 
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
| Re: Comcast VoIP needs a little work 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 | |
| | | 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | Re: Comcast VoIP needs a little work 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:
| Re: Comcast VoIP needs a little work 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
| 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. | |
| | 
Phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Jacksonville, FL
| 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. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| 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. | |
| 
N3OGH
They both suck, we're so screwed
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Just another excuse Just another excuse for me to keep my POTS line. I've never had my POTS go out for a full week.
I'd be madder than hell if my CATV and internet was out for a week, but if the phone was out for a week? No way....
VoIP is great to save some money on long distance calls and the like, but I will never get VoIP again without a POTS backup. It's worth the $14/mo (about 16 with the "taxes") to know I can make/receive that call if I really have to.
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
| | 
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| Re: Just another excuse I might be wrong if I say the word "ALL", but MOST (if not all) VOIP providers recommend a backup landline. I know Vonage does. That disclaimer should tell you that the reliability of VOIP is significantly less than POTS. At least for the time being.
Of course, nobody reads those disclaimers, just like people do not read their TOS agreements and then they complain when downtime occurs when they were warned about that possibility from the beginning. The bottom line is, is that if you need a 24/7/365 absolute reliable phone connection, you can't use VOIP only at this time. At least not everywhere.
Ironically enough, it is because of the surge of cell phones, fiber, and VOIP that traditional landlines, which are the MOST reliable at this time, are being neglected so that providers can focus on the more-money-making LESS reliable technology. | |
| | | HyPeRbAnD
join:2006-01-07
Stow, MA | Re: Just another excuse I think by default cable companies like Comcast need to provide a quality line. They do not need to be regulated, with competition out there they MUST provide a superior line at a good price or the customer will leave.
That's my take on it. | |
| | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·1and1
| Most if not ALL Digital Phone/Voice and VoIP tell you their service does not work during a power outage BEFORE you sign up. At least TWC does this in Ohio which they were required to tell you.
So its not the TOS the person has to agree to this before the order is actually placed and processed. At one time TWC was sending out stickers to be placed on each Digital Phone Modem and on the phones that way if their was an outage someone would know that phone didn't have 911 it was in big red print.
But i see no reason why to regulate TWC or Comcast's Digital Phone/Voice product. It works great here in Ohio (TWC- Mid/Northwest Ohio). Far better quality than AT&T will ever be able to provide on their decade plus old copper.
But I was even without phone a few years ago with AT&T at that time it was SBC- a contractor failed to call the Call Before Dig number and hit a fiber optic cable near my apartment building. my entire complex was out for 2 days. Until SBC had a fiber guy out here to patch it back together. But what did they tell us? Use a cell phone. So either way POTS is only as good as the Telco that operates it and repairs it. | |
| | | |
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | Re: Just another excuse The Telco didn't knock you out. The idiot contractor did.  | |
| | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·Time Warner VOIP
·1and1
| Re: Just another excuse I know the contractor did but still the telephone company still waited 2 days before they decided to fix the line.
Being regulated by the state PUC doesn't make your service better or worse. The Telco still responds when they get around to it. | |
| | | | | | 
digdugguy
@148.183.x.x | Re: Just another excuse Man they don't decide to fix issues they need time to dispatch people to it to fix it. It's not like any one can weld fiber. | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by rachelsfx :The Telco didn't knock you out. The idiot contractor did. It doesn't matter HOW it went out.. it's that it DID go out. It just goes to show that ANY service can and HAS gone out.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
·Vonage
| said by N3OGH :...VoIP is great to save some money on long distance calls and the like, but I will never get VoIP again without a POTS backup... ... or cell phone. We've had Vonage since 2003, dumped the POTS line and use Vonage's feature to dual ring the cell. If HSI access is down, the cell still rings and provides the backup.
Regarding the article, I support MO's right to regulate VOIP if they also win the right to regulate ILEC IPTV. Otherwise it'll be more of what we have now; POTS is regualted, VOIP is not. Cable TV is regulated, ILEC IPTV (if and when it happens) -- probably not. | |
| ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT | pot and kettle As usual, the cable co's dont want their services regulated, but insist that the telco's hurdle every single TV regulatory obstacle in their way.
Its a hillarious battle. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: pot and kettle said by ITALIAN926 :As usual, the cable co's dont want their services regulated, but insist that the telco's hurdle every single TV regulatory obstacle in their way. Its a hillarious battle. yea.. it IS hillarious.. just like Telephone that wants to avoid every hurdle along the way and not be regulated as well.
Cable is used to and accepting of franchise authorites. They don't believe that VOIP and Cable Modems should be regualted... neither do I.
Telephone is used to having POTS regulated, but insists that their TV shouldn't. (AT&T anyone?) So, it appears that it's equal on both sides then...
You shuldn't leave telephone out. They, at least at&t, is playing EXTREAMLY dirty pool... last time I looked, I didn't see cable threatening entire states with lack of performance unless they got their way.. at&t anyone? at&t vs IL?
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| 
David
Last man standing
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
edit:
October 13th, @03:19PM
| I can kind of see why missouri did this After the great STL power outage, and how phone service was regarded by some cable outfits around here, this move does not suprise me at all. Anyone else in the STL area would probably come to the same conclusion.
edit: misspelling | |
| | SD6
join:2005-03-26 | Re: I can see why missouri did this "The PSC staff's complaint asks the five-member commission to direct its general counsel to press for a $2,000-a-day fine for Comcast in circuit court."
I would feel differently if there were some consumer or user groups asking for this. | |
| | 
kruser
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Chesterfield, MO
clubs:
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: I can kind of see why missouri did this said by David :After the great STL power outage, and how phone service was regarded by some cable outfits around here, this move does not suprise me at all. Anyone else in the STL area would probably come to the same conclusion. edit: misspelling You know, that storm pretty much knocked out everything I had for several days.
I did have POTS service the entire time and I think I also had DSL the whole time as well.
I only say that because my backup units kept one of my dsl lines up for over a day.
I was able to use a laptop and wireless connection and get online.
After two days of no power, the heat became unbearable so I decide to vacate to a hotel out west.
It was then that I also discovered that my cell phone did not work!
I ended up driving down to south st.louis and sure enough, the cell service was out in most areas as well.
So, so much for the argument of having VoIP and a Cell instead of POTS. It would not have worked. VoIP maybe had I had another battery to run the UPS.
Once I hit the country west of here, cell service did work fine.
Of course my POTS service never ever failed but I did due to the heat. | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Personally, I think the way to go these days is to use voip with someone like vonage, who is generally quite a bit cheaper than the cable co's, but then also have a cell phone as well.
Vonage has been very reliable for many people lately it appears judging by their high ranking here at BBR among hundreds of users, and using them can save some nice money over a pots/long distance package and even over the cable co's triple play deals.
Then, that extra savings can be used for a cell phone, whether prepaid or via contract.
I think that combination gives a good blend of service/price and security.
For the times that voip does go out, you'd have a cell phone as backup.
And, my experience is voip does work better than cell phones generally, particularly with cells having dropped calls as often as they seem to sometimes, for me anyway.
You could go with a pots/cell combination, but then you're giving up the savings offered by voip.
While I tried the cell phone thing alone, it just isn't reliable enough for me.
I really don't see the need to pay extra for a cable co's voip. Some are downright expensive unless you get a triple play deal..and you might as well just stay with pots at that point.
Vonage is the way to go for voip IMHO...
along with the cell phone for traveling and mobility..and backup security for the voip.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery | |
| | brad152
join:2006-07-27
Columbus, OH
| Re: Personally, I think the way to go these days i have had vonage for almost a year, i dumped AT&T a long time ago.. i think the vonage was out once, and that was around 2am when the cable co was doing an upgrade on the fiber in my neighborhood (im glad i have dish)
my vonage is set to forward to my cell if the internet is out, but i have never had it forward.. btw, to the person who said cell phones drop a lot of calls, you must not have the right provider for your area, as when i had cingular here i would drop 2 or more calls in a day, but since i switched to verizon, i have only dropped one, and that was when i was on vacation in FL.. and i use my phone 2-4 hours a day.. | |
| sbcretired
join:2006-01-07
Scottville, MI | voip If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck it must be a duck and have a duck season (regulation, just like the telco's and all voip providers). | |
| | | |
|
|
Missouri & Comcast VoIP Fight