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 ****************************** | |