The Telecom Digest for January 18, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 17 : "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: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 01:17:21 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone unplugged after costing Davison County $69 per call
Message-ID: <NO6dnSp5Tba-lKnQnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Have they ever heard of the concept of competitive bidding? They might
> have found a payphone services provider willing to place a phone there.
>
Not with a call history of 11 calls in one year.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:44:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone unplugged after costing Davison County $69 per call
Message-ID: <ih1rll$ebk$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <NO6dnSp5Tba-lKnQnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@giganews.com> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> writes:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Have they ever heard of the concept of competitive bidding? They might
>> have found a payphone services provider willing to place a phone there.
>Not with a call history of 11 calls in one year.
In NYC, at least on the streets and other public areas,
there's been a competition of sorts to install pay phones.
The trick is that the payphone owner, whether the main
telco or an independent, can sell and place advertising
on the sides of the enclosure. Oh, and the top, too.
Putting up a billboard on a sidewalk is just bout impossible,
but pretending it's merely the outside of a payphone works.
Don't know if this would be practical for the original
poster's area, but it might be worth a looksee.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:36:27 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Very interesting product
Message-ID: <op.vpe4u1heitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:21:57 -0500, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> AT&T = 3G
> T-Mobile = EDGE
Sounds like its 3G radio is relying on the (far more universally used) 1900 MHz HSDPA band, hence should be just fine in ...
>>> ... Malaysia ... .
Cheers, and enjoy all the fine local Rijstafel cuisine, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: 17 Jan 2011 18:42:53 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Very interesting product
Message-ID: <20110117184253.26666.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Sounds like its 3G radio is relying on the (far more universally
> used) 1900 MHz HSDPA band, hence should be just fine in ...
>>>> ... Malaysia ... .
Huh? Outside North America the GSM bands are 900 and 1800, not 850 and 1900.
R's,
John
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:03:33 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: My Taxes? I Filed by Phone
Message-ID: <op.vpe537x2itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:54:23 -0500, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> Is it just me ... ? Where are
> the copies of everything in case ... ?
My impression is that lots of folks (not just smartphone users)
believe that all those records are already being stored for them
somewhere on the web, where they'll be available "forever" if needed.
I, like you, disagree (of course), as I've seen some such records
vanish, without warning, within 3 months (the billing records of the
former dial-up ISP at&t WorldNet, to name but one example).
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:24:24 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Using your phone on the road could make you a safer driver: study
Message-ID: <pan.2011.01.16.21.24.20.799157@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:36:38 -0800, Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 1/14/2011 2:59 PM, David Clayton wrote:
>> http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-news/using-your-phone-on-the-road-could-make-you-a-safer-driver-study-20110114-19qfx.html
>>
>> Using your phone on the road could make you a safer driver: study Matt
>> Campbell
>> January 14, 2011 - 11:42AM
>> [...]
>
> Totally bogus and unscientific "study".
>
> There is NO affirmation or confirmation the "mobile" cellphone users
> were drivers and not passengers.
Yep, and the whole study seems to be based on the theory that people have
a reserve of driving skills available to be called on when they are
self-aware enough to realise that they need it. Anyone who drives can
clearly see that most drivers are already at the limit of their abilities
in normal circumstances, and that is barely adequate.
The conclusion seems to be saying something along the lines of "If people
walk down the street juggling knives, some may take more care than usual
if forced to do it one-handed while they use a phone". Yeah, some *might*,
but the vast majority won't and the overall outcome of increased risk is
entirely predictable.
--
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: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:36:41 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Wireless, but Leashed
Message-ID: <pan.2011.01.16.21.36.37.910526@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 23:07:56 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
> Wireless, but Leashed
>
> By JOSHUA BRUSTEIN
......
> Given the dissatisfaction with AT&T, it is easy to look at other parts of
> the world and wonder why this didn't happen sooner.
Forgive me if I've got this wrong, but it seems fairly obvious "why this
didn't happen sooner". The US has a track record of not adopting various
international technology standards preferring to let private companies go
their own way - usually, it seems - to grasp a short-term advantage when a
technology evolves rather than be a little more patient and adopt an
agreed system.
Great for the company that gets their first, and also for the dogma of
allowing "free enterprise" to control things, but as we see there are
downsides.
> After all, the iPhone
> is available on multiple carriers in many European markets. France even
> has a law that would have made AT&T's exclusive agreement with Apple
> illegal. Almost half of mobile phone customers in the largest European
> countries do not have contracts with wireless carriers, and can switch
> phones from one network to another with ease.
>
> The continent's system is looser in part because Europe settled on a
> single technological standard for wireless carriers 20 years ago.
> Countries there wanted to ensure that their citizens' phones would work as
> they traveled throughout the Continent.
Not just that (and not just in Europe), it also makes a lot of sense to
have one standard technology platform to reduce costs and have common
skill-sets available over a larger market.
> No such agreement was reached in
> the United States, which had recently deregulated its telephone industry,
> and carriers built their networks on separate technologies.
--
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: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:39:06 -0800
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Wireless, but Leashed
Message-ID: <16v8j695o95e8p3p5n10u39e0bgnmn3a4b@4ax.com>
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:36:41 +1100, David Clayton
<dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 23:07:56 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
>>
>> Wireless, but Leashed
>>
>> By JOSHUA BRUSTEIN
>......
>> Given the dissatisfaction with AT&T, it is easy to look at other parts of
>> the world and wonder why this didn't happen sooner.
>
>Forgive me if I've got this wrong, but it seems fairly obvious "why this
>didn't happen sooner". The US has a track record of not adopting various
>international technology standards preferring to let private companies go
>their own way - usually, it seems - to grasp a short-term advantage when a
>technology evolves rather than be a little more patient and adopt an
>agreed system.
>
>Great for the company that gets their first, and also for the dogma of
>allowing "free enterprise" to control things, but as we see there are
>downsides.
Reminds me of the debacle in the US with stereo AM broadcast radio.
Three competing systems, each compatible with standard monaural AM,
but incompatible with each other. The FCC decided to not choose a
standard, but to let the three systems fight it out in the
marketplace. No system got enough traction with the public to emerge
on top, and so now there's almost no stereo AM.
Dick
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:25:03 -0500
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AM Stereo (was "Re: Wireless, but Leashed")
Message-ID: <ec509$4d34ddd9$adce4fbf$2703@PRIMUS.CA>
Richard wrote:
> No system got enough traction with the public to emerge
> on top, and so now there's almost no stereo AM.
Format battles aside, I wonder if there was actually real demand for
stereo AM. I am young enough that I don't remember a time that FM
radio wasn't available as an option (if not standard) in new cars,
home receivers, boomboxes, even pocket radios and as a result, I have
never enjoyed listening to music on AM radio because I found the
quality inferior. As the Wikipedia article on FM broadcasting notes,
station owners must have felt likewise because music stations seem to
have migrated to FM, leaving the AM band for news, talk radio, etc. My
point? By the time that I had heard of AM stereo I didn't see any
need for it and I suspect that I was not alone.
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 21:03:30 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone unplugged after costing Davison County $69 per call
Message-ID: <3fCdnQICQ-kfLK7QnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <igvdpg$o8d$3@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>
>>http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/south-dakota/article_2e232f62-20b1-11e0-82e6-001cc4c03286.html
>
>>MITCHELL, S.D. (AP) - A pay phone in the county courthouse in Mitchell
>>will be unplugged after officials discovered it cost the county $69
>>per call last year.
>
>>County Maintenance Supervisor Mark Ruml told the Davison County
>>Commission that he'd never seen anyone use the phone in more than
>>three years and money to pay for it was coming out of his budget.
>
>>It cost the county $763 a year to have the phone. Ruml said records
>>showed only 11 calls were placed on the phone in 2010.
>
>>The Daily Republic newspaper said the county commission voted to remove it.
>
>Have they ever heard of the concept of competitive bidding? They might
>have found a payphone services provider willing to place a phone there.
>
With -that- volume of calls, nobody's going to be interested -- UNLESS
the county pony's up for all the costs.
They might find a cut-rate COCOTS operator to put one for a somewhat lower
cost, but I really doubt they'd be able to get it to under $25/call, given
the indicated traffic level.
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 19:31:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone unplugged after costing Davison County $69 per call
Message-ID: <03360669-cd8e-41b9-ba75-34774fe340bb@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 16, 1:41 am, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> MITCHELL, S.D. (AP) - A pay phone in the county courthouse in Mitchell
> will be unplugged after officials discovered it cost the county $69
> per call last year.
It didn't really cost "$69 per call". That implies each time someone
used the phone the county was billed $69, and it wasn't.
Like everyone else, the county paid a fee to have a pay phone in
service (though their fee seems high). Had enough people used it the
"per call" amortized cost would've been much lower.
I suspect there are a many payphones on private property still in
service but rarely used because the property owners, perhaps a large
business, get a large overall phone bill and aren't aware of the pay
phone component. Some organizations pay bills as presented without
verifying or thinking about them.
As mentioned, several transit carriers pay to have a pay phone at
their stations so to have an emergency phone available for
passengers. A pay phone is cheaper than a dedicated direct police
line plus offers passengers full service and that is utilized from
time to time by the public. (Not everyone has a cell phone, and
people forget theirs, the battery runs low, etc.)
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:20:40 -0500
From: Curt Bramblett <curtbramblett@cfl.rr.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: RE Pay phone unplugged after costing Davison County $69 per call
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20110117101447.0143f680@pop-server.cfl.rr.com>
Hi, all.
When I managed a local general-aviation airport some years ago, we had a
similar problem. The FAA required even the smallest public airport to have
a means for a pilot to contact them. (I've been out of the business for
more than ten years, so I don't know if the requirement still exists.) That
always translated to a pay phone. I built a new terminal and in making
arrangement to extend the City's PBX to the airport for the first time, I
learned the cost of the pay phone. I don't remember the number, but it was
as shocking as Davidson County's experience. With the PBX we were able to
simply install an extension that allowed 800- and local calls, but not LD.
Everyone was happy and the cost was almost nothing because it shared a line
with something else in the building.
Curt Bramblett
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:24:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: RE Pay phone unplugged after costing Davison County $69 per call
Message-ID: <c0b25fdc-3c5b-48f7-a2d5-2531dfd00e31@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 17, 10:20 am, Curt Bramblett <curtbrambl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>. . . With the PBX we were able to
> simply install an extension that allowed 800- and local calls, but not LD.
> Everyone was happy and the cost was almost nothing because it shared a line
> with something else in the building.
Years ago, most businesses had a pay phone for visitors and for
employees to make and receive personal calls. Making companies were
very strict about employees making even local calls from their
business lines, though others were more flexible.
In my area, the cost of a business local phone call is one message
unit, about 7 cents, and has been that for decades. In the early
1970s seven cents meant much more than today. In itself it wasn't
much but it would add up in volume.
Also, with privately owned PBXs it's cheaper to have more extensions,
so one can be assigned to visitors and not tie up someone's desk
phone.
Today, many companies have a telephone extension in the receptionist
area and visitors are welcome to make local calls from it. Other
companies wouldn't mind if a visitor made a brief local call from
someone's phone. That's obviously cheaper than paying for a pay phone
that is rarely used.
But the need for public pay phones hasn't gone away completely. Our
local public library got rid of its pay phone some years ago. Then
they found a bunch of kids asking the librarian to use a phone to call
home for a ride, and they couldn't allow that. Most kids today have
cell phones, but not all.
I will note that many people are quite generous in lending their cell
phone to a stranger if the need arises. For example, at a train
station if someone goes about asking for change for the phone, someone
will offer use of their phone. On a train, if there is a delay
people will gladly share their phone to a stranger so they could call
home.
In the case of the court house, I wonder how they'd accomodate a
visitor who needed to make a phone call and didn't have a cell phone.
Sometimes such places have strict rules against using the phones and
the visitor would be turned away.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:47:23 -0800 (PST)
From: annie <dmr436@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Can Your Camera Phone Turn You Into a Pirate?
Message-ID: <92a13e82-2fa2-40ac-8cf2-97f461a65ddd@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
> But our smartphones really functioned as hand-held copiers. Did we
> indeed go too far?
I've used my digital camera several times at the library, rather than
use the overpriced blurry copier. I know the librarians have seen me
and never told me to stop.
One said she wished others would do that since old and rare books
suffer a lot of wear when doing them on a copy machine!
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:28:49 -0500
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Can Your Camera Phone Turn You Into a Pirate?
Message-ID: <e17c1$4d34debf$adce4fbf$16000@PRIMUS.CA>
annie wrote:
> I've used my digital camera several times at the library, rather than
> use the overpriced blurry copier. I know the librarians have seen me
> and never told me to stop.
I don't know if the library makes a profit on the copying charges, but
at least they expect you to read the book there and leave without it.
Book stores expect you to pay them for the book if you want to use it,
so I would think that their reaction would be a bit different.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:06:28 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Apple Media Advisory
Message-ID: <p06240801c95a51a9e0ce@[10.0.1.2]>
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/01/17advisory.html
January 17, 2011
Apple Media Advisory
Apple CEO Steve Jobs today sent the following email to all Apple employees:
Team,
At my request, the board of directors has granted me a medical leave
of absence so I can focus on my health. I will continue as CEO and be
involved in major strategic decisions for the company.
I have asked Tim Cook to be responsible for all of Apple's day to day
operations. I have great confidence that Tim and the rest of the
executive management team will do a terrific job executing the
exciting plans we have in place for 2011.
I love Apple so much and hope to be back as soon as I can. In the
meantime, my family and I would deeply appreciate respect for our
privacy.
Steve
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:06:32 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Jobs Absence Seen Pressuring Apple To Move On Succession Plan
Message-ID: <p06240800c95a50ffb8e6@[10.0.1.2]>
Jobs Absence Seen Pressuring Apple To Move On Succession Plan
By Roger Cheng and Ian Sherr
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
JANUARY 17, 2011
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)-Apple Inc. (AAPL) Chief Executive Steve Jobs'
third medical leave since 2004 revives questions about a potential
leadership change at the consumer electronics giant, which has been
criticized by some investors for failing to provide more insight into
its plans for future management.
Apple, the world's most valuable technology company by market
capitalization, has been reluctant to talk about life after Jobs,
even though the company's image, products and direction are closely
tied to its top executive. Investors and company observers have long
said Apple should be more open about its current and long-term plans,
particularly since an earlier leave during which Jobs received a
liver transplant, which wasn't disclosed until after the fact.
Confusion over Apple's succession plan is expected to pressure
Apple's share price Tuesday, after the stock's historic gains in
recent years. In trading Monday in Frankfurt, Apple shares fell
nearly 8%.
On Monday, the 55-year-old Jobs told company employees that he had
been granted a leave "so I can focus on my health." Chief Operating
Officer Tim Cook will run the company in Jobs's absence though Jobs
would "be involved in major strategic decisions for the company."
Cook, 50, is the closest Apple has to an apparent heir. The
Cupertino, Calif.-based company has expressed confidence in Cook in
the past; he took the reins of the company during Jobs's previous
absences.
Still, the company has been frustratingly obtuse when it comes to
providing confirmation as to whether Cook would be in line to
eventually succeed Jobs. When asked if the company or board planned
to disclose further details, Apple spokeswoman Katie Cotton told The
Wall Street Journal, "We've said all we're going to say."
...
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110117-706781.html
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:34:26 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Facebook Drops Another 'P' Bomb
Message-ID: <p06240803c95a54347959@[10.0.1.2]>
Facebook Drops Another 'P' Bomb
By Erika Morphy
TechNewsWorld
January 17, 2011
Facebook no doubt hoped to minimize the repercussions from its latest
privacy change by announcing it late on Friday, but there could be a
heavier blowback from its move than the company anticipated. "M
[users]any won't realize that they have given permission for their
phone numbers to be gathered," said Appitalism.com CEO Simon
Buckingham. When they do, he predicted, hell is going to break loose.
Facebook dropped a privacy bombshell on an unsuspecting user base
before the start of the holiday weekend: Going forward, it will make
a user's address and mobile phone number accessible as part of the
User Graph object. That means that users' addresses and mobile
numbers are now available to third party developers of such apps as,
say, FarmVille.
Facebook acknowledged it was dealing with "sensitive information" in
the blog post making the announcement. For that reason, it created a
special opt-in permission requirement for the phone number and
address to be explicitly granted to the application developer
through Facebook's standard permissions dialog.
It also pointed out that these permissions only provide access to a
user's address and mobile phone number -- not to friends' addresses
or mobile phone numbers.
...
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/71662.html
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:34:26 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Your most dangerous possession? Your smartphone
Message-ID: <p06240807c95a57ed58a0@[10.0.1.2]>
Your most dangerous possession? Your smartphone
By Blake Ellis, staff reporter
January 11, 2011
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Forget what's in your wallet -- beware your
smartphone. It's becoming one of your most dangerous possessions.
If your phone was stolen a few years ago, the thief could make prank
calls and read your text messages. Today, that person can destroy
your social life -- you said what on Facebook?! -- and wreak havoc on
your finances.
Now that smartphones double as wallets and bank accounts -- allowing
users to manage their finances, transfer money, make payments,
deposit checks and swipe their phones as credit cards -- they are
very lucrative scores for thieves. And with 30% of phone subscribers
owning iPhones, BlackBerrys and Droids, there are a lot of people at
risk.
...
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/11/pf/smartphone_dangers/
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)
|
| |
or 