 | | VoIP is a step down from POTS I'm not sure why so many companies are banking on VoIP to be the next killer app
it's slick, but it's not as reliable as POTS, and generally has slightly lesser quality | |
|
 | | | Re: VoIP is a step down from POTS Uh oh, now youre in trouble. Here comes all the VoIP cheerleaders to try to disillusion everyone into thinking voIP is more RELIABLE than POTS.
LOL | |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: VoIP is a step down from POTS I'm not here saying VoIP has the same 99.9% reliability as a POTS line but it definitely is as reliable as a typical cell phone... not to mention loads cheaper. It COULD theoretically be much more reliable if voice and video packets were prioritized over others but then we get into the whole Net Neutrality debate. I think voice and video SHOULD be prioritized, HOWEVER it should be ALL voice and video packets and equally... this should be written into law so that voice and video can be prioritized while ISP's such as Comcast and AT&T wouldn't be able to prioritize their own voice and video packets over anybody else's (unless their's run on their private network that is not shared with other content). If that were to happen, then I'd say we should prioritize then. | |
|
| | |  ifarrell
join:2000-08-10
Willow Spring, NC
1 edit | Re: VoIP is a step down from POTS said by LinuxJunkie:.........It COULD theoretically be much more reliable if voice and video packets were prioritized over others but then we get into the whole Net Neutrality debate........ Well I guess that would mean VoIP would go down the Tubes like a Dump Truck??? 
In my case Vonage works, well, OK. But in the last week or so I have had a few more dropped calls than normal even during off-peak hours.
I'd trust my Mobile Phone before VoIP but at least it's cheap and you get what you pay for at the end of the day. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Bright House
| Re: VoIP is a step down from POTS said by ifarrell:said by LinuxJunkie:.........It COULD theoretically be much more reliable if voice and video packets were prioritized over others but then we get into the whole Net Neutrality debate........ Well I guess that would mean VoIP would go down the Tubes like a Dump Truck??? In my case Vonage works, well, OK. But in the last week or so I have had a few more dropped calls than normal even during off-peak hours. I'd trust my Mobile Phone before VoIP but at least it's cheap and you get what you pay for at the end of the day. I agree. I pay $35 a year for a SIPphone DID, and it's reliably cheap enough to run a conference bridge on... I have VoIP on my home phone thru Comcast, and a cell thru Verizon. I am ready to take almost as many calls as you can throw at me... For outbound, I make free calls thru voipuser.org, no cost to join or use, they just limit your calltimes to less than 10 or 20 minutes...
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
| Well, POTS is better than VOIP, from a quality and reliability standpoint. But it is a trade-off. I'm far happier paying a couple dollars a month for VOIP minutes than paying the crooks, er, the phone company $40 just to keep an old POTS line croaking.
As for prioritization, it is already being done. VOIP packets do have top priority on several networks already. | |
|
| |  McShakenPremium
join:2006-02-20
Olympia, WA | I wonder how reliable POTS was in its early days... Quck, call up any old person you know (parents, grandparents, creepy old guy down the block) and find out what the telephone was like in the "olden" days...
| |
|
|  uther
join:2001-12-04
Saint Louis, MO | I threw away a bunch of phones when I was a SBC POTS subscriber thinking that the phone was the source of poor audio quality... When I switched to Vonage... I was also using another phone that I was about to throw away because of the same reason.. Plugged it into the Vonage VOIP router... audio quality was about 2-3x better than POTS. I wish I could get those other phones back....
Just an experience I wanted to share with you and let you know your statement isn't 100% true.
Uther
--
Someone set up us the bomb! | |
|
| | | Vonage's stock in a LOSER! $17 down to $6.94 a share.
Ummm, I think Wall Street thinks VOIP sucks. FTTN and FIOS is the future on IP switches (something more techie than I know about but sounds good) not Vonage type apps.
-Rach | |
|
| |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| Re: VoIP is a step down from POTS said by rachelsfx:Vonage's stock in a LOSER! $17 down to $6.94 a share. Ummm, I think Wall Street thinks VOIP sucks. FTTN and FIOS is the future on IP switches (something more techie than I know about but sounds good) not Vonage type apps. -Rach That's great, but who cares about the stock when this is related to something completely different?
--
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org/index.htm
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spa···_monster | |
|
| |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Don't equate a low stock price with an inferior product. There have been many products throughout history that had a superior offering but just didn't play out in the marketplace.
With the case of Vonage, they could have set their goals too high, mismanaged, etc.
--
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? | |
|
|  owenhomekeeper of the magic blue smokePremium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR | If POTS was as cheap as VOIP with the same features and long distance rates, POTS would be the next killer app.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| Re: VoIP is a step down from POTS Yeah, but it'll never happen. The telcos want POTS to subsidize their losses on the cheap entry-level DSL services. Unforunately for them, people are dropping POTS right and left which is gonna bite them in the ass down the road.
Frankly there's no reason they couldn't offer POTS service at a competitive rate to VOIP providers (the $25 per month range) with a similar set of services. After all, internally, everything is IP-based and routed over the 'net anyways. | |
|
| | | ifarrell
join:2000-08-10
Willow Spring, NC | Re: VoIP is a step down from POTS said by pabster:Yeah, but it'll never happen. The telcos want POTS to subsidize their losses on the cheap entry-level DSL services. Unfortunately for them, people are dropping POTS right and left which is gonna bite them in the ass down the road. Frankly there's no reason they couldn't offer POTS service at a competitive rate to VOIP providers (the $25 per month range) with a similar set of services. After all, internally, everything is IP-based and routed over the 'net anyways. Very true. Charging $7 or $8 per month for Caller ID (at least here it is) is a rip off.
If POTS were about $25 a month, with all you get with VoIP, I think a lot of people would have no trouble switching back.
Obviously the Phone Companies are in denial and holding their breath hoping the bad VoIP Companies will go belly up.
Vonage and Packet8 will eventually and get swallowed up by someone else but VoIP won't be going away anytime soon. | |
|
|  Rob AJets AFC ChampionshipPremium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | said by Tikker_LoS:I'm not sure why so many companies are banking on VoIP to be the next killer app it's slick, but it's not as reliable as POTS, and generally has slightly lesser quality I agree. I could switch to verizon voicewing and save $15/month, but I prefer my POTS for unlimited calling at $39.95/month for reliability and other advantages.
--
Spread Opera! The fast, sleek, and feature-rich browser! »opera.com
| |
|
| cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by Tikker_LoS:it's slick, but it's not as reliable as POTS, and generally has slightly lesser quality I would agree that it's not as reliable as POTS. I'll agree somewhat that the quality can, be but is not always, lesser then POTS. Generally speaking my VoIP line has better sound quality. As compared to my cellular service through T-Mobile, my VoIP line is light years ahead.
There are two reasons why I went with VoIP over POTS. Price and features. I was paying $35/month before fees, taxes, and long distance. Too those in there and my typical phone bill was in the $55 +/- a few bucks. I now get all the same features I had before, plus a bunch more, for $8.25 a month. I'll but up with an occasional outage or hiccup for $560 a year. It more then pays for my FiOS line.
--
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? | |
|
|  Raj DynelAre You Experienced?Premium
join:2000-09-14
Cupertino, CA | Still 4.4 as it was the day I got it. | |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | The internet - it's not for everything. Soon, people might learn that the internet, as it is today, is for surfing the web. It's too young to try to cram everything down the "tubes"...
Right now, C Voip providers are nothing more than data.. data is data, period.
The I providers have it right. They will have the ability to provide a quality voip product (so some just don't get it) because they can operate on a last mile / private network set up. They can control the quality on their own last mile, while seeing that the data travels on a clear path to the other end as close as possible.
The more and more crap that people try to put on the internet, today, the more we are going to hear the cry for anti-net nutrality.
Also, people need to learn how to let things regarding the net mature before giving it full responsibility. I look at it as giving an 18 year old a drink of liquor.. they may be an adult, but not quite ready to handle the drink. | |
|
|  LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: The internet - it's not for everything. I was gonna say, this appears to make the case for "anti-net neutrality."
And why shouldn't it? Price discrimination is a part of everyday life from airplane tickets to grocery coupons. Why should the government force FedEx to provide (and me to buy) only next day air delivery at a premium cost? It's good they have that option available, but I'm happy with 2 week ground shipping. Why can't pipe providers be allowed to price according to the individual customers' demands?
I think people get so passionate about "net neutrality" because they rightly see that if the content providers get charged a premium they will pass the cost onto us.
So it's either an egalitarian net where things work ok, or one where premium data, such as VoIP, gets treated VIP. What's the problem?
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. | |
|
| | | | Re: The internet - it's not for everything. The problem is that the pipe is finite so if someone is prioritized it will degrade your packets so you wind up with less quality service then now unless you pay more money a brilliant way to increase rates. If they want to build a second network out of their own packets that is fine, but I doubt they have such costly benevolent intentions in mind. I do think net-neutrality has been blown out of proportion and alot of fud is being passed around. This sort of threatens the freedom of the internet in that it will make it an elitist hangout because richer people will get prioritization moreso than we have now due to the bandwidth sale model of the internet now. Noone gets prioritized and we all pay the same rates. SLAs are a different can of worms so don't start. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | "So it's either an egalitarian net where things work ok, or one where premium data, such as VoIP, gets treated VIP. What's the problem?"
I am not sure what you mean exactly, but, the internet is not for everything, in my opinion. Why should someone's desire to use VOIP and save about $10 a month be more important than my use of the internet for what it was originally intended? With that, what makes my traffic any more or less important that someone's voip?
I just don't believe that the internet is intended for mission critical services to the end user at this time. I know mission critical exists, but that's to the ebays and amazon.com's of the world. They have to ensure THEIR side stays up and that's it. To the rest of us, I don't put ANYTHING worth while in the hands of the internet.
For telephone, there is good ol' ma bell, and then cable who has been a good contender in the game long before they came up with VOIP. I've been a classic digital phone subscriber for years now with NO problems what so ever.
So in the end, like I was saying, why should someone's phone call be any more important than my sending email or downloading, or hell, what ever I am doing in general over the internet. And again, it's DISCOUNTED fake phone that the rest of us have to compete with. I don't believe in rewarding one person looking to save a buck over the rest of us paying out the real money , the money that actually allows the internet to move forward. | |
|
| | | | | Re: The internet - it's not for everything. A QWorst Troll!! | |
|
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: The internet - it's not for everything. Um, care to explain? | |
|
| | | I have ATT CV and it is very reliable. My internet from Charter is always on. 4-6 Outages in 3.5yrs is very good. Two of the outages were related to Damaged equipment by crashed cars. | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Sounds like the VOIP results make a case for 2-Tier internet
the decline in VoIP quality is due to VoIP services being forced to share bandwidth with other greedy applications such as video & music downloads and interactive gaming. Looks like there is a need for some QOS rules and maybe the building of a 2 tier internet. One for the regular bulk download internet and another one for real time applications like VOIP and Gaming.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
|  reub2000Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Re: Sounds like the VOIP results make a case for 2-Tier internet said by Linklist:the decline in VoIP quality is due to VoIP services being forced to share bandwidth with other greedy applications such as video & music downloads and interactive gaming. Looks like there is a need for some QOS rules and maybe the building of a 2 tier internet. One for the regular bulk download internet and another one for real time applications like VOIP and Gaming. How do you suppose that the routers on the internet should differentiate between VoIP and bulk data?
--
My pbase gallery | |
|
| | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Sounds like the VOIP results make a case for 2-Tier internet said by reub2000:How do you suppose that the routers on the internet should differentiate between VoIP and bulk data? You modify the VOIP msg standards and put a flag on it so that QOS can be applied.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
| | |  Jim GurdPremium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI | Re: Sounds like the VOIP results make a case for 2-Tier internet said by Linklist:You modify the VOIP msg standards and put a flag on it so that QOS can be applied. I'm sure that could be hacked quite easily. | |
|
| | | reub2000Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | said by Linklist:said by reub2000:How do you suppose that the routers on the internet should differentiate between VoIP and bulk data? You modify the VOIP msg standards and put a flag on it so that QOS can be applied. So what's to keep a spammer from applying this flag to their messages?
--
My pbase gallery | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Sounds like the VOIP results make a case for 2-Tier internet Can we cut the conspiracy what if nonsense. There will always be issues to address and whether it is hacked easily is a moot point. Cable modems used to be hacked easily they are still around. TK you are correct, but I don't think it should be prioritized because then you discriminate which packets are more important. Everyone should just have a dedicated piece of the pipe however small where there packets are absolute in terms of prioritization and when you sign up for a service you indicate which packets you want prioritized. This would preserve the current model of the internet, while allowing some people to prioritize their packets. In other words 100 people sharing 100 mbits would each have 1 mbit dedicated even though they each get 20 mbit connections. This way everyone is happy. They could charge for this prioritization service much like they charge for premium phone line features. Sure there is room for telco corruption, but I think that unethical business practices would be flushed out. What I am saying is though that everyone should have some dedicated minimum amount of the pipe at which point you could pay for the telco to prioritize certain packets that way you wouldn't have to do it yourself. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Sounds like the VOIP results make a case for 2-Tier internet said by grandpinaple :
...whether it is hacked easily is a moot point. Cable modems used to be hacked easily they are still around. No, it's not. Try making a comparison between similar "items" in the future.
said by grandpinaple :
Everyone should just have a dedicated piece of the pipe however small where there packets are absolute in terms of prioritization and when you sign up for a service you indicate which packets you want prioritized. This would preserve the current model of the internet, while allowing some people to prioritize their packets. It's called Internet service plus a QoS capable router (at the demarc). No need to make any changes or involve the spin doctors.
said by grandpinaple :
What I am saying is though that everyone should have some dedicated minimum amount of the pipe... It's called my "connection speed," and thanks, but I'm already paying for exactly that. Do you receive less? Get a nice little story from your ISP? It's bullshit. They billed you for the use of a network and now they want you to finance the upgrades because they've oversold capacity and didn't bother to keep any of the revenue (think dividends, regardless of what TK says). | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Sounds like the VOIP results make a case for 2-Tier internet How about instead of just making claims you actually warrant them. My analogy was fine. Your router can only prioritize packets as they leave your network not what happens when they leave the telcos network that is what I am talking about. Your connection speed isn't guarenteed. It is for all intents and purposes a burstable pipe, thus there needs to be a guarenteed minimum. It isn't about upgrades because it is wasteful, stupid, and expensive to the consumer to have them maintain 100% capacity all the time when only half gets used. When the pipe gets big enough I no longer require any sort of dedicated connection because with that in mind the bare minimum increases. If I can get a 100Mbps burst when I need to download a large file I am fine with that. For my against the TOS home server a guarenteed minimum of 5 Mbps will due. I am referencing next generation networks here not the present pipes because net neutrality doesn't involve them as things currently stand. I do believe that when BS and Whiteacre first made their comments they had much more greedy intentions in mind. After seeing all the backlash they lowered it to an idea most users would actually want. Don't intepret these companies retarded comments as what their actual agendas are. Unlike most people I see here businessmen have tact and need to excersise that tact to keep the company running. That says absolutely nothing about their actions. A year ago AT&T was claiming 6 Mbps is enough, now they are already considering ways to get past that with engineers question the present state of lightspeed. Think about it, do you on a daily basis go out and say everything sucks and we are gonna get fucked by someone, clearly no. When you buy something crappy at a bargain basement price you rejoice at the deal you got as well. Well I don't expect CEOs to make doomsday forecasts about their companies nor do I expect them to bash the products they sell. Yes Verizon's plan of instant gratification is nicer, but it is also probably going to be much much slower. AT&T is also being more innovative and challenging the present legal structure surrounding cable TV. | |
|
| | | Looks like your wet dream (a marketing whore in geek clothing) has finally found the light of day. This doesn't look like anything but what it is - a shoddy ILEC making excuses. | |
|
| cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | How exactly would we go about saying that someone's gaming for entertainment is more important then someone else's streaming videoconference for a business. As soon as you start saying some application is more important then another, you open up a big can of worms.
--
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? | |
|
| | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Sounds like the VOIP results make a case for 2-Tier internet said by cdru:How exactly would we go about saying that someone's gaming for entertainment is more important then someone else's streaming videoconference for a business. As soon as you start saying some application is more important then another, you open up a big can of worms. It is not a question of importance, but one of real time requirements vs applications not needing real time throughput. One NEEDS higher priority to work; the other does not.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
zipjay
join:2003-03-11
South Williamson, KY | testyourvoip.com i never figured out how exactly testyourvoip.com tests anything.. i just tested it a second ago and i dont even have voip and it gave me a rateing.. what does it do just test your net connection latency to a voip server? | |
|
| ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
1 edit | Re: testyourvoip.com It just simulates a call. Did you read anything on their website?
So, how does it work?
Glad you asked. TestYourVoIP.com is supported by a VoIP performance management system from Brix Networks. The Brix System consists of distributed test points called Verifiers that communicate with, and are managed by, a centralized server application called BrixWorx.
We installed appliance-based Verifiers, that emulate very-busy, multi-line phones, in the network in locations such as Boston and London. The Java applet on your PC makes a call using the SIP call-signaling protocol to one of these Verifiers. The Verifier answers the call and then measures the quality of the "conversation." BrixWorx assembles all of the test results and provides you with the nifty graphs and tables you see when your test is completed.
Using the unique Brix Tri-Q Analysis, TestYourVoIP.com measures each of the three important quality axes:
Signaling Quality: Call setup performance
Delivery Quality: Call stream performance
Call Quality: Overall voice quality and call experience | |
|
|  Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
kudos:2 | yep bingo! All the "test" does is pretty much sends the voip packets watching for delay and packet loss.
As a gamer, connection quality has always been important to me. Just because web browsing works on a connection doesn't mean it has good latency or stability. VOIP, like games, require a quality connection. | |
|
| | | Re: testyourvoip.com What was your score I got a 4.4 out of 5 on Att 6meg dsl | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Non-Story Wow... I wonder what Hans Brix Networks would find if it benchmarked average website load times. OMG! They might find that sometimes they might load more slowly than other times! QUICK!! SEND IN FEMA!!!!!
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
|
| | | Re: Yeah, right! What digital phone service | |
|
| |  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Re: Yeah, right! Comcast Digital Phone - formerly AT&T Digital.
*NOT* Comcast Digital Voice!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | |  GlenQuagmireGiggidy Giggidy Giggidy GooPremium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI | Re: Yeah, right! Whats the difference. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
2 edits | Re: Yeah, right! Well, comcast digital phone is much more like a landline. Cox seems to have the same type. Its more expensive for the customer because its regulated and theres more fee's for the customer to pay. I believe its powered from the outside so power outages is not a problem. At least for a short while. Comcast digital voice is VoIP and is free from any telephone regulations.
Cox cable also has phone service similiar comcast digital phone. Time warner and cablevision only have VoIP and is unregulated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Question to Comcast PHONE and Cox people..
I dont understand how Comcast digital phone and cox works. Is it a battery backup at the premise? From outside the house? Can you order this type phone service without an internet connection in the home? Where does your dialtone originate from? The outside or your router.
I would GUESS that with "Digital Phone" its coming in from the outside... NOT coming out of your cable modem. Digital VOICE comes through the modem/router, therefor considered VoIP and unregulated.
Yes? No? maybe? | |
|
|  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | 
TestYourVoIP.com Results | 
I do have that many Vonage lines on one connection |
If someone is having a call quality issue, it's either their ISP or their on Internal network that needs good traffic shaping. Not to say problems won't exist with the VoIP providers too, but all the fuse about crappy calls I can trace to other factors than the VoIP provider. | |
|
KiwiPremium
join:2003-05-26
USA/MidWest
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| Lol David, you are a scream, who would think of running 'Something' for "Something' that does not exist for them 
Never used the 'Tester' though, but have run VoIP for around two years without a problem. I'll call ya, it's free (Well, almost)!  POTS would charge twice the price for the same service, easily. Don't need a tester when it works.
No problems, but it's the IP provider that counts ~As always. Others don't QoS their hardware and others don't disable software QoS.
But this is interesting, though I'm sure we will get down to the "Minor" age group, who flake everything they don't understand, nor pay (Dad or Mum does)...Just look for the spelling. It seems that cable has some issues with inequitable Up & Down streams, aside QoS? Is this the neighbourhood thing kicking in on massive Video and Music downloads or is it truly an issue with balanced bandwidth?
. | |
|
| dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | Re: Lol Their test used all of 10KB/sec both ways(duplex) and it was rock steady.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Re: Lol said by dadkins:Their test used all of 10KB/sec both ways(duplex) and it was rock steady. Yeah, I watched the bandwidth meter on mine, was a solid 100 k both ways, perfect line across the graph. Why mine got such a terrible score, I'll just blame on their site. | |
|
 corsterPremium
join:2002-02-23
Gatineau, QC | Telus = ILEC no wonder they say VoIP quality is poor...
Telus is the ILEC in western canada. | |
|
 gigahurtzPremium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL
·Bright House
| VoIP quality isnt' there just yet... Voice Over IP does not (and probably) will not compare to POTS line quality on a consistant basis. I have used Packet8 and VoicePulse and though VP is one of the top rated VoIP providers I still wasn't impressed. Call quality was choppy at best with some calls being crystal clear. I constantly dealt with delays. I forwarded ports, set my adapter in the DMZ, etc and still had no luck.
Yes, it is most likely my ISPs fault however I NEED my ISP to have this service. It will never fully compete with a POTS line because it relys on another source to provide it's service.
I currently have Digital Phone through Brighthouse Networks and it's been good. It still doesn't compare to POTS but is definately worth it. I feel more secure using it and don't have anyone complaning of echo, delay, breaking up, etc. | |
|
 batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Net nutrallity baby. Your VOIP is getting caught in the Tubes behind all of the other Internets. | |
|
| |
| | Ahhhh the old "technical report/study to sell product" ploy Let me guess they are also for not having net neutrality...and they have a product to sell to companies to "make things better." | |
|
|
|
