nanog mailing list archives
Re: Telecom Collapse?
From: William Warren <hescominsoon () emmanuelcomputerconsulting com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:01:54 -0500
Chris Adams wrote:
the lines are still there and still require maintenance so they loose money on it.Once upon a time, Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster () gmail com> said:I deliberated for a while on whether to send this, or not, but I figure it might be of interest to this community: http://techliberation.com/2008/12/04/telecom-collapse/One thing doesn't make sense in that article: it talks about POTS being subsidized by other services, and people cutting POTS lines. Wouldn't that be _good_ for the companies and their other services? The way the article describes things, fewer POTS lines = smaller subsidies taken from other services = better profits for other services and the company.
Current thread:
- Re: Telecom Collapse?, (continued)
- Re: Telecom Collapse? Justin M. Streiner (Dec 04)
- Re: Telecom Collapse? Paul Bosworth (Dec 04)
- Re: Telecom Collapse? b nickell (Dec 04)
- RE: Telecom Collapse? Frank Bulk (Dec 04)
- VoIP E911 - was: Telecom Collapse? Jeremy Jackson (Dec 04)
- RE: VoIP E911 - was: Telecom Collapse? Blake Pfankuch (Dec 04)
- Re: Telecom Collapse? Daniel Senie (Dec 04)
- Re: Telecom Collapse? Martin List-Petersen (Dec 04)
- Re: Telecom Collapse? bill fumerola (Dec 04)
- Re: Telecom Collapse? William Warren (Dec 04)
- RE: Telecom Collapse? Tomas L. Byrnes (Dec 04)
- Re: Telecom Collapse? Brett Frankenberger (Dec 04)
- RE: Telecom Collapse? Frank Bulk (Dec 04)
- RE: Telecom Collapse? Justin M. Streiner (Dec 04)
- RE: Telecom Collapse? Frank Bulk (Dec 04)
- RE: Telecom Collapse? Lorell Hathcock (Dec 04)
- Re: Telecom Collapse? Jack Bates (Dec 04)
- Re: Telecom Collapse? mike (Dec 04)