Verizon wireless - NEWS: More Americans go for cell phones, drop landlines

Author

NEWS: More Americans go for cell phones, drop landlines

John Navas

2007-05-15, 3:33 pm

<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...MNGMOPR2HE1.DTL>

Not so many years ago, the cell phone was considered a luxury item
while the landline was standard in every household.

My, how times have changed.

Today, the cell phone is regarded as a necessity by a growing number
of Americans -- especially the young and the poor -- while the
residential phone is becoming optional.

The trend, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, is not limited to just one or two demographic
groups but is slowly expanding to include all age and income groups.

According to the survey of 13,056 households across the nation, 29.1
percent of people ages 25 to 29 and 25.2 percent of the respondents
ages 18 to 24 have abandoned residential phones and rely solely on
cell phones.

[MORE]

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Scott

2007-05-15, 10:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:991k4395el5evnl
mg0990sc1ed6uga996l@
4ax.com:

> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c.../15/MNGMOPR2HE1
> .DTL>
>
> Not so many years ago, the cell phone was considered a luxury item
> while the landline was standard in every household.
>
> My, how times have changed.
>
> Today, the cell phone is regarded as a necessity by a growing
> number of Americans -- especially the young and the poor -- while
> the residential phone is becoming optional.
>
> The trend, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease
> Control and Prevention, is not limited to just one or two
> demographic groups but is slowly expanding to include all age and
> income groups.
>
> According to the survey of 13,056 households across the nation,
> 29.1 percent of people ages 25 to 29 and 25.2 percent of the
> respondents ages 18 to 24 have abandoned residential phones and
> rely solely on cell phones.
>
> [MORE]
>

A survey by the CDC regarding phones? Nothing like getting an expert
opinion (not).

13,056 household polled are supposed to represent a total population of
almost 302 million people? Doesn't such a small sample hint at inaccurate
result, Johhny?

SMS

2007-05-16, 4:33 am

Scott wrote:

> A survey by the CDC regarding phones? Nothing like getting an expert
> opinion (not).
>
> 13,056 household polled are supposed to represent a total population of
> almost 302 million people? Doesn't such a small sample hint at inaccurate
> result, Johhny?

LOL, actually the number of U.S. households is about 110 million, so
it's really 13,000 out of 110,000. Let's see, CR surveyed 43,000 out of
about 200 million. So the CR survey has a much lower margin of error.

What was the reason that the CDC undertook such a survey?

The Ghost of General Lee

2007-05-16, 4:33 am

On Tue, 15 May 2007 21:50:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>
>LOL, actually the number of U.S. households is about 110 million, so
>it's really 13,000 out of 110,000. Let's see, CR surveyed 43,000 out of
>about 200 million. So the CR survey has a much lower margin of error.
>
>What was the reason that the CDC undertook such a survey?

It was likely ancillary to some of their other research studies and
surveys. In previous surveys, they asked for phone numbers so they
could re-contact the participants. Why they cared if it was a cell
phone or land line, I don't know. Maybe you can make sense out of
their report.

http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nhis/e...eless200705.pdf

Todd H.

2007-05-16, 4:33 am

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> writes:

> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...MNGMOPR2HE1.DTL>
>
> Not so many years ago, the cell phone was considered a luxury item
> while the landline was standard in every household.
>
> My, how times have changed.

Indeed. But it's because, "my how prices have dropped, and that free
long distance stuff is pretty nice."

--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

sujay

2007-05-16, 4:33 am

On May 16, 10:27 am, t...@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> writes:
>
>
>
> Indeed. But it's because, "my how prices have dropped, and that free
> long distance stuff is pretty nice."
>
> --
> Todd H. http://toddh.net/

hey that result is amazing. we wonder how the mobile business shape up
in USA..

here is now tool for Mobile world
Would you like to receive all your emails from different accounts in
the same place, your mobile phone?

We would like to offer you an easy & convenient way to check your
emails while on the go. We realize the inconveniences you might be
facing. How often can you go to the cyber cafe? You have a GPRS
enabled phone but, you cannot open the attachments, you have different
email accounts, and it takes ages to log in and out of each one, you
worry about the phone charges..and so on. Keeping all this in mind, we
have MeOnGo for you.

MeOnGo transcends geographic barriers,works with all network
operators, and allows you to access all your mailboxes at the same
place. Whats more? It even allows you to download your
attachments(which was formerly possible only in Blackberry, other
smart phones and the like). It requires minimum data transfer(=
smaller phone bills).

All you need is a phone with a GPRS/GSM/3G or EDGE connection. Did we
mention that MeOnGo is completely FREE?

Security or privacy concerns? Please visit the link below...and let
MeOnGo do rest of the talking.

http://www.meongo.com

Reagards,

Sujay
http://www.net4nuts.com

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2007-05-16, 7:33 am

In alt.cellular.verizon SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> LOL, actually the number of U.S. households is about 110 million, so
> it's really 13,000 out of 110,000. Let's see, CR surveyed 43,000 out of
> about 200 million. So the CR survey has a much lower margin of error.
>
> What was the reason that the CDC undertook such a survey?
>

It seems to me that disease is easily and likely transfered by sharing
handsets. I know that in years past when all landlines were wired [no
wireless phones in homes], it was common to wipe the handset when a member of
the household was sick.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

John Navas

2007-05-16, 10:33 am

On Tue, 15 May 2007 21:50:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 464a8d7a$0$27218$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>
>LOL, actually the number of U.S. households is about 110 million, so
>it's really 13,000 out of 110,000. Let's see, CR surveyed 43,000 out of
>about 200 million. So the CR survey has a much lower margin of error.

Unfortunately, statistics doesn't work that way -- it's not just a
matter of sample size. CR suffers from being a self-selected sample of
a non-representative universe (as I've repeatedly explained).

--
Best regards, MOTOROLA WIKI:
John Navas <http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola>

John Navas

2007-05-16, 10:33 am

On 15 May 2007 23:12:00 -0700, sujay <slu27mi@gmail.com> wrote in
<1179295920.138639.100840@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:

>On May 16, 10:27 am, t...@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
[color=darkred]
>hey that result is amazing. we wonder how the mobile business shape up
>in USA..
>
>here is now tool for Mobile world
>Would you like to receive all your emails from different accounts in
>the same place, your mobile phone?
>[SNIP rest of spam]

Any excuse to spam?

--
Best regards, MOTOROLA WIKI:
John Navas <http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola>

Larry

2007-05-16, 10:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:991k4395el5evnl
mg0990sc1ed6uga996l@
4ax.com:

> rely solely on
> cell phones.
>

Oh, I wouldn't put it quite THAT way.....

Over 100,000,000 use (gasp) Skype! Something less use Vonage and the
other VoIP providers....(c;

Here, check out something new:
http://www.mobivox.com/
Skype for your cellphone...and CHEAP international LD for your cellphone.
Server based - no computer necessary - access numbers in lots of
countries.

I have a friend that does business in Europe. He calls Mobivox from his
hotel to its local number in whatever country he's in, then calls home
through Mobivox's FREE Skype connection back to Californicate. Pays only
for local phone call...only if he's in his hotel, though. Works neat,
VOICE controlled. Most western countries to phones is only 1.9USc/min

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.

Larry

2007-05-16, 10:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:pd8m43haa4cuc2e
dkp1rrh93ppneias1ik@
4ax.com:

> Any excuse to spam?
>
>

If he keeps spamming, I'll give his homepage to some boys I know at a major
university mainframe with some really serious unused bandwidth. That
damned thing can download around 12M webpages per second!....including his!

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.

The Ghost of General Lee

2007-05-16, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:46:15 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:991k4395el5evnl
mg0990sc1ed6uga996l@
4ax.com:
>

And our resident Skype whore/apologist chimes in...
[color=darkred]
>Oh, I wouldn't put it quite THAT way.....
>
>Over 100,000,000 use (gasp) Skype! Something less use Vonage and the
>other VoIP providers....(c;

They were referring to US households, so why even bring up that
alleged 100 million figure?

>Here, check out something new:

[snip]

Why not read the actual report before commenting with you unamusing,
unrelated anecdotes.

http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nhis/e...eless200705.pdf

Larry

2007-05-17, 4:33 am

The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
news:ca6n43d6ujjufb3
domsjggpvuge16ch0sl@
4ax.com:

> They were referring to US households, so why even bring up that
> alleged 100 million figure?
>
>

Because many of us are using Skype for our HOUSE phone, because it's SO
MUCH CHEAPER than both cellular and POTS... The Netgear SPH101 is my
HOUSE phone of choice, now....straight into my wireless router.....or
yours...(c;

I can talk to Greenville, SC or Saskatchewan all DAY, EVERY DAY for
$30/YEAR! NOONE beats Skype. Saskatchewan, or Tokyo, from my cellphone
on Mobivox is 1.9c/min + airtime, if it's daytime. That's also hard to
beat. It even beats Skype to Tokyo.

For a house phone, a Skype phone is a fantastic deal in the USA/Canada.

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.

Todd Allcock

2007-05-17, 4:33 am

At 16 May 2007 23:46:15 +0000 Larry wrote:

> Oh, I wouldn't put it quite THAT way.....
>
> Over 100,000,000 use (gasp) Skype!

No, 100,000,000 have (free) Skype accounts. I personally am three of
them (when I first signed up in the "free calls in 2006" era I didn't
know you could run one account simultaneously on multiple computers, so I
created seperate accounts for my PC, my laptop and my PPC.)

Today, the three accounts are still existant and I've used Skype for
maybe one phone call this calendar year.

> Something less use Vonage and the
> other VoIP providers....(c;
I'm not knocking Skype- I'm just saying their number of users claims are
inflated because many people will create a "free" account of ANY service
then rarely, if ever use it. Kind of how a free newspaper can claim
"millions of readers" when the vast majority of their papers are probably
used for birdcage/catbox liners and fire starters! ;-)

>
> Here, check out something new:
> http://www.mobivox.com/
> Skype for your cellphone...and CHEAP international LD for your cellphone.

> Server based - no computer necessary - access numbers in lots of
> countries.

Thanks for the tip- I did check it out when you posted it a few days ago,
but was disappointed that while it lets you call pre-defined Skype
contacts, it doesn't let you direct-dial via Skype. (For example, I can
call "Larry" the Skype contact, but not +12125551212.)

Please correct me if I'm wrong about that- their website was about as
clear as the proverbial mud.

> I have a friend that does business in Europe. He calls Mobivox from
his
> hotel to its local number in whatever country he's in, then calls home
> through Mobivox's FREE Skype connection back to Californicate. Pays
only
> for local phone call...only if he's in his hotel, though. Works neat,
> VOICE controlled. Most western countries to phones is only 1.9USc/min

Which is decent for international calls- but I was thinking it would work
great for the Alltel Circle/T-Mo myFaves crowd if you could make the
Mobivox local number a Circle/Fave number, then call it for "free" to
then bridge to anyone in the USA/Canada via the $30/year Skype Out
unlimited, thereby making all of your outgoing calls without using billed
cellular minutes. It seems that's not possible, but you could certainly
use it to leverage your 10th "circle" number to connect to any of an
unlimited number of Skype contacts. That'd give you a pretty big
"circle!"

For international calls, however, I still use Voicestick's "i2Bridge"
service- it kind of works like Mobivox but without the third party
company involvement. If dial my own Voicestick VoIP number from my cell,
it recognizes me by CID and gives me a dial tone to call internationally
for per-minute rates slightly better than Skype's and with no eBay-
enriching "connection fees."

But thanks again for the Mobivox tip- if I find T-Mo's limit of five
"Faves" too limiting I now know how to fix it! ;-)

The Ghost of General Lee

2007-05-17, 4:33 am

On Thu, 17 May 2007 05:06:38 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
> news:ca6n43d6ujjufb3
domsjggpvuge16ch0sl@
4ax.com:
>
>
>Because many of us are using Skype for our HOUSE phone, because it's SO
>MUCH CHEAPER than both cellular and POTS...

First, define "many" in the context being discussed.

Second, what relevance does that 100 million figure have WRT to the
CDC report? If you have a number of US VoIP users, then I could see
that number's relevance.

Third:

>straight into my wireless router.....or yours...(c;

Yes, you've repeatedly shown your propensity to steal bandwidth from
unsecured networks to download copyrighted movies and music. You're
nothing but a thief. At least I've disabled the wireless section of
my router, so no chance you or anyone else will steal any of my
bandwidth.

And finally:

>NOONE beats Skype.

You're still too stupid to spell "no one" correctly.

SMS

2007-05-17, 4:33 am

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 16 May 2007 23:46:15 +0000 Larry wrote:
>
>
> No, 100,000,000 have (free) Skype accounts. I personally am three of
> them (when I first signed up in the "free calls in 2006" era I didn't
> know you could run one account simultaneously on multiple computers, so I
> created seperate accounts for my PC, my laptop and my PPC.)
>
> Today, the three accounts are still existant and I've used Skype for
> maybe one phone call this calendar year.

Yeah, if Skype reported their customer count in 2007, after the free
deal ended, it'd be a lot less. I made a few calls on the free account
last year.

I guess if you have broadband cable internet then Skype is a pretty good
deal at $68/year for incoming and outgoing. For $30 you can buy a box
that hooks your home phone wiring to a computer. Does anyone make a box
that connects your home phone wiring directly to the cable, with some
sort of embedded controller rather than a PC?

If you have DSL, then Skype is probably not such a great deal as there
is almost no difference in cost between naked DSL and DSL plus landline
service. It'd be hard to spend $30/year on long distance when most long
distance calling is done on cell phones at no extra cost, or from a
landline at about 2¢ per minute.

Vonage is history, so few people would pay such a high monthly rate when
Skype is so much less.

DTC

2007-05-17, 10:33 am

SMS wrote:
> If you have DSL, then Skype is probably not such a great deal as there
> is almost no difference in cost between naked DSL and DSL plus landline
> service. It'd be hard to spend $30/year on long distance when most long
> distance calling is done on cell phones at no extra cost, or from a
> landline at about 2¢ per minute.
>
> Vonage is history, so few people would pay such a high monthly rate when
> Skype is so much less.

I agree. With the aggressive low cost long distance plans from the
telephone companies - something like $10 to $20 a month for UNLIMITED long
distance calls with much better quality, its going to be hard on the VoIP
providers to compete. I suppose they'll still find a market with
international calling.

I was about to sell a key-system phone system with sixteen telco phone
lines, but the guy wanted to go with a VoIP system and use the internet to
make all of his calls for free and not have to pay the telco for all of the
local dial tones. I'm about to explain to him that he still has to pay for
internet telephony provider accounts that will cost him almost $40 a month
per account - TWICE the cost of individual phone lines and not as good of
quality.

SMS

2007-05-17, 12:33 pm

DTC wrote:

>
> I agree. With the aggressive low cost long distance plans from the
> telephone companies - something like $10 to $20 a month for UNLIMITED
> long distance calls with much better quality, its going to be hard on
> the VoIP providers to compete. I suppose they'll still find a market
> with international calling.

It's not just the unlimited long distance plans, people are using their
off-peak and mobile to mobile cell phone minutes for long distance. I
have OneSuite set up on my home phone, and for when I travel outside the
country on my own dime, and I have trouble using up the $10/six month
minimum unless for some reason I'm using a lot of pay phones.

I don't care about the enhanced services. Caller ID is pretty worthless
in California, where more than half the landlines have Caller ID
blocking enabled all the time. Call waiting was nice before everyone
figured out that it's easier just to call the cell if the land line is busy.

Kurt

2007-05-17, 3:33 pm

In article < 464c8077$0$27238$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> DTC wrote:
>
>
> It's not just the unlimited long distance plans, people are using their
> off-peak and mobile to mobile cell phone minutes for long distance. I
> have OneSuite set up on my home phone, and for when I travel outside the
> country on my own dime, and I have trouble using up the $10/six month
> minimum unless for some reason I'm using a lot of pay phones.
>
> I don't care about the enhanced services. Caller ID is pretty worthless
> in California, where more than half the landlines have Caller ID
> blocking enabled all the time. Call waiting was nice before everyone
> figured out that it's easier just to call the cell if the land line is busy.

I've had all my phones Caller ID blocked since they foisted that
intrusive concept on us.
I don't return calls to people who have their lines blocked for
unidentifiable callers (me), either.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Todd Allcock

2007-05-17, 10:33 pm

At 17 May 2007 01:27:10 -0700 SMS wrote:

> Yeah, if Skype reported their customer count in 2007, after the free=

> deal ended, it'd be a lot less. I made a few calls on the free acco=
unt
> last year.

As did I, but mostly for gee-whiz testing purposes, because, as you sa=
id
(below) most of us already get our "free" LD from cellular.

=20
> I guess if you have broadband cable internet then Skype is a pretty
> good deal at $68/year for incoming and outgoing. For $30 you can buy=

> a box that hooks your home phone wiring to a computer. Does anyone
> make a box that connects your home phone wiring directly to the cabl=
e,
> with some sort of embedded controller rather than a PC?

Not yet at least, but I do have a couple of SIP boxes that work
standalone for SIP-compliant services like Voicestick and Stanaphone.

=20
> If you have DSL, then Skype is probably not such a great deal as the=
re
> is almost no difference in cost between naked DSL and DSL plus landl=
ine
> service. It'd be hard to spend $30/year on long distance when most l=
ong
> distance calling is done
> on cell phones at no extra cost, or from a landline at about 2=A2 pe=
r
> minute.

True enough. However, if you have a lot of international Skype contac=
ts,
it's good for free Skype-to-Skype calls.

=20
> Vonage is history, so few people would pay such a high monthly rate
> when Skype is so much less.
They're certainly in a bit of trouble (legally at the moment) but they=

might survive if they get their rates a little lower. Their rats aren=
't
that far out of line for an unlimited SIP-compatible service that does=
n't
require a PC. Skype's an anomaly- although dirt-cheap, they're non-
standard, needing a PC or dedicate Wi-Fi handset and require more "gee=
k
love" to use than SIP-compliant services.

=20

Dennis Ferguson

2007-05-17, 10:33 pm

On 2007-05-17, Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> require a PC. Skype's an anomaly- although dirt-cheap, they're non-
> standard, needing a PC or dedicate Wi-Fi handset and require more "geek
> love" to use than SIP-compliant services.

I don't know, I don't really find Skype all that cheap for calls that
are more than the $0.021 come-on rate. The rates I get on Cingular's
international long distance add-on often meet or beat a lot of the rest
of Skype's rates, in particular for calls to European mobiles and
Caribbean and Latin American countries.

I use Skype because I have use for international inbound numbers,
which Skype sells fairly cheaply, and because for travel I find it
less likely to be blocked (or blockable) than standard SIP when
used on hotel Internet service or at WiFi hotspots. I also forward
the Skype account to local mobiles to keep my regular numbers alive
but this, while convenient and (for me) reliable, can be more expensive
than I think it should be in countries where calls to mobiles are more
costly than the $0.021 rate.

Dennis Ferguson

BGhouse

2007-05-17, 10:33 pm

Larry <noone@home.com> sed:

> The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
>
>
> Because many of us are using Skype for our HOUSE phone, because it's
> SO MUCH CHEAPER than both cellular and POTS... The Netgear SPH101 is
> my HOUSE phone of choice, now....straight into my wireless
> router.....or yours...(c;
>
> I can talk to Greenville, SC or Saskatchewan all DAY, EVERY DAY for
> $30/YEAR! NOONE beats Skype. Saskatchewan, or Tokyo, from my
> cellphone on Mobivox is 1.9c/min + airtime, if it's daytime. That's
> also hard to beat. It even beats Skype to Tokyo.
>
> For a house phone, a Skype phone is a fantastic deal in the
> USA/Canada.

Right up to the minute yer home alone and yer ticker goes spastic on ya.
When you're lying there, clutching your Skype phone to your chest, you'll
be rethinking your decision to do away with your land line.

--
BG

The Ghost of General Lee

2007-05-17, 10:33 pm

On Thu, 17 May 2007 22:01:59 GMT, BGhouse <wjghouse@nospam.yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Larry <noone@home.com> sed:
>
>
>Right up to the minute yer home alone and yer ticker goes spastic on ya.
>When you're lying there, clutching your Skype phone to your chest, you'll
>be rethinking your decision to do away with your land line.

Larry disagrees.

From: http://tinyurl.com/ytvo34

>Call 911 on your cellphone...everyone here has. You don't need TWO 911
>phones. Skype is programmed on my phones to call the cops DIRECT on their
>LANDLINE number. 911 isn't any more necessary, now, than it was in 1960
>before it happened. You can STILL call the cops, directly to their
>dispatcher.....assuming you know where you live.

He assumes he'll be completely conscious and alert should the need to
dial 911 occur.

BGhouse

2007-05-17, 10:33 pm

The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> sed:

> On Thu, 17 May 2007 22:01:59 GMT, BGhouse <wjghouse@nospam.yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Larry disagrees.
>
> From: http://tinyurl.com/ytvo34
>

Uh, huh, and if the EMTs don't have your address, they'll be knocking on
the doors of all the houses within E911's circle of error, and peaking in
windows. Not good if you're laying upstairs praying for defibrillation
in the next few minutes.
[color=darkred]
> He assumes he'll be completely conscious and alert should the need to
> dial 911 occur.

Oh, well then he's good to go. Probably surrounded by loved ones too
....

I got rid of LD and all extras on the land-line, and use my cell for LD
and most calls. The monthly land-line bill is my 911 insurance plan.
Not cheap, but better'n the alternative at this juncture.

--
BG

Todd Allcock

2007-05-17, 10:33 pm

At 17 May 2007 16:17:55 -0500 Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> I don't know, I don't really find Skype all that cheap for calls that
> are more than the $0.021 come-on rate.

Agreed- I was referring to their unlimited outgoing to US/Canada for $15-
30/year (depending on when you purchased.)

Even the "low" 2.1-cent rate is commonly beaten by other VoIPs.

> The rates I get on Cingular's
> international long distance add-on often meet or beat a lot of the rest
> of Skype's rates, in particular for calls to European mobiles and
> Caribbean and Latin American countries.

But, arguably, the new trend in lower cellular international rates is due
partly to competitive pressures from VoIP providers, so we can probably
thank Skype and their ilk, even if we don't use them! ;-)

> I use Skype because I have use for international inbound numbers,
> which Skype sells fairly cheaply, and because for travel I find it
> less likely to be blocked (or blockable) than standard SIP when
> used on hotel Internet service or at WiFi hotspots.

While I'm ordinarily against non-standard implementations, in this case
I agree wholeheartedly. Skype works over any high-speed connection I've
ever tried, but "standard" SIP VoIP ports are sometimes blocked.

> I also forward
> the Skype account to local mobiles to keep my regular numbers alive
> but this, while convenient and (for me) reliable, can be more expensive
> than I think it should be in countries where calls to mobiles are more
> costly than the $0.021 rate.

Ahh, but at what price convenience, right? :-)

Todd Allcock

2007-05-18, 4:33 am

At 17 May 2007 19:31:16 -0400 The Ghost of General Lee wrote:

> Larry disagrees.
>
> From: http://tinyurl.com/ytvo34
>
>
> He assumes he'll be completely conscious and alert should the need to
> dial 911 occur.
>

To be fair, I'm guessing from his age and sunny disposition that he lives
alone. Therefore, unless the dog and goldfish are trained to dial 911,
he'll have to be alert enough to turn on his phone and press a few buttons.

The overwhelmingly likely odds are he'll be able to croak out an address.

Seriously, E911 is a great thing, but mankind managed without it for
nearly 2 million years (or 6000 years, depending on your belief system, I
suppose!)

If Larry decides to do without that bit of insurance to save a few bucks,
fine. He also has a perfectly good Alltel CDMA phone with E911 accurate
to 150 yards.

I suspect if Larry has a heart-attack tonight he'll not only dial
authorities successfully, he'll survive and post here telling us about it
within a day or two from his sickbed via "stolen" hospital wi-fi! ;-)

BGhouse

2007-05-18, 10:33 am

Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> sed:

> At 17 May 2007 19:31:16 -0400 The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>
>
> To be fair, I'm guessing from his age and sunny disposition that he
> lives alone. Therefore, unless the dog and goldfish are trained to
> dial 911, he'll have to be alert enough to turn on his phone and press
> a few buttons.
>
> The overwhelmingly likely odds are he'll be able to croak out an
> address.

I'm not sure I'd use the word "overwhemingly." Dailing and croaking
"help" might be all one can muster.

> Seriously, E911 is a great thing, but mankind managed without it for
> nearly 2 million years (or 6000 years, depending on your belief
> system, I suppose!)

Yup, all this stuff about medicine, hospitals, paramedics, E911 - they
all just serve to pull dollars outta our pockets and extend our misery.
God knows we were better off dying young rather than living with
dementia, cancer and aging, decrepid bodies.

> If Larry decides to do without that bit of insurance to save a few
> bucks, fine. He also has a perfectly good Alltel CDMA phone with E911
> accurate to 150 yards.

My Mom was dubbed "The Empresario of the Worst Case Scenario." There's
little doubt that I picked up more than a bit of that.

I have a nice, big yard surrounding my house, but there are 4 other
houses within that 150 yard circle. The vision of paramedics going from
door to door, looking for me as the minutes tick away, was the worst-case
scenario that kept me from giving up my land line.

> I suspect if Larry has a heart-attack tonight he'll not only dial
> authorities successfully, he'll survive and post here telling us about
> it within a day or two from his sickbed via "stolen" hospital wi-fi!
> ;-)

As long as he can croak out his address.

--
BG - Real men use leeches to rid their body of unhealthy humours.

Larry

2007-05-18, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in news:f2go26$8ca$4
@aioe.org:

> I'm not knocking Skype- I'm just saying their number of users claims
are
> inflated because many people will create a "free" account of ANY
service
> then rarely, if ever use it. Kind of how a free newspaper can claim
> "millions of readers" when the vast majority of their papers are
probably
> used for birdcage/catbox liners and fire starters! ;-)
>
>

That's true. I created a Skype account at our local Circuit City on a
laptop that has a built-in webcam....autoanswers anyone...(c; Circuit
City leaves everything running 24/7 so I can call it at 0200 and hear
what's going on in the store at 2AM. During business hours, I can see
who's looking at the computer...and, of course, actually talk to them,
which is fun. Store has free broadband wireless for everyone, including
my little spycam. One of the new salesmen came up to me while I was
chatting on the spycam with a friend in Kyoto, Japan, with video of
course. He'd never seen Skype, but has it at home, now. The look on his
face when my Japanese friend asked him about his funny shirt was
PRICELESS...(c;

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.

Larry

2007-05-18, 10:33 pm

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:464c11dd$0$2719
0
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Does anyone make a box
> that connects your home phone wiring directly to the cable, with some
> sort of embedded controller rather than a PC?
>

This is mine:

http://www.netgear.com/Products/Com...ype/SPH101.aspx
Connects direct to your wifi router on broadband at home....no computer.

No computer or wires necessary. Works great anywhere it can find a free
wifi that doesn't require webpage logon, which it doesn't support. It's
very thin, much thinner than my E815 cellphone. I'm amazed all the
places it finds. A little diner near home has no wifi. The bar next
door has a linksys wireless router on some kind of broadband it locks
onto just fine in the diner....even in the parking lot!

For those other places you want a Skype to Skype call...just use:
http://www.mobivox.com/
Mobivox is free to other Mobivox users, on Skype or their registered
numbers. Mobivox is free to ANY Skype users on the planet....straight
from your cellphone. It even uses your Skype contact list it gets from
the Skype server. Way cool with voice interface, which is great while
driving. Server based, no computer is necessary for it, either. To
phones in civilized places, it's 1.9c/min...cheap! You call an access
number from your cell (not even local because LD is free on cellular,
now). It recognizes your caller ID so doesn't ask for user/password and
you can just tell it who you want to talk to on skype or phone or just
tell it the number you want to call (with country code and area code, of
course). Calling Japan on Mobivox at 1.9c/min beats $1.50/min on a cell
carrier hands down! If you call the access number from another phone, it
asks for your username and password.

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.

Larry

2007-05-18, 10:33 pm

DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote in news:oPY2i.11618$j63.4334
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> and not as good of
> quality.
>

I keep hearing this nonsense, which just isn't true. Skype to phoneline
from my little netgear phone at HIGH sample rates just eats the crap out
of cellphone to phoneline on LOW sample rates every time! Skype uses
broadband, about 110Kbps, far above cellphone's poor 8 or 11Kbps codecs.

Just listen to music on hold on your crappy cellphone and on Skype
connected to a cable modem or DSL (not trying to use Skype on dialup it
isn't made for). Music on hold on my CDMA sounds like crap! People on
the phoneline ask me how I get the 000-012-3456 caller ID they're seeing
on their caller ID box. "Oh, I'm on Skype on the internet. Every Skype
caller will show 000-012-3456 caller ID". They are astonished having
already heard this bullshit that VoIP sounds awful and breaks up and has
some kind of awful lag. It's just NOT TRUE! Try it for yourself, on
broadband!

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.

Todd H.

2007-05-18, 10:33 pm

Larry <noone@home.com> writes:

> DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote in news:oPY2i.11618$j63.4334
> @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
> I keep hearing this nonsense, which just isn't true. Skype to phoneline
> from my little netgear phone at HIGH sample rates just eats the crap out
> of cellphone to phoneline on LOW sample rates every time! Skype uses
> broadband, about 110Kbps, far above cellphone's poor 8 or 11Kbps
> codecs.

But latency that it simply cannot control.

> Just listen to music on hold on your crappy cellphone

Cellphones are crap, it is true.

> and on Skype connected to a cable modem or DSL (not trying to use
> Skype on dialup it isn't made for). Music on hold on my CDMA sounds
> like crap! People on the phoneline ask me how I get the
> 000-012-3456 caller ID they're seeing on their caller ID box. "Oh,
> I'm on Skype on the internet. Every Skype caller will show
> 000-012-3456 caller ID". They are astonished having already heard
> this bullshit that VoIP sounds awful and breaks up and has some kind
> of awful lag. It's just NOT TRUE! Try it for yourself, on
> broadband!

VOIP often does sound like crap though is the problem. Sometimes good
where you can't notice it at all, but a non-trivial portion of the
time, latency bites em in the butt. Half the team I work with are on
broadband connected VOIP, and we hear strangeness from at least one of
them on at least most conference calls.

Nothing involving the internet can beat the reliability, constency and
voice quality of the POTS network.

The cost savings are significant though, and for many folks it's "good
enough." But don't try to paint it as a panacea.

--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

Larry

2007-05-18, 10:33 pm

BGhouse <wjghouse@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns9933B76D9BB6
1Chillyspewage@69.28.186.121:

> Right up to the minute yer home alone and yer ticker goes spastic on
> ya. When you're lying there, clutching your Skype phone to your
> chest, you'll be rethinking your decision to do away with your land
> line.
>
>
>

Click contacts
Click 911
Local police department landline number direct to 911 operator dials in
Skype, preprogrammed by me. I get the same operator, but I DO have to
tell her where I am because I could be anywhere on Skype.

You've been watching too much Ma Bell landline spam.....

Of course, it would as easy to just dial 911 on my GPS-ENABLED CELLPHONE,
which will tell 911 exactly where I am....within about 3 ft, not just a
house number....er, ah....in case I collapse mowing the back yard.

Bullshit...more anti-voip bullshit.

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.

Larry

2007-05-18, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in news:f2j8s8$5m9$1
@aioe.org:

> from his sickbed via "stolen" hospital wi-fi! ;-)
>

All our hospitals have free wifi. My Netgear Skype Phone logs right on in
any of them.....(c; It's not stolen, at all. Government program. The
whole central city in Charleston, SC, has free wifi at 110Kbps for
everyone, now. It only works downtown, but is expanding to other parts of
the city, soon. No logon is necessary. It makes Network Stumbler go crazy
driving around the central city there's so many signals on my laptop!

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.

SMS

2007-05-18, 10:33 pm

Larry wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:464c11dd$0$2719
0
> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>
> This is mine:
>
> http://www.netgear.com/Products/Com...ype/SPH101.aspx
> Connects direct to your wifi router on broadband at home....no computer.

No, I mean a box that connects between your wireless router and the your
house's phone wiring.

They have them for other VOIP systems.

Todd Allcock

2007-05-18, 10:33 pm

At 18 May 2007 22:39:39 +0000 Larry wrote:

>
> This is mine:
>
> http://www.netgear.com/Products/Com...ype/SPH101.aspx
> Connects direct to your wifi router on broadband at home....no computer.

But it doesn't "connect to your home phone wiring directly" which was the
question asked.

AFAIK, there is no Skype to RJ-11 interface that doesn't require a PC to
operate Skype for you, like there is for SIP VoIPs like Vonage,
Sunrocket, Voicestick, etc.

I have a Skype-to-RJ11 box but it needs a PC.

> No computer or wires necessary. Works great anywhere it can find a
> free
> wifi that doesn't require webpage logon, which it doesn't support.

Which makes it G-D useless IMHO. Except at home and when "borrowing"
your neighbor's Wi-Fi, perhaps.

Most free "commercial" Wi-Fi at hotels, coffee shops, etc. have at least
a T&C page you need to "accept" with a browser before gaining access. To
build a Wi-Fi phone without some type of low-end browser is just stupid.

> It's very thin...

Good, so you won't mind carrying it's useless a** around as much after it
fails to connect at the coffeeshop...

<Snip the rest of Larry's tired Skype commercials...>

Larry

2007-05-19, 4:33 am

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:464e37f4$0$2717
9
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> No, I mean a box that connects between your wireless router and the
your
> house's phone wiring.
>
>

http://www.voip-news-net.com/2006/1...motherboar.html
http://www.actiontec.com/products/c...w_usb/index.php

There's lots of them. Go to Google and enter:

Skype for house phones

into the search box. I'll let them spam YOUR browser, not mine...(c;

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.

Larry

2007-05-19, 4:33 am

Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in news:f2ldkj$8qv$4
@aioe.org:

> Which makes it G-D useless IMHO. Except at home and when "borrowing"
> your neighbor's Wi-Fi, perhaps.
>

zzzzZZZZ.....ask Google:

Skype for house phones.....

Lots of them around the planet.

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.

Larry

2007-05-19, 4:33 am

t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in news:84wsz54tg7.fsf@ripco.com:

> VOIP often does sound like crap though is the problem. Sometimes good
> where you can't notice it at all, but a non-trivial portion of the
> time, latency bites em in the butt. Half the team I work with are on
> broadband connected VOIP, and we hear strangeness from at least one of
> them on at least most conference calls.
>

You need a new carrier....

to Skype.com:
4 24.96.110.57 10ms 11ms 12ms TTL: 0 (ge.0-1-0.cr-
Char.SC.knology.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
5 24.214.0.5 22ms 22ms 21ms TTL: 0 (so.2-1-1.cr-
Atla.GA.US.knology.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
6 24.214.0.53 21ms 19ms 19ms TTL: 0 (ge.0-2-2.cr-
Atla.GA.US.knology.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
7 63.211.121.29 21ms 19ms 21ms TTL: 0 (ge-7-3-
105.car1.Atlanta1.Level3.net ok)
8 4.68.103.129 21ms 24ms 23ms TTL: 0 (ae-1-
55.bbr1.Atlanta1.Level3.net ok)
9 4.68.128.210 33ms 34ms 35ms TTL: 0 (ae-0-
0.bbr2.Washington1.Level3.net ok)
10 4.68.121.48 35ms 38ms 144ms TTL: 0 (ae-23-
52.car3.Washington1.Level3.net ok)
11 129.250.9.113 168ms 37ms * TTL: 0 (xe-1-
2.r04.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net ok)
12 129.250.2.180 39ms 39ms 39ms TTL: 0 (xe-1-1-
0.r21.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net ok)
13 129.250.2.8 42ms 44ms 43ms TTL: 0 (as-
0.r21.nycmny01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net ok)
14 129.250.5.4 52ms 57ms 52ms TTL: 0 (p64-0-3-
0.r21.chcgil09.us.bb.gin.ntt.net ok)
15 129.250.2.237 50ms 53ms 52ms TTL: 0 (xe-0-0-
0.r20.chcgil09.us.bb.gin.ntt.net ok)
16 129.250.16.11 52ms 54ms 53ms TTL: 0 (p16-3-0-
0.a00.chcgil01.us.ra.gin.ntt.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
17 129.250.223.66 104ms 63ms 59ms TTL: 0 (ge-2-1-
0.a00.chcgil01.us.ce.gin.ntt.net ok)
18 198.173.5.35 60ms 59ms 58ms TTL: 46 (No rDNS)

I'm 60ms from Skype's Chicago system....across the internet from
Knology.net's furthest East system in Charleston. TTL is only 46

You need a new carrier....

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.

Larry

2007-05-19, 4:33 am

t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in news:84wsz54tg7.fsf@ripco.com:

> Nothing involving the internet can beat the reliability, constency and
> voice quality of the POTS network.
>
>

Nothing on cellular can beat the FM quality and fidelity of an AMPS
bagphone, either. But, that's not reality any more....no system operator
gives a crap what your call sounds like, just how much money he can scam
from it.

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.

Todd Allcock

2007-05-19, 4:33 am

At 18 May 2007 22:54:12 +0000 Larry wrote:

> Of course, it would as easy to just dial 911 on my GPS-ENABLED CELLPHONE,

> which will tell 911 exactly where I am....within about 3 ft, not just a
> house number....er, ah....in case I collapse mowing the back yard.

More like 500 feet. CDMA A-GPS E911 systems are accurate to about 150
yards.

> Bullshit...more anti-voip bullshit.

No, it's anti-Skype. US-based VoIP provides are provided to pass E911
info- Voicestick made me enter my E911 location when I signed up. Even
though I have a Rhode Island number, Voicestick knows I'm in Denver.

Todd Allcock

2007-05-19, 4:33 am

At 19 May 2007 03:47:04 +0000 Larry wrote:

>
>
> http://www.voip-news-net.com/2006/1...motherboar.html
> http://www.actiontec.com/products/c...w_usb/index.php

What part of "without a computer" don't you understand? The first link
is to a device that sits INSIDE a PC, and the second is an external USB
device.

> There's lots of them. Go to Google and enter:
>
> Skype for house phones
>
> into the search box. I'll let them spam YOUR browser, not mine...(c;

Obviously you're so afraid of "browser spam" that you didn't actually look.

Yes, Larry, there are lots of Skype-to-RJ11 boxes. And EVERY ONE
requires connection to a PC running Skype.

So, again, to answer SMS' question: no, there no Skype ATAs that do not
require a PC, like there are for SIP-compliant providers.

Todd H.

2007-05-19, 4:33 am

Larry <noone@home.com> writes:

> t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in news:84wsz54tg7.fsf@ripco.com:
>
>
> You need a new carrier....

No, I don't actually--I have POTS and don't have these problems.

I hereby give you a cookie for your ping latencies though Larry.

--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

Todd H.

2007-05-19, 4:33 am

Larry <noone@home.com> writes:

> t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in news:84wsz54tg7.fsf@ripco.com:
>
>
> Nothing on cellular can beat the FM quality and fidelity of an AMPS
> bagphone, either. But, that's not reality any more....no system operator
> gives a crap what your call sounds like, just how much money he can scam
> from it.

Many folks selling VOIP appear to behave similarly.

[recalls my relative with AT&T broadband phone service when I get
directly to their voicemail half the time even though no one's on the
phone]

Did I call your baby ugly or something? You seem awfully defensive
about folks saying that VOIP still isn't what a landline is. I don't
think the point is all that arguable. Your skype works great for
you--which is really wonderful. But I've run into a lot of folks
with lousy echoey VOIP lines who stick out for all those pesky real
world internet issues that you can't ignore.

--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

LinkBot