Re: Cost of POTS w/o Long Distance

BobT wrote:

>> Brief summary follows. Location, SBC, former Ameritech, specifically >> Chicago. Incident involved intrastate local toll rather than >> interstate LD. I had switched interstate LD carriers, and during the >> transaction, without my knowledge, local toll carrier on one of my two >> lines apparently was listed as unassigned, as you speculate. ... > A common problem. Telephone providers, both local and long distance, > have to spend time and money resolving such issues. Sometimes the > dollar amounts are significant and the dispute makes the newspapers. > It's tough to say who is at fault -- customer, base telephone provider, > or long distance carrier, or combination. > We all have to pay for this through higher rates and aggravation. > I noticed some respondents said this was a reason they're switching to > VOIP, but I it seems most VOIP are keeping one POTS line as a backup. > I suspect getting VOIP to reach that "last mile" of service > reliability to equal or exceed classic POTS will take some time in > coming and be considerably expensive. (Can VOIP handle faxes > transparently?) As an example, the 911 requirement was repeatedly > extended; that was something the VOIP people should've had all set up > and included from day one. In other words, down the road VOIP will > cost much more than it does now.

The whole E-911 issue is a red herring. It is not that the VoIP carriers can't connect to it, it's that incumbent companies are playing #*%@# hardball.

I want to see the incumbents die by their tariffs.

Reply to
Tony P.
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.