Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Voice-on-the-net (VON), VoIP, Internet (IP) Telephony -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: STK1 who wrote (1247)	9/6/1998 4:10:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

Charlie, >>How are you this weekend?The VOCLF and Excel Agreement was very well diagnosed by you. << Doing fine here Charles, hope the same goes for you. And thanks for the acknowledgement. >>with scaleability and good old traditional features we may be on the cutting edge of market very soon.<< Good old traditional features, indeed. All of which says what, exactly? To me it says that nothing here of substance is really changing at all, yet, in this voip model, except the inter-nodal transport protocol, for the most part. Instead of using the G.xyz, we're now using a G.729 or 723.1 compression scheme, interfaced to an Private IP or FR backbone, usually. The other obvious effects of this revolution indicate lower costs to users, which translates to lower gross revenues for the same number of units sold, which would have been a real advantage to someone who could have come in and done it all, but not when everyone else is doing it. Oh, and a lot of inferior sounding calls for the time being. No, there's got to be more to this than we're now seeing. Would you care to elaborate on what that eventual 'more' is going to be? I ask because it certainly is not going to be a land of more when we reach sub-cent pricing per minute, which is where we are headed at this rate. For some reason in this space players rejoice every time they announce that they are making less money per unit of product. Yes I know the usual comebacks to this, I've stated them myself from time to time, but at some point value add will need to be injected into the schema, because plain vanilla wont cut it for long in a marketplace where arbitrage has a very short shelf life. >>I don't believe the regulators will allow the LEC charges that Bell wants through the Switch.That would change the regulation of the Lec big time.<< If the cited action by BellSouth doesn't actually lead to charges that are collectable, then do you at least think that the LECs might be successful in enjoining or otherwise preventing the startups from deploying their services for some period of time? I wouldn't ignore that possibility, even though it might be futile. But you know what they say about law suits, don't you? Anyone can file one. Regards, Frank C.

To: STK1 who wrote (1247)	9/6/1998 4:36:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 3178

BellSouth to charge for Internet phone calls [[Charlie, All, another cut of the same BellSouth story, this time courtesy of Peter Piper of the VOCLF thread, written by JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press]] WASHINGTON (September 4, 1998 7:31 p.m. EDT -- BellSouth Corp. plans to charge companies that carry long-distance phone calls over the Internet the same fees traditional long-distance companies must pay, a move that could narrow the cost savings enjoyed by people making Internet calls. BellSouth's decision on Friday marks the first time a local phone company has charged carriers for such calls and is likely to be a test case for federal regulators. AT&T, MCI, Sprint and other traditional long-distance companies currently pay BellSouth and other local phone companies fees, known as access charges, for connecting long-distance calls. The fees make up about 40 percent of the average residential customers' long-distance bill. Six companies would be affected by BellSouth's decision, said spokesman Bill McCloskey. The companies have been notified that that they will begin getting charged for the fees in November. BellSouth declined to identify the companies. The change would affect all types of long-distance calls carried over the Internet except those made by computer users to other computers or made from telephones to computers. [[FAC edit: the reasons for this do not stem from any form of altruism, rather, it is because these forms of calls are far more intractable and dogged, and enforcement and billing would be on someone's say so, rather than an audit trail being left behind. And oh yes, it fits in very nicely as a half-way compromise with the sentiment du jour concerning the government's hands-off policies and recommendations. I think that we are about to see SS7 come back here and bite the startups in the ass. What this might also do is accelerate work arounds to the SS7, through the use of alternative directory services schemes and termination strategies using TCP/IP sessions altogether, and may easily result in the ultimate backlash for the incumbents. What do you think? Any comments?]] Less than one-half of 1 percent of all telephone time is taken up by Internet calls. Although McCloskey said BellSouth initially expects to receive little money from the fees, the amount of money at stake could grow significantly as more companies provide Internet calling. However, the prospect of such fees could dim the allure of cheap phone calling over the Internet. One big reason these calls are far less expensive than traditional long-distance calls is because federal regulators have not required companies that provide them to pay access fees to local phone companies. "BellSouth is creating a test case and is forcing the process," said Scott Cleland, an analyst at Legg Mason Wood Walker Inc. in Washington. Federal Communications Commission officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, agreed with the assessment.