From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Feb 17 04:05:08 2004
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
	by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i1H957i21354;
	Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:05:08 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:05:08 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <200402170905.i1H957i21354@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 #75

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:05:00 EST    Volume 23 : Issue 75

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Exploit Based on Leaked Windows Code Released (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Monty Solomon Postings (was: My New Blog (Web log)) (Mark Brader)
    Re: Monty Solomon Postings (was: My New Blog (Web log)) (Peter Neumann)
    Sound Quality of Skype (BigO)
    Usage Numbers, Nortel/Motorola, Others vrs. Lucent (Dakshin) 
    World-Wide Cellular Coverage (Charles B. Wilber)
    Re: Telephones With Intercom Capability? (SELLCOM Tech support)
    Re: NetZero Commercials on Television (nospam@nothere.com)
    Re: Lost Liberties / Outlawing Dissent (William Warren)
    Re: Qwest vs. Other Companies (AL)
    Norvergence, Frankly (BarryB)
    Re: Phantom DSL Reprised (Matthew Elvey)
    Re: Experts Warn of Microsoft 'Monoculture' (AES/newspost)
    Re: Telephone Service Surcharges (John McHarry)
    Re: My New Blog (Weblog) (pm2020bc@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil)
    What Happened to the Telecom IRC Chat Room? (Scott Wilson)
    Funchain.com  Combines Social Networking With Blogging (Bagani)

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: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:54:04 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Exploit Based on Leaked Windows Code Released


By Patrick Gray, SecurityFocus

Exploit based on leaked Windows code released

A vulnerability in Internet Explorer 5 is the first to surface from 
last week's source code spill.

By Patrick Gray

The first new security vulnerability to emerge from last week's
Microsoft source code leak crossed a security mailing list over the
weekend, reigniting debate over the seriousness of the leak.

The vulnerability affects Internet Explorer 5 and various versions of 
Outlook Express. It was unearthed in code the two programs use to 
process bitmap image files, and affects the software on several 
versions of Windows, including 98, 2000 and XP. While some systems 
appear to be immune to the glitch, a proof-of-concept exploit that 
was posted to the Full Disclosure mailing list crashes Outlook 
Express 6 on Windows XP systems. Service Pack 1 appears to correct 
the vulnerability.

The exploit is a carefully-constructed bitmap file that "clobbers the 
stack" with data when opened in a vulnerable application, according 
to the author of the exploit, who calls himself "GTA." By corrupting 
a targeted system's memory in a controlled way, an attacker could 
likely use the flaw to execute arbitrary code on a vulnerable machine.


http://www.securityfocus.com/news/8060

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Monty Solomon Postings (was My New Blog (Web log))
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:28:13 EST
From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader)


Steven Sobol writes in comp.dcom.telecom:

> ... I don't have a problem with Monty Solomon continuing to post
> just the first paragraph or two [of newspaper and similar articles]
> along with a link.  Of course, it'd be nice if he also posted real
> conversations so we could all figure out that he's not a "bot" :)

This is my feeling also.  The one thing that does bother me when I come
across Monty's postings is that they're formatted as if he was claiming
to have written the excerpts he quotes.

On Usenet as in real life, it is conventional to explicitly mark
quoted text -- for a long passage of multiple paragraphs, usually one
gives an attribution before the text *and* does some sort of
indentation.  In addition, one usually includes some words of one's
own to make it obvious *why* one is quoting this passage, although I
appreciate that that might be difficult for a person who is a bulk
quoting machine. :-)

To me, having text that suddenly ends and is followed by a URL just
doesn't do the job.  Yes, people will get used to it -- it doesn't
bother *me* as much as it used to -- but they shouldn't have to.
I think Monty needs to reform, or at least reformat. :-)

(I'm Ccing this to the moderator of comp.risks, where Monty's postings
also sometimes appear.  The mystical "notsp" in the subject line is for
his benefit.)


Mark Brader, Toronto    |   "No flames were used in the creation of
msb@vex.net             |    this message."               -- Ray Depew

My text in this article is in the public domain.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:55:44 PST
From: Peter G. Neumann <neumann@csl.sri.com>
Subject: Re: Monty Solomon Postings (was: My New Blog (Web log))


Good comments.  I use relatively little of Monty's stuff, and 
often put the real author's name in the subject line.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mr. Neumann is the moderator of RISKS,
a prominent journal on internet.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: okleine@hotmail.com (BigO)
Subject: Sound Quality of Skype
Date: 16 Feb 2004 11:13:23 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


I have a friend deep down in Africa whom I'm trying to contact via
Skype. I have a BT Broadband line and it works very well with other
people having such a connection. Unfortunately, this friend of mine
has only got an analogue line. When trying to call me, he can
understand me very well, but I can only hear bits and pieces of what
he says. Is there a chance of reducing the quality of his mike in
order to reduce the datastream and thus have probably a terribly
sounding but at least understandable voice?  

Thanks in advance!  

O

------------------------------

From: dakshing64@yahoo.com (Bush will disarm all workers next)
Subject: Usage Numbers (ccs/erlang) Nortel/Motorola vrs. Lucent 5E 
Date: 16 Feb 2004 13:31:49 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Two weeks ago, I asked a query about the usage (ccs/erlang) numbers of
Nortel (DMS) and Motorola (EMX) switches vis-a-vis Lucent 5E. I'm
hoping a number of telco people knowledgeable about basics are reading
this news group. My apology for reminding. Is there a better way to
get my query answered by posting to another group or subscribing to a
mailing list? Any suggestions are most welcome.


Thanks,

Dakshin

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 2004 09:58:38 EST
From: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber)
Subject: World-Wide Cellular Coverage


What are the best answers to an administrator who asks for a cell
phone that can be used "all over the world?" I am not aware of any
service (GSM or otherwise) that will work reliably all over the
world. I have also read that it is often best to get cell service
locally when traveling to other countries, at least from a cost point
of view. Are there any alternatives besides satellite phones?  Do even
those provide reliable world-wide coverage?

All suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Please reply directly to
me as well as to the listserv. Thank you.


Charlie Wilber
Telephone Systems Manager
Dartmouth College
Hanover, New Hampshire

------------------------------

From: SELLCOM Tech support <support@sellcom.com>
Subject: Re: Telephones With Intercom Capability?
Organization: www.sellcom.com
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:06:11 GMT


nospam_timur@tabi.org (Timur Tabi) posted on that vast internet
thingie:

> Do telephones with intercom capabilities exist?  What I would like to
> do is replace all of the phones in my house with new phones that have
> an intercom capability.  For example, I press the "intercom" button on
> my phone, and my voice is broadcast too all other phones in the house.

You may wish to look at the TMC ET4000
http://www.sellcom.com/tmc.html

It has the features you mention and is 4 line.  

Steve at SELLCOM

http://www.sellcom.com
Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, AT&T, Panasonic, Motorola
Vtech 5.8Ghz; TMC ET4000 4line Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, Talkswitch, Watchguard!
Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Minisplitter log splitter
If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself.

------------------------------

From: nospam@nothere.com
Subject: Re: NetZero Commercials on Television
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:44:06 -0500
Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/


On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:31:40 -0000, ellis@no.spam wrote:

> In article <telecom23.70.11@telecom-digest.org>, Danny Burstein
> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>>	a) it'll downgrade images on a web page, making
>>	them much smaller (bytewise) and moving them
>>	across faster. So that 250k jpg you're downloading
>>	from NASA's Mars collection will be replaced by
>>	a, perhaps, 50k one. Faster d/l, but lossy.

> Is there a way for a web author to tell them not to do that?  I really
> don't like the idea of Netzero messing with my images.

Copyright your images, then threaten Netzero with the DMCA? ;:-)

> http://www.spinics.net/photo/

------------------------------

From: William Warren <william_warren_noham@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Lost Liberties / Outlawing Dissent
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:51:56 GMT


Lisa Hancock <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:telecom23.74.10@telecom-digest.org:

> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:

>> Feb. 11, 2004 | The undercover cop introduced herself to the activists
>> from the Colorado Coalition Against the War in Iraq as Chris Hoffman,
>> but her real name was Chris Hurley. Last March, she arrived at a
>> nonviolence training session in Denver...
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> ... She said she was willing to get arrested for the cause of
>> peace. In fact, she did get arrested. She was just never charged. The
>> activists she protested with wouldn't find out why for months.

> I found this post rather disturbing, but not for what you'd
> think.

> As the article makes clear, the protestors were planning to do
> something that was _illegal_.  Thus, they were planning to commit a
> criminal act.  That is not peaceable protest; that is crime.
>
> Activists defend their criminal activity on the grounds that their
> message is so important it "justifies" the crime and disruption.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when
in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: IMO, the 'trouble' with this latest
conflict in Iraq, from my perspective as a Usenet newsgroup moderator
who has essentially 'opened the door for discussion' by not long ago
totally disavowing any/all comments on same, is that as the conflict
escalates and grows more prolonged (and do not be decieved, it *will*
go on for many, many years, at least through the tenure of the present
president and probably well into the term of the next occupant) is that
as it goes on, the discussions get more involved, more detailed, and
more off-topic for telecom. That's one reason -- maybe the main one --
for my starting the http://patricktownson-live.us.tf web log or blog
page. I hope eventually -- without having to be rude about it, that
most of this discussion and similar will move into that area instead.

Yes, I know, its probably mostly my fault. I originally thought the
diversions would be welcome, and that some of my conclusions on the
war would be as obvious to everyone as they are to me, but I guess
not.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: deftonic2@netscape.net (AL)
Subject: Re: Qwest vs. Other Companies
Date: 16 Feb 2004 10:38:43 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
news:<telecom23.72.8@telecom-digest.org>:

> The following post is from another group, but may be of interest to
> TELECOM Digest readers.  It's a response from an ISP tech guy to griping
> about telco service in a Qwest area.  Since I don't have permission to
> repost, I've sanitized it a tad to anonymize the author.

>                  ------------------------------

> As much as people gripe about Qwest, there are far far worse telco's
> out there in the world. Since we deal with just about all of them
> (either on a daily basis, because they are a given ILEC of an area
> served [by us], which are Qwest, Frontier & Sprint), or have dealt
> with them in the past.

> The ones that spring to mind right away that are much much worse to
> deal with than Qwest are

> #3    Sprint
> #2    McLeod USA
> #1    MCI 

> At MCI, it feels like you talk to a brick wall, and it sure seems like
> its company policy to just ignore you, keep on billing you for
> services after you've cancelled (well past the 6-month mark is an
> *average*), and have CSR's that couldn't tell you what a phone is,
> even though they are talking to you on one.

> The Sprint CSR's usually don't even know if they offer a service or
> not, and there's no supervisors to check with to see. I think for a
> while there, they started cold calling up random potential customers,
> and offering the weirdest things like DSL service for somebody in
> downtown [city], even though they only service a few areas around
> [far-out suburbs].  They'd even get some people to sign up, only to
> call back in a couple months to explain that they really couldn't
> offer service there.

> I'd put Frontier and some of the CLEC's in the area in the upper edge
> above Qwest in terms of ease to deal with.

> Sure, there's some bad reps at Qwest, and their internal communication
> is pretty lacking sometimes, but there's also some pretty good reps in
> there too.

If your looking for good CSR, I've found that TelCan www.telcan.net
has amazing services and quality CSR reps.

www.telcan.net

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:36:58 -0500
From: BarryB <barryb@simlab.net>
Subject: Norvergence, Frankly


Pat feel free to post it!!

Their "Proprietary" Technology:

Sure the boxes are patented, but not by them, instead by Adtran.  The
MATRIX is an Adtran 850 RCU which is a standard T1 integrated internet
access device with channel bank and router, retailing for $2,222.  I
have sold programmed and installed dozens of these.  It does not
support voip.  Voice is handled by standard channel option cards.

The SOHO is an Adtran 2050, retailing for $599 which is a firewall,
gateway, router, and VPN appliance -- it does not access the internet
or handle any voice or voip.  I have programmed and installed two of
them, one in my home office.  In all the Norvergence installations
I've seen the box is doing nothing at all.  I have one here that I
removed from a client -- only one end was plugged in!

------------------------------

From: Matthew Elvey <matthew@elvey.com>
Subject: Re: Phantom DSL Reprised
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00


Nick Landsberg <hukolau@att.net> wrote in
news:telecom23.33.8@telecom-digest.org:

> Some few weeks ago, there was a discussion in this group about DSL
> ...
> So, it seems, the providers are hoarding the DSL circuits in my CO
> so they can milk the businesses for $160 bucks a month before
> offering it to residential customers (going rate about $30 per
> month).  High speed access through the cable company is about
> $50.00 per month.

> is the original poster.)

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's a lot like the routine I got
> from SW Bell. 

> But then one day by accident (I am sure it had to be by accident)
> a promotional mailing and a CD to the former owner of my telephone
> number. "Try our DSL along with a boatload of other goodies for
> free if you will try our service for just $29 per month. They were
> offering Yahoo/DSL at that low price. ... Anyway, I suggested to
> them "if you can afford to give DSL for $29 per month then you
> *should* give it for that, along with the free CDs, gift cards,
> free installs and other goodies. You are charging me almost twice
> that much, and I sent you a check for a year's service in
> advance." The lady said to me, "DSL is not a tariffed offering. We
> can do as we please with that, subject to technical limitations."
> I guess that's right. What the market will bear and all that rot.

No, it's NOT right.  I've been through the regulations. They (SBC)
refused to give me the rate they were offering to other customers, and
I complained to the PUC, pointing out that the regulations (in CA)
require that they not discriminate in their offerings, and that these
regulations cover all telecom (including DSL), tarriffed or not.

I got the new lower rate. 

I've even caught SBC lying to the PUC, in writing.

They just don't let up; the next month they crammed my cellphone bill,
about a month after that (this month) my POTS bill.

For more details, see the list I run for PacBellDSL users:
http://www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=pacbelldsl

I think they've done the Cost (penalties of breaking law * likelihood
of enforcement) << Profit (made breaking the law) calculation.

Morality doesn't enter into the equation.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I was a regular customer of SBC I
cannot tell you how many times I would call the business office to get
some minor adjustment or another on my bill only  to get the next
month's bill with an even higher balance due of new charges, etc. They
would promised to give me credit for whatever, then the next month
they did in fact give the credit but come up with still newer charges
for things I did not want. Then one month they agreed to begin billing
me the 'new, lower rate' for DSL; I waited a month for a corrected
bill to show up and when it did not reflect the 'new, lower rate' for
DSL their answer was the original rep had 'misunderstood'. That rate
was only in effect if I allowed them to cram my cell service from
Cingular Wireless on the same bill. The fact that I had and still have
Cingular Wireless (easy to confirm) was not good enough. I had to
have it on the same bill (which is impossible for me.) You are quite
right, morality does not enter the picture with them.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: AES/newspost <siegman@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Experts Warn of Microsoft 'Monoculture'
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:55:50 -0800


In article <telecom23.74.11@telecom-digest.org>, Monty Solomon
<monty@roscom.com> wrote:

> Geer and others believe Microsoft's software is so dangerously
> pervasive that a virus capable of exploiting even a single flaw in its
> operating systems could wreak havoc.

I believe this is a highly valid concern -- but quite independently of 
it, I continue to be amazed that Microsoft has not faced massive class 
action suits based on product liability arguments.  

Such arguments may or may not be valid, and might or might not be
successful in the courts -- I'd sure like to think they might be. But
nonetheless, the amount of damage suffered by deep-pockets
organizations in the course of (or, if you like "as a direct result
of") using MS software has certainly been massive enough that one
would think someone would be suing.

------------------------------

From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Telephone Service Surcharges
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:09:52 -0500


Michael Chance wrote:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought the 'telephone luxury tax'
>> started about 1917 during the First War as a way to provide for the
>> soldiers. They won't be getting rid of it anytime soon, however.

> [ remainder of moderator comments deleted ]

> Now I'm sorry that I asked the question.  If I'd know that it would
> have sent Pat off on an error-laden, near libelous rant against
> President Bush, I never would have bothered.  Diseased brain or not,
> that was uncalled for.

Well, perhaps he wasn't really elected, and perhaps he is a right wing
extremist, and perhaps he did lie to the people and the Congress to
get us into a war that wasn't needed and is still killing people
daily, but it is going too far to accuse him of having a diseased
brain. You should be ashamed.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mr. Chance was alluding to *my*
diseased brain, not the resident president's.  My diseased brain is
no secret. Following my brain aneursym in November, 1999 the neurological
damage to me was quite severe. It's quite obvious to my immediate and
personal friends and caretakers who come around every day to attend to
my personal hygiene, housekeeping, cooking/serving food, etc. Through
God's grace (or God's damnation as I sometimes phrase it) I did not 
expire on my way to Stormont-Vail Medical Center in Topeka, KS and
came out of my comotose state about two months later (in January 2000)
as cranky and cantankerous as ever, only with much damage to my
lifestyle as a result. PAT]  

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 04 17:14:03 PDT
From: pm2020bc@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Subject: Re: telecom: My New Blog (Weblog) 


Fine Pat, but what was the outcome with Mrs. Stevens?

Bob Canon

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For those folks who came into this 
late, 'Mrs. Stevens' is the latest in a series of alley cats who
was worked her way into my heart over the years. She keeps me on
my toes. The veternarian at the Independence Animal Hospital removed
that 'ear plug' (that was his name for it; it appeared to me like
a build up of ear wax) under general anesthesia a week ago. Although
she was rather loopy the night after she came home from the vet, she
has now gotten back to her usual sassy, demanding self. I can expect
to find her in my bed each morning when I wake up. Thanks for asking.
PAT]

------------------------------

From: Scott Wilson <scwilson@intercall.com>
Subject: What Happened to the Telecom IRC Chat Room? 
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:15:01 -0500


Good morning Patrick,

I understand that you host a chat room that deals with the telecom
industry.  I tried to access it via search engine, but I am having
trouble.  Can you please send me the link?  

Thanks Patrick,

Scott Wilson 

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, we did have that. On the group web
page http://telecom-digest.org I had a link to a java-based IRC. One
of a million channels on that particular IRC net, the people who
operated the IRC; I chose the topic 'telecommunications' and other
than establishing a bot (with the help of the administrators there)
which stood guard over the room all the time, just left it as an open
chat room on telecom for visitors to our web site. That was in 1999
B.A.  (before aneurysm). The java script got broken somehow, and the
people who ran the (in general) IRC closed down, and I have not had
the brain processing power available to me to restart it since I got
out of the hopsital. **Would YOU -- or anyone knowlegeable about java-
scripting and web page interlinks to IRC** be willing to start it up
again?  Truth be told, the entire web site http://telecom-digest.org
is in deplorable condition the past couple years and needs substantial
remodeling/rebuilding. Again, the brain processing power I  *used to
posess* just isn't present these days.  Let me know if you would like
to rebuild the entire thing from scratch, keeping the old archives
first in mind.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: quentin_valentino@yahoo.com (Bagani)
Subject: FUNCHAIN.COM - New Service Combines Social Networking with Blogging
Date: 17 Feb 2004 00:44:32 -0800


NEURACOM CORPORATION recently launched FUNCHAIN.COM, the FriendBlogs
Engine. FriendBlogs are collaborative journals on the web, composed of
short, frequently updated posts written by friends connected through
their similar interests.

Funchain.com is the latest in the growing explosion of social
networking services, sparked last year by Friendster, which generated
buzz and bucks from venture capital firms and other investors.
Friendster received $13 million from blue-chip VC firms Benchmark
Capital and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Spoke Software, a
business-oriented social networking facility, got a total of $12
million from Doll Capital Management. Others are expected to follow as
more join in the bandwagon.

Neuracom Corporation's CEO, Jason Banico, hopes that the activity of
FriendBlogging will create a niche in the social networking space
currently dominated by rivals such as Friendster, Tribe.Net, Orkut and
others. "We intend to create a compelling service that combines social
networking with blogging, both hot online activities for the past two
years," Banico said. Banico hopes to tap the 10 million user market
for blogging, as well as the 50 million user market for social
networking.

The service began as a thesis project by two Asian programmers,
Jaeyoun Kim and Raymond Ong, who are now partners of Neuracom
Corporation. The service has since then attracted a select set of
loyal users, starting from Asian friends of Kim, Ong and Banico.

As for business models, Banico says that Funchain.com will support
itself by advertising revenues. The service will be unveiling its
premium subscriber service and its e-commerce strategy within the
year.

Funchain.com can be reached at WWW.FUNCHAIN.COM.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My new weblog - blog was set up under
the auspices of http://livejournal.com and append to that the
phrase /users/patrick_townson is where you will find me. I only chose
that one because (at least) one of our readers here has a 'blog' there
and it seemed like fun.  I am also looking at myspace.com to see how
well that one might work.  PAT]

------------------------------

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 #75
*****************************
