|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 201 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
FM frequency 87.7, was: Walter's Telephones
Re: FM frequency 87.7, was: Walter's Telephones
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: When Texting Is Wrong
How many conversations on a single cell tower/site and other questions?
====== 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: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <5065a86a-6b4c-4561-aac5-656173dc8950@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 21, 10:33 am, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Why does VoIP in a business environment require an UPS?
>
> If the power is out you cannot receive faxes, run a computer or do
> virtually any business function required these days, so not having a phone
> service for the period of no power is hardly of much substance.
>
> While it may have been handy in the past to have landline service in the
> event of a major power outage, in these days of ubiquitous cell phones it
> is basically redundant as far as most "emergency" situations go and little
> use otherwise.
I don't agree. A major part of conducting business is still voice
conversations over the telephone; and phones must be answered whether
the power is on or not. Even if the computers are down there are
still paper records, and at least someone could take notes and get
back to the caller. If the computers are that critical to a business
they'd better have UPS as well.
For many businesses an unanswered phone means loss of business to a
competitor.
Callers would generally not know individuals' cell phone numbers.
Depending on the nature of the power failure, the cell phones might be
out too.
I've been through enough power failures. The phones damn better work,
at home and in the office.
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Ah, but you need a reliable phone service so that you can call the
> disaster recovery service bureau, repoint your DNS, remote-forward
> your fax line, and plan you vacation. ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:18:53 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <cd5.54f51ab3.379879cd@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/21/2009 9:47:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
dave.garland@wizinfo.com writes:
> If they _tell_ you about mandated guarantees, you're just going to
> call and whine and complain and expect refunds and send letters to
> the PUC when things go wrong. If they don't tell you, you probably
> won't know. Why in the world would you expect that they'd choose to
> tell you?
Because the PUC reequires them to.
> (Mind you, I have no idea whether there are such guarantees, it
> probably depends on your jurisdiction.)
As far as I know, the only guarantees were for commercial TV
transmission when it was done by the telcos and those tariffs required
a hot channel standing idle as a spare and and refunds for any outages
in the channel for more than a few minutes.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:26:53 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <bbb.53c509d0.37987bad@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/21/2009 9:52:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> However, my home and office through several extreme storms and
> floods over the years and we always had good dial tone. During
> those events we were never told not to use the phone, indeed,
> emergency phone numbers were broadcast for people to use.
When I was living in Dallas many years go furing a toprnado I picked
up my phone and fianally just laid it on the table. After 14 minutes
I got dial tone. Thqt was from a step-by-step office.
Later, when I lived in St. Louis, after a tornado I dialed repeatedly
for a long distance call and aftrer 40 minutes it connected. I was
served by a crossbar office there and it knocked you off after a
number of seconds if it was unable to provide dial tone. A few months
ago, I was unable to get a signal on my cell phone during a tornado
warning for over an hour. I did not have access to a landfline phone
at that tiome.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <ba6f0072-0a34-4eb7-83b0-e4e2c3451e38@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 21, 10:53 pm, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> > Further, many cable [TV] offerings seem to be significantly going up
> > in price. Some deals are a cheap introfuctory rate that goes up after
> > six months or a year, which might not make it so attractive.
>
> "introfuctory"? Gee, Lisa, is that a typo or an editorial comment?
Typo. Sorry about that. Need to proof better before sending.
> Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
> > Do cable prices EVER go down? :-)
>
> Not until the "Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act
> of 1992" is repealed. When you let the broadcast industry write the
> "consumer protection" rules for their main competitor, whose interests
> do you think they'll protect -- consumers or their own?
Supposedly my local municipality is to regulate cable rates. Why at a
municipal level I don't know. Anyway, the municipality has a
franchise fee, a percentage of the total bill, that is passed on to
the customers. Since it's a percentage, the higher the bill the more
the town collects. I can't help but suspect the town is reluctant to
reduce cable charges since it would reduce their tax income.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <e6c172cd-78f2-4051-ac81-55a96ea7caa1@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 21, 11:35 am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know about today, but as recently as a few years ago the
> California PUC had some service standards and a government/industry
> committee that met periodically.
>
> We all know about busy hour issues and grade of service with wireline
> carriers. I suspect wireless is much worse. VoIP, I have no idea.
I can't help but wonder if VOIP isn't covered by such standards being
it's new and that many providers aren't located in the area when one
has service.
I wonder what will happen if VOIP really takes off in popularity--will
_everyone_ in the communications chain be able to upgrade facilities
to provide the necessary capacity? For example, what happens if say
the cable company which people are using as their transmission medium
fails to upgrade its facilities and its broadband lines get
overloaded? What happens if Internet 'trunk' lines do not get
upgraded?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:31:40 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <op.uxf9e2mvo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:53:24 -0400, Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> > Further, many cable [TV] offerings seem to be significantly going up
> > in price. Some deals are a cheap introfuctory rate that goes up after
> > six months or a year, which might not make it so attractive.
>
> "introfuctory"? Gee, Lisa, is that a typo or an editorial comment?
>
> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
> > Do cable prices EVER go down? :-)
>
> Not until the "Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act
> of 1992" is repealed. When you let the broadcast industry write the
> "consumer protection" rules for their main competitor, whose interests
> do you think they'll protect -- consumers or their own?
>
> Neal McLain
Neat catch, Neal :-) . But check your keyboard: "d" has "s" to the left,
and "f" to the right. Fumbly fingers could turn "introductory" as easily
into "introsuctory" as into "introfuctory." Which would you prefer? :-)
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
***** Moderator's Note *****
Ya miss one letter, and they never let you live it down!
Bill, who could have claimed he knew it all along ...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:18:01 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <op.uxf8sbono63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:18:51 -0400, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:42:32 -0400, David Lesher wrote: .......
>> The REAL gotcha is "returns" -- a wholesaler can and would order dozens
>> of copies of a title, and return however many were unsold. Mass-market
>> titles [say Harry Potter] could easily have 75% returns, and were 'sold'
>> 4-5 times. No distributor grants volume discounts on a title because if
>> they did; wholesalers and stores would overbuy to get a lower price, and
>> return most...
>
> Return rights directly affect the price a book store/seller pays for
> particular stock. Some publishers allow an overall return percentage for a
> period, with penalties for stock over that quota.
>
> The whole (physical) book publishing industry worldwide is essentially
> corrupt, with ancient "Regional rights" creating virtual monopoly markets
> that protect the industry.
>
> The new e-book paradigm will eventually dismantle the 19th century way
> things are still done in the publishing industry. Even Internet sales have
> dented the geographic control the publishing industry clings to.
Nowhere is "geographic control" more evident than in DVD (and DVD player)
sales. Both discs and players are coded for one of six "regions", or may
under circumstances be "region-free" or "all-region", respectively.
Must be meant to discourage, for example, a US tourist to down under
from bringing back any Aussie DVDs -- they won't play on a US player.
['Cuz it sure won't *encourage* me to bring back an Aussie player :-) .]
How that "helps" the industry is beyond me -- they're *discouraging* sales!
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
***** Moderator's Note *****
Use the Myth player.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:28:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: FM frequency 87.7, was: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <h4611d$3s6$1@reader1.panix.com>
[ snipppeth ]
>* A quirk in frequencies allowed the audio portion of Channel 6 to be
>heard at 87.7 FM. Turned out many people listened to the station that
>way, and when the station went digital that audio was lost.
>Apparently to broadcast the audio now would require mountains of red
>tape and FCC approval, even though it had been done for years and the
>87.7 frequency is physically empty and not usable for anything else.
>On another newsgroup I was disappointed that correspondents strongly
>supported the _bureaucratic_ reasons "it can't be done", even though
>_physically/technically_ it certainly can be done. Anyway, America
>need not worry, we have plenty of bureaucrats eager to say NO! why
>something can't be done. Too bad they fail to realize progress was
>made by people thinking outside the box.
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>Being able to hear Channel Six on 87.7 wasn't a quirk: Channel Six's
>assignment was from 82 to 88 MHz, and the audio carrier for the "old"
>TV system was always 250 KHz below the top edge of the channel. Since
>the audio was sent as FM, it could be heard of FM receivers tuned to
>87.7, which was close enough to "capture" the signal.
>The FCC won't allow the audio to stay on 87.75 because the entire
>range from 54 to 88 MHz (The old channels 2 through 6) is being
>reassigned to other services.
As our moderator notes, the radio frequency 87.7, which is receivable
on most "FM" radios these days, is actually the audio carrier
of "analog" television channel 6.
Now... since the official "FM band" actually begins at 88 mhz,
the FCC wouldn't give out licenses to broadcast audio at 87.7
However, if you had a channel 6 tv license, you, as noted above,
had (and may still have, see below) a de facto 87.7 audio feed.
Where this gets interesting is in "low power" transmitters. While
getting a new tv or radio license has been just about impossible
in most of the national markets for quite some time, you _could_
often get a "low power" one. The key proviso was that the frequency
you were hoping for could _not_ be interfering with the primary
licensee for that bit of the spectrum.
So, for example, if you wanted to get tv channel 6 in Philly,
you'd be turned down since that's already (pre digital swapperoo)
in the hands of Philly station WPVI.
But... if you asked the FCC politely for a low power license
for that same channel, _and_ you were outside the primary
coverage zone and wouldn't interfere in that geographic
area, then, well, yes, you could get one.
So indeed, a couple of years ago NYC was treated to a low
power broadcaster, WNYZ-LP, using that channel. And they, like
a bunch of other folk around the country, took advantage
of that frequency overlap to get a back-door sneak into
FM radio.
While the low power video portion didn't go very far, the
similar _audio_ segment gets pretty decent range. Hence
the station marketed itself as a _radio_ station.
(Initially it was a misc. foreign language, mostly Russian,
targetted audience. About a year ago they switched to a
hip hop and dance format, under the name "Pulse 87").
Since "low power" television was exempt from the digital swaperroo,
they're still out there. If you're in a limited area of NYC you can
pick up their video, which is basically low quality filler material
just to keep the FCC happy. If you're in a larger footprint, you can
hear them quite well.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:49:31 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FM frequency 87.7, was: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <h47ceb$fa1$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <h4611d$3s6$1@reader1.panix.com>,
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
[quoting ze moderator here:]
>> The FCC won't allow the audio to stay on 87.75 because the entire
>> range from 54 to 88 MHz (The old channels 2 through 6) is being
>> reassigned to other services.
No they're not.
[back to Danny's text:]
> Now... since the official "FM band" actually begins at 88 mhz,
> the FCC wouldn't give out licenses to broadcast audio at 87.7
It actually begins at 87.9, also known as "channel 200" in FCC
parlance. There are two FM stations in the United States licensed to
broadcast on channel 200: KSFH, a high-school station on the San
Francisco Peninsula, and K200AA, a translator near Reno, Nevada.
> So, for example, if you wanted to get tv channel 6 in Philly, you'd
> be turned down since that's already (pre digital swapperoo) in the
> hands of Philly station WPVI.
Post-"digital swapperoo" as well.
> So indeed, a couple of years ago NYC was treated to a low power
> broadcaster, WNYZ-LP, using that channel. And they, like a bunch of
> other folk around the country, took advantage of that frequency
> overlap to get a back-door sneak into FM radio.
Because of a quirk in Part 74 of the FCC rules, many of the rules that
apply to full-power analog television audio do not apply to LPTV
audio. This allows these LPTVs to transmit in standard matrix FM
stereo rather than BTSC stereo, and to significantly overmodulate,
making their signals more compatible with FM radio tuners.
Meanwhile, on an experimental basis, full-power station WRGB in
Schenectady is transmitting its main-program audio as analog FM on
87.9 MHz (and not 87.75 as their old audio carrier was), superimposed
on their ATSC digital channel 6 signal.
> Since "low power" television was exempt from the digital swaperroo,
> they're still out there.
For a few more years.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:37:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <h461h7$3s6$2@reader1.panix.com>
In <3b5dd7ac-4af1-4037-826f-7ada2a34c0e9@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>There are non-"life threatening" calls that the police must handle,
>but 911 operators seem very annoyed at receiving them. For example,
>it's 10 pm and a traffic signal is dark at a busy intersection causing
>problems. Or 'fender bender' car crashes or nuisance issues like loud
>parties.
Once again, TWIAVBP (The World Is A very Big Place). In other
words, the brain dead policies in one area aren't necessarily
replicated in another. (But rest assured, they'll have their own).
In NYC, for example, "911" is, indeed, the number to call for
"fender bender car crashes". The tow trucks [a] are dispatched
under contract arrangements with... the NYPD.
[a] the various tow truck companies place bids for contracts
on the limited access highways, and the winner gets all calls
for that area for the duration. In other parts of the city the
tows are sent via a "rotation" deal.
On the highways you, as a disabled motorist, are limited to
using the "authorized tow". On a regular city street you can,
if you wish, call a different service directly.
as a side note this was how I was able to verify that my Omnipoint
GSM phones could, indeed, handle "911" (and "112") calls with
the SIM card removed. They could also route "08", but that one
needed a SIM in place. I never had a chance to try "999".
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:15:05 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <c0b.6008aab2.379878e9@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/21/2009 9:47:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> In one area that straddles a state border, cell phone 911 calls
> often end up to the wrong state. But the 911 dispatchers simply
> quickly 'transfers' the call to the proper center, so it's not a
> problem. I don't know if all 911 centers can do this call transfer,
> but with cellphones I assume it's quite easy for a distant tower in
> another jurisdiction to handle the call.
With the police log I see in my hometown newspaper there seem to be
quite a few 911 calls that come in, perhaps from mistakes or
propagation freaks, that come in for other jurisdictions and they
simply get the information and pass it on to the PSAP for the proper
jurisdiction. The other jurisdiction may be just another county, a
city not too far away, Indian police, or the highway patrol. I think
they probably just call the other jurisdction by landline or go on the
other jurisdiction's radio frequency if it's close enough. The city
police and sheriff's office recently combined their answering points,
so they no longer have to transfer calls from the city to the county
or v.v.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:06:43 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <c36.557f6ae7.37990393@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/22/2009 8:17:16 AM Central Daylight Time,
dannyb@panix.com writes:
> Once again, TWIAVBP (The World Is A very Big Place). In other
> words, the brain dead policies in one area aren't necessarily
> replicated in another. (But rest assured, they'll have their own).
>
> In NYC, for example, "911" is, indeed, the number to call for
> "fender bender car crashes". The tow trucks [a] are dispatched
> under contract arrangements with... the NYPD.
It's the number for fender bender car crashes in Oklahoma City, too.
You can find the number for "non-emergency" calls in the phone book,
but on the two times in the last five years I had occasion to call
them they did not seem to find anything unusual about calling them for
fender benders. I think they have their dispatching function more or
less integrated with 911.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:40:00 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <REE9m.42759$Ta5.17821@newsfe15.iad>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 7/21/2009 8:35 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Thad Floryan wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>Interesting point, but looking right now at the front pages of my local
>>>AT&T phone book, there are absolutely NO guarantees of service level or
>>>even dial tone. They give a number to call for repair, but if the phone
>>>and/or line isn't functioning, ... d'Oh! :-)
>>
>>I don't know about today, but as recently as a few years ago the
>>California PUC had some service standards and a government/industry
>>committee that met periodically.
>>
>>We all know about busy hour issues and grade of service with wireline
>>carriers. I suspect wireless is much worse. VoIP, I have no idea.
>
>
> Googling "California PUC telephone requirements" finds the CPUC's
> home page: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/
>
> Then this with nothing germane I could see:
>
> http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Telco/Information+for+providing+service/VOIP+Providers.htm
>
> Using CPUC's search box on "telephone service level" found this:
>
> http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Published/Graphics/48920.PDF
>
> indicating the CPUC is massively pushing VoIP. And then there's this:
>
> http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/documents/codelawspolicies.htm
>
> where I seem unable to find anything defining landline, wireless, and
> VoIP requirements, service levels, etc.
>
> Even Wikipedia's page about the CPUC focuses on broadband (in the
> Telecommunications section):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Public_Utilities_Commission
>
> Perhaps phone service (landline, wireless and VoIP) is defined by law
> and not the PUC? Just guessing; anyone know?
>
It's still there. But, it is sort of hidden. Once on the CPUC web site
you search for "orders." Then, in the search results you find the
General Orders index page.
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/documents/go.htm
And, presto, the link to General Order 133-B, "Telephone Service."
And, here is the old document itself:
http://162.15.7.24/PUBLISHED/Graphics/591.PDF
They have a committee of industry, PUC staff, and sometimes even a
member of the public. I was a public member for a period of time, but
got bored when I realized the wireline carriers keep much from happening.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:30:03 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <4A67CB2B.5070703@thadlabs.com>
On 7/22/2009 6:12 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
> Thad Floryan wrote:
>> [...]
>> Perhaps phone service (landline, wireless and VoIP) is defined by law
>> and not the PUC? Just guessing; anyone know?
>
> It's still there. But, it is sort of hidden. Once on the CPUC web site
> you search for "orders." Then, in the search results you find the
> General Orders index page.
>
> http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/documents/go.htm
>
> And, presto, the link to General Order 133-B, "Telephone Service."
>
> And, here is the old document itself:
>
> http://162.15.7.24/PUBLISHED/Graphics/591.PDF
Super! That's it. Seems my search using "telephone service level"
precluded finding that document on CPUC's pages. Thank you for the
above reference!
It's surprising to me that such a document defining telco service
is so small: 14 pages, 957KB (scanned).
Some interesting things in that document, such as getting dial tone
"97.4% within 3 seconds", etc.
> They have a committee of industry, PUC staff, and sometimes even a
> member of the public. I was a public member for a period of time, but
> got bored when I realized the wireline carriers keep much from happening.
Seems you could tell some interesting stories. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:11:05 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <_5F9m.12352$501.1593@newsfe13.iad>
David Clayton wrote:
..
>
> While it may have been handy in the past to have landline service in the
> event of a major power outage, in these days of ubiquitous cell phones it
> is basically redundant as far as most "emergency" situations go and little
> use otherwise.
My wireline service is a copper pair back to the local central office
two miles away. In an emegency where the commercial power has failed,
and assuming no physical plant damage, my wireline service will be much,
much more reliable and accessible than cellular service. The only tower
that I can hit can service perhaps 100 customers at one time? The
wireline carrier can serve far more at one time.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:02:18 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <gvSdnWkqfeJ3hvrXnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
The debate about Kindle is about to get hotter: there is a proposal to
provide one to every schoolchild.
Please see http://www.dlc.org/documents/DLC_Freedman_Kindle_0709.pdf for
details.
I love it when I'm right, even if only by accident. ;-)
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:05:49 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <cd2.57502703.379876bd@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/21/2009 9:45:41 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> I was curious about the background equipment. A variety of
> typewriters, from manual to various kinds of IBM electrics. A variety
> of phones, including Call Directors in later years. I thought I saw a
> non-dial keyset.
You may have done so. There were many reasons in some newsrooms to have
receive-only telephones. News rooms havw a great number of telephones per
capita.
> It's entirely possible, even from day one (or especially from day
> one), that much of what we saw in the background were props, not real
> equipment. In the early days I strongly doubt they broadcast from the
> working newsroom, the camera equipment and lights would get in the way
> of people actually working. You don't want people stepping (or
> tripping) on the cables interconnecting the equipment. During the
> broadcast there needs to be room for the cameras and crew running
> around.
In the early days (remember John Cameron Swayze and the first network
news program) there weren't the elaborate sets they use now. As I
recall, he just sat behind the microphone at what was probably his
real desk or at an announcer's station and read the news. There were
not a lot of graphics in the news report-- no way for instant
transmission except at great cost and a lot of trouble. I rememberr
when the news shots, such as they were, were mostly newsfilm (not
electronic) sent by air freight or air mail special deliveryn. (Air
Express was less reliable, very costly, and often slower.) I remember
trying to get those newsfilms getting to their destinations promptly,
or at least less slowly.) You recall the networks in the early days
considered news, which they didn't usually carry, as more or less a
public service with no commercial value. Reports well of how Swayze
had a battle convincing them it could a revenue source and putting his
revolutionary idea on the air. I'm sure everyoned with memories of
that time remembers his presenting the Timex commercials that they
"keep on ticking."
> Obviously they can't risk a telephone going off in the middle of the
> broadcast.
Any more it seems to happen with increasing frequency on both local
and network news programs.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:22:13 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <4A67D765.6090604@annsgarden.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> The Philadelphia TV news show on Channel 6*, WPVI, for years resisted
> the electronic glitz of other stations yet had the highest ratings by
> far. But they gradually evolved into radar, etc.
> * A quirk in frequencies allowed the audio portion of Channel 6 to be
> heard at 87.7 FM. Turned out many people listened to the station
> that way, and when the station went digital that audio was lost.
> Apparently to broadcast the audio now would require mountains of red
> tape and FCC approval, even though it had been done for years and the
> 87.7 frequency is physically empty and not usable for anything else.
Moderator responded:
> Being able to hear Channel Six on 87.7 wasn't a quirk: Channel Six's
> assignment was from 82 to 88 MHz, and the audio carrier for the "old"
> TV system was always 250 KHz below the top edge of the channel. Since
> the audio was sent as FM, it could be heard of FM receivers tuned to
> 87.7, which was close enough to "capture" the signal.
>
> The FCC won't allow the audio to stay on 87.75 because the entire
> range from 54 to 88 MHz (The old channels 2 through 6) is being
> reassigned to other services.
TV Channel 6 was the ONLY channel where this trick worked because
Channel 6 was the only television broadcast channel adjacent to the FM
broadcast band. The signal it transmitted at 87.75 MHz was not a
licensed FM radio station; it was part of the television broadcast
station licensed to use TV Channel 6.
Lisa continued:
> On another newsgroup I was disappointed that correspondents strongly
> supported the _bureaucratic_ reasons "it can't be done", even though
> _physically/technically_ it certainly can be done.
If by "it", you mean simultaneous transmission of a TV audio signal on
an FM carrier in the FM broadcast band, sure it can be done. Any TV
station can apply for an FM license for that purpose. And if it can
prove to the FCC that such an authorization is in the "public interest,
convenience, and necessity," it might even be able to get it.
But "public interest, convenience, and necessity" is a pretty high
standard. The applicant would have to prove (this is the _bureaucratic_
reason) that such use of an FM broadcast channel would be a better use
for the channel than a separately-programmed FM broadcast station.
Furthermore, the number of available FM channels is limited. At the
very minimum, signals should be separated by 0.4 MHz (alternate FM
channels); this imposes a maximum of 50 channels in a given market.
Adjacent- and co-channel interference to or from distant stations
imposes further restrictions. These factors severely restrict what can
"_physically/technically_" be done.
Finally there's a _financial_ reason. Do you have any idea what an FM
broadcast license is worth in a major market like Philadelphia?
Offhand, I don't, but can tell you that major-market FM stations
typically trade for prices in the millions [1]. That little piece of
paper that says FM BROADCAST LICENSE is often worth more that the entire
physical assets of the station.
So even assuming that a TV station licensee could (a) prove to the FCC
that an FM station carrying its audio signal would be the best "public
interest, convenience, and necessity" use of an FM channel, and (b) come
up with enough money to purchase a licensed station (or repurpose a
co-owned sister FM), would it be a good investment?
Empirical evidence suggests that it's not.
Maybe after multichannel HD radio becomes widespread, it might be
economically possible for an FM station to carry its sister TV station's
audio on one of its digital subchannels. But I wouldn't count on it.
A related issue concerns the consumer electronics industry. If a market
actually existed for a TV-audio-over-FM service, radio manufacturers
could certainly incorporate TV tuners into FM radios. Some high-end
multiband receivers incorporate such capability, but most
consumer-market FM radios/tuners/receivers don't.
In other words, empirical evidence suggests that the consumer
electronics industry doesn't think TV-audio-over-FM would be a good
investment either.
> Anyway, America need not worry, we have plenty of bureaucrats eager
> to say NO! [as to] why something can't be done. Too bad they fail
> to realize progress was made by people thinking outside the box.
Perhaps they understand the technical and financial realities of that box.
[1] Some evidence of the value of Philadelphia FM broadcast licenses
can be found in PirateJim's "Philly FM Radio History Page 2" at
http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/piratejim/phillyfmhistory2.html which
cites the following:
- "In January 1996, WWDB was purchased by Mercury Broadcasting for $48
million."
- "Today ... WBEB remains as one of the last independently-owned
stations in a top market, with an estimated value of over $100 million."
- "In 1997, WIOQ's license was transferred from EZ to American Radio
Systems through a $655 million exchange in stock."
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:54:28 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <UEN9m.575$646.85@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>
>>> Why not just use a hands-free unit which is legal in California.
>>
>>
>> They shouldn't be, for all the same reasons using a handsful cellphone
>> while driving is dangerous.
>>
> But, they are, and my car has a great linking system to my cell phone;
> it will accept up to five of them.
>
> I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some distraction, is
> far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to one's ear.
>
The Australian "Cellphones In Accidents" study would suggest that you
are wrong. You see, there is no privacy right in Australia while
operating a motor vehicle, [and] Australian police always check the
cell phone records of persons involved in wrecks. One of the things
they found was that hands free drivers are no less likely then hands
on drivers to have an accident: the difference in accident rates
between the two groups was not statistically significant. [The study]
also [showed that] cell phone users have a higher rate of accidents
then drunks.
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:53:18 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <4A67D09E.9040205@thadlabs.com>
On 7/22/2009 7:04 PM, Tom Horne wrote:
> [...]
> The Australian "Cellphones In Accidents" study would suggest that you
> are wrong. You see, there is no privacy right in Australia while
> operating a motor vehicle, [and] Australian police always check the
> cell phone records of persons involved in wrecks. One of the things
> they found was that hands free drivers are no less likely then hands
> on drivers to have an accident: the difference in accident rates
> between the two groups was not statistically significant. [The study]
> also [showed that] cell phone users have a higher rate of accidents
> then drunks.
I believe that 100%.
The last real drunk I've seen on the road was about 20 years ago 4am --
vehicle kept veering right and sliding along a bridge railing with an
incredible display of sparks. I stayed w-a-y behind until finding a
payphone, calling it in, and diverting to an alternate route home.
What I see nowadays with cellphone-using drivers is the same, actually
worse since there seem to be far more cellphone-using drivers than drunks
on the road. I actually now avoid shopping in certain centers and areas
due to the cellphone-using people attracted to certain stores per my
observations.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:01:48 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h48jqv$v92$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Tom Horne wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>
>>>> Why not just use a hands-free unit which is legal in California.
>>>
>>>
>>> They shouldn't be, for all the same reasons using a handsful cellphone
>>> while driving is dangerous.
>>>
>> But, they are, and my car has a great linking system to my cell phone;
>> it will accept up to five of them.
>>
>> I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some distraction,
>> is far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to one's ear.
>>
>
> The Australian "Cellphones In Accidents" study would suggest that you
> are wrong. You see, there is no privacy right in Australia while
> operating a motor vehicle, [and] Australian police always check the
> cell phone records of persons involved in wrecks. One of the things
> they found was that hands free drivers are no less likely then hands
> on drivers to have an accident: the difference in accident rates
> between the two groups was not statistically significant. [The study]
> also [showed that] cell phone users have a higher rate of accidents
> then drunks.
>
A few years ago the NHTC did a study on cell phone usage while driving
and found out that it made no difference if it was hands free or holding
the phone. The director at the time withheld the report for political
reasons. It was recommended that cell phone usage by the driver be
banned nationwide; how many people died because of this action by a
political hack?
--
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: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:57:38 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <SHN9m.576$646.342@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
AES wrote:
> In article <Fbt2m.22142$KQ4.19855@newsfe18.iad>,
> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why not just use a hands-free unit which is legal in California.
>
> I want to call a person -- my spouse, say -- who may be on the freeway,
> [or] may be at a stop.
>
> If they're at a stop, I'd like them to answer the phone.
>
> But if they're on the freeway, I'd like them to get an audible beep, and
> maybe a kind of audio tweet, saying that I've called -- but I DON't want
> them trying to answer the phone or take the call, even hands free.
>
And _I_ don't want them to know they've [even] _had_ a call until they
next set their parking brake. I just don't know how to make that
happen. -- Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:59:11 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <4A67D1FF.2030608@thadlabs.com>
On 7/22/2009 7:15 PM, Tom Horne wrote:
> [..]
> And _I_ don't want them to know they've [even] _had_ a call until they
> next set their parking brake. I just don't know how to make that
> happen. -- Tom Horne
Ditto.
> "This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
> for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
Look here http://thadlabs.com/VIDEOS/, scroll down to the 6th
thumbnail, "Eldorado substation, Boulder City NV", for a 9 second video
that's an eye-opener. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:14:58 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <6YN9m.582$646.343@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
Steven Lichter wrote:
> John David Galt wrote:
>> AES wrote:
>>> The San Jose Mercury reports today on the order of 200,000+ tickets
>>> (possibly twice that number) issued in California to date for
>>> cellphone use while driving.
>>
>> I see people doing this tens of times per day. Whatever the safety
>> effect of this law if it were obeyed, drivers are disregarding it in
>> numbers not seen since the national 55 mph speed limit.
>>
>> (Which does not necessarily mean the law is unpopular. Just as most
>> people won't ride public transit but will vote to build more of it
>> for other people to ride, so the average driver thinks it's a great
>> idea to ticket other people for phoning at the wheel. Go figure.)
>>
>> It seems to me that leaving in place a law that's disobeyed so often
>> undermines respect for the law, and deservedly so. Legislators
>> should either repeal it, or increase the fine to the point that the
>> law will actually deter. $500 might work, $1000 certainly would.
>>
>>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> Careful, John: you sound like a spokesman for NORML!
>
> How about 150 years in prison?
>
> The city of Riverside has start really enforcing the handicap laws,
> they are issuing tickits and booting the vehicle. It can cost up to
> $1000 for the fine and boot removal, I'm told it only happens once.
>
Here [in Maryland] our firefighters, including yours truly, can ticket
for hydrant and fire lane violations. Hydrants are thirty dollars and
fire lanes are two hundred fifty dollars. I have seen several repeat
hydrant offenders but never a repeat fire lane offender.
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:18:44 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <E%N9m.585$646.130@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>> In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:15:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
>> sam@coldmail.com writes:
>>
>>
>>> I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some
>>> distraction, is far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to
>>> one's
>>
>>
>> Repeated studies have shown their is no difference in the
>> distraction caused by cellphone to your ear or hands-free. It's
>> apparently the conversation, not the holding of the phone to your ear.
>>
>>
>> Wes Leatherock
>> wesrock@aol.com
>> wleathus@yahoo.com
>>
> Sometimes studies aren't all they claim to be. The California
> legislature certainly perceived a difference.
>
Yes they did perceive a difference. [Because the law was] written the
way they wrote it, they [the assemblymen] could still use their cell
phones. They, of course, are superior persons that would never be
distracted by a cell phone conversation. So, why aren't you running
for the assembly?
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:07:11 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h48k4v$v92$2@news.eternal-september.org>
Tom Horne wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>> Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>>> In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:15:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
>>> sam@coldmail.com writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some
>>>> distraction, is far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to
>>>> one's
>>>
>>>
>>> Repeated studies have shown their is no difference in the
>>> distraction caused by cellphone to your ear or hands-free. It's
>>> apparently the conversation, not the holding of the phone to your ear.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wes Leatherock
>>> wesrock@aol.com
>>> wleathus@yahoo.com
>>>
>> Sometimes studies aren't all they claim to be. The California
>> legislature certainly perceived a difference.
>>
>
> Yes they did perceive a difference. [Because the law was] written the
> way they wrote it, they [the assemblymen] could still use their cell
> phones. They, of course, are superior persons that would never be
> distracted by a cell phone conversation. So, why aren't you running
> for the assembly?
That same one that wrote the laws allowing then to ignore the
telemarketing laws.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, inc, A Rot in Hell. Co.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:10:21 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <_LO9m.11350$E61.8799@newsfe09.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 16, 11:07 pm, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>A further additional benefit was that you could make a credit card or
>>collect call without having to deposit a coin. Important if you
>>didn't have a coin available. Yes, it was rare, but credit cards (and
>>I think collect) calls could be made with a credit card.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean that "credit cards were rare". I'm pretty
> sure the Bell System did not accept general cards like American
> Express, Visa, or Mastercard (and their predecessors). However, the
> Bell System issued subscribers its own credit card for free, and this
> was popular for business. It was in effect an automatic "bill to
> third number" card.
>
>
It was a Bell System Telephone Credit Card. I had one.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:39:07 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Message-ID: <f3Q9m.868$MA3.120@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
David Clayton wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:23:38 -0400, T wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2009.07.18.23.57.51.789075@myrealbox.com>,
>> dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
> .......
>>> In my city a RFID based "chip" fare system for the public transport
>>> system (trams, trains and buses) is currently being rolled out (at a
>>> cost of 3+ times the original estimate and 4 years late....) and we
>>> already have draconian regulations that smash users who don't get the
>>> current system 100% correct.
> .......
>> Interestingly our state wide transit agency RIPTA rolled out a new e-
>> fare system a couple years back. Includes magnetic card reading, cash
>> acceptance (Up to $20), issues change card, and reads rfid cards.
>>
>> Works just fine. They phased it into existence over a two or three
>> months and it went off without a hitch.
>
> Unfortunately my state government went with an over-ambitious custom
> starry-eyed "Burger with the lot" system promised for an unrealistic low
> price despite all expert advice that a) It wasn't necessary and there
> were already adequate systems available to purchase at a fraction of the
> cost; and b) That it just could not be done at that low price.
>
> It was supposed to happen with all the risk held by the company that won
> the tender, but because it is so important (sort of) the government kept
> pumping more and more money into it - as well as costing hundreds of
> millions in now keeping the old technology going way past the expected
> retirement date.
>
> It is the classic IT project initiated and run by morons that makes you
> believe that Dilbert cartoons are a documentary as well as
> entertainment.....
>
Wait Dilbert cartoons aren't a documentary. Wasn't Scott Adams a PAC
Bell employee?
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:54:23 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: How many conversations on a single cell tower/site and other questions?
Message-ID: <jqjf65d5jo84rq8pmgj019jhd9g1bivvmu@4ax.com>
Folks
I'm curious. How many conversations are typically available on a single cell
tower/site? My understanding is that in rural Alberta there might be as few as 10
available conversations/frequencies/channels/whatever you want to call them.
It is my understanding that Telus in Alberta has several emergency cell sites on a
truck available for special events and disasters.
1) How would they hook back into the main network? Microwave to a nearby point where
they can tap into the phone network? Or do they place it right next to some point
where they can tap in?
2) How do they coordinate frequencies? That's gotta be a pain given adjacent cell
sites. Or are there some cell frequencies set aside specifically for these
emergency trucks?
Tony.
------------------------------
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) 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 (29 messages)
******************************
|
or 