 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / May 2008analog sunset & 911 access
There was an article in our local paper about analog & no longer being able to call 911, but the writer didn't include "cellular" in the title - so I'm sure lots of folks panic'd... Just wondering around the different carriers & geo locations - what do you see happening with analog turndown, and what's being told/done with those folks with analog cellphones just for 911 access ?  Signature---------------------------------- "If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright > There was an article in our local paper about analog & no longer being able > to call 911, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and what's being told/done with those folks with analog cellphones just for > 911 access ? It's off in urban areas in the SF Bay Area. It is true that those people that had tri-mode CDMA/AMPS phones are going to be able to call 911 in fewer places than they did before, especially in areas further from roads (i.e. parks and out on the ocean). However GSM customers, and digital only CDMA customers, have had poorer 911 coverage for years. I was just up in Yosemite this past weekend. AMPS is still on. It comes from Golden State Cellular. However I did notice a lot more CDMA coverage than before. The cabin we stayed at in Yosemite West is pretty far from the public road (41) and I had both CDMA and AMPS coverage. There was no GSM coverage. Ditto for MidPines, on 140 into Yosemite. I was able to get CDMA and AMPS, but no GSM at the restaurant we stopped at. Yosemite Valley has AMPS, CDMA, and GSM coverage. > I was just up in Yosemite this past weekend. AMPS is still on. It comes > from Golden State Cellular. However I did notice a lot more CDMA [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yosemite Valley has AMPS, CDMA, and GSM coverage. How do you determine which coverage you have in an area, and who it comes from? >> I was just up in Yosemite this past weekend. AMPS is still on. It >> comes from Golden State Cellular. However I did notice a lot more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > How do you determine which coverage you have in an area, and who it > comes from? You have to read the SID numbers off the phone's hidden data pages. Sometimes they'll let you see them buried into the PHONE STATUS pages. On Motorola phones, you key in ##DEBUG rapidly and the G doesn't show. This puts the phone in DEBUG mode, at least it used to before this last batch. You toggled in and out of DEBUG mode with the center then left function keys under the display rapidly, which let you go back to the regular user pages. Your phone will certainly vary in how you open this function up and read it. Once you have this SID number, then you can look it up on: http://www.mountainwireless.com/sid/sid1.shtml and match it to location and carrier. I'm on 00156, Alltel in Charleston, SC. A personal question, Anthony...... Are you related to the Italian Guzzis who make such wonderful motorcycles I've enjoyed since my youth? I had 5 Moto Guzzi motorcycles and enjoyed every one of them. First class machines. >> How do you determine which coverage you have in an area, and who it >> comes from? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >On Motorola phones, you key in ##DEBUG rapidly and the G doesn't show. I tried this and it doesn't work on my (T-Mobile) Motorola RAZR V3, unless I'm misunderstanding the instructions. The 4 does show. I can, however, go to Settings | Network | Available Networks, and see a list: AT&T and T-Mobile. AT&T is given as 310-410 and T-Mobile is 310-260. What are these numbers? Cell tower numbers? (I'm in Fort Worth). > I can, however, go to Settings | Network | Available Networks, and > see a list: AT&T and T-Mobile. AT&T is given as 310-410 and T-Mobile > is 310-260. What are these numbers? Cell tower numbers? (I'm in > Fort Worth). The numbers are the GSM Network operator codes. They identify the carrier. The first 3 digits are the country code (the USA is 310 and 311) and the last three are the system: 260 is T-Mobile's current code (one of the dozen or more they and their predecessors have used through the years,) 410 is Cingular/AT&T, 380 was the old AT&T Wireless, 590 is Alltel's GSM roaming service, etc. There's a pretty good up-to-date list here: http://www.howardforums.com/archive/topic/657335-1.html >> I can, however, go to Settings | Network | Available Networks, and >> see a list: AT&T and T-Mobile. AT&T is given as 310-410 and T-Mobile [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There's a pretty good up-to-date list here: > http://www.howardforums.com/archive/topic/657335-1.html Cool. Interesting that Alltel has some GSM networks. My V195 on SpeakOut shows "SpeakOut" at 310-410 (AT&T) and "Other" at 310-260 (T-Mobile). Is the network number to name translation in the SIM card? My other V195 on T-Mobile shows "T-Mobile" at 310-260, and "Cingular" at 310-410. What's strange is that the T-Mobile phone works at my house, whereas it never did with other 850/1900 handsets. Either it's roaming onto AT&T, or this handset is able to get a T-Mobile signal where other handsets cannot. The T-Mobile coverage map shows almost no coverage at my house, though they recently got approval for a new site that would give me good 1900 MHz coverage. > Cool. Interesting that Alltel has some GSM networks. I believe they inherited them when they bought Western Wireless. I don't know if leaving some GSM capacity up was part of an ingenious plan to milk roaming revenue or just a contractual obligation they inherited with WW's system. > My V195 on SpeakOut shows "SpeakOut" at 310-410 (AT&T) and "Other" at > 310-260 (T-Mobile). Is the network number to name translation in the SIM > card? > > My other V195 on T-Mobile shows "T-Mobile" at 310-260, and "Cingular" at > 310-410. This is probably a question for John Navas or Dennis Ferguson, but the way I understand it is that name translation tables are in the SIM, but can also be in the phone which can override the SIM if the phone chooses to. My first T-Mobile phone (back when they were Voicestream) said "Voicestream" with it's original VS SIM in it, but "T-Mobile" with a newer SIM. Either SIM reports "T-Mobile" in any of my newer T-Mo phones. I assume the old one (a Nokia 8290) had no table of it's own, and relied on the SIM to "tell" it what network it was on, where the newer phones have a table designed to override any legacy T-Mo name with "T-Mobile." My favorite confusing naming was last year in California, where my T-Mo phones reported both GSM networks (AT&T's current "Blue" and Cingular's old "Orange" they sold to T-Mo) as "Cingular." My WinMo phone allows me to override any network name with any text string I want via a registry edit, so I renamed the California nets back then to AT&T and T-Mobile West. > What's strange is that the T-Mobile phone works at my house, whereas it > never did with other 850/1900 handsets. Either it's roaming onto AT&T, or > this handset is able to get a T-Mobile signal where other handsets cannot. > The T-Mobile coverage map shows almost no coverage at my house, though > they recently got approval for a new site that would give me good 1900 MHz > coverage. Congratulations- maybe we can lure you back from the dark side one of these days... ;-) When T-Mo launches "Talk Forever" (currently in beta) nationwide, you can add an unlimited domestic VoIP line (a UMA VoIP router that takes a T-Mo SIM) to your T-Mobile cellular account for just $10 extra per month. >> Cool. Interesting that Alltel has some GSM networks. >I believe they inherited them when they bought Western Wireless. I don't >know if leaving some GSM capacity up was part of an ingenious plan to milk >roaming revenue or just a contractual obligation they inherited with WW's >system. Whoaaaaaaa... I thought D.T. bought up Western Wireless. Was it a split up, with some going to one and the rest to another? Oh, and another reason to "leave some GSM capacity up" is to prevent the FCC, on behalf of a competitor, pulling a "you didn't use it, now you've lost it" line. Signature_____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] > Whoaaaaaaa... I thought D.T. bought up Western Wireless. > Was it a split up, with some going to one and the > rest to another? IIRC, Voicestream and Western Wireless were run by the same guy. He sold Voicestream to DT who renamed it T-Mobile, and a few years later sold WW to Alltel. > Oh, and another reason to "leave some GSM capacity up" > is to prevent the FCC, on behalf of a competitor, pulling > a "you didn't use it, now you've lost it" line. Alltel is already using the bandwidth for CDMA. But, as a rural carrier, they have more capacity than they need, and from what I understand, just leave a few channels of GSM running for roaming use alongside their CDMA system. >> Oh, and another reason to "leave some GSM capacity up" >> is to prevent the FCC, on behalf of a competitor, pulling [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > leave a few channels of GSM running for roaming use alongside their CDMA > system. All available evidence I have says there's not a lot of money to be made providing roaming service these days, however. As far as I can tell the trend now is to drive intercarrier charges for roaming down close to nothing and to make your money not from other carriers' customers' use your network, but rather from your customers' use of other carrier's networks. That is, the value of roaming agreements isn't the revenue from other carriers, it is the cheap access to other carriers' networks that you can sell to your own customers. What this means is that providing roaming service using a technology your own customers don't use doesn't usually make sense. You won't make much money from other carriers' customers, and you won't make any more money from your own customers since they can't use the other carrier's network. I'll hence bet that Western Wireless may actually have had some GSM customers or other contractual commitments that are forcing Alltel to keep the network up. Also as far as I can tell (and it isn't what I would have guessed) running a dual-technology network actually seems to add significant costs. I know Movistar shut down the CDMA half of the network they acquired in Mexico (taking pretty much all CDMA coverage along highways in rural northern Mexico with it), and the amount Telefonica claimed in their financial reports to have saved by doing this was surprisingly large. I also know that the difference between the highly profitable China Mobile and the never profitable China Unicom, two companies which started out at pretty much the same place, is widely blamed on the additional costs China Unicom took on to build and maintain their dual-mode CDMA/GSM network. It seems to cost real money to do that. Dennis Ferguson > What this means is that providing roaming service using a technology > your own customers don't use doesn't usually make sense. You won't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > had some GSM customers or other contractual commitments that are forcing > Alltel to keep the network up. That makes sense- I assume when Alltel bought WW, they'd have inherited it's contractual obligations as well, like providing roaming service until year X. > Congratulations- maybe we can lure you back from the dark side one of > these days... ;-) I doubt it. Verizon still has far better coverage in Northern (and Southern) California than T-Mobile (or AT&T or Sprint), even without AMPS. I only bought the T-Mobile phones because I needed some newer 900/1800 MHz phones for traveling to Europe and Asia to use with prepaid SIM cards. The quad-band V195 was a good deal from T-Mobile Prepaid, and I can have them unlocked inexpensively if I don't want to wait 90 days. > When T-Mo launches "Talk Forever" (currently in beta) > nationwide, you can add an unlimited domestic VoIP line (a UMA VoIP > router that takes a T-Mo SIM) to your T-Mobile cellular account for just > $10 extra per month. I never spend $10 per month in long-distance, between my 8 p.m. off-peak Verizon account, and my OneSuite account. In fact I rarely use up $10 on OneSuite in six months. > > When T-Mo launches "Talk Forever" (currently in beta) nationwide, > > you can add an unlimited domestic VoIP line (a UMA VoIP router > > that takes a T-Mo SIM) to your T-Mobile cellular account for just > > $10 extra per month. > I never spend $10 per month in long-distance, between my 8 p.m. > off-peak Verizon account, and my OneSuite account. In fact I rarely > use up $10 on OneSuite in six months. The idea is to replace your landline with it. My local Qwest number costs me $36/month including taxes and fees for voice. I've hesitated porting it to VoIP both for reliability reasons and fear of being able to port it out again. I wouldn't mind porting it to a cellco, though, and saving $20/month. >>> When T-Mo launches "Talk Forever" (currently in beta) nationwide, >>> you can add an unlimited domestic VoIP line (a UMA VoIP router [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The idea is to replace your landline with it. Yes, if naked DSL was the same price as bundled DSL it would work. > My local Qwest number costs me $36/month including taxes and fees for > voice. I've hesitated porting it to VoIP both for reliability reasons and > fear of being able to port it out again. I wouldn't mind porting it to a > cellco, though, and saving $20/month. My local AT&T line is under $17 per month, including taxes and fees. > > The idea is to replace your landline with it. > > Yes, if naked DSL was the same price as bundled DSL it would work. Here in Denver, naked DSL is only $5 more than bundled. > > My local Qwest number costs me $36/month including taxes and fees for > > voice. I've hesitated porting it to VoIP both for reliability reasons and > > fear of being able to port it out again. I wouldn't mind porting it to a > > cellco, though, and saving $20/month. > > My local AT&T line is under $17 per month, including taxes and fees. For $17, I wouldn't be looking for replacements either! ;-) > > Congratulations- maybe we can lure you back from the dark side one of > > these days... ;-) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I never spend $10 per month in long-distance, between my 8 p.m. off-peak > Verizon account, and myOneSuiteaccount. In fact I rarely use up $10 onOneSuitein six months. Same here...unless I call outside the country my $10 on Onesuite usually last about 6 months. >> > When T-Mo launches "Talk Forever" (currently in beta) >> > nationwide, you can add an unlimited domestic VoIP line (a UMA VoIP [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Same here...unless I call outside the country my $10 on Onesuite > usually last about 6 months. That really wasn't my point- I was making the case that "Talk Forever" at $10/month could replace the $30/month a POTS line costs. The "free" LD would just be gravy. In SMS' case, he gets a really good deal on POTS (<$20/month), and I'd agree with him that the convenience and reliabilty of a landline isn't worth dumping to save $5-10/month. In my case, Qwest in Denver charges me about $35 including junk fees and taxes, so a $10/month unlimited service would make more sense. I've resisted VoIP so far, since unlimited runs about $20/month, and the $10 difference (Qwest charges $5/month more for internet if you drop local phone service for DSL only, so my net savings would be $10 rather than $15) doesn't justify losing landline reliability. T-Mo's service would save me $20/month which would justify switching. IMO. > I've resisted VoIP so far, since unlimited runs about > $20/month, and the $10 difference (Qwest charges $5/month more for > internet if you drop local phone service for DSL only, so my net > savings would be $10 rather than $15) doesn't justify losing landline > reliability. Wow...I'm only paying $US2.065/month for Skype Out Unlimited to any phone or sellphone in the USA/Canada/AK/HI/PR. It isn't really unlimited at 10,000 minutes per month, but if you overrun that you have serious personal issues Skype can't help you with. http://skype.com/allfeatures/subscriptions/#uscaSubscriptionTab When you buy Skype Unlimited, they take $30 off each of the incoming Skype In phone numbers you buy. That came to about $24/number for the two numbers in my system, one in Charleston, SC and one in London, UK. that's the PER YEAR rate, not per month. So, the total monthly fee for US and Canadian customers is 2.065out + 2 in = $4.065 for really unlimited incoming calls plus 10000 minutes/month calling out. All the other features like Skype-to-Skype with full motion color video, video conferencing, all of Skype's online services are free. FREE is our FRIEND. The Skype phones have become kind of BIZARRE, lately. You have a sellphone, so if you're not a hobbleware Verizon slave, you can install Skype Mobile or PDA versions right on your sellphone and have an all-in- one VoIP device...right in your pocket, even on the road, saving big money compared to sellphone LD to Timbuctoo. I have my old Netgear Skype phone in the bedroom, a really nice USB headset for the mainframe, Skype on my Nokia N800 Linux tablet (which also runs mobile over BT to the sellphone data on Alltel EVDO). New Skype Phones include: http://skype.com/mobile/ ...I kid you not........ SKYPE ON THE PLAYSTATION PORTABLE! I installed it on 3 PSPs belonging to my buddy's 11, 14 and 16 year old girls. Even a teenager hasn't trashed 10000 minutes/month. All they need is wifi Daddy already has or any wifi the PSP can find wherever they are! NO MORE $300 sellphone bills from the kiddies! Each girl has her own Skype Unlimited/Skype In phone number....$4.065/month for 10000 min out and unlimited min in. http://skype.com/allfeatures/skypeonpsp/ They've all learned to dial +1-areacode-number, now, after some really embarrassing calls dialing 843-number on Skype, which calls odd people in VIETNAM (+84 country code)....(c; The girls have a list of "acceptable restaurants and places" that have free wifi for their phones. We eat often at Atlanta or Panera Bread but never Starbucks any more....no free wifi for Skype. I've called Vietnam many times in haste, too....(c; VoIP doesn't HAVE to cost $20+/month before you make the first call. Works great! > > I've resisted VoIP so far, since unlimited runs about > > $20/month, and the $10 difference (Qwest charges $5/month more for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 10,000 minutes per month, but if you overrun that you have serious > personal issues Skype can't help you with. Yep. I've eliminated Skype from contention as a landline replacement (although I use it from time-to-time) for a number of reasons- lack of E911 compliance, needs a running PC or proprietary phone, and doesn't integrate into existing RJ-11 home wiring (without the aforementioned "running PC.") That also eliminates MagicJack (which I already own and subscribe to at $20/year unlimited in/out, but it's RJ-11 interface hardware requires a running PC as well.) > The Skype phones have become kind of BIZARRE, lately. You have a > sellphone, so if you're not a hobbleware Verizon slave, you can install > Skype Mobile or PDA versions right on your sellphone and have an all-in- > one VoIP device...right in your pocket, even on the road, saving big > money compared to sellphone LD to Timbuctoo. Yes. My WinMo phone has Skype, Fring and SIP clients installed, supporting four of my VoIP accounts in addition to my T-Mo cellphone account. > VoIP doesn't HAVE to cost $20+/month before you make the first call. > Works great! If I lived alone I'd be on the same page as you. In a family of five with three kids ranging from four through ten, I want the phones to work like Ma Bell intended- 911, no country codes for local calls, etc. T-Mobile will give me that for $10/month (over and above my cellphone bill), through my existing home wiring, with 911 capability, when Talk Forever launches nationwide. > Yep. I've eliminated Skype from contention as a landline replacement > (although I use it from time-to-time) for a number of reasons- lack of > E911 compliance, needs a running PC or proprietary phone, and doesn't > integrate into existing RJ-11 home wiring (without the aforementioned > "running PC.") You paid big money, and continue to pay big money, for an E911 SELLPHONE! Why do you need more than that? That's crazy. Now, if you read the rest, you don't have to have a PC running, AT ALL, to use Skype anywhere in the house. That's what wifi is for! The RJ-11 interface with some Vonage BS phone company is FAR more expensive than Skype phones on wifi. I took out all the wires....my wifi covers my whole neighborhood from the node up the tree! 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... (c; You don't need a single piece of extra equipment to use Skype from what you already own.....Screw the wired phones in the house. > > Yep. I've eliminated Skype from contention as a landline replacement > > (although I use it from time-to-time) for a number of reasons- lack of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You paid big money, and continue to pay big money, for an E911 SELLPHONE! > Why do you need more than that? That's crazy. Did you miss the "three kids ages four to ten" part? > Now, if you read the rest, you don't have to have a PC running, AT ALL, > to use Skype anywhere in the house. That's what wifi is for! I'm quite familiar with how Skype works and how it doesn't. > The RJ-11 > interface with some Vonage BS phone company is FAR more expensive than > Skype phones on wifi. Yes, it is. But again, I'm intending to use T-Mo's Talk Forever router with SIM card slot for $120/year. Sure, it's 2-3 times as expensive as Skype, but it meets MY requirements I listed earlier: no PC needed to have RJ-11 compatibility, E911, and no special dialing requirements ("Daddy, where's the '+' on this phone...") > I took out all the wires....my wifi covers my > whole neighborhood from the node up the tree! Again, if I lived alone, I'd be on the same (or at least a similar) page. > 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! Can Skype be trained to report your Skype-in number as the CID number on forwarded calls? If so, that could be your "Circle" number and they'd all be free. > You don't need a single piece of extra equipment to use Skype from what > you already own..... To use it like _I_ want to, rather than how _you_ have it, I do. In addition, AFAIK, Skype desn't port. Keeping my four-year old home number is critial for the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor- another system design parameter you no longer have to factor in...) ;-) > Screw the wired phones in the house. I'm old school- phones plug into jacks- even cordless ones! ;-) > Can Skype be trained to report your Skype-in number as the CID number > on forwarded calls? If so, that could be your "Circle" number and > they'd all be free. One of Skype's GREATEST ASSETS is its inability to report your telephone number you don't have to anyone...cops, Homeland Security, Council On Foreign Relations, FBI, Illuminati, the spammers, whoever you call including those goddamned 800 number bloodsuckers selling your number....noone. Skype Out has no number and isn't hooked to Skype In where the number you are given is in the SAME block of numbers as AOHell's huge racks of dialup modems so the spammers don't waste their time dialing modem after modem after modem selling nothing. Other than the errant, irate British wifey calling me by error because my London phone number is one digit off the number for the Hook And Nail Pub, which is more entertaining than ANY computer software I own and wouldn't trade it for anything, I've never gotten a single COLD CALL from even Experian wanting to ask me about my credit rating....a great asset to the Skype system. Nope....Skype in calls are forwarded through Skype Out so they all come up with the number 000-123-4567, which I haven't tried to put into My Circle, yet. Every Skyper has the same Caller ID...(c; > > Can Skype be trained to report your Skype-in number as the CID number > > on forwarded calls? If so, that could be your "Circle" number and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > number you don't have to anyone...cops, Homeland Security, Council On > Foreign Relations, FBI, Illuminati, the spammers... So, in a word, "No." I get that it's convenient to Be anonymous, but it'd be equally convenient to have a choice. Grandcentral, for example allows you to select whether you want the CID on forwarded calls to display the caller being forwarded (if you want to know who's calling) or the GC number itself (if you want those calls to be a "free" circle/fave.) So, if you're willing to give up caller ID, you can make any circle/fave plan an unlimited free incoming plan By simply giving out your GC number instead of your cellphone number. > Nope....Skype in calls are forwarded through Skype Out so they all come up > with the number 000-123-4567, which I haven't tried to put into My Circle, > yet. T-Mo won't accept "000" as a valid area code as a "fave," so you get the worst of both worlds forwarding Skype- you don't now who's calling AND you can't leverage your circle/fave plan. > Every Skyper has the same Caller ID...(c; I knew that was the default behavior- I just wondered if you could override it to your advantage... > I knew that was the default behavior- I just wondered if you could > override it to your advantage. I guess not. I've still not figured out what all the free toys will do. 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 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? > Does that answer your question? > > Well, time for breakfast. Should I have my Skype poached, fried or > scrambled, Lar? Well said and I agree. > 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 >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. > 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, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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.... >Skype is in Luxembourg....for tax purposes. They are English, mostly, but >BT and taxes ran them out of that country. Can they still pull that off given ebay purchased them? >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; Just wondering... does skype interconnect to the Cuban, North Korean, and PSTNs ("regular phones") in the other countries the US pretends don't exist? Anyone know? Thanks >My apologies to all those startled Vietnamese people I've gotten out of bed >to answer their phones.... Signature_____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] > 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. >> Just wondering... does skype interconnect to >> the Cuban, North Korean, and PSTNs ("regular phones") [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > heard of. Skype is not limited by any US bureaucracy because it is not a > US company. If you want to phone one of these countries, however, you might be better off using Rebtel, another European company, at $0.989 to Cuba and $0.410 to North Korea for both mobiles and landlines (Skype adds on an extra, gratuitous 10 or 20 cents per minute for mobiles in these countries). Or as good is all-American Voicestick at $0.984 to Cuba and $0.426 to North Korea, again the same for mobiles and landlines. In real life it takes real infrastructure like telephone switches and transmission facilities to deliver phone calls in a country, so in every country there are usually only a small number of players who will service VoIP operators (in those particular countries there's probably only one). All VoIP operators deal with the same small set of carriers, perhaps through the same small set of wholesalers, so all VoIP operators will have about the same connectivity. It is also no surprise that Rebtel and Voicestick are charging about the same amount to call countries with monopoly carriers since they're probably being charged about the same amount by those carriers, and both those companies seem to operate on fairly small margins. Skype's costs are probably, if anything, lower than those other two companies since Skype's volumes are a lot higher, but Skype is a money-making operation and buy-low-sell-high is a good way to make money. Charging differential rates for mobiles in countries which don't seem to actually charge differential rates to call mobiles is a particularly nice touch. Skype has a few nice things on their price list, if you can stick to those and avoid the other stuff, and Skype's free stuff is always good if you can make use of it. Skype is not a particularly cheap way to make overseas calls to phones, however. Dennis Ferguson > > 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! ;-) > 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. > > I STILL haven't figured out how they offer US phone numbers > > without being forced to be E911 compliant.) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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... ;-) > 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 _AM_, however, anti-Fanboy. Replace "Skype" with "iPhone" an your posts > > read just like Oxford's or Vic's. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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! ;-) >> > I _AM_, however, anti-Fanboy. Replace "Skype" with "iPhone" an your > posts [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > 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..... > 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. >> On the downside, their international rates are higher than their >> competitors, often higher than just using a calling card or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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? > 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. It is when it starts selling US phone numbers. A little Googling shows that they talked to the Feds to get an exemption from E911. The Feds seem to have classified them as a voice IM system like GoogleTalk, rather than a true VoIP, which protects them from the 911 rules. > 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. Again, they sell US numbers, so they probably have to comply, else they wouldn't have had to seek an exemption.. > It is when it starts selling US phone numbers. A little Googling > shows that they talked to the Feds to get an exemption from E911. The [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > they wouldn't have had to seek an exemption.. > But, as someone said earlier, Skype In has no calling from those numbers so cannot initiate a 911 call on an incoming-only line. Skype Out goes through the internet to Luxembourg where the call is internet distributed to a regional interconnect center even the Mossad may not be able to listen in on. The split system, sold in pieces may have been a very good political move. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] >> You paid big money, and continue to pay big money, for an E911 SELLPHONE! > >> Why do you need more than that? That's crazy. > > Did you miss the "three kids ages four to ten" part? Skype's right for him, so by extension it must be right for everyone else in the world, too. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 > 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. Not if you have Skype Out Unlimited, then they're free. Forwarding to my cell costs me nothing extra....about $2.08/month unlimited. > 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 Skype is terrible and should be avoided at all costs.... >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Forwarding to my cell costs me nothing extra....about $2.08/month > unlimited. Ah, you're right. It wasn't included with Skype Pro or the old US & Canada unlimited, but it is now. Now it is like the other operators. Dennis Ferguson > Ah, you're right. It wasn't included with Skype Pro or the > old US & Canada unlimited, but it is now. Now it is like > the other operators. > > Dennis Ferguson I installed Skype into a Best Buy demo Sony PSP-2000 video game, this afternoon, but was unable to use it because there was no headphone/mic available, a proprietary, of course, headphone with a wierd plug. I did call it from my Skype on the tablet and I could hear it ringing. I called the tablet from it and it rang the tablet so I guess it really does work. I was using the hobbled up Best Buy wifi through BB's filter, which, of course, is quite useless to filter out Skype. >>> How do you determine which coverage you have in an area, and who it >>> comes from? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is 310-260. What are these numbers? Cell tower numbers? (I'm in > Fort Worth). I have no idea. The cells are numbered, but I never saw that in a phone. Probably something queer to GSM. I've never owned a GSM phone, always having been on CDMA since they took my AMPS (analog) away. Maybe the GSM guys here can help with that. Ah, answered my own question....(c; Go to: http://www.mountainwireless.com/mnc/ and you'll see your numbers on the GSM Mobile Network Codes... I hate it when someone stumps me, which is often. I just HAVE to find out. It's my nature, I suppose. 310 means United States. The second numbers are the carrier. www.mountainwireless.com has a wealth of information on cellular and PCS systems. They work very hard to bring the latest lists, decoded to mere customers can see why their damned digital phones won't connect to the tower right in front of them while the phone reads NO SERVICE. It's a great read these webpages. There is some confusion about analog and 911. All the carriers warned their customers that 911 won't work once analog is turned off. It appears only AT&T and Verizon have made the switchoff. Alltel has kept theirs on even past their own deadline (3/31/08). Some, including Golden State have no plans to turn analog off yet. Get a complete report on analog: http://www.mountainwireless.com/analog.shtml The latest analog report: http://mountainwireless.blogspot.com/2008/03/analog-sunset-update.html An updated list of GSM Mobile Network Codes: http://www.mountainwireless.com/mnc/ Golden State's coverage map: http://www.cellularmap.net/golden_state_map.shtml Bill Radio Click for Wireless Reviews at: http://www.mountainwireless.com >>> How do you determine which coverage you have in an area, and who it >>> comes from? >> >>You have to read the SID numbers off the phone's hidden data pages. >>Sometimes they'll let you see them buried into the PHONE STATUS pages. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > There is some confusion about analog and 911. All the carriers warned their > customers that 911 won't work once analog is turned off. It appears only > AT&T and Verizon have made the switchoff. Alltel has kept theirs on even > past their own deadline (3/31/08). Some, including Golden State have no > plans to turn analog off yet. Yeah, I used Golden States' AMPS up in Yosemite in March. What sucks is that a lot of areas in the Bay Area that used to have AMPS coverage, now have no coverage at all. >>> I was just up in Yosemite this past weekend. AMPS is still on. It >>> comes from Golden State Cellular. However I did notice a lot more [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I've enjoyed since my youth? I had 5 Moto Guzzi motorcycles and enjoyed > every one of them. First class machines. I wish I were, but I'm not. At least, I don't think I am... But I am Italian however. Anthony Guzzi <dukeofurl@sonic.net> wrote in news:47ce1876$0$36338 $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > I wish I were, but I'm not. At least, I don't think I am... > But I am Italian however. Thanks........for being Italian, too! It would be neat to find you are a distant Guzzi relative...(c; >> I was just up in Yosemite this past weekend. AMPS is still on. It >> comes from Golden State Cellular. However I did notice a lot more CDMA [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > How do you determine which coverage you have in an area, and who it > comes from? I happen to know the carrier in that area. Actually I'm not sure about the GSM coverage provider, but I think that AT&T has GSM in Yosemite Valley, unless Golden State Cellular put in some GSM service. There is no GSM on the way into the park on 120, once you get past Oakdale; it's CDMA and AMPS only. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.