Quote Of The Day

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The hilarious, albeit unintentional, quote of the day has to go to Raymond Henagan, general manager of Rock Port Telephone. When explaining why VoIP users need to be charged like regular phone users, this is what Mr. Henagan said:

"You and I both know these are regular voice calls, people talking to people. Because these companies have sprinkled IP fairy dust on them, they think they get a free ride."
Click to expand...
 
hahahahahahahah damn that shit is good I put IP fairy dust on everything.
 
how ironic, i just sprinkled ip fairy dust on his wife the other day.
 
Wow. I didn't know I had to pay money for every minute I talked to another human being. I wonder how much I owe? I'm sure this guy can quote me a very reasonable figure as to my current indebtedness.
 
Of course the telecommunications and internet genius Ted Stevens is introducing legislation. God knows he's up on his shit. I'm sure he can explain how the invisible material in the tubes is a huge problem. Why doesn't anyone with half a brain in our congress just call him a retard? Ted Stevens is a complete idiot, I'm amazed he can stay elected.
 
Reading through that article... all I read was:

"Waaahh waaahh, money money money... boo hoo"

Right?

Granted it could be their own damn fault because their networks can't see the IP calls therefore not getting the credit... but no, it's the VoIP providers' fault THEY aren't getting... MONEY! So blame the FCC, call congress... make my bill go up. Hooray.

Hmm, most of these people must be on that "IP dust!" I wonder if they have any left over.
 
"You and I both know these are words on a white background, people reading text. Because they are text files instead of book (thanks to the Binary Fairy Dust), they think they get a free ride."

"You and I both know these are encyclopedia articles. Because they are on a wiki, they think they get a free ride."


Seriously dude, welcome to TEH INTERWEBS, its nice here, enjoy your stay.
 
Actually, the guy has a point. The price of a phone call, like (just about) everything else in a free market, is set by how much people are willing to pay. . . rather than how much something actually costs to produce.

In other words, consumers have set a certain value on communicating with each other via their voices over vast distances. The phone companies have been charging us long distance rates based on that established value. This guy's point seems to be that "sprinkling IP dust" on the situation (being able to make these calls for free via IP) doesn't necessarily mean that long-distance voice communication is suddenly value-less. Rather, the old-school phone companies just need to find a way to adapt to the new technology.

Complicating this issue is the fact that phone companies transmit internet traffic as well as voice. And they are usually compensated for the traffic that carries voice. But because these voice calls are now handled via IP, these smaller carriers are SOL and are essentially giving their bandwidth away free to other companies and possibly even their competitors.

As with music downloading, just because "the interwebs" makes it possible for folks to do something without paying anything for it, doesn't mean that it's appropriate, ethical, or even legal. In this very specific situation, some companies do apparently have a point that they are getting ripped off by IP phone carriers who are basically saying: "We're going to use your bandwidth for something we'd normally have to pay you for. . . but pay you nothing. . . and there's nothing you can do about it."

Or. . . nevermind. . . it's just easier to call people stupid! Haha! He said "IP fairy dust!" He must be an idiot with no valid point of view whatsoever!
 
If you use my network, you pay. Just like everyone else.
Does that not make sense?
I'm not defending the telcos, but it makes sense that a voip provider pay to use the telcos systems and networks. It's not like they aren't making money themselves off of the services they provide. I see it as no different than how the telcos currently pay each other for the same access to their networks and systems. Voip providers are telcos in the end, so why do they get a free ride?
 
Hurin said:
Actually, the guy has a point. The price of a phone call, like (just about) everything else in a free market, is set by how much people are willing to pay. . . rather than how much something actually costs to produce.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. That only happens in monopoly (or ogliopoly) situations, like with the telcos not coincidentally. In a true free, competitive market, the price trends downwards until it hits cost+overhead+minimal-profits.

Hurin said:
In this very specific situation, some companies do apparently have a point that they are getting ripped off by IP phone carriers who are basically saying: "We're going to use your bandwidth for something we'd normally have to pay you for. . . but pay you nothing. . . and there's nothing you can do about it."
Click to expand...

In other words, they actually have competition now, which is weirdly enough enabled partially by their own Internet service (and partially by cable and satellite internet providers too). They are, however, getting compensated for it, by all the people paying the Internet subscription fees. Some people wouldn't be willing to pay as much, or even buy at all, if their Internet connection didn't enable VoIP. They can't have it both ways.
 
One more thing though, I do see how it would make sense to have the same kind of taxes and fees tacked on by .gov on VoIP as for normal telephone calls. I don't think we want to go down that route though, and that money still wouldn't be going to the telcos.
 
I want cable and pay per view companies to complain about the IP fairy dust that allows people to watch movies over the intertube. I hate for telephone companies to feel like they're all alone against the internet.
 
Hurin said:
Actually, the guy has a point. The price of a phone call, like (just about) everything else in a free market, is set by how much people are willing to pay. . . rather than how much something actually costs to produce.

In other words, consumers have set a certain value on communicating with each other via their voices over vast distances. The phone companies have been charging us long distance rates based on that established value. This guy's point seems to be that "sprinkling IP dust" on the situation (being able to make these calls for free via IP) doesn't necessarily mean that long-distance voice communication is suddenly value-less. Rather, the old-school phone companies just need to find a way to adapt to the new technology.

Complicating this issue is the fact that phone companies transmit internet traffic as well as voice. And they are usually compensated for the traffic that carries voice. But because these voice calls are now handled via IP, these smaller carriers are SOL and are essentially giving their bandwidth away free to other companies and possibly even their competitors.

As with music downloading, just because "the interwebs" makes it possible for folks to do something without paying anything for it, doesn't mean that it's appropriate, ethical, or even legal. In this very specific situation, some companies do apparently have a point that they are getting ripped off by IP phone carriers who are basically saying: "We're going to use your bandwidth for something we'd normally have to pay you for. . . but pay you nothing. . . and there's nothing you can do about it."

Or. . . nevermind. . . it's just easier to call people stupid! Haha! He said "IP fairy dust!" He must be an idiot with no valid point of view whatsoever!
Click to expand...

a companies offering is not immortal.. if we make flying cars, I hope we let the regular auto industry slowly die... my point being, we already pay for the internet bandwidth, who the fuck are they to tell me I cant use it to transmit voice?
 
The Red said:
a companies offering is not immortal.. if we make flying cars, I hope we let the regular auto industry slowly die... my point being, we already pay for the internet bandwidth, who the fuck are they to tell me I cant use it to transmit voice?
Click to expand...
That's not really analogous to the situation being described in the article (which few really seem to have read but instead want to just read that selected out-of-context quote as unsympathetically as possible.

A better analogy would be a toll road where the policy stipulates that each two-axle automobile must pay $2.50 for access to the toll road. Then suddenly hovercraft become widely available and everyone starts using those and paying nothing. The owner of the toll road would then be fully within his rights to change the policy and charge hovercraft access fees as well. And while doing so and explaining the move to the local, state, or federal government, he might find himself saying: "These are vehicle. They know they are vehicles, we know they are vehicles, and they are congesting the toll road. Just because someone "sprinkled fairy hovercraft dust" on these vehicles doesn't mean they are not making use of and congesting the toll road.

The point being, economic arguments aside (I concede that local phone companies aren't operating in a 100% free market. . . though long distance carriers tend to face stiff competition), it's painfully obvious that most people don't understand the context of the quote in question and that when it is viewed in context, there is actually a valid point of view being expressed.
 
Hurin said:
That's not really analogous to the situation being described in the article (which few really seem to have read but instead want to just read that selected out-of-context quote as unsympathetically as possible.

A better analogy would be a toll road where the policy stipulates that each two-axle automobile must pay $2.50 for access to the toll road. Then suddenly hovercraft become widely available and everyone starts using those and paying nothing. The owner of the toll road would then be fully within his rights to change the policy and charge hovercraft access fees as well. And while doing so and explaining the move to the local, state, or federal government, he might find himself saying: "These are vehicle. They know they are vehicles, we know they are vehicles, and they are congesting the toll road. Just because someone "sprinkled fairy hovercraft dust" on these vehicles doesn't mean they are not making use of and congesting the toll road.

The point being, economic arguments aside (I concede that local phone companies aren't operating in a 100% free market. . . though long distance carriers tend to face stiff competition), it's painfully obvious that most people don't understand the context of the quote in question and that when it is viewed in context, there is actually a valid point of view being expressed.
Click to expand...

This makes 0 sense sir, other than keeping a dead industry alive... there is no difference between you watching YouTube and using voice, except that voice takes A LOT LESS bandwidth..

What reason does that industry have to exist? to rip people off and claim its creating jobs? Shit, organized crime can do that already.
 
Telco and cable companies can eat a dick. Seriously. How many times are they going to be allowed to rape us for money?

Digital cable TV + internet is a great example to me. They charge you like they have two completely separate networks for each. Funny thing is these use the same lines, which would then use the same network equipment. So where is the double cost??? Oh wait...it isn't there. (The argument that will probably come up is TV vs Internet equipment-well you can't do TV without the proper equipment, and you couldn't really do the digital TV without the network/internet equipment either)

Long distance charges are retarded as well. They should cease to exist. Calling someone long distance isn't nearly as big of a deal anymore. The world is now smaller via internet and larger complex networks....there is simply no need for extra charges.
 
How long until ISPs try to implement voip throttling? Voip is terrible, and it is costing the board of directors of several telcos millions of dollars in unearned revenue. Shame on you, conversation pirates.
 
Well most people DO pay for the calls, and probably more than half of the cost DOES go to the SAME telco that is providing the internet, as well as the monthly phone connection fee to HAVE that internet connection.

Not only do I have to pay for my DSL, but to GET that same DSL I have to pay the phone company an extra $15-$20 to have a line connected, and I MAKE about 2-3 calls a MONTH, and only get calls collection agency calls (most of which are past their legal/credit dates)

I know there are other ways to connect but where I live it is this or nothing
 
The Red said:
This makes 0 sense sir, other than keeping a dead industry alive... there is no difference between you watching YouTube and using voice, except that voice takes A LOT LESS bandwidth..

What reason does that industry have to exist? to rip people off and claim its creating jobs? Shit, organized crime can do that already.
Click to expand...

A dead industry? Huh?
Is everything magically wireless and not reliant on the telcos' systems and networks? Does nobody maintain phone lines or have traditional phone lines in their homes any more. Do you not talk to people that still have landlines? Does everyone even have the option to use Voip over a broad band connection without resorting to satellite? Does nobody ever need to speak to an operator? Is voip so omnipotent that it no longer needs to use the telcos systems and networks?

If that was so, the telcos would have already died. It's not even a dieing industry. It is one that is changing however. Changing too slowly for my tastes.
 
Robert Heinlein said it best:
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back, for their private benefit.
Click to expand...
 
GORANKAR said:
A dead industry? Huh?
Is everything magically wireless and not reliant on the telcos' systems and networks? Does nobody maintain phone lines or have traditional phone lines in their homes any more. Do you not talk to people that still have landlines? Does everyone even have the option to use Voip over a broad band connection without resorting to satellite? Does nobody ever need to speak to an operator? Is voip so omnipotent that it no longer needs to use the telcos systems and networks?

If that was so, the telcos would have already died. It's not even a dieing industry. It is one that is changing however. Changing too slowly for my tastes.
Click to expand...
Amen.

Apparently, telecommunication companies that act as "man-in-the-middle" networks that transmit another corporation's voice calls are just shit-out-of-luck as soon as the originating company "sprinkles IP fairy dust" on the calls.

Few people in this thread seem able to grasp the nuance. The article is not about charging individuals for using Skype. It's about Bullmoose Telecom not suddenly being without its major revenue base when Lionshare Telecom suddenly converts all their voice communications to IP and then expects Bullmoose Telecom to suddenly start transferring all their voice calls for free. If I were Bullmoose Telecom, I'd certainly want to know why I now need to handle all of another company's calls for free when they were just paying me to do the same thing last week. . . and why just making those called IP-based suddenly makes it impossible and even immoral for me to charge for my network usage.

It's not about thinking that I should get paid because I always have. It's about me providing a service and not allowing people to circumvent paying for that service by just "sprinkling IP fairy dust" on the calls and converting the transmission mechanism. If you're going to congest my IP network with data that used to be paid for. . . you're going to pay for the congestion and the use of my network. Not sure exactly what's so wrong or immoral about that. It's just common sense.

Again, it seems like the same mentality at work here that also makes people think that music should be free because the internet makes it readily available.

But, again, the real point is that people would rather say: "What an idiot" rather than think about how his remark in context might be attempting to convey a valid point. Those who actually read the article and understand the nuances should realize it's not merely as simple as blaming the "evil corporations" or tying it all into the net neutrality issue or even some fanciful view that anything that can be transmitted over IP should be free.

H
 
To quote the article directly:

"Many VoIP providers have tried to work out compensation agreements with rural carriers, but the rural carriers have spurned the offers, added Angela Simpson, Covad's senior counsel for government and regulatory affairs. Lawmakers should be wary of imposing new regulations on Internet-based services, and instead should research further the extent of the problem, she added."

If they can show me where they came up with the number for a cost of $2 billion last year due to "phantom traffic" (and from your a$$ doesn't count), then maybe I'd be a little more sympathetic. There's nothing stopping these companies from offering their customers VOIP and taking advantage of the very same IP "fairy dust" that he is complaining about (things have changed since 1988, and even the record companies have been forced to reluctantly accept it). I'm not saying that they shouldn't be provided fair compensation for the service that they provide, but who get to decide what's fair? (hopefully not the telcos, I wasn't born yesterday after all) This reminds me of when one of my kids complains to me that his brother got something he didn't... Do you know what I tell them? LIFE'S NOT FAIR!!!!
 
Hurin said:
Amen.

Apparently, telecommunication companies that act as "man-in-the-middle" networks that transmit another corporation's voice calls are just shit-out-of-luck as soon as the originating company "sprinkles IP fairy dust" on the calls.

Few people in this thread seem able to grasp the nuance. The article is not about charging individuals for using Skype. It's about Bullmoose Telecom not suddenly being without its major revenue base when Lionshare Telecom suddenly converts all their voice communications to IP and then expects Bullmoose Telecom to suddenly start transferring all their voice calls for free. If I were Bullmoose Telecom, I'd certainly want to know why I now need to handle all of another company's calls for free when they were just paying me to do the same thing last week. . . and why just making those called IP-based suddenly makes it impossible and even immoral for me to charge for my network usage.

It's not about thinking that I should get paid because I always have. It's about me providing a service and not allowing people to circumvent paying for that service by just "sprinkling IP fairy dust" on the calls and converting the transmission mechanism. If you're going to congest my IP network with data that used to be paid for. . . you're going to pay for the congestion and the use of my network. Not sure exactly what's so wrong or immoral about that. It's just common sense.

Again, it seems like the same mentality at work here that also makes people think that music should be free because the internet makes it readily available.

But, again, the real point is that people would rather say: "What an idiot" rather than think about how his remark in context might be attempting to convey a valid point. Those who actually read the article and understand the nuances should realize it's not merely as simple as blaming the "evil corporations" or tying it all into the net neutrality issue or even some fanciful view that anything that can be transmitted over IP should be free.

H
Click to expand...

The teleco is already profiteering on the internet connection itself... your argument surmounts to "we once were paid to paddle boats down a stream, when that stream became a mighty river and the boats gained engines, we should still get paid per person we fairy as if they were going over in paddle boats." When the cost of transfered information is so low, they dont have a leg to stand on to justify landlines prices, but its not like they ever needed that leg anyway. The only thing telephone companies have changed in this past half-century is their prices..

Soon enough, everything will be over fiber... and they'll still try to charge you for things that cost the providers next to nothing to provide.

Is it a sin to profiteer? .. no,

Should a company expect love in return for a century of monopolization, political interference, lobbyists, and broken promises of network progress at expense of massive govt dollars?... HELL NO.

I feel no pitty for the fact that due to net neutrality, they cant profiteer on yet another service that costs next to nothing to provide. Forgive me if I dont shed a tear, because I surely know they dont shed them when they cut people's phones off when they cant pay the bills..
 
Never mind. Apparently, I lack the necessary vocabulary to explain it in a way that can be understood.
 
theystolemyname said:
How long until ISPs try to implement voip throttling? Voip is terrible, and it is costing the board of directors of several telcos millions of dollars in unearned revenue. Shame on you, conversation pirates.
Click to expand...

ARGH!!! I'm going to throw YA OUT OF THE BOARD TO THE HACKING SHARKS!!!!. LAMING ASTARD!!!!ARG ARF!!!!
 
Ugh.

Let's face facts folks.

Telco and cable in the US sucks. It's way behind the curve. It's because these companies are resistant to change, because change means investing profit to upgrade the networks and technologies. Since a majority of companies in this country truly don't give rat's ass about the customers anymore, profit wins. And don't give me the "they are there to make money" speech-if you treat customers well and provide good service, they stick around, and you make money.

So when I see new like this, with this guy essentially crying about losing money, and then only way (in his mind) to make that money back is to call someone else (government) to make them pay, I call bullshit. Why? Because instead of investing funds into an ever changing market and forging their own path to ensure a continued customer base, they were greedy and screwed off.

And really-it's not like these people aren't getting paid. Someone is paying for the use of that network. Most likely the ISP's who are also using the network. Again-this is the telco trying to bleed more money out of an aging system instead of getting with the times.
 
bmorg003 said:
To quote the article directly:

"Many VoIP providers have tried to work out compensation agreements with rural carriers, but the rural carriers have spurned the offers, added Angela Simpson, Covad's senior counsel for government and regulatory affairs. Lawmakers should be wary of imposing new regulations on Internet-based services, and instead should research further the extent of the problem, she added."

If they can show me where they came up with the number for a cost of $2 billion last year due to "phantom traffic" (and from your a$$ doesn't count), then maybe I'd be a little more sympathetic. There's nothing stopping these companies from offering their customers VOIP and taking advantage of the very same IP "fairy dust" that he is complaining about (things have changed since 1988, and even the record companies have been forced to reluctantly accept it). I'm not saying that they shouldn't be provided fair compensation for the service that they provide, but who get to decide what's fair? (hopefully not the telcos, I wasn't born yesterday after all) This reminds me of when one of my kids complains to me that his brother got something he didn't... Do you know what I tell them? LIFE'S NOT FAIR!!!!
Click to expand...

You Sire are realistic!!!!:cool:
 
theystolemyname said:
How long until ISPs try to implement voip throttling? Voip is terrible, and it is costing the board of directors of several telcos millions of dollars in unearned revenue. Shame on you, conversation pirates.
Click to expand...

aw I love unearned revenue, its like revenue fairy dust.
 
The argument seems to be: I made money providing this service in the past, so I deserve to make money providing this service in the future. BS.

When new technology makes your service obsolete, then demand for that service falls. You can adapt or you can go extinct, and sometimes there is no path for adaption, and so extinction is the only result. A business has no *right* to survival. It provides something other people want, and when no one wants it anymore, it will eventually cease to exist. When that happens, the people who were employed at that business need to move on to something else.
 
Telcom 1: So. . . in exchange for the voice traffic fees I pay you, you'll pass along all our IP traffic for free?

Telcom 2: Yeah. That seems fair. We'll make our money on the voice stuff only.

Telcom 1: Well, surprise bitch! We're going to start sending our voice calls via IP.

Telcom 2: Oh. . . uh. . . we were only allowing you to send IP over our network because you're a good customer and we make enough money already on the voice traffic.

Telcom 1: Too bad! Suck it! We're going to use your network all we want and you can't stop us!

Telcom 2: Well, you're still sending voice calls across our network and using our bandwidth. . . don't you think you should still pay for the calls you send across our network? At least some amount based on bandwidth usage?

Telcom 1: Heck no! It's IP! You said IP traffic would be free!

Telcom 2: But that was while you were being a good customer for us and we were making money off your voice traffic on our network. Now you just want us to handle all your traffic for free!?!

Telcom 1: Yeah. . . because it's IP. Suck it, bitch.

Telcom 2: *sigh*

[H]ForumUser: Internet = free!
 
Dear Mr. Henagan



HAHAHHAAHAHA, the voip companies are making more money than you! So now you need to call the WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMbulance. Get a clue people want choices and not stuck with a dinosaur telco who doesnt get it!!


Die
Thank you and have a nice day douche :D
 
Hurin said:
<snip long Bullshit example of whining>
[H]ForumUser: Internet = free!
Click to expand...

If you'll take a step off the short bus for a moment...

You'll find that no one expects the internet to be free.

WHOA. WHAT???

OHHhhhhh, that's right, we pay for internet service.
What's this??? **We pay for VOIP too???**

Hrm... seems like the only one losing is the IDIOT "wanna be" telco
that REFUSES to update to modern standards/practices.

Personally (agreeing with what others have tried to get across to a few
here....) they have NO (read as: ZERO) right to bitch about what DATA
goes across.

Simple fix really. All the local telco would need to do is KF all data incoming.
*Antique voice system talks to antique voice system exclusivity.*

Then they could *truly* have something to bitch about *in earnest*, as they
watch their customers roll out in droves to a cellphone alternative (since
presumably no other landline exists in the said area of monopoly).

Great reference: a local telco in St Jacob/Marine Illinois.
"Home Telephone Co." or so they used to be called.
...just so you dont think I have a clue about an *actual* point of reference...
*sigh*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top