Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA18040; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 23:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 23:21:59 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199608300321.XAA18040@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #450 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 96 23:21:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 450 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Flip Flap at Motorola (Bob Niland) Re: US Callers Ripped Off in Calls to 809 NPA (Steven Lichter) Re: Mandl's Move to Tiny Start-Up Spotlights Wireless Rush (Patrick) Re: AT&T V-H Coordinates (Charles Cremer) Re: AT&T V-H Coordinates (Vincent Kuo) Re: AT&T V-H Coordinates (Tim Shoppa) Re: Cellular Phones: Analog v. Digital? (Lynne Gregg) Re: DFW Dialing (was End of Permissive Dialing) (Babu Mengelepouti) AT&T LD Billing Local Cellular Calls (Stanley Cline) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rjn@csn.net (Bob Niland) Subject: Re: Flip Flap at Motorola Date: 29 Aug 1996 23:44:20 GMT Organization: Colorado SuperNet Reply-To: rjn@csn.net Tad Cook (tad@ssc.com) wrote: > Now Motorola not only says it developed the product but also is trying > to squash Mr. Haltof's trademark on the name, claiming that when it > comes to cell phones, Motorola owns the word "flip." I trust that both of these parties are aware that GTE was selling "Flip Phones" in the late 1970s, and presumably trademarked the phrase. I still use two, and have the documentation for one of them, which probably is dated, should anyone want me to email them a .PDF of the relevant page. I suppose it's also possible that Moto bought the rights to the name from GTE. Regards, 1001-A East Harmony Road Bob Niland Suite 503 Internet: rjn@csn.net Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA ------------------------------ From: slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: US Callers Ripped Off in Calls to 809 NPA Date: 28 Aug 1996 17:29:30 -0700 Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University Tad Cook writes: > U.S. Consumers Ripped Off in Calls to (809) Area Code Here is another side to the scam, sorry about all Caps, but that is the way it was sent to me. 809 AEA CODE LONG DISTANCE SCAM THE NATIONAL FRAUD INFORMATION CENTER (NFIC) IS WARNING BUSINESSES NOT TO RETURN CLLS TO THE 809 AREA CODE UNLESS THEY KNOW THE CALLER. SCAM ARTISTS ARE TRYING TO GET AROUND THE U. S. REGULATIONS GOVERNING PAY-PER-CALL SERVICE IN THE 900 BLOCK BY OPERATING OVERSEAS. PEOPLE ARE REPORTING THAT THEY ARE GETTING MESSAGES ON THEIR ANSWERING MACHINES TELLING THEM THAT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THEY CALL A NUMBER BEGINNING WITH 809. WHEN THEY DIAL THE NUMBER, THEY HEAR A LONG RECORDED MESSAGE. WHEN THEIR TELEPHONE BILL COMES, THERE IS A HUGE CHARGE RELATING TO THE CALL. ############ SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintosh computers. ------------------------------ From: mexitech@netcom.com (Patrick) Subject: Re: Mandl's Move to Tiny Start-Up Spotlights Wireless Rush Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 02:17:24 GMT Tad Cook (tad@ssc.com) wrote: > Mandl's Move to Tiny Start-Up Spotlights Wireless Rush Via AP Excuse me, is there something I am missing here, Marshall McCluan (sp) and George Gilder (Telecosm and the Next Wave) gave a pretty good account of all this years ago. Does anyone really believe the big boys paid all that money for wireless if they thought pots was the answer? In addition, ATT agreed to the break up so they could go play in this market. ISDN was defined and authorized in 1968, and they suggested the break up so they could go after the really big bucks. I think it was Townsend who told the story, now we see a real life example in the {Wall Street Journal}. If anyone reading this has taken a company public, believes in Telecosm and wants to live in the prettiest place on earth, I am accepting resumes. You will not have time to enjoy the scenery, but you can retire at least ten years earlier than you might have thought! If you don't know Unix, insist on everyone wearing ties to work. Don't bother, I can't control these kids either. The company will be located in the Pacific Northwest in the next thirty days. Patrick mexitech@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When you mentioned 'Townsend' above, were you referring to me? PAT] ------------------------------ From: ccremer@fc.net (Charles Cremer) Subject: Re: AT&T V-H Coordinates Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 02:45:54 GMT sanchema@telefonica.com.ar wrote: > Drew Larsen wrote: >> Ok folks, scratch your heads and see if you can remeber how to >> translate a point on the earth measured in latitude/longitude to the >> commonly used V&H system used in the telecom industry. > Well, I do not really know this "commonly used system", but we use a > formula to calculate the distance between two places identified by > their location in latitude and longitude (for radio links): > D[km.]=ATAN(Sqr.Root(ABS(1-X^2))/X) > Where: > X=SIN(LatB)*SIN(LatA)+COS(LatB)*COS(LatA)*COS(ABS(LonB-LonA) > All angles in radians taking into account the hemisphere (for the > relative value of the angles) and considering that A is in a western > position related to B. > I do not know if this simple formula could be relevant to the topic, > but perhaps it can get closer to it. The original message has scrolled off my host, but upon reading this follow-up, I believe Mr. Larson is searching for "Redfearn's formulae". The Australian government has a web site with considerable geodesy information. A search using Digital's Alta-Vista on topic "redfearn's formulae" will take you there. Charles Cremer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 08:10:51 -0800 From: vincent_kuo@stsl.siemens.com.tw (Vincent Kuo) Subject: Re: AT&T V-H Coordinates sanchema@telefonica.com.ar wrote: > a formula to calculate the distance between two places identified by > their location in latitude and longitude (for radio links): > D[km.]=ATAN(Sqr.Root(ABS(1-X^2))/X) > Where: > X=SIN(LatB)*SIN(LatA)+COS(LatB)*COS(LatA)*COS(ABS(LonB-LonA) I don't think this is a correct formula since D obtained as above is an an angle. My formula for straight-line distance goes like this: D=r*Sqrt[2*(1-Cos[LatA]Cos[LatB]Cos[LonA-LonB]-Sin[LatA]Sin[LatB])] where r is the radius of the earth, and never mind the sign of the angles as long as opposite hemispheres gets the opposite signs. You can use whatever units you like, only to remember, in most computer programs, the angle must be in radians to get the sin's and cos's right. If you want the distance along the great circle, use the formula: d=2r*ArcSin[D/2r] But this time, the angle must be calculated in radians since ArcSin is used. If you don't have ArcSin, use the formula: ArcSin[x]=ArcTan[x/Sqrt[1-x^2]] But what is AT&T V-H coordinates, after all? Vincent Kuo Software Engineer, Siemens Telecommunication Systems Ltd., Taiwan ------------------------------ From: shoppa@alph02.triumf.ca (Tim Shoppa) Subject: Re: AT&T V-H Coordinates Date: 28 Aug 1996 20:29:04 GMT Organization: Tri-University Meson Facility In article , Drew Larsen wrote: > Ok folks, scratch your heads and see if you can remember how to > translate a point on the earth measured in latitude/longitude to the > commonly used V&H system used in the telecom industry. Below is a past post by Stu Jeffery containing a program which does the conversion the other way. If anybody is willing to buy me a nice lunch (my standard fee for two dimensional function inversion), I'll modify it to go both ways :-) Tim Shoppa, TRIUMF theory group | Internet: shoppa@triumf.ca TRIUMF, Canada's National Meson Facility | Voice: 604-222-1047 loc 6446 4004 WESBROOK MALL, UBC CAMPUS | FAX: 604-222-1074 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., CANADA V6T 2A3 Article: 54928 of comp.dcom.telecom Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 00:16:38 -0800 From: stu@shell.portal.com (Stu Jeffery) Subject: Re: V&H Questions Message-ID: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 15, Issue 362, Message 11 of 11 Attached is a C program that will do what you want. I don't know anything more than what is here. I think it was posted in a news group, so use at your own legal risk. I have compiled it and it works fine. Going the other way is a bit more complicated. Probably the simplest way is by successive approximation. Good Luck. ----------------------------------------- /* * ll_to_vh.c -- computes Bellcore/AT&T V & H (vertical and horizontal) * coordinates from latitude and longitude. Used primarily by * local exchange carriers (LEC's) to compute the V & H coordinates * for wire centers. * * To compile: cc -o ll_to_vh ll_to_vh.c -lm * * This is an implementation of the Donald Elliptical Projection, * a Two-Point Equidistant projection developed by Jay K. Donald * of AT&T in 1956 to establish long-distance telephone rates. * (ref: "V-H Coordinate Rediscovered", Eric K. Grimmelmann, Bell * Labs Tech. Memo, 9/80. (References Jay Donald notes of Jan 17, 1957.)) * Ashok Ingle of Bellcore also wrote an internal memo on the subject. * * The projection is specially modified for the ellipsoid and * is confined to the United States and southern Canada. * * Derived from a program obtained from an anonymous author * within Bellcore by way of the National Exchange Carrier * Association. Cleaned up and improved a bit by * Tom Libert (tom@comsol.com, libert@citi.umich.edu). * * CASH REWARD for copies of the reference papers, or for an * efficient (non-iterative) inverse for this program! (i.e. * a program to compute lat & long from V & H). */ #include #include #define D_TO_R(d) (.0174532925199433*(d)) /* Degrees to radians */ /* Polynomial constants */ #define K1 .99435487 #define K2 .00336523 #define K3 -.00065596 #define K4 .00005606 #define K5 -.00000188 /* PI in various forms */ #define M_PI 3.1415926535898 #define M_PI_2 1.57079632679489661923 /* EX^2 + EY^2 + EZ^2 = 1 */ #define EX .40426992 #define EY .68210848 #define EZ .60933887 /* WX^2 + WY^2 + WZ^2 = 1 */ #define WX .65517646 #define WY .37733790 #define WZ .65449210 /* PX^2 + PY^2 + PZ^2 = 1 */ #define PX -.5559778217300487 #define PY -.3457284881610899 #define PZ .7558839026055240 /* COS77 is actually cos(76.597497064) */ #define COS77 .231790398 #define SIN77 .972765753 #define K6 6363.235 #define K7 2250.700 #define K8 12481.103 #define K9 (K8*COS77) #define K10 (K8*SIN77) #define EVER ;; ll_to_vh(lat, lon, iv, ih) double lat, lon; int *iv, *ih; { double lon1, lat1, latsq, x, y, z; double e, w, vt, ht, v, h, cos_lat1; /* Translate east by 52 degrees */ lon1 = lon + D_TO_R(52.); latsq = lat*lat; /* Use Horner's Rule for efficiency (standard trick for computing polynomials) */ lat1 = lat*(K1 + (K2 + (K3 + (K4 + K5*latsq)*latsq)*latsq)*latsq); cos_lat1 = cos(lat1); x = cos_lat1*sin(-lon1); y = cos_lat1*cos(-lon1); z = sin(lat1); e = EX*x + EY*y + EZ*z; w = WX*x + WY*y + WZ*z; e = e > 1.0 ? 1.0 : e; w = w > 1.0 ? 1.0 : w; e = M_PI_2 - atan(e/sqrt(1 - e*e)); w = M_PI_2 - atan(w/sqrt(1 - w*w)); ht = (e*e - w*w + .16)/.8; vt = sqrt(fabs(e*e - ht*ht)); vt = (PX*x + PY*y + PZ*z) < 0 ? -vt : vt; v = K6 + K9*ht - K10*vt; h = K7 + K10*ht + K9*vt; #ifdef DEBUG printf("v = %17.16f, h = %17.16f\n", v, h); #endif /* DEBUG */ *iv = v + .5; *ih = h + .5; } /* * Converts lat/long in ddmmssXdddmmsssY format * to separate latitude and longitude in radians. */ int dms_to_lat_lon(char *dms, double *lat, double *lon) { int deg1, min1, sec1, deg2, min2, sec2; char dir1, dir2; int num; fflush(stdout); num = sscanf(dms, "%02d%02d%02d%c%03d%02d%02d%c", °1, &min1, &sec1, &dir1, °2, &min2, &sec2, &dir2); if (num != 8) { fprintf(stderr, "\"%s\": illegal format\n", dms); return(1); } *lat = M_PI*(60.*(60.*deg1 + min1) + sec1)/(180.*3600.); if (dir1 == 'S') *lat = -(*lat); *lon = M_PI*(60.*(60.*deg2 + min2) + sec2)/(180.*3600.); if (dir2 == 'W') *lon = -(*lon); return(0); } main() { long lat_d, lat_m, lat_s; long lon_d, lon_m, lon_s; double lat, lon; int v, h; char loc[256]; printf("Computes V&H (vertical and horizontal) coordinates\n"); printf("given latitude and longitude.\n\n"); printf("Example (Ann Arbor, MI):\n\nEnter location: 421700N0834445W\n"); printf("v = 5602, h = 2919\n\n"); for (EVER) { printf("Enter location: "); gets(loc); if (feof(stdin)) break; dms_to_lat_lon(loc, &lat, &lon); #ifdef DEBUG printf("lat = %17.16f, lon = %17.16f\n", lat, lon); #endif /* DEBUG */ ll_to_vh(lat, lon, &v, &h); printf("v = %d, h = %d\n", v, h); } } -------------------------------------------------------- Stu Jeffery Internet: stu@shell.portal.com 1072 Seena Ave. voice: 415-966-8199 Los Altos, CA. 94024 fax: 415-966-8456 ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Cellular Phones: Analog v. Digital? Date: Wed, 28 Aug 96 12:10:00 PDT James Crawford Ralston \ qralston+@pitt.edu inquired about new TDMA phones, and expressed particular interest in phones that "gives me all the possible information it can (e.g., information about the particular cell my phone happens to be using)". Currently, TDMA phones support such services as Caller ID and Message Waiting Indicator. AT&T Wireless is set to offer the next generation of digital wireless phones (called Digital PCS or IS-136) nationally (where AT&T Wireless coverage now exists). These phones are indeed capable of displaying "neighborhood" location in addition to delivery of Caller ID and MWI info. Digital PCS or IS-136 phones also support short messaging (i.e., sending numeric or text messages to the phone as you would a pager today). For more information on TDMA and AT&T Wireless PCS (IS_136) you can write me at lynne.gregg@attws.com or check out our new Web Page at http://www.attws.com/mm/. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:14:24 PDT From: Babu Mengelepouti Subject: Re: DFW Dialing (was End of Permissive Dialing in 954) John R. Levine stated: >> So, let me propose a "uniform dialing procedure": >> HNPA local: 7D >> HNPA toll: 1+NPA+7D >> FNPA local: 10D >> FNPA toll: 1+NPA+7D > Yuck. It's really convenient that here in the more enlightened part > of the country, we can dial eleven digits on any call, local, toll, or > whatever. It makes it much easier to set up dialing directories in > computers, use pay phones (I live near an NPA boundary), and otherwise > use telephones to make actual telephone calls. > As I've noted before, there's two mutually incompatible points of view > here: one group appears to live in dread of making an accidental toll > call, the other group just wants their phone calls to complete so they > can talk to the people they're trying to call. (I'll skip the issue > of whether "toll" calls cost more than "local" calls other than to > note that in a lot of places, they often don't.) > When DDD was young, I can see that making a toll call by mistake would > have been a problem, since there was a three-minute minimum and a > domestic call across the country could cost something like $1.50 back > when you could buy a reasonable lunch for that amount. But now, a > one-minute domestic toll call costs me at most 12 cents, for which I > can buy almost 1/4 of a package of M&M's. What's the big deal? You guys from New York, Chicago, and California easily forget that in *most* of the country, there is *still* flat-rate local calling. In the Portland area, our local (EAS) calling region exceeds 3,500 square miles. There are three types of service available: measured (all calls are billed per minute), "community," meaning that calls within your exchange are not billed per minute but calls outside of your exchange but *within* the "Portland EAS region" are billed by the minute, and "EAS," meaning that subscribers to this service can call any other community in the "EAS" region on an untimed/unlimited basis for a flat monthly rate. The two "measured" options are mostly used by BBS sysops and ISPs, as well as people on fixed incomes and those who don't receive incoming calls. They constitute, at best, 5% of subscriber lines in the Portland metro area, and they do offer a lower monthly rate per line than EAS calling. By far the most popular option is the flat-rate EAS calling. It doesn't matter where you are in the EAS region; if you have EAS service you can call ANYWHERE in it. EAS subscribers in the far-flung Coast Range foothill town of Yamhill, over 50 miles from downtown Portland, can call on an unlimited/untimed basis the same places a business in downtown Portland can call. In fact, from Yamhill at the foot of the Coast Range (on the western edge of the EAS area) to Hoodland on the western slopes of the Cascades (the eastern edge of the EAS area) is a LOCAL CALL, and the two communities are over two hours' drive from each other. Admittedly, the monthly rate is expensive. Depending on your community, an EAS line runs from $25 per month to almost $40 per month. But you can make AS MANY CALLS AS YOU WANT. You could be on the phone ALL DAY LONG if you wanted to be and that is ALL YOU WOULD PAY for calls in the ENTIRE REGION. And what's even more interesting, there are EIGHT local exchange carriers that ALL participate in the EAS region (GTE Northwest, GTE Contel, USWest Communications, Canby Telephone Association, PTI Communications, Clear Creek Mutual Telephone Cooperative, Beavercreek Telephone Company, and the Corbett/Estacada Telephone Company). While Portland's calling area is perhaps a bit larger than most, local calls in almost *all* areas of the country are *NOT* billed on a per-minute or per-call basis. Until not long ago, the 503 area code covered all of Oregon. Oregon is a BIG state. Despite the size of the Portland calling area, and the fact that half of the phone lines in the state are within the Portland EAS region, it's still quite possible to make a toll call within the state of Oregon. Even after the 503/541 split, it's still very possible to make a toll call within the 503 area code -- most of the north coast remains in 503, for example. If I'm making a toll-call, I want to know. Let's assume for a moment that Vancouver, WA (currently a toll call) were to become local. Vancouver is in 360, and 360 covers all of western Washington except the greater Seattle/Tacoma/Everett areas. Washington is also a BIG state, and western Washington is a BIG chunk of a BIG state. If a 1 were required to make a LOCAL call to Vancouver, how would I know the difference between Vancouver, WA and a 360 number in Blaine, WA -- quite near another Vancouver (in Canada, 275 miles away!)? That is why I think that 1+npa+7d should be *allowed* for local calls, but *NEVER NEVER NEVER* required. Local calls that cross NPA should be of the format NPA+7d. 1+ should be *required* for toll, *allowed* for both local and toll. That allows the best of both worlds, and the only thing you lose is the "exchange" that you could create from the neighbouring NPA. YOU would be allowed to happily dial 1+ all you like. If you aren't worried about getting billed toll, call Astoria (or Blaine or wherever) with impunity. On the other hand, I *don't* want to make long distance calls, and I will *never* dial 1+ because 1+ would be *required* for toll. Telcoes seem to be pushing to require 1+ for *all* calls, and the public does *not* stand to gain from that. I don't want to get place name for every exchange I'm thinking of calling and then check my directory and make sure that place is local ... which is what some of my friends in other, less enlightened parts of the country are forced to do. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: AT&T LD Billing Local Cellular Calls Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 21:25:18 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: scline@USIT.NET Today I went to pick up my mail and I got an envelope from AT&T. I just thought it was an ad for their (residential) LD service, but the envelope said "invoice enclosed." Wondering why I would get a bill from AT&T (I do not have and have not had them for long distance on any of my lines -- home, business, or cellular, and I do not force PIC to AT&T, use 900 numbers, or accept collect calls) I opened the bill up, and ... The bill was for long distance charges for local CELLULAR calls that, it turns out, were never made. The bill went something like this: ------------------- Wireless # 423-304-xxxx Date Called From Called To Min Amt 6/3 ~11amChattnooga TN Rossville GA 706-866-xxxx 3.0 0.72 6/11~2pm Chattnooga TN Rossville GA 706-866-xxxx 3.0 0.72 ------------------ (The 706-866 number is one of my home phone lines.) I called BellSouth Mobility (my local cellular company) and asked what had happened. They confirmed that I was subscribed to BellSouth Long Distance (really, resale of Sprint) since FEBRUARY and LCI before that, and also that I had made NO calls whatsoever on the phone in question on June 3, and was roaming in Nashville on June 11, but had only placed calls in the late evening (4-6pm) time frame. I don't believe the phone was even ON on June 3; that phone is used by my partially-disabled mother primarily for car emergencies. (My father had the phone in Nashville on June 11, with my permission.) Also, the BellSouth rep noted that long distance charges for roaming call delivery (when the phone was in Nashville) were billed via BSLD and not AT&T. The CSR at BellSouth called AT&T (with me also on the line), and after waiting ~10 minutes on hold, a _very_ condescending AT&T rep essentially said "the calls were made" and to credit a paltry $1.48, AT&T required a statement from the carrier stating a) that I had never been on AT&T on that cellular phone, and b) calls were not made at the times billed. I also stated to the AT&T rep that I have never subscribed to AT&T _at all_, _ever_ (I use LCI, MCI, and BSLD, and Voicenet/Econophone and Premiere Worldlink [Compuserve] calling cards). The BellSouth CSR flagged my BellSouth account as "special handling" (it has been flagged that way anyway, since I have had so many problems with US Cellular, cloning, call delivery failing, etc. and I know virtually everyone at BellSouth's Chattanooga office) and faxed the statement to AT&T. What I wonder is: a) How did local calls get to IXC trunks (of an IXC I do not subscribe to) when a phone was not turned on or was roaming in another city, and the calls certainly weren't made at the times AT&T says they were, and b) why AT&T had the audacity to bill me, and the arrogance to deny responsibility for the misbilling. (How did they even get my billing address, which is a PO Box?) I know other people who were billed (by mistake) for 900 calls, and AT&T was extremely reluctant to make credit. Other people have been cut off on 0+ calls, called the AT&T operator for credit -- then the AT&T operator reconnects the call at a HIGHER (operator-dialed) rate! Yet others have had calling cards terminated without any notice. I have NEVER heard of such things happening with MCI, Sprint, LCI, or any other carrier. Simply put, IMHO ... AT&T is greedy and arrogant. Now I have one more reason to never deal with them. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://pobox.com/~roamer1/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ 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 #450 ******************************