TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:45:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 15
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Nokia Chief Details Web Future (Monty Solomon)
Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (Ryan Shook)
Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (Felix Deutsch)
Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Mike Hartley)
Tracking Net's Prying Eyes (Monty Solomon)
Re: Cost of Wiretapping (Michael Sullivan)
Re: Cost of Wiretapping (Someone)
Re: NXX by NPA (Michael G. Koerner)
Re: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe (Andrew Green)
Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (David Jensen)
Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (Ryan Tucker)
DoubleClick Privacy Questions (Monty Solomon)
Does Anyone Use Call Manager? (Keith Knipschild)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilatin-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
611 Poplar Street
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 805-545-5115
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/
mailing list on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 00:19:21 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Nokia Chief Details Web Future
Nokia Chief Details Web Future
Reuters
8:00 a.m. 3.Mar.2000 PST
TOKYO -- The chief of Finnish cellular phone maker Nokia Corp said on
Friday he expects Web-connected mobile phones to outnumber personal
computers linked to the Net within three years.
"The future is not PC-centric. It's mobile phone-centric," Nokia chief
Jorma Ollila told a seminar on mobile networks and digital home
appliances in Tokyo.
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,34718,00.html
From: Ryan Shook <rjshook@uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 01:54:41 -0500
Organization: University of Waterloo
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, JF Mezei wrote:
> I am quite puzzled as to how Wall street considers mergers between AOL and
> Time-Warner to be so significant
> While I inderstand that AOL gains access to Time's cable
> infrastructure to upgrade from modem to cable based ISP service, I
> really don't understand how "content" companies benefit when they buy
> "ISP" companies.
[...]
> Can someone please explain what sort of synergy/benefits *really*
> happen when a content company merges/buys an ISP ?
<sigh>
I went to C|Net news, one search, one hit:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1518888.html?tag=st.ne.1002
AOL buys Time Warner in historic merger
If you check out zdnet, c|net mercurynews or any other news source you
can find more articles guessing about how and why. The sale was
announced around January 11th.
Here's my two cents. The ISPs, well at least AOL have enormous stock
prices and so they can spend money. Internet Access is quickly
becoming/has become a commodity. If you are in that business, you
probably want to find ways to become a leader or find a new
business. AOL must figure that Time will do it some good. There is
certainly enough content there to keep one's pipe pretty full.
Ryan Shook Mechanical Engineering | Amateur (HAM) Radio Lic.:VE3 TKD
RJShook@uwaterloo.ca | http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/students/rjshook/
Your mouse has moved, reboot required for the changes to take effect.
Subject: Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery
From: Felix Deutsch <Felix.Deutsch@eed.ericsson.se>
Date: 08 Mar 2000 10:31:41 +0100
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> writes:
> I am quite puzzled as to how Wall street considers mergers between AOL and
> Time-Warner to be so significant.
> They mention on how Time-Warner gains a new distribution medium for
> their content.
> While I inderstand that AOL gains access to Time's cable
> infrastructure to upgrade from modem to cable based ISP service, I
> really don't understand how "content" companies benefit when they buy
> "ISP" companies.
You are mislead by thinking that AOL is a mere ISP, thus just offering
full-IP connectivity. I would think that many AOL subscribers spend a
significant amount of their online time using services provided by AOL
and not the WWW in general.
> Since the internet is worldwide, and since WWW.CNN.COM is already
> available worldwide through any ISP, how does it benefit CNN tosince
> CNN is already distributed to AOL subscribers whether Time-Warner owns
> AOL or not ?
They may offer some 'added-value' content for AOL subscribers, like
discount on the merchandise crap for the latest 'family' *spit* movie.
Felix
"A further hint at my impending doom was that the specification was
based on the OSI model - a group of standards renouned worldwide for
their pointless complexity, difficulty of implementation, and
unworkability." Donald Becker - "Why IrDA Should Be Laughed Out Of Town"
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 04:28:17 PST
From: Mike Hartley <michael_hartley@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees
"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>> As a caller to a mobile I have to accept the price I will be
>>> charged and
>>> have no way to shop for a better rate.
>> You can always use a calling card, or choose a tariff which offers
>> mobile-mobile calls at less than land-mobile rates.
> Oh, but you can't. The price will be set by the recipient's telco,
> not the caller's.
There's probably some UK/US difference here.
The point I wanted to bring out was that although the recepient's telco
will set the minimum price, individual originating telcos will add
varying markups, usually depending on tariff/volume/marketing strategy.
So, as an example:
If I call a mobile from my PSTN line I'm charged at the rate which my
(fairly small) PSTN provider has negotiated with the terminating
operator.
If I call the same mobile from my PSTN line using a callingcard I get
a different rate, approx 50% lower, since the calling card telco
negotiates with other large resellers/carriers who have managed to
secure much more advantagous termination rates based on higher call
volumes.
If I call from my mobile I get a rate between the PSTN and calling card
because I'm on a high volume tariff.
> From an anglocentric point of view I don't see how the US can implement
calling party pays without giving mobiles their own number groups.
Regards,
Mike
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:17:10 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Tracking Net's prying eyes
Cybersleuth aims to expose surveillance of consumers
By Frank James
Special to the Tribune
March 6, 2000
BROOKLINE, Mass. -- Richard M. Smith is a software expert who doesn't
fully trust his own kind. So he has launched a personal crusade to
expose technology practices that threaten the privacy of millions of
Internet users.
The retired co-founder of a maker of specialized sftware for industry,
he has a growing reputation as one of the Internet's premier privacy
defenders. He has essentially become the Techie Avenger for millions of
less savvy Internet users who surf unaware of how much of their personal
information is silently being gathered.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/tech/biztech/article/0,2669,2-42915,FF.html
From: Michael Sullivan <avogadro@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Re: Cost of Wiretapping
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:47:15 GMT
Hal Murray wrote:
> I think the US has regulations requiring telephone systems
> to have some automated mechanism for wiretaps.
You are thinking about CALEA, the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act, which requires carriers to provide assistance to
authorized law enforcement agencies in performing wiretaps -- more
specifically, interceptions of communications and accesses to call
identifying information.
It's not exactly automated, though. Just complicated, costly, and
near-impossible to implement properly. As well as being
constitutionally suspect, as implemented.
> Is there a good description of that system available on the web?
The FBI's CALEA home page is http://www.fbi.gov/programs/calea/calea.htm
and the FCC's is http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/csinfo/calea.html
> What fraction of the current COs support it?
Well, that depends on what you mean. Virtually all COs support, to one
degree or another, the provision of wiretapping assistance to law
enforcement. None that I know of support all of what the statute
requires, yet. The telephone and cellular industries have developed a
standard, J-STD-025, or the "J Standard," that will provide a lot of
scary stuff, but the FBI and FCC decided that it wasn't enough and
imposed further requirements. Compliance with the J Standard is due
June 30, 2000, and with the additional FBI "punch list" requirements by
September 30, 2001. Right now it doesn't look like more than a handful
of COs (if that) will meet those deadlines.
> I assume there are supposed to be checks in the system to make
> sure that it's only used for legal taps. Is there any reason
> that I should believe those checks are good enough to keep
> hackers from tapping whatever they want?
Yes. Under CALEA and the FCC regs, an interception or access can be set
up only if a designated official of the carrier is provided with "legal
authorization" by law enforcement, determines that it is valid, fills
out some forms, and then gives the carrier's employees authorization to
proceed. This is not an automated process; there is human review of all
wiretap requests at a fairly high level in the corporation. Neither law
enforcement nor hackers will have the ability to simply send codes over
the internet to set up a wiretap, if the system works as it should.
Under the J Standard, taps will be set up to provide content and/or call
identifying information over prearranged facilities (e.g., leased
lines), so the law enforcement authorities will be able to get what's
authorized back at their offices, not at the CO.
> How much does that system cost?
Nationwide, it will probably cost several billion dollars. Nobody knows
for sure.
> If I took the total cost of that
> system and put a pile of cash on the table in front of the FBI, would
> they spend it on a wiretapping system or something else?
The system is to be paid for in part by the Feds and in part by the
carriers (and ultimately their customers). Specifically, getting
pre-1995 switches up to the J Standard is supposed to be paid for by the
Feds, and getting post-1995 switches up to the standard will generally
by paid by the carriers and/or customers. There are a variety of
provisions for the Feds to pick up additional costs under certain
circumstances.
> Is this just
> a sneaky way of taxing phone subscribers to support law enforcement?
Yes.
Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA
avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com)
From: Someone <someone@somewhere.com>
Subject: Re: Cost of Wiretapping
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:14:10 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Hal Murray <murray@pa.dec.com> wrote in message
news:telecom20.13.6@telecom-digest.org...
> I think the US has regulations requiring telephone systems
> to have some automated mechanism for wiretaps.
Yes, this is correct.
> Is there a good description of that system available on the web?
There are several, most of which are summarized here:
http://www.tiaonline.org/government/CALEA/
From: Michael G. Koerner <mgk920@dataex.com>
Subject: Re: NXX by NPA
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:34:53 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Reply-To: mgk920@dataex.com
Clarence Dold wrote:
> Ben Schilling <Ben.Schilling@oci.state.wi.us> wrote:
>> You can get the lists from http://www.nanpa.com/ . They are under Central
>> Office Codes (Prefixes). There are sixteen zip files in the entire set.
> How strange. Those are incredibly out of date and incomplete.
> Looking at WSUTLZD.TXT, I find 707-965 (my home) with no description.
> Looking for NAPA, I find it listed as 415-217. I don't remember how
> long ago Napa became the 707 NPA.
> Wait a minute ... I see a pattern.
> The older NPA-NXX are incomplete, but the "newer" ones are properly
> described. But there is a _LOT_ of data missing.
> My dad's house is in in San Leandro, but listed as Oakland.
> There are 21338 entries in WSUTLZD.TXT
> 1556 different "Names"
> 4501 NPA-NXX have no description. 21%
That is interesting, as I am finding the NANPA 'Utilized' list printout
that I am poring over as I write this (I printed out part of the total
'Upper Midwest' file so that it only covers Wisconsin, Illinois, the 906
NPA in Michigan and the 219 NPA in Indiana) to be EXTREMELY accurate and
up to date (the file is dated 29-Feb-2000). The 'blank' entries are
either 'reserved', 'unassignable' or, in the case of an NPA that is
splitting (414-262, mandatory this past Saturday), 'duplicative'.
'Blank' entries that have an 'effective date' at the end have just been
assigned, with more info coming later (the TelCordia NNAG seems to be
'faster' in this area, and their entries agree with NANPA's ones).
Regards,
Michael G. Koerner
Appleton, WI
From: Andrew Green <acg@datalogics.com>
Subject: Re: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:27:44 -0600
Joe Machado <jmachado@webzone.net> writes:
> In the meantime, why can't we work at projecting a web page
> or a NetMeeting type interaction inside a car windshield
> instead of the speedometer?
Um, because you're supposed to be driving?
Seriously, we're developing a lot of stuff that obviously could operate just
fine inside a car, but not all of it is necessarily a Good Thing there. Laws
notwithstanding, I like to think that the reason conversion van and
limousine manufacturers, for example, usually shy away from installing their
on-board TVs within view of the driver is because common sense dictates that
(1) the TV will be a major distraction to the driver, and thus (2) some
idiot will drive into one of them newfangled steel telephone poles while
watching, um, "Wall Street Week," and promptly sue the manufacturers for
putting the TV distraction in view.
As it happens, I love the heads-up speedometer display on my Pontiac,
because it significantly reduces the distraction and time that would be
taken by looking down at the dashboard and then refocusing on the road. But
that's a gadget that enhances the driving experience rather than interferes
with it. I have a cellphone in there, too, but it's rigged for speed
dialing, hands-free operation and generally to be as undistracting as
possible.
Please, we have enough problems with morons reading the newspaper as they
drive (check out any Chicago expressway traffic jam for examples); let's not
give them a multimedia show as well.
Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331
Datalogics, Inc.
101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com
Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282
From: David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees
Organization: Jensen Family
Reply-To: david@dajensen-family.com
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 22:38:12 GMT
On 6 Mar 2000 20:33:49 -0500, in comp.dcom.telecom johnl@iecc.com
(John R. Levine) wrote in <telecom20.14.8@telecom-digest.org>:
> Oh, but you can't. The price will be set by the recipient's telco,
> not the caller's. These umbers will work just like 500 or 900
> numbers, which is why I've always said they belong in the otherwise
> nearly abandoned 500 SAC.
Anyone here expect AOSlime and other dishonest resellers as the first
in line to be selling calling party pays?
> Yes, every PBX and payphone in the country blocks calls to 500
> numbers. There's a reason for that.
We have to have a way to block this unless the prices are regulated
and acceptable.
From: rtucker+from+200001@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker)
Subject: e: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery
Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+200001@katan.ttgcitn.com
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:39:07 GMT
Organization: Time Warner Road Runner - Rochester NY
In <telecom20.13.2@telecom-digest.org>, hoxley@nouce.shore.net
<hoxley@nouce.shore.net> spewed:
> Something that I see COULD happen is "content" which used to be available
> to all Internet users will eventually move behind AOL/TimeWarner's
> firewall, to only be accessable by AOL/TW subscribers.
But AOL invented that game ... the protocol is different, they're a lot
bigger, but most people will still not go out of their way to reach
www.cnn.com when www.abcnews.com is right over there. They still have
some internal content, but they're mainly marketing the ease-of-use and
the community aspects (forums and chat), all of which are already
commonly kept internal/proprietary.
There's two essential things AOL will gain from this:
- Time Warner's infrastructure, from telecom to cable modem to
satellite to what-have-you, and
- a hell of a lot of respect from people who think the Internet is
a fad.
And those are very valuable things to an Internet company :-)
Ryan Tucker <rtucker+25@ttgcitn.com> http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/
President, TTGCITN Communications Box 92425, Rochester NY 14692-0425
Please keep public threads public -- e-mail responses will be ignored.
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:56:30 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: DoubleClick Privacy Questions
Forwarded to the Digest, FYI:
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:18:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Phil Agre <pagre@alpha.oac.ucla.edu>
Subject: [RRE]DoubleClick privacy questions
[Faced with possible action by the FTC in response to complaints by
privacy activists (in addition to the ones I've already mentioned on
RRE, see <http://www.cdt.org/testimony/000225ftcdcstatement.shtml>),
DoubleClick has announced that it is abandoning the online profiling
plans that were so widely denounced a while bak. Yet several
questions remain. USA Today
<http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cth211.htm> had reported that
DoubleClick "has begun tracking Web users by name and address as they
move from one Web site to the next", yet the company's press release
specifically denies this. DoubleClick has not ruled out connecting
anonymous cookie information with personal identities and profiling
information from other sources. To the contrary, it reserves the
right to go ahead once "there is agreement between government and
industry on privacy standards". Meanwhile, CNET is reporting today
<http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-1562341.html> that Richard Smith
has discovered that sensitive personal financial data entered into the
Intuit Web site was being sent to DoubleClick; Intuit claims that this
was happening without their knowledge and would constitute a violation
of DoubleClick's contract. Smith believes that this is happening at
numerous sites, and that it results in these sites violating their own
privacy policies.
Internet electronic commerce is giving rise to a new privacy disaster
about once a week. Usually these sorts of panics are overblown, but
the weird thing here is that most people are too complacent. "It's a
one-time thing. It just happens a lot." The vast majority of people,
including many in the computer industry, woke up to the Internet very
recently; they take it as a given, and they have no way of imagining
how it could be any different. Maybe you need to have been doing this
stuff for decades to realize what a pile of junk it all is. It is not
a superficial problem, and the necessary structural solutions won't
happen unless a significant amount of force is applied. To this end,
the FTC should be made responsible for enforcing the Fair Information
Practices <http://www.epic.org/privacy/consumer/code_fair_info.html>
and promoting the adoption of privacy-enhancing technologies based on
public-key cryptography.
The great danger is that the applications architecture we have right
now will freeze in place due to well-known standards dynamics. We
can't blame the people who designed the stuff; they assumed that they
were sketching a first rough draft, not setting something in stone
for all time. If we *can't* change those first rough drafts once they
become widely used, then the ideological image of the Internet as a
roiling cauldron of endless structural change is (like so much of the
received wisdom in this area) the opposite of the truth. And in that
case, we need to adopt a more deliberative method for adopting the
standards that increasingly govern our lives.
One structural problem is that the client-server architecture of the
Web is misconceived. The client-server concept arose in contexts such
as proprietary airline reservations systems in which the institutional
relationship between client and server is fixed and well-understood.
In such an environment, it makes sense for the technological boundary
between client and server to be invisible to the user: the moral and
legal boundary is provided by the well-understood contract. As the
client-server model moved onto public networks such as the Internet,
however, the underlying assumption of a fixed and well-understood
institutional relationship between client and server was undermined.
A Web client transacts business with an unbounded variety of servers,
and the institutional relationship between them -- the rules that
govern privacy and a hundred other things -- are no longer fixed or
well-understood. Yet the boundary between client and srver is still
invisible. It will simply not be possible to solve privacy problems
in Web-based electronic commerce until this profound architectural and
user-interface problem is repaired, and that will require substantial
revisions to the most basic conception of the Web.
We can begin to imagine what this would look like: take the tools
that sophisticated security experts like Richard Smith use to watch
packets moving into and out of your personal computer, make those
tools an integral part of the operating system, and incorporate user-
friendly interfaces for those tools into the architecture of the Web
browser. Those stupid pop-up windows that say "you've gotten a cookie
XQW27RTOX990876GHRX91 from tormentor666.redzone.doubleclick.com; do
you want to accept it?" are a band-aid version of this. They are not
built into the operating system, they are annoying, and they are not
intelligible to the user. They're designed to make you turn them off.
We can do an awful lot better, but first we have to think in moral
and legal terms about what personal boundaries are, and the respective
roles of technology, policy, markets, consumer education, and community
norms in supporting them.
Last point. If you're not grossed out enough by Internet privacy and
security already, see <http://www.gctech.net/articles/webvirus.htm>.]
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE).
You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use
the "redirect" option. For information about RRE, including instructions
for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html
<http://www.doubleclick.net/company_info/press_kit/pr.00.03.02.htm>
Press Releases
STATEMENT FROM KEVIN O'CONNOR, CEO OF DOUBLECLICK
NEW YORK, March 2, 2000 - "Over the past few weeks, DoubleClick
(Nasdaq: DCLK) has been at the center of the Internet privacy
controversy. During this time, we have met and listened to hundreds
of consumers, privacy advocates, customers, government officials
and industry leaders about these issues. The overwhelming point of
contention has been under what circumstances names can be associated
with anonymous user activity across Web sites."
"It is clear from these discussions that I made a mistake by planning
to merge names with anonymous user activity across Web sites in the
absence of government and industry privacy standards."
"Let me be clear: DoubleClick has not implemented this plan, and
has never associated names, or any other personally identifiable
information, with anonymous user activity across Web sites."
"We commit today, that until there is agreement between government
and industry on privacy standards, we will not link personally
identifiable information to anonymous user activity across Web sites."
"This action does not affect our core business activity. It means
we are going to await clear industry standards before we decide
the future direction of a number of new products. We will continue
to expand our successful media, technology, e-mail and offline
data businesses. We will also continue to abide by common industry
practices in building anonymous profiles for ad targeting."
"Since founding DoubleClick only 4 years ago, our company has grown
to 1,800 employees with more than 7,000 customers worldwide. We are
helping thousands of companies become successful in our new economy.
I'm proud of DoubleClick's leadership as an innovator in improving
the value of Internet advertising and keeping the Internet free for
consumers. Taking risks, inventing new products and services, and
correcting mistakes is a sign of responsible leadership."
"Creating industry policies involving something so incredibly
important to our global economy and individuals is not something
to be taken lightly. We all agree on the goals: keep the Internet
free while protecting consumer privacy. It is now time for industry,
consumers and government to develop a clear set of guidelines that
help create a healthy, free Internet while protecting the privacy of
all consumers."
About DoubleClick Inc. DoubleClick Inc. (www.doubleclick.net)
is a leading provider of comprehensive global Internet advertising
solutions for marketers and Web publishers. Combining technology,
media and data expertise, DoubleClick centralizes planning,
execution, control, tracking and reporting for online media campaigns.
DoubleClick Inc. has Global headquarters in New York City and
maintains over 30 offices around the world.
From: Keith Knipschild <keith@knip.com>
Subject: Does Anyone Use Call Manager ?
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 19:42:04 -0500
Im curious does anyone use Call Manager
( Bell Atlantic calls it )
If so what equipment are you using ? Is it a Standalone unit or built
into your phone ?
The reason I'm asking is because I have Call Manager and have never
used it, since I could not find reasonable priced equipment.
Thanks,
Keith
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WEB: http://www.knip.com
MAIL: keith@knip.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
End of TELECOM Digest V20 #15
Visit the Crazy Atheist Libertarian
Visit my atheist friends at Arizona Secular Humanists
Some strange but true news about the government
Some strange but real news about religion
Interesting, funny but otherwise useless news!