TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 Jan 2007 18:24:00 EST    Volume 26 : Issue 001

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T New "Network Neutrality" Concessions are Laughable (Lauren Weinstein)
    Can We Trust Sites Marked TRUSTe? (NewsFactor Network)
    Tech Firms Probe High-Def DVD Hack (Gina Keating, Reuters)
    Re: As Deadline Nears, Banks Toughen Net Protections (Wesrock@aol.com)
    Re: As Deadline Nears, Banks Toughen Net Protections (Rick Merrill)
    Re: Easy411 (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: Simplifying the Cellphone Experience (mc)
    Re: Anti-Spam Tool Going Out of Business (DevilsPGD)
    Re: Robots Will Get Same Rights as Humans (Rick Merrill)
    Re: China's Internet Out of Order Until January 15 (Rick Merrill)
    Re: China's Internet Out of Order Until January 15 (Koos van den Hout)
    Re: AT&T Family Reunion: Merger Approved (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: AT&T Family Reunion: Merger Approved (Steven J. Sobol) 
    Re: AT&T Family Reunion: Merger Approved (RJ)

====== 25 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; other stuff of interest, and why not
support Net Freedom Now http://www.freepress.net/netfreedom . 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:54:53 -0600
From: Lauren Weinstein's Blog <LW@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: AT&T New "Network Neutrality" Concessions are Laughable


Greetings. Wire services are reporting that AT&T has offered a set of
new "concessions" to the FCC in hopes of gaining quick approval for
AT&T's merger with BellSouth, as the march continues toward
resurrecting the "glory" days of the telecom oligarchy.

Many observers appear to feel that these concessions, relating to a
number of different areas of contention, will hasten quick FCC
approval, perhaps within days.

Unfortunately, from any sort of realistic perspective, the concessions
being discussed are laughable in terms of their actual impact. They
would have little if any lasting effect, and if history is any guide,
will be used as excuses to justify future anticompetitive behaviors.

In particular, AT&T's offer to abide by some Internet "network
neutrality principles" for a reported 24 months is utterly worthless.
The sorts of abuses that genuine network neutrality legislation is
meant to prevent are not a matter of the next two years, they are
serious risks that would likely have negative repercussions for
decades.

It is crucial that we do not allow these sorts of sucker-bait offers
to distract us from the critical need for effective Internet network
neutrality legislation at the federal level.

More on this next year. Have a great New Year's Day!

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

Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:51:32 -0600
From: NewsFactor Network <newsfactor@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Can We Trust Sites Marked TRUSTe?


Is Malware Hiding Behind that Certified Site?

A new study warns that Web sites containing security certificates are
not necessarily safe. The results were somewhat surprising when Web
sites bearing the TRUSTe security certificate were compared against a
list of known malware sites from McAfee's Siteadvisor product, a
service that black-lists Web sites containing spyware, spam, viruses
and online scams.

Web sites that feature the TRUSTe security certificate are two times
more likely to contain badware than Web sites without any security
certification, spyware and adware researcher Ben Edelman alleges in a
new report.  Among others, adware providers Direct-revenue and
Webhancer are using TRUSTe certificates in an attempt to look more
trustworthy than they really are, Edelman claimed. Direct-revenue is
facing legal action from the New York Attorney General for its adware
software. Edelman alleged that Webhancer often is installed without
the user's consent.

TRUSTe is a so-called certification authority, an independent
organization that issues security certificates to Web sites. These
certificates indicate that service adheres to certain privacy
guidelines, allowing users to verify that they are on the Web site
that they intended to visit.

The independent certificate authorities perform a background check to
verify the identity of the Web site's operator and ensure compliance
with the privacy standards. Web sites that meet the organization's
criteria are allowed to display the TRUSTe logo on their Web site.

The perceived trustworthiness of a certified Web site makes such
certificates an attractive target for Web sites pushing malware and
adware.

In his study, Edelman compared TRUSTe certified Web sites with a list
of known malware sites from McAfee's Siteadvisor product, a service
that black-lists Web sites containing spyware, spam, viruses and
online scams.

Using a base sample of 500,000 Web sites, Edelman determined the
number of sites have TRUSTe certification and cross-checked those
against the McAfee list. Edelman found that 5.4 per cent of the TRUSTe
sites were considered untrustworthy. Only 2.5 per cent of the sites
from the base sample were blacklisted in Siteadvisor.

Edelman alleges that TRUSTe has no incentive to properly verify 
compliance with privacy standards.

"Writing tough rules isn't easy, and enforcing them is even harder.
Hard-hitting rules are particularly unlikely when certification
authorities get paid for each certification they issue, but get
nothing for rejecting an applicant." Edelman wrote in a blog posting.

TRUSTe responded that the organization disagrees with Edelman's
findings, stressing that the certification process is thorough and
specific.

"Saying that our sites are more untrustworthy is a stretch," TRUSTe's
marketing director Carolyn Hodge told vnunet.com.

In a blog posting, the organization challenged the notion that
Siteadvisor's blacklist provides an accurate overview of Web sites
that should be considered untrustworthy. The group also pointed out
that Direct-Revenue is no longer certified and that Webhancer will be
required to submit its software for certification to forthcoming
Trusted Download program.

Copyright 2006 NewsFactor Network.

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. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more headlines and news, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/technews.html

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:05:10 -0600
From: Gina Keating, Reuters <reuters@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Tech Firms Probe High-Def DVD Hack


By Gina Keating

The companies behind an encryption system for high-definition DVDs are
looking into a hacker's claim that he has cracked the code protecting
the new discs from piracy, a spokesman for one of the companies said
on Thursday.

A hacker known as Muslix64 posted on the Internet details of how he
unlocked the encryption, known as the Advanced Access Content System,
which prevents high-definition discs from illegal copying by
restricting which devices can play them.

The AACS system was developed by companies including Walt Disney Co.,
Intel Corp., Microsoft Corp., Toshiba Corp. and Sony Corp (NYSE:SNE -
news). to protect high-definition formats, including Toshiba's HD-DVD
and Sony's Blu-ray.

Muslix64 posted a video and decryption codes showing how to copy
several films, including Warner Bros' "Full Metal Jacket" and
Universal Studios' "Van Helsing," on a popular hacker Internet blog
and a video-sharing site.

The hacker also promised to post more source code on January 2 that
will allow users to copy a wider range of titles.

A spokesman for one of the AACS companies, who declined to have the
company identified, said they were aware of it and were looking into
the claims, but would not elaborate.

The vulnerability could pose a threat to movie studios looking for
ways to boost revenue as sales of standard-format DVDs flatten. In
2005, U.S.  DVD sales generated some $24 billion for the movie
industry.

If the encryption code has been cracked, then any high-definition DVD
released up to now can be illegally copied using the Muslix64 "key,"
according to technology experts.

Jeff Moss, organizer of Defcon, the world's largest hacking
convention, said in an interview that Muslix64 appears to have found a
real breach in the encryption system.

"Everybody is talking like it worked, and apparently it's not that
hard," said Moss, whose annual convention draws thousands of security
researchers, government workers and hackers. "This will be the first
trial run of how this (AACS) is going to work whenever a compromised
player comes out."

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, a UK-based technology expert and author of
Internet blog PC Doctor, wrote in a Thursday posting on technology
site ZDNet.com that Muslix64's source code "seems genuine enough."

He said the hack would not necessarily make much of a difference in
the battle for supremacy between the new HD DVD and Blu-ray formats.

"What's interesting here is that while this hack might give HD-DVD a
temporary advantage amongst enthusiasts who want to backup discs
 ... in the long run it won't give either format an advantage because
both HD-DVD and Blu-ray use the now cracked AACS," he wrote.

Warner Bros. is a unit of media conglomerate Time Warner Inc. and
Universal Studios is part of NBC Universal, controlled by General
Electric Co..

Copyright 2006 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. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more news and headlines, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra.newstoday.html

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

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 09:43:57 EST
Subject: Re: As Deadline Nears, Banks Toughen Net Protections


Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote:

> Monty Solomon wrote:

>> By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff  |  December 29, 2006>

> If someone tries to log in from a machine that isn't fingerprinted,
> the bank will send a confirmation message to the customer's e-mail
> address. A crook who's stolen somebody's user name and password
> probably won't have access to the victim's e-mail account, so he can't
> reply to the message, and won't be allowed to log in

      I get several fraudulent e-mails a week purporting to be from
either of the two banks I do business with.  Most of the time I delete
them immediately without opening them.  If your bank really has
something to tell you, they will normally send a message that you have
a message on their secure message site (and do not even specify the
URL, so you have to know how to log on already).


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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:46:09 -0500
From: Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: As Deadline Nears, Banks Toughen Net Protections


Monty Solomon wrote:

> By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff  |  December 29, 2006
 ....

> If someone tries to log in from a machine that isn't fingerprinted,
> the bank will send a confirmation message to the customer's e-mail
> address. A crook who's stolen somebody's user name and password
> probably won't have access to the victim's e-mail account, so he can't
> reply to the message, and won't be allowed to log in.

> http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/12/29/as_deadline_nears_banks_toughen_net_protections/

Mmmmm, seems to me if someone has stolen the victims lap-top that the
email account could still reside there so they really should NOT send
new password to the user's email account!

If your laptop is stolen you need to have a list of all critical
accounts that need to be notified!

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

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: Easy411
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:12:26 -0500


Pat,

    I called Smootstone a week ago and complained.  They said they'd look
into it and get back to me.  They never did.

    I called them again a few minutes ago.  The fellow that was on duty
duplicated my problem on another phone while I was talking to him.  I heard
it fail when he did it.

    I told him they'd not called me back last time.  He said he'd try to see
that that doesn't happen again.

    We'll see.

    Regards,

    Fred

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The service does not work for me,
> either. I have been able to track them down to this limited extent on
> New Year's Eve: Try http://www.smoothstone.com/contact.php for some
> information. That company, Smoothstone, deals in IP telephony, and is
> located in Louisville, KY. I do not know the dispostion of Easy 411
> however. I doubt we will get anywhere on this at least until Tuesday
> but if some of you want to work on it, please go ahead and try. PAT]

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

From: mc <look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address>
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Cellphone Experience
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:47:36 -0500


Simple, standard user interfaces aren't just for old geezers.  They're
for anybody who is more interested in getting the work done than in
playing with the gadget.

Does anybody remember word processing in, say, 1985?  Absolutely
hundreds of function key and Ctrl/Alt key combinations to remember!
Charts all over the keyboard ... Cell phones are going through that
stage of existence right now.

And another thing today's cell phones have in common with 1980s word
processors is that they're driven by "creeping featurism."  They're
bought by people who don't have any experience using them, based on
lists of features.  "Does Word Perfect have a key to underline a
superscript?  No?  Then we'll buy its competitor, which has 500
features instead of 490..."

Consider cameras, too.  All digital cameras today have essentially the
same UI.  It wasn't always so.  Hand a Nikon F3 to an experienced
Olympus or Minolta user and he'll only recognize about two thirds of
the controls.

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

From: DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Tool Going Out of Business
Organization: Disorganized
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 03:26:29 GMT


In message <telecom25.429.10@telecom-digest.org> Gordon S. Hlavenka
<nospam@crashelex.com> wrote:

> Anick Jesdanun wrote:

>> The Open Relay Database, a tool e-mail service providers used for
>> years to help curb the spread of spam, is ceasing operations

> ... And good riddance too.

> ORDB and various blackhole databases have been the bane of my email 
> existence since they were invented.  Much as I hate spam (and I do) I 
> hate having strangers filter my email even more.

> Many times I have had emails I sent bounced, just because someone else
> at my ISP had an open relay or was infected with something, or perhaps
> was actually evil.  But why is that _my_ problem?  Yet these lists
> make it my problem; I get my emails bounced back, through no fault of
> my own.  I don't choose my IP address, nor do I choose my IP
> neighbors.

> And it breaks in the other direction, too -- emails sent to me may
> simply never arrive, just because some sanctimonious so-and-so decided
> to "fix" spam.  Bleah.  A pox on them all.

> Before various ISPs decided to help me with my spam problem, I used to
> get around 300 to 400 emails daily, about 50 of them legit.  Today,
> thanks to the efforts of misguided do-gooders worldwide I get about 50
> emails daily, with maybe 6 or 10 of them spam.  At first blush this
> seems to be an improvement, but in fact I'm losing a handful of emails
> _every_ _day_ which did not happen when I was getting all the spam.

> Spam?  Sucks, no question about it.  But let ME decide what is spam for 
> myself; the rest of you keep your paws out of my mailbox.

You seem to be a bit confused, so I'll see if I can help here.

You DO have the choice, no one other then you can choose what mail you
receive.

When you choose to use a mailbox operated by someone other then
yourself, you delegate part of that responsibility to the operator of
the mail server.  Since spam is a huge complaint at virtually every
ISP helpdesk on the planet, ISPs invest huge amounts of resources in
filtering spam.

DNS blacklists are a large part of this.

If you don't want your ISP to filter your mail, ask them to stop.  If
thqey won't or can't, then find an alternative mailbox elsewhere.

As far as DNS-BLs go, there is a wide range.  ORDB had a zero false
positive rate (false positive, meaning a listed mail server which was
not an open relay, and never had been), and open relays haven't been
acceptable since the 90s, so any mail admin still running an open relay
deserves to be listed -- So in this sense, it's a shame to see it go.

However, in reality, the open-relay problem is largely solved now, there
are simply much bigger fish to fry with zombies being the current
largest issue.  As a result, very little mail was actually blocked due
to ORDB anymore, largely because of it's success in the past.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me.

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

Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:35:17 -0500
From: Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Robots Will Get Same Rights as Humans


David Wolff wrote:

> In article <telecom25.429.4@telecom-digest.org>, Scott Dorsey
> <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

>> If a system passes the Turing test, does it deserve the same rights as
>> a human being?
> 
>> If so, what about people who do not pass the Turing test?  Do they
>> deserve the rights they currently have?

>> As Eliza always said, "Tell me more about the Turing test."
>> --scott

> I think _Analog_ (analogsf.com) had a story like this a year or two
> ago.

> If you couldn't pass the Turing test, you weren't allowed to vote.
> Think about it.  If you can't convince a human being that *you're* a
> human being ...

> Thanks --

> David

> (Remove "xx" to reply.)

I once failed the touring test myself ...

mc wrote:

> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message 
> news:telecom25.429.4@telecom-digest.org:

>> If a system passes the Turing test, does it deserve the same rights
>> as a human being?

> No, because the Turing test is arbitrary and rather silly.  It is not
> based on any real theory of what consciousness is.  ELIZA passed a
> Turing test of sorts.  Turing meant it only as a minimum threshold.

>> If so, what about people who do not pass the Turing test?  Do they
>> deserve the rights they currently have?

>> As Eliza always said, "Tell me more about the Turing test."

> ELIZA is a better conversationalist than some people at parties!

ELIZA was so good people did not want you reading over their shoulder!

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

Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:38:20 -0500
From: Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: China's Internet Out of Order Until January 15


Associated Press News Wire wrote:

> China's Internet expected to be back to normal by Jan. 15

> BEIJING (AP) Internet services in China will not be back to normal 
> until mid-January after being disrupted by a powerful earthquake off 
> Taiwan, a news report Sunday quoted the country's biggest telephone 
> company as saying.
 ....

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does this mean spam from China will be
> taking a two week holiday (albiet a forced one)?  PAT]

I certainly hope so!  The port scanning is also way down!

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

From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: China's Internet Out of Order Until January 15
Date: 1 Jan 2007 13:20:40 GMT
Organization: http://idefix.net/~koos/


Associated Press News Wire <ap@telecom-digest.org> wrote in
<telecom25.432.1@telecom-digest.org>:

> China Telecom said that by rerouting traffic through satellite
> transmissions and landline cables connecting China and Europe, about
> 70% of overseas Internet connections had been reconnected.

> But the official was quoted as saying the link to North America would
> not be significantly improved until the undersea cables were repaired.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does this mean spam from China will be
> taking a two week holiday (albiet a forced one)?  PAT]

According to someone working at a big ISP there has been quite a drop in
spam from Asia.

The 'void' was filled by spambots in America and Europe sending out more.

Koos van den Hout,           PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 via keyservers
koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl        or RSA/1024 0xCA845CB5                        -?)
Fax +31-30-2817051              Visit the site about books with reviews    /\\
http://idefix.net/~koos/                http://www.virtualbookcase.com/   _\_V

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: AT&T 'Family' Reunion: Merger Approved
Date: 31 Dec 2006 19:56:02 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Fred Goldstein wrote:

> In V25I431, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote,

> The company in question is "AT&T Inc.", formerly SBC
> Communications, formerly Southwestern Bell.  It purchased the assets
> of AT&T and the brand name.  It is the monopoly ILEC in 13 states ...

Ok, thanks for the clarification.  But I still don't quite agree.

> Its network was built as a regulated utility, granted monopoly
> status.  Nowadays there is a legal right to compete but that doesn't
> overcome the "natural monopoly" advantage of owning the
> ratepayer-funded physical plant.  The Telecom Act of 1996 was a
> compromise, allowing the Bells into LD and other ventures in exchange
> for allowing competition, which explicitly included "wholesale"
> obligations.  Now they want out of that part of the deal?

Well, let me comment on this "natural monopoly".  Basically, it's net
worth has declined quite a bit and this must be recognized by
regulators.  Here's why:

1) Wireless and cable competition.  Very simply, it is not a "monopoly"
anymore so it should not be treated as such.  (The past status doesn't
matter, "today" is what counts).  Many people use cable and/or wireless
for their plain telephone service needs as well as advanced
communications.  It appears this is growing.

2) The cost of entry to provide landline service was once enormous.
With fibre and modern techniques, it is relatively easy to do so.  Our
cable company ran coax than later fibre quickly throughout our area.
(Indeed, cable TV needs some competition on their rates.)  If the
traditional landline company raises its rates too much a cable company
will be able to come in and undercut it.  They're doing that now.

3) Cost of landline maintenance:  The regulated side comes with many
burdens.  They must provide service to deadbeats and to all areas, even
those where there isn't much money to be made.  So, the asset of an
established customer base, like deadbeats or grandparents with little
phone usage, isn't worth very much in the high tech world of big
profits.

Also, the old conduits and copper lines need maintenance, if the
copper is old the insulation may be rotting and worthless.  So this
"asset" is of very limited value as well.

Let's remember that in the full regulated days the Bell System was
accepted as a steady safe stock.  But that world no longer exists.
Investors expect big returns and landline companies, saddled with low
end regulated customers and burdens, have trouble meeting those
demands.

4) In essence, the Bell System world ended in 1983.  Now it's
competitors want it both ways: They want to be free to enter into
Bell's old markets -- even at a discount -- but Bell still has to
carry the regulatory burden.

To put it another way, I suspect VOIP providers can't wait to offer
service in wealthy areas, but probably don't even enter poor areas.
Bell successors are forced to serve and take what comes along with it.

I like the commentators (like Newsweek) that suggested customers keep
a landline as an emergency spare if they get VOIP.  That's bad for two
reasons: 1) it gives the Bell companies the scraps of little business
while the juicy profits go to the new guys.  2) It means the new guys
don't have to upgrade their systems to maximum reliability--as the old
Bell companies offer* -- because they have old Bell being their safety
shield.  That's not fair to Bell -- to maintain capacity for someone
ELSE's troubles.

*When there was a nasty power failure or other disaster, only the
traditional landlines kept working.  The CO's had heavy construction
and diesel generators and batteries.  The wireless and cable companies
had very little capacity for emergency traffic AND we learned they had
very little battery backup in their intermediate relay stations and
towers.  (My cable has no such backup in power failures; my VOIP will
be dead in a power failure).

[public replies, please]

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

From: Steven J. Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: AT&T 'Family' Reunion: Merger Approved
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 04:58:23 UTC
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


In article <telecom25.432.8@telecom-digest.org>, Ron Kritzman wrote:

> TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:

>> Democrats on the Commission held out for concessions,
>> including among others, 'Network Neutrality' and a continued
>> discounting in rates for wholesalers; i.e. the former Prairie Stream
>> Communications and the existing Sage Telecom.

> I read somewhere that unbundled DSL was supposed to be part of the
> deal, but I'm willing to bet it won't cost any less that it did with
> the dial tone.

Interestingly, Covad ... and Speakeasy through Covad ... offer
dedicated ADSL that doesn't require a phone line. It's no more
expensive than shared line DSL. It's just the telcos that require a
phone line.

In article <telecom25.433.3@telecom-digest.org>, Steven Lichter wrote:

> Verizon competes a lot with AT&T, they have  their payphone outside of 
> most supermarkets and Drug stores all over the country and offer LD 

Payphones don't matter anymore.

Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California     PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

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

From: RJ <rj_nospam@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AT&T 'Family' Reunion: Merger Approved
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:47:41 -0500


On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:08:27 -0500, Fred Goldstein
<fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net> wrote:

> Martin's statement referred to the "Democrat Commissioners", using the
> word "Democrat" as an adjective in lieu of "Democratic", the proper
> form.

That's a bizarre complaint.

RJ

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


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications 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://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 2006 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

              ************************

   In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
   have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
   enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order 
   telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
   been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
   inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
   a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------

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 V26 #001
******************************