TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS!

Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS!

Tony P. (kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net)
Sat, 4 Dec 2004 23:49:43 -0500

In article <telecom23.579.1@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
says:

> Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> wrote

>> I'm 25 days out from my switch to Vonage and my number still hasn't
>> been ported.

>> I've been talking to the PUC, Verizon, Vonage etc. What I've gotten
>> from this is a clear picture of the anti-competitive nature of Verizon
>> and the structure of Vonage's network.

> FWIW, a friend of mine switched from Verizon to a competitive carrier
> several times (back and forth while he made up his mind) and never had
> any trouble.

>> It seems that Verizon only has to do rapid LNP with other FCC regulated
>> carriers. If you're not FCC regulated they can take as long as they want
>> and delay for whatever reason they wish because they're free of
>> regulatory burden.

> If Verizon is not under any legal obligation to make the switch in a
> timely manner, then it is not their fault and you have no basis to sue
> them.

You have definitely drunk the koolaid.

Rules should be applied equally be the carrier FCC regulated or not.

> Suppose the VOIP carrier fails to meet technical standards. Will a
> subscriber blame Verizon instead of the VOIP carrier? That makes for
> extra unnecessary and unprofitable work for Verizon which other
> subscribers have to make up the cost.

Again -- any switch built since what, 1989 has been IP aware. As it is
now, Vonage utilizes capacity on Paetec and Focal Communications
switches which in some cases are actually just resellers of Verizon
services.

All I'm asking for is to break free of the behemoth.

> I'm sorry I'm not sympathetic, but it's a double standard. The FCC
> declared the VOIP carriers to be free of regulation. That means
> they're on their own while other carriers have to put up with the
> expense of regulation. Maybe you could avoid Verizon altogether and
> use broadband cable instead, as some people are doing.

They wanted that regulation in return for regular profit. Of course
now they just rape the consumer with these add on fees that in reality
flow right back into the pockets of the carrier. The line charge is an
example of egregious overcharging by the way.

Had you read the thread you would have known that it was my intention
to ditch Verizon completely. Already have Cox hooked up and running.

> Indeed, it was not that hard for our cable company to lay a
> replacement broadband fiber optic cable through our area; and now --
> in competition to Verizon DSL -- they offer high speed Internet. As
> such, perhaps another carrier could do likewise and eliminate that
> "final mile" contention.

> [Just to set the record, I am not connected with Verizon other than
> being a subscriber. Indeed, I was unhappy with other LD carriers and
> switched to Verizon for all services.]

You certainly sound like a Verizon apologist.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Wesrock@aol.com: "Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS!"
Go to Previous message: Lonewolf: "Re: FAX vs VOIP"
May be in reply to: Garth Nospam: "Lingo Voip SUCKS!"
Next in thread: Wesrock@aol.com: "Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS!"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page