If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
In message , Char Jackson
writes: On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:18:19 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 22:09:14 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: It doesn't matter where you live. VoIP phone services are available anywhere in the world where you can find an Internet connection, including Canada. You're overpaying, big time. "Anywhere you can find an Internet connection." You clearly haven't been to Canada. (Nor have I, but!) That has shades of "apart from that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" I've been to Canada several times, but that's neither here nor there. What part of "VoIP services work anywhere you can find an Internet connection" is wrong? I mean, it even works over dial-up, as evidenced by family members using it who live in Malaysia and the Philippines. The discussion to me seemed to be about doing away with a landline for voice calls. I would imagine there is a _lot_ of Canada where you cannot "find an internet connection", other than where a landline is already present (so using VoIP to avoid the need is, er, pointless). Wolf posts here. Ergo, he already has an Internet connection. All he needs Which may well be via a land line. It must be via something. is a VoIP adapter, a small device about the size of a deck of playing cards. It works anywhere that you have access to an Internet connection, whether that's at home, at work, in a hotel, whatever. I know what one of those is. The discussion was about the fact that he says he's paying close to $60 a month for landline service, when he could be paying that much or less for an entire year. He brought up the Canada thing, but that's a red herring. Only if he doesn't need it for his internet provision. There's nothing special, err, I should say nothing different, about Canada's Internet versus Internet anywhere else. Plug in the adapter and make a call. You buy the VoIP adapter outright, (I paid $39, no tax, no shipping), then you plug it into your Internet connection. That's enough to make unlimited Your internet connection obtained by magic (-:. I think I've been quite clear from the start that an Internet connection is required, but he already has that. But we don't know if he still would have if he gave up his landline! In the UK, an increasing number of people - especially in rural areas - only, or mainly, keep a landline as it's the only (or cheapest) way of getting broadband internet. I would imagine the same applies in Canada. calls at no additional charge. If you want to also receive calls, you need to buy VoIP service, which will run you $2-$5 dollars a month or so, sometimes less if you buy a year at a time. When we say VoIP, are you by chance thinking we mean DSL? It's not at all like that. No. Then I'm not sure where the disconnect is... I hope I've clarified. Your saying "I've said all along that you need an internet connection" without knowing whether said internet connection comes via the landline you're suggesting be ditched is the "disconnect", I think! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf live your dash. ... On your tombstone, there's the date you're born and the date you die - and in between there's a dash. - a friend quoted by Dustin Hoffman in Radio Times, 5-11 January 2013 |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
In message , Wolf K
writes: On 2014-12-13 6:22 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: Wolf posts here. Ergo, he already has an Internet connection. All he needs Which may well be via a land line. It must be via something. It's a land line. Alternative would be cable. Ah, so as I suspected, Char's suggestion that you could ditch your land line and use VoIP isn't quite practical (-:! Glass runs along the highway about 300ft away. Would be nice to have a fibe connection. Sofar only available in "dense" markets, ie conurbations. We're "rural" so we don't count. The DSL node is about Do you own the 300' of land? If so, would the people who own the glass be willing to make you a connection if you ran suitable cable up to it? (Not that I have any idea what 300' of suitable cable would cost, including whatever you'd need to do - bury it or put it on poles or whatever - to make it reliable.) 1/4 mile away, so I get good speeds. Fast enough that server overload By "the DSL node", do you mean where your landline goes to/comes from (what in UK we'd call either the exchange or the cabinet)? slowdown is noticeable. Those overloads are AFAICT always at or near the source, not local. Have a good day, U2. (Nice and sunny here, though chilly [by UK standards - actually, no, not even that: 9.2C, which is quite warm for here and now. Might be windy though.].) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US president, architect and author (1743-1826) |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Wolf K writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: It must be via something. It's a land line. Alternative would be cable. Ah, so as I suspected, Char's suggestion that you could ditch your land line and use VoIP isn't quite practical That depends. In Canada, unlike the UK, you can buy 'naked DSL' which provides data only with no PSTN attached, probably varies by ISP. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 15:07:47 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Wolf K writes: On 2014-12-13 6:22 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: Wolf posts here. Ergo, he already has an Internet connection. All he needs Which may well be via a land line. It must be via something. It's a land line. Alternative would be cable. Ah, so as I suspected, Char's suggestion that you could ditch your land line and use VoIP isn't quite practical (-:! Not so fast. There's more to the story than we know. Even if naked DSL isn't available where he lives, or where you live, I doubt that the lowest available monthly rate nears $60. Wolf hinted at that when he mentioned a fabulous long distance plan. Besides, cable is available, so now that he knows that he doesn't need to keep the landline he may be rethinking his options. Seriously, $90 a month for Internet and phone is a bit ridiculous, and even more so when 2/3 of that is going toward the phone. Speaking of long distance, I don't know what that has to do with it. Non-International long distance has been free for years now, or is that just another assumption based on my own experiences? Glass runs along the highway about 300ft away. Would be nice to have a fibe connection. Sofar only available in "dense" markets, ie conurbations. We're "rural" so we don't count. The DSL node is about Do you own the 300' of land? If so, would the people who own the glass be willing to make you a connection if you ran suitable cable up to it? (Not that I have any idea what 300' of suitable cable would cost, including whatever you'd need to do - bury it or put it on poles or whatever - to make it reliable.) That's a long shot. You don't just tap into a fiber connection like that. -- Char Jackson |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
Andy Burns wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: Wolf K writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: It must be via something. It's a land line. Alternative would be cable. Ah, so as I suspected, Char's suggestion that you could ditch your land line and use VoIP isn't quite practical That depends. In Canada, unlike the UK, you can buy 'naked DSL' which provides data only with no PSTN attached, probably varies by ISP. In Canada, if you get ADSL put on a dry line (no Bell POTS service), by regulation Bell is owed a "dry line fee". It varies from $7 to $25 a month (there is a map). So you're in effect paying half a phone bill, for no phone service at all. As an additional affront, if you move your Bell POTS to Teksavvy POTS (at a saving), Bell has managed to thwart phone number portability. When I checked the other day, to see if Teksavvy POTS was available, the web site reported it was "stop-sell", meaning they could not offer me the service, due to a "problem" at the Bell end. Naturally, we're not allowed an English translation of how they're getting around the number portability requirement. Bell just added a new area code here not that long ago, and I doubt the second area code is even 10% used. You just don't run into that many numbers using the new area code. What I haven't been able to check, is whether Rogers charges a "dry line" fee for cable Internet, if you don't take a basic TV plan as well. Paul |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
Paul wrote:
In Canada, if you get ADSL put on a dry line (no Bell POTS service), by regulation Bell is owed a "dry line fee". It varies from $7 to $25 a month (there is a map). So you're in effect paying half a phone bill, for no phone service at all. I'm not surprised ... a few people over here complain they can't have ADSL without phone simply because they don't use the phone (they can generally have each from a different provider) but they seem to think the copper would miraculously maintain itself by removing the dialtone. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 16:59:17 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote: Paul wrote: In Canada, if you get ADSL put on a dry line (no Bell POTS service), by regulation Bell is owed a "dry line fee". It varies from $7 to $25 a month (there is a map). So you're in effect paying half a phone bill, for no phone service at all. I'm not surprised ... a few people over here complain they can't have ADSL without phone simply because they don't use the phone (they can generally have each from a different provider) but they seem to think the copper would miraculously maintain itself by removing the dialtone. I don't think I understand what you're saying, especially regarding that last part. Is there some legal requirement that line maintenance can only be paid for out of phone charges, and somehow DSL charges are exempt from contributing? Seems to me that phone service should cost $X, where a portion of X goes toward line maintenance. Likewise, DSL should cost $Y, where a portion of Y goes toward line maintenance. Bundling the two together should provide an obvious discount with regards to line maintenance fees. Don't they sell service that way in Canada? If not, I guess they have better lobbyists than I thought. -- Char Jackson |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
Char Jackson wrote:
I don't think I understand what you're saying, especially regarding that last part. Is there some legal requirement that line maintenance can only be paid for out of phone charges, and somehow DSL charges are exempt from contributing? naked DSL isn't available, either the DSL provider or the POTS provider can call the actual line operator in to report a fix, but all the line rental falls on the POTS provider. People might like to stop paying the POTS provider without stopping to consider that a big chunk of the rental would then get heaped onto the DSL provider, one way or another. Seems to me that phone service should cost $X, where a portion of X goes toward line maintenance. Likewise, DSL should cost $Y, where a portion of Y goes toward line maintenance. Bundling the two together should provide an obvious discount with regards to line maintenance fees. Sensible, but not available. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
Char Jackson wrote:
I guess they have better lobbyists than I thought. They are a credit to their trade. They own the joint. Paul |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:20:29 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:18:19 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 22:09:14 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: It doesn't matter where you live. VoIP phone services are available anywhere in the world where you can find an Internet connection, including Canada. You're overpaying, big time. "Anywhere you can find an Internet connection." You clearly haven't been to Canada. (Nor have I, but!) That has shades of "apart from that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" I've been to Canada several times, but that's neither here nor there. What part of "VoIP services work anywhere you can find an Internet connection" is wrong? I mean, it even works over dial-up, as evidenced by family members using it who live in Malaysia and the Philippines. The discussion to me seemed to be about doing away with a landline for voice calls. I would imagine there is a _lot_ of Canada where you cannot "find an internet connection", other than where a landline is already present (so using VoIP to avoid the need is, er, pointless). Wolf posts here. Ergo, he already has an Internet connection. All he needs is a VoIP adapter, a small device about the size of a deck of playing cards. It works anywhere that you have access to an Internet connection, whether that's at home, at work, in a hotel, whatever. The discussion was about the fact that he says he's paying close to $60 a month for landline service, when he could be paying that much or less for an entire year. He brought up the Canada thing, but that's a red herring. There's nothing special, err, I should say nothing different, about Canada's Internet versus Internet anywhere else. Plug in the adapter and make a call. So the adapter works without an internet connection? If I gave up my landline, I would give up my internet connection. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:44:09 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 15:07:47 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Wolf K writes: On 2014-12-13 6:22 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: Wolf posts here. Ergo, he already has an Internet connection. All he needs Which may well be via a land line. It must be via something. It's a land line. Alternative would be cable. Ah, so as I suspected, Char's suggestion that you could ditch your land line and use VoIP isn't quite practical (-:! Not so fast. There's more to the story than we know. Even if naked DSL isn't available where he lives, or where you live, I doubt that the lowest available monthly rate nears $60. Wolf hinted at that when he mentioned a fabulous long distance plan. Besides, cable is available, so now that he knows that he doesn't need to keep the landline he may be rethinking his options. Seriously, $90 a month for Internet and phone is a bit ridiculous, and even more so when 2/3 of that is going toward the phone. What is "cable" and how does it differ from a "landline"? Does this "cable" somehow not exist on land, is it that oxymoron, a "wireless cable"? In my understanding, you either have "landline" or "wireless". If it has a wire, it must go across the land. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
On 12/13/2014 08:53 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
Hi Steve! What is "cable" and how does it differ from a "landline"? "cable" is short for "coaxial cable" for carrying radio waves. It looks like a single still plastic cord about 8 mm in diameter. "landline" is twisted pair copper wire. Does this "cable" somehow not exist on land, is it that oxymoron, a "wireless cable"? "cable" is physical. "wireless cable" is misuse of both terms. In my understanding, you either have "landline" or "wireless". If it has a wire, it must go across the land. You can have physical fiber optic, twisted pair "landline" (which analog modems and DSL modems work over), or coaxial cable. For "wireless", you can have satellite (the service stinks), which shoots up at the sky, or you can have "microwave wireless" which shoots across the land horizontally. GBTG! Not too many days now! :-) -T |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:48:15 +0200, Steve Hayes
wrote: On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:20:29 -0600, Char Jackson wrote: The discussion was about the fact that he says he's paying close to $60 a month for landline service, when he could be paying that much or less for an entire year. He brought up the Canada thing, but that's a red herring. There's nothing special, err, I should say nothing different, about Canada's Internet versus Internet anywhere else. Plug in the adapter and make a call. So the adapter works without an internet connection? No smiley? If I gave up my landline, I would give up my internet connection. Cool. -- Char Jackson |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 06:53:51 +0200, Steve Hayes
wrote: What is "cable" and how does it differ from a "landline"? Cable, in this context, refers to a service provider who historically delivered television programming over a cable system, rather than over the air. Toward the end of the last century, most cable TV providers upgraded their cable plants in order to be able to offer Internet access over the same physical cables as they'd been delivering TV up to that point. Soon after, the cable providers offered phone service over those cables, as well. Landline, on the other hand, typically refers to wired telephone service provided by a traditional telephone company, some of whom are now offering television programming and of course Internet access over their lines. Here in the States, most Internet access is via "cable", or in other words via the local cable company. DSL via a phone company runs a distant second. In other parts of the world, DSL is the dominant provider. The nice thing about cable here in the States is that it tends to be much faster than DSL, albeit at a somewhat higher cost. Does this "cable" somehow not exist on land, is it that oxymoron, a "wireless cable"? It's coaxial, and it may be strung on poles or buried in the ground. In my understanding, you either have "landline" or "wireless". If it has a wire, it must go across the land. The third option, which may not be available where you live, is "cable". If you live somewhere where you're required to buy POTS service in order to get DSL, well shame on your phone company, but the other thing is that VoIP phone service may not make sense in that case since you already have phone service, unless you just want free long distance or free 'in network' calling around the world. -- Char Jackson |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Believe it or not but PC is coming back...
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:44:09 -0600, Char Jackson wrote: On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 15:07:47 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Wolf K writes: On 2014-12-13 6:22 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: Wolf posts here. Ergo, he already has an Internet connection. All he needs Which may well be via a land line. It must be via something. It's a land line. Alternative would be cable. Ah, so as I suspected, Char's suggestion that you could ditch your land line and use VoIP isn't quite practical (-:! Not so fast. There's more to the story than we know. Even if naked DSL isn't available where he lives, or where you live, I doubt that the lowest available monthly rate nears $60. Wolf hinted at that when he mentioned a fabulous long distance plan. Besides, cable is available, so now that he knows that he doesn't need to keep the landline he may be rethinking his options. Seriously, $90 a month for Internet and phone is a bit ridiculous, and even more so when 2/3 of that is going toward the phone. What is "cable" and how does it differ from a "landline"? Does this "cable" somehow not exist on land, is it that oxymoron, a "wireless cable"? In my understanding, you either have "landline" or "wireless". If it has a wire, it must go across the land. Cable television. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Television "CATV frequency division multiplexing" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS The Internet is carried on the same cable, by multiplexing. TV channels take some channel slots. DOCSIS channels can be "bonded" together for higher overall bandwidth. As the article there indicates, the cable TV "plant" or distribution system, keeps getting modified in terms of what is carried. At one time, there was only analog TV in 6MHz channels. Now, there's all sorts of weird stuff on that cable. And the cable plant itself is also different, in that there are more distribution points, shorter shared cable segments near the subscriber, more fiber, so that the bandwidth available on each street can be higher. The system might originally have been based purely on coaxial transmission all the way from the origin point. The article above says it is now done with fiber and coax. In a way, functionally equivalent to the telephone distribution network here, which uses fiber to the distribution box at the corner of our street, and then uses the tradition phone copper wiring from there to the hours. It is not considered cost effective (yet), to do FTTH (Fiber to the Home). FTTH is only viable in new subdivisions. ******* On the ADSL network, bandwidth sharing is on the fiber, between the central office and the concentrator on my street corner. Separate wire pairs carry phone and/or ADSL to each house. But compared to cable television (a coax being a much better transmission mechanism), the modulation schemes to date have been pretty limited. ADSL was invented to solve an "18,000 foot" problem, whereas the telephone company physical plant consisting of urban fiber distribution to the street corner, is a "500 foot" problem. Things like VDSL are an attempt to capitalize on the difference. I expect cable television to have slightly better bandwidth in this battle, as the telephone monopoly isn't really interested in attempting to crush cable companies with additional investments. It's just too expensive to compete with them. Nobody wants to trench a fiber optic cable right to my house. Only in a new subdivision, where the land is all ripped up, would they do that. And in Canada, with large rural areas, the distribution system can be quite different out there. Ranging from just about nothing in the way of services (just POTS telephone and $$$ satellite Internet, no cable TV), to weird operations set up by entrepreneurs (ones that would not scale well in the city). My sister is in the middle of no-where, and a radio link brings higher speed Internet to her house, than I get here in the city. In another Canadian province, there is a program in place, to connect the last holdout areas with radio links. The big monopoly businesses aren't interested in competing out there, as there is no money in it. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|