Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 29 : Issue 10 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Re: Connecticutt AT&T operation losing jobs Re: Connecticutt AT&T operation losing jobs Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network.. Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network.. Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network.. Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network... Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network... ====== 28 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, 09 Jan 2010 02:59:54 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <KkZ1n.2856$ap2.2285@newsfe18.iad> John Levine wrote: > > If I were AT&T or T-Mobile, I would argue that this device interferes > with normal GSM operation, and it would be true. > > R's, > John > If it were limited to my house how would that be true? Especially in my case where the carriers don't provide adequate signal strength into my residence? ***** Moderator's Note ***** It's not a zero-sum game. The FCC is probably concerned that such a device could become common enough that they would have trouble enforcing the rules at a later date: I'd bet they feel it's better to nip it in the bud. Don't forget that bureaucracies have very long memories: the FCC is, no doubt, harening back to the way the Citizens Band grew into a monster that they can't control even today. Bill Horne Moderator Date: 9 Jan 2010 17:39:35 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <20100109173935.56865.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >> If I were AT&T or T-Mobile, I would argue that this device interferes >> with normal GSM operation, and it would be true. > >If it were limited to my house how would that be true? Especially in my >case where the carriers don't provide adequate signal strength into my >residence? Putting on my mobile carrier hat, I would say that there is no way to tell where someone might install one of these things, and it's clearly being marketed as a way to bypass the carriers' network, not as a signal booster. I'm not a big fan of any of the mobile carriers, but this does not impress me as a viable way to circumvent them. If the mobile carriers weren't such doofuses, they would give you a free real femtocell if you'd promise to keep service on your cell phone for some period, a year or two. R's, John Date: 9 Jan 2010 06:05:54 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <20100109060554.68557.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >> Since I am on AT$T I guess this could help me. But, I doubt it will >> handle incoming calls. > >Does the regular MagicJack have an incoming phone number? Yes, of course. The company is owned by a CLEC which has numbers all over the country, and they assign one as soon as you plug in your device and it registers itself. R's, John PS: A 20 second visit to magicjack.com would have answered this question much more quickly. ***** Moderator's Note ***** According to an article in the Winter 2009-2010 issue of "2600": "While the underlying carrier (YMAX) is a CLEC, MagickJack is specifically not offered as a CLEC product." The article says MagickJack claims to be a "multimedia experience which includes a voice over Internet information service feature. It is not a telecommunications service, and is subject to different regulatory treatment from telecommunications services". It's an open question as to why MagicJack's owners take such pains to try and distance their offering from FCC and local PUC regulation. Also, according to 2600, the MagickJack software cannot be uninstalled, even if a customer returns the MagickJack. The author also rates MagickJack's voice quality "between poor and terrible", and goes on to say that "In my market, MagicJack quality is so poor that the service is virtually unusable". He also notes that "... when you install the software, the End User License Agreement (EULA) has a few nasty surprises", which includes the right to send the customer commercial email messages, display ads on the computer, and supply computer-usage details to Google. Suffice to say, I'd be very careful about purchasing any MagickJack offering, whether a femtocell unit or otherwise. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:04:28 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <wG22n.3789$Sk4.2128@newsfe10.iad> John Levine wrote: >>>Since I am on AT$T I guess this could help me. But, I doubt it will >>>handle incoming calls. >> >>Does the regular MagicJack have an incoming phone number? > > > Yes, of course. The company is owned by a CLEC which has numbers all > over the country, and they assign one as soon as you plug in your > device and it registers itself. > > R's, > John > > PS: A 20 second visit to magicjack.com would have answered this question > much more quickly. Not really. My presumption was being able to receive a call made to my cell phone number. It appears call forwarding would have to be used to make that work, which in this circumstance, would be a giant PITA. Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 21:54:02 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Connecticutt AT&T operation losing jobs Message-ID: <89adc7fe-2dc0-48f3-9957-303b02f7e1e3@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> On Jan 8, 5:46 pm, Bill Horne <redac...@invalid.speakeasy.net> wrote: > AT&T's plan to eliminate more landline-related jobs in the state has > union officials and state consumer advocates crying foul. Verizon has been cutting jobs by attrition and layoff for some time. > Officials with the Communications Workers of America . . . Many telecom jobs have been shifted to non union positions. For example, I don't believe people who work in the cellphone divisions are unionized. I don't believe newcomer cellphone carriers or landline carriers, or cable phone are unionized either. Many functions for large businesses once performed by unionized telco personnel are now done by non-union employees of the subscribers. The union itself calls itself "CWA" now and for years has sought to represent service workers in other industries. Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:30:56 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Connecticutt AT&T operation losing jobs Message-ID: <hi9pde$o43$7@news.eternal-september.org> Bill Horne <redacted@invalid.speakeasy.net> wrote: >Officials with the Communications Workers of America Local 1298 said >Tuesday that AT&T plans to phase out 160 more installation and repair >jobs by Feb. 19. While I'm a union support through and through, I'm hard-pressed to criticize AT&T for this. People are simply not getting many landlines anymore. The unions should have done as the longshoremen did when containization came to be: negotiate other jobs so that their members would still have work. But they didn't. Where was the CWA leadership? Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:28:36 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <hi9p92$o43$6@news.eternal-september.org> Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote: >The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for which >cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive licenses. It's not like I have much sympathy for the carriers. For one, the fact that they charge 20 to 25 cents a message for text that takes miniscule bandwidth is unconscionable. And I'm against the selling of the spectrum that they pressured the FCC into granting. Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:04:32 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <hiacv0$kp6$1@reader1.panix.com> In <hi9p92$o43$6@news.eternal-september.org> sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) writes: >Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote: >>The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for which >>cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive licenses. >It's not like I have much sympathy for the carriers. For one, the fact that >they charge 20 to 25 cents a message for text that takes miniscule bandwidth >is unconscionable. Can I throw my $0.50 (inflation, you know) thoughts into this? Yes, it's [expletive deleted] annoying that they charge this amount, but: a: it's not a life saving necessity. People have the choice whether to use this service or not. b: the business world is filled with products where the marginal cost of manufacture/distribution is just about negligible. Since we're discussing telecom, just ask yourself how much it costs a satellite tv company to add another subscriber? -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:50:42 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <hib183$ooh$1@news.eternal-september.org> danny burstein wrote: > ... the business world is filled with products where the marginal > cost of manufacture/distribution is just about negligible. Since > we're discussing telecom, just ask yourself how much it costs a > satellite tv company to add another subscriber? It would depend: in my case I got a $500 Visa Gift Card for signing up for Dish. I would have anyways, but it costs a huge amount, [and] I also got all the Premiums for free for 6 months -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 08:11:25 -0600 From: "GlowingBlueMist" <GlowingBlueMist@truely.invalid> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <4b488e90$0$65838$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com> Steven wrote: > MagicJack's next act: disappearing cell phone fees > > > Jan 8, 12:01 PM (ET) > > By PETER SVENSSON > > > > LAS VEGAS (AP) - The company behind the magicJack, the cheap Internet > phone gadget that's been heavily promoted on TV, has made a new > version of the device that allows free calls from cell phones in the > home, in a fashion that's sure to draw protest from cellular carriers. > > The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for > which cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive > licenses. > > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/20100108/D9D3M9U80.html > > I saw this today at CAS, but I don't have a GSM phone. Sounds much like a clone of the Verizon femtocell unit (officially known as a "Verizon Wireless Network Extender") that people have been talking about elsewhere in the newsgroup. If Verizon can do it "legally" there is no reason someone else can not do the same thing provided they don't step on someone else's patents, but then again phone companies seem to hate competition from startup companies. Especially if the competitors product actually works. ***** Moderator's Note ***** The problem is that it's NOT the same thing as a Verizon femtocell: it is, as another reader pointed out, only a way to turn a cell phone into a cordless phone. The Verizon offering gives customers access to their regular cellphone features, such as voicemail, but the proposed MagicJack product does not. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:32:47 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <hi9pgt$o43$8@news.eternal-september.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Verizon, for example, moved its business office people out of high > rent downtown locations to low-rent low-wage locations and has far > fewer of them since so much is automated. Processing service orders > is easier since it's all computerized and interlinked. When I was a kid they told us that automation would "free" us from working long hours. What they didn't tell us what that they weren't going to pay us for all this leisure time we'd get. Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:16:37 -0800 (PST) From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network.. Message-ID: <fc87870b-104e-4cc3-ab34-f7f60e407a61@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> I saw a TASI installation in the underground AT&T Long Lines building in San Luis Obispo, CA in the 1970s. This was the mainland end of an undersea coaxial cable to Hawaii. The cable had vacuum tube amplifiers at the bottom of the ocean. TASI does seem to be a sort of analog packet switching and may suffer from the "pipe is full" problems of other packet switched or statistical multiplexed systems. I wonder how much it increased the capacity of the cable and how much capacity they had to hold in reserve to keep from cutting people off. I imagine a max increase is 100%. Harold Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 18:27:15 -0500 From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network.. Message-ID: <9a3ik5d4j93hu312nk5ke2sjru0bf40qgh@4ax.com> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:16:37 -0800 (PST), "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com> wrote: > I saw a TASI installation in the underground AT&T Long Lines > building in San Luis Obispo, CA in the 1970s. This was the mainland > end of an undersea coaxial cable to Hawaii. The cable had vacuum > tube amplifiers at the bottom of the ocean. TASI does seem to be a > sort of analog packet switching and may suffer from the "pipe is > full" problems of other packet switched or statistical multiplexed > systems. I wonder how much it increased the capacity of the cable > and how much capacity they had to hold in reserve to keep from > cutting people off. I imagine a max increase is 100%. Harold, TASI simply switches "circuits" when the call is idle in one direction or the other. There is a set of circuits that are available in each direction and the TASI terminal assigns each call to a circuit depending on whether voice is detected. The absence of voice makes the receiving terminal insert noise into the circuit to the customer so there is no need to transmit any signal. In this fashion, more than twice the number of circuits can be put on a multiplexed circuit. In the old analog days, a group was not 12 circuits on undersea cable, but 16 circuits (3 kHz bandwidth instead of 4 kHz) a few groups would be assembled into a set for TASI. The circuit gain was well above 100%. Digital TASI uses T1 carrier and typically has a circuit gain well above 100%. In the digital version, if a circuit needs connectivity (i.e. speech is present) and there is no available time slot, the link regresses to 7 bit encoding instead of 8 bit encoding to allow the conversation to continue. The controls for a TASI system are expensive, thus their use was restricted to expensive circuits, e.g. undersea cable. Today there is a real surplus of undersea fiber capacity, so these kinds of systems are not as attractive as in previous times. VOIP often uses the same kind of active circuit switching (albeit in the packet domain...) and doesn't send packets when there is no voice. BTW, voice detectors have an "attack time", so often the first part of a syllable is clipped, reducing the quality of the connection. Modems on TASI circuits resulted in a dedicated circuit, since modems had no quiet time. ET --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:45:23 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network.. Message-ID: <pan.2010.01.10.05.45.20.675855@myrealbox.com> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 18:27:15 -0500, Eric Tappert wrote: ........... > VOIP often uses the same kind of active circuit switching (albeit in the > packet domain...) and doesn't send packets when there is no voice. Yes and no, there is usually a configurable option on VoIP end devices to keep sending packets on silence or not to save on bandwidth (Voice Activity Detection): http://searchunifiedcommunications.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid186_gci342466,00.html -- 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: 9 Jan 2010 14:10:28 -0500 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <hiakb4$t8r$1@panix2.panix.com> Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote: >> > With all the problems I have had with my voice line and DSL over the > condition of the outside plant I can understand that. AT&T said > that the repairs as of last week on my complaints is over $60,000 > and still climbing, they have not replaced the 1000 feet of cable > from the box to my block. That's not bad at all. If you consider that's 30 years worth of deferred maintenance, that's only $2,000/year worth of maintenance for the whole section of plant. The thing about maintenance costs is that you can pay them now or you can pay them later. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:57:48 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <hib1lf$sm3$1@news.eternal-september.org> Scott Dorsey wrote: > Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote: > >> With all the problems I have had with my voice line and DSL over the >> condition of the outside plant I can understand that. AT&T said >> that the repairs as of last week on my complaints is over $60,000 >> and still climbing, they have not replaced the 1000 feet of cable >> from the box to my block. > > That's not bad at all. If you consider that's 30 years worth of > deferred maintenance, that's only $2,000/year worth of maintenance for > the whole section of plant. > > The thing about maintenance costs is that you can pay them now or you > can pay them later. They still have not done a replacement, just a bunch of fixes. The PUC is getting weekly updates from both AT&T and me. My DSL took a dump again and I switched over to my Sprint MiFi and plan on having them adjust my bills for the past 6 months by 1000%. I was up in the mountains north of Sacramento and it looks like they are about 3 months from U-verse there, that will be nice since all they have is dialup unless you want to spend $200.00 plus $60 a month. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 21:06:35 -0500 From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone Message-ID: <20100110020507.455C5481B6@mailout.easydns.com> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:45:57 -0800, Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote, > > > > Since I am on AT$T I guess this could help me. But, I doubt it will > > handle incoming calls. > >Does the regular MagicJack have an incoming phone number? Yes. That's how they make their money. When they receive an incoming LD phone call, they bill the LD carrier the usual switched-access termination fee. When they place a call, they take advantage of a regulatory ambiguity which states that VoIP-originated calls might be exempt from paying. And John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> adds, ... > Borislow said the device is legal because wireless spectrum licenses > don't extend into the home. > >... which is ridiculous. It may be the case that they're working at >under 100mw which has long been the limit for unlicensed AM and FM >transmissions, but that's unrelated to whether it's in a house. The 100 mW rule is more urban legend than fact. The 100 mW power limit for *intentional* radiators applies (or did apply) to the AM broadcast band and 27 MHz CB. Other bands that allow unlicensed intentional radiators have different power levels, often based on field strength. The current rule for AM broadcast is a field strength of 15 uV/m at lambda/2pi from the radiator (this is used for carrier current), though campus systems are only limited in strength at the edge of the campus. CB is now 10 millivolts/meter at 3 meters. For FM, 250 microvolts/meter at 3 meters. For 216-960 MHz (old cellular), 200 uV/m at 3m. >On the other hand, the article neglects to mention that this device in >effect turns your cell phone into an expensive outgoing only cordless >phone. While your phone is registered with the Magicjack, it's not on >your regular carrier's network, so you can't get any incoming calls. >It's not clear from the short description in the story whether they >will assign an incoming phone number of their own like they do for the >current Magicjack. > >If I were AT&T or T-Mobile, I would argue that this device interferes >with normal GSM operation, and it would be true. Indeed, it's not clear to me that unlicensed intentional radiators are really allowed on occupied cellular frequencies. If a cellco authorizes or sells a femtocell, they'll have at least some control. Borislow & co. are likely to face opposition from the spectrum licensees, and I'm not confident that they'll win. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 19:33:58 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network... Message-ID: <c6d08823-3e7e-48d3-9850-09321f9ae48c@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> On Jan 8, 9:42 am, "David" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote: > I suggest Robert Bonomi also understand the difference between a > datagram and and a virtual circuit as applied to packet switched > networks. So, would it be accurate to say that a packet switched network could have high quality voice transmissions (as good or better than existing landlines) if they were properly engineered to do so? Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 05:03:46 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network... Message-ID: <hibn3i$2lra$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <c6d08823-3e7e-48d3-9850-09321f9ae48c@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > So, would it be accurate to say that a packet switched network could > have high quality voice transmissions (as good or better than > existing landlines) if they were properly engineered to do so? Absolutely -- most telco voice transmissions today operate over a packet-switched network, albeit with very small packets. With the current state-of-the-art in high-speed network technologies (all packet-based), the serialization delays that motivated the design of so-called "cell-switched" networks like ATM -- the backbone of most traditional telco networks -- are much smaller. An appropriate queueing discipline combined with some sort of resource reservation in the switches can provide sufficient quality-of-service for high-definition video circuits, never mind the comparatively miniscule bandwidth required by voice telephony. Consider, for the moment, the case of someone using VoIP to make a local call over naked DSL. Their VoIP terminal (i.e., phone) will send RTP/UDP/IP packets over the home Ethernet LAN to the DSL modem. The DSL modem then encapsulates these packets in ATM cells and sends them to a DSLAM in a telephone central office. Those cells are then forwarded by the DSLAM over permanent virtual circuits on a carrier ATM network (possibly even the ILEC's network) to the ISP's POP -- probably located in or next to another CO in a nearby major city -- where a router (probably made by Cisco) accepts the ATM cells and reassembles them into IP packets, delivering them to the VoIP gateway (possibly in the same Cisco box) which extracts the digitized audio,[1] possibly transcodes it, and probably converts it back into ATM cells again (this time labeled "voice" rather than "data") for carriage on the ILEC network to the terminating CO switch. The only reason for the ISP to use ATM between the DSLAM and their POP is the fact that ATM is readily available in nearly every ILEC CO in their service area, whereas dark fiber isn't. -GAWollman [1] The RTP protocol allows it to accurately reconstruct a continuous audio stream from the UDP/IP packets it receives. -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne. 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 (19 messages)