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 
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 Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:02:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 450
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
The Ad-Averse: Finicky and Opinionated (Monty Solomon)
New Video Search Sites Offer Glimpse of Future TV (Monty Solomon)
By Tearing Open That Cardboard Box, Are You Also Signing (Monty Solomon)
Return of the Junk Fax (Monty Solomon)
To Truants in Rome, SMS is the Enemy (Monty Solomon)
Verizon Wireless V710 Settlement (Monty Solomon)
NTL, Telewest to Merge (USTelecom dailyLead)
Re: Age Discrimination by Google; Old People Need Not Apply (jmeissen)
Re: United States Says No! Internet is Ours! (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: United States Says No! Internet is Ours! (Garrett Wollman)
Re: What is Area Code 113? (Robert Bonomi)
Re: State of the Internet, 2005 (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Help Needed with DHCP on Remote Laptop (Dave Garland)
Re: Help Needed with DHCP on Remote Laptop (William Warren)
Re: Help Needed with DHCP on Remote Laptop (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Note to Drivers: Lose the Phone and Lipstick (Eric Friedbach)
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: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:34:06 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: The Ad-Averse: Finicky and Opinionated
By ALEX MINDLIN
The online marketing research firm Intelliseek released data last
week suggesting that so-called ad-skippers -- those who avoid ads on
TV or the Internet, either by installing pop-up blockers, by
recording shows and skipping the spots or by changing channels when
commercials come on -- behave differently in other ways as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/business/03drill.html?ex=1285992000&en=b4c7d0a0c08ca32d&ei=5090
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:33:58 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: New Video Search Sites Offer Glimpse of Future TV
By BOB TEDESCHI
FOR those tired of navigating hundreds of television channels to find
shows worth watching, the Web sends this message: let us do the
work. Oh, and by the way, a computer screen will do nicely.
A handful of new Internet companies have recently introduced Web sites
that aim to sift through millions of online video clips and instantly
splice them together according to the viewer's stated or implied
tastes. Right now, that includes a fairly meager selection of
mainstream media selections - and, yes, you sometimes have to watch it
through a subpar Internet connection. But more network-quality shows
are coming online, and Webcasting technology is fast improving to the
point where you can now catch glimpses of what TV could look like in
the not-too-distant future.
"You can debate what you should call it, but in the coming world, it's
going to be a user-controlled environment," said Allen Weiner, an
analyst with Gartner, a technology consulting firm. "I watch what I
want, when I want."
The most recent version of this customized Internet TV idea comes from
Blinkx, a San Francisco online search company that plans to activate
MyBlinkx TV today at www.blinkxTV.com. The site is supposed to work
much like a standard search engine, prompting users to type words or
phrases into a search box.
But when the user types in, say, "big wave surfing," instead of
displaying links to Web pages, the site starts rolling a string of
video clips most relevant to that topic. Users can fast-forward,
rewind, pause the video and click a button to save the channel. When
they return to it, the technology refreshes the channel with newer,
more relevant clips.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/business/03ecom.html?ex=1285992000&en=e0a3ccafd7100f44&ei=5090
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:34:15 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: By Tearing Open That Cardboard Box, Are You Also Signing?
By Tearing Open That Cardboard Box, Are You Also Signing on the Dotted Line?
By J. D. BIERSDORFER
Pay attention next time you rip open a cardboard box -- you may be
entering into a contract without realizing it.
A recent decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinforced the
right of companies, in this case Lexmark International, the printer
maker, to legally limit what customers can do with a patented product,
given that the company spells out conditions and restrictions on a
package label known as a box-top license.
Clickable license agreements are common practice in software, where
the buyer agrees not to tamper with the code or copy the program. But
slapping postsale regulations on patented goods could deny buyers the
ability to make modifications or seek repairs on other products as
well. Box-top licenses could also theoretically hinder third parties
from offering replacement parts or supplies for fear of a
patent-infringement lawsuit (meaning, for example, that a lighter
might have to be refueled only with the manufacturer's brand of
butane).
In the lawsuit, the Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association, a
trade group of companies that sell refilled printer cartridges,
claimed that Lexmark was engaging in unfair and deceptive business
practices by promising price discounts on its laser cartridges if the
customer promised to return the empty cartridge to Lexmark.
Lexmark's packaging for laser cartridges sold under this system
(called the Lexmark Cartridge Rebate, or the Prebate program) includes
a label on the outside of the box stating: "Opening this package or
using the patented cartridge inside confirms your acceptance of the
following license agreement." Cartridges that are not part of the
Prebate program and not subject to the restriction are available to
customers as well, but without the discount. At the time of the case,
Lexmark estimated that cartridge returns had increased 300 percent
since the Prebate program began.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/business/03inkjet.html?ex=1285992000&en=52eef2f74aed472b&ei=5090
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:43:24 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Return of the Junk Fax
By DAN MITCHELL
IN the hierarchy of annoying advertisers, the porn spammers and the
pump-and-dump stock promoters dwell at the bottom. Not far above them
are junk faxers, who spew unsolicited advertisements to your fax
machine, using your phone line, your ink and your paper in the
process.
Most junk faxes have been illegal since 1991. Since then, a federal
law and Federal Communications Commission regulations have kept most
machines free of unsolicited ads. But that may be changing. Why?
"Because Congress just pumped new life into the junk fax industry,"
according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (epic.org),
which issued a communication on the subject this week.
This summer, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Junk Fax
Prevention Act. The "Orwellian-named" law removes one of the few
protections against fax abuse, writes Chris Jay Hoofnagle, director
for the center's West Coast office in San Francisco. In a loophole
similar to one in the Can-Spam Act, which has done essentially nothing
to stem the tide of unsolicited commercial e-mail, businesses are
allowed to junk-fax anyone with whom they have an "established
business relationship."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/technology/01online.ready.html?ex=1285819200&en=2218b825b0cbd37b&ei=5090
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:54:10 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: To Truants in Rome, SMS is the Enemy
By Elisabetta Povoledo International Herald Tribune
MILAN Students in Rome are becoming guinea pigs in an experiment that
uses cellphones to deter truancy.
Starting on Monday for about six months, when students fail to show up
for class and the school has not been previously notified, a text
message will be automatically sent to their parents' mobile phones.
"We haven't invented anything new -- what's new is the instrument,"
said Ornella Bergamini, the school board official who coordinated the
experimental project, which covers students aged 14 to 16 at four
middle schools and eight technical institutes in one school district.
That, she said, is "the most critical age for dropping out" and is
usually preceded by repeated absenteeism.
The program is part of a larger interactive online portal for her
school district. Text messaging, Bergamini said, lets parents know
when their children were skipping school in real time. "It should be a
useful deterrent," she said.
As cellphones have increasingly become a must-have for minors,
cellular technology has rapidly evolved to intersect with many aspects
of teenage life. Banned in many Italian schools during exam time
because of their potential as a cheating device, cellphones, like
other cellular and satellite technology, are now used to allow parents
to monitor where their children are, and even how fast they are
driving a car.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/02/business/wireless03.php
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 03:51:57 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Verizon Wireless V710 Settlement
http://www.verizonwireless.com/V710Settlement
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/footer/legalNotices/v710.jsp
Settlement Agreement
http://www.verizonwireless.com/pdfs/v170settlement/V710_Settlement_Agreement.pdf
Preliminary Order
http://www.verizonwireless.com/pdfs/v170settlement/Prelim_Order.pdf
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:26:23 EDT
From: USTelecom dailyLead <ustelecom@dailylead.com>
Subject: NTL, Telewest to Merge
USTelecom dailyLead
October 3, 2005
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/vakIatagCquRcNMRgO
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* NTL, Telewest to merge
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Google bids to offer free Wi-Fi in San Francisco
* R.H. Donnelley buys Dex
* Meriton snaps up Mahi
* Cable, telecom companies launching new video services
USTELECOM SPOTLIGHT
* Broadband Deregulation: Win-Win for Carriers and Customers? Tuesday, Oct 4, 1:30 p.m. (ET)
HOT TOPICS
* Huwaei-Marconi merger rumors swirl
* Bell Labs details 100-Gbit Ethernet over optical fiber
* Analysis: Telcos unlikely to see profits from TV soon
* Report: Ericsson considering bid for Marconi
* Q-and-A with Legg Mason's Blair Levin
TECHNOLOGY TRENDS
* Spirent unveils triple-play tester
* Forrester: Viewers take a shine to Internet video
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Supreme Court ruling puts pinch on P2P companies
* Analysis: Licensed spectrum is key when it comes to WiMAX
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/vakIatagCquRcNMRgO
------------------------------
From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Age Discrimination by Google; Old People Need Not Apply for Work
Date: 3 Oct 2005 04:06:37 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
In article <telecom24.449.13@telecom-digest.org>, [TELECOM Digest
Editor wrote:
> I guess not everyone agrees with the judge's decision in that
> ruling, particularly when the man's supervisor _did_ make the
> statement (to the terminated employee) "You do not fit in the
> youthful culture here at Google." PAT]
You can't make that statement. All you know is that the person who
filed the suit alleges that the comment was made. He stood to lose a
lot of money, which can be a powerful reason for claiming things that
are untrue or half-truths.
John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: United States Says No! Internet is Ours!
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 04:50:50 UTC
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom24.449.10@telecom-digest.org>, PAT wrote:
> Since the 'root servers' are by and large in the United States, or
> under the supervision of the United States
The quoted statement above is essentially false. The root servers
*your* DNS requests happen to terminate on may be in the United
States, but that's just an artifact of particularly clever and
effective use of DHCP. The root servers are distributed around the
world -- many mirrors of each -- and are controlled by a diverse group
of entities which are not, in fact, "under the supervision of the
United States".
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is
to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
------------------------------
From: wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: United States Says No! Internet is Ours!
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 04:04:06 UTC
Organization: MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In article <telecom24.449.10@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest
Editor noted in response to Garrett Wollman
<wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> by writing:
> "The internet is controlled to a large extent by the 'root servers';
No, it is not. The Internet is controlled to a large extent by
thousands of system administrators, who set up the servers on which
Internet applications run. One of configuration choices they make is
the set of root name servers. Currently, at least in the developed
world, they choose to use a set of root name servers some of which
happen to be operated under contract to the U.S. government. There is
no law requiring them to do so; they are free to use any set of root
name servers they wish.
My guess is that the ultimate result of the USG intransigeance on this
issue will be for other countries to start up their own root name
servers (or to co-opt those already located on their territory) and
require ISPs to use those servers rather than the USG-sponsored ones.
(I would be surprised if the likes of China and Iran were not already
doing so. Certainly the Golden Shield makes it trivial for the PRC
government to spoof or redirect any DNS traffic they choose.) This
would not be a disaster, although it would be a distinctly suboptimal
outcome, since the DNS works best when there is a single, consistent
answer for every query, and every user has the same view of the
world. But it is emphatically not necessary (and for peer-to-peer
applications it is entirely irrelevant).
> writing to a very one-sided 'contract' presented to them by ICANN and
> make an annual extortion payment required by ICANN which goes to fund
> the overseas trips and other friviolities in which ICANN engages
whine, whine, whine...
> Of course it has nothing to say about you having any rights
> such as the right to be free of others sending spam or scam or viruses
Perhaps because you have no such right, and it would not be in ICANN's
power to give it to you even if they wanted to.
> ICANN _could_ have written contracts for users with some protections
> for users built in if they had wanted to,
No, it could not have. (A trademark lawyer would argue to the
contrary, that in fact all those requirements that you decry are in
fact put there to protect users from mistaken identity on the part of
the site they think they're communicating with, just as trademark law
protects consumers who buy a brand-name product from getting something
else. It is certainly not ICANN's role to be the enforcer of
morality, or even of good business practice, on the 'net -- I'm
certain you'd be bellyaching about that if they tried! Governments
are the appropriate bodies to regulate such behavior, if anyone is.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wollman@csail.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those | search for greater freedom.
of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You said above that ICANN could not
have written contracts; in fact they have written contracts have they
not? Otherwise, what do you call those things we have signed and the
money we pay to ICANN? What prevents them from making those things
(which I and most reasonable people refer to as 'contracts') from
being so one-sided; making them a bit more even handed? PAT]
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: What is Area Code 113?
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:22:04 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.449.6@telecom-digest.org>, IMAFriend
<imafriend@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I keep getting a phone call from area code 113. Does anyone have any
> idea what that is?
> Thanks,
> DougB
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is bogus, as far as 'area codes' are
> concerned. It is either some sort of number for special billing
> purposes, or a deliberatly misprogrammed entry as is sometimes done
> by companies such as telemarketing firms or collection agencies to
> prevent you from knowing their real number. PAT]
If something is truncating the leftmost digit of the read-out --
limited display, maybe, or something in the telco itself -- it could
be a call from the Netherlands.
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: State of the Internet, 2005
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:38:21 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.449.12@telecom-digest.org>, Henry
<henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
> TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>> A look at the internet as it stands now, in 2005, from a compilation
>> originally prepared by CNN.com:
>> Chain letters
>> "Forward this message to 10 people and DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN!" the
>> writer implores. Messages like these have been pouring into inboxes since
>> the inception of e-mail -- taking the old-fashioned chain letter from the
>> post office to cyberspace. Chain letters are a particularly annoying form of
>> spam because they often come from friends and promise negative consequences
>> for not forwarding the message (bad luck or a lost chance at riches, for
>> example).
>> Choosing to forward a message, however, could get you in trouble. Many
>> people don't know it is illegal to start or forward an e-mail chain letter
>> that promises any kind of return. Anyone doing so could be prosecuted for
>> mail fraud.
> 'Anyone doing so could be prosecuted for mail fraud.'
> ???
> How can that possibly be correct?
In the United States, that statement _is_ correct.
> First of all, it suggests that the
> post office has some sort of jurisdiction over e-mail, which it
> clearly does not (mail fraud is investigated by postal
> inspectors).
You are, in fact, *WRONG* on that count. The post office _does_ have
jurisdiction over certain activities conducted by means other than
postal mail.
The USPIS handles investigation/enforcement of 18 USC 1342.
Which includes frauds that _induce_ victims to send money
_via_the_mails_.
If the 'scheme to defraud' involves the use of the postal mail system
*in*any*way* then the crime of 'mail fraud' applies.
> But secondly, '_anyone_ doing so...' is preposterously Americano-centric.
The exact same jurisdictional rule (post office has jurisdiction
(albeit not necessarily 'exclusive' jurisdiction) over anything that
uses mails as _any_ part of the fraud) applies in Canada, the U.K.,
Germany, France, Japan, Australia, (those places I have specific
knowledge of) and most of the rest of the world. Even Nigeria.
------------------------------
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
Subject: Re: Help Needed with DHCP on Remote Laptop
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:54:40 -0500
Organization: Wizard Information
It was a dark and stormy night when ptownson
<ptownson@telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> Why is it unable to obtain an IP address via DHCP?
Perhaps the DHCP server (perhaps a router, or other computer on the
LAN) is disabled or not functioning (or for some other reason refusing
to cooperate)? It does not sound like the problem is in the laptop.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But the other four computers on my
little network all work correctly. They all see each other and they
see the internet. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:47:04 -0400
From: William Warren <william_warren_nonoise@speakeasy.net>
Subject: Re: Help Needed with DHCP on Remote Laptop
ptownson wrote:
> Help wanted: I have a laptop computer here running Win NT from 1997.
> I have a NetGear Wireless card in a slot. It seems to be correctly
> installed; that is, the drivers are there, the little green light on
> the 'television icon' is present, it _says_ it has a very good link,
> and should be working fine. But the laptop reports "The DHCP client
> could not obtain an IP address". Furthermore, no one else on the
> network can see the laptop. The laptop cannot connect to the internet
> nor see anyone else on tne network either. Yet it claims the link
> is present and very strong. Can anyone tell me what is wrong? Why
> is it unable to obtain an IP address via DHCP? Thanks for the help.
> PAT
Pat,
Check the encryption key and be sure it matches the one in your Access
Point.
William
William Warren
(Filter noise from my address for direct replies)
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Help Needed with DHCP on Remote Laptop
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:45:29 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.449.14@telecom-digest.org>, ptownson
<ptownson@telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> Help wanted: I have a laptop computer here running Win NT from 1997.
> I have a NetGear Wireless card in a slot. It seems to be correctly
> installed; that is, the drivers are there, the little green light on
> the 'television icon' is present, it _says_ it has a very good link,
> and should be working fine. But the laptop reports "The DHCP client
> could not obtain an IP address". Furthermore, no one else on the
> network can see the laptop. The laptop cannot connect to the internet
> nor see anyone else on tne network either. Yet it claims the link
> is present and very strong. Can anyone tell me what is wrong? Why
> is it unable to obtain an IP address via DHCP? Thanks for the help.
1) because there is no DHCP server running on the LAN
2) because the DHCP server "doesn't know about" that machine, _and_ is
configured to give addresses *only* to machines it DOES know about.
3) because the network is using encryption, and the laptop is not set
up in a compatible manner.
4) "something else".
Until the DHCP client on the laptop _can_ get an address, the machine
does not have an IP address. Thus the facts thet no one else on the
network can see the laptop, and that the laptop cannot connect to the
Internet, nor see anyone else on the network -- these are all _entirely_
expected and "normal" behavior in that situation.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On my LAN, the other computers all get
numbers like '192.168.0.x' and can communiate with each other and with
the internet. In the past, plugging a new computer into the router was
a sort of automatic thing: Plug in the new computer, reboot the
router, the new computer takes an IP assignment like 192.168.0.3 or
whatever. The wireless link appears to be good. Why won't this ancient
laptop accept such a number when the router is rebooted? PAT]
------------------------------
From: Eric Friedebach <friedebach@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Note to Drivers: Lose the Phone (and Lipstick)
Date: 3 Oct 2005 11:18:32 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
So I guess that means no more talking on the ham radio while driving
as well. Or would being licensed by the FCC preclude state or local
laws?
Eric Friedebach
/And now it's time for: Jaromir Weather/
Monty Solomon wrote:
<SNIP>
> Those pulled over for speeding or other moving violations can
> be fined $100 for any behavior that distracts them from driving --
> glancing at a newspaper, typing on a BlackBerry, applying lipstick
> while looking in the rearview mirror or turning to yell at the kids in
> the back seat.
<SNIP>
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications 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 #450
******************************
| |