Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / General / General Topics / December 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
John Navas - 02 Nov 2004 19:59 GMT
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3762844.stm>

  The fixed line phone in your home could soon be an endangered
  species.

  Research by handset maker Nokia shows that more and more people are
  using their mobile phone for every call they make or take.

  According to the study, more than 45 million people in the UK,
  Germany, US and South Korea now only use a mobile.

  It showed that people keep their fixed line phone because call
  charges are lower, but most of those questioned said the future was
  definitely mobile.

  ...

  In the US and Germany many of those interviewed said they used the
  fixed phone because it was more reliable than a mobile handset and
  let them get access to the net at relatively high speeds.

  In all the countries where interviews were carried out, older people
  were more likely to use a fixed line phone more than a mobile.

  Women aged 50 or above almost never use a mobile phone, the research
  found.

  ...
 
  Nokia said these findings had implications for mobile operators who
  must work hard to ensure that mobiles are seen as cheap, reliable and
  providing good call quality.

  The survey also showed that it is not just voice calls that are going
  wireless. Some of those questioned said they were looking to use a
  mobile or wireless service to get net access within the next couple
  of years.
 
  [MORE]

Signature

Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/

Jack Zwick - 02 Nov 2004 21:25 GMT
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3762844.stm>
>
>    The fixed line phone in your home could soon be an endangered
>    species.

True, but hardly immediately. Its up to 8 % now - folks with no landline
phone, although half that number may be folks too poor to have any phone,
rather than folks that use cellular exclusively. So the number in the
United States is 4 1/2 million that have cell phones but no landline.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3000_7-5540769-1.html

>    Research by handset maker Nokia shows that more and more people are
>    using their mobile phone for every call they make or take.
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>    
>    [MORE]
Nomen Nescio - 03 Nov 2004 00:10 GMT
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3762844.stm>
>
>   The fixed line phone in your home could soon be an endangered
>   species.

[snip]

>   It showed that people keep their fixed line phone because call
>   charges are lower, but most of those questioned said the future was
>   definitely mobile.

[snip]

>   In the US and Germany many of those interviewed said they used the
>   fixed phone because it was more reliable than a mobile handset and
>   let them get access to the net at relatively high speeds.

FWIW, I pretty much only keep a landline for the following reasons:

1.  My ADSL line.
2.  Backup/Emergency purposes.
3.  A contact number for people I don't want calling me on my cellphone
(e.g., insurance companies, utilities, banks, etc.)

Where my landline has really seen the famine is when it comes to domestic
long-distance.  With my cellphone offering free long distance, me having a
ton of rollover minutes, and the long distnace providers/ILECs/CLECs I
looked into wanting to charge me a fee each month whether I made any long
distance calls or not, it was a no-brainer to remove long distance service
PERIOD from my landline.

IMHO, if the ILEC/CLECs want to stay in the business of providing more
services/losing less services to people, they need to continue moving full
steam ahead with FTTH/FTTP projects.  Running one or two single-node
fibers to homes would allow really high-speed internet, voice, video and
data communications -- Verizon's FIOS is one such example.
Cranky Dude - 04 Nov 2004 19:27 GMT
Not likely at this moment.  I prefer voice quality good enough that I
can understand what the person is saying.   I can frequently tell when
some is calling me from a cell phone.  The voice warbles.  There are
drop-outs.  I have to ask the person to repeat.  When I make calls on
my cell phone people are frequently asking me to repeat myself and I
get dropped calls.  Not only that but there are dead spots all over
the city and when I'm out in the country I frequently have no service.

The day a cell phone call has the quality of a land line is the day a
land line will become an endangered species.

I'm using ATTWS, Moto V60i (TDMA)

CD

><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3762844.stm>
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>   Research by handset maker Nokia shows that more and more people are
>   using their mobile phone for every call they make or take.
Dave C. - 04 Nov 2004 19:48 GMT
> I'm using ATTWS, Moto V60i (TDMA)
>
> CD

There's three mistakes.  Try Cingular, Nokia (anything) and GSM Nation.  In
theory, ATTWS GSM is now the same as Cingular GSM.  However, Cingular
customers have always been able to roam more freely on ATT towers than the
other way around, and Cingular seems to be taking their sweet time changing
that.  -Dave
John Navas - 04 Nov 2004 20:03 GMT
>> I'm using ATTWS, Moto V60i (TDMA)

>There's three mistakes.  Try Cingular, Nokia (anything) and GSM Nation.  In
>theory, ATTWS GSM is now the same as Cingular GSM.  However, Cingular
>customers have always been able to roam more freely on ATT towers than the
>other way around, and Cingular seems to be taking their sweet time changing
>that.  -Dave

For GSM it's actually the other way around:  ATTWS GSM subscribers can now
roam freely on Cingular, but still not vice versa (in many areas), giving
ATTWS the best GSM coverage in the USA, better than TDMA coverage.

As for the handset, not all Nokias are good, any more than any other brand,
and there are equally good handsets from other brands.  Regardless of brand,
it's important to get a GSM handset that supports both the 850 and 1900 bands.
My personal recommendation would be the Motorola V400.

Signature

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

Cranky Dude - 04 Nov 2004 21:54 GMT
>> I'm using ATTWS, Moto V60i (TDMA)
>>
>> CD
>
>There's three mistakes.  Try Cingular, Nokia (anything) and GSM Nation.  

I had Cingular for two years before ATTWS.  I have to admit that the
quality of the calls was slightly better than ATTWS but not enough to
get excited about.  My Cingular service was also TDMA.  On the other
hand Cingular screwed me over with hidden charges and frequent sudden
changes to the contract without prior notice.  If I were to change
providers I'd look at Verizon or T-Mobile before I considered Cingular
again.

ATTWS has given me a good deal pricewise.  650 minutes, unlimited
nights/weekends, unlimited mobile to mobile calling for $29.95 /month
so I'd probably stick with them.  Is their GSM any better quality than
their TDMA?  Also, have they been putting up new towers?  Last time I
checked, their GSM coverage was not very good.

CD
John Navas - 04 Nov 2004 22:12 GMT
>ATTWS has given me a good deal pricewise.  650 minutes, unlimited
>nights/weekends, unlimited mobile to mobile calling for $29.95 /month
>so I'd probably stick with them.  Is their GSM any better quality than
>their TDMA?

Yes, particularly given the free roaming on Cingular.

>Also, have they been putting up new towers?

Yes.

>Last time I
>checked, their GSM coverage was not very good.

It's improved greatly over the past year.

Signature

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

Joseph - 04 Nov 2004 23:38 GMT
>Not likely at this moment.  I prefer voice quality good enough that I
>can understand what the person is saying.   I can frequently tell when
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>I'm using ATTWS, Moto V60i (TDMA)

Use ATTWS, cingular or T-Mobile GSM and it's a *world* of difference.
Most people cannot tell that I am using a mobile when I call from
inside a building (no street noise) with my GSM phone.    GSM is a
world of difference from TDMA (IS-136) and to most people's ears CDMA
as well.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
USENET READER - 08 Nov 2004 19:58 GMT
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.

>>Not likely at this moment.  I prefer voice quality good enough that I
>>can understand what the person is saying.   I can frequently tell when
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
John Richards - 08 Nov 2004 21:08 GMT
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.

Signature

John Richards

> It's not just voice quality.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> 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.
Jack Zwick - 08 Nov 2004 21:47 GMT
> 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.

And if you want a reliable dsl broadband connection you need a local
landline also. I got tired of weekly outages with Roadrunner.
Harry Krause - 09 Nov 2004 13:00 GMT
>> 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
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> And if you want a reliable dsl broadband connection you need a local
> landline also. I got tired of weekly outages with Roadrunner.

In my lifetime, my landline phones have been available for my use
99.99999999999999999999% of the time. In the 10 years or so I have been
using cellular service, my cell phones have been available for use maybe
70% of the time. Additionally, virtually every phone call I've made or
received via landline has had more than acceptable quality in terms of
being able to hear and be heard clearly and without fading or some sort
of noise or interference.

Cell service has a long way to go before it even approaches the
reliability of landline telephone service.
Jack Zwick - 09 Nov 2004 13:27 GMT
> >> 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
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Cell service has a long way to go before it even approaches the
> reliability of landline telephone service.

I find my cellular service infinitely more reliable on Cingular than it
was on Sprint, although not yet near landline.
Isaiah Beard - 09 Nov 2004 15:58 GMT
> And if you want a reliable dsl broadband connection you need a local
> landline also. I got tired of weekly outages with Roadrunner.

Actually, broadband reliability isn't as predictable as the landline
phone system.  Where I live, Verizon DSL isn't so reliable, and I jumped
to Comcast after getting the same frequency of outages with Verizon as
you cite with Roadrunner.

Signature

E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Jack Zwick - 09 Nov 2004 16:39 GMT
> > And if you want a reliable dsl broadband connection you need a local
> > landline also. I got tired of weekly outages with Roadrunner.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> to Comcast after getting the same frequency of outages with Verizon as
> you cite with Roadrunner.

Neither phone lines nor TV Cable were designed for broadband, so in
large part you need a staff available 24/7 to cycle power on glitched
routers when necessary. Any system dsl or cable may be problematic if
the company overseeing things merely regards it as a piece of cash flow
not to be bothered with. However that thought process seems to be the
norm with cable systems. You're not a customer, you're a piece of cash
flow.
John Richards - 10 Nov 2004 06:06 GMT
>> And if you want a reliable dsl broadband connection you need a local
>> landline also. I got tired of weekly outages with Roadrunner.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> to Comcast after getting the same frequency of outages with Verizon as
> you cite with Roadrunner.

My SBC DSL has been extremely reliable since I signed up 14 months ago.

Signature

John Richards

John Navas - 08 Nov 2004 23:18 GMT
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.

>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.

>> It's not just voice quality.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> 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.

Signature

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

Jud Hardcastle - 08 Nov 2004 23:54 GMT
> 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.

You gotta be joking.  Everything I've ever read from someone that
actually USED a satellite phone was that it was extrememly picky--had to
be totally clear skys with no trees or anything and then they had to
walk around to get the best antenna angle.  Most STORMS include heavy
rain and/or hail--the sat phone will get squat during that.
Signature

Jud
Dallas TX USA

John Navas - 09 Nov 2004 00:24 GMT
In <MPG.1bf9c3091e96fb27989806@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net> on Mon, 08 Nov 2004
23:54:01 GMT, Jud Hardcastle <l5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.removethis.com>
wrote:

>> Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>walk around to get the best antenna angle.  Most STORMS include heavy
>rain and/or hail--the sat phone will get squat during that.

Inmarsat has excellent all-weather reliability, which is why it has become the
standard for marine communication.  Iridium is quite good too, especially
given a current model handset.  Both of course need an unobstructed view of
the sky.  I've used both, and given an unobstructed view of the sky, have
never had to walk around, worry about antenna angle, or have a problem in a
storm.

Signature

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

Scott Ehrlich - 09 Nov 2004 01:03 GMT
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>never had to walk around, worry about antenna angle, or have a problem in a
>storm.

Well, the hobby of ham radio does a wonderful job of breaking through when
most everything else fails.  Simple technology, cheap, and technical
know-how from licensed users.

Scott, ham radio callsign: wy1z
John Navas - 09 Nov 2004 01:08 GMT
>>In <MPG.1bf9c3091e96fb27989806@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net> on Mon, 08 Nov 2004
>>23:54:01 GMT, Jud Hardcastle <l5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.removethis.com>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>most everything else fails.  Simple technology, cheap, and technical
>know-how from licensed users.

No offense, but especially when at sea, I would always use Inmarsat or
Irridium over ham.

Signature

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

Scott Ehrlich - 09 Nov 2004 01:19 GMT
>>Well, the hobby of ham radio does a wonderful job of breaking through when
>>most everything else fails.  Simple technology, cheap, and technical
>>know-how from licensed users.
>
>No offense, but especially when at sea, I would always use Inmarsat or
>Irridium over ham.

No offense taken.  Just pointing out a great hobby with wonderful
communications abilities that is all too often overlooked.

Scott
John Navas - 09 Nov 2004 01:31 GMT
>>>Well, the hobby of ham radio does a wonderful job of breaking through when
>>>most everything else fails.  Simple technology, cheap, and technical
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>No offense taken.  Just pointing out a great hobby with wonderful
>communications abilities that is all too often overlooked.

Indeed.  Ham often comes to the rescue in times of crisis.

Signature

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

John Richards - 09 Nov 2004 05:22 GMT
> There have been a number of notable cases where landlines went out, and
> cellular was the only phone service available.

There are exceptions to every rule, but rules shouldn't be based on
the exceptions. It's always better to have a backup.

> Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.

Not a viable alternative for most of us.

Signature

John Richards

John Navas - 09 Nov 2004 13:12 GMT
>> There have been a number of notable cases where landlines went out, and
>> cellular was the only phone service available.
>
>There are exceptions to every rule, but rules shouldn't be based on
>the exceptions. It's always better to have a backup.

What makes those cases the exceptions?

>> Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>
>Not a viable alternative for most of us.

1. Why not?

2. What happened to: "It's ALWAYS BETTER to have a backup"?
  [emphasis added]

Signature

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

Isaiah Beard - 09 Nov 2004 16:05 GMT
>>>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.  Maybe you do.  I *might* be able to swing it, but the cost
simply isn't justifiable in my opinion. :)

> 2. What happened to: "It's ALWAYS BETTER to have a backup"?
>    [emphasis added]

Some backups are simply not cost effective enough to offset the risk
they protect against.  If I'm going to drain my bank account in access
fees alone, then it's not worth it to me and probably not worth it to
lots of other reasonable poeple out there.

Signature

E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

John Navas - 09 Nov 2004 20:46 GMT
>>>>Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>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.

Signature

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

Isaiah Beard - 11 Nov 2004 17:30 GMT
>>>>>Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> It's actually quite a bit cheaper than that.

The vendors I've spoken with disagree.  Do you sell Iridium service?
List your rates.  Let's see how reasonable they really are.

Signature

E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

John Navas - 11 Nov 2004 19:21 GMT
>>>>>>Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>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.

Signature

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

Isaiah Beard - 16 Nov 2004 18:22 GMT
>>>It's actually quite a bit cheaper than that.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> You can't be bothered to check?

I did, and you swore up and down that the rates I found from Aircell
were "too expensive."

>  You'd rather stay misinformed and make
> spurious objections?

Hey, you're the one arguing that Iridium service is within everyone's
reach.  Don't tell ME about what's "spurious."  :)

> 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
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Is $20/month unreasonable for real peace of mind (ability to make an emergency
> call pretty much anywhere/anytime)?  

You're burying the truth here by a longshot.  $20 a month comes with no
(0) minutes, at $1.50 a month per your own pricing quotes.  lets assume
in the best of circumstances, an emergency call lasts 30 minutes from
the time you report the incident, to the time you're finally located, to
the time someone is dispatched to the time someone finds you.  That's
$45.00 you've spent on that one call alone, plus the $20 fee.

I'm sure pundits will say things like "$65 is nothing compared to piece
of mind!" but financial ruin later isn't very comforting.  Especially
when a solution like an EPIRB with a GPS locator would be just as
effective without the excessive airtime and monthly charges:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question351.htm

> Seems pretty reasonable to me.

I guess you would defend "Hurricane pricing" tactics, too.

Signature

E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

John Navas - 16 Nov 2004 18:39 GMT
>> You can't be bothered to check?
>
>I did, and you swore up and down that the rates I found from Aircell
>were "too expensive."

You didn't bother to check after I told you, "It's actually quite a bit
cheaper than that."

>> 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
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>You're burying the truth here by a longshot.

Facts are facts.

>$20 a month comes with no
>(0) minutes, at $1.50 a month per your own pricing quotes.  lets assume
>in the best of circumstances, an emergency call lasts 30 minutes from
>the time you report the incident, to the time you're finally located, to
>the time someone is dispatched to the time someone finds you.  That's
>$45.00 you've spent on that one call alone, plus the $20 fee.

There's no reason to be on the phone the entire time.  The more likely time is
a few minutes at most, probably less than $10.

Signature

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

John Richards - 10 Nov 2004 06:08 GMT
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> 1. Why not?

Too expensive for the average person.

Signature

John Richards

John Navas - 10 Nov 2004 15:44 GMT
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Too expensive for the average person.

In real terms it's about the same as early cellular.

Signature

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

Isaiah Beard - 11 Nov 2004 17:31 GMT
>>>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.

Signature

E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

John Navas - 11 Nov 2004 19:22 GMT
>>>>1. Why not?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>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.

Signature

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

p51d007 - 09 Nov 2004 05:57 GMT
Doubt that, unless you have a government sat phone.  If you want to
get right down to it, the most reliable form of communication, in an
emergency (tornado, hurricane, earthquake) is longwave, shortwave, and
amateur radio phone (voice), CW (morse code), RTTY or packet.  The
amateur community is most cities has a disaster plan that will set up
an emergency communication trailer that can get a message out of, or
into an area destroyed by a natural act.  They practice this several
times a year and have come in handy with the hurricanes in the Florida
area, and also with the military affiliated radio service (M.A.R.S.)
send messages back and forth between military families and their
sons/daughters overseas.

>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.
John Navas - 09 Nov 2004 13:16 GMT
>>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.

>Doubt that, unless you have a government sat phone.

Because ... ?  Satellite has bird and ground station redundancy as well as
dispersal.

>If you want to
>get right down to it, the most reliable form of communication, in an
>emergency (tornado, hurricane, earthquake) is longwave, shortwave, and
>amateur radio phone (voice), CW (morse code), RTTY or packet. ...

At a regional level perhaps, but I wouldn't want to rely on it at an
individual level.

Signature

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

Isaiah Beard - 09 Nov 2004 16:08 GMT
>>>There have been a number of notable cases where landlines went out, and
>>>cellular was the only phone service available.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Because ... ?  

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.

>>If you want to
>>get right down to it, the most reliable form of communication, in an
>>emergency (tornado, hurricane, earthquake) is longwave, shortwave, and
>>amateur radio phone (voice), CW (morse code), RTTY or packet. ...

> At a regional level perhaps, but I wouldn't want to rely on it at an
> individual level.

Well then, you enjoy your satellite phone, and let's hope you never have
to use it.  Until prices come down (IF they ever go down), the masses
are probably going to stick to more terrestrial means.

Signature

E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

John Navas - 09 Nov 2004 20:51 GMT
>>>>Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>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.

>>>If you want to
>>>get right down to it, the most reliable form of communication, in an
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Well then, you enjoy your satellite phone,

I'm far from alone -- satellite phones are increasingly popular with
long-distance mariners.

>and let's hope you never have
>to use it.

I'm not worried -- it's quite reliable.

>Until prices come down (IF they ever go down), the masses
>are probably going to stick to more terrestrial means.

Prices have come down.

Signature

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

Isaiah Beard - 11 Nov 2004 17:29 GMT
>>Because the government contracts with Iridium stipulate that in an
>>emergency, they have priority when capacity is at critical levels.  In
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> 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.  So which is it?

Signature

E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

John Navas - 11 Nov 2004 19:22 GMT
>>>Because the government contracts with Iridium stipulate that in an
>>>emergency, they have priority when capacity is at critical levels.  In
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>The two statements you just made are mutually exclusive.  ...

I disagree.

Signature

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

Isaiah Beard - 16 Nov 2004 18:23 GMT
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> I disagree.

Disagreeing doesn't make it right.  You said in #1 that you doubt
preemption happens.  Then in #2 you said it DOES happen.  Which is it?

Signature

E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

John Navas - 16 Nov 2004 18:40 GMT
>>>>>Because the government contracts with Iridium stipulate that in an
>>>>>emergency, they have priority when capacity is at critical levels.  In
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>Disagreeing doesn't make it right.  You said in #1 that you doubt
>preemption happens.  Then in #2 you said it DOES happen.  Which is it?

I didn't say that.  Read with more care and less bias.

Signature

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

USENET READER - 12 Nov 2004 02:33 GMT
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.

> There have been a number of notable cases where landlines went out, and
> cellular was the only phone service available.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>>>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.
USENET READER - 12 Nov 2004 02:32 GMT
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.

> 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.
John Navas - 12 Nov 2004 03:49 GMT
>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.

Signature

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

Jer - 09 Nov 2004 04:15 GMT
> It's not just voice quality.
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> an emergency, people can still use the phones to reach emergency and
> other needed services.

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.  Don't count on the wireless
provider to have a COW for every need.  Several wireless providers
staged almost every COW they owned for the Florida situation in Sept,
leaving their regular areas almost uncovered for their own needs - some
from as far away as Wisconsin.  Yes, technology has improved over the
years with the wireless network trying to automatically react to holes
punched in the net, and wireline repairpeople were stringing cable as
fast as they could.  Which best serves the emergency needs of the
growing public is sometimes a crap shoot.

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.

Signature

jer  email reply - I am not a 'ten'

John Navas - 09 Nov 2004 13:22 GMT
>One thing more and more people are unaware of or are ignoring - wireless
>doesn't live under the same statutory umbrella as wireline - especially
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>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
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>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.

Signature

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

It is only me - 10 Nov 2004 00:04 GMT
> >One thing more and more people are unaware of or are ignoring - wireless
> >doesn't live under the same statutory umbrella as wireline - especially
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> handsets.  Overall I don't think lack of regulation is a significant issue as
> compared to other ways that service may be interrupted.

There is a couple of misnomers at play here:

There are multiple levels of access to wireless access in case of emergency.
These are set with the local authorities and the carriers. In case of an
emergency, the appropriate level emergency command can in fact disable and
prioritize access to 911 as well as regular calls in an approrpiate
emergency. The type and weigt of situation is pre formatted and only lines
properly encoded in the LERG for the local calling area can and will
connect... even to 911...

This originated several years ago when an airliner crashed (I forget exact
date and location) fairly close to a major highway. When the authorities
started responding, various level responders and emergncey managemnt
officals who would not normally have access to radios, found they could not
be contacted or use their govenrment handsets, because for in excess of two
hours (even after local radio and TV coverage started) folsk passing by the
scene on the major highway were calling 911 and "reporting" the crash (scene
was just out of sight enough passers by could not see emergency vehicles and
crews already on scene) which overloaded the sites.

With appropriate request, the sites in an area can be selectively "locked
out" except for the authorized users... with the electronic id identifing
the handset and matching it agaisnt the LERG database... if you dont have
approrpiate access class on teh site so locked out, you will get a error
message even if you are calling 911...

The federal law mandating access to 911 is not automatic. The handset must
have been activated at some point. A brand new handset, that has never
registered on any system anywhere, will not access 911. The 2 year old
handset that you used ti use, or bought at a yard sale because someone
upgraded, yes... that handset MUST allow access to 911 on any appropriate
system compatible (ie. if is CDMA, it wont and isnt required to access 911
on a GSM network etc) within teh possible restrictions imposed by the "lock
out" discussed previous...
Joseph - 10 Nov 2004 06:28 GMT
>The federal law mandating access to 911 is not automatic. The handset must
>have been activated at some point. A brand new handset, that has never
>registered on any system anywhere, will not access 911.

This is out and out bullshit.  All handsets can access 911.  It does
not matter if it ever has been activated.  GSM handsets for one do not
get activated at all ever.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It is only me - 10 Nov 2004 12:33 GMT
> >The federal law mandating access to 911 is not automatic. The handset must
> >have been activated at some point. A brand new handset, that has never
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> get activated at all ever.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You are mistaken...

And GSM handsets DO get "activated"... There are still information that
exchanges and is recognized by the systems...
John Navas - 10 Nov 2004 15:48 GMT
>> >The federal law mandating access to 911 is not automatic. The handset must
>> >have been activated at some point. A brand new handset, that has never
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>And GSM handsets DO get "activated"... There are still information that
>exchanges and is recognized by the systems...

Joseph is correct:  What gets activated in GSM is the SIM, not the handset,
and even without a SIM, GSM handsets can still be used to call 911 without
ever having had any sort of activation.

Signature

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

Joseph - 10 Nov 2004 23:56 GMT
>> >The federal law mandating access to 911 is not automatic. The handset
>must
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>And GSM handsets DO get "activated"... There are still information that
>exchanges and is recognized by the systems...

Bull.  GSM handsets *never* get activated.  The SIM gets updated with
information, but the handset can most certainly make emergency calls
at least in North America per the regulations of the FCC and CRTC.
There's absolutely *no* information that a network uses to *activate*
a GSM phone.  I'm betting that you cannot show documentatation that it
is required.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
USENET READER - 12 Nov 2004 02:45 GMT
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 bumblefuck 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.

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> I personally think the market is doing a better job in wireless than the
> government is doing in wireline.
John Navas - 12 Nov 2004 03:55 GMT
>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 bumblefuck 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.

Signature

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

Cyrus Afzali - 12 Nov 2004 14:43 GMT
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>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.
USENET READER - 13 Nov 2004 01:53 GMT
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> 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 f.cking 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
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> 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?
Quick - 13 Nov 2004 02:11 GMT
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> 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
John Navas - 13 Nov 2004 18:24 GMT
>How about charging more for food to pay for the unregulated services?

Amen.  Let the market work, and costs will come down for everyone.

Signature

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

USENET READER - 14 Nov 2004 01:13 GMT
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>>How about charging more for food to pay for the unregulated services?
>
> Amen.  Let the market work, and costs will come down for everyone.

Bullshit - with no market regulation, the big boys will always charge
the most they can and the people who grow the food will get f.cked -
which is why you don't see many family farms anymore and we have too
many preservatives in our corporate food supply that make us sick.

Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
doesn't get screwed for the benefit of people with more money and power.
John S. - 14 Nov 2004 15:30 GMT
>Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
>regulations to level the playing field

"Regulations" only hurt people and companies.

The Government should stay out of PRIVATE business.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
John Navas - 14 Nov 2004 15:46 GMT
>> Amen.  Let the market work, and costs will come down for everyone.
>>
>Bullshit - with no market regulation, the big boys will always charge
>the most they can

Of course -- greed is as essential part of the market -- but then so is
competition, which brings prices down, greed notwithstanding.  The essential
part of regulation is ensuring competition, not trying to control prices,
which is inevitably counterproductive.

>and the people who grow the food will get f.cked -

No, they are likewise players in the market, which will set a fair price for
their goods and services.

>which is why you don't see many family farms anymore

That's because family farms aren't competitive.  Food prices are a bargain.
Should we all pay much more to subsidize a few family farmers?  No thanks!

>and we have too
>many preservatives in our corporate food supply that make us sick.

Nonsense -- food is healthier than ever, and the market ensures that demand
for organic foods will be satisfied.

>Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
>regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
>doesn't get screwed for the benefit of people with more money and power.

With all due respect, that thinking is fundamentally flawed, and doesn't
support your contentions in any event.

Signature

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

USENET READER - 15 Nov 2004 01:22 GMT
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> part of regulation is ensuring competition, not trying to control prices,
> which is inevitably counterproductive.

Greed makes peopel suffer needlessly - are you a Christian?  How do you
justify your selfish views against the teachings of Christ?  Or do you
only thump the bible when it is convenient to do so?

>>and the people who grow the food will get f.cked -
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> That's because family farms aren't competitive.  Food prices are a bargain.
> Should we all pay much more to subsidize a few family farmers?  No thanks!

You fail to see that it isn't all about dollars and cents.  We need
farmers in this economy, like we need manufacturing jobs.  It all serves
to make the society more stable and self-sufficient.  If we do away with
all these jobs, and we end up not with a WMD at the docks in Los
Angeles, what would happen here in the US with no food being able to
arrive? We need trade, but we need to take care of our own here in the
USA.  Selfish people like you are the first to jump up and down for a
free market, but wait till your job gets outsourced!

>>and we have too
>>many preservatives in our corporate food supply that make us sick.
>
> Nonsense -- food is healthier than ever, and the market ensures that demand
> for organic foods will be satisfied.

Bullshit - our food supply is contaminated with hormones, anti-biotics,
exposure to waste products and pesticides used in other countries.  We
are slowly poisoning ourselves to death on food that is produced in your
so-called cost-efficient centralized locations to make more profit for
corporate America.

>>Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
>>regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
>>doesn't get screwed for the benefit of people with more money and power.
>
> With all due respect, that thinking is fundamentally flawed, and doesn't
> support your contentions in any event.

WHy is that thinking flawed?  Are you saying that the worker in Wal-mart
is the equal to the Walton family in a power relationship?  What
bullshit is that?

My contention is that regulations are needed to level the playing field
between people with power and people without it.  If there were no level
playing field, and people were free to f.ck over everone else that they
could, would you really want to live in such a world?  When comes the
revolution - I hope you get lined up against the wall first so you can
be a martyr to the cause of the free market!
Cyrus Afzali - 15 Nov 2004 14:51 GMT
>Greed makes peopel suffer needlessly - are you a Christian?  How do you
>justify your selfish views against the teachings of Christ?  Or do you
>only thump the bible when it is convenient to do so?

Christianity has nothing to do with it. Just because many of our laws
and views have Judeo-Christian roots doesn't mean that we have adopted
the notion that profits are evil. For better or worse, the U.S.
depends on those profits you despite.

You do realize that those despicable profits generate income on many
levels, for everyone from retail investors to state and federal
governments, right? Corporate income is taxed on many levels.

>You fail to see that it isn't all about dollars and cents.  We need
>farmers in this economy, like we need manufacturing jobs.  It all serves
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>USA.  Selfish people like you are the first to jump up and down for a
>free market, but wait till your job gets outsourced!

Manufacturing is a dead industry in this country, and those who don't
realize that will suffer. Let me ask you, how much are YOU willing to
pay for a pair of shoes or jeans? Are you willing to pay an amount
that will cover double-digit increases in U.S. healthcare or for
increases in the minimum wage? If you truly are, then you're in a
small minority.

>WHy is that thinking flawed?  Are you saying that the worker in Wal-mart
>is the equal to the Walton family in a power relationship?  What
>bullshit is that?

In our system, there's never been a view that that's the case. Even
when organized labor was at the height of its power, they didn't
presume to think the two sides were equal.
me@privacy.net - 15 Nov 2004 16:02 GMT
>Manufacturing is a dead industry in this country, and those who don't
>realize that will suffer.

Given that you may be correct on the above

Do you mean ALL forms of manufacturing?

Reason I ask is.... Ive been contemplating this
changing economy of ours and wondering what "field" to
get into that will still be viable in this country 10
years from now

Ive always been in the manufacturing filed in one form
or another.... hence the question above.
Cyrus Afzali - 15 Nov 2004 16:28 GMT
>>Manufacturing is a dead industry in this country, and those who don't
>>realize that will suffer.
>
>Given that you may be correct on the above
>
>Do you mean ALL forms of manufacturing?

Not entirely, but unless you're talking about higher-end forms of
manufacturing like autos, mostly. There are interesting contrasts.
Take Nashville, Tenn., where I used to live, for example. Within the
last 5 years, they landed a major computer assembly plant from Dell
Computer that employs hundreds. Dell also moved other operations
there.

>Reason I ask is.... Ive been contemplating this
>changing economy of ours and wondering what "field" to
>get into that will still be viable in this country 10
>years from now

I don't think there are any safe bets anymore. People aren't going to
work for one company or hold only one career anymore.
John Richards - 15 Nov 2004 17:18 GMT
> >Manufacturing is a dead industry in this country, and those who don't
>>realize that will suffer.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> get into that will still be viable in this country 10
> years from now

Nursing, or the medical field in general. Actually anything that
requires face-to-face interaction between provider and customer.

Signature

John Richards

Jack Zwick - 15 Nov 2004 18:22 GMT
> > >Manufacturing is a dead industry in this country, and those who don't
> >>realize that will suffer.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Nursing, or the medical field in general. Actually anything that
> requires face-to-face interaction between provider and customer.

Thats going under a continuing dumbing down. Nurses doing the work
formerly done by doctors, nurses aides doing the work formerly done by
nurses, etc, etc.
John Navas - 15 Nov 2004 17:07 GMT
In <hxTld.11242$_J2.10995@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Mon, 15 Nov
2004 01:22:21 GMT, USENET READER <usenetreader.biteme@earthlink.biteme.net>
wrote:

>> Of course -- greed is as essential part of the market -- but then so is
>> competition, which brings prices down, greed notwithstanding.  The essential
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>justify your selfish views against the teachings of Christ?  Or do you
>only thump the bible when it is convenient to do so?

Greed doesn't make people suffer, and my views aren't selfish.

>> That's because family farms aren't competitive.  Food prices are a bargain.
>> Should we all pay much more to subsidize a few family farmers?  No thanks!
>
>You fail to see that it isn't all about dollars and cents.

With all due respect, you fail to understand economics.

>We need
>farmers in this economy, like we need manufacturing jobs.  It all serves
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>arrive? We need trade, but we need to take care of our own here in the
>USA.

With all due respect, that makes no sense.

>Selfish people like you are the first to jump up and down for a
>free market, but wait till your job gets outsourced!

Adjustments can be painful, but free markets benefit everyone in the long run.
In the short run, better to help those hurt to help themselves than to try to
protect them by hurting everyone.

>> Nonsense -- food is healthier than ever, and the market ensures that demand
>> for organic foods will be satisfied.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>so-called cost-efficient centralized locations to make more profit for
>corporate America.

Life expectancy and health statistics say otherwise.

>> With all due respect, that thinking is fundamentally flawed, and doesn't
>> support your contentions in any event.
>
>WHy is that thinking flawed?  Are you saying that the worker in Wal-mart
>is the equal to the Walton family in a power relationship?  What
>bullshit is that?

The market has the power.  Walmart must pay a market rate for labor in order
to get labor.  You're just unhappy that people are willing to work for what
you think are low wages, and trying to blame the employer for the choice of
the employee.

>My contention is that regulations are needed to level the playing field
>between people with power and people without it.

Economics shows that contention to be fundamentally flawed.

>If there were no level
>playing field, and people were free to f.ck over everone else that they
>could, would you really want to live in such a world?

Yes.

>When comes the
>revolution - I hope you get lined up against the wall first so you can
>be a martyr to the cause of the free market!

That revolution failed long ago.

Signature

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

me@privacy.net - 14 Nov 2004 15:58 GMT
>Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
>regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
>doesn't get screwed for the benefit of people with more money and power.

Agreed 100 percent

Ive sen it in my own company.

Lay off the poorly paid workers in the shop floor... the ones actually
MAKING the product. Lay them off in the name of cutting costs

Then they hire administrative people we have no real need
for....engineers with no real function, etc

They said they couldn't afford a decent raise for these production
workers yet somehow they had money to hire these engineers who just
happened to be friends of the accountant

Sheesh the country is screwed up!  No wonder our economy sucks with
thinking like that above.

Or how abt this?  Lay off 56,000 people and shut down 60 stores to
save money.... then give the guy who did it 90 million for 10 months
work. see link

http://tinyurl.com/4w7gb
Scott Stephenson - 14 Nov 2004 16:03 GMT
> >Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
> >regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4w7gb

And yet none of this was prevented by precious regulation- it did happen,
will continue to happen and the government has no control over it.
USENET READER - 15 Nov 2004 01:25 GMT
>>>Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
>>>regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> And yet none of this was prevented by precious regulation- it did happen,
> will continue to happen and the government has no control over it.

Without knowing the specifics of the other gentleman's situation, I can
tell you that it could happen because regulations aren't being enforced
by the current administration because they think that they can strangle
the regulatory environment simply by not paying attention to it. By not
giving the enforcement agencies enough money to operate.

The government can take control over it if it wants to do so - but it
won't under Bush.
Scott Stephenson - 15 Nov 2004 01:33 GMT
> >>>Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
> >>>regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> The government can take control over it if it wants to do so - but it
> won't under Bush.

And yet the regualtions you have such a raging hard-on for are in place, and
this is further proof that they serve no prupose other than to pad the
federal coffers at tax time.

Here's a thought- take control of your life, make your own decisions and
don't expect any handouts.  In other words- GROW UP.  Some day you'll take
the binkie out of your mouth long enough to realize that government was not
designed to wipe your a.s because you are too lazy to do it yourself.  And
you are obviously young enough to forget what the welfare state of the 60's
and 70's produced.  Its been tried before in this country with much less
than desired effect.  Tell me why you know better.
BG - 15 Nov 2004 09:12 GMT
What GSM issue are you disussing?

It seems more appropriate to move your personal fight to emails
instead!

Signature

====================================== phone pages
http://borgus.net ---- http://osbymikro.tk
====================================== free sms
http://2sms.tk

USENET READER - 25 Nov 2004 20:55 GMT