Reviews:
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| reply to lestat99
Re: VoIP Industry needs to answer some questions "First we can't dismiss the concept of Universal Service. Universal Service has been upheld by numerous courts over the years and is certainly not going to go away for VoIP. This issue is that those in remote rural areas have the same right at the same cost to telephone service as those in highly dense urban environments. Also who supplies phone service to those below the poverty line that obviously can't afford broadband??"
Well thats a good point there. Vonage and other VOIP providers can say simple oh wellllll. Thats what makes VOIP so differnt from a CLEC. Hell even the ILEC's ssy ohwell to the poverty, that live in east bubble *&*(. with broadband.
Plus we all know the USF has been a slush fund for the ILEC's for YEARS and it really needs to go. It will never happen but hell atleast I said it.
You know I was just looking through my Cell bill just to guess what would happen if say MN PUC wins its fight and reg's Vonage.
My cell bill has close to 40 dollars on it of nothing more than TAX!!!. Now lets take that and apply it to say vonages 40 dollars unlimited plan. Yup you did you math right its 80 bucks. At the price range Guess what. The ILEC's pricing is about 11.50 cheaper.
Really makes you wonder just how dirty the RBOC's are willing to play to kill the little guy, oh and at the same time begging for more relaxed reguation for themselves.
At some point this will all end up in court or god forbid congress and FCC. The two places that have the least forthsight on tech and for alot of them how to even turn on a computer much less have any clue what VOIP is. All they will here is that CHA CHING in their wasted minds and vote to reg VOIP. Its sad but if it gets that far I'm almost postive it will happen.
ym |
|
| I think that there is a middle ground here.
VoIP should be the impetus to point out the problems with the current system and how things are financed. Problem is that none of the VoIP providers are even recognizing these issues. The "we are not a phone" argument is doomed to loose. Have you read this:
»www.puc.state.mn.us/docs/briefin···0096.pdf
Vonage's argument is very weak to say the least.
Personally, I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable fee for universal service and 911. I agree with you however that the current tax structure has a significant amount of waste built in and needs to be addressed.
--
Info Network Security:»www.packetdefense.com |
|
pkust
join:2001-08-09
Houston, TX | reply to youngmoore
said by youngmoore:
My cell bill has close to 40 dollars on it of nothing more than TAX!!!. Now lets take that and apply it to say vonages 40 dollars unlimited plan. Yup you did you math right its 80 bucks. At the price range Guess what. The ILEC's pricing is about 11.50 cheaper.
In other words, Vonage is NOT cheaper service than traditional telco offerings.
If adding the taxes to the Vonage phone bill makes it $11.50 more than the ILEC phone bill, then removing the taxes from the ILEC phone bill would make the ILEC bill $11.50 less than the Vonage Bill:
Vonage + TAX = ILEC + $11.50
- TAX - TAX
- $11.50 - $11.50
-------------------------------------------
Vonage - $11.50 = ILEC - TAX
If the only economic advantage to Vonage is avoidance of telecom taxation, then its real economic advantage is not all that compelling.
--
Cordially,
Peter Nayland Kust
pkust@smsysinc.com
Secure Mobile Systems, Inc.
www.smsysinc.com |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
| think you might have miss understood me there.
I said I had about 40 in tax on my cell bill,
Where Vonage makes good is all the features that you get that are all bundled in for either 25.99 for local and 500 min LD or 40 for unlimited.
If you put all those features on a telco line plus LD it cost ALOT more money. Plus you have people that don't want to have anything to do with a ILEC, maybe from bad CS or over billing or pick one. Those people can simple "if they have cable HSI" add a phone line at a low cost.
ym |
|
pkust
join:2001-08-09
Houston, TX | said by youngmoore:
think you might have miss understood me there.
I said I had about 40 in tax on my cell bill,
Where Vonage makes good is all the features that you get that are all bundled in for either 25.99 for local and 500 min LD or 40 for unlimited.
If you put all those features on a telco line plus LD it cost ALOT more money. Plus you have people that don't want to have anything to do with a ILEC, maybe from bad CS or over billing or pick one. Those people can simple "if they have cable HSI" add a phone line at a low cost.
ym
I understood you quite well.
My point is that a significant portion of the pricing advantage for Vonage over the typical ILEC are all the charges it does not have to include on the bill. That is an artificial phenomenon that is a consequence of the regulatory landscape and not due to any particular structural efficiency of VoIP.
This gives rise in my mind to several questions:
•If Vonage is offering services competitive to regulated telco services, on what basis should it be exempt from the legal requirement to include the various charges attached by law to regulated telco services?
•If VoIP vendors are exempted from these charges, on what basis do we not exempt traditional ILECs?
•If Vonage does include these various charges, is it still a compelling alternative to traditional ILEC offerings?
•If VoIP vendors are exempted from the burdens of supporting 911 and other mandated services, how do we as a society ensure the viability of these systems?
•Given that viable telecommunications can literally be a matter of life or death at times, if Vonage and other VoIP vendors can only guarantee as much uptime as a particular ISP, will increased use of VoIP bring additional responsibility to ISPs to ensure 24x7x365 availability?
While ILECs have a great many sins to answer for, and while the idea of an upstart VoIP vendor such as Vonage delivering to the ILECs a much-needed comeuppance is tantalizing, we must not forget that, regardless of their misdeeds, ILECs provide a good deal more than simple dialtone. There is indeed much that is wrong about the way ILECs do business, but there is also much that is right about the infrastructure they maintain. If Vonage and other VoIP vendors are to succeed in the long run, they must either assume a portion of the burden of maintaining this infrastructure or provide viable alternatives.
--
Cordially,
Peter Nayland Kust
pkust@smsysinc.com
Secure Mobile Systems, Inc.
www.smsysinc.com |
|
| Ok here goes
1. Now what exists is a classification of information service. Email is information service therefore un regulated. Because one or more call legs is IP the case of information service is made. correct ot not, I make no judgment.
2.Ilecs are common carriers, state certified utilities and own a "plant" with "loop". VoIP is none of above.
3.In my mind, yes and very much so.
4. Innovation happens daily because of markets with VoIP, not government. I assure you that 911 will not only work with VoIP, someone will make it all the better.
5.I point out that the Ilec makes no such claim, nor holds any liability to 911. Read the Ilec 9-1-1 tariff in your state.
You should see this thread »The Battle for VoIP in the US |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
| reply to pkust
This gives rise in my mind to several questions:
1)If Vonage is offering services competitive to regulated telco services, on what basis should it be exempt from the legal requirement to include the various charges attached by law to regulated telco services?
a)One factor is that the company and for that matter tech has only been "really" main stream for a year. Its been in the smaller Devlopmental stages until now. What would have happend if we did the same thing to ATT with no grants and slapped taxes on them and the taxpers? I can tell you that the ILEC's we see now wouldn't be around either at all or not as they are.
b)Vonage is a privetly held company
c)Since VOIP rides on data not copper thats another one.
2) If VoIP vendors are exempted from these charges, on what basis do we not exempt traditional ILECs?
a)Gov grants, right of ways, deployment grants USF slush funds FCC charge funds etc etc etc. All those go right back into the ILEC's pocket to use for whatever they wish. Humm bob think I will buy a new BMW today the I got last week just isn't doing it for me anymore <sarcasm>
3)If Vonage does include these various charges, is it still a compelling alternative to traditional ILEC offerings?
a)Only to those I would think that don't like the ILEC's, others can add there own reasons.
4)If VoIP vendors are exempted from the burdens of supporting 911 and other mandated services, how do we as a society ensure the viability of these systems?
a)The current pay they get via your cell and telo bill pays for it now.
Given that viable telecommunications can literally be a matter of life or death at times, if Vonage and other VoIP vendors can only guarantee as much uptime as a particular ISP, will increased use of VoIP bring additional responsibility to ISPs to ensure 24x7x365 availability?
a)One would hope but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
b) even a T1 or DS3 to a gov agency only has a SLA for 99.7% and your lucky if you see that.
c)Again VOIP is just now coming out to main stream. If the gov chooses to jump down their throats and tax them then I don't see any VOIP staying around long enough to really devlop and grow.
Think of it another way. What if you being the tax man walked up to the write bothers and said ok I'm going to tax you for every foot you fly and then I'm going to tax you for all the time you don't fly. Its kinda like that VOIP is a great "service" but its not anything close to what the ILEC's have.
d)Per the MN PUC they state that vonage has 40,000 lines active. Thats really not allot of lines if you think about it. Bellsouth alone in some tiny town here in Ga has that much.
e)Another example is VPN. When MS first started talking about it we were all like ya we need that etc etc
and then the ILEC's got well "upset" cause it would, to a point kill off their frame relay cash cow. The gov didn't reg VPN and now we have a great service that even the novice can setup and enjoy. We on the busniess side can cut costs by not having to just frame relay anymore etc. But what would have happend if the Gov did step per the ILEC's request and taxed it or tried to something in the way that hindered the devlopment of VPN at the time? We probley wouldn't have it.
I mean really this list can go on and on with different was of looking at it but at this point I think for MN PUC its all about the green they see with regualting VOIP in their state.
Ok so thats all i got can say I'm just to tired at this point. Other feel free to chim in with pro and cons
ym
Spell check SO not included |
|
| reply to pkust
said by pkust:
I understood you quite well.
My point is that a significant portion of the pricing advantage for Vonage over the typical ILEC are all the charges it does not have to include on the bill. That is an artificial phenomenon that is a consequence of the regulatory landscape and not due to any particular structural efficiency of VoIP.
You may be able to make the case that what you say is true for residential. Business users, international users, and heavy longdistance users would still save money if Vonage kept its current price but added fees and taxes.
You also have the savings that happen as a direct result of out of area code numbers. Think about the fact that I can go to South Africa and you can call me for the cost of a local call. I dare say if implemented on a mass scale, the cost savings to consumers could be billions per year. If you think its extreme, look at what the cost of a call to Iraq is with Sprint and AT&T. It doesnt take to many calls to pay for Vonage even with fees. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to youngmoore
said by youngmoore:
I said I had about 40 in tax on my cell bill
How did you end up with $40 in taxes?
--
Jewel got Britney-fied! There is hope for the world yet! |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
| Taxes
Federal Tax 3.92
Cobb County Sales Tax - Services & Usage 1.20
Georgia State Sales Tax - Services & Usage 4.90
Georgia State Sales Tax - Non-Telecom 0.58
Cobb County Sales Tax - Non-Telecom 0.14
Cobb County Wireless 911 Surcharge 3.00
Surcharges & Fees
Federal Universal Service Fund 2.91
Federal E911 1.20
Federal Wireless Number Pooling And Portability 3.30
Taxes, and Surcharges & Fees 2.58
13.71
Total 37.44 |
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to lestat99
I looked at the briefing page, and I'm SHOCKED.
First, the Staff uses an "imaginary" conversation with Vonage (their own description of it!) to justify the action here. Heck, if that constitutes "evidence", I'll imagine a conversation with the Staff in which Staff says "since we really like the Qwest lobbyists and they give us hams & whiskey at Christmas, we're going to do their bidding here and shut Vonage down." It wouldn't be evidence, but I guess it passes the Staff test for validity.
Second, MCI, to its credit (and perhaps recalling its own early days) says that the "jurisdiction" issue should be handled in a fair and open hearing. Instead, the Staff said, and the Commission agreed, that they would just decide the most important issue in the case without evidence, without a full hearing, and without careful consideration.
Why did they make that decision? One can only conclude that the Staff and the Commission realized that on a complete hearing record, with a fair chance, Vonage might prevail--and that COULD NOT happen if Qwest was to be kept happy!
The Minnesota Commission used to have a reputation for fairness and forward thinking--to bad they've lost it.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to youngmoore
What's the $13.71? You've identified each charge but that.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
| Was just another change under the Surcharges, I must have left that colum out or something.
ym |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to youngmoore
said by youngmoore:
Spell check SO not included
Your arrogance and refusal to take minimal steps to clean up your posts creates difficulty for others and gets in the way of your message.
Do you flatter yourself by thinking that we are all SO interested in what you have to say we will ignore your deliberate intention to make reading it difficult? If you do, you're wrong.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
| no actaully I just suck at spelling.
have a nice day
ym |
|
