|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 243 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Verizon Newsgroup Service to be discontinued 30-SEP-2009
Re: Internet turns 40
Re: Internet turns 40
Re: Internet turns 40
Re: Internet turns 40
Re: Internet turns 40
Re: Internet turns 40
Re: Internet turns 40
Re: Internet turns 40
Re: Court Throws Out FCC's Cable Subscriber Cap
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: new search engine and GSM interference info
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: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Verizon Newsgroup Service to be discontinued 30-SEP-2009
Re: Internet turns 40
Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
====== 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, 2 Sep 2009 05:10:19 -0700
From: "Fred Atkinson" <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Verizon Newsgroup Service to be discontinued 30-SEP-2009
Message-ID: <029401ca2bc6$58304d80$c800000a@mishmash>
This keeps happening.
There are a couple of Usenet Service Providers (USPs?) that I can
recommend. The first is www.usenetmonster.com . The second is
www.newsguy.com . Newsguy recently raised their rates. I dropped
them and switched over to Usenetmonster . Newsguy kept cooing me to
come back and finally offered me a pretty affordable deal. So I did
go back to them.
See what you can negotiate with them if you want to continue to use
Usenet.
Regards,
Fred
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:55:23 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Internet turns 40
Message-ID: <h7kqbb$b75$1@news.eternal-september.org>
geoar75@gmail.com wrote:
> I thought the network that became today's internet was made for
> military purposes. Isn't it true?
University, government and telephone companies.
--
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: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 22:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Internet turns 40
Message-ID: <4798eb8e-9480-4f52-8bc9-9541fe0281cb@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 1, 8:23 pm, "geoa...@gmail.com" <geoa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought the network that became today's internet was made for
> military purposes. Isn't it true?
In part, yes.
A great deal of both historic and modern computer technology was
advanced by military investments. Many major pioneer major computing
machines technologies were developed for the military or military
contractors, including many IBM and Univac units. In the late 1940s
and 1950s, nuclear weapon, guided missile, and air defense network
research required massive amounts of calculating horsepower and the
govt funded projects to increase the state of the art.
I believe defense needs, both telecommunications and weapons systems,
took up Bell System efforts in the late 1940s and early 1950s, esp
with the Korean War, and slowed down getting caught up with the
backlog in consumer service. Indeed, I think in that era the Bell
System ran ads explaining just that. The Bell Labs history book
series includes one volume just on defense projects.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:38:20 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Internet turns 40
Message-ID: <4A9E04CC.2090700@thadlabs.com>
On 9/1/2009 5:23 PM, geoar75@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
> I thought the network that became today's internet was made for
> military purposes. Isn't it true?
It is true and it was called the ARPANET.
Here's a scan of the oldest ARPANET map I could find in my files:
<http://thadlabs.com/FILES/ARPANET_Sept_1982.pdf>
but I was already using ARPANET back in the early and mid 1970s from
home via the local TIPs (Stanford, SRI, even one at Tymshare).
BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman) managed most of the ARPANET and I read
earlier today they were just acquired by Raytheon.
Ah, just found it, datelined September 1, 2009:
" Raytheon acquires BBN Technologies, firm that developed Internet,
" e-mail, VoIP
<http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=23636>
Dunno about that email claim, though, since I was using email back
in the 1960s.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:19:46 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Internet turns 40
Message-ID: <V7idnQtQE6c_lgLXnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4A9E04CC.2090700@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>On 9/1/2009 5:23 PM, geoar75@gmail.com wrote:
>> [...]
>> I thought the network that became today's internet was made for
>> military purposes. Isn't it true?
>
>It is true and it was called the ARPANET.
>
>Here's a scan of the oldest ARPANET map I could find in my files:
>
><http://thadlabs.com/FILES/ARPANET_Sept_1982.pdf>
>
>but I was already using ARPANET back in the early and mid 1970s from
>home via the local TIPs (Stanford, SRI, even one at Tymshare).
>
>BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman) managed most of the ARPANET and I read
>earlier today they were just acquired by Raytheon.
>
>Ah, just found it, datelined September 1, 2009:
>
>" Raytheon acquires BBN Technologies, firm that developed Internet,
>" e-mail, VoIP
>
><http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=23636>
>
>Dunno about that email claim, though, since I was using email back
>in the 1960s.
BBN was responsible for transparent 'network' email.
You're quite correct that e-mail between users of a single computer
system had existed for sometime before that. "Something" that served
that function (often not by the name of 'email') existed from shortly
after the advent of computer 'time-sharing' systems, and 'on-line'
terminals to a mainframe. The first such time-sharing system was DTSS
at Dartmouth, which went on-line in 1964.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 02:42:26 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Internet turns 40
Message-ID: <h7naei$1dmn$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <V7idnQtQE6c_lgLXnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>You're quite correct that e-mail between users of a single computer
>system had existed for sometime before that. "Something" that served
>that function (often not by the name of 'email') existed from shortly
>after the advent of computer 'time-sharing' systems, and 'on-line'
>terminals to a mainframe. The first such time-sharing system was DTSS
>at Dartmouth, which went on-line in 1964.
I think Professor emeritus Fernando J. Corbato would dispute that
claim, since CTSS was first demonstrated in 1961, and was certainly
running in July, 1963, when Corbato co-founded Project MAC with Bob
Fano and Marvin Minsky. (An IBM 7090 was Project MAC's original
computer.)
The concept of time-sharing, however, dates to the late 1950s.
Prof. Gerald Jay Sussman told me (just today in passing conversation)
that he thought it was invented in a conversation between Minsky and
John McCarthy at the 1956 Dartmouth Summer Research Conference on
Artificial Intelligence (the event for which the term "Artificial
Intelligence" was coined). However, McCarthy's 1983 memo about the
history of time-sharing doesn't mention anything like this.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 22:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Internet turns 40
Message-ID: <88c712b1-6c14-45c1-abfd-d12d58bf3987@y36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 30, 10:31 pm, Steven <diespamm...@killspammers.com> wrote:
> There's still plenty of room for innovation today, yet the openness
> fostering it may be eroding. While the Internet is more widely
> available and faster than ever, artificial barriers threaten to
> constrict its growth.
As an aside, note that Unix is a big part of the Internet and Unix was
developed at Bell Labs.
I don't know what they mean by "artificial barriers"; the entire
Internet is an "artificial" e.g. man-made entity.
I am far from a technical expert on the Internet structure. But IMHO,
a huge mistake was made porting it from the closed university
environment to the general public environment and expecting it to work
as it did. Many advocates in the early public days thought the
Internet would be 'self-policing' so that abuse--the little that
there'd be in such a wonderful world--would be easily handled by
others. It obviously didn't work out that way; and users today must
spend considerable money and time in protection against various kinds
of sabotage, e-theft, e-fraud, e-exploitation and e-abuse.
It bugs that to send certain messages on a website that I must
decipher oddly shaped and hard-to-read characters as a protection
against mass email attacks to the website.
It bugs me that companies provide no other support beyond what their
website gives. That is, if you phone them and manage to get ahold of
someone, all they can do is read the same screen you can. (Yes, I
know that's the company's fault, but the Internet is the tool that
makes it easy.)
Indeed, even the university environment was not a free-for-all nor
self-policing. Forums and discussions in academia were always
moderated. Sometimes moderation was very light, but it was just
enough to prevent tempers from getting out of hand or the conversation
too far sidetracked. There was always a structure to university
activities, even informal ones.
In a previous discussion it was explained that the Internet's
automation and lack of controls is today so built into so many systems
that "they can't put the genie back into the bottle" else too many
commercial systems would fail.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:15:17 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Internet turns 40
Message-ID: <pan.2009.09.02.23.15.16.643333@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:56:06 -0400, hancock4 wrote:
> On Aug 30, 10:31Â pm, Steven <diespamm...@killspammers.com> wrote:
>> There's still plenty of room for innovation today, yet the openness
>> fostering it may be eroding. While the Internet is more widely
>> available and faster than ever, artificial barriers threaten to
>> constrict its growth.
>
> As an aside, note that Unix is a big part of the Internet and Unix was
> developed at Bell Labs.
>
> I don't know what they mean by "artificial barriers"; the entire
> Internet is an "artificial" e.g. man-made entity.
>
> I am far from a technical expert on the Internet structure. But IMHO, a
> huge mistake was made porting it from the closed university environment
> to the general public environment and expecting it to work as it did.
> Many advocates in the early public days thought the Internet would be
> 'self-policing' so that abuse--the little that there'd be in such a
> wonderful world--would be easily handled by others. It obviously didn't
> work out that way; and users today must spend considerable money and
> time in protection against various kinds of sabotage, e-theft, e-fraud,
> e-exploitation and e-abuse.
.........
The "Internet" is simply a method of transporting data between locations,
in the same way that roads transport physical items - how people use the
roads as well as the Internet is not the fault of the actual road they are
using or the data pipes that they connect to.
The Internet certainly had/has design issues where people did not
anticipate that some with malicious intent would exploit weaknesses,
but it is still the responsibility of those who connect to it to not
allow their own insufficiently protected systems access to something
that could potentially be a threat.
It is not the job of the "Internet" to protect people from threats, in the
same way that the roads cannot stop thieves/con-artists/abusers from
driving on them.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 18:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Internet turns 40
Message-ID: <480f20c3-3fd2-402a-81e9-beea02fcc5b1@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 2, 9:35 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> The "Internet" is simply a method of transporting data between locations,
> in the same way that roads transport physical items - how people use the
> roads as well as the Internet is not the fault of the actual road they are
> using or the data pipes that they connect to.
> The Internet certainly had/has design issues where people did not
> anticipate that some with malicious intent would exploit weaknesses,
But roads are not a static design. Road design is constantly evolving
to protect motorists.
After modern automobiles hit roads and horrendous crashes resulted,
highway engineers studied them and devised ways to reduce crashes and
their severity. For example, roads didn't originally have median
strips but were added and strengthened to prevent head-on collisions.
Roads have received better lighting, better reflective materials on
signs and paving, etc.
Further, roads do not operate in isolation. Roads are patrolled by
police to enforce traffic laws and safety.
> but it is still the responsibility of those who connect to it to not
> allow their own insufficiently protected systems access to something
> that could potentially be a threat.
It is true that the motorist remains ultimately responsible for the
safety of his trip. However, there is a great deal of effort on
safety education, certainly more so than on Internet sabotage
protection. There is a great deal of effort on traffic and road
nuisance enforcement, as mentioned, certainly more so than on sabotage
or nuisance enforcement. And there is a great deal of effort on
highway and vehicle engineering.
For example, e-crime sometimes uses unprotected private networks as a
jumping point to other computers. AFAIK, little effort is done to get
such networks to have proper protection. In contrast, it is the law
in most states that seat belts must be worn to protect people.
Another point regarding responsibility and tools. There are tools out
there that are powerful, but potentially dangerous to use, so there
are laws regulating their use. An individual can't march up to a
chain store and order high explosives.
> It is not the job of the "Internet" to protect people from threats, in the
> same way that the roads cannot stop thieves/con-artists/abusers from
> driving on them.
Police regularly run truck inspections and trucks failing the law are
cited or even pulled out of service on the spot.
Given the things that are done to protect motorists, I would say it IS
the job of the Internet to protect people, as is done on highways.
The "three E's": education, enforcement, engineering. Let's see some
of that take place on the Internet.
**** Moderator's Note *****
This has wandered away too far from telecom. I'm closing the thread.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Court Throws Out FCC's Cable Subscriber Cap
Message-ID: <d5d1c28e-debe-4102-98a0-9ebf113eb059@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
As pointed out by others, the FCC made this rule based on the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and the
Cable Act Reform Provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I
believe the intention was to try to keep competition in the video
delivery market. As the court points out, though, they did not
consider satellite video delivery in their calculations.
The FCC rule is at http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2009/76/503/
The Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992 is at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=102-385
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=104-104
Harold
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:05:27 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <4A9DFD17.20406@thadlabs.com>
On 9/1/2009 5:03 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sep 1, 10:59 am, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> But Bill's correct about the cost. The EDL ended up contracting with
>> Tymshare for "overflow" computing work and there was one month the bill
>> exceeded $10,000 -- this was 1967 or early 1968 -- and no one thought that
>> amount was out of line since the work had to be done and the US Govt
>> was basically footing the bill.
>
> I worked for a company which used a timesharing computer. We were
> under strict orders to prepare everything offline on paper tape first,
> run it, then do all debugging offline, so as to minimize the connect
> time charges. We had a 300 baud terminal, acoustical coupler.
> Printing was much quieter than a Teletype, but the paper tape punch at
> 300 baud was horribly noisy.
I don't recall the actual rates, but $15/hour connect rings a bell. But
that wasn't what contributed to that one month's $10,000 bill, it was
the CPU charge that kept the meter spinning at high speed.
Assuming it was just me (it wasn't), $15 * 8 hours/day * 31 days is
$3,720. Most of the programs I was running I already had running on
the IBM 1130 and I just copied them over (Fortran) to Tymshare whose
SDS-930/-940s were able to compute faster (but at a cost).
New programs were actually cost-effective to develop online given
interpretive compilers which eventually became the salient features of
many of the timesharing companies over and above pre-packaged apps.
Media compatiblity was nearly non-existent except for 8-level paper tape
and I still have my reader <http://thadlabs.com/PIX/paper_tape_reader.jpg>
and several boxes full of some of the old programs on tape since I had
a TTY ASR33 at home in the late 1960s (followed by its CRT counterpart, a
Datapoint 3300, then a DataMedia DT-80, then real (UNIX) computers such
as AT&T 3B1 and 3B2, Convergents, Suns, etc.).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:21:53 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: new search engine and GSM interference info
Message-ID: <4A9E00F1.7080207@thadlabs.com>
On 9/1/2009 5:22 PM, Dave Garland wrote:
> Thad Floryan wrote:
>> Over the past 5 to 6 weeks in several threads, we've discussed and
>> argued the interference issues attributed to GSM cell phones.
>
> But here's one more data point. Doesn't affect my point of view that
> it's the responsibility of goods manufacturers to ensure that their
> products are not affected by interference in our increasingly noisy RF
> environment, but...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/nyregion/23about.html
> [...]
Thank you for that URL! Another poster in an earlier thread mentioned that
event but not the URL.
Hmmm, does anyone know if cellphone providers have a ringback capability?
By "ringback" I mean some method to cause one's cell phone to ring; not
having landlines anymore I can't call myself. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:54:50 -0700
From: Bruce L.Bergman <bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Message-ID: <tqur95ltn7eoi0aoeht5rf769mpi13go1a@4ax.com>
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:58:50 -0400 (EDT), Tom Horne
<hornetd@verizon.net> wrote:
>Thad Floryan wrote:
>> I wish there was a way to force all the [motorists] who use cell
>> phones and/or text while driving to view this [Public Service
>> Announcement]:
>>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ttNgZDZruI> [4 minutes 12 seconds]
>
> My problem is that I have now run several very real Personal Injury
> Collisions as a Firefighter / Rescuer, where we can hear a cell phone
> still sounding message alerts in the wreckage, or where we hear the
> party at the other end of the call begging the victim to answer them
> while we work rather hard to disassemble a vehicle from around the
> phone's owner.
>
> I don't have any brilliant ideas about how to put a stop to the
> carnage, but we are now seeing more cell phone accidents than we do
> drunks: the drinking and drugged driving has not gone down, but the
> wrecks are way up [Moderator snip]
The 800-pound gorilla in the room that nobody will address is...
Some people are able to safely multi-task - like drive and hold a
telephone, radio or personal conversation at the same time - and some
people are not, plain and simple. You know the type, 'can't walk and
chew gum at the same time'. But it's not a joke.
Since the Legislature and the State DMV can't test for multitasking
competence and give a special 'radio endorsement' on your license,
they just want an outright ban on cellphones - leaving other radio
devices unregulated.
You've been in the car as a passenger with these people or seen them
in the next lane over weaving side to side into the other lanes - they
simply can't talk to you without turning their head and looking at
you. They can't insist that a caller call them back in 20 minutes
when they reach their destination, they insist on holding a complex
business discussion right this moment, while doing 70 MPH in heavy
trafic.
And they can't just talk with their mouth, they have to gesture and
point and wave their hands to make their points... (If they could
boot up a Powerpoint presentation in the car and use a laser pointer,
they would.)
My usual reaction after seeing this (and the near-miss accidents
they didn't even notice as they are busy staring at me...) is "Pull
over, I'll drive - I want to arrive in one piece."
I've even seen policemen and firefighters who are trained to safely
use the radio and drive at the same time spend a /little/ too much
time concentrating on the radio and not enough on their driving. Every
single one will deny it even if you catch them red handed drifting
across the double yellow line, but it happens.
And having one-officer patrol cars and one Paramedic driving the
ambulance by themselves (the other in back with the patient) does not
help. Task Overload is a real problem, when it gets crazy there are
simply too many things that all have to be done at the same time, and
if the task you end up skipping or botching involves your driving....
The whole idea of having a partner in the patrol car is that the
Driver Drives the car, period, and the Partner handles the radio,
siren and light controls, the hot-sheet and the computer terminal. If
they get in a pursuit, that's a full time job all by itself.
For decades the U.S. School Systems showed such quasi-educational
over the top scare tactic film fare in High School Drivers Education
courses as "Red Asphalt" (Five volumes by the CHP - 1964, '78, '89,
'98, 2006), "Mechanized Death", "Blood on the Highway" and "Reefer
Madness" - they only recently stopped. Gee, worked great, didn't it?
(The kids just sat there and snickered. Except around here, all the
Hollywood Movie-town Kids in Southern California dissected the films
for the 'botched-SO-bad-it's-funny' special effects, MST3K style.)
--<< Bruce >>--
------------------------------
Date: 2 Sep 2009 19:18:44 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Message-ID: <20090902191844.60161.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
> Some people are able to safely multi-task - like drive and hold a
>telephone, radio or personal conversation at the same time - and some
>people are not, plain and simple.
And the ones who think they can are mistaken. The reason that they
don't do worse while multitasking is that they can't even do one thing
at a time well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/weekinreview/30pennebaker.html
> I've even seen policemen and firefighters who are trained to safely
>use the radio and drive at the same time spend a /little/ too much
>time concentrating on the radio and not enough on their driving.
Right. Even if you're trained to know how to do it, it's really hard
talk on the phone and drive safely. We really need to treat driving
and talking like driving and drinking, because it's just as dangerous.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:20:19 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting (and cell phone usage) while driving movie: the consequences
Message-ID: <4A9ED383.9000003@thadlabs.com>
On 9/2/2009 7:16 AM, Bruce L.Bergman wrote:
> [...]
> Some people are able to safely multi-task - like drive and hold a
> telephone, radio or personal conversation at the same time - and some
> people are not, plain and simple. You know the type, 'can't walk and
> chew gum at the same time'. But it's not a joke.
Walking and chewing gum isn't as complex as driving and attempting to
use a cell phone. If I had to guess, I'd venture it's a small minority
that could drive and use a cell phone more-or-less safely.
> Since the Legislature and the State DMV can't test for multitasking
> competence and give a special 'radio endorsement' on your license,
> they just want an outright ban on cellphones - leaving other radio
> devices unregulated.
I'm surprised some research and/or university team hasn't come up with
a "multitasking" test suitable for DMV use. Perhaps it's not feasible
given what we've been reading recently how cell phone and texting use
while driving is equivalent to being DUI while driving.
I still feel Utah's new law hit the nail on the head by considering
texting while driving the same as a DUI. It'll be interesting to see
how it plays out in their courts and whether other states adopt a
similar viewpoint.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:09:49 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <pan.2009.09.02.11.09.48.137654@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:18:00 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote:
.......
> GSM cell phones pumping out up to 2 Watts splattered across the spectrum
> does not sound (no pun) good to me.
You have to be joking, a 800MHz carrier digitally modulated at a few
hundred hertz "splattering"?!?
Sit down and work out the spectrum use and then have a think as to why the
technology actually works with thousands of handsets in simultaneous use
at a busy base station.
I reckon there were very good reasons as to why this particular technology
was approved for use in the US as well as virtually every other place on
the planet.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:49:03 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A9EDA3F.7070103@thadlabs.com>
On 9/2/2009 7:19 AM, David Clayton wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:18:00 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote:
> .......
>> GSM cell phones pumping out up to 2 Watts splattered across the spectrum
>> does not sound (no pun) good to me.
>
> You have to be joking, a 800MHz carrier digitally modulated at a few
> hundred hertz "splattering"?!?
It's affecting a lot of things including, as was posted here
yesterday, [one model] of [stove] causing [it] to turn on [the oven]
to a HIGH setting.
The 1994 comp.dcom.telecom article mentioned the interference to TV also.
If you need to reread it:
<http://thadlabs.com/FILES/GSM_and_TDMA_Problems_1994.txt>
> Sit down and work out the spectrum use and then have a think as to why the
> technology actually works with thousands of handsets in simultaneous use
> at a busy base station.
No one is claiming GSM using TDMA doesn't work; it obviously does. However,
had CDMA instead of TDMA been chosen, the interference problem would NOT
exist. TDMA is powering ON/OFF the transmitter 217 times a second.
An interesting and not too technical comparison of CDMA and TDMA is here:
<http://www.arcx.com/sites/CDMAvsTDMA.htm>
> I reckon there were very good reasons as to why this particular technology
> was approved for use in the US as well as virtually every other place on
> the planet.
Yes, the Feds didn't understand it. An interesting article from 1996 here:
<http://www.vxm.com/21R.62.html>
Should have gone CDMA (which will occur in the future).
And as stated in the 1994 comp.dcom.telecom article:
" 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.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:31:15 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <pan.2009.09.02.23.31.14.667535@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:16:48 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 9/2/2009 7:19 AM, David Clayton wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:18:00 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote: .......
>>> GSM cell phones pumping out up to 2 Watts splattered across the
>>> spectrum does not sound (no pun) good to me.
>>
>> You have to be joking, a 800MHz carrier digitally modulated at a few
>> hundred hertz "splattering"?!?
>
> It's affecting a lot of things including, as was posted here yesterday,
> [one model] of [stove] causing [it] to turn on [the oven] to a HIGH
> setting.
.......
"Splattering" is a specific term of transmitting on frequencies not
intended - usually due to poor design or overload of a RF transmitter - it
has nothing whatsoever to do with GSM transmitters interfering with
devices susceptible to RF.
As has now been stated in forum previously, ANY device transmitting at
those same frequencies will cause interference to devices that just happen
to be noticeable because of the GSM modulation. The actual nature of the
interference will depend on many factors, but if a device picks up the RF
from a GSM transmitter, it will pick up the RF from any other transmitter
(using the same frequencies).
A non-GSM transmitter could well shut down a susceptible device in a way
that may not be apparent, and not immediately knowing that the device is
being interfered with could be far more of a problem than the obvious GSM
interference.
Which is better, a hearing aid silently shut down by an interfering
transmitter or a GSM buzz? If you were a deaf person about to cross the
street on the assumption that you would hear a car horn would you prefer
silent interference on your obviously faulty device?
The bottom line is that there will still be interference, but GSM
interference is more noticeable.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:29:41 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <pan.2009.09.02.11.29.39.959407@myrealbox.com>
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:02:29 -0400, Gary wrote:
.......
> Technology will keep getting better. Those who know this are working
> today to take advantage of tomorrow's advances. They will be the new
> Apple's, IBM's, and HP's.
New technologies are always a threat to organisations that lock
themselves into current or older technologies (for whatever reason).
"Telephone" companies that wanted to remain "Telephone" companies
using their incumbent infrastructure, and not actually be
"Communication" companies that embrace newer technologies, would have
died if they did not have some sort of artificial protection.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <f366508b-c159-4a42-902c-f4f4bb7c435c@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 2, 10:23 am, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> New technologies are always a threat to organisations that lock
> themselves into current or older technologies (for whatever reason).
Many companies successfully evolve into changed environments. IBM was
late getting into computers, but eventually beat its competition.
Today IBM has moved on into services (which it always did well).
> "Telephone" companies that wanted to remain "Telephone" companies
> using their incumbent infrastructure, and not actually be
> "Communication" companies that embrace newer technologies, would have
> died if they did not have some sort of artificial protection.
That is not true in the case of the Bell System. First, the 1950s
Consent Decree strictly limited AT&T to communications despite the
strengths of Western Electric in other fields. WE would've been a
heck of a competitor in industrial electronics if allowed, for
example. Bell Labs developed Unix, computers for in-house use, and
could've been a major computer provider.
Second, the Bell System was the company that developed most of the new
technologies.
It wasn't "artificial protection", but rather "artificial limitation"
that restricted AT&T's business.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:16:08 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <ngjt95p3fdno8l4f5mitgtsqigr28o6k4o@4ax.com>
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:46:07 -0400 (EDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> First, the 1950s Consent Decree strictly limited AT&T to
> communications despite the strengths of Western Electric in other
> fields. WE would've been a heck of a competitor in industrial
> electronics if allowed, for example. Bell Labs developed Unix,
> computers for in-house use, and could've been a major computer
> provider
Western Electric used to make all kinds of electrical devices:
AM and FM Broadcast equipment:
http://www.oldradio.com/archives/hardware/we.htm
Motion Picture Sound Systems;
http://www.porticus.org/bell/westernelectric_history.html#Western%20Electric%20-%20A%20Brief%20History
Even sewing machines:
http://www.smecc.org/western_electric_appliances.htm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:40:56 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <pan.2009.09.02.23.40.55.442636@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:46:07 -0400, hancock4 wrote:
........
> It wasn't "artificial protection", but rather "artificial limitation" that
> restricted AT&T's business.
Probably right, but it is amazing that when a company reaches a point
that is essentially a "Comfort zone" where the money rolls in with
little extra effort required, that [everyone involved] seems to want
to reside in it and protect that zone from any internal as well as
external threat.
It just doesn't seem to be in Telecoms/IT where this occurs, it seems to
be in any area where a company has sufficient market share so [it] then
decides to actually control the market for the purposes of maximising
profit over whatever innovative behaviour got them to that position in the
first place.
It just seems inevitable that incumbent technologies that already make big
money will suppress emerging technologies if they can, and if both of
these happen to be in a single entity it makes the job of the newer
technology even harder.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:23:40 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <ibCdnSwr1f2hWwPXnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <b2a9b91e-53ae-46fc-b411-dc6f2d0315cb@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>Not correct. The Teletypes AT&T provided for time-sharing access via
>PSTN were ASR, automatic send receive. You [could] call another
>teletype, and if [it was] unattended, it would automatically answer,
>and you could leave a typed out message. If it was attended you could
>have a conversation.
That's a neat trick, regardless of the capability of the terminal device,
when the modem supplied were "originate only" devices.. Two modems, both
in 'originate' mode, simply cannot talk to each other.
>I believe Telex also offered the option of leaving messages or having
>a conversation. But Telex charged by connect time (not much), and
>most users 'batched' their messages via paper tape to minimize connect
>time.
Telex and TWX were both closed networks. Had to have your own dedicated
line for that service. And you couldn't reach anybody who didn't have their
own dedicated line for the same network you used.
Those networks worked very differently from the PSTN. On Telex and TWX, the
'C.O. equivalent' played the 'host' side of the connection to both sets of
customer gear.
>Further, you could own your own non-ASR Teletype and modem and call
>other Teletypes,
NOT over the PSTN, prior to the "Carterphone decision", or at least not
_legally_. If you used your own modem, you had to have a "DAA", which
required manual intervention, both for sending and receiving.
***** Moderator's Note *****
AFAIK, TWX calls were connected directly from the originating to the
terminating machine, without the CO providing anything but a path for
the modem tones. Of course, on calls from 4-row to 3-row machines,
there was an intermediate step, but I'm sure that 4-row to 4-row was a
direct connection. Each 4-row machine could originate or answer
calls, switching modes to use the correct set of modem tones.
Prior to its sale to Western Union, TWX DID use the PSTN. The TWX
offices were simply set up with translations which prevented calls
between 4-row TWX numbers and POTS numbers, but TWX calls _were_
routed via PSTN trunks. ISTR that 3-row was converted from manual to
DDD at some point, and that 3-row numbers could be directly dialed
from POTS numbers, but it's been a while.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <2304baaf-7538-4125-9f25-d14787d76ae4@y9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 2, 4:29 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> >Not correct. The Teletypes AT&T provided for time-sharing access via
> >PSTN were ASR, automatic send receive. You [could] call another
> >teletype, and if [it was] unattended, it would automatically answer,
> >and you could leave a typed out message. If it was attended you could
> >have a conversation.
>
> That's a neat trick, regardless of the capability of the terminal device,
> when the modem supplied were "originate only" devices.. Two modems, both
> in 'originate' mode, simply cannot talk to each other.
The modems supplied were NOT "orginate only". Where did you get that
idea?
The modems on teletypes were originate and answer. As mentioned,
two-way conversations were common.
A major feature of TWX and Telex was the leaving of messages and two-
way conversation.
Now, there were "receive-only" teletypes, such as wire service
printers. Perhaps the modems associated with them (if they weren't on
a current-loop line) were receive only.
> Telex and TWX were both closed networks. Had to have your own
> dedicated line for that service. And you couldn't reach anybody who
> didn't have their own dedicated line for the same network you
> used.
Telex and TWX could talk to each other; this was established later on.
In the waning days of Telex and early days of services like
Compuserve, you might (not sure) have even been able to send a message
from Compuserve to them. I know you could send WU Mailgrams; and
Compuserve had other connections.
> Those networks worked very differently from the PSTN. On Telex
> and TWX, the 'C.O. equivalent' played the 'host' side of the
> connection to both sets of customer gear.
No, it merely provided the communications path. Look up the WUTJ on
this website.
> >Further, you could own your own non-ASR Teletype and modem and call
> >other Teletypes,
>
> NOT over the PSTN, prior to the "Carterphone decision", or at least not
> _legally_. If you used your own modem, you had to have a "DAA", which
> required manual intervention, both for sending and receiving.
Or, as commonly done, an acoustical coupler.
Also, use of a DAA required no attention whatsoever; it merely acted
as a filter on the line and was completely transparent to the user.
The "manual intervention", if needed, was merely lifting a lever upon
receipt of the carrier sound. Often the phones used for dial-up were
the two-line models that had a rotating knob and pull-knob. When
connecting, the knob was pulled up. (Such phones were often used for
a variety of special wiring other than the two-line function).
***** Moderator's Note *****
The modems used for Teletypes on press wires were, indeed, one-way: a
perfect example of Simplex transmission which I did not mention
earlier.
TELEX and TWX could talk to each other through gateways, after WU
inherited TWX from Bell.
WU had an Easylink service which offered TELEX interconnection: I used
it to send an international TELEX in 1986. I don't know if it could be
reached via Compuserve.
I think the point the previous poster made about Data Access
Arrangements was that they required manual activation. However, I
can't help but wonder if the Bell companies leased out their remaining
inventory of TWX machines for "TTY" service after WU took over the
"official" TWX network, and if that was so, they would probably have
been capable of auto-answer.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:05:43 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon Newsgroup Service to be discontinued 30-SEP-2009
Message-ID: <H6Bnm.329380$Ta5.114554@newsfe15.iad>
wdag wrote:
> Another one bites (the dust):
>
> http://www.verizon.net/promo/email_promos/tpe/newsgroup_discontinued/index.html
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Can't say I blame them. Many parts of Usenet have become electronic
> swamps that mothers tell tales about to frighten young children, and
> the content-to-bandwidth ratio just doesn't justify the time to even
> read the subject lines.
>
> That's the problem with common lands: someone always overgrazes them.
>
> Bill Horne
>
Many moderated forums, similar to this one, have migrated to web-based
forum, vBulletin being a versitile and commonly used platform.
http://www.vbulletin.com/
I know, it costs money. But, many forums charge members a small annual
maintenance fee.
***** Moderator's Note *****
It really doesn't matter which "group" setting people choose; only
that it's not Usenet. The Tragedy of the Commons is repeating itself,
and Internet users are starting to retreat to "walled gardens" where
they trade diversity of opinion for the safety of sane discourse.
Of course, it costs money. Google and Yahoo have advertiser-supported
group venues, and there are a lot of "Bulletin-Board" systems which
are dedicated to single-interest groups, and supported by dues.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:14:06 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Internet turns 40
Message-ID: <a_idnSN3qMHTlwLXnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <e6419aaa-982f-41af-9258-f978ea7125bd@y20g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
geoar75@gmail.com <geoar75@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>I thought the network that became today's internet was made for
>military purposes. Isn't it true?
"sort of", and "not exactly" both apply.
The foundations of what is todays "Internet" started with a number of
U.S. Defense Dept. "Advanced Projects Research Agency" funded
'research' projects.
The 'initial' problem that researchers faced was that the hardware
used to build the network was -- like any other computer system of the
day -- "un- reliable". Thus one of the original design tasks was to
build a 'reliable' network, utilizing 'unreliable' components.
A second design criteria, was that such a network needed to be
'resilient' in the event of damage to the network.
It has been said that the Internet was designed to function even in
the event of a nuclear attack; a statement that is not strictly
accurate -- there was no explicit consideration of nuclear warfare in
the design criteria.
AS an "experimental object" -- something being used to 'conduct
research', as distinct from a pure 'production use' system -- the
early 'net (commonly referred to as 'the ARPAnet') connected a number
of institutions doing ARPA- funded research. It soon expanded to
include some of the military agencies/- offices that were sponsoring
that funded research.
The ARPAnet, later Internet, architecture did not address some of
the 'critical' needs of a military communications system -- notably
'security' related issues; especially the issues that arise with
dealing with multiple levels of security on the same system/network.
Probably the 'simplest' historically-accurate answer is to say that
today's Internet evolved out of a government-funded academic research
project on how to design a 'ruggedized' communications network
suitable for military needs.
Well into the 1980s (If not later), the 'ARPAnet' (and successor
"NSFnet") backbone had an official policy of 'non-commercial' use only
-- ARPA grantee/ grantor communications, and messaging -about- ARPA
research, by project researchers was considered non-commercial, for
purposes of this policy.
(The government later specified an "official" network protocol for
government, and government supplier use. [google "G.O.S.I.P." for
gory details])
However, the 'ARPAnet' protocols were useful enough, and available
at essentially no cost -- results of ARPA research products are
'public domain', for anyone to use -- that as the commercial world
began to perceive the advantages of 'inter-networking', businesses
sprang up that provided 'ARPAnet'-like connectivity (i.e. "IP network
services") without the restrictive requirements for going through
the ARPAnet/NSFnet backbone.
In less than a decade, there was enough 'backbone-type' connectivity
by these entities that 'no one noticed' when the NSFnet backbone was
shut down. The government was then entirely -out- of the business of
operating/managing the operation of the "Internet".
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 22:18:15 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
Message-ID: <p06240823c6c4d7b2ddd7@[10.0.1.3]>
Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service
By JENNA WORTHAM
September 3, 2009
Slim and sleek as it is, the iPhone is really the Hummer of cellphones.
It's a data guzzler. Owners use them like minicomputers, which they
are, and use them a lot. Not only do iPhone owners download
applications, stream music and videos and browse the Web at higher
rates than the average smartphone user, but the average iPhone owner
can also use 10 times the network capacity used by the average
smartphone user.
"They don't even realize how much data they're using," said Gene
Munster, a senior securities analyst with Piper Jaffray.
The result is dropped calls, spotty service, delayed text and voice
messages and glacial download speeds as AT&T's cellular network
strains to meet the demand. Another result is outraged customers.
Cellphone owners using other carriers may gloat now, but the problems
of AT&T and the iPhone portend their future. Other networks could be
stressed as well as more sophisticated phones encouraging such
intense use become popular, analysts say.
Taylor Sbicca, a 27-year-old systems administrator in San Francisco,
checks his iPhone 10 to 15 times a day. But he is not making calls.
He checks the scores of last night's baseball game and updates his
Twitter stream. He checks the local weather report to see if he needs
a coat before heading out to dinner - then he picks a restaurant on
Yelp and maps the quickest way to get there.
Or at least, he tries to.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/technology/companies/03att.html
------------------------------
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 (27 messages)
******************************
|
or 
