From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Feb 8 17:47:56 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i18Mluh05583; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:47:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:47:56 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200402082247.i18Mluh05583@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 #62 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:48:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 62 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Virus Underground (Monty Solomon) Re: Question About 802.11g Wireless Router/Signal Booster/Ant (Sutton) Telephone Service Surcharges (jared) Building a Voice-Driven Application (Alex Smith) Re: New Telemarketer Law, Caller ID, Anonymous Call Reject (fakeaddress) Re: New Telemarketer Law, Caller ID, Anonymous Call Reject (M Quinn) Re: "No Internet Voting" (noname) Re: "No Internet Voting" (Dave Close) Re: "Out of Area" Caller ID Law (Steve Michelson) Re: Call Centres (CCIE8122) Re: Comcast Has Limits For Heavy Internet Users (Kim Brennan) Re: Faked CallerID Info? (Steven J Sobol) Ameritech Historical Picture Book Available (Jim Haynes) 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, 8 Feb 2004 10:05:04 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Virus Underground By CLIVE THOMPSON This is how easy it has become. Mario stubs out his cigarette and sits down at the desk in his bedroom. He pops into his laptop the CD of Iron Maiden's "Number of the Beast," his latest favorite album. "I really like it," he says, "My girlfriend bought it for me." He gestures to the 15-year-old girl with straight dark hair lounging on his neatly made bed, and she throws back a shy smile. Mario, 16, is a secondary-school student in a small town in the foothills of southern Austria. (He didn't want me to use his last name.) His shiny shoulder-length hair covers half his face and his sleepy green eyes, making him look like a very young, languid Mick Jagger. On his wall he has an enormous poster of Anna Kournikova -- which, he admits sheepishly, his girlfriend is not thrilled about. Downstairs, his mother is cleaning up after dinner. She isn't thrilled these days, either. But what bothers her isn't Mario's poster. It's his hobby. When Mario is bored -- and out here in the countryside, surrounded by soaring snowcapped mountains and little else, he's bored a lot -- he likes to sit at his laptop and create computer viruses and worms. Online, he goes by the name Second Part to Hell, and he has written more than 150 examples of what computer experts call 'malware': tiny programs that exist solely to self-replicate, infecting computers hooked up to the Internet. Sometimes these programs cause damage, and sometimes they don't. Mario says he prefers to create viruses that don't intentionally wreck data, because simple destruction is too easy. "Anyone can rewrite a hard drive with one or two lines of code," he says, "It makes no sense. It's really lame." Besides which, it's mean, he says, and he likes to be friendly. But still -- just to see if he could do it -- a year ago he created a rather dangerous tool: a program that autogenerates viruses. It's called a Batch Trojan Generator, and anyone can download it freely from Mario's Web site. With a few simple mouse clicks, you can use the tool to create your own malicious ''Trojan horse.'' Like its ancient namesake, a Trojan virus arrives in someone's e-mail looking like a gift, a JPEG picture or a video, for example, but actually bearing dangerous cargo. Mario starts up the tool to show me how it works. A little box appears on his laptop screen, politely asking me to name my Trojan. I call it the ''Clive'' virus. Then it asks me what I'd like the virus to do. Shall the Trojan Horse format drive C:? Yes, I click. Shall the Trojan Horse overwrite every file? Yes. It asks me if I'd like to have the virus activate the next time the computer is restarted, and I say yes again. Then it's done. The generator spits out the virus onto Mario's hard drive, a tiny 3k file. Mario's generator also displays a stern notice warning that spreading your creation is illegal. The generator, he says, is just for educational purposes, a way to help curious programmers learn how Trojans work. But of course I could ignore that advice. I could give this virus an enticing name, like ''britney--spears--wedding--clip.mpeg,'' to fool people into thinking it's a video. If I were to e-mail it to a victim, and if he clicked on it -- and didn't have up-to-date antivirus software, which many people don't -- then disaster would strike his computer. The virus would activate. It would quietly reach into the victim's Microsoft Windows operating system and insert new commands telling the computer to erase its own hard drive. The next time the victim started up his computer, the machine would find those new commands, assume they were part of the normal Windows operating system and guilelessly follow them. Poof: everything on his hard drive would vanish -- e-mail, pictures, documents, games. I've never contemplated writing a virus before. Even if I had, I wouldn't have known how to do it. But thanks to a teenager in Austria, it took me less than a minute to master the art. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/magazine/08WORMS.html *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance, New York Times Company. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Colin Sutton Subject: Re: Question About 802.11g Wireless Router/Signal Booster/Antenna Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 22:46:02 +1100 The problem may be the *building*. Try putting an external antenna on the router, outside the window. Do you then get reception on the PC? If you put the PC by the window? Out the window? (don't drop it! :-) Regards, Colin O K wrote in message news:telecom23.60.8@telecom-digest.org: > I have a question about adding a wireless antenna or signal booster to my > home network. > My current setup is I have a Linksys WRT54G wireless router which > supports B and G infrastructure. I have a 802.11b Wireless PCI card > in my PC. In my condo, I can verify that the wireless portion of the > network between the wireless router and my PC are functioning. I then > take my PC to another floor in my building, and I get little to no > signal. I would like to add either a signal booster and/or an antenna > to make my network functional. > From the reading that I have done, I can't determine where the > antenna needs to be installed if I go this route. Is it installed on > the PCI portion of the network, or the router portion of the network. > As the router TX's and RX's, is the problem with the low transmission > power from the router and therefore I need a wireless antenna on the > PC, or is the problem the low transmission power from the PCI card to > the router upstairs? I can't figure out which hardware I need to make > this functional. > Please contact me directly at okorkie3@cox.net (remove the *) > Thanks, > Owen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 14:49:16 -0700 From: jared.NospaM@netspace.net.au (jared) Subject: Telephone Service Surcharges Thought c.d.t readers might find this list of surcharges fascinating. Company X overlooked my local government's 911 surcharge and just-because-its-a-source-of-revenue tax that add another few dollars. The upshot is that a thirty-something dollar nominal cost becomes fifty-something dollars. COLORADO Federal Excise Tax 3% Tax mandated by the federal government imposed on all telecommunication services. Federal Universal Service Fund 8.7%. FUSF is assessed on your interstate and international charges not including taxes. This includes a portion of the monthly product fee that is allocated to interstate services for regulatory purposes. [This] is consistent with the FUSF rate of other large long distance carriers. This surcharge is assessed on any monthly long distance plan fees/ minimums, Interstate and International Usage and the Network Access Charge. Network Access Surcharge Primary Line - (EUCL) $6.50 Monthly charge assessed on each line within the household. This charge compensates for the Local Telephone Company's cost of installation and maintenance of the components that link your home to the telephone network. Network Access Surcharge Secondary Line - (EUCL) $7.00 (when applicable) Monthly charge assessed on each line within the household. This charge compensates for the Local Telephone Company's cost of installation and maintenance of the components that link your home to the telephone network. Carrier Cost Recovery Charge (CCRC)* 1.4% A monthly surcharge in order to recover costs the Company incurs with regard to Telecommunications Relay Service, national number portability, and federal regulatory fees. The surcharge is assessed on long distance (Dial-1, Card, P800 and SB T800) state-to-state and international charges. Local 911 $0.00 - $0.70 per line This fee provides the local governing body with a source of revenue for payment of the total costs of establishing or upgrading, operating and maintaining an emergency telephone system. State and Local Taxes 2.900% This is a state sales tax on the consumption of telecommunications services. State and Local Taxes 0% - 5% This is a local sales tax on the consumption of telecommunications services. State and Local Taxes 0% - 0.8% This is a special sales tax to pay for regional transportation projects, scientific and cultural projects, and sports stadium projects. Federal, State and Local Surcharges $1.12 This is a surcharge of the City of Denver telecommunications business tax on telephone and telegraph companies. High Cost Fund (Colorado) 2.300% The Colorado High Cost Fund is used to ensure the availability of affordable basic telephone service in areas where costs to provide service are high. Telecommunications Relay Service $0.10 A surcharge to fund the relay center that assists the hearing and speech impaired with communicating to other telephone providers. Local Number Portability (LNP) $0.43 Covers the cost of providing residential customers with the ability to retain, at the same location, their existing local telephone numbers when switching from one local provider to another. ------------------------------ From: asmith42@hotmail.com (Alex Smith) Subject: Building a Voice-Driven Application Date: 7 Feb 2004 16:11:34 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hello all, I am venturing into the telephony world and even though I have briefly dealt with CTI and H.323, I am still a newbie. I'd like to build an application that would allow me to buy apples from several grocery stores. (This is a hypothetical but representative example, please bear with me). I want to place a telephone call to a number, enter my pin, navigate through some voice prompts that will allow me to select a particular grocery store, then select a variety of apples and enter the amount of apples (weight) I'd like to buy using the phone keypad. Finally I would also like to leave voice instructions for the grocer on how to pack my apples (paper or plastic). The app would "look me up" using my pin number and store the packing instructions as a soundbyte along with the other order parameters in a database. From a high-level architectural perspective, what hardware and software components would make up my stack? For the sake of the example, assume small volume (personal use). I am looking for high-level architecture rather than product names even though Open Source/GNU/etc suggestions are welcome. My limited understanding tells me I need a CTI server. Do I need a PBX? Other components? If I want to parse the voice instructions (i.e. speech recognition) in order to extract "paper" or "plastic", how doable is that? Any URLs or books that go from slow to complex with architectural examples are appreciated. Alex Smith Insight LLC ------------------------------ From: fakeaddress@fakedomain.com Subject: Re: New Telemarketer Law, Caller ID, and Anonymous Call Reject Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:26:36 -0500 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:42:21 -0500, wrote: > Two thoughts here: > 1. The DNC list works well for me. I usually don't see more than > one telemarketer every month or so. See > https://www.donotcall.gov/default.aspx > 2. If the telco's were interested in enforcing the DNC, they'd add a > new CLASS service like malicious call trace that captures the caller > ID _and_ ANI. Typing the *xx code could report these numbers to the > FTC, with the time and your phone number so your complaint can be more > easily traced. That is, if the phone companies really wanted to help > enforce the anti-telemarketer regs. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There *is* a CLASS service such as you > describe. *57 does that job; dial *57 during a conversation (flash the > hook, fresh dialtone, *57, then flash again to go back to the > conversation) or immediatly following disconnection, and telco records > the details regardless of any privacy flags (*67, etc) being set and > forwards the details to police. **They will NOT tell you the details. > You have to get the details from the police.** Police will generally > only give you details if you agree _in writing first_ to prosecute on > the results. Telco will not serve as your private detective agency, > etc. Communication privacy laws prohibit telco from working with you > directly. Getting the police to actually do something about the matter > is a different thing. Many police believe it is a civil matter, and > they are not permitted to get involved in civil matters. Police also > usually have a busy schedule and phone harassment is not a big issue, > especially when there is a telemarketer causing you some minor grief. > Oh, and *57 is not an inexpensive CLASS service. Typically, telco gets > eight to ten dollars for *each instance* of its use. The recorded > message they play immediatly following the capture of the details > tells you about this charge, and provides an 800 number at the 'call > annoyance bureau' to be used to follow up with telco and police. PAT] I had thought that *57 cost one dollar a use, but found you are right, a couple of SBCs tariffs that charge $7 and $8 per successful use. I thought a buck was too much, and the headache of getting the local LEA involved was not worth the effort, even if they did anything. That's why I think we need a similar service that sends the data to the FTC/FCCs enforcement division (to get around the privacy aspects). If its cheap (i.e. free) and easy to send the data, people will do it. The FTC/FCC do not call list website seems to have been done by someone with at least a clue as to what they are doing, so I bet they could set up a system to automatically record all the data that was sent in, and sort it by number of calls from each ANI and each CID, so they could address the most prolific violators first. Also, you need both ANI and CID. I don't know if *57 gives both. You need ANI because CID can be faked; you need CID because a company may use many telemarketers, each with their own line (and ANI). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:38:29 -0500 From: Michael Quinn Organization: Booz Allen Hamilton Subject: Re: New Telemarketer Law, Caller ID, and Anonymous Call Reject Oops -- I checked my Verizon bill. The service is called "Call Intercept" and is $5 per month plus the $7.50 per month caller ID. Anonymous Call Rejection is part of the basic overpriced local service. Sorry for the confusion. Mike Mary@bentmetal.biz responded to my post on Re: New Telemarketer Law, Caller ID, and Anonymous Call Reject: > Your feature sounds more like Privacy Manager than Anonymous Call > Rejection. ------------------------------ From: noname Subject: Re: "No Internet Voting" Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 21:43:29 GMT In article , Wesrock@aol.com says: > In a message dated Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:36:46 -0500 TELECOM Digest > Editor noted in response to Robert Pierce's message: >> I don't know of any large corporation back in the 1960-70's as >> computers were taking over everything which did not run in >> parallel for at least a month or two for just that reason. I know >> telco and Amoco credit card did that. PAT] > This does not seem to be typical of government, state, local, > etc. In Oklahoma there have been at least three cases in the last few > years where this apparently not even considered and the new system was > supposed to run straight out of the box. One was a combined system > for state government, which took six weeks or so to get where it would > even issue pay checks to state employees ... another was the Oklahoma > City school district which did similarly and employee pay checks were > delayed for a number of days, and payments to vendors for many weeks, > to the extent that some vendors cut them off, and another case > involving Oklahoma County payrolls. Indeed. State of Rhode Island went with a canned solution for their G/L system which had previously been running on an IBM mainframe. The new one ran via Citrix metaframe using Oracle on the back end. Of course the problem was that the pukes in purchasing got a system that was great for purchasing but sucked as a G/L package. So at one point we tried to pay things using non-existent codes -- and had to fudge. That does wonders for the G/L. Then of course getting checks cut to vendors was a major headache as was reporting. Every quarter we'd get a crappy Access database of all the revenue and expenditures for every state agency. I re-worked it so I just brought the table into the version I'd modified that could issue reports for ONLY our agency code and could do summaries, etc. Theirs couldn't. Took more than a year to work things out on that system. Wisely, they didn't migrate payroll because they knew what would have happened. ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: "No Internet Voting" Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:30:03 -0800 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is very little you can do > *without computers* that can't be done better *with computers*, > including detecting fraud and other crimes. Money manipulators have been counting the stuff for centuries. One thing accountants figured out a long time ago is that, just as with the US Constitution, a system of checks and balances makes the whole thing work more reliably. No reputable fund manager would tolerate a system which could not be audited. But just as with the "new economy" bubble, some folks think that voting electronically does not need to be subject to the same old rules. Los Angeles County has been counting ballots with computers for about 35 years, so using computers as part of the process is certainly not new. But those ballots have been punched cards and they can be counted manually in case of any doubt about the computer counting. The problem with the proposed military system and many other net voting schemes is that there is no auditability. No one, not even a computer, can detect and prove a fraud without that ability. Voting via the Net may happen, but many of us won't support it until there is a method for conducting an audit. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But what I said was about the same thing: Run the new system in parallel with the old system *at least* for one cycle using the usual audit procedures on the paper system to validate the computer system. And if turning the whole thing loose on the general public is too difficult at first, then overseas military would make a good subset to practice on. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Michelson Subject: Re: "Out of Area" Caller ID Law Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 02:08:41 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net I wonder whether you live in a state where they are having primary elections. The Do Not Call list does not apply to political pollsters, charities, and companies with whom you had an existing relationship. Perhaps you are getting calls from political pollsters? Mike wrote in message news:telecom23.61.3@telecom-digest.org: > I registered on that Do Not Call list back when it first came out. > When it went into affect we stopped receiving all those annoying > telemarketing phone calls. But ever since that new law came out that > requires telemarketers to display info on the caller id, we've been > getting about 3 "out of area" calls everyday at the same times they > used to call. > Does anyone know what that's all about? It's really annoying. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It goes to show that the telemarketers > are keeping up with the times. Telemarketers are not going to be > easily thwarted. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: CCIE8122 Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 21:27:56 -0700 Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/ Subject: Re: Call Centres > Does anyone know what the situation is in the US/Canada as far as call > centres being transferred abroad is like? > It's *BIG* news over here at the moment, with many companies, such as > insurance companies, telco's (including BT), some 118 Directory > Assistance companies, National Rail Enquiries, and AOL, opening up > call centres in India, primarily Kolkutt and Mumbai. Basically > they're *MUCH* cheaper to run and operate over there than call centres > here in the UK, but that's at the expense of job losses as well. At > the moment they're being used as overflow for the call centres here > -- but as I say, that's at the moment. > BTW, the reason I know that AOL have opened a centre in India is > because I had to call them a few weeks ago, only for my call to be > answered (eventually) by a guy with a very strong Indian accent -- you > don't hear Indian accents in Waterford, Ireland, where AOL have their > main European office! > TIA! > Rob Same in US. I sell MCI/AT&T/Qwest/GX services, including IPL, to a major call center company in the US (they do call center for UPS, United Healthcare, Metlife, AT&T, and several other Fortune 500 cos). May even be the same company that does AOL. Anyway this company has IPL to Mexico, Ghana, India (Bangalore and Mumbai), with call centers in all those locations. According to them the next major areas are Beijing, and Philippines. Other major companies like Cisco do a similar sort of thing -- Cisco TAC does sort of a "follow the sun," doing TOD routing between call centers in US, India, Sydney, among others. kr [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One reason they like locating in the Philippines (well, two reasons, actually) is the neutrality of the language (mostly decent English) and the low costs involved in the payroll; the people work for very low wages, and employers are not subject to all the various worker comp, insurance, and taxes they are here in the USA. Work for people who need jobs, and less grief for the employers. A 'win-win' situation for all (smile) except the USA customers/consumers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 08 Feb 2004 05:28:36 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Comcast Has Limits For Heavy Internet Users Of course, DirecPC has "fair use" limits too (and for far more reason as satellite bandwidth is much more limited, and must more expensive to upgrade.) However ... This begs the question of what they (Comcast et al) are doing. ISP means (or is SUPPOSED to mean) Internet Service Provider. Unfortunately far too many of these silly people think that means ONLY http, and they restrict it so that ONLY http can be served. But INTERNET service implies FTP and Mail and telnet and a whole slew of other capabilities. If they want to "restrict" users to an equal playfield (though the usage patterns may not justify that anyway) then each user should have the EXACT same limits. It's called dial up. Bah. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And how often do you ever see an ISP who will give you a shell if you ask for one. They're deathly afraid of what havoc you might cause if you had a shell account. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Faked CallerID Info? Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:18:21 -0600 Gail M. Hall wrote: > What I don't understand is the part of the "exposure" that really > bothered me, and that is the appearance of grabbing the girl's clothes > off of her. Grabbing and groping against her will is just a lower > form of imposition and the type of thinking that leads to rape. > This sort of thing glorifies abusing other people. Hey Gail! If you've read any of Janet's interviews ... in many of them she admits to being very, well, sexual. Which is fine, and she hasn't attempted to market sexuality like Madonna has. But it still bothers me that someone with the magnitude of talent that Janet Jackson has ... *or* Madonna ... or Christina Aguilera, who has an AMAZING voice ... it bugs me that any of those three extremely talented ladies feels the need to do some of the things they've done. They all have the goods they need to succeed (and NO, I'm not talking about body parts, get your mind out of the gutter!) and don't have to act like total skanks in order to get people's attention. I'm afraid that Janet, however, is going down that road. Christina started down that road a while ago, and Madonna, unfortunately, *paved* that road. :( (And during the years when she was more interested in shocking people than making music, her music suffered.) Back on topic here -- the Janet/Justin thing, the streaker advertising the online casino -- telemarketers -- spammers -- the idiot standing in the used car lot screaming at you - they're all employing the same marketing ploy: "get in their faces, annoy them and maybe they'll pay attention." (As you so rightly pointed out.) Know why? BECAUSE WE LET THEM. (And because they think they have the God-given right to do it, in the case of the telemarketers who insist they do nothing wrong.) Need I say more? JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you, Doctor Sobol, for that very interesting message -- I'll call it the Sunday evening sermon for this week. You raise some very good points. That's one reason why I hope the television sets which are able to detect the presence of a comm- ercial message (when one comes on, it stops recording until the message is finished, then resumes its recording) are very successful in their sales. We need more such vigorous resistence by the public. To all readers: stop by our 'literature table' on your way out of this issue of the Digest tonight, and place your order for a very good pictorial history book now available on Illinois Bell/Ameritech. I hope you will decide to order a personal copy. See the final message in this issue today. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Ameritech historical picture book available Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes) Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:01:53 GMT (this came to me via the greenkeys mailing list) The SBC Archives and History Center is pleased to offer the book entitled, Snapshots in Time: A Photographic History of Ameritech. This 192-page soft-cover book chronicles the evolution of telecommunications in the SBC Midwest (former Ameritech) five-state region through select historical images. It offers more than 225 captioned photos of switchboard operators, crews with their vehicles and technicians testing central office equipment. The book begins with an 1876 portrait of Alexander Graham Bell and ends in 1999, on the eve of the SBC/Ameritech merger. The cost for each book is $25.00, plus $4.95 for shipping. To order, fill out the form below. If you have questions, please call Bill Caughlin at (210) 524-6192. Or send him an e-mail at wc2942@sbc.com --------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER FORM FOR Snapshots in Time: A Photographic History of Ameritech NAME __________________________________________________ BUSINESS UNIT ________________________________________ ADDRESS _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ CITY _________________________ STATE _____ ZIP __________ PHONE NUMBER (______)_________________________ I would like to order _______ copy(ies) each at $25.00, plus $4.95 shipping, for a total of _____________. No cash, please. Make your check or money order payable to SBC Services, Inc. and send it to: SBC Archives and History Center 7990 IH-10 West Floor 1 San Antonio, Texas 78230 jhaynes at alumni dot uark dot edu ------------------------------ 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 #62 *****************************