Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA01366; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:53:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:53:20 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199608132253.SAA01366@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #405 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Aug 96 18:53:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 405 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Three Charged in Telephone System Scam (Tad Cook) Cellular Service! Flat Rate! Scam? (Raymond B. Normandeau) When Was Direct Distance Dialing Cut In? (Paul Houle) Phone Privacy: Collecting Damages From Solicitors (Ken Hamel) Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? (Spyros C. Bartsocas) Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? (Linc Madison) Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? (Jim Jordan) Re: USA Technology is Awfully Backward (Mark Tenenbaum) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: Three Charged in Telephone System Scam Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:51:39 PDT Three Floridians Charged in Telephone System Scam By Simon Barker-Benfield, The Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Aug. 13--State officials said yesterday three people have been charged in a nationwide scam headquartered in Jacksonville that sold dealerships for telephone answering systems. Three people associated with Commercials on Hold of America Inc. were arrested over the weekend and charged with racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering, said Florida Agriculture Commissioner Bob Crawford. Arrested were Ray Lynn, 53, and Amber Yvonne Lynn, 46, both of Jacksonville, and Philip Axt, 52, of Neptune Beach. "Other arrests are pending," Crawford said. The company offered answering systems that were supposed to play customized, pre-recorded advertisements for a business while callers were on hold, Crawford said. The dealerships were offered in packages priced from $12,995 to $19,995 and included training, equipment and supplies. The company is accused of defrauding victims of more than $350,000 by falsely claiming to manufacture a unique system, setting up false testimonials, misrepresenting how much money could be made and not providing the systems in accordance with the dealer contracts. Crawford said the scheme operated through 1992 and most of 1993. Commercials on Hold of America does not have a telephone number in the Jacksonville area. The company has no connection with Commercials on Hold in Macon, Ga. (c) 1996, The Florida Times-Union. Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 96 13:29:18 EDT From: Raymond B. Normandeau <73770.121@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Cellular Service! Flat Rate! Scam? Pat: This smells like a scam: [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It certainly does seem strange. You will notice he did not include any 800 number in his message ... ... but that in and of itself does not prove anything. Let's see what the other Digest readers think of this offer ... PAT] Date: 08-06-96 (09:54) Number: 126730 of 126994 (Refer# NONE) To: RAY NORMANDEAU From: azimuth@loop.com, AZIMUTH Subj: Re: Cellular Service! Flat Rate! FREE Phone with Signu Read: 08-06-96 (22:33) Status: RECEIVER ONLY Conf: email (500) Read Type: GENERAL HAS REPLIES Message-ID: <32075B77.68D6@loop.com> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 07:49:27 -0700 From: azimuth Reply-To: azimuth@loop.com To: Ray Normandeau Subject: Re: Cellular Service! Flat Rate! FREE Phone with Signu AZIMUTH ONLINE SERVICES AND WESTERN CELLULAR, INC. ARE HERE, SERVING YOUR CELLULAR NEEDS! WE'RE ONLY A PHONE CALL AWAY! Dear Mr. Normandeau, Thank you for responding to our online ad for a new cellular service and pricing plan that has until now, been unheard of. Flat rate cellular airtime! I know this may sound too good to be true, and truly there must be a gimmick. Well I can tell you this is not one of them. This is quite possibly the best cellular service and pricing available anywhere. We are Azimuth Online Services, and we represent Western Cellular and their phenomenal pricing plan for people just like you who want and need to stay in touch. Western Cellular, Inc. is offering cellular service, cellular service with UNLIMITED AIR TIME in your metro or rural cell area for only $450.00 a year! that is only $37.50 per month, and that price will not change if you use it on weekends, weekdays, weeknights, or holidays. This does, however, apply to local usage. If you use long distance, then your long distance carrier will bill you on their bill, not ours. You no longer need to worry about how much your bill is GOING to be per month, because you are paid up for a whole year, with your subscription of $450.00. Nor do you need to continue to pay high prices for air time. (Of course, you will be billed for long distance, but from the Carrier of your choice.) Some cellular bills will cost that much in just a couple of months, and for using only local service! Whether you are a business traveler, business owner, salesperson, parent, or student, you9ll appreciate the convenience and low, low price of just $450.00 a year for unlimited local calls! We also have several value-added services such as voice-mail, call forwarding, three-way calling, and toll free numbers (888 area code) with some of the lowest rates available for your new cellular phone and service! We service all area codes, and every calling area in the nation! Your new cellular service even comes equipped with a free cellular phone! Choose between two different makes and models! The bottom line is this: 1.) You pay a flat rate for cellular service that is $450.00 for your first year of service. 2.) You get a choice of two different makes and models of cellular phone. 3.) You DO NOT get charged roaming fees, relay fees, or have to pay ANYTHING for receiving a call while out of your calling area. 4.) You do not get charged roaming fees, relay fees, or have to pay ANYTHING extra for making a call while out of your calling area EXCEPT for long distance charges that are billed to you from the long distance carrier of YOUR CHOICE. 5.) Your second, third, fourth, and every year after that will cost you $400 a year for all of the above (except the free phone, because you already have one). Still sound too good to be true? Call us and see for yourself, I can promise you, this is the way to go when it comes to low cost cellular service! We are so confident that you will like our service that we are offering a 30 day money back guarantee with no questions asked, if you are not completely satisfied with your new cellular service from Western Cellular, Inc. There are a couple of ways to reach us: Give us a call TODAY at 818-295-3746 Or Send us an e-mail at: azimuthos@aol.com with your name, city, state and telephone number and we will call you (please also specify the best hours to reach you). I would like you to know that these two options are temporary, due to the fact we are waiting for our toll-free line to be installed. Please be sure to include your city, state and telephone number in your e-mail, so that I can take a survey of what regions need our services the most. I would very much look forward to talking to you about this exciting service plan. Please feel free to call anytime I can be of service in providing you and those you know with superior cellular service that cost less than you ever thought possible. Thank you for your interest in Azimuth Online Services and Western Cellular, Inc. Sincerely, Jess Medina, Jr. President, Azimuth Online Services ------------------ Date: 08-07-96 (00:55) Number: 127077 of 127083 (Refer# NONE) To: RAY NORMANDEAU From: azimuth@loop.com, AZIMUTH Subj: Re: Cellular Service! Flat Rate! FREE Phone with Signu Read: 08-07-96 (02:02) Status: RECEIVER ONLY Conf: email (500) Read Type: GENERAL Message-ID: <32082E9F.2789@loop.com> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 22:50:23 -0700 From: azimuth Reply-To: azimuth@loop.com To: Ray Normandeau Subject: Re: Cellular Service! Flat Rate! FREE Phone with Signu >> Is Western Cellular the carrier, or are they a reseller? >> If a reseller, whose service are they reselling? >> Is your service available right now or is this something in the future. >> Which counties of NYC do you consider local? >> Thanks. Hi Mr. Normandeau, Western Cellular is the carrier, I am the reseller. They are not reselling service, they are providing satellite cellular coverage to all of their subscribers across the country. They do have an affiliation with AT&T and are considered a subagent, but they do not resell directly to consumers. This service is available right now with a standard 10 day waiting period for service to take effect after signup. We service all counties in all states of the country. What is considered a local call depends on where you want your service to stem from. For example, if you want a particular area code with a particular prefix (like your prefix on your home phone, with a different last four digits) then the local calling area would be all the prefixes that are considered local for your home telephone service. The best way to determine that, I always suggest, is to look at your phone book and look at what prefixes in your home service calling area are local and not billed as toll, local toll, or long distance. The prefixes that are local are what would be your local calling area for your cell phone (provided you and your phone are physically in that local region as well). If you are physically out of the region, then you incur a long distance call and are billed from the LD carrier of your choice. No extra charges apply. You will NEVER receive a bill from Western Cellular. I hope that answers all your questions. Thank you for your interest. Jess Medina [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does anyone want to investigate this a bit further and tell us what is known about Jess Medina, his company, and the company he is an agent/reseller for? That phone number he gives is of interest, as is loop.com. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul Houle Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:25:57 GMT Subject: When Was Direct Distance Dialing Cut In? I have a historical question which I hope isn't a FAQ in this group, but which I have not been able to find an answer on the web or the telecom archives. I'm trying to find out exactly when DDD (direct distance dialing) was cut-in in the US. I have the impression that there was a specific date in the late 50s or early 60s but I've had bad luck looking for it. This surprises me because of the fact that such a date may be a good watershed for the development of our civilization -- the first moment when it was possible for an individual to make a connection across a continent without human attention. ------------------------------ From: hamelk@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Ken Hamel) Subject: Phone Privacy: Collecting Damages From Solicitors Date: 13 Aug 96 13:52:10 GMT Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Hello: I have been checking out the Telephone Consumers Protection Act (USC Title 47 Section 227 online at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html) and it sets forth $500 damages for telemarketers that phone you back after requesting not to be called. Can anyone give me a step-by-step to how one would begin collecting the damages? Has anyone reading this group successfully collected damages from telemarketers? I'm expecting AT&T will try yet again: I documented their previous calls and am ready to pounce! Please respond via email. Cheers, Ken Hamel --==*==-- Ken.Hamel@Colorado.EDU --==*==-- Boulder, CO --++*++-- http://rintintin.Colorado.EDU/~hamelk --++*++-- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The person you want to speak with is Robert Bulmash of the Private Citizen organization. He has a directory of people like yourself which he circulates to telemarketers each year, and when the telemarketers break the rules, he helps the members of his organization collect the penalty they are due. Bob is a regular reader here, so I expect he will see this and be in contact with you, however you can call him if you want. He is listed in the phone book for northern Illinois in the 847 area code under 'Private Citizen'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:12:08 GMT From: Spyros C. Bartsocas Subject: Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? > In Europe, the area code can be of variable length as can the number. > Here everything is fixed. Why? > ie - in Germany a firm's fax number has more digits than the voice > number. A rural area code has more digits than an urban one in > Greece. Although, I can not comment on German numbers, numbers in Greece have a fixed length of 8 (i.e. Length of AreaCode+Length of Number is always equal to 8). The following cases exist: The Athens Metropolitan Area is 1+7 Major Cities and Mobile phones are 2+6 Other Areas and Services are 3+5 Athens used to have a 2 digit area code and six digit numbers, but when it was running out of numbers a couple of decades ago, its area code was changed from "21" to "1", and seven digit numbers were introduced. Also for billing purposes Telex numbers, regardless of their location appear in Area code 1 and start with a 0 (e.g. Telex 234567 is 1+0234567). Total length is still 8. Spyros Bartsocas scb@hol.gr ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:43:49 -0400 From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? One of the management fads that the "Dilbert's Bosses" was the phrase "thinking outside the box". They stopped talking about it when they realized, I suspect, that they were the boxes. Most of the discussion of NANP numbers has focused on two details, overlays and the possible alternative of eight-digit numbers, and the difficulty of changing the phone network itself. The real cost of a change is largely outside of the network. The Bell System adopted the 3+3+4 numbering plan back in the days when its high-end CO switch was the crossbar. A crossbar switch had a sort of relay processor (marker) which could "translate" a dialed digit string into an action. But it only worked on fixed-length strings. So prefix codes had to be 3 digits, and line numbers had to be 4. These numbers were arbitrary but locked into hardware. Newer processor-controlled systems are compatible with this assupumtion. Remember that the cost of software is MUCH greater than the cost of computer hardware these days, especially when it changes! So while new switches are "programmable", it's by no means simple or cheap to change fundamental assumptions. I've written automatic route selection tables for many PBXs. In America, most of them are written around three and six digit translation tables. It's hard coded. You dial 1617 and it knows that the 1 means area code follows; 617 is thus the fixed-length area code, and it translates that. If it needs to, it'll then translate on the next three digits. Toll restriction tables are similar. Switches designed for other countries are "flexible". Thus the European software releases for, say, the Meridian SL-1 are different in this regard from the North American ones. The Mitel SX-2000, a "world" switch, was unusual in allowing a flexible translation scheme into the NorAm market, where it matches on arbitrary-length digit strings. That was interesting to look at, as it was the first time I saw how a European switch would be translated. Of course it works fine here too ... but I suspect there's an efficiency boost in fixed-length scans, and PBX CPUs were until recently notoriously weak. But as I said it's not the switches that matter. It's the rest of the world. Europe grew up with mixed-length phone numbers, so every data base that has a phone number in it allows variable-length fields. Here, most data bases and the applications that feed them (insurance, bank, credit, employer, cash register, utility company, newspaper subscription, whatever, you name it!) are based on FIXED-length numbers. If you think the Year 2000 problem is big, just try to switch over to variable-length phone numbers! It'll take decades. Europe didn't have many crossbars; they did more with steppers, which accomodaste variable-length numbers. This affected their expectations, including data bases, point-of-sale software, etc. What started as a switch architecture decision by telco monopolies took on a life elsewhere! What's simple for Europeans, like adding a digit, is thus nigh-on impossible here. Back outside the box: Why do we always assume, as telcos are quick to do, that overlays mean ten-digit dialing? New York's 917 overlay didn't affect seven-digit dialing. Why should others? I agree that ten digits is too many to handle. I also don't like mini-areas. But we also assume that a seven-digit number is always one in the same area code as one is in. How silly! It is quite possible even in today's technology to have seven-digit numbers default to one's *primary* area code, with ten-digit numbers for one's *own* area code if that happens to be less-often dialed. Look in the Manhattan phone book for a 917 number. Not there. They're unlisted! Who lists cellular phones? (Remember, non-US readers, that here, the cellular user usually pays airtime for all calls in both directions.) Let's extend that. We put in overlays. We reserve the remaining numbers in the old code for LISTED numbers and perhaps some residential unlisted ones. (Resi line growth is not the problem!) We put all new BULK numbers (DID blocks, PBX trunks, pagers, fax servers, cellular, SMDS, ATM, etc.) in the overlay. But we allow them to choose a default seven-digit local-destin- ation-NPA that is not their own. So my home unlisted "data" ISDN line might be in the overlay but it can still dial 7 digits and get 617, or 11 digits for itself. And if a business NEEDS a non-overlay unlisted number, then it can have it FOR A PRICE; this safety valve will cover ISPs, etc, who need say ten numbers in a DID or MSN block, as well as hospitals, etc., who provide a sort of "tenant service" to medical practices who locate there. Fax server users don't want to pay extra for a "familiar" NPA; most business DID users won't either. Competitive LECs should get to share the last remaining prefixes in the old non-overlay codes. Bells should recycle the codes they have, migrating most bulk users to the overlays over time. This is consumer-friendly (seven-digit dialing plus the old number doesn't change) and competition-friendly (CLECs get dibs on what's left until number portability moots the issue). And it doens't muck with ingrained assumptions about 3+3+4 which will take DECADES to change! Fred R. Goldstein fgoldstein@bbn.com BBN Corp. Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? Date: 12 Aug 1996 16:16:57 GMT Organization: University of South Florida John Nagle (nagle@netcom.com) wrote: >> Simple answer: The hundreds of "mom & pop" LECs who still have >> antiquated equipment out there _hardwired_ for seven-digit local >> numbers. > The last panel CO shut down years ago. There are very few > step-by-step COs left, and by now most of them have microprocessors in > between the line finder and first selector that capture the dial > digits for processing. Electronic marker upgrades are available for > crossbar COs, and everything later is programmable. Yes, John. You're right. AT&T/Lucent, NorTel and Siemens people: _HOW_ much code is going to need to be re-written _and tested_ in order to expand either half of a NANP style phone number? (My standard fallback:) Deej? Cheers, -- jr 'and what happens after 23:59:59 31 Dec 1999?' Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Junk Mail Will Be Billed For. The Suncoast Freenet *FLASH: Craig Shergold aw'better now; send no cards!* Tampa Bay, Florida *Call 800-215-1333x184 for the whole scoop* +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 02:22:00 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) wrote: > Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) writes: >> All area codes with '9' as the second digit are reserved for the >> future expansion to four-digit area codes. The main question at >> this point seems to be whether we will go from 3+7 to 4+7 or to 4+8. > Are you sure it's even been nailed down that specifically? The info > that Mark Cuccia has provided has noted merely that the N9X series of > area codes are "reserved for future expansion of a longer-than-ten-digit > NANP number". Unless something has changed in the past few months > since Mark submitted the following to the Digest, the four-digit NPA was > only a strong contender, not a done deal: The only way that the N9X area codes could be used for a 3+8 scheme would be if everyone else kept 3+7. That could happen, but I doubt it will. I think that we will preserve the notion that all numbers in the NANP are the same length. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 15:14:10 GMT From: jim jordan Subject: Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? Organization: Nortel Technology, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada In article , Ed Ellers wrote: > James E Bellaire wrote: >> Hiding in tarrifs of the phone companies is the little comment that >> 'phone numbers do not belong to the subscriber and can be reassigned >> and any time.' (Or words to that effect.) >> Although forcing a number change is usually avoided by the telcos, it >> has occurred. In North Carolina a few towns had their exchange >> changed (as well as their NPA) recently. It is possible. > That's exactly what happened when the the present plan was adopted. > Until the 1950s most of North America had local numbers that were four > to six digits; seven-digit local numbers only existed in a few large > cities. Some of these "short" numbers persisted until the early 1970s in northwestern Ontario. The town of Red Lake had some two-digit numbers until Bell Canada assigned each of the communities in the district its own prefix code and allowed direct dialing. (Most of the neighbouring towns, such as the one I grew up in, had four-digit numbers, and we considered Red Lake privileged to have these shorter numbers.) However, when the change-over was made, people (and businesses) in Red Lake were more excited about being able to call people in the next town without having to go through an operator than they were annoyed about having to give up their two-digit number. Ah, the memories of growing up in a small town ... W. Jim Jordan, Nortel Technology, Mailstop 314 Qualicum, PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 Canada (613) 763-1568 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An interesting case here in the USA back in the 1960-70's (and for some time before that) was in the towns of Lafayette and West Lafayette, Indiana. Although the towns had seven digit numbers and could dial any other numbers in town, they were non-dialable from outside their town. While much of the rest of that part of the state was in area code 317, operators were quick to point out that Lafayette/West Lafayette was not 'direct dial'. From here in Chicago, to make a call to those towns we had to dial '211' and tell the long distance operator that we wanted in Lafayette. The operator plugged into a tie-line on the switchboard and anywhere from two or three seconds to ten seconds later a voice on the other end would answer saying 'Lafayette' and the operator on this end would say the number desired. An exception to the seven-digit number rule in town was Purdue University, whose 'telephone number' could be given one of two ways: If the five digit extension number at Purdue was not known, locals in town dialed '90'. There would be no audible ringing sound, but after a few seconds a voice answered saying 'Purdue' and you went on from there. Purdue had their own 'information' and the operator would transfer you to that if what you wanted was not readily known. 'Information' would look up the number, flash the operator back and tell the one who always answered 'Purdue' what number to connect you with. If you did know the five-digit extension desired at the university, then you could dial '92' followed by the five digits. But callers from out of town nonetheless could not dial anything. It always had to go through your long distance operator to the Lafayette operator. Layfayette 'information' (and the printed phone book) also had quite a bit of Purdue's number information listed, but Purdue's own 'information' was presumably more up to date. If you asked your long distance operator for 'Lafayette, Indiana, 92-xxxxx' she would pass it that way to the Lafayette operator and the call would go through to the desired extension. Everything else in that part of Indiana was completely dialable as 317-whatever for several years before finally one day Lafayette/West Lafayette was converted, with the Purdue operator also getting a new number in the process. I was in the town occassionally during that period of time, and I recall it was GTE service. I needed to make a call to Chicago and the instructions said to dial '112' or '114' -- something like that -- and tell the operator what you wanted. I quite logically, I thought, told the operator I wanted (in these words) 'area code 312, (rest forgotten).' The operator sort of snapped at me and said 'we do not use area codes here'. The process was reversed with her plugging into a jack on the board and after a few seconds the distant end answered 'Chicago' and the Lafayette operator told her what number in Chicago/suburbs was wanted. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 09:44:22 -0500 From: Mark Tenenbaum Subject: Re: USA Technology is Awfully Backward In article Anthony writes: > And I wonder when would the US Congress approve some extra money > so USA can adapt the international metric system and catch up with the > rest of the world? Why Americans still use the length of the feet of a > British King who died thousands of years ago to measure the length of > every thing? Makes *me* wonder: Upon ultimate conversion to the metric system, would that mean that the # button will need to be referred to as the "Gram" button rather than the "pound" button? And wondering even further: Who says the rest of the world is necessarily right? Mark D. Tenenbaum Plano, TX (214, Soon to be 972) ------------------------------ 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 #405 ******************************