From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 5 23:49:06 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i763n6w14257; Thu, 5 Aug 2004 23:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 23:49:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408060349.i763n6w14257@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 #368 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Aug 2004 23:49:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 368 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Microsoft to Release Big Windows Upgrade (Monty Solomon) A Question About Video Cell Phones (Lloyd Fonvielle) Re: Trying to Identify 1940s Equipment (Prison Phone?) (Doug Faunt) Re: Trying to Identify 1940s Equipment (Prison Phone?) (Tim Shoppa) Re: Socially Responsible Use of Your Cellphone Camera (DevilsPGD) Re: US West History (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: US West History (Scott Dorsey) Re: FCC Moves to Ban Spam on Mobile Phones (Gary Novosielski) Re: POTS' Dirty Little Secret (DevilsPGD) Re: POTS' Dirty Little Secret (Jack Decker) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:42:21 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft to Release Big Windows Upgrade Microsoft to Release Big Windows Upgrade By ALLISON LINN AP Business Writer REDMOND, Wash. (AP) -- Almost since the day Microsoft Corp. released its Windows XP computer operating system nearly three years ago, it has been a favorite target of hackers and critics eager to stress its numerous security shortcomings. Now, more than two years after promising to do something about it, Microsoft is about to release the biggest update ever for Windows. The free upgrade is designed to make users safer from cyberattacks by sealing entries to viruses, better protecting personal data and fending off spyware. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said the upgrade, dubbed Service Pack 2, revises less than 5 percent of the millions of lines of code that make up Windows XP _ but adds more value than any update the company has ever done. Some of the nearly $1 billion that's gone into Service Pack 2 also will be used on future versions of Windows. But Gates said it was absolutely necessary to give away the security advances now because of the barrage of attacks plaguing Windows-based computers. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=42933801 ------------------------------ From: Lloyd Fonvielle Subject: A Question About Video Cell Phones Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:06:35 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Will someone have mercy on a technologically challenged person and explain something to me about the way video cell phones work? With video on demand, when a caller requests a download, how is his or her call routed, where is the video content hosted and how is it directed to the phone? Do cell phone service providers simply furnish the channel for the video transfer or do they host content themselves -- and where is the download charge assessed and by whom? Is the hosting of content and central exchange hub a website or part of the phone service provider's network? I know so little about this that even these questions might not make sense but I would be grateful for any help, or for direction to a source for this kind of basic information. ------------------------------ From: Doug Faunt N6TQS Subject: Re: Trying to Identify 1940s Equipment (Prison Phone?) Date: 05 Aug 2004 16:28:44 -0400 Organization: at home, in Oakland, California usenet.persona@earthlink.net (John Stafford) writes: > With suitable embarrassment (since I do know that transistors are not > 1940s technology) ... > The phones look 1940s-ish to me; but the electronics are newer (Doug > Faunt suggests the 60s) ... I'm almost certain that the amplifier was sold by Lafayette Radio in the early '60's as a complete module. I stumbled across a article about a similar amplifier in a very quick look at my stash of Popular Electronics from the era. The one in the images has two transformers, so has a push-pull output stage for more power. The article, page 49 January 1962 Popular Electronics, says the amp used sells for $3.75. This is NOT the same amp, but shows a distinct commonality. If anyone has a Lafayette catalog from the time, I suspect you'll find it easily. 73, doug ------------------------------ From: shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) Subject: Re: Trying to Identify 1940s Equipment (Prison Phone?) Date: 5 Aug 2004 14:33:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com usenet.persona@earthlink.net (John Stafford) wrote in message news:: > I'm trying to identify a piece of telecom equipment that appears to be > from the 1940s. > It consists of a suitcase with dividers that contains two Stromberg > Carlson telephones and a battery-operated amplifier. The phones plug > into the amplifier using one quarter inch plugs. The amplifier has a > rotary off/on volume control, a speaker, and an output jack (marked > record). > When both phones are taken off hook they're connected to each other > and can be used like ordinary phones, both sides of the conversation > are also audible through the amplifier speaker. This appears to be a more generic (and later, probably made in the 60's) version of the Western Electric "Tele-Trainer". I used one of these in grade school, on loan from the local phone company, to "learn" how to use a phone. Tim ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Socially Responsible Use of Your Cellphone Camera Reply-To: bond-jamesbond@crazyhat.net Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 22:40:33 GMT In message TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to david.blumenstein@gmail.com (David Blumenstein): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are any cellular picture phones at the > point of producing good enough pictures yet to make them worthwhile? > Now I suppose if I was trying to sneak a few pictures out of a men's > locker room, I would take what I could get and be grateful for that > limited quality. But can even the newest and most expensive cell > phones with built in cameras produce decent digital photos or .jpg > images as of yet? I have not seen one yet I was very impressed with. > PAT] It depends on how you define "decent" -- There are plenty of "not bad for web display" cameras, even my Palm can take a 0.7megapixel picture. If you're talking about "acceptable for print", it can't and won't happen without much larger lens then we can currently produce in a device you'd be willing to hold up to your ear. There is a lot more then raw megapixels. Take a Canon Digital Rebel, set it to 0.7MP and compare the output to a typical Palm/Phone/$20 disposable digital and you'll see the difference even though the actual megapixel rating is the same. UNIX Sex {look;find;talk;grep;touch;finger;find;flex;unzip;mount;workbone; fsck;yes;gasp;fsck;yes;eject;umount;makeclean;zip;split;done;exit} ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:46:17 EDT Subject: Re: US West History In a message dated 5 Aug 2004 05:58:19 -0700, adamsjac@telcordia.com (Jack Adams) writes: > Doug Faunt N6TQS wrote in message > news:: >> Am I correct in believing that US West was one of the "baby bells"? >> And what happened to the company, if so? >> 73, doug > Yes, the short answer is that it encompassed Mountain Bell and Pacific > Northwest Bell which covered almost the entire Northwestern quadrant > of the continental US. What happened to Mountain Bell's operations in New Mexico and Arizona, both contiguous to the Mexican border and hardly in the "Northwestern quadrant of the continental U.S."? Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: US West History Date: 5 Aug 2004 15:41:55 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Doug Faunt N6TQS wrote: > Am I correct in believing that US West was one of the "baby bells"? > And what happened to the company, if so? It was. It is now Qwest, a large provider of unreliable telephone service and frequently-abused internet service. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: FCC Moves to Ban Spam on Mobile Phones Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:51:41 GMT Joseph wrote: > Gee, why doesn't the government give the spammers which office codes > are for each carrier? They do. Well, not the government, but NANPA does. ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: POTS' Dirty Little Secret Reply-To: bond-jamesbond@crazyhat.net Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 22:40:10 GMT In message TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time): > If it matters any, at least Vonage -- to name one of the more recent > interlopers in telecom -- is attempting to be consistent in the 'build > your own infrastructure argument' when they can: a call between two > Vonage subscribers does not touch the Bell infrastructure at all. That > is to say Vonage customer in Florida does not hop off the Vonage > 'network' at some point, travel over Bell to reach Alaska then get > back on Vonage. It never gets off Vonage at all. Trouble is, at > present that's only at best 2-3 percent of all Vonage traffic, most > of which goes 'off [Vonage] net' at some point, and that will probably > be the case for many more years. However, if the various VoIP providers were to band together to work out mutual peering (either full peering using dedicated loops between them, or just 'over-the-net' peering which just dodges the PSTN) it would increase the percentage significantly. UNIX Sex {look;find;talk;grep;touch;finger;find;flex;unzip;mount;workbone; fsck;yes;gasp;fsck;yes;eject;umount;makeclean;zip;split;done;exit} ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:57:24 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: POTS' Dirty Little Secret Pat, once again please conceal my e-mail address. On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 16:02:49 -0000, pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) wrote: > Jack Decker writes: >> Lisa, you may not consider yourself a shill for them, but if one were >> to apply the "duck test" ... well, let's just say that sometimes it >> would be awfully hard to discern the difference between what you write >> and what a shill for the phone company might write. > How incredibly rude! Yeah, I'm just a rude kinda guy sometimes ... I say what I really think instead of sugarcoating it. Been that way for years, probably won't change anytime in the near future. > Just because someone has the opposite opinion that you do, that > doesn't make them a 'shill'. A shill is paid to do something in > public. Are you seriously implying that Lisa is being paid to advocate > traditional telecoms? No. Had you read what I wrote carefully before putting fingers to keyboard, you might have understood what I actually said. I most certainly did NOT say that Lisa is being paid to advocate traditional telecoms. What I said was that if we had Lisa and someone who WAS being paid to advocate traditional telecoms standing side by side, it would be hard to tell the difference between them, at least from what they were advocating re: VoIP. It's that whole duck test thing -- at a distance something could look like a duck and appear to waddle like a duck, but the possibility exists that it might be a goose or some other duck-like bird. > If this is the quality of your opinion, I'm more happy than ever that I > killfiled the 'voip news' posts. Get over yourself! * Hey, when I read posts like yours, I go into Rush Limbaugh mode -- I'm right, and you're so wrong it's pathetic. :-) (just kidding!). I do wonder, though, how you are responding to my posts if you have me killfiled? Personally I am happy that you have killfiled VoIP News, but since you think I'm so incredibly rude, why not go all the way and killfile my personal posts as well? I have no desire for anything I write to wind up on the screen of someone who doesn't want to read it! On 5 Aug 2004 12:09:15 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: > Jack Decker wrote: >>> To be truly HONESTLY competitive: > That means, for VOIP (or anyone else) to be a truly competitive > service to traditional phone company services, it would have to meet > these standards. If it fails to, it is not as competitive as the hype > reported in this newsgroup claims. Okay, Lisa, let me ask this: Is your objection simply that some companies (notably Vonage) actively market themselves as a replacement for traditional telephone service? Because if that's the case, we might have actually found some common ground (is that the earth I feel moving?). I have always personally felt its a very bad idea for a VoIP company to try and market themselves as a direct replacement to traditional wireline service. It isn't and it will never be. In some ways it's better, in some ways it's not, and in some notable ways (such as the inability to precisely locate the user geographically) it's just different, in a way that might be helpful to some and detrimental to others. >>> 1) VOIP users may not have any traditional lines as "backup". >> Not sure what you mean here. > That VOIP will function as reliably and provide all services at all > times as traditional lines, so a subscriber wouldn't need a > traditional line at all. Maybe someday that will happen (though I rather doubt it will ever exactly match traditional phone service, and why would we want it to?), but it sure isn't going to be this year. One of the points I keep trying to make is that this industry is, for all intents and purposes, less than a couple years old (in its current incarnation). Cell phone service isn't reliable as traditional phone service (when was the last time you had a dropped call on your wireline phone?) but people accept that. The reason I disagree with you on this point is because, despite any marketing hype, I do not see VoIP as a direct replacement for a traditional line, but it is still "good enough" for some people, the same way that cell phones are "good enough." >>> 2) VOIP providers must provide the same service reliability ... >> Why? Because you say so? Do I not have the right to choose a >> provider with less reliability than the Baby Bells. > You have the right to choose less reliability if you want. But the > hype has implied otherwise, and I'm not sure uneducated customers > understand that. That's in part because the service is new. Honestly, I think that in recent months the press has gone out of its way to educate consumers about the limitations of VoIP. I can't begin to count all the articles I've seen (that almost appear to be the same original article reworded, and in different media outlets) that mention how 911 works differently, and that you need a backup power supply and it still might not work in a power outage, and so on. I don't pass on every one of these articles because they would very quickly get boring, since they all have essentially the same content. Go to news.google.com and type this into the search box as shown: +VoIP +"power outages" +911 Then remove the "s" from "outages" and try again. You will see several recent articles that all make essentially the same points. Consumers ARE being educated about the limitations, and I expect this to occur more often as VoIP picks up steam. > Look at retailing. Customers going into a swanky store/restaurant > expect to pay more but get more personalized service in nice > surroundings. Customers going into a discount warehouse/hot dog stand > expect to pay less and don't expect personalized service. People CAN > make a choice with their wallets and it is usually _pretty obvious_. > Bloomingdales is not Walmart; the Waldorf-Astoria is not McDonalds. > But the hype about VOIP and other newcomer services were that they > were just as good as traditional. The fact is they weren't -- there > are/were still a lot of bugs to be worked out. But unlike Walmart, > this poor quality isn't easily evident to customers. Well, the problem is that one person's hype is another person's reality. One could say that VoIP is better than traditional phone service, and they'd be right. One could say that VoIP is worse than traditional phone service, and they'd also be right. Like the blind men touching different parts of an elephant, it would depend on what you're focusing on. I think the main reasons that VoIP is better than traditional phone service are that it finally offers flat-rate, untimed calling plans at prices that the average person can afford - the big phone companies could have offered that years ago, but chose not to. And, VoIP companies also include most or all of the features their switch is capable of supporting in the base price. The traditional phone companies didn't have to try and price features ala carte and then charge what I have always felt is an outrageous monthly rate for each one, but they did. So where VoIP is superior is that it gives people what they want, and without trying to nickel-and-dime them to death. And also, another big advantage in my opinion is that you are not told that you have to have a number in a certain ratecenter just because you happen to live on the wrong side of some arbitrary geographic line. Anyway, whether you or I may like it or not, we live in an age where it is customary for marketers to emphasize the advantages and forget to mention the disadvantages. Did you ever hear a car company advertise that a certain SUV gets lousy gas mileage, or that a particular car fared poorly in crash tests, or a particular pickup truck has a poorly shielded gas tank that might be prone to explosion? Such information is available, but consumers are expected to seek it out, and not rely on the company to advertise it. >> Besides, you know full well that a VoIP company that uses the public >> Internet has absolutely zero control over how reliable the customer's >> ISP is. > No, I don't know that, and I suspect other subscribers wouldn't know > it either. More on this 'compartmentalization' below. I would think that the typical broadband user would understand this. Remember, Lisa, VoIP is marketed to people who already have broadband service. These are people who presumably know how to use a computer and already know something of how the Internet functions, even if it's only a very sketchy understanding. So, I disagree that most VoIP users would not be aware of this distinction. >>> 3) VOIP subscribers must pay all the taxes that traditional subscribers >>> pay such as 911 fees, deaf relay fees, etc. >> Why? Because you have decided we need a nanny state? > No because traditional companies have to pay them and to have a level > playing field newcomers should pay the same. Likewise, they should > meet social obligations (ie carrying deadbeats) that traditional > carriers must meet. Well, Lisa, that is your opinion. I disagree. The playing field is actually not level, it is still very much stacked in favor of the incumbents. Now in many cases I would say that it might be high time to free some of the traditional phone companies from some of these obligations as well, if that would truly level the playing field. I just don't think that bad policies should be extended to potential replacement technologies -- instead we should take the opportunity to do away with the bad policies! >> Personally, I think that taxes on phone lines are the least fair way >> to fund such things. > Your opinion on taxes is irrelevent here. I find this statement ironic since you present your opinions as though they were the last word. I think my opinions are at least as relevant as yours, thank you very much. > What is relevent is that those taxes do exist and as such, should be > applied to ALL concerns in the business. If you get the taxes off, > they should come off for all. I'm all for taking them off for all. But either way, I'm not for extending bad policies to replacement technologies. >>> 4) VOIP providers must provide the same reports to state and federal >>> regulators that other companies provide on their services. >> Why? So they are burdened by paperwork? > Again, so it is a level playing field. Everybody has to have the same > obligations. Now you are really sort of living in a fantasy land. Every type of business has somewhat different kinds of required paperwork to deal with. If VoIP providers market themselves as being a highly reliable form of communications, to the point that people and businesses begin to depend on them for critical usage, then maybe AT THAT POINT it might be valid to see if they are delivering what they advertise. We aren't anywhere near that point yet. Besides, there's a slippery slope here -- if this requirement is made of VoIP providers, what next? Will ISP's be required to report on how much e-mail got delivered and how much fell into the bit bucket? Will AIM and ICQ have to keep statistics of messages sent and received? These sort of reporting requirements really don't accomplish much (in fact I suspect that many of the reports never even get read) but they cause a significant cost that has to be passed on to the consumer. I think that very small telephone companies, and most CLEC's are exempt from a lot of the reporting requirements imposed on the bigger ILEC's so unless there is a very urgent need, I see no reason to even attempt to impose such requirements on a VoIP company. In fact it's things like this that make me question your motives. Why would you even want to see such requirements imposed on VoIP companies? It sounds very much like the ONLY reason you want to see this is to drive their costs up, not to accomplish anything really useful or necessary. >>> 5) The networks must have adequate spare capacity so that major >>> events generating lots of phone calls will not cause call delays. >> Sure, this is desirable. But maybe I'm willing to not have phone >> service available for a few hours on Christmas and Mother's Day > As above, that should be clear to consumers in advance. I wonder > if any service contracts say that in plain, clear language right > up front: "No service available for a few hours on Christmas and > Mother's Day". No, they don't, because the service IS available, it's just that a certain percentage of calls will be blocked. This happens with some long distance companies, also. It used to happen with the mighty AT&T -- I can remember redialing and redialing (on a rotary dial phone, no less) trying to get a call through on Christmas day. >> But who are you to say that no one should be allowed to buy the less >> reliable, but less expensive service? > It's ok as long as the customers know they're buying from a discount > house up front and will expect less: "no service available for a few > hours on Christmas and Mother's Day". Make that "partial service available" -- but again, my point about only emphasizing the good and downplaying the bad in marketing applies here. Do you get upset that some cell phone companies aren't able to complete calls after snow or ice storns? People who live in an area for a while can generally figure out whose phones go down and whose phones keep working during major congestion events, and purchase their service accordingly. But I've never seen, for example, a cell carrier say something like "you may not be able to complete calls during severe weather" in their advertising. >> I happen to believe that consumers should be able to choose >> which risks they will take in the marketplace, > When I buy something in a supermarket, the price is marked as is the > contents and ingredients. Food is a special case due to the potentially extreme negative consequences of ingesting the wrong kinds of food. But all almost all food companies will say or imply that their food is good-tasting, and I can tell you from experience that with some percentage of the food products on the supermarket shelf, that is an outright lie. But also note that while I may think that some food tastes horrible and should be banned from the shelves, someone else might actually like it. So why should I be able to say they cannot buy it? > When I make a telephone call, especially from a payphone, there is > NOTHING. There have been countless articles about people being > burned by outrageous calling card charges from long distance at pay > phones, and count me in on that. The old Bell System gladly gave > you rates before a call, no one does now (unless you can wait hours > for a customer rep who probably won't even know anyway.) You know, Lisa, it never ceases to amaze me how you can bring irrelevant "red herrings" into a discussion. I think we would all agree that there are ripoff pay phone companies out there. I grant that point fully. But what, exactly, does that have to do with VoIP? Have you heard of any VoIP company that is ripping off consumers in a similar manner? Please be specific if you have! > The newcomers want to have it both ways. They want the advantages of > the regulated days where they can muscle in (such as how a company > showed a switching station where it was not zoned because the company > claimed it was a "utility" and had such power), as well as not posting > specific prices. But they want to the advantages of deregulation > where no one asks them any questions. Well sorry, it can't work that > way. If you want to provide a very costly long distance service at a > pay phone, stick a damn price list on the phone. And now that you have taken off on pay phones, away you go. Not one single thing in the above paragraph seems the least bit applicable to any VoIP company that I'm aware of. If a truck pulls over into your lane and forces you off the shoulder of the expressway, do you start complaining that all motorcycles ought to be banned from the roads? >> but it was because of MCI (and Sprint and all the others who came >> after) that now most of us don't have to worry about what a long >> distance call is going to cost anymore. > First off, before competition AT&T was continually lowering toll > rates as new technologies lowered its cost. Yes, but at a snail's pace. And, as others have pointed out, it was rare that residential customers ever got a good deal on toll from the old Ma Bell -- all the big price breaks were reserved for the big companies. > I sure do have to worry about toll costs. A payphone call for 3 > minutes 15 miles away $10.00? Isn't that a little rip off for today? > Another call for 10 minutes $25.00? (I screamed like h--- and didn't > pay those charges, but I never should've charged them in the first > place.) Yes, these are definitely ripoffs. The people who charge such rates should be tarred and feathered. And still this has not a single thing to do with VoIP. > Also, I remember short distance interstate toll calls costing as low > as 4c a minute, now they are up to full rate. Those people who > coast-to-coast during business hours are making out great. Those > of us who call only occassionally locally are paying more than before. If you are paying more than 4 cents a minute from your home phone, you should immediately go to a long distance rate comparison site (I happen to like abtolls.com, but there are several others) and find a long distance carrier that offers a reasonable rate. The deals are out there, and with the Internet it's not at all hard to find them. >> You're grasping at straws to make a point here, >> because you don't really have one - you simply want to see VoIP >> companies taxed or regulated out of existence, > Will paying the same taxes and complying with the same regulations of > traditional carriers drive VOIP out of business? If so, then they > don't deserve to be in business. Otherwise, stop giving them a free > ride. See, you may not care if VoIP companies are driven out of business. But I and many others would. Also, it's not uncommon to give new businesses various breaks -- where I live, some companies can get a break from paying state and local taxes for many years, simply by locating their business in some place that the state would like to see redeveloped (what they call "brownfields", often former industrial sites). Free rides don't last forever but sometimes they are appropriate for a time. And meanwhile, maybe we could eliminate some of those taxes and regulations altogether. >> So you admit you don't like competition, but prefer a regulated >> monopoly. You apparently do not care that this has historically >> resulted in very high prices for end users, as well as innovation that >> moves at about the pace of a constipated snail. > That is absolute nonsense. Telephone service prices were falling > before divesture. Funny, I didn't really see those prices falling much, except as a very long-term trend. > Innovation was continuing, indeed, that resulted in lower prices. > Service quality was superior. Yeah, and you could have any model 500 or 2500 set you wanted. Long cords, a colored housing (white was considered a color), or especially any phone that might have been considered stylish was extra, and I mean an extra charge every month. Unless, of course, you knew where to buy such phones and how to keep the phone company from knowing you had them. > Today we have great innovation, like digital cell phones that have > lots of dead spots. Yeah, let's just throw some more unrelated crap and see if it sticks. > To ALL new competitors (not just Mr. Decker): HOLD IT! Why do you label me as a competitor? I'm not selling a doggone thing! > Please don't lie to me and tell me I'm paying less for when all you've > done is shifted fees from one part of my phone bill to another or > added new fees. Don't tell about your great deals that actually are > lousy due to service charges. Oh, you mean like the traditional phone companies do? Exactly which VoIP companies do this, Lisa? > Please don't lie to me about free choice when you lobby regulators to > disallow traditional carriers from offering services to "boost > competition" (in other words, legally forcing me to buy from someone I > don't want to). Or forcing me to choose an LD carrier when I don't > want any and paying a minimum LD charge no matter what. *Sigh* here we go again. What VoIP has ever forced you to buy from them? And what does the practices of long distance carriers have to do with VoIP? > Please don't lie to me and tell me my service quality is better when > you've conveniently compartmentalized services so you can point the > finger at someone else (as you did in denying responsibility for stuff > that one's own ISP should be doing, or fraud that was controlled under > a regulated monopoly structure). You've almost completely lost me by now. This thing about "conven- iently compartmentalized services" really gets me, though. Do you expect each VoIP provider to build their own Internet backbone or something? > Please don't lie to me and tell me your business plan is so wonderful > because you happen to avoid paying taxes your competitors have to pay. VoIP companies do not, generally speaking, avoid taxes that their competitors have to pay. They may not pay some taxes that traditional phone companies pay, but that is because they are not traditional phone companies. When you drive your car, you don't pay jet fuel tax. One point that you and many others keep ignoring is that VoIP companies are customers of licensed CLEC's -- they have to be in order to get incoming phone numbers for their customers. And as customers of the CLEC's, they pay required taxes to the CLEC's, which then (hopefully) remit them to the government. I happen to believe that the government taxes people far too much, and they sometimes add taxes to services as a way to get around legal limitations that would prohibit them from taxing people directly for the same purpose. So my belief is that these taxes should go away, not be applied to replacement technologies. You are more or less saying that if there is a tax on tea and everyone switches to milk in order to avoid the tea tax, we should then tax milk! Maybe, instead, we should look at why people will go out of their way to avoid that tax, take the hint and eliminate the tax! Jack [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: With this rebuttal from Jack Decker we shall close the discussion on VOIP versus traditional Bell, unless Lisa Hancock wishes to make any final rebuttals to Jack. 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. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #368 ******************************