30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for February 23, 2012
====== 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
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: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:00:05 -0800 (PST) From: Wes Leatherock <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Supermarket shop by mobile phone Message-ID: <1329922805.25231.YahooMailClassic@web111716.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 2/21/12, Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: > I don't know if Touch-Tone phones were originally intended to give > customers the ability to interact with automaticc response systems, > but they weren't adopted as quickly as was hoped: I think local LEC > customers didn't see the signalling capability as an advantage worth > paying for, and some might have shied away from automated systems > that depended on Touch-Tone because they didn't want to lose the > human touch that they enjoyed with the old system. It's also > possible that customers thought that they would have to surrender > all their phones, including the millions of unauthorized > extensions which still had dials on them. I'm always fascinated by > people's reactions to new technology, both positive and negative, so > I'd like to hear from others who have better information about this. End-to-end signalling was touted from the beginning as a greart advantage of Touch Tone, although some of the ramifications of this did not appear for many years. I remember cordless phones, some of them provided by telcos, that had a switch for tone or pulse and instuctions on how to switch between them if you had rotary dial service (for calling) but wanted to use some sort of tone response sysrtem. Wes Leatherock email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:58:56 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: credit cards, was: Supermarket shop by mobile phone Message-ID: <email@example.com> In <firstname.lastname@example.org> HAncock4 <email@example.com> writes: >I'm not sure when this happened, but to me the big change was when >credit card companies accepted a telephone submitted credit card order >(1980s?). Well before the Internet was commonplace companies had 800 >order lines. At that point, for the consumer, the transaction was >effortless. Consumers didn't only use catalogs, but also ads from >magazines. When I was working retail in a small store 1970ish, we usually took a physical card (using the carbon imprinter...) but we could also take telephone orders. We simply handwrote the person's name in the signature line, with a "t/o" (for "telephone order") next to it. However, the big time issue was that we had to check each card against a very big pamphlet with very teensy type, that was updated each week... If the sale was over fifty dollars, we also had to call in to the card company for validation and get a ticket number. - In the late 1970s online terminals came into use at the larger retail stores, and presumably the call centers. And then, bit by bit, the time and effort got to be less and less... -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key firstname.lastname@example.org [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:08:54 -0800 (PST) From: Wes Leatherock <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Supermarket shop by mobile phone Message-ID: <1329923334.65934.YahooMailClassic@web111712.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 2/21/12, David Scheidt <email@example.com> wrote: > I don't know, fifteen years of selling groceries online seems to be > enough to say if they're going to manage to succeed. Peapod are a > subsidery of Royal Ahold, a Dutch supermarket congolmerate. Ahold > owns both Giant and Stop & Shop. In the days when grocery delivery was common. you had to leave your door unlocked or have a maid or other attendant. Many foods are perishable and can't just be dumped on the front porch. There also had to be someone to pay the delivery person unless credit was extended. When I was growing up my mother ordered groceries (there were two deliveries a day) and the delivery person came around to the back and brought them right into the kitchen. Another product was milk, almost always delivered. You could pick a time you wanted it delievered (at two hour intervals, as I recall) and at one time there were six different dairies calling on us for their business in Oklahoma City (I believe not quite that many in St. Louis and I don't remember how many in Dallas). Now there are no milk delivery men and no grocers that deliver. Wes Leatherock firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:32:29 -0500 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Supermarket shop by mobile phone Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:13:07 -0500, Bill Horne wrote: > It remains to be seen if Peapod (offered by Stop & Shop in my area) > will be able to leverage the public's experience buying packaged goods > in order to sell groceries: since nobody cares which bottle of soap > they buy, Peapod is hoping that they won't care which melon or tomato > or ear of corn is delivered. The people buying shoes (Zappos) and clothing (Lands End, LL Bean) over the internet may have no qualms either about buying meats, peaches, and melons. But those of us who know that sizes are unreliable guides to how well a given pair of shoes (or slacks, or jeans) will fit will continue to shop in a store only, and will take the same approach to meat, fish, and produce. PeaPod's $10 delivery fee (here in CT, anyway), and the expectation that consumers will tip delivery agents, are apt to slow adoption rates down. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:21:55 -0500 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Supermarket shop by mobile phone Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:13:07 -0500, Bill Horne wrote, of Touch-Tone phones: > ... weren't adopted as quickly as was hoped: I think local LEC > customers didn't see the signalling capability as an advantage worth > paying for ... "An extra 5 or 7 bucks a month to save 5 or 7 seconds of dialing time?" folks thought, "Ya gotta be kidding!" I remember: I was one of them. And later, when it was learned that DTMF would save Ma Bell money as compared with pulse dialing, folks thought, "You should pay us to switch to DTMF, not the other way around!" And I was one of those, too :-) . Ultimately, Ma Bell gave in, and just made everything both pulse and DTMF dial responsive, at no extra monthly charge. Cheers, -- tlvp - - Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I'd really like to know if Touch-Tone was intended to be used for IVR access when it was on the drawing board. I always thought it was invented in order to cut down on local cable costs, i.e., to make it possible to use Voice Frequency repeaters and thinner wire. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:35:21 -0600 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Bonomi) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Supermarket shop by mobile phone Message-ID: <QrmdndVdePfk_9nSnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <20120221213426.GB30384@telecom.csail.mit.edu>, Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: >On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 09:03:03PM +0000, David Scheidt wrote: >> Bill Horne <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> :It remains to be seen if Peapod (offered by Stop & Shop in my area) >> :will be able to leverage the public's experience buying packaged goods >> :in order to sell groceries: since nobody cares which bottle of soap >> :they buy, Peapod is hoping that they won't care which melon or tomato >> :or ear of corn is delivered. >> >> I don't know, fifteen years of selling groceries online seems to be >> enough to say if they're going to manage to succeed. Peapod are a >> subsidery of Royal Ahold, a Dutch supermarket congolmerate. Ahold >> owns both Giant and Stop & Shop. > >I don't know how well Peapod is doing in the market, but (as I wrote >before), I'd like to know what factors work against it and for it. My >questions cover several areas: [sneck] Peapod was founded in Chicago in the '90s. Primarily web-based ordering. (also telephone-orders to a live rep -- who was just using the web-form for you -- with an additional surcharge. this has, i believe been dropped) Actual purchasing was executed through a large Chicago-area grocery chain (Jewel Osco). The route driver would go to a 'local' (to where he was delivering), Jewel, with a 'consolidated' shopping list, and grab however many of 'whatever' he needed to fill his shopping list. Then wheel the carts out to the parking lot, and sort stuff out of the carts, and into tubs for the individual customers. Then, off to each address to deliver the orders. Special space on board for handling frozen and/or refrigerated items. In the early days they were almost exclusively residential delivery. They subsequently expanded to other areas in the region served by Jewel. They were successful/profitable enough that they were acquired by a major Dutch grocer. And, oddly enough, shifted to using their warehousing/ distribution. Produce is, and has been "pot luck", they're buying/distributing enough that they can't "cherry pick" like many retail customers do. So, somebody ends up with the 'choice' heads of lettuce from the crate, and somebody else gets the left-overs. They make a reasonable effort to rotate who is where on the fulfillment cycle, so that the same customers don't regularly get either the choice items -or- the left-overs. They've also expanded into 'business' delivery -- this includes both commercial restaurants, and businesses tha just need 'goodies' for a meeting. They've been constantly -- albeit in a controlled manner, and at a restrained pace -- expanding their service area. They presently cover a large part of the nation. >accept a faceless transaction over the traditional supermarket? The >prices weren't that different from the market, and considering the >price of gas and value of my time, I thought the charges were >reasonable for my order. What makes the average buyer willing to pick >up the phone instead of the car keys? The short answer is 'convenience' -- you can search stuff on the web- site a lot faster than you can go down the isles in the store; you can keep 'saved lists' of stuff you purchase regularly, with a 'one click' add of the entire list. If you're not near a 24-hour store, you can still -place- an order 24-hours/day. For 'routine' shopping purchases -- an 'established' shopping list of goods, it's only a few minutes (at most) online to place the order and schedule the delivery. And maybe 5 minutes when the delivery arrives. Compare that to 10-15 minutes or more (door-to-door) each way with a car, 20+ minutes going through the store, 5 minutes or so for check-out, plus the time to load the groceries into the car. and it can be a -big- time- saver. Consider a stay-at-home mom, with young kids, who's husband is out-of-town for whatever reason -- she's either going to have to get a sitter, or bundle the kids of to the store with her. Online ordering/delivery begins to look like a -real- bargain. And then there are the 'snobs' -- who'd prefer not to mingle with the 'great unwashed' at the local supermarket. :) lots of reasons. grin
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:01:46 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Bonomi <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work? Message-ID: <201202221601.q1MG1kRo023355@mail.r-bonomi.com> In article <20120220142343.GA20847@telecom.csail.mit.edu>, Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: >On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 07:01:15AM -0000, John Levine wrote: > >> I concur with the people who suggest porting the number to a VoIP >> carrier who doesn't care where your VoIP box is. My "portable" number >> is a little box with an Ethernet plug on one side and a phone plug on >> the other. It has an Ithaca NY number but it spent a pleasant year in >> England, same number, worked fine. > >This leads me to a question about the future, and I'm not sure that I >know how to ask it clearly, so please bear with me. > >I wonder, given that the VoIP an Cellular systems are gradually >divorcing exchange codes from "their" rate centers, at what point the >existing "V&H" billing concept will break down? "never." <grin> What will happen is that it will become more and more 'irrelevant' ad 'immaterial' to most people's use. Say that someone is using their Los Angeles Cell phone in NYC. Now postulate that somebody on a NYC landline calls that cell phone. It goes via the -caller's- choice of IXC to the 'home' exchange of that cell phone -- in L.A. -- with the caller paying for all that mileage, per V&H for, the origin/destination call centers. Then it hops on the callee's network, and is backhauled over that carrier's private network to "wherever' the callee happens to actually be. At no additional cost to the either the caller or the callee. The 'private network' costs are covered by the -fixed- access/connectivity fee charged to the customer. "private peering agreements" with -direct- connections between various wireless providers -- and no 'usage-based' "settlements -- allows the wireless providers to bypass the usage-based "settlement" cost calculations, and allows wireless providers to offer 'no additional cost' calling to -other- wireless providers customers as well as for 'on-net' terminations. V&H still exists, but it is simply 'irrelevant and immaterial' for these calls. >So, here's the question: will some other method of distance-sensitive >billing take the place of V&H? Nope. When the pricing model for the -underlying- transport is "distance insensitive', and is entirely paid for by fixed 'access' charges, then 'distance sensitive' billing is effectively rendered obsolete for calls over that transport. >And, come to think of it, is the V&H concept so ingrained in the >network's design that it can't be replaced? V&H _is- ingrained in the existing wireline billing model because of the requirement to 'share' the per call revenues among the various carriers' that handle parts of the call, IXC compensation is based on the 'miles' that the IXC carries the call. ` > I think cell plans come >with long distance service included because the cellular providers >realized that it costs more to bill for it than to provide it as part >of a monthly package, Also, 'distance-based' billing gets -insanely- complicated, when either party is not at a fixed location. How do you handle the billing when the call changes from 'intra-LATA' to 'inter-LAT', or 'in-state' to 'inter- state', or vice versa? How about 'local' to 'international'? Having to add all those complications to the existing billing and, yeah, the cost of distance based billing exceeds any reasonable revenues. > but will the costs of providing it ever return >to a distance-based model? As the billing model changes -- as it -has- with most wireless and VoIP service -- and where there is a fixed charge for 'connectivity' and (maybe) a minimal per-minute charge for handling the 'last-mile' for calls that terminate 'off network', V&H simply becomes increasingly irrelevant for 'alternative' provider services. The likelihood of providers being able to 'sell' a return to distance-based pricing to customers is 'improbable', at best. Robert Bonomi
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.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
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) 2012 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.