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

Bob Jonkman bjonkman at sobac.com
Mon Aug 27 15:18:28 EDT 2012

Cable is broadband, so there are multiple channels on a single cable.
One channel for your plain old Internet, another channel for their
proprietary VOIP, and 500 channels of stuff on the TV to choose from.

P-O-I will eventually get routed to the Toronto interchange, but I
speculate that the 500 channels get provisioned locally (so you end up
with different TV channel assignments in KW than you do in Hamilton).
And I speculate that the proprietary VOIP gets linked the telephone
system at one of the local Bell exchanges.


Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com>         http://sobac.com/sobac/
SOBAC Microcomputer Services              Phone: +1-519-669-0388
6 James Street, Elmira ON Canada  N3B 1L5  Cell: +1-519-635-9413
Software   ---   Office & Business Automation   ---   Consulting

On 12-08-27 01:31 PM, unsolicited wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://kwlug.org/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20120827/5a512c72/attachment.bin>

More information about the kwlug-disc mailing list