[kwlug-disc] OT: Another voip.ms troubleshooting question

[unsolicited]

On 08/27/2012 11:34 AM, Charles M wrote:
> I think what Jason is pointing out is that Rogers doesn't run their VOIP
> service over the same line they run all the other cable traffic.

(I assume) of course they must. There's only one line going into my 
home. They're not going to split out my cable to separate lines at one 
point, then double wire back to their main internet backbone points. And 
they probably don't have all required telco interconnects at each 
Roger's distribution point. (e.g. Grand Crest Place, in Kitchener.) I 
expect they route all voice to Front St. and telco interconnect there. 
Especially for international calls. Much cheaper to use your own AT&T 
U.S. interconnect at Front St. than pay Bell (especially if you're 
Rogers) to do so on your behalf. It's not like they'd lay another fibre 
between here and T.O. just to carry VoIP.

It's all just IP. Carrying voice. Thus VoIP. All else is marketing 
babble, with Rogers artificially limiting the bandwidth I get to use 
over my wire with paid internet service, then crying poor that those 
nasty pirate video downloaders are sucking up all our precious bandwidth.

Hogwash.

> Can they
> shape it? Sure they can and they likely do some QoS over it and may well
> share it with other Rogers VOIP customers. I believe what Jason is getting
> at is that they appear not to allow other non-VOIP traffic on that cable
> line.

Course they do, it's all one modem into my home, be it voip, internet, 
or both. (Not speaking from experience. Could be two modems, but that 
doesn't make a lot of sense, and as I recall from looking at the wiring 
diagrams a few years back.)

> We had Rogers home phone service for several years and didn't have some of
> the problems we've had going with a different VOIP solution (calling cards,
> etc.). Not being a fan of Rogers we switched almost all our services away.
> The phone service was the one service I occasionally miss from them.

Yep, (artificially) dedicated bandwidth at noncompetitive prices will do 
that for you.

Especially when they downshape your internet traffic, which your 
non-Rogers VoIP would have to go over.

What a racket.

* Disclaimer: Not speaking from Roger's or VoIP experience, but very 
tired of Roger's snake oil marketing.

It will just be a separate subnet, and that subnet given a higher 
priority queue.


Who was it mentioned in the list some months back as doing competitive 
home phone service, EyeSurf? Can anyone make comments as to how their 
service stacks up?

I wonder how much of the non-Rogers VoIP issues go back to things people 
such as John have mentioned in the past, or technical issues with the 
net - I'm thinking for example of QoS not properly implemented across 
the net, or Paul's discovery of the need for registering by IP instead 
of DNS name / need for static NAT.


> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:07 AM, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
>
>> I have to disagree. VoIP is VoIP. Private (inter)network, or no. That
>> Roger's can then do funny things to shape the traffic and provide it better
>> service and QoS over its regular internet offerings (uncompetitive
>> advantage) ...
>>
>>
>> On 08/27/2012 09:49 AM, Jason Locklin wrote:
>>
>>> Also, while Rogers home phone uses VOIP technology, it's not really
>>> comparable and in no way touches the Internet. It works on a private
>>> local area network with it's own modems on Rogers coax -and is
>>> unrelated, and unconnected to the Rogers Internet service. It's a very
>>> robust service, but should be thought of as "digital phone service over
>>> cable" and not VOIP.
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> kwlug-disc mailing list
>> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
>> http://kwlug.org/mailman/**listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org<http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
>