TELECOM Digest     Mon, 23 May 2005 17:30:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 228

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    ACLU Pizza (Monty Solomon)
    Corporate Identify -- Verizon vs. "Bell Telephone" (GooJa@post.com)
    Packet 8 DTMF Tones Sound Clipped (slippymississippi)   
    Wireless-Services Growth Slows in Europe, Japan (Telecom dailyLead USTA)
    Re: Thinking About VOIP (Tim@Backhome.org)
    Re: Thinking About VOIP (Lou Jahn)
    Re: Thinking About VOIP (Klay Anderson)
    Re: Switch Identification (Justin Time)
    Re: Switch Identification (Mike Cater)
    Re: Cingular / sms.ac Ripoff Alert (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Why Does it Take So Long? (mc)
    Re: Forward Fax to Email (Koos van den Hout)
    Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use? (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Tie Lines was Re: Foreign Exchange Lines Still in Use? (L Hancock)
    Re: Cingular / sms.ac Ripoff Alert (NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO)

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: Sun, 22 May 2005 23:00:27 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: ACLU Pizza


http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

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

From: GooJa@post.com
Subject: Corporate Identify -- Verizon vs. "Bell Telephone"
Date: 22 May 2005 23:21:07 -0700


Previous post by:
Mar 5, 10:53 pm     Michael D. Sullivan

  Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
  From: hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com - Find messages by this author
  Date: 5 Mar 2005 19:53:56 -0800
  Local: Sat,Mar 5 2005 10:53 pm
  Subject: Corporate Identify -- Verizon vs. "Bell Telephone"

As has been done for years, the regular telephone bill mailing
contained an advertising insert for premium products and services.

On a recent Verizon leaflet, at the bottom was a small line, "Bell
Telephone Company of Pennsylvania".

This was curious since that's a very old name that hasn't been used
for years.  Even in the Bell era, they shortened it to just "Bell of
Pennsylvania".  After divesture they became "Bell Atlantic", and IIRC
they legally changed their name to that.  Further, IIRC, their name
change to Verizon was a legal name change as well, not just a
marketing tool.

So, I'm curious as to why they would use an old name on modern sales
literature, esp when they're pushing their most modern high tech
services.  (They changed their name to Verizon specifically to sound
high tech and not old fashioned with 'Bell Telephone').

The only thing I could think of is perhaps it's to distinguish this
mailing for this state, and former Bell customers (as opposed to GTE
customers).

   hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com Mar 6, 11:51 pm  

  Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
  From: Michael D. Sullivan <use...@camsul.example.invalid> - Find
  messages by this author
  Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:51:56 GMT
  Local: Sun,Mar 6 2005 11:51 pm
  Subject: Re: Corporate Identify -- Verizon vs. "Bell Telephone"

In article <telecom24.9...@telecom-digest=AD.org>,
hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com says:

> As has been done for years, the regular telephone bill mailing
> contained an advertising insert for premium products and services.
> On a recent Verizon leaflet, at the bottom was a small line,
> "Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania".
> This was curious since that's a very old name that hasn't been used
> for years.  Even in the Bell era, they shortened it to just "Bell of
> Pennsylvania".  After divesture they became "Bell Atlantic", and IIRC
> they legally changed their name to that.  Further, IIRC, their name
> change to Verizon was a legal name change as well, not just a
> marketing tool.

> So, I'm curious as to why they would use an old name on modern sales
> literature, esp when they're pushing their most modern high tech
> services.  (They changed their name to Verizon specifically to sound
> high tech and not old fashioned with 'Bell Telephone').
> The only thing I could think of is perhaps it's to distinguish this
> mailing for this state, and former Bell customers (as opposed to GTE
> customers).

The various mergers and corporate name changes that have taken place
over the last 20 years among the Bell companies have not, for the most
part, changed the legal name of the operating company within each
state.  All of the Bell Atlantic companies use the Bell Atlantic name
to do business, but the state operating companies all have individual
names, auch as Bell Telephone Co. of Pa.  I think some of them have
changed their names, however.  Most likely the reason for the old name
appearing on the modern literature is a state PUC or statutory
requirement that the actual name of the operating company be provided
on marketing documents.  This would be the name that appears on the
tariff, as well.

Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD, USA
Replace "example.invalid" with ".com".

Gooja@Post.com May 22, 2005

Also since Verizon has a federal trademark on "Bell of Pennsylvania"
they are also maintaining the right to use that name. This trademark
could expire in 2007 or be cancelled unless they renew it.

VERIZON has added the BELL Logo to all its new payphones outside its
original market zones. It appears they are making further new use of
the BELL name since many of the old Baby Bells have stopped using the
name/logo(QUEST/SBC). A federal trademark can be considered abandoned
after 2 years of non-use. It looks like VERIZON is being very wise
about their use of the old name. Just printing the BELL Telephone name
on  a new bill does show current usage of the old trademark. And yes,
there are still holding companies with the names
NYNEX/NY Telephone/New England Telephone/BellAtlantic with current
registered trademarks. VERIZON spent millions buying these trademarks
 --why let them lapse?

We now have Pacific/Nevada Bell phones next to VERIZON BELL payphones
in some areas of the WEST. These Pacific/Nevada Bell phones are slowly
becoming SBC Nevada or SBC Pacific branded phones. I thought SBC would
have complained after Verizon started using the old BELL logo on their
new phones 3 years ago. SBC other than the SouthWestern BELL logo for
telephone accessories does not use the BELL logo anywhere else
recently.  BELL SOUTH and Cincinnati BELL seem to care about keeping
the old names.

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

From: slippymississippi@yahoo.com
Subject: Packet8 DTMF Tones Sound "Clipped"
Date: 23 May 2005 13:07:02 -0700


I have a service that renders text messaging into speech and forwards
the messages to a phone number.  The user then navigates the messages
like a voice mail, using DTMF tones.

One of my customers is using the Packet8 Virtual Office, and when my
computer calls him to deliver the messages, he cannot navigate via
DTMF.  I hooked up a line analyzer and listened to the call, and all
I'm hearing on my end is a "blip blip blip" as he repeatedly presses
the key to save the message.  The DTMF tone basically sounds like it
was clipped at just a few milliseconds ... in fact, I really cannot
discern if it's still a dual frequency tone or not.

If he calls in from the Virtual Office, he can navigate our IVR just
fine, it's just when our IVR calls him and asks for input that he
experiences these problems.  Is this related to the extreme
compression that Packet8 uses?  If so, why would it affect his inbound
calls but not his outbound calls?

TIA.

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

Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 12:43:18 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Wireless-services growth slows in Europe, Japan


Telecom dailyLead from USTA
May 23, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21785&l=2017006

		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Wireless-services growth slows in Europe, Japan
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Telenor snaps up Swedish, Danish ISPs
* Western Wireless fields offers for international assets
* Alcatel names 21CN partners
* Where does Qwest go from here?
* Cablers fight to keep control of set-top boxes, features
USTA SPOTLIGHT 
* See USTA's Small Company Summit Presentations Online -- Free
HOT TOPICS
* FCC approves stricter 911 rules for VoIP providers
* Opinion: IPTV poised to change communications experience
* The role of speed
* Fast-growing IP services not yet profitable
* Wireless renters and the battle to come
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Motorola unveils wireless BPL offering
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Beating spammers in court

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21785&l=2017006

Legal and Privacy information at http://www.dailylead.com/about/privacy_legal.jsp

SmartBrief, Inc.
1100 H ST NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005

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

From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Thinking About VOIP
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 03:27:51 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications


John Levine wrote:

>> I'm thinking about subscribing to one of the many VOIP services
>> (Vonage, Callvantage, etc.) and have a few questions.

>> Are any of these good enough to replace a POTS line? I'll be using it
>> over Verizon's new Fios service.

> I don't think so, but it depends what you expect from a POTS line.
> None are as reliable as POTS, both because they depend on your ISP,
> and router all working, and because they all have the occasional
> flakeout.  (Phone companies have spent the past 130 years learning how
> to make phones reliable, so it's not surprising that it's taking a
> while for VoIP to catch up.)  Other than Packet8, none of them offer
> real 911, so you'd best have a cell phone for emergencies that you
> keep charged and working.

Why would you recommend a cell phone for real 911?  In California
where I live 911 goes to the state highway patrol, which is useless
unless you are on a state highway.  And, wireless 911 doesn't have
forced line hold or delivery of service address.

If E911 is important, it seems the only game is wireline, and wireline
provided by the primary LEC, not a cable company, or such.

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

From: Lou Jahn <LouJahn@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Thinking About VOIP
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:22:24 -0400
Organization: Info Partners Corp.


William Cousert wrote:

> I'm thinking about subscribing to one of the many VOIP services
> (Vonage, Callvantage, etc.) and have a few questions.

> Are any of these good enough to replace a POTS line? I'll be using it
> over Verizon's new Fios service.

> Where can I find a comparison of all the available services? I did a
> quick google search and found nothing.

> Do any of the services offer a discounted rate for a second or third
> line?

> Lingo seems to offer the most for the least amount of money. Are they
> worth considering?

I have been a VoicePulse user for some 9 plus months. One thing I
noticed is unlike POTS, which provides duplex communications links
(meaning both ends can talk/hear at the same time), my VOIP is
simplex.  This means if I start talking before the other side has
ended their speaking they hear nothing I've said. The biggest
disadvantage is noticed when participating in a conference calls, I
cannot say anything until ALL other callers are quiet, which is not
often. It causes me to carry the discussion back in time to add a
point others thought were finished.

Secondly, my experience with VoicePluse's tech support is not that
good; they often do not fully read an email stating the problem and
will respond asking for information already provided. The first time I
did not respond immediately since I had already given them the
requested information; they then declared the problem fixed even
though they took zero action to address it.

Overall, VOIP is fair to good, but I see it working only as an supplement
to normal POTS.

Lou Jahn
Info Partners Corp

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

From: Klay Anderson <klay@klay.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 08:42:01 -0600
Organization: Klay Anderson Audio, Inc.
Subject: Re: Thinking About VOIP


In article <telecom24.226.2@telecom-digest.org>, William Cousert
<williamcousert@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm thinking about subscribing to one of the many VOIP services
> (Vonage, Callvantage, etc.) and have a few questions.

I switched to Vonage at home over DSL just to save US$ over Qwest.
Vonage is not bad, but audio quality suffers slightly if you have a
son that games and a daughter that shops iTunes.  I am satisfied
especially saving over US$40 per month and I am not disappointed with
audio quality overall.  Note the 911 issues in the press of late,
however.

Their customer "service" sucks.  Plan to spend some time dealing with
slow learners to get your account set up and activated.  Do not
anticipate replies to any emails you send and God forbid, you should
get an answer to an actual mailed letter with questions to the CEO.

Now I am not high maintanace, but I was looking into getting my 6
business lines changed over.  It has been many months with no
responses and it is very obvious that Vonage is great at the home
level of you-get-what-you-pay-for service.  They cannot cope with
anthing else at this point.

Just don't expect answers to your questions.

Could be worse, could be Cingular ...


Regards,

Klay Anderson
http://www.klay.com
+801-942-8346

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

From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Switch Identification
Date: 23 May 2005 06:10:53 -0700


Ever thought of asking the cable provider what type of switch they use
to provision their voice services?  That to me would be the most
logical first step.  Much easier than attempting to guess what
generated a tone.  But then asking the provider is just too simple.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, but would you get someone who knew
what they were talking about? _That_ to me is always the big question
when dealing with CSRs. Sounds good, but can you believe them?  PAT]

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

From: Mike Cater <cater@cdvill66e.org>
Subject: Re: Switch Identification
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 22:21:11 -0400


Howard Eisenhauer <howarde@REMOVECAPShfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:telecom24.227.6@telecom-digest.org:

> On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:39:42 -0400, Mike Cater <cater@cdvill66e.org>
> wrote:

>> Recently I switched service providers for my POTS line.  We used to be
>> using a WECo 5ESS, with the older line cards (the better sounding
>> ones!). I switched to a cable provider and obtained a landline through
>> them. It's not VOiP. It is routed through the same switch I used to
>> use but it's not homed from that switch.  So obviously this makes
>> finding the CLLI of the switch alot harder.

>> To get to the point, while messing around with the switchhook I got a
>> strange busy signal. It's 1600 Hz on for 0.5 seconds, off for 0.5
>> seconds.  Here's a wav file of it: http://tinyurl.com/4dk34/busy.mp3

>> If you have any idea of what kind of switch this is,
>> please advise! Thanks.

> Obviously, while playing with the hook switch you managed to connect
> to the gate shack at a construction site- that sound is quite
> definately a '95 Mack 3 ton dump truck in the process of backing up
> :).

> H.

Ha! Hopefully over a DMS 500! Which is what this switch turned out to
be, after some mild detective work.  When dialing 00 from my carrier
(RCN Boston), there is an option to place a call and to pay by credit,
calling card, collect or 3rd party.

I asked which company they are and they would not tell me. So I called
back and asked what type of calling cards do they accept, and she told
me Global Crossing.

Wow, that was easy! Now, a friend with VoicePulse VOiP asked me about
a strange symptom on his Caller ID, that sometimes the numbers do not
appear with hyphens. VoicePulse uses Global Crossing, but this same
CID phenomenon was happening on our RCN Caller ID. So, now there is
one more indication that RCN is reselling Global Crossing. Next, a
quick jaunt through http://telcodata.us tells us that all Global
Crossing calls in 508 are served out of one DMS500 in Boston.  So in
other words, the busy is that of a DMS 500.  It's probably more of a
dialing error tone than an actual busy, but it's still interesting.

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

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Cingular / sms.ac Ripoff Alert
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 22:35:58 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


mvl_groups_user@yahoo.com wrote:

> For all who have had problems with this company, please file an FCC
> complaint.  The FCC has the power to levy severe fines on deceptive
> marketing practices such as those of SMS.AC, but prioritizes their
> efforts based on complaint volume.

Actually you want the Federal TRADE commission, the FTC; not the FCC.
The FCC has no such power.

http://www.ftc.gov/ is the website.


JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
     --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

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

From: mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu>
Subject: Re: Why Does it Take So Long?
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 21:52:33 -0400
Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net)


In the magazine industry there is an old and mostly obsolete tradition
of starting every subscription at the beginning of a volume (i.e., a
year or half-year).  Scholarly journals still normally do this.  I
don't know if that is what happened to you.

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

From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: Forward Fax to Email
Date: 23 May 2005 14:16:55 GMT
Organization: http://idefix.net/~koos/


Jeremy <payday215@aol.com> wrote:

> I  currently have  a fax  number that  is widely  used by  my clients.
> Problem is that I  get a ton of fax "spam" if  you will.  I am looking
> for the BEST  solution to have these faxes  forwarded to e-mail, while
> keeping my  existing fax number since  that is the  one everyone knows
> and uses.

What I use on my fax number (the number is in my signature even) is a
server running linux with the mgetty-sendfax software on a now
somewhat aged PC.

That software simply works for normal dialup access and for receiving
faxes. On receiving a fax it sends the fax as an e-mail with attached
images in something most modern software will understand.

If anything unix-like is not your thing, there is probably software for
windows that does the same.


Koos van den Hout,       PGP keyid RSA/1024 0xCA845CB5 via keyservers
koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl    or DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263                        -?)
Fax +31-30-2817051         Camp Wireless, wireless Internet access     /\\
http://idefix.net/~koos/   at campsites http://www.camp-wireless.org/ _\_V

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use?
Date: 23 May 2005 07:34:47 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Robert Bonomi wrote:

> Autovon used "standard" Touch-tone phones.  Ones with *all* the
> buttons, including the 4th column of 4.

It wasn't that way at my father's installation, an army arsenal
and research center.

[BTW, a "standard" Touch-Tone phones does not have the fourth column.
Further, plenty of Touch Tone phones introduced in the early years had
only 10 buttons, not 12.  We had such a set at home.]

Anyway, my father's installation was all rotary dial served by a cord
switchboard dial (SxS) PBX accomodating several thousand extensions.

The Autovon lines came in on trunks that were no different than the
city trunks and were handled the same way.  There were no special
signals for priority calls or ways for priority handling.  As
mentioned, telephones were plain rotary.

To reach Autovon they dialed 8 then the Autovon number.  For their
purposes, Autovon was merely a switching tie network to other govt
installations.

All incoming calls went through the PBX where the operators connected
it to the desired extension.  Because of the high volume of
extensions, an extension itself didn't have an appearance, rather a
dial trunk did.  That is, if you wanted extension 7182, the operator
plugged in the 7 row and dialed 182.  I've seen other cord
switchboards serving very large PBX set up in a similar fashion.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Tie Lines (was Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use?
Date: 23 May 2005 07:55:32 -0700


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:

> And _that_ is how City of Chicago came to have 312-744 for their
> phones (but now, in 2005 they have not only 744, but 745, and 747 as
> well.)  PAT]

The City of Philadelphia had a Centrex for as long as I can remember,
MUnicipal 6-9700.  During the bicennial they changed it to MU 6-1776.
IIRC they used the whole MU 6 block.  Despite that, not all phones
were on Centrex and outsiders had to go through the City Hall operator
(a 24 position 608 switchboard split into two sides of 12 positions
each).  The non-Centrex extensions had five digits and access codes
were required to reach between five and four digit extensions.

As to city offices in the field, such as libraries, local police
stations, playgrounds, etc., some had MU 6 numbers but some
had local neighborhood phone numbers.  I could never figure
out a pattern.

In addition, the City had a full separate private PABX
(private dial exchange) that was old.  It mostly served
police and fire stations and street call boxes, and hospital
emergency room desks, not so much city offices.  Its phones
were immediately recognizable -- old AE sets with the nickel
ornamentation and a ratty brown fabric coiled cord.  That
dated from when before radios and police and firemen used
street callboxes to call in.  (Street callboxes were not
extended to newer postwar neighborhoods).  I don't know when
that system was removed from service -- I've seen in use in
the 1970s.

For street fire alarms, the city used call boxes.  When the lever was
pulled, a clockwork would generate a coded signal denoting the
firebox.  These were removed a few years ago.  As kids, we were taught
to know where the nearest callbox was to our homes and to wait there
to direct the arriving firemen to the fire.  They date from a time
people didn't have phones or speak English, and lasted a lot longer
than they needed to given universal telephone service.

The City was slow converting to Touch Tone.  In the early 1990s city
telephone sets were still classic hardwired 500 sets with a nice
printed MUnicipal 6- number card.  Finally they went to Touch Tone,
but plain 2500 sets.  They added 685 as another Centrex to 686.  The
phone directory lists a lot more prefixes to reach various city
offices today; I don't know how it is set up.

I've read City Hall (an ancient huge building) originally had DC power
and stayed with it until 1954, which was pretty late.  In the early
days of electric utilities, some places put out DC instead of AC.
(There was a debate in the industry which was better and AC won out).
Old catalogs of the 1920s and 1930s list products in both AC and DC
versions.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: City of Chicago used DC power (rather
than AC) -- at least in the downtown area -- until sometime around 
1930. That's at least one reason why there were so many WUTCO clocks
everywhere, instead of 'regular' wall clocks. Clocks cannot run on
direct current; they require alternating current at 60 cycles. 

The old city hall (Chicago) PBX on RANdolph 6-8000 had a _20_ position
switchboard, broken in two parts also -- 10 positions in a rank along
one wall, the other 10 positions along another wall. The only bigger
switchboard I ever saw was the one at University of Chicago when I was
working there, 1958-61 or so. It was 28 positions, but divided into
three ranks of 13-13-2, a rank against each wall and the smaller group
along a third wall.  There were three groups of directory listed
numbers; main campus was MIDway-3-0800 (with 2xxxx, 3xxx, and 4xxx
extensions), hospitals were MUseum 4-6100 (5xxx, 6xxx) and the
Computation Center and Fermi Institute, NORmal-7-4700 (8xxx). From 6
AM to 1 AM next day, they usually had at least 20 operators on duty,
but in staggered shifts (a couple came in at 6 AM, a few more at 7 AM,
etc.) By 11 PM when I got there, two or three women were left. They
had all split by about 1 AM leaving me alone until when the day shift
started coming in a few hours later. Volume of traffic was such at
that time of night it did not warrant any more help. When something
'buzzed' (buzzers were turned off during the day, [just work from the
light blinking at you] but turned on overnight, sort of a loud sound)
I just walked over to the rank in question, plugged in my headset and
did business. Along the fourth wall were desks for the chief operator
and the clerk and the teletype machines and their clerk/caretaker. 

The teletype machne hardwired direct to the 'Kenwood Bell'
central office (so named for the Bell central office at 61st Street
and Kenwood Avenue which served our lines) was used for time and
chargs coming in for long distance calls. The other one was hardwired
to Western Union for incoming messages. Another big board was the
one at Sears, Roebuck on State Street downtown (WABash-2-4600) which
was a five position board, serving the department store and the
credit offices upstairs. That one was busy also, it literally rocked
around the clock; our at UC at least slowed down considerably during
overnight hours. PAT]

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

From: NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO
Subject: Re: Cingular / sms.ac Ripoff Alert
Date: 23 May 2005 11:50:06 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Big discussion at:
http://www.mobiletracker.net/archives/2005/04/03/scam-spam-or-fun-sms.sc

Regarding whois look-up below;

575 Eighth Avenue, 11th Floor New York NY 10018 US below would be near
36 Street. That is near where spammer to my wife's account is located,
but when you go there, they deny connection.

Results for sms.ac:
IP Address: 66.240.237.100

Whois results from srv27.icb.co.uk:
NIC Whois Server Version 3.5.1 (ICB plc)

Domain Details

SMS.AC (DOM-18363)
SMS Inc. 7770 Regents Road Suite 113-405 San Diego CA 92122 US

Created        : October 25 2000.
Expires        : October 25 2009.
Last Updated   : April 22 2005.

Billing Contact: NIC-14053

Admin Contact
=============
(NIC-14053)
Pousti, Michael
SMS Corporation
    US

Technical Contact
=================
(NIC-1009)
Reg/Billing
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue, 11th Floor New York NY 10018 US

Nameservers
===========
NS1.ASPADMIN.COM
NS2.ASPADMIN.COM
NS3.ASPADMIN.COM

URL to this Cached Result: http://coolwhois.com/d/sms.ac/20050523133426


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is that the place you mentioned where
you went to call on them and they denied any knowledge of anything to
do with computers and spamming?  

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


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)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedroll.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   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 #228
******************************