From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 23 02:00:12 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2N70CQ22935; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:00:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:00:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403230700.i2N70CQ22935@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #135 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:00:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 135 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CallVantage 'Mainstreaming' VoIP? If so, They've Got Some (VOIP News) CableNET '04 Lists Nearly 50 Participants (VOIP News) Passing ANI From PBX to PBX (16paws) Need Assistance with Mitel SX200D (Larry Rachman) Re: Last Modern Towns to Go Dial? (John Levine) Re: Last Modern Towns to Go Dial? (Fred Goldstein) Re: Last Modern Towns to Go Dial? (Carl Navarro) Re: Last Modern Towns to Go Dial (BV124@aol.com) Re: Western Union Clocks (Tony P.) Re: Western Union Clocks (Chuk Gleason) Re: Lawsuit Regarding Excessive Prison Phone Charges (William Warren) Re: Lawsuit Regarding Excessive Prison Phone Charges (Lisa Hancock) Re: Variety of Phone Numbers -- 1950s (Tony P.) Re: Variety of Phone Numbers -- 1950s (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: New York City 911 Data - Anywhere? (Tony P.) FOILs, was Re: New York City 911 Data - Anywhere? (Danny Burstein) Bloglines (John Mayson) 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 is 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; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:31:10 -0500 Subject: CallVantage 'Mainstreaming' VoIP? Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/41167 CallVantage 'Mainstreaming' VoIP? If so, They've Ggot Some Catch-up Work to Do Time Magazine's on-line edition says AT&T's "CallVantage" VoIP service promises to "bring the technology into the mainstream", with one analyst opining that the service "should broadly legitimize VOIP for residential customers". However it's AT&T who has some catching up to do if they hope to compete with established providers like Vonage, argue our VoIP forum regulars. They claim AT&T's feature-set is skimpy, their area code selection is limited, and on top of being $5 more a month than Vonage, the added fees make the service comparably unattractive (particularly the $59.99 early termination fee). Full article, with embedded links (e.g. to the aforementioned Time article) at: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/41167 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:25:15 -0500 Subject: CableNET '04 Lists Nearly 50 Participants Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Just in case you think the cable industry hasn't taken notice of VoIP ... http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040322005996&newsLang=en March 22, 2004 03:06 PM US Eastern Timezone CableNET '04 Lists Nearly 50 Participants; VoIP and OCAP Are Among Highlights of Exhibit at The National Show LOUISVILLE, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 22, 2004--CableNET(R), the broadband industry's premiere technology showcase, has announced its list of about 50 broadband demonstrations in this year's exhibit. CableNET is co-sponsored by CableLabs(R) and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and will be among the highlights at the annual NCTA Convention and International Exhibition to be held in New Orleans May 2-5. Now in its 12th year, CableNET magnifies the true value of broadband services by once again offering a hands-on experience with many of the most exciting technologies that cable operators may provide in the next several years. Overall, the content, services, and applications demonstrated are expected to improve the lives of cable customers. Designed as an educational forum, CableNET enables attendees to see and discuss new technologies such as interactive services and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) with experts from supplying companies. Among the highlights of this year's CableNET are Advanced Digital Broadcast showing an end-to-end OpenCable(TM) Application Platform (OCAP(TM)) system, several demonstrations of interactive applications by the American Film Institute and its development partners; and displays of advanced VoIP calling features. Full press release at: http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040322005996&newsLang=en ------------------------------ From: 16paws <16paws@comcast.net> Subject: Passing ANI from PBX to PBX Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:40:26 -0500 I work for a large corporation and with dozens of PBX's. The current situation allows us to capture the ANI at the receiving PBX, but the ANI is dropped if the call is transferred to another PBX. Is there a way to pass the ANI from PBX to PBX? Thank you. Barry358 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 04:07:06 GMT From: Larry Rachman <_lr_@yahoo.com> Subject: Need Assistance with Mitel SX200D I administer a Mitel SX-200D (G1005) which has been incredibly reliable for the past 10 or so years. Last week, we installed two new T1 circuits and began having troubles at roughly the same time. The switch will accumulate software errors that look like this in the log: 2004-MAR-12 09:21:53 Main Control trace back at address = 10A9DC dialing.dialing_digit_receive : 1EC 2004-MAR-12 09:21:53 Main Control trace back at address = 10BC74 dialing.dialing_seize_ack : 1EC 2004-MAR-12 09:21:53 * CP Process recovered from software error #01 Exception = unas_tp at address = 10BC74 The software error # increases from 01 to 50 over a period of about 4 hours during heavy system operation, and then the system resets, dropping all calls. This seems to not happen (or happen a **LOT** less) during low traffic times). So far, we've done the following: Replaced the CPU and all daughter boards... twice Replaced the CPU bay power supply Replaced the Switch matrix card Replaced the floppy disk drives Backed up the database and run from a different set of floppies Backed out to the two original T1 cards bringing in service Pretty much, we've run out of things to try. There is another SX-200D sitting next to this one, running off the same power, that is working flawlessly. Our dealer tells us that this is the sort of log error that they'd normally take back to Mitel, except that Mitel is no longer supporting the SX-200D. Anyone with a suggestion, please email me directly. Thanks, Larry Rachman ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2004 03:51:03 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Last Modern Towns to Go Dial? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I don't know when the last independent cutover to dial was. I believe it was Bryant Pond, Maine, on October 11, 1983. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: Last Modern Towns to Go Dial? Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:10:06 -0500 On Monday 22 March 2004 04:15 pm, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) said: > The last cutover was Santa Catalina Island off of California, which I > think was delayed due to the big difficulty of getting a switch out to > it. It went to a modular ESS. IIRC they got a 3ESS, one of the very few of those ever built. It was a small analog switch, obsolete before it came out, because everything else was going in digital. AT&T was slow. > I don't know when the last independent cutover to dial was. Long-time readers of the Digest (when it was new, ca. 1981) may remember the saga of the Bryant Pond Telephone Company in Maine. They had the last full-scale manual local exchange in the country (toll stations don't count), about 400 lines, switched in Elden Hathaway's living room. (Please no calls between 10 and 7 unless it's an emergency.) Elden retired and sold it to Oxford County Tel, who wanted to put in dial (a secondhand stepper!). This led to something like "The Movement To Preserve America's Most Historic Telephone Exchange" with its motto "Don't Yank the Crank". I still have the T-shirt, a candlestick phone whose cord spells out that message. There's a book about it. The movement failed and Bryant Pond went dial ca. 1982. It's now on a DMS-10. Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary dot com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Last Modern Towns to Go Dial? Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:53:19 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On 22 Mar 2004 08:19:18 -0800, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote: > In 1950, a good deal of the Bell System's customers were still served > by purely manual exchanges. In the 1950s, the Bell System converted > the bulk of the remaining system to dial and also accomodated > tremendous growth. > It didn't all happen overnight. I know of two suburban towns in my > narea that didn't get converted until around 1962; one town was a > pretty large suburb. > The last cutover was Santa Catalina Island off of California, which I > think was delayed due to the big difficulty of getting a switch out to > it. It went to a modular ESS. > I don't know when the last independent cutover to dial was. > I'm curious about large towns (not rural hamlets) that still had > manual service after 1960. If anyone has any stories, could you post > publicly them? (If any are in the NYC metro area, a date would be > helpful since I could look that up in the NY Times.) Our last office in a small town to cut to dial tone was in 1978 or '79.) It went from manual to Quatman Step with DTMF, McClure OH 419-748). The white pages are 4 pages long, in a 5x8 1/2 format and the phone numbers are 1 2 3 and 4 digits long. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chicago started cutting over to dial > service in the 1930's, but suspended the cutover when Western Electric > was nationalized by the federal government during World War Two. The > cutover then resumed in 1946 and was complete in 1948 wheh the last of > the manual offices (Chicago-Humboldt) was converted. I distinctly remember that the PROspect exchange was cut over sometime between the summer of 1955 and Spring of '56. I was very concerned becuase I didnt' know how to dial a phone, I just gave the operator my friends number PROspect 66094. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: BV124@aol.com Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:13:07 EST Subject: Last Modern Towns to Go Dial I have a very vivid memory of my childhood in the 1950s in Berwyn, IL, (312-GUnderson-4), a nearby suburb of Chicago. I had two sets of aunts and uncles who lived on the west side of Chicago in the Lawndale neighborhood. Both of them had telephones WITHOUT dials (312-LAwndale-1 & 312-CRawford-7). When you picked them up, the Operator answered "Number please." Even more amazing (and I may be wrong here, but the memory is pretty clear) is that I recall WE (in Berwyn) could dial THEM (in Chicago) direct, but they needed the operator to get ALL of their calls. Maybe you or some other readers have memory of when the LAwndale exchange converted to dial. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Western Union Clocks Organization: ATCC Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:59:26 GMT In article , lalalaNOSPAM@crazyhat.net says: > In message <> > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) did ramble: >> I don't know why it's so hard to keep time coordinated. In the >> Philadelphia area, the transportation authority tells riders to use >> Bell (Verizon) time, 215-846-1212, as a standardized source. My $20 >> Casio "50M" watch is pretty reliable. Bell has offered that service >> since at least the 1960s (846 was TIme 6). > This always confuses me. One of my servers pulls from NTP sources on > the next, the rest synch from there. My phones all set themselves > (Analog, via CID/CND data). My bedroom clock not only has a backup > battery, but it also receives over the air signals, and is able to set > itself as well. > Given that the data is out there, via a network, or being broadcast, > why is it such a challenge in the business world? Most PBS stations (All if I'm not mistaken as both WGBH Channel 2 Boston, and WSBE Channel 36 Providence both do so.) send a time signal in the blanking interval. My Philips VCR can sync the time by tuning to a PBS station. Pretty cool feature as I never have to manually set the damned clock. ------------------------------ From: Chuk Gleason Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:04:28 -0500 Subject: Re: Western Union Clocks Might this link be to an external device to keep your clocks on time? http://www.piexx.com/imp1/imp1dc.html Chuk G. Cary, NC > Mike Riddle wrote: >> Several years ago our esteemed moderator ran several articles on >> Western Union Clocks. These were typically installed in train >> stations and other public places. They were electrically powered, >> self-winding (made by the "Self-Winding Clock Company") and >> synchronized with the Naval Observatory on a periodic basis through >> a 20 or 60 ma (I'm not sure which right now) circuit to Western >> Union. ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: Lawsuit Regarding Excessive Prison Phone Charges Organization: Comcast Online Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:36:02 GMT William Warren wrote in message news:telecom23.133.2@telecom-digest.org: > Schaffrath wrote in message > news:telecom23.132.17@telecom-digest.org: >> Danny Burstein wrote: >>> New York, NY -- >>> A filing today (11-March-2004) with the Federal Communications >>> Commission (FCC) asks the agency to examine the harm caused by high >>> phone rates charged to people in prison, and criticizes the >>> relationships between prison administrators and commercial phone >>> companies that give rise to the unusually high rates. [snip] > It seems the judicial system is being called on, yet again, to lesson > the incredible pain that those with relatives inside the bars have to > suffer because the system done them wrong. In Kafkaesque parady of a > sensible world, we law-abiding citizens are being told that those who > choose to associate with convicted felons can't suffer any > inconvenience by it. [snip] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What Bill says *might* be true in > prisons *most of the time*, however the vendors of the telephone > service in prisons are also installing their high-priced, very > restrictive telephone service in jails and police lockups as well. > Since everyone knows that police never make any mistakes in their > judgment of who is to be locked up, I would guess by that same > reasoning the incarcerated people should be treated as 'criminals' > right from the beginning. [snip] > Unfortunatly, the US Constitution has this thing in it where the > pre-selected scummy criminals are entitled to a trial, etc. Police > and prosecutors don't really care for that provision, but they have > to humor the ignorant parents and other family members by allowing the > scum of the first part to have a trial.[snip] > Bill. did I interpret what you said about phone calls correctly? PAT] Pat, I said "convicted felons". What I said applies to those _CONVICTED_ of crimes, since my experience is only with systems in medium and maximum security prisons. As to gaols, lockups, the clink, etc.: I think anybody over the age of ten knows that they're nothing like what we saw on the Andy Griffith show. Although I'm sure we could argue endlessly about the treatment due people _CHARGED_ with a crime, the social approbrium that _used_ to be attached to even being _questioned_ by police, let alone arrested, has largely dissappeared in the face of well-publicized abuses of both the law enforcement system and the judiciary. Yes, I think those arrested are entitled to a free phone call, so long as it's not to a foreign country, but I don't think there's any reasonable alternative to having automated-attendent systems handle the administrative, technical, and (let's be frank) financial burden of subsequent telephone conversations. There just isn't enough manpower or enough budget to justify human intervention anymore: nothing against those arrested, but I'm battling my own budget war, and my taxes are already too high. FWIW. YMMV. Bill ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Lawsuit Regarding Excessive Prison Phone Charges Date: 22 Mar 2004 19:40:41 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: While I'm far from an expert, I have had exposure to the criminal justice system and telecommunications and I must offer some observations: 1) Prison phone calls are a big profit for the states. IMHO, that's unfair and bad policy. 2) Families do not "choose" to be associated with prison inmates, as one poster suggested. Stuff happens. 3) One night my family got a phone call from my father who was en route home from work. He was in poor health at the time. He was calling from a stranger's house where he was stranded. (There was no public phone nearby but someone was nice enough to let him come inside to use the phone. Pre cellphone days.) Seems that the cops pulled over his carpool driver under suspicion of a crime, even though the driver had his work ID and with my father (an older man at that point). They took him in, stranding my father. Eventually the man was released but was put through the ringer. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lisa, Lisa, Lisa ... of course we want > the criminals going back into crime when they get out. The Corrections > Industry has to survive also. Just ask any police officer; all that > rot about 'rehabilitation' is just a pipe dream by a liberal social > worker. If they were not scum, they would not be in prisons, jails or > police lockups to start with, and I've already discussed how, by > extension, their family, pastors, other friends are scum as well. That > damn Supreme Court is to blame! They are the ones who insisted that > people get some rights, so they have to be given phone calls. At the > very least, keep them so outrageously expensive that almost no one > can afford it. As you point out, some states have effectively made > personal visitation of prisoners impossible, let's not allow for cheap > phone calls to get in the way. PAT] As in any industry, there are good and bad cops, good and bad judges, and good and bad prison administrators. But you would be surprised at how many prison officials really do seek rehabilitation within the resources they have. Prison officials do not set policy or the way their facilities run. That is done by the state legislature, which balances the public's "lock 'em up throw away the key" against the ACLU concerns and an ever inadequate budget. (See "The Big House" movie, made in 1930. Nothing has changed.) As to telephones for inmates, it is a good idea, it is good for society, and it ought to be charged at cost. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Variety of Phone Numbers -- 1950s Organization: ATCC Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:07:22 GMT In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says: > I found an old rail schedule (North Shore Line -- Chicago to > Milwaukee) of the 1950s, and it shows a variety of telephone number > types. > Today, we take for granted nationwide direct-dialing. But in order to > make that happen, the Bell System had to assign every subscriber in > the U.S. a unique phone number. That was much harder than it sounds. > Back in the 1950s and earlier, the size (length) of a phone number > varied on the size of the town. The big cities had 7 digit numbers > just like today. Many smaller cities and towns had 5 digit numbers > x-nnnn (that seems to be the most common). But I've seen 6, 4, and 3 > digit numbers as well. One small place had a phone number 1234-F2. I > don't know what "F2" meant, probably a ringing code for a large > multi-party line. Back in the 80's you could still dial 5 digits in North Kingstown, RI. It was either 5 or 6 and then 4 digits within NK. From everywhere else it was 26(5 or 6) + nnnn. > But the big problem was dealing with the local switches and tandem > machines. To add digits on an SxS system meant that either more > switches would be required or "absorption" switches would be required. > Indeed, until the 1980s, many 5 digit towns could continue using 5 > digits for local calls and needed only 7 for calls to/from outside the > town. But all this required special planning and translations in the > long distance switches. Yep -- this was true in many communities in RI, only one I'm familiar with is NK. Interestingly cities like Woonsocket, Pawtucket, and Newport all have exchanges that start with 76, 72 and 84. I suspect they were on stepper at one point or another. Providence has always had a mix of exchange codes, and there is evidence that Providence was one of the cities in which a Panel switch was used at one time. But there's a gap I don't know about - the Panel was installed during the 20's - with a 30 year service life for most gear it would have been decommissioned in the 50's so it's likely Providence got Xbar gear, and then in the mid 70's went ESS. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:08:26 EST Subject: Re: Variety of Phone Numbers -- 1950s In a message dated 22 Mar 2004 08:14:30 -0800, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) writes: > Back in the 1950s and earlier, the size (length) of a phone number > varied on the size of the town. The big cities had 7 digit numbers > just like today. Many smaller cities and towns had 5 digit numbers > x-nnnn (that seems to be the most common). But I've seen 6, 4, and 3 > digit numbers as well. One small place had a phone number 1234-F2. I > don't know what "F2" meant, probably a ringing code for a large > multi-party line. When I lived in Konawa, Oklahoma, in the early 1950s the place was served by a terminal-per-line step-by-step office. Individual lines were 3 digits, party lines 4 digits, the fourth digit designating the ringing current to be applied. This also mean that any regroups or moves on party lines meant some or all of the parties had to have their numbers changed and there could be no reference of calls on party lines. A number of the form 1234-F2 was indeed a number fo a large multi-line, usually a ground-return magneto line, and "F2" was indeed the ringing code. F1, one short ring; F2; two short rings; F131, one short, one long and one short, and numerous other more complicated combinations. These were usually rural lines, often owned by the subscribers, and could exist in large exchanges as well as small. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: New York City 911 Data - Anywhere? Organization: ATCC Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:11:23 GMT In article , a_user2000@yahoo.com says: > cstabbert@yahoo.com (Cliff Stabbert) wrote in message > news:: >> Hi. I've been trying to locate some specific information on 911 calls >> in New York over the last six months to a year. >> Ideally, I'd like to be able to get information calls dispatched to >> specific precincts broken down by incident type (domestic/assault/ >> theft etc.), by time of day, and by day of the week. >> Googling around has led to NYPD's CompStat information, which provides >> precinct-level crime statistics, but isn't really what I'm looking >> for. >> It's a tall order, perhaps. So far, calling the NYPD (both main >> information and specific precincts) and the New York mayor's office >> hasn't gotten me very far (the information doesn't exist, or isn't >> public, or would be released only under FOIA). Anybody have a clue >> whether this information is out there, and if so, how I'd get it? >> If there's a better newsgroup to post this in, or some other forum >> that might provide leads, please let me know. >> Thanks in advance, >> Cliff > Actually a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request is extremely easy > to file and doesn't necessarily have to follow any form. Just state > exactly what you are looking for in a letter and state the request is > being made under the auspices of the Freedom of Information Act. Oh boy -- that's a good one. When I was at the AG's office it took meeting after meeting to get real incident data (PPD didn't use the same RMS as the rest of the state so we had to get exports!). Then it was decided we should get dispatch data too. This became 4 meetings with PPD, then 2 with ProvComm while they figured out who owned the dispatch data. ------------------------------ From: danny burstein Subject: FOILs, was Re: New York City 911 Data - Anywhere? Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:33:33 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) writes: >> Hi. I've been trying to locate some specific information on 911 calls >> in New York over the last six months to a year. > Actually a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request is extremely easy > to file and doesn't necessarily have to follow any form. Just state > exactly what you are looking for in a letter and state the request is > being made under the auspices of the Freedom of Information Act. The responding gov't agency only has to provide the information if it's something that they've already compiled in the normal course of their business. So to use this example, if the NYPD tabulates monthly statistics of this type by precinct or community board, then you can get that monthly report (maybe ...). If they don't have such reports, they do NOT by any interpretation of FOIL have to put it together for you. NOTE that there are plenty of exceptions to FOIL, particularly when you're trying to get material from a law enforcement agency, doubly so if there's a hint of politics, triply if it's something they don't necessarily want getting out (do you really think any gov't agency anywhere is happy with the public overseeing their perfomance [a]), and quadruply if they suspect the slightest "security" concern. For this specific info there's a reasonable chance the NYC Council Public Safety Committee has this material. It might be worth sending a polite note to them. Contact info at: http://www.nyc.gov . [a] Mayor Mike's administration is far more public than those of some past and interim mayors, but there's still plenty of institutional inertia. _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Bloglines Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 05:42:31 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com A few weeks ago Pat told us about his blog. At the time I was scratching my head wondering why anyone would blog or read one. I'll admit I've gotten hooked on Pat's. In the meantime I have discovered RSS feeds, but wasn't really sure what those were or what to do with them. This past weekend I discovered Bloglines http://www.bloglines.com which allows you to select RSS feeds (which include many blogs along with various news sources). All I can say is this site is incredible! I no longer have to muddle through various websites catching up on my reading. It's all right here in one place. It notifies me when a new article becomes available. I can save articles for reference. To make this posting even remotely telecom related, I found this interesting article on wifi: http://wifinetnews.com/archives/003116.html And I see Pat has not updated his blog today. ;-) John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I have not updated it (as of early Tuesday morning, 12:50 AM Central time). Trouble is, John, I get so tired, so early and so often. I will probably go and work on it yet tonight before going to bed. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 TELECOM Digest V23 #135 ******************************