On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 7:37:44 AM UTC-4, Art Todesco wrote:
The VOIP is already with the internet data. That's why it's
called VOIP. For example, you get high speed internet service
from your cable company. They give you a modem/router that has
a phone interface built into it. The conversion to digital
happens at the modem/router box. The VOIP traffic then goes out on
the same internet cable connection as your other internettraffic.
With that model established and so many good, cheap, cordless phones
out there, I don't see the compelling need for changing things
and doing the conversion to digital at the phone, as opposed to how
it's done now. You'd have to continue to support the phones looking
for an analog interface for decades too, so you'd have two differing
ways of doing it, for no big advantage that I can see.
We got rid of our AT&T landline years ago and ported the number to the
T-Mobile@Home $10/mo. add-on to our cell-phone plan. When we switched to
a no-contract prepaid plan we couldn't keep T-Mobile@Home, so we bought
an Obihai VOIP adapter and ported the number to Google Voice. Now we
have another number (which we give only to family members) from
PhonePower ($5x.xx per year, IIRC), and the "public" Google Voice number
forwards to that. In the house we have six Panasonic cordless phones
that serve as an intercom system as well.
On 05/24/2015 08:21 AM, email@example.com wrote:
Have Comcast here, typically see 122 megabit download and 24 megabit upload for $70 month, which includes two dozen TV channels.
Maximum available from AT&T U-Verse is only 6 megabit down and less than 1 megabit up and AT&T wants $52/month, TV service not even available.
IMHO, Comcast is awesome! The US government did a great disservice to the American people for not letting Comcast expand into more areas.
Thank God I'm not stuck with AT&T!!!
You are not in Florida I guess. They suck here. When I had them and I
had a 24/7 weather station connected to the web, I had to turn off
logging because they were filling up the logs with "down" time.
I was sending a packet once a minute and it was failing an average of
about 80-90 times a day. When I switched to DSL, it virtually never
My wife has several commercial accounts with Comcast and they suck
there too. Support is almost nonexistent.
These cable companies need the same the phone companies had a couple
decades ago, breaking up the monopolies.
Get some competition in there and they will be cheaper and better or
they will be gone,.
Comcast is absolute crap here in SW PA. They simply don't care, no
competition. I have DirectTV for TV and Verizon DSL. DirectTV is more
expensive but nearly every channel is hidef, many of them are carried on
both hi and lo def (different channel numbers of course). I can't say
the same for Comcast. If you get almost all the channels in hidef on
Comcast then you are lucky.
That new 50"+ TV is gonna look like shi%^% in lodef.
On 5/24/2015 7:17 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> All of the cable "up to" speeds are a theoretical maximum and will be
According to the ATT U-verse guys, U-verse isn't a "shared" network.
That's basically why I stayed with ATT. I got the U-verse rate down to
the TW rate by threatening to cancel U-verse.
I've had U-verse for a few years and it's always speed tested at the
advertised rate or better.
This may be changing soon: It's just been announced that Charter is
buying TWC. We've had Charter for 11 years, during which time we've had
just three outages, one of which was caused by the gas company digging
up the cable.
Charter's advertised "down" speeds seem to be conservative: We're paying
for 18mbps down and 4mbps up, and although the "up" speed is
occasionally a little lower (never below 3.8mbps in my tests, IIRC), the
"down" speed is often over 30mbps. But Charter doesn't offer speeds as
high as TWC: Even Charter's "business" package offers only "up to"
60mbps down and 4mbps up, whereas I see that TWC offers a package with
"up to" 200/20mbps; even if you don't always get that high a speed, I'd
complain if I didn't get at least half of that.
What speed do you get with U-Verse?
Much of the USA is way behind many other parts of the world when it
comes to Internet speeds. As mentioned previously, the highest we could
get from Charter is 60mbps, whereas a family member in Australia has
100mbps down (not sure about up), and I just read a post by a guy in the
Netherlands who has 150mbps and is planning to upgrade to 500mbps.
I wonder whether those higher TWC speeds will be offered to existing
A speed test just now showed 31.64/4.44.
Well, now I see a report that Charter may face the same regulatory
hurdles that Comcast faced when it tried to buy TWC. But Why? Where is
the competition that a takeover would kill? Hands up all those who
currently have a choice between TWC and Comcast or TWC and Charter?
Anybody? (OK, so municipalities -- at least in some areas -- get to
choose to which company they grant a franchise, but that's not the same.)
Another poster in that same forum says he pays 469 Swedish Crowns
(~US$55.88) per month for 100mbps up and down (although the SpeedTest
report he displayed shows only ~94mbps up and down). To that someone
responded that Cox (Canadian, eh?) charges $180/month for a 50/10
On Tue, 26 May 2015 13:22:29 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
There are some overbuild areas here where the choice is Comcast or
Charter and Comcast or Wave/Astound/RCN/Name Of The Week. Historically
in overbuilds the two companies share the customer base right down the
middle. Often this means that the potential profits do not justify the
build unless one system is really really crappy and all the subs jump
to the new company.
On Tue, 26 May 2015 18:03:40 -0700, cable email@example.com wrote:
I think the real answer to all of this is to unbundle all of the cable
companies, the same way they did to AT&T and IBM.
That is what spurred innovation and lower prices in the phone and
computer business. Cable companies should only be selling bandwidth
and it should be as a common carrier. Then "last mile" services would
be a separate competitive business and content would be sold by the
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.