 |  | lengyelc
join:2005-12-11
Alpharetta, GA
 ·AT&T CallVantage
 ·AT&T U-Verse
edit:
July 26th, @03:34PM
| Re: Not surprising Agree 100%, and so will just about everyone reading this thread. People don't have the time to mess with home wiring, QoS routers and/or firmware flashing, and all those other hardware/software tricks that are required to get a nice stable voip connection through a third party provider.
Comcast certainly preys on customer stupidity. Have you seen their commercials? Those alone were enough to make me puke and change providers! | |
| | | ftth_freak
join:2005-06-17
Ballwin, MO
| Re: YOUR WRONG Obviously you are technically lacking in VoIP knowledge. Cable Co's like Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, Cox and others use an entirely separate CMTS and separate return and forward signal than their cable modem system. This insures the QoS for the cable co's VoIP/phone service. For all of you P2P defenders, this mean when you are sucking up all of the upload and downoad capacity in your neighborhood with your cable modem, the VoIP/phone CMTS will not be affected. When using a third party VoIP like Vonage, Vonage piggy backs off of the same bandwidth as your cable modem and thus will be affected by the users bandwidth habits.
For instance, a user who pays for the lowest level of modem speed and uses Vonage will hear a degraded quality of voice and could also experiance dropped call if the down/up load a large file at the same time.
FYI...all things are not created equal in reality...only in your mind. | |
| | | | 
fatmanskinny
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Atlanta, GA | Re: YOUR WRONG That was a great post. Thanks for educating me. I sure as hell didn't know that!
--
The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary. | |
| | | | 
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
edit:
July 26th, @06:03PM
| said by ftth_freak  : Cable Co's like Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, Cox and others use an entirely separate CMTS and separate return and forward signal than their cable modem system. Cable co's COULD do that, but the most don't.
Most setup separate service flows over the same upstream/downstream channels the cable modems use. Phone services are given higher priority and guaranteed bandwidth so general internet use doesn't impact phone service.
If the cable companies were using separate CMTSs or even just separate upstream/downstream channels they couldn't provision eMTAs to allow for both internet access and phone service from the same unit as current DOCSIS 1 and 2 modems can't tune to more than 1 upstream and 1 downstream channel at a time.
Companies that REQUIRE seperate phone and internet modems may be using separate channels or CMTSs but that's pretty rare.
The nice thing about cable co's VOIP implementations is that they DON'T route voice traffic over the internet like 3rd party VOIP providers HAVE to. Cable can keep the traffic on their own private network (on it's own VLAN) until they hand it off to PSTN providers if needed for an off-net call. Some cable providers also have agreements and links with others so they can directly hand off traffic to each other without 3rd party network involvement. If both ends of the call are on cable VOIP, the call traffic may not even leave the cable providers' networks.
--
Don't mind me, I'm just trying to help...
| |
| | | | | | | | 
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA | Not only it has dedicated bandwidth it's also a lot more secure.
Cable co in my area charges $29.99/mo if you bundle all three services so it's worth $5 extra just to have these benefits. | |
| | | | | DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| Re: YOUR WRONG said by Anonymous :Cable co in my area charges $29.99/mo if you bundle all three services so it's worth $5 extra just to have these benefits. But what about next year when the promotion ends and they jack up the rates? | |
| | | | | |
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA | Re: YOUR WRONG I've had it for almost 3 years now. Also this is regular pricing. | |
| | | | | | | DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| Re: YOUR WRONG said by Anonymous :I've had it for almost 3 years now. Also this is regular pricing. Please identify the cable company to which you are referring, preferably with a website that posts the rates so we can all see them. | |
| | | | | | | |
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
edit:
July 27th, @03:06PM
| Re: YOUR WRONG said by DonLibes :said by Anonymous :I've had it for almost 3 years now. Also this is regular pricing. Please identify the cable company to which you are referring, preferably with a website that posts the rates so we can all see them. Try here:
»www.mediacomcable.com/phone.html | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| Re: YOUR WRONG said by funchords :said by MattE :Additionally, the MSOs VoIP product never touches the internet. Except on Comcast, where it does -- albeit it never leaves Comcast's network but where it does ride on Comcast's network, that network is part of the Internet. Comcast controls the QoS on "their" network. Who cares if their network is attached to the internet or not, it never leaves their backbone so no, it never traverses the internet. | |
| | | | | | | 
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
 ·Comcast
| Re: YOUR WRONG said by MattE :Comcast controls the QoS on "their" network. Who cares if their network is attached to the internet or not, it never leaves their backbone so no, it never traverses the internet. I didn't mince the words in that way, I said that the VOIP upstream of Comcast Digital Voice does ride on the Internet. It's not like Time Warner, which uses a dedicated chanell, Comcast uses the same uplink as HSI.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | :boggle: | |
| | | | 
bsr64000
@rcn.com
| no youre wrong!
cable co's use the SAME frequency and cmts as cable modem. but the voice packets are prioritized over data packets.
said by ftth_freak :Obviously you are technically lacking in VoIP knowledge. Cable Co's like Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, Cox and others use an entirely separate CMTS and separate return and forward signal than their cable modem system. This insures the QoS for the cable co's VoIP/phone service. For all of you P2P defenders, this mean when you are sucking up all of the upload and downoad capacity in your neighborhood with your cable modem, the VoIP/phone CMTS will not be affected. When using a third party VoIP like Vonage, Vonage piggy backs off of the same bandwidth as your cable modem and thus will be affected by the users bandwidth habits. For instance, a user who pays for the lowest level of modem speed and uses Vonage will hear a degraded quality of voice and could also experiance dropped call if the down/up load a large file at the same time. FYI...all things are not created equal in reality...only in your mind. | |
| | | | Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by ftth_freak : Cable Co's like Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, Cox and others use an entirely separate CMTS and separate return and forward signal than their cable modem system. This insures the QoS for the cable co's VoIP/phone service. For all of you P2P defenders, this mean when you are sucking up all of the upload and downoad capacity in your neighborhood with your cable modem, the VoIP/phone CMTS will not be affected. MSOs do not signal the VoIP traffic separately. They use the same QAM modulation, merely different channel. That means when the local node becomes saturated with more voice traffic than allocated on that fiber strand, you will get similar conditions to routing VoIP over public Internet.
Also, MSOs don't always necessarily hand off directly to PSTN. They may use someone like Level3 who then turns around and hands it off.
This has always been the major difference between cable VoIP and third-party carrier VoIP. Personally, choppy calls via CLEC VoIP are often rare and far between that it hardly matters and justifies the $15 price mark-up. | |
| | | | | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA
| Re: YOUR WRONG Network Guy,
Are you saying that a $15 price mark-up is justified because choppy calls via CLEC VoIP are rare and far between? If so, I guess that depends how choppy the alternatives are. The difference in voice quality between my previous ILEC landlines and my Magicjack and Future Nine VOIP lines is almost nil. Clearly not worth spending $15 more for a slight possible improvement. | |
| | | | | | Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York | Re: YOUR WRONG You read that wrong.
I prefer the cheaper CLEC alternative both because in my experience the difference is negligible and because of price.
And I just personally prefer not to give the evil local MSO one more penny for anything. | |
| | | | | | | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA | Re: YOUR WRONG Network Guy,
I wondered if I was reading it wrong.  | |
| | | | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
edit:
July 26th, @07:26PM
| Re: Not surprising said by lengyelc :Comcast certainly preys on customer stupidity. Have you seen their commercials? Those alone were enough to make me puke and change providers! Then do the forum a favor and do that.
Comcast 'preys'... that's stretching it. Considering that Americans have been accustomed to paying $70+ phone bills for years, $50 isn't that bad.
It's clear you are either are too young to have ever experienced real hardship and real phone service, or you(and the others - to be fair) don't find that utilities and other necessities are priorities and would rather have your money to spend on music, over priced clothing, high end TV's and, here's one... OVER PRICED CELLULAR SERVICE. ANYONE here with a cell phone should rethink about bitching at even a $50 unlimited wire-line phone service when cellular service is THE most expensive way to place a call. (Not to mention, about 95% of the people in this site have no real reason to say they "need" a cellular phone.
I think I'd certainly call cell and satellite tv companies that lock customers into inescapable contracts (High EFTs) and no recourse to pour service 'preying' on customers... simply marketing a $50 phone service is not preying. And, simply because Vonage and the likes offer a $25 phone service doesn't devalue the cable offering.
And YES, in this message, I am 100% defending cable/comcast on this point.. because you're simply wrong. | |
| | | |
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: Not surprising said by fiberguy :OVER PRICED CELLULAR SERVICE. ANYONE here with a cell phone should rethink about bitching at even a $50 unlimited wire-line phone service when cellular service is THE most expensive way to place a call. (Not to mention, about 95% of the people in this site have no real reason to say they "need" a cellular phone. While I agree with overpriced, I think the rest of your rant is completely unfounded. To me it's worth twice as much to be able to take my phone with me. Even if I'm 8 miles into a long run in the middle of nowhere I can make a call or people can reach me with emergencies. I have TWO phones actually, a main one, and one I run with that I use only for emergencies. | |
| | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Not surprising My main issue, still , over any voip is that there is no accountability for them to have. When ever there are problems, and I'm sure many of us have had them (I'm a vonage sub too) they will always blame your ISP.
It's worth, to me, and many others, to have a company to nail to the wall.
Comcast was accused of failing on a 911 call. At least you can go after them with some luck. If Vonage failed, how are you going to go after them? Your ISP has no accountability for your voice service.
I don't think, in our life time, we will ever see an ISP be help liable for any 3rd party voip service.
Safety is just too important to me, and many others, among other things, to put their full faith in vonage or call vantage.
Does it work? SURE! Is it great? I love mine.. would I put my life in it? NO.. that's why I still have service with other providers.  | |
| | | | | | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA
| Re: Not surprising fiberguy,
For toys my Magicjacks work pretty well as phones! 
Why should I care who, if anyone, is overseeing MagicJack? Yes I have read the TOS. If I lease a car, I do not own it but that does not mean I do not have the exclusive right to use it. Why do I need rights to my Magicjack phone numbers? Is there a market for used phone numbers? Why do you think I need someone to protect me from Magicjack? If Magicjack does not perform to my satisfaction they loose me as a customer. This is all the protection I need or want, since I have already saved more than what they cost me. If MagicJack folded tomorrow I would care, but only because I would no longer be saving $50/mo.
I think you are referring to nitzan. If so, he is in Georgia. His company is Future Nine. While I disagreed with nitzan about how long Magicjack will be around, this should not be taken as an adverse personal reflection on him. In addition to my two Magicjacks, I have two Future Nine VOIP lines and can say that nitzan is very knowledgeable and provides excellent service. While a bargain, his service costs more than Magicjack's but provides things Magicjack's does not. Future Nine provided local phone numbers which are not yet available in my area from Magicjack and I can turn my computers off, since my ATA (Linsksy PAP2T) connecting me to Future Nine's servers plugs directly into my router.
We will just have to agree to disagree on whether Magicjack provides real phone service. To me it is real because I can do anything with them that I was doing with my AT&T land lines. If Vonage is not a real phone service under your definition, then I guess that the only thing that would qualify would be an ILEC land line and even those lines can go out in storms and fires.
Wanting to have a company to nail to the wall makes you sound litigious.
Not that safety is not important but you seem paranoid over potential but unlikely safety issues. I never suggested that having an alternative was not a good idea. While my phone service is dependent upon my internet connection, that will not prevent me from using my cell phone. I just do not see 911 service or the ability to yak on the phone whenever the mood strikes me as critical.
With respect to your comment about not having 911 service when the grid goes out, that is not likely to happen, because power to my lights, coffee pot, microwave, computers, modem and router is backed up by battery powered inverters. I do not see that AT&T's telephone lines hanging from poles are any safer from errant motorist than Comcast's cables. Accordingly, I do not think I have given up anything with regard to 911 service and/or safety by relying solely on VOIP. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| 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
| Re: Not surprising 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Not surprising 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. | |
| | | | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Look at the cell phone this way. I used to pay sprint 59.99 for a 1500 minute plan. BUT, add in the taxes and fees, and the real price was about $82.00 a month. I dumped that when I left, and when I came back I bought a t-mobile prepaid. 10 cents a minute. I am using about 300 minutes a month, and I pay, bingo. $30.00. Period. No taxes, no fees, no early termination fees. The way I see it, if you're not a heavy phone users (i.e. less than 20 minutes a day), then prepay is definitely the way to go. Charge up $100.00, and get a free $50.00 upgrade.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | |
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: Not surprising said by karlmarx :Look at the cell phone this way. I used to pay sprint 59.99 for a 1500 minute plan. BUT, add in the taxes and fees, and the real price was about $82.00 a month. I dumped that when I left, and when I came back I bought a t-mobile prepaid. 10 cents a minute. I am using about 300 minutes a month, and I pay, bingo. $30.00. Period. No taxes, no fees, no early termination fees. The way I see it, if you're not a heavy phone users (i.e. less than 20 minutes a day), then prepay is definitely the way to go. Charge up $100.00, and get a free $50.00 upgrade. Plus the $1 fee for the days you use your phone. Because they don't offer the .10 per minute plan without it. That's the pay as you go plan, which doesn't even have a 300 minute plan.
So if you use your 20 minutes a day, your bill is now $60. | |
| | | | | | lvrdad_45
join:2001-09-18
Fort Worth, TX
·magicjack.com
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Not surprising Suggest you check your facts....you do not have to pay $1 a day for access with T-mobile...that is ATT. I use a pre paid T mobile phone...purchase 1000 minutes for $100, last me for a year....if I can calculate right, that is 10 cents a minute, with no access charge per day. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA
| Re: what about 911 service having phone when the power goes out. Chris,
My Magicjacks and Future-Nine lines have 911 or E911 service and since my router, ATA and computers are backed up by a UPS, I have phone service if the electric utility's service goes out.
While I have Comcast HSI, their Digital Voice is not even in the ball park compared to what I pay for my Magicjacks and Future-Nine lines. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: what about 911 service having phone when the power goes out. You don't even have real phone service and you're trying to compare?? sad. | |
| | | | | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA | Re: what about 911 service having phone when the power goes out. fiberguy,
What do you mean I do not have real phone service? What is your definition of real phone service? | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: what about 911 service having phone when the power goes out. MagicJack, sorry to say, is a toy, not phone. Phone is something that is a utility and has a level of protection over seeing it. Have you read the MagicJack terms of service? You basically don't own a thing at all.. no guarantees either.. look close, you don't even have rights to the phone number. And, if anything happens, who is out to protect you?
At least with Telco, there are regulators, with cable, there are franchises and other bodies watching out for your service,with Vonage and other indie voips, even the ones that went under, there was a presence, warnings, and you were able to get out.
MagicJack could fold tomorrow and who's going to care?
As much as I was debating (I forget his screen name, he argues MJ all the time and has his own VOIP, TINY, voip service in CA) I agree with him.. the model is un-sustainable. MJ won't be around long.
What's ok about it simple.. enjoy it while you can. DO we know the model? No.. no one does. Will you save some money for a while? ABSOLUTELY! So it's a good thing to have.. but.. a real phone service? No... it's not.
Not only do you need the ISP.. you have to have a computer running 24/7 and hope IT too doesn't crash.
So come on... you can't pass off Magic Jack as real phone service. I have Comcast, Qwest, and even two vonage lines. I love Vonage.. it works great.. has for a few years... do I put full faith and trust in it? No.. has it been good for me? Sure. Have I worried about them? yes.. do I call doom and gloom on them? no.. Vonage is too big and strong right now. Is it real phone service? Not really... it's not backed by anything, has no transport of its own, is dependent on another service to operate - BUT AT LEAST it has a stand alone piece of hardware that operates it. MagicJack has WAY too many things in its way to go wrong, and we ALL know how stable and reliable windows is, right? (And people, yes, XP has been good, and I know there are people, such as much self, that have had good luck with windows, so spare me the "but my system is stable" BS.. Windows has issues and I'd never trust my home, or family's safety to it and MJ) | |
| | | 
dodgetech2
join:2002-01-01
Gouldsboro, PA
·Vonage
edit:
July 27th, @03:02PM
| Re: Not surprising said by Chris 313
I got Comcast Digital Voice now and it works like a charm, even when I don't have power. That's worth the money to me.
Thats because the Comcast modem has a built in battery backup.....only a fool would run a VOIP router without one....either built in or external. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Vonage also cant roll a truck for no Dialtone and your ISP has zero obligation for rapid repair service to your broadband just because its your Vonage. to the ISP Vonage is just another data source and your "HSI out" will be worked in when there is time.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | 
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
02101
| There's also the fact that Comcast's VoIP offering is technically superior to the 3rd-party vendors because they segregate and ensure the bandwidth for you.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
| | |
meh37
@verizon.net | Re: Not surprising Which would matter not at all if they weren't throttling your connection. | |
| | | | | | |
|
Independent VoIP Companies Fade as Cable Takes Over
