«

In article <2sm1f5->, thingy did write:

> ...has anybody come across software that would use
> this, but then dial a line out? So a voice over IP router...

You could do it with Asterisk. That speaks SIP and also interfaces to cards
that connect to analog phone lines or digital BRI.

> ie VOIP to my wee server downstairs from abroad, then my wee server
> either rings the house phone, or dials out on a modem to the NZ number
> wanted and acts as a bridge?

Yup. And you can peer with other SIP servers, buy domestic phone numbers in
various countries etc. All quite common stuff these days.

> I wonder what that does to Telecom companies pricing model?

In countries where there is a monopoly telco, it blows it all to hell. Which
is why some of them unofficially throttle VOIP traffic, or even officially
ban it.

In article <37d4f5->, thingy did write:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> And you can peer with other SIP servers, buy domestic phone numbers
>> in various countries etc.
>
> Can you buy domestic phone numbers? do you need to?

It lets you call people in those countries on conventional phones at
domestic rates. Not everybody is on VOIP--yet.

> ....I bet no phone company is going to part with numbers that easily.

Some are like that, a lot are not <http://www.link2voip.com/>.

> I find it interesting that the nutty right wingers and big corps all
> wail about Government regulation, intervention and interference and yet
> when people go and do their own thing, those same corps stamp on the
> freedom to innovate, do your own thing and save money.

There is a split emerging among conservative types with regard to copyrights
and patents in particular. But that's a subject for another thread...

In article <>, Allistar did
write:

> I don't agree with government regulation. In a competitive environment the
> consumers of a service would say "screw you guys, you've broken the terms
> of our agreement, I'm off to your competitor".

Free markets need regulation in order to remain free. Markets are not
capable of keeping themselves clean of anticompetitive behaviour, price
fixing, deceptive advertising or just plain fraud.

In article <e907f5->, thingy did write:

> I re-call reading a good comment from an economist(?) on how businesses
> work; fundamentally they try to maximize profit, which in turn pretty
> much guarantees they tend to gravitate to monopoly.

Some sectors are more prone to this than others. For instance, in the car
business you've never had any monopolies. Whereas in closed-source
software, things have definitely tended that way.

I'd say it has to do with fixed costs versus unit costs. Closed-source
software companies can spend millions, even billions nowadays developing
their products, but the cost of manufacturing copies is just that of
duplicating bits, which is peanuts. So if the market is price-sensitive,
prices can decline to the point where only the number-one vendor is making
money, while everybody else goes out of business.

Open-source stops this from happening.

In article <>, Allistar did
write:

> Consumers should be aware of the policies of the supplier (such as their
> environment policy, their customer service etc) and use that information
> to decide whether to do business with them.

What's to stop the suppliers from lying?

> If everyone votes with their waller because a business is environmentally
> unfriendly, they have little choice but to clean up their act. I
> believe "name and shame" is a healthy aspect to any competitive
> environment as it's essentially "consumer regulation" - keeping businesses
> clean and consumers happy.

Not good enough. Note the examples of serial fraudsters, who were able to
continue to dupe long strings of victims--when they were found out by one,
they just went on to the next one.

In article <>, Allistar did
write:

> Companies who are bullies only understand one thing - money. If enough
> people stop giving them theirs, they'll clean up their act.

How do you explain Xtra, then?

In article <>, Allistar did
write:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In article <>, Allistar did
>> write:
>>
>>> Consumers should be aware of the policies of the supplier (such as their
>>> environment policy, their customer service etc) and use that information
>>> to decide whether to do business with them.
>>
>> What's to stop the suppliers from lying?
>
> The law.

Precisely.

> And the huge consequences of being found out.

See below.

>>> If everyone votes with their waller because a business is
>>> environmentally unfriendly, they have little choice but to clean up
>>> their act. I believe "name and shame" is a healthy aspect to any
>>> competitive environment as it's essentially "consumer regulation" -
>>> keeping businesses clean and consumers happy.
>>
>> Not good enough. Note the examples of serial fraudsters, who were able to
>> continue to dupe long strings of victims--when they were found out by
>> one, they just went on to the next one.
>
> Because that first one didn't make enough of a song-and-dance about it.

Only the first one? What about the second one, the third one ... ?

In article <>, Allistar did
write:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In article <>, Allistar did
>> write:
>>
>>> Companies who are bullies only understand one thing - money. If enough
>>> people stop giving them theirs, they'll clean up their act.
>>
>> How do you explain Xtra, then?
>
> Consumer ignorance and consumer apathy.

Endemic features of most markets, it seems. So what does this mean for the
all the faith that is put in "market forces"?

In article <>, Allistar did
write:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In article <>, Allistar did
>> write:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <>, Allistar
>>>> did write:
>>>>
>>>>> Companies who are bullies only understand one thing - money. If enough
>>>>> people stop giving them theirs, they'll clean up their act.
>>>>
>>>> How do you explain Xtra, then?
>>>
>>> Consumer ignorance and consumer apathy.
>>
>> Endemic features of most markets, it seems. So what does this mean for
>> the all the faith that is put in "market forces"?
>
> That control needs to be put back into the hands of consumers. At the
> moment the responsibility to "shop with your wallet" is assumed to be a
> responsibility taken on by the government on our behalf.

Assumed by whom? We are all free to go to the shops and buy what we like.

In article <>, Allistar did
write:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In article <>, Allistar did
>> write:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <>, Allistar
>>>> did write:
>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <>, Allistar
>>>>>> did write:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Companies who are bullies only understand one thing - money. If
>>>>>>> enough people stop giving them theirs, they'll clean up their act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you explain Xtra, then?
>>>>>
>>>>> Consumer ignorance and consumer apathy.
>>>>
>>>> Endemic features of most markets, it seems. So what does this mean for
>>>> the all the faith that is put in "market forces"?
>>>
>>> That control needs to be put back into the hands of consumers. At the
>>> moment the responsibility to "shop with your wallet" is assumed to be a
>>> responsibility taken on by the government on our behalf.
>>
>> Assumed by whom? We are all free to go to the shops and buy what we like.
>
> Yes, but we expect that the retailers adhere to certain government
> regulation which keep them "clean", even though we may not actually know
> what those regulations are. My point is that such government regulation
> breeds apathy, and apathy breeds abuse on the part of companies.

So there shouldn't be a Consumer Guarantees Act? No Consumer's Institute, no
Fair Go, no Commerce Commission? Let the bastards do what they like?