|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 2 : "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
====== 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, 01 Jan 2010 08:03:34 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <q1p%m.744$XU.3@newsfe03.iad>
Steven wrote:
> I have a friend that lives up in the mountains East of Sacramento,
> Calif. she can't get DSL, no digital cable and Satellite is an
> expensive option and it is only 1.3 MH for over $200.00 a month plus
> equipment.
Hughes top tier provides 5.0 Mbps/300 Kbps.
It's $350 a month. For some folks that choose to live in the remote
areas of Montana, or such, that is petty cash. The point is, the
market offers that option.
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:48:06 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <hhlg1a$hoo$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Steven wrote:
>
>> I have a friend that lives up in the mountains East of Sacramento,
>> Calif. she can't get DSL, no digital cable and Satellite is an
>> expensive option and it is only 1.3 MH for over $200.00 a month plus
>> equipment.
>
> Hughes top tier provides 5.0 Mbps/300 Kbps.
>
> It's $350 a month. For some folks that choose to live in the remote
> areas of Montana, or such, that is petty cash. The point is, the
> market offers that option.
>
She also has the option of Digitalpath, which is a WiFi system along the
way of Cellular, again this is a large cost. She is not a large user,
just e-mail, so it may be enough. I only use my system for this
newsgroup and a couple of others as well as e-mail, so I have a lot of
extra bandwidth and costs also, but there are times I do need it since I
have to handle time sheets and other record keeping from home. I just
got my MiFi router and with it I get almost the same speeds as I get at
home, I'm temped to switch to this and drop my DSL. I thought about the
area she lives in and looked into using a WiFi system like mine for her,
but according to the service area map, she is in a Digital Black Hole,
with no service other then roaming. but it is just a couple of miles
from an area that just went 4G, 3G is in operation and 4G later this
year. I have to go up to Oregon later this month and she might be able
to get it to work with an external ant, so I'll see if I can stop by and
check it; right now it is snowed in. on the roof, like I use for WiFi.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 07:56:45 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <1Xo%m.492$rH7.336@newsfe19.iad>
Neal McLain wrote:
>
> We've had this discussion several times before here on T-D, and
> somebody always says, "yeah, but I have an internet connection anyway
> because I...." Ok, fine, you have it anyway for other reasons. But
> that doesn't change the fact that somebody still has to pay the
> last-mile costs.
We accountants call it "incremental costs." The incremental cost of
adding Vonage to my existing broadband connection is zero, in so far as
the cost of the broadband connection is concerned.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Doesn't that imply that the cost of disconnecting the broadband
service is zero as well? I'm not joking: it just seems to me that
some of the broadband cost would have to be apportioned to the
"VoIP" use of the broadband connection, since _disconnecting_ the
broadband connection would result in replacement costs.
Bill Horne, who is trying to recall his college accounting lessons
Moderator
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:58:52 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <MBr%m.3293$_H7.1395@newsfe24.iad>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Neal McLain wrote:
>
>>
>> We've had this discussion several times before here on T-D, and
>> somebody always says, "yeah, but I have an internet connection anyway
>> because I...." Ok, fine, you have it anyway for other reasons. But
>> that doesn't change the fact that somebody still has to pay the
>> last-mile costs.
>
>
> We accountants call it "incremental costs." The incremental cost of
> adding Vonage to my existing broadband connection is zero, in so far as
> the cost of the broadband connection is concerned.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Doesn't that imply that the cost of disconnecting the broadband
> service is zero as well? I'm not joking: it just seems to me that
> some of the broadband cost would have to be apportioned to the
> "VoIP" use of the broadband connection, since _disconnecting_ the
> broadband connection would result in replacement costs.
>
> Bill Horne, who is trying to recall his college accounting lessons
> Moderator
>
The key is the incremental cost of the existing broadband connection
is zero. OTOH, the incremental cost of electricity to power the VoIP
adapter is not zero, but no one would account for that because it is
immaterial.
Let's say this is an office environment. Our commercial broadband
service costs us $125 a month (big pipe). If we add 5 Vonage lines it
is still $125 per month for the broadband connection. If we now charge
some increment of that $125 per month to our telephone expense, the
result is to understate the cost of the broadband service.
The "bottom line" (pun intended) is that two companies could choose to
allocate differently, which is fine so long as they are consistent.
Something of this nature is not specified in accounting practices or
principles.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:20:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <4908e47a-dd57-40db-9ba5-8dd99c236dd5@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 1, 9:56 am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> Neal McLain wrote:
>
> > We've had this discussion several times before here on T-D, and
> > somebody always says, "yeah, but I have an internet connection anyway
> > because I...." Ok, fine, you have it anyway for other reasons. But
> > that doesn't change the fact that somebody still has to pay the
> > last-mile costs.
>
> We accountants call it "incremental costs." The incremental cost of
> adding Vonage to my existing broadband connection is zero, in so far as
> the cost of the broadband connection is concerned.
Q.E.D.
Neal McLain
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 (5 messages)
|
or 