TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Cost of POTS w/o Long Distance

Re: Cost of POTS w/o Long Distance
12 Jan 2006 12:12:39 -0800

BobT wrote:

> Brief summary follows. Location, SBC, former Ameritech, specifically
> Chicago. Incident involved intrastate local toll rather than
> interstate LD. I had switched interstate LD carriers, and during the
> transaction, without my knowledge, local toll carrier on one of my two
> lines apparently was listed as unassigned, as you speculate. ...

A common problem. Telephone providers, both local and long distance,
have to spend time and money resolving such issues. Sometimes the
dollar amounts are significant and the dispute makes the newspapers.
It's tough to say who is at fault -- customer, base telephone provider,
or long distance carrier, or combination.

We all have to pay for this through higher rates and aggravation.

I noticed some respondents said this was a reason they're switching to
VOIP, but I it seems most VOIP are keeping one POTS line as a backup.
I suspect getting VOIP to reach that "last mile" of service
reliability to equal or exceed classic POTS will take some time in
coming and be considerably expensive. (Can VOIP handle faxes
transparently?) As an example, the 911 requirement was repeatedly
extended; that was something the VOIP people should've had all set up
and included from day one. In other words, down the road VOIP will
cost much more than it does now.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Seth Breidbart: "Re: Payphone Surcharges (was Unanswered Cellphones)"
Go to Previous message: "Re: Public Wants Court to Okay Wiretaps"
May be in reply to: Bob Alan: "Cost of POTS w/o Long Distance"
Next in thread: Tony P.: "Re: Cost of POTS w/o Long Distance"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page