|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 134 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Re: Waveguide (was "size a major consideration...")
Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings
Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings
Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings
====== 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: Sat, 16 May 2009 17:42:18 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <pan.2009.05.16.07.42.17.828754@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 16 May 2009 00:58:37 -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <6645152a0905142050m70feb103h9ac84168879b337@mail.gmail.com>,
> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>
>>My dad was former GTE (former as of 1991). He said the same thing.
>>Technically it was a merger, but it was pretty much Bell Atlantic
>>swallowing GTE.
>
> Although it's not directly relevant to the BEL-GTE merger, today,
> accounting rules require *all* transactions to be accounted for as one
> company buying another. Which one is which has an impact on the tax
> treatment for shareholders, and companies usually structure these deals to
> minimize investor tax liabilities. (There used to be another accounting
> treatment, called "merger of equals", in which the assets, liabilities,
> and equity of each company were effectively pooled. This caused some
> problems of inappropriate asset valuation during the Internet boom of the
> late '90s and so the rules were changed.)
>
Yep, the lessons of "inappropriate" valuations on balance sheets were
well learned back when the Dot-con boon went bust - not!
Feral capitalism will always do whatever it is allowed to do to benefit
itself - at least until the music stops and reality finally arrives, and
it's been pretty quiet around the planet in the last 10 or so months,
ain't it?
If the Internet was the last technology bubble that went bust, what will
be the next technology one awaiting us over the horizon (I'd like to get
in - and out - early this time)?
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Ma Bell seems to have survived the storm fairly well. You've made me
curious - what prevents a company like Verizon from investing in Ponzi
schemes or derivatives?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 10:15:26 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <jtCPl.7166$Lr6.2596@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com>
David Clayton wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 00:58:37 -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
>> In article <6645152a0905142050m70feb103h9ac84168879b337@mail.gmail.com>,
>> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>>
>>> My dad was former GTE (former as of 1991). He said the same thing.
>>> Technically it was a merger, but it was pretty much Bell Atlantic
>>> swallowing GTE.
>> Although it's not directly relevant to the BEL-GTE merger, today,
>> accounting rules require *all* transactions to be accounted for as one
>> company buying another. Which one is which has an impact on the tax
>> treatment for shareholders, and companies usually structure these deals to
>> minimize investor tax liabilities. (There used to be another accounting
>> treatment, called "merger of equals", in which the assets, liabilities,
>> and equity of each company were effectively pooled. This caused some
>> problems of inappropriate asset valuation during the Internet boom of the
>> late '90s and so the rules were changed.)
>>
> Yep, the lessons of "inappropriate" valuations on balance sheets were
> well learned back when the Dot-con boon went bust - not!
>
> Feral capitalism will always do whatever it is allowed to do to benefit
> itself - at least until the music stops and reality finally arrives, and
> it's been pretty quiet around the planet in the last 10 or so months,
> ain't it?
>
> If the Internet was the last technology bubble that went bust, what will
> be the next technology one awaiting us over the horizon (I'd like to get
> in - and out - early this time)?
>
> --
> 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.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Ma Bell seems to have survived the storm fairly well. You've made me
> curious - what prevents a company like Verizon from investing in Ponzi
> schemes or derivatives?
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderato
After the HellAtlantic merger, the combined company used millions of
banked GTE dollars to pay off the costs of the merger.
I don't think Verizon would invest in those type of investments: they
seem to invest in very high grade [corporate] and government bonds.
They also hold a lot of land from buildings and empty lots that were
going to be used for CO's, but have [never been needed] because of the
new technology. One piece that GTE sold, in back of a CO in
Huntington Beach, [went] for over 5 million dollars. They had paid
about $10,000 in 1963, and sold it in 1979.
--
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: Sun, 17 May 2009 09:09:41 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <pan.2009.05.16.23.09.40.896615@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 16 May 2009 15:12:15 -0400, Steven Lichter wrote:
.......
> I don't think Verizon would invest in those type of investments: they seem
> to invest in very high grade [corporate] and government bonds. They also
> hold a lot of land from buildings and empty lots that were going to be
> used for CO's, but have [never been needed] because of the new technology.
> One piece that GTE sold, in back of a CO in Huntington Beach, [went] for
> over 5 million dollars. They had paid about $10,000 in 1963, and sold it
> in 1979.
Do US telcos get any "freebie" use of public space for their
infrastructure, or do they have to pay market rates (like land for their
COs)?
--
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: Sat, 16 May 2009 21:13:18 -0500
From: gordonb.oo9wm@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <u9GdnUKSmKcj75LXnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>> I don't think Verizon would invest in those type of investments: they seem
>> to invest in very high grade [corporate] and government bonds. They also
>> hold a lot of land from buildings and empty lots that were going to be
>> used for CO's, but have [never been needed] because of the new technology.
>> One piece that GTE sold, in back of a CO in Huntington Beach, [went] for
>> over 5 million dollars. They had paid about $10,000 in 1963, and sold it
>> in 1979.
>
>Do US telcos get any "freebie" use of public space for their
>infrastructure, or do they have to pay market rates (like land for their
>COs)?
I'm fairly sure telcos pay market rates for land (buying or leasing),
except if it's in an area where the customer government owns all the
land ([sites] that are so large the area needs a CO of its own), and
then it becomes somewhat of an accounting fiction. The telco is
charged for leasing the land and right of way for the wires, and
charges it back (probably with some profit worked in) in phone service
supplied to the government. I don't know whether these are broken out
separately or netted out somehow.
The same applies to right-of-way for wiring. Normally cities charge
telcos (and cable companies and power companies) for this. When you've
got one big customer (government) and one supplier of each kind (telco,
power, cable), the rate charged back and forth becomes somewhat of
an accounting fiction.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 19:14:44 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <IjKPl.19155$8_3.1782@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com>
David Clayton wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 15:12:15 -0400, Steven Lichter wrote:
> .......
>> I don't think Verizon would invest in those type of investments: they seem
>> to invest in very high grade [corporate] and government bonds. They also
>> hold a lot of land from buildings and empty lots that were going to be
>> used for CO's, but have [never been needed] because of the new technology.
>> One piece that GTE sold, in back of a CO in Huntington Beach, [went] for
>> over 5 million dollars. They had paid about $10,000 in 1963, and sold it
>> in 1979.
>
> Do US telcos get any "freebie" use of public space for their
> infrastructure, or do they have to pay market rates (like land for their
> COs)?
For CO's they would wind up paying more then market; that is if they
did not have someone else do the buying. Some years ago here in
California GTE was looking for land to build a new CO in Moreno
Valley, [but] word got out and the prices went up. The company
shelved the plans for a year or so, then was able to get the land and
a much better price, [although] the building just housed Subscriber
Carrier for the next 4 years. They also built another one in Temecula
and the building stayed empty for 6 years, since the building boom
went bust. Now, for the most part, they build remotes on leased land
with 20 year leases.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 17:44:47 -0700
From: "John Meissen" <john@meissen.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <20090517004447.927BC340D0@john>
I guess I'm just not very good at interpreting this stuff, but what I can't
figure out is what happens to the FIOS installations in the areas that
Verizon is selling to Frontier? In most of the FIOS installations the
landline was converted to VOIP over the fiber connection, and the copper
was pulled.
Does Frontier get the FIOS business in these areas? Does Verizon keep
FIOS TV/Internet and Frontier get the phones? Does Verizon keep FIOS
and compete with Frontier for local phone service?
john-
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 19:26:21 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <iBKPl.29375$yr3.15229@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>
John Meissen wrote:
> I guess I'm just not very good at interpreting this stuff, but what I can't
> figure out is what happens to the FIOS installations in the areas that
> Verizon is selling to Frontier? In most of the FIOS installations the
> landline was converted to VOIP over the fiber connection, and the copper
> was pulled.
>
> Does Frontier get the FIOS business in these areas? Does Verizon keep
> FIOS TV/Internet and Frontier get the phones? Does Verizon keep FIOS
> and compete with Frontier for local phone service?
>
> john-
>From what I have read, Verizon is keeping the Verizon Business Unit
(MCI), Verizon Wireless; selling the services to Frontier, as to FIOS
I have heard both, that they will sell it to Frontier and also run and
service it for them, I'm wondering how since the equipment is in the
CO's except for the hubs and those are toll centers and they are
keeping the LD. I guess that will come out soon.
--
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: Sat, 16 May 2009 09:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: wleathus@yahoo.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <341062.98730.qm@web112209.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
On Thu, 14 May 2009 06:53:55 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote,
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>> I don't know why Verizon bought GTE: maybe they needed the Strowger
>> pattents. ;-)
>
> IIRC, Panel was invented because Ma Bell refused to license
> them. Once they expired, Ma started building steppers
In Southwestern Bell it was always understood that Bell Labs and
Western Electric were primarily interested in large multi-office
cities where common control capabilities were needed, and [were] not
much interested in smaller places where SxS was not only adequate but
in many ways superior.
Quite a few cities became all-SxS (starting with Automatic
Electric SxS equipment), to their detriment when they grew to
really need common control capabilities. Some of those cities
were Los Angeles and much of southern California, Houston, Dallas,
Oklahoma City, Tulsa and probably many others.
Los Angeles met the need by developing and installing SxS senders.
Oklahoma City, when it reached that point, installed an SxS tandem,
[because] an engineering study showed an SxS tandem was more
economical and just as satisfactory as an XB tandem. Of course, the
replacement of all [SxS] offices with (first) #5XB and (later) ESS
took care of the problem.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 17:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <dd702f89-2dd5-4bb7-9ae3-256dcbc412cf@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On May 16, 3:08 pm, wleat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Western Electric were primarily interested in large multi-office
> cities where common control capabilities were needed, and [were] not
> much interested in smaller places where SxS was not only adequate but
> in many ways superior.
Certainly SxS was superior for smaller offices. Common control
required considerable overhead and was thus uneconomical in smaller
offices.
Nonetheless, the Bell Labs history on switching documents many
improvements made to the Strowger unit over the years, [to improve]
SxS offices. [For example,] in the 1960s electronic front ends were
added to improve efficiency.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 18:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines
Message-ID: <8fcb056b-7eb8-420d-b545-4a617267235f@r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
On May 16, 12:58 am, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> >My dad was former GTE (former as of 1991). He said the same thing.
> >Technically it was a merger, but it was pretty much Bell Atlantic
> >swallowing GTE.
>
> Although it's not directly relevant to the BEL-GTE merger, today,
> accounting rules require *all* transactions to be accounted for as one
> company buying another.
Regardless of the accounting treatment, in a 'merger' often one
company dominates over the other.
If I recall, Bell Atlantic and Nynex merged and then took over GTE.
In any event, I don't think it was any secret that GTE was an
acquisition, not a 'merger'.
Keep in mind that GTE at that point was the product of many
acquisitions, some over the years of small companies, and some more
recently as trades to build contiguous service areas of territory
among the Independents.
The Penn Central merger, now sadly forgotten, was supposed to be a
merger, but it was often debated who took over who. Long afterwards
ex-New York Central people blamed the Pennsylvania RR people for the
failure and vice versa. Unfortunately, the Penn Central appeared to
take on the worst conditions of both, rather than the best, and the
merger itself was very badly executed.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 19:39:47 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Waveguide (was "size a major consideration...")
Message-ID: <h8fu05tta1huneoe62e10j6naao38suq54@4ax.com>
On Tue, 12 May 2009 10:56:38 -0400 (EDT), Neal McLain
<nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>Several recent posts in this thread have mentioned the "horn" microwave
>antennas used by AT&T Long Lines. As David Lesher noted in TD 28:127:
>
> > Those horns often carried six circuits: 4 Ghz horz
> > polarization, 4 Ghz vertical, 6 Ghz h & v, 11 Ghz h & v. They
> > delivered a jaw busting 48dB of gain at 11 Ghz, with a beam
> > width of about 0.75 degrees. But then they had 36 ft^2 of
> > throat, were 14 ft+ tall and weighed several thousand
> > pounds... despite being aluminum...
>
>Narrow bandwidth not only provided substantial main lobe gain, but it
>reduced side lobe gain. This, in turn, reduced interference to or from
>other antennas, including satellite antennas.
The Bell System horn-reflector antenna could transmit both vertically
and horizontally polarized radio waves. In the antenna's original
design, the azimuth radiation pattern for vertical polarization had a
plateau of sidelobes which were not present in the pattern for
horizontal polarization. I forget the exact numbers, but the problem
occurred from about 30 to 50 degrees off axis, and the sidelobes were
about 20 dB higher than with horizontal polarization. The higher
sidelobes limited the angles at which routes could meet at a junction
station.
I was assigned to find the cause. Experimenting on the antenna range
at the Whippany, NJ lab location, and found that the cause was the
method of attaching the weather cover. At the bottom of the weather
cover, bolts went through the cover into captive nuts mounted inside
the throat. Each captive nut was held in place with a small bracket
just big enough to cover the nut and riveted to the antenna skin. When
I removed these bolts on the test antenna, the sidelobes reduced. The
sidelobes were caused by scattering from these nuts.
We came up with an alternative arrangement consisting of a bar of
metal on the inside of the throat with studs sticking out, with nuts
fastened to the studs on the outside of the antenna. To retrofit
antennas already in service, our mechanical engineers came up with a
device which would securely grab each nut as it was removed,
preventing any nuts or pieces of rivets falling down the antenna into
the waveguide.
We held a meeting at our labs location with Long Lines radio engineers
from all over the country. The weather cover mounting modification
was one of several topics. One afternoon, it became my turn to tell
them about modifying the antennas. I described the problem, the
cause, and the solution. We officially had named the tool a <code
number which I don't remember> Modification Kit. I could sense that
the crowd was in a good mood, so I said "To remove these nuts, we have
developed the <code number> Castration Kit." The room erupted in
laughter. After that, almost anything I said (for example, studs) had
a double meaning, and elicited more laughter.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 20:35:23 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings
Message-ID: <571v0512bltprv0o7a5vrer62gjksqjo0a@4ax.com>
On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:37:32 -0400 (EDT), "Who Me?"
<hitchhiker@dont.panic> wrote:
>Bill Horne wrote:
>
>> Not even the power room techs,
>> who worked on the generators for hours at a time, had hearing
>> protection provided to them.
>>
>
>I know (knew....RIP) a couple of switching techs. who lost 50% or more of
>their hearing from working in the common equipment room of #5 Crossbar. I'm
>surprised their TEETH didn't fall out !! It was pretty obvious that hearing
>protection was needed in there but in the early days whatever was provided
>was apparently not good enough.
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>In N.E.T., there wasn't any protection provided, and the techs just
>accepted hearing damage as a part of the job. I'd bet that a
>sociologist would have a field day, figuring out the corporate gestalt
>that made workers believe that they were destined to loose their
>hearing at a young age.
>
>My cow-orker and I were the first wave of a new age: the time when
>workers realized that corporations didn't always have the workers'
>best interests at heart.
>
>Bill Horne
>Temporary Moderator
>P.S. If you think #5 was bad, you should have heard the Panel office:
>the schreech of metal clutches combined with the ordure of burnt
>Brylcreem would ruin two of your senses at the same time. ;-)
AT&T's TL and TM short-haul microwave systems used klystrons, the
voltages for which were generated by DC-DC converters operating at
2 kHz. In a lab room or in a repeater hut with several runing, there
was a loud 2 kHz hum. Two Labs engineers I worked with each ended up
with a hole in their auditory frequency response at 2 khz, perfect
hearing above and below 2 khz.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 14:31:40 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings
Message-ID: <pan.2009.05.17.04.31.38.346248@myrealbox.com>
On Sun, 17 May 2009 00:02:05 -0400, Richard wrote: .........
> AT&T's TL and TM short-haul microwave systems used klystrons, the
> voltages for which were generated by DC-DC converters operating at 2
> kHz. In a lab room or in a repeater hut with several runing, there was
> a loud 2 kHz hum.
> Two Labs engineers I worked with each ended up with a hole in their
> auditory frequency response at 2 khz, perfect hearing above and below 2
> khz.
If I recall my lessons on physiology correctly, the physical structure of
the human ear that converts sound vibrations into nerve impulses is a long
length that is sensitive to frequencies from low to high, so if one
section of that is essentially "worn out" then you lose sensitivity to the
frequency range detected by that area.
--
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: Sat, 16 May 2009 22:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings
Message-ID: <0ca6450e-55b5-4272-90f7-7c21943ced4e@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
On May 15, 10:37 am, "Who Me?" <hitchhi...@dont.panic> wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> In N.E.T., there wasn't any protection provided, and the techs just
> accepted hearing damage as a part of the job. I'd bet that a
> sociologist would have a field day, figuring out the corporate gestalt
> that made workers believe that they were destined to loose their
> hearing at a young age.
I know someone who works in a dentist's office where there is a
constant whirl from the air compressor. She says she will lose
hearing as a result, "just part of the job".
Many young chemists told me their life expectancy will be reduced five
years as a result of their working in chemistry.
All statements were made "as a matter of course"; no sense of regret.
It surprised me people were so blase about occupational hazards.
During WW II, many of the scientists of the Manhatten Engineering
District were well aware of the dangers of radiation (they knew of the
deaths of the radium clock-dial painters), yet they ignored mandated
medical tests or even rudimentary safety precautions of time. Two
scientists died nasty deaths as a result of accidents that happened
_after the war ended_ (so they was no sense of urgency anymore).
It's hard to know the long term effects since everyone smoked back
then, ate very high-fat diets, and industrial air and water pollution
was much more prevelent than today. The stuff dumped into the air and
water in 1950 by American industry would be incomprehensible by
today's standards; there were very few laws back then. (Sadly, today
some foreign countries do the same thing.)
------------------------------
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) 2008 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 (14 messages)
******************************
|
or 