TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:00:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 123

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Wireless E-Mail: Attack of the BlackBerry Killers? (Marcus Didius Falco)
    Cell Phone ATT (absmith3@hotmail.com)
    VoIP and Bell DSL: Is it Ready For Prime Time? (Thumper)
    Cell Phone "Caller ID" Needed (Ray Burns)
    Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Paul Coxwell)
    Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Marcus Didius Falco)
    Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Question re: Vonage E-Coupon (Jeff Miller)
    Re: Attacked by a Dog Which was Playing (SELLCOM Tech support)

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; other stuff of interest.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:57:29 -0500
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Wireless E-Mail: Attack of the BlackBerry Killers?


http://economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3D3775141

 From The Economist print edition

The seemingly ubiquitous e-mail device faces growing competition.

WHAT Apple's iPod music-player is to teenagers, the BlackBerry e-mail
hand-held is to executives: the gizmo they cannot be seen without, and
often cannot live without. But you probably knew that already: readers of
The Economist are smack in the middle of the BlackBerry demographic. At
conferences, in boardrooms and on commuter planes and trains, they are
everywhere. The BlackBerry has spawned designer accessories; earned a
nickname ( CrackBerry ) that reflects its addictive nature; and even has a
malady ( BlackBerry Thumb ) associated with over-use. But its success means
that the Canadian firm that makes it, Research in Motion (RIM), now faces a
growing throng of competitors.

Most complex technologies start out in industry, then hit mass
scale. We've crossed over now, says Mike Lazaridis, who founded RIM in
1984 while a student at the University of Waterloo in Ontario. RIM
hopes to benefit as wireless e-mail, like the mobile phone before it,
goes from being an executive toy to a technology with mass appeal. But
so do its many rivals.

As a result, warns Brian Modoff, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, RIM has
reached a turning point, as the potential reward of a far wider market
is balanced with the risk of much greater competition.

At the moment, 70% of RIM's revenue comes from the sale of BlackBerry
devices, and the rest from software and services. To broaden its
reach, RIM has licensed the BlackBerry software to big handset-makers
such as Nokia, Motorola and Samsung, while continuing to sell its own
devices. It is therefore both co-operating and competing with some
much larger companies, as it navigates the transition to a more
software-and services-based business. Business-model transitions are
always fraught with challenges, says Mr Modoff.

Other firms sense an opportunity to offer handset-makers their own
BlackBerry-like software instead. This segment is switching from
proprietary innovation to standards-based mainstream growth, says
Danny Shader of Good Technology, a maker of wireless e-mail software
that runs on a wide range of hand-held computers and
smartphones. Without a hardware business, Good is not competing with
the handset-makers (such as Nokia) that license its programs. Its
software, running on Treo and PocketPC hand-helds, is already in use
at nearly 5,000 companies, including seven of America's top ten firms.

Brian Bogosian of Visto, another software firm that hopes to dethrone RIM,
claims that mobile operators, like handset-makers, are also ambivalent
about the BlackBerry. Many operators that resell the BlackBerry co-branded
with their own logos would prefer not to dilute their own brands, he says.

Visto offers white label software that runs on almost any device, and
can be offered by operators under their own brands. So far, Visto has
signed up ten operators, and will announce a deal with one of the
world's biggest operators next month, says Mr Bogosian. Other firms
pursuing a similar strategy include Intellisync, Seven and
Smartner. Patent-infringement claims abound, underlining the intensity
of competition. This week RIM paid $450m to settle a long-running suit
with NTP, based in Virginia. Visto has filed suits against Seven and
Smartner.

If all this were not enough, another threat looms on the horizon:
Microsoft, the world's largest software company. These guys exist
because Microsoft is bad at mobile e-mail, says Mr Modoff. But the
next versions of Microsoft's mail-server and PocketPC software, due in
a few months, will include support for BlackBerry-style push e-mail,
whereby new messages simply appear in the in-box. Anyone who ignores
Microsoft needs to take a history lesson, says Mr Shader, who once
worked at Netscape, a software-maker crushed by Microsoft because its
web browser posed a competitive threat. RIM is risking the same fate,
says Mr Shader, by promoting the BlackBerry as a platform.

Mr Lazaridis is unfazed. Getting mobile e-mail to work is far harder than
it looks, he says, and RIM has over a decade of experience. The complexity
is masked by this very simple, user-friendly device, he says of the
BlackBerry. This is a solution that has evolved and developed, and gone
through trial by fire. Any competitor is going to have to go through that.

We've done it right, we have the brand, we know how to make these
devices.  It's a very high standard to try to match. RIM continues to
improve its hardware and software to maintain its lead, he says.

Yet while RIM will continue to grow at an impressive rate, it will
probably do so more slowly than the overall market as competitors
start to muscle in. One possible outcome is that RIM and Good will end
up fighting over the lucrative corporate market, while the
less-demanding consumer market becomes commoditised. But with hundreds
of millions of e-mail users worldwide and, despite their apparent
ubiquity, only 2.5m BlackBerry devices in circulation, it is still
early days for the mobile e-mail business.

Copyright 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily
media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . Hundreds of new articles daily.

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S.  Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance,Economist Newspaper Group.
 
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

------------------------------

From: absmith3@hotmail.com
Subject: Cell Phone ATT
Date: 19 Mar 2005 19:03:34 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


I have an ATT contract dated in Oct- 2004- before Cingular bought ATT.
Now Cingular is saying that I owe it $170 for cancellation fee if I
tranfer service to Verizon.

My contract was with ATT and I never signed anything with
Cingular. So, looks like the ATT contract is shakey at best.  Does
anybody have any experience similar to mine and didn't pay for
cancellation fees?


Thanks,
 
Abby

------------------------------

From: ThumperStrauss@hotmail.com (Thumper)
Subject: VoIP and Bell DSL: Is it Ready For Prime Time?
Date: 19 Mar 2005 17:10:58 -0800


I've read some of the articles here about VoIP (Internet telephony)
and I'm very intested in signing up. I pay almost $50 for my local
phone line with Bell (with voice mail and caller ID) and I'd like to
not have to. Vonage, Primus and the others shows rates of $20 + tax
for a service that seems to provide much more than Bell.

I know the issues with VoIP (no 911 service, dependent on power), but
I'd still like to try it. The ability to check you voice mail from the
Web is neat.

I also read the article about Sympatico offering naked DLS at the end
of March 2005. This means you will be able to get a DSL service
without also having a regular phone line.

Does anyone have any news about this? There was talk that Bell might
only offer naked DSL to users who bought the (not yet released?) Bell
VoIP service.

Also, Vonage told me that I can't keep my local Bell number. Anyone
know if the new Bell VoIP service will let me keep my local Bell
number?

Thanks.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A couple things you have described as
'issues' are actually non-issues if you handle them correctly. For
example, take 911. Vonage at least, maybe other VOIP carriers as well,
take pains to advise you when signing up to _make absolutely certain
to activatw your 911 service -- as a separate thing, not done
automatically -- before you start using it._ When I signed up with
Vonage a couple years ago, I also completed the PSAP form telling them
where I could be physically located. I submited the form in email, got
back an auto-ack from Vonage saying they would register it. Two or
three days later I got two pieces of mail: one was email from Vonage
saying I had been registered with the Montgomery County, Kansas
Sheriff. The other piece of mail came like regular mail, from the City
of Independence Police Department saying I had also been registered.
At the time, Vonage had no POPs in the Kansas area, so I signed up
(for Vonage) with an area 415 number. Then when Vonage expanded their
service to Kansas area 316 and 620 numbers, I took a _local_ 620
number and dumped entirely the 415 number, and I also took a virtual
area 773 number for my friends in the Chicago area who wanted to reach
me easily. The Vonage PSAP department paperwork went through on that
okay, but that same day or the next I got a phone call from the
Sheriff's office who called me on my local landline 620-331-xxxx
number sort of confused. "Did you move over to Winfield?" asked the
lady. The new order from Vonage for a local number in 620 was actually
a Winfield, Kansas number. No hassle, Winfield is a few miles west of
here and the best that Vonage had at the moment. I explained to her
that I was at the same old place, my mother's old house on East Poplar
Street by Second Street. That seemed to satisfy her also. "Yeah, we
know who you are and where to find you," she said. We did a test where
I called her back on 911 using Vonage. She said the screen display
'looked different' but was 'understandable'. Granted, I live in a very
small town, population 8800, one phone exchange for the entire town,
the police dispatcher responds for the sheriff also, and the city
offices and they receive 'two or three 911 calls per day'. So your
milage may vary, but it does seem to work. And in our tiny little
town, the police dispatchers know *everything* and *everybody*. They
seem to know every address in town.   

You also raised an 'issue' with power. If you use a battery backup
unit you get around any problems with power. I have heard people ask,
but what about the DSL/cable line; their power could go out also. Yes,
but there is a chance power could be out at the phone exchange also. I
guess nothing is perfect.  

You also said 'Vonage told you they could not port your number' but
that is only true if they do not have immediate local service in your
telephone exchange. If they have a POP in your town or in your central
office then they can and will be glad to port your number. 

Regards naked DSL, for most parts of the Bell System it is unlikely as
they do business now. SBC, for example has stated they would not do it
and they don't do it except where courts have ordered them to do
so. You would be better off looking at high speed cable internet or
satellite internet if it is possible in your community, as it is here.
PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:07:12 -0500
From: Ray Burns <ray@nanswi.com>
Subject: Cell Phone "Caller ID" Needed



Dear Patrick Townson,

Pat,

I am writing software that communicates from one network-connected
computer to another controlled by a cell phone (XHTML-M). The user
logs in with just a password. Passwords are not guaranteed to be
unique, so I need some sort of phone serial number or other similar
number to append to the password to make it unique. Do you know of
such a phone id number/string that I could access via HTTP/HTTPS?

Thanks,

Ray Burns            Nantasket Software, Inc
617.964.4084(w)      ray@igsw.com
617.966-7439(c)      970 Commonwealth Avenue, Newton Center MA 02459
617.965-5081(f)    

------------------------------

From: Paul Coxwell <paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:52:03 -0000


> This may have been another reason the FCC dropped Channel 1: too
> much interference. Back in the 50s, during the sunspot peak, there
> were a LOT of instances of some Channel 2 in Texas wiping out
> Channel 2 in NY. It happened, IIRC, mostly on Channel 2, and rarely
> on Channel 4. Channel 1 would have been worse.

Here in the U.K. we had a TV channel 1 right up until the closure of
our old 405-line service in 1985.  The main transmitters on ch. 1 were
Crystal Palace (London), Redruth (far southwest of England), and Divis
(Northern Ireland), although many other low-power relays (transposers)
also used it in other parts of the country.

Channel 1 was still using the same frequencies as the original pre-war
BBC service: Video carrier on 45.0MHz, sound on 41.5MHz.  It was
certainly much more susceptible to interference, although all the VHF
"Band I" channels (1 through 5, extending up to about 67MHz) could get
hit by signals from Continental Europe when conditions were right.
The hot summer of 1976 provided many instances of such interference
during the long summer evenings.

It was quite common during the 1970s for the BBC to put up
announcements between programs telling people "Do not adjust your
sets."  As Independent TV used only the "Band III" channels (starting
at ch. 6 from about 174Mhz upward), it was generally less affected
than the BBC.

> There was such a huge amount of misinformation running around among
> the CBers.  I couldn't believe some of the things they would say and
> I can't imagine where they were getting information like that.

It was the same over here.  I took in CB repairs for several years,
but one of the reasons I dropped CB work in the end was that I was
getting more and more fed up with (a) getting nowhere trying to
correct the horrendous misconceptions that were around, and (b) having
to put right sets in which every darned preset and coil had been
interfered with before somebody decided it needed repair and brought
it to me.

One incident sticks in my mind of a guy who had me fit a crystal
I.F. filter in his set.  It improved the receiver's selectivity no
end, but unfortunately, he wasn't at all happy.  Apparently all his
buddies had the modulation on their transmitters cranked up so far
that with his improved receiver they now sounded terrible (and keep in
mind that the British CB service uses FM).  There was just no way I
could convince him that the filter was doing its job exactly as
intended and that he should tell his friends who were splattering over
about three channels either side to get their deviation with limits.

I wouldn't even like to guess at how many sets came in with the
calibration pot on the meter turned up to maximum by somebody who
actually thought he had increased his RF output that way.  Even when a
transmitter did have the output tuned up a little higher, you were on
a losing battle trying to convince most of them that going from 4 to 5
watts carrier power isn't going to make a huge difference and that
raising the antenna or replacing the coax with something less lossly
would have a far greater effect, not to mention improving reception as
well.

-Paul

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:10:46 -0500
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1


Michael D. Sullivan <userid@camsul.example.invalid> wrote about
Re: What Happened To Channel 1? on Sat, 19 Mar 2005 08:02:17 GMT

> Television, on tho other hand, started out in two discontiguous VHF
> bands, with somewhat variable spacing between channels and a need for
> precise tuning, and tuning in on a single band by twiddling an analog
> variable tuning capacitor to the right frequency would have been
> difficult.  This tuning method was used on some early TVs; I don't know
> whether they were tuned by numeric frequency or by channel number, but
> it would not have been very convenient.  The TV industry instead
> standardized on TV tuners that had 12 discrete fixed settings, pre-tuned
> to channels 2-13, with a fine tuning control that allowed one to tune
> the frequency higher or lower to account for offsets.  Later on, tuners
> had separate fine-tuners for each channel so one wouldn't need to retune
> when switching from station to station.  Given the move to fixed-
> position tuning, the use of "digital" numbering of channels instead of
> analog-like frequency designations was an obvious simplification.

I had such a set in the early 50s. Tuning was analog, with detents
and, IIRC, a fine-tuning wheel on the back of the main wheel. Band
switching was done by turning the whole assembly of the main wheel. It
worked.

> When UHF was added, it used a single contiguous band, and most sets
> initially required a separate converter box, which had an analog-style
> variable tuning capacitor that required careful attention to get the
> station one wanted (the pointer is between 30 and 40, is that channel 33
> or 36?), but the tradition of using channel numbers instead of
> frequencies prevailed due to the established TV tradition.  Eventually,
> TVs incorporated the analog-style continuously variable UHF tuner and
> later adopted a fixed-position tuner for UHF.

This was required by the FCC: they required parity in tuning (on all
but the cheapest sets -- under 12 inches IIRC) between UHF and VHF to
promote UHF.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is true, however if you look at
> some FCC documents on FM radio frequency allocations (for example,
> documents on which frequencies are available on which places for
> 'low power' FM). All those documents show both 'frequency' and
> 'channel number' for the spaces between 87.6 FM and 108.1 FM. I
> think they have the 'channels' beginning at 201 and numbering
> upward.  PAT]

If you look at a digital "world band" radio, you will find somewhere a
"europe-america" switch. It's often well hidden. I have one where it's
in the battery compartment. In the Americas the channels on the AM
band are spaced 10 kHz apart. In Europe they are spaced 9 kHz apart,
allowing them to squeeze in a few extra stations. This is significant
only in digital tuning, especially in digital search.

There is something similar in FM. I've forgotten the exact details,
but in US we use only the "odd" frequencies: 88.1, 88.3, 88.5, 88.7,
88.9 MHz. I think in some parts of the world they use the even
frequencies: 88.2, 88.4 etc. This is to get the necessary spacing
between the broadcasts.

One other peculiarity: in most countries, FM is about 88 to 108
MHz. In Japan it's about 78 to 98 MHz. There are a few radios that
will receive the entire band, 78 to 108, but most, including Japanese
brands sold outside Japan, miss the low end of the Japanese band.

------------------------------

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:02:02 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.122.10@telecom-digest.org>,
Michael D. Sullivan  <userid@camsul.example.invalid> wrote:

> A simpler explanation for the use of channel numbers for TV and
> frequencies for FM and AM radio is that (1) AM radio operated in a
> contiguous band covered by an analog variable tuning capacitor and
> never had separate channel numbers, so (2) people were used to tuning
> in radio stations by frequency on a dial, and (3) FM radio likewise
> was in a contiguous band covered by a an analog variable tuning
> capacitor, so people were comfortable tuning in the station by
> frequency.

> Television, on tho other hand, started out in two discontiguous VHF 
> bands, with somewhat variable spacing between channels and a need for 
> precise tuning, and tuning in on a single band by twiddling an analog 
> variable tuning capacitor to the right frequency would have been 
> difficult.  This tuning method was used on some early TVs; I don't know 
> whether they were tuned by numeric frequency or by channel number, but 
> it would not have been very convenient.  The TV industry instead 
> standardized on TV tuners that had 12 discrete fixed settings, pre-tuned 
> to channels 2-13, with a fine tuning control that allowed one to tune 
> the frequency higher or lower to account for offsets.  Later on, tuners 
> had separate fine-tuners for each channel so one wouldn't need to retune 
> when switching from station to station.  Given the move to fixed-
> position tuning, the use of "digital" numbering of channels instead of 
> analog-like frequency designations was an obvious simplification.  

Plausable,  just 'false to fact'.  <wry grin>

In the early days of TV receivers, they were equipped with continuous-
tuning knobs/dials, just like an AM radio receiver.  For the TV band,
however the indicator assembly was marked by "channel", *not* by
frequency.

I used to have a 1930's Crosley TV that had that kind of continuous
tuner.  *BIG* gap on the dial, between channel 6 and 7, It actually
tuned across that entire 'midband' space -- with all kinds of
interesting results.  You could "see" aircraft band transmissions, and
hear stuff on broadcast FM, 2m Ham, and business-band.

[[..  munch  ..]]

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is true, however if you look at
> some FCC documents on FM radio frequency allocations (for example,
> documents on which frequencies are available on which places for
> 'low power' FM). All those documents show both 'frequency' and
> 'channel number' for the spaces between 87.6 FM and 108.1 FM. I 
> think they have the 'channels' beginning at 201 and numbering
> upward.  PAT]

Originally, 199 channels, 100kc spacing, numbered 1-199, corresponding
to frequencies from 88.1 through 107.9 megacycles.  Since then, even
the name of the unit-of-measurement has changed. :) and a few
additional channels have managed to sneak in.  I believe 200 is 108.0,
201 is 88.0, and I'm not sure how they numbered the space below 88.0.



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I seem to recall about 1960 or so there
was a 'christian' radio station in Hammond, Indiana which belonged to
Crawford Broadcasting Company (WYCA perhaps?) which was horribly over-
modulated most of the time and located somewhere in the 89-90 megs
territory on the FM band. Many people did not have FM radios in those
days, but the standing joke was you did not need to purchase an FM
radio to listen to it; all you had to do was tune your television set
to channel 6 (no such channel then or now around Chicago) and tweak
the dial slightly in order to pick up WYCA clearly. About 1989, I 
wrote a piece here in the Digest about that horrible station and all 
the interference they caused in the North Hammond/Burnham, Illinois
area; the FCC finally required the station to work with Illinois Bell
to install filters free of charge on people's phones and other types
of amplifier equipment on request. PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:41:18 -0500
From: Jeff Miller <jeffhambone@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Question re: Vonage E-coupon



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The other day, I received one of my all
too freqeuent questions asking if it was possible to 'double-dip' with
the Vonage e-coupon I offer. I gave my usual answer, no it is
not. Either *I* sell you the telephone adapter (actually, it is drop
shipped from Vonage) and give you the 'rebate' in the form of a month
of free service, or *someone else* -- CompUSA or Best Buy for example --
sells you the adapter and *they* give the rebate; but you don't get it
twice. He then replied as follows, below:   PAT]


PAT --

Thanks for your reply.  That's what I expected, didn't think there'd
be a way to double dip.

Here's the deal I'm getting through CompUSA, which apparently is no
longer being offered:

$60 purchase price for PAP-2
-$50 rebate from Vonage once I have the service for 90 days (with a gotcha 
that says "not combinable with other Vonage offers", should have looked at 
that before asking the question, I suppose)
-$10 rebate from CompUSA (already received)
=$0 (except for sales tax) cost for adapter

Plus, I received a $25 gift card from CompUSA so eventually I'm money 
ahead, looking solely at the acquisition end of things.

However, when I disconnect there will be a $40 disconnect fee
according to the TOS.  There's some information out there indicating
that current Vonage policy is to waive disconnect fees for accounts
using retail adapters; of course, that policy is subject to change at
any time.

OTOH, if I went with the Vonage-provided adapter then the disconnect
fee would be waived (if I returned the adapter) and I could get the
free month, but there's a $30 activation fee and a $10 shipping fee
according to the Vonage website.

Either way, looks like they'd ding me for about $40 coming or going on
top of the monthly service charges -- proving once again TANSTAAFL.

Feel free to any part of the above in the Digest as you see fit.

Jeff

At 02:52 PM 3/19/2005, you wrote:

>         Saw your post on the Telecom Digest about an e-coupon for
>         Vonage service.  Is that e-coupon only applicable to direct
>         activation through Vonage, or can it be applied to activations
>         of equipment purchased through a third-party vendor?

PAT replied:

> I am in essence the 'third party vendor'; although Vonage does the
> drop shipping of the adapter box for me.

>         I purchased my adapter through CompUSA and am ready to
>         activate service, just thought I'd ask before starting out.

PAT replied:

> I believe Comp USA also gives a premium in the form of a month of
> service or perhaps an instant rebate on the cost of the adapter that
> you purchased. You cannot get *two* rebates, sorry.  Either you get
> the rebate Comp USA gives (which in effect comes from Vonage) _or_
> you get the month of service I give for free which also in effect
> comes from Vonage. You cannot get both.

> The way Vonage verifies who gets what is that if you get my e-coupon
> the link enclosed in it walks you through the sign up process, and
> gives you your new phone number, etc. **It requires a credit card
> number from you in the process**

> I think you have two choices at this point:

> 1) if CompUSA did _not_ give you some premium in the process of
> purchasing your adapter (free month of service or rebate on the
> adapter) then ask them for it now.

> 2) return the adapter to them, and use my e-coupon to get an adapter
> through mail order and use the rebate I give (a month of free
> service).

> Sorry.

>         Thanks,
>         Jeff Miller
>         Columbia, MD
>         (Off and on reader of Telecom Digest since 1992)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So, if you have not yet signed up with
any VOIP service, or you have signed up with others but were not 
satisfied and want to try Vonage, then let me know if you want to try
Vonage with an 'e-coupon'. You click on the link in the email I send
you; it takes you to a sign up page for Vonage. It arranges to ship
you a Vonage adapter, gives you your number assigment, etc. You pay
with your credit/debit card. They ship it out same day and you have
it a couple days later. Whatever kind of service plan you sign up for
(_and use your credit/debit card to pay for_) then the e-coupon kicks
in and you get a _second month_ of the very same service plan for
free. That's how the plan I offer works.   PAT]
 
------------------------------

From: SELLCOM Tech support <support@sellcom.com>
Subject: Re: Attacked by a Dog Which was Playing
Organization: www.sellcom.com
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 00:11:12 GMT


SELLCOM Tech support <support@sellcom.com> posted on that vast
internet thingie:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And thanks for your encouraging words
> also. I am going to speak to Dr. Epp (veternarian) or the lady who
> grooms pets (Buffy was taken to get a bath a couple days after she
> first got here) and see if either of them can recommend a good dog
> trainer. Maybe the animal shelter will know of someone.  PAT] 

I still can't help but be in awe of some of those trainers.  I gotta
tell another dog story ... We had one live through the woods from us
and he would help us with our pups from time to time.  One day we were
over at his house in the street and he was doing some training.  One
of his big Rottweiller dogs was chained up at the top of his driveway
just watching. There was a neighbor dog going crazy and he spent about
an hour going through different stuff with our dog and I believe one
other one.

After all the "training" was finished he called his Rottweiller from
the top of the driveway.  It was not chained after all but just lying
up there commanded to "down" or "stay".  I couldn't believe my eyes.

Pretty amazing what these guys can do.

Steve

http://www.sellcom.com
Discount multihandset cordless phones by Panasonic 
5.8Ghz 2line; TMC ET4300 4line Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, Brickmail voicemail
Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Firewood splitters www.splitlogs.com
If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz.  New www.electrictrains.biz


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I need to find someone who can handle
this monster before my entire house gets torn up!  This morning I was
on my way out the door about 10:30 AM when Buffy got loose when the
fence gate was opened; she took off at a gallop all around the neigh-
borhood. The more I called and chased after her, the more she ran up
and down the alley and the street. To her it was just more play, but
I was late for where I was going. I walked over to Eric and Justin,
and got them to help me catch her, which they did, and got her in the
fenced in back yard. When I got back home around 12:30 she had 
systematically taken all my things off the table in the back yard area
and scattered them all around. I need to find someone to help me with
her or else get her a good home somewhere.   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.

              ************************

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 !

              ************************

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

              ************************

   ---------------------------------------------------------------

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 V24 #123
******************************