From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Feb 19 00:25:16 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i1J5PGg07510; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:25:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:25:16 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200402190525.i1J5PGg07510@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 #79 TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:25:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 79 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cingular's Sensation (Eric Friedebach) Re: Quest to Offer "Naked DSL" (McWebber) Re: Quest to Offer "Naked DSL" (Kyler Laird) Re: Need Telephone Selection Advice for Small Business (Eric Katz) Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash (Monty Solomon) RIAA Sued Under Gang Laws (Monty Solomon) Re: Social Engineering, was Re: Honesty from Earthlink (G Novosielski) Re: Social Engineering, was Re: Honesty from Earthlink (Spacey Spade) Reliable Means of Determining Servicing LEC For a Phone Number? (JL) Re: My SBC Experience (was Re: Phantom DSL Reprised) (Tony P.) Re: The Virus Underground (Nick Landsberg) Re: The Virus Underground (Barry Margolin) Cell Phone Rings Equal Bling Bling (Eric Friedebach) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Cingular's Sensation Date: 18 Feb 2004 12:55:46 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Aude Lagorce, 02.17.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - Cingular Wireless just spent $41 billion on breathing room. But don't expect Verizon Wireless or Vodafone to let their rival catch its breath. Cingular, the second-largest U.S. mobile operator, snatched number-three AT&T Wireless with an all-cash offer this morning after a weekend-long bidding battle with U.K. giant Vodafone. While the deal is being heralded by analysts as finally bringing about some much-needed consolidation to a fiercely competitive industry, it may not bring as much as some had hoped. By all accounts, Cingular's decision to offer an extra $3 billion overnight to cinch the deal was right. From the beginning, the carrier -- a joint venture of SBC Communications and BellSouth--was better able to justify paying a premium for AT&T Wireless than Vodafone could, because of the operational and technical cost synergies it would derive from the deal. And at $15 in cash per share, "Cingular did not overpay," says Andrew Cole, a senior vice president with telecom strategy consultancy Adventis. http://forbes.com/technology/2004/02/17/cx_al_0217cingular.html Eric Friedebach /Mortgage your Viagra!/ ------------------------------ From: McWebber Subject: Re: Quest to Offer "Naked DSL" Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:57:08 -0500 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That was the big hassle I had with > SBC: whether to retain them for phone service in order to keep the > DSL, or ditch them and lose the DSL. They were counting heavily > on the former. In my case, they lost. Had they been willing to go > half-way with me I would have still switched to Prairie Stream for > good quality, inexpensive phone service, but retained DSL. Since > SBC kept insisting *all or nothing* I said okay, nothing. Now I > have Cable One for internet with a decent size pipe and Prairie > Stream for phone. SBC is nowhere to be found in this household. I > would bet you the success of the Qwest experiment will be watched > closely by all the (old) Bell System telcos, and soon they will > all be offering the same deal. That's how the telcos do things: > one comes up with a bright idea, they all get in line and start > marching the same way. We've seen that time and again. PAT] Verizon recently caved and now allows DSL only subscriptions, so I'm sure Qworst looked at that before making the decision. McWebber No email replies read If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends please forget that I'm your friend. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Quest to Offer "Naked DSL" From: Kyler Laird Organization: Insight Broadband Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:11:55 GMT Phil Earnhardt writes: > The end of the story changed topics: Qwest announced they would begin > to offer DSL service on a line that doesn't have regular phone > service: > "Also Monday, Notebaert said Qwest will be launching later this month > a separate DSL service, which he dubbed --'naked DSL.' Before, > customers had to subscribe to Qwest's telephone service to get DSL. Qwest is confused. It can't be done. J. Michael Healy explained the technical details long ago. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vwrn2.866%24mv6.1345865%40news3.mia&output=gplain Without dialtone, you don't have a connection in the C.O., no connection -- no ADSL -- very simple. They are not going to provide you with a free line to carry ADSL, neither will any other operating company in the country. --kyler [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, Kyler, I think you are confused, not Qworst. You don't have to have dialtone on a line, just battery. When I had my recorded message service running back in the 1970's with several racks of the old intercept style machines from Illinois Bell, the lines (25 or so of them) were *one way inbound* only. There was no dial tone provided, but you could hear sidetone, which is to say when you blew a bit of air into the mouthpiece, you heard it out your earpiece. If a phone is totally 'dead' you won't get that. I've seen other telephones similar, used as manual intercoms. And Bell *does* get money for those arrangements; they give nothing for free. I am sure what they do is provide a circuit with no dial tone, tie it up across the central office to the location where the ISP-like DSL office is located. They assign it a non-dialable circuit number for billing purposes so that no one can call into it either. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Google123@vinfo.com (Eric Katz) Subject: Re: Need Telephone Selection Advice for Small Business Date: 18 Feb 2004 14:54:15 -0800 Vito, We too were looking to simplify our phone system and get costs down. We had 8 Verizon CentraNet lines and a complex Panasonic PBX\VM system (a total nightmare to program ... just adjusting the time for daylight savings time was unreal!) We were also dealing with a live answering service to handle overflow or after hours calls. We are now down to two business lines and a DSL line (which we also use for voice.) We picked up the AT&T 955 and 944 phones at Staples. They are great. We can intercom between all of them, hold, transfer and conference: they also have caller ID. However they are 4 line phones and can accommodate up to 12 extensions. But what helped us cut costs the most and remain accessible to our clients was a virtual voice mail \ auto attendant system we found called FreedomPro (from www.voiceinformation.com). This service is great ... it handles our toll-free needs, it provides call forwarding, call screening, voice mail and all our other attendant \ answering service needs. We use their internet interface to tell the system to which local number and at what times to forward callers. It will even track us down if we want, bouncing from phone number to phone number until we answer. It will exhaust all programmed numbers before giving our caller the VM option. We receive our voice messages via email broadcast or we can retrieve them manually by calling the system or going online via the FreedomPro interface. The toll-free, long distance and international rates offered are much better than what Verizon could do for us. We've cut our monthly costs from about $430 down to about $185 and have sacrificed nothing ... rather, we've gained in terms of reliability and ease of use. Good luck! Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:04:02 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash ST. PAUL (AP) -- The rising popularity of Internet telephones could undermine the finances of the state's 911 systems while endangering some users because the new technology doesn't alway mesh with the old emergency system. So-called Internet telephony's popularity worries Jim Beutelspacher, manager of the statewide 911 program for the Department of Public Safety, because it doesn't pay a 40-cent-per-month tax for each new subscriber. Last fiscal year, a 33-cent 911 fee generated $20.8 million. The higher fee this year is expected to bring in $25.4 million, mainly to pay for connections to public safety call centers, Beutelspacher said. But if more people drop their regular telephone service in favor of tax-free Internet calling, the financial underpinnings of 911 will be weakened, he said. The problems have been noted within the industry, but it's expected to become a bigger issue as more people turn to Internet telephony because it can be cheaper than regular telephone service. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40635970 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:53:55 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: RIAA Sued Under Gang Laws By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com It's probably not the first time that record company executives have been likened to Al Capone, but this time a judge might have to agree or disagree. A New Jersey woman, one of the hundreds of people accused of copyright infringement by the Recording Industry Association of America, has countersued the big record labels, charging them with extortion and violations of the federal antiracketeering act. Through her attorneys, Michele Scimeca contends that by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime. http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5161209.html ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Social Engineering, was Re: Honesty from Earthlink Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:24:37 GMT Danny Burstein wrote: > Did the original poster really, really, send the account password to a > stranger? That caught my eye too. If I were calling, the conversation would have gone more like this: Tech support: Let me have your account password for verification Me: What are you, NUTS!? Doesn't Earthlink have the usual disclaimer of "None of our employees will ever ask you for your password"? If not, *why* not? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Usually, places like that ask you for some other piece of personal information instead of a *password*, such as mother's maiden name, or the last four digits of the card you use to pay for your account, etc. Or maybe, your street address or zip code. Something *you* would know, yet would not be common knowledge. Anything but an actual *password*. PAT] ------------------------------ From: spaceygum@hotpop.com (Spacey Spade) Subject: Re: Social Engineering, was Re: Honesty from Earthlink Date: 18 Feb 2004 18:19:38 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Danny Burstein wrote in message news:: > In spaceygum@hotpop.com (Spacey > Spade) writes: >> I was getting spam from Earthlink even though I had "opted out". By >> the way, AFAIK, I recommend Earthlink. Below a transcription of chat >> tech support: > [ snip ] >> name_protected:Let me know the password of your primary account for >> verification. >> myemail@addy.com:************ > Did the original poster really, really, send the account password to a > stranger? Yep. I thought it strange she would ask for my password, but I am the opposite of paranoid. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are like so many of the newer and inexperienced internet users these days. AOL for example, on every single page presented to users -- especially interactive chat pages -- always says 'An employee of AOL will NEVER ask for your password'. They know their users believe everything which is typed on the screen in front of them; treat it like gospel truth; "An employee of the internet told me I had to re-register my account (through them) or else it would be cancelled." PAT] ------------------------------ From: JL Subject: Reliable Means of Determining Servicing LEC For Given Phone Number? Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:38:07 -0800 Does anyone know of a reliable means of determining the servicing LEC for a given phone number? I'm trying to find a reliable means of determining what is the servicing LEC for any given phone number. Right now this is limited to only needing to work for CA. USA phone numbers. Using the various resources (LERG, and other similar databases) I can get down to what the operating Company is for a given NPA/NXX but with Thousand Number (block) Pooling, and porting of numbers, there are over lapping NPA/NXXs for various providers, and while the operating company for a given NPA/NXX maybe SBC (Pacific Bell) the line may in fact be serviced by Verizon (GTE). So far I'm at a loss as to how to reliably perform, what in an ideal world, would be a simple search. -JL ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: My SBC Experience (was Re: Phantom DSL Reprised) Organization: ATCC Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:30:58 GMT In article , nospam@crashelectronics.com says: > Nick Landsberg wrote: > It was an Illinois Bell customer service rep who spent about half an > hour going over available numbers with me when setting up new service > at my first house -- two cool numbers (xxx-8088 and xx8-0386), no > extra charge. OK, they don't do this any more (who does?). But they > did then. Verizon does -- they call them Vanity numbers now and of course there's a charge. > It was an Ameritech customer service rep who told me about Alternate > Answering and Busy Line Transfer (combined cost: $1.50/mo) when I > called to order Call Forwarding ($18/mo or thereabouts). In my > situation the cheaper alternative actually did what I wanted better > than the more expensive (but popular and heavily advertised) choice. Sometimes service droids are helpful, most times they are not. You definitely were fortunate to catch someone who knew of the existence of the service. That seems to be the main problem when dealing with phone company personnel these days -- they just don't know what the company offers or is capable of. The fact that Verizon DSL didn't know they could call Verizon repair and run a loop length test comes glaringly to mind. > It was SBC who had my DSL up in 3 days when they promised it in a > week. And when I had a bizarre intermittent problem with it, they > had two trucks out for the better part of an afternoon, and again > the next day, and fixed it. (It was a flaky line card in the RT -- > worked about 99.9% of the time.) Around here it's flaky and crappy outside plant. They're just counting the days before the massive fiber drop starts happening around here. The nice thing about it is in areas like mine -- we're already served by underground electric, and fiber can co-exist peacefully in those very same cable ducts. But knowing Verizon they'd put aerial drops of fiber because that's how the phone service is currently fed in. > Illinois Bell/Ameritech/SBC has never crammed me -- and when one of my > employees didn't say "NO!" loudly enough to some teleslime and I ended > up with "Voicenet E-mail by phone" on my bill, it was SBC who cleared > the charge and told Integretel where to stuff it. > Maybe I just lead a charmed life. In my case -- they know I'm a customer that won't back down and have friends in high enough places to cause them massive discomfort. ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Subject: Re: The Virus Underground Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:41:32 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Geoffrey Welsh wrote: > lawrence.jones@ugsplm.com wrote: >> But the simple fact of the matter is that Windows and it's related >> applications were explicitly designed to do things for you, >> automatically, so you don't have to know what you're doing. Unix-like >> systems and most of their applications, on the other hand, were >> designed to do exactly what you tell them and not one thing more, >> forcing you to know what you're doing in order to use them at all. Mark Crispin wrote: > The flaw in this reasoning is the assumption that a design of "do > things for you, automatically, so you don't have to know what you're > doing" is a design flaw in Windows as opposed to a design requirement > of any mass market operating system. > It is a beautiful dream that everybody who uses a computer will know > what they're doing and can use a system which does exactly what it is > told to do and not one thing more. That dream is also highly > unrealistic. For this reason, I think that attacks on Windows by certain segments of the UNIX community are foolish and self-defeating. It is arrogant to assume that UNIX programmers are somehow smarter than Windows programmers and would never made the same mistakes. My comment: In any system design there are many tradeoffs to be made often between opposite forces. Security and convenience are two such forces. Performance and flexibiilty, for example, are in the same category. When M$ made it's design deicision, they chose convenience, but more importantly, they chose a "tight-coupling" between components in order to make the "convenience" aspect easier to provide. (This presumes that the decision was a conscious one and didn't "just happen" because the programmers wanted it that way.) Unix, on the other hand, started out more-or-less as loosely coupled components. Partially because of the hardware limitations in the 70's. You just couldn't run a 10 MB program on a 512K machine! (By the time M$ was developing the latest versions(s) of Windows, 100-200 MB of RAM was not uncommon.) Having said that, neither way is intrinsically better than the other. With a "monolothic structure" (e.g. you can't strip the browser out of the OS without crippling it, so M$ claims), almost any flaw (security bug) will manifest itself in all aspects of the operation. Fixing it properly should involve complete regression testing of EVERYTHING! With a loosely-coupled structure, a flaw in any program does not USUALLY mean that everything in the system is broken. In theory, only the buggy program need be fixed. If the bug is in a "library routine" used by almost everyone, then this case degenerates into the same scenario as the monolithic case above. So, no, Unix programmers are no smarter than Windows programmers. It is just that the bugs are usually in isolated code, not in the big monolith. Just my $0.02. See the signature line for the parting shot. :) > The implication here is that current technology forces us to choose > between security and user-friendliness. I can hope that someone will > invest techniques to make things user-friendly without making them > insecure, but my cynical side tells me that these new techniques will > be either secure or user-friendly, but not both. > I must force myself to because mixing that observation with the > level of stupidity that humans demonstrate at every possible > opportunity leads us to the very frightening conclusion that no > popular system can ever be secure. > William Robison wrote: >> Are we all asking the wrong question about virus software? >> Why do we all keep using IE and Outlook? (kinda like hitting your >> thumb with a hammer, over and over). > That's like asking why we use the tires that come with our cars when > there are so many better ones available. They're there and they work. > Even if the replacements were free, not everyone is going to be aware > of the advantages of the alternatives and not everyone who is aware is > going to choose to invest the time and effort. >> How many times do we have to be explotied before we realize >> there has to be a better way (and there are, certainly, many >> alternatives to IE/Outlook). > Users have developed a comfort level with Microsoft OSes and > applications; they are what everyone supports and talks. Even if a > user is aware that they have been compromised (it's amazing how many > computer users cannot grasp the simplest principles of operation, let > alone notice when their computer is misbehaving) and they're aware of > the existence of alternatives, they may not feel comfortable wandering > away from the familiar. > The fact that Microsoft seems to be implying that their patch process > is a good enough solution doesn't help. >> But don't you think that if the whole world started using *nix to >> the extent they now use Windows the virus writers (like that snotty >> teenage kid discussed about here in the Digest a couple weeks ago) >> wouldn't shift gears and start writing things to mess with *nix like >> they do Windows now? I suspect the only reason some mail programs >> are relatively 'immune' at the present time is just a question of >> where to get the biggest bang for the buck where the virus writers >> are concerned. PAT] > I've said the same thing in the past in various forums and been > criticized for it -- do Mac and UNIX mail applications execute > attachments as quickly and casually as Outlook [Express]? > That said, many readers here will recall that RTM's internet worm > (does anyone have an authoritative pice to say whether it was the > first or not?) ran on UNIX and exploited Sendmail vulnerabilities; > IIRC, Microsoft did not have an internet-capable platform at the time. > Geoffrey Welsh > Always looking for a good condition original 'chicklet keyboard' > Commodore PET "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: The Virus Underground Organization: Looking for work Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:23:37 -0500 In article , Geoffrey Welsh wrote: > That said, many readers here will recall that RTM's internet worm > (does anyone have an authoritative pice to say whether it was the > first or not?) ran on UNIX and exploited Sendmail vulnerabilities; > IIRC, Microsoft did not have an internet-capable platform at the time. Times were different. That happened before the Internet was opened up to anyone willing to pay $10/month for access. Those of us who were on the Internet were a relatively benign community, and we mostly trusted each other. Few organizations bothered with firewalls at the time (if you did want one, you had to construct it yourself -- there weren't any off-the-shelf products yet). The sendmail vulnerability was quite blatant: you connected to the SMTP port and typed something like "DBUG", and you could then send arbitrary commands that would be executed by the root-owned server process. It was like a small town where everyone feels safe leaving their doors unlocked. But the landscape has changed since then. The commercialization of the Internet has opened it up to all segments of the community; we're living in an inner city where there are lots of dangerous people we need to watch out for. Microsoft had the opportunity to learn from our early experiences, but did they really take advantage of it? It seems not, since allowing the mail reader to execute active code in messages is not much different from the sendmail vulnerability that we plugged 15 years ago. To extend my analogy, Windows seems like a suburbanite driving into a ghetto and leaving his sports car unlocked and unattended; we shouldn't be surprised if it gets stripped or taken for a joy-ride. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Cell Phone Rings Equal Bling Bling Date: 18 Feb 2004 12:53:55 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Chana R. Schoenberger, 02.17.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - The newest hip-hop accessory for the urban set: a cell phone with rap-inspired ring tones. Phone users are rushing to download tiny music files that blare when a phone rings or when the user has voicemail. And what they want on their phones is hip-hop music. The most popular ring tone downloaded onto cell phones last year was taken from the song "In Da Club," by rapper 50 Cent, and the current front-runner is Grammy winner OutKast. Seven of the ten most-downloaded ring tones in 2003 on the Cingular Wireless network were hip-hop songs. Ring tones are big business, with $2.5 billion spent to buy them worldwide last year. In the United States, phone users spent $80 million on them in 2003, quadruple what they paid in 2002. This year, they are expected to spend north of $100 million, according to the Yankee Group research firm. Each file typically costs between 99 cents and $2.49, depending on the sound quality. But users don't seem to be deterred by the price. http://www.forbes.com/personaltech/2004/02/17/cz_cs_0217ringtones.html (Note from Eric) Not long ago I was riding up an elevator with a half-dozen or so other people. As soon as the doors shut, we all heard a soft "whoop-whoop" sound, like an alarm from a sci-fi movie. This went on for a few floors until I finally said "Okay, who's the wise guy with the Star Trek ringtone?" Nobody 'fessed up or made a move to answer a handset. Later that day I was riding down the same elevator, but alone this time. I heard the same noise, and traced the source to the ceiling of the elevator. Eric Friedebach /Mortgage your Viagra!/ ------------------------------ 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 #79 *****************************