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

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 
Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 319 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals   
  Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals   
  Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals     
  Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals   
  Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals       
  The Robber Barons and the Victorian Internet (great article)   
  FCC RFC for replacement of USA PSTN with VoIP per "2009 Recovery Act" 
  Re: FCC RFC for replacement of USA PSTN with VoIP per "2009 Recovery Act" 
  Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens  
  Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens  
  Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens 
  Re: Verizon femtocell user report
  Re: Verizon femtocell user report
  Re: Verizon femtocell user report
  Re: Verizon femtocell user report
  Re: Verizon femtocell user report
  Re: Verizon femtocell user report
  Re: Verizon femtocell user report
  Re: Dial-1 and 800 provider for low volume user? 
  Re: Dial-1 and 800 provider for low volume user? 
  Re: Verizon femtocell user report
  Cheap long-distance plans
  Re: Direct dial long distance 
  Re: Direct dial long distance 
  Re: Direct dial long distance 
  Re: Dial-1 and 800 provider for low volume user? 
  Re: Dial-1 and 800 provider for low volume user? 
  Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals   


====== 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: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:01:28 -0800 (PST) From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals Message-ID: <52ba4e03-a382-4e64-9259-2b95f5c8e61c@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> On Dec 3, 9:07am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote: > If nothing else, the time is overdue for subscribers being able to > select only those channels they wish to subscribe to. ================ That's called "a-la-carte". We've discussed it several times before here on T-D. As a former cable TV engineer (Warner, Comcast, TCI), I've tried to explain the cable TV industry's position. My long-winded explanation, addressing specific points raised by T-D readers, is at: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/archives/reports/alacarte-cable-service A more succinct (and more recent) explanation is at: http://theoldcatvequipmentmuseum.org/320/321/index.html For reasons I've tried to make clear in these explanations, I don't believe a-la-carte pricing would result in lower retail prices. But in light of the enormous increases in the wholesale cost of programming during the past few years, I'm starting to wonder if some sort of a-la-carte tiering might be economically feasible. Some of the biggest wholesale increases have resulted from the broadcasters' demands for retransmission consent fees. I'd love to see how broadcasters would react to a-la-carte retail pricing. It would be fascinating to find out how many subscribers would actually pay $1.00/month for Univision. Or $3.00/month for CBS. Now that Comcast owns NBC (or will, if the government doesn't block it), one can hope that Comcast will try to rein in the retransmission fees imposed by its O&O NBC and Telemundo stations. But if so, they aren't talking about it. I haven't seen anything about it in the trade press. On last night's "Newshour with Jim Lehrer," the words "retransmission consent" were mentioned once by a guest, but he offered no explanation of its significance. Neal McLain
Date: 5 Dec 2009 02:40:27 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals Message-ID: <20091205024027.63660.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >Now that Comcast owns NBC (or will, if the government doesn't block >it), one can hope that Comcast will try to rein in the retransmission >fees imposed by its O&O NBC and Telemundo stations. But if so, they >aren't talking about it. I haven't seen anything about it in the >trade press. Why would they do that? The higher the consent fees, the more money all the other cable systems will have to pay Comcast. R's, John
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:31:35 -0500 From: nmclain@annsgarden.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals Message-ID: <77b0b48d7ad1353d306ab4405ee047fe.squirrel@email.fatcow.com> I wrote: > Now that Comcast owns NBC (or will, if the government doesn't block > it), one can hope that Comcast will try to rein in the retransmission > fees imposed by its O&O NBC and Telemundo stations. But if so, they > aren't talking about it. I haven't seen anything about it in the > trade press. John Levine wrote: > Why would they do that? The higher the consent fees, the more money > all the other cable systems will have to pay Comcast. As I said, "one can hope..." But maybe that's too much to hope. It's just possible that some other MSO (e.g. Time Warner) might try to buy another broadcast network (e.g. CBS) one of these days. If Brian Roberts is thinking ahead (which he surely must be), he doesn't want to screw Time Warner. You may recall that several years ago, before Ted Turner sold Turner Broadcasting to Time Warner, Turner tried to buy CBS. A notable cartoon at the time showed Ted in his yacht "Courageous" sailing up the Hudson toward Black Rock, apparently ready to take it by force if he couldn't buy it. Neal McLain
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:50:54 -0800 (PST) From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals Message-ID: <e5c2983f-3afa-4302-a594-481ecfb2342b@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> Further reasons why Comcast may be motivated to rein in the retransmission fees: - As the largest cable company in the country, Comcast dominates the industry. But it also supports the industry by taking a leading role in negotiations with broadcasters, government agencies, and other organizations. It has enough problems dealing with all of these outside parties without alienating the rest of the cable industry. - For years, the cable industry (including Comcast) has been blaming rising cable rates on programmers and broadcasters. Certain members of Congress (notably Senator Markey of Massachusetts) have noted that some cable TV companies (including Comcast) also own non-broadcast programming. The question arises: "why are you complaining about rates if you own the programming." Comcast has enough problems with Congress without giving Senator Markey even more ammunition. - Comcast itself will have to pay retransmission consent fees to NBCU. Under the terms of its deal with GE, Comcast will own 51% and GE will own 49%. But Comcast and NBCU are still separate legal entities. Neal McLain
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:30:18 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals Message-ID: <hfejdb$j1q$1@news.eternal-september.org> nmclain@annsgarden.com wrote: > I wrote: > >> Now that Comcast owns NBC (or will, if the government doesn't block >> it), one can hope that Comcast will try to rein in the retransmission >> fees imposed by its O&O NBC and Telemundo stations. But if so, they >> aren't talking about it. I haven't seen anything about it in the >> trade press. > > John Levine wrote: > >> Why would they do that? The higher the consent fees, the more money >> all the other cable systems will have to pay Comcast. > > As I said, "one can hope..." But maybe that's too much to hope. > > It's just possible that some other MSO (e.g. Time Warner) might try to > buy another broadcast network (e.g. CBS) one of these days. If Brian > Roberts is thinking ahead (which he surely must be), he doesn't want > to screw Time Warner. > > You may recall that several years ago, before Ted Turner sold Turner > Broadcasting to Time Warner, Turner tried to buy CBS. A notable > cartoon at the time showed Ted in his yacht "Courageous" sailing up > the Hudson toward Black Rock, apparently ready to take it by force if > he couldn't buy it. > > Neal McLain > > > > > > Next Verizon or att is going to try and buy ComCast. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:43:33 -0600 From: Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: The Robber Barons and the Victorian Internet (great article) Message-ID: <HJadndst4PAod4rWnZ2dnUVZ_oxi4p2d@earthlink.com> Saw this on slashdot this morning. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-the-robber-barons-hijacked-the-victorian-internet.ars
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:54:18 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: FCC RFC for replacement of USA PSTN with VoIP per "2009 Recovery Act" Message-ID: <4B17ED3A.2010903@thadlabs.com> The FCC desires to transition from the decades-old circuit-based Public Switched Telephone Network to a new system run entirely with Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. This is perhaps the most serious indication to date that the legacy telephone system will, in the near future, reach the end of its life. This public commenting phase represents a very early stage in what will undoubtedly be a very complex transition that makes this year's bumpy switch from analog to digital television look relatively easy. 3-page FCC "Public Notice" here: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2517A1.pdf Released: 1-DEC-2009 Comment date: 21-DEC-2009
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:06:38 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: FCC RFC for replacement of USA PSTN with VoIP per "2009 Recovery Act" Message-ID: <hfc15e$ero$1@reader1.panix.com> In <4B17ED3A.2010903@thadlabs.com> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> writes: > The FCC desires to transition from the decades-old circuit-based > Public Switched Telephone Network to a new system run entirely with > Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. This is perhaps the > most serious indication to date that the legacy telephone system will, > in the near future, reach the end of its life. This public commenting > phase represents a very early stage in what will undoubtedly be a very > complex transition that makes this year's bumpy switch from analog to > digital television look relatively easy. > 3-page FCC "Public Notice" here: > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2517A1.pdf > Released: 1-DEC-2009 > Comment date: 21-DEC-2009 Just a short aside. This document, like many other FCC notices, is available in the "pdf" style listed above, and is also downloadable as a "DOC" file, and a more or less [ASCII] version. Simply take the url and adjust the trailing extension as preferred: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2517A1.txt -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:08:07 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens Message-ID: <hfajhn$tsb$6@news.eternal-september.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >IMHO, while this practice should be discouraged, kids should not be >prosecuted under felony charges for this sort of thing. But I've >heard from some parents who feel aggressive law enforcement is the >right way to go. This whole WINS news story is troubling because it goes on and on about young people's brains not being as developed, etc., and them not knowing the consequences of their actions, etc. What WINS fails to say is that times have changed and today's younger folks really don't think of naked photos as any big deal. And why should they be? Bodies are pretty. We're born naked, after all.
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:36:48 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens Message-ID: <pan.2009.12.04.23.36.37.379943@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:08:07 +0000, David Kaye wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> IMHO, while this practice should be discouraged, kids should not be >> prosecuted under felony charges for this sort of thing. But I've >> heard from some parents who feel aggressive law enforcement is the >> right way to go. > > This whole WINS news story is troubling because it goes on and on about > young people's brains not being as developed, etc., and them not knowing > the consequences of their actions, etc. What WINS fails to say is that > times have changed and today's younger folks really don't think of naked > photos as any big deal. And why should they be? Bodies are pretty. > We're born naked, after all. I would say that the main point is that technology has (yet again) allowed us humans to do things that are really not in our best interests. For all the moral arguments/opinions, it boils down to people being able to do this sort of thing on a large scale because it is convenient, easy and low cost. Give the average person access to that combination, and all sorts of detrimental things happen (just look at the natural environment.....) Pray that our advances in technology never allow nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons to become that accessible. -- 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: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:11:14 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens Message-ID: <6645152a0912040611m650b00c6p1bf905122332fa48@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:33 AM, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > IMHO, while this practice should be discouraged, kids should not be > prosecuted under felony charges for this sort of thing. But I've > heard from some parents who feel aggressive law enforcement is the > right way to go. Which doesn't surprise me because so many parents these days want to do everything in the world except parent. I have a 13 year-old son. It's scary that he could be forever labeled a "sex offender" doing something that hormone-addled boys (and girls) do. I don't think these parents are thinking this through. Instead of relying on the local district attorney to do their parenting, they need to get tough with the kids and need be provide them with a phone without a camera or MMS capabilities. Or no phone at all. I know that's paramount to child abuse, but it's for the children. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 13:55:49 -0800 (PST) From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report Message-ID: <7e09b71c-4c08-4259-9645-fe1f49164164@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> I think these things are a really great idea. They get more cellular infrastructure for free. You're paying for the equipment and the circuit, but the price is not that high. While the range is limited, this actually can be a benefit in terms of increasing capacity through frequency reuse. I wonder what the limitations on range are. I imagine the antenna is nowhere as efficient as a typical base station antenna. They may not be able to increase power and still comply with FCC emissions safety requirements. Anyway, get a bunch of these out there and they get a bunch more capacity at no cost. Harold
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:38:53 -0800 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report Message-ID: <siegman-6669E6.16382303122009@news.stanford.edu> In article <20091203063301.20447.qmail@simone.iecc.com>, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > >Purchase price about $120; 3 or 4 simultaneous calling channels; no > >monthly charge. Wish we'd done this months ago. > > I'm impressed. In the normal world telcos pay for the base station > equipment, pay for the backhaul, and pay rent to the site owner. I > negotiated three cell site leases on the municipal water tower when I > was the water commissioner and later the mayor. The rent is > substantial, totalling about $40,000 per year even though we are in a > rural area far from any major highways. > > But they've persuaded you to flip the model around entirely so you pay > for the base station equipment, you pay for the backhaul, and you give > them free rent. > > Time to buy VZ stock, I guess. I take your point -- but the unit (whose price was actually $220 -- mea culpa) is equivalent to about two month's billing for our multi-user cellphone service, which we find well worth having for our household. Gets the job done; makes our cellphones now fully usable at home as well as during extensive local and more distant traveling; and benefits a couple of other tenant occupants also.
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:12:51 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report Message-ID: <hfc1h3$ero$2@reader1.panix.com> [snippage] >> >Purchase price about $120; 3 or 4 simultaneous calling channels; no >> >monthly charge. Wish we'd done this months ago. >> >> I'm impressed. In the normal world telcos pay for the base station >> equipment, pay for the backhaul, and pay rent to the site owner. I >> >> But they've persuaded you to flip the model around entirely so you pay >> for the base station equipment, you pay for the backhaul, and you give >> them free rent. >> >> Time to buy VZ stock, I guess. > I take your point -- but the unit (whose price was actually $220 -- > mea culpa) is equivalent to about two month's billing for our > multi-user cellphone service, which we find well worth having for > our household. Gets the job done; makes our cellphones now fully > usable at home as well as during extensive local and more distant > traveling; and benefits a couple of other tenant occupants also. With the disclosure that I'm both a user and a shareholder, back when t-Mobile started their similar "hot spot at home" option, which uses dual-capable "cell phones" to either tap into their network or to use any accessable WIFI connection [a], they gave the users "untimed" use when hooked up via WIFI. Alas, they dropped that as a freebie, so now you've got two choices: 1: to dip into your "bucket of minutes" with each call 2: to pay $10/month extra and get that unlimited option back. > From a technical standpoint it works quite well, and has the > advantage over VZ in that the WIFI signal doesn't have to be just > yours, but can be a coffee shop's, a library, etc., and can be in > Uzbekistan. (Or, of course, Walla Walla Washington). [a] you can use these phones with an "open" WIFI base, or one that just needs a basic password. It won't work with a "splash screen". -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 00:47:19 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report Message-ID: <hfcain$9bk$1@reader1.panix.com> > John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >> But they've persuaded you to flip the model around entirely so you pay >> for the base station equipment, you pay for the backhaul, and you give >> them free rent. >> >> Time to buy VZ stock, I guess. AES <siegman@stanford.edu> writes: > I take your point -- but the unit (whose price was actually $220 -- > mea culpa) is equivalent to about two month's billing for our > multi-user cellphone service, which we find well worth having for > our household. The real beauty is that by doing their job for them, you help them charge you more on both ends. You use more minute$; and soon, you'll get rewarded with the excess use charge on your VZ DSL line to boot. At the very least, Verizontal should give you free usage of your phones on your femtocell. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 03:26:47 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report Message-ID: <hf9vhn$2pg4$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <20091203063301.20447.qmail@simone.iecc.com>, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > But they've persuaded you to flip the model around entirely so you pay > for the base station equipment, you pay for the backhaul, and you give > them free rent. In return for which, you get service in a place that otherwise would not have any, the market being too small to justify investment on the carrier's part. Sounds like a good deal to me. -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, 04 Dec 2009 12:26:08 -0500 From: Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report Message-ID: <net-news69-A591F2.12260804122009@news.toast.net> In article <20091203063301.20447.qmail@simone.iecc.com>, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > But they've persuaded you to flip the model around entirely so you pay > for the base station equipment, you pay for the backhaul, and you give > them free rent. Clever, isn't it? But I think the ATT femtocell is even better (for them). If I recall correctly, they even charge you a monthly fee.
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:27:52 -0600 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report Message-ID: <QP-dnV47BLcl_4TWnZ2dnUVZ_gJi4p2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <20091203063301.20447.qmail@simone.iecc.com>, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >>Purchase price about $120; 3 or 4 simultaneous calling channels; no >>monthly charge. Wish we'd done this months ago. > >I'm impressed. In the normal world telcos pay for the base station >equipment, pay for the backhaul, and pay rent to the site owner. I >negotiated three cell site leases on the municipal water tower when I >was the water commissioner and later the mayor. The rent is >substantial, totalling about $40,000 per year even though we are in a >rural area far from any major highways. > >But they've persuaded you to flip the model around entirely so you pay >for the base station equipment, you pay for the backhaul, and you give >them free rent. Now, consider the range of the 'femto-cell', and how many possible users there that benefit from it's emplacement. BTW, Verizon is paying for fully half of the cost of the backhaul for each of those femto-cells deployed.
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:18:58 -0800 From: Sidney Zafran <szafran@lycos.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Dial-1 and 800 provider for low volume user? Message-ID: <ie6hh5trb6jmb039v1cvlnhode1q7ech76@4ax.com> On 3 Dec 2009 03:05:54 -0500, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > For several years I have had the long distance service for my house in > upstate NY, the family beach house in NJ and two toll-free numbers > provided by ECG. ...snip... > > I'm looking for someone else who will provide good service at lower > cost, without so many nuisance fees. Any suggestions? ...snip... We have been satisfied with the service provided by OneSuite.com Ref: http://www.onesuite.com/
Date: 5 Dec 2009 02:37:00 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Dial-1 and 800 provider for low volume user? Message-ID: <20091205023700.62812.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >> PS: I'm NOT looking for dialaround, VoIP, calling cards, Skype, >> Magicjack, or anything else. >We have been satisfied with the service provided by OneSuite.com >Ref: http://www.onesuite.com/ Unless I'm missing something, onesuite is dialaround. R's, John
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:32:39 -0500 From: "Gary" <fake-email-address@bogus.hotmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report Message-ID: <hfc2m7$b6o$1@news.eternal-september.org> "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote in message news:20091203063301.20447.qmail@simone.iecc.com... > >Purchase price about $120; 3 or 4 simultaneous calling channels; no >>monthly charge. Wish we'd done this months ago. > > I'm impressed. In the normal world telcos pay for the base station > equipment, pay for the backhaul, and pay rent to the site owner. I > negotiated three cell site leases on the municipal water tower when I > was the water commissioner and later the mayor. The rent is > substantial, totalling about $40,000 per year even though we are in a > rural area far from any major highways. > > But they've persuaded you to flip the model around entirely so you pay > for the base station equipment, you pay for the backhaul, and you give > them free rent. > > Time to buy VZ stock, I guess. I'm not so sure femto cells will last. T-Mobile has UMA, which is a fancy way of saying WiFi enabled phones can make connect to T-Mobile's network through the internet. They even give you a router when you sign up for service. The advantage to the user calls made over WiFi are free. In short, T-Mobile uses WiFi to get the same effect as a femto cell at a much lower cost to the subscriber (free). Considering that more and more phones have built in WiFi, I can see this quickly becoming the standard way provide femto cell like coverage. -Gary
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:04:34 -0500 From: "Michael D. Sullivan" <mds.revove-this@this-too.camsul.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: [TELECOM] Cheap long-distance plans Message-ID: <4B19BFB2.9030602@camsul.com> [Please obfuscate my email address.] Several threads have raised the issue of inexpensive long-distance plans. For many years I used a plan offered by reseller Capsule Communications, a division of Covista, that was about 3 cents per minute, with no monthly minimum and no fees, provided I did automatic payment and online billing. The service was excellent. I only discontinued when I switched my broadband and cable to Verizon FiOS and got a Verizon flat-rate plan as part of a triple play. The company's page, with various options, is at http://www.capsule.com. No connection, just a satisfied former customer. -- Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD (USA)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:19:55 -0500 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Direct dial long distance Message-ID: <op.u4gj7hn2o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:49:26 -0500, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > On 12/2/2009 7:44 PM, tlvp wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:48:56 -0500, gzm <gzmwest@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> [...] >>> I'm helping out my 80-something mom in Massachusetts (Arlington -- >>> suburban Boston) with her phone service. Actually, my aim is to get a >>> DSL line installed in her condo, send her a netbook, and have someone >>> there set it up so that we can Skype each other. She's never used a >>> computer and I don't expect her to use Skype for ordinary long- >>> distance calls -- only on the specific occasions that she and I >>> connect. >>> >>> I'm searching for the least expensive options for her land line phone >>> service, long distance and Internet service. Verizon appears to be the >>> main man in her area. They have a number of package deal combinations, >>> but I'd like to see whether it makes sense to "un-bundle" the various >>> services she needs. >> >> I agree that dialing access numbers for dial-around services >> is a pain, so why not just give your mom a magicJack? Is the >> idea of her having the netbook on 24/7 the deal-breaker? >> Skype, though, would require that, too, no? >> >> Why not use a "subsistence" land line with "basic" DSL, if >> that's available -- or even just "dry" DSL? That magicJack >> and an old 500 desk-set should be just great together ... . > > Perhaps much, much better, less confusing, and cheaper: Ooma. > > http://www.ooma.com/ > > Apparently available from Costco, too. Just the one-time cost with > free calls forever as we were discussing here this past Summer. Whoops! Forgot about that. Perhaps wiped out by my having combined a "that-week-only" 10%-off coupon with a $30.- ink-jet-recycling reward voucher to get a $40.- MagicJack for 6 bucks (plus tax) at Staples a couple of months ago, as a cheap experiment at a year's worth of unlimited +1 country calls from anywhere. Actually, MagicJack doesn't work all that well over lowest-speed aDSL, like mine -- I get (variably) 35-65 KB/sec on my nominal 768 Kb service, and MagicJack stutters, in both directions (probably worse for my listeners than for me). Might work perceptibly better over a higher speed connection, but... . I doubt Ooma's equipment would change that picture much. Or? Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:00:57 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Direct dial long distance Message-ID: <594492.64747.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:48:56 -0800 (PST) gzm <gzmwest@yahoo.com> wrote: [little snip] > I'm searching for the least expensive options for her land line phone > service, long distance and Internet service. Verizon appears to be > the main man in her area. They have a number of package deal > combinations, but I'd like to see whether it makes sense to > "un-bundle" the various services she needs. This solution isn't entirely "direct dial", but it sort of is. If you use the services of One Suite http://www.onesuite.com you can make calls to the US, Canada and most of Europe for 2.5 cents/minute. Procedure is you dial a local number. It answers and you simply dial the end number. It's "PINless" so you don't have to enter account codes. It's a "prepaid" service so you can buy calls in blocks of $10, $20 or more.
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:33:17 -0500 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Direct dial long distance Message-ID: <op.u4hkxrlco63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 14:00:57 -0500, Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote: > Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:48:56 -0800 (PST) gzm <gzmwest@yahoo.com> wrote: > > [not so little snip] > > ... If you use the services of One Suite http://www.onesuite.com > you can make calls to the US, Canada and most of Europe for 2.5 > cents/minute. Procedure is you dial a local number. It answers and > you simply dial the end number. It's "PINless" so you don't have to > enter account codes. It's a "prepaid" service so you can buy calls > in blocks of $10, $20 or more. Thanks, Joseph, for this pointer to an interesting competitor to the IDT dial-around service I use for international calling and international access, and to the MagicJack. Alas, no matter how hard I search on their web site, I find no mention of their outbound tariffs to Poland, or roaming tariffs from Poland. Could it be that Poland is not one of the countries they serve? Or have I just been looking in all the wrong places? TIA, and cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:06:35 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Dial-1 and 800 provider for low volume user? Message-ID: <136661.85557.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> 3 Dec 2009 03:05:54 -0500 "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > For several years I have had the long distance service for my house > in upstate NY, the family beach house in NJ and two toll-free > numbers provided by ECG. Their service is fine but their rates are > kind of high and they have a lot of nuisance fees, notably a $5 low > usage fee when my total bill is under $10 which it is about half the > time. We are in what's known as a Tier 3 area, a rural non-Bell > telco, which a lot of low cost LD companies won't serve. The beach > house is VZ territory, no problem there. > > The bills fluctuate a lot, notably the beach house has a $0 bill for > eight months of the year, and about $25 when people are there in the > summer. One toll-free number terminates here, [and the other] one > at my sister's house in another Tier 3 area in Vermont. > > I'm looking for someone else who will provide good service at lower > cost, without so many nuisance fees. Any suggestions? Poking > around on the net I found a company in Maine called Pioneer > Telephone that looks promising with reasonable Tier 3 rates of 3.3 > cpm and no monthly minimum if I get billed online. Anyone use them? I use Kall8 http://www.kall8.com which is $2/month for 866/877/888 numbers and $5/month for genuine 800 numbers. 6 cents/minute for calls directed in the US or Canada. Other rates to forward to other international destinations. Service only works in the US. Also $2 to activate 866/877/888 and $5 for 800 numbers.
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 21:36:22 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Dial-1 and 800 provider for low volume user? Message-ID: <hfejol$k0m$1@reader1.panix.com> In <136661.85557.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> writes: [snip] > I use Kall8 http://www.kall8.com which is $2/month for 866/877/888 > numbers and $5/month for genuine 800 numbers. 6 cents/minute for > calls directed in the US or Canada. Other rates to forward to other > international destinations. Service only works in the US. Also $2 > to activate 866/877/888 and $5 for 800 numbers. A second vote for Kall8. They're not the absolute cheapest, but they are competitive and.... .... and, they've got a superb web interface which gives you full, realtime, control of your number. So, for example, you can tell it to forward your calls to your cellphone during the day, and your home at 5 pm, and then over the weekend to your brother-in-law's. You can also pick and choose, down to the local level, where to accept calls from. So if you don't want to be bothered by wrong numbers (or worse, see [a]) from Texas and Virginia, you can block them out. As an aside, if you're using a personal toll free number, you're probably best off getting an "877" prefix. That way you're less likely to be bothered by misdialings. [a] FCC regulations mandate that the "owner" (or "carrier") for a toll free number "kick back" something like 50 cents if the call originates at a "pay phone". So... there are people who, yes, will sit at the pay phone in the laundromat and call out to them. Each of those calls to your number costs you (after the pass through, etc.) a dollar or so. (Exact numbers depend on the carrier, etc.). -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 16:06:20 -0500 From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0912051605100.15674@panix5.panix.com> In <e5c2983f-3afa-4302-a594-481ecfb2342b@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> writes: > > Further reasons why Comcast may be motivated to rein in the > retransmission fees: ..... >- For years, the cable industry (including Comcast) has been blaming > rising cable rates on programmers and broadcasters. Certain members > of Congress (notably Senator Markey of Massachusetts) have noted > that some cable TV companies (including Comcast) also own > non-broadcast programming. The question arises: "why are you > complaining about rates if you own the programming." Comcast has > enough problems with Congress without giving Senator Markey even > more ammunition. --------- In the good old daze of "One Bell System - It Works", the local operating companies used to justify their need for higher rates because... they had to pay more for the physical instruments. That is, Western Electric, a division of AT&T, was charging the local RBOC, another division of AT&T, more... Same for lots of other industries. For example, the NY Times, which owned lots of the forests and pulp mills in Canada, claimed that newsprint prices were increasing...
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 (28 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues