TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:40:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 256

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    AOL to Feature SBC, BellSouth's Online Yellow Pages (Lisa Minter)
    UK Man Accused of Hacking Pentagon Appears in Court (Lisa Minter)
    Strange Problem w/KX-TA624 Hybrid Phone System (Kevin)
    AOL to Offer YellowPages.com Listings (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
    SBC New Low Price; Continued Thread From ba.internet (AES)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com)
    Re: From our Archives: History of Standard Oil and Bell System (Wesrock)
    Re: Cannot Cancel My AT&T Service After Moving to Vonage (Tim@Backhome)
    Re: Valued Added Caller ID Spoofing (AES)
    Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy (Joseph)
    Last Laugh! Funny Telephone Picture (Rich Greenberg)

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: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: AOL to Feature SBC, BellSouth's Online Yellow Pages
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:29:58 -0500


America Online on Wednesday said it will feature advertising from the
Web-based Yellow Pages of SBC Communications Inc.  and BellSouth
Corp. in an effort to beef up the Internet service's local search.

Yellowpages.com, a joint venture between SBC and BellSouth that
includes SBC's Smartpages.com and BellSouth's RealPages.com, will be
included in AOL's Yellow Pages feature.

The ability to search for businesses, restaurants and events within
specific cities and towns has emerged as a battleground among Internet
media sites such as Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, Google Inc., Yahoo
Inc. and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. 

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

------------------------------

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: UK Man Accusted of Hacking Pentagon Appears in Court
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:32:11 -0500


A British man the United States accused of carrying out the world's
"biggest military computer hack" appeared in court in London Wednesday
at the start of extradition hearings.

Gary Mckinnon was arrested Tuesday on charges of computer fraud issued
in November 2002 by U.S. prosecutors claiming he illegally accessed 97
U.S.  government computers -- including Pentagon and Nasa systems --
over a 12-month period from February 2002, causing $700,000 worth of
damage.

If found guilty, he could face up to $1.75 million in fines and 70
years in jail.

Mckinnon was released on bail to July 27 and banned from using the
Internet.

The 39-year-old entered Bow Street magistrates' court dressed in light
green combat trousers, blowing kisses to the public gallery.

The U.S. has admitted that although Mckinnon -- whose hacking name was
Solo -- accessed sensitive files there was no evidence that he
downloaded classified information or forwarded files to foreign
governments.

At the time of the indictment, Paul McNulty, US Attorney for the Eastern
District of Virginia, said: "Mr McKinnon is charged with the biggest
military computer hack of all time."

Mckinnon's defense lawyer told the court his client planned to vigorously
fight extradition to the United States.

Hackers have plagued increasingly nervous governments in recent years,
with British courts last week also beginning extradition hearings for
a couple wanted in connection with the theft of sensitive Israeli
defense data.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. 

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

------------------------------

From: kevin <Ta31notataol@yahoo.com>
Subject: Strange Problem w/KX-TA624 Hybrid Phone System
Date: 8 Jun 2005 09:56:06 -0700


We have a Panasonic KX-TA624 Hybrid Phone System with TVS50 Voice Mail
Module and a number of 7735 and 7730 phones.

Our Phone system Works fine EXCEPT one extension. (#107) If the person
at this extension answers the phone and attempts to transfer the
caller to another extension, and nobody picks up at that other
extension, it never drops into the transferees' voicemail. If the
person waiting for someone to answer on the other end hangs up, the
phone continues to ring in the office to which the call was
transferred in the first place unless killed by extension 107.

Also, if extension 107 tries to transfer a call directly to another
extensions' voicemail, the menu comes up as if the owner of the
mailbox is dialing in. (it says "you have zero new messages........")

The transfer feature only works correctly if the receiving extension
is there to actually answer the phone. Otherwise, the phone either
rings forever, or goes into the wrong menu as stated above.

We have already replaced this phone one time with a brand new phone.

Thank you for your assistance.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:21:53 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: AOL to offer YellowPages.com listings


Telecom dailyLead from USTA
June 8, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=3D22187&l=3D2017006

NEWS OF THE DAY
* AOL to offer YellowPages.com listings
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Sprint, Yahoo! in wireless e-mail pact
* Adelphia creditors ask court to scrap $715M settlement
* News from SUPERCOMM
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* Don't Miss SUPERCOMM Exhibits in Chicago
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Nintendo to launch Wi-Fi network
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Colorado PUC lifts price controls for Qwest in some areas
* Cable industry wants limits on local franchising authority over cable

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=3D22187&l=3D2017006

------------------------------

From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
Subject: SBC New Low Price
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:39:53 -0700
Organization: Stanford University


Excerpts from a recent long-running thread [1] on ba.internet:

--------------------------------

>>>> There's a law that the landlord must provide a working phone jack.

>> This isn't a Berkeley or SF law, it's CA State Law.  A working phone
>> line is a required feature of a residential rental, the same as hot
>> water, running water, electric service, no vermin, etc.
   --------------------------------
> Contrary to your post, a working phone line is not required for
> habitability.   Only a functional jack and inside wiring to that jack.
> Whether or not there is breakable dialtone, or whether there is a good
> drop bridged to the inside wire, is not the responsibility of the
> landlord.

>>> The law requires landlords to
>>> maintain inside wiring to one phone jack.  It does not require them to
>>> maintain the drop or the service. It does NOT require them to act on
>>> the tenant's behalf to fix billing or service problems with phone
>>> companies.
   --------------------------------

>> ... the landlord does have the responsibility to
>> provision a working pair to the unit *when the tenant moves in*.
   --------------------------------
> No, he doesn't.  The law covers only the inside wiring, that which was
> divested from telco years ago.  It doesn't cover anything else.
   --------------------------------

I have no dog in this fight, but am just curious at this point as to
what the truth really is.  Anyone able to provide it?

[1] "Re: SBC new low price" on ba.internet: The specific incident that
started it was one where a departing tenant vanished, leaving a
sizable phone bill unpaid; the telco allegedly refuses to release the
line to a new tenant until the old bill is paid; and the landlord is
supposedly trapped in the middle, unable to provide phone service to
the new tenant unless he's willing to pay the unpaid charges for the
old tenant.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Who had the responsibility for the
phone service in the first place; the tenant or the landlord?  If the
landlord was _historically_ providing the phone service (and
collecting on same from tenants), then landlord is responsible. This
type of situation usually only occurs when the landlord is providing
phone service in a hotel/motel type situation, where telco believes it
is more convenient for a landlord to deal with transients than it is
for telco. In those cases, telco usually provides a commission to
landlord in exchange for handling the collection and customer service
functions. In a _really transient_ situation, such as overnight or
weekly tenants, telco is generally obligated to quote any charges for
service as they occur, to give the landlord a reasonable opportunity
to 'post' the charges and make collection for same. If telco fails to
quote time and charges in a timely way and as a result tenant is gone
before landlord can collect, that is telco's problem. There are all
kinds of audit trails and proofs on whether or not telco made the
quote in a timely way, operator ticket serial numbers, etc. In those
cases, if telco was advising landlord of the bill due on telephone
service, the landlord was diligently 'posting' these entries to a
ledger and the tenant skipped without payment, then it is indeed the
landlord's problem. After all, says telco, we were paying you a
commission on traffic revenue to attend to this sort of thing.

On the flip side of the coin, if tenant was _historically_ paying
for telephone service (that is, an apartment or similar but with his
own wiring and jack and his own obligations to telco) then the 
problem is telco's unless telco can demonstrate fraud on the part of
some third party such as landlord. If I, independently, contracted
with telco for service, at some point was unable or unwilling to 
pay for same, and skipped then telco is responsible. Telco could have,
after all, installed a pay-station outside my door or in the parking
lot or wherever, but instead chose to take my word (based on credit
reports or whatever) regards my ability and willingness to pay for
service. So I guess my question would be _who_ originally agreed to
pay for the service of the tenant who skipped? We would need more
details on this.

Telco is protected against attempts to defraud it, however. If telco
can demonstrate that something transparent took place, then telco is
entitled to withhold service until the problem is cured. For example,
several years ago here in this Digest, we learned of the case of a
person who skipped with unpaid bills, then that person's mother and
father 'conveniently' took over the very same apartment, and kept
insisting 'not responsible for the bills of other person', which may
in fact have been true, but telco was unwilling to accept that 
transparency. Is this case by any chance that very same one from
several years ago?  _That one_ was on the west coast somewhere, and
either the child had run off not paying his bills and the parents did
not feel responsible or maybe it was the other way around. Are we
still dealing with that case?  

In that case in the Digest from years ago, I think we detirmined that
tenants had historically paid their own telephone bill; that tenant
had skipped; and that tenant's family members had moved in. The new
person kept insisting landlord 'had to' help them explain the problem
to telco; landlord attempted to do so, and telco would not accept the
explanation. Is this the same case? AES, you said this was a 'long
running thread in ba.internet' ... the suggestion made in that long
ago case here was that if the landlord felt so strongly inclined to
help the tenant, my suggestion was to either give telco a personal
guarentee (_not_ a corporate guarentee, telco is not a bunch of fools
after all!) on payment or pay the bill and collect it from the new
tenant, or perhaps supply the new tenant with a cell phone under the
same kind of personal guarentee conditions until the problem got
solved.

Assuming telco is correct, that it is all just some transparency
intended to rip them off, then appeals to the Commission won't help; 
telco will stick to it's guns, rightfully. If telco is incorrect, and
tenants/landlord can prove it, then they will get phone service,
albiet perhaps grudgingly, and perhaps with a substantial deposit
required. In the meantime, (appeals to the Commission can go on for
months until resolved) for phone service for these wonderful new
wrongly accused put-upon tenants, if landlord _must_ get involved,
then get them a cell phone, and a new rental lease which makes it
very clear: Each time the tenant pays any money, the money is _first_
applied to the telephone bill, then it is applied to any rent due.
Reasoning is, in the 'unlikely' event the new tenant decides to try
the same thing as the old one and stall on paying his bills _due to
you_ i.e. rent and by default his phone bill, it is always easier
for a landlord to evict a tenant on non-payment of rent than for 
non-payment of sundry items.   PAT] 

------------------------------

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: 8 Jun 2005 10:40:44 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls.com> wrote:

> Gary Novosielski  <gpn@suespammers.org> wrote:

>> Fred Atkinson wrote:

>>> Sorry to come down on you this hard, but limiting student access to
>>> information simply because we think they don't 'need' access to it is
>>> a pretty short sighted opinion for an educator to take.

>> You're presuming that it's educators who are in favor of blocking
>> technology, but I think that's jumping to an unsupported conclusion.

> As both an educator and a student, I am, in fact, in favor of
> "blocking technology".  The last thing I need is students distracted
> by more crap on their laptops while I'm lecturing -- and the last
> thing I need, as a student, is more distraction.  I'm always happy, in
> either role. when I walk into a classroom, turn on my laptop, and
> discover that there is no wireless network connectivity in that
> particular room.

That is a different thing altogether.  That is not a matter of
regulating what the student can look at on the net, but when the
student can look at it.  THAT is absolutely essential to do if you
allow students to use laptops in class at all (which I would strongly
discourage, personally).

--scott


"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: 8 Jun 2005 10:18:15 -0700


Robert Bonomi wrote:

> In private industry, and employer can allow use of company property
> for non-work activities by employees -- e.g. using the copy machine to
> run off flyeres for a local club activity.
> In a federal government agency, if an employee does that it they are
> comitting a *crime* -- one with _prison time_ attached to it.

There are state government agencies where that is NOT that case.
There are private sector units that mirror the Fed policy you state
above.

I would be extremely surprised if people were sent to prison solely
for personal use of a federal copier machine.  However, some private
firms are very fussy about employee theft and have criminally charged
their employees.

> 1) No pornography
> Doesn't meet the 'SAYING specific things is forbidden' requirement.
> Not a 'speech' issue.

It most certainly is a speech issue.  If someone writes something
pornographic in nature it is forbidden.  Thus, specific speech is
indeed restricted.

> I can cite a Supreme Court ruling expressly invalidating a
> governmental unit 'dress code' item that forbade the wearing of
> certain items of apparel.

Virtually every government organization I know has a dress code.  You
may be referring to very narrow situations.  (There's a case in the
NYC subway system over wearing a religious turban and hat badge.  It's
ONE case out of 50,000 employees).

> An organization in 'private industry' would have had *NO* problem
> enforcing that particular dress-code item..

Actually, in some cases private employers have gotten into trouble on
some dress code requirements.

> *HOW* you said those things is what gets the summons for "disorderly
> CONDUCT".  It is the _conduect_ that is the problem, not the language.

>> If I threaten to kill you,
>> you can have me arrested and convicted for making threats.

> You're obviously ignorant of the existing 'case law' on *that* point.
> With the exception of a remark of that nature about the President of
> the United States, one cannot be charged/convicted *just* for making
> such a remark.

If what you say is true, there's a lot of people wrongly in trouble
and fined or even jailed by local courts for making terroristic
threats.  The "how" was irrelevent, it was the threat that counts.
Whether it was shouted or whispered, or discretely written on a piece
of paper didn't matter.  Indeed, some of the quietest threats are
treated the most seriously.

[rest snipped]

I am not lawyer nor claim to be a legal expert.  However, I have quite
a number of years out there and have seen quite a few things over and
over again.

Basically, I do not agree with your post.  My real issue on
disagreement is not on case law but rather actual practice.

On some of your arguments, frankly, you seem to be splitting hairs.

That does not resolve the question in terms of real life practice.

The reality is that there are many laws that are not enforced and
people get away with stuff.  Likewise, we have theorectically rights
that we can't effectively exercise because it would be too expensive
or time-consuming to fight for them.  One of the things a good lawyer
does is advise on the reality of a particular situation.  "Yes, you're
absolutely right but to fight them will cost $100,000 in legal fees."

Stating what is on paper seriously misses the issue.  Actual practice
is what counts.

(If I may point out, in another discussion on Autovon phones, you said
those phones were "standard".  There may be a piece of paper saying
just that, but the vast majority of Touch Tone phones out there do not
comply with that standard because they don't have the fourth column.
Indeed, there are a lot of official technical standards out there that
are basically ignored and unwritten practices that are essentially
standard.)

FWIW, in a previous discussion it was insisted certain estate legal
certifications were required.  I was just working with some one on
that and the cited certifications were not required to deal with an
external agency to obtain a refund.  Again, what is said on paper is
not always reality.

Anyone with a legal question should consult a competent reputable
attorney.  (How to find one that is competent?  Tough to say.)

------------------------------

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:33:38 EDT
Subject: Re: From our Archives: History of Standard Oil and Bell System


In a message dated Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:46:53 -0700,
was written:

> The amusing and highly ironic thing about my nickname is that BP
> bought Atlantic Richfield in 2000. ARCO's stations are positioned as
> price leaders.  In fact, only Valero (another discount brand, owned by
> Diamond Shamrock) matches BP's prices at the ARCO stations in this
> area. Chevron is far and away the most expensive gas station chain in
> SoCal. Often the local Chevron is 10-15c/gal more expensive than a
> nearby ARCO.

You have it backwards about the relationship of Valero and Diamond
Shamrock.  Valero is the parent company; Diamond Shamrock is one of
several brands they market under.

Pricing relationships vary from market to market, and often in different 
geographic parts of the same market.


Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com

------------------------------

From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Cannot Cancel My AT&T Service After Moving to Vonage
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 07:11:19 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is this a situation where AT&T is
> charging you some monthly fee for 'handling' your account? If not,
> and you are just billed for calls you actually make then it does
> not matter. Just ignore it; let them call you a 'customer' if they
> wish, since there are no calls being made via AT&T, the account
> will always have a zero balance. Now if AT&T is charging some sort
> of monthly fee, then a letter sent registered to the company should
> help. For example, one side of SBC _still_ persists in referring to
> me as a 'customer' while another part of the company is trying to
> win me back (with all sorts of outrageous deals these days, free
> service, etc).  PAT]

The moral of the story: Don't do business with AT$T, either directly
or indirectly.  What a sorry spectacle of a once great company.

Of course, the same can be said of a lot of banks and (ugh) credit
card companies.

------------------------------

From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Valued Added Caller ID Spoofing
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:14:47 -0700
Organization: Stanford University


In article <telecom24.255.3@telecom-digest.org>, T. Sean Weintz
<strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:

> Caller ID spoofing services being available to the general public were
> bad enough.

> This service not only spoofs caller ID, it allows you to set up
> automated harrassment! You pick pre-recorded sound bites to play, and
> you can set it up to call someone repeatedly.

> http://www.tricktel.com

There sure are times when I'd be sorely tempted to use a service -- and 
it would be against targets that truly deserve being subjected to 
automated harrassment.

(The list would include most telemarketers, all spam faxers, and
certain firms with some kind of automated or robot phone systems that
have one of my numbers erroneously programmed into their system and
even if I can identify who the firm is, I can't contact anyone who
will correct the error.)

I guess the only thing that stops me is that I doubt that the Tricktel
people are any more trustworthy or responsible than the people I'd be
going after.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And did you notice the Tricktel people
do not work for free either; I think I saw on their web site where the
rate for their 'services' ranges from 25 cents up to one dollar per
incident, depending on what they think about you as a customer. Let's
assume you pay one dollar per call made. Can you afford that? I sure
cannot. I think Tricktel also said that depending on how tough things
get on them (in the event of a complaint) they may or may not protect
your 'privacy'. I just don't know you can trust them.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy 
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:24:36 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 03:27:55 GMT, [Telecom Digest Editor] writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to ask you just one
> question: _Why_ can't a registrar be expected to screen potential or
> actual spammers?  If registrars started doing that, they'd be heros
> in the eyes of most netters.  PAT]

If you're going to use that logic you might as well use it on the
telephone company for selling service to fly-by-night boiler room
scamsters in South Florida and Montreal as well.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One small problem with your logic. 
Telco is a common carrier; they are required by law to supply service
to _anyone_ asking for service on the condition the potential
subscriber has demonstrated an ability and willingness to pay for
the service. Registrars are not common carriers, they are free to 
accept or reject customers at will; for most of them, all that seems
to matter is getting the ten dollar fee every couple years or so. That
should not be the case. Registrars could be our front line defense 
against spammers/scammers/phishers if the netters and or ICANN
demanded it. But of course, ICANN won't demand anything. They _like_
things the way they are now. And of course there is always some
idiot who will speak out and say "oh, but if we were to impose on
Itzy-Pooh Corporation and refuse to carry their traffic because of
the huge amount of spam they overlook, why then Itzy-Pooh may sue
some registrar or something like that." All I can say to that is
God Bless America and God Bless ICANN. Lets begin to turn the screws
on the registrars and get them contractually committed to a few 
simple facts: If Itzy Pooh gets bounced by some registrar for
malfeasance, no other registar can touch him until whatever got him
bounced in the first place gets cured.  PAT]n

------------------------------

From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg)
Subject:Last Laugh! Funny Telephone Picture
Date: 8 Jun 2005 13:45:49 -0400
Organization: Organized?  Me?


Take a look at:  http://www.jillsjokeline.com/canuhearme.shtml


Rich Greenberg Marietta, GA, USA richgr atsign panix.com    + 1 770 321 6507
Eastern time.  N6LRT  I speak for myself & my dogs only.   VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red & Shasta (RIP),Red, husky                   Owner:Chinook-L
Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/  Asst Owner:Sibernet-L

------------------------------


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)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedroll.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecom

*************************************************************************
*   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 #256
******************************