From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 24 04:46:50 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i9O8knS02723; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 04:46:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 04:46:50 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410240846.i9O8knS02723@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 #511 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Oct 2004 04:46:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 511 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 11-Sept Police Widow Gets Domain-Cyberburned (Gene S. Berkowitz) Re: 11-Sept Police Widow Gets Domain-Cyberburned (Rick Merrill) Re: 11-Sept Police Widow Gets Domain-Cyberburned (John Levine) Cybersquatter Update (TELECOM Digest Editor) Making Geurilla War for Cybersquatters (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Who Carries TV Signals and Long Distance -- Today? (Neal McLain) 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; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: 11-Sept Police Widow Gets Domain-Cyberburned Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:25:24 -0400 In article , first.last@comcast.net says: > In article , dannyb@panix.com > says: >> "The widow of a hero NYPD Emergency Service detective killed on 9/11 >> created a Web site as a loving tribute to her husband -- only to have >> it snapped up by a heartless Internet company that forced her to fork >> over $800 to buy it back, The Post has learned. >> "Kathy Vigiano's gut-wrenching ordeal began in January when she >> discovered that her husband Joseph's memorial Web site -- which she >> filled with personal photos and an emotional letter from one of their >> sons -- had been replaced by ads for penile-enlargement tools, >> sexual-performance drugs and Viagra... >> http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/30859.htm >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The very same people did that to our >> internet-history.org site as well. If you type in >> http://internet-history.org you get the very same preposterous ads. >> And of course, the guy wants to sell that one also. I **thought** >> there were laws against that sort of cybersquatting, but I guess >> that only pertains for large commercial web sites. Any damn fool >> would know that 'internet history' was discussed there on the site >> which was the property of the Internet Historical Society, which is >> *my* name, and it was a running site for three or four years. Yet, >> that moron simply walked away with it, got the org registrar to give >> it to him I guess. >> I had asked John Levine to take it away from the person and give it >> back to me. John won't do it. I thought he was one of the registrars >> for .org ... so I know how this poor lady feels now as well. But I can >> tell you *I* am not going to pay his blackmail ransom demand. If I had >> any money I would just sue the damn registrar who took it from me and >> gave it to him (I understand he is in some country in Europe. The lady >> should not have paid anything either, just immediatly filed suit >> against the registrar she had used when she first set up the site and >> done it that way. Of course, I have no money to pay any lawyers to >> help me, so that leaves me and internet-history.org high and dry. Maybe >> some attorney doing pro-bono work will be able to get our site back. >> If people would quit paying good money to these charlatans who steal >> the names that netizens use for their web sites, then they would go >> out of business. PAT] > What am I missing here? Where is it actually stated that > "buying" a domain name grants you rights to it in perpetuity? > It's very obvious from the agreements made with the registrars > that you are _renting_ the domain. ICANN insists that no > domain can be registered for more than ten years at a time; that > certainly seems to preclude automatically owning the right to a domain > for life. Of course, by simply renewing it before the term expires, > the rights remain with you. > On the day your "lease" expires, if you haven't renewed, that name > returns to the pool, or is possibly auctioned off by the registrar. > How is this any different from a telephone number? If you stop paying > the bill, the telco shuts off service, and eventually gives (sells) the > number to someone else. Should I sue Verizon to get the phone number > of my childhood home? > Gene > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you are overlooking is that the > lady did not come close to having her domain name for ten years. She > had it at best for two or three years, it was an active domain name > then it up and disappeared when the registrar chose to give it or > sell it to the penis enlargement man. NO. According to the NY Post Article: "They immediately realized they inadvertently allowed the registration for their site ' www.vigiano.com' to elapse [sic] and that each believed the other had renewed it." It wasn't taken, stolen, hijacked, or dematerialized. IT EXPIRED. > What you are overlooking is that very few netizens care much either > way about what ICANN says or thinks should be done. Fine. Then let them actually READ the registration agreements they agree to, and be bound by the terms of that contract. > ICANN *only* represents big business interests anyway, not the > small, average person with a web site. If you don't think that is > the case, then since Microsoft has had their domain name > 'microsoft.com' well over ten years, petition the registrars or > ICANN to force Microsoft to give it up and give others a chance at > it. > Or maybe now that Yahoo has had their domain names for that same > length of time, they can be forced out. No, you completely misunderstand. As recommended, Microsoft, Yahoo, or YOU can register a domain for ten years. If, within 9 years and 364 days you RENEW the domain, it's yours for another ten years. If, instead, at 9 years + 365 days, you decide to go skiing instead of renewing your registration, it returns to the free pool, where ANYONE, including the original registrar, can have a shot at it. The exception being where a name is a recognized trademark, such as "Microsoft" or "IBM". > Oh, and you don't hear ICANN complaining that the joker who > registered 'whitehouse.com' most likely did it knowing full well > that people looking for information on the White House will > unwittingly type '.com' instead of '.gov' ICANN represents big > business only, **not** people like Mrs. Viagino. The government > wants business to control the net; they use ICANN as their tool. > What you are overlooking regards phone numbers is that if a phone > number is listed in a directory and is in active service for no matter > how many years, as your childhood phone number might well have been if > your parents or yourself had chosen to continue living there and were > still referring to that number as your own then one day Verizon > chooses to disconnect it or route it to someone else without so much > as a single notice to you then you *would* have a very actionable > suit against Verizon. And if I "choose" not to pay the bill, Verizon has the right to disconnect my service, unless I dispute the bill. As we are moving into a new paradigm where phones are mobile, and the number has no relation whatsoever to a physical location (other than next to my ear), it's an even more specious argument to claim it as "yours" if you fail to pay for it. > Finally, what you are overlooking is that if the registrar had any > care about people's sensibilities, even if Mrs. Viagino *had* > misunderstood the terms of registration (I do not think she was even > told it had to be renewed, etc) then the registrar might have told > the lady something like 'this is a final notice, the site is being > removed from you; gather up your files, pictures, etc and find some > other place to park them.' There is a very clear distinction that must be made between a domain, which is simply a NAME in a lookup table, and a HOST, where the actual files are stored. You can be pretty sure that the files were still on the hosting server, and could be accessed via the IP address originally assigned, unless that bill wasn't paid either. If people are confused about the difference between a Registrar, who offers domain registration, and a Host, who rents file server space, then maybe they should do a little more research before proffering their credit card number. > Then maybe after two or three weeks shut > it down. Or was the penis-enlargement man in such a rush he could not > spare a week or two for a man killed in the line of duty, leaving a > wife and family behind? Oh, I know it would not matter to ICANN, but > you would think there might have been some courtesy given. PAT] The Post article does not mention the time elapsed from when the registration expired to when the speculator bought it. The real irony in all this: Domain Name: VIGIANO.COM Created on: 25-Jan-04 Expires on: 25-Jan-06 ... they only renewed it for two more years... --Gene ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: 11-Sept Police Widow Gets Domain-Cyberburned Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:34:58 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you are overlooking is that the > lady did not come close to having her domain name for ten years. She > had it at best for two or three years, it was an active domain name > then it up and disappeared when the registrar chose to give it or > sell it to the penis enlargement man. There is NO evidence that it was an "active domain" name: in-use yes, but apparently not having a paid-up registration. The real problem is that ICAN does not have any 'grace period' that keeps a name that has expired. It could have been the fault of the domain registration service that failed to get the registration paid/registered in time. It is this zero tolerance policy that is taken advantage of by domain squatters/robbers. - RM ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 2004 13:01:28 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: 11-Sept Police Widow Gets Domain-Cyberburned Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I had asked John Levine to take it away from the person and give it > back to me. John won't do it. I thought he was one of the registrars > for .org ... You thought wrong. Unless you have a clear case of trademark infringement, which you don't, the only way to get a domain from someone else is to buy it from them. Yes, this is a pain, but it also means that someone else who purports to be the Internet Pioneers can't take your internet-pioneers.org domain away from you. R's, John [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If I had no case of trademark infringment on the Internet Historical Society and internet-history then what makes internet-pioneers any better? Both -history and -pioneers pointed to the same site at xuxa.iecc.com where the files are stored. The cybersquatter purpoted to be the internet historian and got that; why couldn't he purport to be the internet pioneer? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:17:55 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Cybersquatter Update By doing 'whois -h whois.publicinterestregistry.net internet-history.org' I found some interesting details on the cybersquatter who ripped off the name being used as a repository for Internet History Society and put his penis enlargement ads there instead: Domain ID:D104959718-LROR Domain Name:INTERNET-HISTORY.ORG Created On:03-Oct-2004 22:43:28 UTC Expiration Date:03-Oct-2005 22:43:28 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:OnlineNIC Inc. (R64-LROR) Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED Registrant ID:ONLC-1349494-4 Registrant Name:Admin Registrant Organization:BEALO GROUP S.A. Registrant Street1:BP 138 Registrant Street2:BP 138 Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Geneve Registrant State/Province: Registrant Postal Code:1218 Registrant Country:CH Registrant Phone:+41.227347210 Registrant Phone Ext.:1111 Registrant FAX:+41.227347210 Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:www@promotechnology.com Admin ID:ONLC-1349494-1 Admin Name:Admin Admin Organization:BEALO GROUP S.A. Admin Street1:BP 138 Admin Street2:BP 138 Admin Street3: Admin City:Geneve Admin State/Province:- Admin Postal Code:1218 Admin Country:CH Admin Phone:+41.227347210 Admin Phone Ext.:1111 Admin FAX:+41.227347210 Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email:www@promotechnology.com Tech ID:ONLC-1349494-2 Tech Name:Admin Tech Organization:BEALO GROUP S.A. Tech Street1:BP 138 Tech Street2:BP 138 Tech Street3: Tech City:Geneve Tech State/Province:- Tech Postal Code:1218 Tech Country:CH Tech Phone:+41.227347210 Tech Phone Ext.:1111 Tech FAX:+41.227347210 Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email:www@promotechnology.com Name Server:NS1.FWHDNS.COM Name Server:NS2.FWHDNS.COM Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: I am attempting to find an attorney who will handle a probono case for the Internet Historical Society who will attempt to retrieve the name back. Obviously it is hard to sue someone in Switzerland when you are in the USA, but maybe Bealo Group S.A. has a representative or agent here in the USA. If anyone wants to followup on this, please do with a phone call to Geneva, Switzerland to +41.227347.210 Ext 1111 and ask them why they cybersquat on legitimate web sites. Or if you prefer to write to them, send a letter to Bealo Group, S.A. Post Office Box 138, Geneva 1218 Switzerland. Mark your letter to the attention of the person in charge of cybersquatting and penis enlargement ads. Maybe they will answer email sent to them at http://www.promotechnology.com but I sort of doubt it. By looking at their website http://www.promotechnology.com I see it is just a porn outfit anyway. Maybe *they* have a USA representative. I can tell you this much: Bealo Group S.A. and promotechnolgy need to get a good suing, which I may just give them. But that *is* expensive and perhaps futile. Perhaps there are other ways to accomplish the same thing, using geurilla (or do you say 'gorilla' warfare. Read on in the next message to see what I mean. PAT ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 2004 22:18:01 -0400 From: Patrick Townson Subject: Geurilla Warfare and Cybersquatters Thank God there are some registrars who do not submit to the tyranny of outfits like ICANN. One for example is UNONIC where you get the 'us.tf' and 'net.tf' names. Go to http://www.unonic.com and register all you want at no charge. They are all set to re-direct to wherever you want. Someone pointed out to me in private email: > "I wouldn't make any long term plans about a us.tf domain. All the > two-letter domains are assigned to countries and country-like hunks of > territory, like .ca for Canada and .jp for Japan and .to for Tonga. > The.tf domain is assigned to "French Southern Territories" which are a > bunch of uninhabited islands in the Indian Ocean. A while ago the > French government contracted with the English company Adamsnames to > run it as a vanity domain, but now I see at www.adamsnames.tf that the > French want it back, and I expect that sooner or later the us.tf > registration, which was made in 1999 by some guy in Greece, will > expire and since he is nowhere near those islands, they won't let him > renew it. See http://www.taaf.fr/ to find out where .tf really is." I noted that in fact "French Southern Territories" is in the Indian Ocean but getting down in the direction of Antarctica as www.taaf.fr explains. Those people don't give a hoot about what ICANN wants or does not want. None of the 'two letter domains', i.e. .ca or .jp care either way. ICANN claims to own it all, but no one pays any attention. I continued in the private email correspondence asking, > I wonder what the good people at ICANN would do if someone went to > us.tf and took out web sites like Microsoft,Coca Cola, General > Motors, White House, etc, then pointed them all to the most > scurrilous sex web sites there are. He replied: > "That would be fun. Most likely it would get Mr. us.tf > shut down since he and the .tf registrar are in Europe so the big mean > companies all have local lawyers there." I asked: > And why do the registrars have to go along with whatever ICANN has > to say? And why do you feel .com or .org is safe for the long term > but ca jp and those are not? He responded: > "Actual registrations in .ca and .jp are fine so long as you meet the > rules (actual presence in Canada and Japan, in those two cases). But > when you use phoo.us.tf, you're actually using a subdomain of us.tf > and it appears that the random registrations like us.tf are allowed. > "ICANN claims that they are in charge of all the domains, but the > two-letter domains have so far been ignoring them. The three and more > letter domains (ever hear of .coop or .museum or my fave .aero?) are > all in bed with ICANN." ----------------------- Yes, I have heard of those also. But let us now consider and contem- plate a perfectly dreadful, perfectly evil scenario: it is so dreadful and awful and evil and even illegal in some jurisdictions, that I certainly cannot recommend it. It goes like this: first, make a list of your 'favorite' large companies; Microsoft, SBC, AT&T and McDonalds come to mind. Next, you go to UNONIC (United Names Organization) at http://www.unonic.com . It is an automated process where you are asked to sign up for a domain name. You get a drop down menu of all the available sub-domains available, such as '.us'. '.net', etcetera, all of which end in the domain '.tf' You sign up your favorite large companies one by one. You are then asked to identify the administrator of the domain. Now this must be your own name and address, and an email address. **DO NOT** REPEAT **NOT** put down something fictious like 'Bealo Group SA' with an address in Switzerland or an email address such as @www.promotechnology.com. Use your own name/email. Pick an easy to remember password, because when you sign up other companies with their own 'web sites' also, if you use the same name of administrator and same email address, you will be told 'already have that one; provide the password and this new one will take control of your domain group. ' Naturally, for additional companies you sign up, you will want to use your correct name on them as well. Don't get in the habit of just putting down 'Bealo Group SA' and some address in Switzerland. Now as you sign up each of your favorite companies you will be asked where to redirect calls to that URL. Re-direct the calls to wherever they should go; some nice web site which reflect the proper spirit. Don't just redirect to some crude, rude, or lewd or pornographic website. Remember, it is a fully automated process; no one is going to be spying or checking up on you. And be sure to cloak the true URL you send callers to. By 'cloaking' it, your new title goes on the page, and your alias URL name appears on the caller's browser window. Basically what happens is a new window opens where you take zero 'frames' and the picture which was there gets a hundred percent of the 'frames' when you 'cloak' it or hide the re-direction. So now you have a 'web site' all set up in the form brandname.us.tf or companyname.net.tf ... and callers to that URL go to the nice web site they should be at. Ah, but the best fun is yet to come. Now your new web site has to be promoted; customers need to know where to find you. For this, you spam *massively*. Every domain in the world you can think of. Every name you can think of; maybe use a brute force dictionary appoach. But try hard to skip past those spam filters: A nice, clean unassuming short letter such as Subject: Our change of email address brandname.com now receives its email at brandname.us.tf or companyname.com now receives email at companyname.net.tf. Check out our improved, easy to use web site at www.brandname.us.tf **Make certain** this change of email address letter *at the very least* gets to the key executives at brandname or companyname. Even if you prefer not to spam the whole world, at least get it to those important officials in that company or agency, such as their lawyer, their president, their VP, etc. You know they are going to want to check out their 'new email address' or 'new web home' which is why the cloaking is very important. I mean, you are much too modest to have them wind up looking at a page on _your computer_ if that is where the pages are at you wanted them to see. Maybe you could use a throwaway account. Now someone at brandname is going to want to meet you personally, to discuss what you have done, and some one or more lawyers or investigators will want to counsel you about your work and this is where _accurate_ information regards the name of the administrator in the files of unonic.com is so important. They are not going to go chasing off to some uninhabited island in the southern Indian Ocean around Antarctica when they could do 'whois' and find out the details as they prepare their lawsuits against that person. If you had filled in the registration purporting to be Bealo Group SA that would be wrong. Bealo Group is known to be cybersquatters and hosts of numerous sex sites, so when brandname or companyname lawyers get to that point and see Bealo Group as the contacts, it is going to be a bit awkward to say the least for Bealo Group to explain it all. *YES* we are cybersquatters, *YES* we do operate sex sites as per http://promotechnology.com, and *YES* we try to trick guys into measuring their penises and buying our worthless pills and potions for which we have no medical license to sell or treat anyone, but *NO* we did not confiscate the brand names Microsoft, or Coke, or McDonalds or SBC and try to trick the public into coming to those redirected sites which have our name as the administrators. So now I trust you can understand why it is so important, so critical when going to a fully automated, no questions asked, no fees charged registrar like http://unonic.com to only select brandnames over which you have control and to make sure you enter the name of the site administrator correctly and to make sure you do the redirection correctly. Do not put down Bealo Group in Geneva,CH at the phone number +41.227347.210, because you might cause them to get sued by angry brandnames and companynames. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:51:19 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: Who Carries TV Signals and Long Distance -- Today? Lisa Hancock wrote: > With satellites and competing companies that own their > own fibre networks, does AT&T still carry broadcast > transmissions today? If not, when did the transition > start? Anthony Bellanga responded: > Also in the later 1970s, emerging national-in-scope > Cable-TV services such as HBO, CSPAN, CBN, CNN, etc. > chose to distribute via satellite directly to local > cable franchise operation centers rather than use Bell > System facilities. I also don't know if Bell had enough > landline VIDEO capacity using the technology of the > time for all of the new emerging cable services, on > a NATIONAL basis. The "new emerging cable services" didn't emerge until satellite distribution made them economically feasible. Before satellites came along, cable television systems relied almost exclusively on broadcast stations for their programming. Given enough money, the cable industry could have built a microwave network with sufficient capacity to distribute non-broadcast cable-only programming nationally. But the industry never considered it: the cost would have been astronomical. By the early 70s, the industry had been around for 25 years, and there were far more cable headends than broadcast stations in the country. A ground-based microwave network for cable TV would have had to reach many more end-points than the network AT&T was operating for the broadcast networks. Headends in remote places like mountaintops or barrier islands might never have been reached. The first nationally-distributed satellite-delivered non-broadcast programming service was Time Inc's HBO, launched in December 1975 on Satcom 3R. Prior to its satellite launch, Time had been using non-AT&T microwave to distribute HBO to its own cable systems in the northeast. Time wanted to extend HBO's coverage nationwide, and satellite was the only economically-feasible way to do it. Once HBO broke the ice, other non-broadcast services soon followed. By 1979, programming was available from Turner Communications Group (WTCG, now TBS Superstation), Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Southern Satellite Systems (Satellite Programming Network, or SPN), USA Network, C-SPAN (sharing transponder time with USA), ESPN, and Nickelodeon. A year later, Turner launched CNN, the first in a string of non-broadcast services that now includes Cartoon Network, CNNSI, CNNFN, Headline News, TCM, and TNT. Of course, not all of these new services survived. CBN became ABC Family; SPN morphed into CNBC. Others flashed across the horizon and disappeared: Reuters "Newsview"; FNN (Financial News Network); TEC (The Entertainment Channel); HTN (Home Theater Network); MSN (Modern Satellite Network); Cinemerica. But the basic financial model worked: operating a non-broadcast satellite-delivered programming service proved to be a viable business. These services now make up the bulk of the programming offered by cable television systems on their basic and extended-basic tiers. Lisa continued: > With satellites, is there a problem with transmission > lag time? Anthony continued: > Radio/TV network broadcasting is different [from > telephone conversations] in that a program usually > originates from one point (or maybe a small number of > locations) and is sent to "everyone" across the > country... Programming production studios sometimes have a trio of video monitors sitting side-by-side: - The first displays the program signal directly from the studio. - The second displays the downlink from the programmer's own uplink, after a delay of about 0.24 seconds (one round trip to/from a geostationary satellite). - The third displays the downlink from the DirecTV or Dish Network, after a delay of about 0.48 seconds (two round trips). It's fascinating to watch the same image signal jump from monitor to monitor. But a home viewer would never be aware of it. But two-way phone conversations make the round-trip delay obvious. I often notice this on CNN when the studio anchor asks a question of a field reporter who is using a videophone. After the anchor finishes the question, we watch the reporter just standing there (trying not to look stupid) for a half second before answering. Neal McLain ------------------------------ 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. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 TELECOM Digest V23 #511 ******************************