|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 212 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
The trouble with hooking up
Re: The trouble with hooking up
Re: The trouble with hooking up
Re: The trouble with hooking up
Per Call Block *67, the FCC and Vonage.
t-mobile's "landline", was: Per Call Block *67, the FCC and Vonage.
Re: Per Call Block *67, the FCC and Vonage.
Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
====== 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: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 05:26:46 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <1o8a75h3vs0boqrlra7l90d529jmi3uif1@4ax.com>
"Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>It starts with "4 or 6" test messages, and then, there you are
>standing up in the support group saying "and now I need surgery on
>both thumbs...". ;-)
WRONG. <smile>
I'm at 80 or 90 wpm on the ergonomic keyboard. Ok, 30 wpm if you include my errors.
<smile>
I don't want the interruptions of text messaging. Just like I never use an IM
program either. And I check my email at my convenience. My email program does not
auto check every x minutes. Etc, etc.
You want to talk to me? Send me an email [and tell me] several good times for me to call.
Tny
***** Moderator's Note *****
You're an "early adopter" of the next big trend: some corporations are
embargoing email for delivery once per day, and it's becoming routine
to cut off web access except during the lunch hour and after quiting
time.
I once attended a seminar given by a consultant named Dick Thomas: he
told us that the worst invention in history was the fax machine, and
pointed out that before the electronic age, an office worker knew for
a fact that when a message arrived in his "In" basket, he had at least
until Five PM that day before he had to do something about it. That
gave him time to reflect, consider alternatives, plan for possible
responses, etc.
Now, our society is, IMNSHO, approaching a state of catatonic
schizophrenia, with everyone so intent on waiting for everyone else to
ring their Pavlovian bell that we're no longer capable of original
thought or well-considered action. We have substituted speed for
sagacity, immediacy for insight, and expediency for experience.
I was interviewed by the Boston Globe on this subject recently, and I
told the reporter that someone had fed a copy of Emily Post into a
word processor and then changed it around so that we're now
responsible for managing each others' schedules: not only is it
considered déclassé not to return voice mail messages promptly, but
we've all been conned into paying our own money to allow the world the
privilege of imposing on us!
Bill Horne
--
Copyright (C) 2009 E.W. Horne. All Rights Reserved.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:55:40 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <j6ob7555gavb5ktg8sc97rk6f03tqukjer@4ax.com>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
> We have substituted speed for sagacity, immediacy for insight, and
> expediency for experience.
This is especially so in the USA national government!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 05:26:54 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <op.ux0264mto63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:14:49 -0400, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>Why does anyone who has a smart phone that can send and receive email
>>need text messaging at all?
>
> Uh, because you might want [to] exchange messages with some of the
> billion people who have cell phones that do SMS but not mail? Or is
> this a trick question?
>
> R's,
> John
>
> PS: Email-to-SMS gateways are pretty much non-existent outside the US,
> and SMS-to-Email pretty much non-existent everywhere.
My only experience in this regard is that the Polish cellular carrier
Orange (PL) *does* have functioning SMS-to-Email service (and *should*
have implemented Email-to-SMS as well, though I've been unable to test
that myself).
But that's just an isolated data-point :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 09:21:16 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: The trouble with hooking up
Message-ID: <p06240897c69b41252da4@[10.0.1.3]>
The trouble with hooking up
Free municipal wireless sounds like a great idea for Boston or any
city that has already invested heavily in high-tech infrastructure.
Too bad there's no more money to pay for the last link of the chain.
By Hiawatha Bray | August 2, 2009
Brian Worobey stands on the roof of the Tobin Community Center in
Boston peering through a telescopic sight, the sort that fits snugly
atop a sniper rifle. Spread out before him is a target-rich
environment: the town houses of Mission Main, the Alice Taylor homes,
the Franklin Square Apartments -- residential space for thousands of
Bostonians. From where he is standing, Worobey figures he can hit
them all with radio waves capable of carrying Internet data.
The sniper scope is to help him spot a work crew perched on the roof
of the Beatty Hall library at the Wentworth Institute of Technology a
quarter mile away. That crew and Worobey's are doing the same thing:
installing digital radio devices to wirelessly connect computers in
homes and businesses to the Internet. Two electricians are setting up
a big white box festooned with antennas, wiring it to the city's
fiber-optic network.
Worobey points southwest toward Mission Hill, another prime target.
"We've got the hill covered reasonably well," he says. "When we light
this up, we'll get this whole area covered." This box -- it's one of
about 100 wireless networking devices that his nonprofit has
installed in Boston -- is yet another step toward Worobey's goal: a
city where Internet access flows in the air and where it might
eventually carry the same price -- zero. As chief executive and
president of OpenAirBoston, Worobey has spent the past three years
working toward that goal. In 2006, when he was vice president of
information systems at the Museum of Science, he was on a task force
established by Mayor Tom Menino to figure out exactly how to set up
such a network. The task force report, issued in July of that year,
figured the job would take 12 to 18 months and cost $16 million to
$20 million. By now, you should be able to stand on any corner,
anywhere in town, whip out a wireless-equipped laptop, and get on the
city network. Try it in Jamaica Plain or Southie, Allston or Back
Bay, and you're in for a disappointment. But try it on Westland
Avenue in the Fenway district, or Warren Street in Roxbury, and
you'll see that the efforts of OpenAirBoston haven't been entirely
fruitless. In about 2 square miles out of Boston's 48, less than 5
percent of the city, you'll find wireless capability, up to 1 million
bits per second, that the nonprofit manages. That's not much for
YouTube videos. But it's plenty for e-mailing a client or researching
homework.
it turns out that building a wireless network that provides coverage
to all of Boston is going to take more time -- not more money, though
that point is moot since the city doesn't have it budgeted -- than
the mayor's task force predicted. In fact, this kind of project has
thwarted government leaders and technologists in cities from coast to
coast.
...
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/08/02/the_trouble_with_hooking_up/
***** Moderator's Note *****
In 2002, I worked with the Cleverminds company, helping a group headed
by Mel King, a former Boston City Councilman. King led an effort to
provide free WiFi access to the citizens around Tent City in Boston:
he founded the South End Technology Center at Tent City. King deserves
credit for showing that public WiFi could be done - and on a
shoestring budget, at that - which is always the most important part
of getting public projects moving - and I'm very surprised that Bray's
article doesn't mention his name.
Cisco donated Access Points made for outdoor service: it was my first
exposure to Power Over Ethernet (POE). The Boston Linux and Unix User
Group (http://www.blu.org/) had an "Installfest" at Tent City, showing
the Tent City techies how they could leverage their stock of donated
(and old) computers without having to buy software they couldn't
afford. At the center of it all, Mel King worked the political magic
needed to get access to private rooftops, access to Internet
connectivity, and access to enough money to buy what couldn't be
begged, borrowed, or repurposed.
Bray is right when he says it's not enough bandwidth for utube videos
(although utube wasn't a factor then), but it _was_ enough to allow
bright and curious minds in the inner city to catch a glimpse of the
libraries, histories, and opinions available outside Roxbury.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:49:58 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The trouble with hooking up
Message-ID: <h549gp$v0h$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Monty Solomon wrote:
> The trouble with hooking up
>
> Free municipal wireless sounds like a great idea for Boston or any
> city that has already invested heavily in high-tech infrastructure.
> Too bad there's no more money to pay for the last link of the chain.
>
> [Moderator Snip]
>
> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/08/02/the_trouble_with_hooking_up/
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> In 2002, I worked with the Cleverminds company, helping a group headed
> by Mel King, a former Boston City Councilman. King led an effort to
> provide free WiFi access to the citizens around Tent City in Boston:
> he founded the South End Technology Center at Tent City. [Moderator snip]
We have both free and paid WiFi here in Riverside. It was started by
the city to give free access, but was run by the same company that had
set up systems in Seattle & Portland, and I believe [also in] some
cities in the mid west and New England, but [they] went under and all
those systems went down. Ours went off for a while, but AT&T
contracted to run it in both free and paid [modes]. If you are an
AT&T Wireless customer or have AT&T DSL you get to use the paid part
of it, which is higher speed, [and] they also have a plan to pay a
daily rate. I have used it a couple of times but find it too slow
even for my simple needs.
--
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: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:25:17 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The trouble with hooking up
Message-ID: <6645152a0908021225u6346ea65m5925f95b84071d0b@mail.gmail.com>
Speaking of free WiFi, I came up with this idea. From a technical
standpoint it would work, but I'm not sure about the finances of it.
Build solar-charged street lights and at the top of them put a WiFi
hotspot. Perhaps get some stimulus money or something as it's a green
effort. Blanket the streets, boulevards, and Interstates with these
street lights. Homes and businesses would still need a paid ISP as
the signals from the street lights probably couldn't penetrate, plus
people would want their own networks. Allow customers to install
equipment and subscribe to some bandwidth by pointing an antenna at
the streetlights. The Road Runners and AT&T's of the world could
offer the service perhaps? Work a deal with Google where companies
could sponsor some of these hotspots in exchange for a top ranking.
Example you're hungry, type something into Google and voila, there's
a restaurant just around the corner.
I think it could work, but I know the telcos have fought efforts to
install free WiFi tooth and nail. There was a bill before the Texas
legislature a couple of sessions ago that would've effectively banned
them. It didn't pass.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:37:36 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The trouble with hooking up
Message-ID: <4A761530.2060000@thadlabs.com>
On 8/2/2009 1:13 PM, John Mayson wrote:
> [...]
> offer the service perhaps? Work a deal with Google where companies
> could sponsor some of these hotspots in exchange for a top ranking.
> Example you're hungry, type something into Google and voila, there's
> a restaurant just around the corner.
>
> I think it could work, but I know the telcos have fought efforts to
> install free WiFi tooth and nail. There was a bill before the Texas
> legislature a couple of sessions ago that would've effectively banned
> them. It didn't pass.
It appears efforts to blanket cities in Silicon Valley with WiFi have,
for the most part, failed with one exception: Google WiFi'd the city
of Mountain View CA per http://wifi.google.com/.
The big issue is signal coverage as revealed in this FAQ answer:
" Google WiFi will be strongest when a user is outdoors. It is unlikely
" that a WiFi enabled laptop or a computer with a conventional WiFi card
" will work indoors in most locations. If you want to use the service
" indoors, we suggest purchasing a WiFi modem. An exception to this is
" the Mountain View Public Library, where we have installed WiFi access
" points inside to ensure good coverage throughout the building.
Note Mountain View is "flat" with no hills and an elevation variation
of probably one foot from a mean elevation above sea level of 105 feet
over its 12 square miles.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:43:25 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Per Call Block *67, the FCC and Vonage.
Message-ID: <i7ldm.81353$9P.43115@newsfe08.iad>
Some of the time per-call block (*67) works on my Vonage service, but
most of the time it does not. When I precede a call with "*67" Vonage
delivers stutter dial tone, thus making it appear that the feature is
activated on that call.
With two very limited exceptions FCC regulations require that
SS7-capable carriers honor *67. This is set forth in 47 Code of Federal
Regulation 64.1601, of which I cite the pertinent language:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR 64.1601:
(b) Privacy. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section,
originating carriers using Signaling System 7 and offering or
subscribing to any service based on Signaling System 7 functionality
will recognize *67 dialed as the first three digits of a call (or 1167
for rotary or pulse dialing phones) as a caller’s request that the CPN
not be passed on an interstate call. Such carriers providing line
blocking services will recognize *82 as a caller’s request that the CPN
be passed on an interstate call. No common carrier sub-scribing to or
offering any service that delivers CPN may override the privacy
indicator associated with an interstate call. Carriers must arrange
their CPN- based services, and billing practices, in such a manner that
when a caller requests that the CPN not be passed, a carrier may not
reveal that caller’s number or name, nor may the carrier use the number
or name to allow the called party to contact the calling party. The
terminating carrier must act in accordance with the privacy indicator
unless the call is made to a called party that subscribes to an ANI or
charge number based service and the call is paid for by the called party.
(d) Exemptions. Section 64.1601(a) and (b) shall not apply when: (1) A
call originates from a payphone. (2) A local exchange carrier with
Signaling System 7 capability does not have the software to provide *67
or *82 functionalities. Such carriers are prohibited from passing CPN.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what the Vonage web site says about per-call block:
"Caller ID Block protects your privacy when making a call.
Caller ID Block
Don't want the person you're calling to know your number? Block it! You
can turn on Caller ID Block when you pick up the phone to make the call.
So go ahead, call from home. Caller ID Block will protect your privacy,
giving you the freedom to call anybody you want.
How to Use Caller ID Block
Turn on Caller ID Block in an instant! Just dial *67 before you dial the
number. Caller ID Block turns off automatically when you hang up."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have attempted for many months (probably over one year) to get Vonage
to make the feature work. I even told them it’s required by FCC
regulation on inter-state calls. Sigh, they do nothing.
I have filed two informal complaints with the FAA, both of which have
been summarily dismissed and cite lack of jurisdiction. In the second
complaint I cited 47 CFR 64.1601, which was simply ignored in the
dismissal. The FCC refers me to the California PUC, even though my
complaint states that the problem occurs on interstate calls.
Anyone here have any thoughts, comments, or ideas?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 21:08:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: t-mobile's "landline", was: Per Call Block *67, the FCC and Vonage.
Message-ID: <h54v8l$84s$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <i7ldm.81353$9P.43115@newsfe08.iad> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> writes:
>Some of the time per-call block (*67) works on my Vonage service, but
>most of the time it does not. When I precede a call with "*67" Vonage
>delivers stutter dial tone, thus making it appear that the feature is
>activated on that call.
[FCC regs snipped. thanks for posting them]
FYI, T-Mobile offers a pseudo VOIP "landline" service where they
provide you with a SIM _and_ a t-Mobile "branded" internet
router. When you hook the router to an internet feed, you
can plug a traditional wired phone (or answering machine, etc.
[but not fax...]) into the RJ-11 jacks on the back and
get, just like with Vonage, etc., what looks and acts like
a traditional wireline phone. (Yes, we all know the differnces).
I tried using "*67" when making an outgoing call and it
didn't work. I punched the code in and waited, and a second
or so later, instead of the "stutter", I got a rapid busy
(as in "no good") noise.
I was "this close" to getting super pissed when, for some
reason or another, I tried just quickly punching in all
the digits (that is, *67-xxx-xxx-nnnn) without pausing
after the code. And it worked.
Ain't nothing anywhere in the t-Mobile info about it.
Anyway, just mentioning this for what it's worth.
(disclosure: I'm a user and a shareholder).
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Per Call Block *67, the FCC and Vonage.
Message-ID: <05ec5c74-d740-4a84-a51f-73f8f75a7de9@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 2, 4:14 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone here have any thoughts, comments, or ideas?
I don't understand why they can't block caller-ID.
In my humble opinion (IMHO), many of the VOIP providers are able to
discount their services because they take shortcuts with the results
as you describe.
However, call-block is a dubious feature. My cell phone came with it
as the default setting and I found it necessary to have them disable
it. Almost everyone I call won't accept blocked calls.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:50:18 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Message-ID: <j_udnd5SVqSHl-vXnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4A6FB618.30808@thadlabs.com>,
>
>This thread reminds me of the debate about the "Clipper Chip", which
>was a governemnt-backed program that would have mandated that any
>encryption device include the capability for the government to decode
>the data which was encrypted.
An incorrect characterization of Clipper. The mandate would have been to
require the use of the _government-sanctioned_ hardware for all encryption,
_without_ the ability to independently audit/verify the quality (aka 'strength')
of the algorithms. (A classical "trust us, we're the government" approach.)
Said government-sanctioned device _did_ have an officially acknowledged back-
door, which would have allowed the gov't to decode anything encrypted with
the SkipJack algorithm ("Clipper" was the hardware implementing SkipJack).
>
>RSA Security and other commercial firms opposed the program, and it
>was never implemented.
Sorry, that's revisionist history. "Clipper" _was_ implemented. It was a
hardware-based implementation of "SkipJack" (a government developed encryption
algorithm). The idea being that the government develops this 'unbreakable'
(that is, except for the official 'back door' entry) algorithm, provides a
black-box hardware implementation to anyone 'for cheap', and becomes the
single-source supplier for legal encryption.
Nearly 30,000 were delivered to DOJ and DOD, by Q2 1994) Including production
runs of the 'Fortezza' security card.
Unfortunately, the Clipper algorithm was 'fatally flawed'. There was an
'official' back-door into the encryption, to allow properly-authorized
law-enforcement types to read message text -without- needing the encryption
key,
*BUT* by feeding appropriate 'maliciously constructed' data to the "black box"
that was the clipper hardware, one could render that back door useless. In
addition, there was another 'failure mode' in the protocol which made it
'computationally _feasible_' to extract the original message from encrypted
traffic.
I was present when Dr. Matt Blaze, of AT&T Bell Labs, made the original public
presentation of his findings on the above, in June, 1994. For the gory details
of the flaws, see: http://www.crypto.com/papers/eesproto.pdf
It didn't take long for others to verify his research. The gov't then engaged
in a large-scale effort to 'fix' the discovered deficiencies, but that turned
out not to be practical -- without a complete revamp of the entire architecture.
Since the 'back door' could be 'boarded up', as it were -- and thus rendered
'unusable' to law-enforcement -- the political backing for the government-
created methodology evaporated. The fact that it was 'breakable' with a
"reasonable" amount of computing effort -- when an 'unconventional' attack was
employed -- meant that -nobody- would voluntarily trust anything sensitive to
it.
And _that_ was what really killed Clipper.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:26:32 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <46adnREUOZgFj-vXnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4A6FBBF0.1050606@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
[[.. munch ..]]
> ..... It's odd (to me) the FCC wouldn't have ALL
>cellphone (tower) transceivers in their database given how tightly they
>seem to regulate the spectrum.
The _tower_sites_ database is just that. It idents the places where special
construction has gone on. RF 'towers' are not subject to local zoning, etc.
restrictions -except- as the Feds allow. (Ask _any_ community that has tried
to 'outlaw' ham radio antennas :)
You have to get "permission" from the Feds to build a tower (over a specified
height) in the first place. And (again, over specified height) 'operate' that
tower in accord with Fed requirements (mostly as regards lighting the
structure).
Once constructed, you can hang pretty much _any_ other transmitting/receiving
gear off it without needing any additional 'permission' as regards the tower.
If it is TX gear that requires a license, yes, you do still have to get that
operating license -- but the 'transmitter/antenna location' part of that license
application is just a formality; consisting essentially of "on the site of
{callsign} transmitter/antenna".
------------------------------
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) 2009 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 