The Telecom Digest for October 10, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 272 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:13:14 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Half a conversation, fully annoying
Message-ID: <p062408b4c8d59a2453f6@[192.168.180.244]>
Excerpt from
Uncommon Knowledge
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/10/10/the_seamy_side_of_victory/
Half a conversation, fully annoying
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that using a
cellphone makes it harder to pay attention to other things going on
around you. Thus, many states now restrict cellphone use while
driving. Now, with a new study, it looks like they may have to
consider curbing conversations by passengers, too. When people could
hear one side of a phone conversation in the background, they
performed worse on tasks that demanded attention. This did not happen
to people overhearing the full dialogue, a monologue, or when the
audio of the conversation was filtered so that its content could not
be understood. All of this suggests that unpredictable speech is an
extra distraction and may also explain why overhearing a cellphone
conversation at a party or a movie can be more annoying than
overhearing other conversations.
Emberson, L. et al., "Overheard Cell-Phone Conversations: When Less
Speech Is More Distracting," Psychological Science (forthcoming).
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:17:35 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Half a conversation, fully annoying
Message-ID: <pan.2010.10.10.02.17.32.758882@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 00:13:14 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote:
> Excerpt from
>
> Uncommon Knowledge
>
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/10/10/the_seamy_side_of_victory/
>
> Half a conversation, fully annoying
>
> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that using a cellphone
> makes it harder to pay attention to other things going on around you.
> Thus, many states now restrict cellphone use while driving. Now, with a
> new study, it looks like they may have to consider curbing conversations
> by passengers, too. When people could hear one side of a phone
> conversation in the background, they performed worse on tasks that
> demanded attention.
........
This would have to be a human survival trait wouldn't it?
In the "olden days", if you heard only one half of a loud conversation
then chances were that there was a mentally unstable person around that
could well tip over the edge when near to you and therefore be considered
a real threat, so you paid attention in case a weapon made an appearance.
These days it seems that a different mental condition that still
constitutes a threat is the paradigm.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 23:30:45 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 1-800-GOOG-411 becoming history 12-NOV-2010
Message-ID: <op.vkahdjlwitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:27:24 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
<http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/goodbye-to-old-friend-1-800-goog-411.html>
>
> Back in 2007 we launched 1-800-GOOG-411, a voice-powered directory
> assistance service that connects you quickly to businesses across
> the U.S. and Canada. On November 12, 2010, we will shut down the
> service.
And so what might have been a continuing useful service will be no more,
as another "good thing" comes to an end.
Which brings to mind ...
... an A.D. 2000 service, the PhoneFree "Personal Communications Center"
(PCC),
with a Win31/Win95 desktop "dialer" and ability to "enjoy unlimited free long
distance" PC-to-Phone calling to anywhere in the USA.
What ever became of those folks? Once vibrant URLs, either no longer active,
or no longer relevant to that offering, include:
www.communitech.com/we/phonefree/default.asp?REFERER=PFC ,
www.phonefree.com/homepage.html ,
i2v2.com .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:36:22 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
Message-ID: <pan.2010.10.09.06.36.19.799166@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 02:29:45 +0000, John Levine wrote:
>>I agree, but in Australia they are deliberately phasing out signing for
>>purchases in the next couple of years to be replaced by compulsory PIN -
>>allegedly for reducing fraud - and now they are bypassing that entirely
>>with the "tap" purchases!
>
> You are once again confusing the technology used between the card and
> the bank with the validation.
>
Not really, the point was that electronic validation (chip card + PIN) was
going to be enforced because signature validation was too insecure, now
for low value transactions that level of security is being discarded.
> The contactless chip is basically the same as the contact chip with some
> RFID stuff to talk to the terminal. Either can work with or without a
> PIN. If the bank is allowing purchases without either a signature or a
> PIN, I hope your government makes it clear that shifts the risk of fraud
> entirely to the bank and merchant.
The current paradigm here is that if you haven't done something stupid
like write/keep your card PIN anywhere near your card then any fraudulent
transaction isn't your problem. What happens with a card or phone that is
flashed at a reader to do a transaction is anybody's guess.
Will card companies wear any fraud incurred by stolen phones/cards where
there is no need for additional authentication, or will this end up as
another nasty new surprise for users of this technology?
As the title of this thread says "A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're
Paid", but who's phone?
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:41:50 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <jNadnVrDZ4TCNC3RnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lisa or Jeff wrote:
> *The old style 4 prong jack. It had a more modern appearance, both
> jack and plug being white and round. In a few years it would be
> replaced by the mini jack (1977?) still used today.
>
It was sometime around mid-to-late 1970s that the RJ11 replaced the big
4-prong jack. The RJ11 came into existence once Ma Bell realized she
had lost her specious customer premises equipment argument.
Prior to that the old jacks were available for quite a few years as an
option in residential service for, of course, a monthly fee. And, at
least one telephone set had to be hard wired.
"Ernestine" in Kansas City explained to me why one instrument had to be
hard wired and it could not have a ringer cut-off. "If too many people
have all the bells in their house turned off, then the unanswered calls
would pile up and overload our carefully engineered system."
I suspect she had a written script for that one.
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <52bb317d-bd7b-411d-b9e9-f0f452386d47@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 9, 1:41 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> It was sometime around mid-to-late 1970s that the RJ11 replaced the big
> 4-prong jack. The RJ11 came into existence once Ma Bell realized she
> had lost her specious customer premises equipment argument.
Some books suggest the old Bell System realized it was costing them
more to have men and trucks ready 24/7 to fix any problem than they
made in revenue from renting extensions.
Note as well that back then state PUCs liked charging extra for
extensions because the profits from that cross-subsidized universal
service, a long time goal. Don't forget that a basic phone service
package included the telephone set and maintenance and was pretty
cheap. Today we still have cross subsidized low budget service, but
now one must qualify for it.
> Prior to that the old jacks were available for quite a few years as an
> option in residential service for, of course, a monthly fee. And, at
> least one telephone set had to be hard wired.
In Pennsylvania, we were not charged for the jacks, only telephone
sets beyond the first one. Also, there did not have to a phone that
was hard wired, but their had to be a ringer on the line. In the old
days a bell box was used, later on, an extension ringer. I suspect
the ringer requirement was more for testing reasons; I knew a family
that had all jacks and the extension ringer was mounted in the
basement where no one would hear it.
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:28:16 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <siegman-684BBD.13281609102010@BMEDCFSC-SRV02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article <jNadnVrDZ4TCNC3RnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@giganews.com>,
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
> It was sometime around mid-to-late 1970s that the RJ11 replaced the big
> 4-prong jack. The RJ11 came into existence once Ma Bell realized she
> had lost her specious customer premises equipment argument.
While we're on this topic, I just now had to untangle and re-route the
jungle of phone cords and computer cables under my desk, and
encountered once again the long-familiar problem:
Any time you try to pull an RJ11 (or RJ45, or RJ...) cable out of a
tangled mess of other cords and cables, you discover that the little
plastic locking tab on its connectors is perfectly designed to get
caught on another cord or cable, or on any structural edge it
encounters, so as to totally frustrate pulling it free.
And if you yank hard enough, this tab is perfectly designed to bend
back and snap off, rendering the whole cord useless.
I've always had the impression that Bell Labs geniuses designed every
every component of the pre-breakup phone system so as to make
each component close to perfect in every detail. So, what genius
designed the RJ11 connector?
***** Moderator's Note *****
It was designed by a committee.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:12:12 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <pan.2010.10.10.02.12.09.132036@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:28:16 -0700, AES wrote:
...........
> Any time you try to pull an RJ11 (or RJ45, or RJ...) cable out of a
> tangled mess of other cords and cables, you discover that the little
> plastic locking tab on its connectors is perfectly designed to get caught
> on another cord or cable, or on any structural edge it encounters, so as
> to totally frustrate pulling it free.
>
> And if you yank hard enough, this tab is perfectly designed to bend back
> and snap off, rendering the whole cord useless.
>
> I've always had the impression that Bell Labs geniuses designed every
> every component of the pre-breakup phone system so as to make each
> component close to perfect in every detail. So, what genius designed the
> RJ11 connector?
It was probably more than adequate for the original (I assume) purpose of
connecting a phone to a wall socket, but when it became "popular" and
started to get used for all sorts of things then - as they say - all bets
are off....
Even the hoods on data connectors to cover these tabs and prevent the
snagging problem have their own issues, some RJ-45 sockets are in such
tight spots that a hooded connector just won't fit and you have to pull
the hood back along the cable to get the plug inserted correctly.
In my job I still come across people who have put up with dodgy LAN
connections for significant periods to sometimes find that the locking
tab is missing and only friction is holding their RJ-45 in the socket, so
any time they kick/move the cable they start swearing at their
network/computer!
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 19:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <5b455bf0-b0ea-4d48-bf0c-ad62312e8a4e@y3g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 9, 4:28 pm, AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> And if you yank hard enough, this tab is perfectly designed to bend
> back and snap off, rendering the whole cord useless.
I have lots of phone cords where said tab is broken and the cord is
taped into the phone or wall jack. Heavy users buy a crimping tool
and a package plugs which they attach to cords. I don't know if Radio
Shack still sells that sort of thing.
> I've always had the impression that Bell Labs geniuses designed every
> every component of the pre-breakup phone system so as to make
> each component close to perfect in every detail. So, what genius
> designed the RJ11 connector?
Good question.
I have a Bell System engineering textbook from the 1970s and the book
makes it clear that the old ways will be changing. What the Bell
System executives exactly knew before formal divesture I don't know,
but they obviously knew big changes were coming; some of which they
sought themselves in recognition of changing technology and times,
like charging for things once free.
Anyway, I'm only speculating, but I suspect that because the end was
coming, the once vaunted design standards were put aside. After all,
one big change was that the Bell System would no longer own and be
responsible for the cord and plug--it would be the customer's problem.
A similar situation was with the design of the PRR Metroliner high
speed train sets in the 1960s. Historically, the Pennsylvania RR was
like the Bell System in seeking perfection in their equipment with
intensive research and prototypes. But the Metroliner self propelled
train sets were rushed into the service without that and suffered many
bugs as a result. (Eventually the unreliable propulsion equipment was
stripped off and the trains operated as dead coaches, which they do to
this day; other equipment offered the "Metroliner" service. It has
since been replaced by Acela.)
As an aside, the Metroliners had radio train phones on board which had
direct dial outward service and were a prototype of future cellular
service. Trains passed off a call from one wayside tower to another
seamlessly as it rode along. Ironically, today we have to have Quiet
Cars since everyone yaks loudly on their cell phone.
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 17:58:45 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Who controls the internet?
Message-ID: <p062408c5c8d695095982@[192.168.180.244]>
Who controls the internet?
By Misha Glenny
October 8 2010
Squared-jawed, with four stars decorating each shoulder, General
Keith Alexander looks like a character straight out of an old
American war movie. But his old-fashioned appearance belies the fact
that the general has a new job that is so 21st-century it could have
been dreamed up by a computer games designer. Alexander is the first
boss of USCybercom, the United States Cyber Command, in charge of the
Pentagon's sprawling cyber networks and tasked with battling unknown
enemies in a virtual world.
Last year, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared cyberspace to
be the "fifth domain" of military operations, alongside land, sea,
air and space. It is the first man-made military domain, requiring
an entirely new Pentagon command. That went fully operational a week
ago, marking a new chapter in the history of both warfare and the
world wide web.
In his confirmation hearing, General Alexander sounded the alarm,
declaring that the Pentagon's computer systems "are probed 250,000
times an hour, up to six million per day", and that among those
attempting to break in were "more than 140 foreign spy organisations
trying to infiltrate US networks". Congress was left with a dark
prophecy ringing in its ears: "It's only a small step from disrupting
to destroying parts of the network."
In three short decades, the internet has grown from the realm of
geeks and academics into a vast engine that regulates and influences
global commercial, political, social and now military interaction.
Neuroscientists tell us that it is changing the development of our
cerebral wiring in childhood and adolescence. Social scientists and
civil libertarians warn that our privacy is being eroded, as ever
more of our life is mediated by the web. It should probably come as
no surprise that governments believe control of this epoch-making
technology is far too important to be left in the hands of idiots
like you and me.
If states start monitoring the internet, what does it means for the
average user? President Obama has stated that his administration's
pursuit of cyber security "will not include - I repeat, will not
include - monitoring private sector networks or internet traffic".
But not everyone is so sanguine. Richard Clarke, adviser to four
presidents and the author of Cyber War, supports US plans to beef up
its cyber defences but even he is worried about USCybercom. "We
created a new military command," he wrote, "to conduct a new kind of
high-tech war, without public debate, media discussion, serious
congressional oversight, academic analysis or international dialogue."
Very few people understand cybersecurity. It is technologically
complex and the network environment in which it operates changes at
lightning speed. So governments are granting themselves new powers to
intervene in computer networks without anyone, including themselves,
fully appreciating what their implications are.
The establishment of USCybercom is just one element in an eye-popping
expansion of security, which includes beefing up the cyber capacity
of the Department of Homeland Security to deal with threats to the
US's domestic cyber networks. These moves will lead to a much deeper
apparatus of control and monitoring of internet activity by the US.
Some specialists argue that the gargantuan security systems involved
simply will not work, and that bureaucrats and corporations are
encouraging a new round of profligacy to line their pockets. Civil
liberty advocates worry that General Alexander's new cyber command
could dodge privacy laws to monitor our e-mails and social networking
activities. And despite Obama's reassurances about such an Orwellian
scenario, so much of Alexander's written testimony to Congress has
been labelled classified that nobody outside the Pentagon and the
White House quite knows what the military cyber strategy involves.
...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3e52897c-d0ee-11df-a426-00144feabdc0.html
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 21:48:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call?
Message-ID: <i8lf85$9lq$1@news.albasani.net>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>danny burstein wrote:
>>So yes, groups operating their own central-office type equipment
>>are mandated to follow these rules even in house.
>Because this is an intra-state issue I presume this section of the
>California Public Utilities Code governs:
>2893. (a) The commission shall, by rule or order, require that
>every telephone call identification service offered in this state by
>a telephone corporation, or by any other person or corporation that
>makes use of the facilities of a telephone corporation, shall allow a
>caller to withhold display of the caller's telephone number, on an
>individual basis, from the telephone instrument of the individual
>receiving the telephone call placed by the caller. However a caller
>shall not be allowed to withhold the display of the caller's business
>telephone number when that number is being used for telemarketing
>purposes.
So the PBX, if it's received ANI, could log the call. If sent to a work
station in a call center, the customer's account could pop up, if the
telephone number is suppressed.
Unless there is an explicit regulation that states that ANI shall not be
forwarded to the subscriber's PBX by the telephone company, then there's
no practical protection of privacy.
I assume that ANI makes it all the way to the PBX because the PBX is
expected to translate it into Caller ID for display on the extension
telephone instrument.
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 19:48:23 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Delivery of ANI on a non-IN WATS call?
Message-ID: <EPWdndLZOpfVYi3RnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
On 10/7/2010 5:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Sam Spade<sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> danny burstein wrote:
>
>>> So yes, groups operating their own central-office type equipment
>>> are mandated to follow these rules even in house.
>
>> Because this is an intra-state issue I presume this section of the
>> California Public Utilities Code governs:
>
>> 2893. (a) The commission shall, by rule or order, require that
>> every telephone call identification service offered in this state by
>> a telephone corporation, or by any other person or corporation that
>> makes use of the facilities of a telephone corporation, shall allow a
>> caller to withhold display of the caller's telephone number, on an
>> individual basis, from the telephone instrument of the individual
>> receiving the telephone call placed by the caller. However a caller
>> shall not be allowed to withhold the display of the caller's business
>> telephone number when that number is being used for telemarketing
>> purposes.
>
> So the PBX, if it's received ANI, could log the call. If sent to a work
> station in a call center, the customer's account could pop up, if the
> telephone number is suppressed.
>
> Unless there is an explicit regulation that states that ANI shall not be
> forwarded to the subscriber's PBX by the telephone company, then there's
> no practical protection of privacy.
>
> I assume that ANI makes it all the way to the PBX because the PBX is
> expected to translate it into Caller ID for display on the extension
> telephone instrument.
Aren't you confusing "PBX" with "Centrex-CO"?
Other posters have said that the cable company in question is using a
DMS-500, and that the cable company is also an ILEC, so I don't see how
their switch could be considered a PBX.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:51:30 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: What is a "female-specific mobile handset"?
Message-ID: <4CB13842.4020907@thadlabs.com>
I was catching up on some news of the past week and came upon
an interesting article at the BBC entitled "Initiative aims to
supply millions of mobiles to women" at this URL:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11492427
The article begins:
" A woman living in sub-Saharan Africa is 23% less likely than a
" man to own a mobile phone, according to research.
"
" This figure rises to 24% in the Middle East and increases again
" to 37% for a woman living in South Asia, found the study by the
" GSM Association.
"
" In total, it found, 300 million fewer women than men in
" developing countries owned a mobile.
"
" An initiative called mWomen proposes to halve this "gender gap"
" within three years.
"
" The programme, championed by Cherie Blair, the wife of former
" British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and US Secretary of State
" Hillary Clinton aims to provide 150 million women around the
" world with access to mobile phone technology.
"
" Mrs Blair said there were many benefits a mobile phone could
" bring to women.
"
" "There is so much you can do with a mobile phone," she told the
" BBC World Service.
"
" "It can help with literacy. It can help with health programmes
" and projects and it's a way of helping women develop small
" businesses and get financial independence."
"
" 'Essential item'
"
" As part of the initiative, there will be tariffs created
" especially for women as well as the development of a
" female-specific handset. It will also create projects to educate
" men about the positive aspects of women owning a mobile phone.
" [...]
I'm still scratching my head trying to understand what would be a
female-specific handset without being risqué. :-)
Anyone have any ideas? Just curious.
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom Digest (13 messages)
|
| |
or 