|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 150 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
800 GOOG 411 (was: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Texting May Be Taking a Toll
Re: Texting May Be Taking a Toll
Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID & Re: [telecom] ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Re: 1984 All Over Again?
Re: OneSuite (was Re: AT&T to discontinue CallVantage voip service)
====== 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: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:39:44 GMT
From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <op.uuxrgdsgwqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:08:37 -0400, tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net>
wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 19:13:42 -0400, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 31, 7:25 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>
>>> If by 'information', you mean what is now called 'directory
>>> assistance',
>>> with the exception of 800-555-1212, it is to be expected that there
>>> would
>>> be a payment demand for -that-. "Everybody" charges for Directory
>>> assist.
>>> calls these days. The third-party pay-phone operators (who place
>>> COCOTS
>>> that _they_ own on other peoples property) are notorious for having DA,
>>> like 'operator-assisted' calls handled by a contracted service of their
>>> choice -- with exorbitant rates passed through to the customer.
>>
>> The other day I was surprised to see not only a public pay phone, but
>> a telephone directory in the shelf underneath it.
>>
>> In the old days most pay phones had phone books with them, some simply
>> free standing on a shelf underneath, many in binders attached in
>> various ways, from simple chains to pull out levers. Larger banks of
>> pay phones had a shelf of several local telephone books. Very large
>> banks had many telephone books available. Even as they switched from
>> booths to kiosks they provided a shelf for the directory.
>>
>> I haven't checked lately, but I think the cost of directory assistance
>> these days is $1.00; even more from a cell phone ($1.50?). I don't
>> know if 1+NPA+555-1212 works anymore or what the charge is for that,
>> but local 411 often has national listings. In some places they're
>> providing, for a fee, other information too such as yellow pages
>> listing, such as restaurants in an area.
>>
>> I could understand charging when a listing is in the book, but often
>> times someone has a new number that isn't available.
>>
>> (Last night on the train I heard someone use their cell phone to call
>> Information, I wonder what it cost.)
>
> I've heard of -- even tested out -- free, ad-sponsored DA numbers.
> Don't recall them exactly now, but they were all, IIRC, of the form:
>
> string together, in appropriate order, one each of {800 888 877 866],
> [free goog], [411]. (Yeah, of the 16 possible combos, only very few
> will provide a free DA service -- sorry I don't remember which, if any.]
>
> Or, by example:
>
> 800 free 411 (800 3733411) ; 800 411 free (800 3733411) ;
> 800 goog 411 (800 4664411) ; 800 411 goog (800 4114664) ; and
>
> [There are] 12 more, with 888, 877, or 866 in lieu of 800.
>
> Rather similar to the web URL for free DA another reader posted ;-) .
>
> Disclaimer: I might be all wet on this ... .
>
> Cheers, -- tlvp
Follow-up: I tested 1 800 373 3411 and 1 800 466 4411 earlier today:
the former is laden with adverts, but offers DA, time, and weather;
the latter is without adverts, but offers DA only for "businesses"
(I tried "Thai restaurants, Connecticut, New Haven" -- it worked well).
The other 14 may well be erroneous recollections on my part ... or not.
Cheers, -- tlvp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:17:36 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: 800 GOOG 411 (was: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Message-ID: <h05f3f$6f2$1@news.albasani.net>
Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote:
>I have not tried it, but Google has a 411 service which is free:
>http://www.google.com/goog411/ . The demonstration video on this site
>does not show any advertising messages on the phone call. The FAQ
>says "At this point, we do not have advertising opportunities for this
>service." which may mean that after it catches on, they may place ads
>on it. I wouldn't mind ads if the service is free to me.
As it's Google, one always assumes they are adding to their massive
database of personal profiles. Now they know your buying habits, as
linked to a particular phone number. Also, they offer to place the call
for you, which will undoubtably be recorded then run through voice
recognition software.
Soon that pizza will be delivered to your door minutes before you start
to get really hungry.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:55:38 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <0uac25l7orl607oq7pddiq3noqvb93e13s@4ax.com>
Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote:
>> Which then leads to the exorbitant rates that hotels in city centres
>> charge for local and long distance phone calls. I wonder just how
>> much revenue they are really getting given that folks who are staying
>> in such almost certainly all have cell phones.
>
>Why would you stay in Seattle when Microsoft is located in Redmond;
>across the bay, that is unless you are working in downtown.
Depends on the event. If I'm there for a small meeting I stay in Redmond. But when
it's an MVP Summit with 1500 folks then MS has to use downtown hotels due to sheer
logistics of moving enough people around with coaches from a minimum of sites. Some
days are held in the downtown conference centre so we usually just walk there.
Others they move us to the MS campus in Redmond.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <719709.80070.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Fri, 29 May 2009 05:40:13 GMT <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Then I'm trying to visit my brother at his new house in an
> unfamiliar city. I dial his number in with a wrong digit while I'm
> driving. (Yes, I know I shouldn't and I seldom use the phone while
> driving. I'm pretty sure I was at a red light. Does that satisfy
> you?)
> Call goes to voice mail and I realize it's not my brothers phone.
> So at the next red light I re-enter my brothers phone number. While
> I'm doing that the person at the wrong number phones me and ask if I
> called her. I'm thinking to myself "You just cost me $0.55 on my
> prepaid cell phone to prove you're an @#$%$ idiot." $0.30 per
> minute network useage and $0.35 long distance. I politely told her
> that I had called a wrong number and hung up. I do wish that cell
> phones had a slaml-the-handset noise feature though.
Let me get this: You dialed a wrong number (while driving.) The person
who you called calls you back to inquire what you wanted by calling
them. Then *you* are mad because they cost you money by calling you
back.
I'm trying to understand who's at fault here. Is it the person who
dialed the wrong number or the person who called the wrong number
caller back?
It seems to me the courteous thing to do would be to explain that you
called the number in error, [which you did,] and let it go at that.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:57:27 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting May Be Taking a Toll
Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.03.07.57.26.268027@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:00:01 -0400, John Mayson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>>
>> The phenomenon is beginning to worry physicians and psychologists, who
>> say it is leading to anxiety, distraction in school, falling grades,
>> repetitive stress injury and sleep deprivation.
>
> As the father of teens I really wonder where these studies come from. Yes,
> they send a lot of texts. But I simply don't see any of the above
> symptoms. Perhaps some teenagers are already prone to such issues and
> texting is just the latest scapegoat? I've heard everything from video
> games to heavy metal lyrics to Internet usage being blamed. What will we
> blame five years from now?
>
If you were getting bombarded with advertising/information from so many
diverse - and increasingly intrusive - sources these days, I reckon you'd
be suffering similar symptoms eventually.
Maybe with the current acceleration of data overload from so many sources
we are seeing more and more people suffering from it?
If you accept the theory that the human brain has finite capacities for
absorbing, processing and storing information, then having an
ever increasing amount of information to process - via our lovely
technology - must mean we can only devote a smaller amount of that
resource to the increased quantity?
Will our modern technology eventually cause our brains to explode, or (as
in the "Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy") will it just keep us constantly
occupied so we don't have to bother to actually think any more? :-)
If certain people start using a phone that cannot be turned off as a
method of torture to obtain information, then we'll know for sure that
things have gone too far.......
--
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: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:11:03 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting May Be Taking a Toll
Message-ID: <d6bc2555fhj7itqfkgv58p66cn65tdvfbf@4ax.com>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>As the father of teens I really wonder where these studies come from.
>Yes, they send a lot of texts. But I simply don't see any of the
>above symptoms. Perhaps some teenagers are already prone to such
>issues and texting is just the latest scapegoat? I've heard
>everything from video games to heavy metal lyrics to Internet usage
>being blamed. What will we blame five years from now?
Given that I'm of a certain age I recall similar comments about the Beatles and Elvis
Presley. And read a newspaper from 1890. Not 1990 but a century before that.
Remarkable how similar the comments about the youth back then.
That said I have a big problem with texting and driving. Or chatting on the cell
phone and driving. (Well, unless you're in a traffic jam. And not just a red
light.) Small town RCMP had a call a while back about a possible drunk driver.
Turns out she was texting while driving. At night. On a two lane road with no
shoulders.
Over 20 years ago when the first hand held cell phones came out I knew
there would be a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_DynaTAC
I'm waiting at a four way stop with a flashing red light in an
industrial sub division. I see a vehicle coming from the right which
isn't slowing down. As he zooms through the intersection I honk. He
gives me the finger.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:37:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Message-ID: <h05g8d$8ag$1@news.albasani.net>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>In apartment, condo, and co-op multi-family buildings there is often
>no individual "demarc" box for individual units. Rather, the lines
>consolidate in large junction boxes which are maintained by the
>telco. All an individual unit has is a plain phone jack.
Those junction boxes would be the end of telephone company wire.
>In the event there is trouble on the line where is the 'cut off' point
>to determine responsibility for repair? To the subscriber, the cut
>off point would appear to be in their own apt since they obviously
>don't have (nor should have) access to the central junction box.
Between the point the wire enters the apartment and the jacks, that wire
is a fixture of the apartment. Between the telco box and the apartment
is "building wire", a fixture of the building. If the apartment is
a condominium, the building wire would be a limited common element.
For all practical purposes, wire maintenance of inside wire and building
wire is the subscriber's responsibility, but he may need to give the
building owner some notice that he needs access to wiring panels in
utility rooms. In a condo, maintenance of building wire will definitely
be charged back to the unit owner. In a leased or rented unit, it
depends on contract language, but ultimately, the tenant pays.
The ripoff inside wire maintenance plan from the phone company doesn't
necessarily cover building wire.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:41:20 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Message-ID: <h065j0$l1a$2@reader1.panix.com>
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
>>In apartment, condo, and co-op multi-family buildings there is often
>>no individual "demarc" box for individual units. Rather, the lines
>>consolidate in large junction boxes which are maintained by the
>>telco. All an individual unit has is a plain phone jack.
>Those junction boxes would be the end of telephone company wire.
That depends on where. In about 20-25 states, the demark is in the
apartment. There was a shim built to fit behind a 2554 wallset. At the
bottom, it had a modular jack and plug. THAT was the demark point.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <38d77441-eed5-41b6-aac5-180e8ed95ba1@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 3, 2:00 am, gordonb.z9...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> Do carriers have any immunity against lawsuits for incorrect or
> spoofed caller-ID when their marketing department makes no mention
> of this? (assuming, for the moment, that they can't lay it off on
> some OTHER telco providing the bad information). Consider a
> worst-case situation, where the lawsuit is a wrongful death suit,
> and the one (suspected of) spoofing the caller-ID is a homicidal
> stalker, who only managed to get through because of spoofed caller-ID.
> I think a case could happen where it seems quite plausible that the
> telco is responsible.
As far as I know, carriers have no immunity.
In your scenario I would think all telcos involved would be found
liable. In matters where personal safety is compromised by a false
claim, such as from stalkers and robbers, juries can be rather
sympathetic.
In the early years of cellphones, someone was attacked and their
cellphone couldn't get through to the police. They sued over false
advertising claims. I believe after that cell phones included
'softening' adjectives.
I think a greater chance would be trouble from the FTC (or FCC) for
selling a false claim. I would guess telcos want to keep the spoofing
and fudging as quiet as possible so as not discourage subscribers from
buying caller-ID service and from them spending any money to fix the
problems. As an aside, I think many carriers have migrated premium
services like Caller-ID over to the 'unregulated' side so the PUC/FCC
no longer has jurisdiction.
My guess is the telcos will add some fine print to cover their
butts.
My hope is that the govt will set a policy outlawing spoofing and go
after those who violate it. I also hope the govt will continue to go
after illicit telemarketers as described early in this discussion; and
not wait until the violations are so enormous. A lot of players know
as long as they don't push it too far they can get away with stuff.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:41:26 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <hv6dnTfi2K1LXrvXnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <V_SdnXmdXOvKJLnXnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
Gordon Burditt <gordonb.z9cw5@burditt.org> wrote:
>>But it is also true that due to the increased spoofing of caller-ID
>>plus failure to send anything ("111-111-1111"), subscribers will get
>>upset they're not getting what they've paid for. This will lead to
>>lost revenue as subscribers disconnect the service or disconnect the
>>provider altogether out of frustration. (It may not be the provider's
>>fault, but they'll get blamed for it just the same.) It's also
>>possible there could be nasty litigation against a carrier by a
>>subscriber or regulatory agency.
>
>Do carriers have any immunity against lawsuits for incorrect or
>spoofed caller-ID when their marketing department makes no mention
>of this? (assuming, for the moment, that they can't lay it off on
>some OTHER telco providing the bad information). Consider a
>worst-case situation, where the lawsuit is a wrongful death suit,
>and the one (suspected of) spoofing the caller-ID is a homicidal
>stalker, who only managed to get through because of spoofed caller-ID.
>I think a case could happen where it seems quite plausible that the
>telco is responsible.
>
Can you find _any_ representation, anywhere, that the telco promises
that the information *is* accurate? <wry grin>
_Some_ telcos that have customers who have the capabilities to supply
their own caller-id data *do* filter the customer-supplied data against
the telco's understanding of what numbers that customer has/owns.
Others do _not_. They don't see a reason to spend the money for something
that brings _them_ "little to no" benefit, as they see things.
As long as _anybody_ allows non-trustworthy data into the system/network,
*nobody* can =rely= on the data provided to be accurate.
Sad, but true, nonetheless.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:32:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID & Re: [telecom] ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <h06535$l1a$1@reader1.panix.com>
"Dr. Barry L. Ornitz" <BLOrnitz48@charter.net> writes:
>Just to give some numbers, at 3 GHz the dielectric constant and loss
>tangent of water, ice and wood are:
> Dielectric Constant Loss Tangent
>Ice (distilled water) 3.2 0.0009
>Water ( 0 °C) 88.0 0.157
>Water ( 20 °C) 80.4 0.157
>Water (100 °C) 55.3 0.157
Which, BTW, is why "defrost" in a microwave oven is so slow. The ice
absorbs zip; so the oven cooks a second, warming the food surface,
pausing to let the adjacent water melt.
Then another second of power, heating that water so it melts more water,
and so forth...
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:29:16 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Message-ID: <OeWdnWGoJolhXbvXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <2416a705-b45a-415f-89a0-5bfa434e4c22@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>In apartment, condo, and co-op multi-family buildings there is often
>no individual "demarc" box for individual units. Rather, the lines
>consolidate in large junction boxes which are maintained by the
>telco. All an individual unit has is a plain phone jack.
>
>In the event there is trouble on the line where is the 'cut off' point
>to determine responsibility for repair? To the subscriber, the cut
>off point would appear to be in their own apt since they obviously
>don't have (nor should have) access to the central junction box.
>
>Thanks.
>
>(Any other information about line maintenance in multi-family housing
>would be appreciated.)
>
Authoritative answer: "It depends". on -where- the state regulatory
authorities said it is.
In a number of jurisdictions, the telco is responsible *ONLY* to the point
where their big multi-pair cable terminates inside the _building_. The
the building management is responsible for the 'house' wiring to the
individual units, and the unit is responsible for the wiring inside their
premises. In such situations, when there's a building wire problem, you
are at the mercy of whomever the building's "selected contractor" is, for
length of time, and price you'll have to pay, to get the problem fixed.
In other jurisdictions, the telco is liable up to the point the wiring
enters the unit itself.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:23:01 -0700
From: Bruce L.Bergman <bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 1984 All Over Again?
Message-ID: <40ad255pt6pig08s0erilb52kuc6mfjlk3@4ax.com>
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:42:47 -0400 (EDT), David Clayton
<dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 May 2009 19:01:50 -0400, Robert Neville wrote:
>
>> Wow... I feel like I'm caught in a time warp. For the past few weeks,
>> there's been nothing but technical discussions about network operations
>> and telecom systems here. No political rants. No social appeals.Granted,
>> mostly historical telecom systems, but still...
>
>And speaking of Telco issues, what is the situation in the US with people
>using VoIP and getting the dial-tone cut from their ADSL link?
>
>Such things are becoming quite popular here in Australia, and the
>incumbent land-line telco here (Telstra) is starting to take a significant
>hit to their revenues.
I will always keep at least one line on Legacy Copper for emergency
service reliability. One voice line on Copper all the way back to
the Central Office so the alarm system dialer can always get to the
Central Station receiver, and when you need to dial 911 there will
most likely be working dialtone there.
Fiber and CATV Coax systems can NOT meet even a four-nines
reliability, let alone five. Both services are dependent on utility
power at the customer end point AND at several amplifiers and
repeaters and concentrator cabinets along the way.
Backup batteries only last so long, and they dont have enough
portable generators to cover them all. They would have to park a
craft truck with a generator set at each point.
--<< Bruce >>--
***** Moderator's Note *****
Copper isn't a panacea: it's trivial to disconnect a copper POTS line
before entering a home, thus disabling any "dial in" burglar alarm
system.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: OneSuite (was Re: AT&T to discontinue CallVantage voip service)
Message-ID: <918245.3183.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:38:13 -0700 (PDT) <zzaldy@gmail.com> wrote:
> You may want to check out Onesuite.com pay as you go VoIP service.
> It's $2.95 monthly for the service that includes free incoming calls
> and a phone number. If you want to use your previous number then
> porting is free. Outgoing rate is 2.5 cents to a US number and 1.9
> cents to Canadian numbers.
Something I've never understood is pricing for OneSuite. I note that
making calls to US numbers is 2.5 cents/minute, 1.9 cents/minute to
Canada and 2.4 cents/minute to call Israel.
Why would it be cheaper to make a call to Canada or to Israel than it
would be to make a domestic US call?
------------------------------
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: 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
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 (14 messages)
******************************
|
or 