Call it what it is.

Author	All Replies
nunya Who is John Galt? Premium,MVM join:2000-12-23 O Fallon, MO kudos:5 Reviews: ·Charter ·voip.ms	Call it what it is. The method of transport is not what is in question in this case. The end product (service) is telephone service. There is no denying that. If you try to say otherwise, you are being silly. The only fair solution is to deregulate all services offered by Vonage for the ILECs and other providers as well. Then it will be a level playing field. Do this in every market served by Vonage. As far as eliminating the universal service requirement- I think a lot of people out in the sticks might have something to say about that. But hey, they chose to live there right? -- Put it up, plow it in, pull it through, or shutup and get out of the way - Me. Note to Congress, Re: Cable T.V.- It's time to force divestiture, force open networks, or deregulate the entire telecom industry. Now.
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-24 18:29:58 ·

clecrupt9 join:2002-01-22 GA	said by nunya: The only fair solution is to deregulate all services offered by Vonage for the ILECs and other providers as well. What is stopping an ILEC from Broadband phone deployment?
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-24 18:38:22 ·
nunya Who is John Galt? Premium,MVM join:2000-12-23 O Fallon, MO kudos:5 Reviews: ·Charter ·voip.ms	reply to nunya Nothing. Well, I could think of a few factors such as poor sound quality and stability issues (take yesterdays massive Vonage outage for example). But that's not what we are here to talk about. Again I will reiterate. The method of transport is not what is in question. The service rendered at the receiving end is. Vonage wants to be the "Broadband Phone Company". I guess now they will really start to feel what it is like to be the phone company. -- Put it up, plow it in, pull it through, or shutup and get out of the way - Me. Note to Congress, Re: Cable T.V.- It's time to force divestiture, force open networks, or deregulate the entire telecom industry. Now.
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-24 19:30:54 ·
clecrupt9 join:2002-01-22 GA	Poor sound??????Not here in fact the calls come close to 4.0 MOS. Your ISP plays a role in this. Stability, I have seen enough of the PSTN to know lots of dialtone goes out dialy. PSTN is much more fault tolerant and proven, but its also very very mature and in a slump with regard to innovation. You might be right, Vonage looks alot like a telecommunications service. But at what point does that line get drawn? Is it the phone number, the use of a telephone, dialtone, or the connection to the PSTN?
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-24 20:07:46 ·
nunya Who is John Galt? Premium,MVM join:2000-12-23 O Fallon, MO kudos:5 Reviews: ·Charter ·voip.ms	reply to nunya Well, a Vonage user can pick up their phone and make a call pretty much the same as I do (less the constant 10 digit dialing). To me, that constitutes an equivalent service. There are two directions this can go. Deregulate any aspect of the industry where a competitive alternate is available, or regulate all of it. You can guess what our "big brother" government who always wants to take care of us will pick. Regulate it so you can tax it. Hell, I'm not anti-Vonage at all. As soon as it is available here, I will use it for my business with a WATS line. I would also like to be able to offer it in my wireless business. But I will most definitely keep my POTS line as well, and advise customers to do the same. I think that in secret, the ILECs like having Vonage around to prove that the CLEC way of doing business is obsolete. It now proves, more than ever, that there is more than one way to reach the end user. Vonage can work over Wireless, Fixed Wireless, (some) Satellite, DoPL, and Cable. No dependency on the ILEC whatsoever. -- Put it up, plow it in, pull it through, or shutup and get out of the way - Me. Note to Congress, Re: Cable T.V.- It's time to force divestiture, force open networks, or deregulate the entire telecom industry. Now.
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-24 20:50:34 ·
mjcrocket Mjc join:2000-12-02 Abingdon, MD	said by nunya: No dependency on the ILEC whatsoever. Not quite true! They can not get real telephone numbers in their own name. The 10 digit telephone numbers they are giving to people have to be rented from the various local telephone companies (Verizon, SBC, etc) in the same manner as any other company that wants to set up its own PBX with Direct Inward Dialing. If someone who does not have Vonage service wants to call a Vonage customer, the call is going to go through the ILEC that owns the number, to the Vonage system which will then deliver the call to the Vonage customer! If a Vonage customer wishes to call a non Vonage customer, the call is going to be handed off at some location to an ILEC for connection to someone's long distance network for delivery to its destination. ILECs get paid to provide DID lines into the Vonage system. They get paid to provide trunk lines out of the Vonage system. Without the rented services of either the ILEC or CLEC, Vonage would not be able to assign standard 10 digit telephone numbers or offer direct dial interconnections to the standard or wireless phone systems!
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-24 22:09:30 ·
nunya Who is John Galt? Premium,MVM join:2000-12-23 O Fallon, MO kudos:5 Reviews: ·Charter ·voip.ms	reply to nunya Ahhh. That's where you are oh-so very incorrect. ILECs do not "own" telephone numbers. The #'s come from a number pool usually controlled by the state PUC or a separate company. I believe "Neustar" is the biggy. They have to ask for them just like everybody else. This is all being set up for across the board # portability. Vonage most likely does not connect to the POTS world over POTS lines. This is done on the "IXC" truncated switching level. If Vonage pays for DID or dedicated POTS, they are very stupid indeed. -- Put it up, plow it in, pull it through, or shutup and get out of the way - Me. Note to Congress, Re: Cable T.V.- It's time to force divestiture, force open networks, or deregulate the entire telecom industry. Now.
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-25 00:18:45 ·
calvoiper join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA	reply to clecrupt9 Nothing. Nunya wants SBC to be totally deregulated, so they can hose the people that don't have a choice. Calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-25 14:39:47 ·
calvoiper join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA	reply to nunya said by nunya: Well, a Vonage user can pick up their phone and make a call pretty much the same as I do (less the constant 10 digit dialing). To me, that constitutes an equivalent service. But you know what? IT AIN'T UP TO YOU! It's up to the FCC, and they haven't gotten around to deciding it yet. This is yet another example of Bellhead thinking and arrogance. "I/we think this is the answer--therefore it is the answer, since I/we have a God-given right to control all voice communications." It's enough to make a rational person vomit. And Nunya, don't give us this "false flag" crud about "I'm just waiting for Vonage to use for WATS (bulk long distance)." There are plenty of VoIP gateways out there that will offer you nationwide termination. There is no reason to wait for Vonage. Calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-25 14:50:43 ·
calvoiper join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA	reply to nunya And you know what? This happens only because the Telecom Act of '96 mandated it. Prior to TA'96, the RBOC's did in fact claim to "own" the numbering assignments, and Pacific Bell, for example, charged around $20,000 to assign you an NXX if you wanted it. Let's not make this sound like the RBOCs are innocent or that they play fair. They aren't, and they don't. Calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-25 14:53:14 ·
nunya Who is John Galt? Premium,MVM join:2000-12-23 O Fallon, MO kudos:5	reply to nunya I love it. The only argument you can come up with is to start calling names. I must have really gotten to you good. Oh, P.S. - No VoIP in my area code. Hmmmm. Playing by the rules--the death knell to VoIP!
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-25 21:37:22 ·
highjinx join:2000-10-12 Alturas, CA	said by nunya: I love it. The only argument you can come up with is to start calling names. I must have really gotten to you good. Oh, P.S. - No VoIP in my area code. Hmmmm. Playing by the rules--the death knell to VoIP! HaHaHa With CalVoiper, you're either: A. Ingnorant and have no idea what he's talking about B. A Bell Shill C. A Bell Shill HJ
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-26 02:05:25 ·
calvoiper join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA	reply to nunya Uh, nunya, If you're going to reply to me, try hitting the "reply to this" text in my box, instead of in your own. It keeps the replies in order, and makes it clear who you are trying to talk to. And as for your claim of "no VoIP in your area code", you said you wanted WATS lines for business. As I said, there are already several VoIP gateways that offer bulk service nationwide. From the Internet, you can access such services from anywhere--in or out of the US. You don't need "local" phone numbers for WATS-like service. So I'll repeat: Your claim that you can't get VoIP services for WATS lines is a /red herring/straw man/false flag/. Take your pick of how I describe your falsehoods. Calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-27 16:02:35 ·
calvoiper join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA	reply to highjinx Actually, by claiming he couldn't use VoIP for WATS-like services from his area code, he proved he was A. (See Below.) Which are you? Calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-27 16:04:33 ·
nunya Who is John Galt? Premium,MVM join:2000-12-23 O Fallon, MO kudos:5 Reviews: ·Charter ·voip.ms	reply to nunya I could volley back with what I think about you, but I will not stoop to your level. Instead I will attempt to answer the fractional part of your post that is legitimate (in your mind). I need a local # tied with my WATS line. Not some cheesy voicemail/transfer service or a "WATS-like" service. No local VoIP in my NPA. -- Put it up, plow it in, pull it through, or shutup and get out of the way - Me. Note to Congress, Re: Cable T.V.- It's time to force divestiture, force open networks, or deregulate the entire telecom industry. Now.
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-27 17:54:45 ·
calvoiper join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA	And once again, if you had responded to me, instead of responding to your own earlier note, I would have seen it before it fell off the main page. WATS service didn't have traditional phone numbers--so what you are apparently looking for isn't WATS. Might be "inward WATS", which is different. Calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
	to forum · permalink · 2003-08-28 19:06:04 ·
Spiro0 join:2003-08-04 Austin, TX	reply to nunya The term telephone company does not mean what it once did. The place where monopoly happens is who owns the last mile. DSL is totally non-competitive, as SBC charges more to open the line to another DSL provider ($50) than it loses in revenue having the DSL customer ($30 or $40). I think as it currently exists, the market for Vonage is so limitted that regulating it would do nothing for consumers. I'm sure existing regulations already make it more expensive for Vonage to deal with other telcos. Also, why is one required to have a land line phone number (I'd rather have a cell only) to get DSL?
	to forum · permalink · 2003-09-02 13:12:47 ·

Vonage to Fight Regulation > Call it what it is.