Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 29 : Issue 46 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: ISDN Re: ISDN Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Using Google Buzz Can Expose Your Gmail Address If Your Password Is 123456, Just Make It HackMe Forget Gum. Walking and Using Phone Is Risky. Critics Say Google Invades Privacy With New Service VeriZon & Frontier: Details on CA/OR/NV/AZ and WV/MD/VA/NC Re: VeriZon & Frontier: Details on CA/OR/NV/AZ and WV/MD/VA/NC Better Calling for Less, by Skipping the Cell Network Re: Forget Gum. Walking and Using Phone Is Risky. Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? ====== 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: 14 Feb 2010 06:16:29 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: ISDN Message-ID: <20100214061629.31148.qmail@simone.iecc.com> > What, by the way, does an HDSL line cost in round numbers? Does your > ISP use it to deliver your phone connections as well? It cost about $200/mo for the T1, and $300/mo for the Internet service. That was a great price in 1995 but it's ridiculous now. It was just data, the phone was (and is) on a separate pair. The T1 price is distance independent which in my case was bad since the distance was only three blocks. Telco is now touting their business fiber service, where I can get 5Mb down/512Kb up for $69/mo with a three year commitment and a rather vague pricing for IP addresses. Or I can pay $129 for 10Mb/768Kb, or $128 for the bundle of 10Mb/768Kb, a phone line with 1c local, 5c toll calling, and free installation. This is biz service. They say eventually they'll have resi fiber, but not for a while. Maybe I'll wait, the DSL is only $40 and is moderately sucky, about 3M/300K. R's, John ***** Moderator's Note ***** My DSL is about 600k/100k, and I think that qualifies as really sucky: too slow even for Vonage. My brother, however, has FiOS, and he gets about 5,800k/1,280k: about the same as cable around here, but far from what fiber can deliver. He says that Verizon is throttling usage to sell higher-tier services, but that the tier he's at now beats the separate internet & phone prices. Whatever happened to the electricity that was going to be too cheap to measure? Bill Horne Moderator Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:07:49 -0600 From: Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: ISDN Message-ID: <4B783BF5.8030504@cybertheque.org> John Levine wrote: <snip> > Telco is now touting their business fiber service, where I can get > 5Mb down/512Kb up for $69/mo with a three year commitment and a > rather vague pricing for IP addresses. Or I can pay $129 for > 10Mb/768Kb, or $128 for the bundle of 10Mb/768Kb, a phone line with > 1c local, 5c toll calling, and free installation. > > This is biz service. They say eventually they'll have resi fiber, > but not for a while. Maybe I'll wait, the DSL is only $40 and is > moderately sucky, about 3M/300K. > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > My DSL is about 600k/100k, and I think that qualifies as really > sucky: too slow even for Vonage. I have had 256k symmetric DMT for a number of years at about $39.00/mo with a voice pair (Qwest, separate ISP) and have never experienced any reduction in the allocated bandwidth. Perhaps I am lucky in how they provisioned it at my QTH? > Whatever happened to the electricity that was going to be too cheap > to measure? Environmentalists. Lack of national focus and urgency. Energy should have the same priority as health care and war-making and is a lynch pin of "national security". How about a discussion for a little while here regarding a proposal to roll-out a significant number of fission reactors for a "25-year plan" during which time a real effort to mature fusion would be undertaken? Michael ***** Moderator's Note ***** I opened the door, so I'm allowing your question. I'm also closing the door: a debate about nuclear power isn't related to telecom. Sorry. Bill Horne Moderator [Post removed by Moderator Bill Horne after DMCA request 2018-06-24] Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 07:04:34 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <7iUdn.77499$s%.72790@newsfe18.iad> [Quoted material removed by Moderator Bill Horne after DMCA request 2018-06-24] So, how do you get all those folks that you want to receive calls from to remember your routine? Or, will it tick off some of them who will then just stop calling? The problem with that box is that everyone is confronted. With network embedded Privacy Manager, only the blockers encounter a pesky routine, which they deserve. Date: 14 Feb 2010 17:03:10 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <20100214170310.90143.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >> So now when I go to political sites and they request a phone number, >> they get the Google Voice number. I give them 617-637-XXXX, for some random XXXX. I don't think the Time Lady minds. R's, John ***** Moderator's Note ***** My favorite was always the "busy test" line in my local CO: needless to say, it's always busy. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:43:27 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Using Google Buzz Can Expose Your Gmail Address Message-ID: <p06240802c79de6526f4a@[10.0.1.7]> Using Google Buzz Can Expose Your Gmail Address by theharmonyguy on February 12th, 2010 I've discovered another trick that may surprise some, this time relating to Google's services. I don't view the issue as a vulnerability, but it likely goes against user privacy expectations. In short, having a public Google profile (which you might have created when checking out Google Buzz) can allow others to figure out your Gmail address. This really shouldn't be that surprising, given that your username is generally consistent across Google services, and a public profile is public. But those who currently have numeric profile addresses (e.g. http://www.google.com/profiles/104424237445852766735) might think their profile is not easily tied to their username. ... http://theharmonyguy.com/2010/02/12/using-google-buzz-can-expose-your-gmail-address/ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:48:28 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: If Your Password Is 123456, Just Make It HackMe Message-ID: <p06240803c79de785b745@[10.0.0.5]> If Your Password Is 123456, Just Make It HackMe By ASHLEE VANCE The New York Times January 21, 2010 Back at the dawn of the Web, the most popular account password was "12345." Today, it's one digit longer but hardly safer: "123456." Despite all the reports of Internet security breaches over the years, including the recent attacks on Google's e-mail service, many people have reacted to the break-ins with a shrug. According to a new analysis, one out of five Web users still decides to leave the digital equivalent of a key under the doormat: they choose a simple, easily guessed password like "abc123," "iloveyou" or even "password" to protect their data. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/technology/21password.html Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:51:07 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Forget Gum. Walking and Using Phone Is Risky. Message-ID: <p06240804c79de82dde86@[10.0.0.5]> Driven to Distraction Forget Gum. Walking and Using Phone Is Risky. By MATT RICHTEL The New York Times January 17, 2010 SAN FRANCISCO - On the day of the collision last month, visibility was good. The sidewalk was not under repair. As she walked, Tiffany Briggs, 25, was talking to her grandmother on her cellphone, lost in conversation. Very lost. "I ran into a truck," Ms. Briggs said. It was parked in a driveway. Distracted driving has gained much attention lately because of the inflated crash risk posed by drivers using cellphones to talk and text. But there is another growing problem caused by lower-stakes multitasking - distracted walking - which combines a pedestrian, an electronic device and an unseen crack in the sidewalk, the pole of a stop sign, a toy left on the living room floor or a parked (or sometimes moving) car. The era of the mobile gadget is making mobility that much more perilous, particularly on crowded streets and in downtown areas where multiple multitaskers veer and swerve and walk to the beat of their own devices. Most times, the mishaps for a distracted walker are minor, like the lightly dinged head and broken fingernail that Ms. Briggs suffered, a jammed digit or a sprained ankle, and, the befallen say, a nasty case of hurt pride. Of course, the injuries can sometimes be serious - and they are on the rise. Slightly more than 1,000 pedestrians visited emergency rooms in 2008 because they got distracted and tripped, fell or ran into something while using a cellphone to talk or text. That was twice the number from 2007, which had nearly doubled from 2006, according to a study conducted by Ohio State University, which says it is the first to estimate such accidents. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/technology/17distracted.html Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:04:54 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Critics Say Google Invades Privacy With New Service Message-ID: <p0624080ec79deb8fa99c@[10.0.0.5]> Critics Say Google Invades Privacy With New Service By MIGUEL HELFT The New York Times February 13, 2010 SAN FRANCISCO - When Google introduced Buzz - its answer to Facebook and Twitter - it hoped to get the service off to a fast start. New users of Buzz, which was added to Gmail on Tuesday, found themselves with a ready-made network of friends automatically selected by the company based on the people that each user communicated with most frequently through Google's e-mail and chat services. But what Google viewed as an obvious shortcut stirred up a beehive of angry critics. Many users bristled at what they considered an invasion of privacy, and they faulted the company for failing to ask permission before sharing a person's Buzz contacts with a broad audience. For the last three days, Google has faced a firestorm of criticism on blogs and Web sites, and it has already been forced to alter some features of the service. E-mail, it turns out, can hold many secrets, from the names of personal physicians and illicit lovers to the identities of whistle-blowers and antigovernment activists. And Google, so recently a hero to many people for threatening to leave China after hacking attempts against the Gmail accounts of human rights activists, now finds itself being pilloried as a clumsy violator of privacy. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/technology/internet/13google.html Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:06:32 -0800 (PST) From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: VeriZon & Frontier: Details on CA/OR/NV/AZ and WV/MD/VA/NC Message-ID: <221063.20309.qm@web31103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In mid-May 2009, VeriZon and Frontier announced that VeriZon intends to sell off its ILEC landline operations in more than a dozen states, over to Frontier ... NOTE that ALL of this is still PENDING STOCKHOLDER APPROVAL (from both VeriZon and Frontier investors) AND ALSO REGULATORY/GOVERNMENT APPROVAL (state and federal, both utility/telecom regulatory agencies as well as any other government agencies). It was determined that VeriZon is intending to sell off virtually all of the remaining legacy GTE and Contel that it still holds, with the exception of GTE in the Tampa FL area, the GTE and Contel in Texas that VeriZon still retained after some was sold to Valor (now part of Windstream) back in 2000 shortly after BA/NYNEX took over GTE/Contel to form VZ), and that VZ will retain MOST of GTE and Contel in California (only a few parts of VeriZon-legacy GTE and Contel in California, near the border with Oregon, Nevada, Arizona are supposed to be sold off to Frontier). BTW, these three states, California, Texas, and Florida, have the MOST number of area codes when compared to any other state, province, territory, island, etc. within the North American Numbering Plan/ DDD Network -- California has about 30 area codes, Texas has about 24 area codes, and Florida has about 17 area codes. The GTE and Contel states of VeriZon which are to be sold off completely to Frontier, are supposed to be North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington state, Idaho. Note that back in 2000 and 2002, there were other legacy GTE/Contel states that VeriZon sold to others, and at various times during the 1990s, GTE sold off some Contel and even long-time GTE areas, after having taken over Contel in the early 1990s. In both waves of sales of legacy GTE including Contel, during the 1990s and the early 2000s, Frontier or Citizens was one of several companies that GTE or VeriZon sold exchange territory to. VeriZon ALSO intends on selling to Frontier, its landline ILEC exchanges in West Virginia. This would be legacy Bell-Atlantic/C&P Tel of West Virginia, a BOC yet, since all old GTE and Contel exchanges in West Virginia were already sold to Citizens (now part of Frontier) by GTE back in the early 1990s, shortly after GTE bought out Contel. (In some ways, this parallels the sale of legacy BA/NYNEX/New England Tel and Tel in the three uppermost northeastern states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, to FairPoint, which officially took effect in Spring 2008. Also, there was old Contel in ME/NH/VT that GTE inherited in the early 1990s with the takeover of Contel, these area temporarily renamed GTE, but by the mid-1990s, GTE sold these ME/NH/VT one-time Contel exchanges to an industry consortium which divided up these exchanges, the company that eventually picked up most of them eventually "evolved" into FairPoint by the early 2000s, the same FairPoint which just took over old NET&T in ME/NH/VT from VeriZon/BA/NYNEX!) Legacy GTE and Contel areas in Pennsylvania and Virginia will continue to be retained by VeriZon, NOT transferred to Frontier. The legacy BOC in both states in Bell Atlantic, and after GTE (including Contel) was taken over by BA/NYNEX in 2000 to form VeriZon, the regular day-to-day operations of legacy GTE and Contel in these two Bell Atlantic states was mostly consolidated into those of BOC Bell Atlantic, whether the GTE and Contel exchanges were in a Bell Atlantic LATA or in a legacy GTE or Contel LATA. BTW, Frontier/Citizens/etc., prior to any takeover of legacy GTE and Contel (and legacy Bell-Atlantic/C&P-West Virginia) from VeriZon THIS time around, is already present in the following 27 states: New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia (*); Michigan (*) [and Ohio (*)], Indiana (*), Illinois (*), Wisconsin (*); Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi; Minnesota [and North Dakota, South Dakota], Iowa, Nebraska [and Kansas]; Montana, Idaho (*), Utah, Arizona (*), New Mexico, Oregon (*); California (*), Nevada (*). (*) these are states where VeriZon wants to sell legacy GTE and Contel to Frontier, as well as West Virginia BOC Bell-Atlantic/C&P. Presently, Frontier has no presence in Washington state, nor North Carolina or South Carolina, these three states where VeriZon wants to sell legacy GTE and Contel to Frontier. As for WHICH legacy GTE and Contel exchanges in California VeriZon would sell to Frontier and which VZ would retain, it has been indicated that some smaller rural areas near the Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona state lines would be sold to Frontier. When VeriZon and Frontier first announced this sale of these (mostly legacy GTE and Contel) exchanges back in mid-May 2009, the news/press/media stories, including those from VeriZon and Frontier, did not give any detail as to which specific California exchanges would be sold to Frontier. I did find out from the California PUC and from VeriZon that "some" VeriZon (old GTE and old Contel) exchanges in the following COUNTIES "could" be sold to Frontier (pending regulatory/government approval, as well as approval from the shareholders of both VeriZon and Frontier): - Delnorte County - Humboldt County (along the Pacific Ocean, Delnorte borders Oregon, Humboldt is just to the south of Delnorte) - Alpine County - Mono County (bordering Nevada in the Lake Tahoe area) - San Bernardino County - Riverside County (bordering Arizona) I did ask about Inyo County (which borders Nevada in the "Death Valley" area, and is completely old Contel for its ILEC), and Imperial County where there is one old Contel ratecenter at the Arizona state-line, but at the time, neither VeriZon nor the Ca.PUC had these two California counties on their list of areas where old GTE/Contel "could" be sold by VeriZon to Frontier. There have been some more recent announcements from the Ca.PUC and from VeriZon as to which specific (legacy GTE and Contel) exchanges in California are to be sold to Frontier. Those bordering the Oregon state-line include: 707-457 GSQTCAXFRS2 Crescent City CA (Gasquet) 707-458 HICHCAXFRS2 Crescent City CA (Hiouchi) 707-464,465 CRCYCAXFDS1 Crescent City CA 707-482 KLMTCAXFRS1 Klamath CA 707-487 SMRVCAXFDS1 Smith River CA 707-488 ORICCAXFRS1 Orick CA Orick CA is the only VZ/GTE exchange in Humboldt County which will be sold to Frontier, the others are all in Delnorte County. This "cluster" of VZ/GTE along the Oregon state-line and the Pacific Coast are NOT associated with (OCN 2319) "VeriZon of California (GTE)", but rather are part of (OCN 2344) "VeriZon - West Coast". This operation is historically part of the old "West Coast Telephone Company" which was owned by Western Utilities Inc, acquired by GT&E in the mid/late 1960s, later to become General Telephone of the Northwest or VeriZon Northwest, covering Washington, Oregon, (northern) Idaho, and this small part of California at/near the Oregon state-line. Even though these VZ/GTE exchanges are in the San Francisco CA LATA #722 and have their own local central-office dialtone switches within California, and are NOT part of the Eugene Oregon LATA #672, they are managed under GTE/VZ of the Northwest, and thus treated for management purposes "as if" they are part of Oregon. Note that VZ intends on selling off old GTE (and Contel) in WA and OR, as well as old GTE in north Idaho, to Frontier, so it seems logical that this part of California would be part of the transfer to Frontier. And as for the specifics of which exchanges bordering Nevada and Arizona, as to which would be retained and which sold off, I had thought that maybe all of Mono and Inyo Counties might be sold to Frontier. It had been mentioned that Mono County was one of the California counties which "could" have "some" VeriZon (old Contel) ratecenters sold to Frontier, it didn't seem from early references that any one-time Contel in Inyo County are intended to be sold to Frontier. Inyo County (as well as Mono County) border Nevada. And as I mentioned earlier, there is also a VeriZon exchange in Imperial County bordering Arizona, but Imperial County wasn't mentioned in the early reports based on counties of which California one-time Contel and GTE exchanges to be sold by VeriZon to Frontier. More recently, documentation at VeriZon's tariff/regulatory/network/etc. section of their website, as well as at the Ca.PUC's website, indicate the specific one-time Contel exchanges bordering Nevada and Arizona, to be sold by VeriZon to Frontier. In addition to the "VeriZon West Coast" (aka GT&E/VZ of the Northwest, aka West Coast Telephone Company) exchanges bordering Oregon, listed above, the following seven exchanges bordering Nevada and Arizona, all legacy Contel ratecenters (OCN 4420), are now referenced by both VeriZon and Frontier as to be sold by VeriZon to Frontier, of course pending regulatory and stockholder approval: bordering Nevada, in LATA #720 "Reno and northern NV": 530-694 WDFRCAXFRS1 Alpine-Woodfords CA (in Alpine County) 530-495 CEVLCAXFRS6 coleville CA (in Mono Coun ty) (There are several other ratecenters in Mono County, within the Los Angeles Metro LATA #730, within NPAs 760/442 (in overlay), which either border Nevada, or are close to Nevada without actually bordering the state, as well as several ratecenters in Inyo County also in the same LATA and NPAs, all old Contel, which VZ seems to be retaining. These are in the "Death Valley" area, and it might seem that VZ would have probably desired to sell these off to Frontier, but apparently will retain them at this time. In Mono County, these would be ... Bridgeport CA and Benton CA, as well as ... Lee Vining CA, June Lake CA, Mammoth Lakes CA, Crowley Lake CA. In Inyo County, these would be ... Pine Creek CA, Bishop CA, Big Pine CA, Independence CA, Lone Pine CA, Olancha CA. So, it would seem that, at least for now, VeriZon intends on retaining these above indicated old Contel exchanges in the "Death Valley" area bordering or close by Nevada, in Mono County and Inyo County). The "Los Angeles Metro" LATA #730 and NPAs 760/442 in overlay apply to the remaining counties further south, bordering Arizona, where SOME legacy Contel ratecenters are to be sold by VeriZon to Frontier. Further south, San Bernardino County is a rather large county in California which extends from the Los Angeles metro area on the west, all the way to the Nevada and Arizona state lines on the east. The Victorville CA region (legacy Contel) and the other ratecenters near the Los Angeles CA metro area (both legacy GTE and legacy Contel) will be retained by VeriZon. (Much of this long-time GTE in this area was probably CW&T/Western Utilities, acquired by GT&E in the mid/late 1960s) The following legacy Contel ratecenters at the Arizona state line are intended to be sold to Frontier: 760-858 HVSUCAXFRS1 Havasu Lake CA (aka Havasu Landing CA) 760-663 PRDMAZXCDS0 Parker Dam CA -- (*) see note below (OLD CA-based CLLI: PRDMCAXF663) 760-665 BGRVCAXFRS1 Earp: Earp 'DA' CA (based in Big River CA ) (OLD switch/CLLI: EARPCAXC665) Riverside County is another rather large county in California which extends from the Los Angeles metro area on the west, all the way to the Arizona state line on the east. The exchanges near the Los Angeles metro area (legacy GTE) will most likely be retained by VeriZon. However, there only seems to be two legacy Contel ratecenter at the Arizona state line which VeriZon will sell to Frontier: 760-664 PSTNAZXCRS1 Earp: Lost Lake 'DA' CA -- (*) see note b elow 760-921,922 BLYTCAXF92K Blythe CA (*) Note that: -- Parker Dam in CA now gets dialtone from VZ/GTE/Contel (4419) in Parker Dam AZ (PRDMAZXCDS0). -- Earp: Lost Lake 'DA' in CA gets dialtone from VZ/GTE/Contel (4419) in Poston AZ (PSTNAZXCRS1). In both San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (and a small part of Imperial County for the Salton CA ratecenter) is the legacy-GTE LATA #973 Palm Springs CA area. This is to be retained by VeriZon. (Prior to the mid/late 1960s, this was California Water & Telephone, held by Western Utilities, which was taken over by GT&E at that time). Also, Imperial County was NOT initially indicated as one of the counties by the Ca.PUC's or VeriZon's first reports of which California counties which had some legacy GTE and/or Contel that "could" be sold to Frontier. There is one legacy Contel ratecenter right at the Arizona state-line which will be one that VeriZon intends to sell to Frontier according to more recent documentation/lists: 760-854 PLVRCAXFRS1 Palo Verde CA Note that in all cases, those VeriZon ratecenters (once GTE or once Contel) near Oregon, near Nevada, and near Arizona, which are intended to be sold to Frontier -- there already is VeriZon (once GTE or once Contel) to be sold to Frontier right across the state line in those adjacent states of Oregon, Nevada, Arizona. And, there is also some Frontier-legacy-Citizens exchange area close by in those adjacent states as well (and even Frontier-once-Citizens in a few California locations too). Even back in the 1990s, GTE sold a few one-time Contel and long-time GTE exchanges in California over to Citizens-now-Frontier as well, so there is a precedent of Frontier taking over old GTE and Contel in California. West Virginia, Maryland (and Virginia) VeriZon has also indicated that it intends to sell off its landline operations in West Virginia (all BOC exchanges throughout the state, VZ/Bell-Atlantic/C&P-of-West Virginia) to Frontier as well, an entire BOC state. There is NO old one-time GTE or Contel in West Virginia that has ever been part of VeriZon. When GTE acquired Contel in 1991/92, they almost immediately sold off all of Contel and even long-time GTE in West Virginia, to Citizens, which has since become part of Frontier. This somewhat parallels the situation in New England recently, when three entire legacy BOC (BA/NYNEX/New England Tel & Tel) states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, were sold by VeriZon to FairPoint. Also, the predecessor to FairPoint back in 1995 had bought all old Contel, which GTE had acquired in 1991/92 (and temporarily re-branded it as GTE), but a few short years later decided not to retain. The industry group that bought this old GTE-once-Contel in ME/NH/VT has since become part of FairPoint. (NOTE that VZ/BA/NYNEX/NET&T in Massachusetts and Rhode Island is still to be retained by VeriZon). Also paralleling the New England situation, is the fact that there are a few VZ/BA/C&P central office switches in Maryland which provide dialtone to current VZ/BA/C&P West Virginia customers, and vice-versa, a couple of current VZ/BA/C&P West Virginia c.o.switches which provide dialtone to VZ/BA/C&P Maryland customers! In northern New England, there was a c.o.switch in Amesbury MA which provided dialtone to customers in South Hampton NH. And a c.o.switch in North Adams MA which provided dialtone to customers in Stamford VT. These once-VZ/NET&T-now-FairPoint customers in NH and VT had to be RE-WIRED to now-FairPoint central office switches in their own home states of NH and VT. The particular once-VZ/NET&T-now-FairPoint central office switches in NH and VT which took over these NH and VT customers who had previously served out of NET&T offices in MA were ones which already existed, and were NOT new constructions in NH and VT. The original MA-side switches are still VZ/NET&T, serving Massachusetts customers/ratecenters. There is still local calling across the state/LATA/NPA lines for these once-VZ/NET&T-now-FairPoint VT or NH customers and still-VZ MA-side customers. Also, the once-VZ/NET&T c.o.switch in Readsboro VT (now FairPoint) had been providing dialtone to (still) VZ/NET&T customers in Monroe Bridge MA. VZ/NET&T has since RE-WIRED these Monroe Bridge MA side customers to an already existing VZ/NET&T c.o.switch in Massachusetts (not a newly constructed switch). There is still local calling across the state/LATA/NPA line for these VZ MA-side customers and the now FairPoint Vermont-side customers. In the case of West Virginia, there are some VZ/BA/C&P West Virginia ratecenters which are a part of LATA 240 "Hagerstown MD". (There are also some Frontier/Citizens-once-GTE exchanges in West Virginia also associated with this Maryland-based LATA as well). MOST of these VZ/C&P ratecenters in WV have their own WV-side c.o.switch even though there might be EAS/local calling with the MD-side (and even some EAS across the LATA boundary with customers/ratecenters in the Clarksburg WV LATA). But there are the following c.o.switches in MD which provide dialtone to WV customers, and WV c.o.switches which provide dialtone to MD-side customers, all within the Hagerstown MD LATA #240: KTZMMDKMRS0 in Kitzmiller MD (301-453), also currently provides dialtone to Elk Garden WV (304-446). CMLDMDCMDS0 in Cumberland MD (301-722,723,724,759,774,784), also currently provides dialtone to part of Ridgeley WV (304-738). CSTWMDCRDS0 in Cresaptown MD (301-729), but part of the Cumberland MD ratecenter, also currently provides dialtone to another part of the Ridgeley WV ratecenter (304-726). vice-versa ... KYSRWVMRDS0 is in Keyser WV (304-788), but it also currently provides dialtone to McCoole MD (301-786). PDMTWVAARS1 is in Piedmont (Mineral County) WV (304-355), but it also currently provides dialtone to Westernport MD. Also in this part of West Virginia, in the "Hagerstown MD" LATA #240, is GRMNWVGMRS1 Gormania WV (304-693, but this c.o.switch appears not to provide dialtone to anything in nearby Maryland, although there is local calling with some exchanges in Maryland. I came across some network-related documents at VeriZon's "regulatory/ tariff/network" section of their website which indicate that those customers/ratecenters/304-NNX codes in West Virginia which get dialtone from VZ/BA/C&P-MD c.o.switches in Maryland (301), and vice-versa, those customers/ratecenters/301-NNX codes in Maryland which get dialtone from VZ/BA/C&P-WVa c.o.switches in West Virginia (304), are to be RE-WIRED to nearby c.o.switches in their own home-state. This is in preparation for the sale of West Virginia (BOC) VZ/C&P customers/ratecenters/switches over from VZ to Frontier. The West Virginia customers soon to be served by Frontier will get dialtone from now-Frontier-owned c.o.switches in West Virginia, while the Maryland customers who will continue to be served by VeriZon/C&P-MD customers will get dialtone from continued-to- be-owned by VZ/C&P-MD c.o.switches, despite which state-based c.o.switch they previously received their dialtone from. 304-446 Elk Garden WV currently gets dialtone from KTZMMDKMRS0 in Kitzmiller MD, but Elk Garden WV is to be re-wired to nearby GRMNWVGMRS1 in Gormania WV (which also serves 304-693). 304-726 Ridgeley WV currently gets dialtone from CSTWMDCRDS0 in Cumberland "Cresaptown" MD ... and 304-738 Ridgeley WV currently gets dialtone from CMLDMDCMDS0 in Cumberland "Cumberland" MD. Both 304-726,738 for Ridgeley will be re-wired to nearby KYSRWVMRDS0 in Keyser WV (which also serves 304-788). 301-359 Westernport MD currently gets dialtone from PDMTWVAARS1 in Piedmont (Mineral County) WV, but Westernport MD is to be re-wired to nearby CMLDMDCMDS0 in Cumberland "Cumberland" MD (which also serves 301-722,723,724,759,774,784). 301-786 McCoole MD currently gets dialtone from KYSRWVMRDS0 in Keyser WV, but McCoole MD is to be rewired to nearby CSTWMDCRDS0 in Cumberland "Crestview" MD (which also serves 301-729). There will still be continue to be some inter-state intra-LATA EAS between the VZ/C&P-MD side and the soon-to-be-Frontier-formerly-VZ/C&P-WV side though. Note that it will still remain INTRA-LATA, inter-state, only now between two different ILECs within the same LATA. This region of the VZ/BA managed "Hagerstown MD" LATA #240, both the WV-side and the MD-side has its ILEC LATA tandem in Cumberland "Cumberland" MD, CMLDMDCM07T, a Nortel-DMS-100/200, which is likely the same switch as CMLDMDCMDS0 for "end-office" (dialtone) functions. Further east in the eastern WV panhandle, is another area where the "Hagerstown MD" LATA #240 spills over into West Virginia, however, all of these (currently) VZ/BA/C&P-WV ratecenters/exchanges which are expected to be transferred to Frontier, and Frontier/Citizens (formerly GTE) ratecenters/exchanges, are served by central office switches actually located within West Virginia, and these don't provide dialtone to anything over in Maryland, although there could be some local calling arrangements with nearby Maryland. 9214 VZ/BA/C&P-WVa 304-26x MRBGWVBUDS0 Martinsburg (HOST) (304-260,262,263,264,267,433) 304-258 BRSPWVWARS1 Berkeley Springs 304-27x FLWTWVFWRS1 Falling Waters (304-270,271,274) 304-754 HDVLWVHVRS1 Hedgesville 304-229 INWDWVIDRS4 Inwood 0270 Frontier/Citizens-WVa (all were once GTE) 304-72x CHTWWVXADS0 Charles Town (HOST) (304-724,725,728) 304-535 HRFYWVXARS2 Harpers Ferry 304-876 SHPHWVXARS1 Shepherdstown The Lucent/Alcatel 5ESS MRBGWVBUDS0 Martinsburg WV is also the LATA tandem for this group, MRBGWVBU22T. There can be multiple LATA-tandems within a LATA. There are other tandems based in Maryland for this LATA. There are also a couple of other state-line situations regarding West Virginia, these two along the West Virginia/Virginia state-line. There is the ratecenter of Crows-Hematite VA 540-559, right at the VA/WV border and part of the "Charleston WV" LATA #254. Crows-Hematite VA is a rather small "borderline" town that actually gets its dialtone from the remote at White Sulphur Springs WV, 304-536 WSSPWVDRRS1, part of LATA #254. VeriZon/Bell-Atlantic/C&P-of-WV-and-VA is the ILEC for both ratecenters, White Sulphur Springs WV (where the c.o.switch is located) and for the "lesser" Crows-Hematite VA. Assuming that the WV-PSC approves VeriZon's sale of BOC BA/C&P-WV to Frontier, the Virginia-side Crows-Hematite ratecenter (which gets its dialtone from the West Virginia-side White Sulphur Springs remote switch and ratecenter) WILL_ALSO be sold to Frontier, the only VZ/BA/C&P-VA ratecenter to be sold to Frontier. If VeriZon were to choose to retain Crows-Hematite VA, since it is in the state of Virginia (not West Virginia), it would be difficult to impossible to re-wire these customers to a VZ/C&P-Virginia switch. For one thing, there are NO other VZ/C&P-Virginia based switches in this WV-based LATA. Crows-Hematite is sort of an "island" in Virginia that bumps up along West Virginia on one side (although in the same LATA), and several independent telco ratecenters/switches in a different LATA (the "Roanoke VA" LATA #244) within Virginia. There is EAS between Crows-Hematite VA and the White Sulphur Springs WV ratecenter where the dialtone switch is located, intra-LATA inter-state EAS. There is additional intra-state (and intra-LATA) EAS between White Sulphur Springs WV and other nearby West Virginia ratecenters of Frontier/Citizens which was old GTE (maybe even Contel) until GTE sold it off in the early 1990s as well as ratecenters of VeriZon/BA/C&P-WV which are likely to soon be sold to Frontier (pending WV-PSC approval). And despite the fact that it is inter-LATA between the "Charleston WV" LATA #254 and the "Roanoke VA" LATA #244, there is some such inter-LATA yet intra-state EAS calling between Crows-Hematite VA and some nearby ratecenters of the ILEC "nTelos" (OCN 0226) formerly known as "CFW Tel" (Clifton-Forge/Waynesboro VA) for the towns/ratecenters of: CFFRVAXARS0 Clifton Forge VA (540-862,863,865) CVTNVAXARS0 Covington VA (540-962,965,969, and CLEC/wireless NX Xes) PTCKVAXARS0 Potts Creek VA (540-747) (These are hosted by nTelos/CFW's WYBOVAXADS1 Waynesboro VA, a distance away, discontiguous, but still in the Roanoke VA LATA; there is NO EAS between Waynesboro VA and any other ratecenter). There is also LATA #932, "Bluefield WV/VA", which includes roughly an equal number of exchanges/ratecenters for each state. With the exception of two ratecenters -- one each for Virginia and West Virginia which are served by small locally owned ILECs, this entire LATA used to be served by GTE. Shortly after GTE bought out Contel circa 1991, GTE decided to completely exit the state of West Virginia, selling off all old Contel in the state and even all old GTE in the state, to Citizens Tel (now Frontier). Regarding this LATA, the Virginia-side exchanges/ratecenters were RETAINED by GTE at that time, and are now part of VeriZon. I have not seen any indication that VZ intends to sell the VZ-side of this LATA over to Frontier -- it appears that the LATA will continue to be split between Frontier on the WV-side (including the LATA-tandem), and VZ-once-GTE for the Virginia-side. FINALLY ... there is the Knotts Island NC ratecenter, legacy Contel, acquired by GTE in the early 1990s (when GTE took over Contel), and since 2000 still retained by VeriZon. North Carolina is one of the states where VeriZon indicates that they intend to sell off legacy GTE and Contel to Frontier. But I have been wondering if Knotts Island NC will be an exception, retained by VeriZon? Knotts Island is a part of VZ/BA/C&P-Virginia's LATA #252 "Norfolk VA". All legacy GTE and Contel in Virginia (and Pennsylvania) has been mostly integrated into the day-to-day operations of legacy BOC Bell Atlantic, even though there are some GTE (and Contel) ratecenters in both states in their own legacy GTE or Contel LATAs. (Other legacy GTE and Contel areas in both states have been parts of Bell Atlantic LATAs as well). Knotts Island NC has (inter-state intra-LATA) EAS with Norfolk VA ratecenter zones (some of them are VZ/BA/C&P BOC, some are VZ/GTE/Contel within Virginia in the Norfolk area), and also intra-state inter-LATA EAS with SOME Embarq/Sprint/United/Carolina ratecenters (Coinjock NC, Mamie NC, Moyock NC) in the Embarq/Sprint/United "Rocky Mount NC" LATA #951. (These three Embarq/Carolina-Tel-and-Tel ratecenters that do have inter-LATA intra-state EAS have EAS with each other, and several other Embarq/United/Carolina-Tel North Carolina ratecenters that do not have EAS with VZ/GTE/Contel's Knotts Island NC). ALSO, note that Embarq has recently been acquired by CenturyTel, the merged company is now called CenturyLink. Knotts Island NC is jurisdictionally within North Carolina, but it is physically connected to a barrier island or peninsula extending from Virginia, and is accessible by road only through southeast Virginia (although there is a ferryboat route within North Carolina that connects Knotts Island with the "mainland" as well. Knotts Island NC is also tariffed with the NC Utilities Commission by VeriZon (probably going back to the Contel days), SEPARATELY from other VZ legacy GTE or Contel areas in the state! Knotts Island is NOT part of the regular VeriZon (GTE or Contel) "North Carolina General Subscriber Tariff", but rather its OWN UNIQUE tariff filing, known as "General Subscriber Tariff Knotts Island NC (Virginia)", sort of "as if" it is some kind of "afterthought" that is more associated with Virginia even though it is geographically located in the jurisdiction of North Carolina. Knotts Island NC (252-429) does have its own c.o.switch for dialtone, KNISNCXARS1, a remote hosted by hosted by PRANVAXBDS0 Princess Anne VA VZ/GTE/Contel Norfolk Zn.4 VA, homes on GRBRVAXA01T Great Bridge VA VZ/GTE/Contel Norfolk Zn.1 VA, and in addition to its intra-state inter-LATA EAS with three CenturyLink/Embarq/Carolina-Tel ratecenters in the "Rocky Mount NC" LATA #951, Knotts Island NC has intra-LATA inter-state EAS with several ratecenters on the Virginia-side, both VeriZon/BA/C&P-VA & VeriZon/GTE/Contel, Norfolk VA Zones 1,2,3,4,6 (there is no longer a Norfolk Zone 5, and nothing above Zone 6). There are NO currently-VeriZon-soon-to-be-Frontier legacy-GTE-or- Contel ratecenters elsewhere close-by in NC. Also, Frontier does NOT have any other current (pre-existing) presence in North Carolina! I had been wondering if VeriZon intended to retain Knotts Island NC (legacy GTE-once-Contel) since it is part of a Virginia LATA having EAS with other ratecenters/zones of Norfolk VA, and while the remote switch is in North Carolina, it is hosted by a Virginia-based host office. But then again, since Knotts Island is in North Carolina, and if VeriZon wants to sell-off all old GTE and Contel in that state to Frontier, would Knotts Island be part of that sale? I have been told by some VeriZon contacts, and also saw something on the VeriZon regulatory/tariff/network/etc. section on their website, that VeriZon-once-GTE-once-Contel Knotts Island NC _WILL_BE_RETAINED_ as part of VeriZon, NOT to be sold to Frontier. Of course, ALL of this including the intended sale by VeriZon of legacy GTE and Contel in other states, as well as legacy BOC BA/C&P in West Virginia -- to Frontier -- is all subject to regulatory/ government (both Federal and all affected states) approval, as well as approval by the stockholders of both VeriZon and Frontier. I don't know if this VeriZon/Frontier deal is to be an "all-or-nothing" deal, in the sense that ALL state regulatory agencies involved (as well as the FCC and other federal agencies, of course) must approve it for it any/all to take effect? In the 2007-09 VeriZon sale of legacy New England Tel in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, over to FairPoint, all three states had to approve of the sale for any/all of it to take effect. If only one state objected, NONE of the deal could go through, not even the sale of NET&T in the other two states from VZ to FP. But this VeriZon/Frontier transfer involves over a dozen states, and I haven't yet seen the "legal" details, as if "all" states must approve for "any" (and all) of the deal to take effect. Several states' utility regulatory agencies have already approved of VeriZon's sale of most legacy GTE & Contel to Frontier, but there are still a few states which are having reservations about it, including West Virginia regarding VZ selling off (legacy BOC) C&P-WVa to Frontier. Anyhow, VeriZon and Frontier are expecting that the deal (most? all?) to be approved, and take effect, in the 2nd Quarter of this year (2010), right before mid-year. Here are some URLs to VeriZon's Network/Regulatory/Tariff/etc. section of their website, where there will be documents regarding some of the specifics regarding the sale of legacy GTE and Contel, as well as legacy Bell-Atlantic/C&P-of-West-Virginia to Frontier: http://www22.verizon.com/about/publicpolicies/regulatory/ http://www22.verizon.com/regulatory/reg_ntw_dscl2010.html http://www22.verizon.com/regulatory/reg_ntw_dscl_html.html While it might not be specifically mentioned in these documents that certain "re-homes"/etc. are planned due to the sale of most legacy GTE or Contel to Frontier, it is most certainly the reason for such. SS7 signaling trunk re-homes, 911 PSAP re-alignments, re-looping to adjacent central offices, etc. are being done in various part of the country so that (pending regulatory approval of the sale), there can be a "clean break" of those areas to be sold to Frontier. Mark J. Cuccia markjcuccia at yahoo dot com Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA pre-Katrina ==================================================================== Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:21:52 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: VeriZon & Frontier: Details on CA/OR/NV/AZ and WV/MD/VA/NC Message-ID: <As0en.27308$aU4.19927@newsfe13.iad> Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > bordering Nevada, in LATA #720 "Reno and northern NV": > 530-694 WDFRCAXFRS1 Alpine-Woodfords CA (in Alpine County) > 530-495 CEVLCAXFRS6 coleville CA (in Mono Coun > ty) > > (There are several other ratecenters in Mono County, within the Los > Angeles Metro LATA #730, within NPAs 760/442 (in overlay), which > either border Nevada, or are close to Nevada without actually > bordering the state, as well as several ratecenters in Inyo County > also in the same LATA and NPAs, all old Contel, which VZ seems to be > retaining. These are in the "Death Valley" area, and it might seem > that VZ would have probably desired to sell these off to Frontier, > but apparently will retain them at this time. In Mono County, these > would be ... Bridgeport CA and Benton CA, as well as ... Lee Vining > CA, June Lake CA, Mammoth Lakes CA, Crowley Lake CA. In Inyo County, > these would be ... Pine Creek CA, Bishop CA, Big Pine CA, > Independence CA, Lone Pine CA, Olancha CA. So, it would seem that, > at least for now, VeriZon intends on retaining these above indicated > old Contel exchanges in the "Death Valley" area bordering or close > by Nevada, in Mono County and Inyo County). It would seem that the area in the north part of Mono County (from Coleville up to the Nevada state line south of Gardnerville would spin off fairly easy. But, from Bridgeport south to Mammoth Lakes, that would seem to be "joined at the hip" with the Eastern Sierra area southward to Ridgecrest. BTW, Death Vally south to Baker, CA on I-15 is at&t (Pacific Bell) territory. Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:06:39 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Better Calling for Less, by Skipping the Cell Network Message-ID: <p0624080fc79debf4c138@[10.0.0.5]> Phone Smart Better Calling for Less, by Skipping the Cell Network By BOB TEDESCHI The New York Times February 11, 2010 Few people care whether their calls are carried over a data network, a voice network, copper wires or a piece of string tied to two Dixie cups. Unless, of course, the method doesn't really work. Like a cell network. To take a completely hypothetical situation, let's say you own, oh, an iPhone, and you live, oh, in a metropolis that fairly bristles with cell towers. And you adore apps like Shazam and Gilt and Pandora, but you're considerably less sweet on AT&T because it can't carry a simple phone call for more than five minutes. For the millions of people who might fit into this purely hypothetical situation, there are options that don't involve switching carriers and turning your iPhone into the equivalent of a very costly iPod. All you have to do is find a Wi-Fi hot spot, or create one at home, and simply open up one of the handful of apps that will almost never drop your calls, and will charge you less to boot (especially if you have friends or business overseas). And if those friends have Fring or iCall or Skype or Gizmo5, too, the calls are free. A year ago, these services were either tough to download or they didn't work on the iPhone. And even if you could get one onto your phone, the calling experience was sketchy at best. Now these apps are generally easy to find and to download on iPhones and Android devices, and they offer solid user experiences. For the handful of people who downloaded Gizmo5 last year before Google bought the company and blocked new subscriptions, the service can offer a glimpse into the possible future of phone calling. But even short of that, the apps are a great alternative to cell networks. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/technology/personaltech/11smart.html Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:41:37 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Forget Gum. Walking and Using Phone Is Risky. Message-ID: <6645152a1002141541g366ff9e4s4cf5975b6f73f569@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote: > > Driven to Distraction > Forget Gum. Walking and Using Phone Is Risky. I can personally attest to this. I used to work in a large manufacturing plant. I got a phone call and talked while I walked. When I hung up I looked up and asked myself "Where the ^#$@ am I?" I had managed to enter a part of the building I didn't need to be in and step over a pile of high-voltage cables all leading to our banks of environmental chambers. I was never in serious danger, but disconcerting that I did not remember jumping over or even stepping on a sea of 2" diameter cables about 3 feet wide. There was no other way to get back behind these chambers. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:44:46 -0500 From: "Gene S. Berkowitz" <first.last@verizon.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Message-ID: <MPG.25e246e649693bb98968c@news.giganews.com> In article <hkrc86$r28$8@news.albasani.net>, ahk@chinet.com says... > I posted this in the XDSL group, but that group is too quiet. > > Recently, I had a new phone service installed, shared with ADSL. I > used the filters shipped with the DSL device, but I'm getting lousy > sound on my old cordless phone, Sony SPP 2000, a 1.7 Mhz > instrument. Yes, I know that such phones were always inadequate and > readily overheard, but the handset is cool looking, it has swappable > sealed lead acid batteries which means the handset is never > recharged in the base. It's survived being dropped quite a lot. > > Anyway, do these require a different filter than the one that came > in the box? In my experience, it's best to leave the DSL filter off at the cordless base station. Cordless phones are already bandwidth limited and highly filtered to remove the artifacts from their own RF stages. --Gene ***** Moderator's Note ***** Gene, I think the filters are mostly to benefit the ADSL modem, which needs all the signal strength it can get: some phones short out the high frequencies the ADSL gear is tryin to hear. Bill Horne Moderator 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 (14 messages)