|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 25 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Re: SMS rip-off in Australia
Re: SMS rip-off in Australia
Re: Do you have room for a museum?
Re: Do you have room for a museum?
====== 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: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 05:17:52 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Message-ID: <4MX6n.89$Fm7.74@newsfe16.iad>
Bob Goudreau wrote:
> ... while the remaining AT&T Corp. became one of several
> long-distance carriers competing for consumers' business.
What a down and dirty dog fight that was, with the consumer getting
the short end of slamming, cramming, and gross overcharges.
There was poetic justice, though, in the feeding frenzy to buy and
install private payphones and their subsequent failure.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:06:50 -0500
From: "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <316300B0772A4247AD3F83634D5BB24B@estore.us.dg.com>
Thad Floryan wrote:
>> If so, please don't extrapolate to the rest of the country.
>> Believe me, the rest of us already get our fill of California (and
>> specifically Los Angeles) provincialism from the movies and TV
>> shows churned out by LA-based screenwriters. This can lead to
>> inadvertently comical plot details in which idioms that are
>> specific to the LA area are ascribed to other parts of the country.
>> Examples include the notion that it is normal for a municipality to
>> have something called a "Bureau of Water and Power", or the
>> practice of referring to a numbered highway using the prefix "the"
>> (e.g., "the 405 is backed up").
>
> Clarification is required: those are Southern California
> colloquialisms. Proper American English is spoken in Northern
> California (at least by those who speak English natively). :-)
Well understood -- that's why I referred to those examples as "idioms
specific to the LA area". I've even had a San Diegan assure me that
the highway nomenclature doesn't apply to all of SoCal, just greater
LA (presumably, it peters out somewhere in Orange County?).
ObTelecom: One of the most glaring examples of this is actually not
the fault of a screenwriter, but of the set designers and all the
members of the crew of the movie "Die Hard 2: Die Harder", which was
set at Dulles airport outside of Washington DC. All those people
somehow failed to notice that the character played by Bruce Willis was
using a payphone bearing a prominent PacBell label!
Bob Goudreau
Cary, NC
***** Moderator's Note *****
Remember Star Wars? "This is the bird that made the run to Alderan in
thirty parsecs!"
... and I've lost count of the number of movies where some actor picks
up the receiver of a "Field" phone and starts talking without cranking
the magneto...
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:26:28 EST
From: wesrock@aol.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <32e91.27ceeba3.388dceb4@aol.com>
In a message dated 1/24/2010 9:41:09 AM Central Standard Time,
Telecom Digest Moderator wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Remember Star Wars? "This is the bird that made the run to Alderan in
> thirty parsecs!"
>
> ... and I've lost count of the number of movies where some actor picks
> up the receiver of a "Field" phone and starts talking without cranking
> the magneto...
I had one when I was younger, hooked to a regular city line. It had a
switch to change between common battery and magneto.
The receiver was always active on a CB line, including when the other
parties were using the line.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:56:38 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Message-ID: <ace0b2cc-a118-413d-a965-bc07d9d54bd5@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 23, 2:53 pm, "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudr...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Such confusion may have been common decades ago, but I think the
> number of such people is now small and diminishing. Remember that
> "Ma Bell" ceased to exist over 26 years ago, when the Bell System
> was broken up. The rump company was not even permitted to use the
> name "Bell" except for its world-famous Bell Labs (which had
> virtually no direct consumer visibility anyway). Starting on January
> 1, 1984, the 20+ "Bell" local phone companies became part of the
> seven original "Baby Bell" RBOCs, while the remaining AT&T
> Corp. became one of several long-distance carriers competing for
> consumers' business.
Even though the breakup was 26 years ago, many people continue, to
this day, to use the term "Ma Bell" when referring to AT&T in whatever
form it happened to be at that moment. This is significant because
generally the implication meant was negative, in that "Ma Bell" was a
big powerful company and you'd better get out of its way.
We need to remember that what was expected to happen on 1/1/84 and
what actually happened were very different things. Back then people
were afraid the big AT&T would have too much power and the Baby Bells
might become too weak and fail. People thought the ownership and
management of the long distance network, Bell Labs, and Western
Electric were extremely valuable assets. As things turned out, long
distance became a cheap commodity, Bell Labs not a big deal, and
Western Electric nearly bankrupt as it evolved into Lucent. The fast
changing world of technology surprised everyone, including AT&T's own
management.
As mentioned, I don't know how big Verizon is compared to the modern
at&t in terms of revenues, lines, employees, and other yardsticks, but
obviously it's a big company.
> The median age of the United States is 36+ years according to the
> Census Bureau, which means that a majority of Americans were age 10
> or less (or not even born yet!) at the time "Ma Bell" ceased to
> exist. Perhaps a few precocious 10-year-olds were actually aware of
> Ma Bell at the time she finally expired, but I doubt it -- most
> people tend not to care about such things until they begin paying
> their own phone bills in college or later in life. So only that
> minority of the population born before 1966 or so could possibly
> ever have encountered Ma Bell in their adult lives. Perhaps some of
> those oldsters still mistakenly conflate today's AT&T with the old
> Bell System, but many (myself included) have no such confusion.
The younger folk need not be around to have learned how things were.
Our parents, teachers, history lessons, and the media tell us about
the past.
For example, a payphone is practically ancient history, let alone a
10c charge to use one, yet we still use terms like "drop a dime"
[report to the authorities] or "it's your dime" [you have the floor to
talk].
Besides, when AT&T was bought out by the baby bell, why did [the
purchaser] decide to take the at&t name for itself? [The answer is
that] it was more well known.
***** Moderator's Note *****
My father used to answer our home phone by saying "It's your nickel",
so I think that was the cost of a payphone call when he was young.
As for the AT&T brand, if I had to guess at why Southwestern Bell
adopted it, I'd say that they were positioning themselves to appeal to
the ever-older group of customers who still rely on POTS for their
phone connections, and who still remember the brand and associate it
with reliable service.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:25:51 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: SMS rip-off in Australia
Message-ID: <pan.2010.01.24.06.25.47.336079@myrealbox.com>
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:47:54 +0000, John Levine wrote:
>> The standard flat rate for a text message at Telstra and Optus is 25
>> cents, the same as it has been for five years. At Vodafone, a text is
>> charged at a nominal 28 cents.
>
> I doubt that many people really pay that much. Don't they have bundles
> like everyone else in the world?
Yes, but the same SMS charges are included in the bundle.
>> The British pay up to 19 cents per text, Americans 22 cents and in NZ
>> the cost varies between 7 and 17 cents per text.
>
> US carriers typically charge for both ends of the SMS transaction.
> Lucky that most people have bundles.
In Australia only the SMS sender pays. Last year I set up web based SMS
sending, for the business I was then working for, with Clickatel, and it
cost us about A$0.065c per local (i.e. the whole of Australia) message, a
lot less than the A$0.28c the carriers here charge.
The exact same functionality with a local SMS gateway provider would
have still cost 2-3 times [more] per message than an international
gateway service.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: 24 Jan 2010 16:21:44 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: SMS rip-off in Australia
Message-ID: <20100124162144.96489.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>> I doubt that many people really pay that much. Don't they have bundles
>> like everyone else in the world?
>
> Yes, but the same SMS charges are included in the bundle.
I gather that the prices are just notional, e.g., they claim that they
give you $300 of SMS as part of a $49 bundle or something like that.
If so, the $300 isn't money, it's just tokens to count the SMS.
The SMS on my phone is charged in minutes, where each SMS costs 0.3
minutes. The translation from money to minutes is rather obscure,
depending on coupons, bundle sizes, and whether your phone came with
the double-all-credits feature, but it's not hard to buy minutes for
10 cents (US) each which means the real cost for an SMS is a not too
excessive 3 cents. If you do similar arithmetic, what's an SMS cost
in oz?
R's,
John
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:23:11 -0500
From: "Gene S. Berkowitz" <first.last@verizon.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do you have room for a museum?
Message-ID: <MPG.25c65a1592124811989689@news.giganews.com>
In article <hjciil$2dha$1@gal.iecc.com>,
michael.muderick@verizon.net says...
> http://www.antiquetrader.com/article/telephone_museum_looking_for_new_home/
>
> ***** Moderator's Note ****
>
> This looks genuine. I don't usually allow posts with only a URL, but
> AFAICT it's for a good cause.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
I suggest that they contact the Telephone Museum in Ellsworth,
Maine.
http://ellsworthme.org/ringring/
They have an active membership, and a really extraordinary
collection.
--Gene
***** Moderator's Note ****
This process only works when the feedback loop is complete: please go
to the site and contact the people who are looking for help.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:43:09 -0500
From: "Gene S. Berkowitz" <first.last@verizon.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do you have room for a museum?
Message-ID: <MPG.25c688f9e90e249798968b@news.giganews.com>
In article <MPG.25c65a1592124811989689@news.giganews.com>,
first.last@verizon.net says...
> In article <hjciil$2dha$1@gal.iecc.com>,
> michael.muderick@verizon.net says...
> > http://www.antiquetrader.com/article/telephone_museum_looking_for_new_home/
> >
> > ***** Moderator's Note ****
> >
> > This looks genuine. I don't usually allow posts with only a URL, but
> > AFAICT it's for a good cause.
> >
> > Bill Horne
> > Moderator
>
>
> I suggest that they contact the Telephone Museum in Ellsworth,
> Maine.
>
> http://ellsworthme.org/ringring/
>
> They have an active membership, and a really extraordinary
> collection.
>
> --Gene
>
> ***** Moderator's Note ****
>
> This process only works when the feedback loop is complete: please go
> to the site and contact the people who are looking for help.
Since they posted here, it's reasonable to assume they'll check
back for responses.
--Gene
***** Moderator's Note *****
No offense, but we can't know that: the decision-makers might not even
be aware of the contact. In any case, it's easier to be proactive and
to make sure they get your feedback: there may be other factors in
play that we're not aware of, and time might be short. Those who care
for a collection aren't likely to surrender it if it's being cared
for, so that means that the collection is already under stress.
Bill Horne
Moderator
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 (8 messages)
|
or 