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 342 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch


====== 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: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:28:57 -0800 (PST) From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <cc65e964-dc45-417d-9dcd-c755f64f676f@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> On Dec 29, 6:34am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote: > I have Vonage since its inception. It is used for my consulting > service and also for all toll outgoing calls for my wife and > myself. (our AT&T wireline phone is toll blocked.) We live in the > 949 area code of coastal Southern California. But, my primary > Vonage number is in area code 202 in Washington, DC, thus a > cross-nation FEX line of sorts, with outward WAAS thrown in. > > Think what this would have cost in the legacy days. Somewhere > around $4,000 or $5,000 a month in 1970 dollars. > > Vonage also includes toll-free to Canada and 60 foreign countries > (and counting). > > My wife can now call her good friend in Kyoto, Japan as casually as > she calls someone two blocks away. This is indeed impressive. So, where are the cost savings that allow such dramatically lower costs? On the FEX, I guess that in the 1970s, they would have nailed down a circuit across the country for your use. That would indeed be expensive. They could have brought up the circuit only when needed (like an 800 number) for substantial savings. Between yesterday and today, of course, bandwidth costs have been dramatically reduced. Data compression also allows lower bitrates for voice. POTS has access to the lower bandwidth costs and could, I suppose, use compression. POTS, of course, uses circuit switched instead of packet switched, so the circuit is dead in one direction about half the time (remember TASI?). So, there is some additional cost savings there. But even then, POTS costs are considerably above Vonage or other VoIP services. Is the difference in bandwidth usage (dedicated 64kbps in each direction for POTS versus bursts for VoIP)? Is it regulatory? Why the big difference? In both cases, we're just transmitting bits. Harold
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:16:30 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <hhg8uh$nks$1@news.eternal-september.org> harold@hallikainen.com wrote: > On Dec 29, 6:34 am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote: > >> I have Vonage since its inception. It is used for my consulting >> service and also for all toll outgoing calls for my wife and >> myself. (our AT&T wireline phone is toll blocked.) We live in the >> 949 area code of coastal Southern California. But, my primary >> Vonage number is in area code 202 in Washington, DC, thus a >> cross-nation FEX line of sorts, with outward WAAS thrown in. >> >> Think what this would have cost in the legacy days. Somewhere >> around $4,000 or $5,000 a month in 1970 dollars. >> >> Vonage also includes toll-free to Canada and 60 foreign countries >> (and counting). >> >> My wife can now call her good friend in Kyoto, Japan as casually as >> she calls someone two blocks away. > > This is indeed impressive. So, where are the cost savings that allow > such dramatically lower costs? > > On the FEX, I guess that in the 1970s, they would have nailed down a > circuit across the country for your use. That would indeed be > expensive. They could have brought up the circuit only when needed > (like an 800 number) for substantial savings. > > Between yesterday and today, of course, bandwidth costs have been > dramatically reduced. Data compression also allows lower bitrates for > voice. POTS has access to the lower bandwidth costs and could, I > suppose, use compression. POTS, of course, uses circuit switched > instead of packet switched, so the circuit is dead in one direction > about half the time (remember TASI?). So, there is some additional > cost savings there. But even then, POTS costs are considerably above > Vonage or other VoIP services. Is the difference in bandwidth usage > (dedicated 64kbps in each direction for POTS versus bursts for VoIP)? > Is it regulatory? Why the big difference? In both cases, we're just > transmitting bits. > > Harold There is [such] a huge amount of surplus bandwidth that is costs almost nothing; companies like Level III which sell to other carriers have huge networks that, because of the way business is, are not getting used, so the price goes down. Ten years ago they built several hubs, I worked on the one in LA and from what I have seen it is less then 50% in use. I have unlimited long distance and never really make it pay, but it had brought down the costs of other services that are bundled. -- 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: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:09:48 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <LJT_m.1$oa2.0@newsfe01.iad> Steven wrote: > > I have unlimited long distance and never really make it pay, but it > had brought down the costs of other services that are bundled. > Today, if an AT$T wireline customer in California wants just Caller ID, it's an astounding $9 per month. Vonage bundles it, and many other features, in their basic unlimited service, as do other VOIPs and the wireless carriers. In California I suspect the AT&T wireline unit (Pacific Bell) must be hurting these days. Is wireline going to self-destruct? ***** Moderator's Note ***** That's a very good question. When I worked at N.E.T., I would have laughed at the idea, but I wonder if the baby bells, or in fact any of the ILECs, can adapt to the changing telecom world. The Engineer in me wants to predict that the system will reach equilibrium when the ILECs lose enough customers to force them to cut rates, but that's not likely. I grow more and more convinced that wire-line service will fade to the point where there's not enough revenue to maintain it. You might think that business users, who are still mostly in the wire-line camp, will demand wire-line because they depend on their existing phone systems and networks so heavily. That dependence, however, will lead them to seek and adopt alternatives to wire-line, such as VoIP, because wire-line costs will rise as home users abandon it for cellular. It will become a vicious circle, with decreasing revenues driving lower maintence and higher adoption of alternatives. At some point, there will have to be another political debate about the value of universal service: remember that it has always been subsidized by high-profit offerings, and that such offerings are facing competition from more agile, lower-margin CLECs. This comes at the same time that demand for long-distance is decreasing (due, I think, to email use), and also at the same time that business users become more aware of viable alternative services which offer dramatic cost savings over traditional circuit-switched long-distance. The end result is that ILECs will be very tempted to allow wire-line to wither on the vine, favoring high-profit cellular users and "gotta have it" business customers, both of whom can be served by the robust infrastructures of the cities, while low-profit, high-maintenance ex-urban copper paths are left to rust. That's my 2. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: 30 Dec 2009 19:11:52 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <20091230191152.75867.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >This is indeed impressive. So, where are the cost savings that allow >such dramatically lower costs? Fiber offers multiple orders of magnitude more bandwidth than anything made of copper, and modern computer technology makes switches vastly smaller and cheaper than the early electronic switches. This has nothing to do with VoIP. The long distance service on my landline charges 10 cpm to Japan and 5 cpm to most of Europe, and I could find better rates if I used it to make a lot of international calls. (I also have a Lingo VoIP phone that includes Europe in the monthly minute bundle.) My prepaid Tracfone lets me call Japan and Europe for the same 10 cpm they charge for domestic calls. R's, John
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:54:31 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <pan.2009.12.30.21.54.28.468577@myrealbox.com> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:28:57 -0800, harold@hallikainen.com wrote: .......... > Between yesterday and today, of course, bandwidth costs have been > dramatically reduced. Data compression also allows lower bitrates > for voice. POTS has access to the lower bandwidth costs and could, I > suppose, use compression. POTS, of course, uses circuit switched > instead of packet switched, so the circuit is dead in one direction > about half the time (remember TASI?). So, there is some additional > cost savings there. But even then, POTS costs are considerably above > Vonage or other VoIP services. Is the difference in bandwidth usage > (dedicated 64kbps in each direction for POTS versus bursts for > VoIP)? Is it regulatory? Why the big difference? In both cases, > we're just transmitting bits. How long has it been since the actual "wire" infrastructure was the major cost component in voice calls? The billing component these days on legacy comms must be just about the biggest cost that is incurred by a provider. -- 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: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:52:39 EST From: wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <64f.179b9b43.386d4fd7@aol.com> In a message dated 12/30/2009 6:17:56 PM Central Standard Time, diespammers@killspammers.com writes: > There is [such] a huge amount of surplus bandwidth that is costs > almost nothing; companies like Level III which sell to other > carriers have huge networks that, because of the way business is, > are not getting used, so the price goes down. My original home town of Perry, Oklahoma, is the home of Ditch Witch and they were selling their machines like mad a few years ago during the fiber rush. They the industry discovered they had more fiber than they could use for many years, much of it idle, and demand for Ditch Witches suddently fell off and Ditch Witch put over 1,000 employees on furlough. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:44:34 -0600 (CST) From: jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <200912302144.nBULiYP1086289@ivgate.omahug.org> For a while, 712-366 and 402-359 (Council Bluffs - Manawa and Valley, NE) were hosted remotely off of the 84th St. office in Omaha and were indeed toll calls from each other. At the time they were both toll-free from 84th. St. subs but true toll calls, charged by the minute, between the two. A couple years ago the calling area was expanded and the 402-359 prefix was added to the Omaha rate center, so now they are a local call between them. I also vaguely remember that the Floral Park CO, very close to the Queens-Nassau border hosted (then) 212-343 as well as some 516 prefixes. I forget the exact details, as there was 'zone calling' in effect at the time, but I do remember that (then) 212-343 was a local call from me, but some of the prefixes out of that same office were a more expensive call from me at the time. This was early 1970s, and I'm straining to dust off rusty memory cells to remember the exact details. IIRC, Floral Park was 5 Xbar at the time.
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 (7 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues