From: editor@telecom-digest.org (unknown)
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: [telecom] TELECOM Digest V22 #133
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:10:45 -0500 (EST)


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:10:00 EST    Volume 22 : Issue 133

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ATT GSM Network Questions (John Doe)
    Re: ATT GSM Network Questions (Reed Blake)
    what Do Auth Centers Do? was Re: Debit vs. Credit cards (Danny Burstein)
    Re: Debit vs. Credit Cards, was Re: Retailers' Suit  (Steven J. Sobol)
    Credit and Debit Cards (Paul Gloger)
    Credit Cards Seek New Fees on Web's Demimonde (Monty Solomon)
    Secret U.S. Court OKs Electronic Spying (Monty Solomon)
    Tech Companies Ask For Unfiltered Net (Monty Solomon)
    Court OKs Faxed Warrants (Monty Solomon)
    Nextel Juices up BlackBerry Device (Monty Solomon)
    Linksys Router Vulnerability (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Charter Cable Leak: Reporting it (Dave Phelps)
    Re: Charter Cable Leak: Reporting it (j debert)
    Re: SS7 Over E1 (Albo)
    Re: Problems With Siemens Gigaset 2420 (SELLCOM Tech support)
    Re: Genuity Posts $1.2 Billion Loss in Third Quarter (Dave Phelps)

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: John Doe <halogen8@nospam.hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: ATT GSM Network Questions
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 00:02:07 GMT


I have the $99/unlimited plan and love it.  However I knew that
switching to their GSM network the coverage would be less than their
TDMA.  So yes, its not quite as good as their old network, but how can
you beat the plan?  I'm quite a heavy users too in the Bay area, and
its worked quite well for me so far.

biovert <karl@ilato.org> wrote in message
news:telecom22.132.6@telecom-digest.org:

> I'm sure I'm not the only one out here wondering if anyone is using
> this system. They are marketing the hell out of m-mode and I've gotten
> mixed reviews from users in California and in New York - some saying
> the network works real well when you're on it; others claiming it's
> been spotty. I'm a heavy phone user and am tempted by this $99/month
> unlimited minutes plan. Any opinions?



From: Reed Blake <rblake@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: ATT GSM Network Questions
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:47:59 -0600
Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services


biovert wrote in message ...

> I'm sure I'm not the only one out here wondering if anyone is using
> this system. They are marketing the hell out of m-mode and I've gotten
> mixed reviews from users in California and in New York - some saying
> the network works real well when you're on it; others claiming it's
> been spotty. I'm a heavy phone user and am tempted by this $99/month
> unlimited minutes plan. Any opinions?

I'm sure you'll get some opinions at alt.cellular.attws.


Reed Blake
Beta Technology
Industrial and Scientific Computing



From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: What Do Auth Centers Do? was Re: Debit vs. Credit Cards
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:24:50 UTC
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC


[ earlier discussion about credit cards vs. debit cards, and particularly 
the holdback charged the merchants, snipped ]

This whole topic reminded me of an article I saw a few weeks ago in the NY 
Times of Oct 21, 2002, in the technology section.

to quote:

 Internet Merchants Fight Fraud   By BOB TEDESCHI

   INTERNET merchants, weary of a near constant barrage of credit card
   fraud that costs them more than $1 billion each year, are joining
   forces in hopes of helping one another identify users of stolen credit
   cards, catch criminals and perhaps soothe the fears of millions of
   potential online shoppers.

What I found fascinating was the claim by such major merchants as
Hewlett-Packard that, even after cards are reported stolen, the
authorization centers often still approve purchases. And then
chargeback the merchants a few months later.

  "We reported that to the predominant bank involved and asked them to
   stop it because we kept seeing these cards coming back," said Mr.
   Redenbaugh, who would not identify the bank. Based on its own
   procedures for screening fraud, Hewlett-Packard rejected those cards,
   "but the bank kept approving them for authorizations," he said. "It
   took them over a month and a half to cut off the cards. Those cards
   may have been used on dozens of merchants' sites who didn't figure
   this out."

Rest of story, which was still available for free today (subscription
required) but will probably time out soon, at:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/21/technology/21ECOM.html


Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
       dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Remember, for those of you who wish to
read NT Times articles who do not have an account of your own, you can
always use 'telecomdigest' as the user name and password. For next in
this thread, my own experience with authorization centers goes back to
the late 1960's / early 1970's when I worked for the Amoco/Diner's
Club credit card office in Chicago, in what was called the Sales
Authorization area. When I started working there, the office was
entirely manual. No computers at all. About 75 of us worked in a
single large room together, which did not include the ledger posting 
clerks and the bookkeepers who were around almost constantly. Those of
us who did authorization work wore headsets with very long cords so
that we could walk around the room seeking entries in large spiral
notebooks which were checked by us, posted in by the ledger posting
clerks throughout the day and night hours, and the notebooks were
carried away by the bookkeepers from time to time elsewhere, then 
eventually brought back to us with fresh pages in them. The people 
working in the area all crawled around over and next to each other
looking for the proper book and entries out of several million such
items and a couple hundred large spiral notebooks. Good personal 
hygiene was a must, believe me! The idea was to prevent fraud and to
as nearly as possible hold customers to the credit limits established
for them. When Amoco dealers called in with sales (or Diners merchants
called in sales) we would look for the account number in these books
and if enough credit remained unused, pencil in the amount of the new
sale, add the date and initial our entries. Dealers did not have to 
call in sales under some amount, I think it was ten dollars; above
that they had to get approval for the sale. 

When we were converted to computers (I think it was 1968-69) for about
a year, at least half the time the computers were down and we had to
rely on the old manual books. When eventually the computers were more
or less fool-proofed, then we relied more on them and less on the
books. The company then got rid of about 500 bookkeepers and thousands
of ledger posting clerks. The bookkeepers and clerks worked the entire
office including customer service and accounting, not just our section.  
As long as the merchants/dealers had authorization codes on every
*imprinted* sales ticket they were guarenteed their money. Without a
*plainly visible* imprint of name and account number on the ticket,
the company would still bill the customer, but the collectors used
that 'lack of imprint' or 'illegible imprint'  or 'handwritten ticket'
as excuses for charging the sale back to the merchant. And when it
got time to write off the customer due to lack of payment, those
collectors (or rather, the microfilm clerks who looked up and pulled
the charges for the collectors [who were looking for ammunition to
charge back sales]) would pull every bit of film they could with no
imprint, no authorization code, something -- anything -- amiss on the
charge tickets. Zero out the books on this deadbeat, let the merchant
pay for it if necessary. 

Trouble was, when the computers were down, in order to keep the
traffic moving and keep delays due to 'time waiting on hold' to a 
minimum, the authorization supervisor would arbitarily raise the
floor limit, *without bothering to tell the merchant/dealer*. The word
to the authorizors was 'if amount of charge is less than X dollars,
just go ahead and approve it without waiting for the computer to come
back to life or otherwise checking in the books. We would still give a
'manual approval code' so others (like collectors and customer service
people) could later see that it had been called in. That routine was
almost totally gone by the late seventies as the computer system got
more reliable and crash-proof, but the fraud got more and more sophis-
ticated. There was one Amoco dealer in Chicago (downtown on Congress
Parkway [now an interstate highway] who had such a horrible rate of
fraud on the credit cards his floor limit was set to zero. He had to
call in *every single sale*. The company installed a red, non-dial
direct tie-line in his station; everytime someone used plastic there
the company made him call it in. Not just for big purchases, but for
cans of soda or bags of potato chips. You wanted to use your Amoco or
Diners Card to pay for it, he had to call it in. His fraud was that
bad. 

In those early computer days (1960's - early 1970's) the president of
Diner's Club was a man named Alfred Bloomingdale (same as the New
York Department Store which started Diners Club). Mr. Bloomingdale had
a bad habit of picking up prostitutes; one of them one day snatched his
wallet and his *personal* Diners Club card. Whoever it was literally
lived on that card -- at Diner's expense for about two years. People
in the office were afraid to say 'NO!' on sales made to that
card. They could see from the ledger card how it was plainly marked as
a stolen card. They would start to say no, and decline the sale, but
the merchant (or the person posing as Bloomingdale) would call back
and curse them and scare them: "Do you know who I am?  You will lose
your job when I get done with you."  I was working late one Sunday
night when a dealer called it in. Some high school kid in New York wanted
to get authorization on some car repairs. I asked the kid where the
car was at. He said it was up on the rack. I said to him 'hey kid,
how would you like to earn fifty dollars?' Eagerly the kid says yeah,
'me and my buddies wanna make some money.' I told him, all you have
to do is cut that card in a few pieces and mail all the pieces back 
to Diners at PO Box  whatever in Chicago. He asked who was going to
pay for the work on the car being repaired. I told him I could care
less, but to be sure he kept the car on the rack until he got paid
by the man, that he had a workman's lein on the vehicle until the
repair work was paid, but that Diners was not gonna pay for it. 

Sure enough, within a couple minutes my phone rang again, and it was
'Mister Bloomingdale' cursing at me and asking if I knew who he was
and how I was going to get fired. I told him I didn't give a damn 
either way, that if he was really in fact Al Bloomingdale he would be
glad for what I did. I asked for the kid to come back on the phone
again, and told him whatever you do, don't give him that card back.
'Send it here to me so I can get your reward for you.'  I guess the
kids in the station called the local police when 'Mr. Bloomingdale'
had no money otherwise to pay for their work. And sure enough, about
three days later here was the cut up card. Accounts Payable cut a 
check for fifty dollars to the kid, who was thrilled when he saw it
of course, but Amoco/Diners credit card gave *me* five hundred dollars
and later Al Bloomingdale called me from his office in New York to
say thank you. This is just a memory I had of those days long ago.  PAT] 



From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: Debit vs. Credit Cards, was: Re: Retailers' Suit 
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 00:12:18 -0000
Organization: JustThe.net LLC


'John R. Levine' <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

> The only advantage that the debit card has is that if I'm away from
> home and have time to kill, I can walk into other banks and get an
> over the counter "cash advance" from the debit card, thereby saving
> the $2.50 it would cost to use it at an ATM, but I'd have to do that
> five times a year to save the annual fee, which I don't.  (Yes, this
> works and really doesn't cost anything.  I did it a few times when I
> had a debit card.)

I thought most banks had a surcharge on cash advances made on
Mastercards and Visas at the teller?

> I have three Visa credit cards, all of which have an auto-pay option
> so I never pay any interest.  Unless their credit rating is so bad
> that they can't get a credit card at all, why would anyone use a debit
> card?

In my case, because I'm still trying to pay the one remaining credit
card I have down to where I can use it (it's slightly overlimit now) -
and sometimes I don't want to borrow money. My credit isn't good
enough that I can get a credit card with no grace period right now.
I have a Mastercard aimed at people with bad credit* - and the customer
service is outstanding even though they know their customers can't
typically go elsewhere for credit, and the APR, while high, isn't
outrageously so - but they do *not* have any type of grace period on
purchases, IIRC. I pay interest the day after the purchase is charged
on my card.

*http://www.OrchardBank.com/ - they're a division of Household
Financial, and I know Household has had, ummm, issues, lately... but
the OB people are great. In particular, when cash flow got really
tight last year, they were extremely helpful in getting my payments
back on track. More so, in fact, than most banks from whom I've had
*traditional* credit cards.

'Gary Novosielski' <gpn@suespammers.net> wrote:

> debit card look as much like a credit card as possible (often making
> it impossible to tell) and tries to convince you that punching in a
> PIN is soooooo inconvenient, and that you should tell the merchant
> it is really a credit card.

??

*I* don't typically use my Check Card as a debit card because I get
dinged with ATM charges if I do.

I don't get dinged if I use it as a credit card.


Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH
http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ (check out the new site!) 888.480.4NET (4638)

A practicing member of the Geek Orthodox religion!



Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:38:38 -0800
From: Paul Gloger <pbgtd73@earthlink.net>
Subject: Credit and Debit Cards


In TELECOM Digest V22 #127, PAT wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I know that for myself, I use my Visa
> Debit Card the same way I use a credit card. The only real difference
> is the credit limit. On a credit card, the credit limit is whatever it
> is. On a debit card, the limit is the amount of money you have in your
> bank account at the moment. Both types of cards use the same transport
> mechanism, both types of cards require 'sales authorization' or
> 'credit authorization' for sales in the same way. Neither debit nor
> credit cards require any additional indentification (in theory,
> although some merchants try to require identification inviolation of
> their merchant agreements. ....   PAT]

With respect, PAT, some of what you say here used to be true, but,
I regret, it's largely incorrect now.

Debit-card transactions that the merchant can recognize as such may be
submitted/routed to a *debit*-authorization system that costs the
merchant on average around 0.5% of the sale price.  In contrast,
credit-card transactions must go -- and, for reasons that will
momentarily become all too apparent, debit transactions also may go --
to a distinct, nominally *credit*-authorization system that costs the
merchant typically 2-3% of the sale price.  The debit system requires
a customer PIN along with the transaction, while the "credit" system
requires a signature (for either a credit or debit card/transaction).

Presumably the higher fee for the "credit" system transaction is due
to the much greater risk on collecting from the customer that is
undertaken by the bank/card issuer.  Anyway, therefore the merchant is
highly incented to correctly, efficiently identify debit transactions
as such and submit them to the debit system, while the bank is highly
incented to confuse the merchant and even explicitly to incent the
customer to treat debit cards as credit cards and so snare much higher
merchant fees for the bank.  Visa/MasterCard-issuing banks, issuing
both credit and now debit cards, are in a particularly strong position
to require merchants to play this game at a disadvantage.  This is the
basis for the merchants' lawsuit against the banks that Monty reported
that started this thread.

Regarding merchants' requiring customer identification, it is true
that the agreements between banks/card issuers and merchants specify
authorization procedures to be used; and true that, up until a few
years ago, those agreements/procedures mostly *prohibited* the
merchant from asking for identification from the customer (unless
specifically otherwise directed by the bank for an individual
transaction).  However, in the last couple years almost all of those
agreements/procedures have been changed to remove the prohibition on
the merchant requiring i.d., and now at least implicitly permit and
even encourage the merchant generally to require i.d.

Like I said, very sorry about all of that!


/Paul Gloger


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well my experiences the past year or so
have all been based here in Independence, and because this is a small
town where everyone knows almost everyone else at least by sight if
not by name, I've not had some of those experiences you describe. I
do like the fact that because I used to live in Chicago for many
years, I know how some things *used to be done* there.  PAT]



Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 00:55:54 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Credit Cards Seek New Fees on Web's Demimonde


November 18, 2002
By MATT RICHTEL and JOHN SCHWARTZ

New financial industry rules could threaten the growth of one of the 
most vibrant drivers of the Internet's early success: naughtiness.

In the wake of rules from credit card companies and banks that have 
strangled many online gambling sites, Visa and MasterCard are now 
looping the noose for adult sites that may have spotty credit-card 
records. Many of the online companies say that the new rules, which 
the card companies call antifraud measures, will clean up an industry 
rife with unethical billing practices. But some operators say that, 
in fact, the credit card companies have taken it upon themselves to 
step in as de facto regulators of their industries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/18/technology/18PORN.html



Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:27:20 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Secret U.S. Court OKs Electronic Spying


By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
November 18, 2002, 10:03 PM PT

WASHINGTON--A secretive federal court on Monday granted police broad
authority to monitor Internet use, record keystrokes and employ other
surveillance methods against terror and espionage suspects.

In an unexpected and near-complete victory for law enforcement, the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review overturned a lower 
court's decision and said that Attorney General John Ashcroft's 
request for new powers was reasonable.

The 56-page ruling removes procedural barriers for federal agents 
conducting surveillance under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act (FISA). The law, enacted as part of post-Watergate 
reforms, permits sweeping electronic surveillance, telephone 
eavesdropping and surreptitious searches of residences and offices.


http://news.com.com/2100-1023-966311.html

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/newsroom/02-001.pdf 

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/ch36.html



Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:01:26 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Tech Companies Ask for Unfiltered Net


By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
November 18, 2002, 4:45 PM PT

WASHINGTON--A coalition of technology companies warned on Monday that 
cable companies might try to interpose themselves as gatekeepers 
between customers and Internet content.

In a three-page letter to the Federal Communications Commission, the 
group, which includes Amazon.com, Apple Computer, Microsoft and 
others, called on the agency to preserve Internet users' "unfettered 
ability to reach lawful content and services and to communicate and 
interact with each other."


http://news.com.com/2100-1023-966307.html



Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:02:46 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Court OKs Faxed Warrants


By Lisa M. Bowman
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
November 18, 2002, 3:56 PM PT

A federal appeals panel has ruled that police did not need to be 
present when executing a search warrant at an Internet company and 
instead could fax the request.

In the ruling Monday, a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals 
said police acted legally when they faxed a search warrant to Yahoo 
during an investigation into alleged child-porn activity.

The ruling is believed to be the first case involving the question of 
whether police can fax a search warrant, a practice that increasingly 
has become a common crime-fighting tactic. The case has been closely 
watched by both privacy experts and Internet service providers, which 
are grappling with law enforcement's increasing reliance on 
technology during investigations and the potential for such searches 
to be overly broad.

Defense attorneys had tried to get evidence from Yahoo servers 
suppressed on the grounds that police needed to be physically present 
during the execution of a warrant to oversee the process. However, 
the appeals court sided with prosecutors, who argued that the 
requirement could hinder an investigation.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-966267.html



Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:16:07 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Nextel Juices up BlackBerry Device


By Ben Charny
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
November 18, 2002, 2:45 PM PT

Nextel Communications said Monday that it will start selling a 
BlackBerry pager and a subscription with unlimited wireless Web 
access Dec. 2.

The $500 BlackBerry 6510 is the first pager of its kind that can use 
cellular telephone networks powered by the Integrated Dispatch 
Enhanced Network (IDEN) standard, which Nextel uses in its cell phone 
network. BlackBerry already makes pagers that use the world's most 
popular cell phone standard, Global System for Mobile Communications 
(GSM) as well as a proprietary network run by Cingular Wireless.

The 6510 is the first BlackBerry pager to feature "Direct Connect," 
which turns phones into walkie-talkies that can communicate instantly 
over long distances. The pager will be available in select areas 
starting Dec. 2 and nationally beginning January, according to Greg 
Santoro, a Nextel Communications vice president.

Also on Dec. 2, Nextel will begin selling a subscription with a $50 
monthly fee for unlimited access to Nextel's wireless Web network, he 
said.

http://news.com.com/2100-1033-966245.html



Reply-To: monty solomon <monty@roscom.com>
From: monty solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Linksys Router Vulnerability
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:01:09 -0500


  From: Seth Bromberger

SUMMARY:

Linksys products running affected firmware versions are susceptible to
a bug that allows unauthenticated access to the management interface.
This bug affects both local and remote management (if enabled).

AFFECTED PRODUCTS (per Linksys support):
BEFSR41, BEFSR11, BEFSRU31:
  firmware versions from 1.41 through 1.43
BEFW11S4:
  firmware versions from 1.42.7 through 1.43.


http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/300402



From: Dave Phelps <tippenring@deadspam.com>
Subject: Re: Charter Cable Leak: Reporting it
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 00:14:38 -0600


In article <telecom22.131.20@telecom-digest.org>, jdebert@garlic.com 
says:

> I just got off the phone with Charter re a possible leak on their
> system in Hollister CA. Told them it was heard on air and Public
> Safety bands.  The call-taker did not want to hear about it unless it
> was a "customer with a problem" and almost got away without being told
> the location.

> How long should one wait before follow-up? A week?

> On next follow up, if nothing seems to be done, I may mention filing
> complaints with FCC and CPUC: the signal interferes with local police
> and fire freqs and probably even with LifeFlight and other operations
> at the local hospital, which is right next to the apparent leak.

> This leak appears to have started just within the past 6 weeks, and
> sounds like intermod on some freqs, but tuning makes the signal sound
> better, as does switching from narrow to wide FM.

> j d e b e r t < a t > g a r l i c < d o t > c o m

Why do you think they are the source of the noise? That must be a heck
of a signal to interfere with so many frequencies. How do you know
your scanner isn't broke? Do you actually see the electrons falling
out of the cable?


Dave Phelps
Phone Masters Ltd.
deadspam=tippenring



From: j debert <jdebert@garlic.com>
Subject: Re: Charter Cable Leak: Reporting it
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:46:38 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


j debert wrote:

> I just got off the phone with Charter re a possible leak on their
> system in Hollister CA. Told them it was heard on air and Public
> Safety bands.  The call-taker did not want to hear about it unless it
> was a "customer with a problem" and almost got away without being told
> the location.

I went to get more info and record the leak and it was gone.

Charter is playing dumb ...

Perhaps it was another customer experimenting with "wireless cable"?


j d e b e r t < a t > g a r l i c < d o t > c o m



From: Albo <a.bo@pi.be>
Subject: Re: SS7 Over E1
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 04:06:27 +0100
Organization: Planet Internet


What do you mean by Channel? Voice channel or signalling channel Only
on the data channel the signalling is done, if it is used only for
USSD you can calculate with the speed (in eur 64Kbps) the amounth of
data that can be transported over one channel depending of the length
of the messages (64000/amounth of bits), this is the only limitation.

You can have (depending on the manufactor) up to 31 signalling
channels over one E1 (1 channle is for the syncronisation), but this
is very risky as you put all signalling over one E1 (better is to take
more E1's)

And it is bidirectional for signalling, for voice channels it all
depends of configurations, but mostly it is bidirectional.


Alain

Guillaume Maigre <guillaume.maigre@transatel.com> wrote in message
news:telecom22.123.13@telecom-digest.org:

> I'm looking for information about E1 and SS7 configuration and in
> particulary I would like to know:

> The number of SS7 channel supported on one E1 (up to 32???)

> How many USSD messages one SS7 channel can carrier per second, per
> hour?

> If an SS7 channel is bidirectionnal?



From: SELLCOM Tech support <support@sellcom.com>
Subject: Re: Problems With Siemens Gigaset 2420
Organization: www.sellcom.com
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:34:20 GMT


I have heard from some customers that Siemens is treating some
people very well who have had problems with their phones and have
their documentation in order.

Steve at SELLCOM

http://www.sellcom.com
Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, Vtech 5.8Ghz
EnGenius NEW EP436 4line (the longest range), Panasonic,
Twinhead notebooks, WatchGuard firewall, Okidata, Polycom!
If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself.



From: Dave Phelps <tippenring@deadspam.com>
Subject: Re: Genuity Posts $1.2 Billion Loss in Third Quarter
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 00:03:04 -0600


In article <telecom22.130.5@telecom-digest.org>, monty@roscom.com 
says:

> WOBURN, Mass., Nov 14 (Reuters) - High-speed communications services
> company Genuity Inc. (NASDAQ:GENU), which has said it may be unable to
> remain in business if it cannot reorganize its debt, on Thursday
> posted a $1.2 billion loss in the third quarter due to charges, and
> revenues fell 26 percent.

>     Genuity's quarterly loss totaled $1.2 billion, or $107.80 a share,
> compared with a loss of $300.4 million, or $30.81 a share, a year
> ago. The 2002 quarter included a $986.2 million charge to write-down
> the value of assets, costs related to job cuts, and other items.


>      - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=29698204

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't this our friend and occasional
> corresponent Barry Margolis, who contributes here now and then?
> Barry, if you are in a position to do so, perhaps you could tell us
> how the company got in this predicament.  PAT]

Pat, Barry Margolin (not Margolis). He's very active in
comp.dcom.sys.cisco, where I usually see him.


Dave Phelps
Phone Masters Ltd.
deadspam=tippenring

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for that correction on his
name. I also see him here in comp.dcom.telecom frequently. PAT]



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 #133




--
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. 
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the 
people against the dangers of good intentions.  They promise to be good 
masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Noah Webster