TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:13:15 EST Volume 20 : Issue 20
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Cable TV Franchise Fees (Neal McLain)
Re: Did AT&T Raise Calling Card Charges on Feb. 2nd? (Brian Vita)
Re: Did AT&T Raise Calling Card Charges on Feb. 2nd? (Joseph Singer)
Re: Rescue 211 (Stanley Cline)
Re: Rescue 211 (Ed Ellers)
Re: Symantec Threatens Legal Action Over I-Gear Report (Ed Ellers)
Re: Persistent Mysterious Calls from Hell ... (Justa Lurker)
Re: Psychic Hotline Charges (Justa Lurker)
Re: In Never-Bell Land, Phone Service Is Way Above Average (Roy Smith)
Re: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe (Hahn, Ki Suk)
Help: Seeking RJ11 Walljack Manufacture (Brae R.)
Is Doubleclick the Only Commercial Firm Who Spies on Web Users? (YOELK)
Re: Motorola Warns Iridium Customers (JF Mezei)
Iridium (W. Hatfield)
Goodbye, Phone Company; Hello PhoneFree 6.1 (PTownson@compuserve.com)
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 compilation-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
Post Office Box 259
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: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 07:56:41 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@compuserve.com>
Subject: Cable TV Franchise Fees
In Telecom Digest 20:19, John Hines <jhines@enteract.com> wrote
(in reference to the ongoing thread about utility franchise
fees):
> You're right, there is no need to charge the phone company a
> franchise fee, since the village, state, and feds already
> directly tax the service to the consumer. (You may not be taxed
> at all three levels, but I am.)
> This is unlike the electric, and cable industries, where the
> taxes have been hidden from the end consumer.
I have to disagree. Cable TV taxes and franchise fees may be
"hidden" on your cable bill, but that's definitely not a
universal policy. Cable TV companies are generally subject to
three forms of tax-like fees, and many cable companies itemize
them individually on subscriber bills.
For the record, here's a summary of those fees:
- Franchise fee. This fee is imposed by, and paid to, the
"local franchising authority" (LFA), typically the local
municipal or county government. It's supposed to cover
the LFA's costs for administering the franchise, and to
reimburse it for the franchisee's use of its "right of way,"
i.e., the public streets. It's capped by FCC rule at 5% of
gross revenue, a figure that has nothing at all to do with
the amount of the right-of-way that's actually used. Most
LFA's charge the full 5%. (But it's actually more than 5%
for reasons I'll explain presently).
- Sales tax. In most states, sales tax is a "tax of general
applicability": it applies to all sales, including cable TV
service. It's imposed by, and paid to, either the state
government, or some layer of local government, or both. Here
in Wisconsin, the state sales tax is 5%, and the county tax
is 0.5%, for a combined total of 5.5%.
- FCC Regulatory Fee. This fee is imposed by, and paid to,
the FCC. It reimburses the FCC for the cost of regulating
the industry. For year 1999, the fee was $0.48 per
subscriber per year. Most cable companies pass this fee
through to subscribers by spreading it across twelve monthly
bills.
All of these fees are ultimately paid by the subscriber whether
or not they're itemized on the bill. In my experience (which
includes many years as a cable TV engineer), most cable companies
itemize them. LFA's would probably prefer to have the franchise
fees hidden, but cable companies obviously want to make sure that
their subscribers know where their money's going. Federal law
specifically authorizes itemizing franchise fees: in the words of
Senator Trent Lott, "I would like to offer my amendment ...
dealing with subscriber bill itemization, to give the cable
companies an opportunity to itemize these so-called hidden costs
to explain to people what is involved in the charges so they will
know it is not just the cable company jacking up the prices..."
The franchise fee is supposedly capped at 5%. But here's what's
really weird: that 5% applies not only to the cable bill itself,
but ALSO TO THE FUNDS THE CABLE COMPANY COLLECTS TO PAY IT!
This case began as a dispute between the City of Baltimore and a
local cable provider, United Artists Cable of Baltimore (UACB).
UACB had originally agreed to pay the city a 5 percent franchise
fee. In calculating its gross revenue, UACB treated the fee like
sales tax: it calculated the fee based on its charges for cable
television service. If a customer's monthly bill was $30.00,
UACB divided the bill into two portions: $28.56 allocated to
cable services, and $1.44 (5% of $28.56) allocated to pay the
franchise fee.
The city contended that this method of calculation was incorrect.
Instead, the city argued that under the franchise agreement, UACB
was required to pay 5 percent of the full sum collected from
subscribers. Therefore, if a customer's bill was $30.00, the
franchise fee would be $1.50.
UACB appealed the matter to the FCC's Cable Services Bureau,
which ruled in favor of UACB. The full Commission upheld the
Bureau.
At that point, the cities of Dallas and Laredo, Texas, among
others, appealed to the federal courts, where the case eventually
made its way to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The central
issue in the case turned on the question of Congress' use of the
term "gross revenues." The cities claimed that the term should
be interpreted broadly, to include all revenues received by the
cable operator. Cable interests relied on the FCC's statement
that "nothing in the statutory provisions of the Cable Act states
that franchise fees are to be included in calculating an
operator's gross revenues."
The Court issued its opinion in July 1997, reversing the FCC's
interpretation and holding that cable operators may be required
by local franchise to pay a franchise fee on the revenue
collected to pay that fee.
So most cable operators (meaning their subscribers) are now
required to pay the full "fee on fee" amount. Using standard
compound-interest formulas, that works out to about 5.26 percent.
The full text of this decision may be found at
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/uscircs/5t
h/9660427cv0.html
Neal McLain
nmclain@compuserve.com
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:11:16 -0500
From: Brian Vita <brian_vita@cssinc.com>
Subject: Re: Did AT&T Raise Calling Card Charges on Feb. 2nd?
wfp@ziplink.net (Bill Phillips) wrote:
> Since last summer we have used 1-800-CALL-ATT ...
> It appears as though AT&T almost doubled our calling card charges
> without letting us know ...
We had a similar thing happen to us twice with AT&T. The first time
was two years ago when our term contract expired unnoticed. Without
any warning, or attempt to renew us, they went from our $0.094/minute
rate to a $0.27/minute rate for direct dial from the office. We left
them.
We came briefly back to AT&T as a backup carrier earlier last year.
They were offerring a 10.4/minute rate. We signed. They billed at
$.27. We cancelled. To this day they are trying to bill us for calls
that we did not make and for rates that we never agreed to.
I have over eight hours logged in to trying to reach someone at AT&T
who can adjust the billings and stop the mystery billings for accounts
that we can't identify. At this point I've given up and I'm waiting
for it to go to legal. AT&T will never again be in this office.
Brian
Reply-To: dov@oz.net
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:35:41 -0800
From: Joseph Singer <dov@oz.net>
Subject: Re: Did AT&T Raise Calling Card Charges on Feb. 2nd?
wfp@ziplink.net (Bill Phillips) wrote:
> Since last summer we have used 1-800-CALL-ATT and our Bell Atlantic
> calling card to make calls from work at MIT in Cambridge, MA, mostly
> to New York City, where her mother is in an assisted-living facility
> (not cheap, but there seems to be no other way to make an l/d
> connection from her department). We've had AT&T Reach Out service for
> many years, and even though it's not very economical for us any more,
> my wife seems to want to hang onto it. I have trained her, however, to
> use dialarounds from home.]
Habits are hard to break if it's "what you've been used to."
Unfortunately just hanging on to what you've always done nowadays in
the long distance bidness could cost you more coins than you really
have to spend. Companies like AT&T or whoever you signed up for a
year or two or 10 years ago may very well not be a good deal for you
even though maybe at one time it was a sort of good deal.
> It appears as though AT&T almost doubled our calling card charges
> without letting us know ...
This type of behavior from AT&T or Sprint or MCI or any other carrier
is nothing new. I don't think they are required to notify except
perhaps putting the required legal announcement once in the paper and
I don't even know if they are required to do that. They don't
necessarily or usually notify their customers.
> So ... what happened, why didn't I know about it, do we have any
> recourse, and is there a better (cheaper) way to get to an l/d carrier
> from inside a place like MIT?
You can always shop for a better rate for a calling card and I don't
mean a pre-paid calling card either. There are a number of places on
the net where you can look up calling cards and what they charge. One
place you could look is <http://www.abelltolls.com> which not only
compares 1+ plans, "dialaround" so called "10-10" plans, but also
compares calling cards and what the rates are. Some calling cards do
not charge any monthly or per call surcharge. Others do. Some don't
even charge the USF charges and incorporate the charge into their
rates. I have the Voicenet calling card <http://www.vnetcard.com>
which charges 17.5/minute for domestic calls. This is not the
cheapest rate around, but it's not a pre-paid card and is much better
than I can do with one of the majors and not get slapped a hefty
surcharge or a monthly fee for the "priviledge" of using their card.
The bottom line is that you need to get out from under AT&T and find a
calling card that is more economical and is a better deal. It's a
competitive landscape and you need to get out and find something that
will serve you better and give you a better overall rate than what
you're getting now with your calling card program. As for ease of use
most of the calling cards will let you use your home phone number with
a four digit PIN that often you can choose yourself or change later
once you have the card.
Joseph Singer "thefoneguy" <fones@uswestmail.net>
PO Box 23135, Seattle WA 98102 USA
+1 206 405 2052 [voice mail]
+1 206 493 0706 [FAX]
From: Stanley Cline <sc1@roamer1.org>
Subject: Re: Rescue 211
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:59:02 -0500
Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX)
Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:39:37 -0500, Jeremy Pickett
<jer76@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In many towns in the north Georgia area 311 is used as a shortcut to the
> telco's voicemail system. Out of curiousity, I began to try the
Are you in a former Standard Telephone area? I seem to recall they
did this for some reason.
> different combinations one evening, being careful not to dial 411 or
> 911. I was surprised when I reached our county's 911 center by dialing
> 211. Embarassed, I apologized and quickly hung up. Does anyone know if
> this is something other telco's are doing as well, or just a strange
> ALLTEL quirk? I've heard that in some areas 311 will be assigned to
In BellSouth exchanges in the Atlanta local calling area (I have no
clue about ALLTEL exchanges local to Atlanta e.g. Canton, nor TDS's or
Frontier's Atlanta-metro exchanges) 211 goes to the United Way. (211
is a free call, and BellSouth's tariffs specifically exclude 211 from
inclusion in toll-restriction arrangements.)
That said, I recall there was a brief period of time when in one
Chattanooga, TN exchange (actually, this switch is physically in
Georgia, but both Telcordia and BellSouth treat the CO as being in
Tennessee, and Georgia customers served by that switch pay Tennessee
rates for POTS services per both Georgia and Tennessee tariffs. ISDN
etc. is priced at the [much higher] Georgia rates :( ), dialing 611
resulted in the call going to the Hamilton County, TN 911 PSAP -- not
to BellSouth repair service (in AL, KY, LA, MS, and TN, BellSouth does
*not* use 611 for repair service, they use 557-6111 instead), nor to
the correct PSAP for the originating line where this quirk was noted
(Catoosa County, GA.) That's since been fixed; 611 from that CO now
goes to a "call cannot be completed as dialed" recording. The same
sort of thing -- a translations error -- may be the case in your area.
Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
From: Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Rescue 211
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:10:40 -0500
Jeremy Pickett <jer76@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Out of curiousity, I began to try the different combinations one
evening, being careful not to dial 411 or 911. I was surprised when I
reached our county's 911 center by dialing 211. Embarassed, I
apologized and quickly hung up. Does anyone know if this is something
other telco's are doing as well, or just a strange ALLTEL quirk?"
I haven't heard of that, but I do remember that when the 1A ESS was
cut over in my area in 1982 -- before we had 911 of any sort -- it was
configured to divert 911 calls to the operator.
From: Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Symantec Threatens Legal Action Over I-Gear Report
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:12:59 -0500
Bennett <bennett@peacefire.org> wrote:
"We believe that the issue at stake is the right to criticize software
by looking "under the hood", and to allow others to verify your
findings."
But what if that collides with the right of the software manufacturer
to not have its intellectual property stolen by its potential
competitors?
From: /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker)
Subject: Re: Persistent Mysterious Calls from Hell ...
Organization: Anonymous People
Reply-To: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Reply to the DIGEST)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:06:16 GMT
It was Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:48:08 -0600, and Andrew Green
<acg@datalogics.com> wrote in comp.dcom.telecom:
> /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) writes:
>> From NNAG for December 1999.
> 509-533 SPOKANE
> US WEST PNW BELL
> End Office Code - Portable
> Modified 03/17/00
> 5E SPKNWAKYDS0 v:06247 h:08180
> *boggle*
> What the heck was that? :-) Seriously, I read the Digest in order to
> learn things; can you add a little detail as to what sort of info
> you're sharing with us here about the 509-533 mystery number?
Sorry ... just a little technical detail. I also did a search via
ANYWHO as the original person claimed (searching for the first 8
digits) and came up with Spokane addresses. Not too hard to find.
But the tech data comes from NNAG, published monthly at trainfo.com
and followed by numbering junkies like me. :-)
> 509-533 SPOKANE
Exchange # and name
> US WEST PNW BELL
Who it is primarily served by
> End Office Code - Portable
Type of code, not to be confused with wireless.
> Modified 03/17/00
The last time that the code was changed (effective date)
> 5E SPKNWAKYDS0 v:06247 h:08180
Switch type, Silly code (CLLI), and coordinates of switch.
> And to the original poster: Have you ever _answered_ one of these
> mystery calls, or are you just looking at Caller ID logs? Does an
> answering machine record anything from these calls? From the timing
> and pattern you describe, if I answered the phone I would expect to be
> hearing the "boop... boop... boop..." of a misprogrammed fax machine
> trying to send a regularly-scheduled outbound message of some sort.
I believe that the victim was out with the horses during the call, so
I would assume Caller ID (with no name or 'unavalable' name) or *69
(callback) type service.
JL
From: /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker)
Subject: Re: Psychic Hotline Charges
Organization: Anonymous People
Reply-To: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Reply to the DIGEST)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:19:45 GMT
It was Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:16 +0000, and Richard@office.mandarin.com
(Richard D G Cox) wrote in comp.dcom.telecom:
>> "We think he should pay only for the long-distance charge and not
>> for the psychic hot line's fee for its services," said Ochs' lawyer,
>> Richard Galler. "In other words, he should pay whatever it costs
>> to make a regular call to Vanuatu."
> He may have a point - however I wonder if it is the *right* point!
> The chances of such a service actually operating in Vanuatu - given
> the cultural and other differences - are at the best extremely slim.
> It is far more likely (as close to 100% certain as you can be without
> actually being 100% certain) that the service operates out of somewhere
> closer to mainland USA. Possibly even ON mainland USA - or in the UK.
> (calls US->UK or vice versa cost Telcos about a (US) cent per minute!)
"The caller dialed Vanuatu, which implies that he was willing to pay
the international fee to Vanyatu for his call, regardless where the
psychic was located." A sad rationalization for what is going on.
I agree with you and believe that when you dial a number your call
should be connected to someone IN the country you dialed. But due to
the fact that this 'victim' set up phone accounts under several names
to make his calls, I'd say he really wasn't 'willing to pay'.
The suggestion to check out websites like lincmad.com is good.
JL
From: Roy Smith <roy@endeavor.med.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: In Never-Bell Land, Phone Service Is Way Above Average
Organization: New York University School of Medicine
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:42:55 -0500
Michael Sullivan <avogadro@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> costs resulting from providing gold-plated, overstaffed service.
Bell Atlantic wouldn't know gold-plated service if it jumped up and
bit them on the nose.
From: Hahn, Ki Suk <kshahn@datalogics.com>
Subject: Re: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:00:53 -0600
siegman@stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) wrote:
> On the one hand, these things are wonderful; on the other hand it's
> hard to believe they aren't going to lead to an epidemic of rear-end
> collisions, running down of pedestrians, and similar accidents.
The top-of-the-line Hyundai in Korea has two LCD screens, one for the
rear-passengers (behind center armrest), one for the driver (mounted
high on the dash). It has the GPS+CDROM navigation with voice
commands, and once you enter your destination, there's not much of a
need to look at the display, since a female voice will guide you. The
map display will still be on for the driver. The display is also
hooked up to a TV and CD/VideoCD player, but the driver's display is
blacked out (with sound on) when the car is in drive, un-blacked-out
when in neutral or park. [But accidents with pedestrians are still
very common in Korea, unfortunately.]
Ki Suk Hahn
kshahn@datalogics.com
From: Brae R <braeatwork@mindspring.com>
Subject: Help: Seeking RJ11 Walljack Manufacture
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 12:18:56 -0800
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hello,
I am trying to find some companies that have the ability to take from
rough specifications and drawings and design an engineering print for
submission to manufacture for a special RJ11x3 walljack for use in
residential applications.
Does anyone know of such a company(ies) in the US? Preferably in the
SE part of the country, but not required. A project would be for
2,000-10,000 on the manufacturing end, with 5-10 beta units for
testing.
Brae
From: YOELK <jkrup@shani.net>
Subject: Is Doubleclick the Only Commercial Firm Who Spies on Web Users?
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:11:39 +0200
Organization: My organization
I found the following two firms who do exactly the same thing:
1) www.avenuea.com
They have the opt out option, so they say. I have checked this option
and found an 'optout' cookie. Still this cookie has a unique ID, so I
am not sure if this is worth anything.
2) www.preferences.com (www.matchlogic.com).
In www.preferences.com in a page 'control your information' was a form
to send them personal information! A misleading practice I suppose.
The important thing to note here was that they found a mechanism to
bypass Netscape option 'Only accept cookies from same server as the
page being viewed'. (Java script in cnn.com)
Do you know about more firms doing this ?
Even when I find ways to filter cookies from web promos, there would
pop up new web promo servers, so the problem is to keep track on them.
YOELK
From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Motorola Warns Iridium Customers
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:21:20 -0500
> Motorola Warns Iridium Customers
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000310/bs/telecoms_iridium_5.html
> If Iridium does not find a buyer in time, it will dismantle the satellite
> system, leaving Iridium subscribers with useless phones. Motorola
> said the phones would not work with other satellite telephone
> systems.
What does "dismantling the satellite system" entail ? Will they send a
shuttle equipped with laser guns to blast those satellites out of the
sky ???? :-) :-)
Seriously though, reading about NASA's satellite system which does not
provide for continous communications for neither the space station or
shuttle, wouldn't NASA benefit from acquiring those satellites to
build its own network that truly does span the globe so that orbiting
vehicles could communicate with earth? Or are the antennas such that
the satellites are truly useless from higher orbits?
Or perhaps AOL could buy them and provide worldwide ISP services ? It
would provide easy access to any remote areas, as well as very
interesting global wireless opportunities.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:31:04 -0400
From: W. Hatfield <mail02744@pop.net>
Subject: Iridium
Without comment, for the record
In "Business This Week March 4th - March 10th 2000" The Economist
<business@lists.economist.com> puts it bluntly
> IRIDIUM, a satellite-phone company that has been operating under
> American bankruptcy protection for six months, saw Craig McCaw, a
> potential saviour, walk away after he had considered a refinancing of
> the beleaguered firm. Iridium's creditors can now look forward to a
> night sky illuminated by the company's 66 satellites burning up as they
> fall back to earth.
From: PTownson@compuserve.com
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:01:10 -0500
Subject: Goodbye, Phone Company; Hello PhoneFree 6.1
Forwarded message:
Date: 3/10/00 7:10 PM
RE: Goodbye, phone company; hello PhoneFree 6.1
Dear PhoneFree user,
My name is Jan Horsfall, CEO of PhoneFree, and I'm sick of the phone
company. I mean, why should any of us continue to shell out money for
out-of-date technology? Why stick with the old system when new
solutions are available? I think it's time for a revolution.
PhoneFree is the start of the revolution in communications. It's
free, it's easy, and it makes great use of the technology you and I
use every day. It allows you to make long-distance calls around the
world to other PhoneFree users - absolutely free. And by marrying
voice technology to the Web, it's more than just a dial tone - it's a
new way to communicate by voice and video.
Come to PhoneFree.com today and install new version 6.1. Help us wave
goodbye to the old legacy phone companies.
Look for occasional updates from our resident revolutionary, a
charming guy by the name of Patrick H., in our new PhoneFree.com Flash
newsletter. If, for some bizarre reason, you're satisfied with the
old system and don't want to be part of this revolution, simply follow
the unsubscribe instructions at the bottom of this message.
Thanks for being PhoneFree.
Jan Robert Horsfall
PhoneFree.com (sm) Flash
In this issue:
- PhoneFree 6.1 -- FREE
- FREE beauties for a year
- More than just a phone - it's a community
- PhoneFree Company Store grand opening
- PhoneFree testimonials
PhoneFree 6.1 -- FREE
You know PhoneFree works. You know it's better than a legacy phone
system. Now you can install an even more powerful incarnation of
PhoneFree - new version 6.1. It includes our brand new Personal
Communications Center, where you can see and talk to other PhoneFree
users. It also includes integrated voicemail, video mail, voice and
video conferencing, file and data transferring capabilities, bubble chat
groups and security features to protect your privacy. And, it's all
absolutely free. Install today at
http://www.phonefree.com/install/index.html
- and tell your friends and family to do the same.
FREE beauties for a year
You're a loyal PhoneFree user - what can we do to thank you? While
sending you a check for a large sum of money is tempting, we're told
that such an action might send our accounting department into a
collective fit of convulsions. So we decided to give you the next
best thing - supermodels. That's right, just for being a PhoneFree
user, you can have a free virtual calendar for the year, featuring your
favorite Elite supermodels. It's more than just eye candy, too - you
get daily news, a personal organizer, and a new female or male model
from a database of 35,000 photos to grace your calendar daily. Get
your calendar now at http://www.elitecalendar.com/phonefree/home.asp.
And remember, free is always an excellent price.
Telephones aren't good for much more than gabbing with friends,
relatives and annoying telemarketers. Though PhoneFree is good for all
those things (except maybe the telemarketer part), its Web technologies
allow it to be so much more. Imagine chat rooms that allow for real
verbal interaction. Or e-mail that talks. Or video mail. Or making
new friends from lists of people with interests that are similar to
yours. Stay tuned for these and other cool features. The potential is
almost limitless.
You can reunite with old friends and family from all over the world, or
make new friends among the thousands of PhoneFree users. Just think of
it - the more that you, your friends and family use PhoneFree, the more
money you can save on long distance bills. Forward this newsletter to
all your friends and help us spread the word. Or go to
mailto://mailinglist@phonefree.com to add a friend to our mailing list.
Either way, you save big and reserve your hard-earned cash for
something more glamorous than a phone bill.
PhoneFree Company Store Grand Opening
Looking for accessories to turn your PC into the ultimate communication
device? Check out the grand opening of our PhoneFree Company Store,
where you can buy the latest in headsets to make your calling experience
even better (sorry, ma Bell, but we don't sell phones). Come to
http://www.netsales.net/pk.wcgi/vxi-phfree today and discover
a new way to communicate. It's time to leave legacy phone
companies behind.
PhoneFree Testimonials
Telephones aren't good for much more than gabbing with friends,
relatives and annoying telemarketers. Though PhoneFree is good for all
those things (except maybe the telemarketer part), its Web technologies
allow it to be so much more. Imagine chat rooms that allow for real
verbal interaction. Or e-mail that talks. Or video mail. Or making
new friends from lists of people with interests that are similar to
yours. Stay tuned for these and other cool features. The potential is
almost limitless.
You can reunite with old friends and family from all over the world, or
make new friends among the thousands of PhoneFree users. Just think of
it - the more that you, your friends and family use PhoneFree, the more
money you can save on long distance bills. Forward this newsletter to
all your friends and help us spread the word. Or go to
mailto://mailinglist@phonefree.com to add a friend to our mailing list.
Either way, you save big and reserve your hard-earned cash for
something more glamorous than a phone bill.
PhoneFree Company Store Grand Opening
Looking for accessories to turn your PC into the ultimate communication
device? Check out the grand opening of our PhoneFree Company Store,
where you can buy the latest in headsets to make your calling experience
even better (sorry, ma Bell, but we don't sell phones). Come to
http://www.netsales.net/pk.wcgi/vxi-phfree today and discover
a new way to communicate. It's time to leave legacy phone
companies behind.
PhoneFree Testimonials
Stories about how PhoneFree has made communications better.
We will pick some of the best stories to appear on our Web site.
Stay tuned for more updates. Let me know what you think.
-Patrick H. (GMLOGMD)
End of TELECOM Digest V20 #20
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!