how-to block ads
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to baj475
Re: Not surprising
Our difference is most likely generational, for one, and the fact that I, like so many others, still hold telephone as a life-line service. (as does the government) If Magic Jack works for you, great. For almost the rest of Americans, including myself, it doesn't, and that's cool.
But, in my eyes, it's not phone service. Phone in this country has a reliability factor which MJ doesn't have. And to call me litigious is not accurate. I am realistic. Since phone is a life line, I, again, like so many, have an expectation for a level of service and for it to be there when you need it. Telephone has five 9's in order to be qualified by just about any PUC in the U.S.. Again, MJ doesn't have that, nor does the likes of Vonage and others.
While you and people like you are ok with having monkey rigged phone service, I'm not looking to have alternatives. Again, people want and expect phone service to be there. Paranoid? Use all those terms you want, but the bottom line, it is you who is out of touch on this subject, not me. If I or others weren't worried about having a phone service available for emergencies, why do we have a 911 system in the first place?
I'm sorry to say this, but I'm going to 'go there' on this next subject. You ARE out of line here. Some things, in life, are deemed so by the greater good of society. In this country, 911 IS critical. Just because you don't doesn't make it right for everyone else, OR, even yourself. In this case, society rules you on this. If you don't think 911 is critical, sorry to say, I'm sure you have family that will. If something major happened to you that put you in a bad spot, or made you a veg and you became a burden on your family because of faulty phone service or lack of 911 in the time of need, I'm CERTAIN your family would try to sue FOR you..
So again, sorry to say this, I don't care if it's "not for you" or not.. this is a case where I can stand back and tell you that you are wrong even for you on your own end. Some things are larger than even one's self and this is one of them.
No matter how many inverters you have/use, or how ever you've "set yourself up".. I still remain on my side that telephone is not designed to need this amount of effort. You're still not convincing me to your side. MJ still isn't "phone service" in my eyes, and others.. it's simply a techs' tool, and a company for someone to make a bunch of money off people before running. I DO still, however, agree that it's a good money savings for as long as you can use it and it's around.. but a phone service..? No. you won't convince me. | |
baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
| fiberguy,
Generational? Just how old or young do you think I am? 
I do not think it is generational unless you are either so young as to be a whippersnapper or so old to be nearly senile and you do not sound like either. If you recall, I originally asked you for your definition of phone service because it was obviously different than mine. You can define the term phone service anyway you want. The important thing is that we understand that we are ascribing different definitions.
I do not think I called you litigious. What I said is that some of your words made you sound that way. However, one offhand remark is not enough to know if you are truly litigious, so I will accept your representation that you are not.
Monkey rigged? I am out of touch? How? I fully understand the limitations of VOIP. To me those limitations are not critical or even of much importance. To you they are. From my prospective you are excessively worried about minimal possibilities. From your prospective I probably appear naive. If you are not comfortable with what I am that is fine. That is your choice. I am not suggesting that you are out of touch only that we have different priorities and different opinions on how reliable a phone systems needs to be to satisfy our respective needs. | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to fiberguy
I think you're dead on with the 5-nines expectation as being one of the required qualities of telephone service.
I'm personally a bit on the fence.
If the ISPs were required to prioritize or segregate Vonage in the same way that they handle their own VOIP offering, do you think Vonage could hit that level of reliability? Or do the ISPs automatically get a competitive advantage (as it is today) since they're making the investment outlay in the network? Should VOIP providers or VOIP users be allowed to pay an extra fee to get the same level of service and allow the ISPs to recapture their investment?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| In all honesty, regarding giving the likes of Vonage priority and all, I think Vonage would be just as good as say Comcast or Cox. I have both CDV and Vonage. My CDV runs on Comcast, obviously, and my Vonage runs on a Qwest 1.5/896 line. The Vonage in MY home has been FAR superior to that of Comcast. CDV goes down every time the internet connection goes down. I think the CDV service would work better if I ran it over a Qwest DSL connection (which it won't ) but if I had to give an overall rating of CDV over Vonage in MY experience with the product taking MY application to play, the quality of Vonage is superior to that of Comcast CDV.
What does this tell me? The service is still only as strong as the connection running it.
To date, I've yet had a CDV only outage. It's always been CDV and HSI together.
I don't think I could support ISPs having to be required to prioritize Voip. (And I am not assuming you are or are not either) I say this only because I believe the internet is a compilation of all traffic. The moment you give VoIP any priority, then other video providers will want it, and then others, and others.. etc. I still believe that Video already has a delivery system(s) as does phone.
personally, I'd like to see the internet (last mile plants) be capable of handling at LEAST 10 times more (if not more) traffic than it does now. While I don't think that internet is ready for everything tossed at it now, I DO think that in the somewhat near future it's going to have to evolve. I also believe they know this too (the ISPs) and since so much is coming on the horizon, it's a waiting game to see what the best way to upgrade is in order to save capital. So far, no ISP has been immune to that - even Fios has already performed an upgrade to some of it's fiber networks.
I think it will be inevitable that we're going to pay more for the internet in the near future for the mere fact that we're calling for it to do much much more. As revenue lags from one profit center, another will have to pick up the slack to compensate. I think we're slowly seeing this now. | |
-
|
