|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 237 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Re: VOIP codecs and interoperability (was "Re: my future telephones")
Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Re: Quote of the day - or maybe of the decade
Re: Quote of the day - or maybe of the decade
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: my future telephones
NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
====== 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: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:54:31 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A960377.5030005@thadlabs.com>
On 8/26/2009 8:17 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <h6pqcr$5mg$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>> ****** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> You could measure either average or peak power density; the question
>> is "Is GSM more likely to cause interference to audio devices, and if
>> so, why?"
>>
>> It may be that GSM signals are clocked at an audible rate, so that
>> devices that aren't shielded are creating audible signals.
>
> *BINGO* The signal pattern has an 'envelope' component that hits the
> audio spectrum.
>
> Better shielding of the 'affected' devices *IS* the answer.
Just curious: how does one retrofit shielding into affeected hearing aids
and other implanted medical appliances as was mentioned in the 1994 article
from the comp.dcom.telecom archives and recently reposted by me?
Google search just now didn't find it, so I uploaded the article here:
<http://thadlabs.com/FILES/GSM_and_TDMA_Problems_1994.txt> [7 KB]
The article claims GSM's interference problems were suppressed until after
GSM's rollout.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:20:12 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <7ICdnf-JwL6hLwvXnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4A960377.5030005@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>On 8/26/2009 8:17 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> In article <h6pqcr$5mg$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>>> ****** Moderator's Note *****
>>>
>>> You could measure either average or peak power density; the question
>>> is "Is GSM more likely to cause interference to audio devices, and if
>>> so, why?"
>>>
>>> It may be that GSM signals are clocked at an audible rate, so that
>>> devices that aren't shielded are creating audible signals.
>>
>> *BINGO* The signal pattern has an 'envelope' component that hits the
>> audio spectrum.
>>
>> Better shielding of the 'affected' devices *IS* the answer.
>
>Just curious: how does one retrofit shielding into affeected hearing aids
>and other implanted medical appliances as was mentioned in the 1994 article
>from the comp.dcom.telecom archives and recently reposted by me?
If the manufacturer didn't build the device correctly in the first place,
_who's_ fault is that?
FCC rules are _very_ explicit on the matter -- if a device is affected by
a _properly_operating_ transmitting device, the 'problem' *is* in the device
that is being affected.
If the device isn't 'repairable', the option then is to _replace_ it with
one that is properly shielded. It is solely the problem of the user of
the affected device. So says the (*long* established) law.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:54:33 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A9754F9.1000101@thadlabs.com>
On 8/27/2009 11:28 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <4A960377.5030005@thadlabs.com>,
> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>> On 8/26/2009 8:17 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>> In article <h6pqcr$5mg$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>>>> ****** Moderator's Note *****
>>>>
>>>> You could measure either average or peak power density; the question
>>>> is "Is GSM more likely to cause interference to audio devices, and if
>>>> so, why?"
>>>>
>>>> It may be that GSM signals are clocked at an audible rate, so that
>>>> devices that aren't shielded are creating audible signals.
>>> *BINGO* The signal pattern has an 'envelope' component that hits the
>>> audio spectrum.
>>>
>>> Better shielding of the 'affected' devices *IS* the answer.
>> Just curious: how does one retrofit shielding into affeected hearing aids
>> and other implanted medical appliances as was mentioned in the 1994 article
>>from the comp.dcom.telecom archives and recently reposted by me?
>
> If the manufacturer didn't build the device correctly in the first place,
> _who's_ fault is that?
>
> FCC rules are _very_ explicit on the matter -- if a device is affected by
> a _properly_operating_ transmitting device, the 'problem' *is* in the device
> that is being affected.
Per the information in the 1994 comp.dcom.telecom article, it can be
argued that GSM cell phones are inherently flawed. To wit (from the article):
" 1. General R/F pollution. Any system that switches its R/F
" transmitter on and off rapidly (GSM does it 217 times a second, TDMA
" does it 50 times) will scatter EMI throughout the adjacent radio
" spectrum. And the sharper the edge of the switch power (on and off),
" the wider the band of hash it scatters. These sets need a 3-5MHz
" guard-band between them and analog AMPS channels,and they try to ramp
" up the power, and still they scatter crap into nearby television
" broadcast bands. We've never had anything that generates EMI like a
" GSM handset before in these bands. We need large numbers of them like
" we need a hole in the head.
"
" 2. Audio-Hz interference. The on-off cycle of transmission power will
" be read by any analog circuit nearby (with any rectification or
" asymmetrical circuits) as an intrusive audio tone of 217Hz, and the
" two major harmonics above. This buzz intrudes into hearing aids at
" distances up to 30 metres, and is often intolerable at 2 metres. It
" also gets into cassette recorder, wireline systems, and into modems as
" a carrier tone.
I don't see how anyone can justify the above two items as being "normal",
especially since a GSM cell phone can be transmitting at up to 2 Watts.
The 1994 article concluded:
" The real problem with both GSM and American TDMA is the way in which
" all these problems were kept secret, and the systems were rolled out
" slowly and quietly without anyone admitting problems until the press
" started shouting. When they play these sorts of games, they have only
" themselves to blame when the press reacts strongly and shouts 'foul'
" especially when it is likely to be hearing-impaired people who suffer
" in office environments.
"
" Later, problems were reluctantly admitted, but always the admission
" was associated with "Don't worry, well fix it!" which is just another
" of their lies. Most of these problems are intrinsic in time-division
" power pulsing.
"
" More recently the tactic has changed once again: now they blame the
" lack of shielding on hearing-aids and other electronic equipment, and
" want to boost the standard of immunity, rather than reduce their own
" emissions.
"
" It's the smoke-stack blaming inefficiencies in gas-masks for the
" problems. ETSI is its own worst enemy.
Are you disagreeing with the above?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:43:56 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <ZJidnVlBJ887TgvXnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@posted.visi>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> Just curious: how does one retrofit shielding into affeected hearing aids
> and other implanted medical appliances as was mentioned in the 1994 article
> from the comp.dcom.telecom archives and recently reposted by me?
Retrofitting to ameliorate poor design is difficult. Implanted
medical devices are especially problematical.. you probably have seen
signs near microwaves, antitheft gates, etc. warning pacemaker users.
I suppose you could wrap yourself in aluminum foil, but that's not
attire suited for all social occasions.
Fortunately, cell phones don't seem to affect implanted hardware
much. It might be that the surrounding tissue provides shielding for
the implanted device, or maybe those devices are not actually very
sensitive to interference.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:35:50 -0500
From: Anonymous Contributor <regular@contributor.nonexisting.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Message-ID: <6645152a0908262335u3898cd13xc088af1d5d7d8e72@mail.gmail.com>
> Although the results may differ in the U.K. or in other countries,
> ISTR that in the U.S., experience has shown that horrifying video
> images don't have the intended result. I'll defer to other readers to
> confirm or deny.
I don't think it would work at all.
Our culture is awash in violent images. Look at the popular movies,
TV shows, and video games. There would be little to no shock value in
such a video. And besides, young people think they're invincible
anyway.
Last year my daughter totaled her car while texting. Our rule was no
cell phone use at all, let along texting. But we can't be with her
24/7. She disobeyed and paid the price. We did not replace her car
and she's one of the few high school seniors riding the school bus.
To this day she's quite defiant that she did anything wrong. The car
she hit shouldn't have been there, he was in her way. The reality of
it is she was texting, driving too fast, didn't see the car, and
slammed into him. Despite losing her car, being in a leg cast, and
the humiliation of being back on a school bus, she still thinks we're
just two mean old fogies who are jealous because we didn't have
texting technology when we were in high school.
Yes, she is just one person. But my gut feeling is such an ad would
do next to nothing to change behavior.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I think you're right, and I think it'll take another couple of
generations before we wake up and realize how our teenagers have been
viciously and systematically recruited to be unstoppable and totally
selfish agents, dedicated to separating their parents from their
parents' money so as to benefit multi-national corporations. Having
been raised on a diet of television, violent video games, and
narcissistic music, our children are unable to appreciate the
difference between toys and tools, or between hype and advice.
It's all about selling, and the mass media have found an easy route to
"success" by turning every sweat little girl or hormone crazed boy
into a shopaholic zombie who craves everything everyone around them
has or wants. Thanks to television and the "lizard brain" consultants
who steer writers and producers toward the acme of profitability, cell
phone acceptance went from zero to "everybody's got one" in less than
twenty years, bringing with it a Pandora's box of changes in
attitudes, expectations, and etiquette.
1. You're expected to pay by the minute; it's understood, and our
children don't even know that this practice was once the exception
rather than the rule.
2. You're expected to have your parent's credit card registered for
automatic payments. Being cut off is shameful. Being uncool is
unthinkable.
3. You're expected to have the latest and coolest ring tones and skins
and covers and everything you saw the pretty actors using on TV.
4. Everyone accepts that they're expected to be available to everyone
else no matter where they are or what they're doing. Privacy and
quietude are foreign concepts; rapidly taking on the mythos of
vampire bats and the shame of homelessness: they're not something
anyone is able to think about, because the pretty actors on TV said
so.
I could go on, but you get the point, and it is that we parents have
abrogated our responsibility to protect our kids, not only from
carnival barkers or sexual deviants, but also from unrealistic
expectations about life, about what it takes to earn a living, and
about the Pavlovian costs of the cell phones that the pretty people on
TV told them they had to have. We've been so exhausted by our
workaholic lifestyles that we've let our guard down when at home, and
used television as electronic anesthesia which, in the case of our
children and their unformed personalities, turned into a
mind-controlling drug.
Pogo may have been talking about the environment, but Walt Kelly's
famous Earth Day warning applies to electronic and social pollution as
well: "We have met the enemy, and he is us".
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:32:04 -0400
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Message-ID: <50dd95hipog0bmmf5h2cmvkcb8tc74vln1@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:20:28 -0400 (EDT), Anonymous Contributor
<regular@contributor.nonexisting.com> wrote:
>> Although the results may differ in the U.K. or in other countries,
>> ISTR that in the U.S., experience has shown that horrifying video
>> images don't have the intended result. I'll defer to other readers to
>> confirm or deny.
>
>I don't think it would work at all.
>
>Our culture is awash in violent images. Look at the popular movies,
>TV shows, and video games. There would be little to no shock value in
>such a video. And besides, young people think they're invincible
>anyway.
>
>Last year my daughter totaled her car while texting. Our rule was no
>cell phone use at all, let along texting. But we can't be with her
>24/7. She disobeyed and paid the price. We did not replace her car
>and she's one of the few high school seniors riding the school bus.
>To this day she's quite defiant that she did anything wrong. The car
>she hit shouldn't have been there, he was in her way. The reality of
>it is she was texting, driving too fast, didn't see the car, and
>slammed into him. Despite losing her car, being in a leg cast, and
>the humiliation of being back on a school bus, she still thinks we're
>just two mean old fogies who are jealous because we didn't have
>texting technology when we were in high school.
>
>Yes, she is just one person. But my gut feeling is such an ad would
>do next to nothing to change behavior.
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I think you're right, and I think it'll take another couple of
> generations before we wake up and realize how our teenagers have been
> viciously and systematically recruited to be unstoppable and totally
> selfish agents, dedicated to separating their parents from their
> parents' money so as to benefit multi-national corporations. Having
> been raised on a diet of television, violent video games, and
> narcissistic music, our children are unable to appreciate the
> difference between toys and tools, or between hype and advice.
>
> It's all about selling, and the mass media have found an easy route to
> "success" by turning every sweat little girl or hormone crazed boy
> into a shopaholic zombie who craves everything everyone around them
> has or wants. Thanks to television and the "lizard brain" consultants
> who steer writers and producers toward the acme of profitability, cell
> phone acceptance went from zero to "everybody's got one" in less than
> twenty years, bringing with it a Pandora's box of changes in
> attitudes, expectations, and etiquette.
>
>1. You're expected to pay by the minute; it's understood, and our
> children don't even know that this practice was once the exception
> rather than the rule.
>
>2. You're expected to have your parent's credit card registered for
> automatic payments. Being cut off is shameful. Being uncool is
> unthinkable.
>
>3. You're expected to have the latest and coolest ring tones and skins
> and covers and everything you saw the pretty actors using on TV.
>
>4. Everyone accepts that they're expected to be available to everyone
> else no matter where they are or what they're doing. Privacy and
> quietude are foreign concepts; rapidly taking on the mythos of
> vampire bats and the shame of homelessness: they're not something
> anyone is able to think about, because the pretty actors on TV said
> so.
>
> I could go on, but you get the point, and it is that we parents have
> abrogated our responsibility to protect our kids, not only from
> carnival barkers or sexual deviants, but also from unrealistic
> expectations about life, about what it takes to earn a living, and
> about the Pavlovian costs of the cell phones that the pretty people on
> TV told them they had to have. We've been so exhausted by our
> workaholic lifestyles that we've let our guard down when at home, and
> used television as electronic anesthesia which, in the case of our
> children and their unformed personalities, turned into a
> mind-controlling drug.
>
> Pogo may have been talking about the environment, but Walt Kelly's
> famous Earth Day warning applies to electronic and social pollution as
> well: "We have met the enemy, and he is us".
>
> Bill Horne
Folks,
Teenagers have been invincible and immortal for hundreds of years. I
recall in high school (40+ years ago) the driver ed program would run
a movie called "Signal 30" every semester. At the time "signal 30"
was the police radio code for a higway fatality and the Ohio state
police put a cameraman in a patrol car and filmed the results of the
carnage, thus the movie title. It was very, very graphic. The end
result was some sanity returned to the student parking lot at
dismissal time for about a week...
Teens have their own view of the world that doesn't include any harm
to them.
ET
***** Moderator's Note *****
You are, of course, correct. Teenagers are invincible by their nature:
"Young male risk takers" are always the most at-risk group in driving
accidents, and police in the Amish country of Pennsylvania frequently
detain young bucks who are caught driving horses while
intoxicated. The only remedy is time.
Having said that, however, I will emphasize my previous point in a
different way: given that teenagers are literally children, why have
we (their parents) allowed them to receive the privileges of adulthood
when we should know that they are not yet ready for the associated
responsibilities?
My son just graduated from High School, and some of the students at
his school received new cars as graduation presents. On first glance,
this might not seem so extraordinary: I owned a Volkswagen "bug",
which I drove to Mexico after my High School graduation. My car,
however, was different: I had earned the money to pay for it myself,
while I was a "summer replacement" engineer at a Boston radio
station. I knew exactly how much money it would cost to run, how much
I needed to keep in reserve for emergencies, the amount I had to
budget for insurance, and how much I could spend during the whole
trip.
The students who traded their locker keys for ignition keys a few
weeks ago grew up with cell phones in their pockets, and I doubt that
any of them have even the slightest idea of what it's like to plan a
budget, to set savings goals, or to do without anything that they ever
wanted. Of course, we could toss this away as my initiation to "old
fogey-hood", and say that it's because my son will soon separate from
us and take up his own life. To the extent I'm able to examine my own
motivations, I don't think that's the reason: cell phones didn't exist
when I was eighteen, to be sure, but they are not the only harbinger
of the changes I'm complaining about.
In essence, I think we - the generation which bid goodbye to the
single-income stereotype at the same time it took on the burden of
paying for a lifestyle Croesus would envy - forgot that allowing
children to enjoy a king's lifestyle without even a peasant's
responsibilities would deprive our kids of the rewards that hard work
and sacrifice inculcate into youth. They did without the work, without
the sacrifice, and without the discipline, and now expect us to do
without retirement or travel or more efficient automobiles because
they want a down payment on a nice house and a credit card so they can
buy nice clothes and (heaven forfend!) because they can't even
comprehend the idea that quaint olde phrases like "paying the piper"
could ever apply to them.
We have raised a generation of spoiled brats, and the consequences of
our neglect are manifest not only in highway deaths or bankruptcy
filings, but also in our legal system, which has had to teach many
children the hard lessons their parents did not. One of my cousins is
a Chief Parole Office in the Massachusetts court system. He has a sign
on his desk that reads: "Attention Teenagers: 'NO' *IS* a complete
sentence".
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:48:03 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Message-ID: <18e24$4a96c6f8$d8fedaf8$30548@PRIMUS.CA>
Anonymous Contributor wrote:
> To this day she's quite defiant that she did anything wrong. The car
> she hit shouldn't have been there, he was in her way.
She may be right, but the point is THINGS LIKE THAT HAPPEN when you're
driving so you need to pay attention.
> she still thinks we're just two mean old fogies
This is probably the single most accurate indication of good parenting.
<grin> Teenagers have always rebelled, parents have always been outraged,
and youngsters have always declared that they wouldn't raise their kids the
way their parents did. Things were manageable for countless generations
because practically all eventually DID raise their kids the way their
parents raised them. I believe that this is changing...
--
Geoffrey Welsh
.
------------------------------
Date: 27 Aug 2009 10:14:09 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Message-ID: <h764bh$b1m$1@panix2.panix.com>
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Aug 25, 9:15 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>> "If you want to avoid 95% of the threats to your computer, don't use
>> Windows and Internet Explorer"
>
>Hackers focus on those platforms because they are the majority in
>use. If another platform replaced them, that platform would be the
>target.
This is true. However, most platforms actually fix security problems
when they are discovered. Microsoft often does not, but concentrates
on specific exploits rather than fixing the real problem. This leads
to an eternity of repeated patching.
Microsoft seems absolutely terrified of doing anything that will in some
way reduce user functionality, even if it only involves removing silly
gewgaws. Sometimes these things needs to be done in order to properly
deal with security issues.
>In my humble opinion, the highly automated start features of today's
>platforms make it easy for these viruses to do their work. The above
>article mentioned, "the Trojan allows the hacker to control your
>computer, opening a browser session that you can't see". Why should
>a browser session be _automatically_ opened, and why couldn't it be
>seen?
Most of the automated features you describe are Microsoft-specific. Many
other systems are developed by people who look at such features and realize
in advance that they are security problems.
For example, the first real viruses found in the wild were on Apple MacIntosh
machines, due to a very boneheaded design decision in which an executable
block in the boot sector was run every time a new floppy was mounted. When
it became clear this was a bad thing, Apple removed it and fixed the problem.
A decade later, Microsoft came up with the notion of "autorun" in which
a file on a device is executed when the device is first mounted. They
didn't realize in advance this was boneheaded. They didn't look at Apple's
previous experience with it being bad. They did it anyway. It caused all
sorts of massive security issues. Five or six years later... they're still
doing it. This is not an organization that gives a damn about security.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: How Hackers Snatch Real-Time Security ID Numbers
Message-ID: <fa40911c-c736-4fcf-82a1-3cabd15a2a77@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 26, 1:25 am, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Hackers focus on those platforms because they are the majority in
> >use. If another platform replaced them, that platform would be the
> >target.
>
> It's really about time that people proposing this concept
> just stop a second and think before putting ink to paper.
> Or electrons to a screen.
And also read the entire previous post.
The other issue that we should discuss (from an end-user's point of
view) is specifically why and how Windows is supposedly more
vulnerable than Macs. What features and applications are automated in
Windows that are manual in Macs and thus not vulnerable?
What Windows applications would become dysfuctional if vulnerable
traits were closed up?
In other discussions, some suggested that far too many applications
uilize these automated features; that eliminating them would cripple
computer use. Is that true?
[Moderator snip]
(I still think 'virus' is a bad label; it is 'sabotage')
------------------------------
Date: 27 Aug 2009 10:17:54 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VOIP codecs and interoperability (was "Re: my future telephones")
Message-ID: <h764ii$2e1$1@panix2.panix.com>
Geoffrey Welsh <gwelsh@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Thad Floryan wrote:
>> G.711 is supported by most VoIP providers.
>
>VOIP noob question: if a VOIP provider is going to interoperate with an ILEC
>(or other CLECs who have to interoperate with an ILEC), wouldn't the samples
>have to be in G.711 format anyway? If so, wouldn't the question then be, do
>we want to save on bandwidth over our 'internal' network and convert at the
>interchange points, or to carry the data everywhere in that format for
>convenience and give our customers the codec quality they've come to expect?
The thing is, actually doing the compression and decompression between
networks is very easy. Compute power is very cheap today.
Also, the proliferation of cellphones has decreased the public's expectation
of telephone line quality.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:35:56 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Message-ID: <ZqidnTZRmIJxKAvXnZ2dnUVZ_oxi4p2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4A93C8AC.3070105@annsgarden.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>I wrote:
>
> >> Except that NPA 702 only covers Clark County. Lincoln and Ney
> >> Counties (including Town of Pahrump) are also "local" to (same DMA
> >> as) Las Vegas, but they're in NPA 775.
>
>Richard wrote:
>
> > Approximate populations:
> > Lincoln County: 4,000
> > Nye County: 44,375
> > Clark County 2,000,000
> >
> > Clark County contains about 97% of their audience. No point in
> > wasting air time with an area code.
>
>Acknowledged. Still, I'm surprised that the station's management didn't
>insist on including the entire DMA's audience. In the broadcast
>business, advertising rates are based on TV homes in the entire DMA, not
>just homes in the county of license.
The station management "DOESN'T CARE" _what_ the content of the ad is. Well,
as long as it won't get them _legal_ trouble for airing it, that is. If you
want to buy air time to advertise something that's only available in a 6 block
radius, that's just _fine_ with the station. You _will_ pay the same rate as
someone who's advertising something with national availability -- but that's
*your* (the advertiser, that is) choice.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:34:26 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0908271327530.18838@panix5.panix.com>
but... there are still plenty of loopholes. And this also doesn't
address the huge lack of movement by the FTC on most complaints...
[FTC press release]
"New Rule Prohibiting Unwanted "Robocalls" to Take Effect on September 1
Telemarketers Must Obtain Prior Written Approval from Consumers Who Want
to Receive Such Calls
"Beginning September 1, 2009, prerecorded commercial telemarketing calls
to consumers - commonly known as robocalls - will be prohibited, unless
the telemarketer has obtained permission in writing from consumers who
want to receive such calls, the Federal Trade Commission announced today."
--------------
however, there are bunches of exceptions. First are the
ones which, for want of a better term, I'll call greyish:
"... do not prohibit calls that deliver purely "informational"
recorded messages - those that notify recipients, for example, that
their flight has been cancelled, an appliance they ordered will be
delivered at a certain time, or that their child's school opening is
delayed ..."
and then there are the sleazoids, namely:
..."politicians, banks, telephone carriers, and most charitable
organizations"
eyup. politicians are still exempted. Suprise, surprise.
rest:
<http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/08/robocalls.shtm>
- I think a good law would be to require that every time a
politician makes such a call, that person's home phone, cellular
phone, office number, spouses listings, and mother-in-law... should
all be appended, thus letting everyone call them right back
and explain how pissed they are...
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
***** Moderator's Note *****
Oh my Ghod! Not the Mothers-in-law! That would be too cruel! ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:20:37 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Message-ID: <op.uzcawn1to63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:56:56 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
ended what he wrote with the words:
>
> and then there are the sleazoids, namely:
>
> ..."politicians, banks, telephone carriers, and most charitable
> organizations"
>
Just yesterday I actually answered what turned out to be a
tele-solicitation call from some "charity". I asked if they
were aware my number was on the National DoNotCall List.
The caller informed me that charitable organizations are
not bound by that list. I thought he was putting me on --
so thanks for letting me know he was on the up-and-up :-) .
***** Moderator's Note *****
The new rule has an exception for calls where the victim gave written
consent. I can't help but wonder if charitable organizations will
include "permission" clauses in their donation literature, and then
sell their donor lists to commercial marketers.
Come to think of it, I wonder if the "charitable organizations"
exception would allow marketers to rent phone lists from charities in
return for some percentage of receipts. Does a call made by a
commercial firm that benefits a charity count as a "charitable
organizations" exception?
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: 28 Aug 2009 01:25:25 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Message-ID: <20090828012525.22779.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>Come to think of it, I wonder if the "charitable organizations"
>exception would allow marketers to rent phone lists from charities in
>return for some percentage of receipts. Does a call made by a
>commercial firm that benefits a charity count as a "charitable
>organizations" exception?
I'm afraid so. There's a whole sleazy industry of commercial
fundraisers for charities. The most efficient charities spend nearly
all of the money raised on the nominal purpose, like Second Harvest
which spends 98% of its revenue on program activities. On the other
hand, according to the LA Times, Citizens Against Government Waste
spent 6% of money from fundraisers on its nominal purpose, and 94% on
the fundraising.
<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/comments_blog/2008/07/times-readers-b.html>
ObTelecom: if a charity calls you, you can be quite sure that the
majority of the money you give will pay the fundraiser, not the
charity
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:54:28 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Message-ID: <6645152a0908271954qc043b8bkdf8ea2babf278fd5@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:20 PM, tlvp<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
>
> Just yesterday I actually answered what turned out to be a
> tele-solicitation call from some "charity". I asked if they
> were aware my number was on the National DoNotCall List.
>
> The caller informed me that charitable organizations are
> not bound by that list. I thought he was putting me on --
> so thanks for letting me know he was on the up-and-up :-) .
That's a burr in my saddle.
If I went to the trouble of joining the DNC list wouldn't it stand to
reason I don't want calls from politicians or "charitable
organizations"? Yes, I know they're exempt. And I'm polite about it.
But then they argue with me that they're under no obligation to remove
me from their call list. I then point out if I get one more call I
will NEVER vote for their candidate or I will NEVER contribute to
their cause. This sometimes gets the point across.
Back in 2004 I had political party "A" call me asking for donation.
And to make matters worse they had a minimum contribution, $75 I
think. I told them to forget it. I kept getting calls. I finally
said that every time they called me I would contribute to party "B".
And I was prepared to do this. Funny, the calls came to a screeching
halt.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:45:36 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..
Message-ID: <bd0.5bf0e4d8.37c882b0@aol.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The new rule has an exception for calls where the victim gave
> written consent. I can't help but wonder if charitable organizations
> will include "permission" clauses in their donation literature, and
> then sell their donor lists to commercial marketers.
>
> Come to think of it, I wonder if the "charitable organizations"
> exception would allow marketers to rent phone lists from charities
> in return for some percentage of receipts. Does a call made by a
> commercial firm that benefits a charity count as a "charitable
> organizations" exception?
Oh, yes. It's a thriving business. When the Fraternal Order of
Police or the Firefighters [called], did you ever ask the caller if
he or she (usually a he) was a cop or firefighter? The commercial
callers have some pretty creative answers.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
I understand that charitable organizations hire professional fund
raisers to raise money for them, but that's not what I was wondering
about.
I'm curious if XYZ Life Insurance could legally call me and pitch me a
whole life policy, based on their having gotten my number from the
Appalachin Mountain Club and assuming that they kick back a percentage
of the premiums. Any lawyers out there?
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Quote of the day - or maybe of the decade
Message-ID: <48473b54-22f5-4092-afeb-69b47df1f143@s13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 25, 5:37 pm, Bill Horne <bill.rem...@horne.remove.net> wrote:
> It seems the courts are running out of patience with a certain kind of
> lawsuit: actions which question attempts by school bureaucrats to
> implement electronic surveilance technology so as to avoid spending
> money for adequate staff levels.
One question that needs to be asked is how effective electronic
surevillance is in (1) detering crime and (2) catching criminals.
>From time to time the TV news shows an image , usually of very poor
quality, of a crime and its perpetrators. The persons are almost
unrecognizable due to the low image quality*. I wonder how often the
pictured criminals are caught. Likewise, I wonder how many criminals
avoid a crime because the area is monitored.
> This lawsuit is relevant to telecom because it's about an technology
> which will become increasingly common until it is ubiquitous: the
> electronic verification of identity coupled with instant retrieval of
> every fact, factoid, or rumor in any database in the world. Get ready
> for the future, because within our lifetime, every imigration agent,
> border patrolman, visa office, merchant, employer, banker, and
> politician in the developed world will have at their fingertips
> anything and everything you'd rather keep private.
It's not the future, it is now.
This issue has come up many times in several newsgroups and produces
no response. Indeed, some people, such as news reporters, applaud it
and think it's a good idea; for instance, they'd like EZPASS toll
collection records to be public information. (I guess they want an
easy way to capture a politician missing his/her secret lover; always
a juicy story).
As mentioned, I fear the private sector more than the govt. In order
to live I need the private sector; I need to have a mortgage or rent a
property, I need to see a physician, obtain health insurance, car
insurance, have bank accounts, have a credit card. I need to get
these services at a reasonable cost. Of course I need to have a job.
Many companies today practice aggressive risk control with their
customers. Before doing business with you, a company will check you
out. If you don't pass muster, they'll deem you high risk and require
a big upfront deposit, deny you services altogether, or charge you a
premium due to 'high risk'. Automobile insurers do that on risk
factors that have nothing to do with driving. Likewise with
employers; if you had a dispute with your landlord and got kicked out,
a prospective employer will learn that, as will other prospective
landlords. This could cost you quite dearly. It happens now, mostly
to low-income people, but I fear it will spread.
I can't help but suspect graduating college students will find some
unpleasant surprises in the job market or graduate school, especially
for coveted corporate jobs that pay decently. The corporate recruiter
will find out all about that freshman drunken binge or that run-in
with the cops while in high school. (One of your fellow students may
find out about it as well and rat you out). Students are warned to be
careful what they put on their social websites.
Even if someone is troubled by it, the individual has little recourse.
Many of us have no control over things we deal with due to limited or
no choices. Often our medical treatments are determined by the health
plan our employer provides us, for example.
We have little choices in credit cards, banks, employers, residences;
especially when it's an issue like privacy that must compete against
other issues. That is, while I might dislike the CCTV cameras in my
housing complex, all else being equal I'm not gonna get a place
inconvenient to my needs for only that reason.
My cable carrier recently 'upgraded' our system with digital. The
cable boxes (required now) send stuff back, so they can track what you
choose to watch. Remember how they went to video stores to see what
politicians rented? If you were a public figure, you can be sure some
newspaper reporter or political opponent would try, legally or
illegally, to find that out what you watch, especially if your choices
were out of mainstream interests.
The cable carrier provided a booklet, a thick one in fine print, on
"privacy rights". The sentences are long, include legal terms, and
very hard to understand. More importantly, there is little the
consumer has a choice over, except declining some advertising
solicitations. Law enforcement will get anything they want.
Compounding the issue is that cable offers bundled service of
broadband Internet and telephone; so they keep records of incoming and
outgoing phone calls and your Internet requests. How secure are their
records? The cable company is centralized and uses contract employees
for functions; will such temporary employees have the integrity to
deny info requests and resist a bribe? IMHO, the overall arrangements
makes them more at risk.
Thoughts?
* On TV cop shows (e.g., the "Law & Order" series), they often take a
fuzzy image and turn it into a useable legible picture via fancy
software. Does this capability really exist and is it widely used?
If so, why aren't the 'enhanced' pictures show on TV to help the
public make a better identification?
***** Moderator's Note *****
Privacy is a two-edged sword. In the past, public attitudes held that
"A man's home is his castle", but we discovered the hard way that many
home owners weren't fit to be squires, let alone kings, and the
backlash from those revelations is still vibrating in the public
health arm of our society.
Alcoholism, child abuse, and domestic violence - once kept secret by
custom and inertia - are now the everyday fare of soap operas, talk
shows, and political speeches, as well as the target of continuing
education for all kinds of civil servants in "first contact" roles,
such as teachers and day-care workers. We have, over time, come to
agree that some things can't be private.
I think that we will, over time, come to see that some things which we
now consider private ought to be public, because the societal harm
which comes from not being able to look up Robert Bork's video rental
records is outweighed by the public need to measure those at all
levels of society by the same yardstick. After all, if everybody knows
who watches pornographic movies, then everybody will realize that
*everybody* (sociologically speaking ;-) ) watches pornographic
movies, and then it won't be anything anyone cares about.
The point is that shame has a price far in excess of its value. Making
Playboy or other adult entertainment something to be ashamed of
accomplishes no good while it doubles its market price: I think it's
better to educate ourselves and our children about the world outside
our homes, and to accept that men and women have different sexual
needs and wants during different times of their lives. Jerry Lewis
said it best: "If you raise your kid right, you can take him into a
whorehouse and it won't make any difference".
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Quote of the day - or maybe of the decade
Message-ID: <800c3ee6-c342-4311-a7b9-2d64823d1d86@q5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 27, 2:27 pm, Telecom Digest Moderator wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Privacy is a two-edged sword. In the past, public attitudes held that
> "A man's home is his castle", but we discovered the hard way that many
> home owners weren't fit to be squires, let alone kings, and the
> backlash from those revelations is still vibrating in the public
> health arm of our society.
Privacy issues have become more complex because of the computer and
the Internet. There were many things that were always public record
but years ago they were buried in a _single_ filing cabinet that
required time and effort to dig out. If you were running for
president, it'd be worth that effort to dig into your past, but if you
were applying for a job as an accounting clerk, it was not worth the
effort.
Today such paper records are computerized. That means (1) they are
easily searched by various indexes making them easy and quick to
locate and (2) they are shared over the Internet making them
accessible from anywhere.
Further, today's society has many more records. For example, we once
paid cold cash for routine prescriptions and doctor's visits, no
insurance coverage for minor stuff. (Health insurance back then only
covered big ticket items like hospitalization or a major illness).
So, there were no records kept of the transaction beyond a paper
presciption slip. But today many people have some sort of insurance
so the insurance carrier has detailed computer records. Further, the
govt likes to know certain things, such as narcotic prescriptions, so
that is tracked as well.
[snip]
> The point is that shame has a price far in excess of its value. Making
> Playboy or other adult entertainment something to be ashamed of
> accomplishes no good while it doubles its market price: I think it's
> better to educate ourselves and our children about the world outside
> our homes, and to accept that men and women have different sexual
> needs and wants during different times of their lives. Jerry Lewis
> said it best: "If you raise your kid right, you can take him into a
> whorehouse and it won't make any difference".
It is said 'sunlight is the best disinfectant', and many, especially in
the news media, argue (and lobby) passionately against any kind of
restrictions. I suggest [that] too much sunlight also leads to sunburn,
and that's not good either.
Celebrities and politicians have very little effective right of
privacy, and I think that's wrong. IMHO, no public purpose was
served, other [than] satisfying sick gossip hounds, when the media
reported on Britney Spears' personal difficulties: I don't understand
why the public must know when a celebrity or politician crashes their
car. To me, it _hurts_ democracy because it floods us with irrelevant,
meaningless information. Perhaps it's more juicy to read about a
50 y/o politician's 21 y/o girlfriend, certainly more so than to read
about the water treatment plant proposal, but real life isn't always
exciting.
In the other thread about soliciting, the fine print of corporate
privacy policies state they _can_ share your name with "affiliates"
for marketing purposes. I think that stinks.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:30:30 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <ZqidnTdRmII7KQvXnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4A906769.7030804@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>On 8/22/2009 9:18 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> In article <4A8EEAEB.104@thadlabs.com>,
>> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> disturbing; the one about the stove top turning on "by itself" suggests the
>>> GSM interference could be a fire and safety threat, and that elevates the
>>> severity of the problem to a whole new level.
>>
>> It's _not_ a problem with the phone. It's *BAD*SHIELDING* in the affected
>> device.
>
> I understand (having designed/manufactured devices requiring FCC
> certification).
>
> But given the 1994 comp.dcom.telecom article I recently reposted here
> and the numerous anecdotes of GSM-phone-caused problems. it seems the
> GSM phones, and only the GSM phones, are leaving a smoking gun trail
> everywhere.
Well, *only* the GSM phones generate a data patten resulting in an
envelope wave-form that in the audio spectrum.
That does *NOT* mean that RF from other phones, or other RF-emitting
devices, is not getting into the same devices -- just that you don't
"hear" it as 'sound'.
> The 1994 article described several serious design faults all of
> which cause GSM phones to splatter noise across the airwaves.
>
> It can be reasonably argued GSM should have never been approved for
> use given what I've been finding and discovering the past few weeks.
You appear to be an RF engineer -- do the following:
Pick an intercepted signal strength level.
Calculate the radius away from a 600 milliwatt transmitter where the
intercepted signal will decline below that level.
Repeat that calculation for a 900 kilowatt ERP television transmitter.
Or a 3-5 megawatt aviation radar.
Now, for the 'hard part' -- explain why GSM is 'so much more unsafe' than
those other emitters. <evil grin>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:09:44 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A975888.8040600@thadlabs.com>
On 8/27/2009 5:08 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <4A906769.7030804@thadlabs.com>,
> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It can be reasonably argued GSM should have never been approved for
>> use given what I've been finding and discovering the past few weeks.
>
> You appear to be an RF engineer -- do the following:
Interesting deduction, but true, in the microwave arena for GTE's Electronic
Defense Labs back in the 1960s before computers completely caught my fancy
and I left to join a computer startup (Tymshare).
> Pick an intercepted signal strength level.
>
> Calculate the radius away from a 600 milliwatt transmitter where the
> intercepted signal will decline below that level.
>
> Repeat that calculation for a 900 kilowatt ERP television transmitter.
>
> Or a 3-5 megawatt aviation radar.
>
> Now, for the 'hard part' -- explain why GSM is 'so much more unsafe' than
> those other emitters. <evil grin>
Ever wonder why the first commercial microwave ovens were named the Amana
Radar Ranges? The story as related to me at White Sands Missile Range was
the discovery that jackrabbits and other critters downrange of our RADARs
were being crispy-cooked by the microwaves.
GSM cell phones pumping out up to 2 Watts splattered across the spectrum
does not sound (no pun) good to me. Interfering hearing aids is not a
friendly act.
I am simply curious why such a noise emitter was approved by the FCC.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Aug 2009 01:01:33 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: my future telephones
Message-ID: <20090828010133.17054.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>3. What process is used to mark VoIP packets for priority? I had
> thought that there wasn't any specification for minimum transit time
> in the IP protocol, so if routers are able to identify VoIP traffic
> and prioritize it, I'd like to know how it's being done.
There's a variety of hacks. The easiest is to observe that most VoIP
traffic uses UDP port 5060 so the router can move those packets to the
head of the queue. That won't work so well in backbone routers, where
you have to assume most of the traffic is hostile, but it works pretty
well on gateway routers like the one on your DSL line or cable modem.
R's,
John
***** Moderator's Note *****
What's the definition of "hostile" traffic?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:03:04 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0908280000140.7653@panix5.panix.com>
[AP story]
"[Gov. Paterson signed a bill that] requires utilities,
energy companies, municipalities, telephone companies and
cable TV companies to provide large-print versions of bills
on request..."
<http://www.vosizneias.com/37395/2009/08/27/albany-ny-paterson-signed-anti-texting-and-several-other-bills-into-law/>
(nothing yet on the official NYS web site)
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
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 (22 messages)
******************************
|
or 