30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

The Telecom Digest for December 4, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 309 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Update on at&t/T-mobile merger (Garrett Wollman)
Comcast sells wireless to Verizon (HAncock4)
Re: Update on at&t/T-mobile merger (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Pending legislation would allow robot calls to cell phones (Stephen)

====== 30 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of that address. 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, 3 Dec 2011 19:19:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Update on at&t/T-mobile merger 
Message-ID: <jbdsoj$24ae$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>

In article <18c245f4-3ea5-4162-8e73-4d943449208c@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
HAncock4  <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>I understand separating out local service from long distance, thus the
>creation of the Baby Bells.  But why didn't they merely make a "Local
>service" company instead of several of them?

Because they thought, rather fancifully, that the RBOCs would
eventually expand into each other's territories and compete.

>Why did they later allow them to merge back together?

Different group of economists, or at least they figured out that
competition was not likely to take place.

-GAWollman

-- 
Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993




Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:21:03 -0800 (PST)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Comcast sells wireless to Verizon 
Message-ID: <94898a64-05b2-49c1-85b5-b1dc28e989e7@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>

The Phila Inqr reported that Comcast Corp. and other cable companies
have agreed to sell cable-owned wireless spectrum to Verizon Wireless
for $3.6 billion. . . . The agreement also calls for the cable
companies and Verizon Wireless - a joint venture of Verizon
Communications and Vodafone - to sell each other's offerings. They
also have formed a joint technology venture to integrate wirelike and
wireless services.  [Comcast and Verizon compete on TV signal delivery
with cable and FIOS].

For full article please see:

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20111202_Verizon_Wireless_buying_wireless_unit_from_Comcast_group.html




Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 18:55:08 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Update on at&t/T-mobile merger 
Message-ID: <MomdnWGbF61xWUfTnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>

In article <18c245f4-3ea5-4162-8e73-4d943449208c@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
HAncock4  <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 5:41 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
>wrote:
>
>> It was the other way around. Long distance subsidized local
>> service. It was set up that way deliberately, partly because the FCC
>> wanted universal service.  Pre-divestiture, some long distance calls
>> within California were over $3/min, while measured service
>> (non-Lifeline) could be had for under $4/month.
>
>$3/minute for an instate call? 

Demonstrating merely that you don't know what you don't know. 

Illinois had in-state rates that approached that in some cases.

And the cost for an instate one-minute long-distance 'station-to-station' 
could easily exceed that figure.

>                                Sounds awfully high.  Admittedly,
>California is a big state, but back then (1970s) AT&T charged $2.00
>for 3 minutes for a coast-to-coast call, and less for shorter
>distances (down to 5c a minute).

"Irrelevant and Immaterial"

It was something like FIVE times as expensive to place a call from Chicago
to Rock Island, Illinois as it was to call Davenport, Iowa, across the
river from Rock Island.

It was cheaper to call Los Angeles from Chicago, than it was to call 
Springfield. Or even Urbana.  MUCH cheaper.  (Latter part of the 1970s,
Chicago to L.A. was 10c/minute after the first 3 minutes; Calling from
one edge of the Chicago LATA to the far edge could be over 30c/min. I 
don't have figures handy for any INTER-lata/IN-state calls.)




Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 22:58:59 +0000
From: Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pending legislation would allow robot calls to cell phones 
Message-ID: <stlid7hekgp8co6308v9i78bc7b6530npu@4ax.com>

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:14:51 -0500, Pete Cresswell
<withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:

>Per HAncock4:
>> This bill apparently will allow sales calls to go to cell phones.
>> As a low use cell phone user who still pays a la carte usage
>> charges, I am naturally very upset at this proposal.
>
>+1 - and, in spite of the obvious negative effects on a small
>business operator who gets calls from customers,  I am coming
>around to the view expressed by others that "Caller Pays" would
>solve the telemarketing problem.

Unfortunately UK has always been "caller pays" - and we still get
voice spam to mobiles....

at 6p / minute for cheap retail consumer calls (10 US cents) less bulk
discounts, the call costs are not going to make much difference to a
call centre costs per agent.
-- 
Regards

stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl






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
863-455-9426
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) 2011 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 (4 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues