NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:30:35
-0500, Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>>>>>>Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not a viable alternative for most of us.
>>>>
>>>>1. Why not?
>>>
>>>Not all of us make enough income to justify a $125 per month charge for
>>>75 minutes or airtime, and $1.68 per minute airtime fee to connect to
>>>the PSTN. ...
>>
>> It's actually quite a bit cheaper than that.
>
>The vendors I've spoken with disagree. Do you sell Iridium service?

No.

>List your rates. Let's see how reasonable they really are.

You can't be bothered to check? You'd rather stay misinformed and make
spurious objections?

Basic Iridium plans are available for as little as $20/month, with calls at
$1.50/minute (total price, to anywhere in the world). Larger packages of
minutes get the total per minute cost well under $1/minute. Handsets go on
eBay for $300 or so.

Is $20/month unreasonable for real peace of mind (ability to make an emergency
call pretty much anywhere/anytime)? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

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

---

› See More: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:31:59
-0500, Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>>>>1. Why not?
>>>
>>>Too expensive for the average person.
>>
>> In real terms it's about the same as early cellular.
>
>Early cellular was in fact too expensive for the average person. The
>subscriber numbers increased when prices came down.

Not for everyone (including kids), but lots of people paid those prices.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:29:44
-0500, Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>>>Because the government contracts with Iridium stipulate that in an
>>>emergency, they have priority when capacity is at critical levels. In
>>>an emergency, you can bet capacity will be strained, and your public,
>>>low-priority call is unlikely to go through when the network must choose
>>>between that call and the call of an authorized emergency worker.
>>
>> 1. I don't think that necessarily follows.
>
>> 2. The government can preempt all forms of public communication in an
>> emergency.
>
>The two statements you just made are mutually exclusive. ...

I disagree.

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

Not true - here in Raleigh, NC, we had power outages for days from an
ice storm two almost two years ago, Hurricanes Fran in 1996 and Floyd in
1999. Each lasted almost a week. We had phone service the whole
time. The issue was that the phone lines were buried from the telco
substations to our house and perhaps further away. The power company
lines were buried in our neighborhood, but overhead on the main streets.

After each outage, there was widespread clamoring for the power
companies to spend the money to bury all the power lines because the
phone service worked with buried lines when the power went down with the
downed power lines.

Also, with no way to power your cell phone to recharge the battery - how
long would it least especially if it had to hunt or roam for a
non-existent digital signal? it would work as well as a cordless
land-line phone that didn't have power from the power outlet.

If I only had analog signals, it would be dead in an hour. With a
non-cordless phone plugged into the phone jack and drawing power from
the phone lines, we had phone service for the duration of the emergency.

John Richards wrote:
> Most power failures are far shorter than the fuel supply duration of a
> cell tower generator. At some point the batteries and fuel supply at
> your local telco's central office would be exhausted too, meaning that
> the landlines would go dead. But I do share your concern that in an
> emergency cellular is less reliable than a wireline, and for that reason
> I will maintain my home wireline service for the foreseeable future.
>

Name one - where I live in NC - never had a problem with the land line
phone service going down ever since 1978 no matter what acts of God occured.

John Navas wrote:

> There have been a number of notable cases where landlines went out, and
> cellular was the only phone service available.
>
> Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Nov 2004
> 21:08:07 GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Most power failures are far shorter than the fuel supply duration of a
>>cell tower generator. At some point the batteries and fuel supply at
>>your local telco's central office would be exhausted too, meaning that
>>the landlines would go dead. But I do share your concern that in an
>>emergency cellular is less reliable than a wireline, and for that reason
>>I will maintain my home wireline service for the foreseeable future.
>
>
>>"USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>It's not just voice quality.
>>>
>>>When we have had hurricanes and ice storms, we have never lost land-line phone service. Which means that we could always call
>>>the police, fire and ambulances if need be. And one time we were able to call to make a reservation in a motel when we had no
>>>power and the temps were going to be in the 20s at night.
>>>
>>>If we only had cell phone service, once we lost battery power in the cell phone, we would have been screwed. Also, the cell
>>>towers need power to function and they didn't have power after their generators ran out of fuel and the batteries died.
>>>
>>>I hope that the various states require - for emergency purposes more than anything else - that we maintain a healthy home and
>>>business land line phone system which would include payphones, so that in the event of an emergency, people can still use the
>>>phones to reach emergency and other needed services.
>
>

Actually one of the things that we all forget and take for granted is
that the regulatory environment for wireline service enables people who
live out in bumble**** to get phone service at a much more reasonable
cost than they would get if they had to pay all the costs of installing
a system in a sparsely-populated area. And that the regulatory system
spreads the cost among the dense and sparsely poplated areas.

If the wireline service was as deregulated as the wireless services are,
the people you know who live far away from cities would more likely
than not be able to pay for a phone line in their house. How would they
call the police, fire or ambulance in an emergency?

If we all start moving away from wireline phone service to wireless, and
there are not enough people to support wireline services in the inner
city or countryside for the old and infirm, the poor, etc - who can't
afford nor need a cell phone that needs to be charged up - the people
who break down on the side of the road and need to use a payphone to
call for a tow truck - what will happen to them?

I like having a cell phone, but when I am home I use my landline phone
to make all my local calls, and some of my long distance calls also. I
save my cell phone for nights and weekends and when I really am away
from home and want to make a call.

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:15:42 -0600, Jer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>One thing more and more people are unaware of or are ignoring - wireless
>>doesn't live under the same statutory umbrella as wireline - especially
>>where emergency dialing is concerned. Where wireline exists, the
>>provider is obligated to continue service regardless of the business
>>climate. Wireless has no such obligation. If the wireless provider
>>wants to move a cell site to maximize profit, it gets moved - they have
>>no obligation to consider who may be depending on the one cell site for
>>911 service. If a cell site is torn away by tragedy, and it takes a
>>month to replace it, the masses will wait. ...
>
>
> True, but that's rare and unlikely, especially in an urban area. OTOH, all
> wireless carriers are required to provide 911 service even to unactivated
> handsets. Overall I don't think lack of regulation is a significant issue as
> compared to other ways that service may be interrupted.
>
>
>>The bottom line is wireline and wireless exist under two very different
>>business models. Currently, wireless is largely free from the statutory
>>bonds that wireline companies are accustomed to. IMO, wireless cannot
>>survive under the same statutory umbrella as wireline, nor should it
>>because radio and wires are two entirely different transportation
>>systems, and they should never be compared in similar regard.
>>
>>You pay your money and you take your chances.
>
>
> I personally think the market is doing a better job in wireless than the
> government is doing in wireline.
>

no option - small claims courts don't have a strong history and legal
precendents on the sides of consumers as do the regulatory agencies.
When you go to small claims court, you can't ask the judge to suspend
any service interruptions until you pay your bill as you do with
regulatory agencies. And you also don't have the right to subpoena
documents and testimony from telco witnesses if you have problems with
your service. You do have those rights in a regulatory environment.

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Nov 2004
> 19:54:00 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Now while this won't allow the cell phone companies to introduce new
>>rate plans every two weeks, it will at least allow people who all of a
>>sudden get freakishly high bills due to roaming and other charges a
>>chance to appeal the charges. Right now - most customers do not have
>>that option.
>
>
> Option: Small Claims Court.
>

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 12 Nov 2004
02:32:06 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:

>Also, with no way to power your cell phone to recharge the battery - how
>long would it least especially if it had to hunt or roam for a
>non-existent digital signal? ...

Quite a long time actually:

* The phone doesn't hunt all the time, just ever so often

* I can charge my cell phone from my car (or any other 12V source)

* I also have a battery adapter that takes AA batteries, of which I have an
ample quantity on hand.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 12 Nov 2004
02:45:35 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:

>Actually one of the things that we all forget and take for granted is
>that the regulatory environment for wireline service enables people who
>live out in bumble**** to get phone service at a much more reasonable
>cost than they would get if they had to pay all the costs of installing
>a system in a sparsely-populated area. And that the regulatory system
>spreads the cost among the dense and sparsely poplated areas.

I don't forget that -- I think it's a bad idea.

>If the wireline service was as deregulated as the wireless services are,
> the people you know who live far away from cities would more likely
>than not be able to pay for a phone line in their house.

Choices have consequences. Why should we all pay to subsidize poor choices?

>How would they
>call the police, fire or ambulance in an emergency?

Something for them to think about. I don't want to be subsidizing their
service.

>If we all start moving away from wireline phone service to wireless, and
>there are not enough people to support wireline services in the inner
>city or countryside for the old and infirm, the poor, etc - who can't
>afford nor need a cell phone that needs to be charged up - the people
>who break down on the side of the road and need to use a payphone to
>call for a tow truck - what will happen to them?

They will get by as they always have. If there is a demand, the market will
satisfy it.

>I like having a cell phone, but when I am home I use my landline phone
>to make all my local calls, and some of my long distance calls also. I
>save my cell phone for nights and weekends and when I really am away
>from home and want to make a call.

That's because we subsidize local calling, another bonehead idea.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 12 Nov 2004
02:50:32 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Nov 2004
>> 19:54:00 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Now while this won't allow the cell phone companies to introduce new
>>>rate plans every two weeks, it will at least allow people who all of a
>>>sudden get freakishly high bills due to roaming and other charges a
>>>chance to appeal the charges. Right now - most customers do not have
>>>that option.
>>
>> Option: Small Claims Court.

>no option - small claims courts don't have a strong history and legal
>precendents on the sides of consumers as do the regulatory agencies.

I guess that depends on where you live, because here those courts do a pretty
good job, better than regulation.

>When you go to small claims court, you can't ask the judge to suspend
>any service interruptions until you pay your bill as you do with
>regulatory agencies.

Of course you can.

>And you also don't have the right to subpoena
>documents and testimony from telco witnesses if you have problems with
>your service.

Actually you do

>You do have those rights in a regulatory environment.

Actually you don't, only the regulators, and then only if they take an
interest in your case, and have the resources to pursue it, both of which are
unlikely.

Regulation is neither efficient nor effective.

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

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:55:17 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Fri, 12 Nov 2004
>02:45:35 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If we all start moving away from wireline phone service to wireless, and
>>there are not enough people to support wireline services in the inner
>>city or countryside for the old and infirm, the poor, etc - who can't
>>afford nor need a cell phone that needs to be charged up - the people
>>who break down on the side of the road and need to use a payphone to
>>call for a tow truck - what will happen to them?
>
>They will get by as they always have. If there is a demand, the market will
>satisfy it.

I often disagree with John, but he's right on the mark here. Look at
international rates, for example. They've always been subject to the
will of the free market and in many cases such as many Middle Eastern
and Eastern European countries, making calls to those areas from the
U.S. can still be quite expensive. Yet, the free market has always
risen to the occasion and found a way for people living in the U.S. to
be able to phone those areas relatively inexpensively. That's why in
NYC and other areas with large immigrant populations, calling cards
are still a booming business.
>
>>I like having a cell phone, but when I am home I use my landline phone
>>to make all my local calls, and some of my long distance calls also. I
>>save my cell phone for nights and weekends and when I really am away
>>from home and want to make a call.
>
>That's because we subsidize local calling, another bonehead idea.

Exactly. And, not to get into politics too heavily here, but I
honestly wonder how many people in the country realize that those of
us in the classic "red states" footed the bill for those in the less
populated states to get phone service. Even as far back as the mid
1990s, it was IMPOSSIBLE for a new NYNEX customer to get a flat-rate
local calling plan in NYC and many of their other territories. You
automatically went on "measured rate" and were paying 10.6 cents for
every local call during peak hours. That tarriff's roots go back a
long way and is the reason sparsely-populated areas have phone
service.

Now that everyone has phone service, local and state governments have
turned to phone service as a cash cow, piling tax after tax onto local
bills. That's why this week's FCC ruling on VoIP was so important.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 12
> Nov 2004
> 02:50:32 GMT, USENET READER
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> In <[email protected]> on Mon,
>>> 08 Nov 2004
>>> 19:54:00 GMT, USENET READER
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Now while this won't allow the cell phone companies to introduce
>>>>new
>>>>rate plans every two weeks, it will at least allow people who all
>>>>of a
>>>>sudden get freakishly high bills due to roaming and other charges
>>>>a
>>>>chance to appeal the charges. Right now - most customers do not
>>>>have
>>>>that option.
>>>
>>> Option: Small Claims Court.
>
>>no option - small claims courts don't have a strong history and
>>legal
>>precendents on the sides of consumers as do the regulatory agencies.
>
> I guess that depends on where you live, because here those courts do
> a pretty
> good job, better than regulation.
>
>>When you go to small claims court, you can't ask the judge to
>>suspend
>>any service interruptions until you pay your bill as you do with
>>regulatory agencies.
>
> Of course you can.
>
>>And you also don't have the right to subpoena
>>documents and testimony from telco witnesses if you have problems
>>with
>>your service.
>
> Actually you do
>
>>You do have those rights in a regulatory environment.
>
> Actually you don't, only the regulators, and then only if they take
> an
> interest in your case, and have the resources to pursue it, both of
> which are
> unlikely.
>
> Regulation is neither efficient nor effective.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

In NY we have the option of using the "Public-Disservice Commission"
on matters of terminations or shut off on Telephone, Electric and Gas.
We also have right of action in the courts where we do have the right
to get and receive documents under subpoena deuces tecim. The
difference in dealing with these utilities is that the consumer does
not need a lawyer to fight the big guys in court. However having a
Public Service Commission to fight for you is helpful. However the PSC
in New York is and has shown a favoritism towards the utilities and
not the consumer. So many times the NYS Attorney Generals Office of
Consumer Frauds and Protection can also initiate an action to get some
sort of relief.

The Public Service Commission does not regulate Cellular Phone use or
Services, only land line service. The costs associated with service in
rural areas and government buildings is under their written guidelines
and laws. Many needy people get basic service at $1 and government
receives the services at no cost in certain situations or at very
reduced rates. It is the rest of the folks that pay the higher prices
and pay higher taxes and surcharges (Which is still a fancy name for a
tax) are the ones that make the people in the out line areas have
telephone, cable and other needed services.

I cannot remember in over 40+ years any time that the telephone in our
home was dead during a black out, power outage and or other disaster.
I can remember my cellular service being dead for a myriad of reasons
on many occasions. So if the push is to the cellular services then
they better have a better back up system to insure the people actually
have the service and not a dead line. Regulation of the cellular
industry may be what is needed but at this moment it is not and we
will have to suffer until it is regulated.

Elector

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 12 Nov 2004
> 02:45:35 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually one of the things that we all forget and take for granted is
>>that the regulatory environment for wireline service enables people who
>>live out in bumble**** to get phone service at a much more reasonable
>>cost than they would get if they had to pay all the costs of installing
>>a system in a sparsely-populated area. And that the regulatory system
>>spreads the cost among the dense and sparsely poplated areas.
>
>
> I don't forget that -- I think it's a bad idea.

Why is it a bad idea?
>
>
>>If the wireline service was as deregulated as the wireless services are,
>> the people you know who live far away from cities would more likely
>>than not be able to pay for a phone line in their house.
>
>
> Choices have consequences. Why should we all pay to subsidize poor choices?

is it a poor choice to live in the country on a farm and grow food for
you? <aybe you made a poor choice to live someplace where you couldn't
grown your own food. So live with your poor choice and starve.

What about the country doctor or preacher who lives out in these areas?

Remember before everyone lived in cities, they lived in the country.
And not everyone can or wants to move into the cities. Rural
electrification and telephone service was a good progra and will
continue to be so. What sort of selfish jerk are you to say that rural
people make a bad choice to live someplace other than a city?
>
>
>>How would they
>>call the police, fire or ambulance in an emergency?
>
>
> Something for them to think about. I don't want to be subsidizing their
> service.
>
Then grow your own ****ing food - people who live in the country don't
want to subsidize your poor choice to live in the city.
>
>>If we all start moving away from wireline phone service to wireless, and
>>there are not enough people to support wireline services in the inner
>>city or countryside for the old and infirm, the poor, etc - who can't
>>afford nor need a cell phone that needs to be charged up - the people
>>who break down on the side of the road and need to use a payphone to
>>call for a tow truck - what will happen to them?
>
>
> They will get by as they always have. If there is a demand, the market will
> satisfy it.

And it will cost more than they can afford.
>
>
>>I like having a cell phone, but when I am home I use my landline phone
>>to make all my local calls, and some of my long distance calls also. I
>>save my cell phone for nights and weekends and when I really am away
>
>>from home and want to make a call.
>
> That's because we subsidize local calling, another bonehead idea.

What sort of free-market jerk are you? How much more would you have to
pay if the cost of the service wasn't spread out among the population?

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 12 Nov 2004
> 02:50:32 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Nov 2004
>>>19:54:00 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now while this won't allow the cell phone companies to introduce new
>>>>rate plans every two weeks, it will at least allow people who all of a
>>>>sudden get freakishly high bills due to roaming and other charges a
>>>>chance to appeal the charges. Right now - most customers do not have
>>>>that option.
>>>
>>>Option: Small Claims Court.
>
>
>>no option - small claims courts don't have a strong history and legal
>>precendents on the sides of consumers as do the regulatory agencies.
>
>
> I guess that depends on where you live, because here those courts do a pretty
> good job, better than regulation.

Depends on the quality of the regulations - you might have some bad ones
there or regulations that favor the businesses over the people.
>
>
>>When you go to small claims court, you can't ask the judge to suspend
>>any service interruptions until you pay your bill as you do with
>>regulatory agencies.
>
>
> Of course you can.

No you can't - Small Claims Courts exist to get in and out in one
session - not to file documents, subpoenas, etc. That is why they call
it Small Claims Court to make it easier for average people to deal with
small claims, not very complicated issues of phone and other utility
service. Small Claims Courts don't have the authority to order a
utility to do anything - it's not in their power to do so.
>
>
>>And you also don't have the right to subpoena
>>documents and testimony from telco witnesses if you have problems with
>>your service.
>
>
> Actually you do

What state do you live in? Small Claims Courts are there to keep people
from being blocked from access to the larger District and Superior
Courts where you have to follow the rules of civil procedure to get
anything accomplished.
>
>
>>You do have those rights in a regulatory environment.
>
>
> Actually you don't, only the regulators, and then only if they take an
> interest in your case, and have the resources to pursue it, both of which are
> unlikely.
>
> Regulation is neither efficient nor effective.

You are a moron - in the State of North Carolina, you have to request a
hearing and the regulators don't have the right to say you can't have it.

Where do you get off saying that people don't have the right to request
a hearing from the Regulatory Commission? Stop spreading such lies on
here to promote your unregulated fascist Utopia.

USENET READER wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 12
>> Nov 2004 02:45:35 GMT, USENET READER
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Actually one of the things that we all forget and take for granted
>>> is that the regulatory environment for wireline service enables
>>> people who live out in bumble**** to get phone service at a much
>>> more reasonable cost than they would get if they had to pay all the
>>> costs of installing a system in a sparsely-populated area. And
>>> that the regulatory system spreads the cost among the dense and
>>> sparsely poplated areas.
>>
>>
>> I don't forget that -- I think it's a bad idea.
>
> Why is it a bad idea?
>>
>>
>>> If the wireline service was as deregulated as the wireless services
>>> are, the people you know who live far away from cities would more
>>> likely than not be able to pay for a phone line in their house.
>>
>>
>> Choices have consequences. Why should we all pay to subsidize poor
>> choices?
>
> is it a poor choice to live in the country on a farm and grow food for
> you? <aybe you made a poor choice to live someplace where you
> couldn't grown your own food. So live with your poor choice and
> starve.

Aren't we mixing subsidizing farming and regulating services here?

How about charging more for food to pay for the unregulated services?

-Quick