S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | I sincerely hope....
thats theres some thought behind hiring his successor. "Potentially" on the way out...one could only hope!
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Carriers want higher rates...
They're going to charge themselves right out of the POTS business.
Lets see...
Low End:
Skype (no phone number) - requires Internet
$3/month unlimited Canada/US Calling
Vonage: $25/month unlimited Canada/US Calling - requires Internet
TWC: $30/month - $40/month unlimited Canada/US calling
AT&T VoIP: $30-$40/month unlimited Canada/US calling - requires Uverse
AT&T POTS: $45/month ~= $58/month (after fees) unlimited Canada/US Calling
At almost $20/month more than the most expensive VoIP products, people will not stay on POTS. My last bill
had +$10 of BS fees/bonds/taxes/unfees on it.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | Get rid of the FCC Subscriber Line Charge
"Martin and AT&T's proposal involves raising the cap on the "subscriber line charge" paid on your monthly bills from $6.50 to $8.00 or $8.50 per month (telcos have been trying to hike this to $10 for years). The FCC Subscriber Line Charge, sometimes called the End User Common Line Charge, is, by the FCC's own definition "not a government charge or tax"; it goes right back to the bells, and is a handy way to raise rates via a below the line fee while keeping advertised rates the same."
Whatever it is called the government shouldn't be supporting false advertising and the Line Charge should meet its long overdue and well deserved demise. |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
 ·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
|  reply to en102
Re: Carriers want higher rates...
said by en102  :They're going to charge themselves right out of the POTS business. You are correct. I don't understand why the telephone companies want to increase the subscriber line charge. It is already way too high.
One of my landlines is now VOIP, the 2nd is headed in that direction. It'll get there faster if this subscriber line charge increase passes.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| This should pass.
If this passes, what it means is higher rates for POTS customers and lower rates for VoIP customers.
I'm all for it- there is no reason why a domestic call should cost more than a cent a minute wholesale.
This will just speed up the migration from POTS to VoIP. 
--
Nitzan Kon, CEO
Future Nine Corporation |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to en102
Re: Carriers want higher rates...
said by en102 :AT&T POTS: $45/month ~= $58/month (after fees) unlimited Canada/US Calling My POTS in Chi-town is roughly $35 w/taxes. People will always use POTS for reliability reasons. One reason they're ready to throw POTS under the bus is because that POTS is the Bells biggest labor expense.
Don't think for one minute, if they got rid of POTS, that your VOIP fees wouldn't go through the roof. |
|
jimbo48
join:2000-11-17
Hayward, CA
·AT&T DSL Service
·EarthLink
| reply to nitzan
Re: This should pass.
All well and good in theory; that is, UNLESS you can't get decent services to carry VOIP. VOIP requires connection to a reliable internet service,thus you pay for either a substandard DSL and then listen to your VOIP connection stutter because you can't use your DSL AND VOIP at the same time because the DSL line sucks hind tit! There are those fortunate locales where real competition is is in place where you can get something besides crappy DSL but then you have yet another set of hands rummaging through your wallet for even more share of the remaining dollars.
At least POTS line is there when you need it or use it, doesn't stutter or require a reboot of the router and/or ISP reconnect. The FCC needs a major enema to clear its Shit for brains management's head and realize that their edicts are just more screw jobs for the consumer. |
|
neko
All Hail Canada
Premium
join:2006-08-11
canada
·Callcentric
·Cogeco Cable
·Future Nine Corpor..
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| I still can't believe the savings I am making going VOIP. My average monthly 'phone bill is around $5 a month. I get flyers from Cogeco, Rogers, Telus, et al; but when I call in, I simply ask them:
"Can you give me pay-as-you-go international calling to the UK at 0.009 cents per minute?"
Guess what? The answer, after some bullsh*t & nonsense from the CSR's, is a resounding NO!
Future-Nine FTW: Cheap Calls To The UK
I rest my case... |
|
dcdeadbeat
join:2008-10-07
Washington, DC
·Covad Communications
| there is a lot of confusion about terms in this thread
POTS refers to the old analog phone system and equipment.
What people really should be using is PSTN which means Public Switched Telephone Network. This is actual "phone network" we use. It can be a mix of analog (POTS) or digital (ISDN). When you have a phone number in the U.S., it is called a DID. This DID can be attached to the PSTN, a cell phone network, or a VOIP network.
When you call a phone number (a DID) you have at some point transfered over to the PSTN. Even if you have a VOIP provider like Vonage or Comcast Digital Voice you are using the PSTN to transfer to VOIP. IF you don't use an actual phone number (a DID) then you don't need to transport across the PSTN.
In other words, the problem is that these fees are associated with the PSTN and DIDs. Notice that your cell phone, Vonage, and even a wireless Internet card are all assigned a DID (phone number). That's when the fees get added.
To avoid the whole thing, don't get a phone number. With VOIP you can call directly to another person and never transport over the PSTN (the phone network). No PSTN, no fees (not even the ugly 911 fee).
The only Fees that you will pay is if you need a DID (phone number for your internet connection. For example, a DSL number usually has a phone number (DID). The same holds true for a just about any broadband connection.
We are never going to see those fees go away until we have a Telco free Internet and everyone is using VOIP. But because these fees are the only profit left in the industry, they are never going to go away. And neither is the PSTN. It is simply based upon proven technology and people are trained to dial an area code and phone number. |
|
blorp
@cloud9.net
| reply to neko
Re: This should pass.
said by neko :"Can you give me pay-as-you-go international calling to the UK at 0.009 cents per minute?" Guess what? The answer, after some bullsh*t & nonsense from the CSR's, is a resounding NO! Of course they said no. 0.009 cents is less than a penny. Why would (how could?) anyone sell any kind of voice service with PSTN termination for less than $0.01 a minute? |
|
megarock
join:2001-06-28
Saint Louis, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Martin - another W. choice.
Yet another W. Bush cronie that's done nothing good for the communications industry but alot of bad. Being the pro-corporate atmosphere of the current administration it's clear every arm of the government is going to do every thing it can to pet their corporate friends one last time before they are all outed in November.
In the past eight years the FCC has done nothing to encourage competition in the broadband and/or cable markets, the telco markets or the cellular markets. There are still no ala-carte programming offers, in most areas there are still only one or two choices in broadband and normally only the same three choices - cable or satellite.
It's time to stop kissing the rump of the baby bells who although were broken up quite a few years ago under the guidance of Martin and the W. administration are again a monopoly who are slowly pushing out all competition from the market.
Remember this during voting. |
|
megarock
join:2001-06-28
Saint Louis, MO | reply to Sammer
Re: Get rid of the FCC Subscriber Line Charge
Agreed on this one.
Seriously, I pay a monthly fee for a phone line and then another fee for having the subscription to a phone line. Kill off the EUCLC because all I am doing it paying for the same line twice. |
|
voipdabbler
join:2006-04-27
Kalispell, MT
| They're hoping for one more gift.
This is a matter of timing--this is the baby bells' last chance for largess from their sycophant, Martin. No matter who wins the election, I don't see Martin retaining his position. Whoever replaces him most likely won't have as much of an open-door policy for the baby bells. Somehow, I don't see anyone crying over their loss. |
|
fgoldstein
join:2003-01-21
Newton Highlands, MA
·RCN CABLE
| Reform is desperately needed!
Once upon a time, "long distance" was a great luxury, a service very expensive to provide and thus used only by the rich and, as required, big business. So the consumer watchdogs of the day decided that local telephone service, the kind used by ordinary folks, should be subsidized by laying a bit of the cost of local service onto long distance calls. The Supreme Court accepted that logic in Smith vs. Illinois Bell. The year was 1930.
Between 1930 and 1981, the share of local line fixed costs allocated to interstate calls rose. The FCC in that year decided to moves towards a more cost-based rate structure, phased in from 1984 via "access rates". Initially, switched access rates -- fees paid by long distance carriers to local carriers -- were set to suck up about half of the typical retail cost of an interstate call, or about 15 cents/minute. Rural carriers got a LOT more per minute, sometimes over a dollar.
Since the Smith ruling put some of the cost of local service (nowadays set at 25%) into the interstate jurisdiction, the FCC started to align rates with costs (fixed costs with monthly rates, usage-sensitive costs with usage rates) by creating the Subscriber Line Charge, the FCC-jurisdiction fixed portion of your monthly bill. That has risen from $3.50 to over $6 in most cases nowadays. But since 1984, the per-minute switched access rate has fallen; in Bell areas it has been around 0.6 cents per side of the call. This is still way above cost though, and higher than equivalent charges for local calls, or for calls delivered elsewhere in the world (which often don't distinguish).
What the FCC needs to do is get rid of the whole idea of charging for legs of calls based on where the original call began, rather than where it's handed off for delivery. The Internet doesn't distinguish between LD packets and local ones. So the FCC is finally, after many years of hesitation, moving farther in that direction. To make up for the revenue, the ILECs, whose rates are generally covered by price caps (which are way too generous), are being allowed to raise their subscriber line charges, the part of the local rate that the FCC sets.
VoIP providers have been playing arbitrage games on this. With no firm rule in place, they don't pay the access charges that others pay. And the special low rate for ISP-bound calls has been ruled "unjustified" by the Courts. So it's long past time the FCC moved to a simpler unified intercarrier compensation scheme.
For once, Verizon is right on this point. Of course that's mainly because they, having bought MCI, are paying this out, not just collecting it! But it's still right. Basic local service should be competitive. The "terminating monopoly", the price a carrier pays to reach a given number, is not. I get my dial tone from Comcast and RCN, not Verizon, so competition now has some influence on the monthly rate. Arguing for alow SLC and higher per-minute rates is like arguing for a fixed tax on hard disk capacity. A rate per megabyte that seemed fair in 1990 surely would not now.
(But Verizon and AT&T are both wrong, wrong, wrong on wanting a per-number surcharge in place of the percentage-of-revenue universal service tax. Taxing DID numbers is nonsensical; numbers don't create cost. It would just force applications off of the network.) |
|
schja01
I need to get a life.
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL
clubs:   | reply to en102
Re: Carriers want higher rates...
My gut feeling is there are boat loads of people that don't want nor need UNLIMITED anything and they'll happily pay way less than your numbers for POTs service. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to en102
AH... but you see they will charge these fees to the VOIP operators to complete connections to their customers. :/ |
|
AstroBoy
join:2008-08-08
Parkville, MD | reply to en102
Magic Jack: $20/year unlimited Canada/US Calling - requires Internet, computer and open USB port. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to megarock
Re: Martin - another W. choice.
said by megarock :Yet another W. Bush cronie that's done nothing good for the communications industry but alot of bad. ...... Remember this during voting. Who is there to vote for then?
Some of the folks that Obama has in his campaign are scary, look at some of economic issues that they caused with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and so on.
McCain? He is no better. For example, remember a top notch tech company named Hewlett Packard, now a second rate computer merchandiser? And who ruined them?
All those folks have to be paid off, just like the Clintons did and GW and etc.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
cant believe it
@gcstech.net
| Comp plan
This again just shows you how corrupt the government is.
Martin will only do this to help his personal position and his next job. If he helps the bells, they will help him. This bill helps only the bells, and no one else. It will lower the rates that AT&T and Verizon pay to telephone companies. But do you think they will lower your toll rates? No, It puts more money in the Monopoly hands of AT&T and Verizon. Why should we put more money in the hands of giants that are already making tons of money. I just don’t get it. |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to nitzan
Re: This should pass.
said by nitzan :If this passes, what it means is higher rates for POTS customers and lower rates for VoIP customers. I'm all for it- there is no reason why a domestic call should cost more than a cent a minute wholesale. This will just speed up the migration from POTS to VoIP. Actually quite the opposite. The want to overhaul the "intercarrier compensation" system. All phone companies charge themselves fees to connect the calls between each other. Basically a peering arrangement between the telcos. If AT&T and Verizon get their way, Level3, Global Crossing, etc will pay more per minute to terminate calls. While most VoIP providers don't connect directly to the PSTN they do pay these larger carriers for that service, even the providers that do or the smaller CLECS... everyone is going to pay more.
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
|
