<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.networkworld.com/community" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>carriers</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206</link>
 <description>Showing new posts in a forum view</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Verizon plays fast and loose with the wrong 1,200 e-mail addresses</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33767</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;This should be a vendor&amp;#39;s first rule when inviting 1,200 IT pros to a seminar about securing data and protecting personal information: Make sure you protect the personal information of the 1,200 professionals you&amp;#39;re trying to impress.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img style=&quot;float: right; margin: 4px 0px 10px 10px&quot; src=&quot;/graphics/2008/100908verizon-logo.jpg&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; alt=&quot;Verizon&quot; width=&quot;125&quot; height=&quot;82&quot; /&gt;How did Verizon do in that regard on Tuesday? They failed miserably ... and not just once. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33767&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33767#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/16">Security</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/147">Verizon</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:35:59 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Paul McNamara</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">33767 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Google patent puts the squeeze on mobile carriers</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33325</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Surprise T-Mobile and any other carrier looking to support phones based on&lt;img style=&quot;width: 73px; height: 86px&quot; src=&quot;/graphics/community/android.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; width=&quot;73&quot; height=&quot;86&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; /&gt; Google&#039;s new Android operating system. All those new customers you thought you were getting won&#039;t actually be yours alone. You&#039;ll have to share them--on a minute by minute basis--with all the other carriers out there, severely limiting the payback you expected on all your 3G network investments. You and the networks you run will quickly become commoditized, while application providers (like Google) get better service, more customers and rake in all the dough. At least that&#039;s the future envisioned by Google, as outlined in a recently posted &lt;a href=&quot;http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220080232574%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20080232574&amp;RS=DN/20080232574&quot;&gt;patent application&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Google&#039;s March 2007 patent is for a system, modeled on Google&#039;s Adwords, that gets mobile operators to compete via auction for the chance to provide users with service. Users can then set their smartphones to automatically switch carriers, perhaps several times a day, to get the best rate or better bandwidth--all without being hit with onerous service fees or switching costs. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Sounds great for users and Google, but it&#039;s difficult to envision the mobile carriers playing along. Why should everyone else reap the benefits of their network investments, while the carriers are stuck competing for customers on razor-thin margins? Maybe the providers with the fastest networks and best coverage will win out for a while, but eventually, the networks will become commoditized--and all the carriers will lose.  &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33325&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33325#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/45">Wireless / Mobile</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/16412">auction</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/16413">commodity</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/12336">competition</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/71">Google</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/4082">patent</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:50:10 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Google Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">33325 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Service provider funk is good news for Cisco</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33102</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;No need to fear, Cisco is here - that appeared to be the crux of Cisco&amp;#39;s message to service providers at &lt;img style=&quot;width: 85px; height: 63px&quot; src=&quot;/graphics/community/family-watching-tv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; width=&quot;85&quot; height=&quot;63&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; /&gt;its C-Space 2008 analyst event focused on its service provider strategy for European and merging markets. According to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ovum.com/news/euronews.asp?id=7354&quot;&gt;report by U.K.-based market researcher Ovum&lt;/a&gt;, Cisco believes that service providers could see revenue stagnation unless they beef up their strategies against &amp;quot;over-the-top players which will leverage their brand to grab an increasing share of market channels and new revenue streams.&amp;quot; Ovum adds: &amp;quot;Cisco&amp;#39;s sales pitch to telcos is that they need to get to grips with both the good [new revenue opportunities] and dark sides of video [costs]. Cisco emphasises the role of network transformation in tackling the dark side, and in laying the foundations to exploit the good.&amp;quot; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ovum concludes: &amp;quot;Cisco sees a good opportunity in the shape of OTT and content players that are building out their own infrastructure to sell direct to the consumer. Telcos need to get their own house in order if they are going to be ready to react to this new and increasing threat. In this Cisco also believes that it is well placed to help the telco, meaning that everyone is a winner - especially Cisco.&amp;quot; &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33102&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33102#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/47">Cisco</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/16310">C-Space 2008</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/11679">Ovum</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/3087">service providers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/16309">telcos</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:16:29 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Cisco Subnet</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">33102 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>NTT is also on the TPE</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33096</link>
 <description>NTT Communications is also part of the consortium, and the cable will go thru Japan.</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33096#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/26">VoIP / Convergence</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/10847">NTT</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:22:01 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">33096 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Run-amok Verizon robo-caller torments 1,400 customers (most notably, my wife)</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32639</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Nine robo-calls in 24 hours, all from Verizon: Nothing could make them stop; not my wife&amp;#39;s increasingly urgent pleas (I was &lt;a href=&quot;/community/node/32368&quot;&gt;away&lt;/a&gt;); not the hapless customer service reps who promised relief; not the &amp;quot;in-charge supervisor&amp;quot; who wasn&amp;#39;t in charge; and, not even the ever-so-helpful individual who said the barrage was &amp;quot;a national problem&amp;quot; before adding, &amp;quot;We&amp;#39;re suggesting that people just unplug their phones.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Unplug our phones? How about you unplug your bloody robo-caller first? &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32639&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32639#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/147">Verizon</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:45:11 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Paul McNamara</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">32639 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>I switched to Stephouse after Metrofi died...</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32665</link>
 <description>I switched to Stephouse after Metrofi died. I bought far better equipment than i used to connect to Metrofi. I havent been pleased with the service im now paying 35 a month for a 3meg connection that doesnt seem reliable. Im really considering switching to Comcast, Because Stephouse hasn&#039;t achieved the service quality of the &quot;free&quot; wireless.</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32665#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/45">Wireless / Mobile</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/16002">Stephouse</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:25:11 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">32665 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Growing? Bandwidth Restrictions</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32262</link>
 <description>Comcast recently imposed bandwidth limitations which is the first salvo in a pay-per-use ISP model. It&#039;s only a matter of time. With more bandwidth and dark fiber than they know what to do with, the ISPs are angling to put the frameworks in place to start up-selling their base. How many more people can connect? Once they&#039;ve got saturation the only revenue growth will come from adding new services or increasing the billable time, ergo bandwidth tiers.

Hopefully, there will continue to be competition for the on-ramps and keep things competitive. But, given our government lawmakers propensity to cave to special interest, I can potentially see BIG CABLE continuing to have their way with the public whenever they feel like it. 

It sort of makes me feel dirty....</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32262#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/592">ISPs</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:30:17 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Schratboy</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">32262 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Challenges for Network Operators and Mobile Carriers</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32221</link>
 <description>This is a very encouraging news for mobile professionals and consumers (40 Million plus) to be able to have some what similar/common user experience on the mobile devices as they would have on PCs. 

The major challenge is still in the back-end office infrastructure of OSSs/BSSs and service delivery, which is age old and does require a careful migration plan to support the 21st century applications in Saas, Mobility and UC.

Prabhat Kumar
Executive, Telecom Consultant
New Jersey, USA
prabhatkuma@gmail.com</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32221#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/26">VoIP / Convergence</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/45">Wireless / Mobile</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:18:43 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">32221 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Well done.</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32235</link>
 <description>&quot;It&#039;s far more likely that the cap is in place to make sure that Comcast&#039;s network cannot be relied upon by competitors for high quality video delivery.&quot;

Spot on, I completely agree. HD content over the internet is the direction we&#039;re headed and Comcast is positioning themselves squarely in a position to control it. The cap buys them time to figure out how to prevent a transition from their carefully controlled content lineup to a free-for-all.</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32235#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/30">SMB</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/525">broadband</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:05:37 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">32235 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>comcast in yet another money grab</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32116</link>
 <description>I use far less than the 250gig / month but I chose comcast because there were no limits advertised when I signed up.  I think if 1% of the users are over the 250gig then why does a limitation need to be in place?  It&#039;s yet another money grab by a company and other companies will follow suit (watch the bandwidth cap drop as well)</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32116#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:21:22 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">32116 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Ridiculous!</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32084</link>
 <description>Thanks to my better judgment based on my cable service with them, I just knew not to trust them with my Internet connection.</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32084#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:55:02 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">32084 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Does Verizon also qualify/find vendors on their own?</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32058</link>
 <description>Hi,

Did Verizon happen to mention if the Global Security Solutions Group is responsible for the 17 vendors,  with more being added? I&#039;d be interested in providing them an Avenda eTIPS product for review. 

Also did you get a good idea of what percentage of their customers are piloting anything or what percentage of business warrants rolling out a new service?

Thanks</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32058#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/16">Security</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/147">Verizon</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:40:33 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Trent F</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">32058 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>AT&amp;T Still not Up</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/31094</link>
 <description>We live in the state of Michigan and the AT&amp;T wireless network is down here now.  Unfortunately, you can&#039;t send emails to check on it or contact tech support.  </description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/31094#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/45">Wireless / Mobile</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/239">AT&amp;amp;T</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:53:42 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">31094 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Call Interception</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/31088</link>
 <description>Not certain why this would be a deterrent to investment. The spirit of Zimbabwe&#039;s Lawful Interception of Communications Law is akin to provisions found in the CALEA act. Both seek to bolster issues dealing with national security and both are subject to abuse in the wrong hands.</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/31088#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/29">Data Center</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 03:23:25 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">31088 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>There will no charge for the fiber in the Ottawa trial</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/31052</link>
 <description>Johna:

Thanks for the nice article on our project in Ottawa.  But you missed a significant point. We are not charging for the fiber. It will be FREE.

We are bundling cost of fiber with customer&#039;s energy bill. For more details please see

http://free-fiber-to-the-home.blogspot.com/</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/31052#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/525">broadband</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:46:23 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">31052 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Instead of blocking, they just disconnect now</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30833</link>
 <description>It would appear to me that Comcast is taking a new tactic. I am a game mod developer and one of the ways I release updates to my games is through bittorrent since the files are usually small and are not illegal for someone to download. 

Lately I have noticed when I turn on my bittorrent software within minutes I lose my internet connection through Comcast. I turn off the software, reset my router and everything works fine. I then turn the software back on and once again I lose the connection.

I can go hours with no problems, but the second I try to release the torrent I am booted. I find it difficult to believe this is coincidence.</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30833#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/22">LANs / WANs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/1001">BitTorrent</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/4447">p2p</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:18:34 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">30833 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>U-verse voice well past &quot;Testing&quot;</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30738</link>
 <description>It is a commercial product and it has been available in half a dozen markets for months. It was first commercially launched in Detroit in January 2008.</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30738#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/26">VoIP / Convergence</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/239">AT&amp;amp;T</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/14444">U-verse</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:54:08 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">30738 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Bandwidth Hogs</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30642</link>
 <description>What protects the little guy from the &quot;Bandwidth Hogs&quot;?

Ever have your internet slow way down? If Comcast can not manage their network....won&#039;t this even be a bigger problem in the future?</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30642#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/29">Data Center</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/30">SMB</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/525">broadband</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/974">Comcast</category>
 <pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:13:08 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">30642 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Verizon still doesn&#039;t understand fire</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30531</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The good news is that this time Verizon did not start the blaze, unlike on &lt;a href=&quot;/community/node/18314&quot;&gt;so many&lt;/a&gt; other &lt;a href=&quot;/community/node/19126&quot;&gt;occasions&lt;/a&gt; that we have &lt;a href=&quot;/community/node/21579&quot;&gt;chronicled here&lt;/a&gt; in excruciating detail.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The bad news, at least for the burned-out-of-house-and-home in-laws of &lt;em&gt;Network World&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/columnists/gaskin.html&quot;&gt;columnist James Gaskin&lt;/a&gt;, is that this is a telephone company that continues to have trouble &lt;a href=&quot;/community/node/18392&quot;&gt;grasping the finer points&lt;/a&gt; of smoke and flame. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30531&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30531#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/30">SMB</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/147">Verizon</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:19:17 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Paul McNamara</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">30531 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>T Mobile TV ads for 10.00 monthly home plan</title>
 <link>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30431</link>
 <description>Bait and Switch.

Too many other things going on here to consider a simple plan.

Going with Cricket. Cheapest phone out there!

BTB...Vonage phone service through the computer sucks big time. So your service better have better quality than it. 

It is full of static and reverb feedback.</description>
 <comments>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/30431#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/45">Wireless / Mobile</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/206">carriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/950">T-Mobile</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:09:51 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">30431 at http://www.networkworld.com/community</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
