Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA24202; Thu, 8 May 1997 09:02:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 09:02:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705081302.JAA24202@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #114 TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 May 97 09:02:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 114 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (Stewart Fist) What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (Jack Decker) Re: Utah Delays 801 Relief Three Months (Linc Madison) Digital Telecommunications Conference at UC Berkeley (dobson@berkeley.edu) Telephone Testimony in the McVeigh Okla Bombing Case (William Franklin) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 22:01:26 +1000 From: fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study I received a large number of direct contacts from this article, and there were a couple of postings on TD. I'll try to deal with them all in one hit: Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) writes: > This makes me a bit suspicious about the claims by S. Fist. As far as > I am familiar with "Science" and "Nature," poor science is more likely > reason for rejection then controversial nature of findings. Were those > results published in any peer-reviewed journals? The most outstanding thing about the Adelaide Hospital study is that it is extraordinarily difficult to make any of this kind of "poor science" mud stick. The results were published last week in 'Radiation Research'. The study was funded by Telstra, which, as a GSM carrier, has a lot to lose from the tumour-promotion findings. The original team was led by Dr Michael Repacholi, who is well known as promoter of the industry's "Cell phones are safe" claim (now at WHO). And the research was conducted by three top Australian scientists, using a supervised protocol established by a supervisory committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The main scientists insisted on this because of Telstra's involvement. I can't think of any research in the last decade which is so obviously unassailable in terms of the research protocols, the conduct, the mice numbers, or the findings. A doubling of tumours in 100 exposed mice, is not an insignificant finding. In fact, statistically, it is above the 1% level of confidence, and is therefore highly significant. Anyone interested in pursuing this matter further will find considerable material on this and other research at my site , together with a bibliography. I wish I hadn't mentioned the tortoise-like reaction of the journals because that is a minor side issue and it has detracted from the real point -- the now-well-established link between TDMA cell-phone radiations and tumour promotion. This is not an isolated case as anyone who has been following this debate would know. There are numerous studies over the years linking radio frequencies with DNA changes, tumour promotion, and sundry other adverse health effects. But publication on such a controversial subject has its problems (except in tabloids), and there's woeful ignorance in the wireless industry as to how much work is being done, and how strong are the findings. I'll bet few Digest readers know about Drs Lai and Singh, who found single- and double-strand DNA breaks after two hours of microwave exposure (in 1994, 95 and 96). Why not? It was a dramatic discovery, of vital importance to the radio industry. Then what about Drs Chou and Guy who exposed rats for two years at cell phone levels and found 3.5 times the number developed tumours; Dr Sarkar who found significant DNA (mutagenic) changes with low levels of exposure; or Dr Cleary who has been reporting tumour promotion for as long as I can remember. Where is the wireless-technology discussion on these matters? Then such dramatic discoveries as those which show dangers for glaucoma sufferers from corneal ulcers because of an interaction between the radiation and the drugs (Kues from 1985 and Monahan 1988), and a life-time of work (over 800 papers) by Dr Ross Adey, most of which deals with possible biological mechanisms. My original training was as an eye specialist, so I take the corneal, retinal and long-term cataract promotion findings seriously -- although I believe the incidence is probably low. But remember, even 1% of 100 million users, is reasonably significant. There's a lot of confusion and some conflict (scientific and political) in all of this research, some of it deliberately generated by the industry and some by the activists, especially those opposing towers. But that's par for the course in any medical controversy with political, economic and social implications. After all, when did you decide that the case against cigarettes had been proved. Do you believe the passive smoking evidence yet? What about sick-building syndromes? (The tobacco companies invented this last one themselves.) Some radio-health research has been conducted at the wrong frequencies, some at too high power levels, a lot is epidemiological which is less controllable than laboratory work -- but lab work is rarely on human subjects. Depite all that, the vast majority of findings point in one direction. There are probably serious long-term problems (probably low possibility, high potential in nature) Haven't you read about this? No? You should ask yourself: Why not? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Stewart Fist noted originally that > 'very little coverage of the topic appears in TELECOM Digest' and > the reason for that is I tend to toss out the articles on 'cancer > caused by cell phones' without publishing them ... usually that is. > The topic has come up here in the past, and each time around the > consensus of several writers who really should know what they are > talking about has been that this 'cancer' is hogwash. It is indeed > a controversial topic and there are a number of people who beleive > it to be true. I don't think I beleive it. PAT] Pat, you sound like an 80 year old cigarette smoker, who knows from his own experience that cigarettes don't give you lung cancer. Most of your experts are probably experts in radio electronics, not oncology. Because you toss them out, most TELECOM Digest readers won't have any idea of the range of research showning similar findings to the Adelaide Hospital work. I'm a great admirer, Pat, but this comment about your reluctance to give space to this problem is a direct parallel to the publishing problems that most scientists face when they work in this area. Who wants to be the editor to announce "Cell phones give you xxxx?" Some journal editors have already made up their minds that all such research is a fake and the scientists are charlatans, and others don't want to be accused of sensationalism even if it is good science. Pat in his role as moderator, has not chosen to try to distinguish between legitimate scientific research findings, and scuttlebutt from idiotic activists - because, as he says, he doesn't believe radio waves can be a problem. He doesn't have the background in such a specialised area to make such an important decision. That is precisely the problem that many of the top bioelectromagnetic scientists say they find when trying to publish in the top scientific journals. So, Pat unwittingly provided me with the perfect example as to why scientific journals are reluctant to publish these findings; their editors are human -- and this is a subject where people have strong opinions and biases. In fact, the reason why TELECOM Digest received this article direct from my keyboard is that the Chief of Staff at "The Australian" newspaper (I write the weekly telecommunications column) also applied her own form of censorship and refused to run it last week because it was 'old news' (a day old). She also doubles as the Medical Writer. It is wise to be cynical about such claims and reports -- but let's not just dismiss all of them in a knee-jerk way without a) reading the reports, and b) knowing a bit about the subject. > Scott Nelson (scott_d_nelson@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com) wrote: > As I understand it, medical > scientists and physicists both agree on how high frequency radiation > such as X- and Gamma-rays can have genetic affects, but I have seen no > hypothesis on how low-frequency RF might affect biology. I am told > that the general theoretical concensus is that low frequency RF only > serves to manipulate cells *physically*. That is to say that they can > cause physical movement or excitation of matter which -- as far as we > know -- only results in the generation of heat. The lack of a plausible mechanism has been the stumbling block in this reseach for years. Now the problem is solved -- in one way! There are about fifty, so take your pick. There are dozens dealing with DNA and the messager systems that keep cell growth in check, and others to do with the inter-cell 'gutters' which carry messages between cells and also act as electrical channels. Then there are dozens to do with free radicals (which last only nanoseconds) and such structural and functional things as stochastic resonance (eyes use this at night), layered resonance (the brain is not electrically uniform), magnetic perception (the pineal may play a role - melatonin). Most likely thre are dozens or mechanisms, some working at R/F frequencies, and some at GSM 217Hz ELF power-pulse frequency. I don't pretend to understand more than a few of these, but if you really want to know, there's a book out with a good section on the current state of thinking. One section is by Dr Ross Adey, who knows more about this than is decent. The book is 'Mobile Communications Safety" by Kuster, Balzano and Lin. Chapman & Hall 1997 ISBN 0 412 75000 7. There is also a freebie (to Australians anyway) with some excellent overview and basic mechanism (and readable) stuff. It is the 1994 Australian overview study by Dr Stan Barnett of the CSIRO, "Biological effects and safety of EMR". Fax the Spectrum Management Agency at +61 6 256 5353 and ask. They can only refuse. > If there is any sound hypothisis to the contrary regarding low-frequency > RF causing genetic mutation, I would like to hear of it. You can't prove a no-effects hypothesis. The research either finds something or it doesn't. A lot of them don't. However there are three thousand different variables, and it is almost impossible to replicate studies exactly. The most obvious study of the kind you are refering to is the Grundler series of studies done ten to twenty years ago, which showed that the certain strain of yeast he used in cell cultures, was highly sensitive to radio frequencies (way below any thermal effects level. After exposure it grew in dramatically different ways to the controls. This was an important finding at the time. However two groups have recently tried to duplicated this study, but without success. There's no question about Grundler's honesty -- he was one of the world's top scientists. But yeast strains are very different, and who can say now what strain of yeast he used -- and in those early days they didn't record temperatures, or pay as much attention as they do today to control condition matching, blind detection, etc. So these null finding throw up more questions than before. Maybe the original finding was wrong, maybe the new findings reveal evidence of some new mechanism that is worth investigating. > And, knowing how newsgroups can spawn more missinformation from rumor > rather than fact, I would like to see solid references on any sources > quoted. My electric-words.com site lists a few hundred references with some brief notes, and I'm adding some more detailed abstract information in the articles area. There are probably 10,000 relevant papers in this area, of which God-knows-how-many are good science. At least half are obviously bad science, and a lot are junk science. But you can clearly idenfity a few hundred that are very good science, and the problem is that most of these point to problems. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The sleight of hand comes while you are reading their lips! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stewart Fist, Technical writer and journalist. Current Australian columns: Archives of my columns are available at the Australian and also at the ABC site:< http://www.abc.net.au/http/pipe.htm > Development site: Phone:+612 9416 7458 Fax: +612 9416 4582 Old Homepage:< http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/stewart_fist > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 02:20:30 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? I'm not certain of all the details, but it appears that the latest FCC regulations will cause additional residential phone lines to be charged at a higher rate than the primary phone line. I'm not sure what the rationale was behind this, but my first reaction was that this is going to cause a lot of headaches for phone companies and customers alike. Aside from the obvious question of why buying multiples of a service should cost more in the case of telephone service, when in just about any other service industry the cost would be the same or less, there is a very real problem in defining exactly what is an "additional" residential phone line. You would think that would be easy, and in some cases it might be. For example, you have one person living in a single family residence, and there are two phone lines. So, one is therefore an "additional" line, right? Perhaps, but suppose that person rents a room in his home to another, unrelated person, and that person wants their own phone line. Is that a single residence, or two? Which person gets stuck with the higher phone bill? Let's take another example. Someone owns a small apartment building, and rents out rooms. Now, when I say "apartment building", you probably think "that's not a home" - but it could be, if the home is large enough and the owner is allowed to rent out rooms. An apartment building is a residence; it just happens to be a residence where many people live. In theory, only one resident of that building would be entitled to the lowest cost phone service, and everyone else in the building would pay the higher rate. Which lucky resident gets the cheap service? Let's say it's a big old house in a college town, renting out rooms to college students, who each want their own phone line. Do the students pay the higher rate because only the owner of the home gets the discounted line? If not, then let's say that a college kid moves out and an adult relative of the homeowner moves into one of the rooms - let's say it's an adult son or daughter, or maybe a parent or grandparent. If the college kids didn't have to pay the higher rate, does the adult relative have to simply because it's a relative? I hope you see where I'm going with this. As I see it, one of two things are inevitable - in fact, both are probably inevitable. In some cases, people who have a justifiable reason for wanting their own phone service will get stuck with paying a higher rate simply because they're in some sort of multiple-occupant building. OR, people will avoid the extra charge by putting the additional line(s) in the name of someone else ... perhaps another adult living in the home (even if only part time). Here's another one for you: What happens if there is a single phone line in the home of a married couple, and it happens to be in the husband's name only. Now the wife has a need for her own phone line, so she applies for one in her name, and is told she will have to pay the higher charge. She might justifiably wonder why she has to pay more for her line than her husband does. Now you may say, well, they're married, they will just have to figure that one out for themselves. Okay, then what if it's an unmarried couple living together? I wonder if NOW and the other feminist organizations are going to realize that in many cases it will be the woman who gets stuck with the higher bill, and whether that will cause them any concern? My point is this: Whatever you may think of the rest of the FCC's actions, the idea of mandating different rates for exactly the same service, simply because someone has more than one line coming into the home, seems like an idea that would make sense only to a government bureaucrat. If "representative government" still has any real meaning, every person who has a second phone line in their home, or who thinks they might someday need a second phone line, ought to take the time to write a note to their federal legislators, expressing the view that equivalent service should be charged at equivalent rates. And I would hope that some of the "social action" organizations would take a moment to stop and consider how this might adversely affect their constituents, and consider whether they want to weigh in on this. This is, after all, a form of discrimination... you get service at one price if it's the only line into a building, but you may pay a higher price just because you choose to, or are forced to by economic considerations, live in the same building as someone else who already has phone service. My final thought is that I don't even think this will have the desired effect of recovering revenue lost from the lowering of "access charges" on toll calls. The reason is that as the cost of additional lines increases, many people may disconnect existing second lines, or put off ordering additional lines, or figure out ways to make exiting lines do double-duty (for example, making one line serve both a computer and FAX machine). I have a gut feeling that the number of disconnections, and the lost business from additional lines that would otherwise have been ordered, will more than offset any gains made by increased access charges on additional residential phone lines. Jack ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Utah Delays 801 Relief Three Months Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 00:13:50 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net wrote: > Another state has put NPA relief on hold, this time over concerns by > the NANC with regards to inequities in relief duration as a direct > result of the 801/435 split. > As originally proposed, the split would separate the Wasatch front (801) > from the rest of the state (435). 801 would last until 2004, while 435 > would last until 2024. NANC guidelines set forth in February 1997 state > that a difference of no greater than fifteen years exist in a > split-relief situation. > In a filing April 16th, Utah regulators decided to DELAY relief of 801 > for three months, while they sought a variance from the NANC, > permitting the split to proceed as originally approved. > This would push permissive dialing back to September 22nd, 1997. No > reference was made to changing mandatory dialing, originally scheduled > as January 18th, 1998, and it is not known at this time whether this > will also change. > Refer to http://web.state.ut.us/bbs/PSC/DL05/11146P.WPD on the Utah web > server for full details. Please note that you will need WP 5.1 to read > it (or a compatible converter). Well, I'm duly astounded. The Utah PSC actually makes a cogent and reasonable case for this highly lopsided split. The essence of their case is that if you move part of the Wasatch front (i.e., the population center of the state, the SLC/Provo corridor) into 435, all you do is advance the need for 435 to split by several years, while only providing an extra 2 years or so for 801, since that's where all the numbering growth is taking place. Further, they quite clearly lay the groundwork for a future *overlay* of 801 in five or six years. If you carry out the current split proposal, you can leave the rural areas of the state with a single area code that won't change for quite some time, while the metropolitan area gets sensible overlays. In particular, that way the rural areas can keep seven-digit local dialing until 10D becomes mandatory nationwide. On the other hand, if you force Provo and/or Ogden into 435, you are left with a situation where 435 will have to split again before the rural areas can be left alone and the cities can be left to overlay. It actually makes sense in this case to carve off 20% of the population (occupying over 90% of the land area) to provide just enough relief to tide the cities over until number portability makes overlays more widely acceptable. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: dobson@haas.berkeley.edu Subject: Digital Telecommunications Conference at UC Berkeley Date: 7 May 1997 21:27:00 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley BRIDGING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND REGULATORY PARADIGMS The Berkeley Symposium On Policy and Strategy for Converging Information Industries June 27-28, 1997 The Consortium for Research on Telecommunications Policy is pleased to sponsor a conference on the economics of converging information industries. The third in a series, this year's conference will inaugurate Berkeley's new Center for Telecommunications & Digital Convergence, and will be held at the architecturally acclaimed Haas School of Business on the University of California, Berkeley campus. THEME Digital convergence presents new challenges for business strategy and public policy. As legal and regulatory barriers standing between information industries fall, incumbent firms and startups alike adopt a wide array of strategies to capitalize on integrated digital services. These strategies need to be evaluated from perspectives of profitability as well as their competitive and efficiency effects. The conference will bring together academics conducting research in telecommunications policy and corporate strategy with business leaders and government policy makers who are managing the transition to digital technologies. PLENARY SESSIONS The first day of the conference will be devoted to plenary sessions of general interest: Integrated Networks: Is the Dream Still Alive? New integrated technologies; successes and failures of integrating voice, video and data; recent regulatory developments; overall assessment of the business case for integrated networks. Networks and Bottlenecks Essential facilities in phone networks and computer hardware and software; use and abuse of IP protection; monopoly bottleneck or first-mover rewards; recent court rulings on open access to networks. What Urgent Issues Does Digital Convergence Raise for the Telecommunications Industry? Threats from bypass technologies; importance of first mover advantages; legal barriers to convergence; implications of integrated technologies for Telecom business strategy. What Can the Computer and Telecommunications Industries Learn from Each Other? Coping with government regulation; alternative approaches to forming industry technical standards; organizational and competitive implications of radical technological change. INVITED SPEAKERS Business and government leaders and distinguished academic researchers have be invited to serve as panelists and keynote speakers, including: Hans-Werner Braun, Chief Technology Officer, Teledesic * James Canizales, Corporate Strategy, AirTouch * Rachelle Chong, Commissioner, FCC Dave Dorman, President & CEO, Pacific Bell Joseph Farrell, Chief Economist, FCC * Richard Gilbert, University of California * Andrew Grove, CEO, Intel Peter Huber, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute * Richard Notebaert, CEO, Ameritech Gary Reback, Senior Partner, Wilson, Sonsini * Michael Riordan, Professor, Boston University * Tony Rutkowski, VP, General Magic * Eric Schmidt, CEO, Novell * Carl Shapiro, University of California * Les Vadasz, Senior VP, Intel * - confirmed CONTRIBUTED PAPERS The second day of the conference will consist of parallel sessions with presentations aimed at the research community. At this time several papers are confirmed including those by the following authors: Nicholas Economides Mark Schankerman Gerry Faulhaber Oz Shy Shane Greenstein J. Greg Sidak Sandy Levin Pablo Spiller Paul MacAvoy Daniel Spulber Michael Salinger Len Waverman Larry White Additional papers are solicited on the following topics: - whither cable-telco switched broadband competition? - alternative paths to entering digital industries - business strategy and public policy toward merger and divestiture of domestic and international telecommunications firms - impact of cable telephony and internet services on traditional telephone markets - coordination of state and federal policies toward converging information industries - conflict and coordination of legal doctrine and technological convergence - bundling and tying of voice, video and data services and consumer response - nature of essential facilities in communications networks and computer systems - intellectual property protection as a means to assist or block technology convergence - role of broadcast television in the age of digital video - the PC vs. TV standards battle SUBMISSIONS To have a paper considered for presentation, submit an abstract of approximately 300 words, including title, author(s) and affiliations along with mailing and emailing addresses of the primary presenter. Completed papers will be given preference. For full consideration, abstracts or papers must arrive by May 16, 1997 by mail, email, facsimile or through the website: CRTP-CTDC Conference F402 Haas School of Business #1930 University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-1930 Email: dobson@haas.berkeley.edu Fax: 510-642-2826 Papers will be selected for presentation by the conference's two faculty organizers: Prof. Glenn A. Woroch, Director, Consortium for Research on Telecommunications Policy Prof. Michael Katz, Director, Center for Telecommunications & Digital Convergence Preference will be given to papers that focus on some economic aspect of digital convergence. Accepted presentations will be considered for publication in the 1997 special telecommunications issue of Industrial and Corporate Change, a journal published quarterly by Oxford University Press. This will be the third annual issue to publish selected papers of the CRTP annual conference. CONFERENCE WEB PAGE The conference will maintain a web page at: haas.berkeley.edu/~imio/crtp3.html Attendees may register for the conference and presenters may submit paper abstracts electronically. The site will also provide information regarding local travel and accommodations as well as the conference program as it becomes available. REGISTRATION INFORMATION Registration Fees: $300 corporate (by June 26) $200 government $100 academic/nonprofit Late Registration: $50 additional (after June 25) Refunds: Before June 23: full refund less $50 processing fee After June 22: no refund Registration includes: Lunch and dinner at the University Art Museum on Friday Continental breakfast on Friday and Saturday Breakout refreshments Internet access sites on location Registration fees are waived for speakers, who will also be reimbursed for travel expenses up to $600. Exceptions may be made for speakers traveling from outside of North America. ACCOMMODATIONS Rooms has been reserved at the following local hotels: Claremont Hotel & Resort (510-843-3000) Durant Hotel (510-845-8981) Bancroft Hotel (800-549-1002, 510-549-1000) Berkeley Marriott Hotel (510-548-7929) You may also want to consider these nearby hotels: Gramma's Rose Garden Inn (510-549-2145) The French Hotel (510-548-9330) The conference website has many more options including San Francisco accommodations. REGISTRATION FORM To register, please the complete this form and mail, e-mail or fax to the address under paper submissions and mark it to the attention of: "Ms. Pat Murphy." Name: _____________________________________________ Title:_______________________________________________ Organization:________________________________________ Address:____________________________________________ City:____________________________ State___Zip:_______ Country:____________________________________________ Business Phone: ______________________________________ Fax: _______________________________________________ Email: _____________________________________________ Please Check the Following: |_| I plan to attend and have enclosed the advanced registration fee: Please bill my: |_| VISA |_| Mastercard |_| Discover # __________________________________________________________________ Signed: _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: wrfuse@mab.ecse.rpi.NOSPAM.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) Subject: Telephone Testimony in the McVeigh Okla Bombing Case Date: 7 May 1997 22:45:15 GMT Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA Reply-To: wrfuse@mab.ecse.rpi.NOSPAM.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) For a detailed description of the prepaid calling card business, of how calls are processed, and of how records are maintained, see the trial transcripts for the Timothy McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing trial, at, i.a., http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/okc.trial/transcripts/may/050697.eve.html It's quite interesting. ---- Send email about this posting to me, Wm. Randolph U Franklin, here: ---- WRFUSE at MAB.ECSE.RPI.EDU, optionally in PGP. Do not send ---- unsolicited commercial announcements. Spam the following fine ---- businesses instead. postmaster@mail-response.com ventures@mail-response.com vip@allvip.com postmaster@allvip.com info@opmcybershop.com null@quantcom.com postmaster@quantcom.com test@quantcom.com newsletter@shoppingplanet.com postmaster@shoppingplanet.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #114 ******************************