The Telecom Digest for November 13, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 306 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:25:42 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The fallacy of unlocked phones
Message-ID: <4CDCB3B6.9080309@thadlabs.com>
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/seybolds-take-fallacy-unlocked-phones/2010-11-10
Seybold's Take: The fallacy of unlocked phones
November 10, 2010 By Andrew M. Seybold
>From time to time there is talk in the press about being
able to purchase unlocked phones that can be moved from
the networks they were intended for to other networks.
It seems many people believe that if a phone is unlocked
it can simply be moved from one network to another. This
became a rallying point for many when AT&T Mobility and
Apple teamed up for the iPhone on a five-year exclusivity deal.
Unlocked phones are readily available in Europe where all
of the network operators share the same three portions of
the spectrum and by law, each network can only run GSM
and/or UMTS/HSPA and now LTE. They are not permitted to
deploy CDMA. So unlocked phones in Europe function exactly
like people expect them to: You buy a phone and then obtain
a SIM card from the network you have chosen, insert the SIM
and the phone registers on that network (assuming you have
an account). If you want to change networks, you simply
obtain a SIM from another network and swap it out with the
SIM you have been using. End of story.
However, this does not work nearly as well in the United
States and now Canada for a number of reasons. First, AT&T,
T-Mobile USA, and other smaller network operators follow
the European standards for GSM and UMTS/HSPA but Sprint
Nextel, Verizon Wireless and a number of smaller operators
have chosen to deploy CDMA2000 1X and EV-DO Rev A in this
country. So it should be safe to assume that at the very
least you could buy a GSM/HSPA-capable phone and move it
from T-Mobile to AT&T or the other way around. But this
is not really the case.
AT&T uses spectrum on 850 MHz and 1900 MHz today, and
tomorrow it will be building out LTE on the 700 MHz spectrum
it recently purchased at auction. T-Mobile, on the other
hand, has no spectrum at 850 MHz. It does have spectrum at
1900 MHz and uses the AWS-1 spectrum located between
1710-1755 MHz and between 2110-2155 MHz for its HSPA network.
Thus a phone designed for the AT&T network won't work on
the T-Mobile network unless it specifically includes the
AWS-1 spectrum.
{ article continues at the following URL and brings up new
caveats with LTE }
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/seybolds-take-fallacy-unlocked-phones/2010-11-10
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:35:16 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The fallacy of unlocked phones
Message-ID: <AANLkTikrF1JvKE4g0diCaFpM5DaU0UPhzGQR3pQ4yHDG@mail.gmail.com>
I think I learned more about mobile phones in the past 4 or 5 months
than I knew up until then. I lived overseas and learned the ins and
outs of how mobile phones work outside of North America. Time and
again I heard how they couldn't believe Americans would tolerate the
system we have.
The first thing I noticed in Malaysia is that for the most part the
stores that sold phones and the stores that sold service were
separate. Some providers had a few phones on display, but in general
Malaysians buy their phone and then go shop for service. While not
everyone owned a smart phone, I simply didn't see any of the cheap
flip phones so prolific here. People seem to be willing to pay a
little bit up front, get a nice phone, and keep it for years.
Prepaid is popular there, which is what I had since I was there only a
short time. Even with my Android phone and the 3G data, it was
considerably cheaper there pre-paid than I pay here in the US with a
plan.
My step-daughter leaves for Europe next year and I'm having a
difficult time convincing my wife we need to come up with a plan B.
She wants to take her iPhone and use it there like she uses it here.
I found a link to Rick Steves' website (he hosts a travel show) which
said watching a 3 minute YouTube video in Europe with a US smartphone
without any sort of global plan would cost about USD $40.
Unfortunately I can't unlock her iPhone without jailbreaking nor can I
convince her to pull the SIM card, use it like an iPod Touch, and take
my unlocked plain old cell phone with her. Sorry, it's a long
standing problem. I'm obviously the expert but no one will listen to
me until we get that first AT&T bill and it'll be my fault.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
***** Moderator's Note *****
John,
Just buy her a cheap GSM phone, and leave instructions on how/where to
buy a SIM card, and then turn off your at&t service the day she
leaves.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:35:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Varying rates at a pay phone
Message-ID: <6b9282ef-d8be-4aa2-b1d6-5afc2f0c2556@p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
I happened to be at a train station and I was curious how much it
would cost to call a place ten miles away. I found it had two
different rates.
It was a Verizon pay phone, and it was equipped with coin 1+ long
distance, a feature many pay phones today no longer offer.
I dialed the number 7D. The quoted rate was 65c for three minutes.
I then dialed the number 10D (no 1). The quoted rate was $1.00 for
four minutes. Apparently including the area code (the place was in
the same area code where I was) triggered a different handling of the
call.
It appears that short distance toll cash rates (eg 35 miles) from pay
phones can be awfully expensive, even though some pay phones offer 25c/
minute nationwide.
For some reason I don't understand, some people refuse to get a
cellphone, even if pay-per-use type. I realize their rate mishigosh
(cancelling minutes when not used) is frustrating, but having the
convenience and peace of mind of a cell phone 'just in case' makes it
worth it. Given the high rates and rarity of public phones, I think
anyone who ventures out of their house ought to have a cell phone.
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:07:23 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Early CATV, was: Bell System Technical Journal, 1922-1983
Message-ID: <4CDCD99B.7010900@annsgarden.com>
Eric Tappert wrote:
> Service Electric Cable TV Co. was started in June 1948
> in Mahony City, PA with the three Philadelphia channels
> (3, 6, and 10).
> Reference: http://www.sectv.com/LV/our_founder.html
Correct, although there's some disagreement about which CATV system
actually came first. John Walson built the Mahonoy City system that you
mention; in his CableCenter oral history, he cites June 1948.[1] Other
sources I've checked also cite June 1948, but they're all based on
Walson's claim.[2,3] Unfortunately, a warehouse fire in 1952 destroyed
documentation that would have supported his claim.
And yes, he apparently was carrying three channels from Philadelphia (3,
6, and 10) on-channel and without downconverting 10 to a low-band channel.
Also during 1948, two other CATV systems were started, in Astoria,
Oregon and Tuckerman, Arkansas. Each carried one channel, and each
started with very few actual customers. Civic boosters in both
communities claim to have been "first".
Ed Parsons, owner of the Astoria system, claims that he began operations
on Thanksgiving Day 1948 carrying KRSC (now KING) Seattle, 125 miles
away. An article in the Fall, 1996 issue of "Invention & Technology"
supports this claim, but I suspect that it was based on secondary
sources.[4] More about this article in the following T-D posts:
http://tinyurl.com/2wtsnk7
http://tinyurl.com/325yv7s
Jimmy Davidson, owner of the Tuckerman system, apparently didn't keep
any records. However, a story in the November 13, 1948 edition of local
newspaper states that "television programming" was received here on that
date.[5]
I have always believed that Astoria was first, but Walson makes a good
case for being first. So depending on which system came first, the
answer to the original question is either one or three.
> PS - the founder and his wife owned an appliance business and
> started the cable company so they could sell TV sets.
Back in the late 140s, that was almost universally true. Walson,
Parsons, and Tuckerman all owned hardware, appliance, or furniture
stores. In a story repeated numerous times in small communities across
the United States, a store owner gets wind of this new thing called
"CATV" and decided to build a CATV in his community so he can sell TV sets.
The idea worked: he started selling lots of TV sets. And so did his
competitors: within a few months, every hardware store, appliance store,
furniture store, gas station, grocery store, and (I once heard) even a
funeral home, got into the TV-set business.
Within a year, the community was saturated and TV-set sales plummeted.
But the original entrepreneur discovered that he was making more money
selling CATV service than he was making from selling TV sets, so he sold
the store and went into CATV full time.
And thus an industry was born.
References:
[1] The Hauser Oral and Video History Collection: John Walson. Denver:
The Cable Center, August 27, 1987.
http://www.cablecenter.org/content.cfm?id=695
[2] Mary Alice Mayer Phillips. CATV: A History of Community Antenna
Television. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1972.
[3] Archer S. Taylor. Pioneer Tales from Cable TV History. Denver: The
Cable Center, 2005.
[4] George Mannes. "The Birth of Cable TV." American Heritage of
Invention & Technology. Rockville: American Heritage Publishing
Company, Fall 2006.
[5] "First Television Here on Saturday, November 13, 1958." Tuckerman:
The Tuckerman Record, November 13, 1958. Quoted in Taylor, p. 4.
Neal McLain
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:35:42 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system
Message-ID: <Q8OdnWJyjrNDFkHRnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <6efod69qm4e8kd7ftqov9rjsgfkt5sle4k@4ax.com>,
Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:56:40 -0800 (PST), Lisa or Jeff
><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>>A history article in the IBM Systems Magazine describes an IBM System/
>>360-50 used to support an on-line lookup system for telephone
>>information operators. While the article is more about the computer
>>than the telephone operators, it is interesting none the less.
>>
>>for article please see:
>>http://www.ibmsystemsmag.com/mainframe/marchapril09/24886p1.aspx
>>(consists of three pages).
>>
>>(That web page has other mainframe computer history stories.)
>
>Sometime in my career at Bell Labs (I think in the 1970's, but not
>sure) our internal newspaper announced a new completely automatic
>directory-assistance system they were experimenting with. They had it
>working with the employee phone directory. To use it, you used the
>telephone keypad to spell out the last name of the person wanted. I
>don't know if this ever got into production.
>
That feature is commonly found on small to mid-size PBXes w/ integrated
voice mail. Usually you just put in the first 3 "letters" of the person's
name, and it iterates the matches, playing the 'personal name' from the
voice-mail recording, and asking if this is the person you want.
Of course, when someone forgets to update the line name 'directory',
'funny' things happen.
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:26:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system
Message-ID: <50c007c8-5e47-440e-a09c-7f998a5d6db4@m20g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 11, 2:09 pm, Richard <r...@richbonnie.com> wrote:
> Sometime in my career at Bell Labs (I think in the 1970's, but not
> sure) our internal newspaper announced a new completely automatic
> directory-assistance system they were experimenting with. They had it
> working with the employee phone directory. To use it, you used the
> telephone keypad to spell out the last name of the person wanted. I
> don't know if this ever got into production.
Some voicemail systems today allow callers to key in the spelling of
the desired person's name via the keypad.
Somewhere along way they added the Q and Z to the dial pad, which
weren't part of the original lettered dial and QZ weren't used in
normal exchange names. For a while some dials had Z over the
Operator, why I don't know.
I always wondered about overseas dials. I heard one of the reasons
they went ANC was to allow direct dialing overseas, because the letter/
number matchup on overseas dials differed from the US and varied by
country. With the widespread use of texting, how is that handled
today? Did foreign dials convert to the US format?
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:40:57 -0500
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Bell System Technical Journal, 1922-1983
Message-ID: <pl9pd6tqd0uaks2bhj84dujsppeirlq0ua@4ax.com>
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:52:33 -0800, Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:16:35 -0800, Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>>>
>>>Yes, we've seen this before, but I couldn't resist the chance to play
>>>"Ultimate Telecom Trivia"!
>>>
>>>Here's the question: why does a T1 line have 24 channels?
>>>
>>>Bill Horne
>>>Moderator
>>
>>First, they used a multiple of 12 channels, because it had to
>>interface with analog channel banks and the analog equipment used
>>multiples of 12 channels, called a "channel group."
>>
>>Second, they could reliably transmit and decode 24 channels between
>>manholes, but not 36 (too many errors due to transmission distortion).
>>
>>Another point of trivia: At one time, they had digital switching of
>>analog carrier channels: Transmission between cities was analog, but
>>the switches were digital.
>>
>>Dick
>>
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>>Although T-Carrier banks had to interface with Analog banks, the
>>connections were always at "baseband", i.e., 300-4,000Hz connections
>>on pair wire. The Analog banks could never interoperate with T-Carrier
>>banks on the "high speed" side of the banks: a "T-1" 1.544 Mbps
>>circuit can't feed an analog carrier system. Apples and Oranges,
>>really.
>>
>>
>>Bill Horne
>>Moderator
>
>In the book "Transmission Systems For Communications", Bell Telephone
>Laboratories, Inc., Fifth Edition, 1982, Page 596:
>
>"FDM·to·TDM Connector.
>Long-haul transmission tends to be dominated by analog FDM
>(frequency-division multiplex) systems (primarily line-of-sight radio
>relay). On the other hand, digital switching of longdistance
>telephone traffic is rapidly being introduced. Thus, it is necessary
>to have an economical interface between FDM transmission and digital
>switching. The most convenient place in the hierarchy to perform this
>function is at the group level. In its simplest conceptual form
>(LT-1), this FDM-to-TDM connector consists functionally of two A-type
>channel banks (see Chap. 15) which demodulate two FDM groups into 24
>individual voice channels and a digital channel bank which encodes
>these channels into DS1 format. As A/D conversion and digital
>processing become cheaper, however, it will become economical to
>implement the FDM group to TDM converter by performing an A/D
>conversion directly on the group signals and then translating the
>encoded FDM signal directly into DS1 format (see Fig. 27-2) by digital
>processing techniques. This eliminates many of the more expensive
>analog filters and modulation equipment (see Chap. 35)."
>
>Dick
Dick,
That's the one I was thinking of. I was an application engineer for
the components division of WECo at the time. As I recall the LT-1
digitized the group signal and used the DSP-1 digital signal processor
to extract and digitize the voice signals, then multiplex them
together. Ditto in the reverse direction. The frame replaced the
Voiceband Interface Frame (VIF) of the #4ESS which interfaced the A
channel banks at analog voice band level. At about the same time, the
Digroup Terminal Frame was replaced by the Digital Interface Frame for
another big cost reduction. This was a time when the scale of
integration was driving down the cost of components very rapidly and
all the equipment (my customer was Long Lines applications) was
shrinking and dropping in price dramatically.
An interesting sidelight is that one of driving forces for the DSP-1
was Carl Kurth at Merrimac Valley who also was a big player in the
thick film analog filter work up there. The digital world would
obsolete the thick film circuits (which combined active components and
passive ones on the same ceramic substrate) in short order.
Lots of really good stuff was going on in those days (including a
crash echo canceler program)...
ET
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 22:15:14 -0800
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Early cable TV competition (was Re: early CATV (was: BSTJ ...))
Message-ID: <s7epd61gvk2u2vlggvdb9av2hi9kq9gsj5@4ax.com>
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:30:07 -0600 (CST), jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org>
wrote:
>>The term CATV originally stood for community antenna TV. Somewhere
>>around the mid-70s, when CATV companies began carrying satellite-
>>delivered non-broadcast programming, the term CATV morphed into cable
>>TV.
>
>The thing I remember most about early cable TV was a surprise I
>got when I was visiting some friends in Allentown in May of
>1970. I was surprised to learn that they had not one but TWO
>local cable providers from which to choose, and that they had
>recently signed up with one.
Back in the mid-1960's, I visited Williamsport, PA. I saw three
CATV cables on the power poles. Talking with a resident, I learned
that one company started a CATV system; then after signing up many
people they raised the rates. A second company saw a business
opportunity and started a second CATV system; they lured customers
away from the first one and then they raised rates. At which point,
yet a third system started up. Interestingly, all three systems got
their TV feed from a single site located on a local mountain top.
Maybe Pennsylvania had no laws granting exclusive franchises for CATV.
I used to live in Salem, NH. In the mid-1980's, the franchised cable
TV company was planning on a major upgrade, but had only two years
left on its franchise agreement. They didn't want to do the expansion
if they might lose the franchise in two years. They approached the
town government about extending the franchise term. The town gave the
following conditions: give us several government and public access
channels, and wire the entire town including very sparsely populated
areas. The company agree. Under the company's old rules, they would
not serve my residential street with one-acre lots and 125-foot
frontages because it was not dense enough. Also there were some
working dairy farms in the outskirts of town on 50 or more acres, with
up to a quarter mile between houses. The cable company agreed to the
conditions and wired the whole town, probably to salvage their current
investment in outside plant.
Dick
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:39:43 -0500
From: "Quinn, Michael J." <mquinn@mitre.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: TELEPHONE SWITCHBOARD IN HAVRE DE GRACE MD
Message-ID: <D81B6957A866A243B5DD36F880B2DE9A048E00358E@IMCMBX2.MITRE.ORG>
I came across a small telephone patch-panel corded switchboard in Havre de
Grace MD last weekend at an antique shop. Appeared to be in reasonably good
shape to my untrained eye, and carried a 215 area code on the dial unit, so
presumably came from a small business or hotel in the Philadelphia area
about 75 miles north. I'm not enough of a telephone aficionado for the $950
price tag to fit my budget, but I thought I'd pass the info along to the TD
forum
The gent in the shop was a Mr. Fritz Sterbak, and the shop's phone number
is (410) 939-21078. They have a website, but it does not appear to be
working: www.investment-antiques.com . Usual disclaimer - I have no
connection to the shop, other than having spent $5 on a jar of old marbles.
Best,
Mike
Springfield VA
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/x-pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s]
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:24:10 -0500
From: Randall <rvh40.remove-this@and-this-too.insightbb.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 4G?
Message-ID: <BCA00E10-1E6B-425B-BB42-25D52398ED72@insightbb.com>
> From: Cecile <cecile.farmer@gmail.com>
> To: redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org.
> Subject: Re: T-Mobile 4G commercials
> Message-ID: <7b4492f7-fe01-4a5b-9335-
> ac39b7f8ac40@n24g2000prj.googlegroups.com>
>
> On Nov 5, 10:46 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> T-Mobile is advertising 4G. Are they reselling Sprint and Clear,
>> or did
>> they actually erect a network of their own?
>
> T-mobile's network is HSPA+. Not WiMAX nor LTE. For 4G you'll want to
> head to www.clear.com!
>
> Cecile at CLEAR :)
But what about this:
----snip----snip----
"4G defined: WiMax and LTE don't qualify
The ITU has given its stamp of approval only to the next versions of
those technologies
By Stephen Lawson | IDG News Service
If someone is trying to sell you 4G wireless these days, don't
believe them.
The truth is, neither WiMax nor LTE (Long-Term Evolution) qualify as
4G (fourth-generation) technologies, according to the International
Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R). On
Thursday, the group announced it had finished its assessment of
submissions for the 4G standard, also called IMT-Advanced. Based on
that group's decision, to really be selling 4G, carriers will have to
get going with one of two future technologies, called LTE-Advanced
and WirelessMAN-Advanced. The latter, also known as IEEE 802.16m,
will form the basis of WiMax Release 2.
However, it appears that's not going to stop service providers from
advertising current and upcoming services as 4G.
For WiMax operator Clearwire, the 4G label denotes an advancement
beyond 3G networks, Clearwire spokesman Mike DiGioia said. "WiMax,
and the LTE products that are coming out, are all sufficiently
advanced past the 3G networks to indicate that they're moving
forward," he said.
"The ITU's current technical definition in no way affects our plans
to launch the world's first large-scale LTE network later this year.
We're all about real people using actual products and services,"
Verizon Wireless spokesman Jeffrey Nelson wrote in an e-mail message.
It's no small thing to get Clearwire and Verizon to agree on
something. In fact, proponents of mobile WiMax and LTE have often
clashed over the question of standards and the "4G" label. Some LTE
proponents have said WiMax isn't the true successor to 3G, which like
LTE came about with strong backing from established cellular
operators. WiMax came from the data networking world, backed
enthusiastically by Intel. Now, neither one of those systems will get
to be officially called 4G.
[snip]
<http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/4g-defined-wimax-and-lte-dont-
qualify-683>
http://snipurl.com/1c9nn3
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:21:10 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The Stream of Fear: The Real Reason They're Blocking Google TV
Message-ID: <p062408f8c9036e3bcb1d@[10.0.1.3]>
The Stream of Fear: The Real Reason They're Blocking Google TV
Lauren Weinstein
November 12, 2010
Greetings. In "How They're Blocking Google TV" and "Users as Toast:
The Blocking of Google TV", I discussed some of the technical details
of online networks' blocking of Google TV (GTV), and some of the
reasons why such blocking is unacceptable.
But I haven't really talked about why the networks (Hulu, CBS, NBC,
ABC, FOX, SyFy, and others) are engaging in this discriminatory
process in the first place.
Google for its part continues a diplomatic "content owners control
who views their content" mantra. As I've previously discussed, this
is an understandable tack. After all, if such disputes can be settled
in mutually agreeable ways, the hassle factor is greatly reduced.
However, even when such agreements are possible, they may also serve
to validate unfair and/or discriminatory practices that are normally
unacceptable in other contexts of our lives -- and that can spell
trouble for the Internet and its users in the long run.
...
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000779.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 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.
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 (11 messages)
|
| |
or 