32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for March 1, 2014
Volume 33 : Issue 36 : "text" Format
====== 32 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: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:32:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon: Heavy Web users should pay more
Message-ID: <1393601540.85945.YahooMailNeo@web121704.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:11 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
> Verizon: Heavy Web users should pay more
> by Grant Gross
> Heavy broadband users should help shoulder the cost of their
> traffic, but Verizon Communications does not give preferential
> treatment to some Web traffic, the company's CEO said Monday.
> Rest at:
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2100980/verizon-heavy-web-users-should-pay-more.html
>
> -or-
>
> http://goo.gl/lrz9or
>
My company (Southwestern Bell) at AT&T's urging tried to sell the idea
of "Usage Sensitive Pricing" to customers and commissions for POTS.
Turned out the idea was highly despised by almost everyone, including
customers you could show would save money.
Perhaps they would react similarly to broadband users today.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
A. Because it breaks the normal top-to-bottom flow of a written conversation
Q. Why is top-posting bad?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:44:39 -0600
From: gordonb.v6t41@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Introducing 844 Toll Free Numbers
Message-ID: <tdmdnaxmLY26m43OnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
> Somehow this snuck up on me. I didn't realize these
> were about to get launched.
>
> - And I've also got to ask why there's still such
> a huge demand for "tollfree" numbers. More and more
> people, and pretty much all businesses by now, have
> calling plans that are no longer distance sensitive.
They aren't distance sensitive, but they are still time sensitive.
"It's a toll-free call" seems to be the excuse for slow customer
service.
It was really easy to blow 60 hours of phone time on hold in the
first two weeks of October trying to sign up for Obamacare, and
that's not counting time talking to an actual person (at first,
some of that was on a cell phone, then I switched to landline. But
that's over 7 months worth of included minutes if it had all been
on a cellphone with my somewhat stingy plan), nor any of the time
trying to log in on the Internet.
That's not to say I successfully signed up after those 60 hours.
I was left waiting for an event which would never happen, and fixing
it involved one call on hold over a whole weekend (Friday morning
to Monday afternoon - a single 76-hour call, although if they'd
answered over the weekend I probably would have been asleep or away
from the phone) to get through.
Just today I blew another half hour asking them to send me a bill
on time.
I suppose that when your average hold time for customer service is
20 minutes or more, there is an advantage to not having customers
try to include the phone bill in the lawsuit for a defective product
or a billing error.
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.
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) 2014 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 (2 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues