TELECOM Digest     Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:47:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 585

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Secret Court Modified Bush Wiretap Requests (Stewart Powell)
    Condi Rice Authorized NSA to Wiretap U.N. Phones, Email (Jason Leopold)
    Red Cross Hurricane Fraud Theft Substantial; 14 Arrested (Olivia Munoz)
    Desperate Meth Users Turn to ID Theft via Computers (Greg Risling)
    Penis Patch Top Spam in 2005 (Reuters News Wire)
    Businessman in EU Sues in Spam Case and Wins _and Collects_ (BBC NewsWire)
    Move to Airwaves to $936 Million (Jeremy Pelofsky)
    Reliable, Easy, and Cost Effective Way to Record Calls? (Phil Earnhardt)
    Covad, Verizon Settle Their Differences (USTelecom dailyLead)
    Re: Physically Protecting The Local Loop Network? (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Physically Protecting The Local Loop Network? (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones) (DevilsPGD)
    Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones) (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Cell Phone Extenders? (DevilsPGD)
    Re: Cell Phone Extenders? (Rik)
    Re: Cell Phone Extenders? (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: Cell Phone Extenders? (niallgal@yahoo.com)
    Re: Unanswered Calls to Cell Phones? (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: What Carriers Does Vonage Use to Terminate Calls? (Tony P.)

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: Stewart M. Powell <seattlepi@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Secret Court Modified Bush Wiretap Requests
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:46:40 -0600


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html

Secret court modified wiretap requests;
Intervention may have led Bush to bypass panel.

Saturday, December 24, 2005

By STEWART M. POWELL
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- Government records show that the administration was
encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal
surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and
order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's
approval.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the
26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more
wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four
previous presidential administrations combined.

The court's repeated intervention in Bush administration wiretap
requests may explain why the president decided to bypass the court
nearly four years ago to launch secret National Security Agency spying
on hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans and foreigners inside
the United States, according to James Bamford, an acknowledged
authority on the supersecret NSA, which intercepts telephone calls,
e-mails, faxes and Internet communications.

"They wanted to expand the number of people they were eavesdropping
on, and they didn't think they could get the warrants they needed from
the court to monitor those people," said Bamford, author of "Body of
Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" and
"The Puzzle Palace: Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence
Organization." "The FISA court has shown its displeasure by tinkering
with these applications by the Bush administration."

Bamford offered his speculation in an interview last week.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adopted by Congress in
the wake of President Nixon's misuse of the NSA and the CIA before his
resignation over Watergate, sets a high standard for court-approved
wiretaps on Americans and resident aliens inside the United States.

To win a court-approved wiretap, the government must show "probable
cause" that the target of the surveillance is a member of a foreign
terrorist organization or foreign power and is engaged in activities
that "may" involve a violation of criminal law.

Faced with that standard, Bamford said, the Bush administration had
difficulty obtaining FISA court-approved wiretaps on dozens of people
within the United States who were communicating with targeted al-Qaida
suspects inside the United States.

The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps has approved at least
18,740 applications for electronic surveillance or physical searches
from five presidential administrations since 1979.

The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102
applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's
operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court's
activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that "no
orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the
requested authority" submitted by the government.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for
court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173
of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003
and 2004 -- the most recent years for which public records are
available.

The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for
warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection in the
court's history.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said last week that Bush authorized
NSA surveillance of overseas communications by U.S.-based terror
suspects because the FISA court's approval process was too cumbersome.

The Bush administration, responding to concerns expressed by some
judges on the 11-member panel, agreed last week to give them a
classified briefing on the domestic spying program. U.S. District
Judge Malcolm Howard, a member of the panel, told CNN that the Bush
administration agreed to brief the judges after U.S. District Judge
James Robertson resigned from the FISA panel, apparently to protest
Bush's spying program.

Bamford, 59, a Vietnam-era Navy veteran, likens the Bush administra-
tion's domestic surveillance without court approval to Nixon-era
abuses of intelligence agencies.

NSA and previous eavesdropping agencies collected duplicates of all
international telegrams to and from the United States for decades
during the Cold War under a program code-named "Shamrock" before the
program ended in the 1970s. A program known as "Minaret" tracked
75,000 Americans whose activities had drawn government interest
between 1952 and 1974, including participation in the anti-war
movement during the Vietnam War.

"NSA prides itself on learning the lessons of the 1970s and obeying
the legal restrictions imposed by FISA," Bamford said. "Now it looks
like we're going back to the bad old days again."

Copyright 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more news headlines from the daily media, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/newstoday.html

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

From: Jason Leopold <seattlePI@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Condi Rice Authorized NSA to Wiretap United Nations Phones and Email
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:49:26 -0600


Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council
in run-up to war, former officials say

Filed by Jason Leopold

President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the
National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office
telephones and monitor private email accounts of members of the United
Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign
delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the way for the
U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.

Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on
U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to
know how delegates were going to vote. Rice did not immediately return
a call for comment.

The former officials said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also
participated in discussions about the plan, which involved "stepping
up" efforts to eavesdrop on diplomats.

A spokeswoman at the White House who refused to give her name also
would not comment, and pointed to a March 3, 2003 press briefing by
former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer when questions about
U.N. spying were first raised.

"As a matter of long-standing policy, the administration never
comments on anything involving any people involved in intelligence,"
Fleischer said. "So I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no."

Disclosure of the wiretaps and the monitoring of U.N. members' email
came on the eve of the Iraq war in the British-based Observer. The
leak -- which the paper acquired in the form of an email via a British
translator -- came amid a U.S. push urging U.N. members to vote in
favor of a resolution that said Iraq was in violation of
U.N. resolution 1441, asserting that it had failed to rid the country
of weapons of mass destruction.

News of the NSA spying on the U.N. received scant coverage in U.S.
newspapers at the time. But with the explosive domestic spying report
published in the New York Times last week, a closer examination of
pre-war spying may shed light on whether the Bush administration has
used the NSA for its own political purposes, as opposed to tracking
down communications regarding potential terrorist threats against the
U.S.

The leaked NSA email detailing the agency's spy tactics against the
U.N. was written Jan. 31, 2003 by Chief of Staff for Regional Targets
Frank Koza. In the email, Koza asked an undisclosed number of NSA and
British intelligence officials to "pay attention to existing non-UN
Security Council Member UN-related and domestic comms (home and office
telephones) for anything useful related to Security Council
deliberations."

One intelligence source who spoke to RAW STORY said top White House
officials and some Republican members of Congress had debated in
December 2002 whether to step up the surveillance of U.N. officials to
include eavesdropping on home telephone and personal email accounts. 
Some feared that in the event it was discovered, it would further 
erode relations between the U.S. and the U.N.

The source added that U.S. spying on the U.N. isn't new.

"It's part of the job," the intelligence source said. "Everyone knows
it's being done."

Eavesdropping on U.N. diplomats is authorized under the U.S. Foreign
Intelligence Services Act. However, it's still considered a violation
of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which says that "The
receiving state shall permit and protect free communication on the
part of the mission for all official purposes. The official
correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable."

According to one former official, "The administration pushed the
envelope by tapping their home phones."

Koza's email, a copy of which is included at the end of this report,
says the "Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN
Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for
insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate
RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related
policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/
dependencies, etc."

"The whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an
edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off
surprises.  In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create
efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and
Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters."

Koza's email was sent out to NSA and British intelligence officials
through a top secret surveillance network set up by the NSA, the
British Government Communication Headquarters and similar intelligence
agencies based in Australia, New Zealand and Canada known as Echelon.

Moreover, the email was distributed just four days after Hans Blix
filed his Iraq weapons report with the U.N.

It was leaked to a handful of media outlets in the U.S. and U.K. by
Katharine Tersea Gun, a former translator for British intelligence. 
Gun was arrested in November 2003 and charged with violating her
country's Official Secrets Act. She said she felt compelled to leak
the memo because she believed the U.S. and Britain were about to
launch an illegal war.

"Any disclosures that may have been made were justified on the
following grounds: because they exposed serious illegality and
wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. Government who attempted to subvert
our own security services and, to prevent wide-scale death and
casualties among ordinary Iraqi people and UK forces in the course of
an illegal war," she said in a statement at the time.

In his book "Plan of Attack," Bob Woodward, deputy managing editor of
the Washington Post, said the administration was also spying on Hans
Blix, the U.N. weapons inspector sent to Iraq to look for WMDs.

"One of the things that's gone unnoticed is national intelligence
assets spying on Hans Blix," Woodward told the Council on Foreign
Relations on June 9, 2004 "And Bush was getting these reports and felt
that there was incongruity between what Blix was saying publicly and
what he was actually doing. It makes it very clear we were wiretapping
Hans Blix."

In an article for Counterpunch, media critic Norman Solomon noted that
the U.S. media barely covered the U.N. spying.

"Nearly 96 hours after the Observer had reported it, I called Times
deputy foreign editor Alison Smale and asked why not," Solomon
writes. "'We would normally expect to do our own intelligence
reporting,' Smale replied.  She added that 'we could get no
confirmation or comment.' In other words, U.S. intelligence officials
refused to confirm or discuss the memo -- so the Times did not see fit
to report on it."

The Washington Post printed a 514-word article on a back page with the
headline "Spying Report No Shock to U.N," while the Los Angeles Times
emphasized from the outset that U.S. spy activities at the United
Nations are "long-standing," Solomon wrote.

Solomon says his research turned up only one story which took the
spying seriously -- a Mar. 4, 2003 piece in the Baltimore Sun.

The leaked NSA email which revealed the spying follows.

      #  ========================

      To: [Recipients withheld] From: FRANK KOZA, Def Chief of Staff
(Regional Targets) CIV/NSA Sent on Jan 31 2003 0:16 Subject:
Reflections of Iraq Debate/Votes at UN-RT Actions + Potential for
Related Contributions Importance: HIGH Top Secret//COMINT//X1 All, As
you've likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge
particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus
US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting
to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related
resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be
considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc -- the whole gamut of
information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining
results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that
means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC
members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra
focus on Pakistan UN matters. We've also asked ALL RT topi's to
emphasize and make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member
UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC
deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of special UN-related
diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from countries not
sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute related
perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognize that we can't afford to
ignore this possible source. We'd appreciate your support in getting
the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct
access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I
suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal
channels - especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for
this specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the
SecState's presentation to the UNSC.  Thanks for your help.

      #  ==================================
      (Note: Slight edit made for clarification purposes.)

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

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

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

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

From: Olivia Munoz <ap@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Red Cross Hurricane Fraud Quite Substantial
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:25:04 -0600


49 Accused of Defrauding Hurricane Fund
By OLIVIA MUNOZ, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago

The number of people indicted in a scheme that bilked thousands of dollars
from a Red Cross fund designated for Hurricane Katrina victims has risen to
49, federal authorities said.

At least 14 employees worked at a Red Cross call center in Bakersfield and
are accused of helping family and friends file false claims for aid money,
said Mary Wenger, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott in
Sacramento.

Six have pleaded guilty to federal wire fraud charges since the first
indictments were announced in October, she said Tuesday.

The fake claims drained at least $200,000 from the fund, with an
average payout of about $1,000, Red Cross spokeswoman Devorah Goldburg
said. The total could rise as the investigation continues, she said.

The Bakersfield site is the largest of three Red Cross centers set up
to handle hurricane calls. Others are in Niagara Falls, N.Y., and
Falls Church, Va. Operators provided qualifying victims with a
personal identification number they then presented to receive aid
funds from Western Union, authorities said.

The Red Cross contacted the FBI after it performed an audit of the
call center and discovered an unusually high number of claims were
being paid out at Western Union outlets in the Bakersfield area.

"It was the Red Cross that found this problem," Jack McGuire, the
national group's interim president, said Wednesday on NBC's "Today."
"We put into effect these call centers to speed up delivery of support
to people that needed it. As part of that, we put into place
mechanisms to look for fraud up front and to find fraud after the
fact."

None of the indicted employees worked directly for the Red Cross.

Officials of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Spherion, which operates the
call center, have said the company didn't have time to run background
checks on its 1,200 workers.

The indicted employees were providing PIN numbers to their friends and
family who would then go to Western Union to collect the funds, Scott
said in October.

"Sometimes they'd give a victim a PIN number and turn around and call
a buddy with the same PIN, and there'd be a race to Western Union," he
said.

McGuire said $200,000 was a small percentage of the approximately $1.4
billion Red Cross provided to Katrina victims. And he said Red Cross
was working to improve its delivery and anti-fraud systems for the
future.

McGuire, executive vice president of the charity's Biomedical
Services, was named to serve as interim leader after President Marsha
Evans announced her resignation Dec. 13.


Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more news from Associated Press, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/AP.html

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

From: Greg Risling <ap@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Desperate Meth Users Turn to ID Theft
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:26:50 -0600


By GREG RISLING, Associated Press Writer

Stealing mail. Digging through trash. Days spent in front of a
computer trying to unlock financial information. All to score
methamphetamine.

Authorities are discovering that more and more desperate users of the
drug are turning to identity theft to pay for their habit, creating a
criminal nexus costing Americans millions of dollars.

The trend is sweeping the West and spreading to other parts of the
country, with one hub of activity in the garages and trailer parks of
Riverside and San Bernardino counties on the fringe of suburban Los
Angeles.

The region was the site of a third of California's nearly 500 meth lab
busts in 2004 and is home to the second-highest number of identity
theft victims in the nation.

"It's been said the two crimes go together like rats and garbage,"
said Jack Lucky, a Riverside County prosecutor who nearly became a
victim of ID theft himself before his personal information was found
at a meth lab.

The connection is posing a major challenge for authorities, who until
recently tended to overlook or neglect identity theft evidence at meth
labs in favor of pursuing drug charges that are easier to prove and
carry stiffer penalties.

"We weren't educated or sophisticated enough to spot what they were
doing," said Riverside County sheriff's Sgt. Steve Koller, a narcotics
task force member. "It's taken us a while to catch up."

U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., has
called on the Department of Justice to study the link further and
recommend tougher penalties for those convicted of both crimes.

"What we are probably going to find is that there is a stronger
connection than we know right now," she said.

No figures were available on just how much the link is costing
consumers.  Separately, however, meth use and identity theft have each
taken their toll.

Nearly 10 million Americans fell victim last year to identity theft,
costing $5 billion. Meanwhile, the popularity of methamphetamine has
grown, with an estimated 12 million people trying it at least once.

Police said meth users - known as "cranksters" -- are drawn to
identity theft because they can stay up for days scanning computer
records or go "Dumpster diving" for discarded financial information.

A drug dealer recently provided fake identities to a woman in Phoenix
who allegedly used them to buy cell phones. She was paid with
methamphetamine, and the phones were later used by some of the
dealer's associates, authorities said.

Last summer, Georgia authorities tracked at least 20 thieves -- known
as the "Mailbox Meth Gang" -- who cruised housing subdivisions looking
for raised flags on mailboxes that could yield checks and bank
statements to exchange for meth. Investigators found 14,000 credit
card numbers in a laptop computer seized from the gang, but the most
success came from using the internet to steal credit card numbers and
other personal information.  

Police said the thieves typically do not target one spot too long and
often divide tasks, with different persons stealing the identity,
converting it and then using it.

Alameda police Sgt. Anthony Munoz said about 85 percent of the
identity theft cases he investigates have a connection to
methamphetamine use. In one, a defendant pleaded guilty to 56 counts
of identity theft and was sentenced to just one year in county jail,
he said.

"Those are the type of sentences you get," said Munoz, who backs
sentencing enhancements for people convicted of both crimes.

Penalties for identity theft vary from state to state. In California,
where legislators are trying to strengthen the laws, identity thieves
can face up to three years in prison and a fine up to $10,000.

"We don't have the significant sentences right now that would deter
some of these individuals," Riverside County District Attorney Grover
Trask said.  "It's easy money."

In Arizona, the connection is so prevalent that Attorney General Terry
Goddard now sends an investigator with identity theft expertise to
meth lab busts.

Lucky, the Riverside County prosecutor, didn't realize personal
information had been stolen from his mailbox until a caller said there
had been fraudulent activity linked to his credit card.

He got suspicious when the caller requested his Social Security
number. When he asked for a supervisor, he was given a toll-free
number that was no longer in service.

Identity thieves later applied for credit in his name and the
prosecutor didn't discover where his identity ended up until he got a
call from a sheriff's deputy.

"I guess we weren't really surprised they found it at a meth lab," Lucky
said.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. 

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more Associated Press headlines and stories, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/AP.html

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

From: Reuters News Wire <reuters@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Penis Patch the Top Spam in 2005
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:28:17 -0600


Ads mentioning real estate tycoon Donald Trump and those hawking
"Penis Patch" body enhancements were among the top 10 junk e-mails in
2005, according to America Online.

Noticeably absent? Porn.

"Porn is passe when it comes to spam," Nicholas Graham, an AOL
spokesman said, "people find it boring."

Sexually suggestive e-mails took another tumble this year after
slipping in popularity last year, although web sites devoted to sex
increased, about half of the total web sites in 2005 dealt with
sex, including pictures, etc.

More than a half-trillion junk e-mails, known as spam, were blocked by
AOL filters, slightly above 2004 levels, the company said. The number
of junk e-mails reported by AOL's 26 million members worldwide has
declined about 75 percent since 2003.

E-mails using more sophisticated tactics that attempt to deceive
recipients by purporting to be from a friend or a legitimate agency or
bear subject lines such as "Your Mortgage Application is Ready" are
also beginning to replace blatant product promotions, AOL said.

Spammers "are (employing) 'back alley' tactics, and they are doing it
with a specialized team that's working overtime to hide the source of
their spam by employing zombie PC's, bot-nets and using other
nefarious tactics," Charles Stiles, AOL's postmaster, said in a
statement.

In 2005, AOL blocked an average of 1.5 billion spams per day. Approxi-
mately 8.5 in 10 e-mails received at its gateway were blocked as junk.

AOL is a division of media conglomerate Time Warner Inc.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. 

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more news headlines of interest each day, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/internet-news.html

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

From: BBC News Wire <bbs@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Businessman in EU Wins in Email Spam Case and Collects
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:42:43 -0600


A businessman has won what is believed to be the first victory of its
kind by claiming damages from a company which sent him e-mail spam.
Nigel Roberts, who lives in Alderney in the Channel Islands, took
action against Media Logistics UK over junk e-mails in his personal
account.

Under new European laws, companies can be sued for sending unwanted
e-mails. An EU spokesperson noted that "European Union is _NOT_ the 
United States. The amount of spam coming from the United States each
day is simply incredible. They (Americans) seem unwilling to do much
about it, at least anything effective. We are approaching it from a
different direction."

The Stirlingshire-based firm has agreed to pay 270 pounds compensation
to Mr Roberts, who runs an internet business.

'Tiny victory'.

Three years ago the EU passed an anti-spam law, the directive on
privacy and telecommunications, which gave individuals the right to
fight the growing tide of unwanted e-mail by allowing them to claim
damages. Some 'technical specialists' employed by European Union will,
on request, investigate the 'true source' of the questionable email
and assist the users in filing appropriate, and realistic claims.

Mr Roberts received unwanted e-mail adverts for a contract car firm
and a fax broadcasting business and decided to take action against the
company.

The company filed an acknowledgement of the claim at Colchester County
Court but did not defend it and a judge ruled in favour of Mr Roberts.

In an out-of-court agreement Media Logistics agreed to pay Mr Roberts
damages of 270 pounds plus his 30 pound filing fee, and other expenses.

Mr Roberts said he had limited his claim to a maximum of 300 pounds in
order to qualify to file it as a small claim.

He said: "This may be a tiny victory but perhaps now spammers will
begin to realise that people don't have to put up with their e-mail
inboxes being filled with unwanted junk. "

No-one from Media Logistics UK was available for comment.

A spokesman for the Information Commissioner's Office, the watchdog
who oversees the Data Protection Act, said it was the first case of
its kind he had heard of.

He said: "What I can say is that I haven't heard of anyone doing so and we
haven't taken a case under that legislation, but things are going to
be changing here in EU where spam is concerned. "

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/4562726.stm

Copyright 2005 BBC MMV

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For news and stories from Europe, please listen to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/BBC.html  (World Service audio stream)
or, http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/BBC-summary.html (Five minute
hourly news.)

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

From: Jeremy Pelofsky <reuters@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Move to New Airwaves to Cost $936 Million
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:30:02 -0600


By Jeremy Pelofsky

Moving U.S. Defense Department and 11 other government agencies'
wireless communications to new airwaves will cost almost $936 million,
according to a new government estimate released on Wednesday.

The 90 Megahertz of airwaves the agencies will give up will be sold at
an auction that could be held as early as June 2006. The airwaves are
seen as prime real estate for companies to offer wireless services
like mobile wireless high-speed Internet access.

Michael Gallagher, who heads the Commerce Department's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration which worked on the
cost estimates, said they were less than industry estimates of several
billions of dollars.

"We need to make sure the industry has the resources" for new
services, he said in a telephone interview. The additional airwaves
will help carriers "to be the broadband competitors of tomorrow."

The airwaves could also be used to expand coverage and improve cell
phone service quality.

It could take some agencies up to four years or longer to move 2,240
frequency assignments though most will be completed within three
years, Gallagher said.

There are roughly 201 million wireless subscribers in the United
States and companies like Cingular Wireless and Verizon Wireless are
rolling out new services like high-speed Internet and video accessible
on mobile devices.

The bands to be sold at auction include 1710-1755 Megahertz and
2110-2155 Mhz. The Federal Communications Commission, which conducts
the auction, is currently working on the procedures for the sale.

A law signed last year provides for the proceeds from the auction to
cover the relocation costs for the government agencies. But the FCC
sale can only be completed if the proceeds bring in at least 10
percent more than the costs to relocate the government operations.

The biggest cost is expected to be moving the Defense Department, at
almost $289 million, followed by the Justice Department at
approximately $263 million. Other agencies switching airwaves include
the Energy Department, Federal Aviation Administration and NASA, among
others.

The last major FCC commercial wireless airwaves sale, concluded in
February, raised $2.25 billion.

Cingular Wireless, the No. 1 U.S. carrier, is a joint venture of
BellSouth Corp. and AT&T Inc., Verizon Wireless is the No. 2 provider
and a joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group Plc.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. 

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

Look for more news headlines and stories daily in the Christian
Science Monitor and the New York Times by going to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/nytimes.html

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

From: Phil Earnhardt <pae@dim.com>
Subject: Reliable, Easy, and Cost Effective Way to Record Calls?
Date: 28 Dec 2005 10:36:56 -0800
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com]


I'm going to be doing interviews over the phone; I'd like to be able
to easily and reliably record the calls.

Radio Shack SKU #17-855 connects between the headphone jack of a
cordless (or cellular) telephone and a headset. There is a 1/8 inch
autio out plug. However, I suspect that such devices may not be
tremendously reliable -- lots of connectors, batteries, etc.

Are there any cell phones that allow conversations to be streemed
directly to an SD card?

How about a BT phone that can stream the conversation to a computer?

Are there services that provide a number I can conference in that will
record the call and then allow me to pull a recording of the call off
of a website for $5-10/hour?

Any other alternatives -- any corded phones with built-in recording
capability for less than $200?

TIA.

--phil


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you sure your real name isn't Condi
Rice, and 'Phil Earnhardt' isn't an alias you use for spying on the net?
PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:00:21 EST
From: USTelecom dailyLead <ustelecom@dailylead.com>
Subject: Covad, Verizon Settle Their Differences


USTelecom dailyLead
December 28, 2005
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/APnwatagCDuiBJFcfu

		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Covad, Verizon settle their differences
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Washington state regulators clear Verizon-MCI deal
* Predicting the telecom and media mergers of 2006
* South, North Korea linked via phone connections
* Lucent's overfunded pension plan contributes heavily to profits
USTELECOM SPOTLIGHT
* Explore the Business of Communications and Entertainment at TelecomNEXT
TECHNOLOGY TRENDS
* Review: AT&T's CallVantage stands up to the test
* Breakthrough technology takes home networks to next level
* Mobile TV gathers steam
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Report: Wireless spectrum transition could cost $936M
* China reveals more details about 3G plans

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/APnwatagCDuiBJFcfu

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Physically Protecting The Local Loop Network?
Date: 28 Dec 2005 08:33:55 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Steven Lichter wrote:

> I had a space saver type of phone (the old black ones with the dial on
> top) installed in a room in my parent's garage and the installer that
> installed it worked on the phone the better part of a day, could not
> get it to work, and had other installers coming by to look at it, he
> came back the next day and got it to work, it needed a special bell
> box to work.  When I ordered the phone the rep had no idea what it
> even was, this was in Pacific Telephone area.

Presumably this was before divesture and the phone company still owned
the telephone unit?

Before divesture there were a fair amount of older phones still in
service that required separate bell boxes.  All candle stick and 202
("French") telephone sets did.  The 302 set (1938) was a technical
advance in that no separate bell box was required.  Many 202 sets
still in service were modernized with an "F" (300 series) handset
replacing the older one, and candle sticks got "F" transmitter and
receivers; so this equipment all remained in service and was very
common in the 1950s and 1960s.  The Space Saver was very popular on
workbenches, and even advertised for the home.

Anyway, before divesture I'm surprised the phoneco had trouble working
with a phone that required a bell box.  Sure they were rare by the
1980s, but not so rare.

Steven Lichter wrote:

> Many years ago I had an old magneto phone on my line (before
> deregulation) my daughter at the time was about 1 1/2 years old and
> cranked it, to say the least it caused problems, first the fuses on my
> both sides of my line were blown, and it must have taken the protector
> on the frame out, PacTel was out within an hour and they were not
> happy with me, I pointed out it had been a phone that was made by for
> for The Western Electric Co., that did not seem to impress them, I was
> told not to put it on the line again; I did, but disables the magneto.

That was a reason -- quite legitimate -- that the phone companies
(both Bell and indepedents) fought customer owned equipment,
especially without protective devices.  If a lot of customers had this
sort of thing it would add up to a lot of service calls for the phone
company, and for them considerable extra expense and aggrvation
without benefit.  The pre-divesture Bell System physical plant was
engineered for low maintenance to minimize service calls.  Customer
owned equipment likely wouldn't have such high quality and be more
likely to fail.  The result is service calls and finger pointing.

The phone company correctly realized new customer telephone sets would
be cheap junk and cause false busies, shorts, and bad connections all
of which were heresy to the service standards principles of the old
Bell System.

Once customer owned equipment was clearly here to stay, the phone
companies did a 180 degree reversal, and ceased end-to-end
responsibility for service.  So now if you have a telephone problem,
the phone company does nothing until you are absolutely sure it is not
a problem in your wiring or your telephone sets; if it is, they will
charge you and charge you dearly to fix it.  And of course now we have
fingerpointing over which side of the demarc the problem is on.

The phone company added more protection in the local loop and C.O. for
this sort of thing and of course we customers add to pay for it in our
bills.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Everytime I get a piece of junk mail
from Southwestern Bell, err, SBC, err AT&T offering some new promotion
or another ("take it all for six months or a year for ten dollars per
month", etc) one thing they _always_ insist has to be included in the
'deal' is Wire and Line Protection/Repair Service; they always clearly
indicate this is _not_ optional.  PAT]

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

From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Physically Protecting The Local Loop Network?
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:51:18 UTC
Organization: Organized?  Me?


In article <telecom24.583.9@telecom-digest.org>, Steven Lichter
<Die@spammers.com> wrote:

> I had a space saver type of phone (the old black ones with the dial on
> top) installed in a room in my parent's garage and the installer that
> installed it worked on the phone the better part of a day, could not
> get it to work, and had other installers coming by to look at it, he
> came back the next day and got it to work, it needed a special bell
> box to work.  When I ordered the phone the rep had no idea what it
> even was, this was in Pacific Telephone area.  When I moved out they
> never came and got it, they just left it there.  I came and got it one
> day and it lives with my other old phone in my den.

I also had one of those many years ago.  I didn't have the bell box
that was normally used with it, so I took an induction coil from
another phone (probably a 300 series) and wired it up.  Worked fine.
That was 6 houses and 40+ years ago, and I have no idea where it is
now.


Rich Greenberg Marietta, GA, USA richgr atsign panix.com    + 1 770 321 6507
Eastern time.  N6LRT  I speak for myself & my dogs only.   VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red & Shasta (RIP),Red, husky                   Owner:Chinook-L
Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/  Asst Owner:Sibernet-L


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had one of those for awhile, but
instead of hunting down a side-ringer I just plugged it in and used
one of the other phones in my house for a ringing signal. It was
easier just listen for a bell ringing somewhere else close by.  PAT]

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

From: DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones)
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:05:05 -0700
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.583.7@telecom-digest.org> Anthony Bellanga
<anthonybellanga@spam-poison.com wrote:

> PAT: Please suppress my email address! THNX!

> DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:

>> Anthony Bellanga wrote:

>>> And using a calling card from a payphone can be significant these
>>> days since the payphone owner can now "legally" extort huge charges
>>> from the long distance carrier or card provider, who will then extort
>>> those surcharges from us.

>> No extortion involved.  If someone held a gun to your head or
>> otherwise forced you to use the payphone, it would be extortion.
>> Since you choose to use a payphone, you choose to absorb that cost.
>> A cost, which is regulated, and which helps telcos continue to run pay
>> phones at all, since they're not generally considered profitable
>> anymore, at least around here.

> It IS extortion at the rates they charge. While I have a cellphone,
> not everyone has one, and payphones with calling cards are still the
> way they need to place calls while not at home.

Extortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person obtains
money, behaviour, or other goods and/or services from another by
wrongfully threatening or inflicting harm to this person, reputation,
or property.

Unless the owner of the payphone is threatening or inflicting harm
upon you causing you to make a call, no extortion has been committed.
Feel free to contact your AG or a local ADA and see if you can get
extortion charges filed against a payphone operator or owner, if you
want confirmation.

> The surcharge rates are *NOT* regulated! The FCC/etc. have "allowed"
> the payphone owners to charge these surcharges, LONG AFTER the private
> payphone owners first became involved in the payphone game. But the
> rates themselves, while "recommended" by the FCC/etc., are NOT
> regulated! The amounts that the payphone owners charge back to the
> Long Distance carriers who then pass back to the card-holder is *PURE
> GRAVY* for both, since the Long Distance and Card companies are most
> likely adding even more profit for themselves.

The rate the payphone operator charges IS regulated, the rate your
calling card charges you is not.

If you're paying too much, get a better calling card -- There are tons
of options.

> Payphone service used to be a good convenient public service when
> telco really did own the phones. But when the non-telco owners came
> in, like a cancer, payphone service went to hell, with the telcos
> finally pulling out of the game completely in many places. I'll just
> use my cellphone whenever I'm not able to use my home phone, but I do
> feel for those who don't have cellphones and have to use remaining
> sleazy (non-telco) payphones.

Not really -- Private non-telco payphones are still regulated.  Things
"went to hell" when payphones ceased being profitable.

Making a payphone call is not a right.  Your "need" to make a call
does not give you the right to do so at a rate of your choosing.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones)
Date: 28 Dec 2005 08:27:09 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


John Levine wrote:

> The amount the payphone owner charges the calling card company is
> regulated, but you are correct that they can mark it up as much as
> they want.  I would think that the obvious solution would be to find a
> calling card that doesn't.  It's not like there is a shortage of
> options.

Well, one obvious option is to require payphones to run like any other
business and post its rates clearly on the phone.  Today, pay phones
still treat customers like the old days, where toll charges were
instantly available 24/7 by asking the operator, so there was no need
to post rates.  Yet, they don't charge like that nor make the pricing
known.  That IS sleazy business to hide your costs.

Another example of how modern day phone "competition" screws customers.
But we're just so better off that we got rid of the evil Bell System!
<sarc>

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

From: DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Extenders?
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:05:05 -0700
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.584.4@telecom-digest.org> kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:

> These devices are very illegal.  They are also very poorly built and
> freqently sources of bizarre interference to 800 MHz trunked radio
> systems as well as to various military UHF comm systems.

> When I find them, I smash them in front of the owner, and discourage
> him from installing any more of them.  It helps to have an MP along.

Sounds like a good witness when you get prosecuted for destruction of
private property, MPs wouldn't want to tarnish their reputation by
committing perjury.

As for the devices, they're not illegal to own, only to operate (And
then, they're only illegal without a license, or only if they operate
outside the licensed bands)

Oh, and having an MP is smart too, since they have no authority over
civilians.  You might as well bring FEMA and the CDC with you.

*shrugs*

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

From: Rik <hrasmussen@nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Extenders?
Date: 28 Dec 2005 05:44:38 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


An external antenna, being a passive device, would probably cause no
problems and probably would not lead to any issues of its use even
though one might argue that such an antenna could be deemed illegal on
the grounds that the cellphone's FCC Type Acceptance only is for the
manufacturer's supplied antenna.

The argument being made here about illegality concerns the use of
active BDA's.

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

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Extenders?
Date: 28 Dec 2005 16:00:12 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not see what would be so illegal
> about hooking up an external antenna at a somewhat higher line of
> sight. Many phones (Nokia models for example) have a plug on the back
> side for just that reason.   PAT]

That is not illegal, but that is not what these devices do.

--scott

"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

From: niallgal@yahoo.com <niallgal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Extenders?
Date: 28 Dec 2005 13:01:22 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


A quick web search comes up with
http://www.digitalantenna.com/cellamprep_DA4000SBR.html which makes the
following claims:

Q: Does the owner of this equipment (installed location) require an FCC
license to operate the repeater?

A: No, neither the user nor the installer needs an FCC license. All of
our products are FCC approved. In the instruction manual, you will
find guidelines to follow to comply with all FCC requirements, such as
proper separation between antennas, and persons must be 6 meters
horizontally away from outside antenna.

Maybe worth a try.

N

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Unanswered Calls to Cell Phones?
Date: 28 Dec 2005 08:36:58 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


John Levine wrote:

> I suspect your calling card was charging you for any call over N
> seconds rather than checking for supervision.  I make test calls from
> my landline to my cell numbers in Luxembourg and Switzerland from time
> to time, hanging up once my phone starts ringing, and I don't ever
> recall being charged unless I answered.

No.  At that time the Calling Card worked fine on traditional calls,
using supervision.  It was going to a cell phone and having the
carrier answer that caused the charge.

I suspect when the carrier answers supervision says the call is
answered, even if it is an intercept recording.  The cellphone and
landline world work very differently.

DevilsPGD wrote:

>> And using a calling card from a payphone can be significant these
>> days since the payphone owner can now "legally" extort huge charges
>> from the long distance carrier or card provider, who will then extort
>> those surcharges from us.

> No extortion involved.  If someone held a gun to your head or
> otherwise forced you to use the payphone, it would be extortion.

> Since you choose to use a payphone, you choose to absorb that cost.  A
> cost, which is regulated, and which helps telcos continue to run pay
> phones at all, since they're not generally considered profitable
> anymore, at least around here.

Utter nonsense.  It IS extortion.

When you are in an emergency situation (ie in a hospital) and they
don't allow cellphone use or you don't have one, you indeed are forced
to use their phone and pay their charges.

As others pointed out, all charges the customer pays on a pay phone
are UNREGULATED.  The pay phone provider can charge you whatever you
wish.

Unlike normal businesses, pay phone providers do not have to tell you
their prices; you only find out a month later when you get the bill.
Imagine going food shopping with the prices unmarked and not knowing
how much you spent for food until the bill comes.  Would you tolerate
that?  But it's perfectly fine with pay phones.

> (TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, considering that a cell phone
> is normally always within its owner's reach (a holster fastened to
> your trousers, in your purse, in a holder near the driver of an
> automobile, etc) it would seem very odd that it had to ring more than
> three or four times, at best, unanswered.  PAT]

Actually, it is not always in reach, or the recipient isn't always in
a position to promptly answer.  Some people, while driving, prefer to
pull over before taking a call, or our in a critical moment in traffic
(navigating a busy interchange) and don't want the distraction.  If
the phone is stored in a purse or backpack, the bag has to be put down
and searched to dig out the phone.

The old Bell System always taught us to allow 10 rings to give someone
time to answer, I don't see why that should be any different for a
cell phone.

I suspect the intercept after three rings is to save them tower and
switch time, and I think it represents too much frugality on their
part.

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

From: Tony P. <nospam.kd1s@cox.nospam.net>
Subject: Re: What Carriers Does Vonage Use to Terminate Calls?
Organization: The Ace Tomato and Cement Company
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:29:36 -0500


In article <telecom24.584.6@telecom-digest.org>, advertising@adtomi.com 
says:

> I'm just currious what companies Vonage users to terminate calls across
> the country since they do not have their own true infrastructure.  Any
> ideas?

> Gabriel

Mostly Paetec and Focal CLEC switches in various regions. Probably why
they can't do proper LNP in some cases since neither Paetec or Focal
have a switch in those regions.

Luckily we've got a pretty much idle Paetec #5ESS here in Providence
that handles things quite nicely.

Vonage simply uses IP packets instead of copper pairs to haul calls to
underutilized capacity on CLEC switches. Really elegant when you come
right down to it. They completely bypassed the local regulatory
environments.

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


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 2005-06 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 #585
******************************