Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA05413; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:09:23 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199608201909.PAA05413@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #427 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Aug 96 15:09:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 427 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson On-Line Vandalism Shows Net's Risks (Tad Cook) Area Code Confusion (Tad Cook) Re: Pacific Bell Offers Ten Tips for Prepaid Phone Cards (Linc Madison) Re: Who Runs the InterNIC? (Keith W. Brown) Re: Timed Local Internet Calls (Ian Angus) Re: Timed Local Internet Calls (Jack Decker) North American Numbering Plan Expansion (Jim Lord) PacBell Blames Intel and UCAN for Rate Increase (Eric Smith) Re: "Genuine Nynex Payphone" Limiting Number of Touch Tone (Bob Ponce) Re: 900 MHz Digital vs. Analog Cordless (Hudson Leighton) Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? (Ed Ellers) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: On-Line Vandalism Shows Net's Risks Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:52:22 PDT On-line vandalism shows Net's risks By Rory J. O'Connor Mercury News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- You can't believe everything you read -- especially on the Internet. An intrusion to the World Wide Web site of the U.S. Department of Justice last weekend shows how easily information and images can be altered. The intrusion also underscores how outsiders could tamper with information in cyberspace in such a way that would make it difficult to impossible for the Internet's estimated 20 million users to detect. Solving the problem requires a combination of better security and the use of technology called digital signatures to verify the authenticity of data, according to many experts. "There are several levels of trust that need to be added onto the existing infrastructure," said Asim Abdullah, executive director of CommerceNet in Palo Alto. "Authentication is a very vital issue." In the case of the attack early Saturday on the Justice Department "home page" -- what World Wide Web users first see when they go to the a particular site on the Internet -- the results were obviously unauthorized. The hackers littered the home page with a swastika and a nude photo of what appeared to be TV actress Jennifer Aniston and rewrote the department's welcome message in a satirical vein. But experts said the intruders could just as easily have subtly changed information that many users seek from government sites. In that case, the problem would have gone from a briefly offensive incident that prompted Justice Department operators to shut down within two hours, to the potential of widespread distribution of erroneous information. Given the breadth of information available on the Internet, a hacker could alter the electronic text of everything from Supreme Court decisions to presidential executive orders to the size of the national debt. While the on-line versions aren't the definitive ones, the problem has implications for trust in other areas as well, including commerce. "When you're talking about data, the integrity is the most important thing," said Jim Christy, a computer security expert working for the U.S. Senate Investigations Committee. "NASA told us the worst thing that could happen to them is if someone changed the value of pi in all their formulas." Sensitive Justice Department files were never in danger, according to officials. As is the case with most systems on the Internet, the computers that provide public access to information aren't connected to the department's internal network with data on investigations. "This is like a bulletin board tacked up outside the department," said spokesman Bert Brandenburg. World Wide Web sites on the Internet are often vulnerable to hackers because computer operators have failed to take basic security precautions. But even with top-notch security, systems can still be vulnerable simply because they are in the open, readily accessible to all users. "The Web was built on the principle of its being open," said Marc Cannady, director of the Highway One project, an industry-funded technology laboratory in Washington. "There are not a lot of methodologies to ensure the data you see beyond the front page are the real stuff." The security of systems could be greatly enhanced, many experts believe, by the routine use of "encryption" technology -- scrambling data so that only authorized users could read it. That would be coupled with the related digital signature technology, which would alert a user if the file in question had been altered by anyone other than the authorized users. "We're going to be living in a world where determining the authenticity of information is going to be all-important," said Mike Godwin, general counsel of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Digital signatures are small files that act as a kind of tamper-proof on-line ID card. They would be issued by private firms or public entities -- some are already issued experimentally by Verisign, GTE and the Postal Service. Sent between a user's computer and a "server" computer run by an agency or company, they assure the user the data they see is unchanged. They also verify the user's identity to a merchant. But many on-line activists are at odds with the Clinton administration over how to implement technologies like digital signatures and encryption. Critics claim commercial development of the technology has been stymied by the administration, notably law enforcement agencies like the FBI, who fear it will allow criminals to hide their computer activities from authorities. Until that debate is resolved, experienced Internet users said the best defense is a healthy dose of skepticism when surfing the Net. The Justice Department home page itself contains a disclaimer page calling the Web site "an experiment" and cautioning that it "cannot guarantee" the accuracy or timeliness of any information on-line. ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Area Code Confusion Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:29:21 PDT PG&E service fails; so does wake-up call By Mark Leibovich Mercury News Staff Writer How periodic and unannounced power outages can mess with your head, Exhibit #4869: Bob Branham of Almaden Valley, a habitual early bird, relies on his electronic clock radio to awaken him at 3:45 each morning. It gives him ample time to accomplish things before arriving at his San Jose Federal Building office at 5:50 a.m. But when the power blew in Almaden Valley for the sixth time one night last week, Branham felt unnerved as well as annoyed. Nothing worse than a faulty alarm clock to ensure a fitful night's sleep. No problem, the PG&E service rep told Branham: They would provide a wake-up call at 3:45. "That put me at ease," Branham said. Still, Branham had his unconscious back-up generator working. Good thing, too. He woke up on his own at 3:40 a.m. The call from PG&E never came. Branham called a PG&E supervisor to complain at 4:25 a.m. "He said they called the number I gave them but in 707," said Branham. He used to live in that area code until he moved to San Jose from Fairfield two years ago. Seems the PG&E employee charged with Branham wake-up duty mistakenly tacked his old area code onto his current number. PG&E official Jeanette Valentine said the misunderstanding underscores a cautionary lesson: "It shows the importance of PG&E customers keeping their records updated with us." Branham said the supervisor tried to impart the same lesson -- which he was in no mood to receive at 4:25 in the morning. "I assumed they could figure out I was in 408 when I told them I was calling from San Jose," Branham said, adding that he felt sorry for whoever got the 3:45 wake up call up in 707. (A call placed to the wrong number could not be completed as dialed.) Valentine said PG&E is willing to make wake-up calls on a limited basis to customers victimized by outages. "We are working on technology that could provide several wake-up calls at once," she said. For his part, Branham said he'll wait for the utility to master single wake-up calls -- never mind basic energy service -- before he places faith in any new PG&E technology. "Not to make a bad pun," he said, "but I felt powerless." -------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am sorry but I cannot be sympathetic with Mr. Branham. I thought *everyone* knew that when you buy a digital clock which has to serve a critical function -- like waking you up in the morning -- you always get the kind with the backup battery. My digital clock from Radio Shack has a place for a nine-volt battery which is there to do two things: keep the clock on time for when the power is restored (avoid the blinking twelve o'clock) and sound the alarm at the time indicated if it has been set. Of course, if he was a subscriber to Call America's 800 service (MyLine) like I am, then he could also use the automated 'wakeup service' feature of MyLine at no extra charge like I do. You enter the time you want the system to call you and the number to be used. Then you hang up the phone and go to bed. You get a call from the robot voice at whatever time you requested, and you have to enter your passcode to complete the call. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Offers Ten Tips for Prepaid Phone Cards Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:09:20 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , Mike King wrote: > Pacific Bell Offers Ten Tips for Prepaid Phone Cards > 4 Find out how much it costs to use a prepaid phone card. For > example, Pacific Bell offers a flat rate of 40 cents per minute for > local, local toll and domestic long distance calls. International > rates vary by region. Rates from other companies can be as high as > 60 cents per minute, which affects the calling time available on > the card. Rates from other companies can also be MUCH LOWER than Pacific Bell's. Don't the wonderful, altruistic folks at Pacific Bell want us to know *that* in with their "ten tips"? > 7 Ensure that the card's rate is valid for all desired calling areas. > For example, some cards offer a flat rate for calls within the > U.S., but charge significantly more for calls to Mexico. For example, the PACIFIC BELL prepaid calling card charges a flat rate for calls within the U.S., but charges significantly more for calls to Mexico. They certainly seem to think this is a boogeyman they're conjuring up here, but it's one of the features of their own card. I find self-serving advertisements disguised as public service announcements very annoying. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: Keith W. Brown Subject: Re: Who Runs the InterNIC? Date: 20 Aug 1996 16:18:51 GMT Organization: CallCom International > What facilities does the InterNIC actually use? Who pays for them? > How does one register a domain name? > Any other facts regarding the nature of the InterNIC would be greatly > appreciated. Joshua: I don't know about your first two questions, but as to the third ... you can register or modify a domain name at the following InterNIC site address: http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/itts/ Just follow the instructions (Hint ... Be sure to obtain the service providers primary and secondary IP addresses that you intend to register your new domain name with) and input the information. They will confirm your order via e-mail. Some ISP's will offer you an address for a homepage, but you will have to use a generic domain address that they provide. The only problem with that is if they go out of business ... so do you! You can have your page set up through a service provider just about anywhere in the country and use a local service provider for Internet access. Prices do vary (dramatically) so shop around. I use a provider in Washington called Troubador.com. They charge about $150 a month (depending on MB size) to maintain your page and provide all the frills including page development. You can use this as a starting point on getting a quote on pricing etc. (it will vary dramatically from provider to provider). You can contact: Steve Clayton at: stecla@troubador.com for more info. Good Luck! ;-) Keith W. Brown URL: http://www.callcom.com E-mail: newsinfo@callcom.com ------------------------------ From: Ian Angus Subject: Re: Timed Local Internet Calls Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:34:24 -0400 Organization: Angus TeleManagement Group In article , fist@ozemail.com.au (fist) wrote: > I write a weekly column on telecommunications in Australia's national > newspaper "The Australian", and last week I wrote a piece attacking > the claims being made by the CEO of Telstra (ex-Telecom Australia) > that Internet users were costing the carrier money because they locked > up the telephone exchanges through long-held calls. My information > was based on my own knowledge plus confirmation from some > telecommunications consultants. > Since I am getting different information from Telstra insiders and > Telstra outsider/critics and telecommunications consultants, I'd like > to hear the opinions of those of you who know about these switches, > and who don't have any local vested interest. We have gone through a similar discussion in Canada, with telco people claiming that Internet traffic overloads their switches, and various non-telco people saying "how can you have a traffic problem if your switches are non-blocking?" After considerable discussion, we found that there is indeed a traffic problem -- not in the switches as such, but in the equipment which grooms traffic for the switches. Its true that modern switches are non blocking. But residential phones are used, on average, for only a few minutes every hour -- so it would not make economic sense to assign separate port full time to every residential line. To keep costs and phone rates down, telcos use devoces which allow residential lines to contend for ports -- contention rates of 4:1 to 8:1 are not uncommon. These concentration devices aren't cheap, and they don't have unlimited capacity. If any significant percentage of the customers connected to a concentrator stay on the line for hours at a time, then the telcos have to reduce the contention ratio and, ultimately, buy more concentrators. Our review of this issue as it affected Bell Canada and Internet Service Providers in Canada can be found at http://www/isp-bell/ib.html. An article dealing specifically with the traffic question is at http://www/isp-bell/ib-trfc.html IAN ANGUS ianangus@angustel.ca Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca 8 Old Kingston Road tel: 905-686-5050 ext 222 Ajax ON L1T 2Z7 Canada fax: 905-686-2655 ------------------------------ From: jack@novagate.com (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: Timed Local Internet Calls Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:02:52 GMT Organization: Altopia Corp. - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 13:23:21 +1000, fist@ozemail.com.au (fist) wrote: > I write a weekly column on telecommunications in Australia's national > newspaper "The Australian", and last week I wrote a piece attacking > the claims being made by the CEO of Telstra (ex-Telecom Australia) > that Internet users were costing the carrier money because they locked > up the telephone exchanges through long-held calls. My information > was based on my own knowledge plus confirmation from some > telecommunications consultants. >> In an interview last week with Kirsty Simpson of the Melbourne >> Herald Sun, Blount railed against the iniquities of the Internet >> and called, once again, for the right to impose timed local calls on >> domestic and residential users. "We have to do something," he >> said. "We can't have people on the Internet ring up for 25c and >> sit there for 24 hours; they tie up the whole exchange." Here is the problem with that. Take the number of incoming lines of ALL ISP's in any given exchange. Assume that you have that many connections in use 24 hours a day. What percentage is that, really, of the entire exchange? Or of the daily telephone usage in a city? Telephone companies like to talk as though there are an infinite number of modem lines out there, when in fact many ISP's have less than a hundred lines in their modem pool (and if a phone company switch can't handle 100 simultaneous connections, they are in very sad shape indeed!). >> The average digital switch and inter-exchange network can >> handle about 75% of all connected lines simultaneously - except >> for some of the older inter-exchange city connections which, >> perhaps on Monday morning during the peak-load period, run >> close to their limits. >> But that's just a matter of dragging cables through existing >> ducting - with each fibre-pair then able to carry another 40,000 >> calls. A single length of the same cable used for Pay TV trunks >> (by the thousands), would carry individual connections for every >> Internet user in Australia, a couple of times over. Actually, in many cases they don't even have to run new cable; they just put higher capacity equipment on each end of the cable. With fiber optics, the bottleneck isn't usually the cable itself, it's the equipment at each end. >> So if all Internet users sat on their service-provider connections >> for 24 hours next Monday, they could perhaps increase Telstra's >> capacity problems by 2-3 percent in a few inter-exchange >> connections, for a few minutes around 10 am, in some >> circumstances, at some old exchanges. On a 10,000 line exchange, there would have to be at least 200 or 300 modems in the modem pool of various ISP's (served by that exchange) for that to happen -- and they'd all have to be in use at once. BTW, a per call charge simply makes the problem worse. Where I live, there is no charge for a local call, so I am not afraid to drop my connection even if I think I may want to go back online a few minutes later. Whereas, if I were charged by the call, I would likely hold the connection open "forever" once I dialled in. If they want to reduce usage, they should ELIMINATE the per-call charge! >> Now enter the wildly different call hold patterns typical of >> Internet usage. Calls are routinely held by dial up users for >> hours at a time which causes resource depletion and potential >> denial of service to other customers on that exchange. As I say, not at all surprising that calls are held open for long periods, considering the per-call charge -- but "resource depletion" and "denial of service"? There would have to be some HUGE ISP's (or a lot of them) there for that to happen! >> And the same problem is considerably worse at the exchange >> which services the ISP, where there are hundreds or thousands >> of lines that are tied up virtually 24 hours a day. This is causing >> terrible problems to telcos world wide with *all* of them facing >> meltdown in key central office resources. The result of course >> will be lack of dialtone to *all* telco customers which is good for >> no one. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LINES? You might want to ask them which ISP has this huge modem pool -- they have to be the granddaddy of all ISP's! I mean really, you should not let pie-in-the-sky statements like this go by without challenge. Ask them how big the modem pool REALLY is at the local ISP's. THAT is the maximum number of Internet connections possible. I doubt that even New York City has "hundreds of thousands" of Internet connections going over the Public Switched Telephone Network at this point in time. But okay. If the problem is really that the SWITCHES can't handle the traffic, then what they (or you) should be asking the goverment to do is to let (or force) them to sell you a dedicated line pair to your ISP at the same amount (or less) than what a switched line would cost. Consider that you have a dedicated pair of wires to the central office. Your ISP also has a dedicated line to their modem (the one you are using at the modem pool). This passes through a phone company switch. But for many uses, it would be just as adequate to have a "dry" line going straight through to the ISP. Then you'd be using ZERO capacity in the switch, you'd have a 24 hour per day connection to your ISP, and you could probably even use higher capacity modems in many cases. So, let's say that you pay $15 a month for a residential phone line for your modem. Your ISP also pays for a modem line, but at business rates, let's say $25 per line (I am of course basing this on typical U.S. rates, YMMV). Now if you and the ISP are both in the same exchange, there should be no reason the telco can't simply hardwire two pairs together at the central office and give you a dedicated circuit to the ISP for far LESS than the $40 a month that the two of you are paying for line charges AND the use of the CO switch. This really seems like such a simple solution -- if people are tying up switch capacity to the point that it is seriously impairing performance of the exchange (and to be honest, I really doubt that is happening to the extent that the phone company would like you to believe), then get the traffic off the switch by offering a hardwired "dry" circuit from the user to the ISP. Let the ISP in effect become the CO for data traffic. It never fails to amaze me that a phone company can dedicate a pair of wires to a customer's telephone and still make money, but if you and I want to lease that exact same pair for data, background music, alarm system monitoring or whatever, the price jumps way up! Something is seriously wrong there. It will be interesting to see what happens when the phone companies here in the U.S. are required to "unbundle" the components that they now sell as "local phone service". I will bet that some smart ISPs will begin to offer 24 hour per day dedicated connections to their customers using bare wires leased from the telco, hopefully at a much lower charge than what they are paying now for wires + dial tone. I'm not sure what the modem configurations would have to be in such a case, but I am aware that many existing modems have a "leased line" setting (often software configurable!) that does not require the presence of dial tone (not sure about line voltage, but if that were a necessity I'm sure that either the ISP or the customer could hang a 24 or 48 VDC filtered power supply across the line). Jack ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 10:34:35 -0500 From: Jim Lord Subject: North American Numbering Plan Expansion The Industry Numbering Committee has been working for some time on an expansion plan for the NANP. There are some eight to ten options not requiring expansion and another eight or nine using various methods of expansion, e.g., five digit line numbers, four digit NXXs, and four digit NPAs. All options must be evaluated against various functional criteria and additional assessment critieria. Any final recommendation requires an extensive process to come up with a plan that provides the least impact to users, vendors, and networks. It is not anticipated that the expansion plan that is recommended will need to be implemented for many years, however transition and implementation may in fact require an extended period. An initial recommendation is probably at least a year away. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 01:51:08 PDT From: Eric Smith Subject: PacBell Blames Intel and UCAN for Rate Increase Robert Deward of Pacific Telesis (Pacific Bell's parent company) writes: > Unfortunately, opposition from Intel and UCAN scuttled the possibility > that the California Public Utilities Commission would accept the > proposal. Now the Commission will hold full scale hearings on ISDN > rates, which could result in rates higher than those sought by Pacific > Bell and the other parties to the proposal. Or could result in rates lower than those sought by Pacific Bell. Intel and UCAN seemed to me to be doing a pretty good job as consumer advocates in this case; Pac Bell's publicity (like Mr. Deward's email) seems to be intended to make them out as the bad guys. Nice try, but IMNSHO the California ISDN Users Group really sold out when they endorsed that plan. PacBell claims that their costs are higher than anticipated because more than the expected percentage of ISDN BRI customers have long loops that need repeaters. I can see this justifying increased installation charges, or maybe even sligthly increased basic monthly charges, but not increased per-minute charges (even for only minutes after the first 200 hours). And there's no way in hell it justifies raising all three kinds of charges as PacBell is trying to do. ISDN U-interface repeaters aren't that expensive, and they last a long time. This is an investment in infrastructure and should be amortized over the anticipated useful life of the repeater. When I got my third POTS line at the last house I lived in, they did a lot of work because they were out of pairs and had to install some new pair gain equipment, but they didn't tell me they were going to have to jack up my per-minute charges because of it. The PUC is smart enough not to allow that, and it looks like maybe they are smart enough not to allow it for ISDN U repeaters either. And of course they cleverly filed their actual financial justification for this proposed increase under seal so that us ratepayers don't get to see it. Why do we let them get away with this? They claim that the financial information would harm them if it got into the hands of competitors, but they don't have any competitors for local loops, and they won't any time soon. (Sure, they might lease loops to some new LECs, but that isn't real competition despite all the ballyhoo it is getting.) And it was only a few years ago that Pacific Bell protested to the FCC that the proposed imposition of a few dollars per month of CALC charges per B channel would *kill* ISDN. How soon they forget (when it is convenient). I'm looking eagerly forward to competition, so that instead of being stuck with the bozo phone company I have now (that takes three weeks and four hours of my time waiting on hold just to make a few simple changes to the provisioning of my ISDN line), I'll at least be able to choose an *inexpensive* bozo phone company. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 06:44:53 -0700 From: I-Contact Media Subject: Re: Genuine Nynex Payphone" Limiting Number of Touch Tone > Maybe someone could explain the rationale behind this one? I can't > figure out any. To make this even more ironic I discovered the problem > when calling a Nynex number ... > About two thirds of the way through the menu sequences I got a synthesized > voice announcement which said something like "no additional digits may > be dialed at this time". > And sure enough, anytime I hit a touch tone key I heard the tone, then > got the same msg. I'm glad somebody else has noticed this -- and this is not an effort to fight drug dealers, it's an effort to render most prepaid cards practically useless. Of course, it also renders a lot of other calls useless as well, such as dialing in for voice mail messages, etc. I've noticed this being slowly implemented all over Manhattan now, and in places where there are no sign of drug dealers or illicit activity. Just another example of the type of service that drove customers to start a "NYNEX sucks" website (http://www.nynexsucks.com). Bob Ponce I-Contact Media Inc. (914) 761-4328 Interactive Phone Cards/ Web Sites/ Promotion, Marketing and Public Relations for Online Ventures ------------------------------ From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: 900 MHz Digital vs. Analog Cordless Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:36:29 -0500 Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. In article , gap@plotit.com wrote: > I've been looking into purchasing a two-line 900 MHz phone, and have > seen a number of comments/complaints of sidetone and echo with certain > models. Is this only a concern with digital phones? If so, what are > the disadvantages of using a 900 MHz analog phone. I have a Tropaz Vtech Platinum 900 Mhz two line cordless and I love it. I can go anywhere on the block and the phone is clear as a bell. It is scrambled all I hear on my scanner is a hiss. One audiofile friend says it distorts a little. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:40:37 -0400 Organization: Mikrotec Internet Services, Inc. (MISNet) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How about in downtown Chicago, where > a mere half-dozen or so *very large* companies gobbled so many > numbers that Ameritech is starting area 773? They would have had > to start it anyway, but my point is that handful of very large > corporations absolutely refused to consider having downtown Chicago > get the new code so the rest of the 2.9 million residents and > business places could stay 312. Instead, the majority of the city > is being forced to change area codes to 773 in order that a few > businesses downtown can keep 312 instead. PAT] That brings up a point -- why should a business customer be allowed to have so many seven-digit numbers? Why can't they instead have callers dial extension numbers after the main seven-digit number, and then have only a few other seven-digit numbers for departments that get a lot of specific calls? ------------------------------- 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 public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* 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 twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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 V16 #427 ******************************