""We don't want to be a barrier to entry," Lowell McAdam, CEO of Verizon
Wireless, said at the developer conference where the specifications for
the new program were revealed last month. "But as all of you can
appreciate with 65 million customers and billions of dollars of
investment in our network, we need to protect our customers and our
assets.""
Many old farts, like me, will remember this same line of complete
bullshit from the Bell Telephone Company about connecting consumer owned
equipment DIRECTLY to the Bell Telephone Network WITHOUT buying a very
expensive "coupler" that was supposed to "protect the system from harm",
but was, in fact, a scam to make it too expensive for consumers to
attach their own phones to the same place as they plugged in the RENTED
BELL TELEPHONE PHONE they were paying for every month.
We hams got in hot water by ordering telephone lines for our remote
repeater sites and connecting some really nice radio interconnect
equipment between our FM VHF/UHF repeater systems...and the phone line
our ham clubs were paying commercial rates (another scam) for. One of
the local hams where I lived worked for $outhern Bell, in operations.
He made our connection legal by bringing us the "coupler" for the
repeater system the big Bells were trying to prevent from bypassing
their payphones across the country. He nearly got fired over that
damned coupler after 20 years of loyal service when some bureaucrat
found out about it. The only thing that saved him and his job was the
local newspaper touting the emergency communications aspect of our ham
radio system, now with all underground telephone interconnect that could
be used in times of emergency by the hams in the county.
$outhern Bell, and all the other Bells, did everything it could to
prevent customer-owned anything from being connected to the Bell System
for years and years....dragging its bureaucratic feet for years and
years after the FCC FORCED it upon them.
This is EXACTLY what Verizon Wireless, and the other carriers, are doing
using the same old scare tactics of system destruction and interruption
from CPE (customer provided equipment).
They'll fight it to their dying breath, no matter what the propaganda
arm of this toad is printing.....
Re: Verizon not really planning on opening their network
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.]
On 2008-04-08, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
> news:slrnfvktgk.eij.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:
>
>> http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-991...?tag=nefd.lede
>
> ""We don't want to be a barrier to entry," Lowell McAdam, CEO of Verizon
What saddened me is that Sprint is also screwing around, and they
traditionally have had some of the best plans in the universe for data users.
But am I surprised? Nope.
When cellular airtime went from being a luxury to a commodity -- even
prepaid is cheap, as one of the local Kroger grocery chains is now
selling $5 per month/10c per minute prepaid palns -- that's when this all
started...
Re: Verizon not really planning on opening their network
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A79CF7A26700noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
> news:slrnfvktgk.eij.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:
>
>> http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-991...?tag=nefd.lede
>
> ""We don't want to be a barrier to entry," Lowell McAdam, CEO of Verizon
> Wireless, said at the developer conference where the specifications for
> the new program were revealed last month. "But as all of you can
> appreciate with 65 million customers and billions of dollars of
> investment in our network, we need to protect our customers and our
> assets.""
>
> Many old farts, like me, will remember this same line of complete
> bullshit from the Bell Telephone Company about connecting consumer owned
> equipment DIRECTLY to the Bell Telephone Network WITHOUT buying a very
> expensive "coupler" that was supposed to "protect the system from harm",
> but was, in fact, a scam to make it too expensive for consumers to
> attach their own phones to the same place as they plugged in the RENTED
> BELL TELEPHONE PHONE they were paying for every month.
>
> We hams got in hot water by ordering telephone lines for our remote
> repeater sites and connecting some really nice radio interconnect
> equipment between our FM VHF/UHF repeater systems...and the phone line
> our ham clubs were paying commercial rates (another scam) for. One of
> the local hams where I lived worked for $outhern Bell, in operations.
> He made our connection legal by bringing us the "coupler" for the
> repeater system the big Bells were trying to prevent from bypassing
> their payphones across the country. He nearly got fired over that
> damned coupler after 20 years of loyal service when some bureaucrat
> found out about it. The only thing that saved him and his job was the
> local newspaper touting the emergency communications aspect of our ham
> radio system, now with all underground telephone interconnect that could
> be used in times of emergency by the hams in the county.
>
> $outhern Bell, and all the other Bells, did everything it could to
> prevent customer-owned anything from being connected to the Bell System
> for years and years....dragging its bureaucratic feet for years and
> years after the FCC FORCED it upon them.
>
> This is EXACTLY what Verizon Wireless, and the other carriers, are doing
> using the same old scare tactics of system destruction and interruption
> from CPE (customer provided equipment).
>
> They'll fight it to their dying breath, no matter what the propaganda
> arm of this toad is printing.....
>
Having standards for devices on the Verizon network makes sense. Hopefully,
the standards and certification are reasonable.
The old Bell System just said no to anything. The FCC established standards
so folks could connect CPE.
In the mid to late 1970s I connected an answering machine to my line and
called the phone company with the FCC registration number. The phone
company billed me for the wiring of the connection of the machine, even
though I did the work myself. They were quite insistent.
Re: Verizon not really planning on opening their network
Go and read the requirements for the Open Device Initiative, not some
reporter's take on it. It's true that the there are some certification
rules, but they are not onerous by any stretch, and really do just protect
the network. The analogy of a mobile phone system with the Internet is
bogus. They have some similarities, but it is their differences that are
very important in this model, and some of the same ones that make mobile
different from landline.
What do you want from "Open Network"? Should the network support TDMA?
Analog? If it locks up the access channel on a cell site and no one else in
the cell can use the service, does the carrier just have to go, "Oh well,
the network is 'Open'"?
Yes, I work for Verizon Wireless, but please, go and read the documentation,
freely available on the web, and then argue with the real facts.
Re: Verizon not really planning on opening their network
"Mike Gorman" <yeahright@carolina.rr.com> wrote in
news:47fc93de$0$4941$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> If it locks up the access channel on a cell site and no one else in
> the cell can use the service, does the carrier just have to go, "Oh
> well, the network is 'Open'"?
>
> Yes, I work for Verizon Wireless, but please, go and read the
> documentation, freely available on the web, and then argue with the
> real facts.
>
Sounds just like Ma Bell just before FCC forced them to let me have my own
phone plugged into the line.....not renting a phone from Ma Bell.
We both know the access channel has a timeout timer, right??
Re: Verizon not really planning on opening their network
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.]
On 2008-04-09, Mike Gorman <yeahright@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
> What do you want from "Open Network"? Should the network support TDMA?
> Analog?
Nope, not TDMA, TDMA is a dead standard. Analog you could maybe make a
case for since some rural operators are probably going to be running AMPS
for a while, even though they no longer have to, but I can see no point at all
in including TDMA.
> If it locks up the access channel on a cell site and no one else in
> the cell can use the service, does the carrier just have to go, "Oh well,
> the network is 'Open'"?
No. It's not the certification itself that I have a problem with. I don't
trust Verizon. I could easily see them only certifying a small number of
devices, most or all of which the company itself sells. That's the problem.
Re: Verizon not really planning on opening their network
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:17:02 +0000, Larry wrote:
> Many old farts, like me, will remember this same line of complete
> bullshit from the Bell Telephone Company about connecting consumer owned
> equipment DIRECTLY to the Bell Telephone Network WITHOUT buying a very
> expensive "coupler" that was supposed to "protect the system from harm",
> but was, in fact, a scam to make it too expensive for consumers to
> attach their own phones to the same place as they plugged in the RENTED
> BELL TELEPHONE PHONE they were paying for every month.
When I was a high school student then I ran 30 gauge wire through the cracks
in the wood planking and connected the wires by soldering them to the phone
line (then twisted pair) under the nails holding the line to the planks so I
could have a "hidden" phone patch setup on my ham radio system. I did a lot
of patching for overseas military people to their families here in the
states.
Re: Verizon not really planning on opening their network
Strongbox <strongbox@no.mail> wrote in
news:hgwywu2l5jvz$.17xbfdqdo999h$.dlg@40tude.net:
> When I was a high school student then I ran 30 gauge wire through the
> cracks in the wood planking and connected the wires by soldering them
> to the phone line (then twisted pair) under the nails holding the line
> to the planks so I could have a "hidden" phone patch setup on my ham
> radio system. I did a lot of patching for overseas military people to
> their families here in the states.
>
>
I ran phone patches for years for soldiers, sailors and Marines.
Sometimes it would run all night. Southern Bell busted me for it back
when they used to SCAN THE LINES looking for extra loads, other than the
number of ringers you were RENTING from them. Remember that? I didn't
have a "coupler" either....too expensive!
The cure was to capacitively couple a high impedance phone patch to the
line so it presented no measurable load to the enforcement bureaucrats.
The phone patch only needed to present audio to the network so you could
acoustically couple it to the ham set or do it the hard way trying not
to make a ringer load for them to detect and bust...(c;
I sure appreciate your phone patches, too! I was WB4THE/MM aboard USS
Everglades (AD-24), running phone patches for the crew and my captain
back to Charleston, SC, when we were at sea. Rig was a Heath HW-101
into a home brew linear running four 813's in parallel. (graphite
plated 813's had Navy stock numbers...(c
The comm officer hated my guts. It was all my captain's fault. He'd
show up in Radio Central demanding to talk to Charleston. The comm
officer would always tell him they couldn't talk to Charleston with the
millions of dollars in equipment installed, amusing my captain
tremendously. "That's Bullshit!", he'd exclaim, "I was just talking to
my wife on ET1 Butler's little Heathkit ham radio back in the cal lab!"
We'd be somewhere across the Atlantic at the time, or in the Med. He
used to ask me, "How much did this radio cost you?"...."Er, ah, $239,
sir. It was a kit I built." I had 4 inverted V's (80/40/20/15) strung
from the after king post (mast about 75' high). Any interference
complaints from Radio while the captain was talking to his wife were met
with a stare that could melt thick steel deck plates...(c;
I also ran a lot of RTTY from the ship and published Reuters news off
10.945 FSK posted on the mess decks. I rebuilt a Kleinschmidt machine I
found at the salvage yard. Ship had a full teletype repair shop manned
by machine experts. 1500 watts of RTTY on 14.080 had no problems
reaching out and touching someone....even some painters that got too
close...(c;
Re: Verizon not really planning on opening their network
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7B6B7FDCD63noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "Mike Gorman" <yeahright@carolina.rr.com> wrote in
> news:47fc93de$0$4941$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>> If it locks up the access channel on a cell site and no one else in
>> the cell can use the service, does the carrier just have to go, "Oh
>> well, the network is 'Open'"?
>>
>> Yes, I work for Verizon Wireless, but please, go and read the
>> documentation, freely available on the web, and then argue with the
>> real facts.
>>
>
> Sounds just like Ma Bell just before FCC forced them to let me have my own
> phone plugged into the line.....not renting a phone from Ma Bell.
>
> We both know the access channel has a timeout timer, right??
>
If the mobile keeps transmitting, it can hold the access channel from anyone
else using it, regardless of what the cell does, it's happened, but that's
not the point. Ma Bell didn't share the same kind of airlink resources that
the wireless carriers do, when you have wired connections, you can disable a
line, or disconnect it, wireless can't.
Regardless, it's just an example from the past. Check out the ODI
documentation, and let's wait and see what comes in time.
Re: Verizon not really planning on opening their network
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.]
On 2008-04-10, Mike Gorman <yeahright@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
>> We both know the access channel has a timeout timer, right??
>>
> If the mobile keeps transmitting, it can hold the access channel from anyone
> else using it, regardless of what the cell does, it's happened, but that's
> not the point. Ma Bell didn't share the same kind of airlink resources that
> the wireless carriers do, when you have wired connections, you can disable a
> line, or disconnect it, wireless can't.
What do you think about my comment?
I agree with Verizon's ads, where they make the claims of "best network." I
found that to be true in most of the areas I frequented when I was a Verizon
Wireless customer between 2000 and 2004. My main problem with VZW, and I think
also one of Larry's main problems, is they use that as leverage. "Ha. Half
the features are disabled on this phone, and it's pissing off our customers?
Our coverage is twice as good as anyone else's. What are they gonna do, churn
to some other carrier and not be able to make calls?"
I expect that they will pretend to be compliant, while in reality still not
allowing many handsets on their network besides the ones they sell. After all,
they don't have to be competitive, right? They have a much bigger network
than the other guys do. (BTW, this isn't as true these days as it was five or
six years ago.)
Verizon not really planning on opening their network 
Linear Mode
