30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for December 2, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 307 : "text" Format
====== 30 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 22:56:12 -0500
From: Telecom Digest Moderator <telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The Digest has recovered from an outage
Message-ID: <20111202035612.GA11796@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
To the readers,
The Digest has just recovered from an outage that affected both Usenet
and Mailing List subscribers. Since there were dozens of messages
backup up, I have issued three digests today.
My thanks to John Levine for his continued support and his help.
My thanks to the readers, for your patience. I appreciate it.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 13:13:12 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: MSNBC/NYT: Caller ID Forging
Message-ID: <1wdvxyv4lhcxh$.1awie7w43qnde.dlg@40tude.net>
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:27:47 -0800, John David Galt wrote:
> ... If the FCC were our friend ...
What a lovely illustration of the subjunctive being used
to help identify a counterfactual :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:16:03 -0800 (PST)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: MSNBC/NYT: Caller ID Forging
Message-ID: <5c6d1b25-0d41-4647-ac61-e75f4d6406bd@v8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 30, 12:27 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
wrote:
> Which leaves the question hanging: "WHY -should- the phone company
> spend all that money for 'no return'?" If they have the legal option
> of not doing it, why reduce profitability by doing it? Viewed in
> -that- light, doing the filtering is a 'breach of fiduciary
> responsibility' to their stockholders.
I don't agree with the last sentence. Indeed, doing nothing could
be seen as a breach of fiduciary responsibility
Good customer relations is an essential part of running a business. A
company that angers its customers will eventually lose them. Today,
consumers are upset at the flood of unwanted calls (legal and illegal)
and even more upset that the Caller ID, which many pay quite a bit
for, isn't working.
> The ONLY way the matter is going to be resolved in favor of
> customers is by governmental regulation.
Over the years, many businesses, including the telephone industry,
self-regulated themselves so they maintained control rather than
having the government come in and dictate to them what to do. For
example, Hollywood self-censored its work rather than have the
government do it. The old Bell System worked hard overall to have
very high service quality standards to avoid trouble from regulators.
Unfortunately, perhaps modern businesses do not think about such
things or simply are too focused on the short term bottom line, and
government regulation is necessary.
> Aggressively enforced regulation specifying two things, with stiff
> penalties for any violations: [snip]
I hope [those] suggestions are implemented. More than stiff
penalties, I want to see swift and sure enforcement so the violators
know there's an excellent chance they will be caught and punished
before they can leave town.
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:37:44 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Update on at&t/T-mobile merger
Message-ID: <jb6eo8$odo$5@news.albasani.net>
John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>On 2011-11-27 12:04, r.e.d. wrote:
>>I'm not sure your characterization of the point of the breakup is completely
>>correct. My understanding is that the issue was not size, but that fact
>>that AT&T owned not only long distance and equipment manuracturing. but
>>local service. Creative accounting could cause the regulated local services
>>to subsidize the other parts of the business, particularly long distance, at
>>the expense of local rate-payers, so fair competition for long distance
>>services would not be possible as long as it remained one company.
>It was the other way around. Long distance subsidized local service. It was
>set up that way deliberately, partly because the FCC wanted universal service.
>Pre-divestiture, some long distance calls within California were over $3/min,
>while measured service (non-Lifeline) could be had for under $4/month.
>As soon as MCI won the right to compete, that subsidy became untenable -- it
>just made Ma Bell's own long distance rates uncompetitive. This is why we now
>have much higher monthly service rates, but much cheaper long distance rates.
As I recall, MCI wasn't exactly competing, because they weren't paying
terminal fees. We used to bypass the local telephone network entirely
when accessing their network, and I don't think they were contributing
to the local end on an originating call.
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:15:55 -0500
From: "r.e.d." <red-nospam-99@mindspring.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Update on at&t/T-mobile merger
Message-ID: <uLqdnWsdCKAOc0rTnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@earthlink.com>
"John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:jb12m0$n1p$1@blue-new.rahul.net...
> On 2011-11-27 12:04, r.e.d. wrote:
>> I'm not sure your characterization of the point of the breakup is
>> completely correct. My understanding is that the issue was not
>> size, but that fact that AT&T owned not only long distance and
>> equipment manuracturing. but local service. Creative accounting
>> could cause the regulated local services to subsidize the other
>> parts of the business, particularly long distance, at the expense
>> of local rate-payers, so fair competition for long distance
>> services would not be possible as long as it remained one company.
> It was the other way around. Long distance subsidized local
> service. It was set up that way deliberately, partly because the
> FCC wanted universal service. Pre-divestiture, some long distance
> calls within California were over $3/min, while measured service
> (non-Lifeline) could be had for under $4/month.
> As soon as MCI won the right to compete, that subsidy became
> untenable -- it just made Ma Bell's own long distance rates
> uncompetitive. This is why we now have much higher monthly service
> rates, but much cheaper long distance rates.
We're both right. Long distance DID subsidize local service. But if
AT&T were to be allowed to compete in the new environment, it would
mean that the cross-subsidy would need to be stopped, therefore local
rates would rise. But if you were an AT&T competitor, you would
always be suspicious that the rates that AT&T would ask the PUCs for
would be higher than necessary, and that the excess would subsidize
the other way. That is, local service would subsidize AT&T's long
distance and therefore AT&T would compete unfairly in the
long-distance market.
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.
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) 2011 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)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues