TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 May 94 10:31:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 221

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Toll Free Prank Calls (Douglas Adams)
    Re: 800 Numbers for Radio Shows (Mark W. Schumann)
    Re: 800 Numbers for Radio Shows (Michael G. Godwin)
    Re: Firms Vie for Three-Digit Phone Numbers (Nigel Allen)
    Re: San Carlos Joins Internet (Randy Gellens)
    Re: Internet White Pages (David McIntyre)
    Re: Internet White Pages (Bill Blum)
    Re: FCC Order on Interstate Caller-ID (A. Padgett Peterson)
    Re: FCC Order on Interstate Caller-ID (John R. Levine)
    Re: CallerID With Serial Port - Where? (Eric Jacksch)
    Re: FTP Server Site (Paul Robinson)
    Re: Looking For Information on Faxmail Systems (Jeff Robertson)
    Re: Internet by Satellite (Edwin Wise)
    Re: Help Needed Contacting 1-800 Numbers (Harbir Singh Kohli)
    Re: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number (Carl Oppedahl)
    Re: 'NNX' Area Codes?  I Think 'NXX' is More Appropriate (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: "TV & Movie Mania" Radio Show Hits the Info Superhighway (Doug Adams)
    Re: DID Loophole or I'm Screwed up? (Vance Shipley)
    Re: DunsNet (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: Call Display From New York (Danny Burstein)

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 GEnie.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 708-329-0571
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   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.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, 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.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: adamsd@crash.cts.com (Adams Douglas)
Subject: Re: Toll-Free Prank Calls
Organization: CTS Network Services (CTSNET/crash), San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 19:03:44 GMT


> Southern Bell were at the dude's door the next day with a warrant and
> local police officers for backup. Naturally everything in sight relating
> to telecom or computers was seized -- the usual routine in cases which
> involve phreaking. Over the three billing cycles during which this had
> been going on it cost Falwell several thousand dollars which Southern 
> Bell wrote off for goodwill, charging it to AT&T. AT&T filed criminal
> charges against the phreak and asked for restitution. 

Do I recall correctly that AT&T lost this suit? On the grounds of
something like Falwell's global advertisement of the 800 number
constituted "solicitation for use of service" or some other legal
jargon?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You stand corrected. They did not lose.
The complaint was not that he had been solicited to use the service and
then did so ... the complaint was that contrary to tariff and in violation
of the law he caused the telephone to ring repeatedly in an effort to
harass. Virtually (maybe every) state in the USA has laws on the books
relating to causing another's telephone to ring then not speaking up when
the connection has been established. As a side note, the case was reported
in various media including {The Advocate}, a national newspaper for gay
people. {The Advocate} gleefully reported how Falwell had changed his 800
number after the paper had reported the story earlier in detail, including
giving his 800 number in the article. The paper then promptly gave out his
new number, with one of those 'we do not encourage you to violate the law
by calling Falwell's new number which is 800-xxx-xxxx' type reports.

The usually jovial Falwell (when he has a rally, there will always be a
large crowd of gay people there to protest and counter-demonstrate; he
never fails to walk over, smile and shake hands with all the gay guys, take
some out to lunch afterward on his expense account and thank them for being
there; he once said if all the gay people did not show up everywhere he
went he might consider paying them to show up) responded that if guerilla
warfare was now the tactic he wondered what the results would be if 'a few
million' conservative right-wing Christians were advised 'not to break
the law' by calling the {Advocate's} 800 number for subscription renewals
and 'the mailorder sale of porn magazines and sex toys ...'. Apparently
the owners of the {Advocate} gave that cheerfully stated threat some very
solemn consideration and decided not to publish Falwell's 800 number any
longer.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: catfood@rosebud.strinc.com (Mark W. Schumann)
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers for Radio Shows
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 19:39:42 GMT
Organization: Systems for Today's Retailer, Brecksville, Ohio USA


In article <telecom14.202.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM> 
wrote:

>> [Telecom Digest Editor's Note:... Very few [radio call-in shows] are
>> willing to provide an 800 number for you to camp out on at their
>> expense.

> A nationally syndicated one comes from here in the Washington, DC area.

> The phone number to call into it is 1-800-G-G-Liddy.

> Anyone else know of any beyond Rush Limbaugh, which was posted here
> earlier?  Another local station has its own 800 number for its call-in
> programs.

What Do You Know gives its number as 1-800-WHA-KNOW.  As in "One,
eight hundred, wah-no.  Or whack now."

It's on American Public Radio at 1100 EST Saturdays, at least on WCPN
90.3 FM in Cleveland.

------------------------------

From: mgodwin@mcl.bdm.com (Michael G. Godwin)
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers for Radio Shows
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 01:57:18
Organization: BDM International, Inc.


In article <telecom14.202.3@eecs.nwu.edu> Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM> writes:

>> [Telecom Digest Editor's Note:... Very few [radio call-in shows] are
>> willing to provide an 800 number for you to camp out on at their
>> expense.

> A nationally syndicated one comes from here in the Washington, DC area.

> The phone number to call into it is 1-800-G-G-Liddy.

> The name of the host of the show is left as an exercise to the reader. :)

> Anyone else know of any beyond Rush Limbaugh, which was posted here
> earlier?  Another local station has its own 800 number for its call-in
> programs.

There's also the "Don (Geronimo) and Mike (O'Meara)" show that also
originates from here in the D.C. Area.  They've been a fixture locally
for years and finally went national six to twelve months ago (maybe
even longer, I can't remember).  They're picking up new markets all
the time.  Their number is 1-800-636-1067.

And lets not forget the infamous Greaseman, who now broadcasts
nationally out of L.A.  He has an 800 number but it escapes me at the
moment.  I would imagine that Howard Stern also has one but I'm not
sure.


Mike

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 01:59:50 -0400
From: ae446@freenet.carleton.ca (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: Firms Vie for Three-Digit Phone Numbers
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Canada
Reply-To: ae446@freenet.carleton.ca


In a previous article, monty@roscom.COM (Monty Solomon) says:

> Excerpt from {The Boston Globe}, Friday, May 6, 1994

> Businesses eager for a new outlet in the information age grabbed up
> three-digit telephone numbers awarded in a first-ever lottery by
> Southern Bell yesterday.

> The company, a unit of BellSouth Corp., assigned the numbers, 211,
> 311, 511, 711 and 811 in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Orlando.

Advocates for the hearing-impaired in Canada convinced Bell Canada to
assign 711 to the voice relay service that allows the hearing-impaired
who use TDDs (telecommunications devices for the deaf) to communicate
with hearing people who do noot have a TDD.  I think that other
Canadian telephone companies will also adopt the 711 number. (The 711
number does not work yet in some communities with older switching
equipment. People there will still have to dial an 800 number to reach
the voice relay service.)

I do not know whether any hearing-impaired advocacy groups formally
opposed BellSouth's application to offer the n11 numbers to private
businesses, but it would make sense for the U.S. to adopt 711 as a
uniform national number to reach the local voice relay service.


Nigel Allen   ae446@freenet.carleton.ca

------------------------------

From: RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM
Date: 01 MAY 94 23:12:00 GMT   
Subject: Re: San Carlos Joins Internet


> Anyone who has access to the Internet ...  can reach City Hall by
> addressing their message to scarlos@crl.com.

Why are they in the Commercial domain, and not the Government domain?


Randall Gellens         randy@mv-oc.unisys.com
Net**2 656-6350     (Please forward bounces to
Mail Stop MV 237         rgellens@mcimail.com)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because, as I understand it, '.gov' only
applies to the *federal* government. I don't think it was ever defined
for local or state government use.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: david_mcintire@cts.qms.com (David McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Internet White Pages
Organization: QMS, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 16:15:59 CST


In article <telecom14.202.5@eecs.nwu.edu> jrichert@krefcom.GUN.de (Jan
Richert) writes:

> Could anyone email me the exact title of the Internet White Pages,
> publisher and ISBN number?

ISBN: WASTE-OF-MONEY 
URL: ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-addresses/lists


david_mcintire@ 2 Opinions expressed  2 More fun than I
cts.qms.com     3 are entirely my own 3 should be having
fnordfnordfnordfnordfnordfnordfnordfnordfnordfnordfnord
PGP 2.3a key available. Finger xyzzy@imagen.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 May 94 21:38:30 EDT
From: Bill Blum <BASTILLE@GAES.GRIFFIN.PEACHNET.EDU>
Subject: Re: Internet White Pages


Tried to send e-mail back to original requestor (J Rickert) ... but I
either copied the address down incorrectly (or else  ;-)
Perhaps he means this book:

The Internet Directory
by: Eric Braun
Fawcett Columbine 1994
ISBN 0-449-90898-4

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 May 94 06:24:19 -0400
From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: Re: FCC Order on Interstate Caller-ID


> In other words, per-line blocking is a bad idea because subscribers
> are too dumb to unblock calls when they want to unblock them, although
> they're not to dumb to block calls when they want to block them.

This is not what was said at all: a correct statement would be that a
subscriber might not know how to unblock or, that unblocking was
needed, or even that the line was blocked when an emergency call is
placed and they might not have blocked it.

We have already seen the question appear relating to "How do you know
with per line blocking if it is toggled on or off ?" One answer would
be star-six-seven on and "something else" off but the phone company only
has 100 star numbers now.

In that case it is not hard to imagine a scenario where all that can
be done is to dial 911 (of course 911 uses AMI not caller-id *now* and
for that matter, it would not be that hard to program a switch to
unblock calls to certain numbers.

Personally, I agree with the basic service being per-call blocking. I
doubt that additional features (just like unlisted numbers) will be
available for those who need them. While I understand the poster's
comments, it is too bad he felt the need for additional and unwarrented 
psychological loading.


Padgett

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 May 94 13:04 EDT
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: FCC Order on Interstate Caller ID
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.


> I picked up a copy of the FCC's Caller ID order, which is available by
> FTP as /pub/Orders/Common_Carrier/orcc4001.txt or orcc4001.wp.  (Kudos
> to the FCC for making this info available so easily and quickly, by
> the way.)

A few readers have pointed out that these files are much easier to
find if you know that the FTP site is fcc.gov.  Oops.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com

------------------------------

From: jacksch@insom.eastern.com (Eric Jacksch)
Subject: Re: CallerID With Serial Port - Where?
Organization: a.k.a. insom.ve3xej.ampr.org
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 13:21:39 GMT


> fine investment. Who else sells CID boxes with serial ports?   PAT]

While slightly different, CS ICON Inc. in Manotic, Ontario (613)
692-2480 sells a board for PC's called CSID.  The board not only has
the capability of receiving caller-id information, but also can switch
the call to one of three output ports, take the phone off-hook, dial
dtmf or pulse, does distinctive ring detection, and has a host of
other features.  It will run under ms-dos, windows, or as a TSR.  The
product is excellent for securing dial-in lines as well as use in a
home or small office environment.


Cheers,

Eric

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 03:09:44 EDT
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Reply-To: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Subject: Re: FTP Server Site
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA


Kenn Krasner <kkrasner@ritz.mordor.com>, writes:

> Can anyone point me to some detailed info on setting up an FTP 
> server site?  I'd greatly appreciate it!

You need three things: a computer with an Internet connection; the
priveleges on that computer to run a process that can access the
network directly on the FTP port, as well as various files on the
system which belong to anyone running on the account selected, unless
you plan to run anonymous FTP only and only allow it access to its own
files or files shared with it; and an FTPD server.

FTPD server are readily available from many places.  You will need a C
compiler for most of them to recompile sources for your machine.  Note
that you need an FTPD server, not an FTP client.  There are two parts
to FTP; the client FTP program that dials up a site and asks for
files, and an FTPD server that accepts incoming calls and returns
information in response to requests.


Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM

------------------------------

From: dimbit@DELPHI.COM (Jeff Robertson)
Subject: Re: Looking For Information on Faxmail Systems
Date: 13 May 1994 01:03:03 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation


> I am looking for information on systems that can handle fax calls on a
> store-and-forward basis. I've used systems like FaxFacts from Copia,
> but am not sure about their support on a few key issues:

> CLID support
> DID support

> If anybody has information on software/hardware to do this, I'd
> appreciate the information.
 
Try Ibex FactsLine for Windows it has a DNIS/CLID software module
(requires proper Dialogic hardware and phone lines).  I have installed
a similar system up here in Toronto.


Computer Telephone Integrators (CTI)    Fax-On-Demand
3044 Bloor St. W.                       Call Centre Automation
Toronto, ON, Can., M8X 1C4              Computer Telephone Int.
(416)-399-0584                          IVR & Predictive Dialing

JEFF ROBERTSON                  DIMBIT@DELPHI.COM

------------------------------

From: ewise@cie-2.uoregon.edu (Edwin Wise)
Subject: Re: Internet by Satellite
Date: 13 May 1994 05:31:22 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange


Mr. Soonthon Lupkitaro (fengsth@NONTRI.KU.AC.TH) wrote:

> I do not know its advantage to access Internet via satellite. Can anyone
> give me some idea?

No, really -- a net hookup via outer space has some definite
advantages.  If you are in the outback, running a cable to the nearest
industrial city can pose a real challenge.  If you live in a small
town, a business hookup can also get extremely expensive.

I, too, am interested in the possibilities of satellite hookup to the
net.  Can it be done? (doh -- anything *can* be done) Is it done?  How
expensive is it?  Who do I talk to?


Regards,

Edwin   ewise@cie-2.uoregon.edu

------------------------------

From: harbirk@ifi.uio.no (Harbir Singh Kohli)
Subject: Re: Help Needed Contacting 1-800 Numbers
Date: 13 May 1994 08:42:32 +0200
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway


Why don't you do what I always do? Call directory information foreign
and get the numbers you need. Though I never call the local directory
information, I call AT&T's information number and get the local
number; you need the name and location.  You can use AT&T USA Direct
etc. The numbers will be in the {International Herald Tribune}. Sprint
and MCI also offer this service but they have very poor service in
terms of picking up the phone in my experience.

------------------------------

From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number
Date: 13 May 1994 05:46:27 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


In <telecom14.208.7@eecs.nwu.edu> barry.s.rein@jpl.nasa.gov (Barry S.
Rein) writes:

> We're moving soon and we'll have to get a new phone number.  For
> $10.00 Pacific Bell will let me choose any phone number with the right
> prefix as long as it's not already taken.

> I'm looking for criteria on what makes a telephone number easy to
> remember.  Restaurants are supposedly willing to kill for a memorable
> phone number, so I wonder if there is any research or recommendations
> on how to select one, ie what combinations are remembered; what
> combinations are most often mis-dialed, etc.

> Incidentally, our exchange prefixes are 398, 791, 794, 797, and 798 -- 818
> area code.

Well, I am sure the criteria you mention are important, but ... I
suggest that others are important too.

For example, maybe you prefer an exchange that does *not* support
Caller-ID, so that when you call others they will not block you, yet
will not see your number.

Or maybe you prefer an exchange that *does* offer Caller-ID.

If you prefer the former, be aware, of course, that sooner or later
your exchange will get upgraded to Caller-ID.

Why not ask for an exchange that is ISDN capable?

Last but not least, there are still exchanges that do not let you
choose your long distance carrier (force you to AT&T).  You don't want
one of those, do you?


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW     Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY    voice 212-777-1330  


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I did not think there were any central
offices not yet equipped for equal access. Are there really?   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 06:52:16 -0400
From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: 'NNX' Area Codes?  I Think 'NXX' is More Appropriate


> In some prior articles, the term 'NNX' has been used to refer to the
> new format for area codes debuting in International Dialing Zone 1 on
> January 15, 1995.

> While this is the format that is being added to the current area code
> system is technically correct with respect to the additions, I think
> that this term is wrong and misleading.

I disagree.  People have been referring to the new area *codes* as
"NNX" codes because (as you mention), that's exactly what they are.
Contrary to your first line above, I've yet to see anyone refer to the
new overall area code *format* as "NNX", only as "NXX", which is
correct.

> Based on this, references to the new area codes should say 'NXX' area
> codes, and not 'NNX' area codes, as it might indicate that the old
> area codes with 0 and 1 as the middle digit are being replaced by the
> new area codes, which is not the case.

I think such an assumption is a non-sequitur.  Why would anyone think
that the appearance of new area codes such as 334 and 520 imply that
all the old area codes are going to change?  No one worried about such
things when new N0X/N1X area codes were introduced.  I, for one, am
going to continue to use "NNX" when discussing the new NPAs.


Bob Goudreau  Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive 
+1 919 248 6231  Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

------------------------------

From: adamsd@crash.cts.com (Adams Douglas)
Subject: Re: "TV & Movie Mania" Radio Show Hits the Information Superhighway
Organization: CTS Network Services (CTSNET/crash), San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 13:21:04 GMT


Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com) wrote:

> "TV & MOVIE MANIA" RADIO SHOW HITS THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lauren Weinstein is a long time participant
> in the Internet, and a charter subscriber to TELECOM Digest, dating back
> to 1981 when this journal was first published. From time to time I like
> to reprint his classic message, "The Day the Bell System Died", and 
> before long it will be time for it again. His latest venture, the "Neon"
> thing, has been enormously successful and if you have not called to 
> listen to it, you really should.   PAT]

PAT, I would also think it prudent to mention that this serves as a
fine example of how advertising on the Net can work and commercial
services here can be distributed without rudeness or disruption of
other Net users.  Best of luck to Lauren, I think the first choice for
an interview guest was inspired -- and a sign of a true net.person :).

------------------------------

From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: DID Loophole or I'm Screwed up?
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 01:45:46 GMT


In article <telecom14.199.10@eecs.nwu.edu>, <Alan.Leon.Varney@att.com>
wrote:

> Per FCC Part 68 and TELCo tariffs, anything other than audible ring
> and busy tone (with some exceptions) is "meaningful" -- and the call
> must be supervised (answered).  This includes calls routed to
> TELCo-operated Voice Mail systems, which have been known to forget ...

Exceptions include recorded announcements like:

"You have reached an out of service number at ABC Corporation"

Unfortunately some carriers were able to convince the FCC that this
was enough of a problem that they now require manufacturers of PBXs to
hard code answer supervision for trunk to trunk calls including those
to recorded announcement trunks.  They put the onus on the manufacturers 
to prevent people from being able to take advantage of the telcos.  The 
unfortunate result is that now companies must return supervision when
a call is forwarded to another company location even if it not answered.  
Supervision will be returned no matter what after a few seconds.  In
most cases all recorded announcements will now return supervision.

As I understand it it the basic rules haven't changed as far as when
answer supervision must be returned by an existing PBX.  What has
changed is that to manufacture or import PBXs into the United States
they must be inflexibly configured to return answer supervision when a
call is answered.

If you call a company location in city A and the call is directed
across the companies private TIE line network to their location in
city B, and the call is unanswered, supervision is not required.  If
you have an existing network which has been in service for a number of
years, and your telephone equipment supplier is professional, this is
probably the case.  The call is unanswered, the call is not billable.
Those are the rules which have governed telephone service for decades
upon decades.

A new PBX would be required to return answer supervision within a few
seconds of seizing the outgoing TIE trunk.  The call will pretty well
always be billable now.  The same deal with recordings, once you route
the call to an intercept recording the PBX will return answer
supervision regardless of the content of the message.

This probably seems reasonable or just to many of you but to me it's
another case of watering down the service of all the law abiding users
for the sake of an undetermined amount of cheating of the telcos.  The
onus should have been on them to detect those abuses instead of the
manufacturers and users of equipment bearing the expense and
inconvenience.  Typical though.


Vance Shipley, vances@xenitec.on.ca 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 May 94 05:33:00 PDT
From: rlm@helen.surfcty.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: DunsNet


On 03 May 1994 10:49:04 PST, vikram@merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com (Thrivikrama 
Shenoy) said:

> DunsNet is a corporate packet switching network of Dun & Bradstreet
> Corporation. It is a X.25 packet switching network spanning U.S,
> Europe, Australia. Recently I heard it reached India too.

Is that pronounced "Dunce-Net"?  Hey, just askin'...

------------------------------

From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein)
Subject: Re: Call Display From New York
Date: 13 May 1994 01:37:12 -0400


In <telecom14.213.14@eecs.nwu.edu> Tony Harminc <EL406045@BROWNVM.brown.
edu> writes:

> A colleague left a message on my machine here in Toronto while he was
> waiting for a plane at JFK airport in New York.  To my surprise, the
> Call Display data was not 'out of area' as it usually is for calls
> from the USA, but the rather unlikely number 212 210-0000.  

What's even more unusual here is that JFK airport is in the borough of
Queens in NYC, and thus has areacode 718, not 212 ...


dannyb@panix.com (or dburstein@mcimail.com)

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #221
******************************

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
