For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:30:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 178
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
PSAPs and CNID Blocks, was: New Technology Poses 911 Peril (D. Burstein)
SBC, Vonage Working on 911 Service Access Deal (Jack Decker)
Re: New Spam Scam Exploits Pope's Death (Steve Sobol)
Re: New Spam Scam Exploits Pope's Death (Paul Vader)
Re: New Technology Poses 911 Peril VOIP Not Part of Emergency (Wesrock)
Re: AOL to Block Identity Theft Sites (jmeissen@aracnet.com)
Re: CNID Printouts on Cell Bills, was: SprintPCS Lousy Web (Steve Sobol)
Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam (Mark Crispin)
Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam (Fred Goldstein)
Re: Nextel Contract Expiration, How to Determine? (John McHarry)
Re: It Happened Again (John McHarry)
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; other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: PSAPs and CNID blocks, was: New Technology Poses 911 Peril VOIP
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:02:36 UTC
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
( PSAP = Public Safety Answerin Position = the 911 center )
[ lots snipped ]
In <telecom24.176.8@telecom-digest.org> Justin Time
<a_user2000@yahoo.com> writes:
> to access their database, except that they don't want to be bothered.
> The point is that CID can be blocked and is not guaranteed to be
> delivered. The ANI information the 911 centers use is pretty much the
> same data that feeds the telephone company billing system. That
> information cannot be blocked or opted out of providing. Of course,
> if you want the PSAP to use CID information to take emergency calls on
> a non-emergency number and do the look-up from the CID it would be
> permissible to have the PSAP lines configured for Anonymous Call
> Rejection which would reject all calls that didn't have CID. That
> would insure the PSAP had at least some information to work with.
If you're a registered PSAP you can get the local telco to provide you
with the Caller ID info, even if blocked.
Keep in mind that the caller id number is passed all the way from your
local central office to the destination CO. It's only at that last
location, immediately preceeding the "final loop", that the number is
replaced with a "not available" notation.
So if you're approved, the final CO will, indeed, pass it along.
Similarly, if you've got a facility that's considered, for want of a
better term, "close enough", you can get the same exemption. For
example, back in 2001 a group of universities and hospitals called
"Insight 100" (since many of them used the Northern Telecom switch of
the same name) requested this from the FCC so they could better assist
callers to their emergency rooms.
(FCC Docket 91-281, file # NSD-L-01-153)
After the usual bit of paperwork delay (not too bad, considering), and
a bunch of comments from the public (including me), the FCC granted
them this waiver.
Other groups that are covered would be (in many areas of the country)
your local volunteer ambulance or fire company, many of which are
reached through a direct-dial seven (ten) digit call.
And yes, CNID is not as reliable as the more specific 911 database,
but it's far better than nothing.
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:17:25 -0400
Subject: SBC, Vonage Working on 911 Service Access Deal
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=8259385
SBC, Vonage Working on 911 Service Access Deal
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - SBC Communications Inc. is in talks to provide
Internet telephone provider Vonage Holdings Corp. with enhanced 911
emergency services for its customers, after an initial fight between
the two carriers.
Initially SBC rejected a request from Vonage to lease access to the
necessary equipment and databases, preferring to focus on an
industrywide effort. Now the two sides are talking about a deal and
going over technological requirements, according to a letter from SBC
made available on Thursday.
Privately held Vonage provides its service using high-speed Internet
connections and does not have access to the traditional 911 system
where a phone number and address pop up in emergency call centers.
Instead, the company's 550,000 customers must activate a 911 service
by registering an address which is used to send calls to
lower-priority lines at call centers. That has drawn complaints that
customers are unaware they must activate the service.
"We have offered to negotiate commercial agreements ...," Christopher
Rice, SBC executive vice president for network planning and
engineering, said in an April 18 letter to Vonage Chief Executive
Jeffrey Citron.
Regardless, Rice told Vonage that the carrier would have to reach
agreements with each public safety entity for delivery of 911 calls.
Full story at:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=8259385
How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html
If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: New Spam Scam Exploits Pope's Death
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:55:49 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com wrote:
> A new spam campaign is exploiting people's interest in and grief over
> the death of Pope John Paul II.
This is not surprising. Spammers have tried to capitalize on 9/11, the
Asian tsunami and other tragedies.
No news here; move along, please.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, all these complainers should
> read the advice given by our resident anti-spam expert, Robert Bonomi
> who would tell them (1) any real man would know how to get his
> computer to do his bidding if only they would get rid of the
> Microsoft stuff on it and (2) if they really can't hack it, then
> give up the computer and the net totally. Sounds like a good deal to
> me. PAT]
Part of the problem IS MicroSlop. They've finally learned, with
Windows 2000/XP/2003, how to build an operating system that doesn't
crash. They still have issues with building an operating system that
can't easily be broken into.
But in cases like this, I think the problem is more of a social
problem than a technical problem.
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
------------------------------
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader)
Subject: Re: New Spam Scam Exploits Pope's Death
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:46:14 -0000
Organization: Inline Software Creations
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, all these complainers should
> read the advice given by our resident anti-spam expert, Robert Bonomi
> who would tell them (1) any real man would know how to get his
> computer to do his bidding if only they would get rid of the
Is there any way to plonk the moderator of a mailing list? Geez
Patrick, take a pill and stop bringing up people's names like that,
especially since they know more about the internet than you do. *
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sure there is a way to plonk the moder-
ator of a mailing list. Just ask any real man how to adjust your
computer to do what you want. I have an idea; put me on your Spam
Assassin black list for starters. Wave bye bye to Pat! PAT]
------------------------------
From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:10:24 EDT
Subject: Re: New Technology Poses 911 Peril VOIP Not Part of Emergency
In a message dated 21 Apr 2005 05:26:17 -0700, Justin Time
<a_user2000@yahoo.com> writes:
> Dave Garland wrote:
> Of course. But is *sounds* like Vonage is in fact telling people.
> There's no reason why the county 911 can't use CID on a non-911 line
> to access their database, except that they don't want to be bothered.
> The point is that CID can be blocked and is not guaranteed to be
> delivered. The ANI information the 911 centers use is pretty much the
> same data that feeds the telephone company billing system. That
> information cannot be blocked or opted out of providing.
SBC directories, including probably the one for Independence, Kansas,
include a statement to this effect on the page with emergency numbers
(mostly 911), and direct you to call the 7-digit number for the
emergency agency if you want to block your identity and where you are
calling from.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: AOL to Block Identity Theft Sites
Date: 21 Apr 2005 23:24:00 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
In article <telecom24.176.7@telecom-digest.org>, Ed Clarke
<clarke@cilia.org> wrote:
> On 2005-04-20, mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote:
>> In my opinion, all browsers should block or warn about references of the
>> form:
>> <a href="xxxxx">yyyyy</a>
>> where yyyyy is a URL that does not match xxxxx.
>> Simple - why don't they do it?
> Virtual hosts. I have half a dozen websites on a single IP; costs my
> customers less for web hosting. The only time it makes a difference
> is for vanity -- reverse host maps to forward host -- or for SSL. >
He wasn't talking about matching IP addresses. He was talking about
HTML link tags where the reference in the tag doesn't match the text
associated with the tag.
John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: CNID Printouts on Cell Bills, was: SprintPCS Lousy Web
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:32:28 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
Justin Time wrote:
> Interesting point. But couldn't the cellular companies come back
> stating they had delivered the CID when the phone rang? That you
> didn't record the information isn't their concern.
Sure, they COULD. I'd tell 'em they're full of crap, but they could. :)
> But again, if you use the argument that your cell phone is like an 800
> number that is entitled to billing information, then the same argument
> could be made for your POTS line as well. You are paying to receive
> the service.
You're almost right.
But I don't get billed per-minute for incoming calls on POTS. My
monthly bill does not increase each time I receive another call. It
does on an 800 number, and it uses minutes on a cell phone, which
costs me money if I go over my monthly allotment.
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
------------------------------
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Subject: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:00:55 -0700
Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> When the Internet was a private network serving an exclusive
> community, few rules were needed.
Actually, the Internet was under very strict regulation; all traffic
had to "be, or be in support of, official US government business".
That was stretched a lot; but it was sternly enforced when stretched
too hard.
When the (more or less benevolent) military dictatorship was
overthrown, there was an attempt at establishing acceptable use
policies (AUP). There was a huge hue and cry about how evil it was to
have AUPs and how the network should be an anarchy. The anarchists
won.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:36:16 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <SeeSigForEmail@wn6.wn.net>
Subject: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam
Pat,
I hate to discourage you, but as somebody who has been on the Internet
even longer than you (since the ARPAnet in 1978), and who has paid
some attention to the legalities (since telecom regulation is much of
my consulting practice), I have to say that Robert Bonomi is right and
both you and Lisa are wrong.
The Internet is anarchy. Still is. ICANN is a paper tiger. It got
its authority from Bernie Ebbers, and held on by inertia. Really.
The "Internet" is not a legal entity. There are multiple backbone
networks. Each is a private entity that carries what it feels like,
and charges what it can. "Peering" means that both sides agree that
they value each other's connections, and thus don't charge each other.
"Upstream" means that a provider sells service to a smaller one. It's
a wonderful example of free-market economics. No regulator could have
dreamed it up; no tariff could have described it. And it only works
*because* there is no one ISP with enough market power to make the
rules.
Before 1992, there was NSFnet, with federal funding and an Acceptable
Use Policy which kept it rather noncommercial. That was the main
backbone. There were also lots of private IP networks, many not
connected to each other or any backbone. They could still get
"public" address space from Jon Postel, who controlled the addressing.
There were some other inter-organizational IP networks. By then,
TCP/IP had largely fulfilled the original OSI mission (open system
interconnection) while completely bypassing the OSI standardization
processes. It took a different route to ubiquity -- free code.
Suffice to say that there was some effort made to derail a proposal
that would have given ANS CO+RE (a joint venture of MCI, IBM and the
University of Michigan's MERIT) a monopoly on commercialization. Once
NSFnet was privatized and the AUP thus ended, multiple backbones
popped up. The industry organized itself rather nicely between 1993
and 1995; the phrase "at Internet speed" was actually meaningful. But
again, NOBODY was in charge. Jon handed out addresses, and DNS names
went from being free to $100 to $70.
Jon died suddenly, and Melvin Dummar found a will in his name, giving
control of the name and address space to a Washington lawyer named
Sims, who created ICANN out of whole cloth, appointing a board. At
least that's as good an explanation as I can figure out for how ICANN
came about. The US Government gave ICANN backing, but there was no
real legal authority to it. Sometimes an assertion of authority is
good enough.
ICANN claimed to have authority over the name and number space.
Addressing (numbering) hasn't been all that controversial -- there are
regional registries that hand out IP blocks to ISPs. ICANN hasn't
tried anything dramatic there. In the name area, ICANN managed the
split between registrar (made competitive) and registry. They set
rules that registrars have to follow to get certified, and name a
single registry for each top level domain (TLD), like .net, .com. etc.
They haven't, however, pushed hard against the country-code registrars
that Jon had appointed. Mostly they've spent oodles of time and money
creating TLDs like .aero and .museum that are rarely used.
What can they do about spam? Frankly, nothing. They control TLDs.
That gives them some leverage against the registries and registrars,
who are supposed to follow some rules, but if a registrant pays his $8
or whatever and buys a domain from some registrar, then he can use it
for spam until the registrar pulls it. Since registering is
automated, there's no real threat against spammers. Even the
address-space threat is not helpful; spammers are often able to find
vacant number blocks and sneak them onto networks long enough to do
their damage. And the bulk of spam nowadays is sent via hijacked home
PCs running spambot malware, not spammer server farms the way Spamford
used to do it.
Indeed, the truth is that if the Internet community in general got mad
enough at ICANN, it could bypass them. ICANN's power comes from its
control over the DNS root servers. Big ISPs feed their DNS servers
from the ICANN-blessed roots. But if the ISP decided to use an
alternative root, or if an end user decided to use an alternative DNS
service (and they do exist), then it would still work. However, there
would be some risk of conflict, if two different root servers assigned
the same name to different addresses. That's the "nuclear option", to
use a currently-popular phrase. This didn't happen during ICANN's
controversial birthing phase because they got Bernie on board, when
his UUNET was the top ISP, its reputation was good, and Vint Cerf (the
Chauncey Gardiner of the Internet, famous for being there) was his
sexy spokesmodel. The other big ISPs fell in line too, with some
grumbling. But there's no law binding anyone to use ICANN-blessed
roots, just an understanding that it's better, for now, than letting
names clash.
And the harm from numbering clashes would be even worse, if that
started to happen. But the answer would not be for some "authority" to
clamp down, since there is none; it would be for ISPs to be selective
about whose BGP route advertisements they accept. A technical
solution, if unpleasant.
So can anybody do anything about spam? Well, maybe, but pointing the
finger at ICANN won't do any good. Spam exists, frankly, because at
the time the core protocols of the Internet was invented, it was a
private network, which you couldn't attach to without permission, and
such misbehavior was not tolerated. The appropriate response is
technological. Yes, laws help too; I have no problem with levying
massive civil penalties, criminal fines, jail time, and perhaps
lengthy visits to Guantanamo Bay on spammers and the people who hire
them (follow the money!). But that is unlikely to do a lot of good
alone.
I suggest that we need to rethink email, especially the "free" aspect
of it. I've had a proposal out there on my website for quite a while
(http://www.ionary.com/ion-spam.html) . It requires emails to be
either a) sent by someone you already know, for free (this would
include mailing lists like the Digest), or b) accompanied by a
"stampette", basically a one-time certificate, purchased from an
issuer that the recipient recognizes as trustworthy. This puts a
price in the fractional-penny range on "stranger emails", enough to
discourage spam but not normal use. While John Levine hates it (and I
respect his opinion), I still haven't seen any ideas I think are
better. Others might come along though. This is all done at the
mail-service-provider layer, either your ISP or on your own server.
It doesn't involve the highway owner (backbone ISP) or the sign
posting company (ICANN). Microsoft has even had useful contributions
to the anti-spam dialog. We have to focus the attention on methods
that can really work, not on scapegoats.
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In other words, John Postel gave away
something he did not really own, and attorney Sims went along with
the scam. I've heard about Sims and ICANN before; how he 'created'
it as sort of a figment of his imagination and handed over the name
and number space to them. I've also heard about Bernie Ebbers and
his connection to ICANN. Yes, Lisa, that's the Bernie Ebbers of MCI
infamy, the one who was recently convicted of accounting fraud and
the fellow who will soon be in jail for 85 years, unless the judge
chooses to show mercy to an old man. In the past, whenever ICANN
needed money for one of their vacation/conventions somewhere, Vint
Cerf would get the money for them out of MCI's largesse. Now days of
course, netters help pay for those vacation/convention flings through
the extortion ICANN uses on them through the registration 'fees'.
Fred, you mention ICANN is essentially a 'paper tiger' with no real
authority, but however they came to get their 'authority' from the
United States Commerce Department, in any event they have it now,
the 'authority', I mean. Do you agree with my assessment that ICANN
is happy with the mess things are in now? They wouldn't want to
change anything at all, would they? I mean, was the construction of
the contracts now used totally an accident? I don't think it was.
They could have said *something* about the ever present maliciousness
and malfeasance if they had _really wanted to_, am I right? But they
didn't want to, did they? Its better to get the small websites out of
the way, wouldn't they agree with that? Is ICANN still getting their
largesse out of MCI via Vint Cerf if you know? PAT]
------------------------------
From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Nextel Contract Expiration, How to Determine?
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:37:51 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:00:38 -0700, steve wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to determine what the expiration date on my Nextel
> cellular contract is. I cannot find it on my bill, or logging on to
> online account management.
> I would like to determine this without calling Nextel if possible, as
> I'm afraid they might pull some trick and extend it if I call.
> Any suggestions as to where I can obtain this info?
Dig out your original paperwork and look it up there.
------------------------------
From: John McHarry <jmcharry@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: It Happened Again
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:55:10 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:26:51 -0400, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:
> Again, today, Wednesday, late evening, spam rolled in so heavily here
> at massis, about 6 or 8 messages got lost in the shuffle...
Pat, you might want to try something like Spamassassin. It isn't perfect,
but nothing is that doesn't find too many false positives. It has Baysian
classifiers you might find useful (you can feed it gobs of spam and good
mail, and it will do a good job of learning the differences), but I don't
get enough spam through all the filters to have tried them. At least they
should get rid of the Nigerian widows, unless they are also telecom
freaks. There are other good tools as well, like Razor. Until you trust
the tools, you can have them sort the flagged spam into a separate folder
for manual examination.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: lcs.mit (which includes massis and
others) has Spam Assassin installed; as a user I have an .rc file
for local diddling as desired. I do get a separate folder full of
spam daily, and I have the score level on Spam Assassin set quite low
which no doubt catches much of the spam , but the 'regular' mail box
(allegedly the non-spam stuff) is now also mostly spam to the extent
of about 85 percent of it, two or three hundred items of mail in the
regular box each day which I _must_ manually sort in order to keep the
genuinely good stuff. PAT]
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums. It is also gatewayed 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.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 50
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 620-402-0134
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 530-309-7234
Fax 3: 208-692-5145
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org
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
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from *
* Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
* 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
* http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
* Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
* views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
*************************************************************************
ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 TELECOM Digest V24 #178
******************************
| |