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

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)

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Char Jackson wrote:

I guess they have better lobbyists than
I thought.

They are a credit to their trade.
They own the joint.

Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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