Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA12627; Thu, 9 May 1996 16:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 16:49:19 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605092049.QAA12627@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #228 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 May 96 16:49:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 228 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Information Wanted on "Cordless Miracle" (Mark Steiger) Re: ADSI Standards and Devices (Jacques Cardinal) Re: Bits Don't Go High to Some 800s (Dave Levenson) Re: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees (Steve Bagdon) Re: Mobile Phone Radiation / Cancer Link (Kane Bullen) Re: Mobile Phone Radiation / Cancer Link (Juha Veijalainen) Re: MCI True Lies (Jason Hillyard) Re: PTT Voice Mail Outside the US (Hendrik Rood) Re: ANI Information From D-Channel (Hendrik Rood) Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? (Jeffrey Rhodes) Long Distance From Local Number? (Tim Updegrove) Lang-Lucid Mailing List Operational (R. Jagannathan) Caller ID Blocker (Lindy Williams) Re: Using a Modem on Digital Phone Systems (Peter Capek) 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: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: stud@subzero.winternet.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on "Cordless Miracle" Date: 9 May 96 01:54:19 GMT Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Dub Dublin writes: > I'm looking for some information on the "Cordless Miracle" (goofy name, > huh?), a $300 (4 line) or $400 (8 line) box that lets a cordless phone > (or any other analog single line device, one supposes) pick up or access > for dialing any of the lines going through it. I have a photo of the > box in Damark's new catalog, and it looks like the CO lines feed into > the unit and are passed on to your regular office KSU (or distribution > for a regular analog loop?), and there is a single jack marked "cordless > phone" which is somehow switched between the 4 or 8 lines available. If you're on the phone, and a call comes in on one of the other lines, it makes a call-waiting-tyoe sound. You can switch to the other line by flashing. You can also switch lines using a touch-tone sequence. You hook it up to standard analog lines and hook the other end to the phone. I saw a demo of it when I worked at Damark afew months ago.. Mark Steiger stud@winternet.com http://www.winternet.com/~stud Key Fingerprint = 9F DE FD 90 CB 4C DF 9A C5 4A 41 63 3C 6E 33 83 ------------------------------ From: Jacques Cardinal Subject: Re: ADSI Standards and Devices Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 23:16:15 -0400 Organization: Inter-Acces Communications Gerry Wheeler wrote: > Klaus Zuenkler wrote: >> Can anybody give me a pointer to the definition of the ADSI standard >> and sources for compatible devices? > The Dialogic voice cards can generate the ADSI signalling, so there is > some coverage of the technique in their manuals. Dialogic has a WWW > site, so you might find a lead to a manual there. The Standard for ADSL is ANSI/T1.613 -1995 Jacques Cardinal tel: (514) 448-5056 fax: (514) 647-1946 e-mail: jaccardi@mbr.centra.ca ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Bits Don't Go High to Some 800s Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:29:44 GMT Steve Forrette (stevef@wrq.com) writes: >> What do they care if they gyp US West or GTE out of a quarter? > The paging company's customers might care when they find out that > their pagers can't be called over AT&T long distance. This is because > AT&T blocks the forward talk path until after answer supervision > occurs. Because of this, the paging company won't hear any DTMFs from > the caller until after supervision occurs. But if supervision doesn't > occur until after the DTMF entry is complete, then it would appear > that there's a stalemate. The destination number determines the carrier for 800 numbers. If the paging company is receiving calls over an 800 number and is receiving audio when they are on-hook, then their 800 carrier is probably not AT&T. If their 800 carrier bills them for time off-hook, then this carrier would probably be very interested in this practice, as it amounts to theft of service. It may be, however, that the carrier and the paging company have some other arrangement, where the supervision is not used in determining the price of the service. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [The Man in the Mooney] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 07:23:23 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees edhample@sprynet.com said > In Volume 16 Issue 219, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes: >> But this too shows the sort of problems the downsizing has caused. Why >> else would outside contractors be installing switch gear *without* some >> phone company techs keeping an eye on things? > It is common in many industries to rely on outside contractors for > many specialized jobs. The fact that no in-house supervisors where > present is surprising. My last two positiong were in software contracting -- ok, so it's sort of hard to electricute yourself with a programming syntax error. :) But in both contracts, the only company *employees* in that department were either managers, or non-managers who were the highest grade-level that an employee could be before becoming a manager. Presumably, a contractor couldn't 'manage' a contractor, and a manager was to always be present, available or reachable (pager). But the truth was, the contractors pretty much ran themselves, one contractor would become the default 'team leader', and a sure sign that the contractor was doing well was that the contracting team never saw the manager -- out of sight is out of mind, and if nothing is heard, then you were doing your job. Aren't American business practices wonderful? Steve B. bagdon@rust.net http://www.rust.net/~bagdon Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon (KNS) ------------------------------ From: kane@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Kane Bullen) Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Radiation / Cancer Link Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 15:52:05 GMT Reply-To: kane@tartarus.uaa.edu.au Mr Simon Johnson wrote: > I've been using an analog mobile phone for the past two years with no > problems. I recently purchased a digital - GH337 about three months > ago. Since then I have had the WORST headaches in history and massive > sharp pains just above my ears. I rang up the mobile phone company > (who's name I won't mention) and they said that "tests are being done > at the moment, we know its been mentioned in the media and that they > have no comment and its probably not the phones fault and to go and > see my doctor". If anyone has experienced this or has any information > for me, please reply via E-Mail. Well, I saw on the television a few weeks ago that they have actually done some research over here in Oz, and concluded that they do cause headaches. Apparently some UK company has come up with some shield that goes between the aerial and your head that gets rid of the microwaves. Some other bloke has made an aerial that replaces the existing one, and it's like those sprinklers that only do a 3/4 circle or whatever -- ie, not at your head ;) I remember reading somewhere on the net (sorry, can't remember where), about the Erricsons being particularly bad for head aches and that ... Anyway, hope this helps a bit; maybe you could use a search engine. Kane ------------------------------ From: Juha Veijalainen Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Radiation / Cancer Link Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:02:32 +0000 Reply-To: juha@karhu.pp.fi On Wed, 08 May 1996 16:39:21 +1100 Mr Simon Johnson wrote: > I was wondering if anyone had any information on the emissions from > digital mobile phones? I was aware that certain ones have been banned > from many European countries. Any links on the internet would also be > appreciative. I'm not aware of any banned phones in Europe and IMHO I follow the telecomm market quite closely. Coincidently, {Time Magazine} had a small item on cell phones -- preliminary studies of 250,000 people show no increase in death among the cell phone users. > I've been using an analog mobile phone for the past two years with no > problems. I recently purchased a digital - GH337 about three months > ago. Since then I have had the WORST headaches in history and massive > sharp pains just above my ears. I rang up the mobile phone company > (who's name I won't mention) and they said that "tests are being done > at the moment, we know its been mentioned in the media and that they > have no comment and its probably not the phones fault and to go and > see my doctor". If anyone has experienced this or has any information > for me, please reply via E-Mail. There was also an article in a Finnish newspaper on so called "somatic effect" (or whatever in english). Simply put, when some kind of possible disease or problem get a lot of publicity, some people actually get the symptoms descibed. The article had a lot of examples starting from the 18th century -- "fashionable" ailments that actually gave some people the symptoms for no apparent reason. Latest of these is the cell phone scare. I'm using my GSM phone a lot and have not had any symptoms I could connect to the phone use. The only headaches I get are the ones after too many beers ;-) Juha Veijalainen http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/karhu/ Helsinki, Finland http://www.vn.fi/vn/um/ ** Mielipiteet omiani / Opinions personal, facts suspect ** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only headaches I get from my cell phone are the ones which occur once a month when the bill arrives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: upsetter@mcl.ucsb.edu (Jason Hillyard) Subject: Re: MCI True Lies Date: 9 May 1996 18:12:53 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara In Quinn, Michael writes: > An MCI rep called me Saturday April 27 about 1PM with a deal which > sounded pretty good, and guaranteed rates below Sprint, to which I had I got a similar deal from MCI about four months ago: 50% off for three months, 100 free minutes on an 800 number, etc. MCI delivered on this deal with no problems. However I did get a somewhat sleazy letter from them just yesterday. The letter is supposed to show me the big savings I got by using MCI over AT&T. The letter went like this: MCI billed you AT&T would have charged you you saved $9.91 $23.81 $13.90 That's fine, except that the $9.91 I spent on MCI was at 50% off! The regular rate after my three month special would have been $19.82. Plus, the letter says the AT&T charges include a fee for 800 service, but they don't say how much that fee is. Assuming it is about $3, MCI's rates are about the same as AT&T. How stupid do you think I am, MCI? I've since switched back to AT&T, after they offered me 40% off for six months and a $40 check. I really don't know why the long distance companies are fighting over me; I only spend about $10-20 a month on long distance. Jason ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: PTT Voice Mail Outside the US Date: Wed, 08 May 96 23:31:28 GMT Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses In article , David Yewell wrote: > I'm interested in learning about the availability of PTT supplied > voice mail or voice messageing services in Europe, specifically in > Germany, France and Holland. > Very simply, > > 1. Is PTT provided voicemail available? It is in the trailing phase in Holland since mid 1995; commercial roll-out is announced to proceed this year by region/switch up to the end of this year. > 2. How long has it been available, is it successful? I can not answer that figures from the trials has not been released. > 3. Are there technical barriers to introducing voice mail? Typical integration with the different types of public switches. The main problem is that you still have to connect a voice-mail system directly to the switch. Forwarding of the Message Waiting Indicator from the Mail-boxes via the CSS#7 signalling is still in standardisation. I think operators with only one switch supplier have an advantage, this is not the case in any European country I know except the small ones (Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein etc.) ir. Hendrik Rood Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL tel: +31 20 44 66 555 fax: +31 20 44 66 560 e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: ANI Information From D-Channel Date: Wed, 08 May 96 23:38:32 GMT Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > The only other time I have seen anything similar was one day when I > had to place a call to a point in the Carribbean; some little island > country down there which was on area 809. They discriminated against > international calls. When I dialed the phone number of the person I > wanted, a recording came on saying, "The subscriber you are calling > does not accept international calls. This is a Cable & Wireless > recording." I have no idea why they did not accept international > calls on that number or how C&W was able to differentiate one incoming > call from another. This was about six years ago. PAT] Incoming international calls can be discerned in the terminating switch, because the CSS#7 message has a bit setup for international calls. Most operators are nowadays able to implementing priority schemes in their switches, which favor the routing of incoming international calls through their national network. ir. Hendrik Rood Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL tel: +31 20 44 66 555 fax: +31 20 44 66 560 e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl ------------------------------ From: jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com Subject: Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? Date: Thu, 09 May 96 11:04:03 PDT Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. In article , writes: > On Thu, 2 May 1996 22:54:29 -0500, doc_dave@bga.com (David Brod) > wrote: >> Rich asked: >>> Let's say I have two lines. A and B. Line A doesn't subscribe to >>> caller-id. Line B does. If line-A busy is set up to hunt to line-B, >>> what caller-id info if any is presented to B? Same question for a >>> call-forwarded line. Oh, lets toss in the same question for cell >>> phones (as line A) immediate, busy, and no-answer call-forwarding. >> Pat responded: (snip) Pat responded incorrectly ... indicates correct response ... does more like what Pat's phone must do. >> It has been my experience that line B DOES get the caller info. Any >> call that rings into line B, whether line B is direct dialed, or >> subjected to line A overflow, will result in a caller ID read. Just >> like if line B has call waiting. The feature is active when line B is >> called, regardless of the method. > What wasn't mentioned here is that when a call is passed from Line A > to Line B via this hunt process, the call will hit Line B with caller > information for Line A rather than the actual calling party. This is > true in my telco, at least. The call id information for the calling > party is only shown if the first line answers and is subscribed to > caller id. This was true at GTE-NW until I pointed out that they send the original caller's CID for call forwarding to long distance per FCC regulations. I also pointed out that AT&T Wireless is consistent for both situations and will always send the caller's id, even when diverted by call forwarding. It took a few months but GTE-NW finally decided to be consistent with local call forwarding and long distance call forwarding. Any LEC that displays the call forwarding number in lieu of the calling number just doesn't have it right. They can do what they want since they have 99% market share. But technically, SS7 ISUP allows you to transfer BOTH calling number and redirecting number, so that LECs potentially can display both numbers, e.g. "206-555-1234 call forwarded from PRIVATE". I don't understand the difference between call forwarding on no answer, call forwarding on busy and hunting. These are one in the same, even though they may be tariffed differently. Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No they are not one in the same. If a call 'hunts' to another line when when the called line is busy, it goes to another line in the group of lines for that subscriber. It is a hardware thing with the one line wired to the next. If you have 'call forwarding on busy' that is a software thing; the call is independently forwarded somewhere else; it does not have to be wired up to another line in the same group. For instance if I have ten lines in a hunt group with the first nine busy then a call to the first line will hunt along one by one through the next nine lines until it finally finds a place it can land. It might land anywhere; the first time it finds a idle line it will stop there. With 'call forward on busy' if your line is busy the instructions are to take the incoming call and put it on some other specific number. It might leave your premises entirely for example, and go to telco voicemail. Hunting can't do that; with hunting the call has to stay right there in its little group of lines. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tdu@enter.net (Tim Updegrove) Subject: Long Distance From Local Number? Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 04:58:13 GMT Organization: ENTER.NET I loaded a GNN (Global Network Navigator) internet access disk that I got in the mail which advertised one free month of service. I cancelled the account at the end of one month but when I got the phone bill in the mail, I nearly died. There were four phone calls via Sprint to (717) 341-5611 in Scranton, Pa. (I live near Reading, Pa.) totaling over 225 minutes (first call=42 minutes.; second=2; third=33; fourth=156 minutes) and costing nearly $55.00. I feel like I was "ripped off" because the service was supposedly free and I never dialed that number. I've used GNN nearly every day for that month but only these four calls are on my bill. To access GNN, I've always used a local Reading number (610-655-8859) so how did this long distance number get dialed? I suspect this charge is related to the alternate number which I manually selected a few times. However, I selected a local number (610-375-6945) as the alternate (it was a 14.4 line instead of 28.8). Here is the real question for you telecom gurus, is it possible for a local number to be "patched" to a long distance number (i.e. can a person think he is calling a local exchange but end up paying for a long distance phone call)? If yes, then this practice is extremely misleading. I understand GNN is not responsible because of the "I accept" clause in the license agreement. Should I complain to Sprint that I never dialed this number? Do I have a legal out? (The $55.00 doesn't bother me as much as the principle involved -- I didn't dial that number and the software didn't dial that number). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Phones can certainly be forwarded to wherever the owner wishes to have them go, however the cost of forwarding is the responsibility of the person who does it, not the responsibility of the people dialing in. As an experiment, you might like to dial your 'alternate' number again for just one minute or so, and carefully note the time and date you did it. Then, watch for the next bill and see if this same thing occurs again with the long distance number being listed. I would say it might be worth looking into with the local telco, but don't get into a long conversation with the rep and cause confusion. Just say you did not call those numbers and ask for some explanation. Tell the rep at the times in question you *did* call the other number and are wondering what is going on. Report results here please. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 96 06:43:22 PDT From: R. Jagannathan Subject: Lang-Lucid Mailing List Operational Reply-To: R. Jagannathan Folks, After a spam- and flame-initiated hiatus, the lang-lucid mailing list is operational again. Unlike before, it is maintained by an automated list maintenance system with suitable protection against assorted forms of misuse. Here are three things you need to know on using the list: -To subscribe: send mail to lang-lucid-request, with the message body `subscribe' or `subscribe email@address'. -To unsubscribe: send mail to lang-lucid-request, with the message body `unsubscribe' or `unsubscribe email@address'. -To send a message to the list: send mail to lang-lucid@csl.sri.com. I trust that we can use the list in a spam-free manner, and if you do have concerns, kindly email to lang-lucid-owner@csl.sri.com. Welcome back! Rangaswamy Jagannathan, SRI International, Menlo Park, California +1-415-859-2717 (voice), +1-415-859-2844 (fax) http://www.csl.sri.com/~jagan (url), jagan@csl.sri.com (email) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I hope your trust is not misplaced, however expecting anything much on the net these days to be spam-free is sort of unrealistic. Good luck with getting the list started once again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: willi087@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Lindy Williams) Subject: Caller ID Blocker Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 14:17:28 +0100 Organization: University of Minnesota I recieved a catalog yesterday that has an item described as "how to block "Caller ID" and protect your privacy." It goes on to describe a small device that "makes sure that people with Caller ID units can't get any information about you." Says it works on all local and long-distance lines. Makes no mention of 800 numbers and 911. Anyone got any ideas? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My heroes! So they are going to fix it so that 'people with caller id units cannot get any information about me', eh? These fine, ever-vigilant protectors of our privacy; what would we do without them! :) What a rip off! All they have for you is a little box which sits in parallel on the phone line. That is, you plug it into the wall socket and you plug your phone into it. Whenever you take your phone off hook, the little box wakes up, also goes off hook and does beep-boop-beep on the phone line, in the form of *67, the caller id blocking code. It does it so quickly it usually has been entered before you get the phone to your ear. Then, you dial the number you are calling in the usual way and the receipient sees 'private' on his caller id display box. All it is doing -- repeat, all -- is automatically prepending *67 on the front of your dialing string so that you don't have to do it yourself by hand each time. Anyway, you might forget to do it and then those nasty old big corporations and telemarketers and other social deviants would have your phone number and be able to abuse you and invade your privacy. It is a little hard for me to speak at times when I have my tongue in my cheek. If you can remember to dial *67 at the start of your call on any occassion when you feel paranoi -- err, feel it is necessary, then you are doing everything the little box being sold in the catalog can do. It is a good thing they did not mention 800/888 or 911 or the oper- ator or the telco business office numbers or 411 or 611 or 976/900 or a few other combinations. *67 does not work with those numbers. With 800/888 numbers, the recipient is paying for the call and thus is entitled to know who is placing the call he is paying for. In the case of 911, we believe that the only *legitimate* use of the number should be in dire emergencies, and in that case you would want the police/fire/paramedics to know who you were and where you were located so help could be dispatched quickly. In the case of 900/976 you are expected to pay a premium for those calls and are not allowed to hide from the company billing for them. In the case of 411/611/555-1212/ telco business office numbers/telco operators, do you take *those people* for fools? ... they do not allow you to use their invention as a tool against them. Also, when using *67 and *70 in the same dialing string, make sure *67 goes first. In some versions, unless it is first it won't stick and I guess if you had to find out the hard way you would rather have a call interuppted because *70 did not stick rather than have your number get out to people. In some versions it does not matter which goes first so you should check it out for yourself. Finally, be aware of the latest scam making the rounds on Usenet intended to take advantage of your paranoia: for a mere $4.95 a company will send you the 'secret documentation telco would rather you did not find out about' on how to defeat caller id in all cases (but they don't mention 800/911 either). You send them the $4.95 and you get a sheet of paper back advising you to be sure to prepend *67 to all your dialing strings. There, I saved you $4.95, a postage stamp and days or weeks of suspense waiting for the 'secret telco documents' to arrive in your mailbox. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 09 May 1996 14:49:45 EDT From: capek@watson.ibm.com (Peter Capek) Subject: Re: Using a Modem on Digital Phone Systems Kotterink asks: > Does anyone know if it exists a kind of 'universal' converter to make > it possible to connect an analog modem to a digital office phone > system (something with an analog and digital jack). The PBX office > system is INTECOM ITE 12S digital. Yes, there does. It turns out that the wire between the base and the handset of (nearly?) all telephone systems is analog, even where the switch and the wire between the switch and the phone is digital. So, there exists a box about the size of a cigarette pack which connects as follows: |---------|----------- Handset PBX -------- PHONE -----------| Adapter | BASE |---------|----------- Modem Normally, you'll have to manually dial "9" using the phone's keypad to get an (analog) outside connection, from which point you can let your modem dial as if it were on a phone connected directly to the public network. There is a version of this product sold under the "Options by IBM" brand called something like a "Digital Phone System Enabler". I believe also that Port (in Connecticut somewhere) sells it as well. The adapter is run by a 9 volt battery, and it is essentially an amplifier. A switch on the adapter allows the gain of the amplifier to be set for different phone systems. It comes with a booklet listing quite a few different PBX systems. I don't have any details here right now, but write to me if you need help finding this product. I think it costs a bit over $100 US. As an aside, let me mention that there's frequently an analog line available where you may not think of it: almost all fax machines, even those wired to a PBX, are on analog lines. You can always borrow that... Peter Capek ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #228 ******************************