|
|
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)
******************************
|
or 