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
Add this Digest to your personal
or  
TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:30:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 271 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nokia PR (Monty Solomon) Sony Ericsson PR (Monty Solomon) Leveraging Mobile Content: Creating Value in Wireless World (M Solomon) Power outage Knocks CheckFree Offline (Monty Solomon) Keeping Your Data Secret is Up to You (Monty Solomon) Re: Cell Phone Rental in Europe (Spyros Bartsocas) Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Justin Time) Re: AOL Users Most Likely to Make Zombie of Your Computer (Sean Weintz) Re: Companies Subvert Search Results to Squelch Criticism (jtaylor) Re: Email to Former AT&T Phones Now Cingular (Dean M.) Bell Divesture (was Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail) (Lisa Hancock) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 02:04:24 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Nokia PR Avaya and Nokia Collaborate to Deliver Next Phase of Fixed to Mobile Convergence Applications for Enterprises - Jun 13, 2005 03:00 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49801340 'Human Technology' at the Heart of Nokia's Vision of Mobility - Jun 13, 2005 03:11 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49801517 Simple Pleasures: Nokia Introduces Seven New Mobile Phones - Jun 13, 2005 03:23 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49801552 Nokia Launches New Network Services and Solutions Initiatives - Jun 13, 2005 03:29 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49801565 Nokia to Expand Elisa's Networks, Bring High Data Speeds to 3G - Jun 13, 2005 03:36 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49801611 Avaya and Nokia Collaborate to Deliver Next Phase of Fixed to Mobile Convergence Applications for Enterprises - Jun 13, 2005 03:43 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49801638 Nokia Collaborates With Enterprise Voice Leaders to Offer Extended Mobility to Businesses - Jun 13, 2005 03:44 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49801651 Nokia and OnRelay Collaborate to Create Mobile Deskphone - Jun 13, 2005 03:53 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49801681 New Consumer Research by Nokia Lifts Lid on What Really Drives New Growth Markets - Jun 13, 2005 04:27 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49801919 Nokia and OnRelay Collaborate to Create the Mobile Deskphone Bringing Advanced Voice Applications to the Enterprise - Jun 13, 2005 09:01 AM (BusinessWire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49807782 Nokia Delivers Three Diverse Handset Designs to the CDMA Market - Jun 13, 2005 10:00 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49809446 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 02:05:16 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Sony Ericsson PR Sony Ericsson Redefines Music on the Move With W600 Walkman(R) Phone for North American Consumers - Jun 13, 2005 09:30 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49808654 Appello's WISEPILOT Turns the Sony Ericsson P910a Into a Powerful Personal Navigation Device - Jun 13, 2005 09:30 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49808667 Sony Ericsson Introduces Fashionable Clamshell Phone for North America; Sony Ericsson Z520a Incorporates Bluetooth(TM), Camera and Cool Curves - Jun 13, 2005 09:30 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49808691 Sony Ericsson Introduces New Generation of Bluetooth(TM)-Enabled Accessories for North America - Jun 13, 2005 09:30 AM (PR Newswire) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49808702 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 02:10:28 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Leveraging Mobile Content: Creating Value in a Wireless World http://www.researchchannel.org/program/displayevent.asp?rid=2506 Join a panel of experts as they discuss the prospects, complexities, and expertise needed to leverage mobile content and create value in a wireless world. Increasing data transfer rates and the proliferation of mobile phones with sophisticated media capabilities, has made mobile content is a hot commodity. The market for mobile content is expected to reach $78 billion by 2007. In order to emerge as a player in this burgeoning market, organizations need to have access to content and its associated rights, possess technology that can aggregate content and easily merchandise it, and access to wireless customers and billing capabilities. http://www.researchchannel.org/program/displayevent.asp?rid=2506 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 02:45:02 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Power outage knocks CheckFree offline By Alorie Gilbert A power outage has disabled CheckFree's online bill payment service, causing its Web site and service to be unavailable, the company said Wednesday. The problem began Wednesday morning when the power in CheckFree's data center in Norcross, Ga., went out, knocking its computers offline. http://news.com.com/2100-1038-5748539.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:14:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Keeping Your Data Secret is Up to You THE COLOR OF MONEY Keeping your data secret is up to you By Michelle Singletary If you had to guess, how many companies would you say have enough of your personal data stored in various databases to make even a rookie crook ready for prime-time conning? You probably don't know the answer, and that is the problem. In the last six months, the personal data of millions of consumers have been lost, stolen, or sold to thieves. The most recent case involved a financial unit of Citigroup Inc. CitiFinancial, which provides a wide variety of consumer loan products, said that personal information (Social Security numbers, loan account data, and addresses) of 3.9 million customers was lost by UPS in transit to a credit bureau. So far, CitiFinancial said it has no reason to believe the information has been used inappropriately. So far. Every time we hear of one of these cases, the companies involved tell their customers not to worry. Trust us, they say. They pledge to enhance their security procedures. http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2005/06/12/keeping_your_data_secret_is_up_to_you/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I never hear the companies involved nor the credit bureaus nor the carrier service say they have followed through with an audit on the paperwork; showing _who_ signed for the files when taken from the company, nor _which of their personnel_ accepted it, nor _when, exactly_ it somehow got lost. And this leads me to believe that maybe occassionally the tapes never got picked up by the carrier but instead got picked up by some imposter/phisher who merely claimed to be the carrier. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Spyros Bartsocas <spyros@telecom-digest.zzn.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:34:08 +0300 Subject: Re: Cell Phone Rental in Europe You say $60 or $70 per week is certainly no bargain when you can get a second-hand phone to *keep* for that kind of money and just buy a local prepaid account readily available in lots of local places. Why buy second hand? I just made a quick check at one of the four Greek mobile operators and you can get a phone to keep plus some initial call time as follows: (all prices in Euros): a)19,90 euros with 8 euros call time b)14,99 euros with 6 euros call time You have a choice of the following phones: Alcatel O.T.153 Ericsson T290 LG L341i Motorola C155 NEC 331i Nokia 2650 Siemens A65 Time renewal comes in 7 and 15 euros. Phones provided with prepaid accounts are usually blocked to the carrier for six months. On the other hand with similar prices you can get a second phone in Turkey and pay less than the rental or second hand prices mentioned by other readers. Spyros ------------------------------ From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites Date: 16 Jun 2005 06:19:13 -0700 > The Internet wouldn't be run by the "telephone company." It would be > a very limited linkup between universities and defense contractors who > could afford to pay for the $1000+ per month 256k high-speed lines > needed. The rest of us would still be using the Source, Compuserve, > and BIX over dialup, using special utilities to minimize toll call time. > Michael D. Sullivan But it wasn't until sometime around 1993 or '94 that the last Internet BACKBONE segment was upgraded from 9600 baud to a T-1. I remember the announcement, and I am certain the last segment upgraded was one of the major labs in the far southwest (Arizona, NM, or even perhaps the Livermore lab in Ca.) The government agency I was working at at that particular time got its feed from Carnegie-Mellon and was shipped down to our office in Washington on a 56K line. Of course back in those days IP addresses were plentiful and we had an entire Class B to subnet in our offices. Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org> Subject: Re: AOL Users Most Likely to Make Zombie of Your Computer Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:01:29 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regarding Zombies, it takes one to make > another, doesn't it. Lisa apologizes for being unclear on that > headline. PAT] No, generally it does NOT take a zombie to make another zombie in the PC world. Most zombie type infections come from trojan downloads rather than propagating directly from machines that are already zombies, since most zombie infections do not act as worms. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ooops, I was thinking of humanoid type Zombies. In a movie on television the other night, "Village of the Undead", after some damn fool went and dug up a grave at the local cemetery, the Zombie thus resurrected went around the town creating more of his kind. He would touch and kill one person; that person became a Zombie. Then the two Zombies created more of their kind the same way, finding new people, killing them, and bringing them back to life as new Zombies. After about an hour of this (one Zombie creates another Zombie, etc) eventually the few remaining actual living people in this village thought it prudent to call in the police, or some kind of militia to do in the bunch of them, which is how the movie ended. It was sort of like two old movies I saw, 'The Zombies of Mora Tau' and 'Abbott and Costello Meet the Zombie'. With humanoid zombies, first someone has to dig one up, then that one goes around reproducing his own kind from other people. I guess computers don't have to do it that way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jtaylor <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> Subject: Re: Companies Subvert Search Results to Squelch Criticism Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:56:50 -0300 Organization: MCI Canada News Reader Service > If they don't like what Quixtar is doing, they should change their > software. > ob googlewhack: billabong microstepping > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Google's claim would be they > were fraudulently induced to create false results. It would be > something akin to postal fraud (but not with the same legal > ramifications): To commit 'postal fraud' one does not need to > physically put a fraudulent item in the mail; inducing someone > else to do so is likewise fraud _on your part_. So you induced > Google, in this instance, to draw up and present false or > fraudulent search results. But how are these results "fraudulent" or "false"? It is up to Google to define its results, and the software they use to achieve them. If Google a) had a contract with another party to develop search engine software; b) that contract said that the results should not be influenced by Quixtar's (or any similar) actions; and c) the results were in fact so influenced then Google might have a cause of action against that company - but if they themselves develop the software, they cannot claim fraud if the software does exactly what they design it to do. There is no party (except themselves) that has injured them. Businesses make badly designed products all the time; and when the defects come to light it is there job to make them better, not to complain that the completely legal actions of others are to blame. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, the software does what it was designed to do, just like credit card processing does what it is supposed to do. But if you were (in this instance at least) a bit smarter than Google, or the credit card people and caused something to happen by employing fraud, then the law, which is theoretically always intended to protect the weak against the strong will side with Google (or the credit card people). PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Email to Former AT&T Phones Now Cingular From: Dean M. <cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com> Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:07:40 GMT I'm quite certain it is 10digitphonenumber@mmode.com Dean On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:30:05 -0700, <NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info> wrote: > AT&T: 10-digit-number@mobile.att.net formerly worked but no longer > Cingular: 10-digit-number@mobile.mycingular.net may work for original > Cingular customers. > What is the current methods to send text msgs to former AT&T now > Cingluar cell phone numbers? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think @mobile.mycingular.com (or .net) > works for the AT&T displaced customers as well. PAT ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Subject: Bell Divesture (was Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites) Date: 16 Jun 2005 07:14:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Robert Bonomi wrote: > If the "Bell System/AT&T/Western Electric" had remained a monolithic > entity, The rate of change in the "Internet" would likely have been > much slower. There probably would not have been the telecom boom/bust > of circa 5 years ago, What is your basis to claim "the rate of change in the Internet would likely have been much slower"? It seems that many critics of the former Bell System "freeze it" at the time of divesture. That is, they presume the Bell System's physical plant and operating policies would never change and remain in 1983 technology. That premise is absurb. Throughout its history the Bell System was improving its plant. The system of 1983 was radically different than the system of 1973, and clearly the system of 1993 and 2003 would be radically different than 1983. I know that data communications improved greatly just during the late 1970s, for example. Digital lines replaced analog lines for faster speed and higher reliability. Private line costs were coming down. It is also clear operating policies and service plans would have changed, too. (They were always envolving in the past). How or what is tougher to say -- it depends on the external environment. Don't forget the Bell System was heavilly controlled by (1) regulation and (2) the consent decree. We know that deregulation became popular later on. It's possible the Bell System may have been allow to adjust its rates so the the profitable corridors (the "cream") may have gotten discounts so Bell could compete fairly against newcomers. It's possible the Bell System may have escaped the consent decree--just as IBM was able to do -- and go into new markets previously closed to it. Who knows, perhaps LANS and WANS would've been bult FASTER had the Bell System been allowed to be involved and use it strengths. Fred Atkinson wrote: > Regarding divestiture, I'd have to disagree with your position. Have > you ever studied economics and the principles thereof? Yes, I have studied economics. I know that "competition" in as much by itself is no guarantee of lower prices. There are a great many more significant variables that must be considered. In the case of the Bell System, it must be remembered that Bell's prices were NOT set by being a monopoly, but rather set by the govt in accordance with social policy. It was easy for MCI to undercut Bell's pricing because MCI focused solely on the most lucrative markets and unlike Bell, did not have to spread its costs and revenues a wide base. MCI didn't have to build microwave towers high in the Rockies yet charge no more. Nor did MCI have to carry deadbeat or higher cost customers or provide support service. That's not free competition. > The telephone system never improved all that much over the years (at > least, to the perception of the end user) until the Bell companies had > to compete. That is utter nonsense. If your statement was true, then the Bell System would still be at a 1910 technical level. Obviously it went beyond that. The reality is that the Bell System was continually improving its switchgear, transmission media, customer service, and subscriber equipment right up until divesture. Long distance rates were falling. Before divesture my employer was getting faster, more reliable, and cheaper private line data service and Centrex service. > Thus, competition played a big role in bringing prices down. And > the end user got a lot more say so about his/her telephone > service(s) and got what they wanted at prices they could afford. The divesture result in costs being _shifted_, not coming down. For many subscribers, cost went UP. Users could define their service requirements before divesture. One cost shifting was moving former telco employees into the employ of corporations they once served. That didn't really save any money, indeed, for many employers, it increased costs. That is, instead of contracting out specialized work to specialists, one now had to hire those specialists in house. > I remember when an answering machine could only be provided and > installed by the phone company. The cost was enormous and there > were no other alternatives. Then came Carterphone, thank goodness. > And then came competition between carriers ... and the walls came a > tumbling down (with apologies to 'Joshua'). There were answering machines available in the early 1960s. Back then the technology was limited to what a machine could cost effectively do (not a lot of microprocessors in the early 1960s). Many business people preferred human answering services to provide superior customer service. BTW, Carterphone was not Divesture. Separate issue. > Because everyone was trying to provide something that the other > carriers didn't provide (to target their niche in the marketplace), > the technology began to develop and new things were offered. I often > doubt that we'd have ever seen the Internet if the industry hadn't > become competitive (or at least not for many more years to come). Your statement implies there was no technology development prior to divesture. I suggest you read some Bell Laboratories Record magazines to see all the things that were going on. A great many of the technologies of the 1990s were originally developed at Bell Labs. As to the Internet, as mentioned the cost of private lines was declining while speed was going up before divesture. This would continue. Indeed, I wonder if the old Bell System had stayed around and had a hand in regulating the Internet, some of the problems we have today would not exist. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is a question for the collected > readership: _If_ Bell had not gotten divested, and was still in > charge of most everything relating to telecommunications, what would > the internet be like today? Probably better. Pat, look at the many problems you articulated about Internet control and supervision. I dare say the Bell System would have handled it better. > Would it all be run by 'the telephone company'? Would we be getting > all our attachments and peripherals from the telephone company? I > suggest that might be the case. What do the rest of you think? Carterphone already removed a big barrier and private lines were already free to hook up their own stuff. So, many attachments would be available from private sources. However, I suspect a healthy Bell System would've kept Western Electric, modified it to meet modern business needs, and been a competitive player. Much would've depended on the regulators. IBM was able to radically change as a company and save itself because it was freed from its 1956 consent decree and got into some lines of business previously forbidden to it and not forced to share free very valuable research patents. Presumably there'd be deregulation of the Bell System. Private services would be allowed as well as long distance interconnection. But at the same time, Bell would be allowed to modify its rates to meet specific market conditions and compete better, and get revenues from new services previously forbidden, just like IBM. Let's remember that MCI got a foothold in many doors not by offering superior service and lower rates, but by suing regulators or other agencies to force itself in the door. That's not "free market" activity either. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Recall please that MCI got its start by filing a fraudulent petition with the Illinois Commerce Commission. The radio repair shop in Joliet, Illinois (MCI's humble beginnings) _claimed_ all they wanted to do was run a microwave link for a small, selected handful of their private customers between Joliet, Chicago and St. Louis. Illinois Bell protested, but to no avail. ICC allowed Microwave Communications (the small private dealer of radio equipment and repair of same) to install a link between Chicago and St. Louis. Soon thereafter, Microwave Communications somehow 'snuck in' an interconnection to the 'outside' world via a telephone central office in Chicago and one in St. Louis. Regards how they initially built up their customer base, MCI took advantage of two things: (1) the public's general dislike for Bell System (remember, VietNam, anti-everything big business in the 1960's) and (2) whether they were 'anti-everything' or not, the general ignorance of the public regards the working of things telephonic. Knowing nothing about the concepts of Separations and Settlements, nor the costs of running big telcos versus rural telcos, nor the profits to be had in the east coast corridor versus the heavy expenses of putting repair people to work atop telephone poles in the Rocky Mountains in the dead of winter, when MCI proffered 'much cheaper rates for calls by using us instead of them', between that and (1, above) people jumped at the chance to 'get one over on Ma Bell' ... As Charlie Brown, AT&T's Chairman during Divestiture once phrased it, "When was the last time MCI had two of their long-time, dedicated workers fall to their deaths from a high peak in the Rockies in the dead of winter when they had gone out to repair lines for a small community of a few hundred people who otherwise would have had to go without phone service until spring when the lines could be safely restored? If AT&T did not have to deal with hideous conditions like that in the interest of providing round the clock phone service to small, rural areas, then I could afford to give cut rate long distance service also." And he continued, "the nerve of those people to tell customers to use _our_ directory service (which we provide for 'free' as part of our over all expense in running the telephone company) and then to place the _revenue_ portion of the call using their facilities 'because they are cheaper, and why would you want to spend money on Bell when you could get it for less' ..." 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) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308 and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest ************************************************************************* * 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 #271 ****************************** | |