|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 9 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re:FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network..
Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
MagicJack for Cellular phone
Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Connecticutt AT&T operation losing jobs
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:25:23 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <nIw1n.29161$Gf3.8259@newsfe22.iad>
Julian Thomas wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:59:45 -0800 Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess Erlangs are still around for growing end offices.
>
> Does anyone these days speak in Erlangs, let alone know what they are?
Indeed they do. Google it.
Here is one example:
http://www.kooltoolz.com/ccm.htm?gclid=CI6ompLek58CFQ_yDAodfG_oMw
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:38:43 -0800 (PST)
From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
Message-ID: <20100108033843.0D585350C8@john>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com said:
> Where does Verizon fit in all of this? Isn't today's at&t a
> relatively small company?
Verizon is trying to sell off their land-line operations. Up here in the
Northwest they're planning on getting Frontier to take it all over.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 06:25:33 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
Message-ID: <hi7f8v$o9i$1@news.eternal-september.org>
jmeissen@aracnet.com wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com said:
>> Where does Verizon fit in all of this? Isn't today's at&t a
>> relatively small company?
>
> Verizon is trying to sell off their land-line operations. Up here in the
> Northwest they're planning on getting Frontier to take it all over.
The last 2 times that Verizon sold land line to other companies they
crashed, stay tuned for another crash. At least the Northwest is in
pretty good shape, but will Verizon leave enough money in the company
to survive?
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:33:12 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <EfqdnWU118j1BNvWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <100.f88f0400a093464b.002@jt-mj.net>,
Julian Thomas <jt@jt-mj.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:59:45 -0800 Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>
>>I guess Erlangs are still around for growing end offices.
>
>Does anyone these days speak in Erlangs, let alone know what they are?
I'll admit to difficulties converting 'erlangs per ortnight' to SI units.
But that has more to do with finding a workable definition for an "ortnight".
*grin*
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:29:22 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <3fqdnZIxKJne3NrWnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
On 1/7/2010 9:33 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <100.f88f0400a093464b.002@jt-mj.net>,
> Julian Thomas <jt@jt-mj.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:59:45 -0800 Sam Spade wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess Erlangs are still around for growing end offices.
>>
>> Does anyone these days speak in Erlangs, let alone know what they are?
>
> I'll admit to difficulties converting 'erlangs per ortnight' to SI units.
>
> But that has more to do with finding a workable definition for an "ortnight".
>
> grin
For the benefit of those readers who (unlike the moderator) have a life:
Robert is making a play on words derived from the unit "Fulongs per
Fortnight", which is part of the Furlong/Firkin/Fortnight system of
measurements.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFF_system for more information.
Bill "Back in just 100,000,000 shakes" Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:01:39 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re:FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Message-ID: <MPG.25b06a1d307ce606989c3c@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <992c.162a1ba3.3877dd27@aol.com>, wesrock@aol.com says...
>
> In a message dated 1/7/2010 6:20:17 PM Central Standard Time,
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes
>
> > Likewise, consumers realize that cell phones have to be recharged
> > with commercial power.
>
> TV stations are warning with the sub-Zero cold expected to take your
> cell phone car charger with you if you go out.
>
> > As an aside, these units need frequent testing. I've seen a lot of
> > mission critical places go dark when they were testing their
> > generators--the control circuitry failed to make a proper
> > transition.
>
> Telcos used to run them, usually every Wednesday at 8 a.m. amd
> actually transfer the power and run on auziliary power for an hour so
> to make suwre the generator is working and so is the transer. I
> wonder if they still do.
I was charged with designing the power redundancy for the Central
Voter Registration System here in RI. I specified an APC Symmetra with
a minimum of 15 minute backup time (Reality gave us 45 minutes),
backed up by a 125kW natural gas fired generator that spooled up
within 10 seconds. It had normal exercise routines that it would do,
and once every quarter we'd do a full scale test. That involved going
to the transfer panel, holding down a button for a set interval and
you'd see everything transition to the generator.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:50:49 -0600
From: rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network..
Message-ID: <MdidnRU9--IENtvWnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
+---------------
| <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
| > Actually, certain multiplexing techniques, such as on an underseas
| > cable, do NOT dedicate the full capacity of an assigned channel.
|
| FALSE TO FACT.
|
| Extra compression is applied, such that the bandwidth demand for a
| 'voice channel' is smaller, BUT that (reduced) channel bandwidth
| is reserved for the exclusive use of that voice channel.
|
| This is an absolute necessity given the design requirement that
| every 'established' call be able to actually use their 'voice
| channel' at all times while the call is 'connected'.
+---------------
(*sigh*) How quickly they forget... :-(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-assignment_speech_interpolation
...time-assignment speech interpolation (TASI) is an analog technique
used on certain long transmission links to increase voice-transmission
capacity.
TASI works by switching additional users onto any channel temporarily
idled because an original user has stopped speaking. When the original
user resumes speaking, that user will, in turn, be switched to any
channel that happens to be idle. The speech detector function is called
voice activity detection.
...
TASI was invented by Bell Labs in the 1960s to increase the capacity
of Transatlantic telephone cables. It was one of their first applications
requiring electronic switching of voice circuits.
Later Digital Circuit Multiplication Equipment included TASI as a
feature, not as distinct hardware.
...
Other sources note that the TASI plan was actually first published
in 1959 [Bullington K, Fraser JM, "Engineering Aspects of TASI",
BSTJ, 38:353-364 (1950)], not "in the 1960s", but that's a minor detail.
In any case, stealing bandwidth from putatively "circuit-switched"
voice calls is now more than a half-century old, and is still used in
applications where the available bit-rate is constrained (e.g. VSATs).
-Rob
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 05:59:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
Message-ID: <hi6hk9$12ic$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <xuudncghgclS2dvWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
> 'Packet-switched' technology:
>
> * Has no concept of a 'connection' within the network. Endpoints
> may agree among themselves, that certain blocks of data are to be
> treated as part of a common stream, but it is only the
> end-points that are aware of that relationship between those data
> blocks.
Nonsense. The original packet-switched networks were all
connection-oriented.
> * Never 'reserves' any resources for the specific use of any
> particular connection. Thus, cannot 'guarantee' availability for
> anyone, at any given time.
Again, nonsense. Numerous mechanisms exist, and have been deployed,
for resource reservation on packet networks.
> * All routing decisions are made _at_the_time_ =each= data block
> arrives at each routing point. There is no guarantee that
> subsequent data blocks will be routed the same way at any
> routing decision point.
False.
> * There is NO guarantee that any path between the endpoints is
> available at the time any data block is sent.
You seem to be confusing the service you can buy from your
consumer-grade ISP for $39.95 a month with the definition of what a
packet-switched network is. It isn't so.
> * There is no way for any intermediate point to *autonomously*
> notify either end-point that a required link in the path is
> 'full', has errors, or has completely stopped working.
Complete malarkey. Even your consumer-grade ISP can and does do that.
> * There is no guarantee that the data blocks will arrive at the
> destination in the same sequence that they left the origin.
Some network technologies provide such guarantees; others don't. Take
off your telco blinders, please.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:42:04 -0600
From: "David" <someone@somewhere.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
Message-ID: <hi7g8g$ta$1@news.eternal-september.org>
"Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org> wrote in message
news:hi6hk9$12ic$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
> In article
> <xuudncghgclS2dvWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
> Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>
>> 'Packet-switched' technology:
>>
>> * Has no concept of a 'connection' within the network. Endpoints
>> may agree among themselves, that certain blocks of data are to be
>> treated as part of a common stream, but it is only the end-points
>> that are aware of that relationship between those data blocks.
>
> Nonsense. The original packet-switched networks were all
> connection-oriented.
I suggest Robert Bonomi also understand the difference between a
datagram and and a virtual circuit as applied to packet switched
networks.
David
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:28:52 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Message-ID: <hi7th8$155$1@news.eternal-september.org>
MagicJack's next act: disappearing cell phone fees
Jan 8, 12:01 PM (ET)
By PETER SVENSSON
LAS VEGAS (AP) - The company behind the magicJack, the cheap Internet
phone gadget that's been heavily promoted on TV, has made a new version
of the device that allows free calls from cell phones in the home, in a
fashion that's sure to draw protest from cellular carriers.
The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for which
cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive licenses.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20100108/D9D3M9U80.html
I saw this today at CAS, but I don't have a GSM phone.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:15:51 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Message-ID: <H0P1n.7265$Ef7.5417@newsfe07.iad>
Steven wrote:
> The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for which
> cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive licenses.
I don't know about those frequencies but the FCC has always allowed
you to bandit AM and FM broadcast frequencies at very low power.
My guess is the wireless carriers can't do a thing about this.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:23:53 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Message-ID: <d8P1n.1299$Mv3.1031@newsfe05.iad>
Steven wrote:
> MagicJack's next act: disappearing cell phone fees
> (concerning MagicJack's new micro-cellsite VoIP connect device)
This will really benefit me. I live at the very south end of the
greater Los Angeles wireless area, whatever those are officially
called. I am in a concrete building that faces south two miles from
the San Diego county line. The towers in the LA service area are a
couple miles north, thus blocked completely by our building. The
first tower in the San Diego area is about 10 miles away, so it
doesn't work even though our big windows face it.
Similarly situated people have complained to the wireless carriers,
which tell us to pound sand.
Since I am on AT$T I guess this could help me. But, I doubt it will
handle incoming calls.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:45:57 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Message-ID: <hi8u5l$m17$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Steven wrote:
>
>> MagicJack's next act: disappearing cell phone fees
>
>> (concerning MagicJack's new micro-cellsite VoIP connect device)
>
> This will really benefit me. [Moderator snip]
>
> Since I am on AT$T I guess this could help me. But, I doubt it will
> handle incoming calls.
Does the regular MagicJack have an incoming phone number?
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: 9 Jan 2010 01:13:51 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Message-ID: <20100109011351.97701.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
> The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for
> which cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive
> licenses.
It also says:
Borislow said the device is legal because wireless spectrum licenses
don't extend into the home.
... which is ridiculous. It may be the case that they're working at
under 100mw which has long been the limit for unlicensed AM and FM
transmissions, but that's unrelated to whether it's in a house.
On the other hand, the article neglects to mention that this device in
effect turns your cell phone into an expensive outgoing only cordless
phone. While your phone is registered with the Magicjack, it's not on
your regular carrier's network, so you can't get any incoming calls.
It's not clear from the short description in the story whether they
will assign an incoming phone number of their own like they do for the
current Magicjack.
If I were AT&T or T-Mobile, I would argue that this device interferes
with normal GSM operation, and it would be true.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:39:33 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <4d549943-2af2-4e6c-9b8b-6a6b3b6bb33a@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 7, 5:14 pm, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
> Same is true here in the U.S. I know for a fact that Verizon has lost
> a little over half it's customer base in my state.
"Half its customer base"? That sounds rather extreme.
Keep in mind that if a subscriber keeps his landline and merely
switches to another carrier, Verizon is still supplying the local loop
to the C.O. and getting paid for that, although [it's] likely not as
profitable as other services it could provide.
Also, Verizon is a leading cell phone provider.
I would guess that in terms of telephone lines Vz is still growing.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:46:43 -0500
From: Bill Horne <redacted@invalid.speakeasy.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Connecticutt AT&T operation losing jobs
Message-ID: <4B47B5D3.6070205@speakeasy.net>
According an article in the Waterbury, CT, REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN, AT&T
is cutting jobs:
AT&T's plan to eliminate more landline-related jobs in the state has
union officials and state consumer advocates crying foul.
Officials with the Communications Workers of America Local 1298 said
Tuesday that AT&T plans to phase out 160 more installation and repair
jobs by Feb. 19. A company spokesman confirmed that AT&T plans to
eliminate "surplus" jobs in the state, but would not confirm the total
number of jobs affected.
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/01/06/business/459145.txt
--
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:40:57 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <3b4560f4-8ec6-4479-ba9b-6d6b8a4d1174@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 7, 8:26 pm, Steven <diespamm...@killspammers.com> wrote:
> The cable was installed in the 50's and 60's. Some of the cable has
> had little or no work done on it in years. The real trouble started
> when they reworked cable pairs for U-verse. A manager told me that
> they have not done any cable pair recovery in years and have no plans
> to do so.
If as many people as [has been] said [have] truly abandoned
traditional land lines for other modes (eg cellphones or cable TV
[dialtone]) then there are probably plenty of unused pairs in a cable
that could be used as alternates.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:08:13 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <d02ddb1d-a823-4a18-9733-b20237470ca0@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 6, 8:15 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > While costs have gone down, telephone switches and terminal gear still
> > cost serious money. There are physical concerns to maintaining fiber
> > links whether underground or aerial. Buildings are still needed.
>
> Agreed, but in comparison the cost of counting all the calls,
> determining what to charge for them, sending out bills, processing
> payments, chasing up overdue accounts and providing "Customer Service"
> facilities must be a way higher percentage of any "retail" telco's
> costs these days than previously.
>
> I wonder if these admin costs are now the biggest cost component.
The "commercial" aspect of the telephone business has changed
dramatically. In short they have far fewer lower-paid people serving
far more customers because of those changes. Verizon, for example,
moved its business office people out of high rent downtown locations
to low-rent low-wage locations and has far fewer of them since so much
is automated. Processing service orders is easier since it's all
computerized and interlinked. They don't have girls on roller skates
anymore pulling up and replacing accounts from enormous fileboxes.
They have sold off many of their buildings, some in premium locations.
Years ago many subscribers had the lowest class of service offered and
carefully checked every 15c charge on their bill. That meant a large
staff to handle such complaints. Today far more subscribers have flat
rate service, even nation wide flat rate, so there are no 15c calls at
all to be concerned about. For the few subscribers with old plans,
those 15c charges of the 1960s are still 15c--if they haven't been
eliminated altogether. For example, in the Philadelphia area, Verizon
today charges 7c a message unit, the same price as in the 1960s.
Further, Verizon has eliminated that charge on many calls, and, gives
discounts for late at night calls. Today 3c isn't worth someone's
time to call in.
Many cellphone subscribers do not get an itemized bill at all, so that
cost is saved.
Many subscribers no longer get a paper bill by mail, but see it on
line via the Internet, which saves money.
Many subscribers have automatic bill pay where the phone bill is
automatically deducted from one's checking account. That saves
payment processing costs.
Since Divesture, when subscribers could own their own phones and house
wiring, the business office has not been concerned about extension
telephones and inside wire complaints--payment, ordering, dropping. A
big reason they were willing to drop extension rentals was the cost of
servicing extensions compared to the revenue it brought in.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:55:18 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <00296a74-e30c-45a0-8961-af03f1388374@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 6, 7:05 pm, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> >But I dare say even a single person alone
> >will use more than 150 minutes of talk time a month total of combined
> >landline and cellphone--that comes out to only five minutes per day
> >per month--not a whole lot. I'd figure an individual person would
> >talk at least 15 minutes per day on average.
>
> Why would you figure that? (Speaking as a single person, living
> alone, who -- as noted earlier in this thread -- does not spend even
> remotely close to that much time on the telephone.) Is there any
> recent evidence as to what the actual distribution is? (Anything
> published in BSTJ is far too old to count as recent.)
As a single person and knowing many single people, an average of five
minutes per day combined telephone time seems rather low, even with
communicating via email and the Internet. There are a variety of
appointments to be made--not only the dentist, but various doctors,
car service, service people, prescription renewals, pizza orders,
movie or theatre. There are questions for businesses that can not be
handled via email or the Internet. There is keeping up with friends
and family.
Note this is an average. This all represents conversations that can't
be done online. Undoubtedly on some days a single person wouldn't use
the telephone at all, but on other days could easily be on the phone
for hours. For example, calling a bank to discuss a loan or CD
purchase, being put on hold, talking to different people can be ten
minutes or more. Some businesses sadly require merely holding for ten
minutes until someone answers. Talking to a friend or family member
you haven't talked to in a while or needs help with a problem can be a
20-30 minute call or more.
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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 Bill Horne. 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.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 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.
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 The Telecom digest (19 messages)
|
or 