Disney Mobile calls it Quits

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
news:7rjqf3djgeo47ropnbtsf35k7250gobcrn@4ax.com:

> More accurately Vonage has lost patent suits to Verizon and now
> Sprint,
> which will hurt it for the short run.
>
>

I think you should rush out, NOW, while the price is under a dollar and
buy a few hundred thousand shares! Get a second mortgage on your house!
These guys are gonna make you RICH when Vonage shoots up, skyrockets,
guns ablaze....

Just look at that chart!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=VG&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
You'd better hurry! It's shot up 4% JUST SINCE THE MARKET CLOSED TODAY!
You can't get this kind of return from a bank! You had your chance at 97
cents and BLEW IT!

You can do what I did! I bought 180,000 shares of Worldcom at .06 near
the dip in the crash, figuring, correctly, that the office furniture
auction was going to bring in better than that. I had no trouble finding
sellers...(c; I sold too soon at .19 because it went up to .22 before
the final crash to zero....dammit.

Pink Sheets can be lots of fun...(c;
But, you gotta be QUICK!

Larry
--
Er, ah, how many shares are you stuck with, anyways?.....??

News wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Another MVNO bit the dust as Disney Mobile, an MVNO on Sprint's network,
>> called it quits today.
>
> No surprise. It was a Mickey Mouse deal...

Sounded goofy to me.

--
One phrase that explains 99% of all idiot driving:
"You can't block traffic if you're not in the way."

On Sep 28, 10:45 am, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote innews:46fc7353$0$27199$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
> >http://www.thestreet.com/s/signal-fa.../newsanalysis/
> > techtelecom/10381822.html?puc=googlefi
>
> Of much greater interest from the webpage is the one on Vonage's demise:http://www.thestreet.com/s/vonages-vanishing-
> act/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10381531.html?
>
> They're TOAST! My condolences to Vonage users stuck with useless equipment
> once the company goes dark.
>

Which ultimately ends up in a land fill along with the toxic metals
and materials it contains :\

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <Xns99B98C079B5F3noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Of much greater interest from the webpage is the one on Vonage's demise:
>> http://www.thestreet.com/s/vonages-vanishing-
>> act/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10381531.html?
>>
>> They're TOAST! My condolences to Vonage users stuck with useless equipment
>> once the company goes dark.
>
> Bah. Us Sunrocket customers are old hat at that. It's yesterday's news.

Vonage provided a valuable service with its saturation advertising. It
made users aware of VOIP, and the ways it can be used. People that
travel a lot like these services since they can use VOIP to have a
"local" phone number when traveling, and use the hotel's free wireless
for calls.

However the problem was that a) Vonage was too expensive, and b) it had
little appeal outside the market for people that used it as a traveling
number type of service. Few people would ever spend anywhere close to
$25/month on long distance. That's 1000 minutes on OneSuite, 1250
minutes on TalkLoop. And of course most people have unlimited off-peak
long distance on their cell phone plans.

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:10:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Vonage provided a valuable service with its saturation advertising. It
>made users aware of VOIP, and the ways it can be used. People that
>travel a lot like these services since they can use VOIP to have a
>"local" phone number when traveling, and use the hotel's free wireless
>for calls.

My family uses Vonage, but not for its 'traveling' capability. About
the most we do in that area is to unplug the eMTA when we leave home
for an extended time so that incoming calls go to my cell phone.

>However the problem was that a) Vonage was too expensive,

In my case, Vonage's 500 minute plan costs a little less than half
what we were paying SWBell, and the SWBell service was local only
while the Vonage plan obviously includes 500 minutes of long distance,
which is more than enough for us. So in our case, 'too expensive' does
not apply, especially when compared to our previous service.

>and b) it had
>little appeal outside the market for people that used it as a traveling
>number type of service. Few people would ever spend anywhere close to
>$25/month on long distance. That's 1000 minutes on OneSuite, 1250
>minutes on TalkLoop. And of course most people have unlimited off-peak
>long distance on their cell phone plans.

Of the people that I know who have VoIP service from any provider, the
traveling capability is not something that has ever come up as a
reason to have VoIP. Apparently I and my acquaintances are out of the
norm, from what you're saying. Within my circles, we tend to favor the
much lower cost of VoIP and a general dissatisfaction with the ILEC.

--
Paul Miner

At 30 Sep 2007 09:10:25 -0700 SMS wrote:

> Vonage provided a valuable service with its saturation advertising.
> It made users aware of VOIP, and the ways it can be used.

I agree with the first statement, but not the second. Vonage ads did
put VoIP in the pblic eye, but they're relatively restrictive with
use of the service that people DON'T get a feel for what they can do
with VoIP- you had to pay extra for using softphones, couldn't
register more than one ATA, etc. Compare that to more typical SIP
provider that lets me use an ATA at home, while simultaneously using
my PPC as a "cordless VoIP" phone and also having my laptop USB
handset plugged in.

> People that travel a lot like these services since they can use
> VOIP to have a "local" phone number when traveling, and use the
> hotel's free wireless for calls.


But not (easily) with Vonage. The Vonage box has to plug into a
physical router or DSL/cable modem (not WiFi) and AFAIK, the only
softphone is a physical USB key registered to your service.

> However the problem was that a) Vonage was too expensive

Hardly- with taxes and fees, my local landline service is around
$35/month- so even without the unlimited LD it's save me some money.

> b) it had little appeal outside the market for people that used
> it as a traveling number type of service.

Again, I disagree- your cellphone easily provdes a "local number when
travelig" and doesn't require lugging around VoIP ATAs or firing up a
laptop.

The attraction of VoIP is cheap landline replacement.

> Few people would ever spend anywhere close to $25/month on long
> distance.

True, but that same $25 includes your local service as well. Again,
using my example, I'd be nearly $10 ahead with Vonage forgetting LD
(which I typically use my Cellphne for.)

> That's 1000 minutes on OneSuite, 1250 minutes on TalkLoop. And
> of course most people have unlimited off-peak long distance on
> their cell phone plans.

True.
The "problem" with VoIP is that while it's cheaper than a landline,
it's not as reliable, as high quality, or as easy to use. Most
homeowners wouldn't know how to properly wire an ATA into their house
wiring for seamless "plug a phone into any existing jack and get the
VoIP line" service, many broadband connections occasionally need a
modem or router reboot- it's all a little too "techie" compared to
traditional POTS service. Plus, given the number of us using DSL,
which generally "includes" a POTS line for only a few bucks more, any
VIP savings are marginalized.

Personally I find VoIP useful as a second line, or for international
travel, but I dobn't consider myself typical in that respect. The
people I know using Vonage are simply trying to save a few bucks
compared to the local telco service.



--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

On Sep 30, 9:10 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article <Xns99B98C079B5F3noonehome...@208.49.80.253>,
> > Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> Of much greater interest from the webpage is the one on Vonage's demise:
> >>http://www.thestreet.com/s/vonages-vanishing-
> >> act/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10381531.html?
>
> >> They're TOAST! My condolences to Vonage users stuck with useless equipment
> >> once the company goes dark.
>
> > Bah. Us Sunrocket customers are old hat at that. It's yesterday's news.
>
> Vonage provided a valuable service with its saturation advertising. It
> made users aware of VOIP, and the ways it can be used. People that
> travel a lot like these services since they can use VOIP to have a
> "local" phone number when traveling, and use the hotel's free wireless
> for calls.
>
> However the problem was that a) Vonage was too expensive, and b) it had
> little appeal outside the market for people that used it as a traveling
> number type of service. Few people would ever spend anywhere close to
> $25/month on long distance. That's 1000 minutes on OneSuite, 1250
> minutes on TalkLoop. And of course most people have unlimited off-peak
> long distance on their cell phone plans.

I think Cell Phones are starting to kill off the land lines en masse.
Just 10 years ago, it was *rare* to see anybody except business folks
with cell phones, now there are so ubiquitous that even pre-teens
usualy have one. The only appeal of services like Vonage is the price,
but since now cell phones are so common and cheap. land lines
including VoIP looks like yesterdays technology headed to the heap of
history. (On that note, it's getting hard to find a pay phone period,.
let alone a *working* one these days, and I live in Los Angeles!).

In alt.cellular.cingular Todd Allcock <elecconnec@americaonline.com> wrote:
> use of the service that people DON'T get a feel for what they can do
> with VoIP- you had to pay extra for using softphones, couldn't
> register more than one ATA, etc. Compare that to more typical SIP
> provider that lets me use an ATA at home, while simultaneously using
> my PPC as a "cordless VoIP" phone and also having my laptop USB
> handset plugged in.

Don't forget the bluetooth headsets. Those work fine for cordless VoIP.

Who would one of these "more typical" SIP providers be?

I have been using Cisco Softphone, not at all "typical", but it's what I
have. My office deskphone and my laptop softphone were interchangeable as
nicely as I could want, except that "missed" calls didn't show up on the
softphone.

Now my Cisco system is going away. The official replacement is
Callvantage.

Callvantage seems Vonage-like, in that you are tied to one ATA, with
silliness about E911 registering if there is a disturbance on the network.
The softphone not only costs extra, it is a different number! The quality
of the CallVantage calls is poor enough that it isn't suitable for a home
phone replacement, but it is cheap, at $19.99 for unlimited US-LD and good
rates worldwide.

Cellphone coverage isn't good enough to use as a replacement here, without
a T-Mobile-like WiFi adjunct.

I might forward to a separate Callvantage softphone for laptop travel use.

I've also thought about a Skype handheld like the Netgear SPH200W-100NAS,
but haven't even begun to research that. My attempts at SkypeOut were less
than satisfying a couple of years ago. I use Skype PC-PC quite well
worldwide.


> The "problem" with VoIP is that while it's cheaper than a landline, it's
> not as reliable, as high quality, or as easy to use. Most

I had no problem with reliability, but quality is poor on Callvantage. My
housemates didn't like 10 digit dialing. Not 7, not 11, 10.

> homeowners wouldn't know how to properly wire an ATA into their house
> wiring for seamless "plug a phone into any existing jack and get the

Callvantage was easy to wire as a whole-house replacement for landline.
Unplug one wire, plug in another wire. No drama, no skills required.

> Personally I find VoIP useful as a second line, or for international
> travel, but I dobn't consider myself typical in that respect. The people
> I know using Vonage are simply trying to save a few bucks compared to the
> local telco service.

I like Cisco VoIP because no one knows where I am ... I am always "at my
desk". In the case of a business phone, 4 digit dialing, conference,
voicemail, transfers, Caller ID, are all right there, on either the
hardphone or softphone.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

At 01 Oct 2007 17:14:01 +0000 dold@86.usenet.us.com wrote:

> Don't forget the bluetooth headsets. Those work fine for cordless
VoIP.


True. Re-pairing everytime I switch between phone and PC is a
hassle, tho'. I guess that's an excuse to buy more earpieces! ;-)


> Who would one of these "more typical" SIP providers be?


The small-fry- Voicestick, OneSuite, callwithus.com, etc.

> Callvantage seems Vonage-like, in that you are tied to one ATA, with
> silliness about E911 registering if there is a disturbance on the
> network.
> The softphone not only costs extra, it is a different number!
> The quality of the CallVantage calls is poor enough that it isn't
> suitable for a home phone replacement, but it is cheap, at $19.99
> for unlimited US-LD and good rates worldwide.

But with some pay-as-you go VoIPs charging $0.015/minute or less, you
need to be using 1000-1500/minutes a month or more for that $19.99 to
be a good deal.


> I've also thought about a Skype handheld like the Netgear
> SPH200W-100NAS, but haven't even begun to research that.

The problem with most if not all WiFi VoIP phones is the lack of web
browser. Too many public WiFi APs (including most hotels) require
you toagree to a TOS page in a browser before you get access to the
'net. This wipes out the ability for those phones to connect. When
I want to Skype over WiFi when traveling, I use my Pocket PC.

> My attempts at SkypeOut were less than satisfying a couple of years
> ago. I use Skype PC-PC quite well worldwide.

Skype's improved quite a bit in the connection to POTS department, IMO.
I just can't take a "phone" service seriously that needs my PC on to
work. (While the WiFi phones are cute, I like being able to hook
"real phones" into a VoIP box.)


> I had no problem with reliability, but quality is poor on
Callvantage. My
> housemates didn't like 10 digit dialing. Not 7, not 11, 10.

That can be fixed with most ATA boxes in their setup by editing the
"dialplan." (It tells the box to fill in the "missing" digits if
only seven are dialed, or drop the leading "1" if 11.


> Callvantage was easy to wire as a whole-house replacement for
landline.
> Unplug one wire, plug in another wire. No drama, no skills required.



Many people often forget the "unhook the local telco's line from the
entrance bridge/test interface" part and fry a perfectly good VoIP
box!



--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

ultimauw@hotmail.com wrote:

> I think Cell Phones are starting to kill off the land lines en masse.
> Just 10 years ago, it was *rare* to see anybody except business folks
> with cell phones, now there are so ubiquitous that even pre-teens
> usualy have one. The only appeal of services like Vonage is the price,

The average Vonage customer pays $28.38. Maybe this is a good price in
some parts of the country, if you make a lot of long-distance calls at
the ridiculous rates that AT&T charges for them. Of course you also have
to have broadband to your house, either cable, ($50/month in my area for
Comcast broadband), or DSL, at about $30 for naked DSL or $15+local
phone service.

My local phone bill is about $17/month from AT&T. $11 (Vonage price-$17)
would buy 440 minutes of long distance on a provider like OneSuite
(2.5¢.minute). How many non-business users make 440 minutes of long
distance during peak times? Complicating things further for Vonage, is
free in-network calling on most cell phone plans. within circles of
friends and relatives that call each other a lot, the tendency is to all
migrate to the same cellular provider.

Vonage is like many products and services that base their entire
business model on comparing their prices to what the most naive consumer
would pay for competing products and services. It's like the
advertisements that quote the MSRP for a product, then add the
disclaimer that the product "may never have been sold at the MSRP."

Even more ridiculous than Vonage, is Skype, but for different reasons.
The average revenue per Skype user is estimated at 12-13¢/month, because
almost no one uses it for anything other than free computer to computer
calls. Skype gets away with not providing E911 capability because they
claim that it's not a substitute for a landline. Unfortunately for eBay,
they have the data to prove that this is the case.