Why haven't telcos moved to SIP/VOIP for home service?
-
@RojoLoco said:
@Dashrender said:
@RojoLoco said:
Who has a home phone anymore? (besides my parents)
I do, since I still have cable and internet, it saves me money bundling and keeping the phone service. Canceling my $12/month phone would cost me $35 in bundle savings.
That is super fuct.
My parents tried to cancel their home phone service and their bill would have gone up like that as well, so now its set to 2 rings and goes to voicemail. Nobody they want to talk to calls them on it.
-
@brianlittlejohn said:
My parents tried to cancel their home phone service and their bill would have gone up like that as well, so now its set to 2 rings and goes to voicemail. Nobody they want to talk to calls them on it.
Unplug it so it can never ring then?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@brianlittlejohn said:
My parents tried to cancel their home phone service and their bill would have gone up like that as well, so now its set to 2 rings and goes to voicemail. Nobody they want to talk to calls them on it.
Unplug it so it can never ring then?
I told them to do that and they won't do it, but they were fine cancelling it all together... it wasn't worth the argument, so I let them do what they wanted to do.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@RojoLoco said:
Who has a home phone anymore? (besides my parents)
@Dashrender said:
I do, since I still have cable and internet, it saves me money bundling and keeping the phone service. Canceling my $12/month phone would cost me $35 in bundle savings.
Get rid of the Cable service too then.
The cost of being a cord cutter at this point would be nearly the same as what I pay for cable. Except I wouldn't have a DVR, and I would normally have to wait until the next day to watch a show after the normal air date (assuming Hulu Plus here - Last year, yes well over a year ago, Hulu Plus doesn't get new network shows until 24 hours after the normal station, this could be old information)
-
@JaredBusch said:
@brianlittlejohn said:
My parents tried to cancel their home phone service and their bill would have gone up like that as well, so now its set to 2 rings and goes to voicemail. Nobody they want to talk to calls them on it.
Unplug it so it can never ring then?
yeah I should do that! In fact the wife gets irked when I call the house phone because her cell phone is often closer to her than the house phone, so she wouldn't have to get up to answer.
-
She should keep her cell phone charged, lol.
-
The same question applies to Cell Phones as well! It's time to kill the whole phone number thing and move to a modern communication system that allows free calls to whomever, where ever, assuming the other side has internet access.
-
-
@Dashrender said:
The same question applies to Cell Phones as well! It's time to kill the whole phone number thing and move to a modern communication system that allows free calls to whomever, where ever, assuming the other side has internet access.
You would still pay for bandwidth? I know the cost of bandwidth is minimal but it still costs money to keep the power, cooling, and servers running. Not to mention the tons of corporate bureaucracy that goes along with it.
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
@RojoLoco said:
Who has a home phone anymore? (besides my parents)
@Dashrender said:
I do, since I still have cable and internet, it saves me money bundling and keeping the phone service. Canceling my $12/month phone would cost me $35 in bundle savings.
Get rid of the Cable service too then.
The cost of being a cord cutter at this point would be nearly the same as what I pay for cable. Except I wouldn't have a DVR, and I would normally have to wait until the next day to watch a show after the normal air date (assuming Hulu Plus here - Last year, yes well over a year ago, Hulu Plus doesn't get new network shows until 24 hours after the normal station, this could be old information)
How does a one time investment in a quality outdoor antenna and then a DVR outweigh cutting the cable charge? I ask because you stated network and that implies broadcast to me. If you mean network more inclusively to include cable only channels then that depends yes.
Peronally, I pay for Netflix, Crunchyroll and Internet service. I bought a $50 HomeWorx DVR, but ended up never using it as I thought I might.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
@RojoLoco said:
Who has a home phone anymore? (besides my parents)
@Dashrender said:
I do, since I still have cable and internet, it saves me money bundling and keeping the phone service. Canceling my $12/month phone would cost me $35 in bundle savings.
Get rid of the Cable service too then.
The cost of being a cord cutter at this point would be nearly the same as what I pay for cable. Except I wouldn't have a DVR, and I would normally have to wait until the next day to watch a show after the normal air date (assuming Hulu Plus here - Last year, yes well over a year ago, Hulu Plus doesn't get new network shows until 24 hours after the normal station, this could be old information)
How does a one time investment in a quality outdoor antenna and then a DVR outweigh cutting the cable charge? I ask because you stated network and that implies broadcast to me. If you mean network more inclusively to include cable only channels then that depends yes.
Peronally, I pay for Netflix, Crunchyroll and Internet service. I bought a $50 HomeWorx DVR, but ended up never using it as I thought I might.
HD Antennas work great... except when you live in an area with mountains (look up the Catskills and Appalachians). Around here it is difficult to get those channels as many towns are at the bottom of glacial valleys.
-
@coliver said:
HD Antennas work great... except when you live in an area with mountains (look up the Catskills and Appalachians). Around here it is difficult to get those channels as many towns are at the bottom of glacial valleys.
I've been through them and understand there will always be exceptions. but the general situation is mot certainly not that.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@coliver said:
HD Antennas work great... except when you live in an area with mountains (look up the Catskills and Appalachians). Around here it is difficult to get those channels as many towns are at the bottom of glacial valleys.
I've been through them and understand there will always be exceptions. but the general situation is mot certainly not that.
Agreed. It is just an exception. I'm sure in the midwest, south, and west of the Rockies this isn't an issue.... so basically everywhere in the US but the Northeast.
That's also not to say that we don't get HD channels... but you can go over toward Syracuse or south toward New York City and get 50-60... around here we may get 2-3.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
The same question applies to Cell Phones as well! It's time to kill the whole phone number thing and move to a modern communication system that allows free calls to whomever, where ever, assuming the other side has internet access.
You would still pay for bandwidth? I know the cost of bandwidth is minimal but it still costs money to keep the power, cooling, and servers running. Not to mention the tons of corporate bureaucracy that goes along with it.
oh, it's not about cost savings, not specifically anyways. It's about global connections without the need for overlay that the phone system is today. Frankly, I'm guessing for the most part, that all calling moves across the same or similar pipes that the internet uses. If they got rid of legacy phone switches, and move those communication lines over to IP lines (assuming it could be done) the complexity of their networks could probably drop significantly. Saving them TONS of money.
For sake of argument I'll just pick Skype. If all of the carriers moved over to using Skype as the backbone for connecting calls - this transition could be made over time. Skype does currently support VOIP calling to POTS lines. As a carrier moved away from actual analog lines (or fake analog like most have today aka voip to analog converters) the carrier to assign a Skype ID to a home, at the same time allowing everyone in the home to have their own skype ID created so it is all personalized.
The question then becomes, can the carrier charge for this or are they just giving up the 20-50 a month fee for the phoneline that they charge today?
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
The same question applies to Cell Phones as well! It's time to kill the whole phone number thing and move to a modern communication system that allows free calls to whomever, where ever, assuming the other side has internet access.
You would still pay for bandwidth? I know the cost of bandwidth is minimal but it still costs money to keep the power, cooling, and servers running. Not to mention the tons of corporate bureaucracy that goes along with it.
oh, it's not about cost savings, not specifically anyways. It's about global connections without the need for overlay that the phone system is today. Frankly, I'm guessing for the most part, that all calling moves across the same or similar pipes that the internet uses. If they got rid of legacy phone switches, and move those communication lines over to IP lines (assuming it could be done) the complexity of their networks could probably drop significantly. Saving them TONS of money.
For sake of argument I'll just pick Skype. If all of the carriers moved over to using Skype as the backbone for connecting calls - this transition could be made over time. Skype does currently support VOIP calling to POTS lines. As a carrier moved away from actual analog lines (or fake analog like most have today aka voip to analog converters) the carrier to assign a Skype ID to a home, at the same time allowing everyone in the home to have their own skype ID created so it is all personalized.
The question then becomes, can the carrier charge for this or are they just giving up the 20-50 a month fee for the phoneline that they charge today?
You get charged 20-50$? That seems like a lot.
-
@Dashrender said:
Frankly, I'm guessing for the most part, that all calling moves across the same or similar pipes that the internet uses.
911 paths are required to be analog still.
-
@coliver said:
You get charged 20-50$? That seems like a lot.
I pulled that number from other people posting on here in the past.
Before I cut my phone portion of my bill down to $12/month (unlimited incoming, 100 min outgoing) I was paying $32 a month for unlimited in/out calling and caller ID/Call waiting/call waiting ID, On Screen Caller ID.
You don't know how much you miss onscreen Caller ID until you get rid of it.. (what weird is that I still get caller ID on the phone itself.)
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Frankly, I'm guessing for the most part, that all calling moves across the same or similar pipes that the internet uses.
911 paths are required to be analog still.
for home users? and what about those that don't have land lines?
-
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Frankly, I'm guessing for the most part, that all calling moves across the same or similar pipes that the internet uses.
911 paths are required to be analog still.
for home users? and what about those that don't have land lines?
No, I think strictly for businesses.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Frankly, I'm guessing for the most part, that all calling moves across the same or similar pipes that the internet uses.
911 paths are required to be analog still.
for home users? and what about those that don't have land lines?
Still on the telecom side has to be analog.
