|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 116 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
====== 27 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: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:01:03 GMT
From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <op.us06z2w4wqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:19:15 -0400, in response to a post
by <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>, Bill Horne wrote:
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> You bring up an interesting question: _why_ would Ma Bell want to keep
> such numbers secret?
>
Just an uninformed guess, but: perhaps there's a way to exploit
the self-ring-back to make an unchargeable toll call -- set up
auto-forwarding to the toll number you wish to call, get the
self-ring-back number to call you, pick up just when you s'pose
the auto-forwarded call has gotten answered, and be connected
to your toll party, with the charges going to the self-ring-back
number's account?
But what do I know? I've never eaten Cap'n Crunch cereal :-) , so
there are probably more holes in the theory above than in the little
Dutch boy's proverbial dike.
Cheers, -- tlvp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:04:57 -0500
From: gordonb.5oqbq@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Message-ID: <UJGdnWQF1qmExGjUnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
> As another poster mentioned they had a disclaimer (could be faintly
> seen on an analog TV set). I get a kick out of those "CYA"
> disclaimers, often seen on car commercials "do not drive this way/
> professional driver on closed course"; like the company will hide
> behind it "oh, well, we did warn the public not to do that."
It seems to me that there's a need for a lot more such disclaimers
on TV commercials, especially "Do not attempt dialing this phone
number yourself: extreme wallet and credit rating damage is possible"
for phone porn and "dating" numbers.
> When I was a kid the afterschool show ran Three Stooges shorts. From
> time to time the host of the show would remind us kids not to do the
> stunts we saw the Stooges do. The show also ran Popeye cartoons. In
> hindsight, those cartoons were pretty damn violent.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> And all Popeye had to do was "eat" his "spinach" to become strong and
> powerful. Funny how he used to pour the "spinach" into his gullet as
> if it were a liquid, and then he would beat up the brute who had tried
> to take his woman.
Do you think they'd actually allow Popeye on the air if they actually
told us what "spinach" was? Near as I can tell, it's PCP. Anyone else
know of something else that generates that much strength that fast?
***** Moderator's Note *****
What "spinach" actually represented is open to interpretation, but (at
least to me) the salient point is that the original character didn't
depend on it: according to Wikipedia, Popeye originally got his
strength by rubbing the head of a rare breed of chicken.
It wasn't until Popeye reached Hollywood that the magic elixir
changed: the animated features which had showed Popeye getting
strength from the vegetable sometimes had him inhaling it through his
pipe, sometimes chugging it as if it were Irish beer, but always
becoming strong, decisive, and courageous as soon as it passed his
lips.
Whether "spinach" was an allegory for marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco
is left as an excercise for the reader: suffice to say that I don't
think anything that ever happened in Hollywood was an accident.
Whether it was part of a vast conspiracy to promote tobacco use, an
attempt to poke fun at prohibition, or an inside joke amoung the
animators and producers will probably never be known.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:16:31 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Message-ID: <pan.2009.04.27.07.16.27.137212@myrealbox.com>
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:49:59 -0400, hancock4 wrote:
.........
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> There's no way in hell _I_ would use a cellphone to do _anything_ but
> talk: trying to read a website on a screen that small is an invitation to
> eyestrain. It goes without saying that cellphone vendors are marketing
> their "does everything" products to very young consumers with very good
> eyesight.
And in a few years they will have a big market of adults with crippled
thumbs and stuffed eyes to sell more new gadgets that help those with
these afflictions.......
Bionic phone/PDA implants anyone?
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: 27 Apr 2009 09:12:16 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <20090427091216.26384.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>> If you're eligible for a new subsidized phone, you might see about
>> getting one with an antenna plug, then get a glass mount or magnetic
>> roof antenna with a cable you can plug into the phone.
>I have not seen one from Sprint, besides I use a Palm 755P ...
Your phone does indeed have an antenna plug. Here's a $15 antenna
cable and a $20 roof antenna:
http://www.1800mobiles.com/treo-750755-antenna-adapter.html
http://www.1800mobiles.com/wilson-301113-external--antenna.html
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:28:37 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <9BnJl.17028$D32.5496@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>
John Levine wrote:
>>> If you're eligible for a new subsidized phone, you might see about
>>> getting one with an antenna plug, then get a glass mount or magnetic
>>> roof antenna with a cable you can plug into the phone.
>
>> I have not seen one from Sprint, besides I use a Palm 755P ...
>
> Your phone does indeed have an antenna plug. Here's a $15 antenna
> cable and a $20 roof antenna:
>
> http://www.1800mobiles.com/treo-750755-antenna-adapter.html
> http://www.1800mobiles.com/wilson-301113-external--antenna.html
>
> R's,
> John
So that is what is under that cap on the back of the phone. The price
for that adapter is fine, now if it would work with a standard external
antenna, I can't see spending that kind of money, maybe if I was in the
car a lot and did my work there.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:59:15 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <seOdnVtBx8upJ2jUnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
Steven Lichter wrote:
> ... I pulled my old hand held Ham radio, if an emergency comes
> up I'm sure I can reach someone, Last week on a trip to
> Las Vegas I tested it, I used the external antenna and
> an Amp, and reached a base in New York.
Nice to know that sporadic-E still works now and then ;-).
What's your call sign?
Bill, W1AC
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address for direct replies.)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:29:37 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <5CnJl.17029$D32.11496@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>
Bill Horne wrote:
> Steven Lichter wrote:
>
>> ... I pulled my old hand held Ham radio, if an emergency comes
> > up I'm sure I can reach someone, Last week on a trip to
> > Las Vegas I tested it, I used the external antenna and
> > an Amp, and reached a base in New York.
>
> Nice to know that sporadic-E still works now and then ;-).
>
> What's your call sign?
>
> Bill, W1AC
>
WB6VHI
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:40:05 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Message-ID: <c5c.4ce278d1.37270fb5@aol.com>
In a message dated 4/26/2009 11:20:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> I don't know what showed up on the bill, but in Enterprise service
> days, the operator would not announce the caller, just put the call
> through and reverse the charges without asking.
The name of the service was "Auto Collect." Since you had already
authorized all collect calls through the Enterprise service, there wa
no reason for the operator to see if you would accept the charges.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <ac36ee4f-556e-473b-acff-bad7efc86368@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 24, 3:17 pm, Will Roberts <oldb...@arctos.com> wrote:
> I recall that these numbers were changed and made confidential in the
> late 1960s during the Vietnam anti-war protest era. At that time, there
> was a lot of concern about security of domestic infrastructure.
Unfortunately, in the tenor of those times, that concern was quite
justified in some areas. The most obvious target--pay phones and
booths--were the target of massive vandalism.
Many people in those days looked upon the Bell System as something
"evil". Many college students saw it, wrongly, as part of the
"Military Industrial Complex" or just another big nasty corporation
"exploiting the masses". The Bell System of the 1960s was a very
staid company, certainly not hip.
Some authors* have suggested that the Justice Dept's anti-trust
[lawsuit] against the Bell System was motivated by ideological
views--"big is bad"--rather than hard evidence that it was in the
public interest to sue them. The authors suggest that mindset was fed
by several selfish large corporate users who either wanted lower rates
or a foot in the door of the communications market to skim off the
cream. [*Alan Stone, Constantine Raymond Kraus, and Alfred W. Duerig,
whom, IMHO, make many excellent points.]
What is sad about those times is that the Bell System was under strict
regulation and the way it operated was what was desired by state
regulators, who wanted, as a matter of major policy, cross
subsidization.
There was a cartoon joke in those days, a protester was standing in a
phone booth surrounded by a heavy rain storm; the phone booth provided
shelter. His sign read "down with monopoly corporations".
> For example, manhole covers were changed to castings reading "sewer"
> rather than "telephone" in some areas.
Unfortunately, the fears back then were nothing compared to the fears
today. Back then an interested group of kids could call the phone
company and get a very thorough private tour of a C.O. (as we did).
As people on the roads group reported, they could visit a state
Highway Dept. and study engineering plans to their heart's content.
Companies in the 1960s/1970s were pleased when youths showed genuine
interest in the business and even encouraged it. They printed up
expensive literature and freely distributed it.
But today companies are very paranoid about outsiders visting their
plant or seeing internal documents and have put up a brick wall,
literally and figuratively. Part of it is 9/11 fears, but the "walls"
were up before 9/11. Part of it is liability concerns, that
information given out might be used against them in a civil lawsuit by
some activist group, certainly a legitimate fear. Part of it is fear
of negative media coverage.
One problem all long-standing organizations have is critics using
standards of today to judge practices of the past. Go back 40, 50, 60
years and you'll find every organization discriminated against people
in all sorts of ways. Likewise with employee and customer safety,
standards were different in the past, as was knowledge about hazards.
By today's standards it looks bad, but years back it was simply the
way things were done.
> ANI response systems were thought to pose a risk because they could be
> used to identify specific telephone lines in unsecured terminal boxes
> and wiring closets. This could be useful to someone wanting to tap
> into a particular phone line.
There was a lot of paranoia among citizens that their phones were
tapped by the "govt", especially if they heard noise on their phone.
But if the government was tapping their line, they'd do so efficiently
and quietly, right in the C.O., not some jury-rigged arrangement out
on a pole. While some [of the] principal activist leaders were
monitored, everyday people were not, [because there were] simply too
many of them.
***** Moderator's Note *****
When I was in the craft, court-ordered wiretaps were always placed
outside a central office, because the company insisted that the actual
taps be made by law-enforcement officials. This prevented "chain of
evidence" problems and also obviated any need for telephone company
employees to testify, thus saving a lot of time and expense later on.
Of course, old tricks like "cheeseboxes" were always available to
criminals: a bookmaker would bribe a lineman to install a hidden drop
at a betting house when the listed address was blocks or even miles
away, so that a search warrant (which had been justified by recordings
of conversations on a wiretapped line) would be issued for the wrong
address. The police would go to the "official" address, and usually
find some little old lady with her knitting.
In later years, call-forwarding and other services made it impossible
to guarantee that a particular wire was always going to carry a
particular number's calls, so Congress passed the Communications
Assistance To Law Enforcement (CALEA) act, which mandated that both
ILEC's and CLEC's provide access to any conversation order by a court,
no matter how it is transported.
CALEA has produced mixed results: since it gets harder and harder to
pin a phone number to a single place or individual (because of pagers
and {often throw-away} cell phones), law enforcement agencies must rely
on wiretaps not as evidence of a crime in progress, but as probable
cause to seize assets or contraband long after the fact of an
individual phone call. Every well-publicized "perp walk" or drug
display you see on the evening news is likely to be the end point of a
multi-month or even multi-year electronic surveillance effort to
discern the habits, friends, covers, secret bank accounts, and
weaknesses of the bad guys.
You may ask what this has to do with the "Big Brother" fears this
poster mentions, and it's this: many cops get fed up with chasing
ghosts, and take shortcuts that place their objectivity and integrity
in doubt. Everything from "cheater" (unauthorized) wiretaps to
"Confidential Informants" that exist only in a cops imagination have
come up for review, with the result that the public grows increasingly
distrustful of police, the police grow more secretive, and at some
(yet to be determined) point, the systems collapses because there's no
consensus about who the "Good guys" are or what they're entitled to do
to protect "us" from "them".
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:19:17 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <0K2dnUVIP8WejmvUnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@posted.visi>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Many people in those days looked upon the Bell System as something
> "evil". Many college students saw it, wrongly, as part of the
> "Military Industrial Complex"
Why wrongly? Perhaps not the Bell System per se, but certainly their
corporate overlords. AT&T was in a long tradition of industrial
giants whose corporate interests were intermingled with the military.
It wasn't a situation unique to the USA, such informal groupings
existed earlier in England, France, Japan, and Germany, and probably
any other capitalist country that was both industrially developed and
a major military power.
ATT was prime contractor for the DEW Line (R&D done by Bell Labs,
construction by WE), owned the Sandia Corporation, which oversaw the
laboratories that did much nuclear weapon development. WE was prime
contractor for the Nike missile system. They produced communications
systems for military use. And they certainly were a giant industrial
complex, whose board and interests that overlapped with other large
defense contractors. I'd say they fit the description quite well.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <6cef7b0b-66ac-43d7-9353-d59ef8966fd9@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 26, 5:34 pm, Steven Lichter <diespamm...@ikillspammers.com>
wrote:
> I understand that, but I don't need it that much, beside I pulled my old
> hand held Ham radio, if an emergency comes up I'm sure I can reach
> someone, Last week on a trip to Las Vegas I tested it, I used the
> external antenna and an Amp, and reached a base in New York.
The original reason I got a cell phone was mostly for emergencies in
case my car broke down. Back then they had low-use plans with a high
per-minute but low monthly charge.
Years back I bought an emergency-use CB radio for the car. It was a
kit designed for special use only while stopped, not while moving. It
had a magnetic mount antenna and a hand-held transceiver. I think I
tried once to listen to the CB channel that had shared road-status on
it but heard nothing, otherwise I never used it. I recently tried it
out and it barely worked, apparently the [wire to the] cigarette
lighter plug frayed inside and needed to be jiggled to make contact.
I thought a friend could use it with his kids and a walkie-talkies,
but apparently the new walkie-talkies sold now don't use CB channels.
The one disadvtg of a cell phone is that you can't hear the traffic CB
channel, which I presume truckers still use. But the CB set I had was
for stationary use only so not a big help while driving.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I do love this job: every so often, I get to pontificate about an area
of communicaitons where I have a lot of esoteric knowledge, and that's
the stuff that my dreams are made of.
The Citizen's Band (technically, the Class D Citizen's Radio Service)
was a great idea put into action at exactly the wrong time. In 1958,
the FCC sought to provide a low-cost alternative to the existing Class
A and Class B CB allocations, and the commissioners reallocated the 11
Meter Amateur band to two new classes of operation, namely Class C
(radio remote control) and Class D (voice).
The idea was that the lower frequency range of 11 meters, which is
around 27 megahertz, would allow for cheaper radios and thus provide
inexpensive communications for users such as country doctors, farmers,
and small businesses: the Class A and B allocations were at about 460
megahertz, and since transistorized designs weren't yet available
commercially, the vacuum-tube radios which could operate at those
Ultra-High Frequencies (UHF) cost too much for all but governmental
users and major corporations. Ma Bell, Electrical Utilities, Gas
Companies, etc., all had their own, dedicated frequency assignments
anyway, so the Class A and B channels were going unused by all but a
few well-healed licensees. Class D was the solution.
Unfortunately, it worked.
At first, it worked well. During the first cab ride I ever took, as a
14 year-old Novice Class Amateur operator in Derry, New Hampshire, the
cab driver bragged that having his Johnson Courier CB set was "Just
like being next to the phone". For him and thousands of other small
businessmen, a CB set was an invaluable aid.
Then, it worked a little too well: the Carterphone decision, which was
the opening salvo of the fight to break up AT&T, came about because a
man named Carter built a microphone and speaker into a cradle that
would hold a telephone handset, and hooked them up to a CB set so that
telephone calls could go on over the air. It was, of course, awkward
and labor intensive, but the Carterphone allowed farmers out on the
back 40 to deal with the feed store manager as their wives keyed the
CB set, without coming in from plowing.
Then, it worked beyond the wildest dreams of equipment manufacturers,
radio salesmen, and egomaniacs of all stripes. The sunspot cycle, an
11 year variation of the sun's effect on the Earth's geomagnetic
field, passed its nadir just as truckers started to adopt CB sets as
their own party line. As the flux numbers rose, so did the number of
"skip" contacts between CB sets, which, although limited to five watts
of input power, were able to connect ham-operator wannabees across
transcontinental distances just as gas prices soared, truckers went on
strike, and unpopular speed limit laws went into effect. The truckers
abandoned any attempt at operating within the FCC rules, and used CB
Channel 19 to report on speed traps as well as gas prices ahead.
Hollywood took note, and sales took off: films like "Smokey and the
Bandit" were rushed into theaters so quickly that the actors didn't
even have time to learn how to push the "Push To Talk" switch on the
CB microphone before speaking their lines - an error so glaring that
tinseltown spin doctors had to arrange for the manufacture and
distribution of the "Foot Switches" they explained had been in use all
along.
And, last, it stopped working. The tragedy of the commons was repeated
in the new medium, with electronic bullies, deficient personality
types, and plain old jerks turning 27 MHz into a radio cesspool that
was, and is now, usable only for extremely short-range communications.
Those who actually need to depend on the band, such as independent
cab drivers, were forced to modify their radios to use unlicensed
channels outside the range of the neanderthals that took over the
(eventually expanded from 23) official range of 40 channels.
As the Citizen's Band stands now, the radio spectrum between
approximately 26.9 and 27.4 MHz is a mass of heterodynes, profanity,
animal noises, "Roger" beeps, echo generators, and (very occasional)
meaningful conversations of those seeking directions or traveling in a
convoy. The space about channel 40 has been taken over by
"Outbanders", hobbyists who act more like Amateur radio operators than
the hams themselves, and the space below channel 1 is used by taxis,
moving companies, etc. Only children bother to explore the space in
between.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:41:03 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Message-ID: <FpidnRFaWYeyc2jUnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <1210e93b-6201-456f-ae14-05033eb5cc66@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Apr 25, 3:45 pm, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
[[.. sneck ]]
>
>800 service has been around for many years. Was the ANI always
>provided to 800 businesses? Back in the early days of 800 service ANI
>wasn't universal--some exchanges still had ONI. I can't believe
>they'd bother with ONI on a toll free call.
>
>When did ANI become available for 800 customers?
ALWAYS. <grin>
In early days it was delivered "with the billing" -- 'real-time' data
delivery was not available.
------------------------------
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 Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
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) 2008 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 (12 messages)
******************************
|
or 