the very expensive myth of long distance

by:UMeasure     2020-03-31
On Monday, billions of dollars of showdown traded under the darkness of the telephone system were delayed.
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Kevin Martin, has proposed a complex plan to adjust the long-distance operator to pay the local telephone company for the completion of the call.
Facing opposition from the other four members
Martin dropped his vote on the plan scheduled for Tuesday.
These things are a bit mysterious, but the result of these rules may turn your phone bill into a dollar for a month.
To a large extent, these rules will reduce the flow of money from large telephone companies to small telephone companies, mainly in rural areas.
This, in turn, will increase the telephone charges for some people living in this country, which may reduce the telephone charges for people in cities and suburbs.
Over the past week, I \'ve been trying to tap into dozens of arguments that various lobbying groups have brought to me.
Some people say the plan is unfair to mom. and-
Mobile phone company (
Yes, there are thousands.
People who live in the grasslands and mountains served by these companies.
Consumer groups are worried that AT&T and Verizon will support him.
Martin\'s plan, instead of lowering their fees, will keep the money they will save.
These are all important issues that concern a lot of money.
But when I read all the documents and talked to people, I wanted to scream.
Most of the words that people use to define debate are no longer meaningful.
Start with this very inconvenient fact: in today\'s telephone system, there is almost no difference between local calls and long callsdistance call.
Today, almost all phones are tiny data streams that are transmitted over the Internet and other similar data networks.
Today, voice traffic is dwarfed by the flow of web pages, Internet videos and all other information.
The maximum cost of providing a local telephone service is to maintain the wires in each customer\'s home (
Wires that also carry Internet traffic in many cases).
In any case, almost all the costs of providing telephone services are fixed and have nothing to do with the number of calls the customer makes, the time of call or the distance of the call.
From the huge devices that set up and adjust phone rates, you will never know about that.
The industry is divided into local telephone companies regulated by the National Public Utilities Commission and long-term
Remote companies under federal supervisionC. C.
Most of the regulations require pricing of the phone a minute ago.
This discord has gotten worse since the government let SBC Communications buy AT&T
Assuming its name)
Verizon acquired MCI.
Now, they are mainly trying to sell a bundle for consumers to make phone calls anywhere, even though they have to legally place local and long-term
Part of their company.
Contrast this confusion with the development of the largely unregulated world of Internet traffic.
Small Internet providers pay large backbone providers to connect with the world;
They didn\'t receive the money to connect their customers like a small phone company did.
Through so-called peer-to-peer arrangements, a large amount of internet traffic is freely exchanged between networks.
In fact, the phone system gets worse when you look closely.
Besides local and long-term
Long distance calls, for long distance calls within a state, there is a third set of rates, which are usually higher than interstate calls, and there is no reason anyone can prove this directly.
In addition, wireless operators and voice providersover-Internet-
Agreement services (
Including all cable companies)
Do not pay for these huge charges by connecting to the local phone system.
Over the years, a concept of telephone regulation is that the price of local services should be related to how many people you can reach in the local call area.
Therefore, in cities where telephone services are cheap, people have been paying high fees to subsidize low rates for the people of the country.
If that makes sense, it\'s hard for me to see it right now.
It is likely that there is a good policy rationale to find a way to subsidize the services of people in the most remote areas of the country.
In fact, there are two ways we can do this now.
The Universal Services Fund comes from a tax on telephone charges, which are also used to help pay for rural telephone services, as well as computers in schools and communication programs that the government considers worthwhile.
There have also been hidden subsidies in these long periodsdistance rates.
The government has long regulated telephone prices because telephone companies have been in a monopoly position, and they still dominate the market despite some competition in cable systems.
There may be benefits to protect consumers, especially low-income consumers.
However, the current way telephone regulation works is not the best way to achieve these goals, especially given the reality of potential technologies and the increasing competition.
Think about how much the country has spent on economists, lawyers, and state regulators and others involved in arguing about the price of calls per minute think that the economic cost of this price is very close to zero.
So why not just get rid of this whole plan and replace it with something that has a reasonable relationship with the way the phone actually works?
To put it simply, too many people are interested in what is now.
Some local telephone companies
They receive thirty times the income from termination fees and subsidies for universal service funds.
At different times, the Federal Communications Commission has proposed to cancel those that have long been
The call was terminated from the company.
There is not enough support for this. Mr.
Martin proposed a more complex compromise that reduced payments to local phone companies in 10 years, and make up for some difference service fund points with higher monthly telephone charges and changing the payment method of global bank.
He hoped to rush through at the end of his presidency, but was opposed enough to stop it.
I\'m not saying, sir.
Martin\'s compromise is correct.
In fact, there are a lot of unanswered questions about who will benefit and who will be hurt.
But I know everyone\'s phone bill is too high because we are all paying for supporting the myth that has long been
Minutes away is actually important.
Comments are no longer accepted.
For many years, I have also thought that short or \"Long Distance\" calls should be at the same price, whether in a state or between states/countries, A variable maintenance fee for additional phone connection hardware is allowed.
This suggests that most connections are now traveling through internet links, which only highlights wierd pricing and tax regulations that have allowed to continue or grow over the years.
Bits don\'t cost anything.
You pay for smoke and mirrors.
It\'s not a myth, it\'s a scam.
The debate over strong line calls is out of date.
Just like talking about typewriters today.
If you buy a hard line phone for more than 40 dollars these days, you are cheated.
Switch to VOIP such as VOIP age, Skype or T-
Mobil saved a lot of money.
Transfer your landline phone number to the phone line and never look back!
After everyone gave up their land, the debate on tariffs would not be very interesting. Wait a minute.
The financial meltdown on Wall Street caused-allegedly —
Shouldn\'t we support a phone system with a lot of regulations?
So, if it\'s inefficient, stupid, out-
Outdated, just to support yourself
The interests of non-competitive suppliers: At least it is \"regulated\" and we now know that more regulation is good for us. Ummm, right? Yes? Someone?
Dave-in fact, more and more people will use vonage and Skypes in the world.
But there are millions of people who just want the phones on the walls to work as usual, and the regulatory structure determines the price they pay. (
To maintain the current system, we all pay some price. )
So there is a real policy issue that needs to be faced here, not that anyone has leverage to change the way things are set.
BestSaulI believes that all the factors are not evaluated in this review article.
It is not important that human analog speech is carried by digital or analog communication systems.
Contrary to what is widely believed, the cost of providing long-distance calls is still on average more expensive than local calls.
Calls from Atlanta to Seattle have to go through many interconnect S that are costly to support and maintain.
Mobile phone suppliers effectively re-
Trained consumers believe long distance is freeIT IS NOT.
Cellular providers simply embed the cost of the LD part of the call into each
Minutes/month usage fee.
Wireless services have undoubtedly changed the rules of the game in the telecom industry, bringing better products and lower prices on average.
Digital exchange technology that provides VOIP and data on the same line is changing the cost of providing telephone services at an increasing speed.
But, Sol, I don\'t agree. . . The price per minute of the call is almost zero.
\"There will be a cost to provide any voice communication product.
The reason the industry is arguing about interconnect costs is that they have to cut costs to stay competitive as prices approach zero.
Oh, by the way, LD minutes are important.
If the FCC didn\'t open up LD competition a few years ago, we would still have three LD companies making big money.
Now, LD has become the overall service portfolio that Verizon and AT&T offer to customers.
Definitely a scam that is supported by older generation members who think this scam is legitimate and reasonable.
But be aware that these phone companies don\'t usually do contract fraud like all mobile phone companies and current Internet providers.
Like me, there are a lot of people out there who don\'t want a contract!
We need to have more regulation on this contract scam, like this long distance scam!
More rules!
If the Lord above gives people the rules to live in a society because they cannot be trusted in themselves, perhaps our government should make rules for businesses because they cannot be trusted by themselves.
People forget how fast history is and how ignorant it is.
Google \"RUS\", learn how the electrical and telephone infrastructure that is taken for granted is formed.
Other points.
\"The people of this country\" is not a minority, but about 50% of the population.
\"Mom and Pop\" phone companies provide telephone services to more than half of the country\'s geographical areas.
So we\'re not talking about small pieces.
Also, your research clearly does not include countless regulations for a phone provider called the current local switching operator (ILEC)
From the time it takes to get a dial tone to how many times you have to try before the phone goes through, everything is strictly regulated.
Like all the cumbersome regulations, this makes everything more expensive.
Wired, VoIP, and wireless companies are largely tax-free, and on their network I \'ve been waiting 30 seconds for a call to pass and have to try again a few times, poor quality all the things that will cause ILEC to fine.
Finally, the reason to stay in a state is (intra-state)
Because the states themselves tax the minutes of the meeting, the price will be higher.
Whatever the FCC comes up with, unless they completely trample on the rights within the state
The country will always be more expensive than Inter. state.
In the United States, all calls are the clarion call that hinders our progress. Multi-
Mobile phone 2 years contract.
Auditing and massage TCP for big telecom companies and cable providers-IP packets. SMS at $0.
Information of entry and exit. The land-
The above line situation.
The US phone is not in line with our economic interests.
Let\'s hope that there can be some improvement between the economy and President Obama.
The phone company wants everyone to switch to the phone because both ends have to be charged by talking through the phone.
With land lines, only charges are charged to callers.
The wires/fiber that flow into your house should be owned by the homeowner or city, just like the sewers and water pipes that flow into the house, all the lines of a community should enter a cityOwn switch
The switch will connect multiple operators.
This city will be every 3-
5 years of urban maintenance-
With its own lines and switches, the operator will be responsible for their connection to the switch.
With this setup, the operator will compete for the home business rather than dictating the terms of service to the entire city.
I can only choose Insight cable or AT&T DSL in my city.
I would like to have a competitive environment in terms of TV, Internet and telephone services as both options are bad!
My guess is that when AT&T monopolizes, they get huge government subsidies to build their network.
So while I\'m sure they believe they own it, it\'s actually built with taxpayer money.
Let them retain any backbone they have, but local lines should not belong to a single supplier in order to facilitate continued competition.
We need to distinguish the incremental cost of sending messages over the network (
This cost is close to zero)
And the fixed cost of the network itself.
AT&T and other telephone companies must make huge investments every year in telephone lines, switching systems, mobile towers, and more.
Without this investment, your land phone, mobile phone, fax machine and internet connection will stop working.
Telephone companies get the billions of dollars they need by selling bonds or issuing shares.
Investors expect a return and a competitive return.
Therefore, the telephone company must charge enough to pay the cost of the investor.
In addition, they have to pay all other expenses such as maintenance and repair.
Telephone charges typically include monthly fees plus usage fees, calculated based on the time of call or phone number or distance.
The use fee is necessary and arbitrary. (
When your use time is doubled, the cost of the phone company has barely changed).
Usage fees are more of a way to allocate the total cost of the network to the customer.
Plus, you have-
From the end of the era of regulated monopoly.
It is expected that large telephone companies will subsidize small rural companies so that they can continue to do business.
Telephone companies also need to provide affordable universal services to our citizens.
The resulting telephone rates are often strange and confusing.
But they have to pay the total network fee if the customer wants to get the service.
So, I would like to be able to pay thousands of miles of fiber optic, OC electronics, Central Office, repeater, and digital equipment and optical fiber/copper on site, with sufficient profit for shareholders, about $25 per subscriber per month? Get real.
The Internet has been used as a comparative cost model for telephone networks.
The problem is that no one really understands the real cost of providing the Internet, and no one really understands the basic network behind these peer-to-peer arrangements that have never been mentioned.
There are billions of dollars invested in connection points across the United States, which is not free.
Someone has to pay.
Just because your cable modem services, DSL services, or VoIP are cheap, this does not reflect the underlying network, but rather the false economy that allows these services to pass, while traditional users, whether it is a simple LD user, it must bear the impact of cost, or high-end large-capacity enterprise customers.
Thanks to traditional regulations, access fees and the availability of fiber optic by USF, even in rural areas, although the ISP service using them is not paid.
Also, thanks for calling cheap phones to wired users, in many cases they can stop these networks by car for free.
Think about it . . . . . .
Optical fiber, digital electronics, large high-cap networks . . . . . .
Do you really think that free peer arrangements and cheap Vonage services reflect the cost of putting these networks into service? Wake up!
What is happening now is that, especially in the case of high costs for rural companies, these costs are pushed into a bucket called USF so that everyone can focus on shooting or trimming it.
If it goes too far, you will see small companies default on loans, and many parts of the country are in the dark, so far, those who enjoy a free or very cheap journey will fill the web with a vacuum.
Long distance calls also subsidize Internet and data connections.
The problem is this subsidy is not transparent. eg.
Telephone companies can use these additional fees for other uses mentioned in the article.
It is important to be aware of the transmission of data (
It doesn\'t matter whether it\'s IP or voice)
From an engineering/physical perspective, the cost of transmitting data across continents is higher than in the same city.
Human factors (
Legal, network/supplier selection, etc)
Cover this up, but there is an inherent cost increment.
Google is installing data centers worldwidea)
Minimize delay ,(b)
Reduce the cost of data transmission.
Google is investing in Trans-Pacific and other submarine cable installations (a)
Reduce the cost of data transmission ,(b)
Minimize delay.
Distance is indeed. . . Matt, you have the right consideration for transparency.
Custom message

APP Umeasure---the must-have home decorating apps for iOS And Android which can connect with Mobile and Laser Distance Meter

Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Chat Online inputting...
Umeasure here! Just in case you leave or we reply later,please leave your email,mobile or Skype. Will get back to you later. Contact us,, mobile/whatsApp/WeChat: 0086 166 7561 7862