30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for September 22, 2011
====== 30 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of that address. 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, 21 Sep 2011 10:27:51 -0400 From: "T. Keating" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Strange new at&t rumors Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:59:14 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote: >In > > http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/at-t-moves-on-to-last-ditch-efforts-to-save-t-mobile-deal/58351?tag=nl.e550 > >today: "AT&T is reportedly trying to sell off subscribers and spectrum >to smaller regional carriers to save its proposed bid for T-Mobile." > >Editorializing, ZDnet suggests, "It looks like the idea is that AT&T wants >to appear like it has less coverage and lacks the resources to expand to >justify the need for acquiring T-Mobile and its nationwide network - the >fourth largest in the country - which is what AT&T has been arguing all >along." > >I'm just left scratching my head ... and wondering what my future as >an erstwhile T-Mobile customer is going to become. > Hopefully the District Court won't fall for this trick. I just ordered (via Walmart ship to store) a Prepaid (no contract) T-mobile 4G hotspot to replace my deteriorating DSL service. At the same time my pitiful 27$/mo AT&T POTS service will also be on the chopping block for cheaper cell phone service.
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:59:34 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Strange new at&t rumors Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:27:51 -0400, T. Keating wrote: > ... > I just ordered (via Walmart ship to store) a Prepaid (no contract) > T-mobile 4G hotspot to replace my deteriorating DSL service. Interesting -- care to divulge (i) its cost and (ii) the cost of the data service? I could well be an interested fellow-buyer. TIA! Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:59:31 -0500 From: "Gray, Charles" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: History - Dial Telephones in the US Senate [telecomm] Message-ID: <EB96AD4AE15A14498C8EB2B1727528062EBA361BE8@STWEXE3.ad.okstate.edu> Here is an interesting historical note on our prestigious senators and advancing technology. June 25, 1930 Senate Considers Banning Dial Phones Carter Glass (D-VA) In the spring of 1930, the Senate considered the following resolution: Whereas dial telephones are more difficult to operate than are manual telephones; and Whereas Senators are required, since the installation of dial phones in the Capitol, to perform the duties of telephone operators in order to enjoy the benefits of telephone service; and Whereas dial telephones have failed to expedite telephone service; Therefore be it resolved that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and directed to order the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. to replace with manual phones within 30 days after the adoption of this resolution, all dial telephones in the Senate wing of the United States Capitol and in the Senate office building. Sponsored by Virginia's Carter Glass, the resolution passed without objection when first considered on May 22, 1930. Arizona's Henry Ashurst praised its sponsor for his restrained language. The Congressional Record would not be mailable, he said, "if it contained in print what Senators think of the dial telephone system." When Washington Senator Clarence Dill asked why the resolution did not also ban the dial system from the District of Columbia, Glass said he hoped the phone company would take the hint. One day before the scheduled removal of all dial phones, Maryland Senator Millard Tydings offered a resolution to give senators a choice. It appeared that some of the younger senators actually preferred the dial phones. This angered the anti-dial senators, who immediately blocked the measure's consideration. Finally, technology offered a solution. Although the telephone company had pressed for the installation of an all-dial system, it acknowledged that it could provide the Senate with phones that worked both ways. But Senator Dill was not ready to give up. In his experience, the dial phone "could not be more awkward than it is. One has to use both hands to dial; he must be in a position where there is good light, day or night, in order to see the number; and if he happens to turn the dial not quite far enough, then he gets a wrong connection." Senator Glass, the original sponsor, had the last word before the Senate agreed to the compromise plan. "Mr. President, so long as I am not pestered with the dial and may have the manual telephone, while those who want to be pestered with [the dial] may have it, all right." http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Considers_Banning_Dial_Phones.htm Regards. Charles G. Gray Senior Lecturer - Information Technology Oklahoma State University (918) 594-8433
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:26:29 -0700 (PDT) From: HAncock4 <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: ANCIENT telephone transmission Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Sep 16, 8:18~pm, mattrix <mattr...@gmail.VALID-IF-THIS-IS- ELIDED.com> wrote: > Turns out that the problem was phase distortion, more than attenuation. > (I need to study transmission lines :) This 1922 article explains a long distance cable--the physical construction, loading coils, and repeaters. http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol01-1922/articles/bstj1-1-60.pdf This 1923 article futher discusses transmission. http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol02-1923/articles/bstj2-1-67.pdf As to signalling, different ringdown frequencies were used at different times and locations because of the need to pass through repeaters and loading coils, to not interfere with telegraph signals superimposed on the wire, and within the limits of electronics of the era. The Ball Labs history Vol 1 goes into considerable detail on this. Bell System Technical Journal, 1922-1983 index page: http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/#1922
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:35:03 -0400 From: "Pawlowski, Adam" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer) Message-ID: <64F0EDB01F6CC04DA6FF870991FC23592AFC7DCE15@MBCCR4.itorg.ad.buffalo.edu> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:50:36 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer) Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:28:10 -0400, after tlvp wrote > ... > Hook-flash dialing was quite a trick to master, if you hadn't quite > ever needed to before. ... > It has come in handy a few times where you need to dial and the "dial" function of whatever is handy doesn't work. 3) Q.: Will hook-flash dialing still work on today's DTMF-based PBXes? It does not work with any VoIP "gateway" product I've come across, I can tell you this. We don't presently deploy these devices anywhere, but, in my own limited testing, "pulse" dialing doesn't work. If anything, it causes the port to reset as though you have hung up the phone. If there is an "adapter" made for such a legacy device, readily available, I don't know. This had at least stopped my from a novelty project of putting a rotary 1A2 set on our VoIP system here, but, if it were deployed as a "Solution" to replacing phones in a business type environs, I can see calls coming in from people who flipped the T/P switch and now cannot dial. I haven't tried on some of the older equipment like the Merlin Legend , which I should .
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:52:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Smith <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: OnStar Begins Spying On Customers' GPS Location For Profit Message-ID: <1316620354.81741.YahooMailNeo@web65707.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:58:56 -0400 Monty Solomon <email@example.com> wrote: > OnStar Begins Spying On Customers' GPS Location For Profit > Posted on September 20, 2011 by Jonathan Zdziarski > I canceled the OnStar subscription on my new GMC vehicle today after > receiving an email from the company about their new terms and > conditions.... Please give information on how to cancel. They even established a new credit card to charge after my old one was cancelled. Thanks, Mark Smith
Date: 21 Sep 2011 02:17:50 -0400 From: "John R. Levine" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Smartphone suggestions? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.firstname.lastname@example.org> Any suggestion for my friend who wants a better smartphone? He lives in NYC but he travels a lot. I haven't looked at VZW's stuff recently. Do they have anything decent that will work on foreign GSM networks? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 19:53:23 -0700 But here are my desired specs: - ability to talk and access email simultaneously - best network coverage domestically - ability to work overseas New Verizon Bold or Torch? New ATT Torch? Something else?
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:38:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Smith <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Smartphone suggestions? Message-ID: <1316630319.46295.YahooMailNeo@web65709.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> On Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 19:53:23 -0700 John R. Levine <email@example.com> said: > Any suggestion for my friend who wants a better smartphone?~ He > lives in NYC but he travels a lot. I haven't looked at VZW's stuff > recently. Do they have anything decent that will work on foreign GSM > networks? If overseas use is mandatory get one of the phones that will do that: the one we were issued at work on Verizon wasn't a smart phone. But to answer your want list: > But here are my desired specs: > - ability to talk and access email simultaneously - AT&T and I think Sprint feature this in their ads. > - best network coverage domestically - Verizon unless you are in the boonies out west. > - ability to work overseas - Either get a phone that works overseas, get a GSM phone and switch to an overseas service by switching chips or if you are overseas enough buy a pay as you go phone overseas. Mark
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:12:50 -0400 From: "David Chessler" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: House Republicans put pressure on Obama to drop AT&T lawsuit Message-ID: <895PiuRLY6864S01.firstname.lastname@example.org> House Republicans put pressure on Obama to drop AT&T lawsuit By Brendan Sasso - 09/20/11 03:45 PM ET One hundred House Republicans wrote to President Obama on Tuesday asking his administration to settle its lawsuit blocking the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. The lawmakers said the lawsuit "will thwart job creation and economic growth." [SNIP] http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/182701-republicans-urge-obama-to-settle-atat-lawsuit ***** Moderator's Note ***** The cited page also contains this comment: "Today's House Republican letter is yet another indication that AT&T's congressional support for its takeover of T-Mobile comes at a price," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge. "In this case, the total is close to $1,000,000. That's how much the company gave to members of Congress who signed the letter and who are willing to allow their constituents to be subjected to a wireless market controlled by only two huge companies." Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:18:19 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Data breaches affect 2m in Mass. Message-ID: <email@example.com> Data breaches affect 2m in Mass. Firms increasingly targets for hackers, Coakley warns By Hiawatha Bray Globe Staff / September 21, 2011 Personal information from nearly one out of three Massachusetts residents, from names and addresses to medical histories, has been compromised through data theft or loss since the beginning of 2010, according to statistics released yesterday by the office of Attorney General Martha Coakley. A state law enacted in 2007 requires all companies doing business in Massachusetts to inform consumers and state regulators about security breaches that might result in identity theft. That could include leaks of individual names along with other sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers or bank account, credit card, and debit card numbers. The law was passed in 2007, after hackers stole 45 million credit card numbers from Framingham-based retailer TJX Cos. Coakley said that her office is just beginning to analyze the reports to find out whether the law is helping to reduce data breaches. But she predicted the problem will get worse as more Americans store vital personal data on various computer networks. "There is going to be more room for employee error, for intentional hacking,'' Coakley said. "This is going to be an increasing target.'' The attorney general's office has received 1,166 data breach notices since January 2010, including 480 between January and August of 2011. About 2.1 million residents were affected by the various incidents, though it's unknown whether any of them were actually defrauded as a result of the data leaks. ... http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2011/09/21/two_million_mass_residents_hit_by_data_breach_leaks/ ***** Moderator's Note ***** I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it is not security that enables online commerce, but ignorance. Bruce Schnier has argued that the $300 limit on credit-card losses is the enabling factor in the e-commerce boom, but I've come to a different conclusion, and I contend that it is the fact that those at risk are not even aware of the chances they are taking. To put no fine point in it, the public doesn't realize that the electronic banking world is an "overlay" on a banking security system which hasn't changed since banking was invented: a system which is based on face-to-face transactions and on locally-maintained paper records. It is a system that has broken down in the face of online account access based on nothing more stringent that password authentication. Not only is the first line of defense compromised, but the chances of getting caught while conducting online fraud are vanishingly small: the only time I contacted the Electronic Crimes Task Force concerning a fraud attempt which had not succeeded, the Secret Service agent told me point-blank that they don't have the manpower to pursue any case with losses under $20,000.00. This isn't some pimple-faced geek in a basement anymore: organized criminal gangs are conducting every kind of attack they can while hiding behind foreign flags, using experts who are receiving part of the profit and international data connectivity that has, for practical purposes, no means of tracing a connection or verifying a face. Although I think Schnier is off the mark on the enabling factor, he is spot-on about the change-agent that will drive better security: the insurance industry will, at some point, get tired of paying out claims, and it will demand a new and (hopefully) more resilient system that reduces online fraud to manageable levels. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:33:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Kansas City MO/KS, Washington DC Metro (was re: EXchanges) Message-ID: <1316644432.3379.YahooMailClassic@web31106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Neal McLain wrote: > Wes Leatherock wrote: >> A prime example was the greater Kansas City Metropolitan exchange, >> since the metro area extended across two states with seven-digit >> dialing. The Missouri side had area code 816, the Kansas side 913. [NOTE that I have corrected an error, in the above quoted paragraph] >> Of course, this consideration ceased to be a factor when >> mandatory 10-digit (or 11-digit) dialing on local calls came >> into existence. > Don't those two cities have independent 7-digit dialing plans now? > I thought 816 and 913 each had 7-digit dialing internally but > 11-digit dialing across the river? Yes, in the Kansas City MO/KS metro area, local/EAS calls within one's own state/NPA are still dialable as just seven-digits, although ten-digits (and 1+ten-digits) are permissive for such intra-state/NPA local/EAS calls, but local/EAS calls that cross the state/NPA boundary are now mandatory ten-digits (permissively 1+ten-digits). The 816/MO side is eventually going to be overlaid with 975. This was announced by SW-Bell and NeuStar-NANPA ten years ago, back in 2001, but it has been "on hold" ever since. Whenever that 816/975 overlay does take effect, then ten-digits mandatory will also take effect for local/EAS calls within the 816/MO-side. I don't know if at&t/SW-Bell and the rest of the telco industry, along with Kansas regulatory and NANPA, will work to make local/EAS calls within the 913/KS-side also as mandatory ten-digits for "consistency" purposes, nor not. Of course, whenever the 913/KS-side ever does need relief which is also most likely going to be an overlay, then ten-digits will become mandatory for intra-913/KS local/EAS calls as well, if not already so by then. BTW, 552 is the likely relief code for 913/KS. **** MAYBE NOT 552! 552 is now a future 5xx PCS code! Also, 913/KS is NOT expected to exhaust for QUITE some time now (as of 2011) **** When the Ottawa-ON / Hull-QC metro area needed to eliminate protected c.o.codes/7-digit local/EAS dialling to delay area code relief by "squeezing" as much remaining life as possible from 613/ON and 819/QC, Bell Canada, the CRTC, the CNA, etc. actually made local/EAS dialling as mandatory ten-digits _throughout the entire_ 613/ON-side and 819/QC-side, even for intra-province/NPA local/EAS calls _everywhere_ in those NPAs, even in places outside of the Ottawa-ON / Hull-QC metro area. Subsequently, the (entire) 613/ON-side has been overlaid with 343 (in 2010). The (entire) 819/QC-side will be overlaid with 873 next year (in 2012). > Another example: DC/Maryland/Virginia metro area. Before 1953, the > entire area had a single 6-digit dialing plan (2L+4D). In '53, > 7-digit dialing was introduced (2L+5D). Note that the numbering/dialing of Washington DC Metro (including the VA and MD suburbs) converting from 2L-4N to 2L-5N was a "staged" process. There were two or three staggered cutovers affecting specific exchanges/central offices in various neighberhoods of the metro area in the late 1940s/early 1950s-era. Other cities which changed from 2L-4N to 2L-5N did it as a single city/metro-wide cutover, where _everything_ in the entire metro area that was 2L-4N changed to 2L-5N all at one time, overnight (literally). But not the Washington DC metro area, nor various other (multi-switch) cities. However, any/all cutovers in the old electromechanical (SXS, Panel, Crossbar, etc) era that involved numbering/dialing did NOT have a permissive period, but such numbering/dialing cutovers were "flash-cut" (or nearly so, i.e. there might have been an inadvertent permissive dial period for a few hours or even a few days, as telco had to individually "turn-on" the new numbering/dialing, and then "turn-off" the old/obsolete numbering/ dialing). > Sometime later, the dialing plan was split by area code, with > 10-digit dialing across boundaries. It was in October 1990, when the correct destination area code was now required for ten-digit (permissively 1+ten-digit) local/EAS dialing which crossed the state/district/NPA boundaries between DC/VA/MD. Permissive ten-digit local/EAS dialing (also permissive as 1+ten-digits) had been in place by BA/C&P for some time prior to October 1990, though. > Since then, both Maryland and Virginia have gotten overlays, so the > metro area now has five area codes with 10-digit dialing in Maryland > (301 and 240) and Virginia (703 and 571). DC (202 still has 7-digit > dialing. [NOTE that I have slightly edited, and corrected an error, in the above quoted paragraph] BTW, probably sometime next year, the eastern Maryland (Baltimore, Annapolis, etc. area), with 410-overlaid-with-443 (since 1997; also the 301/410 split was in 1991), will get an additional overlay with 667. NeuStar-NANPA/etc. announced this additional overlay in 2001, but it has never been actually implemented. Also in 2001, the additional 227 overlay to 301-and-240 for western Maryland (DC metro as well as points further west, bordering West Virginia, (WV, BTW since 2009, has been 304-overlaid-with-681), but there have never been any formal implementation dates announced for this additional Maryland 301/240/227 overlay. Of course, ten-digit dialing within the state is mandatory for all local/EAS calling (1+ten-digits permissive for local/EAS), so the groundwork is already in place. > I suppose someday 202 will need relief, with the obvious choice > being an overlay. Some time back, it was thought that either 746 or 821 could have been the relief area codes for future 202/DC relief. But neither will be the case, since 202-746 and 202-821 are already now assigned as "POTS" 202-NXX c.o.codes in DC. It seems that the future relief code for 202/DC might now be 771. 381 seems to be the future relief code for 703/571 in northern VA. > However, somebody here on T-D once suggested a split of sorts: > put the federal government in its own area code -- 666. All kidding aside, 666 can NOT be a geographic NPA code. Remember that NPAs with an identical digit in the second (B) and third (C) position are RESERVED (or eventually assigned) for "special" functions. These are SACs, the original definition (which I prefer) was "Special Area Code", but the 1980s/forward definition is "Service Access Code". 800, 888, 877, 866, 855, etc. Toll-Free, 500, 533, 544, 566, etc. once for Personal Numbering (but now the 5YY SACs are used for some indeterminable function!), 900, future 922, etc. PAY-PAY-PAY per-call, 700 LD-Carrier services, and the 6YY range (600, 622, etc.) all fit this criteria. The entire 6YY range, including 666, with 600 being the only assigned such SAC "in service" at present (since 610 was swapped for 600 in 1993), is reserved for Canada for their own special services. ALSO, HAncock4 wrote: > Speaking of Washington, > > Washington went dial around 1930. Washington grew somewhat during > the New Deal as the alphabet soup agencies were formed, but then > grew tremendously during WW II. (The Pentagon alone had about a > 16,000 station PBX. See David Brinkley's excellent "Washington > Goes to War".) > > Would anyone know what kind of switch type was used for Washington > dial service, especially as the city grew? Washington DC (eventually including the Maryland suburbs, but I don't know about the northern Virginia suburbs) was one of the twenty-some metro areas in the US, most of them being BIG urban metro areas, which went dial in the 1920s/30s with Panel switching, latter supplemented with #1XB, i.e., "Revertive Pulsing". There were no other areas in the US that had such Panel/#1XB (RP) switching, and NONE in Canada (except for the experimental "Lorimer" RP systems that didn't last long, in the EARLIEST part of the 20th Century, in a few places in Canada). During the 1950s, #5XB (which was brand new as of 1948) began to be added to both Panel/#1XB cities, as well as SXS cities, throughout all of the US and Canada. #5XB was also used for manual-to-dial conversions, as well as continued brand new installations of SXS for manual-to-dial conversions, well into the 1960s-era. Mark J. Cuccia markjcuccia at yahoo dot com
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:57:33 -0700 (PDT) From: HAncock4 <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: EXchanges (was: area code named beer) Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Sep 16, 10:24~am, HAncock4 <withh...@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote: > DDD required that all subscribers have a uniform ten digit number-- > three digit area code and seven digit local number. ~In 1950 a great > many subscribers in smaller towns and cities had phone numers with > three, four, five, or six digits, and all had to be converted to seven > digits. ~This was a major undertaking that took years to complete. P.S. Many times the "conversion" was accomplished at the same time a town was converted from manual to dial, which was a major effort in those years. Subscribers had to get used to a new phone number and billing routing records had to be all changed, but there was no equipment modification. However, towns that were already dial had to be converted to be 7D. In step-by-step offices this often meant adding a "digit absorbing" selector. Say a town had five digit numbers, 5-xxxx and 6-xxxx and the town was to become 345-xxxx and 346-xxxx. The switch would simply absorb the initial 3 and 4. This meant that people within the town would continue dialing five digits as they did before, only outsiders needed all seven. In many small towns in isolated areas five digit dialing continued well into the 1970s. It ended when more exchanges were added as population grew. I don't have any statistics, but I suspect DDD was not offered very widely in the 1950s because the company was too busy expanding toll line capacity and converting local exchanges to dial. I think the Bell System was about 50% dial at the end of WW II, not sure of the percentage in 1960. Anyway, the first step in providing DDD was to providing operator direct dialing, which sped up call handling. That meant adding toll trunk signalling systems for ringing and supervision which was an effort in itself. (That signalling protocol would be compromised later on by the "blue boxes".) Even in the 1980s with DDD and TSP widespread, from time to time operators still 'built up' toll calls by calling intermediate toll centers and establishing the connection the old fashioned way. Likewise, they also wrote charge tickets instead of AMA. Other local exchange items that were necessary to provide DDD were increasing the sender length in #1 crossbar and panel exchanges to hold 10 digits, providing an 'exit' link in step by step exchanges, and providing AMA (automatic message accounting) with automated or operator calling number identification (ANI or ONI). AMA was installed either in the local exchange or at a tandem or toll switching office. Would anyone care to comment on how all this stuff is handled by modern exchanges today? Can a long distance company operator still "build up" a call manually? Are there still long distance company network managers watching their system for overloads and problems? Is there still a big AT&T network control center in Bedminster? Thanks. [public replies, please]
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.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
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) 2011 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.