Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 29 : Issue 59 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Re: Channel islands, was More about 5E remote from Catalina Island Re: Channel islands, was More about 5E remote from Catalina Island Re: Pay phone nostalgia Re: magicJack: Cheap, Way Overhyped, But Really Works Re: magicJack: Cheap, Way Overhyped, But Really Works Re: Satellite circuits busy because of Haiti? Re: Satellite circuits busy because of Haiti? Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Re: Fonts and Editors ====== 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: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:48:59 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Message-ID: <%%4in.13623$ND2.3386@newsfe05.iad> Stephen wrote: > Lots of islands seem to have microwave originally acting as backup to > subsea fibre - or multiple fibres on different routes. > > It tends to cost real money though.... > http://www.surecw.com/mobile/page-594 Catalina Island's population is less than 4,000. Doesn't Jersey have a lot more people than that? ***** Moderator's Note ***** Given that the channel islands are in between the UK and the mainland, I assume that they are a convenient junction point for the cables, and that the HUGO network dropped off a few paths at Jersey so that the island's residents could find out how nice their home is. But seriously, folks ... I wonder if people who live on islands consume a disproportionate share of electronic entertainment. Bill Horne Moderator Date: 27 Feb 2010 17:43:14 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Channel islands, was More about 5E remote from Catalina Island Message-ID: <20100227174314.39485.qmail@simone.iecc.com> > Given that the channel islands are in between the UK and the mainland, > I assume that they are a convenient junction point for the cables, and > that the HUGO network dropped off a few paths at Jersey so that the > island's residents could find out how nice their home is. > > But seriously, folks ... I wonder if people who live on islands > consume a disproportionate share of electronic entertainment. Jersey's population is about 90,000. I dunno about the residents' taste in online entertainment, but I do know that it is a major global financial center, due to the unusual history of the Channel Islands. They are integrated with the UK financial system, but not part of the UK and not subject to UK or EU taxes. If you are doing business in the UK, but you're not subject to UK taxes because you're not a UK resident, Jersey's where you probably do your banking. This means they have a lot more need for high-tech communication than your typical offshore island. No wonder they have all the fiber. R's, John ***** Moderator's Note ***** If I'm not a UK resident, and therefore not subject to UK taxes, why wouldn't I just do my banking in London? Date: 27 Feb 2010 20:34:49 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Channel islands, was More about 5E remote from Catalina Island Message-ID: <20100227203449.40118.qmail@simone.iecc.com> > They are integrated with the UK financial system, but not part of the > UK and not subject to UK or EU taxes. If you are doing business in > the UK, but you're not subject to UK taxes because you're not a UK > resident, Jersey's where you probably do your banking. > > This means they have a lot more need for high-tech communication than > your typical offshore island. No wonder they have all the fiber. > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > If I'm not a UK resident, and therefore not subject to UK taxes, why > wouldn't I just do my banking in London? Because the banks would collect taxes and you'd have to try to get them refunded. I do have an account in the UK, and I have here a tax certificate saying that last year they withheld £102.38 from the interest they paid me. In the US I can credit that small amount against my US taxes but for larger amounts and other countries, it's a lot more complicated. R's, John Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:21:26 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia Message-ID: <MPG.25f267d030c58190989ca3@news.eternal-september.org> In article <0pshn.3590$mn6.2675@newsfe07.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says... > > T wrote: >> >> I've got a good mind to stick my 1D2 on the side of the building and >> charge 10 cents a call. Hook it up to a VoIP provider and a basic >> controller and I'm golden. > > 10 cents for a call accross the country or even to 60 countries in the > case of Vonage? Someone would monopolize the phone sooner or later. Hey just keep pumping the dimes in. Of course I'd put a timer on the thing, 2 or 3 minutes per call and then trip the coin relay and cut the call off. Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:22:57 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: magicJack: Cheap, Way Overhyped, But Really Works Message-ID: <MPG.25f26828c932ab34989ca4@news.eternal-september.org> In article <p062408e7c7abcc454699@[10.0.0.5]>, monty@roscom.com says... > When I see a high-tech product that's advertised mainly via frequent > hard-sell TV ads, as if it were a diet pill, I tend to assume it > can't be very good, especially if its price is absurdly low. So, I > haven't paid much attention to a product called magicJack, a small > $40 adapter for your computer that claims to let you make unlimited > domestic phone calls over the Internet with your home telephone free > for a whole year-and for just $20 a year thereafter. It's better. I got five years of service for $69 which works out to $13.80 per year, or $1.15 a month. Not too shabby. Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:31:25 -0700 From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: magicJack: Cheap, Way Overhyped, But Really Works Message-ID: <ansio59j27f12bhq4er8fherun41pr0j4i@4ax.com> T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote: > I got five years of service for $69 which works out to $13.80 per > year, or $1.15 a month. Not too shabby. Assuming that MJ stays in business for 5 years and doesn't change their TOS... ***** Moderator's Note ***** When we talk about the cost of VoIP, there's always the 800 pound gorilla in the room: i.e., the never-ending debate about how much, if any, of the cost of a VoIP customer's Internet connection to include in the calculation. In the case of MagicJack, I've seen reports that the service comes with pop-up ads on your PC: I'd appreciate hearing about that aspect from "T", and other users, since it invites a question about "quality of service" with respect to the value of a user's time, ability to use the PC, etc. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:27:20 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Satellite circuits busy because of Haiti? Message-ID: <MPG.25f2692af5ef2adf989ca5@news.eternal-september.org> In article <pan.2010.01.20.07.03.08.409718@myrealbox.com>, dcstar@myrealbox.com says... > > Telecom Digest Moderator said: >> I recommend NoScript for Firefox. You won't believe you ever got along >> without it. > > Also use AdblockPlus, all of these things really clean up annoying web > sites. And if I might, Flashblock too. A lot of little nasties are being encoded in flash these days. Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:28:06 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Satellite circuits busy because of Haiti? Message-ID: <pan.2010.02.27.22.28.04.953792@myrealbox.com> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:27:20 -0500, T wrote: > In article <pan.2010.01.20.07.03.08.409718@myrealbox.com>, > dcstar@myrealbox.com says... >> >> Telecom Digest Moderator said: >>> I recommend NoScript for Firefox. You won't believe you ever got >>> along without it. >> >> Also use AdblockPlus, all of these things really clean up annoying >> web sites. > > And if I might, Flashblock too. A lot of little nasties are being > encoded in flash these days. Fortunately that is not a big concern for those of us using a far more resilient platform - Linux. If I was a Windows user I'm not even sure I'd want to be online these days....... - - Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Now, here's a guy who "walks the walk" - User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table (Debian GNU/Linux)) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:09:21 -0600 From: "GlowingBlueMist" <GlowingBlueMist@truely.invalid> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland - Message-ID: <4b88c524$0$65848$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com> Stephen wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:21:54 -0500, "Cryderman, Charles" > <Charles.Cryderman@globalcrossing.com> wrote: > >> Sam Spade wrote: >> >>> Would the LEC sink fiber across the 26 miles of sea for the >>> remote/host link, or would they use digital microwave (the >>> elevations are sufficient for one microwave link? >>> >>> I understand that microwave is vulnerable to "wiretapping" for those >>> with the wherewithal. >> >> Our esteem Moderator noted: >> >>> Microwave is vulnerable to rain fading, antenna displacement due to >>> excessive wind loading, foreign objects in the path, solar damage, >>> bird strikes, and (for all I know) mogo on the gogo. I hope they >>> used fiber. >> >> My two cents: >> >> Back in the eighties when I was station with the US Army on Okinawa, >> Japan we had a microwave link to the Naha harbor where are biggest >> issue was tides. A ship would be loading/unloading and when the tide >> came in would block the path. So if you were on duty you'd want to >> check both the tide chart as well as the harbor schedule. > > The other little gem is reflections off the sea. > > Get the beam path wrong and you get destructive interference at some > point in the tide... And I thought we had fun at Ramstein AFB in Germany with a microwave link shooting across the runway. Everything worked perfectly until those pesky C5 planes parked in the wrong place. The tail fin stuck up higher than the microwave beam. We had to call the tower to have them "move the &#^%~* plane" a couple of times a month. Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:54:39 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland - Message-ID: <4B896A6F.3020700@thadlabs.com> On 2/26/2010 11:09 PM, GlowingBlueMist wrote: > Stephen wrote: >> [...] >> The other little gem is reflections off the sea. >> >> Get the beam path wrong and you get destructive interference at some >> point in the tide... > > And I thought we had fun at Ramstein AFB in Germany with a microwave link > shooting across the runway. Everything worked perfectly until those pesky > C5 planes parked in the wrong place. The tail fin stuck up higher than the > microwave beam. We had to call the tower to have them "move the &#^%~* > plane" a couple of times a month. For nearly 10 years I had Sprint Broadband (microwave) as my connection to the 'Net at 6Mbits/S inbound and approx. 256-512 kbits/S outbound. You can see the (diamond-shaped) transceiver/antenna on this page: http://thadlabs.com/PIX/LX200/ Cost was about $40/month, worked fine under all weather conditions across SF Bay (from the Peninsula (me) to Sprint's shared tower in Fremont at a bearing of 28°4.9' and 17.1 miles), and the only service call I made resulted in an transceiver replacement due to the original one developing a leak and filling with rainwater. This area, in the heart of Silicon Valley, didn't have either DSL or cable until circa 2007; I began the Sprint service in the late 1990s. The only reason I don't still have the Sprint service is because the FCC reallocated the frequencies and Sprint had to shut down end of July 2008. I lucked out finding a great cable deal (http://www.comcastoffers.com/) and here's the present inbound/outbound rating [DOCSIS 2.0] (July 2008): http://thadlabs.com/PIX/Comcast_speed-test.jpg Since then, Comcast implemented DOCSIS 3.0 meaning this area operates at up to 50Mbps or 100Mbps if one chooses to pay for it which is presently pricey and simply not worth it due to most sites being incapable of supplying data at that rate. For the curious, "comcastoffers" (above URL) is a 3rd-party retailer with better offers than Comcast noting the offer changes monthly and the incredible deal I received in June 2008 is no longer available: a free Motorola SB5101, about $200 in rebates, and only $19.95/month for the first 6 months. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Great shots of the antenna and the bird. IIRC, having an antenna set up in a "Diamond" mount means that the signal was vertically polarized, which isn't very common in microwave. Too bad Sprint lost the frequencies: that's an unusual move for the FCC, since it means disruptions to services such as yours. I wonder how many customers went dark. And, for telecom, I'll ask if Sprint offered dial tone over such links. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:40:07 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland - Message-ID: <4B899137.7070600@thadlabs.com> On 2/27/2010 10:54 AM, Thad Floryan wrote: > [...] > For nearly 10 years I had Sprint Broadband (microwave) as my connection > to the 'Net at 6Mbits/S inbound and approx. 256-512 kbits/S outbound. You > can see the (diamond-shaped) transceiver/antenna on this page: > > http://thadlabs.com/PIX/LX200/ > [...] > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Great shots of the antenna and the bird. Thank you! > IIRC, having an antenna set > up in a "Diamond" mount means that the signal was vertically > polarized, which isn't very common in microwave. That specific style of CalAmp transceiver permitted both vertical and horizontal polarization depending on the mounting rotation; there are raised arrows labelled "H" and "V" on the back of the transceiver illustrating the proper mounting setup. > Too bad Sprint lost the frequencies: that's an unusual move for the > FCC, since it means disruptions to services such as yours. I wonder > how many customers went dark. Several neighbors followed my lead after I was the first in our area with the Sprint service. The only other choice (until 2007) was dialup phone. Glancing at how many diamond transceivers I saw, there were about 10 homes in my neighborhood with the service when it was discontinued in July 2008. I was actually in a panic mode after receiving the 90-day notice from Sprint because I had already long discontinued landline phone service. Another microwave service I checked cost over 10x more (~$500/month) for service similar to Sprint's ($44/month). Finding the ComcastOffers web site was a fluke and it took over a week to determine if cable was available; turns out it was and I ended up being the first customer (for whom they had to run all-new cabling from the fiber box installed in 2007). > And, for telecom, I'll ask if Sprint offered dial tone over such > links. Sprint Broadband was data only and they never offered any telephony options. There's no reason why one couldn't have used VoIP over Sprint since the data rates were acceptable. Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:36:24 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland - Message-ID: <I7hin.10969$AF1.10061@newsfe12.iad> Thad Floryan wrote: > http://thadlabs.com/PIX/Comcast_speed-test.jpg > > Since then, Comcast implemented DOCSIS 3.0 meaning this area operates > at up to 50Mbps or 100Mbps if one chooses to pay for it which is > presently pricey and simply not worth it due to most sites being > incapable of supplying data at that rate. This is my speed test this morning. This is fairly consistent. Cox touts up to 20 megbits/sec and up to 1.5 megbits/sec. It's nice to see them usually exceed their "up to" claims. http://www.terps.com/speed%20test/Speed%20Test%20Feb%2027%202010.jpg Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:38:44 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland - Message-ID: <pan.2010.02.27.22.38.40.880158@myrealbox.com> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:09:21 -0600, GlowingBlueMist wrote: ........ > And I thought we had fun at Ramstein AFB in Germany with a microwave link > shooting across the runway. Everything worked perfectly until those pesky > C5 planes parked in the wrong place. The tail fin stuck up higher than > the microwave beam. We had to call the tower to have them "move the > &#^%~* plane" a couple of times a month. I recall a story an ex-workmate once told me (years ago now) when he was in the Australian Army in the late 1960's and part of a squad that set up mobile microwave point-to-point links. They (apparently) once were told to set up a link from Point "A" to Point "B", but unfortunately there was a hill in the way blocking the line of sight, so (apparently) their new officer - when informed of the problem and how microwave links only work when the dishes can "see" each other came up with a solution - and ordered them to take two dishes to the hill and just connect them back-to-back...... directly..... with no repeater equipment..... It is always a lot easier in the military to follow orders than try to argue with your "superiors", so they did what they were told.... with predictable results..... :-) - - Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Well, that sounds like it might have worked with a big enough dish. We used to put reflectors in the "Near field" of microwave stations, so that the actual antenna could be at ground level, with just a "billboard" on the tower. The FCC finally outlawed them; I don't know why. Anyway, is what David describes possible in theory? Bill Horne Moderator Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:06:03 +0000 (UTC) From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland - Message-ID: <hmcfhq$phr$1@reader1.panix.com> In article <pan.2010.02.27.22.38.40.880158@myrealbox.com>, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: > They (apparently) once were told to set up a link from Point "A" to > Point "B", but unfortunately there was a hill in the way blocking the > line of sight, so (apparently) their new officer - when informed of > the problem and how microwave links only work when the dishes can > "see" each other came up with a solution - and ordered them to take > two dishes to the hill and just connect them > back-to-back...... directly..... with no repeater equipment..... That could work as a passive repeater, could it not? -- Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:06:42 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland - Message-ID: <4B89CFB2.5070805@horne.net> > On 2/27/2010 10:54 AM, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: >> ***** Moderator's Note ***** >> IIRC, having an antenna set up in a "Diamond" mount means that the >> signal was vertically polarized, which isn't very common in >> microwave. > > That specific style of CalAmp transceiver permitted both vertical > and horizontal polarization depending on the mounting rotation; > there are raised arrows labelled "H" and "V" on the back of the > transceiver illustrating the proper mounting setup. I can't see the "H" or "V" markings in your photos. Did I get it right? Is that a vertically-polarized antenna? Bill Horne -- "She said, 'I'm home on shore leave,'though in truth we were at sea so I took her by the looking glass and forced her to agree saying, 'You must be the mermaid who took Neptune for a ride.' But she smiled at me so sadly that my anger straightway died" - Keith Reid Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:50:50 -0800 (PST) From: JimB <ajbredacted@invalid.yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Fonts and Editors Message-ID: <8b96b81e-6842-4545-bda5-f820e42c5ab1@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> Telecom Digest Moderator said: > This is relevent to telecom because we have to agree on a character > set in order to discuss telecom issues. You might not care which > hotel a trade conference is held at, but you'll obviously care that > all the attendees go to the same one. Yikes, I'm tempted to stick my head even deeper into the sand for this one. Over the decades I've struggled to understand character sets and coding schemes, and the more I research it, the more confused I get. Big-Endian vs. Little-Endian 32-bit numbers are enough to make my brain blow an o-ring... I'm typing this on EditPad 3.5.1, the hottest new version of EditPad (in 1999). I'm running on the dreaded NT5 (laugh all you want), and after I type this I will likely take the lazy way out and copy/paste it directly into the google groups reply page. Will that result in bogus characters? Please advise, and also advise as to what really is the best way to make a submission to the digest now. (e-mail? google web interface? Patrick's old page? I know you've covered this question, I just can't seem to find it...) The "convert" pull-down menu in EditPad has two commands, "OEM to ANSI" and "ANSI to OEM." I've never really understood what they did, because this version only saves files in one format - the "native" (perverse?) ASCII format of windows. I know the basic purpose is the whole "CR+LF" vs "CR" only deal, but what happens to the file the next time it is opened and saved on the windows platform? Like I said, I just get more confused... It will not even read unicode files, even if said unicode files contain only characters below ASCII 255 with the second eight-bit "half-word" padded out with zeroes. Another strange thing, over the years I've discovered about a half- dozen Digest Archive files on the MIT ftp server that appeared to just end in mid-sentence when read with this program (EditPad). This would usually happen right when Patrick was just getting up a good head of steam on one of his editorials, and it was a bummer. I discovered (accidentally) that the files read just fine in UltraEdit32 (another "read anything/write anything" program that still leaves you guessing half the time as to what format you are really in), and once re- saved as ASCII from there (again on an NT platform), they were readable in EditPad. I looked at them on UltrEdit 32 in hex mode at the time, but I can't remember now if there was an errant EOF marker in them, or if it was something else. I can probably figure out the exact files by looking at the "last modified" date on the copies in my archive here - I think they were all from the same year. Jim ******************************************************** Speaking from a secure undisclosed location. 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 (16 messages)