Finding the keyboard operational
Ange1o DePa1ma entered:
> It may be time to purchase stock in one of the VOIP companies if the
> story in this link is true:
>
> http://www.mercola.com/2005/sep/6/de...one_system.htm
>
> Looks like some sort of long-range, continuous VOIP implementation is
> on the way. Once that happens you can kiss the cell companies goodbye.
>
> Angelo
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:09:13 GMT, "The Other Funk"
<bobbie@moondoggie.com> wrote:
>Finding the keyboard operational
> Ange1o DePa1ma entered:
>
>> It may be time to purchase stock in one of the VOIP companies if the
>> story in this link is true:
>>
>> http://www.mercola.com/2005/sep/6/de...one_system.htm
>>
>> Looks like some sort of long-range, continuous VOIP implementation is
>> on the way. Once that happens you can kiss the cell companies goodbye.
>>
>> Angelo
>
>Why does Dr. Mercola need my email address?
>
>--?
>--?
>Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
>www.moondoggiecoffee.com
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:09:13 GMT, "The Other Funk"
<bobbie@moondoggie.com> wrote:
>Finding the keyboard operational
> Ange1o DePa1ma entered:
>
>> It may be time to purchase stock in one of the VOIP companies if the
>> story in this link is true:
>>
>> http://www.mercola.com/2005/sep/6/de...one_system.htm
>>
>> Looks like some sort of long-range, continuous VOIP implementation is
>> on the way. Once that happens you can kiss the cell companies goodbye.
>>
>> Angelo
>
>Why does Dr. Mercola need my email address?
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
> It may be time to purchase stock in one of the VOIP companies if the story
> in this link is true:
>
> http://www.mercola.com/2005/sep/6/de...one_system.htm
>
> Looks like some sort of long-range, continuous VOIP implementation is on the
> way. Once that happens you can kiss the cell companies goodbye.
>
> Angelo
>
>
Talk about total clueless overhype. They describe hybrid handsets (which
aren't new) which would work with both WiFi and cellular system and then
offer this:
"Just as many people dropped their land lines, nearly everyone will be
dropping their cell phone carriers. The reason? Rock bottom prices. No
longer will you pay over $100 a month for your cell phone. You will pay
$25 for your home AND cell phone for UNLIMITED use. Also remember that
you avoid paying taxes or hidden fees. Just $25 a month."
Rich wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:09:13 GMT, "The Other Funk"
> <bobbie@moondoggie.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Finding the keyboard operational
>>Ange1o DePa1ma entered:
>>
>>
>>>It may be time to purchase stock in one of the VOIP companies if the
>>>story in this link is true:
>>>
>>>http://www.mercola.com/2005/sep/6/de...one_system.htm
>>>
>>>Looks like some sort of long-range, continuous VOIP implementation is
>>>on the way. Once that happens you can kiss the cell companies goodbye.
>>>
>>>Angelo
>>
>>Why does Dr. Mercola need my email address?
>>
>>--?
>>--?
>>Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
>>www.moondoggiecoffee.com
>
>
> same question.
>
> 73,
> rich, n9dko
Me three!
--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life
> "Just as many people dropped their land lines, nearly everyone will be
> dropping their cell phone carriers. The reason? Rock bottom prices. No
> longer will you pay over $100 a month for your cell phone. You will pay
> $25 for your home AND cell phone for UNLIMITED use. Also remember that
> you avoid paying taxes or hidden fees. Just $25 a month."
I've had cell phones since 1995. Never paid anywhere near $100 a month.
AFAIK, one needs a broadband connection from someplace for that system
to work. Where does the broadband come from?
Sorry, I didn't feel like fooling with email addresses on the site. So I
didn't read it.
--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life
"The Other Funk" <bobbie@moondoggie.com> wrote in message
news:d1N0h.687$mX4.272@trndny03...
> Finding the keyboard operational
> Ange1o DePa1ma entered:
>
>> It may be time to purchase stock in one of the VOIP companies if the
>> story in this link is true:
>>
>> http://www.mercola.com/2005/sep/6/de...one_system.htm
>>
>> Looks like some sort of long-range, continuous VOIP implementation is
>> on the way. Once that happens you can kiss the cell companies goodbye.
>>
>> Angelo
>
> Why does Dr. Mercola need my email address?
>
> --
> --
> Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
> www.moondoggiecoffee.com
>
"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
news:5qd7k2l0ia69gp8qflfvmras9umktddve6@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:09:13 GMT, "The Other Funk"
> <bobbie@moondoggie.com> wrote:
>
>>Finding the keyboard operational
>> Ange1o DePa1ma entered:
>>
>>> It may be time to purchase stock in one of the VOIP companies if the
>>> story in this link is true:
>>>
>>> http://www.mercola.com/2005/sep/6/de...one_system.htm
>>>
>>> Looks like some sort of long-range, continuous VOIP implementation is
>>> on the way. Once that happens you can kiss the cell companies goodbye.
>>>
>>> Angelo
>>
>>Why does Dr. Mercola need my email address?
>
> Just give it a properly formatted bogus one.
I just opened the site the second time to use a bogus address and it didn't
ask for one.
Ange1o DePa1ma <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
> It may be time to purchase stock in one of the VOIP companies if the story
> in this link is true:
>
> http://www.mercola.com/2005/sep/6/de...one_system.htm
>
> Looks like some sort of long-range, continuous VOIP implementation is on the
> way. Once that happens you can kiss the cell companies goodbye.
>
I doubt it, as there will almost certainly never be wireless coverage out in
the sticks. They are just offering the ability to "roam" onto the Internet
via a usable wireless connection.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Talk about total clueless overhype. They describe hybrid handsets (which
> aren't new) which would work with both WiFi and cellular system and then
> offer this:
>
> "Just as many people dropped their land lines, nearly everyone will be
> dropping their cell phone carriers. The reason? Rock bottom prices. No
> longer will you pay over $100 a month for your cell phone. You will pay
> $25 for your home AND cell phone for UNLIMITED use. Also remember that
> you avoid paying taxes or hidden fees. Just $25 a month."
Don't discount the facts. T-Mobile is investing in just such a roaming
technology. What should be discounted is the conclusion that traditional
wireless is going to suffer from this. That I am quite sure will not be the
case.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
I suspect you are much younger than I or were not paying attention to what
has happened in telecom over the past 20 years. When I first moved to
semi-rural NJ my phone bills were $500-600 a month. Now they're under $40.
AT&T was too large to fail -- where is it now?
I believe Verizon will be around in 20 years because they're investing in
fiber optics, but I guarantee their phone service (landline and otherwise)
will eventually shrivel up and become a minor entry in their bottom line.
There is no point having a crippled cell phone for $69 a month when you can
have unlimited worldwide phone service for much less. Verizon can't stop
progress. As my father in law has been saying for several years, telephone
service will eventually be free or nearly so, like tap water at Yankee
Stadium.
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Kvn1h.2411$Yy1.2266@textfe.usenetserver.com.. .
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Talk about total clueless overhype. They describe hybrid handsets (which
>> aren't new) which would work with both WiFi and cellular system and then
>> offer this:
>>
>> "Just as many people dropped their land lines, nearly everyone will be
>> dropping their cell phone carriers. The reason? Rock bottom prices. No
>> longer will you pay over $100 a month for your cell phone. You will pay
>> $25 for your home AND cell phone for UNLIMITED use. Also remember that
>> you avoid paying taxes or hidden fees. Just $25 a month."
>
> Don't discount the facts. T-Mobile is investing in just such a roaming
> technology. What should be discounted is the conclusion that traditional
> wireless is going to suffer from this. That I am quite sure will not be
> the
> case.
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
>
>
In article <v6idndiEa4oSzNvYUSdV9g@ptd.net>, Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
> I suspect you are much younger than I or were not paying attention to what
> has happened in telecom over the past 20 years. When I first moved to
> semi-rural NJ my phone bills were $500-600 a month. Now they're under $40.
> AT&T was too large to fail -- where is it now?
Back again. SBC was already the largest telco of the Baby Bells, and
if they end up buying BellSOUTH, they'll be even bigger.
Before accusing someone else of not paying attention to the industry, you
need to remember that the FCC is the ILECs' lapdog.
> I believe Verizon will be around in 20 years because they're investing in
> fiber optics
So, supposedly, is The New at&t.
> There is no point having a crippled cell phone for $69 a month when you can
> have unlimited worldwide phone service for much less.
Name anyone, telco or otherwise, who is offering that.
I now have a landline from my cable company - it's not VoIP, it's POTS over
fiber instead of POTS over copper. I get free unlimited domestic calls and
can pay a small monthly fee to get unlimited calls to Mexico and Canada, but
worldwide? Nuh-uh.
I think I do understand where you were going with this post, and I agree to
a certain extent, but things can't slide much further... and the telcos are
only doing the commodity pricing because they have to. As they grow and re-form
one or two big phone companies, they're going to offer less and less. Verizon
is mostly clueless, but SBC is evil... they were still trying to screw people
five or six years ago, and it will only get worse.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrnekclvo.l5m.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net.. .
> In article <v6idndiEa4oSzNvYUSdV9g@ptd.net>, Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
>> I suspect you are much younger than I or were not paying attention to
>> what
>> has happened in telecom over the past 20 years. When I first moved to
>> semi-rural NJ my phone bills were $500-600 a month. Now they're under
>> $40.
>> AT&T was too large to fail -- where is it now?
>
> Back again. SBC was already the largest telco of the Baby Bells, and
> if they end up buying BellSOUTH, they'll be even bigger.
>
> Before accusing someone else of not paying attention to the industry, you
> need to remember that the FCC is the ILECs' lapdog.
>
>> I believe Verizon will be around in 20 years because they're investing in
>> fiber optics
>
> So, supposedly, is The New at&t.
>
>> There is no point having a crippled cell phone for $69 a month when you
>> can
>> have unlimited worldwide phone service for much less.
>
> Name anyone, telco or otherwise, who is offering that.
>
> I now have a landline from my cable company - it's not VoIP, it's POTS
> over
> fiber instead of POTS over copper. I get free unlimited domestic calls and
> can pay a small monthly fee to get unlimited calls to Mexico and Canada,
> but
> worldwide? Nuh-uh.
POTS simply doesn't work over fiber. Sorry. POTS provides power from
central. Fiber does not.
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrnekclvo.l5m.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net.. .
> Before accusing someone else of not paying attention to the industry, you
> need to remember that the FCC is the ILECs' lapdog.
True enough, but the feds have pretty much kept their hands off new telecom
technologies. Half the cost of my Sprint land line is taken up with taxes
and mysterious fees. My Lingo phone costs me $21 a month, period, end of
story.
If you don't believe telephony will be free or nearly so, there's a new
service now, FuturePhone (www.futurephone.com), which allows you to call
anywhere in the world simply by dialing into a number in Indiana. Ergo, use
your Verizon minutes -- including free night and weekend minutes -- to dial
in to FuturePhone, and when prompted enter any phone number for anyone,
anywhere in the world. It's completely free (I haven't tried it yet).
>> I believe Verizon will be around in 20 years because they're investing in
>> fiber optics
>
> So, supposedly, is The New at&t.
New wireless technology might even make FIOS obsolete. It's a fast-changing
world, my friend.
>> There is no point having a crippled cell phone for $69 a month when you
>> can
>> have unlimited worldwide phone service for much less.
>
> Name anyone, telco or otherwise, who is offering that.
We are beginning to see that. My VOIP service gives me unlimited calls to
North America and 20 European countries for a flat $21 a month. Call quality
is SUPERB. Skype allows you to call any Skype user worldwide for free, and
almost anywhere else for much less than any phone company -- and without
taxes or fees. And the quality is even better than for VOIP or traditional
phones.
It's not quite the Nirvana that Larry envisions unfolding some time next
week, but we're about halfway there. We have the technology to provide free
or almost free phone calls, companies willing to provide those services, and
billions of people waiting to take advantage of it. I don't think U.S.
consumers will stand for the kind of regulation that stifled innovation
until the AT&T breakup, or which keeps us 5 years behind Europe and Asia
with mobile phone service.
>>
>> I now have a landline from my cable company - it's not VoIP, it's POTS
>> over
>> fiber instead of POTS over copper. I get free unlimited domestic calls and
>> can pay a small monthly fee to get unlimited calls to Mexico and Canada,
>> but
>> worldwide? Nuh-uh.
>
> POTS simply doesn't work over fiber. Sorry. POTS provides power from
> central. Fiber does not.
>
>
Sure it does. In the case of FiOS they install a media converter (can't
remember the name they use) at the demarc point. It has an F connector
for CATV, a RJ-45 for Ethernet and a RJ-11 for POTS. You plug that into
your existing phone circuit and all of your POTS equipment works as
usual. In this case battery comes from the media converter.
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:P9SdndcF9biOy9rYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@adelphia.com :
> Sure it does. In the case of FiOS they install a media converter (can't
> remember the name they use) at the demarc point. It has an F connector
> for CATV, a RJ-45 for Ethernet and a RJ-11 for POTS. You plug that into
> your existing phone circuit and all of your POTS equipment works as
> usual. In this case battery comes from the media converter.
>
>
OUCH! I can attest to the battery on the TV cable for telephone service!
There's 80+ volts across my coax because the guy who installed it forgot to
pull the jumper across the decoupling capacitor in the post outside. I
know it's there because I GOT BIT!....(c;
It's POTS in the house...but VoIP very soon...
Larry
--
I sure hope Halloween comes real soon....
I've run out of Halloween candy THREE TIMES SO FAR!
In article <uMA1h.163$l25.3@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net> , Thomas M. Goethe wrote:
>> I now have a landline from my cable company - it's not VoIP, it's POTS
>> over
>> fiber instead of POTS over copper. I get free unlimited domestic calls and
>> can pay a small monthly fee to get unlimited calls to Mexico and Canada,
>> but
>> worldwide? Nuh-uh.
>
> POTS simply doesn't work over fiber. Sorry. POTS provides power from
> central. Fiber does not.
It's not VoIP. My existing physical phone wiring connects to a "telephony modem"
which connects to the cable company's fiber plant.
It's still POTS as far as I'm concerned. It can't really be considered
anything else, although POTS may not be an accurate name for the service
that is being provided.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
In article <drScnT-u8NkKdNvYUSdV9g@ptd.net>, Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
> It's not quite the Nirvana that Larry envisions unfolding some time next
> week, but we're about halfway there. We have the technology to provide free
> or almost free phone calls, companies willing to provide those services, and
> billions of people waiting to take advantage of it. I don't think U.S.
> consumers will stand for the kind of regulation that stifled innovation
> until the AT&T breakup, or which keeps us 5 years behind Europe and Asia
> with mobile phone service.
I'll agree with that, but I am too pessimistic to believe that the ILECs won't
attempt to regulate currently-unregulated technologies to skew the market in
their favor. I've dealt with the telcos many times since I started my IT career
as an ISP techie eleven years ago. I don't trust them.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrnekfbr5.rh9.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net.. .
> In article <drScnT-u8NkKdNvYUSdV9g@ptd.net>, Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
>
>> It's not quite the Nirvana that Larry envisions unfolding some time next
>> week, but we're about halfway there. We have the technology to provide
>> free
>> or almost free phone calls, companies willing to provide those services,
>> and
>> billions of people waiting to take advantage of it. I don't think U.S.
>> consumers will stand for the kind of regulation that stifled innovation
>> until the AT&T breakup, or which keeps us 5 years behind Europe and Asia
>> with mobile phone service.
>
> I'll agree with that, but I am too pessimistic to believe that the ILECs
> won't
> attempt to regulate currently-unregulated technologies to skew the market
> in
> their favor. I've dealt with the telcos many times since I started my IT
> career
> as an ISP techie eleven years ago. I don't trust them.
Sure they'll try. Just as the cable companies are going to claim movies on
demand by FIOS cause cancer. Politicians will get up and scream about losing
tax revenues. And current ISPs will claim some unwritten "license" (even as
they see their per-customer revenues erode). The problem is this technology
is approaching from every direction. VOIP is already here. Skype is already
free. It would require a truly concerted -- not to mention Machiavelian --
approach to squelch this stuff
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
news:slrnekfbr5.rh9.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:
> I'll agree with that, but I am too pessimistic to believe that the
> ILECs won't attempt to regulate currently-unregulated technologies to
> skew the market in their favor. I've dealt with the telcos many times
> since I started my IT career as an ISP techie eleven years ago. I
> don't trust them.
>
>
That's going to be quite a task. Skype is in LUXEMBOURGH to avoid the
tax bureaucrats in England. I'd think the Luxembourgh government would
take a dim view of American bureaucrats harassing their country's
companies....who have NO PRESENCE in America to seize or threaten.
What are they gonna do, cut off the Benelux countries from the net? Ha!
The IRS and FCC are NOT omnipotent!
Larry
--
I'm manning the talking pumpkin, tonight, same as every Halloween. Most
kids never talked to a pumpkin with a
candle in it, before.
(Radio Shack little intercom makes it easier to hear them,
this year.)
When he brings back his friends, the stupid pumpkin says
nothing. Pumpkins can't talk, you know....(c;
If he/she comes to the door and says the pumpkin talked to
him/her, he/she gets a golden dollar coin, instead of the
In article <6C-dndySIN6HdNrYUSdV9g@ptd.net>, Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
> Who the heck is ILEC by the way?
Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier - the company providing phone service before
there was any competition. Cf. CLEC, Competitive Local Exchange Carrier.
Most, but not all, ILECs are also RBOCs or were at one point - Regional
Bell Operating Companies, companies formed by the breakup of the original
AT&T. But there are a large number of carriers that aren't, most notably
Sprint which, before shedding their landline business, was the ILEC in much
of Florida as well as in Las Vegas.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
On 2006-11-01, Steven J. Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> In article <6C-dndySIN6HdNrYUSdV9g@ptd.net>, Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
>
>> Who the heck is ILEC by the way?
>
> Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier - the company providing phone service before
> there was any competition. Cf. CLEC, Competitive Local Exchange Carrier.
>
> Most, but not all, ILECs are also RBOCs or were at one point - Regional
> Bell Operating Companies, companies formed by the breakup of the original
> AT&T. But there are a large number of carriers that aren't, most notably
> Sprint which, before shedding their landline business, was the ILEC in much
> of Florida as well as in Las Vegas.
Why don't I remember that about Sprint? The places I lived in
Florida were all Bellsouth, while I could have sworn that Las Vegas
was Pacific Bell territory.
In article <slrnekgkao.bo.dcferguson@dennispc.local>, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> Why don't I remember that about Sprint? The places I lived in
> Florida were all Bellsouth, while I could have sworn that Las Vegas
> was Pacific Bell territory.
As I understand it, the rest of Nevada was PacBell/NevBell/SBC/at&T and
Vegas was Sprint, except now that Sprint is out of the landline business
Vegas is controlled by Embarq (the landline co. they spun off)
A large chunk of Florida is Bellsouth. A significant portion of central
Florida, however, was United Telephone/Sprint IIRC.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
In article <hmshk2pk0tlggn5ikeo9k6ca10junj2as5@4ax.com>, The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>>A large chunk of Florida is Bellsouth. A significant portion of central
>>Florida, however, was United Telephone/Sprint IIRC.
>
> Is that the same part that used to be GTE (basically the 813 and 727
> area codes)?
Might be, or might not be. Google for "United Telephone of Florida" - that
may help you find the answer. I don't have it.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
Death knell for traditional cellular service? 
Google for "United Telephone of Florida" - that
Linear Mode
