BETA Testers needed for MyGlobalTalk.com: a cheap cellular international LD service

On 2008-03-05, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> The money they paid for Skype is long gone, and the costs of keeping it
> running are pretty low. The money they lose on Skype is lost in the
> noise. This is good for Skype users, because the company could not
> survive on its own.

I don't think they're losing any money at all that they haven't already
spent. If you don't count the goodwill write-off Skype is profitable (or
I'd guess you'd call that "cash flow positive") at something over $40 million
of income from $375 million of revenue last year. This is more than most
VoIP companies can say, and I think Skype could live on that on its own.

Their revenue is primarily from Europe, however, so the different market
conditions may make a difference.

Dennis Ferguson

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:GTDzj.12599
$yQ6.1111@fe109.usenetserver.com:

> Gizmo just added video to their N800 software- you should check it out.
>

It would work if I upgraded from OS2007 (Bora) to OS2008 (Chinook), but all
the software I love in 2007 hasn't been ported, yet, to 2008.

I put Gizmo on the tablet when I got it and setup an account but never
activated it. It still hounds you to setup AIM, Yahoo, MSN, etc. for it to
access. All these redundant IM systems is crazy. I have Google Talk, but
don't use it, either, as Skype is so much easier. There's too much
bloatware to manage. Skype does it all without registering yourself with
enough spammers to choke a horse. How silly to have all these accounts all
over the net.

The camera isn't supported in Gizmo on OS2007. Thanks for trying.

>>> They still offer dial-up service with their goofy proprietary
>>> software, but
>>> now at PeoplePC/Netzero type pricing- $10/month.

>> Maybe, but I would be embarrassed to be "someone@aol.com".
>
> That's your hangup. I've been someone@aol.com for 15 years. I know
> it lacks geek snob appeal in tech circles. I have those friends too-
> you know- the ones that used to e-mail you every six months with
> their new e-mail address so you could update your contact info for
> them.
> I try to balance the emotional baggage of having "aol" in my e-mail
> address with the fact that people who haven't contacted me since the
> current President's father was in office still can. ;-)

I've had my same hotmail email address for 6 years, but I don't see what
email address longevity has to do with anything. People change their
email address for a lot of reasons.

At 05 Mar 2008 22:33:02 +0000 Larry wrote:

> The camera isn't supported in Gizmo on OS2007. Thanks for trying.

Sorry- I saw a blurb about video calling on the Gizmo site, but didn't
delve into it enough to see the hassle factor.

"Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfsu26q.4i.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...
> On 2008-03-05, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>> Because they're selling it under cost! Interconnect fees to US landlines
>> run $0.01 (metro) to $0.05 (VERY rural)/minute. Incoming also costs you
>> if
>> you don't own your number pool (and Skype doesn't.)
>
> I don't think that's actually right. There are some rural phone companies
> which get to charge a very high price for access, but an FCC report I saw
> a few years ago said the usage-weighted average price paid for landline
> access was below 0.5 cents/minute (cell phones are free, I think) and it
> has
> to be lower now.

But did that usage weighting take into account the "free" calls when a
provider connects to themselves? (I.e. Verizon landline to another Verizon
landline, etc.) That would bring the average down, I suspect.

I'm not questioning your figures- my info is old and off the top of my head,
but I subscribe to the law of minimal markup in an ultracompetitive
business. With all the cut-throat VoIP providers out there, if term was a
half-cent on average, we'd see prices drop, but they hold pretty steady at
the low-end at about $0.012 or .013/min retail.

> The plan they're currently considering has the price for
> most landlines dropping to between 0.05 and 0.075 cents per minute.
> Inbound
> calls actually earn (a tiny bit of) revenue.

Even more in rural Iowa! ;-)

> The bigger charges will be what the VoIP-terminating phone company wants
> for the service, and that will be entirely dependent on what kind of deal
> you can negotiate with them. For big-volume users $2/month for an
> unlimited
> DID might be reasonable (though I'd guess the reason Skype hasn't added a
> new country for quite a while is that they've run out of places where the
> one-price-fits-all $2 will do it) and, with the 3000 minute cap, Skype
> is at least limiting their damage on the outbound side. This might be
> sustainable if they get some consequential usage at their per minute
> rates too.

Yeah, the ubiquity of free domestic LD on cellphones has really cut into the
game plans of VoIPs and calling cards for being domestic LD service
providers. It's easier to call Mom in New England on my cell than to fire
up Skype or any other softphone, which probably keeps most customers from
even brushing up against the 3000 minute limit, unless they're trying to use
Skype as a landline replacement for all calls, local and LD.

"M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:drFzj.12727$5K1.9660@newssvr12.news.prodigy.n et...
>>> Maybe, but I would be embarrassed to be "someone@aol.com".
>>
>> That's your hangup. I've been someone@aol.com for 15 years. I know
>> it lacks geek snob appeal in tech circles. I have those friends too-
>> you know- the ones that used to e-mail you every six months with
>> their new e-mail address so you could update your contact info for
>> them.
>> I try to balance the emotional baggage of having "aol" in my e-mail
>> address with the fact that people who haven't contacted me since the
>> current President's father was in office still can. ;-)
>
> I've had my same hotmail email address for 6 years, but I don't see what
> email address longevity has to do with anything. People change their email
> address for a lot of reasons.

Sure, just like they change phone numbers. But you see NO advantage of
keeping the same phone number or e-mail address for a long time?

Ironically, for example, it's easier for me to reach most of my high-school
and college friends' parents than to reach them, because the parents are
often still in the same houses with the same phone numbers that they had
when I was in high school 25 years ago, whereas my friends have switched
jobs, homes, cities, and phone providers many, many times since!

On 2008-03-06, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> "Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnfsu26q.4i.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...
>> I don't think that's actually right. There are some rural phone companies
>> which get to charge a very high price for access, but an FCC report I saw
>> a few years ago said the usage-weighted average price paid for landline
>> access was below 0.5 cents/minute (cell phones are free, I think) and it
>> has
>> to be lower now.
>
> But did that usage weighting take into account the "free" calls when a
> provider connects to themselves? (I.e. Verizon landline to another Verizon
> landline, etc.) That would bring the average down, I suspect.

I think it is just usage times the tariff (for interstate calls only,
since that is what the FCC regulates). I don't think those Verizon
calls are really "free" from the FCC's point of view, it is just that
Verizon doesn't care how much money is moved from one Verizon pocket
to another Verizon pocket since it is still the same pocket.

> I'm not questioning your figures- my info is old and off the top of my head,
> but I subscribe to the law of minimal markup in an ultracompetitive
> business. With all the cut-throat VoIP providers out there, if term was a
> half-cent on average, we'd see prices drop, but they hold pretty steady at
> the low-end at about $0.012 or .013/min retail.

But we're only talking about intercarrier access charges, right? The
price you pay for VoIP calls has to cover both the intercarrier charges
and the internal costs of the carrier the VoIP operator contracts with
to deliver calls to the phone network in the first place. Even if the
intercarrier charges were zero all over (like they are for calling cell
phones, I think) the VoIP operator's own carrier has significant costs
that need to be paid; they need a transmission network, they need phone
switches and connectivity for every rate center, they need to negotiate
arrangements with other carriers to deliver calls to areas where they
have no infrastructure.

The rates VoIP operators charge for a call says less about intercarrier
charges than it does about what the VoIP operator's own carrier needs
to make a living.

Dennis Ferguson

"Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:slrnft0hd2.4f.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...

>> But did that usage weighting take into account the "free" calls when a
>> provider connects to themselves? (I.e. Verizon landline to another
>> Verizon
>> landline, etc.) That would bring the average down, I suspect.
>
> I think it is just usage times the tariff (for interstate calls only,
> since that is what the FCC regulates). I don't think those Verizon
> calls are really "free" from the FCC's point of view, it is just that
> Verizon doesn't care how much money is moved from one Verizon pocket
> to another Verizon pocket since it is still the same pocket.

Fair enough.

>> I'm not questioning your figures- my info is old and off the top of my
>> head,
>> but I subscribe to the law of minimal markup in an ultracompetitive
>> business. With all the cut-throat VoIP providers out there, if term was
>> a
>> half-cent on average, we'd see prices drop, but they hold pretty steady
>> at
>> the low-end at about $0.012 or .013/min retail.
>
> But we're only talking about intercarrier access charges, right? The
> price you pay for VoIP calls has to cover both the intercarrier charges
> and the internal costs of the carrier the VoIP operator contracts with
> to deliver calls to the phone network in the first place. Even if the
> intercarrier charges were zero all over (like they are for calling cell
> phones, I think) the VoIP operator's own carrier has significant costs
> that need to be paid; they need a transmission network, they need phone
> switches and connectivity for every rate center, they need to negotiate
> arrangements with other carriers to deliver calls to areas where they
> have no infrastructure.

Yeah, I hadn't thought about that. You're absolutely right.

>>>> Maybe, but I would be embarrassed to be "someone@aol.com".
>>>
>>> That's your hangup. I've been someone@aol.com for 15 years. I know
>>> it lacks geek snob appeal in tech circles. I have those friends
>>> too- you know- the ones that used to e-mail you every six months
>>> with their new e-mail address so you could update your contact info
>>> for them.
>>> I try to balance the emotional baggage of having "aol" in my e-mail
>>> address with the fact that people who haven't contacted me since the
>>> current President's father was in office still can. ;-)
>>
>> I've had my same hotmail email address for 6 years, but I don't see
>> what email address longevity has to do with anything. People change
>> their email address for a lot of reasons.
>
> Sure, just like they change phone numbers. But you see NO advantage
> of keeping the same phone number or e-mail address for a long time?
>
> Ironically, for example, it's easier for me to reach most of my
> high-school and college friends' parents than to reach them, because
> the parents are often still in the same houses with the same phone
> numbers that they had when I was in high school 25 years ago, whereas
> my friends have switched jobs, homes, cities, and phone providers
> many, many times since!

I'm not disputing that, I just don't know what it has to do with AOL.

At 06 Mar 2008 17:17:54 -0600 M.L. wrote:

> > Sure, just like they change phone numbers. But you see NO advantage
> > of keeping the same phone number or e-mail address for a long time?
> >
> > Ironically, for example, it's easier for me to reach most of my
> > high-school and college friends' parents than to reach them, because
> > the parents are often still in the same houses with the same phone
> > numbers that they had when I was in high school 25 years ago, whereas
> > my friends have switched jobs, homes, cities, and phone providers
> > many, many times since!
>
> I'm not disputing that, I just don't know what it has to do with AOL.

I was just explaining why _I_ still use them, despite other posters'
disdain for being "someone@aol.com. I'm just saying that having an e-mail
address independent of one's current ISP (i.e. @comcast.net, @verizon.net,
etc.) be it AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo, GMail, etc. has certain advantages - both
in longevity and in mobile access (since many ISPs don't allow access to
their SMTP servers if you're "off network."