|
|
The Telecom Digest for May 9, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 128 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Silicon Valley public transit losing all public AT&T pay phones (Mark J. Cuccia)
Re: Silicon Valley public transit losing all public AT&T pay phones (Sam Spade)
Re: Silicon Valley public transit losing all public AT&T pay phones (Steven)
Re: FairPoint hearings begin in northern New England (Steven)
Apple's iPhone on Verizon: 4 Reasons to Think Twice (Monty Solomon)
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. 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, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 04:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Silicon Valley public transit losing all public AT&T pay phones
Message-ID: <572508.61299.qm@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In Message-ID: <ktadnbsNFazDz37WnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Sam Spade wrote:
> Thad Floryan wrote (in Message-ID: <4BE26ED1.30009@thadlabs.com>):
>> The San Jose (CA) Mercury News' "Road Show" column:
>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mr-roadshow/ci_15025086
>> had this item today (5-May-2010):
>>
>> Q: This is in regards to the removal of public phones at VTA
>> light-rail stations. I do not own nor do I want a cell phone.
>> Why remove an existing system? Why spend money to downgrade
>> public service in this economy? As a rider since 1989, I'd
>> like to thank those responsible for making my life much more
>> difficult, but I don't have their cell phone numbers.
>>
>> John Phoenix
> His attitude doesn't serve him well.
>
> I can understand AT&T reclassifying those seldom used pay stations as
> semi-public, thus relieving the rate base of their burden.
>
> I doubt John would grasp the concept, though.
Well, there was an "answer" in the San Jose Mercury News that was
snipped out in the reply, which explained the real situation!
SBC's at&t is not "reclassifying" telco-owned payphones as "semi-public"
but rather SBC's at&t is COMPLETELY EXITING THE PAYPHONE BUSINESS in
any/all states/RBOCs that it operates in! Pacific*Telesis, Southwestern
Bell (SBC), Ameritech, SNET (CT). BellSouth had exited the payphone
business by 2004, three years before SBC's at&t bought them out and
renamed them "the new at&t" as well. Anyone who wants to have a payphone
on their premises in SBC/at&t territory including old BellSouth states,
needs to contract with a "COCOT" provider (private payphone).
Here is the "answer" that was in Thad's original posting:
>> A: AT&T is phasing out pay phone services, and the Valley
>> Transportation Authority says it would have had to pay very
>> steep fees to keep pay phones on its platforms, so they are
>> being removed. In their place, the VTA is installing blue tower
>> emergency phones so you can contact the agency or dial 911 for
>> an emergency. These phones should be installed by Memorial Day.
I guess that COCOT-owners must charge a rather steep initial contract
fee, and probably have very low subsequent monthly commission paybacks
to the location owners?
I understand that Qwest had subcontracted out their payphone division
a few years ago, although the payphones are still branded "Qwest".
I don't know if this is still the case, and if it is, what will happen
if CenturyTel/CenturyLink does indeed takeover Qwest (US-West).
(Are they going to call it CenturyQwest or CenturyBell, maybe? :-)
CenturyTel still had some GTE-AE-made telco-owned c.o.switch-controlled
traditional payphones here in south-central/south-west Louisiana about
three years ago, but most of the few that I saw three years ago seem to
be gone. The "egg-shaped" housings on a post (which seems to have been
a common "GTE-thing") are still there, but empty of any payphone. And
these are at central office building locations. CenturyTel in this part
of Louisiana (south-central/south-western) was GT&E in the 1960s-era,
until GTE pulled out of Louisiana circa 1972, selling its Louisiana
operations to Century Telephone.
Embarq (ex-Sprint-United/Centel) had some Nortel-Millennium "super"
payphones at many (though not all) Greyhound Bus Stations in the 2000s.
They were branded "Sprint" until 2006, and were re-branded/re-colored
as Embarq during 2006/07. I noticed this in many Greyhound stations in
BellSouth states in the 2000s. However, if the local municipal
government or similar quasi-government agency owned the bus station,
the payphones were not necessarily provided by Sprint-later-Embarq.
In either case, Sprint-later-Embarq branded payphones or some other
payphone, it was NOT at&t or BellSouth providing the payphone, but
Sprint-later-Embarq or some other entity acting as a COCOT-provider.
(Although in Sprint-later-Embarq ILEC territory, it was likely
Sprint-later-Embarq acting as the ILEC payphone entity, i.e.,
Tallahassee FL, Ft.Meyers FL, Ocala FL, some exchanges near
Disney World and Orlando FL, Johnson City TN, Rocky Mount and
Fayetteville NC, some exchanges in South Carolina, etc).
I have not visited any Greyhound stations lately, not since Embarq
has been consolidated into CenturyTel to form CenturyLink. Embarq and
CenturyTel announced the merger in October 2009, and it was officially
effective in Summer 2009. The new CenturyLink name and logo has
replaced "CenturyTel", but I don't know how this might have been
applied to Embarq-branded/logo'd "super" COCOT (Nortel-Millennium)
payphones, whether actual COCOTs (such as Greyhound Bus Stations)
or in Embarq ILEC territory.
Also, in MORE AND MORE CASES, even where the payphones are supplied
by the ILEC, it is likely that the payphone's interface with the telco
network is just like a COCOT, rather than the traditional fully
c.o.switch-controlled "dumb" payphone. Telco still "owns" the payphone,
and supplies it as a product of the ILEC-side, but the phone operates
no different than any non-telco-owned COCOT (private payphone).
I have also heard that VeriZon is also considering exiting the telco
(ILEC) payphone business, or at least reducing their presence as an
ILEC in the payphone business. This includes legacy Bell Atlantic and
NYNEX, as well as legacy GTE and Contel, although they did sell-off
legacy BOC New England Tel & Tel to FairPoint for Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and VeriZon is trying to sell-off MOST legacy GTE and Contel
(but to continue to retain what GTE/Contel that they have still retained
in Texas since 2000, legacy GTE in Tampa/etc.FL, and also retain what
the legacy GTE/Contel that they have retained in California although
the exchange areas that directly border Oregon, Nevada, Arizona are to
be sold), sold to Frontier (Citizens), pending FCC approval. And legacy
BOC C&P-West Virginia (including the Crows-Hematite VA exchange which
gets dial-tone from White Sulphur Springs WV) is also to be sold to
Frontier (pending approval by the WV-PSC, the VA-SCC, and the FCC).
(Legacy GTE/Contel in Virginia and Pennsylvania is mostly integrated
into the day-to-day operations of legacy Bell Atlantic, i.e., legacy
BOCs C&P-Virginia and Bell-of-Pennsylvania).
I do NOT have any idea as to how involved VeriZon is (or recently
was) involved in ILEC payphone operations in any BOC or GTE/Contel
areas they still operate in, have sold off over the past ten years,
or intend to sell off (to Frontier, pending regulatory approval).
I do know that in many areas, VeriZon has converted or installed
payphones that interface with the network as if it were a "COCOT",
as opposed to traditional telco-owned c.o.switch-controlled "dumb"
payphones, but in other areas VeriZon still has operated such
traditional telco central-office-controlled "dumb" payphones.
However, prior to exiting the payphone business by 2004 (three
years before merging into SBC/at&t), BellSouth had already converted
most-if-not-all of its payphones into "COCOT-like" payphones. I think
that the same has applied to SBC/at&t in the past 10+ years prior to
their 2007 announcement that they too intend to completely exit the
ILEC telco payphone business.
BTW, VeriZon and Qwest (and Sprint-later-Embarq in most Greyhound
Bus Stations, at least in BellSouth states) have installed "COCOT"
payphones in areas outside of their tariffed exchange areas, at
least in the later 1990s and early 2000s. Since I rarely ever even
attempt to use a (COCOT) payphone in more recent years (I always use
my at&t-mobility/cingular-wireless phones), I really don't know if
there are still any VeriZon or Qwest-branded COCOTs here in Louisiana
anymore, just like I don't know if Embarq-now-CenturyLink still has
any Nortel-Millennium "super" COcOTs at any Greyhound Bus Stations
since 2006/07.
Mark J. Cuccia
markjcuccia at yahoo dot com
Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA pre-Katrina
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 07:11:28 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Silicon Valley public transit losing all public AT&T pay phones
Message-ID: <h7KdnXrQg_CM7HjWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mark J. Cuccia wrote:
> Well, there was an "answer" in the San Jose Mercury News that was
> snipped out in the reply, which explained the real situation!
>
> SBC's at&t is not "reclassifying" telco-owned payphones as "semi-public"
> but rather SBC's at&t is COMPLETELY EXITING THE PAYPHONE BUSINESS in
> any/all states/RBOCs that it operates in! Pacific*Telesis, Southwestern
> Bell (SBC), Ameritech, SNET (CT). BellSouth had exited the payphone
> business by 2004, three years before SBC's at&t bought them out and
> renamed them "the new at&t" as well. Anyone who wants to have a payphone
> on their premises in SBC/at&t territory including old BellSouth states,
> needs to contract with a "COCOT" provider (private payphone).
>
Thanks for the clarification. That makes a lot more sense. The burden
of maintaining any type of C.O.-based payphone is more than the rate
base should bear in this day and age.
I live in AT&T (Pacific Bell) territory and haven't paid much attention
to pay stations for years, although I know there are still a few around
town, which are used mostly to call Mexico for $1.00 for 4 minutes.
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 12:53:04 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Silicon Valley public transit losing all public AT&T pay phones
Message-ID: <hs4fev$2v4$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Mark J. Cuccia wrote:
>
>> Well, there was an "answer" in the San Jose Mercury News that was
>> snipped out in the reply, which explained the real situation!
>>
>> SBC's at&t is not "reclassifying" telco-owned payphones as "semi-public"
>> but rather SBC's at&t is COMPLETELY EXITING THE PAYPHONE BUSINESS in
>> any/all states/RBOCs that it operates in! Pacific*Telesis, Southwestern
>> Bell (SBC), Ameritech, SNET (CT). BellSouth had exited the payphone
>> business by 2004, three years before SBC's at&t bought them out and
>> renamed them "the new at&t" as well. Anyone who wants to have a payphone
>> on their premises in SBC/at&t territory including old BellSouth states,
>> needs to contract with a "COCOT" provider (private payphone).
>>
>
> Thanks for the clarification. That makes a lot more sense. The burden
> of maintaining any type of C.O.-based payphone is more than the rate
> base should bear in this day and age.
>
> I live in AT&T (Pacific Bell) territory and haven't paid much attention
> to pay stations for years, although I know there are still a few around
> town, which are used mostly to call Mexico for $1.00 for 4 minutes.
>
I had noticed over the years that first GTE now Verizon had pay phones
at 7-11 stores plus at major grocery and drug stores, but over the last
year or so they have been removed or now have the name of other
companies on them. This in both AT&T and Verizon areas in California.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 10:22:04 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FairPoint hearings begin in northern New England
Message-ID: <hs46js$bjl$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> State regulation over there wax and wanes.
>
> In any case, residential and even small business subscribers are going
> to wireless faster than most places because of the issues.
>
> GTE really had things in pretty good shape when Verizon came in. Verizon
> seemed to carry on quite well but they apparently disliked the lack of
> intra-island toll more than GTE.
>
A pin collecting friend of mine who moved over to Maui several years ago
had a DSL problem. He contacted me since he know I had worked for GTE. I
made a few calls and got things moving, they replaced some cable and
that took care of the problems.
GTE did a lot of work on updating the CO's, after they took it over in
1967. I went over there on loan from the California Company a few time
and we did a lot of updates. I know there was some problems when GTE
told ITT that they were taking over the LD services; what was strange is
we were also updating ITT's systems in other areas, I spend 6 months in
St. Thomas and St. Croix, nice work.
The first thing that Verizon did was start getting rid of areas where
they were not the major service; which was stupid since those areas made
the company a great deal of money. GTE also had huge amount of money
in the bank from selling its Consumer Electronics divisions.
The error was allowing the company being sold to a non telecom company
who was only interested in getting as much money as they could without
spending anything. As far as I know the inter island toll is still
controlled by Verizon.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 14:21:02 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Apple's iPhone on Verizon: 4 Reasons to Think Twice
Message-ID: <p062408abc80b5c06671e@[10.0.1.4]>
Apple's iPhone on Verizon: 4 Reasons to Think Twice
JR Raphael, PC World
Mar 30, 2010 8:26 pm
Crank up the rumor machine, kiddos -- it's déjà vu all over again.
In case you haven't heard, one of the tech world's favorite on-again,
off-again topics has been resurrected. Yep: It's the seemingly
immortal "iPhone on Verizon" buzz, back in the news yet again.
This time, a report in The Wall Street Journal is reigniting the
Verizon-iPhone flame. The story, originally published on Monday,
cites the always-popular "people briefed by the company" as saying
Apple will produce a CDMA-ready version of its iPhone sometime this
year. The new iPhone, the Journal suggests, will be aimed directly at
Verizon.
Hang on, though: Before you roll out the nearest welcome mat, there
are a few things you may want to consider.
...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/192948/apples_iphone_on_verizon_4_reasons_to_think_twice.html
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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 Bill Horne. 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.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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
Copyright (C) 2009 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.
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 The Telecom Digest (5 messages)
|
or 