Pat, the Editor

For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Jul 2005 00:10:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 311

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Patton's Low-Cost WAN Router Integrates VPN, QoS and Encryption (Chris)
    Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You (Dan Lanciani)
    Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You (Danny Burstein)
    Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You (Wesrock@aol.com)
    Re: Non-Bell ESS? (Paul Coxwell)
    Re: Non-Bell ESS? (Diamond Dave)
    Re: Non-Bell ESS? (Alan Burkitt-Gray)
    Re: Non-Bell ESS? (Joseph)
    Re: Bell Usage of IBM Computers For Switching (Tony P.)
    Re: Bell Usage of IBM Computers For Switching (Wesrock@aol.com)
    Re: Cellcos, was Re: DO NOT! DO NOT Use Cingular Go Phone (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Cable TV vs. UHF (was RE: DSL Speed) (Wesrock@aol.com)
    Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes (Paul Coxwell)
    Re: Last Laugh! Western Union's Comment About Useless Phones (L Hancock)
    Re: Last Laugh! Western Union's Comment About Useless Phones (L Madison)

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.  

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

From: Chris <cchrisinfo@patton.com>
Subject: Patton's Low-Cost WAN Router Integrates VPN, QoS and Encryption
Date: 6 Jul 2005 12:29:15 -0700


Low-Cost WAN Router integrates VPN, QoS and Strong Encryption.

The Model 2800 Series combines such high-end features as
user-configurable QoS profiles for managed, prioritized traffic with
VPN tunneling and IPSec Strong Encryption for secure, private
communications.

For immediate release:

GAITHERSBURG, MD: Patton Electronics, the industry leader in
network-access and connectivity solutions, announces today the
availability of a very-low-cost, IPLink=99 Series of Managed VPN
Routers with integrated QoS. Patton's newest router series lets
businesses and service providers "Link-Up For Less" with the
industry's most affordable solution for secure communication over
insecure IP networks while ensuring high-priority throughput for
mission critical data -- even in the presence of bandwidth-thirsty
voice and video applications.

Patton's Model 2800 Series IPLink Router Series offers a unique
combination of features at extremely competitive pricing for a value
proposition that is unparalleled in the communications industry. The
Model 2800 Series combines such high-end features as user-configurable
QoS profiles for managed, prioritized traffic with VPN tunneling and
IPSec Strong Encryption for secure, private communications.

By addressing both the security and traffic-prioritization needs of
enterprises at such a low cost, Patton's IPLink Managed VPN Router
series defines an entirely new category of network routers. Typical
VPN routers provide security when traversing insecure IP networks such
as the Internet, but lack QoS for prioritizing business traffic. At
the same time, typical low-cost routers lack the security or QoS
features enterprises require for business-class networking. The IPLink
Model 2800 Series provides business-class traffic-prioritization and
secure, private communications for remote-office, home-office, and
mobile users. The Model 2800 series further reduces network cost and
complexity by offering models with integrated WAN ports, thereby
eliminating the need for external interface converters.

"We offer enterprises and carriers (delivering managed services) a
very real value proposition." said Burton A. Patton, Executive Vice
President, "Network designers no longer have to choose between low-end
Adtran routers and expensive, Cisco functionality."

"In recent years, businesses and service providers have been rushing
to lock down their networks with firewalls and security appliances,"
said Joseph Gomez, Senior Product Manager at Patton. "Today they're
also preparing for the impending converged-media revolution
spear-headed by VoIP and IPTV. Patton's Managed VPN Router covers both
concerns by integrating VPN with QoS. Now any enterprise can afford
secure and reliable transport for prioritized, media-rich content."

The IPLink Managed VPN Routers series (models 2802, 2805, 2821 and
2835) implement IPSec Strong Encryption (3DES) for data integrity,
authentication, anti-replay, and data confidentiality. Firewall
capabilities include Access Control Lists (ACLs), IP-address and port
filtering, and Denial of Service (DoS) protection. For additional
security measures, PPP/PPPoE support with PAP and CHAP provides
authentication services.

QoS features include ToS/DiffServ marking and eight configurable
service-class tags per IEEE 802.1p/Q. With IP traffic-scheduling and
shaping, dedicated bandwidth profiles per flow, configurable burst
tolerance, and traffic policing with excess traffic discard, the
IPLink VPN Routers ensure such delay-sensitive traffic as voice and
video get the priority they require. For media-rich content,
configurable IP, PPP, and Frame-Relay fragmentation minimizes jitter.

With the IPLink VPN Router series of next-generation security
appliances, businesses and service providers now have an affordable,
easily-configured one-box solution for secure and prioritized
communication services.

About Patton

Patton Electronics Company is a US manufacturer and marketer of data
communications products, including VoIP/ToIP gateways & routers,
Remote Access (V.92, V.90, K56Flex, V.34+, and ISDN dial-in), Last
Mile/Local Loop Access (T1, E1, and xDSL modems, NTUs and CSU/DSUs),
Multi-Service Access (voice, intranet, extranet, and Frame Relay
access), and Connectivity (interface converters, short range modems,
multiplexers, and surge protectors).

For more information or to request a free datacom catalog contact
sales@patton.com.

Patton Electronics Company
7622 Rickenbacker Drive
Gaithersburg, MD 20879 USA
Tel: (301) 975-1000
Fax: (301) 869-9293
Email: marketing@patton.com
http://www.patton.com

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:27:24 EDT
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
Subject: Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You


> By M.P. DUNLEAVEY

> That said, Mr. Mierzwinski endorsed the preventive measures offered by
> Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (www.privacyrights.org), a nonprofit
> consumer advocacy group, and by the Identity Theft Resource Center
> (www.idtheftcenter.org), also a nonprofit. Besides the standard advice
> to shred personal documents, following are some tips I found useful:

> -- Curtail electronic access to your bank accounts.

How exactly is one supposed to achieve this?  Every bank that I have
contacted flat-out refuses to block EFT debits on consumer accounts.
They will transfer my money to anyone with my account and routing
numbers who has access to the ACH network, even though there is no
evidence that I authorized the transaction.  (In fact, the banks have
strong evidence that I did not approve any such transactions since I
told them that I have not authorized any third party to electronically
debit my accounts.)  Even brokerage houses are doing this, and even on
accounts with no check writing feature.

No bank that I have found discloses the destination account and
routing number of EFT debits, so you don't generally know where your
money went.  Two of my banks do not even provide a unique transaction
id for EFT debits on my monthly statement.

When pressed on the issue, reps repeat the lie that Check21 forces
them to accept electronic debits.  [Check21 deals with electronically
imaged checks which have nothing to do with EFT debits.  Even there it
doesn't force banks to accept anything electronically.  All it does is
make certain printed images legally equivalent to the original check.
Accepting the transaction electronically is optional for the banks.]

Once I had a mysterious debit show up on a passbook account -- the one
type of account that is supposedly immune to EFT access. Nevertheless,
the bank argued that I must have in some way been responsible for the
withdrawal.  Only when I pointed out that the account in question was
being used by the city as a multi-signature escrow, that the city held
the passbook, and that they would likely want an explanation of where
and how the money went did the bank relent.  They decided that there
had been a "coding error" and restored the money.

> Pay bills through snail mail.

If you use a normal check this still provides the recipient with your
account and routing numbers which they can then use to electronically
debit your account.


Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

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

From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:36:04 UTC
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC


In <telecom24.310.11@telecom-digest.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

[ snip of mildly paranoid rants ]

> If I have no transactions at all during the month, then there's 
> no statement mailed out and altogether less chance for a theft.

That's just stupid. If the bank doesn't mail out statements in the
months there's no activity, then you're getting into the habit of not
thinking anything's wrong if you don't get one.

So ... you'd be much less likely to notice the month when one was
mailed to you and you didn't get it.

Much better, although at first glance a bit silly and wasteful of
$0.40 or so ..., is for a statement to be mailed out each and every
month, whether or not there's activity.

_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

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

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:20:16 EDT
Subject: Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You 


In a message dated 7/5/05 11:02:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
editor@telecom-digest.org writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only Sonic, but McDonalds here at
> least also has a card swiper right by each register. If you have your
> card in hand, while you are placing your order (or when the clerk
> turns around to fill it) you can swipe your debit/credit card and have
> it back in your pocket by the time the clerk asks for the money. 

Sorry, you're right.  But you have to go in to McDonald's to keep your
hand on your card.  It doesn't work that way in the drive through
 ... you have to hand it to the clerk.

Sonic, of course, is all outside (except for a few they're trying
inside dining areas at, including one next to their new headquarters
building in Oklahoma City.  Don't know how it works inside, since I
haven't been to it.


Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com

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

Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:25:40 +0100
From: Paul Coxwell <paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Non-Bell ESS


> The Bell System put its first test call through a laboratory
> Electronic Switching System in 1958 and had a prototype system in
> public service in the early 1960s.

> Would anyone know when other telephone companies, either in the
> U.S. or abroad, developed and implemented their own ESS?  For
> instance, when did Automatic Electric put one in service?

In Britain, the GPO trialed an electronic switch at Highgate Wood
using PAM/TDM (Pulse Amplitude Modulation/Time Division Multiplex)
around 1962.  It was not entirely successful.

The first fully operational electronic switch went into service in
Ambergate, Derbyshire in 1966, and the GPO also claims this to be the
first electronic exchange in Europe.  This switch was known as the
TXE2 (for Telephone eXchange Electronic), using common control with
reed relay switching points.

TXE2 was designed for smaller offices, generally up to a couple of
thousand lines.  The later TXE4 switch intended for larger offices
didn't roll out until the mid-1970s.

-Paul

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

From: Diamond Dave <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Non-Bell ESS?
Organization: The BBS Corner / Diamond Mine On-Line
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:11:46 -0400


On 6 Jul 2005 10:59:05 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> The Bell System put its first test call through a laboratory
> Electronic Switching System in 1958 and had a prototype system in
> public service in the early 1960s.

> Would anyone know when other telephone companies, either in the
> U.S. or abroad, developed and implemented their own ESS?  For
> instance, when did Automatic Electric put one in service?

Automatic Electric made the #1 EAX (invented in 1973 or 1974) and
later in the 1970s, the #2 EAX. These were WECo #1ESS/1AESS like in
nature -- analog switch with computer control. These were originally
just for a Class 5 end offices but later models could handle Class 4
tandem functions.

Automatic Electric later made the GTD-3 (or #3 EAX ) and GTD-5 (or #5
EAX) in the 1980s. These are full digital switches. A number of #5 EAX
switches are still in service, though as time goes on they're being
replaced with other switch types.

Stromberg-Carlson had their ESC (Electornic Switch Control?) switch in
the 1970s. This switch was analog with computer control. In the 1980s,
they made the DCO (Digital Central Office). The DCO is now made by a
division of Siemens known as Stromberg/Siemens.

Northern Telecom (now Nortel) invented the DMS-10 in the late 1977 and
in 1979 the DMS-100 switch (followed by other DMS switches, used as
tandems, operator services platforms, or international gateways).
Supposedly Northern Telecom had an electronic PBX (the SL-1) around
1972.

But Vidar was the first fully digital local end office switch,
invented circa 1976. I don't think there are any Vidar (later
TRW-Vidar) switches still in service.

WECo was behind the curve on this one. Though they invented the fully
digital long-haul #4ESS tandem in 1976, they didn't have a full
digital end office until they invented the #5ESS in 1982.

Dave Perrussel
Webmaster - Telephone World
http://www.dmine.com/phworld


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I know from my personal experience that
Illinois Bell had ESS in the Wabash office in downtown Chicago in 
1974, along with the Superior office on the near north side the same
year. But I think they were just the first editions or versions of
that type of switch. PAT]

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

From: Alan Burkitt-Gray <alan@withheld_on_request>
Subject: Re: Non-Bell ESS? 
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:39:09 +0100
Organization: Alan Burkitt-Gray


hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com asked: "Would anyone know when other telephone
companies, either in the U.S. or abroad, developed and implemented
their own ESS?  For instance, when did Automatic Electric put one in
service?"

See BT's online museum, Connected Earth .

http://www.connected-earth.com/Galleries/Frombuttonstobytes/Intothedigitaler
a/Anelectronicfuture/ 

BT's ancestor, the British Post Office, tried and failed in 1962 with
a switch at Highgate Wood, north London: "The main problem was digital
electronics 'crosstalking' with switch contact points that were still
working in analogue mode. This meant, for example, that sometimes the
exchange systems would ring numbers, seemingly of their own
volition ...  "

It put a successful TXE2 reed relay exchange at Ambergate, Derbyshire,
in 1966, and then inaugurated another switch, at Empress in west
London, claimed to be the first in the world to switch PCM signals
from one group of lines to another in digital form.


Alan Burkitt-Gray 
Editor, Global Telecoms Business magazine
www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com
aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com

(PAT - please don't use my personal email address, from which I'm sending
this.)

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Non-Bell ESS?
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:00:54 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On 6 Jul 2005 10:59:05 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> The Bell System put its first test call through a laboratory
> Electronic Switching System in 1958 and had a prototype system in
> public service in the early 1960s.

> Would anyone know when other telephone companies, either in the
> U.S. or abroad, developed and implemented their own ESS?  For
> instance, when did Automatic Electric put one in service?

Electronic switching systems were being installed in the late sixties
and into the seventies.  Bell System used Western Electric #1ESS, GTE
used Automatic Electric #1EAX and #2EAX.  North Electric
(independents) used NXUN2 IIRC.  Probably Stromberg-Carlson had
something going as well (XY?)  I'd guess that Northern Electric (now
Nortel) probably manufactured #1ESS as well prior to their making DMS
digital switches.

More information:
http://www.dmine.com/phworld/network/office/.htm#analog

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Bell Usage of IBM Computers For Switching
Organization: ATCC
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:25:29 -0400


In article <telecom24.310.5@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com 
says:

> In reading histories of IBM and the Bell System, my impression is that
> the companies were pretty distant from each other even though both
> were developing very similar technologies.  Early on, both Bell and
> IBM were developing ever better ways of using relays to "think" in
> sophisticated ways, then using electronic components.  (IBM obviously
> did go to Bell Labs to learn about the transistor).

> While Bell used IBM machines in commercial (billing/ accounting)
> applications, even there Univac and other makes were used too.  In the
> labs, it seemed mostly PDP computers were preferred.

> Anyway, the Bell Labs history says Bell did make use of the IBM
> System/7 as part of the switching network.  The S/7 was a process
> controller machine, kind of a sideline of IBM's normal business line.
> Anyway, Bell used the S/7 to replace AMA (long distance message
> accounting) machines.  Even here the S/7 was eventually replaced with
> a PDP machine.

 From what I'm to gather the phone switches themselves had their own
processors.

But I have seen references to DEC PDP series computers being used to
write the code, etc. for the switches.

As to processor requirements, I don't know but in the case of a switch
the more critical component is the t/d matrix. All the computer does
is keep track of call store which is nothing but a table.

Put it this way, I used to have a Definity G3iV2 switch (pbx
actually!)  with 300 extensions, and 35 trunk loops. It had an Intel
486 CPU on it.

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

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:37:53 EDT
Subject: Re: Bell Usage of IBM Computers For Switching


In a message dated 6 Jul 2005 08:17:47 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
writes:

> I do note that the Bell history said they intended for very long
> product lifespans, so anything they made had to be able to withstand
> many years of service.  I believe they didn't change this philosophy
> until the 1970s when rapidly changing electronics kept making
> components obsolete quickly.  On the other hand, it seemed IBM
> recognized this in the 1950s. IBM's tab line remained unchanged for a
> great many years but their computers changed about every five years.

As far as Bell station apparatus goes, remember that they were
provided at a rate which provided full on-site maintenance.  After
divestiture, the Bell companies were forbidden to offer any type of
station equipment.  (One of the results of this rule was problems with
sponsored Time of Day service, usual in places with flat rate service.
The actual time machines [Audiovon?]  machines were often located in
the C.O. with full telco maintenance, and many of the sponsors had no
idea what to do with the machines when they had to be removed and
placed on the customer premises.)


Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com

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

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Cellcos, was Re: DO NOT! DO NOT Use Cingular Go Phone
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 12:23:31 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


Danny Burstein wrote:

> Cough, cough. T-mobile is a horse of a different color. It started off
> as a bunch of more-or-less self standing cellcos in the US who were
> eventually bought up/merged into Voicestream (Western Wireless), which
> had a hefty amount of Asian capital behind it.

That is correct. There are, IIRC, also a couple smaller carriers that
aren't owned by LECs of any flavor. My statement is true for most US
carriers, though.


JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table"   --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

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

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:12:53 EDT
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs. UHF (was RE: DSL Speed)


On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:28:34 -0600 nmclain@annsgarden.com wrote about
Cable TV vs. UHF (was RE: DSL Speed)

In a message dated Tue,  5 Jul 2005 19:28:34 -0600, nmclain@annsgarden.com 
writes:

> One UHF station obviously could not have provided anywhere near this
> level of service.  And I can't imagine that three network-affiliate
> stations would have been able to survive financially.

I lived in Austin, Texas, in the late 1950s and there was one TV
station (VHF) which was an affiliate of all three networks and had a
patchwork of various network programs.  This station was owned by the
LBJ company. A few people had tall antennas to pick up the San Antonio
stations (difficult) or the Waco and Temple stations (not as
difficult). (The Temple station had its transmitter in Eddy, Texas.)


Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com

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

Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:05:50 +0100
From: Paul Coxwell <paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes


>>> The NEC does get revised periodically, 2002 the most recent.

>> The 2005 version has been out for several months.

> They must review it more often than I (and others) are expecting. The
> electrician I hired over the winter was interested in the 2002 code
> book I had.

It's generally every three years.

A new edition does not automatically come into force as soon as it is
published though.  The state/county/city in question specifies which
edition of the NEC is to be used, so an old edition is still
applicable until they amend their rules to refer to the new one.

I understand that there are some places still using the 1999, and maybe 
even the 1996 code.


- Paul.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Western Union's Comment About Useless Phones
Date: 6 Jul 2005 12:16:14 -0700


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For a really good time, combine
> telephone tag with references to numbers not in service ....

> ... After about a minute, their system responded and said
> 'someone will be with you shortly ... please wait'  but I just hung up.

At the time of Bell System Divesture in 1983 a huge wave of automation
was hitting the country.  Systems described above are very common now
(ABC Nightline did a whole feature on it) and fancy automation and
greedy companies makes it possible.

The old Bell System was dedicated to service.  They constantly put out
literature to both residence and business subscribers on proper
telephone technique and manners.  They didn't want 'the telephone' to
be seen negatively as described above but rather a positive useful
tool.  They had consultants go out to businesses just to teach proper
usage of business sytems and teachers who went to schools to show kids
how to use the phone.

If the Bell System still existed as a monopoly provider today, I
wonder how they'd deal with the above described customer frustrations.
The Bell System did not like it when their product/service was made to
look bad and spent money and efforts to counteract it.

I presume they would allow automated systems to exist; they do -- when
used properly -- help customers and businesses.  But would they allow
such craziness as routings to dead lines and dead air?

[public replies please]

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

Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Western Union's Comment About Useless Phones
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:52:12 -0700
From: Linc Madison <lincmad@suespammers.org>


In article <telecom24.310.12@telecom-digest.org>, PAT wrote:

> Then I got still another call this morning from 866-660-6940 which I
> answered before they had a chance to hang up this time; but I just
> got dead air. I dialed it back, got a recorded announcement so weak I
> could not understand any of it, except the final two lines which were
> a bit louder, asking me to 'input your telephone number'; so I just
> input some bogus number (enough to satisfy their system) and waited
> again. After about a minute, their system responded and said 'someone
> will be with you shortly ... please wait'  but I just hung up. WUTCO
> was correct: these damn devices are mostly useless.

Yesterday, I got a call, answered without checking the caller ID, and
got a few seconds of dead air, followed by a recorded announcement
that said simply, "This is Kaiser Permanente." I assume they were
calling to remind me of the appointment I have tomorrow, but that was
the entire message. If I had forgotten about the appointment, or if it
had been an appointment for someone else mistakenly tagged to my ID
number (has happened several times over the years), I would've had no
idea what the call was about.

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


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.feedrollpro.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 #311
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues