From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 19 15:32:03 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3JJW3c20055; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:32:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404191932.i3JJW3c20055@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #194 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:31:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 194 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Consumers Pick up on Net Phone Trend (VOIP News) Pennsylvania Regulator Declines to Take Action on VoIP (VOIP News) Morpheus Finds Its Voice - Peer-to-peer Service (VOIP News) VoIP, Inc. Signs Letter of Intent to Acquire (VOIP News) AT&T's CallVantage Service Expands to New York (VOIP News) Nortel Proposes VoIP 911 Solution (VOIP News) Internet Telephone Service is Inexpensive Second Line (VOIP News) AT&T VoIP Petition Likely to be Denied (VOIP News) Article Illustrates One Big Advantage of Broadband and VoIP (VOIP News) Uniden Delivers Affordable VoIP Solution With New IP Phone (VOIP News) Re: Phone Line Connected to Satellite System Problems (J Kelly) Re: Spam Issues (werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Lisa Hancock) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:57:49 -0400 Subject: Consumers Pick up on Net Phone Trend Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0404/19/etech19-126429.htm Trends By Scott Craven / The Arizona Republic If you're browsing for the next frontier in phones, stow your cell and eye the Internet. By the end of 2006, 1.8 million households will be making calls from phones plugged into the Net, up from 135,000 users in 2003, according to In-Stat/MDR, a research firm that tracks the telecommunications industry. 'This is not a passing thing,' said Daryl Schoolar, a senior analyst for In-Stat/MDR. "We're going to see more movement toward VoIP services." VoIP (pronounced 'voyp' and standing for Voice over Internet Protocol) refers to calls transmitted over the Internet, bypassing the wires and networks owned by phone companies as well as their charges. VoIP's limitations (poor vocal quality and confusing software) have been overcome, which could raise the technology from quaint status to phone of the future. "VoIP is the start of a telecom evolution," said Kevin Mitchell, an analyst for Boston-based Infonetic Research, which tracks emerging telecommunications technology. Full story at: http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0404/19/etech19-126429.htm How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: Pennsylvania Regulator Declines to Take Action on VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.x-changemag.com/hotnews/44h197129.html The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission has voted unanimously to refrain from regulating Internet-based phone service while it monitors developments at the FCC. The vote heralded the conclusion of a year-long proceeding investigating VoIP services like Vonage, according to the service provider. Full story at: http://www.x-changemag.com/hotnews/44h197129.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:25:20 -0400 Subject: Morpheus Finds Its Voice - Peer-to-Peer Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115686,00.asp Peer-to-peer service teams with i2Telecom to expand into Internet-based telephony. Liane Cassavoy, PC World Morpheus users who rely on the peer-to-peer service to swap files will soon have another option to get connected: The Morpheus Voicebox, which lets you turn a household landline phone into an Internet-based, Voice-over-IP telephone. StreamCast Networks, the parent company of Morpheus, is teaming with i2Telecom, a provider of VoIP services for businesses, to begin offering the service this week. The Morpheus software has been downloaded more than 122 million times since it launched in 2001, and the company estimates 250,000 to 300,000 people use the application every day. This wide user base is the first target for Morpheus Voicebox. "Morpheus has millions of loyal customers around the world. Their users are tech savvy, and most of them have broadband connections, so this seemed like a natural fit," says Rick Scherle, i2Telecom's vice president of marketing. This deal marks the first time i2Telecom's services have been offered to consumers. The Morpheus Voicebox is available from MorpheusVoicebox.com for $49.95. The device plugs into your phone and your computer's Internet connection, and lets you use either your regular landline connection or the VoIP connection, which you acces by pressing pound before dialing a phone number. Users also pay a one-time setup fee of $25, plus fees for a choice of subscriptions. Full story at: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115686,00.asp ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:32:26 -0400 Subject: VoIP, Inc. Signs Letter of Intent to Acquire Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1032682.htm VoIP, Inc. Signs Letter of Intent to Acquire a California-based WiFi Company FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. --(Business Wire)-- April 19, 2004 -- VoIP, Inc. today announced that it has signed a Letter of Intent to acquire Apex Sight, LLC., a Calif.-based WiFi technology company which will become a wholly owned subsidiary of VoIP, Inc. Apex Sight, LLC. designs and manufactures high-speed, wireless fidelity (WiFi) products for the growing wireless local area networking (WLAN), public WLAN (PWLAN), and wireless Internet service provider (WISP) markets. Apex Sight's patented, proprietary designs are based upon the latest innovations in 3rd and 4th-generation WiFi technology. Andrew Corp, one of the world's largest antenna distributors, will market Apex Sight's antennas in over 40 countries. The pending acquisition of Apex Sight will continue VoIP, Inc.'s expansion in the field of Voice over IP and WiFi technology. The expected convergence of the two technologies will create shareholder value by allowing VoIP, Inc. to dominate the industry by providing a combined solution provided by Apex Sight and VoIP Solutions, Inc.'s technology. Full story at: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1032682.htm ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:29:26 -0400 Subject: AT&T's CallVantage Service Expands to New York [and elsewhere] Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-19-2004/0002153898&EDATE= AT&T's CallVantage Service Expands to New York Coast-to-Coast Rollout Continues With Expansion to 11 Markets Including New York City, Long Island, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco Introductory Promotion Offers Unlimited Calling and Advanced Features At 50 Percent Off Regular Price of $39.99 per Month NEW YORK, April 19 /PRNewswire/ -- AT&T today launched the next phase of its residential Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone service, called AT&T CallVantage(SM) Service, providing the residents of New York City, Long Island and Westchester County a high-tech alternative for their personal communications needs. AT&T CallVantage Service began setting benchmarks two weeks ago for what the company believes will be the industry's most reliable and innovative broadband phone service in the country as it made the service generally available to consumers in New Jersey and Texas. Now the company is expanding its service footprint into New York for consumers from Peekskill to Staten Island to Suffolk County. The service will be further expanded to serve other areas of the Empire State and the nation over the coming months. Today, the company also announced the local availability of AT&T CallVantage Service in parts of California and San Antonio, Texas. Full press release at: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-19-2004/0002153898&EDATE= ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:12:44 -0400 Subject: Nortel Proposes VoIP 911 Solution Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=7&releaseid=12187&magazinearticleid=197180&siteid=3 by Donny Jackson Telephony, Apr 19, 2004 Many hail voice-over-IP calling as the future of voice communications, but one of the primary technical hurdles for VoIP providers is getting access to the emergency 911 system. a priority for regulators and often a market prerequisite for customers considering VoIP as a primary-line alternative. Currently, there is no standard method connecting VoIP calls to public service access points (PSAP), which were designed to work with legacy, circuit-switched networks. As a result, most 911 services from VoIP providers direct emergency calls to a PSAP's administrative office instead of connecting directly to a 911 dispatcher. This patch creates potentially costly time delays in responding to a caller in crisis, but there are also other problems. A VoIP phone is mobile and can be used anywhere there is a broadband connection, so the phone number associated with the device cannot be used to determine the nearest PSAP to call or the caller's location. With this in mind, Nortel Networks last month offered a proposal at the National Emergency Number Association Technical Development Conference that is designed to tackle these VoIP-related 911 problems by using the infrastructure created to solve 911 challenges in another mobile area: connecting wireless users to the current 911 architecture. Full story at: http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=7&releaseid=12187&magazinearticleid=197180&siteid=3 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:46:20 -0400 Subject: Internet Telephone Service is Inexpensive Second Line Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001906710_btsoho19.html By Michael J. Himowitz The Baltimore Sun For the past week or so, the phone on my desk hasn't been plugged into its usual wall jack. Instead, it's been plugged into a little white box that routes my calls over the Internet. Most of the people I've called can't tell the difference. Traditional phone companies are worried about these boxes because they represent cheap and -- so far -- unregulated competition, on top of the business they've lost to wireless carriers. Full story at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001906710_btsoho19.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:08:41 -0400 Subject: AT&T VoIP Petition Likely to be Denied Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=7&releaseid=12187&magazinearticleid=197160&siteid=3 by Donny Jackson Telephony, Apr 19, 2004 AT&T's declaratory petition that would exempt the carrier from access charges when it connects phone-to-phone calls using its IP backbone as transport will be denied by the FCC imminently, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. As a result, AT&T and other carriers using IP networks to transport calls from one public-switched telephone network to another will have to pay the same access fees that would be charged if the call was transported over a circuit-switched network. This likely will result in hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs annually to AT&T, according to several industry experts. "Access charge disputes are basically unrefereeable; it's gray area upon gray area," [Precursor CEO Scott Cleland] said. "That's the reason why they're going to bill and keep [in the proposed revamping of the intercarrier compensation regime] because it's not worth the hassle." Full story at: http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=7&releaseid=12187&magazinearticleid=197160&siteid=3 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:57:39 -0400 Subject: Article Illustrates one big Advantage of Broadband + VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com [This may seem a bit off-topic but to me it illustrates one of the big selling points of broadband plus a VoIP service. With that combination, something like this could not happen, because there would be no need to use a dial-up Internet connection in the first place, but also because with an unlimited VoIP plan there's no danger that what you think is a local call will wind up being charged as a toll call (unless it's an international call, and some companies such as VoicePulse and Vonage offer international call blocking that can be enabled via the customer's web interface, so it can be temporarily disabled if you really do need to make an international call).] http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-04-19-aol-vs-customers_x.htm N.H. attorney general seeks to help couple with online bill LITCHFIELD, N.H. (AP) The state attorney general's office has intervened on behalf of a couple who ran up more than $3,400 in phone bills after running an America Online program designed to improve their Internet connection. Ken Pedersen, 67, of Litchfield, said he ran AOL's AutoFix on Feb. 26 because he kept losing his Internet connection. After running the program, Pedersen's service improved, but his dial-up number had changed without his knowledge from a free local call to a regional toll call, he said. Then from Feb. 26 to March 15, the Pedersens left their computer on day and night with the Internet connected tallying thousands of minutes of toll calls. The Pedersens says they didn't realize their dial-up number was changed to a toll call until they received their phone bill. They now owe Verizon $3,424. For now, the Pedersens have decided to pay only their normal monthly bill of $24.84. They canceled both their Verizon and AOL service on March 24 and now subscribe to Adelphia's high speed cable Internet service. Full story at: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-04-19-aol-vs-customers_x.htm ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:58:14 -0400 Subject: Uniden Delivers Affordable VoIP Solution With New IP Phone Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1032740.htm Uniden America Corporation, manufacturer and marketer of wireless consumer electronic products, announced the introduction of its latest Voice over IP (VoIP) phone. The UIP200 offers a high-quality IP solution at an affordable price (MSRP $149), making VoIP more accessible for businesses. Full story at: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1032740.htm ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Phone Line Connected to Satellite System Problems Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:13:22 -0500 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:43:03 -0400, Keith Knipschild wrote: > I recently got a Satellite System installed from DISH Network, The > receiver needs to be connected to a phone line otherwise Dish charges > $5 a month. > But I seem to be having a problem, The DISH receiver does not > recognize my phone line, (Which is POTS) it fails on a phone line > test. > I then remembered that since I have VOICE DIALING, the dial tone is > very brief ... Maybe that is causing the failure. > So I did a test, from my phone I dialed *98 (This extends the Dial > Tone) and did a phone line test on my DISH receiver and it Worked just > fine. (I think the Extended Dial Tone only lasts for 1 call). > Does anyone know how to cure this problem? Is it DISH's receiver or > VERIZON'S problem with Voice Dialing ? > BTW: Verizon does not Support Voice Dialing anymore, they don't offer > it anymore, but existing customers can continue to use it. > Keith Does the Dish have a place to tell it to dial *98 to access the line, therefore extending the dialtone? I recall seeing a place to set a code to dial to access an outside line, but maybe it was only the option to dial 9. I'm not near one of my Dish boxes at the moment to check. ------------------------------ From: werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:25:32 UTC Organization: Hoeland First and foremost, no, this topic should never have made it in here (I think). I don't perceive this list to be for *that*... (intemperate, inappropriately worded) complaint -- not to call it a malicious rant, with followup posts "more of the same kind"-- it should have been recognized for what it is, and the poster informed that "the news.admin.net-abuse.* hierarchy of newsgroups is *over there*" ... but the poster knew that already, being familiar with *that* "over there", and his post here wasn't at all *innocent* ... is what I make it it! So sue me for my opinion! :) SELLCOM and SELL.COM ?!? KILL-filed here "on sight" (if I could bounce *everything* from/about them at the router level, I would -- and, hell no, I don't discuss the merits of that attitude/policy with anyone there, especially not someone who uses the 4-line signature for advertising). Heck, I didn't even know there was a thread started by/about them here, until one of the posters on the SELECT-list in my KILL-file posted a comment). quoting usenet@rusling.org : > SELLCOM Tech support wrote: >>> I say hooray for FIVE-TEN; and stop whining and dump your >>> spam-friendly provider. Blocklisting an entire /16 or /24 block >>> of IP's will sometimes get a provider's attention when all *else* >>> failed ... Exactly. Of course one of the blocklists will "list you first" ... Of course one of the blocklists "is more agressive than others"... Of course those of us who use blocklists appreciate that fact ... (that there are lists which represent different approaches, different ways of thinking, different patience levels) ... A university (or other large organization) might have reason to decide they can't afford (don't want the hassle/responsibility of) rejecting *any* mail *ever* that might prove "false" (as "the merit of the doubt" becomes awfully hard to judge when you have the kind of traffic we have) ... and might decide not to use any block-lists. While in small organizations and private networks, it *IS* desirable to blocklist all of Asia, Latin-America ... even all of AOL, YAHOO, ... AND all of Verizon's IP-blocks! :) (and if you had to deal with the amounts of TRASH I get *here* but not *there* you'd understand why). The way things play out, usually, is that "if *they* don't heed the warning calls by aggressive block-listers, pretty soon they appear "in the rest, then in all of them"... >> What an idiot! Verizon does not let spammers run on their network. >> The trash at FIVETEN are also known for refusing to remove blocks even >> when ISPs deal with the spammers. Steve at SELLCOM I've felt sorry for some that "got caught" by the side-effect of block-listing (and slow learning/reacting ISPs) --I mean, it is not all that hard to think 'it could happen to me, too!' -- but *THIS ONE* ... ?!? ... I have no sympathy for *at all, *NONE WHATSOEVER ! /"\ ASCII... ._. ||"We the sheeple...Don't Mess With Penguins!" \ / on Usenet /v\ || OPT-OUT is *E*V*I*L* X ANYTHING ELSE /( )\ || I KILL-file top-posters / ignore posts with / \ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^ || only quoted text in the first screen... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to make a point here. First of all, I maintain a **public** mailing list on which everyone (mostly) is free to participate. I feel I am morally obligated to **at least give a cursory examination** to every piece of mail that comes to me for the Digest. Much -- maybe the vast majority -- of it these days is a total waste of time and goes into my trash bucket immediatly or shortly thereafter, but for myself, and that's the only person I can speak for, I do not dare to run a kill file type of thing. Second point is, so many kill files, IMO, (note, I did *not* say spam blacklists) are based more on the prima-donna attitudes of their owners than anything else, i.e. "I do not like that poster's opinion on [name the topic, his politics, his sexuality, his religion, etc], so I am going to automatically kill his stuff, not even force my virgin eyes and virgin brain to read or examine his stuff, or God forbid! be subject to having to think about it. Yet the very same people, who moan and bitch about how 'library internet filtering' (to name one example) is likely to prevent someone from reading their material are often times the very ones who want to operate kill files for *their own reasons*. At least I, when I choose to use my (moderator-defined) kill file, tell you about it. I am going to close this thread 'Spam Issues' in two more issues, in order to give delayed readers one or two more chances to speak in this forum about it. This is a last chance call for anyone who wants to comment on it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:10:42 UTC Organization: Hoeland Quoting Barry Margolin: > Steven J Sobol wrote: >> Ron Chapman wrote: >>> I agree. I've killfiled this author... >> I don't see it as being any different from the stuff that >> Monty Solomon posts, except that he doesn't focus on VoIP. > I find the volume of it extremely annoying, and not very interesting > They're mostly just press releases ... I agree with all three (four) preceding ... (and if the moderator would leave in the References- and Message-ID headers, I would be able to call it a thread, as then my news-reader could recognize and treat it as such. Why, the heck, do they get changed/removed anyways? It's not necessary, it's not a good idea, it's a nuisance, it's *not done* ... !!) ...in fact, the "trend" obvious (pointed out) from the comments by Ron, Steve and Barry (and ?) above/earlier in TELECOM had caused me to unsubscribe and quit paying attention to this forum altogether years ago ... (after for many years having considered it a "most useful and appreciated information resource") ... that and ... >> [ TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think I may know why. Some people are >> having a very difficult time dealing with the fact that the handwriting >> is on the wall for traditional telephony. ... that and the moderators obnoxious way of putting down some posters (the above is not 'countering an opinion'!) and not posting *his* comments under his own FROM-header (so one can avoid getting annoyed by them over-and-over- and-over ... the KILL-file *IS* my friend!) while reading the insights posted by people one has learned to appreciate over the years and *chosen* (again, using the KILL-file, selecting to read, rather than ignore) to hear from and pay attention to. The history and tradition of this forum (going back all the way to the days of ARPAnet mailing-lists) was to have a moderator to avoid hassles (bounces, administrative requests, off-topic, etc), volume (duplication of information and statements of opinion), and, quite frankly, uninsightful fluff (of that trade press ilk) -- NOT to have a moderator pipe in with his opinion (nearly in every 'opinion post' by others), not to have him think of this as "his list to do with whatever he wants", and certainly not to put his "spin" on posts -- putting down some comments and commentators, the way I've see it happen over-and-over again here). The academics and research community *back then* wouldn't have stood still for this. I guess that has changed, too, as most have turned their back at this/such forums, because of the decline of standards (that's what they tell me, anyways). I used to enjoy TELECOM (and many other such) and participate in discussions, but no more ... ... what *WAS* I thinking anyways when I changed my .newsrc and "turned on" comp.telecom again ?!!? :( /"\ ASCII... ._. ||"We the sheeple...Don't Mess With Penguins!" \ / on Usenet /v\ || OPT-OUT is *E*V*I*L* X ANYTHING ELSE/( )\ || I KILL-file top-posters / ignore posts with / \ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^ || only quoted text in the first screen... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Again, a couple points: I do not think Mr. Werner is **really serious** about wanting *all* the headers left in messages. A Digest is not intended to do that. It is intended to be a short, concise presentation of the essence of the message. Headers are frequently double or triple the size of the actual message text itself. However, if Mr. Werner wants to see the message headers followed by a single line of text "I agree with you" or whatver, then he can view this Digest in Usenet rather than read the Digest format. Actually even the Usenet version is sort of modified, header-wise, since all the indicia at the start which *I* recieved is mostly removed however it is replaced by new indicia when NNTP poster-daemon works on it to place it at newswitch.mit.edu or alt.net or various other news drops. I note that Mr. Werner does not have any objections to the tons of trash I otherwise zap out each day, probably a gig of html- style messages and spam, etc. Only the headers, and I suppose if he objects to the 'semi-modified' headers as they get into c.d.t. he could read other telecom-related news groups and get the full headers along with the obligatory quote first, answer follows a few screens later 'me too' if that is what he likes better. I don't think he likes it that I patiently 'squeeze' his .signature together (removing many of the white spaces) in order to get it in a 78-row wide space [while attempting to preserve his 'ASCII art work'] either, to keep it from slopping all over and becoming five or six lines instead of as it is now. Everyone does their own thing these days, Mr. Werner, and that includes me. Like 'spam issues' above, I want to close out 'What is VOIP News' in the next day or two, if anyone reads late and wants to get in a final word or two. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Date: 19 Apr 2004 08:40:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think I may know why. Some people are > having a very difficult time dealing with the fact that the handwriting > is on the wall for traditional telephony. Oh, I am like most everyone > else: I'll always have at least one line served by Traditional Bell in > my home (or in my case, the UNE-P Prairie Stream equivilent) as long > as they are still made and installed. But if you cannot see that VOIP > is the direction things are going, then I pity you. PAT] I am not familiar enough to comment on your prediction. However, I hope that this technology doesn't just milk the cream and drag everybody else down. The traditional phone companies are saddled with considerable regulatory requirements -- accomodate non-paying deadbeats, provide service in unprofitable communities, provide extremely high reliability, offer low rates, all taxes (911, "relay") etc. Based on the last 20 years, newcomers to the telecom business had it easy. They only served the most profitable customers, leaving the unprofitable and regulatory stuff to the long time companies. MCI didn't have to worry about a reliable network since if it failed or was too crowded, AT&T could handle the load for it; so it never suffered from poor service complaints. Yet it still went bankrupt, and dragged along the rest of the industry. Those of us who suffer with 10 digit dialing (many of whom got by with only 5 digits not too long ago), don't think it's fair that newcomers, with exchanges everywhere, tie up huge chunks of lines that force area code splits and overlays. When a Baby Bell screws up, it makes front page news and gives them nasty publicity. But when a non-Bell screws up or defrauds customers, no one notices. I believe one wireless company -- T-Mobile, changed its name twice in recent years, previously being OminiPoint and something else (Jamie Lee Curtis spokesperson). Doesn't that seem strange to anyone? Some new company offered unlimited local and long distance for a cheap, as its bold type headlines blared. Except the cheap price advertised wasn't the cheap price offered. But I guess that's ok. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Lisa, of pure economic necessity I think, the 'newer players' in telco in the past twenty years have had to rely on the groundwork Bell established at the start of the last century. No one at all in the past twenty years or maybe thirty years if you include the beginning days of MCI and Sprint could ever begin to build the infrastructure, etc. Yes, we called it 'skimming the cream' in a disparaging way, but that's what Bell did also in the beginning. The first telephone exchanges in the 1880's were the very big, concentrated cities like Chicago, New York, etc. Then Bell ranted and raved about how 'MCI milked the profitable east coast corridor' when they began, as if that was a new technique. And MCI lied about the costs people would pay when they first started their 'get one over on Bell' campaign in the 1970's. I just wish this Digest could have been around in those days, with a large readership so people could have been able to know more about the industry. There was *Telephony* Magazine in those days, but it was more of an industry publication (meaning Bell) than anything else. Anyone further want to add to this thread whose close out is pending? PAT] ------------------------------ 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, Yahoo Groups, 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #194 ******************************