Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 
Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 244 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Cabbie's tweet reunites lost BlackBerry with owner 
  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: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs? 
  Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service 
  Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service 
  Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service 
  Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer   
  Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer   
  Re: new search engine and GSM interference info 
  Re: new search engine and GSM interference info 
  Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer 
  Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer 
  Re: 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 22:11:58 -0500 (CDT) From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Cabbie's tweet reunites lost BlackBerry with owner Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.0909022210070.411@Calculus.local> Some believe that Twitter has the power to change big events like Iranian elections. I think that its strength may be in much smaller, but still significant, ways. In fact, I was the matchmaker recently between a Barcelona cabbie and an American employee of a pharmaceutical company. Well, a matchmaker between the cabbie and this lady's BlackBerry, anyway. It happened like this: <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10323261-16.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20> or http://shortlinks.mayson.us/twitter_blackberry John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:50:09 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs? Message-ID: <a1104216-01f3-4a0d-b02e-43f5d6e24200@y36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> On Sep 2, 11:02 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > 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. But that was not the case of the Bell System and AT&T before divesture. Nor was it the case for the larger Independents. It does happen. Some companies can recover and some can't. As an example, Philadelphia had two popular restaurant chains, Linton's and Horn & Hardart. Changing tastes killed off the restaurant business. H&H shutdown. But Linton's evolved into an institutional caterer company, such as providing food service for nursing homes. (Some residents recognize the recipes.) Of course some companies make great efforts to change with the times but still fail to. Horn & Hardart tried to modernize its restaurants but it wasn't enough. > 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. It's really not quite so simple. There are many different variables and influences in the business world that effect the development and deployment of new technologies. You can't generalize in something like this. First off, new technologies are not necessarily as good as their promoters claim them to be. Some do not save very much money or are an improvement in functionality. Secondly, when an existing technology is established, there is a cost to implement a replacement technology, and customers are hesitant to pay that cost unless there is clear payback. For example, when color TV came out, the chosen system was compatible with existing B&W TVs. Also, the US television broadcast standard remained in place from circa 1941 to just now. While that standard eventually became obsolete, there was so much investment--both in consumer sets and broadcasters' equipment--that the standard remained in place for a very long time. By the way, the old Bell System provided transport for radio and TV networks. Another example, today many people are critical of the Windows operating system and MS applications. But it is in such widespread use it's not going anywhere. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:04:14 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs? Message-ID: <K_KdnfmlFvljdQLXnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <a1104216-01f3-4a0d-b02e-43f5d6e24200@y36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Sep 2, 11:02 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > >> 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. > >But that was not the case of the Bell System and AT&T before >divesture. Nor was it the case for the larger Independents. > It most certainly _was_ the case. The monopoly telephone companies, like other 'regulated' utilities, were _guaranteed_ (by force of law) that they would make a profit delivering service. "Whatever" the service cost to deliver, they were allowed (by *statute*) to set rates such that they got a guaranteed rate-of-return on investment. If one digs deep enough in PSC regulations, one can find actual numbers for the minimum guaranteed ROI. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:20:46 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs? Message-ID: <d69b605d-ff9f-46e0-8628-294bf8f3964a@y42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> On Sep 3, 1:40 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote: > In article <a1104216-01f3-4a0d-b02e-43f5d6e24...@y36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > >  <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>On Sep 2, 11:02 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> But that was not the case of the Bell System and AT&T before >> divesture.  Nor was it the case for the larger Independents. > It most certainly _was_ the case.  The monopoly telephone companies, > like other 'regulated' utilities, were _guaranteed_ (by force of > law) that they would make a profit delivering service.  "Whatever" > the service cost to deliver, they were allowed (by *statute*) to set > rates such that they got a guaranteed rate-of-return on > investment.  If one digs deep enough in PSC regulations, one can > find actual numbers for the minimum guaranteed ROI. Umm, I think your response is out of context. This sub-thread dealt with the statement: ""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. " My response was that the pre-divesture AT&T did not rest in a "comfort zone", even with a guranteed rate of return. As to PSC regulation, the 'rate of return' was not automatic, but rather negotiated. More importantly, it was only one of many critieria used to set rates. Further, the old Bell System was expected to provide good service, not just live off its fat. Contrary to critical myth, the PSCs acted upon receiving a complaint from an unhappy subscriber, even a residence, and the phone company responded quickly to such complaints. (Sadly, it was easier for an individual person to get assistance years ago than now.) One early policy objective of the new "baby bells" was to modify their services to be unregulated, that is to dump the yoke of regulation. One reason today's phone bills are so complex is that the regulated and unregulated portions are broken out separately. I'm not sure it is accurate to say regulated companies were "guaranteed a profit delivering service". The old Bell System was profitable. However, as we know, the old Western Union went bankrupt; its rates were unable to sustain its business. Railroads were regulated too, though by a different commission. They certainly were not guaranteed a profit, rather, in the "interests of public service" they were mandated to provide service below cost, even if it bankrupted them (which it did in many cases). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:33:50 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs? Message-ID: <z6OdnQXC573T2T3XnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <d69b605d-ff9f-46e0-8628-294bf8f3964a@y42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >As to PSC regulation, the 'rate of return' was not automatic, but >rather negotiated. A _minimum_ figure, of several percentage points was 'cast in stone'. If a utility spent $100million, that it didn't have to, in providing regulated services, it was entitled to raise rates enough to cover that $100 million _and_ (at least!) the guaranteed profit rate on that investment. > >I'm not sure it is accurate to say regulated companies were >"guaranteed a profit delivering service". Regulated monopoly utilities _were_ guaranteed a profit. It was very explicit in PSC regulations. >Railroads were regulated too, though by a different commission. Railroads were _not_ monopolity utilities, either. Thus the comparison fails any relevancy test. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:20:38 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs? Message-ID: <bd8.3db56bff.37d1b756@aol.com> In a message dated 9/3/2009 4:33:04 PM Central Daylight Time, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > As to PSC regulation, the 'rate of return' was not automatic, but > rather negotiated. More importantly, it was only one of many > critieria used to set rates. Further, the old Bell System was > expected to provide good service, not just live off its fat. > Contrary to critical myth, the PSCs acted upon receiving a complaint > from an unhappy subscriber, even a residence, and the phone company > responded quickly to such complaints. (Sadly, it was easier for an > individual person to get assistance years ago than now.) I can assure you this was true. I was a member of a committee which reviewed regulatory and higher management complaints and our duty was to see if there was something that could be done to prevent them from reaching that level. Most of them fell into two categories--somebody trying to defraud the company and who thought they knew how to work the company's system, and those that we could wonder how those telco people who had handled them at a lower level had screwed up...the ones that should have been resolved at a lower level. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:41:26 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service Message-ID: <4A9F5706.6060707@thadlabs.com> On 9/2/2009 8:05 PM, Monty Solomon wrote: > 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. > [...] Hmmm, this may actually may be the good side of the iPhone. :-) It could force an earlier demise of TDMA and the adoption of CDMA (and the elimination of the GSM TDMA-induced interference :-) For a general not-too-technical distinction between CDMA and TDMA: <http://www.arcx.com/sites/CDMAvsTDMA.htm> and <<http://www.vxm.com/21R.62.html> ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 2009 17:26:41 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service Message-ID: <20090903172641.87060.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >It could force an earlier demise of TDMA and the adoption of CDMA >(and the elimination of the GSM TDMA-induced interference :-) It's coming. The next generation of GSM, known as LTE, uses CDMA. You should start seeing it in a year or two, which is quite fast by telco standards. Even better, all of the major US carriers plan to use LTE so we may return to the good olde days when you could use any phone on any network. R's, John ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:58:31 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service Message-ID: <bf6950f9-53c2-4b12-b3b1-cca0c1724e8e@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> On Sep 3, 1:41 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > Even better, all of the major US carriers plan to use LTE so we may > return to the good olde days when you could use any phone on any > network. Many people must carry two cellphones, one for personal use, and one from their employer. Cellphones should be like keysets, able to handle multiple lines, a hold button, and push-to-talk intercom. (Only problem is where to fit the six buttons on today's tiny phones. Heck, the designation strip alone occupies more square inches than the phone has.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:37:21 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer Message-ID: <c9c.4df01ddb.37d13cb1@aol.com> In a message dated 9/2/2009 9:46:16 PM Central Daylight Time, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > ***** 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. I never heard of a modem on a press wire. They used telegraph circuits, not the PSTN. Furthermore, they had "break" keys. Important sometimes if there was someone on the other end to reply (everyone on the wire could read eveything sent by both sides.) These were all mechnical in an earlier day. New York would get very annoyed when the Edinburg, Texas, bureau tried to break between items, as was the protocol, because they were a couple of lines into the next item before the break impulse reached New York. Most of the time the wire was controlled from Chicago, but at night it was sometimes cut through to New York. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ***** Moderator's Note ***** I was thinking about the AP machine that printed out news at the radio stations I wokred at in the 70's: they used a modem and it was connected via a dedicated loop provided by Ma Bell. I had forgotten about the Break keys: my Model 15 KSR had one, and a polar relay as well, but I bypassed them both because I was using it for RTTY on ham radio, and my Terminal Unit drove the 60 ma selectors directly. Bill Horne ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:46:21 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer Message-ID: <c6a.5915f652.37d130bd@aol.com> In a message dated 9/1/2009 10:07:10 PM Central Daylight Time, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > As an aside, if your PC still has a dial up modem, you likely could > use it just like an old Teletype. On Windows, you probably have a > utility program called Hyper Terminal as part of Accessories/ > Communications. On DOS, there were shareware programs (one was > Telix). You can dial someone and type to talk, without going > through any ISP or computer. Of course, it's easier to use Instant > Messaging or email. TWX was originally a manual service. The operator answered something like "GA" and you passed your number using the keyboard. A place we called frequently had two numbers: NY 1-1 and NY 1-1847. If the first one was DA (which the operator would report manually) you had to type the second number for the operator to try again. (Surprising how those two numbers popped into my mind without thinking.) Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ***** Moderator's Note ***** I'm curious: were you using Model 15 or Model 28 machines? Bill Horne ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:29:31 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: new search engine and GSM interference info Message-ID: <h7p8va$94h$1@news.albasani.net> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >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 It bothers me that it's UL certified but UL doesn't have a certification for not being susceptible to common sources of radiointerference. And I guess control mechanisms for gas stoves and ovens aren't subject to FCC regulation. My stove/oven has an electronic control, but it's just for the clock. The gas jets are controlled with knobs. Gas appliances with electronic controls of the gas jets have been available for 10 years or more. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:52:54 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: new search engine and GSM interference info Message-ID: <op.uzpjegyvo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:07:34 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > 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. :-) I've heard that Orange (PL) has a way to let your phone, even if an oldy without an alarm clock, call you up at a preset time to *simulate* an alarm clock. No idea, tho', whether any US carrier offers a service like that :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:07:26 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer Message-ID: <bf7.661332d2.37d1b43e@aol.com> In a message dated 9/3/2009 12:43:05 PM Central Daylight Time, Wesrock@aol.com writes: > TWX was originally a manual service. The operator answered something > like "GA" and you passed your number using the keyboard. A place we > called frequently had two numbers: NY 1-1 and NY 1-1847. If the first > one was DA (which the operator would report manually) you had to type > the second number for the operator to try again. > (Surprising how those two numbers popped into my mind without thinking.) > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I'm curious: were you using Model 15 or Model 28 machines? Model 15. We're talking about the 1950s. I don't know that the Model 28 had yet been thought of. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ***** Moderator's Note ***** The Model 28 was introduced in 1954. It proved so reliable that the design was converted to 8-level for use with ASCII, and named the model 35. Bill Horne ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:12:19 -0500 From: Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer Message-ID: <slrnha0fq6.5md.jhaynes@localhost.localdomain> I'll put in this comment, before it gets any deeper. The Bell modems, 101 and 103 series, were full duplex AFSK using a different pair of tones in each direction. Hence a modem had to know if it was originating or answering to know which pair of tones to use for which purpose; and the modems were complicated because of having to be able to transmit or receive using either tone pair. There were strapping options in the modems to select which tone pair to use for originate, and which tone of a pair was mark or space. Hence by strapping there were eight possible mutually-incompatible services using the same modems. One of these was used for TWX, and another for DataPhone. Others were to have been used for things like WADS and one called WADS-prime. Although TWX mostly used the PSTN it was charged at a lower rate than voice calls. Hence TWX machines did not have a handset so you couldn't talk over the connection. DataPhone used the PSTN at the voice rates, so it did include a telephone handset that could be used for conversation between operators. With acoustic couplers, or with third-party hardwired modems after Carterfone, if the intent was to use the machine as a computer terminal only then the modem could be originate-only, since it never had to answer incoming calls. The modem needed to transmit on only one tone pair and receive on the other. The original Dial TWX modems, the 101 series, were pretty monstrous, being about six inches thick and a foot wide and maybe 18 inches long. The Teletype machines designed for use with these modems had 99 wires running between the Teletype and the modem. This was necessary because most of a telephone set, the dial and speaker or earphone, the control buttons, etc. were built into the Teletype machine. When the 103 modems with built-in telephones came out, some of the Bell operating companies cut costs by buying much simpler private-line machines from Teletype and using the 103 modems, with strapping appropriate for TWX or DataPhone as needed. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I'm puzzled by your post: I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am confused. I infer that the modems were wired for different tone pairs when used on TWX vs. DataPhone, and I have not experienced that in my usage. When I worked at Back Bay Toll in Boston, we had a 35ASR which was used for company reporting. It was compatible with TWX machines - I know this because I once sent a TWX to a real TWX machine by plugging into the TWX circuit of a WU customer, and it worked fine. However, the machine was also compatible with the common modems used for Bulletin Boards, and I know _that_ because I used it to log into Ward Christensen's CBBS. It was, of course, hard-wired for local echo, so every character that I typed printed twice, but it _did_ work. Please provide any URL's or other information about the ways the modems were wired differently for TWX or DataPhone. TIA. Bill Horne ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:17:06 -0500 From: Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service Message-ID: <slrnha0g34.5md.jhaynes@localhost.localdomain> On 2009-09-03, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote: > > Heavy Data Use Puts a Strain on AT&T Service > So history repeats itself...back in the early days of computer time sharing the phone companies complained because the holding times on data calls were so much longer than was typical for voice calls. This required additional trunks and switches in the central offices to maintain service quality. ------------------------------ 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 (16 messages) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues