Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4hfluoF1r5bi5U1
@individual.net:

> I don't know about smarter, but according to many, Edison reneged on a
> deal he had with Tesla. Another low-point for Edison.

Tesla was an Edison employee for many years, mostly ignored as he was
interested in RF and AC things Edison was not.

>
> Now, about that Death Ray...
>
>

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/ (to cover its military heart)
http://www.haarp.net
http://www.earthpulse.com/haarp/
http://www.viewzone.com/haarp00.html

The heater in Gakona is just the decoy.....

---

› See More: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:41:21 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:38:38 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> HVDC is actually becoming the technology of choice for power
>>>> transmission. The advance of technology is proving Edison right. The
>>>> amount of power wasted in AC transmission is enormous, and the fragility
>>>> of the power grid is also due to AC. For information on HVDC, see
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC>.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hmm ... I didn't see anything in that article [or any article] indicating that
>>>DC [at high voltage] was becoming the transmission technology of choice. I
>>>didn't see it. And unless they wan't to install expensive equipment and
>>>convert infrastructure ... it will never be the technology of choice.
>>>Clearly, it has its uses, the greatest of which [apparent to me] is the method
>>>of moving power from wind farms, but even that is not a great issue.
>>>
>>>Anyway, nice try John.
>>
>> Read more carefully:
>> * Advantages of HVDC over AC transmission
>> * AC network interconnections
>> * Realized HVDC systems
>> * References (in particular the World Bank paper)
>
>I read it .. and nowhere did it say it is "becoming the technology of choice".

You're playing with words -- that's clearly the meaning, which was what
I meant. I'm done with this -- feel free to have the last word.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>I read it .. and nowhere did it say it is "becoming the technology of choice".
>
> You're playing with words -- that's clearly the meaning, which was what
> I meant. I'm done with this -- feel free to have the last word.
>

Good, be done. I am not playing with words, it is not what it is saying at
all. That article enumerated some of the cases where DC is useful [such as
power transmission from offshore wind farms ... which there are not many of I
might add], but nowhere was there an implication of it becoming a technology
of choice. Feel free to consider this the last word.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Tesla was an Edison employee for many years, mostly ignored as he was
> interested in RF and AC things Edison was not.
>

And hence the choice of names for the 80's hairband ...

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I read it .. and nowhere did it say it is "becoming the technology of choice".
>> You're playing with words -- that's clearly the meaning, which was what
>> I meant. I'm done with this -- feel free to have the last word.
>>
>
> Good, be done. I am not playing with words, it is not what it is saying at
> all. That article enumerated some of the cases where DC is useful [such as
> power transmission from offshore wind farms ... which there are not many of I
> might add], but nowhere was there an implication of it becoming a technology
> of choice. Feel free to consider this the last word.

How did he manage to turn HVDC for long range transmission, into proof
that Edison was right about doing local distribution with LVDC?

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:43:10 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I read it .. and nowhere did it say it is "becoming the technology of choice".
>>> You're playing with words -- that's clearly the meaning, which was what
>>> I meant. I'm done with this -- feel free to have the last word.
>>
>> Good, be done. I am not playing with words, it is not what it is saying at
>> all. That article enumerated some of the cases where DC is useful [such as
>> power transmission from offshore wind farms ... which there are not many of I
>> might add], but nowhere was there an implication of it becoming a technology
>> of choice. Feel free to consider this the last word.
>
>How did he manage to turn HVDC for long range transmission, into proof
>that Edison was right about doing local distribution with LVDC?

I said nothing of the kind -- I said Edison was right about DC power
transmission.

I know it's hard, but try to resist the urge to mischaracterize
everything I write.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Damn John - right on the money...
On every point.




"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:01:40 -0400, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> What's stupid is government regulation. The market does a much better
>>> job. Government intervention is simply interference that causes
>>> distortions that usually hurt, not help, consumers. Consumers in the
>>> USA have all benefitted immensely from deregulation.
>>
>>Nope, I disagree. Government regulation is what forced all TV stations
>>to use the SAME TV standard so ONE, more simple receiver could receive
>>ALL the channels, unlike Europe's plethora of SECAM, PAL, etc., instead
>>of just the one the TV station they were designed for. Be thankful the
>>FCC forced them to use ONE standard.
>
> Why? We have an inferior analog TV standard, and are well behind other
> countries in moving to more advanced digital standards. In general, the
> market does a better job of setting standards than the government.
>
>>As for cellular phones, the deregulation has caused harm to all consumers
>>because they all went off in their own, proprietary directions, totally
>>at odds with what was good for the consumer. It was done for the same
>>reason the TV stations would have all used proprietary systems so you
>>could only watch THEIR channel, not their competitors. Your Verizon
>>phone doesn't work on ATT. Your ATT phone doesn't work on T-
>>mobile.....for a reason, to try to make it inconvenient at best,
>>incomprehensible at worst, to move from system to system after the
>>companies had to compete with each other over AMPS customers, the last
>>ones that had a real choice as their FCC-mandated AMPS standardized
>>phones would work on ANY system on ANY carrier they chose.
>
> My own opinion is just the opposite -- deregulation has given consumers
> more choice, and contributed to the advance of technology, as reflected
> in rapid improvements to GSM, CMDA, and UMTS. Had one standard been
> mandated, we might well have been stuck with inferior technology.
>
>>Europe learned their lesson. Your GSM phone from Germany works fine in
>>Austria and Italy with its changable SIM card, the only proprietary part
>>of the phone.
>
> Yet Europe is still grappling with serious issues, witness the current
> action to bring down high roaming fees, and is now benefitting from CDMA
> technology that was developed in our more open market.
>
>>FCC should have treated digital exactly as they did IMTS and
>>AMPS....study the options, choose a standard for the WHOLE COUNTRY, then
>>FORCED the licensees to conform to the standard.....just like every other
>>service they regulate.
>
> I strongly disagree. That would almost certainly have reduced
> innovation and discouraged real competition. It's shortsighted and
> counterproductive to limit competition to price alone.
>
>>Of course, deregulation of CONTENT in broadcasting is why radio and
>>television no longer have programming on them and have become that
>>goddamned 200 channel billboard in your living room full of unregulated
>>spam.....right?
>
> Quality TV is actually alive and well, arguably better than at any time
> in the past, largely as a result of deregulation. HBO is one of several
> channels producing excellent programming that would never have made it
> on the air under regulation.
>
>>I, for one, would love to see FCC go back to FORCING them to provide 40
>>minutes of PROGRAMMING per hour the NAB used to take credit for until
>>they could position the lawyers in FCC chairs to bribe....getting rid of
>>those damned engineers that used to run the FCC with good sense thinking
>>about the listeners, the citizens paying their salaries.
>
> Again, I strongly disagree. That would take us back to the "vast
> wasteland." No thanks.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:30:39 -0700, "RNess"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>Damn John - right on the money...
>On every point.
>
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:01:40 -0400, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> What's stupid is government regulation. The market does a much better
>>>> job. Government intervention is simply interference that causes
>>>> distortions that usually hurt, not help, consumers. Consumers in the
>>>> USA have all benefitted immensely from deregulation.
>>>
>>>Nope, I disagree. Government regulation is what forced all TV stations
>>>to use the SAME TV standard so ONE, more simple receiver could receive
>>>ALL the channels, unlike Europe's plethora of SECAM, PAL, etc., instead
>>>of just the one the TV station they were designed for. Be thankful the
>>>FCC forced them to use ONE standard.
>>
>> Why? We have an inferior analog TV standard, and are well behind other
>> countries in moving to more advanced digital standards. In general, the
>> market does a better job of setting standards than the government.
>>
>>>As for cellular phones, the deregulation has caused harm to all consumers
>>>because they all went off in their own, proprietary directions, totally
>>>at odds with what was good for the consumer. It was done for the same
>>>reason the TV stations would have all used proprietary systems so you
>>>could only watch THEIR channel, not their competitors. Your Verizon
>>>phone doesn't work on ATT. Your ATT phone doesn't work on T-
>>>mobile.....for a reason, to try to make it inconvenient at best,
>>>incomprehensible at worst, to move from system to system after the
>>>companies had to compete with each other over AMPS customers, the last
>>>ones that had a real choice as their FCC-mandated AMPS standardized
>>>phones would work on ANY system on ANY carrier they chose.
>>
>> My own opinion is just the opposite -- deregulation has given consumers
>> more choice, and contributed to the advance of technology, as reflected
>> in rapid improvements to GSM, CMDA, and UMTS. Had one standard been
>> mandated, we might well have been stuck with inferior technology.
>>
>>>Europe learned their lesson. Your GSM phone from Germany works fine in
>>>Austria and Italy with its changable SIM card, the only proprietary part
>>>of the phone.
>>
>> Yet Europe is still grappling with serious issues, witness the current
>> action to bring down high roaming fees, and is now benefitting from CDMA
>> technology that was developed in our more open market.
>>
>>>FCC should have treated digital exactly as they did IMTS and
>>>AMPS....study the options, choose a standard for the WHOLE COUNTRY, then
>>>FORCED the licensees to conform to the standard.....just like every other
>>>service they regulate.
>>
>> I strongly disagree. That would almost certainly have reduced
>> innovation and discouraged real competition. It's shortsighted and
>> counterproductive to limit competition to price alone.
>>
>>>Of course, deregulation of CONTENT in broadcasting is why radio and
>>>television no longer have programming on them and have become that
>>>goddamned 200 channel billboard in your living room full of unregulated
>>>spam.....right?
>>
>> Quality TV is actually alive and well, arguably better than at any time
>> in the past, largely as a result of deregulation. HBO is one of several
>> channels producing excellent programming that would never have made it
>> on the air under regulation.
>>
>>>I, for one, would love to see FCC go back to FORCING them to provide 40
>>>minutes of PROGRAMMING per hour the NAB used to take credit for until
>>>they could position the lawyers in FCC chairs to bribe....getting rid of
>>>those damned engineers that used to run the FCC with good sense thinking
>>>about the listeners, the citizens paying their salaries.
>>
>> Again, I strongly disagree. That would take us back to the "vast
>> wasteland." No thanks.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> I said nothing of the kind -- I said Edison was right about DC power
> transmission.
>

At the time, he was wrong. Today, perhaps, he might be right. Tomorrow, he
may again be wrong. It is off topic really as the electrical analogy was one
related to regulation.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
>

We can only pray for something that good out of you.

John Navas wrote:
> Consumers in the
> USA have all benefitted immensely from deregulation.

Rubbish

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:03:50 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> Consumers in the
>> USA have all benefitted immensely from deregulation.
>
>Rubbish

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Rpt.104-023 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION

Deregulation has a clear and consistent track record. In virtually
every case, consumers have benefited from lower prices, better
services and increased choices. For example, deregulation of the
airlines in 1978 has made air travel affordable for millions of
Americans. Deregulation of the trucking industry in 1980 has saved
consumers billions of dollars in freight costs. Deregulation saved
the rail industry from bankruptcy in 1980.

Deregulation benefits big and small competitors alike. Experience
shows that a deregulated market is not long dominated by a few
giants, but rather that competitors come along and devise ways to run
circles around the giants. The giants are forced to become quicker
and more agile if they wish to survive.

Robert J. Samuelson, "The Joy of Deregulation," Newsweek, February 3,
1997:

Economists Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution and Jerry
Ellig of George Mason University calculated the benefits to the
United States' economy of deregulation of airlines, natural gas,
railroads, telecommunications and trucking.

They found that the benefits of deregulation in these industries now
total roughly $40 billion to $60 billion annually -- nearly one
percent of gross domestic product. Specifically, their study found:

* Since 1978 air fares adjusted for inflation have declined by about
a third.

* Long-distance telephone rates have dropped by about half after
inflation since 1984, when American Telephone & Telegraph Co. was
broken up.

* Trucking and railroad freight rates have dropped 30 percent to 50
percent after inflation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> Consumers in the
>> USA have all benefitted immensely from deregulation.
>
> Rubbish

Actually, there are some areas of deregulation where some consumers have
benefited, while some have been hurt, and some where all consumers have
been hurt.

Take airline deregulation, for example. Consumers living near a major
hub have benefited from lower fares, and more flights. Consumers living
near smaller cities have often lost all jet service, and must either
take a small plane to the hub, or drive to a hub.

Bank deregulation cost consumers a lot of money in the bailout of the
S&L, and in lower interest rates paid out on savings, though some
consumers benefited initially from the very high interest rates paid out
on CDs by the S&Ls that were going to become insolvent.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:03:50 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> Consumers in the
>>> USA have all benefitted immensely from deregulation.
>>
>>Rubbish
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Senate Rpt.104-023 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION
>
> Deregulation has a clear and consistent track record. In virtually
> every case, consumers have benefited from lower prices, better
> services and increased choices.

You don't have Comcast for as a cable provider, do you?

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:49:00 -0400, "EOO" <whereeverforever.com> wrote
in <[email protected]>:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:03:50 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>> Consumers in the
>>>> USA have all benefitted immensely from deregulation.
>>>
>>>Rubbish
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Senate Rpt.104-023 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION
>>
>> Deregulation has a clear and consistent track record. In virtually
>> every case, consumers have benefited from lower prices, better
>> services and increased choices.
>
>You don't have Comcast for as a cable provider, do you?

I don't watch TV. But even if I did, and Comcast were the only
cable company, there would still be good value choices:
* Low end Comcast package
* Broadcast
* DBS (satellite)
* DVD rental/public library
* DSL

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>