| If you can't offer a better product...sue So I guess Verizon is finally taking VoIP seriously. They refuse to offer the same pricing, even though they could. They refuse to offer the same features, though they could. So.....just sue the competition out of business.
What a great system we have.
Mind you I say this despite my hatred of Vonage.
--
AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 4x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
| POTS lines can't compete with VOIP since VOIP uses the Bell network to finish a lot of calls. VOIP is not paying the true cost of phone calls. POTS is only a 10-12% biz, which is the corporate average.
The one with the infrastructure always wins. Good for VZ.
Judge really slammed Vonage said monetary damages "does not prevent continued erosion of the client base of the plaintiff." |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | said by supergirl:POTS lines can't compete with VOIP since VOIP uses the Bell network to finish a lot of calls. VOIP is not paying the true cost of phone calls. POTS is only a 10-12% biz, which is the corporate average. So does POTS not pay the true cost of a call when it's made to my Vonage number? |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to supergirl
Bad for the customer.
Before I switched to Vonage I paid 60 dollars a month for a plain POTS line.
Did you know VZ charges 4.60 for DTMF or you're stuck using rotary codes? Plus all the taxes and fees and USF charges etc etc.
Vonage with the full feature set only sets me back 30 dollars a month.
Sure you may want to say "YOu have to pay for internet access" I use the internet every day just like a utility.
Even covad with their Line Powered Voice is more expensive than vonage.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net |
|
|
|
| reply to rradina
said by rradina:said by supergirl:POTS lines can't compete with VOIP since VOIP uses the Bell network to finish a lot of calls. VOIP is not paying the true cost of phone calls. POTS is only a 10-12% biz, which is the corporate average. So does POTS not pay the true cost of a call when it's made to my Vonage number? There is no cost. That's why Vonage and VOIP is so cheap. No termination fees coming or going. If you can prove otherwise, let me know. But, that is the understanding of Net VOIP. POTS customers in FL pay a $6.50 FCC Access Charge (access to LD networks) and other hidden stuff in LD, which pays for the termination costs. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I thought the TA 1996 act required the calling party's carrier to pay termination fees to the destination party's carrier. Doesn't Vonage use CLECs to hold every Vonage number?
I don't think Vonage is as different from POTS as folks think it is. The two differences are Vonage uses the Internet for the last mile (from the CLEC CO to your house) and because they can keep your call on the Internet and terminate it as close as possible to the destination number, they don't incur as many or any LD interconnet fees.
I would guess a portion of the Vonage fee goes to the CLEC that owns the POTS number on behalf of Vonage. As a CLEC, they have infrastructure tied to the POTS system and pay interconnect fees just like an ILEC.
Regardless, if VOIP was in some way not paying its weight, one would think the ILECs would be losing money hand over fist. Large corporations also use VOIP over their private networks to likewise deny the telco of revenue streams. If all this VOIP were ruining the POTS infrastructure, I would think the ILECs would be posting huge losses instead of using their massive war chests to plan mega mergers.
I think VOIP destroyed the LD companies, not the POTS companies. |
|
| said by rradina:I thought the TA 1996 act required the calling party's carrier to pay termination fees to the destination party's carrier. Doesn't Vonage use CLECs to hold every Vonage number? Local Number Portability is what you are looking for. Termination fees aren't paid there. The customer owns the number until they quit paying pretty much. Who holds Vonage's numbers? It appears Vonage: »www.vonage-forum.com/ftopic5008.html.
Now a carrier can refuse to port if:
You haven't paid your bill on time
You disconnected service
The paperwork to port doesn't match the exact customer info with the carrier.
That's all FCC-approved. |
|
| reply to supergirl
To be fair, there is a cost to call a Vonage number.
If the number is LD, a customer will pay LD charges.
If local, it is built into the local rate.
If it is made via a cell phone or another VOIP (internet based) provider, it generally won't matter.
The 6.50 charge doesn't cover termination or origination fees (there are both at the wholesale level for regulated telcos). The 6.50 charge is just an allocation from intercarrier rates (carrier to carrier compensation) to customers. It's complicated, but short order, the 6.50 is effectively a rate increase that the states can blame on the feds while keeping the local telephone rate as low as possible (my take on it at least).
But in the end, voip is cheap due to a multitude of FCC orders and lack of orders. It can all change on a dime. Vonage being subjected to USF fees for instance...go figure, they became subject to USF fees.
said by supergirl:said by rradina:said by supergirl:POTS lines can't compete with VOIP since VOIP uses the Bell network to finish a lot of calls. VOIP is not paying the true cost of phone calls. POTS is only a 10-12% biz, which is the corporate average. So does POTS not pay the true cost of a call when it's made to my Vonage number? There is no cost. That's why Vonage and VOIP is so cheap. No termination fees coming or going. If you can prove otherwise, let me know. But, that is the understanding of Net VOIP. POTS customers in FL pay a $6.50 FCC Access Charge (access to LD networks) and other hidden stuff in LD, which pays for the termination costs. |
|
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to supergirl
said by supergirl:said by rradina:said by supergirl:POTS lines can't compete with VOIP since VOIP uses the Bell network to finish a lot of calls. VOIP is not paying the true cost of phone calls. POTS is only a 10-12% biz, which is the corporate average. So does POTS not pay the true cost of a call when it's made to my Vonage number? There is no cost. That's why Vonage and VOIP is so cheap. That is bullshit, plain and simple. |
|
| reply to rradina
said by rradina:I thought the TA 1996 act required the calling party's carrier to pay termination fees to the destination party's carrier. Doesn't Vonage use CLECs to hold every Vonage number? Exactly. If we are talking "Local Exchange Carriers".
i.e.
The intent of local competition:
Bell 1 serves Customer A (you)
CLEC 1 serves Customer B (me)
You call me, Bell 1 pays CLEC for the termination.
In both cases, the TA96 was developed with the idea of
voice services in mind (IMO). Dial Up internet access
muddied the waters and the voip model is essentially
founded on the idea that a local call to an ISP or VOIP
provider is the same. Much more complicated, but hopefully
abbreviated enough to get the point across. The game would
certainly change if the local telephone company model
changed to mirror the cellular model (customer pays for
all outbound and inbound calls). We currently only pay for
outbound.
said by rradina:I don't think Vonage is as different from POTS as folks think it is. The two differences are Vonage uses the Internet for the last mile (from the CLEC CO to your house) and because they can keep your call on the Internet and terminate it as close as possible to the destination number, they don't incur as many or any LD interconnet fees. They don't incur any LD fees. Vonage isn't considered a Telephone Company (local or long distance). Vonage, in legal parlance, is considered an "information service provider". Similar to itunes or broadbandreports. BBR might charge us for access to this board, but it doesn't make them a long distance company. Vonage defines itself as a company that connects customers using ip voice services to each other. The telephone companies in this equation are CLECs such as Level 3. Level 3 does indeed charge Vonage for each call terminating to the public network, they take a cut between access rates and local interconnection rates generally speaking, a business that purely exists due to FCC action/inaction. See Level 3 financials and/or investor calls for more clarification on the fragility of this line of their business.
said by rradina:I would guess a portion of the Vonage fee goes to the CLEC that owns the POTS number on behalf of Vonage. As a CLEC, they have infrastructure tied to the POTS system and pay interconnect fees just like an ILEC. Exactly. Vonage is sort of the new LD company that pays someone to connect to a customer. The difference is that they pay someone (level 3) to pay someone (verizon) to connect to grandma, since she hasn't migrated to voip yet.
said by rradina:Regardless, if VOIP was in some way not paying its weight, one would think the ILECs would be losing money hand over fist. Large corporations also use VOIP over their private networks to likewise deny the telco of revenue streams. If all this VOIP were ruining the POTS infrastructure, I would think the ILECs would be posting huge losses instead of using their massive war chests to plan mega mergers. Large corporations pay for other services from the ILECs - i.e. ATM, Ethernet, special access, MPLS etc..the VOIP issue isn't about breaking the ILECs, it was about breaking the LD companies.
said by rradina:I think VOIP destroyed the LD companies, not the POTS companies. Now that the LD companies are going and all the POTS lines disconnect at what point do the ILECs start raising basic local connection costs higher? Same can be said for the Cable companies as more content becomes available over the internet. Or will both essentially collude to ensure any highly demanded service made available via the internet eventually become a part of their own offerings with subsequent blocking of degrading of competitors products?
Short - Long term, our voice will be voip provided by the same companies that we desire to leave. Abundant wireless spectrum will be the only effective competition but that may never happen for a number of reasons (money begets money principally). |
|
| reply to xsiddalx
said by xsiddalx:To be fair, there is a cost to call a Vonage number. Yeah, only a cost to the person calling a Vonage customer. Vonage bills themselves as every call is local.
Yes, I agree the $6.50 should be in the telephone rate, but Vonage and other VOIP's should be paying termination charges. VZ doesn't care if Vonage people call each other just calling their POTS customers. Or, did you read the decision? And, yes, Vonage is ripping-off VZ by stealing their customers and then making VZ pay for the connections.
The FCC Charge is for "access to the LD network" that also pays for, wait, LD calls received! So, yes, every POTS customer that receives a call from a Vonage person is paying for their call! Funny how that works. Read your local bell bill. It says exactly that.
I have a idea: allow customers to BLOCK VOIP calls. Sorry, I'm sick of my REAL telephone paying for all these fake ones called "Telephony". Cable VOIP can pay termination charges too. POTS customers are getting screwed so Geeks can make cheap phone calls ala Vonage.
It is time Vonage pays their way or goes out of bizness.
And, since you think your are an expert, before the AT&T break-up, LD calls subsidized local phone rates. Breaking up that actually cost customers money in the long-term on local dial tone. Infrastructure costs money to maintain. If no POTS, Vonage would be dead already. |
|
| reply to sporkme
said by sporkme:That is bullshit, plain and simple. Not really.
Speculation on my part, but Vonage's business plan ain't long term. I guess I don't trust Citron after the same arbitrage play he profited from in Datek. Of course if it benefits us short time consumers but will become another one of those blighted "universal service fees" called corporate bankruptcy.
We all see those costs buried in our 1040s. |
|
| reply to supergirl
I never said I was an expert. Are you?
I am quite well versed in the wholesale telecom environment. Feel free to quiz me in private or public.
I agree. Local dial tone did increase. Arguments can certainly be made on what value local dial tone produces, but without a competitive market, it's all academic.
Maybe it's time for the BOCs to start proposing different rate plans. Some of us might only want a "lifeline/911" plan for 3 bucks a month. Or no plan for 0 a month and 10 cent a minute for all calls (local or not).
FWIW, after the AT&T breakup, LD calls still subsidized local phone rates.
Out of the break up we could certainly have said, it seemed silly to hear our elders tell us that they were on a long distance call and needed to call us back. Especially since Ameritech local toll (> 10 miles) cost more than the old ATT LD rates.
FWIW I use Tmobile for my phone service.
And FYI, you do realize that your aren't actually using Vonage, right?
said by supergirl:said by xsiddalx:And, since you think your are an expert, before the AT&T break-up, LD calls subsidized local phone rates. Breaking up that actually cost customers money in the long-term on local dial tone. Infrastructure costs money to maintain. If no POTS, Vonage would be dead already. For more information: » www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/un···ing.htmlSpecifically the subscriber line charge rules: » sujan.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRul···/69/104/above being meaningless without understanding long distance: » www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.htmlVonage doesn't fit into the telecom model. Level 3 does. said by supergirl:said by xsiddalx:The FCC Charge is for "access to the LD network" that also pays for, wait, LD calls received! So, yes, every POTS customer that receives a call from a Vonage person is paying for their call! Funny how that works. Read your local bell bill. It says exactly that. You are asserting that Vonage is a telephone company. They are not in any sense of the definition. Do you know of a state that has declared vonage a telecommunications carrier? |
|
| reply to supergirl
"The paperwork to port doesn't match the exact customer info with the carrier."
Carriers use this to drag out ports. They pass the paper work back and fourth as a stall tatic. During the paper work war the losing carrier sends in their customer retention drones to try and save the account. I see this happen first hand very often. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to supergirl
I'm not talking about portability. I'm talking about inter-carrier termination fees. I don't think Vonage has any facilities to interconnect POTS with VOIP. I think they contract the interconnect to CLECs that have a telephone switch in major area codes. Using that network of CLEC contracts, the Internet and apparently techniques that infringe upon Verizon patents, they became a national telephone carrier. |
|
| reply to Camelot One
I would have gladly switched to their voice wing service but they suck so badddddddd, horrible reviews everywhere and anywhere there was a blog. It is cheaper than Digital Phone.  |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to supergirl
said by supergirl:I have a idea: allow customers to BLOCK VOIP calls. Sorry, I'm sick of my REAL telephone paying for all these fake ones called "Telephony". Cable VOIP can pay termination charges too. POTS customers are getting screwed so Geeks can make cheap phone calls ala Vonage. It is time Vonage pays their way or goes out of bizness. I think your anger is misplaced.
What defines a REAL phone? Technology or function? Are cell phones fake?
What's most expensive about the POTS infrastructure? The national, fiber optic network that interconnects all major cities and towns or that clunky, last mile copper?
VOIP over DSL funds the copper plant. VOIP over cable doesn't use the copper plant, doesn't fund it and shouldn't fund it. Sure, for a VOIP customer to call a POTS customer the copper plant is employed but the last mile copper being used is already funded by the destination POTS customer, isn't it? Do you believe a VOIP DSL customer should pay to fund their last mile copper and yours because they use VOIP vs. analog? Furthermore, do you believe that VOIP over cable should likewise pay more to help fund the copper plant? If you do, would you support having the copper customer pay more to fund the cable company's coax plant? If not, why not?
In closing, I also think it's wrong that cable VOIP customers pay a USF fee. I guess it's OK if some rural cable company is getting USF funds to deliver telephone service but does anyone know if this is happening anywhere? |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to xsiddalx
No.. she's not an expert.. she'll tell you over and over that she's a woman as her excuse.
The whole idea of a termination fee, in the first place, is ridiculous. They all terminate calls with each other, however, the smaller companies usually wind up paying more than they make.
Termination fees - yet another drummed up "fee" that phone invented to make money. It's what they are best at.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown |
|
| reply to rradina
How VOIP works: »electronics.howstuffworks.com/ip···ony5.htm
Bascially, when you call from Vonage it hits their softswitch to find the IP address of the number you are calling. A softswitch is basically a massive database of phone numbers and their IP addresses. It changes as IPs change. Once the softswitch figures out where to go, usually in milliseconds, rings the number. Faster path is to another VOIP number. The tricky part is the path to a PSTN (public switched telephone network). The QoS problem of VOIP is the multiple paths the packets take in reaching their destination. It does find the closest connection point and the terminates to that PTSN, which is then connected to that POTS number. The system has to convert the digital signal of VOIP to the analog signal of the POTS line. Net Congestion, or even many softswitches, can cause all kinds of problems unless the VOIP is on a dedicated network (like Cable VOIP). Once it hits the PTSN and connects, the call is at a termination point--call connected.
So, a VOIP call, if properly routed, can bypass a lot of the PTSN but not all of it. Hence, it does terminate at the closest access point, which is usually the phone company's network. Hence, the phone company is basically paying for the connection probably in their intralata system.
Now, FIOS uses softswitching but is dedicated and digital until it terminates at an analog switch. The more dedicated the network the higher the cost.
Now, if everything was fiber and digital, Vonage would not be but an irritant to the telcos since the cost of connection to a digital phone is a heck of a lot cheaper since it is just a better IP phone system. Copper POTS is costly to maintain so termination fees are higher. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Your information sounds a lot like the ILECs who want to charge Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to use their pipes. It's not enough that Google, Yahoo and Microsoft pay for the bandwidth they use, Vonage pays for its CLEC relationships and VOIP customers pay for their internet connection.
Even with Google and VOIP robbing them blind, they grew profits by 17% and predict double-digit growth in the coming quarters.
»www.usatoday.com/money/companies···tt_x.htm |
|
