The double dipping can just make the costs 1/2 as much. I don't see any reason carriers should be required to perform a service i.e. connect an incoming call without being compensated. And the PSTN system of charges agrees with that. VOIP if it wants to use PSTN should play by PSTN rules.
As for small players. Anyone can buy SIP services and pay PSTN fees. Those fees are set by the FCC and regulated. Not anyone can build lines, that's a public utility, and that's why the line carriers, i.e. the people collecting those fees get them.
I'm not sure how your system even works out financially. If I can use a small carrier for all my outgoing calls and there is no charge for incoming calls, then why not just VOIP out PSTN in and get lines for free?
There is legitimate trunking. I.E. company A has outgoing calls using one number but has incoming calls on another. Lots of business do this, it is an important part of the PSTN we can't lose. However, there is no reason business that trunc can't directly pay PSTN fees for call origination not just connection. Legitimate businesses wouldn't mind replacing say $.012 / min go down to $.005 / min but with a $.03 origination fee robocallers would be crushed by that fee structure.
The big problem is there are call aggregators using SIP handoffs. That should be just illegal. You should have to use your own DID on any calls.
The PSTN is fundamentally analog at the end points. It isn't P2P digital. Just ditching the PSTN and moving everyone to SIP is a good idea. But it might make robocalling far far worse. We still haven't address the spam problem.
Robocalling is legal. Faking robocalls might be considered elections fraud however. We haven't been prosecuting elections fraud, but it used to be a very effective technique for government one level up to go after a PIA one level down: i.e. a governor having trouble with a mayor.
That's called Obstruction of Justice and carries fairly large criminal penalties. That sort of behavior ceases to be an FCC problem and becomes a Justice Department problem.
Sure they can. Either Canadian telcos agree not to support violations and US law or the direct connection between Canada and the US on the PSTN is severed. There are a tremendous number of international telecommunications treaties that place obligations on both parties to enforce telco laws and cooperate.
What they should do then is ban aggregators, i.e. shut it off. The international calling system has fees for handoffs. There is no reason not to be using a legitimate SIP for international calls or staying off the PSTN entirely.
Why would carriers have any objection delivering calls from competing carriers that pay handoff fees? If you mean carriers that don't pay handoff fees that sounds like a feature not a bug.
I can't think of any reason that VOIP providers wanting to call the PSTN shouldn't be paying for legitimate SIP handoffs from a carrier. I don't have any problem with banning VOIP -> PSTN fee free calls.
People use phones to report drug dealers to the police
If people want to make confidential calls using the PSTN there are pay phones. That system has worked fine for almost a century.
You only have 3 recent comments. They all seem quite different and this one at least doesn't read so bland as what I'm talking about. Of course I haven't seen your AC posts or stuff you did a while ago. So I can't tell.
Anyway respond to comments and I doubt you'll have that problem.
Yes. I agree the/. crowd is hostile to Microsoft. OTOH this site was born of the Linux desktop crowd, that is it was founded by the people that hated Windows 98 / Windows ME and were moving over to Linux as a desktop alternative. I
I'd agree with you that many/.ers don't have a lot of experience with desktop / IT management. There are also quite a few/.ers that do, and hate Microsoft since they are Linux people. The only area I'd disagree with your association of niche with non-end user support. Embedded, server, IT infrastructure... are gigantic areas of computing and IT related work.
I think there is no question that Enterprises are a continuum when it comes to security and manageability. First off enterprises want standards. Having something that works for 1/3rd of enterprises is not good as it forces unrelated applications not to follow standards. So in general the system needs to be good enough for about 80% of enterprises. And IMHO I don't think iPad even gets to the 33% mark once it starts getting used seriously.
For example simply disabling iCloud integration is becoming problematic with the whole direction Apple is pursuing with the Core Data libraries. The iPad version of Pages is more or less crippled without iCloud, and it is likely that will be the case with hundreds of applications. Which means IT is going to end up either directly supporting the entire range of synchronization services with the enterprise SDK or have their application data being synced willy nilly on 3rd party servers, which is almost invariably illegal and/or very unwise for almost all of them.
For example, exchange integration is nice. But employees have a tendency to sync multiple email accounts using Apple mail and then respond with the default account. Which either means frequent personal email originating from their corporate address, which creates all sorts of legal risk; or corporate email originalting from their personal email address which creates business risk.
etc...
If MS would just give up on the toys and focus on being a great enterprise company with a nice sideline of selling solid OSs to OEMs, rather than forcing some ridiculous Fisher Price phone UI onto business desktops, they'd be doing GREAT.
Remember where Microsoft came from. They were the Languages vendor and OS vendor for IBM's small business computing solution. Microsoft is very concerned that Android and iOS will do to them what they did to DEC, Unisys and IBM. Microsoft believes that if they lose consumer / small business by 2020 they will be a legacy enterprise technology vendor by 2030. OTOH they believe their strength in consumer is "use the same computer at home you use at work", ubiquitous computing. Android and iOS and nowhere close to being able to challenge Microsoft in the enterprise space, they have plenty of time to leverage their advantages in enterprise to try and defend their territory in consumer / small business. If they lose then you do what you are advocating, but its hard to see a downside in fighting the war for consumer as long as they get to freeroll.
Yes they are going cloud oriented. And they have lots of Android and Apple. So, there are conferences now daily about the problems they are having with BYOD security. If they had a good option, they'd take it.
These suicide / harassment cases keep happening. I think the black letter law is adequate to prosecute for manslaughter in these cases: i.e. criminal but not felonious actions that result in a death but where death was not a likely outcome. But since prosecutors seem iffy to just apply manslaughter charges, just have black letter law to make it explicitly apply.
Like it or not, for all it's faults, the iPad is the best enterprise tablet (in that enterprises actually use it).
I think the iPad is a terrible enterprise tablet. Ultimately as an enterprise vendor because the people buying the devices are not the people using the devices you have a conflict of interest. You inevitably have to ask the question who are customers, the end users or the people who purchase the devices. Microsoft's focus on the consumer dropped off drastically once they were able to be an enterprise OS and replace: IBM, Unisys and DEC. They choose bosses over workers, made a ton of money doing it but ultimately created a situation where most people's day to experience with Microsoft's OS and software is negative. People think Microsoft is a less capable system than it is because they use a less capable version.
Apple conversely has as far as enterprise so far mostly sided with users over IT management. They have been reluctant to add IT features that make the devices easier to manage, that is easier to disable consumer oriented features. Apple wants to be high margin unique vendor and they know enterprise while currently desperate for a phone and tablet solutions provider will quickly demand multiple suppliers to give them pricing leverage. So their consumer orientation is unlikely to change unless market conditions change substantially.
Someone is going to have to own the enterprise space. RIM and Microsoft are far better choices than Apple but both at least today have inferior product eco-systems.
1)/. ers are paranoid about paid shills. I've been here well over a decade and and a rather frequent poster and well I still get accused of being a paid shill because I think Microsoft is going the right thing with Windows 8.
2) That being said there are accounts that never post. And then post some sort of bland non technical pro Microsoft message. I've seen ACs identify them look at their history and they are right.
I've asked the people who make these sorts of posts, but they never respond. So maybe I'm catching the paranoia but I do think there are some rather odd paid pro Microsoft posters.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.payphone-directory.org/
The double dipping can just make the costs 1/2 as much. I don't see any reason carriers should be required to perform a service i.e. connect an incoming call without being compensated. And the PSTN system of charges agrees with that. VOIP if it wants to use PSTN should play by PSTN rules.
As for small players. Anyone can buy SIP services and pay PSTN fees. Those fees are set by the FCC and regulated. Not anyone can build lines, that's a public utility, and that's why the line carriers, i.e. the people collecting those fees get them.
I'm not sure how your system even works out financially. If I can use a small carrier for all my outgoing calls and there is no charge for incoming calls, then why not just VOIP out PSTN in and get lines for free?
Understood. I was responding to GP's comment about political robocalling.
That's indirect. Aunt Mildred's carrier pays a fee that gets passed through.
Politically regulated is the FCC. Once it is down to fee structures that's something they can fix on their own.
They exist in poorer neighborhoods where people are making these sorts of anonymous calls.
Near Philadelphia. I still see them at lots of gas stations.
There is legitimate trunking. I.E. company A has outgoing calls using one number but has incoming calls on another. Lots of business do this, it is an important part of the PSTN we can't lose. However, there is no reason business that trunc can't directly pay PSTN fees for call origination not just connection. Legitimate businesses wouldn't mind replacing say $.012 / min go down to $.005 / min but with a $.03 origination fee robocallers would be crushed by that fee structure.
The big problem is there are call aggregators using SIP handoffs. That should be just illegal. You should have to use your own DID on any calls.
The PSTN is fundamentally analog at the end points. It isn't P2P digital. Just ditching the PSTN and moving everyone to SIP is a good idea. But it might make robocalling far far worse. We still haven't address the spam problem.
Robocalling is legal. Faking robocalls might be considered elections fraud however. We haven't been prosecuting elections fraud, but it used to be a very effective technique for government one level up to go after a PIA one level down: i.e. a governor having trouble with a mayor.
That's called Obstruction of Justice and carries fairly large criminal penalties. That sort of behavior ceases to be an FCC problem and becomes a Justice Department problem.
Sure they can. Either Canadian telcos agree not to support violations and US law or the direct connection between Canada and the US on the PSTN is severed. There are a tremendous number of international telecommunications treaties that place obligations on both parties to enforce telco laws and cooperate.
What they should do then is ban aggregators, i.e. shut it off. The international calling system has fees for handoffs. There is no reason not to be using a legitimate SIP for international calls or staying off the PSTN entirely.
Why would carriers have any objection delivering calls from competing carriers that pay handoff fees? If you mean carriers that don't pay handoff fees that sounds like a feature not a bug.
I can't think of any reason that VOIP providers wanting to call the PSTN shouldn't be paying for legitimate SIP handoffs from a carrier. I don't have any problem with banning VOIP -> PSTN fee free calls.
People use phones to report drug dealers to the police
If people want to make confidential calls using the PSTN there are pay phones. That system has worked fine for almost a century.
You only have 3 recent comments. They all seem quite different and this one at least doesn't read so bland as what I'm talking about. Of course I haven't seen your AC posts or stuff you did a while ago. So I can't tell.
Anyway respond to comments and I doubt you'll have that problem.
Yes. I agree the /. crowd is hostile to Microsoft. OTOH this site was born of the Linux desktop crowd, that is it was founded by the people that hated Windows 98 / Windows ME and were moving over to Linux as a desktop alternative. I
I'd agree with you that many /.ers don't have a lot of experience with desktop / IT management. There are also quite a few /.ers that do, and hate Microsoft since they are Linux people. The only area I'd disagree with your association of niche with non-end user support. Embedded, server, IT infrastructure... are gigantic areas of computing and IT related work.
I think there is no question that Enterprises are a continuum when it comes to security and manageability. First off enterprises want standards. Having something that works for 1/3rd of enterprises is not good as it forces unrelated applications not to follow standards. So in general the system needs to be good enough for about 80% of enterprises. And IMHO I don't think iPad even gets to the 33% mark once it starts getting used seriously.
For example simply disabling iCloud integration is becoming problematic with the whole direction Apple is pursuing with the Core Data libraries. The iPad version of Pages is more or less crippled without iCloud, and it is likely that will be the case with hundreds of applications. Which means IT is going to end up either directly supporting the entire range of synchronization services with the enterprise SDK or have their application data being synced willy nilly on 3rd party servers, which is almost invariably illegal and/or very unwise for almost all of them.
For example, exchange integration is nice. But employees have a tendency to sync multiple email accounts using Apple mail and then respond with the default account. Which either means frequent personal email originating from their corporate address, which creates all sorts of legal risk; or corporate email originalting from their personal email address which creates business risk.
etc...
If MS would just give up on the toys and focus on being a great enterprise company with a nice sideline of selling solid OSs to OEMs, rather than forcing some ridiculous Fisher Price phone UI onto business desktops, they'd be doing GREAT.
Remember where Microsoft came from. They were the Languages vendor and OS vendor for IBM's small business computing solution. Microsoft is very concerned that Android and iOS will do to them what they did to DEC, Unisys and IBM. Microsoft believes that if they lose consumer / small business by 2020 they will be a legacy enterprise technology vendor by 2030. OTOH they believe their strength in consumer is "use the same computer at home you use at work", ubiquitous computing. Android and iOS and nowhere close to being able to challenge Microsoft in the enterprise space, they have plenty of time to leverage their advantages in enterprise to try and defend their territory in consumer / small business. If they lose then you do what you are advocating, but its hard to see a downside in fighting the war for consumer as long as they get to freeroll.
No it is rather affordable regardless just at a PIA. More like you buy a plane ticket not charter a plane for one person.
Yes they are going cloud oriented. And they have lots of Android and Apple. So, there are conferences now daily about the problems they are having with BYOD security. If they had a good option, they'd take it.
These suicide / harassment cases keep happening. I think the black letter law is adequate to prosecute for manslaughter in these cases: i.e. criminal but not felonious actions that result in a death but where death was not a likely outcome. But since prosecutors seem iffy to just apply manslaughter charges, just have black letter law to make it explicitly apply.
Like it or not, for all it's faults, the iPad is the best enterprise tablet (in that enterprises actually use it).
I think the iPad is a terrible enterprise tablet. Ultimately as an enterprise vendor because the people buying the devices are not the people using the devices you have a conflict of interest. You inevitably have to ask the question who are customers, the end users or the people who purchase the devices. Microsoft's focus on the consumer dropped off drastically once they were able to be an enterprise OS and replace: IBM, Unisys and DEC. They choose bosses over workers, made a ton of money doing it but ultimately created a situation where most people's day to experience with Microsoft's OS and software is negative. People think Microsoft is a less capable system than it is because they use a less capable version.
Apple conversely has as far as enterprise so far mostly sided with users over IT management. They have been reluctant to add IT features that make the devices easier to manage, that is easier to disable consumer oriented features. Apple wants to be high margin unique vendor and they know enterprise while currently desperate for a phone and tablet solutions provider will quickly demand multiple suppliers to give them pricing leverage. So their consumer orientation is unlikely to change unless market conditions change substantially.
Someone is going to have to own the enterprise space. RIM and Microsoft are far better choices than Apple but both at least today have inferior product eco-systems.
1) /. ers are paranoid about paid shills. I've been here well over a decade and and a rather frequent poster and well I still get accused of being a paid shill because I think Microsoft is going the right thing with Windows 8.
2) That being said there are accounts that never post. And then post some sort of bland non technical pro Microsoft message. I've seen ACs identify them look at their history and they are right.
I've asked the people who make these sorts of posts, but they never respond. So maybe I'm catching the paranoia but I do think there are some rather odd paid pro Microsoft posters.
The kids is 9. Forth is maybe about 2-3 years older as a first language.
As an aside if one were going to go for a forth I'd say http://factorcode.org/ which is somewhat higher level.
No your 9 year old nephew couldn't handle the little schemer. But 9 is a great age for Logo. Alice is also easily doable for kids that age.