|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 254 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: AT&T Relents, Drops Paging Instructions from Voicemail
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
====== 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, 13 Sep 2009 04:16:37 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T Relents, Drops Paging Instructions from Voicemail
Message-ID: <op.uz6rxzpwo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:13:29 -0400, Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:29:02 -0400 tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Monty Solomon wrote:
>>> AT&T Relents, Drops Paging Instructions from Voicemail
>>
>> Now if T-Mobile will back down from their newly instituted fee of
>> $1.50/month for mailing out our monthly paper billing statements,
>> I'll really start to believe in consumer power :-) .
>
> You need to keep up :)
>
>http://tmotoday.com/blogs/william/09/11/2009/t-mobile-backs-down-paper-billing-charge
Hey, THANK YOU, Joseph! (But is it fair to imply, with your "keep up"
remark, that I should have known on 10 Sep what only got announced on 11
Sep?)
No matter: that's great news! Thanks for making me aware of it,
and giving my belief in consumer power a much-needed boost :-) .
And cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: 13 Sep 2009 13:35:52 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <20090913133552.1796.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>Take what happened to P. Morgan Brown when his wife decided to take a
>spur-of-the-moment vacation to Indonesia.
Too bad she happened to be in one of the handful of countries that
has a mobile network compatible with Verizon's.
Also, to run up an $8,000 phone bill even at $1.75/minute or $2.50/SMS
would require being on the phone for over 75 hours, or sending over
3000 text messages. If her trip was a week long that's 10 hours/day
on the phone. I suppose it might have been data fees but you'd still
have to download hours of video to spend that much.
Her husband commented: "What a waste of money." No s***, Sherlock.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:07:49 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <6645152a0909131107v135f3528xc81d1d2a70616e3d@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
> Also, to run up an $8,000 phone bill even at $1.75/minute or $2.50/SMS
> would require being on the phone for over 75 hours, or sending over
> 3000 text messages. Â If her trip was a week long that's 10 hours/day
> on the phone. Â I suppose it might have been data fees but you'd stil
l
> have to download hours of video to spend that much.
I was just about to point this one out.
Maybe it's because I know more about telephones than the average
consumer. But I still think it's common knowledge that cell phone
fees outside of the country are astronomical. And as John pointed
out, racking up an $8k bill is no easy feat. Don't people travel to
exotic locales to get away from it all?
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <b5d0b457-018c-4049-8d7c-ecd891c2c264@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 13, 5:53 pm, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> Maybe it's because I know more about telephones than the average
> consumer. But I still think it's common knowledge that cell phone
> fees outside of the country are astronomical. And as John pointed
> out, racking up an $8k bill is no easy feat. Don't people travel to
> exotic locales to get away from it all?
It's very possible the actual bill wasn't that high and there's more
to the story than we know.
I'm not at all sure that it's "common knowledge" among ordinary
consumers that cellphone charges out of the country can be
significantly higher than here. Rates and charges are so complex
these days it's very hard for ordinary consumers to keep up with
them. Remember, many carriers do not provide itemized call lists
anymore.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Taking a cell phone to a foreign country without regard to the rates
and charges which will apply is like travelling without vaccinations:
if someone wants to be a candidate for the Darwin Award, that's their
business, but they shouldn't come to the hospital crying about how
they didn't know plague still exists.
In like manner, Americans venturing abroad with radio transceivers
should not come crying to the press about a cellular bill, just
because they didn't realize that a foreign government might not care
how much they assumed that foreign telecommunications networks,
policies, or charges are "just like us".
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:17:30 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <SuCdnb8_MLECQjDXnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@posted.visi>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> In like manner, Americans venturing abroad with radio transceivers
> should not come crying to the press about a cellular bill, just
> because they didn't realize that a foreign government might not care
> how much they assumed that foreign telecommunications networks,
> policies, or charges are "just like us".
Sadly, I've met people who did not realize that their cell phones were
radio transceivers. Even though they had noticed that there was no wire.
Dave
***** Moderator's Note *****
A fool and his money were lucky to get together in the first place.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <947169.97340.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:22:45 -0400 Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> quoted an article:
> Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
>
> By Christopher Elliott
> Tribune Media Services
>
> (Tribune Media Services) -- When it comes to "gotcha" fees, the
> cellular phone industry makes travel companies look like rank
> amateurs.
>
> Take what happened to P. Morgan Brown when his wife decided to take a
> spur-of-the-moment vacation to Indonesia.
>
> Her Verizon bill came to a staggering $8,000. Text-messages home cost
> an astounding $2.50 each and the meter was running at an eye-popping
> $1.75 a minute for phone calls.
It's too bad that this person got the huge bills but I don't feel that
sorry for anyone who just "goes" somewhere with a device that has the
potential to run up huge bills without investigating what their travel
with their device is going to cost them.
I am well aware of the high cost of roaming and data roaming charges
and that's why I get prepaid SIMs when I visit other countries and if
someone calls me on my own number I have that covered too since I have
my calls forwarded to my foreign number. I use the Kall8 service, but
there are others that work as well such as VoiceStick.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 06:42:03 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <ME6rm.34793$u76.12165@newsfe10.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Calling "customer service" can mean a long wait and inaccurate
> infomration from an overseas based automaton. (If anyone knows a good
> way to easily find out landline and cell phone special rates please
> share it with us.)
>
Isn't this a case where prudent planning can go a long way? I'm
thinking in terms of calling customer service before I leave home, and
going over my travel plans with them. Perhaps getting a supervisor's
name if there is any hint of a run around? They are the folks who
finally do the billing.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Please write up a report of your experiences and submit it here: I'm
very interested in seeing how you're received when you make that
request.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:30:54 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <1NKdnbHwE-denDDXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@posted.visi>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Isn't this a case where prudent planning can go a long way? I'm
> thinking in terms of calling customer service before I leave home, and
> going over my travel plans with them. Perhaps getting a supervisor's
> name if there is any hint of a run around? They are the folks who
> finally do the billing.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Please write up a report of your experiences and submit it here: I'm
> very interested in seeing how you're received when you make that
> request.
If you are in a state where to do so is legal, I'd suggest recording
the call, so you'll have irrefutable proof of what they told you.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:13:23 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <nvbrm.29487$nP6.393@newsfe25.iad>
Dave Garland wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>> Isn't this a case where prudent planning can go a long way? I'm
>> thinking in terms of calling customer service before I leave home,
>> and going over my travel plans with them. Perhaps getting a
>> supervisor's name if there is any hint of a run around? They are
>> the folks who finally do the billing.
>>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> Please write up a report of your experiences and submit it here:
>> I'm very interested in seeing how you're received when you make
>> that request.
>
> If you are in a state where to do so is legal, I'd suggest recording
> the call, so you'll have irrefutable proof of what they told you.
Or, the old lawyer trick. Put your recollections in writing and send
to the top dog, stating the purpose of the letter, a detailed
statement of the information provided to you by rep "Jones at 10:55
AM, PDT, August 16, 2009. Conclude the letter by saying, "Please let
me know by mail or telephone if you disagree with my statement of the
facts as set forth in this letter."
***** Moderator's Note *****
I don't think you need to involve an attorney: keep in mind that top
executives deal with lawyers on a daily basis, and are not likely to
be impressed or intimidated by a lawyer.
However, a paper letter can bring good results: just state your case
as clearly and simply as possible, and you'll almost always get a good
result.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:59:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <h8jpvq$8h7$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <nvbrm.29487$nP6.393@newsfe25.iad> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> writes:
[snip of yet another horror story regarding a "cellular phone"
arried out of the US leading to a mega bill ]
>However, a paper letter can bring good results: just state your case
>as clearly and simply as possible, and you'll almost always get a good
>result.
The societal problem here is that there's no warning to the average
consumer that they're going to be zapped with astronimical charges of
this size.
It's a pretty brand new experience for people to run into this
with.. telephones. Pretty much since the start of the public telephone
system your maximum exposure was limited. (Yes, there were occassional
horrors involving the "900" numbers and releated stuff, but they were
pretty rare, and while getting hit for hundreds of dollars was
possible, it took some doing. Oh, and eventually the regulators, the
Law, and public pressure cut this down to size).
In the Good Old Dayze the One Bell System, It Works, would even
occasionally call a customer in the middle of a billing period
warning that there were lots more calls, and lots more expenses, than
the norm.
So it's really about time the wireless telcos implemented some
flagging on today's accounts.
(Even better would be to erduve their absurd and confiscatory rates).
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:04:20 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <E%drm.315672$E61.98295@newsfe09.iad>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Or, the old lawyer trick. Put your recollections in writing and send
> to the top dog, stating the purpose of the letter, a detailed
> statement of the information provided to you by rep "Jones at 10:55
> AM, PDT, August 16, 2009. Conclude the letter by saying, "Please let
> me know by mail or telephone if you disagree with my statement of the
> facts as set forth in this letter."
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I don't think you need to involve an attorney: keep in mind that top
> executives deal with lawyers on a daily basis, and are not likely to
> be impressed or intimidated by a lawyer.
>
> However, a paper letter can bring good results: just state your case
> as clearly and simply as possible, and you'll almost always get a good
> result.
I was speaking of the customer writing the letter using that style. ;-)
***** Moderator's Note *****
That's unlikely to impress or intimidate anyone. The "top dog" gets
legal notices every day, and some top executives get so many of them
that they designate a secretary with a limited power-of-attorney which
allows the secretary to be served with legal notices.
Trying to sound like a lawyer is an old spammer trick, since spammers
often send threatenting emails filled with legalese to those who
report them. The spam fighters call such messages "Cartoonies", a
morphed word which is a combination of "cartoon" and "attorney".
Long story short: just get to the point, and never threaten what you
can't or won't deliver. You'll get farther by being an angry customer
than by trying to sound like something else.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <8cb60bed-49c9-4f5c-9b46-6d23570054f5@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 13, 1:33 pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> If you are in a state where to do so is legal, I'd suggest recording
> the call, so you'll have irrefutable proof of what they told you.
I am not a lawyer. Perhaps people with actual experience in
recording calls could respond to the following post (not merely
reading what the law says on paper).
I would recommend recording a phone call with any organization with
whom you are having a serious dispute for which resolution may be
difficult.
Many journalists have told me they routinely record all telephone
interviews without notice even though illegal in the state (they
didn't even know it was illegal). It has never been an issue. If
memory serves, a participant in 'Monicagate' illegally recorded calls
and while it was discussed, there was no prosecution and the illegal
tapes still were utilized.
I can't help suspect that recording a call without notice for your own
record would not be a problem even if illegal in your state.
_Perhaps_ attempting to use that recording in court might be a
problem, but that assumes your case goes that far. I think if you
tell the person you're recording the call then it is legal. Again,
others with experience in this might comment further.
My old answering machine had a conversation record option where a beep
tone was done every 15 seconds. This was a published standard to
announce a call was recorded. At one time 911 centers, which recorded
the call, played the beep tone, as did certain other organizations.
I don't know if they still make such recording machines that play the
beep tone. I only used it once, and it was certainly easier and
higher quality than than the suction cup against the receiver plugged
into a tape recorder. But I assume commercial-grade electronic
dealers would carry telephone recorders because many places do record
phone calls today.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:11:10 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <C4ednefXntCOTTDXnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@posted.visi>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sep 13, 1:33 pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> If you are in a state where to do so is legal, I'd suggest recording
>> the call, so you'll have irrefutable proof of what they told you.
>
> I am not a lawyer. Perhaps people with actual experience in
> recording calls could respond to the following post (not merely
> reading what the law says on paper).
I can't speak to what you can get away with, but according to
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations
Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call
or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These
"two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California,
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
Now, IANAL either, but if the recording started off with an
announcement from the VM hell of the party you were calling that said
"this call may be monitored for quality assurance", I'd take that as
permission.
[Moderator snip]
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:23:08 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <h8jnrs$1f2$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <1NKdnbHwE-denDDXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@posted.visi> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> Please write up a report of your experiences and submit it here: I'm
>> very interested in seeing how you're received when you make that
>> request.
> If you are in a state where to do so is legal, I'd suggest recording
> the call, so you'll have irrefutable proof of what they told you.
I'd suggest that... the recording played by just about every telco
(and far too many other businesses) at the beginning of any phone call
that says "this call may be recorded for quality assurance or training
purposes" grants you permission...
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
***** Moderator's Note *****
IANALB I think that announcement about how a call may be recorded
gives them permission to record, not you. AFAIK, you have to
announce that you are recording in order to make it legal.
FWIW, I once had experience listening in on a lot of phone calls made
by telemarketers: I was responsible for doing routine maintenance on
leased T-Carrier lines which carried foreign-exchange trunks for a
company pitching everything from home maintenance contracts to
time-share condos in Gulfport, Mississippi. I won't divulge specifics,
but they're not important anyway. What I remember was realizing that
all the sales pitches were carefully worded so that they implied a
tremendous amount that they didn't actually promise.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:09:54 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <6sbrm.29486$nP6.18063@newsfe25.iad>
Sam Spade wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> Calling "customer service" can mean a long wait and inaccurate
>> infomration from an overseas based automaton. (If anyone knows a good
>> way to easily find out landline and cell phone special rates please
>> share it with us.)
>>
>
> Isn't this a case where prudent planning can go a long way? I'm
> thinking in terms of calling customer service before I leave home, and
> going over my travel plans with them. Perhaps getting a supervisor's
> name if there is any hint of a run around? They are the folks who
> finally do the billing.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Please write up a report of your experiences and submit it here: I'm
> very interested in seeing how you're received when you make that
> request.
>
You will have a very long wait because I only travel in this country.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:45:37 -0400
From: "David B. Horvath, CCP" <dhorvath@cobs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <20090913175019.25049.qmail@gal.iecc.com>
At Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:57:36 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Sep 12, 11:24 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
>
> > Her Verizon bill came to a staggering $8,000. Text-messages home cost
> > an astounding $2.50 each and the meter was running at an eye-popping
> > $1.75 a minute for phone calls.
>
>Historically, overseas telephone charges were extremely high.
>Likewise, cellphone roaming charges outside your home area used to be
>high (mine was $1.00/minute). Even after new cables allowed
>reductions rates were still high. Given that, I would think a
>traveler would check into rates cell and landline rates in advance,
>especially from a distant place like Indonesia.
>
>Unfortunately, today it's hard to find out what rates are. It used to
>be to simply dial the operator at any time and she'd tell you. But
>now with the many phone plans and carriers it's hard to find out.
>Many people today have free calling within the continental (48 states)
>so rarely have a need to get rates. But there's usually a charge,
>possibly a steep one, to call or use a cellphone outside the 48
>states.
>
>Calling "customer service" can mean a long wait and inaccurate
>infomration from an overseas based automaton. (If anyone knows a good
>way to easily find out landline and cell phone special rates please
>share it with us.)
I was able to find the rates for AT&T (my provider) in about 4 clicks
and theirs isn't the easiest since it allows you to build an entire
itinerary of countries and verifies coverage and foreign providers.
AT&T Standard International Roaming $3.99 voice per minute
AT&T World Traveler $2.49 voice per minute
Send Text Message $0.50 per message sent
Send Picture and Video Messages $1.30 per message sent
Not very hard. We checked it out before our last trip. We knew the
costs before we went and understood (roughly) wat our bill would be
when we got back -- and used the phone accordingly.
- David
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:55:57 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sky-high travel phone bills nearly bust house payment
Message-ID: <359c8$4aad403f$43e693f6$16918@PRIMUS.CA>
Monty Solomon wrote:
> By Christopher Elliott
> Tribune Media Services
> Her Verizon bill came to a staggering $8,000. Text-messages home cost
> an astounding $2.50 each and the meter was running at an eye-popping
> $1.75 a minute for phone calls.
Let's assume that it was a two-week vacation and that the $8000 was $5,000
for minutes and $3,000 for messages: that's almost 3,000 minutes (almost
three and a half hours per day) and 1200 messages (almost 100 per day).
> [from the story]
> Stories like his are becoming more common
... because some of us don't stop to think that things might work
differently in other parts of the world from how they do at home. I
remember when it was practically inconceivable for any individual to make
hours-long landline long distance calls because they understood that it
cost money; are we so self-absorbed (or spoiled by the bundles available at
home) that we expect our home plans to cover service worldwide?
And, if my estimates are anywhere near correct, the person in question was a
fool from the beginning for spending money to fly halfway around the world
just so she could spend half the day talking and texting on her cellphone!
--
Geoffrey Welsh
.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:09:45 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <76fc7$4aad356a$43e693f6$12935@PRIMUS.CA>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> All these posts about poor equipment manufacturing do seem to
> demonstrate why the old Bell System--and regulators--were so hesitant
> to allow customer owned equipment to be connected to the network.
> What good were 'standards' if they weren't followed?
Let's use the standard rhetorical tool of testing the soundness of that
logic by applying it to a ridiculously extreme situation: if non-compliance
negates the value of the standard then, by that logic, the failure of laws
to prevent murder, assault, rape, etc. negate their value. Of course, laws
are valuable because generally people obey them and therefore the vast
majority of us can go about our lives in peace and security the vast
majority of the time.
Despite the spectacular exceptions - which are rare enough that we feel them
worthy of mention here - standards are exactly what permit devices from
multiple manufacturers to interoperate, and the resulting opportunities to
replace even a tiny part of a system with an improved version has driven
innovation domino-style.
The pieces from my story - the Amiga and the then-record low priced modem -
were significant stepping stones on the path to the computers and
communication facilities we're using to discuss them today. They also
taught me that it wasn't nearly as smart as I thought it was to use ribbon
cable and quick-snap DB-25 connectors for quick and dirty RS-232 cables!
Yes, I also interpreted the RS-232 standard in a way that I thought suited
me, and that makes me as guilty as Commodore and that modem manufacturer.
(Did I forget to mention that part in the original recounting? <grin>)
--
Geoffrey Welsh
.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:01:13 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Message-ID: <p06240850c6d301a6c760@[10.0.1.3]>
Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
By Eric Bender
Thursday, Sep. 10, 2009
When my teenage son ignores me while tapping away furiously on his
cell phone, I have the consolation of knowing that he has joined the
quickest-growing form of two-way communication in human history. A
decade ago, just about no one in the U.S. sent these messages, known
as Short Message Service (SMS) texts. This year, we will zing out 1.2
trillion of them, predicts market-intelligence firm IDC.
That translates to a barrage of messages from each user, especially
teens, who seem to be receiving new text messages - a.k.a. "blowing
up" - more than they take new breaths. The average U.S. mobile teen
now sends or receives an average of 2,899 text messages per month,
according to Nielsen Mobile. "With teens, the act of picking up a
phone and calling someone is dropping away," notes Christopher
Collins, a senior analyst with Yankee Group.
What's most amazing about the texting craze is just how inexpensive it
is for mobile carriers to provide this wildly popular service. SMS
messages are not only extremely short (maxing out at 160 characters),
but they also cleverly exploit today's digital phone networks,
leveraging transmission channels between phone and cell tower that
were originally designed to coordinate voice calls. "They cost the
mobile carriers so little that you could argue that they're free,"
says Collins.
That situation set antitrust alarm bells ringing when AT&T, Sprint,
T-Mobile and Verizon all raised their pay-per-use costs of sending a
text message from 10 cents to 20 cents over the past three years.
That prompted Senator Herbert Kohl, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs
the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Antitrust,
Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, to hold hearings on the matter
in June.
At those hearings, Srinivasan Keshav, a professor at the University of
Waterloo in Ontario and an expert on mobile computing, presented a
detailed analysis of all the expenses that carriers incur in handling
SMS messages. He showed that the wireless channels contribute about a
tenth of a cent to a carrier's cost, that accounting charges might be
twice that and that other costs basically round to zero because
texting requires so little of a mobile network's infrastructure.
Summing up, Keshav found that a text message doesn't cost providers
more than 0.3 cent.
...
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1921373,00.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 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.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
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 (19 messages)
***************************************
|
or 