From: editor@telecom-digest.org (unknown)
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: [telecom] TELECOM Digest V22 #110
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:43:45 -0500 (EST)


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:44:00 EST    Volume 22 : Issue 110

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

Ameritech Problem Question (Gil Knops)
Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV (Maniac)
Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV (REC Nets)
Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV (Ed Ellers)
Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV (Goldstein)
Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV (Albino)
Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV (R. Weller)
Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV (M. Jervis)
Re: 000-000-0000 Caller ID (Boo Phatty)
Re: 000-000-0000 Caller ID ( joe@obilivan.net )
New Telecom Classifieds (Steve Christie)

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. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS
HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR
HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU
GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT.

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.  



From: miamijunge@yahoo.com (Gil Knops)
Subject: Ameritech Problem Question
Date: 2 Nov 2002 20:00:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


A few years ago, I lived in Chicago at the time I was using
Modem/phone ISP, because I was not settled.  I lived on Irving Park
West and upon getting my phone connection I was made aware of extra
charges that could apply, if one called outside a certain radius of
ones area.  Therefore, I asked and relied on Ameritech to confirm that
the numbers for my ISP would be within that radius, so I would not
incur any extra charges on my phone bill.  My internet is today (with
DSL) and was back then with phone always online 24/7.

I then moved to the Rosemont area and notified the phone company of my
change of address.  I was assigned a new phone number and I also told
them that I needed the corresponding ISP number that would be in my
area.  The way it worked was that I would ask them if out of a set of
phone numbers that I had, which one of those would be within my area.
I recall that the person who I spoke with, was very unfriendly and
very short.  It almost seemed like she had no desire to do anything
for me.  I didn't think any of it until a month later I received my
new phone bill.

As it turn out, the number which I had dialed into, which I asked to
be verified and the nice operator at Ameritech okayed, turned out to
be outside the area and Ameritech slapped me with a 4000 dollar phone
bill.  I disputed this but Ameritech was unhelpful.  They apologized
for the error in part of the agent but told me that in the end effect
the call was made and that I needed to pay the phone bill.  I was
utterly upset because no matter who I spoke with, Ameritech didn't
withdraw from its position.

I still, to this day cannot understand, that if I did the right thing
in calling, changing my ISP dialup number and relying on information
from Ameritech that I could get screwed over like this.  Today this is
reflected on my credit history.  I have a bad debt of almost 5000
dollars.  Is there anything that I can do?  Can I take them to court
for this?  What am I to do with a messed up company like that?



From: xkmfdmx@aol.compactdisk (Maniac)
Date: 03 Nov 2002 10:51:01 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Tell me what police and/or television
> station use the same range of frequencies?  Police, operating in VHF
> are usually around 150-155 megs. On UHF the police are usually around
> 450-470 megs. What TV stations are around there?  None. How could this
> be an FCC problem?  PAT]

Here's how: WCVB TV near Boston is on Channel 5. If you inspect the
frequency allocations carefully, you'll notice that not all of the TV
band is in the UHF part of the spectrum. It's actually divided into 4
bands, 3 of them in the VHF and one in the UHF. Channel 5 is from 76
to 82 Mhz (6Mhz bandwidth per television channel is standard) They
could be using a lower frequency radio system, but note that the
second harmonic of 76Mhz is 152Mhz. I think they're getting
trophospheric ducting of the second harmonic. Which makes it not
really the FCC's fault.



From: REC Networks <rec_nospam@recnet.com>
Subject: Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV 
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 08:39:59 -0700


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Tell me what police and/or television
> station use the same range of frequencies?  Police, operating in VHF
> are usually around 150-155 megs. On UHF the police are usually around
> 450-470 megs. What TV stations are around there?  None. How could this
> be an FCC problem?  PAT]

In major US cities, some television channels (470-512MHz, Ch. 14 to 20) are
used for land mobile.

In Los Angeles, 470-476 (Ch. 14), 482-488 (Ch. 16) and 506-512
(Ch. 20) are used by land mobile.  That's why scanners tune up to 512
MHz.  This is sometimes referred to the UHF-T Band.

It's not an FCC problem, it's a way of handling land mobile spectrum
congestion in the major metros.


REC Networks
www.recnet.com



From: Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com>
Subject: Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV 
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 00:14:42 -0500


PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor, noted:

> Tell me what police and/or television station use the same range of
> frequencies?  Police, operating in VHF are usually around 150-155
> megs. On UHF the police are usually around 450-470 megs. What TV
> stations are around there?  None. How could this be an FCC problem?

What's happening is that, because the VHF and UHF (450-470 MHz) bands
were so crowded, the FCC started allowing public safety radio systems
to use the 470-512 MHz band -- TV channels 14-20 -- in some major
cities in the 1970s.  (This was before the 806-890 MHz band, which
used to be used for TV channels 70-83 albeit rarely, became widely
used for land mobile radio and cellular phone systems.)  The rule is
that only one TV channel can be diverted to this use in each city, and
it has to be a channel that *would* otherwise be suitable for TV
broadcasting in that city -- one which would not significantly
interfere with TV stations in other cities.  (For example, channel 14
is used in Chicago.)  Scanning receivers have had this so-called "T
band" since the late 1970s.

The problem is that this was done before the FCC squeezed digital TV
broadcasting into the same UHF band used for analog TV (and, to a
lesser extent, into the VHF TV bands).  A lot of DTV stations are much
closer to existing analog stations on the same channel than is allowed
between two analog transmitters; this was believed to be acceptable
because DTV stations use relatively low power (and because their RF
waveform is "stealthy" -- it appears as random noise, not a
discernible pattern, when superimposed on an analog TV signal).

However, it's now becoming clear that propagation conditions exist in
some places that cause DTV signals to arrive on top of analog stations
to a far greater extent than had been predicted.  This is the first
incident I've heard of involving land mobile, but after what's been
happening with DTV-to-NTSC interference it's not much of a surprise.

A similar situation occurred when TV stations started going on the air
in great numbers in the late 1940s, and that situation was so bad that
the FCC stopped granting new TV construction permits in 1948 (they
allowed existing permitees to build and operate their stations), until
a new allocation plan could be developed (which took until 1952).



Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:19:28 -0500
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein@wn.net>
Subject: Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV


At 08:47 PM 11/2/2002 -0500, Moderator Pat wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Tell me what police and/or television
> station use the same range of frequencies?  Police, operating in VHF
> are usually around 150-155 megs. On UHF the police are usually around
> 450-470 megs. What TV stations are around there?  None. How could this
> be an FCC problem?  PAT]

Au contraire ... Police do operate on UHF TV frequencies.  When the
UHF public safety band was becoming crowded in the 1970s, the FCC
adopted a plan to permit those services to share the TV spectrum.
Each major market typically has two low-UHF channels (14-20, I think),
that are not used for TV anywhere nearby, set aside for public safety
use.  Thus Channel 20 is available to the police in the Philadelphia
market.

These rules are the same ones, btw, that the FCC has proposed for its
700 MHz auctions.  The way they're phasing out analog TV is to auction
off Channels 60-69 first, 52-59 later.  (The 60-69 auction was
scheduled for over two years ago but repeatedly postponed.)  Auction
winners are allowed to use their frequencies on the same basis (TV
protection criteria) as public service sharing of the low channels.
The idea is that once analog TV is turned off (planned for 2007 to
2010), all TV stations will be in the "core" allocations which end at
Channel 51, so those restrictions are temporary.  Public safety gets
some of the 52-69 space too so maybe they'll phase out sharing.



Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:49:14 -0500
From: Name Withheld
Subject: Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV


Feel free to put this in the Digest -- I do ask my email be stripped.

Anyway ...

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Tell me what police and/or television
> station use the same range of frequencies?  Police, operating in VHF
> are usually around 150-155 megs. On UHF the police are usually around
> 450-470 megs. What TV stations are around there?  None. How could this
> be an FCC problem?  PAT]

Actually, in this case, there *is* a legitimate beef.

The two channels assigned, at least according to the FCC Databases, are at 
channel 5 (76-82 MHz) and channel 20 for digital (506-512 MHz).

Now, according to what I was able to pull up on the FCC's General Menu
Reports ( http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/reports/index.cfm ) Lindenwold
actually has quite a number of frequencies smack dab in the middle of
channel 20:

KUZ646CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLINDENWOLD500.3125
KUZ647CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLINDENWOLD500.3625
WII555CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLINDENWOLD507.2125
WIK280CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLINDENWOLD511.7625
WIK697CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLINDENWOLD510.9125
WQT36CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLINDENWOLD503.3125

Actually, there seem to be quite a number of frequencies in Camden
County that lie right in channels 14-21:

WPMV796ATLANTIC COAST COMMUNICATIONS INCYGWATERFORD TWP471.6625
KUZ646CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLINDENWOLD500.3125
KUZ647CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLINDENWOLD500.3625
WIF361CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWCAMDEN500.5625
WIK575HOMAN COMMUNICATIONS INCYKWATERFORD WORKS500.7625
KXG831PORT AUTHORITY TRANSIT CORPPWCAMDEN500.8125
WPMG470GLOUCESTER, TOWNSHIP OFPWLAUREL SPRINGS501
WIE946CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWPINE HILL501.1375
WPRG746NEW JERSEY, STATE OFPWCAMDEN501.425
WPUG936KEES II, ROBERT EIGVOORHEES501.4625
WIL833GIBBSBORO, BOROUGH OFPWGIBBSBORO501.7875
WIL232HOMAN COMMUNICATIONS INCYGWATERFORD WORKSWORKS501.8875
WIL713HOMAN COMMUNICATIONS INCYGWATERFORD WORKS501.9625
KXC300HOMAN COMMUNICATIONS INCYGWATERFORD WORKS502.0375
WIG412WILLIAM BOWMAN ASSOCIATES INCORPORATEDIGVOORHEES502.2625
KNQ490HOMAN COMMUNICATIONS INCYGWATERFORD WORKS502.4125
KNKE600Metrocall USA, Inc.CDCAMDEN503.0375
WQT36CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLINDENWOLD503.3125
KQ7799CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWMB503.3125
WPPH421NEW JERSEY, STATE OFPWMB503.95
WPIP981FIDELCOMM SERVICE CO INCIGPENNSAUKEN505.0125
WIL505GLOUCESTER, TOWNSHIP OFPWLAUREL SPRINGS506.8875
WIK941GLOUCESTER, TOWNSHIP OFPWLAUREL SPRINGS506.9375
WIK700CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWAUDUBON507.1125
WIK699CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLAUREL SPRINGS507.1625
WII555CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLINDENWOLD507.2125
KTR803MERCHANTVILLE, BOROUGH OFPWMERCHANTVILLE507.4125
WIL465Barrington Boro Police DepartmentPWBARRINGTON507.4625
WIK701CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWBARRINGTON507.5125
WIK857CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWBERLIN507.5625
WIK698CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWCAMDEN507.9375
KNBB284CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWVOORHEES508.7125
WIK314WINSLOW, TOWNSHIP OFPWBRADDOCK508.9125
WIK697CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLINDENWOLD510.9125
WIK280CAMDEN, COUNTY OFPWLINDENWOLD511.7625

(To translate the codes here, PW means public works/safety frequencies
like police/fire/ambulance services, YG is business trunked, YK is
another business trunked designation, CD is cellular-related
frequencies, and IG is conventional business pool.)

As far as I can tell, at least for the police frequencies none of them
seem to be trunked or digital, rather, they're using (relatively
standard) 20K0F3E, read: 20 kilohertz bandwidth FM mono audio (don't
you just love ITU designations?).

http://www.maxpages.com/frequencies/Camden_County also notes on the
relative frequency of 500MHz frequencies (pun intended) due to the
sheer amount of frequencies used (they've had to get one of the
special FCC exemptions that lets police frequencies be used on
non-used TV channels; there is a similar expansion going on now in the
700MHz band in areas that are out of 800MHz frequencies for use in
trunked radio systems, such as the NYC/NJ area).

(And to think that my armchair hobby of scanner listening would come
in handy on a telecoms list... :)


-wtf (nyar!)



From: Robert Weller <rweller@h-e.com>
Subject: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as Boston-Area TV
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 19:31:56 -0800


On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 20:47:18 EST Monty Solomon reported that:

> LINDENWOLD, N.J. -- A digital culprit traveling unlikely distances
> by atmospheric phenomena, confounding law enforcement.  Sounds like
> science fiction, but it's not.

> It's a phenomenon called "tropospheric ducting," and what it is is a
> problem for Camden County's police dispatch network, which handles
> emergency response in all but six county towns.

> In scientific terms, the phenomenon occurs when layers of vast
> temperature variation form in the troposphere _ the atmosphere's
> lowest segment _ creating a "duct," which can trap radio waves and
> carry them hundreds of miles beyond their normal reach.

> Communications officials said the dispatch center uses the same
> digital frequency as a Boston-area television station, WCVB. Camden
> officials blame the Federal Communications Commission for poorly
> planning signal frequency use.  > >

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Tell me what police and/or
> television station use the same range of frequencies?  Police,
> operating in VHF are usually around 150-155 megs. On UHF the
> police are usually around 450-470 megs. What TV stations are
> around there?  None.  How could this be an FCC problem?  PAT]

Actually, the frequencies ARE identical.  According to the FCC's
website: WCVB-DT (Digital Television) operates on channel 20 (506-512
MHz).  Camden County's WNBB284 operates on 508.7125, 508.7375,
511.7125, and 511.7375 MHz.  All of Camdens WNBB284 operations lie
within DTV Channel 20.

It is not unusual for public safety organizations to operated on UHF
television frequencies.  LA County fought for years to get Channel 16
alloted to their sheriff's department instead of television
broadcasting.  Use by non-broadcasters of one or more of the lower UHF
channels is routinely authorized by the FCC so long as certain mileage
separation criteria are met.  In this case, it seems that those
criteria were insufficient to prevent interference.


Bob Weller



From: Marcus Jervis <marcusjervis@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: What's the Frequency, Camden? The Same as a Boston TV Station
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 02:42:06 +0000


> LINDENWOLD, N.J. -- A digital culprit traveling unlikely distances by
> atmospheric phenomena, confounding law enforcement. Sounds like
> science fiction, but it's not.

(snip)

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Tell me what police and/or television
> station use the same range of frequencies?  Police, operating in VHF
> are usually around 150-155 megs. On UHF the police are usually around
> 450-470 megs. What TV stations are around there?  None. How could this
> be an FCC problem?  PAT]

Public safety services have outgrown their allocations in that
spectrum.  And a lot of it is now up around 800 or 900 Mhz in trunked
radio systems.

Land Mobile services have shared UHF TV channels 14-20 for many years.
This is because there were lots of unused UHF TV channels, and one TV
channel can hold many narrow-band FM 2-way radio channels.  Since the
coverage areas are local, it made sense to assign a channel to a TV
station in one area and a public safety agency in another since TV
stations (prior to the new digital service) weren't using all the
available channels in every area.

In this case, some narrow 2-way radio channels within TV channel 20
(506-512 MHz) were assigned to public safety in Camden.  Since it was
270 miles from the nearest TV station on channel 20, it was thought to
be safe.  But now they are dealing with an unusual propagagion mode
(tropospheric ducting, which they probably won't experience in the
winter) and the digital TV signal from one area is interfering with
public safety communications in another.



From: Boo Phatty <boo@phatty.nl>
Subject: Re: 000-000-0000 Caller ID
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 01:15:07 -0500
Organization: Darth Vader Enterprises, LLC


Today, Sat, 2 Nov 2002 10:39:16 -0500, Two Buddha read a post from
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>, and determined his interest in
BURP. Where's my beer? Oh and:

> We are in the midst of a close election for governor in Massachusetts 
> and we have received several automated endorsement calls where the 
> Caller ID/Name was 000-000-0000/Unknown. I assume this was done to 
> get around ACR (anonymous call rejection).

> Has anyone else here seen this?

> Is that legal?  Does it comply with FCC regulations?

I believe that some providers plug in 000's in the CNAM database
instead of blank which generates "Caller ID Unavailable", ACR won't
block either.

Marketing companies deliberatly request this and it *should* be 
illegal. It's not.

I checked into this this morning. It's legal. Perhaps a letter writing
campaign to the FCC or the DTE/MA may help. I think it's a poor
circumvention of ACR. I don't remember, but I believe in MA we PAY for
ACR setup so this is "stealing" in my mind.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, it is stealing. Southwestern Bell
charges for ACR also, then makes absolutely no effort to force callers
to identify themselves or their company (or in many cases political
organizations.) To SWB Telco, apparently 'Name Withheld', 'Notyur Biz'
and 'Ben Dover' (when that last one is not verified as an actual person's
name) are all legitmate ways to bypass caller-ID and the stupid sub-
scribers who feel they are too busy to have to listen to political
spiels or telemarketers.  Yeah, it amounts to stealing what we paid 
for.  PAT]



From: joe@obilivan.net
Subject: Re: 000-000-0000 Caller ID
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 14:21:07 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications


Since the FCC never bothered to rule on PBXes and Caller ID (which they
reserved in their 1995 decision) spoofing of calling party number on the
PBX DOD trunks is likely a non-issue with the FCC, so long as it is not
being done for criminal purposes.

Your solution is easy: ignore a call from such a ridiculous number.

Monty Solomon wrote:

> We are in the midst of a close election for governor in Massachusetts
> and we have received several automated endorsement calls where the
> Caller ID/Name was 000-000-0000/Unknown. I assume this was done to
> get around ACR (anonymous call rejection).

> Has anyone else here seen this?

> Is that legal?  Does it comply with FCC regulations?

> Thanks,

> Monty

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  *Anything* politicians do is
> legal. Didn't you ever notice how the Senate and the House of Reps
> always exempt themselves from laws that others have to obey?
> Many/most/all FCC regs pertaining to telemarketing specifically do not
> apply to political campaigns. I am sure it must be legal. Politicians
> never break the law, do they? (Unless, of course the fellow politico
> they are complaining about belongs to the opposite party. PAT]

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All crooks, every last one of them. Of
course people who like being humored, condescended and pandered to
will be sure to go out and vote this Tuesday. Don't you hate the old
saying, 'if you fail to vote then you have no right to complain', as
if voting had any real connection to the way the bureaucrats in this
country run things.  PAT]



From: steven.christie1@ntlworld.com (Steve Christie)
Subject: New Telecom Classifieds
Date: 3 Nov 2002 09:25:17 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/


This is a new website which I hope will become a useful resource to
the global telecom industry.  I would appreciate it if you would take
the time to visit the website and place free ads.  Thanks for your
precious time. http://www.telecomclassifieds.net 



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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, 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: 620-870-9697
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 775-306-8390
Fax 3: 775-642-0603
Fax 4: 530-309-7234
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 second 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)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.


*   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.
Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription.

One click a day feeds a person a meal.  Go to http://www.thehungersite.com

Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site
will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided.

LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson.
Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

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 twenty 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 V22 #110