Disney Mobile calls it Quits

At 02 Oct 2007 06:32:16 -0700 SMS wrote:

> The average Vonage customer pays $28.38. Maybe this is a good price
> in some parts of the country, if you make a lot of long-distance
> calls at the ridiculous rates that AT&T charges for them.

That'satually a goo price in MANY pats the country.

> Of course you also have to have broadband to your house, either
> cable, ($50/month in my area for Comcast broadband), or DSL, at
> about $30 for naked DSL or $15+local phone service.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that broadband+Vonage is cheaper
than POTS alone, only that if you're going to pay for broadband anyway,
you canvleverage it with VoIP for a little savings.


> My local phone bill is about $17/month from AT&T. $11 (Vonage price-
$17)

re you including all of the fees in that $17? My local seevice from
Qwest (Denver) is "only" $24.99, but that's before taxes (about $4)
and fees (about a buck for E911 and $6 for "interconnect fees")
bringing me to $36-37. Vonage is $25/month (the "average revenue per
customer" has no meaning in this discussion since we're not using the
"avearge" landline customer to compare them to.) and only has a
couple of bucks in taxes.

> would buy 440 minutes of long distance on a provider like OneSuite
> (2.5¢.minute). How many non-business users make 440 minutes of
> long distance during peak times?

Not the issue- you have far cheaper POTS services available to you
than most of us do- clearly a $25 VoIP isn't competitive THERE. Even
Qwest @ $36 is a vacation compared to the rural phone company I had
in Missouri- I paid over $50/month for LOCAL service with what is now
Embarq (Sprint/Union Telephone when I was there.)

Add to that a couple of bucks for LD service (the monthly fee for my
LD service before I make my first call) has risen from $0.99 to over
$3/month, bringing my "local" service to about $40.

> Complicating things further for Vonage, is free in-network calling
> on most cell phone plans. within circles of friends and relatives
> that call each other a lot, the tendency is to all migrate to the
> same cellular provider.


I'm surethat's a powerful marketing tool for many, but I've never
once in 20 years with cellphones, ever based my carrier choice based
on friend's or family's network.


> Vonage is like many products and services that base their entire
> business model on comparing their prices to what the most naive
> consumer would pay for competing products and services. It's like
> the advertisements that quote the MSRP for a product, then add
> the disclaimer that the product "may never have been sold at the
MSRP."


True, but Vonage is the li
e the AOL of VoIP- it's "VoIP for Dummies;" glossy brochures,
preconfigured hardware, you can buy it in stores- it Commands it's
price based on ease and convenience. Other VoIPs are cheaper, but
lack the capital and infrastrucre Vonage has (ok, had!) ;-)


> Even more ridiculous than Vonage, is Skype, but for different
> reasons. The average revenue per Skype user is estimated at
> 12-13¢/month, because almost no one uses it for anything other than
> free computer to computer calls. Skype gets away with not
> providing E911 capability because they claim that it's not a
> substitute for a landline. Unfortunately for eBay, they have the
> data to prove that this is the case.

Other than Larry, no one considers Skype as a VoIP player- they're
really a glorified IM program on steroids.



--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

---

› See More: Disney Mobile calls it Quits

Todd Allcock wrote:

> I don't think anyone is suggesting that broadband+Vonage is cheaper
> than POTS alone, only that if you're going to pay for broadband anyway,
> you canvleverage it with VoIP for a little savings.

Perhaps, though if you're paying for broadband anyway, Voicestick is a
better deal than Vonage, and is likely to be around longer since they
seem to have a business plan that doesn't rely on massive advertising
with annoying background sounds. Voicestick also has some features than
Vonage lacks.

Actually, I probably could run Vonage or Voicestick over our free
community wireless network, if it'd work at only 1Mb/s, but the
reliability is a big factor.

In alt.cellular.cingular Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 01 Oct 2007 17:14:01 +0000 [email protected] wrote:
> > Don't forget the bluetooth headsets. Those work fine for cordless
> VoIP.
> True. Re-pairing everytime I switch between phone and PC is a
> hassle, tho'. I guess that's an excuse to buy more earpieces! ;-)

I bought two, after going through the re-pairing excerise a couple of
times. I have a pocket sized headset for cellular, and a larger headset
for PC. Plantronics touts their ability to switch seamlessly.

> > Who would one of these "more typical" SIP providers be?
> The small-fry- Voicestick, OneSuite, callwithus.com, etc.

Darn. I want name recognition and flexibility from the same vendor. ;-(

> need to be using 1000-1500/minutes a month or more for that $19.99 to
> be a good deal.

I was using it as my home phone replacement, so with unlimited LD it was
cheaper than the basic landline.

> The problem with most if not all WiFi VoIP phones is the lack of web
> browser. Too many public WiFi APs (including most hotels) require
> you toagree to a TOS page in a browser before you get access to the
> 'net. This wipes out the ability for those phones to connect. When
> I want to Skype over WiFi when traveling, I use my Pocket PC.

I wonder if that's behind the T-Mobile "hotspot@home" signup. There's
something about pre-authorized hotspots. The Netgear page mentions some
ISP roaming standard.

> Skype's improved quite a bit in the connection to POTS department, IMO.

I expected that with the eBay involvement. At least they would be
US-centric. I have had Skype-out calls arrive at my home from Australia
and Germany in the last couple of days that sounded good, undetectable from
"being there". i should just cough up a few bucks and try it again.

> I just can't take a "phone" service seriously that needs my PC on to
> work. (While the WiFi phones are cute, I like being able to hook
> "real phones" into a VoIP box.)

A piece of software on the PC, or a standalone ATA... same-o.
Some of the other Skype WiFi phones are not self contained, and have a
widget to plug in. I plugged my "real" phones into the Callvantage ATA.
I don't mind it being PC-only. The WiFi phone might be less handy. I'd
carry more junk when I had the laptop already.

> > housemates didn't like 10 digit dialing. Not 7, not 11, 10.

> That can be fixed with most ATA boxes in their setup by editing the

I didn't see that with Callvantage. I think it was even answered as a FAQ
with "because that's the way it is" or words to that effect.

> > Unplug one wire, plug in another wire. No drama, no skills required.

> Many people often forget the "unhook the local telco's line from the
> entrance bridge/test interface" part and fry a perfectly good VoIP
> box!

That's just bad hardware design. There's no excuse for frying
telco-certified parts at telco-certified line voltages. Once upon a time,
I did some work where our gadget sat inline with telco, and we routed LD
calls, and let the local calls go through. We weren't trying to drive
volts out the same connector, but still. Nothing fried if you hooked it up
backwards. The ATA should be able to detect line voltage, and post a red
blinking error message on the management page.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

At 02 Oct 2007 17:11:38 +0000 [email protected] wrote:

> Darn. I want name recognition and flexibility from the same
vendor. ;-(


Sadly, I think you won't get that- I suspect advetising is the single
largest expense with the big guys like Vonage and CallVantage.


> I was using it as my home phone replacement, so with unlimited LD
it was
> cheaper than the basic landline.

Absolutely.


> I wonder if that's behind the T-Mobile "hotspot@home" signup.
There's
> something about pre-authorized hotspots.

No- the T-Mo service isn't really VoIP in the tradtional sense- it's
more like "GoIP"- the actual GSM packets are delivered via the
internet instead of over the air, which is why you can seamlessly
sWitch between WiFi and cellular mid-call.

> The Netgear page mentions some
> ISP roaming standard.


The T-Mo service has the same problem as the Skype phones- no way to
authenticate with a browser- you can put in a WEP/WPA key, but that's
about it.


> I expected that with the eBay involvement. At least they would be
> US-centric. I have had Skype-out calls arrive at my home from
Australia
> and Germany in the last couple of days that sounded good,
undetectable from
> "being there". i should just cough up a few bucks and try it again.


If you're going to lug the laptop around, why not? It's cheap
enough, and it works pretty well. If you have a PocketPC or Symbian-
based phone you can even use Skype from them.


> > I just can't take a "phone" service seriously that needs my PC
on to
> > work. (While the WiFi phones are cute, I like being able to hook
> > "real phones" into a VoIP box.)
>
> A piece of software on the PC, or a standalone ATA... same-o.


For traveling, no problem. For home landline replacement I'd rather
nothave it PC-based, all else being equal.

> Some of the other Skype WiFi phones are not self contained, and
have a
> widget to plug in. I plugged my "real" phones into the Callvantage
ATA.
> I don't mind it being PC-only. The WiFi phone might be less handy.
I'd
> carry more junk when I had the laptop already.


True enough!


> > That can be fixed with most ATA boxes in their setup by editing
the
>
> I didn't see that with Callvantage. I think it was even answered
as a FAQ
> with "because that's the way it is" or words to that effect.


Depends on what model ATA they use, orif they allow you to access the
settings. They might "lock" customers out of it to prevent them from
screwing things up.


> > > Unplug one wire, plug in another wire. No drama, no skills
required.
>
> > Many people often forget the "unhook the local telco's line from
the
> > entrance bridge/test interface" part and fry a perfectly good VoIP
> > box!
>
> That's just bad hardware design. There's no excuse for frying
> telco-certified parts at telco-certified line voltages.

Agreed, but many VoIP ATAs look like something hobbled together off
the parts wall at a RadioShack! ;-)


> Once upon a time,
> I did some work where our gadget sat inline with telco, and we
routed LD
> calls, and let the local calls go through. We weren't trying to
drive
> volts out the same connector, but still. Nothing fried if you
hooked it up
> backwards. The ATA should be able to detect line voltage, and post
a red
> blinking error message on the management page.

Agreed!

Take care!

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-10-02, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> I wonder if that's behind the T-Mobile "hotspot@home" signup. There's
> something about pre-authorized hotspots. The Netgear page mentions some
> ISP roaming standard.

Yes. T-Mobile HotSpot customers can roam on several other companies'
WiFI networks. The charges vary (some are per-minute or per-hour,
some per-day). This is useful when you're stuck in a place that does not have
T-Mo HotSpot service (like an airport waiting for a layover).


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

On Oct 1, 1:35 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 30, 9:10 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> Of much greater interest from the webpage is the one on Vonage's demise:
> > >>http://www.thestreet.com/s/vonages-vanishing-
> > >> act/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10381531.html?
>
> > >> They're TOAST! My condolences to Vonage users stuck with useless equipment
> > >> once the company goes dark.
>
> > > Bah. Us Sunrocket customers are old hat at that. It's yesterday's news.
>
> > Vonage provided a valuable service with its saturation advertising. It
> > made users aware of VOIP, and the ways it can be used. People that
> > travel a lot like these services since they can use VOIP to have a
> > "local" phone number when traveling, and use the hotel's free wireless
> > for calls.
>
> > However the problem was that a) Vonage was too expensive, and b) it had
> > little appeal outside the market for people that used it as a traveling
> > number type of service. Few people would ever spend anywhere close to
> > $25/month on long distance. That's 1000 minutes on OneSuite, 1250
> > minutes on TalkLoop. And of course most people have unlimited off-peak
> > long distance on their cell phone plans.
>
> I think Cell Phones are starting to kill off the land lines en masse.

The "kill off" from tumors of the sheeple should start happening
within the next 5-10 years, viola..no Social Security "deficit".

[email protected] wrote:

> The "kill off" from tumors of the sheeple should start happening
> within the next 5-10 years, viola..no Social Security "deficit".

Which will be offset, at least temporarily, by increased Medicare costs.

On Oct 5, 6:40 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > The "kill off" from tumors of the sheeple should start happening
> > within the next 5-10 years, viola..no Social Security "deficit".
>
> Which will be offset, at least temporarily, by increased Medicare costs.

Only for those over 65... the others are SOL...JG