• Look Out For The Rising Costs Of ILEC Local Services [telecom]

    From Bill Horne@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 11 16:24:08 2022
    by Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP

    Do enterprises still use POTS lines?  Well, the ILECs appear to be
    asking the same question, because there is a disturbing trend taking
    place with ILEC pricing.  For example, one well-known ILEC recently
    raised its list rate for POTS services by a whopping 50%.

    Listen to this 9 minute podcast as TC2 Directors Theresa Knutson, Julie Gardner, and Joe Schmidt discuss why enterprises still use POTS lines
    for services like elevator phones, explain why ILECs are imposing these
    huge price increases, and offer insight on what you need to do.

    https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/telecoms-mobile-cable-communications/1148782/look-out-for-the-rising-costs-of-ilec-local-services?email_access=on

    --
    I don't want to say that I'm old and worn out, but I'm never anywhere near the curb on trash day

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Trew@21:1/5 to Bill Horne on Sun Feb 20 19:26:05 2022
    On 1/11/2022 16:24, Bill Horne wrote:
    by Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP

    Do enterprises still use POTS lines? Well, the ILECs appear to be
    asking the same question, because there is a disturbing trend taking
    place with ILEC pricing. For example, one well-known ILEC recently
    raised its list rate for POTS services by a whopping 50%.

    Listen to this 9 minute podcast as TC2 Directors Theresa Knutson, Julie Gardner, and Joe Schmidt discuss why enterprises still use POTS lines
    for services like elevator phones, explain why ILECs are imposing these
    huge price increases, and offer insight on what you need to do.

    https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/telecoms-mobile-cable-communications/1148782/look-out-for-the-rising-costs-of-ilec-local-services?email_access=on

    I've been keeping an eye on my POTS bill, and it just shot up almost
    $3/mo, again. It seems to go up a dollar or two per month, every year
    or two. I pay well over $10/mo more now, then I did in just 7 years
    ago. Flat rate line, local unlimited calling, no features; $46/month
    now. It seems that they are trying to price people out of owning a POTS
    line. I'm not sure what my limit is, but we're encroaching it (I pay a
    few dollars per month for third-party long distance service).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Horne@21:1/5 to Michael Trew on Mon Feb 21 22:36:56 2022
    On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 07:26:05PM -0500, Michael Trew wrote:
    On 1/11/2022 16:24, Bill Horne wrote:
    by Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP

    Do enterprises still use POTS lines? Well, the ILECs appear to be
    asking the same question, because there is a disturbing trend taking
    place with ILEC pricing. For example, one well-known ILEC recently
    raised its list rate for POTS services by a whopping 50%.

    Listen to this 9 minute podcast as TC2 Directors Theresa Knutson, Julie
    Gardner, and Joe Schmidt discuss why enterprises still use POTS lines
    for services like elevator phones, explain why ILECs are imposing these
    huge price increases, and offer insight on what you need to do.

    https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/telecoms-mobile-cable-communications/1148782/
    look-out-for-the-rising-costs-of-ilec-local-services?email_access=on

    I've been keeping an eye on my POTS bill, and it just shot up almost
    $3/mo, again. It seems to go up a dollar or two per month, every
    year or two. I pay well over $10/mo more now, then I did in just 7
    years ago. Flat rate line, local unlimited calling, no features;
    $46/month now. It seems that they are trying to price people out of
    owning a POTS line. I'm not sure what my limit is, but we're
    encroaching it (I pay a few dollars per month for third-party long
    distance service).

    Speaker as a former technician at New England Telephone & Telegraph,
    and a former union organizer, and a current Verizon retiree, I'll
    clarify the issue with this simple fact: the "loaded" cost for an hour
    of a union employee's time is a three-figure number.

    "Loaded" means that all factors are included: direct wages, training, supervision, supervision of the supervisors, equipment, Workers
    Compensation Insurance, retirement fund contributions, and health
    care. It means that the stockholders have to part with somewhere
    between 100 and 999 dollars for every hour a union technician is on
    the job.

    It's real money, and the stockholders are always looking to
    disenfranchise unions for any reason they can: "retiring," i.e.,
    refusing to spend the money to maintain the copper outside plant, is one
    of the strategies being used to do that. No wires, no well-paid union
    members to pay.

    Most cellular employees are non-union, and the industry makes
    extensive use of contractors, leased equipment, and low wage employees
    to install, maintain, and remove physical plant. There have been union
    drives at some cellular companies, with a few success stories, but
    overall, it's a non-union industry. The profit figures reflect that.

    In addition, the ilecs - whom are almost all in the cellular business
    through various subsidiaries - want to force traffic back into the pay-by-the-minute model that made their vast fortunes in the last
    century. Although nervous lawmakers forced "Ma Bell" and its
    subsidiaries to offer fixed-price plans to private citizens, almost
    all business use has always been measured.

    Cellular service has always been agressively targeted at young,
    impressionable customers who were not (and, sad to say, are still not)
    trained to consider the low-term costs of "included with offer"
    cellphones, or per-minute cellular billing, or lowered voice
    quality. They're being led like lambs to a slaughter, and our
    government's civil servants seem to be serving only themselves when it
    comes to getting any real protection for ordinary folks whom are
    paying through the nose.

    Bill

    --
    Bill Horne
    (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Horne@21:1/5 to Garrett Wollman on Thu Feb 24 14:15:04 2022
    On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:37:46PM -0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
    In article <20220221223656.GA27826@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
    Bill Horne <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com> wrote:

    Cellular service has always been agressively targeted at young,
    impressionable customers who were not (and, sad to say, are still
    not) trained to consider the low-term costs of "included with offer"
    cellphones, or per-minute cellular billing, or lowered voice
    quality.

    Why should they care? They *don't use* voice telephony.

    Sure they do: especially when their mommy calls them up and screams at
    them about the cell phone bill that daddy is screaming about to her.

    There are *STILL* "influencers" roaming middle- and high-school
    corridors, showing off the "best" "new" "great" and <insert
    superlative here> instruments to gullible pre-pubescent female
    customers whom are able to get their mommy's credit card and their
    behinds to the cell phone store. There is *REAL* money at stake, and
    the guy at the cell phone store wants it.

    Pre-pubescent teenage females: that's who buys pop music and expensive cellphones.

    Bill

    --
    (Please remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)