Re: analog sunset & 911 access

At 16 May 2008 04:28:02 +0000 Larry wrote:

> I'm just curious and this isn't any kind of jab, but why are you so anti-
> Skype, which is 95% free? You come across as really hating it for some
> reason. I always find it hard to trash free stuff....


I'm not anti-Skype. As I've said, I use it for certain things- video calls
to the kids when I or my wife travel, for VoIP calls on "VoIP-hostile" WiFi
networks (due to it's ability o sniff out open ports) etc.

I _AM_, however, anti-Fanboy. Replace "Skype" with "iPhone" an your posts
read just like Oxford's or Vic's. Skype is a useful enough tool, but
you've "suggested" it many times where it simply doesn't apply to the
situation. If someone asks about a cheap cellphone plan, you suggest Skype
on a portable device- if someone specifically asks about a competing service,
you suggest they use Skype instead. I swear if someone posted they were
hungry, you'd suggest they grab two slices of bread with a thick slab of
Skype in the middle.

You're so very quick to point out the flaws in "sellphone" plans, or tell
all of us how overpriced something is- until it's Skype. If someone points
out that the they're the ONLY VoIP with a "connection fee," you'll tell us
it's "only four cents" and wander off into a Cute Story (tm) about how you
and a goat-herding friend in Outer Mongolia chatted for two hours yesterday
for free. If a cellphone company added a four-cent connection fee to any
calls, however, you'd be calling for the CEO's head on a pike!

Point out that international calls are 40-50% higher on Skype vs. other
VoIPs, you'll say how cheap they are vs. AT&T, yet when someone ELSE points
out Vonage or whoever is cheaper than AT&T you'll tell them how Skype is
only $x/month vs. Vonage's $y.



So, do I hate Skype? Not at all- on the plus side, Skype's free services
are fine, and the software works well, and their unlimited plans are
reasonably priced.

On the downside, their international rates are higher than their competitors,
often higher than just using a calling card or dial-around service. Their
system is non-standard, requiring either a PC to run, a proprietary phone,
or their software to be installed on a portable device. They aren't E911-
compliant (and I STILL haven't figured out how they offer US phone numbers
without being forced to be E911 compliant.)

So, for example, when I said Skype is unsuitable (for me) for landline
replacement because it can't run on my RJ-11 jacks without a PC running
24/7 and because it lacked E911, you gave the typical Oxford-like Fanboy
response- shove your favorite product/service down my throat anyway, and
tell me to ignore it's shortcomings I specifically objected to (i.e. don't
use my home wiring/home phones, and who needs 911 anyway when you already
have cellphones, etc.)

Does that answer your question?

Well, time for breakfast. Should I have my Skype poached, fried or
scrambled, Lar?

Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> Does that answer your question?
>
> Well, time for breakfast. Should I have my Skype poached, fried or
> scrambled, Lar?
>
>

Well said and I agree.

On 2008-05-16, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> or their software to be installed on a portable device. They aren't E911-
> compliant (and I STILL haven't figured out how they offer US phone numbers
> without being forced to be E911 compliant.)

I haven't figured that out either, but I it is somehow related to
them not allowing the US phone numbers to be used for caller ID
on outbound calls even though they're fine with you instead using
any overseas SkypeIn number you have for caller ID on calls to US
phones.

Dennis Ferguson

"Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:slrng2rels.4n.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...
> On 2008-05-16, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>> or their software to be installed on a portable device. They aren't E911-
>> compliant (and I STILL haven't figured out how they offer US phone
>> numbers
>> without being forced to be E911 compliant.)
>
> I haven't figured that out either, but I it is somehow related to
> them not allowing the US phone numbers to be used for caller ID
> on outbound calls even though they're fine with you instead using
> any overseas SkypeIn number you have for caller ID on calls to US
> phones.

I wondered if it has to do with where they're located (Luxemborg, or the
Duchy of Grand Fenwick or whatever.) I need to ask Bruce Nicklin, the
Voicestick Veep about that on the dslreports forums- he'd rather (like many
VoIP providers) to offer 911 as an optional service, since he claims it
costs them about a buck a month per line. His lawyers can probably explain
why Skype is exempt, but Vonage, Voicestick, et al, aren't.

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:RSmXj.217$xb2.168@fe103.usenetserver.com:

> I wondered if it has to do with where they're located (Luxemborg, or
> the Duchy of Grand Fenwick or whatever.) I need to ask Bruce Nicklin,
> the Voicestick Veep about that on the dslreports forums- he'd rather
> (like many VoIP providers) to offer 911 as an optional service, since
> he claims it costs them about a buck a month per line. His lawyers
> can probably explain why Skype is exempt, but Vonage, Voicestick, et
> al, aren't.
>
>
>
>
>

Skype is in Luxembourg....for tax purposes. They are English, mostly, but
BT and taxes ran them out of that country.

It's why every time you dial out you must dial country code, area, number
completely.

(By the way, forgetting +1 for USA and dialing our 843 area code first gets
you +84 35551212 (or whatever number you dialed without +1). +84 is
Vietnam and I'd like to report Skype dials phones in Vietnam JUST FINE!)...
(c;

My apologies to all those startled Vietnamese people I've gotten out of bed
to answer their phones....

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message news:gxgXj.1230$ZB5.763@fe087.usenetserver.com...
>
> I _AM_, however, anti-Fanboy. Replace "Skype" with "iPhone" an your posts
> read just like Oxford's or Vic's.

Question (or consensus)...

Is Vic = Oxford, toned down or maybe back on his meds?
Seems to be the same message, just a little bit more lucid.
Certainly not as blindly rabid.

Or, did Oxford actually go away - to be replaced by Vic...?
Nutboy Oxford seemed to be from Minneapolis, Comcast if I remember.
Vic seems to be on Charter down south somewhere... (Smyrna, GA?)

At 16 May 2008 15:12:30 -0700 Ness-Net wrote:

> > I _AM_, however, anti-Fanboy. Replace "Skype" with "iPhone" an your
posts
> > read just like Oxford's or Vic's.
>
> Question (or consensus)...
>
> Is Vic = Oxford, toned down or maybe back on his meds?
> Seems to be the same message, just a little bit more lucid.
> Certainly not as blindly rabid.
>
> Or, did Oxford actually go away - to be replaced by Vic...?
> Nutboy Oxford seemed to be from Minneapolis, Comcast if I remember.
> Vic seems to be on Charter down south somewhere... (Smyrna, GA?)

I've always worked on the assumption that Ox and Vic aren't the same guy.
Besides the geophraphical difference, while Oxford did change nyms often,
he never actually replied to himself to pretend he was someone else
supporting his crazed rantings, while Vic HAS replied to Oxford's posts
before Ox disappeared.


Vic is certainly a fanboy, but is a lot more reasonable than Oxford ever was.
He has even, on rare occasions, taken issue with some of the iPhone's flaws.
Vic seems to Believe that the iPhone is an amazing device that can still
be improved upon (which I have no quarrel with. It IS an amazing chunk of
silicon, IMO.) Oxford, on the other hand, treated it as if were created by
the hand of God (or Jobs- same thing) and any flaw was somehow actually an
advantage ("flash eats batteries") and we mere mortals were simply unable
to comprehend the "mysterious ways" in which it's creator worked!
Vic is actually fun to have around and posts the occasional nugget of
interesting info among his PR fluff pieces. Oxford was just a delusional
waste of bandwidth.

Of course, if the "Vic=a relocated Oxford on meds" theory is true, let's
hope he doesn't let his Blue Cross payments lapse! ;-)

At 16 May 2008 21:42:43 +0000 Larry wrote:
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
> news:RSmXj.217$xb2.168@fe103.usenetserver.com:
>
> > I wondered if it has to do with where they're located (Luxemborg, or
> > the Duchy of Grand Fenwick...

> Skype is in Luxembourg....

Same difference... ;-)


> It's why every time you dial out you must dial country code, area, number
> completely.


That's actually pretty standard for all VoIPs regardless of location. The
"smarter" VoIPs allow, through software or hardware to preprogram certain
dialing patterns to skip the country or area codes. (I.e. you dial a seven-
digit number, so the software/hardware assumes it's "local" and adds the
"1" and preset local area code for you.)

> (By the way, forgetting +1 for USA and dialing our 843 area code first
gets
> you +84 35551212 (or whatever number you dialed without +1). +84 is
> Vietnam and I'd like to report Skype dials phones in Vietnam JUST FINE!)...

> (c;
>
> My apologies to all those startled Vietnamese people I've gotten out of
bed
> to answer their phones....

This is where preset dialing patterns help- if you program your VoIP
hardware to assume any 10-digit number that doesn't begin with "1" is a US
domestic number (so the software/hardware automatically adds the "1" for
you,) you end up with fewer misdials, and don't need to train anyone
borrowing your telephone how to dial! ;-)

At 16 May 2008 16:47:56 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> > I STILL haven't figured out how they offer US phone numbers
> > without being forced to be E911 compliant.)
>
> I haven't figured that out either, but I it is somehow related to
> them not allowing the US phone numbers to be used for caller ID
> on outbound calls even though they're fine with you instead using
> any overseas SkypeIn number you have for caller ID on calls to US
> phones.


Ignore my last post! On further reflection, I think you nailed it.
Looking at various VoIP services, it seems incoming-only numbers are exempt
from 911- only services with outbound capability require 911 location.

Since Skype sells Skype-In and Skype-Out separately, I suspect the "in"
numbers are exempt by not having any outbound capability in and of
themselves. It's probably also the reason that the new unlimited USA Skype-
Out plans don't include free "in" numbers like the European plans do, but
instead just get a generous discount on a Skype-In number- if they included
the incoming number, it'd be a lot harder to convince regulators they were
separate services, under any "if it walks like a duck" scrutiny... ;-)

Todd Allcock wrote:

> On the downside, their international rates are higher than their competitors,
> often higher than just using a calling card or dial-around service. Their
> system is non-standard, requiring either a PC to run, a proprietary phone,
> or their software to be installed on a portable device. They aren't E911-
> compliant (and I STILL haven't figured out how they offer US phone numbers
> without being forced to be E911 compliant.)

They have convinced the FCC that they are not a landline or cell phone
replacement, but something of an auxiliary service, because a computer
is required to use it (unlike something like Vonage which can use an
adapter to RJ11). It's not a specious argument that Skype is using.
There are very, very, few people that use Skype as their primary phone
service.

danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in
news:g0l1dc$7ag$2@reader2.panix.com:

> Can they still pull that off given ebay purchased them?
>
I've never been charged a dime in addons and taxes.

Ebay holds controlling interest in Skype, the company. Just because Bill
Gates owns most of some water company on Tuvalu, that doesn't subject the
water company to American taxes and other ripoffs. Skype is not "pulling
off" anything. They are a legal, registered business in Luxembourg and
subject to its low taxes, in one of the richest countries on the planet.

>
> Just wondering... does skype interconnect to
> the Cuban, North Korean, and PSTNs ("regular phones")
> in the other countries the US pretends don't exist?

http://skype.com/prices/callrates/
These are rates w/o VAT (US)
Cuba is $1.025 to phones.
Korea Dem People's Rep $ 0.684
Check the huge list for rates to other places, many of whom most never
heard of. Skype is not limited by any US bureaucracy because it is not a
US company.

One of the misdialings I made on Skype resulted in a call to Hanoi. They
were very nice and said lots of Americans now come to Hanoi, mostly ex-
servicemen, and are very welcome in Hanoi without their weapons and jets.
Vietnam desparately needs the money.

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:%8pXj.254$og1.226@fe117.usenetserver.com:

> This is where preset dialing patterns help- if you program your VoIP
> hardware to assume any 10-digit number that doesn't begin with "1" is
> a US domestic number (so the software/hardware automatically adds the
> "1" for you,) you end up with fewer misdials, and don't need to train
> anyone borrowing your telephone how to dial! ;-)
>
>

Skype on Windows does preset the dialing prefix for you. I rarely make
Skype calls from the computer, though.

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:q%AXj.4704$nW2.26@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> On the downside, their international rates are higher than their
>> competitors, often higher than just using a calling card or
>> dial-around service. Their system is non-standard, requiring either
>> a PC to run, a proprietary phone, or their software to be installed
>> on a portable device. They aren't E911- compliant (and I STILL
>> haven't figured out how they offer US phone numbers without being
>> forced to be E911 compliant.)
>
> They have convinced the FCC that they are not a landline or cell phone
> replacement, but something of an auxiliary service, because a computer
> is required to use it (unlike something like Vonage which can use an
> adapter to RJ11). It's not a specious argument that Skype is using.
> There are very, very, few people that use Skype as their primary phone
> service.

Your omnipotent view of the FCC and USA Bureaucrats is flawed. Skype is
NOT a USA company, so is NOT subject to its laws/flaws. When you make
payment to your Skype account, you are making payments to Luxembourg.
Skype has no presence in the United States so is not subject to its laws
just because a majority of its users are US Citizens living in the USA.

I bought MP3 Catalog Pro from the Russians at wizetech.com. They aren't
subject to the FCC or US Government, either. Same reason. There is no
law that says if I run Russian or Luxembourgian (is that a word??)
software it subjects the foreign country with no offices whatsoever in
the USA to USA laws/regulations/taxes/etc.

The only people paying taxes on Skype are residents of the EU because
Luxembourg is an EU state and signor to those agreements. It's why you
see the VAT prices on their overseas services and see Skype's special
services for EU residence different from ours.

The USA doesn't....YET....control the whole world. I don't want to be
here when it does, do you?

On 2008-05-15, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> My SELLphone is my Skype phone because I have my Skype In number
> FORWARDED to my SEllphone number if I don't answer Skype calls....even
> Skype-to-Skype calls! So, if a friend in Japan, for instance, wants to
> call me, he calls me on Skype-to-Skype, my SELLphone rings and I talk to
> him....from anywhere I happen to be, without a Skype phone, by just using
> airtime if he calls me from Japan at 3AM in the morning! If he calls me
> on Skype-to-Skype at NOON in Japan, I'm on free N/W airtime on Alltel and
> that call costs both of us NOTHING! My bill has LOTS of evening
> "Unknown" calls from the Skype-to-Skype callers.....long winded calls...

If you are using Skype call forwarding to forward inbound calls to
your cell phone the calls aren't free, they're 2.1 cents/minute
plus the 4 cent connection charge. Unlike other VoIP operators,
Skype's flat rate plans only cover calls you dial. Forwarded calls
are charged at normal per-minute rates.

This is one of the reasons why comparing Skype charges to other
companies on an apples-to-apples basis is so difficult. Skype
isn't usually feature-for-feature equivalent.

Dennis Ferguson

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message news:W8pXj.253$og1.240@fe117.usenetserver.com...
> At 16 May 2008 15:12:30 -0700 Ness-Net wrote:
>
>> > I _AM_, however, anti-Fanboy. Replace "Skype" with "iPhone" an your
> posts
>> > read just like Oxford's or Vic's.
>>
>> Question (or consensus)...
>>
>> Is Vic = Oxford, toned down or maybe back on his meds?
>> Seems to be the same message, just a little bit more lucid.
>> Certainly not as blindly rabid.
>>
>> Or, did Oxford actually go away - to be replaced by Vic...?
>> Nutboy Oxford seemed to be from Minneapolis, Comcast if I remember.
>> Vic seems to be on Charter down south somewhere... (Smyrna, GA?)
>
> I've always worked on the assumption that Ox and Vic aren't the same guy.
> Besides the geophraphical difference, while Oxford did change nyms often,
> he never actually replied to himself to pretend he was someone else
> supporting his crazed rantings, while Vic HAS replied to Oxford's posts
> before Ox disappeared.
>
>
> Vic is certainly a fanboy, but is a lot more reasonable than Oxford ever was.
> He has even, on rare occasions, taken issue with some of the iPhone's flaws.
> Vic seems to Believe that the iPhone is an amazing device that can still
> be improved upon (which I have no quarrel with. It IS an amazing chunk of
> silicon, IMO.) Oxford, on the other hand, treated it as if were created by
> the hand of God (or Jobs- same thing) and any flaw was somehow actually an
> advantage ("flash eats batteries") and we mere mortals were simply unable
> to comprehend the "mysterious ways" in which it's creator worked!
> Vic is actually fun to have around and posts the occasional nugget of
> interesting info among his PR fluff pieces. Oxford was just a delusional
> waste of bandwidth.
>
> Of course, if the "Vic=a relocated Oxford on meds" theory is true, let's
> hope he doesn't let his Blue Cross payments lapse! ;-)

Maybe it's the mean streak in me, or just a bit of neener-neener...
I just wish I could rub Oxy's nose in the demise of muni WiFi.

And, then there were those flippant 3G comments in the past.....