OptimumOnline → [Optimum Voice] Optimum Voice

It's not flawed, CV treats your Vonage packets the same way as any other data, except the Voice Data for their own subscribers. These are given a higher priority over even that subscriber's own normal data. You could bring/sneak food into the stadium/theatre etc, just don't expect them to enhance your ability to do it. They have no obligation to enhance that particular service (Vonage). A gamer could argue give my packets priority since I need lower lag. Unless you pay for priority it is OOL's network and they have no obligation to prioritize your packets. They shouldn't degrade them versus normal traffic, but they have every right to prioritize OV packets on their Network!!!

>but Cablevision does not prioritize SIP traffic that isn't their own

Another reason why I wouldn't want to give the Dolans another dime. It reeks of anti-competition and anti-trust which may be actionable, by the FCC and perhaps even the basis for a class action suit.

>With the new optimum rewards program, if you have TV
>and OOL with CV, OV is probably as cheap or cheaper
>the Vonage. If you have both I believe you can basically
> get OV for 14.95.

My experience with Cablevision is the benefits of promotions such as these are short-lived, 6 months or so. After that, prepare to pay full price, which at that point, will likely include one of the other many rate increases Cablvision is constantly throwing at you.

Compare Vonage which actually reduced their prices recently!

And for the record, I live on LI in a neighborhood where everyone has a cable modem, most serving multiple PCs, and despite the FUD being spread around here, it works flawlessly. As to Down4U, whose handle no doubt describes how he makes his living, the issues raised by Cablevision QoS policies, as anticompetitive as they are, don't constitute a "technical problem" at all. In theory, perhaps, if everyone starts bittorrenting on my block, it might be a problem. In practice, it's just a lot of noise about nothing.

Wow, just WOW! So because Cablevision will not prioritize your SIP traffic, that makes it anti-competitive against CLECs, and merits a class-action suit? That's the best reasoning I've heard so far about the issue. Good job.Hmm.. Seems to me that someone didn't read the fine print before signing up. And let me guess.. That's their fault too?Once again, you're an idiot. That is all.

>So because Cablevision will not prioritize your SIP traffic

No, because Cablevision prioritizes their own SIP traffic and not that of competitors. This sort of corporate behaviour belies their status as a common carrier and opens the door to liability.

>Seems to me that someone didn't read the fine
>print before signing up. And let me guess..
>That's their fault too

No, just pointing out that Cablevision's "deals" are not such good deals at all.

>Once again, you're an idiot. That is all.

You are way out of your league, cable boy.

Sorry to break this to you, but unless you can prove they're purposely throttling or otherwise impeding your ability to get SIP traffic through from a competitor, you're swimming up a busy creek.

Hell, might as well make them liable for monetary damages stemming from your inability to play online games due to lag.

And I just don't understand why you so ignorantly believe I work for Cablevision, but whatever. I know I'm out of your league, way above you. But thanks for pointing that out.

Well said. Succinct.

Number portability should work both ways. Will CV allow you to switch your CV-supplied number to another carrier?

Don't know. Maybe one of the folks here that has OV might have the answer. I'm waiting to try it out when I know I could switch my number if I wanted to. Last I was told (sometime in the past 3 weeks) I couldn't so I'm not interested. For $14.95 though I am interested in the service.

I'm pretty sure an OV number is not portable. If you port your number to OV, then you could probably port it out.

I think Vonage is the same way. If you port your number in, you can port it out. But if you get a Vonage number, you cannot port it out.

My guess is this will change in the future and all numbers will be portable.

It just seems to me that having a phone number tied to a particular ISP is a disadvantage for the consumer. If the ISP starts having problems, you can't change ISPs without also having to go through the trouble of changing your phone number.

Oh, how times have change. Before LNP, the local telephone vendor (landline/cell) control your number and you could not take that number to anyone one else. If you wanted cheaper and more features of another vendor, you switch numbers.

Now, we wait anywhere from 10 days to months to move a number from landline number to another vendor (long distance carrier, CLEC, VOIP, cable cell) and pay for both services during the transition period.

I have to agree that LNP isn't working as well as hoped, but even so, it's a very low-tech solution to the problem.

I have to wonder why we still have telephone numbers at all. Why can't we transition to a DNS style architecture for the phone system?

Picture this: Customers would register an easy-to-remember moniker with a central database. Could be something like my DSLreports screename "Bichon", something related to my real name, or whatever. That would be my identifier for all things related to telecom. Send a fax to "Bichon" and the phone system would be smart enough to route the call to my fax machine. Call me with a voice telephone, and 'presence awareness' would automatically route the call to my home, my office phone, or my cell phone, depending on where I am. Doesn't matter whether I move, get a new job, or whatever, the same moniker would still reach me.

Time for telecom to start thinking outside the box.