|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 24 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
SMS rip-off in Australia
Re: SMS rip-off in Australia
Re:Satellite circuits busy because of Haiti?
Re:Satellite circuits busy because of Haiti?
====== 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: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:53:05 -0500
From: "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: at&t vs. Verizon TV ad campaign?
Message-ID: <4A6ECFD5E12241D38A151D122D373453@estore.us.dg.com>
Lisa Hancock wrote:
> In my humble opinion, there is a great deal of confusion between
> the old and new AT&T. They are very different companies, but many
> people think today's AT&T is the old powerful nationwide "Ma Bell"
> when it is not.
Such confusion may have been common decades ago, but I think the number of
such people is now small and diminishing. Remember that "Ma Bell" ceased to
exist over 26 years ago, when the Bell System was broken up. The rump
company was not even permitted to use the name "Bell" except for its
world-famous Bell Labs (which had virtually no direct consumer visibility
anyway). Starting on January 1, 1984, the 20+ "Bell" local phone companies
became part of the seven original "Baby Bell" RBOCs, while the remaining
AT&T Corp. became one of several long-distance carriers competing for
consumers' business.
Over the ensuing years, consolidation among the RBOCs led to the emergence
of two "super-baby" Bells, Verizon and SBC (originally Southwestern Bell
Corp.). It was the latter company that purchased AT&T Corp. (by then a mere
shadow of its original self) a few years ago and chose to adopt "AT&T Inc."
as the name of the combined entity.
The median age of the United States is 36+ years according to the Census
Bureau, which means that a majority of Americans were age 10 or less (or not
even born yet!) at the time "Ma Bell" ceased to exist. Perhaps a few
precocious 10-year-olds were actually aware of Ma Bell at the time she
finally expired, but I doubt it -- most people tend not to care about such
things until they begin paying their own phone bills in college or later in
life. So only that minority of the population born before 1966 or so could
possibly ever have encountered Ma Bell in their adult lives. Perhaps some of
those oldsters still mistakenly conflate today's AT&T with the old Bell
System, but many (myself included) have no such confusion.
Bob Goudreau
Cary, NC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:02:08 -0500
From: "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <2269BD37EBA84676B0D6E5F2C83195E3@estore.us.dg.com>
Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
> > I wonder if these admin costs are now the biggest cost component.
>
> If you look at the bill; at least in the US; there is a charge on it
> which includes those costs, it is the customer charge. I always thought
> that should have been included in the costs of services.
Please don't be so quick to generalize about how this is done "in the
US". I've been paying phone bills of various types to at least 8
different phone companies over the past 30 years, while living in two
different states (MA and NC). I do not ever recall seeing a "customer
charge" line item in any telco bill.
If that line item does appear on your phone bills, could it perhaps be
an artifact of California's own tariff rules or PUC regulations? If
so, please don't extrapolate to the rest of the country. Believe me,
the rest of us already get our fill of California (and specifically
Los Angeles) provincialism from the movies and TV shows churned out by
LA-based screenwriters. This can lead to inadvertently comical plot
details in which idioms that are specific to the LA area are ascribed
to other parts of the country. Examples include the notion that it is
normal for a municipality to have something called a "Bureau of Water
and Power", or the practice of referring to a numbered highway using
the prefix "the" (e.g., "the 405 is backed up").
Bob Goudreau
Cary, NC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:06:22 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <4B5B80EE.40507@thadlabs.com>
On 1/23/2010 1:02 PM, Bob Goudreau wrote:
> [...]
> If
> so, please don't extrapolate to the rest of the country. Believe me,
> the rest of us already get our fill of California (and specifically
> Los Angeles) provincialism from the movies and TV shows churned out by
> LA-based screenwriters. This can lead to inadvertently comical plot
> details in which idioms that are specific to the LA area are ascribed
> to other parts of the country. Examples include the notion that it is
> normal for a municipality to have something called a "Bureau of Water
> and Power", or the practice of referring to a numbered highway using
> the prefix "the" (e.g., "the 405 is backed up").
Clarification is required: those are Southern California colloquialisms.
Proper American English is spoken in Northern California (at least by
those who speak English natively). :-)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:13:43 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject:SMS rip-off in Australia
Message-ID: <pan.2010.01.23.23.13.40.320613@myrealbox.com>
http://www.theage.com.au/national/telco-giants-cash-in-on-the-great-sms-swindle-20100123-mrql.html
Telco giants cash in on the great SMS swindle
RICHARD WEBB With MARK RUSSELL
January 24, 2010
AUSTRALIANS are being charged up to 10 times more to send text
messages than mobile phone users in other countries, with the nation's
telecommunication giants pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars for
providing the virtually cost-free service.
But despite paying the highest SMS charges in the world, Australians -
who will send a staggering 20 billion texts this year, up 20 per cent
on 2009 - have to put up with one of the most unreliable mobile phone
services, according to consumer advocates.
The standard flat rate for a text message at Telstra and Optus is 25
cents, the same as it has been for five years. At Vodafone, a text is
charged at a nominal 28 cents.
That is more than 10 times what it costs in many parts of Asia and
almost a third higher than in Europe and Canada, research conducted
for The Sunday Age has revealed.
The British pay up to 19 cents per text, Americans 22 cents and in NZ
the cost varies between 7 and 17 cents per text.
''Our analysis of SMS rates from a number of countries suggests that
Australians do, by and large, face the costliest charges when it comes
to text messaging,'' said Lanil Thalakada, analyst with MAP Research.
Allan Asher, chief executive of the Australian Consumer Communications
Action Group (ACCAN), a new consumer body established by the Federal
Government, said that if the mobile phone service Australians received
was of a premium quality, then that would be a mitigating factor.
''But it's not - our service is amongst the worst in the world and our
prices are amongst the highest. We are being taken for a ride by an
industry,'' Mr Asher said.
He said the telcos were rorting Australian consumers. ''The mobile
service providers are pricing texts at a vast profit margin and sadly
it shows just how far from the competitive world market Australia
is,'' he says. ''We are being abused by the Australian telcos.''
Despite the volume of SMS traffic in Australia soaring since the three
major telcos set their charges for texting, none have dropped their
rates.
The ultimate cost to the service providers of transmitting a text is
practically nothing once the network has been established, so all the
SMS charges go straight to the telcos' bottom lines.
Simon Curry, president of Mobility Vic, a not-for-profit organisation
presenting the Victorian mobile data industry, said Telstra had
''probably one of the largest free cash flows of any telco in the
world - they are making the fattest margins''.
Telstra's total revenue from messaging jumped 21.1 per cent to $896
million in 2008-09 from $740 million in 2007-08.
Paul Budde, of telecommunication consultant Budde Communication, said
the recent introduction of EU legislation to more than halve the cost
of international roaming SMS charges in Europe was ''a good step
forward''.
But he believes it is unlikely the local carriers will budge on SMS
pricing. ''The reality is that SMS is a phenomenon that is extremely
widespread - a lot of people like it and are prepared to pay for it,''
he says.
The major mobile services providers sell a large proportion of their
services in Australia on ''cap'' plans, the only country that does
this. Under a cap plan, the user gets a certain number of calls and
texts per month for a set amount of money.
On this basis, Telstra, Optus and Vodafone argue they are not charging
25 to 28 cents a text at all, and that the real cost is much less than
their advertised SMS rate.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority Communications
report for the 2008-09 financial year says the average revenue
generated per text message sent in Australia was 8.6 cents, down from
9.1 cents in the previous year.
Greg Spears, head of public relations and corporate communications at
Vodafone Australia, explains: ''Vodafone's $49 cap plan, for example,
provides customers with $350 credit [a month]. So when a customer
sends a text with a nominal cost of 28 cents, this is coming out of
the $350 worth of credit they purchased for $49.
''So, in real terms, customers are not incurring a hard cost of 28
cents. If you want to take this example to the extreme, if a customer
used their entire $350 worth of credit exclusively for texts, that
customer could send 1250 texts per month, so each text has actually
cost less than 4 cents.''
Both Optus and Telstra said their customers also got value for money
under cap plans that were available for text messaging.
But consumer advocates say the mobile phone companies cannot have it
both ways on this issue. If 25 to 28 cents per text is a notional
price seemingly plucked out of the air and from which they then hide,
why is it used as part of the $350 worth of credit customers
apparently get with the Vodafone example?
Mr Asher said Australian consumers should not blindly accept the high
rates being charged.
''There is no market in Australia or the world that operates on such
flimsy self-regulatory principles. We have been so lax about this.''
Cost of an SMS
Australia: 25-28 cents*
US: 22 cents
UK: 9-19 cents
New Zealand: 7-17 cents
Canada: 16 cents
Hong Kong: 3-12 cents
Thailand: 11 cents
Japan: 6 cents
Indonesia: 3-5 cents
Singapore: 4 cents
India: 1-4 cents
Malaysia: 2-3 cents
Philippines: 1-3 cents
China: 2 cents
MAP RESEARCH. * ALL COSTS ARE IN AUD
Date: 24 Jan 2010 00:47:54 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: SMS rip-off in Australia
Message-ID: <20100124004754.67284.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
> The standard flat rate for a text message at Telstra and Optus is 25
> cents, the same as it has been for five years. At Vodafone, a text is
> charged at a nominal 28 cents.
I doubt that many people really pay that much. Don't they have bundles
like everyone else in the world?
> The British pay up to 19 cents per text, Americans 22 cents and in NZ
> the cost varies between 7 and 17 cents per text.
US carriers typically charge for both ends of the SMS transaction. Lucky
that most people have bundles.
R's,
John
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:53:03 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Satellite circuits busy because of Haiti?
Message-ID: <YPGdnXqppoBS4MbWnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4B58DCE1.1020405@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>On 1/21/2010 2:03 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> In article <4B588990.5040507@cybertheque.org>,
>> Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org> wrote:
>>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> On any given web-page, after it has loaded, simply hitting the
>>>> [ESC] key, assuming a windows-based version of firefox, will
>>>> pause all the animations on -that- page.
>>>
>>> Didn't stop the animations on qrz.com in firefox 3.0.3 on win2k
>>
>> Works like a charm with 3.5.7 on the home page for that site.
>>
>> 3.0.3 is _ancient_, to put it charitably -- you're only five releases, and
>> 7 bug-fix editions behind. Oops, make that 6 releases -- 3.6 is out.
>>
>> BTW, 3.5 is only about 3 times faster than 3.0, and 3.6 is another 20% faster
>> than 3.5.
>
>But is it 100% HTML compliant?
"Immaterial and Irrelevant", to someone who is -already- using it. <grin>
> Previous [versions of] FF I've tested were not, and only Opera and
> Safari were/are.
You haven't tested Lynx, have you? Lynx was W3C-compliant before Opera
or Safari were even design concepts. :)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:14:03 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Satellite circuits busy because of Haiti?
Message-ID: <4B5B9EDB.7030804@thadlabs.com>
On 1/23/2010 2:53 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <4B58DCE1.1020405@thadlabs.com>,
> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>> But is it [Firefox 3.6] 100% HTML compliant?
>
> "Immaterial and Irrelevant", to someone who is -already- using it. <grin>
Not if it fails. Earlier FF 3.* failed and I haven't bothered again
with 3.* until I hear otherwise.
>> Previous [versions of] FF I've tested were not, and only Opera and
>> Safari were/are.
>
> You haven't tested Lynx, have you? Lynx was W3C-compliant before Opera
> or Safari were even design concepts. :)
Lynx is text-only. I used it circa early 1990s but now I use it only
to determine a site's web server info per:
$ lynx -head http://www.example.com
but wget is better for that purpose:
$ wget -S --spider http://www.example.com
and, yes, www.example.com is a valid domain for just this kind of
testing. :-)
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)
|
or 