|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 154 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: 1984 All Over Again?
Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
MCI Exiting NY
Re: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Melted coax (was: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Re: Melted coax (was: ANI vs. Caller ID)
====== 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: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:02:05 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <igqWl.4428$IP7.3868@newsfe23.iad>
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <bfd.591862d1.37508867@aol.com>, <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>In a message dated 5/28/2009 3:27:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
>>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>
>>
>>>... also disagree that Caller ID is a "hard sell". IIRC, the price
>>>of it has doubled in recent years ($3 to $6 per line) yet it remains
>>>very popular. (I don't know actual subscriber base, but FWIW almost
>>>everyone I know has it in both work and home and all cell phones
>>>have it.) Indeed, some carriers offer it free as part of a package.
>>
>> Many non-Bell landline service providers throw in Caller ID as a
>>freebie with their standard serice offering.
>
>
> And bump up the price of their 'standard service offering', whether or not
> you want CLID. <wry grin>
>
> I _like_ the option of a la carte pricing.
Caller ID would be great at a la carte pricing if it were priced at cost
plus a reasonable rate of return; perhaps $1.50 per month instead of the
predatory pricing by most wireline carriers. If they included universal
name delivery I could then see the price being higher; but they don't.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <624d2459-79fb-4e19-bcc6-fa0a3f4e24a0@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 5, 11:32 am, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/4/2009 1:59:53 PM Central Daylight Time,
>
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> > I'm one of those people who think ads should be (but hardly ever
> > are) the literal truth,
Sorry to nitpick, but that is Gordon's comment you are responding to,
not mine.
My response dealt with a different perspective of the issue.
> ------------------------------------Reply-------------------------------
> You may recall the recent court decision in the case Pizza Hut brought .
. .
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:38:35 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <tj3j25tmqoveolddr2uiqke6133a0neis9@4ax.com>
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:35:58 -0400 (EDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>In the pre-divesture days, it was public policy to offer the cheapest
>policy bare bones phone service so as to make a phone affordable to as
>wide a range of possible. Today many places won't even offer a party
>line which was the way to save money; a private line is in essence
>"bundled", along with other 'extras'.
As late as 2001, long after divestiture, in Massachusetts there was a
separate charge of 47 cents/month to equip a residential telephone
line for touch-tone dialing as well as pulse dialing. In
http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2001/page.jsp?itemID=29740684
Verizon asked the Public Utilities Commision to eliminate the separate
touch-tone charge and roll it into the basic rate.
I don't know whether this request was granted.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:46:47 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <h0ce79$s5$1@blue.rahul.net>
John David Galt wrote in part:
>>>> The next step, of course, would be for well-behaved telcos to block
>>>> or flag (for possible filtering) calls originating from badly-
>>>> behaved telcos.
To which Robert Bonomi responded:
>> (Either the phone company can decide -- on whatever basis -- whom they
>> want to accept calls from, or they *cannot*. there is no middle
>> ground on the matter.)
As our moderator pointed out downthread, any technical fix is going to
have to be installed and used on a switch-by-switch basis, since some
people who control switches won't cooperate or can't understand how.
So even if there is a law requiring all IDs sent to the network to be
adequately validated at the injection point, it simply won't happen.
But although a "good-guy" telco apparently cannot refuse any traffic
from other telcos (at least under the law as it is), I see no reason
why that telco can't have its own list that names some of its own
neighbors (defined by network connectivity) as trustworthy and others
not. Then the good-guy telco could use one bit in the CLID strings it
sends its own customers to tell them whether it regards the string as
trustworthy. And if it doesn't, individual customers might choose to
block the call at their equipment.
This is the model I'm trying to achieve. The similar (analogous)
technique applied to TCP/IP works quite well against spam, and it's
only a matter of time before the volume of junk/spoofed phone calls
as a fraction of all traffic approaches that of spam.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:33:36 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.06.03.33.34.855570@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:11:44 -0400, hancock4 wrote:
.......
> Like Internet spam, caller-id spoofing is a problem that can't be solved
> by technical means: the cost to do so isn't worth the results obtained.
> Passing laws isn't going to work either, since everyone involved - and I
> mean _EVERYONE_ - would have to agree to enforce a uniform standard.
Would it really?
The Internet has anybody (and everybody) able to connect and basically do
what they like with the packets they transmit, but telephony is still
essentially a controlled access network and those that provide the
connections can still enforce - by disconnection if necessary - any sort
of technical rule they like.
There are already all sorts of technical standards for connecting to the
voice infrastructure, if accurate Caller ID was another then it shouldn't
be that big a deal (for legitimate users, at least).
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
A government could "require" that caller-id be accurate, but that
won't stop telemarketeers and/or dunning agencies from spoofing it:
there's money at stake, and the fines that _might_ be imposed are
likely to be less than the profit to be had.
I doubt that any LEC would disconnect a paying customer for spoofing
caller-id: they have stockholders to please, and acting as a rule
enforcer for a government edict might expose a LEC to tort claims,
which would raise the stockholders' ire, and isn't a paying
proposition anyway.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:25:45 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <P62dnbebD99UTbfXnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <37b1a09a-7648-4e4b-b4cb-ade424fec250@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Jun 4, 3:58 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>> >Can you find any representation where the telco acknowledges that the
>> >information may not be accurate?
>>
>> I don't have to. They promise to deliver an ID string for the caller.
>> They do that. If the caller provides his own ID string they 'accurately'
>> pass it on.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but in law there is a basic principle of "what a
> reasonable person thinks".
No, there is not. There are two _very_ different (from each other,
and from what you claim) concepts, lumped under the general name of
the "reasonable man hypothesis". One is what a hypothetical
"reasonable man" _would_ believe (i.e. the 'most likely thing') in a
given set of circumstances, the other is what said "reasonable man"
_could_ believe (i.e. anything _not_ totally 'unbelieveable') in a
given set of circumstances.
> Today a reasonable person is not at all familiar with telephone
> switch internals. They assume the name and number shown on the box
> is the name and number of the caller.
What the 'average' person does, or does *not* know about _anything_
is, legally, *irrelevant* to the 'reasonable man' hypotheses.
As for expectations, "Everyone has the inalienable right to be wrong."
Sometimes you have to let them exercise their rights.
It is not the buisness of the law to protect [a] man from his _own_
stupidities.
> I think they're ok if it says "BAYSHORE HOSP 555-2000" instead of
> "DR. SMITH 555-2368", but not beyond that.
> On cell phones, where one could be paying quite dearly to receive a
> call, the information better be accurate.
Whatever you think it "better be", the reality is that it IS NOT. And
_cannot_ be.
> Today there is a problemn with spammer texters.
And with telemarketers who call numbers *without* verifying that they
are not cell phones. Even using recorded announcements to make the
solicitation. *yawn*
>> The calling party _is_ free, under the law, to identify themselves "however
>> they d*mn well please". It is not a crime to do so, _unless_ one is doing
>> it to defraud. Note well, the operative word is "defraud", not 'deceive'.
>
> But if the law freely allows the caller to spoof [caller id], the law must be
> changed.
There is no such single, monolithic, thing as "the law", to change.
There are, at a minimum_ some 246 *DIFFERENT* sets of laws that would
have to _all_ be changed in exactly the same manner, and *then* the
telcos would have to implement it. Ten years of design and testing
later, it gets implemented. And *THEN* "somebody" has to enforce 'the
law' -- correction, *ALL* 246 governments have to enforce it -- the
changes/improvement you will see will be only as good as the _worst_
of those 246 governments do at enforcement. And, I guarantee you that
there are at least 10-20 of them that, even if "the law" you demand
were passed, [would be] venial enough and corrupt enough that [they]
would take bribes from the low-lifes who wanted to continue the
scamming.
> The other issue the liability of the telco for knowingly selling a
> service that isn't what is seems. But the solution for them is
> simple--just put a disclaimer in the fine print with all the other
> disclaimers.
The service in question _cannot_ do what "everybody thinks" it can do,
under all circumstances. And there is *NO*POSSIBLE*WAY*, not even any
'theoretical' solution -- It can be mathematically _proven_ that it is
impossible to accomplish -- for any legislation in this country to change
that.
The -only- thing such legislation as you think 'must' be implemented will
accomplish is to give people 'warm fuzzies' and even *more* 'misplaced
trust' in a system that is not and -- without a *complete* redesign and
re-implmentation of the *entire* network (worldwide!!) -- *CANNOT* be
trustworthy to that degree.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:08:28 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 1984 All Over Again?
Message-ID: <qg5j25pfku79rtqirlpdh9qe6m08qaivt3@4ax.com>
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:49:33 -0400 (EDT), bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>People are keeping the POTS dial-tone -- to minimize the cost of
>having the DSL on the 'shared' cost-basis -- *and* using VoIP (or
>CELLULAR!!) for almost all their 'billable' calling. They've
>'effectively' switched to VOIP, but maintain the POTS line anyway,
>because it's cheaper to have it than not have it.
Another reason to keep POTS: in an disaster (earthquake, widespread
power failure, etc.), VOIP or cellular systems may stop working, but a
wired POTS line almost always will work. You may not be able to call
out of town, but at least you can call the local police or fire
departments.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:15:06 -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: <XNudnRPIB6B3BbTXnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <MPG.24922bbe7eebca7f989a44@reader.motzarella.org>,
T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>In article <RMUVl.1040$y42.344@newsfe21.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says...
>>
>> 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.)
>> >
>> I can only speak to California.
>>
>> 1. In an apartment building (rentals) the landlord is responsible for
>> the inside wiring from the telco panel to the apartment jacks.
>>
>> 2. In condos the association is responsible for the wire from the telco
>> panel until it enters the owner's unit. The common area wire is the
>> responsibility of the association. We have a common-area wire
>> maintenance contract with AT&T (Pacific Bell).
>
>I can only answer this from a multi-tennant commercial
>perspective. When [my employer, which is an agency of our state
>government] relocated one of our facilities, the wiring planning was
>all on us, but the building owner ran all of it and maintained it.
>
In _all_ U.S. jurisdictions, as far as I know, for multi-tenant *commercial*
properties, the telco demarc is where their cable enters the building, and
the building is responsible for wiring to the tenant spaces. Only for
"residential" service, and only in *some* states, is the matter handled
'differently'.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 01:09:38 -0400
From: Randall <rvh40@insightbb.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: MCI Exiting NY
Message-ID: <1DB8255E-9F4F-4324-AEA1-F45BDC1D6853@insightbb.com>
From: Bruce Kushnik, of Teletruth
Just saw a letter to MCI customers in New York City that they are no
longer going to be providing local, local toll and/or long distance.
If the customer does nothing they are put on a Verizon plan --- (of
course the money stated for the costs is missing about 35% of the
total bill -- such as the FCC Line Charge, USF, taxes and surcharges,
or inside wiring or ....)
What is Verizon doing about the other MCI customers outside their
territory (besides continually raising they rates so that they leave)?
In CA, when AT&T's name change occurred, [they] kept the old AT&T
customers on the old plans, using "AT&T Corp." and moved the SBC
customers to AT&T Long Distance -- What happened to the AT&T customers
in the Verizon states -- AT&T has been simply increasing their rates
until they leave.
B. -- See letter below. ----
==============================
MCI Verizon
P.O. Box 3404 P.O. Box 9000
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-3404 Annapolis, MD 21401-9000
MAY 5, 2009, Account no:
VERIZON WELCOMES MCI CUSTOMERS AND LOOKS FORWARD TO BEING YOUR TELEPHONE
PROVIDER
According to our records, your local, local toll, and/or long distance
service is provided by MCI*. MCI will no longer provide residential or
small business local, and bundled local, local toll and long distance
telephone service in your area after JULY 6, 2009, subject to state
and federal approvals. Verizon and MCI are pleased to offer you the
opportunity to receive ongoing value by transitioning your telephone
service from MCI to Verizon. While you will experience a change in
providers, you will enjoy exceptional telecommunications service if
you switch to Verizon. Please review this letter and consider your
options to replace your MCI service.
You have three options to choose from:
1. CHOOSE NOT TO TAKE ANY ACTION. If you do not select a new telephone
service provider on or before JULY 6, 2009, Verizon will automatically
become your local telephone service provider at no cost to you. Your
telephone number will remain the same.
Your new calling plan with Verizon will be Freedom Essentials. It
includes unlimited calling within the United States and Canada. Also
included are Call Waiting, Caller ID and Home Voice Mail (where
available) for one low rate of $44.99 - *49.99 per month. Certain
calling features you may have used will not be included in your new
calling plan.
2. SELECT ANOTHER TELEPHONE PROVIDER. You have the right to select any
company that is offering telephone service in your area. You must
select a new telephone provider on or before JULY 6, 2009. To make
this change, you will need to call that provider directly and you will
be responsible for any charges imposed by the new provider for making
this change. A list of most local telephone service providers is in
your local telephone directory.
3. CONTACT VERIZON directly on or before JULY 6, 2009, at
1-877-953-5552 to select the calling plan that best suits your calling
needs and to learn about current promotions for voice, video and
Internet product and bundled options.
If you transfer your local telephone service to another carrier or
your service is migrated to Verizon, you will need to re-establish any
blocking options you currently have, including 900 number blocking and
collect call blocking. If you have a long distance preferred carrier
freeze, MCI will remove it in order to transition your service to
Verizon. If you change to another carrier, you must first contact MCI
to remove the preferred carrier freeze. Once you have transferred your
service, you will need to contact your new carrier to re-establish the
freeze.
If your telephone service will be provided by Verizon, you will
receive a welcome letter from Verizon. A final bill will come from
MCI, and your new monthly bill will come from Verizon. You will be
notified in your Verizon monthly bill if there are any changes to your
rates, terms or conditions based on the services you have
selected. You will not incur any charges for the automatic transfer to
Verizon. You may change your calling plan at no cost by calling
Verizon after the transfer.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, your MCI account,
billing issues, complaints, or the discontinuation of service, please
call MCI at 1-800-444-0003. For questions regarding Verizon service,
please call Verizon at 1-877-953-5552 or visit www.verizon.com.
Sincerely,
Verizon and MCI
*MCI refers to the following companies: MCImetro Access Transmission
Services LLC, MCI Communications Services, Inc.; TTI National, Inc. and
Teleconnect Long Distance Services and Systems Company (d/b/a
Telecom*USA).
--
The war on privilege will never end. Its next great campaign will be
against the privileges of the underprivileged. H. L. Mencken
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:49:27 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.uu3j8olbwqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:12:35 -0400, <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 6/3/2009 1:08:55 AM Central Daylight Time,
> PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net writes:
>
> 800 free 411 (800 3733411) ; 800 411 free (800 3733411) ;
> 800 goog 411 (800 4664411) ; 800 411 goog (800 41146
>
> --------------------------------Reply-------------------------------
>
> Most of them use voice recognition software, and I never could get
> the software to understand a relative named Dzierla.
Well, Wes, a name like Dzierla will, niestety, throw them :-) .
Cheers, --tlvp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 11:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Smith <marklsmith@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Melted coax (was: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Message-ID: <857063.99990.qm@web65707.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
>________________________________
>From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
>
>Temporary Moderator wrote:
>
>> Since you've had a lot of experience testing microwave equipment in
>> the field, I'd appreciate your help to debunk some _very_ tall
>> tales. I have heard hundreds of apocryphal stories about microwave
>> failures due to utterly unbelievable causes. The list includes:
>>
>> 1. Melted coax due to concentrated solar energy, on one
>> particular day of the year.
>
>I think this is a reference to "solar outage" phenomenon that occurs in satellite receiving antennas.
>
> Every fixed satellite antenna is aimed at a fixed spot in the
> geostationary orbit. Twice each year, in the spring and fall, the
> earth's revolution about the sun causes the geostationary orbit to
> pass through the ecliptic (the sun's apparent path with respect to a
> point on earth). This transition can require several days.
> During this period, once each day the sun moves directly behind the
> satellite (or, more precisely, the rotation of the earth causes the
> satellite to transit the sun). The white-noise RF energy emitted by
> the sun far exceeds the satellite signal, and simply swamps the
> satellite signal. A received television signal will slowly fade to
> noise, then slowly come back. The worst-case situation occurs when
> the satellite transits the center of the sun; in this case, the
> outage can last as long as ten minutes. For several days before and
> after the worst-case day, shorter and less obtrusive outages occur.
> The entire sequence of outages can last as long as a week.
> These outages occur on different days, and at different times during
> the day, depending on the longitude of the satellite and the
> geographic location of the ground antenna. Several websites provide
> "solar fade" calculators; here's an example:
> http://www.spacecom.com/customer_tools/html/body_sunoutage_calc.htm
> As you can probably guess, this phenomenon is a big headache for
> cable TV companies. As soon as the first noticeable outage occurs,
> the phone starts ringing.
> A related problem is solar heating. During a solar outage, infrared
> light reflected into the feedhorn can damage the feedhorn, and in an
> extreme case, it could damage coaxial cable connected to it. This
> is probably the origin of the "melted coax" phenomenon that Bill
> mentions.
> This, of course, depends on the reflectivity of the reflector. For
> this reason, the reflector has a "matte" finish that will
> (hopefully) scatter the long-wavelength infrared light but
> accurately reflect the shorter wavelengths of the satellite signal
> into the feedhorn. Flat exterior latex paint works well for this
> purpose.
> But, as a certain unfortunate cable TV engineer once learned,
> high-gloss silver paint does not.
>Neal McLain
Putting coax in front of a jet blast deflector on an aircraft carrier
WILL produce this effect. The dialectric melts and the center
conductor shorts to the shield.
Mark L. Smith http://smith.freehosting.net
***** Moderator's Note *****
Mark,
I'm sure the putting coax cable in the exhaust path of _any_ jet
engine would produce that effect, but I was seeking information about
damage caused by the sun's rays, not General Electric's.
Bill
P.S. It's nice to see a website that supports folk music, but the
dancing ponies _are_ a bit much, you know? ;-)
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:01:23 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Melted coax (was: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Message-ID: <5rdl25lud9aejfk8bis7psrq1jko3arrms@4ax.com>
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 02:12:05 -0400 (EDT), Neal McLain
<nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> This, of course, depends on the reflectivity of the reflector. For
> this reason, the reflector has a "matte" finish that will
> (hopefully) scatter the long-wavelength infrared light but
> accurately reflect the shorter wavelengths of the satellite signal
> into the feedhorn. Flat exterior latex paint works well for this
> purpose.
Actually, it's the other way around. Infrared light has a _shorter_
wavelength (750 nanometers to 100 micrometers) than satellite
television signals (1 centimeter or longer). The longer wavelength TV
signal is oblivious to the matte pattern.
------------------------------
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 (12 messages)
******************************
|
or 