31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for January 28, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 25 : "text" Format
====== 31 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:18:49 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Cisco to sell Linksys to Belkin, will exit home networking market
Message-ID: <p06240825cd29ea75121c@[10.0.1.2]>
Cisco to sell Linksys to Belkin, will exit home networking market
After 10 years of owning Linksys, Cisco will get rid of home router business.
by Jon Brodkin
Jan 24 2013
Ars Technica
Belkin has struck a deal to buy Linksys from Cisco, bringing Cisco's
10-year dalliance with the consumer networking market closer to an
end.
Cisco's Linksys division sells routers and wireless access points to
consumers, which is in line with Cisco's overall focus on networking
gear but diverges from the company's core focus on selling to big
businesses rather than home users. Cisco has been gradually stepping
out of the consumer business-for example, by killing off the Flip
camera line and Umi home videoconferencing.
...
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/cisco-to-sell-linksys-to-belkin-will-exit-home-networking-market/
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:08:14 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: German court rules users can be compensated for Internet outages
Message-ID: <p06240822cd29e7fc7dc0@[10.0.1.2]>
German court rules users can be compensated for Internet outages
But the plaintiff demanded to be paid back at $67/day, which he
likely won't get.
by Cyrus Farivar
Jan 25 2013
Ars Technica
A German high court has ruled that the loss of Internet access is
comparable to losing a car and is therefore "essential." As such,
users can now claim compensation from their ISP after extended
outages.
On Thursday, the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe ruled in the
case of a German man who was unable to use his home DSL connection
(as well as his phone and fax line), for two months between late 2008
and early 2009.
As Reuters reports, "Under German law the loss of use of essential
material items can be compensated."
Specifically, plaintiffs can seek compensation for a loss that
"significantly affects the material basis of living." Such a
compensation claim is normally made for a big-ticket item, like the
loss of a home or a car.
...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/german-court-rules-users-can-be-compensated-for-internet-outages/
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:10:05 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Macmillan will sell e-books to libraries in pilot program at $25 per title
Message-ID: <p06240823cd29e85592a6@[10.0.1.2]>
Macmillan will sell e-books to libraries in pilot program at $25 per title
But licenses to its titles will expire after two years or 52 check-outs.
by Cyrus Farivar
Jan 25 2013
Ars Technica
While the e-book market has certainly skyrocketed in recent years,
it's still not always easy to get digital books from your local
library. Yet unlike physical books, which obviously degrade over
time-digital books won't. So publishers have figured out that they
need to start selling a license to the book, rather than the book
itself, to our venerable institutions of public learning.
Back in 2011, HarperCollins caused quite a stir when it said it would
impose an arbitrary limit of 26 rentals before an e-book's license
would expire and the library would have to pay for it again.
Now Macmillan, another one of the "Big Six" publishers, announced
Thursday its new plan for selling e-books to American public
libraries. Macmillan now says its titles will cost $25 (by
comparison, some of its same bestselling titles in the Kindle store
go for $8 to $12)-and once acquired by a library, each will be
available for two years or 52 check-outs, whichever comes first.
...
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/01/macmillan-will-sell-e-books-to-libraries-in-pilot-program-at-25-per-title/
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:23:41 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Macmillan will sell e-books to libraries in pilot program at $25 per title
Message-ID: <20130127172341.GB26949@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 03:10:05PM -0500, Monty Solomon wrote:
> Now Macmillan, another one of the "Big Six" publishers, announced
> Thursday its new plan for selling e-books to American public
> libraries. Macmillan now says its titles will cost $25 (by
> comparison, some of its same bestselling titles in the Kindle store
> go for $8 to $12)-and once acquired by a library, each will be
> available for two years or 52 check-outs, whichever comes first.
My father used to say that "Every society in the history of the world
has destroyed itself by graft and corruption". I didn't realize how
right he was until now: the thought that my grandson might have to pay
a fee to check out Tom Swift and His Electric Runabout from a library
is proof of how myopic and vicious the publishing industry has become.
Of course, the bookbinders are swinging a double edged page-trimmer:
as with the record labels that Steve Jobs put out of business, the
printers are likely to find that "their" authors will soon discover
that distributing manuscripts in electronic format pays better than
relying on the typesetters who are sitting on top of a choke point in
the distribution network.
In essance, limited-function readers are intended to enforce (at their
owner's expense) the chokehold that the publishers have on connecting
authors and readers, which the distributors have, up to this point,
been able to sell by frightening new talents with folk tales of poor,
forgotten scribes starving in the dark because they didn't sign over
their works to the industry. However, it won't last: copyright
protection is a phantasm that the kindlenook purveyors waive around to
scare the young and impressionable, but (as with music), they know
that it's a toothless boogeyman. Copying has always been a marginal
cost to publishers, and it always will be. What they really want is
to get a royalty every time anyone reads a book, no matter what the
delivery mechanism, from the instant it is written until the heat
death of the universe.
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:27:32 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Grammar badness makes cracking harder the long password
Message-ID: <p06240826cd29ec2f79cb@[10.0.1.2]>
Grammar badness makes cracking harder the long password
Password crackers get an English lesson.
by Dan Goodin
Jan 24 2013
Ars Technica
When it comes to long phrases used to defeat recent advances in
password cracking, bigger isn't necessarily better, particularly when
the phrases adhere to grammatical rules.
A team of Ph.D. and grad students at Carnegie Mellon University and
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have developed an algorithm
that targets passcodes with a minimum number of 16 characters and
built it into the freely available John the Ripper cracking program.
The result: it was much more efficient at cracking passphrases such
as "abiggerbetter password" or "thecommunistfairy" because they
followed commonly used grammatical rules-in this case, ordering parts
of speech in the sequence "determiner, adjective, noun." When tested
against 1,434 passwords containing 16 or more characters, the
grammar-aware cracker surpassed other state-of-the-art password
crackers when the passcodes had grammatical structures, with 10
percent of the dataset cracked exclusively by the team's algorithm.
The approach is significant because it comes as security experts are
revising password policies to combat the growing sophistication of
modern cracking techniques which make the average password weaker
than ever before. A key strategy in making passwords more resilient
is to use phrases that result in longer passcodes. Still, passphrases
must remain memorable to the end user, so people often pick phrases
or sentences. It turns out that grammatical structures dramatically
narrow the possible combinations and sequences of words crackers must
guess. One surprising outcome of the research is that the passphrase
"Th3r3 can only b3 #1!" (with spaces removed) is one order of
magnitude weaker than "Hammered asinine requirements" even though it
contains more words. Better still is "My passw0rd is $uper str0ng!"
because it requires significantly more tries to correctly guess.
...
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/01/grammar-badness-makes-cracking-harder-the-long-password/
Date: 26 Jan 2013 22:05:53 -0500
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Idaho lawmakers look at throwing away the "Do Not Call List"
Message-ID: <ke25ih$pb9$1@panix2.panix.com>
Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>
>The Do-Not-Call lists are effective dead because the perpetrators
>have:
>
> - Moved offshore
>
> - Use VOIP, sometimes with multiple skips (whatever
> that is...)
Not at all. With the DNC list in place, legitimate companies who have
some interest in not offending potential customers have basically stopped
telemarketing people who don't like it. This means the only calls you
get (should you opt in) are fraudulent ones.
The fraudulent ones are a tiny fraction of the total number of calls.
Before the DNC list, I was getting hundreds of unwanted calls a week, now
I get fewer than a dozen.
>I have a small folder full of lame-ass letters from the
>Pennsylvania Attorney General's office in response to the
>complaints I've registered - before I gave up.
>
>Essentially they cite the items above and add that it's too much
>trouble to prosecute.
Time to start sending the complaints to the governor, then.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:22:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Idaho lawmakers look at throwing away the "Do Not Call List"
Message-ID: <ke3r9l$24a9$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <ke25ih$pb9$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>Not at all. With the DNC list in place, legitimate companies who have
>some interest in not offending potential customers have basically stopped
>telemarketing people who don't like it. This means the only calls you
>get (should you opt in) are fraudulent ones.
The only calls I get are from those exempted from the federal DNC
regulations: charities, pollsters (or those pretending to be
pollsters) and politicians. All just as unwelcome as the guy with the
southern accent who wants to sell me vinyl siding.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:36:04 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Idaho lawmakers look at throwing away the "Do Not Call List"
Message-ID: <ke4km6$p2o$2@blue-new.rahul.net>
On 2013-01-27 10:22, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> The only calls I get are from those exempted from the federal DNC
> regulations: charities, pollsters (or those pretending to be
> pollsters) and politicians. All just as unwelcome as the guy with the
> southern accent who wants to sell me vinyl siding.
Perhaps we all should start "outing" the heads of organizations (both for-profit
and not) who place these calls, and start publicizing their home phone numbers.
I know of one such outfit near here: they tried to defraud me into going to work
for them.
***** Moderator's Note *****
How about the name, address, and phone number of the business that
placed the call, and the contact info for the state official(s)
responsible for taking complaints?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:58:23 -0500
From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Idaho lawmakers look at throwing away the "Do Not Call List"
Message-ID: <jdbbg8hhta2f5a3oicmimdimq9auup18lc@4ax.com>
Per Scott Dorsey:
>Before the DNC list, I was getting hundreds of unwanted calls a week, now
>I get fewer than a dozen.
Count your blessings.
After we got on the federal and Penna state DNC lists, calls
stopped totally...completely. We even got a check for about
thirty bucks once as our share of a class action suite that the
state won against a telemarketer.
That was then...
Now we get at least a half-dozen telemarketer calls *per day* on
our land line and the likes of Rachel calls my cell phone several
times per week. This is in Pennsylvania. I suspect YYMV
depending on how aggressive the state is in pursuing telephone
solicitors.
Based on the afore-mentioned stack of lame letters from the
Pennsylvania Attorney General's office, my money is on some sort
of challenge-response mechanism.
- Somebody calls
- Phone does not ring yet
- "Hello, press 1 for John, press 2 for Mary,
press 3 for Sue...... where "99" is the only
one that does anything.
- Caller presses the right number, phone rings.
- Experienced callers know to just press the magic
number as soon as they hear the connection made.
- Caller presses the wrong number, phone owner
gets to program the action - such as dropping
into voicemail, just hanging up, ringing the
phone with a distinctive ring tone... and so-forth.
Alternatively, automated screening based
on caller ID.
For instance:
- Phone owner is able to upload their iPHone or Android
phone's phonebook
- When somebody whose number matches a phonebook entry
calls, the phone rings
- Of the number doesn't match, phone owner gets to
program the response as above...
Right now I'm torn between doing what seems to be the responsible
thing: take one for the team and actually talk to the solicitor,
stringing them along as long as possible or just saying "Just a
moment, I'll find (the person being called) and just putting the
phone down and giving the short answer.
Seems like taking one for the team could conceivably get one on a
validation list of people who, when called, are approachable -
kind of like those junk mail mailings where they ask people to
remove a sticker and place it over some other area on the mailing
and send it back to their "free prize"...
--
Pete Cresswell
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:00:07 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Appeals court to activists: Nope, you can't see what else the Feds have on you
Message-ID: <p06240812cd29d7e9b959@[10.0.1.2]>
Appeals court to activists: Nope, you can't see what else the Feds have on you
Fourth Circuit says additional "2703(d) orders" need not be disclosed.
by Cyrus Farivar
Jan 25 2013
Ars Technica
On Friday, a federal appeals court in Virginia ruled (PDF) that three
activists involved in a WikiLeaks investigation have no right to find
out what companies the government sought information from other than
Twitter.
In November 2011, a district court judge found that prosecutors could
compel Twitter to give up specific information on the three accounts,
including IP addresses, direct messages, and other data.
...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/appeals-court-to-activists-nope-you-cant-see-what-else-the-feds-have-on-you/
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/4th_cir._twitter_order.pdf
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/judge-rules-feds-can-have-wikileaks-associates-twitter-data/
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:36:29 -0500
From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Idaho lawmakers look at throwing away the "Do Not Call List"
Message-ID: <39iag8tl09vvcmm06ljt8lou539iig0sh8@4ax.com>
Per John Levine:
>I'm inclined to put a petition on the White House web site for a
>consitutional amendment to make telemarketing punishable by death,
>with a private right of action. What do you think?
I'd settle for trial by jury followed by welding a cage around
them and hoisting it up in some public place.
--
Pete Cresswell
***** Moderator's Note *****
What, no Harpy to snatch the food from their mouths?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:52:37 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Unlocking new cell phones to become illegal on Saturday
Message-ID: <20130127165236.GA26949@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 03:06:47PM -0500, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
> An edict from the Library of Congress is about to make phone
> unlocking illegal for the first time in 6 years. The decision, issued
> in October, is part of a triennial process whereby the Librarian of
> Congress hands out exemptions from the Digital Millennium Copyright
> Act.
The cellular industry would like to set an example for all the other
monopolies in the world: the industry craves total control over the
choices it's customers need to make just because they use cell phones.
Next up: the automobile makers, who will forbid their customers from
"unlocking" the digital outputs of their cars' diagnostic computers,
so as to extract tribute from local mechanics, and Microsoft, which
will forbid its customers from "unlocking" the proprietary formats it
uses to extract tribute from third-party software vendors such as
Mozilla.
The captains of industry crave a world where the machines we own and
the expertise we depend on to run our lives are useless without
software they control. Just wait until the combine harvesters are
halted in mid-row, because their software licenses have expired
mid-harvest, and when the airline manufacturers get to revoke the
software license needed to run an airliner, in order to prevent it
being sold to a third-world airline that they want to sell new planes
to.
In short order, HMO's are going to have to ante up for a higher
percentage of the gross receipts they generate by using proprietary
software to create and store medical information, because the software
vendors know it's too expensive to retrain doctors for other versions.
Even if it weren't, the data will be locked in proprietary file
formats that it's illegal to open without writing a check.
You heard it here first: a lock on cellphone software is just a drop
of water on the tip of the iceberg.
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 09:01:07 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Idaho lawmakers look at throwing away the "Do Not Call List"
Message-ID: <ke3mge$kmg$1@dont-email.me>
On 1/26/13 3:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> So is this proposal throwing away the DNC list entirely, or just
>>> exempting telephone companies from it?
>>
>> I dunno. But any Idaho legislative action is irrelevant to the federal
>> telemarketing rules and federal DNC list.
>
> If you'd read the original article, you'd have seen that it's about an
> Idaho law that prohibits telephone companies from telemarketing to
> their own customers. The federal DNC list is about telemarketing to
> non-customers.
>
> I'm inclined to put a petition on the White House web site for a
> consitutional amendment to make telemarketing punishable by death,
> with a private right of action. What do you think?
I always thought it should have been a capital crime, with the execution
being done on TV during prime time.
- -
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2013 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
***** Moderator's Note *****
No, no: that's too easy. Dead is, well, dead: Rachel and her kin
should be sentenced to man suicide-prevention lines.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:01:19 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Idaho lawmakers look at throwing away the "Do Not Call List"
Message-ID: <boKdna_D3MESGpjMnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <ke3mge$kmg$1@dont-email.me>,
Steven <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote:
>On 1/26/13 3:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>> So is this proposal throwing away the DNC list entirely, or just
>>>> exempting telephone companies from it?
>>>
>>> I dunno. But any Idaho legislative action is irrelevant to the federal
>>> telemarketing rules and federal DNC list.
>>
>> If you'd read the original article, you'd have seen that it's about an
>> Idaho law that prohibits telephone companies from telemarketing to
>> their own customers. The federal DNC list is about telemarketing to
>> non-customers.
>>
>> I'm inclined to put a petition on the White House web site for a
>> consitutional amendment to make telemarketing punishable by death,
>> with a private right of action. What do you think?
>
>I always thought it should have been a capital crime, with the execution
>being done on TV during prime time.
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>No, no: that's too easy. Dead is, well, dead: Rachel and her kin
>should be sentenced to man suicide-prevention lines.
>
Better idea, give them gainful employment at classic track-and-field events..
as javelin catchers
GRIN
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:53:32 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Idaho lawmakers look at throwing away the "Do Not Call List"
Message-ID: <seOdnWO00Z4hGJjMnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <20130126234030.81501.qmail@joyce.lan>,
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
[ attributions reinstated, for accuracy ]
> Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>So is this proposal throwing away the DNC list entirely, or just
>>>exempting telephone companies from it?
>>
>>I dunno. But any Idaho legislative action is irrelevant to the federal
>>telemarketing rules and federal DNC list.
>
>If you'd read the original article, you'd have seen that it's about an
>Idaho law that prohibits telephone companies from telemarketing to
>their own customers.
If Mr. Levine had bothered to read the rest of what I wrote, he'd have
found that I explicitly addressed that possible situation -- material he
"couldn't be bothered" to include.
It would also have been 'obvious to the meanest intelligence' that I
had 'read the original article' since I quoted from it.
Further, mentioning that the federal rules were unchanged was appropriate,
because the prior poster (as well as several others) seemed to be confused
on that point.
The KIVI TV web-page did not include a cite to either the bill ID or
to the statute it purportedly will repeal, thus without more research
effort than I was willing to put in there was only the questionable-
accuracy reporting of FOX 9. Given only that, one can only speculate
as to exactly who is prohibited from performing exactly what actions,
or precisely what the proposed changes will allow. If Mr. Levine has
a cite to the full text of the Idaho bill, he is cordially invited to
share it.
If the existing Idaho law is repealed, then (for someone on the federal
DNC list), one preemptive call to each telco of which they are a
customer requesting addition to the company-maintained (per federal
requirement) DNC list (which trumps any 'existing relationship'
exemption), will prevent any marketing calls from the telcos. This is
probably only one call, and _highly_unlikely to require more than three
calls.
I say again, the Idaho action is of 'tempest in a teapot' magnitude.
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:19:01 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Idaho lawmakers look at throwing away the "Do Not Call List"
Message-ID: <ke494l$mp0$1@leila.iecc.com>
>The KIVI TV web-page did not include a cite to either the bill ID or
>to the statute it purportedly will repeal, thus without more research
>effort than I was willing to put in there was only the questionable-
>accuracy reporting of FOX 9. Given only that, one can only speculate
>as to exactly who is prohibited from performing exactly what actions,
>or precisely what the proposed changes will allow. If Mr. Levine has
>a cite to the full text of the Idaho bill, he is cordially invited to
>share it.
It took about a minute to find the bill, H55. Here's a copy.
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2013/H0055.pdf
As you can see, the bill deletes the part of the existing law that
makes the DNC list apply to telephone companies soliciting their
existing customers, and replaces it with a provision saying that every
customer has to opt out indivually.
Since the Federal DNC has an exception for companies annoying existing
customers, this would allow a whole lot of legal junk calling by the
telcos.
R's,
John
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
http://jl.ly
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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne.
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) 2013 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