Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: well... It would be simple to put a small ad on each out going call. All you have to do is insert the ad before the call is completed. a 15 second ad there would be nothing. Time and Temp. numbers do it. VoIP can do it. And look how many people used free dial-up providers back when those were hot. If it can be done with the Internet it can be done for Voice.
Cable Companies could have their day in the sun if they turned and peered their networks together and created a large VoIP to VoIP plan.
Free calling from any cable company to another that offers Digital Phone.
Would be a HUGE hit. Especially since they wouldn't have to pay to put the calls on to the PSTN if they could keep them on their network until it would reach the other cable network for peering. |
|
|
|
| said by hottboiinnc:It would be simple to put a small ad on each out going call. All you have to do is insert the ad before the call is completed. a 15 second ad there would be nothing. Time and Temp. numbers do it. VoIP can do it. And look how many people used free dial-up providers back when those were hot. If it can be done with the Internet it can be done for Voice. Cable Companies could have their day in the sun if they turned and peered their networks together and created a large VoIP to VoIP plan. Free calling from any cable company to another that offers Digital Phone. Would be a HUGE hit. Especially since they wouldn't have to pay to put the calls on to the PSTN if they could keep them on their network until it would reach the other cable network for peering. Except for the ad idea, I agree your other ideas make sense.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | reply to hottboiinnc
Ad run dial up wasn't as popular as you think and it didn't catch on. It died far before broadband became the norm. Personally, I will never use a phone service that I have to hear an ad before making a call.. don't care if its 15 seconds or 2 seconds.. ads do not belong in the telephone call.
The only issue I have with cable offering free calling from company to company is 1) it won't happen, that would cut a revenue stream they enjoy today. 2) I really don't like the idea of having a plan where some calls may be free and others are going to be charged. I, like many, like predictability which is why the flat rate telephone plan is more popular than a measured rate plan is.
If cable wanted to offer a reduced rate plan and offered free in-calling, great, but I doubt it would ever be industry wide. Even then, what comes with such a plan is ultimately always going to be that stick that comes with the carrot. You're going then have a side of the plan that is measured for other calls. No thanks. 
$25 a month for Vonage and $40 a month for comcast CVD is perfectly in the norm for a guy like me that grew up with $80 to $250 phone bills each month. Maybe having this kind of a past is why I have a really hard time seeing people bitch over spending $25 a month, even, for vonage or the $40 or even $50 that cable charges. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| I didnt say anywhere in my post where cable companies would charge extra for calls that were not peered. I said they could offer them for free. As in the local and regional calling plans that many cable companies offer. Plus it would attract more people to their phone system that would pay for maybe 500 minutes of calling a day plus get free Cableco to CableCo calls.
Cable companies would still get their money. Plus it would lower their cost to connect to the PSTN.
$250 for a phone bill isnt much compared to when you have a $500 per month like i did for family that went to England when their Vonage or 'Net would go down and you had to call their actual UK number. |
|
 voipguy
join:2006-05-31
Forest Hills, NY | reply to hottboiinnc
Already peering Some cable companies are ALREADY peering with one-another for voice (though only a few so far). Cable "digital voice" plans already charge a flat fee for unlimited US and Canada calling, so whether peered or not these calls are already essentially free to the end customer. Cable companies love not having to pay IXCs to handle these calls.
The real beauty of voip peering is that is allows better call quality (fewer codecs) and can also permit video telephony. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Cable companies pay to terminate to the PSTN. They're charges are just much less since they terminate so many. Many even use CLECs to do this. Or like TWC in Ohio they use Sprint.
but many offer local and regional only plans that save money to the customer (TWC is one of the majors that offer local and regional plans on top of the Unlimited). It would give people that lower their bills plus allow the Cable companies to gain more customers.
It's not about saving money for the customer by peering. But getting them on Digital Voice/VoIP and keeping them there while giving them what they want. Especially if Grandma who has TWC in NYC and wants to call her Grandson in CA on Comcast. She would be able to save money by having her local calling but also talking to him for free due to Comcast and TWC could peer and keep their calls ON NETWORK instead of going to the PSTN. |
|
 Cthen
join:2004-08-01
Detroit, MI
·Comcast
 ·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to hottboiinnc
Re: well... said by hottboiinnc: And look how many people used free dial-up providers back when those were hot. If it can be done with the Internet it can be done for Voice. And where did all of those free providers go? Oh that's right, out of business even before broadband became an option for alot of people. So what reason is there for a VoIP provider to make the same mistake?
--
"I like to reffer to myself as an Adult Film Efficienato." - Stuart Bondeck |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to hottboiinnc
Want to have a competition? I too have had $500 and even higher phone bills. Stop being so literal.. I was giving an average as implied in my bill's rages.
Many cable companies don't offer regional plans.. some have dabbled in it so far, however, they all mostly price out on the one price fits all.
They're not looking to reduce what they collect from a consumer, they are as most people notice, pricing their services at a rate they need to survive. Consumers would like to have an ultra low cost service, but like anything, there has to be sustainability to operate. (Note: dls rates have gone up becuase they could NEVER sustain the $14 price point they tried. That whole mess was a ploy to gain customers from the competition.. that whole mess should be, in my view, investigated)
But, what I'm saying though, is that if the fees are already unlimited, what point would a system to system peer and free in-like-calling benefit? Maybe I'm missing something.
In-calling isn't really more than an advertising ploy developed by the cellular industry. Honestly, with the pricing point that cable wants, I doubt we'll ever see any kind of plan like that in the future. What I think we will see is a slight downward pricing of the service itself. |
|
 CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | reply to Cthen
said by Cthen:said by hottboiinnc: And look how many people used free dial-up providers back when those were hot. If it can be done with the Internet it can be done for Voice. And where did all of those free providers go? Oh that's right, out of business even before broadband became an option for alot of people. So what reason is there for a VoIP provider to make the same mistake? Even NetZero (once the king of free dialup) charges $9.95... |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| reply to fiberguy
What is your many cable providers? And how many actually announce that they offer them? But why should they when they're making the $$$.
And mobile to mobile calling is great on cell phones if you talk to a large group of people that have the same carrier. Why pay extra in minutes to talk to someone else with the same company.
I think you find fault with almost every comment that is posted on here.
And DSL could have stayed at $14.95 why ATT doesn't pay much for their transit when their the upstream provider past the DSLAM they don't have to pay to expand like other ISPs or pay wholesale. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by hottboiinnc:What is your many cable providers? And how many actually announce that they offer them? But why should they when they're making the $$$. You made the initial claim.. so who offers regional plans? Since Comcast is the largest, and offers a regional plan in a very small amount of systems... TWC is the second largest and offers them in limited systems as well.. I don't think I need to go further.
And mobile to mobile calling is great on cell phones if you talk to a large group of people that have the same carrier. Why pay extra in minutes to talk to someone else with the same company. In-calling is nice, however, I buy my plans for my needs and not because others are on the same network. Besides, I'm loyal to myself as you are to you and others are to themselves. Are you going to stay with your provider that you decide no longer meets your needs simply becuase your friends are on the same network? Not really.. you're going to go where it's best for you. This is why In-calling is not effective.. it's just marketing. MCI started this with Friends and Family plans back in the 80/90's.. it didn't do TOO well for them.
I think you find fault with almost every comment that is posted on here. I think you need to be realistic. I don't need to explain my posting habits to you, however, your post, right now, is out of the TOS. Aren't you supposed to stick with the topic and not the user? I don't think I need to come to a this site and post only with people I agree.. for that, I use the thumbs up, usually. Besides, the majority of people are here to bitch, in my view. I think many people have lost their ways anyway.. but I digress. Based on the number of posts, and if I found fault with almost every comment posted here, I'd have to quit my job and spend full time doing this.. so I think your comment is way over exaggerate and self serving to distract.
I DID, however, if you read, told you that maybe I don't understand what you're saying here - that's your cue to expand. Sorry that you were looking for a reason to act like so many others and attack. And, you can say the same to me, however, going back years, I stopped letting people attack me and decided to strike back.. The short term memory on this site doesn't amuse me, sorry about that. People here are generally angry - that's there problem. Their own anger clouds their ability to think clear - again, not my problem.
And DSL could have stayed at $14.95 why ATT doesn't pay much for their transit when their the upstream provider past the DSLAM they don't have to pay to expand like other ISPs or pay wholesale. And your final mistake. It's not all about transit.. there are other costs that are associated with DSL. It's already been showed that they under priced that service - they even admitted it. The entire idea behind dropping the price was to gain customers from dial-up, cable service, and keep existing customers (when they were able to get that price) just long enough to get U-verse on line. As they said, and I'll quote, "it's easier to market and up-sell a current customer than it is to get a new one".. So, sorry to tell you, no, they could not keep $14.99 DSL going which is why they raised the price.. Sorry.
Also, if you'll recall, it was shortly after they started the $14 DSL prices that Mr. Ed of SBC started crying about companies like google, amazon, and netflix "using my pipes to make money off my back".. and the whole charge to get a 3rd line of revenue began. Don't you think for any moment that they were panicking becuase cable was starting to hurt their market? The $14 DSL was a gamble move to sustain their customer base and growth long enough to get to the next level.
Sorry, I just don't agree with you, AND, in many public discussions, there is a level of debate and disagreement. I'm not going to seek out people I agree with and say "hey, I agree with that!" .. People disagree.. that's life. |
|
