Anyone Ditch Their landline?

Tropical Haven wrote:
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
>> Per Jer:
>>
>>
>>> The DNC Registry is one's only legal defense from these type of systems.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It was working for us for awhile.
>>
>> Last year or so, we're back to a steady 3-4 calls every evening at
>> dinner time.
>>
>> I press them about the no-call list - figuring the more time they
>> spend on an
>> unproductive call, the less cost-effective it becomes.
>> I get a good bit of BS about "ongoing business relationship",
>> "non-profits being
>> exempted", and "political parties being exempted" - none of which
>> makes me feel
>> any better about being interrupted in the sanctity of my home.
>>
>>
>>
> Why not just stop answering the phone during your dinner?
>


Yup. Just because a phone rings it still doesn't have the
constitutional right to be answered. Ringers off during supper.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

---

› See More: Anyone Ditch Their landline?

Joseph wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:44:41 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>"Oops, I'm sorry, I didn't know this was a cell phone number - but I
>>still get paid because I made contact. Therefore, I don't care if it's
>>a cell phone number."
>
>
> Which is bull****. If they make calls it's their *duty* to not call
> mobile prefixed numbers. If they don't do their work ignorance is no
> excuse. They can still be heavily fined for not sticking to the terms
> of the TCPA.
>
> - -
>


True, but they're betting on you *not* complaining, and wanting all the
"free" **** they think you can't live without.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Peter Hessler wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:22:43 -0400
> "Ric" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : I've been thinking of cutting the cord. If you've done it...any
> : regrets?
> :
>
> I've partially done it. I use my mobile exclusivly for people I want
> to talk to, and I give me home number to those I don't. I have a
> landline because its "required" for DSL (thanks SBC), and to buzz people
> in to my apt complex. Although I could change the latter to my mobile,
> if the former wasn't required.


Buzz people in? Whazzup widdat?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Per John Navas:
>
>How so?

Prepaid, I pay $100 for 1,000 minutes. Period.

No 'Local Number Portability Surcharge', no "Federal Universal Service Fund
Surcharge', no "PA Relay Surcharge", no "911 Fee", no "Federal Tax"....and
so-forth.

OTOH, maybe it's like going to certain other countries where, at first glance,
it's a little bit of a relief not to have to see those ingredients lists on the
food you buy..... but then you realize it's all in there anyhow and then
some....
--
PeteCresswell

My SBC bill does not state what name my plan is called. But I am not
under any "elderly" or subsidized plan.

My basic plan is Local Line $8.20, plus Federal Access Charge $5.07, so
Total Monthly Service is $13.27.

Local Calls ( 10 calls ) $.40.

Under Surcharges and Other Fees: County 911 $.18 plus Federal Universal
Service Fee $.51 for Total Surcharges and Other Fees of $.69.

Under Taxes: Federal Tax $.43, State Tax $.71, County Tax $.07, Stadium
Tax $.01 for Total Taxes of $1.22.

So Total Plans and Services is $15.58 for this month. It is 77.9
percent of $20. Some may call that near $20 I guess.


clifto wrote:
>
> A look at my SBC landline phone bill convinces me that I couldn't pay
> less than about $30 a month (taxes included) for the barest minimum of
> service, NO calls included. They have a lifeline service for seniors
> for $9.99/month, but I'll bet taxes take that up to near $20.
>

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:35:09 GMT, Lisa Drake <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article
><[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Postpaid. I pay about $46 ($40 rate plan plus taxes and fees) for 1,000
>> anytime minutes, and with Rollover I now have over 3,000 anytime minutes in
>> reserve.
>
>Tell us all what this plan is called and how to get it, oh great one.

It was a GREAT plan that was offered right about the time Cingular bought
up AT&T. There was no night/weekends or mobile-to-mobile included, but you
got 1,000 anytime minutes with no roaming or long-distance charges for
$39.99 along with rollover. You can/could add M2M for $9.99/month. If you
were around this Usenet group, you couldn't have helped but known about it.

We had 6 or 7 cellular lines at the time thru Cingular and we switched all
but one of them to that plan. This was at a time where Cingular's "NATION"
plans were normally quite a bit less attractive as far as cost and minutes
than the "LOCAL" or "REGION" plans we were on.

Go check out the current Cingular plans. That $39.99/month plan is far
better costwise than anything Cingular currently is running, unless you
really eat up the night/weekend minutes.

Those who snoozed, lost.

Joseph wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:19:42 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Hessler wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:22:43 -0400
>>>"Ric" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>: I've been thinking of cutting the cord. If you've done it...any
>>>: regrets?
>>>:
>>>
>>>I've partially done it. I use my mobile exclusivly for people I want
>>>to talk to, and I give me home number to those I don't. I have a
>>>landline because its "required" for DSL (thanks SBC), and to buzz people
>>>in to my apt complex. Although I could change the latter to my mobile,
>>>if the former wasn't required.
>>
>>
>>Buzz people in? Whazzup widdat?
>
>
> You must not know anyone who lives in an apartment building.
> Depending on the age of the building modern apartment buildings to
> gain entrance someone picks up the receiver on the apartment's
> directory and dials the code for the apartment you wish to gain
> entrance to. The phone system calls that person's apartment and if
> the apartment resident wishes you to be let in they key in a code (9
> is a common number) which releases the door so they can gain entrance
> to the building.


Okay, sounds familiar now. My sis lived in a place with that, and after
a couple years, the property eliminated it. The burglars figured out
they could learn who was and wasn't home by dialing from the gate. They
made a list of the no answers, tail-gated someone through the gate soon
after, and began making their own zero-risk visits. The cops finally
clued in and tested this theory, catching several over a month. The
system after that required a simple number code to open the gate, but
shoulder surfers proved that method ineffective. All adult residents
now have a key fob to operate the gates, adolescents aren't allowed to
possess or use a fob - a single violation causes eviction. Property
crimes by non-residents now all but gone.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:00:04
+0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:35:09 GMT, Lisa Drake <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article
>><[email protected]>,
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Postpaid. I pay about $46 ($40 rate plan plus taxes and fees) for 1,000
>>> anytime minutes, and with Rollover I now have over 3,000 anytime minutes in
>>> reserve.
>>
>>Tell us all what this plan is called and how to get it, oh great one.
>
>It was a GREAT plan that was offered right about the time Cingular bought
>up AT&T. There was no night/weekends or mobile-to-mobile included, but you
>got 1,000 anytime minutes with no roaming or long-distance charges for
>$39.99 along with rollover. You can/could add M2M for $9.99/month. If you
>were around this Usenet group, you couldn't have helped but known about it.

Even better, as a result of the merger I now have unlimited free
mobile-to-mobile as well.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 08:01:42 -0500
Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

: Joseph wrote:
: > On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:19:42 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
: >
: >
: >>Peter Hessler wrote:
: >>
: >>>On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:22:43 -0400
: >>>"Ric" <[email protected]> wrote:
: >>>
: >>>: I've been thinking of cutting the cord. If you've done it...any
: >>>: regrets?
: >>>:
: >>>
: >>>I've partially done it. I use my mobile exclusivly for people I
: >>>want to talk to, and I give me home number to those I don't. I
: >>>have a landline because its "required" for DSL (thanks SBC), and
: >>>to buzz people in to my apt complex. Although I could change the
: >>>latter to my mobile, if the former wasn't required.
: >>
: >>
: >>Buzz people in? Whazzup widdat?
: >
: >
: > You must not know anyone who lives in an apartment building.
: > Depending on the age of the building modern apartment buildings to
: > gain entrance someone picks up the receiver on the apartment's
: > directory and dials the code for the apartment you wish to gain
: > entrance to. The phone system calls that person's apartment and if
: > the apartment resident wishes you to be let in they key in a code
: > (9 is a common number) which releases the door so they can gain
: > entrance to the building.

Exactly. Except my building uses 6.


: Okay, sounds familiar now. My sis lived in a place with that, and
: after a couple years, the property eliminated it. The burglars
: figured out they could learn who was and wasn't home by dialing from
: the gate. They made a list of the no answers, tail-gated someone
: through the gate soon after, and began making their own zero-risk
: visits. The cops finally clued in and tested this theory, catching
: several over a month. The system after that required a simple number
: code to open the gate, but shoulder surfers proved that method
: ineffective. All adult residents now have a key fob to operate the
: gates, adolescents aren't allowed to possess or use a fob - a single
: violation causes eviction. Property crimes by non-residents now all
: but gone.


So far, no burgularys in my building. Not that the buzzer would matter
much, as many times my &*#*&%#^&@ neighbours would prop the back gate
open.


: --
: jer
: email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Your point has some validity, but I think cellphones offer benefits in
this area that landlines do not.

For instance, your landline only exists at your residence.

On my cellphone I have the emergency number entered in my phonebook for
every municipality/jurisdiction that I frequent (e.g.--adjoining towns,
state police, etc.). As I enter all of these under names beginning with
911, it's a simple matter to scroll down to the required contact. In
this way, I have the 911 convenience that you speak of in the home,
except I have it _everywhere_. In your case, you could program the 911
of your home into a speed dial slot.

mc wrote:
> Your point has some validity, but I think cellphones offer benefits in
> this area that landlines do not.
>
> For instance, your landline only exists at your residence.
>
> On my cellphone I have the emergency number entered in my phonebook for
> every municipality/jurisdiction that I frequent (e.g.--adjoining towns,
> state police, etc.). As I enter all of these under names beginning with
> 911, it's a simple matter to scroll down to the required contact. In
> this way, I have the 911 convenience that you speak of in the home,
> except I have it _everywhere_. In your case, you could program the 911
> of your home into a speed dial slot.
>


Okay, I see. Actually, experts now discourage programming 911 on any
speed dial function because people sometimes press the one "wrong"
button, especially kids, when they meant something else. This often
ties up a 911 operator that now has to decide if it really is a mistake
or is their someone at the location in distress and is now lying under
duress. Most children are easily taught how to press just three buttons
(the second and third are the same) to speak to someone that can help.

Now, on to the other issue... I also see your "everywhere" point here,
and when traveling repetitive routes, sounds like a heckuva good one to
follow. As for the home location, I've always asked, "What happens if
the cell network goes south?" (no 911 service possible) In urban
environments, the loss of one, or even two cell towers is often
inconsequential due to the sheer numbers of towers often serving a given
location. Rural people often don't have the benefit of multiple towers
- they're often served by only one. Sometimes, even in an urban
location, inside a building, things can get iffy for wireless
penetration to all parts of the interior. Office buildings in
particular are riddled with infrastructure components that can easily
shield/distort RF signals. If there's only one tower signal with really
good penetration, and the others are crap, if that one good tower goes
tits up, wireless dependents are in trouble - IF a life-critical moment
comes along. The complexity of all the pieces that make wireless 911
possible is staggering (according to my sources), and any technical
snafu can render a rural wireless location, or a well-shielded urban
one, sans service, including 911. My sources tell me that, yes, if a
wireless provider knows a piece of the 911 network is in trouble, and
they usually do using equipment alarms, they get real busy to restore
it. In the meantime, regular voice and data traffic continue unabated,
but dialing 911 successfully isn't possible, and there's no way any
handset can know this until it's too late. I wish there was some way
handsets could have some on-screen icon to inform users of this
"separate" issue (like signal strength, GPRS availability do), but they
don't, and I'm unaware of any plans to change that, nor do I have any
clue how such a thing could be done. I can tell you this, wireless
providers actually use special handsets to test 911 viability by drive
testing in the field. Special handsets are used specifically to
identify the caller as a service technician, which the 911 operator
knows ahead of time as a test call, and the technician can verify
location info on the spot.

Bottom line: The inherent complexities of wireless 911 service are
adamantly more than landline 911 service. If landline works as intended
- great! If wireless works as intended - even greater! Given the value
I place on my own life, and the lives of my dear family, I'm willing and
capable of providing us both choices, and in our house, landline is the
first one. The handsets here don't need batteries/chargers, nor any
external power source to operate, there's one in every room, there's no
ghost signals floating around to cause useless signal
shielding/reflections/drop-outs, the back-lit controls are big enough to
be seen without hunting one's glasses at 3am, and I don't recall a time
when the landline service was anything but rock solid. Sooner or later,
we all have to make our choices, and sooner or later, we all have to
justify why we made them. When seconds count, the above is my
justification. Maybe I've touched on an issue someone else hasn't
thought of. If so, maybe they've got some thinking to do.

I hope this has been helpful to someone.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Peter Hessler wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 08:01:42 -0500
> Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : Joseph wrote:
> : > On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:19:42 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : >>Peter Hessler wrote:
> : >>
> : >>>On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:22:43 -0400
> : >>>"Ric" <[email protected]> wrote:
> : >>>
> : >>>: I've been thinking of cutting the cord. If you've done it...any
> : >>>: regrets?
> : >>>:
> : >>>
> : >>>I've partially done it. I use my mobile exclusivly for people I
> : >>>want to talk to, and I give me home number to those I don't. I
> : >>>have a landline because its "required" for DSL (thanks SBC), and
> : >>>to buzz people in to my apt complex. Although I could change the
> : >>>latter to my mobile, if the former wasn't required.
> : >>
> : >>
> : >>Buzz people in? Whazzup widdat?
> : >
> : >
> : > You must not know anyone who lives in an apartment building.
> : > Depending on the age of the building modern apartment buildings to
> : > gain entrance someone picks up the receiver on the apartment's
> : > directory and dials the code for the apartment you wish to gain
> : > entrance to. The phone system calls that person's apartment and if
> : > the apartment resident wishes you to be let in they key in a code
> : > (9 is a common number) which releases the door so they can gain
> : > entrance to the building.
>
> Exactly. Except my building uses 6.
>
>
> : Okay, sounds familiar now. My sis lived in a place with that, and
> : after a couple years, the property eliminated it. The burglars
> : figured out they could learn who was and wasn't home by dialing from
> : the gate. They made a list of the no answers, tail-gated someone
> : through the gate soon after, and began making their own zero-risk
> : visits. The cops finally clued in and tested this theory, catching
> : several over a month. The system after that required a simple number
> : code to open the gate, but shoulder surfers proved that method
> : ineffective. All adult residents now have a key fob to operate the
> : gates, adolescents aren't allowed to possess or use a fob - a single
> : violation causes eviction. Property crimes by non-residents now all
> : but gone.
>
>
> So far, no burgularys in my building. Not that the buzzer would matter
> much, as many times my &*#*&%#^&@ neighbours would prop the back gate
> open.


Oh... OUCH! Another friend lives in an access-controlled place, and
kids put rocks in the gate wheel tracks, especially when Mom is
expecting a visitor. Trouble is, which pickup is that visitor driving?
That one? or one of the other 39 that came in since o-dark-thirty?
Maybe it's the one leaving loaded with someone's furniture. <shrug>


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:08:36 GMT, John Navas <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:00:04
>+0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It was a GREAT plan that was offered right about the time Cingular bought
>>up AT&T. There was no night/weekends or mobile-to-mobile included, but you
>>got 1,000 anytime minutes with no roaming or long-distance charges for
>>$39.99 along with rollover. You can/could add M2M for $9.99/month. If you
>>were around this Usenet group, you couldn't have helped but known about it.
>
>Even better, as a result of the merger I now have unlimited free
>mobile-to-mobile as well.

How did you swing that?

That 1,000min / $39.95 Nation+Rollover didn't come with any included M2M
minutes (or NW minutes for that matte). The only way I was able to get it
was to add it on for $9.99/month.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 6 Oct 2005 03:20:05
+0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:08:36 GMT, John Navas <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>In <[email protected]> on Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:00:04
>>+0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>It was a GREAT plan that was offered right about the time Cingular bought
>>>up AT&T. There was no night/weekends or mobile-to-mobile included, but you
>>>got 1,000 anytime minutes with no roaming or long-distance charges for
>>>$39.99 along with rollover. You can/could add M2M for $9.99/month. If you
>>>were around this Usenet group, you couldn't have helped but known about it.
>>
>>Even better, as a result of the merger I now have unlimited free
>>mobile-to-mobile as well.
>
>How did you swing that?
>
>That 1,000min / $39.95 Nation+Rollover didn't come with any included M2M
>minutes (or NW minutes for that matte). The only way I was able to get it
>was to add it on for $9.99/month.

I did nothing. It just started appearing on my statements:

Rate Plan
NAT P 1000R UM2M 09/15-10/14 39.99 39.99
Includes:
1000 ANYTIME MINUTES
ANYTIME ROLLOVER MINS
CALLER ID LINE BLOCK
Call Forwarding
Call Hold
Call Waiting
Caller ID
Detailed Billing
NATION GAIT/GSM
NO ANSWER CALL FORWARD
THREE-WAY CALLING
UNLTD EXP M2M MINS

And down below:

Unlimited Expd M2M 09/15-10/14 0.00 0.00

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

>You must not know anyone who lives in an apartment building.
>Depending on the age of the building modern apartment buildings to
>gain entrance someone picks up the receiver on the apartment's
>directory and dials the code for the apartment you wish to gain
>entrance to. The phone system calls that person's apartment and if
>the apartment resident wishes you to be let in they key in a code (9
>is a common number) which releases the door so they can gain entrance
>to the building.
>
>- -
>
>
>
Some of the newer buildings will call any number, including long
distance numbers on mobiles, so you can buzz people in with that. I had
a friend that buzzed people in all the time, even when she was at work
or out on the town, as long as she knew who it was.

TH