From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Dec 3 22:37:20 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iB43bJQ25598; Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:37:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:37:20 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200412040337.iB43bJQ25598@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 #578 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:37:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 578 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Kicking the Avaya Habit (Geoffrey Welsh) Salzano's NorVergence Money Found??? (David O. Rodriguez) Bill of Rights Day Dinner 12/15 (alan@bloomfieldpress.com) Dude, Ring Me Up A Game (Eric Friedebach) Samsung Beats Motorola In Market Share (Eric Friedebach) Report: Europe Sees Broadband Boom (Telecom dailyLead from USTA) OnStar Frequency of Use (Monty Solomon) Fax vrs. VOIP (John McHarry) Re: CA DMV Chief Backs Tax by Mile (jmeissen@aracnet.com) Re: CA DMV Chief Backs Tax by Mile (Clarence Dold) Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS! (Tony P.) Re: Dropping SBC For a VoIP Solution - Vonage or Packet8 (Tony P.) Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Kicking the Avaya Habit Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:45:12 -0500 Hello, my name is Geoff and I'm an Avayaholic. You might think that ending a business relationship with the mob or kicking a drug habit is hard ... until you try cancelling a contract with Avaya. You may think that I'm exagerrating, and that I'm being insensitive to people who have substance abuse problems or compulsive habits, but I'm telling you that dealing with Avaya, while not nearly as devastating as those problems, is just as hard to stop. My company closed an office in Georgia earlier this year, and one of the pieces of equipment salvaged was a Partner key system. Since we were planning to relocate an office in Virginia, I had the system shipped there for installation in the new office. Avaya, though, has changed our plans. My office facilities manager tells me that a letter was sent to Avaya in June requesting cancellation of our maintenance contracts which expired/renewed in September, but the invoices still kept coming. My boss gave me the name of an Avaya person (we'll call this person "A") to contact about the continuing invoices so I left a voice mail for her and sent her an e-mail. She replied to the e-mail saying that she did not recall working on our account, so I gave her the names of the people she might have talked to and asked her whether I should be talking to her or to someone else. When I had not heard back from her in almost two weeks, I sent another e-mail asking if she was the person I should be talking to; she replied and said that she "really would like to assist" me but needed our account numbers. I sent them. I did not hear back. Three weeks later we had received another round of invoices issued since I provided "A" with the account numbers so I called the inquiry number (which, before letting you talk to a human being about canceling, forces you to listen to a minute or two on why canceling is A Bad Thing and you really shouldn't do it) and asked another Avaya person (we'll call this person "B") why the accounts had not been cancelled. I was told politely but firmly that the only way we could cancel was in writing, on company letterhead, stating our account numbers (we have two, but that's another story), contract numbers, and "group code". She informed me that, since we had paid our invoices after some of the contracts had automatically renewed, that we had technically accepted the renewal. At this point I wasn't going to argue about renewals or costs, I just wanted the contracts canceled so I could move on to other things. I wrote up the FAX, included the account numbers, contract numbers, group code, and a request for acknowledgement and sent it off to the phone number she provided. Five weeks later I have yet another pair of new invoices from Avaya that completely fail to mention cancellation and threaten to automatically renew next week the one remaining contract which has not yet renewed automatically. I call, again listening to the stern counsel against cancelling, and ask whether they have received our cancellation letter. I'm informed that they have a letter dated June that was sent to the wrong address, but not the one I sent via FAX in October ... and the accounts are not yet cancelled. The person I spoke to today turns out to be person "A", who offered to help back in September, but ignored every other e-mail I sent. She did, however, offer to connect me with "B", who might have my letter in her personal file. "B" didn't answer, so I left a voice mail. She replied in e-mail that she did not receive my FAX and could I send it again to her attention right away because she was going to be away for some time starting Monday. I did so. I called back and left a voice mail asking for confirmation, but have yet to hear back. I don't need to be a gambler to wager that this FAX won't result in the contracts being canceled, either. There is nothing that I can name in polite company that smells worse than this Avaya situation: (1) They have a letter requesting cancellation dated June. They say it was sent to the wrong address, but apparently they have it now because it is in our file ... but the contract has not been cancelled. (2) "A" dropped the ball not once but twice. (3) If Avaya has strict rules about how a customer must request cancellation, "A" sort of lied by promising to help but not mentioning this simple but critical fact. If there are no such rules, then "B" lied blatantly. (4) Maybe "B" didn't get my FAX. Maybe it would be unreasonable for me to expect her to let me know that she didn't receive what I told her I'd be sending promptly. Maybe she hoped the stern lessons recited by the voice mail system had sunk in and we had changed our minds. Nonetheless, the FAX was sent to the correct Avaya number and somebody must have picked it up. In addition to the standard letterhead stuff, it stated our account numbers, contract numbers, "group code", the address where the system was [formerly] installed, the name our company goes by in the U.S., the name it used to go by internationally, the name it currently goes by internationally (all basically the same, except for the words like Ltd., Inc., Corporation, etc.), the addresses that might have been associated with our accounts and invoices over the years, and my e-mail address. Whoever picked it up did not act on it, did not put it in our file, did not forward it to the person apparently responsible for our accounts, and did not me about it. (5) "B" is in no hurry to let me know whether she got the FAX when I resent it. No one likes to be cancelled. Lots of contracts have automatic passive renewal clauses, and I've known lots of companies with internal communication and organization problems, but could these all be accidental incidents coincidentally preventing us from canceling, or am I right to suspect that Avaya is intentionally and systematically interfering with legitimate attempts to cancel contracts, perhaps because they feel they have nothing to lose and continuing payments to gain? In our case they lost an opportunity to sell a maintenance contract for the very same system in a different location, and a lasting impression on me that will make me try to avoid dealing with Avaya ever again. I share my story in the hopes that someone will learn from our mistake and not get hooked the way we did. Geoffrey Welsh LEGAL NOTICE: The content of this message is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of his employer, associates, dependents, cellmates, or dominatrixes (dominatrices?) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At some point you are going to have to just dump the matter and let them do as they wish, then form an approprate action to that. Always get a postal green card for any mail you send them and keep a copy of it. Eventually you begin responding to their collection requests by forwarding them a copy of your green proof of delivery card from the post office and a xerox copy of your last letter, then wash your hands of it. You cannot expect to save the entire company from its foolishness and lack of attention to customer requests, so quit trying. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David O. Rodriguez Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:31:31 -0500 Subject: Salzano's NorVergence Money Found ??? Pat, I received the e-mail below and it seems to be regarding Salzano's NorVerge money. I do not know if this is accurate information, wrong information, or, someone's attempt at a bad joke. However, it got my attention. David To: norvergence@yahoogroups.com From: Send an Instant Message "sharp_ja" Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:07:20 -0000 Subject: [norvergence] Re: Anything new on the Bankruptcy? I have heard that they have found the trust fund though. It's not in the Cayman's like everyone thinks. It is an island though. Cooks Island (off of the Fiji's). There are some very powerful people going after it to lock it up. Let's cross our fingers all. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:43:40 -0500 From: alan@bloomfieldpress.com Subject: Bill of Rights Day Dinner 12/15 Bill of Rights Day Celebrations People across the country are celebrating Bill of Rights Day this December 15 -- the date the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Why not celebrate it too! If you are in the Phoenix-metro area, come join the dinner meeting that evening, when the Bill of Rights will be read out loud from a parchment copy. Other activities are planned. Should be a lot of fun, time to contemplate our rights, break bread with friends, new and old. Bring your own copy of the Bill to follow along. If you're not in our neck of the woods, why not organize a lunch or dinner of your own? Spend a few hours cherishing the fundamental charter of our liberties. It's easy, just pick a place, and tell everyone. Did I say it's easy, or what? If you need some help or ideas, go to JPFO's website and click on Bill of Rights Day. jpfo.org. Let them know what you're up to and they'll give you some free publicity too. IN PHOENIX: Bill of Rights Day Dinner Dec. 15, 2004, 6 p.m. Hometown Buffet Restaurant All You Can Eat, under $10. 1312 N. Scottsdale Rd. W. side of road, S. of McDowell RSVP PLEASE: dial911book@hotmail.com Sincerely, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Dude, Ring Me Up A Game Date: 3 Dec 2004 10:08:26 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com David M. Ewalt, 12.02.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - Forget the PlayStation Portable and ditch that GameBoy. Kids might be pining for those hot portable gaming systems now, but the real future of mobile gaming could already be in their pocket. Today's kids are mobile experts, utterly comfortable with tiny screens and capable of typing with their thumbs faster than many adults can on a keyboard. They're also huge consumers of wireless phone service, the fastest growing group of cellular users and the heaviest users of minutes and data. Pair those characteristics with today's handsets -- big, bright color screens, on-board memory and high-speed data connections -- and you've got a recipe for gaming nirvana. Mobile gaming is taking off, and thanks in part to the influence of kids, promises to be a boon to wireless vendors. http://www.forbes.com/2004/12/02/cx_de_1202kidphone.html Eric Friedebach /KMPX Rocks!/ ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Samsung Beats Motorola In Market Share Date: 3 Dec 2004 10:26:00 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Mark Tatge, 12.01.04, Forbes.com CHICAGO - Catching Nokia has been an obsession at Motorola. But is the Schaumburg, Ill.-based handset maker catching the Asian flu? The Asian invasion of low-cost, moderately priced handsets could be Motorola Chief Executive Edward Zander's biggest headache. Gartner released third-quarter figures Wednesday showing that Samsung had surpassed Motorola in global market share, snaring the No. 2 sales spot for the first time ever. Motorola's share slipped to 13.4% compared with the 13.8% share posted by Samsung. "This is a blow to Motorola," said Gartner analyst Ben Wood. Samsung's third-quarter lead over Motorola was only 588,000 units. Wood added that Motorola will likely regain the No. 2 spot during the fourth quarter after sales from the all-important Christmas selling season are counted. http://www.forbes.com/technology/2004/12/01/cz_mt_1201mot.html Eric Friedebach /KMPX Rocks!/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:31:56 EST From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA Subject: Report: Europe sees broadband boom Telecom dailyLead from USTA December 3, 2004 http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=17891&l=2017006 TODAY'S HEADLINES NEWS OF THE DAY * Report: Europe sees broadband boom BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH * Two top Nokia executives to resign * BT to use VoIP at call centers * Broadband providers offer free merchandise * Juniper unveils TX router to rival Cisco's CRS-1 USTA SPOTLIGHT * Fill Your Most Urgent Job Requirements!! EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES * New Wi-Fi standard set to emerge REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE * Napster founder launches new online music service Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others. http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=17891&l=2017006 Legal and Privacy information at http://www.dailylead.com/about/privacy_legal.jsp SmartBrief, Inc. 1100 H ST NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:17:01 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: OnStar Frequency of Use OnStar Achieves Another First as Winner of Good Housekeeping's 'Good Buy' Award for Best Service NEW YORK, Dec. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- OnStar by General Motors was awarded the "Good Buy" Award from the Good Housekeeping Institute (GHI) today. OnStar is the first service ever acknowledged in GHI's new "best service" category. This is the first time any automotive product or service has been become an award winner since the "Good Buy" award program began ten years ago. Each month on average, OnStar receives about 700 airbag notifications and 11,000 emergency assistance calls, which include 4,000 Good Samaritan calls for a variety of emergency situations. In addition, each month OnStar advisors respond to an average of 500 stolen vehicle location requests, 20,000 requests for roadside assistance, 36,000 remote door-unlock requests and 19,000 GM Goodwrench remote diagnostics requests. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=45410120 ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: FAX vs VOIP Lines: 10 Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 00:58:56 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net This is really a reply to a question posted on a discussion of Lingo, but the subject is really quite different from that of the original thread. I believe the issue with FAX over VOIP is that VOIP uses lossy compression that does not treat FAX modulation gently. This tends to be a problem over any compressed link. The workaround is to recognize the intitial sniffing of a fax machine, demodulate the fax tones, send the raw data, and remodulate at the far end. Since Group 3 FAX is pretty standard, I don't see why only certain machines would be compatible, but no vendor can test all of them, so I can see their listing ones that are known compatible. ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Re: CA DMV Chief Backs Tax by Mile Date: 3 Dec 2004 18:22:02 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com In article , Lisa Hancock wrote: > How would such devices handle out of state driving? That's the point of the GPS device. Otherwise you could use a simple digital odometer type device to measure the distance traveled. > This isn't a problem just in California but in all states. We > like to drive and that costs money, an awful lot of it. Unfortunately, they're considering the same thing up here in Oregon, too. I'm amazed that such things even get consideration, but governments have a history of implementing things that would conceivably be too expensive, complex or intrusive. Especially under the current administration. The loss of revenue might be less of an issue if gasoline taxes were actually used strictly for transportation. John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com John Meissen john@meissen.org Think Logically / Act Intelligently / Question Authority ------------------------------ From: dold@XReXXCAXDM.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: CA DMV Chief Backs Tax by Mile Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:12:04 +0000 (UTC) Organization: a2i network Lisa Hancock wrote: > Sounds like it would be much easier to simply raise the gas tax. I > can't help but wonder if they're even serious about this or if this is > a joke. The premise is that increased fuel efficiency has resulted in a loss of gasonline tax revenue, while the number of miles driven has increased. If the gasonline tax had been a percentage of the sales price, instead of a fixed amount, the revenue would have gone up, and no one would have noticed. The federal tax hasn't increased since 1997, and actually was reduced in 2004 back to the 1993 level for 80% of the gas in California. The state tax hasn't increased since 1994. Raising the existing tax has no underlying implementation cost, just a political one. Road maintenance has been underfunded in California since Governor Jerry Brown decided that the revenue was best spent elsewhere. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS! Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:41:49 -0500 In article , RickMerrill@comTHROWcast.net says: > Garth Nospam wrote: >> LINGO SUCKS! >> I had two lines that I needed ported over to their service ... They >> strung me along for over the 30 day trial saying that they were >> working on it. Then they say Verizon is blocking access to the >> lines. > "Blocking" was the wrong word. If you look a matrix of all phone > companies' numbers that are converted to another phone companies' system > there is a complex number of dates at which the conversion (i.e. number > portability) will begin. >> I call Verizon they say that they would be happy to transfer >> my numbers and there is no blocking going on. I call Lingo back and >> they say they can't transfer my numbers due to technical limitations >> on their end! Then they charge me a $40 cancellation FEE!! >> Bastards! And they have no managers to talk with or even a mailing >> address! What crap. > Keep at 'em until they cough up a refund or a credit or ! a phone. >> Also beware if you want to hook up a fax machine to their Voip box it >> has to be one that they support. > That's a good caution: Does anyone know more about FAX vs. VOIP? >> Evil bastards Lingo needs to shape >> up get better customer service and maybe they will be worth it! > Keep hoping! I'm 25 days out from my switch to Vonage and my number still hasn't been ported. I've been talking to the PUC, Verizon, Vonage etc. What I've gotten from this is a clear picture of the anti-competitive nature of Verizon and the structure of Vonage's network. It seems that Verizon only has to do rapid LNP with other FCC regulated carriers. If you're not FCC regulated they can take as long as they want and delay for whatever reason they wish because they're free of regulatory burden. With that in mind I plan to file suit against Verizon for the additional two months of their service I had to purchase either due to their incompetence or their outright anti competitive behavior. If anyone else has had this trouble with Verizon I invite you to contact me. The more the merrier I say, and the more likely the FCC and DOJ might take notice. Vonage basically buys excess capacity on two carriers switches, Paetec or Focal Communications. Interestingly neither lists their switch type on the telcodata web site so I'm left to surmise that in my case, Paetec is just buying UNE from Verizon. That being the case my number transfer shouldn't take more than a couple days. But Verizon won't treat it as carrier to carrier as they should. A few years from now when the Verizon's and SBC's and Qwests are marginalized they'll be wondering why they only carry < 25% of the market. Years of reliance on tariff and regulation are the reason. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The same thing happened to me when I decided to switch from Southwestern Bell (SBC) to Prairie Stream. First, SBC told Prairie Stream 'he is not eligible for conversion, since he has DSL on his line.' That, to them, was a satisfactory and complete answer. When Prairie Stream told me that, I called back to SBC and cancelled my DSL, concurrent with getting cable internet turned on the same day. Then I told Prairie Stream try it again. That time SBC said I would have to call them personally to have them turn it off. Prairie Stream told me that, so I called back to SBC once again and told them allow the switch. SBC's answer to me that time was 'well, okay, we will turn over your line, but we are really backed up here with work orders, etc so it may be two or three weeks before we are able to get around to it. I told them that was fine with me, but to mark my file that I requested a total disonnecton as of that date, and to make sure it was reflected on the bill. Prairie Stream took possession of my line a couple days later, but only because the technician at Prairie Stream put in another order for it and simply took it over. None of the former Bell telcos give up easily; UNE-C was bad enough for them, but VOIP is really doing a number on them. At least I was lucky that it only took about a week to get it done here, since Prairie Stream is a local company and I can walk over to their office from here in a few minutes and deal directly with the owner, and he continually pushed on SBC for me. I can see where someone some distance away from the carrier they want to use (and with no personal contacts at that company to push for them) could easily spend a month fighting with Bell over it. Begin by taking all their excuses away from them, such as DSL, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Dropping SBC For a VoIP Solution -- Vonage or Packet8 ?? Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:43:43 -0500 In article , rlangly@gmail.com says: > rlangly@gmail.com (Ringo Langly) wrote in message > news:: >> trb_1217@yahoo.com (tgreen) wrote in message >> news:: >>> Ringo, >>> I am looking forward to your review. I recently went through a similar >>> VOIP company comparison and I settled on Sunrocket. They are a new >>> company, but so far I have had a good experience. I tried them out >>> because it seemed pretty risk free -- no sign up, activation, or >>> cancellation charges. I hope you have a good experience. I think >>> VOIP is going to get pretty big over the next year. >> Hi everyone, >> Well last night the Packet8 router (or whatever it is) arrived, and in >> about 10 minutes it was activated and I had a dialtone. The first >> thing I did was run a speedtest on DSLReports.com, and I was sitting >> at around 2.4Mbps down and 350Kbps up (nothing else on network >> active), which is about normal for me. >> I made my first call to my landline (SBC), and the first thing I >> noticed was the delay. It was generally less then 1/2 a second, but >> it's enough where two people will step on one another while talking. >> I called the Packet8 tech support, and they said there generally is >> some delay, but it's should be no more then 50-100ms, which is hardly >> noticeable. Mine was more like 1/4-1/2 second delay. This doesn't >> sound like a biggie, but it breaks-up the casual flow of conversation. >> I then started firing-off some of my other applications, like iTunes >> (stream is 128K), Azureus (limited to 5K upload and 1500K download), >> email, and all my other web-based apps I usually run. With all this >> running I did another speed test, and I was down to about 1.1 Mbps >> down and 300Kbps up, which is still well within the 20Kbps or so >> required by Packet8. >> The sound quality is excellent, and caller ID, voicemail, and >> everything thus far works great. I even updated the firmware in the >> router, but the delay is still there. If anything is the killer it'll >> be the delay -- but I'll give it a full try for the next few weeks. >> I didn't sign any contract or anything, but it's free for the first >> month if I don't like it and send it back -- given I don't go over 300 >> minutes. The reasons I want to drop SBC is mainly because I'm paying >> $37/month and most VoIP services are closer to $20-$25/month. Plus my >> SBC line likes to quit working when it rains, and though I've told SBC >> exactly where the problem is they still haven't fixed it. >> Bottom line, the delay is annoying, but outside of that the service >> works great. I'll post another review later after I use it for a week >> or so. >> Ringo > Hi all, > I have tried another feature offered by Packet8 that is rather bad ... > They have the option to forward calls to another number if you're not > at home, and in testing I forwarded calls to my work phone. From > another phone in my office I called home and in about 3 rings my > office line rang. > Well, once I picked it up the delay was literally 2-3 seconds. I'm > thinking the call goes from ma bell to Packet8 to the VoIP router at > home then back to Packet8 then back to ma bell -- which creates a > MAJOR delay. It's literally not worth using with such a delay. > Once again other then the delays the service is great. And I know > it's not my broadband because again during the test I had 300Kbps up > and 1.5Mbps down according to DSL Reports. Heh -- I called my Vonage number from my Verizon phone - there's about a half second or so delay. So really no worse than if I'd used two Vonage or two Verizon lines. ------------------------------ 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 #578 ******************************