far as you're concerned, > but not as far as Google is concerned. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is true. Google does use > JavaScript. But Google would have no way of knowing what the user > did or did not have on his computer until it was time for the > javascript to be executed, and by then the hit would already have > been counted, wouldn't it? PAT] In a word, "NO". 1) The javascript is in -your- page. 2) If the user doesn't 'see' the ad/link, because the javascript to produce it isn't run, and the ad content is thus _not_ downloaded from their server then the 'impression' is not counted. 3) if 'activating' the link requires javascript, and they don't _have_ javascript, or javascript is disabled, obviously they _cannot_ 'click' on the link *successfully* -- and a 'pass through' hit is *not* counted. It _is_ possible to get a 'fairly' accurate count of how many times any ad was actually "seen" by people viewing your page. It *does* require a fair amount of skill in web-page programming, however. Starting with reverse- engineering the 'drop-in' code provided by google. Then you replace their target URL with a reference to a 'unique' URL on _your_own_ server. _THAT_ page does not 'really' exist. it just returns a 'redirect' to the _actual_ google ad image. *BUT*, you get a 'hit' in _your_ logs on that dummy page, every time the ad is pulled up. Note, _even_ this method will somewhat *overstate* the actual counts. Not just for Google, but for anybody who in the business of 'serving' ads -- e.g. doubleclick.com *spit* -- the ads tend to live on _dedicated_ machines in the source domain. An INCREASING number of people are using 'router' filters that block _any_ access to those *specific* servers. As a result, when the web-browser tries to retrieve the ad, the router blocking steps in, and returns either a 'host not found', or 'page not found' error, and the 'request' _never_ even gets to the server to be counted. The 'internal redirect' is the _closest_ *you* can get to an accurate count. But, beyond that, either you trust the ad provider, or you don't. If you *don't* trust them, you _really_ should be doing business with 'somebody else'. The _long-established_ methodology for 'keeping somebody honest', where -they- are the ones who compute 'how much money _they_owe_you_', is to: (a) have the *contractual*right* to 'audit' their books and records, or (b) have such 'audits' done by a trusted third-party -- e.g., the 'Audit Bureau for Circulations' for print publications. When a gnat is contracting with an 800-lb gorilla, the likelihood of _getting_ such 'audit' privileges is *damn* unlikely. You either "trust" them not to screw you; or you go into the deal _knowing_ that getting screwed is likely, and have decided that the 'other benefits' are _worth_ the screwing. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why couldn't I use a vistor counting mechanism from another third party such as I used to have on the old web site which I got from Microsoft? PAT] ------------------------------ From: jtaylor Subject: Re: How Do I Learn an Unknown Number? Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:51:44 -0400 Organization: MCI Canada News Reader Service Nathan Strom wrote in message news:telecom23.563.10@telecom-digest.org: > rekingus@yahoo.com (reking) wrote in message > news:: >> Anyone know how I can retrieve a phone number for a line that I have >> recently discovered within our business. >> SBC is our carrier but they tell me I would have to have someone come >> out and trace the line at a charge. Is there a way of determining the >> nimber by using some code entered on the phone. > If there's a dialtone on the line, hook up a phone and try calling > 1-888-902-9998. It should read back the number of the calling phone. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried it just now and it worked fine > on my Vonage line, and also on my cell phone line. PAT] Whoopie! Works from the Great White North also! Who runs this? ------------------------------ From: rlangly@gmail.com (Ringo Langly) Subject: Re: Dropping SBC For a VoIP Solution -- Vonage or Packet8 ?? Date: 24 Nov 2004 06:25:24 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com John McHarry wrote in message news:: > I have Packet8 because I could not get a local Vonage number, and they > are a bit less expensive. It is good enough for me, although not quite > landline quality. It is probably slightly better than cellular, but > there is noticeable delay and degradation when talking to a cell > phone, probably due to the double compression. > I made one international call to Germany, which didn't last long > enough to get a good notion of the quality, but the return call seemed > to sound better, so I wonder about the quality of the transatlantic > link. > Soon after you get it you probably want to upgrade the firmware in the > interface box. It is painless, and there are fixes and features that > were not in the firmware as shipped. That may no longer be the case, > but it doesn't hurt to make sure. Hi John, I did order the Packet8 box on Monday, and with any luck it'll be in by Friday so I can play with it this weekend. They have the 30-day trial, so if it's not what I expect I'll send it back -- but I'm eager to check it out. I would've rather used Vonage, but like you Vonage isn't in my area yet. I'll post some reviews and notes about it when I get it. Also thanks for the firmware upgrade suggestion... does it have instructions on how to do this? Thanks and take care, Ringo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:00:34 EST From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA Subject: Broadband Use Doubled Between 2001 and 2003 Telecom dailyLead from USTA November 24, 2004 http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=17728&l=2017006 TODAY'S HEADLINES NEWS OF THE DAY * Report: Broadband use doubled between 2001 and 2003 BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH * Verizon Wireless acquires new spectrum in Pennsylvania * SBC expands Wi-Fi reach * Bidders make initial offers for Sprint towers * Analyst: Cisco lost ground to Juniper in Q3 * Cingular plans job cuts USTA SPOTLIGHT * Order Your Copy of Gigabit Ethernet Today EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES * The future of VOD at Comcast REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE * FCC: Millions took advantage of number portability rules EDITOR'S NOTE * The dailyLead will not be published Thursday or Friday Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others. http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=17728&l=2017006 ------------------------------ From: Forrest Nelson Subject: Fax Machine Transmission Test Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:11:24 -0800 Does anyone know of a way to test your fax machine for transmission performance. I have a machine or line that fails to receive without errors maybe every 25th time. Thanks, JF Nelson 206-829-7348 direct 206-256-0423 fax ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Trial Shows How Spammers Operate Date: 24 Nov 2004 13:40:54 -0500 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Dan Lanciani wrote: >jdj@now.here (jdj) wrote: >> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:12:34 -0500, Dan Lanciani wrote: >>> Interesting. I didn't realize that this was considered a bad thing. >> There are a lot of people who equate receiving spam to stepping in >> what the cat leaves on the lawn. > This makes no sense. How exactly can you avoid "receiving spam"? By removing spammers. If every single one of us here went and injured a single spammer, the spam problem would be more or less gone. In fact, if one person beat Ralsky up with a baseball bat, I think we'd all see about a 50% drop in spam. > Obviously. But why should I care? The point of the response is to > tell people who were neither sending spam nor forging their address > that their mail has been incorrectly identified as spam. Note that I > do not include the body of the original message in my automated > response, so you can't use my filter to reflect spam to a third party. The problem is that the number of people in that category is a very small one, and the number of people who receive misdirected bounces is a very high one. The cure is worse than the disease. Note that on the whole, the vast majority of messages that your spam cleaner detects will actually be spam, and therefore will not have an accurate return address. In fact, the vast majority of messages received at all will actually be spam, if your statistics are anything like mine. I figure about 90% of the messages arriving at my server are spam, and that is after router filtering. scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ 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 #565 ******************************