how-to block ads
|
knightmb
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·Comcast
 ·Vonage
 ·Speakeasy
| Comcast VoIP needs a little work
I'm not going on a flame fest for VoIP vs. Comcast Voice, but they certainly need to be held up to a little higher standards for their phone service just like the other VoIP (Vonage, Packet8, etc) did.
I tell a story from personal experience, those that live in the Cool Spings area around Franklin, TN did not have phone service (via Comcast Voice) for a solid week (this happened last week) because of an area cable outage. No Internet, No TV, and no Phone for a solid week. It's not like the entire city had no service, just this small area around the Alara Farms apartments (which is actually pretty big and has a lot of people that live and work there).
My opinion, if Comcast wants to sell off their voice product, regardless of the fine details of "is it really VoIP or something else" then they should have to play by the same rules that everyone else is forced to play by.  | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| A Federal Court will probably prevent the state from regulating Comcast CDV until the other court case is decided and the FCC rules on the issue. Ultimately, Missouri might win, but they will have to wait awhile.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
Phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Jacksonville, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to knightmb
said by knightmb  :I'm not going on a flame fest for VoIP vs. Comcast Voice, but they certainly need to be held up to a little higher standards for their phone service just like the other VoIP (Vonage, Packet8, etc) did. I tell a story from personal experience, those that live in the Cool Spings area around Franklin, TN did not have phone service (via Comcast Voice) for a solid week (this happened last week) because of an area cable outage. No Internet, No TV, and no Phone for a solid week. It's not like the entire city had no service, just this small area around the Alara Farms apartments (which is actually pretty big and has a lot of people that live and work there). What are you talking about "higher standards"? The only thing that the "other" providers like Vonage, Packet8, etc, were forced to do was provide WORKING E-911. At least Comcast has had it from day 1. And Comcast actually charges the 911 fee, unlike some VoIP providers. The fee is actually paid into the 911 fund, unlike some providers. I think it's none of the local governments business, as it's already been brought to a federal level, and is still awaiting judgement. This simply shows who's getting the money from the fund in the end, as it's not the states business, ESPECIALLY if customers and citizens are saving money. The PSTN providers are governed to make sure the money they charge people for these "regulation" fees are actually spent on what they are intended for, since the PSTN providers are heavily regulated by the government. If you ask me, I think the USF fee should fund cable's deployment of their service. I am sure there is at least ONE person in the US who doesn't have telco wires passing their house, but is able to get cable phone. As a matter of fact, there is a whole street near my house who is right behind the central office, and they do not have telco wiring on this street, but the cable company has their coax passing by, with active subscribers, and I am betting someone uses them for phone.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | reply to TK Junk Mail
ALL Voip providers should face PSCs. When fines start hitting them, they will have an incentive to stop littering the airwaves with ads and fix their shoddy networks (or whatever it is that makes them sorta work). | |
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
| Actually, Comcast should be held to a higher standard than someone like Vonage as they control the lines and they separate out the voice from regular internet traffic on their end. Vonage should be held responsible for their servers and connections, but that is the scope of their control. If an ISP starts "shaping" traffic, Vonage cannot control that. | |
Boggyboy
join:2003-08-16
Niceville, FL
| reply to rachelsfx
No one is forcing you to subscribe with a VOIP provider. You can stay with your Friendly Local Telephone Monopoly...at extra cost...and enjoy near 100% reliability. You can go VOIP (with KNOWN drawbacks) and save money. It's your choice. Having a PSC (the Local Monopoly Enabler) hobble every provider and drive up their costs is totally insane. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to knightmb
Well, I have two sides to this argument.
On one side, if the state wants to regulate Voip service, then ALL VoIP service is regualted. They can't pick and choose who will and won't be regulated. To be honest, since it's still data packets, I doubt they CAN regulate it.. it's an "information service" and not telephone service. As TKjunkmail said, I agree that the FCC will have to rule on this.. and until then, the state is SOL.
On the OTHER side, I can see comcast, or cable in general, being regualted since the cable operator not only handles the VoIP adaptor, they also carry the call's transport as well. Afterall, this is STILL phone service, managed by the company from point to point - or to the point it's passed off. So, in my book, it's an incumbant phone provider.
With this argument comes a great trade off though and cana nd WILL change the landscape on phone as well. The bell system, for one, can no longer be considered an "incumbant" or the "dominant phone provider" since there would be an over builder - cable. Second, if they want to rule this service as a incumbant and regulate it and no longer call it an informational data service, then the same has to be said for telephone carrying IPTV service. It can't be called an inforamtion service. Additionally, if phone would be treated the same as cable tv, then when they get state wide franchises, cable should AUTOMATICALLY be classified as a state wide operator as well and IMMEDIATELY convert to a statewide, and not have to wait to convert.
afterall, fair is fair.
I do belive, however, that I'd rather see the state regulate the service. But, it can ultimately drive the cost up, HOPEFULLY cause the service to be more reliable and hold them accountable to outtages.. but I just hate the states tacking on fees just to say they are regulating the service.
Additionally, if they want to regulate the service, I'd rather see the state require outside RSU devices and not the internat eMTA adapters they are using new. (Same as cable uses for digital phone service)..
basically, if they do regulate the service, I see there needing to be MUCH change in many areas.. and not just a simple "were going to regualte you and collect money from you" crap like the states and governments like to do.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
