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

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 

Message Digest 
Volume 29 : Issue 9 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
 Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re:FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
 Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network..
 Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
 Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
 MagicJack for Cellular phone
 Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
 Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
 Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
 Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Connecticutt AT&T operation losing jobs
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch


====== 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, 07 Jan 2010 18:25:23 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <nIw1n.29161$Gf3.8259@newsfe22.iad> Julian Thomas wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:59:45 -0800 Sam Spade wrote: > >> >> I guess Erlangs are still around for growing end offices. > > Does anyone these days speak in Erlangs, let alone know what they are? Indeed they do. Google it. Here is one example: http://www.kooltoolz.com/ccm.htm?gclid=CI6ompLek58CFQ_yDAodfG_oMw
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:38:43 -0800 (PST) From: jmeissen@aracnet.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network... Message-ID: <20100108033843.0D585350C8@john> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com said: > Where does Verizon fit in all of this? Isn't today's at&t a > relatively small company? Verizon is trying to sell off their land-line operations. Up here in the Northwest they're planning on getting Frontier to take it all over.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 06:25:33 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network... Message-ID: <hi7f8v$o9i$1@news.eternal-september.org> jmeissen@aracnet.com wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com said: >> Where does Verizon fit in all of this? Isn't today's at&t a >> relatively small company? > > Verizon is trying to sell off their land-line operations. Up here in the > Northwest they're planning on getting Frontier to take it all over. The last 2 times that Verizon sold land line to other companies they crashed, stay tuned for another crash. At least the Northwest is in pretty good shape, but will Verizon leave enough money in the company to survive? -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:33:12 -0600 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <EfqdnWU118j1BNvWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <100.f88f0400a093464b.002@jt-mj.net>, Julian Thomas <jt@jt-mj.net> wrote: >On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:59:45 -0800 Sam Spade wrote: >> >> >>I guess Erlangs are still around for growing end offices. > >Does anyone these days speak in Erlangs, let alone know what they are? I'll admit to difficulties converting 'erlangs per ortnight' to SI units. But that has more to do with finding a workable definition for an "ortnight". *grin*
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:29:22 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <3fqdnZIxKJne3NrWnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> On 1/7/2010 9:33 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: > In article <100.f88f0400a093464b.002@jt-mj.net>, > Julian Thomas <jt@jt-mj.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:59:45 -0800 Sam Spade wrote: >>> >>> >>> I guess Erlangs are still around for growing end offices. >> >> Does anyone these days speak in Erlangs, let alone know what they are? > > I'll admit to difficulties converting 'erlangs per ortnight' to SI units. > > But that has more to do with finding a workable definition for an "ortnight". > > grin For the benefit of those readers who (unlike the moderator) have a life: Robert is making a play on words derived from the unit "Fulongs per Fortnight", which is part of the Furlong/Firkin/Fortnight system of measurements. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFF_system for more information. Bill "Back in just 100,000,000 shakes" Horne (Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:01:39 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re:FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition Message-ID: <MPG.25b06a1d307ce606989c3c@news.eternal-september.org> In article <992c.162a1ba3.3877dd27@aol.com>, wesrock@aol.com says... > > In a message dated 1/7/2010 6:20:17 PM Central Standard Time, > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes > > > Likewise, consumers realize that cell phones have to be recharged > > with commercial power. > > TV stations are warning with the sub-Zero cold expected to take your > cell phone car charger with you if you go out. > > > As an aside, these units need frequent testing. I've seen a lot of > > mission critical places go dark when they were testing their > > generators--the control circuitry failed to make a proper > > transition. > > Telcos used to run them, usually every Wednesday at 8 a.m. amd > actually transfer the power and run on auziliary power for an hour so > to make suwre the generator is working and so is the transer. I > wonder if they still do. I was charged with designing the power redundancy for the Central Voter Registration System here in RI. I specified an APC Symmetra with a minimum of 15 minute backup time (Reality gave us 45 minutes), backed up by a 125kW natural gas fired generator that spooled up within 10 seconds. It had normal exercise routines that it would do, and once every quarter we'd do a full scale test. That involved going to the transfer panel, holding down a button for a set interval and you'd see everything transition to the generator.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:50:49 -0600 From: rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network.. Message-ID: <MdidnRU9--IENtvWnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote: +--------------- | <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: | > Actually, certain multiplexing techniques, such as on an underseas | > cable, do NOT dedicate the full capacity of an assigned channel. | | FALSE TO FACT. | | Extra compression is applied, such that the bandwidth demand for a | 'voice channel' is smaller, BUT that (reduced) channel bandwidth | is reserved for the exclusive use of that voice channel. | | This is an absolute necessity given the design requirement that | every 'established' call be able to actually use their 'voice | channel' at all times while the call is 'connected'. +--------------- (*sigh*) How quickly they forget... :-( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-assignment_speech_interpolation ...time-assignment speech interpolation (TASI) is an analog technique used on certain long transmission links to increase voice-transmission capacity. TASI works by switching additional users onto any channel temporarily idled because an original user has stopped speaking. When the original user resumes speaking, that user will, in turn, be switched to any channel that happens to be idle. The speech detector function is called voice activity detection. ... TASI was invented by Bell Labs in the 1960s to increase the capacity of Transatlantic telephone cables. It was one of their first applications requiring electronic switching of voice circuits. Later Digital Circuit Multiplication Equipment included TASI as a feature, not as distinct hardware. ... Other sources note that the TASI plan was actually first published in 1959 [Bullington K, Fraser JM, "Engineering Aspects of TASI", BSTJ, 38:353-364 (1950)], not "in the 1960s", but that's a minor detail. In any case, stealing bandwidth from putatively "circuit-switched" voice calls is now more than a half-century old, and is still used in applications where the available bit-rate is constrained (e.g. VSATs). -Rob
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 05:59:37 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network... Message-ID: <hi6hk9$12ic$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <xuudncghgclS2dvWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote: > 'Packet-switched' technology: > > * Has no concept of a 'connection' within the network. Endpoints > may agree among themselves, that certain blocks of data are to be > treated as part of a common stream, but it is only the > end-points that are aware of that relationship between those data > blocks. Nonsense. The original packet-switched networks were all connection-oriented. > * Never 'reserves' any resources for the specific use of any > particular connection. Thus, cannot 'guarantee' availability for > anyone, at any given time. Again, nonsense. Numerous mechanisms exist, and have been deployed, for resource reservation on packet networks. > * All routing decisions are made _at_the_time_ =each= data block > arrives at each routing point. There is no guarantee that > subsequent data blocks will be routed the same way at any > routing decision point. False. > * There is NO guarantee that any path between the endpoints is > available at the time any data block is sent. You seem to be confusing the service you can buy from your consumer-grade ISP for $39.95 a month with the definition of what a packet-switched network is. It isn't so. > * There is no way for any intermediate point to *autonomously* > notify either end-point that a required link in the path is > 'full', has errors, or has completely stopped working. Complete malarkey. Even your consumer-grade ISP can and does do that. > * There is no guarantee that the data blocks will arrive at the > destination in the same sequence that they left the origin. Some network technologies provide such guarantees; others don't. Take off your telco blinders, please. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:42:04 -0600 From: "David" <someone@somewhere.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network... Message-ID: <hi7g8g$ta$1@news.eternal-september.org> "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org> wrote in message news:hi6hk9$12ic$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu... > In article > <xuudncghgclS2dvWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>, > Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote: > >> 'Packet-switched' technology: >> >> * Has no concept of a 'connection' within the network. Endpoints >> may agree among themselves, that certain blocks of data are to be >> treated as part of a common stream, but it is only the end-points >> that are aware of that relationship between those data blocks. > > Nonsense. The original packet-switched networks were all > connection-oriented. I suggest Robert Bonomi also understand the difference between a datagram and and a virtual circuit as applied to packet switched networks. David
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:28:52 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <hi7th8$155$1@news.eternal-september.org> MagicJack's next act: disappearing cell phone fees Jan 8, 12:01 PM (ET) By PETER SVENSSON LAS VEGAS (AP) - The company behind the magicJack, the cheap Internet phone gadget that's been heavily promoted on TV, has made a new version of the device that allows free calls from cell phones in the home, in a fashion that's sure to draw protest from cellular carriers. The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for which cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive licenses. http://apnews.myway.com//article/20100108/D9D3M9U80.html I saw this today at CAS, but I don't have a GSM phone. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:15:51 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <H0P1n.7265$Ef7.5417@newsfe07.iad> Steven wrote: > The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for which > cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive licenses. I don't know about those frequencies but the FCC has always allowed you to bandit AM and FM broadcast frequencies at very low power. My guess is the wireless carriers can't do a thing about this.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:23:53 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <d8P1n.1299$Mv3.1031@newsfe05.iad> Steven wrote: > MagicJack's next act: disappearing cell phone fees > (concerning MagicJack's new micro-cellsite VoIP connect device) This will really benefit me. I live at the very south end of the greater Los Angeles wireless area, whatever those are officially called. I am in a concrete building that faces south two miles from the San Diego county line. The towers in the LA service area are a couple miles north, thus blocked completely by our building. The first tower in the San Diego area is about 10 miles away, so it doesn't work even though our big windows face it. Similarly situated people have complained to the wireless carriers, which tell us to pound sand. Since I am on AT$T I guess this could help me. But, I doubt it will handle incoming calls.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:45:57 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <hi8u5l$m17$1@news.eternal-september.org> Sam Spade wrote: > Steven wrote: > >> MagicJack's next act: disappearing cell phone fees > >> (concerning MagicJack's new micro-cellsite VoIP connect device) > > This will really benefit me. [Moderator snip] > > Since I am on AT$T I guess this could help me. But, I doubt it will > handle incoming calls. Does the regular MagicJack have an incoming phone number? -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: 9 Jan 2010 01:13:51 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <20100109011351.97701.qmail@simone.iecc.com> > The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for > which cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive > licenses. It also says: Borislow said the device is legal because wireless spectrum licenses don't extend into the home. ... which is ridiculous. It may be the case that they're working at under 100mw which has long been the limit for unlicensed AM and FM transmissions, but that's unrelated to whether it's in a house. On the other hand, the article neglects to mention that this device in effect turns your cell phone into an expensive outgoing only cordless phone. While your phone is registered with the Magicjack, it's not on your regular carrier's network, so you can't get any incoming calls. It's not clear from the short description in the story whether they will assign an incoming phone number of their own like they do for the current Magicjack. If I were AT&T or T-Mobile, I would argue that this device interferes with normal GSM operation, and it would be true. R's, John
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:39:33 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <4d549943-2af2-4e6c-9b8b-6a6b3b6bb33a@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> On Jan 7, 5:14 pm, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote: > Same is true here in the U.S. I know for a fact that Verizon has lost > a little over half it's customer base in my state. "Half its customer base"? That sounds rather extreme. Keep in mind that if a subscriber keeps his landline and merely switches to another carrier, Verizon is still supplying the local loop to the C.O. and getting paid for that, although [it's] likely not as profitable as other services it could provide. Also, Verizon is a leading cell phone provider. I would guess that in terms of telephone lines Vz is still growing.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:46:43 -0500 From: Bill Horne <redacted@invalid.speakeasy.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Connecticutt AT&T operation losing jobs Message-ID: <4B47B5D3.6070205@speakeasy.net> According an article in the Waterbury, CT, REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN, AT&T is cutting jobs: AT&T's plan to eliminate more landline-related jobs in the state has union officials and state consumer advocates crying foul. Officials with the Communications Workers of America Local 1298 said Tuesday that AT&T plans to phase out 160 more installation and repair jobs by Feb. 19. A company spokesman confirmed that AT&T plans to eliminate "surplus" jobs in the state, but would not confirm the total number of jobs affected. http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/01/06/business/459145.txt -- Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:40:57 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <3b4560f4-8ec6-4479-ba9b-6d6b8a4d1174@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> On Jan 7, 8:26 pm, Steven <diespamm...@killspammers.com> wrote: > The cable was installed in the 50's and 60's.  Some of the cable has > had little or no work done on it in years.  The real trouble started > when they reworked cable pairs for U-verse.  A manager told me that > they have not done any cable pair recovery in years and have no plans > to do so. If as many people as [has been] said [have] truly abandoned traditional land lines for other modes (eg cellphones or cable TV [dialtone]) then there are probably plenty of unused pairs in a cable that could be used as alternates.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:08:13 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <d02ddb1d-a823-4a18-9733-b20237470ca0@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> On Jan 6, 8:15 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > > While costs have gone down, telephone switches and terminal gear still > > cost serious money.  There are physical concerns to maintaining fiber > > links whether underground or aerial.  Buildings are still needed. > > Agreed, but in comparison the cost of counting all the calls, > determining what to charge for them, sending out bills, processing > payments, chasing up overdue accounts and providing "Customer Service" > facilities must be a way higher percentage of any "retail" telco's > costs these days than previously. > > I wonder if these admin costs are now the biggest cost component. The "commercial" aspect of the telephone business has changed dramatically. In short they have far fewer lower-paid people serving far more customers because of those changes. Verizon, for example, moved its business office people out of high rent downtown locations to low-rent low-wage locations and has far fewer of them since so much is automated. Processing service orders is easier since it's all computerized and interlinked. They don't have girls on roller skates anymore pulling up and replacing accounts from enormous fileboxes. They have sold off many of their buildings, some in premium locations. Years ago many subscribers had the lowest class of service offered and carefully checked every 15c charge on their bill. That meant a large staff to handle such complaints. Today far more subscribers have flat rate service, even nation wide flat rate, so there are no 15c calls at all to be concerned about. For the few subscribers with old plans, those 15c charges of the 1960s are still 15c--if they haven't been eliminated altogether. For example, in the Philadelphia area, Verizon today charges 7c a message unit, the same price as in the 1960s. Further, Verizon has eliminated that charge on many calls, and, gives discounts for late at night calls. Today 3c isn't worth someone's time to call in. Many cellphone subscribers do not get an itemized bill at all, so that cost is saved. Many subscribers no longer get a paper bill by mail, but see it on line via the Internet, which saves money. Many subscribers have automatic bill pay where the phone bill is automatically deducted from one's checking account. That saves payment processing costs. Since Divesture, when subscribers could own their own phones and house wiring, the business office has not been concerned about extension telephones and inside wire complaints--payment, ordering, dropping. A big reason they were willing to drop extension rentals was the cost of servicing extensions compared to the revenue it brought in.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:55:18 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <00296a74-e30c-45a0-8961-af03f1388374@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> On Jan 6, 7:05 pm, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote: > >But I dare say even a single person alone > >will use more than 150 minutes of talk time a month total of combined > >landline and cellphone--that comes out to only five minutes per day > >per month--not a whole lot.  I'd figure an individual person would > >talk at least 15 minutes per day on average. > > Why would you figure that?  (Speaking as a single person, living > alone, who -- as noted earlier in this thread -- does not spend even > remotely close to that much time on the telephone.)  Is there any > recent evidence as to what the actual distribution is?  (Anything > published in BSTJ is far too old to count as recent.) As a single person and knowing many single people, an average of five minutes per day combined telephone time seems rather low, even with communicating via email and the Internet. There are a variety of appointments to be made--not only the dentist, but various doctors, car service, service people, prescription renewals, pizza orders, movie or theatre. There are questions for businesses that can not be handled via email or the Internet. There is keeping up with friends and family. Note this is an average. This all represents conversations that can't be done online. Undoubtedly on some days a single person wouldn't use the telephone at all, but on other days could easily be on the phone for hours. For example, calling a bank to discuss a loan or CD purchase, being put on hold, talking to different people can be ten minutes or more. Some businesses sadly require merely holding for ten minutes until someone answers. Talking to a friend or family member you haven't talked to in a while or needs help with a problem can be a 20-30 minute call or more.
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 (19 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues