TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:50:00 EST    Volume 26 : Issue 42

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    A Call to Let Your Phone Loose (Charles Babington, Washington Post)
    Judge Blocks Contempt Hearing for Verizon in Phone Records Case (NY Times)
    BabyTEL Brings Back 7-Digit Dialing (Nigel Allen)
    Re: Telephone Area Codes and Prefixes (mc)
    Re: Telephone Area Codes and Prefixes (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com)
    Re: How to Shut Down the Net (mc)
    Re: Private Line History (Wesrock@aol.com)
    Re: Private Line History (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: What About Areas Where Alphabet is Not Like Ours (Barry Margolin)

====== 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: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:35:42 -0600
From: Charles Babington <washpost@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: A Call to Let Your Phone Loose


Telecom's New Battleground: Carriers' Proprietary Controls

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer

Until federal regulators issued a landmark ruling in 1968, Americans
could not own the telephones in their homes, nor attach answering
machines or other devices to them. Now, a growing number of academics
and consumer activists say it's time to deliver a similar
ground-breaking jolt to the cellphone industry, possibly triggering a
new round of customer options and technical innovations to rival the
one that produced faxes, modems and the Internet.

Wireless carriers, which limit what customers may do with their
phones, say the move is unnecessary and potentially harmful. But in
articles, blogs and speeches, a number of researchers are asking why
the companies are allowed to force consumers to buy new handsets when
they change carriers; pay a specified carrier to transfer photos from
a camera phone; or download ringtones or music from one provider only.

Wireless carriers' controls of handsets and services may be the coming 
battleground in telecomunications. (By Jb Reed -- Bloomberg News)

"At some point, I think Americans are going to put their foot down and
say, 'We won't tolerate this anymore,' " said Dave Passmore, who has
written extensively on the issue as an analyst for the Burton Group, a
research firm.

Activists who share his view are seizing on an article circulated by
Columbia University law professor Tim Wu, an authority on
telecommunications issues. Wu, who plans to present the paper
Wednesday at a Federal Trade Commission hearing on Internet access,
writes that wireless carriers are "aggressively controlling product
design and innovation in the equipment and application markets, to the
detriment of consumers. Their policies, in the wired world, would be
considered outrageous [and] in some cases illegal."

The wireless carriers, however, say that forcing them to open their
networks to unfettered use is not needed, because consumers have
several options for carriers.

"Wireless is a competitive industry and consumers enjoy the greatest
number of choices among services, devices, calling plans and coverage
areas in the entire telecom industry," the main trade group, CTIA --
The Wireless Association, says in a policy statement. "CTIA opposes
the recent attempts to supplant competition and market discipline with
heavy-handed, anti-consumer regulation."

Verizon Wireless spokesman Jeffrey Nelson also called the industry
highly competitive, noting that consumers can choose among numerous
handset models and four major providers of cellular service: Verizon,
AT&T, Sprint-Nextel and T-Mobile. "If you don't like what one company
enables," he said, "find somebody else ... To suggest it's a
locked-down industry is crazy."

Moreover, eliminating controls on the wireless network could undermine
its security, said another Verizon Wireless spokesman, John
Johnson. His company limits Bluetooth applications in part to prevent
illegal access to users' personal information, he said, a problem in
some European markets.

It was the Federal Communications Commission that issued the
far-reaching 1968 ruling, and some analysts think the current
five-member commission is at least willing to listen to Wu, Passmore
and others. But in an interview yesterday, FCC Chairman Kevin
J. Martin made no commitments.

In general, he said, robust competition and choice spur innovation and
lower prices for consumers. For now, at least, Martin said, the major
wireless carriers are competing vigorously against each other, and he
said would not favor FCC intervention unless there was evidence that
innovation was beginning to suffer and prices were becoming
unreasonable. "The jury is still out," said Martin, a Republican
appointee. "It's something we're watching."

Some predict the debate will spread quickly beyond academic and
political circles. "This paper has the potential to become a huge
telecommunications issue," said Art Brodsky, who tracks the
communications industry for the advocacy group Public
Knowledge. "People now don't understand how limited they are in what
they can do with their cellphones. This is a totally ripe issue."

Some of Wu's allies say they may use his research to petition the FCC
to force wireless providers to loosen their restrictions on phones.

Wu, Passmore and others cite restrictions involving applications like
Bluetooth, which facilitates communications among such devices as
printers, personal computers and wireless headsets. In an article last
year for Business Communications Review, Passmore wrote that Verizon
disables "all Bluetooth profiles except wireless headsets and dial-up
networking. You can forget about using Bluetooth for synchronizing
your phone's calendar or address-phone book-contact information with
your PC's. Nor can you move any music or other files between your
phone and PC, or move photos off of your phone (unless you're willing
to pay Verizon 25 cents apiece for the privilege of using their
network for photo transfers)."

Wu, in his 40-page article "Wireless Net Neutrality," notes that AT&T
and T-Mobile "lock" their cellphones so users cannot continue using
them if they switch carriers. The companies allow customers, upon
request, to unlock the phones after a certain time. But Wu says "most
consumers have no idea what a phone lock is" in the first place, and
therefore don't know that they can reuse their phones.

Some hold up Apple's iPhone as another example of the industry's
restrictive practices, because it will operate only on AT&T's mobile
service when it goes on sale this summer.

Critics of such restrictions say the FCC should consider applying the
so-called "Carterphone" rules to the wireless industry. The 1968
ruling allowed inventor Thomas Carter to attach a device to AT&T
phones that would convert two-way radio signals from offshore oil rigs
to phone calls. AT&T, then the all-powerful Ma Bell, strenuously
objected, saying any non-AT&T device could seriously damage the entire
network.

The FCC disagreed and the Carterphone decision became "a kind of Bill
of Rights or Magna Carta for telecom users," Passmore recently wrote.

Wireless carriers, however, say today's competitive environment does
not resemble Ma Bell's monopolistic power in the 1950s and '60s, and
no new Magna Carta is needed.

"This whole issue is a giant red herring," said AT&T spokesman Mark
Siegel. "This is a fiercely competitive industry," which has grown
"almost entirely through the force of competition in the marketplace,
more innovative devices and services, and continually lower prices."

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/internet-news.html


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, the liars at SBC continue their
fraud and lies. Now of course, they are the new owners of AT&T, so
you can expect their lies to continue, until, of course, if/when
someone slaps them very hard and makes them stop lying and scamming
people. Here's a for instance: You've probably heard about Cingular
Wireless' Family Plans. You renew (or start) a contract with them,
and you are entitled to receive up to three or four new phones on the
same account for just ten dollars per month. If you have an unlimited
account with rollover unused daytime minutes, this is a good deal.

So my brother, in Chicago chatted recently with my mother regards her
cell phone (presently Alltel, on a 620 number. Completely local here
 ... my brother renewed his contract with Cingular Wireless on the
condition he could get Family Plan; with a phone for his wife, his
child, and our mother. They are all on area 773 of course, for
Chicago.  The object is to save mother a bit of money on her phone
bill.  Cingular told me they could care less what area code was in
use on the phones; they told my brother Daniel the same thing. So
Dan agrees to renew his contract for another two years (that got him
all the new phones free); he said I want three of the phones on 773
(where they are at now, phone-wise) and I want one of them on 620,
preferably in the Independence rate center. "Not a problem," said the
sneaky salesman, but I won't be able to give you the 620 number on the
one phone for thirty days ... well, the thirty days expired a couple
days ago, Dan went to see them with that particular phone, Cingular
now tells him they cannot do it; no change of area codes. That,
despite the fact that _I_ heard differently, _Dan_ heard differently,
mother (who knows little from nothign on the matter) got the same
impression. I suggested to Dan he purchase another SIM card with a
620 number, but he is reluctant to do that. Do any of you readers
know anything about Cingular's Family Plan and what the deal is?  PAT] 

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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:38:24 -0600
From: New York Times News Wire <nytimes@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Judge Blocks Contempt Hearing for Verizon in Phone Records Case
 

BANGOR, Maine -- A federal judge Thursday blocked state regulators
from going ahead with a contempt hearing for Verizon, ruling that
national security considerations outweighed the state's interest in
speedy resolution of a complaint by customers.

The preliminary injunction forced cancellation of the Public Utilities
Commission hearing that had been set for Friday in Augusta to force
the telecommunications giant to say whether it provided customer call
records to the government without a warrant.

In his 24-page order, U.S. District Judge John Woodcock said the
hearing was not the appropriate place to air the dispute.

"The federal court, not the PUC hearing room, is the proper forum to
resolve the opposing positions of the federal and state governments,"
he wrote. "Moreover, in this controversy, Verizon is a surrogate for
the position of the federal government and it would be profoundly
unfair to punish Verizon for asserting a legal position mandated by
the federal government."

Woodcock said the only hardship that the PUC would suffer from the
injunction would be to face some delay in resolving the multi-citizen
complaint that triggered the federal lawsuit.

By contrast, he wrote, "the revelation of sensitive information
pertaining to national security is a manifest hardship to the United
States if the injunction were denied."

The dispute before the judge was an outgrowth of a complaint filed by 
Verizon customers last May. Last week, the PUC said it would begin 
contempt proceedings against Verizon for failure to comply with an order 
last August that requires an official of the company to swear under oath 
that its previous statements regarding the National Security Agency's 
alleged surveillance were true.

PUC spokeswoman Nicole Clegg said the commission was "obviously
disappointed" at the ruling. "We're still reviewing it, and tomorrow
we're going to discuss our options with the Attorney General's
Office."

Shenna Bellows of the Maine Civil Liberties Union, which had backed
the agency's stance, described the judge's ruling as a "temporary
setback."

"The Maine Civil Liberties Union is committed to carrying this as far
as we need to go to defend Mainers' privacy," she said.

A spokesman for Verizon, which had backed the U.S. Justice Department
suit to stop the contempt hearing, could not be reached immediately
for comment. The company had argued that it had been unfairly placed
in the middle of a dispute between the state and federal governments.
 
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

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/nytimes.html

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:45:00 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <ndallen@interlog.com>
Subject: BabyTEL Brings Back 7-Digit Dialing


The following press release was issued by babyTEL, a Montreal-based
provider of VoIP service.  I don't work for babyTEL, but I thought
that the press release might be of interest.

Attention News/Business Editors:
babyTEL(TM) Brings Back 7-Digit Dialing

    Introduces Other Customer-focused Services Like 'Machineless' Fax

    MONTREAL, Feb. 8 /CNW/ - In a "Back to the Future" move, babyTEL,
a leading provider of VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) phone
service, has eliminated the need to dial the area code when calling
people within the same area code.

    "This will resonate with Canadians," says babyTEL President
Stephen Dorsey. "The phone companies think they've trained us to the
inevitability of tedious 10-digit dialing in our own area codes. Well,
with today's technology, it's ridiculous and that's why we're offering
7-digit local calling to all Canadians."

    Canadian 10-digit local calling was first introduced in Toronto in
2001.  The concept has spread to cities like Vancouver, Montreal,
Ottawa, Edmonton, Mississauga and other parts of the Greater Toronto
Area such as Kitchener-Waterloo.

    "babyTEL's move is one small step for mankind -- back to a simpler
time when your fingers did a little less walking," said independent
telecom analyst Iain Grant of the Seaboard Group.

    Beyond 7-digit local calling, an added benefit for babyTEL
customers is that they need only dial the last four digits when
calling other babyTEL users in the same exchange.

    Also, "Back to the Future," babyTEL provides the answer for the
occasional fax. The user can relegate the fax machine to long-term
storage and receive faxes as email attachments.

    Beyond the boring "lowest price" mantra in the industry, babyTEL
is about innovation and supplying customers with true VoIP benefits
that traditional phone lines can't deliver and big VoIP companies
don't deliver such as multiple devices that ring simultaneously. This
"virtual extension" service is akin to extension lines in your home,
but unrestricted by geography: they ring in your home, at your office
or thousands of miles away on your laptop's soft phone all at the same
time.

    babyTEL, which recently expanded its service into the United
States, will be continuously introducing other exciting advanced
services that exploit VoIP technology throughout 2007 to further
empower its users. All at market competitive prices between $10.95 and
$29.95 per month in Canada, depending on the plan selected.

    babyTEL is also known as a "provider of Providers" by supporting
resellers and agents through its partner program with white label and
branded VoIP services.

    babyTEL is a leading provider of quality Voice over Internet
Protocol telephony services which leverage subscribers' high-speed
Internet connections. babyTEL, headquartered in Montreal, is a
division of Voice & Data Systems, a leading-edge developer of VoIP and
Unified Communications solutions with over 15 years experience
providing Carrier-Class products and managed services globally to
large enterprises and service providers. http://www.babytel.ca

For further information: Jonathan Schacter, Vice-President & CFO,
babyTEL, (514) 879-8585 ext. 217, jschacter@babytel.ca; Bob Brehl,
abc2 Communications, (905) 274-4191, bob@abc2.ca

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

From: mc <look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address>
Subject: Re: Telephone Area Codes and Prefixes
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:24:49 -0500


> The Bell System History book 1925-1975 explains all this in detail.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lisa, where would one obtain this
> 'Bell System History book' to which you refer?  PAT]

I think she's referring to "A History of Science and Technology in the
Bell System," which is a multi-volume set published around 1985.  It's
in the University of Georgia library and probably many other
libraries.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Telephone Area Codes and Prefixes
Date: 8 Feb 2007 14:26:14 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


> The Bell System History book 1925-1975 explains all this in detail.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lisa, where would one obtain this
> 'Bell System History book' to which you refer?  PAT]

The proper title is:

" A History of engineering and science in the Bell System vol. 3.
Switching technology (1925-1975)", published by Bell Laboratories.

This should be found in most larger libraries, such as college
library.  I strongly recommend it.

It is part of a series of books on the history of the Bell System.  I
also recommend volume 1, "The early years (1875-1925)".

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

From: mc <look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address>
Subject: Re: How to Shut Down the Net
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:27:25 -0500


<ellis@no.spam> wrote in message
news:telecom26.41.5@telecom-digest.org:

> In article <telecom26.39.1@telecom-digest.org>,
> Ted Bridis, Associated Press  <ap@telecom-digest.org> wrote:

>> Hackers briefly overwhelmed at least three of the 13 computers that
>> help manage global computer traffic Tuesday in one of the most
>> significant attacks against the Internet since 2002.

> I heard they (root name servers) were attacked but continued to
> operate. That's hardly what I'd call being overwhelmed.

Right, it sounded as if the AP newswriter was under the impression
that everything on the Internet goes through a central bottleneck --
which is precisely what the Internet is designed *not* to be.

As I understand it, only very recently changed domain addresses would
be affected by a temporary failure of the root servers.

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

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:54:27 EST
Subject: Re: Private Line History


In a message dated 8 Feb 2007 12:46:51 -0800, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
writes:

> I notice many large-chain retail outlets (fast food, gas stations)
> have microwave dishes on the roof.  I presume this isn't to watch
> television, but rather transmit and receive data to/from the central
> HQ.  I have no idea how these things work, but I would call that a
> private line application.

They are satellite terminal to transmit credit card data and
receive authorization (or declination) from the credit card servicing
provider.  A private line? That doesn't seem an apt description.  I
was in a Wal-Mart store a year or so ago and no checks or credit cards
could be accepted because "the satellite is down" (probably meant the
satellite equipment was in trouble, either at that store or at the
home terminal.)

(Checks are widely authorized now, too, by firms specializing in the 
service.)

Some chains also have high speed data links (not via satellite) for
the same purpose.


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

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Private Line History
Date: 8 Feb 2007 19:23:58 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Charles Gray wrote:

> In retrospect, the CCSA was a predecessor to the "software defined
> network" that was introduced by AT&T, Sprint and MCI in the late
> 1980s.

Once again, thanks for your excellent and accurate description.

> I don't know for sure, but I expect the switches were the Western
> Electric 4E tandems.

Here's an extract from the Bell System history:

CCSA -- Common Control Switching Arrangement

"Growth in public switching was paralleled by expansion of private
line services, and, as might be expected, this required special
services and featurs.  In particular, arrangements were developed for
No. 5 crossbar and No. 1 ESS so that the central office provided not
only Centrex service for one or more customers but acted in nationwide
two-level hierarchical private networks that served the
telecommunication needs of large businesses.  By dialing an access
code, usually 8, the customer's employees could reach company or
agency locations on the network.  In order for the switching offices
to be shared by several private networks, common-control switching was
required, hence the name CCSA.  A special 4-wire version of the No. 5
crossbar system was developed in 1960 to serve as the first or higher-
level (tandem) in these networks."

"In many cases, CCSA networks include not only PBXs but also Centrex
service from the same switching systems.  CCSA service includes not
only access to private network switching and transmission facilities,
but also local and distant (foreign exchange) access to public network
and dial or tie trunk facilities between PBXs connected to the
network."

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

From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: What About Areas Where Alphabet is Not Like Ours?
Organization: Symantec
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:16:47 -0500


In article <telecom26.40.7@telecom-digest.org>, Joe Tibiletti
<joetib@cox.net> wrote:

> I raise the question, what does the telephone dial look like in areas
> with alphabets different fron our own, such as Cairo, Egypt, or
> Beijing, China, or Oslo, Norway?  Before the time of dial phones, how
> did operators communicate with multi lengual populations?.

It's my understanding that the addition of letters on the dial is
mostly an American thing, and European phones don't generally have
them at all.  I expect this is similar in most of the countries you
mention, although I found a web page that mentioned that Russian
phones used to have cyrillic letters on them, but they don't any more.

-- 

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***


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


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 2007 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 #42
*****************************