Date: 3 Sep 2000 06:15:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20000903101510.20582.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org (Telecom Digest) To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #42 Reply-To: editor@telecom-digest.org Sender: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Errors-To: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Precedence: bulk X-UIDL: 01f8f7b820a8311b58775b3778671cbc Status: RO X-Status: Telecom Digest Sunday, September 3 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 042 In this issue: slight possibility, was: Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? NYTimes.com Article: Flaws in Digital Wireless Technology Said to Allow Eavesdropping improper "supervision", was: , was: Re: Caller ID and answer re - billing/answer supervision... Re: What does it take to be a CLEC? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 2000 06:44:37 -0400 From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: slight possibility, was: Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? In <00902.011535.1x9.rnr.w165w@krypton.rain.com> shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes: >richw@webcom.com (Rich Wales) writes: >> Can answer supervision be triggered by caller ID, even if no person >> or answering machine ever picks up the line at the receiving end? >No. Not entirely correct. There's one possibility which is rare, but legit. I'll describe it at the end. >> This all sounds very fishy to me. Any comments? >The company is likely not *using* supervision. Instead, they charge as >soon as the call has lasted for more than some number of seconds (30, >45 or 60). A lot of the sleazier outfits have pulled this stunt for >*years*. That's the strangest mipselling I've heard of lately for 'lots of the cellular carriers'. Anyway, getting to the legit, rare, possibility which probably doesn't apply here, but does exist: There are quite a few combined answering machine/fax switch units) or, for that matter, external fax/modem/voice "switches") which could cause this. These units work by _picking up_ the ringing phone line (i.e. "answering" it), and feeding back a fake ringing sound. While doing this, they're "listening" to the line to see if a fax calling tone (the "beep", "wait three or or secs", then another "beep") is present. If so, then they'll activate a fax amchine. If not, they'll kick the call to the phones and start ringing them, or will direct the call to an answering machine. Note that part about "picking up" or "answering" the line. You, as the calle,r will often not realize this has happened since you're hearing the fake ring the box is pushing back at you. However, once this has happened, the call has been "supervised" and is considered answered. - -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2000 11:06:31 -0400 From: HALinNY77@aol.com Subject: Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? In a message dated 09/02/00 06:17:04 Eastern Daylight Time, owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org writes: > The company is likely not *using* supervision. Instead, they charge as > soon as the call has lasted for more than some number of seconds (30, > 45 or 60). A lot of the sleazier outfits have pulled this stunt for > *years*. > This is true, although the "sleaziness" IMHO is arguable. Many of these carriers do not terminate the calls but rather pass them through a maze of interconnects. As these interconnections increase there is a very real possibility that answer supervision is lost ... it just takes one weak link in the chain. The theory is that a caller is not going to listen to a busy signal for a half a minute or more (the original post said 6 rings and that's equal to 36 seconds) so we can assume the call completed even though there was no supe. The sleaze factor should be based not merely on whether or not this happens but how a carrier responds to a customer complaint when this happens. Sometimes we forget that there are hordes of people out there trying to rip-off telecom carriers; witness the other posts on the 2600 topic. Fraud is a major problem for telecoms and they have a legitimate right to attempt to control it and react to it within reason. Hal Kaplan Orion Telecommunications Corp. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2000 12:04:23 -0400 From: richw@webcom.com (Rich Wales) Subject: Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? Earlier, I wrote: > > Can answer supervision be triggered by caller ID, > > even if no person or answering machine ever picks > > up the line at the receiving end? Art Kamlet replied: > No, caller id will not provide answer supervision. > But who says an IEX has to get answer supervision in > order to bill? All they need is the call attempt data, > and bingo! you have enough to bill for a minimal call. OK. From a technical point of view, then, a company =could= decide to generate billing info based solely on call attempt data -- either on the theory that any call lasting more than ~30 seconds must have been completed (even without checking for supervision), or just by saying in the fine print that this is how they're going to bill. >>From a legal (regulatory) standpoint, though, are they =permitted= to do this? If the caller complains to regulators, can an IEX be forced to accept a reversal of the charges in question? Is this a federal issue, or is it up to individual state PUC's? In case it matters, my mom's call attempts were state-to-state (California to Minnesota). As for the "caller ID" explanation / excuse / pretext, is there any way for an IEX to know if a call's recipient has caller ID -- and if they do know, do the tariffs allow them to bill an unanswered call on this basis? Also, BTW, I'm quite confident that the person my mom was trying to call did =not= have a fax -- so the "machine picks up the line and generates fake ringing" explanation would not apply here. FWIW, in the days before answering machines, my recollection of the "phone etiquette" I learned as a kid was that I should always let the phone ring about ten times before assuming no one was home and hanging up. Now that so many people have answering machines that pick up after four rings, things are clearly different -- but even so, one still might let the phone ring five or six times before concluding that the call is not going to be answered (either in person or by machine). Rich Wales richw@webcom.com http://www.webcom.com/richw/ - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2000 13:05:12 -0400 From: Alan Boritz Subject: Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? richw@webcom.com (Rich Wales) wrote: >Can answer supervision be triggered by caller ID, even if no person >or answering machine ever picks up the line at the receiving end? > >My mother (who lives in the San Francisco area) told me yesterday >about a problem with her phone bill. She uses a specific "10-10" >provider (which will, for the moment at least, remain unidentified >to protect the guilty) for most of her long-distance calls. > >Recently, she tried several times (without success) to reach a cousin >in another state. Each time, the phone rang about six times, but no >one answered. When her phone bill arrived, she discovered that the >"10-10" provider had billed each of these unsuccessful calling attempts >as a one-minute call (and charged her about a dollar per call, since >the plan is one of those "up to X minutes for only Y cents" deals). > >When she called the "10-10" provider to complain, the provider insisted >the charges were legitimate, even though there had been no answer on >any of the calls. The "customer service" (?) person told my mom that >perhaps the person she was calling had caller ID -- and that if this >were the case, the call would be considered answered on the first ring, >regardless of whether a person or answering machine ever picked up the >line or not. There's no such "answer supervision with CLASS caller-id." Find another long distance service, this sleazoid provider is a liar. I nailed Telesphere, Sprint, and MCI on charges for ring-no-answer calls, and they wrote off many thousands over the years. Many other telecom people have the same experience. The economy of the cheaper OCC's is always offset by the time required to reconcile the bogus ring-no-answer charges, which is why so many companies decided to use A.T. & T., even though they're always more expensive. ... >This all sounds very fishy to me. Any comments? Don't fall for their line of bull. Refuse to pay for ring-no-answers, regardless of what is on the other end of the line. If they won't credit the charges, write it off yourself and find another long distance service. If they're billing to your credit card, follow the procedure for disputing the charges using the Fair Credit Billing Act (described at the US Federal Trade Commission web site http://www.ftc.gov). - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2000 13:15:27 -0400 From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: Caller ID and answer supervision? HALinNY77@aol.com wrote: > Leonard Erickson (shadow@krypton.rain.com) wrote: >> The company is likely not *using* supervision. Instead, they charge as >> soon as the call has lasted for more than some number of seconds (30, >> 45 or 60). A lot of the sleazier outfits have pulled this stunt for >> *years*. > This is true, although the "sleaziness" IMHO is arguable. Many of > these carriers do not terminate the calls but rather pass them through > a maze of interconnects. As these interconnections increase there is a > very real possibility that answer supervision is lost ... it just takes > one weak link in the chain. The theory is that a caller is not going > to listen to a busy signal for a half a minute or more (the original > post said 6 rings and that's equal to 36 seconds) so we can assume the > call completed even though there was no supe. > The sleaze factor should be based not merely on whether or not this > happens but how a carrier responds to a customer complaint when this > happens. > Sometimes we forget that there are hordes of people out there trying > to rip-off telecom carriers; witness the other posts on the 2600 topic. > Fraud is a major problem for telecoms and they have a legitimate right > to attempt to control it and react to it within reason. Well, I dunno about the "loss" of (backwards direction) answer-supervision information these days. Most of these "service" providers, even when there is a large maze of interconnecting, SHOULD (these days) would have some form of SS7 interconnection for supervision data. And with better quality transmission circuits, etc. any use of old fashioned "electical balance/ impedence" supervision on non-SS7 long-trunks "should" be kept intact for backwards delivery of supervision information, IMO. I thought that the FCC (and other agencies such as FTC?) years ago mandated actual network supervision data as much as possible on long-haul circuits, instead of "simple timing" to allow no billing on "short time" busies and six rings unanswered, also brief "intercept/vacant code" messages. It was discovered and publicized sometime in the 1980's that MCI and Sprint were billing people for busies, no answers and reaching (non-billable) non-suped telco recorded announcement messages. BTW, GTE has SUPED on some NPA-change messages where the NPA has changed in their terminating territory (AT&T, MCI, and Sprint play their own NPA-change messages, but the LECs play their own in their own LATA territory as well, and for the Qwests, Frontiers, etc. who have a long-haul network but don't play their own NPA-change messages. And many LECs here and there have been KNOWN to SUPE on intercepts, vacant code messages, re-orders, busies, etc. It isn't "rare", but it isn't as widespread as I might be describing here... Also in this thread, Art Kamlet (kamlet@infinet.com) replied: > Caller id will not provide answer supervision. > But who says an IEX has to get answer supervision in order to bill? > All they need is the call attempt data, and bingo! you have enough to > bill for a minimal call. Add call completion and you can bill for a > longer call. My response to that... who says that a sleazeball IXC even needs "dialed" call data! ??? Some of these sleazers are known to bill collect calls or 3d-pty billing to payphone numbers, restricted numbers, non-existant numbers, and numbers that: exist- are not restricted - and not payphones --- but never received a collect call nor authorized 3d Pty billing on such "phantom" calls. While the incumbent local telco (usually the final-end billing agency) will usually remove such CRAMMED charges from your bill, they tell you that the actual billing originating company could still bill you directly or turn you over to a "collection agency". Calls to these "tele-billing" sleazeballs don't do ANY good. They REFUSE to belive you when you say you never accept collect calls, you don't recognize the city/number of the collect call, you never dial 900/976/etc., you never call the Caribbean/Overseas (especially when you have a 900/976/etc. block and/or overseas or even full-toll blocking. However, the sleazers know that direct billing for phony or even legit charges may not be effective, and as such they can CRAM such charges (whether phony or legit, tariffed rates or hyper-inflated unregulated) via your local telco's billings, since local telco has to deal with any company that approaches them to contract for billing, on a non-discriminiatory basis. And even though local telco can NOT cut off your dialtone / local access/service for non-payment of various non-LEC or non-regulated charges, the sleazers will frequently put big notices on their pages associated with your LEC's monthly billing threatening that non-payment of their charges "will" result in disconnecting of your local dialtone. BULL-SH**!!! Even Bull-Sh** um... I mean BellSouth has recently put their OWN notices at the top of the bill indicating what is considered "regulated" charges that THEY say you must pay (or make arrangements for) to keep your dialtone up and running, and what is considered "unregulated" and "could" be turned over to the ultimate bill-entity or collection agency but won't result in disconnection of your local dialtone --- all itemized in a brief two/three line bold indication near the top of page one - and not just for BellSouth landline charges, but the ENTIRE bill that you get mailed from them - other carriers' charges as well included in the totals. I guess this is all associated with what the FCC/FTC/etc. has in mind to prevent slamming and cramming! And IMO cramming is simply pulling telephone numbers out of "thin air" to 'attempt' to bill to -- this is the ultimate in tele-sleaze. 900/976/etc, Overseas/Caribbean, "Conference" features, various "recurring monthly charges" that go unidentified as to the REAL purpose or service(?), "phantom" collect/3d-party billed calls, "phantom" and exhorbitant credit/calling card billings, etc. None of this even really requires a "real" ticket showing call set-up details whether or not anything actually "suped" or not! :( And "quonk@my-deja.com" replied in the thread about the $6.18 for one-min calling card calls from payphones, via a "major" LD carrier, for calls which didn't "supe". That's obviously AT&T. Here's what happened, as far as the exhorbitant rate, not necessarily the one-min situation of whether or not the call actually "suped": the call was placed as a "0+" type call... AT&T's rates for card calls placed via 0+ as opposed to 800- dialups, ESPECIALLY 800-CALL-ATT, and where the card is a LEC-issued card rather than an AT&T-issued card, and whether or not one is on a discount plan or not.... The "basic" 0+ domestic (state-to-state) card rates, 24/7, for the past several months are: 89-c per min !!! (OUCH) PLUS a $2.25 per-call surcharge (when billed to an AT&T-issued card) PLUS a $4.99 per-call surcharge (when billed to a LEC-ussued card) (DOUBLE/TRIPLE OUCH) And if originating the card call from a payphone, there's that extra 30-c per call surcharge that the COCOT industry has extorted out of us, via the LD carriers. SO, add that up: 4.99 LEC-card surcharge, plus 0.89 one-min, plus 0.30 payphone-origination extortion, and you get.... $6.18 for one minute. Don't even ask how much the surcharge would have been had you asked the AT&T Operator to dial the destination number or even just key-in the card number (if you were on a rotary dial phone)-- you probably don't want to know that the Operator-Handled surcharge is (probably now) as high as aprrox $10.00 per call. AT&T Customer Service is "usually" good about removing questioned charges, just like most local telcos are as well. Sometimes, you do need to call back and ask for a supervisor... Even MCI and Sprint will try to extend this to their customers as well. There is STILL a "certain" degree of state/federal regulation over AT&T, MCI, Sprint, other big/medium players as well as the locals, so they will try to accomodate you to a certain degree, so that you won't get "totally pissed-off" and complain to state regulatory and/or the FCC - or corporate - or media/press. MJC - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2000 13:51:43 -0400 From: itsamike@yahoo.com Subject: NYTimes.com Article: Flaws in Digital Wireless Technology Said to Allow Eavesdropping This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by Mike Pollock itsamike@yahoo.com. Telecom Digest In the name of all that is holy, don't archive this! Mike Pollock itsamike@yahoo.com /-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\ \----------------------------------------------------------/ Flaws in Digital Wireless Technology Said to Allow Eavesdropping September 2, 2000 By JOHN MARKOFF Two researchers have found flaws in a widely heralded new wireless technology that could permit an eavesdropper to listen in on a digital conversation or determine the user's identity. The researchers are from Lucent Technologies, one of nine corporations cooperating to develop the technology, known as Bluetooth, whose backers say it will make possible a new era of effortless and untethered communication between all kinds of hand-held devices. Several companies have recently begun shipping sample quantities of the Bluetooth technology, which has been expected to be widely available in the first half of next year, and more than 1,000 companies are backing the standard. Paul Kan, a member of the Bluetooth technical standards group and a Lucent marketing manager, said he expected that the problem could be fixed "relatively quickly" and would not seriously delay the technology's deployment. The Bluetooth system is intended to permit cellular phones, portable computers, headsets and other mobile devices to exchange digital information easily without cords or wires. It has a potential range of 30 feet to 300 feet, but is initially planned for devices in relatively close proximity. Bluetooth devices also require less power than existing cellular phones and give off far less radiation. The flaws were discovered by Markus Jacobson and Susanne Wetzel, researchers in the secure systems research department at Lucent's Bell Laboratories unit. One shortcoming would have permitted an eavesdropper in a cybercafe to place a bugging device in such a way that the encryption key used by the Bluetooth devices could be obtained, Mr. Jacobson said. Obtaining the key would let the intruder listen in on a conversation between two Bluetooth devices. The flaw was not in the basic encryption formula used to protect the information being transmitted, but in the protocol used by two devices to exchange a key -- in this case, a large number -- that is used by the formula to encode and unlock the data. The researchers also discovered that it was possible to obtain the identity of a Bluetooth device, making it traceable and potentially compromising the security of a user. The researchers are suggesting that the Bluetooth standard be altered so that the identity numbers are masked by a constantly changing pseudonym when transmitted. An independent security expert said that the Bluetooth security model was still untested and that other flaws were likely to be discovered. "There are probably dozens of vulnerabilities," said the expert, Bruce Schneier, founder and chief technical officer of Counterpane Internet Security. "The basic problem is that you're building a system that allows devices who don't know each other to communicate. I believe there are too many things that can go wrong."   The New York Times on the Web http://www.nytimes.com /-----------------------------------------------------------------\ \-----------------------------------------------------------------/ HOW TO ADVERTISE - --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@nytimes.com. Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2000 14:21:15 -0400 From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: improper "supervision", was: , was: Re: Caller ID and answer In Mark J Cuccia writes: >BTW, GTE has SUPED on some NPA-change messages where the NPA has changed >in their terminating territory (AT&T, MCI, and Sprint play their own >NPA-change messages, but the LECs play their own in their own LATA >territory as well, and for the Qwests, Frontiers, etc. who have a >long-haul network but don't play their own NPA-change messages. >And many LECs here and there have been KNOWN to SUPE on intercepts, vacant >code messages, re-orders, busies, etc. It isn't "rare", but it isn't as >widespread as I might be describing here... Which brings up a question I'd love to know the answer to, namely: what types of "answers" are supposed to be "unsupervised"? Presumably there's some list somewhere which, while perhaps not perfect, should give some guidance. For example, we're probably all in agreement that true "busy" signals shouldn't generate a charge. Similarly, a telco intercept advising you of an area code split should be a freebie. But going down the list, we start getting into grey areas. For example, if you misdial a number in a paging company (let's say 800 of the 1000 numbers are in use, but you hit one of the blank ones) and you get an intercept saying 'you've reached a nonworking number at everlost-paging, our main number is foo-xxx'. Should that be charged? Or 'no such number here at the White House, please call our switchboard'? - -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2000 15:44:45 -0400 From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: re - billing/answer supervision... danny burstein wrote: > Mark J Cuccia writes: >> BTW, GTE has SUPED on some NPA-change messages where the NPA has >> changed in their terminating territory (AT&T, MCI, and Sprint play >> their own NPA-change messages, but the LECs play their own in their >> own LATA territory as well, and for the Qwests, Frontiers, etc. who >> have a long-haul network but don't play their own NPA-change messages. >> And many LECs here and there have been KNOWN to SUPE on intercepts, >> vacant code messages, re-orders, busies, etc. It isn't "rare", but it >> isn't as widespread as I might be describing here... (Ameritech is also known to frequently "supe" on vacants, re-orders, intercepts, etc) > Which brings up a question I'd love to know the answer to, namely: > > what types of "answers" are supposed to be "unsupervised"? > > Presumably there's some list somewhere which, while perhaps not > perfect, should give some guidance. > > For example, we're probably all in agreement that true "busy" signals > shouldn't generate a charge. > > Similarly, a telco intercept advising you of an area code split should > be a freebie. I'd go as far as have _ALL_ vacant code/number, all ccts busy, number changes, no such number, etc. recordings as NON-suping (non-billing). > But going down the list, we start getting into grey areas. > > For example, if you misdial a number in a paging company (let's say 800 > of the 1000 numbers are in use, but you hit one of the blank ones) and > you get an intercept saying 'you've reached a nonworking number at > everlost-paging, our main number is foo-xxx'. Should that be charged? I'd make it "free" non-suping. The wording on the announcement is up to the paging company -- maybe they could give a "cold" vacant type of recording -- even a "re-order" (fast busy)... > Or 'no such number here at the White House, please call our > switchboard'? PBXes, cellular/wireless companies, etc. are all able (and should be encouraged) to return non-suping "vacant" or "intercept" announcements, IMO. Area Code "test/validation" announcement numbers (as indicated in TRA, NANPA, and LEC/etc. documentation have frequently indicated the test number as "free", but many NPA-test/validation numbers have been known to "supe" - about half of the new NPAs in the Caribbean had "suping" test numbers, but they aren't the only ones who have "suped" them. Maybe there should be a "pair" of NPA test numbers for every LATA/tandem region to use that new NPA -- one that is "free" (non-suping) to simply check routings/translations, and another that "supes" if someone wants to check their billing equipment or if they are going to get properly billed/etc. when that new area code gets "real" customers on it. When 250 split from 604 in BC back in 1996, there was a "pair" of test numbers - consecutive TOO -- line-number -0123 was NON-billing, while - -0124 returned supervision for billing. The actual announcement on each number was IDENTICAL, probably coming from the same machine too! Note -- for those who aren't aware, AT&T (and possibly others) certainly do _BLOCK_ forward voicepath on their networks until the distant end returns off-hook billing/answer supervision. If one of the few remaining live "intercept operators" comes on a line asking "special operator, what number have you dialed", and you placed that call over AT&T, since she won't "supe back" to you, AT&T still has forward voicepath blocked, and she won't be able to hear you. AT&T started doing this twenty-plus years ago in the AT&T Long-Lines parts of the network, to reduce fraudulent use of their network. If you ask an AT&T Operator to call a number where you get a live intercept operator, the AT&T Opr can "RING FORWARD" to open up forward voicepath, yet you still haven't received backwards supervision -- nor billing for the call! Of course, the AT&T Operator will probably want to place a call for you at _OPERATOR_HANDLED_Rates_ to the (potential) "new" number quoted by the distant LEC intercept operator. As for reaching "tests", "announcements" (vacants, intercepts, etc), busies, etc. from a PBX or Cellular (or CLEC), while it isn't "that" difficult to arrange such terminations as NON-suping-back, with all of the competition/confusion in the industry today, many might not know "how" to fix their MTSO, PBX, etc. so that such terminating special numbers do not return back supervision.... Oh - and for network/switching/routing tests (not NPA tests), some are set deliberately to "supe" to do billing/rating studies, etc. Other test line numbers can be specifically set NOT to supe! MJC - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2000 23:06:09 -0400 From: djb0x7736f467@scream.org (Dan) Subject: Re: What does it take to be a CLEC? Roy Smith wrote: > I had a visit a few days ago from some guys trying to sell us DSL > service in one of our campus residential buildings. Two interesting > factoids came out of the conversation: 1) they're a CLEC, and 2) the > entire company consists of 30 people. > > I was a little amazed a 30 person company could be a CLEC. What exactly > does it involve? Just file some paperwork with the FCC and hang out a > shingle? Thinking of my days with IDT (hey! ouch, stop, it was years ago!) I think you'd need some warm bodies to do office tasks, someone to make deals with the dominant LEC, and someone to man the phones and slam^Wswitch over new customers. You might need a billing system and maybe even some telecom hardware, but I dunno, the alpha LEC might handle that. No, IDT is not a LEC. But they're a something-or-other, and they didn't strike me as having vast amounts of installed plant at the time. I kinda suspect only the big guys are actually buying serious amounts of gear, and everyone else is just getting the bare minimum to interface/whatever with them, and picking up bodies. - -Dan - -- Dan Birchall - Palolo Valley, Honolulu HI - http://dan.scream.org Post your reviews; get paid: http://epinions.scream.org/join.html Free web-based e-mail: http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=1163079 My address expires - take out the hex stamp if your reply bounces - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ End of Telecom Digest V2000 #42 *******************************