how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
804 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| Re: If you can't offer a better product...sue said by rradina: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 Oh, puhleeze! How does Google have anything to do with Vonage? Funny, you don't dispute my info, but launch a totally off-base attack on it. | |
| reply to rradina
I'm for total net neutrality. If you are an ISP and become a dumb pipe, hire better managers.  | |
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to supergirl
Off base? Here's what started this discussion:
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.
I said your anger is misplaced. I claimed the most expensive part of the PSTN is maintaining the gazillion miles of shitty last-mile copper. I also said that VOIP over DSL supports last-mile copper so where's the beef? Furthermore, VOIP over cable doesn't support it but why should it?
In that vein I asked why you think VOIP users, in general, should somehow double pay to help fund the, in your words, REAL telephone service (I guess by that you mean copper).
After much techno babble, you did hit the nail on the head:
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.
Is lack of a digital fiber network the VOIP user's fault? But that doesn't stop the telco from needing VOIP users to pay more because POTS is costly to maintain. It's not the interconnect, the switches or the nationwide backbone. It's maintaining the last-mile copper! (Yeah -- that's my point too!)
How about this -- I submit it's the POTS users who are trying to rip off the VOIP user. POTS users already don't pay their fair share to maintain an antiquated last mile. Hasn't consumer POTS always been offset by higher business telephone costs? So for POTS users to keep artificially low costs, they need to screw VOIP users.
Sorry but I think that's the same thought process as AT&T's Ed Whitacre demanding carriage fees for high-bandwidth sites like Google, YouTube and the rest. He's looking for someone to help him pay for the mega mergers and to run fiber to the home in order to compete with cable. He needs someone to help him pay for his network upgrades. He can't do it with this year's 17% profit increase. He needs to screw someone else. | |
|
