Re: NEWS: US edges towards mobile antitrust case

Article View: alt.cellular.verizon

Article #56

Back to alt.cellular.verizon Previous Next

#56

From: Ness-Net
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:01

61 lines
4707 bytes

"John Blutarsky" <bluto@faber.com> wrote in message news:Xns9C47AD5F6D90Dblutofabercom@85.214.113.135...
> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
> news:87hbxge5af.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
> 
>> "Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> writes:
>> 
>>> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:871vol5ori.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... 
>>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>>>> news:87prc5wlrs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>>>>>> news:87eisl3o4f.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Boost charges $50 for unlimited voice.  But now you are arguing
>>>>>>>>> in circles, as yo have claimed many times that pricing for
>>>>>>>>> voice has no place in this discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It doesn't.  The issue was the high charge for text messages,
>>>>>>>> not "unlimited plans" where you may end up paying for more than
>>>>>>>> you need. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why did you sudduenly bring voice prices into the
>>>>>>> conversation? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't, aside from using voice prices to set an upper bound on
>>>>>> the cost of a text message - estimating it as being roughly
>>>>>> equivalent to 1/4 seconds of a voice call.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How did you come up with that estimate?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess you don't know very much about the technology. :-) With the
>>>> level of compression they use, it takes roughly a kilobyte per
>>>> second to handle a voice call (more is better of course).  So figure
>>>> on 250 bytes for the text message (message text + overhead such as
>>>> the destination phone number and other protocol-specific data).
>>>>
>>>> That will get you fairly close to the actual number, assuming the
>>>> cost of voice service is realistic.
>>>
>>> As one who DOES "know very much about the technology" it is VERY
>>> obvious - you DON'T!
>> 
>> It is pretty damn obvious to me that you are have never learned how
>> to estimate things.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Don't you get it, LJ?  He doesn't have to estimate- he KNOWS the associated 
> costs.

Thank you - someone gets it...

Technical Details

Message-ID: <E8SdnYlRddZwe8bXnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@giganews.com>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!backlog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail

References:

<Xns9C44AD2B4AC2Bblutofabercom@188.40.43.213> <87fxd4f7f9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <Xns9C44B102E9C90blutofabercom@188.40.43.213> <oeR5m.13793$OF1.3541@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <87hbxj7mlk.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <32X5m.1032$nU7.206@newsfe20.iad> <87y6qvlz03.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <Xns9C45A08962098blutofabercom@188.40.43.213> <87fxd2pf31.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <Xns9C4656BE11373blutofabercom@188.40.43.213> <87eisl3o4f.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <Xns9C46879759D4blutofabercom@85.214.113.135> <87prc5wlrs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <Xns9C46AE6FE542Eblutofabercom@188.40.43.213> <871vol5ori.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <IqGdnSi895Gn7MbXnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87hbxge5af.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <Xns9C47AD5F6D90Dblutofabercom@85.214.113.135>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Thread: aa617e85ca,70f2e018f89541d7
X-Google-Attributes: gidaa617e85ca,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!backlog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:01:16 -0500
Reply-To: "Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com>
From: "Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com>
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.t-mobile,ba.internet
References: <Xns9C44AD2B4AC2Bblutofabercom@188.40.43.213> <87fxd4f7f9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <Xns9C44B102E9C90blutofabercom@188.40.43.213> <oeR5m.13793$OF1.3541@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <87hbxj7mlk.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <32X5m.1032$nU7.206@newsfe20.iad> <87y6qvlz03.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <Xns9C45A08962098blutofabercom@188.40.43.213> <87fxd2pf31.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <Xns9C4656BE11373blutofabercom@188.40.43.213> <87eisl3o4f.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <Xns9C46879759D4blutofabercom@85.214.113.135> <87prc5wlrs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <Xns9C46AE6FE542Eblutofabercom@188.40.43.213> <871vol5ori.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <IqGdnSi895Gn7MbXnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87hbxge5af.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <Xns9C47AD5F6D90Dblutofabercom@85.214.113.135>
In-Reply-To: <Xns9C47AD5F6D90Dblutofabercom@85.214.113.135>
Subject: Re: NEWS: US edges towards mobile antitrust case
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:01:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 format=flowed;
 charset="Windows-1252";
 reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18005
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18005
Message-ID: <E8SdnYlRddZwe8bXnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 62
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Q77vAhuG9c2GMQ2cT6FtvX0c2QA7CZrNX7E6YmIuLUbQg+jabdJ7qCLOQvt/MTY7Eusv9bFpbonvqJz!bQUH/eXvzJW9PsDPhueO+N2CI3vvK3xYNeBUA3Kzzm2f8tk5vq+NkU7wraxs4JZXYcQyMfwwMw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
X-Original-Bytes: 4455

Reply to Parent Message