🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ka6se.44411$iu.43421@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
R S Prigan  <NO-SPAM-TO-rprigan@insight.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Has anyone tried Insight or Time Warner cable phone?
>
>What's your experience been like?

We haven't, but we have used Vonage and Lingo with a Time Warner cable
modem, so maybe this is still of interest if you already have one of
those.

>What do they actually charge?  Especially, what fees and taxes are added to
>the rack rate??

Good question. They certainly don't add on a lot for the VoIP services
that we use. I could dig up our latest bill if you like, but largely
it's been enough for me to know that both Vonage and Lingo are way
cheaper than any traditional land-line we previously had. Mind you, we
would be paying for the cable modem anyway: if we weren't, the
arithmetic would look rather different.

Heh, I only just noticed that previously we were using audio
communications to transport digital data, and now we are using digital
communications to transport audio. No doubt everybody else noticed
that we had such a reversal of layering ages ago, but I'd not thought
about it like that before.

-- Mark

Mark Carroll wrote:

> In article <ka6se.44411$iu.43421@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
> R S Prigan  <NO-SPAM-TO-rprigan@insight.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>Has anyone tried Insight or Time Warner cable phone?
>>
>>What's your experience been like?
> 
> We haven't, but we have used Vonage and Lingo with a Time Warner cable
> modem, so maybe this is still of interest if you already have one of
> those.
> 
>>What do they actually charge?  Especially, what fees and taxes are added
>>to the rack rate??
> 
> Good question. They certainly don't add on a lot for the VoIP services
> that we use. I could dig up our latest bill if you like, but largely
> it's been enough for me to know that both Vonage and Lingo are way
> cheaper than any traditional land-line we previously had. Mind you, we
> would be paying for the cable modem anyway: if we weren't, the
> arithmetic would look rather different.
> 
> Heh, I only just noticed that previously we were using audio
> communications to transport digital data, and now we are using digital
> communications to transport audio. No doubt everybody else noticed
> that we had such a reversal of layering ages ago, but I'd not thought
> about it like that before.
> 
> -- Mark
Follow up ..

I'm looking at some VoIPs too:  Vonage, Packet8, VoicePulse (not avail 614
yet!), Lingo. Their deals are good, but IFF Insight did not add all the
fees, they could be just as good.

Insight lists a basic package with unlimited local calls, called ID, call
waiting, and 60 minutes extended area toll calls for 23.60. (Looks like TW
and WOW are more expensive?!) Insight then gives a multiservice discount of
10.00 for users with another service!  ...  BUT, a sales rep. tells me they
then tack on the 5.39 + 3.26 in fees and taxes, like the "regular" phone
providers do ... so the total is like 32.25 - 10 = 22.25  !!

Insight is currently NOT VoIP, but a service over another cable channel
(separate frequency). **** Apparently they ARE going to go to VoIP at some
time.  I wonder if that will change the fees and taxes situation, and make
them cheaper??  **

I read elsewhere that there might actually be an *advantage* to some of the
cable provider's services in that they run them over a separate network, to
be able to counter congestion when the network branch has too many nodes --
and to provide backup power, etc.

Q - Regarding your comment on the ironies of modulation going the opposite
direction from previously,  ...  Have you had any experience using a modem
to send/receive faxes with your VoIP?  Some providers talk about selling
add on for fax service, but I think this is just to get a dedicated fax
line and number?  Have you encoutered difficulties with the essentially
double modulation demodulation of sending / receiving faxes over VoIP line?

Thanks

RSP

In article <Yskse.45659$XA6.11387@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
R S Prigan  <NO-SPAM-TO-rprigan@insight.rr.com> wrote:
(snip)
>Insight is currently NOT VoIP, but a service over another cable channel
>(separate frequency). **** Apparently they ARE going to go to VoIP at some

Oh, that's interesting. I didn't know such stuff went on.

>I read elsewhere that there might actually be an *advantage* to some of the
>cable provider's services in that they run them over a separate network, to
>be able to counter congestion when the network branch has too many nodes --
>and to provide backup power, etc.

We haven't had any trouble with VoIP, but maybe we're lucky to not
have much local contention for bandwidth. Still, it shouldn't take
much bandwidth to support two-way audio: if their QoS algorithms are
at all reasonable, latency should remain low. I wonder if they've got
their IP routing sensibly organized like that or not. I'll have to try
making calls while doing big uploads or something.

>Q - Regarding your comment on the ironies of modulation going the opposite
>direction from previously,  ...  Have you had any experience using a modem
>to send/receive faxes with your VoIP?  Some providers talk about selling

Not, not at all, I'm afraid.

>add on for fax service, but I think this is just to get a dedicated fax
>line and number?  Have you encoutered difficulties with the essentially
>double modulation demodulation of sending / receiving faxes over VoIP line?

It's an interesting idea. I don't know how well faxing survives the
audio compression that they use, though I find it plausible that it
would work well enough.

Largely it works well enough for me to move image files around on the
Internet, and to give my employer a few cents for occasional use of
the fax machine at work. (-:

-- Mark