 |
 |
  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Curious About Video I wonder how the TELCO's fare when comparing video. In this case, the incumbent video providers have all the taxes and fees while the TELCO's have new infrastructure and lack those annoying little "add-ons". Personally I think the best you can do right now is get your voice from the cable company, your video from the telephone company and flip for Internet access. -- I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
 |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: Curious About Video Ironically, cable operators are ranking higher than phone companies in providing phone service, while phone companies are currently ranking higher than cable companies in providing TV service.
Some of it's because new entrants have to be competitive, and because people have deeply held beliefs about phone and cable operators. Should be interesting to see these rankings in five years... | |
|
 |  |   Bobcat Premium join:2001-02-04 Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Curious About Video said by Karl Bode :people have deeply held beliefs about phone and cable operators. I'd rather get cable TV service from the phone company than phone service from the cable company. -- It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice. | |
|
 |  |  |   N3OGH Bear patrol must be working like a charm Premium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Curious About Video While I agree with this statement, it really is a "you got chocolate in my peanut butter, NO you got peanut butter in my chocolate" thing for most people.
Since Telcos that provide TV are forced to pay franchise fees (taxes, really) cable operators should have to charge all the traditional land line charges that go with providing phone service.
Personally, I don't consider phone offerings by Comcast, Time Warner, or Cox as VOIP. They are in a TECHNICAL aspect, but from an end user's viewpoint there is little difference. The playing field should be equal in that respect. -- Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power
| |
|
 |  |  |  |  Heated Man
join:2009-06-18 Cleveland, OH | Re: Curious About Video Cable phone service does charge all the same FCC and FUSF charges the phone companies do. And Cable is not VOIP that is Vonage crap! | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |   Bobcat Premium join:2001-02-04 Bedminster, NJ | Re: Curious About Video Cablevision sucks donkey balls. | |
|
 |
 |   Z80 1 point 77 Premium join:2009-08-31 Amerika 1 edit | Re: Cox has worked great for me.... Ditto, I have their VoCable service and it works great and is cheaper than AT&T (former Pacbell). | |
|
 clecssuck
join:2002-01-23 Birmingham, AL
| I'm just saying... I think there's a chance that most cable phone users have recently switched atleast within the last year or two and I'm sure a case can be made that someone that just signed up for a new service or just made a new purchase is the happiest they'll ever be with that decision at that time. As time goes on your happiness and enthusiasm does wear down a bit. . -- We'll never forget Dale Earnhardt #3 | |
|
 |   SDKiwi VIP join:2002-05-27 El Cajon, CA
| Re: I'm just saying... said by clecssuck :I think there's a chance that most cable phone users have recently switched at least within the last year or two .....and I'm sure a case can be made that someone that just signed up for a new service or just made a new purchase is the happiest they'll ever be with that decision at that time. As time goes on your happiness and enthusiasm does wear down a bit. . I would say the 1 or 2 year comment is much more applicable to Telcos offering TV service. Cox for example has been offering phone service in many systems since 1997. | |
|
  CO_Chris Premium join:2001-08-28 Broomfield, CO | CCDV rocks I have to say my CCDV has been awesome for the last 2 years i even have been locked in to a triple play plan at 33 bucks for a year and it's been at that for 2 years going on 3. Thanks Comcast. | |
|
  swintec Premium join:2003-12-19 Alfred, ME | What???? What?! No Fairpoint???....Oh wait...... | |
|
 rradina
join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO
| Perceived "quality" is a delicate brew Everyone has a mobile phone and we are accustomed to dropped calls, calls that don't go through and foggy sound quality. If cable phone service has more features, cost less, and works "good enough", it doesn't matter if technically, it isn't as reliable as POTS.
An $80 Monster HDMI cable is technically superior to a no-name $8 cable but do you get an experience that's $72 better? In the case of HDMI, absolutely not. There's no difference. It either works or it doesn't. In the case of POTS, I don't think most of us will perceive a difference unless the electric service is out. This means cost and features let cable phone service win. | |
|
 |  sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH | Re: Perceived "quality" is a delicate brew Uh...it's not "technically superior". Seriously. There is no difference. Their claims about the materials they use or construction quality are hogwash. | |
|
 axiomatic
join:2006-08-23 Tomball, TX
| Telcos Wow AT&T. You telco guys suck at pretty much everything. You suck at 3g wireless, you suck at U-verse TV, your DSL is a joke, and now you suck at POTS. Thats a big load of suck you've got going for yourself there.
I hope upper management is enjoying those fat bonuses. | |
|
 Sammer
join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | Telemarketers, etc. are the curse of POTS! People don't want to be listed in the phone book anymore and they don't want to pay extra to not be listed or for caller ID. | |
|
 amungus Premium join:2004-11-26 America clubs:
| satisfaction, perhaps. reliability...? Unless I had a MONSTROUS battery/generator setup, I would rather go with a POTS landline than Cable or FiOS for a landline phone...
Currently only have a cell, but if bad weather strikes, or whatever chaos, a landline is MUCH more reliable to have.
I guess that "satisfaction" on a survey is not factoring in emergency reliability.
If I end up getting landline service at some point, it'd probably be basic service, no long distance. At this point, LD should be nearly free on landlines.
As much as I do like Cox for internet speed, and the cable TV service in general, I am not at all interested in phone service through them, even if it is good quality, usually reliable, etc. Call it a "deeply held belief" but I would rather have a working phone in a pinch (span of DAYS without power, which happened here a year ago or so...) instead of being at the mercy of a little battery, a modem/gateway, and THEN a phone...
Cox has tried for years to sign me up with their phone service; spam mail, spam email, spam phone calls, reps that insist that I must get it, just about every commercial break with an ad for it... I just don't want it (unless it were completely free, indefinitely... ).
Until I can be assured that Cable/FiOS phone service would work for a WEEK+ ...without electricity from the grid, I'm just not sold. My parents had no power for a week after a massive ice storm hit last year... The landline worked throughout the entire week, no problem... Can't be satisfied with something if it flat out isn't working 
All my rambling aside, congrats to Cox for the wins  | |
|
 |
  Murdoc
join:2009-02-08 Manitowoc, WI | what about charter? Were they so bad they just didn't include them?  | |
|
  en102 Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | TWC voice is as good as AT&T POTS... only cheaper To be fair, AT&T Uverse voice is as cheap as TWC voice, you just have to jump through hoops to get it.
AT&T: POTS ($40 + $5Canada + fees = $58/month) - even if I have wireless / DSL. TWC: Bundled = $33/month ($99/month tv/voice/ 10Mbps internet). ~45/month standalone
Uverse Voice = $~30/month, but only available IF you purchase Uverse Tv (+45/month for 1 set), and can be bundled to $90 for TV/ 3Mbps/1Mbps Internet/Voice.
I don't care if their 'technology is better', I care if it works and doesn't cost a fortune.
On the list, TWC beats Cable on cost and service, worse on reliability (yeah, I've had outages).. I think its accurate for me. -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
  jchambers28
join:2007-05-12 Alma, AR | phone service I have dropped my lad line a long time ago I am all cellular. | |
|
 nocannothave
join:2006-10-14 Kennewick, WA | Cable phone not a landline? Why is cable phone service not considered a landline? Specifically, my company asked for work from home employees, but a landline was required, and Charter phone did not qualify. | |
|
 John104
join:2002-01-07 Pasadena, TX
| Landline or cable phone? Everyone's experience is different. My landline (AT&T) has never been down in the twenty plus years that I have lived here. Not even during a hurricane or when we lost electricity for 10 days. Never had a billing issue and never called tech support. Can't say the same for our cell phones (AT&T). Comcast keeps calling offering cable phone for $14.95 per month for the first year and $44.95 thereafter. Our landline is $27 per month. Our cable service is plagued with frequent outages. Comcast salespeople don't understand why I won't switch. I don't understand why I would. Maybe someone can enlighten me. Is there something I am missing? | |
|
 |  John104
join:2002-01-07 Pasadena, TX | Re: Landline or cable phone? Sorry about the formatting in my previous post. I did something wrong to cause that but I don't know what. It didn't look like that when I previewed it. Again, sorry. | |
|
 |
|
 |