Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 
Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 49 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? 
  Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? 
  Re: Renewing cellphone contract--what to get?  
  Cable Modems  
  Re: Dial-up still popular  
  FCC releases on-line DTV reception tool 
  Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? 
  Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters      
  Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters     
  Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters      
  Re: Renewing cellphone contract--what to get?  

====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
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, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:20:53 -0600
From: "Kenneth P. Stox" <stox@sbcglobal.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? 
Message-ID: <CRqml.10770$8_3.4680@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com>

Steve Stone wrote:
>> As an aside, I see the PC "mother of aperture" differently when it
>> comes to communications.  Early PCs were $1,000, and a modem wasn't
>> include and was extra...................
> 
> The first IBM PC I purchased in early 1980s was over $3,000.
> Two 360k floppy drives, 32k of memory, and an EGA color display.
> Top of the line.

If memory serves correct, pardon the pun, 32K was only available on the 
shortly lived cassette model. 64K was standard, and I believe required, 
for the diskette based versions with the top of the line being 128K on 
the mother board. The EGA display was much later, it was announced along 
with the AT.


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

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:47:15 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? 
Message-ID: <pan.2009.02.17.06.47.14.566810@myrealbox.com>

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:50:29 -0500, Steve Stone wrote:

>> As an aside, I see the PC "mother of aperture" differently when it comes
>> to communications.  Early PCs were $1,000, and a modem wasn't include
>> and was extra...................
> 
> The first IBM PC I purchased in early 1980s was over $3,000. Two 360k
> floppy drives, 32k of memory, and an EGA color display. Top of the line.
> 
My Osbourne Executive (circa 1982) cost me more than that! (I still
have it at the bottom of a cupboard - it still boots!).

The amount of computing equipment I could get today for the same value of
cash is staggering.........

-- 
Regards, David.

David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.


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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:08:53 -0800
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Renewing cellphone contract--what to get?  
Message-ID: <pyrml.13090$D32.7644@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> My cellphone contract will expire soon.  I'm happy with the telephone
> set, plan, etc. and don't want to change anything.
> 
> It is a cheap plan.  Can I ask the carrier for any 'giveaways" to keep
> me as a customer?  What are some things carriers typically give
> customers to get them to renew?  As mentioned, I don't want a new
> handset.  But I'd like a new battery for the phone, a case, or a car
> charger.  (The phone battery lasts about 90 minutes talk time between
> charges, which seems low to me.)
> 
> Under my previous cellphone plan, when it expiried it went month-to-
> month, same terms, but I could cancel at any time.  I wonder if the
> current plan will automatically formally renew and become a new
> contract for another full term.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> [public replies please]
> 
You should not have a problem leaving it from month to month; I did that 
with Sprint, but if they decide to make changes to t he plan you are 
using and you have not contract, then you will have you plan changed. 
They might offer you case to stay with them; Sprint did with me, I kept 
the handset I had and just agreed to a 2 year contract, later on my set 
went bad and they replaced it for free with an updated version. 
Batteries, chargers and the such are really cheap on eBay.

-- 
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? 
(c) 2009  I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.


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

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:37:40 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Cable Modems  
Message-ID: <499A5B34.4000405@annsgarden.com>

Moderator's Note: Set for separate threading due to different subject matter. (bh)

[In a thread on Model 32 and 33 Teletype machines,] hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

 > In my opinion, the real driver of the communication revolution
 > was the huge decline in the price of central data servers
 > (computers) and communication lines. Cheap servers made it
 > possible for people to afford to offer useful information
 > on-line, and, to do so in a very user-friendly format. Cheap
 > communications made it possible to provide full scale
 > interconnections between servers and the users, and again, to
 > do it in a user-friendly format.

As a former cable guy, Lisa's comment "... huge decline in the
price of ... communication lines" prompts me to write about
something that's been on my mind for a decade: the cable TV
industry's early efforts to offer internet service.

The initial effort was led by @Home Network, a company founded
and funded by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the same Silicon
Valley VC that had originally funded Netscape.  @Home's initial
efforts were successful, and the major cable TV retailers all
signed up.

Numerous pundits had a field day: That brain-dead cable TV
industry is actually planning to offer internet service?  The
pundits fell into two camps:

- "They'll never make it work."  This camp claimed that the
industry would never be successful, pointing out, among other
things, that the 5-40 MHz return band was too vulnerable to RF
interference.  Stewart Alsop, in a famous 1997 Fortune editorial,
noted that "Cable Modems are a Fantasy" (written, as it happens,
about the same time that Fortune's sister company Time Warner
Cable was gearing up to offer internet service).
http://tinyurl.com/d2h5ep  

- "They'll never be able to handle the load."  This camp claimed
that the industry's network could not handle the anticipated
number of subscribers.  This camp also cited the 5-40 MHz return
band, claiming that the industry would never be able to solve the
interference problem.  Others claimed that the cost of connecting
to the internet would kill the idea; one editorial even claimed
that every cable company would need an OC12 just to handle the
load.

It other words, one camp claimed the industry wouldn't get any
business and the other claimed that it would get too much
business.  One of my former associates, referring to the latter
camp, noted: "well, I sure hope we have that problem!"

A few years later, @Home went bankrupt, and cable TV companies
introduced their own versions of internet service.  @Home was a
noble effort, but IMO it failed for two reasons:

- It tried to become a "portal" like AOL and CompuServe.  At one
point, it even bought an electronic greeting card company.

- It was too successful in building a workable product.  After a
few years of using @Home, cable companies began to think, "this
stuff isn't that difficult, so why are we paying @Home to do
something we can do ourselves?"

Now, a decade later, equipment specs have been standardized and
numerous manufacturers make "cable modem termination system"
(CMTS) equipment for headend installation.  Just about every
cable TV retailer in the country now offers some sort of internet
service.  As long as the RF network is properly maintained
(correct signal levels and stringent control of ingress/egress),
the CMTS runs with little attention.

Modem manufacturers have proliferated too, and the modems
themselves have gotten easier to use. Many cable TV retailers now
offer install-it-yourself modem kits.  Except in cases of signal
failure, most service problems can be resolved by rebooting the
modem.
 
Of course, the industry still faces problems today.  In my
experience, the biggest problems are slow response in some
geographic locations, and lack of service in rural areas.

In most cases, the slow-response problem is caused by congestion
upstream of the cable TV headend.  Maybe there's not enough
capacity in the connection between the headend and the internet
(usually a T1 or a T3), or maybe it's farther upstream.

Lack of internet service in rural areas parallels a similar
problem the industry faced in the 1980s: lack of video services
in rural areas.  The rise of DBS (DirecTV and Dish) has largely
resolved the video problem, but the lack of internet service
continues to be a public-relations headache.  Perhaps the
recently-passed stimulus package will provide the REA with funds
and authority to assist cable TV retailers extend their internet
services.

As for Alsop's famous editorial, perhaps he should have checked
his sources.  He notes, "The show operators said that the local
phone companies could not provide enough bandwidth for all the
cable-modem demos. Uh-huh. Right."  Well, that was the problem.  
The exhibits on the convention floor were connected to a LAN that
was supposed to be connected to the internet, probably by a T1 or
a T3.  Whatever it was, it wasn't there: the local phone company
didn't get it installed in time.

Neal McLain


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

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:35:12 -0500
From: Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dial-up still popular  
Message-ID: <net-news69-0BC423.09351217022009@news.toast.net>

Those customers currently on dial-up by choice (as opposed to those who 
have no decent broadband option) may be hesitant to pay the additional 
cost to move to broadband.  But I don't think it's likely that many 
broadband customers will drop back to dial-up to cut costs.


Assuming most broadband customers also have cellphones, I think those 
looking to cut costs might cut off their landlines before they drop 
their broadband service.  And for those who are already landline-free, 
the cost of a new landline plus dialup service is probably higher than 
their broadband bill.

***** Moderator's Note *****

There's another option, and it's available, paradoxically, because of
the success of wideband offerings: cash-strapped homeowners may also
share high-speed connections with their neighbors.

Savvy college studends and urban dwellers have, for years, been
enjoying free Internet access by "poaching" WiFi connections from
their neighbors. Even ADSL lines in the bottom speed tier have enough
bandwidth to serve two or more homes, so many users who find an open
WiFi hotspot just hook on and don't bother to get their own lines. In
fact, my ISP (Speakeasy, one of the more cluefull outfits) will even
give me a discount and bill my neighbors directly if I sign them up to
share my ADSL line!

The industry has run a semi-successful campaign to make home users
aware of the dangers of open hotspots, encouraging those with wireless
LANs to turn on encryption, but it's only a rear-guard action: users
with older Access Points that support only "WEP" encryption are just
putting up an electronic "No Trespassing" sign by turning WEP on,
since the encryption algorithm is ineffective and was cracked years
ago, so almost anyone who is "in the business" can get by WEP barriers
with little trouble. Even when homeowners with more recent equipment
are able to user the more robust "WPA" method, they're usually willing
to share costs, so when a neighbor who's out of work approaches them,
an offer of ten or twenty dollars a month (in cash) is all it takes to
close the deal.

Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator

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

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:59:43 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: FCC releases on-line DTV reception tool 
Message-ID: <499B415F.9080901@annsgarden.com>

The FCC has released a new on-line DTV reception tool determine what
DTV stations will likely be received at a particular address after
the DTV transition. The tool will provide an educated guestimate by
signal strength.

If you click on a station's call sign, you'll find technical data
about estimated signal strength in +/- dBm, direction to the tower;
and pre- and post-channel numbers.  If you look at the map after
selecting a station, a tower icon will pop up showing the approximate
transmitter location.

The tool uses Google Maps technology, so you can click and drag the
location icon to a different location to do a A-B comparison.  The
results will update automatically.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/

Thanks to Jonathan L. Kramer of CableTV.com for this information.

Neal McLain    




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

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:32:20 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? 
Message-ID: <abfc43f9-0512-4880-b82d-5c08b2f3ef0d@i38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

On Feb 16, 10:09 pm, Jim Haynes <hay...@giganews.com> wrote:


> It seems to have been government policy to keep WU with exactly one foot
> in the grave at all times.  Oslin also argues government favoritism toward
> ITT.

Certainly seems that way.  ITT came under scandal in the late 1960s.

In the 1960s, federal and state regulators were generally very happy
with the Bell System/AT&T as it was.  Their overriding goal was
universal service, meaning cheap entry-level phone service for all.
Official policy was to cross subsidize, so that high volume, very
profitable toll lines paid the same rate as low volume, high expense
toll lines, and premium offerings cross-subsidized bare bones service.
This plan worked because over the years the percentage of Americans
who had telephone service continually grew upward.

Generally, the regulators were opposed to outside "competition"
because they wanted no cream-skimming; cream-skimming would wreck the
cross subsidy model.  Later, MCI came along and used the court system
to overturn official policy and let MCI skim the cream; to get the
good without the obligations for the bad.

It seems, from Oslin's book, that the Federal Govt expected WU to meet
all sorts of "public obligations" which were very expensive.  But WU
didn't have the [highly profitable other businesses] in which to do it.

Oslin also admits WU made business decisions along the way, which is
why I suspect WU missed the boat in the 1960s.

> Or didn't dare to rock the boat.  W.U. could have handled voice over its
> microwave network, could have done essentially what MCI did.  But MCI
> had to go through a bruising court fight to get Bell to connect to their
> customers.

I can't help but wonder if AT&T would've given WU as hard a time as
they gave [MCI].  MCI was obviously a major threat to AT&T, [and] AT&T
saw them for what they really were - ... cream-skimmers, playing by
free market when to their advantage, playing [as] a regulated [public
utility], when to their advantage.  WU, in contrast, was a mature
company seeking a much more limited area (MCI claimed to want to offer
ONLY private line point- to-point service in ONE corridor, but then
promptly changed its plans to be switched in multiple corridors.  WU
would've been strictly private line).

The WU Tech Rev has an article on WU's private line voice service.
How extensive it was I have no idea.  In the 1960s very large
companies were making use of AT&T "SCAN" networks which were private
lines switched by the commercial network.  (In a business, a centrex
telephone set would have two exchanges, one the internal, one the
external.  To call another telephone, one would dial 8, the internal
exchange, and the 4 digits; this would route the call to the location
and telephone.)  I suspect these SCAN networks, which allowed all
phones in a business to participate, were more desirable than a WU
special phone line.

Also, I strongly suspect Bell's local terminal connections for WU were
not voice grade, but lower grade narrow bandwidth lines suitable only
for low speed teletype (per Stone's book).  That makes it less of a
threat.

> As Oslin poiints out, charging telegrams to telephone bills was
> something that originated back when AT&T had acquired a controlling
> interest in W.U.

> We can only speculate what would have happened if AT&T had not been
> forced to divest its W.U. stock shortly afterward.  We might have
> had an integrated and rational voice and record communications
> business in this country.

Given AT&T's record of public service, I'd say we would've had a
superior and more cost effective record communications network, and
improvements in voice communications, too.  In the old days,
piggybacking teleprinter signals over a voice line was very efficient
due to different bandwidths, so a better use of the old network
would've been easy.  Data communications evolved over the 4k bandwidth
of voice lines, but a separate pulse network could've evolved designed
best for data.  I suspect data communications, even high speed high
accuracy digital transmission lines would've been developed much
sooner as an integrated outgrowth of record communication needs.
Cheap cost effective (albeit slower) facsimile may have been available
sooner than it was.

Of couse, the flip side is this is that AT&T would've been an even
bigger company than it was.  Over the years, a great many politicians,
regulators, and activists deeply resented and attacked AT&T  _solely_
on account of its bigness.  As a defense to the general public, AT&T
could say "we don't do everything, there is, after all, Western Union"
and take some of the heat off.

Actually, one major complaint was AT&T's ownership and sole-source
through Western Electric, something AT&T would not give up.  But I
think in reality AT&T's real strength came out of its national network
and ownership of all the phone companies, not Western Electric, and it
could've safely divested WE (not Bell Labs) and still gotten high
quality gear.  I'll note, though, one thing WE did do for AT&T which
was to provide a layoff base; during lean times WE would lay off
workers when regular Bell companies were very hesitant to do so.
Anyway, a divested WE could've thrived not only making the best
telephone gear, but also using its electronic skills to make other
high quality products for industry.


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

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:49:59 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters      
Message-ID: <bPJml.92$Ez6.47@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>

ranck@vt.edu wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 11:39??am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
>>> Prank callers are using VoIP and caller ID spoofing services to pull
> 
>> First, I don't believe 911 (or inward 800) use 'caller id', but rather
>> a more secure ANI to get the calling number.
> 
> I wondered the same thing.  Of course, the 911 center probably gets
> the ANI of the land line that connects the VOIP call to the network.
> That is certainly legitimate, and it shouldn't take much to identify
> the VOIP interconnect numbers in a given 911 service area.
> 
>> Third, I believe almost all 911 centers record all calls and have done
>> so for years.  Thus, pranksters leave some identification behind.
> 
> It should not be too hard to back track from the ANI of the interconnect
> with time and date info to the actual caller for prank calls.  I'd
> be more concerned about *real* emergency calls, and getting real 
> address information.  If the ANI just identifies some interconnect
> facility in some switch room, that's not too useful.  If the call 
> center *also* gets 'caller id' info with the real caller's address
> then that's sort of OK, and I wonder if not being 'caller id' 
> capable is the thing that makes some centers unready.
> 
> A few well publicized presecutions of VOIP companies that fail
> to cooperate with 911 centers to identify pranksters should put
> a stop to most of it.  It wouldn't take much programming effort
> to disallow ANI/caller id spoofing on any call to 911.
> 
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.
> 

Bill

They use the ten digit out of area lines at the 911 center to transmit 
their false calls.  Maybe Bill, who worked a lot on signaling system 
seven, can educate us on what it might take to nail down the callers 
actual identity.  As just one firefighter rescuer I worry a lot more 
about calls not getting through then about pranksters but if the problem 
gets more common they will strain resources badly.

-- 
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad.  It is much too dangerous 
for general use."  Thomas Alva Edison


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

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:58:14 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters     
Message-ID: <WWJml.94$Ez6.63@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>

danny burstein wrote:
> In <gmf2il$9a9$3@solaris.cc.vt.edu> ranck@vt.edu writes:
>  [ snip ]
> 
>> A few well publicized presecutions of VOIP companies that fail
>> to cooperate with 911 centers to identify pranksters should put
>> a stop to most of it.  It wouldn't take much programming effort
>> to disallow ANI/caller id spoofing on any call to 911.
> 
> The PSAPS (Public Safety Answering Positions, AKA 911 centers)
> and their political overlords aren't entirely blameless here.
> 
> It should be trivial, and should be mandatory... that any call
> coming into a PSAP from a "questionable", for want of a better
> term, source, get a Big Note on the screen saying something
> like "this caller is from a questionable source. Make sure
> you triple check any and all info".
> 
> While that wouldn't eliminate all spoofs, it would dramatically
> reduce the concerns.
> 
> Alas, 911 centers are woefully underfunded. In most localities
> there's a "911 surcharge" that's added to phone lines, supposedly
> to be dedicated to the PSAPs and their upkeep.
> 
> (Let's leave aside the whole issue of whether there even
> should be such a special charge as opposed to funding from
> the regular tax revenue stream).
> 
> In reality, in the vast majority of cases, that money simply
> goes into a general gov't fund and gets diverted as the winds
> blow that day.
> 
> 

Danny

That's a hot button issue with me.  My county has both the 911 surcharge 
income and a dedicated fire tax but the council pours it all into the 
general fund and tries to make the public believe that they will have to 
cut fire and rescue service if they cannot charge for ambulance service 
or the voters will not agree to a tax increase and on and on...  The 
bottom line is that politicians despise dedicated revenue that they 
cannot spend how they please and will use any trick they can to turn it 
into general fund money to make it suitably fungible.

-- 
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad.  It is much too dangerous 
for general use."  Thomas Alva Edison


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

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:35:46 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters      
Message-ID: <c6ednaD_48C-DQbUnZ2dnUVZ_oninZ2d@speakeasy.net>

Tom Horne wrote:

> That's a hot button issue with me.  

I apologize: I forgot that I had closed this thread. FWIW, I rejected a 
different post by my brother, in a different thread which was also 
closed, but I had a brain freeze on this thread.

"They say the memory is the second thing to go".

Bill


-- 
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
Telecom Digest

(When sending a post to the digest, please put ""
{without the quotes but _with_ the brackets} at the end of
your subject line, or I may never see your mail. Thanks!)

(Remove QRM from my address for direct replies.)


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

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:50:41 -0500
From: "r.e.d." <red-nospam-99@mindspring.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Renewing cellphone contract--what to get?  
Message-ID: <wd6dnRnjmN4IGAbUnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink.com>

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
news:18a8bc03-8f71-47e6-9147-8c1e64dc7245@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> My cellphone contract will expire soon.  I'm happy with the telephone
> set, plan, etc. and don't want to change anything.
>
> It is a cheap plan.  Can I ask the carrier for any 'giveaways" to keep
> me as a customer?  What are some things carriers typically give
> customers to get them to renew?  As mentioned, I don't want a new
> handset.  But I'd like a new battery for the phone, a case, or a car
> charger.  (The phone battery lasts about 90 minutes talk time between
> charges, which seems low to me.)
>
> Under my previous cellphone plan, when it expiried it went month-to-
> month, same terms, but I could cancel at any time.  I wonder if the
> current plan will automatically formally renew and become a new
> contract for another full term.
>
> Thanks.
>
> [public replies please]

Don't know what you pay now or how much you call, but prepaid may be
a good option.  Not hard to get 10 cents/minute.  Or less than $10 month
if you don't call much.  T-Mobile has a $100/year prepaid plan for 1000 
minutes.


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




TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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.

The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. 

Contact information:    Bill Horne
                        Telecom Digest
                        43 Deerfield Road
                        Sharon MA 02067-2301
                        781-784-7287
                        bill at horne dot net

Subscribe:  telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: mailto:telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom

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://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest

Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

              ************************

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

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 The Telecom digest (11 messages)
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues