|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > AT-T wireless service > October 2007 > Disney Mobile calls it Quits
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Disney Mobile calls it Quits
|
|
|
| Another MVNO bit the dust as Disney Mobile, an MVNO on Sprint's network,
called it quits today.
"http://www.thestreet.com/s/signal-fades-for-disney-mobile/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10381822.html?puc=googlefi"
It was never a very good deal, but it did have that tracking feature
built in.
Let's see:
AMP'd
ESPN
Disney
Helio and Boost appears to be in line to be the next victims in the
shakeout.
It's interesting that the low-budget MVNO's seem to be able to keep
chugging along by keeping administrative, marketing, and sales cost to a
minimum, while it's not possible for high-profile challengers to Virgin
and TracFone to make a go of it.
| |
|
| On Sep 27, 8:23 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Another MVNO bit the dust as Disney Mobile, an MVNO on Sprint's network,
> called it quits today.
>
> "http://www.thestreet.com/s/signal-fades-for-disney-mobile/newsanalysi..."
>
> It was never a very good deal, but it did have that tracking feature
> built in.
>
> Let's see:
>
> AMP'd
> ESPN
> Disney
>
> Helio and Boost appears to be in line to be the next victims in the
> shakeout.
>
> It's interesting that the low-budget MVNO's seem to be able to keep
> chugging along by keeping administrative, marketing, and sales cost to a
> minimum, while it's not possible for high-profile challengers to Virgin
> and TracFone to make a go of it.
I wonder what happens to the phones that are tied in/locked to the
service? Do they get moved over to a regular Sprint account?
| |
|
|
SMS wrote:
> Another MVNO bit the dust as Disney Mobile, an MVNO on Sprint's network,
> called it quits today.
>
No surprise. It was a Mickey Mouse deal...
| |
|
| On Sep 28, 4:18 am, zeez <Ultim...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 8:23 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I wonder what happens to the phones that are tied in/locked to the
> service? Do they get moved over to a regular Sprint account?
oops, I guess not:
>From http://disneymobile.go.com/home/homepage.html
IMPORTANT CUSTOMER ANNOUNCEMENT
Disney Mobile has announced that it will cease its wireless operations
as of December 31, 2007. It has been our privilege to serve as your
wireless service provider and we want to thank you for your support of
Disney Mobile.
We will continue to provide voice, messaging and the Family Center
services through December 31, 2007. In addition, billing and care
support will be available during that time. As of September 27, 2007,
content and applications will no longer be available for purchase.
The Disney Mobile web site will remain in operation to service our
existing customers through December 31, 2007.
In recognition of any inconvenience this may cause you, Disney Mobile
will be providing a reimbursement program covering handsets as well as
accessories and content purchased directly through Disney Mobile
(please note: reimbursements will be processed upon final receipt of
full payment and termination of your account). Complete details
surrounding this reimbursement program will be communicated via this
web site by October 8, 2007.
You will continue to be billed for service through December 31, 2007,
unless you call Guest Services to terminate prior to that date. Disney
Mobile will waive early termination fees provided your account is paid
in full.
If you want to retain your wireless phone number and transfer it to
another wireless carrier, we encourage you to sign up for service with
the other carrier before November 30, 2007. This will ensure there is
adequate time to transfer your phone number. You should not terminate
your Disney Mobile account until your new carrier successfully
transfers your wireless phone number (See http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/NumberPortability/
to learn more about porting your number to a new carrier).
We at Disney Mobile have truly valued your business and apologize for
any inconvenience this change may cause.
Further information is provided in the following page.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-09-28, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:23:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Another MVNO bit the dust as Disney Mobile, an MVNO on Sprint's network,
>called it quits today.
>
>"http://www.thestreet.com/s/signal-fades-for-disney-mobile/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10381822.html?puc=googlefi"
>
>It was never a very good deal, but it did have that tracking feature
>built in.
>
>Let's see:
>
>AMP'd
>ESPN
>Disney
>
>Helio and Boost appears to be in line to be the next victims in the
>shakeout.
>
>It's interesting that the low-budget MVNO's seem to be able to keep
>chugging along by keeping administrative, marketing, and sales cost to a
>minimum, while it's not possible for high-profile challengers to Virgin
>and TracFone to make a go of it.
Maybe Disney's failure says more about the Sprint Network than it does
about Disney's marketing efforts.
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> Maybe Disney's failure says more about the Sprint Network than it does
> about Disney's marketing efforts.
>
I doubt it. Virgin seems to be doing well despite being saddled with
Sprint's network.
| |
|
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:46fc7353$0$2719
9$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> http://www.thestreet.com/s/signal-f...e/newsanalysis/
> techtelecom/10381822.html?puc=googlefi
Of much greater interest from the webpage is the one on Vonage's demise:
http://www.thestreet.com/s/vonages-vanishing-
act/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10381531.html?
They're TOAST! My condolences to Vonage users stuck with useless equipment
once the company goes dark.
Larry
--
Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium"
The ultimate dirty bomb......
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-09-28, 3:33 pm |
| On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:45:52 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
> news:46fc7353$0$2719
9$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>
>Of much greater interest from the webpage is the one on Vonage's demise:
>http://www.thestreet.com/s/vonages-vanishing-
>act/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10381531.html?
>
>They're TOAST! My condolences to Vonage users stuck with useless equipment
>once the company goes dark.
>
>
>Larry
Not quite what the story says:
More accurately Vonage has lost patent suits to Verizon and now
Sprint,
which will hurt it for the short run.
Interestingly, sn authoritative stoiry on the matter:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...FB1EFBD8AE6E%7D
also says:
Separately, Goldman Sachs cut its rating on Sprint to neutral from
buy, saying that the company's turnaround plan is not working as
quickly as hoped. Sprint shares fell ...
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-09-28, 3:33 pm |
| In article < Xns99B98C079B5F3noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Of much greater interest from the webpage is the one on Vonage's demise:
> http://www.thestreet.com/s/vonages-vanishing-
> act/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10381531.html?
>
> They're TOAST! My condolences to Vonage users stuck with useless equipment
> once the company goes dark.
Bah. Us Sunrocket customers are old hat at that. It's yesterday's news.
| |
| Scott 2007-09-28, 10:33 pm |
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
news:1f4qf3hhbkldq2d
u4kerjtdveh5cofns5f@
4ax.com:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:23:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Maybe Disney's failure says more about the Sprint Network than it does
> about Disney's marketing efforts.
>
>
Or maybe they said what they mean. Not everything is a conspiracy or
double-talk, moron troll.
| |
| Larry 2007-09-28, 10:33 pm |
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
news:7rjqf3djgeo47ro
pnbtsf35k7250gobcrn@
4ax.com:
> More accurately Vonage has lost patent suits to Verizon and now
> Sprint,
> which will hurt it for the short run.
>
>
I think you should rush out, NOW, while the price is under a dollar and
buy a few hundred thousand shares! Get a second mortgage on your house!
These guys are gonna make you RICH when Vonage shoots up, skyrockets,
guns ablaze....
Just look at that chart!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=VG&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
You'd better hurry! It's shot up 4% JUST SINCE THE MARKET CLOSED TODAY!
You can't get this kind of return from a bank! You had your chance at 97
cents and BLEW IT!
You can do what I did! I bought 180,000 shares of Worldcom at .06 near
the dip in the crash, figuring, correctly, that the office furniture
auction was going to bring in better than that. I had no trouble finding
sellers...(c; I sold too soon at .19 because it went up to .22 before
the final crash to zero....dammit.
Pink Sheets can be lots of fun...(c;
But, you gotta be QUICK!
Larry
--
Er, ah, how many shares are you stuck with, anyways?.....??
| |
| clifto 2007-09-29, 4:33 am |
| News wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
> No surprise. It was a Mickey Mouse deal...
Sounded goofy to me.
--
One phrase that explains 99% of all idiot driving:
"You can't block traffic if you're not in the way."
| |
|
| On Sep 28, 10:45 am, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote innews:46fc7353$0$27
199$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>
> Of much greater interest from the webpage is the one on Vonage's demise:http://www.thestreet.com/s/vonages-vanishing-
> act/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10381531.html?
>
> They're TOAST! My condolences to Vonage users stuck with useless equipment
> once the company goes dark.
>
Which ultimately ends up in a land fill along with the toxic metals
and materials it contains :\
| |
|
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article < Xns99B98C079B5F3noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bah. Us Sunrocket customers are old hat at that. It's yesterday's news.
Vonage provided a valuable service with its saturation advertising. It
made users aware of VOIP, and the ways it can be used. People that
travel a lot like these services since they can use VOIP to have a
"local" phone number when traveling, and use the hotel's free wireless
for calls.
However the problem was that a) Vonage was too expensive, and b) it had
little appeal outside the market for people that used it as a traveling
number type of service. Few people would ever spend anywhere close to
$25/month on long distance. That's 1000 minutes on OneSuite, 1250
minutes on TalkLoop. And of course most people have unlimited off-peak
long distance on their cell phone plans.
| |
| Paul Miner 2007-09-30, 3:33 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:10:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Vonage provided a valuable service with its saturation advertising. It
>made users aware of VOIP, and the ways it can be used. People that
>travel a lot like these services since they can use VOIP to have a
>"local" phone number when traveling, and use the hotel's free wireless
>for calls.
My family uses Vonage, but not for its 'traveling' capability. About
the most we do in that area is to unplug the eMTA when we leave home
for an extended time so that incoming calls go to my cell phone.
>However the problem was that a) Vonage was too expensive,
In my case, Vonage's 500 minute plan costs a little less than half
what we were paying SWBell, and the SWBell service was local only
while the Vonage plan obviously includes 500 minutes of long distance,
which is more than enough for us. So in our case, 'too expensive' does
not apply, especially when compared to our previous service.
>and b) it had
>little appeal outside the market for people that used it as a traveling
>number type of service. Few people would ever spend anywhere close to
>$25/month on long distance. That's 1000 minutes on OneSuite, 1250
>minutes on TalkLoop. And of course most people have unlimited off-peak
>long distance on their cell phone plans.
Of the people that I know who have VoIP service from any provider, the
traveling capability is not something that has ever come up as a
reason to have VoIP. Apparently I and my acquaintances are out of the
norm, from what you're saying. Within my circles, we tend to favor the
much lower cost of VoIP and a general dissatisfaction with the ILEC.
--
Paul Miner
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-01, 4:33 am |
| At 30 Sep 2007 09:10:25 -0700 SMS wrote:
> Vonage provided a valuable service with its saturation advertising.
> It made users aware of VOIP, and the ways it can be used.
I agree with the first statement, but not the second. Vonage ads did
put VoIP in the pblic eye, but they're relatively restrictive with
use of the service that people DON'T get a feel for what they can do
with VoIP- you had to pay extra for using softphones, couldn't
register more than one ATA, etc. Compare that to more typical SIP
provider that lets me use an ATA at home, while simultaneously using
my PPC as a "cordless VoIP" phone and also having my laptop USB
handset plugged in.
> People that travel a lot like these services since they can use
> VOIP to have a "local" phone number when traveling, and use the
> hotel's free wireless for calls.
But not (easily) with Vonage. The Vonage box has to plug into a
physical router or DSL/cable modem (not WiFi) and AFAIK, the only
softphone is a physical USB key registered to your service.
> However the problem was that a) Vonage was too expensive
Hardly- with taxes and fees, my local landline service is around
$35/month- so even without the unlimited LD it's save me some money.
> b) it had little appeal outside the market for people that used
> it as a traveling number type of service.
Again, I disagree- your cellphone easily provdes a "local number when
travelig" and doesn't require lugging around VoIP ATAs or firing up a
laptop.
The attraction of VoIP is cheap landline replacement.
> Few people would ever spend anywhere close to $25/month on long
> distance.
True, but that same $25 includes your local service as well. Again,
using my example, I'd be nearly $10 ahead with Vonage forgetting LD
(which I typically use my Cellphne for.)
> That's 1000 minutes on OneSuite, 1250 minutes on TalkLoop. And
> of course most people have unlimited off-peak long distance on
> their cell phone plans.
True.
The "problem" with VoIP is that while it's cheaper than a landline,
it's not as reliable, as high quality, or as easy to use. Most
homeowners wouldn't know how to properly wire an ATA into their house
wiring for seamless "plug a phone into any existing jack and get the
VoIP line" service, many broadband connections occasionally need a
modem or router reboot- it's all a little too "techie" compared to
traditional POTS service. Plus, given the number of us using DSL,
which generally "includes" a POTS line for only a few bucks more, any
VIP savings are marginalized.
Personally I find VoIP useful as a second line, or for international
travel, but I dobn't consider myself typical in that respect. The
people I know using Vonage are simply trying to save a few bucks
compared to the local telco service.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| ultimauw@hotmail.com 2007-10-01, 4:33 am |
| On Sep 30, 9:10 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Vonage provided a valuable service with its saturation advertising. It
> made users aware of VOIP, and the ways it can be used. People that
> travel a lot like these services since they can use VOIP to have a
> "local" phone number when traveling, and use the hotel's free wireless
> for calls.
>
> However the problem was that a) Vonage was too expensive, and b) it had
> little appeal outside the market for people that used it as a traveling
> number type of service. Few people would ever spend anywhere close to
> $25/month on long distance. That's 1000 minutes on OneSuite, 1250
> minutes on TalkLoop. And of course most people have unlimited off-peak
> long distance on their cell phone plans.
I think Cell Phones are starting to kill off the land lines en masse.
Just 10 years ago, it was *rare* to see anybody except business folks
with cell phones, now there are so ubiquitous that even pre-teens
usualy have one. The only appeal of services like Vonage is the price,
but since now cell phones are so common and cheap. land lines
including VoIP looks like yesterdays technology headed to the heap of
history. (On that note, it's getting hard to find a pay phone period,.
let alone a *working* one these days, and I live in Los Angeles!).
| |
| Thurman 2007-10-01, 4:33 am |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:46ffca1b$0$7047
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Vonage provided a valuable service with its saturation advertising. It
> made users aware of VOIP, and the ways it can be used. People that travel
> a lot like these services since they can use VOIP to have a "local" phone
> number when traveling, and use the hotel's free wireless for calls.
>
> However the problem was that a) Vonage was too expensive, and b) it had
> little appeal outside the market for people that used it as a traveling
> number type of service. Few people would ever spend anywhere close to
> $25/month on long distance. That's 1000 minutes on OneSuite, 1250 minutes
> on TalkLoop. And of course most people have unlimited off-peak long
> distance on their cell phone plans.
My Vonage is still working as well as ever. It provides me with an office
number in a larger city 30 miles away that appears to be local for clients
calling there. I received a text message for every person that left a
message while in Florida for a week so no one knew I was away.
The motivating factor of 'local' calling to Canada still works well as
opposed to the $1.39/min SBC/ATT charged me for 90 minutes. ATT still tries
to sell me bundled service but wants $0.32 per minute for calls to Costa
Rica, but Vonage charges .02.
In Friedman's book, The World is Flat, he points out bankruptcy leaves the
infrastructure intact for someone else to use but at a lower cost. My
Vonage/Linksys hardware and software are working fine. I'd prefer Vonage
over Sprint to assume control based on business decisions of the last four
years.
Larry conveniently skipped the last paragraph of the article he quoted. The
stock is recommended as a 'buy'.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-01, 7:33 am |
| In article <oB2Mi.769$pQ4.614@newsfe12.lga>,
"Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote:
> In Friedman's book, The World is Flat, he points out bankruptcy leaves the
> infrastructure intact for someone else to use but at a lower cost. My
> Vonage/Linksys hardware and software are working fine.
When Sunrocket went belly-up with zero notice in mid-July, their stuff
worked for awhile, too--and was taken over by someone who offered the
service at a HIGHER cost.
| |
| Thurman 2007-10-01, 10:33 am |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-424204. 06092601102007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
> In article <oB2Mi.769$pQ4.614@newsfe12.lga>,
> "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote:
>
>
> When Sunrocket went belly-up with zero notice in mid-July, their stuff
> worked for awhile, too--and was taken over by someone who offered the
> service at a HIGHER cost.
The cost to the provider was lower.
It should be obvious to the casual observer that the old business model
didn't work. A working model may have necessitated a higher customer price.
That's the beauty of our economic system, the provider and customer hit a
balance in what they are willing to pay.
I'm appalled when someone like the Dallas Cowboy owner Jerry Jones triples
ticket prices and keeps his customer base.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-01, 10:33 am |
| In article <7R6Mi.3$0O5.1@newsfe05.lga>,
"Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote:
> I'm appalled when someone like the Dallas Cowboy owner Jerry Jones triples
> ticket prices and keeps his customer base.
Consider Occam's Razor, then think about it:
People are stupid. And you can count on sports fans being stupid
without question.
It's not hard to figure out.
| |
|
| Thurman wrote:
> My Vonage is still working as well as ever. It provides me with an office
> number in a larger city 30 miles away that appears to be local for clients
> calling there. I received a text message for every person that left a
> message while in Florida for a week so no one knew I was away.
Right, everyone I know with Vonage uses it the way you use it, a local
number no matter where they actually are located, or while traveling.
Their long distance rates are much higher than what's available
elsewhere, unless you make a tremendous number of long distance calls,
including international calls.
| |
| Larry 2007-10-01, 12:33 pm |
| ultimauw@hotmail.com wrote in news:1191220536.190049.6860
@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> I think Cell Phones are starting to kill off the land lines en masse.
> Just 10 years ago, it was *rare* to see anybody except business folks
> with cell phones, now there are so ubiquitous that even pre-teens
> usualy have one. The only appeal of services like Vonage is the price,
> but since now cell phones are so common and cheap. land lines
> including VoIP looks like yesterdays technology headed to the heap of
> history. (On that note, it's getting hard to find a pay phone period,.
> let alone a *working* one these days, and I live in Los Angeles!).
>
>
Very true. I know some Bell$outh linemen that say B$, now called ATT
once again like the old days, has about 1500 disconnects loss each month,
now. I haven't had a landline since 1992. What's the point? My phone
stays in my pocket.
Larry
--
Please - Turn OFF cruise control when
you turn on windshield wipers!
| |
| Larry 2007-10-01, 12:33 pm |
| "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in
news:oB2Mi.769$pQ4.614@newsfe12.lga:
> Larry conveniently skipped the last paragraph of the article he
> quoted. The stock is recommended as a 'buy'.
>
>
>
I still can't figure that out. Look at their entire historical price
graph! It only has one direction...DOWN! What crap are the brokers
playing? Get them to buy it now, making us money, then get them to sell
at a horrendous loss later, making us more money! What a concept! No
matter how much naive investors lose...they always make money as long as
there's lots of trading. Perhaps they have clients with shares to dump
and need to find buyers to dump it on?...hmm.
As you may have seen, I'm a Skype enthousiast, here. I carry my Netgear
Skype phone next to my Skype-forwarded-to sellphone. I'm also a Mobivox
beta tester, an adjunct service Skype forgot so I can use my sellphone to
call Skypers worldwide for just sellphone airtime charges. Mobivox also
lets me call Europe for $.019/min + sellphone airtime if weekday, rather
than handing the sellphone company $1.50 + airtime. Most civilized
places are cheaper on my sellphone+Mobivox than Skype.
Skype's so-cheap pricing with Ebay's backing must have hurt overpriced
Vonage something awful. "You don't have 911 on Skype.", they point out,
which just isn't true. I dial 911 from my sellphone. I don't need
duplicate 911 on Vonage for $25/month. $10 on Skype or Mobivox lasts me
many months.
Larry
--
Please - Turn OFF cruise control when
you turn on windshield wipers!
| |
| Larry 2007-10-01, 12:33 pm |
| "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in
news:7R6Mi.3$0O5.1@newsfe05.lga:
> I'm appalled when someone like the Dallas Cowboy owner Jerry Jones
> triples ticket prices and keeps his customer base.
>
>
You, obviously, haven't purchased a NASCAR ticket lately. It's cheaper to
cruise to the French Riviera than watch a NASCAR race.
Larry
--
Please - Turn OFF cruise control when
you turn on windshield wipers!
| |
| dold@86.usenet.us.com 2007-10-01, 12:33 pm |
| In alt.cellular.cingular Todd Allcock < elecconnec@americaon
line.com> wrote:
> use of the service that people DON'T get a feel for what they can do
> with VoIP- you had to pay extra for using softphones, couldn't
> register more than one ATA, etc. Compare that to more typical SIP
> provider that lets me use an ATA at home, while simultaneously using
> my PPC as a "cordless VoIP" phone and also having my laptop USB
> handset plugged in.
Don't forget the bluetooth headsets. Those work fine for cordless VoIP.
Who would one of these "more typical" SIP providers be?
I have been using Cisco Softphone, not at all "typical", but it's what I
have. My office deskphone and my laptop softphone were interchangeable as
nicely as I could want, except that "missed" calls didn't show up on the
softphone.
Now my Cisco system is going away. The official replacement is
Callvantage.
Callvantage seems Vonage-like, in that you are tied to one ATA, with
silliness about E911 registering if there is a disturbance on the network.
The softphone not only costs extra, it is a different number! The quality
of the CallVantage calls is poor enough that it isn't suitable for a home
phone replacement, but it is cheap, at $19.99 for unlimited US-LD and good
rates worldwide.
Cellphone coverage isn't good enough to use as a replacement here, without
a T-Mobile-like WiFi adjunct.
I might forward to a separate Callvantage softphone for laptop travel use.
I've also thought about a Skype handheld like the Netgear SPH200W-100NAS,
but haven't even begun to research that. My attempts at SkypeOut were less
than satisfying a couple of years ago. I use Skype PC-PC quite well
worldwide.
> The "problem" with VoIP is that while it's cheaper than a landline, it's
> not as reliable, as high quality, or as easy to use. Most
I had no problem with reliability, but quality is poor on Callvantage. My
housemates didn't like 10 digit dialing. Not 7, not 11, 10.
> homeowners wouldn't know how to properly wire an ATA into their house
> wiring for seamless "plug a phone into any existing jack and get the
Callvantage was easy to wire as a whole-house replacement for landline.
Unplug one wire, plug in another wire. No drama, no skills required.
> Personally I find VoIP useful as a second line, or for international
> travel, but I dobn't consider myself typical in that respect. The people
> I know using Vonage are simply trying to save a few bucks compared to the
> local telco service.
I like Cisco VoIP because no one knows where I am ... I am always "at my
desk". In the case of a business phone, 4 digit dialing, conference,
voicemail, transfers, Caller ID, are all right there, on either the
hardphone or softphone.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
| |
| George 2007-10-01, 12:33 pm |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <7R6Mi.3$0O5.1@newsfe05.lga>,
> "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Consider Occam's Razor, then think about it:
>
> People are stupid. And you can count on sports fans being stupid
> without question.
>
> It's not hard to figure out.
>
Agree, but I think they still don't charge enough. I am tired of people
who declare they are capitalists (but are really socialists) going to
the government and demanding that the government should pull money out
of everyones pocket to build a sports stadium for the team they bought.
| |
| George 2007-10-01, 12:33 pm |
| Larry wrote:
> "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote in
> news:oB2Mi.769$pQ4.614@newsfe12.lga:
>
>
> I still can't figure that out. Look at their entire historical price
> graph! It only has one direction...DOWN! What crap are the brokers
> playing? Get them to buy it now, making us money, then get them to sell
> at a horrendous loss later, making us more money! What a concept! No
> matter how much naive investors lose...they always make money as long as
> there's lots of trading. Perhaps they have clients with shares to dump
> and need to find buyers to dump it on?...hmm.
>
> As you may have seen, I'm a Skype enthousiast, here. I carry my Netgear
> Skype phone next to my Skype-forwarded-to sellphone. I'm also a Mobivox
> beta tester, an adjunct service Skype forgot so I can use my sellphone to
> call Skypers worldwide for just sellphone airtime charges. Mobivox also
> lets me call Europe for $.019/min + sellphone airtime if weekday, rather
> than handing the sellphone company $1.50 + airtime. Most civilized
> places are cheaper on my sellphone+Mobivox than Skype.
>
> Skype's so-cheap pricing with Ebay's backing must have hurt overpriced
> Vonage something awful. "You don't have 911 on Skype.", they point out,
And quite accurately. There is no 911 on Skpye.
> which just isn't true. I dial 911 from my sellphone. I don't need
> duplicate 911 on Vonage for $25/month. $10 on Skype or Mobivox lasts me
> many months.
>
> Larry
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-01, 10:33 pm |
| In article < ktOdnWkXM_NktpzanZ2d
nUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Agree, but I think they still don't charge enough. I am tired of people
> who declare they are capitalists (but are really socialists) going to
> the government and demanding that the government should pull money out
> of everyones pocket to build a sports stadium for the team they bought.
HEAR HEAR!
Around here, they tried FIVE TIMES to go to the public well, only to
find out that we wouldn't budge. Oh, we got all sorts of talk after
each election, about how we "just don't understand," etc, etc.
After the fifth time, the local politicos and business powerhouses
finally said, "OK, we'll do it ourselves." And what do you know? The
entire thing--a very large entertainment district, with an arena at its
center--was funded and built by big business, without a public dollar to
its name.
And to this day, it's doing very well.
The whole "we need public dollars or else the teams will go elsewhere
and the city won't prosper" was proven to be just so much bullshit.
| |
| Larry 2007-10-01, 10:33 pm |
| George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:wKudnRvss85HsJz
anZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
> And quite accurately. There is no 911 on Skpye.
>
>
So what? Noone needs 911 service on Skype with their SELLPHONE in their
hand loaded with its GPS!
Duhh.....
Larry
--
Please - Turn OFF cruise control when
you turn on windshield wipers!
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-02, 4:33 am |
| At 01 Oct 2007 17:14:01 +0000 dold@86.usenet.us.com wrote:
> Don't forget the bluetooth headsets. Those work fine for cordless
VoIP.
True. Re-pairing everytime I switch between phone and PC is a
hassle, tho'. I guess that's an excuse to buy more earpieces! ;-)
> Who would one of these "more typical" SIP providers be?
The small-fry- Voicestick, OneSuite, callwithus.com, etc.
> Callvantage seems Vonage-like, in that you are tied to one ATA, with
> silliness about E911 registering if there is a disturbance on the
> network.
> The softphone not only costs extra, it is a different number!
> The quality of the CallVantage calls is poor enough that it isn't
> suitable for a home phone replacement, but it is cheap, at $19.99
> for unlimited US-LD and good rates worldwide.
But with some pay-as-you go VoIPs charging $0.015/minute or less, you
need to be using 1000-1500/minutes a month or more for that $19.99 to
be a good deal.
> I've also thought about a Skype handheld like the Netgear
> SPH200W-100NAS, but haven't even begun to research that.
The problem with most if not all WiFi VoIP phones is the lack of web
browser. Too many public WiFi APs (including most hotels) require
you toagree to a TOS page in a browser before you get access to the
'net. This wipes out the ability for those phones to connect. When
I want to Skype over WiFi when traveling, I use my Pocket PC.
> My attempts at SkypeOut were less than satisfying a couple of years
> ago. I use Skype PC-PC quite well worldwide.
Skype's improved quite a bit in the connection to POTS department, IMO.
I just can't take a "phone" service seriously that needs my PC on to
work. (While the WiFi phones are cute, I like being able to hook
"real phones" into a VoIP box.)
> I had no problem with reliability, but quality is poor on
Callvantage. My
> housemates didn't like 10 digit dialing. Not 7, not 11, 10.
That can be fixed with most ATA boxes in their setup by editing the
"dialplan." (It tells the box to fill in the "missing" digits if
only seven are dialed, or drop the leading "1" if 11.
> Callvantage was easy to wire as a whole-house replacement for
landline.
> Unplug one wire, plug in another wire. No drama, no skills required.
Many people often forget the "unhook the local telco's line from the
entrance bridge/test interface" part and fry a perfectly good VoIP
box!
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
|
| Larry wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> news:wKudnRvss85HsJz
anZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
>
>
> So what? Noone needs 911 service on Skype with their SELLPHONE in their
> hand loaded with its GPS!
911 service allows ER personnel to come directly to your house. The GPS,
especially on GSM phones, is not accurate enough to pin-point the location.
Skype is skating on thin ice with regards to the FCC rules on E911
service. "Skype is not a home phone replacement -- it's a supplement to
your home phone service."
| |
| George 2007-10-02, 7:33 am |
| Larry wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> news:wKudnRvss85HsJz
anZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
>
>
> So what? Noone needs 911 service on Skype with their SELLPHONE in their
> hand loaded with its GPS!
>
> Duhh.....
>
> Larry
You specifically stated that it isn't true that Skype doesn't have 911.
The whole point of 911 is that *every* telephone device should have it.
Just because you have a cellphone doesn't mean Skype has 911. How
about emergencies or the elderly, children or visitors who may not know
or have the time to think "lets see, There is this Mickey Mouse Skype
service on this phone so it doesn't have 911 so I need to get the
cellphone."
I have a relative who is alive today because of 911. He came home and
his wife was still out. He said he suddenly felt strange, dialed 911,
dropped the phone and *died*. They sent the police and paramedics and
they were able to restart his heart and bring him to the hospital.
| |
|
| ultimauw@hotmail.com wrote:
> I think Cell Phones are starting to kill off the land lines en masse.
> Just 10 years ago, it was *rare* to see anybody except business folks
> with cell phones, now there are so ubiquitous that even pre-teens
> usualy have one. The only appeal of services like Vonage is the price,
The average Vonage customer pays $28.38. Maybe this is a good price in
some parts of the country, if you make a lot of long-distance calls at
the ridiculous rates that AT&T charges for them. Of course you also have
to have broadband to your house, either cable, ($50/month in my area for
Comcast broadband), or DSL, at about $30 for naked DSL or $15+local
phone service.
My local phone bill is about $17/month from AT&T. $11 (Vonage price-$17)
would buy 440 minutes of long distance on a provider like OneSuite
(2.5¢.minute). How many non-business users make 440 minutes of long
distance during peak times? Complicating things further for Vonage, is
free in-network calling on most cell phone plans. within circles of
friends and relatives that call each other a lot, the tendency is to all
migrate to the same cellular provider.
Vonage is like many products and services that base their entire
business model on comparing their prices to what the most naive consumer
would pay for competing products and services. It's like the
advertisements that quote the MSRP for a product, then add the
disclaimer that the product "may never have been sold at the MSRP."
Even more ridiculous than Vonage, is Skype, but for different reasons.
The average revenue per Skype user is estimated at 12-13¢/month, because
almost no one uses it for anything other than free computer to computer
calls. Skype gets away with not providing E911 capability because they
claim that it's not a substitute for a landline. Unfortunately for eBay,
they have the data to prove that this is the case.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-02, 10:33 am |
| At 02 Oct 2007 06:32:16 -0700 SMS wrote:
> The average Vonage customer pays $28.38. Maybe this is a good price
> in some parts of the country, if you make a lot of long-distance
> calls at the ridiculous rates that AT&T charges for them.
That'satually a goo price in MANY pats the country.
> Of course you also have to have broadband to your house, either
> cable, ($50/month in my area for Comcast broadband), or DSL, at
> about $30 for naked DSL or $15+local phone service.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that broadband+Vonage is cheaper
than POTS alone, only that if you're going to pay for broadband anyway=
,
you canvleverage it with VoIP for a little savings.
=20
> My local phone bill is about $17/month from AT&T. $11 (Vonage price-=
$17)
re you including all of the fees in that $17? My local seevice from
Qwest (Denver) is "only" $24.99, but that's before taxes (about $4)
and fees (about a buck for E911 and $6 for "interconnect fees")
bringing me to $36-37. Vonage is $25/month (the "average revenue per
customer" has no meaning in this discussion since we're not using the
"avearge" landline customer to compare them to.) and only has a
couple of bucks in taxes. =20
> would buy 440 minutes of long distance on a provider like OneSuite
> (2.5=A2.minute). How many non-business users make 440 minutes of
> long distance during peak times?
Not the issue- you have far cheaper POTS services available to you
than most of us do- clearly a $25 VoIP isn't competitive THERE. Even
Qwest @ $36 is a vacation compared to the rural phone company I had
in Missouri- I paid over $50/month for LOCAL service with what is now
Embarq (Sprint/Union Telephone when I was there.)
Add to that a couple of bucks for LD service (the monthly fee for my
LD service before I make my first call) has risen from $0.99 to over
$3/month, bringing my "local" service to about $40.
> Complicating things further for Vonage, is free in-network calling
> on most cell phone plans. within circles of friends and relatives
> that call each other a lot, the tendency is to all migrate to the
> same cellular provider.
I'm surethat's a powerful marketing tool for many, but I've never
once in 20 years with cellphones, ever based my carrier choice based
on friend's or family's network.
=20
> Vonage is like many products and services that base their entire
> business model on comparing their prices to what the most naive
> consumer would pay for competing products and services. It's like
> the advertisements that quote the MSRP for a product, then add
> the disclaimer that the product "may never have been sold at the
MSRP."
True, but Vonage is the li
e the AOL of VoIP- it's "VoIP for Dummies;" glossy brochures,
preconfigured hardware, you can buy it in stores- it Commands it's
price based on ease and convenience. Other VoIPs are cheaper, but
lack the capital and infrastrucre Vonage has (ok, had!) ;-)
=20
> Even more ridiculous than Vonage, is Skype, but for different
> reasons. The average revenue per Skype user is estimated at
> 12-13=A2/month, because almost no one uses it for anything other tha=
n
> free computer to computer calls. Skype gets away with not
> providing E911 capability because they claim that it's not a
> substitute for a landline. Unfortunately for eBay, they have the
> data to prove that this is the case.
Other than Larry, no one considers Skype as a VoIP player- they're
really a glorified IM program on steroids.
--=20
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures=20
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for=20
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with=20
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003=20
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> I don't think anyone is suggesting that broadband+Vonage is cheaper
> than POTS alone, only that if you're going to pay for broadband anyway,
> you canvleverage it with VoIP for a little savings.
Perhaps, though if you're paying for broadband anyway, Voicestick is a
better deal than Vonage, and is likely to be around longer since they
seem to have a business plan that doesn't rely on massive advertising
with annoying background sounds. Voicestick also has some features than
Vonage lacks.
Actually, I probably could run Vonage or Voicestick over our free
community wireless network, if it'd work at only 1Mb/s, but the
reliability is a big factor.
| |
| dold@86.usenet.us.com 2007-10-02, 12:33 pm |
| In alt.cellular.cingular Todd Allcock < elecconnec@americaon
line.com> wrote:
> At 01 Oct 2007 17:14:01 +0000 dold@86.usenet.us.com wrote:
> VoIP.
> True. Re-pairing everytime I switch between phone and PC is a
> hassle, tho'. I guess that's an excuse to buy more earpieces! ;-)
I bought two, after going through the re-pairing excerise a couple of
times. I have a pocket sized headset for cellular, and a larger headset
for PC. Plantronics touts their ability to switch seamlessly.
> The small-fry- Voicestick, OneSuite, callwithus.com, etc.
Darn. I want name recognition and flexibility from the same vendor. ;-(
> need to be using 1000-1500/minutes a month or more for that $19.99 to
> be a good deal.
I was using it as my home phone replacement, so with unlimited LD it was
cheaper than the basic landline.
> The problem with most if not all WiFi VoIP phones is the lack of web
> browser. Too many public WiFi APs (including most hotels) require
> you toagree to a TOS page in a browser before you get access to the
> 'net. This wipes out the ability for those phones to connect. When
> I want to Skype over WiFi when traveling, I use my Pocket PC.
I wonder if that's behind the T-Mobile "hotspot@home" signup. There's
something about pre-authorized hotspots. The Netgear page mentions some
ISP roaming standard.
> Skype's improved quite a bit in the connection to POTS department, IMO.
I expected that with the eBay involvement. At least they would be
US-centric. I have had Skype-out calls arrive at my home from Australia
and Germany in the last couple of days that sounded good, undetectable from
"being there". i should just cough up a few bucks and try it again.
> I just can't take a "phone" service seriously that needs my PC on to
> work. (While the WiFi phones are cute, I like being able to hook
> "real phones" into a VoIP box.)
A piece of software on the PC, or a standalone ATA... same-o.
Some of the other Skype WiFi phones are not self contained, and have a
widget to plug in. I plugged my "real" phones into the Callvantage ATA.
I don't mind it being PC-only. The WiFi phone might be less handy. I'd
carry more junk when I had the laptop already.
[color=darkred]
> That can be fixed with most ATA boxes in their setup by editing the
I didn't see that with Callvantage. I think it was even answered as a FAQ
with "because that's the way it is" or words to that effect.
[color=darkred]
> Many people often forget the "unhook the local telco's line from the
> entrance bridge/test interface" part and fry a perfectly good VoIP
> box!
That's just bad hardware design. There's no excuse for frying
telco-certified parts at telco-certified line voltages. Once upon a time,
I did some work where our gadget sat inline with telco, and we routed LD
calls, and let the local calls go through. We weren't trying to drive
volts out the same connector, but still. Nothing fried if you hooked it up
backwards. The ATA should be able to detect line voltage, and post a red
blinking error message on the management page.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-02, 3:33 pm |
| At 02 Oct 2007 17:11:38 +0000 dold@86.usenet.us.com wrote:
> Darn. I want name recognition and flexibility from the same
vendor. ;-(
Sadly, I think you won't get that- I suspect advetising is the single
largest expense with the big guys like Vonage and CallVantage.
> I was using it as my home phone replacement, so with unlimited LD
it was
> cheaper than the basic landline.
Absolutely.
> I wonder if that's behind the T-Mobile "hotspot@home" signup.
There's
> something about pre-authorized hotspots.
No- the T-Mo service isn't really VoIP in the tradtional sense- it's
more like "GoIP"- the actual GSM packets are delivered via the
internet instead of over the air, which is why you can seamlessly
sWitch between WiFi and cellular mid-call.
> The Netgear page mentions some
> ISP roaming standard.
The T-Mo service has the same problem as the Skype phones- no way to
authenticate with a browser- you can put in a WEP/WPA key, but that's
about it.
> I expected that with the eBay involvement. At least they would be
> US-centric. I have had Skype-out calls arrive at my home from
Australia
> and Germany in the last couple of days that sounded good,
undetectable from
> "being there". i should just cough up a few bucks and try it again.
If you're going to lug the laptop around, why not? It's cheap
enough, and it works pretty well. If you have a PocketPC or Symbian-
based phone you can even use Skype from them.
on to[color=darkred]
>
> A piece of software on the PC, or a standalone ATA... same-o.
For traveling, no problem. For home landline replacement I'd rather
nothave it PC-based, all else being equal.
> Some of the other Skype WiFi phones are not self contained, and
have a
> widget to plug in. I plugged my "real" phones into the Callvantage
ATA.
> I don't mind it being PC-only. The WiFi phone might be less handy.
I'd
> carry more junk when I had the laptop already.
True enough!
the[color=darkred]
>
> I didn't see that with Callvantage. I think it was even answered
as a FAQ
> with "because that's the way it is" or words to that effect.
Depends on what model ATA they use, orif they allow you to access the
settings. They might "lock" customers out of it to prevent them from
screwing things up.
required.[color=darkred]
>
the[color=darkred]
>
> That's just bad hardware design. There's no excuse for frying
> telco-certified parts at telco-certified line voltages.
Agreed, but many VoIP ATAs look like something hobbled together off
the parts wall at a RadioShack! ;-)
> Once upon a time,
> I did some work where our gadget sat inline with telco, and we
routed LD
> calls, and let the local calls go through. We weren't trying to
drive
> volts out the same connector, but still. Nothing fried if you
hooked it up
> backwards. The ATA should be able to detect line voltage, and post
a red
> blinking error message on the management page.
Agreed!
Take care!
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
|
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:4701d442$0$7994
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Larry wrote:
>
> 911 service allows ER personnel to come directly to your house. The
> GPS, especially on GSM phones, is not accurate enough to pin-point the
> location.
>
> Skype is skating on thin ice with regards to the FCC rules on E911
> service. "Skype is not a home phone replacement -- it's a supplement
> to your home phone service."
>
Notice how you completely fail to read my post......
YOU CALL 911 FROM YOUR SELLPHONE!! CELLPHONES NOW HAVE GPS IN THEM!!
THIS IS NO LONGER A PROBLEM FOR SKYPE!!!
DUHHH......(c;
Larry
--
Please - Turn OFF cruise control when
you turn on windshield wipers!
| |
|
| George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:-
aKdnTlyf71CpJ_anZ2dn
UVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com:
> How
> about emergencies or the elderly, children or visitors who may not know
> or have the time to think "lets see, There is this Mickey Mouse Skype
> service on this phone so it doesn't have 911 so I need to get the
> cellphone."
>
There is noone here so hobbled without Sellular 911.
Those people, the elderly, children, etc., etc., don't even have
computers....so this "problem" brought up EVERY TIME by the SELLULAR
plants, is no problem at all.
I do have the cops programmed into my Skype, but that may be stupid, too.
My system has a 2KW UPS, so I may have internet to call on Skype, but
Sellular is much more reliable than any landline.
Here, try this test:
Go into some friend's house who has a landline phone. Cut off his main
circuit breaker, plunging the house into total darkness. Dial 911 and
see if you can contact them.
I've tried this test in many houses, not in reality but virtually. THEY
HAVE WIRELESS PHONES THAT REQUIRE 120VAC TO POWER THE BASE STATIONS!
They have 120VAC-powered superphones that WON'T MAKE THAT CALL in the
dark! Look around anyone's house and note all the phones that RUN ON
PHONE POWER ONLY....They're getting far between! You can't dial 911 on a
120VAC-powered phone!
Keep your Sellphone handy....(c;
Larry
--
Please - Turn OFF cruise control when
you turn on windshield wipers!
| |
| Steve Sobol 2007-10-02, 3:33 pm |
| ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-10-02, dold@86.usenet.us.com <dold@86.usenet.us.com> wrote:
> I wonder if that's behind the T-Mobile "hotspot@home" signup. There's
> something about pre-authorized hotspots. The Netgear page mentions some
> ISP roaming standard.
Yes. T-Mobile HotSpot customers can roam on several other companies'
WiFI networks. The charges vary (some are per-minute or per-hour,
some per-day). This is useful when you're stuck in a place that does not have
T-Mo HotSpot service (like an airport waiting for a layover).
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield
| |
|
| Larry wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:-
> aKdnTlyf71CpJ_anZ2dn
UVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>
> There is noone here so hobbled without Sellular 911.
>
> Those people, the elderly, children, etc., etc., don't even have
> computers....so this "problem" brought up EVERY TIME by the SELLULAR
> plants, is no problem at all.
Let's see, my 83 year old mother and 80 year old stepfather have a
computer. My kids have had computers since they were small, and they
live in the same house. It's a _huge_ problem. It's why the FCC mandates
E911 for VOIP providers. Skype got around that by declaring that it's
not a replacement for normal phone service. Apparently they're right,
judging by the per user revenue!
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-02, 3:33 pm |
| At 02 Oct 2007 08:36:05 -0400 George wrote:
> You specifically stated that it isn't true that Skype doesn't
> have 911. The whole point of 911 is that *every* telephone device
> should have it.
While I'm as much of a bleeding-heart liberal as the next guy,
frankly it's Larry's chioce whether he wants to have 911 service at
his house.
Anyone who opts not to have a telephone doesn't have 911.
> Just because you have a cellphone doesn't mean Skype has 911.
> How about emergencies or the elderly, children or visitors who may
> not know or have the time to think "lets see, There is this Mickey
> Mouse Skype service on this phone so it doesn't have 911 so I need
> to get the cellphone."
Then you probably shouldn't visit Larry without a doctor present.
Again, what happens if the "children" visit someone without a phone?
> I have a relative who is alive today because of 911. He came home
> and his wife was still out. He said he suddenly felt strange,
> dialed 911, dropped the phone and *died*. They sent the police
> and paramedics and they were able to restart his heart and bring
> him to the hospital.
Which is fantastic. 911 is certainly a good thing. I just question
why we feel the need to enforce old ideas on new technologies.
Inflicting GPS units on cellphones for 911 because emergency services
can't pinpoint the location of a PORTABLE DEVICE? In the days before
cellphones apparently we all felt comfortable enough without a
tracking device/lifeline at our hips to risk a trip to the grocery
store despite the fact that we were *gasp* out of reach of emergency
services between our homes and our destinations.
Heck, 911 isn't really good enough- it's 3 or 4 button presses. Why
not mandate a tax/fee on all communications companies so we can all
walk around with GPS-enabled LifeAlerts ("I've fallen and I can't get
up"), with one big red button around each of our necks- or perhaps
built-in heart monitors to summon help if we're unable to push the
button! ;-)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| George 2007-10-02, 10:33 pm |
| Larry wrote:
>
> Notice how you completely fail to read my post......
>
> YOU CALL 911 FROM YOUR SELLPHONE!! CELLPHONES NOW HAVE GPS IN THEM!!
>
> THIS IS NO LONGER A PROBLEM FOR SKYPE!!!
>
> DUHHH......(c;
>
>
> Larry
I understand you love Skype and can't see its weaknesses but try reading
my reply for content and consider the part you snipped about my relative
who would have died if he had Skype.
Skype doesn't have 911. Most people reasonably assume that a phone has
911. If there should happen to be in an emergency situation where there
is a visitor/child/elderly person they don't know that Skype isn't a
real phone service and *doesn't* have 911.
You may be contented using your cellphone to call 911 but it doesn't
work for the conditions I noted.
| |
| clifto 2007-10-02, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> While I'm as much of a bleeding-heart liberal as the next guy,
> frankly it's Larry's chioce whether he wants to have 911 service at
> his house.
>
> Anyone who opts not to have a telephone doesn't have 911.
Don't know about where you live, but here you get 911 service on your
POTS pair even if you don't subscribe to a POTS service. So only those
who live in places that don't have twisted pair POTS facilities don't
have 911... which means, just about no one.
--
One phrase that explains 99% of all idiot driving:
"You can't block traffic if you're not in the way."
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-10-02, 10:33 pm |
| In news:Xns99BD8DE2F84D
0noonehomecom@208.49.80.253,
Larry <noone@home.com> typed:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:-
> aKdnTlyf71CpJ_anZ2dn
UVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>
> There is noone here so hobbled without Sellular 911.
>
> Those people, the elderly, children, etc., etc., don't even have
> computers....so this "problem" brought up EVERY TIME by the SELLULAR
> plants, is no problem at all.
>
> I do have the cops programmed into my Skype, but that may be stupid, too.
> My system has a 2KW UPS, so I may have internet to call on Skype, but
> Sellular is much more reliable than any landline.
>
> Here, try this test:
>
> Go into some friend's house who has a landline phone. Cut off his main
> circuit breaker, plunging the house into total darkness. Dial 911 and
> see if you can contact them.
>
> I've tried this test in many houses, not in reality but virtually. THEY
> HAVE WIRELESS PHONES THAT REQUIRE 120VAC TO POWER THE BASE STATIONS!
> They have 120VAC-powered superphones that WON'T MAKE THAT CALL in the
> dark! Look around anyone's house and note all the phones that RUN ON
> PHONE POWER ONLY....They're getting far between! You can't dial 911 on a
> 120VAC-powered phone!
>
> Keep your Sellphone handy....(c;
>
> Larry
That is why I keep a few plain, wired phones hooked up. :D
| |
|
| clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in news:7n2bt4-ldd.ln1
@remote.clifto.com:
> Don't know about where you live, but here you get 911 service
on your
> POTS pair even if you don't subscribe to a POTS service. So
only those
> who live in places that don't have twisted pair POTS facilities
don't
> have 911... which means, just about no one.
>
>
Shh...don't tell them. They're on a ROLL!
POTS must present 911 service because its FEDERAL LAW, just like
911 on an unconnected Sellphone.
Larry
--
Please - Turn OFF cruise control when
you turn on windshield wipers!
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-10-05, 3:33 pm |
|
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99BC84996A62
Bnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> ultimauw@hotmail.com wrote in news:1191220536.190049.6860
> @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> Very true. I know some Bell$outh linemen that say B$, now called ATT
> once again like the old days, has about 1500 disconnects loss each month,
> now. I haven't had a landline since 1992. What's the point? My phone
> stays in my pocket.
>
> Larry
> --
> Please - Turn OFF cruise control when
If it were not for my monitored alarm system at home I would be
landline(less) too.
> you turn on windshield wipers!
| |
|
| Larry wrote:
> Very true. I know some Bell$outh linemen that say B$, now called ATT
> once again like the old days, has about 1500 disconnects loss each month,
> now. I haven't had a landline since 1992. What's the point? My phone
> stays in my pocket.
Even if I had an alternative to my DSL lines, I'd still keep a traditional
copper pair land line.
1) Modem access to my remote points.
2) Less complicated fax'ing.
3) Electric company autoattendant won't (or at least didn't) answer a
unidentified cell phone number (no, I didn't have my caller ID blocked).
4) It will always work - save for a drunk hitting the utility pole outside.
| |
|
| DTC wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> Even if I had an alternative to my DSL lines, I'd still keep a
> traditional copper pair land line.
>
> 1) Modem access to my remote points.
> 2) Less complicated fax'ing.
Faxaway is pretty convenient as long as you have a scanner. It's pretty
inexpensive, much less than eFAX. It costs $1/month to maintain an account.
Even with a landline I can't FAX out of the area as I have no long
distance provider. I've never been able to FAX using OneSuite or TalkLoop.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-16, 4:33 am |
| At 15 Oct 2007 14:40:30 -0700 SMS wrote:
> Faxaway is pretty convenient as long as you have a scanner. It's
> pretty inexpensive, much less than eFAX. It costs $1/month to
> maintain an account.
I use fax1.com for outgoing- no monthly fees, just pure pay-as-you-go.
For incoming I have a grandfathered $3.95/year plan from Callwave that
uses one of their 775-area code numbers.
You can get free incoming fax-to-email from Officedigits.com- they're one
of those USF-scam operators that give you a free rural Iowa number for
fax (and VoIP) in return for soaking LD carriers with high termination
fees.
> Even with a landline I can't FAX out of the area as I have no
> long distance provider. I've never been able to FAX using OneSuite
> or TalkLoop.
Have you tried one of the no-monthly fee LD carriers like Pioneer
Telephone? They charge a straight $0.027/minute for state-to-state LD.
|
|
|
|
|